QUOTE: Originally posted by BigRedneckRob What I'll likely end up doing is making the track plan myself. That's usually what I end up doing when I have any doubts, is just do it myself.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jacon12 Hi Rob, did you abandon your idea of the L shaped against the wall dogbone style layout? Jarrell
QUOTE: Originally posted by ereimer Iain Rice .... i found 60 entries for him in the index at the top of this page , his biggest 'article' is the 8 part series on his Roque Bluffs layout , starting in the october 2003 model railroader . his books are ... http://store.yahoo.net/kalmbachcatalog/12229.html and http://store.yahoo.net/kalmbachcatalog/12245.html i highly recommend both books , especially for us space-challenged people QUOTE: I respect Linn's work a lot. He was a very close personal friend of my grandfather, and got me interested in model railroading when I was a child. you almost have to build a Linn Wescott design , anything else would be disrespectful ! [:D]
QUOTE: I respect Linn's work a lot. He was a very close personal friend of my grandfather, and got me interested in model railroading when I was a child.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Texas Zepher QUOTE: Originally posted by BigRedneckRob Could you explain this in terms a six year old could understand? "spur at Oliver that climbed to a switch back to a logging area in the upper right hand corner." They say a picture is worth a bunch of words. Here is sort of what I was thinking. All told there is not a lot of room to work with here. click the picture for a better view. I didn't bother to finish connecting the "shay loop" since it was irrelevent to the question. But I wish I would have now, because the switchback lead termination looks like the incomplete loop. Oh well.... Nor did I make your desired modifications to the connections right hand side.
QUOTE: Originally posted by BigRedneckRob Could you explain this in terms a six year old could understand? "spur at Oliver that climbed to a switch back to a logging area in the upper right hand corner."
QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse So if you use one of these plans runn it through a software program to see if it still fits with today's materials.
QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse One more thing. I tried to put one of the 101 plans onto paper. It was a shelf layout that was supposed to be 6" by 8 feet. By the time I got all the turnouts in place--all #4's, the layout was 10inches by 12 feet. So if you use one of these plans runn it through a software program to see if it still fits with today's materials.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Stuckarmchairing Please rethink this, those track plans we're drawn up nearly 60 years ago and there dredfully outdated and a beast to operate. Ian rice's books have some of the best trackplans MR publishes.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Texas Zepher By my calculations that give you about 8 feet to get up as high as you want to go and 8 feet to get back down. Since 8 feet is almost 100 inches, if you make an even grade up and then back down the height in inches of the summit will also be just slightly under the grade. For example if the track on the logging loop achieve an elevation of 4 inches near Pennston it would be a 4.16% grade (4 divided by 96). If you make the elevation 6" the grade would be 6.25% (6 divided by 96). Be careful not to make a vertical "kink" at the summit. I mean you don't want two 6% grades meeting without a distance of level track in between! Clockwise I think I would begin gently out of Rosemary Hill and then increase the gradient gradually. Counter clockwise I think I would put a spur at Oliver that climbed at an even steeper rate to a switch back cutting back across the "shay loop" track to a logging area in the upper right hand corner. That would probably eliminate the possiblity of the river they show on the plan. You know ..... If you change the two yard tracks in Prosemarry Hill to come off the main line loop instead of the shay loop you would gain another three feet to use for making grade, at the expense of making those tracks shorter. Or I suppose you could just have these two tracks elevated higher than the two on the other loop.