Layouts and layout building

tomikawaTT wrote:

Chip, I think you have the makings of an operational plan.  Just be aware that no paper track plan has ever survived the first contact of the flex track with the roadbed.  (As an aside - hand-laid turnouts?) Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

Just like every boxer has a plan--until he gets hit.

I don't know how much I'm going to hand-lay. At least one of the turnouts is custom, but I'm pretty fast with Fast Tracks jigs these days. There are a couple places on the layout that are inefficient and I'm thinking some custom track-work might smooth things out some. I have enough materials to hand-lay the Rock Ridge area on hand.

I'll make that call once the spline is in place.  

hey Chip , welcome back !

i've forgotten , is this going to be your only layout , in other words is it replacing the basement filling northwest layout you were planning , or is this more for running trains with your son as a replacement for the original RR&TC ? and do you still plan on building the eastern city scene you were working on ?

i hope you're having better luck keeping track of all your projects than i am

ernie

Ernie,

The right side of the drawing butts up against the back of Indiana Branch of the PRR in 1950.

The Indiana Branch is going slow because so much depends on research and I want to get it right. I've found a source for some possible pictures of the town in that period, but I have to take off work to do the research and I cannot duplicate the photos I find. It is a very slow project and I find that it is very unsatisfying being stuck all the time due to inadequate or inaccurate information.

I'm really looking forward to working on something that is not so strict what I am trying to accomplish. I have more of this type of freedom in the Old West and I can even throw a little whimsy in there to stir the pot.

Okay, here are the problems as I see them.

1) A train coming in to Train City Yard from staging has a lot of work to do to get the engine and caboose put away. As I see it, the engine must pull the train onto the main, release and runaround to the back, and pull the caboose. Since the caboose is wood frame, it cannot be used for pushing. As it stands, the engine must zig-zag the caboose into the caboose track, then zig zag back. It can then pull-push the train onto the A/D track and head into the turntable.

2) The caboose track is small and awkward. 

3) Switching industries 3, 4 & 6 will be difficult.

4) The "Mine Turn" will need to reverse it's engines. They will have to zig-zag through the Rock Ridge area to get to the turn-table. (I can solve this with a double slip)  

Most of these can be solved with use of custom hand-laid track-work. I think. Haven't done it yet.

5) As with may small 'operations-based" layouts, there are many tracks to cross where roads must go to provide access for the Lilliputians to get to work.  

The first problem I saw is if one would want to have two facing trains run continuously.  The two towns are very close together through the upper left side.  They are very far apart through the lower right side.   One train will always have to be waiting for the other.  I don't think there is any chance of cool moving passes and keeping both trains in motion.  I know dispatching isn't one of the primary operational goals of the layout so it is probably a very minor issue.

You know... I think I would try to connect the caboose track directly to the turntable.  Well at least run a connection from somewhere around the caboose track to the turntable.  Seems that could eliminate a double switchback getting a loco from a put-away (parked?) arriving train to the round house.     Do I sense that area is designed around a 9" turntable with 30 degree departure tracks.  The new Atlas has tracks spaced at 15 degrees.  Might be more flexible.

Texas Zepher wrote:

The first problem I saw is if one would want to have two facing trains run continuously.  The two towns are very close together through the upper left side.  They are very far apart through the lower right side.   One train will always have to be waiting for the other.  I don't think there is any chance of cool moving passes and keeping both trains in motion.  I know dispatching isn't one of the primary operational goals of the layout so it is probably a very minor issue.

You are right in assuming railfanning will be an important part of this layout. I see your point about having two trains running. I suppose the only solution would be to put a passing siding on the bridge, but I probably won't do it. Solving this "problem" might be worth reconceptualizing.

The layout is designed for operations, but I get plenty of that on OPL's (Other People's Layouts). But I do want the option of ops on this layout in case my son gets interested. So far he just wants to see them go.

You know... I think I would try to connect the caboose track directly to the turntable.  Well at least run a connection from somewhere around the caboose track to the turntable.  Seems that could eliminate a double switchback getting a loco from a put-away (parked?) arriving train to the round house.

I think I solved the problem with a double slip. A train can now enter the A/D track from staging release the engine and runaround behind the train and either go directly to service or pull the caboose and put it away without an abnormal switchback. (see below) I also added a custom turnout further out the lead (which may be completely unnecessary) and I put back the double slip to the turntable at Rock Ridge.  

Do I sense that area is designed around a 9" turntable with 30 degree departure tracks.  The new Atlas has tracks spaced at 15 degrees.  Might be more flexible.

I picture A-frame turntables so I figured I'd scratch or bash them. I have an el cheapo Atlas but I'm not sure how much of it will be left if I bash it. Seems I would replace just about everything on it.

I haven't thought anything at all about the spacing of the tracks about the turntable other than to provide the number I would need for operations. I had already decided I would move them around some to fit more streets and buildings to give the area a more built-up dense city look.

SpaceMouse wrote:

I had to eliminate both the double slips. I may find a way to add one back in.

First, welcome back!

Second, the double slips are no big lost. They would probably be maintainence disasters. And they are not appropriate for the layout theme.

Good luck, and have fun!

I know the last thing you probably need is another computer program. But do you have one that you can input your layout in and run trains with? It may help see the problem areas if you have any. Does X-Track Cad allow that? If not, you may want to look at Train Player. That has helped me.

Otherwise, it looks good to me.

SpaceMouse wrote:

and I put back the double slip to the turntable at Rock Ridge.

TZ,

It's a silver mine so once every couple days. You are right that it doesn't jibe.

Thanks Mac,

XtraCAD allows you to run trains but I don't use that function. I kinda sorta developed 3-D vision when I worked as a contractor. When I do the drawings in 2-D I see them as 3-D structures so I have a good idea of the effect I'm trying for.

I also know the trains I'm going to run, their size and length requirements, so I have a good idea of how things will run. Besides none of the engines in the sims are small enough to fit on my turntables, and they don't make sim 26-36 foot rolling stock. But like I said, I have a good vision of what it is like.

Not that I don't miss things.  

Hello. First time posting so please bear with me.

Just an observation, but I see a problem with the turnout at the edge of the Rock Ridge curve since it creates an S-curve. Using a LH turnout would get rid of the S-curve and the main wouldn't be on the diverging route as well.

Overall, I think it's a nice plan.

Vic

Flying switch56 wrote:

Hello. First time posting so please bear with me. Just an observation, but I see a problem with the turnout at the edge of the Rock Ridge curve since it creates an S-curve. Using a LH turnout would get rid of the S-curve and the main wouldn't be on the diverging route as well. Overall, I think it's a nice plan. Vic

Welcome and thanks.

You are right about the turnout. A couple times I thought about changing it and forgot about it. Part of the issue is that I took that plan off the existing "module" that I lifted off my 4 x 8 Rock Ridge and Train City I. On that layout the main went straight.

Still you are right and I was lazy. Good catch. Here's what that area looks like now.

Very nice modeling. Fortunately, there isn't much scenery in the way to remove when you incorporate the turnout (it'd be a shame to have to tear into those hillsides).

Also, I could've sworn I hadn't posted on this forum before but apparently I have somewhere, some when. Aw well...

Vic

Flying switch56 wrote:

Very nice modeling. Fortunately, there isn't much scenery in the way to remove when you incorporate the turnout (it'd be a shame to have to tear into those hillsides). Also, I could've sworn I hadn't posted on this forum before but apparently I have somewhere, some when. Aw well... Vic

Okay, here's what it looks like with your suggestion and TZ's suggestion.