OK, I'm stuck. Well torn would be more accurate. I have made several posts of my Klamath River branch line of the SP on the forums and have received some great input from many (thanks Charlie C, Knut, Byron H. and all). I really like where this is going but find myself looking at one more big change.
Until I found Joe Fugate's site last fall I didn't know what operations where let alone something like Quantity of Run vs Quality of Run
http://siskiyou-railfan.net/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2337.10 .
I just knew I got tried of the trains running round and round and just didn't seem to have a purpose. Guess that's why I left MR'ing for a while. I have been reading so much and I do get it all but I am only drawing on theory and lack application in this area.
In particular, one point is eating at me now - I forgot who first mentioned it - but the theory that a train should only travel once through a scene. While my last version of the track plan is a double oval (a triple if you count a hidden loop which I really like) it really doesn't come across as a spaghetti plan - on paper anyways - but still it has the mainline going around twice through each scene.
This is my current version of the double (triple) oval
It is more of a concept drawing than blue print and is taken from the MR June 07 Red Rock and Northern. I do know that I will need to bump out a touch to fit the yard
What I am thinking of is this.
If I do this I would also like to switch the lumberyard at Happy Camp to a chip plant to keep the rail demand up since I would be losing 2 chip plants. I was also thinking changing the strip mall south of the Willow Creek yard to something like a plywood mill - although I know nothing of these and need to hit the research hard. This should also get the rail traffic up from less than car loads or 1 -2 cars per week.
I was toying with the idea of leaving the wood chip plant in the upper right corner as a spur to generate more revenue. It would come off the main in the south and come up along the east over the 2 river bridges and up to the loader.
A down side of the change is that this would leave the main level without any grades. My biggest concern though is the decrease in time it would take a train to complete a run by 1/3rd and thus detract from the quality of run as being too short and toy like. I am not looking to make the change just for the sake of change or because I don't like the way it appears to be on paper, I'm trying to be true to the quality of run concept. Or am I reading too much onto this and need to stay true to the original track plan? All opinions welcomed.....
Thank you for your time and knowledge
ratled
Modeling the Klamath River area in HO on a proto-lanced sub of the SP “The State of Jefferson Line”
The Red Rock Northern is a fairly new track plan, since it was published in 2007. I don't think that it has the issue of Quality of run versus Quantity of run that Joe was thinking of when he wrote his theory. Because the main line is at different levels as it goes through the different areas, you will have the feeling of separation and one track, one scene. My last layout was a twice around the room type, and on different levels. (Not as separate bench work levels but at different grade heights on the same platform / bench work similar to the RRN.)
If you really like it, I would build it as is. It is completely different than a spaghetti plan and the ones in the 101 Track Plans book. You will get more enjoyment with a longer main line run, and the track is not congested. I counted 12 industries including the 2 depots in the original plan. With 2 hidden staging tracks, one in each direction, you have that little extra operational variety that will make a difference. The length of trains that you run on it will also determine how the layout looks under operations. I have a single car garage size to work with and my trains will be 7 to 8 cars long, not counting the loco and caboose. That will give the feeling of a larger RR. A complete train on the RRN should be able to fit on the passing siding at the upper left. Anything longer than that will give you a few challenges.
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
The only thing I would do to your first version is add three short tunnels to the track that crosses the two bridges on the right edge, and make the scenery appropriately vertical to justify them. Elsewhere, a partial, fragmentary screen of trees, fences, small structures, billboards... would do a lot to separate the two different companies which built through the same valley and later merged. (Slightly different track detailing and ballast color would also help put this concept over.)
One thing which I would NOT do, unless you intend to abandon the chip loading facility at the top right corner, is bury the runaround track at the top left.
Right now, you have a layout that lends itself nicely to peddler freight operation. All you need is a set of car cards and logically thought out waybills.
'Once through a scene' is a nice concept, but sometimes we have to compromise to get more operation into a smaller space. Since your loops are non-parallel and on different levels, they will work.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)