Artisan6 wrote: I was hoping to keep a double loop, just for the sake of something to do.
Any time I see writing like this, I read between the lines. If you are putting in an extra loop to keep from getting bored, you think that your layout plan is boring. If you think that hitting a paddle balls boring, it won't take long or you to think two paddle balls are twice as boring.
Before you build, find a design that fires your rockets. Even if it takes a do-over.
There are some great 4 x 8 designs in the contest in the General Forum. Check them out for some ideas. Vote for your favorite while you are there.
http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/1276861/ShowPost.aspx
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Artisan6 wrote: I'd like to use the 2" foam within the wood frame. If I align the joists vertical....no more room. I suppose 1x2 would work, no? At this point, I'm trying to get as much input. I was hoping to keep a double loop, just for the sake of something to do. Hoping to set up DCC, again for the sake of doing it, and would like the option of running 2 engines. A main and a switcher. Of course, this is all long term as I fully understand the costs. Trying to pack a lot into a little. The outside curves are 22 radius, the inside are 18 radius. The industry radii are both 22. I wasn't really looking at realistic to start, more build and have fun. That's how it's supposed to start, no? Thanks for the input.
I'd like to use the 2" foam within the wood frame. If I align the joists vertical....no more room. I suppose 1x2 would work, no?
At this point, I'm trying to get as much input. I was hoping to keep a double loop, just for the sake of something to do. Hoping to set up DCC, again for the sake of doing it, and would like the option of running 2 engines. A main and a switcher. Of course, this is all long term as I fully understand the costs. Trying to pack a lot into a little. The outside curves are 22 radius, the inside are 18 radius. The industry radii are both 22. I wasn't really looking at realistic to start, more build and have fun.
That's how it's supposed to start, no? Thanks for the input.
A6:
Yes, vertical 1x2s would be twice as strong as horizontal 1x4s. Beam strength is proportionate to width and to the square of the depth.
I'm glad you're putting in some 22"R. That way, you can compare the operation of your chosen equipment on that as well as the sharper curves, and a 22"R turnback curve is just about as big as you can fit on a 4x8 panel.
Get what input you can, build, and have fun - that's how you do it. Best of luck.
Bus:
Artisan6 wrote:http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2037/2071508067_f0cabfd8dd.jpg?v=0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2037/2071508067_f0cabfd8dd.jpg?v=0
Your railroad looks good. I agree with the others regarding the scissors crossover. They're neat if justified, but you could replace it with a single crossover (of two LH switches) you won't hurt the operational possibities at all, as far as I can see. Otherwise, I like the plan a lot. It's similar to mine, with one stub-end yard and a forked branch, both trailing, but it's double-tracked, and I think this adds a lot.
-You can run it as a two-track main, which is good if you like a lot of train action on a small railroad without working too hard to keep them from colliding.
-You can run it as a two-lap oval. Oddly enough, for this purpose the scissors crossover makes a lot of sense. It lets a CCW train bypass the right inner main so that it can make distance laps while a switcher is using that track as a yard lead. If you don't have enough space in three dimensions, use the fourth.
-You can run it as a simple oval, with the right inner main reserved for yard-lead use and occasional passing. The left inner main would see little use in this scheme, except as a switchback to reach the branch.
The double track does give the impression of big-time railroading. This is not always bad. Of course, six-axle diesels and big steam won't make the sharp curves, but there are ways around that. You could certainly run F units or GP9s, and if your interests turn more toward Real Locomotives, some railroads depended on Consolidations relatively late in the steam era -- or set it back around 1910 or so, when Ten Wheelers were considered large engines.
(What's funny is that my MDC 2-6-0, which looks so small, actually has a very *long* rigid wheelbase of around 15', because of the widely spaced second and third drivers. It's longer than the larger Bowser ten-wheelers, and six feet more than their NYC K-11. It's longer, in fact, than the MDC 2-8-0 of the same size, which has a rigid wheelbase of 14". If this can make it around an 18"R without trouble, and it can, any of those should.)
Maybe you could even have something like the North Shore Line, with heavy traffic but smallish equipment.
One last point - turn your table joists vertical. They'll be far stronger (about 4x) and brace the table better against twisting.
I think it is a good, somewhat original, start to a plan with lots of potential. I like the wye turnout at top.
What I would personally not want is the top industrial trackage at centre-right, the inner tracks that work their way diagonally south east. The rightmost one is fine, but the more central one just seems to be an afterthought. I would move its turnout down its right counterpart and then have a switchback towards the west more centrally. That would add more realism to my way of thinking, and get some tracks in the large open centre of the layout.
That pretty much is the space. In the future, I hope to add on, but at the moment, all I have room for is a rectangle. It does limit my options, but as I'm starting off, this is a learning experience for now.
After reading the previous comments, I am reviewing the crossover and layout....will post schematic shortly. Thanks.
Falls Valley RR wrote: The diamond 4 switch crossover is a bit much.One thinks the train leaves the yard counter clockwise has a choice of routes. Simple enough. But needs a way to cross back over from the outside loop counterclockwise to get back into the yard.That is why I find the 4 switch double crossover a bit much for such a small road. I dont mind have a straight two switch cross over from outer to inner loop somewhere in that area.There is no run around without going through the entire layout and just two sidings to switch. me thinks the yard is better off being replaced by a large industry or something.Finally but not least, double track screams large railroad. Why not consider a single track with a passing siding and necessary sidings only? You might free up some space.
The diamond 4 switch crossover is a bit much.
One thinks the train leaves the yard counter clockwise has a choice of routes. Simple enough. But needs a way to cross back over from the outside loop counterclockwise to get back into the yard.
That is why I find the 4 switch double crossover a bit much for such a small road. I dont mind have a straight two switch cross over from outer to inner loop somewhere in that area.
There is no run around without going through the entire layout and just two sidings to switch. me thinks the yard is better off being replaced by a large industry or something.
Finally but not least, double track screams large railroad. Why not consider a single track with a passing siding and necessary sidings only? You might free up some space.
I agree with a lot of this, but I think that double track often works better on a small layout, because there really isn't room for passing sidings, or at least not enough to be useful. On the other hand, a single track branchline might not need much in the way of passing siding, then we'd be talking pretty much one train operation.
A think the double crossover is too much, as well, I think I'd have a single on either side.
Need more givens and druthers.
Edit:
What space do you really have. A rectangle isn't always the best solution.
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
You will be able to run two trains simultaneously on this layout but I think you are going to get real tired of this quickly. In terms of a mainline run, the options are clearly limited but switching is also not likely to be much fun since you can not switch the sidings without fouling the main line. Also, a crossover for such a small layout seems like a bit much.
Slowly building a layout since 2007!
Hello all. I'm starting with a small layout. Only have room for a 4x7. I've used Xtrk to put together a layout using flex trax. It's a modified double oval with a small yard for fun. Please let me know what you think. I plan on setting up the benchwork using 2 inch foam as the base, encased with 1x4 frame and 12" centers for the bracing. Comments, suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks much.