Paulus Jas, I trust that your post loses something in the translation. I appreciate your feedback, however perhaps positive suggestions for beginners would be more appreciated. Ex: Staging tracks - what length do you suggest? How do you see them working? Which parts of the new plan do not fit in well with train operations? What is improved in the new plan vs the old? What is specifically not good and why? If you take the time to provide feedback, constructive feedback would be more useful for me.
Yes - the scale is HO and each block is one foot. I have added a few room features to help visualize. I am using a program to draw for now so I can be more sure of radius curves and to be able to make changes easily. Track spacing can and will be adjusted. I am currently looking for feedback on the overall layout, operational pros and cons.
My Build Thread: https://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/185298.aspx
Follow me on Instagram: https://instagram.com/stephenkingsmaine
Dear Aralai
You've got a lot of comments, but i think you should should do three things first to deserve any.
1. Don't just draw a trackplan, it takes only a few more lines to also draw the outlines of your "room"; with doors, windows and other obstacles. May be it gives some more experienced modellers(designers) a chance to comment on your use of space as well. (are you working in HO?, is a square a square foot?)
2. If you do draw a trackplan try to do it as the HOG. Tracks with a 5" spacing? WHY ????? Staging tracks two feet long? WHY?????? (Questions about how to change the direction of an engine or a whole train are coming much later. Staging can be done in so many ways and i am not sure if you really understand the concept of staging.) Make in general a far better effort to show off your idea's. Some good old paperdoodling instead of CAD. Armstrong's squares or Barrow domino's are doing a great job against over-optimistic planning.
3. Stein gave you the advice to start answering a lot of why and what questions. You don't seem to understand what he is talking about. You are much to eager to incorporate something you fancy. Buy the latest MR-Planning and find out what you like: Lance Mindheim's modern urban less is beautifull aproach, the multitrack also urban Memphis layout, the Santa Fe rural branchline, or ................... And there are folks out there that just want to see their trains running over a big bridge, along a large TT and simply enjoy the show. When you start operating there again are all the questions to be answered first. Just do it. How big is your crew?, is one of them also.
LDE's are not what you think. Tony Koester is using them in an other way. My first lesson came 40 yrs ago; someone had build a unbelieveble beautifull scene, where a loaded coaldump-truck passed the railroad over a bridge only suitable for light vehicles. A road engineer commented on that; the nitpicker, how did he dare. But when you start looking for a real situation and find one, is Tony's thinking, your bridge will automaticaly come out right. So it is the other way around, first you need a scheme that's fits your room, and only then you start filling in the details(LDE's).
From Holland with love. but homework first please.
Paul
OK - New plan. Let me know what you think...
Thanks - just looking for ballpark budget numbers right now.
Aralai...so how much is this DCC going to cost me???
...so how much is this DCC going to cost me???
I'll give you the standard legal answer, "It depends..."
DCC costs are mainly driven by number of locomotives running simultaneously, number of throttles wanted/needed, and whether or not you want wireless.
My pricing of a starter DCC set with a second programming walk-around throttle, a couple of face plates to jack into, and a computer interface puts the total slightly over $300, regardless of whether you choose NCE, Digitraxx, or MRC Prodigy Advance.
And even at that price, each system will have a couple of drawbacks that may or may not be show stoppers for you. For instance, the Zephyr throttle does not remember speed/direction settings when recalling a 2nd locomotive (but other Digitraxx throttles do). On the NCE PowerCab, using the computer interface decreases the already limited number of additional throttles (1 for PowerCab itself, 3 if using Super Booster) by 1. The MRC computer interface uses MRC proprietary software instead of the open source Decoder Pro.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
I think it is very brave of you to let the world see the "underbelly" of your layout. You are showing us that a train room does not have to be a surgically clean and perfect place. We all have to live in the "real world", and when concentrating on the trains, the other distractions do not matter. - Gerhard
I think it is very brave of you to let the world see the "underbelly" of your layout. You are showing us that a train room does not have to be a surgically clean and perfect place. We all have to live in the "real world", and when concentrating on the trains, the other distractions do not matter.
- Gerhard
AralaiSo with DCC, the controller controls the locomotive directly - like remote control, as opposed to the track? If so, then there is no direct connection between controller and track, but between controller and locomotive?
Rough picture is that track has "constant" voltage (except that the voltage actually is square wave AC, not DC).
Your throttle is connected to the command station either by cable or by radio. DCC command station is connected to the track.
When you give a command from your throttle (which has a selector so you can say "I am now controlling engine no 4" before you start speeding up, slowing down etc), the DCC command adds a little string of commands (e.g. "Engine 4, turn on engine function B", where function B can be e.g. "sound horn") to the track voltage.
Signal is small relative to track voltage, so voltage variations on track will be minimal. All engines on the track receive the same track voltage, all engines on the track "sees" the commands from the DCC command station.
But only the engine which has had it's id number set to 4 will react to the signal. By having the DCC decoder in the engine letting through more or less current to the motor on the engine, or by having the DCC decoded sending power to the sound chip or to a light or whatever.
All other engines on layout will just continue to do whatever they were doing - running, sitting still, engine idling or whatever.
Pretty nifty system, isn't it ?
Grin, Stein, not an expert on DCC by any standards
I feel like a kid again! So with DCC, the controller controls the locomotive directly - like remote control, as opposed to the track? If so, then there is no direct connection between controller and track, but between controller and locomotive?
Looked up some info on it - this will be much better - I am liking this even more...
Aralai,
things have certainly moved on since the late 1970´s. There is a lot more R-T-R equipment available and the level of detail has seen a step up improvement. Those can motors equipped with flywheels improved performance a lot as well, but the real killer is DCC and sound. As one forum member stated in an earlier thread, with DC you control the track, but with DCC you control the loco. Add sound to it, and you are as close to feeling like a real "train man" as you can get. With DCC, wiring has also become less effort.
My turnouts will be manually operated. I am in the process of planning (not yet building) a small shelf-type switching layout with about 6 - 8 turnouts. I will be using Peco track, with sprung points, so I do not really motor-driven turnouts. With DCC, I don´t need to "assign" the current to a specific track, so I don´t need a switch board.
I do need other electronic gadgets, though. My layout will be a port scene, so I´d like to add the typical noise of a harbour, including that bone-shattering "keeyah" of the seagulls.
For me, sound is the dimension that had been missing for so long. Just listen to the new Bowser F-7a going through the starting routine, the rumble of those EMD prime movers is terrific. The only thing missing is black smoke belching from the exhaust stacks...
All these features give you a complete new railroading feeling - you actually will need less track to get more enjoyment.
Now I have to stop before I get carried away...
odaveAnd by lift device, I mean one of these thingies
And by lift device, I mean one of these thingies
Wow, I need to move into this century!
So help me catch up a little, since my last layout was in 1979. A few questions:
1. My system and engines are DC. I understand DCC is the latest technology. Do you guys suggest I chuck the DC system and move to DCC, or can I use either both or stick with the DC for now? The DC controller I have is a dual controller and works well, even running the engines slowly.
2. I also assume you all run electric points (switches) - forgive my UK Speak. - Do most of you run a central control for switching / lighting / signals etc? On my last layout, almost everything was manual.
3. I checked my inventory of old engines and rolling stock and other than my 3 car CN Budd train and one CN Road Switcher, and maybe one decent CN Box car, I am going to have to buy new - which may be better anyway. I am not going to be buying $1800 locos though - not in my price range right now!
Anyway, looking forward to starting into it again - getting excited about the potential...
ETA: #3 is not a question :)
Doughless OMG! You can actually do that?
OMG! You can actually do that?
You can in my shed - I won't tell anyone if you don't Note that I won't be doing it during a session, though.
I don't have nor do I plan on having any expensive brass or superdetailed models, so the manhandling doesn't bother me.
DoughlessOriginal poster Aralai: Sounds like you have a sense of humor and a willingness to listen to input.
Original poster Aralai: Sounds like you have a sense of humor and a willingness to listen to input.
Yeah - been around the block enough times, and happy to listen to others. When I was younger I thought I knew everything - I hadn't learned yet that I didn't :) I did not get a chance to re-do my layout today - had to build a storage loft in my garage. I know it does not sound related, but it's all part of the plan to get the basement room cleared out for the layout!
odave:
In my case (10'x18' available), I didn't even want to give up the space for a small wye, so I decided that any locomotive turning would be done outside of an ops session by hand or with some sort of lifting device.
OMG! You can actually do that? I didn't think that was possible without being sent to operations purgatory.
- Douglas
steinjrThe tracks are at 52" off the floor, so I can fit some storage and a workbench under the layout.
The tracks are at 52" off the floor, so I can fit some storage and a workbench under the layout.
Hello, Stein -
Sorry, no photos, as the benchwork isn't even built yet . All the "operations" I've done has been in my 3rdPlanit 3D model. I am currently working on lighting and backdrops, with benchwork and track coming in August (hopefully).
Yes, I plan to use the hidden end curves for staging & holding trains to simulate mainline running - when I operate both sides of the layout together. When operating either side individually, I can use the opposite side as staging.
In an earlier revision I did have two dedicated staging yards in a deck underneath the main deck, accessed by a no-lix, but when I started looking at the benchwork requirements I realized that a couple of my givens would be violated. So the lower-deck staging had to go.
I will be using a "roll under" approach to my donut, as my layout will be at 50" and I have a chair with casters. I think it will be fine for me.
Thanks O'Dave. I like the siding you have on the bottom. It's nice and long. Back to my drawing board tonight to try to incorporate some of the ideas. I think a Wye might be the answer for me to turn engines. I like the one in Dr. Wayne's layout. My passenger train is a 3 car Budd so no issues with turning, but I like the idea of being able to do it. My last hurdle is deciding if I will have a duckunder or lift out to make a continuous loop or not. I like the idea of a hidden part for staging that could also be used as the continuous connection, but I have the door to deal with, so not sure how I might do that. I could do a kind of L shape with a hole in the middle - but then I'd have to duckunder to get into the layout - not a big problem as I plan to have the layout fairly high. Maybe a doughnut layout with one leg - I guess that's more like a 'P' :) and then hide the loop at the back (top of the P). That way it appears point-to-point, but can run continuous. I'm getting less fussy about the visible crossover.
ETA: It looks like that is what you have done O'Dave with both sides being hidden/staging. Any photos of your layout?
Just a couple of comments to add to what stein posted
* turning/reversing loops take up a lot of space, so you may want to consider if turning/reversing a train or locomotive is necessary for what you want to accomplish with this layout.
* make sure to reserve space for structure models, roads, etc when laying out your track.
* In an earlier post you commented about the length of yard tracks. I know that design has been scratched, but you should consider putting your yard body tracks on the long sides of your space, or around corners where the curve radii can be larger. Coupling/uncoupling on tight radius curves in a curved yard can be difficult.
And don't overlook putting the body tracks at an angle. Here's the current revision of my trackplan, the small yard is on the bottom. The yard is somewhat contorted and does not have a very prototypical look, but it can perform all the functions it needs to. In this instance, the function of the yard was more important to me than it looking prototypical.
AralaiExcellent. Thanks. Sorry for all the newbie questions - it's been a long time...
Excellent. Thanks. Sorry for all the newbie questions - it's been a long time...
Trying to answer questions from someone who can formulate clear and thoughtful questions and understands the answers is a joy.
It makes for a very refreshing change of pace from trying to communicate with some impatient and semi-illiterate 12 year old who dash off some poorly thought out question with hopeless spelling and punctuation, and just wants someone to "give him the answer", rather than the kid making any serious effort on his own part to learn how to do things for himself :-)
Just continue to ask questions. Nobody minds intelligent questions.
Aralai What is the max gradient recommended? I've seen anything from 2% to 4%.
What is the max gradient recommended? I've seen anything from 2% to 4%.
That's what I have seen too - max 4%, preferably less. Around 2 is not bad.
The Armstrong book has a chart saying something about pulling power/train length for various gradients.
You can always do a field test - take a long plank, raise one end to get the desired gradient, and try to run an engine pulling the desired number of cars up a piece of flextrack laid on top of that that plank.
But somewhere in the range 2-4% sounds sensible based on what I have read. My own layout is flat, so I haven't tested (other than with the plank test - and I can't remember what I found out).
Smile, Stein
Anything not exceeding 3 % is comfortable and looks ok, but is way above what the prototype does...
Aralai Questions for steinjr - I don't see any way for you to turn your trains to face the other direction - do you just run different ones different ways?
I run diesel hood road switchers (like RS3s or GP7s) or small diesel switchers like this little GE 70-tonner:
Diesel hood engines can run both ways.
Either just backing the entire train with the engine pushing the cars in front of it (short trains only on my layout, but would also have worked for modern passenger push-pull traffic - with a control cab built into the rearmost car of the train).
Or uncoupling the engine, then running it around the train body (using a double ended siding) and then coupling the engine to the other end of the train, before heading back, with the engine now running "backwards" pulling the cars behind it.
Another solution would have been to run with one engine at either end of the train - with the one at the tail end leading the train heading back.
If I had been running diesel carbody engines (like an F7), where engineer visibility is good only out one end of the engine (the cab end), I would have coupled two engines together tail to tail (so there is one cab at either end of the two engine combo), and run those two engines around the body of the train as a unit.
For steam engines, if I had run them, I would either have used a roundtable to turn the engine, used a short turning wye to turn the engine, or just have run the steam engine backwards around the train body, coupled it to the other end and backed the engine down the other way, pulling the cars.
Like with the prototype railroads, there are a lot of ways to do this on the model railroad as well.
The Milwaukee Road had a passenger station in downtown Minneapolis, and no way to turn its engines there. They turned at their yard in southern Minneapolis and backed up their entire passenger trains for 30 blocks to get into the station, with the conductor presumably at the tail end of the train, with some way (flag, whistle, lantern or something else) to be able to tell the engineer "stop" if something got in their way.
AralaiAlso, your loop that passes the door - how did you handle it?
Also, your loop that passes the door - how did you handle it?
A liftout section. Looks like this:
Not very pretty - I am not planning to use it in normal operations, just when I feel like running trains around and around (for display running for kids or to break in an engine).
Made from a plank, with two L-shaped aluminum profiles fasted to the plant one Woodland Scenics road bed section apart, and tracks laid on top of that. Aligns with sections on both sides with holes drilled down into the sections on both sides and dowels fastend to the underside of the liftout section.
Cross section across the liftout:
AralaiHow high is your layout?
How high is your layout?
Aralai It seems deceptively simple, but maybe that's part of my problem right now when designing - making it too complex.
It seems deceptively simple, but maybe that's part of my problem right now when designing - making it too complex.
Could be - how to create the desired effect on your layout really depends on what the desired effect is - e.g going out and back during the same session, or always going east to west during a session.
For an over-the-road type of layout - where trains e.g. come onto the layout from east staging, pass through the modelled layout and disappears off the layout into west staging, scheduled to repeat its movement next operating session (instead of going out and coming back the same session), it would also have been possible to back the entire trainback from west staging across the layout into east staging between operating sessions.
Smile,Stein
These posts are very helpful for me, and as a visual person, the photos help even more.
Questions for steinjr - I don't see any way for you to turn your trains to face the other direction - do you just run different ones different ways? Also, your loop that passes the door - how did you handle it? How high is your layout? It seems deceptively simple, but maybe that's part of my problem right now when designing - making it too complex.
And here is a couple of examples of what a great modeler (in this case forum poster Dr Wayne) can do with an around-the-wall style layout in a bigger room, with a combination of city, industry, small town and countryside modelling (even based in Canada :-)
Photo tour of his layout: http://www.the-gauge.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=1107
Grin, Stein
Doughless You may think a simple doughnut plan looks boring on paper, but check out pictures of stein's layout (linked somewhere in this forum) and you may be more inspired.
You may think a simple doughnut plan looks boring on paper, but check out pictures of stein's layout (linked somewhere in this forum) and you may be more inspired.
Some pictures from how some scenes-in-progress looked before tear-down:
Municipal Barge Terminal (was on the lower wall before):
3 pictures from the 5x2 foot milling district scene (along right hand wall, from chimney towards door):
A view down along the elevator for the mill (by the chimney base in upper right hand corner):
The modeled corner of my yard (three tracks), with warehouse district buildings in the background:
Some more warehouse district buildings:
I am currently rebuilding my layout. I decided I so hated the access problems of working under and at the rear of my layout with wiring and scenery that I tore down the entire layout to start over rebuilding it as sections that can be taken out to work on each section individually.
Since I am rebuilding anyways, I have played around a bit with the plan, to try to bring tracks closer to the layout edge, fewer tracks parallel to the layout edge and to give me a bigger yard (which can be used as visible staging).
Still not so sure about that left end along the top wall ...
Current plan (version 55):
Anyways - not trying to force anyone to do their layouts in the same style - just trying to illustrate some of the things which is possible for this style of layout, even in a fairly small room of 6.5 x 11.5 foot - about 74 square feet - actually a little less when you deduct the chimney base.
You have a bit more space available - judged from your figure at least 90-100 square feet vs my 74 square feet, maybe more - depending on how your room looks.
AralaiFair comments. Yes we have those gopher games :) Let me try a HOG type layout... It's fun to keep designing.
Fair comments. Yes we have those gopher games :) Let me try a HOG type layout... It's fun to keep designing.
... indeed it is! Take your time to do it - don´t rush yourself. After all you will be investing quite a bit of money and time in your layout.
Here is another example of a small donut-shaped layout. It is steinjr´s layout (hope you don´t mind me posting this here, stein) - earlier version, though .
Just as food for thought...
No. The latest version is a head-knocking access nightmare. You'll hate it. It reminds me of those carnival amusement games where you score points by walloping fake gophers that pop out of holes in a table. Do you have those up north?
It sounds like you are very much interested in learning more and more about theme,operation, and design. That is an enjoyable process in itself that you'll likely continue to do. The last thing you want to do is to build something permanent now, only to find yourself six months later much more knowledgeable but stuck with something unsuitable and encased in foam or hydrocal.
Your space suits itself to a design like the HOG, so your final benchwork will likely be very similar to it. You said you want to get it right first off. That's tough to do, really. You could start by building some simple table benchwork like the HOG and put a yard LDE in the top side and some spurs along the other sides, hook up two wires and start running trains. Its easy to rearrange and add/delete track, spurs, sidings, and even yards when the track is not affixed to the benchwork. Three months later, after you've accumulated more knowledge and experience, you'll be in a better position to crystalize your theme, plan, and permanent design.
Just my opinion.
Doug
OK - redid the layout. Not sure that the length of the sidings in the yard are long enough - I may have to move the yard. The track that runs along the top is hidden as it inclines from the top right to top left. Again - comments are welcomed. Still fine-tuning things...
ETA: Yeah don't pay too much attention to the detail of the tracks in the yard. I need to fix them to allow assembly of trains.
odaveIn addition to what stein posted, two books would be good to read through to assist in your planning journey. My preferred reading order would be: Track Planning for Realistic Operation by John Armstrong Realistic Model Railroad Operation by Tony Koester Since you are interested in Quebec City, it would be good to do some research on the railroads that run/ ran in that area. To see modern trackage, I've found the aerial maps at Bing and Google to be good search tools. Just zoom in on Quebec City and scroll around the tracks to find interesting scenes. Even abandoned railroad grades can still be found and traced - some going back to the 1920s and 30s and maybe older. This can give you some town names to start your research with.
In addition to what stein posted, two books would be good to read through to assist in your planning journey. My preferred reading order would be:
Track Planning for Realistic Operation by John Armstrong
Realistic Model Railroad Operation by Tony Koester
Since you are interested in Quebec City, it would be good to do some research on the railroads that run/ ran in that area. To see modern trackage, I've found the aerial maps at Bing and Google to be good search tools. Just zoom in on Quebec City and scroll around the tracks to find interesting scenes. Even abandoned railroad grades can still be found and traced - some going back to the 1920s and 30s and maybe older. This can give you some town names to start your research with.
Got em both today! Thanks. Found an amazing Model Railway Store - I have a feeling I am going to be there a lot. Good bunch there that seem like they know a lot about Model Railroading.
Thanks again for your feedback! It is very helpful. I'll make a point of answering the questions steinjr posted so I know myself exactly what I want. Of the top of my head, I see the layout as an ongoing project where I will continually either improve details or tear down and rebuild in some cases, although that would be scenery more than tracks. Once I have the tracks in place, I intend to leave them so I want to get them right. I am familiar with Quebec, having grown up in Montreal in the 1970's, hence my interest in modeling 1970's Quebec. I also have exisiting locos and rolling stock as well as scenery from that location/era. Last time I built a layout was 30 years ago, starting with a 4 x 8 sheet which progressed to three 4 x 8 sheets, and the layout was based on Charny, St.Nicolas, QC area on the south shore across the St.Lawrence river from Quebec City. Charny is/was a big CN town, and has a great railway yard (Joffre Yard) with the only extant full-circle type roundhouse in Canada built in 1880. While part of me wants to recreate that area, I realize that the scale would make it difficult to reproduce properly, however I'd like to incorporate elements - the LDE's you talk about, so I might have an LDE that represents a part of the Joffre Yard, and other LDE's from areas around Charny. I'd love to tackle two projects - building the Joffre Roundhouse and the Quebec Railway Bridge. I know they would be big projects, but they would be awesome elements. I guess a lot of modelers DO take real places and adapt them to their layout due to scale. Just taking a google map of the area and trying to reproduce exactly is not going to work, but grabbing 3 or 4 LDE's and incorporating them might work. So right now my big question is: Do I attempt to reproduce some real elements or just create my layout from my imagination? My preference is leaning to recreating some real elements - the roundhouse, bridge and perhaps a key industrial area.