This is just my opinion, and I won't tell you that I am a seasoned layout designer/builder...but I get the impression from your drawing that you would benefit mightily by drawing your proposed versions much more closely to scale and to the NMRA standards for separations and angles of diversion at turnouts of various kinds. For example, have you figured out what turnout type/number you would find most practicable for the engines and rolling stock you contemplate using?
Would you be prepared to pause and spend about 10 hours learning XTrkCad, a free software available from Source Forge? Once you became familiar with that programme, the layout designing world is your oyster.
Your basic depiction above seems okay at first non-critical glance, probably a good use of the room, but I see some very tight inner curves, some impossibly tight for steamers of any size. Some of your track centres are not good uses of space because they look to be about 4-6". Those centres may be due to the angles of diversion you seem to want to depict.
Just some thoughts.
-Crandell
Crandell,
Thanks for the response. The drawing is just some ideas I have been kicking around. I was hoping to get some ideas from all the great minds out there to see if I was trying to cram to much stuff in such a small room.
I am currently looking at a couple cad programs to use once I get some ideas in place. I spent some time playing with XTrkcad and as I remember it was pretty complex program. I must admit that I gave up well below the 10 hour time frame you mentioned. The review in MR's November issue listed some good ideas of what to look for in a program.
I will be using the Code-100 Atlas track from my previous layout. The switches on the main line will be all #6's. I just purchased a few #6 & #8 curved switches that I also plan to use. I will be using #4 in the yard if I can find a place for it on the layout..
Thanks again for your response.
Before you spend any more time messing with CAD programs, try AnyRail. It is a free download and has almost no learning curve, just click and drag. You can plug in the size of your benchwork and then just lay track on it. The free version limits the totals of track you can use but for $50 you can buy the complete version. Well worth it compared to the cost of your time learning and using xtracad and others. Just my opinion, hope it helps in your future design.
http://www.anyrail.com/index_en.html
Paul,
Anyrail is what I used for the layout. As you can see by the drawing I exceeded my 50 piece limit thus the poor finishing detail. Some things I don't like about it are the limited amount of terrain & scenery detail it has to offer. Like MR said in their article it takes 11 clicks to draw a rectangle.I have downloaded the demo of Sandia Software and may try it before I decide what to buy.
Thanks for the advice.
hi without a name
1) N or HO? One moment I am convinced it's HO, I see another detail and I am thinking N again.
2) I can't believe you have built the tables allready. Looking at you plan your entrance is only 16" wide. Your are planning aisles as wide as 16" around the peninsula, so you must be very young or very slim or both. You must have noticed this by now. Todays standard is 30 inches.
3)Your bench is rather wide, you will have severe reach-in problems in all the corners.
4) part of your design is done in CAD, so an hour more behind the screen and you had your plan finished.
5)TMHO It's not that you are not an artist, you have to put more energie in it.
6)Good planning is thinking and drawing first and doing later.
Do you have any idea's about staging? Did you make a schematic? The more crossovers the merrier?
Your plan however is basicaly very good. A large lap, partly hidden, in the back; a station and some industrial sides up front. So the big picture is OK. Getting the details right is were you have your problems. It starts with logic; take your logging side. As far as I know they are far away from the main, high in the mountains and rather scattered. Question is: can you create a isolated spot on your pike, far away from the rest and big enough to built a realistic log camp? I think you can, but at a prize (forget Thurmond or ....??). Is it worth that prize?
A schematic is very important because it tells how you envision to operate your trains. If you do not understand something ask, I always get answers and much more then that. Apart from the things I do not understand, you have drawn your room, your plan and you are asking for comments; a great step, alas not a great start.
Paul
The layout is HO. I know I have several problems that why I am looking for some help. I would have completed the layout in the cad program but the demo had a limit on track.
I have consider doing away with Thurmond but there is some history with that area.. My Father was born there and my grandfather was a supervisor at the coaling tower.
Thanks for the suggestions.
MC
hi MC,
Sorry to be rude, but you gave one straight answer and one bad excuse. If the Cad is limited, you still don't have to draw a 8" curve, whether it is done by hand or not isn't the issue.
I never said I wanted you not to built Thurmond; the point I wanted to make is that every scene needs a certain space. If you don't have that space, because of different priorities, skip that scene. Logs can be brought down the hill by trucks and you'll only need a translaoding facility.
TMHO with a little bit of effort you could do so much better. Take your time, I will always try to help you.
Paulus JasSorry to be rude, but you gave one straight answer and one bad excuse...
Paul, I think he answered you with what is important to him. Thus, it merely becomes a limitation to what he can do over all in his space, and is neither good nor bad. Excusing your own admitted rudeness serves no purpose except to possibly drive away someone who may go on to become a highly regarded expert over time, except somewhere else.
MC, do you really mean #4 turnouts, or are you intending to use the Atlas version that is really a #4.5? A true #4 is very confining, most find, except for the smallest of rolling stock and steamers. The concern I had for your parallel track centers may be generated largely by the sharp diverging angle necessitated by sharp turnouts. If you are quite confident of this and have it all worked out, we can move on to other aspects, such as storage or staging, switching, operations, structures, power, etc.
Thanks for the support.
The switches I have are Atlas HO Custom line Mark-3. The Item #'s are 281 & 282. I also have a couple of the Snap switches item #860 & 861. I can't determine from the Walters Catalog if they are true #4 or #4.5.
I used them in my previous layout leading to the Coal Tower and my yard. My K-4's (2-8-4) doesn't like them at all.
I am not confident of anything at this point. I am trying to determine what my next steps are to keep from putting something together that will never work. I have been searching through layouts for over a year and can't seem to come up with anything. I really like the Red Rock Northern (102 Realistic Track Plans)and have discussed some changes with some of the folks here on the forum. I have also looked at the 59th Street Branch (MR-July-2007) and the peninsula from The Virginia & Ohio's Muddlety Creek Branch.
If you get the idea that I have no idea what I am doing you have made the right assumption. I just try and take the space I have and lay out track until I have something I feel will work and so far nothing is working. Maybe I sould find a new HOBBY! What about slot cars? Ha Ha
Thanks again for the advice and help. Any ideas or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
When someone is asking advice, I am looking seriously at his plans. When he draws 8 inches curves, 16" wide aisles and #2 switches he must expect some comments. When MC's only reponse is :" i am not a CAD artist" MC is TMHO not taking other persons seriously. No problem to you, but i don't like it.
The sharp diverging angle has nothing to do with track-spacing, as you very well know; unless MC is using Marklin switches. Looking at different locations MC uses quite different switches and spacing, so I do not understand his drawing.
MC,
I would like to see a redraw of your plan very much. I would also like to hear about aisle width and other points mentioned. Paul
C & O Steam If you get the idea that I have no idea what I am doing you have made the right assumption.
If you get the idea that I have no idea what I am doing you have made the right assumption.
C & O Steam Any ideas or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
Any ideas or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
It's too bad some folks have been a little abrupt, although there are issues with the plan as drawn.
I think it is especially challenging to come up with a good plan when one builds benchwork first and/or moves to CAD too soon without a foundation in basic layout design. In fact, I think these are two of the trickiest traps in layout design.
A lot depends on what you want for your railroad. Is this a long-term plan, meant to provide engaging interest for many years? A quick effort to get trains running that isn't expected to last for a long time? A testbed for ideas for a future, more permanent layout? Are you interested in operating challenge? Model railfanning? These are questions only you can answer -- and it might necessitate stepping away from the CAD for a while to think them through. It seems everybody hates to do that.
In one of your other threads I or someone suggested W. Allen McClelland's Muddlety Creek Branch design from Model Railroad Planning 1996, and apparently you obtained that back issue. This is a pretty well-thought-out plan that would seem to have a lot of what you are looking for. Perhaps one area of thought to explore would be to determine what about that plan does not suit your interests and think about modifications.
If your primary interests are to see some trains running quickly and have a place you can name "Thurmond", a rough sort of plan without a lot of work in determining how traffic will flow, staging, operational schemes, etc. might turn out fine. If you wish to design it yourself and want the layout to deliver realistic long-term interest and challenge, then it would pay to go back to the foundational sources, such as John Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operation. This path takes much more time, but is most likely to result in a plan where you yourself understand the purpose for every track and every track contributes to your enjoyment of the layout.
Best of luck.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
C & O Steam The switches I have are Atlas HO Custom line Mark-3. The Item #'s are 281 & 282. I also have a couple of the Snap switches item #860 & 861. I can't determine from the Walters Catalog if they are true #4 or #4.5.
The Custom Line #4s are closer to #4.5. They are a good match for curves of 24" minimum radius or so. The Snap Switches are effectively much sharper, because they have a built-in 18" radius curve as well as a slightly tighter spot through the frog. As you have discovered, they're not a good match for equipment requiring broader curves to operate reliably. If it were my layout, I wouldn't reuse the Snap Switches.
cuyamaThe Custom Line #4s are closer to #4.5. They are a good match for curves of 24" minimum radius or so.
I've read about turnout-number-to-radius matching fairly often lately - what's the background behind the match?
Is it a function of equipment length - i.e. 'you won't be running long equipment on 24" radii anyway, so there's no point in having turnout numbers higher than X'? Or is it something else?
Thanks,
odave I've read about turnout-number-to-radius matching fairly often lately - what's the background behind the match? Is it a function of equipment length - i.e. 'you won't be running long equipment on 24" radii anyway, so there's no point in having turnout numbers higher than X'? Or is it something else?
That's the reason I think about it -- there doesn't seem to be much point in wasting space with #8 turnouts if the layout has 18" radius curves on the main line (to give an HO example).
You pretty much hit it. When you are trying to fit 10# into a 5# bag, using extra space for one component when another is going to be the limiting factor, makes stuffing the bag that much harder.
Specifically, the closure rail radius (where the turnout has its sharpest curve) of turnout numbers is given in the NMRA RP12.3 (RP stands for Recommended Practice) for HO. The Atlas #4, which is actually a #4.5, has a closure rail radius somewhere around 22"-24" - and it is a very short length of that radius. Walters/Shinohara #4 turnouts are not quite as sharp as RP12.3, either. #5 turnouts have a limiting radius of 26", and #6 turnouts have a closure radius of 43".
If you are generally using curves in the 22"-24" range, Atlas #4 or #5 turnouts from other manufacturers take less space and can handle the same rolling stock as the curves. A #6 turnout with those curves is overkill unless used in a crossover between 2 parallel tracks. But in a yard ladder, every #6 turnout instead of a #4 takes away a 1/2 car length from the yard track.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
The problem is that N. American style turnouts curve through the points on the diverging route, but once at and beyond the frog, they become a tangent that diverges....no more curvature. Accordingly, all you can work with is what is known as the "substitution radius" for the turnout, and that means how good a match a given numbered N. American style turnout is going to be partway along a curve of a given radius. In the case of a curved diverging route, true #4 snap switch, there is no substitution radius per se, but a direct match, and that is on a curve of 18" radius.
For the other turnouts, such as a #6, the substitution radius is much, much larger, in the order of 40" or more. That means you would not sustain something approximating a 24" curve by placing, or substituting, a #6 N. American style turnout in it at some point...there would be a distinct straightening through the frog and beyond to the point of the next rail joint, thus making your intended curve move way out into the 42" area...and your other 2$" curve half would not end up where you had drawn your center line. Imagine a nicely drawn 24" curve, but you cut out a section and install a #6 turnout that is largely straight, except for 6" of curved point rail. If you picture what must perforce happen beyond that inserted turnout, and then join on the rest of the curved rail sections, your end of curve will now be many inches displaced from your centerline.
Try using Atlas freeware layout designer software if you are planning to use Atlas track and switches. You can do it in HO scale; Just my opinion if you can and have the money to switch; N scale would give you much more room for your "room" size that you described.
i was and am in the same boat as you are and i found that what i thought i wanted to do and what i am going two do are 2 difrent things. i have layed track just to find out later i want to put something in that spot or i want to put some thing else in another spot so i rip it out and lay it down and rip it out again i look at it like this how many times have railroads riped there tracks out and put more down so they can fit a new roundhouse or car shop in where a set of tracks or building was. BUT it is best to have some sort of plan and making plans in scale is the best way to go i use packing paper you can get from wal-mart and draw on it its like a 2'x3' pcs of paper you can put your track on it your buildings on it and see how its going to fit and if you dont like it throw that page away
i also found that once you have a track plan to brake it all down into small 3' sections start with one section and once your done with that sectiion move on to the next that way the hole lay out dosnt become to over welming exp. my lay out room is a 12'x21' room and my plan is to do what you are doing run down one wall and down the next but to do all of that at one time isnt going to happen well it will but in stages all im working on now is the 12' run down the first wall and i broke that down into 3' sections im finished (maybe) with 2 of the 4 and working on the 3rd and thats where i have ben ripping track out my first plan was to put a city / town at thai point but now i want it to be an indistry / maint. segment
but thats my story and im sticking to it untill i deside to do something else
Not to throw confusion into the mix, but we used 3rd Planit, and found it very helpful.
Sue
Anything is possible if you do not know what you are talking about.
Paulus Jas
When someone is asking advice, I am looking seriously at his plans. When he draws 8 inches curves, 16" wide aisles and #2 switches he must expect some comments. When MC's only reponse is :" i am not a CAD artist" MC is TMHO not taking other persons seriously. No problem to you, but i don't like it
I certenly didn't mean to offend anyone with my crude drawing. It was ment as a blank sheet of paper with some ideas that I had in mind. I have seen some excellent ideas from this forum and was hoping that someone may have some suggestions. I am not sure where you came up with the 8" curves and the #2 switches since nothing was drawn to scale. Just Ideas to see if I was on the right track or may be expecting way to much for the space I have available.
Byron,
Yes you were the one that recommended the Muddlety Creek Branch. I really like that plan but the copies I received from MR were balck and white and I am having a problem trying to figure how it is layed out. It looks like there are several hidden switches under Sarahville and I am not sure how you get to the Houses and general store from River road since it looks to be higher than the track at the Pulpwood loading area. Another thing was that Allen stated that would hand lay code 70 track at the RS Tower if he were building the layout. I am not sure I want to try hand laying any track at this point. I did take a closer look at it last night and found that there was a runaround track going into Anthony Mine. I had completely missed that before and couldn't determine how I would deliver empties and pick up loaded cars if I was headed into the Mine. I can see now that it would be possible.
Thanks for all of your suggestions.I really enjoy you web site, its a shame that I don't always follow your advice since I built the tables before having a completed layout. I was having a problem coming up with anything on paper so I thought that I would go ahead and build some tables so I could lay out the track to see how thing would fit. As you probably gathered that hasn't worked out very well either.
hey by the wayi am also modeling the C&O there is a website for themand they have and will sind you blueprints of there railroad use google and put in the key word cohs.com
they sind it to you free of charge . they would like for you to donate but thats not such a bad thing since your getting a magazine and what ever blueprint your looking for ie. i had a yard that was up the street from me that got torn down in the 80's and they sint me the blueprints along with the mag. and in that mag was the prints of a a C&O depot that i built, the one with the shigles in that pic i posted its not the best scrath build in the world but for my 1st scrach build it didnt come out to bad
Courtney Kain,
Thanks, I will check it out.
C & O Steam It looks like there are several hidden switches under Sarahville and I am not sure how you get to the Houses and general store from River road since it looks to be higher than the track at the Pulpwood loading area.
It looks like there are several hidden switches under Sarahville and I am not sure how you get to the Houses and general store from River road since it looks to be higher than the track at the Pulpwood loading area.
One thing to recognize about published plans is that they need not be copied exactly. This is especially true for the scenic elements. That road could be routed anywhere, including simply assuming it comes from the right of the image -- "off scene", as it were. Those houses could be as high on the hill as need be to give clearance for the staging tracks below.
C & O Steam Another thing was that Allen stated that would hand lay code 70 track at the RS Tower if he were building the layout. I am not sure I want to try hand laying any track at this point.
Another thing was that Allen stated that would hand lay code 70 track at the RS Tower if he were building the layout. I am not sure I want to try hand laying any track at this point.
Again, not necessary to copy exactly, expecially given that your room is a different size and shape and the tables are already built. Since you are new to design, it may not be obvious, but you actually don't need the crossings at all. Instead, the track from Hillsdale Junction could extend only to another pulpwood loading area (or coal mine) behind the yard (right in front of the window). You could keep the track to Sarahville for a yard lead and to reach the original pulwood loading area.
That crossing is one slightly contrived bit that is an interesting feature, but compromises a couple of other things (including staging clearances). So I'd probably skip it, move it, and/or modify it to use a standard crossing.
There's absolutely no need to handlay to get this concept into your space.
C & O Steam its a shame that I don't always follow your advice since I built the tables before having a completed layout. I was having a problem coming up with anything on paper so I thought that I would go ahead and build some tables so I could lay out the track to see how thing would fit. As you probably gathered that hasn't worked out very well either.
its a shame that I don't always follow your advice since I built the tables before having a completed layout. I was having a problem coming up with anything on paper so I thought that I would go ahead and build some tables so I could lay out the track to see how thing would fit. As you probably gathered that hasn't worked out very well either.
That doesn't bother me, I'm used to people not following my advice -- I'm married! But I just think it's a more difficult way to get to the most suitable design, as you are discovering.
Built up flat-top tables are also a tougher way to start, in my opinion, to get elevation changes or subterranean staging in the final layout.
Again, when I recommended the McClelland design, it was as a general concept that could be used as a guide, not a suggestion that you should copy it exactly.
Chesapeake & Ohio Historical Society
this is the link
when you in there check out the back issues they have the hole magazine you can scrole through and print out any of the pages you want
cuyamaThat doesn't bother me, I'm used to people not following my advice -- I'm married!
That doesn't bother me, I'm used to people not following my advice -- I'm married!
LOL :-)
cuyama Again, when I recommended the McClelland design, it was as a general concept that could be used as a guide, not a suggestion that you should copy it exactly.
Here is an attempt to rough in the start of a Muddlety Creek inspired layout in MC's 11x11 foot room.
I have designed staging lengths for max train length one 10" engine (about 70-feet - your steam engines are quite a bit longer than this - 100 ft for the prototype, about 13" in H0 scale), 10-11 40-foot cars and a caboose. Could be extended quite a bit if you had single ended staging that dropped down to a shelf under the yard
I have only drawn the mainline, staging and yard, but there is the start of a branch line sneaking up around the top left hand corner at 2.4% incline, which should be at a an absolute minimum distance of 3" above the hidden staging track where it emerges from the visual divider about half way down the left wall.
It should be possible to have this branch go down towards a mine (climbing a little more on the way) just left of the door, with a switchback to another mine on the lower part of the peninsula.
I would maybe advise cutting down to size some of the the benchwork you have already made - especially along the lower wall, to just 18-24", so you can better reach things like staging (and get a bigger aisle between the lower wall and central peninsula.
Btw - all turnouts used as standard Peco code 75 turnouts.
Smile, Stein
Stein,
Thanks, for the ideas. Looks like a good plan and I like the idea of having another coal mine.
I have considered turning the door around, don't remember why I didn't do that when I built the room. Must have had a good reason at the time. The BOSS has decided to move all her sewing stuff out of the closet. Not sure why she was so upset, she only needed to move a few thing out of the way to reach her supplies. If I remove those doors it should provide some additional room and easier access to everything.
Thanks again for your help. What type of software are you using?
C & O Steam Looks like a good plan and I like the idea of having another coal mine.
Looks like a good plan and I like the idea of having another coal mine.
Well, that's one possibility. Have a look at the original Muddlety Creek and see if you see anything you like there. Also bear in mind that you don't have to follow the Muddlety Creek plan fully.
I'd say that the core design idea behind the Muddlety Creek plan seems to be the curved "Riverside yard", one track of which leads into an industry on the upper end of the double sided peninsula, while the track into lowermost end of the peninsula comes from the lower left hand corner.
Of course, the Muddlety Creek original has much longer staging tracks, since that design does not need to keep the entrance by the door open.
Another easy fix would be to go N scale - where you can fit 10 cars in H0 scale, you can fit 18 cars in N scale, and then you are starting to get trains that look more substantial.
Well, seems to me like you possibly could earn a few brownie points by taking out a piece of the wall in whatever room is outside the main door and making a new cupboard door from that side, while boarding up the cupboard door from inside the room.
Might make it easier to sell the idea that the main door into the room should be changed so it opens out from the room. Leaving the door (after turning it around) allows you to close the door while you are working on stuff that makes noise, stinks or creates dust.
As someone said : "politics is the art of compromise" ;-)
You are welcome.
For drawing, I use a freeware computer program called XtrkCad 4.0.2. For design, I use middle aged male brain version 0.99, along with a small library of design books and magazines, including MRP 1996 (the one with the original Muddlety Creek Branch layout plan) :-)
Smile,Stein