Thanks
C & O SteamPaul, Not sure I understand. What plan are you looking at in the 102 track plan? MC
Paul,
Not sure I understand. What plan are you looking at in the 102 track plan?
MC
Most likely the one he referred to about five or six messages further back in this thread:
Paulus JasI found another Thurmond design. In 102 realistic railroads: the Loup creek branch, plan 41 on page 40.
I found another Thurmond design. In 102 realistic railroads: the Loup creek branch, plan 41 on page 40.
Smile, Stein
hi MC
Your pike was still on my mind. Because I do not like hidden tracks behind a backdrop, I was stiil thinking about a way to leave that part out.
Just forgetting about the C&O main and reserving the big oval( or loop or lap) for the Loup (Wolf) Creek Branch (LCB) solved my problems. Without the 102 Realistic Track Plans I would never had got the idea of modeling part of the LCB. To get all the staging needed I ended up with a six track yard, rather big but since the C&O main is out you can run short(er) LCB trains; see the schematic.
The Thurmond classification yards are in staging (or not modeled if you prefer); Junction functions as an interchange between both branches. I added a cassette, so you can get fresh cars on your layout and the "old cars" from it.
The awesome Thurmond depot is still in, but only recieves a boxcar or two a day.
My thoughts only, keep smiling and have fun starting the builtPaul
Thanks for the kick in the butt..I hope to be ready to put some track down this weekend. I have been spending way too much time trying to make sure I have room for everything and really miss not having a layout.
Hi C&O,
of course it can, but a double deck with a helix sounds complicated. And I do not see any advantages in comparison with the Muddlety Creek.
If I were you I would start with Stein's big oval and one of the plans for Thurmond. I don't like hidden track so I would build a second bridge over New River or let the main go over the first bridge. But that's up to you. Sometimes you just have to take a decision and go for it.
A second decision to be taken concerns the branch. With a simple switch from the main or with the double crossings as on Allen McClellands design. Allen used scratchbuilt curved crossings, I used standard Atlas (30 degr) crossings.
With the big oval and Thurmond in, you can start running and start doing scenery on the right and top side of your pike. And believe me, when Cuyama presented you the MCB, he knew very well what he was doing.
Paul
I have considered this plan before but am not sure about the double layer and the helix. It also has 18" radious that will not work with my K-4's. It also looks like a point to point operation with no way to get the trains to go around the room.
No I haven't started anything yet, am still trying to get things worked out to see what will fit in the space I have available. I like to lay out the track to see what will work. So far I haven't had much success.
With your experience do you think this plan could be adapted to fit the space I have available?
Thanks for the help.
hi C&O
I understand you have started the built, can you share which design you are doing?
hi,
I am not so sure about the crossings. I took it from Allan McCLelland's Muddlety Creek, but as on Stein's plan you can have the branch diverging from the main. On the picture Stein provided there are three tracks in front of the depot and a four track yard is connected to the track on the bridge; with curved switches.
Thanks, I like it.The crossings across the main lines add some extra chalIenges that I never considered.
looking at the pictures Stein provided, I couln't resist; such a nice depot with a spur to a bridge.
But you'll still have to conceil the mainline east of the depot. The mainline has #6 switches, the branch over the bridge #4's.
MC has indicated up-thread that there's family history in Thurmond, so it sounds like an important sentimental druther. Nothing wrong with that - I'd model my hometown prototypically too, if it were more interesting Since his grandfather worked at the coaling tower, maybe the focus could be on the servicing facilities (or wherever the tower was), with the rest of it suggested off-board. Note that I haven't devoted too much brain time to this thread, so I may be off base. But it might be away to make some part of Thurmond happen for MC...
Paulus JasYou have been very specific about Thurmond, and we had some talk about a logging scene. I don't know anything about Thurmond, but you could come up with a drawing or map of the tracks in town; if you still want Thurmond in of course. It has not to be to scale as long as the functions are clear.
Library of congress, HABS/HAER collection:Yard: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/hhh.wv0301 (4 drawings, 30 pics, 79 data pages)Coaling station: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/hhh.wv0321 (2 drawings, 3 pics)Engine House: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/hhh.wv0303 (2 drawings, 10 pics)Depot: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/hhh.wv0302 (16 drawings, 6 pics)Description of Thurmond:http://www.coalheritage.org/page.aspx?id=31
Main characteristic of Thurmond: very long and narrow, located on a flood plain along the New River Gorge.
Not necessarily a great place to model proto-typically in the room available, especially not in H0 scale, and with pre-built benchwork - room is not big enough for the long and narrow peninsulas necessary to model a bigger part of the New River Gorge in a good way.
Example of H0 scale layout plan featuring Thurmond yard ca 1940: http://members.tripod.com/appalachian_railroad/tp_conewriver.html
Good luck on coming up with a more prototypical track plan of Thurmond for that room.
Grin,Stein
hi MC,
Stein has designed a very neat version of the MCB, but my feeling is to step back and think good about the scenes you want in.
You have been very specific about Thurmond, and we had some talk about a logging scene. I don't know anything about Thurmond, but you could come up with a drawing or map of the tracks in town; if you still want Thurmond in of course. It has not to be to scale as long as the functions are clear. The southern part of the pike could also be used for some nice switchbacks into a logging camp. But these are your decisions or wishes.
TMHO coalmining area's are rather urban and don't go well together with logging operations; so choices have to be made; but it's your layout and it's your choice.
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.
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.
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" ;-)
Thanks again for your help. What type of software are you using?
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
Stein,
Thanks, for the ideas. Looks like a good plan and I like the idea of having another coal mine.
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.
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.
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
Chesapeake & Ohio Historical Society
this is the link
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.
Best of luck.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Courtney Kain,
Thanks, I will check it out.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
-Crandell
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