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?
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).
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
cuyamaThe Custom Line #4s are closer to #4.5. They are a good match for curves of 24" minimum radius or so.
Thanks,
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 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.
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
Crandell,
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
Thanks for the support.
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.
MC
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.
-Crandell
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.
Paul
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.