Has anyone built this layout?

[#722]

I'm building a new layout and was wondering if anyone had built this layout featured in the Track Plans section. If you have built it and have pictures, would you care to share them so I can get a visual of what the tables will look like.

Thanks,

Jake

http://i476.photobucket.com/albums/rr127/izzy_02/Picture1-1.png

 

EDIT: I removed the picture of the layout from my photobucket account. I didn't realize that I was in violation of copyright laws by posting it. But in case you wanted to do some digging, its the Benedict & Wexford plan from the track plan pages. I would get the link for you all, but my subscription is up.

[cuyama]

Note that the layout was originally designed for a 10'X10' space, once one considers the recommended aisles. If you have that much space, alternative layout designs might allow for a broader minimum radius and other attractive features. For instance, the passing siding is too short for multiple trains to operate (unless one of them is a one-engine plus one-car train). Is your interest in a one-engine, one-crew shortline railroad?

The 4% grade is also pretty stiff, but at least it looks like the designer did allow for a transition from level to the grade, so it wouldn't be any worse than 4%.

How much space do you actually have? What do you like about this layout?

Byron

[Medina1128]

 Jake, that's a good looking layout; plenty of switching action, and continuous running if you so choose.

[galaxy]

The layout looks like it offers many operational avenues.

BUT, I would stay FAR FAR AWAY from that 4% grade. Being a bit greedy, I tried and learned the hard way that a 4% grade in HO just doesn't work well!! {except for real short trains and good pulling locos.}

If you really want to build it and not have a 4% grade, then perhaps you can build it so the underneath track drops below the "horizon" or "flat landscape"  while the rising upper is not so steep {2%} to get teh proper clearance.

2% grade {up or down} is all I allow for now and will ever allow on future layouts.

Just my

[shayfan84325]

I like the track plan, but the 4% grade with curves will be a problem.  If you stretch the big rectangle to make the grade longer, that may help.  On my layout I have a long 2% grade with curves and my 20T shays can only pull 4 or 5 cars up it.

Also, don't put the big rectangle in a corner.  In order to work on a layout you have to be able to reach it and that section is over 4 feet wide.  You'll have to be able to get to the other side of the rectangle.  Because of that, it actually takes up more space than it appears to.

[fwright]

To further illustrate what Byron is saying:

My space is 10ft x 7.5ft, with one 7.5ft side having a 60" wide window in the corner that also serves as an emergency escape for the basement bedroom.

There are 2 viable configurations, one similar to the track plan you proposed, the other being an around the walls donut.

The big advantage of a rectangle plus shelf is the lack of a duckunder, liftout, or whatever else is needed to get to the inside of the donut.  And in my case, I don't have to deal with the window if I use the rectangle plus shelf.

The donut gives me 22" radius (or bigger if I want it) instead of 18" on the rectangle.  Passing sidings on the donut can be more realistic in length - 6ft instead of 4ft - which means 12 car trains instead of 7 car trains for my 19th Century equipment.  Finally, the donut can easily have a 36" wide center aisle instead of a 24" aisle of the rectangle plus shelf.  The latter may drive the decision - despite my intense dislike of duckunders, liftouts, etc., I will mock up the 24" aisle to see if it is tolerable.  If not, I will have to go with the donut.  My planned shelf needs 18" minimum depth to accomplish what I want.

Also consider that my modeling is focused on both short lines and narrow gauge of the 1880s and 1890s.  The equipment readily handles 18" radius curves, and I can fit a prototypical 10 car train (in the mountains) in a 6ft siding.  Even a 7 car train in a 4ft siding is not totally absurd for a short line in 1900 in the mountains.  None of this is true for more more modern eras or more mainstream railroading, especially post transition-era.  Equipment to be run may drive the decision just as much as aisle width will drive the decision for me.

my thoughts, your choices

Fred W

....modeling foggy coastal Oregon, where it's always 1900....

[tomikawaTT]

ROFLMAO about all the, "Don't do that 4% grade!" comments.

I have a railroad that is deliberately being built with a 4% ruling grade, and a lot more than 75mm total rise.  As for curves, try 350mm (slightly under 14 inch) radius, including a couple of 360-plus degrees (aka 1-turn helices.)  The typical train is a six-drivered teakettle tank loco, one 4-wheel freight car and a short coach.  If there are more freight cars I add another teakettle - or two - up to the limit of siding length, which is about the same as that of the illustrated layout.  Long coal trains (48 total axles) are the responsibility of a 2-6-6-2T with traction tires.  (Fortunately, loads run downhill.)  OTOH, most of the passenger schedule is operated with a four wheel rail bus.  All the places where a car might have to stand without a locomotive to anchor it are level.

If anyone thinks that having only one or a few cars to switch (while dodging opposing trains and, especially, staying out of the Mallet's way) isn't enough operation to hold one's interest, think again.

Of course, if I get bored with the laid back operation of the TTT, I can shift to JNR mode.  The ruling grade is only 2.5% (same as the prototype's) but there are well over 100 trains scheduled on a slow timetable 'day.'  Sometimes I wish I was an octopus!

Chuck (Modeling the frenetic railroad pace of Central Japan in September, 1964)

[cuyama]

tomikawaTT

If anyone thinks that having only one or a few cars to switch (while dodging opposing trains and, especially, staying out of the Mallet's way) isn't enough operation to hold one's interest, think again.

There are no opposing trains to dodge. The layout in question is a one engine, one crew, one job affair.

The fact that 4% grades work in your particular case is not an indication of general suitability for all  modelers, unfortunately.

[tgindy]

Query...

To ease the 4% grade down to a 2% grade -- Would a track spiral, not a helix, perhaps on the right side of the 4x6 layout location, be part of a redesign -- If some of the flat town were eliminated, or partially relocated to suit, on the resulting hillside?

[cuyama]

tgindy

Query...

To ease the 4% grade down to a 2% grade -- Would a track spiral, not a helix, perhaps on the right side of the 4x6 layout location, be part of a redesign -- If some of the flat town were eliminated, or partially relocated to suit, on the resulting hillside?

Actually, it's probably simpler than that, if that were the only limitation of the layout.

With a little rework, the interchage track could go in the other direction. Then the track to the branch terminal could go outside the oval and would not need to be elevated at all.

But of course there are many other possibilities in this space. Perhaps we'll hear from the Original Poster on what he likes about this layout.

Byron

[shayfan84325]

You could revise the plan like this (red lines) and eliminate the grade issue completely:

[#722]

Thanks everyone for the input.

First off, my space is 10'x12.5'. This is the maximum size that I can use. What I like about this plan is the fact that there is plenty of operation in such a small amount of space. My idea for the plan is to eliminate the loop in the middle and have it be a "helix" of sorts to lead into another shelf near the top portion of the layout. Eventually, I'd like to build all the way around and make a complete circle with the large section being a peninsula. I'm thinking of making the center section just a regular 4x8, making the grade longer and saving a little bit of space on the top of the plan.

I'm 19 and run 75 miles a week, so I have decided on 18" aisleways which will give me the room I need to do what I want to do.

My vision for this layout is that it will be set in the Appalachians around the 1950's. I want plenty of operation (I get bored of watching trains just go around) but also want scenic elements (I love recreating nature). This plan kind of has both.

I hope that clears some things up for you guys. If you have anymore questions, please ask away.

Thanks,

Jake

[shayfan84325]

Sounds like an interesting plan.

When I was 19, I rode my bike 250 miles per week and at 145# I was 75% of the man I am today, but I still needed 24" aisles. It has more to do with the distance from the tips of your fingers to the point of your elbows than your girth (the term "elbow room" applies).  I'd urge you to make them 30" and be more comfortable working.

[richhotrain]

#722

I'm building a new layout and was wondering if anyone had built this layout featured in the Track Plans section. If you have built it and have pictures, would you care to share them so I can get a visual of what the tables will look like.

Thanks,

Jake

http://i476.photobucket.com/albums/rr127/izzy_02/Picture1-1.png

 

EDIT: I removed the picture of the layout from my photobucket account. I didn't realize that I was in violation of copyright laws by posting it. But in case you wanted to do some digging, its the Benedict & Wexford plan from the track plan pages. I would get the link for you all, but my subscription is up.

Posting the plan is a violation of copyright laws?  Even if you credit the source?

 

[Texas Zepher]

I don't know where the doors are, but given your space I would extend the 4.5 x 6.5 space to be 8 feet or longer.  You could pinch the middle to make the isle wider there.  Making it longer would also lessen the grade.

Another option to eliminate the steep grade would be to make it a crossing instead of a bridge.    Personally, for a layout this size a train of 6 cars or so is going to be large so a 4% might not be all that bad. 

[Anonymous]

 With that space you have available, I think you can do much better than just recreating this plan. It is not a bad plan for someone , who has already built that roundy-round section and now wants to add something to it.

I guess MR´s intention was to show, what one can do with two 4 x 8 sheets of plywood, but not to come up with a layout design, which still fits today´s aspects of operation. Check the track plan data base and other sources. I also recommend to take a look at the famous "Heart of Georgia" layout.

[cuyama]

With all the changes you are planning, starting from scratch would yield a much more satisfying layout ... but good luck.

#722

I'm 19 and run 75 miles a week, so I have decided on 18" aisleways which will give me the room I need to do what I want to do.

I hope you change your mind -- an 18" aisle will prove not to be adequate, no matter how thin you are.

[markpierce]

When I was a teenager with a 32-inch waist, this mid-1960s-donut-shaped layout with a 24-inch-wide aisle was adequate.  Just adequate if I was alone.

 

Mark

[jwhitten]

richhotrain

#722

I'm building a new layout and was wondering if anyone had built this layout featured in the Track Plans section. If you have built it and have pictures, would you care to share them so I can get a visual of what the tables will look like.

Thanks,

Jake

http://i476.photobucket.com/albums/rr127/izzy_02/Picture1-1.png

 

EDIT: I removed the picture of the layout from my photobucket account. I didn't realize that I was in violation of copyright laws by posting it. But in case you wanted to do some digging, its the Benedict & Wexford plan from the track plan pages. I would get the link for you all, but my subscription is up.

Posting the plan is a violation of copyright laws?  Even if you credit the source?

 

 

 

I am nearly certain that posting the plan for the purposes of this conversation, or other similar ones, is perfectly legal and legitimate and falls squarely under the "fair use" clause. If there's any doubt, just make it a parody of the original, and then you'd be completely home free.

John

[SpaceMouse]

cuyama

With all the changes you are planning, starting from scratch would yield a much more satisfying layout ... but good luck.

I'm with Byron here.

Take 10 minutes and read my "Beginner's Guide to Layout Design". Click to link below in my signature.

Start by drawing out your space, including windows and doors and work from there.

[rrinker]

 The with extra space above and beyond the 10x10 to use, an around the walls type plan would probably be more suitable. You wouldn;t be so limited to 18" radius curves, if you plan to use larger or more modern equipment. And with a full 10' width, or on the 12.5' side, you could put in a center penninusla and still have adequate aisles on either side. 18" is VERY tight even if you are very thin. Mock it up and try it - use two chairs or tables, and put them 18" apart - use the backs of the chairs so it's higher on your body. Your feet and legs might easily clear 18" - what about your hips, or if you build up that high, your shoulders? I'm a pretty hefty guy and if the width limitation was down below my hips I can easily get past 18", but any higher up, forget it.

 Take a look at my plan. While the actual track layout may not be of interest to everyone (it's a fairly accurate depiction of the real railroad in the locations modeled), the footprint might prove useful. You have 6" more on the small side than I do, and even with the 2' wide penninsula in my plan, there's about 28" on either side.  Many alterations are possible - 18" benchwork on each side instead of 24" and 12", narrow the penninsula, etc.

                                        --Randy