HHPATH56 with many reverse loops within reverse loops.
with many reverse loops within reverse loops.
Huh? Have I gone blind - I don't see any obvious reverse loops in the layout?
Smile, Stein
Stein
I think you have. The curved leads leading to the wharf in the middle and the yard both lead back to the main and make a wye.
Wayne
wrumbel I think you have. The curved leads leading to the wharf in the middle and the yard both lead back to the main and make a wye. Wayne
I saw the wyes (and know how you have to wire wyes). What I didn't see was any reversing loops. But you are right - reversing is reversing, loop or not.
hi Graffen,
i would have a hard time choosing between the last two plans, both are awesome. For some reason I like the harbour on your 3'rd plan better (with an extra track in the yard maybe), at the same time the extra siding from plan 2 remains very attractive.
Hi Stein,
smiling
Paul
"JaBear" As an aside on a subject I do know a little more about is that even with the precedence of having the Boeing 747 series in service for the last 42 years the advent of the Airbus A380 has exposed inadequacies in the design of airport Infrastructure and manoeuvring areas.
As an aside on a subject I do know a little more about is that even with the precedence of having the Boeing 747 series in service for the last 42 years the advent of the Airbus A380 has exposed inadequacies in the design of airport Infrastructure and manoeuvring areas.
It also highlights the necessity to know how you spatially relate to your surroundings!
Cue this video of an Air France A380 giving a Comair CRJ-900 a "good game" pat on the hind quarters while taxiing around JFK airport in New York:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpLd-t1tcJU
Hold my beer... ya'll watch this!
80ktsClamp "JaBear": As an aside on a subject I do know a little more about is that even with the precedence of having the Boeing 747 series in service for the last 42 years the advent of the Airbus A380 has exposed inadequacies in the design of airport Infrastructure and manoeuvring areas. It also highlights the necessity to know how you spatially relate to your surroundings! Cue this video of an Air France A380 giving a Comair CRJ-900 a "good game" pat on the hind quarters while taxiing around JFK airport in New York: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpLd-t1tcJU
"JaBear": As an aside on a subject I do know a little more about is that even with the precedence of having the Boeing 747 series in service for the last 42 years the advent of the Airbus A380 has exposed inadequacies in the design of airport Infrastructure and manoeuvring areas.
Gidday, Yeah, you're dead right there, that incident was one of the ones I was thinking of, but as I was debating from the point that design planning is more often "reactive" instead of "proactive" I chose to ignore that accidents / incidents are seldom the result of one solitary action.
http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/aviation:accident-causation-model
Cheers, the Bear.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
MisterBeasleyI think this will be a very enjoyable layout to build, run and just observe. I'm in the process of building a carfloat terminal myself, so I've given that a lot of thought. Mine is based on the Walthers carfloat, which I was fortunate enough to find at Trainworld before the current run of them ran out. For unloading and loading the float, you need to think of where the outgoing cars will be placed before the carfloat "arrives," and where you will put the cars being pulled from the carfloat. As I look at the harbor area, you appear to have enough siding space, but to access it the switching will have to back out all the way on to the main line. Prototypical procedures would also call for a couple "idler" flat cars so that the engine didn't have to cross the apron bridge, making the string of switched cars even longer and requiring more fouling of the main line. Is that an entrance to staging in the lower right? I would provide a route back up to the surface further down, both to give you staging access from both directions and to give you the option of continuous running. When I do switching on my own layout, I like to have other trains running unattended.
I think this will be a very enjoyable layout to build, run and just observe.
I'm in the process of building a carfloat terminal myself, so I've given that a lot of thought. Mine is based on the Walthers carfloat, which I was fortunate enough to find at Trainworld before the current run of them ran out. For unloading and loading the float, you need to think of where the outgoing cars will be placed before the carfloat "arrives," and where you will put the cars being pulled from the carfloat. As I look at the harbor area, you appear to have enough siding space, but to access it the switching will have to back out all the way on to the main line. Prototypical procedures would also call for a couple "idler" flat cars so that the engine didn't have to cross the apron bridge, making the string of switched cars even longer and requiring more fouling of the main line.
Is that an entrance to staging in the lower right? I would provide a route back up to the surface further down, both to give you staging access from both directions and to give you the option of continuous running. When I do switching on my own layout, I like to have other trains running unattended.
Swedish Custom painter and model maker. My Website:
My Railroad
My Youtube:
Graff´s channel
HHPATH56Hi, What software program do you use to get those great structure and bat images? I assume that you are going DCC, with many reverse loops within reverse loops. I am still in at a point of wondering how many reverse loop modules are required on my 24'x24' HO layout. I was fortunate in having an inside stairway to my garage loft around the room layout. I would appreciate it if you would indicate where your tracks loops must be insulated, to prevent shorts. What is the radius of curvature of the lower right curve. It looks a little tight for passenger trains on this mainline. I plan to copy my layout on the "Train Player" program, so that I can simulate multi-loco operation, on my computer. Your layout is very interesting an should lend itself to "operation". Bob Hahn Have you considered using Hulett ubloaders? I animated mine with levers.
Paulus Jashi Graffen, i would have a hard time choosing between the last two plans, both are awesome. For some reason I like the harbour on your 3'rd plan better (with an extra track in the yard maybe), at the same time the extra siding from plan 2 remains very attractive. Hi Stein, smiling Paul
Hi Graffen
I noticed you said you were going to use spline for roadbed. I was wondering why you chose to have 2" wide strips. Just curious.
I built my splines out of 1/4" hardboard and made them 1" wide strips just to make the "in my head math" easier as I placed my risers at irregular intervals. I have an unsupported span of 4' that has not sagged a bit in about 4 years. The plan is to cut out that section and replace it with a big steel bridge. I keep an eye on it for obvious reasons, but it has not moved a bit.
Using thinner strips may save material.
Plan looks great, please don't forget to post progress photo's.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
Graffen
I used Hardboard. It is like pegboard material without the holes in it. In the U.S. they seem to call it Masonite but I think it is the same stuff. They may call it something else on your side of the planet.
Here is a photo of my 4' span as it goes over what will be a canyon to the floor. My hope is to build a steel bridge from scratch, based on the CPRs Stoney Creek bridge in the Canadian Rockies. It has not sagged at all since I put it up. However I don't think I would do that as a permanent solution as I am sure the ravages of time and physics will catch up to it someday. May I suggest a steel stud for a long unsupported span. A steel stud will not sag over time. I used one to go across my fireplace. You can see I butted it up against my spline on either side.
The steel stud. The photo shows supports. These were unnecessary for sagging issues, but I put them in to stop any twisting that may occur while I was adding the rock work.
Rock face under construction still.
One more thing I made my spline 7 strips wide. On the two outside pieces I cut them beveled to simulate the road bed shoulder.