Trains.com

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Moving - New Layout build

10040 views
135 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: west coast
  • 7,670 posts
Posted by rrebell on Saturday, October 24, 2015 10:09 PM

Your drawing is not to scale, it show one wall twice as long as other. Give us room dimentions and opening dementions.

 

 

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • 7,486 posts
Posted by ndbprr on Sunday, October 25, 2015 6:05 AM
If the vertical distance in the drawing is the 11' distance and each section is 2' that only leaves some pretty narrow aisles.
  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,281 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Sunday, October 25, 2015 6:09 AM

Skip the peninsula in the middle and concentrate on an aorund-the-walls layout.

Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 30,002 posts
Posted by rrinker on Sunday, October 25, 2015 10:30 AM

 I'll be the contrarian. That's about the size of my previous layout space (after you subtracted for having to keep the one side away from the wall because of the sloped ceiling). I had one side 2 feet wide where my yard was, the opposite wall was 18" wide, and the penninsula was planned at 18" wide, which left the aisles at 3 feet each, plenty.

 34" radius curves somewhat cramp the possibilities in a smaller space. You mnay have to cut down what you model by a great deal. A shorter length passenger terminal, with shorter trains, on the penninsula and supporting trackage around the walls, rather than trying to simulate and entire railroad. Most other switching, besides the passenger trains and RPOs would be company service cars bringing supplies to the commissary and so forth, so you'd be mostly giving up freight operation. Or take a completely different tack and cut the curves down to 26-27" and ditch the passenger trains and go freight.

My room size layout modeled a specific freight branch, somewhat in detail although all tracks were not exactly arranged as per the prototype.

                     --Randy

 


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Heart of Georgia
  • 5,406 posts
Posted by Doughless on Sunday, October 25, 2015 12:32 PM

If you're going to have a reverse loop with a bit of a tight radius (for a modern layout with longer cars) I prefer to have the turntable located in the middle of the loop as well as the station nearby.  I'd put the turntable and station on the north wall and the flood loader and sand transfer facility along the south wall, and reconfigure the tracks a little.

- Douglas

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,582 posts
Posted by mlehman on Sunday, October 25, 2015 4:21 PM

Tradeoffs can be hard.

Is the return loop important enough in your scheme of things to justify the space devoted to it? I say that as someone who has 4 turntables, 4 wyes (when the last one has track laid on it, anyway), and 2 loops on my narrowgauge, but only a single loop on my standard gauge. And the SG loop isn't used a a loop, but rather as a double-ended industrial siding now.

I do my SG turning in staging as needed and found little need for it then. Motive power gets turned from time to time by hand, mostly, along with some passenger trains.

That could be space for your Union Station.

Mike Lehman

Urbana, IL

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Monday, October 26, 2015 7:35 PM

I had no idea my demension were off so bad, geeeezus!

I'm using Anyrail for the first time, and I just figured out how to enable the size and gride demensions. I was using Atlas RTS before.

Sooooooo, now that I have the correct demensions, with the 12" grid line enabled.

I can still fit the peninsula in there, and still maintain the curves. The Mountain loop will be 32" radius.

I even found a place to add the diesel house next to the turntable.
The diesel house is three tracks, and I can just go straight through to the turntable.

Also more imporantly, I found a better spot for Cheyenne Depot Station and the train shed.

I can deal with the tight widths, I'm skinny guy.

Might work? What y'all think?

 

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Heart of Georgia
  • 5,406 posts
Posted by Doughless on Monday, October 26, 2015 7:55 PM

I think the space is a challenge for fitting in everything you want to do.  The peninsula makes entering the room a very tight squeeze.

I know that you like to photograph long trains, and have some nice mountain scenes on your backdrops (I hope you saved them).  IIRC, you also have a nice collection of locomotives. 

I really think the mountain loop takes up too much space.  You'll probably want a reversing loop to turn trains to head around the other direction, so I'm suggesting that you keep the loop and I'll stick with with my suggestion of putting the turntable in there and make the entire north wall a yard scene. 

Hopefully, your backdrops and some creative scenery will make the east and south walls a more rural mountain scene. 

You might try originating the peninsula from the east wall and making it shorter.  It will give you more space near the door for popping up into the room.

- Douglas

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,582 posts
Posted by mlehman on Monday, October 26, 2015 8:50 PM

Yes, much better rendering of what space is there.

Got two suggestions. I agree with doughless on relocating the TT/shop to inside the loop if the loop is a keeper. It could go between the access hatch and the aisleinside the loop. You can push the access hatch back toward the upper left corner. One option is to conceal that under a mountain as a liftout.

Know you were leaning away from more than one deck, but here's a suggestion. I also think the aisles are on the narrow side. I used to be a skinny guy, but things changeHmm

I tend to think you'll be happier in there if the aisles are wider. I suggest double-decking the penisula while making it narrower. Staging can be on the bottom deck, accessed by a ramp the curves up toward where it currently follows, along the top wall, then surfaces near the upper right corner to connect along the right wall whever is most appropriate.. The track that is currently along the top wall may have to be shifted forward 3" to accomodate the last part at the top of the grade.

That way you could make the entire top level of the penisula dedicated to a single industry, or put one industry on each side of a view block on it.

Mike Lehman

Urbana, IL

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Monday, October 26, 2015 9:03 PM

Thanks for all the feedback guys, I really appreciate the help.

Yes I have all the mountain backdrops, easy to remove. The mountain loop, coal mine, coal flood loader all co-inside together. So I want to keep it that way.

The Ethanol Plant is a large facilty. I was never able to build on my old layout. So I need room for all the buildings. I will add a back drop in between the 2 staging tracks, and the ethanol plant, for a viewblock.

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,281 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 5:52 AM

Michael, let me offer a suggestion.

You love to run long passenger trains over long stretches and you do it well.

You also love freight operations and servicing industries, the coal mine, the coal flood loader, and the ethanol plant, and you do it well.

Given the constraints of an 11' x 13' room, you need to build a 2-level layout, one level for passenger operations and one level for freight operations.

No need for a helix or lengthy grade change. Just operate each level independently.  Just think of the space that you could devote to each type of operation.

In my opinion, the 2-level around the wall layout, with no peninsula, and no helix or grade change, is the clear winner.

Think about it. Plenty of open interior space to maneuver.

Rich

 

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    June 2007
  • 8,892 posts
Posted by riogrande5761 on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 7:05 AM

I think around the walls is the only way to go of course, in that space.  I have a basement room of 10x18 feet and thats what I did, but no penninsula - just decided around the walls only and my minimum radius is 32-inches for long rolling stock.  Looks like you've done about as much with the space as can be managed.

Two levels suggested by Rich is intriguing.  I actually have two levels in my 10x18 foot space but in my case I put an 11 track staging/storage yard under a main yard on the bottom level, and the other side of the room has 2.9% grades up to the main level is all.  But Motley's has more switching - only switching on my layout is off the main yard.

Rio Grande.  The Action Road  - Focus 1977-1983

  • Member since
    August 2013
  • From: Richmond, VA
  • 1,890 posts
Posted by carl425 on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 9:22 AM
I'd connect the peninsula to the right side of the layout for 3 reasons.  First off, putting the bulge of the reverse loop next to the open section at the end of the peninsula will make it easier to maneuver, second is that you can then go from the entrance of the room down either side of the layout and not have to travel the entire length of the U, and third and most important you'll have more clearance when you come up from the duckunder and have to aim a little less precisely.

I have the right to remain silent.  By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 10:10 AM

Well I just tried to use the peninsula on the right side. And it won't work. Then there's no room for the river/bridge scene. (which is my favorite scene by the way).

Another issue now I'm having. Is the reverse loop. Right now its a one way reverse loop. There's no way now to get the trains to run counter-clockwise. What do I do now?

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,582 posts
Posted by mlehman on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 10:39 AM

Motley
There's no way now to get the trains to run counter-clockwise. What do I do now?

Can you fit a full double cross-over in the upper right area where the single cross-over starts to lead into the loop?

Mike Lehman

Urbana, IL

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 11:08 AM

mlehman

 

 
Motley
There's no way now to get the trains to run counter-clockwise. What do I do now?

 

Can you fit a full double cross-over in the upper right area where the single cross-over starts to lead into the loop?

 

 
Yes I can fit the double-crossover there. But I'm still confused about how to get trains to run counter-clockwise?
 

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    August 2014
  • From: CO
  • 265 posts
Posted by pt714 on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 11:44 AM

I'll admit up front I have little experience designing. Seems to me, though, that if you want to turn whole trains around to run counterclockwise you need another loop somewhere, and space-wise it would make the most sense to put it directly above or beneath the existing one. Maybe you could keep the leads to staging and the ethanol plant attached where they are (to the existing loop), drop the grade slightly across the layout so you have enough clearance, and extend the main past the sand frac facility into a second reverse loop, directly underneath the first. 

That said, I find Rich's separate two-level (two-layout?) idea quite attractive.

P

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,582 posts
Posted by mlehman on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 11:48 AM

If running clockwise, stop and then back through the loop from the turnout connecting it and the main at the top of the left side. Go through the double cross-over and suddenly your're facing counter clockwise.

Now that I think of it, where you had it as a single-cross-over would've worked that way, too, so I over-thunk that one a bitEmbarrassed

The double-X-over gives you more route options, though.

Mike Lehman

Urbana, IL

  • Member since
    February 2015
  • 223 posts
Posted by Choops on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 11:56 AM

Motley
Another issue now I'm having. Is the reverse loop. Right now its a one way reverse loop. There's no way now to get the trains to run counter-clockwise. What do I do now?

Don't need reverse loops.  Unhook engine and rehook to other end of train.

 

Or instead of two reverse loops make the peninsula the third leg of a wye.  Pull into the peninsule from any direction back out in any direction.

Steve

Modeling Union Pacific between Cheyenne and Laramie in 1957 (roughly)
  • Member since
    August 2013
  • From: Richmond, VA
  • 1,890 posts
Posted by carl425 on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 12:10 PM

Motley
I'm still confused about how to get trains to run counter-clockwise?

Is the reverse loop hidden or visible track?

Remember that there are really two standards for minimum radius for any length equipment.  There is the minimum where the models don't look like toys on the track, and the minimum where the models will run without problems.  Most stuff will run on a much tighter curve than looks good.  If the loop is hidden, you can use the difference to your advantage.

You could put a 24-26" radius hidden reverse loop under your ethanol plant on the peninsula and attach it to the around the room oval with a wye.  This would also help your access issue in the back left corner and may also give you the opportunity to attach to the right side with the river scene on the left.

I have the right to remain silent.  By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.

  • Member since
    February 2015
  • 223 posts
Posted by Choops on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 12:36 PM

Your radii On your drawing do not look like 34" minimums.

Modeling Union Pacific between Cheyenne and Laramie in 1957 (roughly)
  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 12:37 PM

mlehman

If running clockwise, stop and then back through the loop from the turnout connecting it and the main at the top of the left side. Go through the double cross-over and suddenly your're facing counter clockwise.

Now that I think of it, where you had it as a single-cross-over would've worked that way, too, so I over-thunk that one a bitEmbarrassed

The double-X-over gives you more route options, though.

 

AHA!!!!!!! Nice, I have no idea why I kept looking at it running tains in my head, and couldn't figure it out.

Heck, maybe I'll just go with the double-crossover anyways. Like you said, easier to navigate the routes.

As far as the DCC auto-reverser, will I have any issues trying to issolate the track? Where do you reccomend I put the gaps? Before, or after the crossover?

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 12:38 PM

Choops

Your radii On your drawing do not look like 34" minimums.

 

 
Ya I had to comprimise. They are closer to 32" now.

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 30,002 posts
Posted by rrinker on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 12:41 PM

 Double deck the layout, using the nolix concept to gain the height around the room. It doesn;t even have to be a full double deck, but really just enough to stack 2 loops on top of each other. You wouldn;t have a continuous run in oen direction around the room, but running loop to loop you would still have the ability to have a train continuously circulate with no intervention (if using autoreversers for the loops). Definitely keep teh loops stacked, you don;t have room for two such large loops each taking up their own chunk of space, so make one big space eater serve a double purpose. With a true double deck design you would circle the room twice. Put the deep bridge scene diagonal for one level outside fo the loop, one of the levels crosses the bridge, the other level is hidden behind the falls and river. Staging at each end woudl extend off the loops, above the top level on one side and below the lower level at the other end.

                       --Randy

 


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    February 2015
  • 223 posts
Posted by Choops on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 12:49 PM

Motley
Ya I had to comprimise. They are closer to 32" now.

When I draw your reverse loop in cad 32"r the bench work ends about 6.5 feet from the left wall.

Steve

Modeling Union Pacific between Cheyenne and Laramie in 1957 (roughly)
  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 1:07 PM

I'm using Peco track/switches. With their Peco switch machines. I see the Peco doesn't have the double-crossover. Only Walthers does?

Is there a way to "retro-fit" the Peco switch machine onto the Walthers switches? The attach underneath, and the pins are inserted into holes into the sliding part of the tie.

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    June 2007
  • 8,892 posts
Posted by riogrande5761 on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 1:11 PM

Motley

Another issue now I'm having. Is the reverse loop. Right now its a one way reverse loop. There's no way now to get the trains to run counter-clockwise. What do I do now?

I noticed that right away, but as Mike noted, you could back the trains into the reverse loop to get them facing the other way.

Or, another thing you could do is use the same space as the first reverse loop is add a second reverse loop by ramping down below or up above, to a second reverse level, where the other reverse loop could enter from the opposite direction in the same lobe of benwork.  Technically that way you could run trains from one reverse loop to another and back. 

I had a layout like that, my first garage layout although in the track scematic I had enough distance to fit a full yard some single track, and a passing siding inbetween the reverse loops.  I actually sold that layout sans scenery to a guy up near Kokomo or Peru Indiana - I assume he finished it - it had modular benchwork so it could be disassembled, put in a U-haul truck and bolted back together - of course the track would need to be fitted back in across the joints but thats small potatos compared to building a layout from scratch!

Rio Grande.  The Action Road  - Focus 1977-1983

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 1:18 PM

Choops

 

 
Motley
Ya I had to comprimise. They are closer to 32" now.

 

When I draw your reverse loop in cad 32"r the bench work ends about 6.5 feet from the left wall.

Steve

 

 
It should be 5.5 ft. 32" x 2 = 64" = 5.333 ft.
 

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,582 posts
Posted by mlehman on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 1:23 PM

Motley
As far as the DCC auto-reverser, will I have any issues trying to issolate the track? Where do you reccomend I put the gaps? Before, or after the crossover?

I would make the auto-reversing section the track between the top turnout on the left wall that enters the loop section to the right until the turnout to the shop/TT lead. If that's not longer than your longest train, then extend it towards the double crossover as needed (in one or both directions along the loop) and move the gaps to suit.

Mike Lehman

Urbana, IL

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 1:31 PM

Ok made a few minor adjustments. And added the double-crossover on top trackwork.

Lookin good now?

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    February 2015
  • 223 posts
Posted by Choops on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 2:20 PM

You almost have a double main line.  Keep going.

Steve

Modeling Union Pacific between Cheyenne and Laramie in 1957 (roughly)
  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Heart of Georgia
  • 5,406 posts
Posted by Doughless on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 2:29 PM

Motley

Well I just tried to use the peninsula on the right side. And it won't work. Then there's no room for the river/bridge scene. (which is my favorite scene by the way).

Try a mirror-reverse of the plan, with the loop and peninsula on the right.  Then, you might be able to trim a few inches from the benchwork to give you more space to enter the room.

 

- Douglas

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,281 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3:41 PM

Motley

 

 
mlehman

If running clockwise, stop and then back through the loop from the turnout connecting it and the main at the top of the left side. Go through the double cross-over and suddenly your're facing counter clockwise.

Now that I think of it, where you had it as a single-cross-over would've worked that way, too, so I over-thunk that one a bitEmbarrassed

The double-X-over gives you more route options, though.

 

 

 

AHA!!!!!!! Nice, I have no idea why I kept looking at it running tains in my head, and couldn't figure it out.

I would think that one through, long and hard.  Do you really want to back an entire train through the loop to reverse direction? As someone else pointed out, to reverse the direction of trains while running forward, you need a second loop.

Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Heart of Georgia
  • 5,406 posts
Posted by Doughless on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 4:09 PM

Michael:

I doodled an alternate plan by tracing a lot of what you have already.  It primarily takes advantage of having an access hatch in the loop, so I eliminated the peninsula and put the ethanol plant in front of the loop.  Also, if the closet is beg enough, I put the staging tracks back there behind a backdrop, accessible from the closet.  Also, there is now a wye incorporated into the loop for turning trains (albeit backing up) and the entire layout is double main line.  Other scenes were relocated to accommodate. 

Pick what you like from it or nothing at all..

It uses some Walthers curved turnouts..#8s in the lower left.  They have a 36 outside and 32 inch inside radius.  The south turnout into the flood loader in a #7.5, a 32 outside and 28 inside.  Only locos and coal hoppers will be negotiating the inside part of the turnout, so a 28 inch radius s/b fine.

Things might be a bit tight, so if you're interested, you might have to draw it precisely to scale.

And now that I look closer, I have a crossover in the lower wye, so you can eliminate one of the crossovers on the east side.

- Douglas

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 5:03 PM

Thanks Doughless, I appreciate all the help with this. But I think I like the peninsula. Being able to have the staging tracks there, as well as the ethanol plant, which takes up a lot of room.

But I like Steve's idea with the double-mainline. I extend the track down the loop, to the left side there. But it requires a crossover. Because of the loop track.

Is it ok to have a level crossing on that loop track? How will it perform? Will I have any issues?

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Sunday, November 1, 2015 12:02 AM

Wheeeweeee! Got everything moved yesterday (Friday). The move went quit smooth.

Good news. When I first viewed the house, I didn’t have a tape measure when I was here first looking at the house. So I walked it of the distance. Just went digging for my tape measure (and camera). Holy smokes!

Its 15.5 ft x 12.0 ft. That’s a nice surprise. I’ll have plenty of room. The door in the corner opens inside, so that’s where the duckunder will be.

And I relocated Depot Station!

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,582 posts
Posted by mlehman on Sunday, November 1, 2015 1:32 AM

Excellent! More room is ALWAYS better than less. Looks like an useful revision. Have to think about it more to offer any useful commentary at this hour...Sleep

Mike Lehman

Urbana, IL

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, November 1, 2015 10:04 AM

Michael - check those curves, some appear to be quite tight! Also check the distance of the track to the layout edge, a couple of inches more would certainly improve the looks of the layout!

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: west coast
  • 7,670 posts
Posted by rrebell on Sunday, November 1, 2015 10:52 AM

I will tell you one thing, your walking spaces look too small, you need 30" min or you will not be happy long term. How do I know this, I was a space planner once in the 1-1 world, more is better but that is the min, skinny or not.

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Sunday, November 1, 2015 12:46 PM

Ya I was getting worried about the isle spaces. 2 ft just isn't enough.

I just don't have room for the Ethanol Plant. I really wanted it too. I have all the buidings purchased already.

Well that sucks. But I enlarged the mountain loop benchwork to 6 ft now. So inside curve is 33" radius, and the outside is 35".

Anyways, I moved the Island over to the right side now, and only has the two staging tracks.

Looks to have plenty of elbow room now?

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, November 1, 2015 1:36 PM

Michael,

I don´t know whether you will have ample elbow room available. You have been trying to beat the system a number of times in that plan - that´s not going to work! Take more care in drawing the plan - that´s essential to avoid a headache later on.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: west coast
  • 7,670 posts
Posted by rrebell on Sunday, November 1, 2015 3:31 PM

Motley

Ya I was getting worried about the isle spaces. 2 ft just isn't enough.

I just don't have room for the Ethanol Plant. I really wanted it too. I have all the buidings purchased already.

Well that sucks. But I enlarged the mountain loop benchwork to 6 ft now. So inside curve is 33" radius, and the outside is 35".

Anyways, I moved the Island over to the right side now, and only has the two staging tracks.

Looks to have plenty of elbow room now?

 

What is the min. radius your stuff will work on ? The reason for asking is you can hide part of the loop and min. the radius in the hidden spot. I have a loop were all the hidden is 18" radius but the visible is much more.

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Heart of Georgia
  • 5,406 posts
Posted by Doughless on Sunday, November 1, 2015 6:40 PM

If the loop is to be a mountain, that means you won't be able to see the track along the wall on the backside of the mountain, right?  Why not use the mountain as a viewblock and place the staging tracks back there where they parked trains won't be seen.

And as others have said, make sure your measurements and switch frogs are to scale otherwise the back and forth can be futile.

As I see it, you drew the entry door only 18 inches wide.  Its probably more like 30 inches....plus another 3 or 4 inches away from the left wall to house the framing. IOW, its right edge will be right at the third verticle line from the left, and its swing will extend to almost the third horizontal line from the bottom.

- Douglas

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,582 posts
Posted by mlehman on Sunday, November 1, 2015 6:51 PM

Motley
Looks to have plenty of elbow room now?

As a matter of fact, looking at the aisle width from the view of elbow room might help solve some problems. You can get away with slightly narrower aisles -- to the layout edge anyway -- if the deck height is relatively high. Somewhere between about mid-bicep and should height, but ABOVE elbow height. Shoulders are wide when stationary, but it's elbow swing that defines the width of the paths we move in.

Don't know if that's work for you, but makes it easier to get under things for wiring, etc, as well as maximizing storage below. You may even be able to build a workbench under there.

There are drawbacks and you do need a high ceiling to take advantage, especially if you want decent height mountains. Reach in depth is affected, etc. If you're tall, where it ends up being will be hard on shorter visitors. Just thought it worth mentioning, you'd have to decide if it's a useful idea or not.

Mike Lehman

Urbana, IL

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Sunday, November 1, 2015 10:15 PM

Sir Madog

Michael,

I don´t know whether you will have ample elbow room available. You have been trying to beat the system a number of times in that plan - that´s not going to work! Take more care in drawing the plan - that´s essential to avoid a headache later on.

 

 
Geeezus Ulrich, I would not have expected those comments coming from you.
 
I thought this was a model railroad forum, where other members give feedback, and help designing plan? 
 
Good greif man.. Look, I will just build it the way I want to. And if I don't like something, I'll rip it out and re-do it.
 

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Sunday, November 1, 2015 10:29 PM

mlehman

 

 
Motley
Looks to have plenty of elbow room now?

 

As a matter of fact, looking at the aisle width from the view of elbow room might help solve some problems. You can get away with slightly narrower aisles -- to the layout edge anyway -- if the deck height is relatively high. Somewhere between about mid-bicep and should height, but ABOVE elbow height. Shoulders are wide when stationary, but it's elbow swing that defines the width of the paths we move in.

Don't know if that's work for you, but makes it easier to get under things for wiring, etc, as well as maximizing storage below. You may even be able to build a workbench under there.

There are drawbacks and you do need a high ceiling to take advantage, especially if you want decent height mountains. Reach in depth is affected, etc. If you're tall, where it ends up being will be hard on shorter visitors. Just thought it worth mentioning, you'd have to decide if it's a useful idea or not.

 

 
Thanks Mike, you're always so helpful and nice to me. You have lots of great suggestions.
 
I'm not going crazy on the mountain. In fact, there will be no tunnels. Just a few hills, like near the timberline. I'm thinking no higher than 15" in heighth on the mountain. No cliffs, but I will include some rock outcroppings.
 
Something like this:
For the layout height, I was thinking somewhere around chest high. My old layout was waist high and it was too low. I felt myself bending over to see the trains up close.
 
I'm done designing now, had enough. I'm ready to build it. I'll figure out the problems as I go. As I did with my first layout.
 

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, November 2, 2015 2:00 AM

Michael,

I did not mean to be patronizing, but what´s the use in drawing a plan with a CAD tool if you don´t employ the main feature of it - the "sanity check" telling you whether everything will finally fit the way you want to have it?

 

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Monday, November 2, 2015 5:25 AM

I'm not even using CAD for this. I'm using the free version of Anyrail. I enabled the 12" grid lines. Thats all I have for size reference.

It doesn't have a "sanity check" button. Must have left it out.

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Southeast Texas
  • 5,449 posts
Posted by mobilman44 on Monday, November 2, 2015 7:39 AM

Hi, may I butt in.............

My current and previous layout was built in an 11x15 room.  It is around the wall, with space only for the door to open.  With the door open you are presented with a 4 ft wide duckunder so as to get into the center operating area.

Both layout designs were the result of literally years of scale drawings.  And both layouts presented themselves with tradeoffs.  In example, for around the room running and a large engine terminal, etc., etc., I endure the duckunder and the fact that the layout is too deep to reach some areas without getting topside.

My point is, the OP seems to be well aware of these trade-offs, and he (like me) knows full well that he will live with the results (or eventually tear them out).

For what its worth, I like the design, and it looks to me like it will work out just fine.

ENJOY!

ENJOY  !

 

Mobilman44

 

Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central 

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Monday, November 2, 2015 8:45 AM

mobilman44

Hi, may I butt in.............

My current and previous layout was built in an 11x15 room.  It is around the wall, with space only for the door to open.  With the door open you are presented with a 4 ft wide duckunder so as to get into the center operating area.

Both layout designs were the result of literally years of scale drawings.  And both layouts presented themselves with tradeoffs.  In example, for around the room running and a large engine terminal, etc., etc., I endure the duckunder and the fact that the layout is too deep to reach some areas without getting topside.

My point is, the OP seems to be well aware of these trade-offs, and he (like me) knows full well that he will live with the results (or eventually tear them out).

For what its worth, I like the design, and it looks to me like it will work out just fine.

ENJOY!

 

 
Thanks mobileman, I appreciate the postive comments. This won't work, that won't work, etc. 
 
I'll figure it out, just like I did with my old layout. Nothing is permenant. If an isle is too small, then I'll make it bigger. Its really not that big of deal. Just like the radius on the curves. I found out that no matter how much track planning someone does. Once you start laying track things change a bit. But you can always work it out.
 
Hell there were some parts of my old layout. Where I only had a vague idea what I wanted there. But when it came time to lay track, things changed dramatcally, tried different things. But eventually I figured it out and actually worked.
 

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    February 2015
  • 223 posts
Posted by Choops on Monday, November 2, 2015 8:46 AM

Motley
It should be 5.5 ft. 32" x 2 = 64" = 5.333 ft.

Little more to it than doubling the radius.

Steve

Modeling Union Pacific between Cheyenne and Laramie in 1957 (roughly)
  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,281 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Monday, November 2, 2015 10:42 AM

Motley

 

mobilman44

Hi, may I butt in.............

My current and previous layout was built in an 11x15 room.  It is around the wall, with space only for the door to open.  With the door open you are presented with a 4 ft wide duckunder so as to get into the center operating area.

Both layout designs were the result of literally years of scale drawings.  And both layouts presented themselves with tradeoffs.  In example, for around the room running and a large engine terminal, etc., etc., I endure the duckunder and the fact that the layout is too deep to reach some areas without getting topside.

My point is, the OP seems to be well aware of these trade-offs, and he (like me) knows full well that he will live with the results (or eventually tear them out).

For what its worth, I like the design, and it looks to me like it will work out just fine.

ENJOY!

 
 

Umm, Michael, in your initial post, you said, "I started working on the design. I need feedback, suggestions, etc.".
 
It seems to me that is what you are getting. 
 
Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Monday, November 2, 2015 3:05 PM

Sorry, I've just been very stressed out with real life right now. Don't mean to sound not greatful for all the help everyone here gives me. Most importantly my friend Rich.

I value every one's opinions. (well maybe except ulrich). LOL

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Monday, November 2, 2015 3:10 PM

Choops

 
Motley
It should be 5.5 ft. 32" x 2 = 64" = 5.333 ft.

Little more to it than doubling the radius.

Steve

 

Thanks Steve, that helps. I think I'm not paying enough attention to detail here.

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 3, 2015 1:28 AM

Motley
I think I'm not paying enough attention to detail here.

Michael - it may be my bad command of the English language, but that´s exactly what I wanted to point out. Although 11´ by 13´ is quite a lot of room (at least from my humble point of view), a few inches off here and there can make a big difference. This is what is meant by "sanity check" - does it really fit into the space you have allocated for your layout? Have all the curves the minimum radius you need to have? Are all the switches the correct size? On double track mains, does the track have the right spacing? Are all gradients below "X" % (put in the value you don´t want to exceed)?

Track planning software will help you to answer these questions, but only if employed correctly.

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Tuesday, November 3, 2015 2:06 AM

Sir Madog

 

 
Motley
I think I'm not paying enough attention to detail here.

 

Michael - it may be my bad command of the English language, but that´s exactly what I wanted to point out. Although 11´ by 13´ is quite a lot of room (at least from my humble point of view), a few inches off here and there can make a big difference. This is what is meant by "sanity check" - does it really fit into the space you have allocated for your layout? Have all the curves the minimum radius you need to have? Are all the switches the correct size? On double track mains, does the track have the right spacing? Are all gradients below "X" % (put in the value you don´t want to exceed)?

Track planning software will help you to answer these questions, but only if employed correctly.

 

 
Well I'm using Anyrail for the first time. Before I was using Atlas RTS. So its been a bit of a learning curve. Took me a while before I figured out how to enable the grid lines. LOL
 
Incidently. After I moved in last Friday, I found out that the size of the room is actually 15.5 ft x 12.0 ft.
 
I'm going to pick up some lumber tomorrow and get started on the benchwork!

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Southeast Texas
  • 5,449 posts
Posted by mobilman44 on Tuesday, November 3, 2015 5:21 AM

Hi again !

Obviously most all of us that value continuous running would love to have two reverse loops.  The OP's plan "only" has one, which would necessitate a backwards run thru the loop to reverse direction a second time.  Of course this is not an ideal situation, but having one reverse loop is a whole lot better than having none.   Yup, I speak from experience..........

ENJOY  !

 

Mobilman44

 

Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central 

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,281 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Tuesday, November 3, 2015 5:41 AM

mobilman44

Hi again !

Obviously most all of us that value continuous running would love to have two reverse loops.  The OP's plan "only" has one, which would necessitate a backwards run thru the loop to reverse direction a second time.  Of course this is not an ideal situation, but having one reverse loop is a whole lot better than having none.   Yup, I speak from experience..........

 

If time is taken to draw out the space by hand on something like quadrille paper, there is plenty of room for two reversing sections to permit trains to turn around in both directions without having to back up.  And, the curves can be done with a radius of 36" or more. 

Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    June 2007
  • 8,892 posts
Posted by riogrande5761 on Tuesday, November 3, 2015 7:34 AM

I've noticed the radius labeled on the drawings listed as 33 and 35 inches.  I would strongly recommend a difference of MORE than 2.0 inches, even at those relatively generous curve radii, there is still some likihood of long cars interfering with each other on 2-inch centers.   I recommend 2.0 inch centers ONLY on straight sections.

I advise minimum centers on those curves at least 2 1/4 (2.25) inches.  So if your inner radius is 33 inches, the outer should be 35.25 or 35 1/4.

On my staging yard, I made sure my centers were in excess of 2.25 inches and even then it looked like longer cars were coming close to those on adjacent tracks.  You might want to "mock up" some curves to test, thats the way to be sure you are safe.

Now if you assumed track centers of at least 2.25 inches, maybe I missed it but better safe than sorry!

Rio Grande.  The Action Road  - Focus 1977-1983

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Heart of Georgia
  • 5,406 posts
Posted by Doughless on Tuesday, November 3, 2015 9:51 AM

richhotrain
 
mobilman44

Hi again !

Obviously most all of us that value continuous running would love to have two reverse loops.  The OP's plan "only" has one, which would necessitate a backwards run thru the loop to reverse direction a second time.  Of course this is not an ideal situation, but having one reverse loop is a whole lot better than having none.   Yup, I speak from experience..........

 

 

 

If time is taken to draw out the space by hand on something like quadrille paper, there is plenty of room for two reversing sections to permit trains to turn around in both directions without having to back up.  And, the curves can be done with a radius of 36" or more. 

 

Rich

 

Yes, he does.  The question is, would he want them in the current configuration, having them in opposite corners of the room.  It might make for a situation where the trains spend just as much time in the reverse loops as they do in the main part of the layout.

Edited:....Given the space constraints brought about by the door swing to the inside, I'm not sure two loops would be doable.  I would like to see a plan posted that shows room for the door swing, or a comment that the door will be removed or have its swing changed to the outside before I can comment much further.

- Douglas

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Tuesday, November 3, 2015 10:12 AM

Well crap, there just isn't enough room for the peninsula. So its gone now.

I expanded the loop now to 34" radius on the inside curve. Expanded that benchwork too.

And moved the Oil Refinery to the upper right side.

Plenty of space now in the middle.

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    June 2007
  • 8,892 posts
Posted by riogrande5761 on Tuesday, November 3, 2015 1:48 PM

Not to open a can of worms but is a staging area under the layout something you would consider?  (ramp up to the level of the main layout)

Rio Grande.  The Action Road  - Focus 1977-1983

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Tuesday, November 3, 2015 2:15 PM

riogrande5761

Not to open a can of worms but is a staging area under the layout something you would consider?  (ramp up to the level of the main layout)

 

 
Ya that will be my plan for phase 2. Right now I just want to get up and running as quickly as possible.
 
My goal is to have at least one section complete with trains running by Christmas.

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,281 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Tuesday, November 3, 2015 2:33 PM

riogrande5761

Not to open a can of worms but is a staging area under the layout something you would consider?  (ramp up to the level of the main layout)

 

Or put the staging on a second tier above the main layout.

Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    February 2015
  • 223 posts
Posted by Choops on Tuesday, November 3, 2015 3:42 PM
Modeling Union Pacific between Cheyenne and Laramie in 1957 (roughly)
  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,281 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Tuesday, November 3, 2015 4:16 PM

Choops

Wow, that will work, and it seems to me that polarities match all the way around, no reverse loops.

Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Tuesday, November 3, 2015 5:51 PM

Chooops is the man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yaaaaaa clapping, cheering, the crowd roars!!

OK think we got it now?

Rich, are you sure there are no reverse loops, and no reverser needed?

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,281 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Tuesday, November 3, 2015 6:39 PM

Motley

Rich, are you sure there are no reverse loops, and no reverser needed?

As Choops drew it, there is no reverse loop.

But, as you drew it, there is a reversing section where you added the double crossover.

Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Tuesday, November 3, 2015 6:49 PM

Aha.... I'm liking the double-cossover and where it is righ now.

So now what? Where do place the gaps? And how do I wire it up to my autoreverser?

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,281 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Tuesday, November 3, 2015 7:57 PM

Without the double crossover, there is no reverse polarity problem.  But, with the double crossover there is a reverse polarity problem, so the loop needs to be isolated and an auto-reverser added. 

Rich

 

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Tuesday, November 3, 2015 9:44 PM

How does this look? Remember I run long trains, so need a lot of length in between them.

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Southeast Texas
  • 5,449 posts
Posted by mobilman44 on Wednesday, November 4, 2015 6:02 AM

Hi,

My layout room is almost the exact same size as Motley's.  From what I can tell, a bit more room (6 inches?) will be needed for the door swing area. 

Also, is there a closet in the room?  If so, will you have access to it?

One more thing....... when I first used my room for a layout, I had two additional ceiling light fixtures put in.  That made a huge difference!

ENJOY  !

 

Mobilman44

 

Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central 

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,281 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Wednesday, November 4, 2015 6:25 AM

The key to adding that double crossover to the plan is to keep it simple by wiring the double crossover in phase with the rest of the track work outside the loop. That way, the double crossover and the track work outside the loop become the non-reversing section, and the loop becomes the reversing section.  Just make the reversing section longer than your longest train.

Were it not for the double crossover, there would be no reverse polarity issues, and the outer and inner mainlines emanating from the loop would be wired such that the polarity would be "reversed" on each of the two mainlines. It is when you add crossover tracks that reverse polarity issues become a problem.

Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Wednesday, November 4, 2015 6:45 AM

mobilman44

Hi,

My layout room is almost the exact same size as Motley's.  From what I can tell, a bit more room (6 inches?) will be needed for the door swing area. 

Also, is there a closet in the room?  If so, will you have access to it?

One more thing....... when I first used my room for a layout, I had two additional ceiling light fixtures put in.  That made a huge difference!

 

 
Yes as a matter of fact I do have a closet, and its actually quite big.
 
I already have some fourescent lighting that I used in my old house.

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Heart of Georgia
  • 5,406 posts
Posted by Doughless on Wednesday, November 4, 2015 9:13 PM

richhotrain

The key to adding that double crossover to the plan is to keep it simple by wiring the double crossover in phase with the rest of the track work outside the loop. That way, the double crossover and the track work outside the loop become the non-reversing section, and the loop becomes the reversing section.  Just make the reversing section longer than your longest train.

Were it not for the double crossover, there would be no reverse polarity issues, and the outer and inner mainlines emanating from the loop would be wired such that the polarity would be "reversed" on each of the two mainlines. It is when you add crossover tracks that reverse polarity issues become a problem.

Rich

 
What's the point of having the double crossover?  Choops diagram shows that a train can go through every scene in different directions without even a single crossover or reverse-polarity loop (albiet on different tracks, which are only 2.5 inches apart).
 
It seems that adding the double crossover with reversing-polarity loops introduces gobs of complication for very little benefit. 
 
 

- Douglas

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,582 posts
Posted by mlehman on Wednesday, November 4, 2015 10:57 PM

Even without the double-crossover, there are still reversing sections as drawn. So long as the train has the option to either follow around the circle/loop or chose to turn back there, a reversing section will be needed to turn back. Or is the plan to be very disciplined and never take the reversing option on the circle/loop?

Mike Lehman

Urbana, IL

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,281 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Thursday, November 5, 2015 4:40 AM

mlehman

Even without the double-crossover, there are still reversing sections as drawn. So long as the train has the option to either follow around the circle/loop or chose to turn back there, a reversing section will be needed to turn back. Or is the plan to be very disciplined and never take the reversing option on the circle/loop?

 

I haven't traced out Motley's latest track diagram, but you are probably right, Mike, about the reversing sections on that plan even without the double crossover.  

In the track plan shown in the link provided by Choops, there is no issue with reverse polarity.  Yet, trains can turn around in each direction.

Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    February 2015
  • 223 posts
Posted by Choops on Thursday, November 5, 2015 7:01 AM

Ditch the double cross over (too much trouble) and use two single cross overs.

Steve

Modeling Union Pacific between Cheyenne and Laramie in 1957 (roughly)
  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,281 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Thursday, November 5, 2015 7:21 AM

Choops

Ditch the double cross over (too much trouble) and use two single cross overs.

Steve

 

That is my thought as well, but it still will cause a reverse polarity issue.

Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Heart of Georgia
  • 5,406 posts
Posted by Doughless on Thursday, November 5, 2015 8:20 AM

Choops diagram is simply a dogbone trackplan with the turnback blobs combined into one..if that makes sense.  The trains use the loop to turn back in the opposite direction on a different track from the track they entered the loop...not the same track.

I still don't see the point of adding crossovers at all, sincle or double, but I'm more of a prototypical operator and don't care for trains to reverse back into the same scene they just left, so I might not see the benefit of crossovers that that others do.

I always thought that reverse polarity loops were for turning the train back onto the exact same track, or didn't want two mainline tracks at all. 

Oh well..... 

- Douglas

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Heart of Georgia
  • 5,406 posts
Posted by Doughless on Thursday, November 5, 2015 8:42 AM

mobilman44

Hi,

My layout room is almost the exact same size as Motley's.  From what I can tell, a bit more room (6 inches?) will be needed for the door swing area. 

If I'm looking at Michael's diagram correctly, his stated room "height" is twelve feet.  If the squares are one foot, the grey benchwork takes up the entire 12 feet.  He's only showing an 18 inch door opening and less than 24 inch swing into the room.

In modern houses, most entry doors are 30 inches wide, with an extra 3 for the door framing and jam.

Michael needs to carve out a 36 inch quarter circle to accommodate an inside swinging door into the extreme SW corner of the plan.

So far, nobody has posted a plan that does this, including myself.

Unless, Michael plans on building a huge curved liftout section to accommodate a curving corner of the trackplan....not adviseable.

- Douglas

  • Member since
    February 2015
  • 223 posts
Posted by Choops on Thursday, November 5, 2015 11:49 AM
Modeling Union Pacific between Cheyenne and Laramie in 1957 (roughly)
  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Heart of Georgia
  • 5,406 posts
Posted by Doughless on Thursday, November 5, 2015 12:26 PM

Choops

Steve,

That's the exact idea I had.  Put double ended staging behind a backdrop accessible in the door carve out.  It allows staging to not clutter a scene, and still have good access.

Or, since Michael is not modeling a prototype operation, he wouldn't even need the backdrop. The staging tracks could simply be part of the yard scene, whereby his staged trains would simply look like trains parked in the yard as another crept by.  Maybe a nice place for the Cheyenne Depot.

I'm still not sure that the door opening is wide enough.  I would think the tip of the swing needs to be 36 inches from the left side wall.  Maybe it is.

- Douglas

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Southeast Texas
  • 5,449 posts
Posted by mobilman44 on Thursday, November 5, 2015 12:26 PM

As I understand, there is also a closet door too!

An option (not necessarily a viable one) is to remove the door.

ENJOY  !

 

Mobilman44

 

Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central 

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,281 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Thursday, November 5, 2015 1:36 PM

Doughless

Choops diagram is simply a dogbone trackplan with the turnback blobs combined into one..if that makes sense. 

Blobs?  Hey, no profanity permitted on the forums.  Laugh

Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Heart of Georgia
  • 5,406 posts
Posted by Doughless on Thursday, November 5, 2015 4:33 PM

Rich,

Sometimes I wonder where your mind is....Wink

- Douglas

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Thursday, November 5, 2015 8:12 PM

Ya I like that idea with the door opening. More staging/yard tracks is better.

I'll update the plan with this.

I want the double-crossover. More route options, takes up less space, etc.

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Thursday, November 5, 2015 8:14 PM

Doughless

 

 
Choops

 

Steve,

That's the exact idea I had.  Put double ended staging behind a backdrop accessible in the door carve out.  It allows staging to not clutter a scene, and still have good access.

Or, since Michael is not modeling a prototype operation, he wouldn't even need the backdrop. The staging tracks could simply be part of the yard scene, whereby his staged trains would simply look like trains parked in the yard as another crept by.  Maybe a nice place for the Cheyenne Depot.

I'm still not sure that the door opening is wide enough.  I would think the tip of the swing needs to be 36 inches from the left side wall.  Maybe it is.

 

I just measured the door and its 30".

What makes you think I'm not modeling a prototype operation?

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Thursday, November 5, 2015 8:31 PM

I just wanted to thank all you guys for all the awesome ideas and help. I'm truly grateful.

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Heart of Georgia
  • 5,406 posts
Posted by Doughless on Thursday, November 5, 2015 8:38 PM

Motley
 

What makes you think I'm not modeling a prototype operation?

 

I meant the multiple train thing where you research and build several specific prototype trains, stage them, then run them according to a timetable so they appear at the proper scenes at the proper time.  You didn't seem to care where exactly the scenes were relative to one another and you don't really have enough staging tracks to do that.

You can certainly model different kind of prototype ops in a different way with one or two trains and less staging.  That's what I do.

That's all I meant, strictly adhere to what a chosen prototype does in an operational sense.

In the context of my post that commented on the new staging area, if you saw the staged trains parked in the yard, then train XYZ would not be where it was suppose to be compared to where it should at be that time of day on the prototype...if that makes sense. 

 

- Douglas

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,281 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Friday, November 6, 2015 6:19 AM

Doughless
 
 
Motley
 

What makes you think I'm not modeling a prototype operation? 

I meant the multiple train thing where you research and build several specific prototype trains, stage them, then run them according to a timetable so they appear at the proper scenes at the proper time.  

That's all I meant, strictly adhere to what a chosen prototype does in an operational sense.

While a few model railroaders may adhere to that strict definition of prototype operation, that definition seems a bit extreme in my opinion.

Building, staging, and running specific prototype trains, yes.

Running them according to a timetable so they appear at the proper scenes at the proper time, no.

If you are going to operate at that level of detail, then you also need to replicate the exact track work found on the prototype.  I don't think that prototype operation requires that degree of exactness.

Knowing what I do about Michael's layout and operational practices, he models prototype operation.

Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Heart of Georgia
  • 5,406 posts
Posted by Doughless on Friday, November 6, 2015 1:04 PM

richhotrain
 

While a few model railroaders may adhere to that strict definition of prototype operation, that definition seems a bit extreme in my opinion.

 

Building, staging, and running specific prototype trains, yes.

Running them according to a timetable so they appear at the proper scenes at the proper time, no.

If you are going to operate at that level of detail, then you also need to replicate the exact track work found on the prototype.  I don't think that prototype operation requires that degree of exactness.

Knowing what I do about Michael's layout and operational practices, he models prototype operation.

Rich

 

I understand Rich.  I don't adhere to that level of exactness either, but that's what I was referring to when I used the term, albeit lazily.

It was obvious that he is not planning that level of exactness, at least to me.

Therefore, he can combine staging tracks with his yard scene, instead of using precious space to keep them separated.  Parked/staged trains would enhance the yard scene instead of detract from it, IMO.

- Douglas

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Friday, November 6, 2015 5:42 PM

Ok been working on changing the plan for the yard scene. But now there's no room for my favorite scene, the multiple bridge and river scene. DAMIT!

But got some longer tracks there for staging/yard.

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    August 2011
  • From: A Comfy Cave, New Zealand
  • 6,257 posts
Posted by "JaBear" on Friday, November 6, 2015 7:32 PM

Motley
But now there's no room for my favorite scene, the multiple bridge and river scene.

Hmm Whoa there!!! That’s a pretty big call, and while I might be wrong I think you’re going to regret it.

Having followed your last build I noted that you’re not afraid to redo work that you’re not satisfied with and while this present thread may be seeking advice to avoid the redo’s, I now wondering if it’s time to take you own advice and ..... “I'll figure it out, just like I did with my old layout. Nothing is permanent. If an isle is too small, then I'll make it bigger. It’s really not that big of deal. Just like the radius on the curves. I found out that no matter how much track planning someone does. Once you start laying track things change a bit. But you can always work it out.
....but is a staging area under the layout something you would consider?  (ramp up to the level of the main layout)
I tend to favour Jims suggestion and though its mentioned as your “Phase 2” I would allow room for where that future track joins into the “layout” now.
Have Fun,
Cheers, the Bear.

"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Friday, November 6, 2015 10:57 PM

Ya I saved the river bridge section from the old layout. Although it won't fit here now. I can always add it later.

I do have that huge area for the mountain to be all scenery. And I have room for the trestle bridge running there along the inside mainline.

My plan is to have the entire mountain covered in snow. So the trestle bridge will go over the frozen creek.

 

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Heart of Georgia
  • 5,406 posts
Posted by Doughless on Saturday, November 7, 2015 1:50 PM

Almost as many scenes, but larger scenes with less complicated trackwork.  Starting two trains in the yard going opposite directions and meeting along the layout will give you almost the same visual appeal as what the reversing loop would do.  There's probably not enough space to have everything, so I prioritized how I thought Michael would:

 

And the second with your sand frac facility added in the NW and a three track bridge scene.

 

- Douglas

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,281 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Saturday, November 7, 2015 1:54 PM

ahh, you're playing with fire now, Doughless.  Laugh

Michael wants that reverse loop.   Super Angry

Rich

 

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: west coast
  • 7,670 posts
Posted by rrebell on Saturday, November 7, 2015 2:23 PM

The new plan is fine except, why the donut hole, instead just run it around the outside elininating the access hole and that loop, then (it looks like you have a 7' wide walkway now, you can put in a Y connected peninsula  up to 2' wide and still have a 30" walkway.

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Heart of Georgia
  • 5,406 posts
Posted by Doughless on Saturday, November 7, 2015 2:34 PM

richhotrain

ahh, you're playing with fire now, Doughless.  Laugh

Michael wants that reverse loop.   Super Angry

Rich

 

 

He's not getting married to it...not that that's all that permanent anymore.  He likes to rebuild.  He can always add it later.  This helps him get started and running trains without getting bogged down on the wiring. Big Smile

- Douglas

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Saturday, November 7, 2015 5:46 PM

I like the mountain with the reverse loop in it. I'm sticking with the way it is now.

But thanks for all the suggestions.

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Southeast Texas
  • 5,449 posts
Posted by mobilman44 on Thursday, November 12, 2015 5:40 AM

Motley,

   What's the status on the layout?   Have you settled on a design?   I'm looking forward to your progress, especially as my layout room is pretty much the same size and configuration.

ENJOY  !

 

Mobilman44

 

Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central 

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Thursday, November 12, 2015 6:42 AM

Yes I'm ready to get started. I'm going to Home Depot next Monday to pick up a bunch of lumber. Then get started building the benchwork.

My plan is to start in the upper right corner, the mountain loop. Build that benchwork first. Get the foam installed. Then lay the track for the loop. So I can at least run some trains!

Then I'll start with the left wall benchwork, and work my way around. Hope to have the benchwork and foam completed before Christmas.

 

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Southeast Texas
  • 5,449 posts
Posted by mobilman44 on Thursday, November 12, 2015 9:25 AM

Great!  

   Mine fills the room with a 4 ft duckunder.  I knowingly have some wide spans (corners mainly) where I have to get on the layout to get to the outside edges.  I sacrificed ease of access for more layout area.   My point is, I learned right away to work - be it roadbed, track, wiring, backdrop, scenery - from the outside to the inside...............

ENJOY  !

 

Mobilman44

 

Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central 

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Thursday, November 12, 2015 12:50 PM

Ya my old layout height was too low, at around 40" (waist high), and I felt myself bending over to get the track level view of trains running. But I had some long reaches in places, that required me to climb onto the layout to do trackwork.

This layout will be 48" track hieght. Most of the edges will be around 30" reach to the outside wall. So track access should be much better than the old layout.

 

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Tuesday, November 17, 2015 12:18 PM

Picking up the lumber today at Home Depot. Gonna finally start building the benchwork tonght!!

I decided to go with 48" track height. Chest level for me. Still need to be able to reach in 30".

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,582 posts
Posted by mlehman on Tuesday, November 17, 2015 12:30 PM

Motley
I decided to go with 48" track height. Chest level for me. Still need to be able to reach in 30".

That's what having a nice, generously sized step box is good for.

Mike Lehman

Urbana, IL

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Wednesday, November 18, 2015 12:19 AM

I got the lumber today. So I started on the first 4x8 going in the upper right corner.

Didn't get much done, but its a start.

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Southeast Texas
  • 5,449 posts
Posted by mobilman44 on Wednesday, November 18, 2015 5:38 AM

Hi,

Hey, just want you to know I (one of many I'm sure) appreciate your layout building updates.  For me, the building process is the most fun, and I'll enjoy it thru your efforts.

I chose 41" for my layout height (I'm just under 5-10) and that works out pretty nice.  For me, 48 seems way too high, especially for reaching the outer edges.  That said, someone mentioned "step box" and I have two of them.  They are 12x14x12, made from 2x12, and covered with scrap carpet.  The carpet lets them blend in, and keeps the splinters at bay.

ENJOY ! 

ENJOY  !

 

Mobilman44

 

Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central 

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Wednesday, November 18, 2015 6:55 AM

mobilman44

Hi,

Hey, just want you to know I (one of many I'm sure) appreciate your layout building updates.  For me, the building process is the most fun, and I'll enjoy it thru your efforts.

I chose 41" for my layout height (I'm just under 5-10) and that works out pretty nice.  For me, 48 seems way too high, especially for reaching the outer edges.  That said, someone mentioned "step box" and I have two of them.  They are 12x14x12, made from 2x12, and covered with scrap carpet.  The carpet lets them blend in, and keeps the splinters at bay.

ENJOY ! 

 

 
Thanks man, I'll be sure to keep updating this thread.
 
Wow my old layout, before I cut out the center, had two different access holes, very long reaches to track and scenery. And it was 40" high. I always felt myselft bending over to view trains at eye level.
 
I think chest hieight will be just fine. I'm 5' 9" by the way. The longest reach anywhere will be 30". Which is a huge improvement over my old layout.
 

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Thursday, November 19, 2015 3:42 PM

Got quite a bit done last night. Finished the first 4x8 section.

I decided to go with 44" track height. You were right, the 48" would have been too high with the 30" reach to most areas.

On to the next 4x8 section.....

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: From Golden, CO living in Puyallup (Seattle), WA
  • 751 posts
Posted by Renegade1c on Thursday, November 19, 2015 3:57 PM

I have a question for you. How big is the closet? Could you build the staging yard in there if you pulled the door off the hinges (store it under layout)? I did this with my helix at my previous house. I had the Helix in the closet. Just a thought for you to ponder. 

If it is a decent size closet you could pontentially add alot to your layout if staging was in there. 


Colorado Front Range Railroad: 
http://www.coloradofrontrangerr.com/

flag

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Thursday, November 19, 2015 9:53 PM

Renegade1c

I have a question for you. How big is the closet? Could you build the staging yard in there if you pulled the door off the hinges (store it under layout)? I did this with my helix at my previous house. I had the Helix in the closet. Just a thought for you to ponder. 

If it is a decent size closet you could pontentially add alot to your layout if staging was in there. 

 

 
Its a decent size. 5' x 6'. But the door is tight at only 26" wide. So crawling under there from inside the layout would be a pain.
 
My plan is sometime in the future, I will add staging below the main level. I'm building the benchwork in a way that I can easily add the second level to the benchwork.

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 10,582 posts
Posted by mlehman on Friday, November 20, 2015 12:44 PM

Sounds like the perfect size closet for a helix. Some food for thought...

Widening a door is not too big a deal, so that might make access easier.

For train access, there's always the hole through the wall (or two) if the doorway is not in the best place for it to enter/exit.

Mike Lehman

Urbana, IL

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Sunday, November 22, 2015 11:32 PM

Got the second 4x8 section completed. Phweewee building benchwork is hard.

Next up will be the foam. Then cut the access hole.

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Monday, November 23, 2015 9:25 PM

Wow I just found out that this mountain section is HUGE! On the plans it looks tight. But I got up on the benchwork today, and traced out the loop track area.

I have plenty of room for a 36" radius curve now! And still room to the outside wall. And a good 10" from the inside edge. More room for bridge/river scene now.

 

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,281 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Monday, November 23, 2015 11:28 PM

Motley

Wow I just found out that this mountain section is HUGE! 

The excitement mounts !  Big Smile

Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Wednesday, November 25, 2015 9:47 PM

Well I got the foam installed, and cut out the access hole.

I traced out where the track will be, its 36" radius.

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Friday, November 27, 2015 2:51 AM

Got the cork roadbed installed. Tomorrow I need to install 4 Peco switches (and machines).

 

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    March 2015
  • 42 posts
Posted by wildecoupe on Friday, November 27, 2015 8:45 AM
Been following. Fun to see this go from all of the concepts to finally starting to put it together. Looking forward to seeing more progress! Tim
  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Friday, November 27, 2015 6:19 PM

Thanks Tim. I love it when a plan comes together.

I also mounted the backdrop boards. I will be getting a new photo backdrop with a snow scene.

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Southeast Texas
  • 5,449 posts
Posted by mobilman44 on Saturday, November 28, 2015 5:55 AM

Hi,

Not sure what kind of backdrop you are going to use but it might be good to work it before the layout gets to far along.  

Ha, I know the lure of laying track is super strong, but............

ENJOY  !

 

Mobilman44

 

Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central 

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Dearborn Station
  • 24,281 posts
Posted by richhotrain on Sunday, November 29, 2015 4:40 AM

This is the point in layout building that I always wonder about.  The benchwork is completed (at least for a section of the layout) and the layout surface is in place.

Time to lay track.  The objective is to lay bullet proof trackwork.  Laser straight mainlines, perfectly shaped curves.  How do you do that?  Do you lay the roadbed first and secure it to the layout surface?  Do you lay track on loose roadbed and glue it down later?

Rich

Alton Junction

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Sunday, November 29, 2015 2:30 PM

I just replied to your other thread.

I just glue the cork roadbed using latex caulk. But I don't use too much. A thin bead is all you need.

If I have to re-adjust, pull up a section of trackwork. I just remove the cork using a thin serrated kitchen knife, slide under the cork. It comes up fairly easy.

Re-work the track, then glue the roadbed down again. No big deal.

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Heart of Georgia
  • 5,406 posts
Posted by Doughless on Monday, November 30, 2015 8:06 AM

richhotrain

This is the point in layout building that I always wonder about.  The benchwork is completed (at least for a section of the layout) and the layout surface is in place.

Time to lay track.  The objective is to lay bullet proof trackwork.  Laser straight mainlines, perfectly shaped curves.  How do you do that?  Do you lay the roadbed first and secure it to the layout surface?  Do you lay track on loose roadbed and glue it down later?

Rich

 

Yeah, my concern would be using the diverging rail of a turnout as part of a loop, since the diverging rail is never really curved, but straight...at least in the manufactured sectional variety.  Anticipating to produce a perfectly round loop using diverging rail portion of turnouts will lead to disappointment and reworking of the cork roadbed for most, or a narrowing of the radius of the loop somewhere therin, or requiring a kink in the trackwork exiting/entering the turnout near the frog.

- Douglas

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Sunday, December 13, 2015 2:44 PM

Well I finally finished the trackwork for the loop. And now I can run trains! Yeeehaaa.

Before I start the next section of benchwork, I dedided to start working on the rock wall in the corner. This rock wall section will be removable until I get the backdrop installed.

Here's what I got so far.

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    December 2015
  • From: South Jersey
  • 3 posts
Posted by jlc41 on Sunday, December 13, 2015 3:11 PM

Hope you don't mind, am new to this and have some questions. I would like to build a 4x8 layout. I have looked at a bunch and like the one's that have elevated track. Can you tell me where I can progressive incline foam blocks. Thanks in advance.

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Heart of Georgia
  • 5,406 posts
Posted by Doughless on Monday, December 14, 2015 9:53 AM

Looking good Michael.  Are those Peco curved turnouts there in the loop?  Very nice.

- Douglas

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Heart of Georgia
  • 5,406 posts
Posted by Doughless on Monday, December 14, 2015 9:53 AM

jlc41

Hope you don't mind, am new to this and have some questions. I would like to build a 4x8 layout. I have looked at a bunch and like the one's that have elevated track. Can you tell me where I can progressive incline foam blocks. Thanks in advance.

 

Check out Woodland Scenics risers.

- Douglas

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Monday, December 14, 2015 11:01 AM

Doughless

Looking good Michael.  Are those Peco curved turnouts there in the loop?  Very nice.

 

 
Thanks for the feedback Doughless. Yes they are indeed the peco curved #7 switches. They allowed me to maintain the 36" radius.

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Monday, December 14, 2015 6:52 PM

I finished the first rock wall section. I tried to match the colors from this photo I have of the Royal Gorge Route.

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Bradford, Ontario
  • 15,797 posts
Posted by hon30critter on Wednesday, December 16, 2015 11:04 PM

Michael:

Since you asked, IMHO your rock is a bit too green, at least that's what I am seeing with your comparison photos. There could be more texture with sharper edges in some areas of the rocks too.

Having said that, I do think the rock section looks pretty good. Only someone who has seen the prototype photo would see a reason to criticize.

Dave

I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Thursday, December 17, 2015 7:58 AM

Not sure about the green. But its definatly grey. That prototype photo was taken in the natural sunlight. So there's no way to match it exactly under flourescent lighting.

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Thursday, December 17, 2015 8:01 AM

I'm working on the corner section now. Where the mine will be. Its gonna be around 3" above track level. Then I will add some conveyors from the mine, along the left wall, to the flood loader.

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • From: Denver, CO
  • 3,576 posts
Posted by Motley on Friday, December 18, 2015 5:35 PM

Finished the corner section. I placed the coal mine buildings there to see how it would look.

The conveyors will go along the left wall, over the tracks, then to the flood loader.

Michael


CEO-
Mile-HI-Railroad
Prototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989

  • Member since
    February 2012
  • From: CAPE CORAL FLA
  • 511 posts
Posted by thomas81z on Sunday, December 20, 2015 12:24 PM

Mike mike mike mike mike its looking awesome ,i have the bench work up to

Now i have to get plywood &insalation sheets but down here the sheets are ultra thin 

So looks like im gonna have to double up lol

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Users Online

There are no community member online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!