DeeCee I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. My original plan (with the loop) had a mine, this one does not. In fact I hadn't quite figured out all my industries (perhaps that's a bad idea in itself). The layout is pretty much flat-ish, being coastline, so I don't understand the "down slope".
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. My original plan (with the loop) had a mine, this one does not. In fact I hadn't quite figured out all my industries (perhaps that's a bad idea in itself). The layout is pretty much flat-ish, being coastline, so I don't understand the "down slope".
Okay, appears to be my error. I just re-read the whole sequence of messages and may be more clear now. My comment on the need for a crossover was based upon your "original" plan with the loop (which created the downgrade). Later in the series you offered up three different "shelf layout" options. When you subsequently said that you had selected "Option 1", I thought that you had returned to that first alternative with the loop. You were selecting the first of the three "shelf" layouts, in which case my comment about the need for a crossover simply didn't apply. Sorry for the confusion. I had a small - about 2' by 7' switching layout in HO when I lived in an apartment and still had plenty to work on and could spend time crafting those buildings. Enjoy
Bill
That's pretty much the same theme used by the builders of Hangman Creek Lumber Co.
Check it out here
and Welcome to the forums.
They did this same thing prototypically in the NW, so it's not a stretch by any means. (Flathead Lake Montana, logs barged to the sawmill in Polson)
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
Thanks Bill,
Perhaps you could "red-line" my drawing. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. My original plan (with the loop) had a mine, this one does not. In fact I hadn't quite figured out all my industries (perhaps that's a bad idea in itself). The layout is pretty much flat-ish, being coastline, so I don't understand the "down slope". I admittedly know nothing about operations so I do appreciate any insights. It is extremely unlikely that I will "operate" the train except to move cars around once in a while or maybe run an operation like MRR did with their On30 logging layout with the sector plate.
This may be late in the process, but I have a comment on that track plan. I note how there is only one passing siding for run-arounds, and I think that this creates a large operational problem. The locomotive pulls the loads of ore out of the mine or tipple and has to run around them at that one passing siding to be able to place them on the wharf for unloading. That puts those heavy loaded ore cars on the down-side of the locomotive as it heads downgrade, inviting a break-away. If possible, can you add a crossover down at the waterfront to allow the locomotive to "escape" and move at that point to the uphill portion of the layout? Even if that was only long enough to allow the engine to escape, it would greatly add to your operations... and be more like what most prototypes did.
So I did up a decision matrix to help me out and, as Ray had suggested, #1 came out ahead based on opportunities for scenery and operation. Looks like I have my marching orders. Next up will be a more detailed plan and perhaps a life-size layout on some paper.
Thanks, Ray.
John, I have been trying to use existing area plans to block out space as best as I could. I have also been thinking about building some mock ups to make sure stuff will fit and will likely build some buildings before I even get around to laying track. Hopefully I won't be too surprised!
Dave
Hi DeeCee
Sir madog is very correct when he says don't under estimate the building sizes.
I just the other day blew up an HO scale drawing of Zanthus a tiny now non existant station out on the Nullabour plain.
So I could build it for a friend to show him its not that hard to make things your self.
Wow!! did I get a real shock when I found out how BIG this tiny little station building had just become.
Fortunatly it will still fit in the avalable space.
regards John
I'd vote for the first plan. Best balance of track and scenery. Most workable track arrangement.
Ray
So after much agonizing and a bit of a hiatus with layout planning I thought I would try a point-to-point shelf layout and ditch the loop. I have three slightly different options and any comments would be appreciated. The room is a touch over 13' long and I have a 5' wall down the left side.
Ooh. That Backwoods Miniatures has very nice stuff!
Dave,I'm guilty of not looking closely enough at your plan. I looked at the 4' side dimension of your "blob" on left and assumed it was a 4'x4' square,but I see now that it's 4'x5'. You could increase your radius by just extending the bottom of the left side another 6" toward the bottom of the page. This would leave the aisle unaffected,and you could keep the right side just as you have drawn it.
Whoops!
(I should add that I usually just throw track against the wall until enough sticks to call it a layout...so bear this in mind when reading my "advice".)
Mike
Have fun with your trains
Backwoods Miniatures of UK offers a conversion kit for the Forney, turning it into 2-4-0.
More details (and a lot of other nice things) are available on their website:
Backwoods Miniatures
Thanks, Middleman! That's some good advice. I'm not sure what you mean by "fudging the top to bottom dimension". I gather that you "pulled" the loop down and to the right a bit to make the loop 25" diameter. The waterfront then was slimmed down to keep an aisleway. Are you suggesting lengthening the left side as well? Thanks again.
With a minimum radius of 22" you are on the safe side for the Forney. The porter requires a much smaller radius and the 4-4-0 are happy with an 18" curve.
I very much like the plan and you should try to keep the big curve!
Any chance of fudging a bit on the top to bottom dimension of your drawing? The crude manipulation I did here shows the loop radius increased by 3",and the right side extended and narrowed to keep the aisle at 3' wide. If you can live with a 2'6" entry,you could leave the right hand side as is. The red bar is just a suggestion of a place to join modules,being that there is only one track crossing the joint here(other joints may have to be repositioned accordingly).
Oh OK then. So 22 is absolutely minimum and I guess I should be trying for 24 or 26? Perhaps I should scrap the whole loop and just do a L or U-shaped point-to-point? I did kind of like that tunnel and bridge combination though.... Maybe get elevation to the mine with a longer run along the back than trying to use a switchback idea.
Dave,
due to the wheel arrangement, the back of a Forney swings out considerably. The practical minimum radius for this loco should not be less than 22".
SouthPennDoesn't Sn3 use HO track too?
No, it uses track properly gauged to a scale 3 feet, as can be seen from a quick internet search
In HO, rails are spaced 16.5 mm (0.64961 in) apartIn Sn3, rails are spaced 14.3 mm (0.563 in) apart
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Here is your layout:
About two years ago I embarked on the adventure of building my first On30 layout. It was also my last ...
I completely underestimated the space requirement for buildings, leaving me with the choice of building caricature style buildings or drop the project. I dropped it and sold what could be salvaged.
Looking at your plan, I am not sure whether you have dedicated a sufficient amount of real estate for your structures!
Okay,Dave,I was able to see the drawing from your link. 'Looks like a nice layout. The main thing I wonder about is the track radius in the lower left side...'Looks like about 22"? And the turnout to the log loading would be tighter still. Even though On30 allows for tighter radii than On3,that seems very tight to me. What kind of engine(s) are you planning to use? I would recommend testing any engines/cars you plan to use before you start final construction.
One other thing I meant to mention yesterday - True O scale(1/48) vehicles are nearly impossible to find(I have found a few on Ebay). The far more common 1/43 vehicles look huge next to the already small narrow gauge equipment. I have a few 1/50 trucks that fit in very well,especially if they're in the background.Most of the 1/50 vehicles I have seen up for auction would fit your era nicely.
Since you're new to the forums,your first few posts will be delayed(checked by the moderators).Once they decide you're okay,your posts will appear as soon as you submit them.
OK, Mike, I just went down and did what I should've done before I butted in! I used the scale rule, and, HO scale track is sooooo close to On30, (30") and no where near 3'.
And, yea, South Penn, that's the track I need to do this.
Anyway, sorry OP, didn't intend to hijack, but, now I'm interested in the ideas you are seeking.
Mike.
My You Tube
I'm struggling to post the picture of my layout. It is uploaded to Photobucket. When I try to use the "add picture" link I get asked for a size but all I ever see is a question mark, which, to me, indicates "fail". I will try pasting the actual link
http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb240/dave_clark_2007/Dave%20RR%20Layout/Dave%20RR001.jpeg
mbinsewi I have, what I think is an On30, it will run on HO track, but it looks all wrong in doing so. Do I have this right? On3 is 36" rail spacing and On30 is 30" rail spacing? or are they both the same? Mike. EDIT: Didn't mean to "hijack", just wanted clarification. I think it would be great to build a layout for it.
I have, what I think is an On30, it will run on HO track, but it looks all wrong in doing so. Do I have this right? On3 is 36" rail spacing and On30 is 30" rail spacing? or are they both the same?
EDIT: Didn't mean to "hijack", just wanted clarification. I think it would be great to build a layout for it.
Maybe your track should look like this.
Doesn't Sn3 use HO track too?
I'm getting confused.
You're right,Mike. On3 is in feet,On30 is in inches.Confusing,huh?