The barge will pass under a large bridge and dock at the port. About 1/3 of that loop will be water.
I also made some changes as recommended and as I stated. I’ll try to get a post up tomorrow.
What is the feeling about return tracks? When the train passes through the same scenery going the opposite direction it doesn’t look very realistic, I think, unless there is some separation in elevation or scenery. Unless the layout is a continuous loop around the walls with a duckunder, there is always, mostly, a return trip for the train. Sometimes it is hidden and leads to off layout staging. I apologize if this seems like hijacking the thread but I just wondered if it is considered an undesireable element in layout design.
gary233still too many?
Upon further examination, no.
Having your barge facility landlocked by the track going around will not "look" great IMO. What if you ran a spur track past the HWT either in front or behind (depending on space) that goes to the Port of "Water Tank". The port of HWT is an 11' x 18" wall mounted shelf that has the barge facility as well as other waterfront industries that could create good ops possibilities. The shelf could be easily removable when your HWT blows up and needs replacing.
Removing the barge facility from where it is will give you lots of room for a town.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
I agree the ‘Yard” looks like a lot of parking but there are only 4 sorting tracks. The remaining five are a lead to the engin facility, an A/D track and 4 mainline tracks. There will be 7 customers, a car ferry connecting to the outside world as well as an interchange track.
as suggested I plan on shortening the yard to make space for a small town and add a run around track.
still too many?
Thanks, Brent, I put a lot of time and thought into coming up with that idea.
Rich
Alton Junction
Ya know, I never thought of that, it's a great idea.
What about adding staging below the main level?
riogrande5761 Here is a curve ball: What about adding staging below the main level? It could be done, even without a helix, just a ramp down and back up - no-lix.
Here is a curve ball:
It could be done, even without a helix, just a ramp down and back up - no-lix.
I thought I said that.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I like the suggestions. I’ll make some changes as see how it looks.
I agree with Jim on extending the right lobe to the left a tad. You will be only walking through there to get in and out of the centre of the layout, only you know how much space you need for that.
You seem to have an awful lot of parking up top for the size of the layout. If it were me I would cut the width of the yard in half and have a row of small-town main street buildings against the backdrop with the street in front and then the yard.
I would have underneath staging with access down at each lobe on either end of the layout.
It's looking good, just make sure to have the willpower to get your backdrop in before anything else. That was advice I am glad I followed.
Massive improvement on Design 2; one major advantage is no duck-under or lift out required.
If the squares on the plan are 2x2 feet, I'd extend that lobe on the right at least another foot to the left which could give you a little more breathing room for the track in inside the lobe. The extra foot would fit, especially if you bent the turn table around a little more to the upper left.
But otherwise a huge improvement.
Big improvement in design and use of available space. Might consider a double cross over between the two main loops.
I think I need to shorten the yard a little so I can add a runaround track and a yard lead so i don’t need to use the main as the lead.
I need to plan the bench work, background, control panel locations and decide which switches will be remote controlled and which will be ground throws.
Gary, that is pretty much what I had in mind when you started the thread. Having that finger running off for the Turntable is what I am thinking of doing on my layout for a Barge loading facility.
Design #2
Getting there
BATMAN Doughless And that space doesn't nned to have 2.5 feet along its entire length It needs to be wide enough to get the hot water tank in and out. Also, using curved turnouts will give you some more wiggle room in your yard.
Doughless And that space doesn't nned to have 2.5 feet along its entire length
It needs to be wide enough to get the hot water tank in and out.
Also, using curved turnouts will give you some more wiggle room in your yard.
Oh, I thought there was another exit at the bottom.
- Douglas
DoughlessAnd that space doesn't nned to have 2.5 feet along its entire length
gary233I’m having a hard time with the yard because the 30” radius curves take up so much space. Is 28 enough for 70’ passenger cars? Those are the largest i run. Layout is 1940 - 1960 so mostly 40 and 50’ freight.
A 28 inch radius curve should be fine for 70' passenger cars, even 85' passenger cars generally run ok on 28 inch curves, but appearance is mainly what suffers.
Now in yards, you ideally want the largest radius curves you can fit because yards are used for making up trains and coupling/uncoupling, which doesn't work too well on curves, or may be impossible. So you would have to do coupling in straight sections of a yard.
Now I have used curves in yards in-order to fit longer train capacity in. Here is double ended staging yard I used a combination of 3-way, #6 and curved turnouts to make capacity the absolute maximum (ranging from 13' on the shortest track to 22 feet on the longest) in a 10x18' room:
Other end:
Curve radii in the above photo's is in the 34 to 40 inch range.
Ok, if passenger trains will be a main staple of the layout, then you'll want the broadest possible curves, IMO. That would eliminate an E shaped plan....too many curves....too sharp.
The plan Jim has looks like the best shape for the room. You can push the layout to all of the walls of the room except the bottom for access. And that space doesn't nned to have 2.5 feet along its entire length, if you want to make a return blob bigger for a broader radius.
Aye, Jim is forum name rio grande5761
If I at some time after work I'd try some scale drawings but wife seems to keep me busy with with house projects - she already has lined up the next one.
[/quote]
Tell her a fellow MR needs help .
I’m having a hard time with the yard because the 30” radius curves take up so much space. Is 28 enough for 70’ passenger cars? Those are the largest i run. Layout is 1940 - 1960 so mostly 40 and 50’ freight.
The passenger set I have is the MTH 5 car set.
gary233 Ok who is Jim? Riogrande5761?
Ok who is Jim? Riogrande5761?
Yep.
carl425 BATMAN I like Jim's plan I like Jim's plan too. It's a much better idea than his suggestion of an E shape.
BATMAN I like Jim's plan
I like Jim's plan too. It's a much better idea than his suggestion of an E shape.
I guess what I came up with was a sort of lower case e only the middle part doesn't touch the left part. or a G flipped on it's vertical axix.
Modern track planning thought is to limit the number of turnaround blobs to the minimum necessary since these blobs consume floor space and create unrealistic curves.
Yes, all to true, which forced me into the design shown on the plan.
Jim's plan has 2 (as does mine) which is good, but an E would have 3. Unless you are modeling the loops of the old Clinchfield, the resulting plan is far too curvy. The E also leaves you with no good spot for a yard. A G shaped plan like Jim's own is a far better use of space and creates a nice spot along the long wall for a good length yard.
You could do a decent yard with an E shaped layout (E fliipped right for left) but yes, a better yard without a lobe at the end.
BTW, an around the walls donut with a center peninsula only has one blob which would be the best case if you don't mind a lift gate or duck under.
I agee. So it's probably an around the walls with a center penninsula with lob with a lift out bridge or some sort of variation of my configuration which allows walk-in and no liftout.
BTW, I had a secondary design of my plan (in my head) which would have extended the layout all the way to the top wall adjacent to the stairs down, but it would have required a lift-out bridge and I also would not have been able to follow trains along the mainline for most of the journey.
Also, not shown on my plan, is a staging yard underneath the main yard; something which should obviously fit but I just haven't fleshed out the best track configuration yet.
I think Jim's plan is a more efficient use of space.
Bear "It's all about having fun."
BATMANI like Jim's plan
I like Jim's plan too. It's a much better idea than his suggestion of an E shape. Modern track planning thought is to limit the number of turnaround blobs to the minimum necessary since these blobs consume floor space and create unrealistic curves. Jim's plan has 2 (as does mine) which is good, but an E would have 3. Unless you are modeling the loops of the old Clinchfield, the resulting plan is far too curvy. The E also leaves you with no good spot for a yard. A G shaped plan like Jim's own is a far better use of space and creates a nice spot along the long wall for a good length yard.
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.
Yes 6” same graph paper (11x17). I’ve abandoned the original plan, working on an “E” to see if I can get it to work.
I like Jim's plan (flipped over) Being lazy I like to see the train go around the layout without getting off my butt. I'm not sure about the dividers.