7j43k "What's best type of uncoupling magnet-hidden under the ties or ones that mount ontop of the ties?" Why, UNDER, of course, because real railroads don't have big magnets scattered on the tracks everywhere. Of course, you'll have to have a way to keep track of the Unders. That'll be a Kadee #308: https://www.kadee.com/ho-scale-uncouplers-c-274_280_300/ To the right, you'll see #309, the electric version. You will likely be using a lot of them, for sure on the main, and quite possibly in the yard. The 308 is pretty decent for industrial sidings and stuff like you "ash pickup track". You can lessen the need for the uncouplers by using the "delayed" feature, I am told. I recommend you try it out on the bench before you assume it will make you happy. "What would be the best type of turnout control for this type of layout?" The answer partly depends on you feelings of reaching into the layout to throw a switch, and having an unprototypical thingy replacing a switch stand. That said, remember that on the main, there are many turnouts that don't have switchstands, anyway. For a simpler layout, I'd consider mounting the switch throws at the edge of the layout, and using a mechanical linkage. This layout is too full for that, I think. I would likely suck it up and bulk order some Tortoise. And build control panels on BOTH sides of the yard. THAT will be a lot of wiring, and keep you quite busy for awhile. Considering how much fun it is to work above one's head while kneeling on the floor, I recommend doing the yard in modular sections, so that you can lift (hoist) out a section and turn it upside down to work on the switch machines and wiring and all that. If that's looking, uh, unrewarding, the other choice is the first variant mentioned: But PLEASE not out on the main! Ed
"What's best type of uncoupling magnet-hidden under the ties or ones that mount ontop of the ties?"
Why, UNDER, of course, because real railroads don't have big magnets scattered on the tracks everywhere. Of course, you'll have to have a way to keep track of the Unders. That'll be a Kadee #308:
https://www.kadee.com/ho-scale-uncouplers-c-274_280_300/
To the right, you'll see #309, the electric version. You will likely be using a lot of them, for sure on the main, and quite possibly in the yard. The 308 is pretty decent for industrial sidings and stuff like you "ash pickup track". You can lessen the need for the uncouplers by using the "delayed" feature, I am told. I recommend you try it out on the bench before you assume it will make you happy.
"What would be the best type of turnout control for this type of layout?"
The answer partly depends on you feelings of reaching into the layout to throw a switch, and having an unprototypical thingy replacing a switch stand.
That said, remember that on the main, there are many turnouts that don't have switchstands, anyway.
For a simpler layout, I'd consider mounting the switch throws at the edge of the layout, and using a mechanical linkage. This layout is too full for that, I think.
I would likely suck it up and bulk order some Tortoise. And build control panels on BOTH sides of the yard. THAT will be a lot of wiring, and keep you quite busy for awhile.
Considering how much fun it is to work above one's head while kneeling on the floor, I recommend doing the yard in modular sections, so that you can lift (hoist) out a section and turn it upside down to work on the switch machines and wiring and all that.
If that's looking, uh, unrewarding, the other choice is the first variant mentioned:
But PLEASE not out on the main!
Ed
NVSRR I noticed the track spacing is 2 1/4. Through the yard where you have. 30. Inch dimension I count 18 tracks through that dimension point. That right there would need to be at least 46 inches for all that track. Or did I miss something?shane
I noticed the track spacing is 2 1/4. Through the yard where you have. 30. Inch dimension I count 18 tracks through that dimension point. That right there would need to be at least 46 inches for all that track. Or did I miss something?shane
tstage Just a suggestion, MSM: You might try using the "quote" feature so that other readers/posters know who exactly you are responding to with you posts. To add a quote: Click on the "Reply" button to the post you want to respond to. Directly above the Post Body you'll see the words of the poster and the "Add Quote to your Post" button right below it - Click on "Add Quote to your Post" and the entire post will show up at the beginning of your text box between two bracketed "quote" codes. Add your response AFTER the 2nd bracketed "quote" (or "
Just a suggestion, MSM: You might try using the "quote" feature so that other readers/posters know who exactly you are responding to with you posts. To add a quote:
That's all there is to it! Happy quoting...
Tom
Thanks Tom...
SeeYou190 Doughless All I know is that when I was a teenager in 1977 being inspired by the V&O, I had no contemplation that I would find 2010 more interesting, until 2010 actually got here. A a teen I was inspired by Tony Koester's ALLEGHENY MIDLAND. That is why the first two SGRR layouts were heavy into coal hauling in tree covered hills. Then Tony prototyped his layout, and I lost interest. When I switched to HO, I really thought I would keep the same era, but my interests turned to steam locomotives, and back-dating the SGRR happened. I know if I were to start over, it would be in G scale, set in the 1960s, and be different again. That is not going to happen, but I know interests change over time. -Kevin
Doughless All I know is that when I was a teenager in 1977 being inspired by the V&O, I had no contemplation that I would find 2010 more interesting, until 2010 actually got here.
A a teen I was inspired by Tony Koester's ALLEGHENY MIDLAND. That is why the first two SGRR layouts were heavy into coal hauling in tree covered hills.
Then Tony prototyped his layout, and I lost interest.
When I switched to HO, I really thought I would keep the same era, but my interests turned to steam locomotives, and back-dating the SGRR happened.
I know if I were to start over, it would be in G scale, set in the 1960s, and be different again. That is not going to happen, but I know interests change over time.
-Kevin
With respectful sensitivity to the OPs track plan thread, I'll make one more comment about this.
I have had two distinct interests forming the past few years. Both freelanced shortlines of course.
One modern era, more robust railroad with a decent level of activity. Maybe an appearance by the nearby Class 1.
The other a backwoods Southern Georgia sleepy line. Woodchips, Kaolin, and peanut farming. Era about 1970. Sw1200s. Still could use 40 foot converted woodchip hoppers.
One would have more track and buildings than the other.
Dilemma: Two distinct themes, at least different enough it would be hard to combine them.
How do I choose between two conflicting but equal interests?
Solution: Two separate layouts. One chair height, one standing height. Built like a double level layout, but no helix. Not connected.
The sleepy line would have few buildings. Could be mainly trees and backdrop and only 12 inches deep as to not interfere with the lower layout.
This requires more thought.
- Douglas
MSMSteam only layout and I see the engine facility as a very vital and busy place during operations.
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
DoughlessAll I know is that when I was a teenager in 1977 being inspired by the V&O, I had no contemplation that I would find 2010 more interesting, until 2010 actually got here.
Living the dream.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL richhotrain SeeYou190 richhotrain But over these past 17 years, I have refined my modeling tastes and found myself with stuff that I don't want or need, not only structures but also locomotives and rolling stock, especially passenger cars. It has taken me 40 years, two scales, two eras, and five layouts to figure out what I really want out of this hobby. I also have a lot of passenger cars that do not thrill me all that much. -Kevin To borrow a lyric from U2, I stll haven't found what I'm looking for. Rich I must be unusual, I started in this hobby at age 10, I'm 64 now, and by age 20 I know exactly what kind of model railroad I wanted. All my layouts since then have reflected my current goals. I started out as a teen modeling the 60's, but other than that era change to 1954, I have never changed scale, locale, or type of railroad. By my 20's I had most of my design and operational goals in place. By my 30's I had the space and money. In my 50's I perfected my operational plan and partually took down one layout to redo it. So most everything I have gathered fits my goals perfectly. Now to build the last version...... Sheldon
richhotrain SeeYou190 richhotrain But over these past 17 years, I have refined my modeling tastes and found myself with stuff that I don't want or need, not only structures but also locomotives and rolling stock, especially passenger cars. It has taken me 40 years, two scales, two eras, and five layouts to figure out what I really want out of this hobby. I also have a lot of passenger cars that do not thrill me all that much. -Kevin To borrow a lyric from U2, I stll haven't found what I'm looking for. Rich
SeeYou190 richhotrain But over these past 17 years, I have refined my modeling tastes and found myself with stuff that I don't want or need, not only structures but also locomotives and rolling stock, especially passenger cars. It has taken me 40 years, two scales, two eras, and five layouts to figure out what I really want out of this hobby. I also have a lot of passenger cars that do not thrill me all that much. -Kevin
richhotrain But over these past 17 years, I have refined my modeling tastes and found myself with stuff that I don't want or need, not only structures but also locomotives and rolling stock, especially passenger cars.
It has taken me 40 years, two scales, two eras, and five layouts to figure out what I really want out of this hobby.
I also have a lot of passenger cars that do not thrill me all that much.
To borrow a lyric from U2, I stll haven't found what I'm looking for.
Rich
I must be unusual, I started in this hobby at age 10, I'm 64 now, and by age 20 I know exactly what kind of model railroad I wanted. All my layouts since then have reflected my current goals.
I started out as a teen modeling the 60's, but other than that era change to 1954, I have never changed scale, locale, or type of railroad. By my 20's I had most of my design and operational goals in place. By my 30's I had the space and money.
In my 50's I perfected my operational plan and partually took down one layout to redo it.
So most everything I have gathered fits my goals perfectly.
Now to build the last version......
Sheldon
I don't know what is usual and what isn't. Meaning what is normal and what isn't.
For me, I would say that life's journey impacts what I might find interesting, and since the journey changed, the some aspects of model railroad interests followed along.
All I know is that when I was a teenager in 1977 being inspired by the V&O, I had no contemplation that I would find 2010 more interesting, until 2010 actually got here.
And I had no idea that places other than my home state of Nebraska would be just as interesting to model, until I actually moved there.
I know that if I move to Florida, I will get to know the area well....that's what I do...so my interests will likely move with it. I'm getting prepared.
7j43kI would likely suck it up and bulk order some Tortoise.
I bought 4 twelve packs from Model Train Stuff about a year and a half ago. If you know you will need them, buy them now.
It really stinks to get to the point where you need them, and they are unavailable, price increases, or design changes. This advice applies to a lot of Model Railroading items.
Please see attached
Ed, thanks and hope all is well...
Hi Shane,
Thanks for your comment, I got really concerned there for a minute...
Main line is spaced 2 1/4 inches with min radius 36" and yard spacing - below
I am thinking, judging from the drawing, that the 30 should be a 48.
A pessimist sees a dark tunnel
An optimist sees the light at the end of the tunnel
A realist sees a frieght train
An engineer sees three idiots standing on the tracks stairing blankly in space
Alton Junction
richhotrainBut over these past 17 years, I have refined my modeling tastes and found myself with stuff that I don't want or need, not only structures but also locomotives and rolling stock, especially passenger cars.
richhotrain Yeah, I agree with all of the comments shaming me for not using the engine servicing facility that I created. Where I went wrong was early on when I first got into HO scale modeling back in 2004. I had no idea where I was going at the time, so I bought everything that appealed to me from bridges to large passenger stations to roundhouses to turntables to coaling towers, blah, blah, blah. But over these past 17 years, I have refined my modeling tastes and found myself with stuff that I don't want or need, not only structures but also locomotives and rolling stock, especially passenger cars. Now, I find myself staring at my large engine servicing facility and asking myself, why? Rich
Yeah, I agree with all of the comments shaming me for not using the engine servicing facility that I created.
Where I went wrong was early on when I first got into HO scale modeling back in 2004. I had no idea where I was going at the time, so I bought everything that appealed to me from bridges to large passenger stations to roundhouses to turntables to coaling towers, blah, blah, blah.
But over these past 17 years, I have refined my modeling tastes and found myself with stuff that I don't want or need, not only structures but also locomotives and rolling stock, especially passenger cars.
Now, I find myself staring at my large engine servicing facility and asking myself, why?
Rich, it's fine if those aspects of operation don't interest you, but at least now you have some prototype context, as to why and how others may be using theirs.
I'm sure there is someone on here who took one look at my track plan and said "what? there is no "destination"? - only one town?", or "display loops?, real model railroaders only run point to point".
7j43k richhotrain 7j43k If you're going to "operate" your layout, that should include the engine facilities, too. I expect the roundhouse and environs to be quite busy on the subject layout. Ed That's what I thought too when I planned and built the engine servicing facility, but it has become the least visited section of my layout. As I previously mentioned, it may be a problem unique to lone wolf operators. Rich If there's only one of you, and tasks for 8, you're gonna be stretched thin, for sure. So you pick whatever you enjoy most, I assume. I have seen at least one layout where it was entirely engine servicing. THEN you've got no choice. On a biggish layout, and if I was by myself, I suspect I'd end up either running trains round and round ('cause it's fun to watch them) or doing industrial switching. Depending on my mood. Ed
richhotrain 7j43k If you're going to "operate" your layout, that should include the engine facilities, too. I expect the roundhouse and environs to be quite busy on the subject layout. Ed That's what I thought too when I planned and built the engine servicing facility, but it has become the least visited section of my layout. As I previously mentioned, it may be a problem unique to lone wolf operators. Rich
7j43k If you're going to "operate" your layout, that should include the engine facilities, too. I expect the roundhouse and environs to be quite busy on the subject layout. Ed
If you're going to "operate" your layout, that should include the engine facilities, too.
I expect the roundhouse and environs to be quite busy on the subject layout.
That's what I thought too when I planned and built the engine servicing facility, but it has become the least visited section of my layout. As I previously mentioned, it may be a problem unique to lone wolf operators.
If there's only one of you, and tasks for 8, you're gonna be stretched thin, for sure. So you pick whatever you enjoy most, I assume.
I have seen at least one layout where it was entirely engine servicing. THEN you've got no choice.
On a biggish layout, and if I was by myself, I suspect I'd end up either running trains round and round ('cause it's fun to watch them) or doing industrial switching. Depending on my mood.
And that is why I designed my layout to do both of those things when I don't have a crew of eight.
I will be able to put five trains on display loops and still switch most of the industries.
Rich, when I was part of a regular operating group that met every week at a different persons layout, engine terminals were often an important part of the scheduled activity.
On some layouts, at least some of the trains were not fully staged in advance. Your train orders would tell you which locos to retrive from the engine terminal ready tracks, which caboose to pickup, and which block, or blocks, of cars in the yard will be your train.
Like wise, trains that terminated in the yard, required that locos and cabooses be "put away", either by the road crew or by a yard hostler.
My operational plan will include these moves for some trains, and will include power change moves as I described above.
As related above, steam locos seldom traveled more than about 100 miles without some service. Most steam stayed on the same subdivision and simply ran back and forth between two engine terminals.
For example trains moving west from Baltimore on the original B&O mainline where pulled from Baltimore to Brunswick MD, a distance of about 70 miles, typically with two Mikados. At Brunswick the power was switched out for bigger power for the next leg over the mountains and the original power was serviced and put on trains returning to Baltimore. Some of those Mikados likely logged many thousands of miles all on that 70 mile stretch of track.
So while I am only modeling one sub division terminal, that is the kind of operation I am trying to simulate.
But I don't need to get too heavy into some of the stuff the OP is planning. I will have a work train parked in the engine terminal, I will have separate diesel and steam areas. There will be a caboose track. I will not have any extensive back shops or major repair facilities.
So, a west bound train might leave the staging with two Mikados on the point, pull in the yard, and have them switched out for two 2-8-8-0's, and then just continue on, complete the trip around the layout, and return to staging. The yard and terminal are "roughly" half way thru the scenic portion of the layout.
Pruitt richhotrain dehusman I personally have issues with devoting huge swaths of layout to RIP tracks and engine facilities. RIP tracks are switched once, maybe twice a day. In my experience very few people actually "operate" an engine facility. Other than a ready track for engines and turning a engine during a session, most cases they are purely a scenic thing to display equipment or a detailed scene. I could not agree more. I have an entire 7' x 11' peninsula devoted to an engine servicing facility. It holds a 9-stall roundhouse, 130' turntable, a coaling tower and two back shops. IMHO, it looks great but, for all practical purposes, it is a static diorama. I am seriously considering removing it altogether and replacing it with something more functional. Rich I'd think about that a bit before you take that step, Rich.
richhotrain dehusman I personally have issues with devoting huge swaths of layout to RIP tracks and engine facilities. RIP tracks are switched once, maybe twice a day. In my experience very few people actually "operate" an engine facility. Other than a ready track for engines and turning a engine during a session, most cases they are purely a scenic thing to display equipment or a detailed scene. I could not agree more. I have an entire 7' x 11' peninsula devoted to an engine servicing facility. It holds a 9-stall roundhouse, 130' turntable, a coaling tower and two back shops. IMHO, it looks great but, for all practical purposes, it is a static diorama. I am seriously considering removing it altogether and replacing it with something more functional. Rich
dehusman I personally have issues with devoting huge swaths of layout to RIP tracks and engine facilities. RIP tracks are switched once, maybe twice a day. In my experience very few people actually "operate" an engine facility. Other than a ready track for engines and turning a engine during a session, most cases they are purely a scenic thing to display equipment or a detailed scene.
I personally have issues with devoting huge swaths of layout to RIP tracks and engine facilities. RIP tracks are switched once, maybe twice a day. In my experience very few people actually "operate" an engine facility. Other than a ready track for engines and turning a engine during a session, most cases they are purely a scenic thing to display equipment or a detailed scene.
I could not agree more. I have an entire 7' x 11' peninsula devoted to an engine servicing facility. It holds a 9-stall roundhouse, 130' turntable, a coaling tower and two back shops.
IMHO, it looks great but, for all practical purposes, it is a static diorama. I am seriously considering removing it altogether and replacing it with something more functional.
I'd think about that a bit before you take that step, Rich.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL richhotrain dehusman I personally have issues with devoting huge swaths of layout to RIP tracks and engine facilities. RIP tracks are switched once, maybe twice a day. In my experience very few people actually "operate" an engine facility. Other than a ready track for engines and turning a engine during a session, most cases they are purely a scenic thing to display equipment or a detailed scene. I could not agree more. I have an entire 7' x 11' peninsula devoted to an engine servicing facility. It holds a 9-stall roundhouse, 130' turntable, a coaling tower and two back shops. IMHO, it looks great but, for all practical purposes, it is a static diorama. I am seriously considering removing it altogether and replacing it with something more functional. Rich I will agree that engine terminals are only useful if they are "planned" into the operating scheme, and generally only for layouts operated by multiple crews, not so much for lone wolf operations.
I will agree that engine terminals are only useful if they are "planned" into the operating scheme, and generally only for layouts operated by multiple crews, not so much for lone wolf operations.
Hi there. I zoomed in the image and I saw some of the fine print. I see that there are plans for loops in there - sorry if I missed that in the previous post. It might be useful to post the entire plan to have an overall view. As is, it appears to be a huge locomotive facility and yard - something that someone would build to store a lot of rolling stock. However, because of the multiple returning tracks and loops, there would in fact be not too much room for storage.
Simon