Track plan ideas

[rrinker]

Well, the plan so far really only has the main line and staging. I am goign to try and add in some of Texas Zephyr's ideas, especially with putting the staging underneath if possible. This would allow more room for the main and sidings and scenery inthe same overall width. My problem with that is how to tie the staging tracks in at each end.
If I use the idea of extendign the penninsula all the way down to the other end of the room, I think I thought of a way to get the 4-track stuff - along the narrow part of the penninsula. There will be a double track main going down one side, and a double track main going up the other. Put them together and I have a 4-track main. Although, it does violate the through the scene only 1 time rule. I'm still thinking. If 4-track has to go, it has to go.

--Randy

[SpaceMouse]

since you seem bound and determined to appease your f-in-law, I'll look at it tonight. In the meantime could you spot the cities and industries you have planned. Also any stations and terminals. Numbers with a key would be fine. It would help me understand what's going on a bit.

[rrinker]

That's really where I was going with this. Make a more generic layout, atl east for now. The absolutes that are required are pretty much set, but may be at odds wth each other:

Ability to run full-length passenger cars
Ample way freight switching opportunities
Staging at each end for operation
Continuous run option - and not one that requires throwing turnouts to maintain the flow, more like 'set the throttle and step back and watch'
At least one yard to make and break freight trains
No duckunders (other than the one in place to reach the middle of the 8x12 donut - it's not a solid 8x12 plane, it's made up of 4 identical 2x8 sections, leaving a 4x8 donut hole)
Nothing hanging down to less than 36" off the floor - need room for the containerized storage of 'junk' (don't let my wife see that [:D])

That's pretty much it. I'm trying to get the most usable track in the space I have without making a bowl of spaghetti. I have resigned myself to the fact that my truly prototype based Reading layout will not happen for a number of years. Probably not in this house.

--Randy

[jxtrrx]

Me commenting on your track plan --- it’s like a paint-by-numbers kid giving a few tips to Rembrandt. [:I]

I sure hear what lots of the guys are saying… that if your heart’s desire is to recreate the Reading prototype, you could just resent all the compromises you’ve had to make. But we all have compromises in our layouts. I do disagree with your comment that there’s “nothing interesting here.” What I see when I look at this plan is a beautiful layout created by a guy who really thought it through. I see:
Beautiful wide sweeping curves (but not so wide that they take over everything else),
Great utilization of available space,
Nice simplicity of design.
Wonderful long straight-aways,
Plenty of yard,
No weird duck-unders or lifting bridges across doorways,
Double mainline (and more),
Nice sidings,
Interesting loops (not some dopey variation of an oval),
One level! (That’s a good thing in my book),
Easy access (except in the 8 x 12 section – I assume it’s popups to reach all that?),
Ability to easily accommodate long trains and long cars if you want…

In short… I’d love to run trains on that thing.

I wonder if instead of reworking the layout, you could rework your view of the project a little. Could you somehow embrace those beautiful PRR 85 footers, embrace a big ol' busy passenger station, embrace that classic bridge and enjoy how trains traversing it will look. I never got to meet my father-in-law… but I would have loved it were he still alive and wanting to do my trains with me, Maybe this is today’s layout, and the Reading prototype is for when you’re his age???

[selector]

Randy, I'm not going to comment on your plan because, like the ever-wise Mouse, I think you are boxing yourself in. You might have to build two separate benches, stacked if most practicable, and joined only by a single ramp for the occasional incursions by either one of you. But really, I agree that you should have your own kingdom. To me, your statement that, several weeks already past your last thread on this subject, you are considering throwing in the towel, speaks volumes.

[ereimer]

just a quick point to everyone reading this

talking about the electrical box...

QUOTE: A previous design ran over to tthat wall, figuring I would put a liftout of some sort for access to the box

probably a violation of your local building code (and common sense) be very careful and seek advice before blocking access to your electrical panel

[rrinker]

Paragraph 1 of my first reply to Chip.

I want: 1956. Freight trains. VERY few passenger trains, typical short Reading consists. Plenty of switching. Double track per the prototype.

Having short passenger cars and mostly 40 foot freight cars, and all 4-axle diesels (although I AM getting one of those PCM T-1s) I could live with 28" minium mainline radius, which might help gain a precious few inches in the narrow areas.

HO - I have too much invested to even THINK of switching now.

I would like to minimize hidden track - part of the reason I made a both sides accessible blob instead of running over to the wall. Staging is a must. I can accept hidden track as needed to make a scheme work, but I'd rather not have 50% visible 50% hidden (not counting staging tracks).

I'd LIKE to run 20 car trains, but based on the 8x12 section, 15 cars is more like it (40' type - a few more shorties, a few less if there are some 50' cars in the mix)

As I said in my reply to Chip, if this were all mine, and mine alone, I would model the area of the East Penn branch. Plus more sidings to shift the operation away from Crossline through traffic and swing it more towards local freights. Not an exactly replica, just close.



--Randy

[dehusman]

I model the Reading and have modeled the PRR in the past. I used to live in the Phillie area. I have also designed several layouts.

But I can't help you.

Why? Because you haven't told us what YOU want. All I know is your father-in-law wants a double track main.

What do YOU want?
What area?
Switching? Running? Freight? Passenger?
How about what scale?
What type of industries are you interested in?
Era? If you want PRR that nails it down to pre-1968.
Are you running electrics (GG-1's)? If not that eleiminates most of the lines radiating out of Phillie.
What kind of minimum radius do you want?
How big do you want a normal train to be?
Steam? Diesel?
How do you feel about hidden track? Staging?

Dave H.

[SpaceMouse]

Okay, I think I can see the problem. Everything but the 8x12 is designed with your father-in-law in mind. The 8x12 might be a limitation for your ideal layout, but a refuge the way it is designed above.

Remember, passenger trains can run just fine through switching layouts--but freight trains are just another circle-runner on a passenger railfan layout.

I fear you'll go crazy if you build it.

[SpaceMouse]

Whoa!

Glad I'm not in your position. It seems you need to renegotiate. Obviously you are not happy with your current layout. It's better that you find one that you do like before you build.

Why not take a week or two and draw up the layout you really want, and I mean completely ignore your father-in-law. Make it so high he can't even see it if you want. Throw it up here and let everyone help you fine tune it.

Then show your father-in-law and let him negotiate onto the layout.

If you don't do this, you will end up resenting your father-in-law and it will drive you apart instead of bringing you together.

Now is the time to talk to your wife about it too.

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrinker

QUOTE: Location of the electrical box is a killer.

A previous design ran over to tthat wall, figuring I would put a liftout of some sort for access to the box. But I saw that as wasting the length (nearly 24') of that wall with a hidden section. Making it a blob with access to both side gains me somewhere around 15 feet of visible track.

I was sort of thinking both. Go over to the wall but then angle back toward the center of the room for the blob. This is a comon box our brains want to fall into. The layout edges don't have to run parallel to the walls.

QUOTE:
Interesting idea as well - sort of 'instead of' idea 2, I don't think I could possibly fit both in the space.

No, I don't think so either. Plus that would probably eliminate access to the back isle without a duck under.

QUOTE:
See my reply to Chip's message for a better understanding of what's going on.

Can't find it. or perhaps you typing it right now?

QUOTE:
As for double track vs dogbone - I did originally start out making a simple dogbone style, but two things jumped out. One, where do I connect staging tracks, and two, the loops end up being signle track, somewhat of a bottleneck. I had tried doing a simple dogbone with staging inside the end blobs.

Sounds like you already tried my further thoughts, but here they are anyway. They are both sort of the same issue. But I was going to say put passing tracks through the blobs and why not staging outside? Inside staging with sharper curves could be used for freighters. Ane even maybe use the blob on one end as a loop to gain/loose altitude.

[rrinker]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

Randy,

I clicked on the plan, but I haven't opened it yet. Since you are at the point of trashing it and starting over. I'd like to hear what you think a good layout would be. If you like you can even throw in what you don't like about what you already desigend.

In your ideal world, what would you layout look like? What features make a layout fun?

Well, if you rememebr back to about when you first joined, I was mentioning the biggest problem to my design. That is, this layout is being built by and for two people with compeltely different interests. That's wh my earliest plans were double-decked. One for what I wanted, one for what he (my father in law) wants. Ideally connected at both ends with a helix so both parts could be utilized for longer runs, or each deck could be operated individually for specific operating sessions.
If I were buildign this myself, it would be single deck, about 54" high, and be a nearly accurate representation fo the actual East Penn Branch of the Reading. 'Nearly accurate' because I would put in more industrial sidings for more emphasis on local switching and less on the throguh trains of the Crossline. One end would be Reading Yard, along with the wye located thee, leaving space for building a model of the Outer Station, when my skills develop to the point of taking on such a scratchbuilding project. Or someone releases a kit. What few passenger trains there would be would run Reading's short cars, so 30" radius curves with 28" inside curves would be fine. The year would be 1956.
However, I am NOT building this myself. My father-in-law's interests are mostly Eastern roads, primarily PRR, Reading, and New Haven. And more so on passenger operation. In any year from the end of WWII up to the start of Penn Central. He likes 4-track mainlines. Big passenger stations (he has the Walthers kit plus LOTS of the sheds). And he has an O scale Hell Gate Bridge (MTH Repro of the Lionel orginal) which believe it or not is more closely sacled to HO than the O and even STANDARD GAUGE Lioel sold it as, which he wants to put on the layout somehow. This is why, on the double desk design, he was getting the top desk - the bridge is just too big to be on a bottom deck.
The plan I posted was not complete by any means. But I was giving up a whole lot of my desires to accomodate him, yet he was still complaining about what he wasn't getting. That plan is nothing like any part of the actual Reading system. The yard, not even close. I can live with a generic layout if I have to, and just flavor it by the type of equipment I run. We didn;t even get to the point of discussing lineside structures. On the Reading they should be brown and cream. No so PRR.
So you see, it's not quite as simple as putting in what fits.

--Randy

[rrinker]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Texas Zepher

Ok, I've looked at it a bit more. Looks like the minimum radius is 36"? Not much interest in switching? Do you have to have a true double track or is a dog bone sufficient?

Actually minimum is more like 30-32. For a 180 degree loop like that it would be more like 30 for the inner, 33 for the outer, otherwise 85' passenger cars will sideswipe - we tested it. Pay attention to the fact that I mentioned 85' passenger cars. A theme will become evident here in my responses.

QUOTE:
Obervations.
As is, the center of the blob loop in the upper center is wasted.
Location of the electrical box is a killer.

A previous design ran over to tthat wall, figuring I would put a liftout of some sort for access to the box. But I saw that as wasting the length (nearly 24') of that wall with a hidden section. Making it a blob with access to both side gains me somewhere around 15 feet of visible track.

QUOTE:
Idea 1.
Besides putting the staging on a lower level, make the dual track along the long wall pass over a single track branch line originating a the yard and servicing something in the center of the loop.

I like this one, a lot! Oh, forgot to mention, I have sketched out but not added tot he CAD plan, a switchign area that comes off the diagonal track on the right side of the blob and is located in the middle of the circle. It's closer to the prototype that way, but FAR more interesting to operate your way.

QUOTE:
Idea 2
Move the yard to the end of the room where it is 12' wide. Pull/extend the upper center loop clear back down through the narrow part of the room so it loops just
inside of where the turntable currently is. The 4 tracks on the center would have to be squeezed together. With some clever use of Apalachan scenery or even a dual level arrangment it wouldn't be to bad. There should be room for a 3' isle next to the stairs, 18" benchwork for the center, then a 30" isle, and 18" benchwork for along the long wall.

Hmm, intriguing idea. I actually do have another attempt that was similar to that, actually nothing was against the wall,s it was completely freestanding. I'll have to try this.

QUOTE:
Idea 3
Instead of having them in-line make the main yard and the in-law passenger station into stubs. Service them from a double wye coming out from the center bottom. Initially make the wye angle to the right and then straighten out toward the narrow part of the room. The transition from the angle through the kink would make it more interesting. Could also be operated as a point to point, even if both points are the same yard.

Interesting idea as well - sort of 'instead of' idea 2, I don't think I could possibly fit both in the space.

OK I failed to develop the theme I said. See my reply to Chip's message for a better understanding of what's going on. As for double track vs dogbone - I did originally start out making a simple dogbone style, but two things jumped out. One, where do I connect staging tracks, and two, the loops end up being signle track, somewhat of a bottleneck. I had tried doing a simple dogbone with staging inside the end blobs. Staging below presents a slight probem, no part of the benchwork can be below 36" off the floor Witht he top currently at 48", that's not too much of a problem, and I've BEEN lobbying for a slight increase of the 48" height, but I'm 6' and my father-in-law is like 5'6", so taller is not compatible with him. Problem 2 with this, to get 8" seperation with 2% grades, I need about 33 linear feet of track. depending where I am able to cut in the staging tracks, I may have issues with how long the level section is where I cna park trains. The advantage is I could have more than 4 tracks. A lot more. A helix or two is pretty much out of the question, at least down at the end where the completed portion is. The space between the existing layout and the bottom wall is barely enough for a 30" radius helix. And remember, that's the INNER loop, the outer one must be bigger.
This is exactly what I was looking for though. Plenty of food for thought.

--Randy

[SpaceMouse]

Randy,

I clicked on the plan, but I haven't opened it yet. Since you are at the point of trashing it and starting over. I'd like to hear what you think a good layout would be. If you like you can even throw in what you don't like about what you already desigend.

In your ideal world, what would you layout look like? What features make a layout fun?

[Texas Zepher]

Ok, I've looked at it a bit more. Looks like the minimum radius is 36"? Not much interest in switching? Do you have to have a true double track or is a dog bone sufficient?

Obervations.
As is, the center of the blob loop in the upper center is wasted.
Location of the electrical box is a killer.

Idea 1.
Besides putting the staging on a lower level, make the dual track along the long wall pass over a single track branch line originating a the yard and servicing something in the center of the loop.

Idea 2
Move the yard to the end of the room where it is 12' wide. Pull/extend the upper center loop clear back down through the narrow part of the room so it loops just
inside of where the turntable currently is. The 4 tracks on the center would have to be squeezed together. With some clever use of Apalachan scenery or even a dual level arrangment it wouldn't be to bad. There should be room for a 3' isle next to the stairs, 18" benchwork for the center, then a 30" isle, and 18" benchwork for along the long wall.

Idea 3
Instead of having them in-line make the main yard and the in-law passenger station into stubs. Service them from a double wye coming out from the center bottom. Initially make the wye angle to the right and then straighten out toward the narrow part of the room. The transition from the angle through the kink would make it more interesting. Could also be operated as a point to point, even if both points are the same yard.

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrinker
the two tracks ont he right closest to the wall (which expands to 4 tracks adjeacent tot he yard) is for staging and a continuous run connection. Those tracks would be hidden behind a backdrop.

Since the longest space is also the narrow space, for starters I would start thinking about putting the staging under the other tracks instead of behind a back drop. That leaves more space for the stuff you want to see. Even if that means the staging tracks are much longer than you would otherwise have them.

[rrinker]

I've been trying to develop a plan to fill up the rest of my basement. But it's gotten to the point of frustration, workign with what SEEMS to be an immense space, but because it's so narrow, it's proving difficult to come up with anything interesting. I saved the current plan as a PDF so it can be viewed full save, you can view it here: http://www.readingeastpenn.com/images/trackplan/currentplan.pdf

I think what I need is a completely different, fresh start. In the plan as shown, the two tracks ont he right closest to the wall (which expands to 4 tracks adjeacent tot he yard) is for staging and a continuous run connection. Those tracks would be hidden behind a backdrop.

The area to the left of the yard, where it is marked 'stairs' is a stariwell with a door that opens intot he room towards the yard. Width of the room at that point (tight to the door) is only 8 1/2 feet. Immediately above the stairs is a small open space, and then the furnace. The furnace sticks out the same as the stairs. Above the furnace, the room is slightly over 12 feet wide.

On the far left lower end is the 8x12 that I currently have, slightly modified to link in. I want to keep the 8x12 and tie it in somewhow.

The whole thing must be double track. I used the staging tracks at the bottom center to create a stretch of 4-track mainline to suit my father-in-law's desires for a large PRR-type main and passenger station.

And ideas, suggestions, critics, etc. are gladly accepted. Even "throw it out and start completely fresh"

--Randy