the Western Maryland Flavor-Aid

[David K. Smith]

allow for some amount of switching, and be easy to build and maintain.

#3 would absolutely be the easiest to build. There are no places where hidden tracks cross over other hidden tracks, or even places where visible tracks cross over hidden tracks. In fact, the only crossings are the left loop over the blue line, and these are both exposed.

If you wanted more mainline exposed, you could knock off one track from the main staging yard, and run the main in front of it, with a view block in between them.

As for traffic flow through the staging yard, Option #2 places it the furthest away.

Of course, it's your call. I'm just the cartographer.
 

[MichaelWinicki]

I think plan #3 is the best.

[asciibaron]

I think plan #3 is the best.

how would you deal with the area in the upper left corner?

[David K. Smith]

I think plan #3 is the best.

how would you deal with the area in the upper left corner?

Just rugged terrain. Tunnel markings are not set in stone; I'd think they might suggest themselves as the area is built up. Get settled on the siding placement, add some buildings and see what seems the most natural. Perhaps the upper tunnel might not be a tunnel but a deep cut instead, for variety.

If none of the above worked, the sidings could be flipped around in a mirror image of how they are on the right side of the layout in #1 and #2, like this:
 


Note that the tall bridge in the lower left corner can now plausibly be as tall as 6-8 inches. It's almost 4 inches over the blue line, and if the river dropped a few inches through a series of falls, you'd have a handsome gorge--something not too dissimilar to this, as it happens:
 

[MichaelWinicki]

I think plan #3 is the best.

how would you deal with the area in the upper left corner?

Just rugged terrain. Tunnel markings are not set in stone; I'd think they might suggest themselves as the area is built up. Get settled on the siding placement, add some buildings and see what seems the most natural. Perhaps the upper tunnel might not be a tunnel but a deep cut instead, for variety.

That's what I would do.

I think tunnels are so over done on layouts, anytime you can eliminate one, I say do it.  Plus you have less of a maintenance headache to deal with.

Plus utilizing a deep cut you could have a removable rockwall that would allow you a little access to the lower tunnel.

[asciibaron]

i had planned on doing a deep cut before the lower left goes over the B&O - which would connect to a removable staging "barge"

i'll play around with things tonight and see what feels best.  good thing i have a ton of cardboard!

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I think tunnels are so over done on layouts, anytime you can eliminate one, I say do it. 

I cannot agree more.

[wm3798]

If you day light, just remember to send your portals to me!

[sirenwerks]

I think tunnels are so over done on layouts, anytime you can eliminate one, I say do it. 

I cannot agree more.

You guys sound like the SP. Just give em' some dynamite and...

[wm3798]

[soapbox] Here's the deal.  It's a model railroad.  Which means it works like a railroad, but it looks like a model.  While some of you might get your rocks by modeling the 150 scale feet of actual proto paradise most of us have room for, that's not going to work for me.  

I want my trains to originate someplace, pass through several representative vignettes, maybe do a little work along the way, then head off into the fifth dimension to their destination.  I want the types of traffic carried to be representative of my prototype, and same for the engines, rolling stock, and structures.

Tunnels are a necessary evil to create these representative scenes.  The good news for me is that my chosen prototype liked drilling more than Tiger Woods and BP combined!  Five major tunnels between Hagerstown and Cumberland, three on the Connellsville line, and even one between Blue Ridge Summit and Gettysburg for good measure!  And if you throw in trackage rights, you can even count B&P and Union Tunnels in Baltimore.

The cool thing about using tunnels creatively is you can have a train exit a scene depicting a bucolic river crossing, and have it emerge 100 miles away in a big city in the space of a few feet.  It's a major enhancement to the "play value" of a model railroad.  And if your clever enough to provide for a little access from below or behind the scenery, it's not that big a deal to take care of. [/soap box]

Lee

[MichaelWinicki]

I think tunnels are so over done on layouts, anytime you can eliminate one, I say do it.  

I cannot agree more.

You guys sound like the SP. Just give em' some dynamite and...

LOL!

Well I think that's how most railroads viewed tunnels... As something to be avoided if at all possible.  I've read the histories of many of the roads here in western New York and north western/central PA and they preferred not to do tunnels because of the cost.

Of course model railroaders are not burdened by such variables such as tunnel cost.  ;D  The result is "If a tunnel would look cool there then a tunnel it will be".

I think many times what a tunnel can accomplish for a model railroad a deep cut, large stand of trees or even a scenic divider can do also.

[asciibaron]

my intention is to use a stand of trees and a rock cut to deal with the hidden trackage near the yard.  the PRR will go behind a building and vanish.

the upper left section needs to have tunnels to keep the scenes congruent.  i think i'll have to add some height to get the separations in place and honestly - a 3% grade isn't going to kill me.

right now i have a pretty good handle on how things will play out.  i'm taking a little from the 2nd and 3rd plans and crossing my fingers - it should work out.

pictures coming Sunday Sunday Sunday, be there...

[Chris333]

Erie got all the way from NYC to Chi-town with only one short tunnel and it was only built to reduce a grade for freight traffic. Passenger trains still used the line over the tunnel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otisville_Tunnel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Jervis_Line

[inkaneer]

I think tunnels are so over done on layouts, anytime you can eliminate one, I say do it.  

I cannot agree more.

You guys sound like the SP. Just give em' some dynamite and...

LOL!

Well I think that's how most railroads viewed tunnels... As something to be avoided if at all possible.  I've read the histories of many of the roads here in western New York and north western/central PA and they preferred not to do tunnels because of the cost.

Of course model railroaders are not burdened by such variables such as tunnel cost.  ;D  The result is "If a tunnel would look cool there then a tunnel it will be".

I think many times what a tunnel can accomplish for a model railroad a deep cut, large stand of trees or even a scenic divider can do also.

In a railroad perfect world all railroads would all be Ntrak like.  No tunnels, no grades, no bridges, no curves, just dead flat and straight.  All of these features impose extra cost in construction or in operation.  But these are the very things that add eye candy to model railroads. Even Ntrakkers will agree that the "plywood plains" type of module is as boring as it comes.

[MichaelWinicki]

In a railroad perfect world all railroads would all be Ntrak like.  No tunnels, no grades, no bridges, no curves, just dead flat and straight.  All of these features impose extra cost in construction or in operation.  But these are the very things that add eye candy to model railroads. Even Ntrakkers will agree that the "plywood plains" type of module is as boring as it comes.

Cutting back on tunnels (if that's your goal) doesn't mean you have to model a flat plain.

There are other tricks that can be used to hide trackage.