Author Topic: Here we go again...  (Read 2803 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MichaelT

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 483
  • Gender: Male
  • HCD module mania!
  • Respect: +1
Here we go again...
« on: June 10, 2010, 10:31:34 AM »
0
So in not wanting to yank every piece of benchwork down to start completely over, I decided against a liftout, drop down, in lieu of a continuous run loop which necessitated adding a formerly used section of old benchwork to form the western turnaround (right side of photo). What was going to be the liftout has now been attached to the eastern benchwork to give the northeastern section a nice big space left side of photo).



The benchwork is 52" high, with plans for shelving/storage underneath and possibly (if some of you can help me figure it out) another level for staging and/or more layout space (I am 3D challenged).

N scale layout, code 55 track and Atlas turnouts. The shelfs are 20" deep, the right side turnaround is about 38" from the wall and 36" long; the left side is about 5' x 4', give or take.

The railroad (whenever I decide on which one to take on) will be running in Arkansas, more than likely a shortline on the Missouri Pacific rail lines, and the shortline RR will be using some Mopac motive power along with some leased and purchased equipment. In this small space I can't see myself running long distances persae like Lee does, i.e. the junctions and subs and etc...unless I'm just not seeing a bigger picture (and that's probably closer to correct). Era will be somewhere in the 50's to 60's...the shortline will run some leftover steam power while the MOP will have some diesel power on hand. I'll probably end up with a twice a day passenger service, purely my choice and not indicative of what actually might have run in that time (unless I find some more evidence of). Other than that, I won't be too strict as I'll probably run whatever I have on hand and make the back stories fit as necessary.

So here I am, here's what's current. Some of you who are patient and have helped me with suggestions in the past, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on what you might/would/could see with this space.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2010, 10:36:44 AM by MichaelT »
Jesus is my engineer! :)

Philip H

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 7328
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +442
    • Layout Progress Blog
Re: Here we go again...
« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2010, 10:50:45 AM »
0
My initial thought is you have an aisle pinch point right there where the rounded lobe juts out on the right.  If you were doing a rounded lobe on the left it might work . . .
Philip H.
Chief Everything Officer
Baton Rouge Southern RR - Mount Rainier Division.

"Yes there are somethings that are "off;" but hey, so what." ~ Wyatt

"I'm trying to have less cranial rectal inversion with this." - Ed K.

"There's more to MRR life than the Wheezy & Nowheresville." C855B

DKS

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 11078
  • Your choice for ANAL...
  • Respect: +1640
    • DKS Home
Re: Here we go again...
« Reply #2 on: June 10, 2010, 10:53:35 AM »
0
Agree about the pinch point. I'd do away with the lobe altogether. Is the benchwork adjacent to the closet 24 inches deep, as the closet is indicated? The bottom right corner would be sufficient for a loop in N.

To improve access to things, and add a little more interest to the layout shape, this is what I'd do...
 


The black line at left-center is a double-sided backdrop to increase the apparent space and add a little visual mileage.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2010, 11:02:38 AM by David K. Smith »
"Life's a piece of sh!t when you look at it."
                                       —Monty Python

MichaelT

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 483
  • Gender: Male
  • HCD module mania!
  • Respect: +1
Re: Here we go again...
« Reply #3 on: June 10, 2010, 11:13:11 AM »
0
In the nook bottom right where the closet used to be, from the back wall to the front is 30" deep.

Keep going, I'm taking notes!! LOL
Jesus is my engineer! :)

DKS

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 11078
  • Your choice for ANAL...
  • Respect: +1640
    • DKS Home
Re: Here we go again...
« Reply #4 on: June 10, 2010, 11:15:48 AM »
0
In the nook bottom right where the closet used to be, from the back wall to the front is 30" deep.

Keep going, I'm taking notes!! LOL

30", even better. If you want the lower right loop even larger, you can just add a small (10" or so) triangular piece of benchwork to the corner. The closet remains a good spot for a staging yard, and/or along the back wall. Just refresh the screen to see a very basic plan, meant to be pushed and pulled and added to. For the rest, I think that should come over time with a little research into the railroad.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2010, 11:54:07 AM by David K. Smith »
"Life's a piece of sh!t when you look at it."
                                       —Monty Python

MichaelT

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 483
  • Gender: Male
  • HCD module mania!
  • Respect: +1
Re: Here we go again...
« Reply #5 on: June 10, 2010, 12:08:29 PM »
0
Probably wouldn't hurt to make the benchwork on the left side the same, maybe just build one new piece to put there?

So what to you think David? A 15" radius loop in the nook?
Jesus is my engineer! :)

DKS

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 11078
  • Your choice for ANAL...
  • Respect: +1640
    • DKS Home
Re: Here we go again...
« Reply #6 on: June 10, 2010, 12:49:08 PM »
0
Probably wouldn't hurt to make the benchwork on the left side the same, maybe just build one new piece to put there?

Refresh the page to see some additional information in the drawing above. If you made the panels marked A and B the same size as B, the area highlighted by the pink circle becomes hard to reach. You could make them both the size of A, but then you lose the breadth of the peninsula, which affords a nice broad sweeping curve. It's your call, but I think the shape in the drawing is more interesting.

So what to you think David? A 15" radius loop in the nook?

With a small triangle added, you can easily have a 15" radius loop, with plenty of elbow room and no sharp S-turn.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2010, 12:52:51 PM by David K. Smith »
"Life's a piece of sh!t when you look at it."
                                       —Monty Python

MichaelT

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 483
  • Gender: Male
  • HCD module mania!
  • Respect: +1
Re: Here we go again...
« Reply #7 on: June 10, 2010, 12:59:59 PM »
0
Probably wouldn't hurt to make the benchwork on the left side the same, maybe just build one new piece to put there?

Refresh the page to see some additional information in the drawing above. If you made the panels marked A and B the same size as B, the area highlighted by the pink circle becomes hard to reach. You could make them both the size of A, but then you lose the breadth of the peninsula, which affords a nice broad sweeping curve. It's your call, but I think the shape in the drawing is more interesting.

Good point.
Jesus is my engineer! :)

DKS

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 11078
  • Your choice for ANAL...
  • Respect: +1640
    • DKS Home
Re: Here we go again...
« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2010, 04:01:29 PM »
0
Here's a starting point to chew on that I tossed together. It has a continuous running main with a staging yard along the bottom, and a nice long branchline that splits off along the left side of the peninsula and terminates with a generous stub-end staging yard in the closet. Lots of opportunities for sidings and other features to add interest--maybe some of the other RW regulars might tinker with it as well.

"Life's a piece of sh!t when you look at it."
                                       —Monty Python

MichaelT

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 483
  • Gender: Male
  • HCD module mania!
  • Respect: +1
Re: Here we go again...
« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2010, 04:23:44 PM »
0
Thanks for your time and thought with this David. Tonight I'm going to arrange the benchwork some more. Thinking about making a circular peninsula instead of a blocked one, but will see when I get in there and start measuring.

Otherwise, I'll stick with the G config it looks like. I am hoping some others will interject their thoughts as well. I'm still tinkering with the idea of this being a shortline division of a railroad, so not sure the yard on the line would be prudent, or it could be a little smaller, maybe three track instead...but your ideas and suggestions give me plenty to mess with tonight.

m
Jesus is my engineer! :)

MichaelT

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 483
  • Gender: Male
  • HCD module mania!
  • Respect: +1
Re: Here we go again...
« Reply #10 on: June 10, 2010, 04:32:49 PM »
0
One thing I am wondering; putting the return loop down in the corner of the room (the nook), that might make reach a little problem into the corner, especially if I place structures near or around the front or even middle of the nook?

That was one of the reasons for installing the turnaround back from the corner a bit, to not have that murphy problem.

Still going through considerations and working out things as they come up!
Jesus is my engineer! :)

DKS

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 11078
  • Your choice for ANAL...
  • Respect: +1640
    • DKS Home
Re: Here we go again...
« Reply #11 on: June 10, 2010, 04:44:46 PM »
0
The very far corner of the "nook" might be a little hard to reach, but I would not envision the track there as being visible, and so you could provide access cutouts to get to the very far corner from underneath. Much of the branchline, by the way, I'd elevate, so it passes over the loop in the lower left.

As for the yards, they're both hidden staging yards, not intended to be rendered as real yards. In fact, the whole line that runs along the wall from the lower left corner to the top-center where it emerges from the double-sided backdrop would be hidden from view to prevent the appearance of a loop. I re-rendered the drawing to show hidden track in a light color.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2010, 04:59:33 PM by David K. Smith »
"Life's a piece of sh!t when you look at it."
                                       —Monty Python

Hyperion

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 973
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +7
Re: Here we go again...
« Reply #12 on: June 10, 2010, 05:09:10 PM »
0
David I know many of your plans are amazingly freedrawn, but when you do plans like the above I know you use a planning tool of some sort -- which one do you use?  I only ask because, and I know this seems kinda stupid, but the plan looks far more aesthetically-pleasing than the Xtrk or RTS software that I use.  And given the pace with which you spit them out it's gotta be easier to use.
-Mark

wm3798

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 12853
  • Gender: Male
  • I like models. She likes antiques. Perfect!
  • Respect: +1147
    • Western Maryland Railway Western Lines
Re: Here we go again...
« Reply #13 on: June 10, 2010, 05:16:24 PM »
0
I'll share my thoughts with the group that I posted to you in a PM, Michael...



JUST BUILD IT!!!
 ;D
Route of the Alpha Jets

Lee Weldon www.wmrywesternlines.net

DKS

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 11078
  • Your choice for ANAL...
  • Respect: +1640
    • DKS Home
Re: Here we go again...
« Reply #14 on: June 10, 2010, 05:32:14 PM »
0
David I know many of your plans are amazingly freedrawn, but when you do plans like the above I know you use a planning tool of some sort -- which one do you use?  I only ask because, and I know this seems kinda stupid, but the plan looks far more aesthetically-pleasing than the Xtrk or RTS software that I use.  And given the pace with which you spit them out it's gotta be easier to use.

Usually I start with sketches that I make in CorelDraw just to get an idea of the space. Then I switch to a track planning app called AnyRail (http://www.anyrail.com/index_en.html) to verify switch geometry and establish key curves. I've found it to be much easier to use and more stable than most of the other track planning apps. I like AnyRail because it's got an intuitive UI, and I can toss plan ideas together at breakneck speed. If I'm doing a plan for publication, I switch back to CorelDraw for the final render.

It might look a little less rigid than what comes out of Xtrk or whatever maybe because I only render certain curves, like the loop in the lower left corner, with sectional track, so I know it's absolutely what it's supposed to be; the rest is all done with flex. Then I'll go back and replace the sectional with flex so it all flows more easily.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2010, 05:44:27 PM by David K. Smith »
"Life's a piece of sh!t when you look at it."
                                       —Monty Python