Planning a layout

[asciibaron]

I think it is poor form to trash this guys layout .. Bruce has a nice setup. Just because it doesn't meet your standards from a visual perspective isn't really pertinent. He put out the $$$$, and it does for him what he wants it to do.   I don't imagine you will get invited back if he sees this post

i never used any names and frankly i don't care what kind of money he put out, my point was that the 30' of 12" layout need not be boring - it's very pertinent to the conversation with regards to planning a layout that captures the feel of the prototype.  i never trashed it, i gave my opinion as an operator and modeler.  the second layout is CLEARLY a PRR layout, the picture is paragraphs of proof.  

[John]

i never used any names

 

No, you didn't - you linked right to the man's site .. even the most novice web user can figure out who's layout you are talking about ..

i never trashed it, i gave my opinion as an operator and modeler.

I guess this is a term of affection  then ..

visually, i wanted to poke my fingers in my eyes - it looks NOTHING like the CSX Philly Sub - it looks like pink foam plains.

But, don't worry - I won't invite you to any of my next operating sessions .. I wouldn't want you to have to poke your eyes out more than once, or play a chess match .. besides, my layout wouldn't live up to your standards anyway ..

[asciibaron]

I guess this is a term of affection  then ..

wow, you are pendantic.    

you've never invited me over for an operating session, why start now?

[John]

I guess this is a term of affection  then ..

wow, you are pendantic.   

See ya!!!

[DKS]

John's right. Steve, you could have made your point without using phrases like wanting to poke your eyes out, etc. That may be how you feel, but posting it that way makes you look like an opinionated arse. Not the best way to make friends. As John says, if the layout serves the builder's purpose, then they have no need to consult Steve's Book of Proper Modeling.

And what the heck is "pendantic" anyway?

[wcfn100]

I'll never forget the thing he tought me.

 .


Jason

[71jeep]

  Hold on there buckaroo's this is not the A board I appreciates every ones opinion's but they are just that opinions no need to get our whitey tighty's in a bunch  ;D

Can't we all just get along ;D ;D

Well back to the subject at hand thankyou guy's for the book suggestions I am now deep in reading learning all I can.

One question for you guys what do you think the minimum radius curve should be on a layout this size? I will know I will get to it sooner or later in the books but I thought I would ask and see what some of your thoughts would be.

Thankyou

Allen.....

[John]

One question for you guys what do you think the minimum radius curve should be on a layout this size? I will know I will get to it sooner or later in the books but I thought I would ask and see what some of your thoughts would be.

Thankyou

Allen.....

as big as you can make it .. my min is 15, but mostly 20-24

[conrail98]

One question for you guys what do you think the minimum radius curve should be on a layout this size? I will know I will get to it sooner or later in the books but I thought I would ask and see what some of your thoughts would be.

Thankyou

Allen.....

as big as you can make it .. my min is 15, but mostly 20-24

To further what John said. Make it as large a radius as possible that still allows for acceptable reach and subsequent operator space, like aisles, but be sure that isn't too small that it is operationally problematic for your rolling stock,

Phil

[71jeep]

Thankyou very much it is nice to know what others are using now I can start playing around with some ideas that are floating around in my head.

Thanks guys


Allen....

[John]

Don't be too tempted to throw more track in .. less is better in N .. also, try to keep aisles at least 36 inches .. more if you can .. I have found that when the "widebodies" (as many of us MRRs tend to be) show up to operate, they usually end up in one area .. and then it can get to be "interesting" passing each other and still keeping the "bonding" to a minimum

[cv_acr]

Aisles can be made narrower, but if they are make sure you have convenient "passing sidings" and extra space around any industrial areas where someone is likely to spend a fair bit of time switching.

And don't put more than one switching-intensive area in the same part of the aisle unless the aisle is generous enough so that more than two crews can actually work there for an extended period or your operating plan guarantees that they won't be switched at the same time (eg. one is handled by a morning job the other in the evening).

If you're going double-deck, really try not to put two switching area above each other unless they're guaranteed not to be worked at the same time. Working back to back with some working the other side of the aisle will be easier than crawling over each other trying to work two levels the same side of the aisle.

[71jeep]

"interesting" passing each other and still keeping the "bonding" to a minimum

Ohhh there is a picture I did not need in my head  

Mental note keep aisles as wide as possible got it  ;D thankyou

thanks

 Allen....

[TiVoPrince]

Design
with 20"ish radius in mind if at all possible.  Compromise where necessary or where it makes sense for tighter curves.  Same with turnouts, design with #10 turnouts but allow for #7 or even #5 if the situation demands it.  Prioritize what you want and design to fulfill your long term goals.  Depth of scenes is not as important to operations focused layouts as a 'watch the trains roll by' railfans delight
...

[pnolan48]

71Jeep,

I'm pressed for time these days, but I have a layout in an 11 x 23 space that is 2.5 levels along the long side: that's three levels on one long side, two levels on the other, and transitions along short walls.

I say my layout is Pennsy-oriented; in fact, I have Pennsy painted locos and a fair proportion of Pennsy cars. When I designed it, I was more concerned with the geometry of a long, simple run with some operations whenever I had time to diddle, which turned out to be never.

I left a very wide center space, but even one three-foot bottleneck was--well--a bottleneck. I've described the philosophy over on Trainboard, but can't search for it tonight. Basically I climb along the back of the long walls at 2.5% to gain about 15 inches between decks.

Here's the first level:



And the second:



And the third on the "west" side:



The levels on the west side are roughly 30, 45, 60.

The levels on the east, or bottom side, are 37.5 and 52.5. Make sense? If you are more or less continually climbing, then decks on opposite walls will be staggered--especially when the harbor has to be FLAT.

Hope this sparks some thoughts. In retrospect, this was an exercise in geometry, and a good drawing package (with vector information) was essential in designing it. When the drawing package calculates path lengths, getting the track elevations becomes easy. If you would like to discuss this, it's probably best to contact me at peterknolan@gmail.com due to my travel schedule the next few months.