Track planning - Would you mirror the prototype?

[jmlaboda]

This is something I have considered for my freelanced line at at least one location.  Trackage would be mirrored as would the placement of the combination station in as much because it just would work a lot better.  Everything besides the right of way would pretty much remain the same as the prototype... only the track and related railroad structures would be mirrored.

[wcfn100]

Jason, what scale did you use for the map sections in the plan?

Well you hit on what I was going to answer to Bryans' post.  The maps weren't scaled in my post's.  The 'G' part of your drawing, when scaled up, may not even warrant enough usable operation for the amount of work involved, namely a fairly large RI passenger depot and maybe only a couple usable sidings.  Again, I'd have to draw it all out to see.

This wasn't really to be a track planning thread per se, but I do appreciate the thoughts and efforts.  When it comes to the final plan, you can rest assured I will pick peoples' brains here.  It was just that I've been drawing CGW/Waterloo track plans for 15+ years.  I've never really had space until now, and when I do, it fits perfectly - if I do it backwards.

To answer your question, when I draw just stand alone modules, I have the street/blocks at 25" center to center.  Typically 21" fo rthe block and 4" for the streets.  This is around 85% compressed.  I know I can't have that in a operating home layout, but it's my base.

Here's an example.



Those modules are it think 66"x25".


To answer the second part,  absolutelty things could (i and will probably have to) be moved around.  I'm just not sure how flexible my 'minds eye' is just yet.  It's probably one of those things where I have to see it layed out, and really get to see the advantages in an 'operations' type setting rather than the 'photographic' setting I see everything in now.


Just for reference, here's probably the most 'iconic' Waterloo shot.





Thanks again everyone.



Jason

[DKS]

Here's the test I ran, just for reference. One of the things that came to mind as I worked on this was one of the compromises that, if acceptable, would help fit it in the space. If the track swinging to the right 90 degrees after crossing the river swung 90 to the left instead, it would fit this arrangement quite nicely, and possibly even relax some of the compression required.



A couple of other thoughts... the "negotiated" dotted line... is there any flexibility in it? A little push here, and perhaps a little pull there might yield some benefits as well. Also, would the benchwork be high enough to make a duckunder feasible? This would open up more options. (You mentioned the possibility of a second deck--I'm assuming what we're discussing here would be the top level.)

At any rate, even though this didn't start out as a track planning thread per se, it's headed in that direction. To answer your original question, if one would mirror the prototype, I personally wouldn't. Even though I'm not a "proto-modeler," if I were to go down this route, I'd sooner make compromises on the arrangement of a few small scenes than to have everything reversed, particularly if it was an area with which I'm familiar.

If you'd like to keep going along with this, a helpful thing to do would be to start with larger renderings of the maps, then plot out the key features of interest, as you did with this--

[wcfn100]

David, the dotted line is negotiable to an extent.  The start and end point are fixed as the left is the door to the room and the right is the only window.  It was my first round of negotiation for space.  The middle of the line could be massaged a little as long as it doesn't obstruct the view line too much.


I can certainly start a list of druthers and try to scale the portions of the maps I'd like to keep as proto as possible.  We'll just see if my son cooperates today by taking his nap.


Jason

[DKS]

Not to get too deeply into non-mrr stuff, but what does the rest of the space look like? How is it used? Can the space be "enhanced" in some way to make a little more intrusion into it more acceptable? Someone once said, "everything is negotiable."

[wcfn100]

Not to get too deeply into non-mrr stuff, but what does the rest of the space look like? How is it used? Can the space be "enhanced" in some way to make a little more intrusion into it more acceptable? Someone once said, "everything is negotiable."

The room basically extends another 7' 'up' on the left and 9' on the right (total of about 18' without the closet). Right now it's our second/long term guest room.  A couple of family decisions will determine if that space will be available in the future or not.

I would prefer to stay in the area I have now as it allows for any layout to be part of the room rather than take it over.

What I should share i that the empty space to the lower left is just a utility room.  Unfortunately the return duct prevents moving the whole wall back (down), but it is space for hidden track or return type loops.  In a perfect world, I could relocate the return duct and actually create a new room.  But there is no place for an air return into a common area without having to be stepped over.  There are a couple of non-code ways I could approach this, but I don't think that's something I'd like to do.

Jason

[sirenwerks]

Jason,

As someone who loves the architecture element of industries as part of model railroads, I'd like to throw my two bits your way - mirroring a prototype is very unsatisfying. You would think your brain would negotiate it out and just say, "It's the same, just in reverse, it's all good." But it doesn't. At least mine doesn't. But I'm also hardwired a bit different than all you neurotypicals.

I played with the idea for a project I was considering, and did some photo mock-ups in reverse and couldn't sleep afterward, I just kept thinking about how wrong they were.

Buy a new house or build an outbuilding in the backyard  ;D, but don't mess with something you cherish. It will haunt you.