Author Topic: MVW: A blank slate  (Read 3343 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MichaelWinicki

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1991
  • Respect: +83
Re: MVW: A blank slate
« Reply #15 on: July 14, 2014, 10:16:00 PM »
0
Jim,

I'm betting dollars to donuts that you're going to need more than 3-6" of additional aisle-width.

And keep in mind 30" of aisle-width ain't 30" of aisle-width...

Once you load up the fascia with knob, buttons, schematics, cup & throttle holders, that 30" is going to shrink.  And then you have the situation with many pikes where operator needs to back up from the fascia to "read it", which crimps your space that much more.

MVW

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1169
  • Respect: +150
Re: MVW: A blank slate
« Reply #16 on: July 14, 2014, 10:38:48 PM »
0
Can't argue with any of that, Michael. That's the purpose of this exercise, to see if this arrangement can be made to work. I'm not certain it can, but the length of the mainline run this sketch offers makes it worth investigating.

Your points are all taken.

Jim


MVW

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1169
  • Respect: +150
Re: MVW: A blank slate
« Reply #17 on: July 15, 2014, 01:14:04 AM »
0
I did a very rough draft of the mainline using Doug's configuration, and as expected it works out to about 120' of mainline run. However, as Phil suggested, the relatively short tangents proved to be problematic. It was difficult to site many cities without having to wrap a passing track inside a turnback curve. I don't mind doing that a time or two, but not consistently.

I'm back to playing with my original idea, and seeing if it's feasible to have adequate aisles.

Jim


MVW

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1169
  • Respect: +150
Re: MVW: A blank slate
« Reply #18 on: July 15, 2014, 01:59:57 AM »
0
Or ... what about this?



In the spirit of Doug's offering, but rotated to get longer tangents. Minimum aisle width is 33". Islands are 18" wide, so the big question is -- will that be wide enough?

Staging would be wrapped around the alcove, with the mainline running in logical progression to the turnback by the entrance at lower right.

Looks like this would provide about 150' of mainline run on two decks.

Thoughts?

Jim

MichaelWinicki

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1991
  • Respect: +83
Re: MVW: A blank slate
« Reply #19 on: July 15, 2014, 08:00:56 AM »
0
Much cleaner Jim!

I think you (and your crew) would be much happier with the aisle-width... And it still affords a decent run.

I probably wouldn't double-deck the center peninsula.

DKS

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 11231
  • Your choice for ANAL...
  • Respect: +1829
    • DKS Home
Re: MVW: A blank slate
« Reply #20 on: July 15, 2014, 08:51:05 AM »
0
Something else to consider...



While you may lose some of the run, you gain roominess and it ought to be easier to build.

Alternatively:


« Last Edit: July 15, 2014, 09:01:21 AM by David K. Smith »
"Life's a piece of sh!t when you look at it."
                                       —Monty Python

conrail98

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1440
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +34
Re: MVW: A blank slate
« Reply #21 on: July 15, 2014, 09:01:02 AM »
0
Here's more along the lines of what I was thinking



On the above, staging would come up to the lower level on the bottom right and I envisioned that long 16' tangent area being your yard. If this is the mid-50s, we're talking what for train length, 6' or so? That should give you plenty of space to get a yard in there with some engine facilities and a decent sized lead. The green piece would be the lift out/gate and I envision the layout continuing down that peninsula with perhaps the end staging being above the yard area on the 2nd loop. It doesn't give you continuous run but I don't know if that's important to you or not.

The one thing that keeps tripping me up on the space is your aisle spaces are going to be really tight since 9' wide, even if you do roughly 12" wide shelves leaves you 7' and if you do essentially 2 2-sided strips down that 9' wide space, you've reduced aisle space available to you to 4' with a 3rd 12" wide shelf along the back wall. Do you really need double deck to get everything in that you want?

The space, initially, to me screams for a mushroom design of some sort, I just can't wrap my head around how to make it work. A mushroom would be able to give you the peninsula, use of the family aisle space and wide enough aisles to be comfortable,

Phil
- Phil

MVW

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1169
  • Respect: +150
Re: MVW: A blank slate
« Reply #22 on: July 15, 2014, 10:41:11 AM »
0
Thanks for the contributions, DKS and Phil. I look forward to playing around with these tonight.

Phil, I'm like you -- I'm having a tough time wrapping my head around the space. That's why I appreciate all the suggestions.

And BTW, continuous run is important to me. Ideally, I'd have a loop-to-loop arrangement, with a division-point city somewhere close to the middle. As I said earlier, I'm primarily interested in operations, but sometimes it's fun to just send a train out on the mainline and let 'er run.

Jim

MVW

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1169
  • Respect: +150
Re: MVW: A blank slate
« Reply #23 on: July 15, 2014, 10:58:01 AM »
0
DKS,

In your first example I could see staging tucked into the alcove, and a helix at lower right, by the entrance.

In the second, I think staging could be tucked in at lower right. I don't know if the run is long enough for a nolix, but perhaps a helix in the turnback blob? Or maybe the mainline loops around and enters the helix in one corner of the alcove?

Jim

MichaelWinicki

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1991
  • Respect: +83
Re: MVW: A blank slate
« Reply #24 on: July 15, 2014, 11:08:07 AM »
0
Jim, I have a situation like yours, I wanted to have continuous run but I didn't want to force the longer mainline trains to navigate grades on the main deck in order to have to get to the second deck.

The solution for me was making the main deck continuous run with an ungraded main line.  I then made the second deck a branch line and accessed it using a 4% grade nolex.  The result was 3 cities serviced on the main deck (including a yard) and two cities on the branch line (including a small yard).  That allows me to operate in two distinct manners, the main deck is the "race-track", the branch line is the slower paced animal.  And considering the longest trains that navigate the branch line are no more than 12 cars, the 4% nolex grade is manageable... And no grades on the main deck to bugger-up operations (although some like the whole "pusher" thing, it's not my cup of tea).

In this situation the nolex works like a gem.  I'm not a helix guy either... waiting for trains to navigate them is a real buzz-kill, but the trains on the nolex can be seen for most of the run.

MVW

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1169
  • Respect: +150
Re: MVW: A blank slate
« Reply #25 on: July 15, 2014, 12:23:56 PM »
0
Interesting solution, Michael. Something I'll keep in mind. It's not what I've been envisioning, but may be a more feasible solution.

I'm aiming to model a fictional bridge route between the C&NW and the UP, set in 1954 when the Streamliners were still running on C&NW rails. This bridge route, the Missouri Valley Western, is comprised of two smaller lines which were gobbled up by the C&NW in the real world, plus a third shortline that went belly up in the 19th century.

The idea is to have a racetrack hosting fleet-footed City Streamliners, a C&NW 400, hot shot perishables and some early TOFC traffic. The central division-point city does some freight classification, and way freights and local passenger trains try to fight their way past the transcontinental traffic.

That's what I've always envisioned, anyway. Now that vision is confronted by the reality of the space I'll have to build in.

Jim

MichaelWinicki

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1991
  • Respect: +83
Re: MVW: A blank slate
« Reply #26 on: July 15, 2014, 01:28:15 PM »
0
Oh I understand the predicament Jim...

If there had been a way to magically get long trains from one deck to the other WITHOUT the some kind of elevation changing device I would have leapt at it, but that being said I like having the branch line on the upper deck because it seems like a separate RR.  I can put one person on that and they can be kept busy.

I can have another operate the main yard... And a couple more moving the through and way freights on the main deck.

My main yard doesn't breakdown all trains either.  There are up to 8 through-freights that can be run on the main deck, that never stop at the yard. 

The other thing I would suggest is to use your yard capacity to determine how many freight-cars and thereby industries you'll be serving throughout the layout.   Don't make the mistake of planning all sorts of industries without taking into consideration yard capacity.  It's very, very easy to overload a model classification yard to the point where it ceases to be fun.   There are times when the yard is almost to capacity and there are times when it will be almost empty, but you never want to be over capacity.

conrail98

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1440
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +34
Re: MVW: A blank slate
« Reply #27 on: July 15, 2014, 01:31:55 PM »
0
I've essentially done the same thing as Michael where my lower level is the mainline wrapping around with a gate planned and a branch to the upper level via a helix. I operate on one and have done some stuff on a soon-to-be operational layout that has the same setup. It works real well. Also, looking at your wants, do you really need a double deck layout? Could you get away with a single deck one and get everything in you need?

Phil
- Phil

MichaelWinicki

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1991
  • Respect: +83
Re: MVW: A blank slate
« Reply #28 on: July 15, 2014, 02:29:43 PM »
0
I've essentially done the same thing as Michael where my lower level is the mainline wrapping around with a gate planned and a branch to the upper level via a helix. I operate on one and have done some stuff on a soon-to-be operational layout that has the same setup. It works real well. Also, looking at your wants, do you really need a double deck layout? Could you get away with a single deck one and get everything in you need?

Phil

That setup does work well Phil.  The branch or separate line offers a much different flavor to the main deck.

I understand the quagmire Jim has, you want to maximize your run but the downside to making long trains go through some kind of drastic elevation change isn't a ball of fun. 

The advantage of the longer run is that yes, you do have more towns to service, and you'll have more switching opportunities BUT that additional switching is going to need additional yard space, which means a bigger yard... And you increase the yard size and you increase the amount or real estate it takes up, which means it's dominating your layout even more. 

MVW

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1169
  • Respect: +150
Re: MVW: A blank slate
« Reply #29 on: July 15, 2014, 04:31:10 PM »
0
Points well taken, in regard to the balancing act required for good layout planning. That's something I've been aware of, and will be watching as an actual track plan develops.

Phil - In regards to the question, do I really need a double-deck layout? Well, I'd like at least a 100' mainline run. As little as 80' may be acceptable, but that might be really packing it in. Ideally, I'd have my central division-point city, and two smaller cities on each side of it. Maximum train lengths will probably be 20 cars, for freight, so it would be preferable to have 16-20 feet between towns.

This would be easier if I wanted to represent a terminal city, but I'd like to simulate the traffic flowing between Chicago and the UP, which means heavy traffic in both directions.

One option would be to give up modeling "both sides" of the main city. For instance, eastbound traffic leaves the city and goes directly into staging, while westbound traffic passes through 2-3 cities before staging. That seems to take some of the drama out of operations, though. Still, worth considering.

So to finally answer your question, I may not necessarily want a multi-deck layout, but it may be the only way to achieve my goal, given the space I have.