Hello again!

[DKS]

Neglected to mention, max grade is 1.9%

[ScrewySqrl]

So, trying to cram the longest run into 3 x 5 feet? You're not trying hard enough.

http://davidksmith.com/modeling/images/max-track.jpg

This beast has a 51.79' mainline run, or 1.569 scale miles. Also, note that putting the yard on the upper level allows you to make it much larger.

And there's still room for some buildings and scenery...

Very impressive . I suspect there are some tighter than 9.75" curves in there.

if you're looking for a Railwire stamp of approval on a folded dogbone with track on the layout edge, you're not likely to find it.

That is a nicer way of putting it than I got from some earlier track plans.  And honestly, I kinda expected my plans to be treated poorly.  However, I admire the modeling instincts of this Board and feel there is still plenty of advice that I can get here, even if my track plans cause cringing.  You only learn if you talk to people who are better at it than you are, after all.

[DKS]

Very impressive . I suspect there are some tighter than 9.75" curves in there.

Nope. All standard Atlas Code 80 snap track, minimum radius 9.75".

[Denver Road Doug]

So, trying to cram the longest run into 3 x 5 feet? You're not trying hard enough.

http://davidksmith.com/modeling/images/max-track.jpg

This beast has a 51.79' mainline run, or 1.569 scale miles. Also, note that putting the yard on the upper level allows you to make it much larger.

And there's still room for some buildings and scenery...

Honestly, for what (we think?) he's wanting, that's perfect.   I was trying to doodle something similar last night but got busy with other things.    For a pure "model railroady" layout it would make for a nice one.   You are, of course, the master.   

EDIT: ScrwySquirrel, for the record my layout I'm currently working on is pretty spaghetti too.   So I'm not criticizing here just sympathizing that these types of layouts aren't the most popular here.  But that's ok.   I would look forward to seeing you build a version of that plan DKS presented.

[Denver Road Doug]

Actually, I did notice one gaffe....there is no runaround track.   It certainly looks like one (a paired crossover to close out a runaround track with the yard lead and main) was intended just behind the yard and it seems like it would fit no problem.

[DKS]

Actually, I did notice one gaffe....there is no runaround track.   It certainly looks like one (a paired crossover to close out a runaround track with the yard lead and main) was intended just behind the yard and it seems like it would fit no problem.

Funny you should mention that. I noticed it too, right after I uploaded the file. I was going to fix it, but then I thought, why bother, who'd be interested?

Well, so, I added it.

[MichaelWinicki]

Personally I think there's a place for "busy" trackplans.  No, it's not everyone's cup of tea but if your bottom line is trains & operations... or just trains then loading up your layout with a lot of track seems A-OK to me.

[Dave V]

Personally I think there's a place for "busy" trackplans.  No, it's not everyone's cup of tea but if your bottom line is trains & operations... or just trains then loading up your layout with a lot of track seems A-OK to me.

+1

[DKS]

Can folks see this image? For some reason my browser refuses to display my own images within the board, even though I can see them directly via the URL.

[Mark W]

Can folks see this image? For some reason my browser refuses to display my own images within the board, even though I can see them directly via the URL.

I cannot, however quoting your post shows the image should be embedded. I can also see it from the raw URL.

Does content need to be https for embedding?  Browsers could be blocking it.


http://davidksmith.com/modeling/images/max-track.jpg

[wcfn100]

Can folks see this image? For some reason my browser refuses to display my own images within the board, even though I can see them directly via the URL.

Try renaming it.

Jason

[ScrewySqrl]

or use imgur

[DKS]

The only possible problem in the name might be the hyphen. So, renamed it, with no luck. I've self-hosted and posted many, many hundreds of images, and this is the first time I've had an issue.

Edit: Uploaded the pic to the Railwire gallery, but this isn't the ideal solution...

[MichaelWinicki]

If I were doing a small layout Dave... That would be it!

Heck of a plan.

[ScrewySqrl]

a quick question on building a quick,m but sturdy table:  should I build a frame (1x3s, given N-scale weights) only that I stick a 1/4" thick pink foam in, or go with some think more like some 1/2" plywood or oriented stand board, then putting the foam on top of that.

My current thought was a ~1/2 inch Oriented stand board, cut to 3'x5', with 1x4s flush with the edges all around, and 3 more 1x4s as ribs every , with a pair of 2x4s in an L shape in each corner as legs, set to a ~34-36" height to operate mostly seated.  I'll easily have ~2-3 feet of aisle space around 3 sides, leaving one long side against a wall.

is there anything else I should do, or am I over engineering this?