Building the Gulf, Texas, and Northern Railroad!

[Denver Road Doug]

Back to the drawing board...

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Doug
I see a couple of problems.

First, you don't want that grade on your yard lead. That'd be bad news. About 5 varieties of it.

Second, I think you need longer staging tracks, especially the ATSF track.

I think what's happening is a very common modeling problem, you're definitely trying to fit too much in to the space. What I think might be interesting is to make the whole layout Burnet and simulate everything else with staging.

[wm3798]

The grade is leading up and out of the yard, which is easier to work than pushing cars up the hill into the yard... like on mine.  (It's a modest grade, and the yard lead is straight for about 5' coming out of the throat, so it's not that bad...)

I think you've done a good job creating a workable plan in a manageable space that offers a fair variety of operations.  Don't listen to Ed... while he tinkers with his door layout, he's under the delusion that everyone else has unlimited space...   I think he's been doing too much Vodka weathering, personally... ;D

BTW, Ed, if you want to experience the "nothingness" we're always talking about, see if you can get a ride-along with Brian...  I never though 18 miles was that far until I did it at 10 mph in the cab of an RS-3 on a 90 degree day...

Lee

[Denver Road Doug]

Doug
I see a couple of problems.

First, you don't want that grade on your yard lead. That'd be bad news. About 5 varieties of it.

Second, I think you need longer staging tracks, especially the ATSF track.

I think what's happening is a very common modeling problem, you're definitely trying to fit too much in to the space. What I think might be interesting is to make the whole layout Burnet and simulate everything else with staging.

Hey, trying to fit too much into the space is the foundation of N-Scale!!!   ;D

OK, fair enough on the start of the grade....just move it around another foot or so and increase the grade to 1.75 or so. (just guestimating there, I'd have to run the numbers but it still should easily work.)  Even at it's current location you're looking at a 24" yard lead so another foot should do the trick....we're not talking long trains here.  The grade just needs to clear the runaround lead at Marble Falls, and we're not dealing with doublestacks or anything so no worries there.  And that's not even considering that there's no downgrade into Marble Falls which could be done.

I think I mentioned that a longer ATSF track is desired--and should be achievable given the closet--but again we're not talking about 30 car trains here....10 tops.  Ten cars and a locomotive/caboose will fit on the Llano tracks.  The ATSF interchange would likely be even fewer cars.  I have a lot of pics of branchline trains on the FW&D that were commonly 4-5 cars.

The Burnett/staging concept is certainly more like what I would do personally.  But it's not my layout, and I didn't create the G's and D's.  Anyway, thanks for the feedback! 

I think we need to see if the company president thinks I'm in the ballpark with this before we got too concerned about it.

[Matthew Roberts]

A really intriguing trackplan Doug....

First off, I think I might move the line to Llano so that it goes up into the closet, to facilitate longer "through" trains. I don't know, realistically how much traffic would be coming off of the GCSF, especially since it and the GT&N are essentially parallel routes west of the IH35 corridor. But there might be potential coal traffic coming down the GT&N main from Denver to the Gulf....

Also, this is going to be mainly either 1 or 2 man operation for this layout. And my dad, the other potential operator, is much more into just plain "running trains" than I am, part of the reason I like the option for continuous running (I like to do it too every once in awhile). So I think the available amount of trackage is just right, though I have often been tempted by Ed's theorem of as few tracks as possible... ;D

Oh, and then there's the fact that I'd really like to make it modular if possible, as I have only a year left before I leave to college...

Overall though, I really like it,  !

There's enough room in the closet to hide at least 2-3 15 car trains.

I don't mind the slight grade on the lead... though I guess that means I'll have to go with a diesel yard goat.

I do have in mind longer trains than just 10 cars long, maybe, at max, 15? 

[Matthew Roberts]

So I'm thinking maybe a Kato NW2 as a yard goat? I'd really like a Walthers 0-8-0, but I don't know if that's wise, not unless I enact something close to Max Magliaro's magic on one...

Then something like Kato Hvy 2-8-2s and Bachmann 2-8-0s for main local power, with maybe a couple of Bachmann Hvy 4-8-2s, Atlas RS11s or Atlas SD9s for mainline power?

[Denver Road Doug]

Matthew....FOCUS!  Whether you like my track plan or not, we are still planning a layout here.  Stop worrying about motive power for now. 

My original thoughts had Llano and Lampassas in the closet, but without knowing where the closet was, how it was arranged, etc. I couldn't go forward with that line of thinking.  It would really help if you diagram that out as well on your planning sheet.  Plus, I'm not sure a closet is ideal anyway...if you can get to it that's one thing, but if the closet is simply a standard closet off the wall behind the left wall on the plan then you have no way of easily reaching in there.  Whatever you decide, don't put any turnouts in there...keep them all out on the layout.  If you can fit the staging in the closet, then you buy yourself another foot or so of width for more industries, or longer yard tracks, or whatever you need.

Modular, this design is not.  Could be made to be sectional, but it is not designed to be repeatedly broken down and moved.

But, hey now we've developed some new G&D's...

Givens:
Layout Space (4'-6" x 12'-10" x 8''-0", 24" Shelf Depth +/-)
N-scale
Freelance Texas-Denver line (GT&N)
Era 1955-1958
Medium-sized town with small yard
Small Enginehouse
Modular Layout Design
15 Car Trains

Druthers:
Continuous-run ability (Reversing Loops OK)
Single-track with passing sidings
DCC control
15" min. radius, 20" preferred
Ability to model occasional passenger and helper operations
Model part of line to Lampasas and interchange
Roundhouse and turntable
Stub-end Staging in Closet
Balance Some Ops with Good Scenery
20 Car Trains


I also went back on the "Theory" post ( http://therailwire.net/smf/index.php/topic,13868.0.html ) and found the following and adjusted G&D further....

I'd like to be able to balance out some ops with good scenery and probably reversing loops at each end (maybe hidden), as well as having possible staging on one end.

I think the "average train" I will want to run will be something like a Heavy Mike with a 15-20 car train, and have at least one passing siding, as well as some adequate industries to switch. Layout will probably be modeling the area between Austin and Burnet or the branch to Marble Falls, maybe right in Burnet, as on this freelanced route, it would have maintenance facilities for the branch line, as well as a good 2% grade on the line south to Austin.

[Denver Road Doug]

I removed my plan since it didn't meet several key design criteria.  I wasn't aware of the requirement for modular and I missed the 15-20 car spec on the other post.

Doug

PS if you care it's still on my Railimages account under "Doug A." .

[Matthew Roberts]

Okay, Doug. I think I might've misspoke when I said "modular", I guess somewhere in between modular and sectional. It doesn't have to fit to any standards, just be able to be built, and moved, in sections.

The closet would be easily accessible. I'll get on making a better diagram.

[Denver Road Doug]

OK, so basically you just want the ability to disassemble it for moving, right?

I wasn't so much thinking a module with standards like N-trak, but maybe Dave Barrow's "Domino" concept.  Or, are you referring to simply dividing the benchwork into sections, bolted together for easier disassembly?

[Matthew Roberts]

I'm thinking more along the lines of easily movable sections, maybe slightly like David Barrow's CMSF switching layouts. Not as domino-ish though.

David Barrow actually live not too far away from here...

[Matthew Roberts]

Would you like me to post a better room diagram before we go forward, or do you care?

[Denver Road Doug]

I was waiting for the diagram to see what the options are for staging.

I meant to ask you what you thought of having a temporary return loop like I was proposing?  The idea was something fairly lightweight that could be stowed under other parts of the benchwork when not in use.  I can't come up with a reasonable continuous-run scenario without using that trick. (unless the new drawing reveals something)

I would like to see some other ideas from other folks as well.  I guess it would be nice to see what you have sketched out as well, even if its very conceptual.

[Matthew Roberts]

Okay, Doug, I'll get that on here by tomorrow.

I've thought of such things before. I think I might be able to get that put there "permanently". Nothing occupies the space below.

And I'll see what I can dig up from my sketches.

I think the part I least liked about the last plan was the overlap between the Marble Falls scene and the Summit scene.

[Denver Road Doug]

I was recalling the MoPac layout design (I think that was done for you, no?) that was heavy on operations and track, versus scenery which is why I tipped the "balance" more toward an operations oriented pike.  While the "published" layout designers tend to follow the Armstrong commandments, in reality the layouts I am most familiar with seldom follow the "once through a scene" convention, among other things.  You will have a big challenge with the "D's" given that...which is fine, that's why they are "D's".

I've been sketching out some other ideas.  Keep your thoughts and ideas coming.