PRR/Conrail Juniata Division Engineering Report

[Dave V]

If I were to do four tracks, whichs definitely a druthers (but not a given) I would need to ensure the innermost curves are still roughly 13" or better.  This really brings me back to the cockpit which I was talked out of.

So let's talk cockpits.

Agreed on the givens and druthers list.  I'm not home until Saturday so I don't have the exact dimensions of the space but I have the approximate ones.  Will post with list later.

[davefoxx]

If I were to do four tracks, whichs definitely a druthers (but not a given) I would need to ensure the innermost curves are still roughly 13" or better.  This really brings me back to the cockpit which I was talked out of.

Not necessarily.  As I wrote earlier, think dogbone-shaped layout with two continuous run tracks.  Crunched together, it looks like a four-track mainline, like what you have crossing Sherman's Creek on one of your plans.  Just expand on that so that the four-track mainline is much longer (i.e., smaller returns loops than you have drawn in your plans).  With the dogbone (or water-wings) style plan you can bend it any way you want and still have a walk in layout.

[Dave V]

But that's still not a 4-track main.  If I'm going balls-deep why not have four trains running independently?

[pdx1955]

Not necessarily.  As I wrote earlier, think dogbone-shaped layout with two continuous run tracks.  Crunched together, it looks like a four-track mainline, like what you have crossing Sherman's Creek on one of your plans.  Just expand on that so that the four-track mainline is much longer (i.e., smaller returns loops than you have drawn in your plans).  With the dogbone (or water-wings) style plan you can bend it any way you want and still have a walk in layout.

The only thing you really need to watch with this kind of plan is that you don't create any short S-curve issues with longer pieces of equipment going in and out of straightaways. This will allow for the best possible flow in the room.

if you are looking toward a cockpit, then I'd make sure that the layout is built relatively high, especially if you go with the standard duckunder. Sitting down in a rolling chair and going under is better as the duckunder gets old real fast as so do lift-outs. The tendency is to just "duck" quickly and I guarantee you that you'll clock yourself.  I'd do a gate (can do multiple levels like hidden staging below) for easy passage before I'd do a lift-up/out/drop down again.

[davefoxx]

Well, if you have the room for a true four-track mainline of four continuous run tracks, by all means, go for it.  I was merely making a suggestion, in case you didn't have the room for all of that

DFF

[Scottl]

A four-track main needs a lot of trains.  Do you envision having four trains just running in independent loops, or do you want to actually have a parade of traffic that warrants the 4 tracks?  Then you are talking staging, potentially lots of it.

I had assumed that the Sherman Creek section in the sketch was meant to satisfy the 4-track craving.

[Dave V]

A four-track main needs a lot of trains.  Do you envision having four trains just running in independent loops, or do you want to actually have a parade of traffic that warrants the 4 tracks?  Then you are talking staging, potentially lots of it.

I had assumed that the Sherman Creek section in the sketch was meant to satisfy the 4-track craving.

It was...but only partly.

Well, I have a lot of equipment. (  ) I could easily run 4 trains and have some leftovers for staging like work trains, locals, etc.

[pdx1955]

Whatever form this takes (water-wing/cockpit, etc) I'd recommend pulling one of the sides away from the wall where the staging is to create a stub 24" wide aisle. This way you could easily access the likely 8-12 tracks (4 mains plus 2-3 staging tracks per main) behind a backdrop without having to reach very far. This will also allow a place to store extra equipment (built in drawers, rolling carts, etc). Having 4 mains will make turnback curves too wide to access easily if the staging has to be accessed from the front over a hill. Having more than a few tracks and having to reach that far is asking for a problem.

[OldEastRR]

Where I see the similarity to your plans is there's still no four-track mainline, except one small stretch that doesn't give the effect you're looking for.  Shrink the return loops and expand the four-track main.
DFF

Which is what I suggested in my previous post. Ya can't do Pennsy mainline w/o 4 tracks. I had to do double-track for most of my 2.5x around layout of the NH because that's New Haven mainline.

Around the room, bolted to the wall sectional -- including one section attached to the back of the door so you can get/in out and have a very secure sag-free "gate" for the trains to run over. Whether you can squeeze in a narrow center peninsula for staging is problematic. The bolted sectionals mean you can move it to another place/house, or replace sections that didn't work out, etc.
You might think of sawing the JD length-wise and using the narrow halves (or pieces of them) transplanted to the new layout.
BTW, circular thinking about layouts is typical for roundy-rounders 

[wm3798]

Having a double track dogbone with the illusional (delusional?) 4 track appearance can handle more traffic than you might imagine.  When you get to the ends of the bone, simply add sidings so they appear to be 4 tracks as well.  Instant staging for additional trains, opportunities for passing/meets, and vastly expanded volume.  With DCC and reversing circuitry, you'd have no trouble operating two trains on each main, especially if you have room to stretch the tracks out a bit.

Lee

[chicken45]

Having a double track dogbone with the illusional (delusional?) 4 track appearance can handle more traffic than you might imagine.  When you get to the ends of the bone, simply add sidings so they appear to be 4 tracks as well.  Instant staging for additional trains, opportunities for passing/meets, and vastly expanded volume.  With DCC and reversing circuitry, you'd have no trouble operating two trains on each main, especially if you have room to stretch the tracks out a bit.

Lee

Remember my bowl 'o pasta that was basically all sidings and interlockings on a door? It sure looked like a 4 track main to me!

[wm3798]

Include Mt. Union, too, so you can scratch that damn narrow gauge itch with a well thought out branch line, and without bending light all that far...  Z scale mechanisms have come a long way!

Lee

[davefoxx]

Include Mt. Union, too, so you can scratch that damn narrow gauge itch with a well thought out branch line, and without bending light all that far...

Oh, sh!t!

[Specter3]

Why dont you do two independent decks with catenary on one with GG1s galore and a deck above it with your middle division rural scenery, K4s, and M1s? Same DCC unit can run both decks, you can build it freestanding so it can move. Scratches both itches.

[davefoxx]

Why dont you do two independent decks with catenary on one with GG1s galore and a deck above it with your middle division rural scenery, K4s, and M1s? Same DCC unit can run both decks, you can build it freestanding so it can move. Scratches both itches.

I shouldn't speak for Dr. Dave, but I'm fairly certain that a project of that scope jumps way outside of what he is contemplating as far as complexity goes on the next JD.

DFF