Another CR layout design study

[Chris333]

Max, As far as taking photos on the HOn30 layout. I can always prop up a backdrop image before I take a photo. Was just saying though, a breaker box is just as much a pain as Ed's gas meter.

The trackplan I showed with the cubby hole was built at one time and worked good. Just took up a lot of room. As for making a removable panel in the backdrop. I keep all my layouts so rail level is just 2-3" below my eye level. So that puts the layout right across the breaker box door.

If I ever tore out my N and HOn30 layouts    I'd find away to get another backdrop up.

I dunno just figured if I was tellin' Ed to get around the walls I'd come up with a way to hide the gas meter. But I didn't        

[Point353]

1. The walls aren't really that great due to the gas meter bump and the loss of them to the "green zone".

You need to have a location named Gasmeterszag, as did John Armstrong on his Canandaigua Southern layout.

[Philip H]

So, dude.  That space is NOT conducive to free standing in the middle.  Sure, the gas meter is a problem.  But honestly you can punch a three or four track shelf stagin yard into that other room.  And done right it could come out into a wye and go two ways. 

The other problem I see is the set of columns that you conveniently omitted from the drawing.

Go Full Cockpit (FCPit for short).

[DKS]

1. The walls aren't really that great due to the gas meter bump and the loss of them to the "green zone".

Really? Just one gas meter bump? Like that's a showstopper?

2. I wanted to see if I could do something interesting in the middle of the room.

There are other more interesting things to do in the middle of the room... like running trains.

3. I might want to save them for other uses.

You can save anything for other uses, not just HCDs.

4. In order to do continuous run around the walls I need big blobs at the end.

And?

So, obviously I agree with the others about going around the walls. Consider: Much longer line, hence longer trains, etc. Much better-looking given a continuous backdrop. No harder to build--it would just take longer since the layout would be up to or more than twice the size. Of course, it's your call. But you can probably expect a continuous stream of posts pounding you into submission...

[RRRover]

Squirrelhunter has a good point here. It's what I did with my first large layout and my last layout, plus in planning my current layout on the Anaconda, MT end. - a steep curvy valley and no actual tunnel. Isolating the towns is important - it looks a little weird when the rear of a train visibly hangs into the next town while you switch industries.   

Although I like the around the wall idea (even though blobs are a detractor, but not when properly disguised) for an island layotu it's a solid plan of an intriguing area.

My last though/suggestion would be to have a hill/ridge/mine tailings pile run all the way down the corner of the layout between Goodspring and Mt Carmel as a view block. It seems from the CRHS photos and the RBMN map I looked at that a lot of these lines are stub end branches. So perhaps rather than having the continuous loop line go through the ridge with a proper tunnel portal, maybe have the tracks totally disappear before they get to the ridge- "those decrepit tracks may not be in use anymore, and they disappear up the valley". I guess from the photos and descriptions of the area, it seems like it would be a big help to really sell that each of these scenes is really isolated from each other.
[/quote]

[C855B]

... Consider: Much longer line, hence longer trains, etc. Much better-looking given a continuous backdrop. No harder to build--it would just take longer since the layout would be up to or more than twice the size. Of course, it's your call. But you can probably expect a continuous stream of posts pounding you into submission...

And most of you know where I stand on around-the-wall+blobs. DO IT DO IT DO IT! 

Seriously... you have a lot of space there that by appearances is a natural for dogbone plus opportunity for a peninsula in the middle. Dogbone with 4' blobs also ups your game on minimum radius. MUCH opportunity for long runs to make all that great operation potential go somewhere between pickups and setouts.

I didn't catch anybody mentioning the curved yard in the original plan, maybe I missed it, but a curved yard? And all the headaches that brings with building trains?

[CRL]

Curved staging yards with no switching are ok, curved yards with switching - no bueno unless you have no other option. Around the walls with reverse loops can be modeled & operated as point to point. Just disguise one leg of each reverse loop as an industrial siding going into a building up against the backdrop, up a blind canyon, hidden by trees, etc. That way, when you just want to watch trains run, you have the option.

[Bendtracker1]

I didn't catch anybody mentioning the curved yard in the original plan, maybe I missed it, but a curved yard? And all the headaches that brings with building trains?

Funny, I don't recall Dean complaining about the headaches with building trains in his Silvies yard?
Looks like it OP's pretty well?

[squirrelhunter]

I'm hoping we get more input from Ed about his design goals, but I feel like to some extent the majority of comments are arguing for building a better example of a model railroad rather than a more faithful representation of the prototype.

If you go to Cressona PA on google maps, the yard has multiple curves in it, since it follows the river through town. Judging from the CRHS pictures, the trains on these branches were short and most of the cars appear to be in the 50' range, which should limit the trouble of coupling/uncoupling on curves.

I am indifferent as to around the walls vs island except for when it comes to the turn back loops required for around the walls- there would either need to be long runs of hidden track for the return legs or the fact the end blobls are balloon loops would have to be heavily disguised. If Ed were to drop the continuous run requirement, I be firmly in the point to point around the walls camp. But as long as he wants it, in this space, I think it  is easier to "sell" the curves on an island layout vs around the walls.

[Dave V]

I'm hoping we get more input from Ed about his design goals, but I feel like to some extent the majority of comments are arguing for building a better example of a model railroad rather than a more faithful representation of the prototype.

If you go to Cressona PA on google maps, the yard has multiple curves in it, since it follows the river through town. Judging from the CRHS pictures, the trains on these branches were short and most of the cars appear to be in the 50' range, which should limit the trouble of coupling/uncoupling on curves.

I am indifferent as to around the walls vs island except for when it comes to the turn back loops required for around the walls- there would either need to be long runs of hidden track for the return legs or the fact the end blobls are balloon loops would have to be heavily disguised. If Ed were to drop the continuous run requirement, I be firmly in the point to point around the walls camp. But as long as he wants it, in this space, I think it  is easier to "sell" the curves on an island layout vs around the walls.

Fair points, all of them.  That said, even if the prototype has tight curvature, it's still not going to be as tight as required at the end of an HCD.  And while 6-axle diesels and 100 ton hoppers may be happy enough on those curves, when Ed decides to run a TOFC train or early auto racks, those curves are going to be more of a hassle.  But you also get a longer run with a cockpit style.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Ok, ok, enough about the around the walls idea. I know that's often a better approach. But for the purposes of this design study, let's assume that the island idea is a fixed requirement. It might not be in reality (and I'm actually currently drawing the same layout theme with that approach), but for the purposes of THIS design, lets accept that as a fixed parameter.

I've thought about the town spacing issue. I'm not super worried about it, to be honest. For one, I'm not anticipating more than one train "up the branch" at any time so crews won't be stepping on each others toes. But that's the reason there's a nice separation between West Cressona and everything else, because if there are two operators one would be over there (I think I'd add a few industries around it to keep them busier). The second reason is that I believe scenery can handle the separation nicely. One of the things I learned on Windsor St (specifically at Hanover Junction) was that some nice big tall trees can create a very effective view block, even if they're naked. I'd employ those between St Nick and Goodspring to add some "distance" there. I was invisioning doing the same thing between the Goodspring switch and the other industries but it IS a bit tight there, so that would likely need some revision. It's also not like this layout is designed for "mainline running" so I don't think the effect of spacing will really be that big of an issue. Yes, the tail of the train might be at Goodspring Jct if you're working the paper warehouse, but it doesn't matter so much because YOU will only be where the crew is (unless you make your poor brakeman walk the damn thing) AND train lengths while operating will generally be pretty short.

Two of the guiding principles I didn't really talk about before for this is how it'll be used. It's not intended for many operators, it's mostly for one or two guys to run at a time (like I said, the two separate crews). Maybe four if I do full crews for each. Additionally, one of the goals with this concept is SIMPLE construction.  It's why I started with doors (and even though I'm getting away from them) I'm not talking about going through walls, building helixes, etc... 

Part of what I wanted to do with this study was to figure out if something interesting and compelling could be done with those parameters or if I DO need to do something more complex to make it worth doing.

Also, keep in mind, this is not my FINAL layout. This is something that I intend on doing for a while, enjoying and then probably moving onto the next thing (like a three level nolix version of the NCR with staging in the back room).

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Oh yeah, one other thing, this is very much a "proof of concept" design more so than a "pre-production prototype".

[Lemosteam]

Kinda fun reading @Ed Kapuscinski gettin' hammered on his concept. 

[DKS]

...this is very much a "proof of concept" design...

There's a joke in there somewhere... I'm just not seeing it.

[squirrelhunter]

But you also get a longer run with a cockpit style.

Dave, I think that is the biggest pro for an around the walls (which over Ed is off the table I guess) whether there are turn back loops or not- you could really spread out the scenes with the longer run an around the walls provides.