Author Topic: rethinking the layout  (Read 11808 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lock4244

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4392
  • Respect: +693
    • My train pics
Re: rethinking the layout
« Reply #45 on: June 30, 2010, 12:30:45 PM »
0
See, this is why I have a prototype (well, two, CN & CP) with no intention of sticking to a particular locale (other than southern Ontario). Era is set in stone, but I don't wish to be hemmed in by reality in terms of operation. Not to say that I want to have a large coal mining region set in southern Ontario, but I may want to blend elements that I find interesting or worthy of inclusion in operations. Some of these are an automobile assembly plant, salt mine on at the end of a pair of branches (one CN, one CP), electric steel mill, quarry to originate stone traffic (for those Bluford offsets), and so on and so forth. The traffic patterns that work for my plans did not exist in reality, at least not all concentrated on the same lines, so I'm going to foob on certain aspects.

I think once we choose a prototype, we then have to choose a locale, which adds another dimension to the whole process. This is getting to be too much like work...

AlkemScaleModels

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1185
  • Helps build strong models 8 ways
  • Respect: +40
    • Alkem Scale Models
Re: rethinking the layout
« Reply #46 on: June 30, 2010, 01:16:07 PM »
0
Time for a layout decision matrix.

;)

[Sorry Steve, couldn't resist.  BTW, what happened to the dancing bear?]


Oooh, that hurts.....

« Last Edit: June 30, 2010, 01:17:42 PM by AlkemScaleModels »

davefoxx

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 11811
  • Gender: Male
  • TRW Plaid Member
  • Respect: +7214
Re: rethinking the layout
« Reply #47 on: June 30, 2010, 02:42:02 PM »
0
"Thank you, sir!  May I have another?!"

Chip Diller

Member: ACL/SAL Historical Society
Member: Wilmington & Western RR
A Proud HOer
BUY ALL THE TRAINS!

JDouglasFisher

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 161
  • Respect: 0
Re: rethinking the layout
« Reply #48 on: June 30, 2010, 07:51:48 PM »
0
just out of curiosity, why not double or triple deck the LHR around the room,

think of a "Room Sized" helix.

There was someone who did a 7 level NYOW layout years ago in N scale in his dining room IIRC..

Your complaint is that you cannot get the "Distance Traveled" but looking back at your design, your not going to on a single level twice around with half the track hidden.

Following the current trends in MRP this season, AND utilizing N scale's small size, you should have no problem modeling the railroad on 1 foot wide benchwork shelves hung from the walls for the exception of Warwick Yard. (which if you adopted this approach, could actually be modeled bigger than already designed by you)

Since the depth of the benchwork is minimal (1 foot in most places, probably can shrink it down to 6 inches in some more scenic rural areas) the worries about shadow-boxing, and not being able to light properly are minimized.

(and worries about differing level heights are minimized, also due to N scale's small size., 12 inches in my opinion should work.)

The only drawback is that if you want continuous run, you need to employ a helix. If continuous run is not required, then it can be negated or truncated to the first level only.

I'm focusing on the "Distance Traveled" as the complaint because thats what I keep hearing. If the distance on the current design is too limited, then LENGTHEN IT CONSIDERABLY.

More unsolicited opinions from an armchair modeler.. LOL

j


sizemore

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2698
  • Respect: +92
Re: rethinking the layout
« Reply #49 on: June 30, 2010, 09:48:57 PM »
0
"Thank you, sir!  May I have another?!"

Chip Diller

Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

John Blutarsky

Thompson Sub: Instagram | Youtube | Website

DKS

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 13424
  • Respect: +7026
Re: rethinking the layout
« Reply #50 on: June 30, 2010, 10:21:06 PM »
0
So, Steve, your remark in the Crew Lounge about having PC rolling stock got me thinking... how about modeling the PC, specifically (since you're hot for coal ops), the Cherry Tree Branch near Clearfield. I've sketched up a very rough track plan, featuring the Clearfield yard, a nearby power plant, and the line west of Clearfield where the Cherry Tree branchline meets it at Curwinsville.
 


This plan has a lot more track than others up to now. The cyan-colored line starting at the coal mines, bottom left, is the lowermost level, rising up through a loop at the upper right and around to Cherry Tree. From there it continues to rise and becomes blue as it loops around the mines and swings along the back through Curwinsville. As it wraps around to the right past the power plant, it drops back down to the Clearfield yard, which disappears to the staging yard and re-emerges by the coal mines. The black and blue lines along the left and top are shown parallel for clarity; they'd actually be stacked to conserve real estate.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2010, 10:27:04 PM by David K. Smith »

Dave V

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 11342
  • Gender: Male
  • Foothills Farm Studios -- Dave's Model Railroading
  • Respect: +9520
Re: rethinking the layout
« Reply #51 on: June 30, 2010, 10:27:41 PM »
0
Dammit, Dave, another pair of pants to the laundry!

Very, very cool.  But wondering what all ran on that branch besides coal.  Steve's looking to avoid doing anything but complain a conveyor-belt layout. ;D

DKS

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 13424
  • Respect: +7026
Re: rethinking the layout
« Reply #52 on: June 30, 2010, 10:38:57 PM »
0
Dammit, Dave, another pair of pants to the laundry!

Very, very cool.  But wondering what all ran on that branch besides coal.  Steve's looking to avoid doing anything but complain a conveyor-belt layout. ;D

Understood. This is a preliminary plan, so other industries would be added along the line. That said, this is were we may have to play pretend a little by adding other kinds of traffic to the branchline that it may not have handled. The line through Clearfield I believe saw all kinds of traffic, albeit 90% coal. Or, the names can be changed to represent any one of dozens of branchlines feeding the PC in central PA; I just picked this one out of the hat as being coal-centric.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2010, 10:42:05 PM by David K. Smith »

Bob Bufkin

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 6397
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +44
Re: rethinking the layout
« Reply #53 on: June 30, 2010, 10:45:07 PM »
0
I think at one time there were a bunch of brick factories on that line.  Adds some variety.  Forest products is another before all the first growth trees were gone.

JDouglasFisher

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 161
  • Respect: 0
Re: rethinking the layout
« Reply #54 on: June 30, 2010, 11:05:50 PM »
0
Penn Central was the second railroad I modeled (after Burlington Northern during the early years)

Benefits: They ran almost every locomotive. After the bankruptcy, wasn't uncommon to see 5 unit lashups in hopes of getting the train over the road. (this near the end became less prevalent as the GP38 army became the new F-unit on that railroad)

Drawbacks? besides being the laughing stock of the modeling community (I know from first hand experience).

I know I posted the image once before, but here it is again for posterity's sake.


DKS

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 13424
  • Respect: +7026
Re: rethinking the layout
« Reply #55 on: June 30, 2010, 11:30:49 PM »
0
Drawbacks? besides being the laughing stock of the modeling community (I know from first hand experience).

I honestly don't see how that should affect one's choice to model it, unless one is particularly influenced by the (questionable) opinions of those who, frankly, should keep their traps shut.

JDouglasFisher

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 161
  • Respect: 0
Re: rethinking the layout
« Reply #56 on: July 01, 2010, 01:36:57 AM »
0
I was a member of an HO scale club in NJ who shall remain nameless and I used to get hammered quite frequently about it.

It got worse when one of the club members son and I made a bet.

The bet was (remember, this is over 10 years ago) that my cheap super detailed Athearns could beat his Katos in a longest train drag match.

Son: 2 Kato SD40s, (12 axles, cost about 200+ dollars at the time, and boy did he make sure everyone knew it.)
Me: 1 Athearn GP9, bracketed by 2 Athearn F7As (12 axles With paint, decals, and details, about 100 bucks flat.)

Ruling grade was 2.3% coming out of hidden staging. Rules were your train had to complete a lap all the way around, wheel slippage was ok, but your train couldn't stall.

His stopped at 47 cars
Mine at 52 cars.

We both pulled the same train of cars so there was no inequity involved.

1.) Sintered metal wheels, (ala Athearn) though a pain to keep clean, give more bite at the rail head
2.) $100+ dollar engines don't perform really any better than el cheapo $25.00 engines.
3.) upsetting a 12 year old whose father was the then current club president causes many other political issues.

Honestly, I wasn't sure I would win the contest, after that though, while I was in HO scale, I swore by Athearn/Stewart/Roundhouse and when compared to the wallet, still think that building up a model is better than paying for it already built.

Alas, those days are gone and that was the first and last club I was a member of. (for other reasons which no doubt was initially sparked by this event.)

J.

asciibaron

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3101
  • Respect: +1
    • Steve's Happy Fun Time IntarWebs
Re: rethinking the layout
« Reply #57 on: July 01, 2010, 09:46:11 AM »
0
while DKS was coming up with the Clearfield coal line, i was working with cardboard templates, turnouts, and track to come up with a trackplan using my existing L&HR subroadbed.

i sent DKS the rough sketch and here's the cleaned up version - it's pretty close to what i've got hashed out. 



while not exactly to prototype, it could be an L&HR or WM layout, depending on how i do the scenery and the lineside industries.

there are several spots that could make for some cool scenes - the diamond, the "mine" on the right wall, and the valley on the left wall.  i think i can add in some more sidings to gain some switching on the upper area along the back wall. 

i did hash out a modification to this plan but i think the grades would have been too much.
Quote from: Chris333
How long will it be before they show us how to add DCC to a tree?

wm3798

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 16233
  • Gender: Male
  • I like models. She likes antiques. Perfect!
  • Respect: +6674
    • Western Maryland Railway Western Lines
Re: rethinking the layout
« Reply #58 on: July 01, 2010, 09:55:41 AM »
0
Now build it.
Rockin' It Old School

Lee Weldon www.wmrywesternlines.net

asciibaron

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3101
  • Respect: +1
    • Steve's Happy Fun Time IntarWebs
Re: rethinking the layout
« Reply #59 on: July 01, 2010, 09:56:59 AM »
0
Now build it.

when can you come over and help?
Quote from: Chris333
How long will it be before they show us how to add DCC to a tree?