Okay, I’ve gone from the SEC (southeastern continental rwy.) to the Indiana Southern rwy, and now I’ve caught the fever of coal hauling. My newest concotion: The Pennsylvania Southern RR.
And before anybody mentions the depth, it shouldn’t be a problem. and the main line and opassing siding on the far right edge are against the wall, and they’re staging.
And here’s an SD40-2 in the road’s scheme:
And yes, i have permission to post this photo.
Two thoughts…
[1] Would it be possible to make this a 2-track mainline all the way around? This would greatly increase operations, and would give you a fresh perspective on bi-directional “train consist meets.” This will also allow you to slightly reconsider the placement of turnouts for mainline crossover action, but; do be aware that each crossover is technically an “s-curve” so be careful to place these on straighter sections of 2-track mainline.
[2] Add a 45 degree triangle (1/2 of one layout square) on the inside where the two “table-Ls” come together. This will allow for a much broader curve, or curves if a 2-track mainline, and will open up a little more freedom in your layout planning.
I would move the curves leading to the staging track to the left about 2’ and that would give enough room to put the staging track switches in the curves on either side, doubling the length of the staging track.
Dave H.
P1:
I have had the same problem. I think the best thing you can do is try and pin it down a little. What I would do is throw together a small table or hollow core door with foam on top and lay down something simple but easy to upgrade. An oval with a passing track and a couple spurs should do. You could get that built for two bills. Here’s a good simple track plan:
Probably best to go with the 11" - 12" radius track so you’re not too tied down on equipment, but not taking up huge space, either. Now, with that built, get a few cars from various eras and scenarios you like, without getting too invested in any one of them. Picking up used equipment would be good. Run some trains and see what floats your boat - old stuff, modern stuff, heavy mainline ops, branchline ops, etc. Try steam, try diesels, and don’t forget to try steam. Put in some scenery.
You can call it a ‘test track’ if you like. It will help damp out those oscillations, and you might have a lot of fun, too.
For example, running cheapo used Lifelike boxcars helped me realize that I liked the earlier single-sheathed boxcars and understated paint schemes better than the 40’ steel AAR and PS-1 cars with more elaborate graphics, and that helped me set my era. Spending a few bucks on those $2 cars that I’m not going to end up using was a great savings over buying 10 good-quality kit ones and ultimately backdating anyway. Now when I upgrade, I know what to look for.
Tgindy:
Easy as pie to do that.
Dave, i’m not sure what you mean.
Autobus: I’ve got an H15-44, a GP9, and a GP30, 2 ACF 50’ 6" boxcars, and a bunch of older boxcars I tore the roofwalks off. I think this is it, though. One reason i kept changing the plan is that this is going to fit in my bedroom, and while all the other plans would fit, they were space hogs. Same reason I don’t want a 4x8: it’s not economically spaced. I think this is it: a northeast plan with a coal mine and several other industries.
BTW, I won’t be here for today (day trip to the beach), so I won’t be making a fresh plan until tommorow.
So, we haven’t left yet, and I took this time to correct the plan.
BTW, Autobus, the era I’ll settle on will be at least 1960s, so I can get stuff before that and during that.
The Depth is a problem, unless you are very, very tall (I am 6’4" and your layout is too deep).
How are you going to print off white decals?
You have one VERY tight radius as well.
I look forward to seeing your next layout on these forums…and the next one…and the next one. How is the armchair holding up?
David B
P1:
Fair enough. With N you don’t really need 4x8 anyway for a “test” railroad. 3 x 5 would be nice and roomy, 2 x 4 would be adequate, especially with 4 axle diesels. But that last plan you posted looks fine. I’d say it’s time to start making sawdust. Build the continuous mainline and maybe some of the spurs toward the front, then run trains while continuing, because that’s the best way to see if a plan is fun to run.
Until recently i was in the same boat with you P1!!! The latest plan looks pretty good…i agree with David B…there is a very tight looking radius in there…iron out that and start cutting some wood!!! Best of luck!
EDIT…looking at the plan a little closer…it reminds me of “the Appalachian Central” which is a pretty decent layout…might i suggest checking out the alternate version on spacemouses webpage under the contest section! just throwing it out there!!
Well, it’s holding up quite nicly, considering i’ll be stuck with it for at most until next summer. Really, i’m not to worried about the depth, because it should only be about 3-4 ft. high, and they invented step chairs for a reason. bTW, i’m 6’.
I am 6’4" and I cringe looking at the depth. Remember that you will have ‘thingies’ at the front of the layout.
David B
reach shouldn’t be an issue for this:
green=forest
dark grey=mountain
blue=building
I agree with both thoughts. My original layout was single track, even when it looked like double track at one spot. Operations are more fun with a couple of trains running.
On the single/double track debate…
On a “smaller” layout, double track often makes more sense. There isn’t a long enough run to have enough sufficiently long passing sidings to really run two trains. It’s counter-intuitive, but double track can work a lot better.