Yes. I’m assuming you’ve read it.
Quote: “The reason I want both routes is because I want to have Dotsero on my layout, like this. (map with wye.etc) The Royal Gorge with the hanging bridge is a must so I must have the Royal Gorge route. And I also want to have the branchline from Bond to Craig (if there is space for that) so I must have the Moffat tunnel route as well.”
I still wonder if it wouldn’t be a bit much to model BOTH Moffat tunnel route AND Royal Gorge route all the way from Denver to Salt Lake City. I would consider (just as one of the design possibilities) the main length of your layout running on the Royal Gordge route in detail from east of Royal Gorge (Pueblo staging) to west of Dotsero (Grand Jct. staging)…plus a section of the Moffat Tunnel route that connects at Dotsero, heavy mainline traffic but not nearly as much of the length of it modeled as the Royal Gorge route…and the Bond-Craig branch. Just a thought. With a project like this, I would try all the possible variables I can think of on paper, where they are easy to erase, etc.
I can envision ONE TRACK on a NARROW SHELF running through the door between rooms. That means whatever part of the layout is in the smaller room would not be a continuous route that goes in there and comes back out again. You have two possibilities within your desired parameters (what John Armstrong called your “druthers”)…maybe even three.
Dotsero might be located in the big room near that narrow point and the Moffat Tunnel route might go through the door. Then in the smaller room would be a bit of Moffat Tunnel route mainline, the Bond/Orestod junction, the Craig branch and the Tunnel route staging.
–OR-- the small room might be dedicated entirely to the Bond-Craig branch, with Bond /Orestod jct. located in the corner of the big room.
I am thinking in terms of a large amount of space dedicated to Royal Gorge, where the scenery demands it, and a large amount dedicated to Dotsero, where the wye demands it, so those can be
Yeah, next house i rent or buy has to have a train room with a tall enough ceiling. 
Just a simple test drawing. Is this the best way to get a long mainline in this room? Everything is 30 inch radius.
How wide does tha make your isles? In some places they look narrow for such a large railroad. You might want to think about dedicating more space isles. Also, how about a crew lounge? To me it seems that since you have the space, the primary goal should be comfort, then how the railroad fits in.
The way i’d look at planning is to creat the Dotsero and Hanging Bridge (and/or other major focal points) sections first, then place them in the space and connect them for the most mainline space
Those are just my 2 cents.
After a day of ‘thinking’, still a long way to go before the final trackplan… Nothing is decided so it may be very different from this plan. Maybe a multi level, or something else…
The isles are at least 2 feet, no less then that. But this is only a sketch so I will try to make them bigger.
Even though you posted the links I am not certain people have read the original threads before they read this one.
Some preliminary thoughts:
- It seems like Dotsero is sort of plastered in a double corner for being a major place. It also seems like there are 4 tracks coming out of it instead of the three it should require.
- To do the swap out of power from CB&Q to D&RGW at Denver there will need to be some space for both the CB&Q and D&RGW loco facilities (whether or not they are hidden or not.
- Can you go through the walls? That is there is a small room where you currently have “Soldier Summit”, It seems there might be some better possiblities if you could tunnel through a wall to get in/out of there.
- With this much space I would think a two level layout would work nicely. You don’t have the space problems of how to get between leves that most people have.
- Are all three doors essential, or do the two toward the center (where the circle is) go to the same place? I mean can you go from one of those doors to the other one making an isle between them in the train room unnecessary?
You are absolutely right about Dotsero and 4 tracks, it should be three as you said. No, I can’t get through the walls. Regarding the doors. The lover one goes to a toilet, the upper one goes to a small kitchen that will be a very nice place to build kits and things like that. That’s the reason I have the walls at the left side empty, so I can walk there. I can’t go directly from the toilet to the workbench area.
I will start working on a double deck layout today. You are right that I do not have the problem that must people have. Maybe a nice helix somewhere… I’l be back… Thanks
I was thinking, those are very thin shelves on you layout… and a lot of long straight track, you must have a bit of the love of watching trains just run, (I do too, best stuff, hate switching…so I only model the one road) I love round the walls layout, with a central penincular. as for 2x, don’t forget to read Ohio and Southern(i think anyway…) double deck layout, interesting stuff. And before you set the top hight, visit a layout that is really high for you, you get sick of it after a while, trust me, mine is like 5’ 9" high, and you don’t get the dept perception, and everything over 7" is almost wasted, unless it is higher than the rest… just my 2c
Danny
Hi Danny. This is only the mainline. There will be a lot of switching, but the trackplan is not finished yet [:D] I will try to het the right height for both levels on my next trackplan. Thanks for pointing that out, appreciated.
My advice is exactly what you seem to be doing – take your time and ponder. I spent 6 months just doing my track plan, and the final result was radically different than the first take. Listen to the advice you get here, but filter it through your own desires and realize you’ll get some that’s directly contradictory. In the end, advice is only food for thought - ignore it at your peril, but take it as gospel with the same risk…
My only comment on the plan, which I generally like (I’m a fan of lots of mainline running myself), is that it’s a bit cramped. You have lots of long peninsulas that appear to be only 1-2’ wide, some of those showing what I believe is a backdrop down the center. That doesn’t leave you much room for scenery.
By way of example, my layout space is - I think - similar to your ‘large’ room if it was squared off rather than L-shape. My trackplan is a round-the-walls type with two peninsulas, each averaging 4’ wide… I tried and tried to get 3 peninsulas in there, and in the end realized I couldn’t do it without making them in the 2’ wide range, and while I could physically fit plenty of track on a 1’ wide shelf (2’ peninsula with 2 sides modeled), I couldn’t do it with enough scenery/structures/etc to give the level of realism I wanted.
I’m Jealous!!! lol.
Is this a basement? How did you manage to get such a large space?
Keep us updated.
Before starting a large project like this it’s importent to try out different ideas. Here is a three level trackplan with two helixes. Credit for this outstanding work goes to another model railroader from this forum, Big_Boy_4005
Look at this layout for a while, try to understand it. This trackplan is the best trackplan for my space so far… Check it out and be inspired…
Well I like it better. The walking space is in a much better pattern. But I really don’t think you want Denver and SLC directly over/under each other. That would be a major operator’s bottle neck. Especially stacked on top of the staging too. We have one place on our club layout where we put two small towns directly over each other. It is always elbow to elbow in that spot.
The other problem I see is that level #2 which would be the most “workable and viewable” has almost nothing on it. All the towns that will have operationable features are on #1 or #3. This is great for scenery but not so much for switching the cars in/out. I think I would switch level 1 & 2.
Thanks Rad, The stacking of the major cities did occur to me as a minor problem. Gonna have to work to massage that out. Access to the staging yard could easily be on the other side of the peninsula, so that won’t contribute to the congestion.
I was actually hoping to give Pueblo and Colorado Springs access to staging as well. One more minor detail would be trying to equalize the distance between Pueblo to Dotsero, and Denver to Dotsero. In real life, there is only about 36 miles difference between the lengths of the two routes. Moving Denver would remove the stacking issue as well giving the routes better proportion.
This is still a lot of railroad to represent, but the concept is viable. Just going to have to crank up the clock speed, 20:1?[:0][;)]
I have three ideas for this trackplan that I think will make it even better.
1 - Maybe level 2 should be the level from Dotsero to Salt Lake City. The idea is to have just one level to travel in the helix if the train run the Royal Gorge route. As the levels are located right now there will be two levels to travel in the helix when the train travel the Royal Gorge route. The train will be invisible for a very long time that way.
2 - Why not try to use the helix as the Moffat Tunnel? I mean, the trains are ‘invisible’ in the helix for a long time because the train have to travel 2 levels. If we pretend that this is the Moffat Tunnel it will be a more realistic feeling. Just model a portal just before the train enters the helix on the first level, and another portal when the trans comes out of the helix on the third level. And we will also save space for other things because we don’t need the place on level 2 named Moffat Tunnel.
3 - I’m not sure about this one. If we could take away the other helix, in the upper left corner of the picture and make a grade from level 1 to 2 (up hill), and a similar grade from level 3 to level 2 (downhill). The room is so large that the grade will not be that big. I have not calculated it yet so I’m not sure. The result is a three level layout with only one helix (Moffat tunnel).
I don’t know if I got the East and West portals right… I also think that the green text is not right after I changed things around so pretend it’s not there. [:D]
Feedback please…
Yes, because if there are going to be trains on the joint line there will need to be places for other Denver terminating trains like MIssouri Pacific, Santa Fe, Rock Island and CB&Q trains like the “Texas Zephyr!” to go to and come from.
Especially since electrolove has indicated Tennessee Pass as a desired scene with helper service operation.
Yes, I am hoping this exercise will help me get some ideas for my future 60x90 space.
With that much space, you’ll only need 2 levels, and you could turn the clock speed down to a managable 10:1.[;)]
I just realized that 60 x 90 is way more space than the Forney club had. That’s 5400 sqft vs their 3700 sqft.
I have 4450 sqft in my basement, but am only using 1750 for my layout. On the other hand, I’m only trying to represent 50 linear miles of mainline.
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by electrolove
Excellent idea, except it puts Denver in backwards. That is when facing Denver the left side is east bound. This is OK, just have to realize right isn’t east. The other thing is that the normal “view” of the East Portal of the Moffat is from the south. I don’t know how viewing it from the north will change the desired “scene” effect.
And since I just thougth of it, the normal “view” of the West Portal is from the North…Hmmm more stuff to think about.
Another thought. It would be really cool if the Royal Gorge could be put in a place where the other “levels” could be routed behind it. That is if it could have a “floor to ceiling scenery” look.