Ive already mentiond the first had numerous in-built cock ups and mistakes that i dont want to repeat.
Ive had stuff going round in my head for a couple of days but i keep hitting a no-go sittuation.
The questions i keep asking myself are,
Can i realy build an interesting around the walls layout in the space available without having tight curves? I was thinking about 30" min but i dont think this is workable.
Then theres the catch! If i have gentle curves, i then end up with hard to reach parts of the layout, ie, the corners of the room. Thats one mistake i made before
One option ive been thinking about is using a dog bone with one of the long sides against the wall instead of my old layout where you stood in the middle…
I would like to have as far removed as possible from the oval shape and instead more turns.
I would like a certain amount of interesting switching to be done on the layout. (another big can of worms!)
Also continuous running would be beneficial. I reckon lower level staging would be great as this will allow me to make up and store trains off the scene while saving space.
Am i asking to much and need to re address what i want and what i can have?
If i can settle on a general shape, i can then start to put a plan together. Hopefully!
Doing things the right way is abit of an eye opener for me, ive dabbled in model railways in the U.K scene for many years but ive still so much to learn when it comes to getting it right!
Any helpers/sugestions to get my brain in gear would be very much appreciated.
I guess it depends on the room’s configuration, Gary. 30" curves are a wonderful thing if they don’t get in the way of an interesting and ultimately “successful” plan that you can live with for 2-10 years. It those broad curves have you distinctly unhappy by next March, it would hardly have been worth it. My configuration is a folded loop running around a 30" bench that comprises a rectangle. I was able to have curves over 40" 'cuz I luv watching trains run through tunnels and hills. I smartened up and include a yard on on full side so that I can switch. I also include two passing siding areas and a reversing “S” so that I can turn trains without the sky hook and its inherent risks. However, I accepted that I mught have to reduce my curvature mins to 28", which I was only too happy to do when push came to shove. My reversing “S” and yard has 24" mins to accommodate my larger steamers and heavyweights.
Perhaps you can have a rather large bulge on one side and make your main cross over itself. That way, you can use each bulge level to have 30 turns at the extremes of your loop. For the corners, fashion the right of way so that it approaches and exits as wide of the actual bench inside corner as possible…that will get you near 30", except maybe the inner curve where you have them.
That certainly rings true. I guess another mistake i made first time around was dwelling to much on having very broad curves and this was one factor that led to its downfall. I need to reach more of a compromise in this respect. Infact, i ended up with broad curves and little room for anything else, i also had huge unreachable area’s of the layout with short sidings in the inside of the mains that would hold 4 or 5 two axle cars at most! It quickly became very old.
Im trying so hard to visualise!
Tunnels and hills are certainly a pluss point for me to. These are also valuable in taking the track to a storage area and/or creating a scenic break. All i need to do is put it into pratice.
[quote user=“selector”]
Perhaps you can have a rather large bulge on one side and make your main cross over itself. That way, you can use each bulge level to have 30 turns at the extremes of your loop. For the corners, fashion the rig
Oops, my bad! I meant an overpass, not a crossover. If you fold the loop then where they cross must be a difference in elevation if you have an overpass. If a crossing, then whatever angle you can get to work would be at one level.
My benchwork is L-girder section framed, two facing each other that are about 8 feet long, and two at right angles to them so that a rectangle is formed. I must duck unto the centre open pit to operate it, but at 50", it is no problem for a short guy like me.
You can get free track designs at Atlas.com, and modify to suit.
There was a great railroad some years ago for about that size space that won the design contest in MR. It was based on a Georgia railroad and it looked very interetsting. It had hidden staging, a good degree of switching and looked like it would be fun to operate. Unfortunately I can’t remember the name or the the time frame. Maybe someone else will recall it.
Selecting an arbitrary minimum curve radius is generally a backwards (IMHO) way to arrive at a track plan, because it’s really a dependent variable rather than an independent. Work on the more independent variables such as space available, era, prototype and/or region, type of operation desired (railfan, way freight switching, passenger, yard switching, etc) first, and let the more dependent variables such as curve radius be driven by these.
For example, if you are a railfan operator, and your favored scene(s) do not involve the turn-back curves, these can be as small a radius as your equipment will reliably operate on. On the other hand, if you need to automatically couple on minimum radius curves, the radius needs to be 3 times the length of your longest rolling stock. If you need remote uncoupling on a curve the minimum radius for that action is 5 times the longest rolling stock. Of course, you need to know you longest rolling stock, which will normally be driven by era and prototype.
In my case, I model a 1900 free-lance short line. Passenger cars are limited to about 50 ft, freight cars are generally 36ft or less, largest locomotive will be an early 2-8-0 or 4-8-0. In HO, an 18" minimum