This is how I have roughly planned my new layout to look. There will be some changes along the way I think… I have designed it to include my current layout along the upper left side.
The size is nice to fill with a layout. The room is 22’x 15’.
The possibility to have a decent sized harbour is really exciting! Almost true to scale liberty ship maybe?
[:D]
I welcome ideas and pointers! As my interest is 1940’s eastern railroads and that I’m happy to have operations for 1-2 operators might give some help?
I do not pretend to be the world’s greatest layout designer, but with a minimum radius of 600 mm (23.6 ") are you going to have reach issues in the SW and SE sections of the layout? Secondly, is that a classification/storage yard in the N above the peninsula? If it is, then it looks like you are going to have to run a locomotive virtually all the way around the layout before it enters the yard.
No doubt you’ve thought carefully about the aisle widths, a little more room for the operators equals less room for modeling, its a bit of a no win situation either way.
I’d probably be greedy and have another track down the long wharf to cater for loading/unloading both ships at once.
Pleased to see you’re incorporating the existing MK& Eastern, have admired the photos.
As for a full sized liberty ship you might just get away with it.
Gidday, wish I had the talent to draw up a layout plan just like that. [:(]
Regarding the radius, “…the bigger the radius the better it is…” has always been the mantra and for many good reasons. However have just spent the weekend assisting running an HO modular exhibition layout where the minimum radius is 18",( for reasons of size for transportation). I was running a Bachmann Spectrum 2-6-6-2 and a Proto 2000 2-10-2 with predominately 40" freight cars, though there were longer passenger cars being run as well. Admittedly the !8" radius does not allow for larger locos especially 3 axle diesels and the “overhang” of the firebox and cab is not particularly visually pleasing.
Not sure how much much running you’ve done with your 2-10-2, and certainly not wishing to teach you how to suck eggs, but if you have any doubts, I would suggest that you temporarily lay a 22" radius curve or “S” and see if the loco performs to your expectations.
Personally,seeing that your modelling the 1940s, I would think that 24" radii would be sufficient for your desires and purpose.
…looking forward to see what you will do with your backdrops to develop “perspective-depth” in light of how much water is intermingled with the latter layout design!
Gidday ’ I agree with Bear except on one point. While I do not of any 6 wheel axle Diesels being ran in 1945 with good track laying most Big Diesels will handle 18 inch turns. Now most of my turns are 22 inch and bigger but I still have 2 hidden from view 18 inch turns and my engines can handle them. I run E-6’s (guess that is around your time frame) E-8’s and 9’s (PK 2000) Alcoa PA’s (old BB) SD 7 (PK 2000) Athearn RTR SD 40-2, SD 50, and Dash 9, Blue Line RSD 15 and GE AC 6000’s.
Most of my rolling stock is 50 foot box cars and again they will take the tight turns just fine.
On the brass 2-10-2, that I have to wonder about that.
On the over hang, I agree with Bear! My biggest radius is 26 inch and my Big Steam , Big Boy 4-8-8-4 and Y-6b 2-8-8
Gidday, One thing CudaKen got me thinking about regarding running large wheel based engines was turnout / point size, the modular exhibition layout using mainly Peco shorts , American No: 4, (I think?). Don’t know what turnouts you use but I guess that this would also be a consideration regarding your brass 2-10-2.
I like this one much better - it creates two good operating positions (for the yard and for the harbor), allows people to pass each other, and gives access to the most hemmed in turn-back curve.
It also creates a more linear design (staging - run - staging) instead of the more obvious loop in the first plan.
The peninsula may still be a little wide, creating a slightly narrow aisle between the engine house and the harbor, but having that little harbor yard along the aisle may very well be worth that.
Looks like a balanced design - three scenes (urban w/yard on the left, rural stations top and right, and harbor at bottom right). Enough small stations (three) to make running passenger trains fun, without overwhelming the design.
Single track main with three passing sidings, one at each station- looks to be about 120 centimeters (roughly 4 feet) long - good for an engine and three passenger cars or engine and six-seven 40’ freight cars. That sound reasonable for expected train lengths?
Industries seem plausible, industry tracks seems sensible for era and location. Overall impression - this looks like a railroad, not just a model railroad layout.
What is the height differential between yard/left entrance to staging and the bridge across the yard - or, put another way - what will be the clearance between staging
some remarks and questions. I do like your second try much more, especially at the left wing the way the river and the roundhouse are done. Maybe it’s possible to squeeze in a road along the back.
This plan has used staging in a nice way, i can imagine how trains are run on your layout. Looking at it they are rather short. While at the very same time the pier and carferry can hold lots of cars. It is a wild guess but your harbour can hold 6 times as much cars as a train can handle. Three times as many cars as your yard can handle. It all depends on the way you will operate your layout of course. If the layout is for just building great scenes and taking pics the above will not be a problem at all.
Operation on and the function of the old layout is not clear to me at all. Just before the entrance to staging another crossover from the main onto your old-layout could be added, so working with longer trains here becomes more easily possible.
I quite like the river or coast scene at the right. IMHO it is more like a river, and so a lighthouse would seem to be a bit out of place.
BTW I would build a temporarily 24" circle and try out how and if your big steamer can handle that curve. When to much binding is involved you will face a difficult decision.
You really found a place for those 60x8 steamers. Maybe you could shorten the carfloat, It would set out the Liberty ships even more.
Wish you the best
Paul
The track at the lower right could be the yard lead?
Mmmm - for meets, the shortest train of the two that meet should fit into the 4-foot or so sidings – but he can run longer trains e.g. from staging to the harbor, as long as he won’t have to meet trains too long to fit into the sidings.
But balance is a good point - staging vs yards vs industries.
Good observation about the switching lead for the docks - can’t believe I didn’t see that one
Mmmm - not sure if you really need it. It depends on your operational scheme - will all traffic to and from the docks go via the yard at upper left, or will there be trains coming directly from staging to the dock area?
Graffen, your second plan was immediately much more appealing to me…good job!!
I don’t know which 2-10-2 we are talking about, but if it is good for 22" engineered, my rule is that I will never subject any one steamer to a radius shorter than the stated minimum plus 10%. I have no empirical evidence to back it up, but it seems to me that the additional 10% gives you that buffer zone, or fudge factor for less than perfect curves…and who among us can lay them? In my case, the Sunset Selkirk 2-10-3 was engineered for 30" minimums, and I have 31" only, plus or minus, for the turning wye with crossover that I just built. That will be used at slow speeds only, so no problem. But out on the mains, the Selkirk is a passenger engine often and will only see much wider curves.
All this to say that I think you are doing okay by adding another 2+ cm over the claimed minimums. It is wise. If you could add even one more cm, it reduces the chances of the odd derail by that much more when you are operating the steamer at main track speeds, say 70 km/h or faster.
That’s a nice looking plan. Personally, Peco #6 are my smallest turnout, but I think a good quality #5 would suit your purposes just fine.
I have designed it to include my current layout along the upper left side.
