Hi All,
I’m back in the game after a 25 year absence. [:D] I’ve got a quick question for the forum:
Has anyone built or has any experience with track Plan # 46 “The Jordan Valley RR” from Westcott’s 101 track Plans book? [?]
I’ve got almost exactly that space, 9x12 and thought it looked reasonable and more importantly, buildable within several months or less.
I’m looking for any gothca’s or problems with the plan before I commit any time to modifying it to suit.
Right off the bat I’d probably add an Engine servicing facility and increase the radii of the turns. The grades seem doable at 2.5% to 3%.
Anyways any suggestions are welcome.
I just picked up 3rd Planit and I’m in the process of learning the ins and outs.
Thanks!!
PS: A search of this and several other forums turned up no hits for Jordan valley or Plan 46.
I don’t cross post so you’ll only see me here.
OK I havent built this layout, and I don’t know your level of experiance, but my reactions on looking at the layout if built as designed are as follows,
(1) maybe its a bit to big for a first attempt,
(2) layout has an oldfashioned feel,
(3) Operational wise is suited to someone who just likes to watch trains run rather than
Switching
(4) duckunder or removable shelf is a pain
I saw an interesting article in MR a while back where the author of the story took an old John Armstrong track plan, that happened to be a classic once around circle layout, and cut the track plan right down the middle. He then re-assembled the plan into an around the wall layout that was in keeping with more modern day track planning. It still has a continous loop effect, but provided an opportunity to switch. The loop portion actually goes out of site and below to provide hidden staging if you choose. It then re-appears on the other end.
If you are interested, I could go home and dig out my information. I have it all stashed away. I just completed building half of this track plan this winter. I love the operational interest it provides, and the old continous loop so I can watch the diesels blast by!
Try dig out “Model Railroad Planning 2000” and you will find the plan on page 80 [8D]
It was not an Armstrong plan that where cut in half, it was the mentioned 101 Track Plans #82
The “Jordan Valley” trackplan looks to me as if it were designed by someone who wanted to build complicated trackage for its own sake, and not to provide realistic, varied or interesting operating possibilities.
The two double junctions look sort of interesting, but they don’t accomplish anything other than to interlace a double track oval with a (partially) single track oval. All the ovals do is offer trains a slightly different route to chase their own tails.
Here are “gotchas” not already mentioned:
– The double junctions call for 15 degree crossings. None are available built-up in HO at present, so they will havbe to be custom-built. (For those interested in double junctions, there is good news–PECO has announced a #6 crossing to match the #6 turnouts in its Code 83 line of North American prototype trackage, expected out later this year.)
–The double crossover at “Sarah City” is a needless complication, and the #6 turnouts in it produce s-curves which will result in less-than-satisfactory operation of scale-length passenger cars. Replacing this trackwork with a pair of #8 crossovers in the same vicinity would be a definite improvement.
–At both of the double junctions, the principal lines run through the diverging routes of the turnouts. The better practice would be to run the principal lines through the straight routes.
–Switching is hindered at “Salem” by the lack of a convenient double-ended siding (or “runaround track”). Also, the “yard” tracks have most of their turnouts on one of the main lines–the better and more realistic approach would be to have the turnouts on a lead track separate from the main. Further, the turnouts are all located on a grade which rises toward the tail end of the yard. The better practice would be to have the grade run in the oppposite direction, i.e., descending toward the tail end of the yard.
– The curved single-track bridge at “Aaron” will be a headache to build and wil
Fiverings-
That’s exactly the feedback I’m looking for.
Some of those things can be addressed but it might be better to to start from scratch and make better use of my space.
Your notion of digging out John Armstrong’s “Track Planning for Realistic Operation” is a great idea. For my money, it’s still the best book ever written about model railroading.