Relax - it is not a reflection on you as a person if people do comment on something you’ve written, or if they don’t comment on something that you’ve written. In this case, I (and a bunch of other people, I am sure) did read your comment.
I didn’t see anything in particular to comment about you comment - essensially your main point seemed to be roughly the same as I had written a few posts back - that rightmost right hand turnout leading into the corner curve won’t really work as drawn.
Only difference is our argument for why it wouldn’t work - you pointed out potensial fouling between curve and straight ahead siding, I pointed out that it wouldn’t work well with a curve leading off a turnout here - the curve radius would be too small. So this turnout may have two strikes against it instead of one - but one is enough.
Then you advocate having just one track going off into the upper right hand corner instead of two tracks and dropping the switchback. While I indicated in my drawing that if he wanted to have two tracks here, it might be better to branch both of the track, and that he would need to make sure any switchback was long enough for minimum one engine, one car. Both sets of advice are doable. There is probably also quite a few other ways of dealing with trackage in that corner.
The original poster has already gotten quite a few comments - he might want to go back to redes
Stein-the revised layout drawing basically shows what I was getting at.It’s a big improvement.In the lower leg,is that a platform between the tracks?Also did you move the run around track to that area as well?I saw that Andrew Martin site before.Some real interesting plans.
I appreciate your other comments,but understand this-that’s me.It’s part of something that I not only have trouble dealing with but I tend to take things personally.Perhaps I shouldn’t but I’m working on it.It’s a long,hard process and I apologize to the other in this thread.
Ah - finally my internet link seems to be working again - it went down yesterday before noon and has stayed down for quite a while. Highly unusual for my phone company, but we had some thunderstorms yesterday that may have done something bad to some of their equipment.
Well, I figured he might be able to put in a set of building fronts there, maybe braced by some thin metal brackets or something like that, so he would have one hidden staging track representing “the line to everywhere else” - ie where trains come from or go to.
Allows him to have a train come onto the visible part of the layout, pick up some cars, drop off some cars and then go back to somewhere else.
Yes, I extended the runaround around the corner - instead of a short runaround along the upper wall, now there is a longer runaround along most of the upper wall and around to the top of the lower wall. Mainly to allow a runaround without having to have the second (rightmost) turnout for it along the upper wall segment.
Yep. Andrew has worked a lot of Inglenook type switching puzzles (mostly) into various interesting looking layout plans. Not at all a bad idea for a small shelf layout.
Sorry for the delays, been busy with work and the home life. Had to catch up on a few projects that I had forgotten about, including sending a few items to another forum member for his son.
When I first started to design this, I didn’t have a compass to watch my curves. Some of them ended up a little too unrealistic and need to be re-worked. Some of the turnouts don’t fit the space without major modification of a commercial item, or require being 100% handlaid. The turnout for the curve between the “sides” (as Stein has pointed out) being one of them. I may be able to add a little bit of extra room for the triangular piece that bridges the two independant sides.
FoulRift - Please sir, keep the comments coming! I hadn’t had time to check this myself which was part of the problem. Everyone had good, constructive comments, and I hadn’t taken the time to reply back to further encourage discussion.
The suggestions you made may work. I’m planning on re-working the plan again this afternoon while I have some down-time, and I’ll experiment with what you said. Removing “D” and the switchback at “E” to make it my transload facility will change the operational plan a little bit, but not by much. It would also give me a little less “density” in the track work and structures.
Stein - The second design that you posted based off my space is top notch. Your advice on small compact layouts is worth every penny. (Okay, so you gave the advice for free… shh I won’t tell).
With everyone’s comments, I definately have a bit of redesigning ahead of me. I’ll be back a little later with a few changes for “Part 2”.
Granite-Thanks for the reply and comments. To be sure Stein helped me a lot with my layout design.Believe me when I tell you it took a lot of give and take between the two of us before I had a workable plan.The one thing that helped was using XTrakCad to design it.It is a free download and once you get used to it,things go smoothly.You might want to think about using it.
Chris-at least you get paid.I’m off on Monday and the people I work for don’t even give you holiday pay.It stinks I know but I’m trying to hold on for one more year then I may take early retirement and work part time.Bob
I like the plan. Is the reason that you can’t extend because there is furniture in the way, or is it sometime easily movable? If it is movable you could consider some track that you can unhook from the layout and store underneath.
Sorry I didn’t see you at PetSmart. I must have been concentrating on something, or maybe just daydreaming. Who knows. (Well I know, but I don’t know where I was and what I was doing when you saw me so, well, what was I doing when you saw me?