|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
The Gauge Moderator
The Gauge Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bucyrus,Ohio
Posts: 3,808
|
Guys,I am thinking about building this 2x4 foot layout since I can easily set it up and take it down.I gotta find something to keep me occupied.
![]() However I plan on making some changes. 1.Eliminate the bottom crossover crossover and both switches since they have no real reason to be there. 2.Cut the yard from 4 to 3 tracks. 3.Eliminate the engine service track and engine house 4.Use smaller industries and use 2 on each industrial track. Improvements. 1.Use the bottom track as a interchange and run around. After thought. I could leave the bottom cross over and place a industry there. Any thoughts/comments?
__________________
Larry. Columbus & Hocking Valley Ry. Serving the Industries of the Hocking Valley. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 (permalink) |
|
Midwest Alliance Rail Sys
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Near Kansas City, MO
Posts: 229
|
I'm trying to envision what the track plan would look like if you eliminate the bottom crossover. Wouldn't that "strand" the lower segment of track?
Otherwise, it sounds like a good set of adjustments, especially using smaller industries and serving two per siding -- lots more "interesting situations" (re) spotting cars that way. My only other comment right now would be that the passing track at the top of the plan seems very short... I would be interested to see a revised track plan ... and of course, photos as things develop ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,499
|
Overall cool layout...I'd eliminate the lower right turnout that goes to no where as well. It would be hard to locate all the turnout mechanisms anyway and removing those turnouts would allow for scenery in that corner. I agree about removing a yard track, there doesn't seem to be a reason to have four, and removing one would free up space for an engine service area or even a trackside industry...IMHO. (I'd keep the engine house but that's only 'cause I like engines.)
__________________
Flying the Herc to pay for the trains! |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Brownsville, TX
Posts: 1,980
|
That little layout will keep you busy for many operating sessions....And your mods, as well as the other suggestions offered, will make it better, and eliminate the "spagheti bowl" look.
Keep us posted on this new venture...!!!
__________________
Gus (LC&P). |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 (permalink) |
|
The Gauge Moderator
The Gauge Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bucyrus,Ohio
Posts: 3,808
|
riverotter,No..I plan on keeping the switch off the main line and adding another on the far in so I can have a run around/interchange track.That upper run around track bothers me as well..I would like it a tad longer.
Herc,As of now my thoughts is on a one horse short line.A local fuel dealer will refuel the locomotive and contract maintenance man cal repair or inspect the locomotive as needed..Any heavy repairs will be contracted out to a locomotive rebuilder or perhaps a regional railroad. Russ,I also planned on adding detailed scenes..
__________________
Larry. Columbus & Hocking Valley Ry. Serving the Industries of the Hocking Valley. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Lakewood, Ca.
Posts: 4,353
|
Larry, it just occurred to me that if you built that layout just a tad wider than 2 feet add maybe 3-6 inches to the width, you could eliminate the short run around track to the inside of the top of the layout and add a much longer run around to the outside of the top. Since you are putting all of this layout in a 2 x 4 space, I'm presuming it is n scale.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 (permalink) | |
|
The Gauge Moderator
The Gauge Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bucyrus,Ohio
Posts: 3,808
|
Quote:
Russ,First it is indeed N Scale..I wish I could add to the width..This morning I remeasure my storage area and *might* able to use a 2x5 footer.I could then extend the run around track and add a switch lead for the yard..I would need too rearrange all the industrial tracks though however,I like the overall design because it fits my needs. First time in many years I am at a lost on what path to take as far as personalizing somebody else's design.
__________________
Larry. Columbus & Hocking Valley Ry. Serving the Industries of the Hocking Valley. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Lakewood, Ca.
Posts: 4,353
|
Larry, I don't know what is available in n-scale. If they have curved turnouts available, using a curved turnout in the top of each end of the oval would increase the length of the run around track at the top of the layout without increasing the size of the layout, and probably with very little if any adjustment needed in the industrial sidings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 (permalink) |
|
The Gauge Moderator
The Gauge Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bucyrus,Ohio
Posts: 3,808
|
Russ,Peco makes curve switches in N but,the curve radii is to large for that layout.I am sure he used the common "train set" style 9-3/4" radius curve.
I may have to go up to a 2x5' (maximum my storage space will allow)and use that layout as a base design which may be the better of the 2 evils.
__________________
Larry. Columbus & Hocking Valley Ry. Serving the Industries of the Hocking Valley. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 (permalink) | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Lakewood, Ca.
Posts: 4,353
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 (permalink) |
|
Recovering ALCO-holic
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, ON
Posts: 878
|
OK, let's try it again!
Here's the plan, stretched to 2x5. Same industrial area, lost the track off the bottom, but added a passing siding and yard lead. *EDIT* I used 11" minimum curves and Peco medium turnouts.
__________________
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines. Last edited by Squidbait; 05-21-2008 at 06:10 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 (permalink) |
|
Recovering ALCO-holic
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, ON
Posts: 878
|
Oh, BTW, any of the curved turnouts available in N scale that I've been able to find are pretty broad - too broad to be used to good effect on this layout.
__________________
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 (permalink) | |
|
The Gauge Moderator
The Gauge Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bucyrus,Ohio
Posts: 3,808
|
Quote:
L ike that plan..Its simple,got a switch lead,run around..All needed for my planned operations. However I will need to add a interchange track because that will be the heart of the operation and *may* straighten the right side industrial tracks so I can add a small town area.. I even came up with a new 1 horse short line as well as doubling for a NS/C&HV branch line.. ![]() Funny thing that..I came up with a ops plan and short line but,was stuck on the track plan.
__________________
Larry. Columbus & Hocking Valley Ry. Serving the Industries of the Hocking Valley. |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| suggestions on a layout-within-a-layout | Santa Fe Jack | HO Scale Model Trains | 3 | 07-22-2006 11:19 AM |
| Once Again! A Probable FAKE(?) 93-S on eBay! | El Vigilante | Archives | 12 | 07-05-2005 10:45 PM |
| Please help with probable fake Roman denarius | Mike Dworetsky | Archives | 0 | 04-19-2005 03:24 PM |
| Small N scale layout or table layout | Pmagall | Track Planning | 14 | 01-29-2003 01:10 PM |
| Scaling from and HO layout to an N layout | woowoo | N / Z Scale Model Trains | 4 | 01-01-2002 08:03 PM |