OK - my first shot!


cuyama said:
the "tug" needed to overcome inertia and get the table rolling is more than enough force to derail many cars each time the layout is moved. YMMV
Click to expand...

Byron,

This is a good point, well taken. A smooth rolling surface and properly selected wheels (with roller bearings) are a consideration.

lasm
 
cuyama said:
The challenge many have discovered with placing large tables on wheels is that the "tug" needed to overcome inertia and get the table rolling is more than enough force to derail many cars each time the layout is moved. YMMV
Click to expand...

I'm not so enthusiastic about smaller tables with wheels if they are more than one piece, either. I know there have been successful executions of that (MR's Beer Line, for example). But when I tried that when I first built my benchwork sections a couple of years ago, they were just enough "off" from one to the next that I came up with a complicated system of retractable casters. In the end, though, I abandoned the overall trackplan they were designed for and worked out one in which I wouldn't have to move the sections on a regular basis. But again, YMMV :)
 
This has been a very helpful conversation. I like the idea of two tracks because I could just set the passenger train going and then work with the freight train at the same time. I also like the idea of trains passing each other on the tracks. I had intended to go with a DCC system. I agree with the practical concerns about putting wheels on the benchwork and the duck under thoughts. While I could negotiate a duck under without any problem, I could see how it would get old going in and out when working on the layout. A drop in/lift out piece would help there, but I have concerns about proper alignment and reliability.

Jeff
 
Very interesting thread. I thought the spring loaded type of contact was particularly clever. I was trying to imagine how someone got that section of track wired when it had to come out. I am thinking about an 8 foot rectangle with the open center. It would certainly meet my size needs and would allow a double track with no problems. Would also make for a nice long running distance and it should be pretty simple to place a staging yard and several spurs to different things. Also would allow some great modeling spaces for towns and the like. Since it would have to go up against a wall, I'm not sure how you would deal with background scenery. Certainly, scenery along the back wall would be a snap, but with the rest of the layout out in the room, that's a different animal. I will keep this in mind when I go to Trainfest this weekend. Maybe I will gets some ideas there that will help my decision making.

Thanks guys,

Jeff
 
I'm still wondering if this is simply too ambitious for a first layout. Rather than saying if you can't fit everything in you might not do anything, you might want to think deliberately about scoping the project down.
 
The only thing I'll say there is that we're not just talking two sheets of plywood, we're talking double loop, tight radius, passenger trains -- whew! Why not think something half the size, single loop, get some experience and expand or trash the first effort and start again with a clearer idea of what can be done in that space. Just sayin.
 
Here is a simplified version of Stokers plan. I added a passing siding in green, otherwise it is an oval. No fancy wiring required. Could be amended later.

untitled.JPG


lasm
 
This conversation has been enormously helpful. I'm thinking that the idea that I start a bit simpler makes sense, but I don't want to go too simple. What if I run two loops of tracks around the entire layout, tie them together in a few places so you can cross over to the other track and then add some spurs and a small yard off them as well. No reversing. I can always just run one of the trains in the other direction if need be. With the two tracks roughly side by side (I would vary their distances apart, so in some places they would be as much as 18 inches apart) I could change elevations in a couple of areas to make them look different and do some tunnels and bridges for either one or both lines. Sound a little more in my ball park?

Jeff
 
PIN DR said:
With the two tracks roughly side by side (I would vary their distances apart, so in some places they would be as much as 18 inches apart) I could change elevations in a couple of areas to make them look different and do some tunnels and bridges for either one or both lines.
Jeff
Click to expand...

Jeff,This sounds like a great idea!!!!


lasm
 
OK, this is getting fun again! Here is a general idea of what I have in mind at this point. This is drawn to scale and there are no curves smaller than 18" and most are 24" or 22". This is nowhere near a finished plan, I'm just interested in getting you guy's input on whether or not this is a workable idea or if I have just plain missed something. There would be lots of room for scenery and on the longer runs I could change in height too. There is an outside and inside line. With DCC can I run one train CW and the other CCW on the two separate lines? With the yard in front, it would like like it would make sense to run the inside line CCW and the outside line CW. Thoughts?

Jeff
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0006.jpg
    IMG_0006.jpg
    162.1 KB · Views: 151
Thanks for the comment on removing the s curve in the lower right. I have read that they can be troublesome and it is good to know that could be a weak point. I will also take your advice on the duck under experiment. A good idea. I figure I'll likely start with a duck under, but am keeping an open mind to building a lift out or hinged bridge at some point. I plan to do the benchwork so I can come back to that idea later on if I decide to. I made the center opening a full 4 feet square, figured I'd appreciate the extra room and that still allows me 2 feet for track and scenery.

Are there any issues with running the trains in opposite directions of each other? I don't want to invent a wiring or operations mess!

Jeff
 
Ya 42" high benchwork seems like a good hieghth for benchwork. You actually want as high as you can get, the trains look better at eye level, or as close to eye level. While still being able to work on track and scenery.
 
After going through your thread on what you are doing to your layout, you could tell me it doesn't get dark at night and I would believe you!

Jeff
 
Another small suggestion would be to make one of the four sides a lot narrower, so that the duck under would be a bit easier to get through.
 
PIN DR said:
This is drawn to scale
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I think that your turnouts diverge more sharply than is actually possible. The overall idea is probably still workable, but that would be one thing to take a closer look at as you begin to finalize things.

A number of folks have been making suggestions, which is great. In my humble opinion, they might be able to help you even more if you showed the full area available with which to work, including room entrance, doors, windows, and other obstructions. There might be even more possibilities. Your sketches have changed shape and footprint quite a bit, which suggests that there is some flexibility in the space.

If you decide on a donut in the end, it really helps to narrow the duck under area as much as possible, as others have mentioned. This need not be the full length of one side, but narrowing down for a length of 36"-48" is something for which you will grateful in the long run.

Good luck.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Great idea! Stay tuned, I am working on yet ANOTHER layout for perusal by the group. More and more, I think I am getting that simpler is better in this, particularly for a newbie. You don't have to fill up every square inch of benchwork with track.

Jeff
 
cuyama said:
I could be wrong, but I think that your turnouts diverge more sharply than is actually possible. The overall idea is probably still workable, but that would be one thing to take a closer look at as you begin to finalize things.

A number of folks have been making suggestions, which is great. In my humble opinion, they might be able to help you even more if you showed the full area available with which to work, including room entrance, doors, windows, and other obstructions. There might be even more possibilities. Your sketches have changed shape and footprint quite a bit, which suggests that there is some flexibility in the space.

If you decide on a donut in the end, it really helps to narrow the duck under area as much as possible, as others have mentioned. This need not be the full length of one side, but narrowing down for a length of 36"-48" is something for which you will grateful in the long run.

Good luck.
Click to expand...

Byron,

Thank you for that suggestion. I will draw up the room so there is some idea of space.

Jeff
 
I like the "S" curve in the lower right.
I would use flex track on it so that it has a nice gradual flow (easement) into and out of it.
Trains snaking-going along an S curve are a favorite of mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top