I'm interested in building the Atlas Oregon Pass Line. It's designed for 8' x 12'. It will fit the space that I want. My concern is the 18" curves. I was wondering if anyone out there has built this layout with larger curves. 24" / 22". Would this alter the size of the bench work?
Oregon Pass Line
- Thread starter onebar
- Start date
ModelRailroadForums.com is a free Model Railroad Discussion Forum and photo gallery. We cover all scales and sizes of model railroads. Online since 2002, it's one of the oldest and largest model railroad forums on the web. Whether you're a master model railroader or just getting started, you'll find something of interest here.
Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a commision from some of the links and ads shown on this website (Learn More Here)
otiscnj
Well-Known Member
Onebar,
While I haven't built the Oregon Pass Line, or redrawen it with a CAD program using larger curves, I am doing such more or less the same thing with the Central Midland plan in HO. I'm using 26' and 28' curves (or that's the plan), and making some other changes.
My guess would be that yes, it will require a bit more space. 24" radius curves will be 48" in diameter, with the result that possibly the outer portion of the track where it meets a straight track, will end up off the table. My suspicion is that would be most critical where the track goes downgrade to the lower level, and also on the 'turnback loop,' on the upper level. My suspicion is that you might be able to get by with adding another 3-12" in the width of different areas.
If you were to ask me, it would be worth the effort, particularly if you plan on running today's or recent (post 1980's) equipment. The larger equipment needs larger curves to run reliably, and haul longer trains.
While I haven't built the Oregon Pass Line, or redrawen it with a CAD program using larger curves, I am doing such more or less the same thing with the Central Midland plan in HO. I'm using 26' and 28' curves (or that's the plan), and making some other changes.
My guess would be that yes, it will require a bit more space. 24" radius curves will be 48" in diameter, with the result that possibly the outer portion of the track where it meets a straight track, will end up off the table. My suspicion is that would be most critical where the track goes downgrade to the lower level, and also on the 'turnback loop,' on the upper level. My suspicion is that you might be able to get by with adding another 3-12" in the width of different areas.
If you were to ask me, it would be worth the effort, particularly if you plan on running today's or recent (post 1980's) equipment. The larger equipment needs larger curves to run reliably, and haul longer trains.
Otiscng,
I'm also considering the Central Midland. I'm very interested what you come up with. My concern was the bench work. The diagrams in the atlas book show you to cut the lumber at certain sizes. With the modifications to the track don't you think you would have to alter the cookie cutter diagram?
Onebar
I'm also considering the Central Midland. I'm very interested what you come up with. My concern was the bench work. The diagrams in the atlas book show you to cut the lumber at certain sizes. With the modifications to the track don't you think you would have to alter the cookie cutter diagram?
Onebar
Railphotog
Railroad Photographer
It's like trying to put 15 pounds of flour into a 10 pound bag, won't work!
otiscnj
Well-Known Member
I'm using the Atlas framing design to give me a rough idea of the subroadbed, but not following it exactly. Basically, I'll be using longer boards than spelled out in the plan book its in. When I'm done, It will probably be about 15' long, and an additional 1-2' wider over by the wye. I'll try and post a rough cad drawing of the central midland, with the larger curves, later this weekend.
otiscnj
Well-Known Member
One,
Sorry for the delay-July 4th and such got in the way of my uploading things. To answer your last question, yes, the main portion could be 5-6' wide, depending on the curves you use, + room for scenery. It would be further than you could reach, even using a step stool, and pop-ups become not such a good idea as you get older. Pretty much dictates some sort of aisle space around the entire layout, or at least the 'back wall' in the plan, in addition to an aisle in front of the yard. If you look at the Ohio Central plan in Kamlback's '101 Trackplans' book, it is vaguelly similar to the Central Midland, just with a little bit more of everything.
Sorry for the delay-July 4th and such got in the way of my uploading things. To answer your last question, yes, the main portion could be 5-6' wide, depending on the curves you use, + room for scenery. It would be further than you could reach, even using a step stool, and pop-ups become not such a good idea as you get older. Pretty much dictates some sort of aisle space around the entire layout, or at least the 'back wall' in the plan, in addition to an aisle in front of the yard. If you look at the Ohio Central plan in Kamlback's '101 Trackplans' book, it is vaguelly similar to the Central Midland, just with a little bit more of everything.
TheGloriousTachikoma
Member
Otis...a little bit more? 16'x19' and a yard three times as big 
. It is easy to see where Atlas got the inspiration though.
I think the Central Midland and Oregon Pass are great 'spare slot in the garage' layouts that have the added bonus of being very accessible at a train show. They were designed for and need 360* access to be 'really' enjoyable. The other way you could do it is make the access hatches permanent and have the layout be around 5-6' up and have pedestals under the hatches (maybe 'pits' with three walls and a very short ladder and handrails?). The yard simply needs a platform in front of it and there you go. But that's not very optimal now, is it?
One thing I noticed and like about the Central Midland (I don't have access to a scan of the Oregon Pass, so cannot say it applies to it) but the CM has only one mainline curve sharper than 22"R, and even then it's eased. Allow an aisle on the 'back' of that plan and bump the benchwork out 4" you can have a minimum 22"R on every bit of mainline track from the yard out and back in.
I think though, space permitting, the yard needs to be moved off onto it's own peninsula where it can be expanded. And the roundhouse needs moving or wholesale deletion (if you're running diesel). The interesting thing is that it has a built-in location for staging. I like how this guy lengthened the short end. (2:40) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eeBWOb2a-4 If one has the other track follow the new route as well, the grade can continue the whole length and go under the yard throat low enough to permit extending the reversing loop into a whole staging yard.
Just some thinking...
. It is easy to see where Atlas got the inspiration though.I think the Central Midland and Oregon Pass are great 'spare slot in the garage' layouts that have the added bonus of being very accessible at a train show. They were designed for and need 360* access to be 'really' enjoyable. The other way you could do it is make the access hatches permanent and have the layout be around 5-6' up and have pedestals under the hatches (maybe 'pits' with three walls and a very short ladder and handrails?). The yard simply needs a platform in front of it and there you go. But that's not very optimal now, is it?
One thing I noticed and like about the Central Midland (I don't have access to a scan of the Oregon Pass, so cannot say it applies to it) but the CM has only one mainline curve sharper than 22"R, and even then it's eased. Allow an aisle on the 'back' of that plan and bump the benchwork out 4" you can have a minimum 22"R on every bit of mainline track from the yard out and back in.
I think though, space permitting, the yard needs to be moved off onto it's own peninsula where it can be expanded. And the roundhouse needs moving or wholesale deletion (if you're running diesel). The interesting thing is that it has a built-in location for staging. I like how this guy lengthened the short end. (2:40) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eeBWOb2a-4 If one has the other track follow the new route as well, the grade can continue the whole length and go under the yard throat low enough to permit extending the reversing loop into a whole staging yard.
Just some thinking...
otiscnj
Well-Known Member
Onebar, sorry for the long intermission. Here are 4 plans using 26" radius curves, and mostly Atlas switches, based on the Central Midland. I've included some dimensions, although the program I use prints them in feet, and fraction of feet.
These are mostly concepts, without all the sidings, or track showing. The idea was to get an idea of the size, etc.
If you're interested in the Central Midland and a mod to the plan that someone built, I suggest you check out a post from Ericsauto, in the HO forum. Search on 'Modified Central Midland.'
All the best-I hope Atlas doesn't come looking for me regarding a license to modify these plans.
These are mostly concepts, without all the sidings, or track showing. The idea was to get an idea of the size, etc.
If you're interested in the Central Midland and a mod to the plan that someone built, I suggest you check out a post from Ericsauto, in the HO forum. Search on 'Modified Central Midland.'
All the best-I hope Atlas doesn't come looking for me regarding a license to modify these plans.
Last edited by a moderator:
TheGloriousTachikoma
Member
I don't think so, otis 
.
Well, (left to right) the 1st looks like the basic CM modified for the bigger curves. My only issue is the yard. It reminds me of 101 track plans and the 'cram a yard in because every layout needs one'. #2 is probably my favorite as it moves the yard onto it's own shelf/penninsula. Now the plan just needs staging and the industrial district replaced. Why is there the remnant of the old Wye though? #3 I don't quite get, especially since it looks like it requires an evil duckunder. And #4 looks like it reduces the spaghetti-bowl effect of #1 and #2, but is also much larger.
.Well, (left to right) the 1st looks like the basic CM modified for the bigger curves. My only issue is the yard. It reminds me of 101 track plans and the 'cram a yard in because every layout needs one'. #2 is probably my favorite as it moves the yard onto it's own shelf/penninsula. Now the plan just needs staging and the industrial district replaced. Why is there the remnant of the old Wye though? #3 I don't quite get, especially since it looks like it requires an evil duckunder. And #4 looks like it reduces the spaghetti-bowl effect of #1 and #2, but is also much larger.
otiscnj
Well-Known Member
Glori,
You're right, plan to the far left is simply the same plan, but with larger curves. Doesn't address how to enter the plan, or how it should fit in a given space. The middle left plan has some advantges. I left remnants of the wye in for comparison/reference. The middle right plan shows how much room you might need, if you separate the loops of the CM main body, with an aisle. I assume that you would have another aisle around one of the peninsulas, as I have a strong dislike of duck unders. The plan on the right is a variation, if more space was available.
You're right, plan to the far left is simply the same plan, but with larger curves. Doesn't address how to enter the plan, or how it should fit in a given space. The middle left plan has some advantges. I left remnants of the wye in for comparison/reference. The middle right plan shows how much room you might need, if you separate the loops of the CM main body, with an aisle. I assume that you would have another aisle around one of the peninsulas, as I have a strong dislike of duck unders. The plan on the right is a variation, if more space was available.
otiscnj
Well-Known Member
Hi,
Sorry, I haven't checked in, in a while.
First off about all of the plans I posted above, I never built any of them. As such I never did much more with plan 21x15a. At the time I had developed it, I was looking for a track plan that fit in a given space, in a former house I lived in. We moved, and the plan became moot.
I use the Abracadata's (now TheLiquidAteHer) 3D RR Concept And Design program. It has a lot of templates of tracks and buildings, and doesn't have too steep a learning curve, given that I have a CAD background.
I'm busy in the next week, but if I get a chance, I'll try and check if I did any further detailing of the plan your asking about.
Thanks for the interest,
Otis
Sorry, I haven't checked in, in a while.
First off about all of the plans I posted above, I never built any of them. As such I never did much more with plan 21x15a. At the time I had developed it, I was looking for a track plan that fit in a given space, in a former house I lived in. We moved, and the plan became moot.
I use the Abracadata's (now TheLiquidAteHer) 3D RR Concept And Design program. It has a lot of templates of tracks and buildings, and doesn't have too steep a learning curve, given that I have a CAD background.
I'm busy in the next week, but if I get a chance, I'll try and check if I did any further detailing of the plan your asking about.
Thanks for the interest,
Otis
Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a commision from some of the links and ads shown on this website (Learn More Here)