Trackplan Feedback

wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...

Todd, I like it, but then I would as I'm a big Timesaver and switching fan. Your layout looks like it could be fun and certainly more flexible than a Timesaver. It could be a switching nightmare with lots of rolling stock on the tracks or flow nice and easy if not to crowded. A few things that you might kick around if you haven't are........ 1) If you plan to use magnets for uncoupling make sure you spot them carefully so your two longest cars can center over the magnet while both on a straight section or mostly straight section. You have a lot of curves off the runaround. Of course if you are uncoupling manually you have no problems. 2) You could also run a short peninsula out from the center giving you more room to model Mueller Recycling and open up the area at the run around even more. 3) there is some potential for "S" curve problems at the two turnouts on the south side of the run around and the one at the east end. It will probably work just fine as is but you might do a mock up to test your equipment on those sections before committing to laying the track permanently. The reason I mention this is that I see you will be running modern equipment on the WN. I had a slight "S" curve that I operated small steam locomotives with 36' and 40' cars through with no problems for years. When I got a GP30 and some longer modern rolling stock this section became a problem especially when pushing a cars through it. The cars by themselves went through fine but not when coupled to another car or the locomotive. Bruce

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com skriver:

Do you need the floor space for aaything ?

I would do an E shaped layout - if the roos is not used for anything else.

I agree.

I would consider making softer curves. You are using a radius of 20", make it bigger, you have sufficent space for it.

Move the switches in front of "graphic packaging" and "knudson manufacturing" closer together, then there is more room for large curves. i know that you then will lack som tracks for shunting, but you can solve this by extending the "Scott's spur" and do a couple of shunting tracks in front of the CNW interchange.

Allthough I'm recommending larger curves, I suggest that you move the "Mueller recycling" to a "tounge" in an E shaped layout. And for that you need sharp curves....

Klaus

Thanks for the comments Klaus!

Yes, unfortunately my layout room doubles as my bedroom.

Makes sense, I am going to re-work the plan a little to try to accomodate this. However, I'm not overly concerned as home road power is all 4 axle diesels and any larger, modern diesels will be run light.

Just based on my experience of operating switching layouts, have you considered adding a crossover between the two adjacent tracks on the left hand leg - which will give you another run-round loop. Having to haul something 'miles' to a loop to run round can get to be a right PITA after a while. Also might give you a bit more room to have two locos switching with two loops to use, the 'gotcha' being the need to share part of the existing loop.

Jim.

cheesecurd skriver:

Damn... :-)

But your passenger cars running in sharp curves looks crazy. I'm not worrying about derailing, but the look...

Klaus

I'd shorten up the new track on the left side and open the radii even more -

36" radius is really nice looking or even more if you can fit it. Also, rounding the inside corners will allow for the larger radius even more. I once built a small railroad from the leftover plywood from ,my father's construction of a twin sized bunkbed and used 38" radius on the curve to the short leg. The guys in the club didn't think that it would be a good idea when I showed them the plans (they wanted 18" radius) but when they saw the plan in reality, they applauded my decision to stay with the large radius.

-- Why do penguins walk so far to get to their nesting grounds?