Re: Which track plan?

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:20:33 -0000, Stu wrote:
=>Cheers - that's just bloomin' typical => =>Right - once again I apologise, but these should work;
=> =>
http://www.geocities.com/sfairway/Plan1.JPG
=>
http://www.geocities.com/sfairway/Plan2.JPG
=> =>Make sure you copy and paste those links rather than just clicking on them, =>because Geocities doesen't allow hotlinking.
Yeah, if you use Internet Exploder. Heh heh :-) My newsreader just opens Nscape w/ that URL, and show me your page.
Question? Will you work this from one side only? If so, then four feet is way too deep for comfort. 2-1/2' is about the limit, even if you place the table low enough that you can reach that far without fouling structures, etc. Unless you have a titanium steel back... :-)
The track arrangement looks good to me, but then I don't know how close it is to the prototype, nor how close you want it to be.
Wolf Kirchmeir ................................. If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on this train? (Garrison Keillor) <just one w and plain ca for correct address>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of the three this one has to be the best, you have a steam shed which of course suggests loco hauled trains, plan 3 is the only one to include a loco escape. Without it you could only run autocoaches (and <spit>DMUs etc</spit>).
--

All the best,

Chris Wilson
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'd personally go for plan 3 but without the crossover on the left (as we view the plans on screen). However, you might want that left in for a run round, and if that's the case, I'd prefer a run round that doesn't encroach on the 'main' (passenger) line.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thanks for all the comments. I think Plan 3 is 'the one' - but with some minor adjustments as suggested - perhaps bringing the steam shed parralel with the Diesel Stabling sidings - something which I could easily do, but can't seem to get right on xTrkCad. That way I could bring the whole track plan 'forward' a little - meaning I wouldn't have to lean over so far. Thinning the board isn't really an option due to the layout of the loft, but that would at least give scope for scenic modelling behind the track, rather than a huge area in front of it. Would certainly make for easier operation at least.
Re the crossovers - I've been toying with the track plans for a while now, and I wanted to include a loco runaround to make for easier operation as much as anything else. However, I was flicking through a few old magazines last night, and I could always get rid of one, and use it as an excuse to justify a station pilot - the long siding/headshunt next to the 'main' line would then have to be long enough to accomodate the longest, empty stock workings as well as the odd longer freight (most will just be a few vans at most I'd imagine). If I did that, I'd remove the left crossover, having the pilot draw the empty stock just short of the tunnel to fiddle yard, then push it back, through the points and then pull it into the long siding. The loco could then run light into the station area and 'off scene', ready for the pilot to push the coaches back into the platform. Failing that, I could always have a short loco road branching off the 'main' line - but I quite like the idea of a loco running light engine through the tunnel, then working back to connect to its train.
Apologies for any appalling grammar/spelling errors - it's 8.42 am, and I've already made one mistake this morning - heaping sugar into my tea. At least it's not a work day!
Stu
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Plan 4;
http://www.geocities.com/sfairway/Plan4.JPG
Moved forward a little, though it would certainly be possible to move it forward a little more - though I'm a little worried about the fiddle yard if I do this. As before, the straight track leading off scene goes to the fiddle yard, though as I'm laying flexitrack (which arrived today), this could easily be curved after the tunnel mouth.
I've also managed to move the shed sidings so that they are much closer to the diesel stabling sidings, which would look quite effective. Crossover removed as per last post.

line
at
the
The
could
I've
least
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:43:37 -0000, Stu wrote:
=>Thanks for all the comments. I think Plan 3 is 'the one' - but with some =>minor adjustments as suggested - perhaps bringing the steam shed parralel =>with the Diesel Stabling sidings - something which I could easily do, but =>can't seem to get right on xTrkCad.
Don't allow the limitations of the software to dictate the plan. Just think of the plan as a design concept - a mere guide to laying out the tracks full size on wrapping paper tacked to your table top. Rearrange as needed at that stage. You could also make simple cardboard-box mockups of your buildings to get an idea of what the whole thing will look like - and maybe additional ideas about track (re)arrangements. -- I'd put in a runaround no matter what, since there will be times when you wnat to get the engine to other end of the wagons.
Looks like a nice little terminus, with lots of operating potential. Have fun!
Wolf Kirchmeir ................................. If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on this train? (Garrison Keillor) <just one w and plain ca for correct address>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I did manage to pull them paralell in the the end (Plan 4 is the result).
Cheers - I think it will be interesting to operate, and give me plenty to do.

parralel
but
think
full
that
to
what,
the
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:43:37 +0000, Stu wrote:

Don't you think a station pilot for a single platform terminus is a bit over the top? A horse would be more likely, except for the diesel shed, or whatever those smelly things are stored in.
Ken.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Oh, and I was looking forward to building that Airfix Spitfire too :(
Plan 5;
http://www.geocities.com/sfairway/plan5.JPG
Run-around reinstated - but moved, as suggested earlier. The whole thing would be brought forward in practice, as I mentioned earlier though. Might shorten the Shed roads and lengthen the headshunt though., Shed brought paralell with the main running line - the result of quite a lot of planning, as well as advice from you lot (Vastly more experienced modellers than myself no doubt).

now,
magazines
to
few
long
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 22:48:23 +0000, Stu wrote:

Spitfires were just icing on the cake, Hurricanes did the real work.
Ken.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:04:04 -0000, "Stu"
Stu,

Plan 3 looks the best. You've got a run round loop for a start, but I would reverse the layout of the crossover at the LH (platform end) end so that you get a larger distance between the fouling points on the platform road to accommodate a decent length of vehicles when running round them. This may mean moving the other crossover and the lead into the loco sheds along a bit to allow an adequate head shunt on the platform road.
As someone else has said, it's a very wide layout for a single line branch terminus with a lot of loco stabling. Look at shaping your baseboard to follow the track shape so that the width gets down to about two feet at the narrowest point. You could also look at laying the loco shed roads out parallel to the main track to cut down on the overall width as well.
Jim.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.