ocalicreek Wrote:Gary - are you using easements on any of your curves? Just heard a great clinic the other night on easements, and seeing your s curve before that bridge got me wondering. I gather that speeds on your layout won't be mainline speeds anyway, so it shouldn't matter too much. Just curious.
Galen, I put easements on the 90 degree curves and will also do that on the peninsula 180 degree curve. As an example, say I am doing a 90 degree curve with a 24" radius, I will first draw a 26" radius and then a 24" radius inside that, and connect the two curves together with a more gentle bend going into the curve. As for the other little jigs and jags, I don't put easements on those.
On those two offsets we are discussing in the photos - on the small S curve, there is about 2.5 car lengths between the curve, on the bigger one, about 6 car lengths. Still, I am considering going back and redoing that area, perhaps making the long bridge at an angle to the benchwork.
And, as you mention, speeds will be slow on this little shortline industrial railroad.
Jack, Russ, Gus, my replies to your posts are on the previous page of this thread.
Today's progress. Worked on the wiring for the east wall. I needed to do a little experimenting based on an omission when the building was built. I had installed a conduit for the track power to feed the east wall, but did not do anything for the e-magnet power. I decided to run the 24 volt DC wiring in the same pipe with the track wiring, but I wanted to make sure it would not create any interference with the control of the trains.
Now, call me crazy :? , but I am installing conduit and boxes under the layout for the various electrical systems. Here are some pics of the installation in progress.
[
attachment=19745]
[
attachment=19744]
[
attachment=19743]
[
attachment=19742]
Next we pulled the wire over to the east wall, then my daughter's boyfriend helped me move the control panel into the building, and I temporarily connected it to the wiring.
[
attachment=19741]
Then I haphazardly connected the electromagnet control and button:
[
attachment=19740]
The room is a disaster right now, stuff is everywhere! It really needs a good cleaning so I can be more productive instead of trippiing over everything and having to hunt for stuff that I left laying somewhere.
[
attachment=19739]
And then I ran the new GP7 with sound and everything worked flawlessly. No interference from the e-mag power, no shorts, woohoo! And the GP7 sounds terrific and ain't this hobby terrific?!!!
[
attachment=19738]
Oh yeah!
It's almost as if I was there ...
As I scrolled down reading, looking, scroll down, reading, looking, scroll down ...
And there it was ... an engine and several cars on a partially scenicked stretch of railroad ... I smiled and sat back in my seat...
WOOHOO!!!!
The first train has made its run on Gary's new layout!
Looks great and great to run a train of any kind.
Thanks for the pictures of the room in disarray. I don't feel so bad about mine now. I intend to have a lot of non train storage under the layout because there is no storage room in the house or garage, so in the meantime I work around stuff.
Charlie
P5se Camelback Wrote:And there it was ... an engine and several cars on a partially scenicked stretch of railroad ... I smiled and sat back in my seat...
WOOHOO!!!!
Thanks for your enthusiasm, biL!
It was great to run the train... and without any problems! No shorts in the trackwork, all the frogs were wired with the proper polarity, the electromagnet worked perfectly, ain't it grand when a plan falls into place!
I'm really in a groove right now... you know how it typically is, always a hundred uncertain things lurking in the background. Not sure how to do that, what is the best way to do this, and alot of time gets spent thinking about how to accomplish the tasks. Right now, I have the wiring all figured out, so I should be able to "just get'er done." Of course, with 170 feet of layout, it is still going to take some time. But that's okay, I'm really enjoying it.
Charlie B Wrote:Looks great and great to run a train of any kind.
Thanks Charlie.
Hey, are you going to run sound locos? I am really likeing them. Of course, I have heard that after awhile they just get on your nerves. We'll see.
Yes I'll be running sound, I have at least 20 now and hope to someday convert the whole fleet.
Charlie
Quote:On those two offsets we are discussing in the photos - on the small S curve, there is about 2.5 car lengths between the curve, on the bigger one, about 6 car lengths. Still, I am considering going back and redoing that area, perhaps making the long bridge at an angle to the benchwork.
Sometimes it's the inconveniences of real life that make the prototypes zig and zag around obstacles. If you can't blast through it or go under it, then I guess you go around it. Looks like you have an opportunity to 'justify' that jog with an interesting feature. Not sure what that would be, but you'll come up with something. Otherwise, I'll be stuck wondering why you made the track do that crazy s curve.
And I'm all in favor of tracks NOT parallel to the benchwork. It's common design wisdom for a reason. I'm not saying you have to change it, mind you, but all the model railroad planning hoity toits will sneer at you from on high if you dare defy them...
Galen
ocalicreek Wrote:And I'm all in favor of tracks NOT parallel to the benchwork. It's common design wisdom for a reason. I'm not saying you have to change it, mind you, but all the model railroad planning hoity toits will sneer at you from on high if you dare defy them...
From the artistic viewpoint, I agree with the above. Long gentle curves instead of straight track, curving benchwork fascia, nothing parallel... but I also agree with the David Barrow approach for operations. Lots of straight track and straight spurs... certainly helps operationally with coupling and uncoupling with magnets.
Anyway, here is what I currently have:
[
attachment=19747]
But I could easily change it to this:
[
attachment=19746]
Any thoughts, anyone? other options?
Barrow! - That's who I was trying to think of! Your layout reminds me of his domino approach, somewhat. It seems somehow different...maybe the angle of the photographs? Anyway, I like plan number two.
I think there's two approaches to consider here. One is striving to mimic the prototype arrangements and two is working toward a more modelgenic look. These are not mutually exclusive, by any means. Both are valid, insofar as being able to say, "I did it like that because...". Both can be supported by real life track arrangements. However, the modelgenic approach may not be as prototypical but is done as needed because either you like the way it looks or it's necessary to avoid a domestic problem (pipes, walls, living rooms, etc.). You really don't have too much to deal with in the second case, since you built the room to suit the trains. But I know you also like to look at google earth, right? Perhaps there's some inspiration there for how to choose an option, or maybe an third option will present itself. Even our most imagined modelgenic approaches look somehow 'right' when they resemble a prototype scene we may have seen.
Galen
Sinc the bridge seems to line up with the siding lead, possibly that was the original main line but a new one was built for passenger service on the opposite side from the industries (when traffic got heavier). Maybe the original bridge collapsed and the new one was built to one side (see: Tay Bridge disaster, Scotland).
Great comments, Galen. I am going to redo those s-curves and go with #2 above. As has been mentioned, unless there is some feature to require those "offsets, there will be the thought of "why are those curves necessary?"
I have to admit that my lack of artistry is sometimes due to laziness. But, it also stems from my desire to have a "down and dirty" industrial railroad. Instead of photogenic curves wandering amongst majestic mountains and spanning rocky streams, I am looking for a more utilitarian feel - nitty gritty operation and cluttered industrial areas. On that, I think the track needs to be rather straight-forward and simple.
Thanks for the comments and thoughts, they do help. Please keep'em coming!
BR60103 Wrote:Sinc the bridge seems to line up with the siding lead, possibly that was the original main line but a new one was built for passenger service on the opposite side from the industries (when traffic got heavier). Maybe the original bridge collapsed and the new one was built to one side (see: Tay Bridge disaster, Scotland).
That's a creative thought... and you are right, the siding and the offset do line up for the most part. Right now, I am in favor of ripping up the s-curves and going with idea # 2.
