Hi Svein --

Paulus made a good point over in the MR forums about the peninsula - if you make it single sided instead of double sided, you can make it a lot narrower, and have wider aisles, even with a peninsula.

Smile,
Stein

If the wall is cast concrete, those tunnels where the proposed layout goes through the wall will be almost as hard to deal with as a prototype bore through solid rock!

I think you are probably going to need to design more of an industrial switching layout with perhaps a bridge across the door to allow continuous running when you want to.

Hi Stein,
I think Paulus' ideas were very interesting, and I have tried several scetches based on the footprints he came up with, but I simply can't come up with a plan that feels and looks the way I want it to. It's probably all in my head, my mind is stuck on a certain kind of layout, and I'm having problems thinking outside the box... I'll take another look at his drawings today.

Russ,
I've been thinking about that too, but I'm not sure that an ISL is really what I want. I want some industries, but I don't want to much of an urban look. Maybe if I cut down on the number of towns and stations, then I'll have more room for additional industries without losing the rural feeling I'm seeking.

Svein

How about a logging or mining branch line? I'm not familiar enough with Norway to know what sort of mining they might have, but I'm pretty sure lumber is a major industry there. You could run around the walls with your logging camp at one end of the run and a saw mill complex at the other end.

" If the wall is cast concrete, those tunnels where the proposed layout goes through the wall will be almost as hard to deal with as a prototype bore through solid rock! "

" Russ,
I've been thinking about that too, but I'm not sure that an ISL is really what I want. I want some industries, but I don't want to much of an urban look. Maybe if I cut down on the number of towns and stations, then I'll have more room for additional industries without losing the rural feeling I'm seeking.
Svein "

I'm not going to say that pondering what to do next can sometimes be boring, but, perhaps if you start on that cast concrete wall, the "bore-dom", will trigger the thought processes, and you'll see "the light at the end of the tunnel", before you complete the tunnel. It would be an experience somewhat like -- ( ).

An Author would call it " Writer's block ", and sometimes it simply requires another project to distract the mind, until a solution presents itself.

There is another problem with trying to bore tunnels through that concrete wall that you may not realize. I don't know when your house was built or what the codes are in Norway. Here in Long Beach the contractor that did the remodeling on my house built a preschool building in downtown Long Beach. It was done with concrete walls that were poured in place after the rebar was positioned, and door frames and window frames were installed to keep the concrete out of the door and window openings. I stopped by to look at the building and he showed me pictures of the rebar structure before the concrete was poured. With our earthquake standards it looked like a spider web made of steel! He also had to measure precisely where plumbing and electrical would go through the walls so that after the forms were removed he could bore holes for the plumbing & wiring avoiding hitting any rebar, and save the resulting core samples for strength testing! Of course all of the rebar was required because of the strict earth quake standards in place here in Southern California.

Fortunately, here in Norway we are lucky enough to not have to worry much about earthquakes. The strongest quake registered on the Norwegian mainland occured on October 23 1904, and measured 5.4. The strongest one ever registered on Norwegian territory is a 6.2 quake in February 2008, out to sea about 100 miles southeast of Longyearbyen on Svalbard.

Still, I appreciate your concern.The house was built in 1955, and I don't know how the building codes were back then, but I suspect there are rebar in the walls. I haven't quite figured out how to work arond these yet, but if hit any bars I can't cut through, It's probably enough if I adjust the plan a couple of cm's.

Pete, that's funny!

I've actually been wondering if I should continue working on my existing sections for a while now. There's still much to be done before they are (somewhat) completed, and then I'll have a small ISL to operate while planning the new layout.

Svein

Saw over on the Norwegian mjforum.no forums that you were considering using a variant of the 10 x 14 track plan Ozark, Ouchita and Red River from the Model Railroader site (http://mrr.trains.com/How%20To/Track%20P...River.aspx).

That looks like a very good idea - single level, narrower benchwork (40, 40 and 50 centimeters, i.e 15", 15" and 20") and wider (80 centimeters - 31-32") aisles.

Smile,
Stein

Svein,

I am likewise reconsidering a section of my layout, it's function, capacity, etc. I am remembering that "less is more" allows me to include more scenery, which I like, and makes the layout look less like a parking lot full of track and more like a railroad in a nice setting. Just glancing at your plan my first thought was, 'track heavy'.

Your towns do seem to be spread out evenly, however walking alongside a train would be difficult, having to duck under and go from room to room. 'Tower' operators, as you alluded, would be one solution. But is that how you want to operate, or are you envisioning something else?

As a regular operator on a railroad that travels through walls from room to room, I can say it is not ideal but it can work. Just don't put a passing track between walls, that is, don't make the turnouts on either end on either side of the wall. How are you planning on dispatching the railroad? TT&TO? Radios? This, perhaps more than anything, may influence how you place towns and operating areas. And finally, realistically, how many folks will regularly operate the layout?

Just a few thoughts to consider.

Galen

hi Svein,
the Ozark and ..... is a variation of a famous design by Andy Sperandeo; the San Jacinto District of The AT&SF. You 'll find the plan on Byron Henderson's website under Inspirational layouts.
One of my old time favourites.
Smile
Paul

Hi Paul,

I wasn't aware of that, thanks for the tip!

What I like about the Ozark plan is that it's not to track heavy, and can easily be fitted into a rural setting. It also has room for three small towns with lots of operating potentional, plus a continuous loop connection for railfanning when I feel like it. However, this won't be used during regular operation. Plus, it's almost exactly the sixe of my largest room, and staging can still be in the other room.

I haven't been doing much work on my track plan these past days, for obvious reasons, but I feel really good about this plan as a starting point.

Svein

hi Svein,
terrible events in Norway; just one? crazy guy was able to destroy so many life's and families.
I have been fooling around a bit years ago with Andy Sperandeo's design.

Smile
Paul

Paul,That Atlas layout is a nice one but,the only change I would make is to dump the turntable since its not needed and is old school thinking that every layout needs a turntable -even a switching layout..

Galen, sorry for my late reply.

ocalicreek Wrote:I am likewise reconsidering a section of my layout, it's function, capacity, etc. I am remembering that "less is more" allows me to include more scenery, which I like, and makes the layout look less like a parking lot full of track and more like a railroad in a nice setting. Just glancing at your plan my first thought was, 'track heavy'.

Your towns do seem to be spread out evenly, however walking alongside a train would be difficult, having to duck under and go from room to room. 'Tower' operators, as you alluded, would be one solution. But is that how you want to operate, or are you envisioning something else?

You're right, it's a bit to heavy on the track side, that's why I'm now working on a simpler plan. That first draft was an experiment to see how much single level mainline I could squeeze into the area I have. I later realized that while there's enough room for a single operator, two or more operators would have a hard time following their train around the room. 'Tower' operators, as you call it, isn't exactly how I envision the layout being operated, I'd like to walk around and follow the train all the way.

ocalicreek Wrote:As a regular operator on a railroad that travels through walls from room to room, I can say it is not ideal but it can work. Just don't put a passing track between walls, that is, don't make the turnouts on either end on either side of the wall. How are you planning on dispatching the railroad? TT&TO? Radios? This, perhaps more than anything, may influence how you place towns and operating areas. And finally, realistically, how many folks will regularly operate the layout?

I must admit that I haven't really planned how the dispatching will be, mostly because of my lack of knowledge on the subject. Operation will be mostly solo and based on a sequential timetable, but I'd like to have the opportunity to invite a couple of friends over from time to time. It would be nice if the layout could accommodate two or three operators; one working the yard, the other handling through trains, and the third switching the local. Or maybe there are other and better ways to assign the different tasks, I simply don't know.

Svein

Hi Paul,

The more I look at your plan, the more I like it! I have all three plans (yours, Sperandeo's San Jacinto District, and the Ozark plan) in front of me now, and I'm beginning to form a picture in my head.

I'm thinking of flipping the plan so that the fiddle yard goes to the right, straightening out the yard and put it in the other room. I'd extend the line from San Jacinto up along the right wall (left wall on your plan) and into the other room, with a wye connection in the upper right corner for continuous running.

Regarding the Hemet branch; instead of connecting it to the main line along the left wall (right wall on your plan), maybe I'll continue the curve all the way down, and let it branch out from San Jacinto. Maybe also on a slight downward grade, so that the Hemet industrial area lies a little lower that the rest of the layout.

What do you think..?

Brakie Wrote:Paul,That Atlas layout is a nice one but,the only change I would make is to dump the turntable since its not needed and is old school thinking that every layout needs a turntable -even a switching layout..

I respectfully disagree. True, all layouts don't need a turntable, but it's a nice feature if you can fit one in. Also, if modeling the steam era, turntables were quite frequent, and especially on a terminus, as (at least here in Norway) tender engines rarely were run tender first for longer distances.

Svein