What would you do????

Southern4449

Southern4449

New Member
Aug 3, 2006
40
0
6
54
Here is a plan I was toying with...
The idea of having view blocks, so you have to go "into" the RR is what i was thinking of..
The smallest turn radius is 22"....It still needs some touch-ups...

newbench.jpg
 
I really like that a lot BUT...... (you knew that was coming), when I used a dog bone shape someone mentioned to me that it was a lot like, "Here comes the train! & there it goes again. Are they lost?" While I was not able to overcome this due to space limitations, I think you could. Without knowing a whole lot about your benchwork height or scenery preferences, & noticing that it is obvious that you are trying to avoid a duckunder, if you were to use one, you could achieve a "twice around" instead of a "there and back". Just some thoughts.
 
I see by your avatar that you are a S.P. fan. Does that mean that you are going to model the S.P.? I ask because the S.P. has very little double track mainline. In fact double track main is very rare in the West except for the commuter lines. If you don't mind wiring for return loops at each end, your design would make a great S.P. mainline. You could then add in passing sidings based on the length of trains and number that you want to have running at once. Finally add some industrial switching for origens and destinations of your railroad's freight and you are all set.
 
Love it, especially the look of a double track main. Careful on those aisles though, getting kinda of narrow towards the back. Try to keep them at 3'.
 
Make the back track [the one against the wall] higher then the on in front, that will help get rid of the around and around look.
If you want double track then make it a real double track and seperate these ones into different areas totally.
Hope that helps.
 
I was going to put in a hidden staging area,at the lower right side..its the dashed lines (kinda hard to see)...
It is a double main line, and was thinking of breaking it up...
Maybe have 3 different main lines..UP, SP, and Santa Fe
I was also thinking of late 40's era...
and having coal mines and logging.....OR...going with more industrial/suburbs look????
decisions...decisions...decisions...
Thanks for your input!!!
 
I've tried to answer your last post three times, but it never comes out in a way trhat I'm comfortable with. I guess the question I have is are you interested in being a prototype modeller, or do you prefer to freelance with S.P., U.P., & S.F.?
 
I would prefer to do a prototype area and am still looking at the southwest area. It seems easier to freelance, that way you are not held to a specific RR.
 
Triplex said:
Why does that make me think of Cajon Pass?
Click to expand...

Cajon and Los Angeles are the only places in the country where all three railroads operated in close proximity as far as I know, until U.P. bought S.P. and S.F. merged with B.N.

Jeff, there is one place I know of in the country where S.P. ran a double track mainline. That is San Timotao Canyon between Colton and Beuamont on the Yuma Sub. Looking at your traffic desires compared with the prototype, I don't know of anyplace that S.P. handled coal. However Kaiser Steel had the Eagle Mountain iron mine just Northwest of Desert Center 1/2 way between Indio and Blythe. I'm not sure if the mine was opened in the 40's or not. In any event, it would have been late 40's after WW2. However there is no problem with using a little modeler's license to back date the mine to your operational period. In the case of Eagle Mountain, Kaiser Steel built a branch line from the S.P. yard in Indio to the mine 50 miles East. S.P. bought locomotives and a caboose from S.P. They used S.P. ore cars to haul the iron from the mine to the Indio yard. I think the ore cars are the prototype for the MDC ore cars. Basically S.P. would drop empty ore cars at the Indio yard, and pick up loaded cars to take to the Kaiser Steel mill in Fontana. The Eagle Mountain Railroad would drop loaded ore cars in Indio and take the emptys back to the mine for loading. I think on you proposed layout I would make the staging at one end the Indio yard. If you put hidden staging on the other end of the layout, you could then have destinations fro San Bernardino North, including the steel mill. I think the steel mil and the Eagle mountain branch would take too much space to model in your space. San Timotao Canyon would give you an area for country scenery, the North end of the railroad could be Colton and Riverside. If you wanted to do a visible yard, you could do Colton, but it would be very big. I think I would do Colton off scene in hidden staging at the other end of the layout. Corona, Riverside, San Bernardino, and the San Gabriel Valley were the center of the citrus industry in So Cal. There were dozens of citrus packing houses in those towns. I think there might have been cotton being shipped in from Texas and manufactured goods from the Northeast, although most of those would probably have come in on the U.P. or Santa Fe. You could run a fleet of PFE reefers as well as the ore cars on the layout. You would have citrus ranchers ordering tank cars loaded with fuel oil for smudge pots, probably fertilizer would come in by train as well. If you are interrested, you can get a lot of information from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/citrusmodeling If I got the url correct it is a group that Bob Chaparro started to focus on the citrus industry in So Cal. I guess I've rambled enough.
 
Good rambling, Russ. It's always nice to hear from someone with first-hand prototype knowledge and inspiration.

Jeff - if you don't have a copy yet, buy John Armstrong's 'Track Planning for Realistic Operation'. Even if you never get into 'realistic operation', the general skills and methods of track planning are an excellent resource. Just last night I was flipping through and it reminded me of a couple tricks I could use in my current planning project.

PLUS, Looking at your space...just made me think of the example plan he includes in the last chapter.

ALSO, in reference to loop plans like this, one thing that does look strange (and has been alluded to in another post already) is open top loads. Again this comes right out of the Armstrong book. With a loop layout like a 4x8, at least the loads are always traveling the same direction as are the empties the opposite direction (assuming you run 'em that way). With a dogbone, the loads go 'both' directions.

I second the suggestion about making it a single track main with reversing loops (staging?) at each end and perhaps a yard and definately passing tracks along the way in between. I'd love to have your space! Don't settle...keep planning.

Galen
 
Actually, what Armstrong points out is that loads and empties go the correct ways on a continuous loop, but a loop-to-loop causes both to go both ways. What you're talking about is something largely unrelated: disliking seeing opposite sides of a loop from the same point. That's an issue of scenic sincerity, not operations.
 
Isn't that what I said? I must not have been clear. :oops: But here's what John has to say (from pg. 105, Fig. 8-10) just to be crystal.

"If the entire circle of the main line of a continuous track plan cannot be seen at one time (as is the case in an around the room layout), operation of trains past any point is satisfyingly realistic. Except that the same equipment can pass time after time in the same direction without ever returning - not too obvious a flaw on a heavy-traffic line. Movement of open-top cars is realistic, as empties always move in one direction, loads in the other."

and again from the same place...

"On a similar loop to loop line, appearance of operations at any point on the main line is much the same, but a train that has disappeared to the east must return from that direction - a more realistic situation for passenger and 'closed top' freight traffic. However, you will give the appearance of hauling the same coal back and forth just for the fun of it unless you are energetic enough to empty and load your open-tops each time they reach an end loop."

Actually, that's what Armstrong points out (and what I was trying to say). I think we're thinking the same thing here...just not saying it the same way.:)

As it applies to Jeff's layout, if he's going SP in SoCal the only open tops he may have to really worry about would be sugar beets, sand, gravel/balast and perhaps some other odds & ends on flats & in gons like machinery or pipe. Unless he's not that concerned about prototype fidelity and scenecerity (which is fine!)

There are also some really good ideas on pg. 106 about dogbone track plans that could be really useful...it'd be helpful to hear from Jeff to know if he's got this book...

Galen
 
Jeff please to get this the wrong way but I assume to posted your layout to get some imput.

If I would have so much real estate I would design something else than a fancy "O" layout. Even if you like to just watch the trains go round and round i would make the second double track not following the the first one just in the opposite direction.
Since your tracks are not in a straight line, I assume this layout is not situated in the South (Cotton Belt division) with miles of flat landscape but somewhere with a least some kind of hills or mountains and valleys that means much room for 4 lanes.

As a European, I model US since I can have single track section which makes running long trains so much fun.

Also you schould consider point to point with hidden returns so you could chose to run them in a circle or going through the hustle to "unload" your cars at the end, possible industry.
 
I would seperate the two sets of track as much as possible - make them their own scene whenever available.
 
Actually, that's what Armstrong points out (and what I was trying to say). I think we're thinking the same thing here...just not saying it the same way.
smile.gif
Click to expand...
Armstrong was comparing a loop-to-loop and an around-the-room oval (which would require a duckunder). A dogbone can qualify as one or the other. If the tracks are close, as in this plan, it's a double-track main, and is like the loop-to-loop. If the tracks are scenically separated, it's like an oval.
 
Thanks for all the input, And have used it for changes.
I dont have Armstrongs book...wish I did..
I played with the idea of logging and came up with this.
With the staging You can run Passenger, and Freight through the layout.

newmnts.jpg
 
Jeff
I think you are on track to a great layout.
Right now you don't have a yard or service faciltiy for your engines. I don't know how many engines you own and if you got the right loco/car ratio (I don't) but if got a lot of nice engines, you might think about a service facility. A yard could also enhance the fun if you got two different railroad companies and the interchange at that yard.
 
I modified the plan a bit.
Added more switching, and some yards
Also changed the way we go up the mountain
newmntns2.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom