Compromise ?

[MLW]

I had to "compromise" myself and I am not happy about it.

On the peninsula the track comes back in a "tear drop" shape
to parallel where it came from (the tracks are separated with a view block)
and to head off into another scene. Hopefully you get the "mental picture"
from my poor description.

I wanted to have a curve radi of 28", throughout the tear-drop, but
this would mean there would be 12 inches for the aisle between it and the rest
of the layout. I shrunk the curve to 23" to maintain roughly 3 feet for
the aisle width, hence my compromise, but I am not satisfy with the curve radii.
I might go to 25" and have to live with a narrow entry to that aisle..

How far are you willing to compromise with your layout?

 

[blownoutcylinder]

I find myself arguing with myself a lot over things like that---BUT--BUT--BUT I have to live in the "merely material world"---(does this sound like I've studied poetry in Eng. Lit.?)---BTW--this was usually accompanied by an expression of a weary sort with the back of the hand against the forehead and an exasperated yelp like----" OH!! Woe is me!! This place just insists on being merely mere!! Fie on this!!"

 

[UP2CSX]

Hey, look at it this way - most of us are lucky to have 23" radius curves. Having larger radius curves but not having enough clearance for you or guests to move around comfortably is not a good compromise. No matter how nice your layout is, people who have to squeeze past everything won't like it.

 

[nephthyr]

I can appreciate your situation and found myself in a similar one when designing a plan recently. You have to find the balance that you're willing to live with, a large enough radius as well as enough clearance. Finding that balance is the difficult part. I'd say look at a 24" radius, it should still be able to accomodate just about any rolling stock, and then play around with your peninsula, you could move it up or down and possibly shorten it. A large portion of track planning is just playing around within the given parameters to find what works and what doesn't. Good luck!

 

[CBCNSfan]

You do what you have to do to get the results you want, and then learn to live with your decisions. It's not a perfect world and striving for the best results will always involve compromise.
Life's like that, don't fight it

Cheers
Willis

 

[IronBeltKen]

I originally wanted my layout to be free of duck-unders. But I really wanted to be able to run 89ft auto racks and 6-axle motive power, and that dictated 32" radius minimum main line curves - which made plan idea unworkable at the time. For a while I toyed with the idea of jackiing-up the entrie layout from 48" to 60" - but when I mentioned that idea to my guest operators, they emphatically urged me not to do that! I'll try again to omit duckunders when and if I build a new layout, I'll have a bit more space available plus two of the 4 walls [didn't have any when I first started].

 

[Selector]

I would seriously consider backing up, even if it cost me three or four weeks work, and redoing what came before this place. It may seem daunting, but why not backtrack, and relay the previous 10-20' of track so that its radius is a bit tighter, and then move the bench edge back so that your aisle witdth increases. Extend the affected area we are discussing so that you can return to, still a compromise, but now a 25" or even 26" curve.

I don't know anything about your personality, but you have already used the words "unhappy" and "compromise". In my graduate specialty as a person analysing human conflict, that means dissatisfaction over time. Why not enrich your current solution? It will mean more work, true, but it will teach you two things: plan better and more realistically, and re-do what must be re-done so that you can get the most out of your hobby; nothing is cast in concrete.

The way I look at it, my vision is now spoiled...or at least somewhat less than what I had hoped and contemplated, and I am now unhappy. Will I be happy, months from now, a couple of years later, when I watch my long cars tightly negotiating this "compromise" where I goofed? Or will I grit my teeth, never forget this lesson, do what it takes to undo much of the error (by backtracking and taking the time to alter what leads to the error), and then enjoy my vision that is now only slightly altered and from a wiser stance?

As a man nearing 60, with all that I have done, undone, and learned, I know what I would do....Life is now shorter, and I would like success, not compromises when I can have the success.

-Crandell

 

[Rico]

I actually named a location (or imaginary town in the timetable) Compromise. It's where two of the staging tracks meet under the layout that used come out on the lower level. I had to change their location which shortened the storage by about a dozen cars or so. On the upside it really added to the operations!

 

[Cjcrescent]

I voted other, for the simple reason, this entire hobby is composed of one compromise after another.

We use selective compression on our structures. Just try to put a refinery, steel mill, or any other large or medium structure on a layout in full scale.

We compromise on track. Our curve radii are entirely too sharp until you actually get up to the 4-5' range. By prototype standards, those radii are still extremely sharp curves. A #6 turnout is extremely sharp even when compared to most turnouts in a yard. Most in a yard would be #12's or greater!

We compromise on our engines. I would like to see a great selection of steam loco's that actually runs on steam. How about a diesel that ran on...diesel? Nope not gonna happen, at least, not anytime soon! BTW I don't consider 1 real steam loco from Hornby, comprises a great selection. Everything else pretty much runs on electricity.

We compromise even more on the engines. Not just in the track we run them on. Most prototypes we use on our layouts could never negotiate the tight radii we use, without a great compromise in the detail that connects the running gear to the frame. Or its ability to flex to those turns.

IOWs, we compromise in just about everything we do in this hobby. That is a normal part of this and other hobbies as well.

That all being said, if you are unhappy about something on a layout, go back and re-do it until you are. The only one you have to please is yourself and no one else. If you don't want to put a duckunder there, how about some removable benchwork, scenery only, from each side of the bottom of the teardrop, if there is room for this.

Barring that, what radius will give you a 24" aisle? Although tight it is acceptable as a compromise, provided only one person passes thru it at a time.

 

[MLW]

Great feedback guys. Much appreciate it.

Yes, this hobby is full of 'compromise" and that's fine and reasonable considering what we are doing. I won't lay tracks if I am not satisfy or did not achieve what I am striving for. I also know what is possible and what is not.

To go back to the "teardrop" issue, I decided to go 24" . That still leave enough room to get by. Once beyond this narrow point the aisle is a little over 3 feet wide, so no biggy. I've also slightly "inclined" the curve on the inside (super elevated).

Freight cars looks good on 24' radi curve, but passenger cars (85 footer) don't look that realistic however, but since this is the only place they will look "tight" can live with it.

That being solve to my satisfaction, I can lay track on the other side now and continue with scenery

Thanks for the feedback