Layout #2 ideas....


wvg_ca

wvg_ca

semi flaccid member
Thinking about tearing down the old [and first] layout, and doing something a little larger, more straight track, more room for scenery, less switches..
anyway...
this is ..kinda.. what I'm thinking about for the second layout,
the smaller right hand side is basically what my current layout size is, ...
Not sure about 'exact' era, basically want to work with what I have now, 4 axles loco's, mostly GP style, and 40/50 foot rolling stock, so I will be ok with 18" radius... no specific location or prototype railroad..mostly flat layout with exception of rear / right hand raised loop...
What is have found that I prefer is to run one [or two] shorter trains around the loop, and do a bit of switching [preferably close to the accesible sides]...
the first layout had 'too much' track, too small inside radius, not enough straight switching track, but an excellent 'learning layout'....:)
With a small overall size, buildings / industries in the center will have to be smaller, and any buildings to the rear [or wall side] would be shallow shell units..
Will have to think of where to do some higher terrain and / or tunnels so it doesn't look so much like a basic loop, and an interchange to the rear where I can't run across because of a 'bump' in that wall..

suggestions _ definitely_ appreciated...:)

thanks
 
Why does some track go off where the edge of the table is according to the plan?
Would that be staging?
 
where the track goes 'off' the table on the right, is because I can't figure out how to change the table size in RTS8...:)
a bit of staging track is on the upper left side, not much, but...
 
when I use my rts8 when i start is set the size to the room dimentions. that way you never run out of table........lot easier that way. as for your problem go to edit....click...click on tag all, then right click, then click on copy. start a new layout make sure to make the table the size you want, then click on edit, then click on paste then the cross hairs will appear........then click and slide in to place
 
Reach?

If it is 4' deep will you have trouble reaching the back? For me that is always a worry with my kids. If you are tall it should be OK. Otherwise it looks really cool.
 
appreciate the tip on rts...:)
copied it over, and then used the polygon tool to make the table top, looks much nicer, didn't want a 'square' anyways...:)

gino.. the one spot right at the lower left is the largest at 42" and then will taper down as it goes up.. I'm fairly tall with a half decent reach..
Layout height will be fairly low, as I prefer to sit and have it just around mid chest height for a nice viewing angle, and I an still stand up and reach further in if needed..

the loop that goes across at the back comes up [around 3 1/2 to 4"??] when it loops on the lower right, and will probably start to ramp up in the upper left corner,

still working on proposed era, from what I can find GP7's were built 1949-1954, and the 9's 1954-1963, and the 38's are 1963 to 1971..so an early to mid 70's time frame would work ok...and I like the look of these..:)

As far as structures / buildings, thinking of maybe gravel pit on right hand loop area, with just wheel loaders..and a small servicing area near the turntable, oil and sand tanks, small maintainence buildings, no loco shop, not enough room..still not sure where to add in roads / maybe creek cuts..??
They have to be there, got to get the stuff in and out..:)
thanks
 
It's a good plan technically but I'm afraid you are going to find very little room left over for things like roads, creeks, and any semblance of a town. What looks like it will fit in a plan never fits in real life. For example, you have six tracks in 2.5 feet at the top of the layout. That's not much more space than you would use for a yard with six tracks. You'll have no room for anything else but tracks. Do your really need that figure eight on the right side of the layout? You are using up all the real estate you need for a town. It's your layout so do what makes you happy but I would be trying to reduce the number of tracks if it was my layout.
 
>>>that's not actually a figure eight, it's two overlapping blobs.

yep.. kinda..:)
not sure [yet] how to show that one of the blobs is a 'higher' loop...it's actually the part of the loop that goes to the back...
It's not an intricate layout, just a loop that's flattened, and folded in the middle, both loop 'ends' wind up at the lower right..

I had though about a town / city / hamlet or something, and decided against that, just basically some industries to justify pickup / sort & switch / delivery..

compared to last winter's layout, this one is a lot straighter, has less than half the switches and sidings, the old / current layout is about 7x7' with about three dozen switches...definitely more 'twisted and convoluted' than this attempt..:)

I tried a version of a point to point, using trainplayer, and while I enjoy switching, and realize that is much more 'prototypical', I got bored with it fairly quickly...my personal preference to also just to watch a smaller [say 8 car] unit go around and around with the lights turned down,
Hopefully this 'type' of combination will let me enjoy both aspects, if not, well, it's not that hard to generate another 'style' of layout..
After all, if it was exactly 100% , it wouldn't give me a reason to 'improve' it...:) and [to me] that's a large part of the hobby as well..changing interests and points of focus, and ..well, maybe if we move this little bit over this way ,and then...:)

still not sure about the little bit of switching area on the left side, it's 'kinda' ok, but it seems maybe a different type of switch are [called ladder??] would improve enjoyment...

also not sure yet as to how to switch the points, have enough Atlas controls from the old layout, those were mounted underneath the turnouts, but I'm thinking about a blue point style of manual switch, rather than electric, most should be able to be placed within easy reach..however final cost is not much less than the tortoise style...

In this I will wind up with two short sidings at the top [near the water access block], and two passing sidings, enough for a reasonable amount, should be able to get rid of probably 2/3 of the rolling stock and loco's that I have now, I don't care for 6 axles loco's, steamers or over 50' rolling stock, prefer the smaller / shorter stuff...again personal preference as opposed to prototypical operations..

appreciate the input...
thanks
 
>>
and that crossing is realistic uh.... how?

ok..got me..:)
I didn't think there was a crossing in there..??
unless you are referring to the lower / upper loop areas on the right hand side??
supposed to be two levels....still not sure how to make it ..look.. like two levels..:)

on the 'blob' in the lower right.. the loop that comes from the left is the lower, and the loop that comes down from the top is the 'upper', turnouts are #6 on the main, and #4 [ok atlas 4.5's..:)] on the left side switch yard..
can't find the part of the documentation on RTS that shows how to make a semi transparent mountain or tunnel that still shows some outline of the track underneath..

did a bit of cleanup on the possible #2 layout..
added structure outlines, and road outlines..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
that is exactly what i'm referring to. sorry if its not a crossing. and the general way to do two levels is by making a different plan for each level
 
makes sense to do two plans if there are two separate levels...
on my 'idea' for this plan, all the main layout is basically one dogbone, folded in the middle [which is the lower left side] and the 'loop ends' are stacked one on top of the other on the lower right..

I figured that with about fifteen feet to get a rise of about 3 1/2", the incline would only be around 1 1/2%, much better than the current layout I am running..

I was also thinking about changing the lower right hand side, so that instead of one continuous loop, I would have two separate loops, with one or two crossovers someplace...

easier to make changes in the planning stage...:)

I bought tracklayer to see how it would actually run, but the way it imports rts files makes it clumsy to use..
The one that seems to look okay is RR-Track, but after conversion to CDN dollars, it's over a hundred bucks, still thinking about it though..

thanks.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top