The path not taken

Another great design article, Byron.  I like that you included the initial footprint and talked about why it was discarded.  Sometimes the why's behind the one-step-back help make the two-steps-forwards happen more often.  Thanks for sharing your expertise!

Client had it right to begin

Thanks, glad you enjoyed the article. In this case, the client had already started on an around-the-room footprint with moveable benchwork, but I really wanted to try for a walk-in, just to be sure.

Turned out he was right in the first place and the around-the-room was the better choice for this space and concept. With just a skoche more room, the walk-in footprint might have worked out well.

Just goes to show that track planning and layout design can't be broken down to simple rules of thumb and one-size-fits-all arrangements -- which is what keeps it interesting for me.

Room

I have a 13' wide space (more like 12.5 after it is framed..) and I have found again and again that it ends up being just a wee bit too tight as I try fitting in different configurations.. seems like 15 feet is the golden size where options start to become available..  I have found this was true fitting both N and HO plans into the space because my criteria for success is different...

Chris

Fitting an HO walk-in in 12 feet or less

I find that length helps a lot here, too, obviously. With more length, one can "neck down" the peninsula a bit and narrow the edges just where one needs too around the turnback blob(s). More rectangular spaces can often be easier, of course.

I also usually modulate the aisles in this situaiton, allowing them to get a bit tighter at some points if there are wider "passing zones" nearby.

I've done a couple of decent-radius walk-in plans in HO in 12 foot (or less) width rooms, but again room length helped. I'm surprised it doesn't work for you in N -- you must have some pretty different standards/concepts for the two scales.

Maybe too strongly stated

Maybe too strongly stated in N.. I can turn back inside "reach in" distance. That gave me a lot more freedom. The N scale plans I have been working on are 70s diesel era. The HO plans are 1910ish light steam. Definitely different. I find I apply different standards and expectations. I am having some difficulty switching paradigms. I have no HO "intuition" like I do with N.

Being new to working on HO plans, this is something I need to start thinking more of. I like that term, "modulate". Sometimes a good word can go a long way to help keep a concept in one's mind.

Regards,

Chris

I found getting aggressive helped

I found getting aggressive with benchwork width helps. In HO, I find I can go as narrow as 6-9 inches for short distances and a long 12" wide shelf isn't a problem at all.

I was originally nervous going so narrow in HO, but I've found that it has worked out fantastically and I would not hesitate to do benchwork this narrow again.

Prefer narrowing the benchwork to narrowing the aisles. You can narrow the aisles down to 30" or even less for short distances but I wouldn't go any narrower than 21" and even then it should be a run of less than 6" before widening back out to 30" or more. I find I prefer 36" wide aisles as the "standard", with 4 foot wide being luxurious.

Narrowing

Choosing to narrow the benchwork (and when to do it) is a good example of my not having "HO Intuition". I have a feel for what will look good in N but I am still developing that in HO. There will need to be an HO "first try". I don't want to say chainsaw because I am hoping to build sectional and reuse.

A challenge I have encountered in that regard, besides just knowing how much I can do, is that the areas where someone has to stand tend to have the thick benchwork.

With N I was able to fit in 3 foot aisless for single sided benchwork.. 4 foot for the double sided (layout on both sides of the aisle). Its proving a challenge in HO. As a regular operator I definitely agree with your standards in that regard and I am working very hard to maintain them.

I recently operated on a layout where I was responisble for running a small yard and industrial area off a siding on the mainline. It was very interesting but my fun was greatly reduced by having to stand in an 18" aisle. Any time someone came by we either got real friendly or had to back out to passing areas. Lesson learned..

Chris

I've found the same

I've found the same conclusion after a number of layout exercises - there is a minimum room size necessary to have a continious run walkin layout.  If we simply imagine the two turn backs, and we use a minimum track radius of R", and we require a minimum reach of M, and finally conclude that access aisles need to be [L or W]" minimum,

Then we end up with a layout that is 6R in length plus 2L And 2R in width plus 1W with a constant reach of M possible in all areas minus one little patch best described as the triangles made by two rays extending to the wall, inside the loops towards the center area of the room.

In physical terms with a 28" radius [figure that this means an oveall radius of 30"], that layout is 180"+24"+24" in length [228"] and 84" in width.  That works out to a room 19' x 6' in size.

Seems like from there that these might work too: 18x7, 17x8, 16x9, 15x10...although I have not quite found 15x10 to be sufficient for two turnbacks.  And that's with a minimum radium of 28"!

I guess this means we'll be ducking and dodging for a long time!! :D

Simple math misses a lot

No Benny, that's not universally correct. Track planning requires more thought and it involves making compromises in different sections of the layout, modulating aisle and benchwork width, etc. Obstructions such as doors, windows, sump pumps, etc., etc. must be contended with. Trade-offs of desired radius vs. room size vs. era and size of equipment must be made.

As it turns out, your "unbuildable" 15'X10' in  HO with a 28" radius is a fairly trivial exercise. I used Joe's minimum 21" aisle chokepoint and your suggestion for access areas in the turnbacks.

I did use the John Armstrong trick of allowing one of the turnbacks to cross over itself, which is a definite tip to try in these tight situations. More time with Track Planning for Realistic Operation and less with a calculator may prove instructive.

Narrow benchwork?

Just curious Joe, what was the nature of the problem you were worried about with narrow benchwork? Was it that the scene would have less depth and not look good after the track & scenery were done?  There was a recent article somewhere (in MRP?) about narrow scenes and how they can look good and help reduce cost/time.  The photos looked good, but how would those narrow scenes look "live" in person, where your eyes have a larger field of view?

Nice work, Byron - you got it

Nice work, Byron - you got it to fit!  The last time I was looking at that exercise, I seem to remember playing with a bit larger radius - 32 or 36 - I should have tried 28!  My main issue back then was that I couldn't get all the element scenes I wanted to get into the space as well as I could with a big donut with an island stub.  The island stub would have allowed room for an engine terminal or a ferry operation, on the magnitude of 2x4 or 3x6, amounting to a rather large proportional amount of real estate in such a room!

I used Armstong's trackplanning guide at the foundation of my mathematical thesis - particularly the drawing by the squares method.  His book is on my shelf as I speak, one of three books I brought with me to Tech School!

The plan still illustrates the difficulties encountered in that size of space when the druthers call for a walkin layout - without ducking access hatches - and just how much is gained with a simple duckunder, as much as I hate to duck!  And I'm only 28 now, I bet it gets worse from here!

I agree on most of your points.  Although I'd say the nature of the operation is more important than the era, as every era seems to have it's mammoths and mice.  Ore or gypsum operations might offer up the opportunity to model the modern era all while focusing on smaller [SW, GP] motive power and shorter rolling stock that is right at home on tighter radius.  Steam era III Class I mainlines with those long heavyweights, 2-10-4s, and such can be just as much of a killer as modern operations!

I think the final Canadian Prairie Crossing plan came out really nice.

With regard to Joe'spoint about narrow bench work,

I think we can forget that if two industrial switching areas are put on opposite sides of a single aisle, 48 inches might be too tight for the ailes width!

A problem with really narrow

A problem with really narrow benchwork is that from a 'helicopter' the abruptness of the fascia to backdrop transition is jarring.

However, put that scene up somewhere near eyeball height and add an 'opaque' filter layer in front of the backdrop/ground juncture (such as a row of trees, buildings, make the ground slope away from the aisle beyond the track - basically anything to disguise the joint) and you mind is quite happy to believe that the scene goes on indefinitely (with a half decent backdrop)

Charlie

Or You go visit the La Mesa

Or You go visit the La Mesa Layouts and your mind is forever marred with what a layout could be - HO OR N!

I wish San Diego was in Tucson...:D

I've been to La Mesa and run

I've been to La Mesa and run a train around it (during the train running for the public that's part of their lease). The Tehachapi Pass layout is and outstanding example of mega-scale (5000 sqft footprint) model railroading - and that was BEFORE they had the Tehachapi Loop in operation!  This layout features extremely wide, sweeping vistas and a track plan that is darned close to modeling the prototype track curve for curve.

C'est Magnifique!

Charlie