djrail,

Thanks for sharing your concept. . .

You may want to using a few less sidings and moving the tracks that are close to the wall an inch or two towards the center of the bench work.  This will give your scene more depth of field and add visual interest.  You can put "half buildings" against the walls (industries for switching, etc.).  

Good luck and keep us posted!

Sean 

I doodled this in 3rd Planit... Perhaps it gives you some ideas? FWIW

Turnouts: Atlas code 55 #5

Min radius: 10" oil dealer, 12" branch, 13.75" main

Track-to-track separation: 1.75" min

Grid: 12"

Hope this is of some use to you...

Charlie

I certainly prefer Charlies more flowing arrangment.  One thing to consider are industries that are not directly modelled on the layout, simply a spur that heads under a bridge, behind a cut of trees or even just angling off of the layout. The spurs could also be imagined to supply several industries increasing the type of cars you can drop off. You can imagine that a local industrial switcher actually places the cars to the specific industry, "behind the scenes", thereby making your layout even larger.  With a car card and waybill system set up I think you can have some serious fun.  

Steve

Good start. I think Charlie's plan is an excellent riff on your original idea.

I am a big fan of not having track tangent to the facia and Charlie's plan does that at the top but I think you could do that along the left side too..

Still, it was an excellent first effort and I look forward to revision. I think you already showed you have a realistic appreciation of how much you can fit in your space..

Chris

I too like Charlie's version a tad better. Especially on the left hand side of the layout. The tracks making slight turns instead of perfectly straight lines will add visual interest as well as give the illusion of a greater distance as it slightly breaks up your lines of sight.

I must agree with everyone else, Charlie came up with an improved design. With a layout like that, I wonder how much work will get done. He-he! 

Charlie,

You mention that you use 3rd Planit, how do you like it. I am in the process of getting a software to design layouts. I've been looking for one for a MAC but they really don't have any that I really like. And I was wondering about 3rd Planit and to use it on my PC.

Charlie,

Thank you for the added inspiration.  As I mentioned, I too was "doodling" but in the Atlas program.

I'll go back in and use some of your suggestions, if you don't mind?  I mentioned I was going to make the plan "flow" a bit more as I set down roadbed.  Thank you for bending some of the rails to further that thought.  I like the opposing spurs in the first "town" on the branch and I like the concept of the lefthand town much better, while trying to maintain as much runaround siding as possible.

If I may, one of my original dilemmas was where the main joined the yard.  You have indeed cleaned up that side of the plan, but I'll take another run at the main and branch configuration to try and allow access to that far right "mainline track".   I can visualize pulling second track over, but if you stay on the first, I see the train being stuck.  No problem, that would be the biggest concern with your revision.  The rest is outstanding...

Got it!  Crossover at roughly that point!

Charlie, I'm an even bigger "fan from afar" now!  Must say that I own both of your "BCSJRR Ops" videos and I can't wait for an update on your peninsula expansion or a new video with the full layout trackplan in action.  If I wasn't across the continent and in a different country, I might even drop by...

Thanks again.  GREAT feedback, plenty to think about and exceptional "doodling" on your part!!!

"Home" office.  An important point  as I doubt "work" would allow me to indulge...

Nick,

I won't comment on the other model rr cad programs. Let's say that I started using 3pi around 1998 or so when the other cad program I was using (no names please!) was revealed to have a nasty bug which they refused to address. I moved to 3pi out of frustration and it seemed pretty good. Then I blew it, and told everyone I knew how great it was. At that point the cockroaches started crawling out of every corner of the program complete with frequent crashes. I felt guilty for recommending it to all my buddies so instead of trashing it I started sending in bug reports to El Dorado software. It was amazing! When I sent in a bug report with a test case I'd have a fix the next day, sometimes later that evening! Over time Randy got rid of many, many problems and the program become more and more robust and full featured. I spent some time crawling around in the swamp of 3-D modeling because it could do it (detailed 3-D modeling/simulation is a whole different branch of the hobby that can suck up so many hours you'll get very little done on your railroad).

I've designed the last two Bear Creek and South Jacksons with 3pi (dozens of different track configurations!). I drove the architect of the roof over my current train room nuts with cad drawings of what might go above it. I've lost count of how many other layouts I've drawn/doodled with it. I produced the 3-D benchwork fly-through in issue 3's Up-the-Creek with 3pi along with a bunch of other techie diagrams, and I've used 3pi to draw finished track plans for Jack Burgess, Ed Loiuzeaux, George Selios, and (in issue 7) Jim Dias layouts (not as pretty as MR's track plans, but decent).

Yes, it still has some issues but crashes are now few and far between and it can be configured to autosave to minimize work lost. I haven't upgraded in a couple of years now. I believe Randy still spends some time on the 3pi users e-group. If you elect to try 3pi it will seem like a rather steep learning curve but if you keep at it, you'll get to the point where you seldom spend much doodling time with paper and pencil.

I figure I got my money's worth out of 3pi about 9 years ago - now it's all gravy...

FWIW, YMMV, IMHO,

Charlie