Seems as though I get a lot more replies/observations/critiques on this other forum.
Perhaps there is more interest in layout design over there? ,,,or waning interest here??
Quote:
Modifiy the Plan, suggestions
1) With plans like this, I think the idea is to get as much mainline run as possible into a given space without the train having to do simple laps on the same track in the same scene. Instead, it has the train doing laps on different tracks in the same scene.
To me, that doesn't really accomplish sense of distance since the train is still going through the same scene, and in this plan, three times in a lot of places.
It also makes construction complicated and scenery look unrealistic, extensive use of retaining walls.
Conceptually, how about this? Since logging railroads travel distance vertically up and down a mountain as much as they do horizontally, why not have two levels of benchwork and stack the two terminals on top of each other on the peninsula. Camp/mill up top and terminal at the bottom. The rest of the layout can be a two lap nolix or even helixed in the hidden area.
That way, when the train passes through the same scene twice.....along the walls...there is sufficient vertical separation between the tracks to give the operator the idea the train is making laps to decend a mountain. Unlike the current plan that looks like we're just trying to cram as much mileage as possible into a space.
You could do the same with a coal theme. Short trains, steep grades, and sharp curves make this type of layout suitable for small spaces.
I would use this plan as inspiration. The terminal peninsula looks promising, but the shelves a long the walls are way too crowded for my tastes...not to mention complicated to build and scenick.
2)(mine)
I also find the two long sidings provided on either side interesting. They might well allow for freight trains to pull over to allow passenger trains to pass,....multiple trains on same main lines. These trains might even be operated in opposing directions,...that would be an operating challenge
3) If you run a train from one terminal to the next I think it travels on each of the three mainline tracks that occupy the N and W shelves. In some places on the left, he has 4 tracks on 3 different levels in a foot of bench work, and on the right its about 8 tracks on 3 different levels in about 2 feet of benchwork. I think scenickly the whole layout would look rather urban in that its crammed with track, and I think the point is for it to look rural.
I would accomplish the same thing by having a simple water wings design with a single main line wrapping around the room and two reverse loops in the hidden section. Two spurs off the wings could lead to the two terminals. Simply run the train back and forth 3 times through the same scenes and it would accomplish the same thing and allow much more room for proper scenery.
Originate the train at whatever terminal you want, run around the room back and forth through the loops; 3 laps, 8 laps, or 20 laps if you want to build distance, then thow the switch to the destination terminal.
I don't see the point of building three separate tracks and stacking them on three levels in 12 inches of benchwork to accomplish the same operation.
Reply: A reasonable suggestion, and one that could also allow for adequate yard(s), interchange, staging, and more realistic switching areas in the same space. As noted, reversing connections could be built into the mainline (if desired).
4) The layout as drawn has no staging and the visible yard is too small for any sort of operation as-is. The rule-of-thumb is for an active yard to be used only to about 50% of capacity – that is 10 cars as drawn.
Once one allows for transitions from level-to-grade and back, the grades will be steep and clearances for realistic-looking bridges will be tight for the many low-angle (oblique) bridge crossings.
The grades in the area of “accidental crossing” are not possible as drawn, if I read the plan correctly. The tracks to be joined are sloping in opposite directions.
The switching area in Tupper Lake is an unrealistic and nearly unworkable switching puzzle.
It might be possible to design a similar concept with multiple passes around the room via stacked turnback curves external to the room. But this plan is far from ideal as-is -- and may not even be buildable in that space. There has been a lot of thought on layout design over the last forty-plus years.
Byron
Edit: FYI, after a closer look, some of the turnouts as drawn would need to be handlaid-to-fit in the given space. Typical of many published speculative plans of earlier eras (and often still today).
5) Admitting that what I'm going to say is repetitive of earlier comments:
I would redesign. I would keep (for now) the trackage that is Tupper Lake and Faust Junction. AND ELIMINATE ALL OTHER TRACKAGE. Then I'd run the track from Tupper Lake through the "lobe" and up the left side of the now-empty layout. It would curve around and end at Faust Junction.
On that track over on the left, I'd put a passing siding and "something switchable".
At the top of Faust Junction, there'd be, yes, a junction--just to the left of the first switch, towards the top. That track would branch to the left (up top) and come around behind the existing Faust Junction trackage. It would then turn left at the bottom and join the lobe for continuous running.
There'd be a lot of space for scenery on the left and top. I think I would add "industrial" trackage to the right of the existing trackage at Faust Junction (being that that area is now pretty empty). I think the added junction track (for continuous running) would/could just visually disappear in the trackage.
It DOES lack staging/storage. Perhaps the lobe could house a real helix and drop down, so that a staging yard (unscenicked) would be below the layout.