BlueHost down due to power outage

The LK&O site is expected to be offline for 2-3 hours due to a power outage in Utah.

http://twitter.com/#search?q=bluehost

Since you asked

I like the  way you incorporated a wye.  I like your intent at free flowing track work. I like that you plan for significant staging.

At the risk of seeming to be a jerk, I humbly offer the following:

It looks to me that a train starts in one staging yard, goes for a nice ride taking a tour of the entire layout and then decides to keep going around and around or exits into the other staging yard. How do you justify this? How is this like real train operation?  Maybe start with a list of trains that you want to run and see how they would fit into your track plan.  I think that this is the key to building a satisfying layout.

Two helixes? Model trains look funny on convex track work. Find a way of minimizing the visual impact of the blobs.  I love that word, it so conveys their inherent awkwardness.

Best wishes

My thoughts

First off Alan, nice illustrations!.....evidence of attention to details and being well thought out.  My first thought after being a periodic reader of your website is that you seem to have successfully incorporated most if not all your givens and druthers. As far as the wye and the ability to have trains continuously circumvent the layout, I think you will be very happy you incorporated this ability. On my former large layout, I was too concerned with operations and a linear point to point layout I didn't have the ability to do that. When hosting visitors, most of which were "non-railroadees", I would have loved to have a train or trains running unattended while giving my full attention to my visitors. When you are operating prototypically, you simply don't use that ability.

While the two hilixes are somewhat unusual, they are not monsters and I see no hinderance to operations anymore than a longer tunnel would.  You also seem to have incorporated some of your larger industries while still having the opportunity for some dramatic scenery, bridges, etc.

My only concern, and it is just a personal preference being an operating nut, is that it isn't a true linear design. But you appear to have given great thought to separating areas where the mainline passes through a scene more than once by using veritcal elements and scenery.

One other thing I just noticed after I posted. Is that you might try to consider a run-around track of some configuration for switching your rubber plant.. Not sure if you want such a long backup move, but maybe that was how the prototype did it?

Overall I really like it. Your research, room preperation and website are top notch. Now get building would ya! I wanna see this thing take shape!

Operation Explanation

Aran, you are exactly right about trains having the option to go staging-to-staging or loop-to-loop. The layout is designed for single operator (me!) 99.99% of the time hence the importance of the railfan loop-to-loop design.

The two helices are necessary both for the loops and to change the elevation. I agree with you about the awkwardness of the blob. I will change the bench shape to disguise. This same helix hiding is why I selected a seriously large industrial complex instead of another mountian for the center blob. The prototype rubber shops were big, ugly, dirty, complex factories and I wish to duplicate hopefully hiding the helix below in the process.

See if this schematic helps. Imagine CN & CSX both having track rights on each other and on the AC&Y. The CN & CSX trains run through working Mettiki Mine and Lapeer with an occasional spot at AC&Y yard. AC&Y works Goodyear, Firestone, and any other "local" industries. The yard lead that heads to lower staging is the prototype Akron Barberton Belt Line termination at AC&Y Brittain yard. The ABB will bring trains from Barberton (lower staging) to Brittain yard. AC&Y will break them down and either serve the locals or assemble for pickup by CN or CSX on the A/D yard track. Does this make sense?

My thoughts exactly!

I couldn't agree more!

I know the old "roundy-roundy" style of layout can become boring very quickly, and that realistic operations will ultimately keep one interested much longer, but sometimes, some guys, are a bit too adamant about the whole protypical operations thing, IMO, and forget that model trains are also fun to look at, going roundy-roundy. Again, IMO!

After all, "All work and no play, makes Johnny a dull boy"

For myself, I wouldn't plan and don't want, a layout that doesn't allow for at least some continuous running.  However, that being said, my current situation dictates that I can only have a small chainsaw layout that will not allow any continuous running, but I've been mired in the muck trying to plan a layout that fits my vision and my space, (which keeps changing) for too long...YEARS TOO LONG!  I've got to build SOMETHING soon, or admit defeat and take up needlepoint.

I think the plan looks really good, but what do I know, I'm a newb to the notion of OP's.  It just looks fun to me!  Personally, I'm a big fan of the BLOB and don't really care if they are prototypical or not. [grin]

How I Cry Myself To Sleep

Trust me, I am soooooo itching to make sawdust but I must constrain myself. Everything in its course. A buddy of mine has an expression he likes to use "The infantile need for instantaneous gratification". It is terribly hard to suppress.

I have a basement finish out to complete first. As was expected summer really slowed the project but the leaves are turning so the throttle will come back up. On the blog I stated November as the train room finish date. I am confident I will make that target. Between now and then I have the luxury of continued refinement of the track plan in digital. Once the construction debris is cleaned and the walls painted I will do the full scale paper mock-up. I'm predicting January 2011. What a beautiful symmetry - 1 year from wife's blessing to 1:1 visualization in the room.

And the best part for me is the model railroad thing is also my first experience with social media of any sort. Until model railroading I was a read only Internet guy. Now I am blogging, tweeting, and obviously on forums. It has been a great experience learning from others and enjoying their involvement in the LK&O. So much better than lone wolf as I would have been had the social media element been absent.

Thanks to everyone and I look forward to your continued support as the real fun begins - making sawdust!

Critique the crap out of the plan if you would, it's only digital. Changes are free.

Yard ladder hard to access

The Yard Ladder under the bridges at Brittain looks like it would be hard to access. Not only is it under bridges but it is also out of easy reach. I would be very wary of that. It will be hard to deal with issues there.. and being a yard ladder.. there WILL be issues there..

Regards,

Chris

Move the Yard?

I still see a lot of very tight looking curves on the plan, especially around the mine and either end of Brittain yard, plus some access issues with the benchwork depth.  At the risk of really messing things up at this point, I'd suggest trying to locate Brittain yard on the long straight wall where you currently have Lapeer, and reconfigure the other locations to maintain the flow you want.  You could eliminate most of the awkward curves and access problems with the yard, and avoid the bridges over the ladder and lead tracks which are sure to get in the way.  You've indicated the yard is central to the concept of the layout, but the plan compromises the form and look of the yard a lot compared to the prototype maps.  I'd say the yard is currently situated in the most difficult possible area to make it work.  Industrial areas can be crammed into spaces where yards don't quite fit, and should easily function better on the peninsula than the yard does.

Move the Yard?

Interesting you say that. Way back when I first began Brittain yard was on that very wall. That was before I posted any drawings on the blog. The length of the wall made it easy to design the yard prototypical and as you point out it was very accessible. The challenge that I could not resolve was how to convincingly blend the flat terrain of the yard with the Appalachian mountains of Kitzmiller. There just wasn't enough visual separation to make it work in my mind. If I put Kitzmiller on the other end then I had a big mountain right in the center of the room or at the very least a real high backdrop along the reserved walkway area. Neither of these options appealed to me.

Nonetheless, you have made me reconsider. I will doodle a little and see if a refreshed attempt solves the aforementioned problem.

Thanks for the input.

Further Definition

Same drawing with 24" radius curve templates overlaid (magenta circles). The minimum radius on the layout is now 24" with 30" minimum on the main lines. My homemade Illustrator file I believe is the reason it looks deceiving to those accustomed to viewing actual track software output. Is 24" radius sufficiently large enough for 70's era equipment?

Agreed. I have to do something about that.

Continuous Running

Just wanting to clear up the impression that I am suggesting that your plan suffers because it allows for continuous running.  Not so.  Many the happy hour I have spent  casually watching my trains make their circles on virtually every layout that I have built. Wouldn't have it any other way.

What I was trying to convey that it seems to me that a lot of your real estate in taken up by your helixes.  In the "bible" of track planning, John Armstrong recommends stacking the blobs where possible. But if you are happy and committed to your general plan so far go for it.  And what you are looking to do now is refine and clean up your track plan a bit.

 For starters, I'd rework  Metikic Coal track a bit by pushing the throat further toward the river.  I'd  eliminate the little tail tie at the end of the loading tracks making them stub sidings. I'd then put a tail tie on the front two tracks making sure the tail was long enough for say two hoppers and an engine.  In this way a train could pull onto one of the front tracks, the engine would uncouple and run around it.  Then go to the loading tracks, pull those cars onto the other front track and then shuffle the front track cars onto the loading tracks.  The loco then couple onto either end of the front track hoppers and is off on it's merry way.  A simple and pleasurable task.

But where does that train go?  While there is nothing wrong with open staging I tend to be of the hidden staging school.  I like the idea of "behind the scenes".  A train leaves the visible portion of the layout and is gone far away. What this requires is that the staging tracks are long enough to accomodate trains in their entirety. Having to break up a train on the layout before it goes into staging tends to destroy the illusion.

Three things to balance: the capacity of the loading tracks, the length of the associated run around track, the length of the staging track.

That's 200% better in both

That's 200% better in both thinking and designing it's just going to be a little crouded with all those operators in the room at one time. I'd keep a can of right Guard arm Pit spray around so you'll be able to stand each other.

Dan

Re: Move the Yard?

I could submit that scenic transition from flatland to Appalachia wouldn't be any less convincing than forcing the yard into the twists and turns of the peninsula.  At least you would only have the one awkward transition at one end of the yard, instead of intorducing the extra curves, access issues and industrial area bridges across one end.  You may have to live with a gentle slope on one end of the yard as it transitions into the hills, but the visual impact can be mitigated with trees and other ground cover to a great extent.  If that part of the scene is the biggest hang-up with relocating the yard, I'd say go for it and avoid all the other compromises.  An remember this advice is worth exactly what you're paying for it.