Track planning is fun

On the bottom plan which yields a longer run, it looks like to me if you widened the end of that lobes to the right of Colorado Springs and to the left of Denver, you could up your minimum radius to 30 inches, assuming those are 12x12" squares. 

You would need to steal about 6 inches from the aisles and you will have pinch points of 30 inches but iMO it would be worth it for more generous curves, especially if you plan to run passenger trains.  Some HO scale length Walthers passenger cars, for example, may report a minimum of 24 inches but I've read they don't even like 28 inch curves.  Heck, I'm going with 32" minimum curves and I'm hoping they will be sufficient.

For grins, here is my paper track plan - you can see my aisles are less generous but this was my compromise to get a longer run and 32" curves in the space I have to work with.

@Jim

Jim,

     I set the minimum @ 28 most of the lobs will have a 30" but you are right. If i make some adjustment i could get a 32". About passenger cars with a few simple mod to the Walthers models you can get them to work on 24". I saw an article I think here on Model Railroad Hobbyist on what had to be done. On the old CFR i had no problems with 28 radius with Budd cars but heavyweight did due to the center beam of the car on the cars being to thick to allow much smaller then 30inch or larger.

Mike

Mike,I tend to be a believer

Mike,

I tend to be a believer about squeezing as much radius as possible as every little bit down in these numbers makes a sizable difference to the rolling stock.  And if you happen to end up with a model that doesn't like small curves, making them a bit bigger is a bit of insurance hopefully to "future proof" the layout.

I have read about some mods to the Walthers scale length passenger cars.  One of the simplest has been to replace one coupler with a long shank Kadee to get that little bit extra distance between cars.  I'm hoping 32 inch curves will allow them to operate "stock" but have that fall back.  I've got a bunch of Walther's cars painted in the 70's pointless arrow scheme because I want to cheat and run a San Francisco Zephyr Zephyr as well as the Rio Grande Zephyr - my modeling period of interest is primarily 1977-1983, which also covers the early Amtrak CZ.  I'm having trouble finding a couple more plated phase 2 Superliner sleepers to fill out the train.

Here are a few of the Amtrak heritage cars testing out curves in my staging yard, still under construction:

Mike

Sorry to hear about the demise of the prior layout. Best of luck on the new version!!! I look forward to your progress!

It looks like a solid plan so far. What is the reason for covering the entire Longmont to Colorado Springs distance? It seems to me that it could be a lot more realistic focusing on half the distance or less. Denver by itself has a ton of stuff going on. I'm just curious on the reasoning.

Preference

Mike,

I always like squeezing as much out of a room as I can for mainline length.  In that regard I like the bottom plan.

That being said, I was at an op session the other day that really squeezed a lot of layout into the room available, but at the expense of aisle space.  It looked impressive, but once the op session started, the operators kept getting in one another's way, which really diminished the joy of running the layout. 

So, if you are going to run with a very limited number of operators, the bottom plan would probably work.  If you have more than 3 or 4 operators running at the same time however, I think you'll be much happier with the upper plan and the wider aisles.

Benchwork width

The benchwork along the right hand wall and (especially) the Denver wall look to be 36 and about 42 inches wide.  That is pretty wide to work on unless you make special provisions for access or plan to have modular removable scenery, like city buildings along the Denver wall as a 3D backdrop and mountains on the other wall.

@Sean

Sean,

  One of the reason to have Colorado Springs is the coal fire electric plant for the coal running south and to see the passenger service from ATSF, DRG, MP and the RI travel on the layout some. While I can do that without Colorado Springs it is labeled for more of an understanding where you would be on the layout. I have had many talk with other layout builders about this very subject. Right now nothing is on or off the table other then I want Denver and Union Station on the table and the sugar mill after that we will see.

Thank you for your thoughts

Mike

@Paul

Paul

  You have hit the nail on the head. That is why I am looking at the two options if we have 5 or 6 OP Session then having 50 plus inch aisle is a must if we have four or less 36 will be fine. Now comes the next part how many will come and what will be the OP plan. This is in many way why I am looking to build the same layout plan I already know the train schedule for Denver. with 7 passenger trains and 6 north running freight trains and 5 south bound trains having 7 operators would everyone at least 2 trains. if we ran a full schedule (I don't have to but I can)

this is the time to look at it from all angles!

Thanks for your thoughts.

MIke

@Jscore

You are right The issue is I have a model of Denver Union Station it is 12 inches wide so that part of the layout is 42 inches but the operation is all in the first 30 inches. Nice catch here is a photo of the station on the last layout.

Thanks,

Mike

Ailse width

36 inch aisles tend to be less than 36" because of throttle plug ins, car card boxes, beverage holders, throttle holders, control panels, etc on the fascia.  I had 36" aisles on my last layout and decided to go more in the 44-48" range on my current layout.

You can get 44-48" aisles on the bottom plan but that means making the nominal scene depth 18" instead of 24 as drawn.

Its a trade off, do you want a longer run, more room in the aisles or a deeper scene?  A shorter run also translates into fewer "scenes" or stations/sidings.  Fewer sidings means fewer trains  on the layout at the same time.  Assuming that you will not loop the main track through the scenes more than once, for example in the upper design, you really don't have room for a full passing siding between Colorado Springs and Denver, there is room for a passing siding between Denver and Longmont.  That only gives you one "on line" siding to make meets outside a terminal.  May not be a problem for you.

On the bottom plan you have enough room for one siding between Longmont and Denver and one, maybe two between Denver and Colorado Springs, giving you lots more options as far as meeting points and train operation.  But with narrower aisles.

The other option is double track or two main tracks.  Eliminates the worry about sidings affecting capacity.  Even if you double track it, you still will want train separation, so the shorter run still translates into a limitation on the number of trains.

Its kind of a bummer that the plan with the wider aisles giving you more space for operators has the limited meeting/sorting capability meaning you won't need as many operators, but the plan with more sidings/sorting points that will let you use more operators has less room in the aisles for those operators.

Model railroading is fun. 

@David

As I am modeling the prototype (joint line south of Denver and single track mainline north of Denver) most of this will have sidings in the towns and the joint line is two track (the proto did not have then side by side most of the time). But this is a look at the last layout.

the plan well be close to the last one just this time I will not have 900 square feet.

Thanks

Mike

I thought I could add something here but.........

everyone has made all the defining points.   I feel the bigger the better on curves but what fun is that when the guys have to climb over each other to get there.  I don't envy you choosing a compromise buddy.

Martin Drake?

Mike,

Are you changing time periods?  I see steam in the Union Station photo but Martin Drake began

operations in 1962!  Before that Colorado Springs used the power plant on the north end which

was natural gas fired.  Make the dirt trains iron ore for CF&I in Pueblo, C&S had a lock on this

traffic as it came from Sunrise, Wyoming.  Just a thought!

Steve

@Steve

Steve,

  That is a very helpful piece of information I am running fall of 1959 and will change to as late as 1964 and back again. Can you point to some books or something that I can research this information.

thanks a bunch

Mike

@Mike

Hey Mike,

  Wish you where nearby to work this plan out. May have to get you a ticket and have you head out here for a week.  House is coming together but things have slow down enough to start this process. Hope all is well for you.

Mike

@Mike

Hey Mike,

  Wish you where nearby to work this plan out. May have to get you a ticket and have you head out here for a week.  House is coming together but things have slow down enough to start this process. Hope all is well for you.

Fun times and layout decisions of import.

I watched your recent YouTube video and looks like exciting and fun times designing and starting construction on a new layout.  I'd like to visit some day but have a lot going on with house projects on a home we bought in late 2017 that was a foreclosure/bank owned.  We've made a lot of progress but there is still work to do.  That is why my own layout has had slow progress and didn't even get started until Dec 2019.

I saw you are in Indiana.  I live there as a kid at what was later named Grissom AFB near Kokomo IN and later finished my BS in Geology at IU Bloomington and then returned to get my MS degree.  I live in northern Virginia now so it's quite a drive.  In fact I hadn't been out that way for years until my wife and I drove to through Indiana to my fathers funeral just south of Winterset Iowa May 2020 during the pandemic, out and back.

Now the big decision on longer runs with modest curves and not so wide aisle or shorter run with broader curves and wider aisle.  Personally I'd go with the longer runs and try to build in spots in the aisle that are wide enough for operators to pass each other and there would be pinch points where the turn back curves are.  The aisle would be a bit like a single track RR where you have passing sidings for people!

No book

Mike,

I lived in Colorado Springs from 1972 till 1994 when I moved north to Castle Rock, still on the

Joint Line!  My info comes from the Colorado Springs Utilities Department.  This info also comes 

up online but make sure its M. Drake as there is a Martin Lake plant in Texas which is close

enough for Google!  Traffic info comes from the book The Joint Line: 1880-1995.  Its a softcover

put out by the Santa Fe Railway Historical & Modeling Society.  It is still available at RonsBooks.com

and well worth having!  The cover photo reminds me of something.  A C&S 2-10-2 with a AT&SF

2-10-2 pulling the hill south of Castle Rock with a string of what looks like empty gons.  That's the iron

ore going to CF&I and this train always used a helper to Palmer Lake where the helper cut off and

turned on the wye, then ran light back to Denver.  Hope that helps!

Steve 

@Steve

Thanks Steve I will see if I can find the Joint Line Book. I lived in Littleton fron 67 to 72 was to young to appreciate what I was seeing then.

Mike

If we could only turn back

If we could only turn back time!

There is also a YouTube Channel about the Joint Line

Hi Mike,

I definitely suggest as well "The Joint Line: 1880 - 1995". I got mine from Karen's Books in California. That said, I definitely enjoy the service of Ron's Books.

There is a YouTube channel about the Joint Line that has an excellent model of the ATSF bridge in Larkspur. The channel has become a little quiet in the last years, but you may find some ideas about operations on the JL there as well. Alas the timeframe is more in the future than yours.

The picture shows my collection of books covering the JL. I recommend them all.

Take care, looking forward for your next episodes

The Chuck Conway books are

The Chuck Conway books are excellent as well as the Morning Sun Rio Grande in Color volumes.  I've got most of them and they a excellent resources.

Blobs

Is there a way to get this plan to work so there is only one blob/turnback loop?  Is there a way to spiral it around the walls and inward with one blob instead of two?

Jonathan Jones

Modeling CNJ's Newark Branch in N-scale

Have you tried

Mike,

Have you tried running down one side then a peninsula starting from the bottom going up and 

back down then back up the other side?  Just a thought.

Steve