Here is the plan

Here is the plan without opening a new window.

I like it

Hello, HOG cousins!

Scopewime & Norman!

Scopewime, I really like your layout plan and look forward to seeing your progress.  The HOG offers some great potential in a small space.

Norman - my HOG AND L&N cousin... I'm also looking forward to seeing your progress.

Did you guys see my post where Scott Perry (the author of the H.O.G. layout) was my first model railroader visitor to my layout?  I've been friends with Scott for years and it was a honor to have him visit.  We ran a train and the Doodlebug while he was here.

Layout height

The plan looks interesting. What elevation are you building it at? If construction isn't already in progress might I suggest around 6" lower than your eye level? This means you won't need to be installing/removing the access liftouts all the time when entering/leaving the room/closet...

Even better would be to change the door polarity to open out of the room vs into the room.

Cheers,

Charlie

I need to compromise

compromising too

As my greatest fans (actually) are my children I will choose 4'1". As I want to hang some cupboards (especially to store and display all of my trains and things. The cupboard have a height of 2' and the room is about 7' high. so the bottom of the cupboard will be at 5' height and to keep some height for scenery and so on, the tracks should be at the height of 4'1".

so far my compromise...

I really like your plan, not

I really like your plan, not one track is parallel to the edge which gives the impression it is part of the environment.

There is plenty of scope for operation, and suited to many different types of industries.

The track behind Whytville depot could lead to a cassette at the front of the layout so you could add and remove trains from outside the layout during the ops session

rgds Tom

A very good advise

I just added the cassette capable to carry 7x40' cars. I kept it shorter than possible because of the river cut in the fascia. Nevertheless this element will add a lot of operational interest, as it helps to get the "hand of god" out of the scenery.

Thank you for the very good idea.

scopewime 

cassette

Hi,

Is that seven cars plus loco and caboose, then it could come from another railroad

rgds Tom

cassette

Yes it is possible to put a cassette of 4' 11 4/5"  aside the benchwork. So if we take the monster mashine N&W K1 4-8-2 of aprox 14 1/8" long and a cab of 5 1/8" (total 19 1/4") there is still place for 6x40' box cars. If I take the more common engine size of a 2-8-0 engine 10 4/5" long (total aprox to 16") there is enough room for 7x40' box cars.

Very nice!!

scopewime

new plan sketch

So Tom,

here you can see what you did to my plan.

I like the idea of exchanging complete local trains or parts of greater trains at the interchange very much.

Today I purchased all the micro switches do build the turnout movement and polarisation features for the turnouts.

Next will be lumber to start the build.

rgds

scopewime 

looks good

If you are concerned about the look , the cassettes could be made removable.

Since you are running steam are you worried about no turntable.

rgds Tom

claculations on train length

Hello...

as I am sitting and waiting to get time starting the banchwork, I tried to do some calculation on train length under given set of engines and cars.

The engines I will run on the layout are:

exPRR L1s 2-8-2, N&W K2 4-8-2, two 2-8-0, 0-6-0, 4-4-0

For all these engine I aquired the data or average data to calculate 85% of the tractive effort available under normal operational circumstances. This resulted for

0-6-0 in 36600 lbs and

4-4-0 in 20820 lbs at the lower end of engine power range and

4-8-2 in 58650 lbs and

2-8-2 in 62190 lbs at the upper end.

Taking into account that curvature on my line is 10° at maximum, my setting for acceleration need is 6mph/minute and the ruling grade on the line is 2%, these tractive efforts result the following tonnage ratings for the trains:

0-6-0 640t

4-4-0 360t

4-8-2 1010t

2-8-2 1070t

Deviding now these max tonnages moveable by the rated tonnages of different car types of the modeled era it results for

engine       33' hoppers     36' box cars      46' gondolas

0-6-0          8                    8                     7

4-4-0          4                    4                     4     -> that is a passenger loco!!!

4-8-2         14                  13                    12

2-8-2         14                  14                    13

All results fit very well to my passing siding lenght of 2500mm in Whyteville city.

I am pleased.

What I am wondering about is the relative short train length for the "big" engines. What do you think?

scopewime

What is better? Just look here

As long as there is no wood sawn nor screws at the wall, there is time to plan something different.

So lets see:

This is now a plan with continuous run plus two two-track stagging areas one in the west and one in the east.

All green areas are open and scenic. The back drop to hide the storage tracks will be 8" high and at the lift out area tracks will be easily accessible to do all necessary fiddling. I can invisibly change the position of a train from east to west  and exchange the engine or whatever at the lift out piece in front of the door to the room. The dotted track is narrow gauge for mine cars. The thing I want to model is a small coal line in the Appalachians sometimes in the 1920's.

The three main advantages compared to the first plan I see are:

- longer trains ( N&W 4-8-2 + 15x40' + cab) fit into the stagging spurs (!)

- more spacious station (more American style), longer tracks, longer industry spurs but lesser buildings

- more realistic setting (Point to Point operation) I can display at least two through trains, one in each direction, and two local freights in each direction.

Additionally I separated the mine from the station by scenic dividers, which helps to concentrate on scenes.

A draw back is:

- hidden track and turnouts (these are all prefabricated bought turnouts, so lesser trouble in operation)

What do you think? Which plan is "better"? Which of the plans would you build?

rgds

scopewime

Plan with staging

new plan

Hello Rene!

The turnouts are Tillig EW1 code 83 turnouts where the radius of the diverging track is about 34 1/2". This should be wide enough to be handled by both engines.

Your suggestion to make all turnouts in the "hidden" places reachable in the door area is very good. I will try to get this real and you will see the new Version in a follow up post. It will not be the 45° turn, but something similar.

thanks

scopewime

Latest plan!!!

So ... this is a good

So ... this is a good variation, which has only one turnout not directly accessible. But it has now the capacity to hold up to 5 trains in staging

2 through trains up to 17 40' boxcars

3 local trains (or 2 local freights and one passenger service) of up to 12 40' cars.

that is a lot of possible traffic for that small layout I am pleased with this result.

And here is the changed plan:

scopewime

Definitely getting there

I think you can get all four hidden turnouts on the curve in front of the door, especially if you use curved turnouts, but probably even if they are straight.

Yes, plan changed

Yes, plan changed again...

What changed...?

I eliminated the hidden turnout on the right. 

The blueish stuff are 20mm hard foam backdrop pieces.

there is staging space (one sequential to the right) for at least 3 trains with 13x40' cars (including engine + cab; that train length matches with the passing siding length at scenic station)

There is a turn table (with 90' bridge) with storage tracks for at least 4 engines (4-4-0, 2x 2-8-0 and the 4-8-2)

So now I am able

to turn engines,

to hide "the rest of the world" eastern and western,

have enough space to fiddle the trains,

to run trains continuously.

What do you think?

rgds scopewime

Yes that's what I had in mind

But it's a shame the junction to the mine is in off-stage track.  I wonder if you can scoot that around counter-clockwise a little bit so it connects in the scenic part of the layout, or extend the scenic part of the layout to connect with the switch.  If the switch into the second track in the two-track yard came off the other track instead of the main, perhaps you get some more breathing space and the junction switch can be scenicked. 

It's surprising the turntable fits, but if it does, I think it's a good addition.  Having said that, you probably will restage by backing up into the opposite staging yard.

I think you should also think about the one-person operating scheme - one that doesn't require many backing moves to restage.  Perhaps you start with a train in the two-track staging yard facing onto the layout, and run it out onto the scene, work the town, push a block into the mine, pull back to town and back into staging?  If you were in Vancouver, we could try it out with my big box of Brio.

Overall, it's quite ambitious, but still achievable, I think.

And here is a final version ... almost

Your brio box is tempting.

But for the "serious" part...here is my newest plan:

The staging is better balanced than ever.

I can stage now 3 complete trains with at least 14x 40' cars between engine and cabin.

The turn out to the branch line is now connected to the A/D spur of the main and most important it is placed back into scenery. I found a really better solution for the situation in the 'fiddle' area, as now the train on the main has only to take 2 turnouts instead of three.

So... that should be my base plan to build my empire (...may the force be with me...)

Not too crowded, not to much space consumption, enough realism for operation, enough leisure to look at trains and engines.... JEAAAH.

scopewime

One more suggestion

If it is enough to keep 3"

If it is enough to keep 3 7/62" elevation space between the levels - what do you think? Assuming that track + ballast makes 5mm height and the plywood is 10mm thick, then there would be about 64mm (2 33/64") of open space for the hidden tracks on the main level. I am modeling 1920-1929 (pre depression boom times ), so the rolling stock and the engines are not that high like a double stack container train of modern times.

If I can do that, this results in an incline of about 3.15%...??...are the engines able to handle 10 GLa hoppers + caboose on such a steep ramp? The ramp includes 70° of a curve with 30" radius!!

Tell me, will that be a pin in my ass in terms operational problems or is it possible to operate such a ramp flawlessly?

Thank you for any opinion ..

scopewime