dfandrews

First post of layout file.  This may be a chainsaw layout, but it may last 20 years.

VTA-TAFT.png 

The helix is based on an experiment in my garage using cookie-cutter plywood.  I built the test with 21 inch radius and 3%:  it worked for a 4 ft. train with an RSD-5.

This layout, I think, is going to be a test case for a lot of techniques and ideas that are new to me, such as masonite spline sub roadbed, helix, room-size layout, backdrops, and maybe a vision break on part of the peninsula.

Ventura and Taft yards and industrial areas need work.  I may lay them out full size on plywood.  That way I can place building and building flat mockups, and track, with accurate spacing for switches and fouling points.  Some more research on Ventura/Oxnard industrial, and research in the Taft area industrial is necessary.  I've got very little information on the Sunset Railway, (now SJVR), that runs to Taft from Bakersfield.

It is going to be necessary to build model of the room and layout in 3D to see how scenery landforms work.  I'm looking at 1:8 scale, so the room model will be about 16" x 20". 

Don - CEO, MOW super.

Rincon Pacific Railroad, 1960.  - Admin.offices in Ventura County

HO scale std. gauge - interchanges with SP; serves the regional agriculture and oil industries

DCC-NCE, Rasp PI 3 connected to CMRI, JMRI -  ABS searchlight signals

Reply 0
Cuyama

Testbed vs. long-term satisfaction

It's certainly an ambitious HO plan for that space. To be brutally honest, I get a twelve-pounds-of-sugar-in-a-five-pound-sack sense from the plan. The Oxnard and Taft ends of the layout seem cramped for doing double-duty as end points and industrial switching areas (if I am understanding the intention). It looks as if your passing sidings will hold about a 4-foot-long train in the clear. That seems a bit short (to me) for the amount of layout in the space. And the amount of industry/interest along the line between the two endpoints seems light in terms of satisfying long-term operations (if that is your goal).

But those are just my views. As I've posted here before, I've lived in and thought a lot about this area as a modeling subject. The plan as shown doesn't really capture the unique elements of the area, in my very humble and personal opinion. And that's partly because it's so much prototype length coiled into an insufficient space.

If your goal is to try a bunch of different techniques in a short amount of elapsed time, I would suggest a smaller testbed section that could be sequestered in a corner of the room. That would leave you room to begin the long-term construction in another part of the room after you've had a chance to look at train lengths, etc., in full-scale 3D and perhaps consider a different plan.

If the goal is for long-term satisfaction, I'd strongly suggest looking at less scope of the overall imagineered prototype. Personally, if considering multiple decks for this space in HO, I'd look at unconnected decks, linked by operations and staging. I wrote about this concept in Model Railroad Planning 2008 magazine and in the Layout Design Journal a couple of times (LDJ-28 being the most descriptive). I recognize that the unconnected-deck idea is just too hard for some to accept.

But if I were doing it that way, maybe the Oxnard deck below and a mountain-crossing/Venucopa/Taft deck above. Each of these decks would have staging that would allow a train to move out-of-sight on one deck, with a similar consist continuing the journey from staging on the upper deck. Even if the helix as tight as you are proposing proves reliable for your desired length of trains, it takes too large a percentage of the footprint of the room, in my opinion. And honestly, I'm not convinced that your long-term experience with a helix that tight would be different from Joe F.'s and others', although I could be wrong

So I'm sorry to be the wet blanket. As you've seen from other threads on this forum, it seems to be my role in life. But if we are talking about potentially a long-term layout, I'd opt for a satisfying operational layout of less prototype scope rather than an overly-ambitious layout (for the space) that was never completed.

Best of luck!

Reply 0
dfandrews

Byron, Thanks so much for

Byron,

Thanks so much for your comments.  I really do appreciate the red flags.  Your option of "satisfying operational layout of less prototype scope rather than an overly-ambitious layout never completed"  is my goal as well.  And I must agree with much of what you say.  The whole area begs for a large basement layout, after much more research, to do it justice.  (And I haven't seen a basement in a Southern California home, other than the mansions of Montecito or Hollywood hills, and those are movie screening rooms for the owner and 50 of his closest "friends"!).  I grew up in Ventura, live in Camarillo, work in Oxnard, deliberately drive to work along the UP r-o-w in the Oxnard plain, instead of the freeway, and have, over the last 40 years, explored much of the area, so I too have given thought to how to model all or part.

The design criteria list includes oil and agricultural.  OIL:  Oil wells, a representation of a refinery, and crude and refined product distribution are on the list.  AGRI:  A representation of field row crops and orchards, distribution warehouses and processing, and maybe even a "Union Ice Co. icing platform for my collection of
Silver Streak reefers.  But there I go, putting more on the list than I have room for.

The size of the room predicates short trains and short sidings, so the four foot train length is a big compromise, but one I'm willing to make.  It allows for operation of more than one train, operating signals, which is on my absolute must list, and the around the room route gives a chance to run the occasional interminably-long SP train.

Regarding a room size layout, this is a first opportunity for me, as soon as offspring #1 moves out probably this year, so I'm seeing this is an opportunity rather than an over-ambitious endeavor.  In terms of benchwork and rough construction, it's not a problem.  I like to build.  Everything I've built over the years not involving club operations has been modules not over 6 ft. long (E.G. switching, interchange), so we're looking for something different.  Oh, except the last project, that's hanging in the garage on ropes from a boat wench, is a 4'x9' (notice it's not the dreaded 4'x8'!) built with metal studs & metal wall top track on edge, and 4" thick sheets of EPS stryrofoam as a base.  It is very light, but the weight comes right back with the mass of scenery plaster.

But, my wife and I are right now discussing your suggestions about scaling back scope and size.  She just suggested maintaining the ability to run a ways, a loop around the room perimeter most likely.  We could build around the wall at shelf width, but include the Ventura and Taft areas, but no yards; industrial switching only.  That's most likely how the posted plan would end up, also.  With just enough yard trackage to receive and build a train at a time.   

I certainly agree that industry/interest along the line is light.  With an around-the-wall there are more possiblities  that aren't restricted by mainlines with no tangent track.

So, this is very much still a work in progress, and, again, thanks very much for your input.

 

Don - CEO, MOW super.

Rincon Pacific Railroad, 1960.  - Admin.offices in Ventura County

HO scale std. gauge - interchanges with SP; serves the regional agriculture and oil industries

DCC-NCE, Rasp PI 3 connected to CMRI, JMRI -  ABS searchlight signals

Reply 0
Reply