There is several points that folks miss here. One is that I am an older geezer with some limited mobility to start with. The 2nd is that I am recovering from a stroke and right now all model railroading is off the table regardless of scale. So the old ADA comes in to play on the design if I am ever able to pick it up again. I am being practical with both feet firmly on the ground in my design thinking and have to carve out a path that is completely different than a 30 year old would. Thus one can say that I am sailing in uncharted waters. The idea of using a closet is floating around but not for the layout, rather for the workbench and some storage and leaving that side as aisle space. Access to a closet would be difficult at best for me but not for my workbench with a chair. Meanwhile I can obviously dream and design for the when and if I can get back. I am taking into account some of the suggestions and ideas that have been put forward in this thread and do appreciate the comments so to all keep them coming. I do have about 40% of the function of my fingers back to be able to handle the drafting tools now and hopefully will have more as time rolls by.
that's GREAT news John. That was the reason I was thinking dominos since they would have minimal benchwork
Hey John, as one "old geezer" to another (I'm 64) I'm happy to hear you've regained some of the use of your fingers. That is good news indeed! On the other hand, even though I am a draftsman, illustrator, graphic artist, fine artist...I don't touch pencil to paper anymore when designing my modular layout sections. I am a big convert to model railroad specific CAD programs, which, with taps on the keyboard and mouse-motions do things that would have taken me hours and hours of work...with exponentially more accuracy. So, since you can obviously type (even hunt & peck) you would benefit greatly in your design adventures by learning to use a model railroading CAD program. If using your drafting tools is part of your therapy, then a CAD program wouldn't work as part of that. One of the things I love about the CAD program I use (Cadrail) is I'm able to modify my CAD drawings without destroying the original if my modifications don't work out, or if pieces of my original would work for another design. I can also turn my drawings into a 3D rendering to get a better idea of what it'd look like at viewing level, and I can even run trains (which I haven't done) if I want to. There are some programs out there that are free, and which some of our fellow model railroaders really like, so your money expenditure would be zero. Since you have some time, there wouldn't be any pressure to learn how to use it, and if you're successful in learning how to use your CAD program, layout design is a big (and fulfilling) part of the hobby if you don't regain enough of the use of your fingers to build models again. There are plenty of people out there who would love to have somebody design their little layout for them, either as a service or paying for it. I know I spend a lot of time in front of the computer before I start cutting wood for my layout sections. I even design the benchwork beforehand and use my precise CAD drawings and the measurements they generate to cut my lumber so I'm making a whole lot fewer mistakes at the saw. Anyway, just thinking this might be something that would really aid you in this part of your hobby. Keep getting better! Cheerio! Bob Gilmore
Still researching and looking at possibilities. As far as computer aided design never had much luck with it, but then I am definitely not much of a puter person and the tech stuff just doesn't blow my dress up much. I would still be using a Beta Max recorder and an old reel to reel tape machine if I could get supplies. And yes using the hand in the manual design is part of therapy. A dim bulb lit up in the old brain yesterday and I pulled out my Ntrak books. That led to looking at oNe and then Nn3 for inspirations on plans. Borrowing a bit here and there from all of it I broke a mental deadlock and came up with a better design. Kept for the most part my 30 inch aisles, 30 inch reach limits, accounted for a closet where the workbench will be, and managed a layout level staging for about 95 to 100 cars. Picked up the suggestion on the staging behind a divider or scenery and went one further in designing some of the staging with curved storage tracks. A long curved track will hold more than a straight. Also managed to increase my minimum radius to 11 inch for the main. So this is my design #34 for staging. The bottom return is 11" radius while the top is 13" radius. I will use scenic features to hide to and separate and if I decided to go back to 9.75" radius for the return loops I gain some more space. All my power is four axle units and my steam that I have can take the 9.75. I have a small fleet of 60 and 65 foot passenger so it can handle it also and only the return loops would have the 9.75. The other side of the divider on the island would most likely have a sawmill which will fit nicely in the 12 inch wide space. So the fun continues.
Maybe this is known by long-time posters or is evidenced by your title logo but what is the country like that this layout is supposed to be representing? Out on the flat eastern high desert, or at Stampede Tunnel? Inland Passageway or crowded Spokane? My feeling is that the kind of terrain the layout covers has a big influence on the track plan and subsequent attempts to make the scenery look realistic. Sheer rock cliffs at every slope or huge pool-table-flat areas dominating the scenery tend to detract from that attempt.
Look at the narrow shelf that is along the Columbia River from Lyle heading West. Multiple short tunnels punching through rock abutments that extend into the river with sometimes almost sheer 300 to over 1000 foot rises. Descending grade that is mostly water level heading West. Branch line and the few logging lines heading North from the river have at least 2% grades or better and generally follow river valleys North. Single track main then and today with some passing sidings. Towns along the river tend to be small with usually not more than four or five yard tracks at max. Land tends to rise sharply behind the few towns then after about a 300 or better foot rise, level off until another sharp rise, and be heavily timbered, thus I used the term mesa probably when plateau would be a better applied word. Thus I have a lot of terrain features to tuck and hide things in while the rails seek the water level route and the use of the short tunnels can give me scene separation. The harbor area is loosely based on Astoria, Oregon although in the early years there were a number of canneries and barge ports on the lower river so almost any area can be used for the port. The layout is being designed in the 1950s and most existed until the 1970s so bending time a bit I will extend the life of some industry into the 1970s. The route today is mostly a fast easy route for BNSF to get trains West to Portland and Vancouver and East to access the Oregon Trunk. Long through trains with mixed GN and SP&S power was the norm thus the desire to have the ability to feature some continuous running rather than a point to point layout. Basically as I have stated before the short local consists are the stars of the show with the occasional through freight or short passenger running through.
Look at the narrow shelf that is along the Columbia River from Lyle heading West. Multiple short tunnels punching through rock abutments that extend into the river with sometimes almost sheer 300 to over 1000 foot rises. Descending grade that is mostly water level heading West. Branch line and the few logging lines heading North from the river have at least 2% grades or better and generally follow river valleys North. Single track main then and today with some passing sidings. Towns along the river tend to be small with usually not more than four or five yard tracks at max. Land tends to rise sharply behind the few towns then after about a 300 or better foot rise, level off until another sharp rise, and be heavily timbered, thus I used the term mesa probably when plateau would be a better applied word. Thus I have a lot of terrain features to tuck and hide things in while the rails seek the water level route and the use of the short tunnels can give me scene separation. The harbor area is loosely based on Astoria, Oregon although in the early years there were a number of canneries and barge ports on the lower river so almost any area can be used for the port. The layout is being designed in the 1950s and most existed until the 1970s so bending time a bit I will extend the life of some industry into the 1970s. The route today is mostly a fast easy route for BNSF to get trains West to Portland and Vancouver and East to access the Oregon Trunk. Long through trains with mixed GN and SP&S power was the norm thus the desire to have the ability to feature some continuous running rather than a point to point layout. Basically as I have stated before the short local consists are the stars of the show with the occasional through freight or short passenger running through. I did have another light bulb go on in the old brain prior to reading your post and it just helped to nudge it further along. I think I have the single level design I want finally with no helixes, duckunders, or any thing else that would tend to give me issues. I may have a small staging that will work for me. My thought is that I will again put the shape on paper and then place the features like industries on the design and tunnels, etc. Then I will see if I can fit the track to it last. The port is the main focal point and then I just have to fit in a sawmill, quarry, mine and a fruit packing house. The rest is just pure train running.
Earlier in this thread I approached the idea of laying out the industries on the plan before I committed to placing any track on the plan. After I established the boundaries and aisle widths of the layout I did just that. Much like the old days when the rails came to an established town. You put the rails in the space provided. Well I did that then I put in the rails that served the industries. Last I brought the mainline through and connected the rails that served the industries. Worked like a charm for me and left me with enough space to place my steep rock abutments and hills behind with the branchline/shortline on top serving a mine, quarry, and a possible log camp and reload area. A little tweaking here and there to be done but I think I see the glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel.
Well here is what I came up with designed for and 11X11 area that can be reduced to a 10X10 area. They elevation changes behind the main are highlighted in green which doesn't show well on the scan. The plan is in three parts and uses Peco turnouts for the staging and the branch. The mainline has two crossover points also Peco.
This is the rest of staging. The open space to the right in staging is deliberate if I have to cut a foot off. Using Peco three way and short radius turnouts. The last section is an optional log camp to be at least 18 inches above part of the staging. It is not the full width of the staging area to make access to staging easier. The weird square with the round circles is a log loader. Truck to rail log reload. Not pretty but it gets my ideas on paper in a low tech way. The harbor was designed so that if I have to lose a foot everything can be compressed and not affect the operation. The sawmill is separated by a scenic divider and if the optional log camp is placed above staging it will have one also. The top of the layout return loop is a flat Mesa with the branch on top. The upper branch has 8 and 9 inch radius which I have locos able the handle. I am not worried about grade since the operations will feature double or triple headed power anyway with short trains.
