Yes, the track plan as is does seem to work. I have a concern about the staging. What is your hoped for train length?
Best answer I can give, as long as possible, ha. Seriously though, Based on my initial idea for an operating session, I should be able to have the local freight parked in staging, either whole or in two sections. The coal train can sit on the mainline reaching as far back up the mountain tunnel as necessary. Once the local moves out, the coal train can be broken down and stored where the local was. Its not realistic, but neither is a rail line building a loop of track, haha. I need to see how long the excursion train is (a 2-8-0 and 4 cars), I'm hoping to stage it on a spur in town, probably near a renovated passenger or freight depot.
Do you really have to have a mine and a power plant on the layout? Besides being incredibly cliche', both are so small as to be almost not worth the trouble. The mine can load maybe 3 cars and the power plant maybe 2 (I doubt you can get a train under the tracks behind the plant without an incredible grade on the main lines). Go with some other industries that use a mix of cars, it will be way more fun to switch and more interesting. Watch your reaches, anything more than 3 feet will be very difficult and a problem later on.
Well, I'm back at it again. Was completely unable to make any progress during winter or spring break. Now that summer is here, I have a few weeks before my summer classes start, a new place (with some room, still negotiating the size) and a better financial outlook (especially if I land a full-time teacher's assistance-ship at the university). Still following the theme of the BPRR, this one actually has a slightly better relation to it's prototype, though it is still freelanced. Thanks to new technology in the mining industry, untapped seams in an older coalmine has become profitable and produce enough to warrant rail service. New track was laid over the old right-of-ways of the Knox & Kane Railway, after Kovalchick Salvage has taken the old rail for scrap along much of the old line. Bridges were refurbished or replaced as necessary, they had not yet been scrapped fortunately as there were plans for a Rails-to-trails bike path before the new coal seam was hit. In light of this now again abundant and cheap local energy source, Temple-Inland has seen fit to reestablish a relationship with the railline and bring in coal from the local mine as well as other materials. It will provide electricity generation, pulpwood, or chips, and the other necessary chemicals will be shipped in and out in either direction for the production of MDF, shipped out by rail and truck. (The plant complex will be in the lower left corner if I get my 4x8 bit of real estate, right now represented by the HO church model and a single spur till I learn more about paper/hardboard mill setups. In the event I do not get my way, or I find that 4x8 is constricting in the space I want, I will have to do some rearranging or have to do a compressed plant on the "north" side of Mt. Jewett. I'm hoping to make that some other random industry as yet to be determined.) In addition to restoring the right-of-way of the Knox & Kane to Kane to get to the mine, with the aid of various historical society and anonymous contributions, the B&P has announced plans to rebuild the track to and the Kinzua Viaduct itself if it finds enough interest in a trial run of running excursion trains over the new line. Excursions will run from Mt. Jewett where there was much more room and lower taxes then the old location of the K&K facilities in Kane. In Kane however, the old depot is being refurbished and will be the southern terminus of the line for now. No plans are immediately in the works to rebuild the line back to Marienville. Two GP38s will work the branchline, as more than one motor will be needed to make it up the 2% grades. Through freights and drop-offs by BFBT and BTBF will keep Mt. Jewett busy, and provide for all sorts of different freight traffic. They will be headed by atleast ex-SP SD45s (as per the prototype... if I can find any models!) if not possibly larger locomotives will then be taking advantage of the semi-broad 14 to very broad 28 degree curves. The green as you can see represents my old benchwork that is going to be re-utilized somehow, and worst case scenario, I lose the BPRR Main loop and the big MDF mill if I have to stick with the old size. The BPRR Main will just become stub end staging instead of loop staging.
This is by far my favorite, as I think the layout of the town is realistic for PA. I question the need to use 9 3/4" when you're starting with a 4x8, though. Personally, I have two half-finished layouts leaning against the wall right now that both have 9 3/4" curves, and I'm considering starting a third from scratch so I can get 11" and 12" instead.
You must be looking at an old plan, really old actually, which wasn't 4x8 rectangle. The one end was narrowed to 30 inches, hence the need for sharper curves. Even the mainline radius of the plan I posted in Jan. was 11 at minimum. This new plan, if I am given the go ahead by the gf, will be a true 4x8 with access to three sides. Thanks for looking though! After looking at it some, I think I may need to rework the Mt. Jewett interchange to allow for there to actually be a place to set off cars. Perhaps the engine facilities and station will have to be relocated.
Increased the size to 5x9 with the promise of a new 16x64 foot venue next summer, the 2nd floor of my parents yet-to-be-built barn. Part of that 16x64 foot space on the second floor is mine for the taking because they want to reward me for: 1. I designed the barn 2. I am going to help build it and just to seal the deal... 3. I took dad to the Greenberg Trainshow last weekend in Monroeville and nows he's got the bug. A few stipulations they made though 1. no shelf layouts because we may run Lionels along the 4 walls 2. no shelf layouts because I will be moving after I finish school and they don't want permanent fixtures that will have to be removed when I leave, i.e. shelf benchwork bracketry. Back to the layout changes... I think the new x-over really cleans up the connection to the BPRR mainline, and allows for the two interchange holding tracks. The formerly "hidden" passing siding in the "back" of the layout will now be scenic and visible since the layout is now going to be an island instead of along a wall.
hi Chris, the moment you need access holes on your layout, you are probably not on the right track. IMHO your plans are rather complicated, beside having access problems. I would start by making a drawing of your room, so other footprints could be considered. Your 9x5 is bigger then two 30" wide hollow core doors. Place those in the form an L, and you have a nice N-scale footprint without access issues. The 30" are enough to make a 180 degree curve possible. Here an example: This layout is probably not your style, just posted it on here to show you the possibilities of two HCD's. Paul
While I cannot positively define the space I will have you do make good points. I've been hemmed into small spaces without the ability to build on walls for so long that a island was pretty much the only option I could come up with, especially when I tried building in my bedroom, and even it was in a corner. I'm not saying I would want to build your example layout as is, but it does give me some ideas, back to the drawing board.
