Hard to judge, maybe you should try something in between. Just a few inches more for scenery between the tracks and the back of the layout. I can't really the real distance there. But keeping the angled look. Paul
Paul- That is actually probably the best route. It'll keep the front straight tracks from being parallel with the front edge of the foam, but also distribute an adequate amount of space for landscaping in the rear and industry in the front. David- in this rendering you did, note the road intersection and compare it to that location in my photograph. I don't know if you can tell, but that is a very tight space for the road. I'd almost think that the traffic coming from off the layout (the lane closest to the tunnel), would have a traffic light before the tracks, to prevent cars from backing up on top of the tracks. That would of course depend on if this were a signalized intersection. Any thoughts on this road configuration now that you can (kind of) get a better visual of the layout? Please note that I still like the configuration, I'm just debating on how much room I have for it. Also, I'd like to hear if anyone has any ideas for how I can give the layout more natural variation in elevation. I don't want it to look like it's mostly flat, and then has a couple hills randomly (and obviously) added to a couple of the corners -similar to the look of those foam tunnels for beginner train sets. I am willing to add another layer of 2" extruded foam, although I'm questioning how much higher I want to make the track level, and still have believable access to a water-level wharf area. If that makes sense?
It's not tight at all, really. There are loads of configurations like that (I used to drive through two on my way to work). I'd envisioned the side road coming to a stop sign at the T. The railroad crossing would have an extra set of lights that would face the traffic approaching the stop sign, like this. Also, the street approaching the stop sign would have one of these signs.
Okay, right on. I obviously have not quite trained my brain to plan in scale yet. No pun intended. Also, I'd love to have functioning gates eventually. I do not intend to have sidewalks in that area, which will be rather rural. What do you believe is the ideal width for rural N-Scale roads? And how much space should I have between the road and track?
I think you're curve spacing is fine. What I used for rural roads is the woodland sceniks HO scale foam roadbed. Think it looks right for what I remember as a kid. ....Mike
That looks pretty dang good, Mike. And my track spacing is a minimum of 1 3/4" at curves. However, a trusting source on another forum told me my track are spaced to closely together (based on the picture above).
Hi Noah, the spacing by Kato standards is 1 3/8 at curves; Atlas uses 1 1/4. If this will do, depends on the kind of equipment, though I never heard problems about them. Huge engines like the DD40AX and full length passenger cars might have issues when two trains like that are passing along each other. The road on the pic above probably is 1 inch (or a tad more) wide. If needed you can remove the upper yard track; an extra track near the river was possible before you carved away the foam. A slighty smaller angle for the yard will be difficult using Unitrack. A longer beach line also is not possible looking at what you've built already. One more word about a team track and an interchange. On these tracks any type of car can be spotted. The interchange and holding tracks also enhance the feeling your cars are really going somewhere, not just circling around.
I don't know that I'll ever have two large car trains passing each other. I'm thinking it's not going to be an issue. I plan to redo the foam around the bay -including the low spot. I'm contemplating getting rid of the river (that feeds the bay), and just having the water feature be the simple bay/inlet. This will give me more room for the mountain/tunnel area on the left side of the layout. I have also considered bringing the grade of the track up another layer of foam (2"), and creating more low spots to add depth to the elevations. I agree that there is simply not enough room for the longer beach line at the front of the layout -even with modified benchwork. I want to do the interchange, but it's not exactly possible to configure three Kato #4 turnouts like that. Unless they were somehow modified, but I've never seen this done before. Would it not make sense to have the spur on the right side of the layout be the team track?
Never ever a bridge would be constructed by a RR-company over a tiny inlet, a culvert would do. IMHO the river is a great excuse for heaving bridges. The part of the inlet at the right of the bridge is limiting your possibilities; not the river itself. With modified benchwork you can have a longer beachline....I am pretty sure. The interchange can be every where, it's just like any other spur. Since any type of car can be interchanged, it's the most versatile spur, it gives the feeling cars have far away destinations. However it must give the illusion it connects with the remainder of the system (nation) About adding grades i've an other way of looking at things. It can help creating differences in altitude which can be very appealing. However it also makes the back of the layout more visible, enhancing the roundy round nature of your main. That is the background of my idea of bringing the road up to a higher elevation, so an overpass could be constructed in the upper left corner. Paul
Ehh, I see what you're saying about a RR not building a bridge over an inlet in this manner. However, I live in Northern California. On our, Coastline, we have bridges that aren't too different than what I am proposing. See examples below. Again, I am a newbie and freelancing, so the imagination should be able to be stretched some without offending anyone ;-) What do you mean "the part of the inlet at the right of the bridge is limiting your possibilities, not the river itself" ? I'll have an interchange. One way, or another. Most likely on the right, since the front left corner is very short on space. As far as the grades changes, just to be clear: I am not proposing any grade changes in the track, just in the landscape. I really love your idea about bringing the road in on an overpass. Or even better: construct a larger/wider hill (in the back middle/left corner), with the train running in a tunnel under that hill, and the road graded into the hill top. What is the steepest realistic grade for said road? What do you think about adding that second layer of foam for additional grade options? I know this ends up being a river, but they would have still built the bridge if it were only an inlet -just so the railroad can still hug the coastline. I've crossed this bridge many times, and realize it's a vehicular, not a railroad bridge. But it's kind of an example of what I'm talking about ;-) Again, this isn't really an inlet, so it isn't a perfect example. But it shows that my proposed bridge may not be too far fetched.
On Friday night, I was out to dinner with my wife and I realized that I don't have to look far for inspiration! We have the Old Sac waterfront right here! Old Sac has an enormous amount of railroad history -as well as the California State Railroad Museum. It would be really cool to model -we even have a turntable right in front of the river. ...sorry for the poor image quality, iPhone camera sucks in low light
Featuring a road bridge over the track at the left end of the yard may require excessive use of retaining walls owing to the close quarters there. You'll note in my original scenery draft (reproduced below) I added a road bridge to the right. This does several things: it adds "vertical interest"; it breaks up the long return curve of the track; and it places the town (if one were to be built) on a slope, which is always more interesting and realistic. There is plenty of room on the right for believable slopes in terrain to support the road bridge, without having to resort to using too many retaining walls. The tunnel does a good job of breaking up the left end return curve, so a road bridge won't bring much more to the party. I think this would be a shame. The river cutting diagonally across the layout is an interesting feature; lots more mountains would, IMO, be kind of boring. I don't think this will do much except make the inlet too deep. I disagree. As long as the track is kept at the original angle, there's plenty of room for a feature like this. I don't follow with the "three Kato #4 turnouts" bit. You already have a perfect interchange track--the one at the lower right. If you want a team track, you can use the one that kicks back from the yard to the center right. I think this will have the effect of making the hill look much smaller, and given its already small size, the grade on the road will be unrealistic. Keep the road at the base of the hill, so the hill can be dominated by dramatic scenery. You can then use forced perspective to give the hill more mass by using progressively smaller trees/growth toward the top.
Hmm.. you make very solid points. Note: I prepared for the potential benchwork modification and reclamation work last night. You can see this in the photo below. The River & road on the hill - This may take a lot of imagination but: I was contemplating making the road bend around a hill, so it would sweep down, rather than descend straight down in a short distance. This would extend the length of the road and make it less steep of a grade. I then considered making the river a tad smaller (more of a big creek), and kind of follow the road down -as roads often do follow creeks/rivers in real life. The road would descend down and then underpass the RR tracks on the lower left of the layout -before that, the river would jog off and feed into the bay. This would mean, however, that the railroad tunnel would have been burrowed under a hill with a creek, and I don't know how believable that is. I may just end up sticking with my original plan/your plan. Adding another 2" layer - making the inlet too deep was my biggest concern with adding the second layer. I think this idea will be scrapped. Extending the shore line - See the picture below. There is max 6-7" between the track and edge of the layout. Do you think this is enough space? The Kato turnouts/Interchange - three Kato #4 turnouts cannot be connected like that (in the original plan) because of the Unitrack road bed. Perhaps they can be modified (like S60L/S60R pieces), but I'm not sure what effect it would have on the internal mechanism. But it's erroneous, as you said, because I have the interchange at the lower right.
That's more or less how I thought you'd run it. But once again, I think running the road up that hill will only dwarf it. I do not think you have the real estate to pull this off. Not very, I'm afraid. Just remember, scenery like track plans enjoy the benefits of the KISS principle.
I hear ya. And I appreciate you bringing me back to reality. What I picture in my head (with the road sweeping down, to the under pass, with the big creek next to it) is gorgeous. However, I understand that getting it translate with the physical layout, wouldn't be so feasible. - - - I'm Having a hard time visualizing the finished inlet, namely: - The depth of the water (most water layout's features aren't very deep) - The elevation of top-of-water (and its relation to the top-of-foam which is my at grade' elevation) - The slope down or cliffs enveloping the inlet (likely some rocky cliffs and ??) - The shorelines and how the the pier/wharf structures will sit in the water (likely half on land) - The way the river will feed into the inlet. Right now, it's set up for a river that would waterfall into the inlet, rather than the upstream portion being navigable by boat. Perhaps it'd be best if I further modify the benchwork to make the river level with the inlet? - Again, whether or not to do the extended shoreline at the front of the layout? And if I have enough space? - Note: I am willing to raise (or lower) the wood portion that is currently dropped down for the inlet feature Any pictures or suggestions you have would be greatly appreciated. The truss bridge crossing & river/inlet water feature are the centerpiece. This area will either "make or break" the layout. Naturally, I want it to make the layout. Being a newbie, I realize this won't be easy. But I do believe I'm capable of making it turn out well. It is [obviously] going to take careful planning. However, I am absolutely up for the challenge! I found this picture some time ago, after I designed the inlet/river. But it coincidentally resembles a quite similar water feature/bridge crossing.
http://books.google.nl/books?id=F9C...age&q=carolina central model railroad&f=false the pics on this link might help you. (you'll have to scroll UP) The river on this version by Marty mc Quirck was in my mind when I drew the river scene. The plan I designed for you only had a road from the port to the upper right-hand corner. BTW the port doesn't have to be along the Pacific, it could well be along a lake or just at the start of a navigatable river. Paul
Right, I had actually planned for either navigable river (similar to the Port of Sacramento), or possibly a small coastal town. But I'm leaning more towards freshwater. That link does seem helpful. I need to figure out how to make the slope into the inlet work. Right now it almost seems that my water level would be too deep for a shoreline other than a cliff. Although, it did help me visualize a more gradual slope when I removed the foam for my revision of the river/shorelines.
A quick note: I did come to a solution last night for the inlet design. 1.) Remove the current dropped area of benchwork (the area for inlet "floor" with foam mounted on it). 2.) Extend the cutout area for the inlet the length of the river to left edge of the layout. 3.) Extend the cutout area for the "beach line" to the front right of the inlet. Allowing wharf area to be on "outside" of bridge. 4.) Replace current 2x4" that has cutout with a solid 2x4" running the length of the front of the layout 5.) For the "floor" of the inlet/river. I will attach plywood directly to the bottom of the cutout inlet/river area. This will make the "shoreline walls" only as deep as the thickness of the current plywood base layer (~3/4"). It will also make the entire inlet/river have a wood floor & walls, rather than foam. Which should be better for pouring Magic Water or whatever resin I end up using. Here's a quick drawing I did and scanned so you can (maybe) see what I mean:
I think you're headed in the right direction. The only revision I would make is to set the plywood surface as the water surface, and not use a poured medium. It will require a number of large pours, even with your shallower arrangement, and it's possible to create very satisfactory water by painting a smooth surface and applying a gloss medium. This will be faster, easier and much more economical. One other factor to consider... if you intend to model a navigable river, then one or both railroad bridges need to be movable (lift/roll/swing). So, you will either need to investigate those bridges, or drop the navigable river idea, and restrict the waterfront area to the foreground. Oh, and just a random note, a 2 x 4 is waaaaaay overkill; a 1 x 4 is more than adequate to support what you are building.
