These designs beg the question: are you after any semblance of realism, or just a place to store/display rolling stock? It's not representative of anything I've ever seen in real life.
Not DCC? I'm afraid you and 5 good friends working every weekend could not finish this layout in 20 years as a DC layout. The wiring alone will run in the thousands of dollars. If you are going to go with this layout go DCC, you cannot afford not to. As for the layout itself way too much with the isle space allotted. I build layouts and this is going to be nearly impossible to build and a running and operating nightmare. Will there be scenery? The unfinished layouts in a "lifetime" on this board mostly started with dreams like yours. My best advice is to scale all this down to two levels and good luck to you. Jim
It's difficult to summarize just a few concerns, since I personally see the whole layout as needing a clean slate treatment. Be that as it may, here are my top three: Yea, I know asking what I said was easier than what you would want to say but wanted to right now focus on what you feel is the worst of the worst. 1. Simply way, way too much track, all poured into a bowl like spaghetti. In addition to posing a major construction headache, I see it creating serious access problems, especially with all of the various tunnels; simple routine maintenance, such as track cleaning, will suffer. I know my concept is "Track Heavy" but I'm more into watching the consists run the gauntlet than I am in operations. I believe I have the needed access to the Tunnels as that has been brought up with all the previous versions and I have worked to improve access each time. Still, I appreciate that concern and will review my access. 2. In addition to the dozens of tunnels, there are hidden switches, which are highly undesirable, and a fair amount of track that will be very difficult to reach, either being far from the edge of the benchwork or hidden among buildings. Hidden Switches - Now there is a great catch that I will look to definitely resolve! Deck #0 - Not that worried there as I kind of tossed allot of that together just to see how much siding I might be able to get and that middle area I know is a mess and am looking at an alternative. Deck #1 - There is actually only one (1) Hidden Switch but will look to see how I can move it to resolve that issue. Deck #2 - There are two (2) at this level with one being a true Hidden Switch issue so I will look to resolve that one and maybe the other but it's not as hidden as it might appear. Also, just to make sure there isn't confusion in the City District, the "ORANGE" track is just me using it to simulate street roads, that is not track. There is also two interior "Lift Outs" from the below Hidden Access to reach the interior most track. I'm also 6'5" so my reach is longer than most folks too... 3. The narrow aisles, while you may not see as a problem, will rear their ugly head as you attempt to work on three different levels from one cramped space. Just to help with scale (not saying good or bad) the Upper Isle is 30.5" wide, the Side Isle is 27.5" wide, the Lower Isle is 30.0" wide, and the Hidden Access Isle is 30.5" wide by 83" long. The Helix access is oval by nature that is approx 30" by 36" wide. Beyond these specific technical issues, the endlessly winding, overly-tight curves will not only create potential operational difficulties, they don't look at all realistic, and especially will make long passenger trains appear toy-like. Indeed, most of the plan bears a "Lionel" quality, where the (very few) straight tracks run mostly parallel to the edges of the layout. This is an altogether-too-common design mistake that compromises appearance yet is easily rectified. And I haven't even looked at the plan from the standpoint of grades; my gut says you'll have some big problems with these, given the many points at which the tracks cross. Good concern about Grades and Clearances - The layout is all below 2.0% grades with all track crossing having a track to track clearance or at least 2". Trust me, my earlier attempts at this had all sorts of issues in this area and I have been very diligent in maintaining the 2% / 2" throughout the later designs. The scenario you describe of sitting at the computer desk and seeing a train roll by on occasion can be recreated with probably one-third of the track you have. Unless your trains are running close to warp speed, you won't see them as often as you may like considering the mileage they must cover. Designing a plan with lots of track for the sake of having lots of track does not lend itself to a good-looking, reliable-running layout. I would also be quite concerned that a three-deck layout with this much track is biting off more than one can chew. I'm not looking to be concerned with scale "Track Speed" but not do I plan to run things at notch 10 either. I'm not looking to have them pass by every few minutes. See, I often work from home and I might be at that desk for 8-12 hours a day so having a 1 or 2 trains pass by now and then would be a nice distraction. Also, I face the doorway so I would see them also running within the room as well. I accept that this is a fantasy layout (given the impossible juxtaposition of the Delaware & Hudson with a setting in the Rockies), but that doesn't mean it has to look like a roller-coaster ride. Unless, of course, that's your vision... Yea, I can explain the D&H Roster and the Rocky Mountain Location sometime over a Cold One; just don't want to sidetrack the topic once again with that as it was in past topics on various forums. These designs beg the question: are you after any semblance of realism, or just a place to store/display rolling stock? It's not representative of anything I've ever seen in real life. There actually is "some" semblance of realism in this design but not intended to represent any one place. It does however represent many of the challenges that Narrow Gauge and early Standard Gauge dealt with in the heart of the Rockies from Canada to Mexico. Tunnels that make over 180 degree curves with grade just to come out above the track heading in the opposite direction to fight up a deep canyon. Tons of tunnels over short distances crossing over rivers and darting back into another tunnel. Tracks running dangerously close to rivers and on the face of a cliff wall. Tracks that run in a loop and cross over itself via a high trestle just to gain elevation at a reasonable grade. There is also a hints of other layouts from MRR that I have found that have inspired the Mountain District design to get as long of a Main Line in a small space by going Vertical via a Multi-Deck layout design. And with this big spaghetti bowl of track & the wiring it will entail, why not DCC? Right now my roster is 100% DC based and I want a layout that will support it without taking the time/effort to convert the roster. With that said, I still keep DCC in my head as a possible conversion by the time I get to construction that is still months if not a year+ away... Please keep the feedback coming - This is EXACTLY what I'm looking to get from this topic!!!
I appreciate the input Jim so I will truly consider the DCC vs. DC once I finish the track design. This is Version #5 for a reason as I have been taking in advise from all sorts of places and have made adjusts each and every time. Deck #1 (aka Mountain District) is where the major scenery will come in as, Rivers, Waterfalls, Mountain Sides / Cliffs... This is mostly a two level design, Deck #0 is just me adding in a Staging area as well as a place to complete the continuous loop; I hate Point-to-Point layouts... I can easily eliminate Deck #0 and have the Helix join Deck #2 and Deck #1 in a loop...
Better thinking here now. No one is piling on. I know most of the commenters here. We all want you to be as successful as we have been. Many of us have learned hard lessons that don't want you to have to indure. Jim
Thanks Jim! No issue with anything folks have given as feedback; I started this topic to get this exact input and very glad to receive it...
I was referring specifically to the yard/engine facility, for what it's worth. The rest of the layout just suffers from the Lionel-style spaghetti-bowl syndrome, which is more easily addressed.
Actually Yes, the Old AT&SF (now BNSF) and the Old D&RGW (now UP) still had their old TT in use to switch modern Diesels into the Engine Houses and what remains of the Roundhouse - -
I am not disputing what's done or not done, but the arrangement of track and features. It's completely unrealistic. Or is realism not a factor? It's OK if it's not, but to be honest, I'm not of much help with purely fanciful stuff; even if I design something that is technically off base, I try to remain grounded in some basis of visual reality.
As a purely academic exercise, to demonstrate what I'm talking about with regards to a much more realistic approach to layout design, here is what I would do given the space and the overall framework of the desired scenes and style of operation. This is the upper level of a two-deck plan. First, I relocated the helix to the peninsula at lower left. This does away with the visually uninteresting helix stack right in front of your desk. The most interesting aspects of the yard are placed right over your desk so that you can enjoy seeing all of your locomotives in one place. Then, I've simplified the plan, and arranged the interconnections with a two-track helix such that you have your choice of four trains on four independent continuous loops (the other two being on the lower level), or one very long continuous loop utilizing the helix. The helix (which is not shown in its entirety) would be accessed via the opening to the left of the union station; the passing sidings at the union station can be used to stage passenger consists, and could conceivably be expanded with two more tracks. The lower deck would feature all of the dramatic scenery, plus a small freight yard and some staging, and would terminate at a loop directly under the one that wraps around the roundhouse on the upper deck; it would not extend any further to the right, as I can't imagine having two decks over the desk--it would seem to be altogether too crowded vertically. Thus, you get to enjoy a visually interesting scene directly in front of your desk instead of the helix enclosure, which is instead surrounded on two-thirds of its circumference with visible track and scenery on the lower deck. I've not drawn the lower deck plan simply because I'm out of time; I've spent way too much time as it is on the upper deck plan, which I'm convinced was an entirely fruitless exercise anyway. Call me a glutton for punishment. Incidentally, the minimum radius on all visible trackage is 20" (the hidden helix minimum radius would be 17"), and all aisles are 36" wide. All switches are visible and within a 24" reach.
Just to be clear, since there is some ambiguity in my early-morning post, I meant to say, "I am not disputing what's done or not done [in real life], but [your] arrangement of track and features [is] completely unrealistic."
DKS, very nice. Interesting to see what you can do with a larger-than-hollow-core-door layout. Definitely has an eastern-road "feel" about it with the double crossover at Union Station and other features I won't list. I also like the larger radii, with some being extra large, which I'm a big fan of. The relocation of the helix and the philosophy of a single level over the desk is spot-on. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is waiting to see the lower level... Cheerio! Bob Gilmore
Thanks, Robert. Actually, I'm no stranger to larger layouts; I've designed several double- and triple-deck garage-sized (and larger) plans. They don't get seen because they're not shared online; it's mostly the HCDs that get any "airtime." And, to be clear, this one is really a glorified roundy-round, lacking more typical (and more prototypical) ops features. All in the name of giving the customer what they want--well, sort of. This is as far as I've gotten with the lower level; I'm not likely to finish it for a day or two yet--
The plan is drawn using a variety of Atlas Code 55 switches, although others can be used, including Pecos.
David, Would it be a better decision to eliminate that slight S Curve the mainline in the back takes between rooms on the upper section between the rooms and extend that Coach yard another (hidden) foot or so instead? Or was it designed like that intentionally? Alex
It was intentional, as the mainline is diverted around what appears to be a wall stud in the original plans there. Depending on the true geometry of the space, things could conceivably be altered.
