A couple of months ago I posted a message in this newsgroup seeking input on an N-scale model railway layout plan. I'm once again seeking your input on a revised layout. One that has been designed utilizing feedback received from those who commented on my initial design - thank you. To view the plan, simply follow this link http://www3.sympatico.ca/rcblackwell/ , to my Home Page then select the Track Plan of your choice (Latest Large or Latest Small) from the left windowpane. For comparison purposes, my initial track plan and design criteria remains on the site. Your feedback can be given through this newsgroup or by utilizing the feedback button located on the left Window Pane. With Thanks Bob RD&AB Model RR Home Page [ 21 October 2001: Message edited by: original_black_bart ]</p>
Hi Paul, Your project seems to be well thought, with good variety on industries, and your trackplan is beautifully done (CADrail ?) I noticed You have provided a long yard lead, which is a good design idea. Just one remark: Don't you think that the Southwest industrial area is a bit constricted between the two industries ? If you plan to switch a few short cars here, it will be fine but otherwise... Nice work, marc
Do remember to provide a means of reaching any cars that may derail in the tunnel. If it "can" happen, it will eventually. I have had bugs get hit. Once a mouse derailed some cars while I was away, but found they had been there. A caboose un-coupled and coasted into a tunnel, and (unnoticed) was crashed and derailed a number of cars. Now, I make all tunnels, so I can reach from below, or lift a hinged mountain up to get them. (I have made 1/2 mountain, so only the front half is seen, but I can reach over to get any cars.) Just a thought.
Egg-celent bart - I remember the earlier plans. This is great. At the coal dock - are both cross-overs needed? I think one would do.
Gentlemen, Thanks for taking the time to provide feedback on my layout. Marc; As noted, the Southern Commercial area is a little constricted. However, given that two of the three buildings located in that area are for storage/terminal use, the volume of cars delivered to the area will be small. I've made a few minor changes since posting the design, adding a second siding next to the building located on the 45-degree angle. This gives additional space for shunting operation while lessening congestion in that area - the radius of the curve into that siding has been increased. Watash #982; Thanks for the tip on providing access to the tunnel. It's something I thought of earlier but had forgotten. Yankinoz; Your observations are appreciated. I've had lots of time to practice and I've learned a lot from people like you. The second, inner crossover was added as a precaution in the event the first one wasn't available. In order to drop cars at the siding adjacent to the rectangular building (located at x=7, y=2), the engine needs to be run around the cars prior to pushing them into the siding. This can be achieved within either of the sidings adjacent to the Coal Dock. I wanted the double crossover to ensure the function was always available. I'd hate to have to ask the engineer of the coal train to move the string of coal cars in the midst of an un-load operation in order to make the switch! Bob
one possible issue with the southwestern commercial district - the nearest run around is at the coal dock - so you might be shuffling those hoppers more then you thought
I like your layout, and would have no problems owning it for myself. You have more of a continuous run layout, than an operating layout. If this is your intention (you like to watch em run) then great. If you have intentions of buddies coming over to run with you, then your layout is slightly restricted that way, but it still isn't too bad. Again, this is a personal choice thing. You might try another plan of removing some of the track and instead incorporating industries. You may or may not find you like that. There are so many variables in people's minds when they design a layout. If yours is primarily be a diorama that runs, then this layout is headed in that direction. If your intention is too be kept busy, moving, removing, storing, and adding cars, then you might simplify the mainline and instead add more industry, or expand the ones you have by adding more sidings, so that you have very mini-yards at each, so that you are busier. This criticism is more like do you prefer red wine or white wine better; it is a personal preference, not right or wrong. I am just verbalizing that your plans reflect more a running layout. If this is your intent, then good job. My own preference is for more of an operational layout, with continuous running so I can watch them roll. This doesn't mean I am more right than you, or you more right than I, just my preference. I have seen layouts that are "too" operational in my opinion, not much scenic appeal to them. And I have seen incredible looking layouts that I would have found boring to operate (in actual fact you couldn't operate them with the little amount of track laid). But both layouts made the author of them very happy. The operational one has been feature in N scale and MR and famous in Vancouver, BC; but it definitely isn't my favourite. I prefer a balance, but leaning towards operations; again, not right or wrong, just what I like. I would suggest you cut out some of the longer sidings freeing up space and try and add more industry or expand what you have. For example, the shipping cargo area looks like it will be a visual highlight of your layout. Why not go nuts in more track there, and intermodal equipment, expand it into a major shipping area. While speaking of that, your track there is skimpy on a believe active shipping line. Try a larger yard there, with a small switching engine servicing it. If you copied the port areas of North America, you could have a large granary, next to it, again serviced by tracks. This is believeable because shipping services both heavily. On the other side, you could have a coal loading area, or chemical loading area (here in North Vancouver, we are famous for large piles of wood chips, and sulfur and coal). Your shipping area could be expanded. Another idea, instead of the ship in front, with other industries, why not put it at the back with the industries. This would make it easier for you to operate without leaning over anything and wrecking it. The back wall would have a backdrop of an ocean scene, with your ship there. Beside it would be other industries. Good luck, looks good.
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by rsn48: I like your layout, and would have no problems owning it for myself. You have more of a continuous run layout, than an operating layout. If this is your intention (you like to watch em run) then great. If you have intentions of buddies coming over to run with you, then your layout is slightly restricted that way, but it still isn't too bad. <Snip, Snip Snip... > Another idea, instead of the ship in front, with other industries, why not put it at the back with the industries. This would make it easier for you to operate without leaning over anything and wrecking it. The back wall would have a backdrop of an ocean scene, with your ship there. Beside it would be other industries.<hr></blockquote> Richard, As you point out, striking a balance between watching em' and running em' is hard to do. Given my interest in automated DCC operation through use of a PC, I'm leaning a little more toward the watching em' side. I figure much of my time will be consumed programming the PC to perform the functions I wish, not running the trains. Since posting the original design, I've tweaked a few sidings and adjusted the position of a few tracks. I'm also considering the addition of a small island, which would accommodate additional switching areas. I do like your idea about the coal docks and ocean, thus I will be pulling a design together to see how it looks. Thanks for your feedback
