Thinking of scrapping my layout

[Glorious NSE]

Like the progress Gary.

 

I'd suggest when you lay out the bakery spurs not to have a kickback spur like the previous drawing, you can add as much complexity with a pretty simple 'inglenook' style layout by having crews deal with putting specific cars on specific spots.

[Gary H]

Thank you both, I agree.

Seems like we're singing from the same hymn sheet!

Il report on more progress hopefully tomorrow.

Started work on the new copper clad X-over that replaces the one under the underpass area earlier.

Fairly straight forward when I can use the old one as a pattern!

[Gary H]

With a few hours yesterday and a couple of hours today I managed to make a start on the new X-over to replace the old one and got the new abutments cut out of ply.

These will be covered in some Slaters embossed plasticard in due course.

 

The last time I built any switches and crossings must be 10 years or more ago and I'd forgotten what a PITA it is!!

 

The new X-over will be fitted in the background of here and will also be the site of the new highway overpass.

[class"66"]

Coming along realy well gary...

[Gary H]

Today I managed to make a start on the Walther's Cornerstone "Magic pan Bakery" kit.

 The main building of this industry is 'modular' in its design, so a decision has to be made in where you want the loading doors for trucks as well as rail cars.

I decided that the best way to approach it was to lay down some thick paper as a temporary base and lay out the walls and other bits and pieces to see what 'fits'.

After abit of 'deciding' and decision making I finally arrived at the following layout of it.

I hope I have it right because its now cemented together with butanone!

You can just make out the base for the elevator tower and its 4 corresponding silos to the right of the Alco switcher.

 

An overall view of the area-

 

One part of all this I'm not yet decided on is the second industry spur in the other corner.

Best plan at the moment is a lumber yard to serve centre beams-

That building was something that I put together a few years back (cant even remember the make of it) but it never got used, or indeed finished! Its a sort of wedge shape for a corner.

Not sure if its suitable for this area or not.

[shortliner]

Great West Models I think for the maker

[Gary H]

Great West Models I think for the maker

Aye, spot-on, Jack, thanks!

Now you mention it, it was indeed!

[ceejaydee]

Nothing like getting the track and buildings out and doing some planning to see what fits and works.

After the destruction it is good to see the new format taking shape.

[SwissRailPassion]

Is it possible to make a spur from the outer hidden track on the left side at say 7 o clock leading to the inner line on the left between the bridges? This would avoid the need for reversal and give more flexibility.

[Gary H]

Is it possible to make a spur from the outer hidden track on the left side at say 7 o clock leading to the inner line on the left between the bridges? This would avoid the need for reversal and give more flexibility.

 

As in the red below?

[SwissRailPassion]

The other way round. Reverse your red line to make a facing connection clockwise from inner hidden track through to the double line. Alternatively divert the oil terminal spur at the crossover through to the hidden line. Then take the oil terminal spur off that or the other track.

 

It means the layout can be worked both ways if required.

[Gary H]

The other way round. Reverse your red line to make a facing connection clockwise from inner hidden track through to the double line. Alternatively divert the oil terminal spur at the crossover through to the hidden line. Then take the oil terminal spur off that or the other track.

 

It means the layout can be worked both ways if required.

OK, you mean the blue line in the photo?

The picture was taken in the direction of the arrow.

The red line I have drawn in is the same as the red line on the plan.

It would be a huge amount of work to do either here though as the 2 back ground lines are at a differing elevation than the 2 in the foreground.

I would also have to totally rework that piece of removable scenery (provided to gain access to the hidden X-over)

Edited January 12, 2016 by Gary H

[sandwich station]

Well its finally come to that time, I've totally lost my mojo where my layout is concerned and Ive a good mind to start again.

Good to see you got your mojo back Gary. Layout is to good to just completely destroy.

[SwissRailPassion]

The levels are a problem. Can you work up a new connection from the innermost of the outer pair earlier in the loop and run it under the scenery to emerge at the same point?

[Gary H]

The levels are a problem. Can you work up a new connection from the innermost of the outer pair earlier in the loop and run it under the scenery to emerge at the same point?

So ive now turned around from the last picture, thus-

[Gary H]

Hmm. Thanks for the like Skipepsi, I suppose it would add another dimension to operational interest.

But my oh my, that's a lot of work to make it happen!!  

Good to see you got your mojo back Gary. Layout is to good to just completely destroy.

Thanks! Its been a long time coming I can tell you, 18 months or more!

[skipepsi]

It might be a lot of work but if it makes the layout enjoyable for the next 5 years then you are on a winner, what you had looked good to me but wasn't pleasing you. With the other changes you have made I am sure it will soon be the layout you really wanted.        Mick 

[Gary H]

Well after having a look at this proposed connection earlier today, it wouldn't be to difficult to incorporate into the existing track, infact, fitting the track would be the easy bit!!

 

The stumbling block will be what to do with the scenic aspect of it.

The hole in the hill side there is actually a removable section I made to be able to gain access to that cross over you see in the back ground.

The available headroom under the scenery is low-ish where the cross over is-  just about a double stack container car in height with 2 containers.

I would need some way of making the new connection emerge convincingly from the hill side.

A single tunnel mouth just covering the connection is not do-able as the angle is to small and clearance is not enough from the main line.

 

The only thing I can think of doing at the moment is to put the whole area in a tunnel-

like so -

2 problems with that approach though, more hidden track and I would lose access to two cross overs!

Il have to have a think about that one.

 

Anyway, in other news, the new copperclad crossover on the opposite side was finished over the weekend, I also incorporated a new turnout

to make the third yard track into an open ended loop.

Checked for fit-

Before painting, cutting it in and wiring up.

Just how tricky is it to poke throw wires already cut to length through the throw bar holes!

I got there in the end, ran a train and everything is perfect.(thank god).

 

 

Edited January 13, 2016 by Gary H

[Gary H]

Taking the tunnel thing further, this would be the ideal scenario.

Not sure it'll work though as the angles are so shallow.

[long island jack]

what about this, may help with the tunnel mouth

Edited January 13, 2016 by long island jack

[SwissRailPassion]

I see the problem. Looking at the last photo, the girder bridges are eye catching and removing one would be a backward step. Would it be possible to push back the parapet to create more space and bring forward the parapet on the other side, basically move the bridge closer by two inches? This would give you more room between the bridge and the new tunnel mouth. Could the tunnel mouth be a shelter type concrete skew to mask the awkward angle?

The innermost line could have the switch just before the bridge reverting to parallel tracks under the bridge.

If you reversed your crossover your sidings would then have departure and arrival lines. Arriving stock could be kicked back to the industries.

It would give you another way of running the layout if you wanted it and add more variety and interest.

Edited January 13, 2016 by SwissRailPassion

[Glorious NSE]

Something like this - though it probably makes the removable portion harder to handle?

Not sure you have enough yard to have dedicated A/D tracks - ref the crossover going the wrong way I'd suggest running it for a bit before changing it, if it went the other way then some switch moves would have to use the main line for example, whereas the line to the industries can currently double as a yard lead, so you do have a downside to changing that - I'd have a play with the new layout and see whether that crossover makes for an interesting wrinkle or makes itself a pain in the neck before you change it.

 

Plenty of places in the real world are sub-optimal in track arrangement, it costs a lot to change track layouts on the real thing, and in somewhere that's a minor industrial support kind of location served once a day I'd suggest that the bigger driver is lowering your infrastructure costs (how do I work this with the fewest points) rather than achieving the maximum flexibility and ease of use.

[Gary H]

Like this guys?

It would also mean 1 less set of points which is a bonus! Plus more room for a tunnel mouth at a better angle.

edited to say the number of points will be the same because Ive gained a set for the oil spur.

Oh well, never mind.

My head hurts!

Edited January 14, 2016 by Gary H

[long island jack]

Think I agree with Martyn about the cross over, keep as is, your going to foul the main when releasing a pair of engines (especial if there sd70's) use the spur as yard lead, but then again it's your empire, rule 1 applies.

 

Ray

[Gary H]

Think I agree with Martyn about the cross over, keep as is, your going to foul the main when releasing a pair of engines (especial if there sd70's) use the spur as yard lead, but then again it's your empire, rule 1 applies.

 

Ray

To be honest, I think your right, Ray.

Il have a look at this version for the time being-