better or worse...moved then container yard to an outgrowth of the bottom lobe
Attachments
Files (1)
Well, this plan doesn't address any of the three issues I raised about the prior one. You still have an access issue in back left corner. All I see is one additional switching area or feeder yard.
Regarding retaining walls, some are fine. You can have top much of a good thing, though. I recall visiting a beautifully constructed layout that was a two-lobe dog bone wrapped around three sides of a large room. One lobe had three nested loops at three levels, all visible. Two continuous retaining walls around their whole length was the only possible scenic treatment. IMO it detracted from the appearance of a layout that had some amazing modeling. These lobes are major pieces of real estate, and they occupy prominent places in the room. You will be wise to think through their scenic treatment while you're working with electrons instead of wood and track.
The back sidings will be removed and the aisleway extended -it was left there for comparison purposes one or the other will go
the center lobe will be completely big city downtown - although I am considering the bottom lobe as the downtown 1
Okay, I don't think i was giving the necessary real estate to the container yard. Will use the bottom right lobe as a port and container yard...the blue is the canel/river coming to the port. To your point on scenery in the lobes...this will be a port and very industrial area. Maybe even have a back drop behind the river that effectively hides the loop in the back. With is - freed up aisle way in the back left corner good access now. only back right is lacking access but tightened that up some.
Middlelobe with will be big city downtown
bottom lobe will be country setting ....have menards lumber yard...and several lumber cars little lumber yard in that area and country living.
double switch has been removed.
Attachments
Files (1)
Progress.
You have a scenic concept for each of the three lobes, but still need to think through the scenic treatment of different levels of track in the same area with limited horizontal separation.
You still have many access issues to address. As a general rule, a reach of 2' or less allows easy, pleasurable maintenance. Between 2' and 3' is okay to rerail a car, but a pain to figure out why things are derailing at a switch, or a switch isn't throwing all the way. Beyond 3' requires a chair, bench, or top creeper for any work at all. The left wall between the two lobes is 5' deep and solid track. The crossover at rear center is 3' away. There are opportunities for access in both rear corners. An access hatch could be placed in the lower lobe at left and the right hand lobe. If the straight tracks in the middle lobe were shifted, you could place an access hatch there as well. The rear wye switch is not easy to get to, nor are the switches that create that small yard at front left. One idea would be to remove the wye, and shift the yard a bit to the front. Removing the wye would help you maintain yard track length you would otherwise lose by shifting the switches for better access.
If you are going to rely on a top creeper, you need to make sure one will fit between the two lobes at left.
I personally went for track at any price, relying on stools, chairs, and a top creeper for access. I just replaced a curve with track of a broader radius, laying on the top creeper for the whole job. It's not really much fun. Eventually, I probably will not be physically able to do it. With the space you have, you can have good access without sacrificing other things. I suspect you would be glad you made that choice in the long run.
I have followed along. I do want to reiterate what Ken mentioned about access. I built my layout thinking about access as I got older. I was just over 60 when I started building. My layout is still pretty good for me now, but I have a couple long reaches of 30” and now at 68, they are difficult. I don’t know your age, but I didn’t expect to go downhill as fast as I have. 😄
I agree, access is problematic for me now....i have spaces i once could reach i can no longer because I have added on.
Each of the lobes are easy i can have access hatch there with proper planning. I didn't really like the Y in bottom left.....I think that is getting cut anyway. that leaves the back right and the middle left. All of the red track middle left will be accessible ....the gold will be in a tunnel will need to access from below....that leaves blue middle left...no switch, straight track.....should be Okay-.I know famous last words... I will look at that some more though...
back right I see as the most problematic.
@Ken Wing posted:Progress.
You have a scenic concept for each of the three lobes, but still need to think through the scenic treatment of different levels of track in the same area with limited horizontal separation.
Not sure what do do about that....along the back and right the only option would be a retaining wall - at least on the back...on the right side I might have room for sloping land coming down at some spots - bridge over the river
The middle lobe will have downtown city buildings at the same level as the blue track...light blue on inside coming up and gold on the outside with retaining wall.
which leaves the bottom lobe.....will kinda have bowl affect with perimeter at second level with everything else inside the "bowl" not sure if that is a problem or not....effectively looking over the higher main line into what is in the center.
this made me consider taking out the blue line from the bottom lobe - just running right lobe to center lobe. I just hate giving up that extra long run going through all lobes provides...
Okay, I am just rambling now.
It's called thinking out loud.
Ken is right. The ability to just throw out thoughts for others to consider is one of the benefits of this forum.
Okay some big changes here I will list...
1. took out blue main line out bottom lobe - now have access up and down in aqua in bottom lobe....have ability to stay up on blue or go down on aqua and go to passenger station and then go back up. This eliminates at the need for using the gold for reversal. So kinda gave it up but not use the bottom lobe to get down go through the pass. yard and get back up in middle lobe
2. freed up space in bottom lobe...gold switch for loop is in upper left now bigger loop.
3. top right has access - added two through tracks under blue which will be extra storage...can queue up trains ready to go in back
4. two attachments...one take the decline over the passenger yard....the other wraps the passenger yard on top of middle bottom lobe....take the grade on bottom side...not sure which way to go.
5. still need work on passenger yard and engines yard.
thoughts?
Attachments
Files (2)
Personally, I'm not excited by either of these options. if I understand what I am looking at, blue line trains either take the elevated blue loop in the middle lobe bypassing the station, or descend aqua on the lower lobe to enter station; then climb aqua to return to blue. In both, the station becomes one-way. In addition, the stub tracks are "backwards" for this direction. Of the two, I prefer revision f as revision g has shorter yard tracks, no straight track to perform coupling/uncoupling, and uses curved turnouts to do so. Revision f has straight track at both the front and rear ends of trains, which is where switching is done.
I also feel the gold line has gotten worse. I liked how it followed along the edge of the lobes and had a long run. The run here is shorter overall, and the two routes to the bottom lobe are very different lengths. Why would a real railroad build a line around the middle lobe when they have that shortcut across it near the left wall?
In both these designs, the gold line has become separate from blue/red. There is no longer any reason to put the red at a lower level than the blue. Personally, I would not want separate passenger-only and freight-only mainlines at different levels, but suit yourself. Real railroads did it in specific situations--think PRR's High Line in Philly for freight bypassing 30th St station, or B&O's Magnolia Cutoff built 70 years after the original main line that followed the Potomac.
I don't feel I have good advice on where to go from here. Personally, I think I would put this physical shape of the layout aside for now, and go back to my original list of what I wanted to incorporate in my layout, and generate some alternative approaches--not in detail, just feasibility.
@Ken Wing posted:Personally, I'm not excited by either of these options. if I understand what I am looking at, blue line trains either take the elevated blue loop in the middle lobe bypassing the station, or descend aqua on the lower lobe to enter station; then climb aqua to return to blue. In both, the station becomes one-way. In addition, the stub tracks are "backwards" for this direction. Of the two, I prefer revision f as revision g has shorter yard tracks, no straight track to perform coupling/uncoupling, and uses curved turnouts to do so. Revision f has straight track at both the front and rear ends of trains, which is where switching is done.
I also feel the gold line has gotten worse. I liked how it followed along the edge of the lobes and had a long run. The run here is shorter overall, and the two routes to the bottom lobe are very different lengths. Why would a real railroad build a line around the middle lobe when they have that shortcut across it near the left wall?
In both these designs, the gold line has become separate from blue/red. There is no longer any reason to put the red at a lower level than the blue. Personally, I would not want separate passenger-only and freight-only mainlines at different levels, but suit yourself. Real railroads did it in specific situations--think PRR's High Line in Philly for freight bypassing 30th St station, or B&O's Magnolia Cutoff built 70 years after the original main line that followed the Potomac.
I don't feel I have good advice on where to go from here. Personally, I think I would put this physical shape of the layout aside for now, and go back to my original list of what I wanted to incorporate in my layout, and generate some alternative approaches--not in detail, just feasibility.
Wow I went from Progress to scrap it.....
Let me see if I can explain better....
the only thing that changes on the blue line is the bottom lobe is not elevated - nothing else directionally has changed. Now you have two ways in and out of the passenger yard. And yes I like version F better as well. You can go in out of the passenger yard either way and come back in either way.
I understand your point on the straight line...., I am sure there are several things on most of our railroads that are not exactly how the real RR would do it. That point doesn't bother me. It does take a switch out of the middle of the bottom lobe for the reverse loop and make it less obviously by moving it back. But I am not sold on it. Maybe could add a couple of sidings on the lobe route to give it purpose.
As far as separation, no different than before. not separating ....come out of the bottom lobe yard and can go to gold; with one crossover (TBD) on middle lobe can go out to gold from middle lobe.
agree passenger yard still needs some work but basic plan in place.
Maybe I'm missing something. In revision f, how does a passenger train enter the passenger station from the end that is in the middle lobe, without backing in?
