Welcome to the forum   
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

5 Pages«<345
Share
Options
View
Go to last post in this topic Go to first unread post in this topic
Offline Alsterstreek  
#201 Posted : 24 May 2020 21:01:38(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,195
Location: Southwesternmost
Kind of like that?
C0A9EBD0-9DA9-4B1C-807E-245161B15778.jpeg
Good idea.
thanks 5 users liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
Offline Alsterstreek  
#202 Posted : 26 September 2020 19:17:09(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,195
Location: Southwesternmost
Normally I am not a fan of ovals. However, the compact Canyon City RR track plan by the late George Bastert caught my attention, because offers many features of general interest (at least for me). In my C track translation it measures 110 x 190 cm.
Canyon2020City1.png
The single level construction is rather simple. Having all turnouts accessible from the front, the layout can be "surrounded" by three walls. Train meets are possible, the highway overpass allows to hide an entire train, thus making a train run seem to be long(er). There are both siding capacity and switching potential. Stub tracks disappearing "in the distance" under the overpass plus the placement of mirrors add scenic depth and simulate a connection to a greater world.
CC2020list.png
thanks 5 users liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
Offline hvc  
#203 Posted : 27 September 2020 15:17:16(UTC)
hvc

Australia   
Joined: 03/06/2013(UTC)
Posts: 341
Location: Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post

Canyon2020City1.png

I especially love this...
Screen Shot 2020-09-27 at 11.12.47 PM.png

where you've managed to keep standard R1/R2 spacing and alignment at each end of the "parallel" curve with assorted switches, weird and wonderful track assortment and also easements! Very neat.

- Herman
- Herman
thanks 3 users liked this useful post by hvc
Offline Alsterstreek  
#204 Posted : 06 February 2021 01:05:09(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,195
Location: Southwesternmost
I like the versatile routing potential of plan no. 66 in 101 Track Plans by Model Railroader Books. The original plan proposes a river maze and hills in the middle. The stub terminal could have any size, and it could bend around the upper curve or go straight on a shelf. The corpus measures 250 x 140 cm.
ESGE1.pngESGE1-3D.png
thanks 4 users liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
Offline rbw993  
#205 Posted : 06 February 2021 14:19:15(UTC)
rbw993

United States   
Joined: 19/08/2008(UTC)
Posts: 835
Ah yes Ak, the old Eureka, Shasta & Great Eastern Railway. Nice out and back plan with the option for continuous running. I like 82 and 84.

Cheers
Roger
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by rbw993
Offline Alsterstreek  
#206 Posted : 06 February 2021 14:41:02(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,195
Location: Southwesternmost
Curved turnouts allow for condensing to +200 cm x +120 cm , while keeping easements and extend ramp as well as return loop lengths. Ruling grade is 3% now.
ESGE2.pngESGE2b.png
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
Offline Alsterstreek  
#207 Posted : 06 February 2021 14:46:33(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,195
Location: Southwesternmost
Originally Posted by: rbw993 Go to Quoted Post
Ah yes Ak, the old Eureka, Shasta & Great Eastern Railway. Nice out and back plan with the option for continuous running.
Well, your recent Granite Gorge & Northern interpretation in C major, I mean C track, encouraged me to follow your path.


Originally Posted by: rbw993 Go to Quoted Post
I like 82 and 84.
Yes, so do I, but one needs rather a garage space for those.

:0/

thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
Offline rbw993  
#208 Posted : 06 February 2021 19:11:45(UTC)
rbw993

United States   
Joined: 19/08/2008(UTC)
Posts: 835
In New England garage spaces aren't so great at -5C and below. Fortunately basements are common.

I also like the 6th plan in the Atlas book. I am thinking of doing a C interpretation of that. I won't build it as I've got Immensee to finish. I've drawn track plans since I was a kid, especially when I was bored in school. Drawing nice smooth intertwined lines was soothing.
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by rbw993
Offline Alsterstreek  
#209 Posted : 06 February 2021 21:25:07(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,195
Location: Southwesternmost
Soothing it is, kind of like solving crosswords puzzles. About plan 82: I am intrigued by the space and face saving solution to have the return loop "under-pass" the stub terminal and serve the freight yard. As usual in the book, ramps are audacious, but that can be overcome.
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
Offline rbw993  
#210 Posted : 06 February 2021 22:45:55(UTC)
rbw993

United States   
Joined: 19/08/2008(UTC)
Posts: 835
The grades are definitely steep on the branch and from Chelsea to Woodville Tower but I don't think that long trains were typical on home layouts back in '56 when this was first published. Good reason to run a helper up to Albion. Though I assume the traffic would be empties up and loads down.
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by rbw993
Offline Alsterstreek  
#211 Posted : 07 February 2021 13:53:56(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,195
Location: Southwesternmost
Plan 82 inspired poor man´s Toledo module on 1 x 2 m, gradient 5% down and 3.5% up
Toledo1b.pngToledo1.pngToledo1a.png

Edit - reminds me of Bilbao´s Abando train station - see attached aerial photograph.
2017 01 ETS bilbao Abando_V08-REFUNDIDO.pdf (4,987kb) downloaded 18 time(s).
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
Offline rbw993  
#212 Posted : 07 February 2021 14:34:35(UTC)
rbw993

United States   
Joined: 19/08/2008(UTC)
Posts: 835
They want to ruin it. There'll be no more train watching!!!
Offline Alsterstreek  
#213 Posted : 26 May 2021 12:11:51(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,195
Location: Southwesternmost
I posted this in another thread, but for the sake of completeness I think it should be cross-referenced here.
Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post
When I returned to the hobby, I was attracted by port scenes, like the track plan "Am Hafen" on page 54 in "Das Gleisplanbuch - Das C-Gleis" by Maerklin. Inspired by the latter, a 4x8 ft layout could look like this:
hzs-art.png
Construction is rather easy. The absence of tunnels, diagonal orientation, double-track double-train operations and the long bridges add visual interest.
hzs3d.png
Uphill grades are 5% when climbing on the outer tracks, i.e. operating in German right-hand mode, but no problem for the rather short trains to run on such a layout.

thanks 2 users liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
Offline Alsterstreek  
#214 Posted : 28 May 2021 22:45:12(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,195
Location: Southwesternmost
Same, same.
Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post
Or something completely different for 4x8 ft. A rough sketch without such luxuries as easements at the beginning of curves. Two separate levels which can be operated independently.
sa2021ma-3d.png
Both levels are connected via wyes and a bridge. Like that trains can be turned in either direction.
sa2021ma art.png
both levels
sa2021ma-o-all.pngl
upper level
sa2021ma-o.png
lower level
sa2021ma-u.png

thanks 2 users liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
Offline Alsterstreek  
#215 Posted : 29 May 2021 17:20:55(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,195
Location: Southwesternmost
Further centralising filing.
Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: baggio Go to Quoted Post
One set up I am considering is the one below.

I realize that this set up is usually used for race cars... but I do like it.

Does anyone know how to do it with Marklin...]

For example on a 38" x 74" surface:
8b.png
Elevations expressed in cm:
8.png
The 24094 gaps do not matter in reality.

P.S.: For easing the task of climbing, trains should use the R2 curves for uphill trips. Thus, this draft is geared towards left-hand traffic operators (like in Italy). For others, the over- and underpass combination should be flipped to allow for a R2 uphill running under a right-hand regime.


thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
Offline Alsterstreek  
#216 Posted : 09 September 2021 11:17:07(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,195
Location: Southwesternmost
Another cross reference.
Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Go to Quoted Post
How about "piercing" one pretzel circle to connect the TT?
ocram2-183x122.png
Swinging on 183x122 cm.
Ocram1-202x116.png
Straight on 202x116 cm.

thanks 1 user liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
Offline Alsterstreek  
#217 Posted : 12 September 2021 00:32:46(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,195
Location: Southwesternmost
Up to now I was in the pursuit of:
(1) a pike offering a long main line run together with the capacity of storing and displaying most (if not all) of my rolling stock;
(2) lightweight modular pop-up methods for easy dis- and re-assembly.

I am pleased with the current twisted multi-level behemoth. However, I like puzzling, tinkering and fiddling around. So for a long time I was pondering over the ultimate ideal layout approach (for people like myself). I do not mean to implement this right now, maybe it will never materialize. However, I want to be prepared as moving houses (or rooms in houses) is a latent thread/threat in my life.

Drawing on my experience, I dare to say that on my layouts one does only focus on one scene at a time, the eyes travelling with a moving train. Thus, I believe that a simple sophisticated single level layout equipped with a central divider (at least 1 ft tall) suffices to fool oneself. I try to stay as close as possible to a 2 m length limit, as this a guarantee to fit into most spaces (a standard European single bed mattress measures 2x0.9 m). The concept:
2021dbl8scheme1.png
In an ideal situation access from three sides would be possible (top/left/bottom). As a compromise, full access from two sides (top/left) would work with the central divider mounted diagonally for maximum exposure of the yard ladders.

Passenger trains would be short, or divided into two segments when parked on the stub spurs. Freight trains: The reversing loops allows for multiple locos + 12 (or more) tin plate box cars + caboose. The sidings can hold at least 7 tin plate box cars (max. 9). Since the entire train would never be visible, size doesn’t matter, I expect.

Multi-tasking: The double track could function as - surprise - double track/lap siding/main line vs. switching lead.

Outdoor mock-up exercise - the dimensions are 122 x 222 cm.
image1.jpeg

The track plan - never mind the gaps.
PRETZEL2021basis-r1.png
The 241xx piece represents the customized C track segment presented here (post no. 288): https://www.marklin-user...d-innovations#post637494

Edited by user 12 September 2021 08:35:50(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 4 users liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
Offline Carim  
#218 Posted : 12 September 2021 12:28:38(UTC)
Carim

United Kingdom   
Joined: 15/09/2014(UTC)
Posts: 525
Location: London
I like this sort of layout - you can use the city side when you want to focus on operations and the other side when you just want to watch trains run by.

Perhaps just model the end of the platform as it disappears under the city and use the two sidings marked "passenger" as a post office track and a commissary. Then you can attach/detach postal vans & restaurant cars from the train in the station and run them to/from these sidings. Also lets you run longer passenger trains.

Additionally, if you were to build this sort of layout a bit higher off the ground than usual, it would make it harder to see the entire layout in one go and so makes the scenes more convincing.

Carim
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by Carim
Offline Alsterstreek  
#219 Posted : 12 September 2021 19:11:38(UTC)
Alsterstreek

Portugal   
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 5,195
Location: Southwesternmost
In that case the track plan could be condensed (to 115 x 200 cm) and simplified.

pretzel2021straight2pierced+.png

Crossover positions can be changed as one sees fit.
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
Users browsing this topic
OceanSpiders 2.0
5 Pages«<345
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

| Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2021, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.700 seconds.