Devon,
You do not have to remove batteries to charge them. Put a charging jack and a switch on the loco. Then get a long cord for the charger, and charge them on the track. (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)
I hear you about the batteries, but my budget is so thin I have to be fool proof! (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)
Yep I can do some foolish things… then there’s my luck… (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-yell.gif)
So either the wood pile pops off or the end of the canteen opens and a fresh battery carries on. 3 batteries for 2 locos, that should be doable.
I’d need a 200’ cord to string each time, I’ll pass.
John
Joe Zullo said:
Devon,
You do not have to remove batteries to charge them. Put a charging jack and a switch on the loco. Then get a long cord for the charger, and charge them on the track. (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)
So far the two locos that are already set up do have on board jacks and switches and so will the rest. This could allow for on track charging and was the original plan when I had the shed in play.
I had always expected to have power to the train shed, either 110v AC or 12v DC, and bought a charger that would do both. Now things have changed a bit in that I have no shed to house it in. And with the creation of the indoor I now have a need to charge indoor as well. Now I am not opposed to having two chargers. This leaves the issue of a shed.
I am liking the idea of some sort of removable cover over the yard. I can put the charger in a water tight box and run the cord t the locos. This seems to be the most viable option aside from taking them in at night.
Greg or anyone else,
I have decided to use #6 turnouts throughout. But I am wondering what # turnouts would be good for a yard and also track separation. Since yards are not high speed, nor are they really passing sidings can I get away with closer parallel tracks and smaller turnouts to maximize how big I can make my yard? Is a #4 turnout viable and 4" center to center separation?
Would something like this work?
The grey area would be an enclosed shed/yard. With either a really tall roof and removable sides or an and entirely lift off top, something along those lines. Each square is 6" so the shortest of sidings is about 30", the longest are about 50". That’s about what 12 cars. The big long siding I am thinking would be the staging area for guests or for me to load my locos onto. I am still thinking the locos go inside with me after a run. There just is not a heck of a bunch of space for a great storage yard. I would build under bench storage for more cars.
Oh and this is built with #4’s and 4" spacing roughly.
I’ve used Ariosto’s wide radius turnouts successfully in yards. Their frogs run less than #4. Greg and I argue about how much less. At last count, the difference was 0.13, if memory serves. Neither of us will budge. (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-cool.gif)
I think that means that a #4 will serve you well.
Steve Featherkile said: I’ve used Ariosto’s wide radius turnouts successfully in yards.
I also used Aristo’s … LGB has some which are close … But my main line are USA’s #6
Devon Sinsley said:
So I made some revisions. Basically I rearranged the elements I wanted and made a plan that requires a lot less crossing of the track.
There is now only the two walk through bridges and one pathway crossing that will require a set of steps to get over. i think I have a bit more area for sidings and scenery as well. I think over all this is a better plan. It does require one section to be at 2.1% but I think we can live with that. One cross over is 11" top of rail to top of rail the rest are more separated. I decided to add a water tank made from a 55 gallon plastic barrel that will catch rain water from my gutter and then if need be flow into an overflow pipe that is plumbed away from the layout. I will use that water for drip irrigation. I also was reminded by the wife that we need a shade tree to help shade the house from midday sun. So I made a place for that. Still a double reversing loop layout for continuous running. Still has the wye and yard.
It will take appox 45-6’ sections of track. lets hope I can get the track like I hope and can get started on it. All curves are 8’ or larger.
It is kind of a spaghetti fest which is something I am not real fond of but to get enough track to have enough elevation to do grade separated crossing it kinda has to happen. Oh and probably the best part is this is all at one level for most of the interior walking areas. There will be raised bed areas that will have steps for emergency access but only one place will someone be required to make there way up and over the track. Minimum height is 15" and max height is 30". The yard and wye are 28"
Looking at it some more one thing i wanted was a passing siding on the spaghetti noodle. I think that long curve by the tree would be a good place for one. This will allow trains to pass each other while traversing the noodle. Another good place for one would be the station. could serve both as a station siding or a passing siding
Im a little confused on this plan (shut up Rooster) Im not seeing a continuous loop on this plan? Seems like too much is going on with track (then yet I like simple lol) Will you have space to create view breaks and add plants? I liked the plan before this one. I like how it climbs and will have bridges and tunnels.
For access into the layout I found using natural flat stones to create areas where people can step without hurting anything.
I would think you wont need much storage since its a mining line. How many cars will you run at a time 4-6? On average that is about the longest train I run. I have all my stuff placed in rubber maid bins. Log cars in one small bin, passenger in another etc… So storage is easy, cars are protected and I can bring the bin outside when I want to run.
Looking forward to your progress.
Shawn,
Let me say this is busier than I like as well. When you say “before” I am not sure which before you mean since there have been so many . . .(http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif).
For this newest set of plans that are in this thread and not previous threads, the idea is a shift to operations. So one of the big space robbers is that wye and yard. The prototype I am trying to mimic, not represent fully, used three wyes in its operations to turn locomotives. So having a wye is fitting and adds a fair amount of operational interest. This layout will have three grade separated crossings (everywhere the track crosses is grade separated by at least 11") and in addition there will be other tunnels and bridges throughout. I might even attempt a grade separated double trestle where the creek is.
Now for the continuous run, it is not a loop I abandoned true loops long ago, is a run with a reversing loop at each end. If you start in the lower left there is the lower loop which will be 15" off the ground. It then travels on what I am referring to as the noodle which crosses the space at about the mid point and has a walkover path then continues right and forms the inner curve at the far right and then traverses left and then again crosses the center of the layout then heads right again to where it reaches the upper reversing loop which ranges from 28" high to a max height of 30". Then completing that loop it can wind back down again. That’s the continuous run. Flop switches will be use on the loops for automatic switching to allow continuous runs. For operation then the trains instead of coming back down the noodle can instead go into the wye and yard area for switching.
The noodle is not at all ideal. In fact the very first design in this thread required a person to cross the track way to much. This one is an attempt to eliminate as much of that as possible. I am down to three. The main reason for the noodle is to gain elevation at a reasonable rate and that takes track. In my space that track has to wind around. Again not ideal nor what I really want or like. But it is a trade off because I like vertical separation.
Speaking of vertical separation. You achieve vertical separation in a couple of ways. First physical vertical separation, and perceived vertical separation. I am not sure how it will all all transpire and I am sure much of it won’t be determinable until I actually stat landscaping but I hope to create view breaks that allow for distinctive “areas” that will have varying topography so that I appear to be climbing more than I really am. Its a small space, I have to be realistic in my hopes. I might employ some cast rocks and artificially built necessary to aid in this. Plantings are very secondary. This is a layout that will have plants and not a railroad in a garden. Plants will go where I can make them fit but there will be plenty of space for it.
Oh and as for rolling stock and storage. The theme of this road is a small mining line. So your right 5 or 6 cars at a time. But that doesn’t mean I wont own a lot of cars. I also will have the 1:29 modern stuff that wont match the theme but will be for playing with for operations; plus you have to have stuff all over the layout for appearance and switching and just collect stuff you don’t need. It all has to be stored somewhere. I am thinking when I reach 100 cars I can consider stopping. . .(http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)
Devon, how do you measure vertical separation? Is it railhead to railhead, or railhead to bottom of the bridge overhead? You say that you model in 1:20.3, so its going to make a difference. If its railhead to railhead, and you throw in a 2 1/2 inch bridge deck, you’re going to be knocking off some F scale stacks.
Here is a general idea of what is in my head landscaping wise. The new yard ideas will have to be incorporated but the main layout is the same.
The grey is the main walkway. It will likely be crushed gravel. The green will be more or less flat beds for scenes, distinctive areas, plants, etc. There will be stepping stones so a person can get into these areas if need be. The red will be where I hope to make visual breaks and try to create artificial vertical separation. I am thinking cast stone work and very rugged looking mountain scenery. Hope that helps with the visual picture. This part is all very fluid and will take shape after the track is in.
I am strongly considering some sort of remote switching and thinking air. If I can eliminate the need to climb onto the layout, especially for just roundy round running all the better. I will try and make sidings an industry happen so they are close to the path and wont require one to get on the layout to make it happen.
Steve Featherkile said:
Devon, how do you measure vertical separation? Is it railhead to railhead, or railhead to bottom of the bridge overhead? You say that you model in 1:20.3, so its going to make a difference. If its railhead to railhead, and you throw in a 2 1/2 inch bridge deck, you’re going to be knocking off some F scale stacks.
I am measuring vertical separation railhead to railhead. Two of the crossings are separated by over 12"and I think they are more like 13". I should have plenty of clearance for most all F stuff. My 2-6-0 sticks up 8 1/2" above the top of the rail at the stack. I am trying to keep 10" of actual clearance. If you can’t get it under a 10" clearance then you’ll have to leave it at home. Now there is one problematical spot. as it sits right now the lower right cross over as it sits now is 11" railhead to railhead. I don’t like that at all. To either lower the bottom track or raise the upper track I run into grade issues. As it stands the noodle (lower track) from the crossing up to the wye is 2.1% I can live with that but don’t want anymore than that. It has to stay put. The upper track from the turnout to the crossing is 1.8% on the short side and the curve is only .8%. I could increase the height here and make the short leg say 3% and only go one way around the loop making that the downhill leg.
The other option which I am considering is making this a tunnel so that I have no bridge deck. Use say a piece of 1/4" plate aluminum between ladder sections for track support then that way I only have to account for the rails, ties, and plate, which would be less than an inch and i should still get my 10" of clearance.
Rather then use crushed stone for a walkway, why not use steeping stones throughout? I think it will look more natural and fit into a mining theme better. This is what I did so people can walk through the layout. Whats nice ground cover can grow in the spaces creating a more natural look. I think the wye is a good idea and will be fun for operations. The reverse loops are no doubt the way to go. I am very happy that I put in reversing loops ion my layout.
Shawn,
I am not opposed to the stepping stones. However unlike your layout my entire layout will be raised a minimum of 12" so there will be a distinct walking area and a distinct layout area. But that doesn’t mean I can still do stones.
We really haven’t discussed this aspect of things but I have given much thought to it. The majority of the beds will be built up using black basalt rock because we have a ton of it everywhere. In areas that will require narrow walkways of getting very close to the layout and a more vertical wall will be needed I want to use composite decking stacked on edge to represent more or less cribbing. Then for the accent rocks throughout the layout I want the majority of it to be what is locally called Red Marble which is a red variation of magnesite.
The other thing I like is a clean look. This is going to be more like an indoor HO layout than a garden. Read into this I don’t want to pull weeds(http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif). So the walkway will be a distinct separate thing. I do plan to have stepping stones in the beds for access and I certainly could make the majority of the walkway a flag stone walk. But it will have gravel between so that can spray it with weed killer. But if I take that flagstone and then use the same stone in the beds it would blend in.
Is it done yet?..(http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)
Ken Brunt said:
Is it done yet?..(http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)
Yeah, Devon, stop yakkin’ and start surveyin’. (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-cool.gif)
Devon
I’m not seeing an article on the building of the (http://freightsheds.largescalecentral.com/users/devon_sinsley/Signature.jpg)yet.
You should at least have pics of the are before you start!
Your not getting any younger … right boys!!
Steve … we might of scared him off…(http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)
Sean McGillicuddy said:
Steve … we might of scared him off…(http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)
Maybe, but I doubt it. Canon cockers are hard to scare off. You have to have at least two neurons to rub together to know fear. 
