I wish I could tell you that if you read Track Planning for Realistic Operation by John Armstrong, 3rd Edition (Kalmbach, 1998) and took the snippets of suggestions here you will have an awesome layout. You do need to work out an operating scheme of some sort, at least the basic premise. Having operated is going to make it all that easier. Sounds like you need to join the Op's SIG group http://www.opsig.org/ They have a $7.00/year on line rate. In addition to the quarterly e zine, you will have the opportunity to participate various operating sessions and OP's weekends. Two more snippets from me: I would worry about runarounds as they do more than get the caboose on the right end of the train. Understanding what they do from an operational aspect will guide you in how to worry about them and when. In your area, at that time, running a pair of opposing geeps, geeps w/ a TEBU, or a pair of SD9s is very prototypical - as seen in your posted CORP picture in your OP. Steve
Sound like there's a 'but...'? I do have that book and have read it at least twice, though not recently (not completely anyway). Living in The Netherlands, attending those sessions is a tad complicated, but I'll look into that membership. I think I kind of get the theoretical idea... maybe I need to do some paper operating to get a feel for it Thanks again!
Mattun, I am an OPSIG member and I find the quarterly publication to be helpful and well worth the $5/year or whatever it is. I haven't been to an OPSIG event or session, either. A lot of the ones featured in the magazine are in a totally different region of the U.S., kind of like if they were in Italy or Poland and you were reading about them in The Netherlands.
In the interest of avoiding tunnel vision, I thought about alternative ways to plan. Here are two (rough) results: This first alternative design does away with the '2 adjacent decks' idea altogether. Shelf width can now be about 3" less. It has a removable double ended staging yard across the doorway. The rest is basically the same as the original. Interchange tracks in the top left corner, a yard, some runarounds and industries. There are no facilities for cabooses, water cars, or double-heading in this plan, but that would not be impossible to add. The main difference is of course that the mainline run is about halved. And number 2: This keeps the 2 adjacent decks design, but does it in a different way. It requires a bulge to accomodate the loop, but has nothing that blocks the room or doorway. Two separate staging yards at the ends of the line, and the usual suspects in between. I could tunnel part of the long straight track on the bottom, making space for industrial scenery on top of that tunnel (the tunnel would just be a black box, with only the portals scenicked). I've also printed a section of plan full-size (1:1) to see if there is enough horizontal separation between the two decks, and this seems to be fine. Track with roadbed only takes 1.5", half a tree pasted against the backdrop another inch, which means a 2.5" minimum deck width. The minimum space in my designs is generally about double that space, so I reckon it'll work. I am considering adding 2" to the shelf width to open things up a little, but have to weight that against the extra intrusion on the room it will cause. Mock-ups may help here. So, any thoughts on how the 3 designs I now produced measure up? Which is your favourite?
