One big change is to only consider the cabinet area as the main operation focus, the rest of the smaller shelves acting as a simple runaround track. On that loop, one two-ended siding could be added to stage a train or two in advance or act simply as a originating and terminating point for trains.
I also decided to keep the yard as small as I could, simply keeping a long passing track and a smaller two-ended team track serving various customers, including an oil dealer. While studying a few pictures from Monk, it became quite clear a freight house used to stand left from the large depot. It seems to have been a regular standard NTR model and the team track there could handle a few freight cars, maybe 3.
The continuous run could be scenicked of left as is. It could also be possible to imagine a small customer such as a feed mill located on the curve for the sake of performing smaller local train operations. But it wouldn't be required per se.
This version of Monk is probably much toned down compared to the original concept which was sound yet a little bit crowded to my taste. The goal was to create the impression of a track surrounded by nature and wilderness as was the NTR. Structures are clustered together, track density kept as low as possible and most secondary trackage would be in bad shape or covered in grass as was the case on the prototype to emphasize the linear nature of the mainline. I once tries with with Villeneuve on the club layout and found it was a neat trick to create the required hierarchy of track use.
I've also experimented with a slightly different version with a completely scenicked continuous run. While it could be interesting, I think this plan kind of thin down the intial focus on the cabinet area.
Personnaly ' I prefer the second version. It gives more trackage on the yard side. Would it be possible the avoid straight lines for the rest of the layout despite the fact of narrow shelves?ReplyDelete
The thing is I don't really need that much yard trackage, hence why I simply keep it simple. It would leave more space to scenery, access road, etc. As for the straight lines, they are simply a suggestion. A slight curvature would greatly improve the look without requiring a wide shelf.Delete
This is a neat plan. I like it. Every yard I've ever "worked" was challenged by a switching lead of finite length so by basing this plan on a loop you would never have that problem.ReplyDelete
I like that Lac Therrien bridge and lakeside running scene but am not so sure that it needs that extra passing loop (siding) and I completely agree that you just don't need that much yard here in this scene given the type of operation you're describing. I can see this unfolding nicely with just the occasional exchange of cars by passing trains.
Thanks Chris! I wasn't sure about this one at first. But I consider it a good "generic" canvas to run and display trains in a plausible environment. This layout would be quite low density in terms of scenery, relying mainly on topography, soil and vegetation to provide a wild Eastern Canada vibe.Delete
So far, since most of my designs use the same footprint, it will be a good idea to build a benchwork then mess around with ideas.
I agree, the extra passing loop is contrived and not really useful to this scheme of operation.
Regarding benchwork and your brilliant idea to explore a envelope that remains a constant size and even shape you could build a subrame of structural benchwork then the layout could rest on top of it.Delete
I think it's a good way to go over designer block while having enough freedom to explore the various track arrangement proposed. Many old code 100 PECO turnouts will provide basic building blocks to explore each designs.Delete