TheRailwire
General Discussion => Layout Engineering Reports => Topic started by: Dave V on December 29, 2016, 08:28:34 PM
-
I thought a clean break from the old layout thread might help trigger new inspiration...
I'm considering a new version of the now 10-year-old N scale Juniata Division. The old layout has been around a while and while there are lots of things about it I like, I feel like I've outgrown it like a pair of pants from college. Let's first talk about what's wrong with the Juniata Division as it is now:
1) Poor use of space. The HCD island requires space on all sides to access and therefore wastes room space.
2) Code 80 track. There are better options out there.
3) Short mainline run.
4) Operationally awkward. That is to say switching opportunities exist but are stymied by lack of runaround tracks or switch leads so switching moves block mainlines...very un-Pennsy-like. While I honestly care little about switching I'd like the tracks to make some sense visually as well as to make it possible to so someothing meaningful someday if I ever do change my mind.
5) Stub-end staging is too short and difficult to use.
6) Electrical. After 10 years I'm starting to have electrical problems...dead spots in the track. Also having issues with the Peco Insulfrog switches shorting wide-tread wheels on BLI locomotives.
So, for a JD 2.0, let's look at the space:
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-jHUDhcJHzV0/Up9CHHymf4I/AAAAAAAB9_g/7ppVobqnOEo/s512/553564_10151879716218428_1920746418_n.jpg)
It's actually about 10'5" by 14'7" once the walls were studded and wallboarded. The windowed wall at the top contains the Colorado Midland Railway (5' x 2'6"). The new layout would occupy the lower two-thirds of the room. I figure I need 2'6" clearance between the JD 2.0 and the CMRy for comfort.
Givens and Druthers
Givens
1) The space above. No puncturing walls, no invading the CMRy's space. Just the roughly 9 x 10 space in the lower 2/3 of the big bedroom. The big closet is my workshop and the utility closet is unfit for railroading. You're just gonna hafta trust me on that.
2) Pennsy in the 1950s, primarily Middle Division, centered on Lewistown (I want to use DKS' awesome station kitbash again).
3) Must have some provision for run-through staging.
4) Minimum mainline radius 13.75".
5) Minimum two complete mainline tracks that can be operated independently (i.e., they never cross or conflict with one another).
Druthers
1) 4-track main.
2) Classic PRR stone-arch bridge.
3) An open-country running scene.
4) Code 55 track, either Peco (leaning that way) or ME/Atlas.
Would be really cool but probably pushing it
1) Roundhouse and turntables for all my awesome steam locos!
2) An excuse to use my two Vulcan Manufacturing kits.
Other than that, I'm kinda flexible. Again, the 4-track main is a druthers but not a drop-dead requirement.
A cockpit design would make a 4-track racetrack very easy to do. In fact, it would allow run-through staging on one of the outside sides behind a low backdrop. OTOH, I have back problems, so a cockpit layout would need to be very high.
A U-shaped layout gives a longer run but the curves then become an issue for minimum radius (or "lobe width") particularly if more than 2 tracks are used. For reference, the JD 1.0 is 36" wide and the two mains have a 13.75" and 15" radius at the "lobes."
A folded dogbone in the corner gives the effect of a 4-track main but I'm not super thrilled with the scenic possibilities or staging opportunities it would give, but I admit I haven't thought it through in depth. Of, and for reference, I saw this O-scale 3-rail Pennsy layout plan by Norm Charbonneau that could be a basis for a four-track cockpit in N scale:
(http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/fileSendAction/fcType/0/fcOid/15931049884846242/filePointer/30853925618318632/fodoid/30853925618318628/imageType/MEDIUM/inlineImage/true/greenbrook_final.jpg)
Imagine it rotated 90 degrees left so that the turntable is in the lower right of the room. Imagine it with 4 tracks in N and a few extra staging tracks along the long side adjacent to the turntable. I don't know if all that would fit or work, but it's a start!
Okay... I've said my piece. I humbly request your help in designing a Juniata Division 2.0!
-
What's your planned layout height? My N scale layout (currently being dismantled piece-meal) was about 56" above the finished floor (aff). My work bench was under it at one end of the room. I could sit and work beneath it with plenty of headroom, and with the chair tucked in I could stand and operate. The layout depth front to back was 22" over a 30" HCD work bench. If you do something like that, you can use the large closet over your work bench for staging loops or a roundhouse....
-
What's your planned layout height? My N scale layout (currently being dismantled piece-meal) was about 56" above the finished floor (aff). My work bench was under it at one end of the room. I could sit and work beneath it with plenty of headroom, and with the chair tucked in I could stand and operate. The layout depth front to back was 22" over a 30" HCD work bench. If you do something like that, you can use the large closet over your work bench for staging loops or a roundhouse....
I don't know but I'd like it to be higher than the ~42" or so of the current JD.
I'm not planning to use the workshop for part of the model railroad. Remember, no going through walls, just the lower 2/3 of the room in the diagram. Thanks!
-
Walls are not our friends......
-
What's the measurement between the door and bottom wall in the lower right corner?
Jason
-
I don't know but I'd like it to be higher than the ~42" or so of the current JD.
I'm not planning to use the workshop for part of the model railroad. Remember, no going through walls, just the lower 2/3 of the room in the diagram. Thanks!
I guess a better question is, is how tall are you ? My current layout is at around 48" which is a bit too low when sitting in a chair too work underneath , so 56" or something like that would be easier to work with. Of course, the taller you go, the less the reach can be especially for staging behind a low backdrop. As I mentioned before, a cockpit style should be as high as possible to minimize duckunder issues. Since you have back problems, i wouldn't do a cockpit form unless you design a gate (swing-out) access. You may want to do some mockups with yourself in a chair, on a stool, etc to see how the different heights work out.
-
Walls are not our friends......
I also don't want to make this such a big monster that I get overwhelmed.
But I do ask for some reverence for my givens...the reasons for them are both are many and mine. I prefer not to occupy the thread negotiating the givens...they are givens, not druthers.
The main reason for this is as a man who has spent his entire adult life moving every 2 years or so even if this is the "forever house" it'll never quite feel like it. I do wish to make the layout "moveable" if not portable, and that makes going through walls and cramping up my already cramped workshop (another reason I don't wish to share it with moving trains) far less attractive. Now, I'm happy to take the room door off the hinges if it'll help make things better, but that's the sum of the modifications we'll be making to the room as it is now. I have no other place for the Colorado Midland to go so it will also stay in this room.
I guess a better question is, is how tall are you ?
I'm 5' 9"...not tall.
What's the measurement between the door and bottom wall in the lower right corner?
Jason
I'm not home so can't measure it right now but I do know it's at least 3.5 feet.
-
I'm not home so can't measure it right now but I do know it's at least 3.5 feet.
Okay, so enough for a 4 track blob.
Jason
-
Can you remove closet doors and put the CM in there?
-
Can you remove closet doors and put the CM in there?
That's my workshop...per the givens.
-
Can you remove closet doors and put the CM in there?
Or maybe between the the two doors flat to the wall?
Jason
-
Or maybe between the the two doors flat to the wall?
Jason
Maybe... Hmm... Not sure what the width is there. I fear it's less than 5 feet.
-
I'm 5' 9"...not tall.
Ok...just did some mocking up myself (I'm 10" taller so I was comparing likely eye levels) with my layout and it looks like something around 48" would bring this to about elbow height for you which would be a comfortable working/operating height. As long as you didn't reach more than 24" you could have low backdrop around 8" or so to access 4 or so tracks. That's really not enough room, so I'd probably have the scene in front of a staging-blocking backdrop no deeper than 18" so you could have about 8 or so tracks behind it.
For access underneath, 48" still appears a bit low even in an adjustable stool (really depends on your torso/leg ratio) so this really might call for something in the 52-56" height but this will generally compress scenes up top and I'd recommend easier access to staging from behind than reaching from the front. A 52-56" height would allow for using a roller chair for going under the layout without hitting your head if you made everything fixed.
I would also plan on making your benchwork sectional (bolt-together) in pieces no bigger than 3.5 by 5 feet so it could disassembled and moved by a person or two. Legs and backdrops would also be bolted on. Track could be laid continuously across the joints and cut later for a move or better, fitter pieces could be added to allow for a less-impact move (some of my layout pieces have been moved at least 4-5 times, so this works really good for getting things back together quickly).
-
Yeah I was thinking raise the layout up. CM and workbench go under.
-
Yeah I was thinking raise the layout up. CM and workbench go under.
Um... CM under the layout, sure. I can do that. I like it!!!
With the right height now I get the whole room if the CMRy goes underneath!
Workbench stays in the workshop with no layout. Still a given. I like to be able to close the worksop door and have the chaos of my workshop completely unseen from the layout.
-
Sheeeeet you got tons of room.
Blob at top left. Blob bottom right. 4 track main all up/down the left wall and bottom left. Maybe a blob in the center of the left wall.
-
Sheeeeet you got tons of room.
Blob at top left. Blob bottom right. 4 track main all up/down the left wall and bottom left. Maybe a blob in the center of the left wall.
I like it. Where the staging tho, bruh?
-
I knew it wouldn't be that easy :|
-
So the biggest issue may be how you want it to operate. Do you want 4 trains at once able to go roundy?
Can you connect the ends of the mainline and show what you're thinking?
1---------------5
2---------------6
3---------------7
4---------------8
Is it 1-5, 2-6 etc. like a racetrack or just a folded dog bone 1-4, 2-3, 5-8 etc? Or something else entirely?
Jason
-
So the biggest issue may be how you want it to operate. Do you want 4 trains at once able to go roundy?
Can you connect the ends of the mainline and show what you're thinking?
1---------------5
2---------------6
3---------------7
4---------------8
Is it 1-5, 2-6 etc. like a racetrack or just a folded dog bone 1-4, 2-3, 5-8 etc? Or something else entirely?
Jason
I like making trains go 'roundy. The more the better, but two is the minimum. The staging is really just for when I get bored of watching one train go 'roundy and want to see a different one go 'roundy for a while.
I'm a very simple man when it comes to operations. Like "Simple Jack" simple... :D
If we could go 1-5, 2-6, etc. in that space that'd be really awesome. Might actually be more than I can handle the more I think of it.
1-4, 2-5 is probably more like it.
Remember, on the turnbacks and such I can always add an extended passing siding that looks like another main. Also, starting in 1955, there were track reductions on the east end of the Middle Division so it went to 3 tracks in spots.
EDIT: One thing I've been thinking about is how hawt @Chris333's drawer system is. Considering how infrequently I swap out trains it might be a better use of space to have a pull drawer full of trains mounted in the fascia than lots of staging. Hmm... Keep a Kato re-railer nearby and I'm good to go.
-
If we could go 1-5, 2-6, etc. in that space that'd be really awesome. Might actually be more than I can handle the more I think of it.
You could go with a simple phallic peninsula anchored at the bottom wall. Sort of re-creating the JD but with 4 tracks and broader curves.
Jason
-
You could go with a simple phallic peninsula anchored at the bottom wall. Sort of re-creating the JD but with 4 tracks and broader curves.
Jason
So if @Ed Kapuscinski had the kidney I'd have the d!ck. :facepalm: LOL. Actually, yeah, I'm tracking.
-
So if @Ed Kapuscinski had the kidney I'd have the d!ck. :facepalm: LOL. Actually, yeah, I'm tracking.
LOL, I just think to do the 4 track race track around the wall will require one of the two unwanted "H" words, helix or hidden track. But maybe I just can't see it. If you're okay with a folded dog bone with only two roundy trains at a time, then some options open up.
Jason
-
LOL, I just think to do the 4 track race track around the wall will require one of the two unwanted "H" words, helix or hidden track. But maybe I just can't see it. If you're okay with a folded dog bone with only two roundy trains at a time, then some options open up.
Jason
I am.
I could be really unimaginative and wedge in a 4 x 10 'roundy-round with 4 tracks. Four trains independently sounds really cool but it could be stressful for a lone-wolf operator like me!
I'm good with two (or three) at a time.
You know @davefoxx Esq. offered this up years ago and while it recycles the current JD (I would replace that right side with a better arrangement) I think the bones are good. You have to imagine the long side along the long wall. It would have to be extended a bit and I could draw the 4 tracks together for a spell. Also, the left side can be extended another 3+ feet.
(http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc84/dff21901/Screenshot2014-01-01at94453PM.jpeg)
-
Two trains running continuously on two relatively short separate loops that run together mostly as 4-tracks will seem like 4 trains running continuously. If you had a whole basement 4 trains/4 tracks would look pretty good -- in this small a space they'd look like one of those old Lionel department store XMas layouts. However, both trains would need to be going the same direction to follow prototype train practice of RH running. But by controlling the speed of only one of them you could vary it to produce meets in opposite directions and passes in the same one according to correct Pennsy routing: E freight-passenger/ W passenger-freight tracks. right?
-
Just a quickie. You have a lot of room really. I don't know how much staging you want, but you could use it as a yard and put your TT/roundhouse in the middle.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/DvnJftkXm5LM6j56bu1cWCTqSTEnMxFVHBCMOSALy_rD1vTqQnapQosnqYIgg_OIFSMJCM88nsldT1BnAklsDi_wcUjuinN8Yts1N3W1WE-ifHL1CmgR6uuJOflb4p-CAc97n6UYbhI48OPuuWA5OK8f9XTcy9_YM6ZQ46Yc35KRV4C6iGj1xm-w6q8_gFD0p28MTAiDc0paRrtpoPwN8mySX11bX9F_WlMEi06B6D3bzcM2rkk7DDM74op_r7Zi-hm9dwCsGP7qCSkTVfTiPl0t6VYhs835RPSjKXLHFDrcoFo01BRDJFSbfXeNCJApdfFMaGQTivKQLfb6RKqcM1znRxuw4DXDGOlKHZezW9rdKa-PySUc53fukgBJ56AaUFNQhsjJdgqFEG1oQuLfFC8X7j9g7oL9YU1wUCU-hHN2rYQrHwMHpWTuG2s6QvbE1FcMnNQvnysP8ztbudavInAYDcamb8BeP5_h99y8dqIw1KmgMMUu0a4GfTDecnLETAJiyfNPpSEQdKCiEGNXtWuFM2mQf4MKttzUMrndE7dCkxL-SenTdcAOmn4v_2BTVr6eoJgeE5EZf0Hkeg8BP3bCrgLpoQFnML4aD0GHS67L1gI8ge-4dQ=w1330-h951-no?.jpg)
-
Looking good Chris..
Okay guys, I slept on it last night and having many side-conversations with @Ed Kapuscinski I'm thinking I'm asking for entirely too much with entirely too little to give, so it's time to reconsider one of the givens.
RIVISED Givens
1) It doesn't need to be the Middle Division. Yup, there it is. A four-track main, even in N scale, needs more space and staging than I'm able to provide or willing to scavenge. DKS' most amazing kitbash of Lewistown can find itself on an N-track module as Ed recommends.
2) It has to be any 2-track Pennsy line that was substantial enough to support M1bs and had some modicum of passenger service in the 1950s. That is to say I still require two independent trains to operate.
EDIT: Much preferred that it be a line in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Okay, candidate lines:
1) Buffalo line... Just about any part. I'm most familiar with the part from Harrisburg to Northumberland, but Renovo looks hawt too.
2) Monongahela line... Don't know much about this one but I understand it was sexy with lots of coal traffic.
3) Schuylkill Branch... At least Philly to Reading part was substantial. Coal traffic, electrified commuter service, lots of industrial stuff near Philly.
4) Northern Central... York to Harrisburg probably didn't see M1bs, but the part that ran as part of the Buffalo Line to Norry sure did.
Or, I could throw my Railwire card to the wind and do a series of vignettes that include some eastern electrified scenes and some west-of-Harrisburg scenes and just call it "Pennsy."
I just think that attempting to ham-first the full scale of the Middle Division into a tiny layout is exactly why I'm paralyzed with design fear.
-
You could even go farther west into Ohio or better yet Indiana.......
-
You could even go farther west into Ohio or better yet Indiana.......
I could... But I'm a Pennsylvania Guy. So caveat to my caveat... Keeping it in the Keystone State.
-
Actually, the vignette idea is starting to win out. Where I can double the two-track main on itself, it can be Middle Division. It can be Lewistown. Then the two-track parts can be who knows... The A&S under wire, Sunbury on the Northern Central, etc.
The way to be non-committal and yet somewhat prototypical is to do prototype scenes that may not all tie together. After all, I'm never gonna operate this layout per prototype, so who cares if a train jumps divisions between towns? :D
-
You may have hit on the right balance.
Remember, the whole thing is for your enjoyment, not somebody else's standards.
Don
-
Vignettes. I like it. :)
-
Actually, the vignette idea is starting to win out. Where I can double the two-track main on itself, it can be Middle Division. It can be Lewistown. Then the two-track parts can be who knows... The A&S under wire, Sunbury on the Northern Central, etc.
The way to be non-committal and yet somewhat prototypical is to do prototype scenes that may not all tie together. After all, I'm never gonna operate this layout per prototype, so who cares if a train jumps divisions between towns? :D
If you separate the vignettes by hard backdrops they don't even have to be the same season. Winter a la Ed on one section, autumn on another...it could set the stage for a number of "railfan" locations and signature scenes. Or you could consider it a string of Layout Design Elements (using Tony Koester's terms) .I like Chris333's suggestion of the open staging ...you could call it "Altoona" and you could store all your extra locomotives there!
-
:D
I could... But I'm a Pennsylvania Guy. So caveat to my caveat... Keeping it in the Keystone State.
-
Maybe something along the lines of Bob Rivards SOO? His layout is chopped up into different signature prototype scenes. Lots of cool possibilities with vignettes. I'm really looking forward to this ride Dave!
-
Vignettes. I like it. :)
Vignettes are right up Dave's alley, but kinda spoil the roundy-round effect if you want to follow the train all the way around the layout.
-
Vignettes are right up Dave's alley, but kinda spoil the roundy-round effect if you want to follow the train all the way around the layout.
I don't know that they do, though... I appreciate the ideas about changing seasons and such...but I like my Pennsylvania on a hazy summer day so it'll stay that way throughout. The only real cognitive dissonance would come if I added a section under the wire. But really, if it doesn't bother me (and I'm 95% of the layout's visitors!) it doesn't matter.
Going back to this idea I'd scribbled:
(https://scontent.fapa1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15747562_1321597331244177_7670253805501841535_n.jpg?oh=3480914a2d948029eeca2b37c1615a52&oe=592058BF)
Replace Duncannon with Lewistown and put some sort of yard where Lewistown is on the plan and call it East Altoona. Open visible staging plus some freight car storage, and engine terminal, and the freight depot that currently sits in Lewistown on the JD 1.0.
Done!!!
I suddenly like this much more this way. The "Newport" part can be some other stretch of Pennsy as yet unidentified. I might even toss in an arch bridge there since, well...Pennsy. I could put a river along the edge and call it the Northern Division along the Susquehanna. It's all good now.
It doesn't use the whole room but I'm okay with having the Midland not tucked underneath as I was starting to worry whether it'd fit... I still have a mountain to build.
-
Just a quickie. You have a lot of room really. I don't know how much staging you want, but you could use it as a yard and put your TT/roundhouse in the middle.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/DvnJftkXm5LM6j56bu1cWCTqSTEnMxFVHBCMOSALy_rD1vTqQnapQosnqYIgg_OIFSMJCM88nsldT1BnAklsDi_wcUjuinN8Yts1N3W1WE-ifHL1CmgR6uuJOflb4p-CAc97n6UYbhI48OPuuWA5OK8f9XTcy9_YM6ZQ46Yc35KRV4C6iGj1xm-w6q8_gFD0p28MTAiDc0paRrtpoPwN8mySX11bX9F_WlMEi06B6D3bzcM2rkk7DDM74op_r7Zi-hm9dwCsGP7qCSkTVfTiPl0t6VYhs835RPSjKXLHFDrcoFo01BRDJFSbfXeNCJApdfFMaGQTivKQLfb6RKqcM1znRxuw4DXDGOlKHZezW9rdKa-PySUc53fukgBJ56AaUFNQhsjJdgqFEG1oQuLfFC8X7j9g7oL9YU1wUCU-hHN2rYQrHwMHpWTuG2s6QvbE1FcMnNQvnysP8ztbudavInAYDcamb8BeP5_h99y8dqIw1KmgMMUu0a4GfTDecnLETAJiyfNPpSEQdKCiEGNXtWuFM2mQf4MKttzUMrndE7dCkxL-SenTdcAOmn4v_2BTVr6eoJgeE5EZf0Hkeg8BP3bCrgLpoQFnML4aD0GHS67L1gI8ge-4dQ=w1330-h951-no?.jpg)
I was drawing this up last night except without the center blob. Then the short side of the CMR can go against the wall between the doors and the long wall run would have a two track staging all along that side with four tracks in front along the Lancaster countryside in a wavy curvy fashion.
[attach=2][attachimg=2]
-
Now that's interesting...
Hmm...
I like it!
Except... The wall segment between the doors is very close to the window as this construction photo shows:
(https://scontent.fapa1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/1236420_532163910187527_707391207_n.jpg?oh=581df0193336848d0fa8a766a660af5a&oe=58DB6B67)
-
I like the vignette idea, and I like the plan above that makes good use of the walls with two large "blobs" on each end, and keep the CM displayed in the middle where you can appreciate it. you could even up the radius to something like 20 inches or more on each blob. Isn't there rumored to be a T1 on the horizon? Well, thats my two cents, back to lurking. :D
-
Now that's interesting...
Hmm...
I like it!
Except... The wall segment between the doors is very close to the window as this construction photo shows:
(https://scontent.fapa1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/1236420_532163910187527_707391207_n.jpg?oh=581df0193336848d0fa8a766a660af5a&oe=58DB6B67)
Aye, you still have the option of storing the CM under the left blob. I just think a center blob will be in the way, be less photogenic and will cramp the room.
-
In the 9x9 footprint I came up with this, although I'm not super-thrilled by the visual proximity of Altoona and Lewistown.
(https://scontent.fapa1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15726308_1327380763999167_2353143827519467699_n.jpg?oh=c5ad1fbe8d826085946657cdcb192091&oe=59240DA1)
-
Well, if you went higher with the benchwork and went over the CM then you could add more distance between Altoona and Lewiston.
However, looking at the plan it doesn't look that jarring as the viaduct breaks the scene up. You could start the staging tracks using curved turnouts further around the curve or down the wall a bit on the left (say behind the master mechanics building) so they wrap around the bottom a bit more. This would give a larger hilly/treed buffer space at the Lewis Tower area so the number of tracks wouldn't get as wide so fast.
-
I'm supposed to learn the results of my promotion board (O-6) sometime late January/early February. If I make it, then I have to decide if I want to accept it because it means I'll have to move. If I don't accept it I have to retire pretty quickly. My wife who's a reservist is waiting to hear whether she's been selected for a three-year activation here in Colorado Springs. If she gets that and I get O-6 we have some soul-searching to do. However, I'm expecting my chances at O-6 are not stellar... After command I went to be a professor for a few years and just based on some of the things a board is looking for in your reports I'm expected not to be selected.
Once I know for sure that I'm staying in the Springs (so hopefully no later than mid-February) work can begin. I want to have a pretty good basis to start before then though so I know how to proceed. I may not need the 100% solution as long as I know the footprint and can tinker.
The hidden CMRy with the whole-room concept is somewhat tempting, but I still find myself more comfortable in the ~9x9 footprint with the Midland out on its own with its own backdrop. If a better job offer comes along I think I can salvage a 9x9-er better than a 10x14-er.
However, looking at the plan it doesn't look that jarring as the viaduct breaks the scene up. You could start the staging tracks using curved turnouts further around the curve or down the wall a bit on the left (say behind the master mechanics building) so they wrap around the bottom a bit more. This would give a larger hilly/treed buffer space at the Lewis Tower area so the number of tracks wouldn't get as wide so fast.
Yes, I was thinking the same thing.
-
Is there a reason you draw the left side at 9' when you have like 10.5'? Extra foot in staging is a lot.
-
Is there a reason you draw the left side at 9' when you have like 10.5'? Extra foot in staging is a lot.
Was thinking "manageable chunks" to get in/out of the room, but I could probably extend that some, yeah. Good call.
-
Two 5.2' sections ;)
-
In the 9x9 footprint I came up with this, although I'm not super-thrilled by the visual proximity of Altoona and Lewistown.
(https://scontent.fapa1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15726308_1327380763999167_2353143827519467699_n.jpg?oh=c5ad1fbe8d826085946657cdcb192091&oe=59240DA1)
I'm not feeling it, but it's not mine! LOL!
-Hardly any switching possibilities... But again switching isn't everyone's cup of tea!
-Man that round-house engine servicing area is a space hog... I get the wanting to show off the loco's
-
I like the updated plan without staging-behind-the-backdrop. I have that situation on my dogbone layout, and it's a PITA to keep clean, etc.
Frank
-
Needs. Crossovers. :trollface:
-
Needs. Crossovers. :trollface:
Yeah. It does. Oops. :D
-
I don't like it. I think you can get more 4 track operations in that space. And going through my memory banks, the constant about a new layout I can remember is 4 tracks and try and get some catenary. Hopefully you can post the room dimensions because 4-8 track loops do eat up a lot of space. And maybe it can't be done, but I think a better effort is in order.
And quit talking to Ed. He's a minimalist. He appreciates where a track was but is no longer, and you want more tracks. :P
Jason
-
I don't like it. I think you can get more 4 track operations in that space. And going through my memory banks, the constant about a new layout I can remember is 4 tracks and try and get some catenary. Hopefully you can post the room dimensions because 4-8 track loops do eat up a lot of space. And maybe it can't be done, but I think a better effort is in order.
And quit talking to Ed. He's a minimalist. He appreciates where a track was but is no longer, and you want more tracks. :P
Jason
I agree.
Yeah, it's capable of running more trains (good thing) but operationally it offers less than the current JD IMO.
Yep that's why Ed's a CR guy... Conrail's quest was having lots of ghost trackage.
-
And quit talking to Ed. He's a minimalist.
Ed's reforming. He even has benchwork now! :trollface:
DFF
-
4 tracks, 4 tracks, 4 tracks. Dave if you don't get in a decent-sized segment of 4-track main on this you know you're going to hate the new layout within 6 months. For a guy who's been mooning over having a 4-track main on the JD for forever, I think you had best put that as highest priority for this layout, outranking everything else: switching, roundhouse, staging, space restrictions, whatever. Don't tell me you can't make a scenic section with a 4 track main!!!
As for the roundhouse -- why not an attachable section? You can set it up when you want to run steamers and take it down after 1957. TT/roundhouse is the easiest module section to make because all of the action is on the module w/ minimum track connections to the main layout - and it's compact. If your layout's high enough, you might even be able to make it a fold down and swing up under (the layout) section.
The vignettes is a good idea. Don't always need flat backdrop to divide two scenes: use a wide river, a 4-lane highway bridge, large industry, or some like scenic element.
-
What happens when the four tracks come together... 8 track main?
:facepalm:
Guys, guys... If you're reading the words that go along with the pictures I've explained that the idea of operating 4 independent mains by myself is starting to seem overwhelming.
You're trying to help, I know...but I think this thread was over before it started. Ugh. So many things in life are clear for me but this isn't.
I still really don't want to bleed all over that far side of the room where the Midland is and I think a 10 x 10 footprint is all I want to commit to...it'd still be hands-down the largest layout I've ever built.
And, the PRR through Lancaster County was 2-track...both the main and the A&S lines...not 4.
-
Ed's reforming. He even has benchwork now! :trollface:
DFF
yeah
but still no ballast
-
The illusion of 4 tracks, like you have in your original drawing. Just make the part longer where the double track wishbone runs together .
-
yeah
but still no ballast
Bullshit.
[attachimg=1]
-
yeah
but still no ballast
Yes he does...it might not be glued down but he does...
JP
-
Bullshit.
(Attachment Link)
I amend my reply...it's glued down so well the train can run upside down and not lose a pebble.
JP
-
I don't see a spot for the bacon mines?
-
Dave,
With your mention of the Buffalo Line, why not replace Altoona with Northumberland. After all that's where most of the existing Pennsy steam was "hidden."
Chris
-
The vignettes idea makes sense to me. Dave has repeatedly said he's not an ops guy. Look at his layout drawings. Look at his sketches in the Crew Lounge. Dave is an art guy - he like scenes that provoke a certain memory or feeling. He likes to photograph scenes, not figure the most efficient switch list. Sure, some switching possibilities are good in any case in certain areas, but to me, reading what Dave has written, is that he's into creating the moment.
So you have an area devoted to a typical Pennsy small town with switching for when you do feel like pushing cars around. And an area devoted to a 4-track main with some signature scenery/structures. And an area with catenary or the Rockville Bridge. Whatever you're feeling at the moment.
Maybe you do separate them with some hard barrier. Then if you get the urge it's easy to strip up a section and redo it as some other scene you have an urge to create. The layout becomes a living thing and continually changes. It never grows old, never becomes stale.
Dave, I sense frustration at this thread. I hope I haven't added to it, but I see posts that seem to me that are projecting their own desires on what you say. Me, I'm an ops guy. I like to switch. I may never senick an area and it's okay with me. I like pushing cars around. I sense different feelings for you.
-
I've been going through a very similar thought process since I got that new layout. I've also been talking to Ed!
Everything you guys are talking about here is helping me too, so, thanks!
-
RIVISED Givens
Okay, candidate lines:
1) Buffalo line... Just about any part. I'm most familiar with the part from Harrisburg to Northumberland, but Renovo looks hawt too.
2) Monongahela line... Don't know much about this one but I understand it was sexy with lots of coal traffic.
3) Schuylkill Branch... At least Philly to Reading part was substantial. Coal traffic, electrified commuter service, lots of industrial stuff near Philly.
4) Northern Central... York to Harrisburg probably didn't see M1bs, but the part that ran as part of the Buffalo Line to Norry sure did.
Dave, The Mon line is sexy, but your forgetting about the Panhandle ( Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad ) Pittsburgh, PA to East St Louis, IL. The section you'd want to model would be from Scully Yard to Mingo Jct, OH. During the era you're interested in, the Panhandle was a double track railroad that handled every type of merchandise imaginable, coal, iron ore and coke for Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel and Weirton Steel. Steel shipments from those two mills, plus all the associated general freight into and out of the Pittsburgh & Ohio Valley Region, plus passenger service between Pittsburgh, Columbus, Indianapolis and St Louis. Amtrak even operated over the Panhandle for the first few years of it's existence.
The Panhandle just might be what you need, to get the Pennsy creative juices flowing :D
-
Dave, The Mon line is sexy, but your forgetting about the Panhandle ( Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad ) Pittsburgh, PA to East St Louis, IL. The section you'd want to model would be from Scully Yard to Mingo Jct, OH. During the era you're interested in, the Panhandle was a double track railroad that handled every type of merchandise imaginable, coal, iron ore and coke for Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel and Weirton Steel. Steel shipments from those two mills, plus all the associated general freight into and out of the Pittsburgh & Ohio Valley Region, plus passenger service between Pittsburgh, Columbus, Indianapolis and St Louis. Amtrak even operated over the Panhandle for the first few years of it's existence.
The Panhandle just might be what you need, to get the Pennsy creative juices flowing :D
I did post this earlier...
I could... But I'm a Pennsylvania Guy. So caveat to my caveat... Keeping it in the Keystone State.
But I'm going with the "vignettes of Pennsy" thing contained within Pennsylvania. I actually have a plan in my head now that actually does include more simulated 4-track. Not socializing it yet. I think socializing these ideas among such a large audience might not be as helpful as I was hoping. Everyone raises good points but I don't know that everyone has a good vibe for what I'm really trying to do.
-
Dave, what about a dogbone style layout with double track, in essence a double dogbone to give you the 4 track main you want. Stack the loops and that gives you lots of room for the main to wander on one side of a peninsula for a PA countryside scene and a straight town scene on the other.
I'm not sure of your dimensions. You've shown them in several places and they differ each time, but a 9 x 9 area could work from my AnyRail sketching. I'll share if you want.
-
I did post this earlier...
But I'm going with the "vignettes of Pennsy" thing contained within Pennsylvania. I actually have a plan in my head now that actually does include more simulated 4-track. Not socializing it yet. I think socializing these ideas among such a large audience might not be as helpful as I was hoping. Everyone raises good points but I don't know that everyone has a good vibe for what I'm really trying to do.
Dave, That is why I said you'd want to model the section between Scully yard (Pittsburgh suburb) and put Mingo in staging. You would be modeling the Pennsylvania section of the Panhandle. I think what you really want is Central and Eastern Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Railroad was almost like two different railroads within the state of Pennsylvania. Lines West did have a different feel than the lines East. The Broadway pretty much ended at Conway. Yes four tracks ran to New Brighton, but from that point, the main line was double track West to Chicago and at New Brighton, the other two tracks became the Youngstown Line. As a side note, the Panhandle Split off the Mon Line at the OC bridge just West of Downtown Pittsburgh. Another Option could be the Conemaugh Line, but again I think you want Central and Eastern PA.
I'm looking forward to following along with your build of the JD 2.0 :D
-
Dave, what about a dogbone style layout with double track, in essence a double dogbone to give you the 4 track main you want. Stack the loops and that gives you lots of room for the main to wander on one side of a peninsula for a PA countryside scene and a straight town scene on the other.
I'm not sure of your dimensions. You've shown them in several places and they differ each time, but a 9 x 9 area could work from my AnyRail sketching. I'll share if you want.
I was using 9 x 9 because I know things will fit. The reality is I have a hair over 10 feet along the bottom wall in the room plan and about 9.5' along the left wall in the room plan until I get too close to the Midland.
I'm not stacking loops. Grades/clearance issues...ugh.
I have a plan in mind now. Thanks for all your inputs!
-
Yay for vignettes! It's really the best way to think of a layout. Anybody, consider your favorite scenes on your favorite railroad. Wow, they're neat. But usually to get from one to another the real train takes a long boring time just running along monotonously through not so spectacular or repetitious scenery. As does the engineer. We're lucky with layouts that we can put all the scenes we like close to each other and not have to include the long dull stretches of nothing ROW. Guys complain that they'd really like to have long mainlines to space out the time the train takes to get from one scene to the next. For those guys I say, add a helix to your layout. To enjoy the experience go run on one at a private or club layout. (Try to find a 6-10 loops helix). Wait for the train to go in at one end and eventually come out the other (have faith, it will). Isn't that fun??? I'll bet you want to do that between every scenic area you have. It's so fun and so like running a real train it's a wonder why everybody doesn't have a helix or 2 on their layout!