Allegheny Eastern: Design Evolution

[kelticsylk]

Once more the Allegheny Eastern changes as the plan evolves. This time the change is minor, no drastic realignment or elevation of the mainline.

I made a change to the The Altoona and Logan Valley that was prompted by a small modeling project on the side. I recently ran across drawings for a double ended PCC used by Philadelphia Suburban Transit (Red Arrow Lines). I took two of my Bachmann PCC shells and "kitbashed" this double ender...

I filled in the wheel wells and modeled the full skirts used on the older PCC's and Brilliners...

It's a styling feature from the 1930's when everything was streamlined (even toasters).The PST cars didn't have them, but I'm partial to the look. It also covers up the oversized trucks used on the Bachmann models...

The model still needs a lot of work. Have to use a bit of Squadron Green to fill up what I thought were pretty accurate cuts.

Since the trolley no longer requires a return loop, I removed the loops and dual trackage through Juniata.

Now the trackage is more like the real Logan Valley which ran double ended Osgood Bradley cars...

Work continues on the Blair Furnace area of the layout...

Only the roadbed is in place. I'm currently out of code 55 (I refuse to use any more code 80) Aside from the changes to the Logan Valley, I made the short line "interconnection" a lot simpler. The curves can be tighter in this area because the locomotives used are small switchers and a Shay.

I'm also in the process of backdating a Trix FM 12-44...

to look like the earlier H10-44...

I'm reasoning that a shortline like the Altoona Northern would have to buy second hand equipment. Since the FM 12-44 was new in the era the Allegheny Eastern models, the AN would have to own an older generation unit built in 1944 (about 4 or 5 years old in All East time). The other Altoona Northern switcher is ancient "oil electric". I'm bashng that one up from a caboose and a Kato mechanism (11-106). Right now it looks like a caboose missing its cupola...

I hope to make it look like a "compilation" of the CNJ 1000 and other boxcabs of the 1930's.

Frank Musick

[kelticsylk]

Based on advice from this forum and some new ideas the layout is being revised...

A new 24" aisleway and another 20 feet of mainline has been added. I have to rebuild that area, reducing the 5' x 8' to a 4' x 8' and relocating the table 12" to the right.

For once I made a drawing BEFORE the revision. I used XTrakCad and then sketched in various sidings. I had to sacrifice the New Portage branch, but added more industrial sidings. I'm showing a mine complex at Bennington although there wasn't one to add more switching operations. The mine will be served by the Glenwhite / Altoona Northern out of Blair Furnace while providing a siding for loads and empties for the PRR.

Some of the related modeling projects have been completed (sans decals & weathering). The Trix H12-44 has been redone by carving up a few more shells and adding styrene parts...

The other Altoona Northern locomotive, an ancient "oil electric" was also redone. I cut up a few cabeese and reused the Kato mechanism...

The Logan Valley double ended PCC was also finished and painted...

The Allegheny Eastern also took delivery of "vintage" Rivarossi passenger equipment...

including the square tail Pennsy observation "Mountain View". Most of the other cars are Southern Pacific waiting to be repainted tuscan.

Frank Musick

[kelticsylk]

I've been tossing around ideas on what to do with the additional section of mainline.

Since the new area is "west" of Gallitzin, the most obvious choice was Cresson and it's helper facilities. In the period being modeled, however, the diesel facilities may not have existed. All my topo maps for the period show a wye and flyover for a branch line but not much else. I'm not entirely sure of the helper operation on the west slope in the late 40's, haven't found too much information. There is also some problem with space. The helper loop at Gallitzin takes up a lot of room on the opposite side of peninsula.

Another thought is adding trackage east of Altoona. I thought of modeling the area between Bellwood and Tyrone. This section of mainline is almost dead straight and easily modeled in the space available. It is also a bit uninteresting from a scenic point of view. There really isn't enough room the model Tyrone and add some interest. The wye and Bald Eagle branch connection would add to the operations, but I only have the space to "imply" the facilities at Tyrone.

East of Tyrone lies the Spruce Creek tunnels. Although only a single two track bore is in use today, back in the day there were two. The mainline between Spruce Creek and Tyrone runs parallel to the Juniata and crosses at least a half dozen times.

It occurred to me that this was exactly what the layout needed. Lots of water, lots of bridges would offset the wooded slopes that cover most of the layout. It's an interesting area that fits the narrow space available...

I'm still sketching up ideas for the actual scenery.

While I've already started modifying the benchwork. It wasn't hard to take the area apart. Since the track was fastened down temporarily it was just a matter of removing the brads that held it in place. The ballast strip was simply pulled up, one of the advantageous of using tacky glue. The plywood and foam from the previous incarnation are just 4' x 8' sheets and can be used as is. The foam splines from the road bed where also easy to remove (more tacky glue). I'm not sure I'll reuse them. The idea works fine, but I wasn't happy with the smoothness of the grade.

Frank Musick

[Dave V]

I like the Spruce Creek idea, as I love Pennsy stone bridges.  FWIW, the mainline narrowed to 3 tracks even in the Pennsy's heyday for the stretch either side of the tunnel, with two single track bores forming one of the Middle Division's bottlenecks (the other being the Denholm coal wharf).

My bridge scene, one track short, was inspired by Spruce Creek:

[kelticsylk]

Dave,
I've trying to visualize how the three track section would affect operating the layout. Although the area doesn't have sidings etc, the bottleneck would create quite a challenge for a multiple operator scenario. The real problem is how would things work with a single operator. I'd be tempted to run all four tracks, two in each tunnel for simplicity when operating the layout alone.

[kelticsylk]

Trying to gather info on Spruce Creek track arrangement. Apparently there were four tracks at one time. This postcard photo was supposedly taken around 1900...

These cuts from a 1931 topo map(somewhat "enhanced" for clarity) shows the two sets of tracks and the two tunnels...

Unfortunately, the enhanced images don't include the three track segment directly west of the tunnels, which are painfully obvious In this "unenhanced" version...

The three track right of way extends all the way to Tyrone where it becomes 6 tracks.

[kelticsylk]

Had to take some time off to resolve some personal business (retirement). So nothing much has happened to the Agony Eastern for months. As mentioned in the last few posts an extension has been built and a "peninsula" added. No roadbed or track has been laid. I've been fishing and refitting a 14 foot Astroglass boat instead.

With the boat project done enough to make "Bassackwards" seaworthy, I started cleaning up the mess in the garage. While shuffling things around I started to rethink the current layout design. The benchwork at Altoona leaves a rather awkward "hole" at the front of the garage. This area tends to get choked with mowers, power washers, and a portable workbench. The resulting mess requires some manuevering to get the mower or anything else out.

It occured to me that I could resolve this situation by actually extending the layout into that area. Since the layout is high enough to store anything under 50" tall it creates a lot of storage space. By adding another six feet to the bench work I can create a place for the mower and other utilitarian equipment under the layout. Even the portable workbench can slide underneath.

I say down witth my XtraCAD software and came up with this "preliminary" drawing...

This maybe the first time a model railroad has solved a storage problem (and a legitimate reason to appropriate more right of way).

[MichaelWinicki]

Neat plan!

Ambitious and interesting!

My thoughts...

Not sure how into operations you are.  If you're going to do the roundy-round thing with the trains without being too concerned about realistic operations I think it will work great.  If you're going to try to emulate a schedule things are going to be more dicey trying to keep enough legit trains on a 4-track main in order to make the railroad operate realistically. 

Someone mentioned in another of these engineering threads that they tore down their 4-track Horseshoe plan because they had a difficult time keeping the main filled with a legitimate number of trains.  If it were me doing it, I may not even model the classification yard.   Instead I'd have two semi-hidden staging yards– one at each end of the layout (with a possible connection between the two in order to do a continuous run).   But I know modeling a seen/active yard is what we model railroaders do when given the space.

Those narrow aisles could become problematic.   24" is uncomfortably narrow in my opinion, and that's before you put anythng on the fascia that requires you to step back and have to look or read the fascia.

From the pictures previously posted it does appear that in spots you'll be able to access the layout from both sides.  That's a good/bad thing.  The good is you'll be able to access it from both sides.    The bad is, that with all the terrific scenic vista's you're going to be creating, i.e. great photo opportunities, you should consider one end of the layout to be the front, the other, the other to be the back and then do a nice backdrop to support any photo shoots that you'll do.  Plus quite frankly I think a layout looks better with a backdrop running behind.

[kelticsylk]

At one time I had contemplated a four track helix with a radius of 30" that would serve as holding tracks for mainline trains providing more variety and more realistic scheduling. Wasn't practical.

I had thought of staging yards but realized that a certain number of trains "orbiting" the layout at timed intervals (it takes a while for a train to run the two or three scale miles) could simulate mainline traffic. True, the variety wouldn't be the same but I can comfortably ignore that. The main can easily handle four "orbiting" trains at the same time, two freight, two passenger.  More trains could be released from the yards, scheduled to run between the "orbiters". The primary function of the operator (me) would be yard work, switching, etc while dodging the mainline traffic, which passes through Altoona about every ten minutes or so.

Since the plan is still in development, so is the operating scheme. I keep trying different ideas so I might come up with something.

[MichaelWinicki]

OK, I think I've got a better idea of what you're trying to accomplish.

Here's another thought, you haven't mentioned if you expect to be the only operator.   I thought I would be a single operator on mine, but as they say "Build it and they will come" and over time there were several folks interested in running the railroad with me.

I benefitted quite a bit from both building a previous layout and from spending quite a bit of time thinking about the operating scheme of the layout. 

I learned that I needed...

-Wide aisleways
-Short reaches across the layout (the shorter the reach the easier the maintenance and the bigger the layout the more that can and does go wrong)
-More emphasis on "locals", realizing that the through-freights were pretty much window dressing.

Fortunately all three of those points fit like a glove when others came by to operate the layout.

I think you're going to find the most fun you'll have with your layout is operating locals in a realistic fashion and having others over to operate with you.  Everything else is secondary.

[kelticsylk]

You gave me a thought on the staging instead of the classification yard...It is impossible to model the yard facilities at Altoona. Even in Z scale it would take an industrial sized building. Since I cannot do Altoona justice, and really have no idea how I would actually lay the various tracks, I could simply build a visible double ended staging yard. The focus of the layout could be handling traffic through the Curve and up the grade to Gallitzin. I could still have the East Altoona engine facilities and the passenger and express tracks (REA had a small yard at the freight house). These would be modeled on the new 6 foot extension, along with the turn table for helpers protecting the East Slope.

The layout is accessible from all sides because it also serves as storage (it's in the garage). Have to be able to get at all the Rubbermaid stackables etc underneath. The long side under the yards is a 15 foot long book case that holds the "library" (six or more decades worth of railroad related magazines and books). All of the aisles are 24" or better. I'm really the only one I expect will ever operate the thing. Most of the spectators are grandchildren with the occasional parent in tow.

This staging yard idea has me wondering (again) what I should do "west" of Gallitzin. I didn't want to model Cresson because I couldn't properly mrecreate the helper operations up the western slope. Spruce Creek offered a scenic opportunity I like so I went with that. I could model the junction at Tyrone but I'm not sure how.

Local operation would be cool, but in the real world there isn't much going on between Altoona and Gallitzin aside from a few old sidings that once serviced coke ovens. I tried to recreate these and use them to service other industries (using a little artistic license). The Pennsy would service these with local freights and "turns". There are empties and loads to exchange at The Curve, as well as the coal mine at Bennington and the various industries at Gallitzin. The stone quarry at Spruce Creek was actually part of Gallitzin in an earlier incarnation and probably could be some other connection (Tyrone?) I connected some of the sidings in the Blair Furnace area to simulate the Altoona Northern connection at Altoona and the Glen White Coal Company at The Curve. I was depending on this area to offer some switching opportunities. Both railroads would exchange empties and loads with the Pennsy. Think of it as a variation on the loads out, empties in idea with railroads instead of a mine and powerhouse. There is a powerhouse at Blair Furnace (served by the Altoona Northern) but it belongs to Logan Valley Traction (which is also modeled to a slight extent).

Since the layout is still in the track laying stage (while still evolving as a plan) and can be modified at any location. Nothing is set in stone at this time. Ideas are always welcome.

[MichaelWinicki]

No one says you couldn't have two staging yards, and convert more of the mainline run into staging.

I luv branch lines myself.  If it were me, I would have a long branch that touched upon a city or small city in order to get in some nice mid-20th century industrial architecture and give me a reason to use many of the main street buildings that are on the market.

[kelticsylk]

Having a staging yard at each end was a thought at one time. A lot of past "experiments" (over the last few years) were posted on my blog, but that was deleted and wasn't backed up.

The "Juniata" area of the layout is over 15 feet long and 2 feet wide, so a double ended staging yard there would fit a large variety of trains in both directions. It would probably resemble the storage yards always used at N-Trak shows.

Since the new extension on the Altoona city side will require a relocation of existing track I've been rethinking the entire layout, including the benchwork.

Not sure where it's going at the moment.