Back to the PRR Buffalo Line

[wm3798]

Dave,
As you find out more about the operations on your chosen line, you'll find designing the layout will be a lot easier.  Especially arranging your staging for the run throughs.

The publications about MRR operating are useful in setting up your fundamentals, such as sequential train sheets, car cards and waybills and all that, but your prototype will tell you more about what connections to make, what locals to run, your time table (basically the details of the sequential sheet).

On mine, even the sequence goes out the window sometime.  It comes down to what's in the yard that needs to move, and which way it's going.  Sometimes we end up with west bounds with multiple sections (a real problem when they all arrive at staging and only one track is open...) and sometimes we send out half a train just to clear a track.  It's really pretty organic.

It's fun when you get to that point, because it allows the extras to just happen, but you can still end up with a jam when one of the time freights arrives before the yard really wants it to... but then that's why it's a time freight!

My suggestion would be to use your little staging yard and your door and mess around with some scenarios.  It will quickly tell you if you if you're missing something critical, like a wye track to access the yard from either direction, or if a crossover here or there will help traffic flow around you while you're switching.  There's no better teacher than hands on experience.

Lee

[asciibaron]

As you find out more about the operations on your chosen line, you'll find designing the layout will be a lot easier. 

this is usually the hardest part, because once you know how a certain section was laid out and operated, it's very difficult to modify it.  wanting to keep prototype fidelity in a limited space is difficult at best.  making a comprise you'll have to live with makes it harder.  i'm not suggesting that our trackplans need to follow the prototype exactly, but it gets hard to rationalize trains heading in the wrong direction because it was easier to lay out. 

if you compromise too much, you really haven't succeeded in modeling the prototype, you've got trains running on an imaged world.

-steve

[wm3798]

Agreed.  However, understanding traffic flow can help you decide which compromises you can live with.  F'rinstance, I can get away with moving Maryland Junction and eliminating the yards there because there was far less switching on the through trains there.  On my truncated model, I can do all of that at Hagerstown, then use MY to decide whether it goes on to Connellsville or Elkins.  It would be nice to be able to model at least some of Knobmount, since that's where most of the coal marshalling took place, but I can do that at Bayard and Elkins, since there's not nearly as much emphasis on coal.

In a way, life follows art, as CSX downgraded and closed Ridgely and Knobmount almost immediately, yet Hagerstown still soldiers on, although in a lesser role.

The main thing I need to modify is my staging.  That's where understanding the traffic flow becomes essential.  I designed it originally for through running, where a train leaves the west end of the layout and returns at the east end.  This was a terrible mistake, with the exception of coal movements (empties always running west, loads east..).  I need to change it to more balloon staging, so the Reading trains going east disappear, then reappear as westbounds over the same route.  Likewise the NW and PLE bound trains on the west end.  To really make it more authentic, I should include similar balloon tracks that differentiate Baltimore trains, Hanover Sub and York trains, and Rutherford trains via Lurgan.

If it weren't for my itch to switch locals and my paper mill, I would model Hagerstown Yard, and the main line from Cherry Run to North Junction, and everything else would be in staging.

Lee

[randgust]

Well, here's the 1953 topo of Northumberland  (www.historical.maptech.com).

The reason I love old USGS maps is they are generally detailed enough to show track layouts.  These sure do.

http://www.historical.maptech.com/getImage.asp?fname=snbr53ne.jpg&state=PA

I didn't know that Lackawanna came right into there.  Huh.

And I'm looking at that track on the south side of the river going 'what the heck was that???" for that wierd junction which I think was KASE, right?  Reading obviously came in right in the center of town.

[wm3798]

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=40.88646~-76.796322&style=h&lvl=14&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=22747018&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&where1=sunbury%20pennsylvania&encType=1

It's fun to do the before and after...  That's a cool area.

Lee

[Dave V]

Randy,

That junction is indeed where Kase tower was.

I think this is why I keep ending up in paralysis...  Absent a large basement with no plans to move, I keep having to consider major compromises.  And those compromises multiply until I end up throwing up my hands and playing with my roundy-round.

One strategy I've considered is to start amassing structures for the future layout, as there are a good many structures to kitbash or scratchbuild.

However, I haven't given up completely.  I'm still hopeful that I can come up with some portable plan that doesn't compromise too much.

[randgust]

One of the 'druthers and givens' you have to work through is whether you really want a condensed version of Norry yard (roundhouse, turntable, and all) or whether that is 'off layout'.  If you do, then that yard starts to have everything else designed around it.

I faced a similar problem with Winslow.  I really wanted it.  Putting in a series of relatively long, narrow scenes led to a 'split table' approach where a duckunder to the center let me isolate on a series of back-to-back scenes with completely different scenery.  My entire layout is only 5'6" x 8'.

The big compromise I made early on was to push all the staging and reverse loops down a level.  I didn't want the layout looking like a yard full of trains in the Arizona desert.  Winslow was not to function as a staging yard, it was a classification yard, and the major function was to drop off and pick up blocks between trains, to other destinations, and for locals.

http://gustafson.home.westpa.net/atsfplan.htm

But the yard, Flagstaff, Darling, etc. all pretty much correspond to USGS.

[wm3798]

Randy, I think that's the first time I've seen your full track plan... what a great, versatile layout!  I like the massive staging, and how functional it is, and the transition line that leads up to it.  Brilliantly played!

Lee

[asciibaron]

Randy, I think that's the first time I've seen your full track plan... what a great, versatile layout!  I like the massive staging, and how functional it is, and the transition line that leads up to it.  Brilliantly played!

the staging is clever, but what happens if a train derails in the staging?  how are you going to get in there?  with the top and right side against walls, 2 operators are required to run 1 train since the backdrop will block the view of the inner pit area unless the operator ducks under to follow the train.  it also seems the trains are in hidden staging much longer than they are visible.

[wm3798]

If the backdrop is low, say 12" above the table, it's not a big deal.  Perhaps a wide angle shot of the layout would help dispel that.

Also, when modeling a busy main line, the keys to success are to have enough staging to support the volume of traffic you want (plus a little more!) and the ability to enter/exit the visible part of the layout from either direction.  The staging is there to support the "stage".  Since the middle Y level rises up between staging and modeled, there's probably  a good 8" or so vertical clearance above the staging yard, which should be plenty for giant 0-5-0 switching moves.

How long have you been running that layout, Randy?  Are the issues Steve raises a problem for you?  What are your "work arounds"?

Lee

[asciibaron]

Since the middle Y level rises up between staging and modeled, there's probably  a good 8" or so vertical clearance above the staging yard, which should be plenty for giant 0-5-0 switching moves.

there are 2 tracks on a grade in front of the staging per this picture:
http://gustafson.home.westpa.net/Chila_yard_1983.jpg

how do you get to that very back track, the one that drops from the visible to hidden "middle" level?

[randgust]

OK, one thing at a time....

First, the layout has been running, with that staging yard, since 1983.  Still going...

In the room where I originally had it in 1983, I had no access to the back (behind Flagstaff).  When I moved the first time, I fixed that, ended up with about 15".  Enough to get in.  When I moved again, it ended up tight into the wall one more time.  Now what?  (oh yeah, the entire layout was designed modular, six sections)

As I was building the wall, I made a built-in bookcase in the wall, with removable panels in the back to get to the layout.  I've never had to use them, but if I REALLY have a problem, I can go through the wall!  They are BEHIND the backdrop.

Vertical distance between levels is around 5".  On the 'problem track' under Flagstaff (the single line) I can reach it from in front across the first four feet (between levels) and all the buildings come off across the top on the second four feet.  More on that later, I'll show how that works.

On the Phoenix reverse loop, all the scenery lifts off so that about 3/4 of the loop is wide open.  Only a small part under the Winslow yard is really tight, and I can get under that to clean it from the bottom.

Remember the entire staging yard is ONE SIDE IN and ONE SIDE OUT.  None of the exit yard switches have switch machines, the points just push with the direction of travel.  The tracks are equipped with diodes so there's only one way out, no reversing by accident.  All the entrance switches are fully accessible from the side and 5" overhead clearance.  The entire edge of the layout, all the way around, is open, with hinged masonite panels across.  The RH side, LH side, and 'front' across the Winslow yard are completely open with drop-down panels. All the inside edges, including the control panels, drop down as well.

I have about one or two really catastrophic derailments in that whole system a year where I have to start pulling out trains, and cars, one at a time to get at it.  I will say that I ran that yard for almost two years before I got brave enough to cover it, and I STILL designed all of Flagstaff to unscrew and come off as another 'worst case scenario' which has never been used.

The way the layout typically works is that with two operators,  the dispatcher (me) handles all moves in and out of the yard, sets up and reverses the trains if necessary, and hands them off to the other operator at Williams Jct.  The workbench (low) doubles as the dispatcher desk.

Every switch has indicator lights on position.  Switches are protected by signals on all visible track so you have to get a green signal to confirm the route through Williams Jct. is properly lined in your direction of travel.  The entire storage yard is ONE CONTROL BLOCK so you can't accidentally select two blocks against each other.  Reversing gaps are marked on panels with red polarity lights.  Suffice to say, complete and total overkill on indicators and control.

The reverse loops have indicator lights that track a locomotive around so you can see exactly how far a train is so you know when it is safe to flop the main line polarity for the cab.

If you look at the plan, you'll see that the entire lower level is a loop by itself.  To clean track, I take one of the super heavy, overpowered trains (like 4 RSD15's) and run it in loops through storage, round and round.  You'd be amazed how four spinning units can polish up the rails.  I have to do that about annually.

The only thing I designed that did not work in practice was that wye, coming uphill, against the flow of traffic.  That confused everybody.  Taking that out kept the traffic flow up and down consistent.  It also allowed me to add another storage track.

I started tinkering with hidden storage about 1970.  I had a five-track staging yard under my 3x6 foot layout.  I learned a lot of things to do, and not to do.  I don't recommend this for everybody, but in my case, with the space I had and the operating plan I wanted, the biggest staging yard I could design, with the ability to feed trains in two directions (so every stored train could run eastbound and westbound on the schedule) gave me the complexity and train density I wanted.

Oh, and one more 'design feature' is that the backdrops are set at about 1" under my eyeball level, so that I can 'just see over' the backdrops to check a train on the inside.  When inside, the only super-critical spot is checking the signals headed downhill to Williams from Winslow, and I have a spot mirror in the room corner when I can see the signal bridge indications from the inside. 

Layout height is 48" underneath clear.

[CVSNE]

Dave,

I wouldn't sweat modeling something that has been done before.  It may not be the first time the Buffalo Line has been modeled before but it's new to you.  When I got back into model railroading 5+ years ago after a couple of decades of zero interest, I decided to model the Moffat line from Denver to the east portal of the Moffat Tunnel.  It seemed like a natural thing since it's local to me and scenically speaking, pretty spectacular.  Only after I had decided to model this did I learn that Mike Danneman (who I had never heard of at that time) was modeling the same thing, on a bigger scale, in N scale!  No worries though.  I'm still having fun and am happy with my choice.

If the fact that it's been done before is your biggest detraction, I wouldn't worry about it.

Erik

Dave,

Getting on this thread relatively late.

Considering how many Cajon Pass layouts (or attempts at Horseshoe Curve, or Ridgway  . . .) I've seen I'd say I wouldn't worry about duplicating something that has been done. That's a necessary "risk" of prototype modeling - some scenes or stretches of line just seem to fire the imagination of more modelers than another.

It's neat to look at Ted York's HO scale Cajon, and then look at some of the other Cajon layouts I've visited - they all model the same line, perhaps the same era, but the emphasis each modeler places on scenery, ops, equipment, or whatever makes the layouts unique.

Marty

[CVSNE]

Randy,

That junction is indeed where Kase tower was.

I think this is why I keep ending up in paralysis...  Absent a large basement with no plans to move, I keep having to consider major compromises.  And those compromises multiply until I end up throwing up my hands and playing with my roundy-round.

One strategy I've considered is to start amassing structures for the future layout, as there are a good many structures to kitbash or scratchbuild.

However, I haven't given up completely.  I'm still hopeful that I can come up with some portable plan that doesn't compromise too much.

Since I spent a number of years on active duty I know fully well where you're coming from.

I think there's a point of diminishing return for adding a yard to a layout .  . . if the layout is a certain size (meaning there's enough "destinations" to require classifying cars in the yard) then I think a yard is a great use of space - lots of play value for the square footage. But there's a point where the yard can be nothing more (visually) than a "bunch of tracks" -

So, if you can figure out a way to run out of staging (and staging can be scenicked to look like a visible yard, through a couple of scenes, towns, or whatever, and then back into staging I think you'll find there would be an option to add or subtract from the "presented layout" (the layout that someone will see and you'll build, based on the space you have available in a specific site) - move to a place that doesn't have room for a 10 x 12? (or whatever) - only put out the one town.

An example is Steve Amitrano (who's Sn3 layout appeared in GMR an issue or two ago). Steve designed his layout so the entire thing could be set up OR he could set up only one of the two "sides" of the thing. In various duty stations he's done one or the other. I think he even left one half of the railroad stateside when he did a tour in Okinawa as he knew there wouldn't be room for both halves. He lost the continuous run option, but was able to run trains and work on that section of the railroad while overseas.

I have to confess, while I think the M1s are neat engines are you able to run the "Is" on this line? I've always kind of liked those Hippos.

Marty

[wm3798]

Marty,
Your comments about yards emphasizes what I find so appealing about Randy's design.  It's very simple, yet the combination of staging and the yard at Winslow provide a diverse set of operating opportunities.  Definitely a lot of play value for the square footage consumed.

It's making me begin to re-think my yard plan (yes, even after we spent two weeks fiddling with it here!) to see how it can be minimized without sacrificing too much of its function...  The goal here would be to open up some main line running, which is currently lacking.

The thing that would be most helpful to Dave, though, would be a more thorough discussion of how Randy "modularized" the multi-deck layout, so he can see how practical it would be to apply to his current transient housing situation.

Lee