PRR/Conrail Juniata Division Engineering Report

[Dave V]

More ideas...

On the one hand I feel like I really want to add Huntingdon in addition to Lewistown.  On the other I feel like it would be crowded and wouldn't afford me all that awesome open-country Middle Division running I want to do.  FWIW, this iteration uses the same configuration for Lewistown as I have now (save for a highly questionable spur to Standard Steel).

The Lancaster County bit is really exciting, though.  A stretch of electrified Pennsy for the GG1s.



Oh, hell, I don't like this plan or any other...   

[Scottl]

It looks like something DKS cooked up a few years ago.  I like it, especially if there are overhead wires involved.

[pdx1955]

Just means that this idea needs more time in the oven . However, I think this plan is better than the last one as focus point is the open-country running (at least from the first-impression view from the doorway). I wouldn't add any more though - the tendency is too add too much - especially with hand-drawn sketch plans you'll find that things just don't fit when getting into actual scale.

[Dave V]

It looks like something DKS cooked up a few years ago.  I like it, especially if there are overhead wires involved.

Boy do I miss DKS...


Been watching some David Popp videos of his Naugatuck Valley and thinking about how he modified his initial HCD and just expanded.

Maybe I need to follow that example.

[MichaelWinicki]

Boy do I miss DKS...


Been watching some David Popp videos of his Naugatuck Valley and thinking about how he modified his initial HCD and just expanded.

Maybe I need to follow that example.

OK, that's fine too Dave.

But do you...

A. Want the "Code 80" look infiltrating every image?  Just go back and look at the shots you took of the Enola section coming off the C80 section and tell me you don't see a big difference.  And if you're pulling up the C80, then you're pulling up the roadbed also.
B. Want to deal with the curve limitations of the current JD?

In addition the materials and layout-engineering have changed somewhat since you first built the JD... Why not rebuild with more current concepts and ideas?

The JD gave great years of service but...

[Dave V]

Following Herr Popp's expansion model...



Pardon a rushed, crude sketch.

To make this work I would have to resolve a lot of problems on the current JD to include track issues and appearance.  That said, there are a lot of scenes on the JD I like and would like to keep, to wit:



Minus the tunnel:





It would require re-laying of the track to be okay...  I think I might want to do it with Peco 55.

Oh, but I think I want to trim the height on that mountain down the middle, regardless.  The Spruce Interlocking scene could stand to be improved with a little less vertical drama:

[Scottl]

You could keep the original JD initially and build the new section.  Once you are done, then decide if you renovate or replace the JD.

[Dave V]

OK, that's fine too Dave.

But do you...

A. Want the "Code 80" look infiltrating every image?  Just go back and look at the shots you took of the Enola section coming off the C80 section and tell me you don't see a big difference.  And if you're pulling up the C80, then you're pulling up the roadbed also.
B. Want to deal with the curve limitations of the current JD?

In addition the materials and layout-engineering have changed somewhat since you first built the JD... Why not rebuild with more current concepts and ideas?

The JD gave great years of service but...

Yeah, so I would have to replace the code 80 for that not to be a problem.  Honestly for the track sections I have replaced over the years the WS track bed comes up cleanly enough that I can get a level surface to lay cork.  But, Peco 55 is sturdier (due to the code 80 double-web rail disguised as code 55) than Atlas code 55 so would probably be better to use in a "re-lay" given that there might still be some bumps here and there.  The Peco code 55 turnouts would have exactly the same geometry as the Peco code 80 turnouts I'm using now so would make a re-lay simple.

Not sure what you mean by current concepts and ideas, but I most certainly would upgrade the scenery using more Supertrees and more static grasses and weeds.

You're right that the JD has given good years of service.  But until I can figure out WTF I actually want it's what I have and might be coaxed into a few more years' service if expanded to give a longer run and some real staging.

[Dave V]

Oh to hell with all of this.

My circular thinking vector is exactly why I'm tempted to sell it all and leave N scale altogether.


 

[pdx1955]

Oh to hell with all of this.

My circular thinking vector is exactly why I'm tempted to sell it all and leave N scale altogether.


 

What's to stop you from circular thinking in HO, O etc? . Personally, I'd do what Scott suggested...just patch in the new expansion as per your plan and leave the JD mostly as is. If it ends up working well, then renovate the JD. If not, then its a learning experience platform into your next adventure.

[Dave V]

What's to stop you from circular thinking in HO, O etc?

Because I don't already have a finished layout in HO or O.

[wcfn100]

I think you should build a turnout. 

Jason

[davefoxx]

I think a fresh start without the limitations of the original JD is the way to go.  Look, I built an expansion on to the Seaboard Central 2.0, and, ultimately, it wasn't the layout I desired.  It was stuck with the flaws of the original HCD section and trying to fit the original layout in to the revised track plan really killed the footprint of the expanded layout.  Since I knew that wasn't going to suffice, it made more sense to tear it down and just tinker with the original HCD until I finish off the room and do it right.  Am I missing the expanded mainline?  Yes.  But, I'm not wasting resources and cash on a layout that is doomed from the start.  The layout that I'm left with now will probably be sold when the day comes to start the next layouts (N and On30 layouts designed to fit the space simultaneously).

Where I see the similarity to your plans is there's still no four-track mainline, except one small stretch that doesn't give the effect you're looking for.  Shrink the return loops and expand the four-track main.

In other words, start over and recycle the parts and pieces of the JD.

DFF

[Philip H]

Where I see the similarity to your plans is there's still no four-track mainline, except one small stretch that doesn't give the effect you're looking for.  Shrink the return loops and expand the four-track main.

In other words, start over and recycle the parts and pieces of the JD.

DFF

Words of wisdom from Esquire Foxx. Do your Givens and Druthers analysis before you draw anything else.

[pdx1955]

Words of wisdom from Esquire Foxx. Do your Givens and Druthers analysis before you draw anything else.

Very true ...figure out want you have to have and what would be nice to have before you do anything more. For instance, maybe one of your givens is a "JD-like" signature scene like the overpass. I wouldn't necessarily have your current roster define or limit what they are as sometime that can lead to unintentional bias.   For some, these can lead to different layout locales or even scales. thinking about it, I (and many others) spent a lot of time cobbling onto layouts that we weren't satisfied with and in the end , tore it down and recycled.