PRR/Conrail Juniata Division Engineering Report

[Dave V]

figure out a way to incorporate APEX .. instant layout expansion

Um, no...! Apex is a completely different area (pines and Kudzu) plus a much tighter set of ruling radii for the tracks.

The Trix c80 curved switch has 15.3" inner radius and 19.8" outer radius.

Very good to know!

Glad you're reading, Dave.  I never want to be so presumptuous as to take your trackplanning prowess as a given, but if you have any ideas that would expand my mainline run in the given space, I'm appreciative and all ears!

FWIW, after browsing the G scale section of Caboose Hobbies last weekend, sticker shock cured me of any large-scale garden railroad plans (save for maybe a loop in the back) so my model railroad budget should not be split too badly.

[DKS]

Well, you have a 10'6" x 14'8" room you're sharing with Jacob's 2'6" x 5' layout. Is his layout staying? Anything else in the room to take into consideration--workbench, storage, etc.? Basically, how much of the room are you ready to devote to the JD Mark III?

[Dave V]

Well, you have a 10'6" x 14'8" room you're sharing with Jacob's 2'6" x 5' layout. Is his layout staying? Anything else in the room to take into consideration--workbench, storage, etc.? Basically, how much of the room are you ready to devote to the JD Mark III?

I'd love to keep Jacob's layout in there, but it's not critical.  The plan shows where the doors are.  The hallway door opens toward the top of the plan and the closet door opens against the window.  There's only one other piece of furniture in the layout room and that's a corner display case.  It can go anywhere.



So long story short, the whole room is fair game...although the smaller the footprint the better given the non-zero possibility of moving to an unknown space in as little as 2.5 years.

[davefoxx]

I'm no DKS, but here's something I threw down that I think might fit in the room.  Your son's layout would have to go elsewhere.  I did not get the original JD to scale necessarily, but I threw it in at right with enough detail to show you where it fits in.  I would put the longest side against the wall, and you should have room for aisles (not the largest width but you say you're a lone wolf) down all other sides.  Basically, it's two 36" x 80" doors connected by by a small 30" x 15" or 18" piece to bridge the gap.  Overall, it's 102" x 80".  I don't show it, but, obviously, there's an aisle up the middle from the bottom.



This would maximize your mainline run, and most of the original JD is undisturbed.  A staging yard is at top left and you could put a locomotive facility at bottom left, like I show here.  Feel free to put as many staging yard tracks as you like.  I did not add industries or any branchlines, because I'm not familiar enough with the portion of the Middle Division that you model.

I won't be offended, if you don't like it.  If anything, I hope this just gets TRW creative juices flowing.

DFF

[Dave V]

Great start!  I love it!

[conrailthomas519]

definitely a Good Start! add a crossover on the duel main directly across the layout from the 4 track engine facility yard. Call it done!.. at least the mainline anyways

[DKS]

Good going, DFF. Nice to have some "competition." Before I dive headlong into this, I do have a few more questions for Dr. V. I know some or most of this has been addressed upstream, but I'd like to give you another chance to think more about these points, and consolidate all of the information.

1. What is the fate of the Enola yard? I know you're not very happy with it any more, but it seems a shame to scrap it--especially in light of your tight modeling budget, and the material value it represents. Would you be interested in keeping it if it could be modified? (Yes, I do have some ideas along those lines.)

2. Are there some specific proto scenes you'd like to incorporate in the bigger, better, badder JD?

3. Maximum portability is a given; are you looking to stick with HCD benchwork?

4. Do you prefer an island, i.e. a design that has aisle space all around, or would you entertain the possibility of having the layout up against one or more walls to maximize modeling real estate?

5. Aside from the desire for a good long mainline roundy run and some staging, are there any operational features you'd like incorporated into the plan?

6. Grades, or dead flat?

7. I know this has been a point of discussion lately, but I'd like to take one more pass at it since we are talking about a non-trivial expansion effort. Are you sticking with Code 80 throughout, or transitioning to Code 55 for the new portions? What are your further thoughts on the present layout--are you scrapping plans to replace the Code 80 track, or is that still a possibility, albeit more distant? This is especially relevant from the standpoint of designing the present layout's connection(s) to the outside world. Bear in mind, I'm not trying to impose any choices upon you--I'm entirely unbiased with respect to others' preferences. (Indeed, I'm entertaining the idea of building a new micro-layout for myself using Unitrack. There, I said it.)

[GimpLizard]

The Trix c80 curved switch has 15.3" inner radius and 19.8" outer radius.

Can anyone point me to a source for the Trix curved turnouts? I've searched the usual suspects and come up empty.

Thanks

[Dave V]

Good going, DFF. Nice to have some "competition." Before I dive headlong into this, I do have a few more questions for Dr. V. I know some or most of this has been addressed upstream, but I'd like to give you another chance to think more about these points, and consolidate all of the information.

1. What is the fate of the Enola yard? I know you're not very happy with it any more, but it seems a shame to scrap it--especially in light of your tight modeling budget, and the material value it represents. Would you be interested in keeping it if it could be modified? (Yes, I do have some ideas along those lines.)

There are other problems with how I built Enola...  In fact even the roadbed doesn't quite sit flat in spots.  I really half-assed it, unfortunately.  I should have laid the classification tracks directly onto the foam instead of using that damned WS Trackbed stuff again.  I could consider saving it, but prefer it to go.  I would, of course, salvage as much track and scenick materials as possible.

2. Are there some specific proto scenes you'd like to incorporate in the bigger, better, badder JD?

Something that uses a couple Vulcan kits perhaps, but otherwise anything from Lancaster to Altoona is fair game.

3. Maximum portability is a given; are you looking to stick with HCD benchwork?

Yes.  HCDs can be containerized easily for moves.  I may still have a move or two yet ahead based on some post-AF job snooping I've been doing.

4. Do you prefer an island, i.e. a design that has aisle space all around, or would you entertain the possibility of having the layout up against one or more walls to maximize modeling real estate?

I would be willing to do against the walls as long as I have the ability to reach.  I keep the JD low enough that as long as I'm not reaching over a mountain, I can probably reach back 3 feet.

5. Aside from the desire for a good long mainline roundy run and some staging, are there any operational features you'd like incorporated into the plan?

Run-through staging for 1-2 trains.  Perhaps a few stub-end staging tracks but they mustn't require the sort of tortuous back-up moves that my current Enola does.

6. Grades, or dead flat?

Dead flat is my prefernce.

7. I know this has been a point of discussion lately, but I'd like to take one more pass at it since we are talking about a non-trivial expansion effort. Are you sticking with Code 80 throughout, or transitioning to Code 55 for the new portions? What are your further thoughts on the present layout--are you scrapping plans to replace the Code 80 track, or is that still a possibility, albeit more distant? This is especially relevant from the standpoint of designing the present layout's connection(s) to the outside world. Bear in mind, I'm not trying to impose any choices upon you--I'm entirely unbiased with respect to others' preferences. (Indeed, I'm entertaining the idea of building a new micro-layout for myself using Unitrack. There, I said it.)

I've realized that waiting on the availability of Atlas code 55 has become a convenient excuse to do nothing.  Here's what I propose...  Mix of code 80 and Unitrack on the mains, salvaged 55 on the sidings/spurs.  I know there's a big difference in tie spacing, but I already have that mix on my layout and no one complains!

One thing that has drifted me toward the sturdiness of Unitrack is how my little code 55 joiner piece between layouts has become beaten all to hell from the moving.  As small piece of Unitrack between the HCDs would assure a stable connection.

[DKS]

Dave, thanks for the replies. One last query: how much modification of the current JD would you consider? I wouldn't disturb any of the signature scenes, but would the end curves and surrounding scenery be fair game?

Can anyone point me to a source for the Trix curved turnouts? I've searched the usual suspects and come up empty.

Excellent retailer, been doing business for many years: http://www.eurorailhobbies.com/erh_list.asp?mn=2&ca=55&sc=N

[Philip H]

One thing that has drifted me toward the sturdiness of Unitrack is how my little code 55 joiner piece between layouts has become beaten all to hell from the moving.  As small piece of Unitrack between the HCDs would assure a stable connection.

Sp would adapting MC's Gorilla glue and soldered tie method.  I believe he uses a pre-made PC tie assembly for end plates and reports no problems.

[Dave V]

Dave, thanks for the replies. One last query: how much modification of the current JD would you consider? I wouldn't disturb any of the signature scenes, but would the end curves and surrounding scenery be fair game?

Yes.  The river crossing scene is probably the only sacred cow; even Lewistown can be modified (using your awesome depot, of course!).  The tunnel beyond the bridge is not sacred.

[Scottl]

Devils advocate...  How about cutting out the river scene and putting it in a new layout without the existing HCD constraints?  It could be built to travel when you need to move, and might give you the freedom to plan something more in tune with your current thinking.  Your layout is fantastic, but you seem to be wanting more and this is your opportunity to explore the potential.

The problem I have with HCD layouts in general is the same I have with the classic 4' X 8': you need a lot of space around them to make it work.  A design like Dave F. has proposed could be made into an around the walls type of configuration where you place the key scenes.  Look how easy fixing a track kink on the JD, it was back to finished very quickly (or it seemed to us!). 

You have a space not unlike my own so I have pondered this very issue for years.  I'm now expecting to move in the next few years, but I committed to around the walls trackage because it made best use of the limited space.

Just some thoughts to chew over.

[DKS]

A starting point. Some notes:

1. HCDs throughout (a 36" and an 18"); shown to scale in the room.

2. The center crossovers at the pseudo-four-track-main bridging the river allow you to reverse trains.

3. The "town on ridge" provides a gentle scenic divider to separate the visible staging from the industrial area in the foreground.

[Scottl]