Kitchen Table & Northern (more information here)

[delamaize]

(sorry about the crosspost to Atlas forums and Trainboard, but I wanted to actually keep the documentation of the progress here, after the copypasta, I will talk a little more about the plan.)

Hey everyone, I am finally working on a new layout, I am nick naming it the Kitchen Table & Northern. In reality it is going to be part of my own branch called "Tenino & Northern" a shortline of my own design, that connected the Skookumchuck Valley and industrys to the NP Tacoma div. 4th sub, "Praire line."

So on to the actuall layout, I am designing it in 8 parts, each roughly 18"x18", using Kato unitrack, simmular concept to T-track. My idea here is a modular layout, that can be broken down easily, and set up in sevral componants. and in the future expanded. I have about 3/4 of the design finished, on paper, and the concept set up on the kitchen table. I got to make a few adjustments to the actuall thing, but it is designed corectly in the trackplan.



Nothing other than the track is really to scale. but you can get the idea, the grey on the upper portion is hills. it will be built in 8 parts, with the plan of it being modular like T-trak and N trak. although, the upper left and left center part will need to almost always have to be together because of the hills. the idea is to be able to set up any combinations of the modules and have some kind of layout, but also be able to expand in the future. In addition, with it being in small 18"x18" portions, I should be able to pack it into boxes when the army decides to move us again. the big question I am runing into here, is what to put on the center-right module? right now the only real industry I have is the team track, that also acts as a staging track, so I can run a train and be building one. The Region is the PNW, and any industry had to be able to fit in a aprox. 18" area. this picture hilights the dividing lines between the modules.



So that is what is posted before, More information for the Asshats. So the whole thing is Unitrak, I am doing this for 4 main reasons, I have the track already, connections between modules will be easier, Duriablility, and Wife's complaints about money. I would LOVE to use atlas or ME code 55 or hand lay code 40, but I figure my wife will be a little more forgiving if I am using resources I already have. The overall size is 4'x4', dictated by the size of our kitchen table, Hince the nick name. Potentially, I could go a little bigger, mabey 6'x6' total, that will leave me a 9" overhang on every side of the layout when set up on the table. As the plan sits now, it is 18"x18" modules. Construction will be foam on 1/8 or 1/16th inch plywood, with 1x4 framework. for turn out control, I am using the stock Kato switch machines, and I designed my own controler, that is expandable and modular enough to have as many or few turnout controls as needed and fairly inexpensive to make. The Bridge on the upper central module is a old Helja european steel arch bridge. I am not using the footings that came with the kit, as they are huge and ugly, the bridge it's self isn't bad, and with some paint and weathering won't be that bad. Reigon is the PNW, mainly around Thusrton County, Washington state. here is a map of the line's ficticous alignment. Their was an actuall line at one time that ran up this valley, but it was only a logging line, and by 1935 it was gone. Part of the orginal ROW is on my grandmothers property (Marked on the map in orange) The station is a Valley community station, (Area in Yello, again ficticous) that serves as a passenger station for the community in the valley, and a small freight station for the farmers in the valley, with authority over the team track. all along the line their will be interchanges with Logging lines, a Mine, and some farm products such as wheat, corn, livestock, and hay. The section I am modeling right now only has the the team track, and potential for one more industry. The aprox areas modeled are in Yellow. This is really freelanced, becaue the bridge I am using would be overkill for the river crossing, and the terrain woulsn't require tunnels, any potential tunnels could be avoided easily. I grew up in the southern portion of the area marked in orange, so I know the area well. This is a case of "My railroad, My world, STFU" lol.

(click thumbnail)

[DKS]

KT&N, even the initials are kind of "kitcheny." If I may make one suggestion? Why not build four 18 x 36 modules, instead of eight 18 x 18? It would be a lot less work to set up. And if you built them just right, they could stack together into a single block, put a handle on it and it becomes easily portable.
 

[Philip H]

There are two things I like already I a well thought out concept and use of available resources. David/s suggestion also0 makes gr8 sense. Good start!

[Bendtracker1]

KT&N, even the initials are kind of "kitcheny." If I may make one suggestion? Why not build four 18 x 36 modules, instead of eight 18 x 18? It would be a lot less work to set up. And if you built them just right, they could stack together into a single block, put a handle on it and it becomes easily portable.
 

May I inject my 2¢ worth?

Keep the same size blocks as drawn, but flip them so as to move the splices.  This way they aren't so close to the turnout above the station and the right side of the crossover.  Then you won't have to worry about having splices close to the turnouts.

Just a thought.
Allen...

[delamaize]

I love that idea Dave & Allen I think I am going to do just that! this is why I bring my ideas here!

[Bendtracker1]

Just another thing to keep in mind.....keep the sizes down to the 18" x 36" for portability and storage as David has drawn, but for future expansion, keep in mind the 18"x18" blocks for short straights or other corners for variety.

The only problem I'm seeing with the other corners is that the tracks are not centered at 9" [assuming the blocks are actually 18" x 18"] which means the edges of the blocks won't line up if you flip the corners to make and "S"

One might need to make two sizes of corners to get past this, or use different [smaller] radius for the inside corners, not sure if that would be good or not.
Just thinking out loud for the future.

Allen...

[DKS]

You might want to think about creating a "standardized" module of sorts where all of the dimensions and track crossing points are consistent. Using the Kato track, this comes close to the 18 x 36 inch range, plus or minus a couple of inches. With this arrangement, you can mix and match the modules to some degree, make new ones to drop in, and even add extensions at some point if that siding at the bottom left was reconfigured:
 


Gridlines are 6" centers.

[DKS]

A little leaner/meaner approach--
 


Modules measure ~17 x 37".

[Bendtracker1]

A little leaner/meaner approach--
 


Modules measure ~17 x 37".

There you go David! 
That's what I was thinking of....now it's pretty much universal and very flexible!

Allen...

[wm3798]

If you haven't already, check out the "Beer Line" layout in MR... I think it was their project layout last year.  They used a similarly modular design to allow it to be set up either as a continuous run or a point to point.  Pretty clever stuff.

Lee

[wcfn100]

I guess I can stand to be 'that guy' one more time.

I definately agree that by dropping the wide to 1' you get a much more reconfigurable setup. However.. I don't really see the need to reconfigure a 'roundy-round' layout.  This concept is much more useful on a switching type layout.  But if you go for a switching layout, 1' width won't allow for industry of any size unless you push the track centers to the edge.

If this is just to run trains in a circle, the RW theme for 2011, don't overthink it.

  
Jason

[DKS]

If this is just to run trains in a circle, the RW theme for 2011, don't overthink it.

I don't know about the Railwire per se, but the "theme" for me, at least, is to help get the customer what they want. If that's roundy-round, then so be it; if it's something else, the customer will let us know.

I don't think the modularity is so much for the sake of reconfiguration (although it can be) as much as simply making construction simpler by standardizing on a single unit design. This would of course provide the basis for something more versatile going forward, but that's out of the current scope. Possibly "over-thinking it" now may provide some benefits someday... or not. Either way, it can't hurt.

[wcfn100]

I don't think the modularity is so much for the sake of reconfiguration (although it can be) as much as simply making construction simpler by standardizing on a single unit design. This would of course provide the basis for something more versatile going forward, but that's out of the current scope. Possibly "over-thinking it" now may provide some benefits someday... or not. Either way, it can't hurt.

In a layout this small, going modular can, and does, hurt.  Are you telling me, given the space, and setup requirements, this is the best track plan? I have to say I'm surprised you wouldn't be pushing for a more interesting track plan that can still meet all the requirements.  A plan certainly doesn't need to be modular to be expanded on in the future, or be reconfigured.  

If nothing else, let's get something in the donut hole.  I don't remember reading anything as to why that has to be empty.



Jason

[delamaize]

I don't know about the Railwire per se, but the "theme" for me, at least, is to help get the customer what they want. If that's roundy-round, then so be it; if it's something else, the customer will let us know.

I don't think the modularity is so much for the sake of reconfiguration (although it can be) as much as simply making construction simpler by standardizing on a single unit design. This would of course provide the basis for something more versatile going forward, but that's out of the current scope. Possibly "over-thinking it" now may provide some benefits someday... or not. Either way, it can't hurt.

The 2 HUGE reasos for the modular design here is for portibility, and expandability. My wife is still in the army, and has no intentions on getting out. This means we are going to be moving every 3 years or so, and I will not always have train space, like now, so the easier it is to set up on a table, and take down when I am done, the better. The other thing is the ability to pack and ship the modules safely, packed in either crates or boxes. Operations wise, for now it is going to be a round and round, with one "industry" the "Team track" siding is mostly there for to set up and break down trains. Eventually the plan would be to have multiple modules with industrys, stations, yards, and various scenery. Allowing me to make diffrent round and rounds, or be able to make a point to point for actual operations. for now, the round and round is mostly so I can have something to run trains on that isn't just unitrak on table top. As David showed in his latest rendition, the siding extends off the layout, with is kind of ironic, because that was my inital plan, I will probally go with it. The reason for it's specific leignth is to help me put together trains, the leignth of the siding is the same leignth as my passing siding. So as long as I don't go past a mark I have put on the track near the switch, it will fit in the siding, allowing me to have one train on the siding, and one going round and round. The plan was to have the siding eventually be a resource to allow expantion. A mirrored version of that module, and a 3rd module could allow me to potentially make a Y, witch acording to my map, could become one of the terminus of my line. That brings up another though. Potentially, in the future, intrigate the KT&N (T&N) into the Prarie line, if I ever build it.

It is a challange, but I can have 3 trains on the layout at once, one running, one in the siding, one in the staging siding (team track). The challange is swapping the trains out. What has to happen is:
1. the train on the passing siding has to be brought out right on the tail of the train on the main,
2. then switches are alligned for the main.
3. Now I have 2 trains pacing each other on the main. Next I allign the Team track with the siding, and pull that train out.
4. Now comes the tricky part, I usually slow all trains down to a crawl for this. Once the 2nd train passes the foul point for the siding, I throw that switch, and pull the 3rd train out.
5. now I have 3 running at once   . Again, everything is running slow here.
6. next, right in front of the train I want to break down, I allign the switch for the siding, and make sure the switch to the team track isn't opened.
7. once the train to be broken down is on the siding, the track is realigned for the main. now I got 2 on the main.
8. Allign for the team track and back the train into said track. Now time to get back to one train.
9. Allign the switch to the siding in front of the train that I want to stop, pull train into siding, and reallign for the main.
10. Now I am back down to one train. It is a lot of work, but it is fun!

Someone on trainboard sugested making part of the module to "T trak" standard. I laid out some paper tonight and messed with it a little. While I like the idea of being able to have somethin that I could use at club meetings, I'm not sure I like the layout of the whole system, it seems very toy-like to me, it really looks as if it relys on the "Plywood Prarie" concept, and isn't real friendly towards any scenery below grade level. This really runs into issues with me, since I have 2 area that will be below grade, the underpass on the right upper module, and the bridge over the river on the upper module. Also the 1.5" from the front edge of the module doesn't leave much room for scenery, or anything for that matter. the spacing on the rear is a little better with the standard size, the standard module being 8.25" deep (leignth is 12.125") Athough the "modifyed" modules are allowed 14.38" for the depth, and width, witch gives me more room in the rear for scenery, but still keeps the tracks 1.5" from the front of the layout. I think what I am going to end up doing is follow their standard for table top to module top or bottom of the Unitrack roadbead (not railhead like Ntrak) of 2.57" and the optional spacing between the tracks bed of .312". that is where the simularty will stop. I figure by using the height and spacing standard, I could POSSIBLY be able to use the module with T Trak modules. Another Reason for not following the T Track standard to the letter, How many clubs are out there? I don't see many, Not like N trak.

David's Latest "Leaner" design is my favorite so far, and looks to be the most ideal setup. With the tracks along the center line of the layout, I could use them as either left or right modules, as long as I didn't committ to adding a perminate backdrop. I will just have to remember that anytime I do dual tracks, I need to make sure the allignment is always on the same side of the main.

Now, where to find some 1/8" plywood, 1x2's, some foam, and some glue.

[delamaize]

In a layout this small, going modular can, and does, hurt.  Are you telling me, given the space, and setup requirements, this is the best track plan? I have to say I'm surprised you wouldn't be pushing for a more interesting track plan that can still meet all the requirements.  A plan certainly doesn't need to be modular to be expanded on in the future, or be reconfigured. 

If nothing else, let's get something in the donut hole.  I don't remember reading anything as to why that has to be empty.



Jason

No reason why I couldn't put something in the hole, except access to it. My kitchen table is 4x4, I could potentally get away with a 5x5 space, this leaving 6" overhand all the way around. I like where you are going there, But for now I want to at least get the roundy-round part up and going. That actually is a really good idea for a interchage with a lumber mill on the off layout side of the diamond. to add to the fire, I have a random 90 deg. crossing piece.......