Seaboard Central 2.0

[davefoxx]

I would definitely step the elevation of the town up as it goes to the right, having the road bridge approached more or less "at grade" with the railroad in a cut below.  You can use 1/4" foam core to build up the foundations, you'll just have to make some steps from the sidewalk to doors and other such minor details to keep the scene realistic.

Lee

Lee,

This is what I have in mind.  The whole town will rise on a grade, climbing up as you move towards the right end of the layout.  The overpass will be at grade with the railroad track in a cut, so there will be no "ramp" for the highway.  This will also help avoid the ridge looking like a mound on a flat table.  Buildings' foundations will need to be built to level the structures.

I look forward to building the town on a grade, which will add realism and correct one problem that I had on the Virginia Central.  Although I had a lot of rolling hills on the VC, the town and all of the streets were dead flat.  I didn't like that and will make that improvement on this layout.  The only flat areas will be the SBD trackage, and I may add small variations there, so that there will be very few level areas, except for where cars are spotted.

DFF

[seusscaboose]

Next time you come over, remind me to ask you about a similar issue I have at MP1

[wm3798]

Cumberland, like the rest of my layout, has a lot of geological acrobatics going on.  Aside from the tangle of staging and bypass tracks that pass underneath, the main street is on a grade, the creek crosses through diagonally, and now there's a dual highway transecting the scene...

Building a city on a grade is pretty simple, really.  I'm using the street grid as the more or less permanent frame that establishes the slope, then floating the blocks in as level platforms that can be pulled and worked on at the work bench.  This makes it much easier to build the foundations with a reasonable degree of precision.



When I get to that phase, I'll post more pics in my report.
Lee

[davefoxx]

Looking forward to it, Lee.  I'd like to know your method for determining "level," so that you can build a structure at the workbench and have it fit your streetscape.  I remember a picture that you posted of a corner city building where neither street was level.  Good stuff.

Thanks,
Dave

[DKS]

I don't know about Lee, but this is how I get level buildings on an incline. I had to do this for the James River Branch, as most of the town had inclined streets. And the whole town is removable.

The town started with a level platform cut to the size and shape of the removable part. This became datum. I then built up foundations like a layer cake, but with each layer a different thickness to suit the needs of the space.



The result--

[wm3798]

That's pretty much my approach, David.  The exception being that I "hang" the blocks, using the sidewalks as a flange over the edges of the streets.  That allows me to wire street lights into the circuit for the whole block, and to detail the sidewalks as part of the block at the bench.

Sometimes the result is a slight gap at the curb, but I try to minimize that during construction.

Lee

[davefoxx]

My estimate has it less than 6' once you account for [very minor] vertical easements.  That puts you around 3%.

I did some reading and found that the prototype A&R has a 2.5% grade out of Aberdeen on what's known as Bethesda Hill.

DFF

[davefoxx]

Just a few further tweaks to the plan.  The biggest revision operationally is the reversal of the crossover in the Aberdeen yard.  Thinking about it, I decided that a train should pull into the yard (second yard track from bottom) to tie down rather than sit on the SBD mainline (third track from bottom).  Then, the power can escape through the crossover back onto the main to run around the train, heading to either switch the cut of cars or go to the locomotive facility for servicing.



All rights reserved to completely revise the plan. 

DFF

[davefoxx]

A few minutes of free time before I have to get on with a laundry list of things to do before our realtor comes tomorrow to take pictures of our home (we're going on the market... finally!) allowed me to do a little research this morning.  I knew that there was a branchline that terminated in Aberdeen, NC that used to be owned by the original Norfolk Southern Ry.  The NS Ry. was taken over by the Southern Ry. on January 1, 1974, which was before my planned era of 1983 to 1986.  I also knew that this line was currently owned by a short line (Aberdeen, Carolina & Western Ry.).  Tell me that this is not a classy scheme for a short line:

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2077480

But, I didn't know when the AC&W took over control of the line.  Well, I discovered this morning that the Aberdeen & Briar Patch Ry. owned the line from 1983 until 1987 when the AC&W bought the line.  So, while I couldn't model the AC&W during my era (the AC&W has F-units in 2012, by the way), I could model the tail end of the Southern's ownership and/or I could model the A&BP.  Check out these photos of one of the GP7s owned by the A&BP:

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1887653
I love this first shot, because it would cake to model by removing the lettering from an SCL locomotive and adding custom decals that wouldn't be difficult for someone to fabricate.

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=86785
If I chose to get a little more into this project, this is how the A&BP ultimately painted that GP7.  Not a bad looking scheme for a short-lived and, most-certainly, a low budget line.

Further revisions to my track plan have allowed me to confirm that I can make the SBD mainline (and the passing siding!) a minimum radius of 12".  Of course, tweaking as I build the layout may allow me to pick up a little more.  For instance, I will likely add 3/4" (the thickness of the planned 1"x4" benchwork framing) to the length and width of the layout to (1) add a little comfort zone between the track and the table edge and (2) to allow the joists to be evenly spaced on likely 12" centers.  Although I haven't reflected it on the plan, the overall table will be approximately 36-3/4" x 60-3/4".



DFF

[DKS]

That's going to be a killer little layout.

Suggestion. If you're up for hand-laying a single-slip, you could add a storage track to the yard in the front.

[davefoxx]

That's going to be a killer little layout.

Suggestion. If you're up for hand-laying a single-slip, you could add a storage track to the yard in the front.

Well, I'm trying to avoid the temptation to create a spaghetti bowl track plan, but I see exactly what you're talking about.  My skills to build a single-slip turnout, though, yikes! 

Thanks,
DFF

[DKS]

Are you hand-laying all of the TOs? If so, a couple of ideas to play around with... first, a curved TO at the upper left would ease the mainline curve through that area. Another idea is to use a curved TO for the Aberdeen Packing & Produce siding, with the switch located under the road overpass. This would lengthen the siding, and allow you to shift the TO where it joins the yard to the left, further easing the mainline curve.

EDIT: I was drawing up my suggestions to see what they looked like, when I struck upon this variation. You lose one very short siding from the yard, but gain a straight run-through for roundy-round, and the yard's runaround is the same length.

[davefoxx]

DKS,

That looks great.  Alright, I'll admit it.  Your plan beats the tar out of my design.

But, I have been without a layout for sooooooooo long that I don't want to spend months building turnouts and hand-laying track just to get the loop running, let alone the rest of the trackage.  Remember, my wife and I have a three-month-old daughter, so my hobby time is now extremely limited.  I'll have to stick with code 55 on this layout, and you know how I feel about Atlas' curved turnouts.  Unless they redesign them, I'm not going there.

That said, I won't have much invested to pull up the A&R trackage and redo that in code 40 one day, which only requires building one #6 turnout at the furniture manufacturer's siding.  The layout could still be operational while the A&R is down.

Thanks so much,
DFF

P.S. I'll make you this one promise, though.  If you'll keep that plan available, I'll reconsider once we sell our townhome and buy the next house.  That's when I plan to start the layout.  Who knows?  By that time, I may change my mind, because your plan offers a lot.

[Scottl]

I like your concept and general design a lot. Lots to operate and a good variety of scenes to model.  I know some people are tough on the code 55 TO, but I have found them to be fine, especially after I widened the gauge in my Atlas locos!

[davefoxx]

Hi, Scottl,

I agree.  With the exception of the curved turnouts, I have had a lot of success with Atlas' code 55 turnouts, including the #5, which I have used throughout my Seaboard Central plan to save space.  I also properly gauge my locomotive wheels, and that has seemed to fix 99% of any problems that I have had with derailments.

My problem with the curved turnouts involved quality control, gauge issues, and that huge frog.  Although the frog didn't cause derailments (the guardrails did their job), I didn't like how wheels bounced through the frog.  Wheels would ride on their flanges through the frog, and low profile wheels really dropped in and hopped out.  Killed realism.

Thanks,
DFF