The Burlington C&I Sub

[PAL_Houston]

I am a migrant from the Atlas N-scale forum, and one of the things I find attractive about Railwire is that it provides this place to develop a thread about one's own layout.  This post is intended as an overview of my "C&I Sub" from inception to approximately the present.  In subsequent posts I hope to share more detail about the development of the C&I Sub over the last 2-1/2 years, and into the future as I complete it (yeah, I know -- it'll never happen!).  I hope some of this is useful to some of you.

I have been in N-scale since 2005 or 2006. Over that time I've built 3 layouts. My first was a highly modified version of the Atlas N-10 layout in Code 80. Then I built a version of the Atlas N-18 (Gulf Summit & Susquehanna), and linked the first layout to it out in the garage. Since I live in Texas, running trains in the garage is an exercise in perserverance, especially in summer months when it's 100+ F outside. After running these layouts for a year or 2 I had built up enough confidence and knowledge to want to design my own layout, over a region I am interested in modelling.  And, to try out some alternative modelling methods.   I sold one layout and dismantled the other, in order to make space in the garage to start building my current layout.

Planning of the C&I Sub began in 2008 with the drafting of my "Givens & Druthers" and an initial track plan.  This evolved over the period of about a year or more, with some limited input from the participants at the LDSIG wiki.  The plan for my layout is out there on the LDSIG wiki, and pretty well approximates what I am building, as well as documenting one of my earlier designs.

The C&I Sub is intended to represent a section of the Burlington from Galena Jct, Illinois south to Savanna, and then eastwards to Oregon and Flag Center.  The section from Savanna to Galena Jct. runs along the Mississippi River at essentially river level (plus 12 to 15 feet).  It passes beneath the scenic Mississippi Palisades, which are forested limestone bluffs above the river.  This area is the southern part of what the Burlington used to advertise as "Where Nature Smiles 300 Miles".  The section from Savanna to Oregon is also pretty level and is where they used to really open up the Twin Cities Zephyrs to achieve some of the highest average speeds for passenger traffic of the early diesel era.

I began construction of the first 3 modules of my current layout during the December 2009, when the garage is habitable, especially with a tower heater.    The modules are generally 2x6 monocoque construction:  1x4 is used for all framing and the table legs.  Rigidity is supplied by screwing 3/8-inch plywood to the framing.  The legs are 1x4 screwed together to form L-shapes, and attached to the framing using carriage bolts.  The modules are aligned by and attached to each other by carriage bolts.  I do not use glue.

The sub-roadbed is 2 sheets of 1-inch "blue foam" insulation board, bonded together and to the plywood table using latex caulk.  Yes, I would've preferred using a single 2-inch sheet, but they don't sell it here.  By Feb 2010, I was test-laying track, and continued to make various sorts of progress on the layout until last October.  Then I finally re-possessed a bedroom upstairs above the garage in the blessed air-conditioning.  After painting the room, and installing LED track lighting, I moved the initial 3 modules upstairs and began construction of the next 3.  So far I have 6 of 9 modules up and running from Galena Jct to Oregon, and includes reversing sections that allow me to model interchanges between the CBQ and CGW at Galena Jct. and between CBQ and MILW at Savanna. There is also a return loop with sidings along the back wall (which will be hidden by a 'front drop' scene divider).

The layout is DCC (Digitrax). I still need to build the Flag Center and staging modules. I also have a lot more structures, ballasting and scenic-ing work to do... certainly enough to keep me busy for quite awhile!

Here are a couple pix to show the approximate current status of the C&I Sub. The first shows the general area of Galena Jct and the Mississippi Palisades.




and this shows a view of the Palisades from Savanna.




I am mainly interested in modeling the early diesel era, from say 1955 to about 1965.  Most of my motive power is F3s F7s GP7s SD7s and SD24s, and E8s. I finally got some of the Zephyr and Empire Builders up and running lately -- and they are gonna look pretty slick on this layout, I think! But to provide some variety, in case I ever get bored, I also have some steam suitable for switching around Oregon or Savanna during the 1930's, although I haven't really thought much about re-dating the layout to match.

Currently I am in a modeling hiatus, pretty much just running trains without doing much new work.

I think I need to get my priorities sorted out ! 

More sometime.  What are your questions?

Regards,
Paul

[cv_acr]

Nice control panels.

Scenery looks pretty good so far too, although you could probably do a bit more to those embankments to get rid of the very obvious separation lines between the foam layers.

Looks like a neat layout from the photos, keep us updated. 

[PAL_Houston]

Nice control panels.

Scenery looks pretty good so far too, although you could probably do a bit more to those embankments to get rid of the very obvious separation lines between the foam layers.

Looks like a neat layout from the photos, keep us updated. 

Hi, Chris.  Thanks for looking.  I agree about the embankments.  I will do something eventually, but at this moment I am not entirely sure exactly what.  The photo below gives a different perspective on what I am dealing with.  First and foremost, Savanna is a river town, and like lots of river towns sits on a river bluff.  The Burlington came in from the east, crossed Plum Creek, went thru their freight yard then hooked north along the Mississippi towards Dubuque and points north.  The view I include below would be eastward-looking from above the Mississippi River, after the CBQ trackage made its turn towards the north.

I need to add a lot of structures yet, many of which need to be houses.  Because the terrain is basically a hillside, I will eventually need to carve into it to make (level) foundations.  Also, I am not quite sure what I will do about sidewalks or driveways.  Some of the better houses might've had long drive ways up the hill from the main drag (US 52 / Ill.64).  Other may just've had gravel alleyways from side streets.   I have gotten some ideas from Google, but they haven't fully gelled.  I am after a town that might've been like Savanna, but without adhering to any particularly stringent requirements for fidelity...the "selective compression" on this layout is enormous.



For the moment a partially-sculpted hillside with grass a couple of houses is my placeholder.


I wish I could find some N-scale brick houses.  And also a red brick church that is somewhat between a country chapel and that Kibri cathedral to go on  this hill.

Regards,
Paul

[davefoxx]

I agree about the embankments.  I will do something eventually, but at this moment I am not entirely sure exactly what.

Lightweight spackle and a putty knife.  You can also lay this stuff on pretty thick without cracking like joint compound.

For example, lightweight spackle was used here to (1) smooth the rough cuts in the foam, (2) hide the seams between the foam layers, and (3) blend the bridge into the hillsides:


Please ignore the roadway, which hadn't been "patched" yet after the bridge installation.

Hope this helps,
DFF

[PAL_Houston]

I am going to add some posts to this thread to talk about how I got to where I currently am with the C&I Sub.  I hope this is useful background and information for others who may be considering building their layouts.

Today's Topic:
"Givens & Druthers" and the layout design.

Every layout requires the modeler to have a purpose, and to make (and recognize) the compromises he (she) is going to have to make.  Someone (John Armstrong?) called this statement of purpose and extent his "Givens and Druthers".  Here are mine, as I wrote them down in late 2008 or early 2009:  you will note there is evidence of changes which to this listing, which came about as the track planning progressed.
So far, I haven't strayed too far from this list of goals and preferences.  Also, the layout diagram is pretty much "as built" so far.  There have been a couple of minor changes to the location of industries in Oregon and Mt. Morris, with some minor changes to the trackage.  Generally this has been done (after a bit of trial and error) to increase the number of available "spots" and to facilitate coupling and uncoupling.  Also, ended up using some of the new Atlas curved turnouts on the north end of Savanna, and this has really worked out very well.  (Thanks, Atlas!!)

As mentioned above, I still have lots to do, including building the Flag Center and staging modules (Rochelle, Aurora, Rockford, East Dubuque).  Off and on I have continued to consider using a helix to put staging on a lower level, but just have not been able to convince myself that is a really good idea.

More later.  Comments welcome!


Givens
Railroad: Burlington (Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad)
Era: Late-1950’s to early 1960’s (early post-transition)
Motive Power: GP-7’s, SD-7’s, SD-24’s, F-3’s, F-7’s, E-8’s.
Scale: N-scale

Druthers
Benchwork:
Modular Tables: 2 feet x 6 feet (or so), monocoque construction (plywood screwed on 1” x 4”  framing)
Base Height:  more than 48”, less than 60”.  50" to top of foam insulation
Levelling of supports: 
Foam insulation for track base: 
Single level: C&I Subdivision has negligible grade
All interchanges at grade; grades (if any) less than 1%
Operations: Freight and Passenger.
high-speed running (up to 75 smph) onmainline
lots of interchanges, some industries
Operations Method:
train orders; car card & way bill
Short (1 or 2 hour) operating sessions
Track: design based on Atlas Code 55
Minimum Radius:
I wanted 20-inch mainline minimums, but couldn’t get them to fit. 
In this version (C&I_Sub_G03) I have made a number of compromises:
This version takes the whole room (12’ x 13’), rather than the smaller 8’  x 12’ area I started working with
I am getting min. mainline radii of 15” & 16.25” in the Palisades area west of Savanna.
I have 13.75” and 15-inch curves west of the single-track bridge over the Rock River (East of Oregon)
I had to go to 12.5-inch at Galena Junction, but the hidden track along the back wall is all 17.5-inch or larger radii
I still do not have multiple levels, which for me is a primary “druther”
Turnouts: design based on Atlas Code 55, #5-turnouts
Control: DCC (Digitrax) with multiple power districts & reversing sections
Signals: Haven’t gotten that far yet.

[Philip H]

Paul,
Nice layout synopsis.  John Allen would be proud, though I  suspect he still chuckles slightly that his "Givens and Druthers" phrase is now hard wired in the hobby.

Having run on a couple of helixed layouts - including Lee's very well executed WM, what's your hold back on doing a helix to add staging?

[PAL_Houston]

Paul,
Nice layout synopsis.  John Allen would be proud, though I  suspect he still chuckles slightly that his "Givens and Druthers" phrase is now hard wired in the hobby.

Having run on a couple of helixed layouts - including Lee's very well executed WM, what's your hold back on doing a helix to add staging?

Philip -- thanks for looking and for your thoughtful comment.  The principal advantage of using a helix is that it would make available a lot of room underneath the main layout, essentially doubling the available space.  The disadvantages are that the helix would need to go in the area at the southeast corner of the room about where the return loop and Flag Center are now.  I would probably have to truncate the Rockford Branch, which probably would not be that big a loss.  But, I would have to figure out some way to build a really complicated bi-directional helix in order to feed both north/westbound and south/eastbound traffic.   And, never having built a helix before, I am a little (a lot!) concerned about building it so it would operate smoothly and reliably. 

I would be interested in your (and others') thoughts about a helix design that would move traffic down to a lower level, probably 14 inches (or more) below the current sub-roadbed, which is 50 inches above floor level.  Also, I'd like to hear your thoughts about doing this as a retro-fit, since the staging level would have to be installed, wired and lighted beneath the existing modules.  This is not impossible, but would require a good deal of thought, design, planning and fabrication to pull off effectively.

Regards,
Paul

[Philip H]

Paul,
my experiences are mostly in helping Lee get his WM layout expanded and rebuilt, and he did the helices (2 of them) he needed on his kitchen table.  So I'd have to defer to him on construction specifics.  I will tell you that we fitted both of them - one going up to Elkins, WV, and the other going down to expanded staging.  There are several web sites that have helix grad and curve calculators on them (which I have enver personally used) so working out the math should be easy.

Seusscaboose (Eric) has taken a different approach, using long grades and hills to get from one level to the next.  If you have room, it might be worth considering if you don't want to do the helix route.

Finally, a good track plan would be very helpful for these discussions, so we can better visualize the points you are trying to tie together.

Philip

[3DTrains]

John Allen would be proud, though I  suspect he still chuckles slightly that his "Givens and Druthers" phrase is now hard wired in the hobby.

FWIW, I believe it was the late John Armstrong who coined the phrase.

Paul - a level under your current 50" would be fine only if you plan on using a roll-around chair. Otherwise, consider adding a deck above @ +12". Either is dependent on your height and comfort zone, and note that it's easier to build above than below, IMHO. I'm 6'-4", so my multi-deck preferences would be for 42" and 62", lower and upper levels respectively. My future plans call for an upper deck of 65", but that couldn't be helped due to a space-eating loop in the middle.

Cheers!
Marc - Riverside

[PAL_Houston]

FWIW, I believe it was the late John Armstrong who coined the phrase.

Paul - a level under your current 50" would be fine only if you plan on using a roll-around chair. Otherwise, consider adding a deck above @ +12". Either is dependent on your height and comfort zone, and note that it's easier to build above than below, IMHO. I'm 6'-4", so my multi-deck preferences would be for 42" and 62", lower and upper levels respectively. My future plans call for an upper deck of 65", but that couldn't be helped due to a space-eating loop in the middle.

Cheers!
Marc - Riverside

...OK so John Armstrong beats out John Allen in a LANDSLIDE victory: 2 votes to 1 vote!  (We probably need someone who actually knows the answer to this question to chime in about now: "Who originated the concept of "givens & druthers" as applied to layout design?") 

I am 6'2" and shrinking (my lower back is usually in pain) so I pretty much like the elevation I've got for the main layout... It is truly "walk around and I don't have to bend over (except to pick stuff up off the floor).  So, while  I hear you loud and clear about the advantages of going up instead of down, I am also thinking about my grandson (now 5) who eventually will want to run trains also.  And, since this is a modular deal (most of the modules are 6' x 2') I could "go deep" without having to erect any form of super-structure like I'd have to do if a helix rose higher than the main layout.   So for these reasons I've mainly considered lower level staging, and how I might go about it, but not in very much detail.

Philip mentioned a good track plan for the helixed staging (the plan I attached to my Post #4 on this thread shows staging on hte same level as the main.   And I could definitely use some helpful input there.  I will go find what I can of my "alternative concepts" and see if there are 1 or 2 helix-based concepts that I can put up for discussion.

[pedro]

Paul, nice start, very nice! Your Palisades at Savanna sure look the part.

I've worked former Q lines in train service for BNSF from Denver, Lincoln, Alliance and Chicago, and the C&I is my favorite by far. I had to chuckle at your description of the stretch from Savanna to Oregon as "level". It's anything but! That's the hilliest, curviest stretch of the entire thing!  It's knuckle-busting reputation was such that it was used in the early days of the BN engineer training simulator runs.

The tangent from Millidgeville to Chadwick was one of the spots where the Zephyr would regularly top 100MPH. Even today with a Z train at 60MPH it's a real pleasure (and moderately challenging) to run the C&I. It's a real roller coaster, and the prettiest part of Illinois.

Looking forward to seeing more as you progress. Let me know if you think BNSF-era references would help. I've got a bunch!

[PAL_Houston]

One suggestion was to put up some notional layout diagrams for a potential helix-based staging for the C&I Sub.

Here is one such plan involving a helix to lower level staging, as an alternative to my base plan with staging on the same level as the main layout (see Post #4 to this thread for my base plan, and for comparison to this helixed alternative):



As you can see the staging helix at the southeast corner wraps clockwise as it descends.  It allows access from the Flag Center junction in either the north or southbound directions and is a double helix.   However, this is not ideal for operations -- ideally there would be 2 counter-rotating helices that were entered directly from the southbound main (at Rochelle/Aurora) and directly from the (northbound) return loop (at East Dubuque/Minneapolis-St.Paul).   The reason that I chose a clockwise wrapping of the helix for this design is because it puts the landing on the lower level toward the aisle-side of the layout, making it much more easily accessible.  The dual counter-rotating helices create a number of problems, including having some rather lengthly ramps. that would not be readily accessible from the aisles.  But I would love to have someone show me a great design for that!!!!

Here is one version of what lower level staging might look like:



....and here is another version:

.


As you can see, I would not be lacking for staging space with either of these designs.  Actually building and installing any of them is another matter.  Basically I would need to custom-fit and level each of the lower level modules, and add track and wiring in such a way that they were easily installed, aligned and connected.

[PAL_Houston]

Paul, nice start, very nice! Your Palisades at Savanna sure look the part.

I've worked former Q lines in train service for BNSF from Denver, Lincoln, Alliance and Chicago, and the C&I is my favorite by far. I had to chuckle at your description of the stretch from Savanna to Oregon as "level". It's anything but! That's the hilliest, curviest stretch of the entire thing!  It's knuckle-busting reputation was such that it was used in the early days of the BN engineer training simulator runs.

The tangent from Millidgeville to Chadwick was one of the spots where the Zephyr would regularly top 100MPH. Even today with a Z train at 60MPH it's a real pleasure (and moderately challenging) to run the C&I. It's a real roller coaster, and the prettiest part of Illinois.

Looking forward to seeing more as you progress. Let me know if you think BNSF-era references would help. I've got a bunch!

Pedro: 

thank you for your compliments and encouragement.  I agree with you about the area being scenic and hilly, and that it's my favorite part of Illinois as well.  When I went to the BRHS meet in Sept 2009 in Rockford, I took an extra day and drove out to Galena then down to Savanna and then back throught Mt. Morris and Oregon.  I also spent a morning driving south from Rockford along the Rock River to Oregon and visited Flag Center and Rochelle.  I took LOTS of pix!  Including some of the country-side around Chana with the long grade to the west.

Unfortunately, my layout is "selectively compressed" by an enormous amount.  Most of the 25 or so miles from Galena Jct to Savanna is missing entirely!!  There is no distance to speak of between Plum River and Oregon!!  And, one can plainly see both Mt. Morris AND Flag Center from Oregon!!!

All I can say is I wish I could trade houses with my brother- & sister-in-law:  they have a huge basement they aren't using for anything that'd be a perfect size to do better justice to the C&I!!  Oh, well.  I'd have to move to New Jersey, and that is plainly not going to happen.

That is a long explanation for why my C&I Sub is flat -- there just ain't no space for grades!

[Zox]

(We probably need someone who actually knows the answer to this question to chime in about now: "Who originated the concept of "givens & druthers" as applied to layout design?") 

The earliest appearance of the phrase "givens and druthers" (and indeed, the word "druthers" in any context) in Model Railroader magazine was in the April 1982 issue, in a John Armstrong article entitled "The Carlsbad, East Portal, and Zenith RR."

[wm3798]

Hi Paul.  I see Phil has already taken my name in vein...

Regarding a helix and hard to reach staging...  I put  a lot of thought into this before I ever attempted it, and if it weren't for the limitations of working in an attic space, I would probably prefer to find another solution.  While my staging yard works pretty well, when it doesn't, it shuts down the railroad for longer than I'd like.  It also involves some bending and reaching, because due to the sloping ceiling of the attic, my main table height is only about 38", which makes my staging height only about 30", which very little wiggle room for 1:1 elbows and fingers.

That said, if you want to add substantially to the interest of running your railroad, you'll want to add as much staging as you can.  I have capacity to stage around 10 full length trains (25-30 cars) as well as a fully functional terminal yard with engine facilities.  With the relatively short mainline I can achieve, it keeps the ops sessions interesting if there's plenty of traffic to keep everyone busy.

Also, if your line provides traffic to multiple destinations, having lots of staging helps you sort out which cars should go into which trains.  Part of the fun on my layout is the fact that the traffic pattern is more or less "X" shaped, so there are not only trains with an east or west destination, there are trains that may arrive from any of the four points, and interchange traffic with trains bound for any of the other 3.  Keeps the yard monger on his toes.

Anyhoo, nice synopsis on your as built and your plans.  As for the scenery joints, I work mostly with Sculptamold, which is pretty easy to work with, and can be had at your local Michaels or Ben Franklin if your LHS doesn't carry it.

You can review all of the trials and tribulations of my layout over on my WM Western Lines thread.  Some of the photos got boinked during a massive reorganization I did last year, but the rest should be pretty clear.

Thanks for joining the Railwire.
Lee