The Modular Bug is Buzzing in my Ear

[packers#1]

To me, your rationale behind building them sounds spot on. I agree that modules are a great way to experiment with scenery, and while doing ops, there wouldn't be much in the way of layout work other than operate, tweak, operate, tweak, and repeat.
Also, if a major part of the hobby you enjoy is design, then I'd go ahead with the planning and replanning because that's a way to keep the basement layout from bogging you down too much.
In short:
It's a hobby, life is short, if the priorities are in line, go for it

[eric220]

Gary- The same scene is on the big layout. The fun part is that it's a different interpretation of the scene. On the layout, there's a factory inside the curve, and the PRR still ducks under the other railroads. Unfortunately, there's no room to do the bridge.

Long story short, I'd like to explore the idea. With the 10" height difference between the two modular standards, I'm not even sure that the interface idea is feasible. Worry not, work will continue on the empire. At least it will once I'm not pulling 65 hours a week anymore...

[GaryHinshaw]

Gary- The same scene is on the big layout.

Oops, my bad!  Carry on and follow your inner  .  (Sorry, that sounds gross, doesn't it...)

[John]

why not make a fremo module thats also part of the layout ..

[eric220]

why not make a fremo module thats also part of the layout ..

Two problems:
1. Given the current design, I have no idea where I'd slip it in.
2. My mainline is double track and Free-moN is single.

Might be worth looking into, though.

[Dave V]

I'll still play the role of the obstructionist...  If you want to keep interested in the big layout, scenic a small portion of the layout.  Choose a stretch of main where you won't have to worry about evolving operations changing trackage.

I don't "get" how starting another module by going through the same benchwork, roadbed, track, and wiring that you're already doing on a large scale will keep your interest piqued.  I would argue that ballasting and scenicking a short stretch of your big PRR would give you much more satisfaction and drive you to carry on by giving you a glimpse of the future every time you enter the room.

 

[davefoxx]

I would argue that ballasting and scenting a short stretch of your big PRR . . .

Mmm.  Scratch and sniff model railroading. 

[Dave V]

Mmm.  Scratch and sniff model railroading. 

Man, I have a ridiculously overactive autocorrect...  Damn Mac.  Going back to fix.

[eric220]

You don't have to convince me...  You just have to convince yourself.   

OK, to be clear, I'm not threatening to build any modules tomorrow, or next month, or within the next year.  I just had an idea that I wanted to explore, and flesh out if it's even feasible.  There are a lot of "administrative" issues that would need to be resolved before I ever start thinking about construction, not the least of which are finding a Free-moN group and an NTrack group that would take me, and would be interested in assembling a combined layout!  Given how long my big layout spent in the design phase, I don't think that there's any harm in exploring an idea.

I'm convinced. 

Now then, does anyone have any thoughts about the plan for the modules?

[eric220]

Just got back from having lunch with MC.  After thinking it over and discussing it, I don't think that the NTrack/Free-moN transition is going to work.  The maximum allowable grade on Free-moN is 1" over 48".  Do the math, 10" of rise is 40' of travel.  That's a lot to commit to building, let alone trying to stuff into a car.

Instead, I'm going to plan on building a representation of the bridge over the Sacramento River at Suisun Strait.  This would have been about a mile from the point where the OA&E peeled off.  We were talking about what kind of bridge it should be, and of course, my instinct is to go with stone arch.  The problem is that this is an ocean-going shipping channel, so it would require a drawbridge.  Then the thought occurred that we're in the middle of earthquake country out here, so a strong, but brittle, stone bridge might not be a good way to go.  (MC suggested modeling the remains of an earthquake-destroyed stone arch bridge under the functional one.)  So that leaves me with some type of ironwork bridge.  I really enjoy vertical lift bridges, like the UP crossing nearby, so I think I'm go that route.  For the real challenge, I want to find a way to make the bridge operable.

More to consider.

[davefoxx]

Why not use this bridge as your inspiration for a vertical lift bridge?  Oh, and it is a former PRR bridge, and we can go railfan it (I've never seen a train on it) the next time you're in town.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesapeake_%26_Delaware_Canal_Lift_Bridge

DFF

[eric220]

I've been thinking about the design of my lift bridge.  The strait that it crosses is roughly 3,700' shore to shore.  The nearby Benicia-Martinez rail bridge over the Carquinez Strait is almost a mile long and has a clearance when closed of about 80' (6" in N Scale) above the water.  The adjacent non-moving road bridge has a clearance of 138' (10.25" in N Scale). Fortunately for me, much of the large water traffic on the Sacramento River originates/terminates downstream of my bridge.  One of the major considerations in crossing the Carquinez Strait is the US Navy's access to Suisun Bay.  There is a large mothball fleet at the mouth of the bay, and for many years, Port Chicago was a major shipping station for munitions bound to Pacific destinations.  Suisun Bay lies between the Carquinez and Suisun Straits, so I don't have to worry about that.  Even so, my bridge does need to clear ocean-going traffic bound to/from the Port of Sacramento, and other sailboats and pleasure craft operating on the river.

Having said all that, are there any guidelines that I should be considering for clearance under the bridge?  I'm thinking a minimum of 45'-50' closed to allow for sailboats to pass without opening the bridge.  In the horizontal direction, I probably don't need to worry about much volume of river traffic.

I've been looking across the Internet for inspiration, and I came across the former LV bridge over the Newark Bay:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehigh_Valley_Railroad_Bridge
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2035/2129652798_b8a871d0b8_z.jpg

I like the overall appearance of the deck girder design with the through-truss spans on each side of the lift span.  The fact that the deck girder would be the easiest to build certainly doesn't hurt, either.

[eric220]

Why not use this bridge as your inspiration for a vertical lift bridge?  Oh, and it is a former PRR bridge, and we can go railfan it (I've never seen a train on it) the next time you're in town.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesapeake_%26_Delaware_Canal_Lift_Bridge

DFF

DFF - we were apparently typing at the same time.  In a similar vein, I've looked at the Canal Street Bridge in Chicago.  They are both impressive spans, but they cross fairly narrow waterways.   Regardless, it's good to have these PRR prototypes for reference.

[eric220]

Well, I think that I've reached a decision. After seeing the Sonoma shoofly module in person today,



I've decided to build a simple Free-moN module before embarking on the lower level of the big layout. I want to give a foam base another try. I figure it would be a good idea to have a small test bed to try it on before I commit to doing it all the way around the room. More on this later.

[MichaelWinicki]

Stunning shot.