Richmond Belt Line

[DKS]

David I can see where you are coming from, although I think it invokes conservation of difficulty by moving the shallow aisle to the main operating side. As you noted, this is a trade off with the design and my sense is to devote more real estate to the operating/switching aisle at the expense of the staging area. Back there it will be acceptable I think.

Does that mean the red area cannot physically be encroached upon? What am I missing?

[Coxy]

Partly David, but it's more a matter of needing aisle space in the switching area to allow operators to pass each other comfortably. The staging area doesn't need to accommodate operators getting by one another.

[mark.hinds]

Have you considered putting the entire thing on castors, in case you need to adjust aisles dynamically?  Admittedly, your layout structure is more massive than mine. 

MH

[jagged ben]

Is that imperial or metric Chucks?!!

Haha.  That would be Chuck Ciaccios.  Maybe that's the same as imperious Chucks.  Anyway...

Maybe I missed it, but what type of track and turnouts would you use?  In only ask because it is a lot of turnouts.

[bdennis]

What software have you used for the plan and the virtual tour?

[Coxy]

Mark - Excellent idea. Sounds like you have tried castors on your layout? A couple of considerations for my plan - 1) the basement floor has a very shallow slope to the left in the drawing and 2) the layout deck height is 53" so it's kind of a tall spindly structure that could tip easily while rolling. I'm interested to hear what your experiences have been using castors.

JB - Hmm, I know Chuck, so oddly enough I now also know how wide 1.5 chucks is!! Does Chuck know he's a unit of measure?!! He never mentioned it!
I roll my own c40 and c55 turnouts and crossings. I have #6 through #10 FT jigs which helps a lot. The current plan needs the following:


It's about 80 turnouts. The #6's are code 40 while the rest are c55. I went as long as I could for the mainline crossovers and found that #10's are too long but #9's work pretty well between curves. Everything else is #7 including most switching lead turnouts, staging throats and Albany yard.

I have a couple dozen Atlas #7s and a bunch of peco longs and meds that I could press into staging service to speed up construction a bit. I enjoy trackwork while scenery + buildings is less enjoyable for me (can you tell from the plan?!!)

BDennis - I'm using 3rd Plan It v 9.02. I've used 3PI for at least 10 years. I like it a lot. It has some nice design tools is pretty stable and I can put designs together really fast. It's the endless iteration that takes all the time! I almost never use paper these days. I also like the ability to run trains in 3D to test operation then easily switch to 2D to make changes to the plan.

Cheers,
Coxy

[mark.hinds]

Mark - Excellent idea. Sounds like you have tried castors on your layout? A couple of considerations for my plan - 1) the basement floor has a very shallow slope to the left in the drawing and 2) the layout deck height is 53" so it's kind of a tall spindly structure that could tip easily while rolling. I'm interested to hear what your experiences have been using castors.
<snip>

It has worked adequately well, although I have to be careful to align all the wheels in the same direction before pulling/pushing, and must pull/push from the center, in order to avoid straining the structure.  That is acceptable, as I don't move it that frequently.  In my original apartment, I had hardwood floors, which work better than carpet with castors.  Also, I should have used a heavier-duty model. 

You can see an image of the installation in my Tehachapi layout thread on page one.  You can't really see this in the image, but I also modified them to allow me to adjust the height of each leg, for leveling purposes.  I haven't yet lived in a building with completely level floors. 

MH

[Coxy]

You can see an image of the installation in my Tehachapi layout thread on page one.  You can't really see this in the image, but I also modified them to allow me to adjust the height of each leg, for leveling purposes...

Thanks Mark. If you have any images of the height adjustment for legs with castors, I'd be interested to see them.

[Coxy]

This is a video capture of a westbound travelling from East Staging across the layout to reach West Staging. The clip also shows how you can get a feel for the layout while in the design stage.

The train is travelling at about 25 mph and takes about 5 minutes to make the circuit.

Questions and feedback welcome.
Coxy

[mark.hinds]

Thanks Mark. If you have any images of the height adjustment for legs with castors, I'd be interested to see them.

Here's an image:



Here's a verbal description:

I started with wheeled castors.  The latter as purchased involved a solid rubber wheel rotating inside a metal frame.  Above the frame was a horizontal circular ball bearing race, with a vertical shaft in its center extending up; this allowed the wheel and frame to rotate 360 degrees around the vertical axis.  All of the preceding was standard.  Had I then drilled vertical holes in the bases of the layout legs, I could have inserted the vertical shafts of the castors, either directly or inside a metal sleeve, and called it a day. 

However, the MR Clinchfield layout featured simple adjustable-height legs, implemented with female threaded inserts in the bottoms of the legs, and male threaded bolts.  To adjust the height, they twisted the bolts, thus extending/retracting them.  To obtain similar functionality, I soldered a piece of threaded rod around the outside of the vertical shafts mentioned above.  I then glued compatible female threaded inserts in the bases of the layout legs.  I also added a lock nut. 

MH

[GaryHinshaw]

Coxy, nice renders and video.  They do a good job showing the size of the pike, and that things will fit without being too crowded (but still pretty crowded...).  One thing that still stands out to me is how much you have going on along the main line.  The SP line through this area is pretty linear and spare: double track with a siding and the occasional industry picked off along the way (at least in relatively modern times).   Thus, scenes like this:

with its 5-track curve in the foreground, just don't work for me as a depiction of that line.  Of course you did say the plan was freelanced, so that is no actual concern.

The prototype is very compelling, and if I were going to try a pike based on it, I would try to capitalize on the interesting schematic of the lines in the region, which looks like this:



The RP is a terminal line along the gritty Richmond waterfront, but it also connects the BNSF stub with the UP main line, giving BNSF access to the southeast Bay Area.  (There is also a cool flyover where the main lines cross to the north.)  I wonder if there is some way you could configure things so that your main pike, as drawn, is the RP without the main line passing through; your staging is the BNSF stub; and you work the UP line in as a continuous loop that does not pass through the terminal area?  I'm not seeing it yet, given your footprint, but I think it would be fun to try.

Of course, your plan will definitely work and be fun to operate.  I just throw this out as food for thought.

-gfh

P.S. You can still run stack trains through the RP terminal trackage with no loss of authenticity. 

[jagged ben]

The RP is indeed a pretty cool and somewhat unique prototype.  (Kind of my stomping grounds, actually.)  It would be cool to see a layout inspired by it, whether a of a more prototypical arrangement or not.

[M.C. Fujiwara]

Very cool area.
http://goo.gl/maps/duavS

The LDSIG Journal (http://www.ldsig.org/publications/journal) did a layout design challenge awhile ago based on the Richmond waterfront.
Not sure about the issue #.
I'll ask Byron Henderson.

I like the peninsula blobs as industrial sidings with the main running behind it.
The rendering makes everything seem a bit compressed / squished depth-wise, which probably led Gary to comment on the "packed & stacked track" effect.
Personally, I like his suggestion of focusing on the RP with the UP main more of a background element, but maybe moving some of the sidings that parallel the mains for a while back away from the main would create more of the "two-track corridor" that slips between streets.

[Coxy]

Appreciate the comments guys. Here’s my thoughts around building the Richmond Pacific(RPRC) vs. the fictitious Richmond Belt Line(RBL).

I know the Richmond Pacific very well. I lived in Marina Bay for 16 years and the only way to get in to Marina Bay is to cross the RPRC tracks. I have an intimate understanding of the RPRC trackage and operations round the clock, as well as moves on the BNSF Stockton Sub and the UP Martinez Sub which were also both near to my home. I was also very fortunate to have connections with staff and workers at the RPRC which led to several cabrides which really added dimension to my understanding of the Richmond Pacific.

Because I know it so well, I won't be making an RPRC layout this time round. I can pretty much handdraw RPRC’s trackplan from memory (it’s not very long), so if/when I build an N scale Richmond Pacific layout, that layout plan will have a high bar for capturing the look and feel of the RPRC.  Over the years, I have designed other Richmond Pacific plans, including a few for RPRC fans. Those plans capture the more open feel of the local Richmond railroad locales and focus much more on accurately replicating the RPRC operations with the Class I's as bit players.

I have different objectives for the present plan. There is no expectation to replicate any of Richmond Pacific’s tracks. For the space I have now and the type of layout I feel like building, I want the freedom to try some new things without being constrained by the prototype. To recap from an earlier post…

This is a single deck plan enabling switching operations of the Richmond Belt Line (RBL), a fictitious shortline loosely based on the Richmond Pacific which is  located in Richmond California at the northern tip of San Francisco Bay. Like the Richmond Pacific, the RBL will interchange with class I's BNSF and UP. Both Class I's will operate on UP's double-track continuous running main line, with BNSF and Amtrak as trackage rights tenants.

That being said, the Richmond Pacific is an excellent starting point for my plan for all the reasons mentioned in your replies.  For those not familiar with the prototype, the Richmond Pacific has its own trackage strung between the BNSF and UP mains just as Gary shows in his diagram above. UP's Waterside Drill track runs from Emeryville to North Richmond along the west side of the double track UP Martinez Sub main. The Richmond Pacific does not use UP's main tracks - a) no need, b) much higher insurance obligations for the RPRC to do that. Instead, the RPRC uses the Waterside Drill track to serve UP interchange tracks near Stege and the Florida St team tracks north of Cutting Blvd in Richmond.

The Richmond Pacific also uses the Waterside track to reach a lead in North Richmond that connects to the Chevron plant trackage near the Richmond Parkway. The North Richmond lead wyes off the Waterside Drill just near the BNSF flyover the UP main. (I agree Gary, fun location!). There are a few industries that the Richmond Pacific serves on the North Richmond lead including a sand distributor, Richmond Wholesale Meat and General Chemical.

Back to the model now... The current RBL plan is basically the RBL shortline strung along the UP double track mainline, with the RBL featured along most of the main line. Just like the Richmond Pacific, the RBL uses lead tracks parallel to the UP main in order interchange and serve industries while staying off the mainline. That does make the main track look a little busy, with three and four tracks in some places, but hey, there’s plenty of that in switching locations in UP’s Martinez Sub main, so to me it looks right.

As an aside, I would have loved to see the prototype Richmond Pacific take on some of UP’s North Bay switching duties up to Crockett and Benicia. To do that, the Richmond Pacific would have to get onto the UP main tracks to reach those switching areas. That never happened in reality, so I’ve added it to this plan for operational interest. On the plan, RBL uses the UP main between CP North Richmond and CP San Pablo in order to reach the Hensley industrial area.

In a similar vein, I’ve also located a few industries on the opposite side of the main to Albany Yard, forcing the RBL to use the crossovers at Stege to get over the UP main in order to serve these industries. Same logic applies - give the RBL reasons to wait for UP main line traffic, and, occasionally delay UP mainline trains with RPRC activity. That’s fun from a railfaning perspective, not sure the railroad management would agree! This contributes to the ‘many parallel tracks’ effect, though it is exaggerated by 3rd Plan It as all tracks look much the same, in the modeled reality, track weight, height, color, ballast, weed control, ties and right of way each differentiate the tracks as either main or something less important.

The RBL plan does borrow some RPRC industries and RPRC track configs here and there, but for the most part, the RBL tracks are just a combination of whatever fits, looks cool or contributes to operations. The linear aspect of the benchworks leads to placing the RBL ‘along’ UP’s mainline. The plan supports the interchange with the Class I’s, it has the switching leads parallel to the UP main and includes some realistic ways for the RBL to utilize the UP main in a prototypically minimal way.

The oval double track main allows for braindamage roundy-roundy therapy, or to serve as a realistic background activity while switching – there were many occasions when a stack train or an Amtrak California train would roll by while I was watching the RPRC crew do it’s work.

Apologies for running on a bit. Lots of good ideas in the mix here.
Cheers,
Coxy

[GaryHinshaw]

Coxy, I had no doubt you were intimately familiar with the proto RPRC (far more so than I am, I might add).  I just tossed the schematic out there to stir the pot a bit - because it has such interesting ops potential.  Funny that you mention Crockett and Benicia because I was thinking that your visible main looks a lot more like that area - with its numerous curves - than it does Richmond/San Pablo.  That concept works much better for me as a back story than does Richmond.

In any case, all that matters is what works for you, and you have clearly thought this through in great detail.  Indeed, your reasoned and articulate defense prove to me that you have no excuse to not begin construction now!  Just make it modular, so you can move it when the time comes.  There is no substitute for a living, breathing layout.


-gfh

P.S. Where is the prototype Hensley industrial area?  Is that the area adjacent to the flyover?