Idaho Belt Freelanced plan

[conrail98]

-The fascia is cluttered with throttles and bottle/cup holders and clip boards. 

-And then if your switches are controlled by switches/throws that are located on the fascia, along with a track "map" you need to step back in order to read the thing.  So take one non-svelte model railroader, add in a fascia covered with "goodies", mix in the I-have-to-step-back-in-order-to-follow-the-trackplan thing and that 36" aisle width becomes nada in no time.

After thinking about it a little, the overall height of the upper deck presents a challenge...

My upper deck is the same height=63"  And originally I planned the upper deck to be at least 15" deep, but some testing found that trying to reach more than a foot at that height wasn't a good thing (not to mention allowing shorter folks to be able to see everything), so I scaled all my upper deck benchwork down to 12" deep.

That is why if I keep my double deck design I'm going to subtract 3" off of all 2nd level trackage down to 12". My lower level along the walls are 15" on the lower level and on the upper level it's 12" above where I had though I yard would go, and 15" every where else. I'd take off 3" for 12" wide on the 2nd level all the way around. You can do a lot in 12" in N-scale, so it's not too bad,

Phil

[basementcalling]

Lots of good discussion.

Gary, Klamath Falls is an interesting place. That double wye bridge would be a space hogger to model, but the area has some freelance potential.


Spent time this evening doodling benchwork to clear my thoughts and be sure the ideas would translate from vision to basement.

Here's the lower level plotted out.



I revised the lower level some and added thoughtments on the plan at key locations to help with those interested in following the discussion.

Here is the newest lower level, much of which is add on. I don't have to have this extensive a plan here to replicate the operations I envision.



What goes on here in real life? Here's a video of the UP/St. Maries interchange at Plummer, ID, which is the prototype LDE for the loop on the lower level, although the scene is flipped 180 degrees on the layout. Plummer must have been one heck of a place back when the Milwaukee mainline still ran.

It's a deceptively simple exchange of cars, but it will create a pair of jobs for the crew. If enough aren't present, one person could run both, or one train could do all the work. Flexibility is a good thing. Just duplicating this procedure on a small test bed layout was enough to get me drooling about the possibilities, though I have no St. Maries decorated locos and no plans to get any. Glad some railfans out in eastern Washington love out of the way places.

Thanks to everyone who's contributed ideas and suggestions. Lots to think about and process.

Back to the classroom the rest of the week, so might be a few days before I can make any more adjustments.

[packers#1]

sweet STMA video; someday I'm hoping to build a layout at least based off the RR, if not a prototype plan of it.

[GaryHinshaw]

Ok, so you currently have Plummer and Cottonwood ID as inspirations for towns on your pike.  I thus gather you have a fondness for short line style ops a la the St Maries River and the Camas Prairie.  If I am not mistaken, the current connection for both of these lines (such as they are) is the UP secondary between Hinkle OR and Spokane WA (and on to Canada via Eastport ID).  Maybe you could develop a theme where the trunk line is this UP secondary (possibly run by a fictional Rail Link) that connects the interior NW with Canada and serves the short lines you are planning (even if under different names, though you could stay prototypical with this scheme).

But... I am still puzzled by your plan as drawn.  In particular, I can't make sense of the track you have depicted in the peninsula:



What is happening with the track circled in red?  Is that the large bridge you refer to?  Are there two bridges, one on each level, or is this one bridge at an intermediate level?  If one, then how does the connection on the right work, where it seems to connect to both levels?  It's a detail, for sure, but an important one to understanding how your plan works, which I still don't get.     But I like the basic themes.

-gfh

P.S. I think the "wheel-under" plan for people to get under the peninsula will grow very tiresome.

[basementcalling]

Gary, in the loop area at the top right, the two levels both have a loop. There is only one large bridge. It 53-54 inches up, so it's lower level track. The lower loop starts at 50 and goes to 52.5 inches. The upper loop starts at 59 and goes to 61.5. The lower loop is totally hidden, except for the track that exits. Access if needed, is from inside the loop. I had two slightly different drawings of the bridge on the levels to try different ideas, so I see how that could be confusing. The bridge only connects to the lower level trackage.

I have looked at the Washy line of the UP and former Spokane International tracks north to Canada. It's interesting territory with a couple HUGE bridges that I don't think would compress well given the prototypes are over 1800 feet long. 

[GaryHinshaw]

Ok, I think I'm getting closer to understanding this.  Here is my v.2 schematic:



I have added color coding to indicate various branches more clearly (as I understand them).  Black would be the main trunk line that runs from staging to staging over both levels.  Green is the branch to Cottonwood and beyond (the Camas Prairie) and blue is the St Maries River line, though I think green & blue could be regarded as one operation.  The grey tracks are the empty in/load out tracks (though I'm not sure what you have in mind for either end).  Also, I suppose the section labeled UL switching should be regarded as another branch. 

Am I thinking about this correctly now? 
-gfh

[basementcalling]

Ok, I think I'm getting closer to understanding this.  Here is my v.2 schematic:



I have added color coding to indicate various branches more clearly (as I understand them).  Black would be the main trunk line that runs from staging to staging over both levels.  Green is the branch to Cottonwood and beyond (the Camas Prairie) and blue is the St Maries River line, though I think green & blue could be regarded as one operation.  The grey tracks are the empty in/load out tracks (though I'm not sure what you have in mind for either end).  Also, I suppose the section labeled UL switching should be regarded as another branch. 

Am I thinking about this correctly now? 
-gfh

I think that has it schemed out. Your what is this segment is probably trouble. It's an option for a loads in empties out type operation with a pair of industries, or even a pair of branches. It could represent the world past Plummer and the sawmill there, and the tracks connect to the spur that joins the main just before the bridge. It could also be a paired industry like a coal mine/power plant, or quarry and stone using type industry. Not sure yet.

It might be more complication than I need, as the overhead clearances under the paper mill area are not that great. The same operation could probably be represented with cassette staging in that area that is simply lifted up and put down to move cars from level to level with a double track 1 loop helix inside the mainline elevation gaining loop between the bridge and the paper mill.

[sirenwerks]

From my research to feed my own interest in PacNW railroading (circa 1960), my first comment was "Wow, that's a lot of track."  My advice - go zen and concentrate on scenery ala Lance Mindheim's Monon. 

Look at the old W&IM in its entirety and as the St. Mary's, and at NP/BN ops in the Palouse.  With all that staging track you got going on it just feels like you're going to have hyperactive railroading in an area and with a concept that begs a less hectic approach.  Now if you really want to model the interior architecture and switching of modern paper/lumber mills, what you got seems more plausible.  But I'd personally go with the theory of plant switchers doing the work off-stage and the mills being backdropped in, and bringing in more of the PacNW towns and alternate, smaller industries that will lend variety to your traffic and a calming effect to the layout overall.

Just my two cents from a fellow Mid-Atlanticer with a Pacific NW jones.

[basementcalling]

Here are some revisions.

I eliminated the complex helix inside a helix for continuous run loads in/ empties out from the end of the Plummer branch to the industry near the bridge scene.

I reduced track complexity in a couple industries and narrowed benchwork in a couple places.

Lower level is less complex, but keep in mind it is the optional level. I don't have to add all or even any of that trackage. It could all be duplicated operationally by staging, though I think at loss to layout personality.

Upper level had the summit wye trackage simplified, and more industry simplification.

[MichaelWinicki]

Looking good Peter!

Many potentially good spots for impressive scenery.

Good call in removing the in/out helix.

I think aisle width is still going to be uncomfortable in several spots for those nights when a full crew shows up.  Not keen on the "roll-under" aspect for a couple different reasons.

[basementcalling]

Looking good Peter!

Many potentially good spots for impressive scenery.

Good call in removing the in/out helix.

I think aisle width is still going to be uncomfortable in several spots for those nights when a full crew shows up.  Not keen on the "roll-under" aspect for a couple different reasons.

Michael, scenery is important to me. It's what I enjoy most, perhaps cause as a kid the only thing Dad let me do on our 6x8 layout (He read the width wrong on the plan.  ) was paint rocks and sprinkle on colored sawdust. I am contemplating a very stark scenic contrast to help with the idea of the trains going places, with one area of the layout very forested and the other side of the climb to Summit being obviously desert, with few trees and different base colors. The idea of a snow scene keeps entering my mind too to help emphasize the elevation gain, but I am not sure I have the room to adequately pull that off.

The big bridge scene way wind up looking something like this, just larger. This was shot on a oNeTRAK module I build a while back.



I mocked up the end of the peninsula under the paper mill and was immediately struck by how complicated the interior of the hidden track would be. I am sure crawling under the benchwork to get to a derailed or stalled train would get old the first time I had to do it, and I am not sure how essential to the plan the idea was in the first place. I wasn't sure what industry pairing the track would support anyway, and with limited overhead clearance under the papermill scene, track maintenance would be a headache - probably literally when I whacked my noggin on the bottom of the upper deck in the 9 inches of clearance I would have.

Aisles are a concern, which is why I kept 30 inches as a minimum. Luckily I do have several places where that expands to 42, 48, or 54 inches to help with people passes. The only 30 inch spots are around turnback loops, and I have plans to elevate the fascia in some places to create mini Bellinadrops to prevent operators from seeing anything if they stand in the wrong place.

The roll under tests out ok on mock up benchwork, but I do see it being a challenge for some operators taller than me. Not sure what else to do on that spot. One other track option feeds the branch off the other end of the town, but I still have a need to get from the center aisle to the one above it. There is also an operational solution, as the wye switch could become the interchange point, which would limit branchline operators to just that aisle.

Headed back downstairs for more experimentation and full size mock ups now that the old benchwork is out of the way.

[MichaelWinicki]

Wow!  Great picture!

I like the contrast angle.  Mark Dance has pulled that off very well on his layout.

Yeah, the height thing with the roll-under can be an issue.  But what bothers me (but doesn't necessarily bother others) is losing sight of your train for that period of time–it takes away from the experience of being the "engineer" of that train... It's a different feeling than a train going through a tunnel or helix.  It those instances you're losing the sight of the train, but not the control.  With the roll-under the train loses sight of you.

[basementcalling]

Wow!  Great picture!

I like the contrast angle.  Mark Dance has pulled that off very well on his layout.

Yeah, the height thing with the roll-under can be an issue.  But what bothers me (but doesn't necessarily bother others) is losing sight of your train for that period of time–it takes away from the experience of being the "engineer" of that train... It's a different feeling than a train going through a tunnel or helix.  It those instances you're losing the sight of the train, but not the control.  With the roll-under the train loses sight of you.

Plexiglass benchwork?

The train doesn't have to be moving when you roll under.  Could be stopped for a retarder test at the top of a steep grade. 

[GaryHinshaw]

I like the changes too, and the One-trak picture!  For those playing along at home, I updated the schematic to incorporate these changes and to call out a few things:



Here the black trackage is what I believe to be the main trunk line and the colored trackage represents the branches.  It is possible for an operator on the trunk (black) line to follow his/her train without encountering a barrier.  To access the green branch, the operator must either roll-under the bench or walk around the peninsula.  Given the nature of the double wye in this section, my impression is that any train going on or off the branch will pause here anyway, so walking around the peninsula is not such a hardship.  (Continuous running is another matter, since it requires navigating the roll-under trackage twice per circuit, but maybe that's not a frequent occurrence.)

Another thing I note about this plan is that the red trackage is something of an orphan: the wye off the main crosses the base of the peninsula then goes straight to staging.  This would make sense if this represented a connection with the larger outside world, but then what role does Klugmann plays in the scheme? Is it the terminus of a branch, or a point on the main trunk that continues on?

Cheers,
Gary

[basementcalling]

I like the changes too, and the One-trak picture!  For those playing along at home, I updated the schematic to incorporate these changes and to call out a few things:




Another thing I note about this plan is that the red trackage is something of an orphan: the wye off the main crosses the base of the peninsula then goes straight to staging.  This would make sense if this represented a connection with the larger outside world, but then what role does Klugmann plays in the scheme? Is it the terminus of a branch, or a point on the main trunk that continues on?

Cheers,
Gary

Good questions, Gary. The red division was a planning afterthought when I saw that connecting upper and lower level staging would require a multi loop helix - ugg - or a connecting track on an 8% grade. Neither was good. No room for a helix in that area of the layout as I want to protect space around a small TV viewing and fireplace area.  The red tracks could be either a staged branch or represent an unmodeled subdivision of the main railroad. Not sure how much sense it makes to have a real world layout have two mainlines join at a summit though, although UP did do it on Sherman Hill, though the Harriman line is more of an alternate mainline route than a separate sub.

SP had 2 routes over the Cascades that were separated enough to be separate entities on the organizational chart. Perhaps it could be something like that.

Still looking for a home for the layout on the map. Southern Oregon might need a new east/west oriented mainline so traffic can bypass Portland.

One other question to throw out to ya'll (You're Southern now!): Should I keep the Cottonwood idea? I am not set in concrete on having it, but the LDE is such a nice fit in that corner and for a rural western mountainous branch I put it in. Would the branch be more effective with a longer run from the interchange point to the switching area. Corners are also great places for the required trestle on a curve in the corner, and with this one on the lower level it could be a doozy!

Also, I am thinking the 18 inch access area for the window and fuse box probably needs to come to 24 inches. Girth testing today in the basement showed 18 inches isn't as wide as it used to be.