N Scale Hi Rail - Retro Hollow Core Door Layout

[GaryHinshaw]

That will make a beautiful plate of pasta.  (I mean that in a good way.)

[Long post - file away and read when you have time.]
Lee, here is a bit of a primer on how to think about this layout in the context of OperationsPro (OP for short).  The first thing you need to do is specify Locations: the places where a train would have work to do.  I've taken a quick stab at that here:



This shows 5 distinct logical locations, A through E (you should give them real names): the blue areas are yards tracks, the green is an interchange track, C is the branch or bridge line (you could include C? in with C if you wish), and D is another location with spurs.  I would not bother to call out the loco service tracks or the main line, since there is no work for a train to do on those tracks.

If I imagine that east is counterclockwise around the main line, I can imagine starting at the west end of the mainline at yard A, then heading east, I encounter the branch line interchange B (and the branch line itself, C), then the coal mine, D, then the yard at the east end, E.  In practice, as I travel from A to E, I can take as many laps around the loop as I wish, on any main track, to simulate distance between these points, but OP doesn't need to know anything about that.

After you've defined the Locations, you need to specify the tracks for those locations.  B would just contain a single interchange track with a specified length (= car capacity), C would have 7 spurs and an interchange track, D would have two spurs (one for loads, one for empties?), and A and E would share the yard tracks.  Expanding on this last point a bit, you could specify the yard as one long track and split the capacity between A and E, then OP would know how many cars A and E can each hold, and it's up to you to manage the details.  Alternatively, you could specify 3 separate tracks and say one is dedicated to A, one to E, and the 3rd is split, etc.  It depends on how much work you want the program to do micromanaging your yard switch list.  (I would start with one logical track with capacity split between A and E.)  You can also specify off-layout storage in the program: F,G, etc.

Next you would specify Routes for trains.  (The capitalized words are specific OP jargon.)  A Route is just a sequence of locations, so you might have an eastbound way freight that follows a route A,B,D,E: you build a train in yard A, take a few counterclockwise laps around the main, stop at B to spot cars for C and pull cars for E, take a few more laps, stop at D to work the mine, then continue on to E and terminate.  If you don't want that way freight to work the mine, just make the route A,B,E.  A mine turn might be A,D,A, or E,D,E; a branch line turn might be A,B,C,B,A, or C,B,C.  Hopefully you start to see the logic.  (Off layout Locations can be accessed via a "five-finger route" like A,F, or E,G, etc. - the program would then track your off layout cars and recall them when you wanted to run a train like F,A.)

Next you would set up a Cars database with reporting marks, lengths, etc. and let the program track their movement around the layout.  One thing OP tracks is how many moves a given car has taken in its lifetime (or until you reset the counter) so that movements are allocated to cars relatively equally over the course of many sessions.

Finally you would define and build Trains.  A Train is a collection of cars with destinations that follow a route and has work to do at each location.  When you define a train, you specify how many Moves you would like the train to make at each location on its route.  (A Move is either a spot or a pull from a track.)  This let's you manage train length, etc.  This is starting to get too detailed for this post though.

Bottom line: think about Locations and Routes/Trains you'd want to run.  You'll have fun with this.

[Point353]

Here's an HCD version (36x80) of the layout, as best as I can render--

Does wm3798 ever intend to have two trains running on the outer loops while also switching the yard tracks?

[wm3798]

I see what you're saying there...  Looks like I need to do a little refinement there in the upper right...

Lee

[Point353]

I see what you're saying there...  Looks like I need to do a little refinement there in the upper right...

It depends upon how long a cut of cars you'd want to be able to pull out from a yard track without fouling the main.
Would you view such an operational limitation potentially as a challenge or as a frustration?

[DKS]

OK, well, it's your railroad, but if it was my call, I'd go more along these lines:



It has a yard lead to keep from fouling the mainline, several fewer industries, and a switchback to ease the transition down to the lower industrial level.

[wm3798]

The switchback could be fun, but the layout will be pushed against a wall, so I want to keep the back edge mostly clear for some vertical scenery, so the mine tracks should stay inside the loop.
I don't anticipate trains longer than 6 or 8 cars, and I can break up switching ops to MWF shippers and TTh shippers, so the branch line trains can be shorter, I'm envisioning the loop down being street trackage part of the way so a steep climb will lend itself to some visual intrigue.
I'm presently considering a small port scene at lower right, to utilize the TTrak connection for the lift bridge, either at the corner of the fixed layout or on the First module...
But this is a good start.

[DKS]

[DKS]

The switchback could be fun, but the layout will be pushed against a wall, so I want to keep the back edge mostly clear for some vertical scenery, so the mine tracks should stay inside the loop.

Honestly, I don't see the problem with the mine behind the mainline--just make a backdrop for the rear edge of the layout and have a shallow relief-style mine set against a shallow (even if it's only painted) hillside, but that's just me. Like I said, it's your railroad.

[DKS]

My inclination would be to start with a semi-clean slate, and my first result looks like this (just fodder for consideration):

[davefoxx]

My inclination would be to start with a semi-clean slate, and my first result looks like this (just fodder for consideration):

I like this plan, if Lee was able to spread it out a little.  I think there's too much track for the space, e.g., there's a lot of spurs for industries (good!) but no room for the industry itself (not so good!).  Lee has enjoyed busting my balls about what I could fit on my layout, if I had stayed in N scale, but he's committing the same sins . . . in N scale. 

Oh, and I love the branch.  That would be fun to operate.

DFF

[wm3798]

Okay, I can work with that.  Let me sketch in my scenic concepts and see what needs to be tweaked.

Lee

[Dave V]

This looks like a lot of fun.  However, after seeing the WM so many years before and the lengths you went through to make it look less model-railroady, I'm curious to see whether you can overcome your urge to be prototypical and fully embrace the spaghetti bowl!

I get the urge to do something nostalgic though.  In my case it was falling back to HOn3 from 30 years ago...but if I wanted to fall back even further, it would be Bob Hayden's Yule Central 4 x 6 in HO.  My dad built the benchwork and laid the track for me for that little layout, and let me do the rest.  So at various times it looked like a variety of shades of turd atop and a perfectly-built platform, but it was my turd...and my very first model railroad.



It's crossed my mind to do it again, only using code 70 track and making it a turn-of-the-last-century Arizona copper mining operation, but that's a subject for another thread!  Of course, make the scenery greener and make it a central Pennsylvania coal mine, and...well... 

[DKS]

Good arguments, all. As one might tell, I took Lee's pencil drawing a few posts back as the inspirational source--spaghetti and all. The nice thing is it's easy enough to just prune away the excess branches to arrive at something more reasonable.

[CRL]

Watching DKS develop Lee’s initial drawing into the latest version shown is very interesting. The early version left very little room for industries and scenery. The last version is opened up significantly, but it would still be very challenging to work enough scenery into the layout without relying on an excess of retaining walls or vertical cliffs to accommodate the changes in elevation. I’m sure he’ll figure it out though.

[wm3798]

After considering all the drafts, I think this does what I want it to do.



The switch back eats up too much space, and isn't really in keeping with what I'm after there.  I've always thought of switchbacks in terms of rugged mountain routes with some sort of extractive industry involved.

I'm looking for a branch through town that reaches a dock... with the added caveat that it's not a Maine 3 footer.  So the switchback is out in favor of the sharpish curve and steepish grade, recognizing that it will have operational limitations.

This configuration also facilitates more of a "thru" movement from the TTrak interface down at the port, as noted.  Trains can be brought from the TTrak modules off to the right and onto the main via the crazy steep street running.  The passenger schedule would be operated entirely on the closed loop with the clearances and curvature to handle it, although I might operate a commuter train of short cars on the branch to the port.  It looks like there's room to stretch the loop track a bit to gain some run and reduce the grade a bit more, and I'd like to cut a couple of spur tracks in to add some local service on the branch.

Linearly, the railroad would begin at the port, climb to the main line junction, then to the station, around behind the roundhouse to the mine, then back around to the junction, where trains would terminate at the yard.  I'll figure to run a few laps between stations to provide the illusion of distance, and to allow me to stare at the train looping around while I enjoy my evening cocktail.  I'd use a double slip to keep the trackwork at the junction more efficient.

I can use the inside staging track at the right side to stage another train that could run loops the other way.

My plan now is to build a small yard module to TTrak standards that will give me a staging track for trains to originate and terminate "off stage"... this is where the 0-5-0 would do its work.  This will also be handy to have as I gain momentum on the TTrak side of things.

So, operationally, the potential train schedule would be a longer thru freight that operates on the inner main loop which would pick up and set out on the thru track between the yard and the ET.  It can stage on the track 3 loop at the right side, heading westbound. (clockwise).

The outer loop will be an eastbound (counterclockwise) passenger train, which can stage on either of the two eastbound station tracks at the lower left.

A train can originate from the yard and go to Port, Yard to inner staging loop (Track 3 at right), Staging loop to Port, Staging to Yard, plus extras with empties from Port to the Mine, and loads vice versa.  So it has potential to be a busy little railroad.

Assuming there's always a passenger train occupying the outer main, pretty much as nothing more than eye candy, I can run the freights east or westbound on the inner loop, and treat it like a single track railroad.

I've added some designations for the various locations and a linear diagram of the route I envision.

As I get closer to actually laying track, I'll figure out the siding capacities, industry types and locations, and what kind of equipment I'll be using.  First, I'll be inventorying the track I have in stock!

Stay tuned for further developments.

Lee