CN Grande Cache Subdivision

[C855B]

Hi, Scott!

What draws my eye in the newest plan is the removable module for access to the electrics panel. Two tracks on the right end are fine, it's the six on the other within curves that gives me pause, with a break or joint or other unevenness mid-curve in the several tracks. Do you have something in mind to prevent flanges from picking at the rough spots?

[GaryHinshaw]

Good to see this resurface.  I have to agree on Mike's point about the 'six-tracks-on-a-curve' joint, but I think you could easily extend that removable section into the straight portion without too much trouble.  Of course that yard will always be fairly full - trust me on that - so it will be a quasi big operation to clear it out when you do need to remove it.

How wedded are you to not having a swing gate across the door?  The westbound turn-back coming out of  Swan's Landing seems like a big space hog that could easily be run across the doorway directly into staging, via a via single-track swing-down gate, like on TBC.  If you did that, you could also route the eastbound main back around across the swing gate and reverse the staging yard to stub under the panel.  Then you wouldn't need the removable section there, and you wouldn't have so much hidden track behind/under the peninsula.

Also, can the door be made to open out of the room instead of into it?

[CRL]

If you can’t extend the removable section back to the straight track, change the angle of your cut across the curved track so it is exactly “90 degrees / square” where it intersects the tracks.

[wazzou]

Are those Gap Masters that we’ve seen some modelers employ not reliable enough in this type of use?

[Scottl]

Thanks for the feedback everyone!  I suspect that I could shift edge of the removable section to where the six yard tracks are straight, that might be a wise thing to do.  I don't expect to have to remove the section often but it is really there in case some major work needs to be done.  Still, reliable operations are top of my mind.

@GaryHinshaw your suggestions are very interesting!  At this stage, the door can be moved +- 6", reversed, or made to open out so all options are on the table.  Let me play around with some of your ideas.  I'm not keen on a swing gate across the door, but if it improves the flow, it could be managed. 

[Scottl]

I think the access for the electrical panel will be available on a regular basis without having to remove any benchwork (flipping breakers, etc.).  I will build the access so it is possible to remove for full electrical access, but it is hard to envision what need that would actually be once the basement is finished.  So I am working on the premise that it will need access once in a decade.  This means any benchwork there is not likely to ever move once in place.

Having said that, I'm playing around here with @GaryHinshaw suggestions.  Reversing the entry door allows me to reverse the staging yard and I can use a gate for westbound traffic to move into staging relatively directly.  It makes the west end of Swan Landing much more space efficient and gives some aisle breathing room in the room.  All good

I'm less clear on how to treat the eastbound trackage.  I have put in one option- a hidden track that uses one track in the staging yard part of a large loop.  I could have some additional turnouts to double-end more tracks but that shortens the tracks substantially.

I have left in the semi-hidden return loop for eastbound that could connect to staging but I am not sure that is the way I want to go.  I've left some fragments of track there to signal where it would go.  Thoughts?

SCARM can't put the grid in the image so a refresher on dimensions:  room is 17' X 13', door is 36", ceiling is 9', no obstructions.  There is a minor window top center, I'll cover it up.  Nothing is built yet so I have lots of flexibility.

[GaryHinshaw]

This looks better to me.   When I suggested this, I was thinking the eastbound main would loop back around like your sketch indicates.  But now that I see this, I think it makes more sense for it to proceed across the top like you have it. 

Here's another thought: how about making the staging double ended and running it all the way to the upper right corner?  This would likely give you 2 train lengths per track (you can never have too much staging), and very flexible continuous running along the mainline.   If you eliminate the eastbound turn-back curve in the upper left, you could push the branch line in a little bit, gain a bit more aisle space, and make the staging yard throat in the upper right be relatively accessible behind a low backdrop.  This would also let you move the throat at the other end up a bit and simplify the gate trackage.  The down side would be more tracks in front of the panel, but I think that is very workable, especially since there would be no turnouts there, and the removable section could be screwed in so it would be very robust.

[Scottl]

Gary, thanks, that is a great suggestion.  It would improve staging capacity and I think would give a wider range of operations as well.

[Scottl]

This rearrangement definitely has a lot of staging with six 21-22' double-ended tracks.  I had to move the Wildhay bridge a bit to give room for that scene, but the operators have gained even more space to work with, which is a bonus.

I'm not keen on the staging turnout location eastbound out of Swan Landing.  Hiding the staging behind a low backdrop or a tree line will solve the visual issues, but reaching in there to work on trains gives me pause.  I had something similar on my previous layout and you could look over the scene in front and access the trains, but a nice bridge in the foreground at the reach point seems to be risky.

[Scottl]

Moving on to the upper deck is the Grande Cache Sub proper.   Coming out of the helix, you arrive at the summit at Hoff.  Despite what it looks like, descending track on this deck makes that apparent overlap viable.  There are two sidings penciled in along the upper deck along with the sawmill and the two key bridges.

What is minimalist and probably the part I'm least convinced of is how Winniandy is depicted here.  I had the flash of inspiration to move it above the staging to spread out operators.  What is probably most unclear/bizarre is the counter-clockwise helix that will take the north end of Winniandy down to staging and put trains back eastbound into Swan Landing.  This is actually very prototypical as most GCS trains head westbound at Swan Landing, so having this kind of loop is ideal.

The dual helix is something to contemplate- it certainly works in 3D volume terms and reminds me quite a bit of @GaryHinshaw's famous TBC "Vortex".  The crossing in front of the door is likely to be high enough that it is semi-permanent, while the lower crossing is gated and frequently opened.

Winniandy needs a few more sidings but for the most part, the action is trains coming and going, not any particular switching. 

Overall, I'm reasonably pleased with this configuration.  It gives me more space on the GCS to spread things out and have some scenery, and makes very good use of the room.  Operator space is also pretty good other than a few pinch points where access is possible but people are unlikely to spend much time.

Thoughts?

[Scottl]

In case you want to see everything together, here are all the levels and staging.

[davefoxx]

Looks great!  When does the lumber start flying? 

DFF

[Scottl]

I need to finish the basement first, but I expect to be building this by spring.  Wood has come down in price quite a bit so that is nice. 

I'll start building turnouts in the new year so that I have those ready when the time comes.

[GaryHinshaw]

Looking good Scott.  A few comments:

* I agree that the staging throat in the upper right is not ideal, especially of you have two bridges in front of it. However, I think the double-end staging with extra capacity is so valuable that it's worth finding a way to make it work.  I'll think about it some more.  One idea would be to bring it around the corner and sacrifice a bit of the eastbound main.  Maybe push the start of the Cache Sub in a bit to lessen the reach?

* I'm really bearish about the mid-branch helix in the peninsula.   How many turns do you envisage?  Will any of the run be visible?  On TBC, the Vortex is my least favourite aspect of the layout's operations (though I concede it's a necessity, and I'm proud of its design and execution).   I'm wondering if there is some way to break it up and make the central peninsula part of the helix itself.  Hear me out:

From Wildhay to the base of the helix, you get about 16' of run, and let's say the grade is 1.5%.  You'll gain almost 3" of elevaton in that bit.  Next, suppose you limited the helix to 2.5 turns (18" radius, 2% grade) and emerge near Hanlon siding (instead of over Berland).  With 2.5 turns, you could get more than 5" of elevation, so you'd be about 8" above Hanlon.  You could then run one more lap around the peninsula, set in from the lower deck so as not to crowd the scene, continuing to a Summit at Hoff.  This upper level could be entirely scenic-ed and have plenty of room to breathe without crowding the lower deck too much, and you would have a tolerably short helix.

* What is traffic flow on the Cache Sub like?  Is there a connection on the north end that goes somewhere?  I don't mind the helix from Winniandy back down to staging since that is probably not a run you'll expect guest operators to run very often, right?  You could have an extra track in that helix to stage trains at the north end, kind of like my Vortex staging.

* Do you need a provision for turning trains at Winniandy, for trains that return to Swan's?

* At the bottom of the 2nd helix, I don't think the elevations work.  You won't be able to connect the helix to the back side of staging without a serious grade to avoid fouling the staging.  Can you connect to the front side?

[Scottl]

Thanks for the great feedback Gary.

Looking good Scott.  A few comments:

* I agree that the staging throat in the upper right is not ideal, especially of you have two bridges in front of it. However, I think the double-end staging with extra capacity is so valuable that it's worth finding a way to make it work.  I'll think about it some more.  One idea would be to bring it around the corner and sacrifice a bit of the eastbound main.  Maybe push the start of the Cache Sub in a bit to lessen the reach?

I could pull the start of staging more towards Swan Landing.  I was hoping to avoid the visual of it but I can play around with this.   Some of your helix ideas below might also give me room to move the Wildhay R bridge, further improving this corner.  I agree the double-ended staging is worth finding a solution.

* I'm really bearish about the mid-branch helix in the peninsula.   How many turns do you envisage?  Will any of the run be visible?  On TBC, the Vortex is my least favourite aspect of the layout's operations (though I concede it's a necessity, and I'm proud of its design and execution).   I'm wondering if there is some way to break it up and make the central peninsula part of the helix itself.  Hear me out:

From Wildhay to the base of the helix, you get about 16' of run, and let's say the grade is 1.5%.  You'll gain almost 3" of elevaton in that bit.  Next, suppose you limited the helix to 2.5 turns (18" radius, 2% grade) and emerge near Hanlon siding (instead of over Berland).  With 2.5 turns, you could get more than 5" of elevation, so you'd be about 8" above Hanlon.  You could then run one more lap around the peninsula, set in from the lower deck so as not to crowd the scene, continuing to a Summit at Hoff.  This upper level could be entirely scenic-ed and have plenty of room to breathe without crowding the lower deck too much, and you would have a tolerably short helix.

I'm not a fan of helixes either (TBC is my only experience with them, lol).  I like this idea a lot- giving the two lower passes around the peninsula shorter scenes is fine as it is just forest and hills.  My thinking has been shaped by wanting more vertical separation, but your suggestion puts a lot of the climb to the upper deck into view.

* What is traffic flow on the Cache Sub like?  Is there a connection on the north end that goes somewhere?  I don't mind the helix from Winniandy back down to staging since that is probably not a run you'll expect guest operators to run very often, right?  You could have an extra track in that helix to stage trains at the north end, kind of like my Vortex staging.

* Do you need a provision for turning trains at Winniandy, for trains that return to Swan's?

The Cache sub is mostly through trains to/from further north at Grande Prairie.  The only traffic generated on the part of the line I am doing is the sawmill at Grey and coal loading at Winniandy.  Most trains heading north would continue into staging to come back as eastbounds into Swan Landing (and vice versa).  The coal trains will be made up at Winniandy and power needs to run around the train.  I'll need some extra tracks there to make that possible and there is some cool trackwork and structures I want to include from the prototype.

* At the bottom of the 2nd helix, I don't think the elevations work.  You won't be able to connect the helix to the back side of staging without a serious grade to avoid fouling the staging.  Can you connect to the front side?

Yes, you are correct.  Thinking this through more, I probably want more of the staging fed by this helix to represent traffic on the Cache Sub.  Bringing it forward might work but I'll need to map it out.


Lots of grist for the mill.  Once my marking is done, I'll come back with a revised plan.