Vancouver port layout ideas

[Scottl]

Here is a five-track version with 12" min radius on the inner loop.  The turnouts are within decent reach and the shortest track is 78" which is about right for the trains I have.  I have not figured out the helix dimensions but it would be a long run up and down.

[Cajonpassfan]

I've been following this thread with interest, and even though modern railroading doesn't excite me, layout design does, as do operations. I think Mark's point about the need for adequate staging is right on, and I also share his dislike for the boredom and anxiety associated with operating trains through helixes. I ripped one out even though it was functioning flawlessly (for the most part). Here, maybe one turn would be adequate, maybe

Turnouts can be clustered in one or two areas along the front edge of the layout. There are places in this plan (like under the intermodal paved area or under the big yellow sulfur pile that would be relatively easy to fit with a removable flat scenery section on a piece of plywood or foam to provide full access to the turnouts for troubleshooting, cleaning and maintenance. For everyday operation, the need for substantial vertical separation is not as crucial (but nice).

I have a design challenge requiring the absolute minimum between decks at one point and the placement of a major junction with four turnouts on approach to my LA staging yards in a vertical space the height of a 1x2" board, or 1.5" clearance. I'm solving it by placing removable simple flat scenery on top for access, see pic.

I'm not suggesting 1.5" between decks, simply noting that areas where access is crucial, as around turnouts, can be designed with alternate access from above. I also agree with the notion that both decks need to be designed in concert rather than staging being an afterthought.

Fun stuff, Otto K.

[Cajonpassfan]

I had posted my comments above before seeing the latest staging iteration. I think you'll have hard time accessing the staging yard turnouts, especially under the helix. Consider placing your turnouts under the intermodal yard/front edge of layout and putting your staging under the other wing....

Oh and your helix doesn't need to be round; I would look at an oval for more separation between turns. But that's just me
Otto K.

[mark dance]

If you are going to invest in a second deck + a helix to get there, it seems a shame not to use far more of that deck for storage.

And would the lower 4 turnouts be accessible for maintenance?  If all turnouts were within 6" of the front edge you may be able to get by with 4" vertical clearance above them though you would need to remove cars on the front tracks to reach derailed cars on the rear tracks.  A 16"R / 3" vertical height per turn helix would be what I woudl be aiming for. You could get the helix down to 3 turns depending on whether you need room under the upper deck for Tortoise or something.

maybe this thread should have been moved to the layout design folder a ways ago?

md

[Scottl]

I probably would aim for more than minimum vertical clearance with the lower deck.  Those back turnouts are about 20" from the front.  Not ideal, but they would be accessible if needed.

I agree though, this lower deck could be much better utilized.  This version is minimalist that would only require a small lower deck. I could alternatively run the staging tracks around the outer front perimeter and have all the turnouts at the edge and longer staging tracks.  It would also allow more staging tracks quite easily. 

It's not an engineering report, yet.  But I do like where it is going.

[Cajonpassfan]

Scott, what kind of grade would you be comfortable with on the staging yard approach/helix?
With your permission, I'd like to doodle a little....
Otto K.

[Scottl]

Thanks Otto, your input is most welcome!  I think around 2% would be ideal.

I've been trying different ways of arranging the staging deck and as Mark has suggested, it is not an easy space to utilize.   I'm open to suggestions.

[mark dance]

If you had more vertical clearance so you can get your hands in for derailments you could try an Armstrong "reverted loop" stub ended staging. Only 1/2 the turnouts to locate near the front of the layout but you need to back up every train...your trains seem relatively short though. Staging tracks would be quite a bit longer. Loop could go under helix.

Md

[Scottl]

I had to look that one up, but it is a good idea.  After a few fiascos with hidden track, I would prefer more clearance and a longer helix run.

[Leggy]

The more staging the better, I'd make use of a full second deck for staging instead of a loop.

[basementcalling]

What about a train elevator or casette style staging instead of the complexity of a hidden hard to access throat?

If you stick with the helix to staging, can you reverse the direction? That would let the yard throat sit closer to the edge and allow all the space underneath the main deck for staging.

[Scottl]

Are there any examples of train elevators that operate with 8-9' trains?  I would be interested to see this, even if I suspect it is overkill.

Mark sent me a plan for a reverted loop on the lower level that would put all the turnouts at the front and give 5 X 12' staging tracks.  Getting more than five tracks becomes a problem due to radius issues relative to the benchwork.

Some metrics from the upper deck:  45 turnouts (about $1250 CDN) and 65 lengths of 36" Peco flex.  I won't reuse my Atlas turnouts but if I do this I might consider handlaying turnouts.  That many could amortize a jig or two quite reasonably or just do them by hand.

[Scottl]

For those of you with MR access, this is an interesting elevator solution

http://mrr.trains.com/news-reviews/new-products/2009/04/video-watch-the-train-elevator-in-action

[basementcalling]

Are there any examples of train elevators that operate with 8-9' trains?  I would be interested to see this, even if I suspect it is overkill.

Mark sent me a plan for a reverted loop on the lower level that would put all the turnouts at the front and give 5 X 12' staging tracks.  Getting more than five tracks becomes a problem due to radius issues relative to the benchwork.

Some metrics from the upper deck:  45 turnouts (about $1250 CDN) and 65 lengths of 36" Peco flex.  I won't reuse my Atlas turnouts but if I do this I might consider handlaying turnouts.  That many could amortize a jig or two quite reasonably or just do them by hand.

Yes. One of their supplemental mags had a club example. Way overkill on construction for what you'd need, but it had 2 tracks per shelf. With 5 or 6 shelves, you could hold a LOT of N scale trains for a layout that size.

[Scottl]

It is an interesting idea.  It would save the space (and time to run through) of the helix and give better control over where staging tracks would be located.  The MR version was pretty slick, a true elevator with no storage component.  It is tempting to try just because it is so interesting, but precision construction is not my forte and I need to be aware of my limitations.  To be usable as a central component of the layout, it would have to be bulletproof.

The reverted loop has the attraction of allowing for reversal of the train.  With five or so trains in staging and a few on the upper deck, I could envision a decent operating session putting together a manifest, maybe taking apart an intermodal, running a sulphur through the loop and having a grain/phosphate to break down.  Based on my limited experience, that would take a long time to do and could keep two or three people interested for an evening.