PRR Track Plan

[wm3798]

Good question 98, and a good opportunity to point out that staging is a good thing to have, but on a layout the size and scope of Eric's, may not be entirely necessary.

John's Maryland and Ohio layout is a good example of this.  It's a sprawling, basement filling affair, with two large yards that are "visible" but they serve primarily as staging yards.  They are typically full, mostly unit trains (because John likes running long, dull unit trains from the Current Era... ) But, the main line run is long enough (it can take upwards of a half hour to traverse the layout at speed) and there's plenty of opportunities for sidings and other interruptions along the way, that a yard operator has plenty of time to work.  He's adding more in the way of industrial tracks, so there's a growing need for "active" tracks in the yards for locals and transfers.  This means there's less room in the yard to simply store, or stage trains.

As your operating schematic grows more complex, your need for staging will become more obvious.  Unfortunately, once you've built the layout and discovered this, it's difficult to go back and add staging tracks!


Correcting my staging deficiencies (the four track loop on the bottom level) led to this mess, which will hopefully one day be up and running again!

Lee

[eric220]

Eric, since I didn't see any staging in your plan, are you looking at the A/Ds at Paradise act as your visible staging? If so, it looks pretty good, if not, that's an awful lot of A/D tracks, almost as many as class tracks,

Short answer is yes, the arrival/departure tracks will also serve as staging.  Long answer is that there are two hidden staging yards planned, but they are mostly going to have specific uses.  The larger yard under the layout will mainly be used to hide the modern equipment until I want to run it, and the second is for layovers on the upper level at the turnaround.  The larger yard will have space to use as general staging, but that's not it's primary function.  That's also available space that may deminish depending on how much more modern equipment I acquire.

[John]

One thing I would plan on in the build process .. the area devoted to the helix, design it so that you can also go down - under the lower level, that then allows you to have staging under the operational sections .. I am doing that now .. getting ready to drop staging under the layout

[eric220]

I know there hasn't been much activity on this thread in awhile, but I wanted to ask if anyone has any more feedback.  I'm only a few weeks away from starting to acquire material to begin building.  Paradise is going to be the first thing built, and that seemed to be where a lot of the feedback was focused.  Since the last post, I added a 24" grid to the diagram.

Lower Level


Upper Level


Anyone?  Bueller?

[eric220]

I'm going to bump this thread one more time.  I'm about to start work on the JMRI panel to control this beast, so I need to settle on a final design (at least for the track schematic).  I made a few tweaks, mainly to the upper level.  Little things, like correcting the room size and lining up the helix.  I added in a scene that I had completely forgotten that I wanted to include: track pans.  They're going to go in next to Walnut Hill.





I really appreciate all of the feedback that has been offered.  Any other thoughts?

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I feel bad for not getting back to you about this.

I think the important thing is just to make sure that it's balanced. If you have x starting places, you need x+1 finishing places at the other end.

Also, I love the track pans idea.

[eric220]

OK, I've resurrected this thread several times, but this is the last one.  My parents are coming to visit for a week starting on Friday, and my dad is going to help me start construction, so the time to commit to a plan is upon me.  I've continued tweaking the plan, as was evidenced by my research into Horseshoe Curve.  I'd like to ask one more time for feedback.

The lower level is mostly unchanged.  I did move the track pans to Morrow behind the workbench, and I've changed the helix to a nolix.  I gain a few inches in the aisle, and I gain space for another scene on the upper level.



The upper level has undergone some serious revision.  Most noticeably, I took the suggestion to angle River City the other way and make it a through terminal.  As part of the redesign, I went through several revisions of my coach yard and layover tracks.  I also took out the lumber mill near Keystone.  I was never really happy with it, and it felt shoe-horned in.  There's enough room there to add it back in later if I feel like it.  Finally, I added a scene to the top level of the nolix: the Coors brewery in Golden, CO.  It will be a simple industrial scene.



Obviously, the area that has seen the most attention is River City.  I tried to keep the look of a complex throat on one side, but went for a simple ladder on the other.  The left side with the simple ladder will be mostly covered by the city, so it won't be obvious that it's a terminal throat.  The mainline will duck under the yard and split, with the westbound main going back under the city and terminal tracks so that the leads wind up between the mains.



I included some hidden layover tracks around the turnaround, so that trains won't obviously disappear and immediately reappear.  Working out the yard tracks, lead, terminal leads, and layover tracks proved to be quite a challenge.



Any thoughts before I commit saw blade to lumber?

[AlkemScaleModels]

IAs for Horseshoe Curve, you might consider just naming it something else. Your entire layout is, after all, a flight of fantasy, and you already have major cities (River City, Newark) that don't exist. Besides, there were a number of similar curves to Horseshoe on the PRR (one quite similar to it, IIRC, not far from Horseshoe). This might quell the cries of the purists; plus, I think it suits the theme of the layout better. Your call, of course, but this is what I'd do under the circumstances.

I agree with DKS, there are hundreds of other horseshoe curves in the real RR world. If you named it something else, you could also get away with less track. That will make the layout look and feel longer and be easier to build.

[DKS]

IIRC, the space for Horseshoe Curve is an alcove of sorts...
 


Is a second deck even gong to work in that space? What about access to it? Seems as though any noteworthy features other than the curve--which is just a curve--will be difficult to access and even harder to see. If it were me, I'd completely fill that space with the curve, with scenery wall-to-tall (with a removable section for maintenance access), and the lower deck would be a simple straight run across the front of the alcove.
 

 


Also, I still think the decks should be swapped. Seems like all the best features (in particular, the engine terminal and Newark) are on the lower deck. If it were me, I'd want them at the best vantage points for viewing/operating.

My $.02--probably about all it's worth, if that.

[MichaelWinicki]

Also, I still think the decks should be swapped. Seems like all the best features (in particular, the engine terminal and Newark) are on the lower deck. If it were me, I'd want them at the best vantage points for viewing/operating.

Great point!

[eric220]

IIRC, the space for Horseshoe Curve is an alcove of sorts...
 
Is a second deck even gong to work in that space? What about access to it? Seems as though any noteworthy features other than the curve--which is just a curve--will be difficult to access and even harder to see. If it were me, I'd completely fill that space with the curve, with scenery wall-to-tall (with a removable section for maintenance access)

That alcove is pretty tall.  I'm 6' tall, and I can stand up in it.  The lower level is only going to be 6-8" off the top of the shelf that forms the floor of the alcove, so there's plenty of room for the second level.  There's also a dedicated track of lights back in that alcove, so lighting should not be an issue.  Most of the upper deck in the alcove is minimalist, so as not to take the focus off the Curve, which is definitely slated to take up most of the visual space in there.  My current plan is to do wall-to-wall scenery, and build the reservoir in the middle as either removable, or able to take the weight of someone occasionally crawling/standing on it.

Also, I still think the decks should be swapped. Seems like all the best features (in particular, the engine terminal and Newark) are on the lower deck. If it were me, I'd want them at the best vantage points for viewing/operating.

There are a couple of problems with swapping the decks.  First, River City is slated to sit a few inches above the tracks, and it's going to include some very tall buildings.  Some of the skyscrapers that I have already built probably won't fit if it's on the lower level.  Second, and probably hardest to overcome, Altoona is already built.  When I built it, I didn't have a good way to rip plywood, so I was stuck with what Home Depot could do for me.  They won't rip strips narrower than 6", so the bracing under Altoona is 6", plus 3/4" ply, plus 1" of foam.  Nearly 8" of benchwork (not counting the facia) is way too much to eat up between the decks.  Added to that, most of Altoona is in front of that large window.  I'm having to get creative with how I support the upper deck along there, and the 42" wide, rather heavy, Altoona just isn't going to work there.  Finally, I think that if I swapped the decks, parts of Newark, most of Paradise, and Panther Creek would be extremely hard to reach.

It's an interesting thought, but I just don't think it's practical at this point.  My current thought for Newark and Paradise/Altoona is to have operators be seated.  That brings them down to the scenery, and being static positions, would probably by more comfortable.

[seusscaboose]

  My current thought for Newark and Paradise/Altoona is to have operators be seated.  That brings them down to the scenery, and being static positions, would probably by more comfortable.

Having Operators seated won't work if they are swapping cars or throwing switches...

How are you defining "Static"?

EP

[eric220]

Having Operators seated won't work if they are swapping cars or throwing switches...

How are you defining "Static"?

EP

When I say "static", I mean jobs that are confined to a small area. At Newark in particular, an operator can almost reach the entire scene without moving.

Why won't being seated work?  I've simulated it, and I haven't noticed any problems. I'm planning on doing turnout control from the facia, so that shouldn't be a problem.  Obviously, simulation is a lot different from practical experience, so it may turn out that the chairs go unused.

[DKS]

Why won't being seated work?

It's kind of hard to follow a train, unless you use wheeled chairs. And if you're doing a lot of ops, that means getting up and sitting down quite a lot.

[seusscaboose]

Obviously, simulation is a lot different from practical experience.

tell me about it!
 ;D