Cisco Bridges: a new layout concept

[Chris333]

The new MR project layout is the CP in this area in N scale!
http://mrv.trains.com/layouts/3d-track-plans/2016/07/3d-track-plans-canadian-canyons-in-n-scale
Benchwork is started on their webcam.
http://mrr.trains.com/marketing/2014/01/model-railroader-red-oak-project-webcam

[Scottl]

That's awesome!  The staging looks quite interesting.  Should be fun to see them build it up.

[coldriver]

Great prototype, but that seems like it might be a lot more time spent in the helix than actually running through scenicked layout.  I'm sure Scott cringed watching the video when he heard David Popp mention the Canadian Rockies setting - yep, the mountains are rocky and they're in Canada but the Fraser River's in the Coastal Range/northern end of the Cascade Mountains - a few hundred miles from the Rockies. 

[Scottl]

I watched in mute so I missed the geographic misappropriation.

As I watched it I was struck how it would make an interesting set up (with some modification) for a Spiral Tunnels layout.

[coldriver]

I'd be tempted to model the staging as CN Boston Bar or CP North Bend.  Not sure how much it happens these days with the directional running through the canyons, but those two crew change point yards used to act as "prototype staging" with multiple through trains parked awaiting crews or slots at the Vancouver area ports.   

[Scottl]

Both are now run through and the yards are mostly removed.  I've found there is almost nothing for industry on the line, but there are some industries served by CP on the Thompson River.

I watched it again and realized that that ittsy bitsy bridge is probably supposed to be the high bridge at Cisco.

In general I am not a fan of free-standing layouts but I like many features about this design.  The exposed staging is a good idea as I personally don't like hidden track.

[davefoxx]

The exposed staging is a good idea as I personally don't like hidden track.

Is this what is driving your dissatisfaction with your current layout?

DFF

[Scottl]

I will admit that lifting off the staging cover(s) was something I dreaded, but now that I have done it and cleaned the track, things are operational and smooth running.  Putting it back into hidden staging gives me a lot of worries, so I don't know when I will do it, but I have learned another lesson. 

More broadly, the main concern I have with my layout is the lack of operational variety.  I'm happy enough to run trains for the time being and to work on models, but as a long term prospect, I know the layout won't be satisfactory.

[mark dance]

Scott, I may have asked this already, but is it feasible to lift your current Cisco bridges layout up a foot or two so you can slide a new, operationally-focused but disconnected layout underneath it?  That way you can keep both.  As a railfanning layout, it is first class and might benefit from the higher viewing angle anyways.

Or even put it on linear vertical rails and counterweight it so you can lower it when needed or push it up and out of the way when not needed.

In an old LDJ the then editor, Ryley Triggs, had a brilliant concept for a NY harbors layout where the different isolated, barge-served switching districts each recreated in modules with similar footprints.  These modules would then be arranged stacked on top of each other with only the "active" module being operated indexed to a height where it could be served by barges rolling around on wheeled trolleys.  The other "inactive" modules were indexed either above or below the "active" module.

just an idea

md

[Missaberoad]

What variety of operations do you desire most? are we talking switching/marshaling or a more complex operations scheme?

Will you be operating on you own or do you envision operating sessions?

Can you repost your current track plan? (if one exists)

[Scottl]

Here is a sketch I did as I was planning the Skoonka/Thompson River scene, this is more or less what I have:



Sorry, Cisco is truncated out of this image, I don't have the full version handy. It is not really to scale but gives you a sense of the space and limitations.

Mark, the bridge scene would be difficult to move up as it is about 32" vertical extent now and the ceiling is 84", but the benchwork on the Skoonka side is about 48" above the floor.  I could build something more operationally oriented below it but I would have to operate a lower deck from a chair (I am very tall).  Something more elaborate, such as stacked levels that could be moved into operational position would be probably more complicated than I want to do.  The room is quite small to begin with, and jamming more in would probably make it more crammed feeling than it already is.

I have contemplated a different layout concept in this thread https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=40471.0.  I really like where that was going, with a dense modern port on the upper deck modelled after Neptune and other terminal operations on the north shore in Vancouver.  The lower deck would be reached by a helix to staging.  A census of the trains I would like clearly showed how important staging would be.  This layout would support operations ranging from single car switching, to blocks of cars, and to unit train handling.  I can envision 2-3 people being able to fit comfortably in the room and operating, but most of the time it would just be me.  I have some things I want to do with the latest version of this plan but I've been swamped and have not had a chance to draft them in.

The problem is that I would probably miss having some open terrain railroading, with long trains in big landscapes- basically what I have now.  What I need is a balance of the two elements.  One scenario that I have not really put effort into developing would be to rip out Skoonka and re-envision that space as an operating port or yard.  It is a decent amount of space, and I might be able to figure out a way to have lower level staging.  It would let me keep the bridge scene as is, and provide operating potential.  I would not shed a tear for Skoonka if I could figure out a way to make good use of the space.

One idea that remains interesting as a development would be the Ashcroft Terminal http://www.ashcroftterminal.com/.  They have a brochure with a track layout as planned http://www.ashcroftterminal.com/pdfs/Ashcroft_Terminal_Brochure_2015.pdf, only some of it has actually been built.  It is an attractive neo-prototype with both CN and CP operations possible, and it is geographically close to Cisco.   

[davefoxx]

One scenario that I have not really put effort into developing would be to rip out Skoonka and re-envision that space as an operating port or yard.  It is a decent amount of space, and I might be able to figure out a way to have lower level staging.  It would let me keep the bridge scene as is, and provide operating potential.  I would not shed a tear for Skoonka if I could figure out a way to make good use of the space.

^This, yes, this.

DFF

[Scottl]

You can say "I told you so"

[Scottl]

I played around with some ideas for Ashcroft Terminal in the current layout footprint. This design would incorporate a CN staging yard with five tracks (the same as what I have now, but much longer), a CP mainline, some interchange, the intermodal terminal and some warehousing.  There are other features at the Terminal I could try and fit in but space is at a premium. 

The CP line can't run a train continuously, but there is room to move things around and to stage a train on the duckunder.   The advantage of this layout is some challenging train movements, continuous running on the CN line, no helixes or hidden track, and the Cisco scene remains intact.  I am sure the track plan can be improved, but it is an interesting possibility.

[Scottl]

I thought about this some more today and added a continuous loop for the CP line.  This could be suspended off the edge of the existing Cisco peninsula with some removable sections for access to deep scenes.  The "joint line" duck under is already semi-permanent and has room on it for a parallel line.  This would make a huge difference in operation potential, especially if I put a passing siding on this extension, or perhaps even a few staging tracks.  Food for thought.