Proto-lanced Pennsy: The West Slope

[eric220]

On the note of using just track to span a short gap, a rerailer section can add some extra stiffness through the span.

[DKS]

I haven't had a chance to play with the plan yet, but I want to provide a counter point to the direction that everyone has been going in.

If you're into the PRR in that area, it IS a lot of nothing. The whole thing is big too.

Trying to cram a lot of stuff in the layout, which is the direction that we seem to be going in here, isn't going to faithfully capture that.

If the goal is to have a layout that looks like Cresson, or Gallitzin, or even Summerhill, trying to cram them all in won't do it.

Think about what the iconic scenes are from these locations.

Then think about how to scale those scenes down to fit into the space.

If you want to just make a version of the Carolina Central and call the town Gallitzin, that's entirely fine, but if you're trying to capture the flavor and essence of the area, I think you need to scale the scope of what you're trying to include way down so you can do each thing justice.

If you want some "interest", maybe Gallitzin isn't the best call. Maybe look at South Fork, or Cresson for that side.

But trying to cram Cresson, Gallitzin, Tunnel Hill, etc... in isn't going to let you do anything approaching a faithful representation of any of them.

For example, Cresson isn't Cresson if it's on a curve.

Well, then I suppose Josh may as well settle for just a loop of track, and call it Gallitzin or whatever, and not have anything of interest at all, just a bunch of nothing. I thought that model railroading was (in part, at least, and out of necessity) a process of selective compression. I don't see a problem picking two or three key scenes and juxtaposing them. Might not satisfy the purists, but maybe it would satisfy the builder--assuming he renamed everything so as not to offend? While I'm a big fan of modeling "nothing," too, I do think it can be taken a little too far. But, hey, whatever floats the o'l rowboat...

[Dave V]

DKS, I think Ed's on to something here...  I don't think he's trying to take the fun out of model railroading for Josh but rather to help him temper his expectations.

Let's address the elephant in the room.  The Juniata Division.

Josh has been very kind in his enthusiasm for my layout and I've heard from probably a dozen folks over the years that have used my version of what's really Lou Sassi's project layout as the basis for theirs.  I stumbled into a semi-successful layout; I didn't start with a plan for one.  I took what looked like a neat trackplan for a busy railroad on an easy HCD--with which I already had experience--and just called it Pennsy.  Over the years I've tried to retrofit the layout to be more representative of the Middle Division, but no matter what clever camera angles can disguise, it will never be a faithful representation of the prototype.  At best I can capture the flavor.  My current layout is way more influenced by Dave Frary's HO Middle Division than it should be.  I fear I've inadvertently driven others to attempt to turn Lou's plan into something it's not.  In other words, I may have poisoned the well.

So everything we do in an HCD space in order to represent Penny's Broad Way in a huge compromise.

Now...  If Josh can reconcile himself with all of that and still want to use an HCD and call it Pennsy mainline, that's entirely his choice.  I just want Josh to make that call with his eyes wide open just as Ed does.

[chicken45]

Everyone has been incredible helpful. I am truly enjoying this discussion. It's giving me things to think about that I haven't before. Pros and cons to each. Selective compression vs. negative space. Operations vs. prototypical scenes.  All are valid arguments for and against. The only difference is perspective of the person choosing. I know that. We all know that. If we didn't we wouldn't be here at TRW.

I can tell you, when I googled "PRR N SCALE" several years ago, the Juniata Division was the first hit. I looked at it and though, "Wow! This looks great! As an entry level modeler who wants to step up to the majors, this is accessible to me! And look! He built it on a door with table legs! I can do that! No benchwork! OOH! Look! Dave documented the whole thing on the internet! That's the hard part. Now, just to make it my own and adapt the track plan to my interests. You didn't poison the well, Dave, you tossed in a bucket and rope and brought water to us; that we can get that Pennsy flavor in any size if we get creative and pay attention.

However, I'm sure a lot of folks look at it and turn off brain and replicate it. I wonder if there are mirror universe Juniata Divisions out there that use the same buildings and everything Dave's does.  Like you warned me, do the research and base it off the prototype, not my version of the prototype. Luckily, I came here first and got something super valuable. Perspective. That's what builds an enjoyable railroad for me!

It'll take a few days for my head to stop buzzing from all this information.
DKS got my adrenaline pumping by drawing back on my youthful recollections of standing on that U shaped overpass in Summerhill (before they rebuilt it) getting a lung full of Conrail GP-38 as it rumbled beneath me.
Ed touched on the views of driving US22 into Altoona, seeing the mainline off in the distance from the highway. It was a mountain conquered by man and steel. It's mountain and rail. Three hippos dragging a string of coal cars up the hill. The isolation of MG Tower.

Who says I can't have both? It's just about finding a clever, effective way. One thing we aren't short of is passion.
So at the end of the day, it's a layout on a HCD. Yup, that in itself is a compromise with Pennsy. But
in in the end, my layout will make me happy, as Dr. Dave put it "until the big one." I know that everyone won't like it, they don't have to, and I'm OK with that and know that others here get that, too. What is important to me is for folks to understand that my decisions, planning, and compromising have been carefully thought out and made the best decision I possibly could under my restraints.

SO...what next?
I may try to draw up a tear shaped plan of Gallitzin. I still may go back to my original plan with MT interlocking, but I think there's still a few miles left in this phase.

[kelticsylk]

I'm reading some of the discussion here and thinking "Oh yeah, that's why I went freelance"

I once thought a good way to model the Pennsy would be build a layout based on the Bustleton Branch that ran through the woods near my parents house. While it was definitely PRR, it wasn't THE PRR...if you know what I mean. One Baldwin switcher pulling maybe one train a day at 20 mph or less through miles of woods and residential neighborhoods. Sidings are relatively rare compared to the length of the branch. Once in a while an industrial park needs switching and brings welcome distraction.

The branch joins the main at Holmesburg where there's a tower/station. Standing on that platform while a pair of GG1's blasted through with a freight could scare the living bejesus out of you. Now THAT was the Pennsylvania Railroad!

On any real railroad there is a LOT of nothing. Having spent too much time on Train Simulator I can definitely attest to that. The routes are literally full size. Try to imagine modeling on a layout where there are literally hundreds of square miles and you can duplicate the real thing. It takes as long as it really takes to get from one place to another. Running a through train from Philly to Gallitzin is a 250 mile ordeal of being attentive and trying to stay awake. Our little layouts are never that taxing and that's a good thing. It is supposed to be a hobby, not a career.

[mark.hinds]

<snip>
On any real railroad there is a LOT of nothing. Having spent too much time on Train Simulator I can definitely attest to that. The routes are literally full size. Try to imagine modeling on a layout where there are literally hundreds of square miles and you can duplicate the real thing. It takes as long as it really takes to get from one place to another. Running a through train from Philly to Gallitzin is a 250 mile ordeal of being attentive and trying to stay awake. Our little layouts are never that taxing and that's a good thing. It is supposed to be a hobby, not a career.

MS Train Simulator's full-scale Tehachapi route is what finally convinced me that all I needed on a layout was 2 or 3 scenes, right next to each other.  I found that the long mainline runs quickly became boring (as was cab view).  3 cheers for small layouts!   

MH

[MichaelWinicki]

Just resurrecting this nice plan that Dave did.

If you wanted the tower to appear more on it's own, with the hill in back and without the sidings to impede the view you could simply move the switch more to the left and then point the sidings to the right. 

[chicken45]

So far, I'm leaning towards straigtening the north bend out, moving MG to the center and installing an interlocking.  Everything on the south end will stay the same.

Ed did say he'd take a look at the plan to illustrate some of his points, so I won't decide until I see what he brings to the table...or as the case may be, hollow core door. 

[chicken45]

So, I did this in haste, just to see it on paper. It's a bit (a lot) sloppy, this is really my first effort at creating a plan from scratch, so mind the bumps and whatnot.  Heh...maybe I can call this a rapid prototype of design?
160in by 36in




So in doing this more realistic plan of Gallitzin, I discovered learned three things:
- In order for it to really work, I need two more modules on the east and west. I'm not at that point yet. I also don't want a point to point such a small door unless there is a really convincing argument for it.
- If I don't do point to point, the east curve will be waaay too tight and thus, not worth it.
- If I did add east door, I get my 4 track Broadway... then what? Put a helix on the end of it? 

But the things I do like:
-The Broadway was indeed split into 2+2, so that is an accurate representation!
-All three tunnels!
-AR and that cute little UN tower!
-Adding an east and westbound passenger stations
-Ability to portray the coke ovens in the north
-Accurate placement of freight depot outside Allegheny tunnel.

I think it's a bit much for right now. The fact that I'd need two more modules is a turn off. If I'm going to do that, I may as well build bench work and not compromise at all. I did learn another thing, a very important thing. The Allegheny Division is what I want to do, for now, and for "the big one" someday.
Just thought I'd share this thought process with all yinz.

[Hornwrecker]

"Give yourself to the Dark Side Northern Division.  It is the only way you can save your friends layout."

[Specter3]

So why did they split the line for two different tunnels in Galitzen?

[chicken45]

So why did they split the line for two different tunnels in Galitzen?

They did it specifically for future N scalers who want to model this area on a hollow core door. How very considerate of "the Penn."
 

[chicken45]

"Give yourself to the Dark Side Northern Division.  It is the only way you can save your friends layout."

[chicken45]

So why did they split the line for two different tunnels in Galitzen?

Portage Tunnel was first built by the Allegheny Portage RR. Pennsy later purchased them. Pennsy didn't use the tunnel at first but did in the late 1800's they made it a double track. The PRR was also drilling out their own tunnel which was 25 feet lower in elevation. That's a very bare bones summary, but it should answer your question.

[Specter3]

Thats perfectly sufficient. Neat thread, so I poked around on bingmaps to have a look see.