N Scale Hi Rail - Retro Hollow Core Door Layout

[CRL]

Operationally, it might be more interesting to use a single slip instead of the double slip and remove the ability to transit directly from the yard to the branch line, requiring you to take a lap before you can move to the branch.

Just a thought.

[OldEastRR]

Why not put a crossing instead of a slip where you have it now and put the slip feeding into that from the center main? It means the branch line feeds only to the inner track(2) on the 3-main section, and from there at the slip either stay on that track or switch at a crossover to the outside loop (track 1). The inner track (3) already has access to  track (2) just to left of "A"; a slip is a redundant switch. This means making the center track on the RH side into your "staging yard" which can easily hold/send a train going either way on either main (I also think a train just sitting there while trains pass on either side of it looks good).  And I think a double-slip feeding into a crossing would be a neat-looking track arrangement. Better put a big switch tower there!
I also suggest you draw in some footprints of actual buildings whether kit or scratchbuilt and see just how cozy things get.  I assume this is strictly a one-man operation?
I'd think about making the mine tracks merely curve off the end of the layout instead of connecting to the main. First, it solves the problem of reaching back there ( 3 feet is a looong reach, especially with the front half of the layout crowded with structures and trains). Plus the passenger trains on the outer loop might be annoyed with a slow coal drag always sitting on the passenger main while it works the mine. Two dummy tracks can hold a lot of hopper cars to make your layout look full without really fouling up the ops. And it gives some uninterrupted mainline on a layout crammed with spurs and crossovers.

[GaryHinshaw]

It's shaping up nicely.  I do agree with OldEastRR's comment that the mine will be a pain to switch.  You should mock up the spurs and a few feet of main in their proposed locations and see what the reach would be like.  But I would definitely try to keep the mine!  I love the idea of a port-mine-port turn, especially if you have extra staging at the port.

I also question the double slip.  Seems like a simple crossing would be more appropriate for a RR like this.  The slip switch only gives you a) a direct route from track 3 on the right to tracks 0,1 at the station, and b) a direct route from Port to Yard/ET (with a crossing, you get this access after one lap).  How important are either of these features, at the cost of making the junction look like a passenger terminal?

Given your schematic, I can make a start at setting up OP for this pike.  I'll ask you more questions as I proceed, but you might want to look over the installation guide.  The program comes with a set of demo files that let you try out the various features, so that's a good way to get up to speed on the concepts.  What kind of machine would you install this on? (Windows? Mac? Linux?)  I can point you to the right link.

[wm3798]

I'm a Windows guy.  Thanks, @GaryHinshaw

The main advantage of the dbl slip is it would allow me to bring a train out of track 0 or 1 from the passenger station and move it eastbound into the inner staging track, it also allows direct access from the yard to the branch, which would let me operate a local up or down the branch while having both mains running mind-numbing circles.

But I can see where a simple crossing would provide the added bit of complexity to the operation... will cogitate on that.

Re: the mine tracks, I share the concerns about switching it,  which is why earlier in the discussion I noted that my preference would be to have it connect inside the inner loop at the back.  That's where it is now on Retro.1.0, and it's reasonably easy to work even with a manual switch.  (I would put a Tortoise under it in Retro.2.0 to make it uber reliable and to turn the track power off under a mine switcher) 



You can see the mine in the background here with the little truss bridge over the trolley track... which sadly, I can't find room for in version 2.0.  (More Modules!!)

Regardless, there WILL be a mine/quarry to switch... afterall, the old layout still left me with in the neighborhood of 60 or 70 hoppers... even after the big sell off!

I agree with @OldEastRR that I should start conceptualizing the built environment to see how much kitbashing and scratchbuilding lays ahead.  I'm envisioning a gritty street grid where the loop winds down, but if I can shoehorn in the brewery I started on the previous office layout, there won't be room for much else.  Probably one or two big industrial buildings with a smattering of smaller stuff to fill in the remaining oddly shaped lots.  We'll see.

With the only variable at this point being the double slip, it's going to be time to dismantle 1.0 and think about engineering the new display.  I want to elevate it about 12-14" above the desk that presently holds it to improve viewing angles, and also free up the desk as a work space that functions a little better than my design desk or the kitchen table.  One hitch will be dealing with the light switch that's right where I don't want it to be.

I'll also probably scab together a micro layout on the 2x2 module base to provide the necessary background noise while I work on the new plan.

Onward!
Lee

[CRL]

I'm a Windows guy.  Thanks, @GaryHinshaw

The main advantage of the dbl slip is it would allow me to bring a train out of track 0 or 1 from the passenger station and move it eastbound into the inner staging track, it also allows direct access from the yard to the branch, which would let me operate a local up or down the branch while having both mains running mind-numbing circles.

But I can see where a simple crossing would provide the added bit of complexity to the operation... will cogitate on that.

This is why I recommended using the single slip switch instead of the double slip switch. It would allow the passenger train movement as desired but would not allow access from the yard directly to the branch line.

[wm3798]

While philosophically I'm with you, I have a Dbl slip in stock, and would have to expend precious resources on a new single slip!  You know how I feel about spending money!!

Lee

[CRL]

Then by all means, use the double. But you could, by operating rule, restrict the use of that side of the slip.

[wm3798]

Heh... you know how I feel about rules, too!!

[GaryHinshaw]

Ok, I've taken a very quick stab at setting up this pike in OP.  I'll send you a PM with some info for grabbing a zip file with the config files that could get you started.  This is very bare bones, but hopefully it's enough to give you the flavour for how this works and where to take it.

To check that it can handle building a few rudimentary trains, I populated the layout with some generic boxcars, coal hoppers, and gondolas:



I then defined and built two trains, a Mine Turn:



and a Port local switcher, which originates at the Port (I picture a switcher stationed there, but that is not necessary), runs up to the main and swaps cars in the interchange track:



It's very easy to modify as the layout evolves, your schemes evolve, etc.  I hope you really have fun with this. 

[wm3798]

Hopefully the layout will evolve as quickly as the operations scheme!

Lee

[wm3798]

Started mucking out the office today.  Haven't taken down the Retro 1.0 rig, but I have the concept of how its replacement will be built.

The HCD will be elevated to 42" (at the surface), which will give me about 13" clear above the desk top that will hold it up.  It will be most efficient to build  legs for the layout that are independent of the desk, but I'll include some intermediate support that rests on the desk top to prevent sagging.  The separate supports will also allow me to nudge the desk out from under the layout a bit to facilitate a work space.  I will probably attach a narrow under-cabinet light on the bottom of the layout to assist my aging eyeballs.

At the right end, I'd like to use a nice kitchen cabinet as part of the structure to provide the necessary storage.  It would be situated to face out to the side.



My aim is to have the set up with furniture grade finishes so it's not an eyesore in my office.  The french door opens to the living room, fireplace, and family space, so I won't be holed up when I'm tinkering, and when it's all finished, which could actually happen in my life time, I can invite people into my work space and share a little bit of my pastime with them, without it being an overwhelming presence in the office.

I'll have to start hitting the ReStore to locate the perfect cabinet (I'm hoping for 33" wide with two doors).

Lee

[wm3798]

Don't kill me.
I've been wrestling with planning this layout for a couple of weeks now, and as excited as I am about what fun it would be to run, I'm realizing that I just simply don't have time to undertake building such a complex track plan.
Apart from accumulating the necessary components, it's just more than I want to bite off right now, and I doubt I would achieve any kind of reasonable completion in the time frame I'd like to have something back up and running...

So...  Simplify.

I have also realized that what I really like doing is setting a couple of trains in motion and enjoy watching them run around loops while I'm working.  It's fun to bump cars and operate a schedule, sure, but EVERYTHING has to be in place and fully functional to get to that point.

What I think will really be satisfying for me at this point will be a very simple track plan that will allow two, maybe three trains to run the loops, and a couple of semi hidden tracks to make it easy to swap consists periodically.  I've taken an awful lot of inspiration from the HCD nation, especially the Juniata Division from @Dave V and the Seaboard Central (N scale Edition) by @Davefoxx among others.

I also think that a design that's heavier on scenery and less trackwork intensive will be completable in a more reasonable time frame. 

So, after massive amounts of self-examination, and with boundless appreciation for the incredible feedback and assistance that I've gotten on all of these designs, I present you with this latest effort, which hopefully is the ONE.



I've gone back to one of my favorite places in the world, the Paw Paw Bends of the Potomac through Green Ridge State Forest, with the B&O hugging the river's edge, and the WM flying overhead through bridges and tunnels.  This gives me two levels, two routes, three trains at a time operation, staging for three more trains.

I'll build it out of the c-80 track so I can run the retro equipment, although I may build the WM route with c55, and make it convertible to a DCC operation so I can run my newer stuff that's been mostly idle since I tore down the layout.

I envision a steam era consist for each route:  The Rivarossi pacific pulling B&O heavyweights, and the Rivarossi Mike pulling a B&O freight the other way, and upstairs my WM 2-8-0 hauling coal.

For diesel night, I'll run a WM Fast Freight up top, and a sleek E8 pulling shiny streamliners and a brace of F units going the other way with a manifest.

When I'm feeling feisty, I plan to plant my roofing nails along the main to hold up the cat poles, so the B&O can be transformed into the Port Road, and the WM above can become the B&O Royal Blue Line (or the Ma & Pa, if you can imagine them having the budget for those bridges!) so I can run the GG1 and the Metroliners under "wire".  The river, of course, would become the Susquehanna under such circumstances.

The biggest element that has pushed me in this direction is scenery.  It really is my first love, and the Retro 2.0 just wasn't giving me what I wanted.  As you, dear reader, cautioned, it was too much, with little space for the structures and land forms that would make it nicer to look at.  I'm planning a skyboard to separate the hills from the staging tracks, which can also hold a couple of clip lights to brighten it up.

I want to get back to keeping up with the other scenery artists here.  I really had fun building the Cumberland Station module...  and it's made me a little hungry for more bridges, structures and trees... as well as big rivers, rock formations, and all the little things that make the scenes pop.

I've also abandoned the idea of tying in a TTrak connection... there's really just not point in doing that.

From a tech standpoint, I plan to use automated turnouts for the staging tracks, but keep them in reach and visible.  I'll use Tortoise machines that I have at hand to power them, and to route track power, and perhaps light signals on the control panel and the layout to help avoid mishaps... because I recognize that the back of the layout will be difficult, but not impossible, to access.  If I can find reasonably price CPLs, I'll put some trackside signals in too.

As  noted, the two track B&O main will be two separate loops, DC power, with simple on-off control of the staging tracks to set the route.  There's really no need for a crossover or anything that makes it any more complex than it has to be.  In operating the present Retro 1.0, I have two crossovers, but I've never really used them for much, and they just cause headaches when running my smaller old engines.
Minimum radius on the mains will be 11" on the B&O, with the exception of the inner staging, which can be 9.75".  The WM can be a bit more snug, at least down to the operating limitations of my BL-2 and the Connie.  Probably 9.75"

The upper WM loop will have a DPDT that sets the power either from a DC throttle or the MRC Prodigy Advance that's still limping along.  The passing/staging siding at the rear will be similarly fitted with power routing machines and signals.  At the front, I may do a tunnel between the two bridges with the old "see inside the tunnel through the fascia" trick.  I'll include a couple of coal tipples so I can swap loads and empties when the mood strikes.

I think this will make the project more enjoyable for me on many levels.  One big plus will be the ability to focus on what I need for the scope of this, and stop thinking I need to own one of everything...

Now I just have to wonder if @seusscaboose still has my bridges...

Lee

[Chris333]

haha I like that last plan. Sort of reminds me of the river crossing on the last big layout.

[wm3798]

Egg Zackley.

[DKS]

I might suggest, at the risk of upsetting the apple cart, but to further simplify the plan, dropping the second coal mine at the bottom of the plan--it doesn't look feasible without very short-radius curved turnouts, and the siding will be absurdly short (if you want to keep it, make it a little freight siding or whatever). Meanwhile, I'd lengthen the siding for the other coal mine so it acquires somewhat more realistic proportions. And, at the risk of messing with your plan to make switches reachable, I'd move the switches on the lower loop at the top of the plan back behind the scenic divider--I think it'll look kind of odd for a two-track main to split up and then branch out into a pair of double-track portals (maybe make a removable chunk of backdrop, or end the divider short of the corner, or whatever). And finally, you might also be able to work in a little snippet of a backwoods town-like setting in the upper left corner, clustered around the Pawpaw station... But, that's me thinking out loud. Otherwise, I like the idea of a minimalist layout. Lord knows I've made enough of 'em!