When I got back from the CRHS RailBQ, I had two packages waiting for me. The crew is coming over on Tuesday to work on staging. I think there's a reasonable chance that we might actually get it done!
(http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp233/eric220/c9590594.jpg)
I may have been compromised, but I wasn't shakey when that was taken. . . not yet anyways . . . :-*
Well, it has been far too long since my last update. The supplies that were waiting for me after the RailBQ have been put to good use. They have been transformed from a couple of USPS boxes into a staging yard. Here it is in all its code 80 glory.Now thats a staging yard! :)
(http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp233/eric220/d916a952.jpg)
This will be a semi-hidden staging yard under the main layout, which, among other things, will house my modern fleet. I still have to install the return loop at the far end. I've got a work party scheduled for the 18th with some locals to help build the other levels, and the staging level needs to be done by then, so I've got a deadline looming!
Now thats a staging yard! :)
The shortest tracks at the left are 10'6" long.
I should have figured that the Atlas motors would be cheap. They were also inexpensive. Oh well, that's a bridge that we'll cross when we get to it. The next level will be 7" above this, so I should be able to squeeze a small screwdriver in there.
The shortest tracks at the left are 10'6" long.
quick thought before you drop other stuff on it have you considered using the atlas re-railers on all tracks to catch any derailments in staging? especially on the back tracks it may make life a lot easier down the line.
Hi Eric,
Have you consider using a compound ladder instead? This might allow you to squeeze another 6" or so on either end in the same width. Either way, this is bound to be a great layout.
Cheers!
Marc - 3DTrains.com
Eric .. make sure that you have access to the switch machines .. those things are notorious for burning out ...
Yes, I did give thought to that. I decided instead to put double rerailers before each throat to try and catch anything coming into the yard before it hits the ladders.
(http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp233/eric220/bedbbeda.jpg)
sweet nkp car hidden in there
;)
(http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp233/eric220/a4ca72e9.jpg)
Did you subcontract the track work to CSX? Those kinks may seem harmless now, but wait until you cover up the staging yard... :P
Don't ask me how I know this... ::)
(http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp233/eric220/58e554d3.jpg)
That is a creative way to span that opening. I kinda wished I'd thought of that when spanning my room on the second and third levels! Is that angle stock or is a tube? Would guess that it'll be plenty strong enough for nscale either way.
Mike
The one reason to keep it at an angle, even a shallow one, would be the overall aesthetic of the thing.
All those parallel lines and right angles give me the heebie jeebies.
I suppose I say this because I want to encourage you to think of your layout as depicting a railroad traversing a realistic landscape, not a model track traversing your benchwork...
Lee
Looks like I just stumbled upon my commentary topic for November/December!!
Thanks, Eric!
At the risk of invoking groans of "there he goes again,"
(http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp233/eric220/8b0e8d20.jpg)
What are the radii of those curves in the terminal throat?
At the risk of invoking groans of "there he goes again," I popped this chunk of layout into AnyRail and found a few options--as well as a few problems.
You can angle the station tracks a few degrees without adding any significant depth to the benchwork; actually, it's wider on the left end by only an inch or so, and slims down at the right end by a few inches.
(http://whiteriverandnorthern.net/images/river_city13.gif)
One problem I found is that the staging yard throat at the left end was impossible to render with Atlas switches as it was drawn. By rearranging the switches and using #5s, I could squash it in, but I think that area needs a lot more tinkering to smooth it out. Also, the geometry of the left end of the station throat is pretty hairy. #5s and a couple of curved TOs was the only way I could get things to fit, so that probably warrants more work as well. Not to mention some of the minimum radii are down in the 12-14 inch range in that area.
Gents Sorry to bring this up but there was a long back and forth between Eric and David K about the right hand throat to the passenger station, I've tried finding it again but I thought it was in this thread - it isn't and I thought it could have been in one of the weekend updates but I'm not having any luck. So I was wondering David if you still have the plan could you let me know what track work you used? I thought it was atlas c55 but I can't get get a throat of a *ahem* "Borrowed" and "similar" design line up properly on a plan I'm doing.
By the way, keep in mind that the backdrop probably doesn't have to be perfectly straight. You might decide to shift the end towards the mine to gain a little more real estate on the power plant side.
I like DKS' suggestion. One problem that remains, though, how to deal with the disappearance of the double-track mainline. It really can't disappear under the highway bridge as in your last plan, Eric (or is there a tunnel portal under there?). So, that's another hole (or tunnel) through the backdrop. What are the elevations of the track in this area?
By the way, keep in mind that the backdrop probably doesn't have to be perfectly straight. You might decide to shift the end towards the mine to gain a little more real estate on the power plant side.
DFF
On that point, I have two basic operational designs:The first design involves more movements, so it might be more interesting to operate. The second design uses a bigger yard, which would be more flexible and functional than the smaller yards. The second design is probably more realistic, as locomotives would not have to drive into the mine or the power plant. The major downside to the second design is that it means more grade on the mainline. After the branch to Newark splits off, the mainline has to dip down two inches to clear the coal yard. There's just barely room to do it at a 2% grade. Also, in order to do the second design, I have to include the helix that I introduced a few posts back, and access the mine via a branch and switchback. I like it, but it does involve a few close clearances.
- My original design, which has two yards connected by a single track running through the backdrop. A switcher would have to pull cars through the backdrop from one yard to the other.
- The new design, which has a single yard, with the center connected so that it appears as two yards. Cars would simply be backed onto yard tracks and added to the waiting cuts, meaning a locomotive would never have to traverse the backdrop.
For example, the mine switcher should never have to call out, "I'm going in!" ;)
As for the close clearances, remember you won't be sending auto racks or TOFCs up the branch to the mine, if that helps ease your concerns.
If I remember correctly, your helix is elongated. That should give you plenty of travel to gain the elevation you need while minimizing the grade. Right?!
How about something like this... have the switchback for the mine lead off of the top of the helix, rather than the side; this would simplify the trackage and give the mine more room to become a focal point.
(http://whiteriverandnorthern.net/images/newark_2.gif)
Is there enough track length to get the mine branch up and over the mains by the time that they cross at the top of the helix? Second, the end of that peninsula is the narrowest aisle on the railroad (30"). The area across from it is an interchange, so it's probably a good idea to keep the mine accessible to the operator from the side of the peninsula, rather than the end.
(http://whiteriverandnorthern.net/images/newark_2.gif)
I think I like having the spot where the branch line peels off very close to the point where the yard has to cross back over it. . . . It also means that there's a nice stretch of branch line climbing the grade in view.
(http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp233/eric220/8ad91694.gif)
I notice the rail crossing is gone, which the prototype would probably try to avoid because of maintenance and expense. I also notice that all sidings are oriented in the same direction. While some may say that you need to reverse a few to make the switching a puzzle, I believe that the prototype would try to avoid this arrangement, too. Besides, judging from the sheer number of industries, switching will still be plenty challenging.
Also of importance, to me, is that the layout of Newark appears to allow the proper roads/parking lots/access to the industries. While this may not seem obvious, it really grinds my gears seeing large industries modeled with no way for employees to get to work or even for truck access to allow for deliveries/shipping.
I like the new arrangement of Newark also. I am wondering one thing: how about angling the power plant structure, make it parallel to (or nearly so) with the expressway, instead of the backdrop. This might help with the awkward disappearance of the mainline.
Forget about road access. All you need is the appearance of road access. There are all kinds of "theater set" tricks you can use to make the traffic patterns look adequate. All scenic elements should be oriented to the railroad. Unless you plan to use the Faller Car system or just push your little trucks around making vroom vroom sounds, it doesn't matter if your road network is incomplete.
Lee
Unless you plan to use the Faller Car system
Forget about road access....That would lead to a whole other series of A$$hat Videos I think . . . .
John-
I used Digitrax components for Altoona. When I calculated out how much those components would cost to do the whole layout, it caused an acute pain in my wallet. That's when I started looking into RRCir-Kits a little more seriously. Their system can do detection, signaling, and turnout control just like Digitrax, but for less money. Also, they make a signal driver that is designed for PL signals! No more building diode trees. I also like the way that they implemented detection. It's current-sensing just like the BDL168, but the detector coil is a separate piece that you can put anywhere. I really disliked wiring 16 blocks back to a common point. I decided to give RRCir-Kits a try. The upper staging yard will be the first area to use those components.
Phil- I looked at the Manyunk bridge very seriously as a possibility. I worked on Boathouse Row for several years, and I always loved that bridge. Unfortunately, it's just too tall. I've got staging tracks below, so the river can only be so far below the bridge. I suppose I could try to design a (vertically) shorter bridge using the same arch-on-arch look, but I'm not sure how it would work in my (linearly) limited space. For that design to fit, I think I'd have to figure out a way to expand the bridge so that the crossover is on it, and to hide the linkage to the switch machine. Not easy with such an airy structure.
That wasn't my most profound post, but at least it was more concise than is usual for me!
It was profound in its own way, and it reminded me of comments that you have made elsewhere about using visual clues to establish a prototype. I think a stone arch bridge better accomplishes that goal.
hmmm ... so, will we see GG1s on Tehachapie :) ...
The more I think about a bridge based on the Manayunk bridge, the more I keep winding up back at Dave V's post. If I'm not doing a lift bridge, I think it should be stone arch. Of course, there's always a design based on Rockville.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockville_Bridge
Although that bridge would be 24 feet long in N Scale.
you WILL be installing superelevated curves. Right?!
Or perhaps I'm over-thinking it, and your objective is to run cool PRR consists through a variety of scenery...
So, question. In the next expansion east, the mainline is going to swing out to make room for the loop around the end of the peninsula. This leaves a pretty big void in the scenery (as a reminder, the grid is 24"):
(http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp233/eric220/8403d0b7.gif)
This area begs for an industry of some kind. It will be set in the San Francisco Bay Area. Any thoughts?
I don't think it does. Railways consist of a lot of open areas between locations, which is seldom truely modeled. The model railroad tendency is to find some industry to shove into every blank spot.
Open scenery (which could be just scenery, a residential area, or non-rail-served businesses) would be nicely appropriate here.
See Ed K's doughnut layout for proper application of modelling "nothing".
My club's layout will also feature vast stretches of "nothing" between major locations. And many minor locations are nothing more than passing sidings.
I don't think it does. Railways consist of a lot of open areas between locations, which is seldom truely modeled. The model railroad tendency is to find some industry to shove into every blank spot.
Open scenery (which could be just scenery, a residential area, or non-rail-served businesses) would be nicely appropriate here.
See Ed K's doughnut layout for proper application of modelling "nothing".
My club's layout will also feature vast stretches of "nothing" between major locations. And many minor locations are nothing more than passing sidings.
Or perhaps I'm over-thinking it, and your objective is to run cool PRR consists through a variety of scenery...
Not sure I quite get what's starting, but :scared:
I feel like the upper level is a little short on work for the local.
I think I missed the story line where the western leg is the former SN. What a concept though: the stalwart of the east joins with the Podunk of the west. How about going for complete symmetry: model the SN branch into Pittsburg CA. The Transcon PRR joins Pittsburgh and Pittsburg, steelmakers east and west, with a steel connection.
Sometimes it is ok to have some jobs that are simpler than others... those jobs can be assigned to newer, inexperienced crews, while others tricks can be given to crews more familiar with the pike.
in my limited experience, it has been very good to have a job or two for learning purposes.
also, you can add an industy there in the future if you need it...
my 2 cents
EP
A couple questions, do you have a complete trackplan somewhere? I tried looking through the older posts and your website but didnt see any. Also, on your website (which looks very professional) your system map has a blue line running through Illinois, what is that representing for you? My CN line is going to be set in the same general area.
So, question. In the next expansion east, the mainline is going to swing out to make room for the loop around the end of the peninsula. This leaves a pretty big void in the scenery (as a reminder, the grid is 24"):
(http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp233/eric220/8403d0b7.gif)
This area begs for an industry of some kind. It will be set in the San Francisco Bay Area. Any though
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=38.031749,-121.934402&hl=en&ll=38.031749,-121.932364&spn=0.007944,0.009098&sll=38.031563,-121.934788&sspn=0.007944,0.013186&vpsrc=0&t=h&z=17
Eric, are you entirely sold on location of the ore ship and industry in the California section? I'd be tempted to put the industries against the backdrop, and pull the ship loading scene between them and the mainline. It would also allow you to add some type of bridge scene to facilitate the ships entering and leaving, as well as some potential causeway/low wood trestle running. To play devil's advocate, a potential downside is having the boat squished into the scene, though, If you were to push the industry backwards, you could probably shave off a good deal of it, which takes up a lot of space to begin with.
One possibility is to use a "ship" backdrop .. and expand the harbor facilities more .. IIRC .. Bernie K used a backdrop for his harbor modules and it seemed to work well ..
Looks like the West Coast :ashat:s are forming an unholy alliance... :scared:
David: having the two turnouts come off the main allows for smooth straight shots into the local holding tracks.
I'm not sure removing one turnout from the main outweighs the s jog to reach the center track.
They're #7's, which should be plenty broad for yard-speed freight.
Of course I've been following this project eagerly being the SPF I am. I'm envious of the space, and think the overall layout design (i.e., substantial mainline connecting terminals on two different decks) is awesome.
I'm just stumbling a bit in visualizing the finished layout. To me, understanding time and place is key for me to really "get" a layout as a concept, as a piece of the world in miniature. :ashat:
Of course I've been following this project eagerly being the SPF I am. I'm envious of the space, and think the overall layout design (i.e., substantial mainline connecting terminals on two different decks) is awesome.
I'm just stumbling a bit in visualizing the finished layout. To me, understanding time and place is key for me to really "get" a layout as a concept, as a piece of the world in miniature...
Long live Pennsy! :ashat:
I know they're #7s. I just don't see any reason they have to be.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-pOamAK9iGr4/TvFelKaRGLI/AAAAAAAAGmY/cQLDswke_Ek/s800/yt.jpg)
Jason
... but the angle of the mainline down the ladder is based on a divergence of 1:7 from the wall.
I know. So is mine. :)
You seem set on 7's, so enough of my rhetoric.
Jason
Eric, thanks for hearing me out... My opinion is, of course, only that, and should not affect how you have fun. Hopefully no hard feelings? :ashat:
(http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp233/eric220/d07806eb.jpg)
(http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp233/eric220/3272eb1b.jpg)
What's the beer per foot of track ratio on the gandy dancers ;)
Ooooh! A perfect scene for Winter Park, CO!
Winter Park?!?!?!? This ain't no Rio Grande!
Similar route then to the proposed narrow-gauge Denver, South Park & Pacific and later Denver, Leadville, & Gunnison. They were planning to connect the end of track of the Colorado Central (later Colorado and Southern) just beyond Silver Plume with Dillion via Loveland Pass and Keystone.
Actually, my solution was going to be much simpler than that. #10's are 8 inches long, so two back to back are 16 inches long. The Walthers double track bridge is 10 inches long. I was going to center the bridge between the turnouts such that the throw bars were off each end of the bridge over the plywood roadbed.
Although Pennsy used a lot of heavy steel infrastructure in specific places, I still think for a river or creek crossing, a PRR stone arch bridge is most appropriate.
:trollface:
U mad, bro?
This is really starting to look good .. did you leave room for all the wiring for things like signals, etc ..
(http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp233/eric220/057c9c61.jpg)
What Barrister Dave said, translated:
While there is potential liability to the railroad in the event of a derailment at this S curve situation resulting in personal injury, it is more likely that litigation would be introduced if the "standard" railroad of the world diverged from that standard, resulting in claims of false advertising.
I don't think it would be nasty, because Eric is using #10 turnouts, but it would definitely introduce S-curves into the fold. Unless, of course, you had the main run through the reverse side of the turnout as the easement. That's not the way the Pennsy would have done it, though. The high speeds of the mainline are usually through the normal (straight) route, with the reverse (diverging or curved) side at reduced speed.
So, my vote is to keep it as is, except that I see a spot or two on the track on the right (eastbound?) that could use some realignment, especially at the far side of the crossovers, leading into the far curve. Measure the track centers, and you will find it.
DFF
I also agree that there appears to be a slight misalignment on the right-hand track at the far end, adjacent to the last switch. However, I believe the camera may be compressing the image and exaggerating what amounts to a trivial misalignment that likely needs no attention.
(http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp233/eric220/d1ee4431.gif)I think I like this option better, because it will be easier to operate the yard closer to the aisle. Your operators will not have to reach over the mainline, risking a derailment of another train passing through. It's also more obvious that it connects to the N&W
I think I like this option better, because it will be easier to operate the yard closer to the aisle. Your operators will not have to reach over the mainline, risking a derailment of another train passing through. It's also more obvious that it connects to the N&W
DFF
(http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp233/eric220/20d257f7.gif)
MC - Interesting idea. While you were doing that, I did this:
(http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp233/eric220/20d257f7.gif)
In the various configurations you've got here, the NW line just joins up with the PRR line down at the bottom corner, as in a junction. A couple things don't seem right about the above plan in this context.
- As drawn, the NW seems to junction or terminate with the PRR connection, not a mainline crossing with a diamond. If it's supposed to be a through main, the track reallly shoud have evidence of actually crossing and carrying through.
- If it is a junction (not crossing) interchange and the NW doesn't have trackage rights, there needs to be some doubleended or runaround tracks so the N&W local can go back to whence it came
- If it is a junction (not crossing) interchange, the way it crosses over or under the PRR tracks to interchange where it does seems like a totally unnecessarily complicated and expensive arrangement that the railroad wouldn't do unless there was some REALLY good reason why it would be impossible to just come straight in and connect on the other side of the PRR track.
Nice .. whats the projected plan to get a complete around the wall mainline?
Start on one side of the door, go all the way around the room to the other side of the door, go up the helix, go all the way around the room to the original side of the door, turn westbound main back into the eastbound main, repeat in opposite order.
Howabout overlapping quarter sections of 1/8" luan laminated together?
Eric you kow I'm all for the hump!
I managed to come up with a six track hump next to a three track flat yard.
Here's what I've got in mind. The red tracks are the mains.
(http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp233/eric220/yard_zps4ca82192.gif)
The three flat yard tracks are 80 inches long. The shortest hump track is roughly 45 inches long and the two longest are roughly 85 inches long.
Most humps I have seen have some sort of arrival yard .. where trains get dropped .. then the hump engines pulls trains out of it .. shoves them over .. and send them to various bowl tracks .. so your plan should have two places to store cars - preferably in line .. if you have the room
"Do not hump" cars would be classed in the flat yard.
They still go over the hump just the same lol.
I seem to recall an article about using air jets as retarders in a scale hump yard. Not sure where I saw it or how it would be accomplished.
They still go over the hump just the same lol.
Actually, question about that. Would the prototype just tow them over the hump with a locomotive? In my case, "do not hump" cars will be mechanically unable to go over the hump.
I think, on the prototype, they're switched around the hump for the same reason. Think about how certain cars like depressed center flat cars, which would likely be unable to physically circumnavigate the hump without problems, as well as cars with special loads that might shift on the severe angle/grades on the hump.
DFF
Again if the car couldn't be humped then it was pulled around the hump yard to the flat end and thusly classified.
Ah-ha! I was wondering if that was the case. So really all that's needed is a runaround, and the bowl end can be switched like a flat yard.
P.S. Although I'm red-green colorblind, I can distinguish the green tracks in your recent plan. Thanks!
For a yard this size, there's only going to be one master retarder, so there's only a few inches lost on each track due to the grades.
taking the hump up and over the mainline to connect to the arrival yard.
Those are good suggestions Ed.
The challenge I have is how everything is laid out.
The PRR knew how to lay out yards with as little wasted motion as possible... And I look at the moves/distance that a crew would need to take a cut of cars from the Arrival Yard and push them through the hump... Boy, that's a lot of distance and moves.
Here is a diagram for a small PRR hump yard: Honey Pot Yard, near Nanticoke, PA.
http://pennsyrr.com/kc/maps/images/Honey_Pot_Yard.JPG
No idea how it got that name.
Not really. The crew can just reach into the track from the lead, grab the train, and over the hump it goes!
OK. I stand corrected. I didn't "see" the new blue track going from point C to point B. Still a little odd because it's going to need to cross existing tracks to reach point B... Unless like you said Ed, you go over the existing tracking rather than cross them.
Don't forget that while the hump climbs over the main, the main line can also, at the same time, "dip" under the hump. You can split the difference over both of the over- and under-tracks and reduce the grade and/or the length of the grade on the hump.
Eric,
I have to say that I'm confused. I don't understand why there is three yards in Altoona. The hump yard is obvious, as is the arrival/departure yard. What is the third yard? If one yard was removed that might be enough to declutter the area and give you a little breathing room between Altoona and the Curve.
In my opinion, I don't see a hump yard working very well in N scale. The cars will probably roll too fast or, if the cars are too light, you'll be dealing with derailments from uncontrolled hard coupling, especially if truck mounted couplers. If you are going to build the hump, this would be one reason that it would be wise to have the hump yard up front. Michael's point about a northbound and southbound hump should be well taken. Potomac Yard was built this way, too.
My preference would be a flat yard for classification and an arrival/departure yard.
DFF
Eric,
I have to say that I'm confused. I don't understand why there is three yards in Altoona. The hump yard is obvious, as is the arrival/departure yard. What is the third yard? If one yard was removed that might be enough to declutter the area and give you a little breathing room between Altoona and the Curve.
In my opinion, I don't see a hump yard working very well in N scale. The cars will probably roll too fast or, if the cars are too light, you'll be dealing with derailments from uncontrolled hard coupling, especially if truck mounted couplers. If you are going to build the hump, this would be one reason that it would be wise to have the hump yard up front. Michael's point about a northbound and southbound hump should be well taken. Potomac Yard was built this way, too.
My preference would be a flat yard for classification and an arrival/departure yard.
DFF
when you're working with a hump yard (or any classification yard, for that matter), you need a minimum of three sub-yards:
1. An arrival yard.
2. A classification yard.
3. A departure yard.
Evidently, I really need to get cracking on this proof of concept to show that I'm not crazy for wanting to do this.
Wait, that's not a prerequisite? :trollface:
Rare earth magnets or controlled electromagnets under the track as retarders. :trollface:
Funny, I thought Eric was his own retarder :ashat:
How about using jets of compressed air (between the rails?) to slow the cars down??
How about using jets of compressed air (between the rails?) to slow the cars down??
How about using jets of compressed air (between the rails?) to slow the cars down??
I just had a silly vision of a hopper car rolling gently down a slope...*PSSHHHT*...the air goes off and sends it skyrocketing through the ceiling...
That will be cost prohibitive, not to mention some logistical issues with mounting. I did think of another option that I've been tossing around. More on that after I have a chance to explore the concept a bit.
And before anyone makes any jokes about the CSX-worthy track work, everything is just lying in place temporarily at the moment. Final installation may vary.
(http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp233/eric220/1DFD1C59-34B4-4E45-B07E-1947A53C142A_zps8d0qpj0l.jpg)
(http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp233/eric220/1DFD1C59-34B4-4E45-B07E-1947A53C142A_zps8d0qpj0l.jpg)
There was a request over on NScale.net for a video of the throat. Enjoy!
Very nice .. time to string the catenary :)
"imaginable" being the operable word...
Lee
time for a camera car
In my mind's eye I am so seeing the Pennsy-style dwarfs protecting each switch as we progress through the throat. That's in the plan, right? :D
As soon as an RTR version comes out, I'm in for about 20 of them.
On second thought, maybe it was a dumb idea. I glanced at a few photos of PRR PL dwarfs, and in a :facepalm: I realized they're only about 16" tall and wide. That's 0.1" to us. Not impossible, but a working model? Wow.
I think that even if the N scale version was 50-100% oversize, they would still look good. The 0402 size LEDs are only 0.040" X 0.020". :D
Too bad there aren't any slip switches in that complex track-work (I know, it wasn't meant to be). The live-feed RF-System Lab camera is working nicely. ;)
I think that even if the N scale version was 50-100% oversize, they would still look good. The 0402 size LEDs are only 0.040" X 0.020". :D
I like the idea of the reliability of the Unitrack, but I'm not a fan of the superelevation in a helix, and I'd prefer that those curves be a little broader. Additionally, although I have the C55 flex to do the project, I don't have the rail joiners. The Unitrack has the definite advantage of being available.
Thoughts?
Most of the helix will actually be exposed. I don't want the trains disappearing for 1/3 of the mainline run. I'm planning on doing minimal scenery on each loop.
... I've already got the C55 flex to do it, I jut don't have the joiners.
I think the main question is can your tracklaying skills (or those of whoever would lay the track in the helix) on par with or superior in respect to unitrak?
I wouldn't superelevate a helix. Stringlining forces want to pull the train into the center, and superelevation gives it a head start.
AFAIK, sectional track can still be prone to kinking, and it vastly multiplies the number of rail joiners involved, increasing the number of power drops.
Eric with sectional you'll lose the ability to remove and replace tracks quickly
Please don't make yourself prone to kinks and expansion joints and headaches and having to run only certain trains up "that damn helix"
Well, I just checked MBK's stock. They have all the 20" sectional that I'd need, and enough 18.75" for two loops. That's the full turn packs, so six pieces per 180 turn. That leaves six packs of 18.75" that I'd have to scare up. Not quite as impossible a task as I thought.
I'm warming to the idea of sectional, but I'm still not convinced that a subtle and hard to fix snag in a sectional setup isn't far more dangerous than superelevation.
Splain why he'd need to remove and replace track on a (presumably) permanent helix...
Spoken by a true hard-core Unitrack member. :trollface: Honestly, since the rest of Eric's layout is C55, what restriction would there be by using sectional C55? As for "kinks and expansion joints and headaches," I've never had any, and I've used flex, sectional, and Unitrack. Maybe I'm just lucky.
And soldering isn't awfully hard. Just practice first. There are plenty of tips in Railwire on soldering track successfully.
any fixes will mean soldering in cramped, awkward places.
At the risk of throwing the proverbial thought grenade into the room, have you considered a nolix in lieu of the helix?
thank God I don't have to ballast your mainline.
The cars flow through with no problem, although the visual is a little jarring.
The idea there would be to give guests somewhere to set up their trains that's nice and open and off the mainline.
(http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp233/eric220/35D41B80-556D-4B21-8F20-3B5EC311FD19_zps39oqkuni.jpg)
Two points about your Silverliner.
1) Since it would appear you are the new owner of Ron Bearden's incredible work, you can now paint those wheels.
2) What happened to the coupler on the front of the Silverliner? Did it take on the "unforgiving" track bumper at the Five Fingers Maintenance spur? :trollface:
DFF
...
The bumper at the end of the track gave me some heartburn. The bumper needs to be removable, because it's right at my elbow as I sit at the workbench, and I see many injuries if it's a permanent fixture. That also allows for connection of the previously mentioned cassette for loading/unloading trains from the layout. I came up with the idea of putting it on a swivel, so that it could just hang out of the way when not in use. We had some brackets left over from building the helix, so I simply screwed one of them in. It works, but I do have some concerns about it. For one, if a loco hits it with enough force, or at enough speed, the angle of the bumper may deflect the loco off the tracks, and possibly off the bench. It's also rough metal with lots of edges. I don't relish the thought of brass smacking it and scratching paint. As a proof of concept, it passes the test, but I do think it needs some refinement.
What about taking one of those rubber bouncy balls and cutting it half and gluing it onto the bench? Firm enough to stop a train, not so slick as to ricochet it off the bench, not a scraping hazard for your arm.
I think that we said all that could be said (jokingly and serious) about that metal bracket. :|
Back to design, here's an elaboration on the nolix up from lower staging idea:
(http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp233/eric220/Screenshot2014-07-13at12828AM_zpsb4888297.gif)
The idea on the right is that the track would be in a slot in the facia so that the train would be visible as it rises from staging. Not only is it more visually interesting, but it would serve as a warning that something is coming up or down. There's a total of 380 inches of travel in the track marked in red. Given that there's 9" separation between staging and the lower level, and the track has to rise a minimum of 2" on the left side (to clear the staging throat) and drop a minimum of 2" on the right side (to clear the mains running overhead), that's plenty of room for a nice, gentle grade.
For orientation, the blue arrow on the right connects to the "Down to Staging" arrow in these images:
(http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp233/eric220/Morrow_zps2a389504.jpg)
(http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp233/eric220/Overall_zpsb26ad147.jpg)
Like I said before, this spits out trains from lower staging so that they're headed into the helix, hence the need for the turnaround under the helix. The alternative to this is a helix down under the main helix, and another helix over the turnaround in the upper right of the staging level to connect to the N&W interchange.
A train of MP-54's trundles past a brand new train of MP-85's, which will shortly end the careers of the Ol' Rattlers.
(http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp233/eric220/35D41B80-556D-4B21-8F20-3B5EC311FD19_zps39oqkuni.jpg)
I'm presuming what's between the ties and roadbed is shim stock for super-elevation. What is it you are using? What thickness? Do you know what degree of super-elevation it provides? And finally were you trying to match prototype angle for the scale radius?
Nice layout.
Thanks for the info. I'm looking to add super-elevation to the 22" radius curves on my end loops. I think I'll copy your method since I don't want to mess around with cutting styrene into hundreds of small pieces of trim stock and gluing them to the ties. The look is what matters, and you've captured it well. Have you ballasted these sections yet? I'm curious how ballast takes to regular masking tape? Doesn't it have some kind of moisture resistant coating?
Isn't it a bit difficult laying track in a helix?
I mean you could just use unitrack in the helix ;)
I'll get my sawzall warmed up eric :D
I see you watch TV on your ipad while working exactly as I do...
@Ed Kapuscinski,
Except that now that your new job allows you to work from home, you're really watching TV while you're supposed to be working. :trollface:
DFF
Lol, yea, isn't it amazing how much track a helix swallows up whole?
Otto K.
Good to see your progress Eric. Building a helix is tedious, repetitive work, made difficult by tight access. For motivation, just think about how glad you'll feel to have it behind you!
All told, my Vortex consumed just over 7 scale miles of track... :scared:
looking good Eric
when you having the boys over.
Miguel
Eric,
What's the story on that Pennsy combine behind the K4? :o
You know what they say:
Post it, and they will come
Noticed that, did ya? :D
(http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp233/eric220/CF083872-9F77-44B7-AD64-6AE5D3C0ECA8_zps1d1ugu17.jpg)
Not much of a story, really. It's a couple of Lima PBM70's bashed into a PB70. I can't take credit for the work, though. I bought this little guy from @OldEastRR . I finally got around to getting some Fox Valley wheel sets installed so I could add it to the inspection train.
I live about 20 miles from Morrow, OH. I was there once. That was enough.
https://goo.gl/maps/ZCdNBhV5SQy
If you go to the intersection of Main and Park you'll notice a funny shaped building with the Little Miami Scenic Trail running right past it. You also might notice a caboose in the side yard. The trail is the old PRR ROW, and that building is the old station.
That said, I'm not actually trying to model the real town of Morrow, OH on the layout. I just call it that to make the "Train to Morrow" joke. My Morrow is a little bit bigger (but not much), and features an interchange with the N&W.
I see what you're talking about, in fact I was struck by the same thing when I first posted the photo. Take a look at the next two levels down. They also appear not to be parallel. I'm guessing it's fish-eye lens type distortion. I'll double check it when I get home to be sure there's no sagging or anything.
The other thing that may be accentuating it is that in addition to the plywood being thicker on the top turn, the track is also sitting on cork. In addition to changing plywood thicknesses, that transition also goes from cork to no cork, so there's a lot of material hanging down. In fact, the clearance below the transition is tighter than anything below it.
I'm back to flex track! Unfortunately, I'm also at a standstill in eastward progress until I can get my hands on some code 55 #10's.
Eric, I have two leftover right #10's you can have if that would help. PM me if interested.
Oh, and there's one on feebay...
Otto K.
better start building a few trees every night... :D
Shot on iPhone!
Yeah, I've been thinking about some basic scenery. Even just land forms through Colorado would be nice. However, there's still a lot of electrical work to do in that area, and I need to plan how I'm going to access tortoises and wiring that will be buried.
Throw vertically oriented pink foam up in Colorado and you'll have a good start. Then get your dad and @Dave Vollmer to send you a couple boxes of decomposed granite from their backyards for initial ground cover. add about 9000 grass tufts from Scenic Express and call it good.
Hell, just carve the foam, tack it together with a little hot glue and paint it tan.
Very hawt, Eric.
Hawt and nawty.
You know, if this were the 1960s, that'd be what Eric named his layout.
Hawt and nawty.
You know, if this were the 1960s, that'd be what Eric named his layout.
That's it, I'm changing the name!
That's it, I'm changing the name!
I had a Hawt & Nawty #2 recently. :D
Spent a few too many hours in the basement last night. The end result was the completion of the helix.
(http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp233/eric220/FC8FB6AC-4C5B-457F-85D8-BC8CD8631F1F_zps7rrtrpdp.jpg)
Good news and bad news. As I mentioned before, the grade actually does change at the transition to pick up an extra 1/8". Evidently that was set up as a 3% grade over two feet (the steep part on the uphill side of the transition). I dropped one of the anchor points 1/16", changing it to 2.5% over four feet. The change is visible, but I still think at least its severity is mostly an optical illusion.
The third level down, however, is badly warped, dipping significantly between anchors. Trains have traversed it with no problem, but that's an issue that needs addressing, and I'm not really sure what to do about it.
Some days I miss the simplicity of a couple of wires and a power pack...
And crap in a hat. "Temporary failure resolving 'mirrordirector.raspbian.org'" so no apt-get for me.
So.... yeah.... Turns out it helps if the Ethernet cable is plugged into something at the other end....
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
EW.... too much typing.... JFRT man!
Eric, what is that gap under the smokestack on the 4-4-0 (I can't call it a D16 without a Belpaire)? Yikes!
I'm really beginning to think that beating this piece of $#!T RaspberryPi into dust is worth what I paid for it. I can't get it to reliably recognize the USB ports. Most of the time JMRI can't find the USB port at all, and occasionally (even after a clean reinstall) a phantom instance of JMRI launches, blocking the USB port. That old Mac Mini in the closet is starting to look better and better as a replacement.
Spent some time JFRT tonight. The Pi cooperated, and I had fun running laps with two trains.
Eric, I'm still having cognitive dissonance with that train... To get my Strasburg on I'd need it to be fully pinstriped and hauling candy-apple red and schoolbus-yellow coaches like the real 1223 did before she was pulled from service in 1989. The paint scheme on those coaches, while by far my favorite of all the colors the Strasburg has used, is too steeped in the post-1223 & 7002 era for me. Those coaches cry out instead for a 2-6-0 bashed to look like SRR #89, given that an RTR Mastodon or Decapod seem like a pipe dream in N.
Could 3-D printing save that 4-4-0? I know the cast metal boiler is allegedly integral to the pulling power, but these 4-4-0s weren't exactly heavy haulers in their day. What's the traction tire situation? In my humble opinion, the D16sb was the nicest looking engine ever produced by Juniata Shops (yes, prettier IMHO than an E7 or even a K4) and that MP engine is just close enough to make me frustrated.
What's this about Dr. Saltballs now?
Are you going to try to salvage anything from the current layout? If not, HO scale welcomes you. :trollface:
DFF
Are you going to try to salvage anything from the current layout? If not, HO scale welcomes you. :trollface:
DFF
I doubt that a 3000 mile compressed PRR mainline would look good in HO ;)
Next one is on door. Half a Dutch door.
Are you going to try to salvage anything from the current layout? If not, HO scale welcomes you. :trollface:
The only acceptable alternative to N scale standard gauge is some sort of narrow gauge. I happen to know Eric is a DSP&P fan!
I see a segment of the Colorado & Southern from Idaho Springs to Silver Plume in Nn3...
I wish I could pretend that railroading space was the top priority, but when my wife is willing to entertain the idea of exiling a car to the driveway so I can take over part of the garage for a layout, I really don't have much room to complain.
If you have a hobby room
I don't.
I hope so! We're payin' a pretty penny for it!
Good & bad with garage layouts...
To make it work (well) the room within a room is the way to go. In other words seal it off from the elements and it can work just fine!
Also having it in the garage allows access to guests without having to march them through the house and then down (sometimes up) stairs.
Very much my thoughts. If we do the garage, the plan would be to build a climate controlled layout room in the third bay. Inside the walls, that space would be just about exactly 11' x 20'. Not a bad space, but much smaller than what I have now.
My space is similar in size... As is Gary's.
You and Gary have compared sizes, huh? :scared:
Very much my thoughts. If we do the garage, the plan would be to build a climate controlled layout room in the third bay. Inside the walls, that space would be just about exactly 11' x 20'. Not a bad space, but much smaller than what I have now.
You may need to shorten the transcon a bit . . . .
Maybe you'll choose to rein it in a little and just model a piece of the PRR rather than the transcon?
PRR and Nn3: Didn't they own a narrow gauge line in Ohio? And they interchanged with the East Broad Top. You could have both gauges, even on a shelf layout.
I'm thinking between your house situation and the climate, it's time to go full garden railroading. Fn3 DSP&P FTW!
Um, duh! :D
There is a plan unfolding for exactly that. Talk about expensive, though! It may have to wait a bit.
By the way, if anyone is looking for a ~2,000 sq ft 3 bed/2 bath in the San Francisco east bay, I've got one available with an N scale layout already installed!
Shall we move this thread to the Trading Post then? :D
Good luck on the revised house hunt.
Well, for better or worse, the deed is done. We signed the paperwork today on a full price offer plus a little bit, and within 32 days, the Transcontinental PRR must come down, and the room’s walls patched and painted. It’s been a good run.
Well, for better or worse, the deed is done. We signed the paperwork today on a full price offer plus a little bit, and within 32 days, the Transcontinental PRR must come down, and the room’s walls patched and painted. It’s been a good run.
Congratulations Eric. Where and what? Room for layout?
Up next...the transoceanic Pennsy!
Sad to see all that work gone, but I get it. Hopefully the new house will be a welcome home to another version of the Pennsy! Oh, and a G scale DSP&P/C&Soutdoor layout!
Sorry to see us lose another one to HO!
Sir, them’s fightin’ words! I am in N scale to stay! Just because I dabble in a little G doesn’t mean anything...
Hey Vernor's is the original ginger ale! It's good stuff!
Verners is the official beverage of the Gandy Dancers!Years ago at a Greenberg train show there was a guy selling Pennsylvania Railroad root beer.
Years ago at a Greenberg train show there was a guy selling Pennsylvania Railroad root beer.
Has anyone seen it lately?
http://www.root-beer.org/modules.php?name=Brands&rbop=Brand&bid=2061 (http://www.root-beer.org/modules.php?name=Brands&rbop=Brand&bid=2061)
Is all that odd bulkheading there becuase of the layout? Or does it encapsulate pipes and vents that were badly planned by the builder?
If they were temporary for the layout, you might want to rip them out... Realtors like straight lines and right angles...
And don't forget to paint it all white... :|
Lee