Seaboard Central 2.0

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Whatever the one is that parallels 301 south from Petersburg, I love following it while heading to NC.

[MVW]

The question is do I model the SBD's single track former-SAL line or the double track former-ACL line?

DFF

Easy. Single track. 

From an operational standpoint, single track presents more challenge (and interest). Besides, how many locos/operators/trains and how much staging would it take to justify double track? And how often do think you'll have that number of operators present?

If you know the answer to those two questions, and feel comfortable knowing you have the operators/locos/staging, then by all means go double track. No doubt it would be cool.

Otherwise, it's overkill IMHO. I model an area that was double tracked. I went with single. I wish I had everything necessary to justify double track, but I don't. No (substantial) regrets.

Jim

[davefoxx]

Whatever the one is that parallels 301 south from Petersburg, I love following it while heading to NC.

@Ed Kapuscinski, that's the double-track A-Line.  The former SAL tracks in southern Virginia were pulled up by CSX. 

Easy. Single track. 

From an operational standpoint, single track presents more challenge (and interest). Besides, how many locos/operators/trains and how much staging would it take to justify double track? And how often do think you'll have that number of operators present?

If you know the answer to those two questions, and feel comfortable knowing you have the operators/locos/staging, then by all means go double track. No doubt it would be cool.

Otherwise, it's overkill IMHO. I model an area that was double tracked. I went with single. I wish I had everything necessary to justify double track, but I don't. No (substantial) regrets.

@MVW, that's exactly how I ended up modeling the SAL line through North Carolina as opposed to the ACL line when I designed the current layout.  However, I am a lone wolf when it comes to ops on my layout, and I think my family would enjoy the layout more if they could operate multiple trains at the same time.  The A-Line also allows me to run the Tropicana Juice Train, hot intermodal trains, Amtrak (including the Auto Train!), etc.  So, I think I'm leaning that way on this layout, but I hear you and appreciate your advice.

Thanks,
DFF

[Philip H]

Even with the A line, I'd strongly encourage keeping the A&R. The more I look at my own layout, and my own preferences, the more I like slow switching when it's just me. I can get roundly round and big hit shot stuff at @John or @seusscaboose's layouts. And I think the A&R brings that relaxing dimension. Plus I like what you have done with the small town and engine house scenes, and would hate to see all that go completely away.

[Dave V]

You are at the same point I am.  Any thought I have about expanding inevitably falls back on the design flaws of what already exists.  But then I look at a finished layout and the urge to do anything destructive passes.  And so nothing happens.

Like you I may just need to start over.

[davefoxx]

You are at the same point I am.  Any thought I have about expanding inevitably falls back on the design flaws of what already exists.  But then I look at a finished layout and the urge to do anything destructive passes.  And so nothing happens.

Like you I may just need to start over.

@Dave Vollmer,

Oh, I get it now.  While the Juniata Division is a wonderful layout and has a significant number of fans, I would agree that starting over would be preferable.  No matter what you do, capturing the PRR mainline on a HCD is impossible.  You would have the same problem as me: you'll never get rid of the warts on the original layout, regardless of how well the expansion was built.  I designed the Seaboard Central to be expanded, and that worked.  But, ultimately, the island-style layout hogging a lot of space in the room, along with the layout's sharp curves, just cannot be corrected with any expansion.

In your case, though, you could probably sell the JD for a few dollars and recoup some of the cost of starting over, too.  People would be falling over themselves trying to save the layout from the scrapper.

DFF

[Dave V]

@Dave Vollmer,
In your case, though, you could probably sell the JD for a few dollars and recoup some of the cost of starting over, too.  People would be falling over themselves trying to save the layout from the scrapper.

DFF

Many people have suggested this, but I'm not warm to the idea...for several reasons, some of which are personal and selfish.  But the number one reason is that I plan to use every single last salvageable thing from the current JD in whatever the new incarnation would be, starting with the centerpiece Lewistown depot built by our own DKS.  But seriously, I would reuse everything including the foam rock faces, the bushes, the trees, the people, the signals, the buildings, the bridges, and even any code 55 track that can be saved.

It's not so much about fear of recouping any money I spent...  I suppose I could come close.  It's about the time spent.  I'm still a dad to two very involved children, I'm involved in the community through our Scout troop, and of course it's hard to be an educator and work normal duty hours.  So, recycling everything is a time savings of potentially thousands and thousands of dollars.

Hopefully that makes sense.

[davefoxx]

@Dave Vollmer,

That's my plan, too.  I couldn't get much money for the original Seaboard Central, which is an unfinished HCD layout, and there's too much track on the expansion to justify selling the entire layout.  So, my plan is the same as yours: recycling. 

I forgot about Lewistown's station built by DKS.  Of course, you must keep that!

DFF

[Dave V]

Like you, I'm eyeing the walls and dreaming of the around-the-walls potential.  I would recommend keeping an eye on portability even with around-the-walls because while you think you won't be moving now, once you make your layout a permanent part of the room, some opportunity will invariably come up.

I'm in the same boat.  Right now my kids won't even discuss the possibility of leaving Colorado and I've applied for tenure, but the right job back East could still pop up when I'm least ready for it.  So the JD 2.0 will still have natural joints in the bench work collocated with track joints...just in case.  Suggest the Seaboard Central 3.0 take similar precaution.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

All of my newly constructed benchwork is made out of 18"x48" sections, so it's modular and agile...

[basementcalling]

All of my newly constructed benchwork is made out of 18"x48" sections, so it's modular and agile...

Ed is full of surprises.    Who knew?

I would strongly suggest a modular approach if you go around the walls, or at least sectional. Shouldn't be too much more work to build in some x wide by 4 or 6 foot long sections than just throwing down a wall length L girder. Use a modular track shelf system to sit the pieces on and plug the wiring in and go.

I was reviewing designs of my paper mill town the other night in a fit of laziness, and it left me wondering why I didn't make that portion of the Idaho Belt modular. I can totally understand the desire to recycle as much material as you can, just don't recycle the warts too.

[eric220]

You know, everyone poo-poos double tracks as being less challenging and interesting to operate on. I'm personally of the opinion that double track ops are far more flexible than single track, and can be challenging and fun; you just have to look past the obvious. You can do overtaking movements, or wrong-way running to pass locals that are working, or work through accessing sidings off of the opposing main, or any number of other scenarios. With single track, the challenge is in sitting in the hole until the main is clear. When it comes to it, on any but a large model railroad with multiple passing sidings, all you're really doing by single tracking is restricting yourself to only running one train at a time.

It sounds like you've got a good reason to consider double track for rail fanning and operating with family. You can always throw a work train out there to foul one main if you want the "challenge".

[seusscaboose]

When Ed and Dave (Foxx) operate there is NO need for man-made delays (work trains and such) to confuse them

They are confused enough

[davefoxx]

Like you, I'm eyeing the walls and dreaming of the around-the-walls potential.  I would recommend keeping an eye on portability even with around-the-walls because while you think you won't be moving now, once you make your layout a permanent part of the room, some opportunity will invariably come up.

I'm in the same boat.  Right now my kids won't even discuss the possibility of leaving Colorado and I've applied for tenure, but the right job back East could still pop up when I'm least ready for it.  So the JD 2.0 will still have natural joints in the bench work collocated with track joints...just in case.  Suggest the Seaboard Central 3.0 take similar precaution.

All of my newly constructed benchwork is made out of 18"x48" sections, so it's modular and agile...

Ed is full of surprises.    Who knew?

I would strongly suggest a modular approach if you go around the walls, or at least sectional. Shouldn't be too much more work to build in some x wide by 4 or 6 foot long sections than just throwing down a wall length L girder. Use a modular track shelf system to sit the pieces on and plug the wiring in and go.

I was reviewing designs of my paper mill town the other night in a fit of laziness, and it left me wondering why I didn't make that portion of the Idaho Belt modular. I can totally understand the desire to recycle as much material as you can, just don't recycle the warts too.

It's funny that y'all suggested this.  I was just thinking about it last night, and David Barrow's domino concept came to mind.  I was thinking 2' x 6' sections would be reasonable, but they don't all have to be exactly the same.  Really, it will come down to the layout plan dictating the best way to section the layout.

I was also considering a 1" x 4" open grid (joists 16" on center), capped with 1/4" lauan plywood, so I could lay the ubiquitous 2" foam on top.  I would probably use angle brackets or shelf brackets to avoid table legs.  Thoughts?

DFF

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Lol. Yep!

My goal was to enable me to reconfigure, or replace, stuff that I wasn't happy with.

Also, to make it easy to move the thing without the need for a Sawzall.