Author Topic: The Fort Worth & Denver Build Thread  (Read 5862 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jguess733

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: 0
The Fort Worth & Denver Build Thread
« on: September 30, 2012, 03:41:02 PM »
0
So I have to admit, I'm not quite ready to commence the build phase of my layout.  I don't have the supplies or time but I am pretty well into the planning phase.  I'm going to build David Popp's original Naugatuck Valley.  It's basically a 32" HCD with a 16"x48" extension.  I'd like to post the track plan but I don't know the legalities of croping a photo from a MR Info Station to repost in another forum. I plan on copying the track plan as is, with the only change being the scenery.  All the turnouts will be manual with the exception of the five the are used for staging (because that side will be against the wall.  Since I'm copying his track plan I will be using Peco code 55 track with electrofrog turnouts.  Does anyone have any experience with Peco switch machines?  How about adding turnout indications on a control panel?  Thanks for the help.

J
J

LIRR

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 857
  • Respect: +394
Re: The Fort Worth & Denver Build Thread
« Reply #1 on: September 30, 2012, 04:06:41 PM »
0
I recommend the manual Bluepoint switch machines...I hate wires...

Philip H

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 7399
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +475
    • Layout Progress Blog
Re: The Fort Worth & Denver Build Thread
« Reply #2 on: October 01, 2012, 10:36:38 AM »
0
MC Fijuwara has done wonders with Bullfrogs from Fast Tracks.
Philip H.
Chief Everything Officer
Baton Rouge Southern RR - Mount Rainier Division.

"Yes there are somethings that are "off;" but hey, so what." ~ Wyatt

"I'm trying to have less cranial rectal inversion with this." - Ed K.

"There's more to MRR life than the Wheezy & Nowheresville." C855B

Jguess733

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: 0
Re: The Fort Worth & Denver Build Thread
« Reply #3 on: October 02, 2012, 08:16:48 PM »
0
Do the bullfrog control rods run under the layout?  This layout has to be portable due to my being active duty, and I don't want anything underneath to get damaged.
J

Jguess733

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: 0
Re: The Fort Worth & Denver Build Thread
« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2012, 10:20:20 PM »
0
So here is the plan I'm going to follow.  The overall layout is on a 32"x80" HCD with a 16"x48" extension.  I am going to replace the tree covered hill down the middle with a photo backdrop of the Texas Panhandle.  The river will be a dry arroyo.  Industries will represent local industries in the area.  The two for sure will be a grain elevator where the textile mill in Seymore is, and Grivno Coal will be a cotton gin as a backdrop flat.  I haven't figured out town names yet, but I will be modeling the somewhere along the line from Plains Jct. on the FWD Main south to Lubbock.  The reason being is that the prototype had a tunnel on this line.  Plains Jct will be the North Staging on the plan and Lubbock will be the South Staging.  I also intend on widening the layout to 36 inches so that I can squeeze an extra inch or two into my curves for my passenger equipment.  I want to represent a freelanced Post Amtrak takeover Denver Zephyr with a fictitious Lubbock Section. for operating sessions I plan on running two through trains (one each way), a local that will leave Lubbock, work the two towns and return, and the Lubbock Passenger train (it will alternate directions each session).  I intend for my son and I to operate the layout.  What do you guys think?




J


« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 10:22:26 PM by Jguess733 »
J

MichaelWinicki

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2031
  • Respect: +144
Re: The Fort Worth & Denver Build Thread
« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2012, 08:11:58 AM »
0
I've always liked that plan with staging at each end of the line and the ability to do continuous run.

Widening it for broader curves would be icing on the cake!

If I were doing it (with a widened surface), I would consider the following changes...

-adding an additional passing track in Seymour to allow a train to layover if necessary without clogging the main and still allow a local to work the industries there

-add a short stub track in Seymour (near the station) to either feed a freight station (if your modeling that era) or a place to store a bad-order car

-add a crossover connecting the Waterbury staging to the industrial trackage in Naugatuck near the highway bridge in order to create a passing siding

-add another industry in Naugatuck between C & K, maybe with the new industrial track having to cross the spur going to C

-you could even throw an abandon spur some place on the layout

Jguess733

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: 0
Re: The Fort Worth & Denver Build Thread
« Reply #6 on: October 04, 2012, 07:30:21 PM »
0
Michael,

I've thought about adding another crossover next to the overpass in, but hadn't given any thought to extra industries. Thanks for the idea. Now I just need to learn how to use Empire Express to make the appropriate changes.

J
J

GaryHinshaw

  • Global Moderator
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 5483
  • Respect: +623
Re: The Fort Worth & Denver Build Thread
« Reply #7 on: October 04, 2012, 07:47:41 PM »
0
My initial reaction was to add a RH crossover under the bridge too; could be a tricky switching assignment otherwise.  But on the whole it seems like a pretty nimble plan.

MichaelWinicki

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2031
  • Respect: +144
Re: The Fort Worth & Denver Build Thread
« Reply #8 on: October 04, 2012, 08:00:53 PM »
0
My initial reaction was to add a RH crossover under the bridge too; could be a tricky switching assignment otherwise.  But on the whole it seems like a pretty nimble plan.

It's a very nimble plan indeed.

With all the staging you're looking a number of trains that can be run over the course of an operating session.

In addition the Naugatuck area could be served with its own switcher.  A train drops cars off on the could-be-made-into-a-passing-siding track, and the switcher takes them from there.   Later on another train picks them up. 

I'd be tempted to take the present stub track near the furniture plant and make it an interchange.   Then drop off and pick up a couple cars during an ops session for added switching amusement.


Jguess733

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: 0
Re: The Fort Worth & Denver Build Thread
« Reply #9 on: October 04, 2012, 09:05:23 PM »
0
An interchange would give a valid excuse for my two freelance Texas & Southwestern GP-38's a reason to be on the layout.  Trackage rights perhaps...

J
J

MichaelWinicki

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2031
  • Respect: +144
Re: The Fort Worth & Denver Build Thread
« Reply #10 on: October 04, 2012, 09:28:17 PM »
0
An interchange would give a valid excuse for my two freelance Texas & Southwestern GP-38's a reason to be on the layout.  Trackage rights perhaps...

J

Ah!

The ops session could start with a T&S sitting on the track with a few cars, just before the highway bridge.

It then picks up/drops off cars on the proposed passing track.   It then heads back towards the interchange track and is 0-5-0'ed off the layout.

A train from the Waterbury staging then comes through to pick up those cars and drops off cars for the Naugatuck switcher.

Or something like that.

Jguess733

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: 0
Re: The Fort Worth & Denver Build Thread
« Reply #11 on: October 07, 2012, 03:29:23 PM »
0
I don't have much experience with Peco or Atlas track.  Should I build the layout as designed, or redesign it for Atlas track and turnouts?  Can someone help me out the pro's and cons of each?

J
J

MichaelWinicki

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2031
  • Respect: +144
Re: The Fort Worth & Denver Build Thread
« Reply #12 on: October 07, 2012, 04:57:41 PM »
0
There have been terrific layouts shown on the various n-scale forums and the magazines representing all of the major track brands– Peco, Kato and Atlas.

Any of them will work fine... Just be a little careful.

I started out with Atlas code 80 years ago and switched to Atlas code 55 for the current layout.  It's not quite as "tough" as code 80 but if you're careful it will give great service... And given the smaller rail size and the "American" tie-width, looks the best out of all the ones I listed.   The one caveat with Atlas code 55 track is that the turnouts have been in short supply throughout the summer; I'm not sure if that situation is starting to improve yet or not.

 

Jguess733

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: 0
Re: The Fort Worth & Denver Build Thread
« Reply #13 on: October 07, 2012, 05:44:19 PM »
0
I can't find any Atlas turnouts around here.  One thing I know is that a layout built with Atlas components won't have the exact same footprint because they don't have the same size turnouts as the Peco's.  But would it be similar enough to be worth it?  The tie spacing and the rail size of the Atlas track is the reason I'm leaning that direction. 

J
J

MichaelWinicki

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2031
  • Respect: +144
Re: The Fort Worth & Denver Build Thread
« Reply #14 on: October 07, 2012, 05:48:32 PM »
0
Similar footprint?

IMO, yeah.   

Instead of #4's and #6's, you have #5's and #7's.  Not a huge difference.