Author Topic: Brooklyn Cross Hudson  (Read 4733 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

S Class

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 285
  • Respect: +3
Brooklyn Cross Hudson
« on: January 28, 2014, 11:09:11 PM »
0
Hi Guys

I've been sitting and sitting on my unitrack layout seemingly unable to commit to moving forward beyond basic landforms and scale. I think the problem is as I'm ex-HO I still think in terms of that scale and the moulded roadbed of unitrack keeps throwing me as to the track spacing and space I have to work in. I don't feel like I'm compressing down properly and I'm not utilising my space to it's full potential.

Currently I have two modules salvaged from my old layout arranged in an L shape that would be a stand alone yard for switching based on an Australian prototype, vis:



The long side measures 1200mm * 450mm and the short side is 450mm * 900mm or in other terms 48" * 18" by 18" * 36".


With the prevalence of, frankly fantastic urban U.S layouts and my acceptance that at this moment I have more American than Australian stock I was thinking of going another route and doing a single square of 48" * 36" vis:



Currently I'm thinking of shamelessly coping ether of David K Smith's JCIR or the HMRR with expansion in the dimensions. Before I do that I'll seek his permission and before I commit to doing that I thought I'd pose the issue here to see if any of the brains trust can recommend their own design or prototype that will serve to get me past this really serious mental block, particularly with the L shape as I have already done some basic landforms and I'd rather have an L than a square due to the space.

I don't have a track plan per se of my current efforts but these images may show what I was aiming for.
EastWest/long side:


Centre showing the intended switchback:



NorthSouth/Shortside


The plan this is based off of


Any thoughts or ideas on the matter would be appreciated.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2014, 07:18:21 AM by S Class »
Regards
Tony A

DKS

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 11571
  • Respect: +2067
Re: Floating a layout idea, input requested/appreciated
« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2014, 12:48:04 AM »
0
Currently I'm thinking of shamelessly coping ether of David K Smith's JCIR or the HMRR with expansion in the dimensions. Before I do that I'll seek his permission...

Heck, do whatever you like with those plans! I'm honored to have so much attention paid to them. Besides, one of them has already been shamelessly copied...

Chris333

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 13694
  • Respect: +2879
Re: Floating a layout idea, input requested/appreciated
« Reply #2 on: January 29, 2014, 03:19:19 AM »
0
No shame  :D

S Class

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 285
  • Respect: +3
Re: Floating a layout idea, input requested/appreciated
« Reply #3 on: January 29, 2014, 09:20:26 PM »
0
Thanks David, I had forgotten Chris was already using the JCIR.

Could I possibly request publication of the parts listing for the HMRR please?
Regards
Tony A

DKS

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 11571
  • Respect: +2067
Re: Floating a layout idea, input requested/appreciated
« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2014, 09:34:45 PM »
0
20000. Straight 9.76".   3
20010. Straight 7.32".   1
20020. Straight 4.88".   4
20030. Straight 2.52".   1
20048. Buffer/Bumper Type C, 1.99".   2
20070. Straight 1.79".   1
20100. Curve radius 9.8", angle 45º   3
20101. Curve radius 9.8", angle 15º   3
20110. Curve radius 11.1", angle 45º   8
20111. Curve radius 11.1", angle 15º   2
20121. Curve radius 12.4", angle 15º   4
20160. Curve radius 18.94", angle 15º   3
20170. Curve radius 8.5", angle 45º   3
20171. Curve radius 8.5", angle 15º   2
20172. Curve radius 7.2", angle 45º   4
20220. Left turnout 4.96". (remote)   3
20221. Right turnout 4.96". (remote)   2
20222. Wye turnout 4.96". (remote)   3
20320. Crossing 1.3". 90º   1

« Last Edit: January 29, 2014, 09:41:47 PM by David K. Smith »

S Class

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 285
  • Respect: +3
Re: Floating a layout idea, input requested/appreciated
« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2014, 11:22:38 PM »
0
Much appreciated David.

As of today I hit my parts limit with Anyrail free but this gives an idea as to what I'm hoping to do, I re-oriented the plan into a North South which is how I view my space and helps with the conceptualisation. Theme will be New York Offline Terminal, Brooklyn area, 1980's-90's lots of Conrail, working name is the Brooklyn Cross Hudson (Or Trans Hudson, not sure yet), lots of Bush Terminal and New York Dock influence.


  • Track
    20010, N Kato Unitrack 20010. Straight 7.32".   1
    20020, N Kato Unitrack 20020. Straight 4.88".   2
    20030, N Kato Unitrack 20030. Straight 2.52".   1
    20070, N Kato Unitrack 20070. Straight 1.79".   1
    20071, N Kato Unitrack 20071. Straight 1.14".   1
    20100, N Kato Unitrack 20100. Curve radius 9.8", angle 45º   4
    20101, N Kato Unitrack 20101. Curve radius 9.8", angle 15º   2
    20110, N Kato Unitrack 20110. Curve radius 11.1", angle 45º   2
    20111, N Kato Unitrack 20111. Curve radius 11.1", angle 15º   2
    20120, N Kato Unitrack 20120. Curve radius 12.4", angle 45º   7
    20132, N Kato Unitrack 20132. Curve radius 13.7", angle 45º   1
    20160, N Kato Unitrack 20160. Curve radius 18.94", angle 15º   5
    20170, N Kato Unitrack 20170. Curve radius 8.5", angle 45º   2
    20171, N Kato Unitrack 20171. Curve radius 8.5", angle 15º   2
    20174, N Kato Unitrack 20174. Curve radius 5.91", angle 45º (Compact)   1
    20220, N Kato Unitrack 20220. Left turnout 4.96". (remote)   4
    20221, N Kato Unitrack 20221. Right turnout 4.96". (remote)   5
    20320, N Kato Unitrack 20320. Crossing 1.3". 90º   2
    S60L, N Kato Unitrack S60L. Straight 2.36"   2
    S60R, N Kato Unitrack S60R. Straight 2.36"   2

The green line bottom right is the edge of the short module from my L shaped plan, I figure even with next to no track in the upper right corner I will still need to reach in and that 300mm (12") of depth will help.

Black will be a non functioning junction, shown here with Unitrack, probably an attempt at hand laying with fast tracks or my own template from the Unitrack turnouts as the radius of divergence is different for the two brands. At the very least it will be NYMTA third rail, maybe even some overhead. Orange is a very short, sharp grade, I've let the radius out to help with the rolling stock and to use up the collection of otherwise useless curve pieces that come with turnouts, the loop connection will be shown at the right, to the LIRR or off world, while on the left I want it as hidden as best as possible.

Bottom left I want some form of military stores, like the Brooklyn Army Terminal (Bush) and a float operation in the gap I'm leaving for staging which is how the bulk of the cars will come on and off, the continuous run will be for display and laziness, hence no hidden staging.
Regards
Tony A

Chris333

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 13694
  • Respect: +2879
Re: Floating a layout idea, input requested/appreciated
« Reply #6 on: January 31, 2014, 03:49:29 AM »
0

S Class

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 285
  • Respect: +3
Re: Floating a layout idea, input requested/appreciated
« Reply #7 on: January 31, 2014, 07:36:04 AM »
0
You know what sucks a giant fat one?

Trying to construct a passing loop with unitrack when the turnouts are in anyway not on a perfect compass axis.
Regards
Tony A

DKS

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 11571
  • Respect: +2067
Re: Floating a layout idea, input requested/appreciated
« Reply #8 on: January 31, 2014, 07:41:00 AM »
0
You know what sucks a giant fat one?

Trying to construct a passing loop with unitrack when the turnouts are in anyway not on a perfect compass axis.

It is tricky, agreed, but not impossible. AnyRail helps by letting you try a myriad of combinations until something works.

BTW, in the plan you posted, the grade will be a real killer. I've highlighted the grade on my plan (refresh the page to see it) and it's 5%, which is only possible with a limited clearance of 1.65". I don't want to even think of what the grade is for your plan...

« Last Edit: January 31, 2014, 08:34:25 AM by David K. Smith »

S Class

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 285
  • Respect: +3
Re: Floating a layout idea, input requested/appreciated
« Reply #9 on: January 31, 2014, 08:27:44 AM »
0
I don't want to even think of what the grade is for your plan...

I did some back of envelope calculations, 14.88%  :scared: This was coming from a hight of 75mm (3") knocking that down to 55mm (just over 2.125") gave near enough, makes no difference 11%. Yeah That was a scary thought.

So I did this:


Gradient is still pretty bad keeping it at 3" gives me 6.9% and 2.125" gives 5 percent and change. I think this may also help with my earlier issue, ether that or I'm going to bust out the flex.
Regards
Tony A

DKS

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 11571
  • Respect: +2067
Re: Floating a layout idea, input requested/appreciated
« Reply #10 on: January 31, 2014, 08:34:55 AM »
0
Try this on for size...



BTW, why 3" rise? 2" is more than adequate. The above grade works out to ~5%.

BOK

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • Respect: +18
Re: Floating a layout idea, input requested/appreciated
« Reply #11 on: February 01, 2014, 04:18:27 PM »
0
Chris, that's one heck of a nice looking center cab.

The small layouts which you and David are building are really neat and cover a fun time in railroading with the sharp curves and smaller cars. Your oil/coal distribution industry is a "killer'. With the small size of these detailed layouts and their light weight if you get tired of them you can always just hang them on the wall while you build others.

Barry

S Class

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 285
  • Respect: +3
Re: Floating a layout idea, input requested/appreciated
« Reply #12 on: February 02, 2014, 02:03:47 AM »
0
BTW, why 3" rise? 2" is more than adequate. The above grade works out to ~5%.

Picked it as a round, completely arbitrary number to give myself the clearance for rolling stock, if 2" works then 2" works, what I can also do is build up the subbed around the tracks and as the under track sneaks off it can go down a slight grade to keep the clearance in check.

As of yesterday I have a working plan that I am more or less happy with, I didn't post it last night as I'd let it percolate, the loop was based on David's design above and then I mashed it until it resembled nothing like the former bar the outer loop and gradient. Again I only have the anyrail free edition so bear with me here:



And the yard trackage



With what little editing programs and Skill I have I have I've stitched this together to give an overview:



At this moment the only real issue that is up in the air is the centre 90 degree turn which is done with 5" radius curves, up until there I've tried and tried to keep my curves as broad as possible so I can give the feel of urban railroading without shooting myself too badly given that my governing stock is 50' cars and a Atlas GP35 until I can acquire an S2, possibly a 44 toner.

I printed it out and doodled on it to show what I'm conceptualising scenically speaking in that I want the layout to show no more than 2-3 blocks of a highly compressed urban space which is what the real thing would have operated in.

Hopefully this gives better understanding to those who have helped.

For what it's worth the southern area will be a float bridge connection but the trackge is mostly place holding, as can bee seen I'll need to build a crossover in situ so this will be my last area of focus in construction

Three scenic elements that are on my druthers list are the Bush Terminal U shaped wharehouses (I'll have 1) with track access in the middle, a runthrough structure like the Brooklyn Army Terminal or Erie/Leigh Valley served wharhouse at W27th and 11 Ave on Manhattan, a building that is "cut" on the ground floor by the track like the Montgomery Ward building at Bush terminal on 1st & 2nd Avenues, I'd also like to have some form or military or ex military industry like the BAT, a sugar mill and/or a brewery that were common in the area until the 80's
Amongst that will be a caricature of industries: Cement, Flour (probably team track), Timber/Building supplies, Scrap and General goods like what was left as business in the 80's for the remaining lines.

The ultra good news is that while digging around for a location to place this I've run across the proposal by New York to build a High line style connection between the New York Dock and the Bush Terminal through the Red Hook area which would have led to further offline terminals being built so I've narrowed my search area down to Red Hook and the Gowanus canal area, it also justifies my El line connection which was originally devised as a MTA connection in the style of the South Brooklyn Railway.

As it stands I'm leaving this plan percolate but have started stripping off the other layout in preparation for my landforms, Thoughts, suggestions and criticisms (especially criticisms) are welcome.
Regards
Tony A

Chris333

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 13694
  • Respect: +2879
Re: Floating a layout idea, input requested/appreciated
« Reply #13 on: February 02, 2014, 02:36:51 AM »
0
What about something like this to get rid of the hook at the lower left:


Or
« Last Edit: February 02, 2014, 02:41:18 AM by Chris333 »

S Class

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 285
  • Respect: +3
Re: Floating a layout idea, input requested/appreciated
« Reply #14 on: February 07, 2014, 08:46:48 PM »
0
Thing is though I want that hook as it represents the sort of track and locale I'm after.

I tried putting both of your suggestions into anyrail to see what happens, try as I might option one I couldn't get the geometry to work, but I'm probably not trying hard enough. A big thing I didn't want was lots of track in one area of the layout and three tracks together at the very front falls in this druther. Stupid as it seems given that most of the prototypes were nothing but interconnected and tightly packed yards

On the second option I did get it together fairly easily: again not all track is shown due to my limit:



Key points to make it work are the loss of one non-functioning EL track, no big deals as I'm sure the Brooklyn Marginal that it's based on would have been single anyway, there is no evidence of ether way.
As part of this the radius on the ramp has been widened just a tad to make it fit.

It does need a lot of small pieces and one thing I'm worried about is the geometry between the back and front doesn't match up by about 2-4mm not enough for anyrail to say it doesn't work but enough that some judicious track laying of the outer loop will be needed to make it all fit, I'm going to sit on this one for a bit while I do my sub roadbed.
Regards
Tony A