Author Topic: CN Yellowhead Division  (Read 31211 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Cajonpassfan

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 5367
  • Respect: +1953
Re: CN Yellowhead Division
« Reply #30 on: December 05, 2022, 04:10:43 PM »
0
Okay Scott, I was going to comment on your "deck" separation, but you beat me to it...
(BTW, I think the term "deck" is a misnomer on a mountainous layout like yours or mine; it's a continually rising right of way with nothing flat other than the yards. That's how we minimize the need for helices).

The 62" height at Jasper yard where you need to reach will be a challenge for all but the tallest of operators. I'm not sure I remember your height but I like to keep situations like that to below armpit height or less. But maybe short step stools for our elevationally  challenged friends will help. I find the 90 degree bend in the yard a bit less than ideal and the inside track radii rather tight for a yard especially with modern equipment. I'd suggest moving the middle of the bend closer to the front edge and opening up the radii a bit even if it means giving up or relocating the "round thing"... this would also improve the reach.

Interesting how raising Jasper opens up the lower level scenes below it visually. You may even want to widen the lower scene a little but decisions like that are better left for tweaking during construction imo....you'll be able to see things in 3D and make minor mods. I would highly recommend you develop a benchwork construction method for the upper level trackage that results in a very thin fascia profile to optimize sight lines where vertical clearances are tight. I was able to minimize my upper level fascia at one point to less than an inch (1x2" joist used horizontally in that spot, see pic).

I would also consider opening up the radius of all the loops and curves in the upper RH corner to increase the size of the doughnut hole. You'll need to get in there for construction work and maintenance. I also wonder whether running the mill lead in the same stacked alignment  would give you more vertical space below the mini helix. In either case, I'm not sure you have the depth shown on the mill plan plan but nothing insurmountable. And of course getting in and out of the doughnut hole will be no joy as we get older and wider :lol:

Finally, I really like how the two loop helix now helps with the transition between Park Gate and Windy Point without being too long. It should create some nice scenic opportunities. Exciting stuff!

Hope some of this is helpful.
Have fun, Otto

Scottl

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4672
  • Respect: +1092
Re: CN Yellowhead Division
« Reply #31 on: December 05, 2022, 05:49:20 PM »
0
Thanks Otto, very helpful comments.

I set up the heights with some tape on the walls today and the vertical separations are key.  I'm tall (6'6"[or I was  :trollface:]) so Jasper- strangely enough- was at my arm pit level!  But I take your point- it is difficult to imagine doing much that involves handling the trains at that height without a step for most people. 

I have tried to lower everything a bit so that the mills at Hinton are now 39", Hinton proper is at 42".  I also removed one of the "Windy Point" loops but that still leaves Jasper at 58".  Geikie which is the summit and close to Yellowhead Pass is 61" but I think that works as it is mostly for the eye level scene with a tall backdrop that I envision there.

This would make the mills pretty low but maybe that is acceptable.  Perhaps I can bring them down even more to say 35" and lower everything down 4", which would put Jasper at 54".  I would have to sit to work at the mills at that level, but it would make the upper deck more hospitable for visitors.  I have some young kids in my extended family here so I want to make sure they can get in on the action.

Your other points are very good.  I agree, making the hidden loops 18" rather than the 16" shown will likely improve operations and there is plenty of room to do it.  Access is something I need to build into the benchwork too.

I can loosen the yard curve in Jasper and have drafted a version that does so.  A bonus that comes with it is that it opens up some space behind the track for the townsite and perhaps the station. 

This is all good for my thinking as I start to take the saw to wood.  I definitely feel like building bottom up is going to help me sort out these issues as I refine the plan.

rodsup9000

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 985
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +640
Re: CN Yellowhead Division
« Reply #32 on: December 05, 2022, 06:27:26 PM »
0
  Scott,
   My Portola yard is 62" high and I have a 8" step bench for the operators to stand on. It works well. For me, I think the "mill" area at 40" would better.
 BTW, I'm around 6' tall.
Rodney

My Feather River Canyon in N-scale
http://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=31585.0

Scottl

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4672
  • Respect: +1092
Re: CN Yellowhead Division
« Reply #33 on: December 06, 2022, 09:27:15 AM »
0
Thanks Rod, that helps.  Still trying to get my head around a good height. 

If I have things on the high end, the deep window well in the top left near Windy Point comes into play as a scenic space.  That is attractive to consider as it allows me to further narrow the upper deck over Hinton.

Cajonpassfan

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 5367
  • Respect: +1953
Re: CN Yellowhead Division
« Reply #34 on: December 06, 2022, 12:55:06 PM »
0
Scott, glad  you found my comments helpful. As to the mill elevation, Rodney's right, 40" is better for a standing operator (but even that is too low imo). But if you were to create a mill switching area for a sitting operator, you could go as low as comfortable and create adequate separation. (I have a major yard at desk height, 30" and it's a joy to operate sitting down).

What if you ran the mill spur around and enter the mill from the opposite direction? Then could use a small armless office chair inside the narrow isle corner out of the way and have all kinds of clearance. When not in use, chair gets rolled under the layout. A bit more hidden run to get to it.

Just throwing it out there...
Otto

oakcreekco

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 938
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +133
Re: CN Yellowhead Division
« Reply #35 on: December 06, 2022, 04:59:28 PM »
0
Over the years I've found that 50" track height is just right for me. I'm 6'2"

Minimum aisle width 32"

That's always a starting point when I'm planning a new layout, any size.

Painter tape the floor with your layout dimensions. Nothing better than a 1:1 tour of your rr, before the work is done.

Planning is always a fun period of the build.
A "western modeler" that also runs NS.

Angus Shops

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 737
  • Respect: +251
Re: CN Yellowhead Division
« Reply #36 on: December 06, 2022, 08:44:53 PM »
0
I recommend that you find some corrugated cardboard and mock up a couple of sections full scale and mount them to a wall for a ‘test fit’. Looking at the plans it looks to me that Swan Landing is tucked pretty far under Jasper, to the point that you may have trouble seeing it from a standing position. You may want to consider pulling Swan Landing out towards the aisle and narrowing the width the deck at Jasper. That will also help with the ‘reachablity’ issues at Jasper, but would cost you some of the foreground elements. Is there room for the Jasper Station?

Geoff

Scottl

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4672
  • Respect: +1092
Re: CN Yellowhead Division
« Reply #37 on: December 06, 2022, 08:52:04 PM »
0
Thanks everyone for the input.  I laid out the perimeter of the layout in tape and found the peninsula blob in the top right part of the layout took a lot of space in the room.  Also, I was having problems with elevations that were too low for the mill area at Hinton.

After some offline discussion with a few people, I revised things quite a bit.  This version, which covers most of the same terrain, moves the end loops to the peninsula and opens up an *narrow* aisle with more visible running.  There is enough space afforded by this configuration that I can introduce an additional siding (Devona) with the neat bridge crossing of the Snake Indian River (https://railpictures.net/photo/626726/).  By moving the mills to the immediate proximity of the mainline in Hinton, I eliminate trying to fit the mills in a lower level.

I like this configuration a lot although I need to tighten the mainline radius to 16" in a few spots.  It could easily be lower or higher but this level seems about right when I mock up in the room.



Scottl

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4672
  • Respect: +1092
Re: CN Yellowhead Division
« Reply #38 on: December 06, 2022, 09:10:15 PM »
0
I recommend that you find some corrugated cardboard and mock up a couple of sections full scale and mount them to a wall for a ‘test fit’. Looking at the plans it looks to me that Swan Landing is tucked pretty far under Jasper, to the point that you may have trouble seeing it from a standing position. You may want to consider pulling Swan Landing out towards the aisle and narrowing the width the deck at Jasper. That will also help with the ‘reachablity’ issues at Jasper, but would cost you some of the foreground elements. Is there room for the Jasper Station?

Geoff

Thanks Geoff, I did just this with tape perimeters and it was very helpful.

I agree with your point about Swan Landing.  I think I can bring it out to minimize the issue but I can't make Jasper much narrower.  I think with a slightly less sharp bend in the Jasper yard I can bring things out from the wall a bit and make room for some townsite scenes, including the station.  I have never paid much attention to station itself before but it is a good looking building.

CNR5529

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 603
  • Respect: +606
    • My Shapeways Store
Re: CN Yellowhead Division
« Reply #39 on: December 06, 2022, 09:49:12 PM »
0
I have never paid much attention to station itself before but it is a good looking building.

Dont forget the totem pole too!
Because why not...

Scottl

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4672
  • Respect: +1092
Re: CN Yellowhead Division
« Reply #40 on: December 06, 2022, 09:57:52 PM »
0
Dont forget the totem pole too!

And the big Jasper the Bear statue too!  :D

Angus Shops

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 737
  • Respect: +251
Re: CN Yellowhead Division
« Reply #41 on: December 06, 2022, 11:29:27 PM »
0
Ooh, I like this better! Much more visible train running, and if you’re modelling a Canadian railway you MUST have an ‘isolated lonely siding’.

In my experience having a larger terminal on the upper level of a two level layout creates issues with whatever is underneath it. In my case it’s Field, BC over Palliser.

Geoff

Scottl

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4672
  • Respect: +1092
Re: CN Yellowhead Division
« Reply #42 on: December 10, 2022, 10:33:11 AM »
0
More refinement of the layout plan.  The leg of the mainline east of Hinton opens up a number of possible industrial customers.  Vista Coal was built in the 2010s and is a perfect along the line industry with a loader and a few siding tracks (https://railpictures.net/photo/716569/.

I'm not entirely sure of the track layout on the prototype, but I can fit something functional into my lower deck pretty easily.   It adds a bit more to the operations and more staging as well.



Ed Kapuscinski

  • Global Moderator
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 23928
  • Head Kino
  • Respect: +7755
    • Conrail 1285
Re: CN Yellowhead Division
« Reply #43 on: December 11, 2022, 11:35:57 PM »
0
It's too much track.

And I say that without actually looking.

But for real: simplify.

Scottl

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4672
  • Respect: +1092
Re: CN Yellowhead Division
« Reply #44 on: December 11, 2022, 11:53:49 PM »
0
I'm not sure what you mean in terms of too much.  The amount for the space (too much layout for the room) or the number of tracks in the various yards, or something else?   It is basically a nolix of a busy mainline where nothing passes through the same scene twice.  Appreciate your thoughts.