Author Topic: CN Grande Cache Subdivision  (Read 5753 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Scottl

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4211
  • Respect: +529
Re: CN Grande Cache Subdivision
« Reply #75 on: December 30, 2021, 07:08:34 PM »
0
I went with @mark dance's suggestion and added a @GaryHinshaw peninsula level twist, while keeping the upper levels set back ala @Angus Shops.  This time I drew it with Atlas track products as I have quite a lot of these on hand and Micro Engineering could be a challenge to get in the future.  Those #7 turnouts take a lot more space...

This version works quite well and does present better scenery potential at Swan Landing and Winniandy.  There are some vertical separation issues that I think can be solved, especially near the Wildhay River bridge/staging.  I have maintained all of the staging elements of the previous version and a slightly more compact geometry to Swan Landing.  I like it, even if it looks like spaghetti when stacked.



The lower level and staging:



The upper level.  Winniandy trackage is the first cut.


mark dance

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1026
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +1278
    • The N Scale Columbia and Western
Re: CN Grande Cache Subdivision
« Reply #76 on: December 31, 2021, 12:00:54 AM »
0

Nice!

No way you could retain the signature causeway scene on the Edson Sub? If you backed SL up so its west end started under the sawmill and fan the west end ladder out around the curve, could you do it or do you lose too much mainline staging (in addition to compromising that nice looking west ladder you have now)??

Also it sure would be nice to find a way to stage and turn those GC trains North of Winniandy on the upper deck so they don't *need* to make the long helix descent.  Northbound trains could even be recycled as southbounds in a session that way...

md 
Youtube Videos of the N Scale Columbia & Western at: markdance63
Photos and track plan of of the N Scale Columbia & Western at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27907618@N02/sets/72157624106602402/

Scottl

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4211
  • Respect: +529
Re: CN Grande Cache Subdivision
« Reply #77 on: December 31, 2021, 09:43:11 AM »
0
Thanks for the great suggestions.  I can add something for staging the northbound trains at Winniandy, one immediate thought is a reverse loop around the helix.

Moving SL yard counter-clockwise around the room to make space for the causeway is a great idea.  The downside would be losing some mainline staging and some potential vertical separation issues with the helix outlet, but nothing too serious at first blush.  On the plus side, the causeway is a spectacular scene (https://railpictures.net/photo/700617/) to put at the entrance of the room.

An added benefit would be that the GCS-staging vertical clearance at Wildhay R. would be alleviated with the extra travel distance.

Of course, it means re-drawing the SL yard.... :facepalm:

Scottl

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4211
  • Respect: +529
Re: CN Grande Cache Subdivision
« Reply #78 on: December 31, 2021, 03:26:52 PM »
0
I re-did the Swan Landing yard and found I could indeed shift it around and make space for the scenic causeway to the east of the yard.  It works reasonably well but has two main problems:  it shortens and effectively halves the mainline staging; and it shortens SL yard by a few feet with impacts on the length of the GCS trains.  It offers great scenic potential and I put a crossover in a new location Soloman that adds some interest too.  But I am not convinced this is a net improvement.



What I really like is the reversing track on the upper deck for traffic north out of Winniandy.  There is more to do and one vertical clearance to verify, but this will find its way into the final plan.


Santa Fe Guy

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1094
  • Respect: +349
Re: CN Grande Cache Subdivision
« Reply #79 on: December 31, 2021, 05:54:30 PM »
0
This is one hell of a plan that should keep you busy for many good years Scott and isn't that just what we want out of this great hobby.
The input from others has made a huge difference, well done.
Regards for the new year.
Rod.
Santafesd40.blogspot.com

mark dance

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1026
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +1278
    • The N Scale Columbia and Western
Re: CN Grande Cache Subdivision
« Reply #80 on: December 31, 2021, 05:54:46 PM »
0
...but @Scottl, ya gotta keep the causeway so we'll find a way to make this work!  I am confident that you'll be happy with the prototypical direction of SL and Winiandy too.   And the additional running on the Edson sub so your not just immediately disappearing into hidden staging at each end of  SL is also a big win...

two more  ideas...

  • it looks like the mainline staging could do a turn under the peninsula if it folds over itself once. There is no grid on the drawing but if the peninsula is 6 or 7' in dia won't that give you about 20 more foot of staging?! the cost is access and a slight mainline grade up and down 
  • more drastically if the whole peninsula came off the left wall rather than the top wall you could lengthen SL significantly, addressing the GCS train length issue, and to my eye it looks possibly like the length of peninsula would increase.   If that latter is true while maintaining adequate aisle widths then the payback of moving the peninsula is huge: longer Edson mainline run/staging, longer GCS run on each deck, and more capacity for GCS North staging on the top deck. Are the aisles workable? You might also have to address a cliche "stacked turn back loop" look at the end of the narrower/longer peninsula but a Bellina drop on the lower GCS level would help mask it. 

md
Youtube Videos of the N Scale Columbia & Western at: markdance63
Photos and track plan of of the N Scale Columbia & Western at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27907618@N02/sets/72157624106602402/

Santa Fe Guy

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1094
  • Respect: +349
Re: CN Grande Cache Subdivision
« Reply #81 on: December 31, 2021, 06:03:07 PM »
0
Scott, after just seeing Marks reply I took a look at the causeway image, you sure do have to keep that.
That will make a hell of a good scene.
Rod.
PS just started to make a switching HO CN layout under my HOn3 RR. After watching Boomer I just had too.
Purchased 3 HO CN locos all with sound and several pieces of rolling stock.
Should be a lot of fun.
Santafesd40.blogspot.com

Scottl

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4211
  • Respect: +529
Re: CN Grande Cache Subdivision
« Reply #82 on: December 31, 2021, 08:21:59 PM »
0

I'm worried the mainline staging is going to take on a life of its own but I'll think that through.  Relocating the peninsula...  you want to keep me busy drawing up plans!  I agree, the causeway is worth keeping in the mix so I'll give it some thought.  Thanks for the feedback and suggestions.


...but @Scottl, ya gotta keep the causeway so we'll find a way to make this work!  I am confident that you'll be happy with the prototypical direction of SL and Winiandy too.   And the additional running on the Edson sub so your not just immediately disappearing into hidden staging at each end of  SL is also a big win...

two more  ideas...

  • it looks like the mainline staging could do a turn under the peninsula if it folds over itself once. There is no grid on the drawing but if the peninsula is 6 or 7' in dia won't that give you about 20 more foot of staging?! the cost is access and a slight mainline grade up and down 
  • more drastically if the whole peninsula came off the left wall rather than the top wall you could lengthen SL significantly, addressing the GCS train length issue, and to my eye it looks possibly like the length of peninsula would increase.   If that latter is true while maintaining adequate aisle widths then the payback of moving the peninsula is huge: longer Edson mainline run/staging, longer GCS run on each deck, and more capacity for GCS North staging on the top deck. Are the aisles workable? You might also have to address a cliche "stacked turn back loop" look at the end of the narrower/longer peninsula but a Bellina drop on the lower GCS level would help mask it. 

md

Scottl

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4211
  • Respect: +529
Re: CN Grande Cache Subdivision
« Reply #83 on: December 31, 2021, 08:26:15 PM »
0
Scott, after just seeing Marks reply I took a look at the causeway image, you sure do have to keep that.
That will make a hell of a good scene.
Rod.
PS just started to make a switching HO CN layout under my HOn3 RR. After watching Boomer I just had too.
Purchased 3 HO CN locos all with sound and several pieces of rolling stock.
Should be a lot of fun.

Thanks Rod!  Boomer's work is amazing, I know why he has inspired you!  Looking forward to seeing another layout project from you.

Scottl

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4211
  • Respect: +529
Re: CN Grande Cache Subdivision
« Reply #84 on: January 15, 2022, 11:56:33 AM »
0
Happy belated New Year to those following!   I'm officially retired now so have had some time to think through @mark dance's suggestions.  As much as I would like the causeway scene, the trade-off in terms of train length and staging was too great. I tried moving the peninsula around but that created a lot of aisle congestion and an ugly turnaround at the end.  After a lot of playing with different designs, I have come back to the version where we reversed Swan Landing.

The lower deck and staging have not changed much, but I have spent some time refining the Winniandy trackage, adding a house track at Hoff (the summit) and car loading tracks at the Foothills Forest Products sawmill.   There is lots of space for these scenes and I think it will give some operational interest as well.  I have 12' train limits on the Grande Cache Sub and even longer (16' or so) on the Edson Sub mainline, which is a big jump from my last layout where 7' trains were the limit.  This should give some very nice, long flowing trains. 



I am sure there will be further revisions but I am now focusing more on the building of the room and acquiring the supplies.  I have been collecting ME bridge kits now that there is a risk of supply disruption.  I have quite a few of the turnouts but will need about 20 more.  The big ask will be the flex track:  216 pieces full Atlas code 55 :scared:.   Last time I bought a box of this in 2009 it was a lot less expensive!

Thanks everyone for all the helpful input on the layout design.  It really made a difference for the better.  TRW is a great community of track planners.

mark dance

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1026
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +1278
    • The N Scale Columbia and Western
Re: CN Grande Cache Subdivision
« Reply #85 on: January 16, 2022, 04:05:21 PM »
0
That all makes sense to me Scott.  I was worried about both the  aisle widths and the  stacked turn back curves at the end of a longer peninsula but I think it did warrant investigation as I believe this configuration would have yielded the longest "sincere" mainline possible inyour space.

and so I am clear, your current lower deck plan is this one (longer yard and mainline staging but no causeway)....



...and *not* this plan, correct?



md
Youtube Videos of the N Scale Columbia & Western at: markdance63
Photos and track plan of of the N Scale Columbia & Western at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27907618@N02/sets/72157624106602402/

Scottl

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4211
  • Respect: +529
Re: CN Grande Cache Subdivision
« Reply #86 on: January 16, 2022, 04:53:43 PM »
0

Here is the most current version of the lower level (black) and staging (red).  I've added a wood pellet plant and moved the Berland bridge around a bit for better scenery space.



trainzluvr

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 135
  • Professional Wannabe
  • Respect: +84
    • Trains Luvr
Re: CN Grande Cache Subdivision
« Reply #87 on: January 16, 2022, 05:03:49 PM »
0
@Scottl congratulations on the retirement - as someone who still works I'm jealous of your newfound freedom, and hope you enjoy every second of it.

I briefly looked at your plan, and while I'm not an expert in the layout design I have enough time under my belt dealing with various track configurations and engineering crazy benchwork solutions for my own railroad.

I took the liberty to recreate the portion at your swing gate using PECO Code 55, which I presume you are using. Please see detail below.

I do not believe it would be a good idea to have 3 tracks swing/move. Beside a need to align N scale rails very very precisely (some on a curve even), points of at least one of your turnouts (presuming Large PECO straight) fall over the swing gate. The other curved/straight are very close to the edge as well, and highly unlikely to be usable as remote turnouts.



Of course I could be totally missing something and you have all this figured out, but thought to point out.

Having said all that, I mentioned engineering crazy ideas - here is what I've done on my layout. I used drawer slides to create a lift bridge and a door handles on both sides to pull the pins that lock the bridge in place when in upright position (there are holes in the door jambs at the top, out of view, aligning with these pins). I took extensive photos/videos detailing this process but unfortunately haven't had a chance to post to my YouTube channel yet.

« Last Edit: January 16, 2022, 05:05:43 PM by trainzluvr »

Scottl

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4211
  • Respect: +529
Re: CN Grande Cache Subdivision
« Reply #88 on: January 16, 2022, 06:37:10 PM »
0
Thanks @trainzluvr , it is great to have much more time for the fun things although I still have some lingering work matters that will also keep me busy.

You are quite right, I did mistakenly put the points of two of the staging turnouts in the swing gate.  I've done up a quick plan to move those and the dimensions work so that I can get the turnouts off of the gate.  I'm confident I can get motors into the spaces for those turnouts but I am glad you flagged this as it will be something to be careful about.

That is an interesting gate approach you have used.  I have not really thought much about how I will do it other than to assume that it is possible and there wiser and more experienced people out there.  I've seen a few with curved tracks at the break points and it does not seem to be too problematic, but again, I think this is something I will work to eliminate in revision.  I want to avoid any operational issues where possible.