Trains.com

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Off to the Park

3215 views
27 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2016
  • 70 posts
Off to the Park
Posted by jlehnert on Thursday, February 2, 2017 5:00 AM

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.1766052,-85.6522393,782m/data=!3m1!1e3

After seeing and discussing it down in the Prototype discussion forums, I'm going to make a big leap and attempt to model the GE Appliance Park in Louisville Kentucky.  There are lots of pros and cons for this. 

Pro 

1.  It's real!  You can't get anymore prototypical. 

2.  As a compliment to #1, a lot of the layout "design" is done, ie there's no "don't put a turnout here because it will cause......" 

3.  Lots of opportunities to play. Multiple types of supplies in, manufactured goods and empties out. It also has its own coal fired power plant. They stopped using the power plant around 2005, but it's still there. 

4. I'm blessed with a 40'x50' unfinished basement, of which only a 1/3 is in use (storage, HVAC, etc). I need room for my other toys and hobbies, so I don't want to use all of the available space, but I'm not constrained trying to squeeze a layout into a 10'x12' spare bedroom. Furthermore, I model in N Scale, so I can fit a lot more layout into whatever amount of space I use. 

5.  Oh those lovely intersecting curves at the north end of the plant!

Cons:

A)  This sucker is BIG!  If I modeled the entire complex in N Scale, it would be roughly 21'x11'! 

B)  Again, as a compliment to A, unless I have pop-ups in several of the buildings, there's no way that I can have every portion of track within reach of my arms, especially with the yard in the middle of the buildings. 

C)  This will be by far the biggest layout I've attempted. My previous layouts were 3'x7' and 3'x12', with less than 10 turnouts. 

D) no d as I have a call and have to go. B back later 

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • 869 posts
Posted by davidmurray on Thursday, February 2, 2017 1:41 PM

jlehnert
gain, as a compliment to A, unless I have pop-ups in several of the buildings, there's no way that I can have every portion of track within reach of my arms, especially with the yard in the middle of the buildings.

I had the pleasure of guest operator on an O scale layout.  Some of the buildings had roofs that hinged up for access purposes.  If your buildings are big enough, why not.  Also big incentive to fix offending cars and trackwork.

Dave

 

David Murray from Oshawa, Ontario Canada
  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Thursday, February 2, 2017 2:42 PM

I see the curves are about a 400 ft radius.  In HO, 55".  In N, 30".

Are ya gonna keep that, or tighten it up????  If so, how much.  

I would thing dividing by half would still work, operationally.  A person could do that to the buildings, too.

Now, I would far prefer this layout to be scaled down exactly.  Uh, WOWWW!!!

But it ain't my time or money.

 

 

Ed

  • Member since
    January 2016
  • 70 posts
Posted by jlehnert on Friday, February 3, 2017 12:16 PM

Okay.  That last call took up the rest of the shift, and then it was grocery shopping, home, several hours horizontal in bed, then back on duty were I ran my *ss off.  After another couple hours sawing logs, I can finally get back to this.  TOBAL about w*rk getting in the way of model railroading.  Now where was I?

6.  Should be very easy to switch between era's (60's vs today).  Most of my equipment is modern, but I have enough rolling stock to go either way.  Might need a little motive power for the earlier era.  As far as I've been able to determine, they've ripped up some of the spurs, but there's been no "tear-this-down and replace it".  The last large building in the SE corner burned down in 2015, but if I go full out I'll ignore that little fact.

7.  Was able to find a book on Amazon about the history of the Park.  Waiting for it to arrive, but that should help in research.

And back to the cons

D)  This thing is so big it's likely to overwhelm everything else if I decide I want to add on to it.  Original plan was to freelance some Norfolk Southern in VA/MD.  Not sure if that's doable in conjuction with this monster.

  • Member since
    January 2016
  • 70 posts
Posted by jlehnert on Friday, February 3, 2017 12:33 PM

Dave,

Interesting thought.  The buildings are definately big enough.  On the O scale you're talking about, was there any problem with the locos/cars being hidden by the buildings?  Thinking about viewing lines.  The north/south tracks on the western side run pretty close to the western buildings in some places.  If they do get hidden, I'd either have to find a spot where they can be viewed from (looking in from the north?), or more likely just make those lines for show and never actually do any switching on them.

  • Member since
    January 2016
  • 70 posts
Posted by jlehnert on Friday, February 3, 2017 12:47 PM

Ed,

I think it pretty much depends on if I try to do an actual model, or an "inspired by" version.  One idea I'm seriously tossing about is to move the eastern buildings against the wall, and infer that they continue further "into the distance".  I could probably shave a good three feet off the width of the layout, and still not effect any of the trackwork.

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Friday, February 3, 2017 2:39 PM

I recommend that you DO chop off most of the buildings on the "right".

But wait, there's more:

From way up high, it kinda looks like there's just one big building on the left.  I propose that you chop out most of that, too, leaving the top (with its trackage) and the outer face towards the yard.

If you do that, you can actually GET to the yard.  To look at it, which is actually part of playing with trains.  And to do rerailing.  Which is also part of playing with trains. That roughly 10 x 40 open space can be your main viewing area--assuming you build in a rectangular space of about 25 x 50.  The layout will thus be L shaped, with a piece up on the upper left.

I also recommend about a 2 foot wide aisle all around the outer edge (except maybe  the left wall) for access, at least.  Viewing?  Maybe.

 

 

Ed

  • Member since
    February 2015
  • 223 posts
Posted by Choops on Friday, February 3, 2017 3:37 PM

I did some quick counting and estimating.  There are aproximately 480 truck trailers sitting around that facility.  I found some cheap n scale trailers for about $4 each.  that would be $1920 for trailers.

If you look in the corner of the facility there is a spur that runs into a junk pile.  There are two switchers sitting there.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.166232,-85.6565087,97a,20y,270h,41.67t/data=!3m1!1e3

Steve

Modeling Union Pacific between Cheyenne and Laramie in 1957 (roughly)
  • Member since
    February 2015
  • 223 posts
Posted by Choops on Friday, February 3, 2017 3:40 PM
Modeling Union Pacific between Cheyenne and Laramie in 1957 (roughly)
  • Member since
    May 2010
  • From: SE. WI.
  • 8,253 posts
Posted by mbinsewi on Friday, February 3, 2017 3:54 PM

jlehnert,

Looks like a great project.  I, for one, will be following along, not sure of your time period, maybe I missed that in previous post, but I have done some research into this place, and in the 80's, this placed rocked, with about 14,000 employees.

Have fun!

Mike.

  • Member since
    January 2016
  • 70 posts
Posted by jlehnert on Friday, February 3, 2017 5:44 PM

Choops

It's interesting. Wikipedia has a nice writeup, saying that building AP1 makes this, and AP2 makes that, etc. What I haven't been able to do is match a building name with the overhead view (except the one that burned). I was banging around looking for this information, and I found one site that shows the empty lot were the building was. Funny part was as you scroll in closer, the building will magically appear. 

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Friday, February 3, 2017 6:37 PM

jlehnert

A)  This sucker is BIG!  If I modeled the entire complex in N Scale, it would be roughly 21'x11'! 

 

 

 

I'm gonna disagree with those numbers.  The north-south dimension is over a mile.  

I measure it to be 22' x 34' in N scale.

If you chop off most of the buildings on the right and just leave a little, it gets down to about 15' wide.  By 34'.

 

And then, of course, you've got to FEED this thing.  With freight cars.  So you'll be needing staging.  Somewhere.

 

 

Ed

  • Member since
    January 2016
  • 70 posts
Posted by jlehnert on Friday, February 3, 2017 7:15 PM

Ed,

Are you measuring street to street, or building corner to building corner?  I'm doing the latter and coming up with 1:1 numbers of 1800' wide by 2800' long.  11.25' x 17.5' in N.

Of course my scientific way of measuring it is to printout the picture from Google, and then make a ruler from the measurement down in the lower right corner.

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Friday, February 3, 2017 7:52 PM

jlehnert

Ed,

Are you measuring street to street, or building corner to building corner?  I'm doing the latter and coming up with 1:1 numbers of 1800' wide by 2800' long.  11.25' x 17.5' in N.

Of course my scientific way of measuring it is to printout the picture from Google, and then make a ruler from the measurement down in the lower right corner.

 

 

I'm only doing the buildings.

I did mine in pretty much the same scientific way, except I didn't print the picture--I just measured the screen.

On my screen the "standard" or whatever it is down on the lower right said it was 1000 feet.  And it measures 1.1 inches long.  I measured the big block of buildings. Left to right I measured 3.8 inches.  Top to bottom 6 inches.

3.8 / 1.1 = 3.45 thousand feet or 3450 feet

6 / 1.1 = 5.45 thousand feet or 5450 feet ( more than a mile, and 34 feet for N scale

 

Your overall dimensions are almost exactly half as much.  I'm a-not gettin' it.

 

Ed

  • Member since
    January 2016
  • 70 posts
Posted by jlehnert on Friday, February 3, 2017 9:48 PM

Don't know what to say.  I figured out how to rotate the Maps image, and printed it again in Landscape so it was a little bigger.  Scale on paper was 1/2" = 200'. 

The measurement on paper was 7" x 4.5" = 2800' x 1800'.  Divide by 160 and you get 17.5 x 11.25.

  • Member since
    March 2013
  • 427 posts
Posted by Colorado Ray on Friday, February 3, 2017 10:52 PM

The problem with a drawing dimensioned as 1/2" = 200' is that it only works if you print the drawing at the same full size as the original.  On our engineering drawings which are full size at 22" x 34" we always dimension a plan as "1/2" = 200' full size" and add "1/2" = 400' at half size" for when it's printed at 11"x 17" on a printer rather than plotted full size.

 

For map work it is always good practice to add a scale bar with a distance noted.  That way anyone can scale both the scale bar and a measured distance.

 

The PC version of Google Earth lets you take direct measurements.  Unfortunately the iPad version doesn't.  Next time I'm at my PC I'll take a measurement.  

 

Growing up next to Appliance Park, my recollection is that it was well over a mile north-south.

 

Ray

  • Member since
    January 2016
  • 70 posts
Posted by jlehnert on Friday, February 3, 2017 11:20 PM

BLEH!!!!

Downloaded Google Earth Pro, which DOES have a measurement tool.  5400' x 3500' (rounded to the nearest 100').  Which is W-A-Y too big.  Not going to give up, but a full 1:160 replica is out of the question.  Back to the drawing board.  Bummer.

Ray.

Not sure how things are getting screwed up on my paper measurement.  I'm not printing at 200' = 1/2", but instead printing, then looking at the legend at the bottom that showed a line "X" long = 200'.  When I measured the line it was exactly 1/2".

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Friday, February 3, 2017 11:41 PM

A POSSIBLE answer to the overall dimension problem we're facing is that the "dimension line" is incorrectly labeled.

And maybe it's MINE.  Or yours, of course.  

Irritating.

 

Ed

  • Member since
    January 2016
  • 70 posts
Posted by jlehnert on Saturday, February 4, 2017 12:22 AM

Well, the measuring issue does suggest a possible solution to the size.

Shrink the entire complex by 50%.  Make the building that was 400' x 600' (2.5'x3.75') now 200' x 300' (1.25'x1.875').  That brings the overall layout size back to the 18'x11' that I was using earlier.  Still a little large for my liking, but doable.  

If my measurements are correct (big IF at this point) the curves would shrink down to 15".  Smaller than I'd like, but completely acceptable for an industrial siding.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Bradford, Ontario
  • 15,797 posts
Posted by hon30critter on Saturday, February 4, 2017 12:45 AM

Interesting project! Even if it was downsized as has been suggested it would still be mighty impressive.

Dave

I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Saturday, February 4, 2017 10:34 AM

jlehnert
 

If my measurements are correct (big IF at this point) the curves would shrink down to 15".  Smaller than I'd like, but completely acceptable for an industrial siding.

 

 

We're talking N scale.  And a 15" curve is pretty generous (in model railroading) for an industrial siding.

 

Ed

  • Member since
    December 2004
  • From: Louisville
  • 588 posts
Posted by dbduck on Sunday, February 5, 2017 10:59 AM

dont know if anyone asked before me... modelling before or after the fire ?

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Sunday, February 5, 2017 11:18 AM

"During" would be another fascinating alternative.

 

Ed

  • Member since
    December 2004
  • From: Louisville
  • 588 posts
Posted by dbduck on Sunday, February 5, 2017 11:27 AM

7j43k

"During" would be another fascinating alternative.

 

Ed

 

Yes it would

  • Member since
    January 2016
  • 70 posts
Posted by jlehnert on Sunday, February 5, 2017 8:04 PM

7j43k

"During" would be another fascinating alternative.

 

Ed

The operating sessions might be a little slow if I did "during". 

Eight alarm fire, with 1 mile mandatory evacuation because of haz-mat concerns. The entire complex was shut down for several days. 

  • Member since
    January 2016
  • 70 posts
Posted by jlehnert on Sunday, February 5, 2017 9:02 PM

dbduck

dont know if anyone asked before me... modelling before or after the fire ?

Not sure on which era I'm going to model, let alone before/after. So far it appears that the 70's would be the busiest. Maximum workforce, maximum rail traffic. All the spurs would be in operation. The power plant was still in operation, so plenty of coal coming in. 

Going modern would dovetail with my previous plans. Probably 70% of my rolling stock is modern, and 90% of my locos. A lot of the spurs have been torn up or are not used though. It appears that almost all the shipping is by truck. Also, a lot of production has been moved elsewhere, and the buildings either used for storage or leased out to other companies. The building that burned was leased out and they're bickering about who's responsible for keeping the sprinkler system up to date. Bleh. 

If I had to make a decision now, I'd probably go freelance. 70's rail traffic with today's equipment. 

Where AP6 used to stand is now a dirt lot, and it has all the modeling appeal of a....... dirt lot. If I don't model prior to the fire, I might do immediately during/after the fire. Prior to or during the cleanup. A couple of gondolas to haul away scrap metal? They actually had a foundry at the park at one point. They used it to recycle scrap metal from the manufacturing process. Pretty sure the remains of it are down in the southwest corner. All that's left is a foundation, smokestack, and several piles of junk. 

Fortunately (or unfortunately) I have a while before I have to make final decisions. The basement needs electrical wiring, drywall, ceilings, etc. before I can even start doing bench work. 

  • Member since
    December 2004
  • From: Louisville
  • 588 posts
Posted by dbduck on Monday, February 6, 2017 11:15 AM

I live about a mile away from the park .."as the crow flies"

As I was leaving for work  I could hear all of the sirens...about the time the first alarm came in around 7am

I remember the morning well. There was a major rain fall that morning with lots of flash flooding in the area as well

I had to detour & take a different route to work because of the flooding. When I did finally make it out of the neighborhood is when I saw the billowing smoke.

I think the building was almost empty of people due to it being Good Friday & most  had a holiday

It was Building #6  When looking at the map in original post it is the bottom building of the "stack" of 6 buildings to the lower right

that stack of buildings with the large parking lot to the east are buildings 1-6 with 1 at top (north) & 6 at bottom (south)

Image result for ge building fire

  • Member since
    February 2008
  • 8,877 posts
Posted by maxman on Wednesday, February 8, 2017 3:26 PM

Image result for ge building fire

 

[/quote]

Oh, an appliance fire sale.

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Users Online

There are no community member online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!