Nevin,
I like the second plan better. You have a chance for more scenery at Zabriskie and the interchange with the T&T is more obvious and looks more realistic. I don't think hand placing cars is a big deal on a point to point layout like you're building. I'd rather lose the staging to have more running room and scenery.
I like the yard.
Dang Mark,
I can't believe we see something eye-to-eye.
Ditto what he said.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
There was a plan a while back in one of the Great Model RR's books that showed a single track hidden live interchange track. The one track was live and held a loco and several cars. It ducked behind some buildings and behind the backdrop where it could be fiddled. Any chance something like that might work here?
You could have your cake and eat it too!
I'm going through a redesign of my layout (backdating from 1950 to 1905) and am faced with some of the same decisions you are facing.
I am choosing a plan closer to #2 because one of my goals is to simulate the whole trip. Get an engine at the origin, get your train, drive to the other end of the line, turn the engines, get a new train, drive back, put your train away, repeat as necessary. I want to recreate the feel of an entire trip on the railroad. Very unlike the modern concepts of layout design (like my current layout) which are a slice of a railroad and trains run from staging to staging.
By choosing #2 the turntables at both ends become functional, you have to turn the engines. You might want to add a track or two at the junction, it has to have enough room to hold 2 trains, the inbound to be delivered and the outbound waiting to be pulled.
For those reasons I choose #2.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Dave,
I know just what you're saying. I chose to do both on my layout. I have a live pass-thru interchange with a class 1 RR and my shortline takes off from there and heads through the countryside down to the ocean docks.
So far I have the staging and the interchange tracks done. I'm working on the backdrop now, then it's the big push to get rail laid to the docks!
Number 2.
Probably more senarios will be possible.
Sue
Anything is possible if you do not know what you are talking about.
Definitely, the second plan. The obvious interchange is worth the inconvenience of using cassettes to swap cars.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with cassette staging)
NevinW wrote:Here are two versions of my latest efforts. One uses an interchange with the parent railroad but no staging. Cars would be placed on the interchange tracks by hand and be moved to the various mines and mills served by the railroad. A passenger train would go the Zabriskie and return each session. The second version uses a fiddle yard and atlas turntable as a staging yard. It would be unsceniced. Several tains would be staged before the session is started. Which do you like better? - Nevin
No offence, intended, but, you have that backwards, we should be asking you that question, since it is your layout, and we will not be running on it, as you will.
What is your style of MRR? Which one do you think will match your style of MRR and why? If they both match up fairly evenly, which one will be easier to build and / or run?
marknewton wrote:Isn't this a railroad set in the middle of the Mojave desert? Given that, a car ferry might be a little implausible...Cheers,Mark.
Might try a wheeled ferry on a dry lake.
Chuck (who's modeling Central Japan in the desert Nevin plans to model)
NevinW wrote:Yes, this is is set in 1910 Death Valley area. Not alot of water around. One of the key features will be the water tank cars bringing drinkable water to the towns. - Nevin
what will you be using for water cars ? i'm planning a 1905 central arizona layout and will be needing some too . i've seen photos of what looks like a flat car with 2 or 3 big barrels on them , but haven't seen a kit of one
http://www.franandmileshale.com/images/galimage04.jpg
actually now that i really look at it , it shouldn't be much work to add some barrels to a flat car . just find a dowel or something the correct size and add some stripwood around it
I like the second version better. Good to have a complete trip over the railroad. I like the way you are using the alcove instead of blocking it off like you showed in your previous plans. I would squeeze in one or two more yard tracks at Zabriskie.
Ralph H
Amargosa Railroad
ereimer wrote: NevinW wrote:Yes, this is is set in 1910 Death Valley area. Not alot of water around. One of the key features will be the water tank cars bringing drinkable water to the towns. - Nevin what will you be using for water cars ? i'm planning a 1905 central arizona layout and will be needing some too . i've seen photos of what looks like a flat car with 2 or 3 big barrels on them , but haven't seen a kit of onehttp://www.franandmileshale.com/images/galimage04.jpgactually now that i really look at it , it shouldn't be much work to add some barrels to a flat car . just find a dowel or something the correct size and add some stripwood around it
IHC makes wooden water cars, but there's no reason why you couldn't use tankers.
Although I'm normally a big proponent of staging, I think in this case the version without staging will be more interesting visually without a major detriment to operation.
One suggestion I would make is to rearrange things a bit to move the interchange tracks at Zabriskie behind a row of buildings or some other viewblock toward the bottom of the layout drawing (back of the scene as seen from the aisle). Leave the turnout visible for ease of construction and maintenance. Then you could use the front of that scene for another industry spot or two with some interesting structures or fascia flats. Of course, if you are trying to duplicate a real-life scene, you might not want that compromise.
Another few inches of depth on that benchwork section would be a nice addition and probably wouldn't impact the rest of the room too much. In general, I think people worry too much about keeping the depth of these benchwork sections consistent. Letting these depths vary makes the scenes more interesting, IMHO.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
I'd go with the second option - would much better represent the shortline nature of the T&G. However at Zabriskie I'd make some small changes. The T&T station could be moved to the inside of the room and a team track added behind the station. Then add a track or two off of the T&T main to serve as a small interchange track/yard - no need to hide it. If the T&G doesn't have trackage rights over all the T&T track at Zabriskie, then you could justify a small T&T switcher to handle the interchange traffic. I'd also use casettes for moving cars on and off the line - you could easily have 4-6 of these hidden under the benchwork, each about a nominal T&G train length long. One thing to watch - it might be necessary to make sure the 'tail' track on the far right at Zabriskie is perpendicular with the benchwork edge to make for a more reliable interface with the casette.
BTW, there was a plan some years ago in MR and I think 101 Track Plans that was very much like this for a Milwaukee branch (I think) that would have been a very convincing RR.
Thanks for letting use comment on your idea.
Charles
NevinW wrote:Here are two versions of my latest efforts. One uses an interchange with the parent railroad but no staging. Cars would be placed on the interchange tracks by hand and be moved to the various mines and mills served by the railroad. A passenger train would go the Zabriskie and return each session. The second version uses a fiddle yard and atlas turntable as a staging yard. It would be unsceniced. Several trains would be staged before the session is started. Which do you like better? - Nevin
2 most definelty, as you say you have a decent 2 spur siding at Zabrienski that can double as a fiddle (staging) yard, and at Greenwater you have a nice little yard there that can also double as a fiddle yard.
Thats a very nice plan BTW.
Have fun with your trains
Modeling the fictional B&M Dowe, NH branch in the early 50's.
I currently place cars on / off by hand and will convert to cassettes as soon as I can build up the money for lumber and glue. (So I hope gas prices drop to < $2 per gallon soon.)
You can find wood water tank flatcars at model train shows, swap meets, and similar events. Better plan on re-decalling the numbers and maybe some railroad initials to avoid duplicates.
PS - for visual variety, I am going to use a 3-tank water car as a pickle car, as soon as I figure out how to cut a circle out of styrene sheet (for the lids). I'm going to put the local pickle company's name on a half-sized billboard alongside the tanks. Not at all prototype, but it sounds like fun.
BRJN wrote: I currently place cars on / off by hand and will convert to cassettes as soon as I can build up the money for lumber and glue. (So I hope gas prices drop to < $2 per gallon soon.)
You can make 2 48" cassettes from a single 96" steel stud, or three 1 meter cassettes (compatible with lengths of Shinohara flex) from a single 120" steel stud. All you have to do is plug the off end (small piece of anything that will accept screws drilled in from outside the stud,) caulk flex or straight sectional track down the centerline and put rail joiners on the ends (if necessary) to align the cassette track to the end of the fixed track. Piece of cake!
Water cars would almost certainly be home road cars, probably numbered in the MOW series.
Back in the golden days of yesteryear, half a century ago, MR had an article on building a pickle car - and the little rural pickle plant that was its source of cargo. (Pickle Works article was printed in Jan 55; couldn't find the car - you might query the magazine articles data base.)
Chuck [modeling (rainy, water-soaked) Central Japan in September, 1964 - with not a pickle in sight]
I like the turntables being part of the yard area. This makes the main line a bit longer. Are you going to access the Tonopah & Tidewater using a cassette? The cassettes will need to be supported at both ends. It will not work to try to hold up one end. Looks like you will need that tea cart! Keep the updated track plans coming. It is quite an education to go back through the older plans you have posted. They just keep getting better and better.