W&P is now owned by G&W, which ironically owns several shortlines around Adelaide in South Australia and runs between Adelaide and Darwin. Some of these lines are relatively close, several hundred mile from here.
Initially I used the term "multi level" which in hindsight is not strictly accurate to what i'm trying to describe, maybe the term panoramic might be closer to the mark.
Construction will begin soon as just got 2 boxes of peco flexi today with several turnouts, though am still struggling to get my own handlaid turnouts right.
wmshay06 wrote:I'll dig through my photo collection to see if that helps me remember the name of the town. I do know that its between Corvallis and the Pacific Coast. At one time the RR was known as the Willamette & Pacific - but it may have changed its name. I think the name of the town I mentioined is Toledo.Good luck and have fun!
I'll dig through my photo collection to see if that helps me remember the name of the town. I do know that its between Corvallis and the Pacific Coast. At one time the RR was known as the Willamette & Pacific - but it may have changed its name.
Good luck and have fun!
I believe the Willamette and Pacific trackage from Toledo to Albany is leased/bought from the SP, who in turn bought it from the Oregon Pacific in the 19th Century. The Oregon Pacific was a short line with grand ideas of expanding all the way from the Pacific Coast across Oregon to at least Idaho, where it would tie in with other lines to become a transcontinental. See http://www.brian894x4.com/YaquinaRailroad.html for more info.
....modeling foggy coastal Oregon, where it's always 1900...
Fred W
I'll dig through my photo collection to see if that helps me remember the name of the town. I do know that its between Corvallis and the Pacific Coast. At one time the RR was known as the Willamette & Pacific - but it may have changed its name. I've posted a photo of the GP-39 at this link:
http://www.bearweb.com/hawksnest/wpgp39.jpg
And the steam loco being restored is in fact a 'baby mike' - Georgia Pacigic I believe. Link for a photo is here:
http://www.bearweb.com/hawksnest/gp282.jpg
I believe that the folks restoring this little gem have a web site and there's a little book on the railroad history in that area as well. I'll look through my book collection as I think I have a copy.
Charles
EDITS:
Found the offical web site for the W & P - the URL is here:
http://www.gwrr.com/default.cfm?action=rail§ion=3B4a
There also appears to be several informal sites with interesting info and photos:
http://www.geocities.com/pnwr1853/wprr_pnwr.htmlhttp://members.trainorders.com/dan.sheets/Overview/overview.html
I think the name of the town I mentioined is Toledo.
Some really good thoughts being offered here. The long and narrow space is unfortunately as good as it gets, the whole reason being that ultimately it is very transportable, just a truck and a crane away from moving.
Because I really want continuos run there is no option on the duck under, which really doesn't bother me a great deal anyway, I'm still a couple of years away from 40 and spend half the year using a bloody great chainsaw to cut firewood for a living. And as for 'visitors' - I don't envisage to many of them either. I guess we all hope that somebody will want to come and view our endevours in this hobby, but the truth of it, in this country anyway, there is not much of a following and I would think very few modellers outside of the few active clubs in Australia would actually have many people interested in seeing what their hobby really is...but enough on that.
Sadly we just don't have basements over here, which is a real pity as I've seen some photos on different sites of massive layout spaces specially created in basements as the homes have been built. But the town I live in is located in a swamp, a basement would quickly become an indoor inground swimming pool.
John of W.A. you are correct the planning stage is crucial, and with the likes of this forum and the many other hobbyist willing to assist and advise, it is a great opportunity to get ideas that one would otherwise not consider.
Charles, whereabouts in Oregon was this shortline? It sounds fantastic, really does suit what I have in mind, down to the types of locomtives and the works. If you could think of a name of location, of long. and lat. would be perfect I would like to see what shows up on Google Earth, although from experience it is not always very successful, shortlines, and abandoned track just don't seem to show up to well.
st999:
I've never built a multi-level plan, so let me throw out some ideas for the first level.
Perhaps this could simulate a short but rugged line that hauled minerals to a port from mountainous country near a coast, like something one might find in Peru.
I'd build your dock scene as HO standard. You don't want to have to transfer freight to the dock railroad, then to ships, right? Having a dock scene on the left is especially good, as it allows you to replace the duckunder with a lift bridge across the "harbor entrance". You could model the towers at each end, and build the lift section in the "down" position, removing it and setting it aside when not operating. Of course, you could also have a working bascule bridge, or anything else.
Moving right from the dock, through the large port city, you'd come to a yard that handled local and dock traffic, and perhaps served as a division point with the mountain division that would begin to start as you continue CCW. In the mountains there would be a branch line to an ore concentrating plant or coal breaker. Raw ore or coal would be brought to this facility from the minehead on the narrow gauge line, something like PA's East Broad Top used to. Coming down from the mountains into a small city with facilities for turning and servicing helper engines, the main would finally join the other end of the lift bridge for a continuous run.
I think you could do all this in 7 x 20 feet.
Following up on a concept, taken more of less from the prototype..
A few years back visited the coast of Oregon and came across a very interesting operation. Just inland along a navigable river bay a shortline railroad serviced a collection (2 or 3 if my memory serves me right) of paper mills surrounding the bay complete with a small yard plus a town above the mills on an impossibly steep hillside. The larger of the mills was also serviced by ship and had an industrial switcher as well. Entrance to the valley was between two mountains. The shortline used brightly painted GP 38's and 39's (?) and ran hither and yon through a coastal mountain region ultimately interchanging with the SP (I think) further inland. There were a number of small to medium sized towns along the route that also received freight. Grades in the mountain region were steep as things go and lots of curves as it followed the path of least resistance. Logging went on at one time near by and there was even an old 2-8-0 being restored by the local railroad historical society.
Distilling this could have:
paper mill serviced by both rail and shipindustrial switcher or even a narrow gauge operationtowns on mountain sidesmountain terrain with lush forests and an excuse for steep grades, lots of curves, bridges, etcolder diesels for the shortlineinterchange with major class 1 railroad
Looked through the pictures to get a better idea of what you were trying to achieve. You've been through a lot to get to this point. Even if I had the courage to tackle turning a shipping container into a viable layout space, I'm not sure I would have volunteered for a 32" wide duck under on the lowest level of a multi-level layout. Obviously, it's tolerable to you.
I do not believe 3 levels are viable, especially with the lowest level being as deep as it is, and the operating pit being as narrow as it is. Normal minimum separation between levels on HO multilevel layouts is 12", with more being preferred. Anything less compromises viewing and access to the lower levels. And you have nowhere to back up to for better reach or viewing angle. I would strongly recommend settling for 2 levels instead of 3, with the upper level at the halfway point of your 31" vertical air space above the lower level. To gain 15" while keeping the grade at 2% or so, and without a helix, is going to take 1.5 to 2 laps of your lower level. Doable, but it will certainly drive your track plan.
Bottom line: lower level track plan must take into account the run needed to gain the next level. Lighting for each level also needs to be considered from the start.
These are my thoughts, and your choices. Plenty of others have succeeded magnificently by ignoring my recommendations. But I do believe that as time wears on, the more difficult the access to all portions of your layout, the more you will be inclined to chuck the whole thing as a bad idea.
To sort of jump in here..without having some better knowledge of the era or equipment you want to operate, a few things of note. Given the fixed benchwork limitations (long and narrow) you are going to be limited to what amounts to a twice around continous plan (3 times around might fit in but its likley to crowd scenery too much) with a narrow guage shortline fitting in (perhaps with a dual gauge interchange and a small yard area) and single mainline yard along one of the long walls. I'd make this yard somewhat close to the staging yard as this will actually give you a longer run for each train before exiting to staging.
There are plans in some of the Kalmbach books that have this geometry which could be the start of some inspiration.
At last after quite some time and work I am now ready to start work on my new layout, which will predominantly be HO, but hopefully with at least two, maybe three smaller individual HOn30 tracks mixed in with it over three levels. Below is a basic image of the overall absolute maxumum area dimensions. There is no flexibility in these measurements as the layout is within the confines of a shipping container
These are the overall maximum dimensions (all in inches the image is not to scale.) These dimensions are to the first (lowest) level, I am thinking that two more higher levels can be added, each subsequent level would see the internal area increase. I am thinking that each level would be probabbly in the vincinity of 4 to 5 inches in height. Although height is not an issue as there is a 31 inch airspace above the lowest level, but it is governed by grade if each level is to interconnect as I'm not interested in running helix.Staging is not an issue in this area as it is already designated elsewhere. At point "A" the coast needs to be represented. In that area I would consider a dockyard type area, maybe running a small tramway type industrial rail in narrow gauge. I particularly want at least one loop on the first and second levels for continuos running. But At the same time I would like at least two yards for operation. On the third level I wouldn't mind dedicating it to one or maybe two seperate narrow gauge lines, timber, mining or industrial, but need not be in steam.
There is plenty of opportunity for multiple bridges and trestles, which I don't mind. For some photos of the area and benchwork
http://www.southernstartrade.com/ssr/index.html
Any idea's, concept or thoughts are most welcome