Even though my test layout isn't done..
Even though the room the final one is going into isn't finished...
(It's ok to dream, can't I?)
I've drawn up some rough plans for one side of the final layout. I'd appreciate honest feedback, this is a first draft.
I am planning on a 3 level (two visable, one staging) layout for this side, as I want to build the Central Vermont from Waterbury, VT to White River Jct. VT. Additonally, I want to do the Mt. Mansfield Electic Railway that interchanged with the CV in Waterbury, and ran to stowe up until 1932-3. I plan on not being super historical; I do want to run equpiment up until 1960's or so on the CV main line (the main level).
I'm aware that without a helix, the grades up and down levels may be too steep. The MMER never ran more than a single car, or a box cab with one or two cars in tow, so the grade behind the wall (and yes, that space is accessble) can be kind of high.
I should add that min. radius for the CV is 22 inches, HO scale, and the MMER, 18 (also HO scale)
Ok, enough background, fire away!.
sub level (staging)
mid level (grid is 12 inches)
upper level
I'm trying to model 1956, not live in it.
To me, it seems as if your space is too small to portray the ~55 mile run from Waterbury to WRJ.
What's the actual "usable" space for your railroad? There are many traffic sources along the route, none of which seem to be represented other then the defunct line to Stowe.
Montpelier junction would fit nicely in that corner. With the small wye that only has room for turning an engine and one car, etc.
This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements
I was concerned about the switchback to get to the upper level, but if you are doing an interurban with only a motor and maybe a car or two it should be OK.
A design consideration is that you will have overhead wires. That raises the "top" of a lower level 3" or so. Your minimum deck separation from the top of the lower deck would be 3" for the wire, 8" for reach or about 10-14" to the BOTTOM of the top deck. Add a deck thickness of 3" for the upper deck and the minimum separation for decks will be about 13-18".
You can make it less, but it will be HELL to work on the overhead in a confined vertical space, not to mention the scenic and lighting challenges.
One alternative is to have the lower deck a little wider and the upper deck a little narrower so the upper deck really doesn't intrude over the trolley wires on the lower deck. That would let you compress the decks and reduce the grade Otherwise you are looking at 10-12% grades on the hidden track to get a 15" separation. Reduce the separation to 12" and you can get into 9-10% grade.
You might also conside reversing the switchback and have the electric line exit the visible portion to the left, that would allow the ENTIRE wall area to be used for the grade, doubling the length of the grade, which would get you down into the single digits in grade, maybe ven as low as 5%, which for a trolley or motor and single car is very doable.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
GraniteRailroader wrote:To me, it seems as if your space is too small to portray the ~55 mile run from Waterbury to WRJ.What's the actual "usable" space for your railroad? There are many traffic sources along the route, none of which seem to be represented other then the defunct line to Stowe. Montpelier junction would fit nicely in that corner. With the small wye that only has room for turning an engine and one car, etc.
I realize that this is not the entire run, we're doing a bit of compression here. What isn't planned out is the other side of the room, this is just half of the run as shown.
Over all the space is approximately 16 x 20, but I don't want or desire a layout in the entire space. I need to configure a work area, and a central open table for gaming. My concept is to really just model the interchange in waterbury with the MMER, I'm not looking to do the entire run, sorry if I didn't make that clear. I would like to do this half first, and than add the other half with the WRJ yard for operational fun later, and join the two halves with a removable section.
Your idea of putting Montpelier Jct. though still works, and is a good one.
dehusman wrote:I was concerned about the switchback to get to the upper level, but if you are doing an interurban with only a motor and maybe a car or two it should be OK.A design consideration is that you will have overhead wires. That raises the "top" of a lower level 3" or so. Your minimum deck separation from the top of the lower deck would be 3" for the wire, 8" for reach or about 10-14" to the BOTTOM of the top deck. Add a deck thickness of 3" for the upper deck and the minimum separation for decks will be about 13-18". You can make it less, but it will be HELL to work on the overhead in a confined vertical space, not to mention the scenic and lighting challenges.One alternative is to have the lower deck a little wider and the upper deck a little narrower so the upper deck really doesn't intrude over the trolley wires on the lower deck. That would let you compress the decks and reduce the grade Otherwise you are looking at 10-12% grades on the hidden track to get a 15" separation. Reduce the separation to 12" and you can get into 9-10% grade. You might also conside reversing the switchback and have the electric line exit the visible portion to the left, that would allow the ENTIRE wall area to be used for the grade, doubling the length of the grade, which would get you down into the single digits in grade, maybe ven as low as 5%, which for a trolley or motor and single car is very doable.Dave H.
I hadn't thought about the overhead wire clearance, thanks for bringing that up. I originally not had the switch back, and had the run simply echo the CV line, but changed it as the prototype ran that way. i may go back, I'm pretty concerend about the potential grade.
I'm planning the main deck to be 3 feet wide, and the upper 2.
Maybe a helix is the way to go here after all.
Courage8 wrote:Interesting! And you're not way ahead of yourself if you're still finishing a room that you need to go behind the wall of on two different levels - good thing it's NOT finished yet! How far apart do you plan to make the levels? Also, you said the lowest staging level won't be visible; will it be concealed under a platform?
I wasn't planning on making it concealed, but simply tight to the middle level
DeadheadGreg wrote:what software did you use to make those plans?
Empire Express for Mac. Free demo, and is pretty easy to use, I like the flex track feature best (set you min. radius, and it it wont' go below)
Ok, I've added a rough sketch to include the future WRJ yard, with pull out section. I also changed the interurban path to decrease the grade.
Thoughts?
and with the top layer in place
Instead of having your lowest level be "just" staging, how about extending the run just a little more? Have your lower level represent Italy Yard in St. Albans, and have it be "working" staging?
This would give you the option of having "interchange" (albeit completely staged) with the Rutland, CN, etc.
Also, this may be a historical oversight on my part... but... Did the CV actually run through Rochester, or are you thinking of Randolph? They're not too far apart, and the tracks still exist in Randolph. Once again, this may be an error on my part.
WRJ also presents the opportunity to have multiple interchanges. B&M, etc.
What scale are you modelling in? Don't recall. Never mind. I see it, HO. Not to be a HO-Party-Pooper, but for the space you have and the distance you want to model... N scale might be the better option.
I like it! One thing about the yard - I don't see an obvious switching lead that has access to all body tracks. Is that what turnout to the right of the yard ladder is going to be? Otherwise, you'll be pulling cuts and classifying them on the main. Note that I'm not familiar with your prototype - maybe that's what they do...
GraniteRailroader wrote:Instead of having your lowest level be "just" staging, how about extending the run just a little more? Have your lower level represent Italy Yard in St. Albans, and have it be "working" staging? This would give you the option of having "interchange" (albeit completely staged) with the Rutland, CN, etc. Also, this may be a historical oversight on my part... but... Did the CV actually run through Rochester, or are you thinking of Randolph? They're not too far apart, and the tracks still exist in Randolph. Once again, this may be an error on my part. WRJ also presents the opportunity to have multiple interchanges. B&M, etc. What scale are you modelling in? Don't recall. Never mind. I see it, HO. Not to be a HO-Party-Pooper, but for the space you have and the distance you want to model... N scale might be the better option.
No, you're right - I meant Randolph, not sure why Rochester stuck in my head. Hidden St. Albans staging....I'll have to muse on that.
I realize that N, in this space, would be fantastic, but the truth is I'll be scratchbuilding equipment for the MMER, and the scale is just too small for me to do that comfortably in.
odave wrote:I like it! One thing about the yard - I don't see an obvious switching lead that has access to all body tracks. Is that what turnout to the right of the yard ladder is going to be? Otherwise, you'll be pulling cuts and classifying them on the main. Note that I'm not familiar with your prototype - maybe that's what they do...
I actually just threw that yard together - I need to look at the prototype and see how it was. I'm not experienced though in yard creation, so any suggestions you may have would be welcome.
Scarpia - If this layout materializes, you'll have to let me know.
I'm only a hop, skip, and a jump up the CV mainline from you....
And about WRJ yard.. You're only 10 minutes away from it!
For a quick read, there's the oft-mentioned 10 commandments of yard design - I found them helpful to get started: http://www.housatonicrr.com/yard_des.html
And there's the usual suspects from Kalmbach books - Trackplanning for Realistic Operations by Armstrong, Freight Yards by Sperandeo.
Good luck!
odave wrote:For a quick read, there's the oft-mentioned 10 commandments of yard design - I found them helpful to get started: http://www.housatonicrr.com/yard_des.htmlAnd there's the usual suspects from Kalmbach books - Trackplanning for Realistic Operations by Armstrong, Freight Yards by Sperandeo.Good luck!
For modelling larger railroads yards, that holds true.
Throw it out the window for the ones in VT. Smalll space, crammed track arrangements, and certain ones are a real PITA to switch.
GraniteRailroader wrote:Scarpia - If this layout materializes, you'll have to let me know. I'm only a hop, skip, and a jump up the CV mainline from you....And about WRJ yard.. You're only 10 minutes away from it!
Oh, it's coming, don't you worry. I am hoping to have the space finished off by winter, but i just got my oil pre-buy for next year, and with those prices, I may not have things where I want them that soon.
I know where the WRJ yard is; i need to compare what's there now with what was there pre WW2.
Scarpia wrote:Oh, it's coming, don't you worry. I am hoping to have the space finished off by winter, but i just got my oil pre-buy for next year, and with those prices, I may not have things where I want them that soon.
I'm in the process of working with a builder to design a home. I'm seriously looking at the in floor radiant heat solutions, as well as the "pellet style" heaters. Still in the research phase, and haven't signed anything to lock myself into one type or another. I think the biggest help will be making sure the insulation is top-notch and having multi zoned heat control so that it's not necessary to heat unused areas.
One of my coworkers heats with a pellet stove, and has loved it. A local company produces them. We're trying to get them serviced via rail to export their product, but they don't have the need... yet.
A little off topic, but oh well.
I've reworked the yards to reflect some actual drawings from the Robert Jones's book series on the Central Vermont.
Any ides or comments?
Empire Express, the software that I'm using, puts together this nice parts list (I have to imagine that other design products do the same).
It's kind of nice to see what this level alone is going to take!
I suppose that you have it all worked out, but my first impression is that the second level won't cover the staging tracks.
Also, I think that three feet wide is really asking for trouble unless you have a Top Side creeper. I would go for a helix over the lower level staging tracks, and make the remainder of the benchwork two foot wide. (The helix would be for going from second to third level.)
I would also try to add one more staging track in the loop.
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
gandydancer19 wrote:I suppose that you have it all worked out, but my first impression is that the second level won't cover the staging tracks.Also, I think that three feet wide is really asking for trouble unless you have a Top Side creeper. I would go for a helix over the lower level staging tracks, and make the remainder of the benchwork two foot wide. (The helix would be for going from second to third level.)I would also try to add one more staging track in the loop.
The middle bench is the same width from the wall as the staging, so it should cover. I understand your concern of the 3 foot bench work, which is why on the one part where it is 3 feet, I have most of the track towards the edge (it's not indicated on the plan, but the right side, looking down, is not against a wall, but will divide the room (the lady gets the other half).
Based on that information (no track work outside of 24 inches reach) and from your experience, does the 2 foot minimum still stand?
I'm still easily 6-8 months at least from starting the layout, so I'm all ears at this point.
Cheers!
Scarpia wrote: Ok, I've added a rough sketch to include the future WRJ yard, with pull out section. I also changed the interurban path to decrease the grade. Thoughts? and with the top layer in place
How did you get the track plan in your message?
Irv
Oh, I've linked them to a GIF i created in photoshop.
I have redone the middle level, and added a penninsula for a longer mainline run. I'm think this improves the layout a lot. Any feedback?
Hi,
When I look at a track plan I try to imagine what each track is for and how it will be used. I look at yards as places to sort trains for merchandise delievery and industries as places to receive and send products and raw materials. Okay, sounds obvious right.
What I'm trying to say is that I look at your yard I don't see much functionality. The tracks seem to serve more getting engines off or on trains, but little thought is given to actually sorting cars. Okay, you have an incoming train from the north and one from the south. From that you are going to make up deliveries to your industries and pick up outgoing for the trains heading back north and south. When I look at your yard, I don't see where sorted cars can sit without blocking engine or train movement.
Likewise, I get the sense that in Waterbury, there is track for track's sake. You really don't need more than the main and what you need for the industries. You certaily don't need sidings on both sides and 3 runarounds for those 5 industries. Now what could make things interesting is an exchange track for the traction line, but as it is now, anywhere you set cars would be in the way.
What you've done shows you've been thinking. Now you just have to take it a step further and lay track that services the industries without a single piece of track wasted. The same thing goes for your yard. How can you take in cars, sort them and get them out to the idustries or the rest of the world?
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Thank you for a thoughtful reply. Both of the yards (Waterbury and WRJ) were actually taken from actual railroad maps - Waterbury almost exact, and WRJ with some space and size modifications. My operational experience is very limited, and while I'm still looking at Track Planning for Realistic Operation every other day, I am still very foggy on some of the concepts Armstrong puts forth. Don't worry, I seem to "get" a bit of it each time I pick the book back up.
I presumed that nothing could be more realistic for operation than the actual "real" track plan, but now I wonder if this too is better as an approximation than a duplicate.
Waterbury is a larger focus in this design than in real life as I want to include the pre-depression Mount mansfield electric railway that interchanged here. There were some industries served by the CV there including a creamery, and a lumber yard. I should have labeled them; from the upper left in a clockwise direction there is the freight depot (where the MMER connects), lumber yard, coal dealer, creamery, and finally the main station. I can see dropping the run arounds for modeling purposes in Waterbury, but I think they had the sidings there for meets and for local switching work. From an operational standpoint, what do I gain by removing them? Would you have any other suggestions?
My design goal was to do a point and loop for the CV, and a point to point for the MMER. Most of the CV trains that went through Waterbury seemed to be through freights or passenger runs, so this design seemed to fit prototype practice. In the case of passenger trains, they were sorted and joined with B&M cars from Boston, and than sent north through Waterbury to St. Albans and Montreal, returning to repeat the process (Boston bound cars sorted back out).
The WRJ yard I'd love some more help with. There were two actual yards here, one for the B&M and one for the CV (they shared the mainline south for a bit) and as I've noted they interchanged heavily. Elements I'd like to show include the roundhouse, turntable, and coaling station, the CV yard, the B&M interchange, and the visual deviation of the CV across the White River. If I can talk the Sig Other into letting me expand along the wall, I'd like to add a B&M yard at a later date (maybe even a cassette).
Do you have suggestions on how I can include these design elements into a better designed yard? I'm not asking you to draw it, but some direction would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks again
Cheers
David Popp did a N scale version of the Waterbury yard on his Naugatuck Valley RR. I don't know if his plan embellished the real Waterbury yard quite a bit or not, but if you are a current MR subscriber, you can see the track plan in the track plan database here.
Smile, Stein
SpaceMouse-
His track plan is near "On spot" for the era he's modelling, with the exception of the compression. The tracks in Waterbury and White River were anything but "straight forward".
With the exception of the ex-CP (now VTR "Washington County Conn. River Sub"), B&M, and a few passenger runs, not much would have originated here.
It needs streamlining to fit into the "modelling realm" to get rid of some of the wasted track space to make it functional in regards to the compression.
Stein -
That's Waterbury Connecticut! :)
Scarpia -
Don't forget there were SIDINGS (Definition: A place for trains to meet and pass....) in E. Alburg, Swanton, Fonda, Newton, Milton, Essex, Bolton, Waterbury, Montpelier, and the list gos on and on. They were closely spaced and long.
If you include that peninsula, you should add in Montpelier as well. The wye there was a big part of the CV. It was a major cost saver by being a place where crews could turn locomotives so that they didn't have to pay extra for making them run long hood or "reverse".