The intent of this layout is eventual basement domination. However, I cannot see starting phase 2 in less than 3 years. I want Phase 1 to be 60% or so done first. That would include scenery, track-work, and some buildings. I did want to make sure it was doable. The branch line rises at 2%, the logging road rises at 4%. The logging camp is 12" above Sacramento Staging. Carson City Staging is accessible only from below.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Looks good, Chip, and should work as designed.
2 minor quibbles that need to be addressed in the final design:
I presume you'll have the logged-over hillside on the backdrop. All you need at the 'top of the grade' camp is a spar tree and a donkey engine.
4% is a challenge, but no problem for short trains if the loads all move downgrade.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
You're right and I had both those things in mind. I even have been thinking about a turntable to turn the road engines back when they pick up the finished lumber and mine timbers.
I have also though that the mill engine, a Heisler, might deliver the outgoing lumber to the siding at Rock Ridge for the way freight to pick up. Then I don't need a TT.
I have also thought that if I put the engine on the right side of the loads at the camp, It will end up in perfect position to run the logs to the pond. But prudence wins--I need a runaround.
Chip,
I like the switchbacks. That will require short trains, so the 4% shouldn't be a problem. We have 6% up to our logging area. We can push 6-7 loaded uphill which is required for one of our spurs.
Sue
Anything is possible if you do not know what you are talking about.
That switchback is much, much, too short to gain any meaningful elevation. Since that's the usual reason for a switchback (except for changing direction which doesn't apply to you as you have a double switchback so the route ultimately continutes in the original direction), I can't see a use for it. If you make it long enough to gain a couple of inches of elevation, that would be enough. Nevertheless, you need space to transition between grades so you're probably going to obtain less elevation than you think in any length. Let's see: two inches elevation gain at 4% equals linear 50 inches, plus at least a foot or more for transitions. So you'd need at least more than six feet of switchback, but you have a switchback of less than two feet. That means....back to the drawing board!
Edit -- I'm speaking of the switchback near the beginning of the peninsula.
Mark
Mark,
If I start at the word creek and go at 2% for 170 inches to the turnout above the word mill that's a rise of 3.25.
If I start at that turnout and go 91" at 4% that's a rise of 3.6 inches.
The short switchback gains me only 27 inches at 4% or 1 "
Then the long last leg gets me 117 at 4% or 4.7 inches,
So the total up from Rock Ridge is 12.6"
Down from Rock Ridge at 2% for 128" is another 2.5 inches. I'm allowing 3 inches for transitions and figuring a 12 " difference between the camp and Sacramento staging.
Am I missing something?
EDIT: I see what you are getting at, Why not go straight to the camp? Well I would lose about 4 feet of grade or about 2" elevation.
SpaceMouse EDIT: I see what you are getting at, Why not go straight to the camp? Well I would lose about 4 feet of grade or about 2" elevation.
Nope, not quite. You'd be lucky to gain an inch with those top two switchbacks because you need to transition (have vertical curves on) the grades between 0% and 4%. You would need to transition to four times (each time upon entering and leaving each track tail). If the total climb of the grade needed that last inch or two for the plan to be workable, you'd be better off increasing the grade a little bit and eliminating the top set of switchbacks. If the camp can be a bit lower, you can stay with the 4% maximum without that top set.
I recommend you test out various transitions to see what's workable and provides reliable operation. If rolling stock is short (like yours) bending half-inch plywood would probably give you a satisfactory transition curve. See how much length is needed for the change in grade and use that for planning and construction.
The truth is if I start this layout 3 years from now it may be the docks at Oakland. I just want to be sure that I could pull off a logging operation in the space. The geared locos keep begging me for a chance to show off.
I know I can do it better.
SpaceMouse I just want to be sure that I could pull off a logging operation in the space.
I just want to be sure that I could pull off a logging operation in the space.
Well, you've shown you can.
On the trackplan I'm developing, I introduced a double switchback on the branchline. I need to gain sufficient height to reach the second deck containing the branchline terminus. On this bed-room-sized layout that goes around the walls (yes, there is that dreaded crawl under the benchwork to enter/exit the room), I originally had the branchline run around the room twice to gain the necessary height. However, this created overwhelming scenic challenges since a once-around mainline was also visible on the lower deck, resulting in three parallel lines on one level (yuck). The switchback helped solve the problem since it allowed the branchline to reach the second deck circling only once around the room.
On a double switchback, the train pulls into the first switchback tail, then reverses to go to the second switchback trail. Once there, the train reverses to continue in the original direction. Backing a train up a steep grade with curves can cause derailments, so I think it is a good idea to reduce the grade of backward-movement track. In this case, I'm planning 3+% on forward-movement track, and 2+% on backward-movement track.
The switchback lengthens the time of run on the branchline, and it is scenically acceptable to see numerous parallel main tracks if they are switchbacks climbing the side of a ridge. (Don't confuse mainline with main track. A branchline will have a main track. So does a mainline. Mainlines and branchlines are types of routes. A main track is just that.) If I just want to go roundy-roundy without fussing with the train, I still have the option of running trains on the oval mainline. This is one of the many advantages of the continuous mainline and point-to-point branchline scheme.
this is probably a case of extreme nitpicking , and there's probably a prototype for what you've done but...
1) having the brewery in town and next to the foundry seems unlikely , shouldn't it be near the creek ? they do use a lot of water making beer
2) center of town seems an odd place for a livestock holding pen , and if liquids run off towards the brewery ... well i really don't want any of that beer !
ernie
ereimer this is probably a case of extreme nitpicking , and there's probably a prototype for what you've done but... 1) having the brewery in town and next to the foundry seems unlikely , shouldn't it be near the creek ? they do use a lot of water making beer 2) center of town seems an odd place for a livestock holding pen , and if liquids run off towards the brewery ... well i really don't want any of that beer ! ernie
Livestock in towns was fairly common, but truth be told, most breweries then were local and did not ship by rail. I can run a creek by there .
tomikawaTT I presume you'll have the logged-over hillside on the backdrop. All you need at the 'top of the grade' camp is a spar tree and a donkey engine.
Rather than having a spar tree and donkey engine to represent a log-loading facility, I rather like the railroad camp idea as shown on the plan. That point can represent a "division" point on the logging line where trains of loaded cars "arrive" from further up on the line, with a different locomotive set taking over to move the loaded cars to the sawmill and returning empties to the "division point." That is, log cars are moved in relays. This was not an infrequent practice on prototype logging railroads. Also, with the railroad camp, you now have a visible excuse to use box cars, refrigerator cars, fuel cars, etc.(owned privately by the logging company, I believe Rio Grande Models has some suitable rolling stock) to bring supplies to the camp.
SpaceMouse ,.....but truth be told, most breweries then were local and did not ship by rail.
,.....but truth be told, most breweries then were local and did not ship by rail.
Well, even if the locals consumed the entire production, the brewery would logically receive most of its inputs (grain, malt, hops) by rail. There is still the possibility of shipping beer by rail to the nearby town of Rock City in your era. Sorry, the lumber/logging company would most likely keep their facilities "dry." The loggers and lumbermen will need to go to the nearest town (hopefully by rail) for liquid bread.
Edit -- Visited the village of Volano in the gold country of central California earlier this year. At its heyday in the mid-nineteenth century, the town had a population of several thousand and several breweries. (No rail service, ever, however.) Seems like any community of a few hundred people would have a brewery back then, leastwise in the wild mining towns. Volcano has a bar and hotel/restaurant (great food) now, but no breweries or much of anything else.
In my reality, everyone wants to drink Bear Wiz.
Back to the short switchback...
On the D&RGW Monarch branch (originally 3' gauge, rebuilt to standard when the Grande dieselized) there was a rather short switchback - not more than a few hundred feet between turnouts. Total gain in elevation was only forty feet or so between the lower turnout and the equivalent point on the grade up the hill - not much more than that 'selectively compressed' switchback above the sawmill.
So, why use a switchback? Because that few feet of additional elevation eliminated the need for a tunnel (or deep cut) at the crest of the pass. The Monarch branch served a single quarry - not enough to justify heavy earthworks. Likewise, the model switchback is the difference between crossing Rock Ridge and having to dig through Rock Ridge - which, for a logger, would have been a deal-breaker.
My own prototype logger had heavy steel bridges and a number of rock tunnels, several quite long. That was not paid for by felled trees. Rather, the route was used to carry cement and machinery to a major hydroelectric project in the valley. Once above the last dam, the right-of-way became rather more spartan. (Branches into the woods weren't graded. They were built on low trestlework put together from slash picked up off the forest floor, often with the bark still on.)
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with a very un-typical logging railroad)
Chuck,
I don't dispute what you say, but on Chip's plan we're talking at best a seven foot gain for that upper double switchback, not some forty feet. By the time the grade begins to approach to 4% (if it ever gets there), its got to decrease. I think that's silly. I'm just watchin' out for Chip.