My 5' x 9" layout is history. Now I am planning an around the room layout and was wondering if anyone has built the 59th Street Branch in the July 2007 of MR. It looks interesting but I have never built a double deck layout before and was wondering if it might be over my head. I also can't see but one way to get into the yard. Am I overlooking something?
Any ideas or suggestions would be appreciated.
Certainly an ambitious project requiring a step-up in skills when compared to a 5´ x 9´ layout. Actually, the 59th Street Branch is not a true double-deck layout, as there only two points where the upper track passes over the lower track and the scenery is not really separated. The layout requires a lot more than just a table-top benchwork. And, yes, there is only one entrance to the yard - it is a stub end yard.
You will enjoy building it - take up the challenge!
There are a number of concerns with this plan, although it's better than some that have been published recently in this size range. The way the "main" yard and "interchange" yard are configured doesn't make much sense and the main yard is connected very awkwardly.
There's an unrealistic over-reliance on switchback industry spurs, compared to real-life railroad practices. The main switching "branch" is also oddly connected and configured. Overall, the grades are steeper than necessary, it seems primarily to accommodate one industry.
There are some good elements here (such as staging), but IMHO they are very poorly interconnected. I think this would prove to be a tedious and frustrating layout to operate over time and would be quite crowded and artificial-looking in appearance. In my view, there would be much better alternatives for that much space.
ByronModel RR Blog
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
cuyama ... Overall, the grades are steeper than necessary, it seems primarily to accommodate one industry. ...
... Overall, the grades are steeper than necessary, it seems primarily to accommodate one industry. ...
The grades are "something else." Although the grade is labeled at 5%, the lower part of the grade is actually 4.5% and the upper part 7% given the indicated track heights. If given a uniform grade, there would be a still very high 5.4% grade, and these are average grades. To allow for transition from level to climbing/dropping track, the actual maximums would be substantially greater, and that 90-degree curve further increases the grade effect. Such grades will severely affect operations and locomotive performance.
The steepness could be substantially reduced by lengthening the grade. There is room to do this, but will require relocation of the crossover located adjacent to the end of the 59th Street Yard. I estimate that an average grade of 2.7% can fit: still steep but workable.
Mark
Thanks guys. I knew I could depend on you to tell me what I was overlooking. Guess its back to the drawing board. I have been looking through plans for some time now and can't find anything that I feel will work in my 11' x 11' room. I am interested in mostly coal hauling with a power plant, a couple cities and possible a logging addition later on.
The Big-time coal hauling in this month (Aug) issue of MR looked like it might work. Can you give me your thoughts on this plan?
Thanks
I'm in the same spot you are but with a 11 x 12 foot space. The one thing that really stood out about the 59th st plan was that the city was pretty much all background.
One thing I am considering is going through my back issues and pulling out sections of shelf layout designs that I like and then seeing what I can do to splice them togeather.
Jack
Jack,
I have been doing the same thing and have yet to come up with anything that I can put together. I think my problem is wanting to much for my small area.
Good luck, let me know if you come up with something.
MC
Jackh One thing I am considering is going through my back issues and pulling out sections of shelf layout designs that I like and then seeing what I can do to splice them togeather.
Good idea. My impression is that very few published plans, except for magazine project layouts and those drawn by/for a particular owner, ever get built.
There aren't any perfect layout plans. They are all compromises.
C & O Steam The Big-time coal hauling in this month (Aug) issue of MR looked like it might work. Can you give me your thoughts on this plan?
This is a completely different concept than the 59th Street Branch layout (urban switching vs. remote coal branch). There's no continuous-run on the Haysi RR layout. It seems unlikely to me that if one concept worked for you that the other would, too. But then again, in my opinion layout design is more about concept and vision than plopping down whatever track fits.
The Haysi RR is not a bad design, although the clearances might be a wee bit tight below Crooked Branch where the staging connects. Logically, you'd typically only run one train per session out from staging and back -- and there's really only coal traffic. You'd have to manually swap loads and empties before you could run another train.
Since the staging doesn't connect to the other end of the Clinchfield main, you wouldn't have any run-through traffic at all. Really different from the 59th Street layout. But if you are more interested in building coal tipples and wooded, hilly scenery than in operating variety, it could work for you.
markpierce The grades are "something else." Although the grade is labeled at 5%, the lower part of the grade is actually 4.5% and the upper part 7% given the indicated track heights.
The grades are "something else." Although the grade is labeled at 5%, the lower part of the grade is actually 4.5% and the upper part 7% given the indicated track heights.
Yep, excessively steep and not really necessary for the design. The double whammy.
I was looking at this track plan. If you like switching It seems to me that this layout would keep you busy. As for the grade you would have two extra feet in your room to ease the grade on the ramp track as the plan is drawn in a 9'x 11' room so that might help some. another option is if can move the hidden staging out of the room that would open up the upper level to reconfigure the industries up there. That's my 2 cents for now.
Dan Metzger
Is it urban switching, or lonely coal branch, or .., or...
Hay, when did you take my picture.....................That pretty explains where I am on my layout ideas.. I have mostly "OR's" at this point.
Double main line, and /or twice around, yard, coal tipple, power plant, city of Thurmond, Hinton yard, Sandstone station, Rainelle lumber yard, rivers, bridges, & staging. All of this in a 11' x 11' room. You can see why I am going crazy.
C & O SteamHay, when did you take my picture.....................That pretty explains where I am on my layout ideas.. I have mostly "OR's" at this point. Double main line, and /or twice around, yard, coal tipple, power plant, city of Thurmond, Hinton yard, Sandstone station, Rainelle lumber yard, rivers, bridges, & staging. All of this in a 11' x 11' room. You can see why I am going crazy.
The easy answer is to prioritize your druthers. Easier said than done, but very necessary. In an 11x 11 room in HO you will be fortunate to get 4-5 of your scenes. Pick the one that matters most to you, and do it adequate justice - in your mind. Next take number 2, and do the same. When you are starting to cram, you have 1 druther too many (IMHO). Erase the last one and call it good.
The nice thing about a small-to-midsize layout done as a series of connected scenes - especially on shelves around the walls - is that it is relatively easy to change one scene for another down the road.
I have had to do the same on my layout planning. My druthers included a fishing village, a lumber doghole port, a switchback cliff, continuous running for both standard and narrow gauge, an interchange between the two lines, a timber loading scene, a rail-served sawmill, and an interchange of the standard gauge with the Oregon and California. Add in a little bit of mainline with an rail-to-rail overpass. There is no way this will all fit in a 10x7.5 ft room. I've backed off to the most I can get is the sawmill (with most of it on the backdrop), the doghole port, the switchback, the fishing village, the timber landing, and the interchange. And I would like to spread each of these out more, but it can't happen. The fishing village has no run-around. The timber landing is a single spur. It's very likely that either the timber landing or the interchange will go by-by as I construct it. Continuous running for at least one of the lines will be on a portable set-up-on-the-table for tests and run-ins.
yours in planning
Fred W
fwright I have had to do the same on my layout planning. My druthers included a fishing village, a lumber doghole port ,... a timber loading scene, a rail-served sawmill, ....
I have had to do the same on my layout planning. My druthers included a fishing village, a lumber doghole port ,... a timber loading scene, a rail-served sawmill, ....
Fred, you may need one of these.
markpiercefwright I have had to do the same on my layout planning. My druthers included a fishing village, a lumber doghole port ,... a timber loading scene, a rail-served sawmill, .... Fred, you may need one of these.
Where did you see this? Is it yours? "Is it for sale?" he asks while drooling.
Seriously, the roof is really amazing. I had planned a spar tree with an early wood-fired donkey to yard and load the logs.
Fred, it is on Vancouver Island, British Columbia.
http://www.alberniheritage.com/mclean-mill/welcome-mclean-steam-sawmill
Why not try something like the Montreal Harbour Ry.
http://www.trains.com/mrr/default.aspx?c=a&id=2436
Double track mainline with plenty of space to fit some of your ideas. Featured in June 2008 MR.
Now wait was this real or modeled??? I don't remember seeing the Montreal Harbour in that issue. I will have to go back and look.
MILW-RODR Now wait was this real or modeled???
Now wait was this real or modeled???
Natural lighting is the trick.
CPRail modeler Why not try something like the Montreal Harbour Ry. http://www.trains.com/mrr/default.aspx?c=a&id=2436 Double track mainline with plenty of space to fit some of your ideas. Featured in June 2008 MR.
This layout also presents a number of concerns. Again, a very unrealistic over-use of switchback industry spurs. The number and length of the industry tracks is much too small relative to the yard and the overall layout, IMHO. That's especially true when you consider how short the spurs are effectively when you allow for clearances from adjacent tracks. Not counting the interchange, there might only be space to spot 10 or 12 cars total -- not much industry for a layout of this size depicting an urban area.
For example, one industry track that will probably only hold a single car (if that) requires a switchback move, a three-way turnout, and a crossing! Unrealistic, and tedious to operate. The fact that a plan is published is no warranty of suitability, sadly. And that's certainly true in this case, IMHO. Not to mention that it's at least as far from his expressed interests as is the 59th street plan.
The Original Poster needs to prioritize his desires and requirements (everything he wants probaly won't fit). Without that, it's very difficult for anyone to help. I provide this questionnaire to my clients to help them organize their thoughts about what they want from a layout. It doesn't make the decisions for them, but some have found that it helped them make trade-offs.
In terms of a coal hauling branch type layout in a spare-bedroom-sized space, Allen McClelland's Muddlety Creek layout in HO for a roughly 12X12 space is one of the best I've seen. It was published in Model Railroad Planning 1996. Staging track clearances are a little tight, but it's a very interesting use of the space.
By the way, the shortfalls of the Montreal Harbour layout were discussed here a while back:http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/128274.aspx
Yeah, I know the plan has its shortcomings, but it could be heavily modified to better suit the OP's desires. Perhaps removing/sizing down the yard to fit the supplying/consuming industry and a small town, while the area closest to the lift gate with the industries and staging yard will have the other main industry and another small town if desired. The space between the two areas could be scenery with a type of view block, while the staging can be relocated under the layout or in a seperate room. Frankly I forgot to mention changing the plan before.
Byron,
I noticed your comment on this plan below from a previous post. I would like to take a look at the plan but I just got back into the Hobby a couple years ago and do not have the October 1990 issue. I tried to search the data MR track plans but they only go back to 1998. Any idea where else I could find the plan?
Russell Schoof's 10'X11' Free Haven Terminal design from the October 1990 Model Railroader and the Kalmbach book 48 Top Notch Track Plans (1993).
C & O Steam Byron, I noticed your comment on this plan below from a previous post. I would like to take a look at the plan but I just got back into the Hobby a couple years ago and do not have the October 1990 issue. I tried to search the data MR track plans but they only go back to 1998. Any idea where else I could find the plan?
I'm not Byron, but here is a general answer:
http://kalmbachcatalog.stores.yahoo.net/model-railroading-model-railroader-magazine-back-issues.html
Of course, it could very well be that you could find old issues in your local library, at a swap meet or some such thing for less money than the handful of dollars it costs to buy a back issue from Kalmbach, but buying a back issue (or a photo copy of a specific article) from the publisher is generally a pretty safe bet :-)
Smile, Stein
C & O Steam I noticed your comment on this plan below from a previous post. I would like to take a look at the plan but I just got back into the Hobby a couple years ago and do not have the October 1990 issue. I tried to search the data MR track plans but they only go back to 1998. Any idea where else I could find the plan? Russell Schoof's 10'X11' Free Haven Terminal design from the October 1990 Model Railroader and the Kalmbach book 48 Top Notch Track Plans (1993).
I wrote about this layout in my blog and received written permission from Kalmbach to show the track plan in the blog, so you can see a low-resolution copy there. Otherwise, you can buy the 48 Top Notch Track Plans book with the layout reprinted as I mentioned, or get the book on inter-library loan. And as Stein noted, Kalmbach sells back issues or copies of articles from back issues.
As I noted in this thread, the reproduction in the book is in a different scale than is printed on the track plan, but easy to figure out.
But this rail-marine port concept for a layout could hardly be farther from your stated interests for a coal-hauling layout [e.g., Thurmond, WV; Hinton yard; coal tipples; etc.], so I'll admit to being puzzled.
I guess I miss read the post. I wasn't aware that it was a Rail Marine Port. And yes you are right it's not what I am interested in.
Ok, maybe this one will work...Cunningham's Gap published in MR Dec 2003 issue. Also in 102 Realistic Track Plans #58.
Would there be a way to add a power plant and possible have a double main line or maybe a twice around. What about an incline so I can add an additional engine for the grade.
Twice around would make the layout extremely cluttered with track. Double tracking would be bad enough and makes operations less interesting, but could be added with the addition of some more turnouts. Grades would have to be extremely short and you'd end up with some kind of roller coaster ride. Doesn't mean you couldn't have a couple of very minimal grades for scenic effect, but not enough to require a second locomotive to pull the train. If you like the look of a couple locomotives, you can do it anyway. It wouldn't look silly with the relatively short trains if you model the diesel era.
There is room for a power plant (on the left or bottom sides) but would you be satisfied with it being only 20 feet away by rail? Sort of weakens the purpose of staging tracks representing the rest of the North American rail system. IMHO, the concept of modeling paired industries is generally a bad idea unless one is modeling the horse-and-buggy days or has a very large layout. Paired industries are best left to industrial railroads moving material from source to mill before it goes to the final consumer.
The layout as planned looks like it could be built with little difficulty. Just don't build it all table-top. The left side has scenic opportunities and the creek needs to be below the railroad and highway bridges.
One minor issue that really bugs me with the Cunningham's Gap plan is the placement of the depot two tracks away from the main track. The small-town depot should be immediately adjacent to the main track. Now, if it was a combination freight and passenger depot, one could justify a buried-with-just-the-rail-tops-showing house track (not a passing siding) between depot and main track.