Graffen
I used Hardboard. It is like pegboard material without the holes in it. In the U.S. they seem to call it Masonite but I think it is the same stuff. They may call it something else on your side of the planet.
Here is a photo of my 4' span as it goes over what will be a canyon to the floor. My hope is to build a steel bridge from scratch, based on the CPRs Stoney Creek bridge in the Canadian Rockies. It has not sagged at all since I put it up. However I don't think I would do that as a permanent solution as I am sure the ravages of time and physics will catch up to it someday. May I suggest a steel stud for a long unsupported span. A steel stud will not sag over time. I used one to go across my fireplace. You can see I butted it up against my spline on either side.
The steel stud. The photo shows supports. These were unnecessary for sagging issues, but I put them in to stop any twisting that may occur while I was adding the rock work.
Rock face under construction still.
One more thing I made my spline 7 strips wide. On the two outside pieces I cut them beveled to simulate the road bed shoulder.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
Swedish Custom painter and model maker. My Website:
My Railroad
My Youtube:
Graff´s channel
Hi Graffen
I noticed you said you were going to use spline for roadbed. I was wondering why you chose to have 2" wide strips. Just curious.
I built my splines out of 1/4" hardboard and made them 1" wide strips just to make the "in my head math" easier as I placed my risers at irregular intervals. I have an unsupported span of 4' that has not sagged a bit in about 4 years. The plan is to cut out that section and replace it with a big steel bridge. I keep an eye on it for obvious reasons, but it has not moved a bit.
Using thinner strips may save material.
Plan looks great, please don't forget to post progress photo's.
Paulus Jashi Graffen, i would have a hard time choosing between the last two plans, both are awesome. For some reason I like the harbour on your 3'rd plan better (with an extra track in the yard maybe), at the same time the extra siding from plan 2 remains very attractive. Hi Stein, smiling Paul
hi Graffen,
i would have a hard time choosing between the last two plans, both are awesome. For some reason I like the harbour on your 3'rd plan better (with an extra track in the yard maybe), at the same time the extra siding from plan 2 remains very attractive.
Hi Stein,
smiling
Paul
HHPATH56Hi, What software program do you use to get those great structure and bat images? I assume that you are going DCC, with many reverse loops within reverse loops. I am still in at a point of wondering how many reverse loop modules are required on my 24'x24' HO layout. I was fortunate in having an inside stairway to my garage loft around the room layout. I would appreciate it if you would indicate where your tracks loops must be insulated, to prevent shorts. What is the radius of curvature of the lower right curve. It looks a little tight for passenger trains on this mainline. I plan to copy my layout on the "Train Player" program, so that I can simulate multi-loco operation, on my computer. Your layout is very interesting an should lend itself to "operation". Bob Hahn Have you considered using Hulett ubloaders? I animated mine with levers.
MisterBeasleyI think this will be a very enjoyable layout to build, run and just observe. I'm in the process of building a carfloat terminal myself, so I've given that a lot of thought. Mine is based on the Walthers carfloat, which I was fortunate enough to find at Trainworld before the current run of them ran out. For unloading and loading the float, you need to think of where the outgoing cars will be placed before the carfloat "arrives," and where you will put the cars being pulled from the carfloat. As I look at the harbor area, you appear to have enough siding space, but to access it the switching will have to back out all the way on to the main line. Prototypical procedures would also call for a couple "idler" flat cars so that the engine didn't have to cross the apron bridge, making the string of switched cars even longer and requiring more fouling of the main line. Is that an entrance to staging in the lower right? I would provide a route back up to the surface further down, both to give you staging access from both directions and to give you the option of continuous running. When I do switching on my own layout, I like to have other trains running unattended.
I think this will be a very enjoyable layout to build, run and just observe.
I'm in the process of building a carfloat terminal myself, so I've given that a lot of thought. Mine is based on the Walthers carfloat, which I was fortunate enough to find at Trainworld before the current run of them ran out. For unloading and loading the float, you need to think of where the outgoing cars will be placed before the carfloat "arrives," and where you will put the cars being pulled from the carfloat. As I look at the harbor area, you appear to have enough siding space, but to access it the switching will have to back out all the way on to the main line. Prototypical procedures would also call for a couple "idler" flat cars so that the engine didn't have to cross the apron bridge, making the string of switched cars even longer and requiring more fouling of the main line.
Is that an entrance to staging in the lower right? I would provide a route back up to the surface further down, both to give you staging access from both directions and to give you the option of continuous running. When I do switching on my own layout, I like to have other trains running unattended.
80ktsClamp "JaBear": As an aside on a subject I do know a little more about is that even with the precedence of having the Boeing 747 series in service for the last 42 years the advent of the Airbus A380 has exposed inadequacies in the design of airport Infrastructure and manoeuvring areas. It also highlights the necessity to know how you spatially relate to your surroundings! Cue this video of an Air France A380 giving a Comair CRJ-900 a "good game" pat on the hind quarters while taxiing around JFK airport in New York: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpLd-t1tcJU
"JaBear": As an aside on a subject I do know a little more about is that even with the precedence of having the Boeing 747 series in service for the last 42 years the advent of the Airbus A380 has exposed inadequacies in the design of airport Infrastructure and manoeuvring areas.
As an aside on a subject I do know a little more about is that even with the precedence of having the Boeing 747 series in service for the last 42 years the advent of the Airbus A380 has exposed inadequacies in the design of airport Infrastructure and manoeuvring areas.
It also highlights the necessity to know how you spatially relate to your surroundings!
Cue this video of an Air France A380 giving a Comair CRJ-900 a "good game" pat on the hind quarters while taxiing around JFK airport in New York:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpLd-t1tcJU
Gidday, Yeah, you're dead right there, that incident was one of the ones I was thinking of, but as I was debating from the point that design planning is more often "reactive" instead of "proactive" I chose to ignore that accidents / incidents are seldom the result of one solitary action.
http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/aviation:accident-causation-model
Cheers, the Bear.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
"JaBear" As an aside on a subject I do know a little more about is that even with the precedence of having the Boeing 747 series in service for the last 42 years the advent of the Airbus A380 has exposed inadequacies in the design of airport Infrastructure and manoeuvring areas.
Hold my beer... ya'll watch this!
wrumbel I think you have. The curved leads leading to the wharf in the middle and the yard both lead back to the main and make a wye. Wayne
I think you have. The curved leads leading to the wharf in the middle and the yard both lead back to the main and make a wye.
Wayne
I saw the wyes (and know how you have to wire wyes). What I didn't see was any reversing loops. But you are right - reversing is reversing, loop or not.
Smile, Stein
Stein
HHPATH56 with many reverse loops within reverse loops.
with many reverse loops within reverse loops.
Huh? Have I gone blind - I don't see any obvious reverse loops in the layout?
Gidday Paul, Generally I try to write my posts carefully recognising the difference between American English and colloquial New Zealand English and try to be doubly so when English is a second language to the intended recipient. (Whether I say anything of use is another matter! ).
My original phrase to dsecribe harbour development was" that they seem to have just growed like Topsy" but opted to use "...just grew over the years without any "future planning" and that space was a big issue. What I didn't do was high light the "future planning" which perhaps I should have.
The points you raised are very relevant and well put, "Infrastructure is not easy to change and way too costly and far-reaching to construct with out plans. Implementing plans took decades due to political and financial(ly) issues."
I can't disagree with any of that and am going to be cheeky enough to say that it actually helps support my case.
As ship sizes grew in length, beam and draught, ports then had to expand to cater for them, not the other way round, that is what I term "Reactionary Planning", not "Future Planning". The port designers, to give them the benefit of doubt may have been far sighted enough to consider the developments in larger ship desigh and even cargo handling methods in the future, but their political masters/ financiers certainly did not or could not.
Besides I wonder how much importance and urgency, (and I use that word in a loose context) would have been given to planning new port facilities in Europe had there not been the extensive damage, (perhaps destruction would be a better word) done to them and the surrounding areas during World War Two?
This is all well and good, I find that research into other fields and topics that inter relate with railroads very interesting; here is a site that I used to help with my defence, it actually supports both of our arguments.
http://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/Port/port-in-general/Documents/20100726_EN/index.html
But thi debate doesn't actually help Graffen as, and unless I've managed to get it wrong, my impression from his excellent photos on his site is that the MK& Eastern is set in the USA in the late 1930s- early 1940s.
Having said that I hope his latest posted track plan fixes his dilemma, which I suspect most of us have to deal with at some time or other, between how much space he devotes to scenery and how much to track for operational requirements.
I can but wish Graffen good luck and hope he finds the balance that satisfies himself.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Now they disappeared, the last!?! obstacles! I felt it was time to draw the plan on graph paper, and then I saw that there were some areas that felt "too much" .... Ie. It looked like a model railroad.......
By skipping some details that I would want, like the High line in the city, it was easier to sort out the plan!
Now it is a more linear plan, but still with a little elevation, and a more logical east-west plan (thanks!). I will make the benchwork with 1/2 inch plywood. That gives light weight and high strength. The actual track bed will be a "spline roadbed".
I'd like to try with either 6 mm MDF board or hard board, cut into 2" strips and used on edge, glued, 6 pcs. in width. It makes minimal wastage and makes turnouts and curves easy to install. The noise level should be very low with such a solid track bed too .....
Hi Bear,
the classification yard could be else where of course. If Graffen does not like to classify his cars, he can simply put them into a train and head for the staging tracks. Or build a larger yard along the shore, in the lighthouse area. The inlet would have to be replaced then.
I do not agree however that harbours just grew over the years. The size of steel steam boats is that much larger then the wooden sailing craft used until then, completely new harbours were planned and build at the end of the 19'Th century. The ever growing railroad activities asked for it too. The depression and both world wars did not help in taking next steps, nor the change to lorries in the 50's. New harbours were build after WW2 often miles away from existing cities. No more darlings in every harbour for our poor sailors, new docks far away from town; loading/unloading procedures that fast, even one night in town became problematic. With uncles who were chief-engineer and captain on ocean going vessels I heard the complaints on birthday parties. Though soothing their spouses might have been part of their stories. All those older harbour areas became derelict in the 50's and are turned into condos by now.
The change to trucks was delayed for decades in Europe. I've been involved in town-planning since the 60's, harbour area's did not just grow; Infrastructure is not easy to change and way to costly and far-reaching to construct without plans. Implementing plans took decades due to political and financially issues. Yes, harbours were and are designed. How to cope with the size of modern container carriers or oil tankers?
Smile
Thanks all for the very good ideas and comments!
I will think very hard how to really make the ops work out on this layout.
I'll get back...
Gidday, Probably going to put both feet in my mouth but does the classification yard have to be in the wharf area?
From what I've seen and read harbour areas just grew over the years with out any "future planning" and that space was a big issue. My Dad has talked about the difficulties in reversing a truck and trailer unit for over a mile on the Liverpool Docks in the early 1950's down alley ways "designed" originally for horse and cart.
This may add for complications regarding operations but if the staging is readily accessible and has enough tracks shouldn't that take of the issues and possibly be even more prototypical?
Cheers,the Bear.
Hi Graffen,
just a little bit of thinking about numbers. My assumptions only; the ferry can bring in about 20 cars, the piers can hold the same number of cars, though the pier tracks don't have to be filled to the rim. The usual number of outgoing cars switched during a trick could be between 20 and 30.
Those cars have to be divided into several outgoing trains in the yard; like East(staging), West(staging), junction (upper right) and local. Your classification yard and staging tracks should be able to perform these tasks by being large enough. Incoming cars need some space as well. It's about finding the right balance for the way you will operate your empire in the future.
With a slightly bigger yard:
Wish you the best with this grand adventure.
Nice plan. It seems that the latest drawing takes care of what may have been a tight curve at A in the upper left corner. The shorter sidings will allow a local switcher to get out of the mainline freights way as it goes by. If you are using larger road power it would be prototypical to have smaller switchers working the industrial tracks and pulling cuts of cars from the mainline trains as the larger power would likely not be permitted on the light industrial track. Just imagine a derailed steam loco tying up all access to a port and delaying the ships in either loading or unloading and the costs that would incur.
With a decent amount of staging tracks you could model several trains a day loading and emptying your ships and going off to staging. Since you mention liberty ships, locos of the 40's 0-4-0, 0-6-0, 2-8-2, and 4-6-0 and 4-6-2 would be appropriate for this setting. A very few early diesels could be used as well. Your 2-10-2 could be a bit in the way of over kill for your layout, however with the high priority of freight at this time and the wear and tear on motive power during this time the railroads would run what was ready when they needed it, you might also find a way to justify a 2-6-6-2 under similar circumstances as its agility would make it viable on a line with tight clearances.
Due to your steepness of grades in the vicinity of the harbor you further have a nice logical reason for big power on what would be short trains to a flat land layout. The scenic potential is going to be outstanding for this layout, as will be the reason and time period for operating a large number of trains.
I think you have come up with an excellent concept on what will be a very nice layout.
RonK - Welcome to trains.com!
Darren (BLHS & CRRM Lifetime Member)
Delaware and Hudson Virtual Museum (DHVM), Railroad Adventures (RRAdventures)
My Blog
like your plan...i'm starting an n scale port and suggest you consider an LST instead of a liberty ship......LST's are 100+ feet shorter but can also accept just about any cargo and as a bonus can be a destination for passengers.
Graffen, your second plan was immediately much more appealing to me...good job!!
I don't know which 2-10-2 we are talking about, but if it is good for 22" engineered, my rule is that I will never subject any one steamer to a radius shorter than the stated minimum plus 10%. I have no empirical evidence to back it up, but it seems to me that the additional 10% gives you that buffer zone, or fudge factor for less than perfect curves...and who among us can lay them? In my case, the Sunset Selkirk 2-10-3 was engineered for 30" minimums, and I have 31" only, plus or minus, for the turning wye with crossover that I just built. That will be used at slow speeds only, so no problem. But out on the mains, the Selkirk is a passenger engine often and will only see much wider curves.
All this to say that I think you are doing okay by adding another 2+ cm over the claimed minimums. It is wise. If you could add even one more cm, it reduces the chances of the odd derail by that much more when you are operating the steamer at main track speeds, say 70 km/h or faster.
That's a nice looking plan. Personally, Peco #6 are my smallest turnout, but I think a good quality #5 would suit your purposes just fine.
Crandell
steinjr Graffen: I guess I could add some more yard tracks to allow for some more realistic transfer of cars? Mmmm - not sure if you really need it. It depends on your operational scheme - will all traffic to and from the docks go via the yard at upper left, or will there be trains coming directly from staging to the dock area? Smile, Stein
Graffen: I guess I could add some more yard tracks to allow for some more realistic transfer of cars?
I guess I could add some more yard tracks to allow for some more realistic transfer of cars?
Mmmm - not sure if you really need it. It depends on your operational scheme - will all traffic to and from the docks go via the yard at upper left, or will there be trains coming directly from staging to the dock area?
It will be a through freight , emerging on one end and disappearing on the other.....
I made a revised plan with some small alterations, and I think I can work from this one!
Graffen I guess I could add some more yard tracks to allow for some more realistic transfer of cars?
@Stein: Thanks
I think this layout might work with some tweaks here and there....
The runaround tracks could be lengthened somewhat though.
The height separation is 10 cm's (4"), and could be a bit more if I let the track from the yard descend a bit before the tunnel.
The track in the lower right is the yard lead for the wharf. I thought it would be a good idea to have one.
@Paulus Jas: Thanks
Paulus Jas It is a wild guess but your harbour can hold 6 times as much cars as a train can handle.
It is a wild guess but your harbour can hold 6 times as much cars as a train can handle.
Mmmm - for meets, the shortest train of the two that meet should fit into the 4-foot or so sidings -- but he can run longer trains e.g. from staging to the harbor, as long as he won't have to meet trains too long to fit into the sidings.
But balance is a good point - staging vs yards vs industries.
Good observation about the switching lead for the docks - can't believe I didn't see that one :-) Grin, Stein
Graffen. I have tried the 2-10-2 on my current layout and it works fine on the 24" minimum radius curves I have (except on the one turnout then.....).
I have tried the 2-10-2 on my current layout and it works fine on the 24" minimum radius curves I have (except on the one turnout then.....).
Gidday again, Good news regarding your 2-10-2.
Having read Steins and particularly Pauls comments would more staging tracks help?
Now I should before I just the issue.