Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Interesting plan, Tupper Lake & Faust Junction

5076 views
73 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 531 posts
Posted by railandsail on Tuesday, February 13, 2018 1:57 PM

SpaceMouse

I agree, you clearly have one more loop than you need. You could eliminate that loop and still get the same amount of operation.


I think I only have two 'loops', one upper one, one lower one? And you want me to remove one of them?? Then I might as well not build a double deck layout???

BTW I have several switching operations in mind, but to tell the truth I'm NOT a major fan of switching. I like working on the trains themselves, kitbashing, sound install, etc.....

  • Member since
    December, 2004
  • From: Rimrock, Arizona
  • 10,573 posts
Posted by SpaceMouse on Tuesday, February 13, 2018 2:02 PM

I commented long before I figured out that this post was 3 pages. I deleted it when I got to it. 

Chip

"Rock Ridge and Rock Ridge Lumber are names that really stand for something" --Randal "Rock" Ridge, Mayor and Founder

"Mining is the very foundation of a free America." --Stanley "Stone" Ridge

"Give me Apathy, or give me something else."--Carlton Ridge, aka "The Cat"

  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: Northern CA Bay Area
  • 3,676 posts
Posted by cuyama on Tuesday, February 13, 2018 2:02 PM

If you get serious about building this plan, you will want to check your grades. Once you allow for not changing grades within or too near a turnout and for transitions from level-to-grade and back, I think they are a lot steeper than you hope as drawn.

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 531 posts
Posted by railandsail on Tuesday, February 13, 2018 2:23 PM

Byron,

I assume you are talking about those turnouts associated with my 'connector tracks' at both levels? Yes, as I have them drawn in here they are too steep,...they need to run out longer before coming back to the 'connecting mainline'. .....Didn't have enough room to relay that info on these two dwgs. That will come later when I figure out the freight yard layout, AND how to access/connect to my stagging tracks, which is presenting me with real head aches.

My other turnouts on these drawings are all dead flat I believe?

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 531 posts
Posted by railandsail on Wednesday, February 14, 2018 11:00 AM

Helix Elevations

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 531 posts
Posted by railandsail on Wednesday, February 14, 2018 3:57 PM

Accessing My Staging Tracks, Problem that needs solution(s)

This is a dilemma that has been bugging me for quite some time. Suggestions would be welcomed.

I want a staging track area of at least 8 tracks wide (maybe more for multiple train consist I have), and my thoughts were to place those 8+ tracks under the long, lower shelf on the right hand side of my layout. The tracks would be mounted on a firm piece of plywood shelf that would be supported by the metal wall brackets as shown in this photo and sketch. I figure I can get away with at minimum an 8” clearance under the bottom top deck plywood subroadbed down to that staging shelf., and particularly since my shelf right above the staging will not be real deep.

My dilemma is how to get an access track to that staging area? At first I thought just make an addition to the helix that would drop down in some manner to that staging level. But what I don't like about that is it puts my helix circles too close to the ground. My helix structure is an 'outdoor affair' and I don't fancy getting that low to the lawn/dirt/whatever to have a look up inside the 'cylinder'. In fact, even if it was an indoor helix I would not fancy playing 'limbo' to go up inside the helix to fix things.

 

So I began to think of numerous ways I might drop an access track down along the opposite long side (left side) of the layout, or down along that helix end of the shed. I can't make use of the other end wall of the shed, as that is my doorway into the layout, and will be bridged by 2 removable bridges (upper and lower) across that opening.

 

So lets assume I try to drop a single access track down along one of the walls of the shed. It needs to drop at a minimum, the 3/4” thickness of the plywood subroadbed plus the 3/16” thickness of the metal bracket supporting that plywood, plus 3.5” to clear the tallest cars that would be staged, plus the 3/16” height of the Atlas track,.....total approx 4.6”.

If I were to accept a 4% grade in this access track that means I need 115 inches of horizontal trackage to get that 4.6 inch drop in the access track at a 4% grade.
 

My metal shelf brackets are spaced every 24 inches along the walls (stud spacing), so I need to 'interupt' 4 of them to get that drop in the access track. That is NOT an appealing thought! Those metal wall brackets are being utilized in a cantilevered manner to support that upper deck, and thus require their integrity in a whole manner, rather than cut out to provide a drop for that staging access track.

 

This is my main dilemma,...how to 'dip' that access staging track down under lower deck of the layout plan, while not disturbing too much of the lower deck's support structure??

  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: Northern CA Bay Area
  • 3,676 posts
Posted by cuyama on Wednesday, February 14, 2018 4:14 PM

It always seems hard for people to understand, but there is a very good way to address these kinds of issues. The lowest layout support (grid, brackets, L-girder joists, whatever) goes below staging. Then staging and the visible deck are supported by risers from that level. There’s no need to “interrupt” anything.

Risers. Is there anything they can't do?

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 531 posts
Posted by railandsail on Wednesday, February 14, 2018 4:39 PM
I'll have to give that a more thorough examination.   thanks.
 
One question, .....that does mean that I have to built both the staging track area itself, AND the area of the drop down access track in that same manner?
 
And doesn't it make it more difficult to reach (more obstacles) to reach staged train cars??

Brian

  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: Northern CA Bay Area
  • 3,676 posts
Posted by cuyama on Wednesday, February 14, 2018 4:53 PM

railandsail
And doesn't it make it more difficult to reach (more obstacles) to reach staged train cars??

No

It's only crowded right at the joists or brackets. In between, wide open -- as shown in the diagram I just posted.

Thousands of layouts have been built this way. Works fine.

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 531 posts
Posted by railandsail on Thursday, February 15, 2018 3:44 PM

Modify One Side Only?

@Byron,
I'm thinking I may only have to modify my lower deck supports, as you suggested, on one side only?

The side that contains the actual 8 tracks of staging is already well below the lower deck/shelf of the layout, ...so it could still have the type of support that I originally had in mind.
Long plywood sub-shelf slit to fit the metal brackets attached to the wall studs,...like this..


 

And placed at such a height to just barely clear those plastic stowage containers stacked 3 high....

 

Could possible extend out to accommodate 10 tracks of staging??
 

It's the other side of the layout that would need your modification in order to accept that 'descending grade access track' needed to reach the subterranean staging. 

Interestingly these two sides might be interchangeable.

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 531 posts
Posted by railandsail on Saturday, February 17, 2018 10:49 AM

Yesterday I was sketching up a revised dwg to just clarify those bracket locations below the bottom deck(s) that might be used to support the staging track decks,....this one....

  

While doing this I decided to re-look at the possibility of utilizing the helix structure to gain access to the the staging tracks. What if I decided to try to add two loops to the bottom of my planned outdoor helix to take the trains down to the staging level? Would it really be so difficult to access if I were to have to get inside the 'helix cylinder',...and yes I know I will have to at times.
 

I had a 48" circular metal ring that I placed up on the top of three stacked milk cartons. After all, if you look back in this discussion you will find that I had planned on providing enough clearance under my 'staging deck' for a stack of 3 of these plastic cartons to be utilized as slide-in-slide-out storage bins. So my 'staging helix' would be at this level.

 

 

 

Even with this 48" circle I had PLENTY of room to get up inside the helix. Now imagine if my circle is closer to 60" (30R helix) one I plan on. I am now convinced that I will NOT have to play limbo to get at the interior of this lower helix level.

And now I could have staging tracks on both sides of the layout while sticking with my relatively simplified metal brackets to hold up my lower decks/shelves all around. I could even have staging down the center of the peninsula.       HAPPY :)

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 531 posts
Posted by railandsail on Saturday, February 17, 2018 10:54 AM

 

Helix, Staging Track Access....error

 

Last night went to bed believing I had solved my problem with access to the staging tracks,.... via the use of another lower level addition to the helix structure.

 

This morning I woke up realizing I had forgotten to consider an important aspect. I can't have both the track feeding this downward spiral to the staging area, AND the bottom balloon loop track, entering the helix at the same height.

 

Back to the drawing board ! 
But, I am still a renewed fan of utilizing the helix to get to the staging tracks.

Just have to figure out the best way to enter this sub-helix?

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 531 posts
Posted by railandsail on Sunday, February 18, 2018 11:06 AM

 

Steel Mill Site Location & Elevated Stone Arch Bridge

I have pretty much decided that the steel mill scene will be located in this right hand corner of the bottom deck, and the Balt city scene will be located in the left had corner.

I have modified the elevated double track plan in front of the steel scene to try and give the space behind this double track more room to accommodate the scene. This also makes the track curves in this are more broad in curvature.

This double mainline track, and the single 'connector track' branching off of it (denoted by arrows) will be elevated by a stone arch 'bridge' similar to one that exist in the Balt area,....

 

This arch 'bridge' will allow for tracks underneath itself in several locations including the lower loop track to the peninsula area, and hopefully several tracks to the steel scene in the background,  and may be a brick factory in front of the arch bridge.

I am having problems fitting the steel scene in. The footprint of the blast furnace itself is just too large, ....a rectangle shape almost 27" long. I could put it in 'parallel' with the stone arch bridge, but then there is almost no way to include any service tracks to it.

I thought about sectioning it up so I might just include a portion of its face, BUT I would NOT cut up my completely assembled and weathered blast furnace!! Maybe I could find a really damaged blast furnace to kit bash??...Not likely.

So what if I were to make a background painting that looked like this...

 

then make some tracks out in front between the backdrop and the arch bridge. I should be able to make that backdrop image fit in the square corner just like this real life model structure does??

I might even be able to make a small 'switching'  area here for steel related cars and locos I have.

  • Member since
    July, 2006
  • From: Boise, Idaho
  • 887 posts
Posted by E-L man tom on Monday, February 19, 2018 1:11 PM

Brian, I have that layout plan book too, and will soon be moving to a layout space that will be approximately 12' X 15'. You have given me some food for thought on my new layout. I want to avoid duck unders, but a swing "door" is a possibility for this. I want continuous running and the minimum turn radius to be 24". Maybe a modified version? I would definitely eliminate the helix/loop, as I would not have room for it. Also, as I do not run steam, I would probably not have a turn table, but maybe a wye for turning locomotives occasionally. In the era that I model, the 1970's, most of the turn tables were torn down as there was no need for them. This layout may lend itself to interchange trafic between two railroads, which is another possibility. 

With some tweeking, this plan could fit many different needs and wants. 

Tom Modeling the free-lanced Toledo Erie Central switching layout.

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Popular on ModelRailroader.com
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
Find us on Facebook