Here is Jerry Boudreaux’s Red Rock Northern from MR’s June (?) 2007 issue. It’s popularity over the years is evident. The forum string “Red Rock Northern Plan MR 07” (http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/106033.aspx) has almost 11,700 hits since it opened then. That’s not counting all the times it can be found in other strings. Being one who does only what is popular, I have decided to build it for my 12 year-old grandson, who likes to do the train thing when he comes to visit. And if you believe either the premise or the objective in the last sentence, please PM me for a juicy business deal on excessed Swiss Navy equipment.
As originally offered, the RRN has 5 great features that meet my needs:
1. 24” minimum curves
2. #5 turnouts
3. Grades of 2% or less
4. A twice-around for continuous running (w/ 3 passing sidings, counting the one in the Red Rock yard)
5. That nice Red Rock yard can be easily isolated for concurrent switching operations
All of this fits my theme of freight operations from the early ‘50s with early Geeps, a brace of F3s, a 2-6-2, and a Genesis MT-4 (for which Athearn recommends a minimum 22” radius). As the budget is largely getting thrown at new track and turnouts, I’m not initially planning to upgrade to DCC. Everything seems quite acceptable – except for the space available. Here is the room:
It is the major portion of the “bonus room” over the garage that is our grandson’s bedroom when he visits. Now he’ll get to sleep (?) in the Train Room. Not too shabby in my estimation. But in order leave room for his bed and one or two other essentials, I’m limited to the first 80 inches from the left-hand wall, preserving a 24" walking space to the left of the laid out futon whatever the design. I’ve been unable to compress the RRN into a 56” wide peninsula (as seen in the room diagram) and still keep at least the first three criteria above. So, I’m left with the narrowed donut/duck-under as Variation #1 below:
Note that the original design has been compressed laterally (Red Rock on the left remains 24" wide and Granite Creek on the right has widened a td to 20"). But it has also been flipped vertically. This minimizes below-deck mechanical and electrical issues above the permanent “platform” in the upper right corner of the room (as displayed on its side above). The original area to the left and right of “George’s Gorge” (an artful but awful wordplay: am I dating myself by recallling Gorgeous George?) is much simpler mechanically, with but a single turnout that can be hand thrown. It would be easy to pre-wire busses and jumpers before installing the entire area above the platform, which has finished walls and decking that enclose the lower reaches of the main roof rafters that descend to the floor joists of the room. I could create some limited under-table access here but it would be slanted and noticeably less efficient for maintenance, not to mention requiring the ripping out of finished drywall and surfacing.
The long “smudge” adjacent to the second circuit of the main line along the left-hand edge of Variation #1 represents the berm or ridge that raises it above the Red Rock main and yard to its right. The berm leaves room directly below for the single staging track shown circling the data in center of the original MR drawing. Another adjustment is the addition of some trackage to the right of the lead into the turntable. Finally, I widened the available area on the right side (Granite Creek) but wiped out the inadequately short industry access to the feed and lumber supply stores on the original. That can be redeveloped later. As can the locations of the three corner mines that have been dropped and any other areas that cry out for spurs rather than buildings and scenery.
Compressing the donut in this manner required the maximum grade (the inner one at Granite Creek) to be raised to about 2.5%. That’s probably doable because I’ll likely be running consists of less than 20 cars (this will be tested thoroughly prior to finalizing work on the main line). What IS NOT doable is what is noted on the original as the staging along the left edge immediately below the second circuit main line. To identify one long stub as “staging” may be a stretch. Nor is the stub doable that proceeds to the right, below and behind the roundhouse. I can’t imagine any reasonable hand access to “staging” which is way to the back, against the wall, and apparently beneath a mere 3½ inch clearance. SO – :
Variation #2. We raise the entire layout an additional 4 inches and reverse the elevations for Red Rock. That places Red Rock on a plateau with the second-circuit main line beneath (the dotted line). It’s that second circuit that now bears two access points (both in and out) that allow expanded staging immediately below and in from the front edge of the layout rather than against the back wall. Much better access. But it drops the passing sidings to two. And raising the major working surface on the left side of the layout may limit the grandson’s reach across, but only for a couple years. Then again, its not very deep to start with. [Edit: I just noted that this variation will not fix the clearance issue for the staging as a differential of 6 or 7 inches would lead to massive increases in both slopes. Arrggh! Glad that what's below is a good fix.]
A better option for staging is to use Variation #1, drop the hidden staging below, and extend the spur in the upper left corner through the end wall of the Train Room and into a second bonus room above the diagrams. I could have as much as a 4 x 4.5 foot area there, with the approval of the missus, of course. That extension might even be enough to add a reversing loop that would re-enter the Train Room to the upper right (near the doorway) and reconnect to the second circuit somewhere to the left of the upper overpass.
Well, what am I asking with all of this? First, your general or specific opinions on the entire reconfiguration, and then comparing the two variations. Do you see any major oversights? Second, the nice yard at Red Rock still seems a bit tight, though Jerry Boudreaux says it fits with #5 turnouts. Perhaps Micro Engineering’s new ladder system would be of benefit here, as Clint Eastwood would have it, “for a few dollars more”.
Thanks for your patience. Let’s see what I’ve left out.
John
P.S. Please excuse the faint appearance of the drawings. The intial posts here from IMGUR don't show up as clearly as they appear under my nose on my desk. If you click on the posted image and enlarge it a couple times it will be much more clear.
Looks like a great plan for him. I'm sure any kid whould be overjoyed with the prospect of sleeping in this room (at least trying to sleep)
Brian
My Layout Plan
Interesting new Plan Consideration
The RRN packs a lot of mainline run in between the stations of RR and GC. Staging is set up so trains can enter the layout at one station and lap around the layout to the other station and disappear. That's the beauty of the trackplan, but as you noted, its downfall is that the RRN is difficult to build and also difficult to scenick as drawn.
Your variation #2 makes scenicking and building much nicer, but it eliminates a lot of the mainline run between stations since it places the stations close together. With #2, staging is in between RR and GC, in the middle of the run, instead of on each end like the RRN.
If you were to uncoil each trackplan, draw a linear schematic of the original RRN and your #2, they would look a lot different.
It may not matter to you, but #2 is a different layout than RRN from an operational standpoint.
- Douglas
The layout as published is a good basic concept, and you are wise to make some changes. As noted in this thread, there are a number of concerns with the published plan, especially as relates to clearances to the hidden tracks and corresponding grades. http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/106033.aspx
As Douglas notes, the schematics (track routings) of the plans are quite different and one schematic may be more suitable to your needs than another. Note also that if you plan for switch machines for the visible scenes, it may compromise clearances for tracks below.
Good luck with your layout.
Byron
Edit: One other thing I often suggest with a donut-style plan against the wall is the try to think about using the inside, the outside, and the "backside" (hidden against the wall). This rough sketch is not to scale, but suggests the idea. It may not work for your space and interests.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
AttuvianThe original area to the left and right of “George’s Gorge” (an artful but awful wordplay: am I dating myself by recallling Gorgeous George?)
And in turn, Jerry Boudreaux had reused that pun from an earlier published plan with a somewhat similar outline: Bill Livingston's track plan from the September 1962 MR.
Doughless If you were to uncoil each trackplan, draw a linear schematic of the original RRN and your #2, they would look a lot different. It may not matter to you, but #2 is a different layout than RRN from an operational standpoint.
cuyama Attuvian The original area to the left and right of “George’s Gorge” (an artful but awful wordplay: am I dating myself by recallling Gorgeous George?) And in turn, Jerry Boudreaux had reused that pun from an earlier published plan with a somewhat similar outline: Bill Livingston's track plan from the September 1962 MR.
Attuvian The original area to the left and right of “George’s Gorge” (an artful but awful wordplay: am I dating myself by recallling Gorgeous George?)
Byron,
Thanks for your ideas and the drawing. I'll give it some thought, too.
Is the Livingston plan available anywhere on the 'Net?
Attuvian Doughless If you were to uncoil each trackplan, draw a linear schematic of the original RRN and your #2, they would look a lot different. It may not matter to you, but #2 is a different layout than RRN from an operational standpoint. Douglas, Good observations. I hadn't thought of it yet from the broader operational standpoint. I like your idea of the linear schematic and will work one up after the XXXXs beat the XXXXs in the Big Game (I'm rooting for the commercials). How do think it would affect matters if I shot the staging off to the adjoining room - with or without a reversing loop? John
I can't conceptualize that, but putting staging in a different room opens up new possibilities. Would the original RRN or version #1 be easier to build with staging in a different room?
That assumes you have another room and/or can knock holes in the wall to run the tracks there.
What Byron suggested is similar to what my previous layout would have been like had. My staging would have been behind a low backdrop - except it was low because my ceiling sloped. No reachign over the top - I was going to attach it with magnets so I could remove panels to reach in if necessary.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
rrinker That assumes you have another room and/or can knock holes in the wall to run the tracks there. --Randy
Randy (and all),
Here's the possibility for the second room staging. The first pic is the wall through which I would extend the spur. The inner edge of the upper portion of RRN Variation #1 (the former, and flipped George;s Gorge shown above in the string) would be flush with the front edge of the platform in this photo. The second pic is from the secondary bonus room and shows the area where the staging table would be erected. A couple things to note: 1) the facing that slopes down to the left in the second photo covers the main roof rafters as they descend to the floor of the train room; 2) because the rafters are 2x12s, their angle would yield a tunnel about 28 incles long to get from the train room to the staging platform; 3) the max distance from the tunnel exit to the back of the staging platform would be limited to about 36-40 inches; as the width of the rafter facing is 67 inches, it would leave staging table about 40x67, plenty enough for a yard and a reverse loop; 4) I'd knock off the corner nearest the camera for easier foot traffic going past.
Of course there will be some hesitation by the missus when approached with the necessity of tunneling through the wall - perhaps twice. That I put up the walls originally may not hold much water, considering that she probably likes them the way they look now.
NEWS FLASH!! After checking out my plans, my Dutch girl says, "You know, your layout looks a little small. For as often as Jonathan sleeps over, we can probably find another room for him to sleep in." Dudes, it sounds like I've been given leave to go back to the drawing board and really expand the RRN! In fact, I'm now wondering if a wrap-around dog bone (still with a double loop) would be possible, past the window and around the corner to the second door (which ducks into the attic). I could probably eliminate the duck-under/lift-out altogether and do under-table staging as the longer lineal runs would now allow grades of 2% or less. As long as they're free, I hereby solicit your ideas and sketches! You may work from the room plan shown in the intial post.
P.S. My old MRC Tech II will definitely need to be replaced. What are the suggestions out there for something to handle about 150sf, up to 250lf of track, DC (in blocks), about a dozen switch machines (mostly for the main line) and no signaling (gotta leave something for the future)?
Are you sure that at the height of that platform, you're not actually already OUTSIDE and not just in the rafters? It looks like the slope ends right where the carpet hits the end of the platform in the top pic, that would lead me to believe that the middle of the slope at the height of the platform is actually in the roof valley. And even if it is all within the rafters, the problem with tunneling through there is that it would be VERY hard to enclose it - and I would suggest completely enclosing the tunnel through open roof space like that. Oh yeah - it might also be packed with insulation. Assuming it's inside the rafters, it would be possible to remove a rather large section of drywall to gain access to built the tunnel, then patch it back in place and cut the proper size opening.
rrinker Are you sure that at the height of that platform, you're not actually already OUTSIDE and not just in the rafters? It looks like the slope ends right where the carpet hits the end of the platform in the top pic, that would lead me to believe that the middle of the slope at the height of the platform is actually in the roof valley. And even if it is all within the rafters, the problem with tunneling through there is that it would be VERY hard to enclose it - and I would suggest completely enclosing the tunnel through open roof space like that. Oh yeah - it might also be packed with insulation. Assuming it's inside the rafters, it would be possible to remove a rather large section of drywall to gain access to built the tunnel, then patch it back in place and cut the proper size opening. --Randy
Randy,
The tunnel(s) would indeed be all between two rafters. The train room is over the garage which is an "L" off of the house's main roof (and therefore has its own), so there is no outside to deal with nor insulation between the rafters at this point below the ceilings of the two rooms. Thankfully, I wouldn't even have to open up this slope for discovery as I was the one that put up the drywall in all of the train room and much of the room in the second picture and am therefore familiar with what lies behind.
You do have an excellent point, however, regarding fully enclosing any tunnel through rafters. I'm of the notion that such spaces are unique dust producers, pathways, and collectors. But to eliminate the difficulties of building a tunnel through the rafters and between the rooms, I'd likely create it as module with track already laid. The modular tunnel would merely have to be inserted between the two rooms and secured perhaps directly against the side of a rafter. Or I could bridge the gap between rafters immediately behing the drywall at either end and affix the modular tunnel(s) to those transverse bridges. As the house is now 23 years old and there are no moisture issues under the roof, I'd think those rafters have long since fully seasoned and are no longer subject to warping or other movement.
But being the recipient yesterday of my wife's good graces in now getting access to virtually the whole train room, I may be able to do all my staging there. I'm replanning from scratch begining this morning, retaining or even expanding the Red Rock yard. Any shelf surface can now be widened to 30 inches. I feel like it's Christmas in February!
AttuvianIs the Livingston plan available anywhere on the 'Net?
I don't believe so -- and it isn't anything to emulate, anyway, IMHO. There has been a lot of innovation in track planning in the intervening 50+ years.
I don't think it's prudent to put switches inside tunnels or in hidden areas. Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. You might want to consider putting rerailers inside tunnels.
24" wide aisles are a little small. My aisles are 24" wide and were fine when I started the layout. Now that I have aged, I need to turn sideways to get around the layout.
You might want to consider putting a cabinet toe kick on the bottom of the staging platform. Like your kitchen cabinets. Without them, it really becomes awkward to get close to the platform. And if you have any back issues, it can be painful.
SouthPenn24" wide aisles are a little small. My aisles are 24" wide and were fine when I started the layout. Now that I have aged, I need to turn sideways to get around the layout.
I hear that. Try picking up a coupler spring in a 24" isle.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
SouthPenn I don't think it's prudent to put switches inside tunnels or in hidden areas. Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. You might want to consider putting rerailers inside tunnels. 24" wide aisles are a little small. My aisles are 24" wide and were fine when I started the layout. Now that I have aged, I need to turn sideways to get around the layout. You might want to consider putting a cabinet toe kick on the bottom of the staging platform. Like your kitchen cabinets. Without them, it really becomes awkward to get close to the platform. And if you have any back issues, it can be painful.
South Penn,
I'm in agreement regarding turnouts in hidden spaces. Your idea of rerailers in any tunnel is great - and is easy if the tunnel is straight. But it looks like a moot point. The issue of tunnels is no longer being considered because I've now got almost full access to the 11x13.5 room (except for the requirement for unblocked access for a walkway to an attic door). Plenty of room for staging in the same room. And the only aisleway that I'm now planning can easily be 30 to 34 inches.