Layout discussion: C&O Alleghany Sub/ Feb MR

[leighant]

LAYOUT DISCUSSION PROPOSAL: The layout visits and track planning articles in Model Railroader are so fascinating, it seems there is always more that could said or asked about them. I spend hours studying the plans, imagining what kinds of train could be run and how the layout would be operated. Sometimes making schematics to understand a convoluted plan. In other words, not so much criticism as critique, trying to understand what can be learned from looking at a really interesting layout. I suggested that the “Layouts and Layout Building” forum in the Model Railroader forums on www.trains.com might be the appropriate place for such ongoing in-depth discussions (dissections?) of layout and planning articles that appear in Model Railroader. I have started this topic, trying to identify it with the slug “Layout discussion” followed by a short name of the railroad/layout being discussed and the issue where it appears. We will see how well this “topic id” format fits in the amount of space allowed. If necessary to save length, might have to call it “layout forum” rather than discussion, although that might confuse it with the overall “Layouts and Layout Building” forum heading…

FORMAT SUGGESTION: Add more comments about this layout as a response to this post. Start a new topic for commenting on other layout articles. Just a suggestion to keep it easier to identify topics. I am just a forum member, not a "dispatcher" or anything, so this is just a suggestion.

CONTINUOUS RUNNING POSSIBILITY: It is interesting that although this layout is set up for realistic point-to-point and/or loop-to-loop running, the TRACK PLAN allows also for continuous oval running. A double-track mainline between end staging loops can form a dogbone pattern. (I don’t know how the automatic reversing sections on the staging loops would affect that, but the track layout allows the continuous running.) I always prefer a trackplan designed for realistic point-to-point running/ one time only through a scene, as the primary priority, with the possibility of occasional continuous running as a secondary consideration. This plan seems to allow both beautifully.

RAIL LINE DISTANT IN WIDE SCENE. I like what the plan shows between White Sulphur Springs and the Greenbriar River-- the open farm area. Many layouts would have had the lower level trackage visible to allow an “over and under” scene that is a rarity on the prototype. Keeping the track going down to Clifton Forge staging hidden at that point creates a broad expanse commonly seen in railfanning, but rarely modeled. Would sure like to see a picture of the scene if it is finished. I look forward to seeing a picture of that part of the layout in the future.

ELEVATION TYPO? In the trackplan on page 53 showing the hidden trackage that includes the Hadley staging, the branch track that runs from C to D is shown at elevation 52” where it crosses the mainline track to Hadley staging. At that elevation, it would be at the same height as the track in the Hinton yard and roundhouse area which is shown as visible trackage above it. Also, an elevation 52” at the point shown would require a 2 inch elevation change in about 4 feet to reach the 47” elevation shown at the branchline tunnel mouth near New River, a steep 4 percent grade. Also, when the branch breaks away from the main at NI Cabin, it is at 48” elevation, it has to cross [i]under[/it] itself under NI Cabin, requiring a drop to about 45” under NI Cabin, perhaps even lower to provide clearance under the surface of Laurel Creek which is probably built lower than the shown track elevation of 47”. For the hidden branch to drop down to 45” elevation, back up to 52” within 8 feet and then down to 47” by the New River tunnel mouth seems unlikely. It seems more likely that the elevation where the hidden branch trackage crosses over the hidden main is halfway between the hidden main trackage level (45”) and the visible Hinton yard (51-52”), or about 48”, which leaves 3 inches of clearance above and below.

[Bob Hayes]

Speaking about the track plan, did you notice on the plan where the arrow for photo #2 is, under the 57", there are 5 tracks shown, but in photo #2 there are only 4? Or are we getting too picky?
Bob Hayes

[leighant]

No, Bob, you're not being too picky. That looks like a mistake of the graphic artist, or perhaps a difference of interpretation between whatever drawing the author submitted and the finished artwork for the article. I had to look at it three or four times to catch it. At first quick glance, track layout seems to be three main tracks converging into two for the tunnels, with center track splitting to go to either side, which is what the photo shows, and is a mirror image of the arrangement at Lewis Tunnel at the other end of the scene.
What the trackplan artwork shows would be a short segment of line that diverges and then converges again on itself-- too short to be a passing siding and not an appropriate place right at a tunnel mouth for a runaround track. Doesn't make any sense I can see to be built that way and doesn't match the photo, so I am going to guess it was probably an error in drawing.
Might be a problem for someone trying to build a layout following the plan exactly, but I imagine most of us would just wrinkle our brows and say to ourselves--- "hmmmm? I don't think I'm going to do it the way that shows."
It is awfully complicated to put these plans together and I am appreciative of the work that goes into them. It is SO much easier for me to find other people's rare mistakes than the many that are my own.
Secondly, pictures made for a "layout tour" are not always taken on the same day. Sometimes a layout can change between one view and another, and between what appears in photos on the day things were set up or the lights right or photograph and/or equipment available, and a trackplan which may have been drawn up BEFORE layout was built (with changes made in actual building) or trackplan drawn up AFTER photography to show layout as improved or corrected.
A little bit like determing what a prototype locomotive was like between the builder's blueprints, an as-delivered photo from the right side when it came from builder and may not have had all painting- marking- appliance changes made by railroad as normally used in-service, a pretty publicity photo when new from left side (retouched?), and a picture grabbed in the loco service facility ten years later by a railfan (did loco have some important normally-visible part temporarily removed for servicing?) Which is the "real" "accurate" representation of the locomotive?