Layout Plan

[ericboone]

Maybe, but the wall would cut right through the middle of the town of Grandville and Waverly Yard and would cut off a section of the aisle from the rest. In this case, there would be more hole than wall and considering the wall is structural, I have to be careful.

[SpaceMouse]

Are you sure you can't make key cut-outs in the wall and save your design?

[ericboone]

My layout plan as shown had hinged on being able to replace a supporting wall with a beam. I just found out from the builder that this would likely involve tearing out part of my basement floor to add footings and be at a much higher cost than originally anticipated. So I guess the wall stays. In all, I'll loose about 40 feet of mainline run. [sigh] On the positive side, I will be able to incorporate a small crew lounge in the space and the Allegan branch will not share the scene with the mainline. [^] I will be lowering Wyoming Yard to 58 inches and the remainer of the layout accordingly and remove the balloon track staging for Muskegon and Allegan to get rid of the painful duck under for staging access. As soon as I have the plan updated, I will post it again. Thanks everyone.

[fmilhaupt]

I like the thinking that went into this. I especially like the decision to avoid a helix- my particular gripe against a helix is that crews can spend an awful lot of their run unable to see the train.

I'm with brothers Ray and Byron here, in that the one thing that jumps out at me is the aisle width- with a typical aisle width of 36", I'm thinking that you might have some difficulty accommodating the needed number of crews. Especially when you need to send someone out to hang orders (which happens even in signalled territory).

How many people do you plan to keep on duty at Wyoming Yard? Presumably, the hostler can "live" in the rabbit hole next to the roundhouse, but you'll really want to allow for a couple of guys constantly in the aisle on the south side of the yard as crews for the incoming/departing trains, and for the yard crew. When designing around a yard, I typically consider an extra margin of a single body depth for the location's required crew complement. I treat him/them as part of the layout for planning purposes. Also remember: step stools needed to reach a high area of railroad increase each crew's "footprint" by about 6" diameter.

I'm a little leery of going 5:1 on the fast clock, but then again, I was schooled by Jack ("Slow the h*ll down") Ozanich. Since most movements are going to be governed by signals, it ought to be reasonably easy on the dispatcher. If you were running dark territory TT&TO, I'd strongly recommend your slowing to 3:1.

My own reading of the timetables for that area and era is in agreement with your observation, suggesting strongly that Allegan branch trains terminated at Waverly, and that until the Campbell Power Plant came on line at Port Sheldon in the mid-1960s, it was very unusual for a train to run through Holland from points south on the Chicago line to Grand Haven and Muskegon.

I trust that your requirements for a DCC system include wireless operation? With the close quarters in the aisles, cords could be, at the very best, inconvenient.

Where are you planning to seat your dispatcher?

I'm very interested in what you're planning to do, especially as I'm just beginning to get serious on the planning for my own stretch of the Pere Marquette, which (according to my current thinking) will start in New Buffalo and run as far north as I can fit in the basement. I'm thinking double deck without a helix as well. I picked up a FastTracks jig at the NMRA National last month and will begin stockpiling points and frogs for my future layout once my rail arrives.

[CBQ_Guy]

My mind is sufficiently boggled!

Impressive, though. Hope it sees fruition.

[Anonymous]

darn

[BRVRR]

Eric,
Very impressive. Love the concept and the location. The scope of what you propose boggles my mind.
I lived in SW Michigan, Saugatuck, through high school and until I went into the service in 1965. Reading about your layout brought back a lot of memories. Holland was only 10-miles away. I dated several girls from there, Grandville and Grand Rapids. Even went to college for a short time in GR. Still have family in Holland and get up there occasionally.
I wish you luck with your project. Keep us all informed.

[ericboone]

Byron,
The distance I am talking about is from the theoretical intersection of the straight and diverging route to the points. (The track plan shows centerlines, so that is the intersection that you see on the track plan.) For an AMC #8 turmout with a 22 ft points, that distance is just over 4 inches. I've allowed a minimum of 5 inches in the plan. However, I will go back and double check all the turnouts before I build.

Thanks,

Eric

[cuyama]

Eric,

Seems like you already know what you want to do, so further comments based on others' experience probably won't be too helpful to you, but just one question/comment.

QUOTE: Originally posted by ericboone

I did not use templates. I used the student edition of Pro/ENGINEER, the CAD system I use at work. For the #8 AMC turnouts, the distance from theoretical intersection and the points is just over 4 inches in HO scale. I've allowed a minimum of 5 inches for each turnout.

I've designed a couple of layouts for people who were using the Fast Tracks jigs and they seem to work well. It certainly may be that I just don't understand your plan for turnout construction well enough, but I'd suggest that a key length in actually building is not from the points to the point of intersection but the length between the points and the frog. Unless you are expecting to build a lot of very fancy trackwork, you cannot overlay one turnout on another within that length. My copy of the fast tracks HO # 8 template measures over 10" from points to the far end of the frog, and of course you'd need a skoche of track on either end before you start the next turnout. The AREA standards (used as a basis for some railroads' engineering standards) are on-line at:
http://www.prototrains.com/turnout/turnout.html
... and show a similar dimension for points-to-frog.

I believe that Fast tracks are based on the NMRA specs, which in turn (I think) were at least partly based on AREA.

I know you said that you were thinking of building your own proto:87 jig in place of the fast tracks, but I think the order of magnitude of the dimensions would be the same.

Another point of reference would be the walthers #8 HO pre-fab turnout, which measures nearly 14" end-to-end. Some track may be trimmed from each leg, but it does not seem like a usable #8 could fit in the dimensions you are using. I may have misunderstood what you are planning.

Many experienced modelers actually build the lead of the turnout longer than the NMRA specs (and thus, the fast tracks templates) for better appearance, which would also act to lengthen the practical distance required for yard ladders, etc. Sounds like you have the prototype info already to let you follow those standards, but it seems unlikely that the point-to-frog distance would be a lot different from the AREA standards.

Again, I may simply not be reading your diagram correctly, so the point may be moot. But if you wanted to check, printing out a section of complex trackwork from you CAD drawing 1:1 and overlaying it with fast Tracks templates might tell you if it can be built as drawn.

My point about building it proto:87 my be based on my lack of undertsanding of the proto:87 specs, but I believe that if you go to proto:87 wheels, you may only use them with proto:87 turnouts. That would mean that all the track work (including staging) must be built to the same standard for reliability. This precludes pre-fab track in hidden staging, which of course adds to the construction time. If you've done enough handlaying to know how long each turnout will take, you've probably done the calculation of how many hours will be required to get the hidden staging done before you can cover it with the "fun" part of the layout.

This MTTF ("Menial Time to Fun") calculation is what has led many experienced modelers to go with semi-scale or finescale standards, but not full proto:87, so that they may still use pre-fab track in unseen areas.

Good luck and have fun.

Regards,

Byron

[Anonymous]

dammit.

[ericboone]

Wow. There have been several wonderfully thought out comments here. Much appreciated. I will attempt to answer as many questions as possible here.

QUOTE: Originally posted by orsonroy

Yow! Great plan!

As a fellow AMC 1940's modeler, and as someone who has a three level (much smaller than yours!), let me make a few observations:

1) get a largeish crew organized NOW. I'm not that familiar with the PM's timetables, but it looks like you've got the layout to handle 10-16 trains per "day", which will require a minimum of eight road crews and four yard crews.

According to my timetable, the PM ran 9 daily scheduled trains in each direction, not counting extras. I think all locals are extras, but I am not certain.

QUOTE:
2) if you can't wrangle a large, regular crew, think about scaling back your staging and Wyoming yard. Selective compression isn't a four letter word in this hobby! You'll still end up with the essence of the line, but it won't take as long to build, won't be as expensive or maintenance-intensive, and you'll be able to have fun op sessions with 2-4 guys.

My goal is to simulate the main line with towns spaced as they were on the real thing. In this plan, I have 11.5 miles per actual mile verses a scale 60 feet. That is pretty close to a 1/5 compression. That will allow me to use actual time tables and a 5 to 1 fast clock.

QUOTE:
3) do you really need balloon staging? They take up a lot of space, especially with 38" curves. If you're planning on making this a mostly TT/TO layout, you really won't use them in a session, and with your gentle grades, backing and restaging trains shouldn't be a problem (or you could add a turntable to turn engines at each staging yard, cutting down on manual engine handling)

Considering the number of trains possible and that I have the room, I see the balloon staging as a good time saver. Although it may not be necessary for the two branch line staging loops.

QUOTE:
4) 62" is REALLY high for a main yard that'll see a lot of use. My upper deck is 58", I'm 6'2", and I need a stool to reach in more than 6". I've operated on two northern Illinois multilevels with big yards on the upper levels, and neither really work. One requires yard operators to have a stool handy, which eats up basically all the 3' aisles. The other has an elevated op "pit" for the yard crews to work on, but the road crews barely see their trains until they're released from the yard. Both are pains, and inelegant designs. I'd plan this layout with the main yard on the lower level, so access isn't restricted. Either that, or plan for wider aisles there.

I am a little concerned about this too. However, I consider the shops and roundhouse area to be the "centerpiece" of the layout. (My grandfather worked there.) Also, it is the first thing you see when coming down the stairs. I don't want a deck above it to obstruct the view.

QUOTE:
5) Wyoming's main engine terminal is almost wholly inaccessable. The 350 degree roundhouse looks nice, but you won't be able to get to derailments (which happen frequently at TTs). The shops area, which are usually decorative rather than operational on most layouts, should be OK, but be prepared to crawl over there once a year to rescue stuff (liftouts would be in order). Taking a cue from Bill Darnaby's layout, I'd cut the roundhouse in half and make it more accessable.

Actually, there is an access hatch planned under the warehouse area in the shops. I will be able to access the roundhouse from three sides and the shops with that hatch.

QUOTE:
6) You've only got stretches of plain mainline at Jenison and Vriesland. If your proto 25 mile line really is that congested, then the plan's OK. But if the line's really miles and miles of nothingness occasionally interrupted by a whistle stop, the plan's out of balance. I generally plan with one full train length of absolute nothingness (no switches or structures at all) between towns. (my new basement, at 25x25, will have one scale mile between towns, at least). You need a real visual break between switching areas to capture the feel of midwestern railroading. Too much track versus scenery and it starts to look like the eastern seaboard.

Actually, I used station track diagrams and Sanborn Maps for the design. Grandville, Jenison, Hudsonville, Vriesland, and Zeeland are all matches switch for switch and siding for siding. I had to take some liberties in the Wyoming Yard (the shops are 3 times the modeled size and the yard was bigger yet), around Lamar (the GR Belt branch extends about a mile away from the main), and in Holland (I cut out about 30% of the industries as there are so many). I was suprised during my research as Grandville only has the lumber yard; Jenison, Hudsonville, and Vriesland have nothing, Zeeland has only a couple rail served industries, and Holland still has quite a few. Most of the mainline between Jenison and Zeeland was farm land. Hudsonville was a small farm community and the passing siding exended well out of the city area. Vriesland was nothing but an already closed station with a short house track.

QUOTE:
7) Your staging seems to be unbalanced, with 17 tracks to the east and 22 to the west (yow; room for 78 trains per 24 hour session! Did the PM REALLY see that much traffic?). Remember to work on your base schedule before you set staging. I've got 10 ETT's for my Peoria Division, as well as thousands of form 19's from my time period, and I'm only BARELY comfortable with how traffic really moved on the line. I still need to interview a few old-timers and discover a few conductor's books to really figure out what the schedule should look like. For a 24-hour period for my major NKP mainline between Peoria and Frankfort (I'm only modelling up to Bloomington, about 1/3 of the line), I only really need 12+2 staging tracks.

The staging may be a little excessive, but I would rather have too much than to little. The upper staging can hold 13 trains assuming the yards are used so that no train is blocked in or blocked out. The upper staging is intended to be a one-way affair with trains going all the way around the return loop before being placed into one of the storage tracks. The lower Chicago or mainline staging can hold 15 trains and the two branch line staging loops can hold 4 and 2 trains. The branch line staging should not be added to the mainline staging as the freight trains to Muskegon started or terminated at Wyoming Yard and the passenger train connection to Muskegon started or terminated in Holland. I believe the Allegan branch trains (a very light branch) terminated in Waverly Yard. As far as I know, none of the trains to Muskegon or Allegan will start or end in the Detroit or Chicago staging areas.

QUOTE:
8) This large a layout, requiring this big a crew, will definitely need a crew lounge and assembly area. For the sake of matrimonial harmony, it's generally best that that area isn't in the main part of the house, but in the basement along with the layout!

That would be nice, but you know givens and druthers.

QUOTE:
9) remember to NOT skimp on the aisle space. You've got 3' planned, which is good, but you'll need at least a couple of areas set at 4' or wider (remember; there are a lot of wide modelers out there!) Believe it or not, 3' is the BARE minimum aisle space to plan for with any large, linear layout. You'll realistically have to sacrifice a few inches of layout depth here and there, but it'll be worth it in the long run, since your operators will enjoy playing trains with you, and will come back!

I've been a part of a club with a similarly sized double deck layout. The aisle spacing is similar and the only problems getting around were with a member in a chair scooter, but we made due with that. Those chairs would have difficulty getting down the stairs, so I don't think that will be a problem.

QUOTE:
All in all, this is a great design, and one of the better linears I've ever seen. It will take a long time to build, but if you design around foam-based construction rather than traditional, it'll go up a LOT faster (Bill Darnaby's basic benchwork went up in only two years or so, and his mainline went in soon afterwards. Not all the towns are built yet, but he's able to run full operating sessions)

I plan on using that construction method. I was debating spline or foam and foam won for that reason.

QUOTE:
Let me know if you ever need leased NKP Berks as runthrough power, and I'll bring them out to play!

I think they'll look just fine next to the nearly identical PM Berks. I love those Life-Like P2K Berks. I hope Walhers keeps the 3rd release on track, pun intended.[:p]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cuyama

- I'm also concerned about the amount of operation (and thus, the number of operators) vs. the aisle space. 28" is the bare minimum for two people to pass one another. In a multideck operating layout, there will often be people bending over slightly to get a look under the top deck. That will occupy much more of the aisle than a person standing straight up. 48" or more can still become fairly tight where there will be multiple operators in an area and some of them are bending over.

As stated earlier, the 3 ft aisles worked alright. Of course, wider is better.

QUOTE:
- The track seems unrealistically close to the benchwork edge in a few places, especially the yard. Derailed equipment needs some safety space or a vertical barrier (like clear plastic). How will the yard crews uncouple cars? Reaching across that many tracks at that height will be a challenge and may create problems for equipment on aisle-side tracks being derailed by sleeves. If you are committed to this configuration, I strongly suggest mocking it up.

Step up platforms will be provided for a couple yard switchers at each end if needed. Uncoupling will be accomplished either with uncoupling magnets or, if I use the couplers from Sergent Engineering, a magnet on a wand.

QUOTE:
- There does not seem to be much modulation of deck widths ... that is, the upper deck is the same width as the lower deck most everywhere. This will make the room seem very full and make it harder to see the operating locations on the lower deck, causing more bending over and thus much more aisle congestion.

I'd suggest re-working the areas with less trackage to be significantly narrower. Modulation of deck widths improves visibility, adds to the overall appearance, and means you have less benchwork/scenery to build. As Darnaby and others have shown, a narrow strip of benchwork can be very convincing "out along the line".

I could narrow the area between Jenison and Hudsonville.

QUOTE:
- Generally I like loop- or through staging, especially for a layout of this scope. Muzzle-loading stub-end staging takes a long time to reset. Sometimes it's the only way to get things to fit, but it lowers the fun-time to reset-time ratio. With that said, the access to the Muskegon and Allegan lower staging seems very poor. Crawling back in there for maintenance, track cleaning, etc., will be a pain (literally).

You're correct. I think I may "un-loop" the Allegan and Muskegon staging for that reason.

QUOTE:
- Orsonroy is right about access in the engine service area … seems like quite a reach

- I also would take Orsonroy's advice to heart about the elevation of the main yard. Pretty high to work it extensively. I'd also be a bit concerned about one of the yard leads going immediately out of sight into the utility room. Maybe I do not understand the drawing, but this is a recipe for frustration.

- There are some nice long industry spurs and multi-track industries, which are good. A number of the other spurs seem to be of the 2- or 3-car variety. Maybe that's prototypical, but it seems a bit out of balance with the larger industries. The "GM Plant" and "NYC interchange" are a couple of tracks that intuitively seem like they should be longer

The GM plant is a medium sized plant and the siding in real life consists of a couple of tracks going directly into the building. The plant was pretty new at the time outside detail was and is pretty minimal. In 1944, the PM only received 381 loaded cars from the NYC and delivered 1060 loaded cars to the NYC at Grand Rapids. That is only 4 loaded cars a day (plus probably about the same number of empties). The interchange track is 87 inches long. Take out 10 inches for clearing the main and 5 for the (unprototypical) crossing of the GR Belt and 72 inches remain. That's 12 40ft cars.

QUOTE:
- It's hard for me to tell from the .pdf, but did you use templates for the turnouts? Some of them seem like they would have overlapping points, which is not really possible, even with hand-laid track.

I did not use templates. I used the student edition of Pro/ENGINEER, the CAD system I use at work. For the #8 AMC turnouts, the distance from theoretical intersection and the points is just over 4 inches in HO scale. I've allowed a minimum of 5 inches for each turnout.

QUOTE:
- Was Wyoming Yard a division point on the prototype railroad? Given the amount of space you have committed to an engine terminal, I'm guessing that might be the case. How do you imagine operating the layout, that is, what elements of the prototype operation will you be attempting to duplicate? Were there substantial engine/crew changes at Wyoming in the era you are modeling?

Yes, it was and still is a major crew change point.

QUOTE:
Since I don't know the prototype, I can't offer specific advice here, but generally the design should support the style and intensity of operations you envision. If you plan to have a large number of trains arrive from staging and promptly change crews/engines at Wyoming Yard, it will increase the load on the yard and reduce its throughput. And reducing the throughput on the yard will dimini***he capacity of the entire layout in this scenario.

- Proto:87 (as you mention on the web page) seems wholly unrealistic for a layout of this scope, frankly. This is a huge undertaking and unless you've built a substantial layout already, it's tough to estimate the number of man-hours required, even with "standard" HO.

I've been involved with a club layout of this size previously, including an entirely handlaid one. I'm not to worried about the Proto87 turnouts as I plan on making a fixture like those at www.handlaidtrack.com for AMC #8 and #10 turnouts. The only worry is the steamers, although I do have access to a nice lathe and the skills to make the custom drivers that will be required.

QUOTE:
- My overall advice would be to take a step back and decide how you want to operate, how many crew members, how many trains, length of trains, etc., etc. (Maybe you've already done that and it's just not on the site.) The overall design is very ambitious and somewhat overwhelms the space. Perhaps a trimmed and edited version would result in a more accessible, attainable layout and could still meet your operational and appearance goals.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Regards,

Byron
Custom Layout Design and Operations Planning

Yes, DCC is the plan.
While N scale was considered, I just can't pass up on the detail you can get in HO.

Thanks everyone.

[Anonymous]

Heres the 38 dollar question, is this DCC controlled? I couldnt imagine having a layout that size without DCC.

[Anonymous]

Overall the track plan is great. The comments about larger sidings for some of the industries was on point but overall I realy like it. Just consider one thing. N scale. You could eliminate one level and still have more scael miles of track. You could widen out the aisle and still have good looking curves. Just a thought.

[SpaceMouse]

The mainlines look good, but I'm wondering if you plan to do any switching or yard work.

[Anonymous]

HI -
Where do u live in Minnesota? I live in Bloomington. Send me an email. Jim Colehour
@ [e-mail]

[cuyama]

- I'm also concerned about the amount of operation (and thus, the number of operators) vs. the aisle space. 28" is the bare minimum for two people to pass one another. In a multideck operating layout, there will often be people bending over slightly to get a look under the top deck. That will occupy much more of the aisle than a person standing straight up. 48" or more can still become fairly tight where there will be multiple operators in an area and some of them are bending over.

- The track seems unrealistically close to the benchwork edge in a few places, especially the yard. Derailed equipment needs some safety space or a vertical barrier (like clear plastic). How will the yard crews uncouple cars? Reaching across that many tracks at that height will be a challenge and may create problems for equipment on aisle-side tracks being derailed by sleeves. If you are committed to this configuration, I strongly suggest mocking it up.

- There does not seem to be much modulation of deck widths ... that is, the upper deck is the same width as the lower deck most everywhere. This will make the room seem very full and make it harder to see the operating locations on the lower deck, causing more bending over and thus much more aisle congestion.

I'd suggest re-working the areas with less trackage to be significantly narrower. Modulation of deck widths improves visibility, adds to the overall appearance, and means you have less benchwork/scenery to build. As Darnaby and others have shown, a narrow strip of benchwork can be very convincing "out along the line".

- Generally I like loop- or through staging, especially for a layout of this scope. Muzzle-loading stub-end staging takes a long time to reset. Sometimes it's the only way to get things to fit, but it lowers the fun-time to reset-time ratio. With that said, the access to the Muskegon and Allegan lower staging seems very poor. Crawling back in there for maintenance, track cleaning, etc., will be a pain (literally).

- Orsonroy is right about access in the engine service area … seems like quite a reach

- I also would take Orsonroy's advice to heart about the elevation of the main yard. Pretty high to work it extensively. I'd also be a bit concerned about one of the yard leads going immediately out of sight into the utility room. Maybe I do not understand the drawing, but this is a recipe for frustration.

- There are some nice long industry spurs and multi-track industries, which are good. A number of the other spurs seem to be of the 2- or 3-car variety. Maybe that's prototypical, but it seems a bit out of balance with the larger industries. The "GM Plant" and "NYC interchange" are a couple of tracks that intuitively seem like they should be longer

- It's hard for me to tell from the .pdf, but did you use templates for the turnouts? Some of them seem like they would have overlapping points, which is not really possible, even with hand-laid track.

- Was Wyoming Yard a division point on the prototype railroad? Given the amount of space you have committed to an engine terminal, I'm guessing that might be the case. How do you imagine operating the layout, that is, what elements of the prototype operation will you be attempting to duplicate? Were there substantial engine/crew changes at Wyoming in the era you are modeling?

Since I don't know the prototype, I can't offer specific advice here, but generally the design should support the style and intensity of operations you envision. If you plan to have a large number of trains arrive from staging and promptly change crews/engines at Wyoming Yard, it will increase the load on the yard and reduce its throughput. And reducing the throughput on the yard will dimini***he capacity of the entire layout in this scenario.

- Proto:87 (as you mention on the web page) seems wholly unrealistic for a layout of this scope, frankly. This is a huge undertaking and unless you've built a substantial layout already, it's tough to estimate the number of man-hours required, even with "standard" HO.

- My overall advice would be to take a step back and decide how you want to operate, how many crew members, how many trains, length of trains, etc., etc. (Maybe you've already done that and it's just not on the site.) The overall design is very ambitious and somewhat overwhelms the space. Perhaps a trimmed and edited version would result in a more accessible, attainable layout and could still meet your operational and appearance goals.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Regards,

Byron
Custom Layout Design and Operations Planning

[orsonroy]

Yow! Great plan!

As a fellow AMC 1940's modeler, and as someone who has a three level (much smaller than yours!), let me make a few observations:

1) get a largeish crew organized NOW. I'm not that familiar with the PM's timetables, but it looks like you've got the layout to handle 10-16 trains per "day", which will require a minimum of eight road crews and four yard crews.

2) if you can't wrangle a large, regular crew, think about scaling back your staging and Wyoming yard. Selective compression isn't a four letter word in this hobby! You'll still end up with the essence of the line, but it won't take as long to build, won't be as expensive or maintenance-intensive, and you'll be able to have fun op sessions with 2-4 guys.

3) do you really need balloon staging? They take up a lot of space, especially with 38" curves. If you're planning on making this a mostly TT/TO layout, you really won't use them in a session, and with your gentle grades, backing and restaging trains shouldn't be a problem (or you could add a turntable to turn engines at each staging yard, cutting down on manual engine handling)

4) 62" is REALLY high for a main yard that'll see a lot of use. My upper deck is 58", I'm 6'2", and I need a stool to reach in more than 6". I've operated on two northern Illinois multilevels with big yards on the upper levels, and neither really work. One requires yard operators to have a stool handy, which eats up basically all the 3' aisles. The other has an elevated op "pit" for the yard crews to work on, but the road crews barely see their trains until they're released from the yard. Both are pains, and inelegant designs. I'd plan this layout with the main yard on the lower level, so access isn't restricted. Either that, or plan for wider aisles there.

5) Wyoming's main engine terminal is almost wholly inaccessable. The 350 degree roundhouse looks nice, but you won't be able to get to derailments (which happen frequently at TTs). The shops area, which are usually decorative rather than operational on most layouts, should be OK, but be prepared to crawl over there once a year to rescue stuff (liftouts would be in order). Taking a cue from Bill Darnaby's layout, I'd cut the roundhouse in half and make it more accessable.

6) You've only got stretches of plain mainline at Jenison and Vriesland. If your proto 25 mile line really is that congested, then the plan's OK. But if the line's really miles and miles of nothingness occasionally interrupted by a whistle stop, the plan's out of balance. I generally plan with one full train length of absolute nothingness (no switches or structures at all) between towns. (my new basement, at 25x25, will have one scale mile between towns, at least). You need a real visual break between switching areas to capture the feel of midwestern railroading. Too much track versus scenery and it starts to look like the eastern seaboard.

7) Your staging seems to be unbalanced, with 17 tracks to the east and 22 to the west (yow; room for 78 trains per 24 hour session! Did the PM REALLY see that much traffic?). Remember to work on your base schedule before you set staging. I've got 10 ETT's for my Peoria Division, as well as thousands of form 19's from my time period, and I'm only BARELY comfortable with how traffic really moved on the line. I still need to interview a few old-timers and discover a few conductor's books to really figure out what the schedule should look like. For a 24-hour period for my major NKP mainline between Peoria and Frankfort (I'm only modelling up to Bloomington, about 1/3 of the line), I only really need 12+2 staging tracks.

8) This large a layout, requiring this big a crew, will definitely need a crew lounge and assembly area. For the sake of matrimonial harmony, it's generally best that that area isn't in the main part of the house, but in the basement along with the layout!

9) remember to NOT skimp on the aisle space. You've got 3' planned, which is good, but you'll need at least a couple of areas set at 4' or wider (remember; there are a lot of wide modelers out there!) Believe it or not, 3' is the BARE minimum aisle space to plan for with any large, linear layout. You'll realistically have to sacrifice a few inches of layout depth here and there, but it'll be worth it in the long run, since your operators will enjoy playing trains with you, and will come back!

All in all, this is a great design, and one of the better linears I've ever seen. It will take a long time to build, but if you design around foam-based construction rather than traditional, it'll go up a LOT faster (Bill Darnaby's basic benchwork went up in only two years or so, and his mainline went in soon afterwards. Not all the towns are built yet, but he's able to run full operating sessions)

Let me know if you ever need leased NKP Berks as runthrough power, and I'll bring them out to play!

[Medina1128]

Eric, what part of Minnesota do you live in? Looks like most of Minnesota is in your layout! Have fun and enjoy! [:)]

[ClinchValleySD40]

Looks great, mark me up for an ops session. It's going to be a blast to operate.

Larry

[IRONROOSTER]

That's a very large plan. The major concern I would have is maintenance - that's a lot of turnouts, cars and locomotives. Use only the very best. The major downside that I see is that I don't think you can build such that you can stop short and still have a satisfying railroad. If you haven't already, I would seriously consider forming a club to help.
Enjoy
Paul

[selector]

Smoly Hoke is right, Ken! In fact, it won't be enough to help you build this monster! [:P] I hope you're younger than 45, 'cuz it's gonna take you until yer 90 to get a train around it. Unless, of course, you are in the Corps of Engineers?[(-D]

[ereimer]

wow that is a huge, ambitious plan . i don't even want to contemplate the cost of track , switches and switch motors ! i wish i lived near you so i could offer to help with the construction , and maybe run some trains when it's done [:)]

[NZRMac]

As Crandell would say Smoly Hoke!!! Looks fantastic, keep us posted on the progress

Ken.

[ericboone]

Here is a link to my new layout plan:
http://www.peremarquette.net/track-plan.pdf

Here is a link to more information about the layout:
http://www.peremarquette.net/layout.html

I would appreciate any feedback or suggestions.

The layout is intended to represent the Chicago Division of the Pere Marquette Railway between Grand Rapids and Holland, Michigan in August of 1946.

The layout consists of two "scenic" levels and two levels of staging. It is essentially a no-lix. The layout climbs a gentle 1% grade around the room with flat sections for the two yards from one end to the other between the upper and lower staging yards.

The basic layout statistics are as follows:
Dimensions: 38' x 28'
Area: 810 sq ft
Minimum Mainline Radius: 38"
Minimum Radius: 30"
Minimum Turnout: #8
Minimum Crossover or Passing Siding Turnout: #10
Maximum Grade: 1%
Typical Track Spacing: 1.79" (13 HO scale feet; C&O, Erie, NKP, PM standard)
Notes: All curves have easements and spacing between tracks on curves is increased.

Unfortunately, I still have to fini***he basement that will be it's home. Hopefully that can be completed this fall.