Great link!
Any pics`anywhere?
TIA
Hi Stix --
Tempting as it may be, I just don't think I have the space for a roundhouse or any kind of service facilities for engines. I have a diesel fueling pad kit and a sand tower kit, but I think I will have to resist the temptation of trying to fit these in somewhere.
Btw - did you see David "Zoo" Zuhns excellent virtual tour of the Minnesota Transfer/ Minnesota Commercial ?
Can be found at http://www.mnnr.org/prototype/tour/
Smile, Stein
steinjr wrote: Hi Chip -- This is the area you area refering to, right ?
Hi Chip --
This is the area you area refering to, right ?
That's it. I didn't notice the elevation numbers--my bad.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Umm - just to be clear about it - I _also_ obviously owe a debt of gratitude to the people who replied to me on the Usenet newsgroup and in the Yahoo groups.
In particular I would like to single out Linda Sand for reminding me that each industry could have several spots for cars, that staging, yard and industries should be reasonably well balanced and splitrock323 for reminding me that my protorype the Minnesota Transfer actual has a lot of industry sidings along the track that are above or below the mainline, Paul Cutler in the newsgroup for recommending engines, Mark Newton and several others in the newsgroup for helping me decide on a prototype, David "Zoo" Zuhn for having a great webpage on the Minnesota Transfer and the Saint Paul Bridge and for very graciously offering quite a bit of advice by email when email from a stranger from across the seas just dumped into his mailbox.
A lot of people who deserve praise and thanks from me. Thank you all !
Now, having already given my "thank you!" speech to the academy, I guess just have to get down there to the basement and actually get started on _building_ my layout :-)
Grin, Stein
Dave-the-Train wrote: This may seem a silly question...Do you think that this thread and the previous one have been a good way to go to develop your plan? Would you recommend it as a process to others?
This may seem a silly question...
Do you think that this thread and the previous one have been a good way to go to develop your plan? Would you recommend it as a process to others?
Absolutely. I have tried five approaches:
Just trying to come up with good ideas in splendid isolation was the idea that gave me the absolute least .
Most useful (for me) feedback has been the combination of bandying around layout ideas with a friend (Forum poster Svein, who lives near me here in Norway) and from feedback on the MR forums.
Why did I get more from the MR forums than from the yahoo group or the usenet newsgroup ?
For one thing because these forums have a far better user interface than yahoo groups or Usenet newsgroups - in particular that you can add illustrations directly, you can easily quote the person you are replying to, and posts are threaded in a fairly readable way, so context is preserved, even for discussions that last over time.
For another thing - the value of a discussion group consists of the people who post there. I owe core ideas to many of these people - I got much of the yard ideas from you, the twice around mainline and not letting the yard lead cross the main from Eric Boone, using vertical separation from Svein, advice on operations from Tom Bryant and a lot of useful advice from others too many to name them all - in no particular order, just a few of the names I happen to remember right here and now : Brakie, Space Mouse, Safety Valve, Texas Zepher, Selector, WjStix and a lot of others.
Yes, I would recommend this process to others.
SpaceMouse wrote: I've not been attending to a lot of the post I'd have like to have followed, but today I had some time and was catching up. The thing is I kept having ideas to and by the time I read the next post or two they were implemneted. I think you've done a fine job. If I have any reservations it would be the place where the main splits and the crosses the track to staging. It seem a little tricky. Couldn't you make the split after the crossing. I also think it might be worth the curved turnout to move where bypass leaves the main off the duck-under. It's just one less thing to go wrong there.
I've not been attending to a lot of the post I'd have like to have followed, but today I had some time and was catching up.
The thing is I kept having ideas to and by the time I read the next post or two they were implemneted. I think you've done a fine job.
If I have any reservations it would be the place where the main splits and the crosses the track to staging. It seem a little tricky. Couldn't you make the split after the crossing.
I also think it might be worth the curved turnout to move where bypass leaves the main off the duck-under. It's just one less thing to go wrong there.
The main reason I ended up branching off from the main to the lead to yard track 2 and 3 so far down that the underpass has to cross under two tracks (the main and the secondary lead) is that I tried to leave myself enough room for a runaround move with a switcher and one or two short freight cars from track 2 to track 3 without having to use the mainline.
I now have about 47 centimeters (18.5") from the end of the turnout where track 3 splits off track 2 to the turnout to the mainline - just barely enough space for a short switcher and two 40' cars.
I could change it, but I am not sure it would gain me much to make the underpass 2 inches shorter (just having to go under one track instead of two).
How would you do it ?
Safety Valve wrote: That track plan looks complete. I dont know how you are going to do scenery but if you take away any track or add any track it will be too much.I see you are working around the grades with short trains.I copied the version Double06 onto my computer for review there is much order that i can see but have to run it in my head to see how it is.I give this plan 5 anvils out of 5.
That track plan looks complete. I dont know how you are going to do scenery but if you take away any track or add any track it will be too much.
I see you are working around the grades with short trains.
I copied the version Double06 onto my computer for review there is much order that i can see but have to run it in my head to see how it is.
I give this plan 5 anvils out of 5.
Thank you, Valve --
My (preliminary) plan for scenery is fairly sparse (see below).
I plan to add pictures in the (curved) "corners" along the top wall. On the left I want to use a greyscale picture of downtown Minneapolis seen from a distance in the mid-1950s - with a skyline dominated by the Foshay tower. On the right I want to use a greyscale picture from the MTRY yards ca 1940. Between these two I plan to put together a photo background with views from streets and businesses that belonged in the Midway neighbourhood at the time.
I will need to come up with some kind of retaining wall between the mainline by the yard and the landscape below (which is about 3 inches lower).
Along the right wall of the layout room I want to add a corner of a small lake/pond up by the chimney, with a few trees along the lake, maybe a fisherman or a picnic scene, if I can pull it off looking good. The corner down by the door on the right wall will just have to have some trees in the background of where the trains to staging come climbing up through a cut with grassy banks.
I still haven't figured out what to do for landscaping along the low divider wall in front of the staging tracks. Any suggestions ?
I have also been thinking about how to build this - I plan to cut out a little bit of the layout and build that part as phase 1 of the plan - the area around the mill seems most promising, and just hooking that part up to some temporary tracks so I can get to the running trains stage reasonably quickly.
Don't know if I have picked the most sensible part, but this is what I am thinking for now:
Any suggestions ?
wjstix wrote: Yup, I grew up in Richfield, moved last summer to Cottage Grove - go by the BNSF and CP mainlines to Chicago everyday going to from work. Things seem to be taking a very Skandihoovian turn here!! BTW I'm 3/4ths Norwegian, Grandpa Stixrud was from Drammen and Gramma Stix from Lillehammer.
Yup, I grew up in Richfield, moved last summer to Cottage Grove - go by the BNSF and CP mainlines to Chicago everyday going to from work.
Things seem to be taking a very Skandihoovian turn here!! BTW I'm 3/4ths Norwegian, Grandpa Stixrud was from Drammen and Gramma Stix from Lillehammer.
That's Minnesota for you!
Drammen isn't too far from where my dad's ancestors came from - my great grandpa came from a farm just outside the small town of Hokksund, a little north of Drammen. He started working on the railroad near Drammen over here back in 1885. Various members of our family, including these days my brother, have been working on the railroad ever since.
wjstix wrote: I do have a copy of the Donovan booklet. He did some good stuff, I also have an autographed copy of his book on the Minneapolis and St.Louis. I had a great uncle that worked for the M-St.L in their headoffice in Minneapolis. On my new layout (also still in planning stage) I'm hoping to include a northern cousin to the MN Transfer, the Lake Superior Terminal and Transfer RR in Superior, Wisconsin. It was owned by the six railroads that Superior, and served their yards and the docks and warehouses there. (Also the large Superior depot that GN and later Amtrak used was on their line.)Neat thing about LST&T is it was mostly influenced by co-owner Great Northern - it had steam engines in the glacier park green paintscheme, and it's diesel paintscheme was identical to the green and orange GN paintscheme...only they never changed it, it was still full orange/green with yellow striping in the 1980's long after the GN merger!!
I do have a copy of the Donovan booklet. He did some good stuff, I also have an autographed copy of his book on the Minneapolis and St.Louis. I had a great uncle that worked for the M-St.L in their headoffice in Minneapolis.
On my new layout (also still in planning stage) I'm hoping to include a northern cousin to the MN Transfer, the Lake Superior Terminal and Transfer RR in Superior, Wisconsin. It was owned by the six railroads that Superior, and served their yards and the docks and warehouses there. (Also the large Superior depot that GN and later Amtrak used was on their line.)
Neat thing about LST&T is it was mostly influenced by co-owner Great Northern - it had steam engines in the glacier park green paintscheme, and it's diesel paintscheme was identical to the green and orange GN paintscheme...only they never changed it, it was still full orange/green with yellow striping in the 1980's long after the GN merger!!
Neat! I did briefly consider modelling part of an iron ore dock operation. My father-in-law worked on a great lakes ore carrier back in the 1950s, carrying ore from Wisconsin down to Erie, Pa, and grain or coal from Erie or Ashtabula, OH back to Duluth or Superior.
But looking at the size of those things quickly made me realize that ore docks was not an option for the space I had available :-)
Things seem to be taking a very Skandihoovian turn here!! Just be glad you're somewhere warm like Norway - it was 15F here last night, had a couple of inches of snow earlier this week. BTW I'm 3/4ths Norwegian, Grandpa Stixrud was from Drammen and Gramma Stix (Monson) was from Lillehammer.
Your track plan looks great Stein, and I hope there's an opening for a neighbourhood operator (hint hint)..!
Hi there wjstix --
I see you hail from the Twin Cities, the part of America I feel most at home in - my wife is from Roseville, even though we live, with our two sons, in my native country, Norway.
wjstix wrote: If it's not too late to chime in, I would go for more staging. FWIW the real MN Transfer did just that - transfer cuts of cars between Twin Cities railroad yards. It did some online switching (including IIRC some warehouses that would be pretty easy to model as flats) but mostly was moving long cuts of cars from say Great Northern to the Soo Line yard, and bringing a cut of cars back.
If it's not too late to chime in, I would go for more staging. FWIW the real MN Transfer did just that - transfer cuts of cars between Twin Cities railroad yards. It did some online switching (including IIRC some warehouses that would be pretty easy to model as flats) but mostly was moving long cuts of cars from say Great Northern to the Soo Line yard, and bringing a cut of cars back.
I know. The MTRY had a _lot_ of interchange traffic - most of it dropped off and picked up in the MTRY main yard at Midway by road power from the nine class 1s that jointly owned the MTRY.
1947 Soo Line Map of Twin Cities Terminalshttp://www.skypoint.com/~hudsonl/railrad/images/soo11947.gif
But long cuts of cars sadly probably pretty much a non-starter in a room that is 11 1/2 feet by 6 1/2 feet - at least as long as I want to stay in H0 scale - N is too small for me.
My initial design was even more packed with tracks than the one I have now, with no less than six single ended staging tracks - three to the railroad north of the main yard, and three to the railroad south of the main yard. It just became too packed with tracks.
I will be operating this thing mostly alone, with maybe one more operator occationally. Three double ended staging tracks plus the yard and about 10 industries will hopefully be enough to give me a couple of hours of running, as long as I run one train at a time and keep speeds prototypically slow.
wjstix wrote: Railfan and Railroad did an article about five years ago on the Minnesota Commercial Ry which is the successor of the MN Transfer. Pretty neat railroad, I suspect MC's St.Paul main yard/shops is the only place where you can ride thru on an Amtrak Superliner and look out the window and see Alco road engines being turned on a turntable and serviced in a roundhouse!!
Railfan and Railroad did an article about five years ago on the Minnesota Commercial Ry which is the successor of the MN Transfer. Pretty neat railroad, I suspect MC's St.Paul main yard/shops is the only place where you can ride thru on an Amtrak Superliner and look out the window and see Alco road engines being turned on a turntable and serviced in a roundhouse!!
Those Alcos was what did it for me - for some reason I just like the look of those Alco diesels.
Incidentally, there is an interesting little 32 page booklet on the MTRY called "Gateway to the Northwest: The Minnesota Transfer Railway" published in Iowa in 1954 by a railroad enthusiast named Frank P Donovan, Jr. The Minnesota Historical society has a copy in their collection.
The prototype had a pretty hefty yard for a shortline - or rather, the Midway yard complex consisted of no less than seven yards, being worked by about 20 engines on a normal day:
Lines the MTRR could do interchange with:
Engines in 1963
Numbers from 1954 indicate that the MTRR handled about 2500-3500 cars a day, and that it did local switching for about 400 local customers. I don't have the corresponding numbers for 1963, but assume that they would not be *extremely* different - perhaps a little than in 1954 (since road transport on the the Interstates was taking over a larger share of the traffic by 1963).
The MTRY was an all-Alco railway during the period I am modelling:
They were still using cabooses outside the yard area in the early 1960s - cabooses were discontinued in 1969 (with conductors riding in the cab of the train from 1969 onwards).
It is a _cool_ railroad, that's for sure. I am looking forward to our summer vacation, when I plan to spend some time roaming along their tracks (safely, on public property or with their permission, of course) and snap some pictures of the operations of their successor railroad, the Minnesota Commercial.
Just a quick followup on my own post to thank everybody who has contributed ideas and comments on my layout proposal.
The layout has gone through a few rounds (I have 57 variants on file so far :-), but now I feel like I have a reasonably good idea about what I'd like to do.
This is the latest incarnation of my H0 layout design - plan name "double06" (it is a double loop, main redesign no 6 of this idea) :
I am still planning to run mainly fairly short trains - one early diesel switcher, 6-8 40' cars and a caboose - a H0 short diesel switcher is about 20 centimeters (just shy of 8"), a caboose or a 40" car is about 14 centimeters (5.5") in H0. An 8-car train would then be about 146-148 centimeters (58") long.
Some highlights:
Anyways - I would like to thank everybody who have provided advice thus far. And I always welcome more advice if anyone spot problems or things that could be done in better ways.
Tom Bryant_MR wrote: steinjr, if you are planning on using the Walther's Shinohara curved turnouts and are using XtrkCad, they are obviously not in the track library. A friend of mine used the default NMRA turnouts in his design and when laying the actual turnouts found they did match the cad plan.We measured and recorded the actual measurements of the Walther's Shinohara curved and some of the straight turnouts and then did custom turnouts in XtrkCad.Measurements are posted in the XtrkCad yahoo group here:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/XTrkCad/message/1351
steinjr, if you are planning on using the Walther's Shinohara curved turnouts and are using XtrkCad, they are obviously not in the track library. A friend of mine used the default NMRA turnouts in his design and when laying the actual turnouts found they did match the cad plan.
We measured and recorded the actual measurements of the Walther's Shinohara curved and some of the straight turnouts and then did custom turnouts in XtrkCad.
Measurements are posted in the XtrkCad yahoo group here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/XTrkCad/message/1351
Hi Tom --
I was planning to just use Peco code 75 flextrack and Peco switches - using SL-191/SL-192 short (#4) straight turnouts in a few places, SL-195/SL-196 (#6) medium straight turnouts most places, and SL-186/SL-187 curved turnouts on curves, plus one SL-99 Three way turnout.
Reason ? They are available locally here where I live in Norway at a (somewhat ...) reasonable price, can easily be thrown by hand, keep their position well without a motor and are in the libraries that come with xtrakcad.
But I'll make a note of the Shinohara turnout measurements in the xtrakcad group - could come in handy at some stage. Thank you!
Tom Bryant_MR wrote: I like plan double01d as it allows for a longer yard lead and still allows for the scenic divider to cover the entrance to staging.
I like plan double01d as it allows for a longer yard lead and still allows for the scenic divider to cover the entrance to staging.
I am still leaning somewhat that way, myself. If the mainline had been busier, I would have been more strict about not having the yard lead cross the mainline up there. But this layout will have one operator (me), and probably rarely more than one train moving (at slow speed) at any given time.
Another thing I am planning to change is elevations. As designed now, the whole thing is flat. I plan to divide it into four plateaus, and replace the diamond on the right side of the layout with a bridge/underpass.
inclines:
A) When I use the full double loop for a mainline:
Bottomlands to underpass: 2.7% downhill from 115 cm to 112 cm Underpass to staging entrance: 3.1% uphill from 112 cm to 120 cm Staging yard: 0% incline, 120 cm Staging yard to yard throat: 2.9% uphill from 120 cm to 122 cm Yard throat to bridge: 0% stigning, 122 cm Bridge til flour mill plateau: 3.6% downhill from 122 cm to 118 cm Flour mill plateau to Brewery siding: 0% incline, 118 cm Brewery siding to transloading siding: 3% downhill from 118 cm to 115 cm B) When I just run trains around the inner loop, using the interchange as a bypass Bottomlands up interchange to flour mill plateau: 1.6% up from 115 cm til 118 cm Flour mill plateau to brewery siding: 0%, 118 cm Brewery siding to transloading siding: 3% downhill from 118 cm to 115 cm
Vertical separation between yard and industries along mainline by yard: 7 cm (3") Vertical separation at bridge: 10 cm (4")
steinjr wrote: Hi Eric -- Have thought about it - I still want to be able to take a train from staging directly into the yard ladder, and I don't want to cut down on the length of yard track 2. Problem with the first suggestion (slip switch in track 1 to allow access from staging to both track 1 and track 2) is that it eats up too much of track 2, and forces me to run shorter trains. Problem with the second suggestion (only yard lead to have access to track 2) is that it makes it hard to take trains coming right from the top of staging into track 2 or depart trains towards the top of staging from track 2 without backing up to get off the mainline or onto the mainline. So, let's try a _slightly_ different approach. How about something like this ? id code: double02b Here is the "original" (in this context) proposal: id code: double01d There is a couple of "costs" associated with getting the yard lead on the same side of the mainline as the yard is : usable length of track 1 gets a little shorter (162 cm instead of 184 cm), it adds two extra turnouts, the yard lead gets a bit shorter (116 cm instead of 147cm), and the yard lead gets a little less accessible, being at the back instead of curving out towards the layout edge. But you are also right that it makes it possible to use the yard lead without fouling the main, which is a better way of having the main lead. Btw - look of the whole layout now:Layout double02b: Layout double01d: Smile,Stein
Have thought about it - I still want to be able to take a train from staging directly into the yard ladder, and I don't want to cut down on the length of yard track 2.
Problem with the first suggestion (slip switch in track 1 to allow access from staging to both track 1 and track 2) is that it eats up too much of track 2, and forces me to run shorter trains.
Problem with the second suggestion (only yard lead to have access to track 2) is that it makes it hard to take trains coming right from the top of staging into track 2 or depart trains towards the top of staging from track 2 without backing up to get off the mainline or onto the mainline.
So, let's try a _slightly_ different approach. How about something like this ?
id code: double02b
Here is the "original" (in this context) proposal:
id code: double01d
There is a couple of "costs" associated with getting the yard lead on the same side of the mainline as the yard is : usable length of track 1 gets a little shorter (162 cm instead of 184 cm), it adds two extra turnouts, the yard lead gets a bit shorter (116 cm instead of 147cm), and the yard lead gets a little less accessible, being at the back instead of curving out towards the layout edge.
But you are also right that it makes it possible to use the yard lead without fouling the main, which is a better way of having the main lead.
Btw - look of the whole layout now:
Layout double02b:
Layout double01d:
Smile,Stein
I think you've come up with a good comprimise. While the switcher will be unable to classify cars in the stub end portion of the yard while a train is entering or leaving track two, your mainline (track one) is not obstructed by the switcher. This keeps track two longer and allows for an extra car length or two on your trains.
I could see you potentially buying some space with special trackwork in that area, but I haven't figured it out yet myself. (Of course special trackwork does cost a bit more too.) The article in the May issue of MR is quite timely.
Regards,
Tom
ericboone wrote: If you made the turnout labeled 142.200 a single slip switch and connected from there to track two, then track one and two would both be accessable from the mainline at the left side of your yard. Use track one as your mainline and track two as your arrival and departure (A & D) track.Another option is to reconfigure your turnouts so the yard lead only accesses track two and the stub end tracks. If track one is treated as mainline and track two as an A & D track, the switcher on the lead doesn't really need to have access to the mainline anyway.If I had to choose, I would use the single slip switch so the switcher could still access the mainline from the lead though. Also, it may make sense to put your engine servicing facilities in the upper left corner.
If you made the turnout labeled 142.200 a single slip switch and connected from there to track two, then track one and two would both be accessable from the mainline at the left side of your yard. Use track one as your mainline and track two as your arrival and departure (A & D) track.
Another option is to reconfigure your turnouts so the yard lead only accesses track two and the stub end tracks. If track one is treated as mainline and track two as an A & D track, the switcher on the lead doesn't really need to have access to the mainline anyway.
If I had to choose, I would use the single slip switch so the switcher could still access the mainline from the lead though.
Also, it may make sense to put your engine servicing facilities in the upper left corner.
Hi Eric --
ericboone wrote:I like the plan you've laid out. However, there is one thing to fix. Your yard lead needs to be on the other side of the mainline into staging. A yard switcher should be able to access all of the yard tracks from the lead without crossing or fouling the mainline.
I like the plan you've laid out. However, there is one thing to fix. Your yard lead needs to be on the other side of the mainline into staging. A yard switcher should be able to access all of the yard tracks from the lead without crossing or fouling the mainline.
I see your point, and I agree in principle, but I think I don't have enough space in the upper left corner to do that in a good way.
I obviously _could_ swap around the mainline into staging and yard lead in such a way that the yard lead branched off the outer end of the curved turnout and the main into staging branched off the innermost end of the curved turnout, but the yard lead would still foul the mainline in that configuration.
Fouling the main is not good, but the alternatives seems worse - like branching the mainline off further down the lowest doubleended yard track (see figure under) - it eats up length of yard track 1, makes the yard lead harder to see (or staging more visible), and makes yard track 1 the only track trains coming into the yard from the left can use.
Are you sure something like this would be an improvement ? How would you do it ?
steinjr wrote: Dave-the-Train wrote: Hey! I wondered where you'd gone! Glad you haven't been abducted by aliens How's the plan coming along? Hi Dave -- Still working on it. I think I am starting to get satisfied with the mainline, staging and yard setup. What I have now is:48" mainline in a double loop, with a diamond (and a cutoff/ interchange) where the innermost loop crosses the outer looptwo double ended staging tracks - with third double ended track through staging that can be used as staging or as part of the mainline,A yard that has two double ended tracks long enough for a whole trainthree places on the layout two full length trains can pass each other : staging, main yard and mainline siding along the bottom wall. I am now working on where to put industries, struggling with the temptation to cram in a lot of industries and make the whole thing too overloaded again. This is what the layout look like now. Smile, Stein
Dave-the-Train wrote: Hey! I wondered where you'd gone! Glad you haven't been abducted by aliens How's the plan coming along?
Hey! I wondered where you'd gone!
Glad you haven't been abducted by aliens
How's the plan coming along?
Hi Dave --
Still working on it. I think I am starting to get satisfied with the mainline, staging and yard setup. What I have now is:
I am now working on where to put industries, struggling with the temptation to cram in a lot of industries and make the whole thing too overloaded again. This is what the layout look like now.
Safety Valve wrote: Hold it right where it is now on that layout. It's time to "Game out" the plan and see if you are able to run the trains and operate the way you want to.One idea would be to build a virtual world on Trainz 2006 and actually TRY to run it yourself.
Hold it right where it is now on that layout. It's time to "Game out" the plan and see if you are able to run the trains and operate the way you want to.
One idea would be to build a virtual world on Trainz 2006 and actually TRY to run it yourself.
Agree with Safety Valve also. It appears you might be using XtrkCad to do your plan. If so, it has a "run" the trains mode.
I agree with Safety Valve... plus, at least consder giving the whole planning thing a miss for at least a week if not a month.
Allow yourself to make notes (somewhere you'll be able to find them again -unlike my usual practice - then again, the ideas that stick when you can't find the note are probably the good ones -- also, making notes unloads them and saves you keep thinking round and round the idea.
Other than that go and weather cars, prepare track... anything... but give your brain a break from planning... and the planning a break from your brain.
This does work... what matters, what works and loads of stuff sort themselves out if you stop staring at them for a bit.
Keep having fun
Here is a link to a picture taken from my very first virtual world attempt with one track, switch and a machine shop:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v651/fallsvalleyrr/FVRRVirtualStart.png
The first thing I learned from that was that took ALOT of space.