John's thread this week resulted in some impressive layout photos.
I would like to add more to my earlier comments. John asked " .... what were the challenges and issues? " if the layout has more than one level.
I have a narrow around the wall layout, and I have no mountains. How can I make the various levels for tracks and highways look realistic?
The answer is retaining walls of various types and rock strata.
This photo has a concrete retaining wall, rock strata, and a stone retaining wall (to the right above the tank car and on top of rock strata).
The next photo has another style of concrete retaining wall behind the Baldwin switcher. Behind the station is rock strata.
The last photo shows more rock strata.
GARRY
HEARTLAND DIVISION, CB&Q RR
EVERYWHERE LOST; WE HUSTLE OUR CABOOSE FOR YOU
John, another interesting and thought provoking thread. Since I'm loosely modeling SC Pa., no pancake for me. My yard is at the lowest elevation. The double track main winds around the basement and eventually climbs about a 1% grade. My coal mine scene has bout a 2 1/2 % grade. My Reading branch climbs about 2%. I have two scenes that drop about a foot below the rest of the layout.
Yard, loco service, and Reading branch.
Roaring Creek scene.
Hammer Creek and Reading branch.
Stoney Creek grade.
Blackwood Coal Co.
Switching the town above the yard.
I used all L girder benchwork as described in Linn Westcot's original benchwork book. I used boards, in lieu of plywood, for most of the flat areas, and spline for most of the curves.
I would use the same benchwork again. The only change I would, and still may, make is to eliminate the tunnel under the upper Blackwood mine. DJ.
I had a sketch of a trackplan for my proposed layout, and had drywalled the space and installed a drop ceiling. I started to build the benchwork (open grid 1"x4" clear pine, 16" o/c) and the layout supports (2"x4"s left-over from building my house - I accidentally ordered too much - with plywood shelving to allow for storage of non-train-related stuff beneath the layout).
I hadn't got very far when upper management decided that some space was needed for "family considerations". I not only lost about 230 square feet of floor space, but also the time needed to partition it off and finish the "new" room. As bad as it was losing the space, I was left with a very oddly-shaped room that was totally unsuited to the original layout plan. Here's a not-to-scale drawing of the space, with the outline of the layout which was eventually built. Total area is about 560sq.ft.
I moved the already-built layout sections into the smaller space, altering them as necessary, but I couldn't alter the original sketch to fit the new room. After stewing about it for a while, I decided to build the benchwork where it would fit, then add track where it would seem to be appropriate. The original layout would have been a point-to-point around-the-room style, with a continuous grade terminating in staging yards, one above the other. At the approximate mid-point, there would have been a long and wide flat peninsula. I liked the idea of the long grade, and decided that the new version could provide that operational interest if it were partially double-decked. In the sketch above, the grey area will eventually have a second level built above it. The peninsula here is the grade from the main level to the as-yet-unbuilt upper level.
Here's the stub-ended south staging yard, which enters the layout by passing through the backdrop at far right. There's a pair of tracks below that (where the three reefers are spotted) representing an un-modelled industrial area which is part of the first town encountered when the trains head north. Below that, with the pair of steamers on a coal drag, is an interchange track which connects with the layout by crossing the aisle on a lift-out bridge. Also visible in the photo is another track leading from the turnout nearest the camera, and disappearing under the main staging yard. It climbs a 4% grade to reach the level of those three reefers, then passes through the backdrop (at far right). This steep hill is not used in normal operations, although it's handy for those occasions when visitors just want to "see a train run".
Here's the first town encountered (Dunnville of the diagram) when trains leave south staging:
The double track at left is from staging, while the single track, to the right and at a lower level, is from the industrial area (where the reefers were spotted). It's also where run-through trains using that 4% grade would enter or leave the layout. As you can see in the distance, the double track drops, while the single track rises - they connect at the turnout shown below, near Negro Creek, then climb towards the next town, South Cayuga.
Here's an over-all view of the same area:
This is South Cayuga, as viewed from the end of the aisle near the Speed River. The peninsula to the second level is to the left, just out of camera range.
The track to the right begins to climb as soon as it passes the last turnout, while the track to the left (a different railroad), starts to descend after passing the handcar shed.
This is the same area viewed from the opposite direction. South Cayuga is at left, the peninsula to the right. In the distance, the two lines separate vertically, the lower dropping at a steady 2.5%, while the upper rises at the same rate. There's actually a short length of 2.8% just before the bridge on that upper track - if a train makes it past that point, it will make it up the entire twisting grade, which is about a scale 3/4 mile long. These steep grades are to achieve separation for the two-level part of the layout, with the lower level eventually dropping, on various grades, to about 36" above the floor, and the upper level rising to 59" above the floor.
The lower track ducks into a tunnel to traverse the base of the peninsula, then re-appears on what will eventually be the lower level of the double-decked section of the layout, while the higher track continues its climb around the perimeter of the peninsula:
Here's where the two lines finally achieve vertical separation:
While the upper line dead-ends at the top of the grade (the track is operational, and I've run a 70 car train to the end, then backed it down the hill ) the lower line continues through the next town (Elfrida on the drawing). In the photo below, Elfrida is on the left, with Chippawa Creek at the end of the aisle. When the track leaves Elfrida, it heads downgrade again, dropping until it gets to the Maitland River bridge (at right, in the distance), then levels out as it enters Lowbanks (near right).
Here's a view in the opposite direction, with Elfrida on the right, Lowbanks to the left, and, in the distance, part of Dunnville:
Leaving Lowbanks (to the left), the track curves around an outside corner of the room, entering Port Maitland (to the right):
Here's GERN Industries, the largest customer on the line. Also visible are openings in the coved corners of the backdrop to permit installation of the second level of the layout:
And here's the same area as viewed from the door of the layout room:
You can see the track at the near right where it crosses the lift-out (leaning against the layout in the distance) to connect with the interchange track shown in the first photo. The upper level of the layout will end above GERN, with a similar lift-out providing access to a stub-ended staging yard to be built above the existing south staging.
The benchwork support was all built to a height of 31", with the open grid sections built to whatever width left me with decent aisle widths. I then cut a couple of sheets of 3/4" plywood into curves of varying radii (30" minimum, although most are 34" or greater), placing the widest ones that would fit wherever a curve was needed (which was almost everywhere due to the shape of the room ) It was then a simple matter to connect the curves with straight sections. I then fastened risers to the underside of the roadbed, and used C-clamps to jockey the heights of the various sections until I got something workable.
Here's a look at the risers and, beneath the accumulated junk, the open grid support on the unfinished peninsula:
I had no trackplan for this layout, and only an idea of what I wanted to accomplish. While it's certainly not what I had originally hoped for, I think that it will prove interesting to operate when the second level is finally completed. I don't think that I could have made it (or would have wanted it) much more "three dimensional".
Wayne
In the beginning, there were subways. I started with a simple box-frame benchwork, on top of which I put down the first layer of 2-inch foam. On that, I built a simple loop with one passing siding, which became the Penny Lane station, and a short spur which was to be Scollay Square. On the side of the layout opposite Penny Lane, I built the Saint Anne Street station. And the evening and the morning were the first deck.
The Penny Lane station is on the right, with the tops of subway cars visible. Saint Anne Street is on the left, but I've already covered it up with the thin Masonite top. One of my rules is that the upper-level track must rest on something solid - no track on liftoffs. You can also see the left and right inclines where the subways come up to meet the surface.
This is, in effect, a double-deck layout. The decks, though, are only separated by 3 inches, so that trains can move from one to the other without the bother of a helix. Most of the run of the subways is underground with another world above. To get the the subways, I arranged for a series of small liftoffs. Here's a picture of part of the layout with the liftoffs removed:
And the same view with the liftoffs in place, as they normally are:
The original "concept of operations" was that the subways would be viewed through the on-board camera, so the tunnels have full scenery. Realistically, the simple loop doesn't provide much interest, so I just let one train loop around while I spend most of my time running the surface layout.
With the surface level elevated several inches over the top of the benchwork, I didn't have to do much work to add Moose Bay, which I dug out a bit lower than the subway level. The bridge, like most of the layout, is level with the ground and therefore requires no climbing.
I did drop the level of the turntable and roundhouse a little bit lower than the rest of the track. I did that just to add some vertical interest. The grade is short and a bit steep, but since only unattached engines ever go down there, I have no problems with it.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Great questions. John, you continue to amaze me with your ability to think of so many thought-starting questions.
There is an important question to ponder which I will discus in the third group of questions on lessons learned. What happens if your masterpiece layout is close to completion, and then you learn you must move?
Is your layout flat like a pancake? Or have you introduced a little dimensionality? If the latter, tell us about it, what did you make, what were the challenges and issues? How did it turn out?
My layout is neither flat as a pancake nor a mountain railroad. It represents the old Burlington Route primarily in the Midwest. The biggest challenge was to fit everything I wanted in the friendly confines of my train room. Space limitations are why I am excluding some of my desired industries and other things to fit my area.
What style of benchwork did you utilize in your layout construction? And if you have an upper deck, what type of construction did you utilize for that? And how did it affect your subsequent choices and track design?
My layout design is primarily around the wall. The basic track plan is a double track mainline running point-to-point. Each end has a reverse loop, and I can run continuously combining the loops with the double track. One section has a lower level with tracks running to a staging yard.
The benchwork is modified “domino” design. It consists of home made tables connected end-to-end. Most of the material is fiberboard cut to size on my table saw.
Beneath the layout, I have home-made enclosed storage cabinets for storing my “stuff”. These are also made of fiberboard.
What lessons and take-aways do you have that you can share with the rest of us? Would you do it the same way again? Why or why not? What would you do differently?
The biggest lesson was learned from prior layouts. I started too many layouts in my lifetime that were later destroyed because of moving to a new home. I learned that a layout must be designed so it can be re-located at a later date.
This is why I wanted the modified “domino” construction. The layout is sectional, and it could be moved if I had to do so. It is not truly portable because it can not be quickly taken apart and put together again in another location. It is not modular because each section must be connected with the correct adjoining sections. It is not fully “domino” because I can not shuffle the sections back and forth.
It is good to me knowing if I move I will not have to completely destroy the layout.
Count me among those who can't think in 3 dimensions. I remember years ago when I used to work for a living, I moved into a larger office. The furniture was placed where I thought it would work best, but I didn't like the layout. I spent a lot of time moving little cutouts of the furniture around on a drawing of the room, but I couldn't get it right. I finally resorted to physically moving the furniture around until I got an arrangement that suited me. My supervisor thought I was crazy and just shook his head sadly at my antics. I've tried drawing out my layout on paper but what works best for me is to actually lay track loosely on the layout and move it around until I get what I want.
My layout is flat as a pancake. It's "dominos" made from 1X4 boxes with a plywood top and 2" of foam over that. If I need the scenery to go up or down, that's easy, but the track is all level. At least so far. I've got rivers and gullies and little rises and hills but the track is flat. I live on the prairies where it's so flat you can watch your dog run away for two days and I think that has influenced my layout design. What would I do differently if I were starting over? I wouldn't have the track all flat and level. No mountains, just some gentle changes in grade. I wouldn't change the benchwork, though. I like the "domino" boxes and foam although I would seriously consider 1" foam instead of 2".
..... Bob
Beam me up, Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here. (Captain Kirk)
I reject your reality and substitute my own. (Adam Savage)
Resistance is not futile--it is voltage divided by current.
jwhitten "Modeling The Third Dimension" So, My Questions For Today Are: -- Is your layout flat like a pancake? Or have you introduced a little dimensionality? If the latter, tell us about it, what did you make, what were the challenges and issues? How did it turn out? -- What style of benchwork did you utilize in your layout construction? And if you have an upper deck, what type of construction did you utilize for that? And how did it affect your subsequent choices and track design? -- What lessons and take-aways do you have that you can share with the rest of us? Would you do it the same way again? Why or why not? What would you do differently? As usual, I'm looking forward to your thoughts and opinions And of course, photos are always encouraged!!! John
"Modeling The Third Dimension"
So, My Questions For Today Are:
-- Is your layout flat like a pancake? Or have you introduced a little dimensionality? If the latter, tell us about it, what did you make, what were the challenges and issues? How did it turn out?
-- What style of benchwork did you utilize in your layout construction? And if you have an upper deck, what type of construction did you utilize for that? And how did it affect your subsequent choices and track design?
-- What lessons and take-aways do you have that you can share with the rest of us? Would you do it the same way again? Why or why not? What would you do differently?
As usual, I'm looking forward to your thoughts and opinions
And of course, photos are always encouraged!!!
John
Good morning, John. As usual your posts are fun to read. To answer your questions in order:
All in all, I'm quite happy with the way the layout turned out, but I learned a lot of things (some of them the hard way) that I can apply if I ever tear this layout down and start over.
Marlon
See pictures of the Clinton-Golden Valley RR
I'm also currently building urban industrial and some waterfront on my layout so the prototype terrain is fairly flat. But, there are still some grades do to tracks passing over each other and a river that runs through it which requires it's own separation from the actual benchtop. I'm also building it in sections so it can be moved at some point in time. Oh and I need to keep these sections low profile since they may eventually become the upper level of a 2 level layout.
Benchwork is open frame with cookie cutter ply on top. I laid out the trackplan with the ply flat on top of the framing, then cut out the ply and added risers to space the subroadbed up from the frame, the river and other water effects will stay attached directly to the frame (water level so to speak) Adding extra bracing to the open grid to support the subroadbed is a simple matter and the risers can be adjusted to even out grades as needed. Overall height of the benchwork is about 4"
The planned lower level will be much more rugged terrain and for that I may go with L girders and spline since I won't need flat realestate for too much more than the steel mill on the lower level.
I'm not afraid to try different things as learning experiences, some folks will probably look at my benchwork and comment that it would never hold up, but those are the folks who build their benchwork to walk on.
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
Currently the layout is plywood on box grid. This facilitates final track planning as I can lay the track loosely on top and rearrange it as needed to get the effect I want. Most of the layout is in cities and towns where everything is flat anyway. Since the main goal for this layout is operations, getting track laid and trains running is the main priority. Scenery takes the back seat and if any is done will be minimalist.
I elected not to go with an upper deck because I have enough room without it and can set an optimum height (50" for me).
Like so much of this hobby there is no right or best way to do it. It really depends on your goals and priorities. This is the second layout I have done this way (the other one succumb to a move) and I find it works well for what I am trying to do.
I always keep in mind 2 well known long time layouts. One is John Allen's Gorre and Daphetid. It had spectacular scenery, but the mainline was never completed. The second is John Armstrong's Canandiagua Southern. The layout was fully operational, but the scenery was never completed.
Enjoy
Paul
Excellent topic, John.
Mine is not flat. I refer to it as "terraced." The front half of the layout is six inches lower than the rear half, sort of like the layout straddles a bluff:
I connect the upper and lower terrace levels via a two-turn helix, the rear half of the helix is inside of tunnels and the other half is on a pair of curved, concentric trestles:
My inspiration for this approach came at a rock concert - no kidding. It occurred to me that the stage was terraced to provide a better view of the drummer, backing vocalists, etc. Visibility was a frustration on my previous layout; it was flat and features were hidden behind other features. On my current layout I decided to try a "concert stage" approach to get better visibility of the rear portion of the layout.
The greatest challenge was building the helix. I had to keep the grade fairly shallow (I ended up at 1.5%) while providing enough vertical space between turns so my locos would fit.
I do think that the vertical separation accomplishes two things: It makes the layout seem bigger and it makes more distant features seem farther from nearer features than they actually are. Another thing it offers is a place to do some vertical scenery (rock work, retaining walls, etc.).
My benchwork is a sandwich of 2 layers of OSB, then a grid of 2X2 lumber, with another 2 layers of OSB on top. I "cookie cluttered" the upper level from the lower level using a router and a straight cutting bit. Then I mounted the upper level on risers.
I simplified it for the left end. I decided that 2 layers of OSB glued back to back with Liquid Nails would do what I needed. It turns out that I was right. Here's a picture of the left end benchwork. On that end I put a terminal on the upper level, and a reversing loop below (mostly inside of a tunnel):
This is how that end turned out:
By the way, on the right end, I cut away the 2X2 grid to make the wetland that the trestles cross; this added a third level:
I'm actually fairly pleased with the way it turned out and I find this OSB sandwich type of platform to be pretty stable and flat. It's been 10 years, moved once, and it spent a year in a non-environmentally controlled storage unit. The OSB is still flat and the layout is rock solid. I plan to use the same kind of benchwork for my planned expansion.
I do think that the terraced approach adds to the viewer's experience, but it's a challenge to connect the two levels of track.
Phil, I'm not a rocket scientist; they are my students.
Sir Madog John, that´s one for me! When it comes to constructing benchwork, I have to admit that I am no wizard. My previous layouts were all pretty flat, with scenery being built up from a table top - somewhat boring, but a lot easier to do (at least that´s what I thought when I built them). I am now building mini-modules, which are pretty flat as well, but just turning a module upside down opens a new dimension. I´d like to present a few pictures to illustrate the idea: 1. the basic ingredients for my "benchwork" 2. "completed" benchwork: 3. You can either "build up": 4. ... or down: 5. ... and you get this: 6. ... or that:: 7. Together, they look like this: It is simple and efficient system, taking away a lot of hassle when building a realistic looking scenery. Instead of planning ahead with scenery in mind, all you have to consider is the transition between the modules. For a mediocre modeler like me, this is the ultimate way of building something nice looking. The lesson learned? KISS
John,
that´s one for me!
When it comes to constructing benchwork, I have to admit that I am no wizard. My previous layouts were all pretty flat, with scenery being built up from a table top - somewhat boring, but a lot easier to do (at least that´s what I thought when I built them).
I am now building mini-modules, which are pretty flat as well, but just turning a module upside down opens a new dimension.
I´d like to present a few pictures to illustrate the idea:
1. the basic ingredients for my "benchwork"
2. "completed" benchwork:
3. You can either "build up":
4. ... or down:
5. ... and you get this:
6. ... or that::
7. Together, they look like this:
It is simple and efficient system, taking away a lot of hassle when building a realistic looking scenery.
Instead of planning ahead with scenery in mind, all you have to consider is the transition between the modules.
For a mediocre modeler like me, this is the ultimate way of building something nice looking.
The lesson learned? KISS
That's a brilliant way to do it, too. Doesn't really woerk for HO, bit I like it! 1) The Madison Railroad is in Southern Indiana, with rolling hils, but nothing that is insane gradient wise, so I'm hoping I can get by as is. I might do shorter module legs to make gradient hieghts. Oh, and there is that little thing about the Incline. It's only a quarter mile and at 6%, to come out of the Ohio River valley...2)My layout hasn't been built, but Dad and I started with 2' by 4' modules built of 1x4s, with a forgotten topper on it. Noot sure how I'm going to do river valleys.
3) Can't answer, but the unfinished frames are ripe for modifications, as I can think of them. And, they store nicely.
-Morgan
- Is your layout flat like a pancake? Just about, for my current layout. I model Galveston Island, elevation generally about 17 feet.
Or have you introduced a little dimensionality? Only the sea level on the "two mile long causeway from the mainland" which is approximately 17 feet below the track and street level.
-- What style of benchwork did you utilize in your layout construction? One inch blue foam on top of sectional box frames screwed together from 1x4s. Leaving off the blue foam for the causeway area (seven sets of Atlas N viaduct top arch sections) lowers the water surface (crinkly bathroom shower stall enclosure leftover panel) about the right distance for the height differential- and matches the Atlas viaduct pieces!
One trick. I also have "lowered" water surface for a shrimpboat harbor which will be viewed at a point where the front edge of layout is about 2 feet from back edge and shrimpboat scene. The boats are so small they could hardly been seen if the water surface was 13 scale feet below street and track level, as established by the causeway scene. But the shrimpboat harbor is around a corner from the causeway scene so I experimented and found it "looked right" with the water level dropped only 6 scale feet. (Even though supposed to be same "ocean.")
Sorry. I am at a relative's computer 1500 miles from home, and so I don't think I can post images today.
jwhitten BATMAN: Mountain railroading is the most interesting to me, probably because of the engineering feat of getting the line through such rugged terrain. Brent Yes, but you cheated, didn't you? You built the "solution" first and *then* the mountains! John
BATMAN: Mountain railroading is the most interesting to me, probably because of the engineering feat of getting the line through such rugged terrain. Brent
Mountain railroading is the most interesting to me, probably because of the engineering feat of getting the line through such rugged terrain.
Brent
Yes, but you cheated, didn't you?
You built the "solution" first and *then* the mountains!
Yes! And it leaves me with such a Godly sense and feeling of creative power. Then the wife calls me to take out the garbage. It's always short lived.
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
I've always loved and preferred the mountains, so it's no suprise that I model mountain railroading. Modeling the mountains and railroads in the mountains requires significant elevation changes of at least the scenery to even begin to look right.
Although not mountain railroads, the progressive nature of the PH&C and Ma & Pa MR project layouts in the '60s also inspired me. The ability to start with a flat top, and grow into grades and elevation changes when one was ready was the perfect scenario for me. And the scenic techniques would work just fine on my first Picture Gorge & Western Ry.
So in 1975 I started with a 4x8 on L-girder underpinnings, just like the Ma & Pa. The track plan and layout had to be completely changed when a move into a smaller house a year later required me to chop the layout to 4x6. Cutting the layout was a matter of cutting the L girders shorter, getting rid of a joist, and readjusting the remaining joists. The new plan was based on Tidewater Central MR project layout from Dec '57 and Jan '58.
As I built, I kept envisioning expanding the passing siding with an elevated branch going along the water shore on the south side and up a ridge and over the main track, which would be in a cut in the bottom right corner. This branch would be my someday expansion, like Portage Hill was on the PH&C.
After I had some of the track laid (all hand laid code 70), I decided it was time to try this scenery thing for the very 1st time. Out came the jig saw, and I cookie-cuttered around the track or where the track would go, including the elevated branch. Because the branch was a very steep grade, I decide to steal a 2" dip in the passing siding from left to right. All of this was a natural with L-girder. Then I got the hare-brained notion to put the north side (the habor) at the same elevation as the beginning of the branch. While this worked physically, it put the harbor at higher elevation than the "inland" passing siding - bad move on my part.
The grades (easily 4% or more) on the 180 degree curve in the 1/2" plywood on the right end resulted in negative super elevation for the first 90 degrees of the curve, and positive super elevation on the second 90 degrees. My 18" spacing of joists set at right angles to the L-girders didn't give me the anchorage I needed to twist the plywood roadbed to adjust out the super elevation. So joists had to be added to provide the anchorage.
Wiring was run on top of L girders, and threaded through holes in the joists. This kept the bottom clean during my many moves courtesy Uncle Sam, and avoided snagged wiring.
Long story short, I'm a big fan of L girder benchwork except when it comes to moving and portability where the thickness and weight are disadvantages. It's just as easy to have scenery bleow track level as it is to have it above. Being able to make major changes, like cutting plywood in place cookie-dutter style, is facilitated by being able to slide joists a couple of inches as needed.
My next layout - about to start construction - is a shelf layout. But because it's still a mountain setting, and I anticipate mostly handlaid track, stacked foam is not a great option. Since the bottom of my shelves will be 55" to accommodate other uses under, stacked foam also has the issue of no good place to run wiring hidden from easy view without building the foam up on an empty layer of some kind. Below the track switch throw mechanisms and hinged or sliding uncoupling magnets are also more trouble-some with foam. So before I actually start, I'm trying to plan a type of grid with L-girder flexibility, but without the thickness or the weight of traditional L girder. I'll probably end up with a modification of Iain Rice's thin plywood grid.
just my experiences
Fred W
tomikawaTT The main lesson is, don't let yourself get locked into the conventional, "This is what everybody does," train of thought. Look for new ways of doing things, and don't be afraid to pioneer new territory. It's a good idea to start with either a prototype or a well thought out What If concept for a railroad. Also, don't submit your personal list of givens and druthers to a committee of strangers unless you are prepared to toss most of the well-meaning but ininformed replies into the dumpster. In the final analysis, only the owner-operator can determine if the (semi)finished model railroad is satisfying to him/her. Other opinions are irrelevant. Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - my way)
The main lesson is, don't let yourself get locked into the conventional, "This is what everybody does," train of thought. Look for new ways of doing things, and don't be afraid to pioneer new territory. It's a good idea to start with either a prototype or a well thought out What If concept for a railroad. Also, don't submit your personal list of givens and druthers to a committee of strangers unless you are prepared to toss most of the well-meaning but ininformed replies into the dumpster.
In the final analysis, only the owner-operator can determine if the (semi)finished model railroad is satisfying to him/her. Other opinions are irrelevant.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - my way)
Create something, don't just build something.
BATMAN Mountain railroading is the most interesting to me, probably because of the engineering feat of getting the line through such rugged terrain. Brent
Mountain railroading is the most interesting to me, probably because of the engineering feat of getting the line through such rugged terrain. Before I started on this layout I came across Art Hills layout with his canyon into the corner and Tom Whites Mountainous marvel where trains traverse track along cliffs with a six foot drop to the floor. I spent a lot of time thinking down as I wanted lots of river crossings.
My very general idea for my layout was the CPR mainline through the Rockies. Maybe from Vancouver to Calgary. I used Spline roadbed to provide the up and over the mountains.
Along the way the line crosses the Stoney Creek Bridge (the highest rail bridge in North America I believe) To accommodate this chasm I built some upside down bench work. For now the spline supports the trains going across, but someday I will cut out the spline and there will be a bridge there. The canyon will go to the floor and goes into the corner of the room.I am a lot further along than this photo indicates.
Getting to the East side of the Rockies I was scratching my head about running out of room for my downhill run into Alberta. I didn't want to go over my 2% grade maximum. The solution was to have higher bench work for the East side of the Rockies. Just like the prototype, the elevation in Alberta is higher than the coast. So here is my higher Alberta on the right.
I built my bench work out of Fir 1" x 4"s. I put it all together using Lap Joints. Glued and screwed. I can cut a chunk out and because of the way it is put together it remains sturdy and strong even with pieces cut out. I found this the best way to do it as plans change along the way and no rebuilding is required if I need to go down further than the 2" of foam. Just cut it out.
So far it has been a lot of fun and rewarding as I have not had to redo any of the bench work. The spline is getting the rugged pink foam granite built up around it and is taking shape nicely. The canyon to the corner is in a so far so good stage. Modeling down from the table is not done as often as it should be. So much can be added visually between the table top and the floor. It adds size to a layout without requiring a larger room.
-- Is your layout flat like a pancake? Or have you introduced a little dimensionality? If the latter, tell us about it, what did you make, what were the challenges and issues? How did it turn out?Mountains and valleys were the rule for my dream layout. I used Westcott's L-Girder bench work and it worked out really great. The layout was narrow gauge and set in Colorado. There were a couple of flat areas where the yards were, but it allowed me to use hard shell scenery to the fullest extent possible and adjust the grades as I was building it. This was before builders foam started being used. The layout turned out really good and I was very pleased.
My present layout framing was built for portability, and thus used a different construction method. I am using a light weight box frame with a Luan top, then a layer of one inch blue foam. The modules are about two foot wide by seven foot long. Even now, I have some mountains and hills, but not too many valleys, all using foam. I also have an upper deck, which is built using the same box frame method. However, it is only 18 inches wide.
-- What lessons and take-aways do you have that you can share with the rest of us? Would you do it the same way again? Why or why not? What would you do differently?As far as lessons, don't be afraid to try new things. And I would build each layout the same way it was originally built. Each was built for a specific purpose. My dream layout was built to be strong and permanent. My present layout is built to be light and portable, so I can take it with me when I move if necessary.
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
jwhitten "Modeling The Third Dimension" -- Is your layout flat like a pancake? Or have you introduced a little dimensionality? If the latter, tell us about it, what did you make, what were the challenges and issues? How did it turn out?
My layout is as flat as the prototype terrain in the area I am modeling - or the depths of the Grand Canyon This came about because I started with a prototype area of known geography (I even have contour maps.) The only trackage not on grades (2.5% mainline, 4% private coal hauler) is either in yards or in the Netherworld - and even in the Netherworld there are long runs of 2% grade.
Since I have built a few layouts before, I don't see any of the techniques I've been using as particularly challenging. So far, everything is going together as intended and should end up pretty much as planned. Incorporating a `dehydrated canal lock' to make a hidden yard accessible, and a train elevator to close the circle on an `empties in, loads out' arrangement at the uppermost level seem to me to be no-brainers.
[Caveat. I trained as a marine engineer, worked as an aircraft mechanic and design oddball electromechanical devices just for the fun of it. I don't just think outside the box, I fold it up and use it for tempoary roadbed!]
Benchwork is steel stud `C acts like L' girder, some freestanding and some supported by shelf brackets. Cookie-cut plywood subgrade is supported above the steel stud joists on risers fabricated from lengths of steel stud material. The main legs of the table which will have very high level track on it are tall enough to support a separate upper level of steel stud girders and joists in anticipation of that requirement. Also, the shelf bracket tracks along the structural walls are tall enough to accept another level of benchwork if I ever decide to put one in.
Actually, the basic track plan came first and the benchwork was designed to support it, not vice-versa. The benchwork is asymmetrical, adapted to the needs of the track plan, allowing for proper access and room enough at control locations for easy operation.
I don't consider benchwork to be permanent and unchangeable. As I worked, I discovered that one joist in the middle of one peninsula wasn't supporting any risers - so I pulled it out and recycled it elsewhere.
There's never time to do it right, but always time to do it over.....
Ok John, you got me. :P
My layout is 99.9% flat. As this is my first attempt at a layout, it is constructed in the simplest way possible: A 2x4 rectangle with a sheet of 4x8 ply on top. The only grades on it is where there is a slight run out as it goes down a 4'x4' extension over uneven concrete and where there is a grade leading up to a coal trestle on a fuel dealer.
(Note: Not even close to scale. Tis just to give you an Idea of things. Yes, there IS a foundation under the track running over the corner. :P)
My particular issue was with the grade on the trestle. I had only 19 inches of run to come up 2 inches. I cut it down as much as I could, but now even Geeps and my 70 Tonner have trouble staying on the rails on the first few inches of incline. Operators have to use a handle of 4 foot boxcars to shove one 55 ton coal hopper up. To save face, I say it's because of "Weight Restrictions." It turned out ok, but I'd still wish I had more room.
All I can say is measure thrice, cut half when making risers.
"How To Build Model Railroad Benchwork" -- Linn Wescott
One of the things that's hard for some people to do is think in more than two dimensions-- at least it was for me. And on the occasion when a third dimension pushes it's way in, such as building a bridge let's say, the most obvious solution for probably most people is to construct a grade for the one route that goes up and over the other route.
An old friend of mine, many years ago, taught me something similar but in another realm-- audio production-- that most people, when attempting to mix multiple input sound sources tend to move the knobs upwards and so the resultant audio output gets louder and louder, and ultimately goes beyond the ability of the components to amplify without distortion. The natural solution-- apparently *un*-natural, since so few people seem intuitively able to grasp it-- is to simply turn some inputs *down* instead of up so that the overall output balance is maintained. The lesson here being that the most common way to do it isn't always the only method-- that with a little thought a better way can often be found that is more suitable.
In our bridge example, the old heads are already thinking that it would be equally beneficial to adjust the other route so that it goes down a grade as it passes under the first route. So one route goes up and over, and the other route goes down and under-- and the resulting grades for both are then lessened overall, while the combined grade remains the same.
But that wasn't the example that "clicked it" for me though-- I got that one readily enough. My own epiphany came about late in the game as I was finishing up my bench work (for seemingly the 400th time...) and it finally dawned on me the true utility of L-girder construction. Not that other methods aren't useful, or even warranted-- even on the same layout-- but one of the most useful and beneficial characteristics of L-girder construction, aside from its simplicity, is that it permits the modeler a lot more flexibility when working with the third dimension-- the "up" and "down" directions.
For example, in Linn Wescott's book "How To Build Model Railroad Benchwork" he describes how to fashion L-girders and use them in various versatile ways to construct quite serviceable frameworks upon which to build layouts. One photo in particular (I don't recall the exact page number from memory) he illustrates how two sections of benchwork can be connected together by placing the L-girders of the one section directly on top of the L-girders from the other-- and then the rest of the writeup discusses how the two can be joined. In the photo, there is a fairly large height differential between the two segments owing of course to the height of the L-girders. I must have looked at that photo a million times and then one day, as I was building a turnback loop for my layout-- it occurred to me exactly what that photo implied, which wasn't discussed in the book-- the third dimension.
It is often the case, as we modelers plan our layouts, that we would like to employ "hidden staging", or change levels, and the like. One of the "difficulties" of our craft is trying to figure out how to *support* such constructs in actual wood and glue. It's easy to think it up, but harder to actually build so that everything is supported and well constructed. That's where the simplicity and elegance of Wescott's L-girder system really becomes apparent. By constructing the "turnback" portion with L-girders oriented 90-degrees relative to the main portion of the layout, and then afixing it below (typically) the main portion of the layout, you have introduced a very nice vertical separation wherein the track can easily curve down and around to go back underneath the layout to hidden staging-- the other dimensions permitting of course.
From that one tiny epiphany, I quickly began to see opportunities all over the layout for "convenient" height differentials, along with the underlying construction to support it, for hidden tracks and/or staging access all over the layout. And of course the technique can also be used to implement planned level changes, such as a helix with a couple of turns (a larger helix would probably require a different approach), connecting one scene to another on a slightly different level, and so forth. It quickly opened up possibilities that had always been there but that I couldn't see because I wasn't tuned into that mode of thinking. And in short order the notion of a level change or a duck in/out of staging became as simple as adjusting the underlying structure of the benchwork.
Of course the technique falls down a bit when applied to the upper decks of a multi-deck layout, but there are still approaches that can be utilized even in that respect. One of the realities however of the multi-deck layout is that possibilities are generally limited very quickly based on the fundamental materials used, the heights selected, and particularly the "depth" of the upper deck. The shallower the deck, the harder it is to incorporate "differential" dimensional effects-- in that case, "up" may be the only remaining direction. But even in the case of the upper deck, a down grade to duck under a bridge, for example, doesn't have to be extreme in order to be beneficial and effective. Considering that the necessary clearance is usually about 3 to 3-1/2 inches, even a 1/2 inch drop on the lower track will significantly reduce the requisite grade for the upper track, and can often make the difference between a design that "would have been nice" and one that is "doable".