So here is the update!
The changes I made are:
Moved the grain elevator up "north" and linked it via a double-slip switch to the spur leading to Miller Foods & Beverages.
Left the switch off the "main" to get an extra spur for "stashing" away cars, also made the detachable staging lead double track.
Last but not least, made the road do not cross a switch.
I think the plan is far from being perfect, but it is taking shape!
But I do need to avoid crowding it with too much track!
Sir Madog But I do need to avoid crowding it with too much track!
You are right. I reconsidered the need for work space - see my updated post from this morning.
Maybe you ought to axe that storage track south of the elevator again, and make the extension single track again, plus maybe lose the team track.
The dockside has the same function as a team track - it receives and ships assorted cargo. And you can always back a truck up to the leftmost RR car on the pier track.
I would also re-evaluate the top right spur to the right of the rightmost turnout - if you make that longer, it greatly simplifies switching cuts of three cars in and and out of the elevator while at the same time using the mainline on the lower left as work space.
Smile,
Stein
hmmh, have to think about it.
The top right track goes all the way into the building, so that is an extra 50 cm of track. I am not to sure whether I will build the structure the way I have drawn it.
The team track may not be necessary in terms of operation, but I kind of like the way the tracks are "fanning" out when you look from left to right. I might just leave it, but not as a team track. It may be a spur leading to an industry not on the layout.... - have to make up my mind on it.
The left side needs to be worked on - I am not yet happy with it. Ideas?
Sir Madog The top right track goes all the way into the building, so that is an extra 50 cm track lenght. I am not to sure whether I will build the structure the way I have drawn it.
The top right track goes all the way into the building, so that is an extra 50 cm track lenght. I am not to sure whether I will build the structure the way I have drawn it.
I see your point. Fair call either way. You don't strictly need to have room for an engine and three covered hoppers on that side to switch the grain silos.It
Inbound hoppers can be left on the lower runaround, then outbound hoppers pulled right and backed far down the main - under the bridge onto the staging extension, before you run the engine around the inbound cars using the upper runaround, push them out on the main between the bridge and the runaround, pull ahead up the upper runaround and back into the silos.
Sir MadogThe team track may not be necessary in terms of operation, but I kind of like the way the tracks are "fanning" out when you look from left to right. I might just leave it, but not as a team track. It may be a spur leading to an industry not on the layout.... - have to make up my mind on it.
Guess you will just have to make the call on that one. All three ways (none, team or spur) work.
Sir Madog The left side needs to be worked on - I am not yet happy with it. Ideas?
Shrubs and dumped old cars? Maybe a power transformer on the edge of the layout right next to the bridge ? Or maybe non rail served scrap dealer or auto repair shop along front edge, left of the bar ?
But you are far better than me at scenery planning.
Smile, Stein
... it´s a long way to Tipperary...
I just took out the track next to the canal and enlarged the canal...
I start to like it!
Hi Ulrich,
I see you got a very nice plan now. A couple of scenery suggestions: at the left instead of all shrubs between the overpass and the bar, maybe a yard office?
At the right side: why not have the canal parallel the spur all the way to the edge?
And lastly, what about flipping the right crossover the other way around and move it to the right, along the 350 to 375 mark? The curved part of the spur could be the curved part of the lower switch. It gives you a longer run around, you do not have to send the switcher inside the building in the top righthand corner.
greetings,
... you mean like this?
Don´t know why, but somehow I do not like the double slip - changed that:
Looks more elegant to me!
Like it!
Sir MadogLooks more elegant to me!
Looks good, and should work okay, too - not bad at all.
Grin, Stein
I guess I have found my "dream"-layout.
It is not that I don´t like big layouts, but I just don´t have the space nor the necessary funds to go much beyond of what I have planned. For the time being, this has to, and also will,suffice. Now I am going to detail my plans on how to build this little layout. I will try to be a good guy and document each step properly - maybe MR makes a lttle story out of this. But please be patient - it will still take some time before I can start. There are a couple of issues that need to get solved first...
It took quite some time for this plan to develop. Without this forum and its contributing members, it would not have been possible for me to come up with this idea. My special thanks to steinjr, fwright, odave, marcimmeker and many others, who contributed with good advice and help - it´s been a pleasure to go through this with you!
Stay tuned!
Sir Madog ... you mean like this? Looks more elegant to me! Like it!
Yes, that is almost exactly what I meant. If you are short half a carlength on the runaround you could push the right crossover even more to the right (around the 350 mark) and change the canalside righthand switch for a lefthand (mirroring the left crossover) and locate it at the curve to the canalside spur.
Have fun building this Ulrich, I like this too!
greetings
Marc
PS Now if you want to have some real fun, why not move the switchPOINTS of the first switch of the left crossover to the LEFT of the road and run the track gantlet style across the street?
Very groovy! It's been fun to watch the development process.I think in terms of "scenes" and, with this layout, you can create almost a separate world at each section / siding / spotting. By separate world I mean a unique and focused scene that makes you forget about the rest of the layout (and thus makes yr layout larger psychologically).
I like how you've framed parts with the overpass, miller bev, and milw central warehouse. The angle of the canal helps.
A couple of ideas:
1. The feed & grain siding is, to my taste, too parallel to the layout. ("too parallel"? yes yes, I know. But we use "wet water" so...). Perhaps a slight angling of the siding back would A. get rid of the "too parallelness" (how's that for an English teacher?), B. open up a wee bit of space for whatever scenery (you could cut the grain structure in 1/2 or 3/4 or?) and C. create more an illusion of depth. I marked it in red.
2. Access to switching. I assume you'll be throwing the turnouts manually (isn't that part of the switching fun?). In that case, think of how big the table & chair factory building will be. It stands in front of FOUR turnouts (circled in purple/pink). Chopping the building a bit on the left opens up space for hands. Personally, I like the big building (acts as good viewblock, and provides a nice asymmetry with the miller building), but just food for thought.
This looks like it will be fun to build and operate! Good luck!--Mark
M.C. Fujiwara
My YouTube Channel (How-to's, Layout progress videos)
Silicon Valley Free-moN
Great plan. Please share photos of its construction along the way.
Following up on Marc's suggestion, if you make the canal a little narrower by bringing its right side down and to the left, you may gain a half a car length by shifting the colmar storage switch down and left along with it. You would be extending the end of the track to the extreme southeast corner of the benchwork and taking advantage of all of the available space. If you then used a left hand switch instead of a right hander like Marc suggested, that would also eliminate somewhat of an 'S' curve you have now.
- Douglas
Like Madog said in one of my posts, we are both in pretty much the same boat. Just my boat has one less seat. In a way I'm lucky in that I will be the only one doing anything with the layout. So his idea's of keeping 2 operators busy for 30-45 minutes would keep lil ole me busy for 60-90 minutes. And as I've mentioned in other posts I live close to tracks. Even the little WC MP15's can make the couch vibrate a little. So I've gotten to the point that once the layout is completely built I would be operating it every day, more less on a prototypical fashion.
I think Stein maybe a genius in disguise though. I really like his "Federal Overpass" design. I think I might have my layout built as a two level and have that layout on the lower level. It just looks like it's begging to be switched by an old RS2 or GP7.
I am happy to see this resolved for Ulrich's sake. I must admit, though...I am disappointed that the double-slip switch had to go. For me, it would be an important part of any small layout.
-Crandell
marcimmekerSir Madog ... you mean like this? Looks more elegant to me! Like it! Yes, that is almost exactly what I meant. If you are short half a carlength on the runaround you could push the right crossover even more to the right (around the 350 mark) and change the canalside righthand switch for a lefthand (mirroring the left crossover) and locate it at the curve to the canalside spur.
Good idea. Also - I would double check the size of your barge - it might be the correct right size, but looks a little on the small side to me compared with the size of 40' boxcars.
selectorI am happy to see this resolved for Ulrich's sake. I must admit, though...I am disappointed that the double-slip switch had to go. For me, it would be an important part of any small layout.
I agree with you Crandell. I would rather see a single slip though, that would be a nice touch and something we don't see every day, I don't see the need for a double slip there.
Svein
Wow,
I am overwhelmed by the comments on my now "nearly finished" design - lotsa food for thought, again.
Some additional remarks:
Era will be late 80´s or early 90´s - so structures will be a mix of old time brick buildings and these corrugated steel things you see nowadays. The types of industries are not yet fixed, so they might change. I know I have to do this before I start buying rolling stock...
The "Sentry Chair and Table Manuf. " will be in any case a 1-story building, so I can reach the turnouts, which will, offcause, be manually operated. While typing this, I think, I will change into a warehouse...
Barge and tug need to be resized - I still have to make up my mind on what type and make I will use.
I am also insecure about the grain elevator. The sheer size of it (height) makes it an LDE of it´s own and adds "structure" to an otherwise fairly flat layout, but I am not sure wheteher this is not a bit too much. Once I start building the layout I will make a mock-up of it to check.
To my knowledge, railroads tried to avoid single or double slip switches as much as possible, not only for reasons of cost. I may be wrong here, but the reason why I removed it was availability and look. Peco Code 83 track has no double slip available, yet, the code 75 material has "European" tie arrangement, ME has none available, only Atlas, which is hard to get where I live.
The decisions which track to use needs to be made as well - I might even start to handlay the track (providing that the tremor in my right hand is gone). Does anyone have experience with building Fast Track switches - it looks so easy in their videos.
You see, there is a lot to do before I can start to build. The next step is to print a 1:5 version of the track plan and build a cardboard mock-up.
... Did some investigation into the sizes of tugs and barges - guess what? They are much BIGGER than I thought. Either I just let the canal be a canal without anything floating on it or I have to negiotate some more inches with SWMBO.
I made a drawing - just in case
Sir Madog<snipped to save bandwidth>Some additional remarks:Era will be late 80´s or early 90´s - so structures will be a mix of old time brick buildings and these corrugated steel things you see nowadays. The types of industries are not yet fixed, so they might change. I know I have to do this before I start buying rolling stock...
<snipped to save bandwidth>
Just my understanding - code 83 (132lb) rail would be on the heavy side for this type of trackage. I would lean towards code 70 with possibly code 55 on some spurs or keep code 70 and use code 83 on the runaround and leads to staging.
Rather than change the layout for turnout throw access, bring the throws for those turnouts to the front of the fascia. Use a slide switch in the linkage to provide latching and power the frogs.
It's very common for a large modern barge to take up nearly half - sometimes more - of a canal, especially a stub end of a canal like this. Miami canals are indeed quite narrow, and it is difficult to get a barge past another.
To my knowledge, railroads tried to avoid single or double slip switches as much as possible, not only for reasons of cost. I may be wrong here, but the reason why I removed it was availability and look. Peco Code 83 track has no double slip available, yet, the code 75 material has "European" tie arrangement, ME has none available, only Atlas, which is hard to get where I live. The decisions which track to use needs to be made as well - I might even start to handlay the track (providing that the tremor in my right hand is gone). Does anyone have experience with building Fast Track switches - it looks so easy in their videos.
Normally, I am an advocate of handlaid track. In your particular case, not so much. My recommendation would be Central Valley tie strips with code 70 rail, or Micro-Engineering code 70 flex track. Turnouts are much more problematic, especially in code 70. Fast Tracks is a good solution for 1st time hand layers - the hand-holding through the videos tools and jigs is very good. Central Valley turnout kits are another option with more detail - but make or buy your own points (and possibly new frogs if you like Proto87 Stores offerings better). In any case, be prepared to substitute commercially made turnouts if the tremor acts up at all. ME makes code 70 turnouts, but only in a #6 size. There are several custom turnout builders at surprisingly reasonable prices - Railway Engineering, Litco, and Cream City Turnouts all come to mind.
Whether you make your own via Fast Tracks or have your turnouts made, don't hesitate to cut the turnout back to very close to the frog and the points to fit into your track plan. Cutting back turnouts will likely be essential if you use Peco or Atlas code 83 - the things come with quite long extensions.
Edited to add that I recommend powered frogs for small switching layouts. The short trains, slow speeds, and smaller locomotives all benefit from not having to bridge dead frogs.
hope this helps - it looks like the beginning of a very exciting project
Fred W
Sir Madog ... Did some investigation into the sizes of tugs and barges - guess what? They are much BIGGER than I thought. Either I just let the canal be a canal without anything floating on it or I have to negiotate some more inches with SWMBO. I made a drawing - just in case
How about flopping the general locations of the canal and Milw Term Warehousing? It seems like there is more space for the canal in the center of the layout. Flopping them would kind of make the barge a focal point of the layout and the taller building moved farther right would help to frame the whole scene.
Had an argument with SWMBO about the additional space requirement and I lost it, well nearly Found a compromise by moving tug and barge to the other embankment. Now I need only 2little inches more...
Here is the amended version:
About handlaying the track. With a layout that small, it should be a feasonable undertaking, once my hand is ok. I don´t want to go all the way to Proto87, but a lot of detail is, what I would like to capture - also in terms of track. The - feeling can only come from details, not from size or any "spectacular" thing. Is handlaying track producing better results than using already well made track (and turnouts) from makers like ME or Central Valley? Never laid any track by hand before... AND I cannot just run down to my local LHS to check on ME track or CVT track,a as there is only one mailorder source here in Germany...
I'm constructing a similar shelf layout in N Scale, and I chose to go with hand laid track (FastTracks) for a couple of reasons: I think it looks much better, and I figured it would prolong the construction process and give me more of a challenge.
I'm a below-average modeler, and even worse with tools, etc. I found the Fast Tracks system to be remarkably well done, and the instructions and videos are unbeatable. The best I've ever seen. I can now construct a great looking Code 55 turnout in about 40 minutes, and it's a great feeling of accomplishment. The mechanics aren't very difficult, and the fixtures make working with the details a lot easier.
For smaller layouts, and really any visible trackage, I'd strongly recommend giving it a try. Worst case, you're out a couple hundred bucks, or basically one or two locos, and I'm sure you could resell the fixtures on ebay without issue.
Sir MadogHad an argument with SWMBO about the additional space requirement and I lost it, well nearly Found a compromise by moving tug and barge to the other embankment.About handlaying the track. With a layout that small, it should be a feasonable undertaking, once my hand is ok. I don´t want to go all the way to Proto87, but a lot of detail is, what I would like to capture - also in terms of track. The - feeling can only come from details, not from size or any "spectacular" thing. Is handlaying track producing better results than using already well made track (and turnouts) from makers like ME or Central Valley? Never laid any track by hand before... AND I cannot just run down to my local LHS to check on ME track or CVT track,a as there is only one mailorder source here in Germany...
Had an argument with SWMBO about the additional space requirement and I lost it, well nearly Found a compromise by moving tug and barge to the other embankment.
- For representing latter 20th Century North American prototype, the overly large spike heads every 5th tie, intermixed PC board ties, and lack of tie plates are not as realistic as CVT or ME track. My understanding is that Sir Madog is after a highly detailed shelf layout, including the track. The CVT tie strips and ME track have tie plate detail and smaller than normal spike heads molded in. While you can buy tie plates and scale size spikes, individually applying all this detail is a very time consuming process.
- The CV turnout kits have the same tie plate and spike detail as their tie strips and ME flex track. Proto87 Stores sells detailed frogs and points in both P87 and NMRA spec.
- Fast Tracks jigs and kits are expensive for a layout of 8 turnouts - especially if all turnouts are not the same frog #.
That said, track handlaid with wood ties in place on the layout will have a "flow" and graceful looks that will be difficult to duplicate with any other method. And it's not too large a layout that scale spikes (P87 Stores) every tie would be impractical. But the tie plate detail would still be missing unless the OP took the extra time to add them.
Finally, all the components I have mentioned are available at places that are used to shipping overseas.
my thoughts, your choices
Ulrich,
I personally like this plan. What will the barge(s) have on it? I am considering a barge and canal on my version of Lance's layout, however I will probably restrict it's size to about 12". We have barges setting in the bay with clamshell cranes that are about the same scale size. I would think a short round around could be incorporated into the removable cassette that would cross 65th street. This would allow a loco to get ahead or behind a series of cars for various moves.
Larry
camaroI personally like this plan. What will the barge(s) have on it? I am considering a barge and canal on my version of Lance's layout, however I will probably restrict it's size to about 12". We have barges setting in the bay with clamshell cranes that are about the same scale size. I would think a short round around could be incorporated into the removable cassette that would cross 65th street. This would allow a loco to get ahead or behind a series of cars for various moves.
If you hit "reply" instead of "quick reply" and then quote enough of the post you are responding to, it would be possible for others to see which one of the many plans in this thread you refer to when you say "this plan".
It could have been the latest plan, but there doesn't seem to be a street labelled "65th street" that is crossed by tracks on that plan - there is a street named "35th Avenue" which is an overpass over the tracks, and this plan already has a runaround, so it is probably not that one.
Suggest you find the post you want to comment on and hit "reply", and then "quote", so people can tell what you are responding to.
As for Barge sizes - I scratch built an H0 scale 1950s Mississippi towed coal barge a while back - after some experimentation, I ended up selectively compressing it to 4" wide and 12" long (29 scale feet by 87 scale feet).
A ratio of 3:1 length to width worked out for me esthetically, even though these babies really can get quite a bit bigger, especially for a more modern layout - modern coal barges are often about 200 feet long by 35 feet long (ie a width to length ratio of almost 1:6).
These things could carry quite a few different things - here are some Minneapolis prototype pics from the 1930s - 1970s:
http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/image.cfm?imageid=102086
http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/image.cfm?imageid=81148
http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/image.cfm?imageid=81513
http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/image.cfm?imageid=77011
http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/image.cfm?imageid=179994
http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/image.cfm?imageid=97361
Stein,
Thank you for the tutorial on posting. Yes, it should have 35th and and 65th. I don't know where I came up with that. I was referring to the last plan in the string. As for someone who has lived on the Great Lakes my entire life, I have seen pretty much everything that can be carried on a barge. He is a link to the Miami River and rather large barge with crushed stone.
http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTSN&cp=n90ch189byzq&style=b&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&scene=35174899&encType=1
Good Morning, Guys,
now we have entered the dtailing stage - great!
Fred - thanks for your comments on handlaying track. I have checked Fast Track´s home page and made up my mind - this will not be the way I will go. Checked also on CVT and Proto87, the latter one providing ready-made turnouts now. Could be a way, just in case my hand does not improve further. What I do not understand yet, is, whether Proto87 will accept RP25 wheels. I always thought it to be finescale, that required intensive rebuilding of all locos and rolling stock (which I am not prepared to do). Am I wrong?
Camaro - great picture. That is, what I intend to do, but no idea on the load, maybe gravel.... I ckecked Walthers and they have resin kits for barges, which look very close to the ones on your picture. I am not happy with the tug, though. Walthers has one with a 12" x 4" "footprint", which I find a little bit to big, although it is the one depicted in my latest track plan. Will keep on searching.
Stein, also thanks for the links - very inspiring pictures as well.
The track and switch issue is the most important for me- - if I am able to scratch up some extra funds, I will order a test kit from CVT. Fred, the kit includes a frog, should I replace that with a Proto87 one?
Have a good day?
Tug:Seaport Model works have groovy kits, but expensive:http://seaportmodelworks.com/index.php?cPath=23_24
there's this frieght barge:http://www.bonanzle.com/booths/HarborLightModels/items/Ho_Scale_Railroad_Harbor_Canal_Freight_Barge_Built_Up
and Sylvan has a whole bunch of groovy stuff:http://www.isp.on.ca/sylvan/homarinecontents.htm
I say get the block of wood & whittle!(just make sure you're sitting on your doorstoop, leaning back in old chair, one eye squinting, pipe in mouth, humming a sea shanty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_Sailor )
Personally, I perfer the barge on the left side (original position). So what if it takes up most the canal. That's what barges are for! Just keep it low (or removeable), so there's a dip in forward presence between the chair factory and the siding/building far right. (you don't want a "wall" up front right blocking most of the action in the middle.
As for trackwork: whatever will allow you to lay the most bulletproof trackwork possible, because the operations side of this layout will be as fun as getting root canal work while attending an insurance seminar while listening to the home shopping network on yr ipod while getting nagged by your better half if the trackwork isn't smooth. not only smooth but the curves & angles right & at proper place to allow the best un/coupling.
So while we all fantasize about layingtrackby hand:you should go with what you can work with best to make sure your operations work smoothly & be a "smooth operator" [start elevator muzak here].
Painting & Balasting does wonders to whatever track you choose.
It's looking groovy! Keep rolling!--Mark
Hi Mark,
either you are a late bird, or I am a really early bird - it is zeroing on 7 o´clock in the morning here.
Thanks for the links - the Seaport stuff is really good looking (and the tug slighly smaller than the one from Walthers), but close to 100 bucks (plus shipping + tax and duty, so that is about 180 bucks!) - it will have to wait for a while...
Lance Mindheim uses ME turnouts and track - and that´s pretty good looking, too. We´ll see...
I am a late bird, but it's still early here (10pm) in California. I think the forum is in Kalmbach time (2 hours earlier, depending on which scale you model), and the East Coast is an hour earlier than that. So NY, Boston, etc. are at 1am right now.
It confuses me too (hey, China has the same time zone for 5 zone's worth of land).
The ME is a good way to go. I'd go as low as you can go: it'll look fabulous and its not like yr going to have 80-car trains blitzing through. If you do decide later to try yr hand at handlaying turnouts, fastracks has all the stuff to go with ME rail (and you do not need a jig! & that's the most expensive thing).
The beauty of this layout is in 1. the satisfying switching ops you'll be able to do (having different types of barges will help, as well as think of having removeable / interchangable industries, like Barbara Brunette does in her Wasup Dock Co. layout in MR March 2009) & 2. the construction of detailed scenes at various places around layout that has something the eye catches on, then rests, taking in the scope of the scene (which you dictate), and then joyfully explores the details of each.
The trick is to create a flowing balance of them all so the layout is not just a mess of "scene splotches".
I think this has great potential for being a very satisfying layout for many years to come. Enjoy!
Cheers,Mark