Ideas for a "scenic" HO shelf switching layout

[Anonymous]

 Hi again, Mark,

took a close look to the Seaort tug - I like, although it is a little expensive. Anyway, this tug allows me to move the barges and the tug back to their original position, which I also like a lot more. Just added that to my plan:

 

Tug and barges now have the right dimension - looks ok to me!

[MStLfan]

Good morning Ulrich,

Once again I was chased out of bed by a pile driver that started merrily banging away at 7 am (like it has done for the last month and me being on sick leave, grr...) not even 50 meters from my home. So I checked the latest messages in this thread. I noticed that the tugboat you are thinking of is more of the coastal harbor kind instead of the river kind. I don't have links so you have to check yourself but it seems on the Mississippi the are called towboats and are distinctly different. Don't know what is used in Milwaukee's harbor though and it has no direct link to the canals and major rivers. You may want to check into that.

Also, have you thought about Dutch manufacturer Artitec? They may have a tug that is smaller and you can rework that to look North American.

@Steinjr: thanks for the links to the pictures from Minnesota (great resource!), I wonder how many modellers ended up with fingers tingling in anticipation of wanting to model that barge terminal...

greetings

[mcfunkeymonkey]

Looks good!
I guess I'd be a little concerned about getting too caught up on a boat. (or a particular model / make).
Think of the scene elements, and you can (almost) always find a way to fill it.
(Unless yr goal is to model a specific prototype as close as you can).

Like I said, I think in terms of scenes like mini-dioramas, and you have at least 8:

 

 that 8th is more open space, but I'd argue is probably one of the most important spaces, in terms of how the layout comes together as a whole (so the whole DOESN'T look like 7 mini-dioramas).

the 9th would be the backdrop, the 10th would be sound, etc.

1st priority, to me, is to imagineer yourself operating this layout: the train pulling in, breaking up the cars, shunting them off to their proper spots, collecting, reassembling, etc.
Will that be "work" (in a good way)?
Then you need to make sure that each siding has enough spaces for the cars and engine to perform their duties.
Does the layout work as a whole to yr operational satisfaction?

THEN, imagineer each scene.  What structures, details will you need for each, and do you want to scratchbuild or purchase the elements necessary for each?  Do you just want a structure for business at the place, or is there a specific facility your want to model and will enjoy crafting it as such?

This will change from scene to scene within yr layout.

For example, on mine, while I want to enjoy operations soon, I also want to handlay turnouts, which will take time, so operations will have to wait while I do that.  For structures, some factories (like back against walls) I can put in place relatively quickly with modular stuff from catalogues, others like dockside structures, coal dumps and the turntable, I KNOW I want to spend the time to scratchbuild, and so mentally calculate that into the FUN of building the layout.

The patience will pay off.

I know you know all this: I'm just expressing my thought process for your consideration.  I think you've already got yrself a layout that is very flexible in terms of construction, with many different areas you can focus on, so you'll be excited to work constantly (it's not like you have to wait to build a bleeping-bleep helix before anything else can move forward).

Long story short: don't worry about specific tugs.  Start building!  Get a piece of plywood and some track and physically lay it out.  Play!
Sorry if I'm rambling: we're at the same place, empire-wise, so much of this is to get my own mind in order & my own rear-end going.

Cheers!
--Mark

[fwright]

Sir Madog

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?

The major differences between Proto87 and NMRA are:

- RP25 (NMRA) wheelsets have a tread width almost double that of scale (Proto87).  The wider tread width allows wider flangeways at turnouts that most commercial (and Fast Tracks) feature without wheel drop at the frogs.  More importantly, the wider treads allow more gauge widening on curves without the wheel falling between the rails.  The gauge widening allows operation on much smaller minimum radius.  Proto87 track has to have gauge widening limited because of the narrow tread width, and hence has higher minimum radii for locomotives and rolling stock - on the order of 25% higher.

-ME flex track will run both P87 and NMRA wheels.  Atlas flex track, which is usually gauged wider for sharper curves, may have problems with P87 wheels.

- Turnouts have to be built to one spec or the other.  P87 wheels will not go through NMRA turnouts and vice versa.

Proto87 wheel sets are available for most rolling stock, and some diesels.  The remaining issue is equalization.  Many modern model diesels - even with 6 wheel trucks - have enough vertical flex or slop that the axles are effectively equalized.  Soft sprung trucks also are already equalized.  Rigid frame freight trucks with their short wheel base often do well enough with something like the EZ riders to give a 3 point suspension.  FWIW, working equalization improves tracking of NMRA-spec rolling stock, too.

Depending on actual model locomotives being used, a P87 layout similar to the one you are planning is quite doable.  However, nothing off the shelf will work on it without at least wheel set substitution, and neither will any friends' equipment.

There is a workable compromise that works even better with handlaid track and turnouts.  Use the code 88 wheels where you can on HO rolling stock where it shows.  Some trucks are available with code 88 wheel sets from the get-go (I have bought Tahoe Model Works trucks so fitted).  You will end up with a mixture of code 110 (normal HO) and code 88 wheels.  Both will work on NMRA-spec turnouts.  But the code 88 wheels may suffer wheel drop at NMRA frogs that have the wider flangeways, especially on higher number frogs.

By hand laying your turnouts, you can adjust the track gauge and flangeways to the minimum NMRA spec.  This provides 0.040" flangeways instead of the typical 0.050", and prevents wheel drop with code 88 wheels - wheel tread width should be at least double the flangeway width for proper support through frogs.

Bottom line:  P87 is an all or nothing approach to prototype modeling.  Wheel sets and turnout specs must match - NMRA wheels with NMRA turnouts, P87 wheels with P87 turnouts.  Keep your NMRA frog on the CV turnout kits unless making the switch to P87.  The parts least liked on CV turnouts are the stamped points.  Proto87 Stores sells points that will fit.  A forum member named Greg (handle Deadhead Greg, IIRC) has more experience using CV and Proto87 Stores components than I do.  Maybe he will chime in.

hope this answers the questions

Fred W

[Anonymous]

 Thanks, Fred, that info is most helpful!

I think I better stay the NMRA way. I´ll check with Proto87Stores with respect to the replacement of the CV points.

Mark, your remarks are more than welcomed! I am a bit of a lone wolf in my region, not by own choice though. None of my MR buddies share my interest to model US prototype, so this forum is a way to compensate the lack of direct communication in my neighborhood.  German model railroading is very much different, it is stikll highly dominated by Marklin and the like. Scratch building is the exception and not the rule, and most rolling stock is r-t-r. Weathering is a no no (given the cost of a steamer being up to 1000 bucks, that´s understandable). So my idea of building a pure switching layout US-style, with prototype operation is not really understood.

 And I like your "imagineering approach - that word pretty much describes what is going on in my head, when I start to draw a track plan...

[WSOR 3801]

marcimmeker

I noticed that the tugboat you are thinking of is more of the coastal harbor kind instead of the river kind. I don't have links so you have to check yourself but it seems on the Mississippi the are called towboats and are distinctly different. Don't know what is used in Milwaukee's harbor though and it has no direct link to the canals and major rivers. You may want to check into that.

 

This link should help with the kinds of boats in the Great Lakes: http://www.boatnerd.com/ 

There is a connection from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River, through the Chicago area.  Not sure on size of the ships, though.  

 

[markpierce]

The mention of barges reminds me of The Battle of the River Plate, version 2007.  In this case a cruise ship rammed a barge in the Montevideo harbor channel while not taking evasive action or giving warning signals, so it seemed a "deliberate" act of "war."  Losses included several SUVs and containers knocked off the barge and sinking to the bottom of the channel.  The errant cruise ship didn't come away unscathed as evidenced by this picture of the repair of the deep dent in the ship's bow.

 

The passengers renamed the Norwegian Dream to the Norwegian Nighmare.  Both the ship and its captain have been disposed of.

Mark

 

[Anonymous]

 A Dutch company named "Artitec" makes boat models that look more like canal or river tugs to me.

Could this one go for a US prototype canal tug?

[odave]

The boatnerd site was mentioned above, but here's a link to their tug specific images. 

http://www.boatnerd.com/pictures/tug/

 These may give you an idea of what you'd see around Milwaukee or other Great Lakes ports.

[steinjr]

 No longer all that relevant for Ulrich's layout (since he has come up with an excellent design that meets his goals), but since this thread already has quite a few shelf layout plans - here is a link to a British web site that has quite a few small British switching layout plans:

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=24472

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[Anonymous]

 As my "government" has put up a ban on all transportation related capital investment, all I can do is revv up my PC and do a bit of track planning.

This is Bob Smaus´ charismatic "Port of Los Angeles" layout converted to Peco and Atlas track and made a little longer than the original 6 feet - just for those of  you who collect track plans for small shelf-type layouts. MR ran a series on this layout starting Dec 1990.

No, guys, this one is not for me - I have "found" my dream layout.

 

[Mike in Kingsville]

First of all- hang in there- it will get better eventually. I went through a spell in the early 90's working for a company that filed Chapter 11- it put a squeeze on hobby expenses- but caused me to learn how to scratchbuild.

A recent issue of Model Railroader featured a layout that was large scale built in a 2x4' space. It refers to a site:

http://www.carendt.com/

They feature small but detailed layouts and track plans. It has inspired me enough that I am considering a larger scale small footprint layout in the future.

mike