Plywood Contest Decompression

[SpaceMouse]

Congrats. They were all good.

There are three things I'd like to talk about in this post.

1) Let's go through each of the designs and give suggestions on what we could have done to make it better.

2) Let's look at the way voting has gone in the past--look at which designs have won, and see if we can't predict, which way the votes will go.

3) Let's figure out a new common scenario to work with. I like the standard 10' x 20' garage for a change of size and elbow room.

[steinjr]

 

Link to contest entry:

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry10.html

Link to bigger picture of layout plan:

http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/vsmith/4X8_STUDY_PLAN_full_size.jpg

Comments gathered during the voting:

love that name. Good scenic possibilities with the way the mainline partially doubles back on itself. Nice little shortline

I though Angry Beaver was excellent in that it is very similar to a Paul Templar's Badger Creek which inspired me to think about logging railroads in the first place. The cool thing about this layout is the modeling which, I admit would be very enjoyable. But it lacks the continous run and "part of the larger world" realistic operations.

A reasonably long run for a point-to-point in 32 sq ft. The details are thought through - appropriate motive power, tail track lengths, structures and scenery. It fits in a reasonable size spare bedroom without overwhelming the space.

 The only drawbacks are no continuous run, and operations is limited to one train making the run to the camps while the other works the terminal and mill. There probably isn't space for more than 2 people comfortably around the layout in that size of room.

Finally, the plan could easily be built with almost no adjustments in HO or HOn3 - and would work just as well, perhaps better.

 

 While it looks really cool on paper, I don't think one built in real life would look nearly as good, and might not work at all.

 

 If I wasn't restricted to the 32sq ft rule, I would have extended the town section all the way down and if the room was avalable added the creosote factory and interchange, I also would make the layout a little deeper so the scenery would step up in a more gentle fashion and maybe extended the rest of the layout a bit wider to stretch things out but overall I was very pleased with this one, if I had the room I would love to try it myself, I've been looking for an excuse to try On30.

Any other comments on this layout plan ?

Smile,
Stein

 

[steinjr]

 Link to contest entry: http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry07.html

Comments gathered during the voting:

I really like the the way the designer has cut the corners and used curved turnouts extensively to buy himself better curve radii. Good placement of industries - this designer has gotten a lot of H0 scale layout out of a single sheet of ply.

Again, a reasonable point-to-point run (staging to yard) with the bonus of continuous run capability. I see it as a fairly generic plan that could be easily adapted to a variety of themes. Even slightly more space to add a track or two in staging would improve this layout immensely.

Drawbacks: with only 1 passing track, operation of 2 trains somewhat continuously in opposite directions can't happen. And that single passing track is quite short - on the order of 4ft, limiting train length to 4-5 cars.

Interesting almost twice around configuration. Yard on right just parallel tracks to the edge. Don't know what could have been done to correct it though. Switchback to get to engine house.

Any other comments or suggestions for how to improve this layout even more ?

Smile,
Stein

 

 

[steinjr]

Link to contest entry: http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry02.html

Comments gathered during the voting:

Nice plan, even though I suspect that grades might be a little on the steep side a few places.

Like in the right hand back corner - where there is one branch from a turnout that goes up to a couple of B&O interchange tracks (which presumably are mostly flat), while the other branch goes down and under the interchange tracks.

Room is 9 feet across, so the elevation change to get under seems to happen in about 2-3 feet. Say 3 feet - 36". A three percent grade allows only about 1" drop in 3 feet. Even with maybe half an inch of elevation change up to the B&O interchange track, that is only 1 1/2" clearance. Is that enough for N scale ?

Edit: yes, it is. You only need about 1 5/8" clearance to have one track pass over another one in N scale. And that is doable in the 36" or so from crossover to the left of the B&O interchange until the track enters the tunnel under B&O interchange and the roundtable.

I get the feeling that the WM is a part of a larger railroad and that traffic flows from off layout to on layout, though I can't see it a quick glance, but I'm willing to trust that it is there. The track is tight in places so making the scenery make sense might be tough in some spots, but again, I'm willing to trust that a scenery plan is in place.

The problem I have with it is that same problem I've had on the last two designs I made for my own space at home. It looks really good on top, but staging is inconvenient. If staging is inconvenient, then the operations are tougher and what's really the strength of this layout.

Shows the advantage of N scale in fitting in a class 1 mainline in a small space.

Other comments and suggestions on the Western Maryland layout ?

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[steinjr]

Link to contest entry: http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry04.html

Comments gathered during the voting period:

Extra credits for the switchbacks down to the logging camp. I am a little confused by the term "high staging" for the logging camp - I assume that the logging camp must be at the bottom part of the drawing. I would have assumbed that the logging camp would be downhill from the mainline, not uphill from the mainline ?

Edit: got it explained to me by the designer. I was viewing the layout inside out. For some reason I though it was supposed to be operated from inside the pit - it is supposed to be operated from the outside - the pit is just used for dealing with staging. So the hillside to the logging camp goes upwards from the south end of the layout towards the staging pit, placing the single track staging for the logging camp about 8" above the staging for the mainline - hence the expression "high staging".

The strength of the Petaluma layout is also operations and operational variety. There's a lot to do. It is also the stongest in terms of big scenery & scenery/scope of operations ratio that is N-scales main advantage.

The three things I don't like about Petaluma is 1) The lack of a yard--but to add it would have sacrificed something needed to make completeness of the lumber operation. 2) The duck-under, although you only need it to rerail cars that have come off the track and made it into staging, is always going to be a pain in the keester. and 3) The loop design makes you loose the sense of the railroad in the larger scheme of things.

In the end, I pick Petaluma over WM, but mostly because I know the vision behind it. N scale was used because of the space need to convey the scope of the logging operation.

I like the main theme and is done well. The supporting stuff doesn't seem as well thought out. The interchange could have been done better. The entire NWP could have been done better like departing from the saw mill to the left as a separate track that swings to the outside and then under the lumber track into the staging.

Any other comments or suggestions for this layout ?

Smile,
Stein

 

[steinjr]

Link to contest entry:

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry09.html

 Comments gathered during voting:

Yorklyn uses varying bench width to very good effect. It also shows an interesting use of an outside corner. By focusing on just a couple of large industries instead of trying to fit in a lot of small industries, it stays very true to the prototype.

good use of varying benchwork widths - nice switching layout

The two Lyns, Brooklyn and Yoklyn and Lancaster are my style of switching layout, but in the long run, I'd miss continuous running.

If this layout was built, one had better really like staging, but take this and encorporate it into a larger layout and you would have something. Where would this fit as a free standing thing?

Any other comments or suggestions for this layout ?

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[steinjr]

Link to contest entry: http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry08.html

Comments gathered during the voting:

Lancaster Terminal Railroad is a great switching layout that takes hardly any space at all in a room - this layout could very easily be shared with other uses of the room - like a guest bedroom or a family room. I like the way the runaround has been placed in the curve, the low industries along the front, and the way the industry sidings has been made fairly long.

The two Lyns, Brooklyn and Yoklyn and Lancaster are my style of switching layout, but in the long run, I'd miss continuous running.

 I hate the engine house on a switchback from the main yard. While the layout has some intersting industries most of it is consumed by the two yards on each end.

Other comments or suggestions for this layout ?

Smile,
Stein

 

[wm3798]

Keeping the design for the Tidewater Sub within the bounds of the 32 sq. ft. was difficult, and as was discussed, there are several compromises that resulted.  The main one being a fairly steep climb out of staging, and a cluttered track plan in the middle.

The main thing I would have changed would be to add about 2 feet of run to each leg of the "L" to tidy up the grades.  I was less concerned about the cluttered look, since I was using an Urban theme.   If anyone remembers the area around Hillen terminal and Guilford Ave next to the state pen in downtown Baltimore in the mid-70's, you'll know what I mean.  For all intents and purposes, this is a switching layout, with the accommodation for continuous running and a bit of staging to allow trains to enter and leave the switching area.

I was generally satisfied with the port side, as it provides for a variety of traffic, although a slightly larger area would have allowed me to also include a coal pier, which was one of the primary functions of Port Covington during the WM's lifetime.   I sacrificed that for the grain elevator, simply because it would be easier to model the grain elevator, and it was such a prominent land mark at the facility. 

Operationally, I would have two trains in staging, leaving one track clear for thru running.  Inbound trains would enter the layout from the left side, coming in from "the west" and heading toward the yard at Port.  Hillen and the loft district would be switched by two locals out of Port, and outbound trains would go back the way they came in, then reset to come back during the next session.  The bit of track between the loft district and the right side of staging would be utilized only for running laps.

Lee 

[steinjr]

Link to layout entry:

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry03.html

Comments gathered during the voting:

Brandywine and the Old West would be fun railfan layouts, but they could have made better use of the space.

Not much track for the space, generous curves in N. Drawbacks: Passing sidings are very short, even for N, which will limit train lengths. The center 2 spur industry looks to be unswitchable due to grades on the run-around and main line.

I like the three train simultaniously single track main line. Actual track is rather sterile probably due to the use of sectional track. The roundhouse seems to dominate especially for this theme. Even the big V&T roundhouse wasn't.

Any other comments or suggestions for this layout ?

Smile,
Stein

 

[exPalaceDog]

Link to contest entry:

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry10.html

First, the Old Dog must point out again that tunnels would not be typical on a small logging railway. Sure, one can find examples of tunnels on larger logging lines, but the tunnels seem out character with this small line.

Second, one must ask if a line would run a spur THROUGH the mill to get to the log pond. Also, one must point out that having a standard gauage spur serving the mill to receive the outputs would add interest.

Third, where are the "landings" where the logs that have been skidded to the ROW are loaded onto the cars. These might or might not be co-located with the camps.

Fourth, would one want to use flat cars or log cars?

Have fun

 

[steinjr]

Link to contest entry:

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry05.html

Comments gathered during the voting:

I frankly don't understand Bath Port Belt. I get that there is some variety in switching, but I like to know the reason.

Bath Port - All five of the modules are way too similar to me.  I thought putting the run around in a different location and/or configuration on each one would have really helped make it more interesting.  How about at least one module having track not parallel to the edges.

The basic idea of the Bath Port is that one recieves a barge load of cars, then has to distribute them to the specified industries at the specified "spots" while keeping the barge somewhat in balance. Later, one must load the out bound cars on the barge while keeping it in balence.

The need to keep the barge in balance complicates the switching in a already tight area.

The concept of the barge allows the railway modules to interface with several other railways, not just one as a normal interchange yard would.

It also allows the modules to be placed in a "book case" configuration to conserve space.

 I didn't comment on this layout during the voting, but agree with Texas Zepher and SpaceMouse about this one: for me it is just too many repetitions of essensially the same theme.

 I was a little surprised to realize that this one was by exPalaceDog. This poster always seem to comment on other layouts not being realistic or prototypical enough in some detail.

 It would be interesting to hear a little more about what is actually based on a prototype about this layout and how the Dog arrived at the track plan(s) ?

 Any other comments and suggestions for this layout ?

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[steinjr]

Link to contest entry:

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry01.html

 Comments gathered during the voting:

Honorable Mention: Brandywine Springs. This looks like a great layout for a builder. I'm not sure whether operations would have a sustained interest over the long term. The operational interest would be to keep trolleys running in an interlocking schedule to serve the park. This layout would be a great "2nd layout" addition to a more traditional B&O layout, very similar to how narrow gauge or traction lines or added to other large layouts.

Interesting concept but ultimately nothing to maintain interest longer than a few hours.

Brandywine and the Old West would be fun railfan layouts, but they could have made better use of the space.

I like layouts that are a departure from the ordinary. And it also gives you a logical reason for the loop o' track design in a realistic setting.

Brandywine Amusement Park, even though its primarily a roundyround, I think this would make a terrific diorama.

 

 To add my own comment - this probably would have been a very fun to watch display layout, maybe with automated rides and light and sound effects. But it would probably have fairly limited operational interest.

 Still - it was again a decidedly non-conventional solution from this designer, who seems to have quite a few interesting layout ideas based on the Hockesin-Landenberg area.

 I for one am getting tempted to read up on railroading in this area in the first half of the 20th century.

 Any other comments and suggestions for this layout ?

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[steinjr]

Link to contest entry:

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry06.html

Comments gathered from the voting period:

I can see some real scenic possiblities in terms of the backdrop.

Pretty nice for a switching layout. I didn't look at that original to see how original or copied it is. There are some wasted things for a dense industrial area. Why the switchback to get to industry "H"? Why isn't there a track along all the industries between A-C especially by the 7 mark. It could be through between A-C or a switchback from A. Then there is the turnout configuration on the upper/left. The center track is wasted. Use the curved track toward the car float as the tail for the run-around.

<clarification> 

I didn't mean to remove the crossover right near "A".   That way the center industry can be served straight through "C" or as a swichback from the top.   This arrangment was common where there were sidings on both sides of a city street.  Each block had multiple industries along each side (Wynkoop & Blake Streets in Denver were prime examples).  Every half block there would be another track cutting over from one to the other.   Each industry could be reached from two ways in case there was a car spotted somewhere that could not be moved.  In places with really dense traffic a third track would be run through the center of the street with the crossovers to both sides.

 Inspired by the comments from Texas Zepher the layout plan has been changed some after the contest - like this:

 

 Any other comments and suggestions for this layout ?

 Smile,
 Stein

 

 

[Texas Zepher]

Drawbacks: Passing sidings are very short, even for N, which will limit train lengths.

Any other comments or suggestions for this layout ?

I thought the short passing sidings were in-theme with an 1870's layout.  Trains off the transcontinental line & major city-to-city lines were often 2-4 cars long.

[exPalaceDog]

Link to contest entry:

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry05.html

Bath Port - All five of the modules are way too similar to me.  I thought putting the run around in a different location and/or configuration on each one would have really helped make it more interesting.  How about at least one module having track not parallel to the edges.

Valid point! But the small size to the modules greatly limits the possible track configurations. The selection of the industries was intended to provide the variation. The modules were intended to be placed in a book case configuration which forced the RR Car Ferry to be placed in the same location on each module.  

What would concern the Old Dog about these modules is the lack of adequate switching leads. They might degenerate into switching puzzles. Three car lengths is simply not adequate.

 

 It would be interesting to hear a little more about what is actually based on a prototype about this layout and how the Dog arrived at the track plan(s) ?

These modules are free lanced, but intended to somewhat loosely follow some the terminals in Brooklyn, NY.

See

http://members.aol.com/bedt14/BEDT.html

http://home.att.net/~Berliner-Ultrasonics/bedt.html

http://members.aol.com/bedt14/MilitaryRRofNY.html

Available for downloading

http://books.google.com/books?id=mglLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PP7&dq=inauthor:Droege+date:1890-1920&lr=&as_brr=1

http://books.google.com/books?id=2pJLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PP9&dq=inauthor:Droege+date:1890-1920&lr=&as_brr=1

http://books.google.com/books?id=gIs5AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA409&dq=railroad+buildings+date:1890-1920&lr=&as_brr=1

Have fun

 

 

[steinjr]

Link to contest entry:

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry05.html

 

 It would be interesting to hear a little more about what is actually based on a prototype about this layout and how the Dog arrived at the track plan(s) ?

These modules are free lanced, but intended to somewhat loosely follow some the terminals in Brooklyn, NY.

See

http://members.aol.com/bedt14/BEDT.html

http://home.att.net/~Berliner-Ultrasonics/bedt.html

http://members.aol.com/bedt14/MilitaryRRofNY.html

 So you essensially based your layout on the same kind of prototype as I based my Brooklyn Terminal layout plan on. Brooklyn Terminal is heavily inspired by the Bush Terminal RR in Brooklyn.

 Btw - here is a few links pertaining to the Brooklyn Army Base/Brooklyn Army Terminal - from another thread:

Prototype track plan:
http://members.aol.com/bedt14/MilitaryRRofNY.html#Army%20Term

Some pictures from the area: http://www.bluejake.com/archives/2007/10/09/brooklyn_army_terminal.php
http://world.nycsubway.org/us/waterfront/
http://www.oldnyc.com/

Library of congress HABS/HAER (Historical American Buildings Survey/Historical American Engineering Records) pics and data from Brooklyn Army Terminal: http://tinyurl.com/38lq9c

 Here is a link to another layout plan Brooklyn Army Base - this one is quite a bit bigger than one sheet of ply, so it is not directly comparable.
 
http://home.online.no/~steinjr/trains/modelling/forum/bat.jpg

 Anyways - why did you make your terminal in 5 puzzle sized small modules instead of designing a larger shelf layout ?

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[exPalaceDog]

Link to contest entry:

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry05.html

 

 Anyways - why did you make your terminal in 5 puzzle sized small modules instead of designing a larger shelf layout ?

Darn good question! The more the Old Hound looks at them, modules A and E look like real turkeys. Modules B, C, and D contained most of the desired industries. Hanging an interchange with the Navy Yard, Army Depot, and maybe a Army Coast Defense Fort off one of them might have made more sense. The Grocery Wholesaler and Condensed Soup Company could be moved to another module.

As for the Passenger Ship dock, it seemed like a good ideal at the time. But the Dog really has no idea what it should look like. The idea was to generate something that would use passenger cars.

Have fun

 

 

[exPalaceDog]

1) Let's go through each of the designs and give suggestions on what we could have done to make it better.

User steinjr is doing that very thing in later posts on this thread

  

2) Let's look at the way voting has gone in the past--look at which designs have won, and see if we can't predict, which way the votes will go.

 

The Old Dog would suggest that the voting probably follows what people like or dislike in layout design.

3) Let's figure out a new common scenario to work with. I like the standard 10' x 20' garage for a change of size and elbow room.

The Old Mutt would suggest something slightly larger, say 12' x 24' or even 12' x 32'. that would allow two 24" shelves plus a 48" island in the middle. Of course, cutting into the 48" to widen the aisles would be desireable in some areas.

Have fun

 

[pcarrell]

I thought all of the layouts had aspects about them that made each a standout in some way.  To be honest, there really wasn't a loser in the bunch I thought.  Well done, all around!

As for my own design, Old West, it was actually designed a couple of years ago as a design challenge for myself with the purposely limiting factors of not being able to cut the 4x8 and only using sectional track.  Those factors being built in, the layout had some obvious limitations.  There's nothing to stop one from using flex instead of the sectional though I guess.  Also, the comment about switching the industry in the center of the layout was spot on.  It was the biggest weakness of the design I thought.  I mean, the siding itself could be leveled out, but the runaround was on a grade and was very short to boot.  In actuality, I don't think I'd put in the runaround were I to build it, but instead I'd use the runaround at the back of the layout and just push / pull the cars to that industry from there.  The roundhouse is a three staller, which I figured as kinda big for the scene, but then we all have too many loco's, don't we?  Besides, if the layout was expanded at a later date, that roundhouse could be made to be more in keeping by making the town a little bigger.

I actually had meant to design another layout for this contest that I would have cut up the 4x8, but life got in the way, ya know?

[exPalaceDog]

 

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry06.html

After just reviewing the Bush Terminal at

http://members.aol.com/captncarfloat/bt.htm

It would appear to the Old Dog that the layout has a "balance" problem. At 24 cars, the car float is either too large for the industries provided, or the industries are too small. For example, the Bush terminal has a capacity of four cars. By extending the spur the capacity could be enlarged and the building made much larger to better capture the "feel" of the industry. Capacity could be further increased by working multiple tracks from the platform.The same could be said for the industries along 1st (Kent??) Avenue and the Army Terminal.

Have fun

 

 

 

[steinjr]

 

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry06.html

After just reviewing the Bush Terminal at

http://members.aol.com/captncarfloat/bt.htm

It would appear to the Old Dog that the layout has a "balance" problem. At 24 cars, the car float is either too large for the industries provided, or the industries are too small.

 Sorta right. I didn't carefully balance the size of the three critical elements:

• staging (car float)
• industry spots and
• yard size.

 Car float fits 24 cars at maximum. It doesn't have to be filled to the gills, of course.

 Industries have a total of 26 spots when you add them all together.

 But the yard is really way too small for easy sorting. It probably would take using the mainline and 1st avenue industry leads as auxiliary yard tracks to do much sorting of cars from a full car float.

 

 

For example, the Bush terminal has a capacity of four cars. By extending the spur the capacity could be enlarged and the building made much larger to better capture the "feel" of the industry. Capacity could be further increased by working multiple tracks from the platform.The same could be said for the industries along 1st (Kent??) Avenue and the Army Terminal.

 I see your point. I chose not to double track all the warehouse tracks to avoid getting things too crowded. This layout already has a rather hefty track to scenery ratio.

  As for extending the length of spurs up along the freight house along the left side, Texas Zepher made the same point at the tail end of the voting thread. 

 Following his comments I made the following modification of my plan:

 

  Little bit more like what you envision ?

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[exPalaceDog]

 

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry06.html

After just reviewing the Bush Terminal at

http://members.aol.com/captncarfloat/bt.htm

It would appear to the Old Dog that the layout has a "balance" problem. At 24 cars, the car float is either too large for the industries provided, or the industries are too small.

 Sorta right. I didn't carefully balance the size of the three critical elements:

• staging (car float)
• industry spots and
• yard size.

 Car float fits 24 cars at maximum. It doesn't have to be filled to the gills, of course.

 Industries have a total of 26 spots when you add them all together.

 But the yard is really way too small for easy sorting. It probably would take using the mainline and 1st avenue industry leads as auxiliary yard tracks to do much sorting of cars from a full car float.

 

 

For example, the Bush terminal has a capacity of four cars. By extending the spur the capacity could be enlarged and the building made much larger to better capture the "feel" of the industry. Capacity could be further increased by working multiple tracks from the platform.The same could be said for the industries along 1st (Kent??) Avenue and the Army Terminal.

 I see your point. I chose not to double track all the warehouse tracks to avoid getting things too crowded. This layout already has a rather hefty track to scenery ratio.

  As for extending the length of spurs up along the freight house along the left side, Texas Zepher made the same point at the tail end of the voting thread. 

 Following his comments I made the following modification of my plan:

 

  Little bit more like what you envision ?

 Smile,
 Stein

 

Just for the Bush Terminal

"Four of the factory buildings of this company are 600 feet long and 75 feet wide, while 14 are 700 feet long and 75 feet wide. All are six stories in height and of reinforced concrete construction." 

The 700' would be about 8' in HO. The 75' would be about 10". And that is just one building.

http://members.aol.com/bedt14/IndustrialLocos.html

"Likewise in the book "Freight Terminals and Trains" by John Droege, 1912; in the "Waterfront Terminals" chapter; pages 235 through 238, contains photographs of Bush Terminal construction, building / track / elevator / loading dock layouts, pier diagrams among many other nuances of a terminal facility being constructed with efficiency in mind." That book is available for download on Google.

It would appear to the Old Mutt that one could fill a fairly large layout by just modeling the Bush Terminal or the Brooklyn Army Terminal.

http://members.aol.com/bedt14/MilitaryRRofNY.html#Army%20Term

Have fun

 

 

[steinjr]

Just for the Bush Terminal

"Four of the factory buildings of this company are 600 feet long and 75 feet wide, while 14 are 700 feet long and 75 feet wide. All are six stories in height and of reinforced concrete construction." 

The 700' would be about 8' in HO. The 75' would be about 10". And that is just one building.

http://members.aol.com/bedt14/IndustrialLocos.html

"Likewise in the book "Freight Terminals and Trains" by John Droege, 1912; in the "Waterfront Terminals" chapter; pages 235 through 238, contains photographs of Bush Terminal construction, building / track / elevator / loading dock layouts, pier diagrams among many other nuances of a terminal facility being constructed with efficiency in mind." That book is available for download on Google.

It would appear to the Old Mutt that one could fill a fairly large layout by just modeling the Bush Terminal or the Brooklyn Army Terminal.

http://members.aol.com/bedt14/MilitaryRRofNY.html#Army%20Term

 Absolutely. You could fill a fairly large layout by just modelleling a pretty strongly compressed version of a very small corner of e.g. the Brooklyn Army Terminal.

 Like this plan of the BAT I made for a thread about modelling WW2 a while back:

 

 In this plan I have put in a single 12 foot long building, 8 stories tall along the bottom wall, and the two warehouses are three stories tall, and about 5 1/3 feet long by respectively 6" and 3" wide.  I suspect it would look darned impressive in a model.

 I have also modelled the piers (not accurately) compressed about 1:4 - the real piers could fit 27 40' cars on each track, and the tracks would be inside the pier transload building.

 But normally, to create a layout that combines interesting operations with giving a "feel" of the prototype, you need to do a lot of selective compression. It is a part of designing a track plan based on/inspired by a prototype. And that is what I have done.

 Could the track plan of the Brooklyn Terminal be improved ? No doubt it can.

 Could some of the buildings be merged to form larger buildings -e.g merging industries C and K to make a much larger freight house ? No doubt they could. It is a fairly trivial modification to the plan.

 But I am not so sure the layout would have been significantly improved by replacing the entire layout track plan and all buildings by just two 8'x10" buildings with a set of parallell tracks down the entire front of these two buildings. 

 Anyways - thanks for your advice. Anyone else want to offer any advice or comments on any of the layouts ?

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[exPalaceDog]

The Old Dog just remembered another site that NYC modelers might find interesting

http://www.bronx-terminal.com/?p=5

Have fun

 

[chadw]

This layout was an LDE and would work better as part of a larger layout, but I enjoy shelf switchers so I thought I would submit it anyway.

For more information about the Landenberg Branch See this:http://www.wwrr.com/about/history.asp.  The link is to a brief history of the branch on the Wilmington & Western Railroad's site.  The more I research the local branchlines (B&O Landenberg Branch, and PRR Pomeroy Branch) the more I want to model them, kind of explaining why I've been basing my entries off of them.

BTW: BUMP

[steinjr]

This layout was an LDE and would work better as part of a larger layout, but I enjoy shelf switchers so I thought I would submit it anyway.

 Hi Chad --

 You are really good at "less is more" - ie don't thow inn too much track. I always have a tendency to want to fill up the space with tracks - you are far better at maintaining a good track to scenery ratio.

 The only thing I wondered about concerning the Yorklyn module is the access to the three rightmost staging tracks in the lower end staging (Hockessin staging). 

 Seems to me like the only way access when using this Yorklyn module as a standalone layout would be to run trains to Hockessin staging through industry track red C - ie the tank car unloading track ? 

 If you added an extra crossover from industry track red C to the main, just above the Hockessin staging turnout, then that ought to make it possible to get in and out of Hockessin staging without first having to remove cars from in front of the tank car unloading.

 Anyways - as always - I do like your scenery plan - you make it easy to visualize a finished layout.

 Any comments on any of the other layout plans ? Suggestions for improvements ? Questions ?

 Grin,
 Stein

 

[chadw]

  The only thing I wondered about concerning the Yorklyn module is the access to the three rightmost staging tracks in the lower end staging (Hockessin staging). 

 Seems to me like the only way access when using this Yorklyn module as a standalone layout would be to run trains to Hockessin staging through industry track red C - ie the tank car unloading track ? 

 If you added an extra crossover from industry track red C to the main, just above the Hockessin staging turnout, then that ought to make it possible to get in and out of Hockessin staging without first having to remove cars from in front of the tank car unloading.

 Grin,
 Stein

 

I looked at the plan and realized the crossover should be in the other direction.  As it is only one staging track is actually useable on the west end.

On the Brooklyn Terminal's lower end, you could lenthen the main runaround slightly by removing the short runaround to it's left and putting a double slip there to the other runaround.  That would save a turnout or two but at the expense of another double slip.  It shouldn't affect operation unless the smaller loop track is intended as a runaround.

For the next contest we could do a general theme.  Not extremely specific - something like engine terminal, yard etc.

I think the high scenery to track ratio on my plans comes from the fact that I tendd to plan around industries.  I decide what industries the town will have and leave spaces for them from the start of planning.

Thanks,

Chad

[stilson4283]

 Thanks for all the comments on my two plans (Lancster Terminal and Industry Branch).  Once again Chip great contest it was a lot of fun.

I understand all the comments and criteques on the plans and will take them into account during the next contest. 

A few comments, Lancaster Terminal Railway:

I see the thoughts TZ comments on the railway mostly being yards.  But I really think staging is important and I like yard operations.  

I agree with spacemouse on needed a continous running and any layout I build I would want to have a continous run option.  

On the Industry Branch:

Thanks for all the comments.  If I had some more space I would add an extra track or two to staging and I have been working on another version with a longer passing siding and not as parrellel to the edge of the layout.  

Here is the new plan:

It has 2 additional tracks which would extend that side by 6".  I also lenghtened the sidings to 90".  The mainline also is a little less parellel and moved the engine terminal.  

Chris

Lancaster, CA 

 

 

 

[steinjr]

 

  The only thing I wondered about concerning the Yorklyn module is the access to the three rightmost staging tracks in the lower end staging (Hockessin staging). 

 Seems to me like the only way access when using this Yorklyn module as a standalone layout would be to run trains to Hockessin staging through industry track red C - ie the tank car unloading track ? 

 If you added an extra crossover from industry track red C to the main, just above the Hockessin staging turnout, then that ought to make it possible to get in and out of Hockessin staging without first having to remove cars from in front of the tank car unloading.

I looked at the plan and realized the crossover should be in the other direction. 

  I thought you perhaps had deliberately wanted the tank car unloading track to be double ended for some reason. If so, adding an extra crossover would have fixed access to staging without losing the easy double ended access to the tank car track.

 But if double ended access to the tank car track is not a design objective, just swapping the existing crossover from the tank car unloading track to the main with a crossover from the main to the uppermost end of the staging tracks would fix the problem in a better way. 

 

On the Brooklyn Terminal's lower end, you could lenthen the main runaround slightly by removing the short runaround to it's left and putting a double slip there to the other runaround.  That would save a turnout or two but at the expense of another double slip.  It shouldn't affect operation unless the smaller loop track is intended as a runaround.

 Hmmm - that would work. I could also keep the runaround the length it is and instead make the two yard tracks on the left of the leftmost diagonal a little longer. Either way would work operationally.

 And you are certainly right that the second diagonal is too short to be useful as a runaround in a H0 scale layout this size.  That's the reason for why I added that second main runaround.

 Only problem is that visually the two parallell diagonals with tracks branching out on the outside of both diagonals seems like one of the a signature elements of the prototype Bush Terminal 1st Avenue yard, and I fear I would lose more in the "look and feel" of the prototype than I would gain in operational capability by dropping the second diagonal and using a double slip instead.

 I think that on the whole I would land on leaving that second diagonal in. But it is a close call. Thanks for pointing that one out - I hadn't seen that possibility!

For the next contest we could do a general theme.  Not extremely specific - something like engine terminal, yard etc.

 That makes a lot of sense. I think that requirement was one of the strengths of the 2x8 competition.

 Also - I really like the shelf layout or smallish "module" format - for several reasons:

• Modules takes less time to design than a large layout
• It is easier to compare smaller modules with each other
• It is easier to transform a module from N to H0 or the other way around
• A good module can easier be integrated as a scene in a design of your own
• It is probably easier to get spousal approval to build a module than to builde an empire
• It forces the designer to focus

 And probably quite a few other things as well.

 Btw - I mean "module" as in "section" above. One could also of course set requirements that these things should be truly modular - ie with standarized interface to the next module, so any two modules could be coupled together to form a larger layout.

 Many possibilities here.

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[steinjr]

On the Industry Branch:

Thanks for all the comments.  If I had some more space I would add an extra track or two to staging and I have been working on another version with a longer passing siding and not as parrellel to the edge of the layout.  

Here is the new plan:

It has 2 additional tracks which would extend that side by 6".  I also lenghtened the sidings to 90".  The mainline also is a little less parellel and moved the engine terminal.  

 The image is a little too small to see well - got a full size one you could link instead of the thumbnail ?

 Smile,
 Stein