I had a chance to virtually operate this layout, and I've decided to work in my confines for another iteration.
Layout :-
http://blandfordrail.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/blandford-3-2-e1294793838161.jpg
LDE - Grange Ridge :-
http://blandfordrail.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/blandford-3-22-e1294793952850.jpg
LDE - Waterford Valley :-
http://blandfordrail.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/blandford-3-21-e1294793797656.jpg
I have placed hidden staging under the Grange Ridge area, which is 2 double ended staging tracks. This area can be opened out to 2 double ended staging tracks + 1 or 2 single ended staging tracks.
Cheers,
The Railroad must get through . . . . .
http://blandfordrail.wordpress.com/
After the bench reconfiguration and negotiations on real estate available for me railroad, I have drafted plan based on some LDE content from HOGRR. I have kept the premise of:
The idea is that I can run mixed freight on the main, while having a daily mine run as well.
Grades – Anyrail has calculated the grades, which are all within the revised 3% maximum.
Radii - allowable maximum is 22 inches, which has been achieved. This gives a little extra distance to achieve the necessary gradients.
I have tried to spread the LDE’s around the 3 walls to ensure that 2 operators have ample room to work.
I look forward to critical evaluation.
thanks in advance,
Brett
Stardust Stein, I found your HO layout bases loosely on HOG, which measures 11' x 8'6' (forgive me if I get my inches and feet mixed up) and am cosidering how I would get your yard incorporated into me layout.
Stein, I found your HO layout bases loosely on HOG, which measures 11' x 8'6' (forgive me if I get my inches and feet mixed up) and am cosidering how I would get your yard incorporated into me layout.
Hi Brett --
I've been working on some other things lately, and am not quite sure which layout and yard you are referring to in the text above?
Stein, a little scatterbrained after having learned that my 75 year old dad's car was totaled in an car vs truck accident on extremely slippery ice earlier today - thankfully without anyone getting injured or killed.
StardustIs a 24inch 'walk through' comfortable? I'm a bean stalk so I'm happy for me, but is there any concern with it only being 24 inches?
Human hip-width does not come in either O, HO, N, or Z scale => Unless you are in plastic-form from a Walthers Catalog.
If you must turn sideways => The walkway is too narrow.
It is said that in some areas, John Armstrong's classic O Scale layout had 18" walkways, and it was tight for many visitors. See his Canandaiga Southern trackplan at Landmark Layouts.
Have someone measure your hips strictly by width, and you find you don't want to go any smaller than a 24" aisle. You'll be glad you did so!
Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956
rrinker With an 8x9 space - consider the HOG (Heart of Georgia): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HOGRR/ My previous layout was 8x12 built as 4 sections of 2x8. Dunno if I could have made it much smaller, but I did have a double track main. With a single track more would have fit. There's some information in my "Old Stuff" section on my web site. --Randy
With an 8x9 space - consider the HOG (Heart of Georgia): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HOGRR/
My previous layout was 8x12 built as 4 sections of 2x8. Dunno if I could have made it much smaller, but I did have a double track main. With a single track more would have fit. There's some information in my "Old Stuff" section on my web site.
--Randy
I agree with rrinker. I started with the HOG layout as a template really then I broke out on my own and took what I learned from the HOG to create my 24" shelf in about the same space you're doing. Mine is 9.5x9.5.
Okay Guys,
I've not fallen off the planet, and have been busy both dismantling the existing layout trackaage and bench work.
Having a look at things, on a flat landscape, and playing with combinations of both flex and #6 turnouts, I am working on the next iteration. I have been through the squares of stacking blobs for a double wish-bone, an to be honest, I think reach would be a problem with anything other than a donut!
Existing benchwork consists of 2 modules (8' x 2') on legs and 2 modules (6' x 2') without legs.
In the interim, I've also run a few consists at the local club as well, gauging performance on climbs.
With maximum operating train length set at 5' (example = AC4400 + 6 x 100 tonne hoppers + caboose), any of my choosen locos handled 2 percent like it is flat, and consisting up to double that length proved no different with a single loco. I feel confident that a single RS-11 + 6 hoppers + caboose will handle grades up to 2.8% without hesitation - and I am setting up to set 'lift off' at a 3 percent grade on the flat benchwork.
I look forward to getting you something for more thoughts.
cheers,
Hi Stein,
As I am possibly moving in 6 months, I am conscious of making this free standing. While I have keep the layout at 9ft x 8ft, I am conscious of the room it will end up in 10ft x 10ft, and the little 'jiggling' I will have to do to maneuvour it into place.
As you have said, West, North and East walls will be bound be the extremities of the room, while the south wall may be accessed and viewed from both sides, but it's the area where I need to be conscious of the duck under.
Right now, space is not the issue, as I have an area some 14ft x 10ft which houses the current layout. I want to commence the construction of framework and the like over the christmas break, as I know that I will have far less room to work in at the next place. Infact, clear out the motorsport toys, and I could have a worldly empire right now.
Sure, I could go out to 10ft, but I imagine that if I design to a 9ft x 8ft plan, I will be able to scenic the rest.
As far as the 8ft dimension, there is a build in closet, which will require around 2ft just to open the doors and access storage.
Also, I really have to say thanks for all that great information you have pointed to . . the operations of the appalanchian mining ops are awesome.
Cheers and thanks,
So - what does "stay off the walls" mean in this context? Not fastening things to west, north and east walls?
Or something else? Is there any reason to leave a gap of 1 foot between the layout and the wall? A one foot wide aisle isn't really all that usable for most purposes.
Smile,Stein
Hi UncBob,
The photo is a great example of a 'clear' duck under, and right now, I thank you for helping to change my mnd on the duck under position.
thanks,
Paulus Jas realise very well the HOG is flat. If your doing a twice around with grades you will hardly have any flat stretches. As is being said many times on here before, start with a drawing of your room; with all obstacles drawn in. See the space first, not the proposed layout.
realise very well the HOG is flat. If your doing a twice around with grades you will hardly have any flat stretches.
As is being said many times on here before, start with a drawing of your room; with all obstacles drawn in. See the space first, not the proposed layout.
Hi Paul,
Having had a look at HOGRR quite a bit since it was first mentioned, I am trying to develop a feel for whether it can be broken in 2, having one stretch (say southern & western side) on level +4 inches and the other stretch (say eastern & northern side) at level 0. Their would need to be a grade of some description in there, but the siding layouts havea tried and tested operation ability (from what I have read). Even if I just borrow part of that plan to lay over my own, it's adding to the operations.
As for the space, I'm very much seeing and empty room ot 10*10, but I need to stay off the walls of it. This, even though I have said 'round the walls' is very much a free standing item, which is to be operated from inside the well. The room layout will give me 2 feet of viewing from the front, and I may be able to justify running out to 9ft 6in at a pinch. There is nothing else in the room, apart from some built in cupboards lining the perimeter on the southern 9 foot side. I'll include the room in the next revision of the plan.
I have considered a folded dogbone, to give the illusion of a double main line, with the blobs stacked on one another. This would take a minimum of 4ft 6in x 4ft 6in in one of the corners, and if done right, could lend itself to a small helix to give me a double deck layout . . . but when is enough too much?
To do a helix in this area, assuming a 4in rail to rail height, I would end up with a grade of 2.9% by my calculation. I'm not sure if this would work, or is even feasible. While I know I have enough head end power to drag 'all' of the rolling stock up that incline, I then question whether that would be undue stress on the head end power.
This grade has been calculated on a 22in radius, but I envisage that it would bea double track helix, with the outside radius being 24in. The resulting grade would be aroudn 2.6% and through the right design, this could be the UP track and the 2.9% be the down track.
And to cap it all off, 10ft x 10ft, HO and big ambitions don't always fit in the same room!
cheers and thanks,
Brett,
realise very well the HOG is flat. If your doing a twice around with grades you will hardly have any flat stretches. This is needed for switching........ not only the spur has to be flat also the adjacent (parallel) piece of track on the mainline.
Paul
In a way of clarification
My Duckunder is 42 " wide and because of the fascia 50" high
However as you can see my staging area (cabinet) takes up a lot of that width
I can still duck under no problem but if I intend to do extensive in and outs I move the cabinet out of the way
At 74 I have no problem but probably am more agile than most my age as I do workout ( Jog Bike Weights ) 7 days a week
51% share holder in the ME&O ( Wife owns the other 49% )
ME&O
Stein & Alco_Fan,
cheers and thanks for your input. First, this is critical input, and I appreciate everyone's input. I'm not going to be easily offended, and really only want to build this thing one more time!!! I'll be taking all the feedback I can get, and using it appropriately. Having had the day to consider a few other things, and having read Alco_fan's post earlier in the day . . I am starting to see that while I may have achieved my goal of a 'twice round' loop in 8x9, I'm still missing some fundamentals of operations.
In the main part, I know I have some room to play with at the mine site, and could possibly make this area bigger, which would enable me to have far longer storage tracks for empties/loads, incorporate a run around for the loco etc, and maybe even justify buying that nice little switcher just to leave at the end of that branch. By my reckoning, I could possible have an area some 60x15 inches to play with up there. On a quick count, the 6 xWalthers Coal Hoppers = 60inches, so I'd probably need another 24 inches on that to make an effective run around track, giving me 84 inches to drop the consist and then 'run around' the consist to start placing them with the same Loco. I'll have a good close look at this and then take on your idea of a curved yard.
** I have not placed a curved yard in the equation yet, as I am fearful of my ability to hook/unhook without using a pencil etc to do this **
If I look at my current inventory of motive power and rolling stock, I see half the rolling stock fleet as coal hoppers (11) and the balance as mixed freight cars (TOFC, tanks, gondolas, boxcars - 11). Motive power is currently 2 x 4 axle diesels and 3 x 6 axle diesels. I really need something more than railfanning for the mixed freight rolling stock.
Now, one of the things I have been thinking is:
Why have the removable lift out? UncBob already pointed out that he is quite happy with a 54inch duck under, and frankly I have been turned off by a 31inch duck under. That's not realistic, and maybe I need to work with a 48 inch duck under. this would raise the bench level to around 52 to 58 inches and probably be perfect for scenic veiws and operations etc. This would give me staging ability along that southern side too. The only thing this means from a rail fanning perspective is that I will need a taller stool ;-)
That said, I could now have a whole extra side (previously unused) to work with for industry spurs and giving my layout some operational purpose.
I have spent some time today also playing with the current layout (inherently flawed as it is - it's my first attempt) and in particular the little switching plan it has. It's set in a 24inch x 96 inch arena, and frankly, it's barely sufficent to hold 10 cars and still maintain some useabilty - granted it's not designed well.
This tinkering has lead me to then print the current yard layout in 1:1, and place the rolling stock pieces on it just for giggles. It's actually quite small and really isn't going to serve much purpose, apart from being a 'front and centre' location to showcase what I own. Who wants to see a number of identical coal hoppers?
Back to the story, Randy (I think it was) pointed me to HOGRR, which I can look at the industry placements of style on that layout, and then see if it's feasible to make that into a twice around. And given this, I've taken some time to read on the Appalanchian link you listed, and this gives me something more to ponder . . maybe another mine site wrapped around on the southern 6inch elevation ( if the lift out goes).
In short, I'll play around with V1.6 of the layout plan this week, which will most likely lose the classification yard in favour of some local industry and a couple of run-around tracks at different places..
Again, cheers and thanks guys!!!
Stardust And the next iteration is this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/56401358@N06/5231444056/in/photostream/
And the next iteration is this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56401358@N06/5231444056/in/photostream/
Hmmm - you have (in version 1.5 of your plan) two coal based industries (a coal mine and a power plant), plus a small model railroad-like yard with a couple of engine service tracks, an A/D track and three or four short classification tracks.
You have put quite a bit of work into making the twice-around main climb up and drop down again, but you are not going to get all that interesting (IMO - other people's opinions may differ) switching the way you have set things up.
Start by looking at the mine run. You will have have to run your engine around the empties at the yard (or your engine will get trapped at the mine), and then push the cars a full circle counter-clockwise around the room, into the branch and then down the last wall up to the mine.
When you get to the mine, you have two short tracks (about 2 feet, room for maybe 4-5 coal hoppers) there.
If both tracks at the mine has loaded cars, and the total number of loaded cars are more than what fits into a single track, you are stuck. No work space - i.e. a somewhere to place cars temporarily while picking up or setting out cars.
So you will not be able to take trains of 8-10 empty coal hoppers up to the mine with the plan of exchanging them for 8-10 loaded hoppers.
You either will have to go up there engine light, grab all the empties and bring them down, running all around the room again to get to the yard, and then grab loads from the yard and push the loads all around the room up to the mine again. 90+% of your time switching the mine will not be spent doing switching - it will be spent on watching your mine run slowly loop around the room, en route between yard and mine.
Or alternatively - you run really short cuts of cars on the mine run. Have one track at the mine hold 4-5 loads and take 4-5 empties up to the mine. Push the empties into one track, pull the loads from the other track. Will work just fine. Not all that interesting switching, though. Show a string of identical cars into track 1, pull another string of identical cars from track 2.
If you want a mine run, I would try really hard to make tracks at the mine a little more interesting. At the absolute minimum make those tracks twice as long, so you can pull loads from track 1 and shove them temporarily into track 2, before shoving all the empties into track 1, coupling onto the loads on track 2, and using the loads as a handle, moving half the empties from track 1 to track 2 before departing.
Maybe include a crossover between the two mine tracks, or an extra track to set out cars or some other way of adding some work space and interest.
Even at the cost of making the branch line run to the mine from the junction to the min a little shorter shorter.
Get your rail fanning done on your mainline. Want a longer run to your mine? Do more laps on the main before going into the mine.
Some tips on realistic mine run operations: http://appalachianrailroadmodeling.com/mineruns.html
There is also a number of track plans at the site, where you can see how others have modeled coal mines.
Okay - moving on. The yard. You want to model routing cars, building blocks of cars.
But for that, you do not really need a classification yard. A classification yard is really a *big* sorting machine, where the goal is to efficiently handle a large number of inbound cars on a number of trains, resort the cars and get the cars out again on other trains in an efficient way, with a minimum of dwell time.
Efficiency is why classification yard have A/D yards or A/D tracks - get stuff off the mainline fast, as to create less disruption for other trains. And why they have a large number of longish body/classification tracks - so you can take inbound cars right away and push them into the right track for their outbound train.
In the morning, track 1 will hold cars that go out on the morning mine run, track 2 cars that gets added to the next Chicago bound train, track 3 holds cars that will go on the next train over to the neighboring yard up the line, track 4 holds cars that will go to local industries between your yard and the next yard to the east, track 5 will hold cars that goes on the next local to the west, and so and so forth.
But the classification yard is just one of many types of yards.
You do sorting in other types of yards too. You could e.g. model a coal marshaling yard - where loads and empties are stored temporarily until a mine needs more empties or a ship is expected into port down the line, needing X extra loads of grade 3 (or whatever) coal and Y extra loads of grade 2 coal.
Or you could model a local yard of some kind. A yard do not have to have the formal straight tracks, a straight ladder and an A/D track - a small yard could be as simple as just a couple of double ended sidings off the main, curving around a corner of your room.
If you make a curved yard, try to make sure that the part where you will do the actual coupling will be fairly straight, or on a curve with wide radius. Or replace your couplers with Sergent couplers, which will stay in the position you leave them, rather than being auto centered by a small spring.
I'd say that the most natural place for a yard on your layout is where you have the power plant now - curve it around the upper right inside corner, and put the yard between the main and the aisle - will also allow you to stagger turnouts in such a way that cars on the tracks closer to the aisle won't block your view of the first cars on the yard tracks behind it.
Power plan - sure you want to have two coal based industries? How about having the second industry be something that takes a variety of cars (boxcars, covered hoppers - if era appropriate, tank cars, etc), and which have sure spots (one type of shipments have to go to gate 2, another to gate 4). Maybe some kind of food or beverage related industry or some such thing?
For some ideas about sure spots and switching instructions for crews, have a look at this web page on Linda and Dave Sand's web page: http://www.sandsys.org/modelrr/modelbuilt/
In particular, have a look at the spot diagrams and train briefs on the web page describing their Cedar River Terminal layout : http://www.sandsys.org/modelrr/modelbuilt/crt/, and the discussion on working the produce district of their Plymouth Industrial layout (http://www.sandsys.org/modelrr/modelbuilt/pi/).
Also see Dave Hill's O scale New Castle Industrial Railroad (http://oscalewcor.blogspot.com/) - it also beautifully illustrate how you can get pretty interesting switching using sure spots, even with a simple track plan (http://oscalewcor.blogspot.com/2010_10_01_archive.html)
As you can see - adding sure spots to industries can ad a lot of flavor you don't necessarily get by treating each industry as one generic destination.
Ye olde team track/reload track/public access track also works pretty well - just a track with truck access to the cars on the track - a destination for pretty much any kind of car.
Anyways - hope you don't feel that I am raining too hard on your plan. It is a decent enough plan, provided access to the staging tracks is not too bad. But I unfortunately feel that will be fairly boring to operate the way you have it set up now.
Smile, Stein
Looks good.
You might want to sneak in a runaround somewhere on the mine branch. Also, I would move the power station turnout farther along the runaround to the right. You'll be able to park more cars before the switch and therefore might avoid having to back the train to the left before you shove the cars to the power station.
Yes, the yard looks like it might be a tight fit. You'll probably have to use a lot of retaining walls, but that's been done for years.
- Douglas
Seems like you are building a layout just for four cars in the "freight yard" (whatever that is) and six cars at the mine.
Don't think theres enough going on for this size layout. Sorry, just telling you what I see.
hi brett
one comment, i think the drill track is pretty short; you might make the connection between staging and your station a bit further down.
I did not check the grades, your design is pretty good.
paul
I have changed the entry/exit from the a/d tracks serves to both extend the double loop mainline (now about 56feet) and reduce the grade on the main back to about 2.4% on the steeper climb.
All motive power should be good for this grade with the appropriate rolling stock.
I have also changed the hidden staging a little too, so the storage tracks are slightly longer and the throat points in the appropriate direction.
The big question I have is . . . Am I still kidding myself by keeping the classification yard on the layout, and will this bring me operational capacity, or would I be better off replacing it with something else?
Your comments are appreciated!
dante The "freight yard" appears to be simply a pair of team tracks. By running a long spur to that location, you are giving up an additional classification track. Either have the "freight yard" be a team track integrated into the classification yard, or have it accessed by a short spur off the main and gain the additional classification track. Dante
The "freight yard" appears to be simply a pair of team tracks. By running a long spur to that location, you are giving up an additional classification track. Either have the "freight yard" be a team track integrated into the classification yard, or have it accessed by a short spur off the main and gain the additional classification track.
Dante
HI Dante,
Thanks for this input. I was sort of trying to keep away from the main for the traffic from the yard to the frieght house/yard. This has used one of the yard tracks, and I am seeing issues with this too. Of course, I may be able to use the A/D track if that's not going to overly offend the prototypical use of the A/D track.
Cheers n thanks,
rrinker Looks like about a 2.5-3 percent grade there? Have you tested the equipment you plan to run to verify it can do such a grade? I'm basing this on about 12 feet of track from the point where the main crosses over the junction that leads to the hidden staging and the opposite side of the layotu just before the turnout to the freight yard. To get the required 4-4.5" of clearance for HO plus the thickness of a reasonable bridge, that's between 2.7 and 3% grade over that distance. --Randy
Looks like about a 2.5-3 percent grade there? Have you tested the equipment you plan to run to verify it can do such a grade? I'm basing this on about 12 feet of track from the point where the main crosses over the junction that leads to the hidden staging and the opposite side of the layotu just before the turnout to the freight yard. To get the required 4-4.5" of clearance for HO plus the thickness of a reasonable bridge, that's between 2.7 and 3% grade over that distance.
Hi Randy,
The steeper of the 2 climbs/descents comes in at 2.8%, giving allowance for 4 inches of elevation. I was struggling to keep it below this, and in reality this does represent a concern.
Incidentally, last night I found 6 new Walthers Coal Hoppers on my doorstep (thanks ebay and a great exchange rate - I live in Oz). When I grabbed one out, I was amazed at just how 'heavy' it was, which brings concern for the 2.8% grade.
I do have an 8 foot stretch with a 4% grade, which make my favourit RS-11 struggle with 10 freight cars. It does need to have some momentum at the bottom to make this grade, and running at a more prototypical speed is almost a non-event. I guess the next step is to lay a 25 foot run out to measure what would be an acceptable grade given the rolling stock.
My guess it's not quite as simple as weight one item of rolling stock, the 'loading up' a small consist of the anticipated weight (no. of cars X weight of cards) made up of 3 or 4 hoppers filled with lead weight . . . as this would not represent the rolling frictions of the consist properly.
And all this just to keep that yard, lol!
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
okay the latest version of the track plan is:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56401358@N06/5230136789/in/photostream/
I've kept staging hidden on the 0 elevation, along with the yard and freight house/yard. The main line loops up through a tunnel then hidden up the east side, to arrive at the branch to head to the coal mine. I have continued to head 'up' to the coal mine.
I'm looking for operation critique of the coal mine area, and imagine that there will need to be a run-around track and a maybe some more storage up there. The last 48 inches of the coal mine scene is on an area of about 12 inches x 48 inches and completely flat.
Okay, and we're back to the weekend, when I can really make some impact here.
Looking at the v1.0 of the trackplan, and I've come up with a few changes to make when considering things like:
Firstly, I am going to try to do the following:
While you are considering this, I'll be reshaping the layout diagram so that my above drivel is more understandable.
Cheers n thanks
HI UncBob,
I like that you've keep yours nice and simple, and are using my desired radius curves I see you use some steam and shorter rolling stock. Thanks for the feedback on the 54inch duck under, as this may be a possibility for me.
Paul,
I've grabbed out 102 track plans recently and visited an article on design by squares, so I have adjusted the grid on which I work to represent that philosophy.
Well mine is only 6.5 x 9.5
It is 54 ' high and I am 74 and have no problems ducking under
Simple double oval 22 and 24 with a service yard
All my staging is in a cabinet under the front
I can change out both engines and cars in about 10 minutes manually
Still needs the clouds painted etc and ballast and ground cover but is finished enough that I can watch them go roundy round
in the "good" old days, we designed by squares; a John Armstrong invention.
The length of a square is the minimum radius plus 5 inches in HO. No chance on cheating; after some time you can draw a layout on the back of an envelope.
Still do it a lot this way, it's fast and accurate.
BTW. the track parallel to the yard stem is to short to hold any car. This track is often added, eg. for parking cabooses, just copying it is not good enough, it need a adequate length to function well.
jmbjmb This is the track plan as best I recall it. It's been a few years and I don't have a paper trackplan anymore. For the most part I only sketched out the overall plan and then developed the final plan by fitting pieces together before cutting out the roadbed (used cookie cutter homosote over plywood). It's amazing how little will actually fit in the space when you use actual components compared to pencil lines on paper :) http://photo2.walgreens.com/walgreens/thumbnailshare/AlbumID=9954532006/a=1764306006_1764306006/otsc=SHR/otsi=SALBlink/COBRAND_NAME=walgreens/ :550:300]
This is the track plan as best I recall it. It's been a few years and I don't have a paper trackplan anymore. For the most part I only sketched out the overall plan and then developed the final plan by fitting pieces together before cutting out the roadbed (used cookie cutter homosote over plywood). It's amazing how little will actually fit in the space when you use actual components compared to pencil lines on paper :)
http://photo2.walgreens.com/walgreens/thumbnailshare/AlbumID=9954532006/a=1764306006_1764306006/otsc=SHR/otsi=SALBlink/COBRAND_NAME=walgreens/
:550:300]
Hey jmbjmb,
thanks for this sketch out. I'm quite happy I'm using AnyRail for this, as I've been able to print a couple of 1:1 proportion plans portions, lay some cars out on it then ponder . . . . completely agreed, laying our some trackage, it's scary how little will fit into an area.
Advantages of designing by computer . . when setting a radius, it's not going to dreamily fudge it to fit . . almost as unforgiving as the real thing.
Paulus Jas hi you did not get many comments on the design itself. just a few *too many tracks are way to close to the back wall; try to keep 4 inches between the back wall and your track * you could easily make a larger staging area *the freight yard should be close to the station, i do not like it on a long branch; a different kind of industry would be possible here. *you could use manual operated switches; 4 inches of clearance is tight...... have fun Paul
hi
you did not get many comments on the design itself.
just a few
*too many tracks are way to close to the back wall; try to keep 4 inches between the back wall and your track
* you could easily make a larger staging area
*the freight yard should be close to the station, i do not like it on a long branch; a different kind of industry would be possible here.
*you could use manual operated switches; 4 inches of clearance is tight......
have fun
Thanks for the ideas. I haven't considered manual turnouts for the yard, as I see there may be some computer control possiblites last on.
I am looking at trying to get 5 to 6 inches of elevation now, which may push me to a 2.5% grade. This is feasible, and on looking, I am wondering if it's possible that I can limit the depth required by the Peco PL10 snap switches. These snap switches can be mounted 'through the road bed" and directly to the turnouts, and if I route the wiring correctly, I may be able to get away with a depth of just 1 inch. Of course, as the snap switch is located by the ties, the road bed thickness can also be eliminated from the calculation of the required depth (so long as it's not thicker than the allow for the switch).
In any case, I may look at putting the staging down the eastern side, and making it 3 x 5 foot staging tracks. And if worked properly, I can possibly wrap this staging around the southern end to the edge of the liftout, making it even longer. This option would alleviate much of the drama of having the only 4 inches of elevation under the yard.
Again thanks,