videobruce Not even close. Most of WNY has a layer of clay a foot or two below grade which I beleive is most of the problem. Regarding temperature swings, apparently all of you live in the suburbs with concrete or cinder block foundations where the above isn't a problem Also apparent is you probably have never been in a house with a stone foundation let alone owned one. Another factor, these houses foundations are only 2/3 below grade (around four feet) unlike new houses. Basement windows are around two feet square unlike new houses where one can hardly see out on one of those narrow so called windows.. Have any of you have a thermometer and hydrometer in your basement? I would bet you would be surprised of the 'swings'.
Not even close. Most of WNY has a layer of clay a foot or two below grade which I beleive is most of the problem.
Regarding temperature swings, apparently all of you live in the suburbs with concrete or cinder block foundations where the above isn't a problem Also apparent is you probably have never been in a house with a stone foundation let alone owned one.
Another factor, these houses foundations are only 2/3 below grade (around four feet) unlike new houses. Basement windows are around two feet square unlike new houses where one can hardly see out on one of those narrow so called windows..
Have any of you have a thermometer and hydrometer in your basement? I would bet you would be surprised of the 'swings'.
Yeah, it must be the stone foundation and the fact that it is partially above grade.
Here in the Chicago area, basements are poured concrete and usually are totally below grade.
Like CTValleyRR, I have very limited temperature and humidity swings in my basement. I do have a combination temperature/humidity read out device down there, and there is lttle swing either way from season to season. But that is the nature of a poured concrete below grade foundation.
However, given the fact that you live in WNY, it is somewhat surprising that you experience such temperature and humidity swings in spite of the fact that you have a stone foundation.
In any event, with temperature and humidity swings of that nature, you are certainly going to encounter problems with your layout unless you can figure out a way to stabilize the extremes.
Rich
Alton Junction
Videobruce,
After having problems with track expansion during summer hot weather, 95 plus in the garage/train room. I have had to replace to many switches and track where the plastic spikes were ripped off the ties I now do not usually solder rail joiners to the track, except on curves using flex track.
Doing this and leaving small gaps around switches and every 3 feet or so for the expansion that may, no will happen, solves this problem. If a section of track needs more electrical contact then I will run feeders off of the power buss for this. These will be into the middle of the track and not where rail joiners are. And when I do need to do this it also if gives the advantage of better DCC operation. One can not have to many feeder wires.
Humidity I am sure may play a small part in my layouts expansion, but this seems to only happen with excessive dry mid summer temperatures.
Well, these are my experiences and solutions after having this layout for 3 years. Those who have climate controlled train spaces are very blessed indeed. For those of us that don't have this, well we do the best we can with what we have got.
So at some point you will just have to take the plunge like the rest of us have done, and use the information you have gained from the forums and books to start you own model train world.
Ken G Price My N-Scale Layout
Digitrax Super Empire Builder Radio System. South Valley Texas Railroad. SVTRR
N-Scale out west. 1996-1998 or so! UP, SP, Missouri Pacific, C&NW.
given the fact that you live in WNY, it is somewhat surprising that you experience such temperature and humidity swings in spite of the fact that you have a stone foundation.
Low of around 15-20 in the winter and high of 85-90 in the summer.
videobruce Here in the Chicago area, basements are poured concrete and usually are totally below grade. . Like I said, newer suburban homes are like that. Nothing new. given the fact that you live in WNY, it is somewhat surprising that you experience such temperature and humidity swings in spite of the fact that you have a stone foundation. Why would that be surprising?? Low of around 15-20 in the winter and high of 85-90 in the summer.
Why would that be suprising?
Because when humidity reaches 100 percent, moisture will begin to condense from the air.
And, because temperature swings of 40 degrees in a basement would seem to indicate an uncontrolled environment.
Before I would build a layout in such a location, I would take steps to stabilize both the temperature and the humidity.
So, I am surprised that you would consider building a layout in such an environment.
Geez, you asked, so we responded.
Oh well, to each his own.
Good luck!
Hey, may I throw in my 5 cents...............
Like some of the previous OPs, I am concerned about the high humidity you experience periodically. Having participated in this Forum for 8 or 9 years, I can tell you that these folks know their stuff.
So to add my opinion, anything over 70 percent should set off alarms, causing worry about the integrity of the house itself - which should be addressed before that first piece of benchwork is put into place.
I suggest that the answers may lie in a sump pump, wall coatings, drainage facilities around the outside, etc., etc. And when a layout is built - if you ever do so - I would seal off a room for it and add a dehumidifier as well.
Frankly, building a layout before this is addressed is an exercise in futility, and will dampen (pun intended) your MR enthusiasm quite quickly.
BTW, I have owned houses in Illinois, Kentucky, north and south Texas and lived in several rent houses with all kinds of construction - from slab to crawl space to partial to full basements.
Good Luck!
Mobilman44
ENJOY !
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
I was commenting on what was posted about being "somewhat surprising" regarding experiencing temp. swings. I don't know know why that was misunderstood as it was plainly quoted and responded to.
As stated more than once, I am taking steps to 'control' the environment as this is the only practical option for me since the attic is out of the question.
Please lets get past the environmental concern as I am more than aware of it. The thread title was the layout itself, not where it is going.
Just one more smack of the dead horse. The construction of the building doesn't matter. If the temps and humidity are there you will have problems. I have a stone foundation 2/3rd below \grade. One day my then 8x8 layout had a couple of spots where the track warped a couple of inches above the track bed. The problem was the wood of the benchwork contracting after the fall season.
Back to your layout. You have a good sized layout planned. I would suggest larger radius turns on the ends if in HO. The original track plan showed full turns in under 3 feet which is way too sharp for a layout that size.
Springfield PA
After spending much time sealing up leaks and re-doing parts of my driveway (for other reasons), just about all of the seepage in the basement has been taken care of.
Right now, humidity is averaging around 65% with a range of 60-70%. We have had a rainy fall season so far, but all the walls have no water ingress even after more than one heavy rain.
The room is done after all this time.
The temperature swings are almost exactly what I have but not the humidity. If you do basic frame with a foam top, expansion is not a problem with those temps, I have had mine up for a few years now, not one kink and I did have a day or two into the 30's and a few highs above 85. I have not sealed the wood but I use kiln dried 1x4's. I have not left any expansion joints on purpose (may be one or two that are due to in-exact track-work but those are rare). If you research into the cause and effect of warped track, you will find most of them are caused by more extremes than you are talking about and a lot are do to other things like direct sunlight through a window.
I don't know just what the temperature extremes this winter will be. I'm hoping it won't go below 50. If so, 50 to 75, I can't really see a problem. The biggest issue is humidity and heat from the dehumidifier exhaust in the summertime (an advantage in the spring & fall).
Regarding sealing the wood. Painting or something else? I have plenty of blue left over that I painted the walls and ceiling with.
Since this is really not winter here this year, temps haven't gone below 50. In this room with some aux. heat from a furnace duct, the temp. averages 57 degrees.
I have been working on the plan after I finished the table work and cut the plywood. No 2nd level cookie cutting yet.
I updated my design somewhat. I laid out the plan on paper full size on the table along with Peco templates and fine tuned it to work. What I don't show is the passenger station and yard as I have run into a problem of space. At the far right, that straight stretch of track on an angle is where it will go. That is elevated. I was originally planning on accessing it from the left (which is from the top of the drawing, but if I do, I have no switching lead forcing me to use the main. If I use the other end, I have my lead (it's drawn in as a siding), but it bars me from using the area away from the freight yard. I loose alot of storage space. Also, I do not show a engine house, car shop & caboose storage tracks to the left of the hump. The cab track & car shop aren't a big deal, but the engine facility is. I don't know if I should access if from the left or the right off that curved lead from the five track receiving/departure yard. I also didn't show industrial spurs around the perimeter of the layout as these can be added anytime. Input please. (there are three attachments)
videobruce What I don't show is the passenger station and yard as I have run into a problem of space. At the far right, that straight stretch of track on an angle is where it will go. That is elevated. I was originally planning on accessing it from the left (which is from the top of the drawing, but if I do, I have no switching lead forcing me to use the main. If I use the other end, I have my lead (it's drawn in as a siding), but it bars me from using the area away from the freight yard. I loose alot of storage space. Also, I do not show a engine house, car shop & caboose storage tracks to the left of the hump. The cab track & car shop aren't a big deal, but the engine facility is. I don't know if I should access if from the left or the right off that curved lead from the five track receiving/departure yard. I also didn't show industrial spurs around the perimeter of the layout as these can be added anytime.
What I don't show is the passenger station and yard as I have run into a problem of space. At the far right, that straight stretch of track on an angle is where it will go. That is elevated. I was originally planning on accessing it from the left (which is from the top of the drawing, but if I do, I have no switching lead forcing me to use the main. If I use the other end, I have my lead (it's drawn in as a siding), but it bars me from using the area away from the freight yard. I loose alot of storage space. Also, I do not show a engine house, car shop & caboose storage tracks to the left of the hump. The cab track & car shop aren't a big deal, but the engine facility is. I don't know if I should access if from the left or the right off that curved lead from the five track receiving/departure yard. I also didn't show industrial spurs around the perimeter of the layout as these can be added anytime.
Before replying, I went through your first post of the thread, and scanned the rest of the thread.
I believe your plan is very ambitious for your experience in layout building, perhaps overly so. The space is filled with track, as you admit. And you have deliberately left out the structures and scenic elements (including industrial spurs), thinking that, "these can be added anytime". Well, they can't because they won't fit.
Although your focus is on an operating hump yard, and tower/dispatcher operations, you still have to decide whether or not you want realistic scenery and scenes, and how much of your operating trackage you are willing to give up to get believable scenery. I would get a hold of the Walther's catalog and look up footprints of structures you might be interested in. Cut out some templates to the specified footprint, and add them to your plan.
Putting scenic considerations aside, both hump yards and tower type operations are rarely modeled because they are rather difficult. The problems with getting a working hump yard have already been explained by others. I will lay out some of the issues with tower/dispatcher operations.
The unmentioned elephant in the corner is that you are planning for (and want) a fair number of trains and locomotives operating simultaneously. Either you need lots of operators - one per locomotive or train running simultaneously - or lots of automation. Or a combination of the two. Multiple operators means you need friends who enjoy your layout and your style of operation. If you make things attractive enough, they will probably help build the layout. Which frankly is way beyond the time resources of many of us to build alone even if we had your space and plenty of $$. Automation is a hobby unto itself, that again takes time and $$ resources to be successful. Not saying your plan can't be done - it can. But it involves you thinking way beyond just a track plan.
Like someone else said about the hump yard, you need to plan everything from aisles and throttles and turnout throws to coupling and uncoupling techniques to rosters to cup holders for beverages for your operating crews, all in pretty excruciating detail. Otherwise, you will have gotcha after gotcha. And it's still going to take mock-ups and experimentation to verify that your plan will work when you get it all built.
Personally, I would take a look at some of Iain Rice's track plans for the type of operation you are envisioning. Build a smaller layout first (2-3 operator), and try out some of your concepts on a smaller scale. Gain one or two close friends who will make the journey with you to the full project. But that's me, and what I would do in your shoes.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
That was a mouth full.
Many layouts I see are 75% plus scenery. Nice to look at, but just boring to run. So boring that I don't look further into their thread as my one instantaneous response is "I'd be bored in five minutes".
In spite of what it looks like, I don't plan on running five or eight trains at once. Something in the yard, two or three on the main.
Scenery is important, but I plan on no large structures. There is space to the left of the hump for buildings and to the left of that. At the right side there is a whole area in the center that is open where a town will go. On the top level, since I removed the siding from the far side for the passenger station, there is more open area.
From V1 to this, I did add one yard track that I could easily remove.
I do thank you for your input and will consider it.
I'm sure you didn't mean anything by it, but you really don't know what my experience is. My 1st layout didn't benefit from the Internet.
videobruce I'm sure you didn't mean anything by it, but you really don't know what my experience is. My 1st layout didn't benefit from the Internet.
I didn't mean anything degrading by it. I think that I now realize that you are intent on trying to arrive at a layout that is considerably out of the norm. And that you understand quite well what you are trying to do, and the implications of it. I can't help you much because your goals are quite different from mine.
I might suggest the Yahoo LayoutConstruction and ldsig (layout design special interest group) Groups as other places to solicit feedback on your ideas and plans. They are more used to complex layout and multi-operator issues than I.
I sincerely hope that your layout is someday all you want it to be.
I only took exception to knowing or not knowing my experience. I'd be the first to admit, I'm no John Allen or Lynn Wescott and never will be.
I took another look at your points. The open area at the right is over 2' wide and between 4' and 5' in length. The area to the left is 18" wide and 3' to 4' long where it narrows. I really don't see a problem there as I have no intention of modeling a city or any large industries.
I have see guys model steel mills, docks with lake freighters unloading and the like. That's great, but you can't operate a laker or a steel mill, it just sits there and looks impressive. Like having a collection of stamps, paintings or baseball cards. All you can do is look at them. I envy them to no end, but when all is said and done, it's the operation that counts.
Anyway, to clarify some points;
1. The minimum radius is now 15" which I feel isn't that bad (originally it was 13"), maximum is 36",
2. All mainline turnouts are Peco 'long' with one 'medium' x-over on the 'S' curve to the left of the yard and two 'mediums' for sidings going into a curve (only one side of the route is on a curve),
3. I have no 'long' (86') autorack's or TTX's, only full length passenger cars,
4. The three main line sidings are 11' in length, the receiving yard averages 10' and the class yard averages 6' in lengths,
5. The only 'short' turnouts are in the 'bowl' for the two outer tracks on each side. This configuration might be changed as I'm not crazy about using a 3-way.
Bruce --
I'm a little confused by your most recent posts. And, just to be fair, I only skimmed the posts from last fall. I didn't read everything thoroughly again.
First of all, no one was putting you down for lack of experience. But your recent membership here, combined with some of the questions you asked and statements you made, suggested that you didn't have a lot of experience in the hobby to many, perhaps most of us. Again, not a putdown, only a perception.
Most importantly, though, you have to understand that YOU are designing a layout for YOURSELF to enjoy. No one else has to be happy with it. Still, you put your plan out there and asked how you could improve it, you'll get (and have gotten) lots of advice. But if your view of an ideal layout is track crammed in so tight that there is no room for "boring" scenery and structures, then you're virtually in a class by yourself and few of us here will be able to help you.
Personally, I don't share your view that scenery and structures are boring. In my opinion, shoving trains in and out of tracks, with no visual representation of what they are actually doing, shatters the illusion that I'm operating a real railroad. Yes, steel mills take up a lot of space, but even a rail-intensive mill is 3/4 mill and 1/4 railroad. Look at overhead imagery of the Arcelor-Mittal mill in Coatsville, PA, if you need a good illustration. While I agree with you that a simple loop of track running through scenery is boring (although there are those whose love of the hobby is in scenery creation, who DON'T find that boring), I believe there has to be enough representation of the real world -- through scenery and structures -- to give the impression of a real place. My uncle had a basement filled with track (a U shaped layout 4' wide and about 50 linear feet, with nary a building or piece of scenery to be found. Even though he was eager to let me operate it, and I did, it left me feeling empty because I simply couldn't visualize what the trains were supposed to be doing.
Note that I'm NOT trying to tell you how to build your layout, just let you know why most of us are suggesting less track, more world.
Having said all that, a couple of observations:
1) I still have the impression that your layout, being drafted essentially by hand, represents some wishful thinking as to what will fit and would greatly benefit from either a true drafting template or CAD software.
2) You say you have 15" curves and full length passenger cars. I have a couple of 18" curves and #4 turnouts on my layout, and my full length passenger cars cannot operate in those areas. If you're operating anything over 50 scale feet in length, 22" would in my opinion be an absolute minimum.
Connecticut Valley Railroad A Branch of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -- Henry Ford
1. I never stated or suggested that "scenery" was boring! Boring has to do with operation. How can scenery be boring??
2. I don't feel anything is "crammed in". True, it would be nicer if I had more depth, but the ability to reach everything was more important.
3. The layout is N scale. 15" minimum radius is the 3rd widest class according to the NMRA.
videobruce Many layouts I see are 75% plus scenery. Nice to look at, but just boring to run. So boring that I don't look further into their thread as my one instantaneous response is "I'd be bored in five minutes".
I guess I'm just imagining things, then.
The point is that you seem to have devoted too much space to track and have left insufficient room for scenic elements and structures around your trains. While scenery and sidings can be added later, it usually involves major rip-outs and modifications, and it's easier to design them in at the beginning.
And sorry about the curve radius -- lost the bubble there.
it's easier to design them in at the beginning.
FWIW, I am in the middle of making additional changes consisting of;
swapping that siding at the top of the drawing from the inside to the outside,
removing that siding in the middle and swapping the lead to the passenger siding to along that long wall so I can solve the utilization of space problem I spoke of,
removing that 5th receiving yard track.
hi Bruce,
why are you hardly using the top-side of your space?
Paul
Top side????
What/where are you talking about?
hi,
Was looking at your first entry, look at the drawing you provided.
The 1st post, the plan was really upside down looking at it when you enter the room. Look at my post on the previous page for the revision.
That open area is the room.
Where is this thread going?
It's been running on and off since last June, but I am not sure what the OP is looking for at this point.
As I understand it, he is building an N scale layout, 20' x 10', in a basement with high humidity issues.
The plan is heavily track oriented, structures will come later, assuming that they fit, and it is boring to run trains with less track on the layout in order to make room for more scenery.
So...........................?
thought the same, a 20x10 space, along a wall (bottom of his first drawing) he uses the full 20 feet length. At the other side (top of the drawing) he uses only 3+8= 11 feet. Just wanted to know why Bruce "wasted" that much space?
A neat drawing of your space with walls and doors indicated could be helpful.
In my OP, I edited that plan and rotated to to match V2 to help end confusion. I should of done that sooner, my mistake. The borders of the scan are the boundaries of the room.
What I am interested in, which I thought would be obvious, is the actual track arrangement as far as operational issues, problems and/or short comings.
The room as I have already stated is 9 /2' by 19 1/2'. It is a just rectangle with angled corners (by design except for where the door is in the lower left corner). About as simple as it gets.
I didn't want any 'duck under', hole in the middle, 'T' or 'U' shape layout so this is what seemed to make the most sense for accessibility.
The 'humidity' issues are mostly under control, so we are back to the actual track work.
Points that have been brought, many have or will be addressed, Some won't as I don't see a problem. Of course that may change when actual track laying starts since I don't have a detailed plan on scenery as was mentioned. Yes, I do have ideas, it's not that I didn't think of it at all.
The latest plan has been redrawn from full scale using templates so I know physically it will work unlike the 1st plan that was a 'guess' with many turnouts (and some wishful thinking).
Take this comment in the spirit in which it is intended, and that is to be helpful to you.
The tone of your responses to everyone who is posting comment and advice is a bit contentious, and that is probably keeping a lot of others from commenting on this thread.
You should take the advice be offered, and that is to draw an actual scale plan, and in that scale drawing include room features and obstacles such as doors and windows, appliances and utilities.
That way, it is a lot easier to comment on the actual track arrangement and operational issues.