Hi all!
This is how I have roughly planned my new layout to look. There will be some changes along the way I think.... :-) I have designed it to include my current layout along the upper left side.
The size is nice to fill with a layout. The room is 22'x 15'.
The possibility to have a decent sized harbour is really exciting! Almost true to scale liberty ship maybe?
I welcome ideas and pointers! As my interest is 1940's eastern railroads and that I'm happy to have operations for 1-2 operators might give some help?
Swedish Custom painter and model maker. My Website:
My Railroad
My Youtube:
Graff´s channel
Looks like a nice setup with the possibility of one train running the mainline continuously...
Darren (BLHS & CRRM Lifetime Member)
Delaware and Hudson Virtual Museum (DHVM), Railroad Adventures (RRAdventures)
My Blog
I do not pretend to be the world's greatest layout designer, but with a minimum radius of 600 mm (23.6 ") are you going to have reach issues in the SW and SE sections of the layout? Secondly, is that a classification/storage yard in the N above the peninsula? If it is, then it looks like you are going to have to run a locomotive virtually all the way around the layout before it enters the yard.
Bear "It's all about having fun."
Gidday, looks good to me.
No doubt you've thought carefully about the aisle widths, a little more room for the operators equals less room for modeling, its a bit of a no win situation either way.
I'd probably be greedy and have another track down the long wharf to cater for loading/unloading both ships at once.
Pleased to see you're incorporating the existing MK& Eastern, have admired the photos.
As for a full sized liberty ship you might just get away with it.
http://www.hq.wwiionline.com/profiles/supply_ship.shtml
No pressure but looking forward to the pictures
Cheers, the Bear.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
I've done some replanning...
Better now than later
Feels more "complete" or what do you think?
Given the radii, what kind of Engines / Cars do you plan to run?
Stourbridge Lion Given the radii, what kind of Engines / Cars do you plan to run?
The minimum radii isn't so odd is it?
It's roughly 24", so I hope I can run most of the equipment on the layout.
I have one loco in my collection that I would like to be able to run..... It's a brass 2-10-2, and it demands a 22" radii.
Graffen Stourbridge Lion: Given the radii, what kind of Engines / Cars do you plan to run? The minimum radii isn't so odd is it? It's roughly 24", so I hope I can run most of the equipment on the layout. I have one loco in my collection that I would like to be able to run..... It's a brass 2-10-2, and it demands a 22" radii.
Stourbridge Lion: Given the radii, what kind of Engines / Cars do you plan to run?
Gidday, wish I had the talent to draw up a layout plan just like that.
Regarding the radius, "..the bigger the radius the better it is.." has always been the mantra and for many good reasons. However have just spent the weekend assisting running an HO modular exhibition layout where the minimum radius is 18",( for reasons of size for transportation). I was running a Bachmann Spectrum 2-6-6-2 and a Proto 2000 2-10-2 with predominately 40" freight cars, though there were longer passenger cars being run as well. Admittedly the !8" radius does not allow for larger locos especially 3 axle diesels and the "overhang" of the firebox and cab is not particularly visually pleasing.
Not sure how much much running you've done with your 2-10-2, and certainly not wishing to teach you how to suck eggs, but if you have any doubts, I would suggest that you temporarily lay a 22" radius curve or "S" and see if the loco performs to your expectations.
Personally,seeing that your modelling the 1940s, I would think that 24" radii would be sufficient for your desires and purpose.
Cheers,the Bear.
...looking forward to see what you will do with your backdrops to develop "perspective-depth" in light of how much water is intermingled with the latter layout design!
Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956
"JaBear" Regarding the radius, "..the bigger the radius the better it is.." has always been the mantra and for many good reasons. However have just spent the weekend assisting running an HO modular exhibition layout where the minimum radius is 18",( for reasons of size for transportation). I was running a Bachmann Spectrum 2-6-6-2 and a Proto 2000 2-10-2 with predominately 40" freight cars, though there were longer passenger cars being run as well. Admittedly the !8" radius does not allow for larger locos especially 3 axle diesels and the "overhang" of the firebox and cab is not particularly visually pleasing. Not sure how much much running you've done with your 2-10-2, and certainly not wishing to teach you how to suck eggs, but if you have any doubts, I would suggest that you temporarily lay a 22" radius curve or "S" and see if the loco performs to your expectations. Personally,seeing that your modelling the 1940s, I would think that 24" radii would be sufficient for your desires and purpose. Cheers,the Bear.
Gidday ' I agree with Bear except on one point. While I do not of any 6 wheel axle Diesels being ran in 1945 with good track laying most Big Diesels will handle 18 inch turns. Now most of my turns are 22 inch and bigger but I still have 2 hidden from view 18 inch turns and my engines can handle them. I run E-6's (guess that is around your time frame) E-8's and 9's (PK 2000) Alcoa PA's (old BB) SD 7 (PK 2000) Athearn RTR SD 40-2, SD 50, and Dash 9, Blue Line RSD 15 and GE AC 6000's.
Most of my rolling stock is 50 foot box cars and again they will take the tight turns just fine.
On the brass 2-10-2, that I have to wonder about that.
On the over hang, I agree with Bear! My biggest radius is 26 inch and my Big Steam , Big Boy 4-8-8-4 and Y-6b 2-8-8-2 look OK on it. On the 22 inch turns, well they make it and where they are placed I am OK with them.
But bigger is better when it comes to turns.
WW II Ships and Trains, what is there not to love?
Cuda Ken
I hate Rust
Gidday, One thing CudaKen got me thinking about regarding running large wheel based engines was turnout / point size, the modular exhibition layout using mainly Peco shorts , American No: 4, (I think?). Don't know what turnouts you use but I guess that this would also be a consideration regarding your brass 2-10-2.
"JaBear" Gidday, One thing CudaKen got me thinking about regarding running large wheel based engines was turnout / point size, the modular exhibition layout using mainly Peco shorts , American No: 4, (I think?). Don't know what turnouts you use but I guess that this would also be a consideration regarding your brass 2-10-2. Cheers,the Bear.
I have tried the 2-10-2 on my current layout and it works fine on the 24" minimum radius curves I have (except on the one turnout then.....).
The Peco medium is more of a 5 or 6?
Graffen I've done some replanning... Better now than later Feels more "complete" or what do you think?
I like this one much better - it creates two good operating positions (for the yard and for the harbor), allows people to pass each other, and gives access to the most hemmed in turn-back curve. It also creates a more linear design (staging - run - staging) instead of the more obvious loop in the first plan.
The peninsula may still be a little wide, creating a slightly narrow aisle between the engine house and the harbor, but having that little harbor yard along the aisle may very well be worth that.
Looks like a balanced design - three scenes (urban w/yard on the left, rural stations top and right, and harbor at bottom right). Enough small stations (three) to make running passenger trains fun, without overwhelming the design.
Single track main with three passing sidings, one at each station- looks to be about 120 centimeters (roughly 4 feet) long - good for an engine and three passenger cars or engine and six-seven 40' freight cars. That sound reasonable for expected train lengths? Industries seem plausible, industry tracks seems sensible for era and location. Overall impression - this looks like a railroad, not just a model railroad layout. What is the height differential between yard/left entrance to staging and the bridge across the yard - or, put another way - what will be the clearance between staging A-A and the bottom of the deck above? And what will the track ending at lower right be - just a set-out track of some kind, or a connection to another railroad?
Smile, Stein
Hi Graffen,
some remarks and questions. I do like your second try much more, especially at the left wing the way the river and the roundhouse are done. Maybe it's possible to squeeze in a road along the back.
This plan has used staging in a nice way, i can imagine how trains are run on your layout. Looking at it they are rather short. While at the very same time the pier and carferry can hold lots of cars. It is a wild guess but your harbour can hold 6 times as much cars as a train can handle. Three times as many cars as your yard can handle. It all depends on the way you will operate your layout of course. If the layout is for just building great scenes and taking pics the above will not be a problem at all.
Operation on and the function of the old layout is not clear to me at all. Just before the entrance to staging another crossover from the main onto your old-layout could be added, so working with longer trains here becomes more easily possible.
I quite like the river or coast scene at the right. IMHO it is more like a river, and so a lighthouse would seem to be a bit out of place.
BTW I would build a temporarily 24" circle and try out how and if your big steamer can handle that curve. When to much binding is involved you will face a difficult decision.
You really found a place for those 60x8 steamers. Maybe you could shorten the carfloat, It would set out the Liberty ships even more.
Wish you the best
Paul
The track at the lower right could be the yard lead?
Graffen. I have tried the 2-10-2 on my current layout and it works fine on the 24" minimum radius curves I have (except on the one turnout then.....).
Gidday again, Good news regarding your 2-10-2.
Having read Steins and particularly Pauls comments would more staging tracks help?
Now I should before I just the issue.
Paulus Jas It is a wild guess but your harbour can hold 6 times as much cars as a train can handle.
It is a wild guess but your harbour can hold 6 times as much cars as a train can handle.
Mmmm - for meets, the shortest train of the two that meet should fit into the 4-foot or so sidings -- but he can run longer trains e.g. from staging to the harbor, as long as he won't have to meet trains too long to fit into the sidings.
But balance is a good point - staging vs yards vs industries.
Good observation about the switching lead for the docks - can't believe I didn't see that one :-) Grin, Stein
@Stein: Thanks
I think this layout might work with some tweaks here and there....
The runaround tracks could be lengthened somewhat though.
The height separation is 10 cm's (4"), and could be a bit more if I let the track from the yard descend a bit before the tunnel.
The track in the lower right is the yard lead for the wharf. I thought it would be a good idea to have one.
@Paulus Jas: Thanks
I guess I could add some more yard tracks to allow for some more realistic transfer of cars?
Graffen I guess I could add some more yard tracks to allow for some more realistic transfer of cars?
Mmmm - not sure if you really need it. It depends on your operational scheme - will all traffic to and from the docks go via the yard at upper left, or will there be trains coming directly from staging to the dock area?
steinjr Graffen: I guess I could add some more yard tracks to allow for some more realistic transfer of cars? Mmmm - not sure if you really need it. It depends on your operational scheme - will all traffic to and from the docks go via the yard at upper left, or will there be trains coming directly from staging to the dock area? Smile, Stein
Graffen: I guess I could add some more yard tracks to allow for some more realistic transfer of cars?
It will be a through freight , emerging on one end and disappearing on the other.....
I made a revised plan with some small alterations, and I think I can work from this one!
Graffen, your second plan was immediately much more appealing to me...good job!!
I don't know which 2-10-2 we are talking about, but if it is good for 22" engineered, my rule is that I will never subject any one steamer to a radius shorter than the stated minimum plus 10%. I have no empirical evidence to back it up, but it seems to me that the additional 10% gives you that buffer zone, or fudge factor for less than perfect curves...and who among us can lay them? In my case, the Sunset Selkirk 2-10-3 was engineered for 30" minimums, and I have 31" only, plus or minus, for the turning wye with crossover that I just built. That will be used at slow speeds only, so no problem. But out on the mains, the Selkirk is a passenger engine often and will only see much wider curves.
All this to say that I think you are doing okay by adding another 2+ cm over the claimed minimums. It is wise. If you could add even one more cm, it reduces the chances of the odd derail by that much more when you are operating the steamer at main track speeds, say 70 km/h or faster.
That's a nice looking plan. Personally, Peco #6 are my smallest turnout, but I think a good quality #5 would suit your purposes just fine.
Crandell
like your plan...i'm starting an n scale port and suggest you consider an LST instead of a liberty ship......LST's are 100+ feet shorter but can also accept just about any cargo and as a bonus can be a destination for passengers.
RonK - Welcome to trains.com!
Nice plan. It seems that the latest drawing takes care of what may have been a tight curve at A in the upper left corner. The shorter sidings will allow a local switcher to get out of the mainline freights way as it goes by. If you are using larger road power it would be prototypical to have smaller switchers working the industrial tracks and pulling cuts of cars from the mainline trains as the larger power would likely not be permitted on the light industrial track. Just imagine a derailed steam loco tying up all access to a port and delaying the ships in either loading or unloading and the costs that would incur.
With a decent amount of staging tracks you could model several trains a day loading and emptying your ships and going off to staging. Since you mention liberty ships, locos of the 40's 0-4-0, 0-6-0, 2-8-2, and 4-6-0 and 4-6-2 would be appropriate for this setting. A very few early diesels could be used as well. Your 2-10-2 could be a bit in the way of over kill for your layout, however with the high priority of freight at this time and the wear and tear on motive power during this time the railroads would run what was ready when they needed it, you might also find a way to justify a 2-6-6-2 under similar circumstances as its agility would make it viable on a line with tight clearances.
Due to your steepness of grades in the vicinity of the harbor you further have a nice logical reason for big power on what would be short trains to a flat land layout. The scenic potential is going to be outstanding for this layout, as will be the reason and time period for operating a large number of trains.
I think you have come up with an excellent concept on what will be a very nice layout.
just a little bit of thinking about numbers. My assumptions only; the ferry can bring in about 20 cars, the piers can hold the same number of cars, though the pier tracks don't have to be filled to the rim. The usual number of outgoing cars switched during a trick could be between 20 and 30.
Those cars have to be divided into several outgoing trains in the yard; like East(staging), West(staging), junction (upper right) and local. Your classification yard and staging tracks should be able to perform these tasks by being large enough. Incoming cars need some space as well. It's about finding the right balance for the way you will operate your empire in the future.
With a slightly bigger yard:
Wish you the best with this grand adventure.
Gidday, Probably going to put both feet in my mouth but does the classification yard have to be in the wharf area?
From what I've seen and read harbour areas just grew over the years with out any "future planning" and that space was a big issue. My Dad has talked about the difficulties in reversing a truck and trailer unit for over a mile on the Liverpool Docks in the early 1950's down alley ways "designed" originally for horse and cart.
This may add for complications regarding operations but if the staging is readily accessible and has enough tracks shouldn't that take of the issues and possibly be even more prototypical?
Thanks all for the very good ideas and comments!
I will think very hard how to really make the ops work out on this layout.
I'll get back...
Hi Bear,
the classification yard could be else where of course. If Graffen does not like to classify his cars, he can simply put them into a train and head for the staging tracks. Or build a larger yard along the shore, in the lighthouse area. The inlet would have to be replaced then.
I do not agree however that harbours just grew over the years. The size of steel steam boats is that much larger then the wooden sailing craft used until then, completely new harbours were planned and build at the end of the 19'Th century. The ever growing railroad activities asked for it too. The depression and both world wars did not help in taking next steps, nor the change to lorries in the 50's. New harbours were build after WW2 often miles away from existing cities. No more darlings in every harbour for our poor sailors, new docks far away from town; loading/unloading procedures that fast, even one night in town became problematic. With uncles who were chief-engineer and captain on ocean going vessels I heard the complaints on birthday parties. Though soothing their spouses might have been part of their stories. All those older harbour areas became derelict in the 50's and are turned into condos by now.
The change to trucks was delayed for decades in Europe. I've been involved in town-planning since the 60's, harbour area's did not just grow; Infrastructure is not easy to change and way to costly and far-reaching to construct without plans. Implementing plans took decades due to political and financially issues. Yes, harbours were and are designed. How to cope with the size of modern container carriers or oil tankers?
Smile
Now they disappeared, the last!?! obstacles! I felt it was time to draw the plan on graph paper, and then I saw that there were some areas that felt "too much" .... Ie. It looked like a model railroad.......
By skipping some details that I would want, like the High line in the city, it was easier to sort out the plan!
Now it is a more linear plan, but still with a little elevation, and a more logical east-west plan (thanks!). I will make the benchwork with 1/2 inch plywood. That gives light weight and high strength. The actual track bed will be a "spline roadbed".
I'd like to try with either 6 mm MDF board or hard board, cut into 2" strips and used on edge, glued, 6 pcs. in width. It makes minimal wastage and makes turnouts and curves easy to install. The noise level should be very low with such a solid track bed too .....
I think this will be a very enjoyable layout to build, run and just observe.
I'm in the process of building a carfloat terminal myself, so I've given that a lot of thought. Mine is based on the Walthers carfloat, which I was fortunate enough to find at Trainworld before the current run of them ran out. For unloading and loading the float, you need to think of where the outgoing cars will be placed before the carfloat "arrives," and where you will put the cars being pulled from the carfloat. As I look at the harbor area, you appear to have enough siding space, but to access it the switching will have to back out all the way on to the main line. Prototypical procedures would also call for a couple "idler" flat cars so that the engine didn't have to cross the apron bridge, making the string of switched cars even longer and requiring more fouling of the main line.
Is that an entrance to staging in the lower right? I would provide a route back up to the surface further down, both to give you staging access from both directions and to give you the option of continuous running. When I do switching on my own layout, I like to have other trains running unattended.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Gidday Paul, Generally I try to write my posts carefully recognising the difference between American English and colloquial New Zealand English and try to be doubly so when English is a second language to the intended recipient. (Whether I say anything of use is another matter! ).
My original phrase to dsecribe harbour development was" that they seem to have just growed like Topsy" but opted to use "...just grew over the years without any "future planning" and that space was a big issue. What I didn't do was high light the "future planning" which perhaps I should have.
The points you raised are very relevant and well put, "Infrastructure is not easy to change and way too costly and far-reaching to construct with out plans. Implementing plans took decades due to political and financial(ly) issues."
I can't disagree with any of that and am going to be cheeky enough to say that it actually helps support my case.
As ship sizes grew in length, beam and draught, ports then had to expand to cater for them, not the other way round, that is what I term "Reactionary Planning", not "Future Planning". The port designers, to give them the benefit of doubt may have been far sighted enough to consider the developments in larger ship desigh and even cargo handling methods in the future, but their political masters/ financiers certainly did not or could not.
Besides I wonder how much importance and urgency, (and I use that word in a loose context) would have been given to planning new port facilities in Europe had there not been the extensive damage, (perhaps destruction would be a better word) done to them and the surrounding areas during World War Two?
As an aside on a subject I do know a little more about is that even with the precedence of having the Boeing 747 series in service for the last 42 years the advent of the Airbus A380 has exposed inadequacies in the design of airport Infrastructure and manoeuvring areas.
This is all well and good, I find that research into other fields and topics that inter relate with railroads very interesting; here is a site that I used to help with my defence, it actually supports both of our arguments.
http://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/Port/port-in-general/Documents/20100726_EN/index.html
But thi debate doesn't actually help Graffen as, and unless I've managed to get it wrong, my impression from his excellent photos on his site is that the MK& Eastern is set in the USA in the late 1930s- early 1940s.
Having said that I hope his latest posted track plan fixes his dilemma, which I suspect most of us have to deal with at some time or other, between how much space he devotes to scenery and how much to track for operational requirements.
I can but wish Graffen good luck and hope he finds the balance that satisfies himself.