Hi guys --
I have been looking at ideas for a track plan for a friend who is an avid (and good) landscape builder, but I am drawing a blank here - the subject is kinda out of the area I normally work in - i.e urban switching, and I am not used to thinking in H0n3. Anyone got any ideas or links to share on this subject?
Available space: a basement room 9'6" x 9'6", configured as in the image below:
The wish list of features include:
- Theme: western US steam narrow gauge logging road - canyon, forest, big wooden trestle - Scale: H0n3- Minimum radius: 19.5" (50 cm)- Minimum turnouts: #6 - Continuous run, possibly a junction-to-point branch/spur - One site with a steam era engine service area (she already has a 56 foot Laws A frame turntable from Sequoia, water tower, coal bin, cinder pit)- One larger industry (e.g a sawmill), but room for plenty of scenery - which is her main interest- Preferably staging for two trains, each an engine and six cars - about 40" long each
I have been looking at our own Ulrich (Sir Maddog)'s 6.5 foot x 20" scene "End of the Line at Cimarron", which contains a city scene I really like, and which I think has the look and feel I envision for this layout.
But I am somewhat stumped when it comes to the main part of the layout. I have e.g. looked at Byron Henderson's water wings style logger for a little bigger room (but also somewhat bigger radius - 22" vs 19.5") here. It has many of the desired elements.
So has Iain Rice's "Linked Up Logger", from "Small, Smart and Practical Track Plans". Doing something as sections around the room instead of using deeper turn-back curves on a water wings plan would make it easier to use shelves under the layout for storage.
But for some reason, I have trouble pulling this together. Any suggestions for how to fold a continuous run mainline and staging into the room in a sensible manner?
Smile, Stein
Stein,
not an easy job you´ve got there.
Logging railroads usually connect a logging camp somewhere up in the mountains with a saw mill operation down hill, so that´d be a theme for a classic point -to-point layout.
How about having a regular narrow gauge line connecting to a logging railroad at "Cimarron"? the "main" line could follow a folded loop design, with a branch leading to the saw mill and logging camp?
hi gentlemen
a couple of issues
1) is a lift out and so a donut acceptable?
2)the min radius and turnout size are rather large for the size of the layout!
3) a first draft:
Smile
Paul
There are many videos on You-Tube about logging railroads that could possibly be used as inspiration. One series of five videos in particular is about the Schafer Brothers logging operations in Washington state.
Here's a link to the first video in the series: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcHO2UzJr7w
Howdy, Stein,
For the subject in question you can't do much better than Last of the Three Foot Loggers. The West Side Lumber Company ran from the rather humongous mill at Tuolumne, CA into National Forest land in the Sierra Nevada - Shays, tall trestles, scenery that stood on edge. The longest run was 70 miles - and actually covered a horizontally-measured 13! To get an idea of the topography, crumple up some paper and drop it on the floor.
My own logger is a little narrower (762mm - 2 foot 6 inch) and a bit too far west (Nagano-ken, Japan.) However, the topography is similar. Most of your track should be sidehill on fairly steep hillsides, with short tangents and lots of curves. You could simulate grades by putting telegraph poles and the few trees near the tracks on a very slight angle to the vertical, while keeping the rails essentially level. To close the loop on the point-to-point, have a track disappear behind a hill, pass through a viewbreak at a corner and come out from behind the mill buildings along another wall. If you double track that, you could have an empty train running into the woods and a loaded train coming out. Both could lay over out of sight behind the mill and the modeled logging show in front of them.
The West Side used a wye to turn locos, but nothing says that a turntable couldn't be used. Finished product left Tuolumne in standard gauge cars on the Sierra RR.
EDIT: That double-track connector might make a good `across the door' drawbridge or lift-out - something like what Nevin worked up for his Nevada-theme layout. He painted his black, and it all but disappeared.
Hope this helps.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Paulus Jas hi gentlemen a couple of issues 1) is a lift out and so a donut acceptable? 2)the min radius and turnout size are rather large for the size of the layout! 3) a first draft: Smile Paul
Paul --
You are pretty darned good at pulling rabbits out of your hat (i.e. magic) :-)
That plan looks very appealing. Benchwork would be a little harder than with a doughnut with a liftout (which according to my friend Miss Vigdis very much is an option, btw), but not too horribly difficult, and this plan have room for lots and lots of scenery - which is what she loves the most (and does extremely well).
About the minimum turnout size and curve radius - I just don't have the feel for H0n3 (i.e. H0 scale on 10.5 mm gauge track) - but as I understand my friend, she wants to run steam engines with tenders and both old time freight and maybe also some old time passenger cars. So around 19.5" - 20" radius and #6 turnouts doesn't sound totally excessive to me?
I'll forward your suggestion to my friend, and have her take a look.
I'll also look at the videos suggested by cacole and what I can find on the West Side Lumber Co suggested by Chuck. Also, thank you to Ulrich for posting the Cimmaron plan again.
hi Stein
i made an error with the way the staging was connected to the figure-8.
Got a chance to talk with Vigdis's boyfriend (Svein) - she was a bit under the weather today, so it may take a day or two to get some more feedback from here, but Svein liked what he saw in Paul's plan.
We discussed a couple of trivial mods - like branching out the line to staging clockwise instead of counter-clockwise from the lower left hand turnback loop - so it would be possible to run from staging to the end terminal at Cimmaron without a reversing move on the way, and both the sawmill and the mine would be from trailing switches for an inbound train, and seeing if it would be possible to squeeze in a turnback loop under Cimmaron (at the cost of eating a little of the doorway), making it easier to turn trains in staging (but making it very hard to reach the inner end of the staging turnback loop).
Anyways - Paul's suggestion fired us all up again. I'll be back with more feedback in a couple of days.
Thank you, Gentlemen.
My last layout had a logging theme, so I will take a stab at an over all scheme that can be refined into a detailed track plan as you go.
I think that I would start with a mainline that goes around the room at least twice on bench work that is on all outside walls of the room. Start at a central location that could be the Mill, loco facilities, and a small yard area, at the low point of the layout. Maybe include a small interchange with a standard gauge line, just one or two tracks, one of which can be dual gauge for interest. You could have either a town here or a company store with company houses along with the mill and mill operations.
The RR would then climb up from there in both directions to the logging areas. When they meet at the top, you could have two logging camps, separated visually by a mountain. This would give the appearance of a point to point run for operations, but the line would tunnel through the mountain for a continuous run.
Staging could be under the mountain, accessible from below the layout if necessary, and also be a run-through type, making another loop for continuous running if desired.
On the way up the mountain, you could branch off with a spur or two for other small logging camps.
So lets say that the mill and service area were on the east wall. I would put the high point and camps on the west wall. Staging would also be on the west side of the room. Most of the dramatic scenery would be on the north and south walls, with maybe a small station / town with a single spur on one side, and another spur with logging camp on the opposite wall, maybe descending slightly into a canyon.
To cross the door, I would use a couple of lift bridges, modeled as steel deck bridges even though their lengths would be out of scale and possibly a little more modern than what is wanted. The doorway sides could be scenic'ed as a river gorge.
To get the most dramatic scenery effect, you could also lower the bench work on the north, west, and south walls. (Lower the land as the track is rising.)
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
Paulus Jas i made an error with the way the staging was connected to the figure-8.
LOL - didn't see this post until after I had posted. No prob - we also spotted that one, but that was trivial to fix.
If you were to think about doing a doughnut style layout for this one - how would you approach that? I am thinking perhaps X-factor staging from the upper left hand corner would work for staging, but I have to think some more about a twice around type of layout. Have to re-read what Elmer posted.
Chuck's suggestion of using the Westside as a prototype is a good one. It's a very well-documented line that ran into the early 1960s.
Here's a link to a page that has photos that document the Westside well:
http://www.pacificng.com/template.php?page=roads/ca/wslco/requiem/index.htm
Rio Grande Models provides lots a kits to build a variety of Westside items:
http://www.riograndemodels.com/HO.htm
While it's not Westside prototype, Micro-Trains offered a HOn3 log car. These may be out of production, but can probably be found:
http://www.micro-trains.com/pl-HOn3.php#HOKits
M-T is exiting the HOn3 market, but they are still listed as available from M-T right now.
Kadee has several HO log car kits:
http://www.kadee.com/htmbord/HO-Scale%20Log%20Car.htm
They're not indicated to be HOn3, but I think it's a matter of just swapping out the trucks to make them HOn3. Does anyone know for sure? IIRC, they used to offer them in HOn3, but don't any more?
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
steinjr Hi guys -- I have been looking at ideas for a track plan for a friend who is an avid (and good) landscape builder, but I am drawing a blank here - the subject is kinda out of the area I normally work in - i.e urban switching, and I am not used to thinking in H0n3. Anyone got any ideas or links to share on this subject? The wish list of features include: - Theme: western US steam narrow gauge logging road - canyon, forest, big wooden trestle - Scale: H0n3- Minimum radius: 19.5" (50 cm)- Minimum turnouts: #6 - Continuous run, possibly a junction-to-point branch/spur - One site with a steam era engine service area (she already has a 56 foot Laws A frame turntable from Sequoia, water tower, coal bin, cinder pit)- One larger industry (e.g a sawmill), but room for plenty of scenery - which is her main interest- Preferably staging for two trains, each an engine and six cars - about 40" long each I have been looking at our own Ulrich (Sir Maddog)'s 6.5 foot x 20" scene "End of the Line at Cimarron", which contains a city scene I really like, and which I think has the look and feel I envision for this layout. But I am somewhat stumped when it comes to the main part of the layout. I have e.g. looked at Byron Henderson's water wings style logger for a little bigger room (but also somewhat bigger radius - 22" vs 19.5") here. It has many of the desired elements. So has Iain Rice's "Linked Up Logger", from "Small, Smart and Practical Track Plans". Doing something as sections around the room instead of using deeper turn-back curves on a water wings plan would make it easier to use shelves under the layout for storage. But for some reason, I have trouble pulling this together. Any suggestions for how to fold a continuous run mainline and staging into the room in a sensible manner? Smile, Stein
Stein
I may not be much help on the actual design. Off the top of my head, there are only 3 schematics that have continuous running that are going to work at all:
Moving on from layout design to factors that would affect the layout:
Depending on era wanted, another possible (less-modeled) prototype would be the North Pacific Coast. It was a common carrier that depended mostly on Northern California redwoods logging and lumber delivery to San Francisco. It even had 3 small tunnels in the coastal mountains. Boone Morrison now models the line in On3. He grew up in Occidental, one of the towns along the line, and has done a lot of research, much of which has been published in Narrow Gauge & Short Line Gazette. The NPC was standard-gauged by the SP in 1906.
What is the approach to motive power? This is going to drive minimum radius. Many brass versions of the D&RGW K-series 2-8-2s struggle with anything less than 22" radius and #6 turnouts. Blackstone did test their K-27 to 18" radius. The smaller rod engines - inside frame 2-8-0s and smaller - will do 15" - 16" minimum radius, and will run on 18" radius all day. Some Shays struggle with less than 18" because of the extension, compression limits of the telescoping line shafts on tight curves.
Passenger trains, if any, will also drive minimum radius. A train of the D&RGW passenger car models (50ft or so) look better on the 22" radius. OTOH, a single combine or narrowed-down MDC Overton (34ft) passenger cars will do fine on 15" radius.
A #4 turnout in narrow gauge is much sharper than a #4 in standard gauge because there is less room to get the same frog angle. Which is why you see fewer #4s and more #6s on HOn3 layouts.
Couplers are another area that may/may not impact layout design. The Kadee #714 is the most commonly used coupler. However, link-and-pin would be more accurate for most logging lines - but not as practical for switching operations. Sergent fairly accurately models the couplers used in later times on Colorado narrow gauge, and gets rid of the slinky effect that sometimes afflicts the #714s.
Most of the rest of the 3ft gauge world that used knuckle couplers used the 3/4 MCB, which is a 3/4 size coupler. Some HOn3 folks use the Micro-Trains 1015/1016 series to better represent the size of the 3/4 MCB knuckle. The 1015/1016 is a different design than the 1023/1025 series, and has significantly less slinky motion. The smaller head of the N scale coupler means closer attention to the track work, coupler mounting, and grade transitions. Micro-Trains cars come equipped with N size couplers but are easily converted to 714s if desired.
The previously mentioned West Side Logging has extensive model support in brass geared locomotives, and cars from Precision Scale, Rio Grande Models, and others. As mentioned, MT produced a batch of logging cars which are still available in many hobby shops. Keystone makes some die cast metal logging car kits. Keystone had/has a fairly extensive logging line in soft metal, including machinery.
David Hoffman, who I mentioned in another thread, makes excellent built-up mechanisms for the Keystone and Roundhouse Shays. David specializes in Eastern logging and narrow gauge, but many an Eastern logging locomotive made its way west as time went on. His catalog (write or phone only, no computer) is worth looking at.
just my thoughts
Fred W
steinjr Hi guys -- I have been looking at ideas for a track plan for a friend who is an avid (and good) landscape builder, but I am drawing a blank here - the subject is kinda out of the area I normally work in - i.e urban switching, and I am not used to thinking in H0n3. Anyone got any ideas or links to share on this subject?
FWIW, Blackstone is bringing in a line of HOn3 sectional track, complete with 19" radius curves. The track is based on Kato's Unitrack design for joining sections, with built-in roadbed. Supposed to arrive in time for Christmas. The ties, rail, and built-in roadbed appear to be reasonably realistic for narrow gauge. Spendy, but an easy way to get track built if your modeling preferences are in other areas. Many guys are looking at this for test loops for working on locomotives.
fwright Most of the rest of the 3ft gauge world that used knuckle couplers used the 3/4 MCB, which is a 3/4 size coupler. Some HOn3 folks use the Micro-Trains 1015/1016 series to better represent the size of the 3/4 MCB knuckle. The 1015/1016 is a different design than the 1023/1025 series, and has significantly less slinky motion. The smaller head of the N scale coupler means closer attention to the track work, coupler mounting, and grade transitions. Micro-Trains cars come equipped with N size couplers but are easily converted to 714s if desired.
Just as a side note about couplers, the 714 will mate and operate with N scale Micro Trains couplers.
Very useful stuff, guys. I will have to come back to you in a day or two, since my friend - who is the one planning this layout, unfortunately is down with the flu today, and I don't yet know much about her plans for rolling stock etc - I have heard Blackstone mentioned, but that's about it.
She feels a little shy about posting in English, but I am sure she will appreciate any and all information you can offer.
I also got a tio that one possible footprint is a Q - shape - or more precisely - a doughnut shaped layout, with a peninsula e.g. for a logging camp or a mill, going out at a 45 degree angle from the lower left hand corner.
I'll try to doodle a little more on both ideas (folded water wings and O-shape with peninsula) tomorrow, if I get a chance.
Thank you very much to all who have responded so far !
hi Stein,
i've been drawing another hour as well tonight, just to get an idea:
Knowing the equipment will play an important part, somehow i find both plans (waterwing and donut) a bit crowded.
Don't take these plans very seriously, though they are needed to get an idea of the space.
Paulus Jas hi Stein, i've been drawing another hour as well tonight, just to get an idea: Knowing the equipment will play an important part, somehow i find both plans (waterwing and donut) a bit crowded. Don't take these plans very seriously, though they are needed to get an idea of the space. Smile Paul
Just woke up. Mmmm - that is also a great idea.
I agree it is a little crowded, but if we removed the peninsula with Camp 11, and using the camp 13 area purely as a switchback, leaving only camp 12 as a logging camp - then that would significantly increase the scenery to visible track ratio along the right side of the room.
It would turn the lower half of the right wall and the lower right hand corner into a lumber camp scene.
The right half of the upper wall and the top of the right wall being a scenic part of the run - with the mainline ducking into a tunnel and coming out of one of two tunnels, the switchback climb through the mountain/forest scenery at the right and the trestle/canyon scene at the left.
The part along the left wall closest to aisle would be a town with a sawmill and engine service, while the track climbing along the left wall could also be a scenic run through the forest.
Mmm - the only potential challenge I see is access to staging - when you write "staging underneath", you are thinking alongside the +0 level track under the mountain along the wall (where the track above is at level +5.5"), right?
Guess large parts of the roof over that tunnel area could be removable - from about where it says "6% up" to almost at the above the upper tunnel mouth, combined with there being room to each up from underneath the layout - using a light source and mirrors so one can see what one is doing.
Hmm - wonder if it would work with a horizontal traverser/train table or a vertical elevator for staging under here. The alignment mechanism would have be made totally bullet proof before the mountain is built around it, but saving space on turnouts would allow longer staging tracks. Wonder if it would work to have staging tracks that come down under the bench when necessary to switch out things - depends on what the zero level of the layout would be, I guess.
I suppose it also would be possible to find a place where a removable cassette could be attached to swap out or turn trains.
I am really looking forward to miss Vigdis feeling better again, so she and her boyfriend Svein can look at these plans (and the video links and maps and stuff others have sent) and see if they get some more ideas.
Much obliged for these excellent ideas, Paul - it finally got the creative juices flowing again - I sometimes just have trouble coming up with plans with significant 3D activity. I can analyze them just fine - I just have trouble envisioning them.
Hi Stein,
You were the one who started to talk about one of Byron Henderson's waterwing plans. I only added Cimarron (chapeau Ulrich) along the empty east wall.
The twice around donut was drawn to visualise Elmer's contribution, though due to your remark about a Q-shaped plan, the idea of a small peninsula was born.
I might choose for a once around donut, indeed with a branch to a log camp. With a logpond / sawmill combination along the other wall as well. It is all about taste, no one's is the very same.
Hockey and a party for the remainder of the day.
Enjoy and good health to Vigdis
Paulus Jas You were the one who started to talk about one of Byron Henderson's waterwing plans. I only added Cimarron (chapeau Ulrich) along the empty east wall. The twice around donut was drawn to visualise Elmer's contribution, though due to your remark about a Q-shaped plan, the idea of a small peninsula was born.
Absolutely - sorry if I gave the impression of being ungrateful - on the contrary - seeing these plans very much helped me visualize some of the options that exist - and I agree that Elmer's concept idea (in your line) does work rather well while leaving ample floor space, storage space beneath most of the layout and easy reaches for most things.
Paulus Jas I might choose for a once around donut, indeed with a branch to a log camp. With a logpond / sawmill combination along the other wall as well. It is all about taste, no one's is the very same.
Yes, I also looked at a track plan in the Kalmbach track plan database, loosely inspired by the West Side Lumber Co yard mentioned in this thread: http://mrr.trains.com/en/How%20To/Track%20Plan%20Database/2007/08/West%20Side%20Lumber%20Co.aspx
But we will have to wait and see what Vigdis likes. Her main interest is creating breathtaking scenery and detailed buildings, more than operations - so I suspect that either a twice around with a branch or the folded water wings with the end terminal would work great for her wishes.
Paulus Jas Hockey and a party for the remainder of the day. Enjoy and good health to Vigdis
Enjoy your hockey - looks like I am headed for painting window frames and water boards on our home today - I and my neighbors have been repainting all the homes in our little housing coop of ten town homes. At least the heat wave has passed. And I might have to take the kids down to the Air Show at a nearby air base this afternoon: http://kjeller2012.no/content/flydagen-3-juni-2012
Anyways - I have forwarded all these ideas from everybody to Vigdis - so she can enjoy them once she feels better.
i might have given the wrong impression, you were very grateful indeed, i only wanted to let you and Elmer know your input was of great importance.
Wish you the very best, yeah, that MR-plan is awesome, though i might keep a logging branch above a staging area. With a once-around you do have the space to really work the scenes out; and still feel the remoteness of the area.
I am not sure about the running possibilities of HOn3 engines, probably the combination of #5 turnouts and a 20" radius will do fine
Content removed due to a completely frak'ed up and incompetent Kalmbach customer service.
Svein,
if the main reason for the layout is watching trans go through a spectacular scenery, why not just focus on that? Forget complicated pototype-like operation and build a fairly simple layout, may be just a small station with a small yard, some staging and lots of line running through scenery. Keep the track plan as simple as possible!
when I said simple, I didn´t mean that simple! Model railroads, just like the big ones, need a reason, so adding an industry or two is quire OK. In any case, do include staging, even if you(or she) only uses it for "storing" different trains.
May I also suggest a shelf-type, along-the-wall type of layout, broken down into modules or segments? That would break down building the layout into manageable "chunks". As Vigdis is into building dioramas already, that should be familiar to her.
Paulus Jas Hi Stein, You were the one who started to talk about one of Byron Henderson's waterwing plans. I only added Cimarron (chapeau Ulrich) along the empty east wall. The twice around donut was drawn to visualise Elmer's contribution, though due to your remark about a Q-shaped plan, the idea of a small peninsula was born. I might choose for a once around donut, indeed with a branch to a log camp. With a logpond / sawmill combination along the other wall as well. It is all about taste, no one's is the very same. Hockey and a party for the remainder of the day. Enjoy and good health to Vigdis Paul
I don't know if this would absolutely work, but could staging be dropped down so you could reach it from underneath? The drawback that I see is the grade may be a little steep. But also keep in mind that narrow gauge did have some steep grades.
One of the things that should be done in my opinion, is to decide how long the trains will be. Then test the amount of grade they will handle by laying some track on a board, then elevate it to different grades and see how the train acts. Can it start and go up the grade. That should give you an idea of what is possible and what works or doesn't.
gandydancer19 One of the things that should be done in my opinion, is to decide how long the trains will be.
One of the things that should be done in my opinion, is to decide how long the trains will be.
Desired train length was one of the initial design parameters in the first post ("staging for two trains, each an engine and six cars - about 40" long each").
gandydancer19 Then test the amount of grade they will handle by laying some track on a board, then elevate it to different grades and see how the train acts. Can it start and go up the grade. That should give you an idea of what is possible and what works or doesn't.
Then test the amount of grade they will handle by laying some track on a board, then elevate it to different grades and see how the train acts. Can it start and go up the grade. That should give you an idea of what is possible and what works or doesn't.
Absolutely.
gandydancer19 I don't know if this would absolutely work, but could staging be dropped down so you could reach it from underneath? The drawback that I see is the grade may be a little steep. But also keep in mind that narrow gauge did have some steep grades.
When you say "dropped down", you mean having an incline down to a staging level below the 0" elevation track, right?
hi Vigdis and Svein
the following plan might be my favourite. Inspiration however came from a different design by Ulrich which i will present first..
Staging on my plan could be 3" to 4" deeper down under Cimarron, the prize would be a second lift-out. With these short trains steep grades are possible, some experimenting before deciding on a plan seems very wise to me. Add extra drag for the curves; an old John Allen calculation is like: extra drag = 32 / radius. With the 20" curves the extra drag is about 1,6 %.
With staging under Cimarron you have a twice around-again, this time the modeled scenes have the remoteness off the real narrow gauge railroads.
EDIT:
BTW when the lift-out is used as a cassette or a fiddle track you do not need underground staging at all. The main at the top, which disappears in a tunnel could then be stub-ended and become an interchange, or even a very short normal gauge track connection. It would add the challange of laying down some double-gauge track. Much to consider.
The third plan (the connected loops) has IMHO a nice balance between tracks and scenery, but also between roundy-round running, switching chores and even dispatching.
END OF EDIT
Good Morning
I have to admit that I like Paul´s recent design very, very much. Key reason is its simplicity, which very much resembles the prototype. Narrow gauge lines had no frills at all, they were built with cost in mind. Also, the benchwork will be much simpler to construct than the water wing design.
I´d like to raise a basic question. How important is staging for a narrow gauge line? Usually, those short lines had a limited roster of locos and cars, and also a very limited number of daily trains. Would one really need a staging facility for that type of operation? Do get me right, please - I am not against staging, but I´d never incorporate hidden staging into my layout. I also prefer the British word "fiddle yard" for staging - this is the place to "fiddle around" with your trains, for which you need access to it.