Ok, I got some good instructions on how to post photos. The above photo is from the most recent work night. Looking down one of the aisles.
Randy
Untitled by RSeiler308, on Flickr
C&OCheviot
If I click on that little icon a photo opens up for me.
I thought I'd try to post a photo here again. Still can't figure it out. Sorry about that.
Here's a link to my build thread on MRH:
https://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/17997
Be warned, it's a long read. Only open the link if you have a couple of hours to waste, lol.
Thanks, Dave. LOL, yeah, sorry about the delay. I've been posting regularly on the MRH forum. I tried to add a link, but this site is so wonky it won't work.
This is a little better overall shot:
Untitled by RSeiler308, on Flickr" alt="" />
C&OCheviotOver the last six years it's gone from paper to reality.
Hi C&OCheviot,
I'll say that it has come to reality! What an amazing layout, and what a huge amount of work you have done!!
I hope that you will post your progress a bit more frequently in the future. Six years is a long time to wait!
Nice work!
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Over the last six years it's gone from paper to reality. I don't have a really good overall photo, so this will have to do for now.
The upper level:
Track Plan - Upper Level1024_1 by RSeiler308, on Flickr" alt="" />
Ok, I think I've got it, so here is the lower level:
Track Plan - Lower Level1024_1 by RSeiler308, on Flickr" alt="" />
The green tracks are Penn Central, the blue tracks are B&O.
I just stumbled back into here looking for something else, and thought it might be fun to update this thread. I remembered why I stopped posting here. Good lord is it hard to post pictures! Anyway, here is how the staging level wound up:
Track Plan - Staging1024_1 by RSeiler308, on Flickr" alt="" />
If this works, I'll post the other levels.
The new lower level:
After several revisions, and learning to use XTrkCAD, here is the revised upper level:
This is the lower level, why it turns it black during the conversion is beyond me:
Maybe this will be easier to see if I do each level individually. This is the upper level:
Ok, this is the latest. The B&O is in blue, the PC is green, and the Whitewater Branch of the PC is in red. The spurs and sidings I left black. The industries are spaced about right to match the prototype locations, but the actual track configurations at the industries are not much like the prototype's. I just don't have enough room to get them all in. I am glad that I found a way to squeeze the Whitewater branch in there because there are a couple of interesting industries to model on it. I have twenty-four different industries total. Thoughts?
Here is a revision with the closet removed, the small peninsula reworked, and a spot reserved in the lower left for a helix.
The other thing I'm considering with this re-design is just removing that closet in the upper right hand area which would open up some more room where that small peninsula is located. It may even allow me to orient that small peninsula so that it is more horizontal rather than vertical.
Thanks for the input.
cuyama Unless it replicates something on the prototype, the extra "short" peninsula does not seem to be giving you much benefit for the crowding. Best of luck.
Unless it replicates something on the prototype, the extra "short" peninsula does not seem to be giving you much benefit for the crowding.
Best of luck.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
For some reason my track plan wound up looking like an x-ray, but hopefully you can see the changes suggested. I have moved and rearranged the smaller peninsula to more it into the room and eliminated a duck-under during operations. I have also made the track all double-track to reflect how it would really be built. Still not showing sidings and spurs just yet. This is the lower level. A helix in that lower left corner is a strong possibility.
(edited by moderator for better visibility)
dehusman C&OCheviot As far as scheduled or dispatched through freights, I haven't decided. The prototype was using TT/TO at this time. I don't think this layout would be very interesting for a dispatcher position. The layouts I've operated on with a full-time dispatcher have all been the town-to-town type where you get clearance to the next town. If they are just dispatching trains "town to town" then they probably aren't using TT&TO (or at least using it the way it was intended). Dispatching "town to town", really siding to siding or station to station, is more CTC, DTC or track warrants. A question I have that you may have answered and I missed is will this be single or two/double main track? If its double track then the obvious way to operate it is double track/rule 251/current of traffic. >>>>>>>>No, those layouts weren't using TT/TO, they were typically warrants or CTC. What I meant was that the set up of town-to-town with passing sidings at each town seems to lend itself more to a full-time dispatcher position than a layout like my proposed one. What it will be is two parallel tracks most of the time, each track being a separate railroad, with sidings off of each track. I don't have that, and will instead have basically two types of trains, really busy local switchers and through trains that may make one stop. So following the prototype and using TT/TO will likely be my choice. You can have the through freights make block swaps to have them do more work. Train #102 runs from A to K. Train #104 runs from D to M. At H, #102 sets out a block of cars for M picks up a cut of cars for K. Later #104 sets out a block of cars for K, to be picked up by the next #102, and picks up the block of cars for M that was set out. The through freights have something to do and all it takes is a spot with two tracks long enough to hold the cuts. Real railroads do this type of move all the time. It keeps cars out of yards and lets a railroad run fewer trains. >>>>>>>>I think you have essentially described my through freight operations. What happened on these lines in 1974 was that a through freight may drop a cut of cars at Valley for the local to distribute to the individual industries, or for the Whitewater branch. A through freight may also have a cut of cars to pick up at Valley to take either East or West. There were also drops and pick -ups at Lawrenceburg. There were through unit coal trains that didn't make any stops. I have the freight schedules for these tracks in 1974 and will use those for my trains. That is very interesting information you gave about the six minutes previously, and something I was having a hard time estimating. That would be without set outs or pick ups and no meets. Adding a set out and pick up will add 5-15 minutes and throw in a five minutes for every other meet (implies single track). Figure each through freight will have to meet one other freight on a trip. Throw in a couple stations with yard limits that slows down freights to restricted speed, a delay waiting for a switcher to finish a move and you can easily get each trip up to 15 - 30 minutes. Assume 2 road crews, 6 trains each, that's somewhere between 1.5 and 3 hours of operating each. Add in the time to acquire engines, get orders, read lists, put away the trains in staging, etc.and even at 15 minutes a trip, a road crew will not feel like they have just been standing around. >>>>>>>>Maybe that dispatcher position wouldn't be so boring after all. The two design concerns I have are: 1. The duck under/lift out to get to staging. Every road crew will have to use it on every trip. It will have to be very reliable. Alternative: make the short peninsula shorter and curve the grade around the corner across the two doors and then over the staging yard, across the top wall and back to the short peninsula. Downside, 2 lift out/duck unders across those doors. Upside, no duckunders lift outs once you start operating and a longer run. >>>>>>>>>That's a good idea. The reason I had it like that is that originally I was trying to stay out of that smaller room, so I kept the second level out of there and tried to just have small shelf-type trackage to keep that room open. Now that I've pretty much decided to kick the wife completely out of that area, you're right. That would be a better option and no duck-unders during operations which I didn't really like. I was thinking of sort of bending that small peninsula into the room and using more of the center space. That second small door is a closet and I want to keep access to that door open, but your idea would still work. 2. The connection across the long peninsula. If I understand it properly, that is supposed to represent a cutoff or diverging right of way. It has operating potential. The problem I see is that it is too short., it needs to be longer so it can chamber an entire train. That way you can pull the train on the alternate route completely off the main route without fouling the junction back on the main route. Alternative: grade separate the alternate route and have it cross over or under the main route close to the current junction switch then move the junction down onto the short peninsula. It wil look like the alternate route went overland and is now reentering the river valley and has to match elevation with the other route. >>>>>>>>I get what you're saying, and I agree. That part of my drawing is a little deceiving because I only drew one track where in reality that will be two tracks which will be running parallel almost all the way but diverging right there with one track taking that cut-off and the other taking that long peninsula. This is where the PC heads to Valley Junction while the B&O sort of takes a short cut along the river. So there would be plenty of room for a whole train on that track along the river. The reason I show the two tracks crossing over each other in that bend is to get them back to their prototype arrangement of the B&O tracks being closer to the river, my aisle. The tracks split just after Valley Junction and come back together in Lawrenceburg on the prototype. I was going to have both locations on that longer peninsula, but now I'm thinking of moving Lawrenceburg over to the left wall. In that case the diverging route could run from the split at the top right of the longer peninsula to about midway or a little further down the left wall. I really appreciate your input. Thank you very much. I can't edit these drawings on my home computer, but when I get back to work I'll draw up some of these suggestions. Randy
C&OCheviot As far as scheduled or dispatched through freights, I haven't decided. The prototype was using TT/TO at this time. I don't think this layout would be very interesting for a dispatcher position. The layouts I've operated on with a full-time dispatcher have all been the town-to-town type where you get clearance to the next town.
As far as scheduled or dispatched through freights, I haven't decided. The prototype was using TT/TO at this time. I don't think this layout would be very interesting for a dispatcher position. The layouts I've operated on with a full-time dispatcher have all been the town-to-town type where you get clearance to the next town.
If they are just dispatching trains "town to town" then they probably aren't using TT&TO (or at least using it the way it was intended). Dispatching "town to town", really siding to siding or station to station, is more CTC, DTC or track warrants. A question I have that you may have answered and I missed is will this be single or two/double main track? If its double track then the obvious way to operate it is double track/rule 251/current of traffic.
>>>>>>>>No, those layouts weren't using TT/TO, they were typically warrants or CTC. What I meant was that the set up of town-to-town with passing sidings at each town seems to lend itself more to a full-time dispatcher position than a layout like my proposed one. What it will be is two parallel tracks most of the time, each track being a separate railroad, with sidings off of each track.
I don't have that, and will instead have basically two types of trains, really busy local switchers and through trains that may make one stop. So following the prototype and using TT/TO will likely be my choice.
>>>>>>>>I think you have essentially described my through freight operations. What happened on these lines in 1974 was that a through freight may drop a cut of cars at Valley for the local to distribute to the individual industries, or for the Whitewater branch. A through freight may also have a cut of cars to pick up at Valley to take either East or West. There were also drops and pick -ups at Lawrenceburg. There were through unit coal trains that didn't make any stops. I have the freight schedules for these tracks in 1974 and will use those for my trains.
That is very interesting information you gave about the six minutes previously, and something I was having a hard time estimating.
>>>>>>>>Maybe that dispatcher position wouldn't be so boring after all.
The two design concerns I have are:
1. The duck under/lift out to get to staging. Every road crew will have to use it on every trip. It will have to be very reliable. Alternative: make the short peninsula shorter and curve the grade around the corner across the two doors and then over the staging yard, across the top wall and back to the short peninsula. Downside, 2 lift out/duck unders across those doors. Upside, no duckunders lift outs once you start operating and a longer run.
>>>>>>>>>That's a good idea. The reason I had it like that is that originally I was trying to stay out of that smaller room, so I kept the second level out of there and tried to just have small shelf-type trackage to keep that room open. Now that I've pretty much decided to kick the wife completely out of that area, you're right. That would be a better option and no duck-unders during operations which I didn't really like. I was thinking of sort of bending that small peninsula into the room and using more of the center space. That second small door is a closet and I want to keep access to that door open, but your idea would still work.
2. The connection across the long peninsula. If I understand it properly, that is supposed to represent a cutoff or diverging right of way. It has operating potential. The problem I see is that it is too short., it needs to be longer so it can chamber an entire train. That way you can pull the train on the alternate route completely off the main route without fouling the junction back on the main route. Alternative: grade separate the alternate route and have it cross over or under the main route close to the current junction switch then move the junction down onto the short peninsula. It wil look like the alternate route went overland and is now reentering the river valley and has to match elevation with the other route.
>>>>>>>>I get what you're saying, and I agree. That part of my drawing is a little deceiving because I only drew one track where in reality that will be two tracks which will be running parallel almost all the way but diverging right there with one track taking that cut-off and the other taking that long peninsula. This is where the PC heads to Valley Junction while the B&O sort of takes a short cut along the river. So there would be plenty of room for a whole train on that track along the river. The reason I show the two tracks crossing over each other in that bend is to get them back to their prototype arrangement of the B&O tracks being closer to the river, my aisle. The tracks split just after Valley Junction and come back together in Lawrenceburg on the prototype. I was going to have both locations on that longer peninsula, but now I'm thinking of moving Lawrenceburg over to the left wall. In that case the diverging route could run from the split at the top right of the longer peninsula to about midway or a little further down the left wall.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
jrbernier I like the lobes, but how does the other end go to staging - it just ends - another level? Also, it blocks entry and it block access to your utilities. Jim
I like the lobes, but how does the other end go to staging - it just ends - another level? Also, it blocks entry and it block access to your utilities.
Jim
Sorry, yes there is another level, hopefully my new post above clears that up. The tracks do run in front of the entry and the utilities, but they will be at about duck-under height at the entry. I don't plan to have much of anything right in front of the utilities except track, so if I have to remove it I could. I will probably build a removable bridge-like section there.
Texas Zepher Yeah, I don't understand how the tracks fit. Does the one just loop around to another stub ended staging area under the one shown? Is this a 2 level layout that the 2nd page didn't show up? A through train even going only 20 smph will take about 6 real minutes. 6x12=72 total run time for throughs. Add set up and spacing. Assuming trains are running opposite directions that is 2 people. Are all the freights going to to into the yard at Valley Junction? I can see how each local could keep one person busy for an hour. That is three hours. A yard operator. So I think that adds up to 6 people "busy" about 1/2 the time. Are the through's going to be scheduled or dispatched?
Yeah, I don't understand how the tracks fit. Does the one just loop around to another stub ended staging area under the one shown?
Is this a 2 level layout that the 2nd page didn't show up?
A through train even going only 20 smph will take about 6 real minutes. 6x12=72 total run time for throughs. Add set up and spacing. Assuming trains are running opposite directions that is 2 people. Are all the freights going to to into the yard at Valley Junction? I can see how each local could keep one person busy for an hour. That is three hours. A yard operator. So I think that adds up to 6 people "busy" about 1/2 the time.
Are the through's going to be scheduled or dispatched?
You are correct, it is a two-level layout and I couldn't get my second level up from the home computer. It is now shown in my post above. There are staging yards at each end of the layout, the one on the right is the East end and the terminus of the lower level. The one in the bottom left corner is the West end and the terminus of the upper level.
Not all through trains will go through Valley Junction. The B&O/Chessie freights did not pass through Valley. They will use that "shortcut" at the top of the long peninsula to bypass Valley. This simulates the prototypes split at North Bend where the B&O ran along the river while the PC headed "inland" to Valley and the Whitewater branch. Trains are split almost evenly between East and Westbound.
As far as scheduled or dispatched through freights, I haven't decided. The prototype was using TT/TO at this time. I don't think this layout would be very interesting for a dispatcher position. The layouts I've operated on with a full-time dispatcher have all been the town-to-town type where you get clearance to the next town. I don't have that, and will instead have basically two types of trains, really busy local switchers and through trains that may make one stop. So following the prototype and using TT/TO will likely be my choice.
I appreciate the input and I hope this clears up some questions. How long do you think a total run would take across the entire layout now that you can see both levels? That is very interesting information you gave about the six minutes previously, and something I was having a hard time estimating. Thanks.
I would like to apologize for all the trouble in getting my track plan up for all to see. I think I have it figured out now. Thanks Byron for the help. I am doing these sketches in AutoCad and getting them converted to something I can post has been a chore for me. I sure hope this works. You should see both levels of my current idea. It is a two-level plan, the upper level is on the left and sits above the left side of the layout. Thanks for your patience. -Randy
To post a picture to the forum once it is on a website somewhere.
First click on the insert image icon:
And then paste in the URL (starts with "http://...") into the menu that pops up