Track plan ideas

[rrinker]

Actually John Armstrong passed away last Summer or so. A huge loss for the Model Railroad community.

[selector]

Eleven chapters and 102 pages? Glad to see that he can still contribute, as in the latest Special Edn on Modeling the 50's. He must be in his mid-eighties!!

See, you can have trains and a long life; they go together. (Shhhh...! Don't let HER know.) [swg]

[rrinker]

I'll bet that one is one of the last printings of the first edition. The two I have are a late printing of the second edition (revised in the 70's), and the newest version. Based on the changes from the second to third editions, I'll bet they cut a lot of stuff out.

--Randy

[selector]

A bit off topic, Randy and readers, but I managed to borrow a 1971 edn of that book from a retired fellow who doesn't have time for trains these days. I gave it a healthy once-over and am amazed at the lengths he went to to explain himself. He sure knew his stuff, and it makes huge, huge sense.

I will read it again in the very near future, but this time, I will read it like a text and take notes!!!

[rrinker]

Yeah I pulled that year off my shelf and looked, it is indeed the McGinnis scheme cover. I think the article title is "The Case for the Non-Branching Branch" - a similar layout (if not the same one, I didn't look it up to check) is in 101 Track Plans - might be the same one because the one in 101 Track Plans IS credited to Armstrong.
I was once on amission to fill in a complete MR collection at least as back as far as I could go for a reasonable price - first year issues are quite rare and expensive - even the reissued set from later on, which are lacking some things. But then I finally got space for a layout, so I only casually check the old magazines when I go to shows. But I do now want to collect any issue with an Armstrong article in it, after reading the ones I have and finding that the individual articles usually elaborate on a concept that was reduced to a page or less in track Planning for Realistic Operation. Plus it's amazing how far ahead of his time John Armstrong was. Most other layout plans in MR of the 50's were spaghetti bowl types, but not Armstrong's. The man was a genius.

--Randy

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrinker

Wouldn't you know it, I just put away my 50's issues of MR - I was reading all the old John Armstrong planning articles. Not sure if I have April 57 - is that the one with the McGinnis color scheme cover?

Murphy's Law, I've had it at hand for a year. As soon as I mention it. I can't find it. So I don't know what is on the cover. That is my birth month/year so I thought I should build the layout just to make the stars, oops I mean "cars in the rail yard" line up properly [:)]

[rrinker]

Yes, that was exactly my thought. I flipped the yard when it was on the bottom, and then just moved the thing as a group when I put it back on the right side. So yes, it probably should be flipped again.

--Randy

[dgwinup]

Yes, Crandell, I was talking about the upper one, but once again, Randy has pretty much beat us to the punch. By fudging on the size of his obstructions, he has given himself some leeway to move things without compromising.

Randy, I'm not looking at your track plan right now, so this is off the top of my head. If you flip the yard again, your yard and drill track can be extended around the curve. Then maybe an engine servicing facility can be added along the bottom wall. Not looking at the plan, I don't know if that would fit, but it's an idea that I had when I read your comment about flipping the yard.

The more you work on this, the jealous-er I get. What a great layout!

Darrell, quietly green...for now

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrinker


One other comment to one of Chip's messages - I left the blob away from the wall for 2 reasons, one to have access to the electrical box, the other is if I put that side against the wall, I loose 20 feet of usable railroad - if someone can walk in there and operate trains, it gives additional workable space. I did a closer check last night and I can probably widen the blob about 6 inches without compromising the access, which allows more opportunities in the center of the blob.

--Randy

I was refering to moving the blob up to the top of the drawing like it was in an earlier evolution. I don't mind how it is now, it's just that the switching area down the center would be longer if the blob was shorter.

[rrinker]

If you mean over by those cabinets (the square blocks), other than in front of the cabinets, it's 3' + a little all the way. That one siding right there may be cut out - or the cabinets shifter. I measured the cabinets again last night and I think I was a little generous in the drawing - better I made it bigger than it actually is rather than too small - pleasant suprises are good ones.
As for the yard lead - it's longer than the longest yard track. Oh wait - somehow there is a loose piece of track floating around inthe plan. Anyway, it WAS longer than the longest yard track. I might still flip the yard again and put the ladder to the bottom, that way the drill track and extend around the corner. I'm still not sure where to put the servicing area, roundhouse, and turntable.
The only problem I have with this plan is the bottom - there are two sets of tracks, one faling and one rising. The fallign ones are hidden behind the rising ones. So I have no idea how I would handle this scenically. Plus it's hard to put sidings off inclines, although it CAN be dne - otherwise it's a lot of linear space wasted.
One other comment to one of Chip's messages - I left the blob away from the wall for 2 reasons, one to have access to the electrical box, the other is if I put that side against the wall, I loose 20 feet of usable railroad - if someone can walk in there and operate trains, it gives additional workable space. I did a closer check last night and I can probably widen the blob about 6 inches without compromising the access, which allows more opportunities in the center of the blob.

--Randy

[selector]

If you are talking about the upper one, Darrell, I agree.

[dgwinup]

Only 2 comments for you, Randy.
First, congratulations on a great trackplan! It looks fantastic! (Ithink I said that once before - worth repeating, though!)
Second, I'm still concerned about your aisle spaces. Just looking at your plan, it seems that the aisle to the left of the blue branch line is pretty narrow. My thought is to straighten out the first curve by the siding and move the curve farther down closer to the switching area. This will widen the aisle maybe only 6", but that will mean a lot to your operators.
Oops. I only have THREE comments.
Third, on the large yard, the drill track for the stub-end yard is a little short. You have plenty of room to work the stub-end, and you have a run-around next to the drill track, but the extension of the drill tract is too small. You would only be able to get one loco and maybe a car out of the stub-end at one time.
If you don't make ANY of these changes, you can still sleep peacefully every night while dreaming about operating on this wonderful layout!
Nice work!

Darrell, quiet...for now

[rrinker]

You should see it now. I had enough time tonight to 'finalize' the changes. The big yard moved AGAIN (thank goodness for the GROUP option!). Now of course you can't see all the staging, since it's hidden below the main. I also color-coded everything.
Again - I want to try to finalize the main line and the 'big' features that are hard to place, then I will go back and add in additional switchign spots, and crossovers, and whatever. As in Track Planning for Realistic Operation - chapter 10 I think in the newest edition. First part was roughing in the main,next chapter is filling in the details.
It's great having a bunch of people to bounce ideas off of. Thanks everyone, and keep it coming!
Without further ado - track plan version 1,342,245! http://www.readingeastpenn.com/images/trackplan/newplan82405a.pdf

--Randy

[SpaceMouse]

Randy,

Tha is almost exactly how I had it envisioned. I would have put the blob a little closer to the wall like it was before and have a longer switching layout, but hey, I like switching and am not as fond as broad sweeping curves that don't have switching.

[rrinker]

I started yet another variation which will put the staging underneath as has been suggested. Rather than repeat my comments on the plan as it stands, look at the trackplan section of my web site for the file and a description of what I was trying to accomplish. The file will be updated bit by bit over the next day or so as I get more time to work on it.

--Randy

[SpaceMouse]

BTW,

My 88 year-old mother-in-law lives with me. She has Alzheimer's and has never seen my trains. She rarely goes in the basement and when she does she walks right by it without seeing it.

She knows I go to a train club and she sees me working on models, but she hasn't put it together that I have a train hobby.

[rrinker]

Answer to #1: Maybe? I would think a yard would be somewhat above the grade of the land, if just to have enough gravel and ballast under it to have that drainage. So I put mine up on the N scale stuff - it still sits lower thant he main.

#2: Typically, yes. Being lower traffic, the requirements for the sub grade aren't as rigorous, plus being sidings they typically don't receive the same level of maintenance as the main line. Unless the industry sits above the grade, in which case the siding would have to rise. I'm not using N scale cork any more, I'm using all Woodland Scenics foam, the N scale stuff for under the sidings.

--Randy

[Tom Bryant_MR]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrinker

QUOTE: Originally posted by electrolove

Ok, a little hard when I can't see the room. Maybe you can post a photo of the room, if you think it will help? Just a suggestion.

There are some pictures of the basement before we moved in on my web site. One shows the area now occupied by the 8x12, the other shows down the long wall.

--Randy

Hi rrinker. I noted in the pictures on your website (BTW - these are really educational)


that
1) You have used foam under the entire area for the yards. I have asked others why it is that yards do not appear to have an roadbed under the tracks. The answer I typically receive is that the whole area in real rail yards is gravel and has really good drainage.
Is that the concensus here?

and

2) You are using N scale cork to lower the track when it enters the sidings
I think I have noted this on some rails in my area but never really paid much mind until I saw your picture. Is it prototypical for sidings to be lower than the mainline track ?

[rrinker]

QUOTE: Originally posted by electrolove

Ok, a little hard when I can't see the room. Maybe you can post a photo of the room, if you think it will help? Just a suggestion.

There are some pictures of the basement before we moved in on my web site. One shows the area now occupied by the 8x12, the other shows down the long wall.

--Randy

[rrinker]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Overdurff

I know this is a little late; however, my observation is Randy we have watched everyones needs be addressed by compromising yours. A question how is your father-in-law related to "She Who Must Be Obeyed"? The reason I query is that I know there is the "Right to Ement Domain" in the state of Pennsylvania. Which leads logically to playing the TRUMP card, Dad needs to speak to SWMBO and get you both some "air rights" to the promised territory. I will not dwell on the risks involved for the two males involved here. Just an Observation.
Part "B" : for relatively small cost a closed circuit camera and a now cheap "TV" one could monitor lower level further reducing the vertical seperation needed for your staging. The long run crys out for under deck staging!
Just 2 cents worth.
Will

P.S. Don't wooden shoes add to height of the vertically challenged, and have you ever seen the short stilts that dry wall crews use to tape and skim coat ceilings?

Well, since he's my father in law, he is my wife's father. Here is the problem - her parents live with us. It's our house, but they live here (big house). It's not the usualy evil witch mother in law, we get along great. Not logn after we moved in, my wife went down in the basement and cleaned out all her excess stuff. Organized the keepers, threw out the rest. The problem now is mother in law junk, that's what's sucking up space right now.
I don't want to go too low, you need about 4" clearance for HO, plus the upper deck thickness of about 6". That leave no room to reach in, so even if I put int he TV cameras to see what's goign on, it doesn;t help if I can't reach in and retrieve stuck equipment. The total 12" difference is about the absolute minimum. Without a helix at each end, it willt ake a good portion of the mainline run, paralleled with the track going to staging which gradually sink down, to get 12" below the level of the main line. I can raise the main a bit - I will see how it works out on the plan.

--Randy

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Overdurff


P.S. Don't wooden shoes add to height of the vertically challenged, and have you ever seen the short stilts that dry wall crews use to tape and skim coat ceilings?

Having two kids into Sponge Bob, you have evoked the following image.



Now just extend those legs to the right height.[:D]

[Anonymous]

I know this is a little late; however, my observation is Randy we have watched everyones needs be addressed by compromising yours. A question how is your father-in-law related to "She Who Must Be Obeyed"? The reason I query is that I know there is the "Right to Ement Domain" in the state of Pennsylvania. Which leads logically to playing the TRUMP card, Dad needs to speak to SWMBO and get you both some "air rights" to the promised territory. I will not dwell on the risks involved for the two males involved here. Just an Observation.
Part "B" : for relatively small cost a closed circuit camera and a now cheap "TV" one could monitor lower level further reducing the vertical seperation needed for your staging. The long run crys out for under deck staging!
Just 2 cents worth.
Will

P.S. Don't wooden shoes add to height of the vertically challenged, and have you ever seen the short stilts that dry wall crews use to tape and skim coat ceilings?

[electrolove]

Ok, a little hard when I can't see the room. Maybe you can post a photo of the room, if you think it will help? Just a suggestion.

[rrinker]

Unfortunately, all the track you put in next to the stairs blocks the entrance to the room. I'd be in GREAT shape if their wasn't a finished part of the basement in the upper left - I could freely go around ALL the walls since the stairs come down in the middle. But, I don't have access to that part so I can't.

--Randy

[electrolove]

I would try to maximize the available space. Something like this.



Edit: I can see now that it's not good to change the upper part of the layout as I suggested. So forget that. But the track to the right of the stairs is a good idea. [2c]

[rrinker]

I made a great discovery - i found a USGS Topo map from 1957 of the Alburtis area north to Fogelsville, which is where i live - not that any of the roads in my neighborhood existed in 1957, most of this was a huge orchard. Anyway, it was detailed enough to show the track arrangemetn where the C&F joins the East Penn at Alburtis, so I revised my track plan to match this - now I have the appropriate crossovers and the siding is long enough for a train, not that stub I quickly sketched in before. Right after the interchange, there is a short passing siding on the branch, so I added that. At the far end (I'm stopping at Chapman's, if I went all the way to Fogelsville I'd need more interchanges with other railroads, no room!), I have the yard pretty muchas it looks on the map, two sidings plus a runaround track, and the main. Branching off that is a siding to a quarry - naturally the big hole in the ground still exists but it's all fenced off and part of the land is now a park. Along the rest of the branch I threw in some random sidings and another runaround. Some facing point, some trailing point, for variety. This is the freelance section of the branch, as in 1957 there was only about 1 industry in that area.
After I fix up the big yard at the bottom, I think I am about ready to print out some copies and let my father in law add in what he wants on the main line which is quite bare right now, as those who have looked at the plan have noted. I'm also redrawing the staging yard - no more Atlas #6's, I'm going to switch to the Walters DCC friendly turnouts, and the staging yard will get #5's as is the branch. The main line will get #6's, maybe some #8's for a cosmetic crossover or two. I even managed to work a curved turnout into the interchange area to make better use of the big blob curve.

--Randy

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrinker

I think I would LOVE a 58" height. About shoulder level on me. I could come down 12" for underneath staging and STILL have plenty of room for the storage. I would entertain a duckunder at that height, it would be more of a nod-under. But, a stepladder would be needed for my father in law, 58" would be around nose high for him, he'd never see any trains on the second track back from the edge.
BTW, if you don;t already have it in your 'contract', get the storage containerized - in those plastic bins and tubs like the Rubbermaid kind. They get labelled, and stacked 2 high (they interlock to some degree). Easy to pull out what's needed, easy to FIND things, and there's no loose junk floating around to trip over or otherwise get in the way. Need access to an area of the layout? Just slide a few containers away, do what you need to do, and then slide them back in.

--Randy

Got ya covered. I have a bunch of stackable bins from when I had an Internet/Mail-Order Vitamin Business. Everything is going in them.

[rrinker]

I think I would LOVE a 58" height. About shoulder level on me. I could come down 12" for underneath staging and STILL have plenty of room for the storage. I would entertain a duckunder at that height, it would be more of a nod-under. But, a stepladder would be needed for my father in law, 58" would be around nose high for him, he'd never see any trains on the second track back from the edge.
BTW, if you don;t already have it in your 'contract', get the storage containerized - in those plastic bins and tubs like the Rubbermaid kind. They get labelled, and stacked 2 high (they interlock to some degree). Easy to pull out what's needed, easy to FIND things, and there's no loose junk floating around to trip over or otherwise get in the way. Need access to an area of the layout? Just slide a few containers away, do what you need to do, and then slide them back in.

--Randy

[SpaceMouse]

PS I have to have storage under mine too--in the contract.

And my lower level will be 38"--to accomdate my 8 year old. The top will be 58--he'll need a small ladder.