Track plan ideas

[rrinker]

And leave the rest pretty much as-is? Hmm, you might, rabbit (err, mouse) (be on to something, that is). Time for more doodling.

--Randy

[Texas Zepher]

Hmmm wonder what happened to that post..... Try again...

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrinker
particularly at the sample design (Appendix A in the newest version, Chapter 9 in older versions - they didn't even bother to edit the text to fix the picture references in the new one

I can't find it, so I can't relate. I have the 2nd edition and it has a Chapter 10 called "Case History of a Track Plan" but it is only 9' wide.

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrinker

And leave the rest pretty much as-is? Hmm, you might, rabbit (err, mouse) (be on to something, that is). Time for more doodling.

--Randy

If you put an interchange yard somehwhere near the Blob, you can run through freights over to your 8 x 12.

[rrinker]

Wait til you see my next version. I took the upper end from the second plan (the one that blocked the electrical box), moved it over like the blob in the first plan so there is access down that side. On the right side of the blob, I put in an interchange, which approximates Alburtis. The single track line down the middle of the room with lots of switching is a beefed up C&F Branch. No wye at the far end, just a small yard with runarounds - Chapmans on the actual C&F (this is all right near my house btw). In the original version that yard on the left of the blob was designed to be hidden staging, but I may redraw it more like a real yard since it will be open. I said a long time ago I wasn't going to include Allentown yard because a) it's a hump yard and b) been there, done that, when I was a member of the club. But.... It will be sort of an open staging yard, maybe just a fixed operating location since to follow your train off the main and over there with a design like this would require walking all the way around the branch line, or ducking under somewhere. Earlier plans also had the other yard, the 'working' yard, on the curve at the lower right, rather than along the straight wall, to avoid having the relatively wide area of railroad in the narrowest part of the basement. So back it goes.
I'm really liking this idea - thanks Chip, just what I needed, an outside idea to get me out of my rut. Now, if it all fits....

--Randy

[rrinker]

OK, here's a preliminary shot at applying the suggestions I've received.

http://www.readingeastpenn.com/images/trackplan/newplan82405.pdf

Nothing is detailed, I really just roughed in some of the track basedon suggestions to see how it fits. Might I finally be on the right track, as it were?

--Randy

[SpaceMouse]

I'm assuming this is way far from complete. Because there's a lot more you could do with it.

[selector]

Sound....of Randy holding his breath.....Mouse, are you there?

Randy, I think this is a big improvement. You have the wye, although it is unorthodox. Could you put a straight in that lower, inner track where it almost forms a closed wye and make it a real one? I mean, it will still work, but only if you go the long way around the oval.

I'll wait until you can put in some specific details about structures until I comment further.

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrinker
Nothing is detailed, I really just roughed in some of the track basedon suggestions to see how it fits. Might I finally be on the right track, as it were?

I think it makes better use of the center area. For operational consideration of that long skinny track do you by any chance have access to 1957 April MR? It has a layout with a "switching" branch off a double track main. Same concept only yours is on a grand scale compaired to it.

[rrinker]

Yes, I know it is far from complete - the idea is to get the main line to fit in and then go back and add in the details - industry sidings, crossovers, passing tracks, etc. I want to make sure the whole thing fits.

As for a wye at the end of the blob - yes, I could fit that int here, might even make a good excuse to use a Walthers curves turnout. BUT..a big BUT.. the prototype does NOT have any sort of turning facilities at this point, just an extra siding for runaround - even that got ripped out recently by Norfolk Southern. Industries along the branch were serviced by a turn from Reading - the big yard at the bottom. And yes, the branch diverges off the 'wrong' main, an eastbound train would be on the left track at the interchange and needs to cross over. So - I COULD put a wye there, but I'm not sure I'd want to. Also, INSIDE the loop, I'd put some more switching. The sidings and so forth on the branch are just stuck in there with no real plan, I didn't want to post just a long straight line of track.

The yard at the botom is far from finished, as well. I'm pretty sure the engine service facilities will move to the right side - I copied the yard from the previous plan and just rotated it 90 degrees and fit it along the short wall at the bottom. The original version had a turntable and roundhouse at the bottom, which would be the left. That will interfere with acces to the front of the 8x12, so the facilities will move to the right side.

I'm looking at this thread as more of a bull session back and forth getting ideas and sketching them in rather than a "here's my completed plan, critique it" sort of thing.

--Randy

[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?

--Randy

[ereimer]

that's a lot better , looks like plenty of room to fit in the switching that you want to do

2 possible problems
1) the central switching section seems very close to the topmost box thingy (washer , dryer?) beside the stairs
2) when following a train around the loop it's a long walk around the bottom edge of the switching section

moving the switching section to the right would fix #1 but may cause cramped isle on the other side
a duckunder would fix #2 , but i think everyone avoids duckunders unless there's nothing else to do , and i think your layout height restriction based on your father-in-law's requirements make a duckunder even less desireable

i think you could fix #1 and ignore #2 and the plan would still work , not fixing either could eventually cause problems

[dgwinup]

Randy,
I'm chiming in for the first time. I've watched your progress on this thread and think you are going in the right direction.

First comment: ereimer is right on his #1 comment. It looks like you have about an 18" aisle on the stairway side and over 4' on the opposite side. Moving 8 to 10" to the right (towards the long wall) will give you much better access from both sides. I'm not sure about his #2 problem. I don't see a long walk around the switching area in the center. If you follow a train up the right side (long wall), you would probably stay near the upper blob, either to perform switcing duties, or just run around the loop and head back down the right wall. In either case, you don't have to go all the way around the switching area in the center (unless you are going to the yard under the fuse box).

Second comment: You made a MAJOR change in the yard at the bottom from your original plan - moving the roundhouse to the opposite end of the yard. Then you balked at putting in a wye off the upper blob to service the central switching area because it was UN-prototypical! If you arbitrarily change one thing, why balk at a distinct improvement?

Third comment: Access to the central switching is a single track coming off a siding coming off the blob, with a switchback! Wow! Talk about difficult access! In addition, the stub end of the switchback is very short - it looks to be about 18 to 24" TOPS. That means that you will only be able to move a few cars at a time into the central switching. Putting a wye off the blob would go a long way in eliminating that bottleneck. Of course, you may also be able to extend that stub end by curving it to follow alongside the mainline as the mainline exits the blob.

Fourth comment: I think you mentioned that the prototype had a wye at the end of your central switching area. Why not add one there? You would have to come off the end of the switching area at a bit of an angle to use some of the space in the only wide area you have left. A bit contrived perhaps, but it solves another problem that the real railroad would have faced: properly spotting a car with specific loading instructions. A wye at this location also eliminates the need for one at the top of the switching area. Also, since it's at the stairway door, you could use modeler's license and build it like the Keddie wye - on bridgework over a canyon, with the canyon extending all the way to the floor! Talk about first impressions!

Fifth comment: Wow, I am so impressed with the progrees you are making. Not to mention a little jealous! You have listened to every comment posted and applied a lot of changes and you have provided great feedback to the group. Randy, I like your style!

Okay, I've put my 2 cents in. Looking forward to your next installment.

Darrell, not being as quiet as I should...for now

[Tom Bryant_MR]

Keddie Wye? Impressive!!

http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?location=Keddie%20Wye

[rrinker]

I'll use your post to answer both here

QUOTE: Originally posted by dgwinup

Randy,
I'm chiming in for the first time. I've watched your progress on this thread and think you are going in the right direction.

First comment: ereimer is right on his #1 comment. It looks like you have about an 18" aisle on the stairway side and over 4' on the opposite side. Moving 8 to 10" to the right (towards the long wall) will give you much better access from both sides. I'm not sure about his #2 problem. I don't see a long walk around the switching area in the center. If you follow a train up the right side (long wall), you would probably stay near the upper blob, either to perform switcing duties, or just run around the loop and head back down the right wall. In either case, you don't have to go all the way around the switching area in the center (unless you are going to the yard under the fuse box).

The 'box' things next to the stairs are some storage cabinets - the washer/dryer are upstairs, luckily. I can move those cabinets to more suitable locations. At the lower corner of the stairs sort of in front of the lally column is a freezer, but there is room for at least the biggest of the cabinets there as well. Plus I'm still negotiating on simply doing away with the cabinets - shelves would store the same material more efficiently. The main reason for keepig them I get is that htey are 'antiques' except they are certainly not in any condition to be worth anything.
The sidings along the center branch are suggestions only - there probably won't even be any at the end closest to the interchange.

QUOTE:
Second comment: You made a MAJOR change in the yard at the bottom from your original plan - moving the roundhouse to the opposite end of the yard. Then you balked at putting in a wye off the upper blob to service the central switching area because it was UN-prototypical! If you arbitrarily change one thing, why balk at a distinct improvement?

The main yard at the bottom was never a prototypical match anyway - following the protoype in that area was what I attempted in my earliest plans and tried VERY hard not to give up, but it just wasn't going to happen without a duckunder or liftout, and even then the room for including the extra track was so limited that operationally it made no sense - it left not even enough room for staging to simulate the additional lines. Basically,t here is a wye at the left end of the yard and the passenger station sat in the middle of the wye. It's a feature I really wanted to include, even if I don't today have the scratchbuilding skills necessary to build the station, it was something I could aim for in the future. And in the future it will remain, until the next house which WILL have a more suitable (more square!) basement.

QUOTE:
Third comment: Access to the central switching is a single track coming off a siding coming off the blob, with a switchback! Wow! Talk about difficult access! In addition, the stub end of the switchback is very short - it looks to be about 18 to 24" TOPS. That means that you will only be able to move a few cars at a time into the central switching. Putting a wye off the blob would go a long way in eliminating that bottleneck. Of course, you may also be able to extend that stub end by curving it to follow alongside the mainline as the mainline exits the blob.

Aain, quick sketching - I know those access tracks and siding are too short. And atleast the first track off the main needs to have a connection at both ends - it should be a passing track which will allow a runaround move for trains heading 'up' (west). However, westbound trains did little more then set off and pick up cars from the branch - the branch switching was done by a crew that came FROM the west, which makes the branch a facing-point switch. The interchange yard area will follow that curve and extend along most of the right side of the blob - I'm figuring enough to allow for 15-20 car trains.

QUOTE:
Fourth comment: I think you mentioned that the prototype had a wye at the end of your central switching area. Why not add one there? You would have to come off the end of the switching area at a bit of an angle to use some of the space in the only wide area you have left. A bit contrived perhaps, but it solves another problem that the real railroad would have faced: properly spotting a car with specific loading instructions. A wye at this location also eliminates the need for one at the top of the switching area. Also, since it's at the stairway door, you could use modeler's license and build it like the Keddie wye - on bridgework over a canyon, with the canyon extending all the way to the floor! Talk about first impressions!

Actually, there's just a small yard with a runaround track as far as I know there is not any turntable or wye, although I suspect in steam days there must have been. But the yard location was not technically the end of the branch either. It's something I need to research further. But I will probably put a wye there as you mention.
The canyon idea sounds great, but around here we have a few hills, nothing that would justify something as need at Keddie. There's a few high viaducts up North crossing over entire valleys, but otherwise nothing as impressive as western mountain railroading.

QUOTE:
Fifth comment: Wow, I am so impressed with the progrees you are making. Not to mention a little jealous! You have listened to every comment posted and applied a lot of changes and you have provided great feedback to the group. Randy, I like your style!

Okay, I've put my 2 cents in. Looking forward to your next installment.

Darrell, not being as quiet as I should...for now

Thanks. I appreciate all the comments.

--Randy

[SpaceMouse]

Randy,

I looked at your additions and determined that you had indeed just made a rough sketch, so I didn't comment. I was surprised about two things.

First that the center branch did not go all the way into the lower room.

Second, that you had removed so much from the long run on the right. Again, I will assume that you will add things back. I admire your planning for 3 feet of aisle space for operating areas, but you don't need that everywhere. You can create bulges in your layout (some that correspond to depressions on the other side maybe) and get more railroading.

Third, I thought of another one, I was surprised at you decision to look for staging at the level of the main track. Your layout is surface space poor, but lineal space rich. If you were to start at each end of your layout and drop down a foot using a 2% grade you could put in a double ended staging yard that would service both ends of the layout.

[rrinker]

Two things stand out, although maybe not insurmountable. One, if I drop down a foot for staging underneath, I end up too low for the storage requirements - need the space under the layout. You know how that goes - we've already heard "they're not getting the whole basement" even though that was what was previously agreed. So no upsetting SWMBO. Second, doing so now makes the left hand sideof the blob an accessible operating area, except that to follow your train requires either duckign under the branch or walking all the way around it - 100+ feet of walking. I'll put that one in the 'annoying' category.
I know the next suggestion would be to raise the baseline level of the mainline - since it's at 48" a split compromise of raising that 6" would raise the staging a corresponding 6" and probably be within the limits. I've been lobbying for a raise of the base level, but remember, my father in law is some 6" shorter than I am. 48" is a tad low for me, but no so for him. I've gone so far as to have the evil thought of heading to the basement once a week and adding an inch or two shims under each leg of the 8x12 until it gets where I want it. See if he notices.. [}:)]

--Randy

[SpaceMouse]

A third alternative is to raise just the long run in the center 6" just above the staging area. Most of the track will still be 48".

[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.

[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]

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 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

[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]

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]

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.

[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?

[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]

[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

[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

[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]

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