Somebody roll up a newspaper and swat the old dog.
The Kerry Railroad in Oregon
http://www.brian894x4.com/Kerryrailroadwriteup.html
Coos Bay Lumber Company in Oregon
http://www.brian894x4.com/GeorgiaPacificCoosBayRR.html
Westport in Oregon
http://www.brian894x4.com/Westporttunnel.html
The Portland & Southwestern Railroad
http://www.brian894x4.com/PortlandandSouthwesternRR.html
Many Logging railroads had "main lines" into the woods from the sawmill, where you could find tunnels, and some pretty beefy bridges ( like the pic below). Its the branches off of these mains, up different valleys and creeks that were temporary.
All information and pictures is from Brain McCamish's website, probably the best about NW railroading.
http://www.brian894x4.com/AbandonedRRmainpage.html
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
1 - Industry Branch
2- Western Maryland
3 - Beaver
Check out my railroad at: Buffalo and Southwestern
Photos at:Flicker account
YouTube:StellarMRR YouTube account
Numero Uno- Western Maryland Tidewater Subdivision
2nd- Old West
3rd- The Amuesment Park one
- Luke
Modeling the Southern Pacific in the 1960's-1980's
First Place
Yorklyn, Delaware - Excellent research
Second Place
Brooklyn Terminal Railroad - Good choise of prototype even if the Dog is biased
Third Place
Lancaster Terminal Railway
Have fun
I've read through all the comments and I have to agree with all of them. There was not a poorly designed layout in the bunch. All had solid themes and it really comes down to a personal choice.
So to choose, I decided to ask if I would have it in my house. I would want continuous running, rail-fanning, and realistic operations. That narrowed the field down quickly.
So first I'd like to comment on some of the layouts I didn't pick. I though Angry Beaver was excellent in that it is very similar to a Paul Templar's Badger Creek which inspired me to think about logging railroads in the first place. The cool thing about this layout is the modeling which, I admit would be very enjoyable. But it lacks the continous run and "part of the larger world" realistic operations.
The two Lyns, Brooklyn and Yoklyn and Lancaster are my style of switching layout, but in the long run, I'd miss continuous running.
Brandywine and the Old West would be fun railfan layouts, but they could have made better use of the space.
I frankly don't understand Bath Port Belt. I get that there is some variety in switching, but I like to know the reason.
So that leaves my top three picks. Of those three, the Industry Branch does not have staging and for that reason takes #3.
So when it gets to the top two, it gets really nit-picky. The WM has it over the Petaluma because of it's yard. I get the feeling that the WM is a part of a larger railroad and that traffic flows from off layout to on layout, though I can't see it a quick glance, but I'm willing to trust that it is there. The track is tight in places so making the scenery make sense might be tough in some spots, but again, I'm willing to trust that a scenery plan is in place.
The problem I have with it is that same problem I've had on the last two designs I made for my own space at home. It looks really good on top, but staging is inconvenient. If staging is inconvenient, then the operations are tougher and what's really the strength of this layout.
The strength of the Petaluma layout is also operations and operational variety. There's a lot to do. It is also the stongest in terms of big scenery & scenery/scope of operations ratio that is N-scales main advantage.
The three things I don't like about Petaluma is 1) The lack of a yard--but to add it would have sacrificed something needed to make completeness of the lumber operation. 2) The duck-under, although you only need it to rerail cars that have come off the track and made it into staging, is always going to be a pain in the keester. and 3) The loop design makes you loose the sense of the railroad in the larger scheme of things.
In the end, I pick Petaluma over WM, but mostly because I know the vision behind it. N scale was used because of the space need to convey the scope of the logging operation. I showed this to Stein in a PM.
Here's What I was picturing for mine. Engine FacilityLogging CampLog PondAnd for the Mill I actually scaled down the HO BTS Slatyfork.
Engine Facility
Logging Camp
Log Pond
And for the Mill I actually scaled down the HO BTS Slatyfork.
To make is simple for stein
1 Petaluma
2 Western Marilyn
3 Industry
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
SpaceMouse wrote: I frankly don't understand Bath Port Belt. I get that there is some variety in switching, but I like to know the reason.
The basic idea of the Bath Port is that one recieves a barge load of cars, then has to distribute them to the specified industries at the specified "spots" while keeping the barge somewhat in balance. Later, one must load the out bound cars on the barge while keeping it in balence.
The need to keep the barge in balance complicates the switching in a already tight area.
The concept of the barge allows the railway modules to interface with several other railways, not just one as a normal interchange yard would.
It also allows the modules to be placed in a "book case" configuration to conserve space.
Dog,
I didn't mean an offense, I just didn't get it.
Now that the barge idea has entered the picture, you have added interest. How would you switch things out. Car Cards/Waybills? It seems there would be a logical anomaly when you move the barge from shelf to shelf.
#1 - Angry Beaver. A reasonably long run for a point-to-point in 32 sq ft. The details are thought through - appropriate motive power, tail track lengths, structures and scenery. It fits in a reasonable size spare bedroom without overwhelming the space. The only drawbacks are no continuous run, and operations is limited to one train making the run to the camps while the other works the terminal and mill. There probably isn't space for more than 2 people comfortably around the layout in that size of room. Finally, the plan could easily be built with almost no adjustments in HO or HOn3 - and would work just as well, perhaps better.
#2 Industry Branch. Again, a reasonable point-to-point run (staging to yard) with the bonus of continuous run capability. I see it as a fairly generic plan that could be easily adapted to a variety of themes. Even slightly more space to add a track or two in staging would improve this layout immensely. Drawbacks: with only 1 passing track, operation of 2 trains somewhat continuously in opposite directions can't happen. And that single passing track is quite short - on the order of 4ft, limiting train length to 4-5 cars.
#3 Old West. Not much track for the space, generous curves in N. Drawbacks: Passing sidings are very short, even for N, which will limit train lengths. The center 2 spur industry looks to be unswitchable due to grades on the run-around and main line.
Honorable Mention: Brandywine Springs. This looks like a great layout for a builder. I'm not sure whether operations would have a sustained interest over the long term. The operational interest would be to keep trolleys running in an interlocking schedule to serve the park. This layout would be a great "2nd layout" addition to a more traditional B&O layout, very similar to how narrow gauge or traction lines or added to other large layouts.
my thoughts
Fred W
About a day and half to go, people. Voting closes at 11:59 pm Eastern on Monday night.
At the moment, it looks like the "Wild Mary" has hitched up her skirts to be able to run faster, and is now getting closer to the Beaver.
Smile,Stein
SpaceMouse wrote: Dog,I didn't mean an offense, I just didn't get it. Now that the barge idea has entered the picture, you have added interest. How would you switch things out. Car Cards/Waybills? It seems there would be a logical anomaly when you move the barge from shelf to shelf.
Although the submission included a mainline RR to barge module, the Old Dog is rethinking the need for that module.
As to Car Cards/Waybills, the Old Dog would be thinking more in terms a a cheap relational database package. Maybe Watcom Interactive, by defining the appropriate tables and running selected querries, one could generate the required switch lists.
The Old Hound would picture the movement of the cars as mainly from fiddle yard storage to the barge then to the layout and back again. Movement between modules would be unusual.
1. Yorklyn, Delaware
2. Brooklyn Terminal Railroad
3. Lancaster Terminal Railway
So how goes the voting?
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
wm3798 wrote: So how goes the voting?Lee
34 people have voted. About 11 hours to go of the voting period.
Still "Angry Beaver" leading, but the "Western Maryland" is getting closer.
Old West in third position, with Industry & Yorklyn within easy range of it.
It ain't over till the fat lady sings - so those of you who haven't voted yet go vote!
Grin, Stein
Everyone said they like the comments more than the vote so:
Brandywine - interesting concept but ultimately nothing to maintain interest longer than a few hours.Tide Water - Like the continuous run even though it looks like it is "through" the industrial trackage to the left. Lots of parallel track. I don't like the way the yard leads into the "main" to the counterclockwise (west bound). Despite all the track here I don't see how two trains could run simultaniously on the continuous run without using the staging for a passing siding.Old West - I like the three train simultaniously single track main line. Actual track is rather sterile probably due to the use of sectional track. The roundhouse seems to dominate especially for this theme. Even the big V&T roundhouse wasn't.Yorklyn - If this layout was built, one had better really like staging, but take this and encorporate it into a larger layout and you would have something. Where would this fit as a free standing thing? Petaluma Lumber - I like the main theme and is done well. The supporting stuff doesn't seem as well thought out. The interchange could have been done better. The entire NWP could have been done better like departing from the saw mill to the left as a separate track that swings to the outside and then under the lumber track into the staging.Bath Port - All five of the modules are way too similar to me. I thought putting the run around in a different location and/or configuration on each one would have really helped make it more interesting. How about at least one module having track not parallel to the edges.Brookland - Pretty nice for a switching layout. I didn't look at that original to see how original or copied it is. There are some wasted things for a dense industrial area. Why the switchback to get to industry "H"? Why isn't there a track along all the industries between A-C especially by the 7 mark. It could be through between A-C or a switchback from A. Then there is the turnout configuration on the upper/left. The center track is wasted. Use the curved track toward the car float as the tail for the run-around.Industry Branch - Interesting almost twice around configuration. Yard on right just parallel tracks to the edge. Don't know what could have been done to correct it though. Switchback to get to engine house.Lancaster - As above, I hate the engine house on a switchback from the main yard. While the layout has some intersting industries most of it is consumed by the two yards on each end.Angry Beaver - While it looks really cool on paper, I don't think one built in real life would look nearly as good, and might not work at all.
#1 Brookland#2 Yorklyn#3 Industrial Branch
Modeling the fictional B&M Dowe, NH branch in the early 50's.
Well, voting period is over. Here are the results:
80 pts: Angry Beaver 63 pts: Western Maryland 38 pts: Old West 37 pts: Industry Branch 34 pts: Yorklyn, Delawere 27 pts: Brooklyn Terminal 23 pts: Petaluma 08 pts: Brandywine 08 pts: Lancaster Terminal 04 pts: Bath Port
Thus the winner is <fanfare> Angry Beaver, which took an early lead, and never lost it. The silver goes to Western Maryland, and the bronze to Old West.
My congratulations to the designers, who have all done a good job!
The following people have had their votes counted:
Lateral-G wm3798JimRCGMO gandydancer19steinjr loatharIRONROOSTERpcarrellBapou AntonioFP45 BRAKIElast mountain & easternDavid Woodard shayfan84325 Packers#1 travon lilivalley Cederstrand yougottawantaGeared Steam marcimmekerstebbycentral saronaterry tomikawaTTvsmith Steve_F AltoonaRailroaderchadwstilson4283 New Haven I-5exPalaceDogSpaceMouse fwright kursinsky SD60M Texas Zepher Cannoli Thanks for taking part, offering comments and voting!
That was a fun exercise, grounded in reality, and seasoned with all the individual choices and styles. I may have to refine mine a bit, but maybe there's an article in there somewhere...
Thanks to all who thought the Tidewater Sub was worth your vote.
It's also interesting to note that none of the top 3 were HO scale!
wm3798 wrote: It's also interesting to note that none of the top 3 were HO scale!
Give it a rest, Lee. N scale allows you to fit a lot more into a given space. At the cost of having engines and train cars being smaller. Like everything else in life it is a trade-off.
The winner had a good design. In neither N scale nor H0 scale.
Let's leave it at that, instead of trying to bait people into yet another unnecessary N vs H0 fight, eh ?
Not baiting, just making an observation. I voted for the Angry Beaver O scale as the top choice myself. It's a cool layout!
Holy Moly! I won? Well Happy Day!
Big THANKS to all who voted for it, and to all who participated.
Well this was a tough one. This layout started out as Gn15 but that quickly had to be revised to On30 due to the vertical clearances required to allow the track to pass over itself. The track may be HO gauge, but the vertical clearances were still G! I would have needed 7" of clearance or revise the design so the track didnt pass over itself, but the sq ft limit and min radius of curves really dictated the need for passovers.
Even in On30 this would be a dense layout with alot of detail in a small area, if a less dense, more spread out layout was desired then it would be better to shift it to Sn3, HO or even HOn3 or HOn30. Shifting to a smaller scale would also allow the grades to be reduced if so desired.
If I wasn't restricted to the 32sq ft rule, I would have extended the town section all the way down and if the room was avalable added the creosote factory and interchange, I also would make the layout a little deeper so the scenery would step up in a more gentle fashion and maybe extended the rest of the layout a bit wider to stretch things out but overall I was very pleased with this one, if I had the room I would love to try it myself, I've been looking for an excuse to try On30.
The worst thing was that no matter what I tried I couldnt get a good image jpeg at Chips requested size, software my end, so the image Chip posted was pretty toasted in the translation, not his fault though. I posted a clearer jpeg above.
Once again, Big thanks again to all.
Have fun with your trains
Texas Zepher wrote: Brookland - Pretty nice for a switching layout. I didn't look at that original to see how original or copied it is. There are some wasted things for a dense industrial area. Why the switchback to get to industry "H"? Why isn't there a track along all the industries between A-C especially by the 7 mark. It could be through between A-C or a switchback from A. Then there is the turnout configuration on the upper/left. The center track is wasted. Use the curved track toward the car float as the tail for the run-around.
Brookland - Pretty nice for a switching layout. I didn't look at that original to see how original or copied it is. There are some wasted things for a dense industrial area. Why the switchback to get to industry "H"? Why isn't there a track along all the industries between A-C especially by the 7 mark. It could be through between A-C or a switchback from A. Then there is the turnout configuration on the upper/left. The center track is wasted. Use the curved track toward the car float as the tail for the run-around.
Fair comments. I have now tried out your suggestions in Xtrakcad.
1) I like your idea of using the curved track towards the car float as the tail for the runaround.
2) I am ambivalent about having all three industries A-C on one track. It give me access to three industries instead of two, but I would have to switch out industry C to get at industry A (and the middle one). I already have a case of having to switch out one industry to reach another down on the bottom half, at industries K & L. But it might work.
Like this:
3) The switchback for quayside industry H is there so I can get a long enough track along the edge/waterside here for a couple of cars to have their content transloaded into barges alongside. If I branch out from pretty much anywhere else, it will be hard to bring the track parallell with the edge of the layout/quayside very well.
But I made sure I could fit a switcher and three cars for industry H, plus two cars for industry G and some extra space on this switchback. Like this:
That switchback to industry H works for me. Your mileage may vary.
Smile, Stein
Well, I got my but kicked and I feel good about it. Okay, there are parts of me that are disappointed, but I really don't think there was a bad design in the bunch. There is no dishonor in losing to you guys.
What it tells me is that the competition is getting better. No one can phone in a win.
Thanks TZ for your comments. My layout would have been better with a different arrangement with the exchange track.
SpaceMouse wrote:Well, I got my but kicked and I feel good about it. ... Thanks TZ for your comments. My layout would have been better with a different arrangement with the exchange track.
Texas Zepher wrote: SpaceMouse wrote:Well, I got my but kicked and I feel good about it. ... Thanks TZ for your comments. My layout would have been better with a different arrangement with the exchange track. Which one was your's? Petaluna lumber?
Close enough. Petaluma Lumber
steinjr wrote:2) I am ambivalent about having all three industries A-C on one track. It give me access to three industries instead of two, but I would have to switch out industry C to get at industry A (and the middle one). I already have a case of having to switch out one industry to reach another down on the bottom half, at industries K & L. But it might work.
Texas Zepher wrote: steinjr wrote:2) I am ambivalent about having all three industries A-C on one track. It give me access to three industries instead of two, but I would have to switch out industry C to get at industry A (and the middle one). I already have a case of having to switch out one industry to reach another down on the bottom half, at industries K & L. But it might work. yeap you're right, but I didn't mean to remove the crossover right near "A". That way the center industry can be served straight through "C" or as a swichback from the top. This arrangment was common where there were sidings on both sides of a city street. Each block had multiple industries along each side (Wynkoop & Blake Streets in Denver were prime examples). Every half block there would be another track cutting over from one to the other. Each industry could be reached from two ways in case there was a car spotted somewhere that could not be moved. In places with really dense traffic a third track would be run through the center of the street with the crossovers to both sides.
yeap you're right, but I didn't mean to remove the crossover right near "A". That way the center industry can be served straight through "C" or as a swichback from the top.
This arrangment was common where there were sidings on both sides of a city street. Each block had multiple industries along each side (Wynkoop & Blake Streets in Denver were prime examples). Every half block there would be another track cutting over from one to the other. Each industry could be reached from two ways in case there was a car spotted somewhere that could not be moved. In places with really dense traffic a third track would be run through the center of the street with the crossovers to both sides.
Now I get what you are saying. That makes sense. Hmmm.
Starting point:
Just doing the change you recommend straight:
Would work just fine, but somehow the trackwork still doesn't flow in a reasonably natural way.
Street running, three tracks, branch off both ways from center track. Hmmm. How about something like this ?
Texas Zepher wrote: steinjr wrote:3) The switchback for quayside industry H is there so I can get a long enough track along the edge/waterside here for a couple of cars to have their content transloaded into barges alongside. If I branch out from pretty much anywhere else, it will be hard to bring the track parallell with the edge of the layout/quayside very well. Ah, I was thinking of a double slip right up the track from the existing one.
steinjr wrote:3) The switchback for quayside industry H is there so I can get a long enough track along the edge/waterside here for a couple of cars to have their content transloaded into barges alongside. If I branch out from pretty much anywhere else, it will be hard to bring the track parallell with the edge of the layout/quayside very well.
Ah, I was thinking of a double slip right up the track from the existing one.
I have a little trouble visualizing this. Right up the track where ? Crossing over some other tracks ?
Stein
Let us continue any debate about the designs, things that could be improved etc in SpaceMouse's "Plywood contest decompression" thread in the layouts forum.
Her is the link to the decompression thread
steinjr wrote: Now I get what you are saying. That makes sense. Hmmm. ... Street running, three tracks, branch off both ways from center track. Hmmm. How about something like this ?
steinjr wrote: Texas Zepher wrote: steinjr wrote:The switchback for quayside industry H I was thinking of a double-slip right up the track from the existing one. I have a little trouble visualizing this. Right up the track where ?
Texas Zepher wrote: steinjr wrote:The switchback for quayside industry H I was thinking of a double-slip right up the track from the existing one.
steinjr wrote:The switchback for quayside industry H