Quick Question: What Era is this from: A discussion of layout design.

[Jetrock]

It looks like the city is going to be right next to the logging operation, which means it's probably not San Francisco. There were plenty of towns all through the Northcoast you could use as models for your little city--just look at the 101 route and get some ideas.

The NWP went as far south as Santa Rosa, Petaluma and thereabouts--obviously not to San Francisco, though.

Keep in mind that you're making this up--the NWP, as we have discussed, didn't exist until about 20 years after the period you're modeling, so I assume you're modeling a fictional predecessor line to the NWP (the NWP was formed out of a bunch of smaller regional railroads.)

The Overtons will be fine.

SpaceMouse, you sooooooooooooooooooo should do some reading on this. Even a couple hours Googling for northcoast railroads. In a few minutes I came across a few of the different predecessor lines, like the North Pacific Coast (narrow gauge that ran around "Saucelito" and the North Bay) and the California Western (the "Skunk Train") and photos of various Northcoast passenger depots (some of which date back to the 1870's, so you're not entirely unjustified in 1880's passenger traffic--it's mostly a matter of where) and other assorted goodness.

The answers are out there, Chip, it's just a matter of going out and looking for them. You already know the questions! And, odds are, with a bit of research you'll be able to answer those questions more effectively than anyone on this board.

[MidlandPacific]

That's not bad advice. And apart from the Internet, there are plenty of decent books out there on the subjects we've been discussing. I recommend a stop by the Colorado Railroad Museum bookstore (http://www.crrm.org/train_books.htm) - they have plenty of stuff on California railroads, too.

[SpaceMouse]

Jetrock and rripperger,

Although it is physically next to the logging area, the city will not be visually connected to it. I see the mainline running under the logging area and the helix both coming out from under a sort of mountain/ tree backdrop. To get by train from the logging area to the city would be sort of a point to point around the layout.

As for the reading aspect, I only have so much time. I'm spending about 2 hours a day reading on different aspects of railroading everyting from operations to yard design to weathering. The reading and researching the logging area is on my agenda, but since that part is probably not going to be built for 4 months, I have been focussing on the reading that is more pertinent to moving forward now.

The only reason, this whole conversation came up is that I couldn't date a car I saw when browsing eBay, which brought up the subject of whether or not the Overtons I have are correct. You'll notice the original title was: Quick question: What era was this from and showed a picture. I never dreamed the topic would last so long or take the direction it did.

But I do want to say thanks for the link. I'm bookmarking it in my research section.

And I forgot about the Skunk Train--seems to me I saw that as a kid.

[Jetrock]

The Skunk started in the 1870's but didn't start passenger service until 1904.

your helix looks pretty inaccessible--is it really going to be in the middle of that big table?

There does seem to be a logic in the track plan--division points (such as where one would find a larger yard like the one you have on the far right) would generally have cities around them, either before or after the division point's construction.

I suppose I emphasize the reading because you keep asking questions about the history of the Northcoast and what sort of equipment, buildings and industries would be historically appropriate. If you had a couple of books handy on the subject, you could just open up the book and see a picture of what was there--as I have mentioned before, Carranco and Labbe's LOGGING THE REDWOODS provides a great introduction to Northcoast logging with lots of photos, and I'm sure there are more books to choose from.

You don't even need to read the whole thing start to finish. Most railroad books are mostly pictures anyhow--this isn't a homework assignment, it's a handy tool that you'll find yourself reaching for more than an X-Acto knife.

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Jetrock

your helix looks pretty inaccessible--is it really going to be in the middle of that big table?

It is acutally going to be more to the lower end of the drawing. How accessible does it need to be?

QUOTE: There does seem to be a logic in the track plan--division points (such as where one would find a larger yard like the one you have on the far right) would generally have cities around them, either before or after the division point's construction.

Thanks.

QUOTE: I suppose I emphasize the reading because you keep asking questions about the history of the Northcoast and what sort of equipment, buildings and industries would be historically appropriate. If you had a couple of books handy on the subject, you could just open up the book and see a picture of what was there--as I have mentioned before, Carranco and Labbe's LOGGING THE REDWOODS provides a great introduction to Northcoast logging with lots of photos, and I'm sure there are more books to choose from.

You don't even need to read the whole thing start to finish. Most railroad books are mostly pictures anyhow--this isn't a homework assignment, it's a handy tool that you'll find yourself reaching for more than an X-Acto knife.

I actually found a coppy of Logging the Redwoods on eBay, but I had a speaking engagement when it ended and lost it. I am looking for and collecting books on logging. I have one en route called the Glory Days of Logging. The besst one I have so far is the Time-Life Book The Loggers, but it deals mostly with out in the trees. I got Coleman's book Trains, Tracks, & Tall Timbers, but it was disapointing in that it deals with mostly Desiel Era logging.

[MidlandPacific]

You're welcome. I understand how pressed you are for time. I have just got my starter layout (a 5.5' x 10' table) up and wired for dual-train control, which took longer than I expected. I've filled a notebook with ideas and references and discovered that planning my model railroad is as much fun as building it.

If you're going to be doing any Bay Area modeling, I strongly recommend John Signor's "Southern Pacific's Western Division", which is an excellent history of the SP's lines into Oakland, with plenty of diagrams and track plans, and interesting info on the numerous ferry operations the SP had across the Carquinez Strait.

[Jetrock]

SpaceMouse is modeling the Northcoast, rather than the Bay Area proper (unless he has changed his mind again.) I may have to keep an eye open for that Signor book for my own collection.

SpaceMouse: Books that deal specifically with Northcoast logging will be your friend. Northcoast logging was kind of a unique thing, because of the monster size of the trees and the terrain--logging operations throughout North America had some things in common, but there was a LOT of regional variation. Northcoast logging was marked by the use of the Dolbeer steam donkey, using rails rather than streams to carry logs to mill (because the logs are too darn big to fit in a stream!) and that lovely damp weather. Some of the pictures are just great--and, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, or at least five of my rambling posts!

About helix access: You'll want it as accessible as you can bear to crawl when something derails inside. On second thought it doesn't look too bad.

Let me see if I have this straight--the upper level is the logging operation, the lower level is the city, yard and Hogwarts-on-Trinidad portion?

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Jetrock



Let me see if I have this straight--the upper level is the logging operation, the lower level is the city, yard and Hogwarts-on-Trinidad portion?

No, The logging operation is left half-or so of the lower right side. The "city" is the section of the drawing on the bottom of the screen with the yard and an industry or two along the left side lower level.

The upper level are the previously mentioned 101 corridor cities, Willitis, etc. or fictional city representations thereof, and hopefully I can figure a industry or two to go there. But that will be the last part of the layout to get any work done.

Where the confusion may have come is that indeed the the logging operation butts against the city. But you can't get there from here. To get to the city from the logging area would involve traversing the layout. Visually from the logging operation you cannot see the city nor from the city can you see the logging area. they are separated by cliff and trees. The main line runs under not through the logging area and the helix comes up from the staging area at this point and they emerge from the cliff.

The left half of the drawing will be Hogwarts, Diagon Alley with a partition that divides it with the lake station below Hogwarts.

So I see construction in this order.

Framework and lighting.
Track main lines and Helices, but not ballasted so I can add turnouts.
Hogwarts Mountain and Hogwarts Castle
Lake Station
Diagon Alley
Kings Cross Terminal and Yard
Classification Yard Track (not details)
Logging Operation
City and Classification yard details
Upper level towns and industries-although I'm building and collecting models that will fit all the areas.

I figure 3 years start to finish.

[Jetrock]

Hmmm...Okay then...if the upper level includes locations along the 101 corridor, where are the logging area, yard and city located? I assumed that, aside from assumptions about rifts in spacetime to get from Trinidad to Hogwarts, that the whole layout was supposed to be on the Northcoast, in which case pretty much everything would be on the 101 corridor.

About industries: Keep in mind that industries are not islands unto themselves. So you have a logging operation--assuming that the logging concern has trees and guys with saws on one end and a lumber mill on the other end, you can then ship lumber to furniture manufacturers, rural wholesalers (think a 19th Century Home Depot) selling lumber to the building trade, cooperages, or any other industry that builds things out of wood and needs regular shipments of lumber (which, before the age of plastic, was a lot of stuff!)

Some of that lumber will head south--if you're going to include a coastal scene, then a dock becomes a natural choice for an industry, both to ship out logs and to ship in things that weren't produced on the northcoast (anything metal, fabric, leather, specialty items, foodstuffs that won't grow in cloudy damp climes) to deliver to local markets. A brewery is a good choice too--19th Century beer was not pasteurized and so was distributed locally rather than nationally, and shipped in reefers (not the sort of reefers one associates with the Emerald Triangle!)

I guess I'm just not seeing why you have a helix and a second level. The "101 corridor" sounds like it would be your mainline, and I assume that most of your terrain will be mountainous, which means you're going to want several feet of clearance above the layout surface for mountains and big trees. This means that a helix would have to go up maybe three feet, rather than just a foot or two. Is there a reason why your railroad won't just wind its way up the mountainside, and save yourself the trouble of building a helix and second level?

[SpaceMouse]

Jetrock,

You raise some good points. In the last layout I designed, before I had been given more space, I spent the entire layout trying to get the trains elevated and by criss-crossing them 3 times on a 2% grade, I was able to elevate them 5.75 inches. So when I threw this very preliminary design together, I was thinking that if I wanted a second level, especially with these weak little steamers, I was going to have to have a helix. For instace on the 4x8 layout I have, in order to get the trains onto a level where the track can run underneath in a tunnel I had to have a 3% grade. On a 3% grade, my two 2-6-0 pulling together could get 6 freight cars and a caboose up the hill.

Another factor is that as I learn more about myself as a model railroader, the more I am becomeing facinated by yardwork, so I am trying to get the best yard I can on the layout. While the railfan in me is visualizing the trains in the redwoods, I am thinking most of the running I'll be doing is putting together passenger trains for my kids to run (lots of small towns and stops) and breaking down freighters coming up from staging to be sent out to the towns in the area.

I'd like to tie that all together somehow, and having the lumber be the focus of the layout seems the way to go, but there are major inconguancies that have to be worked out. For instance, I am visualizing the upper part being 16 inches above the lower level. I also visualize it as being scrub oak forests (don't ask why I haven't thought it through.) But the trees from the lower level will be higher than the second level. I know this is a problem.

Something has to give. I need to compromise and I have sort of boxed myself into a corner by picking up all these older engines. The BLI's and Protos I have at the club are just so much better engines, that I get frustrated with what is availible.

For instance, at the club I'm using a Proto 2K S1 switcher. It is smooth, tracks well, and can pull or push 6 passenger cars. I got it for $29, put a decoder in it and it is ready to go. To get a 0-6-0, that is borderline period correct, to run a switching yard I had to pay $50 for a kit. It has an open motor, and I have no doubt that i can get a decoder in it, but I don't think I'll beable to get it with sound because there is no tender. I am pretty sure I'm going to want to regear it. And I am also pretty sure that when all is said and done, it will be miles behind the Proto S1 in the way it runs.

So by sticking with 1890's--for which I have accumlated 2- 1920's steamers that will be Hogwarts, two decent 2-6-0's, a Heisler that is probably 10-20 years too modern, two 2-6-0 Camelbacks, an 0-4-0 that would have to be bashed to become a switcher (I was going to use that for light switching on the lumber part, and a couple 4-4-0's that may never run well enough to do anything except look pretty somewhere. So figure I have $400 in what I would call passable motive power. This doesn't even mention the 40 cars or so of rolling stock and the western buildings I have acumluated. So lets say I have $700 invested in this.

If I were to just scrap this old time idea and move the BLI's and Protos all PRR--the S1, an FA1/FA2, and E7A and a 4-8-2 M1A back and forth from the club, layout design would be infinately easier, I could concentrate on a switching layout, and I could have engines that perform really well. In addition, the club has no classification yard and I know a couple of guys that would love to run on a layout that had one.

But I would have blown $700 on stuff that will sit and my wife will either shoot me or cut off the purse strings. But I really do like the older steamers and I still have visions of them running through redwoods.

So I feel boxed in several ways and I don't know how to resolve it.

I like old-time steam.
I like redwoods.
I like switching and operations.
I want a yard--two actually--and they are level.
I like mountains and I have a 24" tressle bridge fridge ready to go.
I simply have to have Hogwarts.
I want a unified theme.

I want it all to work together. But I fear something has to give (and I hope it is not my mind.)

[Anonymous]

Sometimes we have to have a "Suspension of disbelief", the 30' overtons and the 72' overlands are both great passengers cars. if your layout can't handle a full 4 car set of the overlands, then by all means use the short overtons and forget historical reasons and pretend your line had them.

[Jetrock]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse
For instace on the 4x8 layout I have, in order to get the trains onto a level where the track can run underneath in a tunnel I had to have a 3% grade. On a 3% grade, my two 2-6-0 pulling together could get 6 freight cars and a caboose up the hill.

That's not bad at all, really--a short line with steep grades will tend to have very short trains for precisely that reason. One thing to try is switching to metal wheelsets--this will cut down friction and allow better pulling power. Adding weight to the engines, any possible way you can, will get you an extra car or two if done right.

Cope with grades how the prototype did--use a lot of traction engines! They are designed to work well on steep grades. That Heisler is probably fine for 1890's operation, get it a Shay and a Climax to hang out with and don't worry about rod engines until you can find one that works properly.

In terms of ways to get that extra "level" without building it, try running your grades over as much of the layout as possible--think of your layout mainline in profile as a giant Z. The "bottom level" features the yard, ports and cities, which goes all the way from one end of the layout to the other--rising slowly once you get out of the yard. Then it turns back (through a tunnel, perhaps) and climbs more steeply, all the way back to the point of origin. Halfway through, one line goes back down (for that continuous running loop for the kids) and the other continues up. At the top of the "Z", the line doubles back again, for the "sky line" in the background, where you'll have the logging and more remote passenger destinations.

QUOTE:
I'd like to tie that all together somehow, and having the lumber be the focus of the layout seems the way to go, but there are major inconguancies that have to be worked out. For instance, I am visualizing the upper part being 16 inches above the lower level. I also visualize it as being scrub oak forests (don't ask why I haven't thought it through.) But the trees from the lower level will be higher than the second level. I know this is a problem.

Once again, traction is a possible solution. Put the lumber operations up high, where your traction goats can clamber up 4-5% grades to get some elevation, with your mainline down below. Where you want the mainline to cross a gorge, don't bother raising the mainline, DROP THE TABLETOP INSTEAD.

QUOTE:
Something has to give. I need to compromise and I have sort of boxed myself into a corner by picking up all these older engines. The BLI's and Protos I have at the club are just so much better engines, that I get frustrated with what is availible.
<snip>
I like old-time steam.
I like redwoods.
I like switching and operations.
I want a yard--two actually--and they are level.
I like mountains and I have a 24" tressle bridge fridge ready to go.
I simply have to have Hogwarts.
I want a unified theme.

I want it all to work together. But I fear something has to give (and I hope it is not my mind.)

For motive power: Stick with a limited number of newer geared locomotives. Just get A COUPLE--you've got one, maybe one or two more--and stop buying engines.

I think every model railroader with a little disposable income goes a little crazy at first buying up everything. I did too, and even now have to resist that urge to get an inexpensive thing to add to the collection. But those inexpensive things add up, and mostly collect dust.

Now that you have had some time to consider options and think about what it is that you really want to model, start a "cull box" of equipment that you don't want to keep. Either sell it on eBay as the box starts to fill, or build up enough stuff to fill an 8-foot table and sell it at a train show. Even if you don't get all your money back, you'll have extra real estate and less clutter and a few dollars in your pocket. Consider any money lost as the price of experience.

Switching and operations go hand-in-hand with a yard--it is a yard, after all, that allows you to facilitate switching and operations. There is no contradiction in wanting both, for one is less useful without the other.

Mountains don't contradict any of your wants either. Another piece of literary advice: Get some stuff on John Allen--Linn Westcott's book on the Gorre & Daphetid is a classic. He was a master of thinking outside the 4x8 box, and while you may not have his room, his resources, or his skills, you can certainly gain some ideas. His layout had a mountain setting, featured lots of yards and lots of industries, and ran steam well into the era when diesel was taking over, and made great use of tricks of the eye to make his layout seem much bigger than it was.

He also started the whole thing out with a layout considerably smaller than 4x8 feet.

As to Hogwarts: hey, nobody says you can't. Stick it on the far end so the passenger line has to run through all your other scenery before reaching it.

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Jetrock

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse
For instace on the 4x8 layout I have, in order to get the trains onto a level where the track can run underneath in a tunnel I had to have a 3% grade. On a 3% grade, my two 2-6-0 pulling together could get 6 freight cars and a caboose up the hill.

That's not bad at all, really--a short line with steep grades will tend to have very short trains for precisely that reason. One thing to try is switching to metal wheelsets--this will cut down friction and allow better pulling power. Adding weight to the engines, any possible way you can, will get you an extra car or two if done right.

I'm going to do everything in my power to keep the grade under 2%. The new Hogwarts 4-6-0 is solid metal. I can't get a heavier engine. It was slipping going up the 3% grade with just the two Hogwart's passenger cars.

QUOTE: Cope with grades how the prototype did--use a lot of traction engines! They are designed to work well on steep grades. That Heisler is probably fine for 1890's operation, get it a Shay and a Climax to hang out with and don't worry about rod engines until you can find one that works properly.

I really like the Bachman Climax. So far, I'm not impressed with the Heislers grade work. I'm going to have to play with it more. It has spen a lot of time in the box.

QUOTE: In terms of ways to get that extra "level" without building it, try running your grades over as much of the layout as possible--think of your layout mainline in profile as a giant Z. The "bottom level" features the yard, ports and cities, which goes all the way from one end of the layout to the other--rising slowly once you get out of the yard. Then it turns back (through a tunnel, perhaps) and climbs more steeply, all the way back to the point of origin. Halfway through, one line goes back down (for that continuous running loop for the kids) and the other continues up. At the top of the "Z", the line doubles back again, for the "sky line" in the background, where you'll have the logging and more remote passenger destinations.

This idea intregues me, but my first thought is, " How can I climb anywhere if over half my lower level is yard. Then I thought about putting the yards on different levels, but classification yard needs a good sized lead and I was planning to run it out the main and infringe on the passenger yard.

Anyway, I've been thinking about it and give it some serious thought. I've been studying some of John Anderson's designed with the multti-levels and mushrooms and riders and command towers . I see what he does, but I am a long way from Groking them.

QUOTE:

QUOTE:
I'd like to tie that all together somehow, and having the lumber be the focus of the layout seems the way to go, but there are major inconguancies that have to be worked out. For instance, I am visualizing the upper part being 16 inches above the lower level. I also visualize it as being scrub oak forests (don't ask why I haven't thought it through.) But the trees from the lower level will be higher than the second level. I know this is a problem.

Once again, traction is a possible solution. Put the lumber operations up high, where your traction goats can clamber up 4-5% grades to get some elevation, with your mainline down below. Where you want the mainline to cross a gorge, don't bother raising the mainline, DROP THE TABLETOP INSTEAD.

I figured that one out. In Anderson's operations book he made a really cool transition between a mountain and a second shelf. I thought a bridge would make a cool transition.

QUOTE:

QUOTE:
Something has to give. I need to compromise and I have sort of boxed myself into a corner by picking up all these older engines. The BLI's and Protos I have at the club are just so much better engines, that I get frustrated with what is availible.
<snip>
I like old-time steam.
I like redwoods.
I like switching and operations.
I want a yard--two actually--and they are level.
I like mountains and I have a 24" tressle bridge fridge ready to go.
I simply have to have Hogwarts.
I want a unified theme.

I want it all to work together. But I fear something has to give (and I hope it is not my mind.)

For motive power: Stick with a limited number of newer geared locomotives. Just get A COUPLE--you've got one, maybe one or two more--and stop buying engines.

I think every model railroader with a little disposable income goes a little crazy at first buying up everything. I did too, and even now have to resist that urge to get an inexpensive thing to add to the collection. But those inexpensive things add up, and mostly collect dust.

Now that you have had some time to consider options and think about what it is that you really want to model, start a "cull box" of equipment that you don't want to keep. Either sell it on eBay as the box starts to fill, or build up enough stuff to fill an 8-foot table and sell it at a train show. Even if you don't get all your money back, you'll have extra real estate and less clutter and a few dollars in your pocket. Consider any money lost as the price of experience.

My wife cut me off. I won't be buying engines--except for the B&P GP38 I just got for the club. Anyway, I have my motive power set. And I have a bunch of stuff for the eBay. Everything but the 4-4-0s work pretty well and my kids both have locos they like. And all will convert ot DCC except Lil Guy and I'm not done with him.

QUOTE: Switching and operations go hand-in-hand with a yard--it is a yard, after all, that allows you to facilitate switching and operations. There is no contradiction in wanting both, for one is less useful without the other.

Mountains don't contradict any of your wants either. Another piece of literary advice: Get some stuff on John Allen--Linn Westcott's book on the Gorre & Daphetid is a classic. He was a master of thinking outside the 4x8 box, and while you may not have his room, his resources, or his skills, you can certainly gain some ideas. His layout had a mountain setting, featured lots of yards and lots of industries, and ran steam well into the era when diesel was taking over, and made great use of tricks of the eye to make his layout seem much bigger than it was.

He also started the whole thing out with a layout considerably smaller than 4x8 feet.

As to Hogwarts: hey, nobody says you can't. Stick it on the far end so the passenger line has to run through all your other scenery before reaching it.

I've been looking for John Allen's books with no sucess. The way I have it set up in my mind now, The Hogarts passenger train starting at Kings Cross Station which is phyically next to Hogwarts has to travel the length of the lower mainline, pass throught Hogwarts mountain to the upper level and follow the main through the upper level, back down through Hogwarts mountain angain, to get to the lake station and deposit Hogwarts passengers.

By the way, thanks again. You always push my envelope.

[Jetrock]

About John Allen: I don't think he actually wrote any books, but a couple of books have been done about him.

About the yard: The mainline climbs, the yard doesn't have to.

Also keep in mind that your yard lead doesn't need to climb either, and yard leads don't have to be straight so you can wiggle them around scenery. Another thing about yards in the mountains--sometimes they were built around curves out of necessity.

[SpaceMouse]

I found one on eBay by Linn Wescott, but the bidding is already high and there are many days left.

I keep trying to picture the climbing Z track. It seems that I will loose over half my upper level to climbing. The helix approach lets me keep it all. I'm not done considering it. I just picked up another John Anderson book on track design. Maybe I'll figure it out yet.

Keep in mind, this is still all in my head. I haven't layed a single track in the XtraCAD program yet, but I've had trains running in my head for weeks. I think I'm afraid the plans in my head won't fit in the space availible. The other thing is that although the rest of the layout is straight-foreward, the logging operation is still a mystery--or at least how I'm going to model it is.

[SpaceMouse]

Oh, I don't think I mentioned. I was born in Fort Bragg/ Mendicino. When I was really young, my dad worked lumber in the area. I remember my mom talking about the Skunk Railroad.

[sebamat]

Hi Space mouse,

I understand very well your frustration with triing to put togheter an 'historically reasonable' and at the same time functional and financially bearable(!!) roaster.
I experience it in triing to put togheter a Illinois central layout for 'early 1900', and it is very difficult. Model producer seems often not to think on forming whole trains, so you get a nice engine and no cars, or a few nice cars but no passable caboose and so on...

So now even after accepting a lot of compromises i am still not able to field complete and matching trains.

I am even stuck with 5 Overton 30' coaches (and this for the 'all flat illinois!!!')

My personal solution is now: what I am missing I fill in with the next closest match, even if this is quite far, I have fun, and hopefully no one will notice. At the time my ICRR engines are still pulling a few NYC labelled cars (the 'Central is there'...)

sebastiano

[Jetrock]

If you want to try new and exciting interpretations of frustration, try interurban modeling! Most of the relatively small handful of trolley and interurban motive power that has been modeled, was all limited-run brass long out of production, using cheesy motors that didn't run very well when they were built, let alone after 30-50 years of operation, storage, repair, modification and thumb-fingered deadification. I have several lovely trolleys that spend most of their time in boxes because their use in operation is limited to short bursts of rocketlike speed followed by dead stops when the motor finds some reason to petulantly quit. This issue of repowering balky brass trolleys is one reason why I have learned to love my later-period diesel 44-tonners and S1's and such--they don't quite have the charm of electrics, but I can have a decent-looking and running model without major remotoring hegira.

QUOTE:
I keep trying to picture the climbing Z track. It seems that I will loose over half my upper level to climbing. The helix approach lets me keep it all. I'm not done considering it.

The secret here is not to think in levels! Things can be happening all the way up and down that slowly-elevating Z (or whatever) of track, and not every part of it must be on a grade. Think in terms of a mountainside, and how a railroad engineer would design a railroad to climb it. Real railroads had more room, but the advantage you have is that the mountainside is very small.

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Jetrock

The secret here is not to think in levels! Things can be happening all the way up and down that slowly-elevating Z (or whatever) of track, and not every part of it must be on a grade. Think in terms of a mountainside, and how a railroad engineer would design a railroad to climb it. Real railroads had more room, but the advantage you have is that the mountainside is very small.

I'm working on it. Maybe I have a mental block. Here's my quandry:

If I have two levels I have 50" of availible space: 30" of reachable space on the lower level--20 " of reacfhable space on the upper level.

If I use the Z approach; I have different elevations, but only 30" of reachable space. It simple math to figure that I loose 40% of the availible space.

[Jetrock]

Reachable space, to paragraph Frank Zappa, is the crux of the biscuit.

Let's assume your lower level is 36" high. That's pretty low--many model railroaders put their layouts at 48" or 56" high. But at 36" high, with 30" between levels, your second level will be at 5'6"--eyeball height for the average person. This means that in order to reach (or see) anything that isn't within a couple inches of the edge of the upper level, you'll have to stand on a stool.

About the simple math: If you assume that your upper-level benchwork is built on a paper-thin wafer of superstrong luminous material, then you'd have 30" of space. But benchwork and the structures supporting it will be several inches thick. Whatever lighting you use to light your lower level will be a couple of inches thick, and the lighting valence will drop a bit below that level. Finally, since your upper-level terrain is mountainous, you will certainly have foam atop the upper-level benchwork to simulate fills, rivers and other things below the layout grade. And finally, there's the thickness of the roadbed and track itself. So, valence/lighting+benchwork+scenic foam+roadbed means a total of *at least* 6-8 inches of thickness.

That means either 22-24 inches of lower level space--or lifting the upper level to 72-74" off the ground. How high is your ceiling? Unless you have 9'+ cathedral ceilings, you'll have a tough time fitting 20" of upper level space--and keep in mind that that needs lighting, and a lighting valence, too. Better get a ladder instead of a stepstool for that second-level work...it tends to stretch the definition of "reachable."

Modeling grades on a mountain railroad would be much more realistic than hiding them with a helix. If you look at shots of railroads in the mountains, typically they are always climbing up or going down the mountain--very seldom are they level, except where they have to be.

A single level keeps everything much simpler in terms of planning. You lose a lot of the material and planning overhead needed for a two-level layout with helix, since it's all on one table.

In order to create the illusion of more height: Drop the table! I know you have mentioned wanting to have a high mountain trestle over a gorge. Assuming 48" high benchwork, one way to model this would be to place the trestle in the middle of the Z, maybe 12" higher than the layout surface (60" high.)

Underneath where your bridge is planned, cut out that portion of benchwork and "drop" the layout surface to 24" off the floor. This means there will be 36" from the base of the canyon to the top of the trestle!

Place a comfortable but low-slung chair in front of the trestle. When seated, you'll be looking up into the air at the trestle overhead!

Lower-level track can span this gorge on a lower bridge, or the track can be brought "around" the gorge by going into a tunnel on one side and emerging from the other side on the far side of the gorge (simulating going around the scene and re-entering elsewhere.)

[SpaceMouse]

Jetrock,

I am really enjoying this conversation.

I think we are experiencing a cross-vision problem and it is my fault because I have evolved a bit in what I am becoming in terms of a model railroader. I hoping I will continue to evolve becasue if I am to take on a 3-year railroading project, I want it to fit my needs.

So here is situation as I see it. I am envisioning a railroad with a lot of switching--a big as I can classification yard, big as I can staging yard, and big as I can passenger yard. The upper level in my mind is devoted to industry tracks with a variety of different spur and siding track "puzzles". Even Hogwarts and Diagon Alley will be built to receive and send freight. Each location will have a passenger station as well so the Hogart's Express and locals have things to do. I was envisioning zero elevation changes to accomodate longer trains. I was picturing the two mountains as visual obstructions to create the illusion of time movement. In fact, the mainline passes under the logging mountain and immerges in the city. The logging operation is an industry, but in terms of the "action" of the operation, it is a simple one.

In fact, even from the very beginning, when I was dealing with a cut-off 11x11 space, I was seeing the logging operation as a seperate and barely connected element. My original vision, simply was to run old trains through the trees and across a bridge. I got the idea of the logging operation from you.

So I have two layouts in reality. The main "operation" layout and the logging layout.

In my mind, I see the logging layout as running on auto pilot with a geared locomotive always running bringing logs down the mountain, through the trees, across hastily built log bridges and to the mill. Then it heads into a tunnel and appears back at the top and comes down again. All on auto-pilot, slow speed, a moving diorama. This section is valued for it's visual effect, not it's operational quality. Turn the Heisler on slow and let it go. While I head back over to the yards. I had the same idea for the trolley in the city. Let it run in a circle to add action to the layout.

I also think the logging operation will be the most fun to build.

And, if I plan it right, a person could spend some time delivering water, men, logs, finished lumber, wood for whatever, and building cars for freight pick-up. But the important part of the layout, for me in terms of running trains, is everything else.

[Jetrock]

I can relate to the "moving diorama" idea--it makes sense, since as I mentioned, the line that brought logs to the mill was often not the same railroad that brought milled lumber to market.

Considering the era and locale, why the emphasis on longer trains? Railroads of the 1890s were still largely coupled and braked by hand--part of the limitation on the size of trains was the manpower needed to brake a train by hand in fairly short order.

I keep bringing up logging because that was the primary business on the Northcoast--has been for more than a century. There really weren't many industries in the region that were not based on doing things to trees and sending bits of said trees south.

Big passenger yards, on the Northcoast? Why? There were no big cities--heck, only a couple of small ones. Even today, the biggest city north of Sonoma County is Eureka, 28,000 or so people. 110 years ago, the only passenger service were short locals serving the small communities in the region. There was no through traffic to San Francisco (that would have been routed around the Bay, via Napa and south to San Jose) and no direct connection to Oregon (that went via the Shasta Route, via Redding.) Passenger yards would be limited to a couple of tracks in the local yard to store a couple of coaches--the stations on the northcoast were modest affairs, without large-station features like multiple tracks for passenger boarding--typically the kind of lines that saw two or three passenger trains a day.

About operation: There is no reason why a sleepy Northcoast line can't feature lots of operation--moving of cars and distribution of product can keep a layout plenty busy. It just sounds like you're going farther and farther afield from what actually exists on the Northcoast. Which, of course, it's okay to do--but it becomes more and more difficult to explain why a Class 1 railroad with extensive passenger facilities and large cities and a diverse industrial base, running on mostly level track, is running through a part of the country that featured none of those things.

About the second level: Unless your lower level is only a foot or so off the ground, you're going to have some real difficulties if the upper level is the "operation" portion. Any place where you're going to do switching, you'll need to reach the cars--to throw switches, uncouple cars, and rerail trains. Give this some serious thought: How high off the ground will your second level be? How well can you see and manipulate objects at that height? Might it be simpler to put these "second level" items at a different elevation on the first level?

[SpaceMouse]

If I had my druthers, I run my Buffalo and Pittsburgh GP-38s hauling coal through the flat Redwoods switching out of the City of Industry's yard located in Eureka, while wood burning Hogwart's 2-6-0's link up with Heislers and Shays to bring pulp to the paper mills at Willits.

About now you're probably wondering if I have a supply of Eureka's other industry and guys who argued that looking too large creates indecision are going "See, told ya."

At the end of this month, I'm going to a model train club about an hour from my house. They have a session called "Op till you Drop," with a section of the local railroad so precise that rail workers could tell their location from the signals and locals can find their house. I think whatever my thinking is now, it will evolve after that day of running trains. Up until now, I have only seen two layouts other than my own.

I have to do a "Clean Sweep" of may basement before I can build which means I have a couple months to plan the layout. I know there are incongruencies with what I have in mind, but I have no doubt when the time comes to make a decision I'll make it and it will be a good one.

The thing that really bothers me is that I'm becoming more and more interested in modern diesels.

I also have to add that I love trying to decipher what John Armstrong is thinking in his layout designs. The one thing I can tell you is that they look more like what you are describing than what I have been hashing out.

[Jetrock]

I was beginning to think you were taking those remarks about needing reefers to go with your beer service a bit too literally...

That's the problem with mountain railroads--you either need a LOT of space or minimal amounts of track.

I'm not sure if my copy of "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" has the same illustrations as yours (mine is older than I am and missing the cover) but there is a plan in back that could be adapted to your needs--it's basically a corner layout, a double loop with a pair of "wings" which provide terminal yards on each end, but it still has continuous running. An access hole in back provides access to hidden track in tunnels and, potentially, staging. It's figure 11-7 in my version...your copy may vary.

[SpaceMouse]

I think I found it. IT is the last page in my book and called 8-4 Center Layover Point to point.

It is a complicated layout, and I don't have a corner to work with. My corner has a circuit breaker and I have to maintain a 3' clearance in front of the box. But I will take a look at it more closely. I think track plans are sadly lacking in elevational drawings.

I do have a litlle more space than it shows.

You know if I just eliminated the mountains and the trees, my logging operation would be a lot simpler to design.

I'm going to pull up the floorplan design again.


And focus on the logging area.



My impermanent thinking, now is to eliminate the shelf in this area, but have the track from the upper level above Kings Cross Yard be the point where the mainline enters the mountain/logging area. The main stays at the upper level on the mountain, has a small interchange with the logging road and continues to the upperlevel above the city. Notice that the zag in the room (see basement view) makes the track narrowdown to a 6-8" and this makes a natural transition.

The pond, which for me has always been in the "north" end of the detail diagram moves to the "north" tip of the penninsula, and the geared unit climbs along switchbacks to the higher level. The transitions now have space barriers so getting from the oak-forested areas like "Ukiah" don't seem so stupid.(the Narrows)

The transition to the city area, which was/is handled by a cliff with tunnels up from staging and the underground main (A time warp from London to SF) remains the same. The transition on the upper level is trickier and might have to be handled with a backdrop/tunnel.

You'll note I am stubornly holding on to all the facets, although in this version I have wiped out one town. I hope it wasn't Hopland. I do like that Red-Tail Ale.

[Jetrock]

Feel free to relocate the Red Tail Ale brewery if you want--after all, it wasn't there inthe 1880s anyhow.

About that center-layover point-to-point plan: Yes, that's the right one--and realize it doesn't HAVE to be in a corner. Visualize putting such a plan in your space, three feet away from the wall to maintain access to the breakers and such. This means you have BETTER access to the back of the layout than the plan would indicate. Starting from this point, you could expand the lower yard area to include that city area (a natural place to put a medium-sized passenger terminal and a division-point yard), and you could send some track from the higher-elevation portion of the plan northwards to connect to the Hogwarts section of the layout.

As an added bonus, because you'd have access tothe back of the layout, you could add a couple of hidden staging tracks under the mountain.

heh. maybe I'llhave to do some drawings...

[SpaceMouse]

Yesterday, I found a 2 x 8 foot alyout that I thought I would like to incorporate into my track. It's titled Better Late Than Never. It is a switching track. Here's my best approximation using AtlasRR. Using two switchers it is suppossed to take 30 minutes to move 3 cars from one end of the layout to the other.



The blue portion is 4" lower than the brown section.

I was thinking it would fit in the layer above Kings Cross Terminal. To make it work I would have to use the spur in the upper left continuing accross the bridge to the right as the main line. But I would have to roatate the layout 180 degrees and make the lower level the high one and the higher level the lower one. Well, you know what I mean.

I included show you kind of what I envisioned for my "towns." In this case, however, I haven't figured out what kind of industry or industries would use a set-up like this. And there is very little room for structures, etc.

[prompter]

Spacemouse, where did you find that 2x8 switching layout?

Prompter

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by prompter

Spacemouse, where did you find that 2x8 switching layout?

Prompter

IT's called "Better Late than Never" and it was created by Dan Wilson. It was patterened after a designe that appeared in the April 1965 MR by Chuck Yungkurth. I got it from The Model Railroading Handbook Vol 1 by Robert Scheicher

[IRONROOSTER]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

QUOTE: Originally posted by prompter

Spacemouse, where did you find that 2x8 switching layout?

Prompter

IT's called "Better Late than Never" and it was created by Dan Wilson. It was patterened after a designe that appeared in the April 1965 MR by Chuck Yungkurth. I got it from The Model Railroading Handbook Vol 1 by Robert Scheicher

Chuck Yungkurth's plan called it the "Gum Stump & Snowshoe". It was originally designed as a 1x6 ft layout.

Enjoy
Paul