I think it might make for smoother ops if the yard matches the carfloat, rather than forcing runarounds every time: KISS: get rid of that turnout & appendix-trax at lower left. This will allow curve to come around closer to "main" and leave more room for the yard. This way you'll have plenty o' storage (plan on using a little more than half: it can't be packed all the time!) and both yard & industry can use the main as a runaround. If you're dead set on having two locos, then put in the second runaround (yellow), but then you loose a yard track. As the right yard turnout takes the place of the industry siding turnout, you'll have to drop one to the main and cross over between the siding turnouts (there's room!) If you have the yard, you won't need to worry about clogging the industry siding runaround, so you can go back to having one industry spur come off the "main" and cross over the siding. Makes more sense to me, but I'm just the bildge-pumper on this ship you're captain of. And what are you going to do with ALL that space down right front?!? MORE TRACK??? [How about a nice bar for the lad's to drain a cold one after doing all your dirty work? ]
Yep, that is what I was also thinking about: change the yard entrance from the left to the right, and it will save you a lot of unnecessary runarounds. Now you can pull the cars from the carfloat to the right end of the mainline, and push them back into the yard. And when you load the carfloat, you can do this in reverse. Maybe you should keep that black yardlead that has stripes across it. It is easier to switch cars from a straight piece of track than from the curved mainline. It saves you from a S-curve during switching.
Great tips, which lead me to make this: I started by building it almost the way you did it. Then I saw a redundant parallel track above. So I ditched that, which bought me the upper yard track (a nice long one). Then I thought "hey, the real engine house has two bays and is located right in the yard." So rather than a bar, I moved the engine house. Then I was able to smooth out that curve a bit, and finally thought to add a bottom yard entrance so I can pull trains right in and through. Oh, and I was able to put the siding for the idler/reach car up near the float bridge (logical place for it) and then an interchange track to wherever on the bottom left (so the railroad isn't isolated). One bonus is that these changes got rid of that crazy double-switch crossing, but replaced it with a curve-over-straight crossing (which is going to take some beating to make it work, but we'll see). Another bonus is that the yard here looks a lot like the prototype, including the engine house lead and location. Woot! Let me know what you think.
From a paractical standpoint, you have reach problems. Uncoupling, under the bridge. How you gonna do it? And for that matter, if sometghing derails going through the diamond, and gets stuck under the bridge, or derails on a siding from the module getting bumped, it's kinda trapped, Middle and farthest bridge track are likewise gonna be hard to reach. And don't forget, even though the layout is under minimum arm legth, those buildigns will be in tyour way too for access. I was in love with the layout on page 2-5, this, looks like the red-headed step child, I think there's too much, and as I said, there's access problems. I LIKE havign runarounds, it reminds me that the real world layout isn't salways "practical", as much as it is "gets track to the door". The odl plan reminded me of some park where there wasn't track, the barge and carfloat was the only conection. This one, the yard is just oppressive. This area strikes me as being tight on space, and havign to make do. Of thqat means working the barge one track at a time, then so be it. Here's how I'd operate it, using only the two left-side sidings from the plan on page 2-5 Collect all the outgoing cars from the industries that have cars on the outside tracks of the barge. Stash them on the siding(s) Pull the barge off, careful to balance it, runaround, stick in industries. Replace with empties. Pull rest of cars corresponding to middle track loaded cars Pull loaded cars off center track of barge. Stick loads. Watch barge sail off switch loaded cars. Anything not going to an industry right then, stash on the sidings. Truth be told though, of this is an isolated switching area, even with the overpass, the carfloat is probably only brigning things needed right then. A storing yard is unneccesary here, as the cars would sit on the mainland yard until needed. As long as the engine is on the right/bottom end, and the switches are on the bottom, you don't need some convoluted yard, as he's going to constantly be shoinvg into and pulling out of the barge. The fact that he'ss likely loading two and three at a time to prevent capsizing means he doen'y need a long runaround. T'were it me, I'd juat scrap the entire bottom 8 inches or so, maybe leave the little tail sidng bottom left for future add-ons.
Hi Flash, thanks for the feedback! First, uncoupling won't happen under the bridge. I'll be using magnets at the ends of the switches for good old-fashioned delayed uncoupling. And since all of those switches are in front of the bridge, that's not an issue at all. As for derailments, I'm not too worried about them. The far part of the bridge is a hair over 1 foot from the front of the layout. That'll be easy enough to take care of if anything happens. Same with the issue of dealing with cars between the buildings. Part of the fun and challenge of this layout is going to be building it well so these kinds of issues are kept to a minimum. And the challenge of running it well knowing all of the potential issues is even more fun to me (I like a good challenge!). Also, both in N-Trak and standalone mode, this layout will have both front and rear access (side access as well, in standalone). That means that any part of the layout is only 1 foot 3 inches reach away at maximum, quite easily achieved. Yep, that's the same operational flowchart that I would be using under the simpler version of the layout. Just for the record, I'm neither married to the N-Trak version, nor the extended yard version at this point. Any of those three could be the way I build it. Like you, I really like the simplicity of the older layout. Here it is slightly modified based on the most recent revisions: The nice thing about this version is that it removes the neat looking but complicated double switch/crossing thing. But it's replaced with a curve-over-straight crossing (out of the frying pan...), so there you go. The other option would be to have a removable extension off the front that contains the yard. This would be pretty easy to do as long as I'm careful to get the tracks lined up. Basically, the idea behind this is that the carfloat actually acts like it's own yard. And due to space limitations, you just need to deal with it. Neat challenges! Thanks again for the feedback, Flash. Like I said, I don't know which way I'll build it yet. I really like rail yards, and the Bush Terminal had one very similar (and very similarly shoehorned into the urban surroundings) as the one on my layout. And yet, the simple little layout with "just enough track and sidings" to get anything done with a good deal of effort is certainly also appealing. The whole N-Trak thing came about as a fluke (since my original layout design was standard module sized) and that would allow me to add an elevated line (which I've also always loved). Nevertheless, that one may not even be possible to do without the addition of transition modules, which would make this layout more complicated, and maybe just not feasible for me to build. Regardless, I think I've come up with a layout that gives me options, all of which have their pros and cons, and all look like a lot of fun for me.
I've been following this thread from the sidelines and have liked your progressions. I like the simplified version as well, but also like the idea of the N-Trak bridge across the top. It gives the industrial feel and it would look really cool to have a steel bridge spanning your layout. I agree there may be some reach issues though if it's there. Maybe there's a way to make the bridge removable so your layout could double as a module in your N-Trak club? Just a few thoughts from a casual observer. Either way, I really like what you've got and it'll be an interesting switching layout.
This last version is good and simple. Easy to switch. The version with the yard is maybe to overcrowded with tracks, but the Bush Terminal also has many tracks, and I just love yards. :tb-biggrin: Whatever version you will build, I already like it!
The word "capsize" caught my attention. Did you realize that most rail barges are un/loaded one car at a time to prevent capsizing? The cars are loaded on one side then the other to keep it balanced. The only time a single shot pull-off is done, is from a single track that is in the middle of a single or triple track barge. If you are going to use a loco like a 44 toner, you don't need an idler flat at the loco does not weigh more than a car. You will need a mini yard just for loading and unloading. Perhaps the barge isn't as boring as you consider it.
Thanks TX. I've considered a removable bridge section, and I think it could be done, but the question of stability has been the main issue. Now with that said, if someone can make removable bridge sections in front of doors, then why not across a flat layout? The bases of the bridge are flat steel, so lifting it out would just leave you with paved streets. Plus with plenty of trucks, forklifts, pallets, hand trucks, and people, you'd never notice anyway. I think with the right amount of well-thought-out precision and good-old MacGuyver ingenuity, that can be tackled and defeated. Solving challenges like this has always been very fun to me (I'm a programmer/IT specialist by trade, so problem-solving is in my blood). Mainly though, I really like the very tight quarters of this layout. I think it captures the way it was (and is) on the prototype. The last thing I'd want is to make someone think that this was an easy day in the city. Meanwhile, while searching for more information a few minutes ago, I found this HO layout tour on YouTube: [video=youtube;8UT9JvGS15Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UT9JvGS15Q[/video] Check out the scene under the elevated subway line. Very cramped and awesome! And the car float scene is great! Look at how well he was able to model the big city in a big and tight way.
The rail barges I saw loaded/unloaded, were done with multiple idlers and pulled slowly, one track at a time. Depending upon the cars being loads or empties and often three cars maximum capacity per track. Of course there is some variance in barge size/capacity. Also in the apron layout. What often eats up time is moving the barge side to side because of apron limitations.
Thanks Thieu. I'm still on the fence, especially because I love yards, so we'll just have to see (removable extension keeps calling to me... have cake, eat it too!). Hah! That's exactly the kind of information I was just searching for on the web. Indeed, the barge just got a little more interesting. The way I see it, cars will need to be removed yo-yo style, building up a little train to haul back to the yards. That operation in reverse will be needed to load the barge. As for the idler, I've seen many photos at the Bush Terminal and South Brooklyn where they're used on any track of a two or three-track float. Regardless, I like how they look, and have a 40' gondola that'll do the trick, so I'll use them anyway. Thanks again everyone! UPDATE: This video of a float being unloaded at Bush Terminal in May of this year (it's still open, you know!) shows that the way they empty a two-track float is to pull some cars part way off (onto the float bridge and still part way on the float). Then they grab a string from the other side, and pull them forward (same train). They grab the original cars, and finally, they come back to the other track, push the cars back on and grab the last of the cars. Do these floats have some sort of adjustable ballast tanks in them? [video=youtube;zUCJNx-Ex6w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUCJNx-Ex6w[/video]
I really like "Have Cake & Eat Too" layouts (as longs as either doesn't really wreck the other). Last night I was thinking of a removeable yard section: [Red Line = separation of sections] Take a 6"x48" box that can plug in with dowels & clamp to the front. Lay track & scenery over the gap, then, when EVERYTHING is done, take a jewler's saw or dedeco disk on the dremel and thinly slice the track along the separation. Presto! Cake & Full Tummy! Side note: am not a fan of magnets or the trip pins on cars that get caught up on everything & look bad. Not to mention since you don't have any cork roadbed, you'll have to carve out of the wood base to place them. I strongly recommend keeping things simple and using a bamboo skewer for uncoupling. No magnets! Way more trouble than they're worth! Nervous about reaching down into the crowded city with a skewer? practice catching fly with chopsticks
Scary how we share brain cells. Reading about how the Bronx Terminal comes apart showed a great way to do this. Not sure I can resist, even if only for the challenge of being able to say I did it! As for the magnets, I can go either way. Not worried about cutting the wood though. Hey, speaking of that, there's nothing preventing me from making the lower layout foam on thin plywood (especially since I have some downstairs and don't have to pay for it!). That would make it even easier to add scenery and even make the non-paved sections not perfectly flat.
The foam would give you the depth for the carfloat. I still think magnets are evil, but it's your "Hell's Kitchen" (isn't that in NY, too?) The "Summer Shunting Shelf" Layout my daughter and I are working on has track crossing over two hinged gaps: I just attached the track with caulk (adding gorillaglue around the ties at the gaps for super-fast holding) and then used the ultra-thin Dedeco cutting disk on the Dremel to gap the rails. Very thin! All locos & cars pass over no problem, and the tracks align perfectly each time. Building a removable yard, no matter how cool, might be more trouble than it's worth. Maybe just picking one design at going with that would be better cost/benefit. Up to you!
[rimshot]..*[/rimshot] Not sure I'd use the foam, especially if I did a removable extension. I'd certainly want to make sure the tracks always line up and I'm not sure how well the foam would stand up to that (anybody have any experience with that?). Generally, magnets are morally neutral though. But I digress... Meanwhile, I remember an old electronics tool that I had with a tiny flat tip (used for adjusting micro trim potentiometers) that with a little bit of fancy file work would probably be a great uncoupling tool. I'll dig into the tool boxes and see what I can find. Magnets cost money. Tool in my toolbox doesn't. That kind of math works for me! I remember that yard from the background of one of your other build photos. Excellent! That's exactly what I figured was going to be done. As for the trouble of the extension, ifin's you keep up them words, I may have to do it as a double dog dare! :tb-wink:
Alright, now I'm toying with an idea too. I think I may be fretting too much, being an HO guy, but I'm still fearful fo having to reach across/through buildings. Two more thoughts to chew on, actually, make it 2.5 Strap the overpass to a 1x6/8/etc, so that it's one long piece. Granted, if there IS a problem and you have to remove it, you'll kinda PO the other Ntrak guys, but at home you can probably take trains off and pick it up as one piece fairly easily. 1 bys aren't heavy, or awkward. Take the yard off of the bottom left siding track. (L shape, kinda like the Ntrak staging yards) and make it a whole module. Module junctions work much better when you are not dealing with half a yard. The advantage, you can then do a really cool tripletrack diamond, with a crossover field and a swing track into the yard, that might get you around the Ntrak access issue. Put it at the bottom so you can stand in the C shape formed Believe it or not, the NWR portable modules aren't really bolted with anything more than your regular workbench clamps. Some of them are screwed, but the majority are not. (HO)We just line them up, put down the bridge track pieces, and clamp them, plug the electrical together, and run trains. EDIT: Scrap that last bullet, that module ould be sideways and probably not in Ntrak standards.
Was just thinking the same thing here. This would increase stability, keep the track section at a solid fixed length, and certainly make it easier to remove. If I then mounted the abutments on each end with dowels into the main layout frame below, the whole thing should work out great. The down side to this is that the underside section of the EL bridging won't look prototypical, but I think I can hide that well enough with flat black paint and some creative girder work on the sides. The top side will have the tracks on top of the flat black board, and maybe with a little bit of work with a router, I can open up some space between each of the three tracks, plus maybe a little depression in the middle of where the tracks will sit. Yeah, I like the simplicity of the clamp-and-go system. I wish they'd have thought to use something like dowels to line things up better, but I guess the clamps allow for more adjustability. One more reason I like the removable front yard section is that when not in use, it makes for a neat shelf display and place to park the locomotives and rolling stock (could make a nice little plexiglass top for it). And I'd have a removable front fascia that plugged into the same dowel holes when the module was in non-yard mode. Anyway, thanks again for keeping me on a straight track.
We tried a dowel rod setup. It was actually more pain to build than it was worth. I don't recall if Justin took them off or if the prototypes still have the dowels, but we don't use them anymore.
It seems to me to have a successful dowel rod system you need a good, solid, metal jig system so your holes are always in the right place and angle. I've got some aluminum that might work for me. I'll have to check it out and run some tests.
