44-tonner and Others Minimum Radius...

PW&NJ Jul 21, 2011

  1. PW&NJ

    PW&NJ TrainBoard Member

    1,201
    24
    23
    OK, I've been thinking and one of the ideas I had was to use stone abutments on each side (with an arched tunnel entrance on the left side for the street to continue) that angle down on each side of the abutment to the street level. Then, when it's in standalone mode, it'll look decent by itself. When in connected module mode, I was thinking of adding removable sideboards that extend to main module track level height. These would have a continuation of the stone abutments for the front, with scenery in the back (left side I was thinking a false building front, right side an image that continues the road towards the fuel facility). I can use things like trash cans and fire hydrants to cover the holes when not in use.

    Feedback?
     
  2. Thieu

    Thieu TrainBoard Member

    1,530
    345
    38
  3. y0chang

    y0chang TrainBoard Member

    110
    0
    9
    This is an amazing port layout for inspiration http://jean-louis.simonet.perso.neuf.fr/Fhht_us.htm. The other layouts in this group are quite spectacular as well. I think the module you propose would be amazing, but yeah I would definately run some cars and test before committing to <8" radius. A good blog for the trials and tribulations of small radius modeling would be http://www.bronx-terminal.com/, although his track is handlaid and in HO. He is one of the founders of Fast Tracks.
     
  4. PW&NJ

    PW&NJ TrainBoard Member

    1,201
    24
    23
    Awesome! Excellent photos and information, and all very close to where my wife was from (Brooklyn!). :thumbs_up:
     
  5. PW&NJ

    PW&NJ TrainBoard Member

    1,201
    24
    23
    Actually, I just found Jean-Louis' layout while searching for information on car floats and bridges. And I've been digging Tim's Bronx Terminal layout for about a month now. Amazing stuff! Thanks for the tips! :)
     
  6. ChicagoNW

    ChicagoNW E-Mail Bounces

    499
    13
    11
    He should have finished the N scale version by now. Last time I looked he was pretty close.
     
  7. Thieu

    Thieu TrainBoard Member

    1,530
    345
    38
    I have seen that French layout when it was at the yearly modeltrain exhibition in my city. Nice layout. Only problem: the owners are French, so when they take a lunch break, there won't be any train running in 2 hours..... So, I have hardly seen any action...

    Free Heaven Harbor Terminal Railroad (2).jpg Free Heaven Harbor Terminal Railroad (3).jpg
     
  8. PW&NJ

    PW&NJ TrainBoard Member

    1,201
    24
    23
    OK Thieu, that Bush Terminal link has me hooked. I've incorporated a bunch of ideas into this latest draft. First, I've adjusted the car float to be a two track type so it's not so crowded at the back, and so the float bridge looks more realistic. Then I smoothed out one of the curves to let it go through the corner of a building, cement pillars and all. And basically, I'm going to build a freelanced version of Bush Terminal, with enough similarities to remind you of it, but crammed into an N-trak module. I'll be borrowing many of the general building design styles, and even some of the big signs painted on the buildings. And hey, the map of the area even shows an elevated train line (well, trolley at the time) nearby, so it all matches up! :)

    Anyway, here's what it looks like now (version with N-trak trackage hidden):

    [​IMG]

    And with the N-trak trackage visible:

    [​IMG]

    :tb-biggrin:
     
  9. Thieu

    Thieu TrainBoard Member

    1,530
    345
    38
    Nice!

    And yes, I remember that there is some kind of elevated track. Subway? Trolley?
     
  10. PW&NJ

    PW&NJ TrainBoard Member

    1,201
    24
    23
    Both, actually. It was an elevated line for trolleys but also ran specially modified el trains. This was the Brooklyn 5th Avenue line which traveled on 3rd Avenue for a little bit and connected with the LIRR near Coney Island. It was long gone by the 1950s when it became an elevated highway (see this 1954 aerial photo, a block to the east of the big U-shaped building), but for the sake of fauxtotypical modeling, we'll just say that it wasn't torn down. ;-)

    Another thing I like about this possible module is the neat idler gondola that Bush Terminal used, which I'll have to kitbash, of course!
     
  11. Thieu

    Thieu TrainBoard Member

    1,530
    345
    38
    And some nice 44t's, and Alco S-series. :tb-biggrin:
     
  12. PW&NJ

    PW&NJ TrainBoard Member

    1,201
    24
    23
    Which brings me right back to my first point for this thread. How can I get a Bachmann 44-tonner to run on 5.5" curves? Maybe pull the chassis and put it on a Tomix or Kato one?

    EDIT: D'oh, Temp answered my question back on page one. Excellent!

    [​IMG](from the virtual workbench...)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 24, 2011
  13. PW&NJ

    PW&NJ TrainBoard Member

    1,201
    24
    23
    Oh, and to continue my fictitious naming convention, perhaps this will be called the Shrub Terminal & Piers, operated by the PW&NJ. :)
     
  14. SteamDonkey74

    SteamDonkey74 TrainBoard Supporter

    7,160
    171
    90
    This ought to be a really fun layout, with loads of switching opportunities.

    I am not really sure I get the two options you listed above for connected vs. stand-alone mode. Are you proposing to remove the N-Trak through-tracks completely during stand-alone mode? That may make for some stability issues.
     
  15. PW&NJ

    PW&NJ TrainBoard Member

    1,201
    24
    23
    No, what I'm suggesting is having some sideboard backgrounds to fill in where you'd see the wood of the next module. I was thinking that the wood where the three N-trak tracks connect will be angled down to the lower level (as a bridge abutment), then covered with a stone block finish. The one where the road continues will have a stone arch (like the ones in Coney Island). When in N-trak module mode, the sideboards will continue the the side scenes to the back of the module, where a background/skyboard will feature a harbor scene with tugboat (extended out from the surface for a little depth). When in standalone mode, the sideboards remove (they'd be connected with rods, furniture dowels, or something like that), the holes get filled in with objects like a fire hydrant, trash can, etc. and you can see all the way through, with the elevated lines continuing from abutment on the left to abutment on the right (all tracks and L-track structures still in place). Does this make sense?

    (Note: I'll whip up a mockup to show you what I'm thinking of)
     
  16. Thieu

    Thieu TrainBoard Member

    1,530
    345
    38
    That would be great! I can't figure out how it will look, so a mockup would be appreciated.
     
  17. MC Fujiwara

    MC Fujiwara TrainBoard Member

    1,190
    66
    20
    I know you're excited about the Ntrak compatability and the elevated trackage, but I'm going to make a case for not including it on this layout.

    One issue is the modular hookup.
    Take a look at the Ntrak standards and you see that they require space for a C-clamp to attach modules together.
    Unless you build some large hollow abutments on each side to create space for the clamps under the elevated trackage, how are you going to accomplish this?
    There's probably some engineering feat / miracle you could pull out of your magic hat (which would also include non-standard legs & other benchwork), in addition to the removable side panels, but I have the feeling that the joy of the stand-alone layout might suffer.

    Another issue involves the relationship between the elevated trackage and this groovy layout design itself.

    Creating a dense urban scene like this is best viewed at a high eye-level so that the viewer is "in" the city and the buildings act as partial viewblocks.
    Having elevated trackage at the "front" of the layout will make reaching the carfloat and other rear turnouts / sidings very difficult.
    Visually, the elevated track will act as an upper frame, making the taller buildings moot.

    If the layout will be displayed at a lower level (say, table-top), the elevated track will interfere with operating switching and uncoupling cars, as well as visually truncating the layout lengthwise by at least 6".

    Forgetting about Ntrak compatability, you could suggest the elevated world by having a short section cut diagonally across the lower left corner.
    I think you said you have John Pryke's Building City Scenery for Your Model Railroad. Check out pages 40-41 ("Building Street Bridges") for something similar to what I'm thinking.

    I strongly recommend making this a stand-alone layout (or with the possibility of making it an "L" with the spur off the engine house) and build it to view at a high eye-level.
    Just my two-cents ;)
     
  18. PW&NJ

    PW&NJ TrainBoard Member

    1,201
    24
    23
    OK, here's how it will work. First, here's the rough benchwork, including the elevated line which is the 3-track N-trak line:

    [​IMG]

    Now here's how it'll be decorated to hide the wood (roughly, it'll look like a stone block bridge abutment):

    [​IMG]

    Notice how it looks good, but when attached to the next module, all you see is the wood from below grade. That's where the removable sideboards will come in. They'll feature background plus some shallow depth cardstock models (buildings, etc.) to continue the scene below grade:

    [​IMG]

    OK, that's roughly how it will work. Like I said before, the sideboards will be removable and the holes for the mounting rods will be covered with special plugs that include street lights, trash cans, fire hydrants or whatever makes sense in the location.

    Does this make it easier to envision? :)
     
  19. PW&NJ

    PW&NJ TrainBoard Member

    1,201
    24
    23
    Thanks for the feedback, MC. I had thought of that before, though I'll need to make some measurements to make sure it'll all hook together nicely. This is why the backup plan is to have two 1-foot module sides that will allow me to make a more natural transition and end up with a 6-foot standard module. And I also understand the viewblock issues this does present. But my target audience is going to be the younger railroaders at shows like this, otherwise it will sit on a set of higher legs (or perhaps just clip-on extensions). I think an advantage of having the EL train crossing the front is to add to the sense of crowded urban life. Peeking through the trains running overhead while the work day of switching, delivering and picking-up goes on below lends (in my opinion, anyway) to the sense of being there. Imagine having to operate those locomotives through the narrow streets and alleys at a snail's pace, competing with trucks and workers the whole time. Nevertheless, I'm always grateful for your wise input, master Yoda. I remember, "Do, or do not. There is no try." ;-)
     
  20. TetsuUma

    TetsuUma TrainBoard Member

    1,247
    14
    20
    So you are giving up on the two 2' modules for transition?
     

Share This Page