44-tonner and Others Minimum Radius...

PW&NJ Jul 21, 2011

  1. ChicagoNW

    ChicagoNW E-Mail Bounces

    499
    13
    11
    Why not just flip the layout around. The focus is on the interaction between the barges and the switching RR. The three mainline tracks would be in the background but would tie it into the Group layout.

    You could hide the space with taller buildings or a photo-backdrop behind the N-Traks. I do believe you are permitted to extend your module in front of the track for scenic purposes.
     
  2. Thieu

    Thieu TrainBoard Member

    1,530
    345
    38
    But then it will become very difficult to get those 3 tracks to the front, where they have to connect with other modules. You will need 2 additional modules to get the tracks at the correct transition spot.
     
  3. ChicagoNW

    ChicagoNW E-Mail Bounces

    499
    13
    11
    This is what I'm talking about. The legs would be shorter by the height of the elevated structure. If you wanted to get interesting you could build a ramp behind the El tracks to get to the level of the standard module and connect to one of the secondary lines.
    Track.jpg
     
  4. PW&NJ

    PW&NJ TrainBoard Member

    1,201
    24
    23
    That's what I figured you meant. First problem is that N-trak only allows you up to 6 inches extra for scenery, etc. Regardless of that though is that most of the "action" on the layout is going to be on the "front" side (i.e.- where the runaround track lives). While the car float is really neat, basically all that goes on back there is an engine picking up cars and pulling them off, or putting them on. The majority of the switching, shoving, pulling, crossing-over, etc. happens on the front of the layout (right in front of the elevated lines, for that matter). Then you can watch as it shoves cars under the EL and down narrow streets and alleys.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 25, 2011
  5. PW&NJ

    PW&NJ TrainBoard Member

    1,201
    24
    23
    No, not giving up on that yet, just making that part of the backup plan. If I can't find a way to make it work on a simple 2x4, then the next-best option is a pair of 1-foot extensions (to make it a 2x6), or if the local N-trak group doesn't have what it takes to include a 2x6, then a pair of 2-foot extensions. While I'd love to use the 2-foot extensions (PLENTY of room for not only a natural transition, but also room for another small yard and maybe another siding or two), that would essentially mean I'd have two full modules. My current budget doesn't even support one so that'd probably bankrupt the operation (unless of course any of you happen to be wealthy rail barons with a need for a nice tax shelter... anyone? ...anyone?? Bueller?). Now if someone else wants to build the transitions (maybe they could be built in such a way as to allow them to be connected to each other without the big part), then that'd work for me, too! Maybe we could all build this as part of a traveling TrainBoard N-trak module or something...
     
  6. PW&NJ

    PW&NJ TrainBoard Member

    1,201
    24
    23
    Oh, and MC, just so you know, I'm not married to the idea of an N-trak compatible module. Before I even cut a single piece of wood, I'll build a 1/8th scale mockup out of foam core and cardboard just to see how it will work. If it doesn't look feasible, or if it just looks like a good layout gone bad, I'll scrap it and go with a standalone.

    Thanks again for all of your input. It's definitely appreciated! :)

    P.S.- Oh, and rather than an L off the engine house area, the real Bush Terminal had a rail yard that was basically a city block wide by several blocks long, right smack in the middle of the buildings. Relative to the fauxtotypical arrangement of this layout, that would be in front of the runaround track. So imagine either a removable or permanent extension (perhaps a trapezoid-shaped one?) in the front, and then the dinky yard on the left can become a larger siding (maybe with it's own crossover, similar to what was actually used inside a warehouse on the BTR).
     
  7. PW&NJ

    PW&NJ TrainBoard Member

    1,201
    24
    23
    Just a quick example of the front yard approach (which would also be allowed by N-trak, since it's only 6 inches):

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    And you could even go just a tiny bit more crazy and add a trapezoid to the top (making a 3x4 layout) and have the harbor be just big enough for a tug. :)
     
  8. Thieu

    Thieu TrainBoard Member

    1,530
    345
    38
    Not a bad idea, that extra yard!
     
  9. PW&NJ

    PW&NJ TrainBoard Member

    1,201
    24
    23
    Yeah, it's growing on me, too! Not sure about doing the same on the harbor end though, even though an octagonal shaped layout would be kinda neat. :)
     
  10. FlyGuyB

    FlyGuyB TrainBoard Member

    28
    1
    13
    This is a great thread and an awesome concept. Being from NY, I know the Bklyn Terminal, and Bx Terminal areas quite well, and I am looking forward to seeing this concept come to reality if you actually can. Good luck to you with the effort. Keep us posted with lots of info on the build especially the trackwork if you can.
     
  11. Thieu

    Thieu TrainBoard Member

    1,530
    345
    38
    Question about the yard: how are you going to use it? I think that the trackplan of this yard makes it hard to switch the cars in a logical and practical matter.
     
  12. MC Fujiwara

    MC Fujiwara TrainBoard Member

    1,190
    66
    20
    Not to mention very little space to pull out of the yard, and when you do, it's onto the carfloat!
    I'll see if any yard cultivation plots flower in my dreams tonight.
     
  13. PW&NJ

    PW&NJ TrainBoard Member

    1,201
    24
    23
    Yeah, this was version two of what I came up with, but I'm not satisfied with it yet. Here was the operational flowchart for this yard:

    1- Pull a string of cars from the float (4 cars)
    2- Bring through the crossover and into the yard
    3- Cut the cars at the runaround and grab from the other side
    4- Pull them back and shove them into the yard tracks below (which hold 6 and 7 cars respectively)
    5- Do the same with the other 4 cars on the float
    6- Park any leftover cars (if there were already cars in the yard) on the runaround
    7- Head out into the buildings and pick up the returns
    8- Fill up the car float
    9- Return to the yard and grab a string of cars to deliver (short strings only, due to the curves and limited siding spaces)
    10- Repeat until all deliveries made

    With this design, you can have two locomotives running simultaneously (one picking up returns, while the other pulls cars from the float). I'm not concerned with running long trains (no roundy round here) and the crossover at the top of the yard runaround allows for bringing a small string out into the main layout for deliveries.

    My "R&D" department (9-year-old) is running extensive testing on it now to check for operational flaws and it'll be interesting to see what he has to say. Meanwhile, sweet dreams (of railroad yard operations... man, we're strange) and any suggestions are very welcome. :tb-tongue:

    Thanks,
    Matt
     
  14. PW&NJ

    PW&NJ TrainBoard Member

    1,201
    24
    23
    Thanks FlyGuy. I'm glad it's seeming realistic enough to remind a New Yorker of the real thing. I'm not from there, but I lived in Jersey as a kid and spent a lot of time in the city visiting relatives. If and when I get around to building it, I'll be covering the progress extensively in photos, videos, drawings, and text, definitely including the trackwork (since it will require at least 1 handlaid double switch crossover monster. :)
     
  15. Doug A.

    Doug A. TrainBoard Supporter

    3,509
    161
    59
    Cool thread! Not sure if it would work with the trackplan or not, but what about flipping the layout 180 and making the barge poke out in front of the elevated N-Trak line with the rest behind? So, there's nothing outside the standard module. (or maybe just the barge/water?) You would have to shift things almost back like they were originally, and possibly a little more the other way but it seems it might be worth exploring if you really want to keep the N-Trak dream alive. (which honestly I'm not sure I would do, but if it could be made to work it would be a nice module!)

    Anyway, I'm just lobbing in a grenade and running away here, so....good luck with whatever you end up with. Great concept!
     
  16. randgust

    randgust TrainBoard Member

    3,493
    502
    56
    You're pretty much betting the farm on a couple assumptions.....

    1) The 44-tonner can negotiate the curves OK with a 40' car and truck-mounts.
    2) The Tomix switch quality is 'good enough' to just creep the 44-tonner across it without stalling.

    You could spend a lot of money and time on what looks to be a GREAT concept, and have it operationally fall short due to those two.... so I think before you launched on the concept it would do you well to beg or borrow a 44-tonner and get one or two switches to tinker with. With tiny layouts, you'll be pushing the envelope. Test first.

    The only other thing I see (particularly on the elevated concept) is the difficulty of uncoupling cars UNLESS you are going to use MT's the way God intended - delay uncouple and push them in and drop the cars. It can work, it should work... in this plan reaching in there with coupler picks could be a problem due to the number of places you're either in an alley or inside a building. i snap the between-rails magnets very small - do not use them full length - and you can delay uncouple in some rather amazingly small spaces if you have a locomotive that doesn't stall and has good slow-speed control, which the 44-tonner is one of the best I've ever seen.
     
  17. PW&NJ

    PW&NJ TrainBoard Member

    1,201
    24
    23
    Hey, no fair ringing the doorbell and running! ;-) You're the second one to suggest flipping the car float to the front of the module. The problem I have with this is that it would have the "boring" part of the layout in front, with most of the rest of the operational layout hidden behind the EL and buildings. Especially now, with the addition of the front yard extension. I think by adding that extension (which again is allowed by N-trak rules), viewers will get to see a lot of switching operations, along with trains coming and going from the nooks and crannies of the city scene. All of this happening while "mainline" trains roll by overhead seems to me would be a really fun setup to watch. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to offer suggestions. Lots of feedback has taken this layout from just a little idea, to a much more thought-out plan. Gotta love TB for that! :)
     
  18. PW&NJ

    PW&NJ TrainBoard Member

    1,201
    24
    23
    Of course, I'm going on what another TB-er posted as his experience with 5.5" curves (and my turnouts are ALL #4 switches, not Tomix).

    Again, not using the Tomix switches. As for creeping, I'll just have to see what I can get the 44-tonner to do. All of this would be properly mocked up and tested prior to a real build (just as I did with the 6% grade tests for my other layout plan). "Measure twice, cut once" (thanks dad!)

    Delay uncouple is the way I learned and the way I'll be going! I was thinking about testing some of the nice little square rare-earth magnets. Those can be mounted just below the rails and, from what I've seen so far (not tested myself, though) seem to work very well. Also as a note, this will be a standard block-wired DC layout. I don't have anywhere near the budget for a DCC layout now, nor do I expect to, though conversion later through proper planning now ought to be easy enough.

    I'm glad that the 44-tonner is getting such high marks. I really think that'll look great on this layout. I may even consider scratchbashing a box cab with a Kato or Tomix chassis to add to the motive power pool. We'll just have to see what I can beg/borrow/trade to make all of this work out. As I'd said before, if anyone wants to join in and help (donations, offers to build a structure, MAKE A CUSTOM TURNOUT [cough cough, MC, cough cough], etc.), I'm wide open to that. :)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 26, 2011
  19. randgust

    randgust TrainBoard Member

    3,493
    502
    56
    OK, well, that makes me feel better! I can recommend the Peco SL switches with a 'true' 9" curve in them, very durable and such short insulated frogs it really doesn't count. My 44-tonner handles them effortlesly.

    The stock Kato 11-105 chassis is very short, deals with 8" curves fine....electrical pickup excellent. the problem is that the truck swing is all on the universal and it throws the universal way over to do it. Hard to do in a tiny steam boiler or a narrow diesel hood. But the one-truck drive DOES allow you to put in a gearhead alternative - that's how I power my tiny Climax A's, and put in a gearhead motor with dropping resistor - 9mph. See YouTube to see one of the A's negotiate 8" curves at about 3 scale miles per hour, running high RPM's in the gearhead drive. I have a large fleet of 25' log cars.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0asubG48Lg

    The entire concept of the gearhead replacement to the stock motor in the kato and Tomytec chassis is a very good concept for tiny layouts where you need to just creep around, have high torque, not stall, etc. As long as you don't need to boost around more than about 4 cars it should work fine.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5c8Wfu5PyM


    The Tomix chassis are really good if you need something sized like a SW1 that will take 8" and tighter curves. I did an SW1001 conversion and it would have chased its own tail.

    I also do a Whitcomb 65-tonner centercab kit (resin) on that Tomix TM-0X chassis, one truck drive with traction tire, can negotiate absurd curves but the couplers (stock) are body-mounts. Below 9" I'm already knocking cars off. With the Kato 11-105 12v motor swap and a 5.14:1 Gizmozone gearhead it's just outstanding performance. If you were willing to modify the pilots to use the Tomix truck-mounted (stock) couplers it should work fine on sharper curves.
     
  20. PW&NJ

    PW&NJ TrainBoard Member

    1,201
    24
    23
    I'll have to see what my budget can handle, but those do sound nice. :)

    Excellent examples! Again, budget is the biggest concern here. I'll likely be scratch-building and scratchbashing the structures and doing everything possible not to spend much on the layout. Changing the gear ratio is a great idea, and if it's affordable, I'm in on that one.

    That Whitcomb sounds excellent. Since I'm fauxtotpying this layout, my motive power list is pretty flexible. I'll keep it in mind!

    Meanwhile, I've redone the yard and I think it's a little better. Still requires a lot of zig-zagging to get anywhere, but at least this'll fit more cars:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    What say ye? Does it work, or is it back to the drawing boards? Oh, and that little spur on the top left of the yard? That's where they park the idler/reach cars (40-foot gondolas).

    Thanks as always,
    Matt
     

Share This Page