Layout Design

Hutch Jul 18, 2006

  1. Hutch

    Hutch TrainBoard Member

    413
    0
    15
    Dave & Arrow,

    What you guys have come up with here is just incredible. I am studying the revisions now, but I think we are getting really close. Arrow, your illustration abilities are amazing. You have added 'life' to the layout and it just makes me excited to look at it.

    Am I looking at this plan incorrectly to assume that there is little elevation change in the plan we have here? Don't get me wrong, I like that idea. Sometimes dealing with grades and elevations are more trouble than it is worth it seems.

    I don't want to dismiss the discussion and the questions. Give me a few minutes to read and digest all of this and I will try to write a decent reply to all that has been said.

    Dave, your understanding of this track plan is amazing. Your knowledge of operations is so far beyond the way I have always thought about track planning and operations in general. Let me read and think about what you have said.

    At first glance, I don't see anything that is missing from the last illustration by Arrow.
     
  2. Hutch

    Hutch TrainBoard Member

    413
    0
    15
    I hope that I am making the logical assumption that South Town is at the grain elevator since North Town is down in the lower right...

    Dave,

    I have all the place names diagramed along with the E-W and N-S mains labeled on the drawing so I could follw your discussion.

    The Grand Tour scheme is pretty nice. I think that it is only practical to have one long train making the run at one time. There are plenty of other things to do in both yards. I think it would be awkward for me to run two long trains and work the yards. One is enough.

    As far as industry switching, Weston satisfies my needs here.

    The industry below the overpass at the Y near West Yard is great and will make for some incredible photographs if the scene is constructed properly. The entire Weston city design is great.

    The FLYOVER I am assuming is a 22.5 degree crossover. Is this correct?

    Arrow, you illustratio is great. I am going to have to commision you for the final drawing with the place names and yard names once this design is complete.
     
  3. ppuinn

    ppuinn Staff Member

    2,377
    1,444
    55
    Hutch, Arrow, Martyn, et al:
    I was real pleased with the Grand Tour idea. Eliminating the tracks represented by the dashed lines removes a track that is necessary for running it. To run the Grand Tour, we'll need to find a way of jamming the dashed lines back into the plan. I think it's possible to put them in the back 7.5 inches of the shelf, giving you 10 to 18 inches in front of the view blocks (which may be 1 to 3 inches thick).

    I, too, like the industry plan next to West Yard. If the turning Y stays on the lower side of the bubble, that's fine with me. I'd suggest keeping your options open for an industry or two (servicable only by North-South trains headed into N-S Staging) on the top side of the bubble--to be constructed at some future time when you declare a need for additional operations opportunities. Golfing and residential real estate are very attractive options for now.

    Let's eliminate the N-S reversing track near the closet. And let's only have the loco turning Y for the E-W Line, not a reversing loop in the bubble, too. Let's keep the E-W reversing loop around the auto plant for turning locos on the East Staging Track.

    Arrow: I thought a flyover was a bridge over another track, not a crossing at grade, but maybe I'm mistaken...
    Anyway, I don't think there's anywhere near enough length in those interchange tracks to achieve a such a flyover. I'm not too enamored of inserting an E-W Line crossing there, either. A crossing there would give the E-W Line easy access to Big Yard, but we want to create the illusion that B.Y. is a long distance from Easton, not just a 5 minute jaunt. The purpose of the interchange is to provide the E-W Line a means to move their cars from Easton all the way south to the distant Big Yard: a quick connection from Easton to B.Y. undermines the illusion that traffic has that long distance to travel. I say: delete the flyover/crossing from the plan, make the N-S Line take that interchange traffic all the GREAT distance to Big Yard. Deletion also reduces the Spaghetti Bowl Factor.

    I really like your idea of splitting the two mainlines by the doorway to two different levels so they can cross each other and the river on beautifully crafted bridges constructed by the Hutch Constuction Company. If the N-S Main climbs up at a 2% grade from the junction to N-S Staging, and the E-W Main descends at a 2% grade from the interchange track, then at a point about 4 feet from those starting points, there should be about 2 inches of clearance between railheads. If the crossing point was moved to 5 feet from those starting points, then there might be a larger variety of bridge style options to choose from (because of the greater distance between the railheads); however, access for photo ops will be greatly reduced. Your call, Hutch.

    Either way, I'd have the N-S track sort of curve away from the wall as it descends down a 2 % grade to meet up with the E-W Line as it comes uphill out of the East Staging Track. That East Staging track might be easy to hide since it will be so much lower than the N-S Main, but there might be a photographic argument supporting it remaining relatively visible in a landscaped valley below the N-S Main, perhaps paused waiting for the next block to clear.

    I've always thought of having the auto plant positioned in about the middle of the shelf that runs between the doorway and the right hand wall. Located there, it lets viewers see the train for a longer time before it disappears along the right hand wall rather than blocking our view. With its new elevation, it might be possible to see the upper portions of N-S locos and cars on the N-S Main, even when the trains are behind the auto plant. ("Being visible is Good." he said hauntingly.)

    I think the N-S Main south of Big Yard and the Big Yard South Lead track by the scrap yard got mis-positioned in one of the recent versions. The scrap yard should be served by a single track that comes off the Main, and the Main should probably have the straight route through the turnout, rather than the curved route.

    Arrow, your illustration skills and ideas are formidable!! I would be proud to have you do up a colorfully scenic-ed version of my layout.
    Dave H.
     
  4. The Arrow

    The Arrow TrainBoard Member

    77
    0
    14
    Hutch & Dave,

    Dave, you are correct about a flyover being an elevated crossing of one line over the other. Your point regarding making the run seem longer is very appropriate and the distances needed to gain elevations for a flyover did seem tight so eliminating it seems the best course.

    After reviewing my drawing and yor sketch I noticed the auto plant was to far to the right but I think Hutch could easily revise that.

    Hutch, I was envisioning an elevation change like Dave is describing for the N/S and E/W crossing of one another and a river near the door. This would provide good modeling photography opporutnities to you as well as a great opening scene for visitors just entering the room.

    I concur with Dave that an industry or two near the golf course for possible development now or in the future would add interest and scenic treatments. Maybe considering an industry that helps to provide a scenic treatment that will hide the tracks going through the closet wall near the front of the layout (i.e large warehouse or bottling plant).

    I've enjoyed our discussion and creative endevours gentlemen, I look forward to seeing your next design Hutch. Dave, maybe we should write a track plan book of our own - you design operationally interesting plans and I'll illustrate the plans.:wink2:

    I do enjoy illustrating track plans so if either one of you have a serious interest in allowing me to develop an illustration of your final track plan I'd be happy to.
     
  5. Hutch

    Hutch TrainBoard Member

    413
    0
    15
    You guys should definitely work on a book of plans. Together you guys are amazing and seem to work well together.

    Dave your understanding of operations and layout theory is incredible! Thanks for all the help.

    Arrow, your illustration skills are great. Thanks for all of your help as well.
     
  6. Joe Daddy

    Joe Daddy TrainBoard Member

    469
    6
    20
    Chris,
    We need a status report!

    How are you going to maintain the hidden and unaccessable staging tracks that are along the wall behind the backdrop divider?
     
  7. ppuinn

    ppuinn Staff Member

    2,377
    1,444
    55
    Joe Daddy:
    Excellent question!
    On my layout, I have several areas with staging or hidden mainlines behind view blocks.

    For example: Without the view block…
    [​IMG]

    With the view block…
    [​IMG]

    Without the view block…
    [​IMG]

    With the view block…
    [​IMG]

    The view blocks are made of ¼ inch thick foamboard, painted green, and covered with Woodlands Scenery groundfoam or lichen. I prefer the lichen, but other ways of modeling trees would work just as well.
    Dave H.
    Modeling the 1970s era Peoria and Pekin Union Railway in N-Scale
     
  8. ppuinn

    ppuinn Staff Member

    2,377
    1,444
    55
    Joe Daddy:
    Here are some more pics of how I've arranged view blocks and hidden tracks on my layout. I think variations can be used on Hutch's layout, but...for his blood pressure and sanity...I hope he makes ANY view blocks easily removable.

    The trees at the right (Edit: OOPS, that should be "left"!!) are mounted on toothpicks stuck into the homasote and into 2” Styrofoam that has been shaped into hills glued to the homasote. There is easy access to the hidden track in the 4 to 6 inches between the trees and the backdrop. A mainline descends behind the trees from about 2” at the left side of the picture, to 0 inches at the distant end of the aisle, about 18 feet away. There is a 7-track yard hidden behind a 3” tall view block made of lichen trees mounted on 2” Styrofoam at the end of the aisle. The upper deck is at 65 inches, but with the step-ups in front of the benchwork, the shelving has a functional height of about 53 inches. Although I had originally intended to put a fully detailed (yet easily removable) 1” thick Styrofoam lid over the staging tracks, I’ve only actually made a partial lid of foamboard and styrofoam with lichen trees and an interstate highway that I’ve used as a temporary mock-up; but I’ve never felt the need to finish this particular project with anything more detailed.
    [​IMG]

    The north half of the Corn Products Yard on the left is hidden behind view blocks, while the C&IM mainline is fully visible through this portion of the layout. The benchwork is at 65 inches, and unless you are operating the Corn Products job (i.e., if you are working the CIM Roadswitcher), it is usually worked by an operator standing on the floor. If you are working the Corn Products Job, you may step up on a nearby step-stool to view behind the view block or wait until the trains appear from behind the trees a little farther down the shelf. There is a (about) 4 foot diameter helix hidden at the end of the shelving. It is possible to stand on the step-stool and see into the helix. ([​IMG]


    There is a hidden main that runs behind the trees and photo(s) at the right. The entire view block (trees and photos) lifts out easily as a single, slightly curved foamboard unit that is about 2 inches high and 20 inches long. The helix mentioned in the paragraph above is in front of the blue backdrop and behind the houses and trees on the left. The area has been changed a little since this pic was taken last summer. [​IMG]

    There is a hidden track running behind the store fronts. Store fronts are currently only in mock up stage (cardboard base, foamboard flats with building fronts glued to the flats), but will eventually be models that are painted and detailed with window dressings and roof detailing and mounted on plastic bases carefully cut to fit next to the flex track ties to ensure view blocks are easily removable but never shift to a position that interferes with the trains’ passage behind (and in front of) the 3 view blocks along a 4 foot section of the layout.
    [​IMG]

    On Hutch's layout several industries (the grain elevator, auto plant, and pulp/paper plant) will function as view blocks. In the illustrations Arrow has offered, the grain elevator has usually been depicted as a flat structure, but, with careful design, the structure could be up to 8 inches deep and stand over the tracks. As your question appropriately cautions everyone, it will be absolutely necessary to design the structure for easy removal for routine maintenance or repairs to the staging and mainline tracks behind the elevator. I'll try to post of pic of my Central Illinois Grain Elevator which has a half dozen or so round silos and a square building glued together as a single unit for easy positioning onto and removal from the layout. For the size of the elevator on Hutch's layout, it may even be necessary to have 3 or 4 units rather than one.

    At either end of the elevator, view blocks of trees and shorter buildings could continue hiding the tracks as needed. As I learned the hard way on previous layouts...Making view blocks easily removable reduces hair pulling, teeth grinding, and brain-gasket popping .
    Dave H.
    Modeling the 1970s era Peoria and Pekin Union Railway in N-Scale
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 31, 2006
  9. Joe Daddy

    Joe Daddy TrainBoard Member

    469
    6
    20
    It was obvious, wasn't it?

    Dave,

    You are a sneaky snake!:embarassed:

    A view block has to go to the top of the backdrop, right, naaaa. Sometimes it is the easy things that are hard to understand. As usual, your pictures tell it all. Now, if I could find the space to build your bowl helix in HO, life would be good!

    Thanks for the lesson!

    Now, I wonder if Chris has his new layout operating yet. We all know how fast he can get results when he gets his chop saw plugged in!

    Best to all!
     
  10. Hutch

    Hutch TrainBoard Member

    413
    0
    15
    Not yet. I am waiting to finish this layout design with Dave and Arrow. They are both great to work with and add so much to going it alone. I am so lucky to have their help on this.

    But, when we finish the design....watch out. The saw is ready to go!
     
  11. ppuinn

    ppuinn Staff Member

    2,377
    1,444
    55
    Info on Spiral Helixes in HO

    Joe Daddy:
    I looked at your PDRR version 2 Album. The layout plan is very clear and the pics show very nice looking benchwork! You've done a lot of work in just a few months.

    Spiral Helixes take more space than cylindrical helixes, and as a result--in home-sized layouts, anyhow--they tend to be more compatible with N-scale applications than HO. It looks like you have about 6 feet between the window/door(?) and the 2 foot access into the layout, and that you've kept your minimum radius to 28 or 30 inches. With a minimum radius of 30 inches, the footprint for a 1.5-loop spiral helix in HO would be 73.5 inches and the total rise at 2% would be a little less than 6 inches. Probably little or no advantage over your present arrangement.

    A 2.5-loop helix starting at a 27 inch minimum radius would fit in the same footprint and would yield a rise of a little less than 9 inches. This might be better than what you've got already, but you'd need to add just as big a helix on the OTHER side of the layout to keep access to staging when going in either direction...definitely a deal-busting problem.

    A 3.5-loop spiral helix for HO with a minimum radius of 24 inches would yield a rise of about 12 inches in that 73.5 inch footprint. For those of you with more space in your homes or working on club and museum-sized layouts, each additional loop would add 6 inches to the diameter of the footprint and approximately 3 to 4 more inches to the total rise.

    For comparison (and general info for N-scalers), three of my N-scale spiral helixes range from a little under 4' diameter to a little more than 4.5'; and the 4th is a 4'x5.5' oval. Minimum radii are around 16" in the helixes (19" on the rest of the layout), and the rise between decks varies from 13 to 17 inches. In N-scale, the subroadbed of each loop can be narrower (1.5" instead of 3") and the minimum radii at the bottom of the "bowl" as tight as 16" or 17", so more loops can be fit into any given size footprint than in HO scale...and "more loops" means "longer runs" which yields a larger rise for N than for HO within any given footprint. (NOTE: Every scale has its advantages and disadvantages...more track in less space is one of N-scale's advantages. But before we N-Scalers start strutting and thumping our chests too much, we should consider the wider variety of items available in HO or the advantages of working with larger parts.)
    Dave H.
    Modeling the 1970s era Peoria and Pekin Union Railway in N-Scale
     
  12. ppuinn

    ppuinn Staff Member

    2,377
    1,444
    55
    Hutch, Arrow:
    Any news on the layout since Arrow and I had a chance to meet face to face in Ohio last weekend?
    Dave H.
     
  13. Joe Daddy

    Joe Daddy TrainBoard Member

    469
    6
    20
    thanks Dave H!

    Dave,
    Thank you for both the time and the nice words!

    I agree with your extensive analysis and if you recall, we had a thread a few weeks back about Helix' which I found to be the most informative set of words on the subject anywhere on the net, due in large measure to your singular contributions.

    I believe your bowl helix as I call it solves the technical problems inherent with helix in general. If I had the room, I'd have one!

    Thanks again Dave for your excellent work.
     
  14. Hutch

    Hutch TrainBoard Member

    413
    0
    15
    Dave,

    We have completed the design now; Arrow did some incredible work after he met with you for the final changes to the track design. Thank you so much for your help in all of this.

    I was thinking of maybe having the design and construction phases published in NSR. What are your thoughts? Full credit to you and Arrow of course.

    Arrow's work looks really really nice, and your help with the operational functionality makes it an incredible layout.
     
  15. ppuinn

    ppuinn Staff Member

    2,377
    1,444
    55
    You're certainly welcome...I've been having a blast working with you and Arrow on this.

    Uh-Oh!! Does that mean I'll also have to quit procrastinating on my spiral helix construction article for NSR, too?
    Dave H.
     
  16. Hutch

    Hutch TrainBoard Member

    413
    0
    15
    :thumbs_up::shade::thumbs_up: Yes, I am waiting to read it!

    Arrow and I plan to get together on our next trip to Ohio to see my wife's sister, husband, and kids. Maybe you can join us. Maybe we can all get together here when the layout is functional.

    I am not sure NSR would publish my articles, but I thought I would give it a try and see what it takes to get published.
     
  17. Jeff B

    Jeff B TrainBoard Member

    420
    0
    22
    Hutch, I am sure NSR will publish your article. Kirk is a super guy and with work like yours I see no problem. My first article was published in the 5th anniversary issue.
    Jeff
     
  18. JASON

    JASON TrainBoard Supporter

    1,876
    8
    38
    How is it going?

    Hutch I have to know,how has your plans progressed?
     

Share This Page