Track planning blues

[sailormatlac]

I'm probably not alone to have this problem... It's been YEARS, about 2 decades since I'd like to really built something neat at home. Many failed attempts are documented here on Big Blue! ;-)

When I design for others (read here the club layout), I habitually have no problem getting inspiration. But when it's time to fill this empty shelf behind my desk, I'm at loss... Maybe I put the bar to high, maybe I try too much to get the perfect gem in so little place (about 2' x 9', which is relatively spacious for a small ISL, with a 3 feet long provision for switching lead).

Most of the time, I'd like to do something about the QRL&PCo, build a small layout that would be the epitome of this railway. Something that would catch the essence of the locale. Over the last 4 years, I filled up many folders with countless theoritical layouts. But none, so far, satisfied me. The problem with QRL&PCo is that most of the time, it's a single track mainline running in flat open fields. All buildings were on the same side of the track and spaced far away from each other, except a few notable exceptions (Giffard and Villeneuve, modelled on the club layout). A lot of nice industries existed, but still, you could hardly get them together and still feel that sense of the place.

Château-Richer (my hometown) had many saw mills, a gravel pit, a koalin clay mine and a distillery. All of them, very far from each other. The sole surviving industry was a saw mill that is still active. It's where I first saw railway operation as a kid. I've got found memories of the place and would love, one day, to reproduce it. However, I feel like it mainly a diorama and that I would quickly lose interest in it. The following layout have not suffered any compression. Everything is at scale. That could be interesting in some way.



Ste. Anne had a lot of trackage, a quite large loco shop and a few industries (oil dealer, grain elevator, team track, bulk material for buildings), it could be my best bet, but also, it would feel crowded in no time. The layout track plan you see is the real deal, no selective compression, all lenght and building size is correct.



Beaupré was located between a highway overpass and a large river (opportunity for a bridge). A large distillery, an interchange with the electric dam siding, a team track and a freightshed. With all turnouts facing the same direction, I'll stay that could be the best bet. The river and overpass makes excellent scenic dividers that could frame the scene. Others place on the line didn't have that much thing that could work like that.



Some times, I just think I should look somewhere else. Then I wander on the border of Quebec and New England were lots of railway interchanged between our two countries (and still do). Maine Central, Rutland, Boston & Maine, Central Vermont, Delaware & Hudson, name it. And to boot, these are among my favorite US railways. There, you can find small villages with sizeable industries, rails curling around hills, small rivers, dam... A lot of interesting feature to model. And the best part, I could use my more "modern" rolling stock from the 60s and 70s, and God knows I've got a lot of cars from New England's railways. BTW, Cookshire was a interchange place with Maine Central.

If you're curious, just take a look here, it may inspire a lot of you.

http://services.banq.qc.ca/sdx/cep/docum...542_01.tif

I've tried to model a lots of these villages in the past. Recently (today), I was checking Paul Delamere Google Earth Map Project of canadian railways and tumbled on Cookshire, a small city were I once worked (rebuilding a supermarket). Almost a dream come true. The insurance map shows a single stall roundhouse (well, a turntable with a shed!), a nice little station, a large sawmill and a rail-served gravel pit (I don't kown why, but I love sand and gravel pits, I played in them so much as a kid). The thing is located on CPR Atlantic & Northwestern and Hereford Railway.

Well, here I am, at loss, facing lots of opportunities. And I think about what I've learned at the club in the late months: it's when I give myself some room to interpretation and lower my expectation that I end up the most satisfied...

For an ISL, I'm always asking myself what would be the most enjoyable: a busy little city with interchange and insdustries or a simple industry located on a main line or an industrial spur (like my Industrial Avenue layout from last year).

If you're at loss like me, feel free to comment, feel free to criticized the small ISL posted here! Who knows, something could happen!

Matt, asking himself if he will really complete something someday!!! ;-) I'd feel really happy if I could settle on a plan.

*** While checking up maps, I found out it was MEC line connecting with Dudswell Junction and Lime Ridge on Quebec Division. I once planned a layout around this interchange with Quebec Central. There was an interesting quarry operation there. Old folks call this MEC line "raspberry line" (la ligne des framboises) because it crossed wilderness and fields of rasphberries. If my memory is right, this line connected passenger trains from Quebec City to Portland and Boston in early 1900s (my memory could prove me wrong though). I remember reading an old Quebec Central advertising for tourists. They started in Boston, then skiied in the White Mountains then ended their trip in Quebec City.

[Tyson Rayles]

Have you considered a smaller scale?

[Sumpter250]

Matt,
Are all those buildings laid out in a straight line...in reality ?, or are you forcing them to occupy that narrow shelf?


Try physically placing your industries in a "natural arrangement", and running tracks to them. The "grid" is a good start for laying out city streets, but the rest of the world seems to be ruled by the "lay of the land". You might have to move things a little, or even model partial buildings, to "loosen a curve radius", but try not to move things too far, or you're right back to the "grid". I have, on occasion, gone to the point of creating the real estate first, then modifying each location to fit the structure that will be there. Kind of like, "the top of that hill looks like a great place to put that barn".

Just a thought...... grids are not "artistic", nature can be.

Yeah, I know, This from someone who is forced to have a two track main line running a fixed number of inches in from the face of the module, and doesn't have any switching going on within the modeled area.

[jwb]

This problem reminds me a little of a problem Bob Brown had in early issues of The Gazette: he was trying to model Phillips, ME on the Sandy River c 1900. He was either modeling everything exactly to scale or carefully compressed: at the end, he was unhappy with things and realized it was because (in my interpretation of his remarks) he was building a museum exhibit, not a model railroad. That helped me to break away from the museum exhibit mentality myself. I wound up with an idea closer to Jim Vail, a Gazette columnist, whose layout is a series of scenes, some prototypical (like the West Side Lumber Tuolomne mill), others fanciful (Cumbres Pass set somewhere in the California Coast Range).

If I were planning an ISL or shelf-style layout, I'd be thinking in terms of doing something like what Reinhard has done here, scenery and structures that can easily be changed to suit changing preferences. I used to be heavily Northeastern US- New England until I moved to California; now in my old age I'm appreciating the Frisco and the L&N. . . the "experts" say you have to pick a prototype. Phooey!

[sailormatlac]

This problem reminds me a little of a problem Bob Brown had in early issues of The Gazette: he was trying to model Phillips, ME on the Sandy River c 1900. He was either modeling everything exactly to scale or carefully compressed: at the end, he was unhappy with things and realized it was because (in my interpretation of his remarks) he was building a museum exhibit, not a model railroad. That helped me to break away from the museum exhibit mentality myself. I wound up with an idea closer to Jim Vail, a Gazette columnist, whose layout is a series of scenes, some prototypical (like the West Side Lumber Tuolomne mill), others fanciful (Cumbres Pass set somewhere in the California Coast Range).

If I were planning an ISL or shelf-style layout, I'd be thinking in terms of doing something like what Reinhard has done here, scenery and structures that can easily be changed to suit changing preferences. I used to be heavily Northeastern US- New England until I moved to California; now in my old age I'm appreciating the Frisco and the L&N. . . the "experts" say you have to pick a prototype. Phooey!

Yep, that museum exhibit feeling. Exactly. Picking up a propotype isn't a bad thing, it's there to be used as some guide, some inspiration. How far you want to take it is a matter of personnal taste. But we are all the same, limiting ourselves to one road or era is kind of foolish. In an impossible dream, I would probably model the entire North American spanning almost 2 century of railroad history! ;-)

BTW, I gave some thoughts about Cookshire Junction during lunch. That place is a forgotten gem in term of railroading. The junction gives plenty of options for train movements, car type, industries and roadnames. Just as you pointed out, Reinhard thought us to get versatile with a layout and still achieving high level of enjoyment and "prototypicalness"!!!

I'll probably post something about Cookshire turned into an ISL where two railroads interchange. A way to keep variety in operation.

Matt

[sailormatlac]

Matt,
Are all those buildings laid out in a straight line...in reality ?, or are you forcing them to occupy that narrow shelf?


Try physically placing your industries in a "natural arrangement", and running tracks to them. The "grid" is a good start for laying out city streets, but the rest of the world seems to be ruled by the "lay of the land". You might have to move things a little, or even model partial buildings, to "loosen a curve radius", but try not to move things too far, or you're right back to the "grid". I have, on occasion, gone to the point of creating the real estate first, then modifying each location to fit the structure that will be there. Kind of like, "the top of that hill looks like a great place to put that barn".

Just a thought...... grids are not "artistic", nature can be.

Yeah, I know, This from someone who is forced to have a two track main line running a fixed number of inches in from the face of the module, and doesn't have any switching going on within the modeled area.

That's the very nature of this flat land area!! BTW, things were laid of to see, for fun, the space they would need. I'm pretty sure, as you said, it would be boring as hell. The Cookshire area is interesting because track flows around the landscape and structure. Visually easier to model and get a realistic effect.

Well, I'll see what I can do with this old hollow core door waiting in the basement.

Matt

[jwb]

One intriguing layout design idea is by Chris Gilbert, who sometimes posts here. A video of his layout Haston (which he has since sold) is at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7Sul2nX2zQ">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7Sul2nX2zQ</a><!-- m --> If you google him and the layout name, you can find various links with track plans. What I like is the crossing and the off-layout lead in to a fiddle area, which could certainly be a New England location, since there were lots of crossings and interchanges.

[sailormatlac]

One intriguing layout design idea is by Chris Gilbert, who sometimes posts here. A video of his layout Haston (which he has since sold) is at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7Sul2nX2zQ">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7Sul2nX2zQ</a><!-- m --> If you google him and the layout name, you can find various links with track plans. What I like is the crossing and the off-layout lead in to a fiddle area, which could certainly be a New England location, since there were lots of crossings and interchanges.

Nice you link this one. It always was one of my favorite small layout.

Matt

[sailormatlac]

Well, have the blues left me for a while. Talking with you guys, checking your layout and reading some classics gave me some ideas over the day. After a quick set on sketches drawn in the bus (the teenager beside me was completely puzzled has doodles made their way on white sheets!), I finally got hold of a concept, maybe a track plan, using Cookshire as an interesting point of departure.

I came upon Steven Peck magnificient Lehigh layout few hours ago. Not my intention to pretend doing the same, but I still found it had character, mainly because the rural scenery was breathing and not choking. Often, a simple track plan with a well done ground cove beats anything else.

Why Cookshire? Because MEC meets CPR International of Maine. Because a few miles from there, you cross the border and you can interchange with many canadian and american roads (which I own a lot of cars). Because, I know the place and always had a keen interest in this underrated MEC international division into Quebec heart.

Why it's a good starting point for an ISL? Because it got interesting industries that carry a good deal of freight traffic. In fact, the town was born after the railroad. Out of 4 quite large industries that could be found in the late 1890s, 3 remain (only the oil dealer shut down). And you get an interesting interchange point with shared freight shed and passenger station sandwiched between two mainline (because MEC pull out in late 1928s, there was 2 water tanks side to side).

Another good point is information. I was able to find a lot of detailled info about the place, its industries and the railway history is well documented.

The place as it stand today: http://binged.it/TUiz94

According to a 1928 insurance maps, most industries were already quite big at the time. They didn't change a lot between the 40s and 80s, which means someone can easily backdate or fastforward the layout. Nowadays, it's MMA, I think only the feed mill (ex-flour mill) is still rail-served.



And now, the proposed track plan design according to doors salvaged from a previous layout and shelf brackets still in place in my office room.



At this point, there may be to much tracks. The engine house is maybe just a gimmick. I'm not sure also if 2 two-ended siding at the station are too much for my own sake. It follows the original track plan, but I think things could be slimmed down a little bit... and the runaround extended much further.

Matt

[sailormatlac]

@Tyson:

N scale.. I once thought about it, but when I look at it, it's just a toy to me. The size is to diminutive to make me believe I'm looking at a "steel" model, large and mighty. I have a N-scale hopper (ordered by mistake) and checked it this evening... I felt nothing. I know people like you, really makes something great of out smaller scales, but I prefer to be a spectator. BTW, I lose quickly interested in long train (I love them in real life), I prefer a 10-car max freight train than a long, long, long serpent! BTW, I love kitbashing and detailling, I would suffer in "N"ormal scale! I pledged myself to HO long ago and love what it gives me in term of details and operation. Doing QRL&PCo rolling stock in N would be not good for my sanity... it isn't in HO scale!

Funny thing I never thought about my basement before. I'm actually reorganizing it completely and in the process of installing new shelves. This could be a good occasion to build an ISL. Remember that Hedley-Junction started 7 years ago in that same basement...

I checked it up tonight and found out there was a L shaped wall in a part that could be used to install an ISL. The basement size is 24' x 32' feet free of walls and columns, except a masonny bulge on one side (2' x 4') that support the old fireplace.

Pratically, I can used the place between the chimney and a part of the long wall. That means about 10' x roughly 28' (4' are lost to the electric entry). To be honest, I don't want to fill up all the place with a layout with no end.

I also found out I had more doors remaining that I thought:

2 x (18" x 78")
1 x (24" x 73")
1 x (18" x 31")

Which means an overall length of 260", about 21'-8", which is rather large.

The small leg of the L-shape could be used for staging purpose with a desk for modelling purpose under it. An interesting and practical setup.

I also continued to study Cookshire... The more I learn about this place, the more I think it had tremendous operation potential (4 differents destinations, two interchanging railways and international traffic between Canadian & American roads). The Cookshire Mill Company (sawmill), later J.R. Westgate, had extensive operation in New England too. I read they employed over a thousand people in early 1900s just in Cookshire Township area. It suffered a tornado in 1915! The Standard Chemical exploded too circa 1920. No casualty but it wasn't rebuilt. It is now a plastic industry that replace it (not bad for a modern setting).

The most interesting track plan is circa 1928, before MEC pull out the area. I don't have any problem with using this old track plan on a more modern era since the industries were rail-served until recently (MMA still do some switching at the flour mill).

Here's the track plan:



TAKE A LOOK: The flour mill (bottom, center picture) has a small narrow gage railroad entering the building! You can see a very small mining style hopper... Need to get more info about that.

CPR had the high hand on most operation.

1) Freight & Passenger stations are shared by both railways, each have its own water tank.

2) CPR had a small "yard" with an extensive team track (as depicted with the horse bogey and the coal hopper). The flour mill (still) has a dedicated siding. There's evidence it also served as a second team track near the street.

3) A long CPR siding served the sawmill and chemical industry (they made wood alcohol and other chemical employed by paint industry back then). This sind led to a small interchange with MEC. It's not clear if MEC switched both pindustries but the facing side of turnouts would have made it easy. One thing is sure, I read that many lumber camp were directly rail-served by MEC and that logs were hauled to the sawmill. Operation wise, MEC could feed the industries and CPR could handle the exported goods.

4) MEC had a small but interesting engine facility including a 1-stall engine house and a turntable.

5) Insurance maps and others maps aren't clear about the siding leading to the foundry and oil dealer. It certainly was served by CPR by 1928, however, it was located in MEC right of way as property maps and the foundry picture show us. Was it a remnant of MEC abandonned main line? Who knows?!!

I also drawn the place in real size... It's quite large, but with wise choices, one can do something interesting without too much issue.



Then i tried to put it on a medium-sized foot print. I'm not satisfied with the interchange, but I like how buildings work together to create an interesting scene...



The major problem is the width. From experience on the club layout, over 24", I can't reach anything for operation purpose. For this reason, I sacrified the MEC interchange and lumber yard (Standard Chemical Co. offers much more potential in term of train spots and car variety).

There's 3 options:

1) Use the fiddle yard as the interchange. No need to model it and it's a natural place for building trains.

2) Make the layout longer and add the interchange as it was with the engine facility. That means the upper CPR siding to the sawmill goes beyong the chemical plant. I find it far-fetched and illogical. That track would be a pain to operate... But I still like the original plan!

3) Do the interchange were it was, but connect it with CPR mainline. That could be a nice excuse to use the mainline, which other wise would be a sad static display-only track at best. Then, cars could be shuffled to the mock up CPR sawmill siding. This would be treated as a hidden industry. That point needs to be clarified.

Phasing:

I think the layout must be understood as two parts. The station and industries are one. Interchange and engine facility is another one. The station "module" is vital, the enginehouse "module" is accessory and could be done as a future expansion. In fact, I think of it as a catchy gimmick that add nothing except one of those numerous turntable you never use, that over detailled campy engine house and a lots of unrequited expensive turnouts that looks like a spagetthi to me.

Long before adding an interchange module, I think adding staging cassettes standing for CPR Montreal and MEC mainline to New England would be highly useful to create the train flow making Cookshire a real junction. That would add operation potential and variety with only a few spare tracks on a plywood. It's also a means to not waste time on part of the layout that would tell us about the place... Honestly, I much more interested in the main street flanked by to station and 2 large industries than a meaningless generic one-track interchange siding. My two cents.

Here's what I thinking about right now:



I could use the extra length to model this part of the scene nearer to the real prototype, making it less crowded and giving more room for trains to crawl on lengthy siding (a thing I like because it compensate for a continuous running loop). Also it would enable me to use longer turnouts.

BTW, CPR mainline could be occassionnaly a place to stage a mixed freight waiting at the station... Hum... interesting.

Feel free to bash, criticize and tell me I write too much and do nothing!

Matt

[sailormatlac]

To those who may be interested in Maine Central "Raspberry Branch", Canadian Rail #281 is a interesting insight to this little gem in the woods. It's a PDF scan.

http://www.exporail.org/can_rail/Canadia...1_1975.pdf

Lots of interesting informations about B&M, GT, Coos Railway and actual pictures of Cookshire. Well. looks like I found a great prototype...

Matt

[Sumpter250]

N scale.. I once thought about it, but when I look at it, it's just a toy to me. The size is too diminutive to make me believe I'm looking at a "steel" model, large and mighty. Matt

Matt,
USS Carronade IFS-1, isn't the mightiest "steel" ship in the world, but if this module were HO scale , it would be 4' X 8' !instead of 2' X 4' :o
- - - - - - and the ship alone would measure over four feet long.
   
I still have a lot of work to do on the ship, and the drydock area. Where this is only one Ntrak module, the HO modules seem to always demand preference, but, I just put five more trees on the new modules set, and there's only room left for a few small shrubs, so maybe I'll get around to finishing "Carronade", in N scale.
The drydock, SHS&D's smallest, is 294' long, 74' wide, and 30' deep. just the drydock would occupy 40-3/4" X 10-1/4" X 4" if built in HO.
The Destroyer I served in would be 52" in HO, 28-1/4" in N, and would not fit in this drydock !

"It's just a toy"? - - - - not if the level of detail is there to make it believable.

The point? I guess the "point" is more a question of- - -Just how much space do you have for a layout?

P.S. I've seen some impressive z scale scenes too !!

[sailormatlac]

Matt,
USS Carronade IFS-1, isn't the mightiest "steel" ship in the world, but if this module were HO scale , it would be 4' X 8' !instead of 2' X 4' :o
- - - - - - and the ship alone would measure over four feet long.
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
I still have a lot of work to do on the ship, and the drydock area. Where this is only one Ntrak module, the HO modules seem to always demand preference, but, I just put five more trees on the new modules set, and there's only room left for a few small shrubs, so maybe I'll get around to finishing "Carronade", in N scale.
The drydock, SHS&D's smallest, is 294' long, 74' wide, and 30' deep. just the drydock would occupy 40-3/4" X 10-1/4" X 4" if built in HO.
The Destroyer I served in would be 52" in HO, 28-1/4" in N, and would not fit in this drydock !

"It's just a toy"? - - - - not if the level of detail is there to make it believable.

The point? I guess the "point" is more a question of- - -Just how much space do you have for a layout?

P.S. I've seen some impressive z scale scenes too !!

Eheh! I knew I shouldn't give my opinion about smaller scales! Welcome in the horrendous world of perceptions!

I won't deny that magnificent warship in N scale isn't mighty. In fact, it is and the scene is impressive. However, it is fairly larger that a regular locomotive or car. In that respect, the scale is pertinent for the modelled subject. I would had that the tiny N scale train beside it just helps to emphasize the ship size.

I've seen many of those N scale layout you could think they were made in HO. They make great pictures. But in real life, I'm not impressed by a rolling stock item that is slightly longer than my eyeball.

One of my favorite thing in model railroading, is to place my eyes at ground level and watch the train runs. It gives me the sensation to railfan the real thing. That is hardly achievable with smaller scales. Otherwise, N scale will always be the best choice to model large railway structure, scenes and other big things. If I were ever modelling a large trestle, I'd choose N scale or Z scale because it would have enough place to blend itself in a large scenery credible enough to support it. A large trestle in HO is to often a craftman winning-prize masterpiece stuck between two tunnel portals on a 4 feet long strectch.

I think choosing a scale is deeply related to what you want to emphasize. BTW, modules in N scale make a lot of sense to me. A group of people could realistically try to build an entire branchline that way. In term of club operation, that would be fascinating... truly.

On second thought, your suggestion to model Ste. Anne's area in N scale is an avised choice. Only a small scale could show the amazing setting of a long stretch of rails nested between an oversized basilica, a mighty river and a cliff. In fact, that would make an amazing working diorama for a museum (I've once thought about it).

Space is like money, the more you get doesn't equal in fullfilment. I'd rather be first in a small village than second in Roma!

Matt