72x18 inch ISL with wings

[Mike Kieran]

I just thought that I would put out one of my doodlings. One of the critiques about my ISL designs is that they are too linear. I added a 9 inch straight section onto the drill track to make coupling and uncoupling easier. The Track is Atlas Code 83 track with 18 inch radius turnouts and curves.

I have an overpass on the right side of the layout with stores to act as a view block for the drill track. The drill track is enough for a locomotive and 2 cars. The track plan and its industries are designed to allow for a mix of different freight car types. I showed a carrying handle which can also be used to fold the wings to make a 36 inch by 18 inch portable layout. The structure by the building supply is an IHC Ready Mix Plant.



I would assign the tracks from top to bottom as:

Top Track - Manufacturing Company.

Second Track - Food Processor, Additional Loading for the Manufacturing Company, Loco Storage, Freight Car Overflow

Third Track - Interchange Track

Fourth Track - Salvage Company, Building Supply



I figure that the traffic flow with 3 cars interchanged daily would be as follows:



Customer Weekly loadings In/Out

Manufacturing Company 5/2

Food Processor 3/0

Building Supply 3/0

Salvage Company 0/2

Total: 11/4

[jonte]

I like it, Mike.

Plenty of bang for your buck in terms of operation. When you say 'wings' do you mean the off stage section after the bridge, in effect forming an 'L' shape?

Obviously to save length you've resorted to some tight radius switches. In UK terms, I think they're somewhere between Peco Setrack and Peco Streamline small radius switches. That's the only aspect of this plan that concerns me: the radii are too tight. Frankly, I'd try and avoid using anything tighter than Peco Streamline medium radius, which I think I'm right in saying equates to a 36" radius, to avoid potential problems with rolling stock negotiating tight 's' type curves, albeit that diesels and most American rolling stock have bogie sets. However, even if medium radius, switches were used as described, it might still work within the parameters available, given that Peco medium radii are approx. 8" in length. At a guess, I'd say you'd probably get away with accommodating the sidings within the 18" available too.

Still like it, though.

jonte

[Mike Kieran]

Hey Jonte.

Thank you for your kind words. The 18 inch radius curves work with freight cars 60 feet or shorter (which there are a plethora of) and most 4 axle diesels (especially the 45 tonner). If someone wants to model transition era, even better. You're right in that it can't handle a lot of the longer cars and locomotives. Unfortunately, we have to make trade offs when dealing with small layouts. What I mean by wings are actually drop leafs as shown on the plan at the 18 inch and 54 inch marks. If you fold these "wings" down, you have an 18 inch by 36 inch portable layout. I was helping out Jon Gwinnett on the RM Web with designing a small layout that was easy to transport.

[Brakie]

Mike,Nice design.I like it. Looks like it would make a fine home for my GE70 Tonner.

If I was to build that layout I would probably model the late 50s/early 60s instead of modern and eliminate the scrap yard..

Manufacturers Terminal or Riverside Ry would sound about right for a very short switching railroad in the late 50s/early 60s.

[jonte]

Hi again, Mike.

The more I look at this little plan, the more I like it. Nay; I love it!

In fact - as an ingrained: 'the smaller, the better' typical UK modeller - all that's stopping me running out for a few lengths of 2" x 1" and some thin ply to build this little beauty, is my mission to remain focused on my current build, and also that I'm away in a few days time to sunnier climes. Darned that notion commitment and holidays that get in the way of our great hobby!

I'll let you into a secret, Mike: I went to bed last night with this plan going round in my head. Here's how I reckon I'd do it: the trackbed and industries would be raised off the main base supported by 'L' girder type supports in true model rail roading style so that (part) of the nine inch straight section containing the magnet would accommodate the focus of the scene, namely something like this <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.fultonsun.com/news/2010/dec/07/owner-fulton-railroad-spur-wants-restore-freight-s/">http://www.fultonsun.com/news/2010/dec/ ... freight-s/</a><!-- m --> a short trestle style bridge. And like the railroad it supports, the theme of the layout would be an independent short line ("oh not another!", I can almost hear some of you scream) set somewhere like Fulton in the mid nineties, with it's single ageing, dull grey, pock marked loco, something like this <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://akronrrclub.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/fc_315c.jpg">https://akronrrclub.files.wordpress.com ... c_315c.jpg</a><!-- m --> or this GP 38 <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://donsdepot.donrossgroup.net/dr0902/sbd6242.jpg">http://donsdepot.donrossgroup.net/dr0902/sbd6242.jpg</a><!-- m --> .

Incidentally, I even checked out Hatton's website (only a half hour's drive or so from me) to discover that the Peco Code 83 range (which I'm dying to try out for testing of smooth running qualities) has added a #5 switch to its range since I last looked ( listed as a 660mm radius, which equates to just under 26" inches in old money so on the better side of the ball park 24" figure I mooted in my post of last night), so for a spend of a tad over 50 quid - currently approx. 85 US Dollars - I could be up & running in next to no time (I even have the Peco point motors to go with them and the SPDT switches to operate them - I'd opt for electrofrog - to say nothing of the baseboard aligners already in my possession - I think almost ALL UK modellers have a supply of these - required to accommodate the clever 'wing' feature of this design).

Actually, I think I might even have a couple of baseboards 18" in width knocking round somewhere, and with said aligners already fitted; just a case of hacking off a bit here and perhaps a bit there......you know how it goes

As you can see, Mike, not that I've given any of this much thought, but again, 'IF' I were to have a bash at this, I'd make the side marked 'handle' the viewing side so that the head shunt - apologies here, I did know the American term for this, but I've gone and clean forgotten it in my excitement! - the end bit where the loco goes 'off-scene' after the bridge, turned towards the viewer and out of sight behind the vegetation (I think I'm right in saying that looking at it from the opposite side, the viewer would see that the track didn't actually go anywhere, rather spoiling the illusion. That's my take, anyway.

Btw, I should have seen this before posting my last, but I'd been viewing it via my iPad and it wasn't until having the benefit of the larger screen of my lptop that this became apparent, so please forgive the drivel about the 'L' shape line going off scene I made mention of.

No. I have to remain focused. The notion of two layouts on the go is ridiculous; I mean, who on earth does that

However, curiosity killed the cat. At least I'd like to determine whether or not the whole thing would fit using Peco#5s. I wonder if Peco's website allows you to print off templates of the Code 83 range like it does with Streamline?

No. I must resist

Now, see what you've started, Mike?

jonte

[jonte]

.........I wonder if Peco's website allows you to print off templates of the Code 83 range like it does with Streamline?

jonte

Oh my giddy aunt: they do <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peco-uk.com/imageselector/Files/Track-templates/c83/SL-8351%20&%20SL-8352.pdf">http://www.peco-uk.com/imageselector/Fi ... L-8352.pdf</a><!-- m -->

Lord help me!

jonte

[Mike Kieran]

Thank you for your flattering words Jonte.

I'll let you into a secret, Mike: I went to bed last night with this plan going round in my head. Here's how I reckon I'd do it: the trackbed and industries would be raised off the main base supported by 'L' girder type supports in true model rail roading style so that (part) of the nine inch straight section containing the magnet would accommodate the focus of the scene, namely something like this <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.fultonsun.com/news/2010/dec/">http://www.fultonsun.com/news/2010/dec/</a><!-- m --> ... freight-s/ a short trestle style bridge. And like the railroad it supports, the theme of the layout would be an independent short line ("oh not another!", I can almost hear some of you scream) set somewhere like Fulton in the mid nineties, with it's single ageing, dull grey, pock marked loco, something like this <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://akronrrclub.files.wordpress.com">https://akronrrclub.files.wordpress.com</a><!-- m --> ... c_315c.jpg or this GP 38 <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://donsdepot.donrossgroup.net/dr0902/sbd6242.jpg">http://donsdepot.donrossgroup.net/dr0902/sbd6242.jpg</a><!-- m --> . As you can see, Mike, not that I've given any of this much thought, but again, 'IF' I were to have a bash at this, I'd make the side marked 'handle' the viewing side so that the head shunt - apologies here, I did know the American term for this, but I've gone and clean forgotten it in my excitement! - the end bit where the loco goes 'off-scene' after the bridge, turned towards the viewer and out of sight behind the vegetation (I think I'm right in saying that looking at it from the opposite side, the viewer would see that the track didn't actually go anywhere, rather spoiling the illusion. That's my take, anyway.

Sorry to cause you lack of sleep. Originally, I designed this ISL so that the two upper industries formed a "brick canyon," which would have made for some interesting photos and the gray area behind the retaining wall was to be elevated to meet the bridge over the tracks. The mixture of the overpass and the trees surrounding the end of the drill track/head shunt so that you wouldn't see that it goes nowhere.

But I see what you mean by making the top of the plan the viewing area. If you switch the building supply and the food processor, you have a more open design. Now I'm going to lose sleep pondering the possibilities. (Payback for YOUR loss of sleep?)

There can never be too many short lines. I also like to use CF7s and 45 tonners like warbonnetuk uses on his "Galatia, Kansas" layout.
http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.p...ntry628257

Btw, I should have seen this before posting my last, but I'd been viewing it via my iPad and it wasn't until having the benefit of the larger screen of my laptop that this became apparent, so please forgive the drivel about the 'L' shape line going off scene I made mention of.

No harm, no foul. I would actually love to make this part of an L shaped layout. If it could go to an extension with a runaround, all the better.

[Mike Kieran]

Mike,Nice design.I like it. Looks like it would make a fine home for my GE70 Tonner.

If I was to build that layout I would probably model the late 50s/early 60s instead of modern and eliminate the scrap yard..

Manufacturers Terminal or Riverside Ry would sound about right for a very short switching railroad in the late 50s/early 60s.

That's a great name for a layout. Any of the GE switchers would do since I love the 70 and 45 tonners.

Since switching the era modeled would allow for 4x40 footers in the interchange track, I would then change the industries and the traffic flow to:

   

[jonte]

[quote="Mike


Sorry to cause you lack of sleep. :lolol: .[/quote]

Touché, sir

At least they're pleasant thoughts, Mike

Like the Inglenook before it, it's such a great scheme , that it could be set in any era, setting or even nationality.

Try not to burn the midnight oil too often, Mike.
Regards,

jonte

[Mike Kieran]

[quote="Mike


Sorry to cause you lack of sleep. :lolol: .

Touché, sir

At least they're pleasant thoughts, Mike

Like the Inglenook before it, it's such a great scheme , that it could be set in any era, setting or even nationality.

Try not to burn the midnight oil too often, Mike.
Regards,

jonte[/quote]

I'll try not to.

[jonte]

Oh, Mr. Kieran, what have you done to me hock:

Thanks to your 'natty' little doodle my resolve has begun to.....well, 'dissolve'

As hard as I've tried - even made a point of doing something constructive with 'District 22' to try and take my mind off it - it's no use, and in the words of good ol' Oscar himself, ' I can resist anything except temptation itself ' and given in.

You see, I know hypothetically I was going to take an imaginary trip to Hattons to purchase those three Peco Code 83s in #5, however, in reality I have two Micro-Engineering Code 70 #6s sitting atop my modelling desk doing, well, nothing actually. Now, as much I was disappointed with them after they arrived a couple of years ago all the way from the good old US of A (have a look in my thread and you'll see why, but basically the metal frog inserts were proud of the adjacent wing rails requiring me to equip the only couple of 'cars' I have with mountaineering equipment to successfully traverse them causing them to 'bump' over the crossing, which is a pet hate of mine), I still couldn't bring myself to bin them. I used the operative word 'were' then, because now they're fine. Why? Well, with your plan still spinning around my rather small brain and refusing to depart any time soon - I was going to use my pending summer vacation to cool off, but you know how these things go - and the sun shining brightly, I decided to take them into the garden with me to reassess them. I also took with me a swiss file (broken in half from plenty of use), an offcut of sundeala, a hammer, a couple of nails (not to use on the switches, of course, just to hold them in place!) and one of the trucks from my Bachmann box car to test with. Half an hours: 'file a bit, give it a check, file a bit more, give it another check' to prevent any unnecessary tears and the job was done. Funnily enough, I'd sort of 'hypothetically' promised myself that if they worked, I purchase a third from the States just before I go away so it would be here to greet me on my return; and how I hate breaking promises. To myself, anyway I've also found a length of ME flextrack left over after sacrificing them to my UK project (again in my thread) so that if I, ahum, did decide to go ahead with this mad scheme, at least the track in the immediate vicinity of the switches would match and run smoothly. I could cheat for the rest and just use up the rest of my code 75s soldered to the odd PCB tie (like District 22) the rest being distressed bits of veneer to resemble sunken distressed ties that you find in these old branches. Not that I've given the plan much thought of course; just musings................

In fact, to break up this drivel here are couple of photos - well, one actually - taken just after the 'frogs' had been smoothed over (including the little Swiss file, bless its little cotton socks)

   

And if you're wondering what that primed 'partial' carcass of a GP 38 is doing there, that also forms part of those 'musings' (remember the GP 38 I linked to in my earlier post?)
Not that these musings are serious as you can tell, but that tinlet of light grey paint adjacent to it, is the result of a brief email to my local model shop wondering if they stocked anything similar to the livery of the loco in that shot. They did, of course, so I bought it. Just in case. I wouldn't mind, but I've just started a thread on another website chronicling the transformation of this loco into the livery of another ISL loco. Dunno how I'm gonna break the news to them. Actually, I will finish a loco in that livery; I'll just put it on hold until then and replace the thread with painting of this.

That's of course if I DID decide to build your excellent little proposal, Mike

But, of course, that would be ridiculous. Wouldn't it?

jonte

[jonte]

Shortly after returning from a short break abroad last week, I received a proforma notelet from 'Royal Mail' stating that payment was required in respect of an item that was awaiting collection at my local sorting office.

Payment duly paid - 'duty' of approximately a third of the total cost of purchase and handling Stateside, which is why I shaln't be purchasing anything from 'abroad' in the near future meaning a swift return to a 'make do and mend of whatever I can get old of this side of the pond' approach, so apologies if any future work is 'slightly' inaccurate (whatever happened to the notion of a free market ) - these were collected:

   

Yep, it's a LH Micro Engineering switch Code 70, to go with the previous two I purchased to make up the third in the set of three switches in Mike's plan.

They can be seen in the following hastily taken photos placed on a piece of lining paper marked out to the required 72" x 18".

               

[jonte]

In the first and third photos above, you can see some Peco Setrack curves I have whch are each of 18" radius, tighter than Mike's suggested 24" radius.

This is just a test fit to give me an idea of things lie in the area specified. I doubt I'd use these, preferring to opt for hand made plain track curved to the appropriate radius of 24".

   

So, am I going to go ahead and have two layouts in the making?

Oh what the h*ll!

Yes.

jonte

[lajry]

Mike
Looks like the spurs in lower left have 3" spacing. Couldn't this plan work for On30?

[Mike Kieran]

Hey Andy, sorry for the long wait in posting. I would think that it could handle On30. I would probably make the layout a little longer to accommodate the larger rolling stock, but I believe that it should work.