+- (https://bigbluetrains.com)
+-- Forum: Mainline (https://bigbluetrains.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+--- Forum: HO Modeling (https://bigbluetrains.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=21)
+--- Thread: GEC's Layout Progress (/showthread.php?tid=108)
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - jwb - 03-15-2013
I agree with anyone who says not to cut the layout up at this stage. It looks to me as if the Callahan Central you started with is a very good basic plan -- the video you made 18 months or so ago shows that. I realize you're inspired by the NEC, but that's going to be a lifetime of work, and cutting up what you have isn't likely to get you there any sooner. Plus, if you're graduating in May, with job prospects that seem slightly better than they've been for several years, you're going to be moving out of your family's place. You could probably justify what you have, either still in the basement for visits, or maybe moved into a spare room where you eventually wind up. A more extensive project is realistically going to be some years in the future. As far as I can see, you've put a lot of good work into that layout making it more reliable and somewhat presentable -- I'd keep at it for the time being, with other work going into modules. If you cut up the 4 x 8, it's just going to turn into less than satisfactory modules.
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - Green_Elite_Cab - 03-15-2013
jwb Wrote:I agree with anyone who says not to cut the layout up at this stage. It looks to me as if the Callahan Central you started with is a very good basic plan -- the video you made 18 months or so ago shows that.
I would actually use that video as an arguement for dividing the layout. The industrial "half" works fairly well in terms of switching those industries. However, there are many issues that can't be seen or aren't encountered in that video. I have made attempts at a "yard" video for a long time. That end of the layout always has problems, either with derailments or tight quarters.
1. The mainline itself is too cramped. the tight curve radius, coupled with the short mainline length, pretty much forces the train to chase its tail, especially during switching. It was not obvious in the video, but at some points, the locomotive was very close to its own rear-end.
2. The track and scenery are too cramped- the tight 18" curves cut close to the magic pan bakery siloes, and its "truck-dock" side, which make it seem a little off. Not to mention in the case of the silos, they would get in the way of the catenary transmission lines. On top of the practical scenery issues, overall, the 4x8 "oval" doesn't lend itself well to being sceniced. The lack of a good backdrop is the most common suggestion/constructive criticism i recieve. I can frame a dramatic looking shot E44s and Arrows passing eachother (and with the caternary up, their pans up!), but the cement sky is omnipresent. If I put a view block down the middle of the layout (which would look weird and incomplete), i'd have to redo the "interior" of the layout anyway.
3.The mainline switches are major issue- The crossovers on the main are pretty awful, and it is difficult to pass through them because of their position. Unfortunately, if I put them in the position as originaly intended for the "Callahan Central", trains would be frequently pulled off by the extreme S curve (caused by leaving a left hand curve heading into a right-hand crossover). The switchers near the yard are alright, but the curves switch leaving the yard lead is often pretty bad.
4. THe curves are too tight- The crossovers themselves might actually get some more use if it made sense to divert a passenger train, or even a longer locomotive onto that inside radius. While this is more a problem for my passenger cars, it also results in me not being able to operate my GG1s on the layout at all except for the outside track, and even then there are frequently derailments since 22" is pushing the limits of the BLI and MTH GG1s.
5. Lastly, the current set up is a NIGHTMARE for catenary. The poles, pull offs, and curves do not fit together well, and would need extra complex wiring to be done properly, let alone functionally. Trying to deal with these crossovers and switches is EXACTLY the reason why I have not already electrified a much larger chunk of my railroad. Since I have to cut many of the mounting holes in advance, I have to try and "imagineer" the wire configuration. I have so many sketches and mock-ups, and none of it looks good.
Quote: I realize you're inspired by the NEC, but that's going to be a lifetime of work, and cutting up what you have isn't likely to get you there any sooner.
This is also true, but I didn't plan to arbitrarily add 4 tracks (although it is technically possible, see the diagram below) just to link it with my other modules. Operationally, the layout would function exactly the same, except with more breathing room, and the capacity to "expand". The sections are intended to be more "permanent", than a truly mobile module.
Quote:Plus, if you're graduating in May, with job prospects that seem slightly better than they've been for several years, you're going to be moving out of your family's place. You could probably justify what you have, either still in the basement for visits, or maybe moved into a spare room where you eventually wind up. A more extensive project is realistically going to be some years in the future.
Moving out is the biggest reason i wanted to slice the layout in half. I don't think I can get the layout out without essentially wrecking it anyway. I'd certainly have to take down any catenary i'd build, and maybe even the track too (bumped track=dips/kinks=derailments).
Slicing it up into sections not only allows it to grow, it lets it divide itself into smaller pieces. These would DEFINITELY be able to be carried out of my basement. In fact, they could be slid out the back window (our house in on a hill) right outside, without needing to be carried up stairs or through the rest of the relatively cramped basement. Though the layout would be "bigger", it could also be broken down when I need it out of the way, and possibly stacked along a wall someplace, even with the caternary in place if stored in a manner similar to the NEC modules i'm building.
This means if I move out, and can take the layout with me, I can easily put it in a Uhaul truck. If I can't bring it with me and I'm not going to be able to play with it for a while, I can "pack it in" and my parents can use that part of the basement for other things. (currently, the other flaw of 4x8s is that it takes up so much space by needing access on all sides).
Quote:As far as I can see, you've put a lot of good work into that layout making it more reliable and somewhat presentable -- I'd keep at it for the time being, with other work going into modules. If you cut up the 4 x 8, it's just going to turn into less than satisfactory modules
This is the only thing that worries me. As long as the joints stay together well, and keep the tracks alligned, I should be OKAY. I worry that keeping all the sections "together" might introduce additional problems.
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - jwb - 03-16-2013
Naturally, it's your layout, and considering how old you were when you started it, it's a very good one -- and it's your call what you do with it now that you've reached the point where you'd do much better with something started all new. On the other hand, one thing you're saying is that a 4 x 8 doesn't work well with GG1s. You're right!! On the other hand, a bunch of 2 x 4 or 2 x 8 modules hooked together don't work any better. If you want GG1s on a layout, a tweak here and there isn't going to get you there!
A 4 x 8 is, as you say, a tail chaser, and there are lots of compromises involved in it. On the other hand, you can in fact operate on it, just not the Tropicana Train or the Broadway. You really can't operate on modules.
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - Green_Elite_Cab - 03-16-2013
jwb Wrote:Naturally, it's your layout, and considering how old you were when you started it, it's a very good one -- and it's your call what you do with it now that you've reached the point where you'd do much better with something started all new. On the other hand, one thing you're saying is that a 4 x 8 doesn't work well with GG1s. You're right!! On the other hand, a bunch of 2 x 4 or 2 x 8 modules hooked together don't work any better. If you want GG1s on a layout, a tweak here and there isn't going to get you there!
A 4 x 8 is, as you say, a tail chaser, and there are lots of compromises involved in it. On the other hand, you can in fact operate on it, just not the Tropicana Train or the Broadway. You really can't operate on modules.
You're right, there is no way I can fit this into any "real" NEC type setting (and I'm not even sure I have enough storage space on my shelves for all the Tropicana cars it would take to model that train reasonably!
). One of the important things about splitting the layout though, is that i can create new curve sections to fit on the ends. bigger, longer curve sections. Instead of being stuck in 18"-22" radius curves, i can be looking at a minimum of 24" (and i could probably justify it larger than that).
Here is a visual diagram. the none-colored tracks are original. The orange track is the freight mainline (the existing inner oval), the brown track is the yard lead, Grey tracks are yard track extensions (possible once the curves are relocated to separate modules). Blue is the existing outer oval, and green is an additional track meant to compliment the blue track for commuter/passenger trains.
This "three" main track set up would also be compatible with other HO modular groups, should I decide to join them.
To the right is an "alternate" plan with a 4 track oval, in which the brown track connects with the existing "inner oval" maine, the orange track with the existing "outer oval" main, and the blue and green tracks woud be new. I considered this so that I can hook up my NEC modules to the curve sections as well (for testing).
Below the main drawing are all the tracks I'd be removing. These conveniently remove all problematic switches and catenary trouble.
![[Image: Splitlayoutplan.png]](http://i543.photobucket.com/albums/gg445/CAB_IV/Splitlayoutplan.png)
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - Tyson Rayles - 03-17-2013
I would go with your new 3 track plan I guess. To be truthful everybody I know (myself included) that tried to use parts of a previous layout in the new layout ended up trashing the new layout. I would either keep what you have and live with it until your life settles down and it looks like you have permanent space for your dream layout or trash the board and start over so you can make it what you want rather than make it use things you weren't that happy with to start with.
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - teejay - 03-17-2013
I'll stick in my 2 pesos worth ....when I was with the local model railroad club , they had been running triple main line modules for several years . In time there was a lot of grumbling about boring sessions , trains essentially running in circles and limited opportunities for " real railroading " . I didn't say much because , at that time , I was just happy to be running trains and they were the only game in town . I hadn't even begun to finish by basement yet let alone build my own layout .
In time they decided to scrap the whole triple main line idea and went on to construct a permanent layout with a single main and lots of diversions . As has already been stated , it's your layout , and you can do whatever you like . Personally I like the "free-mo" idea with modules and a single main .
T
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - Green_Elite_Cab - 03-17-2013
Thanks for the input guys!
Tyson Rayles Wrote:I would go with your new 3 track plan I guess. To be truthful everybody I know (myself included) that tried to use parts of a previous layout in the new layout ended up trashing the new layout. I would either keep what you have and live with it until your life settles down and it looks like you have permanent space for your dream layout or trash the board and start over so you can make it what you want rather than make it use things you weren't that happy with to start with.
Well, I don't think I'd cry to much if I couldn't incorporate parts of this layout into a new one. I should point out that this isn't really plan to make a new layout, its more a plan to make the existing one more mobile, and to give it a little "breathing room" in terms of scenery and curve radius.
As for a future new layout, I probably wouldn't incorporate parts of this current layout into it, except maybe as a branch off of the new layout (not as a main part). More than likely they'll end up stored someplace (stacked to avoid taking up space).
The "curve" modules can be re-used for other projects, just so long as they are just curves with nothing "special" about them limiting their use.
teejay Wrote:I'll stick in my 2 pesos worth ....when I was with the local model railroad club , they had been running triple main line modules for several years . In time there was a lot of grumbling about boring sessions , trains essentially running in circles and limited opportunities for " real railroading " . I didn't say much because , at that time , I was just happy to be running trains and they were the only game in town . I hadn't even begun to finish by basement yet let alone build my own layout .
In time they decided to scrap the whole triple main line idea and went on to construct a permanent layout with a single main and lots of diversions . As has already been stated , it's your layout , and you can do whatever you like . Personally I like the "free-mo" idea with modules and a single main .
T
In my case, three tracks is operationally justified. In particular, the original inspiration for the "setting" of my layout is Perth Amboy, NJ. This area has NJ Transit's double tracked "North Jersey Coastline" and Conrail's Chemical Coast Secondary merging together to form a three track mainline.
Ultimately, all the operations take place on the "inside" oval of the layout anyway. While I could route a freight train over the outside oval, I'd still just be "running in circles" anyway. The only time a freight uses the "outside" oval trackage in operation is to make a run around move to get to the other end of the train. the "third" track would allow me to run my commuter trains around this freight train.
The extended "straight" sections, and wider radius curves will also give the trains a longer run.
My layout already does run in a circle, so having the extra "commuter" trackage will at least give me some increased traffic. If I want to be a pain in my own butt, I can stick to the "two-track" mainline, and have to route commuter trains "around" the freight as it switches, which could be interesting. The only problem there would be trying to juggle two trains at once.
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - Green_Elite_Cab - 06-15-2013
I built this thing last summer, as a place to store my more "modern" trains without having to box them all. This way, there is more room for my 1970s stuff in the basement where the layout is. I'd like to make another "longer" one that can accommodate the Acela Express in its entirety (~8 cars).
The lionel set up top (the C&O 4-4-2, Chessie Boxcar, Burlington gondola and Chessie caboose) was my first ever electric train set, at age 6. I added the NYC hopper and Firestone hopper in the 7th grade.
![[Image: IMG_1517.jpg]](http://s543.photobucket.com/user/CAB_IV/media/Model%20Trains%202013/IMG_1517.jpg.html)
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - Tyson Rayles - 06-15-2013
There is more stuff on those shelves then on my entire layout!
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - Green_Elite_Cab - 06-15-2013
Tyson Rayles Wrote:There is more stuff on those shelves then on my entire layout!
Most of it was a result of impulsive teenage buys, or gifts for birthdays/Christmas. It occurs to me that this is my first "decade" of HO trains!
I started at age 13 with a Life-Like Chessie system "Double Diesel" set, followed by an Amtrak P42DC (similar to the one on the shelf), and a Conrail GP7 (indeed, the very same one parked next to the "big hook" wreck crane on the shelf).
I figure most people sell off their trains they don't us so much anymore, but I think i'm becoming a hoarder! Stop me before I warrant a reality TV show visit,
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - MrBill - 06-19-2013
Yup, you're a hoarder. As am I. Be neat to see a pic of all your passenger cars on those shelves, but i don't think they'd fit. May be time to build a new layout though. Too much work trying to revive a steak once it's ground into hamburger.
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - Green_Elite_Cab - 06-20-2013
MrBill Wrote:Yup, you're a hoarder. As am I. Be neat to see a pic of all your passenger cars on those shelves, but i don't think they'd fit.
Nope, I know that they won't. I have so many passenger trains from when I was half into the modern (then early 2000s) passenger stuff. I have
a complete Acela Express (6 cars and two power cars),
a full late 90s-early 2000s Silver Meteor (MHC, 1700 series Baggage Car, Dorm-lounge, 3 Viewliner Sleepers, 1 Budd Grill, 1 Amfleet II lounge, 4 Amfleet II coaches, 2 60' Express Boxcars),
A Metroliner Cab-Control car,
10 SEPTA Comet II coaches,
2 SEPTA Comet II cab-control coaches,
9 NJ Transit Comet II coaches,
1 NJ Transit Comet II Cab Control coach,
2 Comet III coaches (both with and without toilet).
1 MBTA Comet II Cab Control Coach
That covers just the "modern" stuff that doesn't really fit anymore, that I wanted to put on a display shelf, at least in part. At least the "standardization" of the modern equipment makes it easy to list.
the "70s" passenger trains are all different and unique. I'll probably just take a picture of all of it and post that instead.
Quote: May be time to build a new layout though. Too much work trying to revive a steak once it's ground into hamburger.
You're right, though for now, smaller self-propelled units like my MP54s and/or Reading Green Cars, actually do well on my cramped layout. singles or pairs of Budd RDCs, Silverliners or Jersey Arrows also work fairly well.
However, I am focusing most of my efforts on my NEC modules.
Ideally, I'd like to finish the North Elizabeth station's modular benchwork, and then create "quarter" curves, with track radiuses at 36", 38", 40" and 42" for the 4 tracks, and then another pair of modules to "fill in" the oval (Probably an interlocking). This will let me run my electrics and other commuter trains in a semi-natural environment.
If I get bored of going in circles, there is always some switching on my old layout. since the NEC stuff is modular, I can pack it up when not in use. I won't cut down the 4x8 until I have a new permanent layout lined up sometime in the distant future.
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - jwb - 06-20-2013
2-inch spacing, even on broader curves like those, is dodgy for 85-foot cars and GG1s. I'd go with 2-1/2".
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - Green_Elite_Cab - 06-20-2013
jwb Wrote:2-inch spacing, even on broader curves like those, is dodgy for 85-foot cars and GG1s. I'd go with 2-1/2".
Now that you mention it, that's is probably true. At the Burlington County club, cars bump on those 36" curves on occaision, I'll have to measure how far those cars poke out.
The Modular club uses 6' radius curves, with 2" spacing, but that is probably broad enough to justify it.
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - Green_Elite_Cab - 06-20-2013
Green_Elite_Cab Wrote:MrBill Wrote:May be time to build a new layout though. Too much work trying to revive a steak once it's ground into hamburger.
You're right, though for now, smaller self-propelled units like my MP54s and/or Reading Green Cars, actually do well on my cramped layout. singles or pairs of Budd RDCs, Silverliners or Jersey Arrows also work fairly well.
However, I am focusing most of my efforts on my NEC modules.
Ideally, I'd like to finish the North Elizabeth station's modular benchwork, and then create "quarter" curves, with track radiuses at 36", 38", 40" and 42" for the 4 tracks, and then another pair of modules to "fill in" the oval (Probably an interlocking). This will let me run my electrics and other commuter trains in a semi-natural environment.
If I get bored of going in circles, there is always some switching on my old layout. since the NEC stuff is modular, I can pack it up when not in use. I won't cut down the 4x8 until I have a new permanent layout lined up sometime in the distant future.
Here, you can see the size difference between the Arrow and the MP54s the Arrow replaced. Up until early 1978, MP54s were still running in New Jersey. MP54s in Philadelphia lasted into the early 80s, some repainted, but most still in red or PC Green.
They are undoubtedly though, well suited for the tight curves on most model railroads. In fact, it almost surprises me how small they are to the Arrow IIIs in comparison.
![[Image: IMG_1824.jpg]](http://s543.photobucket.com/user/CAB_IV/media/Model%20Trains%202013/IMG_1824.jpg.html)