Alaska Railroad Plan

So--playing around some more--a bit simpler design--less switches, no reversing loops, but elevation changes and a little more interesting run.  The 3-D rendering is a bit exaggerated on elevation

Moonman:  So we come to a fundamental question---walk around or stand in layouts--both have there places, and we as modelers have no shortage of opinions--.  For me, no duckunders, crawl unders--if I can avoid it. 

ORIND,

I was thinking more about the loss of the living space than layout construction style. Here is the video of the visit to Alex Muller's Hidden Pass Junction RR.

He constructed rolling seat and can sit comfortably under his massive layout. His hatches provide all of the access he needs.

May 10, 2016 Visit to Hidden Pass Junction   Check it out at 9:03.

The thread

I, too, like walk arounds with easy reach. It sounds like you don't mind giving up the space. That's all I was looking for...your understanding and commitment of that fact.

The design is coming along.

Orind, I could be wrong, but I think Carl is suggesting you make the layout a long table 6' wide simply by flipping Seward top to bottom and filling in the "walk-in" space with access hatches. This would open up space in the room for family/furniture while providing access for dealing with trouble spots, etc. I don't think he was suggesting a duck-under to stand in the current open space between Seward and the center. You'd have to come up with landscaping to keep Seward separate visually.

My concern with taking out the switches, crossovers and reversing loops is that trains will be limited to a single direction. Granted, you can run one train in the opposite direction at times by staging it on the passing siding and you can run  multiple trains in the same direction spacing them far enough apart so they'll crossover each other near the center, but I'm not sure how long you'll be satisfied with that. I don't have much interest in switching cars around, but I do like to be able to run trains it both directions on all the track. A double-slip switch somewhere would solve that for me, but they're a bit expensive and I believe people have said they can be troublesome. Of course, a double-crossover takes 4 switches and they aren't exactly cheap either. I like the simpler version, just want to make sure you're okay with those limitations.

We do not use the rooms for people--that is why they have become the train room--just not livingroom/diningroom folks.  The scenicing for this project is a tough concept on a 6' wide table in that the line runs along the coast-OK, an inlet, which does have mountains on the other side--at 6 foot wide it gets tough to see details--by keeping the table width down and making it walk around, the arera for more detailed scenes increases.

Yep, I understand what you mean about having the option to change directions--right now I am exploring as many designs as I can come up with.  The elevation changes makes it much harder to locate the switches for changing directions.

Well, sorry for being a hard head...back to the layout. It's a train room and a very nice one.

Well, upon thinking,  a one foot wide run with two tracks just seems senseless--no real room to landscape--just a run to get the train from one loop to another--so, a bit of playing--this time with gargraves track and ross switches.  The gargraves should give me a better looking track--of course I would have to order it all online and pay shipping since there is no gargraves up here (local shop carries Lionel fastrack).  Bump up from 048 (Lionel) to 054 curves.   I would love to do a port with a cruise ship in dock, but an O scale cruise ship is 19 feet long.

And we come almost full circle, kind of like my wife shopping and ending up back with the first thing she looked at. I think you learned a lot along the way though and that's always a good thing. I like the latest design, I think it has most of the elements you've wanted. With 4', 5' and 6' yard tracks, you can only store ~15 cars, so they're a little short, but you could keep another train there, it would just have to be assembled to run and broken down for storage. The hidden siding it 11'-12', so that will limit how long your hidden train is unless you add more cars from the yard for a given run.

Yes, like most, my imagination far exceeds my building space--I would love a full yard, hidden staging track for 15 or 20 trains---Heck--I tried really hard to squeeze in a port so I could install a cruise ship--of course then I calculated that an O scale cruise ship is 19 feet long!.

Yep--full circle--and I may run around in a circle a few more times before I build.

Yeah, don't rush it. Software lets you tweak, so tweak away.

So--a little different approach this time--and please ignore the suggestive shape of the layout.  The design lets me incorporate Bird creek, a nice glacier scene with pond and river, the marsh, and a wildlife center.  The jog around the fireplace mantle will let me make the table height a bit lower in the living room, and the lower height in the dining room will let me (with a lot of stretching) reach across the table in case something comes off the rails (I have a 36 inch sleeve length).

You're bound to get some pushback on the reach issue, 36" sleeve notwithstanding, but as a design, I like it. I especially like that you did away with the "yard" and added the spur to the hidden siding. You might want to consider adding a switch to the right end so you won't have to back onto the spur and could approach it from either direction. It's not designed for service, so other than the cost of another switch, there's no reason not to make it more functional by closing it.

I noticed you planned for an access hatch on the left side, but none on the right. I think you should consider one. It could be a pop-out module with the parking lot and boardwalk on it. Even if you don't add it right away, I would design the underlying bench work with access in mind so you can easily add it later and not have to deal with cutting out crossmembers, etc. The switches are where most of your problems are going to be and reaching over to put a car back on the rails is one thing, but having to lift a heavy engine while all stretched out is quite another.

It's missing my 2 favorite items, the ability for 2 trains to pass each other going in opposite directions and one train passing over another, but I've mentioned that before and still can't see an easy way to add that functionality. I'm curious to read what others will have to say.

Yes, need to add an access hatch on the other side--and yes, the reach across is stretching it a fair bit (no pun intended).  I do like the visual of trains passing in opposite directions and over/under--but as you said--just not easy to figure out on this layout--given the route I am modelling--elevation changes are difficult to justify when you are running along the coast.  

Yeah, I know, just can't help myself mentioning those things, especially when you keep coming up with something new. I like the design though. It's simple, but I think the reversing capability and what I think you'll do with landscaping will make it a nice layout for running multiple trains. The siding (somewhat hidden by trees) will let you stage 2 trains in opposite directions for a good deal of variety.

Some tweaking on the last plan--narrowed the run down to 3 feet wide from 4 feet and squished the loop a bit more to increase access.  This also changes the glacier scene a bit allowing it to flow from the back corner to the front of the layout.  Added a siding to access a port--still need to think on this as it could serve as a dockside track or I could move it internal to to the loop and have it be an industry service or a drop off at a lodge for guests.  I am liking the flow of the mainline and how it fits into the room verses the other designs.

I like the changes, they eliminated some "S" curves and smoothed the flow. I like the addition of the spur too. It's a relatively simple running layout and not for everyone, but it works for me. I think I'd get a lot of enjoyment out of running 2 trains around the layout and switching out a 3rd on the hidden siding. The single crossover means you'll have to stay on your toes to avoid a collision.

I think I am ready to start thinking benchwork design and accumulating lumber.

I'm interested to see what you come up with, there are so many styles to choose from. Is the layout going to be anchored to the wall? Are the tracks going to be at the same height or are you going to raise parts a bit, like the curve in the upper left between the 2 switches? Or maybe Bird Creek lowered a bit to Potter Marsh?

All good questions.  One of the challenges is the room height differential---the floor height of the room to the right of bird creek is 1 foot higher than to the left.

Yeah. Normally I'd say just shorter legs, but 12" is a lot and it might be difficult to get under to deal with problems depending on the overall height.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Yeah, don't rush it. Software lets you tweak, so tweak away.

For sure.  I've been fiddling around w/SCARM for over a year and have gone through a number of ideas but am barely any closer to being ready to build.  Of course, if we'd get around to cleaning, sealing, & painting the basement....

I like your first rendition best.

William1--are you referencing the layout I opened the thread with?  If so, unfortunately that design will not work--I did not have my room scale correct when I first drafted that one.

Construction is coming along--always a bit of a mess while in process.  The upper shelf is coming down--it was a display shelf for the O gauge until I took out the N scale.  You can see how that 12 inch elevation change between rooms messes with optimal table height.  I considered a helix around the post to handle the elevation change, but it would have taken up too much room at 48" diameter.  The layout will come into the room 6 more feet from the area of the fireplace.

Looking good, enjoyed the update.

I like the construction style of the table. You almost have the invisible legs that were used in SketchUp. The peninsula will also fit nicely in the space without crowding.

Thanks for the update.

Thanks--I wanted to keep the number of contact points on the carpet to a minimum so that when we decide to replace the carpet one day I do not have to take out the whole train table.  There is one leg on the far right that simply is there for extra support, but the peninsula will need two legs--I figure when it comes time for new flooring I can safely remove one leg, replace, then the other leg--that, and the clear floor space under the table makes it easy to vacuum and easy for the dogs to chase each other.

July 15 I am taking a ride on the railroad from Anchorage to Girdwood (Birthday present for my mother)-I will hopefully get enough pictures taken to use for backdrops.

Father's day yielded a collection of figures for the layout--a collection of hippies (for the Girdwood area), some bison and brown bears, and a few other goodies.

Work continues.  You can design in software all day, but until you start placing boards in the room--4 feet seemed like a fine distance to keep from the wall for room entry and walk around, but it just "felt" too tight in the room, so I bumped it back 8 inches--much better.  I think the "crowded" feel is due to the height of the object--either way it works  just fine.

Coming right along. It looks like you decided to go with just a minor alteration (upper left corner) to the design you posted on 5/29/2016, is that correct? I like how you only slightly bumped out the edge of the tabletop to add some extra clearance for the curve. It also looks like you used 2x4s for the framing and then cut them in half for the legs and supports.

Went with 2x4---wanted to make sure the table would hold me (I am 220lbs) if I stood on it to reach areas.  Legs are 2x2, and yes, bumped out the edge for the curve.  I did away with the reversing loops--went with what amounts to a simple oval--but then again, the line I am modeling really is rather simple too--this layout is about the scenery, and having O gauge.  I have had N and HO in this space, and I have found I enjoy good scenes and watching the trains run through them. In N, I had a reasonably complex track plan, and I found I seldom utilized the variety in routes.  Now, I will say my favorite layouts are twice (or more) around, but modeling the run from Anchorage to Seward really does not allow for that.  The other thing I have found is O simply huge (I love it).  I am running what I consider to be short trains and they stretch out 9 feet.  Of course, the fact that I want to run passenger cars and an SD70 meant no smaller than 048 (and even that is small).

I figure the glacier scene will get an ice cave with a Yeti in it--I am thinking a Luke Skywalker hanging from the ceiling of the cave, and maybe some custom sound chip programming to fire off the occasional "use the force Luke".

Waiting for the postal carrier to deliver the last of my track today.

No quarrel with your decision to cut the reversing loops. However, your decision prompted me to wonder how trains run between the 2 cities. FWIW, my reasoning for the loops would have been because you are modeling the run between Anchorage and Seward. Since there's no place to go beyond Seward, that would have suggested an out & back over the same route. I checked Google Maps, but didn't see a turnaround, so I don't know how trains run. I did see a wye in Portage, but surely trains don't back into Seward from there, it's 78 miles. I did see 3 lines into Seward, 1 of which services the port. I searched for more specific maps, but couldn't find any. Just curious......

Take a look at Google Earth--there is a U in the tracks--my guess (I have not witnessed it) is they turn everything around through the U.  My wife took the train for a work function and they did have it turned for the return trip from Seward to Anchorage.  There is about an 8 hour layover in Seward from train arrival to train departure.

Sorry, didn't think to check Google Earth. I see the "U" which is actually part of a large wye. I read that the train stays in Seward, so you can go for the day and take a day cruise. Thanks.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Sorry, didn't think to check Google Earth. I see the "U" which is actually part of a large wye. I read that the train stays in Seward, so you can go for the day and take a day cruise. Thanks.

The wye in between the port lines in Seward is really cool. ARR has a few wyes. It's taken me sometime using the satellite imaging to view all of them.

However, for toy trains I like continuous running.

Orind posted:

Work continues.  You can design in software all day, but until you start placing boards in the room--4 feet seemed like a fine distance to keep from the wall for room entry and walk around, but it just "felt" too tight in the room, so I bumped it back 8 inches--much better.  I think the "crowded" feel is due to the height of the object--either way it works  just fine.

Orind,

That is why early on,after reading the description of the room and how it was used and finally the diagrams,  I offered the folded shapes and commented about the intrusion.

O scale takes a lot of area. Rounding the peninsula end reduces the feeling that it's intruding.

It shares the room now. It will really look good with scenic work. It sounds like you enjoy that part more than the railroad building.

Thanks for update.

Moonman posted:

However, for toy trains I like continuous running.

I agree. It's just that based on the earlier designs, I thought the reversing loops simulated the out & back run from Anchorage to Seward pretty well. However, I can see running a freight train in one direction behind the divider and then bringing out a different freight train going in the opposite direction for the return run. He could also simulate turning the passenger train engine by storing an extra engine behind the divider. He'd pull the passenger train in, uncouple the front engine, couple the rear engine and make the return run. Truth be told, that actually simulates the actual operation pretty well. And the oval lets him just run trains in circles if he doesn't want to do any switching.

It does have options.

July 15th I will be riding the train from Anchorage to Girdwood so I will have the opportunity to take some photos from the perspective of a passenger on the train.  $60/person for the short one way, but we are taking mom for her birthday (she spends the summers with us and the rest of the year in Apache Junction Az.).  We will drop a car off in Girdwood the night before so we can return.

The train is really designed for the tourists--6 hour layovers in Whittier (just enough time for a glacier cruise) and 8 hours in Seward.

I had to pick key elements to model--the distance and variety of landscape is just too massive.

Potter Marsh--Once you get out of Anchorage, this is the last scene before it changes to inlet/mountain.  It will fill the end loop nicely with boardwalks, marshes, and wildlife photographers.  There are lots of birds.

Seward Highway--it is not that the highway itself is special, but the scene of inlet to train to road to mountain.

Decided not to model Seward.  The Peninsula will get a glacier scene on one side, and the other will be the Wildlife conservation center--an opportunity for lots of wildlife and tourists--and you just never know what kind of trouble those crazy tourists will get into. 

I am thinking a may place Mt. Alyeska (Girdwood) at the top of the peninsula--in the summer they open for downhill mountain biking so an opportunity for some interesting effects.

My track did not make it yesterday--This next week will be finish base foam board, finish connecting track.  From there it is set up the river beds and then close up the hidden track area--I left it open underneath to access those tracks in case of trouble.

I'm sure your mom doesn't miss the heat, 108° today and we'll be back in the 1-teens next weekend. Since you decided to not model Seward, then the oval should work just fine, but I assume you still plan to run trains in both directions for some variety.

yes, bidirectional travel is intended, and no, she does not miss the heat.  I have been in Alaska 9 years now--Mom and Dad were not thrilled when I left Flagstaff for Alaska, but my wife and I wanted more snow and cold (really, we did).  After there first visit, mom and dad were more accepting of our decision.  Dad has since passed but mom continues her summer visits, and has even been up in winter (-20 when she was here) and actually thinks winter is prettier, but is afraid to drive in the snow.

I never did get dad on the train..but then he only made it up once before passing.  My model railroad interests started with dad's post war Lionel set.

Nice story, thanks for sharing. We watch all the Alaska shows and I've been up 3-4 times when I was in the Air Force, never in the winter though. I've been trying to get my wife to agree to drive our Prius up, but so far no luck with that. So, she'll have to settle for a roundtrip cruise, unless I change my mind and do a cruise/land package. It's the only state she hasn't been to.