Blackwater Canyon Line - March 20, 2025, Brick Street Extension Planning

Mark, your such a great husband ! A six foot lift out would be kind of heavy, but doable! LOL

Yes it would be heavy unless it was just a bridge.  Still unwieldy, I think.  I’m not very agile.

Mark Boyce posted:

Yes it would be heavy unless it was just a bridge.  Still unwieldy, I think.  I’m not very agile.

LOL Me either Mark!

I like it Mark. I think it's a good compromise and won't really affect train operation.

BTW, some tracks didn't join, etc., so I made some minor changes and shortened the name.

Dave, thank you for your help.  I agree, it would work out fine.

Dave,  I only got a chance at the computer right now to download the new file.  Yes, I struggled for a long time to get that track join, and it evaded me until I ran out of time.  I like the shortened file name too!!  It is now the latest and greatest!!!  Thank you again!

Mark.......I love it!

Peter

Thank you Peter!

While I am on here I will say I was just organizing my collection of prototype photographs of the area (old rails and current bike trail).  In the near future, I will post photographs and point out what areas of the layout will correspond with them.  This will be loosely based on the real Blackwater Canyon from Parsons up to Thomas.  Now with added room, I can simulate the run from Parsons over to Elkins; Elkins being the partially hidden loop underneath Thomas, the town on the hillside.  More to come.  

Hey Mark - I like the new plan and bigger room a lot. The big yard will make a huge difference for your railroad. Can't wait to see how things develop. I have plans (OK dreams) to add a yard and reversing loop one day. I would prefer to keep more engines and rolling stock out on the layout since I like to change up stuff frequently. I just have to approach the CEO with the right story.

Bob

Bob, Thank you.  I like the yard as well.  Last year Dave proposed some yard tracks under the one turnback loop.  Some folks advised it would be hard to get to to place cars on and off, which I agreed.  Having it right out in the open is great!

Always glad to help Mark.

like the new layout plan Mark, looks good !!

Thank you, Brian!

Got myself mixed up there. I didn't realize I was posting in Richie's thread, so I'm back to the right thread with the latest version. I also made a minor change to the upper loop because I thought it was too close to the lower loop and I was afraid there wasn't enough room for a wall/cliff when landscaping.

Dave, yes it is easy to get sidetracked onto a different topic.  I know I have done it before too!  The extra room between the upper and lower loops is much better indeed!  I do like the difference for the yard lead!  Thank you!

I added a 3D view and made a slight change to the file, so download it again to get the latest version.

I see Mike's file, Dave.  I think you are as mixed up as me when I try to work on two things at the same time.

Thank you for your efforts!!!

Mike, Mark, same, same.  I think it's fixed.

Mark"

How wide are your main line curves?  I'm very glad for you that you have additional space!  I'm trying to understand the drawing and space.  Also, I don't like the yard in the middle of the layout.  Too me it makes the rest of the layout look smaller, because the track is just circling the yard.  Still, that may be the "best" option given the space. I do like the run and reverse at each "end."  Maybe give the yard area some more thought?   

The curves are all O42 and the switches are a combination of Ross #4 and Ross/Gar Graves O42 because of their respective footprints. The defining factor is that Mark doesn't want to have to duck under for access hatches, climb on the layout, etc. As earlier versions showed, the yard started alongside the passing siding, but that interfered with the reach along the back wall. And the yard was just a thought to avoid using drawers to store all his rolling stock.

John, Thank you for your comments.  I do agree the yard is right in the middle of things.  I see many layouts where modelers have a yard on a peninsula in the middle, like this, but I think their focus is usually not the same as mine, where I want to focus on a train winding through small towns and climbing the mountain.  Dave's comment above shows he has a good concept of what I am thinking; and the drawbacks in my mind of some other designs, one being the construction of or purchase of some kind of drawer system for rolling stock.  He first proposed a yard on the main table parallel to the blue track, but that proved too deep to reach the pink track for re-railing and detail work.  One thing to keep in mind is, I don't like handling engines and rolling stock.  With my arthritis, I seem to break off the details I love, and am afraid of dropping an engine.  If I had room for larger curves, and thus larger steam locomotives, I don't know if I would get any regardless.  A scale 4-8-4 was so awkward and heavy, I was afraid I would drop it, so I sold it.  One other negative of the yard in this position is that it makes for a big obstacle for following a train with a remote in hand.  One thought is, since I have had success with the roll-out section, to make the yard detachable and roll it out into the 36" reserved walkway once I am running a train.  That may prove to not be feasible when I want to change trains when operating, but it is an idea.

I sort of view the stacked "run and reverse" as an open "staging" area like what is hidden on many layouts.  I could park a train there while running another.  Yes, if I don't hand swap out cars, it will be the same train running back again, but If we design something like that, it will take up too much space and shorten an improved but still short run.  I know, that is the spot talked about for drawers with rolling stock to swap out.

Another Forum member emailed me with an idea for a variation drawn on paper and sent as a .pdf, since he uses a different application than SCARM.  I fiddled with the idea adapting one of Dave's recent versions, and am not ready to post here.  He has a slightly different concept, which I am not sure I want, but why not draw it out and see what it looks like?  I'll post that when it is ready with my comments and he can comment as will if he desires.

As always, I appreciate everyone's input.  Thank you.

Mark

Good luck on the the possible expansion.  I like the yard where it is.  It makes it easier to work with adding cars / engines.

The new plan looks great, Mark. 

I found these pictures and few others on this informative site on the Blackwater Canyon: http://www.wvbike.org/bct/history.html  You probably know most of it or have been to the site, but I thought I would share with others that are interested.  It is a great section of railroad to model and I think your plan will allow you to capture the essence of the railroad running through a beautiful section of God's creation.

Marty, Thank you!  You stated the big plus of having the yard there I think.  Ease of use.  The older we get, the more that becomes a factor that we desire.  As Dave knows, at almost 62, arthritis and just bad knees from crawling around on the floor too many years in power and telecom facilities have taken their toll!    The desk job the last 10 years was a God send!

JD, That is a wonderful site indeed!  Thank you for posting!!  It is  a beautiful section of God's creation indeed!!!  I can't recall seeing a photograph of the coaling facility at Thomas before.  I added these to my collection that I hope to post from this weekend.  I was Thomas back in 1993-95 with two pre-school daughters in tow, and again last August.  The recent trip we only spent a few hours one afternoon.  We didn't go down to the yard area this time, I just looked from the street.  My wife's knees are far worse than mine.  I had wanted to bicycle it at sometime, but I will have to wait until retirement to get the knee replacement.

When I post photographs in order of where they fit on the layout plan, I think I will rename my topic title.  No longer "130 Square Foot Room!"    

I am really overwhelmed that there are 35 members following this topic!  I really thank everyone for taking a look even if you don't post any comments!!  

I made a small change to the yard to give better access to the lower left.

Jan

Jan, I have been thinking of this, and I love it!! 

Now, one question, is it better to try to fit the yard lead in as I show circled in red, try to use both as a wye, or use it as Jan shows it.

I'd vote for the wye track...    like the yard this way better...

I tried it that way once and liked it, but felt it narrowed the aisles too much. It makes them less than 24" all the way around and that depends on whether or not Mark expands the decking to the full 30". Here's what it would look like with the decking at 30". I certainly think it looks better, but the original orientation has 2 larger areas for moving around. I would probably build it this way, but I'd probably operate from the entrance and only use the aisles to fix problems.

I also like Mark's idea to make it mobile, so it could be moved out of the way for maintenance and landscape work.

I also think a wye leading into the yard is a good idea.  However, there is not enough room without rearranging the main lines.  You need 84" of straight track for an O43 wye.

Jan

Nix the peninsula idea. Nix the wye.

Put the yard along the bottom wall between the main lines. where you have plenty of length.

Jan, I am sure you are right about the wye,

CTR, here is not quite what you are suggesting, but similar width.  It makes the shelf 42" wide.  Now I'm sure we could narrow it some, maybe even 36, but not down to 30" which I was shooting for.  Also, I was hoping for some horizontal separation between the two main line tracks.  Yes, there will be vertical separation. 

However, it is a good idea, because then there would be space to move around.  With the peninsula like Jan made it, the aisles are narrow, but I am skinny for almost 62 years old, but I don't want a heavier visitor to feel he or she couldn't squeeze in.

I like the parallel yard too, but I guess deciding what space limitations one can live with is key? I'm going back to following along...

Mark,

What about putting the yard in between the two main lines rather than "above" them ?

Mark- I like the yard in the middle with a Wye connection to the mains. This gives you better access to the yard and a bonus spot to turn trains around. Your call on the narrow isles though.

A smaller yard on the bottom as @ctr suggests would be an option. I know it would sacrifice scenery that you were planning but the trade off of wider aisles may be worth it. The yard tracks could be longer so you may wind up with the same linear footage of track.

I don't have SCARM on my computer at work but if you swap the main and passing siding (purple lines) so the main is on the top edge, then the yard may work. I'm sure Dave can whip up a plan for us to look at.

Bob

Richie C. posted:

Mark,

What about putting the yard in between the two main lines rather than "above" them ?

good idea

Really enjoying all the iterations to this layout!

This may have been suggested before but is there enough room to start the yard lead at the tunnel entrance and slope it down so the yard can be located below the passing siding? And maybe even below the loop on the right?

Here's the Wye, but the only way it fits is to use the mainline, unless I move the lower loop further under the upper loop and even then I'm not sure it will fit on the siding.

Here's a version with the yard on the main decking.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Here's a version with the yard on the main decking.

 

Me LIKEY!

Wow!  Lots of feedback!  Thank you everyone!  Thank you Dave for the different designs!

I think Dave showed that the wye is pretty much out.  It may fit, but there would be S curves, one loop completely under the other (which might be a okay) but I'm thinking it won't work well.

On the yard peninsula being parallel, I only see aisles about 18" wide.  That could be extended a couple inches here or there, but much too narrow for the long run.  I plan to store things under the layout.  I may need to roll a chair in someday in the future.

The angled yard makes larger aisles, but one pinches down to a point.  That may be more workable actually.

Now to the yard on the main shelf between the two mainline tracks.  Dave got it to fit in 30 inches.  There aren't as many tracks, but they can be longer.  That isn't bad.  

I think I am going to have to ponder this some more.  As was expected, none of the scenarios will be perfect.  Each will have a drawback.

Here is an idea someone emailed me about.  He sent me a hand drawn .pdf.  I doctored up an earlier design just enough to show the basic concept.  I know there are lots of gaps.  He is using this concept on his layout and I have seen others do it.  Instead of the end loops going through switches to single track mainline. He showed what is in effect a double mainline.  He likes that because he can run two trains independently with a longer run.  It is a good concept, but as I told him it goes against my desire to depict the prototype.  I'll through my chicken scratches out to stir the pot.  

Not to be another chef in the kitchen, but once the yard location is determined, I think those long straightaways on the main could use gentle sweeping curves 

Credit Ed Theisinger for the photo on ctt website

JD2035RR posted:

Not to be another chef in the kitchen, but once the yard location is determined, I think those long straightaways on the main could use gentle sweeping curves 

Credit Ed Theisinger for the photo on ctt website

 

You are absolutely right JD!  Here is that consist just waiting for a layout!!  The photograph you posted shows why I am leaning against the double mainline up and back down.

I like the new design. I know you're trying to keep the width to 30" but you might consider adding one more siding and making the width a little bigger - perhaps 36". I think it would be worth the extra effort, plus once it's built, you shouldn't really have to stretch and reach the purple line against the wall.

The extra width in the middle should also allow you to build a nice layout/control panel.

Richie C. posted:

I like the new design. I know you're trying to keep the width to 30" but you might consider adding one more siding and making the width a little bigger - perhaps 36". I think it would be worth the extra effort, plus once it's built, you shouldn't really have to stretch and reach the purple line against the wall.

The extra width in the middle should also allow you to build a nice layout/control panel.

Richie, I agree, once done building, it should be rare to need to reach in 36".  The extra 6 inches would be very valuable.

Mark, I tried the dual main approach early on, but didn't show you. Here's a current version based on the latest design. I did not go through the trouble of setting heights or grades, so I'm not including the SCARM file. Note the reduced size of the yard. That can be offset some by deleting the runaround track. Just more food for thought.

Mark Boyce posted:

Richie C. posted:

I like the new design. I know you're trying to keep the width to 30" but you might consider adding one more siding and making the width a little bigger - perhaps 36". I think it would be worth the extra effort, plus once it's built, you shouldn't really have to stretch and reach the purple line against the wall.

The extra width in the middle should also allow you to build a nice layout/control panel.

Richie, I agree, once done building, it should be rare to need to reach in 36".  The extra 6 inches would be very valuable.

I tend to agree with Richie, but increasing the width to 36" affects more than just the reach along the back wall. It also affects the size of the loop on the right side and the town you want to put there as well as the reach to the lower left corner. I always question just how hard it is to reach 36" simply by using a step stool. I do like the idea for a control panel and that could be mobile to swing under the layout.

Dave, thank you for finishing off the "double track" plan.  At this point, I do not think I want to go that route.  I like my collection of photographs like the one JD just posted above.  There will be a big curve in the corner and some flex track can make for some slight curves to give a hint of winding up the canyon.  I don't see a need to fool with that on a plan.  I'll just experiment a bit when I am building. 

Before supper, I did try the step up with a yard stick and 36" works fine.  I think in the long run, I'll like to keep the middle open for a swing out control panel, swinging the detachable section from the wall, and for just turning around.  Who knows, maybe I'll find myself in a wheelchair operating this layout someday.

I think that's a good plan, Mark.  If you go to 36" along the left and bottom walls, I think I can improve the yard along the bottom wall.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Here's a version with the yard on the main decking.

 

Well it's a new day, and time for a little reflection.  I think this basic plan is the most practical.  It gives room to move around while building, operating, and maintaining.  The grade on the pink line is long enough for me to incorporate the scenic effects I want with vertical separation.  One thing I have noticed on a layout where one or two trains are running, I tend to focus on the train and the immediate scenery to the train.  On layouts with numerous trains running, then I focus on the overall large scene, a large portion of the layout.  That will serve well for me ignoring the yard when running a train on the pink line up and down the canyon.

The loops at the top work well for Thomas, the town built on a hill.  I can have streets and buildings over the tracks, and when I need to get in the rear for a derailment or maintenance, I will just roll that section out into the open area. 

The town of Parsons will be in the lower right, and is very similar to what I have already built on the roll out in the little room.  I thought I had an old photograph of the real town, but can't find it now.  I'll get it later.

hello Mark, how about adding a longer yard lead so you can work the yard without fouling the main line...     you could still have a roll around extension to use once in a while... at least put the siding in when laying track in case you do make an extension in the future...

If you can stand hidden switches, you might add staging under the ramp up on the left and perhaps  the bottom.

Brian, I had thought of extending the yard lead closer to the loop as you drew in.  It occurred to me this arrangement would foul the main, but Dave said he was going to work on it some more, so I didn't say anything about that.  Also, I thought of extending the yard around the corner too, but I thought the curves on the yard tracks would be too tight for good coupling.  

The small roll around is a good idea, and like you say, it would be built later, so I could put in the track on the main table and in the meantime it would just look like a spur.

CTR, good comment.  I have thought of staging underneath, and like you say, "if you can stand it"  Some folks love it, and others find it a pain.  We had discussed it on the plan for the little room and threw it out.  However, anything is up for thought again. 

On a slightly similar note, I had rejected the idea, but was thinking last night I need to ask John C. if he has any videos of his drawers for extra cars on his layout.  Maybe even a roll out cart.  However, like I said yesterday, I don't like handling my detailed cars much.  That arrangement would only work for me with less detailed cars, which I do have.

Mark, the longer yard leads are already in the plans, if they'll fit. That version was just a quick mock-up to show you what the layout would look like with the yard in the center. The problem is the size/placement of the lower loop. The yellow line in Brian's photo would mean you'd come out of the loop and go right into a switch taking the "turnout" as the main and I'm not sure that's something you'll want to do, I don't believe it's prototypical either.

As you can see in the attached example, adding a switch to extend the leads is not as easy as it looks. However, once I expand the deck to 36" and maybe shrink the loop so the main can be moved to the right and a switch added to the left, maybe I can get things to fit. Shrinking the lower loop though will limit how long your trains can be, so we'll just have to see what works.

My understanding though is that you didn't plan to "work" the yard, so let me know if you want me to pursue these changes.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Mark, the longer yard leads are already in the plans, if they'll fit. That version was just a quick mock-up to show you what the layout would look like with the yard in the center. The problem is the size/placement of the lower loop. The yellow line in Brian's photo would mean you'd come out of the loop and go right into a switch taking the "turnout" as the main and I'm not sure that's something you'll want to do, I don't believe it's prototypical either.

     use a right hand switch on the main line, you would run thru the

     straight side of the switch...  "turnout" is  to the yard lead...

briansilvermustang posted:

     use a right hand switch on the main line, you would run thru the

     straight side of the switch...  "turnout" is  to the yard lead...

Obviously I'll do that if things will fit. But as I said, they won't fit unless I can reduce the size of the loop and move it over to the right. Even that's going to depend on how much will end up getting covered and if Mark wants the extra track taking up landscaping space.

                      yet another version Mark...

  this way allows for bigger visible radius curves,  eliminating the tight "S" curves...

                          and turnouts are now closer to you, easier to reach...

Brian, I believe those changes to the loops put too many tracks out of reach for Mark, but I could be wrong.

Mark, that said, here's what I've come up with.
-- I reduced the size of the lower loop, but I'm not completely happy with the front curves being so close to each other. I've seen layouts where the lower loop is covered, but left exposed for viewing, not sure what you think about doing that.
-- I also fiddled with some runaround tracks in the yard, but I wasn't sure how they're supposed to be configured, mostly just food for thought.
-- I also changed the spur in the right loop because changing to 36" shortened the spurs a bit.

Mark:  

Whatever you do, I would recommend that you stay completely away from 24 inch wide aisleways--way too narrow.  Fine for access but terrible when more than one person is there.  Bad for viewing as well.  30 is the bare-bone, but I do understand that there is ONLY "x" amount of space.  Compromise is always required.

I certainly appreciate what you are sayong about handling engines and rolling stock.  We "fiddle" ours rountinely and have broken off more pieces than I can recall.  We attempt to only fiddle cars that have less easier to break off parts.  You really struck a chord with me when you wrote of a 4-8-4 premier steamer.  I just managed to break off my connector between engine and tender yesterday!  Up to Mr. Muffins come Saturday.

Since you have been blessed with this "extra" space I would seriously focus on YOUR primary wants and wishes for this layout.  What are the most important elements of the layout.  What can you not live without? 

Here is a random thought, how much do you "gain" by having that yard?  I can tell you firsthand, you will NEVER have enough space on any model railroad to store all your rolling stock.  I have an entire basement and my yard lanes and storage lanes are not nearly long enough or large enough.  That is why we have shelves that hold 300 cars and I'm about to add my shelves.  Yes, I'm nuts and addicted I know.  LOL

I absolutely LOVE the loop to loop main line following the walls because it makes good use opf the space.  As far as the yard placement I just don't know if it's worth the space it takes.  AND, I'm looking at the track arrangement of this yard.  My question to you is WHY are the tracks arranged in this manner?  Are they patterned after reality?  Set up that way for a specific purpose?  Or just drawn to fit the space?

Last thought, because I've typed way too much already, an option to a yard and a huge space saver...I hope that I can explain this clearly enough....build staging "cassettes" that hold about four to six cars (I'm guessing that you will run shorter trains to make the layout appear larger than it is) and store them beneath the benchwork, yet make them easily accessible.  Have one area on your layout--a siding--off the main where you can either "drop-in" or "lift-out" a cassette to "fiddle" cars on and off the layout. 

The cassettes could be built with handles making it easier to handle and not touch rolling stock.  It would be easy enough to attach wires with male and female plug connectors to power the cassette lift-out set-in area.  Believe me, you could store a heck of a lot more cars under that layout than you could ever put in that centered yard--which may require using narrow aisleways and affect the asthetic appearance of the overall layout.

What are your main priorities and goals?    

Mark, I completely agree with John. I think we discussed something like that cassette idea way back when, though it was more like a sliding tray underneath the upper loop at the time. I don't like large yards unless someone is into "working" it and I don't think you are. I added the max I could fit, but I think it overpowers the layout way too much. If it were me, I'd just have a spur for a couple of extra engines and maybe 2 for rolling stock. One or both could be for a cassette. It'd be easy enough to indent that area by simply making it a removable section. If you use some kind of pins and sockets for power, you won't even need to connect wires, just drop in the cassettes. To make them easier to lift, you could make it so 2 smaller cassettes would fit back to back. You could have a roll-out cart with drawers for the cassettes.

I like Dave's pins and sockets idea--very clever!  Wish I would have thought of it.  :-)

You could also have removable landscaping on panels that would fit the cassette areas for when you didn't want to switch rolling stock.

Here's my vision. The yellow rectangles are the removable cassettes.

Well, That is a lot of feedback!!  I am back at the helm after doing some plumbing on a hundred year-old sink and 2 1/2 hours mowing (walking not riding) at my dad's empty house.  Then looking at what we need to remove an ancient gas heater at our older daughter's house so they can sell and finally move into Dad's house.  Good think I am only working 3 days a week, but the paychecks are slim.  

I appreciate all the thoughts.  First, yes the yard has gotten out of hand for my needs.  I want to just park some cars for making up trains.  For the prototype, that track goes from Parsons up a valley, over a lower ridge, then down into Elkins.  I'm not interested in replicating anything in Elkins, it is just off in the distant imagination.   

The cassette idea we talked about months ago sounds like a better idea now that we are exploring other ideas.  And to that, John, I am sorry you broke the connector to a tender.  Good thing Mr Muffin isn't far away.  A passing track on that inner track to the lower return loop is good which we were going to do in the little room.  Putting in a place to but the cassettes to the layout like the yellow track that goes off the layout looks like the place.  Yes, I like Dave's idea of the sockets, and seems to me I saw that somewhere whether it was to cassettes or a lift out bridge, I don't recall.  Liftoff scenery is good too.  I made a whole hill with a farm on it to cover a hidden turnback loop on an HO layout once.  It worked nicely.

Yes, I think that the aisles need to be large.  (Brian told me a funny story about narrow aisles on someone's layout)  Who knows, maybe everyone in Butler will want to come visit the layout someday!  Har-har-hardy-har-har!!   

As to Brian's drawing this morning, I do like where the switches are on the front side of the loop and not the back side.  I was going to mention that a few days ago, but forgot.  I don't know how track arrangements would work out for the other.  I do intend to make that a swing out section, but don't want to have to be swinging it out all the time when a car fouls a switch.

If some of this doesn't make sense, please just ask.  I got interrupted a few times while typing.  Thank you everyone again!!

DoubleDAZ posted:

Here's my vision. The yellow rectangles are the removable cassettes.

 

Ohhhhh!!!!  I wasn't thinking of that.  I like that, because where I was thinking of attaching it onto a stub track off the end of the layout, I would need to have a leg for it so I don't drop it all.  Well I still could drop it all, but I could drop anything even after taking all the precautions.  Then I just put in the scenery section once the cassette was removed.  I do like that.  Is that what others were thinking of, or has someone seen something different?

To be honest I forgot about the stub track idea. You could build a swing-out cart with "drawers" of cassettes and each drawer would be placed on top of the cart as needed so as to line up with the stub track. My problem with that idea is you'd have to keep pulling the cart out and putting it away or it would be in the way blocking the aisle. You'd also have to figure out how to deal with a switch on the cart.

My idea for the cassettes is that they'd have dual 37" tracks and be about 10" wide. You could place hooks at the corners and fashion some removable handles to make lifting them easier. The hooks could be covered with removable landscaping bushes or something.

Dave I know you gone to one heck of a lot of work. I love the drawings that you would do. You are great for doing those from Mark so he can visualize. I do have a suggestion though. I'm sorry to bring it up because I realize it's a pain to switch it. I would put the cassette area in the very front of the layout. Why? Because that way when you are switching in and out cars you are not reaching over other track or scenery doing it. In other words, someone could be running a train while somebody else was switching cars on and off the layout. It would not be a good idea to reach over while a train was in the area. Also, I would stick to the cassettes just being one single strip of track. Why? Because if it was double wide the cars could fall from side to side. I would make a single strip cassette. The cassette would have walls on each side and a wallet each end wall may not be the best term to describe it so that when Rolling Stock is setting on the cassette it cannot fall off the sides or roll off the end. That would be difficult to do with a cassette was anything more than just one single track. That is some more of my random thoughts. Also I'm thinking oh God here we go again that all the curves are a 42 diameter on the layout. Everything looks so excuse me standard. It is possible that in the corners in some places 72 diameter curves could be used. A big swooping curve might look better in some spots instead of everything being so neat. Again this is just a random thought. I think you guys might send out a party to kill me.

So have you closed the deal on the real estate or not!  LOL!

I've been following this thread since the beginning and I don't remember hearings about the cassette idea.  I love it!  I may do some R&D on that myself (Ripoff & Duplicate).

John,

just before we went to bed last night, I thought about moving the yard back to the front and figured I'd get to it today. That's where I had it back on May 16 when the discussion about the 36" reach came up. I was surprised Mark didn't mention having to reach those cassettes over the other tracks, etc., but it was a new idea, so it probably needed time to sink in.

As for the size of the cassettes, that's up to Mark. My thought was to add a removable box around the tracks, be it 1 or 2.

I have no problem changing the curves in the corners to O72 because they'd allow more landscaping there and reduce the reach. I'm also thinking about changing the loop on the right side and lower left inside corner to O54, but I'm afraid that might reduce the size of the yard and passing siding too much.

Either way, I thought by now folks would figure out that it's no problem for me to incorporate as many variations as possible, even those I don't think will work. After all, it's not my layout and I'm just trying to help Mark get as much of what he'd like as will fit. Plus I enjoy working with SCARM and trying new configurations. I don't know how many variations I've done, but I'm sure glad we didn't have to do this with paper and pencil.

John D. posted:

I've been following this thread since the beginning and I don't remember hearings about the cassette idea.  I love it!  I may do some R&D on that myself (Ripoff & Duplicate).

Some of that discussion and those versions were in emails between me and Mark when we were talking about different ways to store his rolling stock.

MartyE posted:

So have you closed the deal on the real estate or not!  LOL!

No, because I'll have another variation posted later after I get back from some appointments.

 I would make the cassettes work as display shelves as well.  When you want to swap in a different engine or group of cars, just walk over to the display shelf/cassette, grab it off the wall, and place it on the layout.  That way you can showcase your items, and still easily and quickly make changes. 

I ended up cutting short my comments last evening because our older daughter kept texting me about some repair questions at their fix-er-upper house that I need to go over today and take a look at.  I couldn't keep my mind train on the right track  so I just signed off and posted a partial reply.

First business: Marty, yes we did get an agreement on the new real estate.    I need to keep a 36" wide path from the door to the stairs and garage that shows in the upper left of the plan, to the door to the patio on the right side of the plan.  That is my rule, so I can move anything that will fit through the exterior door on through from front to back of the house.  Second, I keep the space on the lower right next to the door open for a sewing area for my wife.  We both can use the existing train room for model and sewing storage and a workbench.  Heavy duty work is done by me in the garage.  She also may use one former daughter bedroom for sewing after they move a bedroom suit out which wouldn't fit around an oddly positioned closet in their present house.  Demolition of that closet is underway.

Also notice I updated my topic title and link in my signature line to reflect the expanded area we have to work with.  I am going to address the cassettes, yard, and broader curves in my next reply coming shortly.

Mark Boyce posted:

I ended up cutting short my comments last evening because our older daughter kept texting me about some repair questions at their fix-er-upper house that I need to go over today and take a look at.  I couldn't keep my mind train on the right track  so I just signed off and posted a partial reply.

First business: Marty, yes we did get an agreement on the new real estate.    I need to keep a 36" wide path from the door to the stairs and garage that shows in the upper left of the plan, to the door to the patio on the right side of the plan.  That is my rule, so I can move anything that will fit through the exterior door on through from front to back of the house.  Second, I keep the space on the lower right next to the door open for a sewing area for my wife.  We both can use the existing train room for model and sewing storage and a workbench.  Heavy duty work is done by me in the garage.  She also may use one former daughter bedroom for sewing after they move a bedroom suit out which wouldn't fit around an oddly positioned closet in their present house.  Demolition of that closet is underway.

Also notice I updated my topic title and link in my signature line to reflect the expanded area we have to work with.  I am going to address the cassettes, yard, and broader curves in my next reply coming shortly.

That's awesome, Mark!!!  

Congratulations!      

George

Way to go Mark, Sure you weren't a car sales man! Way to make the wife happy and get what you want! That's a tough job for some of us! LOL

G3750 posted:

That's awesome, Mark!!!  

Congratulations!      

George

mike g. posted:

Way to go Mark, Sure you weren't a car sales man! Way to make the wife happy and get what you want! That's a tough job for some of us! LOL

Thank you George and Mike.

Mike, no salesman.   She actually brought up the idea.  She came to the same conclusion as I did a long time ago.  If there are only two of us, why do we need three sitting rooms?  We already have a living room and sunroom.  This family room was of value before my in-laws built the sunroom; since then it was just a form of habit.  Her mother bought this big sprawling house across the road, but she hardly has any furniture in it.  

Cassettes, Yes John and Dave I thought about the problem of reaching over the mainline to get at the cassette position last night, but that was an area I just left to address today when I was getting interrupted by texts from our daughter.  For a Dean's List college graduate, her communication skills leave a lot to be desired!   Probably because her major was art.  She has a one sided brain, I forget if that is left or right.  

I agree the walls on the cassette are a must!  Now that I see where they could be set down on the layout table, I am thinking that is the way to go for me.  J D, Keeping them on shelves on the wall is a great idea, since that would do away with the cart idea, pull out drawers, and all that stooping.  Looks like I have to wait until I'm over 65 before I can get a knee replacement; that's 4 years.  Maybe the cassettes could have slide up ends.  I could even glue in a little padding that would cushion but not adhere to small details when I start a juggling act.    One track or two; good question.  I think I would need to make a couple of mock-ups to see what works before finishing the area the cassettes will 'plug' into on the layout.  I used to have great hand-eye coordination.  In fact, I once was hired because I had the best lettering the manager had ever seen.  This was in the old draw with pencil and velum or Mylar, not this newfangled computer aided cheating we are using now.  Great big laugh here!!  Now after two carpal tunnel surgeries on each hand, an inoperable rotator cuff injury (I still do PT), and arthritis that sometimes makes my hands especially thumbs almost useless, I can't guarantee I will hold onto anything anymore.    Yes, I am under the care of an orthopedic and a rheumatologist, and things are manageable.  I only mention the orthopedic concerns so everyone can see why I am against crawling under, stooping down, and even carrying long unwieldy items.  

Yes, Dave and I have had private e-mail conversations, John C and I have also had e-mail conversations.  BrianSilvermustang has called me on the phone a few times, as well.  I apologize if I forget that a particular idea was covered privately, and the rest of you haven't seen it. 

Dave, To that end, over the phone Brian brought up the wider curves on the lower right loop as well for some better photo opportunities, as well as some variety.  We went with 042 curves so we could get this into 12 foot corners and still have room for sidings, town, etc.  My largest engines are two Premier H9 Consolidations in Western Maryland Fireball.  I would like to get a WM Decapod someday which will also handle 042.  All my diesels are first generation with 2 axle trucks.  Also my passenger cars are 15" so I don't need broader curves but the visual difference would be nice unless it crowds the rest of the layout too much. 

Dave, I like the broader curves in the corners in black on the latest capture.  As to crowding the yard-cassette space, all my boxcars and reefers are 40', all my hoppers are 2-bay.  Counting couplers, that is about 11" for a boxcar and 9" for a hopper.  I don't know how many cars per train, but my trains will be relatively short so as to make the layout look a little larger.  I may have to just accept the length of the passing siding, and make sure one train is short enough if I'm going to run two and have them pass.  Of course the passenger train would have the right of way, so it could be longer.  I think the yard with cassettes would fit there if we didn't have the tail track off to the left.

 If I missed anything, please ask again.  I won't be offended; I'll realize I overlooked something scrolling up and down the screen!  

John D, R&D Ripoff and Duplicate!  That's a good one!  Actually thinking about it, that's one of the reasons we are all here!  

I think everyone has their own perspective as to how their layout should look and how it should be operated and that's one part of what makes this hobby great. After all, these are toy trains and there is no absolute right or wrong - just opinions.

Personally, I dislike having to move engines and rolling stock from a shelf or other storage location to the track and then remove them and put them back after a running session so, from my perspective, I like having a large storage yard with as many sidings as I can fit, within reason, where I can park and move trains onto the layout without having to constantly take them on and off the layout. For me, the ease of being able to switch between trains is the ideal situation.

Plus, although trains on shelves can look good; for me, nothing beats displaying and seeing a train on a track and layout in its "natural" state, especially when you have guests over to see your layout.

Again, just my  $.02 and we're only talking about a 1 or 2 siding difference at most, but that's my perspective. Your mileage may vary and no matter what version you choose, it's a well thought out design and I'm sure you'll be happy with the results !

Richie,  I can appreciate what you are saying because actually I would prefer to have every engine and car on track ready to go as well.  If I only had Western Maryland engines I could probably do it on this layout, but I have just as many B&O engines as well.  But I also like building scenery and seeing the trains in the mountain scenery away from busy yards.  That is my dilemma, would a sizable yard overpower the scenes?  I don't know.  I have never had room to build a yard of that magnitude.

Here is a count of what I have.

engines - 13

2-bay hoppers - 20

covered hopper - 3

boxcar - 18

reefer - 14

caboose - 6

passenger car - 11

flat car - 7

gondolas - 3

tank - 5

Some of those will be up on my Ceiling Central RR at any one time.  That would be 2 engines half the passenger cars and a dozen freight cars.  So that may leave 45 cars of on the layout or shelves or cassettes at any one time.  Not many, but still enough.  While I am in a period where I am not buying any right now, someday there will probably be more.  I'll have to do a little figuring how much track space that takes up.

Thank you, Richie.

Okay, Mark, here's my latest version, see what you think. I don't know if I like the larger footprint of the O54 curves in the right, but there is more room for landscaping.

One way to add some storage for engines is to cover them with a removable building or something.

Mark:

Up to you....my thoughts and vision I'm getting from you are the canyon is in a rural more secluded setting.  An ideal place in my mind for a rural portion is to eliminate the spurs at the right hand side of the drawing and just have a single main winding through there going over a bridge with some steep canyon walls or drop offs.  

My other concern is that there is only one passing siding between the two reverses which limits your options if running two trains at once in opposite directions.  Unfortunately, if you add a second passing track along the longest "back" wall in the drawing there are too many tracks again--although these would be one two different levels.  Still, a second passing siding still would be a good idea to enhance operations.

I had another thought that would really add major complexity to this layout and probably way over complicate things.  There are already two levels which pretty much is all main line.

How about adding a third level and have it strictly just hidden staging?

I can't envision your room.  I don't know the ceiling height, but ideally if you sit in a chair with rolling casters to operate the hidden area.  Each level would need to be at least 16 inches apart so there would be ready access--as the drawing is now the two levels are probably 6 to 7 inches over one another which is fine for a main line.  The lowest level for staging ONLY would have to be 16 inches down below the main which probably means a too steep grade or a steep helix grade. 

The overly steep grade or helix grade would in all likelihood not be an issue on this line because this railroad cannot support long trains.  I'm envisioning maximum train length of ten cars--and those are "short" like 40 foot boxcars.  One engine can make steep grades with 10 or less cars as I'm suggesting.  This is not ideal.  However, it may address your vision.

The very bottom level could sit at 30 inches about the floor.  That is seated desk height.  That means the next level would need to be 46 inches up--a little more would be better.  There is room on this layout for a helix, however helixes are complicated to build and are much more difficult to maintain and access, which is always a concern.  However, given this space, and wanting to project a scene in the Blackwater Canyon in a rural setting with small, small town sites, having a hidden staging area on a lower level where four (4) complete trains could be left on individual sidings might be the ideal.  Maybe?  An alternative to consider?

It would be easy to disguise a helix on this line because of the canyon setting.  I don't know what your carpentry skills are, but this concept would take some real careful detailed planning to accomplish, but it would be awesome in the end!  I don't know if you understand what I'm saying but if you look at the Glacier Line's most recent video you could see what I'm trying to convey.

I'm thinking two Ross 4-way turnouts that would be facing each other on opposite ends of the layout and the four tracks would travel the entire length of the longest straight section and curve 1/4 then reconnect--I'd probably have to draw it for you to understand what I'm conveying.  What I'm suggesting would be a challenge.  This lowest level would provide an area where a minimum of four complete trains could be sitting on the track at the ready at all times.  This would eliminate the need for cassettes on the main line area freeing up more room for the second passing siding on the main.

Also, if I haven't already inundated you with a massive amount of complexity already a final thought for would be for broadening the curves on the main.  If you would have your lowest level 48 inches off the floor you could sit in a rolling chair and roll under the layout to reach access holes so you could install, maintain and clean wide curvature relatively easily.  I'm not certain but I'm thinking that if the two main line levels are just strictly main line with no spurs just a twisting turning climbing/descending--run through Blackwater Canyon you may be able to fit up to 72 diameter curves on the main allowing you to run anything in O scale.  I admit that using 72s may jam up the space too much.  Maybe?  I'd have to draw it and really think about it.

How's that for way too much to think about?  LOL 

Mark Boyce posted:

I ended up cutting short my comments last evening because our older daughter kept texting me about some repair questions at their fix-er-upper house that I need to go over today and take a look at.  I couldn't keep my mind train on the right track  so I just signed off and posted a partial reply.

Seems like about every time I get on the OGR forum lately something like this happens to me. Sometimes it's a day or two before I get back to it. Then it's time to start over from square one, or I forget about it completely and end up going on my merry way. I keep getting further behind that way and miss a lot of stuff and then I'm off the track, derailed! 

I think you are doing great with keeping focused on your track plan though. You know what you want and when to compromise and what will work and what won't!! If I could do that maybe my expansion would at least have a plan by now.

John, that's not as far fetched as it sounds, but unless Mark has changed his mind, he doesn't want to deal with hidden tracks, duck under, etc.

I believe he's already nixed the idea of another passing siding on the incline because it's not true to the section he's modeling.

Dave:  I'm not talking about making them inaccessible (duck-under)...I'm talking about hiding them from view.  The lower level staging would/could be hidden behind fascia boards that are on hinges.  One simple pulls the top of the fascia and it folds down out of the way so that tracks may be readily seen and accessed.  While seated in a chair, one could easily see and reach the tracks.

Lord knows I'm NOT talking about a duck-under!  LOL  I'm talking about a roll-under--meaning person comfortably seated on a chair rolling themselves to an access opening--for maintenance/cleaning/fixing derailments ONLY--NO OPERATIONAL duck-unders at all.  This is just-in-case for wider curvature.  The trick is having the layout high enough for Mark to be seated in a rolling chair and gently roll himself under the layout.  I've seen this done and it is brilliant!  One guy even has lights under his layout and he flips one switch and its like the light of day under there.  It's fabulous!

"Roll-Unders" are no problem unless the person starts piling obstacles in the path of access openings.  :-)

LASTLY, Dave I love the drawings you do!  I cannot believe how quickly you can manipulate produce the various versions of track arrangements!  Fantastic work!

John, don't get me wrong, I wasn't criticizing the idea, I've seen what you are talking about and also thought it brilliant. Maybe Mark will be open to it, at this point I don't know. One concern I have though is access to the underside of the upper level and the yard for fixing wiring and other issues. I think the reason Mark wants roll-out storage is so he has room to get under there if he ever needs to.

As for the software, I'm not busy at the moment and I've really gotten used to how SCARM works. For me, layers and color-coding really speeds things up. It's no secret, the more you use it, the quicker you get. Thanks for the compliment.

Hi folks!  It has been a busy day for me, and I have looked over the comments since my last reply.   Cassettes, passing siding, staging yard, helix, and I probably missed something.    There are some real good thoughts there.  All of them would work for someone and very innovative too.  None of them are far fetched at all.  How about I ponder on them, look up some information that came to mind reading the comments, and I will comment tomorrow.  Maybe I will stir the pot some more!!    Thank you everyone very much!  

Good morning.  I will comment on a couple items right now.  

Second passing siding - Yes for my prototype there were actually several passing sidings.  The one on the plan right now is in exactly the right position at a relatively flt location just outside of Parsons.  There are a couple others, one at a water tank just before the grade starts to go up.  There is also one near the top of the grade and it is still on the hill running between 1% and 2 % grade in real life.  I showed a spot on the plan that would stagger the passing sidings so they aren't right one above the other.

The 054 loop on the right - The table measures 60" wide, so the reach is 30" from either side.  That works fine.

Dave, I like where the cassettes are if I would go that route.

Helix to the staging yard below.  -  That is a great idea certainly could be done.  There are two things I need to think about.  First, I have looked with interest at different articles and forum posts about building a helix.  There are many ways to construct one of course.  I am not sure I am up to the challenge.  I would need to sift through many examples to find one I think I am capable of building.

The second is the yard itself.  I think the only way to know if I think that idea would work for me is to mock it up full size.  I will have to get two shelves of whatever, could be sheets of foam which I have, and position them on supports, could even be just cardboard boxes.  If I make them at the heights and depths we have in mind, then I could roll a chair around and simulate reaching into the far track if I had to and also reaching up in case I need to fix a wire above.

I don't know when I would get time to come to a conclusion on either of these, so I think that part of the design needs to be put on hold until I have time to research.  So for now, we could try fitting in a second passing siding, then I need to do some homework.

John, You mentioned somewhere about looking at something on your latest video.  I was looking at your list of You-Tube videos, but don't know what you are referring to.  Could you give me a date or better still a link to it?

Thank you!

Mark,

First, I'm excited by your acquisition of more real estate and the new plans coming forth.  You have the makings of a neat model railroad there!

I haven't participated in much of this discussion, but I will warn you about multiple levels and helixes.  Make sure you have adequate space / clearance for these because none of us is getting younger or smaller.   

I had a lower level storage yard on Panhandle 1.0 that was built with a lot of "wishful thinking".  I thought it was the most clever thing I had done in model railroading until I had to try using it.    

I'm not trying to throw cold water on these ideas, just advising you to think things through several times.  And don't be afraid to abandon something that isn't working.

Best,

George

George,  I just appreciate you following along.  I have a couple other topics I have been following, but haven't had time to look at in the last couple days.  My Inbox is loaded with updates from them that I haven't even looked at yet.  

I understand what you mean about the helix and lower level staging yard.  I do value your advice, because it is from experience.  It is a big concern whether it will be a literal pain in the neck, back, etc if I am even able to build it.  

Another concern that my wife brought up just since I wrote my last replay.  She asked if we had to move to a single level home, whether I would build something that is too hard to take down and move.  The possibility is very real since we both have knee problems.  We have been told we need knee replacements but won't be able to get them until we retire. (I am wondering if that means insurance won't pay and wants to push it off to Medicare.)  My knee isn't that bad yet, so I can envision a 4 year wait, but my wife's is far worse, and she is 3 1/2 years younger than me.

So, I have to keep in mind that whatever I build has to be built in such a way that it can be dismantled in sections to hopefully reuse.  The helix and lower level make that more complicated for sure.  I can envision taking the sceniced top off the helix and having the helix a separate unit, but two independent levels make it more complex to design, build, and take down.

You are so right that we aren't getting any younger, and it may be that the whole idea of a staging yard would be impractical.  Cassettes are certainly easy to move to another house!  

Thank you for your input!!

George, I agree with you. Personally, I don't get into switching out rolling stock all that much, but then I don't have much and don't intend to buy much. While the idea of a hidden yard is a great idea, I think building the helix will be problematic and not worth the effort. We haven't given much thought to where it would come out and I didn't take into account that the top level also needs clearance, so the actual height is more like 22" than 16". The logical place to put it is under the largest section of the layout on the right because that has the most access from 3 sides. in fact, if it goes there, it can be an oval and not a circle. That means more space for reduced grades.

To be honest though, I'm not even sure a helix is needed. Based in previous discussions, I didn't think Mark was open to the idea of a hidden yard, so I didn't bring it up again. Anyway, if you place it in the middle with the throat to the left, you can run around beneath the left loops and the follow the current grade around to the right side and come out somewhere in that loop. There would be access from both the front and the right side.

Here's a quick diagram of what that could look like.

Thanks Mark.  All I can tell you is that my own Hidden Storage Yard sat under the left side of the layout and was reached by a long, long, long (18') yard lead that ascended across the back of the layout to the steel mills on the right hand side.  The lead was designed to be disguised by part of the backdrop (WHAT was I thinking????        .

It was a major PITA to build and practically impossible to operate.  The yard had 5 switches, all difficult to reach, and all (predictably) had switch machine issues at some point in time.  Murphy's Law - in full effect.

George

Mark, if the idea of moving is a real possibility, then I suggest you forget the hidden yard and live with the cassette idea. Most of this layout can be built in sections to make moving easier, but chances are slim that they'll fit the new space anyway. Plus, if you do have to move for health reasons, what are the chances that you'll even be able to rebuild the layout?

As for the knee replacements, my wife had hers done before she was eligible for Medicare, but I don't know what your insurance covers. We had TriCare with the Air Force and they covered all buy some small co-pays. Most doctors will try to put off knee replacements until you're well into your 60's because chances are they'll have to be replaced again. Either way it's something you need to discuss with your doctor. He/she should be able to tell you how much it will cost with your current insurance and advise you on what kind of supplement you'll need if you put it off until you're eligible for Medicare, I don't know if Medicare covers the full cost either.

Why does it need to be a helix? My hidden yard tracks will be fed by two lead tracks which also serve as the other half of the double reverse. Can't seem to post a photo from my phone but can do so later if there is interest.

Mark,

  Expanding the Layout, have fun with you new territory!

PCRR/Dave

Mark:

I'm completely in agreement with Dave.  It sound like you guys will be moving.  Building a layout with that complexity, helix, hidden staging etc., would not be prudent.  HOWEVER, if you are going to build a sectional layout, which sounds very reasonable and logical in your circumstances, better to PLAN from square 1.  It's more work, effort and money to build in sections but very wise if you are moving.  You may want to rethink the entire plan including putting all the track on one level.  It's not as interesting but it would be a hell of a lot easier to move and reassemble.

tr18 posted:

Why does it need to be a helix? My hidden yard tracks will be fed by two lead tracks which also serve as the other half of the double reverse. Can't seem to post a photo from my phone but can do so later if there is interest.

 

It doesn't, see my earlier diagram showing just the yard with a long lead to get from 0" up to 16".

Thank you everyone!  Dave, my wife had one knee replaced two years ago.  The surgeon said give it a year to heal, and then he would see about replacing the other.  After one year he said wait another year.  By this year, mine was giving me trouble, but not severe, so it seemed reasonable that by the time I retired (on Medicare) mine would be ready to do.  However, also the what I call "health care war" in Western Pennsylvania had come into play.  It is very complicated, but though we have the same insurance plan as before, things have changed.  Then my wife went in for her annual appointment and he told her the same thing as he told me.  Well I don't see how she will be able to get by for 7 years.  He is an excellent surgeon and one of the nicest guys in the community.  I suggested we get another opinion, but....

Anyway, baring some unseen accident or illness on my part, we would be moving to a single level for her benefit, not mine.  So I can envision building a new layout with parts of a layout built here.  I think we just stick with version J except find a place for the second siding.

I have tried it before, and I don't like switching either.  I'm a railfan, wanting to watch the train travel from one location, through some interesting scenery, and on to another location.  I switch some cars into a few sidings, but I find the constant switching to be boring.  I have watched some guys at shows with switching layouts.  I end up gravitating to the layouts that just have a nice selection of trains travelling along.  The yard would have only be for train storage.  I can do that with the cassette idea.  Like you Dave, I don't have a desire to acquire more trains, just occasionally upgrade to something better and sell an older one.  I am not a collector.

TR18, thank you for commenting.  Yes, I have seen it done without a helix.  I would be glad to see your photograph when you get the time.

Dave B. Thank you very much for the congratulations.  Good to hear from you!!

DoubleDAZ posted:

tr18 posted:

Why does it need to be a helix? My hidden yard tracks will be fed by two lead tracks which also serve as the other half of the double reverse. Can't seem to post a photo from my phone but can do so later if there is interest.

 

It doesn't, see my earlier diagram showing just the yard with a long lead to get from 0" up to 16".

Daz,

Sorry, didn't read back far enough. Your design looks real nice.

I figured you might have missed it, should have said that in my comment.

Mark, I hope things change on the knee issue for your wife. Jeanette suffered with pain for a lot of years, but once the injections no longer worked, enough was enough. Good luck.

I'll fiddle with the 2nd passing siding. Do you want just the switches level or do you want the siding section level with grades to and from it?

Thank you Dave.  I think I recall you saying Jeanette had a bad time with her knees.  The injections worked some for me so far.  My wife Kim is getting them again at this time.  I always say we are so much better off than our many friends who have cancer or hwo have already passed on due to cancer!  

Just the switches level would be fine.  Thank you!

Okay, Mark, here's the first version, sorry it took so long.

Please note that in order to fit a siding in, I had to restructure the lower loop so I could move it over. I also noticed the right side was crowding the edge, so I moved that in too. The result meant shortening the yard lead as well as the original passing siding. As you can see I added another spur in the yard for some extra storage. Whether or not you add it to your build is up to you.

Based in where you drew it, I had to put the upper switch for the new passing siding on the same level as the upper loop (8") because it's so close and the experts say not to start/end a grade at a switch. The lower switch has a 6" elevation. The grade down to it is 2.2% and the grade from it to the bottom is 2.7%. Changing the elevation to 5" changes the grades to 3.5% & 2.3% respectively (5.5" to 2.9% & 2.5%).

I guess the bottom line is that you can add a siding and I'm not sure what else needs to be done. We can fine tune things, but I think that's something you should do during construction, assuming this basic design works for you. Me? I pretty much like it. I think it's got a good balance of track to area and leaves room in the upper loop and the right side for buildings, etc. If you think the yard is too big, just don't add the 3rd spur.

So, what do you think?

Dave, I think the compromises are reasonable.  I always expect to have to make adjustments when building.  I think it looks great, and we should just let it sit like this and make no more changes.  Thank you very much!!

I agree, but if something comes up, I'm in.

That sounds great!  Thank you very much!

I would like to suggest a small change in the lower right.  It removes an "S" curve from the main and provides a lead to the small yard so the main is not fouled. 

As usual Dave has done a good job.

Jan

Jan, excellent catch! I knew there was something I didn't like about that section, but the "S" just didn't register.

Mark, here is the new color-coded photo and file. I changed the name yet again to separate it from all the others in my folder.

Jan, that is an excellent catch!  I didn’t take the time to pick it apart get S curves, etc.  thank you!!!!

Dave, thank you for the updated file.  You have been an excellent help!!  Now I need to get on Mike’s topic and see if I can help!

After a day's reflection, I finally got around to defining the room boundaries and doors with a little more clarity.  I also switched the two yard tracks on the yellow 8" elevation to the front of the layout for better access.  Otherwise, I'm happy with it for now. 

I did take delivery of two sheets of free plywood that a friend doesn't need, so I added it to my stock in the old blue room.

It would help if I added the drawing.

There were some tracks not connected, so I fixed the file in case you want to run the simulation.

Thank you Dave!  Yes, I do remember knowing I was missing some connections.  I did that last night, then quit to watch a movie.  I forgot about it today.  

Things are looking good there Mark! Dave sure has done a nice job for you! You know its nice to have people like Dave here. My last layout I had to pay someone to draw it up on Auto-Cad for me! Keep up the great work and will be watching for more!

Thank you, Mike!  Yes I appreciate Dave’s work very much.  I think we will be emptying the room over the summer and hopefully I can get something started after the weather turns bad.

Major development today!!

Before 

After   

Mark,

Is this the start of the land acquisition?

George

George, Yes the land acquisition closed, and we are now clearing the land to start construction.

Mark Boyce posted:

George, Yes the land acquisition closed, and we are now clearing the land to start construction.

Woo Hoo!!!!           

Mark and Dave:

I have a small concern about the plan pertaining to the track switch configuration on the right side of the drawing--in the blue color.

Learned wisdom and personal experience both recommend/suggest NOT using the curved portion of any turnout as a regular portion of the main-line.  This practice is followed in reality because as in prototype and model, the biggest problem area with track are trains passing through the curved portion of a turnout (switch).--more derailments.

I respectfully suggest that you consider a slight revision and realign the turnouts so that the main line passes through the straight (tangent) portion of the turnout. 

I apologize for being a pain.  I do believe it will help to reduce derailments.   

John,

You’re not being a pain at all.  This is why I posted it all, for someone else to look it over and see something Dave and I missed.  Good catch!  I never noticed.  Yes I have read of just the problem you mention about the main on the diverging track being the cause of derailments.  I’ll look that over for a better way tomorrow.

This is an example of what we run into at work.  No one wants to pay for enough engineers and technicians to have “a second set of eyes” look at anything like we did 30, 40, 42 years ago.  We end up with egg on our face too often.  Here we have the luxury of a dozen set of eyes looking at it!  

Thank you!

FWIW, I've mentioned that in other designs, just didn't see a way to eliminate it without changing the overall configuration for that area. I should have looked at it again though when we settled on the yard design. I'm still not sure if you wanted the mini-yard for engine storage or not, but here's one way to fix it.

Yes Dave, at a glance I thought of that!  I am thinking the engine storage area would be nice, but I don’t know if I will decide until I build it.  I may look for some other angle.

 Thank you, Dave!

You can change the direction of the spurs and maybe go back to O42 curves for the loop to get more space for landscaping. You may not figure it out until you start building and that's okay as long as you know something needs to be changed.

Yes, those are two possibilities for sure.  You are right, as long as I keep it in mind, I'll figure it out when I get to it.  I plan to start benchwork construction on the other end, so I can get the two levels fit properly between the built-in book shelves and the window sill.  If I started in on the end we are talking about, I would get the measurements wrong somewhere and end up with the top tracks over the window sill.  I can measure a half dozen times and still cut wrong!  

Mark:

Carefully consider your height for the layout.  You could sit in a rolling chair and roll under to access openings at the wide spots versus crawling.  Maybe the lowest support could be 50 inches up?  You would have to test yourself seated to see....easier for access and even work on wiring.  A thought....

Mark Boyce posted:

John,

You’re not being a pain at all.  This is why I posted it all, for someone else to look it over and see something Dave and I missed.  Good catch!  I never noticed.  Yes I have read of just the problem you mention about the main on the diverging track being the cause of derailments.  I’ll look that over for a better way tomorrow.

This is an example of what we run into at work.  No one wants to pay for enough engineers and technicians to have “a second set of eyes” look at anything like we did 30, 40, 42 years ago.  We end up with egg on our face too often.  Here we have the luxury of a dozen set of eyes looking at it!  

Thank you!

Mark is exactly right.  The point of reviewing designs is defect prevention.  The graph below, although specific to software development, is mostly correct for any significantly-sized system - problems found early are easier and less costly to fix.

For example in Panhandle 1.0 had my decision to use 11/32" plywood subroadbed been reviewed by others, it's likely that my poor choice would have been caught.  And I would have been spared 5 years of rebuilding the layout.

George

John C. posted:

Mark:

Carefully consider your height for the layout.  You could sit in a rolling chair and roll under to access openings at the wide spots versus crawling.  Maybe the lowest support could be 50 inches up?  You would have to test yourself seated to see....easier for access and even work on wiring.  A thought....

John, Yes height considerations for the new plan in the new room haven't been discussed much.  As with any space, there is always some odd consideration it seems.  in the first room, there was the big sliding glass door in the middle of one wall.  This room, it is the bookcase for the full 12 foot wall and 8 feet of windows.  The windows are on the south wall with no trees obstructing the sun.  The trees are all on the west and south sides of the house.  The top of the book case is at 42 inches above the carpeted floor.  The top of the window sill is at 55 1/2 inches above the floor.  At the grades assumed, there would be an 8 inch difference between the rail heads of each level.  Support under the lower level equals just about the 13 1/2 difference.

While I don't like the windows with all that sun, because I have heard of various scenic items fading in color over time, I don't want to block the natural light, because the only other windows are on the back door almost 30 feet away.

My thought is that since the track is mostly around the outer edge of the loops, I will run my wire feeds near the edges, so I won't need in the middle.  Once built, I will need access more for derailments or track cleaning and scenery additions on the top.  That said, I agree totally that it is much better doing wiring or anything seated as opposed to kneeling, squatting, (both of which I can't do any more) or laying on an automotive creeper as some model railroaders do. 

All that said, nothing is set in stone yet for sure.  It is definitely something to think out.  I won't get to building until fall or winter anyway.  Thank you.

G3750 posted:

Mark Boyce posted:

John,

You’re not being a pain at all.  This is why I posted it all, for someone else to look it over and see something Dave and I missed.  Good catch!  I never noticed.  Yes I have read of just the problem you mention about the main on the diverging track being the cause of derailments.  I’ll look that over for a better way tomorrow.

This is an example of what we run into at work.  No one wants to pay for enough engineers and technicians to have “a second set of eyes” look at anything like we did 30, 40, 42 years ago.  We end up with egg on our face too often.  Here we have the luxury of a dozen set of eyes looking at it!  

Thank you!

Mark is exactly right.  The point of reviewing designs is defect prevention.  The graph below, although specific to software development, is mostly correct for any significantly-sized system - problems found early are easier and less costly to fix.

For example in Panhandle 1.0 had my decision to use 11/32" plywood subroadbed been reviewed by others, it's likely that my poor choice would have been caught.  And I would have been spared 5 years of rebuilding the layout.

George

George, Yes I got into a discussion with a company trainer back before I took the severance package and came back as a temp engineer.  There were people in the seminar from various disciplines, and the trainer asked us each to name something we didn't like about how we have to do our work.  Well mine was no second person to review work before it goes out.  Well I thought it was an innocent comment, but she really jumped on mine.  She gave the company's view that the work gets corrected eventually, so who needs someone to review.  It will all come out in the wash.  As you pointed out, Maintenance is a high cost, and evidently the company is ignoring that.  Maybe because the cost comes from a different budget is all I can guess.  I could go on, but you and I see things the same way.  I just thought I would share that little incident. 

I did feel bad when I learned a few months later that this trainer, whose office was in California and ours of course in Pennsylvania, had passed away suddenly of some before undetected malady in her mid 60s.  She did her work with such enthusiasm; it was sad.

Mark, IIRC you chose 8" to give you easier access to the tracks that will run beneath the upper level. Don't forget that the overall height also has to consider the height of your rolling stock, so you'll be awfully close to that 13 1/2" separation when all is said and done.

Good point Dave for sure!!  That is why I want to start at that end of the layout.  If I have to have it above the window sill I will because my wife asked if she can keep books, videos, games, etc on the bookshelves.  My construction will have to make easy access for her, which is maybe the best reason for making the layout high as John suggested!    She donated the land for the right of way, so we will have to give her all the easements she desires!  

Reminds me of a true story my maternal grandmother told many times.  When the PRR wanted to build a branch line from the Connemaugh Division at Freeport up over the hill and back down to Butler, the railroad people came to her father and said they wanted to build across part of his farm.  They were willing to pay a certain amount, but great-grandpa said he was willing to let them have the right of way for free, because he could get his farm goods and lumber he cut transported with ease.

Funny, once the line was abandoned in the '80s and they were building the bike trail, one farmer took the local rails to trails to court claiming the right of way reverted back to him afterwards.  He even dumped truck loads of rock on the right of way to block bikers.  He lost out, and has now passed on.  Now his son, who is a friend of mine, raises turkeys right up next to the bike trail, and it is a nice stop for city bikers to get a bit of a view of farm life. 

That's a good story, Mark. As you know, I have a similar problem with the bottom of the framing needing to be above 36" and the top of the rolling stock preferably not going over 43". Fortunately, my rise is only 3" and I don't really have to even do that, so I should be okay, though I am going to use a simple set of 3" tall box frame modules for the 16' legs of the "L".

Looks like the development crew is all over the new land acquired! Looks good to me!! Good luck with the construction.

Mark, I think you are absolutely correct about your story above and the 'maintenance comes from another budget' is also spot on. I worked for a very large company for 20 years that operated the same way. It just never made sense to me so I finally quit and went elsewhere. The big wigs in the big corporations seem to look at things a lot differently than the folks doing the work. 

Also, they were constantly trying to reinvent the wheel for everything they were doing...I have a good story or two about that as well!

Now that I have finished moving my brass instrument repair business out of my house, I have some layout time. This afternoon, I did some work removing track and old road bed from our city scene in preparation for the addition of switches and sidings and a fresh blanket of snow for the city. There is new industry moving into the city of Christopolis and new sidings must be added. Also, our busy dock at our harbor is getting a siding to facilitate the unloading of freight from boat to train. Several new switches are being added as passages from one main line to the other that serves Christopolis for ease of routing trains to there correct tracks in the new Union Station that is being built. The rural suburb of Terryville will also receive a face lift once the city is complete.

I'm looking forward to getting some non hobby things done so I can get back to my layout too, Randy!  While I don't like the idea of the blanket of snow...Outside that is, I'll be ready I think once the leaves are all picked up for the winter!  

Since I have had several folks ask me how the new layout build is going, I thought I would post something here for everyone who has been following.  I knew I wouldn’t get started on the new, expanded layout until this winter, but some support items have taken place.

Since my parents went to live in a personal care home last summer, I have been cleaning out a lot of things from the basement, garage, and workshop on another basement.  Since the house has been in the family since 1888, there are lots of things to make decisions on whether to keep, throw out, or have salvage people take.  In addition, there is a lot of mowing and repairs that I have been doing.  I did bring a load of lumber home that I can use on the layout.  I really don’t have an inventory of that yet however.

As many modelers and collectors, I have accumulated more engines and rolling stock than I can use even on the expanded layout.  So I have been thinning the roster of items that don’t fit the Western Maryland Blackwater Canyon theme.  Since I want a scenic backdrop behind the layout, I don’t have wall space for many shelves to display models.  What space I will have is the wall at the top of the drawing between the two top doors.  Right now our older daughter’s 100+ year old upright piano is covering the wall.  There is an outside chance that they may move into my parents’ house, so I don’t want to see them move it twice.  I helped move my mother’s spinet piano to our younger daughter’s home, which was a much easier move.  So I will wait on getting that wall freed up.  I want to use it for train photographs and signs, so only a few shelves for the three postwar trains I have.

Due to some financial setbacks, namely me working only part time for the last year and not being able to put money away for real estate taxes and emergencies, we have drained the liquid savings a bit.  So I made some hard decisions on selling a few more items than I had first planned.  I still have plenty.

So my engine roster as it stands are a WM H9 2-8-0, two WM BL2 only one is powered, a WM RSD5, a WM F7 A-B-A, and two B&O F3 A-B-A sets.  The WM units are all Premier PS3 except the F7 which is Premier ProtoSound (PS1) with only one powered unit.  The nice B&O F3 set is Premier PS2 with two powered A units, but the other one I got a deal on, is ProtoSound (PS1) and two shells were broken and the repair job and repaint leaves a bit to be desired.  They run good however.  My plan is swap the bad shell for the non-powered WM A unit, and upgrade both WM A units to PS3.  I have the upgrade kits.  I upgraded the BL2 from PS1 to PS3 already.  I may put the motors and electronics in the non-powered BL2 or leave it in the remaining A unit.  The B&O units are a tribute to the B&O F units I saw on the nearby mainline while I was growing up in the ‘60s.

I would like to buy another WM steam engine, actually 2 would be nice.  I have looked at the latest Russian Decapod, but the price tag is too high.  A Pacific for the passenger train would be nice too.

As for rolling stock, I have about 15 2-bay open hoppers for coal traffic, some miscellaneous boxcars, a few tank cars with local names on them, some nice billboard reefers, a few flat cars and gondolas, and some caboose.  I would like to get a couple more Western Maryland caboose when I see them.  I have a Railking 7-car set of 60-foot heavyweights in WM paint.  I also started collecting WM streamliners that are also RailKing.  These are special runs by the Frostburg Maryland club.  Last year they did two coaches, the order forms are in the mail for this year’s 2 cars, and they plan to do an observation and baggage car I think in the fall of 2019.  So by the end of next year I hope to have the 6-car set of those.

I also brought up that since I had the area basically built for the loopback curve at my lower town, I realized some of the commercial buildings I have are just too big for my use.  I sold the Menards Power Station, because I decided to only make a spur to the coal yard, and paint the Mount Storm Power Station, where I was once employed, on the backdrop in the distance like the prototype.  Several people suggested I hold off selling the larger buildings, as I could cut them apart for flats.  I am going to take that advice and see where it goes.

Well, that is where I am at.  I will be happy to see any comments anyone has.  Thank you.

Sounds good, Mark. It's always good to thin out the stock every once in a while and concentrate on what you really like. There's an old adage about clothes that says if you haven't worn something in over a year, it's time to get rid of it. I'm not sure it's the same for model railroading, but you get the point.

You've now focused on what you really like and what works for you rather than just randomly collecting stuff and that's a good thing. You'll be ready to go once the layout is done.  

Mark Boyce posted:

Reminds me of a true story my maternal grandmother told many times.  When the PRR wanted to build a branch line from the Connemaugh Division at Freeport up over the hill and back down to Butler, the railroad people came to her father and said they wanted to build across part of his farm.  They were willing to pay a certain amount, but great-grandpa said he was willing to let them have the right of way for free, because he could get his farm goods and lumber he cut transported with ease.

Funny, once the line was abandoned in the '80s and they were building the bike trail, one farmer took the local rails to trails to court claiming the right of way reverted back to him afterwards.  He even dumped truck loads of rock on the right of way to block bikers.  He lost out, and has now passed on.  Now his son, who is a friend of mine, raises turkeys right up next to the bike trail, and it is a nice stop for city bikers to get a bit of a view of farm life. 

   The same thing happened with my buddy's family .  Miles of the Mac were supposed to revert back to the family. No compensation was ever given, the original contracts blown off by the courts. The land was stolen imo. Eminent domain includes compensation, there was none. And age alone doesn't void a contract. ....The same year of another contract that keeps some donated land from being anything but the city's largest park. And of another where the land was recovered before house building began.   All this land was chosen carefully to build up the area between Alpea and Mackinaw... and this is the thanks they get ... There ought to be a law  ...oh wait... That was ignored 

Good to see the train juices are flowing Mark. 1888??? WOW That is an amazing accomplishment these days. You don't hear of houses staying in families like that too much any more. My In-laws have been in their house since '64 (my wife's childhood home), and they told her the other day that they want to leave the house to her. Maybe one of my kids will wind up in it one day.
All the stuff you do for your family keeps you busy. If you want , the guys around here could start a petition to let you have some time for trains.

Hope you get to start the build before the end of the year.

Bob

Adriatic, Yes That is right, we have too many laws, but they are often ignored anyway.

Bob, We live in a house my wife’s grandparents had built in 1968.  Wasn’t our particular choice, but we have been here 7 years.

        "If you want , the guys around here could start a petition,

                                                         to let you have some time for trains. "

                 sounds good Bob !

                                    " TRAIN TIME FOR MARK"  petition !

               here is to some train time for you soon Mark  ...     Brian

Mark,

 I hope things even out for you and you can get to starting the build soon.

George

Brian, Ha Ha!  I like that RS3 that you have there the best!!

George, Thank you very much!!!

Mark, I hope you get going here sometime soon, but don't hope for snow! LOL I know what you mean by taking awhile and in my case its the same low funds! But as I have told many others. Slow and easy! Its the build that is the trip your on, running the trains when you can are the vacation! Just enjoy as much of it as you can! I will be watching!

Mike, Thank you!  I always enjoy the trip to and from in addition to the vacation.  For instance I watched two Norfolk Southern freights climbing from Horseshoe Curve to Cresson Pennsylvania while travelling along US 22 to go to spring York, the second of my two trips there.  Not bad!!  I like the scenery over the mountains!  

We are so busy with other things, that time passes quickly, so I will be sawing and drilling before we know it.  

BTW When is that clutch going to be fixed, and when will you recover from the financial setback to resume heavy layout construction?

Hi Mark, the transmission gets fixed on Monday! It will be a little while to recover. But my Brother felt sorry for me and brought me some more 1 x 4 so I could finish most of my bench work , along with 2 sheets of 1/2"  plywood. A friend down the street says she has a 300' roll of 18g speaker wire I can have if I want to use it for my power runs! I think I will take her up on it!

Things are all good, just slow!

Mike, Transmission work is never inexpensive.  My car goes in for state inspection Monday.  Also, I am leaking steering fluid.  On a 2004, I don't want to pay a lot for this muffler, but I don't want a car payment either.  We will see.

Free wood and wire works as well as store bought, actually better than the wood some places sell as we have discussed on this Forum many times.  Take them up on it!!!  As you may recall, all my wood and Homasote has been free so far!  The stuff I got from my dad's shop is good, it is just a menagerie of sizes!!    I can get more free plywood as well from an O gauge friend who gets it at work.  They just pile it up for scrap after using it as separators on semi truck loads.  He hauls cheese, nothing but cheese; and plywood!!  

Mark Boyce posted:

 

So my engine roster as it stands are a WM H9 2-8-0, two WM BL2 only one is powered, a WM RSD5, a WM F7 A-B-A, and two B&O F3 A-B-A sets.  The WM units are all Premier PS3 except the F7 which is Premier ProtoSound (PS1) with only one powered unit.  The nice B&O F3 set is Premier PS2 with two powered A units, but the other one I got a deal on, is ProtoSound (PS1) and two shells were broken and the repair job and repaint leaves a bit to be desired.  They run good however.  My plan is swap the bad shell for the non-powered WM A unit, and upgrade both WM A units to PS3.  I have the upgrade kits.  I upgraded the BL2 from PS1 to PS3 already.  I may put the motors and electronics in the non-powered BL2 or leave it in the remaining A unit.  The B&O units are a tribute to the B&O F units I saw on the nearby mainline while I was growing up in the ‘60s.

I would like to buy another WM steam engine, actually 2 would be nice.  I have looked at the latest Russian Decapod, but the price tag is too high.  A Pacific for the passenger train would be nice too.

 

How could I forget.  The engine I have had the longest.  It is a Premier PS2 B&O Atlantic 4-4-2.  I just got it out and put it on track this past weekend.  I love those large drivers and trailing wheels.  It's a keeper too.

Mark and Mike,

I wish you both good luck getting back to your layouts. I admire your patience on your layout building, especially with all the setbacks. Too many setbacks sometimes make me lose interest for some time, at least until everything gets back to normal. Then it takes me a while to get back into everything.

Maybe the fall and winter will bring time to catch up an all fronts. It's great to have friends with access to things that are useful to train layouts too, rather than having to go to HD or Lowes all the time. And maybe that piano will soon get relocated too, so you have your space! 

Thank you RTR!

Here's where the piano is.  I can get building even if it is still in the way!  

I guess the piano isn't in the way that bad then. Just have to suck it in when passing by it, or at least I would.  I bet that thing does weigh a ton! That one might be difficult to move, even for those young & healthy lads.  

I was going to pay movers to move it for them.  Then I got on part time, the no time, now back on part time for now.  I can live with it right where it sits for now, since I am going to start building the over and under section on the upper left, so I can get the spacing right between built in bookshelf and windows.  I have just enough room with Dave's plan, but if I started at the other end, I know it wouldn't match up right mo matter how many times I measured,  

RTR, thanks for the kind words. Most of the time I am ok with the speed that things are going as long as its moving forward. But this truck and other stuff going on is dragging me down!

That's why it was a nice surprise when my brother showed up with some lumber for me ! What a great guy! so I have been slowly working on the cross members for the bench top to rest on. Drilled all the holes for the wires that I hope to run before I put the top on so it will cut down on time under the table ! LOL

I will try and post some pictures this coming weekend!

Hi Mark!

Awesome that you have aquired additional real estate and the layout is coming together.

    Can’t wait to see your version of the WM

Maybe pick up one of those MTH Premier WM Challengers lol

  The MTH Decapod would be a nice model for your layout maybe Santa can oblige one year

  Good to see lots of help from Forum members assisting 

Al

I like the track plan, Mark. The way the return loops are integrated is very neat.