Rubin’s New Layout

Mark,

Every time I look at the wildly escalating price of steam v. diesel models, with many high end steamers now between $1,800 and $2,300, I cannot help but think that the model market is emulating one of the factors that killed real steam 80 years ago. The early F-3's, etc.,  beat the heck out of steam when it came to cost, simplicity, maintenance, fuel, crew and almost everything else. As you know, in three rail land, we can buy a brand new high end diesel for about 60% of a legacy steamer. And we're not even talking about the shelf queens we all own from the 1980's with their poor sound, unsalvageable chips, etc. I'm not giving up my steamers but it does make you think. And speaking of thinking, now that MTH is no longer making their system and the chip availability issues are forcing us to run our trains via our phones or our geriatric remotes , I'm beginning to reconsider using my old ZW's, KW's and Z4000 to run my layout ( well, sort of). I do like DCS and TMCC for what they offer, but what about the future?

Oh, well.  We'll just have to enjoy it all while can.

Rubin

Rubin, good point.  I prefer steam, but I only have one that I bought new, a RailKing.  I have 4 nice diesels I bought new.  I may try the DCS wifi when the new wifi TIU comes out only because I have troubles with the remote thumbwheel with my arthritis.  Maybe that is like the real railroads with maintenance issues.  I’ve thought about selling my Z4000 with the price they are going for, but haven’t been that sure I want to yet.

@Mark Boyce  @RubinG  Interesting discussion re the cost of new steamers.  If you watch the auctions you can do much better with used if you understand they may need new electronics if you go that direction. Maybe dead rail is a solution here. Of course there is the issue of needing a whole lot of space to run these engines.  Then you may be back to traditional sized Lionel or K-Line, or the RailKing line of engines. I picked up a couple of Weaver brass engines which run fine on transformer control. One has an early version of DCS and the others mostly have TMCC.

While having no larger than 042 dia curves would make life a whole lot easier, I can't go back to the semi-scale engines. My GS4 Southern Pacific Daylight is the cat's meow compared with its sister RK version. Both nice, but ... Now I am stuck with 072 curves in a space that is really too tight for them. Oh well, onward and upwards.

Scouting Dad and Mark,

I can’t imagine going back to post war or Railking, even though I do own several. But I do like the smaller scale models like Lionel & MTH & older KLine scale  NYC, PRR & New Haven steam ( Mikes, Pacifics, 4-6-0, etc). But when the guts go flaky on these engines, it’s hard and often too costly to get them repaired. And when they work, locos like the very nice Lionel L3 Mohawk are poor TMCC performers because they have a very good old fashioned Pulmor motors , which don’t play well with TMCC. I’ve read of people pulling the motor and putting in a good can motor and new electronics, but what a project!

But I confess that I do love scale stuff. I just looked at an early MTH passenger set from 1995 and I can’t wait to run it again.it’s been years. But they need 072 at a minimum to look good and run well…

Edward was right about how important that is, so I’ll have to figure out what my priorities and desires are. Time will tell, I guess.
what I’m really wondering is when my 20 year old Z4000 will go on the fritz and what I will do then.
What I do know is that OGR Forum and all of you are the best.
Thanks,

Rubin

What's new in version 9...

• Aligned branch line on right with return loop
• Added lower right return loop (O56).
• Redesign yard.
• Redesign yard lead and branch into one.

Know to do:

• Shaping of mainline and branch center peninsula
• Align branch line on right with hidden return loop

Just a thought.  I needed longer yard tracks mostly for passenger train holding.  By using curved Ross turnouts i gained a significant amount of trackage.  The outer curves are between 120 and 72.

I think this plan solves a number of problems.

@ScoutingDad posted:

Just a thought.  I needed longer yard tracks mostly for passenger train holding.  By using curved Ross turnouts i gained a significant amount of trackage.  The outer curves are between 120 and 72.

Based on Jeff's suggestion, I built a new yard.  5 sidings up from 3 and much longer.

Thanks Jeff for the idea...

What's new in version 10...

• Redesign yard with curved switches.
• Redesign branch center peninsula for room for new yard.

Know to do:

• Shaping of mainline and branch center peninsula

Amazing what a couple of curved switches will do! Nice redesign.  Your loop allows you to change ends on freight cars strings in the event a switcher would be leading the string into a dead end, so you can back cars into those tracks. I would love to have the apparent available space you do. wow

I think you will be very pleased with the additional yard space.  Jeff

Boy, when this collaborated on a plan, great results follow! Thank you one and all!

Edward, what are the radii on the center island? What size curved switches do I need from Ross?

it looks like my primary operating stand would be in the right aisle rather than the larger left aisle  At only 30” it’s tight, but the plan just looks so good!
is there adequate clearance between the right most lower level track and the upper level line ramp downward? It looks very close  if it is adequate, I guess I will scenic the the ramp like a stone viaduct and do an urban background above  actually I will probably do so either way  your thoughts are very welcome  I had thought about shifting the yard to the center section for ease of operation, but after seeing this terrific latest iteration I just want to start construction  Anyone interested in in joining me in this effort? I’m in Northeast Ohio.
Thanks again, everyone!

@RubinG posted:

Boy, when this collaborated on a plan, great results follow! Thank you one and all!

Edward, what are the radii on the center island? What size curved switches do I need from Ross?

it looks like my primary operating stand would be in the right aisle rather than the larger left aisle  At only 30” it’s tight, but the plan just looks so good!
is there adequate clearance between the right most lower level track and the upper level line ramp downward? It looks very close  if it is adequate, I guess I will scenic the the ramp like a stone viaduct and do an urban background above  actually I will probably do so either way  your thoughts are very welcome  I had thought about shifting the yard to the center section for ease of operation, but after seeing this terrific latest iteration I just want to start construction  Anyone interested in in joining me in this effort? I’m in Northeast Ohio.
Thanks again, everyone!

Center island is O54, I would seriously consider O63

the yard is 5 Ross #230 and 1 O72, I need to tweak it a bit. The original design was 8 tracks, but I cut one off because you don’t have the room.

what do you think about moving the center island a few inches to the left? The yard and all the switches are banging in to each other.  I would chop the lower right side by the loop, and the lower left side of the center, and tighten the pass for a few inches.

let me look at the clearance on both the right and left side into the loop with the ramp. What size do you want?

what do you think about taking the right return loop to O63? May be able to make a small aisle around it.

somewhere gunrunnerjohn posted a excellent lift gate you need to check out, he has complex track on it. I would do that rather than a duck under.

@RubinG posted:

Boy, when this collaborated on a plan, great results follow! Thank you one and all!

Edward, what are the radii on the center island? What size curved switches do I need from Ross?

it looks like my primary operating stand would be in the right aisle rather than the larger left aisle  At only 30” it’s tight, but the plan just looks so good!
is there adequate clearance between the right most lower level track and the upper level line ramp downward? It looks very close  if it is adequate, I guess I will scenic the the ramp like a stone viaduct and do an urban background above  actually I will probably do so either way  your thoughts are very welcome  I had thought about shifting the yard to the center section for ease of operation, but after seeing this terrific latest iteration I just want to start construction  Anyone interested in in joining me in this effort? I’m in Northeast Ohio.
Thanks again, everyone!

Rubin, Yes, this plan looks like a good way to go.  I'm sure there will be adjustments along the way, but in general, it looks good.  Join you in the effort?  I would have been happy too, and you are only about a 2-hour drive from me here in Northwestern Pennsylvania.  You may already know, I am not up to the travel at this time, but hopefully I'll be a lot better by winter.  For now, I'm staying tuned in to watch the progress.

What's new in version 11...

• Major redesign of center island.
  • Now can stay in center island with new loop
  • Long passing siding
  • Reverse loop
  • Better connection to yard and mainline.
• Tweak of yard.
• Moved yard left for more room to ramp.

Know to do:

• ?

Watching with high interest!

Richard

WOW GUYS!

Rubin, you along with Edward, Mark and Jeff sure have come up with a nice layout plan. I just came across this thread when Jeff posted in it. I am like Jeff and Mark, and Bob in wishing we had the room you do! I must of missed something somewhere as I thought at the start you wanted a TT on your layout! I no longer see it on Edwards latest plan.

Either way I love the direction it is going, but I do want you to remember one thing. Not only is it smart to make it fun for the grandkids, but make sure it is fun for you! As I have learned for at least my grandkids have moved on to tablets and other gadgets!

A 24" (or maybe larger) turntable could fit inside the lower right loop maybe one of the other loops. You have a great plan so far.

Edward,

Sorry I haven’t responded sooner but I’ve been in Niagara on the Lake with my wife. I will be back in Cleveland late tomorrow evening.
Thank you once again.
The center island can be moved to the left, but not on the prat adjacent to the main line return loop. The opening to the layout is is only 30” as is.
while version 11 is a valiant effort, there are some features that may be too much of a good thing. I don’t believe that the center island loop is what I want. A train making loops on a 5-6 foot wide space will end up looking toy-like, I think. That’s why I designed the layout so that the loop on the center island is actually a reversing loop which takes the train on to the right side and down to the new reversing loop.
As to the yard, it is much more impressive and functional using the curve turnouts. But as you noted, it’s very crowded there. Also as drawn, it cuts into the 30” aisle, making reaching into the corner almost impossible. In addition, there’s no lead. Perhaps fewer yard tracks might be worth looking at.
We still need to solve the problem caused by the new return loop cutting off the entry aisle. Mianne makes a very nice motorized lift section, but I’m not sure that it would solve the here. It’s also about $1,000, which is possible but far from ideal.
In answer to one of your questions, my style of operating is to have trains meet at passing sidings. I do this much more than switch long strings of freight cars, but of course, I’ve not had the to do so before.
I have some more thoughts but I will try to get them to you after I return home.

Thanks again,

Rubin

Hi Rubin, as for your problem with the return loop cutting off access to the aisle you might think about a motorized lift bridge same as Mark and I have done! I will try and get a video of it for you in a little while. it was less the $100 plus your labor!

Niagara on the Lake!  I was there once; Long, Long Ago!  Have a great time!

I will second Mike's comment.  You don't even need a bridge like Mike and I used, just a sparsely sceniced board will do.

Hi All,

Since we were talking about Bill Benson and his Right of Way Industries trains, now that I’m back home I thought that I’d fish out my sole remaining ROW engine, from 1991. As some of you may recall, the B&O docksider was a tiny tank switcher developed by the B&O to cope with the very sharp curves of the Baltimore waterfront industries. During model railroading’s very early years Varney had a very popular version of this little switcher, one of which even made its appearance on John Allen’s famed HO railroad, The Gorre and Daphetid. It was also produced by PFM in brass in the 50’s. In 1991 or so, Bill Benson made one in Korea for the then burgeoning 3rail scale market. Because of its diminutive size it actually has a plug on the rear of the cab so that the engine could be connected to a boxcar containing the sound.Unfortunately, it wasn’t a great runner and so it has sat pristine in its box for all these many years.

It might be useful in the urban switching scene I’m planning, if only it could make it across Ross switches, ran well at low speeds and was more easily converted to Kadee couplers. Ah, well…

Back to the layout.

Edward, as I keep studying the drawings, I think that the yard is just way too crowded. And to be enjoyably functional, it definitely needs a long lead, which may be present in the way you’ve drawn the upper part of the loop on the center area now. Perhaps a three track yard is all that this area can handle.

I was wondering whether the curved switches suggested by Jeff might be a useful way the extend the Main line passing siding on the center peninsula.

I’m also persuaded by your argument that I should try to go to 072 as a minimum on the left side loop, given all the 18” passenger cars that I learning I own, but I can quite see how to do it  . The return loops certainly do create some stubborn facts.

I wish all of you and our country a happy and peaceful Fourth of July.

All the best,

Rubin

@RubinG  Rubin for what its worth, my yard design is primarily to hold several sets of 18 and 21 inch passenger cars. Over roughly 40 feet in track length the elevation decreases about 7 1/2 inches. All of my passenger cars are able to back down the slope into the stops at the end of the line. Thanks in no small part to the generous curved Ross switches. My max yard consist length is just under 13 feet with minimum at 8 feet. All in a 12x12 space.

Loops require a lot of room, I did not have the space to reasonably fit in O72 dia curves. My track layout is under the TPRR thread.

@RubinG posted:

Edward, as I keep studying the drawings, I think that the yard is just way too crowded.

-The curve yard is just to show how much space you can save. But it brings tradeoffs..

And to be enjoyably functional, it definitely needs a long lead, which may be present in the way you’ve drawn the upper part of the loop on the center area now.

-All the yards are designed to be staging/fiddle yards. if you want prototypical yard operations, that's a whole different thing, you would need to give up a whole bunch of things, as leads on small radius curves just don't work, and I now sure how you can cut cars on a three to five track yard.

Perhaps a three track yard is all that this area can handle.

-See version 9

I was wondering whether the curved switches suggested by Jeff might be a useful way the extend the Main line passing siding on the center peninsula.

-You could gain a foot or so. I'll have to play. Too bad you don't like the island in version 11, but I understand. It's your railroad...

I’m also persuaded by your argument that I should try to go to 072 as a minimum on the left side loop, given all the 18” passenger cars that I learning I own, but I can quite see how to do it  . The return loops certainly do create some stubborn facts.

-Here is a exercise I want you to do. Find 2 tables, card, folding, end, whatever, that are about 24 inches on one side. Place the tables on the 24 inch side 18" apart. Walk through as see how it feels. Then do 20", 22", you get the idea. You may find for a small run, less than 30" may work.  It would only be needed a the widest points of the loops. 

What's new in version 12...

• Built off version 9
• Longer passing siding center island (starts on curve)
• Tweak "S" curve center top right
• 

Edward,

I think this plan looks great! About the only thing I might change is to add another passing siding on the center peninsula.
im going to play with the aisles later today and whatever radius I have to live with in order to make the aisle work,etc is what I will do ( As to the width of the aisles, it’s not just my girth that has to be accommodated, but also the trains which must be protected from caused by making friends and family ( and young kids) squeeze through too narrow an opening.
I'm excited to move forward.
just to be sure, are the new curved turnouts Ross 072/054 ?

Have a happy 4th and thank you once again!

Rubin

Yes the new curved turnouts are Ross 072/054

Do you want the new siding on the left or right?

Have a safe and happy 4th!!!

On the inward side, please.
I’ve also been playing around with splurging on the Mianne Lift gate in order to eliminate the duck under altogether, at least on right side of the layout. It would also eliminate the return loop. I’ll send a drawing of what I’m thinking about shortly.
According to the Mianne website, model LG-3060- FS REQUIRES A 62” bench work opening for installation and would provide a 29 3/4” wide opening for entry into the layout interior and open to a height of 64”.  
I’m not sure this can work in the space I have, but…

After you’ve seen the drawing, please let me know your thoughts.
Many thanks, as always.
Rubin

Edward,

Attached is the (rough) sketch I referred to. It would solve the aisle access as well as the duckunder problems,but would enlarge the layout even more even as I am trying to build and wire this behemoth in stages.
This was worth the effort to do the exercise and eliminating the need to get into the middle of the loop is a worthy goal ( So say my back and knees!) but I still like the last version a lot.
With shipping, the lift gate will run about $1500, which is not insignificant either, especially since I will also need to buy several pair of Ross switches and several sets of curves.
Meanwhile, I did inventory my track this afternoon and got a couple of joists installed.
I’m looking forward to your sage thoughts.
Thanks,

Rubin

Edward,

I just realized that my response about where to put the new siding may be misleading. I want it to be on the right of the passing siding on the left side of the center area.
I hope I’ve clarified things.
Thanks again,

Rubin

I plan to use a cheap lift desk from Amazon (under $200) to make a opening to avoid duck or craw-under opening.

48 inch wide Table top is raised with added feet to about 36 inches high and the lift desk has a 24 inch lift so about 50 inches high when open.

I thought of combining two lift mech to get more lift.

Metal drawer slides can be used for guides and support.

Desk Lift mechs with controllers were about $80 on Ebay, but shipping is high if not local.

There is a lot of cheap office furniture for sale- do to offices closing and WFH.

I have gotten free shelving, chairs and computer monitors mainly off down-sizers on Craigslist.

I rather spend my money on nice trains instead of furniture and fixtures.

Maybe I should just built a oversize lift bridge for the entry

Totrainyard,

I’m impressed with the way you think.
Any pictures?

Rubin

The Mianne Lift gate is an excellent product, however I don't think it solves you problem. For the two loops and the bridge, I would use one of the solutions in the following posts.

Hinged bridge

Hinged bridge 2

Rubin, I’ll second Edward’s idea of the hinged bridge.  There are a lot of great examples in the two links he posted.

Edward and Mark,

aside from the very impressive savings ( always desirable) why do you feel that the Mianne device won’t be suitable but these others will?

Rubin, I think the Mianne device is outstanding.  I am just endorsing less expensive alternatives.  From what I have seen from folks who have shared their experiences with the Mianne product, it installs easy.  All of the hardware is included and the product is proven.  My installation took a lot of fiddling, many holes were drilled that weren’t used, but I saved money.  Even though I used Mianne benchwork for about half my benchwork, I could’ve fit the Mianne lift up in my space with the Mianne benchwork.  I only had a 26” opening to be bridged.  If you can fit their product in your space, then it is a good option.

@RubinG posted:

Edward and Mark,

aside from the very impressive savings ( always desirable) why do you feel that the Mianne device won’t be suitable but these others will?

I don't see how the lift works with the track plan?

Using the DIY bridge

Edward and all,

Attached is my conceptualization of the bridge would work.
The overhead main line would no longer cross the aisle. Instead it would continue on, cross over the lift bridge and following the extended layout area around and onto the existing plan.

Likewise, the lower level extension would attach to the center loop via a switch. To replace the now sacrificed reversing loop, a new crossing on the lower level would extend from one side of the center area to the other, but I haven’t yet come up with a way to create a reversing loop that I like or which does the job. Like I said, this is highly conceptual at this. It also makes the layout than I planned for, but it does eliminate the duck under issues.
Please feel free to minix in, one and all.
Please see my concept drawing below.
Thanks again,

Rubin

@RubinG posted:

The center island can be moved to the left, but not on the prat adjacent to the main line return loop. The opening to the layout is is only 30” as is.
while version 11 is a valiant effort, there are some features that may be too much of a good thing. I don’t believe that the center island loop is what I want. A train making loops on a 5-6 foot wide space will end up looking toy-like, I think. That’s why I designed the layout so that the loop on the center island is actually a reversing loop which takes the train on to the right side and down to the new reversing loop.
As to the yard, it is much more impressive and functional using the curve turnouts. But as you noted, it’s very crowded there. Also as drawn, it cuts into the 30” aisle, making reaching into the corner almost impossible. In addition, there’s no lead. Perhaps fewer yard tracks might be worth looking at.
We still need to solve the problem caused by the new return loop cutting off the entry aisle. Mianne makes a very nice motorized lift section, but I’m not sure that it would solve the here. It’s also about $1,000, which is possible but far from ideal.
In answer to one of your questions, my style of operating is to have trains meet at passing sidings. I do this much more than switch long strings of freight cars, but of course, I’ve not had the to do so before.
I have some more thoughts but I will try to get them to you after I return home.

Thanks again,

Rubin

Late to the party, I know, but based on your concerns have you considered simply eliminating the center aisle altogether and expanding the size of the loops on either side to O84 or O96 which would allow you to run 21" passenger cars with ease; eliminate the need for a bridge or liftgate, allow for a yard and sidings within one of the loops; a reversing curve, passing sidings and possible turntable in the other loop; and allow more aisle room. You could also use the center aisle space for your control center and possible work area.

Richie,

Thank you very much for your thoughts. Please take a look at the stream, especially at all the hard work that Edward has done along with others in helping me get this far. The plans tell the story. I could very happily build what we’ve put together in, I believe, Plan version 11 ( a large chunk of basic bench work is built, although not all of it) but I’m just experimenting with this latest tweak because of my desire to have no duck unders, if possible. And each loop does represent a duck under, at least of a limited sort.

Rubin, it is perfectly fine to plan a layout, do iterations and then toss it out and start again.  We all get focused on wanting some item and doing all we can to work it in. In some cases we come to the realization too many compromises were made or its simply not doable. Then using that knowledge start again and try to work in your must haves.

Rule 1.  Its your railroad do and build what you want.

Rule 2. Laws of physics and space will affect what you want. Compromise where possible.

Rule 3. There is never enough yard space - my rule - my opinion

Rule 4. HAVE FUN

Scouting Dad,

I love a philosopher, especially one whose thoughts I agree with. That having been said, I really want to get the show on the road and get the trains running. I still marvel at how happy I become just by going into my layout room for a few minutes. It’s clearly my “ happy place,”

And I really enjoy having this group keeping me company on the journey, which is almost always more important than the destination.
Rubin