After spending the better part of the year not getting very far on the construction of the layout (for a variety of reasons) I'm considering the options again. There are always lots of decisions to make on what to model and I find that indecision is directly affected by the ratio of planning to doing.
I'm now to the point where I want to get the basic layout up by the end of the year. When planning a layout, even a small one, it's sometimes easy to forget how much this entails. So what and I really trying to accomplish?
1. Prepare the layout room.
I have to complete moving the doors, patching the walls, and removing the old layout. The moving the doors project itself may also include fixing a crack in the floor of the utility room, and tiling the utility room and closet. There is a small amount of electrical work (moving switches) as well. In theory this is a one-weekend project if all goes well. (The rooms aren't that large). I'll need to determine how much lumber I'll salvage from the old layout as well.
2. Build the benchwork.
This will probably be done in stages, with the lower benchwork (staging) built first, all staging track laid, and then the upper benchwork built. Before any work on the upper deck is done (including trackwork) I need to cove the corners and paint sky. I don't have a table saw, or a chop saw so I'll have to call on some friends to help move this along.
3. Build the helixes.
I have to complete the two decks first, then connect them with the helix. The exact approach to staging for the Berlin line is as yet undecided. I could feed it into the closet, which would probably allow better access to the track, or loop it into the helix and include a couple of staging tracks on the main staging deck. This would be more complicated to build, but would keep all of the staging in one place (and allow longer staging for the Berlin line). This also requires access to a table saw.
4. Lay track.
This is pretty straightforward at this point. Most likely I would complete all of the mainline (including turnouts) before laying the sidings to allow testing and operation.
That in and of itself is a lot to do in a few months. I work pretty quickly when things are organized, so it's feasible, but I'm not sure how probable. The focus next year would be...what?
If I have a mainline built, I'll want some trains to run. The locomotives I have with decoders are all locomotives that won't be used in the future because they don't meet my modeling standards any more. So I'll need to get a decoder installed in at least one locomotive, and I should start from the beginning with sound so I don't have to go back and do it again. Then I'll need some rolling stock.
So I'm back to waffling. Proto:87? I've got a test set of wheels and they look great. After comparing with a code:88 wheels I found that the tread is the same, it's the flanges that are different between the two. It's noticeable, when side-by-side, but not so important once you're running trains. Plus, if I go with proto:87 I'll have to change out wheelsets on the locomotives, and I have to hand lay (or modify) turnouts for the staging area. That would delay the layout further.
So I'm back to working with fine scale HO specs. I can live with that.
Then there's the rolling stock. While I'm enjoying working with the resin kits, my skills and supplies make them slow going. Simpler standards then will make it easier to populate the layout more quickly, and probably be less expensive as well. The problem is that there is no really good resource to verify the accuracy of the many kits and RTR models on the market. From an operational standpoint, how much does this matter? That is my primary goal, get this running so I can start some operations. For photographs I can populate the foreground subjects with the more accurate and detailed cars.
I'll still stick with companies that are generally respected for fairly accurate models. I'll also try to verify specific cars in the ORER. But to run even a small operating session I'll need a lot of cars. So I'll have to populate it with a mix of useable cars. Since these will be among the first on the layout, they will also be among the first to retire.
So I'm back to an HO-scale rather than proto:87 model, and with looser overall standards for the models. Keeping the overall goal in mind (get operations running as soon as possible) helps to make decisions. Scenery will have to wait until the trackwork is done, and a decent amount of rolling stock (freight and passenger) will be the focus for next year.
But first, I've got to get that benchwork done!
Update Jan 25, 2011 - Wow...am I slow. October 2008 and I was talking about laying track in a few months?!? I'm hoping for next month!
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Back from Vacation
We spent about 10 days visiting family so there hasn't been much to update here. Most of what I've been working on is developing a wish list of foreign roster cars (preparing for birthday/Christmas...). All too often I find myself at a hobby shop looking at kits and I have no idea which would be appropriate for my layout, nor which are the better kits in regards to accuracy so I don't have to make too many changes.
In fact, I found myself in that scenario recently. I picked up a Branchline Blueprint-series reefer. I'm finding that I'll have enough local traffic to warrant a few reefers, not to mention a block of them on the front of the Maybrook-Hartford (OA) freights.
In addition, I'm using the kit as another step in my experimentation with standards for the layout. The Branchline kits have a lot of detail, including pretty complete underframe detailing. Unlike the Intermountain or Red Caboose kits though, they consist of separate parts, and aren't on the narrow vertical plane of the other kits. So out of the box they look pretty good.
The downside of the Branchline kits is that the brake levers are two pieces that glue into either side of the center sill, instead of a single piece that passes all the way through. Aside from not being prototypically correct, I think that this makes the parts weaker and more susceptible to damage.
In the end I replaced some of the piping with wire, and used some of the plastic piping that is already attached to the parts. I'll have to paint it, which is another disadvantage to replacing the parts. The plastic parts can also be more detailed (pipe fittings, etc). Once painted I don't think the difference will be noticeable.
Another potential reason for replacing the plastic piping is durability. But I'm using brass wire and half of a turnbuckle for a clevis along with the brake lever form the kit (which requires cutting off the plastic wire and scraping off the cast on clevis). In the end I'm using three parts with joints which very well could be weaker than the original part.
So like the bracket grabs, I may start using the kit parts first, and repairing them with wire if necessary. This will help get cars on the track quicker (when there is a track). I may still use standard parts for the more visible items (air hoses, power brakes, etc.) but while the underframe will be visible, it will rarely be in a position for close inspection. This does depend on the kit, though. I prefer that there is a little more separation between the brake piping, it looks more prototypical when viewing a car on the track.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Branchline Reefers
Comment posted 9/17/2008
Randy,
Glad you got around to actually BUILDING one of the reefer kits. ;>) (So many collect dust!)
Found your comment about the durability of the brake rods interesting though... First, unless you model the O&W (God forbid!) and most of your rolling stock ends up upside down, the gap in the brake rods is not visbisle. FWIW, based on my experience with.... ummm... a few of these kits (!) the weak spot is not in the brake gear but rather the stirrup steps (in particular the CENTER setep) which, when handled by earnest operators uncoupling or re-railing these cars often fall victem to a cry of "oops..."! In fairness, this is a common problem, not only with ours but also I-M and Red Caboose reefers. The best solution is probably to replace the steps with modified A-Line U-shaped steps, insterted into holes drilled in the original mounting points and then bent outwards slightly to match the prototype. In fact, although I have yet to replace a brake pipe, I suspect that next time you are over you will be hard pressed to find ANY reefer on my layout that still has its full compliment of steps! (Must see about buying those A-Line parts in bulk......)
Bill Schneider
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Durability, etc.
Comment posted 9/18/2008
Thanks for the comment, Bill. Yes, it's true that you'll never notice the gap in the brake levers except when you are photographing the underframe and such.
The stirrups and the air hoses will definitely be the most susceptible to damage once I have the layout built. Until then, though, they are subject to the fat fingers of the modeler, and the brake gear was in place before I started messing around with wheels and stuff. Also, I had decided to assemble the bulk of the underframe before fitting it to the rest of the car, and it was a bit tighter fit than I remembered from the test fit.
Initially, I intended to use A-Line steps for all of my models, as well as replacing the brake gear with wire and "standard" brake gear. This model however has made me rethink that approach, especially in regards to time and money. So I now plan on building the kits much more frequently with the provided parts, unless
1) I really don't like the look of the parts, or;
2) I have some information about them being prototypically inaccurate.
In a sense it's kind of funny, because I always thought that the write-ups of F&C kits were odd because everybody seems to throw out the green wire they supply with...more wire.
In regards to durability altogether, I'm hoping that since the Sergent couplers don't require as much handling to uncouple that there will be less wear-and-tear on the cars themselves.
In any event, reading my initial commentary, "downside" was a bit stronger than my intention. I just found them a little fiddly in the assembly. Of course, this is from a modeler who still hasn't completed 10 models yet...
Randy
In fact, I found myself in that scenario recently. I picked up a Branchline Blueprint-series reefer. I'm finding that I'll have enough local traffic to warrant a few reefers, not to mention a block of them on the front of the Maybrook-Hartford (OA) freights.
In addition, I'm using the kit as another step in my experimentation with standards for the layout. The Branchline kits have a lot of detail, including pretty complete underframe detailing. Unlike the Intermountain or Red Caboose kits though, they consist of separate parts, and aren't on the narrow vertical plane of the other kits. So out of the box they look pretty good.
The downside of the Branchline kits is that the brake levers are two pieces that glue into either side of the center sill, instead of a single piece that passes all the way through. Aside from not being prototypically correct, I think that this makes the parts weaker and more susceptible to damage.
In the end I replaced some of the piping with wire, and used some of the plastic piping that is already attached to the parts. I'll have to paint it, which is another disadvantage to replacing the parts. The plastic parts can also be more detailed (pipe fittings, etc). Once painted I don't think the difference will be noticeable.
Another potential reason for replacing the plastic piping is durability. But I'm using brass wire and half of a turnbuckle for a clevis along with the brake lever form the kit (which requires cutting off the plastic wire and scraping off the cast on clevis). In the end I'm using three parts with joints which very well could be weaker than the original part.
So like the bracket grabs, I may start using the kit parts first, and repairing them with wire if necessary. This will help get cars on the track quicker (when there is a track). I may still use standard parts for the more visible items (air hoses, power brakes, etc.) but while the underframe will be visible, it will rarely be in a position for close inspection. This does depend on the kit, though. I prefer that there is a little more separation between the brake piping, it looks more prototypical when viewing a car on the track.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Branchline Reefers
Comment posted 9/17/2008
Randy,
Glad you got around to actually BUILDING one of the reefer kits. ;>) (So many collect dust!)
Found your comment about the durability of the brake rods interesting though... First, unless you model the O&W (God forbid!) and most of your rolling stock ends up upside down, the gap in the brake rods is not visbisle. FWIW, based on my experience with.... ummm... a few of these kits (!) the weak spot is not in the brake gear but rather the stirrup steps (in particular the CENTER setep) which, when handled by earnest operators uncoupling or re-railing these cars often fall victem to a cry of "oops..."! In fairness, this is a common problem, not only with ours but also I-M and Red Caboose reefers. The best solution is probably to replace the steps with modified A-Line U-shaped steps, insterted into holes drilled in the original mounting points and then bent outwards slightly to match the prototype. In fact, although I have yet to replace a brake pipe, I suspect that next time you are over you will be hard pressed to find ANY reefer on my layout that still has its full compliment of steps! (Must see about buying those A-Line parts in bulk......)
Bill Schneider
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Durability, etc.
Comment posted 9/18/2008
Thanks for the comment, Bill. Yes, it's true that you'll never notice the gap in the brake levers except when you are photographing the underframe and such.
The stirrups and the air hoses will definitely be the most susceptible to damage once I have the layout built. Until then, though, they are subject to the fat fingers of the modeler, and the brake gear was in place before I started messing around with wheels and stuff. Also, I had decided to assemble the bulk of the underframe before fitting it to the rest of the car, and it was a bit tighter fit than I remembered from the test fit.
Initially, I intended to use A-Line steps for all of my models, as well as replacing the brake gear with wire and "standard" brake gear. This model however has made me rethink that approach, especially in regards to time and money. So I now plan on building the kits much more frequently with the provided parts, unless
1) I really don't like the look of the parts, or;
2) I have some information about them being prototypically inaccurate.
In a sense it's kind of funny, because I always thought that the write-ups of F&C kits were odd because everybody seems to throw out the green wire they supply with...more wire.
In regards to durability altogether, I'm hoping that since the Sergent couplers don't require as much handling to uncouple that there will be less wear-and-tear on the cars themselves.
In any event, reading my initial commentary, "downside" was a bit stronger than my intention. I just found them a little fiddly in the assembly. Of course, this is from a modeler who still hasn't completed 10 models yet...
Randy
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Compressing the Prototype
Compressing a prototype plan to one manageble in a model is affected by many different things, starting with the design concept itself. What are you trying to model? Modeling the mainline of an entire division will require far more compression than modeling just a few towns. If you are including a major interchange yard, you will undoubtably have to simplify things to make maintenance and operation possible.
Since I've chosen to model the operations of one small city I have the opportunity to build a layout with a minimum of compression, even in a relatively small room. But it will still require some work to make it fit the space.
The first major change is compression by omission: The Berlin line will not be modeled. While I would like to include it, having three extensions to the layout will not fit easily in the space. In addition, it includes a fairly extensive yard which would also require a lot of space. I have considered including a second deck to model it, but the distance required to run between the two decks would be about the same distance between the station and the Whiting Street yard. So I wouldn't be able to model much more than the yard anyway.
The next issue is a question of how much I need to compress the rest of the layout. The entire arcade and station area, including the Mechanical Department facilities, should fit along hte 20' wall with no compression. If modeled to scale it's about 11.5 feet long.
The eastbound track is about half-a-mile, or 30' in HO scale. The westbound track is about 3/4 of a mile, or 45 feet. I'll have somewhere between 20-25' on each side of the station area to work with so some compression will be necessary. Additional compression will be required due to introducing the necessary curves to make it fit the room.
So the first thing I'm going to do is reduce all track lengths by 13%. Why 13%? Because in HO scale 1 real foot = 87 scale feet. Instead on this layout 1 real foot = 100 scale feet. This will have a minor effect on the design of the layout, only a reduction of 1/2 a 40' car per 100' scale feet of track.
I will make some additional space by reducing some of the longer tracks slightly, particularly where there are no industries with sidings.
I haven't finalized the plan, and the distances at this point are still rough estimates. But I should be able to include all of the industries between East Main Street and Curtis Street, with only two exceptions. The first is likely the Landers, Frary and Clark factory across from the station. I am considering some sort of hidden track, but switching will be very difficult in that event.
The other exceptions will be some of the tracks in the P&F Corbin division of the American Hardware Corporation on Myrtle Street, and portions of the Stanley Works complex, specifically the area past Buritt Street.
I am trying to determine what impact this will have on operations, since eliminating tracks, particularly of major industries, also changes the nature of operations. Most likely I will address this issue the most common way, there simply won't be cars for those industries.
Since I've chosen to model the operations of one small city I have the opportunity to build a layout with a minimum of compression, even in a relatively small room. But it will still require some work to make it fit the space.
The first major change is compression by omission: The Berlin line will not be modeled. While I would like to include it, having three extensions to the layout will not fit easily in the space. In addition, it includes a fairly extensive yard which would also require a lot of space. I have considered including a second deck to model it, but the distance required to run between the two decks would be about the same distance between the station and the Whiting Street yard. So I wouldn't be able to model much more than the yard anyway.
The next issue is a question of how much I need to compress the rest of the layout. The entire arcade and station area, including the Mechanical Department facilities, should fit along hte 20' wall with no compression. If modeled to scale it's about 11.5 feet long.
The eastbound track is about half-a-mile, or 30' in HO scale. The westbound track is about 3/4 of a mile, or 45 feet. I'll have somewhere between 20-25' on each side of the station area to work with so some compression will be necessary. Additional compression will be required due to introducing the necessary curves to make it fit the room.
So the first thing I'm going to do is reduce all track lengths by 13%. Why 13%? Because in HO scale 1 real foot = 87 scale feet. Instead on this layout 1 real foot = 100 scale feet. This will have a minor effect on the design of the layout, only a reduction of 1/2 a 40' car per 100' scale feet of track.
I will make some additional space by reducing some of the longer tracks slightly, particularly where there are no industries with sidings.
I haven't finalized the plan, and the distances at this point are still rough estimates. But I should be able to include all of the industries between East Main Street and Curtis Street, with only two exceptions. The first is likely the Landers, Frary and Clark factory across from the station. I am considering some sort of hidden track, but switching will be very difficult in that event.
The other exceptions will be some of the tracks in the P&F Corbin division of the American Hardware Corporation on Myrtle Street, and portions of the Stanley Works complex, specifically the area past Buritt Street.
I am trying to determine what impact this will have on operations, since eliminating tracks, particularly of major industries, also changes the nature of operations. Most likely I will address this issue the most common way, there simply won't be cars for those industries.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Sound
Just a quick note on sound.
Now that I've run trains with and without sound, I definitely want sound. It does enhance the operation. In addition, the QSI Quantum Revolution is finally being released, so I can't wait. I only need a couple more locomotives for the basics, so instead of buying more I'll start adding sound.
5/23/2008 - Hmmmm. Didn't quite work out that way. I've got a bunch more locomotives and only one has sound (or a decoder) so far. And that one came preinstalled.
Now that I've run trains with and without sound, I definitely want sound. It does enhance the operation. In addition, the QSI Quantum Revolution is finally being released, so I can't wait. I only need a couple more locomotives for the basics, so instead of buying more I'll start adding sound.
5/23/2008 - Hmmmm. Didn't quite work out that way. I've got a bunch more locomotives and only one has sound (or a decoder) so far. And that one came preinstalled.
I'm going to build a layout!
I have a plan!
I've been through a great many potential plans as I've tried to decide if I really want to take the time to build a significant layout in this basement. Because of the shape of the room, the majority of them were large ovals with steady grades that allowed it to loop under itself and continue to staging under the main layout. I was trying to avoid the complexity of a helix since I have a double-track mainline, plus an extra single-tracked branchline. I'd like all staging from all three directions.
Recently, it occurred to me that if I move a door, then I'll have a small side room available as well. More space is a good thing, but the placement isn't great. But it did open the possibility of placing some staging there.
The other factor is that all of the plans would require a duck-under (more likely a crawl-under) or a section that could be opened since there would be multiple levels of track.
The current layout is a literal dogbone. It's a double-track main, and the line loops back onl itself, so the right track becomes the left track. This arrangement basically allows one 20' wall for modeling, along with the two 10' walls.
With the extra space from the side room, though, I can push one or both of those loops outside of the room and still have decent aisle space. The problem once again, though becomes staging.
Then the obvious struck me. Instead of a loop, build a helix at each end.
The helixes would be simple spirals, no turnouts and go down to a lower level of staging. It would also complete a loop of the entire layout if I want to have continuous running. Since the Hartford trains go through to Waterbury, each train will have it's own dedicated staging track, it would just return to the one it left from , but from the opposite direction. This reduces the number of staging tracks in half when compared to a point-to-point arrangement. Better still, the aisle will be a continous S-shaped aisle - no duck-unders. This is especially important since the basement also happens to be where I need to store my guitar amp, and I wasn't looking forward to duckunders, etc. with a 50 lb amp.
The Berlin staging will only need a small stub-ended staging, really only two tracks. There is only one train scheduled during a given session from this direction (and will head toward Waterbury, so it needs a track in the main staging as well).
The other great thing this will do is extend the Hartford side of the Highland line, leading to the station. There were a number of industries here, and also the long siding where the through freights drop off cars. So this will extend the mainline run nicely and will focus attention on the Highland Line.
Other than potentially limiting the length of trains, the helixes won't affect the operation of the layout at all. The trains will only use the helixes the enter and exit the layout. I could even use serial staging in the helix for the inbound trains, since it's a double track main.
Another nice feature of this design is that the staging and main decks will be level. It makes the construction much easier, with the exception of building the helixes. I'd like to use the masonite spline construction for the helix, but the thickness of the spline might be two tall for helixes with a small radius.
And ironically, there may still be a good amount of space in the middle of the room with this design, so it may allow some use of the basement for other activities.
I'll be taking some measurements when I get home today, and Bill will be over to check it out in about a week as well so I'll be able to see what he thinks. But I think I have a winner.
I've been through a great many potential plans as I've tried to decide if I really want to take the time to build a significant layout in this basement. Because of the shape of the room, the majority of them were large ovals with steady grades that allowed it to loop under itself and continue to staging under the main layout. I was trying to avoid the complexity of a helix since I have a double-track mainline, plus an extra single-tracked branchline. I'd like all staging from all three directions.
Recently, it occurred to me that if I move a door, then I'll have a small side room available as well. More space is a good thing, but the placement isn't great. But it did open the possibility of placing some staging there.
The other factor is that all of the plans would require a duck-under (more likely a crawl-under) or a section that could be opened since there would be multiple levels of track.
The current layout is a literal dogbone. It's a double-track main, and the line loops back onl itself, so the right track becomes the left track. This arrangement basically allows one 20' wall for modeling, along with the two 10' walls.
With the extra space from the side room, though, I can push one or both of those loops outside of the room and still have decent aisle space. The problem once again, though becomes staging.
Then the obvious struck me. Instead of a loop, build a helix at each end.
The helixes would be simple spirals, no turnouts and go down to a lower level of staging. It would also complete a loop of the entire layout if I want to have continuous running. Since the Hartford trains go through to Waterbury, each train will have it's own dedicated staging track, it would just return to the one it left from , but from the opposite direction. This reduces the number of staging tracks in half when compared to a point-to-point arrangement. Better still, the aisle will be a continous S-shaped aisle - no duck-unders. This is especially important since the basement also happens to be where I need to store my guitar amp, and I wasn't looking forward to duckunders, etc. with a 50 lb amp.
The Berlin staging will only need a small stub-ended staging, really only two tracks. There is only one train scheduled during a given session from this direction (and will head toward Waterbury, so it needs a track in the main staging as well).
The other great thing this will do is extend the Hartford side of the Highland line, leading to the station. There were a number of industries here, and also the long siding where the through freights drop off cars. So this will extend the mainline run nicely and will focus attention on the Highland Line.
Other than potentially limiting the length of trains, the helixes won't affect the operation of the layout at all. The trains will only use the helixes the enter and exit the layout. I could even use serial staging in the helix for the inbound trains, since it's a double track main.
Another nice feature of this design is that the staging and main decks will be level. It makes the construction much easier, with the exception of building the helixes. I'd like to use the masonite spline construction for the helix, but the thickness of the spline might be two tall for helixes with a small radius.
And ironically, there may still be a good amount of space in the middle of the room with this design, so it may allow some use of the basement for other activities.
I'll be taking some measurements when I get home today, and Bill will be over to check it out in about a week as well so I'll be able to see what he thinks. But I think I have a winner.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)