Although I am not posting a track plan here; I am getting close to crunch time, when I will be laying track down. Here was my problem: Running modern equipment like unit trains doesn't make for much switching. After struggling with this issue, I decided to create three distinct areas on the layout, with two junctions. I am basing the bottom deck on an area in Vancouver Ports that has a BNSF interchange track that CN also uses. CP is in the same area and there is much interchanging of cars here. So one junction on the bottom deck will be a live junction. The main deck area will be CP, but coming out of staging and dropping off cars and picking others up will be BNSF and CN. Then CP will carry cars up to the upper deck, through the nolix (like a helix). Here my son is creating his own short line "Eastern British Columbia Rail Link - or EBC Rail Link (for short)". So on the upper deck will be anther live junction interchanging CP goodies with his RR - the EBC Rail Link. Because the layout can only handle three people comfortably, our yards are going to be quite small, so the main action will revolve arount the live junctions. So for example, a wheat unit can be made up by the EBC Rail Link on the upper deck, picked up by CP, taken down to the lower level. Here the wheat cars could be interchanged with BNSF for delivery south (into staging). I am open to any criticism now as it is easy to make changes around problems now vs making them latter once the track is in. So what do you think?
Make those staging yards for the junctions being fed as long as you can. Better long with few tracks than short with mutliple tracks, in my experience. Otherwise sounds ineteresting. Maybe you could plunk in a big industry somewhere on the middle deck for more switching oppertunities. On the top deck, you could go modern and throw in a big unit filling elevator, or populate it with a few smaller ones, as a shortline would be more likely to still serve the little wooden elevators. Sounds neat! Can we get a trackplan or pics of you sometime?
Alexander, The entire layout is modern. I bought Faller's backdrop so I am forced into the scenery area's they provide (which is more pleasant than it sounds). The bottom deck will have industry kind of on the outskirts of a larger town or small city. The upper deck is farming area (which is why I chose a wheat unit train as my example). The easiest area is the first deck (which will have staging on a deck beneath it - so really triple decked). I will have room for some wonderful long trains. Also in my nolix area, I will be able to have some very long staging - I'm planning on trains around 10 feet long. If I make the trains longer, the effect will be to shrink the layout. The top deck will be a bit more of a challenge in terms of staging. But I can definitely get about 4 trains in upper staging, then the challenge begins. Like many I am torn between putting in a lot of track, with the Spaghetti risk or leave track out for a more sceniced approach. This has really bogged me down. I feel like the kid with his hand filled with cookies in the cookie jar , but he can't get his hand out of the jar, without letting some cookies go. I except for the reversing loop areas on the bottom and top deck, much of the layout is narrow shelf, about 16 inches wide (which isn't to bad in N scale). So I really have to rely on the backdrop to "pop out" these areas. I visited your web site, don't forget you can flog your skills and goodies in Canada as well. [ 28. October 2002, 19:57: Message edited by: rsn48 ]
Rsn48, If you want lots of action in a samll space, then you will have to accept the spaghetti and sacrifice on scenery like big buildings. It depends upon which is YOUR greatest enjoyment. Do you want to RUN trains and switch cars around, or take photos, or have supurb scenery with fewer tracks? I personally enjoy RUNNING my engines, and do some switching, so I can accept the spaghetti, and may never have much scenery. If I do any photos, it will be a little as I go along, so there might be a little scenery somewhere just for that. It is your layout, so what interests YOU most is the ONLY question. Then put down the track needed to fulfill YOUR desire. We don't count, see? We are all different. That is what makes railroading fun to each of us.
Watash, It is my RR, or sort of, sharing it with Dane, but it is helpful to get feedback if some one can spot problems. For example if I said I wanted 11% grades, I would hope some one would suggest these are a little steep. The problem with modern equipment is to have a layout that is operationally interesting when folks visiting it, and something I can just run, when I am alone. So ops for me is important as I enjoy it, and I hang out with model RR train geeks who enjoy it as well....lol. But in MR and other pubs and on the net, I haven't found many (any?) who rely on junctions to liven up the action. So naturally I am wondering if I have over looked something critical. That's why I am requesting feedback. A professor I once had, had a sign posted on his door that read something like this: "They said it couldn't be done, I tried it out, and sure enough, it couldn't be done." It was his way to point out that sometimes it is dangerous to forge out on a path on your own when everyone says the path takes you through the aligator swamp...lol. [ 29. October 2002, 22:03: Message edited by: rsn48 ]
Rick: flog my goodies & skills? Please tell me more... email me. As for the layout, to me it sounds like you are doing pretty well so far. As for fitting it all in, I know the feeling only too well. I would advise, (based on some experiences from today no less,) that you have a "yardlet" on the top deck, e.g. the main and two double ended tracks. It makes life so much easier when accomplishing some end-of-run manuevers.
Rick - check out the last few MRP issues - there were serveral articles about crossings and IRRC, Junctions were a topic in 99. But the flavour of the month is switching layouts. edit - Mike Brock's Dale Junction in MRP2002, The last page of MPR2001 - Jeff Wilson discovers the difficulty of modeling a heavy traffic junction - the original was in MRP1999. MRP2000 has railroad crossing articles a-go-go. The thing about junctions or crossing is generating enough traffic. It's an issue that I think about a lot for the CP/SOO Tomah Sub - there's several junctions (WC and CNW) and I look at it as an oportunity to model other RRs that I like. But it will mean several small staging yards along the route - but they only need to be one or two tracks. You are talking about entertaining visitors - I am guessing this means a continuous run connection? IMO, this is a given. [ 30. October 2002, 10:53: Message edited by: yankinoz ]
Rob, I have followed the series of articles about junctions over the years in MRP and to be honest with you I initially couldn’t figure out why they were spending so much time with them. At the same time, I was struggling with how to run my trains prototypically, yet have some interesting switching action. I love long unit trains, whether grain, coal, wood, intermodal, whatever. Below is what I posted in the Layout Design Sig group at Yahoo. It was this article that opened my eyes to the obvious – junctions are “universal industries” – you can do anything with them. The chap below basically says if you like one live junction, three is even better. I have compromised and gone with two. And I quote me… lol: Jim Mansfield wrote an interesting article that I recommend people read, if you can get a hold of a copy. It begins on page 16 (July 2002 of Model Railroading - not MR!). Here Jim examines the traditional point to point layout. I will be quoting a bit from the article to help those who may not have access to it, but I would prefer if people read it. It is very possible my "take" on it is wrong. The best way is to begin with a quote from Jim: "The Classic design relies on yard operation (sorting cars, building and disassembling trains, engine facilities) and a mainline filled with locals and turns to keep the operators busy. The newer design relies on mainline traffic density to provide most of the the operating enjoyment." P.16 He then breaks down the "newer" schematics of RR track design into three categories: 1) The Conservative Right (his term - folks don't take this label seriously; he is playing with his labels - tongue in cheek) The Conservative Right is a point to point (staging at either end) with a junction (this is all about junctions) and a branch line. The junction is not a "live" junction and is modeled for interest only. Operationally Jim says this set up is limited in its operational appeal. 2) The Middle of the Road is point to point, with two staging yards at either end. There are two model RR's modeled here. The lines cross in the middle schematically to indicate a "live" junction where trains must wait for other trains to clear the junction before proceeding. So one live junction. 3) The Liberal Left is a modeled RR with three (or more?) live junctions to increase operation complexity and enjoyment. But judging by the schematics, I'm not sure if this is one RR or two. However the pictures accompanying the article imply two RR's.
