Autumn Oregon

Mattun Feb 16, 2011

  1. Mattun

    Mattun TrainBoard Member

    79
    0
    9
    Hello everyone!

    I would like to present for critical review the following N-scale plan, called 'Autumn Oregon' for now. Construction will not start for at least a year, but that gives me time for decent planning, which is a hobby on its own anyway.

    The idea is a free-lanced railroad in Oregon. The scenery will represent October and grey weather. Time is probably the 1980s. If I decide to go with cabooses it may become earlier, but still diesel-era. The freelance road will be painted something similar to the Central Oregon & Pacific (because it seems simple :p). I may still decide to just go with a freelanced version of the SP though.

    Here's the current rendition of the plan:
    [​IMG]
    (trackplan, schematic, elevation profile from lower staging to yard, elevation profile from yard to upper staging)

    It's basically a point-to-point twice around with physical vertical separation between the lower and upper line.

    (xTrackCad file available for download here.)

    Legend:

    • Yellow bits represent this type of scenery:
    [​IMG]

    • Green bits represent this type of scenery:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    • Striped grey areas next to track represent just roadbed;
    • Dotted lines is fencing;
    • The red line indicates the separation between the lower and upper track (see cross-section);
    • Curves are at least 24" unless labelled otherwise;
    • All turnouts #6;
    • Max. train length is a loco with seven 50' cars (or four 80' coaches). All passing sidings can hold this length; and
    • One water car is to be hooked up to every train between the yard and the water car storage area (idea stolen from Joe Fugate)

    My 'wants' list:

    • Focus on diverse operations;
    • Small yard;
    • Room for scenery-only areas (with bridges!);
    • An interchange;
    • A big(ger) multi-spot industry;
    • A car float;
    • A track scale (not currently in plan, any suggestions for a good spot?);
    • A RIP track;
    • No helix;
    • Layout on shelves, in removable sections of about 3' or 4' x 12" (18" for yard);
    • A removable peninsula;
    • Staging to include a cassette for flexibility;
    • About 2 scale miles of mainline run;
    • Operations for 1 to 3 or 4 people;
    • 24" radius on main, 18" elsewhere;
    • #6 turnouts;
    • 1.5" track spacing;
    • Max. grade 2.5%;
    • Extensive layout sound;
    • Both freight and (limited) passenger trains;
    • Use of 50' cars;
    • Min. 2" track-fascia distance, 5" upper-lower track distance, 2" track-backdrop distance;
    • 'credibly freelanced'; and
    • Not sure if I want cabooses...

    Compromises made in this plan:

    • N-scale instead of HO;
    • Twice-around, leading to spaghetti-like track-scenery ratio;
    • Lift-out staging across doorway;
    • Staging single-ended; and
    • Everything is scaled down to create diversity: short trains, 1-car industries, 2-car carfloat, etc.

    Still need to add:

    • Signal locations;
    • Uncoupler locations;
    • An operations plan;
    • Lines to indicate where the layout breaks up in removable sections; and
    • More detailed scenery (perhaps telegraph poles and such).

    Fugate layout stats
    I applied Joe Fugate's layout analysis to this plan and came up with the following numbers:

    Room size: 13’x8’ = 104
    Layout size: +/- 48 (46%)
    Turnouts: 43
    Track length: 167’
    Mainline length: 61,2’ / 184 50’cars
    Passing sidings: 11,4’ / 34 50’ cars
    Storage track: 19,7’, 59 50’ cars
    Staging track: 25,3’, 76 50’ cars
    Service track: 5,7’, 17 50’ cars
    Connecting track: 43,7’, 131 50’ cars
    Passing sidings #: 4
    Passing train length: 2,85’, 8 50’ cars
    Staging track #: 10 (8)
    Staging track length: 2,85’, 8 50’ cars
    Maximum # cars: 80% of (storage + staging + passing/2): 121
    # cars moved: 40% of (staging x 2 + passing + connecting): 126
    # trains: divide the number of cars moved by our average train length: 16
    Dispatching threshold: (3 x shortest passing siding + 2 x average passing siding + longest passing siding) / 6: 8

    Of course this can only give a very general impression, but the numbers don't seem to show any issues, in my uneducated view.


    Questions
    First of all thanks for reading all the way down here!
    I'm really quite new to model railroading, so I would really appreciate it some pointers on these areas:

    • any issues with the track plan?
    • do yard size, number of industries, sidings, and staging seem balanced?
    • does the plan look credible? (i.e., please tell me if a car float in Oregon makes no sense. No guarantee I'll change it though.)
    • any thoughts on benefits or disadvanages of: cabooses yes/no, water cars yes/no, double-heading on the upper line yes/no, or other ways of adding interesting operation in general?

    Thanks a lot in advance!
     
  2. davidh

    davidh TrainBoard Member

    147
    0
    20
    I haven't really looked at the operational aspects of the plan yet, but, scenically, I think it could be a little difficult. You have a lot of vertical separation between the tracks, but very little horizontal separation. Looks to me like cliffs will be the order of the day!

    David
     
  3. HOexplorer

    HOexplorer TrainBoard Supporter

    2,267
    3,219
    70
    I will leave the layout track plan critiques to my betters. I will say I love the Fall photos. I'm from Oregon and miss the seasons. As for the car float. Better in Washington, but of course it is your layout and if you want it, you want it. Look forward to following your progress. Jim
     
  4. TwinDad

    TwinDad TrainBoard Member

    1,844
    551
    34
    Hey, cool looking plans!

    A few random thoughts...

    Why is N scale a compromise??

    What is a water car?

    You mention you are quite new to model railroading. Have you considered (or done) a significantly smaller, "practice" layout or diorama(s)? This is a pretty big project to chew on for a first timer. That said, your OP indicates a penchant for thorough planning, which will certainly be an asset.
     
  5. Mattun

    Mattun TrainBoard Member

    79
    0
    9
    Ah, yes, should have mentioned that: the vertical separation is not by scenery but by a 'backdrop' (see the cross-section doodle in the plan). It's essentially a double decker, only the decks are adjacent instead of on top of each other. Does that make sense? :)
     
  6. Mattun

    Mattun TrainBoard Member

    79
    0
    9
    I knew someone would ask ;). I just prefer the space HO gives for messing with lighting and sound in locos and the more dramatic look of bigger cars. It's not a big compromise though, N-scale is a fine second choice :p

    A car that sprays water during the run to protect the forest from catching fire. Apparently they were mandatory on certain routes in certain seasons.

    I am working on a very small HO layout as we speak, which is essentially the same plan as as this one by Prof Klyzlr.


    Thanks for the comments!
     
  7. TwinDad

    TwinDad TrainBoard Member

    1,844
    551
    34
    Aah. Thanks. Some people might think calling N a compromise is fighting words. I'm cool with it.

    I've never heard of a water car. That's pretty interesting. I'll have to go look for a picture or two.
     
  8. SteamDonkey74

    SteamDonkey74 TrainBoard Supporter

    7,160
    171
    90
    Water cars went by different names but yes, they were often used out in the woods to keep forest fires from happening. During steam days, in the summers the surrounding vegetation would get so dry that all it would take was a random spark out of a stack and then you had a conflagration. Water cars were often shop-built by the roads and, in the case of logging roads, were often used to protect the company's lands and timber, not because of some regulation handed down by some other entity.



    It looks like you're doing western Oregon here, and autumn is my favorite season in my favorite region of my favorite state, so kudos to you on that.


    Car floats are pretty much nonexistent in Oregon, but that wasn't always the case. We don't have as much in the way of inland waterways as Washington, which has Puget Sound. Historically, NP had a car ferry between Goble, Oregon, and Kalama, Washington. It was essentially a barge with a paddle-wheel on each side and a raised pilot house on either end. It was called the Tacoma, and I believe it was steam powered. I have a picture of it in a book if you'd like I could scan it for you and send you a copy just for your own research purposes.

    I am having a hard time reading your plan at this resolution and I don't have XtrkCad here, but one thing that jumps out at me is that it looks like you've got a lot of yard switching opportunities but relatively limited industry switching. I tend toward preferring more industries to switch and less yard, but I think that's more of a personal preference.

    Your lumber area - is that a lumber reload where lumber is trucked in from elsewhere and then loaded on centerbeams or some other type of freight car? If you are doing the modern era and using something prototypical, it will be centerbeams, and you are likely going to want more trackage here. Those cars are long, right around 73' (or nearly 5 1/2" long in N scale). Hampton Lumber Reload in Portland accomplishes this by having several branches off their spur. I can try and track down a diagram for you if you are interested. It's fun to happen upon the BNSF road switcher when it's hauling these cars out as it has to assemble the train through several passes across NW Front Ave near Kittridge.

    Anyway, looking good and I am looking forward to seeing more of this.
     
  9. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,560
    22,734
    653
    The setting in autumn colors will be neat. I've been through there a few trips, that time of year. Beautiful!

    Boxcab E50
     
  10. Jerry Tarvid

    Jerry Tarvid TrainBoard Member

    739
    16
    16
    Cool point to point design concept including staging provides plenty of mainline running with some industry switching. Nice yard design regardless of whether you use cabooses or water cars.[​IMG]

    I’m sure you realize turntables and roundhouses take up considerable space on a layout in order to make it worth including. I think the three stall roundhouse is a significant compromise to this scene given all the supportive trackage. On a fine tuning note I would also consider adding loco escapes on your point yards.

    Layout planning is definitely a major part of the model railroad building experience.[​IMG] Enjoy!

    Jerry
     
  11. Mattun

    Mattun TrainBoard Member

    79
    0
    9
    Looks like I'll have to pretend it's sort of still there then ;) Maybe I'll change my mind and try to fit a more space efficient industry in that spot though... worth pondering.

    Did you click on the plan to see it at a larger size? It's a 1600x1600px image so it should be legible...
    The limited industry switching is perhaps my main concern. I'd like the local to have something to do on its trip. However, I thought adding spurs off the main would perhaps make the local block the main too much, and I don't really have room for more runarounds I think... any suggestions to make the local busier? :)

    I had actually figured bulkhead flats would do, but maybe I estimated centerbeams to be more modern than they are. Any idea when they came to be in common use?

    I figured the easiest way to store 3 engines was to use a turntable, but that may indeed not make sense... The turntable is not really a must have for me, so can you perhaps suggest a more efficient design for the engine service/storage area?

    I'm having trouble visualizing how this would fit... could you perhaps make a small doodle for me, showing how this can be done efficiently?


    Thanks for all the comments guys, much appreciated!
     
  12. Jerry Tarvid

    Jerry Tarvid TrainBoard Member

    739
    16
    16
    The loco escape is nothing more than a crossover to another yard track that allows for a runaround. Pull the entire train into the second yard track. Uncouple the loco and pull forward past the switch, then back out on the first yard track. At this point you may wish to re-couple the loco to the tail end of the train and move it to the third or fourth yard track for storage.[​IMG]

    The four loco storage tracks off the main yard could also be used as a modest loco service terminal for refueling and sand. You may also want to model a one or two bay engine shop, fuel tanks and sand house.[​IMG]

    These suggestions are all just food for thought.

    Jerry
     

    Attached Files:

  13. ratled

    ratled TrainBoard Supporter

    266
    1
    11
    A couple of thoughts to share as I model just below the OR/CA boarder in September 1980. Cabooses/cabeese were still in service on most roads in the early 80's. No need to back date if you want them. They do add a nice operational aspect - enough that I back dated to have them.

    There were a very few centerbeam cars in the 60's. There was a small run of 63' centerbeams in the late 1970's but really were not in your area all that much. Those that were had the opera style windows. There was another run of the 63' in the mid 80's that were mixed frame and opera depending on the road or company that bought them.

    Lumber traveled alot in box cars in that neck of the woods, a good amount on flat cars and some bulkhead flats. Black and white plastic wrapping started to show up in that area at that time and it was not uncommon to see loads wrapped on flat cars.

    Water cars were only required by the NFS during the summer months on the Siskiyou Line. The Shasta route/ Cascade route were not required to have them. Depending on what part of autumn you may not need them. Could add another operational aspect.

    A good prototype/railfan DVD to see what it was like in that area is
    SP When the Empire was Intact by Charles Smiley Presents. It shows alot of the locos and rolling stock in that area during that time.

    Sounds like a fun layout to me

    Steve
     
  14. ratled

    ratled TrainBoard Supporter

    266
    1
    11
  15. Mattun

    Mattun TrainBoard Member

    79
    0
    9
    This would be a more efficient design, very true. It just leaves no way to turn locos around. Apart from aesthetic reasons, how did prototype engineers feel about driving their loco in reverse?

    Thanks for the references (and the lumber info!). I have indeed read both of those articles. The first is what gave me the idea for adjacent decks, seeing how a lot of horizontal space is not really necessary for a good quality of run. Byron's plan there is a very nice one. I'd say mine is not too different, only:

    1. It's folded in a different way;
    2. It's on shelves, to keep the room available for other uses; and
    3. I'd like to avoid hidden staging or double decks.
    Which results in the more crowded look. I do understand your concern about overdoing it, but do you have anything specific in mind as to 'that's not going to work'?

    The thing is, I like a small switching layout, but having a yard and mainline operation also appeals to me. So, if I am to build anything in N it will be to create the intense operation of a 'larger' layout with a long(ish) run. A yard that goes nowhere (visibly) is less fun for me. Then I'd maybe rather stick to HO and build something truly small (a la Mindheim). So in short: Byron's plan there is just about what I want, but it'll have to fit in the space I have, on shelves, and on a single deck.

    I am very much open to suggestions of 'it won't work, erase this plan and make something new' if that is what it takes, so if you believe that's necessary, speak your mind ;) I have plenty of time to design, no rush.


    Thanks again for all the help!
     
  16. SteamDonkey74

    SteamDonkey74 TrainBoard Supporter

    7,160
    171
    90
    I did, but I just found out that, on my browser, I need to click it one additional time to get it to look like anything. It's clear now.


    One possibility for the local is to not worry about run-arounds too much. Take a caboose to the spur (this is how some shortlines do it even today) and push it further up the tracks, then pull the cars out of the spur and re-attach the caboose, and then you can either push or pull your way to the next stop. This is what PNWR did over fifteen miles from the Corvallis area to Hull-Oakes Mill at the end of the Bailey Branch right up until about 2007 or 2008.


    The larger ones I was thinking of would have come into common use in the 1990s - at least, that's when I remember seeing them appear in NW Oregon. I somehow missed your era in your initial post. Bulkhead flats would be a good choice. If you go much earlier, like 1950s, you can very easily "get away" with lumber in boxcars.

    Where a turntable is basically used as a multi-position switch I think it's just fine for a small space like this. I tend to design in more turntables than I probably should just because I like them.

    Where you really start eating up space is when you get into the Walthers 130' TT and then build a semi-circular or larger roundhouse around it. There are plenty of prototype examples, particularly during the steam era, of small turntables and small locomotive servicing areas on branchlines and such. Keasey, Oregon, had a small facility and turntable.


    I like what you're doing with this plan!

    Adam
     
  17. Jerry Tarvid

    Jerry Tarvid TrainBoard Member

    739
    16
    16
    Yes, engineers occasionally did operate their locos backwards. More often they ran two locos; which makes it unnecessary to turn them. In your case two geeps would be the norm and would provide a backup engine in case one breaks down during the run. BTW you will also have the same issue of turning locos at each point yard. What are your operating plans there?[​IMG]

    Another possibility is to add two or more stall tracks to your roundhouse. That may work given your present design; however nothing says that your bench work cannot bulge out a little to gain some space. You have the luxury of playing with this on paper and so it will cost very little to give it a try.[​IMG]

    Sounds like fun to me.[​IMG]

    Jerry
     
  18. Arizona Shortline

    Arizona Shortline TrainBoard Member

    104
    3
    9
    ^That's what I was going to suggest, just run pairs of Geeps lashed up back to back. Easy (and fun) to do with DCC.
     
  19. Mattun

    Mattun TrainBoard Member

    79
    0
    9
    So, basically add 2 or 3 more spurs along the route... will give that a try!

    Ha! So simple I didn't think of it. Concerning the point yards: they are used as (visible and scenicked) staging, so I figured trains start and end there and need not be turned until the next session. However, for the purpose of turning trains I designed one spur in each yard to be a cassette, which I can take out and simply turn around, a whole train at a time. May have to think this through some more though...

    As always, every comment is much appreciated! I think my next step will be to work out some sort of operating scheme... not easy when you've never actually operated
     
  20. SteamDonkey74

    SteamDonkey74 TrainBoard Supporter

    7,160
    171
    90
    With road switchers on Oregon branchlines from about 1950 through the end of the 80s it was not unusual to see the locomotive or lead locomotive running "backwards." The SP&S tended to consider the end of the long hood as the "front" of their RS-3 locomotives, anyway. The SP in Oregon tended to lash up lots of SD-9s or GP-9s with the lead one usually short high hood forward, but that wasn't always the case, particularly on branch lines without a wye or turntable or other means of turning locomotives.
     

Share This Page