After many iterations, here is the track plan I have so far. It's not complete, but it should give a general idea of what I have in mind. Note that the logging branch would leave the mill and round the mountain, then use a series of switchbacks to reach the upper ridge. Comments and/or suggestions are welcome.
Looking pretty good. Here's my suggestions: Logging Area: How about a runaround here? Otherwise you're limited to in and out operations. Or you could add a switch to the main entry track and fork it into a pair of tracks at the bottom. That'll give you a little bit of storage and swap space for empties/loads. Access Gate: If you run the tracks straight, you're going to have a tough curve into the yard. Maybe curve it in towards the left, then back around to the "southern" section of the yard area. This will give you a nice chunk of room for an engine house and related stuff (maybe a turntable, coaling/fueling facility, water, etc.?), while keeping your curves nice and broad. As for the access gate itself, if you use top-mounted hinges, all you need to do is cut the rails straight down on the split. The rail will lift up and away from the connecting stationary rail. Make sure to install your hinge with the hinge-part on top, and the pivot should be at least rail height, otherwise it will bind. Crossovers: I know your layout is incomplete, but I don't see many (any?) crossovers on your double-track main. I'm just going to assume that you're going to have those here and there. Lumber Mill: That's an awfully short trip to the lumber mill from the logging camp, isn't it? Why not add a siding or two up on the top near the access gate and put it there? That'll give you some more operations options. Anyway, that's my two cents for now. If I get time, I may draw this up in XTrakCad and see what I can do with it. Hope this was helpful. -Matt
Great suggestions! The logging area is still very much in the planning stages but my thinking has been very similar to your suggestions. I envision a return loop at the top of the ridge that forks off in one or more directions, perhaps to the lower right corner or as you suggested, to the upper left corner, or perhaps both. So far, my biggest challenge has been finding enough space while maintaining a genuine feel for the flow of the tracks and structures in the valley below. If enough space cannot be found, my backup plan is to use in and out operations which could also be automated by using a series of DPDT switches or relays of some sort that would activate as the train reached a certain point and throw the turnout and reverse the trains direction on each leg of the switchback until it reached the top where the cycle would repeat. The straight tracks along the access gate are just temporary as I've yet to determine if I will use a lift gate or a swing gate. I'm leaning heavily in the direction of a lift gate due to the ability to model the full depth of the layout at the crossing point by using a section of hollow core door or other lightweight method with an appropriate latching mechanism installed with electrical disconnects for added insurance against mishaps. You're correct, I plan to add crossovers between the mainlines as the track plan becomes more evolved. It was just easier to omit them for now, rather than having to worry about redrawing them as I make changes.
db, that's a great start on your plan. I really like what you've got so far! I think I have a good solution for the staging yard and access scenario. Staging yard includes a test track and engine storage.
I will speak to the logging because that's what I know best. I think your logging spur with switchback is fine. Typically with the logging roads I know the empties would be pushed up the hill by the logging loco and then pulled back down, with no real turn-around or run-around. That you have no way of turning a locomotive or running around doesn't bother me at all. These lumber spurs tends to be very basic and very minimal. The logging co. would normally want to get in as cheaply as practical, log it, and then get the tracks out and use them elsewhere, so no problems there. At the bottom of the hill where you have the mill I would suggest putting your logging base camp instead. If you look at a precedent like Keasey, Oregon, they would have their logging base camp for more than one road there, and that's where a lot of trains were interchanged or even made up, and where there were facilities for turning a locomotive or running around a train. The difference is that camp was there for something like 30 or 40 years. The spurs would typically be used until the logging was done and then torn up and moved. Put the lumber mill somewhere else is my suggestion, and here you'll need to think era and type a little. If you are modeling 1950s or earlier you'd most likely have a pond with a log dump, and then the mill would haul logs out of the pond to saw. Later than that, and you start getting into operations with log-grabbers, those machines with the giant pincers that pick up log loads and haul them about. The mill can be quite a scene itself, or you can selectively compress it. On my Oregon-American T-Trak module design over in the logging group there is a hint of the pond and dump, the end of the mill, a wig-wam burner, and some loading docks. The kilns and the bulk of the actual mill are implied off to the back of the module. I focused on these aspects as they get the flavor but keep the train operations interesting. Please do join the logging group if logging is an interest. I will send you an invitation. Best, Adam
One piece of relevant information from another forum (the Kalmback MR forums) about this layout. There will be three frequently used doors into the layout room. Referring to the plan below: Layout room at left front - small room is bathroom, back room is garage/workshop. Red line shows wall that will be moved to make the layout room the shape it is now. There are three doors here which all will need to not be permanently blocked. Main entry into layout room at lower left (half the size of the opening shown). Door to bathroom from layout room, door between layout room and garage around corner of bathroom also needs to be accessible. This pretty much precludes putting yards or helixes or stuff like this in such a way that they interfere with these doors. Also the OP is planning to move his layout upstairs to another room later. Which means that it would be smart to build it sectional, and not too specifically adapted to this room, but more in a generic size that can be fitted into another room - possibly using David Barrow style sectional or modular 2 x 4 foot dominoes or some such thing. Just thought I would pass the info on before people spent too much time on making suggestions that won't work, given more complete information from the OP. Smile, Stein
looks nice. my suggestion, north being the top, i'd put the mill in the n/w corner. you could build the main part against the wall and have the transfer area (pond or grabbers) out front
I still haven't decided on the exact era as I also like to run more modern equipment but I heavily favor the mid 50's. Based on the information I've located about most prototype logging railroads, I would have to agree that most logging railroads were very basic at best. Steep grades and switchbacks seem to be the norm. In fact, I found the following image to be very inspirational. BTW: I was thinking of modeling grades of between 6-8 percent (4-5 percent nominal) on parts of the logging branch, can HO scale Shays and cars handle it?
Here's the latest version of my track plan. I've made some major changes, including the addition of a hidden staging yard. Thoughts and suggestions are welcome.
How much height are you allowing between the staging yard and the bottom of the main level benchwork? Even if you split the difference by raising the main, the staging yard leads don't look long enough (I know it's an early mock up, though). Could you run the left lead along the back wall and come up & interchange around the river on the far left?
The drawing is kind of misleading and I haven't documented all the specs yet, other than calculating them as I go. It's kind of complicated but I'll try to explain. I'm allowing 3.5 inches for the space between the top of the plywood of the staging yard and the bottom of the joists of the upper deck. I know it sounds tight but the opening between the joists of the upper deck allow additional space for reaching in as needed. The majority of the layout will be at a nominal elevation of approximately 1.5 inches to allow for dips in the scenery. I don't recall the exact lengths but the long tracks on each end of the upper deck with the mine, work out to approximately 1.7% grade. The staging yard is at 0 elevation and the yard leads will climb as follows. Staging yard left lead: grade 2% up (rise 1.5 inches, run 75 inches) Staging yard right lead: 1.6% up (rise 1 inch, run 60 inches) Fiddle yard left lead: grade 1.6% up (rise .5 inch, run 30 inches) Fiddle yard right lead: grade 1.6% down (rise 1 inch, run 60 inches)
I may not understand what you have said regarding the Fiddle Yards, but I infer that the tracks are on a slope. If so, you may have involuntary movement with the parked cars and trains. However, if only the Leads are sloped and not the yard tracks, then there should be no problem if the slope to flat transitions are well removed from the first yard turnouts.
Only the yard lead tracks will be on a slope. The actual yards (staging and fiddle) will be level. The same will be true of all siding tracks. I use the space between them for any grades that may be necessary.
db...what program are you using for your last couple of diagrams? They are very clean and appears to be versatile. I really like working with my CadRail program, but it is NOT very capable for exporting pics.
Last design looks good - might want to consider width of peninsula and where to have the left end of the track down to staging, but that is a minor issue when it comes to how to fit the layout into the room - looks like your design is close enough now to finalize your room before winter comes. Btw - nice perspective drawing you posted at the MR forum - good illustration of the layout room and how the layout will fit into it: Smile, Stein
I'm sorry for the delayed reply but I've been working on the layout room and have been investigating the possibility of making a major change to the room that will yeild more space and wanted to wait until I commited to the change before I replied. In short, I've decided to reduce the size of the bathroom which occupies the upper right corner of the room as shown on the plan and relocate the entry door for the garage. Initially, I believed the extra space would not be of much use but after experimenting with various ideas, I've discovered that it was just enough to allow for new configurations I was unable to consider before. Unfortunately, this means that I will have to abandon the old plan and create a new one but I believe the end result will be worth it in the end. The following image shows how the room will look with one possible benchwork configuration. The line going around the benchwork was used to get an idea of how many feet of mainline track was possible. Everyone, please keep the comments and suggestions coming, I am paying close attention and giving them all serious consideration. For example, popular opinion states that 3.5 inches is not enough clearance for the hidden staging yard. As a result, the new track plan will have a minimum of 5 inches clearance. I also agree that the fiddle yard was too small and will endeavor to make the new one bigger and with longer yard leads. Etc... steinjr: I owe you one. Your persistence about the room helped me to get past my tunnel vision and consider new possibilities. Now I just have to get off my butt and do the work.
For mid-50s logging you could run nearly anything - Shays, older rod engines, some early diesel switchers. In the early 50s, SP&S hauled lumber out of Oregon-American using RS-3 switchers. Deep in the woods you're not likely to have these "larger" locomotives I find that image inspirational, too, and it summarizes what logging roads were in so many cases. It was not unusual for PNW logging lines to have even 8-10% grades and ridiculously tight curves. I don't know HO as well as N scale equipment. I would guess that an HO Shay could probably do about a 6% but you may want to specifically ask the HO crowd. Prototype Shays could pull just about anything up a hill... at a top speed of 9 MPH. The cars should be able to handles grades and curves as long as you keep them relatively short. As a side note - at the Pacific Model Loggers' Congress in 2009 or 2010 one of the attendees read a bit written by, I believe, a factory rep accompanying the delivery of a new Shay to an operation in southwest Oregon. He writes about the condition of the track and describes it as something like two "ribbons" of steel dropped on the landscape and barely held in gauge by blackberry vines lashed up as ties but only when in season. I wish I had the reference for the exact quote.
That reminds me, I meant to answer your question the other day but got distracted. I use Google Sketchup Pro and sometimes Photoshop.
