That is exactly what I decided after having hidden staging and trying to clean the tracks. All ten of my staging tracks are in the open, easy to clean, and appear to be a large yard. Picture here of the morning line up ready for an ops session.
Geeky, thanks for the comments. I do also like the concept of having the trains showing. I figure if I'm paying the money for the cars & engines they might as well be were everyone can see them. Gats, fixed the upper right turnouts, there should be plenty of room for 2 loco's there. Simplified the yards & staging. Dave? As for the time tables, I will be working on that more so when I have the layout design down firmly. Just a tidbit of information and a little history. Mallinkrodt did a lot of government work, Nuclear to be exact and most notabley worked on the Manhattan Project. Destrehan Street Plant (Mallinkrodt) http://www.mvs.usace.army.mil/eng-con/expertise/fusrap-slds.html http://stlouis.missouri.org/neighborhoods/history/hyde/industrial14.htm http://www.mvs.usace.army.mil/engr/fusrap/051Q%20Newsletter.pdf So I'm just keeping a little part of history going.
you might also be able to squeeze in a double track engine shed on that yard. It would give you the option of displaying more locos and also swapping out motive power on trains.
Geeky, Flash: Open staging works well...I'm using it in several spots on my own layout. But I have persisted in suggesting the Bremen Ave Yard/Staging tracks be hidden so the signature feature of the Bremen Block, the BN main(s) splitting the Terminal RR's industrial leads and sidings, may be modeled as disappearing behind the Lange-Stegman Facility (just as they do in the prototype), and the Bremen Ave Yard can be modeled as a stub-ended yard even though the proto was double-ended. I've always imagined the area hidden behind low, easily removable view blocks that could be seen over by an operator who leaned forward a little, but which would block casual observers from seeing the tracks. Don: The industrial sidings are looking pretty good, although I'm curious about why you want to make the Lange-Stegman tracks double-ended. Wouldn't they be easier to work if cars for L-S were pulled across the BN main onto the left side industrial lead, and then pushed into the L-S tracks; outbound L-S cars are pulled onto the lead, Loco runs around to pull all cars back across BN Main? The alternative is to pull to the left lead, run around on the BN main, pull cars into the L-S yard, push outbound cars from L-S tracks to the left lead and then pull back across the BN main. The L-S prototype track configuration on the system map and visible through Google Earth seems to be stub ended or double-ended onto the BN's Riverside line. (I'd think Terminal RR locos would not be allowed to go onto those BN tracks, but the pros might know better how this would be handled.) You have shown the facility as a series of silos and an elevator in a line next to the tracks. I thought the prototype was 5 grain bins in a semi circle around an auger serving the loading/unloading area. If you model a structure over the tracks, you will have to find a way to move the cars without the loco moving through the loading/unloading structure because of the fire/explosion hazard caused by hot loco engine parts igniting the constant grain dust inside an elevator (Boom...instant industrial rehabilitation time). This is your layout...not mine. Consider everyone's alternatives, but please pick the arrangement you like the most...THAT is what makes it the best choice for your layout, not the degree of matching a model to a proto scene/industry.
Dave H. From looking at the map I took it that the Lange Stegman was double ended. (Lange Stegman in red) and the yard in blue? Do I have it backwards? True the silo's should be more of a semi-circle look to it. They are more of a dome. http://yardlimit.railfan.net/archive/ai/lsco1229.jpg Blue yard side. http://gatermannt.homeip.net/gallery/june11to172007/DR06170730_bclprsw_bwc Mallinkrodt in the background. The small redish shed is to the right of the silo's on the map. http://gatermannt.homeip.net/gallery/june11to172007/DR06170725_bclprsw
AHA!! Great pics... and the aerial with sections circled in red and blue was a real eye-opener for me. I hadn't realized there were tracks on the south side of the domes. I've been puzzled all along about your references to a yard, but now I see what you were referring to! Doh! Why, yes...I think I WILL eat my crow with a helping of humble pie.:rn-confused: Okay...regrouping...the red circled L-S tracks certainly look double ended with one end connecting to the east side industrial lead and the other going toward the BN Riverside line (but I can't see whether it actually connects). If you go with modeling the domes instead of a track-covering structure/elevator, then you wouldn't have to worry about pushing any cars through an elevator with the loco, so pulling cars in on one track and pushing outbound cars from a different track to the left/east industrial lead would work...and there wouldn't be any need to go onto the BN Riverside line. The red locos pictured in the blue yard area to the south of the domes...Are they part of the Terminal RR you're modeling, or are they a subsidiary of the BN (or BNSF?) Riverside line that is completely separate from the Terminal RR? Are the tracks to the south of the domes shown on any of the Terminal RR maps? If not, then I wonder if the blue yard is for the BN Riverside line alone. Perhaps that is the case, since it doesn't look like the tracks connect into the left/east industrial lead...but I wasn't even seeing any of those tracks before, so they may indeed connect and my eyes just can't see the connection in the aerial shot or the MapQuest map I just now called up.
:eh-laugh: No problem about the confusion. Both side of the red connect for Lange Stegman. The red locos look to be Lang Stegman Company, the track to the south are on the TRRA maps, the yard in blue is not shown on the TRRA maps though. I was standing close to the intersction of the red & blue lines on the lower left. The blue yard at this time does not connect (it looks as if they did earlier in time) they now connect only on the upper right. I have been using google maps, seems to show me more detail of an area. I can zoom down close enough to see individual railroad ties. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=....191982&spn=0.003778,0.007145&z=17&iwloc=addr
It appears to me that you have an exceptional plan. The only critic I might add is that on your stub end yard you will need space somewhere when see-sawing in and out of while making up a train. Basically your switch jobs, working the yard will have to go out on the street to get the clearance they need. The old Barstow ATSF yard had similar problems as they had to move out onto the main line when pulling a string of cars to be made up for a train going west. Going east they had a little bit more room and still would conflict with inbound trains from time to time. Backgrounds I don't think they need to be any higher then one foot. Just depends on whether you want a cityscape with tall buildings then you need to go higher. As a fellow model rail and TB participant says, it's your railroad you set the rules. Edited add on: It appears I've jumped in on a thread that went another direction. You'd have to go back to the start of the thread to fit my remarks in where appropriate. Sorry about that. How old is this thread?
The original started on June 7, 2007, it's been going on 4 months. I do have the tables built and a bunch of the track & switch's bought. Also getting together buildings and roadways along with scratch building supplies. The design is close to completion and I should start the track laying next month. The backdrop I think is going to be just sky blue and later I'll add building pictures to it.
Okay, I rotated the plan so that North is were it should be. (at the top) changed a little of the buildings and moved some sidings a hair. I'm going to start laying some track this weekend I hope. Went to one of the train show/sale a couple of weeks back and picked up some switchs and a few really cheap kits, half price. I can not understand why a switch is $10 and 3ft of flex track is only $4? Since I'm using Atlas & it comes from China, someones making a helluva profit! Oh well what are you going to do?
Don: Starting trackwork...Exciting times!!! In sort of looks like you have extra turnouts from the yard north of L-S to the street running tracks...the tracks combine to a single track as they come out of the yard then separate into the 3 primary tracks. But then you have the crossovers to move from one side of the main to the other...and if you can come from the yard directly to the east side industrial lead, then you wouldn't need the crossovers to get to the opposite side of the BN main, would you? It also appears that there will be a sharp turn and a nasty S-curve into the 2nd track from the top of the yard. That will definitely be a source of frustration on the layout, and should be changed.:embarassed: I usually try to frame my comments as suggestions to consider...but this one I'm stating much more strongly...please change that arrangement to the 2nd track. I like the idea of modeling the crossovers somehow...and making them functional. How about making the Terminal RR's east industrial lead and the BN main curve behind a view block, but NOT connect to the yard? All traffic from the yard to the industries would arrive via the third track...the west industrial lead. This change would let you have the crossovers actually perform their function as intended. If you are connecting the yard directly to the BN main and the Terminal RR eastern industrial lead due to concern that the crossovers may be less than reliable because of the S-curves, consider the arrangement I proposed a few pages back in this thread that eliminated the S-curves altogether, but preserved the 3 tracks disappearing to the north and east (as in the prototype), and has traffic from the partially hidden yard entering the layout via the west industrial lead. Hmmm...It looks like you're going with a fully visible yard...right? I like how you've got the 5 grain bins around the loader/unloader and nestled between tracks on both sides. This layout will have some dynamite operating possibilities!
Well you pretty much summed it up. This is a expensive hobby. I have argued about the same thing in regard to just about everything in model railroading. It's all expensive. Even a bag of 6 little people will set you back. I'm sure it is easier to make flex than switches. They just have a machine that probably squirts it out and then cuts it off at exactly 3 feet. Switches would have to be a litt emore involved, but I do think it all should be a little cheaper.
Checking it all over, also trying something with the staging. I think I like the open yard look. Fixed the S curve in the yard, I'll spring my idea with the staging next week to see if it is feasible.
Plan 8 H. Got rid of the S out of the yard. (I hope). Wouldn't this need a yard lead and a run around? Looked at a way to run my staging into the yard and came up with the plan you see. The staging sits behind a removable wall on the left (West) side. I will have building fronts on it. The buildings to the North can also be removed. The track would hold about 18 cars. Does it seem feasible?
It's really been cool watching this layout progress. I'm probally looking forward to seeing progress pictures just as much as watching Mike Haggarty's layout being built (which would be the complete opposite of this one). Keep those pics coming and we'll keep putting in our 2 cents worth. Who knows, after it's all said and done you may have enough copper change from all the ideas to melt down and make a few turnouts.
Just an update, no pics untill next week. I printed out my Xtrkcad file & have it laid out. A question I am debating is cork or no cork for the track? My benchwork does have foam on it. Also placed an order with nhshobbies.com , they have been the cheapest I have seen for switchs. I got 37 switchs for $249 + $8 for shipping. Normal would have cost me $388.50. The wife had a hard time trying to find an argument for those numbers. Good sales on N or HO. ATL2750 Standard Custom Switch Left code 80 List Price: $10.50 Our Price: $7.35 Sale Price: $6.75 You Save $3.75!
Since you're doing street running, I'd mount the track directly on the foam. This is an industrial layout and I think that it will look fine w/o cork (as well as save a few dollars and help you complete track laying quicker). If you feel like you must use cork, I'd maybe only use it in the yard in the front and that would only be if you feel like you have to. I think that the "shortline look" without the extra rail height the cork gives you would definately be the ticket for your layout. If you do use cork on the mainline, I'd use Z scale cork and use none on the sidings so you have the natural elevation change from mainline to siding like the real thing. Good luck on the layout--this ones gonna be a good one!
Thank you Ron for the info, I'll need to look more into the elevation difference between the lines. Something I did not know about. Is it that noticeable on actual lines or MRR's?
I have been following this thread and I must say that it is interesting to follow how this has evolved and what potential this will have for you. I just wish I was still living in St. Charles so I could pop over and see it come to fruition in person.:tb-biggrin:
