I spoke previously of 2 layout plans that were very interesting to me to review in my effort to arrive at a combo of two. That second layout was the Lone Pine & Tonopah. The dwg I have on file came from a Nov 1993 issue of Model Railroader mag. I believe he has since made a number of changes to this original design.
No matter, as I would seek to make a number of changes as well to it in order for it to scale down to fit my shed. Its more the concept I would be looking at. I have mentioned that I might be looking at the Balt/east coast theme for the lower level of my layout. With that in mind I would be interested in that roundhouse scene and city backdrop being located somewhat similar on that right hand side ‘blob’ of my layout as one enters the layout. I have a goodly number of real nice steam engines I would like to be ‘on display’ in that roundtable scene (with more on the outdoor tracks than inside any roundhouse). I had a similar ‘display of steam’ on my old Central Midland layout.
I figure my lower level in that area would have to neck down much more to give aisle clearance. So my railyard tracks would have to be perhaps half in number to those he has. And my city backdrop would have to be just a single layer of very thinly sectioned buildings, and a good painte
BTW that first plan I referenced, the ‘Anon & Muss’ was designed by a gentleman, Don Mitchell, who included it in a model railroad handbook #29 called “Walkaround Model Railroad Track Plans”, 16 original, custom designed layouts, with the ideas behind them. 1991.
He himself has actually joined in another forum discussion of this idea of mine, and wants to see what mods I make to his plan to fit my space. that should be interesting as I really like his plan.
East to West theme, and Diesel-Steam transistion era
I have a strong preference for steam engines, but have collected lots of diesels as well. So lets say I will model that transition era were both were utilized. I am also not a strict time frame person that feels a need to model any particular era. I just like the looks of model trains, particularly the highly detailed ones that have come out over the past 15 years.
I found myself liking those big C&O, B&O, NW steam locos, but also some of the Santa Fe ones. And I couldn’t resist a number of those Santa Fe diesels with their marvelous paint schemes that harkened back to when I was a kid. So on my first major layout (the Atlas plan “Central Midland”) I ran all of these different lines, and would explain that my railroad went from the east coast to the west coast,…Baltimore to California.
I’m imagining doing something similar with this new layout,…the lower deck level will be the ‘Baltimore’ theme, progressing up thru the mountains of Appalachian mountains (coal county) to the upper layer western mountains supporting logging trains, and finally to a Santa Fe train station on the upper level. The mountainous areas will exist on both the lower and upper decks of the layout at the base root of the peninsula(s),…I thinking…
A few items that I have researched quite a bit, and are somewhat ingrained in my thoughts at this time.*
Height of the dbl-decks:
I am a tall person (6’4") and still very healthy. I have experimented with various heights of sitting and standing, and have read a number of different accounts of different layouts. At this moment I am stuck on the idea that the lower deck’s ‘working surface’ will be 40" off the floor. Possible I would consider 1 or 2 inches lower.
The upper deck will be 20" higher…60" inches from the floor. I imagine that the depth of the upper deck will be considerable less than the lower deck to allow for best viewing, and to allow for moving myself around even with minimal isles, 22 to 24 inches. It has been suggested that I might consider not putting an upper deck over the peninsula area (at least in the extended head of the peninsula). I will take that into consideration.
Helix
I have debated this question to some great extent, and done quite a bit of reading about it. I am not excited about the gradual rise of an around the wall grade. It would take up that much additional width that I do not care to give up in my relatively narrow shed. In fact I even considered not insulating the shed and thus being able to build some portions of the layout into the 2x4 studded areas, but the better part of valor said I will need AC at various times here in warm humid FL.
I am not married to the idea that my trains need to make constant use of this exchange between levels. With that in mind I am only considering a single-track helix, unless someone can convinced me otherwise. Trains will have to wait their turn to use the single trackage…not unusual?
And someone commented about ‘how about when it is raining’ on my ‘external helix’. First off wh
If you do use PVC pipe for the helix roadbed - I would definitely make the helix bigger - as big as you can. Because the PVC pipe is much thicker than traditional roadbed materials, each loop must climb a greater distance to have sufficient clearance. For a given radius, the PVC version would need a greater grade, so the bigger radius you cna fit, the better. Since the helix is going in a box outside the layout space, the only real limiting factors are the width of the shed and how much room you have behind it.
With that many supporting verticals, you could use laminated layers of one of the engineered materials like masonite. Two layers of 1/4" (so the seams overlap) with that many supports wouldn’t sag and not have temperature/humidity issues.
As with all these alternative helix methods, this one will require careful measuring to locate the supports going around the spiral, to keep the grade even and prevent humps and dips. The ‘standard’ or at least easiest way requires only the bottoom level to have carefully cut risers to start the grade and have an evev rise around the first turn. After that, every single support is exactly the same height, no matter where they are around each level, and if you need to space them every 4 inches or just have 6 around each level, they are still all exactly the same height. One way to accomplish this method while using materials like some metals (and I’m not convinced in a widely varying temperature area this is the greatest idea - most commonly available metal building materials expand and contract more with temperature than wood does. Wood varies more with humidity, to which the metal is impervious. Sustained high humidity levels with widely varying temperature would favor wood. Consistent LOW humidity favors metal and foam) would be to use risers cut from metal instead of wood, but otherwise build in the typical manner (not with PVC roadbed). So precise cuts for the first turn, then oodles of identically cut pieces for the subsequent levels. Since expansiona nd contraction of metals is a function of the length, these short peices wouldn;t move much, compared to a long piece going all the way from the top to the bottom of the helix.
I had briefly considered a double layer of masonite for a few short track overpass situations, …but was discouraged when I read some of the postings on this discussion: http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/229187.aspx
I always thought the masonite material was stronger that they give credit to, and particularly if it was double, …or even triple thickness.
BTW, the uprights in that photo above are a combo of plastic and alum square tubes. I was figuring I might be able to utilize one or the other. The white ones are plastic, the back ones alum. They are both utilized in the construction of safety hand-rails along decks and steps to decks.
I walked into my local little metal scrap yard, and one of the first things that jumps out at me is they have some alum hand rails that have been scraped. These railings have lots of small box-sectioned ‘tubes’ that form the multiple uprights. And they appear to be plenty strong to become those up-right legs of the helix structure as mentioned above,…in the place of the 2’ dia PVC tube, or the square-tubed PVC.
They are getting ready to put all this scrap alum in a crushing machine,…no please. I grab a bunch of them as could also have other uses for some of them.
You have to take that thread in context of what you are doing. With supports around a helix, the masonite would be supported every few inches. Noise is not really a concern since your helix will be outside your train room. I wouldn;t use flat masonite as regular roadbed on the main part of the layout, for many of the reasons mentioned there. But a helix is a bit of a different animal.
Also I have seem SO much overbuilding posted around here. In that thread in particular - 5/8" plywood on 12 inch centers? How much weight are you planning on putting on that thing? The 1/4" plywood I used underneatht he foam on my previous layout STILL hasn’t sagged - with support crossmembers on 2 FOOT centers and no edge support (so not ‘cheating’). It IS laminated to 2" thick extruded foam, which probably holds it up fromt he top somewhat. The oldest piece of that was actually build before I moved to the apartment it was housed in, which is more than 9 years ago now. Most of the rest was built fairly early on moving in to that place - I’ve been in my house 3 1/2 years now, and was at the apartment with the layout for 5 1/2. The NEWEST section of the old layout is at least 5 years old. For the past 3 1/2 years the sections have all been sitting stacked up in my basement. Still nothing is falling apart or sagging or anything. Widely varying humidity through the year around here - very dry in winter, damp in summer. There is heat but since no one is down there I keep it set low.
I’ve even seen people post stories about how even 3/4" plywood sagged with supports on 18" centers. No, not a chance. Not unless a really heavy weight was placed on it over an extended period of time. What more likely happened is that there was some contraction of the supporting structure and the plywood will not compress so it had to bow. I have some of those premade chelves - the kind you find int he box stores, it’s some form of particle board with laminate applied on al
Thanks for trying Jim. I’m not looking for a really exact representation via CAD, but I did think that some of the fellows who really like to play with these design tools might have fun figured a combo of those 2 designs out for me. It would be nice to try and avoid major conflicts, while also gaining benefits that this advanced planing can present. I do realize there is a fair amount of ‘modifications’ as the building actually progresses.
Decided to draw a few loops on the floor of the shed just to explore the possibilities. Those loops are 48" in diameter. And the center loop is offset over to the left of the shed’s floor, thus leaving more room for the yard/ city /roundhouse scene on that right hand side.
Now I think if I make the city backdrop very much thinner than on the Lone Pine & Tonopah, …and likely elevate the city street level above the track level…
My city backdrop would have to be just a single layer of very thinly sectioned buildings, and a good painted backdrop. I would still like to have that circular mainline going around the turntable facility and ‘under’ the city. I would also like to have that mainline join with the one that would cross the shed’s door opening via a nice lift-out bridge
Might have to offset the turntable rearward such that
Cardboard Mock-UpBefore I left St Augustine to go on a long vacation I decided to do a quick some mockups of the lower level shelf(s). How about cardboard mock-ups?
I stopped by a furniture/appliance sales store who told me to come back tomorrow afternoon when they had a truck of new pieces coming in.
Then I stopped by a cabinet sales store who said they had just unpacked some items that day. WOW, I found multiple large pieces of cardboard, and white ones at that. I’m looking forward to making some mock-ups of the basic shelf shapes to see what I can fit in that area comfortably.
So I started on some cardboard mock-ups of my lower level subroadbed. I chose to start over in the corner where I wanted to place a turntable scene. I imagine that this will be a full sheet of 5/8" plywood set into that corner of the shed, and have its one inner corner shaved down to conform to the narrowing portion the freight yard scene running down that side of the room.
I cut the cardboard about an 1.5 inches bigger in radius than the 24 inch radius of track (51" diameter) that I expect to place in this region (to give clearance from the backdrops that will be on the walls of the shed, and to give some clearance at the aisle edges.
(I wanted to maximize the shapes so I could tell if they would be to restrictive to moving around in the overall track plan,…can always make things smaller, but likely no larger).
I supported this big piece with some very stout steel brackets mounted to the 2x4 studs of the wall (note: backdrop sheets of masonite are not installed yet). I chose these brackets for there large size (16x18), and the fact that they have a ‘open area’ that will likely be utilized to further support my staging tracks just below that overhead subroadbed of plywood.
There is a really nice big open area under this cantilevered plywood subroadbed. It is also a very ‘deep’ lower level shelf to try and reach over to work on any backdrop, and/or upper level scenery. So while I feel the 5/8" inch plywood is strong enough to support the trains, scenery, structures themselves, it would not stand up to any climbing upon or leaning upon by myself. Then I thought, why not just make up removable /repositional, supports for the outer edges of this big deep shelf ( I represent just one such support with that cardboard upright in the photo. I imagine the real ones might
Those aisles look even more narrow in these photos because I can’t get high enough over the layout to shoot straight down,…overhead. And the peninsula piece is not cut as narrow at its ‘waist’ as I have eventually decided to make it more narrow.
I believe I am going to make the upper level ‘peninsula area’ a relatively narrow abbreviated scene involving some nice logging and mining scenes that can be worked with tight turning small locos that I have a collection of. Mountains, trees, trestle bridges, etc,…built of lightweight foam construction and hung from those ceiling rafters rather than requiring any support from below.
I’m 6’4’ tall and weight only 205 lbs. I still have a 36-37 inch waist size. I’m tall and slim and in good health.
This layout is for me alone,…no other operators. I like to RUN trains, multiple ones where possible, a variety of them. On occasions friends and neighbors may come have a look, but I am NOT going to be having any ‘open house’. If they are of limited mobility (such as my 88 year old neighbor and fellow old time sailor), he may just have to view from the rather large open door of the shed, or from the head of the peninsula blob.
I do not plan on having work stations or tools in the layout room,…they will be located out the front door of the shed. Both bridges across the front door will be removable while still allowing double train operation, so my access back and forth to work stations can be facilitated with some ease,…not the most ideal, but necessary in this case.
So while I do recognize all appeals for more aisle size, I’m just not inclined to go that route and sacrifice the peninsula, etc.
I was initially going to try and move all my train collection (cars, engine, bldgs, etc) out of my cargo trailer and into spaces under the lower deck. I have decided against this as I feel this would add to a cramped feeling. I’m going to just keep my cargo trailer as a stowage means until I decide what to sell off after I get thru selecting what I will use on my layout.
One of the things I have seen folks discover too late in designing tight aisles everywhere is the amount one’s own caboose sticks out when moving around during construction and maintenance. Multi-deck designs exacerbate this.
Inadvertant snags of strucures or scenery from layers or folds of clothing can also be a problem.
In addition, over a multi-year layout construction project, one’s bodily proportions may change, particularly with age.
Perhaps if I become unable to fit into this layout, I will have to eliminate, or greatly reduce the size of the peninsula, or reduce the radius on the peninsula and run shorter locos and cars, … options I guess.
The cardboard mock-ups were done to get to get some relative ideas of shelf heights, potential shelf depths, aisle needs, support requirements, order of construction, etc,
Its kind of surprising the number of new ideas generated, and yet to come upon further study. I would recommend this approach to a new layout design if one has the time.
Here is one track plan idea submitted early on by a gentleman Iron Horseman. I do not know what track planning software he utilized, but he came pretty close to the general idea I have in mind.
First off please excuse the ‘unprofessional presentation’. I tried briefly some track design software, and became discouraged very easily,…too many symbols to learn how to manipulate,…or something like that
Next, I am on holiday without any drawing instruments, so I paid a visit to the local dollar store, and picked up some school supplies. No local scanning shops,…so I just took a photo of my sketch with a digital camera.
To try and cut down on confusion I decided to present the plan in phases, and without some of the local trackage that will be added later. The first phase drawing is for the loop on the right side of the layout (looking in thru my shed’s entrance).
The scale is 4 of those square blocks equal 12",…3" per block. The radius’s are all 24" except for the helix, which is 30". This is the loop that will alternately put trains into the bottom entrance to the helix structure,… if so selected. At that point it is a good 8" off of the lower subroadbed. At the head blob of the peninsula it is 4" off the subroadbed to provide clearance for another identical loop of track hidden under it (not shown yet).
There will be a removable bridge across the shed’s entrance that will offer the alternative of a total trip around the perimeter of the shed on this lower deck. …(multiple trains can still be run without ever having this removable bridge in place).
