The layout is intended to represent the Chicago Division of the Pere Marquette Railway between Grand Rapids and Holland, Michigan in August of 1946.
The layout consists of two “scenic” levels and two levels of staging. It is essentially a no-lix. The layout climbs a gentle 1% grade around the room with flat sections for the two yards from one end to the other between the upper and lower staging yards.
The basic layout statistics are as follows:
Dimensions: 38’ x 28’
Area: 810 sq ft
Minimum Mainline Radius: 38"
Minimum Radius: 30"
Minimum Turnout: #8
Minimum Crossover or Passing Siding Turnout: #10
Maximum Grade: 1%
Typical Track Spacing: 1.79" (13 HO scale feet; C&O, Erie, NKP, PM standard)
Notes: All curves have easements and spacing between tracks on curves is increased.
Unfortunately, I still have to fini***he basement that will be it’s home. Hopefully that can be completed this fall.
wow that is a huge, ambitious plan . i don’t even want to contemplate the cost of track , switches and switch motors ! i wish i lived near you so i could offer to help with the construction , and maybe run some trains when it’s done [:)]
Smoly Hoke is right, Ken! In fact, it won’t be enough to help you build this monster! [:P] I hope you’re younger than 45, 'cuz it’s gonna take you until yer 90 to get a train around it. Unless, of course, you are in the Corps of Engineers?[(-D]
That’s a very large plan. The major concern I would have is maintenance - that’s a lot of turnouts, cars and locomotives. Use only the very best. The major downside that I see is that I don’t think you can build such that you can stop short and still have a satisfying railroad. If you haven’t already, I would seriously consider forming a club to help.
Enjoy
Paul
As a fellow AMC 1940’s modeler, and as someone who has a three level (much smaller than yours!), let me make a few observations:
get a largeish crew organized NOW. I’m not that familiar with the PM’s timetables, but it looks like you’ve got the layout to handle 10-16 trains per “day”, which will require a minimum of eight road crews and four yard crews.
if you can’t wrangle a large, regular crew, think about scaling back your staging and Wyoming yard. Selective compression isn’t a four letter word in this hobby! You’ll still end up with the essence of the line, but it won’t take as long to build, won’t be as expensive or maintenance-intensive, and you’ll be able to have fun op sessions with 2-4 guys.
do you really need balloon staging? They take up a lot of space, especially with 38" curves. If you’re planning on making this a mostly TT/TO layout, you really won’t use them in a session, and with your gentle grades, backing and restaging trains shouldn’t be a problem (or you could add a turntable to turn engines at each staging yard, cutting down on manual engine handling)
62" is REALLY high for a main yard that’ll see a lot of use. My upper deck is 58", I’m 6’2", and I need a stool to reach in more than 6". I’ve operated on two northern Illinois multilevels with big yards on the upper levels, and neither really work. One requires yard operators to have a stool handy, which eats up basically all the 3’ aisles. The other has an elevated op “pit” for the yard crews to work on, but the road crews barely see their trains until they’re released from the yard. Both are pains, and inelegant designs. I’d plan this layout with the main yard on the lower level, so access isn’t restricted. Either that, or plan for wider aisles there.
Wyoming’s main engine terminal is almost wholly inaccessable. The 350 degree roundhouse looks nice, but you won’t be able to get to derailments (which happen frequently at TTs). The sh
I’m also concerned about the amount of operation (and thus, the number of operators) vs. the aisle space. 28" is the bare minimum for two people to pass one another. In a multideck operating layout, there will often be people bending over slightly to get a look under the top deck. That will occupy much more of the aisle than a person standing straight up. 48" or more can still become fairly tight where there will be multiple operators in an area and some of them are bending over.
The track seems unrealistically close to the benchwork edge in a few places, especially the yard. Derailed equipment needs some safety space or a vertical barrier (like clear plastic). How will the yard crews uncouple cars? Reaching across that many tracks at that height will be a challenge and may create problems for equipment on aisle-side tracks being derailed by sleeves. If you are committed to this configuration, I strongly suggest mocking it up.
There does not seem to be much modulation of deck widths … that is, the upper deck is the same width as the lower deck most everywhere. This will make the room seem very full and make it harder to see the operating locations on the lower deck, causing more bending over and thus much more aisle congestion.
I’d suggest re-working the areas with less trackage to be significantly narrower. Modulation of deck widths improves visibility, adds to the overall appearance, and means you have less benchwork/scenery to build. As Darnaby and others have shown, a narrow strip of benchwork can be very convincing “out along the line”.
Generally I like loop- or through staging, especially for a layout of this scope. Muzzle-loading stub-end staging takes a long time to reset. Sometimes it’s the only way to get things to fit, but it lowers the fun-time to reset-time ratio. With that said, the access to the Muskegon and Allegan lower staging seems very poor. Crawling back in there for maintenance, track cleaning, etc., will be a pain
Overall the track plan is great. The comments about larger sidings for some of the industries was on point but overall I realy like it. Just consider one thing. N scale. You could eliminate one level and still have more scael miles of track. You could widen out the aisle and still have good looking curves. Just a thought.
Wow. There have been several wonderfully thought out comments here. Much appreciated. I will attempt to answer as many questions as possible here.
According to my timetable, the PM ran 9 daily scheduled trains in each direction, not counting extras. I think all locals are extras, but I am not certain.
My goal is to simulate the main line with towns spaced as they were on the real thing. In this plan, I have 11.5 miles per actual mile verses a scale 60 feet. That is pretty close to a 1/5 compression. That will allow me to use actual time tables and a 5 to 1 fast clock.
Considering the number of trains possible and that I have the room, I see the balloon staging as a good time saver. Although it ma
Seems like you already know what you want to do, so further comments based on others’ experience probably won’t be too helpful to you, but just one question/comment.
I’ve designed a couple of layouts for people who were using the Fast Tracks jigs and they seem to work well. It certainly may be that I just don’t understand your plan for turnout construction well enough, but I’d suggest that a key length in actually building is not from the points to the point of intersection but the length between the points and the frog. Unless you are expecting to build a lot of very fancy trackwork, you cannot overlay one turnout on another within that length. My copy of the fast tracks HO # 8 template measures over 10" from points to the far end of the frog, and of course you’d need a skoche of track on either end before you start the next turnout. The AREA standards (used as a basis for some railroads’ engineering standards) are on-line at: http://www.prototrains.com/turnout/turnout.html
… and show a similar dimension for points-to-frog.
I believe that Fast tracks are based on the NMRA specs, which in turn (I think) were at least partly based on AREA.
I know you said that you were thinking of building your own proto:87 jig in place of the fast tracks, but I think the order of magnitude of the dimensions would be the same.
Another point of reference would be the walthers #8 HO pre-fab turnout, which measures nearly 14" end-to-end. Some track may be trimmed from each leg, but it does not seem like a usable #8 could fit in the dimensions you are using. I may have misunderstood what you are pla
Byron,
The distance I am talking about is from the theoretical intersection of the straight and diverging route to the points. (The track plan shows centerlines, so that is the intersection that you see on the track plan.) For an AMC #8 turmout with a 22 ft points, that distance is just over 4 inches. I’ve allowed a minimum of 5 inches in the plan. However, I will go back and double check all the turnouts before I build.
Eric,
Very impressive. Love the concept and the location. The scope of what you propose boggles my mind.
I lived in SW Michigan, Saugatuck, through high school and until I went into the service in 1965. Reading about your layout brought back a lot of memories. Holland was only 10-miles away. I dated several girls from there, Grandville and Grand Rapids. Even went to college for a short time in GR. Still have family in Holland and get up there occasionally.
I wish you luck with your project. Keep us all informed.