Quite awhile back I set aside some spaces on my new double-deck layout plan to have some logging scenes.
I labeled them Logging Tracks & Logging Interchange
Even though both of these ‘scenes’ are interconnected, they both require individual design attention:
to the logging trains that gather up the downed trees and deliver them to the lumber mill,
the mill itself,
and finally placement of finished product on mainline cars for retail distribution.
On this upper level I am proposing to put some logging tracks and trains running out the peninsula to its tip. There might be a very tight loop at the free end of the peninsula for the short logging locos to run. Or it might be just a back and forth operation for them. They will bring logs back to the saw mill scene at the trunk end of the peninsula (logging interchange). I have the whole Walthers saw mill kit(s) and would like to make this scene some sort of transfer of logs to cut/finished product that would be loaded onto mainline log cars and center-beam loaded cars, and a number of other wood carrying cars
I started out thinking I might be able to put a loop of track at the outer end of the peninsula,…or a gallows turntable. Those were NOT workable ideas.
I don’t have room at the tip of my 18" wide peninsula to have a sawmill plus a turntable, and/or loop back to the root of the peninsula.
Perhaps I could have 2 different logging routes out into the forrest,…along the length of the peninsula? Then both of those routes return to the cutting mill at the root of the peninsula,…and perhaps my gallows/a-frame turntable down in the vicinity of that saw mill? And maybe my little yard loco could transfer the cut wood over to another site where it would be packaged up and loaded onto big centerbeam cars, etc, for connection to mainline trains.
I spent a few days thinking about this ‘deck plan’ for my logging scene. I went back and forth with the idea of constructing the deck of foam or plywood, what thicknesses of either, what strength I needed from either material if I cut a hole in it for my logging pond, etc, etc. I was having a little trouble ‘visualizing’ the combinations of varying elevations of the helix accessing tracks, the pond and sawmill, that steel beam across the room, the possible coal mine over the dbl crossover, etc
I finally decided to cut the ‘basic deck piece’ out of the 1/2” plywood sheet I already had,…and it was already primed. It had a little bit of warp-age from having set around for long periods of time before I inherited it and primed it. But that would not really present many problems as it was going to be bolted down to two long metal beams, spaced only 2 feet apart, and stretching across the room. Plus what would it matter if it did a little warping as that are of the logging scene would have some uneven terrain.
So I hand sketched out some semi-circular cut outs that would form the ends of the 2 aisles, and moved the piece out to my carport work table.
(those white alum tubes are there to hold things down in the breezy conditions of the day)
Took it back inside and put it up on those metal beams that would support it
I have now laid my temp paper pattern for my trackplan down onto that upper deck plywood, and will proceed with some rough mocking-up of track elevations/fitting turnouts, etc.
There is a fair amount of elevated track in this area, and I am imagining that it will be riding over variable ground terrain,…NOT up on visible risers of any sort. But, for purposes of sorting out the grades, etc I am placing the track up on these cheap plastic risers for this planning exercise…
Of course I was concerned about the bridges proximity to the wall opening and its own grade, and the fitting of that spur line leading back down the left side.
4413
I actually became quite concerned about the possible steepness of some of my incline grades when I first looked at the heights of those helix openings combined with the needs to get back down to ‘ground levels’ fairly quickly. After playing around with it today, I’m not so concerned now.
At first I just laid out some long alum tubes I had to see what sort of grades I was dealing with. I then did some height measurements at the ends of those tubes, and the approx lengths of those inclines, then calculated the grades.
My biggest grade was only 2.7%, over on the far left as it comes down the left side from that Y-turnout at the end of that bridge over the stream/pond area.
Ever since I saw one of the ‘backwoods’ types I’ve wanted to include one on my layout,…and why not in a logging scene?
I started out considering one out in the woods at the end of my upper logging peninsula. I became convinced by forum members that this just wasn’t reality at all,…and besides that most logging locos didn’t require turning around to operate,…they were happy just backing up in reverse.
Then I began to think of where and why one might be located down near the sawmill base of operations? Lets say I have a fairly well-off lumber mill operations that sees a need to have a variety of steam logging locos. And as such they may need a small turntable to jockey them around and/or perform some maintenance on them. ( I have some nice ones,…a few here)
I’ve been tackling a combination problem with my track plan. It primarily involves the ‘intersection’ of 2 mainlines with the container yard and the logging area. Originally it was a bit simpler,… involving a crossover between the 2 mainlines at the base of a reversing loop of track that extends out into the helix. Thus a train could go either way around that loop, and when it came back to this crossover it could take either of 2 routes back thru the container area. It utilized a pair of Peco double curve turnouts.
…clean look…
Then I came along and added some complication,…3 more tracks connecting with the mainlines right in this same area. Two of those tracks are for container cars to enter and load in the container yard, and the third (if wanted) is a parking track for a pair of Santa Fe diesels dedicated to working the container area. Then at the bottom there is the access turnout/track leading off to the left to the logging saw mill and logging turntable.
I’ve been following your thread with interest as I too am working on a logging layout. That little 0-4-2 is nice little engine, but it may have a tough time going through these switches without stalling. Do you have a keep-alive decoder? I have a similar tank engine for a small mining branch, and the TCS keep-alive fried on me. It had a 1 amp capacity, and the engine only pushed two ore cars, but I guess the original motor still pulled too much current. I should have tested the motor first… Does yours still have its original motor?
Simon
PS: I also use the good ol’ paper-pencil system to draw my plans, but I use the paper with the square grids. The math is a lot easier with the squares…
I think mine has the original motor, and it is currently not running (estate sale item).
I’m planning on a nice upgrade to repower it for DCC operation and the addition of keep alive. It already has some nice custom detailing,…just needs a repainting as well.
Brian. I think you are taking the right approach by designing the plan as you build it. Using a lot of curved turnouts in clusters makes extensive planning on paper or CAD difficult, IMO. I’m sure its possible, but the amount of adjustments needed to get those angles correct seems like it would use up a lot of time either by CAD or by designing it in the flesh like you’re doing.
As you probably know, it is possible to trim the turnout itself to help facilitate the proper angle for the next curve. Of course, once you trim it, there is no adding it back, so you need to be certain about it.
Its not the same as trimming a striaght turnout, to where the next straight section just needs to be cut to account for a shortened turnout. With a curved turnout, one miss trim throws off the angles of all of the other abutting curved turnouts.
One thing I see: It looks like you can replace that severe Y turnout with a normal LH turnout and not lose any function. You have the space to the right. It would look more flowing and would remove that nasty S curve you’ve got brewing.
I often found it was difficult to get the full size paper templates correctly oriented. In a number of cases I had to get the actual track/turnouts out and couple them together, then tape the paper templates together according to the real thing.
As I look back over things I do like and appreciate what ‘full scale’ track planning can offer,… over the computer programs. But of course it is much more time consuming, etc when one is just trying to look at alternative track planning that computer design programs offer.
I’m glad you brought this to my attention, and made me re-evaluate this track plan AGAIN. I think I have arrived at a better solution by removing that short ‘Y’ turnout, and replacing it with another Peco variation.
At first I thought, how about a Peco ‘set-track’ small turnout with curving divergent route of approx 17” radius. But I didn’t have a physical one of these on hand to play with.
What I did have at hand was a Peco ‘set-track’ double-curve turnout. The inside curve of this turnout is similar if not identical to that of the small set track one. I got one out and placed it into that curving track leading from the mainline to the turntable.
You might be able to tweek it even more. If you slid the new turnout down the mainline (to the right), that would change the angle of the track heading into the spur which might allow you to use a LH turnout to form the second spur instead of the RH turnout. That would eliminate that slight S curve in the spur joint. It would make the spurs slightly longer too.
Might not fit. Maybe worth a try.
And in the end, you might have to slide the TT a half an inch or a little more to accomodate the new curve heading to it.
Overall, I wouldn’t describe this process as reevaluating the track plan. I think this is a natural progression of what happens when you build a layout. At least it is for me. All of these little adjustments sort of appear as you see the plan come into shape. Some of it simply isn’t seen when you draw things on paper.
Edit: That S curve in the spurs can’t normally be eliminated. You could slid the RH turnout to the left and install a bit more straight track in between that turnout and the new curved turnout. Sections of straight track in between two opposing curves tend to eliminate S curve problems. It would shorten the spurs by that much however.
Changing from a right to a left turnout didn’t work out so well, so I adopted a concept similar to your suggestion. I put a more gradual diverging turnout (Peco med rather than Peco small), plus a short piece of straight track.
Nice roster of logging lokies. I to have a brass 2-6-6-2t, same one you have, Booth Kelly Lumber #2. I also had the Mantua and AHM/Rivarossi Heisler at one time. I now buy only brass motive power as I start over in logging myself. I only wish I had your space to build a layout in. Mine will be much smaller. Keep the pics coming, gives me lots of inspiration to get off the couch and get back in the layout room to dust off the benchwork. Mike the Aspie
That last modification resulted in even longer lumber loading track and chip loading track. In fact the chip loading track can now easily handle 2 cars at one time, plus another flat car being exchanged in the lumber loading track.
I’m now thinking that I can trim the roof edge off of the sawmill structure (brown paper mock-up) that will allow for a longer loading platform for the forklifts to operate on loading the rough cut lumber onto flats to be delivered to the finishing mill over in the corner.
I was playing around with another of those tight double-curve Pecos I have, and I think I have identified a spot that I can use one, along with a Peco ‘set track’ turnout to provide a link between the two longing pond drop off tracks.
