Plywood Contest Decompression

[SpaceMouse]

Congrats. They were all good.

There are three things I’d like to talk about in this post.

1. Let’s go through each of the designs and give suggestions on what we could have done to make it better.

2. Let’s look at the way voting has gone in the past–look at which designs have won, and see if we can’t predict, which way the votes will go.

3. Let’s figure out a new common scenario to work with. I like the standard 10’ x 20’ garage for a change of size and elbow room.

[steinjr]

Link to contest entry:

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry10.html

Link to bigger picture of layout plan:

http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/vsmith/4X8_STUDY_PLAN_full_size.jpg

Comments gathered during the voting:

love that name. Good scenic possibilities with the way the mainline partially doubles back on itself. Nice little shortline

I though Angry Beaver was excellent in that it is very similar to a Paul Templar’s Badger Creek which inspired me to think about logging railroads in the first place. The cool thing about this layout is the modeling which, I admit would be very enjoyable. But it lacks the continous run and “part of the larger world” realistic operations.

A reasonably long run for a point-to-point in 32 sq ft. The details are thought through - appropriate motive power, tail track lengths, structures and scenery. It fits in a reasonable size spare bedroom without overwhelming the space.

The only drawbacks are no continuous run, and operations is limited to one train making the run to the camps while the other works the terminal and mill. There probably isn’t space for more than 2 people comfortably around the layout in that size of room.

Finally, the plan could easily be built with almost no adjustments in HO or HOn3 - and would work just as well, perhaps better.

While it looks really cool on paper, I don’t think one built in real life would look nearly as good, and might not work at all.

[quote user=“vsmith”]

If I wasn’t restricted to the 32sq ft rule, I would have e

[steinjr]

Link to contest entry: http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry07.html

Comments gathered during the voting:

I really like the the way the designer has cut the corners and used curved turnouts extensively to buy himself better curve radii. Good placement of industries - this designer has gotten a lot of H0 scale layout out of a single sheet of ply.

Again, a reasonable point-to-point run (staging to yard) with the bonus of continuous run capability. I see it as a fairly generic plan that could be easily adapted to a variety of themes. Even slightly more space to add a track or two in staging would improve this layout immensely.

Drawbacks: with only 1 passing track, operation of 2 trains somewhat continuously in opposite directions can’t happen. And that single passing track is quite short - on the order of 4ft, limiting train length to 4-5 cars.

Interesting almost twice around configuration. Yard on right just parallel tracks to the edge. Don’t know what could have been done to correct it though. Switchback to get to engine house.

Any other comments or suggestions for how to improve this layout even more ?

Smile,
Stein

[steinjr]

Link to contest entry: http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry02.html

Comments gathered during the voting:

Nice plan, even though I suspect that grades might be a little on the steep side a few places.

Like in the right hand back corner - where there is one branch from a turnout that goes up to a couple of B&O interchange tracks (which presumably are mostly flat), while the other branch goes down and under the interchange tracks.

Room is 9 feet across, so the elevation change to get under seems to happen in about 2-3 feet. Say 3 feet - 36". A three percent grade allows only about 1" drop in 3 feet. Even with maybe half an inch of elevation change up to the B&O interchange track, that is only 1 1/2" clearance. Is that enough for N scale ?

Edit: yes, it is. You only need about 1 5/8" clearance to have one track pass over another one in N scale. And that is doable in the 36" or so from crossover to the left of the B&O interchange until the track enters the tunnel under B&O interchange and the roundtable.

I get the feeling that the WM is a part of a larger railroad and that traffic flows from off layout to on layout, though I can’t see it a quick glance, but I’m willing to trust that it is there. The track is tight in places so making the scenery make sense might be tough in some spots, but again, I’m willing to trust that a scenery plan is in place.

The problem I have with it is that same problem I’ve had on the last two designs I made for my own space at home. It looks really good on top, but staging is inconvenient. If staging is inconvenient, then the operations are tougher and what’s really the strength of this layout.

[quote user=“IRONROOSTER”]

Shows the advantage of N scale in fit

[steinjr]

Link to contest entry: http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry04.html

Comments gathered during the voting period:

Extra credits for the switchbacks down to the logging camp. I am a little confused by the term “high staging” for the logging camp - I assume that the logging camp must be at the bottom part of the drawing. I would have assumbed that the logging camp would be downhill from the mainline, not uphill from the mainline ?

Edit: got it explained to me by the designer. I was viewing the layout inside out. For some reason I though it was supposed to be operated from inside the pit - it is supposed to be operated from the outside - the pit is just used for dealing with staging. So the hillside to the logging camp goes upwards from the south end of the layout towards the staging pit, placing the single track staging for the logging camp about 8" above the staging for the mainline - hence the expression “high staging”.

The strength of the Petaluma layout is also operations and operational variety. There’s a lot to do. It is also the stongest in terms of big scenery & scenery/scope of operations ratio that is N-scales main advantage.

The three things I don’t like about Petaluma is 1) The lack of a yard–but to add it would have sacrificed something needed to make completeness of the lumber operation. 2) The duck-under, although you only need it to rerail cars that have come off the track and made it into staging, is always going to be a pain in the keester. and 3) The loop design makes you loose the sense of the railroad in the larger scheme of things.

In the end, I pick Petaluma over WM, but mostly because I know the vision behind it. N scale was used because of the space need to convey the scope of the logging operation.

</

[steinjr]

Link to contest entry:

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry09.html

Comments gathered during voting:

Yorklyn uses varying bench width to very good effect. It also shows an interesting use of an outside corner. By focusing on just a couple of large industries instead of trying to fit in a lot of small industries, it stays very true to the prototype.

good use of varying benchwork widths - nice switching layout

The two Lyns, Brooklyn and Yoklyn and Lancaster are my style of switching layout, but in the long run, I’d miss continuous running.

If this layout was built, one had better really like staging, but take this and encorporate it into a larger layout and you would have something. Where would this fit as a free standing thing?

Any other comments or suggestions for this layout ?

Smile,
Stein

[steinjr]

Link to contest entry: http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry08.html

Comments gathered during the voting:

Lancaster Terminal Railroad is a great switching layout that takes hardly any space at all in a room - this layout could very easily be shared with other uses of the room - like a guest bedroom or a family room. I like the way the runaround has been placed in the curve, the low industries along the front, and the way the industry sidings has been made fairly long.

The two Lyns, Brooklyn and Yoklyn and Lancaster are my style of switching layout, but in the long run, I’d miss continuous running.

I hate the engine house on a switchback from the main yard. While the layout has some intersting industries most of it is consumed by the two yards on each end.

Other comments or suggestions for this layout ?

Smile,
Stein

[wm3798]

Keeping the design for the Tidewater Sub within the bounds of the 32 sq. ft. was difficult, and as was discussed, there are several compromises that resulted. The main one being a fairly steep climb out of staging, and a cluttered track plan in the middle.

The main thing I would have changed would be to add about 2 feet of run to each leg of the “L” to tidy up the grades. I was less concerned about the cluttered look, since I was using an Urban theme. If anyone remembers the area around Hillen terminal and Guilford Ave next to the state pen in downtown Baltimore in the mid-70’s, you’ll know what I mean. For all intents and purposes, this is a switching layout, with the accommodation for continuous running and a bit of staging to allow trains to enter and leave the switching area.

I was generally satisfied with the port side, as it provides for a variety of traffic, although a slightly larger area would have allowed me to also include a coal pier, which was one of the primary functions of Port Covington during the WM’s lifetime. I sacrificed that for the grain elevator, simply because it would be easier to model the grain elevator, and it was such a prominent land mark at the facility.

Operationally, I would have two trains in staging, leaving one track clear for thru running. Inbound trains would enter the layout from the left side, coming in from “the west” and heading toward the yard at Port. Hillen and the loft district would be switched by two locals out of Port, and outbound trains would go back the way they came in, then reset to come back during the next session. The bit of track between the loft district and the right side of staging would be utilized only for running laps.

Lee

[steinjr]

Link to layout entry:

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry03.html

Comments gathered during the voting:

Brandywine and the Old West would be fun railfan layouts, but they could have made better use of the space.

Not much track for the space, generous curves in N. Drawbacks: Passing sidings are very short, even for N, which will limit train lengths. The center 2 spur industry looks to be unswitchable due to grades on the run-around and main line.

I like the three train simultaniously single track main line. Actual track is rather sterile probably due to the use of sectional track. The roundhouse seems to dominate especially for this theme. Even the big V&T roundhouse wasn’t.

Any other comments or suggestions for this layout ?

Smile,
Stein

[exPalaceDog]

Link to contest entry:

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry10.html

First, the Old Dog must point out again that tunnels would not be typical on a small logging railway. Sure, one can find examples of tunnels on larger logging lines, but the tunnels seem out character with this small line.

Second, one must ask if a line would run a spur THROUGH the mill to get to the log pond. Also, one must point out that having a standard gauage spur serving the mill to receive the outputs would add interest.

Third, where are the “landings” where the logs that have been skidded to the ROW are loaded onto the cars. These might or might not be co-located with the camps.

Fourth, would one want to use flat cars or log cars?

Have fun

[steinjr]

Link to contest entry:

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry05.html

Comments gathered during the voting:

I frankly don’t understand Bath Port Belt. I get that there is some variety in switching, but I like to know the reason.

Bath Port - All five of the modules are way too similar to me. I thought putting the run around in a different location and/or configuration on each one would have really helped make it more interesting. How about at least one module having track not parallel to the edges.

The basic idea of the Bath Port is that one recieves a barge load of cars, then has to distribute them to the specified industries at the specified “spots” while keeping the barge somewhat in balance. Later, one must load the out bound cars on the barge while keeping it in balence.

The need to keep the barge in balance complicates the switching in a already tight area.

The concept of the barge allows the railway modules to interface with several other railways, not just one as a normal interchange yard would.

It also allows the modules to be placed in a “book case” configuration to conserve space.

I didn’t comment on this layout during the voting, but agree with Texas Zepher and SpaceMouse about this one: for me it is just too many repetitions of essensially the same theme.

I was a little surprised to realize that this one was by exPalaceDog. This poster always seem to comment on other layouts not being realistic or prototypical enough in some detail.

It would be interesting to hear a little more about what is actually based on a prototype about this layout and how the Dog arrived at the track plan(s) ?

&

[steinjr]

Link to contest entry:

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry01.html

Comments gathered during the voting:

Honorable Mention: Brandywine Springs. This looks like a great layout for a builder. I’m not sure whether operations would have a sustained interest over the long term. The operational interest would be to keep trolleys running in an interlocking schedule to serve the park. This layout would be a great “2nd layout” addition to a more traditional B&O layout, very similar to how narrow gauge or traction lines or added to other large layouts.

Interesting concept but ultimately nothing to maintain interest longer than a few hours.

Brandywine and the Old West would be fun railfan layouts, but they could have made better use of the space.

I like layouts that are a departure from the ordinary. And it also gives you a logical reason for the loop o’ track design in a realistic setting.

Brandywine Amusement Park, even though its primarily a roundyround, I think this would make a terrific diorama.

To add my own comment - this probably would have been a very fun to watch display layout, maybe with automated rides and light and sound effects. But it would probably have fairly limited operational interest.

Still - it was again a decidedly non-conventional solution from this designer, who seems to have quite a few interesting layout ideas based on the Hockesin-Landenberg area.

I for one am getting tempted to read up on railroading in this area in the first half of the 20th century.

Any other comments and suggestions for this

[steinjr]

Link to contest entry:

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry06.html

Comments gathered from the voting period:

I can see some real scenic possiblities in terms of the backdrop.

Pretty nice for a switching layout. I didn’t look at that original to see how original or copied it is. There are some wasted things for a dense industrial area. Why the switchback to get to industry “H”? Why isn’t there a track along all the industries between A-C especially by the 7 mark. It could be through between A-C or a switchback from A. Then there is the turnout configuration on the upper/left. The center track is wasted. Use the curved track toward the car float as the tail for the run-around.

I didn’t mean to remove the crossover right near “A”. That way the center industry can be served straight through “C” or as a swichback from the top. This arrangment was common where there were sidings on both sides of a city street. Each block had multiple industries along each side (Wynkoop & Blake Streets in Denver were prime examples). Every half block there would be another track cutting over from one to the other. Each industry could be reached from two ways in case there was a car spotted somewhere that could not be moved. In places with really dense traffic a third track would be run through the center of the street with the crossovers to both sides.

Inspired by the comments from Texas Zepher the layout plan has been changed some after the contest - like this:

Any other comments and suggestions for this layout ?

Smile

[Texas_Zephyr]

Drawbacks: Passing sidings are very short, even for N, which will limit train lengths.

Any other comments or suggestions for this layout ?

I thought the short passing sidings were in-theme with an 1870’s layout. Trains off the transcontinental line & major city-to-city lines were often 2-4 cars long.

[exPalaceDog]

Link to contest entry:

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry05.html

Bath Port - All five of the modules are way too similar to me. I thought putting the run around in a different location and/or configuration on each one would have really helped make it more interesting. How about at least one module having track not parallel to the edges.

Valid point! But the small size to the modules greatly limits the possible track configurations. The selection of the industries was intended to provide the variation. The modules were intended to be placed in a book case configuration which forced the RR Car Ferry to be placed in the same location on each module.

What would concern the Old Dog about these modules is the lack of adequate switching leads. They might degenerate into switching puzzles. Three car lengths is simply not adequate.

It would be interesting to hear a little more about what is actually based on a prototype about this layout and how the Dog arrived at the track plan(s) ?

These modules are free lanced, but intended to somewhat loosely follow some the terminals in Brooklyn, NY.

See

http://members.aol.com/bedt14/BEDT.html

http://home.att.net/~Berliner-Ultrasonics/bedt.html

http://members.aol.com/bedt14/MilitaryRRofNY.html

Available for downloading

http://books.google.com/books?id=mglLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PP7&dq=inauthor:Droege+date:1890-1920&lr=&as_brr=1

[steinjr]

Link to contest entry:

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry05.html

It would be interesting to hear a little more about what is actually based on a prototype about this layout and how the Dog arrived at the track plan(s) ?

These modules are free lanced, but intended to somewhat loosely follow some the terminals in Brooklyn, NY.

See

http://members.aol.com/bedt14/BEDT.html

http://home.att.net/~Berliner-Ultrasonics/bedt.html

http://members.aol.com/bedt14/MilitaryRRofNY.html

So you essensially based your layout on the same kind of prototype as I based my Brooklyn Terminal layout plan on. Brooklyn Terminal is heavily inspired by the Bush Terminal RR in Brooklyn.

Btw - here is a few links pertaining to the Brooklyn Army Base/Brooklyn Army Terminal - from another thread:

Prototype track plan:
http://members.aol.com/bedt14/MilitaryRRofNY.html#Army%20Term

Some pictures from the area: http://www.bluejake.com/archives/2007/10/09/brooklyn_army_terminal.php
http://world.nycsubway.org/us/waterfront/
http://www.oldnyc.com/

Library of congress HABS/HAER (Historical American Buildings Survey/Historical American Engineering Records) pics and data from Brooklyn Army Terminal: http://tinyurl.com/38lq9c

Here is a link to an

[exPalaceDog]

Link to contest entry:

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry05.html

Anyways - why did you make your terminal in 5 puzzle sized small modules instead of designing a larger shelf layout ?

Darn good question! The more the Old Hound looks at them, modules A and E look like real turkeys. Modules B, C, and D contained most of the desired industries. Hanging an interchange with the Navy Yard, Army Depot, and maybe a Army Coast Defense Fort off one of them might have made more sense. The Grocery Wholesaler and Condensed Soup Company could be moved to another module.

As for the Passenger Ship dock, it seemed like a good ideal at the time. But the Dog really has no idea what it should look like. The idea was to generate something that would use passenger cars.

Have fun

[exPalaceDog]

1. Let’s go through each of the designs and give suggestions on what we could have done to make it better.

User steinjr is doing that very thing in later posts on this thread

2. Let’s look at the way voting has gone in the past–look at which designs have won, and see if we can’t predict, which way the votes will go.

The Old Dog would suggest that the voting probably follows what people like or dislike in layout design.

3. Let’s figure out a new common scenario to work with. I like the standard 10’ x 20’ garage for a change of size and elbow room.

The Old Mutt would suggest something slightly larger, say 12’ x 24’ or even 12’ x 32’. that would allow two 24" shelves plus a 48" island in the middle. Of course, cutting into the 48" to widen the aisles would be desireable in some areas.

Have fun

[pcarrell]

I thought all of the layouts had aspects about them that made each a standout in some way. To be honest, there really wasn’t a loser in the bunch I thought. Well done, all around!

As for my own design, Old West, it was actually designed a couple of years ago as a design challenge for myself with the purposely limiting factors of not being able to cut the 4x8 and only using sectional track. Those factors being built in, the layout had some obvious limitations. There’s nothing to stop one from using flex instead of the sectional though I guess. Also, the comment about switching the industry in the center of the layout was spot on. It was the biggest weakness of the design I thought. I mean, the siding itself could be leveled out, but the runaround was on a grade and was very short to boot. In actuality, I don’t think I’d put in the runaround were I to build it, but instead I’d use the runaround at the back of the layout and just push / pull the cars to that industry from there. The roundhouse is a three staller, which I figured as kinda big for the scene, but then we all have too many loco’s, don’t we? Besides, if the layout was expanded at a later date, that roundhouse could be made to be more in keeping by making the town a little bigger.

I actually had meant to design another layout for this contest that I would have cut up the 4x8, but life got in the way, ya know?

[exPalaceDog]

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry06.html

After just reviewing the Bush Terminal at

http://members.aol.com/captncarfloat/bt.htm

It would appear to the Old Dog that the layout has a “balance” problem. At 24 cars, the car float is either too large for the industries provided, or the industries are too small. For example, the Bush terminal has a capacity of four cars. By extending the spur the capacity could be enlarged and the building made much larger to better capture the “feel” of the industry. Capacity could be further increased by working multiple tracks from the platform.The same could be said for the industries along 1st (Kent??) Avenue and the Army Terminal.

Have fun