Driving those Tapcon screws into the floor is really difficult. The drill bit is good for 15-20 holes maximum. Even a new bit in my hammer drill isn’t easy. I have to put a lot of weight on the back of the drill to make the bit penetrate. Then I have to put a lot of weight on the impact driver too, to keep the phillips bit from jumping out of the head of the screw. Crawling around on my knees doing that at my age is a real challenge! 10-15 screws a day (somewhat less than two sheets fastened down) is what I consider a good day’s work.
I had to move all my boxes of books (heavy!), benchwork, etc. from the middle of the cement floor over onto the first half-dozen anchored sheets of OSB. Plus I’m still sorting through a lot of boxes of workroom tools and supplies on the other side of the stairway.
To top it all off I’m having a heck of a time with the track plan. I now have several concepts I’m working on…
A few you’ve seen before.
Option 2: No changes to this one since it was first posted:
Option 3, variant 1: No changes to this one either. It’s developed far enough that I know it will work:
Option 3, variant 2: Also no changes to this one. The peninsula next to the long wall reversed. I kinda like it:
Hey Mark. I like the last plan the best. You can follow along with the train and there is little double backing on itself. I think those are attributes that are worth the swing gate necessity.
Look at the bright side! At least your know that the concrete is solid![swg][(-D][(-D] Sorry, your knees probably didn’t think that was funny.
Have you considered using a Ramset? They use a gunpowder charge to fire special fasteners into concrete or steel. They make a lot of noise, just like a gun, but they are quick and easy to use. You should be able to rent them locally. Here is one example:
On plan 5, do the dotted lines that make up the bottom half of the wall by the furnace mean that part of the wall is to be removed?
If that is the case, and you’re confident you can pull off a good gate, I think plan 5 is by far the best. All the rest have a spot where access is going to be a problem. Number 4 has 2!
A distant 2nd is number 2. It has one access issue and a spot where the operator has to double back, but at least an operator can follow his train.
I personnally like the look of Option 2, because it looks like it will give a good amount of isle room. The big issue with that option for me is having two parallel main lines in one section of the layout (along the top/left walls). Still I think they will look fine if you sepperate them sufficiently. You may want to have a 2nd deck there if you can fit that with a continuous grade on the layout.
I think Oprions 2/3 suffer from too much parallel “spaghetti bowl” tracks, which in terms of scenery creates unprototypical scenes. It does have the advantage of having more track and more operations. Option 4 has a similar problem. Tight, narrow isles are also a concern on all three options.
Option 5 looks okay but the use of the Casper yard section will be kind of strange. It does avoid too many parallel lines!
Douglas - Option 5 is growing on me. I can see adjustments that will allow me to add the Cody and Lander branches relatively easily. A swing gate can be a pain, but Gerry Leone developed a pretty good one for his last Bona Vista, so I can just follow his approach. He detailed it pretty well on his YouTube channel.
Mike - I’ve used the hex head Tapcons in my old house for various things, and they are easier to use. But with 5/8 OSB for the subfloor, I’m concerned that counterboring it to recess those won’t leave enough wood for a solid connection over time. I am using a second drill & bit to create a countersink for the Phillips heads, and once I replaced the cheapy #3 driver bit with good quality Dewalt bits, it has made the work a bit easier. I broke two of the cheap bits off in the Tapcon heads!
Dave - I use gel type knee pads. Otherwise I’d never get through this! I have a Ramset, and will be using it for the base plate for the stud walls. That may be too much for the OSB and dimpled underlayment, so I didn’t consider using it there. I was too concerned that the force of the charge would depress the OSB by collapsing dimples around the fastener. I could just see an installed floor with circular depressions at every fastener!
Jim57 - You’re right, and I’m liking Option 5 more and more.
Carl425 - Yes, the dotted lines represent a part of the studwall that will be removed. Interestingly, Option 2 is about my least favorite. It does leave room for a goodies table and a few chairs to the right of Casper, though…
Isaac - Option 2 does provide a lot of aisle space, but beyond a certain point it just becomes a waste of space, as I discovered (and corrected) on my prior version of the layout.
Great thoughts everyone! You’ve given me a lot to chew on over the next couple weeks. Thanks
With option 5, it looks like there might be a way to pinch the base of the peninsula, moving Thermopolis towards Wind River Canyon, then the entire base into that upper ailse a bit more. That would allow operators to move around the entire furnace section unimpeded.
It would be a tight fit, but it might be doable with some nip and tucking.
Edit: Or put Casper yard where Worlund and Graybull is now, allowing the Thermopolis peninsula to get shoved away from the furnace, then readjust the stations accordingly?
Well, I think I’m finally on track (ahem) with the track plan. I’ve spent some time on Option 5, and here’s where it’s at now:
The Wind River Canyon peninsula looks pretty complicated, but I’ve checked all elevations and they work out. The hidden Frannie Staging is on the lowest level of the layout. Cody is about 4 inches above that, then Thermopolis, on the main deck, is about 15" above Cody. Ten inches higher, and hidden in the peninsula, is the Lander branch, climbing towards Lander on the opposite side of the room.
It looks complicated, but it isn’t that bad. The hard part was working out the elevations.
I’ll be adding some elevation markers as I further refine the plan, and maybe posting some cross-section views to clarify track clearances, etc.
I think I’m going with this option. I’m a bit disappointed that I won’t have Laurel yard on the NP, but I’ll certainly be able to live with that.
The only issue I see with Option 5 is that you have the narrow aisle right where the Casper yard crew will be working. I’d suggest sliding Casper to the right and shortening Powder River.
I had a version of the plan with Casper all the way to the right, but it made fitting other elements rather problematic.
I’m into the “tweaking” (not twerking!) phase of plan development, and I’ll be adjusting the position of the blob end of the Wind River Canyon and Worland peninsulas to provide more aisle space by Casper by reducing the space at Lander a little bit (pulling the blobs slightly towards the bottom of the diagram).
I’ve added elevation callouts for all the station locations. That should make it a bit easier to “see” the plan in 3-D.
I’ve also adjusted the bolb ends of the peninsulas to provide a bit more room (8 inches or so) in the aisle so the Casper operator(s) won’t feel quite so squeezed.
I’m a big guy so I am all in favour of wider aisles. When I designed my old club’s layout I made the huge mistake of having the narrowest point in the aisles right where the Yard Master would be standing. If I was doing it again I would have made that part of the aisle at least two feet wider so that people could pass by the yard master without feeling squeezed. Hopefully your aisle adjustment will be sufficient to prevent operators from getting too intimate with the Yard Master as they pass by.[swg][(-D]
I’ve begun adding rigid foam insulation to the walls in areas where the subfloor is done. In the next week or so I’m going to try to start on the studwalls as well. Unfortunately I’m going to have to move that big pile of heavy boxes again.
Maybe by summer I’ll have some actual layout updates to post (but don’t hold your breath)!
