Even though the room the final one is going into isn’t finished…
(It’s ok to dream, can’t I?)
I’ve drawn up some rough plans for one side of the final layout. I’d appreciate honest feedback, this is a first draft.
I am planning on a 3 level (two visable, one staging) layout for this side, as I want to build the Central Vermont from Waterbury, VT to White River Jct. VT. Additonally, I want to do the Mt. Mansfield Electic Railway that interchanged with the CV in Waterbury, and ran to stowe up until 1932-3. I plan on not being super historical; I do want to run equpiment up until 1960’s or so on the CV main line (the main level).
I’m aware that without a helix, the grades up and down levels may be too steep. The MMER never ran more than a single car, or a box cab with one or two cars in tow, so the grade behind the wall (and yes, that space is accessble) can be kind of high.
I should add that min. radius for the CV is 22 inches, HO scale, and the MMER, 18 (also HO scale)
Interesting! And you’re not way ahead of yourself if you’re still finishing a room that you need to go behind the wall of on two different levels - good thing it’s NOT finished yet! How far apart do you plan to make the levels? Also, you said the lowest staging level won’t be visible; will it be concealed under a platform?
To me, it seems as if your space is too small to portray the ~55 mile run from Waterbury to WRJ.
What’s the actual “usable” space for your railroad? There are many traffic sources along the route, none of which seem to be represented other then the defunct line to Stowe.
Montpelier junction would fit nicely in that corner. With the small wye that only has room for turning an engine and one car, etc.
I was concerned about the switchback to get to the upper level, but if you are doing an interurban with only a motor and maybe a car or two it should be OK.
A design consideration is that you will have overhead wires. That raises the “top” of a lower level 3" or so. Your minimum deck separation from the top of the lower deck would be 3" for the wire, 8" for reach or about 10-14" to the BOTTOM of the top deck. Add a deck thickness of 3" for the upper deck and the minimum separation for decks will be about 13-18".
You can make it less, but it will be HELL to work on the overhead in a confined vertical space, not to mention the scenic and lighting challenges.
One alternative is to have the lower deck a little wider and the upper deck a little narrower so the upper deck really doesn’t intrude over the trolley wires on the lower deck. That would let you compress the decks and reduce the grade Otherwise you are looking at 10-12% grades on the hidden track to get a 15" separation. Reduce the separation to 12" and you can get into 9-10% grade.
You might also conside reversing the switchback and have the electric line exit the visible portion to the left, that would allow the ENTIRE wall area to be used for the grade, doubling the length of the grade, which would get you down into the single digits in grade, maybe ven as low as 5%, which for a trolley or motor and single car is very doable.
I realize that this is not the entire run, we’re doing a bit of compression here. What isn’t planned out is the other side of the room, this is just half of the run as shown.
Over all the space is approximately 16 x 20, but I don’t want or desire a layout in the entire space. I need to configure a work area, and a central open table for gaming. My concept is to really just model the interchange in waterbury with the MMER, I’m not looking to do the entire run, sorry if I didn’t make that clear. I would like to do this half first, and than add the other half with the WRJ yard for operational fun later, and join the two halves with a removable section.
Your idea of putting Montpelier Jct. though still works, and is a good one.
I hadn’t thought about the overhead wire clearance, thanks for bringing that up. I originally not had the switch back, and had the run simply echo the CV line, but changed it as the prototype ran that way. i may go back, I’m pretty concerend about the potential grade.
I’m planning the main deck to be 3 feet wide, and the upper 2.
Instead of having your lowest level be “just” staging, how about extending the run just a little more? Have your lower level represent Italy Yard in St. Albans, and have it be “working” staging?
This would give you the option of having “interchange” (albeit completely staged) with the Rutland, CN, etc.
Also, this may be a historical oversight on my part… but… Did the CV actually run through Rochester, or are you thinking of Randolph? They’re not too far apart, and the tracks still exist in Randolph. Once again, this may be an error on my part.
WRJ also presents the opportunity to have multiple interchanges. B&M, etc.
What scale are you modelling in? Don’t recall. Never mind. I see it, HO. Not to be a HO-Party-Pooper, but for the space you have and the distance you want to model… N scale might be the better option.
I like it! One thing about the yard - I don’t see an obvious switching lead that has access to all body tracks. Is that what turnout to the right of the yard ladder is going to be? Otherwise, you’ll be pulling cuts and classifying them on the main. Note that I’m not familiar with your prototype - maybe that’s what they do…
No, you’re right - I meant Randolph, not sure why Rochester stuck in my head. Hidden St. Albans staging…I’ll have to muse on that.
I realize that N, in this space, would be fantastic, but the truth is I’ll be scratchbuilding equipment for the MMER, and the scale is just too small for me to do that comfortably in.
I actually just threw that yard together - I need to look at the prototype and see how it was. I’m not experienced though in yard creation, so any suggestions you may have would be welcome.
Oh, it’s coming, don’t you worry. I am hoping to have the space finished off by winter, but i just got my oil pre-buy for next year, and with those prices, I may not have things where I want them that soon.
I know where the WRJ yard is; i need to compare what’s there now with what was there pre WW2.
I’m in the process of working with a builder to design a home. I’m seriously looking at the in floor radiant heat solutions, as well as the “pellet style” heaters. Still in the research phase, and haven’t signed anything to lock myself into one type or another. I think the biggest help will be making sure the insulation is top-notch and having multi zoned heat control so that it’s not necessary to heat unused areas.
One of my coworkers heats with a pellet stove, and has loved it. A local company produces them. We’re trying to get them serviced via rail to export their product, but they don’t have the need… yet.
