Opinions on a 3x6 track plan?

[princessofthecape]

First, I can't claim credit for most of this plan -- it was created Giles Barnabe, and was originally an N scale 2x4 named the Edgmoor and Manetta. I've expanded it for HO and significantly altered the southern portion (and I can post the original if anyone wants to see it).



Operations are fairly straightforward: a train arrives in Edison from the left (compass south) on the red-line main and temporarily leaves its caboose where it begins. Cars at the dockside cannery and the team track (near the station) are switched first, with the outbounds left on the end of the cannery lead. The rest of the train then retrieves the caboose and backs onto the track east of the main before proceeding northeast around the curve toward Bow. Here it will service a small coal mine and lumber complex (which will require one pulp wood, two center beam lumber cars, and a single coal gon to be replaced with empties). The train then backs caboose-first back down the branch before continuing north on the main.

My only question is: can this be done in 3x6, or does it need to be bumped up to 7 feet (or even 4x8, although I don't really want to go that big)? I could selectively compress some of the scenery further to squeeze things in.

[Brakie]

Not with modern cars and long wheel base engines since your looking at a very tight curve-probably 15"..

That layout would be excellent for a Shay and 36-40' cars.I would place Bow 6" higher then Edison.

For diesel operation I would bump the size to 4'x8' and use 40' cars and a 4 axle locomotives like a GP7/9 or RS3/RS11 and nothing less then a 18" curve.

[princessofthecape]

Mar 11, 2014 2:51:15 GMT -8 Brakie said:

Not with modern cars and long wheel base engines since your looking at a very tight curve-probably 15"..

That layout would be excellent for a Shay and 36-40' cars.I would place Bow 6" higher then Edison.

For diesel operation I would bump the size to 4'x8' and use 40' cars and a 4 axle locomotives like a GP7/9 or RS3/RS11 and nothing less then a 18" curve.

I probably will expand it.  Sigh. Apartment living is not very conducive to 4x8s, so optimistically it doesn't have to grow quite that large. As for making Bow higher in elevation, I may bump the altitude a little, although it's actually not that much higher than Edison is in real life. Edison is at about 6' off sea level, and Bow, about 3 miles inland, is only 16'. It's a very, very flat little part of Washington, though exceedingly beautiful.

[Brakie]

I may bump the altitude a little, although it's actually not that much higher than Edison is in real life. Edison is at about 6' off sea level, and Bow, about 3 miles inland, is only 16'. It's a very, very flat little part of Washington, though exceedingly beautiful.
------------------------------------------------
When I said 6" I was thinking more on the usage of a Shay since they are built for steep grades and IMHO looks out of place on a flat railroad..I should have been more clearer.Sorry.

For diesels I am partial to flat lands on small layouts so,a scenic divider would suffice for breaking up the flat land.

Only time I been to Washington State was when I passed through Ft.Lewis.I was told then by a very nice lady that Washington was a beautiful state.

[riogrande]

I can't see the track plan where I am now - blocked photo host. Unfortunately 3x6 in HO is only good for a switching layout or extremely short based equipment. It's more suitable for N scale. Believe me I can relate to you about lack of space; I had been in apartments for many many years and mostly only had space for a temporary loop of track on the floor which couldn't be left up.

If a 4x8 is too big perhaps you could add 4-inches on to the 3x6 - 40" width at least could get 18" curves in, which would allow 4-axle loco's and avoid any freight cars longer than 60'.

Washington State is quite pretty. I went to Spokane around 1980 to visit a high school friend - it was just after an ice storm hit and there were tree branches down everywhere. Around 1981, I also visited Yakima with a college geology professor and some other students to see the total eclipse of the sun - I was impressed by the Columbia River Gorge when we crossed the river too. Very pretty out there.

[lvrr325]

Make it a 90' L-shaped layout with two 2x4 modules and a 2x2 corner section. You'll still be stuck with short trains, but you can bump the curve up to 22' radius and get away with a six-axle unit once in a while. Maybe some fold-up or removable staging tracks to extend the mainline off layout when operating.

Then you can put the layout in a corner with bookshelves or whatever underneath and it shouldn't take up too much room.


And, by building it in sections, should you need to move they won't be too bad to transport.   

[ambluco]

"It's more suitable for N scale" - They run G scale on layouts like that!

Visit this place and see the possibilities:

Small layouts

Designs

[Brakie]

Mar 11, 2014 4:44:22 GMT -8 ambluco said:

"It's more suitable for N scale" - They run G scale on layouts like that!

Visit this place and see the possibilities:

Small layouts

Designs

I've seen HO Shay powered logging railroads that was that size and was beautifully detailed.

[edwardsutorik]

You don't HAVE to have the curve there at all. You can "unwind" the layout, and it will be exactly the same. Except maybe 10-12' long and 18 inches wide. And you will lose the minimum radius problem. If you have room for this length layout.

The layout above reminds me of one of my favorite "4x8" layouts--a dockside switching layout in, I believe, September 1960 Model Railroader--page 28.



Ed

[rockisland652]

Those are some tight curves.

String some trolley wire and you have an interurban freight layout.

[bar]

Princess--

The is a bit larger, the Port of Los Angeles (or any port) module by Bob Smaus. It was a series in Model Railroader some years ago. I built it in my apartment:





It has broad curves and is a drop-in for a future larger layout.

N scale version as part of larger layout:
home.comcast.net/~mark.lawler/trains/writeup.htm

[Brakie]

There are far better ISLs that doesn't use the outdated "Time Saver" spaghetti bowl type track designs even in 30" x 72".

Since I have lived in apartments I have had several small 1' x 8' switching layouts that was fun to operate and didn't require a spaghetti bowl track design.

Here's my current 1'x 10' ISL.

[bar]

When I built that LA port module it accommodated well cars and 57-foot reefers without a problem (in early 90s). The extra benefit, however, was that its small size made it possible to super-detail and finish to completion. It also gave me a new insight into planning, and ever since I design with a module-type viewpoint. I was so cramped for space, like Hemingway typing I built the darned thing standing up, including structures. Still do that today!

[princessofthecape]

I likely will expand it, although I am almost certain I will not go up to the full 4x8. It's the width of the thing that worries me more than the length, but if it's widened up to about 42" or so, that should allow for a fairly reasonable radius on the major curve (particularly if I flair it out a bit more), given that the power will only be 4-axle locomotives.

I'm probably not going to spread the full layout into an L or shelf, though, simply because of where I drew inspiration from: the Small Layout Scrapbook posting of Stephen Penn's N-scale layout 'Wood End,' as well as Ken Olsen's Dawson Station. In particular, I really like the interesting perspectives offered by the sweeping curve on Penn's railroad. Plus, tight curvature restrictions can be prototypical even if they aren't common. UP in Portland, OR features this often-referenced CLD Pacific Grain Irving Elevator, and though not quite as tight, the adjacent mainline trackage serving Steel Bridge is pretty darned cramped. I'm not saying all this to bite back at people offering advise, but rather just to add to the conversation the point that people can do fairly convincing work on these small layouts.

[railfan4life]

Mar 11, 2014 2:21:30 GMT -8 princessofthecape said:

First, I can't claim credit for most of this plan -- it was created Giles Barnabe, and was originally an N scale 2x4 named the Edgmoor and Manetta. I've expanded it for HO and significantly altered the southern portion (and I can post the original if anyone wants to see it).

Whether this plan will work for you or not greatly depends on how you plan to operate it. The era you plan to model and type (read length) of engines and cars you want to operate are a very big factor in this. However, as some others have mentioned, I think the 180 degree curve is unnecessary. You can get the same operation if you cut the plan in half and make it an L shape. This turns the 180 degree curve into a 90 degree curve an you may be able to increase the radius of the curve as well. Making it an L actually will make the plan take up less floor space since you can tuck it into a corner and only have to access the layout from one side. The 3x6 design you showed has to have access from both sides which takes up a lot of space that doesn't expand the layout or improve operations.

Once you figure out the overall layout shape, whether going with the L or staying with the plan you posted, you'll need to figure out what type of cars and engines you want to run and find out what minimum radius they need. Also, you'll need to check the length of sidings, the crossings, track center clearances, etc based upon the length of the cars you'll be using. Again, the plan could be good, or could not work at all depending on what you want to run.

Cheers,

[princessofthecape]

This is the long (read: very long) term plan for the railroad. The small piece as portrayed in this layout would be the little spur branching off from Edison and heading off towards Bow Lumber in the foothills of the Chuckanut Mountains (very top, a little right of center). The remainder of the grand plan is far more fantastical, having the Milwaukee Road enter Puget Sound via Washington Pass (off map to the right), travel out to Anacortes on the present day BNSF route servicing the Shell Oil Refinery on Fidalgo Bay, and then travel into and around downtown Anacortes (amazingly, this was a real-life route almost all the way to where the map reads 'Rosario Strait'). From there, it winds south, crosses a spectacular bridge onto Whidbey Island, services the Naval Air Station, passes through Oak Harbor, and finally proceeds across Puget Sound on a massive, 4-mile-long road/rail bridge at Fort Casey (funded by the U.S. Navy shortly before the outbreak of WWII to service a fictional major naval facility in Port Angeles). From Port Townsend, the rails follow their prototypical route into PA, which is a larger port city than the real-world incarnation. Seattle would be reached via trackage rights over the BN. 

Obviously, a railroad of this scope would model selective scenes. However, I think the whole thing is rather interesting routing (and not as impossible it sounds. The Sound off of Port Townsend is actually far more shallow than almost anywhere else in the region, with a maximum water depth of only 250 prevailing in a rather narrow band, and an average of 100 feet for the remaining 3 miles). Would it be difficult engineering? Of course. Impossible, though? I don't think so... particularly with New Deal dollars and military engineers on the project. They could call it the 'eighth wonder of the railroading world' or something.