News:

Due to heavy spamming attempts on this forum, automatic registration has been disabled. We will approve registration requests as quickly as possible (unless you're a spammer of course :) )

Main Menu

Plannning a new home shelf layout

Started by Hoiiip, November 18, 2012, 02:01:08 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Hoiiip

After spending some time helping my friend design his shelf layout I decided to plan my own.  After extensive negotiations with the CEO of the household, I managed to reach an agreement for space to build a new shelf railroad once I make room in a closet to place some file cabinets currently occupying the space. Hopefully, construction will begin in the new year.

Back in the 1950's there was a lot of talk about building a railroad bridge or tunnel across Long Island Sound between Oyster Bay (Long Island, New York) and Rye, New York. Plans were drawn and proposals were made in 1962 to start construction, but it never came to fruition. Currently there's talk about building a tunnel between Port Jefferson (Long Island) and Milford, Connecticut but I doubt that will happen in my lifetime (if ever). Well in my world, there was a bridge built between Oyster Bay and Rye in the early 1950's. The railroad will be set in 1957.

The shelf layout will have two sections connected by a 2x4: the south section (9' long x 2' wide) is Oyster Bay; the 2x4 (4' long) is the bridge across the Sound; and the north section (5' long x 2' wide) is Rye. All turnouts will be #6 Peco code 83 except for the three-way turnout in Rye and the double slip switches in Oyster Bay and Rye. The 3-way and the Rye double slip will be Peco code 100 and the double slip in Oyster Bay will be Walthers code 83. The 45 degree crossing in Oyster Bay will be Atlas code 83. Except for one curve each in Rye and OB, the minimum radius will be 30" so the engines and cars should look good going around curves. The two sharper curves are a 24" radius.

The main line connects to the Long Island RR (LIRR) in Oyster Bay and the New Haven RR at Rye. Oyster Bay will be serviced by the LIRR. A two-stall engine house provides maintenance and running repairs to a yard goat that handles the three track yard, and a local switcher. Four sidings serve local customers.

Rye will be serviced by the New Haven RR. It has a two track yard serviced by a goat, and four industries serviced by a local switcher. There are no engine facilities in Rye.  Connecting Rye and Oyster Bay is a single track bridge, low and close to the surface of the water.

Yard goats and switchers will be S-2's and S-4's, and RS-3's. Freights across the bridge will be pulled by H-16-44's, RS-11's, and the occasional FA. I wouldn't be surprised to see an excursion pulled by an old DL-109 racking up some rare mileage for railfans.


RhB_HJ

Just looking at the plan I'd say you need a run-around track at Rye.
Hans-Joerg Mueller
Coldstream, BC   Canada

http://www.rhb-grischun.ca

My train videos

Win7Pro 64bit; 8 GB RAM; i5 2.67GHz; 1920x1080 22" display

Hoiiip

There is a run-around track albeit not in the yard.  It's below the double slip switch.

RhB_HJ

I don't know how rich this railroad was when they built that trackage, but by feel I'd say a double switch in that location is not likely. The useable length of that run-around would call for poling action in most instances.
Hans-Joerg Mueller
Coldstream, BC   Canada

http://www.rhb-grischun.ca

My train videos

Win7Pro 64bit; 8 GB RAM; i5 2.67GHz; 1920x1080 22" display

Hoiiip

#4
You're right about it being unlikely but with the limited space, it made more sense than a pair of conventional switches.  The double slip switch is about 9 1/4" long.  A pair of back-to-back #5 switches replacing the double slip would be about 17" long, reducing the rear switch lead to 11 1/2", too short for an engine and a car.  The lead with the double slip is 16 1/4" long which gives me enough room for an engine and a car, which I could then shove into the two sidings coming off the curved turnout.

The run-around track is about 12 1/2" long, which is sufficient for a single freight car, even an 85-foot car (which is longer than the typical freight car of the 1950's.)  I expect most of my freights will be made up of 40 and 50 foot boxcars, gons, tankers, and the like.

The plan is for a switch engine to pull a car out of the yard; push it into the run-around track; uncouple and run around using the slip switch; then couple on to the other end, pull back into the switch lead, then shove the car into either siding coming off the curved turnout.

I very much appreciate your feedback!

RhB_HJ

To get a longer run-around track I'd do this
Hans-Joerg Mueller
Coldstream, BC   Canada

http://www.rhb-grischun.ca

My train videos

Win7Pro 64bit; 8 GB RAM; i5 2.67GHz; 1920x1080 22" display

Hoiiip

Thank you for the suggestion!  I took your modification and made some changes, simplifying it by removing one of the run-around tracks and replacing the crossing with a turnout.  The tail switch lead is about 450 mm long which is more than enough for an engine and 1 - 2 cars.  I came up with two versions, the first with conventional turnouts and the second with a three-way turnout.  Which one do you think looks more prototypical?


Hoiiip

I redesigned Oyster Bay, moving the yard to the south which allowed for longer tracks and escape crossovers.  A run-around track is in the middle of OB.

glakedylan

it is looking good.
nice work.
just can't help but wonder what 3 (i think i counted correctly) three-way turnouts will cost and it that will be an issue?
yes, they permit longer sidings than having 2 turnouts following one another, but then i am not sure if a three-way costs more, less, or fairly equivalent to two regular turnouts?
enjoy!
respectfully,
Gary

Hoiiip

Gary, a Peco 3-way turnout costs about $100 while a conventional turnout costs around $27 - $33.  I revised the plan to eliminate the 3-ways.  I lost about 8" in the Oyster Bay yard and about the same in Rye, along with losing 1" - 2" inches on the runaround tracks.

glakedylan

yes, I figured the same on both: the cost and the loss of inches...

what was running through my mind is my current need to redesign my layout knowing Atlas code 55 #5's are just not available and won't be forr sometime and even when they are there are issues with the connection of power through the frog to one of the rails that tends to come loose.

i will some be building my annual Christmas layout with Kato unitrak and with the move in September and having yet to get a location for my more permanent layout i was thinking of making the Christmas one more intense with some turnouts that i could keep using it for a while. i am so tired of having all my stuff in boxes and no dedicated space yet.

then i saw the cost of unitrak turnouts...especially the double crossovers...which reminded me of my plan some months back to incorporate PECO double slip turnouts and had sticker shock with the price of them.

sometimes what we put on paper can be elusive when it comes to the checkbook or credit card ;-)

all my best, hope you work it all out and enjoy your layout!

respectfully

Gary L Lake Dillensnyder

glakedylan

just a thought that occured to me

i know a guy on eBay who makes and sells Fastracks.

his price is normally in the $30's...and they have not only curved but shorter turnouts than other manufacturers. you could probably get some of the inches back via that route.

if you want his seller name i can provide.

i have no connection with this guy other than buying some turnouts from him and finding his work to be exceptional and well worth the $'s.

just a thought FWIW

Gary L Lake Dillensnyder

Hoiiip


glakedylan

follow this link to his seller's page and search through his products from there
if none currently made he takes special orders
feel free to email him and you can use my name if you wish

http://myworld.ebay.com/jscottw?_trksid=p2047675.l2559

peace
Gary L Lake Dillensnyder
(gdylan on eBay)

Hoiiip