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

PCRy track plan review

Started by Capt. Brigg, May 21, 2019, 02:09:47 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Capt. Brigg

Though I've had several reviews here in the past, and implemented most of them, I also keep learning and making changes as I progress in building this layout in HO scale at home. What I'm looking for now is anything that the prototype would absolutely not do when building their yards. What I've tried to do is look at the real yards in Yakima and Chehalis Washington in GOOGLE maps, and as far as space would allow follow their examples. Since my Pacific Cascade Railway never actually existed, but was mapped in 1878, and lines did run from Yakima west to Naches, and Chehalis east to Cowlitz, WA, I've extended reality to my ends. I would appreciate any suggestions or modifications that will make running easier and/or simpler on what is essentially a switching layout. Thanks in advance.
Capt. Brigg Franklin CEO http://www.pacificcascaderailway.com/ in HO gauge.
Capt. Brigg Franklin
USCG Licensed Marine Officer
ASA Certified Sailing Instructor
Certified crazy train chaser
Pacific Cascade Ry in HO

The Track Planner

Captain Brigg,
As someone, who has designed track plans for three decades and commercially for about five years, below is a short list of concerns, I would have, based on the plan you submitted.
1. Too Much Track... this is a classic mistake, made by many modelers. The plan looks too busy and there is not enough spacing between tracks. I'm not talking about standard track spacing, I'm talking about just too many tracks. The plan has the look of a "Lionel toy train layout" not a prototype railroad. If you reduce the amount of track by at least 30%, I feel, the overall plan would improve. In your case, less would be more.
2. Heights between elevations... you have many areas where elevations (between levels) are only 3½ inches. Depending on the sub-roadbed you're going to use and the type of equipment, 4 inches would be the minimum, in HO, I would suggest.
3. Staging Yard... if you used staging yards for prototype operations, you don't need escape tracks. Staging yards, should be designed just for staging. Prior to an op session, trains are staged to come onto the layout, as those trains entered the layout, other trains would go into staging. That way trains coming out of or into staging, only run once during an op session. Also, having escape tracks shortens your overall staging track lengths considerably.
4. Reach In Issues... In the upper right hand corner, it looks like you would have a serious reach-in problem. As drawn, the reach measures 44". The average 6ft tall person can comforably reach approximately 36" maximum.
Please take these suggestions as constructive criticisms.
Bill - The Track Planner - www.thetrackplanner.com

Capt. Brigg

Bill, thank you for your suggestions.
I've implemented three of them and would like suggestions on one. I'll go over the changes in reverse order.
#4; I moved Naches closer and opened up the corner so at least a head & arm will fit out to move something.
#3; I have already built the staging yard in HO, and did not put the escape crossovers into the yard tracks.
#2; the height from the lower rail top to the bottom of the upper plywood sub-roadbed in the back raised section will be 4". I'm still looking into a way to have the upper roadbed lift up and out for any possible needed maintenance.
#1; While I completely agree with you that their is too much rail in the yards, after working so hard to fit it all in I don't know where to start removing some of it. I'll look at it again, (and again,) but based on your experience, if you could identify and suggest any UN-needed lines it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks; Capt. Brigg
Capt. Brigg Franklin
USCG Licensed Marine Officer
ASA Certified Sailing Instructor
Certified crazy train chaser
Pacific Cascade Ry in HO

The Track Planner

Capt.
My main concern, with too much track, is not so much the yards, but the mainlines. There are places where the mainlines are at different elevations and very close together, I don't think you will be able to do scenery, between the levels. You'll need to install vertical walls. Which goes back to my "toy train look" comment. I just don't think it will look very realistic.
I also think you'll find places where things are not going to fit as drawn. Example... you have the roundhouse positioned too close to the turntable. The roundhouse will need to be set back an exact amount to get the tracks to lineup with the doors. as drawn, that is not the case.
If you turn-on the vertical clearance check mark under the 'Show" tab, you'll notice the vertical clearance is still at 3½ inches, in many places. You will want to make sure you are at 4 inches. Being at 3½ inches, now, your slope numbers are not accurate. If you go to a full 4 inches, I think you'll find some slopes will be more like 3½% to 4%, not 3%. I never design in 4% slopes, unless is a logging railroad.
I almost always suggest to my clients, that they go with the "cookie-cutter" style bench work, but because you have so much track running so close together, "cookie-cutter" may not be possible. I agree with you getting your slopes correct will be the hardest part of this design.
Food for thought... whenever I have a client who wants to model a prototype or a specific region, we always have a serious discussion about "selective compression". They almost always want to include everything and have a very hard time deciding what to leave out. I am a HUGE fan of "proto-freelance" modeling. This type allows you to pick out specific points of interest, but frees you up to design a layout that will operates well, and friends can have fun operating. I'm an experienced operator, I operate on six different layout of all kinds and eras. It would take me many op sessions to figure out exactly what is suppose to happen with a train on your design.
Final Thoughts... there are basically two type of layouts. There are "operations based" layouts and there are "rail fanning" layouts. Operations based layouts are designed with operations as the main focal point, but it must be easy for a visiting operators the grasp the layouts concept within a few minutes, not a few op sessions. Rail fanning layouts are the oppoiste, they are designed to sit-back and watch trains travsere the room, many times over. Very seldom does one layout design work well for both. Layouts that are designed from the outset for operations, almost alway last longer than the typical rail fanning layouts, which can get old very quickly.
Bottomline... this is your railroad, you should design it the way that pleases you the most.

mrsax2000

There number of tracks may be ok.  The colors on the plan does make it look busy.  It may seem different when you built and finish it.

The up and over tracks may not be an issue if 1 track descends and the other ascends. 

There is a lot going on in a small space.  If this is what you want, go for it. 

I do agree with the less is more opinion.  You may want to rethink you goal.  It would be hard to remove stuff, but the result may be more satisfying to you.

mrsax2000

I don't think the layers have the track you want on them.  It is easy to get things on the wrong layer.  Show and hide these, them move the track where you want.

Also when you group things, the grouping seems to place itself on the current level, not necessarily where it came from.  At least, this is what I've noticed. But I may done something odd.

Keesoldscool

I agree withmrsax2000 about the layers. At this plan it's mix.

Maybe a tip:
- develope a track 2D on one layer
- if a track must be a slope, open new layer and copy this part, then delete it and then paste to the new layer and reconnect
- when elevation is needed, open new layer and copy this part, then delete it and then paste to the new layer and reconnect
- rulers also on a separated layer, just as objects and surfaces
Grtz. Kees

Capt. Brigg

#7
Bill; I'm not too concerned about the vertical walls where the track is ascending and descending, as when crossing White Pass in the Washington State Cascades on highway 12 there are numerous areas where the roadbed is cut into a vertical wall (see photo #1). I expect if NP had built the line across White Pass, there would also have been many vertical walls. Our Willamette model RR club has several vertical walls while traveling across the Cascades in Oregon, (see picture #2).

MRSAX200 & KEES; I have not worked with layers and am unsure I understand what you are suggesting. I will go back and read about using layers. Thanks all.
Capt. Brigg
Capt. Brigg Franklin
USCG Licensed Marine Officer
ASA Certified Sailing Instructor
Certified crazy train chaser
Pacific Cascade Ry in HO

Capt. Brigg

Bill; The goal of my layout plan is operations. The operator positions will be Yakima yard master, Chehalis yard master, PCRy yard master plus PCRy mainline engineer, and staging plus NP & GN & Milw engineer; 4 operating positions. I will be running short trains over this "bridge" line.

MRSAX2000; I am using the Layers options to show different parts of the layout, like yards VS sidings, not different heights. I do now see I have mixed up several of the layers, which I can fix but which have no real effect on the track layout. I will look into the groups option for improving the visual information. Thanks for all your inputs.
Capt. Brigg
Capt. Brigg Franklin
USCG Licensed Marine Officer
ASA Certified Sailing Instructor
Certified crazy train chaser
Pacific Cascade Ry in HO

The Track Planner

Capt. Brigg,
Thanks for the photos. I model the SP&S 1955, so I'm familiar with the area. Other concerns I noticed. The reach-in for PC Yard appears to be between 24" and 30", that's a long reach-in considering your are reaching over five tracks running along the front edge of the bench work. Even if you powered all the yard turnouts, you will have situations where couples don't work and derailments will happen. If you don't power all the turnouts, an operator will have to be very careful, every time a train is on one of the five front tracks.
Because of all the switching locations, four operators may not be enough, but also may be too many, based on the size of the layout and the very short run distances between switching areas. Keep in mind, operators "operate" at different phyiscal speeds. What can take one operator 15 minutes to accomplish, can take another operator 30 minutes. On small layouts, these differences can bring an op session, to grinding to a halt. While everyone waits for the slow operator. On large layouts where you have longer distances, i.e. runs, between switching areas, this can become less of a problem. But I have seen it happen on 3,000 sq ft layouts as well.
Also, if you have four operators or more, there will be numerous times when one operator will get in the way of another. Assuming, operators are following their trains, as the trains traverse the layout.
Lastly, having the dispatchers desk under staging and having a staging yard operator appears to be problematic since the turnouts for staging are directly over the dispatchers desk. How does the staging yard operator reach over the dispatcher to aline turnouts?
Having been into operations for four decades, I know that many operating issues never show up on paper. It's only when the first op session starts, that the problems start showing up. If you belong to a club that holds op sessions, I would highly recommend you have the person, most knowledgeable about operations, review your plan, from an operations perspective. I think he could find the serious issues before you start building.

Capt. Brigg

Forum Team member, thanks for your input.
I have made some changes based on your suggestions and some simulations, including;
See attached file.
1. I removed the farthest yard tracks in the Yakima PC yard, moved the others closer, and did a simulation with a 4.5" high clearance MILW track and can now reach all the Yakima PC yard tracks. I could also add a 6" high foot stool for that yard master, helping reach over the 46" high bench work. Since their will usually be no cars parked on the three edge tracks their is no danger of knocking them off. I've worried this issue for months and can come up with no other solution.
2. With a wide center space and the Yakima PC yard operator on the outside, I hope the three yard masters will have enough space to work. Waiting for a train is a part of prototypical railroading. We do it all the time when operating on our loooong WMRC layout. As everything is so close, no one will "follow" their train. The staging operator will be running the PC main line from Yakima to Chehalis and back and can do this working from the staging area.
3. The Staging operator does what little dispatching is necessary, so will not get in the way of either job, or the Yakima PC yard master.
I will be taking this layout drawing to the club "again" for suggestions. In the meantime thanks again for your input.
Capt. Brigg CEO http://www.pacificcascaderailway.com/ in HO gauge.
Capt. Brigg Franklin
USCG Licensed Marine Officer
ASA Certified Sailing Instructor
Certified crazy train chaser
Pacific Cascade Ry in HO

Keesoldscool

#11
Good morning Capt. Brigg,

For what reason are you using five different types of tracks?
I found:
- Atlas code 100
- Peco streamline code 100
- Piko A
- Fast tracks
- Shinohara

Because I like doing puzzles and also triggered with your plan, I'm working on it.
Grtz. Kees

mrsax2000

About layers... I figured that was the plan.  I have stuff on wrong layers.  It's easy for things not to be where you intend.  And it's usually some odd piece here and there.  Just depends on how anal-rententive you want to be :)

Keesoldscool

Goodmorning Capt. Brigg,

I did a lot of puzzling for your plan, but I but I could not fathom the plan. For you I hope it works, but I myself think you will be bored after a while. There is to much processing, to much to care for and to many options for failures, like derailment, malfunctions of turnouts, huge loads of wiring, malfunction of tracks.
But it's your plan, so your concernes.
Grtz. Kees

Capt. Brigg

First, thank you all for your inputs.
1. There are too many types of track because when I started this layout plan I was very uninformed how to use it properly. I am using Atlas flex code 100, a Shinohara double crossover and double slip switch, and I build some Fast Tracks curved turnouts and use some Atlas #4 turnouts in yards. Everything else is a mistake that I will work on.
2. I did enter track heights and slopes and found a 7% grade going up to Morton, which is obviously not good. I need to think on this and see what can be changed or use lots of helper engines. Suggestions are welcome. Again thanks.
Capt. Brigg
Capt. Brigg Franklin
USCG Licensed Marine Officer
ASA Certified Sailing Instructor
Certified crazy train chaser
Pacific Cascade Ry in HO