Feb
26
Updated Railroad Logo
Filed Under Background
As I’ve been working through things, researching more about railroad operations in the Texas Rio Grande Valley, and purchasing rolling stock for the railroad… I’ve changed my road focus to include a few more Fallen Flags. The Southern Pacific [TN&O] had a big presence in the Rio Grande Vally, but so did the Missouri Pacific. So, I have added the MOPAC to my empire. This change will also allow me to include another streamline passenger train, The Texas Eagle!
Likewise, I felt it is important to include local regional roads like the Texas & Pacific and the Missouri, Kansas, & Texas [the MKT or Katy]. The T&P, while eventually becoming owned by the Missouri Pacific in the early 1900’s, did not get fully merged into the MOPAC until the ’70’s… so this is a natural fit in many areas. The MKT did not have a route in the Rio Grande Valley, and didn’t go any more South into Texas than San Antonio. But, I love passenger trains and I have to have the Texas Special running on my layout, so I’m taking some artistic licensing on this.
Although citrus was King in the Rio Grande Valley, other produce was equally as important. Tomato shipping, canning, and juicing were common regional industries.
To this end, I changed the logo to reflect the additional Fallen Flags that I will be including and added a produce element to the design. The new logo will be…
Feb
26
Been a Slacker… Sort of
Filed Under Uncategorized
Wow! It has been a long time since I’ve updated anything on this site. Where does the time go???
While not active on this blog… I have been making progress. I’ve changed the logo for my railroad; bought a lot of cars; attended several shows; finished a few scratchbuild projects… and have been working deligently on yet another “final” layout design. I know, I know… the last one was “final” too. However, I found that my needs and wants have continued to evolve to a point where I *needed* and *wanted* MORE. My current design reflects all of these changes, and I really don’t think I can do anything else to pack in more operations given the amount of room I have for my layout. As soon as I am finished with the tentative scenery design layout, I’ll get this new plan posted.
My goal is to get this blog updated with everything I’ve been working on for the last year. So, to this end…
Nov
7
It has been a little over 10 years since I built a layout [HO Gauge]. On that layout, I used Poplar for all of the legs and L-Girders. I liked Poplar, and found it to be very easy to work with. Generally, it is a clean wood with no knots and blemishes, lightweight, and strong.
Now that I am getting geared up for my O Scale layout, I decided to take a trip to Lowes to check out the current lumber situation. I was happy to find that Poplar still is available in a bunch of different sizes and lengths… but I was also a little surprised at the price. Back 10 years ago, Poplar wasn’t that much more than Select Pine. Now Poplar appears to be almost double the cost of Select Pine.
I’m not positive which way I’m going to go. Given today’s economic environment, cost is an issue. However, I want to build a layout that will last for years. I’m unsure whether the pine will eventually warp or twist. The layout will be going into a climate controlled room with central heat and A/C… but, I have seen pine do some weird things over time. However, I really have not worked with Select Pine all that much, so I may have some reservations based upon cheaper grades of pine.
In the next two weeks, I’m going to have to make a decision…
Nov
6
Although I have not posted anything recently, I have been very busy moving my rail empire forward! I completed a scratchbuild project for a ’50’s style billboard [which I will post on soon], and… [Insert Trumpets], I have finally put together a track layout plan that meets almost all, if not all, of my goals / wants / needs. It is hard to describe how excited I am to finally be able to start building benchwork, and how relieved I am to finally have a layout design that I am 100% pleased with. It has taken me close to two years of revising, tweaking, starting over, and repeating everything again to get to this point.
Below is a slightly edited copy of my message thread that I posted on the Lionel FasTrack forum:
As many of you already know… I’ve been working and striving for a layout design that will make the best use of my available area. To date, I have gone through seven major changes, and hundreds of “what if” interim designs. I have finally put together a layout that meets almost all of my wants and needs. Whew!
The upper level view showing all of the anticipated scenery is just a basic concept for the scenic elements. Please keep in mind that this is just a rough approximation to make sure I had enough room for the items I wanted to have on the layout. The buildings shown are from the Lionel and MTH accessories libraries in RR-Track. I will be scratchbuilding most of the structures, so these are only scenic placeholders.
I am getting very excited because in two weeks I start building benchwork!
If you are interested, below is a lengthy description regarding this layout.
*****
I prefer a good balance between track and scenery, with the amount of track looking typical for the locale. From an operational standpoint, I would like to have continuous running capability, but also with enough rail customers / industries that I can keep things interesting with switching and servicing these customers. I want the layout to have a feel that the trains go somewhere and that they have a reason to be there.
Specifics:
* 16.5 ft. x 19 ft. room. This is located on the second floor of our house [typical Texas homes don't have basements], and is a finished room with the second story having its own central air and heat. The access is a stairway up to the second story. Not shown is a bedroom and bathroom opposite of the layout room from the stairway.
* The main visible track level has a 50 ft. long main oval, with 140 ft. total trackage.
* In a nutshell there is a lower level that will be comprised of two reversing loops and a staging area. A train can exit off the main upper [visible] level and travel off the layout for 185 ft. before showing back up on the main level. If it is desired to reverse a train, it can exit the upper level and travel over 142 ft. of track before re-entering the upper level.
* Layout will be set in the lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas.
* Time period will be late ’50’s to early ’60’s, as this is the time I remember while being a kid.
* Locomotives will be diesels… F7’s, PA’s, switchers appropriate for the time, GP-9’s, etc. I may elect to add a steam locomotive later.
* Operations will be passenger trains and local freight.
* Rail customers will be a citrus packing house, cannery, box plant, mechanical icing dock, hopefully cotton gin, bulk fuel / oil, and “Area 49″.
* The upper level track will have 072 and 084 curves. All upper turnouts are 072.
* The lower level track will be 060 curves and turnouts to minimize cost and space requirements.
* The decline to the lower level on the “green line” is 2.5%.
* The decline to the lower level on the “orange line” is 2.6%.
* The lower staging / reversing loops area is 18″ below the top of the benchwork.
I really wanted the ability to be able to reverse a train from either direction without needing to reverse or back-up. I wanted some lower staging, although I am conceding that I don’t have the amount I originally wanted… but, I was able to get staging track lengths of 181″ - 181″ - 196″ - 211″. I also wanted the ability to have a train leave the visible portion of the layout, and return after some time had elapsed.
Looking at the track plan more closely… A train can travel around the upper oval unassisted. A train can also travel around the upper level, disappear, and reappear later in a continuous running manner. To accomplish this, a train going counter clockwise would exit off the main oval at the upper left corner. It would decline down below the upper level [the purple track is the track that is still above the benchwork top, with the green track below the benchwork], loop back around to gain more linear footage of track for the decline, and then come back around to the other side of the layout to enter a reversing loop. If it is not desired to reverse the train but to continue on to the staging tracks or to proceed continuously to the “orange” track, the train would exit the loop and come back around to the staging area. If the train is not diverted to staging, it will proceed through the staging area and exit on the orange track that is the reverse loop for the “orange line”. From here it would travel up and back around the layout to the double back loop for the orange line, and end up going up the purple decline / incline track above benchtop level and re-enter the main oval from the other side of the crossover, traveling still in a counterclockwise direction.
If the train is going clockwise, it would take a similar path as above except it would enter the lower level from the orange line, travel to the blue staging level, and then connect up with the “green line” to travel back to the upper level.
If you wanted to turn a counter clockwise running train, the train would not exit the reverse loop for the “green line”, and would travel back on the green line to re-enter the main level now traveling clockwise. A clockwise running train would be turned by exiting off the main, traveling around the “orange line” reversing loop, and then travel back on the orange line to re-enter the main level now traveling counter clockwise.
This arrangement will provide the ability to reverse a train by going forward only in either direction, and will provide a long travel path below the visible upper level to simulate the train going somewhere.
I also think that the lower staging could be used in an operational scheme such that a local freight switcher could set out empties and pick up full cars and then disappear to the lower staging.
On the passenger station… this has always been a problematic area for me, given the space I have. I will be running A-A or ABA passenger diesels with 7 to 9 of the MTH Premier 19″ long passenger cars. With a total train length of 14′ to 17′ long, it would look funny to have over half of the train sticking out both ends of the passenger platforms in a typical pull through set-up. I just don’t have the room to get a long passenger platform to fit the train length. In the course of researching typical track arrangements for towns in the lower Rio Grande Valley, I looked at many Sanborn maps of the area from the ’50’s. While looking at the maps for Brownsville, TX, I came upon an acceptable solution. The passenger station for Brownsville serviced two different railroads, and the station was located off of a wye for one railroad, and near the end of the other railroad. This station had a stub end set-up with two tracks for one of railroads, and another pair of tracks for the other railroad. Using this prototype set-up I was finally able to provide a passenger station set-up that would provide enough track to hold nine 19″ passenger cars. Granted, I’ll need to cut the train into three sections when it pulls into the station, but it is the best compromise I have. On a similar note, it will add for some additional operational action to make the two cuts and then to re-couple for departure.
The images below are thumbnails that will open a larger image.
Top Level with Scenery and Top Level Track with Visible Declines -
Lower “Green” and “Orange” Loopbacks and Reversing Loops / Lower Level Staging -
All Lower Level Track -
Jul
23
Layout 5.0 - Current Layout, For Now…
Filed Under Layout Design
Layout 5.0 is the result of hundreds of interim layout changes, what-if’s, and will-it-fit. I struggled long and hard to come up with a layout that had a little bit more scenic opportunities… eliminating the center peninsula blob while still providing a method to reverse long trains, *and* to add some off-layout staging.
I ended up positioning the reversing loop on the lower staging level, and located it in a corner to minimize its impact on the around-the-walls layout. The track leading to the lower level has a 2.6% grade. I was amazed at the amount of linear track footage that would be needed to drop to my desired lower elevation, while keeping the grade to about 2.5% maximum. In the main trackplan below, the light purple colored track is the start of the decline, and stops at a point where the train would be below the level of the benchwork top. In the lower level image below, the cyan colored track picks ups from this point and continues down to an interim level for the reversing loop, which is shown as dark purple track. After the reversing loop, the decline continues down a bit more [again in cyan], until it reaches the desired lower elevation for the staging tracks, shown in dark green.
Because I am still trying to shoehorn in a ton of scenery and commercial / industrial customers, I ended up going back to having the layout cut across the center of the room. This gave me enough room to properly put in a citrus packing house, box plant for the packing house, and a reasonable [read: acceptable compromise] length icing platform that would hold multiple reefers. I also had enough room to include a portion of a citrus orchard to further solidify the citrus theme.
The curves are all 072 or 084. All of the turnouts are now 072. This layout does provide for continuous running, while allowing for some pretty good switching operations for setting out / picking up freight cars. The lower staging also provides a place for trains to disappear for awhile, and then reappear later to give the perception that it is a part of a much larger railroad. I also was able to futher this even more by including a non-functional junction to simulate an interchange with another railroad.
This layout still has some significant downsides from my perspective. Not only do I have a Lift Up / Swing Down bridge to access the center of the layout, I ended up adding a second Lift Up / Swing Down / Swing Out section to tie the center area to both of the short ends of the layout. My aisle clearance has not improved either.
While Layout 5.0 is getting closer, it still is not 100% or close enough for me to be willing to start cutting and assembling benchwork. I may end up coming back to this layout, but I want to take another run at correcting or minimizing these two shortfalls. My dilemma has not changed much… how to fit in a method to reverse a train 13′ to 15′ long in a minimal amount of space, while not resorting to a “blob” peninsula, or using curves tighter than 072, or ending up with a track plan that looks ridiculous.
Again, the images below are thumbnails that will open a larger image.
Jul
22
Layout 4.0
Filed Under Layout Design
Real Estate. Real Estate. Real Estate
It wasn’t long after I completed Layout 3.5 that I came to the realization that my “dreams” were a lot larger than what my planned layout could hold. I needed more room. Actually, I needed the WHOLE room… and what few pieces of still remaining room furniture had to go. So, I proceeded to start putting together Layout 4.0. Now my wife, being a crafty and intelligent woman, looked over my shoulder while I was busily plunking track pieces around in RR-Track, and commented “So, you are now going to be using the whole room?”. “Yep” I replied. “So what are you going to do with all of the stuff that is already in the room”. “Move it somewhere else… maybe into the dining room”. Currently, we have a lot of our collections on display in this room. A lot of it can easily be relocated elsewhere in the house. My Star Wars props and 1:1 helmets, however, were going to present a problem. In a moment of brilliance… I subtly mentioned “You know… it would be kind of cool to go with a Star Wars decor in our dining room”. She didn’t balk or say anything… just nodded that it might be okay. I waited a couple of weeks and restated my plan. No opposition. EXCELLENT. Just that easy, I became my own version of the “Big Four” [Central Pacific / Southern Pacific - Huntington, Stanford, Crocker, and Hopkins] and acquired some MUCH needed real estate.
Layout 4.0 backs up to all four walls. I went with an around the room layout with a center peninsula to maximize my linear footage of track. This gave me a few longer straight runs, and also provided for larger radius curves. I still had a few 060 curves, but a majority of the curves were upgraded to 072 or 084. All of the turnouts were either 060 or 072. Although a leather couch was still in the room, I figured that if I couldn’t tuck it under a bit, I would need to move it out as well.
Overall, Layout 4.0 would provide some decent operational possibilities with a train running continuously, and a local switcher picking up and delivering cars to the local industries or warehouses.
The downsides to this layout is that it would require a Lift Up or Drop Down Bridge to access the interior of the layout and the aisles were pretty tight.
On the positive side, I would finally be able to get a fairly decent amount of run time in before a train would travel back into the same scene. Speaking of scenery, Layout 4.0 opened up a lot of potential. My small town could be larger, making the depot more realistic in size considering the passenger cars I purchased. The area for the carnival also increased and would allow me more room for more rides and booths / tents. Lastly, I also had a long wall that could be used for rural scenery that would help add more perceived distance to the layout. The center peninsula would be used for my industrial and commercial needs.
Below is a thumbnail link to a larger image of the track plan. As always, if you would like a file copy of the RR-Track layout, just shoot me an email.
Jul
16
Layout 3.5
Filed Under Layout Design
After a very short while, I quickly came to the realization that the “yard” was WAY too small, and it was not anywhere close to being designed correctly to function as a yard. The double leads would get fouled by the 45-degree crossing diamond. There was no escape or caboose track. The yard sidings would not hold more than 3 cars or so. Given the space I was trying to limit myself to, I couldn’t come up with a way to fix these problems. I looked at moving the yard to the right in place of some of the buildings I had to achieve longer sidings… however, this would foul the mainline.
Ultimately, I decided that the area I had pegged for a yard would be better used as an industrial/commercial area. This would still give me some good operational possibilities, and wouldn’t look as awkward as a small poorly designed yard.
Also, it was at this point in my layout design work that I became very hooked on the idea to include a carnival on my layout. I purchased the Lionel Ferris Wheel and Scrambler, and had also picked up a couple of Mr. Christmas Carousels that would be kitbashed into one carousel. From this point forward, all of my layout designs include a carnival. In many ways, Layout 3.5 was the beginning of my overall layout theme. This theme has been ever evolving, but at the core it has remained consistent for almost a year and a half.
Again, the images below are thumbnails that will open a larger image.
Jul
4
Layout 3.0
Filed Under Layout Design
As most enthusiasts will admit, your layout design will be in a constant state of major revisions until: A) You have met most, if not all, of your goals/wants/needs; B) Get to the point where you are starting to wonder if you have bitten off more than you can chew; or C) You run out of real estate. For me, it started to become an epic battle to slay the Demons called “Space” and “Wants”.
On Layout 3.0, I had no idea that my battle was just beginning. I purchased a beautiful complete set of MTH Premier SP Daylight passenger cars [5-car set, plus Diner/Sleeper set, plus Vista Dome]. Before I bought them, I checked the radius requirements and they are stated at 042 minimum. I errantly figured I would be okay with my 048 curves. I put the cars on the 048’s and the amount of overhang just didn’t look right to me.
I then bought some 060 and 072 curves and rechecked the overhang. The overhang difference between 048 and 060 at the middle of the car was about 5/16” [5/16” more overhang on the 048]. Because of this, I figured that the overhang difference between 060 and 072 would be just as pronounced. However, I surprisingly found out that the overhang on the 060 curves was only 1/16” more than the 072’s… barely noticeable. Since space was still a major bottleneck, I decided to re-do the layout again using 060 minimum curves, with 072 on the outer curves. There was no way that I was going to give up being able to run the SP passenger set I bought.
[Flashing forward to recent months... my thoughts on curve radius has changed many times. My current layout design uses 072 minimum, with 084 being the norm. Todd]
Layout Revision 3.0 proved to be a bit of a challenge. My available space had not improved by much [another 6” in width], and my list of wants kept growing. I had been through 20 or 30 layout drafts. With my new passenger set, I needed a much longer siding at the station, although there is no way to hold all eight cars in front of the platforms. I tried many different ways to increase my trackage by going vertically with an elevated loop. However, I did not have enough linear space to get up to 7” and hold my grade to 2.5%, and still have enough room to go back down to my starting elevation. I thought about having a self contained upper loop, but this would have meant that I could not turn trains without covering most of the lower level trackage. Since the layout had to also back up against two walls, I still wanted a walk-in layout to eliminate any need for access hatches.
Layout 3.0 used 060 and 072 curves and 060 turnouts. To help show the layout design better, I’m putting thumbnails below that will open up larger views of the layout.
Jul
3
Layout 2.0
Filed Under Layout Design
[I am way behind on posting the various layout revisions that have led up to my current layout design. Life has been super crazy hectic. I'm hoping to get caught up soon.]
Layout 1.0 was a good starting place, but I quickly knew that it wasn’t going to meet my wants and needs for a layout. I wanted a yard, or at least some good operational possibilities. Layout 2.0 was a milestone for me as it marked the beginning of a more focused approach to the layout design. I started putting together a “Want” and “Need” list, began seriously considering the scenic elements and how they would affect the track placement, and I started to get a better handle on how much real estate I would need to meet my have-to-have goals. Below are some excerpts from my post to the Lionel FasTrack Group about my layout revision.
1) Needed to fit within an “L” shaped area of no more than 13’ x 15’.
2) Freight would be primary, but given my fondness for the Espee… I know that I will want to run a Daylight passenger train.
3) Wanted both the ability to run continuously, and to have some operational switching fun.
4) Needed the ability to reverse the direction of travel.I’ve had to make quite a few concessions. I don’t have room to put O-72 curves, so I will need to standardize on O-48 minimum curves with 0-60 turnouts. This will limit me to 60’, maybe 70’, passenger cars. I don’t have enough room to elevate the track with the amount of turnouts I need to include and keep the grade down to around 2%, so I must keep the track relatively level.
I reconfigured the layout trying to use the exact same amount of space, 048 minimum curves, and adding a yard for operation. Of course, my list of “wants” increased to include more scenic elements and a longer mainline, while only allowing the layout to grow by 6” on one side. The yard ended up being small, but I was happier with this revision than the original plan.
The red gridlines are on 12″ centers, and the curves are all 048 with 060 turnouts. As you may notice, I also started getting more proficient using RR-Track.
Jun
16
Layout 1.0
Filed Under Layout Design
My current layout design has evolved over the last year or so, as I have acquired more floor space for the layout and my list of wants and needs have increased. For each major revision, I have put together dozens to hundreds of trial layout plans to try to meet my then current goals verses the floor space I was trying to fit it into.
Over the next several posts, I’m going to document the evolution of my track layout. In this post, I’m going to start with my first “final” track plan.
Layout 1.0 was my first attempt at laying out an O-Gauge trackplan, and my first exposure to
RR-Track. Looking back, I would never have been able to accomplish what I have done without this track layout software. I wholeheartedly endorse this product and strongly recommend it to anyone who is planning on building an O-Gauge layout.
For Layout 1.0, my goals were pretty simple. I wanted to put together a trackplan that would take up a minimum amount of space in an upstairs room that is/was being used as a media-game room. I wanted curves that were larger than 036, and some sidings for operations. From a scenery standpoint, I wasn’t real sure what I wanted other than a few industries, a small town, and a water feature. Below is the trackplan I came up with.
I should mention that all of my layouts will be based on using Lionel FasTrack [another future blog topic...].
As you can see, this is a fairly simple 11′ x 15′ trackplan. The red grid lines are on 12″ centers. The curves are all 048, and the turnouts are 060. The scenery depiction is pretty crude. At this time on my learning curve, I was happy just to get the track connected. LOL
If you would like a copy of the RR-Track file, I would be happy to provide it… just shoot me an email or add a comment with your request.
