Bill Brillinger

My wife, kids and I just spent 8 months building our own house. From design to construction, we have done almost all of the work ourselves.

The second floor is the layout room, and also; my office and my wife's library. It's one open F shaped space with no separate rooms. The roof trusses were tediously designed to make it so.

Here is the problem - The truss engineers couldn't make my design work quite the way I wanted and so I have ended up losing 12" on each side of every outside edge on the 2nd floor. Note to self: "Have truss plans finalized before breaking ground if you ever do this again!"

Since the track plan was established before the house was built, it needs to be modified to fit the actual building.

Most of the layout is able to squeeze into the smaller space without design loss because it's made up of long straight runs, sweeping curves and open spaces between stations. It's prairie railroading!

Because it is prairie railroading there are a few constraints on design that are important to me:

1. Long stretches between towns. 20-25 car trains should not have their head in 1 town and tail in another.
2. No sharp curves. The line being modeled is essentially a straight run.
3. No trespassing in the wife’s library/sitting area. The committee says so.

At the south end of the line, the BNML, terminates in an interchange yard. It meets up with the CP, SOO, and BNSF lines. Needless to say this is a busy interchange and in my design also serves as the entrance to the lower level staging area.

ORIGINAL PLAN:

l%20Plan.JPG 

THE PROBLEM:

In the new space allotment, there isn’t enough room to have the BNSF interchange yard in its straight configuration AND the curves needed to loop down into staging. Sigh.

The Interchange yard on the BNSF at Noyes MN was going to be a fascinating area operationally and would have enough work to keep a 2nd operator interested for quite some time. But turning it into “staging in plain sight” reduces its functionality significantly and not being able to send trains away to the south (into staging) will really reduce the effect of this area. Reducing its capacity to allow the loop into staging is depressing and kinda breaks rule 3. Sigh again.

So here are 4 possible plan changes I have come up with.
(The area marked "Off Limits" is the library.)

PLAN 1

Plan%201.JPG 

PLAN 2

Plan%202.JPG 

PLAN 3

Plan%203.JPG 

PLAN 4

Plan%204.JPG 

What would you do? I’m open to suggestions!

- Bill
 

Are you reading this? Please comment and let me know!

 

Bill Brillinger

Modeling the BNML in HO Scale, Admin for the RailPro User Group, and owner of Precision Design Co.

Reply 0
DMRY

Plan 2

Bill,

First of all, you have a great prototype.  Looks like you will have alot of operational opportunities.  I like the the liftout option if you can deal with it.   I think it preserves the flow of the yard and will allow you to continue into a reasonable staging area.  Good luck with your choice.  And, please share your progress with us.

Chris

 

Reply 0
dantept

BNML Trackplan Trouble - Help!

Forget the long liftout. If you can limit access to the off-limits zone to a 30"≠ gate or equivalent, then that plan will work. Otherwise, I think Plan 3 is slightly better because of the longer staging tracks.

Dante

Reply 0
Bill Brillinger

Plan 3 and 4

Plan 3 and Plan 4 both allow the tracks to carry on to a double ended lower level staging yard. Limiting the opening of the "Off Limits" area is not an option.

Currently I am leaning towards Plan 1 or 4.

 

Bill Brillinger

Modeling the BNML in HO Scale, Admin for the RailPro User Group, and owner of Precision Design Co.

Reply 0
Jurgen Kleylein

Plan 4 modified

Have you considered using some curved turnouts and modifying Plan 4 to extend the yard around the curve a bit just recover some of the length lost from the original plan?  I would go with 4 just to keep staging as it was.

Jurgen

HO Deutsche Bundesbahn circa 1970

Visit the HO Sudbury Division at http://sudburydivision.ca/

The preceding message may not conform to NMRA recommended practices.

Reply 0
DRLOCO

Plan 3

I vote for plan 3. Sometimes you have to loose a little operationally to keep the openness of the layout intact. I vote for openness.

Also, I have several black and white older photos of the BNML and the surrounding areas of "The 'Peg" taken by LM Stuckey...if you have any interest in them I could scan them in and send them electronically as I can...

I know I have at least one of the Midland Railway headquarters building...and while most of these would be in the GN era, there are a few showing BNML 2...

I find it utterly cool that this is the kind of railroad that lends itself to having the entire roster on your layout at one time...and allows the flexibility to have run through BN power along with the usual CN and CP...

Any room for the GWWD?

 

Modeling the Midland Railway of Manitoba in S-Scale.

Reply 0
Reply