any way

to make the image larger?  I can't see it very well.

At first glance

I would recommend less railroad to get wider isles if you plan to have more than 2-3 people in the train room at one time. Using the scale supplied, it looks like the isles are about 18" wide. What may work good for you may not so much for a visiting guest with wider hips then what you originally expected to accommodate. 

Otherwise I think the track plan is really great. Often I see folks try to squeeze a lot of track into every available part of the benchwork. There's a lot in this world that isnt track and switching related, but equally important to model on a layout to help with the elusion. 

I see all the important railroad elements, so looks like it would be a fun railroad to operate, and still able to let trains roll for show and tells!

Good luck

Steven

I like the design elements

   The track design for each town looks good but is there some way to re-arrange them to use the walls of the whole room? Seems  like  a lot of   crowding in one side of the room when it could be spread out more? .DaveBranum

...

The benchwork could easily be slimmed to get the aisle width, so I don't see an issue there...

As a prototypical plan, I think it lends itself well to both running and operating.  The line feels sparse, while the towns feel appropriate.  It should be fun.

Sorry about the image size. I

Sorry about the image size. I exported from XTrackCad and then had to reduce the pixels per inch to get under the limitation of max upload file size to post.  

Room & aisles

I should have explained the room.  So the weird shape of the edge of the layout is actually the shape of the 1/2 of the room I have right of way in.  Left, top, and right of the layout shape are the actual room walls.  Only the one long bottom angled side with the walkway opening is not wall (the shift in angle at the walkway is intentional based on usage of the remainder of the room).  The rest of the room has to serve as guest bedroom.  We have a house that is shaped like two overlapping hexagons - no room in the house except one tiny bathroom has 4 right angles - most have 5 or more walls at interesting angles. The room in question has 8 walls at 6 different angles.

I appreciate the aisle width point though.  I should be able to easily trim to widen the aisles, especially on the Frankenstein trestle to Whitefield side and I can shorten Cumberland Mills and Conway a bit as well to widen the entry walkway.  Any suggestions on widths?  Would about 2' suffice?

I'm new to operations, so I haven't learned yet whether there would need to be any need to pass in the aisles or not.  In the prototype, I know there would have been at least:

- work in Bartlett to run the helpers into Crawford Notch and back.

- work switching in St Johnsbury.

- a single passenger train per day from Portland (in my layout that could be from Cumberland Mills or from Conway) to St Johnsbury.  

- Multiple freights between St Johnsbury and Cumberland Mills (in prototype all the way to Portland).

Until I can find some local operating sessions to attend, I won't know what that would translate into in terms of # operating and responsibilities.   I do see one difficulty which is Conway and the divider.  A train coming to/from Conway would require the operator to move from outside the layout into and down the aisle or vice versa.  But the Conway end would not likely be used much if at all in multi-person operations, because in prototype operations I don't think the Portland to St Johnsbury passenger run made the side trip down the line to Conway.  So Conway is there more for my amusement and for occasions when I want to pretend it is not 1950 and run the Conway Scenic railroad from Conway to Crawford Notch and back or for continuous running, which would be single individual operation out of period with grandkids. In fact, it's really the Conway scenic railway that finally led me to doing the Mountain Division.  But just modelling the Conway scenic railroad doesn't make for much operating at all or much railroad (one train out and back - no switching at all), so thus the combination of 1950s Mountain Division plus Conway.

Thanks for the suggestions and feedback!

-Ed

Draft 2 - wider aisle etc

Here is a new draft with aisle widths that range from 22" to 26". There two other adjustments:

1) I discovered my proposed footprint encroached beyond my right-of-way at the Conway end.  So I adjusted the angle of the walkway turn and the Conway end of the layout.  

2) I changed where the fictional spur is that could be used in the future for expansion through wall into another room.  It is both a better through wall location for the next room and also allows me to hide the spur via the Bartlett roundhouse that will sit at the end of the ladder in the yard there. That roundhouse in the prototype was six tracks wide.  I will have to reduce to 4 for space considerations, but otherwise I hope to model it as it was and can disguise the back track and use trees and hillside behind the roundhouse to have future trains 'disappear' into the roundhouse, which should itself amaze grandkids.

I also noted now on the diagram where the access to under-layout staging is.  It will be a bit tricky, but I plan for the track from Whitefield to Crawford notch to rise in the back (prototype would want close to 2% grade, so I can probably cheat it up a bit) and have the front track that goes towards Quebec, Canada drop in the town of Whitefield.  On the left of the divided, terrain variations can mask as the visible track continues to rise towards Crawford Notch while the hidden track continues to go down under.  I figure I need about 3" of clearance which at 2% grade would require 12.5' of track length.  I have 7 feet up in back and 7 feet down in front to accomplish it, which is 14'.  So it seems doable with appropriate modelled mountainous terrain to camouflage.  For that matter, for hidden tracks going to staging do you think I could actually increase to grade, say to 3%?   

Any other feedback?

Thanks,

-Ed

Image cut off?

It looks to me like my jpeg gets cut off on the right about halfway across the layout?  I will try to re-post later if it really did get cut off.

-Ed

To see cut off jpeg

To see full jpeg image - right click on image and select View Image. In most browsers you should now be able to see full image. Some browsers with allow you to zoom.

I love this section of railroad and when living in NH modeled sections, including a shortened version of the trestle, on my modular layout. Looking forward to see your progress. Have ridden the excursion train over the trestle several times. Great View.

Wow! You are one of the

Wow! You are one of the rarities that got blessed with a lot of room! By the way, what is the size of the layout?

I would definitely agree with lots of aisle room. Very important! I don't what your ideas are for modeling or your LDE's (layout design elements) are, meaning what are the most important things you want to model, there are some places where you can add a lot of extra aisle space. The water scene next to St. Johnsbury strikes me as one of these places the the scene could be reduced. It also greatly help with doing maintenance in that area. Another area that could be reduced, is the back wall with the towns Crawford Notch and Whitefield. You could probably reduce the width of that scene by 30%. That would greatly help the flow of human movement.

Another important thing is track radius and turnout size. I would say that 28" radius and #6 turnouts are the minimum for the main line. Branches and spurs can be less.

Overall, it looks great!

Siding seems too short

If I'm reading the scale of your image properly, Crawford Notch passing siding seems to be just 18" or so long.  That is shorter than I'd expect for a first class mountain railroad of 1955.  I would expect the MEC to have run trains of more than 30-40 cars on the Mountain division.  Even if you compress to 10-15 in N-scale, that would be 3-4 feet minimum.  15-20 cars long would look better...

David Keith

http://www.sn2modeler.com

WOW!!!

I LOVE the Conway Scenic Railroad more than words can say.  Until I moved, I got there at least once per year.

Incidentally, if you ever feel like doing a VERY DIFFERENT op session in a more modern time, with lots of trains, Railfan Day or Day Out with Thomas get many things rolling everywhere, including, sometimes, a freight consist or two.

When Conway is going up, I'd love to see pictures!!!

How to enlarge an image

Hold CTRL and then press + . Every time you press the + key the image grows, hold CTRL and press - to decrease size. To restore original size hold CTRL and press 0. And if you have a decent operating system like Linux press PRT SCR to save a copy of what you see onscreen. Jose.

Reduced layout

I looked at thisa lot, and then realized I had some mistakes.  One was Whitefield crossover being mirror imaged left to right (in addition to St Johnsbury yard top to bottom.  Then I discovered yet more encroachment beyond my legal right of way.  So I took MUCH more careful measurements and started over.  I like what I ended up with better, though it offers one less decent area for freight switching.  But the redesign below is the result.  No more mirror images, a much expanded St Johnsbury area, and more interesting options when choosing continuous running.  I eliminated Cumberland Mills.  Aisles are now 23" to 24" consistently.  I can still trim a tad to widen here and there if necessary, but I am getting tight to still have decent roads, scenery, and building areas.  Other plus, I got back up to all 6 tracks wide for the Bartlett roundhouse!  Yay!

Most curves are 19" radius (N scale - so equivalent to roughly 38" in HO) though a few use 11" and a very very small number of individual sections at 9&3/4 inches.

Anyway, this one fits the right of way. Any new feedback appreciated.

-Ed

[MODERATOR EDIT] Reduced image size to fit post. Click image for full size.

Conway Turntable?

Are you going to include the turntable at Conway?

Conway turntable?

I didn't realize there was a turntable at Conway?  Clearly there must then have been much more of a yard there than I realized.  I will have to research and make some changes to Conway.  That's great news having gotten rid of Cumberland Mills.  Thanks for the enthusiasm.  When not running MEC trains in 1955, I definitely want to have a Conway Scenic RR train as well since all my memories of seeing that railroad is what made me decide to model the Mountain Division through NH.

As for the spur at Crawford Notch, I only included it as a place for the helpers from Bartlett to get off for the trains to continue towards Whitefield, I hadn't actually been able to locate yet quite exactly where that would have been.  I would not have expected there to be any freight destination worthwhile to model in the notch itself, at least not as late as 1955.

Thanks for the continued feedback!

-Ed

Conway yard

If you do a search on Bing or Google for images of the Conway Scenic Railroad, you'll find some images of the yard and roundhouse out behind the station.  I'll search for some of my photographs also.  Wikimapia can give you a track plan.

There's plenty of track to store all the rolling stock, including some currently-unused equipment--and they have quite a bit.  They have 6 locomotives, an BUDD RDC, plus passenger and MOW equipment.  On the north end of the yard, there's a freight house-now the headquarters for a model railroad club.  There's also plenty of track that's now filled with privately owned cabooses that are now summer cabins.

I found an aerial view online--not the greatest, but here: http://www.wrightrealty.com/ezstatic/data/wrightrealty/images/a/fal34p.jpg

(Since it might be copywrited, I didn't want to paste it in.)

The view is looking north.  The big green in front of the station has essentialy always been there; it was given to the twow by the railroad on the condition that it remain an open green.  The roundhouse is on the left side of the picture, with the freight house just above it.  If I remember clearly, there's a bit more storage track  going north.

At least at present, there is a wye at Bartlet; I recall a mention that, on railfan's weekend, the wye at Bartlet is in use.

Incidently, Conway Scenic Railroad material is actually available in HO, both from Conway (RTR) and as project packs to build the equipment from New England Custom Rail http://www.newenglandcustomrail.com/Products/productmain.htm

Perhaps that will be of some use for inspiration.

Any questions about the area, I'll answer if I can recall.  Looking forwards to seeing the layout take shape!

Staging

I'd be concerned that your plan has no staging, which means all trains will need to be on the layout at all times. Perhaps this is something you want, but even if you included just a track that was hidden behind Conway to represent Portland, you could have a train enter the layout to head to St. J and then a train later back to Portland enter there. It looks like you could pull the Conway tracks forward to the aisle to make room for a hidden track.

Conway and the turntable are actually Boston & Maine, so I was not sure if you plan to include B&M, or are just freelancing a little by having the MEC pass through. If it is the B&M, there is not really anywhere for it to run, so it might just be a static display with perhaps some yard switching of any cars to/from the MEC. Alternatively if you can plan a staging yard you could hav it serve B&M and the MEC.

 An idea: the track across the door/entry to the layout area could cross and lead to a staging yard under St. J. If you really want a continuous run, perhaps have a second "bridge" at that level using a track that goes upgrade behind Conway to get back to the St. J level. This might be necessary too if you are actually including the grade up from Bartlett to Crawfords.

Also, one of the biggest customers on the line was he paper mill in Gilman, so you might want to think about that as it will give work to both the mainline train RY-2 (which drops cars there) and a local (which brings cars and also switches the ones dropped by the mainline train).

Looks like you eliminated the tracks at Crawfords. Which is OK as there was not too much they were used for. On my layout I am actually dropping cars here to be picked up later by a different train. The siding at Crawfords could represent the siding at Fabyans where coal was dropped for the Mt. Washington Railway.

I had started a layout built on many of the scenes you have and after moving to a new house, I came up with a new plan that oncluded more than just the Mtn. Division. The main reason was that there was not enough action on the Mtn Division for me. Definitely lots of scenery and cool scenes, like Frankenstein trestle, but for me I wanted more operations. So I guess it depends on what your goals are in running trains. You can simply have RY-2/YR-1 and a local out of Bartlett or St. J, which is prototypical. YR-1 then needs to terminate on the main, or cross back into St. J and you can do something with it in that yard to reassemble it as RY-2. If you add in a passenger train, you might need to think about where that will go once it passes Conway if you do not provide a staging track or tracks. Again though, you could use St. J to turn it around to send back.

Just some thoughts from an operational perspective to consider...

Mike McNamara

Delran, NJ

mainecentral.blogspot.com

nekrailroad.com

What exactly are you trying to accomplish?

Attached is my first cut at a layout in N scale based on the MEC Mountain Division in 1955.  There are a couple things that are counter to the prototype:

What's the "theme" of the layout? Is it helper operations out of Bartlett to Crawford Notch? Do you want to have some local freight operations (Gilman freight, Beecher Falls mixed, etc.)? How about passenger trains 162/163 since you're doing 1955 and the trains lasted until 1958.  I don't know if the B&M summers only "Mountaineer" lasted that late, but it would be a nice addition since it used MEC trackage between Intervale and Whitefield. As I recall, there was a plan for a double decked MEC Mountain Division layout in N scale that appeared in one of the Kalmbach pubs. I can't remember if it was actually in MR or Model Railroad Planning. It was quite nicely done and, IIRC occupied a space of about 19'x12' but my memory could be faulty.

Given you're doing 1955, the Bartlett helpers would be SW7's/SW9's, which the MEC bought to replace the S class Mikes in helper service at Bartlett as well as provide power for some of the Mountain Division locals (e.g. Beecher Falls mixed). They were also used later on some of the Rockland Branch trains and even later than that on the trains that serviced the paper mill in Bucksport. Road power for the through trains would be a combination of F3's and GP7's, with a GP7 on passenger trains 162/163.

You might be interested in this (F3A, GP7, F3B, F3A on Mountain Division freight with GP7 helpers), although it's a bit grainy and looks to me like it dates from about the fall of 1965: 

I'm afraid I'm not being a lot of help. However, I believe you might want to stop and consider those aspects of the Mountain Division you want to emphasize. The theme helps determine the track plan and often a lot more. For example, a Bartlett to Crawford Notch layout would put the emphasis on helper operations for through freights and those times when one or more local freights run heavy. Basically, a freight would run run from Rigby Yard (staging) to Bartlett. Local cars would be dropped and any cars going from Bartlett west to interchange at St. Johnsbury would be added. Helpers would be added behind the caboose and the train would proceed uphill to Crawford where the helpers would be removed. Train would continue west towards St. Johnsbury and the helpers would drop back down to Bartlett. Local trains would originate in Bartlett, requiring some switching to make them up and would run from Bartlett into west staging.  Locals coming from west staging would terminate in Bartlett and would be broken down there. The west and eastbound passenger trains would emerge from respective staging and make the appropriate station stops in Bartlett and Crawford. Eastbound through freights would not require helpers Crawford to Bartlett, but might need to drop cars at Bartlett for locals.  This particular theme would not generate high intensity operations, but might be suitable for lone wolf ops or even 2 people (1 for the helper locos and also to do yard switching in Bartlett).

Near as I can figure (and this assumes 2 westbound and 2 eastbound through freights - although I don't know how many actually ran in 1955),. in an operational day there'd be something like 12 trains broken down as follows:

2 passenger trains (1 each direction)

4 through freights (2 each direction, westbounds require helper Bartlett-Crawford)

2 Gilman freights (1 each direction)

2 Beecher Falls mixed (1 each direction)

2 light helper movements Crawford-Bartlett

That's actually quite a lot of activity although the locals wouldn't be performing any work on the modeled portion of the layout. It could probably be done solo, but having a couple of friends in to run some trains certainly wouldn't hurt.

Mike

.

Great stuff everyone!

All the input and ideas are greatly appreciated, with great key questions about what I want the point of the layout to be. With regards to staging, it isn't shown, but the plan currently will be to leverage the roundhouse at Bartlett and strategically located foliage/stuff to camouflage a train actually heading out the back of the roundhouse into the mountainous terrain and being able to turn left through a wall in the future or turn right under the scenery and down under the layout to staging below.  There may be other ways to do it as well, but my hope regardless will be that the staging access be pretty well camouflaged so the casual observer doesn't necessarily even realize it is there.  The through wall right of way is dream stage currently - it will likely take a couple years to negotiate the right of way.

I will definitely be thinking some more about what my theme/intent is, though I also know that sometime soon I need to move from analysis into starting to do something with it.  Like is so common, I can always redo stuff again in the future.  Hopefully this time at least will be finished looking and operational a while.  My next step after settling on the track plan is to demolish the partially finished HO layout that occupies part of the same location and has accompanied me in sections through two moves, and post the stuff on eBay.  The shift to N scale is largely driven by the realization that the "we'll have a place with a really big dedicated train room someday" is not a match to reality.  Our forever-and-retire-here house that we fell in love with last year doesn't provide that part of the dream.  But N scale will suit me fine, and I have gotten at least a statement of intent to in the future run trains from room to room in various parts of the house (largely shelf layouts other than this layout area.  But intent is a far cry from right of way, so that will be quite a while.

Anyway, the one thing about the theme that is important to me is the Conway to Crawford Notch stretch.  Everything else has to do with how to make it enjoyable for at least two person operations - probably no more than 3.  I have lived all my life in NH and remember the trains in Crawford notch back to the late 60's.  Choice of 1955 comes from the fact that while steam is cool and will have a place on the layout, I wanted my main engines to be diesel.  So between the diesel purchases by MEC in the early 50's but the increasing closures of some stations starting late 1950's, I ended up 1955 - though that can give or take a year or two.  

Thanks for all the info, ideas, picture, links, etc.  You all are amazing in the wealth of information you bring.  I probably will post one last revision over the next few days, and then may go a little more quiet as I move into old-layout demolition phase and benchwork construction.  I'm guess we'll be into October before much track gets laid - though I will be hoping to be ahead of that schedule.  I just know there is plenty of life that tends to slow down train progress, so things may go a little slow once labor commences.  I will definitely take pictures along the way and try to post occasionally.  

Thanks!

-Ed

1955 Operations

A couple of corrections to the traffic patterns. There was only one through freight in each direction. RY-2 ran from Rigby to St. J early in the morning with the same power hauling YR-1 later that afternoon.

In between those times were passenger trains 162, arriving at St. J early afternoon and returning an hour later as 163.

Starting in 1951 the Beecher Falls mixed train 377 only ran to Quebec Jct. There it  had a very interesting switching operation exchanging cars with the Gilman local (OZ-2), before returning to Beecher Falls as 378.

After swapping cars with 377, OZ-2 ran to Gilman. After switching the paper plant, it returned to Bartlett as ZO-1.

Since each pair of trains use the same engine(s) on it's return trip, motive power purchases can be kept at a minimum.

Duane Goodman

I may be crazy, but...

So, here I just posted tonight that as I consider the various input and what I want to accomplish, I felt it will soon be time to settle on a plan and start demolition and construction.

Well, then I got reading more and contemplating more and decided perhaps I should rethink one of the first 'decisions' I had made.  With my old HO scale stuff, room for a helix was a moot point, so single deck was it.  When deciding to go N scale, I just stuck with that and didn't even consider going to two decks.  But the fact is, I do have room.  There are at least 3 highly accessible places I could consider a helix, either single or perhaps even double, with some adjustments to the benchwork and aisle configurations/widths (wider given higher likely operations traffic).  If I go double deck with a helix, I could add at least one more interesting freight drop location accounting for some of the historical info folks have provided and I could make the yards longer to accommodate longer trains.  Since Bartlett to Crawford notch used helpers for the freights, making the helix a concealed element between a lower level Bartlett and an upper level Crawford notch would fit the operations for freights with helpers.  The passenger run in that period to St Johnsbury was a very short train, so going up the helix should be no issue.  It also affords me an opportunity for a much more dramatic vista with the Frankenstein trestle.  

I could still accommodate continuous running on one or both levels across the walkway, and depending how I configure entering and exiting the helix could either go single or double (probably go double for the most interesting options when continuous running.)

So, a LOT more work, but a lot more opportunity.  Does this seem crazy?  Any issues/cautions about double deck?  One consideration is deck heights/viewing, but my thinking is to design the upper deck width narrower that the lower deck and allow about 18 inches viewing clearance.  Thoughts? Advice? Suggestions to get my head examined? Perhaps anyone with regrets from experience going double deck and ripping it back out to go back to single deck?  I'm also reading other forum threads on it - but you guys have been such a big help I am putting it out here too.

I know it still comes back to the questions about theme, but that's part of how tonight I got thinking this way.  I would like my freights and my yards to accommodate more realistic length trains for the line, and the reality as I was going was that the trains probably would all be pretty short because the yards and sidings are mostly on the short end. It may be that combining operations, continuous running ability, and occasional fun with the Conway Scenic railroad is trying to do too much in a small space.  But perhaps with double deck I could have my cake and eat it too?

Thanks,

-Ed

Why not offer a layout design contest?

Two Deck Redesign

So after various thought on the ideas and questions raised, and considering my goals for the layout, I have put together a two deck redesign.  First, my guiding thoughts that went into the redesign:

Themes:  There are two themes  

1) Route 302 in NH past Frankenstein trestle and Crawford Notch.  That is the central aspect to basing this on a real railroad.  I love that part of NH, have spent much time in my life with the natural beauty there, and love seeing the trestle and the trains, mostly in recent years the Conway Scenic Railroad.  

2) Variety:  While basing this on some real railroads, and using them as a guide to some reasonably realistic track and operations patterns, my version of fun in the hobby (we each have our own version of this being 'fun') is variety in many forms: continuous running, operations, multiple trains running at once, long enough trains to cause family and friends and grandkids to get excited, modelling scenic vistas, representing towns in the 1950s, doing the wiring, showing off a model railroad that offers enough that is recognizable to spark conversation.  It will be DCC and I hope someday to program running it from my computer.  I have been in the software industry for over 30 years and can program circles around most developers, so I will geek out a bit on tat end over time, especially if I do expand shelf layouts throughout the house later.  I am not a fine craftsman, in my modelling.  I admire the craftsmanship of those who are, but I know I am not.  My scenic vistas I know come out very well. But buildings, etc., I know will be more of a challenge.  I may never build my own rolling stock by hand, and I doubt I will ever hand-lay track.  But I will finish the scenes, weather buildings and trains, create realistic looking water scenes, and definitely roads such as route 302 and others.  I won't be measuring it against the craftsmanship of others, but against my own improvement over time and the fun I have running trains with family and friends.

I don't know if those qualify as 'themes' in the sense that the question got asked, but I hope it gives a flavor of why I do this. So that said, I realized I do want operations to be able to be based on how the trains got operated when not just playing around, and would hope there is enough interest and challenge that I can attract occasional other model railroaders to an op session from time to time (another manager at work's husband is part of a small group that go house to house sometimes for operating sessions.)  So I definitely am doing N scale and went to two decks and lengthened all of the yards while adding more tracks in the yards.  I added the turntable at Conway.  I ditched Whitefield and Cumberland Mills and instead added a portion of Portland, ME at one end, Gilman, VT at the other, plus a little side jaunt from Conway down to the sidings in Ossipee, NH.

Below are the two diagrams of the two decks.  If the print isn't legible enough at the top near Conway, it says that topmost siding in the lower deck image is my access to the staging that will be underneath the lower deck.  I also connected both decks across the walkway to the helix.  Current thinking is single helix but it would not be hard to make it double.  Helix uses a 20" radius since going up would use Helpers from Bartlett climbing up to Frankenstein Trestle and Crawford notch.  I couldn't find what the Crawford notch track arrangement was in the 1950s, so for now I show only a single siding along the main track since that is what is still visible from Google earth.  

Given my goals above, I'd love to get one last round of feedback of potential issues or suggestions.  Hopefully the context I provided above helps with assessing what sort of things to point out.  I am very interested in if I missed key track features at Crawford north that would be worth considering.  Same at Gilman, VT, though I have limited room there and want to put in the paper mill by the tracks.  

I still hope to be able to start demolition of the old HO layout the weekend of august 24th and 25th depending on life's curveballs.

Thank you again to everyone who has been helping me sort through my thoughts and avoid any particularly bad pitfalls.

Lower deck:

Upper Deck:

-Ed