Dave O

I have recently purchased an Atlas O-scale SW9 (2-rail); which (assuming it survives the overseas shipment) should be at my door in 3 weeks or so.  O-scale has always been my scale of choice; however, until recently obtaining equipment has been a show stopper.  Now that it seems I have the motive power on its way, it is time to plan a little layout for it.

[Update: The locomotive has arrived; so, game on!  ]

Living in Sri Lanka, model railroad materials are not easy to come by; everything must be ‘imported’ so it is subject to shipping fees and then customs/duty on top of that.  With that in mind, any potential layout that has a remote chance of becoming “operational”, must be small.  This leads to:

Givens:                                            Druthers:

- O-scale                                            - SW9 locomotive (44')

- #5 min. frog                                     - 40’ freight cars

- 36.5” min. radius curve                    - 12’ max. length

Following are some ideas that I’ve come up with.  Critiques/criticisms are welcome.  Love to hear your ideas ...

edit 1 ... Here is what I've decided to run with: Professor Klyzir's Chicago Fork.

04_final.jpg 

edit 2 ... I changed the blog title to better reflect the subject matter; hopefully didn't confuse anyone ....

Reply 0
Dave O

First Runner-up ...

I call this one NNSY, as the idea for a railroad serving a shipyard came from my numerous tours conducting Carrier Overhauls at Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock in Virginia.  Originally designed as a P48 layout with #8 frogs, I’ve compressed it to 12’ using #5’s.

The concept is a simple 5-3-3 Inglenook and it is constructed and operated in exactly the same manner as the “Inglenook Shunting Puzzle”.  There are 8 cars and a locomotive; the goal being to build a particular 5-car train (determined randomly).  The rational for the particular order of the cars is to order them for delivery inside the shipyard (which is accessed via the underpass to the right).   http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/sw-inglenook.html

Y_Of5_01.jpg 

Overall Size: 12' x 2' (broken into two 6' x 2' sections).

Trains.  Minimum of a locomotive and 8 freight cars.  Mainly low sided gondolas (3) and flat cars (3) with a tank car (1) and box car (1) to provide a bit of variety.  One could toss in a covered hopper for one of the flat cars as well if desired.

Operations.

1. 5 cars are selected randomly from the 8 cars that are available; note the order of selection.

2. The locomotive then shunts the cars around, building the 5-car train (in proper order) on the upper track.

3. Rinse and Repeat.*

* The idea being that the departing train of one session is the arriving train of the next.

Scenery:

The exit to the right is hidden by the overpass.  A tree line along the back provides a viewblock, the background ideally would reflect a large yard of coal trains; however most anything would do.  A small shed would be located to the left and the locomotive would be fueled by a truck in the vicinity of the shed.  The area immediately in front of the closest yard track would comprise of a lay down area for all kinds of interesting items.

Future Expansion.

The most obvious would be to include part of the shipyard on the other side of the underpass.  Or, one could simply add a train length transfer table on the other side of the underpass to allow for swapping out cars between sessions.

What I like about this plan:

It is simple, yet provides for many different trains to be built.  The shipyard would allow for lots of interesting details.  Likewise open loads (gons and flats) would allow for a tremendous amount of variation by swapping out the loads.  As a “chainsaw” layout, many of the scenic details would be readily transferable to a P48 version.

Reply 1
Prof_Klyzlr

You know where I'm going with this...

Dear Dave,

You know what I'm going to suggest

http://www.carendt.com/scrapbook/page97a/#chicago

http://www.carendt.com/scrapbook/page98a/#ho-chicago

Fits all your criteria, and even comes in underlength at 8' overall. You don't need to use a sectorplate, the geometry of the scenic module was always such that the sectorplate module could be removed, and the track angles would match perfectly to a #5 turnout on another 4' module...

Indeed, during this layout's first outing, a visiting UP Atlas 2R SW1200 with SoundTraxx DCC was the motive power of choice...

ching_01.jpg 

If you have an existing 12" deep shelving system or other support structure to sit the layout on, you may not even need the aluminium "Qubelok" framing, a pair of 4' all-foamcore proscenium modules with carpet fascia will be more than strong-enough for home duties!!!

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

PS a 5:3:3 'nook eats 11 "units" in strict linear length.
Given your nominated SW1200 and 40' cars are around 1' long each, that "12' max" length could easily accomodate a 5:3:3 nook (Inc some extra-length "not contrived" fudged-length),
as opposed to the shorty 3:2:2 nook of "Chicago Fork"...

 

Reply 1
Dave O

Wait for it Prof ...

Reply 0
Dave O

Second Runner-up ...

I’ll call this one Harford Inglenook as it is based on a prototype near Hartford, Connecticut (as discussed by Stuart Pate in Small Layout Srapbook pg.73 (May 2008)).   http://www.carendt.com/scrapbook/page73/index.html

It comprises of a transloading facility, which consists of a simple dock between two tracks where a fork-lift is used to unload box cars into trucks for further delivery to the industry.  It resembles a 4-2-2 Inglenook (as drawn); however the objective is to spot cars on the two sidings vice build a train.

k_Of5_01.jpg 

Overall Size: 12’ x 30" (broken down into two 6’ x 30" sections).

Trains.  A locomotive and (I think) 9 box cars seems to work (still really need to test this to be certain).

Operations.

1. Using a random procedure, determine which of the boxcars spotted at the dock are empty (MTY).  I think a good ratio would be 3 out of 4 on average?

2. Using the locomotive swap out the MTY’s for loads.*

2.a. Any car at the dock that is not MTY must be respotted at the dock.

2.a.1. For further operational variation, one could determine (1 in 6 of those that are not MTY?) that the car was not unloaded as there was a problem with the door and it must be spotted on the other side of the dock.

2.b. Any car in the “off spot” (storage) track has priority over incoming loads (first in, first out).

3. Loads that can’t be spotted are stored on the “off spot” track (to the left).

4. MTY’s are pulled to the main track (to the right) ... and become the next session's incoming loads.

5. Rinse and Repeat.

* As a general rule, unless there is a problem with the door, any car can be placed in any spot at the dock.  Likewise if a car at the dock needs to be respotted at the dock, it is not necessary to return it to its original spot.

Scenery.

The exit to the right is “hidden” behind trees.  The loading dock is a simple affair, basically a platform to support the forklift and a utility pole.  A small truck is backed up to the loading dock (on the left).  If one were to increase the depth to say 3', another track (or two) could be run across the back and used to display models ...

Future Expansion. 

Obviously the line is easily expanded to the right as space permits.

What I like about this plan.

It is based on a real prototype operation.  It is simple, yet lots of opportunity for scenic details.  While it is all box cars, there is significant operational variety ... as per the prototype.

Reply 0
Dave O

And my Current Favorite ...

I’ll call it Chicago Fork (for now) as that is the name its designer, Professor Klyzir, gave it.  I was preempted by the Prof, so you can look two posts above this one and get the links. 

Edit:  Since the update to Carl's site, the internal links have been broken.  Here are the two pages Professor Klyzir linked to in his earlier post:


http://www.carendt.com/small-layout-scrapbook/page-97a-may-2010/#chicago


http://www.carendt.com/small-layout-scrapbook/page-98a-june-2010/#ho-chicago

This space saving design incorporates a 3-2-2 Inglenook to pack a lot of operations into a small space.  In this case, the long leg is an industry with 3 spots and rather than build a train, we are spotting cars.  While Professor Klyzir was working against the limitations of a challenge to keep things under 4 square feet, I do not have that constraint; so can give a little more space to the scenery and eliminate the space saving sector plate, replacing it with another turnout.

k_Of5_01.jpg 

Overall Size: 8’ x 18” (broken down into two 4’ x 18” sections).

Trains.  A locomotive and 5 freight cars (3 box, 1 flat and 1 tank).  (The Prof’s Chicago Fork used 4 freight cars; however, I opted for the conventional Inglenook loading of long + short (3 + 2) cars; just because ....

Operations.  In the links provided by Professor Klyzir (a couple of posts before this one) he laid out how he operates Chicago Fork with a locomotive and 4 cars.  I won’t repeat that method here; however, I recommend that you look at it if you are interested in the various ways these Inglenooks can be operated.

For this one, I’ve assumed the industry is a small manufacturing plant.  It receives box, flat and tank cars.  The flat car is typically spotted at the far left dock where an overhead crane extends out across the track for loading/unloading large loads.  The tank car is spotted at the far right dock as that is where the hose connections are.  The box cars can be spotted at any available spot.

1. Determine (randomly) which cars spotted at the industry are empty (MTY); say 2 out of 3?

2. Using the locomotive, shunt the MTY’s and replace them with loads (if available).  Remember the rules on which cars can be spotted where.

2.a. Any car spotted at the industry that is not MTY, must be respotted at the industry (remember the rules).  These cars have priority over all others.

2.b. If a load cannot be spotted at the industry, it should be placed on the off-spot/storage track (closest to the front) until it can be spotted at the industry.

2.c. If there is only room for one or the other, the flat car (normally) has priority over the tank car.

2.d. Off-spot box cars have priority over inbound ones (first in, first out).

3. MTY’s are pulled to the right ... and become the next session’s loads.

4. Rinse and Repeat.

Scenery.

The exit to the far right is hidden by an overpass.  The industry includes a loading dock with large doors at each of the three spots.  The far left spot has an overhead crane extending from inside the building out across the track for handing flat cars.  There is a storage tank to the right of the building; the connection hoses are located near the rightmost spot.  There is a chain link fence surrounding the property, with a gate to allow access of the railcars.

I envision this as the “end of the line” that used to be along a branch line.  The main track and passing siding are now removed/no longer in use just beyond the left edge (which explains why the loco has to sometimes jockey the cars around to complete the switching maneuvers).

Future expansion.

Being small and self contained, this layout could be built to be quite portable and perhaps taken to public showings?  One could easily add an extension/cassette to the right, which would greatly facilitate switching the industry as well as allow the train to leave the scene once its work is finished in a prototypical manner.  This extension could also include a train length transfer table to allow swapping out freight cars between sessions for even more operational variety.  And of course one could continue the line off to the right as space permits.

On the other end, one could build a short section showing the end of the tracks; perhaps a washed out bridge?  This would likely include space for another car on the off-spot track and perhaps even a lay-down area to the left of the industry bringing the number of spots to 4, which would certainly add to the variety of operations.  Or, one could simply extend the tracks in that direction as well.

What I like about this plan.

It is very small (certainly a plus in my situation).  It only requires 5 cars to operate.  It could be portable, allowing use at public showings.

Reply 0
jarhead

Tracks/Accessories

So Dave,

What are your plans for track and turnouts ? Code ? Home-made turnouts? Manual or electrified movement of the turnouts? DCC? You mention P-48, are you thinking of going that route?

You couldn't ask for a better running engine than the Atlas SW9. They are heavy, pulls great, and it is an an excellent crawler to switch. Smooth Runner all the way ! It is my favorite engine on my small layout.

Keep us posted, I might join you and do one to take to show. 

Nick Biangel 

USMC

Reply 0
Dave O

Tracks/Accessories ...

Track.  I'll be going with code 125 I am thinking.  I will hand lay it including the turnouts.  I anticipate manual operation of the turnouts ... probably from the fascia. 

DCC.  The loco does not have it installed, however it is DCC ready; so I'd like to find a nice decoder for it.  Any suggestions?  I have a NEC Powercab ... I'm hoping it will work ...

I'd also like to install sound ... need to research that a bit (and get the loco in hand).  Either as a separate chip or a combo decoder/sound chip ... again, any suggestions?

I'll also be 'borrowing' from Professor Klyzir's ideas for module construction ... heh.

P48.  Thinking, yes ... but not with this layout.  This will be more along the lines of Joe's "chainsaw" layout ... one that is being built with the understanding that another (hopefully improved) version will come out later.  For P48 need a lot of small parts (wheels, axles, truck frames, etc.  That are quite expensive, especially when they are being shipped overseas.  I'd also go with #8 frogs for P48 ... someday, I hope to 'upgrade'.  

Atlas SW9 ... have really heard nothing but good reports on this locomotive from those who own one ... that is why it was the one I was after ....  

I intend to update as changes/progress is made.  Thanks for the comments.  

Reply 0
jarhead

DCC DECODER/SOUND

I have the MRC 1818 sound/decoder. I got it from my LHS for $82. It is not the exact sound for the SW but it is close enough. It is the decoder with sound and speaker, all in one. Rated up to 5 AMP which you can beat. Small enough to fit in the engine with no issues. Here is the link for you to read the spec:

http://www.modelrectifier.com/search/product-view.asp?ID=8290

One more question, what material are you going to use to do your layout ? Foam, wood ??

Nick Biangel 

USMC

Reply 0
Dave O

Material ...

First thanks for the recommendation and link.  

I'd love to use foam core, alas I do not think that it is available here.  The frame shops have something similar; however it is quite thin and doesn't seem to come in large sheets ... perhaps in Colombo.

So, I'll likely go with a thin 6mm? cabinet grade plywood for the structural "shell".  It will be designed to sit upon "something" either rails or a shelf.  I like the complete package deal with the lights and such, really gives it a professional / museum quality look.  

Reply 0
Prof_Klyzlr

The easiest life for an O 2R Atlas SW1200 ever...

Dear Dave,

The SW1200 shown earlier was running a LokSound decoder IIRC.

Lok do their decoders in both "HO" 1Amp
http://www.esu.eu/en/products/loksound/loksound-v40/
/> http://www.esu.eu/en/products/loksound/loksound-select/

and "O scale" 3A variants
http://www.esu.eu/en/products/loksound/loksound-xl-v40/

Realistically however, with the 4-5 car trains and zero grades on this layout, your SW1200 should have one of the laziest/easiest "active tours of duty" known to O 2R (or P48 ).

As such, and I only reccomend this specifically because of the "easy life" your SW1200 is destined for,
a standard "HO" Lok 1A decoder should be able to handle the strains posed by such a layout easily.

Equally, given the low loads and strains such a layout will apply to the loco, a solid 1A TSU decoder should also work without too much risk.  http://www.soundtraxx.com/dsd/tsunami/1000.php

Protocraft do 3A "O scale" TSU decoder conversions, essentially taking a stock HO TSU and replacing the motor-drive output components for heavier-duty versions.
http://www.protocraft.com/category.cfm?Categoryid=33&CFID=15232579&CFTOKEN=ee231b77591826fa-9BFE144C-A6A6-8ADA-17782149E9E4B2BA

I've heard mixed-reports about these from the "in the field",
(solid performers, known TSU CVs and setups, but dubious reliability in heavy SD45-Mainline-style service?)
but if you're not convinced that a stock 1A TSU could handle the task, it's an option to keep in mind.

Again, given the "one loco at a time" low-current loads such a layout will demand, a PowerCab should be more than adequate. I ran/run Chicago Fork (both the O and HO versions) off a PowerCab with not-a-sign of stress or issue.

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

PS I laid the track on ChicagO Fork using code 100 rail stripped from cheapo HO "GT" flextrack. Down here at least, a AUD$3 length of HO flextrack is far cheaper than 2x yard-lengths of code 125 rail, let alone any "O scale flextrack" options actually in-stock at the various LHSs...

 

Reply 0
jarhead

MORE OPTIONS

There you go Dave, more options for the decoders !!!  Cool.

Prof, I am definitely going to do a shelf layout like Dave, If he does not mind. I am just waiting what design he is going to use. The different is that I am going for the code 100. You guys convince me in the previous conversation that we had. I love the idea that I can get it any where and at a cheap price. Plus since this is will be an "industrial site-branch-line " type it will be perfect. Now I wish I would've done my small O scale layout with code 100 instead of 148. But I didn't know any better. It is all good.

So going back to the shelf layout I will definitely will be putting photos on the progress with Dave's photos. It would be interesting to see the end results.

I am so intrigue with the ideas of small O scale layouts, I really think that it is something that will catch on and bring more folks into the hobby.

Nick Biangel 

USMC

Reply 0
Dave O

Its all good ...

Thanks for the links Prof, as always.  Lots of reading there, but it seems I have some time.  

Nick, build any of these that you like ... I'm likely to go with my fave (Chicago Fork) simply on account of the size and portability.  Sri Lanka does not have train shows, but they do have a hobby fair from time to time, and it would be way fun to participate in one of those.

Cheers.  Dave O

Reply 0
Prof_Klyzlr

Full Proscenium modules, NOT in Foamcore?

Dear Dave,

If you check the website of Keiran Ryan,
http://www.krmodels.com.au/module.html
/> http://www.krmodels.com.au/100dollarmod/100dolarmod.html
/> (Read this, both instructional and humorous... ).

you'll quickly see disturbingly familar core-design concepts as used in the "foamcore modules". Truth be told, Keiran had the idea first, but was intent on using 9mm CD plywood to build 5' x 2' 6" x 2' 6" modules for "O scale" 7mm SG work.

I saw the design and it immediately "resonanted with me". However, when Keiran noted that:

- such a plywood-based module weighed in at 30kilos naked
(IE literally just the module, long before track/scenery/lights/power/wiring/anything is installed)
- and cost around AUD$100

I couldn't help but think "darn if we can't do better than that"...
(the resulting Foamcore designs have been tweaked and optimised for the change in material. However, the evolutionary heritage/'family line" is obvious and undeniable... ).

The result was the 4x2x2 all-foamcore module shown on Carl Arendt's "Small/Micro Layout" website, which ended up forming the core of the "Brooklyn : 3AM".

In comparable "naked" guise, the Foamcore module weighs in at under 3 kilos
(that's 1/10th of the plywood version!), INC installed 3x 20W halogen lighting rig!
(would be even lighter with contemporary LED strip lighting and a plugpack PSU... ).

Totally understand and appreciate the "restrictive material availability" issues at hand. Would just caution not letting material choice unwittingly lead to the kind of design/weight overkill which led to the use of Foamcore in the first place...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

PS Given the extra scene depth in the posted plan,
(as opposed to the strict 12" scene depth of "ChicagO Fork"),
and the removal of the need to line up geometrically with a sectorplate pivot,

I would suggest contemplating angling the tracks some, so that the main doesn't follow the leading layout fascia dead-parallel. Even a few (single digit) degrees can make a significant visual impact difference...

(although, with the dearth of O 2R/P48 layouts on the public show scene, 
most any layout which presents "O Scale SG one can actually live with" is sure to grab people's attention!!! 
As a 7mm modeller and friend hereabout likes to say...

"why have Half when you can have the Whole O?")

Such a "skew" can also allow the Industry spur to splay off away from the "Mainline" and "Passing Spur" pair-of-tracks. This geometrical separation, along with strategic ballast color/quality difference, and possibly a few more weeds/grass tufts between the rails, (maybe a "soft rail joint" or 2 on the industrial spur?), will emphasise the difference in tasks/missions of each of the tracks.

It will also make for a more visually interesting and obvious "raison d'etre" for the layout, thus taking head-on the alegation "...it's a small layout, it's an implausible track arrangement, and there's nothing which delineates why the long-spur is treated any differently than the 2 short ones..."

(Hint: once the "mainline", which is one of the "short spurs" is clearly established and ID'd,
no matter how little of it is actually visually modelled, you better show it the respect the Main deserves!

Equally, that "long spur" is not just some arbitrary track you can shove whatever-cars-you-like in whatever-order-you-like. It has defined car spots, an (animated?) chain-link gate protecting it's 3-spot capacity,
and "the local" fails to spot the cars as the industry manager/switchlist directs at the crew's own peril!!! )

Reply 0
jarhead

Chicago Fork

Chicago Fork it is !!!  Now there is going to be three versions of the CF, Prof, yours and mine. All done in different continents. How neat is that !!!

Nick Biangel 

USMC

Reply 0
Dave O

Tilting ...

Yes, I had given it a quick bit of thought, but opted in the interests of time to just go with the parallel to the edge route.  I went back and gave it a spin, about 3.5 degrees, what do you think?

k_Of5_02.jpg 

For Nick, you will likely be WAY ahead of me on this.  It takes me about 3 weeks (or more) to receive material once I've placed the order ... but that means you can find the errors and figure out how to fix them first ....

Foam core or ply?  hmmm.

Plywood I can get, 6mm and a bit smaller module will be a bit lighter ... but not even close to 3kg.  I'll see what is available in the city.  For an O-scale layout what thickness should I be looking for?  Considerations for portability (I know Brooklin was portable).  Thanks for the heads up.

Reply 0
jarhead

ANGLE

YES !! The tilting is ideal, makes look longer deceiving the eye.

I will start this weekend, at least with the shelves, (18" x 48") x 2 since we are having a three day weekend. Perfect timing for it. The challenge that I will have is to do the over-head for the lighting so that it will be light-weight and portable.

EQUIPMENT/MATERIALS

PLYWOOD ???

Rails: Code 100 (HAND-LAID)

Turnouts: #5 ( Manauly operated) (HAND-LAID)

DCC: Digitrax Super Chief. Buss wire 18AWG w/ 22AWG feeders

ENGINE: ATLAS SW 9 (BOSTON & MAINE)

ROLLING STOCK: ALL ATLAS 40 FOOTERS

PHOTOS WILL FOLLOW.

Anything I am missing ?

 

 

Nick Biangel 

USMC

Reply 0
Dave O

Or this?

ah, just caught the end of Prof's note; seems he was suggesting a tilt in the other direction; something like this perhaps?

k_Of5_03.jpg 

I'm not certain about the trees, but left them there for now.  I've "splayed" the industry tracks from the "main" and siding; leaving the industry square to the backdrop ... perhaps more "splay" would be in order?

Perhaps like this?

k_Of5_04.jpg 

Yes, this may be more like what we are looking for?

Reply 0
jarhead

Last one

The last one seems more appropriate, giving it different angles and by that it gives it more depth.

Nick Biangel 

USMC

Reply 0
ctxmf74

angles

I'd go with an angle that keeps the long building parallel to the backdrop because it's a lot easier to build a roof if the ridge doesn't hit the backdrop at an angle. If it's a flat roofed building it doesn't matter so much other than there will be a long wedge that make it harder to place roof details on the narrow end? ...DaveB

Reply 0
jarhead

angles

DaveB,  you can make the building straight and keep the track in an angle making the track go into the building having the opportunity to detailed more the roof. Just an idea.

Nick Biangel 

USMC

Reply 0
Dave O

Good points ...

... was thinking flat roof ... guess it would have to be high enough that can't see the roof details?

Reply 0
alco251

A small (12ft) O gauge layout

This is a link to a small UK O gauge  http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/15931-bury-thorn-sons/ what might interest you is the sector plate idea, using draw runners, see bottom of first page. Also just a thought but is getting basic stuff (decoders etc) easier via the UK. Either through someone you know who visits here or because you might get a better deal rupee to sterling. Good luck anyway.

Reply 0
BOK

While these are all good

While these are all good layout ideas I would include (you may have already thought of this/mentioned it) industries that use mutiple car types, a facing point switch and (I know many of you small, layout, Inglenook, guys don't agree  with this) a short runaround track to allow an "out and back" operation rather than just shoving in/pulling out. Now I know many of you may come forward with plenty of prototype examples of shoving or a locomotive on each end, operations but it's more fun and more realistic to include one. Take it from a guy who has run operations for big and small railroads, a run around track is a great thing especially if you include (depending on era) a short caboose.

Looking forward to seeing more examples for an around the wall O scale layout but how about ones with a bit more thought and maybe down two walls? I like these ideas as they are easy to convert to HO and N scale ideas.

Barry, always attempting to make layout plans simple, more realistic and fun.

Reply 0
Prof_Klyzlr

Examples welcome...

Dear Barry,

Given the clearly-stated 12' x 18" dimensions to work within, and the OP's declared equipment in use,
(Hint: if you think in "units", the nominated SW1200 and 40' cars make for consistent 12" long "units" in O 2R,
and a #5 turnout is "2 units" long tip to clearance)

do you have any workable example trackplans available?

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

Friends don't let friends build Timesavers
http://www.layoutvision.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/bh_small_layouts_2013.pdf

http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/Timesaver/timesaver-prototype.html

http://www.gdlines.com/Timesaver.html
(Yes, even the GDLInes own website doesn't reccomend run-arounds and switchbacks for small/micro layouts, "LDE"s, modules, dominos, or "as a switching district on a larger layout")

Reply 0
Reply