SP Lordsburg Sub - Lower-Level Staging

SP Lordsburg Sub - Lower Level Deck

SP Lordsburg Sub - Upper Level Deck

SP Lordsburg Sub - Upper Level Staging & Reverse Loop

Love multi deck plans

That's a very ambitious multi deck plan I can't wait to see your approach to it's construction.

My only area of concern is the nod under at the upper level staging return loop. I could probably just walk under it (no nodding) but depending on guests or a regular operating crew that might get old quick. Maybe take the upper level all the way around and above Lordsburg yard to reach the peninsula for the reversing loop. Alternately if your helix is outside of the layout room maybe that space could also be used for return loop/staging yard?

Looking good!

Looking good!

SP in AZ

I look forward to seeing how you progress with your layout. Living in AZ it's good to see an SP themed AZ layout. I went down and railfan'd Cienega last year.  Even though it had UP running on it, it was a great time and is a cool place to model on your railroad.

Me too, looking forward to

A few more review comments

Paul,

It was nice to see you at the flea market on Saturday.  I had no idea this was you plan.  I'll repeat the few comments I made on Saturday and possibly add a few more

1. Bottom Level Stagging.  Is 3 tracks sufficient?  You have 5 tracks in the other stagging yard.  Do some trains not run all the way through?
   1. You could have more tracks with a different design.  You could probably have three long tracks and 2-3 additional shorter tracks, that start closer to Tucson.  You may need to have trains from Tucson go do a lap around the helix before entering the bottom level.
   2. If I'm an operator, I'd prefer to go through the turnouts close to the helix, rather than having to negotiate the isles around to the other side of the peninsula.  Actually, I'd think it would be best to be able to operate the staging yard from the Tucson aisle.
   3. I'm not sure you need a full 12" of clearance.  If easy to see in and turnouts are visible from edge, 8" might suffice.  You could reduce the grade or expand the staging.
   4. You could raise the center of the lower level peninsula to get more separation.  You have it set at 41", the peninsulla could be at 43", and thus reduce the need for grade to lower staging.  The 61" deck above is more than sufficent.  Tony Koester has 14" between decks, so more like 16" track separation.  I had no problems operating on that.  Thus I think your decks could be closer and could have some grade climb on the to reduce time and/or grade trains are going up and down the helix and to/from staging.
2. Tusosn trackwork seems like a huge compromise to me.  It seems like either trains up or down from staging will not be handled so well.  The run-around track is too short....It just seems like an operating bottle neck.
   1. Again, if there is a way to have the trains down to staging go around the helix 1-2 turns you could have the main flat through Tucson and thus enable you to put in a full passing siding...
3. You stated the the crossing was actually an over and under bridge situation.  As drawing, your have side by side tracks leaving Tucson that are really at different elevations and on different grades.  So, I suggest you split the east and westbound mains earlier so as to avoid a scenery challenge that would require an un-prototypical retaining wall or rock cut.
4. At Benson, I wondered if you should double track the the line towards Tuscon, in the case that the siding might not be long enough for passing.  I now see it is 12' long, probably long enough for the local to hide, but too short for a passing siding (depending the length of your trains).  However, considering the proximity to the double track to Tucson, I'm not sure passing is a requirement of Benson.  Thus your probably OK with the present design.
5. Consider making the Cochise passing siding longer, by extending toward helix for passing longer trains if your train length deam it.
6. I agree with others that the nod under is too low.  I"m 6-4', as you saw, so I'd not fit.  I think there are other alternatives.
   1. Why not run the mainline from Lordsburg to the helix and do a few turns up.  Then com out back over the peninsula and have a staging yard similar to what is on the lower level?
7. I see a problem leaving Lordsburg.  The mainline track toward stagging will cross over the tracks at Wilcox.  How do you plan to handle that? Is that main going to be hidden in some structures or be in structures?  Eventually, it needs to go directly over the main between Wilcox and the helix
8. The last switch at WIlcox will be under the Main from Lordsburg to Staging.  Is that a problem?
9. Consider double tracking the helix, so that trains can pass...
10. If the track leaving on the wye from Benson is a branch, consider having it go around a reversing loop around the helix.  If it is interchange, it need not be a reversing loop, but if going to next room could be fiddled.
11. The 4 towns on the penninsulla could feel "model railroady"....I'm not sure what the industries are and the justification for all the tracks and some seem to curve for the fun of it, not because they are required to curve.  Not sure that seems like the wide open spaces of AZ.

Paul, this seems like a good draft and layout will be fun no matter what you do....

Are you planning CTC?  TT&TO or TWC or similar control?  I know SP had some TT&TO for a long time....

Good Luck....

David Keith

If you want to contact me direct Sam, Gerry and others should have my email (if you can not get it through this forum)

http://www.sn2modeler.com

I'm back.....

Sorry for not having posted any updates since last Spring. Life happens....

So, I received lots of great comments, input, critiques from various sources to the track plan I posted here (and elsewhere) early last year. I (finally) recognized I couldn't have my cake and eat it too. I was simply trying to cram too much into the space I had available. I recall one of Byron Henderson's recommendations from his Layout Design Bootcamp seminar (at the Portland NMRA Convention) that most basement, modest-sized layouts simply don't have the room/space to incorporate two Division points. I set out to prove otherwise. Well - after trying numerous variations, I've come to agree with him. I guess I had to go through the effort myself to have that point driven home. Essentially I gave up having Lordsburg, NM on the visible section of the layout. The trackplan now models from Tucson, AZ (MP 986.6) to Bowie, AZ (MP 1098.4) - a mere 112 miles.

What I have now looks more "relaxed". I think it will provide for quite a bit of operational activity for 3 - 4 Operators. I'll upload snapshots of the four new decks/levels and would appreciate your comments!

Thanks!

Lower Level Staging

Lower Level: Tucson - Benson

Upper Level: Cochise - Bowie

Upper Level Staging

Much Better....

Paul,

This looks much better than your original plan.  I like the simplicity.  I have two concerns

CONCERN #1: amount of time a train will spend in the helix and in stagging, it seems like a significant portion (30-40%) of a run over the layout.  Will a single crew run that whole distance or might your have someone assigned to running trains in/out of the stagging so that a crew could drop off a train?  For instance a crew to run trains out of stagging and into the division point yard and vise versa.

CONCERN #2 The complexity of the stagging.  You have many tracks in stagging and some are stub ended.  There will be some operators that get confused and have trains going into the wrong tracks...  Again a dedicated crew to operate stagging might alleviate this concern.

"Final" version as of May 14, 2019

It was pointed out to me that I failed to post the "final" version of my track-plan because the last one posted here doesn't explain how the stud walls (in my other blog post) come into play. So I will get right to that!

Lower Level - Staging

Lower Level: Tucson - Benson

Upper Level: Cochise - Bowie

..and I was advised by a Local that Bowie is pronounced "Boo-wee". Not "Bow-ee"

Upper Level: Staging