Design Criteria

Though my last layout exceeded every expectation I had, there were a few things that I want to change as I move ahead to the next one.

1) The actual N&W Pocahontas District was double track main and I'd like to incorporate that feature into the new layout. With the last layout I found out I really like rail-fanning my layout sometimes and love it when trains have running meets. A double track main will provide tons of opportunities to put trains on the main and watch them roll!

I don't have any experience operating a layout with a double track mainline, so I'm going to depend on all of you here at MRH to instruct me and point out anything you might think I need to know or revise with my plans. 

2) If you look at the Pocahontas District main from the air, you see it twists and turns through the mountains with a lot of curves everywhere. Given the space I had to work with on my last layout, I couldn't replicate that as well as I wanted to. I'd like to have more mainline turns on the new layout so I can watch trains snake around the bends. 

3) The yard on my last layout also got quite filled with empty hoppers awaiting delivery to the coal mines. Fortunately I had enough track to handle that, while still leaving room for local trains to be made up. If possible though, on the new layout I'd like to have an empty coal hopper yard separate from the main yard to relieve yard congestion.

Other than these proposed changes, I want to follow the operating scheme of my former layout. Mainline trains came up from staging, dropped cars off at the assembly yard, then returned to staging after making its way along the rest of the mainline. Local trains originate in the assembly yard and leave to service mines and industries, returning back to the yard when they are done. 

Now, on to the initial track plan! We haven't actually moved into our new house yet, but during the house inspection I did what any model railroader would do...I went to the basement to measure up exactly what room I had to work with for the new layout!  With dimensions in hand I started to plan, dream and design. In my next post I'll share the initial plans I've come up with . 

Track Plan

After numerous trial arrangements I finally decided a multi-deck layout would meet my needs the best. Right now I'm planning on four decks:

1) Lower staging deck at 27" height.

2) Main deck at 40" height. The maximum width to be limited to 30".

3) Upper deck at 56" height. The upper deck width is limited to about 18". This worked well on my last layout and gave an unobstructed view of the main deck below.

4) Upper staging deck at 68" height. This will be above my sight line, and I will need to step on a stool to view it, but since it's just staging, I'm not too worried about that. I may/may not have a fascia in front of this staging yard to hide it from view and use track occupancy detectors to indicate train locations, and when to stop trains at track end clearance points. 

I like to keep aisles at 36" width if possible to allow operators to pass one another easily. I was able to do that for the most part, with just a few neck down areas which aren't too long, so I'm hoping they won't be a problem. 

Unfortunately, in the space I have to work with in our new house, there is a circuit box in the corner I needed to work around. I've allowed 36" clear space in front of the panel, and 30" width, which I believe is what most building codes require. I confess though that I did "cheat" a little to get more railroading out of my space. I have two removable track sections which bridge the aisle to small main deck and upper deck 12" wide shelves along one wall.  

You might notice dashed lines along the upper wall and right wall. This basement is finished with a knee wall that's 39" high. That means below that level the dimensions are narrower than above it. That dashed line represents that narrower dimension. In a few places I removed the dash line to avoid confusion with the plan. 

With that little introduction, here's what I've come up with so far...

(Edit: To enlarge plans, right click on picture and open in a new tab.)

The comments given me by MRH drastically improved the track plan on my last layout. I'm hoping that will also happen with these new plans. Eager to hear what you have to say and suggest!

Thanks for following along...

Great news!

Paul,

 You're getting ready to build another great layout. This is going to be fun to follow. Do you mind disclosing where you have landed?

Not There Yet

Very cool!

Paul,

 Looks like you are closer to the Twin cities area now. Also seems to me that you have some more room to put this pup together. 

All the best!

Rick

Paul, I just scanned your

Paul, I just scanned your ideas that you have posted. Let me know the particulars such as radius grades etc. When I have a bit more time I will closely look at your plan. I really enjoyed the last one, it was such a great plan and well executed. The idea of a coal yard and a classification yard is interesting. Doing the helix and multiple levels with two tracks can present issues with the tracks swapping between the inside and outside from one level to the next. It might require some creative adjustment to make it work and keep the inside track on one level the same on the next level.

Thanks for sharing with the rest of us.

Hey Paul

@ Kevin

3.0 Times a Charm...

Allright! Pauls Back!  And with great vigor it would appear!  Haven't had time to do anything but quick scan the track plan but I like it already.  It's late and the pillow beckons. Will do so soon and offer feedback. 

Good to see  you again.

Glad to see you back Paul

Your plan looks like a great start and I look forward to seeing your progress. 

One feature that has always intrigued me is the N&W use of center sidings. They were used to allow faster traffic to pass the drags. And at times blocks of hoppers would be left in a center siding closer to the mine by the mine job to be picked up by a through drag instead of hauling back to the yard only to be picked up there and hauled back past where it started. Looking at your plan you might be able to incorporate that into the North Fork scene. The mine job could leave eastbound coal from the Tubs Holler mine on the center siding to be picked up by the next drag to Bluefield instead of hauling them to Kimble. Just a thought. 

Don Trettel 

Also free-lancing a piece of the N&W

Oh thats niceeee. Always

Oh thats niceeee. Always enjoyed your work.

Couple of questions

• Is there enough track separation between A and B and Keystone branch trackage.
• 12 inch squares on the plan
• Guessing helixes are 28"

Phil

Welcome back!

Glad to see you didn't get the memo that we're all supposed to build teeny-tiny layouts now.   

Randy

Excited!

Paul,

Remember when you said you really liked my track plan?  Well, I REALLY like this one.  You've added some more industry switching and coal mines since we talked, and really developed the details.  Hopefully some day I can make it to your new home and run some trains!  I'll be anxiously following your build.  

Following

Paul:

There has been some serious thought into this plan already so little to add. 

Could the Pocahontas Coal Company be on the other side of the hall? That would make it seem more remote and cause the operator to feel immersed in the hollow. 

I am modeling a portion of a double tracked mainline but decided to leave out much of the double track to force meets and cause trains to wait in the hole. The idea of a choke point appeals to me. 

Those ideas aside, this is a great design and I really like the concept! Besides all the colliery plants, the Keystone Branch will be a nice diversion from the mountains to build and operate. 

Hadn't checked your stuff out

Hadn't checked your stuff out in awhile with the demise of the old line so decided to see what all the new posting was about. Looking good. I'm not a track plan guy but it dang sure looks interesting and you're more ambitious than I'll ever be! Four decks....WOW! I can't imagine but I'm sure going to be following along with interest. Good to see you Paul.

@ Rob

Rob,

Thanks for taking a quick look at the plans. I'm not sure what all details you want. Some of the info you're looking for is already on the plan itself. It might be a little hard to read though. I know on some blogs you click on the picture and it enlarges. I was hoping the track plan pictures would do that here, but apparently they don't.

Here are a few details though that you might want. I needed to make my mainline radius a little tighter than the last layout to fit everything in the space. I'm using a 27" mainline min. radius, 24" in the yard, and allow 22" for industries if absolutely needed, otherwise 24" there too. 

The plan doesn't show elevations, but I'm trying to limit that to 2% and lower on the mainline and through the helices that connect the decks. (I actually have one less helix on this new plan than the old layout...Yey!!!)

In planning the mainline, I did not try to keep the inside track the same everywhere. I think that's almost impossible when you have a helix that reverses the direction of the train from one deck to the other. I'm not too worried about that though. I just post signs on the decks indicating which direction is eastbound and westbound for the crews so they don't get confused. It's not perfect, but didn't seem to cause too many problems with my crews in the past.

As on my former Pokey, I'm hoping to run mainline through trains and coal drags in the 35-40 car range, and local freights and coal shifters between 12-20 cars. The passing sidings and staging tracks are geared for trains like that.

Hope that answers most of your questions. I look forward to hearing your evaluations!

@ Jeff

Jeff,

It's nice to have a cheering section. Thanks! I hope the new layout will not disappoint you. 

I appreciate your willingness to look the plan over carefully. Extra eyes will go a long way to helping me iron out problems I may have overlooked.

@ Don

Don,

Glad you like the plan so far. That's encouraging coming from another N&W fan. Makes me feel like I'm doing at least something right.

Your idea about the center siding was something I thought of as well. In the early iterations of my track plan I did toy around with that idea, and tried that on the plan in a few places, but found it hard to squeeze the extra mainline track in. So I opted for the short "side" sidings for the branches instead.

Having said that, I would like to have the through freights/coal drags do a little something on the upper deck. Leaving some loaded coal hoppers around somewhere would certainly fill that bill. So maybe I'll have to rethink your suggestion.

The bad thing about leaving loaded hoppers on the siding though is then the length of the local coal shifter is drastically reduced coming back to Kimball yard. I prefer to see longer trains running on the layout. To me it makes the layout feel more like the prototype. But I know the prototype has short trains too.

The other thing your suggestion would require is that the shifter crew would also have to sort out the eastbound and westbound loaded hoppers prior to their return to the yard, which means now less switching work for the yard crew. That might not be bad, but it's a matter of balancing out the work load so each operator has sufficient work to keep them busy. I hate it when I go to an op session and I quickly finish most of the work, then have to stand around for half an hour waiting for something to happen. I like to keep my crews operating constantly if possible. I guess it boils down to compromising between what the prototype actually did, and what works well for the operators on the layout. Those two don't always seem to go hand in hand.

Anyway, I appreciate the feedback. Keep it coming!

@Paul

All good points, and I agree that we deal in compromises. Keep up the good work. 

Don

@ Phil

Phil,

It sure is uplifting to hear you've enjoyed my work in the past. I hope that continues. Thanks! Now, on to your questions....

The area where you question the track separations at A, B, and the Keystone branch line where the trickiest ones on the layout. One helix track is coming up from lower staging (A), the other helix is going from the main deck to the upper deck (B), and the Bluestone branch line squeezes below the B helix and above the A helix. I had the elevations all worked out, but then changed some track around and lost the elevation figures in the process. I will most definitely go back over that to make sure everything works out there. 

The grid lines on the plan are indeed 12" squares.

The helix tracks are 27" radius on the inside track, 29.25" on the outside track. Each turn of the helix rises 3.25" as it did on my last layout. Let me know if you see any other problems.

@ Randy

Layout memo???? What memo????   I can always count on you to bring some laughter into the blog to lighten things up!!

I'm not averse to small layouts. In fact I regularly operate at a friends 4'x8' layout with just a small extension coming off of it, and three of us run trains for a 3 hour session and just love it! That sometimes makes me question why build a bigger layout at all? But I like to see long trains run, and want to have a layout that provides that feature if possible. Fortunately, like you, I have the patience and persistence needed to build something like that, and enjoy the challenges. So here we go....again!

@ Michael A.

Knowing you have an eye for a good track plan, it tickles me pink to hear you REALLY like this one. As I mentioned to you in an email, your layout plan was a big inspiration for me as I designed my new layout. So, just out of curiosity, what features caught your attention? 

@ Neil

I could move the Pocahontas Coal mine across the hall, but then you'd have to attend my funeral, because my wife would kill me if I did because that would take the train into the downstairs bathroom! I don't know what her problem is though? A center beam flat car with a roll of toilet paper wrapped around it being delivered to a customer in need behind some loaded coal hoppers sounds ideal to me! 

Your comments about mainlines were something I had to ponder for a long time as I began my design work. The mainline on my last layout was much like yours, passing sidings with necked down areas (primarily in the helices.) That made for some good ops, and I considered going that route with this plan. But every once in a while we had running meets on the passing sidings. I really enjoyed that (as did the other operators) so decided to go with double track for this plan. 

The added benefit is that the double track is more in line with my prototype. Though I consider myself a "proto free lance" modeler, I find my desire to more faithfully replicate my chosen railroad growing through the years, thus the choice for a double track main was very appealing to me. 

@ Michael T.

Thanks for checking out the new Pokey! Hope we'll keep your interest up.

To be honest with you I didn't really want to have a four deck layout. I was originally thinking three decks like my last one. But the more I wrestled with the space and what I wanted to do, it just kind of fell out in the design process. In the long run however, it might make construction easier, because the layout won't be so much like a spaghetti noodle folding back on itself numerous times. I've built layouts in the past that did that, and while they may have been smaller, they were much harder to work on and maintain than a layout which spreads things out more. 

Hopefully I'm not biting off more than I can chew here. But I usually work fairly fast, and I think the experience I've gained through past layouts will help construction move along more quickly without getting bogged down.