M.C. Fujiwara

Hello, all.  New to this forum, though I've been enjoying the magazine very much for the past couple years.  Got so wrapped up in the magazine, didn't even think to look around the website and at the forums!  D'oh!

But lots of great stuff here!  I was just wondering if I could get some ideas / feedback on the latest incarnation of my n-scale Portland & Pacific RR modular shelf layout design.
 
I had originally thought to build slim 6”x24” modules that could be configured into straight shelf, “L” shelf and then, with the addition of corner modules, an HCD sized island. The main consideration in that design was portability: I thought some moves overseas was in the future, and so wanted something that could fit any room as well as stack together paired up in convenient-sized boxes.
 
Well, no overseas moving in my future, just “normal, carefree” moving, so while portability and space considerations are still an issue, I don’t have to design the Russian-Doll-in-the-Chinese-Puzzlebox layout.
 
So, here’s my latest agony & ecstasy for your groans & grins.
 
Portland & Pacific RR
Fictional shortline along the Columbia River environs 1910-1940s
N scale, code 55 rail with #4.5 & #6 turnouts (handlaid)
NEC DCC
 
 
Two 1’x8’ modules butted together to create a 1’x16’ shelf with a 12” clamp-on extension.
Coincidentally, I currently have a 17’ blank wall in my garage. There's a slight angle on the modules, so the left comes out and extra 2 inches in the middle, while the right dips in 2 inches. In "real life" it'll probably be gracefully curved, if I can figure that out. ("real life", too!) There will also be a 10" backdrop and capped by a valence on a higher shelf. Layout hight about 56".
 
Operations (as I’ve been deliriously Imagineering it) would involve cars coming onto the layout via carfloat, get pulled off by the boatgoat and sorted by the yardgoat (probably one and the same 0-6-0, 0-8-0, NW2 or 44T, depending which decade I’m running), with the completed job placed on the A/D track. 
 
The job engine (4-6-0, 2-8-0? Mike at the most?) would take a 5-6 car train out & back: the Dam Construction Camp needs supplies, lumber, equipment, empty gon dropoff, full gon pickup, etc. (there’s a car lift up 2” to the spur to the site), the cannery needs fuel, tin, preservatives and pick up of canned fish, and the brewery needs bottles, stuff for making suds, coal for the powerplant and pickup of the bottled bubbly and the occasional car of broken glass. The rare passenger car to transport workers would also join the mixed train once in awhile.
 
On the return (pulling the train tender first?), the steamer would drop the cars off on the A/D track and then go recharge in the engine service facility. Yardgoat would immediately push appropriate cars through the scale and into the float yard to await transport. When the float next comes in, the switcher pulls off the 8 float cars onto the A/D track, then loads the float with the waiting 8 cars, and off the float goes.
 
While the job is gone and the boatgoat changes shifts, the Industry switcher can service the local freight and import company, metal works, vegetable oil dealer, and deliver coal to the engine service area. I have groovy pictures of specific industries, bridges and scenes from the Columbia River area I’d like to model.
 
I still need to figure out the specific needs (in terms of carloads) of the industries, as well as the float schedule and other operational details.
 
In terms of layout design, here are some of the issues I’m grappling with:
--Do I have enough yard space to do what I want to do? I could remove the orange building and add one car length to each of the upper yard tracks, or I could remove the freight building and spur next to the float yard and add three car lengths to each (making the yard 8, 8, 6). Given that trains won’t be longer than 6 cars, do I need more yard? (or is that like saying “do I need more money?” or “do I need more pizza?)
 
--Do I need an escape from the float track down to the A/D track? It seems as though the boatgoat will just need to pull cars off and then push others on (always being on the “right” side of the cars). Would an escape allow the float track to be used as a second A/D track when the float is gone? Any benefit to changing the setup as is now?
 
--Any pitfalls / no-no’s I’m not seeing and that would be major (or minor) operational stumbling blocks? Or things that look good on paper but peoples with experience are having a wistful chuckle (or flashback twitches) about? I’m all ears!
 
--Instead of a 12” extension on the right, I could have a 2-track cassette (oh, to have 8-tracks back!) come out “towards” us along the left wall after a 10’ radius 90deg curve left. I have 7’ of wall above my workbench. That way the layout isn’t carfloat dependent. Hmmm..
 
Some of the layout might puzzle or seem a bit awkward (like the extra runaround in Rainier), but I’m trying to plan for the foggy future: I know I won’t be here in my present condo in a year or so, and with no guarantee that the next place will even have a garage, or a 17’ stretch of blank interior wall, I’m also planning for the shelf to fit in a smallish bedroom. Most smallish bedrooms around here are 10’x10’ to 11’x13’, so the addition of a 2’x2’ corner module would work out lovely:
 
 
And would make the transition from city to countryside a bit better. I wouldn’t build the corner module until I was in my new place and knew exactly how much space I had to deal with.
 
And, because my young kids (and I) also like roundy-rounds, the addition of two 2’x4’ end modules would make for a 4’x12’ island of continuous running. So I started playing around with ideas for that:
 
 
More space, more industries, so I played around with the idea of a detachable yard extension through car barn doors under some buildings. In this config, the layout would be in the middle of the garage / living room up on legs at 30" - 36" for chair ops for me and jump-up-and-down ops for my kids.
 
But that’s way, way in the future: I’m putting that here just to show that there are issues of portability and modularity involved.
 
Right now I’m focusing on the original straight shelf, so if anyone has any thoughts, criticisms, concerns, or suggestions, please feel free!
 
Thanks in advance for your time and feedback.
--M.C. Fujiwara
 
Moderator edit: resized images to fit page and converted them into clickable for popups of (much) larger images.

--M.C. Fujiwara [Drunk]

My YouTube Channel (How-To's, Layout progress videos)

Silicon Valley Free-moN

Reply 0
jeffshultz

Interesting little layout

I'm not an N Scaler myself, but I found your layout interesting as it models an area I've actually been through on rails - Rainer, OR.

Since you'll be dealing with carfloat car volumes, you're probably okay with enough classification tracks to handle twice a carfload worth of cars. The extension off the Rainer end to make that runaround work is a good idea.

I think you're okay with the A/D track and all that the way it is as long as the float/yard goat has a way to get out of the way somewhere where it will always be able to pull cars out of the yard and push them onto the float, and vice versa. Any possibility of getting access to a larger version of your trackplan? I can't read industry labels and such even on your "large" version.

orange70.jpg
Jeff Shultz - MRH Technical Assistant
DCC Features Matrix/My blog index
Modeling a fictional GWI shortline combining three separate areas into one freelance-ish railroad.

Reply 0
M.C. Fujiwara

Picture worth a thousand pixels...

Thanks, Jeff, for the feedback, and sorry for the small picture size.  I think I figured out my photo(kickthe)bucket problems, and here's a larger image (crosses fingers...):

Looks like it worked, so I went back and replaced the tiny picts with resized ones.  Hope that's easier on the eyes!

As the A/D track is separate from the float lead, it shouldn't be a problem for the goat to be able to place a train on the A/D and then get out of the way to continue sorting / pushing.

Unless I need an escape from the float track down to the A/D on the far left (pushing the Oriental Trading Co. a little left).

Or any other variation that would improve the workability of the yard?

Thanks again for all the feedback!

 

 

Reply 0
Artarms

I'm impressed

I'm impressed with your planning and utilization of the module idea.  I am not a track planner but I suggest moving the crossover that is under "road up" farther to the right on the spur to the metal works.  This would give you  run-around for working the yard above the scale.

Art

Reply 0
jeffshultz

Resizing...

Okay, set the size of the displayed images - if you click on them you get a new window that will let you display the image at it's full (and very readable) size.

orange70.jpg
Jeff Shultz - MRH Technical Assistant
DCC Features Matrix/My blog index
Modeling a fictional GWI shortline combining three separate areas into one freelance-ish railroad.

Reply 0
jeffshultz

Looks workable.

It does look pretty workable - I take it that the second track at the Dam Construction camp goes nowhere? That would be a nice place to have a big crane that would span both tracks for transloading cargo.

One thing Rainier definitely has these days is a log reload - they come by barge or something down from Canda and are loaded onto spine log cars on the Portland & Western to be shipped down to Southern Oregon.

orange70.jpg
Jeff Shultz - MRH Technical Assistant
DCC Features Matrix/My blog index
Modeling a fictional GWI shortline combining three separate areas into one freelance-ish railroad.

Reply 0
M.C. Fujiwara

Oh, those Dam problems...

Thanks for helping with the picture resize. (as if we don't do enough squinting in this business!)(at least us N guys do

The second track at the dam construction site is raised 2"-4" above the first and disappears off to the actual dam site (in the backdrop).  The two tracks are connected by a lift:

I've started some drawings for scratchbuilding the lift (will be handcranked) and look forward to building it

The era is 1920s-40s, but a log reload is a good idea, too.  Cool thing about modular construction: I can build another "destination" module to swap with the cannery / brewery!

Thanks for the ideas!

Reply 0
jeffshultz

That life is going to be fascinating....

M.C. - please document construction and all that - some aspects of this layout are going to look really neat and rather unusual.

orange70.jpg
Jeff Shultz - MRH Technical Assistant
DCC Features Matrix/My blog index
Modeling a fictional GWI shortline combining three separate areas into one freelance-ish railroad.

Reply 0
billhko

Modular construction

I am not so concerned with your track plan.  I belong to a Z scale group and we display modules at various shows here in Southern California.  We exhibit at about 6 shows each year. 

We have had members who have built large modules and portability becomes a huge problem. Our modules are generaly 2x4 ft.  Some get to be 3x6 ft.  Also large modules require more than one person to move them about.  You will need a 1x4 to span an 8 foot length.  This is how heavy your basic framework without legs will be.  Unless you have a family of weightlifters, it will hardly be portable.

 

In your track plan, one of your modules grows wide at the middle and the other becomes narrow.  To have a change in the direction of your side boards, your side board will require that two boards be joined at the angle. That will not provide sufficient strength to prevent your 8 ft long modules from sagging.  This happens when some pesky track work needs to be done.  If you should consider a “L girder” frame to support this weight with the angled side board, the “L girder” frame will only double the weight of your framework. 

http://rail.felgall.com/lg.htm

 

Four 4 ft modules might be an easier solution.  Two 8 ft modules boxed as one piece might require a fork lift.

Bill  Indio, CA

Reply 0
M.C. Fujiwara

An Ounce of Prevention...

Thanks, Bill, for taking the time to detail out the issues with the construction of the modules themselves.

I always underestimate the weight (and cost! ) of the wood, and your thoughts are a good reminder.

My original idea was to make the two 8' modules each out of two 4' boxes bolted together.  The frames would be 1"x3"s with a thin sheet of ply (1/4"? or even 1/8" masonite) over them to attach the 2" pink foam base.  The frames would be boxes, with the ply & foam cut to the form curving / angling out / in and the masionite fascia screwed in to the ply and 1"x2" cleats attached to the box and under the ply.  Kinda like this:

So while there are 4 modules, I'd treat them as two 8' modules: trackwork & backboard attached accross the whole 8', with only the middle joint (the 8' mark) desiged for "easy" separation and reconfiguration.  In theory, if I had to transport in smaller form, I could unscrew the backdrop, take a dremel to the track, and separate into the 4' units. 

The other idea: build each box frame as a polygon.  Two 4' boxes end to end with 12" ends and 14" bases that butt in the center, and then two 4' boxes with 12" ends and 10" bases that butt in the center.  Would there be much sag over 4'?

The benefit of the first idea is that  plan on supporting the shelves with double hook racks, and would only need 12"ers on the left and 10"ers on the right.  The second idea would call for more creative hanging.

But as you and others have moocho practical experience with this, please feel free to debunk / suggest anything.  Thanks again for the feedback!

--M.C.

 Moderator edit: Resized too-large image to fit within page and made the full-sized version into a popup

Reply 0
IVRW

I have but one thing to say...

 Excellent job so far. The only thing I would add is that at Rainier, there was a logging railroad, so you might want to add a connection. Oregon was very well known for it's logging Railroads, so this might help to set up a locale.

Reply 0
billhko

modules

I would go with the 4ft modules.  An 8ft module is impossible to maneuver inside of a house.  The problem of span length is not necessarily a problem when the layout is set up for operations.  You can put the modules on shelf brackets set about a foot apart.  If you use legs, you can install the legs about a foot inside of the module ends.  That makes the unsuported length much shorter.  The problem for a portable layout comes when you move it.  Take your 8 ft long 1x4 piece of dimensional lumber.  Two of you hold the ends of the board laying on its side.  Walk about with it.  See how much the middle of the board bounces up and down.  If your module should flex half as bad as that, your handlaid track will be destroyed.  Flex track is somewhat forgiving but handlaid track is not.  For your handlaid track make certain that the base under your roadbed is firm and strong.  Nothing worse than having some of your soldered rails breaking loose from the ties.  Also, never leave your module sitting out in the sun for too long.  The sun will cause your rails to expand and there goes your track.  Taking photos of your layout in sunshine is inviting but the sun can cause a lot of trouble.

I would also build each module as a polygon.  A rectangular box with extensions for creating a polygon shape will not withstand the rigours of portability.  Our Z scale modules get stood up on end or on their sides, or leaned against a wall, or sit down on a table with their ends sticking out.  No matter how well made, a soup bowl filled to the brim is not portable.

I would start with your Rainier module.  It is almost a complete self-contained layout.  All that you need are extensions on both ends.  You can test your tracklaying skills and switch cars to see if your planned operation works.  I would start using flex track and not handlaying track untill I feel the the planned track will handle the operation as I visualize it.  It is a lot easier to move flex track around then to move handlaid track.  Check to see where the track separates enough after a switch so that cars on each track will not collde.  (The clearence point)  That point will determine how many cars your sidings or yards will hold.  Check also if you can couple or uncouple cars on those sidings that have a curve leading into it.  MTL couplers are kind of tricky operating on curves.

I had spent 2.5 years building an handlaid HO scale layout.  When I ran the first train completely around the layout, I found that the track plan just did not work as I viewed it.  Three days later all that I had was a pile of wood to be sent to the dump.  Since the track was all handlaid Code 70, none of it could be salvaged.  The train with a 2-10-2 USRA heavy steam locomotive, had no problems negotiating the layout except for a single switch.  The problem was that a 32 inch radius was just too small.  I needed 37 inches or more.  Also for HO a 8x16 layout is way too small.  My suggestion to you is to start small and after you get the first module to work, then go after the rest.  Your handlaid track is not tested until you run a steam locomotive on it.  A steam locomotive with pilot trucks.  That is what derails.  Diesels are not a good indicator of good track work.  Hand pushing box cars back and forth are not great track testers either.

Good luck,

 

 

 

Bill  Indio, CA

Reply 0
Reply