Interesting track plan, Tupper Lake & Faust Junction

Over the past few months I've been going back thru numerous articles I have saved over the years looking for examples I might consider for my new plan. Just a few days ago I ran across this one, and could find very little references to it on the internet. There were some 'archived references' to it on the track plan index of Model Railroader, but when I clicked on there nothing came up,...it sent me back to the home of the index.

I find this track plan VERY interesting, particularly when you consider the versatility contained in a 10 x 13 plan (with an extra little 'helix like' addition bump external to the main layout) .

description by the designer, Leonard Blumenschine

The layout has two 'terminal locations', Tupper Lake and Faust Junction. Start from either terminal, follow the main line (ignoring the crossover at Big Wolf for the moment), and when you end up at the other terminal you'll find yourself putting your loco on a common turntable that links both terminals,...even though the terminals are distinct from each other in character and function, and are located more than 2 scale miles apart.

At first the road was planned purely point-to-point, about 140 feet of folded and twisted main line. It was only when I was laying the sawmill siding at Big Wolf that I discovered that the addition of one simple crossover would provide for continuous lap running as well. Whether a train makes one lap, or repeatedly uses the 'accidental crossover', it is always headed for the other end of the line, and it never has to pass directly through its destination or origination point along the way while building up mileage.

The accidental crossover creates a sort of dogbone pattern wrapped around the space and folded upon itself. In all, one lap is about 90 feet long....a scale mile and a half. If you continue to take the accidental crossover you could make quite a long trip out of it.

The common turntable idea absorbed the dictates and helped shape the design. By keeping the terminals necessarily close together it created an interesting looking island and walking space for operating purposes. By eliminating the need for two turning facilities (either a second turntable, or a space eating wye), it simplified and compacted the whole design, but left maximum of space for the mainline.

I liked this one too,

when I first saw it in way back MR .  Excellent for watching your trains run, and a great switching district in Tupper Lake.  The only negative I see is the "inside" operators area requiring a  duck-under.  A lift-out section may be devised in the "accidental crossover" side for ease of access. 

This was an interesting

This was an interesting theme. One terminal actually models 2 locations, both ends of the line. It was also done on some other plans as well. I believe the inspiration was what they called the golf links principal. According to what I read the game of golf would have multiple fairways lined out between a smaller number of greens so that the greens would be used for multiple holes instead of individually like is common today.

In many ways there are lots of clever tricks used to put a long mainline into a smaller space. Ways to eliminate some terminal facilities, folded dog bones, twice around and others to get more train layout into a given space.

One of the interesting things about these tricks like multiple decks is how they cut down on the walking involved to see your train, even if you choose not to jog along with it. In some cases we can actually sit down and watch the train orbit the layout when we are in the mood to do that.

There are some very interesting things to be learned from those that did this in the old days.

Nice plan

Nice plan Brian. If I could offer a couple of suggestions for your consideration, both at Faust Junction:

1) Curve the yard track closest to the aisle so it runs off the edge of the layout, acting as an interchange point with the rest of the world.

2) On the engine service track closest to the aisle, disconnect it from the turntable so it acts purely as a yard lead instead.  As it stands, there’s no way to work the yard without interfering with engine service operations. 

Looking forward to watching your progress. 

Interesting Critiques

Seems as though I get a lot more replies/observations/critiques on this other forum.

http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/265819.aspx

Perhaps there is more interest in layout design over there?  ,,,or waning interest here??

Changes

While all those suggestions are valid they basically completely redesign the trackplan so it is no longer the TL&FJ.

Its an older "spaghetti bowl" type design.  It would be more or less "wedding cake" scenery with trains running on "benches' with near vertical scenery between tracks.

It has no staging, no interchange, two small terminals, two sidings between them and only two industries outside the terminals.   It does require a duck under, a lift out or swing gate would be tough with all the levels.  It does have longer runs between sidings.  The left aisle is only about 30" so it will snug but workable for two people.

Having said all that I have always found it an interesting design.

Old School

I agree with Dave, this looks like the old school "spaghetti bowl" design, very unrealistic.

I never liked those kinds of track plans. Too much track not enough room for scenery and structures.

I like the single or double track mainlines, snaking through scenery going from one point to the next, to the next.

Mine is a single track main line that goes from one end to the other and passed through 8 station stops and 8 separate industries.

So what...

if it is "old school."  If one likes running trains that way, it is their fun.  Every layout does not need staging.  There are different operating concepts that can be enjoyed.  Maybe this plan would be for someone who loves building structures and detailing more than"operating" in todays fashion.   Unrealistic?  I won't judge what of how somebody enjoys their hobby.

Double Track Mainlines

.....Just this morning I added this postings to a 'scenery discussion',...but it also has relevance to the subject of double-track mainlines I want to bring up in relation to the layout plan under discussion in this subject thread,...

Scenery...mostly "pros", few "cons"

A few days ago I had occasions to visit a layout up in Jacksonville built by a retired CSX fellow. Just prior to entered the room he told us of his basic idea during the planning.

        He liked to run trains, and build and display freight cars/rolling stock. For that reason his layout primarily consisted of a double-track mainline all around the layout where longer trains could pass or run along one another, and a fair bit of yards and sidings where his rolling stock could be displayed on the tracks. His scenic efforts were 'delayed', but he was placing structures all around in anticipation of the ' scenic eventualities', that may come, or get furthered delayed while he had fun with running trains and weathering locos and rolling stock.

...long narrow room...

Can you believe this room is only about 10 foot wide? (9'10" to be exact)

Double deck?

I saw this and immediately wondered if the Accidental Cutoff Junction could enter a helix up to the Aidirondack siding, across the door at duck under height, across to Doebury and enter another helix going back down to behind the roundhouse. This would open up the scenic possibilities and allow room for more structures if you prefer.

I know your interest in waterfront scenes so would have some fun with Tuper Lake built on a peninsula with a lot of track on piers and docks. 

The entry to the room now would only have the two track lift out or gate but operating by yourself should t be a problem with that. 

Staging

There is a great misconception that staging is for just “prototypical” operation.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Staging is just as important for just running trains.  If you want to run trains having several queued up to run is a good thing.  Otherwise you have run a train, stop, take the cars off the layout, put a new train on the tracks, stop, take the train off the tracks, put a new train on the tracks, etc.  Having staging allows multiple trains to be “pre-loaded” run in succession without any handling of the equipment. 

Thats why I suggest staging for people who just want to run “trains”.  If you want to run “train” don’t add staging.  If you want to run “trains”, add staging. 

Yes Neil, I want to

Yes Neil, I want to investigate how a second level could be added to this plan.

One thing I noticed almost immediately is that the triple level tracks on that end of the layout (right hand side of your posted photo,....where I would have an entrance) could be reduced down to 2 levels by simply altering that loop of track behind 'Glory Home' that goes under a leg of the mainline, then out from under it a short distance away. I suppose this was originally done to add elevation variation and 2 more bridges. 

Staging Access

Yes Dave, I want staging VERY much.
I'm thinking down under that center peninsula,...just have to figure out how to access it considering the number and location of those loops in the 'helix-like' structure of the original plan.

In addition how do we reach that upper level that is being suggested (and I also like),...going to be a challenge....ha...ha

Staging & Double deck

Since you are not shy of building a helix I can see how the branch to Tuper Lake could have a cut off from Accidental Junction (may even a dummy crossover in front of the sawmill to look like another railroad) and down to staging below the town on the peninsula. You seem ok with a shallow deck so that could work. By using a transfer table below a number of switches would be eliminated and allow for storing some long trains. 

Someone with talent using Scarm might be able to do a mock up quickly for you. Train Design on my iPad seems promising but I haven’t done much with it. Maybe this is the example to try. 

Concept

If you are going to change it enough to make it double deck, I would almost suggest looking for a different plan.

The novelty of the plan is that the two terminals share the same turntable.  If you make it multi level then you either lose that novelty (putting each terminal on a different level) or you need essentially two helices, one from Tupper lake to the upper level and one from the upper level down to Faust Jct.

If you make it two levels, with one terminal on each level, you really don't need to go down to staging, per se.  You can just put staging on the same level as the lower terminal but under the upper terminal.

The original essentially makes 3 laps of the room.  To preserve that you would probably need to put one loop on the lower level with the staging and twice around on the upper level.  Because of the peninsula, you will need to "reverse orientation" in the helix.  For example if its a N-S railroad and north is clockwise on the lower level then north has to be counter clockwise on the upper level, lest you have to walk around the peninsula while your train is in the helix.

If you make it multi-level then the aisle width becomes more important.  Do a lot of mock ups with various height and depth benchwork to see if you like the view and access.  I would suggest buying one of those shelving systems with the slotted channel that goes against the wall and has the stamped metal shelf brackets.  Buy a couple shelves and put a cardboard fascia on them then set the shelves at various heights with some cars and buildings on the shelves to check view and access.  Put a ladder or a stack of boxes across from the shelves at the aisle width so you limit how far you can back up.  In one afternoon you can determine if two levels works for you and what heights you like.  A couple brackets and shelves will be les than $30, but a wise investment if it helps you decide.  In the past I have suggested that when people are done with the test they can return the undamaged brackets and shelves to get their money back, but I was told that was unethical and no longer suggest it.

Layout design interest

Hi Brian - I don't mean this to sound critical, as we all get busy with the important stuff and get pulled away, but I've found that threads here generate more discussion when the original poster remains engaged, as you've seen here this morning after you started replying.  This not only bumps the thread back to the top of the discussion list, but lets posters know that they've been "heard".  From your initial posts until this morning was over two days since you replied here, so the thread dropped quite a ways down the "Recent Posts" list.  Personally, I thought you might have just lost interest and moved on to something else. 

My experience has been that layout design topics can be some of the most lively and interactive here.  I recall some in the past that went on for weeks or even months.  However, starting from a published plan can sometimes mute that a bit, it seems, just because it can limit the group's collective creativity unless you're willing to make changes to the plan and submit revisions for further discussion.

As for the layout plan, I guess I wasn't clear on just how much honesty you wanted.   From your initial comment that you "find this track plan VERY interesting, particularly when you consider the versatility contained in a 10 x 13 plan", I assumed that you were already pretty much sold on it, so I limited my comments to just minor tweaks that would hopefully make it more enjoyable for you and address what I consider to be its most serious flaws.  If we were to remove that assumption and open this up to more discussion, I'd agree with what some others have said about the spaghetti bowl design.  That wouldn't be for me, but if it's something you'd enjoy, that's all that matters in a hobby.

As for staging, I think it just depends on how you want to operate.  To me, this appeared to be the type of plan that was intended for single train operation, or perhaps one freight and one passenger.  Passenger cars could just ping-pong back and forth between the two end points, while freight cars could enter and leave the layout at the interchange point I suggested previously.  No need for staging then, as your interchange would serve that purpose of giving you connections to the outside world.

Obviously, if you're wanting to run more trains, then staging would be called for, as Dave noted.  To me, though, this just didn't look like the type of layout you'd build if your goal was to run a lot of trains.

Staging Access & Configuration

I trying to visualize what you are saying here.

1) Are you saying some sort of loop of track from the accidental junction, back towards the helix area, and diving under the main deck level to arrive at staging under the peninsula?

2) What do you mean by a "transfer table" to eliminate switches? Are you talking about a long rectangular plate of 6-8 tracks with staged trains on them, that could slide athwartships to line up with a single servicing track??

Double Deck and rail elevations

Neil, could you re-explain this in a little different manner,... I don't quite understand?

On another subject, I've been looking over the stock dwg, and it has raised some new questions as to some of the elevations of the rails at certain locations,...and why?

description by the designer,

I too have built a layout based on one of his designs.......I contacted MR to see if they could contact him but they said they didn't know how.

The layout I built is based on the "Wawbeek & Sunmount Ry."

I modified the design for larger equipment and cars and wanted to send him a few photo's of it.

The guy made quite a few layout designs, the one I really wanted to build but did not have the space for at the time was the "Moth Lake & Mount Ahab RR."

Track plan

I have to go to work but will try to play with a track plan later. You are exactly right about the track diverging to a helix going down to below the town. A transfer table was just a thought. The idea of switches in an area that has little room for acces or maintenance never appealed to me. “Ask me how I know.”

Double deck version

I also mirrored the plan to match your space better. Main Level:

Upper Level:

THANKS !

Many thanks Neil. I will make a hard copy of that and study it.

i also 'marked up' a copy of that original plan with some of my alterations, but its 'too busy' to post in that form. So I need to do a little sketch like yours and compare our notes.

Then perhaps a scale dwg by hand, .....although I may have another fellow in the wings that would convert it into a computer drawn version.

Double Track Mainlines

I am of a similar inkling as the CSX guy I just referenced. I like to run trains, and I like to see them passing one another in close quarters, either going in the same direction, or opposite directions. For that we need 'double tracks', or long sidings, or BOTH.

I'd like to see if I can get both, long sidings & dbl track,...which this layout does. I can well imagine one train leading the other at such a distance that it has gone around a loop of the helix area and is returning on one mainline while the following train is still on its way to the loop,....they pass in opposite directions on the 2 mainlines.

Want to complicate it a bit more, ....a third train could be waiting on one of those long sidings.

I can appreciate the criticism about the total number of tracks on a very narrow portion of the shelf, and the terracing of those tracks, and the lack of space for scenic elements. I offer in response,...
1) I believe I know how to eliminate one of those tracks on the narrow side of the layout.

2) I believe I know how to lessen the terracing effect there, and in fact hope to do so as I look forward to the 'passing effect' I spoke of before.

3) My shed will allow for a 11 foot wide layout verses the 10 foot wide original's plan, so I might add extra width to either shelf on each side.

4) There are many modular layouts, that we all see at train shows, that accomplish a lot of scenery in a relatively narrow space, (and most with double track mainlines). So I figure with at least an 18” shelf on that side, there are a number of 'structures/scenes' that might be added to original plan/idea.