Large Scale Central

Help needed - Layout design

Prototypes
#1

This is a tracing of a 1:24,000 USGS map with a datum of 1942. Only the main tracks remain, now. ( Click here for current trackage. ) I don’t want to reproduce this verbatim, but would like to model it so that I get the flavor… This will be only one point of a point to point to point. Limiting factor: I have about 100 feet of track that I can devote to the project. I plan to build my own turnouts. This portion of the layout will be elevated on a 3-4 ft high benchwork, a’ la Richard Smith. The maximum width will be 4-5 ft. I want to maintain the three railroad interchange. Does anyone have any ideas?

#2

That’s pretty limiting, Steve.
It would take close to 100 feet just to do two tracks at each station.
I would start at the Diamond and work out.
Ralph

#3
Ralph Berg said:
That's pretty limiting, Steve. It would take close to 100 feet just to do two tracks at each station. I would start at the Diamond and work out. Ralph
Thanks, Ralph. :)

It is not a diamond, as I described in Note #1, it is a cross-over, not a crossing. There is a vertical separation of about 30 feet where the GN goes over the WI&M.

I was thinking about starting with the current setup, and building from there(going backwards in time).

Perhaps others have better ideas.

#4
Steve Featherkile said:
Ralph Berg said:
That's pretty limiting, Steve. It would take close to 100 feet just to do two tracks at each station. I would start at the Diamond and work out. Ralph
Thanks, Ralph. :)

It is not a diamond, as I described in Note #1, it is a cross-over, not a crossing. There is a vertical separation of about 30 feet where the GN goes over the WI&M.

I was thinking about starting with the current setup, and building from there(going backwards in time).

Perhaps others have better ideas.


I saw that Steve.
I was refering to where the GN Branch and the NP join above the GN station.
Ralph

#5

Oh, you mean the wye? :smiley:

I do thank you for your ideas, that is a good place to start.

#6

Steve,

If you make a cross over you are going to need about 12 inches of clearance top of rail to bottom of ties at best. You can raise and dig at the same time making them both with a grade, but still about 8 feet to two inches and, of course, it would look better 8 ft to 1 inch. Does this work off of the track you have already showed us pictures of a while back?

#7
Steve Featherkile said:
Oh, you mean the wye? :D

I do thank you for your ideas, that is a good place to start.


Yep.
Or pick a yard to build and run some switching puzzles.
Ralph

#8

Steve,

I sent you an email. Let me know if you don’t get it.

#9
Richard Smith said:
Steve,

I sent you an email. Let me know if you don’t get it.


As of 2130 PDT, it hasn’t arrived.

#10

Steve,
Are you putting all of that on a raised platform?
For your big dismals, you’ll need 15’ dia curves, etc.
Add another zero to your proposed track footage, at least.

#11
SteveF said:
I don't want to reproduce this verbatim, but would like to model it so that I get the flavor
I do not want to reproduce everything, that would take more resources that I have. I just want the flavor of a 3 railroad interchange.

Yes, it will be on raised benchwork.

#12

I really think it would be a lot easier to do with a diamond, instead of an overpass.

#13
Ric Golding said:
I really think it would be a lot easier to do with a diamond, instead of an overpass.
It would be. To go over, you would have to rise 12 inches between the WI&M/NP interchange and the "wye".

My RR rises 12 inches over 40 feet. I wish it was 80 feet.
Ralph

#14

I like the idea of the diamond.

The overpass may just run from one side of the bench to the other. I don’t know why the GN did it that way, as that is a huge cut they had to make to bring the passenger trains through. Click here for Topo.

#15

Steve,

Give me til the morning–trying to recover from a calculus final.

I’ll see what I can do with it, considering your space and curves(and hey, I still work on paper!).

#16
Robbie Hanson said:
Steve,

Give me til the morning–trying to recover from a calculus final.

I’ll see what I can do with it, considering your space and curves(and hey, I still work on paper!).


Thanks, Robbie.

I remember when my calculus finals took me! :stuck_out_tongue:

If I work it right, I can model a bit of street running in Palouse, on the WI&M. :smiley:

#17
SF said:
The maximum width will be 4-5 ft. ...... I just want the flavor of a 3 railroad interchange.
That will be a very tall order for that type of interchange with [b]three separate stations[/b], the grade separation [b] and [/b] a Wye to connect the three.

However, doing the GN and the NP as two mainlines running parallel in linear fashion, the stations staggered and the WI&M’ interchange in between the two with their branch climbing out of the interchange, then crossing over the GN could be a possibility, but that will take a lot of linear space.

BTW the “4-5ft max width” restriction would just barely allow for R1!

#18
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
SF said:
The maximum width will be 4-5 ft. ...... I just want the flavor of a 3 railroad interchange.
. That will be a very tall order for that type of interchange with [b]three separate stations[/b], the grade separation [b] and [/b] a Wye to connect the three.
...

A tall order, indeed.
…

Quote:
. However, doing the GN and the NP as two mainlines running parallel in linear fashion, the stations staggered and the WI&M' interchange in between the two with their branch climbing out of the interchange, then crossing over the GN [b] could be a possibility[/b], but that will take a lot of linear space.
...

Think outside the box, folks. How about a Palouse Union Station?
…

Quote:
. BTW the "4-5ft max width" restriction would just barely allow for R1!
...

Unless I bent the benchwork, or straightened the curves. Remember, those tortuous curves are there because of the topography. If the land were flatter, the tracks would be straight.

#19

Whew, that was hard to do, getting all the separated quotes to show up in their boxes.

#20
Steve Featherkile said:
Whew, that was hard to do, getting all the separated quotes to show up in their boxes.
Wouldn't be hard if you paid attention to how it works when you "reply & quote".

Back to the layout design, there is a very special flavour to that proto plan, it’s spelled “Big Time Railroading” and to compress that - if just the essentials - into 4-5ft width is trying to square the circle (you could build it in N scale :lol:). OTOH if you just want a track plan with three railroads meeting in one place … well that’s a completely different story, sorry. You just have to be a bit more specific, by not doing it verbatim I understand selective compression while keeping the main elements. Main elements being: 3 stations, grade separations, yards of the three RRs in different locations. All elements that require s…p…a…c…e.

(Ducks and goes back to applying ballast on the RhB)