Large Scale Central

Need help on design?

Modeling
#1

Most of you have seen my passenger station build. I have now reached the stage of needing a base for it.The main criteria I would like to follow are: 1. An eye toward operations using both freight and baggage cars on the freight track 2. Baggage unloading on main line along with passenger handling 3. Tractor trailer and/or small truck access at freight end 4. Somewhat prototypical looks to achieve above 5. Plan to add coal and water for engine service at appropriate stopping point in direction of travel so platform has to end before that point Questions: How would you design the platform? Would you use raised platform on mainline side? Would you keep platform all at same height or use ramp areas for extensions? Use rough drawing below for ideas Note edited to include that width of freight end platform is a scale 51’

Useable area for this is on a 35’ mainline section but I don’t want all 35" used( I do have other things to add) Any other thoughts/ideas? Am I trying to get to much into the space?

#2

…Disregard… Misunderstood the question. Another “senior day” hehe!

#3

I’m assuming from my memory of the prototype, that this is not a modern-era station. In that case, the passenger platform would be at ground level - perhaps level with the rail tops. Conductors would use portable steps to allow passengers to reach the bottom train step.

On the freight side the door would be at approximate car floor height. Any small difference from car variations would be made up with the loading ramp.

Is there enough room under the roof on the freight side for a car to fit if you don’t raise the station?

#4

One thought on servicing your engines, if steam. Carlyle used to be set up with a water tank at the east end of the station area and a water spout between the mainline and the siding at the west end. Both direction could get water while at the station.

#5

This is what I did for the station at Mancos. It’s a 2" piece of blue foam painted gray with Precision Products stone veneer around the base. One end has a ramp for ground access. Granted it’s a lot smaller than what you are proposing, but it was cheap and easy.

(http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh58/rgseng/expansion/track05.jpg)

(http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh58/rgseng/Operating%20Session03/ops0013.jpg)

#6

You could do something like this:

(http://www.jbrr.com/assets/images/IMG_5537.JPG)

I know it’s really a freight house, but the lower level would be the appropriate height for the passenger side. The freight side is elevated and easily done with wood strips.

#7

David, the depot passenger platform if possible was raised above the top of the rail 6 to 9 inches. The Pennsyvannia Railroad (the world standard) documented this in their standard drawings. Other railroads did not. The Y&MVRR and ICRR here in Mississippi raised theirs in this way. The station platforms used for both passenger and freight had different level walkways around the depot. The front was the level we talked about above for the passenger trains and the back was ramped up to raise it to the level of a boxcar floor. The house track would swing around the depot and the REA boxcars would be spoted there for unloading. Some mainline roadbeds were raised up enough above the contour of the land that when the depot was built, the rear walkway was high enough above the lay of the land that no change was necessary in the walkway. Here in the Mississippi Delta, it was common to see the walkway of the depots the same level all the way around because the roadbed had to built up so much above the adjacent land.

#8

Jon, The Rico station was an early era mid-west station. I used that as a basis for the design. That being said I designed this station as a partial rebuild.
In 1905 the LS ML & E needed larger freight facilities when the area of Lake Side became a vacation destination. Maple Leaf at that time was being served by two rails and was the closest interchange point for the extra traffic that Lake Side created. This turned into an extensive rebuild of the original station with a need for some corporate offices that were also moved to Maple Leaf at the same time.The original portion of the station is still evident in recent photos because of the stone kneewall facade on the passenger end ( still to be done ).
The upgrades were compleated in 1910 after the addition of a freight siding at the rear of the station and a regrading of the mainline. Since the station sits on the grassy knoll, track work can be arranged to suit. As I plan on a poured concrete style platform and not wood I can design as a car height freight side and a track height mainline side. Or I can make both sides car height.
Freight side was designed for car access under the roof so yes there is enough room with clearance.

Ric, Good idea on the water service at both ends. Can they both be spouts or do I need at least one tank? Also what about coal and sand?

Ken, Like the photos and the idea. Cheap and easy are good things and it looks like it will give the appearance I’m looking for. Like the idea of the stone wrap.

Bruce I like that style and I’ll keep it for the smaller Lake Side station, as that one will not be this large.

Ron, Hello nice to meet you :wink: As explained above by building on the grassy knoll I can set the level either way, but I do like your in depth explanation of the reasoning in the area as it allows me some leeway in justification.

In the drawing I also added two extensions to the platform should they stay or go and if I use differant levels where do the ramped areas look to go.

The choice between concrete and foam is just portability. When finished I will have lamps on the platform. If it’s made of foam I can move the base also and store when not in use. If concrete the lamps will be exposed to whatever if the station is removed so I will leave it all in place and build a cover box.

Thanks again for the ideas and keep them coming .I’m learning as we go.

#9
David Marconi said:
Ken, Like the photos and the idea. Cheap and easy are good things
What are you guys talking about again? :)
#10

Don’t worry Rooster we’re not trying to steal Mums