Conjunction Junction, Why All The Destruction??!?

     I just couldn't resist poking fun at my favorite Schoolhouse Rock song! (my appologies to those of the young'ins out there who don't get the reference, your loss!) 

     So, by nature of the above photo that looks like I dropped a handfull of flex track on the layout and then walked away (and most of the time, you'd be right, I did!), lest it be thought that I actually went  downstairs to WORK on the layout his weekend (gasp!), while I was on a non-layout related "mission" to the dark, dank recesses of the basement for water leakage (my hot water heater has reached the end of it's service life by doing a slow leak across the floor, and no Ted DiIoio, I'm NOT into trying to recreate NY Harbor in scale down there!), I came to the back end of the layout wherethe layout starts or ends (depending on how you look at it), and started thinking (and that's NEVER a good thing).......

 

Layout to the left of me, Staging to the right......(further appologies to AC/DC) 

!!!Photo needs to be reloaded!!!

 

 

The art of stuffing 5 lbs. of trains (from Staging) into a 1 lb. bag (the Main Line)

     As seen in the above photos, the lower tracks (and the ones we're focusing on in this blog entry)represent the LVRR Main Line between Oak Island Yard and the float yard at Washington St., while the elevated tracks represent the National Docks Branch. Now, it's not terribly obvious in these photos, but this is the pinch point to the flow of traffic which  prevents trains from simulatenously leaving and entering the layout, as four Main Line tracks go from two to one, and then four as they enter staging, all in the span of four feet. This prevents Yardmasters at each end from simultaneously moving trains back and forth as expeditiously as possible. That has yet to case a problem in any of the ops sessions we've had, but it always bugged me (so thus, why did I build it like that to begin with? We may never know....). Since the layout is, for now, dispatched sequentially, this means a train that went eastbound has to return westbound again before another eastbound can depart, the biggest reason being to avoid any "cornfield meets" on the single track section. I've thought about trying to fix this "issue" over the last year or two while the layout has been embargoed, so I FINALLY decided to do something about it! -

 

Umm, I'm pretty sure this'll work, but I think something is missing!

     I'm PRETTY sure I have just enough room to re-align the tracks at the staging yard throat and to swing the CNJ single track Henderson St. Branch across a newly double-tracked LVRR Main Line WITHOUT having to move the elevated NDB or widen the benchwork (since I started writing this, this is 95 percent assured). Once complete, this will allow me to operate a more fluid traffic pattern on and off the layout, and hopefully measurably improve the ops scheme, allowing the yard to operate more fluidly in the process. Now, one "eastbound" main will serve two staging tacks, and the "westbound" main will serve two. The only positive attribute to the old staging yard throat being served by one track was that all four tracks were equqally acessible, but splitting the yard two by two is OK, as the planned train fequency will not overwhelm the East and West staging and their ability to move traffic. Train lengths are fixed at 15 cars with caboose and two switchers, and the staging tracks are long enough to fit without fouling the parallel track, and even if they do, having the two dedicated mains now allows them to act as temporary yard leads while the cars are fiddled off the layout without fouling the other mainline track, should they need to that is.

!!!Photo needs to be reloaded!!!

     As you can probably tell above, the original crossing (bottom) is a code 83 Shinohara 30 degree crossing, so I dove into my "track bits" box and unfortuantely, nothing fit, using the 'ol Mk.1 Eyeball test. But what I DID have was an otherwise far from fine scale Atlas Code 83 18 degree crossing, and it looks like it is the perfect angle to fit. I haven't gone to the Walthers catologue yet to see if they make a similar degree crossing, but I may just stick with the Atlas one (yes, I'm, cheap, damnit!), because I know it'll fit (well, I'm PRETTY SURE it will!).

     Now as we move onto the layout and get closer to the float yard at Washington St., we run into the point where the runner track (which is also one leg of the Jersey Ave. Wye AND provides access to Grand St. Yard), we run into the backdrop that spearates these two switching areas, preventing crews from seeing (and following) their train.......

 

Although this view from the other side of the backdrop than the area we're discussing, the "hole on the wall" separates East from West on the layout, and will be "softened" by the NJ Turnpike Bridges that crossed the RR at this spot, two lanes on each side.

 

A vintage property map, with the routes involved highlighted in Red (CNJ) and Blue and Yellow (LV), and the approximate backdrop location (Black)

     The plan here is for Eastbound trains to be "announced" to the Washington St. Yardmaster as being "on their bell" by the Communipaw Block Operator's position  (not ever a real place on the railroad, but a neccessary evil, for now at least, to control traffic thru the backdrop), and will be staffed by the Grand St. Yard Yardmaster, since he stands in that corner as it is, and everything goes past him. Likewise, Westbounds will be handed over to him here to head into staging. He's in eyesight of the Oak Island/East Claremont staging Yardmaster, and (by way of handheld radio) in touch with the Washington St. Yardmaster, so verbal authority will be used to clear trains through the block limits. Movements in and out of Grand St. Yard also will be controlled by this block station.

     Eventually, I'd like to install track detection (and maybe annuciator bells?), and while I'd love, Love, LOVE to have semaphores (unprotoypical,  there were never signals here - to the best of my knowledge, that is - as it was all operated under yard limits), I'll settle instead for a much more visible and understandable - and visible - kind of solution. I'm envisioning is a sort of  "cab signal" mounted at viewing height in the valance for each track, showing track occupancy, one for each track on each side of the backdrop and hooked up to said IR or photocell occupancy detectors to trip the cab signal lights, though that kind of "electronic wizzardry" is beyond me. Luckily for me, I know people who know how to install this kind of s**t!

     So that's that, for now at least......Let's see if I can put it back together as fast as I tore it appart (luckily for me, I had never gotten around to soldering in the feeder wires to the track here!), and I'll eventually report back here with the finished product....Just don't hold your breath or anything!

Ralph

Spring Awakening

     So, fresh on the heels of last weeks post, I did receive some nice and well thought out responses not only from a friend, but better yet, two readers of this blog that until now, I have not had the pleasure of making their acquaintance. That's a big win, as a fresh, unbiased view of my layout and my "situation" is always helpful, AND, it's nice to know that my mile-long post wasn't completely ignored!

     So, instead of responding to them in the comments section and risking being "lost in the pile" with everything else, I thought I'd dedicate this post first and foremost to thanking them for taking the time to share their thoughts with me, but obviously also to take a moment to respond to their comments. Let's begin, shall we?

First up, we have Rhett, and he commented -

     "Personally, I'd be building toward the new theme. Simplification without having to give up the essentials is a huge WIN. Why bite off more if it's just more and not tangibly better?"

     Rhett, you are 100% right, and that there lies the problem. There's no reason NOT to make the change, but there is the nagging thought of "Have I really given the layout a chance to prove (or disprove) itself?" And not just for my own fulfillment mind you, but also to my crews (both regulars and guests), as well.

     As I mentioned, I have not had a problem attracting return operators (yet), and the biggest win was the honor of hosting a ProRail session in 2013 for many esteemed out-of-town model railroaders who traveled MANY miles and were to be guaranteed a good time, OR ELSE! I wasn't told that I failed to "entertain", so I guess that's a good thing, yes? Especially considering that some of my guests were those who themselves own terminal-themed layouts (and well known ones at that, but I won't drop names, thank you very much), that I personally hold in high esteem, and they gave all appearances that they enjoyed their time operating the layout. In other words, I had my layout on the line, and all signs point that it "passed the audition".

     So I guess that is the long way of saying I'm not sure I want to call it quits on the waterfront just yet. Let's give it one more go.....MAYBE!

     Oh, and please take a moment to visit Rhett's blog "R.C. and a MoonPie Railroad" at - http://rcandamoonpie.blogspot.com/, and see what he's been up to....I know I'll be spending some time visiting!

Next up, a friend of mine Joe Zyla responded, and had this thought to share with me -

     "I have to agree, simpler is better, especially when there are other forces pulling your time and resources. The satisfaction of building a layout towards completion is gratifying. The draw of complex operations and busier railroads? You have that through the operating sessions you participate in with the other layouts you visit."

     And once again, Joe is spot on. I am very lucky to live in a region of the US (and New Jersey specifically) where there are approximately eight layouts that I can operate on regularly if I so choose, all prototype-themed, and run the gamut from sleepy single track steam operations to large, heavy main line TT/TO ops (both steam and diesel), to terminal operations. So why have a layout at all, LOL!?!? For many years I didn't, and it begs the question, 'what will I be achieving that will be different from what everybody else is doing?"

     Well, for starters, the theme for the LV's West End Branch is semi-urban in theme - Not a large yard operation with a high car turnover rate like the NY Harbor Terminal currently in "operation", but still busy, and still with lots of switching. So other than a lot of track all over the place (and some actual scenery, and by that I mean grass and trees), it's not so far removed from a short line or branch operation-themed layout like my friend Ted DiIorio's Ma&Pa layout - http://maparr1943.blogspot.com/. Is it a bad thing that it would be a lot in concept like Ted's layout? Absolutely not, and I don't mean to make it sound like I have to change the layout be so radically different and unique so as to stand out from the herd. In fact, the only other layout in the immediate area (that I know of at least) that is a terminal switching operation with a NY Harbor theme is my pal Dave Ramos' NY Harbor RR - http://www.nyhrr.com/ - so it's not like I am floating in a sea of these kinds of layouts. But neither do I want to "trade up" for no good reason other than to do it, and then regret doing so. And with that, see my reply to Rhett's comment....

     With all this talk, I really need to post my PowerPoint presentation I gave a year ago this month about the pros and cons of modeling one piece of the LV for the other, so you guys can see all the supporting data I keep referring to. Next blog post, I promise!

And finally, we have David Keith sharing his take on the situation with me -

     "When I'm not working on a significant project, my mind wonders. The wondering keeps me from working on a real project. It seems like you've let your fire go out. There is only one way to get the fire going again, stoke it! That is to work at it repeatedly. So if you want to be "Lehigh Valley Harbor Terminal Railway", then start repeatedly doing something towards it. If you’re "DONE", then pick what's next and start stoking. The in-between place is not good...I can tell you. The people I know with great layouts repeatedly work at keeping the fire."

     So, am I getting boring by saying I agree with David, too, at least to a certain point, that is? More specifically, I get what you are saying, David.

    I only have to look at two of my friends in particular, even though they are separated by WHY they are driven to work on their layouts. Again, without naming names, the outcome is the same - they stay "involved" for lack of a better term, with their layouts and it shows. It doesn't matter WHAT drives them, it's that they stay driven. The important part of that is two fold - First, your operators (and guests, especially if they visit semi-regularly) want to see what you've been up to! It's just human nature, and the thing that draws most of us to the hobby in the first place. That, and your operators will (or at least SHOULD) care that you've been "workin' on the railroad"! If things need fixing, you SHOULD be fixing them! And that leads to the other part, OPERATION. You can't operate reliably if the layout needs fixing, and that is the #1 fastest way to anger your crew, and then you WILL have the problem of attracting crews. In my book, you shouldn't just work on the layout because you want to be noticed - there should ALWAYS be a goal, no matter how big or small. I have always believed that if you WANT to make the time for something, you WILL make the time (within reason, of course). My problem is that I have always been a procrastinator (it'll still be there later!), and sometimes, what happens is it's ISN'T still there when you decide that enough is enough. I can't change my stripes, but you ARE right David, if I really want to stoke the fire, I damn well should do it!

     My problem is that I enjoy planning (and collecting) data on things, sometimes on multiple things (currently doing so for both layout projects), and while that can cause "paralysis by analysis", I don't think that applies here. In fact, it's the opposite, or at least I think so. I am gathering some much data for a REALLY GOOD version (or so I think so!) for the West End Branch (data that I have never been able to collect for the layout I currently have), so much so that it makes me constantly think about wanting to do the "big switch" more often than not. Is that bordom speaking, regret, or a shift in modeling priorities? And then we go back to my response to Joe.......Oh, the humanity!

     And as with Rhett, David shared his blog with us at  - http://sn2modeler.com/ - I'm looking forward to seeing some more S Scale modeling!

     So, I guess that's about it for now, and hopefully not only have I addressed everyone's comments, but also generated some good counter discussion in the process. Time will tell if I'll receive some more responses, and I'll follow up much like I did with these in a future blog post. In the meantime, there have been some similar responses on my new Facebook group page at - https://www.facebook.com/groups/LVRR1951/ - Which I need to attend to as well, so if you're a Facebook'er, please join in the discussion!

Green signals ahead,

Ralph

    

Model Railroading Is Fun?

Well, that's what they keep telling me, at least. It's been almost two years since I have had an op session, and sometimes,  I wonder if the layout will ever run again in its current incarnation. No, this is not a pitty party, but rather an honest assessment of my personal interest in the piece of the LVRR that I have chosen to model, my financial situation (both current and expected), and my modeling priorities. Now before we go ANY further, I feel obligated to put forth a word of warning..... Due to not having blogged in a while, this is gonna be a long one, but I think it'll be worth sticking around to read, IMNSHO........

So let's get started......Now I want it be so noted that I have PLENTY of friends willing to pitch in and help work (and operate) the layout, so it's not like I am left all alone to tackle the whole thing on my own, and besides, they CONSTANTLY ask when the next work session is, and/or what I'm planning on getting done so that they CAN come over and operate. So, lack of interest by my "crew" is NOT the issue, but rather where my priorities at home (or more importantly, in the basement) are. I've been to plenty of op sessions, I've been to RPM meets, and I've also been playing out a LOT with my band, which honestly, takes up a good deal of my time, effort, and finances. There's that damn "F" word again......

I love model railroading, and always will - And it's not like I don't go down to the basement and turn it on every once in a while to roll some cars around and also plan operational "stuff" in my spare time (ie: at work) and check out eBay for the latest LVRR items (models, but mostly prototype stuff for future reference). I am also firmly commited to modeling the LVRR, and to modeling it in HO scale in the timeframe of 1950 to 1960 (but as close to 1951 as possible), and a layout designed/themed to be industrial/semi industrial in nature, with lots of switching (no mainline running). The change in any of those "given and druthers" would be a cost I'm not willing and/or able to finance, and besides, it's what I like most about model railroading, so none of that is a reason for my "modeling malaise". Let me explain a little further if I may......

What I am stuggling with is, is what Lance Mindheim has spoken about on why layouts can/might fail, on his blog at http://lancemindheim.com/ in a post about the "Three-Headed Monster" on his blog........Now, as Lance describes the "monster", what I am really doing battle with is only one of those three heads he describes, that being the "too complex of a design" head. Now, it's not that the layout plan doesn't work, or so my guys have told me. I DO have a very, for lack of a better term, involved ops plan AND involved track plan, due to the fact that this is a terminal switching layout with carfloats, yards, sub yards, multiple freight houses, a wye, multiple diamond crossings, etc, etc. If you aren't familiar with the "lay of the land" (and I don't blame you if you aren't), you can see a crude "line diagram" of a track plan I drew up in this image link - https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=10203935336368696&set=gm.661810710608539&type=1&theater (Blogspot was giving me problems posting this within the blog directly, so hopefully this link works)

It's enough layout (20x11 ft, give or take) to keep at least ten guys busy, and as I said above, finding them is, or at least so far, has not been an issue. The issue I keep running into is that this layout, to me at least, that it became too much to easily set up, and to enjoy by operating by myself WITHOUT a full crew to run it. Notice I did not say not too much to maintain, but rather to set up for an op session. I consider myself a rather seasoned model railroader, so I've encountered many solutions to setting up operations, and I also like to read A LOT, so I have all those good operations magazines and books (Model Railroader's MRP annual, OpSIG The Dispatchers Office, LDSIG LDJ, etc)  to draw upon for ideas. With that being said however, part of me hankers for something a little simpler (though no less realistic and involved operationally), much like what Trevor Marshall talks about over on his Port Rowan blog at - http://themodelrailwayshow.com/cn1950s. Trevor's simple, smart and very realistic layout has given me a lot to think about, and if I was just starting out, I'd go that route. Ah, that old hindsight being 20/20 conundrum......

Now, my friend Dave Ramos (http://www.nyhrr.com/) who has a very similar layout (both in size and theme) has encountered similar ops setup problems, in that the nature of our layouts (industrial switching fed by active staging) sucks up a LOT of cars, and the paperwork that goes along with them. Now, while Dave has been successfully operating for at least five years now, he still has these issues, regardless of how finely tuned his ops plan is, and continues to be tweaked where needed, simply because of the intensity of the operation. It's not a huge layout (it fills the perimeter and center of a roughly 20x22 basement, taking in consideration for bathroom and utility room walls), and the goal, much like mine, is to simulate a busy operation, which it does very well. I feel that Dave's ops plan that he has researched and put into place works great, and I aim to emulate what he's learned works (and what doesn't!), so when I DO get back up and running, I'll have a solid base to work from. Now, Dave's (and mine) layout designs are not for everyone mind you (you don't watch trains run thru "pretty scenery" and all you pretty much do is switch cars. A LOT!), though most people who have guest operated Dave's layout walk away having had a LOT of fun (and even want to come back for seconds, too!), and he also has no problem attracting a regular crew of about fifteen guys jsut about every month. So that being said, I have his help AND experience to draw upon, but..........

The other issue I have, and this is one that is mine and mine alone, is how to explain to my crews (both regular, but more importantly, the guests), on how I want the layout to be operated. Initially, my instructions were TOO much and TOO wordy, so I "de-information overloaded" all those instructions, and while it helped, it still isn't quite the way I envisioned it to be, because in my mind, if I didn't provide all those detailed instructions, the guys wouldn't, and thus didn't know what was required of them to operate the layout the way I envisioned it being operated. Now, I understand that the way the prototype did things is NOT always easily scaled down, and that the "model railroad way" is sometimes the better, or at least easier, solution to acomplishing a job. And I also realize that my guys are smart enough (OK, MOST of them are, LOL) to figure out what needs doing. As long as car #1 goes from Point A to Point B before it goes to Point C, we're on the right track, so to speak.
So now that I've talked about the "why's", what is my solution? Well, that's where things get interesting....

Long story short, I encountered a internet forum thread on an other part of the LVRR, full of pictures and experiences (from both local railfans and former railroaders perspectives) that provided me a full-on database of reference material to draw from for modeling the  LVRR's West End Branch in Allentown, Pennsylvania. On top of that, a well writeen and researched capule history written by David Latshaw in the Lehigh County Historical Society's yearly proceedings, I now had everything I needed to know about this part of the LVRR. It's "design" has EVERYTHING I want in a layout - industrial switching, a simple track plan, urban and (at least in 1951) rural settings, and best of all, I could run it by myself without a crew, or operate it with up to at least five other people. I could reuse almost everything I have now - layout table footprint, engines and rollingstock, track, and in the end, less of all of those things that I need now! I mean, in just my main float yard alone, which measures approximately 12 feet long by 2 feet wide, there are approximately over 56 turnouts, and that's not even taking into consideration the rest of the layout! A finished (albeit still selectively compressed) West End Branch layout would contain roughly only the same amound of turnouts for the entire layout, and that to me is a VERY attractive proposition, considering I can reuse many of them, while at the same time eliminating three way and double slip turnouts currently being used in places. I can also get some nice scenery in (I have to admit, it is something I miss about modeling downtown Jersey City), and still have every kind of train operation that I have now (sans carfloating, obviously), so what am I really losing in the end? And I even did a full "compare and contrast" analysis of it for the last Valley Forge Pennsylvania RPM meet, which I will work on getting posted here ASAP, following this blog entry, for your viewing pleasure. So in the end, to redo, or NOT to redo, THAT is the question......

What has always kept me from making the change was time, money, and as I have told my friends who have helped me build the layout thus far, is that I feel I would be dismissing all their hard work that they selflessly put in to get me here. Now, they tell me to do what will make me happy, and that they don't, or won't, feel "slighted" in the least, so I guess I have to decide that on my own. Oh, that and that I myself sometimes feel that I haven't given the layout it's "due", so to speak. Am I wrong? I dunno, but I think it does speak volumes that I can't make up my mind what I want to do! The "fear" of starting over is not an issue, though I AM concerned that my lack of "work ethic" will put operating behind that much more......So, why NOT stick with what I have and just refine it? Oh, the possibilities.....

So that's where I stand with things. I know I can read magazine articles on layout designs and personal blogs for ideas until the cows come home, but in the end, it's my decision alone to make, and all the suggestions in the world don't mean diddly. So why can't I make one?

I hope to hear everyone's thoughts, weather you're just kidding around (you know who you are!) or 100% serious.

As always, thanks for reading, and I hope you're still awake,

Ralph, aka "The Commodore"

**UPDATE - Since I began writing this almost a week ago, I recently found that the hot water heater in the basement is on it's way out, NOT to mention, the water meter needs replacing (as per the water company), so room must be made (and that means stuff piled ON and AROUND the layout) to allow things to be manhandled around the basement, so even if I wanted to, nothing will be happeneing until that "project" is completed, most likely at the end of March. I have however talked to Dave about working on setting up the layouts car forwarding database, so at least that work will get done (assuming I stick with the current "theme"), and at least we'll be ahead of things in that regard.

Embargoed for 1 Year, 31 days.............

        I know, I know, you probably left me for dead by now, or the layout ripped up, or some other calamity. Fortunately (unfortunately?) nothing of the sort has happened. Honestly, it was another round of general "model railroad malaise", coupled with my band taking off and gigging non-stop like crazy! And yes, while time can ALWAYS be made, I let the music take over and trains got pushed aside.

It's not to say that I haven't forgotten COMPLETELY about trains, I've bought some new equipment......

Gotta love those Bowser PRR covered hoppers!

My continuing effort to purchase cars lettered for New Jersey-based industries

A lucky train show find (the reefer, not the flat!)

And a "good buy" off eBay of a new Bowser LokSound-equipped Baldwin. I took off the CP shell and slapped it down on my custom painted Athearn S-12 shell (incorrect model, but I like the paint job), and the LokSound chip beats the s**t out of my Tsunami VO-1000, also from Bowser, so I'm keeping it!

I've also attended many an op session..............

Perry Squier's PS&N

 Jerry Dziedzic's NYS&W

 Dave Ramos' NYHRR

...and Steve Salotti's NYS&W (with four familiar "characters" from this very blog along with me)

Also, the "every other year" Valley Forge, PA RPM meet was attended, where I spoke about the possibility of a new layout (more on that in a minute), and the return of my pal "Scary" Ted DiIorio's presentation on his Ma & Pa layout (http://maparr1943.blogspot.com/), where we promised  we wouldn't heckle him (much).....

       So, about that "new layout" thingy.......Not long after the last op session in June 2013, I began thinking, "is this too much layout for me?" This is my first real layout, and maybe I did bite off a lot, but I did so out of love for the prototype, and the desire to do it justice. It wasn't necessarily because I had to "have it all", but I had the "problem", as most prototype modelers do, of knowing the real thing TOO well. I did a lot of research before I built, so I went in knowing what needed to be built (of course compromises were made). The layout, for those of you familir with it, isn't horribly big, but rather the operations scheme is complex. And that, quite frankly, is the "too much" part of it. So since procrastination is my friend (and I don't have the money or desire to start from scratch), I thought about what else I could do, while keeping equipemrnt and benchwork (relatively) intact, and make the operations plan more manageable. Enter a thread on the Lehigh Valley's Allentown, PA branchlines, along with an research article on the entire history of one branch in particular, the West End Branch. Having recently been inspired by the modeling work of Tom Johnson's L&IN............

 Visit http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/8934 for more info and pics

       I really wished for some "pretty" scenery, while keeping an industrial switching nature, and obviously, the LV as a prototype. Modeling this branch would give me that. As you can see in the following two images, the branch had a lot of industry, and that I can keep the existing benchwork, while also minimalizing it at the same time - 

       I did a presentation on the pros and cons of this at the aforementioned RPM meet, and the consensus at the end was keep it. But, that was at the end of March, and it's one day till June now. That's a lot of "model railroad" time to think and rethink. Bottom line is, I keep "hemming and hawing" on what to do. I need to decide, and soon, it's getting ridiculous, quite frankly! Since I could keeping going into detail about the pros and cons, I'm going to work on posting a PDF of the presentation, where all questions will be answered, but I'm gonna save that for another post (plus, it give me incentive to post regularly again!) So, until then, I'm back, y'all!...............................

Rumors of the abandonment have been greatly exaggerated

        Yes, I'm still here, and I can see by doing random "traffic check-ins" that you're all still looking, and I thank you for not placing an ICC embargo upon my blog!

        I finally had time to stop and write a quick "hello!", just to make sure that you know everything is alive and well and still running......Its running quite well, in fact! I'll hopefully get time to do a propper update on recent events soon, maybe this weekend in between gigs with my band (insert shameless plug here) Silent Q - www.silentqnj.com.

        In the mean time, please enjoy the photo I posted above in order to get your attention. This is the type of scene I'd like to eventually invoke on the Colgate end of my Edgewater Branch later this year when I get into the "beautification" of the layout as I like to call it. I wish I could take the credit and say I already did something as nice as this, but this is the work of Don Smith who has a great little business called Industrial Models, where he sells exquisitely weathered 1:48 RTR cars. His website is at http://www.industrialmodels.net/, and I suggest you visit, if only to see his work and get some weathering ideas of your own. Awful nice of Don to take a nice LV-themed pic, huh?

        So until then, I bid you adieu, and hope to speak to you all again sooner than later!

Ralph

Yet another s3 (Sucessful Shakedown Session)

Since I've been actually pre-occupied with working on the layout to post, I thought I'd take a moment before mt favorite show (The Walking Dead) starts, and share some shots taken from this weekend's shakedown session. Only two more to go before I host a very special op session at the end of April! There are still things that needs fixing/doing (isn't there always?), but that is the point of doing these sessions. This summer we will (or at least should) begin regular op sessions. Instead of rambling on, I will let the pictures do the talking........

 

Oops! No 1:87 scale lives were lost, and no 1:1 scale operators were furloughed for rules violations...Though Rule G was ignored, and in fact, encouraged to be!

(it WAS St, Patty's Eve, after all!).

Thanks to all my friends who came out to spend a Saturday in my basement!

 

And as always, questions and coments are encouraged!

 

Thanks for visiting,

Ralph

 

Back to basics

      While tooling around my multitudes of saved photos on my laptop this weekend, I came across some photos of my layout when I first started it in 2002. Now, if I had religiously worked on the layout like I have over the last year and a half, it would have been "done" oh, say about 5 years ago, and not just now reaching a level of "completion" where it can be called an operating layout (though some of my so-called pals would beg to differ!). I am a natural procrastinator, as some of those "pals" of mine will tell you, such as the previously referenced Sheriff of Bloggingham, aka Ted DiIorio (http://maparr1943.blogspot.com/). Regardless of my drive to complete things (boy, deadlines are a WONDERFUL motivator!), and the endless ribbing of my cirlce of friends, I am happy where I am now with the layout, and without the help of those friends, I STILL wouldn't be this far along with the layout. I owe them a lot, and am lucky to have them around to motivate in whatever fashion they choose to motivate me, which usually happens to be at the end of a pointy stick!

      So anyways, when I found these photos, I thought a couple of things. One, that I have learned a LOT of things (construction wise) since I started this, in terms of both method and material. That's one of the great things about the hobby and the internet in general. The sharing of experiences among others has given me a lot of ideas that I wish I could go back and re-do (no way am I going to do major surgery after getting this far!), and there have also been other instances where my helper crew have said things need re-doing, but were quick and relatively painless to fix. I tend to take shortcuts, and the guys are good at yelling at me about it, and then fixing it for me (could be a worse arrangement!). And second, I thought that by sharing some of these pictures here, that those of you who might be reading this blog and are right now working on your own layout and are at a point where I was 11 years ago, might just pick up and idea or two (or conversely, see what NOT to do!). So without any further ado, here are few select "vintage" photos.

      Almost immediately after we moved in, I began laying out the footprint of the layout. In this photo, the walls and floor were already painted (a requirement by the VP of Real Estate, aka my girlfriend), and the stuff that came with us all piled up to the left. The sale of the house came with a bunch of lumber which I used to my advantage, plus some more free left overs from a job at work, so initially, I had a head start. The 2x3's along the wall where how I cantilevered the main yard off the wall. I didn't want to drill into the block wall, so I tied the 2x3's into the floor joists, and then ran a footer along the floor, which you'll see better in the following photos. Now since I knew WHAT I was going to build in the basement as soon as I got things under control, I began guestimating space requirments for things like yard lengths/widths and pier placement (as seen above). I did draw up a to scale benchwork plan on graph paper, but a track plan to scale was never made, instead using Sanborn Insurance and Port Series maps to guide me visually. Many people will say that this was a no-no, but it has worked well for me, since I was never trying to replicate the area's trackwork exactly (which has become more evident during this year's aditional track installations), and by using commercial trackwork made to fit, it wasn't going to happen anyway. I didn't want the time and effort (and the skillset) it would take to handlay, so I was OK with soemtimes being 'forced' to do what the Atlas, Peco or Micro Engineering track let me do in the space I had. 9 times out of 10, I got my way, though!

      Here's another view, looking the other way towards the back corner of the basement. Where the step stool is is where the small West Yard is today, and the backdrop separates it from view from where this photo was taken. The black shape is cloth we hung to the open cieling to keep stuff from raining down on the floor when we were painting it. To this day, the cieling is open to the joists, and I have no plans on instaling a drop cieling or sheetrock. I have no issues of stuff raining down on the layout or floor, and I don't even notice it anymore myself.

      A few (OK, probably a lot) months later, the basic benchwork framing is up for the LV and CNJ. The framing above is for the over head cabinets/valances that actually set the heights for the benchwork and the "open space" part of the layout. I have 8 1/2 ft. from floor to joist, and I knew I needed - A) Room to store things UNDER the layout, so I set that at 4ft., B) Room to store cars and kits OVER the layout, so I set that at 2ft., and C) whatever was left, became "open space" for the layout (2 1/2 ft.). In a few photos, you'll see the doors in place. They provide storage all around the layout, with the ones straight ahead in this photo, open from the front and back.

      This is looking the same direction, but to the right of the photo above. In this photo you can also see how I used the basement's lolly columns to support the benchwork, using zip ties to secure it. Works great, and is damn near solid. This benchwork seen here will eventually be covered in 1/4 in Luan, and then topped with 2 in insulation foam. Depending, I may have eventually added extra brancing across the gap to prevent sagging. This section will also be subdivided with a backdrop to spearate the CNJ (left) from the LV (right). These benchwork frames were originally meant to be sectional, in case things needed to be removed. Alas, they are not, especially after I installed other cross members and the mid-benchwork backdrop that got extensively tied into the the benchwork seen here, and the overhead valance above it. The open area under the benchwork can really be seen here, and as I said, it was an important design "given" from the get go.

      Ah, finally some backdrop and some foam (lot and lots of foam)! This is that same piece of benchwork as above, just looking at the left, or CNJ side. The "bump out" above later got added on to slightly to curve it and flow better with the benchwork, while also getting a tiny bit of extra roomadded on in process. Sadly, this is the state this layout stayed in for the better part of a year and a half. 

      So before I spent time any money on turnouts (last time I counted, this yars alone has over 50 of them), I used templates made from photocopies of the turnouts I did have, so I could get an idea of what I'd need, and how much room I had to place them all. It was tough to do at first, because for over seven years, I had no float bridge models, nor the dimentions to even plan the room for them. That made planing the outter or riover end of the layout difficult at best, so I started at the west end where the wye is. I also didn't have the drawing that is seen at the top of the photo, which is an ICC Valuation map of the yard. Of course, once I got that, a LOT of what I had put down had to come back up, because I couldn't live with knowing what I had down was nowheres near like the way the tracks actually flowed in real life, or in the pictures I did have. I was able to get eveything pretty darn close in the end, and I think that if somebody came a visited the layout that had actually worked here, they'd say I got it pretty darn close, if I say so myself. This yard saw almost constant tweeks from the time I began laying track in 2008, until just this time last year when we discoved we needed another double slip switch to be installed to better operate the yard. The real yard didn't have it, but sometime you need to compromise to make the model operate better due to the compressions involved.

      Last but not least, the piers. These were some of the last major benchwork construction, aside from the staging yard rebuild on and off over the last year. Framing was minimal (1/2 plywood and 1x2's), and 1/2 foam base. These were built to fit the space, and not to any kind of scale. Even though I had plenty of photos (and thus the reason why they are shaped the way they are), not until a few years later did I have actually aquire dimentions of these piers from an Army Corps of Engineers manual. Then, my friend and professional model builder Jim Harr took those dimentions, the photos and the dimentions of the pier foot prints seen here, and built appropriate scaled pier sheds out of corrugated carboard. The other interesting thing I did here was to build the outter legs out of left over PVC pipe (1/2 in if I recall correctly). I took two fittings for each end - a drain cap, which had holes that I could screw thru, and also serve as a foot, which provided a flat stable footing, and then the reduction piece that allowed me to put the 1/2 in pipe into it snuggly. The best thing about this set up is that you can kick the crap out of the leg, and it won't hurt anything because it's not secured to the floor (though it is a tight fit), and the base of the pier where it meets the benchwork is rock solid. I used this same leg construction on the Grand St. LCL Yard extension, and the staging yard. It was my Dad's idea, one they used on his Hi-rail modular layout. If he had suggested it sooner, I might have used it more, but it probably wouldn't have been too cost effective, unless the layout was truly modular from the get-go.

      The templates seen in the above photo are also gone, in preparation for the painting of the yard, which is why there are a field of push pins marking the placement of said templates. And as I said eariler, you can see the overhead doors installed on the cabinets. The half of the door straight ahead and to the right is painted black, while the rest are not (and still aren't, though I plan to recitfy that this week!) which really makes them dissapear, or at least draw your eyes to the layout. I made the doors slightly longer than the open area they needed to cover, so as to serve as a valance for the under cabinet lighting strips over the yard (which only got installed last November!). The intrusive shop fluorescent hanging down in the photo has also since been moved elsewhere.

      So that is about it, because as always, I've run on and on as I tend to do. I hope you enjoyed this trip down memory lane as much as I did, and again, I hope I've inspired you to take a different approach to your construction, or at the very least helped steer you away from making a big design mistake before it was too late to go back and fix it! And as always, I invite your questions, and will gladly comment on all your puzzled reactions to things I've done along the way!

Ralph