|
Layout Designs and Considerations |
Everything has to have a purpose, and in the case of the development of this railroad it was a set of design considerations or objectives. I started with some basic ones and as I continue with this project the list seems to grow. All in all though, I feel that I have remained fairly focused on the original list presented here.
It has taken over 6 years design and testing to reach the track plan now under construction. Here is a list of the basic design considerations and objectives that have gotten me this far. As you read on in the text, I hope to help you understand some of what I went through in the design development of this railroad.
Design Considerations and Objectives:
These are the basic precepts that the layout was designed around.
You Can Get There From Here......
The original concept was to depict the Rio Grande Division of the Texas & Pacific (TP) during the 40's and 50's era. The Rio Grande Division stretched from Lancaster Yard in Ft. Worth to El Paso and the interchange with the Southern Pacific. This Division was chosen for two reasons: first and fore most was the fact that my long time friend and ex TP employee, David Mock, worked as a Station Operator on the Division during the 1960's; second, modeling this Division would allow the added interest of the numerous interchanges made with the TP west of Ft. Worth. Operational interest would be enhanced by the fact that an interchange is like a major industry that can send and receive any type of rolling stock. The interchanges west of Ft. Worth were: Sierra Blanca; Pecos; Monahans; Roscoe; Sweetwater; Abilene; Cisco and Weatherford. It seemed that all the elements were here and I started trying to put it down on paper. It didn't take long to see that even in N scale and draconian use of selective compression it was impossible to fit the 605 miles of TP mainline between Ft. Worth and El Paso into any space less than a Basketball court let alone the 14 X 24 foot half of my two car garage. I had to shorten the modeled portion of the layout drastically if I was to hope to hold on to my objective of a linear track plan. I still wanted to depict TP operations west of Ft. Worth so, I could see that I needed more research. Using some old Time Tables, I gained insight about the layout of the towns, sidings and major industrial spurs along the division. I learned that the Rio Grande was divide into the Baird and Toyah subdivisions. Review of the industries, towns and interchanges on each subdivision allowed me to narrow my focus. The Baird Subdivision, running from Ft. Worth to Big Spring, a distance of 262 miles still seemed to be a lot of main line to fit into the available space, but I forged ahead. During this phase of design, a lot of new (?) ideas and concepts were being Published in the various magazines. Additionally DCC was evolving and was becomming common place among N-scalers as well as a renewed interest in multi-level layout construction. I could not help but be influenced by this wealth of information and it seemed that I could or should change my concept about every month (when the new issues came out). Instead of following the leader and copying someone else's layout, I knew I would have to keep focused on my original design considerations if I was to have the layout I wanted.
Hence, the layout began to evolve on paper. The first attempt was an inside outside plan on the idea of the Model Railroad's Clinchfield project. After some very creative expansion and re-design, it was obvious that it could not meet the design requirements let alone the mainline length necessary. Through the next 4 or 5 attempts it became apparent once again that I was trying to put too much railroad in too little space. I needed to shorten the mainline again. It must be noted here that a multi-level design was not considered a viable option. Back to the books. Where was the majority of industry located on the subdivision? Would it support the Operators and Operations I envisioned? I continued to search the old Time Tables as well as pick Dave Mock's memories of his time with the TP. After a time, the modeled portion of the Subdivision was narrowed to the 127 miles of track between Baird and Big Spring TX. This area had a lot of industry and the majority of the interchanges west of Ft. Worth. I found that by running trains into and out of staging, operational fidelity could be achieved over this portion of the line. Using the 14 X 24 garage area, the track plan continued to evolve and bench work was started in 1994. I still had length problems as the track plans continued to be based on one level construction. As construction continued, I encountered some unforeseen environmental problems. Those of you who have layouts sharing the garage with a car know what I am talking about. I was expecting the temperature and humidity problems but didn't expect the bugs, spiders, dirt and dust. It was when the mice set up residence in the staging benchwork that I petitioned my wife for some new Right of Way. The area I had my eye on was the finished 16 X 24 room over the garage which would provide ample space with the added benefit of being environmentally sealed. When I built the house I had hoped to use the room for the layout, but had been evicted by kids and collectibles. My wife hates to see a grown man cry and since she really does love me, she signed over her claim on the room. Her only condition was that I had to leave access (easy were her words I believe) to the storage closets located across from the entry doors. I was stuck, besides it seemed like a reasonable request. I agreed and went back to the drawing board. The requirement for the storage access and the ability to move the layout eliminated the around the wall concept. I made several attempts at single level island type track plans but main line length continued to be the show stopper and since I didn't want to reduce the mainline run any further, I had to come up with a better plan. Fate smiled (actually grinned) when I was able to attend the Lone Star Regional Convention in Houston Texas. It was a great convention but what I really enjoyed was the layout tours. A good many of the layouts open for tour were multi level and I was able to see in practice the possibilities (and shortcomings) of the multi-level design concept. It was obvious that a two level layout was doable and would meet mainline and other design requirements. Back to the drawing board once more.
I designed a linear track plan and then divided it in half. One half for the lower level the other on the upper, pretty simple, right? Not so my friend. Just when I thought I had it down, one of my railroad buddies asked me how wide my isles were going to be. OOPS, I hadn't thought about the operators. When I started looking at the available space for people, I discovered that if I was going to allow operators to follow their trains, I was going to have to make some major compromises. In order to keep mainline and still provide room for operators, I had to reduce shelf width considerably in some places. The narrowest being 7 inches along the wall at Abilene. This would give me a choke point at the end of the benchwork of 19 inches. Manageable for all but the very largest engineers. I also consider the towns, sidings and yards and how operator space would affect their placement. I did not have the people space to put one town on top of another or even across the isle from another. Compromise with distances between towns vs. the prototype was the only answer. Referencing the trackplans will show that the only place one major town/yard is opposite the isle from the other is at Big Spring on the upper level. Here the isle is 36 inches wide and a test with the bench work up indicates that there is room for a maximum of three operators in this space at a time. Once the major towns/yards were in place, it was time to decide and place locate the minor towns and the passing sidings using the same operator space considerations as before.
A number of strategically located longer sidings would be necessary to keep the meets "out of town" to take advantage of N Scale's ability to run longer trains. As you can see on the track plan, two of the longer sidings are located at Merkel and Escota on each end of the helix. These will hold all but the longest trains. (planned length for freight trains is 3 F-units, 20 cars, 1 caboose; for passenger it is 2 E units and 11 passenger cars) There are additional sidings around 60 inches on both levels. Clyde at 72 inches; Holder at 94 inches; Tye at 62 inches are on the lower level while Dome at 62 inches; Bagdad at 54 inches and Coahoma at 54 inches will support meets on the upper level. Shorter sidings and towns are also available for a train to duck into when necessary.
Drawing my track plans with a CAD program allowed the placement of rolling stock and people about the layout to check clearances. When I was satisfied with the general design, I started the benchwork. The accompanying photos illustrate some of my construction techniques. I will be happy to provide more detailed information and drawings to anyone interested.
The track plans show the relationship of the towns, yards and associated industrial trackage thus far. Maintaining some fidelity to the prototype and operational reliability has become a real challenge. I made two research trips out to Big Spring taking pictures of current track and looking for old pictures and other documentation in order to development trackage for the towns and industries. I have been able to obtained some copies of old TP engineering drawings on some of the yards and towns which have proven invaluable to maintaining the flavor of the old TP. The only major exception to depicting towns as they were is Baird. You will notice that Baird is actually the open staging and fiddle yard. This was not how I wanted it but I had to have some place to stage and make up trains.