Wow Sheldon that's a tremendous project for an extension. Look at the details in all of it. My concern is I've never seen this in a helix is the wire attachments like this. My concern is that There's no derailment near the wiring. But I'm 100% impressed with the gap track how you put in the styrene tie piece & the shims you installed on the track switches I mentioned this on the comment on a previous episode. Don't worry about the turnout curve switch what doesn't have any mechanical annoying bugs ? I can hardly wait to get the Atlas versions on my forth coming layout. Nice work. 👍
In option #3caY you talked about running unit coal trains. The trains come through the hole in the wall, dump the coal, then traverse through the turnouts go between the buildings and exit through the wall. I like this option because you leave the 2 main lines. Enabling you to have an arrival and departure track. In your mind, will there be a dedicated switcher for this area? Or will the crew with the arriving train do the switching and then depart with outbound cars? To me, this seems like the best scenario. You have given me some helpful tips when I finally decide to build a layout myself.
Hi Todd. If I decide on running unit trains, I expect they would only handle the coal traffic, and another local assignment or road switcher would handle all the other traffic to and from the rest of the layout. Either way, I could still have an assigned locomotive stationed at the mill (either provided by the Q&NE or owned and operated by the paper mill). That's why the base plan included the small loco servicing area. Also just realized that depending on which hole in the backdrop they use to enter the mill area, they could be either loads or empties passing through the visible part of the mill. An expensive proposition either way! Could use Conrail/Q&NE pool power too!
Option 3 seems like the best one. As you pointed out... maximizes track length and car capacity. I like the idea of no dedicated track for the plant locomotive. Once your operations get going, youll discover a few areas that make good spots to "park" the power. With possible open areas for some small storage sheds for loco consumables. Also adds an operation of having to take and the local power to the main service facility on a mainline train.
Yup, that's what I was thinking, and suddenly I had this space available for something else. On my earliest track plans (when it was going to be a cement plant rather than a paper mill), I had a coal unloading shed at the same location. Any thoughts on the Option 3 "Variations"?
@QNERailroad I do like the idea of 3ca option. The loop track and alternative access just seems forced so to speak. About the only drawback to increasing the number of coal cars going in, is you're already limited on track. Less is more, as they say.
I would realy like Option 3caY because I think it gives you many ways to run the papermill. And I thought of something like this wenn you showed the first options.
I like the 3cay option. I think you will need to stay away from a stub end switch lead. When I built my layout, I did a stub end lead. Eventually I realized I needed it connected to the main line. You might rethink the stub. Just a thought.
Thanks James. The only advantage of the stub ended lead is that it eliminates the grade while switching. I could try to extend the lead at the same elevation as the mill and run the grade out behind the backdrop, but that creates an odd visual where it would go through the backdrop at a different elevation than the mainline right beside it. I'll think about it.
There is a logic to 3c ? i) The facility is too small for unit trains, balloon loops are generally found at mines, ports and power stations. The coal plant would have been built many decades ago, upgrading capacity over time would involve utilising more frequent deliveries rather than investing in expanding the rail infrastructure. In the current era, when the coal plant reaches end of life, a new gas plant would be built beside it, to allow decommisioning, perhaps your era is too early for gas. Better for the environment. ii) The connection to the main through the plant confused the narrative - trains would not typically arrive in the yard by passing through the industry, the sequence would be mainline-to-yard-to-plant spurs. ii) This link also disrupts the idea of having some travel distance to reach this facility which would not be in a semi-rural location. Paper making creates some strong aromas. iv) The short spur to the 3 magenta coloured tanks (can't remember the function) requires a double or triple switchback and possibly clearing one of the facing spurs, perhaps it's a bit fussy for post-1950's transport economics, track access might be simplified or closed down due to road transport replacement. Having said that, my cement plant has a loop for 12 car limestone unit trains, which is not realistic either 😊 but I dont have space for a long straight spur. The prototype keeps it simple and works with old track layouts by using operational work-arounds as replacing track is expensive, but they are not operating in a spare bedroom. Great videos, thanks for posting. PS. When using those access stand-ups, the crawl-in-stand-up action may bring your back into contact with the benchwork, risking some lost skin and derailed cars everywhere...depends on benchworkheight....
Thanks for your feedback, John. I don't often get such a thorough comment! Timing is good, too, as I am just adding the commentary to my next video, where I provide a couple more reasons why I will NOT be serving the power plant with a unit train. I like your reasons too. Regarding the access areas, yes, I have already scraped my back once, and once is enough to remember never to let it happen again! Hopefully won't have reason to use the access very often after construction is completed.
Thanks Anthony. Any thoughts on the Option 3 "Variations"? Regarding passenger operations, New England has had limited to no Amtrak service for many years. The closest would be the Vermonter, but it wouldn't run on the routes that my layout purportedly models. I've always like the idea of running a Budd car or two back and forth though ...
I've made sure that none of the new turnouts are fully covered. I guess I've been lucky in that I have never had to replace a turnout in my hidden staging yards (almost 20 years on this version of the layout, but some are over 30 years old!).
Hi Art. I try to make it a point to fully shut down my consists, including turning off lighting, when entering staging. Also, I only turn power on to the staging yards when trains are entering or leaving, since our "24 hour" operating sessions do not use all trains in staging. Typically one eastbound Conrail (exit west staging, work layout, enter east staging), one westbound Conrail (exit east staging, work layout, enter west staging), one Northbound Q&NE (originate on layout and enter north staging) and one Southbound Q&NE (exit north staging work layout and terminate/layover).
I haven't crawled like a 12 year old for over 50 years! Luckily, when this is done I shouldn't have to duck under the layout unless something serious happens, Haven't had to on the rest of the layout where I have two helices and hidden staging yards more than a couple of times a year.
@@QNERailroad i was referring to have to go under the rail instead of having something simple you could do a draw bridge with. That being said, enjoy what you call raising circle rails helicopters.
Wow Sheldon that's a tremendous project for an extension. Look at the details in all of it. My concern is I've never seen this in a helix is the wire attachments like this. My concern is that There's no derailment near the wiring. But I'm 100% impressed with the gap track how you put in the styrene tie piece & the shims you installed on the track switches I mentioned this on the comment on a previous episode. Don't worry about the turnout curve switch what doesn't have any mechanical annoying bugs ? I can hardly wait to get the Atlas versions on my forth coming layout. Nice work. 👍
In option #3caY you talked about running unit coal trains. The trains come through the hole in the wall, dump the coal, then traverse through the turnouts go between the buildings and exit through the wall. I like this option because you leave the 2 main lines. Enabling you to have an arrival and departure track. In your mind, will there be a dedicated switcher for this area? Or will the crew with the arriving train do the switching and then depart with outbound cars? To me, this seems like the best scenario. You have given me some helpful tips when I finally decide to build a layout myself.
Hi Todd. If I decide on running unit trains, I expect they would only handle the coal traffic, and another local assignment or road switcher would handle all the other traffic to and from the rest of the layout. Either way, I could still have an assigned locomotive stationed at the mill (either provided by the Q&NE or owned and operated by the paper mill). That's why the base plan included the small loco servicing area. Also just realized that depending on which hole in the backdrop they use to enter the mill area, they could be either loads or empties passing through the visible part of the mill. An expensive proposition either way! Could use Conrail/Q&NE pool power too!
all are neat ideas for sure. 3c seems to be the most logical though. I like the keep it simple side of things. Nice work!!
Thanks. In the end, you may be right.
Option 3 seems like the best one. As you pointed out... maximizes track length and car capacity. I like the idea of no dedicated track for the plant locomotive. Once your operations get going, youll discover a few areas that make good spots to "park" the power. With possible open areas for some small storage sheds for loco consumables.
Also adds an operation of having to take and the local power to the main service facility on a mainline train.
Yup, that's what I was thinking, and suddenly I had this space available for something else. On my earliest track plans (when it was going to be a cement plant rather than a paper mill), I had a coal unloading shed at the same location. Any thoughts on the Option 3 "Variations"?
@QNERailroad I do like the idea of 3ca option. The loop track and alternative access just seems forced so to speak.
About the only drawback to increasing the number of coal cars going in, is you're already limited on track. Less is more, as they say.
Nice And Clean.
Yes.
I would realy like Option 3caY because I think it gives you many ways to run the papermill. And I thought of something like this wenn you showed the first options.
Thanks for your thoughts on this.
I like the 3cay option. I think you will need to stay away from a stub end switch lead. When I built my layout, I did a stub end lead. Eventually I realized I needed it connected to the main line. You might rethink the stub. Just a thought.
Thanks James. The only advantage of the stub ended lead is that it eliminates the grade while switching. I could try to extend the lead at the same elevation as the mill and run the grade out behind the backdrop, but that creates an odd visual where it would go through the backdrop at a different elevation than the mainline right beside it. I'll think about it.
There is a logic to 3c ? i) The facility is too small for unit trains, balloon loops are generally found at mines, ports and power stations. The coal plant would have been built many decades ago, upgrading capacity over time would involve utilising more frequent deliveries rather than investing in expanding the rail infrastructure. In the current era, when the coal plant reaches end of life, a new gas plant would be built beside it, to allow decommisioning, perhaps your era is too early for gas. Better for the environment. ii) The connection to the main through the plant confused the narrative - trains would not typically arrive in the yard by passing through the industry, the sequence would be mainline-to-yard-to-plant spurs. ii) This link also disrupts the idea of having some travel distance to reach this facility which would not be in a semi-rural location. Paper making creates some strong aromas. iv) The short spur to the 3 magenta coloured tanks (can't remember the function) requires a double or triple switchback and possibly clearing one of the facing spurs, perhaps it's a bit fussy for post-1950's transport economics, track access might be simplified or closed down due to road transport replacement.
Having said that, my cement plant has a loop for 12 car limestone unit trains, which is not realistic either 😊 but I dont have space for a long straight spur. The prototype keeps it simple and works with old track layouts by using operational work-arounds as replacing track is expensive, but they are not operating in a spare bedroom.
Great videos, thanks for posting.
PS. When using those access stand-ups, the crawl-in-stand-up action may bring your back into contact with the benchwork, risking some lost skin and derailed cars everywhere...depends on benchworkheight....
Meant to say the paper plant "would" be semi-rural
Thanks for your feedback, John. I don't often get such a thorough comment! Timing is good, too, as I am just adding the commentary to my next video, where I provide a couple more reasons why I will NOT be serving the power plant with a unit train. I like your reasons too. Regarding the access areas, yes, I have already scraped my back once, and once is enough to remember never to let it happen again! Hopefully won't have reason to use the access very often after construction is completed.
Sheldon ……. In my opinion I would do the last option 3cayx …… it gives you a lot interesting ideas 💡 for operations .
Thanks for voting, Kraig.
Opinion 3 is the best one to go with
Thanks Ian. Any thoughts on the Option 3 "Variations"?
Little By Little Is Always a Good Call.
Any thoughts on the various track plan options?
1 ladder (personally think it looks the best and most realistic) with 3ca coal unloaded option. Maybe operationally more complex than desired
Thanks Nick. Yes, I'll need to really think through the pros and cons before deciding on something too complex.
Great layout excellent work sr option 3 will be the best 👌 qa will you ever run passenger service on your layout like meta or Amtrak
Thanks Anthony. Any thoughts on the Option 3 "Variations"? Regarding passenger operations, New England has had limited to no Amtrak service for many years. The closest would be the Vermonter, but it wouldn't run on the routes that my layout purportedly models. I've always like the idea of running a Budd car or two back and forth though ...
I would worry about any turnout that is covered, I only have one turnout that is partially covered. It was really hard to work on this turnout.
I've made sure that none of the new turnouts are fully covered. I guess I've been lucky in that I have never had to replace a turnout in my hidden staging yards (almost 20 years on this version of the layout, but some are over 30 years old!).
33:51 Yes, that is begging to be modeled.
Right. Lots of modelling ideas on Google Earth.
Great, my choice is no;3caY
Thanks Ronald.
Thinking Then Putting down Track good Call.
My father taught me to measure twice and cut once, but I still manage to forget sometimes!
That Is Gospel for All Model Railroaders such as Me And All Other Scales.
Lighting is the reason you have a way to totally turn off tracks were engines are parked. It's very expensive lesson.
Hi Art. I try to make it a point to fully shut down my consists, including turning off lighting, when entering staging. Also, I only turn power on to the staging yards when trains are entering or leaving, since our "24 hour" operating sessions do not use all trains in staging. Typically one eastbound Conrail (exit west staging, work layout, enter east staging), one westbound Conrail (exit east staging, work layout, enter west staging), one Northbound Q&NE (originate on layout and enter north staging) and one Southbound Q&NE (exit north staging work layout and terminate/layover).
Option 3.
Thanks Jacob. Any thoughts on the Option 3 "Variations"?
so how are you supposed to access the inside track, crawl under the layout like a 12 year old kid ?
I haven't crawled like a 12 year old for over 50 years! Luckily, when this is done I shouldn't have to duck under the layout unless something serious happens, Haven't had to on the rest of the layout where I have two helices and hidden staging yards more than a couple of times a year.
@@QNERailroad i was referring to have to go under the rail instead of having something simple you could do a draw bridge with. That being said, enjoy what you call raising circle rails helicopters.