I see Sculptamold on "th'm thar hills"

Yep - the last two nights have involved splattering scultpamold on the layout. What was pink, is by-in-large no longer pink as this photo attests.

There are a few patches of pink styrofoam left, notably around the joint for the removable hill top over the tunnel, and along the edges of the layout. The edges will get a coat of paint soon, and the tunnel will need a little more work later tonight.

I laid down two batches of sculptamold, one colored brown for the flatter, dirt areas of the layout an another tinted gray for the rockier spots. Some of the brown areas have even had a little dry brushing, which has produced a pleasant color variation. The rocky areas have some initial rocks cut into them, but more needs to be done as the sculptamold sets up a little more.

In addition, as I mentioned before, the last of the buildings got a primer coat, so here is the castle, sort of in place.

Its stonework is quite a bit lighter than that of the surrounding rock, but hopefully a little painting to both the rocks and the castle will improve things.

More important will be the fascia to frame the layout. I cut those six pieces over the weekend, and they have a coat of black paint. I like the effect of black fascia to frame the layout. Right now, the front pieces have not been trimmed to match the terrain, and the rear pieces that will ultimately support the backdrop need a little bit of adjustment, but I am waiting for them to dry first.

I did a couple of other things to move the layout forward as well. I got a deal on bump chenille. I ended up with enough for 3840 small pine trees for about $28. As a test, I prepped 8 that will probably find homes on the layout. They need a little final trimming, but I think that they will look good. Each one represents about a 60' tree, with a diameter of 24'. Small trees in T will be a challenge.

I'm also looking at some skewered furnace filter trees, and have prepped 1300 skewers by staining the trunks brown. They still need some grey dry brushing, and then I have a box of furnace filter squares. Right now I have skewers that are about 2.5", 4" and 8" in the mix. Many of these will be for my home layout in N and not this layout, but I will probably make a few smaller ones for the T layout.

So for those that are counting, I now have 5140+ trees in progress for the current and future layout. Definite progress. And I am glad that I have almost finished the scultamold, as I will soon have to go back to clean up the water where the sculptamold got a little wild. 

Per Shapeways, the concrete viaduct is printed and in packing. The other items have yet to go into printing though. I'm eager to see the bridges in my hands and installed on the layout. I've also made a bit of progress on the pedestrian overpass of the road. Soon, it will be time to worry about the harbor, and the station platform. But in the meantime, I am also eagerly awaiting delivery of scenic cement - which still has not arrived even though I ordered it more than 3 weeks ago. 

Progress - creeping along

Well I have been busy work out bridge designs. There are two large viaducts on the layout as I mentioned before. One based on the famous Glenfinnan Viaduct, which turned out to be simpler, as it is simply concrete. It is composed of two modules - a curved module and an end module. There are 7 curved pieces plus the two ends. Here is the completed CAD model.

I've got this bridge ordered. I'm printing it in PLA - while it will show layering, I am hoping that this will ultimately have the affect of looking like layers of concrete. We will see. Worst case, I can print it in a higher resolution, finer layer material. But it should be here for the show.

The second big viaduct is based more on the Ribblehead Viaduct. This is a stone arch viaduct, and in it, I have modeled the individual stones in the viaduct. It took a long time to get them all in in a reasonable pattern. The bridge has three modules, an end module, a straight module and a curved module. A total of 8 parts make up the bridge, but I was able to order it built in two halves.

You can see the detail down to the individual stones better in this view.

In a moment of minor insanity, I did do things to randomly vary the size and spacing of the individual stones, although I did take care to try to mimic the patterns on the existing bridges. These stone should each print, and some of them have different 3D bulges. You may not be able to see them, but I know that they are there. Of course, this means a finer, high quality printing process using Frosted Ultra-detail Acrylic. Each layer should be about 20 mil thick.

On the actual viaduct, there are several (copper) plates at various locations. Some are round, others rectangular. But they are small - I designed them at about 2-4mm so that they were both printable and visible on the bridge. I modeled these as a set of details, also printed in frosted ultra-detail plastic. Each has a small diameter rod, which I should be able to drill a hole for and mount on the bridge after they are painted.

Thinking about it now, they are almost certainly too large - but they will be very small on this bridge. so even if they are out of scale, the effect should be good.

That leaves one bridge to carry pedestrians across the main road - and hide the top of a mirror - and the wharf area to design for printing. Unfortunately, those are not done yet, and would not likely be printed and delivered in time for the train show. They are still on the to do list, but now I am looking at what I can get done before the train show. Since the wharf is not done, I cannot pour the water prior to the train show, although I may apply a gloss medium to the area, just as a temporary measure. Instead, I am going to focus on other scenery elements. The road bed is all painted, and I continue to work on the bottom detail/coloring of the water. Sculptamold is next.

More Layout Progress

Well, since last time, I have been able to do a little more carving of the foam to remove a few trouble spots, followed by some sanding and finally a good vacuum. Before I put down the sculptamold, I removed all the track and buildings, and decided to do a little painting of some areas that would likely not be completely covered with sculptamold, including the tunnel and the bottom of the loch.

I painted the tunnel black with acrylic paint, including the mating surfaces. The top of the mountain is designed to be removable in case I needed to access the track. I went ahead and brushed the paint out along the roadbed, even though this too will be painted again later.

The loch I painted a dark blue - but it doesn't look dark enough to my eye for the deep water I wanted to show. Easy enough to fix with more paint, but at least there is an initial coat on it. I really thought I had picked a dark enough blue paint, as the chip was even darker than I thought it should be - but clearly the results are not what I wanted. However, at least there is now an initial coat of paint down, and the sculptamold can go in along the banks even while I color the water more to my liking.

Next up on the list is the sculptamold, and to pain the track sub roadbed. Since the ballast is grey, the sub roadbed will also be grey so that anything that shows through will still look like ballast. In addition, CAD work is proceeding on the bridges. I started with the bridge over the road. I picked a bridge with some character from Glasgow.

Searching online, I found this bridge in Glasgow. The deck girder bridge is surrounded by a blue and white truss (resembling the Scottish flag), which I thought was near perfect for the scene. In my case, the bridge is straight at one end, but then begins to curve. Since the curve isn't much, I built the bridge as a single skewed section. Here is my creation:

The skew is not very apparent from this view, but from above, you can see it, even though it is only a few 16th of an inch.

I also got a start on the design for the harbor, with its docks and boardwalk, which I will show in a later post. But at the moment, my CAD time is being spent on the two large viaducts. After laying both out carefully, I was able to model them with a total of six modular pieces, 3 ends (one of which is used on both ends), 2 curved sections, and a straight section. One is going to be a stone arch bridge similar to Ribblehead on the Carlise and Settle line, the other is a concrete bridge based on the Glenfinnan Viaduct famously seen in the Harry Potter films.

Ribblehead Viaduct

Glenfinnan Viaduct

Glenfinnan Viaduct in Harry Potter

I haven't decided if I will include the flying car or not yet. But it is a thought. The Glenfinnan Viaduct will be on the left side of the layout (as seen from the front). I am hoping that the resulting scene will resemble this view of Glenfinnan.

In my case, the loch will pass under the viaduct, but I love this view. The bridge modules are still being worked on, but here is a shot of my progress on the straight section needed for the Ribblehead inspired viaduct on the front of the layout.

A lot of effort with the stone work, but I hope it will be worth it in the end. Ultimately, several of these projects will also make their ways to ModelWorks. Anyways, back at it, with the train show only three weeks out, there is a lot still to do...

A Project for 2018...

Well, no new progress in the last two months on my layout, but I have been making progress on a side project, a layout for the Central Model Railway and Historical Society. The received a donation of a T gauge starter set, a couple of years ago, and it was handed to me last year to see what I could do with it. I have been following T for years, and have a bunch of my own, that I have not quite put into use yet. It took a while, but eventually I settled on a small simple display loop as the layout will be used to show T scale to the public. Since much of the available equipment is either Japanese or British prototypes, I decided to set the layout in Scotland. The track plan is below.

The resulting loop is simple, but represents in (1:480) about a half scale mile. Not bad for a layout with a 24" by 24" foot print, with 3 square feet of scenic area (and another half of a square foot for the controls in the upper left). The plan includes two major viaducts, one in stone, one in concrete and a short tunnel.

One of the keys I have learned over the years is that the smaller the trains, the more important a solid roadbed is to operation. Small irregularities that are tolerable in HO, will lead to derailments in N or Z, let alone T. So, construction started with a lightweight, but stiff frame with adjustable feet. I plan to simply place the layout on another table for viewing.

Scenery followed, build up with foam layers, with masonite subroadbed under the tracks. Add a few buildings, obtained from Shapeways or from TGauge.co.uk, and it is starting to come together. All of the Shapeways buildings have been cleaned and primed in grey, while the buildings from TGauge are laser cut plywood, that I assembled with CA. It is quite amazing to put together kits in this scale. The results can be seen below.

The masonite in the bottom will become the base for a loch, complete with a small village and harbor on the shore. The viaducts still need to be designed and built, and a third bridge will cross the road in the town by the station. An old castle even overlooks the scene. You can also see part of a British HST set positioned near the station.

Next up is a sculptamold layer to cover the foam, as well as ground cover. I am also planning a small pedestrian bridge in front of the backdrop to connect the station and the town gate (across the main road). Under this bridge would be a mirror. The train crosses the road on a bridge - which I need to fabricate. In addition, there are the two large viaducts, and the waterfront and harbor area to fabricate. Finally, there are the tunnel portals. Right now, the track just disappears into the foam above, and a portal will make this look much better. Those have already been drawn up.

Yes, those are actually bricks in T scale. Once I get the test prints, these will be coming to ModelWorks. I've also got the test print of the station I previously designed in T, but I still need to clean it, prime it, paint it and assemble it - complete with interior detail!

Yes, I may have gone off the T-end. Look for updates to come.

Finding a new focus

Well, my last post was a harbinger of doom, the space constrictions I began to worry about have in fact come to pass, and so for at least the near future I am looking at new layout options, and primarily in directions that may not be a Phase I of anything larger to come. In fact, I have begun to put a lot more focus on the idea of just getting something to build so that I can have something to enjoy in my dwindling spare time.

Long term, I may eventually get some space back. There have at least been a couple of discussions that we may someday put an extension on the house to provide for some additional garage space, and with that may come a layout room. But I have no idea what that time frame might be. So, in the interim, I have been looking at a few outstanding questions that were raised in the last post. One in particular has caught my attention.

Why not Z?

I'd come to the conclusion that an 18" minimum radius was acceptable in N, and if you do the math, that 18" minimum radius in N becomes... (160/220)*18" = 13.1" in Z. A Z scale version of the previous Tennessee Pass Layout becomes much more feasible in the remaining space. After all, the Helix would drop from a 42" x 42" module to about 33" x 33", allowing me to reduce the width of the layout, while maintaining the length. The aisle would still be pinched down near the helix end of the layout, but I should be able to keep at least a 30" aisle on the closet side at that end of the layout.

Fortunately, there are models of D&RGW cars and locomotives available. In fact, in the last few years, not only are F3s and F7s available, but so are GP-7s, GP-9s, GP-30s, GP-35s, and SD45s. These represent a nice range of D&RGW motive power. In fact, looking at the historical locomotive roster of the D&RGW, these models provide the basis for modeling a particular era on the D&RGW. The F3s ran 1946-1966, the F7s from 1949-1968, the GP-7s from 1950-1972, the GP-9s from 1955-1991, the GP-30s from 1963-1999, the GP-35s from 1964-1995, and the SD45s from 1967-1999. So, the intersection of those dates is 1967 and 1968, when everything but the F3s were running. From 1964-1966, I can get everything but the SD45s. But what else is running in those eras?

Well, the other locomotives running from 1964-1968 include:
Alco PA-1s (1947-1967), EMD F9s (1955-1996), EMD FTs (1942-1965), SD-9s (1957-1996), SD-7s (1953-1991), RS3s (1951-1966), KM ML4000s (1961-64), GP40s (1966-2001), and a variety of yard switchers, but those were primarily located in Denver, Pueblo, Salt Lake City and Grand Junction. Of these, only the KMs, FTs, F9s, PA-1s, and GP40s were common on Tennessee Pass. Although, GP-9s were used on the Standard Gauged Monarch Branch out of Salida after SDs proved unreliable on the curves.  So, this proposes two eras - either a 1964-66 era without SD45s but F3s, FTs and KMs, or a 1967-8 era with SD45s and GP40s but no F3s, FTs or KMs.

The KMs could probably be built on an SD45 chassis (just as has been done in N), but FTs have not been done in Z. Alternatively, GP40s have not been done in Z, but seem likely to emerge, and would be a chassis match for GP38-2s - which are available in Z now. Passenger traffic essentially ended on Tennessee Pass in 1964, and there were some line changes around 1965-66, includin the elimination of double track through parts of the Minturn side of the line. This tends to make me look a bit more at the later era, with GP40s and SD45s, even at the expense of the F3s. It also solidifies the use of GP-9s and GP30s on the Monarch Branch.

Okay, so I could probably design/build a late 1960s DRGW layout featuring Tennessee Pass or the Monarch Branch in Z, but given the size, and the reputation of Z as more of a runners scale, could I do the switching and operations that I would desire? I've done some of that in N, and in Nn3, both slightly larger, although Nn3 cars and Z scale cars are very similarly proportioned - but would it be something that I am comfortable with? And that sounds like a layout idea in the making.

Growing Doubts

With Irma bearing down on Florida, I'll take just a moment to express my hopes and prayers for those in its path. Please be safe. Even here in upstate South Carolina, I got emails yesterday and more today about preparing for Irma. Four Hours inland and this morning's reports were that we may expect Category 1 winds and rain if Irma continues.

Irma would be my fourth hurricane. I weathered a small one in Hawaii once on vacation, saw one run up into the Austin area while in college, flew to a conference ahead of one in Washington DC, and now Irma. I cannot even remember the names of the others. But its approach has just confirmed my feeling of ominous clouds on the horizon.

More than a month has passed since I expressed some doubts about the Tennessee Pass Layout I have been planning. And in that month, the layout doubts have continued to grow.

I still worry about the problems of reinstalling some of the modules should a new home be necessary - particularly the helix. It is so massive as a module - driven largely by the minimum curve radius that I just don't know if it would work. Oh, I am sure I can build it - and I can move it out - but could I ever move it in again. And if not, what is the point of moving it out, and without it, should I bother with making the rest movable.

But also in that time we have gained a new resident in the garage. My wife's sailing boat. It is beautiful, but the trailer is well, larger than I expected. It doesn't just take up a car space in the garage - but more like two. And so now when I look at the garage, I just don't see a future layout space, and so it looks like that expansion dream is pretty dead.

Worse yet, as we continue to settle into the home, I look at the remaining train space, and lament the closets along the one wall. Without them, the space is about 11 feet wide, minus a necessary aisle - so about 8 feet wide. With them, the space drops to just over 8 feet wide, but now requires two aisles. I had cheated and squeezed the Tennessee Pass Layout into this space, justifying a pair of narrow (e.g. 24 inch) aisles at each end. However, as the settling in process continues, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the closets will not be going in all likelihood, and that in fact, they will be needed to store some of my wife's collections. And if that is the case, a 24 inch aisle is not going to be acceptable. So, the space now drops to a width of maybe 2-3 feet.

Well, at that width, my 18" desired radius for standard gauge is pretty well out the door. I'd already compromised that down to 16-5/8" for the Tennessee Pass plan, but only in the helix and going downhill. Now, I'd have to be more drastic.

So, what are the options:

• Explore the implications of a 15" minimum radius for Standard Gauge.
• Consider Nn3 options instead.
• There is z scale as an option.
• Move to new concepts.
• Wait for new space to emerge.

So, at the moment, the Tennessee Pass plan is on the shelf. I'll have to look at tighter radii, going to an Nn3 focus, or maybe jumping to Z. Or even finding another option - or hobby - or simply remaining an armchair modeler. Maybe when the storm passes, some new ideas will emerge.

Filling in the Details - Deck 2

Well, it has been a month since the last post, so I am well overdue for another. Since last time, I have been slowly filling in details to the Tennessee Pass Plan. But also having some doubts. More on those later.

Below is the current Deck 2 Plan. Let's look at it in detail:

Click to see full sized graphic

Since the last version, I have worked in the roads and bridges. The line emerges from staging (on loop 4 of the helix) and crosses over the Gore River on a deck girder bridge, before ducking under I-70. I-70 is arranged so that mirrors reflect both ends of the highway, and the combination of the highway and curving around the hillside with a backdrop on the front as well as the back, prevents anyone from actually seeing the train come out of the helix. The line curves around the left end of the layout crosses a county road at grade and swings into Minturn.

I completely reworked the west end of the Minturn yard to make it more functional, but also included the Minturn station, used for MOW storage, and both the Crew Hotel and Turntable Restaurant. Each should be close to scale size, as I took the measurements from an aerial photograph. I have also included a lumber yard and a warehouse at this end of the yard. I continued to allow for the possibility of modeling the wye - which I probably would not put in place in this location (too constricting) but if the layout were to be shown, a separate module could hold the tail track.

The East end of Minturn yard was also reworked a bit. I moved the engine house to the right, reworked the work and snow train tracks, and added a RIP track. There is now a dedicated fuel track, and I think the area flows much better. I also added a concrete plant and a spur which will host two as yet undetermined industries. This actually gives me a fair amount of switching for the Minturn Yard job (~8 spots), in addition to making up a couple of locals, and adding/servicing helper engines. Leaving Minturn, the railroad crosses Ballpark Road and Cemetery Road at grade, so there will also be a park with a baseball diamond (or at least part of one) and a small cemetery.

Rounding the right corner, I added in another stretch of the Eagle River, before the line crosses under US-24. US-24 actually climbs a steep switchback on its way to the town of Gilman (located above Belden. Meanwhile the tracks enter the Eagle River Canyon, crossing another deck girder bridge at Rex, before entering the Rock Creek Tunnel. Exiting the tunnel, I decided to freelance a pair of through truss bridges due to the geometry of the crossing of the Eagle River. The line curves to the left as the canyon narrows, and disappears from sight. Once again, the rock walls and backdrop restrict vision of this part of the canyon and hide the opening to the 8th lap of the helix. The bridges should help draw the viewer's eyes back tot he foreground, but another mirror will suggest that the canyon continues around the curve. There is still some topography to do on this level, but detailing the design has moved to Deck 3. So far, everything in the plan still works and works well.

I'd love to say that this sign is true, but several factors have created a few doubts in my planning. First, my space may not be what I once thought it would be. The garage part of the layout space is looking like it will be more difficult or further off from being available. However, the layout also may not be crewable either. This layout would probably need a Dispatcher, a Minturn Yardmaster, a Staging Hostler, and 3-4 road crews, including a helper crew. That is probably the crew capacity. Even with single person road crews, that is 6-7 people, and I am not sure where to find the operators. And if I did - would this make things congested? The Minturn Yard job would operate on the bottom side of the layout, and the Staging Hostler on the top side. The Dispatcher would be elsewhere. That puts the four road crews at various points around the layout - and conceivably, in the event of a meet, 3 road crews plus another job (Minturn or Staging) all on one side of the layout at the same time. Four bodies and some tighter than I would like aisles. I could operate with fewer folks, even just by myself, but part of the "fun" would be orchestrating the meets and passes on the hill.

So, if a less dispatcher intense operating layout more the preference? With that in mind, I have been thinking more about some alternatives, including a Salida based layout featuring the Monarch branch, or a protofreelanced version strongly based on that type of operation. That would give me the ability to consider other options for operations, but still allow me to test out some of the design/construction principles I have in mind. This alternate idea could also resolve the next doubt.

Another concern is the width of the modules. I originally set the maximum width at 42", knowing that I have a 44" wide sliding door that I can carry those through. What I did not think about was whether I would have a 44" door to carry them back into at the other end of the move. Unfortunately, with the layout running from 30" to 90", I can't even turn them on their sides to get through a narrower door - say 36". And unfortunately, the Helix is a 42" wide module without much hope for width reduction. So, I have been trying to think about whether or not I could make the wider modules split vertically, at least if needed to go through a 36" door. I do not yet have a good solution - but I am looking for one. The helix is the chief issue.

So, these are legitimate concerns. And I think that they will ultimately require some other plans to determine how best to proceed. But these doubts have been nagging, and have at least pulled some of my attention away from the plan. In addition, I've been putting time into my shapeways projects. I've gotten a number of designs back on line and available after the repricing for many shapeways materials, plus I have been working on plans for a T gauge layout for the Central Railroad Club (which I joined earlier in the year). I have to admit, I've had a recent spike in T gauge interest after seeing a new exhibition layout depicting the Firth of Forth Bridge in Edinburgh.

A link to the layout is shown below. More on these ideas next time.

All I can say is WOW! What a model in T! The real bridge is 8,094' long, which is 18 feet in T-scale. The layout is therefore on the order of 24' long. Quite the layout!

A Design to Consider

Well, in my last post, I introduced a concept that I wanted to further refine. Primarily, I wanted to see if the idea would work as planned, i.e. that the grades and curves seemed to fit with the available space.

The plan still needs some work, but I have enough done that it is worth introducing. I selected the Tennessee Pass line from Minturn (on the western side of the continental divide) to Tennessee Pass Siding (located on the eastern part of the divide). This line has 3% grades in parts, and would certainly offer the opportunity to run long trains with helpers, but only limited switching. But the layout would let me experiment with train lengths, helper operations, and some multi-deck benchwork ideas that I have been developing. I'm including the route profile below:

The grade of interest is on the right side of the main diagram. Minturn is the helper base, and helpers are generally cut off on the other side of the summit at Tennessee Pass, Malta or Kobe. In this case, I would cut off helpers at Tennessee Pass, immediately before the helix down. So, with no further ado, let me introduce the layout.

Before showing the track plans of the various levels, let me show a few side views of the layout to help show the concept.

Minturn Side of the Layout

Tennessee Pass Siding Side of the Layout

So, these two views show the 3D render of the layout. The layout starts in staging (bottom image) and a train would run to the right and enter the helix. The train would climb the helix either to Minturn or Tennessee Pass Siding. If the train is headed for Minturn, the train would exit the helix on the left side of the upper image and run left to right through Minturn before wrapping around the end and entering the Rock Creek Tunnel area of the lower image. Again, the train runs left to right, and re-enters the helix for a couple of laps, before emerging at the Belden level of te upper image. Again, Left to right, entering the lower layout at the Pando level. Left to right again, returning around the end to the Pando Tunnel level of the layout on the upper image. Again left to right and the train enters the Tennessee Pass Tunnel at the right side of the upper picture. The train emerges out of the left side of the lower image, runs through Tennessee Pass Siding and then ducks back into the helix, heading down to staging. There is a small staging yard located off of Tennessee Pass siding that will represent Malta and Leadville.

Trains would climb from 34" in height in Staging to 80.5" at Tennessee Pass Siding. Yet the grades work, and the clearances are generally 8-12" plus. The 8" clearance is at the Tennessee Pass siding area and this could be fixed by raising the top of the layout if necessary - but I think at this elevation - 8" may be enough to work. It is even possible to build a raised platform of 8" or even 16" on the Tennessee Pass Siding side of the layout. That would make staging only 18" off the raised floor, but Rock Creek Tunnel would be about 35" off the raised floor. That is a little low, but Pando becomes 52" off the raised floor and Tennessee Pass Siding is at 64.5". Maybe a 14" or 15" elevated floor would be better - but both at acceptable.

Track Plan

There is a lot of detailing still to incorporate into the plan, but the concept works. I'll do some more analysis on the plan and discuss it in a future post. Until then, if tere is feedback, please share.

Considering a Concept

Well, with all the other items discussed, I have been doodling in the background. Having the train space in CAD is nice, as it allows a number of quick visualizations. One of the first drawings that I looked at is below.

Usable Space

Each of these lines represents the remaining space given aisles of various widths. Clearly, as long as the closets and sink (top of the picture) are in place, I am fairly limited. Access along the right side is a necessity, and the left side must deal with the door to the garage. About the only useable wall space at the moment is in the upper left hand corner - if the door to the garage does not have to open all the way - which it does not.

So, this is part of the fun. It is a challenge. Well, I have been following the Canadian Canyons Series on MR Video Plus. This is the most excited I have been about a project layout in Model Railroader in decades. I really like how the layout uses a helix to connect to a staging yard to form the loop. And so a concept may be born.

Looking at my space, and sketching out where the benchwork could go, I arrived at the following conceptual benchwork configuration.

Conceptual Benchwork

There is room for a helix on the left, and the trains could run around the layout and be followed by a crew all the way around the room. In only a few spots, do we have some sub-24" pinch points, and often we are wider. As a test layout, this concept has potential. It has the shelf style I am anticipating, yet could easily support full length trains. A cleaner benchwork drawing without the aisle potentials is shown below.

Dimensioned Benchwork

The layout is broken into 7 sections - each of which will fit out of the sliding door in the basement. Six sections are sceniced - and the seventh would be the helix. The layout may even be somewhat portable in case I need to move, or want to take it to a show.

So, this benchwork was not created solely by the space, but with a concept in mind. That concept is drawn from the Canadian Canyons Layout. I've drawn up a rough plan of the Canadian Canyons Layout on my own.

So, the tracks run through staging, climb the helix on the upper left hand side and then run through the sceniced layout, before descending the helix and returning to staging. It is a giant loop, but it sparked an idea. What if, my layout did much the same thing, climbed out of staging, ran around the perimeter of the layout and the returned to staging by descending the helix. A little quick math suggested that my visible run could be about 52 feet. In N-scale, that is about 1.6 miles. Since many of the places I am interested in modeling are centered around a grade, so, what I used that stretch to model the grade. Running a few quick calculations led to the following:

...a 1% grade would climb about 6.3 inches.
...a 2% grade would climb about 12.6 inches (think Moffat Line/Craig Branch).
...a 2.2% grade would climb about 13.9 inches (think Soldier Summit).
...a 3% grade would climb about 18.9 inches (think Tennessee Pass).

These are very interesting numbers. Playing with a bookshelf, I am convinced that in N scale, you need to have about 10 inches between the scenery base on the lower deck, and the underside of the upper deck. If you can get 12 inches, all the better, and then you need 2-4 inches for the deck structure. In other words, 12-16 inches of deck separation works for me - particularly if you are talking about 10-16 inch deep scenes. With this in mind, you could almost circle the available benchwork and climb to the next deck in the process.

So, what if the layout climbed out of the helix from staging, climbed around deck 1 to deck 2, circled around while still climbing on deck 2, and then descended the helix. Heck, you might be able to do it 3 or even 4 times. Interesting!

So, I have a concept for a layout that would start in staging, climb out of staging to a first deck, and then tackle a grade to the summit, before descending the helix back to staging. I've had similar ideas in the past and so I adopted a term for it - the double helix layout. This could be a chance to try it out.

Following some quick math, the footprint of the layout is 78.36 square feet, and I think I can more or less have staging + 3 decks, so a total of 313.5 square feet of layout, with a visible main line run of about 156 feet or almost 5 scale miles. Granted, the helix connecting the visible top with the staging level would be massive - but that too could be used for elephant staging (trains nose to tail) so you would not "see" the delay climbing the helix, and going down the helix could be automated or managed by the staging hostler. But a 5 scale mile helper grade, that could be a site to be seen.

Okay, so back to the concepts - Focusing on standard gauge for a minute - the Moffat would be the toughest, the grade is at the low end, which would lead to minimal clearances throughout, and if you had some flatter spots at towns, the climb distance it not there. Furthermore, some of the signature features, such as the Big 10 curves, don't work well at all. The Craig Branch has similar issues with some of the scenes (Crater loops), but perhaps a piece of it could be achieved. Soldier Summit does a bit better, it is worth considering, and given that there are few real towns on the eastern side - maybe. The western side has Gilluly Loops - that won't fit well at all. That leads us to Tennessee Pass, with a western side with 3% grades, virtually all a helper district, only a few sidings, and even where it levels out, we are often still talking about 1-2% grades. Promising.

So, it sounds like I have some concepts to draw up, and let us see how they look. Then there are some other options if I look at the Narrow Gauge options too. But I'm going to start with the standard gauge ideas and see how they look.

Layout Givens and Druthers

One of the first model train books I wore out growing up was John Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operation. John Armstrong's Givens and Druthers were the basis for many of his track plans. In my professional life, I teach Design Methods, and we do much the same thing, by formulating design requirements. Design requirements are a combination of constraints (items that are nonnegotiable, i.e. the Givens) and criteria (items that are desirable, i.e. the Druthers).

In my previous post, I discussed the available space and described the necessity for a phased construction approach. These all relate to significant design constraints. But what other constraints are there?

1. Well, one primary constraint is that I want a layout that can host operations. I enjoy operations a great deal, and one of the reasons I have fallen away from building modular setups, is that I enjoy operating a lot more than simply running trains around a layout. I prefer operations to simply parading trains around a layout. In particular, I enjoy dispatching and yard operations. Local switching and over the road running is less of a priority.
2. The layout should be operable by a crew of 1, but can also be enjoyed by a larger crew. 
3. I want the layout to be self-re-staging as much as possible.

I have a lot more criteria to the project. These include:

• Scale - N is my preference, and I have collected a lot of rolling stock in N scale. I have also operated on several N scale layouts and I have found that operations in N scale are quite enjoyable. Would I consider a shift in scale - yes, but only for a definitive benefit.
• Gauge - Obviously, I have been considering both standard and narrow gauge. I have had a particular interest in Nn3 for the last 25 years. I have even built multiple Nn3 modules, and I am convinced that operations are equally viable. More recently, I have developed an interest in other scale/gauge combos, including Nn2 (N scale on T-gauge track), Zn2 (Z scale on T-gauge track), and HOn2 (HO with Z-gauge track). My father has recently gotten into On30, and I have to admit that there is a certain appeal to that as well. Particularly the Bachman geared locomotives. This decision will primarily affect the style of operation.
• Scenery - While Operations is my priority, the best operations oriented layouts are still often recreations of recognizable scenes. These scenes provide the pauses between operations tasks. These pauses provide both a sense of distance and time between the tasks. Thus, I do want to capture scenery for the in-between places. Further, since one of my passions is dispatching, distance is crucial between sidings, and furthermore multiple sidings are essential.
• Era - Probably a modern era layout, 1987-1996 is one particular timeframe of interest. I do want to be able to recreate backdated scenes and run out of era equipment occasionally.
• Train types - Given the era, I am looking primarily at freights, but I will host Amtrak, and some special passenger trains on a regular basis.
• Track Standards:
• For N-Scale Standard Gauge, I plan on using the following: Mainline - Code 55, Minimum Radius 18", Easements on Curves below 36", Grades per prototype, Mainline Primary Turnout #10, Secondary Turnout #7, yards and industries #5 which match the new Atlas Code 55 offerings. Whether I will use Atlas or Peco is undetermied, but handlaid turnouts are a viable consideration. Grade separation, 2.5" (tentative). Branchlines may use tighter radii, down to 15", and spurs may go down to 12" as may rarely used tracks, such as engine terminal or wye trackage. Target train length of 168" for unit trains, 138" for general freights and 100" for passenger trains.
• For Nn3, 10" minimum radius, 12" preferred. Turnouts of #5, #7 and #9. Code 55 and Code 40 rail.
• Multideck design is okay, and in fact is likely, with a target deck separation of 12-14".
• Grades - This depends upon the prototype to be modeled, because I would like to replicate the grades if possible. However, I will still need to do some testing to determine the impact of curves and grades on engine power.
• DCC Operations if at all possible.
• Duck-unders - Nod-unders are okay, Hinged sections are okay, I would prefer to avoid most duck-unders or liftouts.
• Walkaround Design preferred.
• Aisles - Target of 48" near yards, 36" Nominal, 28-32" okay, and 24" only for pinch points.

I am sure that there are others I should think about, but these are a pretty good start.