Sneak Peak: Preliminary track plan for PRR Panhandle 2.0

All Facets of O-Gauge, 3-Rail, Model Railroading
User avatar
healey36
Posts: 6352
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 3:43 pm
Location: Westminster, MD

Re: Sneak Peak: Preliminary track plan for PRR Panhandle 2.0

Postby healey36 » Wed Aug 24, 2016 3:53 pm

George - Was over to Sarge's today doing a bunch of stuff, but along the way noted that his around-the-room layout is 48" off the floor, just a few inches lower than your proposed height. As John mentioned earlier, and as Sarge pointed out, it's a good height for operations, line-of-sight, etc., so I withdraw my earlier assessment that 50" was crazy high. It looked good.

Healey

User avatar
jlong
Posts: 12246
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 1:26 pm
Location: Kaukauna, Wisconsin

Re: Sneak Peak: Preliminary track plan for PRR Panhandle 2.0

Postby jlong » Thu Aug 25, 2016 6:05 am

I do like the initial plan. With all said however, I see nothing wrong with drawing up a second plan with a completely different foot print and weigh the two. If you like it better, fine. Go for it. If you don't like it better, fine. Go with the first plan.

Again. A shelf system with a peninsula is something I would strongly consider. Shelf systems have a lot going for them. Operation, aesthetics, access, maintenance....... They were not real popular back in the day because they require a walk around throttle of some sort. You have that. Modern day command control evolved from walk around throttles (DCC in particular) and made shelf systems a reality for a lot of people. Many of the older track planning publications focused on central control so there was not a lot of focus on shelf systems.
John Long

One nation under Josh with ozone an magnetraction for all

User avatar
G3750
Posts: 4308
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 6:02 pm
Location: Cranberry Township, PA USA

Re: Sneak Peak: Preliminary track plan for PRR Panhandle 2.0

Postby G3750 » Thu Aug 25, 2016 7:13 am

healey36 wrote:George - Was over to Sarge's today doing a bunch of stuff, but along the way noted that his around-the-room layout is 48" off the floor, just a few inches lower than your proposed height. As John mentioned earlier, and as Sarge pointed out, it's a good height for operations, line-of-sight, etc., so I withdraw my earlier assessment that 50" was crazy high. It looked good.

Healey


"Don't come selling crazy here, we're all stocked up." :lol: :lol: :lol:

Sorry, I couldn't resist the Jack Nicholson line from As Good As It Gets. :lol:

Seriously, 48" is under consideration. Originally, the Steubenville side of the current layout was at 46", but I lowered it.

Thank you for the suggestion.

George
What is a 'Conservative'? "Someone who wants society and policy to recognize objective reality- economic, biological, and historical."

—Katy Faust

User avatar
G3750
Posts: 4308
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 6:02 pm
Location: Cranberry Township, PA USA

Re: Sneak Peak: Preliminary track plan for PRR Panhandle 2.0

Postby G3750 » Thu Aug 25, 2016 7:15 am

jlong wrote:I do like the initial plan. With all said however, I see nothing wrong with drawing up a second plan with a completely different foot print and weigh the two. If you like it better, fine. Go for it. If you don't like it better, fine. Go with the first plan.

Again. A shelf system with a peninsula is something I would strongly consider. Shelf systems have a lot going for them. Operation, aesthetics, access, maintenance....... They were not real popular back in the day because they require a walk around throttle of some sort. You have that. Modern day command control evolved from walk around throttles (DCC in particular) and made shelf systems a reality for a lot of people. Many of the older track planning publications focused on central control so there was not a lot of focus on shelf systems.


I will look into this and see if I can get out of my mental vise.

Thanks,

George
What is a 'Conservative'? "Someone who wants society and policy to recognize objective reality- economic, biological, and historical."

—Katy Faust

User avatar
jlong
Posts: 12246
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 1:26 pm
Location: Kaukauna, Wisconsin

Re: Sneak Peak: Preliminary track plan for PRR Panhandle 2.0

Postby jlong » Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:33 pm

G3750 wrote:
I will look into this and see if I can get out of my mental vise.

Thanks,

George


Unscrewing that mental vise is a simple matter of plopping digital track pieces around the wall perimeter. Once you do that, a vision from God comes down and you start rearranging the pieces into something that makes sense. As you rearrange, visions come in volumes and you keep rearranging into something you might like.
John Long

One nation under Josh with ozone an magnetraction for all

gnnpnut
Posts: 359
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Sneak Peak: Preliminary track plan for PRR Panhandle 2.0

Postby gnnpnut » Thu Aug 25, 2016 8:17 pm

George:

Do you have a "givens and druthers" list you could share with us?

Here is an offer. Send me your current track plan at jlzemanatcomcastdotnet. Tell me your total basement size. If you can, draw rectangles around the areas where the mechanicals are located, stairs, and roughed in bathroom on a piece of paper, scan, and send me as a PDF. I would not mind doing some quick cut and pastes, just for discussion purposes.

Ultimately, what you decide on obviously has to meet your needs. Not looking to talk you out of anything, just want to help as jlong states, "unlock that mental vise". :mrgreen: Besides, I have fun doing layout plans.

I may see something that unlocks my mental vice on my railroad. Remember, I still have two industrial facilities to design into mine, the aluminum reduction plant, and the aluminum rolling mill. :wink:

Regards,
Jerry

User avatar
jlong
Posts: 12246
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 1:26 pm
Location: Kaukauna, Wisconsin

Re: Sneak Peak: Preliminary track plan for PRR Panhandle 2.0

Postby jlong » Fri Aug 26, 2016 6:36 am

Track planning is a form of research and balance really. The effort you put into it is a small fraction of the effort that goes into the actual construction. Coming up with three alternative plans is a smart way to do it. It's no different than investing 30 hours of research on three vehicle alternatives verses investing 10 hours of research on one vehicle before plunking down 30 or 40k or even more.
John Long

One nation under Josh with ozone an magnetraction for all

User avatar
G3750
Posts: 4308
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 6:02 pm
Location: Cranberry Township, PA USA

Re: Sneak Peak: Preliminary track plan for PRR Panhandle 2.0

Postby G3750 » Fri Aug 26, 2016 3:09 pm

gnnpnut wrote:George:

Do you have a "givens and druthers" list you could share with us?

Jerry


Sure. When I designed the original Panhandle, I had a set of goals - the equivalent of "givens and druthers".

Operational Goals:

The PRR Panhandle was developed with the following operational goals in mind:

Allow the simultaneous operation of at least 2 trains on the mainline and 2 switchers in yards or spurs.
Use a signaling system that helps prevent collisions.
Have curves large enough to permit the use of 72’ scale heavyweight passenger cars (requires at least O42).
Allow the use of medium-sized PRR steam locomotives (requires at least O54).
Permit the running of long trains (10-15 hoppers or 6 passenger cars).


Electrical Goals:

Building the PRR Panhandle was also my chance to learn about sound electrical and command control concepts. The Panhandle was originally conceived (back in 1997) as a conventional layout. I then decided to install TMCC, but was influenced by the arrival of DCS. After trying a DCS/TMCC combination during construction, I decided TMCC was the direction to pursue. In 2007, the change was made to solely TMCC. Home run wiring and light bulbs (as block power indicators) were retained in the design. The electrical plan divides the layout into 8 blocks or power districts – 4 mainline and 4 yards - with the ability to individually control power to the yards. The mainline (districts 1-4) may be run in either command or conventional mode. Yards (districts 5-8) are all command controlled.

Modeling Goals:

I wanted to model specific areas from the prototype - City of Weirton (North Weirton), Weirton Steel, Weirton Junction, Steubenville, OH - specifically the intersection of Market & 4th.


George
What is a 'Conservative'? "Someone who wants society and policy to recognize objective reality- economic, biological, and historical."

—Katy Faust

User avatar
chuck
Posts: 5867
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 7:43 pm
Location: Plymouth, Michigan
Contact:

Re: Sneak Peak: Preliminary track plan for PRR Panhandle 2.0

Postby chuck » Sat Aug 27, 2016 8:59 am

Got my copy of the Armstrong Book. There is a lot of great prototype information that has been explained in ways that modeler's can understand. I also appreciate his efforts to consider modelers other than HO with conversion tables that include other scales, page 76 discussion of curves is extremely well done as is the preceding pages on easements. I've got some prototype sources (e.g. Army Tech manual of railroad construction) and a lot of model/toy train reference material but nothing that bridges the real world to scale they way Mr. Armstrong did. Thanks for posting your source on planning!!!!

BTW, your steel mill seems to be one of the central points of interest of the layout. Did you every give any consideration to setting it up in a linear fashion? There are prototypes that do that when space was an issue. Some of the mills on the south Lake Michigan shore line in Indiana are arranged that way and parts of the Rouge complex in Dearborn do the same, especially the steel processing section with the slab mills feeding the rolling mills, etc.
Once I built a railroad, I made it run,
Made it race against time.
Once I built a railroad, now it's done --
Brother, can you spare a dime?

User avatar
G3750
Posts: 4308
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 6:02 pm
Location: Cranberry Township, PA USA

Re: Sneak Peak: Preliminary track plan for PRR Panhandle 2.0

Postby G3750 » Sat Aug 27, 2016 4:37 pm

chuck wrote:Got my copy of the Armstrong Book. There is a lot of great prototype information that has been explained in ways that modeler's can understand. I also appreciate his efforts to consider modelers other than HO with conversion tables that include other scales, page 76 discussion of curves is extremely well done as is the preceding pages on easements. I've got some prototype sources (e.g. Army Tech manual of railroad construction) and a lot of model/toy train reference material but nothing that bridges the real world to scale they way Mr. Armstrong did. Thanks for posting your source on planning!!!!


You're welcome. I really like the book and it's been a huge help to me, even though I don't understand all of it thoroughly.

chuck wrote:BTW, your steel mill seems to be one of the central points of interest of the layout. Did you every give any consideration to setting it up in a linear fashion? There are prototypes that do that when space was an issue. Some of the mills on the south Lake Michigan shore line in Indiana are arranged that way and parts of the Rouge complex in Dearborn do the same, especially the steel processing section with the slab mills feeding the rolling mills, etc.


To answer your question, no. When I originally designed the mill area, I took advantage of the trick of angling the buildings into the wall. This made the buildings look bigger. It also allowed me to put 3 mill buildings in that space, a mere 18" x 10'. A linear arrangement for the prototype helps them make steel. But a diagonal arrangement for the model saves space and helps me make theatre. :wink:

With the expanded space, I am now able to get 4 much larger mill buildings into a 7.5' x 11' area as well as all the tracks necessary to actually service or operate them.

And, I am maintaining some fidelity to the prototype. An overpass does really divide the mill.

MainStreet_04_.JPG
MainStreet_04_.JPG (125.14 KiB) Viewed 6441 times



George
What is a 'Conservative'? "Someone who wants society and policy to recognize objective reality- economic, biological, and historical."

—Katy Faust

User avatar
chuck
Posts: 5867
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 7:43 pm
Location: Plymouth, Michigan
Contact:

Re: Sneak Peak: Preliminary track plan for PRR Panhandle 2.0

Postby chuck » Sun Aug 28, 2016 5:49 am

Photo of prototype helps a lot. The mill is the center piece/main scene and the through street is an integral part. I like how you've worked the viewing angles to hide the street dead ending at the back wall, very nicely down.

My suggestion on stretching the mill out was to "saw tooth" the buildings along the "north" wall (aka they only have two sides) and stagger them with the feeder tracks at a shallower angle. You would preserve the building length at the expense of the buildings being only two sided and would have to trade background painting skills to keep the illusion of complete buildings. In addition I could not come up with a way to do that (saw tooth) AND preserve the bisecting street without making it obvious it literally hits a wall. I think your solution accomplishes your primary goals in a much better way.
Once I built a railroad, I made it run,
Made it race against time.
Once I built a railroad, now it's done --
Brother, can you spare a dime?

gnnpnut
Posts: 359
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Sneak Peak: Preliminary track plan for PRR Panhandle 2.0

Postby gnnpnut » Sun Aug 28, 2016 8:07 am

George:

You presently have 77 square feet allocated for your staging area. Using an around the wall perimeter design, you could have a double track main line running through two staging tracks in 52.5 sq feet.

Thread on MJT.jpg
Thread on MJT.jpg (61.27 KiB) Viewed 6422 times


Advantages of this setup:
]
    The whole staging yard is accessible from the aisle within reach.
    No duckunders.
    Far simplified wiring. The switch machines can utilize manual Blue Point turnout controllers, which can be controlled with a simple knob and a rod attached to the Blue Point actuating mechanism. Blue points even have aux contacts on them, just like a Tortoise, if you wanted to signal it. My original layout utilized toggles and a Tortoise equivalent (SwitchMaster). I gave up on all that stuff, layout gets wired faster, cheaper, and will be far more reliable.

Here is a photo of my aisle with the staging on the left. I have a panel with toggles so that I can isolate individual tracks, but that is it.


IMG_3076.JPG
IMG_3076.JPG (1.63 MiB) Viewed 6422 times


Regards,
Jerry

User avatar
G3750
Posts: 4308
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 6:02 pm
Location: Cranberry Township, PA USA

Re: Sneak Peak: Preliminary track plan for PRR Panhandle 2.0

Postby G3750 » Sun Aug 28, 2016 11:41 am

gnnpnut wrote:George:

You presently have 77 square feet allocated for your staging area. Using an around the wall perimeter design, you could have a double track main line running through two staging tracks in 52.5 sq feet.

Thread on MJT.jpg


Advantages of this setup:
]
    The whole staging yard is accessible from the aisle within reach.
    No duckunders.
    Far simplified wiring. The switch machines can utilize manual Blue Point turnout controllers, which can be controlled with a simple knob and a rod attached to the Blue Point actuating mechanism. Blue points even have aux contacts on them, just like a Tortoise, if you wanted to signal it. My original layout utilized toggles and a Tortoise equivalent (SwitchMaster). I gave up on all that stuff, layout gets wired faster, cheaper, and will be far more reliable.

Here is a photo of my aisle with the staging on the left. I have a panel with toggles so that I can isolate individual tracks, but that is it.


IMG_3076.JPG


Regards,
Jerry


First of all, thank you for proposing this alternative. It does indeed save space. And it is more accessible as well. I particularly like the idea of using a physical, i.e. reliable, mechanism for activating the switches. I have actually looked at Blue Point switch controllers myself.

George
What is a 'Conservative'? "Someone who wants society and policy to recognize objective reality- economic, biological, and historical."

—Katy Faust

User avatar
G3750
Posts: 4308
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 6:02 pm
Location: Cranberry Township, PA USA

Re: Sneak Peak: Preliminary track plan for PRR Panhandle 2.0

Postby G3750 » Sun Aug 28, 2016 12:00 pm

chuck wrote:Photo of prototype helps a lot. The mill is the center piece/main scene and the through street is an integral part. I like how you've worked the viewing angles to hide the street dead ending at the back wall, very nicely down.

My suggestion on stretching the mill out was to "saw tooth" the buildings along the "north" wall (aka they only have two sides) and stagger them with the feeder tracks at a shallower angle. You would preserve the building length at the expense of the buildings being only two sided and would have to trade background painting skills to keep the illusion of complete buildings. In addition I could not come up with a way to do that (saw tooth) AND preserve the bisecting street without making it obvious it literally hits a wall. I think your solution accomplishes your primary goals in a much better way.


Thank you, Chuck.

The photo showed the area known as "Crawford's Crossing" as viewed from downtown Weirton (looking northeast). Here's another view of the overpass from a slightly different angle.

1957 Crawfords Crossing.jpg
1957 Crawfords Crossing.jpg (77.22 KiB) Viewed 6413 times


And here's what I did with that area in the current layout (version 2.0 will duplicate it but (hopefully) be better!!!).

2011-01-05 007.JPG
2011-01-05 007.JPG (3.4 MiB) Viewed 6413 times


George
What is a 'Conservative'? "Someone who wants society and policy to recognize objective reality- economic, biological, and historical."

—Katy Faust

Rufus T. Firefly
Posts: 41330
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:52 am
Location: Departed from this forum

Re: Sneak Peak: Preliminary track plan for PRR Panhandle 2.0

Postby Rufus T. Firefly » Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:09 am

I suspect that putting the road under the track might make the trains run somewhat better....
Conservatism: The intense fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is inferior is being treated as your equal.


Return to “O-Gauge, 3-Rail, Model Railroading”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests