Xiong
07-22-2011, 04:41 AM
http://www.modeltrainforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10888&stc=1&d=1311323222
A much larger version (1817 x 608) of the same: http://i.imgur.com/AnJAi.png. There's also, attached, the XTrkCad file.
Many thanks to those who ironed out some early questions. This plan is still incomplete and I'd like comments -- with the bark on -- before I lock in this much and fill in the rest.
This is a two-section HO Free-mo module; it's hoped that either section will conform to module specs alone. One might easily imagine a third extender section in the middle "someday". Each section is limited to 74" x 42", to fit under my loft bed; as shown, the widest section must have at least so much cut out to allow the ladder to fit. I also want the cutout so the yardmaster can reach all parts of the layout from his position.
The prototype, at least for inspiration and flavor, is the giant intermodal terminal at the Port of Oakland (California) and, particularly, a smaller yard a little to the East, past the Amtrak station at Jack London Square. As a Free-mo module, the layout must handle double-stacks anyway; as well as older and shorter stock.
For discussion, North is at the bottom of this view; the Lead is to the West. Free-mo has no preferred module orientation and there is no backdrop.
Like the proto, the whole plan is quite flat. Much of the track will not be laid on visible ties; the rails will be set in concrete level with the railhead, with all sorts of road vehicles driving around. I intend few structures; UP seems to have demolished anything inessential. There might be an engine facility at the end of both the Engine and Lead tracks.
The layout is a pretty ordinary stub classification yard. I'd like to cite Craig Bisgeier's Yard Design (http://www.housatonicrr.com/yard_des.html) page as a starting point. I'll explain a few decisions, some of which I have reasons for, some of which make me nervous.
Nimitz Yard classifies only Westbound traffic; and only Eastbounders can load/unload on the Cargo siding. This saves plywood since more mainline turnouts would pretty much be the death of everything else. Also, it's a safety feature: With the mains isolated, it's not possible for a busy yardmaster to inadvertently cause a meet.
A 5-pack of Gunderson intermodals might fit in that Cargo siding but I'm not sure about power fitting in there, too; I'd like that. If anyone can tell me if it's too short, I'd appreciate that.
The Free-mo endplates are angled at 5 degrees. My intent is to introduce a little variety, follow prototype practice, and force a little perspective.
When the Stubs go in, they should all face the same way, facing point. I'm not yet sure where the runaround should go. I'm reluctant to keep crossing the section boundary with track; five crossings is bad enough. I have no idea what to do with the general area labeled "??"; I may cut that off. A bigger cutout will be more convenient for the yardmaster, too. Can you suggest something compelling?
The group of four turnouts is a bit hairy. From each pair, about 5" must be cut to keep them (Walthers #8) from overlapping. The West-most pair joins both their diverging routes, introducing the dreaded S or double curve with no straight in the middle. But I can't see a way to space them out without losing all my plywood to this or shortening the lead into uselessness. The current plan may be better than two double-slips; these seem always to give trouble. Comments?
Thanks, just for looking.
A much larger version (1817 x 608) of the same: http://i.imgur.com/AnJAi.png. There's also, attached, the XTrkCad file.
Many thanks to those who ironed out some early questions. This plan is still incomplete and I'd like comments -- with the bark on -- before I lock in this much and fill in the rest.
This is a two-section HO Free-mo module; it's hoped that either section will conform to module specs alone. One might easily imagine a third extender section in the middle "someday". Each section is limited to 74" x 42", to fit under my loft bed; as shown, the widest section must have at least so much cut out to allow the ladder to fit. I also want the cutout so the yardmaster can reach all parts of the layout from his position.
The prototype, at least for inspiration and flavor, is the giant intermodal terminal at the Port of Oakland (California) and, particularly, a smaller yard a little to the East, past the Amtrak station at Jack London Square. As a Free-mo module, the layout must handle double-stacks anyway; as well as older and shorter stock.
For discussion, North is at the bottom of this view; the Lead is to the West. Free-mo has no preferred module orientation and there is no backdrop.
Like the proto, the whole plan is quite flat. Much of the track will not be laid on visible ties; the rails will be set in concrete level with the railhead, with all sorts of road vehicles driving around. I intend few structures; UP seems to have demolished anything inessential. There might be an engine facility at the end of both the Engine and Lead tracks.
The layout is a pretty ordinary stub classification yard. I'd like to cite Craig Bisgeier's Yard Design (http://www.housatonicrr.com/yard_des.html) page as a starting point. I'll explain a few decisions, some of which I have reasons for, some of which make me nervous.
Nimitz Yard classifies only Westbound traffic; and only Eastbounders can load/unload on the Cargo siding. This saves plywood since more mainline turnouts would pretty much be the death of everything else. Also, it's a safety feature: With the mains isolated, it's not possible for a busy yardmaster to inadvertently cause a meet.
A 5-pack of Gunderson intermodals might fit in that Cargo siding but I'm not sure about power fitting in there, too; I'd like that. If anyone can tell me if it's too short, I'd appreciate that.
The Free-mo endplates are angled at 5 degrees. My intent is to introduce a little variety, follow prototype practice, and force a little perspective.
When the Stubs go in, they should all face the same way, facing point. I'm not yet sure where the runaround should go. I'm reluctant to keep crossing the section boundary with track; five crossings is bad enough. I have no idea what to do with the general area labeled "??"; I may cut that off. A bigger cutout will be more convenient for the yardmaster, too. Can you suggest something compelling?
The group of four turnouts is a bit hairy. From each pair, about 5" must be cut to keep them (Walthers #8) from overlapping. The West-most pair joins both their diverging routes, introducing the dreaded S or double curve with no straight in the middle. But I can't see a way to space them out without losing all my plywood to this or shortening the lead into uselessness. The current plan may be better than two double-slips; these seem always to give trouble. Comments?
Thanks, just for looking.