# Bessemer & Lake Erie layout plan



## HD FLATCAR (Feb 21, 2011)

I have been designing this using Anyrail6. This is revision #18... 
Total floor space is 27ft x 37ft., 2 levels -30" & 50", HO scale, DCC, 32" min. radius, 2.2% grade (helix, 34R), #6 or bigger turnouts, Code83 flex track (maybe code70 on some sidings)... 
I'm currently in table building mode, "modular" units, as shown by the "cut lines" on the plans. Tables (level -1) are 5/8" plywood w/1x6 around sides, level -2 will be 7/16" plywood. 2x3 legs.
PM me if you think something is really out-of-whack.... All comments are welcomed...


----------



## 65steam (Dec 18, 2019)

It's interesting and ambitious, but I wonder if it's too much track. It seems that the trains almost always will be traveling through major facilities without much space in between to provide separation and a sense of distance. I guess it depends on what you want out of your layout, but I notice from your profile you are trying to convey train travel between two points, and I fear it might not feel that way unless you thin things out a bit. That would cut down operations somewhat, though.


----------



## HD FLATCAR (Feb 21, 2011)

Thanks for the review... I see what you are saying. I'm not a big one for just senary areas....
I might delete the OSGOOD YARD, it's only a storage yard for iron ore, south-bound. 
Delete ALBION Station, Passenger trains are only about 3-4 cars long and move HARTSTOWN a little to the left, 5 feet... 
Delete the CALVIN YARD, it was local freight (use SHENAGO YARD) and staging for coal going north, put the coal staging in N. BESSEMER with the inbound iron ore. 
Delete HARMARVILLE Station and move MERCER LIMESTONE around the corner to where the left end of Calvin Yard is/was...
CONNEAUT HARBOR will handle iron ore, south-bound & coal coming north. 
N. BESSEMER will receive iron ore (end-of-line) and stage coal coming from mines going north to CONNEAUT HARBOR.


----------



## HD FLATCAR (Feb 21, 2011)

65steam said:


> It's interesting and ambitious, but I wonder if it's too much track. It seems that the trains almost always will be traveling through major facilities without much space in between to provide separation and a sense of distance. I guess it depends on what you want out of your layout, but I notice from your profile you are trying to convey train travel between two points, and I fear it might not feel that way unless you thin things out a bit. That would cut down operations somewhat, though.


Here's an updated version minus the things I noted in the forum...


----------



## 65steam (Dec 18, 2019)

I really like the changes you made, HD (and quickly!). This seems like it could be a very nice layout.


----------



## HD FLATCAR (Feb 21, 2011)

65steam said:


> I really like the changes you made, HD (and quickly!). This seems like it could be a very nice layout.


Thanks... when you are semi-retired you have the time...
So what's your R/R ? As you see mine is B&LE 1950s-1960...that way I can have both steam & diesel on the same layout, the equipment changes but, not the scenery.
.


----------



## OilValleyRy (Oct 3, 2021)

A simple consideration would be interchange tracks… stub spurs that run off into the backdrop or dead end out of view behind a building. Both PRR & NYC came into Greenville. 
Those could be two easy “industries” to spot any car type, but petrol tank cars in particular.

As a fun side note but in the realm of proto-freelancing, during the Penn Central years about a decade after you are modeling, those PRR & NYC interchange tracks and a crossing in Greenville became Oil Valley Railway trackage. It’d be a hoot to have a virtual interchange between layouts, although Greenville isn’t represented on my layout as it’s just a grab & go on the way to New Castle.


----------



## HD FLATCAR (Feb 21, 2011)

OilValleyRy said:


> A simple consideration would be interchange tracks… stub spurs that run off into the backdrop or dead end out of view behind a building. Both PRR & NYC came into Greenville.
> Those could be two easy “industries” to spot any car type, but petrol tank cars in particular.
> 
> As a fun side note but in the realm of proto-freelancing, during the Penn Central years about a decade after you are modeling, those PRR & NYC interchange tracks and a crossing in Greenville became Oil Valley Railway trackage. It’d be a hoot to have a virtual interchange between layouts, although Greenville isn’t represented on my layout as it’s just a grab & go on the way to New Castle.


Yeh, I see what you are saying... I do have some Erie RR running through Greenville into Osgood just as an added RR & a NYC "line" in Osgood (w/no connection)
I might add an interchange track in the SHENAGO YARD Area, as that where it was...


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

You are so fortunate to have the space for such a
fantastic layout. I am the grinch who finds reverse
loops where I can. You go from a double track to
a single track just East of the harbor. That results
in a 'reverse loop' that will require a reverse loop
controller. 

You go from a double to a single track just
East of the Helix that also creates a 'reverse loop'
that will need a controller.

The ability to turn a train around to go the opposite
way on a track is a desirable feature on a layout. However,
if you wanted to avoid having these simply maintain the double
track in both of these locations.

You have a very interesting continuous running layout with
large yards. As one who enjoys switching operations I note
that, considering the space you have, there are few spurs with
businesses that use rail freight. 

Don


----------



## HD FLATCAR (Feb 21, 2011)

DonR said:


> You are so fortunate to have the space for such a
> fantastic layout. I am the grinch who finds reverse
> loops where I can. You go from a double track to
> a single track just East of the harbor. That results
> ...


I've been eyeing those "choke points", the reverse loops... and will be extending the double track through the loops. I think there is one at end of N. Bessemer...
I might add in a concrete plant next to Mercer LimeStone and move Hartstown west a few feet to add something on the end of the peninsula. 
Most of my "activity" is iron ore south, coal north & passenger svc. north & South. The Greenville Shops will be the "hot spot"...


----------



## dennybub88 (6 mo ago)

HD FLATCAR said:


> I have been designing this using Anyrail6. This is revision #18...
> Total floor space is 27ft x 37ft., 2 levels -30" & 50", HO scale, DCC, 32" min. radius, 2.2% grade (helix, 34R), #6 or bigger turnouts, Code83 flex track (maybe code70 on some sidings)...
> I'm currently in table building mode, "modular" units, as shown by the "cut lines" on the plans. Tables (level -1) are 5/8" plywood w/1x6 around sides, level -2 will be 7/16" plywood. 2x3 legs.
> PM me if you think something is really out-of-whack.... All comments are welcomed...


hi... beautiful layout... i would not worry too much about "too much track" as some members have stated. my main concern is that you may want some buildings/facilities at the edge of your pike to "hide the trains" a bit which is not only prototypical and lets trains disappear somewhat but then you will see that the "tight spaces" you talked about become much more interesting !!! please let me know your progress as i just joined 7-22 !!!


----------



## HD FLATCAR (Feb 21, 2011)

dennybub88 said:


> hi... beautiful layout... i would not worry too much about "too much track" as some members have stated. my main concern is that you may want some buildings/facilities at the edge of your pike to "hide the trains" a bit which is not only prototypical and lets trains disappear somewhat but then you will see that the "tight spaces" you talked about become much more interesting !!! please let me know your progress as i just joined 7-22 !!!


Just an update note... Have built a few more table sections, have the helix pcs cut






















































and have pretty much settled on the layout design (revision #28). OH, I almost forgot... A/C & large ceiling fan installed.


----------



## OilValleyRy (Oct 3, 2021)

Nice progress. Although using sheet foam eliminates the need for all that plywood atop the framing.


----------



## HD FLATCAR (Feb 21, 2011)

OilValleyRy said:


> Nice progress. Although using sheet foam eliminates the need for all that plywood atop the framing.


FREE plywood, I might as well use it... I've been collecting the foam board from Home Depot, cost=$16.50/sheet


----------

