# Advice on my HO/HOn3 layout?



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

I've been working out the design for a 12x12 foot layout, and was wondering if anyone might see any 'gotchas' that I need to avoid?

The plan: I want to model something like the D&RGW line in the early 1900's. Overall the layout creates two separate towns (top and bottom) with a mountain range extending across the center (elevations still need some work). Primary industries will be coal and logging. The mountains provide for a high pass, tunnels, and areas for at least one major trestle bridge. I will likely run the freight trains on standard gauge, and run a passenger train on the narrow. I may also make some short runs up to the coal mine on narrow.

The red tracks are my narrow-gauge lines and for the most part are dual-gauge. There are some spots where the n3 leaves the main line in order to avoid the double-slip turnouts. I will have to hand-lay a single non-switched rail through one side of two double-crossings, but otherwise I should be able to fit everything together with standard turnouts. I've managed to avoid needing transition sections to move the centerline of the n3 through the reverse-loops, and included the n3 in some of the spurs.

The brown elevation markers each denote a 1" rise. The grey valley floor is 1" _below_ the primary floor. The steepest slopes come up at a grade 5 (over the mountain pass), but trains with traction issues can take the much shallower valley tunnels. I think constantly-varying altitudes makes the track more interesting, to the large switching yard will probably be the flattest surface of the whole layout.

Most of the track is 18" and 20" radius, which I think should be ok for regular 2-6-0 and 2-8-0 locos? I wanted some basic switching yards, but I don't have a lot of room to get real fancy with them. I think I have enough laid out for loading and unloading at both ends of the line. With proper attention to the turnouts, this layout should provide a double mainline and enough room to run two or even three trains on the mainline. There are also a couple of complex routes I can set up to leave a single train running unattended.

So let me know what you think... With any luck I may try getting started on the framework this Summer.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Very ambitious project. Should be some
very interesting trackwork and scenery.

I assume you are planning DCC since you
have 4 reverse loops, 2 on the HO and
2 on the narrow gauge. You'll need
4 reverse controllers, The Digitrax PM42 has
four units that can be set as reverse controllers.

My only critique would be to add more
industrial spurs. You can't have enough
of those.

There is a club down here in Florida that operates a
gigantic DCC modular HOn3 layout that they take to
train shows. They have both freight and
passenger. There are so many nice narrow
gauge old time freight cars it's a shame you
omit them.

Don


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

Oh I'm not opposed to running narrow gauge freight, and as the line gets more complete I'll probably expand my rolling stock, but I'm just looking at getting up and running first.

I've actually been considering a more DIY solution for the train control. I've been ordering a few bits and pieces to play with setting up a Teensy 3.1 controller with bluetooth, and I'm looking at some various low-cost options for using RFID to tag the cars. I will probably still need some reversing controllers for the loops, but otherwise I think it will be straightforward. Ideally I want a setup that can be completely computer-controlled, or allow me to take over a loco but still have safety rules in place to prevent collisions.

Yes it's a big project, but I have time and patience. Overall I plan on learning a lot of new skills, such as doing rock work scenery and laying my own track (since that would allow the n3 crossings to fit perfectly). I still have a lot to learn about narrow gauge, but I love the look of the crossover between eras, and it just seems to fit perfectly for how I want to run my line.


----------



## wvgca (Jan 21, 2013)

i also model he 1890's logging / mining, but on a around the wall / penninsula style layout..my tighter spots are 20" radius .. but 2-8-0 locos [tried 4] are not completely reliable, but are okay on 22".. i used n/s atlas code 100 track only, no dual gauge, mostly #6 turnouts... only thing i wonder about on your layout is what seems to be over a three foot arm reach in some places??, depending on your final layout height, you can gain some reach if it's lower on the access side, and you can bend to get extra arm length...mine is 36" high at the fascia side, and i have two deeper areas, a corner at 48" and another at 54", but neither have track more than 32" from the fascia, just scenery, but i remember it was definitely a stretch to do those two corners .. as far as rolling stock, there are usually some truss rod reefers/ stock cars / box cars on ebay, a lot from mdc / roundhouse, but flats or condolas from that era seem scarce, and i resorted to scratch building some ...for ore cars i used the tichy 22 foot mostly, easy build, trucks took longer than the rest of the car itself ...ambitious project, will have to follow this one ..


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

Yeah I agree the reach may be a bit long in certain spots. I was figuring up to about 42" at worst. Height is not an issue -- the layout will be hung from the garage ceiling, using a garage door opening to raise/lower the layout during use, and I'm planning to be able to take it all the way to the floor. Maybe I need to plan on allowing a place to put feet for a work platform that will let me lay over the top of the layout. I think as long as I allow for doing the mountains first, then working back towards the edges, I can get most of it done without effort.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Shdwdrgn said:


> Yeah I agree the reach may be a bit long in certain spots. I was figuring up to about 42" at worst. Height is not an issue -- the layout will be hung from the garage ceiling, using a garage door opening to raise/lower the layout during use, and I'm planning to be able to take it all the way to the floor. Maybe I need to plan on allowing a place to put feet for a work platform that will let me lay over the top of the layout. I think as long as I allow for doing the mountains first, then working back towards the edges, I can get most of it done without effort.


I think you've bitten off way more than you can chew, no matter how much time and patience you have. Especially if this is your first layout. But that's only my opinion. Go for it, and may you experience success, while Mr. Murphy (of legal fame) stays far away.

Other than that, my observations are as follows:

1) Yes, you're going to need a way to reach in. Creeper, work platform, something.

2) Even made of foam, that thing will be incredibly heavy. Be prepared for problems in raising and lowering, and and specially keeping it rigid -- flexong during raising and lowering will cause trouble.

3) You're planning to do this in a garage? Have you made arrangements to deal with temperature and humidity.

4) I can see the contours, and it looks like your track follows them in many cases. You are goimg to need to pay very careful attention to trackwork, as well as the steepness of your inclines, to avoid operating issues.

5) You have a lot of very complicated track situations there, including a double crossover from dual gage track. Have you identified commercial products that will fill these spots, or are you planning to hand lay track?

6) From my perspective, you will need more to do, so more sidings and industries will help.

7) Have you made provision for the power pack, etc somewhere?

Good Luck!


----------



## thysell (Jun 8, 2013)

Watch the grades. I've got some 2.5% ones and my Bachmann 2-6-0 will only pull about 6 40' box cars before it starts to slip.

I've got a 12x6 layout hanging in the garage. I haven't added much scenery yet and I'm already starting to worry about the weight.

Neat looking plan!

Pete


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

I'm pretty good with managing a lot of stress on wooden constructions. This was my last project: http://madsplatter.net/ 

And no, there won't be any climate control in the garage. The track will need to have floating sections to allow for movement, but I'm sure I'm not the first person to set up a layout in their garage.

As I mentioned above, I'll have to add a straight-through third rail on two of the crossovers. I routed around the double-slips because it appears to be physically impossible to fit dual-gauge into a double slip. I was doing some reading today on laying your own track, and it seems you just need a few basic tools. About the only thing I don't already have on hand is the rail cutter and some track gauges, the rest looks a lot easier than I had imagined. Looks like that is the best plan though -- I have 13 turnouts where the HO and HOn3 split apart, plus 4 more that are dual-gauge through both legs. When dual-gauge turnouts are selling for $40+ each and I'm not even sure if I can get the majority of what I need, I think doing it myself is going to be the better (and cheaper) option.

All of the power feeds will come up from underneath, I just need to separate some sections to minimize the impact from shorts. If nothing else I could just scatter around a bunch of 1-2amp transformers and run each section independent. I just need to get enough regulated voltage to each segment to run a couple of locomotives (at most) plus any signaling I add in.

As for the grades... I'm planning on a doing a cookie-cutter style frame, so ideally I can get all of the grades laid out, then test the trains on the open framework and see where the problems lay. A 5% grade just doesn't seem like that much when I hold up a length of track, but the weight of the cars would add up fast, especially when loaded.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

I get nervous when I see you say scatter around a few 1 and 2 amp
transformers...tho the reference may be in word meaning.

On a layout such as this surely you will be going DCC. In which case
your power requirements would depend on the number of locos you
intend to run AT THE SAME TIME and if they are Sound. The track
footage has no bearing on power needs.

You can break the layout apart to make isolated sections with
circuit breakers and yet not need additional power sources.

You would get an even distribution of power by using track drops
every 6 feet or so and connecting them to an under table buss
which is powered by your DCC controller.

Don


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

My thinking was more towards each isolated section of track having its own supply, and 12VDC power packs are a dime a dozen (I actually have a box full of 3-4A supplies from old computers), and can be cheaper than getting a single high-output supply... but I see your point and agree that there are a number of different ways a layout could be wired.

I'll probably try to keep my setup DCC-friendly, but as I mentioned above I'm leaning more towards rolling my own wireless solution. As long as I provide a solid 12VDC to all the rail, and set up the auto-reversing sections in the loops, I think the track should work with just about anything.


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

I did a complete rebuild of the layout going with larger curves where I could, and expanding the centerlines to 2.25", but unfortunately there's just not a lot of space to work with and still get the track lines I wanted. I ended up with a minimum radius of 18" on the narrow-gauge lines, and 18.5" on the standard-gauge. Any larger equipment can make a run around the entire layout staying on a minimum of 20.75" radius, and the lead-ins to the mountain slopes go up to 24" radius. I think this is going to be about the best I can do. Worst case, I use a pair of 2-6-0's to haul the coal cars up through the mountain pass.

One thing I was able to work in to the rebuild is an n3-only line passing around the back side of the mountain. And while I've managed to eliminate the double-crossovers, I still have the double-slips and will need to lay some custom n3 crossings between them. There are some tight areas where a standard a narrow-gauge train will not be able to pass each other through the crossovers, but those spots should be visually quite interesting. I will definitely be getting a lot of practice with laying dual-gauge crossings and turnouts!

The hardest part was the various crossovers in the large curve at the bottom-left. There's a LOT of elevation changes going on in that area, so I had to work with the track for a bit before I was able to get smooth transitions and keep both track gauges in sync, while keeping the grade below 5.0. The program doesn't allow turnouts to have a grade, so I think the actual grades will end up being a bit smaller.


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

I've been cleaning up my track design a little more, and simplifying some areas to help with elevation changes. I have most of the grades down below 4% now and am working on industries and operations. There's certainly a lot more to learn, so some of my structures are placed a bit haphazardly. The track itself should be fairly easy to lay down, although there will be some interesting pieces to hand-lay such as the sweeping dual-gauge curved turnouts.

Here's what I have going...

Coal mine: Not exactly shown, but the small road from the left-center leads to the spurs where hoppers will be loaded. The mine is on the hill above. Hoppers are taken down the mountain and unloaded. Need a LOT more research into actual mining and processing operations.
Lumber: Logs are picked up from the lake and taken down to the sawmill in Woodcrest. So far I have a crane for unloading, buildings for debarking and sawing, a log storage barn and a woodchipper shed, plus service roads. And I've seen some nice ideas for the lakeside, using a steam crane and a manual loading doc.
Copper mine: served only by narrow-gauge, I might turn this into an abandoned mine.
Stockyard: Left-center, a small operation off the narrow-gauge line, but large enough that they got their own loading spur (perhaps a co-op of ranchers in the area?).
Wheat farm: Right-center, I haven't put much thought into this yet, but I'm considering setting up a flour mill near one of the rivers.

I've also added details like mountain streams to provide more opportunities for bridges. Gotta love bridges! The winding road in Black Creek will be due to the mountainous terrain in the area, and the stores will be placed wherever they could carve out a flat enough space. I have four water towers placed around, plus a sanding station, and since the coal operation will be so prevalent, I want to imply that the locos can simply refuel anywhere they go.

And finally, I figured out a way to add in a 65' gallows turntable and roundhouse. I was grateful to find out that the large 12" turntables I usually see were not actually common on older lines. I found some info that the D&RGW never had a turntable larger than 65', so that gave me some breathing room to work with. The nice thing about the placement is that not only does it leave the roundhouse doors open towards the side of the layout for easy viewing, but it also forces most of the business buildings to the far side of the street, making them more visible. The loco operations here are dual-gauge. I have an ash pit just before the turntable. I'd like to include an inspection pit on the center track inside the left roundhouse, but I'm not sure if that is appropriate? I also know there should be a facility for cleaning out the boilers, but again I don't really know the details of this.

As far as the trains go, for narrow-gauge I plan on running a freight train of stock cars and a few flats, plus a scenic passenger train. On the standard gauge line I will have the coal hoppers, and probably another freight train of various box and flat cars. I might also do a short (2-3 cars) passenger train.

So I believe I have a good manifest of operations available on the layout, and I should have enough track to shuffle around the various trains and allow for multiple schedules. What am I missing that might be considered as critical for steam locos? Any other ideas for daily train operations that might be fun to model?

With the weather warming up now, I'm hoping to get started soon. I have some garden construction to get done, then I want to start building the framework for my layout. Ideally I will have some flex track in place for the primary runs and can use next Winter to work on building the hand-laid sections.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Something I think you should consider as you design your operations. It looks like you're trying hard to establish industry pairs on your layout. On a prototype, though, these short runs would be more efficiently and profitably served by trucks rather than rail. Railroads really shine when it comes to log distance hauling. Trucks are not competitive.

So, instead of trying to set up industry pairs or chains which can be served by your railroad, consider using hidden staging tracks to represent the rest of the world. Coal can come out of your mine to be shipped to Hampton Roads, VA, hundreds of miles away (and represented by staging). Ditto with the wheat -- have it collected at a grain elevator from local farms, then ship it halfway across the country (that is, to staging) for processing. Follow me?


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

I do understand what you're saying, and I'm certainly not expecting to serve both ends of every industry represented on my railroad, however what I have in mind here is the _illusion_ of serving two communities that are separated by a greater distance. If I wanted to be realistic, the scale of my model represents barely 1/5 square mile. I'm trying to go for the impression of a mountain community and a thriving industrial city divided by a great mountain range. Also consider that the time period is very early 1900's at a time when most transport was either by train or wagon and mountain roads weren't even passable for half the year. Grains might not survive being transported by wagon, and the only other option for cattle would be herding them across land.

I'm trying to scatter my "pick-up" points across the available landscape, but then I think it makes some sense that the goods would mostly be delivered to the city for processing and/or staging for further transport.

Hopefully that helps better explain my intended operations?


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Shdwdrgn said:


> I do understand what you're saying, and I'm certainly not expecting to serve both ends of every industry represented on my railroad, however what I have in mind here is the _illusion_ of serving two communities that are separated by a greater distance. If I wanted to be realistic, the scale of my model represents barely 1/5 square mile. I'm trying to go for the impression of a mountain community and a thriving industrial city divided by a great mountain range. Also consider that the time period is very early 1900's at a time when most transport was either by train or wagon and mountain roads weren't even passable for half the year. Grains might not survive being transported by wagon, and the only other option for cattle would be herding them across land.
> 
> I'm trying to scatter my "pick-up" points across the available landscape, but then I think it makes some sense that the goods would mostly be delivered to the city for processing and/or staging for further transport.
> 
> Hopefully that helps better explain my intended operations?


Obviously, this is your layout and you do what you want to. We're only offering ideas.

It sounds to me like you want to have your cake and eat it too. "Realistically" your layout represents 1/5 of a square mile. A guy in a wagon covers that in an hour, two in snow. No grain ever spoiled that fast. Either play the "realism" card or don't, but not just when it suits. The typical way we model compressed distance is by either clustering our "towns" together with something (hills, forest, tunnel) in between, or by putting a scenic divider to effectively separate the layout into two or more parts, thus hiding the fact that the trains are not actually taking that load somewhere (which you've already ruled out, IIRC). FWIW, my layout occupies less physical space than yours does, but represents some 3200 square miles. I only have one industry chain (logging to furniture factory) on mine, everything else goes through the yard / staging.

Maybe that's what you're trying to do, but I'm having trouble visualizing it.


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

Well the idea for the flour mill was more for the fact that its visually interesting to model a water wheel, but otherwise I really don't have a drop-off point for either the grains or the livestock. The idea for pick-up of the lumber is not much more than a loading dock from the water to the flatbed, but the drop-off is meant to be a bigger affair with a full sawmill. The opposite is true of the coal -- I want a larg(ish) mining operation, but then just a quiet drop-off point. I not trying to match all of my industries at both ends, just trying to get suggestions to improve the representations of what I'll have -- plan first, build later.

I'm not sure what you mean by "playing the realism card"? My layout represents a small physical area, I couldn't possibly model anything interesting if I stuck to scale. On the other hand, I'm doing exactly as you suggested... I have a large mountain range running diagonally from the bottom-left through the upper-right to separate the two towns, and to represent a larger physical separation between them. Since my model won't have any walls available for backdrops, I have to do what I can with depth-compressed buildings and steep mountain slopes to create the sense of a larger space.

The typical distance from a mining town to the big city could have easily been 50-100 miles, and traveling that distance with a loaded wagon at the end of the growing season would have been unpredictable (and trust me, it is -- the weather in October can be anything from 90 degrees and sunshine to 20 below and blizzards). The trip for a farmer could have taken a week or a month, so the train would have been the safer choice to get his crop to market on time. This is the type of physical space I am trying to represent in my available space -- that there is a lot of distance between the mountain community and the 'big city'.


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

I'm afraid I've got no advice to offer, just total jealousy!


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

Thanks, I'll take that as a good thing! I know it's ambitious, but I have patience. This is based on an idea I saw as a kid that always stuck with me. It will take quite some time before I even have any running track, but it will keep me busy with fun projects for years.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

A beautiful and ambitious layout.

There is a club here in NE Florida that has
a very large modular HOn3 layout that they
display at various train shows. It is totally
DCC single track and it meanders through
many different scenic modules with a reverse loop
at each end.

It is sometimes difficult to 'read' your layout
but am I seeing reverse loops on both tracks
at both ends of the layout? If so, I sure hope
you'll be running DCC..

Don


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

A friend and I went to a train show in Denver here a couple weeks ago. I was disappointed with the lack of narrow-gauge supplies from the vendors, however two of the modular displays had extensive HOn3 track on them, which was great to see.

And yes, there are two parallel primary tracks that both have a reverse-loop on each end, but everything else is a straight shot. My preference is towards continuous rather than point-to-point operations, plus I think it's more visually interesting when the trains can traverse the same length of track in both directions (I got real tired of simple loops as a kid).

The last time I had a train running, DCC didn't exist, and reverse-loops were handled by manual switches. I'm not concerned with the wiring aspect of my layout, however I do plan on running something 'like' DCC. And the automated polarity switchers available these days look like a welcome addition. I've been digging into a DIY solution with bluetooth, but I'm so far away from wiring at this point that its not even worth worrying about just yet.


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

Hmm spotted a problem already... I had a spot where two parallel tracks, 2.25" between centerlines, diverged in altitude by up to 1.75". That's just a little tight for comfort, so I'm re-doing that area a bit to give some breathing room.


----------



## wvgca (Jan 21, 2013)

2.25 is pretty tight where there is any significant elevation differences between the two tracks.. a rock face or wooden retaining wall will not look appropriate when it's right at the edge of the top track, and goes straight down to the edge of the lower track, but it has been done .. opening up the spacing in that area even a half inch will give an improved 'sloped' appearance to the face between them .. I have similar types of track elevation differences on my HO layout..


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

Thanks for the picture, that's exactly the type of transition I was wanting for that section. Any chance you know roughly the spacing between tracks there? It looks like your elevation difference is greater than what I'll have, but it looks fantastic.

I did manage to open up the track spacing to 3" in that section (the end of the curve just above the grain silos on the far right) . This should help with my landscaping. There will be several other areas of rapid elevation transition, but this one already had the rails spaced at a bare minimum distance.

Another change I've made is in the diagonal spur lines at the center top and bottom. Since I added the roundhouse at the bottom, I forgot that I had lost the use of that area as a spur to stage cars to the top end of that section, so I added another crossover so that cars could be backed directly onto that leg. The line near the top is supposed to be a large staging area for loading coal cars, but simulation I was having trouble with the amount of effort it took to drop off some empties and then have the switcher move them around without impeding the mainline (and even when I did use the mainline, it still seemed like a lot of work). I decided to solve this by adding a third rail diagonally as either a bypass for the switcher or to string loaded cars, but it leaves room to actually move around without impeding the mainline.

This latest image also includes my attempt at mapping elevations. White is the baseline, darker greys are higher elevations, and pink is below the baseline. There are also some lines to represent the lines where I think the mountain peaks will run through. It's rough, but it's helped me visualize the general idea and figure out where I'm going to have substantial problems in the actual build. I've managed to get all the grades down to 3.8% or less (I started out with some area close to 6%!) and I've widened out the wandering mountain pass to a minimum of 20" curves. The S-curves will limit the train length and loads, but on a layout of this size it doesn't really look right to run more than 10-12 cars.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

I really like this layout. Lots of continuous running and
enuf spurs and yard tracks to afford plenty of 
switching time. You're going to enjoy this layout
for a long time.

Anxious to see it come to life.


Don


----------



## wvgca (Jan 21, 2013)

the track spacing in that photo area is about 3 1/8", elevation runs from around 1.5" to 3 1/4 " .. the rock face is close to vertical.. I have one other area going into a tunnel that has just under 3 inch spacing, vertical rock cut, just under four inch vertical spacing, image shown, the top track is pretty much directly over the tunnel opening [top tunnel] .. I used SCARM which has a adjustable 3D view that helps to visualize elevation changes like these .. here's a link to the scarm site that has a downloadable track plan for my layout..
http://www.scarm.info/layouts/track_plans.php?ltp=48


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

All right, next question... I don't really know much of anything about laying out yards, how they would functionally be used. I see a lot of ladder tracks used, and when space allows, a parallel run-around to the ladder, so I've tried to reproduce that here in the space I have.










Now what I *do* understand is that for recombining a train, this setup would tie up one of my mainlines. The switcher could also periodically tie up one or both of the mainlines while staging cars. More than likely though, it would just mean I have to be more creative with my timetables and/or do some switching to the parallel tracks to work around traffic congestion.

So... would this actually be a practical yard, or am I just plopping down track to look pretty? What about the cross-over leg at the far right from the inside loop to the first spur track -- would it have any actual use, or should I just get rid of that? And should there be any crossovers towards the right end of any of the spurs?

The way I imagine it happens is that a train would come in on the inner mainline from the left, and park on the mainline parallel to the spurs. The switcher would then pull the caboose, remove any cars from the train that need dropped off, and bring down whatever cars were staged to add to this train. Once the switcher clears back off the mainline, the train would then pull away with its new load. Does that sound about right?

Thanks again for the help. It's a big transition when my previous experience was nothing more than a round-and-round track.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

From my experience you pretty well have it down right.

If I were to make any additions, it would be more yard and
or spur tracks.
You can't believe how fast you can fill up a yard when you
find great cars that you absolutely must have. 

To get the most 'work' out of your switcher it is a good
idea to keep in mind rail using businesses that can ship to
each other. I have one spur with 3 businesses on it, another
with 2. I make up the switcher orders using car cards with
post it notes showing pick up and drop locations. It can take
all afternoon to complete an assignment of about 10 or 15 cars.
Sure more exciting than watching a train go round and round.

Have you thought about a loco service area? I have one
as part of one yard. 2 tracks with fueling standards and
sand tower between them plus a 3rd track for sand hopper
and diesel oil tanker. If you have steam you would need
coaling tower and water tank in there.

Don


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

I thought I was doing pretty good by sliding in an extra spur over what I had above...  The problem with adding more spurs in there is that I lose out on space for buildings, and I need to have enough of those to convey the sense of an industrial port.

I'll be running steam, and I do have _some_ services in the works. I have an ash pit leading in to the turntable, and planned on having a working pit underneath one of the rails inside the roundhouse. Also three of the rails around the turntable are outside the roundhouse, with the intent on making those into service areas. I also have sand and water towers scattered around the line. I suppose I should add at least one coaling station, but otherwise the coal availability is hopefully implied with coal hoppers all over the place. Another option I had seen was a drive-through lubing station, although I'll need to do more research to determine the space needed for that.


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

I've also been considering areas of automation. Nothing brings a model to life like action happening all around the tracks. If you've seen my other threads, you'll remember that I am collecting the Tyco operating hopper cars. The idea is to fill up the hoppers near the mine, haul them through the mountains, and unload in the city. For continuous action, there are small flexible augers made from what looks like a stretched spring and PVC pipe... seems easy enough to build something similar for transporting the 'coal' underneath the benchwork, and the open spring design should provide non-binding operation. Then there would be a conveyor that appears to pull fresh coal out of the mine and fill the structure that loads the hopper cars.

In addition, I was looking into small coaling towers and found what is essentially a large funnel that sits over the tracks and would have been filled by a conveyor. I have a perfect spot for this right on the mainline, where it sits between two other tracks that are both used for unloading the hopper cars. I'm thinking a trip-switch under the track could be used to partially empty the tower through a hidden tube when a loco stops, then the conveyor could randomly refill the tower again... A nice bit of apparent realism when stopping for fuel.

For the logging industry, there are some flatcars that can be electrically unloaded, but I'm not too happy with the looks of them. If I try to get the logging portion operational, I'll probably resort to magnetic cranes (and I've seen some pretty cool steam cranes that would be fun to build).

For moving the livestock, I had a simple idea. Underneath my stockyard I could build in what is essentially a triangular tube. When rotated, this provides three different flat surfaces. I could leave one surface empty and add different livestock on the other two faces. Rotated at appropriate times, it would appear that the stockyard had animals being moved in and out. (And if the rotation was fast enough, many people would never notice it happening.)

I had worked out a mechanical method of making a horse&buggy appear to gallop through town, but sadly I realized that an HO-scale horse it *really* tiny. Maybe one of these days 3D printers will have a fine enough resolution to print me a horse with fully-articulated hip and knee joints, and gearing through the body of the horse. Until then, that bit of animated detail will have to stay on the back burner...

There's also the grain silos. Again, the operational hoppers could be used, and there are some covered versions as well, although covered operation wouldn't be very interesting to look at. I may consider transporting in open hoppers though, perhaps even decorating some as wood-sided hoppers. Not as realistic (I know, the grain would blow out along the tracks), but visually more fun to watch.

So yeah, I've been thinking about a lot of different aspects of what I want to see happening on my railroad, and those considerations also play into the location of various industries, to make sure I have straight lines between points as needed, and open areas in the benchwork for any motors and cogs.


----------

