Monday, May 11, 2015

Rethinking the new layout, maybe.

On a daily basis, I come down into the basement and look at the space where the new layout will be, trying to envision what will be. I'm also reflecting on what I can truly consider achievable.
I do really like the notion of running proper TT & TO operations with 5-6 miles of main, but is it a realistic goal for myself. There are serious time constraints, not to mention the budget limitations.
I've operated on Bill Darnaby's Maumee Route, which is 10 scale miles of main, and on Trevor Marshall's Port Rowan layout, which has maybe 1/2 a scale mile. Both are a delight to run in their own right.
For the last couple of days I've been reining in my extensive plans and thinking about a more modest layout that can be built in a reasonable time and offer up operational treats as well. Play value it's called.
I'm thinking about modeling only 2 towns, Aylmer and Delhi. 2 of the larger communities on the Cayuga Sub, both of which offer up lots of local switching options. And with all the length I have available I can also have significant mainline runs and have the Redballs roll through, forcing the way freight to be out of the way at the required times.
It's only in the notion phase right now, but it would be a less daunting task. I feel that right now the shear scale of the initial 3 level plan is creating a mental paralysis for me.
I have to get my design brain trust over here with paper, pencil and beers.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Frankly, I hear St. Thomas' Wabash yard calling out to you to be modelled on your layout. You've posted a few images of the Wabash at St. Thomas, and I wonder if you unconsciously really want to model it.

With the slight curve that the yard is laid out on, this could be fit quite readily into almost any layout space.

Steve Lucas.

Pierre Oliver said...

It would take a lot of convincing to get me to model another major yard that includes a wye. That was a large part of the downfall of the Palmerston layout. Further, modeling ST Thomas would require modeling the L&PS, and that's a distraction that I could do without. The main reason I post so images of the St Thomas yard is that most of the pictures that exist of the Wabash in Ontario were taken in the St Thomas yard

Rich Steenwyk said...

I can understand the paralysis on creating the perfect plan from nothing...

Do you envision this as a first milestone with eventual continuation to a three level implementation?

I ask because the answer to that defines the parameters. For example, if you have 500 sq ft, spreading out two towns to fill that creates very different towns (and space between) than an approach that still leaves room for more.

I wrestled with a similar problem recently: I'd always envisioned modeling 50 miles of the Clinchfield in Appalachians, but when factoring in similar constraints such as time and budget, I ended up redefining everything for myself and pursuing a one mile industrial spur.

I expect it to deliver plenty of play value for myself and potentially a two-or-three man guest crew and that's sitting just fine now, although it took some mental adjustment to get there.

--Rich Steenwyk
Milwaukee, WI
http://kcspur.blogspot.com

Pierre Oliver said...

Rich,
This rethink would be an end unto to itself, not a multi-phase approach. For the way I would want to build the layout, a multi-deck would require a different approach than single deck layout. Not just for benchwork, but lighting, room ergonomics, etc, as well as depth of benchwork. The 2 towns I want to use would benefit from deeper benchwork than I would use for a multi-deck approach. As you know it's all about compromises, I just have to decide which compromise bothers me the least.

Rich Steenwyk said...

Focusing on just two towns (some would then call these LDEs) could be quite liberating. For one, you could put the linearity into the model -- this is what we always compress to 10ft, but think 30ft for a town. The local crew might think twice about how to work there if the run-around is "that far away". Secondly, you could also really keep the town relationship element that often missing on models: the street grid, multiple city blocks. Could be interesting.

I peeked at these towns from the air...Today's Aylmer and Delhi probably have a lot less in them today than in the era you're modeling, but I can see where multiple grain elevators used to be served. This narrowed focus means you could have them all at a more appropriate scale.

Sounds interesting...We internet folk will be watching to see what develops :-)

Pierre Oliver said...

Rich,
Both towns have your standard stuff, coal dealers, stock pens, feed mills and team tracks.
The neat stuff is the tobacco plants which figured huge in the local economy. Delhi's Imperial Tobacco plant had 4-5 spurs, while Aylmer had only one.
Aylmer also had a condensed milk plant.
All things to enliven the situation.
I have period surveys of both locations which will go a long way to figuring things out.

Michael Tribou said...

How about a combination of the two thoughts: two towns and multi deck. Have the two towns separated by narrow benchwork milage runs between them. Focus on the deeper benchwork of the two towns connected by the narrow run between them.

Mike