Goals for weekend and beyond

My main goal for this weekend is to give scenic treatment (i.e. track paint and ballast) for one short section of track on the main layout. This will be a fairly involved process, but over the past few days I've made progress on testing various methods and researching what the prototype looks like, and I think I'm ready to go.

During the past few days I added a couple design posts, worked on the track scenery techniques, started preparations for the DS64 tests, and repaired a small number of locomotives with help from my son. In the process I felt like I was getting too scattered, and needed a clearer focus for the work.

I decided the key thing I want to emphasize is the "fun" factor for myself and my helpers in the family. We want to run trains, yes, but right now we also want more variety in terms of the trains we run and the places they go. This means adding more track and making the portions of the main layout that are currently off-limits usable again. Ideally the first part of this effort will be connecting the middle tier staging to the main layout because we need that space to store more trains on the layout.

Now, I could just proceed in this manner without thinking about track paint or ballast. Indeed, most modelers recommend deferring the ballasting of track for near the end of the process, after the major scenery projects are over, due to the mess and the tendency to "spill" things onto the ballast, forcing it to be redone. In addition, some modelers recommend not ballasting until all track is complete and you've run a few operating sessions, because there is a good chance you will want to change some part of the track arrangement after you experience how it operates.

However, the truth is while I have theories about how to scenic the track I don't really *know* because I haven't done it for this layout. I want to have completed the track scenery for at least one section that includes switches before proceeding with new track, because there is a good chance that I'll adapt my track-laying techniques as a result.

Therefore the goal for this weekend is to scenic a short section of double mainline track without switches, then next week I'll try an adjacent section with a crossover.

Once that is done I may decide to ignore the ballasting until all track is in place. Or I may decide that it looks so cool that I will want to complete it, at least for areas where I know the track arrangement won't change. But either way once I've completed this I can proceed to more track-laying with confidence that I know how the scenic details will be added later.

High level iNdoor layout design

There are as many different methods of layout design as there are model railroaders, but one thing most methods have in common is to start big and work down to the details. John Armstrong had a method for the first-pass, high-level design that he called "doodling by the squares". You can find this described in his Track Planning for Realistic Operation book and also as the first article in the Kalmbach book 48 Top Notch Track Plans (IMHO one of the best track plan compilation books out there, even though most of the articles are from the 1980s.)

While I didn't use the exact method Armstrong proposed, I did follow his general approach. In this post I'll cover the development of my iNdoor layout design from the start of design to the point where I transitioned to detailed design and decided to move to CAD (computer-aided design).

Rarely, if ever, do you start a layout design with a completely blank slate. Usually you have something in mind already, and ideally you already have a thorough list of the "givens and druthers" (to use Armstrong's term) of layout *musts* and layout preferences. For me I had my layout concept, the parameters of the layout room itself, a basic understanding of staging requirements (at first not quite as detailed as what is in the linked post, but pretty close), and a list of design standards:

1. Minimum radii: 36" on the mainline, 24" for slow speed yards and station approaches, 18" for staging


2. Aisle width minimum: of 3' (later expanded to 3'10")


3. Track spacing: as close to 1" (13' 4" scale) as possible given spacing needed around curves


4. Maximum freight train length: 12', with 16' for a few through trains


5. Maximum passenger train length: 10' for distance trains, 5' (8 cars plus engine) for commuters


6. Maximum grade: 1.5% (later reduced to 1%)


7. Maximum reach: 2' from fascia to rear train track


8. Maximum shelf width: 2' 2"


9. Minimum switch size: #8 main layout, except a few #6 in industrial areas; #6 in staging

In addition to the quantifiable standards listed above, there were certain other design goals:

1. No duckunders for normal operations and viewing (ok for occasional maintenance). If a duckunder situation appeared inevitable, use a liftout bridge or gate, but ideally not even that.


2. Movability. I have no desire to move house ever again, but just in case we do move I wanted to build the layout in a manner that would allow it to be broken down to 4' sections for moving.


3. Double deck with helix. If you have the room a single deck is nicer because the layout height can be optimal for your situation and the overall illusion of the model works better. But, the benefits in terms of railroad length made, for me, a double deck a given. For layouts featuring long, steep grades you can have multiple decks without a helix, but that isn't an option for this layout.

So, armed with my design standards and preferences I went to work. I started by drawing the room boundaries and features on graph paper with bold lines, then made many photocopies. This way I didn't have to redraw the room with each iteration.

The first question was where to locate all the things that I wanted to include in the garage apartment: the layout, my home office, a gathering area (sometimes called an operator's lounge), and modeling workspace. I decided that the north room would be for trains, the smaller south room for everything else. The early goal was to avoid if possible extending the layout into the south room, but that wasn't a requirement -- I kept that as an option if needed (and of course that is where the main staging resides now).

The next question was what to do with the built-in desk in the north room. My first drawings tried to fit a layout in and around the desk, but very quickly I decided that the desk had to go. I would move it to the opposite corner in the south room.

Then came the main question: where to locate the layout benchwork itself. A common approach is to start with an around the walls design and then figure out where to put in peninsulas to use the middle space. I tried that with many designs, comparing the options, and also tried a number of designs which left one or two walls open. I tried variations with diagonals, curved benchwork, and a variety of other shapes. This wasn't so much that I didn't have a reasonable design in mind, I just wanted to make sure I'd explored all the options.

For this layout the biggest design challenge is the four-way, "X" junction of the two main lines. By this I mean a junction like one shown in this sketch:


Junctions in general are a complex topic in layout design, with three-way "T" junctions being simpler than "X" junctions and junctions to a branch of the same railroad often being simpler than junctions between railroads, as the latter usually needs some provision for interchange.

Junctions are fun to include in a layout because of the complex trackwork and the interesting operations that result from interchange possibilities (an interchange yard is often referred to as a "universal industry" because you can justify any kind of freight car via an interchange). In addition, if the junction is level you have additional operational interest in directing the traffic across the crossing. For my layout I wanted the junction mainly from the point of view of Union Station. To me one of the coolest things about large stations is the way that there are many trains departing at nearly the same time from different platforms, taking different track routes to different destinations. (As opposed to a station like in San Francisco, where trains leave roughly hourly in one direction -- toward San Jose. Much less interesting operationally.) In theory you don't have to have a junction to model multi-destination operation because you could have the trains departing from the station, go into staging, and you can pretend that there is a junction somewhere on the other side of staging. However, to me that wouldn't be really satisfying -- I wanted to include at least one major junction on the layout.

As part of the design process I skimmed all the model railroad magazines and books in my library looking at how others have modeled junctions. One common way is to have a "passive" junction. That is, the track for the crossing railroad is included on the model but it's not used and it doesn't go anywhere. Often the "passive" junction will include an active interchange yard that is fed from a staging yard.

Once you move into "active" crossings -- especially if you want all 4 legs of an "X" crossing to be active -- you run into a challenge trying to avoid creating a duckunder. To understand this, consider an "X" junction with tracks coming from 4 directions, which I'll call N, E, S, and W (see above sketch for an example). Suppose you are operating a model train from the N direction to the S direction, and walking along side it as is normal practice. There is no way you can accompany your train from the N side of the junction to the S side of the junction without somehow navigating around the track on either the E side or the W side.

This topic was addressed in two articles in Model Railroad Planning 2000. Paul Dolkos covered the topic in detail in one article and suggested that if the crossing angles were sufficiently acute you could avoid a duckunder by keeping two legs of the crossing (say, N and E) together on one side of the shelf and the other two on the other. This approach was used in the Hutchinson, KS layout I linked to earlier, and a sketch of this approach is shown here:


You can see that the junction can be fit into a single 2 foot wide shelf using this method. I seriously considered using this method but ultimately rejected it. One problem is that I wanted passenger trains to be able to go in all 4 directions, which would not be possible given an acute angle and my minimum radius. But the real problem is that the acute angle would not look right. Granted, there have to be things on your layout which don't look exactly like they would in real life, such as curving a freight yard around a room corner, but to the degree possible I wanted to minimize those visual "giveaways" which spoil the illusion.

So, I tried different designs using a 90˚ crossing (or at least reasonably close to 90˚), including putting the crossing in the middle of the room and at various diagonals. Eventually I came to the same conclusion a lot of other modelers did, based on the layouts that I saw in the books, which is that the optimal way to model a real-looking, active, 4-way junction is to put it along a wall. Here is an example of this in sketch form:


In this method two adjacent legs of the junction (let's call them N and E for this example) are positioned along the wall facing each other. As they near each other they curve toward the (approximately) 90˚ intersection. The other two legs, S and W, then go out towards the middle of the room.

The reason this can work is that the S and W legs won't go very far before they transition into staging. Practically speaking, unless you have a warehouse-sized space for your model layout you're not going to be able to model a long stretch of all 4 legs of the junction, so we pick the two which go into the center of the room as the legs to keep short. Going with this approach I came up with this concept:


To be honest I wasn't initially 100% thrilled with this approach either, but it seemed to be the best compromise. In the first draft of this concept (not shown) I located the peninsula along the bottom wall in the drawing and was troubled by the way the N and E legs left the crossing then both curve around about about 135˚ to get to the next wall. The 36" minimum radius (and given the space, probably a wider radius for both curves) helps somewhat, but 135˚ curves are still iffy. I addressed that in the above sketch by locating the crossing on the west (right) wall. This way one of the legs had to manage only a gentler 45˚ curve to then head towards the end of the layout, and staging or a helix. For the other leg, by moving the junction as far as possible toward the south end of the West wall (the top end of the drawing) I could break the 135˚ curve into two lesser curves and improve the appearance.

At this point there were still a few big design issues to take care of. 1) Locating the helix. 2) Width of the peninsula, and what to do with the remaining interior space. 3) Where to locate the branch line. 4) Desire to get maximum use of the layout space, and thus to extend the double deck over the peninsula. 5) Where to locate staging.

Locating the helix (item 1) was just too obvious -- the west alcove. I had briefly considered that as a potential dispatchers office, but a) a dispatcher would be much more comfortable in my home office in the south room rather than in this cramped space and b) this was a perfect spot for an oval helix between the two levels.

In terms of item (2) I tried minimizing the width of the peninsula in an effort to somehow cram in yet another peninsula, then realized that a simpler approach would be much cleaner. I'd use a wide peninsula, one that took up the available space in the middle up to the limits of the minimum aisle width. This would result in a very wide space, almost 9', for the peninsula, which is too wide normally. However, I'd create a walled-in "box" in the interior which would also serve as the support for a second deck on the peninsula (addressing item 3) and the upper deck peninsula would then be the obvious place for the branch line (item 4). Voila! I had figured out a workable high level design. The sketch now looked like this for the lower level:


Note that at this point I am not identifying any of the layout design elements (LDEs -- using Tony Koester's term from Model Railroad Planning) except Union Station on the sketch -- those will be located during the detailed design phase. Also note that there are two main lines identified, the N-S (north-south) which runs for most of the lower level, and the E-W (east-west), which is part of the lower level, but via the helix moves to the upper level where it is the only main line:


The last question was what to do about the one remaining issue, the location of staging?. My initial thought was that the tracks which terminated on the lower peninsula would have staging under the peninsula itself. The two tracks which terminated on the lower south wall would have hidden U-turns and then have staging underneath the lower deck. My plans for the upper deck staging were vague -- maybe thinking of trying to squeeze staging in immediately under the upper deck. The helix area was an obvious spot for a staging entrance, but I wanted to avoid any sort of bridge from the south wall tracks to the helix.

Realizing that a workable staging solution was essential that would be the first topic I tackled when I started the detailed design.

Tasks and more tasks

Had a short, but intense business trip this week. Fortunately successful, as the first site to launch this large new platform worked the first time. Lots and lots of hours so I will be taking tomorrow off to compensate.

Being away from the house meant no time directly on the layout, but I did have some down time to write the last three posts on design influences, concepts, and the layout room. I also fired up 3rd PlanIt again and redesigned the track from the middle tier to where it meets the main layout. I'll describe that in a later design post, but that had been a roadblock to any further track construction.

Now I'm back, somewhat rested, and am writing this post to organize what to do next. Here is a brief list of tasks needing to be addressed, in a rough priority order.

1. Resolve switch machine issue.
   
   On the main layout the switches are all still manual. This is mostly okay, but three in particular are impossible to reach unless you go into "the Box" in the center. Back in spring 2007 I was running trains using the first iteration of staging and was finding it a pain to go into "the Box" to set the switches, so I took the two Tortoise switch machines that were left over from the 2002 layout and hooked them up, temporarily using a DC power pack and switch boxes from the same layout.
   
   So what about the 3rd switch? Well, being cheap by nature I wanted to avoid buying another Tortoise -- which runs around $17 if you buy just one. In my defense, two of the switches in question form a crossover. One attribute of a crossover is that the two switches always move together, either both facing normal or both facing the diverging route. Thus, if you can set it up correctly you can drive them both with one switch machine. Further in my defense, I have about 15-16 (lost count) crossover configurations on the layout, so the savings of using just one switch machine on all of them would be over $200. And that doesn't count the two double crossovers, in which one machine can theoretically power all 4 switches.
   
   I tried this in 2007 but never got it working. Then summer came, I stopped work on the layout, and in December 2008 I removed the first staging and started the replacement project -- as described at the start of this blog.
   
   Now we're finding that the one switch that I was working on is a common derailment spot because the spring was removed as part of the installation process. I need to solve this, either by finding a one-machine solution or giving up and allocating two per crossover.
   
   This item has to be done before I can start thinking about the DS64 project below.
   


2. Power cabinet.
   
   I received the items from Mike in the mail this week. I now have what I need to set up the internals of the power cabinet in it's semi-permanent configuration. As part of this task I would also install the new UR92 on the layout facade by the cabinet and re-install the UP5 and UR91 panels onto the staging area (they were taken out when the old staging was dismantled). Also as part of that I should test the loconet cables for an issue I'll describe in a later post.
   


3. Track cleaning.
   
   This includes hand-cleaning the remaining middle-tier track, so I can start using it for storage and test running of more trains, and also starting a regular weekly track-cleaning cycle with the CMX car.
   


4. Track scenery.
   
   My attempt last week to paint the Peco ties to look like concrete came out worse than most of my previous attempts. Something I'll describe in a future post. But I really want to solve this before I lay any more Peco track, and that means it has to be before a lot of other work.
   


5. Upper AR issue.
   
   The upper tier AR section has a funny problem whereby it works fine in the normal direction, but in reverse it simply loses power to the track. We work around it now, but during sessions where a switcher moves cars from one upper tier track to another this will be a problem.
   


6. DS64 deployment.
   
   This is the stationary decoder I mentioned last year. Once the switch machine issue is resolved I should get the DS64 working with the Digitrax system and 4 switch machines. This is a necessary learning experience, a prerequisite for putting up switch panels on the layout facade or using traffic control software.
   


7. Extending middle tier staging.
   
   Quite a bit to do here, but the first step will be ordering the needed Atlas code 80 switches and track, as I've run out. So I can get that started this week.
   

My goal for the end of this weekend is to complete items 1, 2, and 3 above and to have a plan in place to solve 4.

During the same time I expect my son will continue his work with car repair and soon, decoder installs and engine cleaning.

DCC order

As I noted earlier, I had an email conversation Thursday with Mike Gleaton at Charleston Digital Trains and got some good advice on the power management module.
I then sent in the following order:

1. PSX4 Power District Circuit Breaker. This the the power management module I decided on. Mike suggested that I probably could get by with the cheaper Digitrax PM42, since N scale with its lower voltage and amperage generally won't run into the same problems HOers commonly report with the PM42. But given my less than positive experience with the PM42 I opted for the upgrade.
   
2. UR92 Duplex Radio Tranceiver. Last year Digitrax released the long-rumored two-way radio communication system. Previously the one-way system meant that you had to plug in the radio throttle to change locomotives. The UR92 is the radio base station for the two way. I'll still keep my two one-way UR91s for any one-way throttles I or my visitors may have.
   
3. DT402D Duplex Super Radio Throttle. This is the latest and greatest Digitrax throttle, with upgraded functions relative to the DT400R *and* two-way radio communication. As I had only one DT400R I've been wanting to get a second one "someday", and now that my son, father, and I are actually running trains the need for an extra throttle has become apparent. One other nice thing is that Digitrax can upgrade my DT400R to a DT402D (as noted at the bottom of the linked page), which is something I'll do after I receive my new DT402D and get it running.
   
4. DN163K2 N Scale Mobile Decoder. This was something I included "as long as I am making an order anyway". I have a Kato SD90/43MAC I got last year which needs a decoder, so this will be it.

Meanwhile, progress continues on my remaining tasks for the week. All the bad track areas are now fixed, I bought the extra shelves for the power cabinet (just have to trim them to fit and install them), leaving me only with the rewiring under layout in the area above the power cabinet. My son and I are also fixing up some cars with minor repair issues that I've been ignoring. So we should have everything on the target list done by Sunday, and even some things not on the list.

Problem Log

I've finished cleaning the staging area so that I can now run trains on all tracks and have set up 3 trains to run for testing. As expected problems have been found, but so far *none* with the newly built staging track and switches (I expect this to change as the usage intensity increases).

I've created a Problem Log in Excel to record what needs to be done and keep a record of past issues. So far 3 problems have been noted with the track on the main layout. Two of these are where the main layout connects to upper staging, and will require relaying the track. The other is probably a switch cleaning issue. (Note on my post last year about switch frogs I mention that electric frogs are susceptible to losing electrical contact -- I think that is the issue here.) One intermittent coupler problem has been found between a car and a locomotive. And 3 engine problems have been found -- actually I knew about them before, but rediscovered them when I tried those engines again.

My intent is to use the Problem Log as a means of dealing with issues as they come up. This isn't the same as a preventive maintenance log, which I'll need to start as well. I have a roster sheet and I'll add some maintenance columns to that.

Otherwise this week hasn't been as productive as last week due to distractions from work, starting with a business trip. I was able to use some of the off-time on the trip to write up the post on curves and to start work on the next design posts for the iNdoor layout. I have another business trip next week so hope to complete those on that trip.

However, I do need goals to keep going. By the end of this coming weekend I want to have:

1. Fixed the known track issues,
   
2. Decided on and ordered the power management module (circuit breaker) from Mike Gleaton,
   
3. Sort out the wiring on the south end of the layout, adjacent to staging, so that it conforms with the newer wiring standards,
   
4. And buy and install two more shelves for the power cabinet (it has only two now).

For next week I will install the power management module, initially treating staging as one power district and the rest of the layout as the second district, but with the expectation that this will change as the layout grows. After that is done I should be able to organize the components in the power cabinet into a semi-permanent configuration, with room to grow. Both of those can happen next week and leave time for other stuff.

From there I have a few choices as to next steps, but I'm leaning towards picking up a task I started maybe two years ago and never completed, which is to figure out how to scenic the track on the main layout. There are some special requirements here, which I'll cover in a separate post, and I feel I really should understand the solution before I lay any more mainline track.