Evolution of the iNdoor design, part 2

At the same time that I was using CAD to draft the detailed layout design I also maintained a written description of the purpose of each section of the layout. I archived these descriptions, by date, so they are now useful in reconstructing how the layout evolved.

During the winter and spring of 2006 I worked on the layout design almost every day. My last post showed the layout design as of February 27. By March 3 I had updated a portion of the lower deck design as shown here:


Compared to the diagram in the last post, one difference that is immediately noticable is that there are now text labels for parts of the layout. I would expand on this practice over time with more labels and detailed descriptions within the CAD drawing.

You may note that the E-W main line was labeled "BNSF" and the N-S main line was "CN (Canadian National). The designation of the N-S line has varied over time as the layout concept has evolved. I like the CN railroad, and the layout will definitely feature it, but my current thinking is that the N-S line is owned by the SAMR (municipal railway), with trackage rights for every railroad that services the metro area. Similar to Chicago's Belt Railway.

Looking at the above diagram in more detail you will see that the trackage on the east (left) and south (top) walls has been completely revised. I felt that a scene of the BNSF crossing the main river was a must, but I couldn't figure out how to make it work. My first approach was to somehow try to fit the river in the upper left corner, on the grounds that this would leave more space for the other railroad scenes. Eventually I dismissed that approach, both because the resulting river was too narrow to represent the major, navigable, river that the city history required, and also because the 36" minimum radius meant that the bridge track would have to be at least partially curved, something that would have been avoided in real life.

So, I decided to try locating the river along the left wall. This meant sacrificing some potential industry there, but the resulting track was simpler and cleaner and thus aesthetically more appealing, at least to me. Moreover, the idea that the river would be at least 6' wide (960' in scale) meant that the bridge could be a signature scene on the layout -- if done well it would be something that people noticed first and admired. Then, I considered that immediately above the bridge scene, on the upper deck, was going to be the most active part of the freight yard. One tenet of two-deck design is that you want to balance the areas of intense operator activities, such as freight yards, so that no two such areas are located directly above/below each other. Thus, a river bridge would be an excellent counter-balance to the freight yard above.

All in all I was -- and am -- very happy with the river and bridge concept. For the south wall I decided to include a short (5') commuter station, and the downtown intermodal yard. Again, I'm happy with the location of these items, although the final trackage would be significantly changed from what is shown in the above diagram.

The final note from this March 3 iteration was a comment I wrote to myself about whether to transpose the identity of the main lines. I was concerned that this ostensibly BNSF-focused layout had the BNSF on only one deck. As it turned out, this concern would soon be answered in a different fashion.

My next step would be to address the freight yard design, which is a big enough topic to justify its own post.

Evolution of the iNdoor design, part 1

Previously I talked about the high-level design and the decision to use CAD for the detailed design. After I'd been using the CAD tool for a while I began archiving the design files with the date in the file name for posterity. I'm glad I did this, as these old files help me understand how the design evolved.

Here is a picture of the lower deck design on February 27, 2006, the earliest file save I have a record of:


Grid lines are 1' apart. This is comparable to the high-level design sketch from that earlier post.
At this point in the design process I was still getting used to the CAD tool. I hadn't started using text labels, colors, or providing any details except the outlines of the benchwork and the main track. I also hadn't done much work on staging yet.

Most of the track design at this point was nothing like the final design, but one area that was very close to final was the Union Station on the north wall:


I put a lot of thought into how many tracks Union Station should have. My concept of commuter train operations wasn't as well formulated then as it is now, per the layout concept description I recently posted, but I did know I wanted enough tracks to support heavy traffic and make operations interesting. This was a highly subjective decision -- the sort of thing about which reasonable modelers can disagree. Eventually I decided that 6 tracks would be too few but 8 just enough to give a sense of a busy Union Station.

The next challenge was fitting everything in. Each station platform had to be 10' long, per the maximum passenger train length. Granted, the maximum length for the commuter trains is only 5', but as this Union Station has a long history I couldn't seen any rationale for shortening the platforms from what would have been built in years past. (Reducing the number of tracks from years past does make sense in order to reuse the land, but reducing existing platform length would have had little benefit as the tracks would still be there.) When you then add the need for switch ladders on both sides, plus 36" minimum radius curves at each room corner, PLUS the need to have room for double track main adjacent to the station tracks, it was a struggle to fit it all in.

Fortunately, one question I'd toyed with during the concept phase was whether to have the station be stub (tracks that terminated in the station) or through (tracks that extend in both directions from the station). At that time I studied existing and past Union Stations, and noted that Kansas City had a mix of stub and through tracks, and thought that might be a neat idea. It was important to note that for the modern St Albans Union Station 3/4 of the traffic would depart in one direction -- towards the junction -- so it made sense to me that half of the 8 tracks would be stub ended, servicing only that direction. This would also make operations planning more interesting, as it introduces a new constraint regarding track assignments. Finally, from the design perspective, this meant that the switch ladder on the east side (left in the above diagram) would be significantly shorter, thus giving me enough space to fit everything in.

I've mentioned before that I love the intracate trackwork leading to congested city Union Stations -- not just Chicago but other cities as well. On the east (left) side I used curved switches to save space. On the west (right) side 3 double slips were used to help create a double crossover as the main entrance to the station. This is but a tiny fraction of what is used in Chicago, but it does give the feeling of complicated, congested trackwork that I was seeking.

This next picture focuses on the northwest corner of the lower deck (the lower right of the diagram). Although all of these tracks were redrawn at some point the basic schematic still remains in the implementation today:


The main junction between the two double-tracked lines is shown at the top. One main line is shown going diagonally from the lower left towards upper right (this is the N-S main). The other (the E-W main) may be difficult to identify because there are so many tracks in the picture. The three tracks to the far right in the picture, the ones going straight along the right wall, are the interchange tracks between the two main lines. If you follow these downward you'll see they merge into one, using curved switches in the bottom right corner, and that one track then connects them to the double main line. Although these tracks appear to be right next to the main line tracks, what the diagram doesn't show is that there is a widening elevation difference as the main line gains elevation and the interchange tracks slope downwards.

The elevation difference was because I decided early in the design process that the junction would be a bridge of one line over another, not a level crossing. This was another one of those decisions that required a lot of thought. A level crossing is certainly more interesting operationally. However, given the traffic density for these lines it seems to me that a bridge crossing would have been a requirement -- especially a century earlier when the Union Station would have hosted 40+ tracks and automatic traffic control wasn't even a concept. On the plus side, this gave me a good reason for introducing gentle grades (1% maximum) to add visual variety.

At the same time, I wanted the scene to contain evidence of there having been even MORE traffic in past years. Although both main lines are now double-tracked, the layout will have signs that more tracks were used on the main lines in years past. One example of this is the track which goes from Union Station to the E-W line. You'll see that it connects with the main, but also that two other tracks extend along the main line towards the junction. The purpose of this track is to go from Union Station to the commuter train storage and maintenance yard (on the layout peninsula). There is a dual track for a short distance which serves as a runaround track. These dual tracks are positioned as if they are on the same roadbeds that in years past hosted the 3rd and 4th track of the E-W main line -- back when traffic density justified that many main line tracks.

Perhaps the most interesting item in this diagram is that trains leaving Union Station on this side of the layout have 3 choices of direction -- one toward the E-W main line, and two toward either direction of the N-S main line. The radius for these tracks is tighter than the main line -- one of them actually is set at the 24" minimum radius for slow speed yards. All in all they succeed in providing the sense of an interesting, complex, network of track at the entrance to the Union Station.

There were a number of things that needed adjustment in this diagram, and these would be taken care of in later iterations. The biggest issue was the "S-curves". The back-to-back switches are just not realistic. There needs to be at least one car length between switches to avoid the S-curve problem.

Otherwise, referring back to the first diagram at the beginning of this post, the rest of the track shown for the lower deck would not survive future revisions. On the left side of the diagram you'll see a single track spur from the mainline. The idea here was that this spur would meander through city streets then ultimately end up on a landing along the river, going under the main line, and that the bridge over the river would be in the upper left corner. As I reworked this later I would toss out the idea of having remaining industry along the river as being both inconsistent with my vision for the city, and also a sign of trying to do too much in the space. This last point is purely subjective, but it was the conclusion I came to.

The last point I'll make regarding the lower deck is my decision to include a commuter train yard on the peninsula. Although the track for this yard would be revised, I kept the yard in that location. The question about whether a downtown yard made sense was another one of those subjective decisions. One option would have been to argue that there would be commuter train yards at the suburban ends of each line, where real estate is cheaper and where most trains would originate. This would also allow me to put some sort of interesting industry on the lower deck peninsula instead of a commuter yard. However, I eventually decided that consolidating all maintenance operations in one central location would be a money saver, and thus a likely result of the 1970s consolidation of all commuter railroads in the city, and that the real estate in question would have been available from other railroad uses that the SAMR (St Albans Municipal Railway) would have owned. In addition, the commuter yard operations are turning out to be at least as interesting as those of a freight industry, and have the benefit of being unusual for a model railroad.

So that's where the lower deck design was on February 27, 2006. At that time I'd also done some work on the upper deck, but it was not as far along:


This does roughly follow the high-level design concept for the upper level. The peninsula is used for a branch line, terminating in the railroad museum. The railroad museum concept would later evolve so that it now matches what is described in the high-level design post. There is a commuter station on the right side of this diagram -- that would remain in that location, but only after extensive modification.

There is a first attempt at a freight yard on the left wall, with part of the yard spilling over to the bottom wall. This attempt was entirely unsatisfactory and resulted in a long study of frieght yard design which I'll cover in a separate post.

As a final note in this post, you'll see there is no evidence of staging in either of these diagrams. In fact, there were staging tracks in this version of the design, but they were in separate CAD layers so are not shown. At this point they were very rudimentary. Much of the work over the next several months would be struggling to find a suitable staging approach. This will be part of the discussion in the next design post.

Choosing N scale track: Flex Track and Switches

Edit from the future (2021):  The price situation is very different from what it was when I wrote this 11 years ago.  Peco is no longer at a disadvantage.  Please check your own prices.

Last year I posted an overview of types of N scale track. In this post I'll focus on one type of track in particular: flex track, and the related topic of switches. In theory any switch can be mated with any type of flex track, but in practice there are limitations. For many brand combinations the work to connect the two types of track is onerous and kludgy. You might, for example, connect two incompatible types of track in a few places for, say, a transition from staging to the main layout or from a main line to a branch line, but not as something you'd do for every switch. In addition, there is an appearance question, as certain lines of switches look out of place when connected to certain lines of flex track. The purpose of this post is to cover just those brands of N scale flex track and switches widely available in the U.S. Regarding the below references to track "codes", see my earlier post on that topic. Atlas Code 80. The granddaddy of N scale track, now distinguished from other track lines by its cheap price (good) and unrealistic appearance (not so good). A wide variety of switches are available, but nothing larger than a #6. There is also a wide variety of crossings and sectional track. Some people still use Atlas code 80 because they have experience with it and know it works. Others choose it for staging and hidden track, where appearance is not important. In addition to appearance the common complaint about Atlas code 80 is lack of switch reliability. This can be addressed with certain switch prep procedures, as I've covered in an earlier post, and in addition Atlas has improved the switches in the past couple years. Atlas code 80 can be easily mated with all Peco track. Atlas Code 55. Probably the most popular choice for N scalers using flex track in North America today. This is because it is price competitive with the other options, except Atlas code 80, yet the appearance is much better. There are also a wide variety of switches, crossings, and sectional track available in this line, including a #5, a #7, and a really cool looking #10 switch. Atlas also just announced two curved switches. There are still no slip switches, but given the number of recent extensions of the code 55 line that may change. Criticisms of Atlas code 55 are: 1) the plastic molded "spikes" which hold the rails in place are oversized, 2) because of (1) cars which run the Micro-Trains "pizza cutter" wheels (that is, those with a high flange profile) can't run on Atlas code 55, and 3) although the switches have a nice wire for the frog, it tends to corrode and lose contact, so you still have to add your own frog wire. (See earlier post about frogs and switches.) None of these criticisms are severe. For (1), while the spikes are oversized if you look closely, from a distance it's not noticable. For (2), most people who use Atlas code 55 are likely to use lower profile wheels which avoids the problem. And for (3), this can be taken care of easily during installation. Atlas code 55 mates reasonably well with Micro-Engineering code 55, so some people like to use M-E flex track with Atlas switches. Micro-Engineering (M-E). Micro-Engineering prides themselves on making high quality products, both in terms of appearance and reliability, and that is a good description of their code 70, 55, and 40 lines of N-scale track. They offer these with weathered or non-weathered rail, and with concrete ties for the larger two sizes. They also are the only manufacturer to offer a bridge tie version of their flex track, which is important because bridge ties are very different than normal track ties (roughly twice the tie density, and a different shape). All this variety allows a modeler to include different rail sizes for different areas of the layout, as is typical in the prototype. M-E was historically the most expensive track but that situation is no more. The UK firm Peco raised prices extensively in the 2000s, in part due to the declining dollar, and now is more than 50% higher than M-E. Based on my recent price samples M-E now seems roughly in the same price range as Atlas code 55 flex track (Atlas has also had a few price increases on track in recent years). The only complaint I've ever heard about the track itself is minor -- a few people say it is harder to bend than the other brands. The main complaint about the line of track, other than the price, is that the switch offerings are so spartan: just a #6 switch for code 55 and 70, and if you want a code 40 switch you have to make it yourself. Because of the superior appearance of track but lack of switch choice many modelers use M-E code 55 with Atlas code 55 switches, and the two rail sizes match up reasonably well. However, if you want the epitome of best appearance for your track, the choice is probably M-E plus hand-laid switches, and for that M-E also offers supplies for those who build their own switehcs. Peco code 80. For a while the Peco code 80 line was considered the best choice in track, before the other sub-80 lines were introduced. It is considered somewhat better in appearance than Atlas code 80, and their code 80 switches are considered much more reliable than Atlas code 80. Because the Atlas and Peco rails work well together it used to be common for modelers to use the cheaper Atlas code 80 flex with the better Peco code 80 switches, and some Ntrak clubs still use this as their standard. Peco also offers a wide variety of switches, including the only slip and curve switches in code 80, as well as crossings, sectional track, and even a derail. (Note: there are actually two compatible lines of Peco code 80 track -- the cheaper SEtrack and the more expensive Streamline. I'm only covering Streamline in this review, as SEtrack is very hard to get in the U.S.) Their switches include a "spring" for snapping to one side or the other, which can be removed to install a slow motion switch machine. In code 80 they also offer "electrofrog" and "insulfrog" for all switches. Complaints about Peco code 80 switches are primarily from the American market because the UK N scale standards vary every so slightly from US standards, so that depending on the equipment you run you may have trouble with derailments or, if you use DCC, with occasional shorts. These seem pretty rare, but you do find them mentioned on comment boards, and there are standard suggestions for fixing this problem if you have it. The other issue with Peco, as noted earlier, is that the prices have skyrocketed in recent years and as a result they have nearly priced themselve out of the U.S. market. In HO, Peco has released American-style switches that are considered among the best you can buy, yet they have managed to keep the prices within reason. There have been rumors of a similar line for N scale, but nothing has yet been announced. Peco code 55. This line of track is highly unique, and so it has a longer write-up than any of the other lines. When Peco introduced this line in circa 1990 it was widely considered a huge advancement and the preferred choice for N scalers. Today, most modelers now see it as having been surpassed by M-E and Atlas, but there are still some unique advantages of Peco code 55, so it is not yet completely obsolete. When Peco code 55 was introduced there were a lot of commonly-held concerns about the viability of a small N scale rail. Peco addressed this by using code 80 rail but burying the bottom .25" into the ties. The track itself is very sturdy -- more than any other of the flex track offerings -- and the plastic tie "spikes" or "clips" are prototypically small, as they are used only for appearance, not to hold the track in place. There is a fake rail bottom at the top of the ties, then another one at the actual bottom of the rail. Peco code 55 track comes in wood or concrete, but just wood for the switches (AFAIK no one has yet come out with an N scale concrete tie switch yet). Peco 55 has almost the same large variety of switches and crossings as code 80, but all are "electrofrog". There is also a double-crossover with four built-in switches. Like code 80 the code 55 switches have springs which can be removed for slow-motion switch machines. Proponents like Peco code 55 for solidity, reliability, and wide variety of switch choices (this has become less of an advantage over time as Atlas has expanded their code 55 line). Detractors, and there are many, point to the high cost and appearance issues. Appearance issues start with the tie spacing, which matches a European prototype, not the U.S. The wood ties have a fake wood grain that is much too prominent. The switch mechanisms look nothing like prototype switches. The switches themselves are classified "small", "medium" and "large" instead of the more traditional #4, #6 and #8. This is because they do not follow the common U.S. practice of having the diverging rails go straight through the frogs, but instead are curved for the entire length of the switch. On the plus side, this difference means that the radius used for Peco code 55 switches is much wider than that use for competitive brands, and that the trains motion in going through the switch is more fluid. The "large" switch has a radius of 36", which is very broad (see earlier discussion of curves). But it is yet another deviation from the common American prototype. Finally, there are questions about code 55 switch reliability (there are concerns that the flangeway is too wide, leading to derailments), although there are many users who claim they work perfectly all the time. Given the cost issues Peco code 55 is usually not considered for new layouts any more. But thre are still a few willing to work through the appearance issues who find the variety of switches a compelling reason to choose this option.

iNdoor design -- the Layout Room

We started thinking seriously about moving from the expensive California bay area to somewhere affordable back in 1996. Between 1996 and 2005 we looked at over 100 homes in the Sierra Nevadas, Oregon, Kansas, Illinois and Colorado. By the time we saw this house we had a very good idea of what we were looking, so when my wife deemed it her dream house I knew our search was over. 4 kids bedrooms together on the top floor? Check. Great kitchen and master bedroom? Check. Spacious entertaining areas and storage spaces? Check. A terrific space in the basement for schooling and kids play? Check. Wonderful setting? Check. Everything she could want.

Oh yes. It did have something else. What was that? Oh, a garage. Right, the cars have to go somewhere.

I'm kidding. She was very concerned that the house also had the stuff I wanted and I assured her it did. Beyond that to her the garage is like a trash compactor -- it fills a useful function, but is not essential, and the details don't matter as long as the exterior fits in with the rest of the setting.

Fortunately this had been a builder's own home, so while his wife designed all those cool things that my wife loves, he made sure the "guy" stuff wasn't neglected. The 4-car garage is very spacious, with tons of workshop room and storage room for the outdoor toys like bikes. Then he put an apartment above the garage for his office. Here is the diagram of the apartment:


I oriented this with the north at the bottom. I know that's going to cause some confusion, but the CAD drawing I have of layout was done in this direction, and I wanted this diagram to correspond to that one. I could reorient the CAD drawing, but given the large number of text labels that would need to be flipped and reset that would take a long time.

Otherwise, this gives a pretty clear picture. The 4-car garage is bisected by a stairway to the apartment. The stairway is neither too steep nor too narrow -- at 3' 10" it is easy to move large things up or down, or for two people to pass. On the north side the apartment is a simple room, about 19' 2" x 19' 8". The ceiling is slanted, starting at 4' 11", on the sides to accomodate the roof, and when we moved in there was a built-in desk installed in the corner. Here is a picture of the north room taken before we closed on the house:


You can see small window alcoves in the center of the east and west sides. On the east side this space is part of the bathroom, which includes a shower but no tub and no closet. Appropriate for an office space. Walls have been added to the south side of the apartment for the bathroom, to provide a closet and to provide a separate room. To a realtor, the south side room qualifies as a bedroom.

Here is a picture taken at the same time, from the top of the stairs toward the south room:


Note in the picture the diagonal support beam on the right. This was painted to look like wood but it is in fact covered with drywall and paper. It has since been repainted to match the rest of the room.

Here is a photo, again taken at the same time, of the south room:

You'll notice there was a window air conditioner. This has since been removed. We live at 7400 ft in a forest and it rarely gets hot enough to need A/C. On the few days when it does it only affects the top floor, so I get by with either a fan or move to another location in the house. I did leave the window A/C in the north room in place. That is a big 220 volt unit and I thought it might be helpful during summer operating sessions, but except for testing every year or so it has not been used either.

You'll also notice some electrical wires sticking out of the south room wall. These were all over the place, but in the north picture they were mostly hidden by the desk. The previous owner (not the original builder) had run a telemarketing business out of this apartment and had all kinds of ethernet, fax, phone, and security system wires in the walls as part of a complex office phone system. In these days of WiFi I simply cut them and closed up the walls. I have yet to dispose of the central phone system but don't use it, having re-routed the home phone lines around it. It's obsolete now but anyone who has a use for it can contact me and get it for free.

So, I finally had a train room. I was very excited. Yes, I would have to make some changes, but unlike some other houses I looked at the train room already had dry wall, adequate room lighting, electricity, heating, and even a dedicated bathroom. And the fact that my train space could be shared with my home office was another big plus.

In the next post I'll cover the design process.

Layout Concept - St. Albans Model Railway

So, you’ve sold your house and are positive you will soon move into a house with a decent sized dedicated layout space. But you don’t have the exact dimensions. What kind of layout planning can you do?

This was the situation I was in for about 5 or 6 months in 2005. What you can do is figure out the layout parameters: the theme, era, operations, scenic focus, and design standards. These are all things that fit under the notion of what John Armstrong dubbed your “Givens and Druthers”. That is, what absolutely had to be (Givens) and what the relative priorities were among the other stuff you wanted (Druthers). Some of the givens you won’t know until you know your layout space, but you can still make a lot of progress.

In this post I’ll describe the layout concept – the theme that provides the context for the actual layout design. In subsequent posts I’ll discuss the layout design standards and space, then the layout design itself. For simplicity this post will cover the concept as it is today, which has evolved somewhat relative to the concept as it was before the design started.

The layout is of a mythical Midwestern city sitting on a large navigable river that is part of the Mississippi system, but not the Mississippi itself. The location is necessarily vague, but imagine somewhere to the west of the Quad Cities in Iowa and Illinois. Needing a name for my city I thought of how U.S. cities were frequently named after European towns and cities, then thought about how my wife and I were married in Harpenden, England, which is a village near the town of St. Albans. I chose St. Albans for the city name, and Harpenden for a suburb that will be featured on the layout.

I chose a freelance theme instead of modeling a prototype for two reasons. First, I tried hard but couldn’t find a prototype that includes everything I wanted. As I was living in the Kansas City area at the time I looked hard at potential prototypes in that region, including cities in neighboring states, but in every case the compromises compared to what I wanted were just too great. For a while I tried a hybrid approach, with a prototype as a base but with modifications, then finally I accepted it would be freelance. Of course, all those Real Model Railroader™ voices in my head went “tsk tsk”, so I assuaged my guilty conscience by promising myself to make the outdoor layout a pure prototype – something that I have done.

Supposedly we freelancers aren’t Real Model Railroaders™ because we can “cheat” any time we run into a challenging design or operations issue by changing the railroad itself. However, as I started the process I discovered a second reason for doing a freelance, and that is that freelancing gives you a whole different type of design fun. You are creating not just a model of a railroad, but also an entire fictional world with its own history, and you can spend as much time developing that world and its history as you want. As an adolescent and even well into my younger adult years I would draw maps of fictional cities, building them up historically over time and photocopying a snapshot of the city map at different points in time for comparisons over the eras. I very much enjoyed incorporating the various factors that influence city changes over time, as well as noting how past influences shape, sometimes in very subtle ways, the way a city looks today.

So, when I started on the St Albans Model Railway that was exactly what I did. The rest of this post covers the fictional history of that city and its surroundings up to the present day, with obvious special emphasis on the resulting model railroad.

St Albans was founded as river cities often were, but was lucky to have had a small number of wealthy leaders who had a bit more foresight than usual. As railroads became a prominent part of the American frontier in the 1830s and 40s (and the Mississippi valley was the frontier then) the St Albans leaders, in contrast to the business powers in downriver St Louis, did not see the railroadsa as unwelcome competition to their riverboat business but instead as an opportunity to gain a competitive advantage. They openly courted railroads and, recognizing that future westward railroads and trans-continental railroads were inevitable, pushed to have those routed through St Albans. They built a bridge across the St Albans river, saving critical costs and time for any railroad wanting to head west, and established a local St Albans Municipal Railroad (SAMRR – colloquially referred to as “Sammer”, or “The Sam”) to connect the various railroads in the city area with each other and the river landings, and to provide pretty much any service needed for railroads that were either just getting established in the city or which found it helpful to subcontract the work. The SAMRR still exists today as a very busy hybrid private/government entity.

The business strategy worked. Even railroads which didn’t route their main lines through St Albans found it profitable to establish branches to the city even before their main lines were complete, just because of the interchange trade. A number of railroads did push mainlines through St Albans, notably the Burlington, whose mainline (now part of the BNSF) is the key feature of the model railroad. As traffic grew SAMRR upgraded facilities including double-tracking the main bridge over the river in the 1860s. That bridge lasted for over a century, with upgrades in the 1890s and 1930s to support heavier locomotives, until being made obsolete by a new bridge that opened in 1995. However, that old bridge was kept as a historical landmark, and has been modified to support pedestrian traffic in the trendy center of St Albans. Both bridges are features of the model railroad. But I am getting ahead of myself.

The post-civil war era brought with it a lot of optimism in the city, which through its extensive transportation network had a diverse economy that was better able than most to withstand the frequent economic panics of the latter 1800s. In that era there were many civic-minded groups, some of which had been previously focused on the abolition movement, who were now focused on bettering the city itself. Two universities were founded near the river just north of what was then the city limits and numerous parks were established. As river freight and passenger traffic waned due to the continuous improvement of the railroads, the northern river landings were abandoned and their riverside locations converted to more parks, museums, a concert hall, a large city library and a theater district (many of these paid for by millionaire residents of the city through gifts from their estates). Several festivals were established, the most popular being one focused on Shakespeare's plays. St Albans became a popular regional tourism destination, easily reached via railroad, and the success of the cultural festivals inspired other cities elsewhere, such as Ashland, Oregon.

A few miles to the east of St Albans was a smaller town of Harpenden, situated in an unusual geologic formation (for that part of the country) that made for a picturesque little valley. It was just within reasonable commute distance by train, and soon became a popular place for the wealthier people of St Albans to build houses – either as their main house or a weekend house. The Rock Island built their line east from St Albans adjacent to the Burlington for part of the way, with the two lines separating at Harpenden. As a result, a joint passenger station was constructed at the point where the lines separated – a unique Victorian building that became very well known to railroad photographers and is now a designated historical landmark. A town square was constructed next to the station and it was soon surrounded by rows of Victorian shops catering to the local high-end clientele. That in turn attracted shoppers from other towns, who found it easy to access due to the fact that both Burlington and Rock Island commuter lines made Harpenden a stop for all trains – even the Limiteds to Chicago. As a result the town experienced a growth boom in the last two decades of the 1800s and again in the 1920s.

St Albans continued on a normal growth path for a Midwestern American city through the middle 20th century. Many industries were attracted to the city due to the excellent transportation infrastructure combined with the outstanding cultural opportunities. However, at that time the biggest factor in industry location was usually the proximity to natural resources, and on that count St Albans wasn’t as attractive as some of the cities in the mountains or along the Great Lakes. Thus, economic growth was generally steady over time but there never was a boom time of extremely rapid growth.

Following World War 2 most of America experienced the sudden and rapid rise of the car-dependent suburbs and St Albans was no exception. At first the “Levittown clones” were built primarily in the prairies along the many railroad lines that fanned out like bicycle spokes from the city, and new passenger stations were constructed to serve those towns. But once those areas were used up the sprawl continued to fill any open space near the city. This initially had little direct effect on the city itself except for the increase in commuter train traffic, which when combined with the increase in long-distance passenger train travel resulted in SAMRR adding 8 tracks to Union Station, making a new total of 44.

However, soon the suburbs were filled up not just by new families looking for a place to live but also by long-time city residents attracted to the extra room. More suburbanites meant more cars, and more cars meant freeways. The first short freeway was built in west St Albans in 1955. But after Eisenhower signed the Interstate Highway Act in 1956, the country went on a freeway building spree in which many great neighborhoods were wiped out by eminent domain. The first interstate through St Albans opened in 1959. Fortunately, unlike many historic city districts in the U.S. (such as the gold country towns of Auburn, Grass Valley and Nevada City in California), both St Albans and Harpenden city centers were spared being split in two parts by freeways.

Progress continued. The first modern-style shopping mall opened in 1962 – the first modern indoor shopping mall opened in 1968. The new St Albans International Airport opened in 1963. However, traffic to the airport quickly became so congested on the access freeway at rush hours that the city council approved building a commuter line extension to the airport in 1964 – a line that is still heavily used today.

Changes like these were happening across the country, and for most Midwestern cities they took a great toll on their city centers. The term "inner city" soon took on very negative connotations due to neglect, blight, and high crime rates. Cities like St Louis and Kansas City ended up closing down their Union Stations in the early 1970s. Partly this was because long-distance passenger train traffic had become but a trickle. But more importantly very few people still commuted to the city centers for work or shopping, and so the cities didn’t try to keep the local commuter lines running after the railroads gave up running passenger trains.

Fortunately, all those decisions to build a strong cultural base in the city center that happened in the latter 1800s made a huge difference to St Albans a century later. Like Chicago, San Francisco and New York, St Albans still had a surviving, if not entirely thriving, city center in the 1970s. As the class 1 railroads abandoned even local passenger travel SAMRR’s mission was expanded to providing commuting services, and SAMRR received subsidies from the federal, state and local governments to help. The act of combining the individual commuter lines did help improve the efficiency and customer satisfaction of the commuter services in the early years, but only until the severe economic troubles of the late 1970s led to major budget cuts.

The low point in our story comes in fall, 1979, in Harpenden. The Rock Island, in one of a series of desperate moves to avoid the total liquidation that ultimately would consume the line the next year, abandoned the line that went through the town. By special arrangement the Burlington Northern (successor to the Burlington) maintained one track on the Rock Island east from Harpenden to service the freight customers there until the disposition of that segment of the railroad was determined (it would ultimately be sold to a company that ran several short lines). However, the line was no longer being maintained for commuter traffic, and in fact years of maintenance neglect had caused several expensive, but fortunately not fatal, commuter train derailments. SAMRR couldn’t afford to take over sole maintenance, so cancelled service to that line. Worse, from the perspective of Harpenden, the regional bus service, which had run a terminal at the Harpenden train station for connections with the commuter lines, responded by moving to a new terminal at the nearby indoor mall that had just opened. Without the bus service SAMRR also removed Harpenden as a stop on the express line in another cost-cutting move.

Harpenden’s downtown retail district had already been under revenue pressure for years, and to many this looked like the end of what had once been a premier shopping district. But the business and town leaders in Harpenden were known for their perserverance and dedication to their community. Back in 1974 they undertook a major project to eliminate cars from all the streets in the shopping district, replaced the pavement with cobblestones, and turned the shopping district into a re-creation of the 1880s Victorian town Harpenden had once been. This change did provide a boost to the town's revenues for several years. But the 1979 recession, combined with the loss of easy public transport access to the district, combined with a new shopping mall opening up nearby, was perhaps just one strike too many. The town leaders considered building a multi-story parking garage in the spot of the former metro bus terminal, but couldn’t find the funds for it.

That Thanksgiving the town mayor made a trip to Chicago to visit his daughter’s family and his newly born grandson. He vowed not to talk about the town’s troubles at a holiday event, but when his daughter’s father-in-law prodded he told him the whole story. The mayor mentioned the gap in the center of town caused by the abandoned train tracks and the need to get something – anything – to attract people back to the town center.

As luck would have it, the person he was talking to was a director of Burlington Northern (BN) who had been struggling with ways to do a better job of preserving the railroad’s historic legacy despite the very difficult economic times (as the saying goes, when the economy gets a sniffle, the railroads get the flu). The tiny coincidence of this conversation resulted in a massive to the future of Harpenden and St Albans.

The BN director suggested they open a train museum – with real, live running trains including steam engines – right in the town square. They had the tracks, they had a great setting (the Victorian town square) and they had space for a museum building (the abandoned terminal). He offered arrange the loaner of some preserved steam engines immediately, and suggested that they could bring in some trailers and set up some portable exhibits to see if the concept would bring people to Harpenden. If it worked they could make it a permanent project.

The Harpenden town leaders embraced the idea thoroughly – they really had no other option, and it at least gave them something to act upon. They had no trouble recruiting volunteers, and the almost-impromptu “Harpenden Train Fest 1979” was a surprise hit. It was still a very weak retail season, but an improvement over the previous two years and far better than they had expected. As soon as Christmas ended that year their work began in earnest on making this a permanent theme.

At the time no one in Harpenden could know if this plan was going to work. The national mood was very pessimistic, they were fighting against forces that had shuttered city and town centers across America, and no one had tried anything like this before. 25 years later, though, the St Albans Business School published a highly influential study on the Harpenden success story. They identified 11 factors that were important in the project, but 2 that were absolutely critical. The first of these two was that the town setting was already perfect for what they were trying to do. Attempts to make such a town square from scratch would have appeared artificial – and thus been less appealing to customers – and in any event they didn’t have the funds to create such a place artificially. Second was that the volunteer force they recruited was very unusual both in terms of number and dedication. Partly this was because there was a very strong civic pride in Harpenden. But mostly because so many railroad fans from literally across the continent heard of the project and wanted to be part of it.

In 1980 the new Harpenden National Railroad Museum (with special emphasis on the Burlington Northern) was established and in 1984 the new museum building was given a grand opening, with a very large section of the museum focused on trains for children. The entire shopping district complemented the museum with its focus on history and trains. City sales tax revenues in 1984 were a stunning nine times what they had received in 1979. Today this is the most visited tourist attraction in the state, and restored classic trains run between Harpenden and St Albans Union Station every weekend in the summer and during special events the rest of the year. Harpenden is now noted in the Amtrak catalogue as a special stop, and is the destination of occasional railfan excursions from various points in the Midwest and West. Harpenden town square, with the museum, museum yard, and the historical station, all are a special feature of the model railroad.

While Harpenden was very much enjoying the towns revival in the 1980s so was St Albans. 1983 was the first year since 1971 when more people moved into the city itself than moved out. By 1985 the city center was noted nationally as a trendy spot – featured in college travel guides like Let’s Go – and by 1988 the city center had by far the highest real estate prices in the state. The factories and warehouses that made up the area near Union Station had long been abandoned, but were now either being converted to condos or razed and replaced by new row houses, retail, and even a new indoor stadium. By 1992 SAMRR noted that more people were now living in the city and commuting to work in the suburbs than were commuting from the suburbs to the city -- the first time that had ever happened -- and that extra trains to the city were necessary for Friday and Saturday nights and weekends due to the popularity of the city center as an entertainment destination.

By the mid-1990s the freight railroads were again thriving in the city, with a lot of short lines that used to be spurs of class 1 railroads. The railroads had a lot fewer local sidings to service, as factories moved off shore and businesses with low transportation needs opted for trucks. However, the businesses that still used the railroads needed many, many more cars than were needed in the past, more than making up for the difference. If you ride the rails around St Albans you can still see lots of evidence of old spurs and sidings from the past – but you’ll also find quite a few large, modern freight centers.

SAMRR has sold off some of the land it once owned. For example, Union Station now hosts only 8 tracks, not 44. But there are plenty of SAMRR yards throughout the city, including the downtown intermodal yard (if you look closely you can find visual evidence of that location’s rich past, starting as a riverboat landing and later serving as several different kinds of railroad facilities) and the SAMRR commuter maintenance yard. Union Station, the commuter maintenance yard, and all the trackage around that area are featured on the model railroad.

In addition, the various short and regional lines have their own railroad facilities in the city area. The class 1 railroads prefer to locate maintenance and yards in lower cost locations instead of inside cities, but all the class 1 operations still maintain at least one yard in the metro area. The BNSF has a substantial flat freight yard (14 tracks, with the 4 in the center of the diamond usually allocated for arrivals and departures) that is used as the starting and ending point of the metro area local freight runs. These days it that yard is extremely busy, with two drill tracks from one side and one from the other, and often all three are active. This yard is included in the model of St Albans. Also included is about half of one of the short lines, including a factory that makes items from plastics.

The BNSF local freight yard is adjacent to a remodeled bottling plant, formerly used as a brewery, that has some very interesting approach tracks, including two single track bridges dating from the early 20th century. Replacements have been discussed but as the bridges remain safe, no one wants to pay to change them.

The last major influence on the St Albans-Harpenden history started in 1993. The city was again on the upswing, and as such was experiencing lots of traffic congestion The city council launched a study to seek solutions. Often studies such as this fail– either the firm commissioned to perform the study is not up to the task, or the political will to implement the recommendations is lacking. In this case, though, recognizing that St Albans was blessed with two outstanding universities (both with branches in Harpenden) the council asked the universities to conduct the study in cross-discipline fashion, looking at the problem from perspectives ranging from engineering to sociology, and the council specifically directed the study group to consult with the various stakeholders in the city.

The result was a 10 year plan that amazingly was implemented almost exactly as intended and nearly on time. Most of it was done in 8 years, the last parts over the next 7 years. From a railroading perspective the plan had two major impacts.

The first was the creation of a downtown intermodal station. The study realized that a big factor in the traffic congestion were trucks moving to and from the city center, mostly bringing retail goods in, but also for construction, some manufacture export, and trash haulage. The study suggested that a more detailed feasibility study be conducted on whether an intermodal yard would allievate enough traffic to pay for itself, and if so how. Following the second study, and with terrific support from the local railroads, an intermodal facility was set up, run by BNSF with SAMRR support, and with structured incentives for local businesses to use it. This is one of the smallest intermodal facilities by area in the country, but has the highest throughput in world relative to the space occupied, and achieves very fast response times (one of the requirements that came out of the study). It is a key feature of the model railroad.

The other impact was the revamping of the commuter lines. In 1993 SAMRR was doing a decent job running the commuter trains compared to similar organizations in other cities, but there were opportunities for improvement. Many people who used the commuter train said they did so only because traffic/parking was so bad, or because they didn’t own a car (as is true for a lot of city residents). The study suggested that many more travelers could be swayed to use the commuter trains by making a number of fairly simple and easy changes to the train experience. The study suggested the costs of the changes would be paid for by the increase in fare revenue (each additional passenger adds almost no operational cost so the additional fare is almost pure profit). These changes were not surprising: better lighting everywhere (to increase feeling of safety), more cleanliness everywhere, easier-to-understand maps and timetables, better station access, more on-train amenities, easier pay methods, bike carry facilities, and seating areas that made it easier to work (even in 1993 they recognized the early laptop and cell phone trend).

The next recommendation was thought to be much harder to implement: highly reliable schedules. Reliable schedules were considered essential to obtaining a high ridership, but as most schedule delays were caused by conflicts with the freight railroads, thus outside the control of SAMRR, the study wasn’t sure how much could realistically be done. However, what SAMRR found was that the railroads were just as interested in achieving predictable schedules as SAMRR, and were willing to fund at least half of the costs of the necessary changes. An improved traffic control system was put in place, partly to help plan schedules but mostly to have a very detailed set of contingencies so that incipient delays could be immediately recognized and mitigated. In addition, the most common contributor of lengthy delays (those over an hour) was found to be people committing suicide on the tracks – something just about every public agency in the city had an interest in finding ways to prevent. A number of changes were made to help, but the most effective one was to have monitoring cameras identify potential suicides and notify local police before the train comes. They found that most suicides spend some time waiting in the location before acting, and they have learned to identify the warning signs in their behavior. All of these items are factored into the modeling of the commuter railroad, which includes models of Union Station, Harpenden station, two intermediate stations, and a part-time stop next to the stadium.

The last recommendation from the study had the biggest impact on ridership, and also has the biggest impact on the model. The SAMRR train network did a great job of getting people from a point in the suburbs to the city – or to points along the line between the two, but not from a suburban point on one line to a point on another. A passenger certainly could do this if s/he wanted to by taking the train to Union Station and transferring, but often this meant waits of up to half an hour on the platform if the trains were on time – otherwise possibly longer. The study suggested that if somehow the transfers could be made instantaneous and painless that usage could more than triple.

The solution required extensive modeling and testing. The concept was that there would be several express trains each day that were synchronized to arrive within 90 seconds of each other at Union Station. In order to make the transfer between the trains simplest and most effective, they would identify pairs of trains most likely to exchange passengers with each other, based on known traffic patterns, and have them arrive on adjacent tracks such that the car doors aligned perfectly. Special ramps would be constructed that would connect between those two cars, avoiding people having to even walk onto a platform to change cars.

Then the trains next on the list of “most likely to exchange customers” would be organized to arrive on the same platform as each other. This way most of the transfer passengers would either go out the door on one side to the adjacent train or across the platform to the next train. For the other trains, SAMRR thought, inter-platform ramps could be created to go under the tracks, but with dual moving walkways (that would be turned on only for the time the trains were in the station) to allow for fast exchanges.

Communication with passengers well in advance of Union Station, then again at Union Station, would be key to making this work. At the suburban passenger stations there would be clear indicators of where each car would arrive on the platform and, if you were transferring at Union Station, which car was best for you depending on your destination.

This was so innovative that it was unclear if it was realistic. SAMRR identified the two trains that already had the most transfers between them and organized a pilot program for just those two. They watched, learned, and adapted, and most importantly were stunned to find that transfer ridership between those two increased by 80% after 3 months based on word-of-mouth alone.

After that the program was extended a bit at a time. Two more trains were scheduled together, with connecting bridges between them, then two more so that all six spoke lines were involved. The next time schedules were reworked a simultaneous arrival for all six was included. After observing transfer traffic for 3 months in this arrangement, the trains were reorganized around platforms so that the most optimal transfer arrangement was included.

The program was still by word-of-mouth only. For the next step SAMRR thought they would have to construct those special inter-platform ramps. But the observers noted that the passengers themselves had already figured out a better approach. A passenger on a train on platform 1, for example, would walk through the trains at platform 2, 3, 4, and 5 to get to platform 6. This sounds like a lot, but really means only crossing platform 2-3 and platform 4-5. plus the 4 intermediate trains -- and that's in the most extreme case of having to cross *all* the trains. Since the doors were all aligned, open on both sides, and at platform level without stairs (the newer “Bombardier” commuter coaches) it was a snap. The only problem would be avoiding major people crunches in the middle trains during the most popular travel hours. This could be mitigated by organizing people to sit in certain cars based on which train they would transfer to at union station. So a publicity campaign was started at the suburban stations – first just for the regulars, then once everyone had adapted, a city wide ad campaign began.

Today the passenger usage on the SAMRR (labeled “The Sammer” on the cars themselves) is the highest in North America per number of cars in use. And while subsidized the Sammer commuter rail system uses a smaller tax subsidy per commuting passenger than do the St Albans freeways. The operations of this special 6-passenger train sync up are (or rather, "will be") both challenging and fun.

With a world class commuter railroad, a terrific cultural riverfront area, loads of great places to railfan, and on top of it the special town square/train museum in Harpenden, St Albans is a railfan Mecca. Every summer there is a Rail Fest weekend that is sponsored by the local railroads and is heavily attended. One of the operations scenarios on the model railroad is for that weekend.

So that’s the concept. In the next post I cover the design standards and how design started.

Choosing N scale track: Overview

Edit from the future (2021): the price situation now is radically different than it was when I wrote this in 2009.  Peco is no longer at such a large disadvantage and has gained in popularity.  Please check your own prices when you read this.

Once a modeler chooses N scale he/she then has to choose which brand (e.g. Atlas) and line (e.g. Code 55) of track to use. This decision has to come fairly early in the planning process as different brands/lines of track and switches have different geometries, thus impacting the layout design. This post provides an overview of what's available in the U.S. and Canada. In a later post I'll go into more detail on the topic of the different lines of flex track/switches, where there is a lot of choice and a lot of factors to consider. N scale track can be grouped into 4 categories. I'll list them here in order from beginner to most advanced:

1. Roadbed Track & Switches
2. Sectional Track & Switches
3. Flex Track & Switches
4. Hand-laid Track & Switches

Note that Atlas and Peco offer lines of track that include both (2) and (3). When choosing your type of track these are the factors to consider. Ease of Use and Time to Install. This factor can vary tremendously from one category to the next. At the extremes consider that a sizeable roadbed track layout can be put together by a beginner in an hour or less, which is about as long as an expert needs to assemble a single hand laid switch. Appearance. In general, the trade-off for ease-of-use and time-to-install is appearance. The more time you invest in installing your track, the higher the potential quality of the appearance, depending upon your implementation. Nothing looks as sharp as quality hand-laid track, while no amount of scenic detail can fully hide the unrealistic plastic appearance of roadbed track. Price. In general, the most expensive category is roadbed track and each successive category is cheaper. There are, however, exceptions to this rule. Some sectional switches can be quite pricey, and many people who handlay track invest a lot in specialized handlaying tools and materials. Flexibility. With handlaid track you can create any configuration, curve, spiral, or switch geometry you need. With roadbed track you are limited to the pieces the manufacturer offers. Sectional track is a little more flexible than roadbed track in that you can cut pieces. Flex track is equivalent in this regard to hand-laid track except for the switches. Operational Reliability. All categories of track offer anywhere from poor to excellent reliability depending upon brand and installation quality. Within each category certain brands are better than others. So, with those decision factors in mind, here is a survey of each category of track: Roadbed Track includes a built-in plastic roadbed underneath the ties. The roadbed adds stability, but the main advantage is that you "click" one piece of roadbed track to another, so assembly as fast and the track stays locked together. The different brands of roadbed track are not compatible with one another, but you can construct a "transition" track between two makes if so desired. Each manufacturer offers a variety of lengths of straight track, plus a variety of curves in different lengths and radii, plus switches and special purpose track like crossings. Roadbed track is the preferred choice for starter sets and newcomers to the hobby, especially children. It's also popular for those modelers who prefer operations to construction and aren't overly concerned with appearance. The quick setup feature also makes it popular among those who need to tear down and rebuilt layouts frequently. And of course, all roadbed track features insulated switch frogs for ease of use. Historically all roadbed track has been code 80, and Kato has been the most popular manufacturer due to both their large variety of track and their reputation for impeccable operations reliability. Bachmann offers a smaller line of cheaper roadbed track that tends to get less favorable reviews for reliability, especially the switches. Life-like train sets include their own roadbed track, and apparently you can order extra pieces, but the selection is very limited. This past year Atlas has introduced a line of code 60 roadbed track that is clearly intended to compete with Kato for the lion's share of this market. Early reviews are that Atlas wins on price and appearance, but I have no experience with it. Sectional track is similar to roadbed track, but without the roadbed. The track consists of plastic ties and rails, and each manufacturer offers a variety of curves, straights, switches, and special track. Connections are purely by rail joiner, so if you use sectional track you'll want to at least pin it into place on a board, and most people install the sectional track on top of a roadbed material, like cork, then glue scale ballast on top to complete the effect and hold the track in place permanently. Because the connection is by rail joiner different makes often work interchangably with each other, if the rail size is the same, and even if they don't it's usually not hard to build a transition track between two makes. Makes that work together: Peco 80, Atlas 80 and Peco 55; Atlas 55 with Micro-Engineering flex track. Sectional track was available decades before the introduction of roadbed track 20 or so years ago. Many people, myself included, thought that sectional track would eventually be completely replaced by roadbed track, but it turns out that a lot of modelers like sectional track. A well-scenicked layout with sectional track can look very nearly as nice as one with flex track, but avoids the extra work and skills that flex track requires. There are apparently enough of these modelers that when Atlas released their new code 55 line 4 or 5 years ago they included a huge variety of sectional pieces, and they have been a big seller. Atlas flat-out dominates the sectional track market in North America, with code 80 and code 55 lines. Peco, a UK firm, once was very popular but has lost most of their market share due in large part to exhorbitant prices, recently made worse by the weak dollar. A few other makes have been available in the past, such as Shinohara (code 70) and Model Power, but their market share is almost non-existent now. For modelers building new sectional track layouts the choice is likely to be between Atlas code 55 and 80, although Peco code 55 and 80 may be an option for a few. I'll cover the differences between these lines of tracks in my future post on flex track, since all of these sectional track lines include compatible flex track as well. Flex track is a section of track 29-36" long (length depends on the manufacturer) that can be bent to shape. With flex track you can duplicate anything that you can do in sectional track, plus you can build curves of radii that are not available in sectional track, and even create curves of changing radii, such as spiral easements. Flex track is considered better in appearance than sectional track, in part because curves and spiral curve transitions can look more realistic, and in part because sectional track has too many rail joints and has funny looking partial ties at both ends of each track piece. With the exception of Micro-Engineering code 40 track, all flex track lines include compatible switches. In addition, as noted above, sectional track lines from Peco and Atlas offer compatible flex track. So, there is a large selection of flex track lines to choose from - more choice than available for sectional or roadbed track. Since it is not difficult to connect the different types of flex track (using a transition track if necessary) many modelers do just that. For example, using larger rail for main lines and smaller rail for branch lines and sidings. Flex track does require more work to install than sectional track. When laying sectional track the curves and straight lines are already built in. With flex track you have to mark curves and straights onto the roadbed, then carefully adjust the track to match the marks. Spiral easements -- in which the curve gradually transitions from a tangent to a curve or from one radius curve to another -- require more skill to create than constant radius curves. Flex track often has to be precisely cut to fit, with the rails often of different lengths due to curves. This task is harder in N scale than HO because there is less room for error. Then there is the fact that around curves flex track joints need to be soldered to keep the curve steady and without dents. None of these skills are hard to learn, but taken together one can understand why some modelers prefer sectional track. I will review the different lines of flex track in a future post. Hand-laid track is preferred by those who want the absolute best possible appearance. It's not nearly as common in N scale as it is in HO (the size factor makes it harder to assemble the smaller N scale parts together by hand), but it's not rare either. While there are those who hand lay both the track and the switches, its become more common recently for modelers to hand lay the switches in combination with their preferred flex track, usually choosing Micro-Engineering for appearance reasons. The advantages of hand laid switches are many. First, if done well the appearance can be nearly identical to the prototype. The difference is noticable enough that visitors with any model railroad knowledge at all will see and admire it. Second, custom switches can be built for any situation. Need a switch with a #9 frog, or an outside switch on a 28" radius curve, or a crossing of a curved track and a straight one? None of these are available unless built by hand. Price is also an advantage, at least theoretically, as you are just buying rails, ties, spikes and/or glue and/or solder. In practice many modelers who hand lay track invest in specialized tools and jigs, or even buy partially assembled switches that have the rails and a few key ties in already in place -- all of those things save time and help make for reliable switches, but also cost money. The down side is that this is a lot of effort and time. And while proponents of hand-laying are correct to say that anyone can learn the skill, it's a skill that takes time to learn to do well. One noted hand-laying proponent, the prolific model railroad author Tony Koester, says that it takes him about an hour to assemble each of his hand-laid HO switches. (Tony's method is described in his Model Railroader book, Trackwork and Lineside Detail.) Others, such as the makers of Fast Tracks jigs for handlaying switches, say it can be done faster. I seriously considered handlaying my switches until i realized how long it would take to build the 130+ I will have on the main layout. At the rate of one switch per hour, and maybe 4-5 hours per week on the layout, that translates to at least half a year just assembling (not installing) switches. So I bought mine. But for those with smaller layouts, or with more time, who place an absolute premium on appearance this is your best option.

Gauge vs. Scale

In model train conversations it's common to hear the terms "gauge" and "scale" used interchangeably, as in "HO gauge" as a synonym for "HO scale". This is especially true for model railroading newcomers. While this causes no harm, as everyone understands what is being said, the two terms have different meanings:

Scale -- The size of the model relative to the prototype.

Gauge -- The distance between the two rails.

For example, N scale is 1:160, which means it is 160th the size of the prototype. If a prototype freight car is 80 feet long, in N scale it would be 160th of that, or 1/2 of a foot long.

In terms of gauge, prototype standard gauge is 4 ft 8.5 in between the rails, which translates to 9 mm between the rails in N scale. ("N" was chosen for the name of 1:160 scale because of the Nine mm rail gauge. )

So, if you say something is HO gauge what you are saying is that it is 1:87 (HO) scale and standard gauge. Similarly, the term "HOn3" means a model that is 1:87 scale, but representing a prototype narrow gauge of 3 feet. The "n3" of "HOn3" means: "narrow gauge, 3 feet". There is also an Nn3 -- 1:160 scale and a narrow gauge of 3 feet. Another popular example of modeling narrow gauge is On2.5 gauge -- which is O scale (1:48), narrow gauge of 2.5 feet.

The National Model Railroad Association (NMRA) has their own web page on scale and gauge which covers this topic in detail, including a list of scales common for indoor model railroads.

Although many model railroad scales have been established they clearly do not enjoy equal popularity. The most popular scale by far is HO, with N a distant (but growing) second, and the other scales further behind. TT scale (1:120) is virtually dead, killed off by the introduction of N in the 1960s. OO scale (1:76.2) is very popular -- perhaps the most popular -- in Britain but is almost unheard of elsewhere.

The NMRA web page I linked to does not, for some reason, list the "large" scales, from F (1:20.3) to H (1:32). These scales are commonly referred to as "outdoor" or "garden" railway scales because, although you can run them indoors, they are mostly used outdoors.

Thinking about switch control on main layout

So, the decision I made a couple of days ago to go with Tortoise switch machines on the main layout sparked my thinking about the whole switch control issue. This isn't a new issue at all, but sometimes you need a spark to help you finally reach a decision.

I researched the docs at Digitrax, skimmed various web sites, and started an email discussion with Mike Gleaton at Charleston Digital Trains, who is my primary source for DCC paraphenalia due to his extensive helpfulness and responsiveness, not to mention his ultra-competitive prices.
Long story short, the solution seems to be the Digitrax DS64. Yes, I knew the DS64 could provide digital control of 4 switch machines (either slow motion or snap relay), but at $48 + shipping I was hoping for something cheaper. But here's what I learned are its advantages:

1. Meets requirement: It can use a non-track power source. This is important because otherwise a large number of stationary decoders can drain the track power, requiring boosters and potentially interfering with train operations. A single PS12 power supply ($8) can power 20 DS64s, possibly more.


2. Meets requirement: There are slots for additional input devices, such as a fascia board with switch controls. This is huge -- I thought I'd have to buy separate DCC devices to support this feature.


3. Meets requirement: The DS64 supports 8 routes. Now, I've known this since I first read about the DS64, but I didn't really think about it until now. You really do want routes for things like ladder switching, because otherwise instead of clicking one logical switch for the track you want to go to, you have to click all the switches in between. The idea of one-click switching is helpful both for manual switching boards and for simplifying dispatching for a large layout.
   
   But if you have a lot of switches you'll need lots of routes. For example, a single 5-track yard with switch ladders at both ends will require 10 routes -- two (one for yard entrance, one for yard exit) routes for each of 5 tracks. The biggest Digitrax command station, the DSC100, which I have, supports only 32 routes. Each DS64 adds 8 routes, twice as many as the number of switches it supports, and since the routes can include switches attached to any DS64, a layout full of DS64s gives you more routes than you can realistically use, even if you use the "virtual" route addresses that Digitrax suggests for special switch situations.


4. Meets requirement: It has sensors to provide feedback to the command station, the computer, and the fascia switch board indicating the position of the switch.


5. Very useful: The DS64 can be configured to turn power off to the Tortoises 16 seconds after the switch movement is finished. This isn't true for all layout situations, but I have found that when the Tortoise is powered off on my layout it still holds the switch points firmly against the rails, thus making continual powering of the Tortoise unnecessary. I hear that this is not always the case, but perhaps my use of thicker-than-standard gauge wire for the Tortoise makes the difference.


6. Possibly useful: The DS64 can control both snap-relay and slow-motion switch machines, but not both types from one DS64. This gives me the option later of using the same technology, the DS64, when I start adding DCC control to my staging switches.


7. Possibly useful: There are also features related to signaling, which I haven't explored. But this is a topic I want to tackle before I get too much farther along.

So, I've sent Charleston Digital Trains an order for a DS64, a PS12, and a LocoBuffer-USB for computer control. Once they arrive I'll start experimenting.

Lower Deck Staging Design 2.0

So, here is a CAD drawing of the new design for the lower deck staging:



The grid section is 1' square. The drawing covers just the south room portion of the staging. The south and west walls are shown in light brown. The edges of the desk are shown in dark blue. The 1x2 and 2x2 sections of the grid benchwork that is to be built above the desk are shown in purple. The lower tier track is in red, the middle tier in blue, and the upper tier in brown.

Track is spaced at 1" within a single tier and 1.5" between tiers. In areas where parallel tracks are curved the spacing is increased to 1 1/8" -- no more is required because those curves are very, very broad (36" and more) and thus 1 1/8" is sufficient clearance even for the longest cars or super long steam locomotives.

1" is really too little for staging. Ideal is at least 2" to allow an extra 1" between tracks for fingers. Unfotunately, because the staging area width is limited to 24" (due to reach limitations) that would mean cutting the number of tracks in half, which would be just too few tracks. I dwelt on this issue for a while, finally settling on 1". I tried 1 1/8" and 1 1/4" as compromises, but the reality was that neither was any better in terms of finger room.

My experience with the last staging was that 1" can work if you use some Rix Rail-Its , Rix Pick Uncoupling Tools, and lay one Atlas Rerailer Track between every section of flex track. Those tools, plus minimizing derailments through good track laying, mean that the need for fingers is greatly lessened.

As part of the redesign the first thing I did was figure out the structure of the grid network that I'd put down under the loop. I decided to use mainly 2x2 lumber for stability (both stronger and the extra weight means less likely to be moved by bumping). I also wanted to have the loop section be removeable until construction on it was finished, so that I could take it out and access the far reaches.

The next change was to move the loops directly on top of each other, rather than askew. I'd originally made them a few inches apart with the intent of limiting the area where they would be on top of each other, but this ended up making the location of supporting piers more difficult without adding any real benefit.

The lower and middle tier were fairly easy to set up the track locations. I had to make some adjustments here and at the other end of staging to make sure that the length of each staging track was sufficient. I also had a few adjustments to avoid designing S-curves without having at least one long car length worth of straight track between the curves. For the middle tier there was also an adjustment to be made to allow space for an Atlas switch machine. I ran into that problem in the first staging attempt when I nested switches next to each other. You can mount them underneath, but a) this is staging, so looks don't matter, and b) although I fully test each machine before laying the track, I expect failures over time and having them next to the track makes for easier maintenance.

Of course, the return tracks are now placed next to their own tier's staging tracks. This means bridges have to be built near the loop for the top and mid tier return track. The mid tier return bridge will make it hard to access the trains immediately underneath, but it does not cross any switches, which is important as those are the tracks needing 99.9% of maintenance attention. The top tier bridge does cross some switches. I'm less worried about it crossing the lower tier switches, as the vertical gap will be 4", but for the mid tier I will try to route the bridge to minimize the access problem it creates (maybe even make the bridge removeable).

There was one design problem that you can't see in this 2D drawing, but which affected the final design. Each tier needs to make an elevation change to allow for sufficient (2 1/8" from rail to rail) vertical gaps at the loop end. The lower tier needs to drop about 3/8" -- which is easily taken care of with a 0.5% grade at the north end of staging. The middle tier is just about right, perhaps a 1/4" adjustment at the north end. But the upper tier needs to climb 1 7/8" from the point where it exits the layout to the loop -- a distance of about 19'.

This isn't a hard climb, it's less than the 1% maximum standard, but the problem is do we want an almost 1% grade in staging? I tested some cars on a 0.9% grade to see if they roll, and most would stay in place but did have a tendency to roll if pushed, and then they kept rolling for a while.

Fortunately, there is a little design trick I learned in one of my very early staging drawings. As luck has it, this staging design consists of one-way track. This means that you can plan for a long 1% grade in the upward direction and a short 3-4% grade in the downward direction without worrying about trains climbing up the 3-4% grade in the return direction.

So, my plan is to have the upper tier trains climb the entry track (this is the track next to the wall) at a 0.9% grade to the loop, then after looping around quickly descend at 3-4% to level over 3-4 feet, allowing a long area for flat staging. I won't have this designed exactly until I get to work with mockups on the actual staging.

So, design done, time to take apart the old staging.

Staging Requirements

"Staging" is the model railroaders term for tracks that are located outside the main layout and are used to represent the "rest of the world". It's usually not possible to represent an entire railroad in your model -- even in a large space -- so the modeler will choose to represent part of the railroad. For example, a Southern Pacific modeler may choose to model the area from Redding, CA to Klamath Falls, OR. After a train reaches the model Klamath Falls it will continue to a staging area, which is an unsceniced yard of tracks that represent the line as it continues north to Eugene and beyond.

Before describing my first, failed attempt at lower-deck staging, here is a brief description of the staging requirements. Let's start with a very high-level schematic of the layout, showing the required staging areas:



Keep in mind this is a schematic, not how the tracks are actually laid out, and that the picture is greatly simplified. Important features like Union Station or the main freight yard are not included, just the main lines and staging areas. The entire layout is set in a single city, and the focus of the layout is a double track east-west main line. A helix (shown in the middle) will allow the main to traverse between the two decks.

Because the double track main is a representation of a trans-continental mainline, there is a staging area at each end ("East" and "West") to represent where trains go to/come from on their journeys to and from the city.

The most key area of operation interest on the lower deck is a junction with another double track main, this one traveling north-south. This junction is "active", meaning that there will be trains running regularly on that main line, and in many cases those trains will interchange with the east-west main line. (Some model railroads use "passive" junctions to represent crossings -- the tracks are included on the model for show, but no trains actually run on them.)

This means that on the lower level there will have to be three staging exits from the double track mains -- West, North and South. There are many theories on how to best design staging, and the right one for your layout depends on your personal requirements. By a long process of sketching and discarding many staging plans I came up with the following general requirements:

1. Flexibility of Operations
   
   Some people know exactly how they will operate their model railroad at all times. I don't. I'd like to have operating sessions with a crew and a dispatcher, but I also want to do continuous running and to work toward automated (computerized) operation. I also want the flexibility to re-use trains or to break down and re-make trains during the session (this feature is known as "active staging" or a "fiddle yard"). These requirements mean that the staging area will need to have turnaround capability. There is also an implied requirement here that there be a switch ladder at both ends of the yard, instead of a stub-ended yard, since double-ended yards are generally more adaptable to different uses.
   Those are good desires, but they add a lot to the space requirements for the yard ladders and the turnaround track. Several of my discarded staging designs failed mainly due to lack of enough space.



2. Realism
   
   The goal is as realistic operation as possible, given the usual constraints and compromises inherent in a model railroad. One implication of this is that trains leaving via one staging point (say, North) should not return via a different staging point (South). It is also not realistic for a train on, say, the West end of the layout stalled waiting to exit the layout because another train is entering the layout from the South. So, this requirement, combined with the flexibility requirement, rules out designs which share staging between the different exit points.
   
   
3. Commuter Trains
   
   These are a featured part of this layout, with commuter routes in all four directions from the main junction on the lower level. Like most commuter trains, these don't turn around at the end of the line, but just reverse direction with the locomotive "pushing" the train. For staging this means that there has to be an option for trains to return to the layout without reversing direction.
   
   
4. Easy Access
   
   This is heavily implied by the Flexibility requirement, but I'm calling it out here because this requirement caused me to abandon more draft staging plans than all the other requirements combined. Easy Access means that multiple people can work in the staging areas, building trains or modifying consists, without getting in each other's way, or in the way of people who need to get by, and with easy reach to all parts of staging. Furthermore, having staging below the layout at, say, 2' off the ground, just doesn't qualify as easy access

In addition to those general requirements (i.e. could be applied to any layout) I came up with several requirements specific to this layout:

1. 18" radius minimums in staging and 1% maximum grade. These are part of the overall layout design standards, which I'll explain in a future post.
   
2. Support 12' long trains, more if possible. (That's 1920 scale feet, which is fairly long for model railroading.)
   
3. Do not allow staging design to compromise the goals of the main layout.
   
4. Don't allow the layout to encroach on the South room (see previous post for room descriptions).
5. 5 tracks for North and South staging, 9 for West, plus 2 other shorter (5') tracks for each staging area set aside for commuter trains. Of course I really wanted 3 or 4 times that, but these were the minimums I calculated for the desired operations.

As it turned out, I found that I couldn't meet the first seven requirements, especially easy access, and hold on to requirement #4. Something had to give, and that something was space in the South room, Once I accepted this reality I tried to minimize the impact, but eventually I just accepted that the staging would take the entire west wall of the South room, including covering up part of the built-in desk that is there.Once I accepted that compromise the rest of the design wasn't too hard to figure out. The three staging areas ("West", "North" and "South") would share the same wall, but they would be a different heights (about 2" difference) in three tiers. Each would have double-ended yard ladders leading to a turnaround and return track. Each would have separate commuter train staging tracks, without turnaround capability, before the main staging. The total length for staging in this configuration is 23', which is not shabby. And I built two of three tiers of this staging design, as shown in pictures below:



The above picture is a view looking south from the top of the stairs. You can see the staging tracks going through the hole I made in the wall with help from my 10 year old son (I call it "the staging window"), and that the direction of the door was reversed to allow unblocked access to staging tracks. You can also see that staging tracks are on two levels, and there is room for an unbuilt third level next to the wall.



The picture above shows the same staging area, but at the south end. You can see how it sits on part of the built-in desk. Although I tried to avoid doing this, part of the reason I ultimately made this decision was because that desktop was being used for only junk storage. I have a separate work desk, and this built-in desk was simply something that came with the house. I figured I didn't need all that surface space.



Finally, the picture above is the same area as the previous, but taken from further back to show the context of the staging area.

So, the three photos above were taken on December 14, 2008, just before I the south half of the staging area was dismantled. Although I was able to run and operate trains using this staging area there were numerous design and implementation problems. Eventually, I realized that I needed to admit this was a learning experience and redesign and implement from scratch. (Well, not quite scratch -- the 1x2 benchwork grid will be reused.) Here were the key problems:

1. Unreliable end loops
   
   It's enough of a challenge to get the track subroadbed level and the track work operationally smooth under the best of conditions. It was nearly impossible at the loop end of staging. First, the reach to the far ends of the loop from the edge of the desk was 3' and more, making it hard to make minute adjustments, and also often resulting in damage to track near the edge in the process. The usual rule is a maximum reach of 24", and although I knew this would be a problem in advance I did nothing to compensate. Second, something I was NOT previously aware of was how much I relied on being able to access the layout from underneath when building subroadbed, roadbed, and track. I found that out when I started work on the track on top of the desk. The desk limited the angles that I could use for tools like drills and soldering irons, and together with the reach problem meant that a lot of the construction was imprecises. Third, the separation between tracks was only 2", and required the use of very thin board on the 2nd level. The board I used was too hard for nails/pins and generally a pain to work with. Finally, and worst of all, I completed the rest of staging before starting the loops. I had no real plan for how I would build the loops, and it showed. This picture below shows the loop area up close.
   
   
   
   Now, I'm not claiming that the rest of the layout is the epitome of surgeon-esque construction, but this section looks like bailing-wire-and-string (or, more literally, drywall screws and duct tape). The supports are attached to the desk, not a benchwork grid, and are anything but 90 degrees from the surface. I'd hoped that the plywood subroadbed would make up for the supports with stiffness, but it just wasn't enough. And, you can't see it clearly, but even the trackwork and electrical connections were subpar due to reach issues. Somehow, after much effort, the loops managed to be coaxed and adjusted sufficiently to allow reliable operations most of the time, however the whole mass was so delicate that I couldn't see adding a third loop above the other two successfully. I could have tried to just rebuild the loops, but there were other problems as well:
   
   
2. Misorganized tiers
   
   I made two major mistakes with the tiers. First, for a reason that I can't remember (and is not present in any of my notes at the time) I decided to put the return tracks for all three tiers together at the front edge of staging instead of grouping them with the other tracks on their tier. This mean that, from the front edge, you would have had first the lower tier return track, then 2" higher the mid tier return track, then 2" higher still the upper tier return track, then 4" lower the lower staging tracks. Which, as I found after I built the middle tier, made hand access to the lower staging tracks a major pain, as you can see in this picture:
   
   
   
   This picture was taken from just north of the staging window. On the left edge of staging is the return track for the lowest tier. Immediately next to that is the return track for the middle tier (top tier was never built). Then next to that are the staging tracks for the lowest tier. And that long horizontal brown thing is a 4' bridge I built for the mid tier return track to cross over the lower staging tracks, thus making hand access to switch ladder underneath difficult. The bridge itself was barely passable (remember looks don't matter as this is staging, so I'm just talking functionally), but fortunately I did learn some good lessons from that bridge that have been applied to staging 2.0 (will cover in a future post).
   
   
3. Poor track laying
   
   I'm using old-fashioned Atlas code 80 track and Atlas #6 switches in staging as a cost saving measure. They are widely recognized as the worst looking N scale track (aside from some trainset track) but these are also by far the cheapest. Given that I have planned about 250 switches in this layout, with about 70 in staging, and that a switch + switch motor + DCC switch decoder set is about $40-50 per, any opportunity for savings is greatly appreciated. There is some debate about the Atlas code 80 track reliability, especially the switches, but I've found that by being meticulous I can get good results (more on that when I get to track laying and testing).
   
   Now, I've laid tons of track, HO, N and "G", and so you might think it would have been no problem this time. At least I thought so. But of course I had to break from past experience and try two new things, one which worked very well and the other had bad results. The good thing was using floor underlayment material, the kind you might put under a new Pergo floor, for staging roadbed. This material: is cheap when used for model railroading (a big roll that will cover all my staging needs and then some was under $35); is very thin, which is important if you are squeezing multiple tiers of track closely together and every 1/8th of a vertical inch counts; does a great job with sound deadening (better than any other roadbed I've used) and glues on nicely with school glue (either Elmer's or the glue sticks), holding well to the plywood and the track both but being easy to take apart if you need to. There is enough resistance on the top surface that you can set flex track on Elmers and move it around with curves, etc, and it will hold in place. It's actually a joy to work with.
   
   That is, it was a joy after I figured out how to use the glue method. The bad "new thing" that I tried was putting the track down with track nails. I was worried that the blue floor material wouldn't hold in place long (it does), and that i might not be a good surface for gluing the track to (it is). But, rather than test this out I decided to use track nails to put the track in place and literally nail the blue roadbed in place at the same time. The first problem was that the plywood was too hard to accept nails easily, so I had to really hammer the nails in. This resulted in some track damage, until I got better at it (using a special tool I bought for pushing small nails into place). But when I tested the track I found the nails made the track uneven (lower near the nails, higher in other spots) and wobbly (it's very hard to get track to line up straight with nails versus adjusting it on top of a sticky surface like Elmer's or the old AMI instant roadbed). I stuck with this through the whole lower tier, finally trying the glue method in the upper tier. The trains ran on the lower tier but with derailments, so I knew that sooner or later I'd need to re-lay all that track.
   
   
4. Broken Requirements
   
   As ugly as these problems were, the clincher was when I started planning the upper tier. The approach i was taking was to try to get the whole track plan built then go back and fix things. I've since re-thought that approach, as the concept of deferring the repairing of known problems means that you tend to cut corners and create more of them, and worse, that you are apt to continue creating the same problems until you have practice doing that part right.
   
   So, as I looked at he upper tier I looked at the staging approach from the main layout, and realized that I'd violated specific requirement #4. I compromised the layout itself by planning to route the double staging track *over* part of the layout main line, with the intent of somehow disguising the staging track by making it look like a covered bridge. It was a solution to a problem that seemed unsolvable at the time, but as I looked at the scene that would result I realized key sight lines would be blocked and make the scene much worse.
   
   So, I rethought the whole design, found a solution, and realized it would require making what had been the middle tier the top tier. One I realized this the next logical step was accepting the need to rebuild staging, given all the other problems. This was like a great revelation -- I was tremendously relieved to admit this to myself, happy with my new approach to "get it right before moving on to the next project", and excited about the layout again.

In the next post I'll show the new staging design. After that I'll show progress on the construction so far.