The wheels on the Railroad go Up and Down

I'm 3/4 of the way through my project of building retractable casters for the two mobile sections of my four-section layout. They've been installed on one section; when the last set is finished, they'll be installed on the other section.

I'm really glad I went with this, too. On the section that now has retractable casters, I've reattached the leveling feet and adjusted them so the top is now truly level. The difference in the extensions of the individual feet is remarkable. Just shows how uneven my basement floor really is. If I had tried to just manage with fixed casters, it would have driven me nuts at how uneven the sections were when mating up with each other.

The Persistence of Memory

This is turning into a weird obsession.

Many years ago I was going to build a layout using the old Portage Hill & Communipaw track plan. It was one of 4 projects in a Kalmbach book called Popular Model Railroads You Can Build.

Some rather major personal changes in my life put that project on hold. Although I had built the benchwork and covered it with Homasote, I never laid any track or put up any scenery.

By the time, a year ago, I decided to buckle down and get going again on a layout, I had concluded that one would not work in the basement space I've got. Instead I turned my attention to other plans, ultimately arriving at the one I'm working on now.

But I've retained a fondness for the PH&C track plan, which I got to know quite well after years of studying it.

Now here's the weird part.

I am absolutely convinced that somewhere in the last couple of years I've seen a plan, or at least part of a plan, that at least started with the PH&C design. I can see it, or something close to it, in my mind's eye.

I'm also pretty sure that the context was not a lengthy article focused on this layout, whatever it was called. My memory is that it was more likely in a group of layouts, such as a track plan collection. It also was not billed as the PH&C, and whatever textual materials I saw surrounding it made no mention of the PH&C. But I knew that track plan in its key details and I had no doubt as to its origins.

So where did I see it?

A couple of years ago I got MR's special issue, 102 Realistic Track Plans -- a great compilation of plans they had published over the last decade or so. I also have been a regular browser of the magazine's track plan database and downloaded bunches that appealed to me.

So when this recollection of seeing this PH&C-influenced plan surfaced in my mind, I combed through 102 Realistic Track Plans, I looked at every single one of the plans in the MR online database, and I've been paging through every MR in my bookshelves.

Nothing.

The other part I've been wondering about is whether perhaps it was just a snippet of an image -- albeit a completely recognizable one to me -- that was in an ad, say for track planning software or something.

Again, nothing that I can find. So far.

But then another nagging feeling grabs at me. Could I have just dreamt the whole thing? After all, I've been perusing lots of track plans lately. Even though I now know my plan for my layout, I've been poring over others, not so much second-guessing as soaking up more inspiration to influence perhaps some tiny details here and there in my layout.

So did one night I dream of looking over one of these magazines and seeing the PH&C-influenced plan, or image, that is now such a powerful memory?

I really don't need to keep obsessing about this, but I can't seem to help it. And it's driving me slightly nuts :-)...


So if anyone out there reads this and can tell me where I might have seen the image I describe, please -- help me figure it out.

Overthinking, Redux

I think I'm back to the notion of retractable casters.

I've been looking at the caster-mounted sections each day as I walk to and from my basement office. The more I think about the places they're uneven, the more I want to go back to using the screw-in levelers that I originally planned for.

In order to do that, I'd have to remove the casters from their current positions on the bottoms of the legs and instead make assemblies that would enable them to be retractable. I've been working out in my head how I'd do that, and I think I've got it pretty well figured out. The only investment I'd need would be some more 1/2-inch thick plywood (a 24-inch-square panel should do it) and 8 small hinges. I think I could use some of the leftover 1 x 2 furring that I have for another part of the assembly. And I'd re-use the casters.

Making things even

Well, after more cogitating, I've decided that the path of least resistance is to put temporary shims under the casters that need them whenever my layout sections are attached to each other and in use.

The steps will be these:

First, I'll line up the sections as they are to be arranged for operation. I'll get them lined up as perfectly as possible, and the tops level with each other by putting shims under the casters of the units that are lower than the others.

Once lined up and leveled, I'll clamp them, then drill holes to line up the sections with bolts. I'll probably use wingnuts, although I'd love it if I could find some kind of quick-release bolts.

I'll mark the shims that I use as precisely as I can, because when setting up to use the layout I'll want to first put the shims in place, then do the bolting, so that sections aren't "hanging off" of each other because they aren't quite level at the ground.

As my buddy Keith pointed out the other day, once the plan is worked out, I'll probably be focusing on one section at a time. The only time I'll need to have them hooked together while building is for working out transitions from section to section, either in track or scenery.

For the track itself, I'm considering two approaches:

#1 would be to lay track across the sections, then very carefully saw it apart at the gap. Biggest downside there is that the track will often cross the gaps at an angle, which means the ties would be cut across at an angle.

#2 would be, at least where there is an angle across the layout section gap, to leave room for about a 3-inch filler piece of track. In the end I'll probably use both methods depending on the individual situation.

So the next steps are these:

* Determine if there's a quick-release connecting mechanism that would be an alternative to bolts and wingnuts.

* Then enlist a friend to help me with the leveling/connecting task, probably about an hour's worth of work...

Some pictures

Here are a few pictures of the benchwork.


First, the 4 sections arrayed as they will be for the layout when it is in operation:

Then, arrayed as they would be for "storage" between sessions of work/operation on the layout:

Finally, a look at how I did the lower side rails, which are used instead of crossbraces to add rigidity and stability to each section:

I do have one concern: the tops are not all perfectly even. If I had used levelers, as I originally intended, this would not be a problem. But since I'm using casters, by necessity, I'm not sure how to deal with the slight variations in height from section to section...

The wheels on the bus layout sections go 'round and 'round

Well, finished at last.

Over the weekend, I put horizontal rails in place, using 1 x 2 furring, to connect and stabilize the H-leg assemblies on each section. This was instead of doing cross braces between the assemblies (which the Jim Hediger plywood frame system calls for to be made from 1-1/4 x 1/4 inch moulding). I was very pleased with how that worked out. The rails will in turn support shelves to be put in at some time later.

Then I put casters on all 4 sections. After all my dithering about trying to create retractable caster assemblies of some kind, it was the simplest and easiest outcome. Now they all roll fairly easily. I've arrayed them as they would be set up when the layout is in operation, then rolled the two sections into the position they would be in when "stored."

There's still some stuff in the way in the basement room that needs to be cleared out of the way. Then I can FINALLY start planning out the track plan in full size.

I have one small concern -- one section seems about a quarter inch higher than the rest. Since I don't have levelers now I don't know how I'll deal with that. One option might be to remove the casters on that one unit, and put levelers back on it -- in which case I might use carriage bolts so I can extend them by several inches. Or I might simply smooth out the space between it and the other sections once I have the foam installed on the top surface in order to lay track.

But at long last I do have the benchwork finished. Now I can move on to my next task...

Overthinking

All weekend I've been dithering (an occupational hazard for me) about how to resolve the issue of making two of my four layout sections easy to move.

The simplest answer is, of course, just putting casters on the bottoms of their legs. I've been resisting that solution mightily, however, because I didn't want them to be higher than they are, and I wanted them to be leveling (as they are now, with the screw-in leveling feet). As noted in my previous post, I've been mulling various systems for creating retractable casters. I saw one design on line (that I now understand), and I figured out a design of my own. Even this morning I spent some time and energy figuring out how I could adapt this design to the legs I've already built.

But in the end, it's just a little too complicated. And considering that the units will have to be moved as often as every day, retractable casters are more work than is worthwhile.

Farm & Fleet has casters that are less than 2 inches high and would do the job just fine. I would put casters on the legs of 2 sections, and then create simple risers to bring the other 2 sections up to the same level. (Or, I could just put casters on all four sections and be done with it.) Raising the entire layout 2 inches just is not a big deal. And heck, if it really turns out to be too high, I can just cut 2 inches off the top of each leg assembly.

I don't think locking casters are available in the size I'm looking at; if they are, then that's an option to go with.

And I'll pull out all the T-nuts and all the levelers and put them in ziploc bags for storage. I'm sure there will be occasion to use them in the future.

SO:
Next step is to buy at least 2 sets of 4 casters each. (Or, again, perhaps 4 sets.)

I also need 16 4-foot lengths of 1/4-inch by 1-1/14 inch furring to be used for cross braces that will further stabilize the legs, in keeping with the Hediger benchwork design I'm using.

We'll see if I can get to that this week.

Belated discovery

Well, as I suspected, I really need to make at least 1, maybe 2, of my sections easily movable. That means casters. But I can't put casters on the bottom, because that will raise the height above the other sections. (And higher than I really want the lowest level to be.

I have seen a great solution here, but I don't know how to implement it. I hope that I can find more details on how it works.


Update:

Thinking a little more, I have another alternative design in mind:

A 2 x4 cross brace between the legs.

A piano hinge on the underside of the cross brace.

The other part of the hinge is attached to another 2 x 4.

When the hinge is folded in on itself, the 2 x 4 s are stacked one upon the other. The lower 2 x 4 has casters mounted on it.

To retract the casters, lift the table. Fold up the lower 2 x 4 (making the piano hinge wide open). Hook it into place somehow (old style door bolts? screen hook latches?). In this position, the casters point straight up.

To install, put the upper 2 x 4 across just high enough so that when the lower 2x4 with the casters is lowered, the wheels are perhaps 1 to 1-1/2 inches below the bottom of the feet.

Second update:

I think instead of positioning the hinge so it's folded up when the casters are down, I should position it so it's straight when the casters are down and folded when they are raised.

Bottom line, however: Problem solved.

Finally!

Well, I've finished painting all the wood with polyurethane. I've attached legs to 3 of the 4 sections. (The last one I'll do tomorrow.)

I do need to rearrange some stuff in the basement to make room for everything in its "official" configuration.

Here's the thing about a sectional layout

The advantage is, it can be easily transported or moved to a new location.

But when it comes to the benchwork, it means you double, triple or quadruple the work you would ordinarily do.

I have finally assembled all 8 "H-leg" assemblies that will go on my four sections. This weekend I begin coating everything w/ polyurethane to help prevent warping.

If all goes well with that, I'll be finished by Thursday. Then next weekend I can put everything up on legs and at last see what I've got.

Always one more thing

I built two of 8 H-leg assemblies today, and attached them to one of the frames. Then I was advised by a friend that I should cover all the wood with a coat of polyurethane, to prevent warping when the climate shifts. I wasn't planning on that, though I obviously should have been.

So while I'll make the rest of the H-leg assemblies, I won't attach them yet. And the one I did attach, I'll remove. Then I'll haul everything outside and paint them w/ Polyurethane.

And then I'll be able to attach the rest of the legs.

Sigh...

Northern Wisconsin it is -- I think

In my last post, I was dithering about the setting for my railroad. As appealing as modeling the area around Mineral Point and Platteville sounds to me, I'm going to stick with my Northern Wisconsin logging and mining (iron, copper or both) concept. It's the logging -- I really do want to have something reflecting that on my layout, and after a lot of searching I can't find any evidence of serious timber harvesting in Southwest Wisconsin. Should I learn otherwise, the decision will be up for grabs again.

I've been working on names, too, assuming the UpNorth setting. I've just about decided it will be Nicolet & Wolf River Ry. Co. -- names of real geographic features in NE Wisconsin (the Nicolet National Forest and the, yes, Wolf River).

Principal locations on the layout, however, will have fictionalized names. And all of them will be personalized. I'll hold off on that information for now; one of them is still up in the air, for one thing. But I'm pleased with the other two.

Regarding the layout itself: The individual legs have all been completed with the addition of the 2x2 blocks in the base, including T-nuts and the levelers. Next step will be to pick up some carriage bolts, lock nuts, washers and wingnuts so I can make an H-assembly of each pair of legs and then install them on the frames.

Where, oh where...

DairyStateMom and I took a weekend away to West Central Wisconsin, specifically Spring Green. Our primary agenda (besides marking our 5th Anniversary) was to see the American Players Theater.

On our way home today, however, we drove down to Mineral Point and visited the Mineral Point RR Depot museum. What a delight! And driving through the area--as well as learning just a bit about the history of railroading and mining in this area--got me to considering a shift in my own model's setting.

As I've noted before, I don't plan to model a specific, real-life prototype. I want too much freedom to do that. Rather, I choose to model an imagined railroad that will be set in Wisconsin, in a certain time period sometime in the first half of the 20th century. I know that I want to have some logging, some mining, some local common-carrier traffic, and at least token passenger service.

Up to now I've been figuring the northern part of the state, perhaps the Nicolet Forest. The Mineral Point visit, however, has me considering a change to Southwestern Wisconsin. A serious drawback is that I really do want to include some logging, and I have yet to find any indication that there was significant logging in the area. There was, however, lumber processing of various kinds, but just where the lumber came from isn't clear to me.

So I have more to think about. Right now, it's all academic. I don't have much in the way of any kind of rolling stock, so I've got freedom to move in any direction I want to. And on the track plan I have, the small branch line that is to go to a logging camp could, instead, be repurposed to go to a mine (indeed, the original track plan I'm copying calls for a mine at that site).

In short... decisions, decisions...

We've got legs!

Well, it took about a week. But I now have 16 pairs of 42-inch-long, L-shaped, 1/2-inch plywood legs: 4 each for the 4 sections of my layout. Each board had to be sanded to remove rough spots, then they were glued and nailed into their current configuration. In order to make sure that the nails were consistent from one leg to the next, I created a simple jig for marking the nail holes.

The next step will be to attach 12-inch-long 2x2 blocks at the bottom of each leg, into which will be inserted T-nuts and screw-in levelers.

Then I will be assembling pairs of legs into H-shaped assemblies with cross braces, using glue, carriage bolts and locking nuts. The cross braces need to be cut to 22-1/2 inches long, and the holes will need to be drilled. I'm going to make a simple cardboard jig for marking the location of the holes. I've made a simple wooden jig to mark the location of the holes.

The leg system is basically the one shown in this video:



Two differences: I made the blocks at the base 1 foot rather than 8 inches. And I used framing nails (slightly larger) instead of trim nails -- mostly because that's what I could find.

Cheap (or Free) to a Good Home

So I dropped by the local hobby shop today. I've been in there browsing many a time, so what happened next is probably understandable.

I saw some Bachmann ore cars. They were quite inexpensive. I have been dying to get SOME kind of rolling stock for the as yet unbuilt railroad.

So I bought one and asked how old the prototype was. It goes back to the 1930s, I was assured.

Here's the model I got (although it was black and lettered for the N&W).

Once home with it, I had some second thoughts and hunted around to see if I could find the history of the prototype.

I didn't find this particular model, but MR has a review of another manufacturer's kit that sure looks like the same prototype.

Grrrrr. It was introduced in 1961. That's a whole lot later than I plan to model.

Would you like it?

Update: Framing almost finished

Well, while it's taken a lot more time than I planned (thanks to intervening events like work, vacation, and chores around the house), I've gotten frames made for all 4 sections of the layout. Three of them still need the top boards of 1/4-inch plywood, and all 4 sections need legs. But we're making progress, however slowly. I hope to add pictures later.

For the legs I'm going to use a design I've seen a couple of places, including on the World's Greatest Hobby Madison Central: L-shaped legs of plywood, connected by a cross-beam to make an 'H'. They'll be attached with carriage bolts so they can be easily removed.

I've assumed I'd put screw-in levelers in the bottom of the legs, and I think I'll still go that way. But I'm wondering about casters. That's because I've also discovered that the fit in my basement room is going to be just a little tighter than I realized. I'm glad that I chose a sectional approach. The original point was simply to make it easier to move out in 5 or 10 years. Instead, though, I suspect I'll be taking it apart regularly to make it easier to move around the room. So casters -- or else levelers with bottoms that are easier to glide along the floor -- may be necessary.

Shameless self-promotion

A while back I mentioned that I was writing an article about model railroading.

Well, now it's up.

We've got wood

Finally made that trip to Home Despot today and purchases all of the framing lumber for my layout.

I'm using a slightly different approach than I last wrote about here, thanks to advice from my friend Keith. I'm still using ripped plywood instead of dimensional lumber. The siderails will be just 1/4 inch thick plywood. Cross joists will be 3/4 inch plywood, nailed and glued to the siderails. This is the same system Keith and a group of N-scale modelers use for a system of modules they're making. The frame is then topped with a 1/4 plywood slab. On top of that (and this is different from the aforementioned module system) will be 2-inch-thick insulation foam -- in this aspect, adapted from MR's Beer Line layout approach.

I got a lot of the lumber ripped at Home Despot, but for final trimming, I'm turning to a friend who has a radial arm saw and a table saw to get pieces to their final, finished size. That happens this week.

What's in a Name, or, Location, location, location

When I first began planning for my own model railroad as a teenager, I was captivated by the Great Northern's mountain goat logo. In those days (the end of the 1960s and the early 1970s) there wasn't a lot of prototype modeling going on yet. The typical model railroad was freelanced, even if it might be heavily influenced by or even based on a particular real-life line. So I didn't try to research the Great Northern and adopt it as my model -- I just figured out a way to rip off the logo, sort of.

Instead of the GN's rocky mountain goat, I opted for a western bighorn sheep. Then I decided to call it the Bighorn Central. (The Pennsy and the NY Central were just merging at the time, so "Central" in a railroad name seemed timely.)

Perusing maps of the west, I discovered that there really is a Bighorn Mountain Range in north central Wyoming. Without much contemplation I settled on that as the setting for my railroad. I conceived of a basic route for it across the range, although connecting imaginary communities rather than real ones.

Within a couple of years I saw a lot of flaws in my concept. Still attached to this mountainous area of Wyoming (or to my imagination of it), I discovered that there was another mountain range to the west of the Bighorns: The Bridger Range. I modified my imaginary railroad some and the fictional prototype became the Bridger Range and Northern. That was the concept I was building when I was working on the layout that I wrote about here.

Before much track had been laid, that layout came down and instead I began developing a simple shelf layout -- 8 feet by about 18 inches or so. The plans was just for a station scene, siding and a few spurs.

And for some reason -- I don't recall why -- I had abandoned the entire Bridger Range & Northern scheme. Instead, this was to be called the Cedar Creek & Western. I think I even played with a logo idea in which the C, C, and W all interlocked in such a way as to resemble the wheelset of a freight car (the truck).

I don't recall having decided where that was set, but it probably was also intended to be a western themed railroad. And set back in the first third of the 20th century --smaller equipment and all that.

In the time since then, when I've contemplated building layouts, I haven't given any thought to a name. I have contemplated location, however.

Generally I've been imagining northern Wisconsin, suitable for logging and some kind of mining operation. (Ore, probably not coal.) Now that I've finally got a track plan, I'm trying to nail that down a bit more. But I'm not quite ready to firmly commit yet, and I don't think I have to either. Still, Wisconsin, since I live here now, is pretty close to a certainty. Maybe an imaginary prototype, maybe a real one. Maybe some amalgam of the two.

But it's time, again, to think about a name. Cedar Creek & Western appeals. So does Cedar Creek & Northern. I may look over specific locations I want to include and arrive at another name. And I've been perusing books on Wisconsin railroading for other ideas, too.

Then, finally, there's time period. All along I've though I'd make it in the teens, 20s or early 30s. Maybe even in the first decade of the 20th century.

Lately, I'm rethinking that, too. The expanded possibilities for setting it in, say, the '40s and early '50s -- still lots of steam in use, but also making it possible to employ some older diesels (cheaper to buy) -- intrigue me. Again, I don't have to commit quite yet, not until I'm actually investing in rolling stock. Yet another alternative is to model multiple periods -- run 50s rolling stock one day, 'teens rolling stock another.

One time I won't do: the '20s. I want to have a brewery somewhere on the layout. And it's no fun if they can't brew real beer.

Measure twice, cut once.

I was panicking a bit this week, trying to make detailed plans from drawings of the track plan I am using for my layout. Somehow my drawings just didn't match up with the original, no matter how hard I tried.

Then I looked more closely and saw that I was working from a width that was 6 inches too short, in two different spots.

Once I realized that, it all made a lot more sense. So I've now worked up the benchwork plan. The layout will be in 4 sections: Two that measure 2 feet by 6 feet-9 inches, and two measuring 3 feet by 4 feet.

I plan to get all the framing from 3-inch strips ripped from a single 4 x 8 x 1/2 inch sheet of birch plywood, using a combination of Jim Hediger's plywood frame in Basic Model Railroad Benchwork and the benchwork design that David Popp came up with for the Beer Line sectional layout. I will use self-leveling feet rather than casters. While the framework will be assembled with glue and nails, the legs will be bolted to the frame/table assembly. Angle braces and I-bar shaped lower cross braces also will be bolted in place. The point is to allow for easy moving of the finished layout to a new location as the opportunity and need arise.

The table tops will be 1/4-inch plywood topped with 2-inch insulation foam.

I'll make L-shaped legs, also from ripped plywood. The remaining as yet unsettled question is, how high do I want it? As I explained to DairyStateMom this evening, it's a matter of finding the height that optimizes ease of work with interest of angle in viewing.

But I will give myself some time on that question, and I won't buy the leg lumber in all likelihood until I have actually built the table tops themselves.

Still more on track

Wow, do I feel like a newbie...

I dropped in to browse at one of the larger hobby shops in our area yesterday -- my first visit in a very long time, and first ever in their new (to me) location. And I took a look at the Atlas Code 83 flex track. I had no idea...

Boy, this is not your father's Atlas.

The subject came up because I have a very cheaply purchased IHC 040 switcher boxed away with flanges that well exceed the RP-25 standard. I asked the guy in the RR dept of the store about replacement drivers or grinding them down. He's who steered me to the Code 83.

And the price, at under $5 per 3-foot section if bought in lots of 10 or more, is very appealing to my Inner Scotsman. At $1.66 a foot (less than that actually) it's a lot cheaper than the Shinohara and notably cheaper than the ME track, too.

I don't think I'll use CV hand-laid track after all.

I might try a hand-laid CV turnout, though. I see by the Walthers catalog they're about 1/2 the price of a standard turnout by any of the Mfrs, including Atlas. I'd be willing to try one.

So I'm not 100% sure if I'm ready to abandon Code 70 track entirely. (As the store guy pointed out, I could use it on spurs and sidings, which would be prototypical.) But the temptation to go to Code 83 is definitely there.

Fascinating and Creepy

Google's ads, that is.

Google has figured out I'm into model railroads. No surprise there.

So at the top of my Gmail in-box is an ad that says:

"Model Railroad - TheFutureNeedsUs.com - The Crescent Corridor Means More Jobs & Cleaner Air. Learn More."

Here's where it leads: an ad for the Norfolk Southern Ry. The real-life one, not a model.

(Crossposted at DairyStateDad)

A follow-up note on track

A little further investigation led me to the Micro Engineering product line of track. Based on Walthers' prices, it's about $1.80-$1.90 a foot or so. A lot cheaper than Shinohara's $2.33/foot.

On the other hand, CV tie strip is $.84/foot, and they sell rail to go with it at $.25/foot. So that's $1.09/foot altogether, just 60 percent -- or less -- of Micro Engineering's product. (If I buy ME rail, it's $.60/foot, for a total of $1.44/foot for the CV handlaid.)

I'm just not sure whether I'm up to the additional challenge of hand laying, although the CV tie strip does seem to be a lot easier than the old spike-it-yourself approach.

Well, I do have time to sort that out. CV sells a sample pack, and I am likely to try that out. I might do it on a separate board (my friend Keith has a "posing board" he takes outside and gets amazing pictures with). Meanwhile, I'll use the Shinohara track I already have mostly in hidden areas, I think.

"Not to scale"

Now that I've got a serious track plan and I'm motivated to build it, comes the hard and tedious part: Making sure it will work.

There's a handy little note on the August 2005 Model Railroader article that contains the track plan I've settled on: "Not to scale."

Boy is that ever true. I measured it to see if I could just copy and reduce it. Don't think so. 4 feet in one direction doesn't seem to be consistent with 4 feet in another direction. Sigh.

So now I'm working on a first rough onto graph paper. Actually a photocopy of graph paper, outlined for the dimensions of the layout's perimeter. Trying to decide if I should get a full fledged draftsman's compass or not. And the part that I really dread: drawing turnouts to careful scale. I know some templates exist and I might end up getting one.

It also means that I probably won't get started on the benchwork quite as soon as I had planned. I really want to be confident of those dimensions before I start sawing and nailing and glueing.

Speaking of benchwork -- went over to Home Despot Depot the other day to price lumber.

I'm thinking for the first stage of benchwork I'll need about 80 feet of dimensional lumber (provisionally, 1 x 4). The best quality I could find is about $8 for an 8 foot piece -- and even then my son and I could see numerous pieces that were warped or otherwise out of shape.

Then I checked the price of high-quality plywood. My alternative is to have plywood ripped and then assembled into the framing, following an approach used in Model Railroader's Basic Model Railroad Benchwork book, tweaked some with ideas from the "Beer Line" framing system for sectional layouts.

It's less than half the price. So Plywood framing it is.

And speaking of pricing...

I have a package of several Shinohara flex track lengths. Not sure how many off the top of my head. And a whole bunch of cork roadbed. But I was pricing track today and Holy Heisler! My inner Scotsman is starting to rebel.

Then I spotted the web site for Central Valley tie strip and rail. At first glance it looks a lot less expensive, and not that much extra work. I might go that route, but only after some further investigation. If I do, though, I still expect to purchase turnouts fully made. That, too, will require some further invetigation.

(If anyone out there stumbles across this blog and has something to contribute in the way of advice on the subject, feel free to do so in the comments. Spammers, this does NOT mean you. Read the comment warning.)

All of that is down the road, though. First stop: the drawing supplies.

I found it!

I can't believe it's been nearly 4 months since I posted here. But I know why.

I've been dithering on my layout plan for even longer.

I most recently decided to get serious about a layout early last year. I was inspired in part by the Model Railroader "Beer Line" project layout. My friend Keith, who's among the area's premier modelers, encouraged me to look at that as a first real, full-fledged layout.

Trouble was, I wasn't really enthusiastic about an all-urban, all-operating layout. I think the Beer Line is a great project layout, and I love the execution of it in the magazine. But my principal goal for a layout is one with rugged, rural scenery for logging and mining operations. I'll never be John Allen, but I do want to be able to be inspired by him.

For a while, I warmed to the idea of the Beer Line track plan, but repurposed for a rural setting. On the Humboldt Yard side, it would be a small town with yard and engine servicing facilities. The other side (the one with the long, curved siding) would be a logging camp scene. Instead of a river down the middle, I'd do a center 2-sided backdrop.

I think it could be a great way to reimagine the Beer Line plan, but I just couldn't get excited about it.

I thought about the old folded dogbone design from my youth and ruminated about employing it in some variation.

But one thing had happened as a result of my Beer Line flirtation: I had become deeply intrigued by a sectional layout.

Now, the Beer Line's design is especially ingenious because it can be rearranged in a variety of configurations. My interest in sectional layouts wasn't so much for that, however. It was more basic: I hope to move someday, and if I do, I don't want to have to tear down the layout and start over. I've waited this long to finally get to building a layout; once I actually get started I don't want it to be for naught.

I also wanted a layout that while small would lend itself to reasonable expansion in the future, in that new dream home.

And the old C.B. Baird-inspired design doesn't look like it lends itself very well to sectional construction. It also felt like it would take too long to actually get going with running trains. And my attempts to doodle expansion ideas went nowhere. The whole thing just didn't quite set right with me.

So it went over the last several months, as I dithered more between the Beer Line and the Baird line. The Beer Line did strike me as having expansion potential. But try as I might, I still couldn't get excited about it.

Then in December's MR I spotted a great layout that opened up another possibility.

The full layout depicts a section of the Boston and Maine. What caught my eye, however, was the center peninsula, about a 6-by-12 segment of the layout. I don't know for sure, but it looks very much to me like that segment was the starting point for this railroad, and that the builder then built on the two extensions on either side of it.

It had the capability for a lot of scenery, including a branch up over the mainline. The layout as built used the upper level there for an urban setting; I would make that a mountain, probably with a mine up there.

I began to commit myself to this design (the center section, that is), and began working out ways in which I might sectionalize it. I mulled the possibility of a two-sided backdrop down the center.

Still, I dithered. 6 by 12 -- that was pretty big. It might squeeze down to 5 by 10, but at 4 by 8 it would certainly be cramped. My enthusiasm flagged. I went back to looking at the Beer Line track plan. Maybe, I thought, there was some weird way I could tweak that design to have the elements that appealed to me about the B&M layout.

But I just was not that into it.

Somehow, all this rumination came to a head this week.

I've been working on a magazine article for a city lifestyle magazine I write for about the model railroading hobby. I've interviewed a lot of local modelers and seen some interesting, fun and in some cases gorgeous layouts. I've met a lot of railroaders and enjoyed talking with them. And I've been feeling vexed with myself for having kept my toes out of the hobby for decades. Why, oh why, I've been asking myself, didn't I actually DO something with it way back right after college?

I pulled out my copy of 102 Realistic Track Plans and paged through it several nights running this week. I saw a number of possibilities, but nothing that quite grabbed me. What I saw was either just a little too simple, or else too complex. I couldn't get excited about any of them. I got depressed.

And then...

There was a while a few years ago when I was going to gut all of my MR magazines, cutting out the articles that interested me and filing them by topic. I didn't get very far with that before I decided it was too much work, that I liked paging through the magazine issues and seeing the stories in context. But I did save the stuff I had clipped.

And then, there it was, in the file folder for track plans.

I clearly had been intrigued by it the first time I saw it -- intrigued enough to clip it, anyway. Now, though, I saw it with new eyes. And this time, it was love at first sight.

The design is one that the builder made to fit in a very limited, small space. I don't have quite the restrictions he does, but its simplicity is highly appealing. At the same time, it's got potential for rolling scenery, even in the small area it fills. And it's got multiple points of interest. It GOES somewhere. It's got track over and under, but it doesn't look like a spaghetti bowl.

Here it is:

It allows for continuous running, a must for me. It's got lots of scenic potential. It's simple enough to start out with, but can get more complex over time. The size is perfect for my space. And it was designed as a sectional layout.

Just how enthusiastic am I about it?

For months my basement work bench has been filled with clutter, and thus completely unusable.

This morning I hopped out of bed before 6 a.m. At 8 we went out for breakfast, and I was back working by 9:30. By 1 o'clock, it was completely cleaned off, and all the clutter in the area round it sorted and stored away as well.

Now I'm ready to build the benchwork. If I don't get the lumber tomorrow, I'll be getting it by the end of next weekend.

Back from hiatus; Track plans: 3

It's been a busy few months since I've updated this blog. Much has happened since then in my planning for my new model railroad.

I promised in my last post to throw in a track plan at some point of that design, but I'm going to reneg on that one. It's been some 35-plus years since I even had the track plan, I never built it, and taking the time to recreate it doesn't seem to serve much purpose. So I'll move on.

In high school, I finally settled on a new track plan and actually began building it. It had to be in my bedroom, so I was limited accordingly. I couldn't even fit a full 4x8-foot standard layout in the space--but I knew I didn't really want to make the point-to-point design that I had toyed with previously. Instead, I shaved 6 inches off that 4x8 and made it a 3-1/2x8 foot design. It was a simple enough plan: a figure-8 over and under plan. There was to be a small terminal and yard off of one of the two loops of the 8, at grade level. The route climbed around a curve to a mine spur, just before the main line crossed over first itself, then the yard area. As the line descended around the other loop, there was a siding. Then it returned to its original starting point.

Here's a real rough version of it. I skipped the yard/engine terminal details.

Anyway, what I liked about the design was that a) it included a yard and terminal; b) it "went somewhere"; c) it included some mountain terrain, however small; d) there were additional stops beyond the terminal.

I worked on the layout off and on during most of my high school years, but never got it to the point of running. By my senior year, it was torn down, and I had begun work on a shelf unit built on the remnants of that layout. It, too, never reached the stage of all the track in place. Then it was off to college, all railroading put well on the side for years.