Sandy Lake & Northern, Mk 3

[deemery]

I've started preliminary planning for my new SL&N layout (the 3rd by that name.)  Construction won't seriously start until all my wife's projects are done, but at least I can provide some thoughts as I figure out how to partition the basement, etc.

Givens & Druthers (per John Armstrong):
(Railroad Name)   Sandy Lake & Northern (std gauge)
                         Sandy Lake & Rangely River (HOn30 gauge)
Scale:             HO
Gauge: (Std, Narrow)      Std, Narrow

Prototype: (the railroad you want to model)
Era:      1890s
Region:      PA oil country, New England mill towns
Railroad:  Influenced by Colorado Midland, Rutland, Pittsburg Shawmut & Northern

Space:   TBD in the basement
Describe Space e.g. basement. Provide diagram showing Overhead clearances and any obstructions or limitations.

Governing Rolling Stock: (Biggest planned)
     65' passenger cars for main line
     45' freight cars

Need to minimize grade, due to limited hauling abilities of small steam locos

Relative Emphasis: (move the V)

|_________________________________V____________|
Track/Operation ....................................................Scenic realism
|_________________________V____________________|
Mainline Running .......................................................... Switching
Operation Priorities: (rearrange as required)
   1.  Main line freights
   2.  Local freight switching
   3.  Yard ops, train composition
   4.  Engine terminal operations

   HOn30 - don't expect to do much switching,

Want to have the ability to 'sit back and watch the trains go around' as well as more realistic/prototype operations. 
 
Typical operating Crew: _2-3_
Eye Level (Owner) _67_In.

Additional features:
1. a moderate yard with full engine terminal (reuse my FSM 155 coal dock, Sellers Turntable and 6 stall MM Colorado Midland Roundhouse)
2. A large New England "mill canyon"
3. A substantial town
4. standard/narrow gauge interchange, probably patterned after the Bridgeton & Harrison
5. Narrow Gauge servicing some sort of mineral extraction industry (mine, quarry, etc)
6. At least one long stretch of just scenery

Double-decking is feasible, but I'm not thrilled by the idea. But this has to be doable at my slow rate of construction.[size=78%]

And a diagram of the basement, which also has to hold existing HVAC, storage space, model workshop,  home workbench, powder room, and maybe exercise room.   I need to add the existing items and annotate ceiling heights (including ductwork, etc.)

dave[/size]

[S&S RR]

Dave


This sounds like fun!  I'm looking forward to following your progress. It sounds like you already have a clear set of design criteria.

[sdrees]

Hi Dave,

Looks like your going to have a lot of room for a nice layout.  Keep all those other spaces to a minimum to make more room for the layout.  You are going to have a lot of fun.  I know I am with my new layout.

[GPdemayo]

Great start Dave.....looks like you have some exciting modeling to do and a great place to do it. 

[ACL1504]

Dave,

I'll be along as well. Appears you have thought about this for some time. Although I'm not necessarily a "planning" guy, I enjoy following those that do.

Tom

[jimmillho]

I think I have "Basement Envy"

Jim

[ak-milw]

Dave, looks like you have the room, stake your claim before someone else does. I will be following this as far as it goes.

[deemery]

Dave, looks like you have the room, stake your claim before someone else does. I will be following this as far as it goes.

The basement is All Mine!   


dave

[deemery]

Although I have a lot of work to go before I -need- to make this decision, one thing I've pondered is what to use for track.  The previous layout was Peco Code 75.  The rail was nice and small, but the ties are thick and too close together for US 19th century practice.  Peco US Code 83 looks really nice overall, the ties are smaller and wider spaced, but the rail is kinda tall.  Plus Peco turnouts are the 'standard' for reliability.  Micro Engineering makes smaller code flextrack (70, 55, even 40), but that probably drives me into scratchbuilding turnouts, and I'm not sure that's a particularly good ROI on my hobby time (not something I think I'd enjoy enough to build turnouts for the layout...)


I'll probably do handlaying for the HOn30 segment.  The commercial stuff looks way too big, there won't be as many turnouts, I'm not expecting to operate that stuff routinely, and I got a FastTracks jig cheap on eBay earlier this year.

dave

[Mkrailway]

Dave, sound like it almost built. 

[sdrees]

Dave,

If the era of your railroad is the 1890's, code 70 would be a better size of rail.  there are several people out there who make custom turnouts and the prices are more expensive but not unreasonable.

[Powersteamguy1790]

Dave:

Have fun planning your new layout.

Stay cool and run steam.......... :

[cuse]

Good start...I always liked the Givens and Druthers scale.


John

[S&S RR]

Although I have a lot of work to go before I -need- to make this decision, one thing I've pondered is what to use for track.  The previous layout was Peco Code 75.  The rail was nice and small, but the ties are thick and too close together for US 19th century practice.  Peco US Code 83 looks really nice overall, the ties are smaller and wider spaced, but the rail is kinda tall.  Plus Peco turnouts are the 'standard' for reliability.  Micro Engineering makes smaller code flextrack (70, 55, even 40), but that probably drives me into scratchbuilding turnouts, and I'm not sure that's a particularly good ROI on my hobby time (not something I think I'd enjoy enough to build turnouts for the layout...)


I'll probably do handlaying for the HOn30 segment.  The commercial stuff looks way too big, there won't be as many turnouts, I'm not expecting to operate that stuff routinely, and I got a FastTracks jig cheap on eBay earlier this year.

dave

Dave


Micro Engineering has turnouts for their code 70 and code 83 that I have used successfully.  I'm using using code 70 track where it's in your face and 83 everywhere else. The Peco track also looks good.  The tie size is the key as you mentioned.

[S&S RR]

One more thing as I read through your post.  I have an opportunity for a HOn3 to HO interchange on my layout and was wondering if you had any prototype pictures? I'm scanning the internet now looking for some references.