But hopefully not baked beans ……...
' gunrunnerjohn posted:I gotta say, I'm not sure I understand the antagonism toward the PR, especially since it's a separate building. If it's cold, snowing, or raining, it'll be nice to have the facilities in the same building. Having running water will also be a nice convenience. I also think the odor issue is somewhat overblown, if that's such a problem, let's get rid of all bathrooms in the house and just go back to an outhouse in the back yard! That's what I had as a kid, and I can tell you that it was mighty uncomfortable in upstate NY in the winter! Besides Ken, it's your RR, so it's your rules!
I really like the idea that I have a PR in my train room, and it'll be even more appreciated when I have guests and we're all swizzling beers!
OK, maybe diet coke...
Here, Here, John!! 
I am in total agreement with Ken's idea of putting facilities in his train building! I agree about the over concern about the odor issue. If any of the rest of the 'old guys' here are like me, they can't smell hardly anything any more either!! I have to ask my wife if I or my clothes smell! My dad's place still has the old brick outhouse out back anyway. The story goes, my great-grandfather asked his cousin to build an outhouse that the kids from down the hill in the village couldn't push over the hill every Halloween. His cousin got over cooked bricks from the local brickyard and built the outhouse on a concrete foundation on the hillside. Is still stands and is usable over 100 years later. It always came in handy when working outside. Otherwise you had to come in, take off your work shoes to not get reprimanded from Mum, traipse through the house and upstairs to the only bathroom. Ken's bathroom essentially solves the same problem in the 21'st century! As always, Ken is thinking outside the box, or in this case inside the box, so to speak! 
I’d wire the fan so it comes on automatically with the light and then just keep a supply of Febreze Air Freshener on hand. Most times it’s going to be kids using it unless an operating session with guests runs really long.
If it were up to me......................
I'd simply have a urinal and a sink in the train shed restroom. Nine times out of ten, when I need a restroom, a water-saving and space-saving urinal would do the trick.
For gastronomic needs, simply go to the house. 
Ken, you realize your PR is not ADA-compliant? (Said with tongue firmly planted in cheek). Seriously, is it within the realm of possibility that someone in your locality would consider your trainshed, and it’s uses, to fall under the ADA purview?
I’m not trying to be facetious, but government has rendered some “strange” conclusions regarding compliance.
While private residences are not subject to ADA requirements there can be local/county/state ordinances/laws/codes wrt bathrooms. Sometimes can be ignored by DYI-ing but if hiring work done those folks will have to follow codes.
Lew
Mark Boyce posted:' gunrunnerjohn posted:I gotta say, I'm not sure I understand the antagonism toward the PR, especially since it's a separate building. If it's cold, snowing, or raining, it'll be nice to have the facilities in the same building. Having running water will also be a nice convenience. I also think the odor issue is somewhat overblown, if that's such a problem, let's get rid of all bathrooms in the house and just go back to an outhouse in the back yard! That's what I had as a kid, and I can tell you that it was mighty uncomfortable in upstate NY in the winter! Besides Ken, it's your RR, so it's your rules!
I really like the idea that I have a PR in my train room, and it'll be even more appreciated when I have guests and we're all swizzling beers!
Here, Here, John!!
I'll definitely third that. I see no problem with an indoor loo in the train room. Lots of houses have such facilities and people don't seem too grossed out 
....especially since the alternative is an outhouse (illegal pretty much everywhere unless sealed vault).
Lew
Thanks to all who commented and for the 'lively' discussion!
Just to circle back around, I have abandoned my preference for an interior location for the restroom. Why: the layout has expanded inward, both Eastwick and Westham now encroach on the interior operating space, and Bailey yard as well with four yard tracks with a separate East yard lead. And of course the corner location is a more conventional location for a restroom - better for future use of the structure.
Balidas had a good idea: the computer and keyboard are now under the layout at the right, with the keyboard able to pull/slide out from under the layout. The computer monitor hangs on the East wall. Shown is an alternate location for "Eastwick a la carte", when the computer is in use, and for fun to have a second location (might make more mods to this cart in the future).
Paul's idea of just a urinal in the restroom is a possible. I will keep that idea in my "back pocket" if needed, but for now I will stay with the washbasin/commode combo to satisfy my lady visitors (and the wife!).
A re-alignment of the lead to the turntable/engine service added 1/2" to the operating area there. Re-aligning the curves of Bailey Yard with a center-rail spacing of 4.25" saved about 1" of operating area.
Attachments
Images (1)
I would scrap the mainline connections to Eastwick and Westham in order to preserve the Inglenooks switching operations in those two areas. Also, I'm not sure what the purpose is of the outer-main passing siding hidden under the mountain? Being under the mountain this track cannot be used as a fiddle yard?
I don't know what the codes might be and I don't know about frostline in your location but wrt the bathroom, there are macerator toilets that pump the sewage through a 1" line and can even pump up to iirc 10" head. They were designed for basement bathrooms in structures where the sewer connection is higher than the basement floor. Could be a way to simplify the sewer line to the house.
Lew
Two thoughts:
4.25 C/L may be a good sized regret down the road. That limits loco size for passing long cars.
PR facilities great idea however it would be best outside of the 12 X 2? foot print. In reality a 12' width is a marginal bet with sweeping curves to start with. To cut in a PR brings overall design and significant operating compromise.
Remember, this is your retirement dream. You have worked, saved, spent, planed, then thrown in the great PR idea only recently. Consider a bump out in the design of the room. An ADA bump out. None of us has any guarantee, you may well be the one needing the turn around space. Having spent some time in a chair post surgery I made my last PR ADA compliant.
If the structure was 5' wider you could still have a center entrance with a PR to one side and a utility room to the other side. You will greatly appreciate both provisions.
I vote for a pair of 110 CFM fans, one big stinker could send everyone out into the cold. (it's so easy to spend other peoples money. )
For many of us here that is the elephant in the room. My train-room and her sewing-room are on the second floor. She suffered a ruptured tendon and torn tendon in her foot and has not been able to negotiate the stairs. If/when that sort of issue becomes permanent for either of us we will resort to a stair-elevator. This was part of the plan when we bought this house.
If I were building a dedicated building I would plan for such [possible] eventualities. Of course, I'm not averse to porta-pottys or peeing in a jar if that's what it takes to keep on keeping on.
Lew
geysergazer posted:I would scrap the mainline connections to Eastwick and Westham in order to preserve the Inglenooks switching operations in those two areas. Also, I'm not sure what the purpose is of the outer-main passing siding hidden under the mountain? Being under the mountain this track cannot be used as a fiddle yard?
I don't know what the codes might be and I don't know about frostline in your location but wrt the bathroom, there are macerator toilets that pump the sewage through a 1" line and can even pump up to iirc 10" head. They were designed for basement bathrooms in structures where the sewer connection is higher than the basement floor. Could be a way to simplify the sewer line to the house.
Lew
Lew, I added the mainline connections at Eastwick and Westham thinking a passenger train serving either town doesn't have a passing track to run the engine around to the other end of the consist for a return. Other than that, I agree with you and would prefer to not have these connections. I noticed that they give me a third circle mainline around the layout (O72 min through turnouts) just sharing the bridge, so perhaps a third train could run if I protect the bridge with signals and etc.
Agree, the passing track is an add-on, not sure what it does for the layout plan, perhaps nothing. I might delete this feature, and yes its not a good place to add/remove cars after all. Perhaps I would want to stage a train on this track?
I am OK on the water/sewer connections, they are close by and easy to tap into from that corner. Sewer drop is OK. Thanks on that.
Tom, the minimum curvature is O108 for the yard tracks at that 4.25" center spacing. I am thinking that would do, but have no experience with very large scale equipment. If a problem in the future, there is room to pull the yard out with wider curves at about O120 if needed. I don't suppose there would be much need for a Big Boy or Challenger to be positioned down these tracks? Thanks.
Sometimes we see a locomotive "ready track" (not sure what correct name would be) at engine service facilities for locomotives serviced for an outbound train, ready for the call:
Attachments
Images (1)
Made a few minor changes:
- Deleted the Eastwick a la carte, and made those industries permanent along the line for more switching.
- At Eastwick I deleted the Suburban Station and small warehouse in favor of the large (impressive) Menards earlier station. The layout has three stations, each different: Menards at Eastwick, Lionel Animated Frieght Station at Westham, and Walther's station east of Bailey Yard at the connecting RR, serving both lines.
- At Westham I did some realignment, including the bridge piers for the lift-out bridge, at both Westham and Eastwick.
- I had purchased Menard's Oak Point nuclear plant on a lark. I would probably run this only for visitors and kids, it generates a nice light show! On the hill above Eastwick. Moved the rotating beacon to the hill on the west side.
Bailey Yard spur lengths are 90", 111", 128", and 141"
Attachments
Images (1)
Hi Ken,
My take away from your very first post was that the structure was pre-fabricated and looked like the picture you posted but your recent post states in part "building costs of ~ $40k".
Have you received any estimates yet? I ask as that estimate seems a little high based on pricing where I live (outside of Philadelphia, Pa) and you may be able to afford an alcove which extends to one side where you can put in a bathroom and a small kitchen area (say refrigerator, sink, microwave, etc). Many of the local shed-builders in my area will customize their existing designs (including adding insulation, electric and plumbing).
I'm going off the pricing a friend of mine received on a "she-shed" he had built for his wife.
You have, however, not mentioned two critical design elements - installing cup holders and remote holders along the facia of the layout. 
-Greg
Greg Houser posted:My take away from your very first post was that the structure was pre-fabricated and looked like the picture you posted but your recent post states in part "building costs of ~ $40k".Have you received any estimates yet? I ask as that estimate seems a little high based on pricing where I live (outside of Philadelphia, Pa) and you may be able to afford an alcove which extends to one side where you can put in a bathroom and a small kitchen area (say refrigerator, sink, microwave, etc). Many of the local shed-builders in my area will customize their existing designs (including adding insulation, electric and plumbing).
I think if you consider heating, cooling, and plumbing, the 40K starts to sound much more reasonable. 
gunrunnerjohn posted:Greg Houser posted:My take away from your very first post was that the structure was pre-fabricated and looked like the picture you posted but your recent post states in part "building costs of ~ $40k".Have you received any estimates yet? I ask as that estimate seems a little high based on pricing where I live (outside of Philadelphia, Pa) and you may be able to afford an alcove which extends to one side where you can put in a bathroom and a small kitchen area (say refrigerator, sink, microwave, etc). Many of the local shed-builders in my area will customize their existing designs (including adding insulation, electric and plumbing).
I think if you consider heating, cooling, and plumbing, the 40K starts to sound much more reasonable.
I should have been clearer - the 'she-shed' he had built included those elements and was 10x20.
I'm no expert on "she-shed's" and assumed they all came with that.....being ladies and all and we all know they always want to "accessorize" for maximum comfort...lol
It's funny - my wife was teasing me if we didn't have to figure out how to pay for college for our son she'd be bugging me to get one built for her. Apparently in her mind my getting our "cold, dark, damp" unfinished basement for my layout equals her getting a "she-shed" for her use.
-Greg
I lieu of the connections at Eastwick and Westham, you could put another crossover between the mains on the "viewing" side of the layout to accomplish your runaround for passenger trains. perhaps right in front of the Westham area is enough straight section clear of the bridge to do this.
As for the siding under the mountain, it looks too short to be of much use. If it is not long enough for most of your trains, I would eliminate it or lengthen it.
You could also do either of these:
First - remove the switches which connect the sidings with the main by the viewing area:
My thinking is that you are just fouling the main on the other side of your layout and by not having the sidings connect increases the switching interest as any runaround moves need to be done in the yard.
Second, if you do want the sidings to connect for a third loop or branch line, you could make the curves tighter coming into Eastwick, bump the city closer to Bailey yard and connect the sidings off the one running past the Morton Salt branch. This will require a 3rd lift out brigde/section. Tighter curves on sidings/branch lines are prototypical too.
Regarding the passing siding under the mountain - it is too short for most trains it seems you will be running but I would keep it. You could always use it for a short freight or stage cars there. It would even make for a nice MOW scene as well.
-Greg
Attachments
Images (2)
Greg, I also saw that possibility, but feel reluctant about it. Here is why:
- Note that we don't have to move Eastwick inward, there is sufficient room to join the circuit with a smooth O120 gentle 'S' curve.
- But we go from two towns with seven spurs, to two towns with five spurs and a new mainline loop.
- I would enjoy the new mainline loop, but unhappy about changing the towns from terminal locations to just towns along a secondary main. Maybe worthwhile though.
- I could work in another spur at Eastwick at the inside, and move the industries and station to the other side of the new spur. (two towns with six spurs). I am reluctant to cramp my operating area, its staring to get smaller, and three operators might be bumping into each other.
- I don't see an opportunity to add another spur at Westham. To be objective, this might be a reason to say "scrap the restroom" and try to add another spur at Westham along the wall as in my earlier design (not really at Westham though, as it would be on the outside main), trying not to narrow the viewing aisle.
- The access area in the NorthWest corner might be available for a spur in that direction instead, retaining the restroom, but cramping that access area.
- Perhaps I could add another spur in the NorthEast access area - that is a bigger space. Then to service, we would have to get permission to run down the connection line owned by the connecting RR. That would be an interesting operating idea.
Greg, thanks for the discussion. Further thoughts?
Attachments
Images (1)
One possible configuration related to the discussion above, seven spurs and one more industry (warehouse). I guess this is satisfactory to me, all constraints considered, gonna think about it some more. Thoughts?
I see that Eastwick becomes more interesting to service, with spurs in both directions. The crew has to use the bridge as a switch lead for this opposed direction spur.
Perhaps the station and new spur in the NorthEast deserves a town name: dunno - Bywater, then decorate the edge of the access area as a lake shore?
Attachments
Images (1)
