New expanded NorthWest Minnesota RR: Video and 3D! From the Chippewa Central 6' x 16' Fastrack Layout Plan from MR

I thought to play with the original's idea of a tunnel on the left loop, and extended Clara City spurs.   Extending Clara City's spurs justify the construction of a tunnel, which can be made open to the outside for construction and maintenance.

Is this an improvement?  Opinions?

Ken,

That's a lot of work compressing it. Nice job! 

It should have doubled in size for the easy scale-up to an 8' x 24'.

Move your photos of the original to attachments only - you know why...

Thanks Carl, and good suggestion!  -Ken

I have been pondering access for this layout and others of this general form/shape.   The back side is difficult to reach, even with an "operating well" or indent like this layout has to improve reach and access, and even with access along the sides.  One solution is to build a rolling table on castors.   

Here is another idea:  the layout is supported by two sturdy bookcases constructed from 1x12s.   Then appliance rollers (which can support up to 1200 pounds) roll on top of the bookcases, to allow the entire layout to roll out about two feet, so a person can crawl or roll beneath the layout to get to the back when rolled-out (about two feet of roll, giving a space of about 2' at the back).   The layout rolls-out like a big drawer.   For strength and rigidity while also light, the framework can be constructed from a lattice-work of metal studs (longest stud is 12').   The layout surface itself rests on top of the latticework constructed of lightweight 2" foam sheets.

Seems like it would work:  what do you think?

I thought about extending the connecting RR at the top of the plan, around for an oval of O-72, and going across Lionel's Lift-Out Extended Truss Bridges (with a staging track or passing track).   So here is an unfinished look:  6'6" x 17':

So this will support 4 trains, with three running trading places with one on the siding over the truss bridge at the front.   The middle semi-circle of track on the right is on a fill, rising from about 3" to 6" at the bridge over Granite Falls.

That original MR design would make a great starting point for an On30 logging road. You could run from a logging camp on the upper (left side) level down to a sawmill on the lower (right side) level. 

Hi Ken, can you post the Anyrail file please? I can't get my head wrapped around how you got the center on the right to start at 3". Is the whole left side on a downhill slope? Where is the zero point? See I can't even stop typing questions! Thanks!

Mike, this zoom-in of the plan with grade and elevation labels may be helpful.   I left the grade displayed on each track section.

For this experiment, I raised the elevated section to 8" by continuing the grade across the bridge over Granite Falls up to the turnout marked as 8".   So the entire Clara City loop is level at 8".   Raising the elevation to 8" did not increase the grades elsewhere, so this seems doable.   I double-checked, and it is common prototype practice to continue grades across bridges and trestles.

Because the grade changes over the turnout at the very top-right, I left the two turnouts level at 3" in height, and the grades either climb or drop from those turnouts.   The top-right turnout is 13 1/8' long, and if including the 1-3/8 fitters, results in a level across that turnout of about 14.5".

A bit more scenery detail, and one more spur serving an oil storage tank (Lionel) and an operating oil derrick (Lionel) in the upper-right corner.  This changed the slope of the far right outside O-72 curve to 3% (which is the maximum layout grade).

When kicking-back to watch trains run, I would have two trains on the large O-72 outside route (about 42'), following each other at the same speed, and a third train running the return-loops from Granite Falls up to Clara City and then back.   That would be pretty nice and relaxing!

I wish the forum did not compress images as much as it does.   Here are two halves of the layout.

Hey Ken, I'm sure this is gonna be a stoopid question, but this plan is an over-under, right??

Jim, I guess you could call it that ... the Clara City loop is the "Over", and the rest runs under, with the grades to reach Clara City of course. -Ken

Here is an image with trains on the tracks (from TrainPlayer).   These are scale trains, so compressed, traditional, LionChief equipment will look smaller and make the layout appear larger.

The Chippewa Central plan needs these turnouts for estimating overall costs:

• 6-16826, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Left turnout 14 1/4". (O72) Command Control                1
• 6-16827, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Right turnout 14 1/4". (O72) Command Control          1
• 6-16828, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Left turnout 13 1/8". (O60) Command Control                7
• 6-16829, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Right turnout 13 1/8". (O60) Command Control          8
• The two Lionel Extended Truss Bridges are also a cost item ($300 MSRP each).

Naturally, it could be built in phases to spread out the cost and effort:

1. Outside loop & turnouts, with one bridge
2. Inside loop and Granite Falls
3. Clara City elevated loop and grade up
4. Passing track with 2nd Extended Truss Bridge

Even though the minimum curvature is O-48, I like that the turnouts are one width wider at O-60.

Latest illustration of the Chippewa Central:

A short video of two trains running.   The steam passenger is at 45mph, and the diesel freight is at 35mph.  Scale equipment.

Unfortunately, TrainPlayer does not pick up the elevations of AnyRail, so we don't see trains duck into the tunnels.  Oh well...

This zoom-in view is kind of fun:

A couple more features added to the Chippewa Central:  a "Connecting RR" for interchange, and an optional 3-track stub yard on a rolling table:   What do you think?

Ken 

I loved the video.