Dan’s Train Blog

Joe Fugate was kind enough to send me a review set of his Siskiyou Line videos. The five volume set covers almost all aspects of the design, construction, and operation of his HO scale Siskiyou Line layout based on the Southern Pacific’s Siskiyou Line in the 1980’s.

Please see my comments on Volume 1 here.

Volume 2: Design and Construction is mainly a case study of how Joe’s layout design evolved and an outlune of construction techniques used. 

Starting with design and concept Joes walks us through each stage of the process beginning with the importance of finding a layout concept that really excites you. That excitement and engagement is really important since it is what will carry you through the work it takes to stick with the project.

Joe goes through the role of a CAD system in designing a layout but his emphasis is on the design process, not on the mechanics of running a CAD program. I think this is a good point. WHAT you are drawing is much more important than how you go about making the lines on the paper.

Early in determining how he was going to use his available space Joe decided that some form of multi deck style layout was what he wanted since it would significantly increase the possible length of the mainline. Joe goes into excellent detail showing how a mushroom style multi deck configuration works and his approach to construction. I think this will be really helpful to people curious about whether this is an approach they want to tackle themselves.

Joe demonstrates the process of creating a list of “Givens and Druthers” (In software projects I call these “Musts” and “Wants”) to help prioritize Layout Design Elements (explained below) that are contemplated for the layout. Additionally Joe shows how requirements for adequate aisle room, minimum curve radius, and room size and shape all interact in shaping the plan.

A Layout Design Element is a scene or other aspect that you really want reflected in your layout design. For example, Joe showed that one layout design element he wanted was the Roseburg yard; another was the bridge crossing the North Umpqua River. Looked at this way, track planning really becomes arranging desired layout design elements, adjusting their size and shape to fit the available space, and connecting with tracks.

This demonstrates for the viewer a very approachable technique to designing their own layout.

As Joe finishes his design discussion he emphasizes that a plan is only that. During construction, plans can change.

Joe’s discussion of benchwork construction very reasonably focuses only on those aspects that are unique because they are a direct result of his particular planning decisions. These particularly include details of how the mushroom aspects of the benchwork were constructed.

Joe gives a really interesting story about the trials-and-errors encountered in the design and implementation of the helix required to move trains between his lower and upper levels. This was really helpful to me in particular since it explains the trouble I’m having with my darn hill : From Joe’s disussion I see how I neglected to appreciate the required grade compensation caused by my tight 18” radius mainline curves adding effective grade to an already steep 4%+ grade. Argh for me – but also Ah ha! Now I have a better handle on how to fix the issue.

Joe details the very straightforward lighting system he uses on the layout and then moves into some straight How-To sections showing how he builds Masonite spline roadbed. Another how-to is on flextrack laying techniques.

Finally, included on the disk as Special Features are quick notes on how to add power routing and handling complex installation with his Easy Throw switch controls as well as a Power Point style presentation of metrics you can use to numerically measure and compare different tack plans.

Overall, I think the most interesting and useful thing found in this video is the problem solving process Joe demonstrates since this is where I really felt I was learning and gaining experiences that would help improve my own design and construction work. Although Joe flags this video as Intermediate/Advanced I think beginners will see how to avoid common mistakes and also learn from Joe’s experiences that mistakes can and will be encountered but can also be overcome.

I think viewers will get the most value from this video if they have seen Volume 1 first.

Joe’s DVDs may be purchased at model-trains-video  and retail for $24.95 each.

Joe Fugate was kind enough to send me a review set of his Siskiyou Line videos. The five volume set covers almost all aspects of the design, construction, and operation of his HO scale Siskiyou Line layout based on the Southern Pacific’s Siskiyou Line in the 1980’s. I tripped across Joe’s website several years ago and was struck by the excellent scenery (especially the trees and ground cover) so I was really pleased to have a chance to see the videos he has made.

Volume 1: Modeling a prototype is a really nice overview and I found it reminded me favorably of Allen Keller’s Great Model Railroads series in overall format. The DVD starts with a rail-fan style trip following trains around the 800 square foot layout. We then meet Joe as he describes the creative process he followed to end up with his layout’s concept. One twist is that he maintains a strict 20 year date offset so if it’s July 4, 2008, then it is July 4, 1988 on his layout. Next we see how the layout’s mushroom configuration and clever construction plan allows a functionally 1200 square foot layout to fit into his 800 sq. foot space.

After that Joe takes us section by section through the layout describing how each relates to the prototype and features of operational interest he’s implemented. Next we follow the Coos Bay Hauler along its route as Joe demonstrates the dispatching and schedule system he uses. I’m a small line steam guy and plan on strenuously avoiding most operational paperwork but Joe shows that attention to this detail can help you feel immersed in running the train over the branch.

I have say it: I found a continuity error. Joe carefully demonstrates how he realistically includes adding and dropping water cars (cars which drop water to help prevent fires) from the train but immediately after dropping the two black water tank cars the train pulls out and the siding where the tank cars were spotted (indicated by the red arrow below) – is mysteriously empty.

The video closes with a straight how-to showing how Joe uses ordinary brass door bolts to manually actuate his turnouts.

Production quality is good. I viewed this video on a 46″ HD TV and it looked good and sounded great.  Joe is an excellent narrator and my son and I both really enjoyed watching the video. Joe did an excellent job introducing and orienting us to the layout and I’m looking forward to seeing how he builds his excellent scenery and track work.

Minor nit picks: Joe’s lighting is a bit too shadow-free and could have used key lighting. Admittedly, this is tough to do on many layouts. The editing pace is a tad slow.

I think Volume 1 is free-standing in the sense that it is a good value all by itself without the rest of the series. However, I’ve already gone on to Volume 2 (full review later) and can report it presents a wealth of new material and is a great follow-on to Volume 1.

Joe’s DVDs may be purchased at model-trains-video and retail for $24.95 each.

Planning how you’re going to build and clean those far corners is a challenge that I think you will always have with a diorama-style layout. The payback is deep immersive scenes that photograph well. I seriously considered fitting a shelf style layout into this space (see The Shelf layout plan - not for me) but decided it was not the kind of model building I was interested in.

John Applegate asks “how do you reach the corners?” in a comment on my post
Roughing up the town of Tiburbon

I was wondering if you have any “reach” issues with this layout. Are the right-hand & left-hand corners within 36″ reach limit? I noticed you placed the layout against the two walls thus disabling you ability to reach from behind. Any access hatches needed?

Reason I ask is that I am planning to do the SJC in Sn3. And in Sn3 I will have reach issues.

-John

Since my Northwestern Pacific layout is a walk-in style layout and not a shelf layout it is really hard to avoid having places that you can’t reach. 

The quick answer is that from above, both corners are out of reach but I’m making them accessible from below or beside the layout.

Here’s my track plan and room arrangement (from My Track Plan):

For the “left” corner I’m following Malcolm’s lead and leaving the back of the hillside open. From below I can almost stand up under the hill and service the loop of track in the back corner.

Note that the illustration above was made by mirror flipping and marking up a photo of the original San Juan Central layout so it matches the orientation of my layout.

For the right side I’m going to leave the side open (or have a removable fascia board) so I can reach in.

Note again that the illustration above was made by mirror flipping and marking up a photo of the original San Juan Central layout so it matches the orientation of my layout.

On a larger version like the Sn3 layout John is thinking of (or On30, On3, etc.) it would probably be a good idea to allow some access from beneath this area as well.

I’m very pleased with the new version of 3rd PlanIt. I’ve been a happy user of 3PI for many years. I have been hesitant to recommend the product to others because I was a bit worried about the many years since the last product update. However, version 8 is here and works great.

Highly recommended.

The locomotive is not just what makes the train go, it’s the thing that dictates everything about your layout: turntable size, minimum radius of curves (and turnout frog number), engine house size.

All of these are dictated by the size of locomotives you *want* to run. Availability of locomotives ends up dictating other crucial choices like the railroad being modeled and era – if you want to faithfully model a particular railroad during a particular time you can be stymied by the lack of appropriate model locomotives.

Why is this an obstacle? Of all the things a model railroad needs the locomotive is the one item that is the hardest to build from scratch. Therefore locomotives are the one item where the modeler is the most reliant on manufacturers and importers to supply what the modeler wants.

I model the 1920s and consider myself an advanced modeler. I have no problem building freight cars, passenger cars, houses, boats, bridges, track, power supplies, DCC electronics, layout wiring, etc.

But scratchbuilding a locomotive worries me — mainly because it is so easy to do it badly. The level of precision and design required in making a reliable mechanism (especially in the smaller scales) is very high. For this very same reason, there are only a fairly small number of mass-produced locomotives available.

It is an expensive proposition to bring a mass produced model locomotive to market. In the 1960s, as labor costs rose and the quality and detail demanded by the modeling consumer rose it became extremely expensive, and therefore extremely risky for manufacturers to bring new models into the market. From the 1970s through the early 1990s there were very few new mass produced models introduced.

During this period the batch production brass market thrived. These importers reduced the risk of bringing out a new model by making small batches. While the cost for these items was high, so was the quality.

A recent change is that China currently provides very cheap labor for manufactured goods and this has been applied to the production of mass produced model locomotives that sometimes approach the quality of batch-produced brass models but at 10-20% of the cost (hundreds of dollars versus thousands of dollars).

Despite this opportunity I do not see manufacturers taking advantage of this situation by bringing out a wider range of locomotives. Take for example the fact that there are now at least FOUR models of the 4-8-8-4 “Big Boy” available (Trix, Athearn, Precision Craft, Rivarossi), two USRA Mikados, etc. I agree that there are more new locomotives available, but it seems like manufacturers are still being very conservative.

In the HOn3 Group at Yahoo! (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HOn3/) there was a thread going about what eras people model and what models get commercially produced. In particular there were calls for more (or ANY) early narrow gauge locomotives in HOn3 such as basic Baldwin 4-4-0s and 2-6-0s.

These small engines were popular on narrow gauge lines from their beginnings in the 1870’s-1880’s through to around WWI. By then, most surviving narrow gauge railroads had started moving to heavier motive power: 2-8-0’s, 4-6-0’s, and especially big 2-8-2’s typified by the D&RG K-class engines. These later, larger engines are really just about all you can get in HOn3.

Has anyone tried making HOn3 engines produced in China like Bachmann’s excellent HO models? Yes, and guess what they produced: D&RG K-class Mikados.

Why be so conservative?

Maybe it’s the customers fault? In the same thread on the HOn3 group mentioned above several people estimated that a retail price for a classic 3-foot gauge Baldwin 4-4-0 would be $250 with a “street price” of something like $150. This tracks closely to the pricing of Bachmann’s new modern standard gauge 4-4-0s.

When the same group was asked how much they would be willing to pay for a classic 3-foot gauge Baldwin 4-4-0, the response seemed to be “much less than that.”

I can see that marketing to model railroaders is not for the faint of heart.

I’ve had several people write me and ask if I think they should buy 3rd PlanIt because they like the plans I was able to make with it.

3rd PlanIt (3PI) (http://www.trackplanning.com/) is a CAD system strongly optimized for drawing model railroad track plans. I’ve been using it off and on since 2000 or so. I was a semi-experienced AutoCAD user many years before that.

The Good:

• I designed my layout and continue to maintain the plan as I build in 3PI. It has been stable and productive for me to use. I use version 7.10.006 which was released March 2, 2004.

• I find the feature set of 3PI powerful and fun to use.

• If 3PI was being maintained I would recommend it highly.

The Bad:

• No updates were been released between early 2004 and early 2007.

• 3PI is the product of one man, Randy Pfeiffer. I truly believe his work is very good (again — I’m a happy user) but it can be a problem when a company is essentially one person. Occasionally Randy gets committed to other tasks such that purchase orders sometimes do not get processed in a timely fashion.

• NOTE: (February 2007) Version 8 has been released!! In April 2005 the next version, 8.0 was coming “soon” and Randy Pfeiffer gave a detailed view of what he had been running into as he implemented threading to 3PI. I’m a Win32 C++ developer myself and his commentary looks legitimate. See his posting at the Yahoo! Group 3rdPlanIt : 3rd PlanIt Users Group

Bottom line:

NOTE: (February 2007) Version 8 has been released!! I like the product. It took a long time for Version 8 but it looks good. I can now recommend that other people buy 3PI.

This stage of layout design borrows heavily from architecture and theater. Indeed, examining the definitions of these words you get:

Architecture: The art and science of designing and erecting buildings.

Theater: (the most appropriate of the many definitions) A place that is the setting for dramatic events.

For me these definitions exactly span what model railroad design and construction is and combining them gives a good working definition of model railroading:

Model Railroading: The art and science of designing and erecting a place that is a miniature setting for dramatic events involving trains, terrain, and associated human activities.

When is it the right time to build a planning model? Really, whenever you get a point where you feel you need to “see” things better to proceed deeper.

As I mentioned before I used the 3rd PlanIt CAD program to design my trackplan. While 3rd PlanIt has decent terrain design and 3-D visualization capability, I found it would take me a very long time to use it to design the terrain of my layout so I used the CAD program to design just the track plan and benchwork plan. I decided to use a planning model to work out the way hills, valleys, and streams would work out on the plan.

I chose a large scale: 1:8 to use for the model. This means 1/8” = 1″ (1.5 inches = 1 foot). I happen to have an artists model figure which is about 5 feet 6 inches in height in this scale.

Using the CAD program and my printer I made patterns from cardstock (manila folder paper) and transferred the shaped to ¼” plywood which I cut out with a jigsaw. The ¼” thickness is not important – it’s just what I had lying around in scrap. I used some 1 x 3’s as pedestals to set the scale height of the sections.

As you can see from the photos I broke the layout up into four sections. While the layout is not portable, it needs to be moveable. The height of each section is defined by the lowest terrain planned in that area. I followed to basic height/depth plan Furlow used for his San Juan Central but offset everything higher for my track zero height of 53.5 inches from the floor.

I glued a scale printout of the trackplan onto a sheet of 1/8” plywood and cut the plan out cookie-cutter style out of the thin plywood (this simulated the roadbed roadway I would eventually make for real out of ½” plywood). Then I glued a printout of the trackplan onto the layout sections and used wood screws as risers for the roadbed.

At the time I was worried I had done everything accurately enough. Comparing the model above to the current state of the layout it looks really close.

To actually model the scenery I used Sculpey (http://www.sculpey.com/) which is modeling clay that can be adjusted and shaped indefinitely and then hardened by baking in an oven (275 degrees and 15 minutes per ¼” depth). My model is big but fit nicely in our oven.

I used balls of aluminum foil to create the basic hill shapes and then covered the foil with a skin of Sculpey. Later I used acrylic paint to indicate areas that would be roads and water.

The completed model

Malcolm Furlow’s San Juan Central (SJC) flipped right-left so it matches the basic configuration.

In general I followed the terrain of the SJC since I really liked the SJC looked.

Here I have the figure pointing to the Crazy Horse Bridge.

Tiburbon (a play on the name of the real town of Tiburon, California).

The back of the layout and the Two Tunnels area.

Between this planning model and the CAD track plan I had worked out enough of the details to proceed with construction of my layout. I really found this step a lot of fun and while I feel it is a required step to building a layout I could see building a few of these for fun just to try out different ideas for layout design.

When I first decided to build a new layout I considered a shelf type plan. “Shelf” layouts have become popular for several reasons. They tend to maximize mainline length while avoiding being able to see too many adjacent runs of track. Shelf layouts were probably a direct and strong swing away from layout designs known as “spagetti bowls.” Operations oriented model railroaders — those for whom operating trains in a prototypical fashion is most important — have increasingly turned to shelf style layouts. Many layout builders also stack shelves with two or even three levels being common.

Interestingly, John Allen was a huge fan of operation and yet his layouts were firmly in the NOT a shelf, “bowl of spagetti” camp.

For my available space I initially planned a shelf layout with loops at either end and two levels at one end.

As you can see I made a 1” = 1’ scale model of the room and my layout idea. The Layout is roughed out in classic “Armstrong” squares and blobs. Squares and Blobs refer to a technique the late John Armstrong popularized to rough out the mainline location and space requirements of a layout for a given space.

The track height would be rather high: 53.5 inches above the floor because I like the trains near eye level and this was the height of an existing shelf in the closet onto which I would flow the layout. In my planning model, the pieces of paper on the floor represent pieces of furniture that would be under the layout. In some cases they are bookcases that the layout would have gone through.

In the closet would be one loop and one terminal (above). At the other end (below) the layout would split into two levels with a loop on the lower level.

This plan had maximum mainline length – almost two scale miles. Huge yard area and would have presented good operational complexity.

However, I am so glad I made this simple cardboard model because once I did, I realized I hated this plan.

For me the biggest problem with this design was that there would be no immersive scenery experience. I knew that in photographs this layout would only look good when you looked at it focused on small scenes. Any long views would glaringly show that this was a shelf running around a room with trains on it.

This was the tipping point. I had been dreaming of building a version of Malcolm Furlow’s San Juan Central (SJC) for almost 20 years so I figured I’d see how that would fit into my space.

I saw that I’d want to flip the SJC left-right and I could run track out to storage tracks in the closet. Setting an early CAD drawing of the layout into the space I could see I that this plan felt much better. The picture above might make you think I could keep the dual level part at the bottom of the picture but one of the “costs” of this design change was that my desk would no longer fit under so I had to move my desk, my workbench, and several bookcases into the nook.

Postmortem: I’m really happy with the choices and my new little nook office is actually really nice and effective.