Derrell Poole - See the revised plan below (sorry for the poor image quality, as it is a jpeg conversion from a CAD file). After I published the first plan, I realized the station of
Buffalo was compressed a little more than I liked (that plan was developed over
a year ago), and I noticed there were other compromises I didn't like. I also
really wanted Riverview on the layout – all I had was the tank. Then, I was
having reservations about the west fiddle yard. Rolling it around seems risky.
I still have the east yard, but eventually I’ll build further around the corner
and we’ll see what happens then.
This plan compresses Buffalo only about 20%. It also depicts
the town (at least that portion north of the river) a little better and even
includes the Hotel. More research, more photos, more detail. Riverview is much
more compressed – more than 50% - but at least it is there.
All of the additional real estate I wanted forced me to get
creative with the space I am working in. It soon became apparent with all of
the “unrelated” stuff in the south half of the room, I wasn't going to get what
I wanted if I didn't find a way to use some of the north half of the room (up
is “real” south; Buffalo is oriented correctly with the room where Riverview is
looking north). But how could I accomplish this? With a short section of
shallow shelf supported by a few studs to the left of the furnace/water heater, I could swing the track back around behind the Buffalo portion or the layout.
This would provide the length needed for Riverview.
The physical space between the two stations leaves plenty of
room for a fixed yard – technically a fiddle yard and nominally called Denver.
This is of no particular prototype location – just a place to switch up trains
and turn engines. The “Denver” yard is fortuitously hidden from the rest of the
layout.
The three bridges happily demonstrate 3 different styles
used on the railroad. Bridge 1054 is nothing more than a single span of Pile
Trestle. In fact, some documents called these culverts. A span of bridge on a
C&S trestle was 16’. These were everywhere and may have made up 80 – 90
percent of the bridges used on the line. The Pratt Thru Truss, no. 1056, was
much less common on the line. This one was just less than 100’ in length. Some
day I hope to make a brass model of it, but until then a CV 1902 plastic kit
will have to do. This bridge also had wonderful stone abutments at either end.
The third bridge, no. 1057, was a twin span Strain Beam type, and while there
were several of these on the RR, they too were rather rare. Also the River at
this bridge will be flowing away from the viewer – unlike the other two
crossings.
I've added contours to the land to suggest some idea of how
the land looked along the tracks. I still haven’t fully decided how I will
contour the layout. The elevation differences between contour lines is ½” – the
thickness of fiber soundboard or ceiling tiles. But I may go with the blue
foam. It is more expensive but it is also about ½ the weight. I will still have
to glue a more suitable roadbed material to it, as it does not hold any type of
fasteners very well. On the other hand, I will have to use twice as many sheets
of the fiber board so it may not be any cheaper. But the fiberboard will make a
more substantial sub base to the roadbed. Both are going to be messy. I am going to use as little plaster as
possible. I don’t like plaster and may use it only to cast rocks abutments and
building parts.
I've spent the last few days getting my tools ready. My saw
and joiner are all set up and the router will be mounted shortly. Hopefully I
can start cutting wood this weekend.
Derrell


























.jpg)