The Bridgeline


J

Jeremiaha Austin

North to the Future
I'm working on an N Scale version of the Delaware and Hudson in the mid 1970's.
The layout will be taken to train shows and I'm going to keep the number of 6' base boards to three or four at the most. I was considering doing a northern Canadian railroad the QNS&L. After a review of my locomotive inventory I decided not to sell off my collection of ALCO's and 1970 era rolling stock but forge ahead with a railroad I know and equipment on hand.

These plans represent an evolution in the design of the D&H around the Binghampton, NY area.

JA
 
D&h

Thank you for your reply. I'll post my progress as the railroad develops. I'm learning how to download my photographs to forums such as this. Another new learning experience.

I was reading the 2006 issue of Model Railroad Planning and Bernard K's description of how he decided on the D&RGW / SP in the 1990's. My decision to draw the N Scale plan with 18.75 minimum mainline radius curves and #10 switches matched his design thought process. N Scale's advantages are train running vs switching.

The Alco's that I have on hand, 4 Atlas C628's (D&H), 3 Atlas-Kato RS11's (undecorated), one Atlas-Kato RS3 (Penn), one Lifelike PA1 (undecorated) as well as cabooses and other rolling stock are some of the more reliable runners in the N Scale world.

JA
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bridgeline Refinements

I've made a few refinements to my track plan. This is primarily a train running railroad. I'm fighting the temptation to add a second loop and make the "L a C". The Bridgeline is a transportable layout, experience with my N Scale L&N and NH show layouts has taught me that more than three 3'x6' sections are unwieldy for show set up and tear down. I will have only one large industry to serve in the upper right of the plan. Smaller industries are located to the left side of the yard. Control is DC at this point. DCC may come later, wiring will allow for this. I'm going to use a modified L girder construction for the frame with 1/2" plywood for the sub roadbed. 1/16" cork will suffice as the roadbed. The plan is drawn with Atlas code 55 track but I will have to make adjustments for Peco code 55 track.

JA
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jeremiaha Austin said:
I'm fighting the temptation to add a second loop and make the "L a C".
Click to expand...

Why? Draw it up. If you don't like it, worst case, you've wasted a little time and a bit of electricity, and ruled something out. In drafting my track plan I've found that sometimes drawing something totally random sparks off other ideas and improves the whole, even if I don't end up using any of what I started out drawing.
 
Bridgeline Refinements

RW&C I've previously drawn up several configurations of the Bridgeline. What ever I build will have to fit inside a Van with @ 7' of cargo space (with the passenger seat removed) plus all the other equipment one takes to a train show. A second loop will add a forth module; this would be difficult to transport to train shows given the transport space.

I've included the extended V version of the Bridgeline for your perusal.
 
I'd stick with the 3, 6' modules. After being a member of two modular clubs, I can tell you that the more modules you have to transport, the less spectacular the scenery gets due to transport space restrictions.

More space also makes the load/unload at the van a lot easier.
 
The L takes a turn

Sometimes an unexpected delay in starting a project is a good thing. I had several events that precluded starting my 'winter project'. I had time to reflect on my L design and bend it a bit into a V. I think this is more interesting in the long run. I also added a single 1.8 percent helix to add more run time at the top of the helper grade in the lower (as you view it) loop. Because of this I had to eliminate the branch line.

Now its time for your thoughts.

Best regards,
JA
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top