LOOKING FORWARD TO SOME NEW MISTAKES PLANNING THE SECOND NEWCASTLE FASSIFERN RAILWAY

Transcription

1 LOOKING FORWARD TO SOME NEW MISTAKES PLANNING THE SECOND NEWCASTLE FASSIFERN RAILWAY Garry Glazebrook Figure 1: Non-streamlined Pacific 3830 departing Newcastle Station in Photo: Robert Kingsford-Smith 1 Introduction The Layout design Special Interest Group s (LDSIG) motto is to make only new mistakes. This seemed to me too good an invitation to turn down! So having got my first Newcastle Fassifern layout fully operational (though with the scenery and structures only 20% completed), I have begun planning a bigger layout on which I could avoid the mistakes of the past, and create some new ones. A previous article covered the planning of my first layout (LDJSIG journal no 47, Summer 2012; In addition, an article in the OPSIG journal (Vol XVIII No 3, July 2012, p27-33; described how I developed compressed timetables based on the actual working timetables for the NSW railway in the Newcastle area in the mid 1960s. Since then my wife and I have semi-retired and purchased a small house with a large shed attached in the southern highlands, about an hour and a half south of Sydney. The rainfall patterns and rich volcanic soil means you can grow almost anything ideal for my wife s gardening skills. Nearby are wineries, beautiful beaches and mountains, not to mention the NSW Rail Steam museum. What more could one wish for! 1

2 This article covers how I am approaching the design of my second layout. Although the article follows the nice, logical approach outlined in the diagram on the left of Figure 2, the actual process has been more like that on the right a lot more intuitive, iterative and chaotic! Figure 2: The Design Process The article is arranged as follows: Section 2 describes the lessons I learnt from my first layout Section 3 covers some ideas drawn from other people s layouts Section 4 sets out the objectives, opportunities and constraints for my new layout Section 5 develops the overall track scheme Section 6 establishes the operating requirements and design standards Section 7 details the layout design elements to be included Section 8 develops six alternative design options which looked promising Section 9 evaluates them against the objectives, and selects the preferred design Section 10 discusses how I selectively compressed the Port Waratah-BHP steel mill complex Section 11 presents some brief conclusions Subsequent articles are planned to explore operational aspects in more detail, including: Paperless Freight Car Forwarding Signal and Point Control for one-man, small group and large operating sessions Coal and freight train movements and servicing locomotives at Broadmeadow 2

3 2 Lessons from my First Layout I think one can learn both from success and from failure. Might as well start with the good news! Things that worked out as planned My first layout has given me a lot of satisfaction, along with occasional headaches. I particularly enjoyed designing the layout around a combination of layout design elements based on prototype scenes, and an operations plan based on the actual train timetables which made the prototype such an interesting place for rail fans in the 1960 s. I also gained a lot of satisfaction from the small amount of scratch-building I did - chiefly Broadmeadow roundhouse (Figure 3) and the Newstan mine - and want to do more of that. Figure 3: Beyer Garratt 6042 on the turntable at Broadmeadow No 2 Shed Photo: Author Figure 4: Five D59 class s on Shed No 1 at Broadmeadow, This shed had a 75 foot turntable, while Shed No 2 had a 105 foot turntable to accommodate the Garratts. Photo: Robert Kingsford-Smith 3

4 The current layout height of about 1100 mm (44 inches) was governed by the sloping walls of the attic and has worked reasonably well. Use of a variable height chair allows me to get to track level for better viewing angles. However higher would be better. When designing my first layout, I was particularly concerned at the difficulties of reaching the tracks for construction and maintenance. In the end I was fairly satisfied with the level of access I managed to achieve, using tricks like a hinged peninsula for Newcastle City and a lift up section at Broadmeadow. Cleaning track and re-railing trains etc has proven to been manageable, although there are still some places which are hard to reach. More recently, I also really started to enjoy operating the layout with friends. This was actually something I hadn t really envisaged in the original design, but it got me more seriously into operations. In particular, I developed a selectively compressed version of the actual working timetable for I have also developed a car card system which manages to do away with waybills but achieves the same results. Figure 5: Operating Session on my current layout, August 2013 (Photos: Laurie Moses) The author (right) and Laurie Moses during an operating session on the current Newcastle Fassifern Railway Operations can be a lot of fun! Or at least Alistair Gilmour thinks so. One of my colleagues, Marcus Amman, talked me early on into DCC using the NCE system. This has also worked out very well (with his help). I found that DCC with wireless throttles enabled multiple trains to be operated simultaneously, even on a small layout with complex trackage and junctions. For example a four hour section of the timetable (see fig 6) between midday and 4pm includes around 20 trains, not counting light engine movements, ranging from local and express passenger trains to interstate and fast fruit express freights, steel freights, general freights, pick-up and trip trains (local freights) and a variety of coal trains. Three or even four trains are in operation simultaneously at times. This timetable has been run in two actual hours with three four operators. As might be imagined this gets pretty challenging in such a small space (the layout room is 12 feet by 17 feet)! 4

5 Figure 6: Section of Timetable, 12 4pm Things needing improvement However there were also things about the current layout that are less than ideal, and which I wanted to avoid in the new layout. The chief limitation of the current layout is lack of space for operators. Three is really the desirable limit, and even that is a squeeze. Since starting my first layout my circle of colleagues has expanded (along with their waistlines). I wanted the new layout to be able to accommodate more people for operating sessions, both for the social benefits and for the operating possibilities. A second limitation is the short length of mainline run. The Newcastle Flyer takes only about 3-4 minutes of real time (9-12 minutes on the 3:1 timetable) to run from Newcastle to Sydney staging, even when operated at fairly slow speeds. This is an inevitable limitation of a layout built in a small attic (200 square feet), where the sloping walls precluded a double deck configuration. The third problem has been unreliable operation. The complexity of the current track plan in such a small space has necessitated very fine tolerances in terms of horizontal and vertical curvature, and includes sections of track where both occur together. In addition, whilst my sub-roadbed system of a sandwich of 3 mm medium density fibreboard, 10mm foam and 3 mm cork worked out well in terms of being lightweight and sound absorbing, as well as allowing track to be pinned down, it has tended to sag slightly over time and is not as rigid as one would like. Hence a lot of time has been spent in fine-tuning the track, including making very small adjustments, to produce reliable operation. This task is still not finished. 5

6 A fourth lesson was that I had perhaps sacrificed aisle widths too much in favour track space. This creates problems for operators getting past each other without becoming too intimate! Physical access becomes more and more important the older one gets, and getting under the layout to install point motors or to maintain wiring has been a real issue at times. My staging capacity, while reasonable, is still too tight. This means very careful design of the timetable was necessary to ensure two trains don t end up on the same track at the same time! The final area needing improvement was the need for additional spaces other than for the layout and operators. In particular I wanted: a heavy workshop area screened from the main railway room so I could avoid covering everything in dust every time I cut some timber a crew lounge area; and space for visitors to view the layout without getting in the way of operations. The final consideration was comfort. Sydney has a very pleasant and mild climate, but things can nevertheless get too hot in the Attic in summer. The Southern Highlands on the other hand can get pretty cold in winter (at least for us wimps in Australia) with many nights below zero (Centigrade). My new layout space would need both heating and possibly air conditioning, as well as excellent lighting, carpets and other creature comforts. 3 Lessons from Other Layouts As an avid reader of Model Railroader over the years, as well as Great Model Railroads, Model Railroad Planning, specialist books on layout design and the OPSIG and LDSIG journals, I have managed to pick up numerous tips over the years. Equally important have been the ideas, advice and insights gleaned from my modelling colleagues in Australia as well as from some renowned modellers I have been privileged to meet in the US. Here are some of the lessons I ve picked up: Staging I think it was probably John Armstrong and Tony Koester who have done the most to highlight the importance of staging and the many options available with the motto you can never have enough staging. The only layout I ve seen where this might seriously be challenged is David Parks amazing Cumberland West layout, with 2,600 feet of hidden staging capable of storing car trains! While many people seem to have developed highly reliable hidden staging systems with videos or track occupancy devices to keep track of the trains I decided it was desirable to keep my staging as easily accessible as possible, in part to allow easy swapping in and out of steel, timber and other visible loads. I also decided to use reversing loops to enable trains to enter staging and then return without having to back up or to swap locos or brake vans (cabooses). This is important given that some trains will be used more than once in a six hour (two hour real time) operating session. Scenery and Imagination I love urban scenes, and have been lucky to see some of the greatest scenic models ever built, including George Sellios Franklin and South Manchester, John Pryke s New Haven and Howard 6

7 Zane s Piedmont Division. All have been featured numerous times in magazines as well as in special publications (see reference list). These and other modellers have provided me with great inspiration. Whilst I never expect to reach those modelling heights, I aim to create an extensive urban scene covering Newcastle City and Port and the BHP steelworks to provide the sort of vistas across multiple peninsulas which those layouts achieve. Figure 7: Some scenic masterpieces, which combine intricate detail and broad vistas Photos Author (a) George Sellios Franklin and South Manchester, July 2013 (b) Howard Zane s Piedmont Division, July

8 Layout height, depth and backdrops Having seen some layouts with benchwork which is 1.3 metres (52 inches) or more above ground, I decided that this adds greatly to realism whilst also making it easier to get under the layout during construction or maintenance. This also means backdrops and narrow shelves can be much more effective. A great example is Pelle Soeberg s Daneville layout (Soeberg, 2012) which achieves unbelievable realism even with narrow desert scenes. Aisle Widths and other Parameters My own layout proved the limitations of narrow aisles. But how wide need they be? Experience operating on other layouts suggests 90 cm (36 inches) or more is desirable to allow operators to pass easily, although 80 cm can be wide enough for short distances. Where there is definitely one-way traffic, pinch points can be 60 cm (2 feet) or even less provided there are no easily breakable scenery items on the edge. Some modellers have decided to err on the side of generosity with aisle widths one layout I visited recently was Dan Vandermaus s S gauge B&O layout, where he deliberately decided to keep the track plan simple to allow lots of space for operators, making it a delight to run trains. The Model Railway Club layout in Union, New Jersey, goes one step further in providing extensive high level aisles purely for visitors. Figure 8: Space for Operators and Visitors is a key consideration Photo: Author The author s wife, Heather, operating on Dan Vandermause s layout, July 2013 View of the MRC Layout from elevated visitor aisles. New extensions in foreground. July 2013 One thing I was worried about when designing my first layout was curve radius. I was forced to use curves as small as 65 cm (26 inches) on the mainline, and I expected this to be a visual if not an operational problem. However I discovered that NSW prototype rolling stock can usually negotiate such curves and while much wider curves certainly look much better they aren t essential if superelevation and transition curves are used. I therefore settled on 70 cm (28 inches) as the minimum radius for visible mainline track, with 75 cm (30 inches) preferable, together with transition curves wherever possible. Operations 8

9 I have operated on a number of larger layouts in Australia, including Marcus Ammann s Short North ( and Alistair Gilmore s ambitious Junee layout. Both of these are large-scale home layouts of around 600 1,000 square feet based on the NSW prototype and capable of handling eight or more operators. I have also been lucky enough to attend operating sessions on a number of US layouts, including the Model Railroad Club layout in Union, New Jersey, Seth Neumann s layout in the San Jose area, and twice on David Parks Cumberland West layout, where up to 20 operators operate a complex timetable with a despatcher, staging manager, tower operators, road and yard crews (indeed I believe David recently had a joint B&O / Western Maryland operating session with 30 operators!). These experiences highlighted the fun and comradeship to be had from successfully simulating prototypical operations on large, complex layouts. They also underline the level of investment required to achieve reliability and realism, both in track, equipment, signalling (if game enough) and timetabling. My new layout is therefore designed to try to emulate the operating fun of some of these layouts. Figure 9: Operations on Large Layouts (All Photos by Author) Operating Session (Western Maryland) at David Parks Cumberland West Layout July Operating Session at Alistair Gilmore s Main South Layout, Sydney, September Objectives, Opportunities and Constraints Key Objectives Unlike some modellers who choose entirely new themes for their second or subsequent layouts, I simply decided to build a bigger and hopefully better version of the first layout. I am reassured by Pelle Soeberg s recent book on Rebuilding a Layout from A to Z that I am not completely insane, or at least that the jury is still out! My overall aim is simply to indulge in more planning, building and operating, all of which I enjoy. However I also wanted multi-person operations and more industrial landscapes such as steelworks and port areas. My key design goals for Layout No 2 are set out below: 9

10 Figure 10: Key Objectives Opportunities and Constraints The new space is a solid steel frame shed on a concrete base, approximately 9.8 by 7.2 metres internally (32 feet by 23 feet). This is large enough to do some serious damage, not least to the wallet! The shed has two roller doors for car access, and a side door. There are no internal pillars. So far this is looking perfect! However there is one serious constraint my wife wants the shed to actually double as a garage! I know this will strike you as entirely unreasonable, and indeed most of my rail buddies have expressed similar views. But real life always involves some constraints, and I find the layout design exercise much more meaningful and satisfying when there are some constraints to overcome. Figure 11: Opportunities and Constraints (a) The shed, from the house (b) Options for car 10

11 There are two basic options for the car space - on the right front or the left front as you face the shed (See figure 11). Either option would eat up around a quarter of the space available for the layout, leaving approximately 580 sq ft (52 sq m), or almost 3 times the space for my existing layout which is 204 sq ft (17 feet by 12). However I realised that including the car might not be the problem I thought it would be, because it opens up possibilities for multiple use of the car space as a workshop and also as a crew lounge. In addition, raising the layout height opens up the possibility of having part of the layout and / or a workbench above the bonnet of the car. Fitting the layout around the car means careful thought had to be given to the actual dimensions of the car. I ve always wanted to own a 2010 Subaru outback, so its dimensions were carefully calculated and this turned out to be critical to the viability of potential designs, as will become clearer later. We usually keep our cars for 15 years or so, which is the expected lifespan of this project, so as long as we keep doing that there is no problem! Alternatively the layout will be the constraint on any future car purchase, a nice twist on the current situation. I think layout design always involves tradeoffs between operational, aesthetic and practical considerations, even when this is not always evident. The balance between these objectives will depend on your preferences are you operationally driven and quite happy with running trains on plywood central ; are you more interested in aesthetics, wanting to create believable scenes to recreate your memories of the prototype; or are you a practical kind of guy who enjoys it when things actually work? In my case I was equally driven by operations and aesthetics in designing my first layout, but hadn t fully considered some of the practical aspects. So for the next layout I m aiming to give equal balance to all three areas. The design process then becomes trying to achieve the best overall compromise between what can sometimes be conflicting objectives, within the space and other constraints. I find the challenge of doing this a real source of satisfaction. 5 Overall Track Scheme The area to be modelled was the same as for the previous layout - see Figure 12 below. The track scheme is directly based on the prototype with selective compression. Quite a few stations were left out, but the order of the stations modelled was the same as in reality, as was the relative location of key elements such as the climb up to Tickhole tunnel from both Sulphide Junction and from Kotara. The two main changes from the first layout were the addition of Port Waratah and BHP steelworks, and the addition of the Belmont branch line. This line was one of many private coal lines in the Newcastle region serving the dozens of mostly underground mines which infested the area. Indeed most of Newcastle and its suburbs lie on top of coal deposits, and are affected by subsidence. 11

12 Figure 12 Prototype Railways in the Newcastle Fassifern Area. (Lines in red are privately owned lines serving the coalfields and steelworks) Source: McKillop and Sheedy, 2008) Figure 13 Schematic Track Plan 12

13 6 Operating Requirements and Standards Staging and Track Capacity In addition to the key visible parts of the layout, I needed a number of staging tracks to support operation. Conceptually these were divided between: Sydney Staging south of Fassifern North Staging representing everywhere north of Islington Junction, which is where the branch to Port Waratah comes off the main line Staging tracks for the Belmont Branch, of which only a short section would actually be modelled, as well as staging tracks representing the Stockton Borehole mine. As with the previous layout, I plan to operate on a loads in empties out basis for coal trains. Hence the mines at Newstan, Stockton Borehole and Belmont branch needed to be connected via hidden track to Port Waratah, which in the prototype is where loaded coal trains terminated (see figure 13). Port Waratah thus needed to operate as a through destination rather than as a terminus. This meant that the Port Waratah LDE if located on a peninsula would need to include a loop track. As it turned out, this is ideal for accommodating the BHP steel works within the loop, as will emerge in the detailed designs. Newcastle would continue to be operated as per the prototype as a terminus, since it handled mostly passenger trains, and since I wanted to include the light engine movements between Newcastle and Broadmeadow loco depot. This meant that Newcastle LDE could be accommodated on a peninsula. The design of the main staging tracks for Sydney Staging and North Staging proved difficult. Ideally I wanted both to be double-ended with a return loop. This would allow trains entering Sydney Staging, representing trains headed for Sydney or points south, to be automatically turned and ready to return to Newcastle. This was particularly important since these trains were mostly hauled by steam locos, rather than diesels, and I wanted to avoid use of a hidden turntable to turn the locos if possible. On the other hand most trains headed for North Staging were diesel hauled by the mid 1960 s making it easier for them to be turned; hence a return loop for North Staging was not as important. One final option was to link North Staging and Sydney Staging. This would allow trains to operate continuously in a clockwise (southbound) or anti-clockwise (northbound) direction, obviating the need to turn engines etc. Whilst useful for some operations, this is less like the prototype, and I decided this was not essential. Finally I estimated I needed a total of around staging and on-layout tracks to accommodate my expected rolling-stock fleet of 32 train sets, including: 10 passenger trains (two long distance air-conditioned train sets; one long distance mail train; one Newcastle Flyer set; three sets for Newcastle Gosford and Newcastle Maitland services; and two 3 to 5 car sets plus one two-car diesel-hydraulic set for local suburban services from Newcastle to Toronto and Belmont. 13

14 Standards 10 unit coal trains (four bogie hopper sets for Newstan Mine Port Waratah and Wangi Power station services; four 4-wheel sets for Belmont BHP and Stockton Borehole Port Waratah services; and two steel hopper BHP sets for dedicated coking coal traffic to BHP) Around 12 freight train sets including Interstate Express, Fast Fruit Express, Fast Livestock, Steel train, Ore train, General Freight trains, Pick up and local Trip trains. In addition to considering the track schema, LDE s and operational issues it is also important to set out the standards to be used. In this case, experience with my first layout has proved invaluable. For example I also discovered that my two Eureka Garratts could just handle a train of 17 coal hoppers loaded with real coal, plus brake van (as we call them) on the 2.5% Fassifern Bank the same as the prototype (these trains weight 1200 tonnes (1320 US tons) excluding the Garratts which added a further 520 tonnes (570 US tons). So my train lengths and maximum gradients would remain the same as in my first layout. This helped govern the design of yards and passing tracks. Actual gradients used on the visible parts of the layout will be the same as on the prototype. However I decided that vertical curves should occur on straight sections of track wherever possible. My current layout had used Peco Code 100 and Code 75 track, but I wanted to move to Code 83 and Code 70 track for the new layout, since it is closer to the prototype and because there is such a wide range of points available in Walthers (Shinohara), including curved points, double slips etc. Much as the idea of hand laid track appeals, there are 200 points on the new layout! Table 1: Standards for the New Layout Minimum Radius Minimum Aisle widths Hidden Track 65 cm (26 inches) one way pinch point 55 cm (22 inches) Visible Branchline 70 cm (28 inches) one-way aisle 60 cm (30 inches) Visible Mainline 75 cm (30 inches) two way pinch point 80 cm (32 inches) Points (Turnouts) two way aisle 90 cm (36 inches) Mainline No 6 Other Dimensions Yards, Industrial No 5 Main Layout height 1.3 m (52 inches) Maximum Gradient 2.5% (1 in 40) Max reach from edge 80 cm (32 inches) Maximum Train Length 3.5 m (12 feet) 7 Layout Design Elements As with the previous layout, I wanted to include a number of key layout design elements: Newcastle station, city centre and port Broadmeadow yard, station and locomotive terminal (with two roundhouses) The climb up to Tickhole tunnel and down to Sulphide Junction The Sulphide Junction / Cockle Creek area, including the Cardiff Workshops, the Sulphide Works and branch line to Stockton Borehole colliery 14

15 Fassifern and the branch to Newstan colliery The Belmont branch with the Belmont colliery (a new element). Port Waratah and BHP Steelworks (a new element) Newcastle Station, City Centre and Port This layout design element had already been included in my current layout. My main objectives for the new layout were to include: slightly longer platforms at Newcastle to allow full length trains to operate (See Fig. 1) a larger city centre at Newcastle, in particular to include the Catholic Cathedral. an expanded port area and associated freight yard at Civic. Figure 14: Standard Goods no 5133 has just arrived at Civic Yard from Broadmeadow on a Trip Train or local freight. Photo: Robert Kingsford-Smith Fortunately the compact nature of the prototype, where the main line runs very close to the Hunter River and Newcastle Port (see Figure 14), and where Newcastle station is sandwiched between the City Centre and the River (See Figure 1), means that it is possible to model the area in a finite space whilst keeping many of the geometries similar to the real thing. This in fact is one of the key attractions of the area from a modelling perspective. Broadmeadow Yard, Station and Locomotive Depot Again, these had been included in the existing layout. However I wanted the new LDE to be closer to the prototype, in particular to include: both roundhouses 15

16 separate up and down yards for freight trains the passenger station separated from the marshalling yard by the Lambton Road overpass. Figure 15: Broadmeadow Yard, Locomotive Depot and Station Tickhole Tunnel The main line climbed up to Tickhole tunnel from both Broadmeadow (to the north) and Sulphide Junction (to the south) on similar 1 in 80 (1.3%) grades. This was a favourite location for watching trains. Once again, the aim was to expand this LDE to allow a longer climb up to the tunnel from both directions. The climb from the south would need to include the third or relief track used by loaded coal trains to avoid delaying faster passenger and freight trains. Figure 16: The Climbs to Tickhole Tunnel (Photos: Robert Kingsford-Smith) Garratt 6042 emerges from the south portal of Tickhole tunnel with an empty coal train after climbing up from Broadmeadow and 6026 on a loaded Newstan coal train climb towards Tickhole tunnel from the south, headed towards Broadmeadow in Sulphide Junction / Cockle Creek The existing layout included this as an LDE, but was highly compressed. The aim here for the new layout was to include a much larger Sulphide Works, plus additional space for the yard at Sulphide 16

17 Junction and the branch leading from Cockle Creek across the creek to Stockton Borehole and other coal mines. Figure 17: Scenes near Sulphide Junction 5920 at Sulphide Junction, (Photo: Robert Kingsford-Smith) 5408 plus 6042 double-head a general freight train in 1972, north of Sulphide Junction. (Photo: Robert Kingsford-Smith) Figure 18: Sulphide Junction Track Plan Newstan Colliery and Fassifern Bank These were key signature elements, as explained in the article on the first layout, but had been highly compressed in my current layout. The actual arrangements at Fassifern as they were in the 1960 s are shown in Figures 9, showing the branch to Toronto served by diesel railmotors and local passenger trains powered by C tank locomotives, as well as the branch to Newstan Colliery. Empty coal trains arrived at Fassifern from Port Waratah and then backed into Newstan; loaded coal trains backed out onto the main line from the Newstan branch, then propelled forwards up the bank. The Newstan mine had a three track yard, a large overhead coal bin for loading trains, a range of administrative, workshop, pit head and other structures which all make great modelling subjects. 17

18 Figure 19 Newstan Mine track arrangements, 1960 s Source: Attenborough (2002) Figures 20 and 21 show scenes at Newstan and the top of the Fassifern bank Figure 20 Garratts at Newstan Colliery Figure 21 Garratt on empty coal train at top of Fassifern Bank Source: Attenborough (2004) Source: Attenborough (2004) I therefore wanted the new layout to include a much better representation of this area, specifically: Fassifern station, including the curved platform for the Toronto Branch A longer Fassifern Bank, including the signature cutting at the top of the bank More visible trackage and space for buildings at Newstan Colliery (coal mine), as well as hidden tracks connecting the mine to Port Waratah. The aim was for an empty coal train to back under the coal loading bins to the hidden track, where it would be replaced by a loaded coal train which had been forwarded from Port Waratah via the hidden staging track (see figure 13). Belmont Branch As shown on Figure 12 there were a number of privately owned branch railways operating in the Newcastle area. One of these was the Belmont branch, which headed south from Adamstown just 18

19 south of Broadmeadow, and served a number of collieries which provided coking coal for the BHP steel works. In the mid 1960 s, the line generated a significant number of coal trains of 4-wheel hopper cars mainly hauled by Standard Goods locomotives, together with a few suburban passenger trains hauled by tank locomotives. From the mid 1960 s coal traffic began to be taken over by 48-class light weight Co-Co diesel electric locos, bogie steel hopper wagons were introduced, and passenger traffic declined. Modelling this single line coal branch would therefore provide additional variety in operations, and would be a new element as it wasn t included in the current layout. However space was expected to be limited, so I decided to include only one station and coal mine on the route, with the remainder of the line represented by staging. Port Waratah and the BHP Steelworks By far the most ambitious addition however for the new layout is the BHP steel works and Port Waratah. Figures 22 gives some indication of the incredible amount of trackage at Port Waratah in the 1960 s there were over 200 sidings for coal trains alone, grouped into nests, plus additional sidings for the grain, fertiliser, cement, oil terminal and other industries. Figure 22 Track Arrangements at Port Waratah Source: Love (2010) The number of coal trains operating in the 1960 s and early 1970 s can be gleaned from Figure 23, which shows two loaded trains hauled by Standard Goods engines passing the weighbridge in the back right; a third loaded train behind a 44 class DE is just visible in the background, while a fourth empty coal train departs on the left hauled by a diesel. Similarly some idea of the scale of the BHP steelworks can be gauged from figures 24 and

20 Figure 23: Coal Trains approaching Port Waratah, 1971 Photo: Robert Kingsford-Smith Figure 24: BHP Steel works in background, with Port Waratah coal nests in foreground (Source: Jehan, 1999) 20

21 Figure 25 Diagrammatic Track Arrangement for BHP steel works, 1970 s (Source: Jehan, 1999) The steelworks included a 90km private rail network which served the blast furnaces, basic oxygen smelters, coke plant, rolling mills etc, and exchanged wagons with the NSW Government railways at the Morandoo exchange sidings. In the 1960 s and 1970 s BHP operated a fleet of diesel electric locos and some 687 wagons over this network (Jehan, 1999). Clearly, some selective compression was going to be needed here! Whilst it is probably crazy to attempt to model such massive facilities, I decided to try. The aim would be to create an impression of Port Waratah and steelworks through a multi-track marshalling yard, port facilities, and key elements of the steelworks. In particular I ideally wanted to include one blast furnace, the BOS facility, a coke making plant, one of the large gas cylinders (visible in the top right of figure 25), the blower house which generated the high pressure air for the furnaces, and a representation of the many large sheds housing rolling mills and product storage (see section 10). 8 Alternative Design Options In terms of arranging the Layout Design Elements in the available space and connecting them up in the right order, I found at least a dozen possible combinations. The six most promising arrangements are illustrated below, together with detailed designs based on that arrangement. 21

22 Option 1 Figure 26(a): Option 1 Concept This was one of my early designs, with the car space (and workshop) on the right hand side facing the garage doors (top right of diagram). Access to the layout is from the garage via a lift up / drop down section containing Adamstown station. Broadmeadow runs along the lower side, eliminating the side door and one of the two garage doors. Newcastle and Port Waratah are on peninsulas, with the harbour between them on a drop down section to create an aisle for additional access. The main staging is open on the left hand wall. Sulphide Junction and the workbench are located above the bonnet of the car. Figure 26(b): Option 1 Detailed Design 22

23 Option 2 Figure 27(a): Option 2 Concept This option switches the car space and garage to the lower right (i.e. left hand garage door), allowing the side door to the shed to be used. Broadmeadow is now on a diagonal, with the locomotive depot over the bonnet of the car, and somewhat restricted space for the car s front door to be opened. Overall run length is less than option A, but aisle space is somewhat less restricted. The garage doubles as a visitor space / crew lounge area. The north staging is open (on the left hand wall) but the Sydney staging tracks are under the Newcastle peninsula or alternatively under Broadmeadow. Figure 27(b): Option 2 Detailed Design 23

24 Option 3 Figure 28(a): Option 3 Concept Option 3 is an entirely different design. While the car is in the same location as for Option 2, Broadmeadow is shifted to be along the top wall, Newcastle and Port Waratah are shifted, and the main staging is now located under the steelworks building (this is designed as a tall shed, with an open side facing the car space, allowing access underneath to the tracks, which are mostly at a level below the tracks in Port Waratah). There is space for a long peninsula on the left, enabling a long run for the main line. Access to the layout is via the garage door, with a removable section of track adjacent to the roller door. The side door to the shed is no longer usable, and there is no workbench. Figure 28(b): Option 3 Detailed Design 24

25 Option 4 Figure 29(a): Option 4 Concept This is yet another quite different layout. Broadmeadow has been shifted to the middle of the shed, and the main staging to the lower wall (with hinged reversing loops which drop down when the car is removed). Port Waratah and the steelworks are now along the back wall rather than on a peninsula. This arrangement reproduces the two triangle junctions between Broadmeadow and Port Waratah. However it requires some compression of Broadmeadow. Access to the main operating areas is somewhat difficult, and two lift up / drop down sections would be needed. The bench work would have to be very high to enable the second roundhouse to be above the car s front windscreen. Figure 29(b): Option 4 Detailed Design 25

26 Option 5 Figure 30(a): Option 5 Concept This option is a variant of Option 2, with some subtle changes to the design of Broadmeadow by rearranging the tracks between there and Sulphide Junction. There is now ample space for both Newcastle and Port Waratah and more space for Broadmeadow with a more prototypical track arrangement. This also includes a longer mainline run than Option 2 but retains the open staging for the north staging yard, with Sydney staging under Newcastle. As with most of the other options, the drop-down Newcastle harbour allows access when required to the tracks at Port Waratah and Newcastle Port. If necessary, the layout can be operated with the car still in the garage. Figure 30(b): Option 5 Detailed Design 26

27 Option 6 Figure 31(a): Option 6 Concept The final option is similar to Option 5, but switches the car space back to the right hand door (but not the workshop). This allows a long main line run with a longer peninsula, allowing an extra station (Cardiff) to be included. However it requires a 2.7 m long section of the layout behind the roller door to be removable in order for the car to enter the garage. The car would have to be removed to allow operations. Whilst producing significant operator space, the workshop area and visitor space is somewhat cramped. Figure 31(b): Option 6 Detailed Design 27

28 9 Selecting the Best Design Choosing the best design is always ultimately a subjective process. However I found it useful to attempt to undertake a semi rational analysis based on the objectives identified earlier. Accordingly, I converted these into criteria and measures, evaluated each of the six options based on these, and then gave a score for each option. I then calculated the total weighted score for each option based on operational, aesthetic and practical criteria, as suggested by one of my colleagues, Derek Cullen. In some cases it was possible to use objective measures, such as the length of mainline run or the number of staging tracks. In others, particularly for the aesthetic criteria, I simply scored each of the options out of 10, with my favourite option given a score of 10. In doing this I considered such aspects as how closely the track plan followed the prototype in terms of location and the direction of curves. For example: - the climb up to Tickhole tunnel, where I did some of my train watching as a youth, has a particular resonance and so trying to achieve the feel of this area was important. - Similarly it was important to include the curve at the top of Fassifern Bank, where the Garratts struggled over the last part of the climb, and to have enough space to replicate the deep sandstone cutting at that location. - Newcastle station was also a key element, and all options aimed to get a reasonably faithful representation of the tracks and platforms in this location. - Finally Broadmeadow was also a key aesthetic element, especially the relationships between the passenger station, the marshalling yard and the locomotive roundhouses. The table and graph below shows my how I assessed the design options against my own criteria. Figure 32: Comparison of the Options 28

29 Table 2 Comparison of the Broad Options Criterion Measure Weight Operational - Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Visible Mainline Run Metres Visible Mainline Run Out of Space for Operators No people Open Staging Tracks Total No Hidden Staging Tracks Total No Belmont Branch Length (m) Operational - Sub-Total Aesthetic Port Waratah & BHP Out of Broadmeadow Out of Newcastle Out of Tickhole Tunnel approaches Out of Sulphide Jcn area Out of Fassifern and Newstan Out of No of cosmetic S curves No Aesthetic Sub-Total Practical Access for maintenance Out of Ease of Operations Out of Access to Staging Tracks Out of Suitability for one-man ops Out of Separate Workshops Out of Visitor Viewing No people Flexibility of Carspace Out of Practical - Sub-Total TOTAL SCORE Option 6 The final result suggests Option 5 is the preferred design overall, which is fortunate because that was my intuitive response before undertaking the assessment (could it be that I rigged the jury?). Interestingly this option scores third highest on operations, equal highest on aesthetics, and second highest on practicality. This option as well as some of the other options also allow some visual tricks, such as viewing the inside of the roundhouses from the back of the structures, as illustrated by Cliff Power s beautiful Magnolia Route layout (see video available on his website at The analysis highlights the need to consider all aspects, and that it may not be possible to get the best of all possible worlds with a single design there are always tradeoffs! Of course others might make different judgements, use different criteria or different weights, and come up with different answers. Indeed an earlier draft of this article which was circulated to some colleagues led to exactly 29

30 that response! As a result I came up with some new designs following that feedback, one of which was the current winning design, Option 5. Overall, the analysis has been instructive, and for someone as obsessed with layout design as myself, a lot of fun! Indeed I figure I ve already got 30% of the fun of the whole exercise before I ve even started building! 10 Selectively Compressing Port Waratah and BHP Steelworks One final comment is worth adding. As mentioned, over the last few years I have become increasingly fascinated by the possibilities of modelling steelworks. This was initially stimulated by Bernard Kempinski s excellent book The Model Railroader s Guide to Steel Mills, as well as by a tour of the last remaining blast furnace in operation at Port Kembla in 2012, by the detailed articles on rail operations at steel mills in the OPSIG journal, and by research into the Newcastle steelworks. I was equally interested in the modelling and the operating possibilities, in particular the potential for recreating some of the drama of steel mills as evidenced in Figure 34. Figure 33: Standard Goods 5263 arriving at Port Waratah, 1972, on a trip train from Newcastle. The BHP Steel works can be seen in the left background. (Photo: Robert Kingsford-Smith) Accordingly my latest design for the Port Waratah BHP Steelworks includes (see Figure 35) Seven arrival / departure tracks for coal trains, one for grain / general freight trains and two for steel trains (the Morandoo exchange sidings) Six sidings serving the coal dock, grain terminal, cement terminal, fish processing plant and oil terminal Some eighteen sidings serving the steel mill. 30

31 Figure 34: Scenes at the BHP steelworks. Left- Hot metal being poured into the BOS, with torpedo and slag cars in the foreground; top right - slag being dumped; Bottom Left Lime being unloaded Source: Jehan (1999) and Hannan Photography. Figure 35: Track Arrangements at Port Kembla / BHP Steelworks 31

32 The Port Waratah yard tracks are allocated as follows: Track A1 is the priority shunting track for internal steelworks movements Tracks M1 and M2 are the Morandoo exchange sidings where wagons are exchanged between the steelworks private lines and the NSW government railways Tracks C1 to C7 are coal train yard tracks Track P7 is the arrival / departure / shunting track for the Port Waratah sidings This design supports a wide variety of switching assignments within the steelworks (see Table 3) and with the Morandoo exchange sidings. There are thirteen separate switching assignments plus an equivalent number of empty moves. This would keep an operator fairly busy, especially with priority movements such as the transfer of hot metal and slag from the blast furnace. Table 3: Steelworks Switching Moves (Loaded cars) Type From To Wagon Type Limestone to Blast Furnace Morandoo (M1, M2) High Line (S1) Limestone Hopper Coke to Blast Furnace Morandoo (M1, M2) High line (S2) Coke Hopper Cokeworks to Blast Furnace Coke Quencher (S9) High Line (S2) BHP Coke Hopper Coal to Cokeworks Morandoo (M1, M2) Cokeworks (S11) Coal Hopper Molten Iron to BOS Blast Furnace (S3, S4) BOS (S6) Torpedo Cars Blast Furnace Slag to Slag Dump Blast Furnace (S5) Slag Dump (S18) Slag Dump Car Scrap Steel to BOS Morandoo (M1, M2) BOS (S7) Gondola Steel to Rolling Mill BOS (S8) Rolling Mill (S12) Ingot Cars Tar Products for export Tar/Benzol Plant (S13) Morandoo (M1,2) Tank Cars Flat Steel to export Finished products (S14) Morandoo (M1,2) Special Wagons Steel Slab for export Finished products (S15) Morandoo (M1,2) Flat wagons Specialty steel for export Finished products (S16) Morandoo (M1,2) Vans Coil Steel to export Finished products (S17) Morandoo (M1,2) Open wagons, Coil Wagons Port Waratah itself also has a range of sidings: P1 is for the coal wharf for export coal P2 serves the fish processing plant adjacent to the fishing fleet P3 serves the cement wharf (inbound cement) P4 and P5 serve the grain wharf (outbound) P6 serves the oil terminal (inbound) This supports significant switching options in addition to the extensive yard operations at Broadmeadow, and the additional operations at Newcastle, Sulphide Junction, Fassifern and the various on-line industries (for example there are four such industries between Newcastle / Port Waratah and Broadmeadow), as well as the three visible coal mines, Cardiff workshops and the Sulphide Works. Altogether the layout will have over 50 industry sidings. 32

33 10 Conclusion Explaining the thinking behind the design of my second Newcastle Fassifern layout has been a lot of fun as well as instructive, in that it forced me to consider some of the practical aspects alongside the aesthetic and operational ones. The real fun will begin in 2014 when the shed is ready for occupancy! Until then I ll probably keep tinkering with the designs, and it s always possible I ll come up with an entirely new option! Any feedback or suggestions from similarly afflicted layout designers are always welcome. I can be contacted on g.glazebrook@bigpond.com. Acknowledgements I d like to acknowledge thanks to all the people at LDSIG and OPSIG who have further encouraged me in what is an obsession within an obsession! - in particular Byron Henderson, David Parks, Seth Neuman and Chuck Catania whom I met on a visit to the 2011 NMRA convention, as well a number of others in the US including John Pryke, Howard Zane, George Sellios, Dan Vandermause, Scott Dunlap and Jeff Taylor who I have met on various trips and who have provided inspiration and ideas. I would also like thank my many colleagues in Australia including Marcus Amman, Alistair Gilmour, Erik Bennett, Laurie Moses, Allan Garbutt, Phil Collins, Jack Russell, Derek Cullen, John Bryan, Josh Beveridge, George Bambery (who is building a 30 foot by 40 foot layout based on the Fassifern Broadmeadow area), David Latham, Ray Love, Ray Pilgrim and others who have helped me with comments, taken part in operating sessions on my own or their layouts or provided helpful feedback on this article. I would also like to especially thank Robert Kingsford-Smith and David Jehan who very generously provided many of the prototype photos which appear in the article. Finally I would like to thank my wife who has indulged my obsessions in this area over many years, including agreeing to relocate to the southern highlands. REFERENCES Peter Attenborough (2002): The Short North. Wyong Fassifern. Byways of Steam 20, Eveleigh Press. Peter Attenborough (2004): The Short North. Fassifern-Newcastle. Byways of Steam 22, Eveleigh Press. David Jehan (1999): Men, Steel and Rails the Operations of the BHP Newcastle System from the Introduction of Diesel Traction to the Closure of Primary Steelmaking in 199. ISBN X. Published by the BHP Rod, Bar and Wire Division in association with the Light Railway research Society of Australia NWS Division. Bernard Kempinski (2010): The Model Railroader s Guide to Steel Mills. Kalmbach Books. ISBN Ray Love (2010): The Steam Locomotive Depots in NSW. Depot No 20: Port Waratah. Byways of Steam No 27. Eveleigh Press. ABN

34 Robert McKillop and David Sheedy (2008): Our Region, Our Railway. The Hunter and the Great Northern Railway , Australian Railway Historical Society. NWS Division. Ron Preston (2000): The Railways of New South Wales In Steam: Short North. Orion Fine Arts. ISBN John Pryke (2000): Building city scenery for your model railroad. Kalmbach Books. ISBN Pelle Soeberg (2012): Rebuilding a Layout from A to Z. Building a better layout the second time around. Kalmbach Books. ISBN