In this past month’s Model Railroader there is a very nice article about the Cincinnati Lebanon and Northern, a small shortline owned by the Pennsylvania in the Cincinnati area. The article includes a track plan for a 2 and a half car garage.
Well, it just so happens that I have been working on my own version of the CL&N. Unfortunately, I don’t have a garage to spare. My space is a little smaller, so I’m sticking to modeling just Lebanon and the surronding areas.
My track plan has finally reached a degree of maturity, and with the coverage of the CL&N this past month I figured now was a good time to get some comments and suggestions before I start cutting benchwork. This will be my second layout, and the first where I try some of the more advanced modeling techniques.
For a detailed tour around the plan I have a new post up on my blog. But I’m basically going for modeling some turnaround commuter trains and then switching the local industries. I managed to keep a relatively large radius on the mainline so my trains will look their best. I compromised a bit of the sidings and spurs, and had to include 2 curved turnouts to make it all work, but I’m really happy with the balance here between track and scenery, as well as compressing a lot into the design.
Yet I’m still not a track plan expert, and was wondering if anyone else had some comments or suggestions for me.
Looks interesting. Look at using a wye switch or two in the staging yard to shorten the leads, might give an extra couple of car lengths. Do you really need the runaround in staging? To use it effectively you have to leave one track open and the other one will only hold a veeeerrry short train. You would get more storage/staging without the runaround. Alternatively look at making the runaround a crossover and exted the track closest to the fascia all the way to the end. It will cost you 1 switch but gives you the flexibility of using the tracks as a runaround or as full staging tracks.
I might end up having another foot or so of staging, depending on how generous my dad is in his “air rights”. The runaround would make a little more sense then. I can see what you mean about it being too short. It’s not something I have to have I just thought it might add a little more flexibility then just boring stub-end staging, but I might end up getting rid of it when all is said and done.
Looshi, you have done a good job in your design however something becomes readily apparent as I look at your trackplan: how are you planning on reaching into the corners particularly the upper left hand corner where you have that feed and coal trestle should your rolling stock come to griefs?
Good point. Mmmm - how about if you move the Oregonia Bridge Co clockwise closer to main street, and cut away turtle creek and the little groups of trees next to it, to have the layout edge closer to the feed mill ?
Same on the other side - do you really need to turn engines here ? If you drop that and have the standard oil co track parallell to the main, you can move the edge of the layout closer to the corner, and improve reach.
Personally, it is an important consideration for me to be able to turn entire trains. They don’t have to be 15 item trains, but a train…say the engine and six cars or so. If you were to widen the area around your staging, at bottom right, nearest the edge of your bench, you could add a short curve in there, right at the corner where you have labeled it, and get a turning wye.
That looks like a very good recommendation! Might take a bit of manipulation but it would bring that feed and coal trestle within arm’s reach. I seem to recall reading that the main source of derailments on the prototype involves picking the switch and I am equally certain that that is the primary source of trouble on our model layouts!
I never considered that reach was going to be an issue here, but it’s a valid point. Some of the suggestions made are good, but I’m hesitant to cut something out unless I’m sure there will be a problem.
I think I will wait until I tear my old layout down, then get some cardboard and make some mockups of the shelves. That way I will be able to test and get a feel for just how much reach I’m going to have.
Maybe a drop-leaf at the end of the staging yard could be used to double-end the yard, allowing engines to escape from all tracks. Extra switches could be obtained by eliminating the passing siding at Broadway(which, in my opinion, is kinda redundant).
I have no doubt it is redundant. But it’s an important part of the prototype if I’m going to capture the flavor of the yard.
I can’t directly link to the image from here, but if you look here you can see the yard and what I’m trying to go for.To make things flow better I swapped the runaround switch with the spur switch in Broadway, but you get the idea. It’s more of a flavor thing then a operational feature.
I do like the idea of having double ended staging if I can somehow fit it in.
Looshi, I don’t agree with the OP, I don’t think the passing track at Broadway is redundant at all. It provides more operating possibilities. At the very least it means you can cross trains there. That sort of comment is often made by people whose understanding of prototype operations, track arrangements and the reasons behind them is limited. I’d keep it!
As for your staging, Dave Husman’s suggestion is a good one. Extended tracks and the removal of the run-round will make your staging more usable.
Other than that, I think your trackplan is quite impressive - I’ll be very interested to see how it progresses.
I started taking the old layout down this week. I haven’t been this excited in a long time. I’m sure a lot of people here know the feeling when you have that blank slate in front of you. Right when you start the new layout is probably the second-most exciting time next to finishing it.
