I am redesigning my track plan, with the intent to rebuild my layout as a sectional layout where I can take out sections individually to work on outside or in less cramped conditions.In that context, I’d like to hear what you guys think about 4-5 proposals I have worked up - what you think is strength and weaknesses of each plan, and whether you spot things I might not have considered.
Design goals for new layout
My main goal for the redesign is to create an urban/industrial switching layout (ISL) which hopefully will give me (or a visitor) a rough idea of how things would have looked for a train crew doing switching for customers on the West Bank of the Mississippi river in Minnesota in the late 1950s.
More specifically, I’d like to get some of the feel of switching rows of tallish (4+ stories) urban warehouses in the warehouse district, sneaking your train through narrow gaps between buildings to switch stone or brick mill buildings or towering elevators, or spotting cars on the dockside by the river to have stuff transferred from your RR cars to a barge or the other way around.
The prototype would have a lot of railroad tracks in this area - this part of Minneapolis had several railroads serving it. There were yards and industry tracks and temporary storage tracks all over the place.
Links to some of the pictures that describe the look and feel I wish for - I am giving each link a reference number to make it easier to refer to it. (I suggest using right click and “open in new window” or “open in new tab” or whatever that function is called in your web browser to see these pictures without losing where you are in this post).
from what I can get, operation will be very similar on all of the plans, so for me it boils down to a question of “looks” . For me, plan no. 55b has the “sleekest” look, which is very difficult to accomplish in such a small space.
Is the part between the door and chimney base fixed? It is the same in all designs. I would think that place would be a great place for a descending line to the barge terminal with some spurs pointing back in front of the chimney. Or start descending from the door end to a point in front of the long wall with a runaround track lower than the mill buildings in the background. The warehouse would be roughly near the chimney base and the coal unloading in the lower righthand corner.
Alternate place would be above the workbench but if you lower tracks there it might interfere with work on the bench.
Also, what about the piece between workbench and door? Can you enlarge it and point it toward the chimney base, a kind of mini peninsula? That way you can model 2 warehouses/mills with tracks between or 1 with tracks at both long sides.
Stein, you’re making too much work for us (leastwise me). If you pointed out the differences among the plans and your reason(s)/expectaion(s) for the changes, there would be greater incentive to evaluate. I’m not willing to go back and forth comparing the several plans to identify the differences nor guess your objectives/reasons for doing so.
Are you thinking a going down counterclockwise from the main on the right side to the barge terminal scene, and have then tracks back from there to the industries inside the main along the right wall ?
Mmm - it is already pretty dominant in the room as it is. It is a pretty small room - only 4.5 feet from the layout edge along top wall to lower wall. Not sure I would like to go any further out than 15-18" in this spot.
Good ideas - keep em coming while I go on to describe the thinking behind all my variants.
Okay - at long last I am done describing the various alternate plans and my thoughts for the various changes.
I know the post is hellishly long. But if any of you can bear reading through it and offer comments or suggestions (both on looks and function), I’d be grateful.
My apologies for not initially completing the whole post in one sitting, before hitting “post”.
Stein, are the board sizes fixed as it appears that some of the pointwork, especially in the top left hand corner, will overlap boards. I know, from the hard way, when trying to draw plans for small sectional layouts, that you then have to make further changes when actually track laying.
No, sections still hasn’t been cut, so they are open to changes - I just haven’t adjusted the section lines on all the drawings as I have been messing with the track plans.
Its tough to take a lot of time to analyze all of the variations closely, but I kind of like plan 46. It seems to accomplish all of the switching you need, but with the least amount of track, which is very prototypical. Some modifcations to think about:
It would look better if you straightened the yard tracks and flip the office so its next to the main. Add a crossover from the 1st st. switch lead to security warehouse so you don’t have to move the car at Lindsey Bros. (unless that challange appeals to you). Swap the locations of the Omaha Warehouse and the harbor like 55c. I think you would still have room to have the harbor and Williams hardware track work arranged so the harbor could be switched without fouling the main. You would have all of the industries you have now, with two yard tracks tucked into the upper left corner and a long yard lead as well.
You could modify 55c by adding a yard track and keeping the Int. Harv. industry high up in the corner and get to my thinking as well. I think they would both be similar if I follow my own thinking correctly.
I read in another post sometime back, where you wanted to add a grade element. How about if you add a table top over the staging area, and add another warehouse or grain elevator? Don’t know if you have enough distance to get a spur up there with a reasonable grade however. Maybe try to make the harbor tracks as low as possible, where evr you locate them. Having the tracks descend to meet the harbor would seem prototypical.
Yes, your thinking is correct. The modification you describe for 46 would apparently end up in a track plan very similar to the track plan in 55c.
Main differences in track plan between a 55c with the International Harvester track straightened out and a modified 46 would be that in 55c I have also removed the double slip and extra spur to “Robinson manufacturing”.
Plus of course that in a modified 46 you would keep the two warehouses (Security warehouse and Lindsey bros) on the rear and a yard office on the front of the four diagonal tracks in the upper left hand corner instead of a mill complex.
So what is it that appeals to you about a modified 46, rather than going with 55c ? Keeping the warehouses in the upper left, or keeping things like in 46 in
I´ll try to give you some reasoning: Given the space you have, you need to put in a lot of track. There is a risk of overloading your layout, just to catch that last bit of switching challenge. Either plan has a lot to offer, but if I had to decide, i would go for a compromise between operation and looks. After all you don´t want to build that “Plywood Central” but a challenging switching layout with some well thought of scenic features. For me, that´s plan 55b. The overpass to the upper right corner makes a nice scenic divider, distracting the view from the chimney base. You don´t need two truck scenes.
In some plans, your “water front” is also on the upper part. That area is already pretty “loaded” so I think it is better to leave that LDE to the lower part. I´d even go one step further and take away one track out of each yard or lead you have in the plan.After all you will do your switching with one loco and you have 10 + industries to serve…
My vote would be for 56 or 56b. The buildings-on-same-axis look is a better match with the prototype photos you posted. I also like the separation between the “main” and the upper industry tracks in the 56 plans than say #58. I haven’t been able to devote many brain cycles to the operating characteristics of each element, especially with the mill in the upper left, but my gut feel is 56b. I may be of more assistance when you’ve narrowed the field a bit.
I got a thought provoking question by personal message:
Here are some musings on that subject:
The main concept for my old layout plan was that I had a mix of local switching and yard work. I wanted to have a “home road” that had a yard (of which only a tiny corner was modeled) and switched the industries, and then I would have a couple of trains from neighbor roads that would do transfer runs to the home road yard to drop off cuts of inbound cars and pick up cuts of outbound cars. The yard was a core element in operations (and looks).
What I am considering now is whether to totally drop transfer runs and abstract away yard work, and just do local switching, but let engines from different companies switch different industries. I still want to try for the look of long rows of tallish buildings dwarfing the trains, and quite a bit of tracks squeezed in where cars can be temporarily stashed while the switching engine pulls cars from industries and sets out cars at industries.
Have to head for bed now - it has been a long day at work and there will be a long day tomorrow too. I have read the comments from Ulrich (SirMaddog) and Dave (O’Dave) and they both make sense, as does everyone else who has offered advice.
I really like your #50 plan; sometimes there are lots of tracks, sometimes your RR is almost modest in appearence. It’s sleak and leaves space for road access too.
I am a bit concerned about all the large buildings between you and your trains, but that’s what you just fancy as i understand well. The one thing i am thinking about is the dockside. The concealed staging is in the dock’s freighthouse, so the tracks in front could be serving both the barge and the freighthouse. You may need a pipe system to get grain out of the barges into the whare(freight)house. I’ve seen it in Liege (Belgium). These tracks could also be paved in; even some more road access. So you don’t need the freighthouse up front and you could make your marine scene a bit longer. But is this prototypecally for M.stP?
Nice thinking, but as you stated many times, what do you want? Cutting transfercuts into pieces? No, but that influences staging. How many RR’s came into your area? do you need that many staging tracks? Do you still need a small yard, just to get the cars in the right order? Does your RR needs a scale? Do you need the bridge during operating sessions? (if yes, forget the remarks about the marine scene.)
Have a good and fun time finding your perfect solution.
Not that anybody cares, but Minneapolis “West Bank” area is actually about a mile east of what you’re talking about. It’s across the river from the University of Minnesota main campus (although the U now has a “West Bank Campus” on the west side of the Washington Ave. Bridge. The area around the Milwaukee depot, the big mills etc. are considered to be “downtown”.
Keep in mind too that it’s a long way down!! The city is built up fairly high compared to the river in many places. It’s pretty close to water level near the GN depot and the Post Office, which is near the area you’re modelling (north side of downtown) but then, barges can’t get up the Mississippi that high because of St.Anthony Falls which is due east of downtown. There was a pretty large coal unloading area in the West Bank that was served by rail, getting coal from barges coming up river.
So what is it that appeals to you about a modified 46, rather than going with 55c ? Keeping the warehouses in the upper left, or keeping things like in 46 in the upper right or something else ?
To be honest, I liked 46 right off because it seemed like you maintained all of the industries you started with, had two or three dedicated yard tracks, and a decent switch lead for 1st street, and you still had a lot of open space which was occupied by Omaha warehouse. I thought better use of that space would be the harbor. Then I realized those mods just about made 55c. I’m not sure I like either one better. If you go with two grain elevators total (instead of Security warehouse and Lindsey Bros), I think the railroad might want to have the yard tracks to store some extra grain hoppers close by.
After looking again, I’m not sure how the IH building would look best. Something you might have to work out on site, so to speak. Could possibly sneak in another building or spur in that upper right, really having buildings and track on top of each other in that small space, on the far side of the road. Kind of an “old town” district. Wouldn’t want to have it that crowded over the whole layout however.
I like all of the plans, really. The other plans line up the buildings straight along the tracks. Depends on what you think will look better. Midwestern river towns are usually crowded and laid out at funny angles, having to follow the the river, with streets and buildings having funny angles as well. So having things line up perfectly straight might not be in keeping with the area your modeling, if being that accurate matters to you.
On the other hand, I think I recall you writing in another thread that you weren’t totally satisfied with the minimal third dimension cut up background
Thank you for a lot of thoughtful (and thought provoking) comments. It is fun to see almost everybody picks a different favorite plan, or different favorite elements of the plans! At least it makes me feel quite a bit better about not having been able to decide on my own
Having slept on it, I guess that my main problem is trade-off between trying to preserve as much as possible of the “look and feel” of the prototype (which I am starting to know almost “too much” about after having looked at many pictures and having read quite a bit about the area), and making a layout that can be operated in a sensible way.
Two interesting blog posts about this trade-off can be found here: “Carricature, copy or close enough?”, and “Selective obsession”. (as always - just right click and “open in new tab” or “open in new window” to follow links without losing you place in this post).
Basic point Byron makes is that it is a trade-off. Being too prototype true can make the layout not work very operationally. And going to far in the other direction makes the layout become just a “generic” layout, with little of the “look and feel” of the prototype that inspire you in the first place. The only problem is figuring out where the famous mid-line between Scylla and Charybdis lies
And sometimes (see the second blog post above) you have to be prepared to give up some of your favorite elements to make a plan that is better overall. Hanging on too hard to one favorite element of a plan can compromise the whole lay
