I have been planning an around the walls layout for sometime and have found a layout in Model Railroader which will be the base plan for my layout. There are a lot of great features I would like to incorporate along with a few of my own. The room sizes are almost identical as well. The layout plan was featured in the May 2009 issue and was written by Michael Flanagan. It is entitled “A B&O branch line for a garage”.
What I need help with is turnouts. The author says he planned for a minimum of a no. 6 except where noted. In the layout plan it appears that some of the turnouts may be curved.
If anyone has any thoughts on how to identify which may be which or how to contact the author it would be greatly appreciated.Or perhaps they are all standard #6. It’s just hard for me to tell,
This is my first posting on this forum. Thank you.
It’s been mentioned that the track plans in MR are created from the source track plan by artists working with a graphics package, so unless the turnouts are marked (and these aren’t) it’s not easy to just look at the plan and figure out what number they are, and what manufacturer, or hand-laid, etc. Especially the curved guys. Your best bet is probably to contact the author about specifics.
I planned for a similar space, and I think that this plan does fairly well with it in terms of variety of operations. One thing that stood out to me was the restricted access to the staging tracks - it would be awkward to work on the back-half or so. But since the layout is set fairly high and if you made the track bulletproof it wouldn’t be so bad to do occasional prairie-dogging. Just have a plan for re-staging between sessions and dealing with derailments back there.
Reach might be a bit of a problem in the upper-left. Cars spotted at Southern Gas & Oil would inhibit switching of the industries on either side. This could be a challenge or a pain, or both. Make sure those moves are what you want.
The on-board yard seems a bit small for the layout, with what looks like only one body track. I would probably have re-worked the whole top portion to get some more stub-ended tracks for sorting, maybe at the price of the TT/RH, but that’s just a druther of mine. I don’t have a copy of this MR issue with me, so maybe the author explained this, or maybe his operating plan doesn’t need more body tracks.
Not a bad plan to start with IMHO, if it satisfies your vision of what you want to do with your layout.
As noted in the opening editorial in that issue (page 6), the art for this track plan is a little bit unique in that it was generated by the author himself. [Since Michael Flanagan is a professional artist, it’s very visually appealing. I enjoyed his book Stations, sort of a detailed travelogue of an imaginary railroad.]
But it may mean that the turnouts as drawn don’t match up with commercial turnouts. A number of them look to be handlaid-to-fit.
You can write to the author care of Model Railroader magazine and they will forward your questions.
I’m more concerned than O’Dave is on the access and reach issues. In my experience, there is no way to make track completely bulletproof and eventually you’ll have to reach it.
As he mentions, there’s not much yard – and that’s fine if you don’t want one.
Staging clearances under Lime City would concern me. The staging is at 50" and the tracks above at 53" to 54" – and that’s track-to-track spacing. Considering the space needed for subroadbed, roadbed and the visible track itself, that’s bare minimum and no finger room to spare. And with the turnotus at the tightest part, it’s an issue. The designer probably did this to provide for a continuous run, but there might have been other ways to achieve it.
Note also that one end of the railroad as drawn assumes staging tracks in another adjoining room that isn’t shown. If you don’t have that space available in the same location, you’ll need some rework in order to have staging in both directions.
Welcome to the Trains.com forums, Are you planning to use code 83 Flextrack? I have a 24’x24’ around the room garage loft DCC layout, with an inside stairway. Are you planning on a lift out,(or hinged) access, to your layout? I have 110 turnouts, 6 reverse loops, 3wyes, and 18 possible routes around the layout for 4-6 locos. Some of the turnouts are old Atlas #4 and #6, with transition joiners . I also have Peco code 83 turnouts of various sizes. Make multiple templates of each code of turnout, and decide for yourself, which combination to use. Note how he uses a grid to define the shape of the layout Click on photo enlarge it. Then click on Zoom In. I, personally do not like this layout, (which got 3rd prize in the MR 2009 layout contest), for the same reasons that Byron mentioned, in the previous thread To view photos of my layout, click on the photo series,( to the left). The first photos are of previous layout suggestions to other Forum viewers. Bob Hahn
Being new to the forum I am not sure the correct way to reply. All lumped into one or individually, so bear with me until I get used to this.
I did get a reply from MR as to how to go about asking the author a question. I will try to do that also.
I do not plan to copy this layout entirely. The north, south and west sections are what caught my eye. The section in the middle of the room does not work in my case. I would make the upper left section more accessible than what is on the plan. The east wall would have a section of hidden staging behind a false backdrop and through tracks in front of that all at the same level.
I didn’t understand what you were referring to with the TT/RH. Team track and ??
My intent is to have my layout at the same height around the room without the lower staging tracks. There will be a hidden staging track or two. I plan on some switching and also continuous running. I see your point about the switching concerns at the Bly location. I believe I would not have multiple businesses at that spur or at others. I worked in a food plant and unloaded bulk sugar cars and corn syrup cars. Those will be the two main customers on my layout. One would be in place of the roundhouse and the other at some other area.
As you can see, they eat up a lot of space. If your operating plan doesn’t call for turning or servicing locomotives here, it might be a better use of space to eliminate it in favor of more switching spots - maybe a single large industry - or more yard body tracks. Unless you really want to model a service area, of course.
Good call on cleaning up the east-side for access.
Yes I am using code 83 flextrack. Things are still in the planning stage but I do have some Peco and Walthers turnouts as well. Some #5 and some #6. Somewhere I would like to incorporate a diamond crossing if possible. You have quite a spread there. 110 turnouts!!
My room is 9-6 x 18-6 and this plan is very close to that. There will be a hinged access at the lower right of the plan. No duckunders for me. Too tall.
My deepest benchwork would be 24" along the west wall. 20" on the north and 16" on the east so my layout will not be following this plan exactly.
Your mention of the grid makes me think a good way to lay the plan out would be to draw the grid right on top of the plywood and see how it all fits. I guess that’s what I am supposed to do anyway! And a trip to the copy machine would be a help as well with turnout locations.
This will be a slow process and subject to change. So far I have seen a lot of good ideas here on the forum. I did try a few ideas of my own from scratch but they always ended up being pretty lineal. The slight curves in this plan also caught my eye. We’ll see what happens.
