Check out lance’s website http://www.lancemindheim.com/index.htm
Andrew,I perfer switching layouts over any other type so,I will share my views.
1.Avoid any “switching puzzle” design as it will turn into a time waster.
2.Use your available space wisely by using 1/2 a building and building flats along the backdrop with smaller full buildings in the foreground…
3.Less is better.Keep it simple by having one industry per industrial track.You can have more then one car spot per industry.
Like this:
4.For longer operation give your brakemen time to release the hand brake,unlock the switch,unlock the derail etc.Use slow switching speed.
5.Avoid having industries on a switchback that involves moving cars from another industry…Use a crossing instead.
6.A runaround track should hold at least 3 cars…The “tail” tracks between the end of the board and the first switch sold be able to hold a engine and 2 cars with a 1/2 car to spare-this is for looks and safety more then anything.
Comments…The lessons learn from each ISL I built only help to improve the next one.I learn first hand that any ISL that is more aggravation to switch then it was fun is caused by poor planing, to much track and insufficient run around track.
And in closing I can not stress it enough to keep thi
See if you can get a hold of ian Rice’s book Track Plans for Small Spaces. I think it is out of print, but if you see it, get it.
sfb
Clearly, this is a personal preference … and one which I fully subscribe. I hate puzzles which, intentionally or unintentionally, make things unnecessarily complicated, time consuming, and frustrating. It is particularly so when realizing real railroads don’t lay tracks for the purpose of making the job of train crews difficult and slowing service to customers. The straight-forward and ordinary are more realistic and offer plenty of operating interest on a layout.
Btw, since we were discussing ideas for a small switching layout. Today I got Lance Mindheim’s newish book “How to Design a Small Switching Layout” (Plus a couple of Pelle Søborg books on landscaping and detailing/weathering) in my mailbox.
Lance does something interesting - instead of just pouring it on with examples of switching layouts, he discusses the planning principles he is applying when designing a small switching layout.
He talks about strategic planning - figuring out how much space you can spend and the layout footprint, what scale you want to model in and then what you want to model in that space. Observe that he does not start with what he wants to model, but instead starts with the benchwork.
Both approaches work, of course. But if you start with the benchwork, you need to be even harder when selecting what to include and what to drop.
He is also, as anyone who has seen any of his layouts can attest to, a fan of not adding too much track to a scene, and allowing plenty of room for scene breaks.
He talks about allocating as much as 1/3rd of the layout surface for scenery break rather than for tracks and rail served industries. A pretty tough act if doing a 7-foot layout in H0 scale, of course.
And he takes a swing at the fairly common practice of having a runaround between two of the yard tracks - instead he advocates (for small switching layouts) to have the runaround where you have your industry spurs, before you come to the single ended yard tracks.
Which is pretty much analogous to the principle Byron Henderson advocated e.g. in his Alameda switching layout - placing a runaround centrally, so the tracks that form the runaround is multiple-use tracks - part of the yard lead, part of industry leads, part of a runaround.
Lance Mindheim also talks about placing the mainline through the scene in various ways and advantages or disadvantages of the various approaches an
I have got Lance’s books some month ago. They did highly influence me. I was not brave enough to set aside one third for scenery but I do highly recommend reading of the books for small layout design.
ps. Escaping tomorrow for a week to the sunny canary islands[:)]
I’ve been looking at this one myself. We’re planning on building some test-track modules to try out engines before chipping them for DCC, and also want a switching puzzle module to go with. This one is very tempting. Also, for small switching layouts, consider going foreign steam period. Lots of German 32’ box cars, and 22’ British ones. Those really make your space go a lot further. And I’ll second the suggestion for anything Iain Rice has published for inspiration.](http://users.rcn.com/weyand/tractronics/switching_layout/switching_layout.htm)
A switching puzzle is fine as long as it is enjoyed for what it is, a puzzle. It may be novel at first. Maybe for a couple of days or weeks but it will get old fast. I prefer switching that is spaced out over a larger area that operates more realistically. Off scene staging really helps to add long term interest as well. This doesn’t have to be anything long or even permanent. Look into the idea of a removal casette. Perhaps a dockside switching layout where a rail barge can be a visual staging casette could also be another good option. Add interest by keeping things flowing logically but also keep the ability to add interest and variety rather than moving the same few cars back and forth all day.
Lance Mindheim did an example layout in his book (the one I mentioned earlier in the thread). It is a plain little plan, but with a lot of potensial operations. Looks roughly like this (from memory - I feel to lazy to go find the book):
In that plan you have plenty of space, and yet you have:
-
a connection to the rest of the world - inbound new cars will appear in the yard or on the interchange track, “having just been dropped off during the night shift”.
-
It has yard sorting. And routing if you want to - at the end of your switching job, you will sort the outbound cars - and put some on the interchange track (for the other RR to pick up) and some in your own industry yard, for another train from your railroad to “pick up during the night shift”.
-
It has a varied mix of industries - three backdrop industries, two aisle side industries. These industries can be anything - and what they are can change from day to day.
-
Industry can have several car spots - say an industry is a soft drink bottling plant - inbound car
Hi All,
Hope you have all been well and done loads of modelling. I have been looking over all these good ideas and looking at various website and have come up with a slightly differnet idea now. I realised that the framing on my baseboards was overly deep and cut them in half therefore doubling the amount of board area I could use. And after playing with different designs and different scales I have come up with this in N.
It is based loosely on a offline terminal in New York (Fulton Terminal), so freight cars can arrive and depart via car floats, also I can have a hidden staging area off to the left or right so that cars can be dispatched to warehouse further down the dock. Thinking era wise 60’s early 70’s.
What are peoples thoughts? I’m hoping that I’ve left enough room between tracks ect, but I think there is enough room for adjusting anyway.
Ponti, the four-tracked pier serves no legitimate purpose. The pier is inaccessible to ships because both sides need to be clear for access to the float bridges. Also, a float bridge should not be used for a switchback tail. I would eliminate the left-hand float and reduce the tracks to the pier down to one or two at most, leaving room for a warehouse atop the pier. Also, you need a small yard at the bottom right to serve the wharf and industries.
Mark
Hi,
Mark was ahead of me. We had the same idea’s.
Drawn with RTS, Yard turnouts are #7, the tracks leading to the pier have #5’s.
The cassette is needed to have a long enough tail.
Paul
Thanks for your replies chaps. Here is a picture of the terminal that I based my idea on, as you can see the centre pier was basically a storage yard for the cars after unloading from the float car.
The left float bridge only acts as a switch lead to the engine shed.
The plan would allow me when I move home to extend the layout along the dock front and put in a small yard and leads to other piers and warehouses.
Well whatdoyouknow? Using a pier for a yard is something unusual. Must have been special circumstances.
Mark
Finger pier storage was done by both the New York Dock and the Brooklyn Eastern Terminal District in Brooklyn (BEDT). Cuts of cars are taken off the float and put on the pier. Or cuts of cars are made up for loading onto the float and stored on the pier. Land was expensive and could used for warehouses and/or businesses - piers on the other hand would be using space already leased from New York City.
I’m going to be modeling a Brooklyn waterfront terminal - a freelance one - it will have a 5-track finger pier like the BEDT used and it will be next to the carfloat - just like the BEDT.
Gil
Well, it seems reasonably prototypical for the Fulton terminal. Here is a link to more prototype pictures of the Fulton terminal (I am sure the OP has seen them, but for others who have not seen them yet): http://members.trainweb.com/bedt/indloco/nyd.html#Fulton
But the question is whether it will be interesting to switch. Basically, you have two identical car floats, and five storage tracks (four on the central pier and one on the right hand pier). So most of your operations will be the repeated unloading and loading of car floats.
Which are interesting in it’s own right, of course - but does having two carfloat aprons and five storage tracks e.g. make it more interesting than having one car float apron and three storage tracks, plus e.g. adding a rail track to serve the low relief pier warehouse on the left of your peninsula on your drawing)?
The switchback to the three track engine house off the leftmost car float track is interesting, but will you have room to model the actual engine house?
I guess it depends on what your main design goal is - to give the flavor of New York car float operations, or
That is a great article with tons of photos, and the layout is an interesting looking one to switch. Also for this project you should get if you don’t already have Kalmbach’s ‘Building City Scenery for you model railroad’ by John Pryke there is so much in there that will apply. And one of the chapters is on his Union Freight module – it’s from Boston, but shows this type of street running and how to model, and it’s a very interesting switcher. That chapter is condensed from a 3 part article on the UFRR that ran in Model Railroader Sept, Oct. & Nov. '00. You may want to have a look at those too. Cheers, Mo
Hi Ponti,
Steinjr remembered one of the nicest sources of NY pics.
There is a huge difference between the situation until the 60’s and the period from the 70’s till now. When the row of warehouses was demolished the yard was straightened out and traffic patterns changed.
You picked the trackplan from the 70’s but kept the row of warehouses in. Looking at the older plans, these were served from the left,(by right-hand crossovers). The crossover at the very right of your layout also was a right-hand crossover in reality.
When you want to switch the warehouses at the bottom from the right, the 8 inch long tail is all the length you have; just one car and an engine, way to short. And the second crossover faces the wrong way.
But when you serve the warehouses from the left you will need a passing-siding; There actually was one a few yards further to the left, just off the modelled part of your layout. As can be seen on the older pics, the track that ends now just before the engine-house tracks, was connected to the left as well; so all warehouses could be served from the leftside.
The extra space on the pier made me misinterpret the situation. Maybe a part of pier 12 can be added into the design, perhaps at the prize of the second ferry apron. In one of the older pics the engine house tracks were diverting from the last yard track (not from the ferry lead). And though not prototypical, a track running into the pier warehouse would be nice.
If I understood your original posting well you have space at the left side to add a cassette or staging. This is IMHO the place for the so much needed passing siding.
How big is your layout?
Have fun
Paul
I think that this Marklin layout is really terrific. I have rounded off the corners and added a few ideas of my own. Click on the photo to enlarge it. Then, click on “zoom in” Bob Hahn 
One architectural element I delight from San Francisco’s piers is where a railroad spur cuts through the corner of a pier’s warehouse. The access track parallels the street on the shoreline side and the spur makes a sharp turn for the pier. There is a door on the left-front corner of the building as well as one on the left side, the track passing through the building a short distance so as to quickly parallel the pier and its warehouse.
Mark