layout design for critique, opinions wanted.

Model Railroader Layouts and layout building
1

I am planning on building a HO scale layout in my basement and am wondering if I am making the best use of the space available. Previously I have built a couple of layouts on bookshelves. The space is 10’ by 12’ with access on all sides. There are no walls or obstructions. I am basing it on the Lackawanna & Wyoming Valley Railway circa 1954. It was also known as the “Laurel Line”. It ran from Scranton to Wilkes Barre in northeastern Pennsylvania. This was a 20 mile long interurban that handled both passengers and freight. In 1952 passenger service ended and in 1953 it switched off the electric lines and started running the daily freight job with a diesel rented from the Lackawanna. The Scranton yard was right next to the Lackawanna’s yard and was connected to it. Originally they rented a GE 44 tonner but later changed to an EMD SW-1. A rough route map is below.

The layout I have come up with is intended for 1 or 2 person operation. At first glance it looks like a continous run but it is actually a point to point design. The red track is the Lehigh Valley RR which interchanges with the L&WV at Wilkes Barre. The yellow line is the interchange track. It’s tough to see but there is a blue line that represents the backdrop that curves at the corners but due to my inexperience with the program I used it came out with sharp corners. Most of the industries are at Wilkes Barre, so I started with that and worked backwards. Scranton will be represented by staging. I still am researching industries to add between them. The run around siding near the bottom of the plan is based on actual trackage to serve an important coal mine truck dump.

I am not entirely happy with the LV line as I wanted that to have more to do. Minimum radius on the line is 22" on the main line. All switched are #4.

2

4 foot tables are really big to reach across. Can you walk around both sides of the tables? You seem to have at least 10 x 12 ft. Have you considered a double decked layout?

3

Does that mean that you have a 10x12 foot space in the middle of the floor of a bigger room, so you have ample aisles (say 30+" wide) all around the 10x12 foot area ?

If so, then why design your layout with sharp curves, small turnouts and narrow aisles ?

Quick sketch of one possible way to use a 10x12 space for a longish main run with reasonable (>26" radius) curves in a 10x12 foot area you can walk all around:

I am sure there are many other possible ways to put a reasonable main run into a space that size. But try to stay away from turnback loops on 4 foot wide tables if you don’t have to go there.

Smile,
Stein

4

Thank you for your reply.

5
6

Your area is 12 foot one way, 10 foot the other way.

12 foot = 4.5 foot + 3 foot + 4.5 foot. Or 56" + 32" + 56". Or some other combination that add up to 12 feet.

10 foot = 4 + 2 + 4 foot - minimum aisle width, sharp curves. Sharp curves you can live with for small engines and short rolling stock. A 24" aisle is pretty narrow, especially if you get more than one operator.

If you turn your design 90 degrees it give you a lot more aisle space

Smile,
Stein

7

Personally, I think for what you want to do, and the equipment you want to run, it is a really good design. I think that one area (I think it is what you are refering to as LV) needs some more going on. I’m sure you can fill it in with some more industry or something. I just think it would look too open compared to the rest of the line. And I wouldn’t turn it the other way, cause that would make the sidings too short.

8

Hi Maurice,

I’ve a lot of why questions. All of them put together may give the impression I am putting you down; not my intention. Just to understand your goals and your way to achieve that goals.

Why did you choose for an island type layout? (See the space first…)

Why did you provide us with this schematic of your interurban? Very pretty and informative but I do not see much back in your plan.

The first questions always are about era, locale and kind of railroad. I assume you have chosen the 60’s? All poles, all double track removed and no passenger cars running for over a decade? Setting the era is difficult, because railroads were buying 50 , 60 and even 70 feet freight cars in those days, with higher axel loads and larger radii standards then these small interurban systems could provide. How did the L&WV cope with that situation?

Scranton is supposed to be on staging: I do not see a staging yard.

BTW: 1) for curved lines: tools / draw / arc / (radius, width, angle) and 2) choose a lighter shade of green

My feeling is that you could stay closer to the prototype trackplan of Wilkes Barre. And stay focused on L&WV, the interchange with the LV is pretty plain on your schematic. Though moving up the LV interchange to the very end of the line is a good option.

I do agree with the radii you have chosen, most interurbans had tight radii. Did yours on the piece of right of way you are modelling?

I would like to see a drawing of your room and a more detailed drawing of the tracks in Wilkes Barre and the junction with the Lehigh Valley. To understand a schematic or a trackplan it is very helpful if major roads and important buildings are drawn in as well.

Paul

9

Yes, the original poster should ignore any potensial issues with a narrowish aisle, put in some more “industry or something”, and imagine that space for up to 5-6 foot long straight sidings would be way too short for an interurban. Because we clearly are going to be lugging around a lot of 10+ car cuts for a given industry using a 44-tonner or an SW1 on a H0 scale model railroad.

I am not saying that this is a horrible design. And I don’t have a problem with 22" radius curves on an interurban. But “really good” seems a stretch. This is most likely an early design, not a finished product.

It sounds like it is intended to model part of the Lackawanna & Wyoming around Wilkes-Barre in 1954. One of the things the OP tries to model is interchange with the Lehigh Valley RR at Wilkes-Barre. Which probably makes the tracks along the top of the plan be a representation of Wilkes-Barre.

I assume that the two yards (with very short tracks) in a V-shape on the inside of the upper island maybe is supposed to be Scranton staging. Or maybe staging is not shown at all in the plan - it is mentioned (“Scranton will be represented by staging”).

If they are staging, then just make a diamond ladder double ended yard that curves around a corner - staging tracks does not need to be straight - no switching in a staging track - it is pure storage. And if so - no need to have one yard for one RR and another for th

10

Btw - had a look around for more information on Lackawanna and Wyoming Valley in Wilkes-Barre and it’s route towards Scranton. There is some information at the NE railfan web site:

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/laurel_line.html

Some subpages:

System map in area: http://www.northeast.railfan.net/wbmap.gif

Wilkes-Barre Terminal: http://www.northeast.railfan.net/wbh_term.jpg

Plains section: http://www.northeast.railfan.net/lwv2.gif

Pittston-Avoca area (probably the most modelable area): http://www.northeast.railfan.net/lwv3.gif

Scranton area: http://www.northeast.railfan.net/lwv4.gif

Picture of Scranton station area in 1952: http://www.davesrailpix.com/odds/pa/htm/lwv01.htm

LWV freight in 1952: http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/lwv402.jpg

Rocky Glenn (amusement park) RR Station in 1912:

11

First and foremost, I have my big boy pants on, so no offense is taken by any criticism. I really should have put some labels on my track plan. Here is a a better one.

Based on the prototype, it is one or two trains a day. Short trains of 3 or 4 cars without a caboose. Trains start from Scranton staging going clockwise around the layout. The LV interchange would start in staging, go counter-clockwise pushing it’s cars to the interchange. This would only be 2 or 3 cars. The design I used for Wilkes Barre was based on the 1954 trackage. The loop at the passenger terminal was gone. I reduced some of the trackage by eliminating 1 of 2 team tracks. The sidings were short. The team track could barely hold three 40 foot cars. I also eliminated 1 of 3 industries. There were 3 meat distributors at Wilkes Barre, Swift, Wilson and Lehigh Beef. I dropped Lehigh since there are more photos of the Swift and Wilson buildings. By distributors, I mean they received reefers with sides of beef and then cut them down for to be sold by stores. They were in the Wilkes Barre “yard”. Just outside were Thomas Produce and Bravman furniture.

The customer that “papasmurf” is referring to, is I believe, the No. 14 mine truck dump. No. 14 refers to the No. 14 mine that was nearby and where the loads originated. The siding was short, holding 3 twin hoppers on the run-around going by photos. Unfortunately, my scanner is out of service so I can’t post any pics. 3 MTs were spotted on the stub end and as they were filled, the brakes were released and the cars rolled into the run around. All the pictures I have seen show the locomotive above the cars. I assume once the loads were pulled, a string of MTs was dropped in, the loco ran around them and pushed them into the stub siding. The railroad had a track scale at Scranton for weighing.

I have the Henwood and Muncie book as well as several others and a ETT.

12

Your basic design is fine except you need a min. 30" work area in the center which you can achieve by making the curve at the inset larger. I don’t see a passing siding. Now for a personal opinion,too many yards and not enough industries if you want to operate, if just for show it is great.

13

[quote user=“Maurice”]

Based on the prototype, it is one or two trains a day. Short trains of 3 or 4 cars without a caboose. Trains start from Scranton staging going clockwise around the layout. The LV interchange would start in staging, go counter-clockwise pushing it’s cars to the interchange. This would only be 2 or 3 cars. The design I used for Wilkes Barre was based on the 1954 trackage. The loop at the passenger terminal was gone. I reduced some of the trackage by eliminating 1 of 2 team tracks. The sidings were short. The team track could barely hold three 40 foot cars. I also eliminated 1 of 3 industries. There were 3 meat distributors at Wilkes Barre, Swift, Wilson and Lehigh Beef. I dropped Lehigh since there are more photos of the Swift and Wilson buildings. By distributors, I mean they received reefers with sides of beef and then cut them down for to be sold by stores. They were in the Wilkes Barre “yard”. Just outside were Thomas Produce and Bravman furniture.

The customer that “papasmurf” is referring to, is I believe, the No. 14 mine truck dump. No. 14 refers to the No. 14 mine that was nearby and where the loads originated. The siding was short, holding 3 twin hoppers on the run-around going by photos. Unfortunately, my scanner is out of service so I can’t post any pics. 3 MTs were spotted on the stub end and as they were filled, the brakes were released and the cars rolled into the run around. All the pictures I have seen show the locomotive above the cars. I assume once the loads were pulled, a string of MTs was dropped in, the loco ran around them and pushed them into the stub siding. The railroad had a track scale at Scranton for weighing.

I have the Henwood and Muncie book as well as several others and a ETT. Unfortunately, everything focuses on the passenger operations with the freight tr

14

Is there any way to make the Scranton and LV staging one large double ended staging. That might open up operation possibilities.

15

Typical operating session would start with a Lehigh Valley Switcher taking cars from staging counter-clockwise (South)to the interchange at Wilkes Barre and picking up any cars there to return to staging. LWV train would then start from staging going clockwise to Wilkes Barre, working trailing point spurs on the way down, arriving in WB it would run around the train, work the LV interchange and WB industries then proceed back North, working any industries that were facing point going South. Of course, not every industry will get cars every time. I have used car cards in the past and will here. 2nd train would probably be a couple of reefers which can’t wait for the next day or maybe a special run of MTs for a mine. I have never had a layout this large before so I am only guessing at OPS session of 30 to 45 minutes.

As to “Papasmurf”'s post, I wish I could find the article he mentions in RMC, but I don’t have that year and don’t see anything in the index. I will keep looking.

There were a couple other mines served as well as a few other industries, but photos are rare.

16

Mmm - what is your main design goal - maximizing switching operations, building scenery or buildings so the places are recognizable or maximizing the run length for an SW-1 trundling through the the landscape pulling two or three cars ?

Also - why is your staging yard set up the way it is?

To me, it looks like the “staging” yard actually is set up for a somewhat convoluted town with switching and sorting, not as a couple of hidden tracks to represent “the train disappeared into that tunnel/around that cuve/behind those threes - heading down the line towards Scranton” or “the train from Scranton came from behind that curve osv”.

For your present use, staging could have been represented as three short single ended tracks, possibly hidden behind something.

One for the LV train that will push a couple of cars out from staging, around the curve and into the interchange track in Wilkes-Barre (possibly first picking up the outbound cars on the interchange track). Then the LV train will take the outbound from LWV cars from the interchange track and head back around the curve into it’s staging track.

For the LWV, you need a track that can hold the switcher and three cars for the first run. And a second track that can hold two or three cars extra for the second run. Say as one double ended and one single ended siding.

Anyways - how to model things sensible of course depends on which aspects of the real LVW (and LV) you are trying to focus on for your layout.

Smile,
Stein

17

I would agree, but it can be personal preference, since you anticipate single operator running most of the time. If you don’t have existing benchwork, maybe try an experiment. Take a dinner table and a couch, or two couches, or anything high enough and long enough to simulate the benchwork. Place the two items 24" apart. Then go between them and simulate the movements you would make when operating, working on, and maintaining the layout. Do you feel restricted or comfortable? I did that and found a 24" aisle drove me nuts if I had to spend much time there, other than just passing through.

YMMV, of course.

18

Maurice,

I do not like your design for various reasons.

  1. Your main line is just following the edge of the table. Due to either a wrong choice of your radii or a wrong choice of your footprint. If you still have to start with your benchwork you can better begin a redesign now. As stated earlier, this will have to start with a drawing of your space(room)

2)All tracks are parallel to the edge of the table; this doesn’t help your layout looking good.

3)Way to many staging tracks, so many different options for staging are not explored. (a drawing of your space is needed again)

4)No idea’s (ok, just one) for filling the space between the two terminals.

5)Almost no operating possibilities; did you chose the right prototype?

6)You could do so much more to transform the trackplan from the prototype into your layout.

7)A narrow aisle; other options require a drawing of your space again.

Next time it would be nice, if you come up with a schematic, to inform us that the loops and double track were allready gone. More items in the schematic did not match with the plans Stein or you provided.

You seem to ignore a lot of the questions asked. To tell the truth: Stein’s contribution to this thread is making my motor run; it should be yours. My feeling is that a lot of design decisions were not consistent. If I do not understand your goals, your givens and druthers, how can I help you?

Your original posting ended like this:

I am not entirely happy with the LV line as I wanted that to have more to do. Minimum radius on the line is 22" on the main line. All switched are #4. Did I forget anything? Questions?

What did you mean by: I wanted to have more to do

19

I assume he meant something like maybe wanting to do more switching on the LV (Lehigh Valley RR), in addition to the interchange track with the LWV (Lackawanna and Wyoming Valley) at Wilkes-Barre.

For possible prototype inspiration, here are some more pictures of scenes from Wilkes-Barre, involving various other RRs in and around Wilkes-Barre:

http://www.northeast.railfan.net/local_scene.html

(Edit: fixed link by removing trailing space in URL)

Quite a few scenes there that look like they could be fun to model - like the mid-1960s pictures of the area around (east ?) Market Street in Wilkes-Barre - with the LV and PRR freight terminals - interesting buildings and track layouts for a model railroad:

LV freight house terminal 1967: http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/lv_freight2.jpg

LV Whitting Crane 1967: http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/lv_freight3.jpg

PRR & LV freight terminals 1967: http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/lv_prr1967.jpg

DH Freight terminal 1967:

20

Paulus Jas-> Sorry if I didn’t specifically answer your first post before, though I did answer some of the same questions in other replies. Here are answers to each of your questions. My replies start with a double asterisk (**).
Paulus Jas wrote:
Hi Maurice,

I’ve a lot of why questions. All of them put together may give the impression I am putting you down; not my intention. Just to understand your goals and your way to achieve that goals.

Why did you choose for an island type layout? (See the space first…)

**It’s an open area in the middle of the basement, no walls or support columns in the way. To put other types of layouts in wouldn’t I need walls to attach to?

Why did you provide us with this schematic of your interurban? Very pretty and informative but I do not see much back in your plan.

**To provide some background, show the sidings. and provide a feel for the line. I have not found any drawings for the 1954 track layout. Steinjr kindly posted a nice link for a track plan for the WB yard.
It, unfortunately, is from 1930 and does not show the industries located in the yard. I should note that the drawing is from the Henwood and Muncie book.

The first questions always are about era, locale and kind of railroad. I assume you have chosen the 60’s?

**I specifically said in my first post that I am basing it on 1954.

All poles, all double track removed and no passenger cars running for over a decade? Setting the era is difficult, because railroads were buying 50 , 60 and even 70 feet freight cars in those days, with higher axel loads and larger radii standards then these small interurban systems could provide.
How did the L&WV cope with that situation?
**Again, 1954, the industries on line weren’t seeing larger cars.

Scranton is supposed to be on staging: I do not see a staging yard.
** As I have said, I should have labelled the original plan better. Staging is the run-around with two stub yards. One fo