Hi,
This layout from Linn Westcott’s 101 track plans: Plan #76 page 46 is the 2nd runner up so far for
me. Anyone who has this book (It sounded like Chip/Space Mouse does from a previous thread?), would
you be willing to comment on the operational potential for this layout (in an 8’X16’ room) keeping one
interested indefinately? I’d likely add a yard and roundhouse along the left, inside the operator’s pit rather
than as a panhandle though if I choose this plan.
I’d like to see if 30"-32" radii would be possible in my 8X16’ space. It’s a 7’ width plan but I’d have eight available. Chip has pointed out to me that these older plans even though drawn to scale, often don’t coincide with present day turnout dimensions. I’d be using mostly Atlas Code 83 #6 Mark IVs if that helps.
Thanks very much for any and all help! If anyone’s actually built this layout and has pics, that would
be frosting on the cake.
Again you have a layout that is old school. If you look there are many places where there are 4-5 tracks in the space of a foot. the question I would ask: where do the buildings and scenery go if it is all track.
Modern thought is much simpler. One track through one scene. You don’t increase variety by providing more places for the same train to go–I mean how much different does it look if it is 3" from where it just was going the same direction. The thought now is to create a more beautiful scene and to increase variety with staging and running different trains through your beautiful scenery.
You get even more variety if you add operations, and operations are increased 10-fold with staging.
Hi Chip,
Thanks again for your feedback. I’m still a little confused though as to how I’m going to get enough operating interest long term from my small space and 2’ bench tops without putting three tracks in the space of one foot or so.
Can you please point me to
similar ideas that fit the modern criteria a bit more? I wish I was more computer/CAD savvy but my problem is not knowing what I’m looking for/needing, totally that designing something myself would cause
worse problems. By the way I’m 56 so I guess growing up with old school, it’s looked ok to me …
Are there any scale book plans available that are more modern and commonly available? Why isn’t Kalmbach producing them, or are they?
The round robin operating sessions I’ve been attending all are on layouts that have staging and yards but also a number of stub tracks and industrial sidings along the way. How do I get enough operations in on the actual layout in 8’X16’ around the room or doughnut style to keep “the other guys” busy and contented?
Is the yard shown on the Wescott plan adequate and interesting?
Thanks again Chip! I’m off to re-read your staging link.
I’m back from reading your link. Isn’t it a bit boring to only have operating action off stage though? If one starts out with limited numbers of locos and rolling stock, the variety of trains rolling through the scenery is kind of limited isn’t it? Am I missing something? I was thinking that even though industries on Westcotts layout are fairly close to each other that cutting out cars to sidings and using small switchers would provide enough reality, but I guess not.
I’d add another foot to the benchwork on each side (2’ to 30") to
They’re tough to translate into the real world, sometimes requiring custom T/Os and, even then, don’t necessarily actually fit the space they claim to fit
The Old School to which you refer means a lot of them are Bowl of Spaghetti-type designs, which are no longer generally in use because they were good for running trains in circles, but not great for operating them. I’d suggest that this kind of track plan is LESS likely to keep people interested over the long term.
8x16 should be just fine for building a layout (using current layout design concepts) that will hold your attention over the long term, provided it is designed well. Get hold of a copy of John Armstrong’s book, Track Planning for Realistic Operation–it will show you what needs to be done, and JA didn’t ever use a computer, as far as I know, when he worked out his great track plans.
Definitely get a copy of Track Planning for Realistic Operation…I think it is one of the best books out there. The yard I have designed for my layout was taken directly out of his book and then modified slightly to accomodate certain requirements that I had.
Hi guys. Thanks. I have the book but I’m having a bit of trouble putting all of its separate elements into a track plan and being sure I’m doing it right. It did teach me a LOT though and I agree it’s essential.
How did Westcott and Armstrong get to be the “deans” of MR planning when their plans were not easily put into place in the “real world”. I grew up with those guys and assumed
I could trust them for a “cook book” recipe for success. I guess not.
Are there plan books out there that are modern in concept and CAN be trusted to use
current switch dimensions, etc. ?
I think the problem you are having, at least from my point of view outside looking in, is that you kinda sorta know what you want, but really haven’t defined it. Instead, you are looking for what others have done and try to adapt your ideas to their vision. It doesn’t work out.
You have an 8 x 16 space. You want continuous running and you want interesting operations. That’s a start, but it is not enough. Try making a list of your givens and druthers. A given is that which you cannot change. 8 x 16 is a given. A water heater is a given. A druther is something you can change, even if it is important. Contiguous running is a druther, not a given–unless your wife says so. This is an important distinction. Because all druthers are negotiable.
You will never get everything you want into the space you have–but you can get close. You start assuming you will get most of your druthers in your space, then you prioritize.
That’s why it is tough to adapt someone else’s plans. They prioritized based upon what was important to them,not you.
So your charge is to list your givens and druthers. Don’t worry about prioritizing.
(Look at page 73 in the current MR That could be adapted to your space. Continuous running massive yard, 15-20 places to switch cars and a lot of staging–all in a 9 x 11)
Armstrong’s plans always work in the real world. He actually ran a business of designing custom layout plans, so they had to work or he’d be out of a job.
John Armstrong was designing custom track plans for clients up until his death in 2004. His track plans were published in magazines up into the early 2000s. The technology was certain available during that time, and I suspect his clients likely demanded it be incorporated into their layouts, too.
I have to admit, I haven’t seen many of his designs outside of the Klambach books. His later designs may have been better than his old ones for all I know.
Cap’n, I too am working with an 8’x16’ (actually 7’4x15’4) space.
Some thoughts: you can have a fairly long point to point layout on 2 levels by using a helix and having a 2 level with 2’ wide bench work.
Or in my case, a 2 level oval layout with a branch/sea port and staging on the lower level, an agricultural town and a small industrial town with a major yard on the upper level all walk in (I’m getting too old to deal with duck unders and I don’t want to deal with gates/ liftouts) and I’m doing it with 22" minimum radius and 2 helixes (how the heck do you spell the plural of helix?). This kind of limits me to small equipment and short trains, but then I’m interested in pre 1920.
So you can do a lot in your space depending on what you want and what you are willing to compromise on.
OK, I have to jump in on this. First, I agree that 101 Track Plans is really old and there is not very much in it for todays modeler. (I have an original printing.) Second, with an 8x16 space (I assume room) you should be able to put up a shelf type layout. The norm is generally 2 ft wide so you can reach everything, but you could go down to 18 inches as I have done in some places, and all around the room on the walls for maximum running.
Now, one idea that I propose to people who are having trouble with developing a track plan is - take existing small switching module plans, and select / build two or three different ones that you like (modify the plans as necessary), and then space them around the room on your benckwork and connect them together with a single or double track main line. There is only one plan in the 101 book worth considering, IMO, and that is the one I keep coming back to, plan no.8, Port Ogden & Northern.
I have looked at that plan several times as a basis for a donut shape for my 7.3 x 10ft space. It achieves a twice-around at the expense of a fair amount of crowding. You have to decide whether the crowding is worth the extra run. A good example of a less crowded once-around plan in a similar space is the Heart of Georgia, seen at http://www.hogrr.com/. The HOG uses Atlas turnouts and has been built more than once, so you aren’t contending with cutting, trimming, and altering turnouts to fit.
101 Track Plans and the early Armstrong plans were hand-drawn, probably using NMRA-template turnouts - often #4s. (That is assuming the designer even allowed that much length for the turnout.) Atlas Custom-Line #4 turnouts are really #4.5, and have extra length built-in, so take more than the planned space. Walters/Shinohara #4 turnouts are lengthened beyond NMRA Recommended Practice to increase the closure rail radius. Almost all commercial turnouts have extra length beyond the points and frogs, which was not accounted for in layout plans drawn in the 1950s. Again, that’s assuming there was no “cheating” in the drawing practice - curves were truly tangent to the straight at their origin point, etc. To make a 1950s plan drawn for minimum space work will require adjustments and trimming/alteration of commercial turnouts. To see just how bad the situation is, you have to redraw the same plan using one of the computer software packages - the software doesn’t allow for modified commercial turnouts (unless you make a custom library) or “kinks” where track joins.
Another frequent problem with hand-drawn track plans is that clearances do not always get checked. I have studied several Armstrong plans in 1950s issues of Model Railroader that could not possibly be built as drawn due to vertical clea
Mr. Hotspur, thanks! I figured someone could help me talk about more than one helix [D)]---- now maybe I can get out of the corner and go back to my seat.[:I]
I just saw the plan for the Hogg RR in another post and I think it is the way to go for someone looking for a first layout, or getting back into the hobby after several years. As was mentioned, it takes up the same space as a 4x8 would, only you operate it from inside rather than outside. Remember, on a 4x8, you have to leave room to be able to walk around it.
The bench work is already designed out and there is plenty of room for industries and switching, plus scenery opportunities, and continuous running. It is not dependant on being fastened to a wall, but is free standing.
It is a good basic track plan. Since you have an 8x16 foot space, you could space the towns out more (where the passing tracks are) and possibly add a third town or drop in a switching module as the third town.
I addition to what the others said, make sure you write your givens & druthers down and list them in order of importance. It’s one thing to keep them in your head, it’s another to have them on paper (or in the doc file). This will serve as a physical reminder of what’s important when your brain gets off into the weeds.
You should also define what “operations potential” means to you (or maybe I missed it in another thread). For me, this means enough switching and running to keep me and my kids (ages 4,5, and 11) entertained for a couple of hours.
Here’s a condensed version of my G&Ds, if it helps:
Givens
I have a 10x18 space I can use, with some restrictions.
This space will support only 1-3 operators, which will be primarily me and my family.
Druthers
I want to model mid-Michigan.
I want to model a small town with agriculture and manufacturing industries.
I want to have a scenic area with a farm, river, and bridge.
I want freight and passenger trains.
I want a yard with a live interchange
I want engine servicing facilities
I want an option to run trains continuously.
Everything else developed from there, based on reading books, forums, and studying the prototype. There were several detours and scope changes along the way, most notably going from the 1920s to the 1970s, but the core things listed above didn’t really change. It really helped getting my head together on the “vision” as spacemouse calls it.
Also note that it took me a full year of navel gazing and fiddling before I came up with the plan I posted, so don’t get too frustrated with the pace. Take your time!
Hi O’Dave, I’ve got my givens and druthers worked out.
A couple are up in the air until I get my contractor in the house for some other jobs, to look at options for my train room’s dividing wall. (Tunnels or
cutting a window type cut out, etc.) Givens…small room. Door openings
inconveniently located. Will have to “deal” with a dividing wall. Tunnels or window cut out.
Druthers: l. Steam era 1930s-'40s
2. Large radius curves (minimum of 24") to run big locos. (Going to try for
30-32")for the mainline.
3. coal or lumber based industries/R.R.
U.P./S.P. if large locos can be used. Pennsy or Pacific N.W. if not.
Grew up near the Pennsy but live near Pacific N.W. prototype scenery.
Enough switching on the layout to keep two to three operators busy
for a couple of hrs. (including a yard or staging area).
One climb around grade w/o a helix with a possible crossover.
Want an urban area. Will use them to hide tunnel entrances or the end of a loco service area.
Some passenger service (short trains or combine).
Some mountain scenery if a runaround grade can be used. Creek and
river cut outs below flat track if oval/flat table is used instead. Perhaps a log dump pond or open pit mine to go below flat oval. Bridges
(several), definitely.
Some continuous run is wanted.
Chip, I got a copy of the June MR and that layout you recommended is
definitely in the running. I’d have to reduce the trackage on the right side a bit to go through the door jamb area but it’s something to consider. Thanks!
Gandy Dancer and fwright thanks for your very detailed and concise info. and feedback.
I’m getting a little closer to figuring it all out…