Mindheim Fan's Track Plan

Model Railroader Layouts and layout building
1

As a Lance Mindheim enthusiast, I decided I wanted to try and build a layout like his. While I do not have the money, space or experience just yet, I want to use this plan to work toward as my first large layout. The plan I came up with is based on CSX’s Clearwater Subdivision. Sections of the prototype have been configured into my liking, while keeping many of the measurements prototypical. I hand draw a lot of ideas for plans I have, as CAD software takes all of the fun out of it for me. I will be adding more details to the plan as I spend more time view some prototype locations on google maps. I hope to have more of my plans up soon. Let me know what you think of this plan. Enjoy!

http://i1301.photobucket.com/albums/ag116/CEJav/EPSON063_zps4aedea8c.jpg

2

Making your link visiable (use the insert image icon)

I personally would not use that much space to run one train, but if it works for you, go for it.

3

I think its fantastic. It allows for some larger scenes that would look closer to scale. I would want a tad more aisle space at the very top.

4

I like this layout idea a lot - simplicity rules!

Here is a plan I drafted up for a friend of mine - truly following Lance´s ideas.

5

Hi all

I like the track plans all very simple easy to build and run

I don’t agree with the all that for one train comment lets face it some trains get very long before that second loco is purchased.

I know mine did, and before you know where you are your 52yo with lots of trains[:D]

Its single line so staff and ticket or train order operations are only going to allow one train on the line at any one time.

That is unless the builder wants bi directional single line working which requires signals and a lot more wiring.

I personally think that some form of joining section in the layout that allows the option of continuous running is a good idea.

That way if its one of those I just want to watch trains and unwind moments you can.

Don’t be too quick to can a continuous run you can have both operations and a continuous run.

A carefully placed scenic feature soon breaks the roundy roundy look.

regards John

6

John,IMHO a loop on a switching layout kills the illusion of a urban industrial branch since these branches usually isn’t usually very long and may even require a reverse move to get back to the main line or yard…Some wonders through the industrial area and rejoins the main line-like (say) a five mile long passing siding with industries.

I would not include a loop if I had the room to build my ideal ISL and by following numerous prototype examples studied on Bing and Google maps it would be devoid of facing point industries.

Of course with my ideal ISL one would need to be committed to the work a day industrial local.

7

Hi Brakie

While the generally accepted notion of a railway is it goes from A to B.

In most cases it does just that.

World wide there are quite a number of industrial freight only lines both Railroad and other industry owned that do go round in a continuous loop.

I was quite surprised to find that one of Hornby’s track plans from the past was actually based on a NCB coal line rather than the usual commercial buy our product efforts.

I have seen plans for US industrial switching lines with a loop based on real places as well, but don’t know if they where RR or other industry owned.

We also have a couple of lines over here in West Aus now sadly disused that where part of the freight and passenger rail network that formed loops

Given the (to me) large size of the presented plans.

One if I have it right is 15’ X14’ I don’t see a loop as a big problem as you can’t see all of the layout at once the other plan is clearly a room sized layout.

Even at small room size you won’t see all the layout at once.

But it would still need a scenic break up of the loop.

Obviously my particular Bias is a point to loop to point layout so both kind of operations can take place with the loop used to rack up the miles between stops if need be.

Or after one of those PITA days can just relax aimlessly watching trains go by while I unbend.

Now I finally have the kind of space I always wanted the shed just needs wiring up for use.

The available MRR space is 6m square 18’X18’ with allowance for good access on three sides I don’t know what to do with all that lovely space, or how best to use it.

Or even which nationality of railroad I am going to build in it.

So getting your dream space can be a very mixed blessing[^o)][*-)].

regards John

8

Easiest thing to do there would be to add a liftout section to provide the continuous run link. Also lets you get in and out of the room without ducking under. In the mood for some train watching, or doing break-in runs? Insert the liftout section. Time for operation? Pull it out. Nothign to hide or disquise that might detract fromt he realism of the operating mode, yet still gives the option to just let them roll.

Not as important on a true ISL, but on a layout simualting a larger portion fo the railroad, having a continuous connection at the ends, hidden or whatever, make restaging a lot easier.

–Randy

9

I agree, more aisle space may be necessary. Also, you captured exactly what had in mind involving the large spaces! Many portions of the layout are drawn exactly to scale, including buildings, spur/siding lengths, and road widths.

-Christian

10

Brakie,

Although I do agree with you that a loop does sort of kill the idea of an industrial corridor/branch line atmosphere, I do somewhat disagree that facing point spurs are not an option. To qualify this I mean that on a single track “main”, facing point industries are not good for operational practice. However, if there is a nearby siding with the opportunity for a run-around, then facing points are a practicality. On my switching layout, I designed in that and other abilities for running around cuts of cars so as to position them for backing into industrial spurs.

11

I agree with you on that. After researching a lot on the movements of CSX O701 on the Clearwater Subdivision (the inspiration for this layout), it appears the train works all of the trailing point spurs all the way to the yard, the runs around his train and works the rest of the industries on the way back that were once facing point spurs.

-Christian

12

That blanket statement is simply not accurate. Many (if not most) tightly packed real-life industrial areas have both facing-point and trailing-point turnouts. And many were served by turns that ran out and back, so every turnout is both facing point and trailing point. How could those branches and switching districts possibly be only trailing point, Larry?

We’re not talking about high-speed mainlines here. I just took a quick look at a half-dozen track/industry maps* I happen to have at hand for layout design projects. These are from east coast, west coast, and the Midwest, and all of them have both facing-point and trailing-point turnouts within industrial areas.

*These are called by various names on different railroads such as SPINS (Southern Pacific Industrial Numbering System), CLIC (Car Location Inventory Control on the Santa Fe) , ZTS (Zone-Track-Spot on Conrail and others), etc.

13


What regional rail lines connect with Pinellas County in 2009? by TPavluvcik, on Flickr

The main reason I am not including a continuous run is because the prototype does not have one. The line I am modeling is not an enormous one really. The blue line in this map is the where I pulled much of my inspiration from, and as you can see it dead ends in the bottom of Pinellas County. It used to be a mainline under SCL ownership, but is now a one or two train industrial line.

-Christian

14

I am confused – the layout you posted has multiple runarounds. And you said

15

I am sorry, I meant continuous run instead of run around. There are no other areas the railroad connects to, so I prefer to have a dead end like the prototype instead of having the track extend off the layout to a continuous run

-Christian

16

I don’t think we even on the same page here.

I spent hundreds of hours researching urban industrial branch lines on Bing and Google maps in various cities and that seem to be the norm for modern urban branch lines-why else would railroads keep cabooses for long reverse moves?

The majority of these branch lines was stub end and a reverse move had to be made to return to the main. The few that did have a facing point industries apparently two engines was used (one on each end of the local) since there was no runarounds.

Its a interesting study and one that should be consider by students of modern ISLs.

17

I agree. While I was researching urban industrial branch lines in the Chicago area I found three such loops but,each one ended back on the main line maybe(pure guessing here) a mile or two from where the train enter the industrial loop. One loop appeared to be disconnected but,I couldn’t really tell.

My plans is to use 14" high scenic dividers with industrial background photos to divide the layout into sections.

So getting your dream space can be a very mixed blessing.

I have no doubts about that…

When I got the green light from my wife to build a bedroom size point to point branch line layout I was in shock. The layout was a “U” shape around 3 walls.That’s the only Godzilla(Gorgo perhaps?) size layout I ever built.[sigh]

18

Some thoughts…

Many modern short/branch lines do not have a lot of runarounds. They simply switch facing point spurs by taking the car up the route, beyond the switch, to the nearest runaround, turn the train, and switch the industry on the way back when that facing point spur is now a trailing spur. They may take the entire train to the end of the line before running around it.

Not that you have done this,but sometimes layout plans will have a runaround at every facing switch. Operations consists of the train moving up the line in short chunks, stopping to runaround the train every few feet at every facing switch it encounters. Kind of boring IMO. What someone could do with a layout of your size is to be even more minimalist, and have only one runaround on the entire layout…at the very end of the line. That would tend to force longer train runs movements by having to perform the maneuver I spoke of above.

Theoretically, you could have a facing spur only several feet out of staging and tote that car all the way around the layout before finally switching out the facing spur (now a trailing spur) just before depositing the new train into staging. That’s a maneuver I don’t think gets designed into plans very much.

As far as continuous running, the dead end of the line could just end at the removable section…taking rrinkers continuous run idea. (Its something that I would do, BTW)

As far as a loop, it could be modeled as a load/in load/out track for a quarry or grain elevator. About the only application a loop of track could be these days.

19

What you posted does not make sense, sorry. Reverse moves on a branch have nothing to do with facing-point or trailing-point spurs to industries along that branch. And if the train runs out and back on a branch, by definition any trailing-point spurs become facing-point and vice-versa.

There are many examples where this is not the case and only a very few where two engines are used alternately. Those few get a lot of ink, but it doesn’t mean they are the norm.

20

Well,you will do well to study rail served industrial areas on Bing and Google maps and then we will be on the same page…

Until then we’re not going to agree because we’re not on or even near the same page.