I am (hopefully) in the final planning stages for my 2nd layout and am looking for feedback. My previous layout was built 25+ years ago when I was a teenager, and it had no real plan. I’ve done more homework for this layout.
I wanted to model the Pere Marquette in mid-Michigan, which is where I grew up. I also wanted to include a live interchange with the Grand Trunk Western, which reflects where I live now. However, I don’t think my skills and available free time are up to the task of accurately modeling an actual location where I could meet both of those wants. So I decided to semi-freelance a fictional PM direct line from Saginaw to Grand Rapids, rather than the meandering “Turkey Trail” that actually existed.
The theme for this area is primarily small town agriculture with some manufacturing. There were also active coal mines nearby in the 1920s, but I’m not interested in modeling them beyond having some coal trains pass through.
With this layout, I’m trying to achieve a balance between scenery and operations - I want to have interesting operations yet leave enough room for the scenery to breathe. Given my available space, switching will be more prevalent than running, but I don’t want a pure switching layout.
I feel pretty good about what I came up with, but I’d like a sanity check from you guys.
Critical Info
Setting: Late 1920s semi-fictional mid-Michigan (and late 1970s when nobody’s looking [:)] )
Prototype: Pere Marquette (main) Grand Trunk Western (live interchange)
10’ x 18’ overall available space with some restrictions
Given the premise of this being the layout for you and the kiddos, I think you’ve planned well. Just enough switching to get interesting but not too much to get frustrating. And I think a pair of Geeps roaring through Lakefield with a priority through freight would not upset the temporal police too much.
One minor concern…does the benchwork fill the room completely? My issue would be with the track running downgrade along the bottom of the plan. That might be a bugger to get to for maintenance and, um, unusual event remediation. Otherwise, I wish I had it in my non-existant basement.
Well, It think you have done a good job. I find nothing major to comment on the upper deck. Oh, there’s little things like you probably have room for a turntable and roundhouse. Or that it might make sense to switch the supply and engine service track to have more room for the tipple etc.
With the small steam you are using my guess is you are correct in your assessment of the grade.
So, make two laps to get down, Shorten the grade, give yourself a little more space to work under there.
You can run point-to-point from staging to staging (with two ways out to west staging). You have a well executed case of “X-factor staging” - which makes it possible to do continuous run past staging and to reset trains in staging by backing a train that has arrived in west staging engine innermost on the single ended staging track back into east staging to be ready for a new appearance from the east engine with the engine leading the consist.
You have an adequate number of staging tracks (5 each way) and adequate length of staging tracks given that you are planning to run trains of maximum 10-15 40’ (or so - given your preferred era) cars - ie train lengths roughly on the order of 65-90" (5.5 - 7.5 feet).
You haven’t included track & spur lengths, but estimating lengths of sidings etc from the fact that your layout is 17.5 feet left-right and 8 feet top-bottom in the drawing, it seems like you also have sidings of appropriate lengths - the double ended siding in Lakefield seems to be 8+ feet long - long enough for having two full length trains passing each other in Lakefield.
Yard seems well designed.
A/D track has a sensible length. You have provided a dedicated yard lead of a sensible length. All tracks, including the regular industries in the yard area, can be worked from the yard lead on east end of the yard.
Only car destination that cannot be worked from the east is the engine terminal supplies track. Not a problem - you have runaround possibilities in the yard and the supplies track probably won’t be an all that frequent destination anyways.
I would swap around supplies track and engine service track. You will either have to turn engines by hand (possibly using an engine cradle) or use a roundtable to turn steam engines.
I ain’t an expert, but your track plan looks great. I prefer modern diesels (when everybody’s looking [or not]). GP30s and GP9s would be perfect power for the late 70’s (Maybe even a single SD 24/35). Overall, great job.
You have plenty of room for a quintessential small-town track plan at Lakefield. Why not consider it?
Quintessential small-town: the passenger depot and freight station (or more typically, a combination depot) should have a double-ended spur (looks like a passing siding but isn’t meant for passing/meeting of trains) for the house track between the mainline and station(s). If there is need for a passing siding, that would be on the opposite side of the mainline. Double-ended spurs would preferably serve the industries: single-ended if double-ended isn’t practical.
I don’t think a yard tower is necessary for such a small yard…and the yard office should be closer to the action…relocate to yard tower spot. (Nitpicky me!)
Thanks for all of the replies and kind words. I have gotten a lot of great information from this and other RR forums, you’ve saved me from many mistakes and wrong turns. Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that. Specific replies are below.
The town of Lakefield is based on the small town I grew up in, where most of the structures from the 20s were still present when I was a kid in the 70s. The coal dealer’s pit and conveyor were still there into the late 1980s. By carefully choosing the structures, I could probably pull off multi-era if I disregarded dilapidation and other details. The kids won’t care anyway, so I’ll set the time machine for 1979 when I want to run my geeps. The town will just be having a “Heritage Days” festival or something.
Not quite - there is a 2’ aisle on the bottom (“north”) of Carson City to allow access to a closet. Lakefield is flush against the opposite wall.
The engine terminal area was intended to be one of those “implied off-board” things since I didn’t think I had the space to model it well. Those tracks are basically just staging and I would be turning any engines by hand with a cradle (as Stein guessed). My preliminary train schedule has only 2 or 3 locals turning here, so I figured that this would be OK. But now you guys have convinced me to take another look at modeling that area.
I would put more staging tracks on the west staging side. By having an equal number you can’t run the same number of trains in both directions on the PM (since one or two tracks will be holding GTW transfers.
The team track shouldn’t have a loading dock on both sides. Best situation, loading dock on one side, open access by truck on the other.
O’Dave,Please excuse my pseudo highjhacking here, but I’ve got an “impossible” building space and your plan is the lst one that seems workable that I’ve been able to
find for it that will give me the benefit of others planning for me. I’m a complete beginner and have already proven myself hopeless with my own attempts at planning.
I’ve only use Atlas snap track plans before) and would like to know if this track plan and layout construction could be adapted as is (using flex track) but one and a half feet shorter in length.
Would that entail merely leaving out one and a half feet of straight track on either side or will that throw off other factors like the 24" radius on the ends or make any of the yard spurs unworkable, etc.? I’m willing to run slightly shorter trains than the OP to fit that limitation.
Please advise me as to what would be necessary to fit O’Dave’s plan into my 8’X16’ room.
The edges of the layout would touch all walls. The only way for me to gain decent access would be to build it reasonably high 48"-53" top level and to use a mechanic’s crawler!
I hope you don’t mind my admiring your layout plan enough to consider duplicating it O’Dave?
My only available/potential layout space is a recording studio with a dividing wall in the middle with a 24"-27" doorway on the “North” side of your layout. The wall is a very expensive acoustically sealed double wall that has to stay, but tunnel plugs (when recording) and taking your mainline (N. side) through the 9" space between the wall and door jam would likely be workable.
Please advise Spacemouse, et. al.? Thanks very much! I’m hopeless with the computer planning programs I’ve tried via free downloads. I’m a visual, physical placement in the “material world” kind of track kind of planner.
P.S. I’ve obviously abandoned my attempts to adapt my former benchwork for the “Big Panhandle” for this space that I posted about in my lst post a few days back.
I went to
I am (hopefully) in the final planning stages for my 2nd layout and am looking for feedback. My previous layout was built 25+ years ago when I was a teenager, and it had no real plan. I’ve done more homework for this layout.
I wanted to model the Pere Marquette in mid-Michigan, which is where I grew up. I also wanted to include a live interchange with the Grand Trunk Western, which reflects where I live now. However, I don’t think my skills and available free time are up to the task of accurately modeling an actual location where I could meet both of those wants. So I decided to semi-freelance a fictional PM direct line from Saginaw to Grand Rapids, rather than the meandering “Turkey Trail” that actually existed.
The theme for this area is primarily small town agriculture with some manufacturing. There were also active coal mines nearby in the 1920s, but I’m not interested in modeling them beyond having some coal trains pass through.
With this layout, I’m trying to achieve a balance between scenery and operations - I want to have interesting operations yet leave enough room for the scenery to breathe. Given my available space, switching will be more prevalent than running, but I don’t want a pure switching layout.
I feel pretty good about what I came up with, but I’d like a sanity check from you guys.
Critical Info
Setting: Late 1920s semi-fictional mid-Michigan (and late 1970s when nobody’s looking [:)] )
Prototype: Pere Marquette (main) Grand Trunk Western (live interchange)
10’ x 18’ overall available space with some restrictions
Unfortunately, no. I tried to stick a helix in every concievable spot but it either took up way too much space or had poor access.
I think I’ll use spacemouse’s suggestion and sneak a 0.5% grade in to Lakefield to buy an inch. Mid-Michigan is dead flat, so I can’t realistically do more, but I think that small of a grade won’t stand out. If I can get my worst grade down to 2.5% I think I’ll be OK, and will shorten the trains on the locos that can’t handle it.
Gotcha. Didn’t think about that…
OK. How about a ramp on the end for end-loading flat cars?
Heck no. Some of my ideas have been lifted from other published plans. Swipe away! I’ll PM you back shortly.
The first thing I would do, if I didn’t have the restrictions of my room, is to find a way to turn the duckunder into a lift-out or swing gate. It’s probably the thing I like least about my plan. Also, I would run the staging loop all the way to the back to shorten the grades. Because of the angled track, loosing 18 inches won’t translate directly into 18 inches less on the straight runs. I’ll play around with a shorter config and let you know what it looks like.
You can also make the thickness of the layout paper thin over the tunnel that as well and gain some more.
BTW: only slope the main, you don’t need to slope the spurs. You can also drop some between Carson City and Lakefield on the left and climb back up on the other side.
I think the concept is good but I think as you already know, the fly in the ointment might be the grades. My experience tells me 10-15 car trains on a 2.7% curving grade will require a big loco or doubleheaders. Also, have you figured how much flat space you’ll have for staging at the bottom of the grades. You’ll need ladder tracks at both ends of the staging yard and those can eat up a lot of length. My suggestion would be a diamond shape staging yard so all your staging tracks are the same length. I’d try laying out your staging tracks on the floor first so you can see just how much space you will need for that staging yard.
As an alternative to lower level staging yard, you might want to consider a hidden staging yard behind a backdrop or row of building flats on the main level. That would eliminate the need for grades altogether.
Thanks O’Dave for the PM and dialogue!
You all are helping a really nice guy out with his planning! I look forward to watching from the sidelines to see what works out and what doesn’t.
Even if I don’t ultimately go with his design, (due to lack of my own skills level) it’s shown me that a workable layout for my challenging space (although I’m going to give it a try), IS possible and that alone has reinvigorated my too long dormant interest in reviving this great hobby in my own home. Thanks!
This might not work at all - let me warn you that although I am reasonably good at seeing clearances in the same plane, I am challenged when it comes to visualizing vertical clearances - but here is something I was sketching out as one possible way of holding inclines under 2% while trying to avoid making separation over the staging tracks too attrocious.
Location of the two turnouts that form the X for branching out to east and west staging would have to be moved a little left - probably replaced by two curved turnouts - but that shouldn’t change the grade on the two innermost curves on the left too much - ought to still be possible to stay under 2%, I believe.
This is not a direct solution for you.
But think about having grades on the staging deck(s) - that might help with your problem.
Vertical distance top of rail to top of rail over Lakeville staging is between 5.5" at worst and 6.5" at best, vertical distance top of rail to top of rail over Carson City staging is between 5" (at worst) and 6" (at best).
Theoretically, galvanized steel 1/16 would be strong enough to handle a gap wide enough to run a train tunnel through and still give you the ability to pluck a train off the tracks.
At this grade, you really would need two laps get low enough for staging.
Hmmm - how about something like this ? I have not tried to optimize much - this is mainly a conceptual sketch.
In the first sketch the red tracks is the visible layout (rest is part of staging and staging access tracks) - elevations in plain text, grades withing .
Edit/addition:
In the second sketch the red tracks is descent to east staging:
In the third sketch the red tracks is the descent to west staging:
Elevation profiles:
West staging to Lakeville:
Visible layout (west of Lakeville to east of yard):
