I am new here and this is my first posting. I have revived a 10 foot long shelf layout that I stored in a shed 20+ years ago when we moved. It is a slightly modified trackplan from Bob Schleicher’s book Building Your Next Model Railroad, and it reached an operational state of completion before being put away. I am wiping away the cobwebs, mourning the busted track that was subjected to too many annual freeze-thaw cycles, and planning my new rewiring for DCC. I feel like Rip VanWinkle just waking up and discovering the model railroading world has changed forever.
I’ve got access to a 15x30 room and am looking at the expanded track plan below that Schleicher included in the book; a more detailed version of it appears in his Best of Model Railroading Track Plans book. (My copy of that second book is of course buried somewhere in a box of train magazines no doubt, so I just ordered another copy for $3.00 off ebay).
I’m looking for some thoughts, comments, and/or feedback on this expanded trackplan. It would have the virtue of an easy continuous loop that would have me running right away, before moving on to convert my locomotives to DCC from DC (there’s a fair number of these!).
The only modification I can think of right off the bat is bending the loop portion on the bottom left 90 degrees to make the overall shape of the layout more of a “G” than a “U” (does that make sense?).
I’ll include a photo of what I’ve got so far to give you an idea of the space. I’ve got the luxury of having only the back portion of the layout (top of diagram) against a wall, the other three sides I’ll be able to walk around, so good access for the end loops. (Hopefully I’ve done the photos correctly; if not, bear with me and I’ll try again.)
Some older locomotives are not worth converting to DCC. The locomotives that I would pick to convert would have the following characteristics:
Be all wheel drive, and all wheel electrical pickup, have nickel silver wheels, have a can type motor, and draw 1 amp or less when stalled. (Power applied and loco pushed down to stop the wheels from turning as the current is being measured from the DC power pack.)
Now having said that, I converted an old Roundhouse RS-3 that I had bought back in the 1980’s, that met the above items and it runs really well with DCC.
I disagree with Gandydancer19. Any locomotive that you value can be converted to DCC. It may take regearing and remotoring; but, is totally doable. I have old Athearn, Roundhouse MDC and Atlas locos that I have converted to DCC and run just fine. It all depends on your abilities and your interest in taking the job to completion.
The factthat you are working from an old plan is not old technology. If the designer knew what he was doing back when the plan was designed, it should be just as applicable to what were doing today as it was then. Real railroads haven’t changed how they design their tracks much, if any, in the last 20 years.
I’m unfamiler with Bob Schliecher. This doesn’t mean anything, other than I either do not recall the name; or, have never heard of him. I know the Time Saver was originally a John Allan operating puzzle. I see there are hidden tracks which are not shown on your track plans. Do you know what your going to do there? Looks like you have very nice room to build the layout in!
Welcome back to the hobby. Unfortunately, not all published plans may be well-suited to your longer-term interests. In some cases, they aren’t very well-suited for anyone’s interests.
Bob Schleicher published and edited Model Railroading magazine (long defunct), along with a number of books. In my opinion, Mr. Schleicher put too much stock in the Timesaver track arrangement, which its originator John Allen viewed as merely a parlor game and not as a useful part of an operating layout (it never appeared on John Allen’s own large layout, for example). The Timesaver in the published plan occupies prime real estate that would be better suited to a yard or other feature.
Partially because of the Timesaver component, the published plan relies on unrealistic gimmicks such as switchback spurs, too-short runarounds, and overly steep grades. In the space you have, you’d probably be better off beginning from scratch – or with a plan that was a better match to your preferences.
As you note, wrapping the layout around in a “G” or “J” shape is often a good way to make best use of a rectangular space. This HO layout in a smaller space (13’X19’) is oriented around the lumber industry and is likely not a good fit to your needs – but it does suggest how something might be made to fit.
With a bit of study, you could probably come up with a great layout to meet your needs and interests, but a first step is to identify those preferences. A great resource is John Armstrong’s
I can see the locomotive conversion question both ways. I tend to have an awful lot of Atlas Austria/Roco stuff, Stewarts/Bowser with Kato drives, etc., in my view those are well-worth saving. I put an undec S-2 on the track and ran it off DC the other day, and it still runs like a Swiss watch with no hesitation or noise whatsoever–20 years after I put it away. The brass camelbacks will get remotored with DCC/sound upgrades (eventually anyway). I have a handful of custom painted engines done by a friend of mine who passed away; some will get converted, others (like an Athearn S12) will simply be parked on a track somewhere to be admired from afar.
Where I’d be on the fence, however, is with some of the Proto 2000 stuff. They were fairly weak pullers when they came out, and the two Proto LV PA units I have will be a tough call: I understand they need remotoring because they draw too much power for DCC. Others probably have the broken gear problems as well. With these I agree it may just not be worth it. Certainly those would go further down on the priority list if nothing else.
Is there a place on the forum where people tend to post things like their diesel rosters? I wouldn’t mind getting some more specific feedback on the yay or nay question for each engine.
Anyway, I appreciate both of your responses on the DCC conversion topic. I’ve put a couple of decoders in already on DCC-ready engines, haven’t hardwired one yet, but that’s bound to happen sooner or later. [;)] at any rate, thanks again.
I guess thinking about what John Allen was doing with the Time Saver does probably make it unsuited for a layout, as the Time Saver was a game and not part of an operating layout as Cuyama points out. I also agree that Armstrong’s book Track Planning for Realistic Operation is highly recommended. However, I don’t see the rest of Schleicher’s design as a bad design. I might decide to redo the Time Saver portion of the layout with a more realistic yard.
You need to determine such things as minimum turn radius and maximum grade. I can tell you that I feel the maximum grade I went with is O.K. for my layout and that is 2%. My minimum radius is 22 inches which I now feel is too small. However, layouts are always about compromises. It looks like you have far more room for your layout than I had for mine.
There are 100s of layout plans available here at Model Railroader for you to peruse and I would strongly suggest you do so!
Welcome back to the hobby. Unfortunately, not all published plans may be well-suited to your longer-term interests. In some cases, they aren’t very well-suited for anyone’s interests.
Bob Schleicher published and edited Model Railroading magazine (long defunct), along with a number of books. In my opinion, Mr. Schleicher put too much stock in the Timesaver track arrangement, which its originator John Allen viewed as merely a parlor game and not as a useful part of an operating layout (it never appeared on John Allen’s own large layout, for example). The Timesaver in the published plan occupies prime real estate that would be better suited to a yard or other feature.
Partially because of the Timesaver component, the published plan relies on unrealistic gimmicks such as switchback spurs, too-short runarounds, and overly steep grades. In the space you have, you’d probably be better off beginning from scratch – or with a plan that was a better match to your preferences.
As you note, wrapping the layout around in a “G” or “J” shape is often a good way to make best use of a rectangular space. This HO layout in a smaller space (13’X19’) is oriented around the lumber industry and is likely not a good fit to your needs – but it does suggest how something might be made to fit.
With a bit of study, you could probably come up with a great layout to meet your needs and interests, but a first step is to identify those preferences. A great resource is John Armstrong’s
If I’m looking at that plan correctly, it’s got as much run hidden on the lower level as it does visible ont he upper level. Yuck. And hidden track it would be, there’s not enough length in those loops to drop it down enough to be a true second dec that you could scenic and actually do something with. It’s not completely bad, I’ve seen fdar worse, but as Byron points out, folding the layout in on itself like a G makes for better possibilities and without all the hidden track.
I seem to recall a plan published in MR, not sure by whom, but it had 3 or 4 Timesavers in it! Some slightly modified, and as soon as you alter track lengths, or provide a longer lead, it’s no longer a Timesaver. Still - probably interesting for the first 5 minutes and then just a pain to run after that.
I say I’m “worried” because I don’t want people who use it (although I love my layout) to think it’s just a puzzle that reminds them more of a puzzle than railroad.
At what point, in your opinion (and others), does a switching yard layout become a timesaver?
A Timesaver is a very specific arrangement of tracks at very specific lengths. It makes for a level playing field so results can be compared. If you created a yard following Craig’s 10 Commandments for yard design, your yard is not a Timesaver.
Every track arrangement that includes a runaround and some spurs or yard tracks is not a Timesaver. The Timesaver is artificially limited to allow just one or two cars to be moved at a time. That’s what makes it a puzzle and not a layout – at least that’s what John Allen thought.
I still say John Allen calling it a Timesaver is just another one of his jokes on the rest of the model railroading world. Or maybe because no one would want to play the Timewaster, which is what it really is, from a prototype standpoint.
Moving on from the “Time Saver”, other things you might want to consider, JimT, in designing a layout is how dedicated to realness do you intend to be. Some people here will tell you that any type of continuous loop design is not realistic. However, layouts that include some type of continuous operation are very popular. Loops can be operated as a point to point layouts, if the need exists. If you design a continuous loop, provide for point to point operations if you think operations will be important to you.
What era are you going to model, what will be your minimum turnout. There are many things to consider. As Randy has stated, disappearing track (track that goes under the main level) can be problematic if there isn’t room to get at the track to fix derailments and work on the track and turnouts. However, don’t let these questions bog you down. Take your time and figure out a few things and then get after it.
Just wanted to say how much I appreciate all these responses; I’m sorry for the lag in my responses above, I’m apparently still on a probationary new member status but with luck the moderator(s) will free me up from that soon.
I’ve accumulated mostly transition-era early diesels and some 4-8-4 steam. Some of the camelbacks are better placed around 1900, so I see myself actually shooting for mostly historically accurate modeling from 1900 to say about 1960. Ninety percent of what I own is Lehigh Valley but with a smattering of other anthracite roads thrown in. The comment above about interchange is a grea
I’ve been thinking quite a lot about this layout configuration given my space, and I spent a bit of time yesterday re-arranging some of the furniture in the room and now think I can pretty easily acheive the 13’ width to accomodate this type of spiral peninsula arrangement.
Now the questions I have are about what if any changes you might suggest in modifying this actual trackplan to go from the logging theme to a more northeast anthracite/industrial switching sort of theme. I’d love to hear just you
I’m not completely clear on the actual space you’ll have available, so here are just some general ideas. The layout as drawn is really intended to be “out in the country”, so it doesn’t really work well if by “industrial switching” you mean a dense urban area. If you have more room, you could certainly incorporate a more significant urban area somewhere.
“Anthracite” to me implies one or more large “breakers”, where the hard coal was processed, sized, washed, etc. Conceptually, one could switch out the sawmill complex area for a large anthracite breaker. The space is probably suited for the 1960s or earlier, not the more recent era of unit train flood-loading type arrangements. Breakers were relatively tall for their footprint, so that helps.
Some large breakers had both mine run coal coming in as well as processed, cleaned, and sized coal going out. Coming up with a way to handle loads and empties could be a major change to the plan, or you could manage it manually.
Then I would turn the logging camps into smaller coal tipples or truck dumps. A key difference is that you need track length room to roll underneath a tipple or past a truck dump, so that would imply some changes to one or two locations.
So it’s conceivable that the plan could be modified for some of your preferences, but it would take some work.
I’m not on the forum every day, so it may be a while before I see any follow-up questions. But I am sure that many others will have opinions and ideas. Best of luck with your layout.
JimT
modifying this actual trackplan to go from the logging theme to a more northeast anthracite/industrial switching sort of theme
I’m not completely clear on the actual space you’ll have available, so here are just some general ideas. The layout as drawn is really intended to be “out in the country”, so it doesn’t really work well if by “industrial switching” you mean a dense urban area. If you have more room, you could certainly incorporate a more significant urban area somewhere.
“Anthracite” to me implies one or more large “breakers”, where the hard coal was processed, sized, washed, etc. Conceptually, one could switch out the sawmill complex area for a large anthracite breaker. The space is probably suited for the 1960s or earlier, not the more recent era of unit train flood-loading type arrangements. Breakers were relatively tall for their footprint, so that helps.
Some large breakers had both mine run coal coming in as well as processed, cleaned, and sized coal going out. Coming up with a way to handle loads and empties could be a major change to the plan, or you could manage it manually.
Then I would turn the logging camps into smaller coal tipples or truck dumps. A key difference is that you need track length room to roll underneath a tipple or past a truck dump, so that would imply some changes to one or two locations.
So it’s conceivable that the plan could be modified for some of your preferences, but it would take some work.
I’m not on the forum every day, so it may be a while before I see any follow-up questions. But I am sure that many others will have opinions and ideas. Best of luck with your layout.
Allen Keller’s DVD on Jim Herzog’s RDG layout includes a segment where Jim explains the workings of a breaker on his layout. No dimensions are given, but there are several views that give a pretty good description of the design and operation of the facility. It is “layout size”, so that might be a good starting point for you.
The Keller tapes are no longer on the market, AFAIK, so you’d have to look for a second-hand copy.
Several modelers of anthracite country have kitbashed smaller breakers out of the Walthers New River Mining kit - while the kit is a COlorado prototype, a little modification results in somethign that looks more like somethig found in anthracite country. A model of Huber, or St Nicholas, full scale with all the tracks would be a roomfull all by itself. I plan on doing some kitbashing with the New River kit for mine. I also have a small wood kit for a truck dump - not all coal loading was done via massive structures, small mines would run a truckload at a time and back out on a platform overhanging the parked hopper car and dump right from the truck into the car. These cars of “mine run” coal would be hauled to one of the big breakers for processing.
One of the members built a breaker form on the club modular layout - very scaled back but still a HUGE structure. Thought I had a picture of it but I don’t. At about 4:42 in my YouTube video you can catch a glimpse of it off to teh left - that darn stack train blocked most of the view. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL8uLUodLFQ
Tom and Randy, very much appreciate the replies–I will definitely try to find a copy of the Keller DVD, and Randy, wow, that breaker on the club layout is something. Even the glimpse was helpful, but if you round up some photos I’d love to see them. I bit the bullet and paid for a subscription to MR (I’ve always just bought single copies at hobby shops in the past) so I could access the digital archive, but so far I’m having trouble displaying the pages–I can only see thumbnails. Don’t know if anyone here can guess what I’m doing wrong with a Mac and Firefox, but I did put in a help request. Don’t have problems viewing other kinds of online media, so not sure what’s going on there.
on edit: got it to work on Safari, not sure what’s up with Firefox. Have found a couple of photos of modeled breakers, including Herzog’s in the March 2006 issue and Bill Henderson’s Coal Belt from August 1988. So we’re making some progress.[;)]
But still looking for a layout-sized breaker plan, if anyone has any other ideas just let me know. thanks,
