Seeking input on 4x8 design plan

Model Railroader Layouts and layout building
1

No, I didn’t bother to color in the grass or ballast - you’ll have to use your imagination. [:)] (Note that orange lines are tracks located beneath the upper level).

1) Lift bridge, 2) Cannery, 3) Victorian homes (or a farm), 4) View divider, 5) Crane log loadout, 6) Truck log loadout, 7) Old camp shacks, 8) Abandoned gold mines, 9) Lighthouse, 10) Warehouse/port facilities, 11) Lumber mill, 12) Quarry loader, 13) Shops in downtown Galinas (with street running), 14) Empty turn table pit, 15) Mt. Tam depot (crew restroom), 16) Galinas depot.

This 4x8’ plan is for what I am calling the Galinas and Mount Tamalpais Railway, a former independent railroad absorbed by the Southern Pacific in the 1960s, and still trundling along (albeit in a quieter fashion) by 1981. Both Galinas and Mount Tamalpais are real places, located just north of San Francisco, so using Google Earth, I’ve drawn in a rough map of the evisioned route:

Basically this a pretty cut-and-dry logging and mining railroad. Although nobody in their right mind would ever want to see the famous trees around Muir Woods cut down, in my world, people are slightly less conservationally-minded, and a small firm began to log the mountain shortly before the turn of the century, building a railroad into the Alpine Lake region. Though crews no longer live in the Mt. Tam Camp, most of the infrastructure (including an abandoned turn table pit) is still in place, if decaying rapidly.

Other major industries include a quarry (there are abandoned gold mine shafts in the area, but these preda

2

I like the view block and hidden staging. Looks like an interesting trackplan.

3

That is a good well thought out story line and operation plan. That should translate well to the layout to male it interesting. One word. Make sure you take the time to map out the plan on the 4x8. Carefully. Looks like you might have some spurs that might end up shorter than anticipated. Have the loco and rollin stock on hand to physically test lengths.

4

Unless I am misunderstanding, only very short trains will be able to work the upper level.

Also, the grades don’t seem to allow for a transition from level to grade and back again. But I didn’t calculate it exactly.

As others have noted, once you allow for clearances, some of the spurs may be shorter than you expect.

Good luck with your layout.

5

3-4 cars, I’d surmise.

I’m not sure what else I could do - I mean, the rule of thumb for most 4x8s that aren’t just simple ovals or altered figure eights are short trains. Almost any design I’ve seen involving spurs and branch lines don’t exactly allow for massive, rolling consists.

My guess is that the ‘hill job’ would generate 4-6 carloads a session, perhaps 2 from the quarry and then up to 4 from the logging interests. Obviously, given the length of the switchback, a larger train would necessitate being split (though it could be argued that this would merely generate further operating potential). If it represents a problem, however, I’m afraid I haven’t yet encountered an easy answer - I have a stack of the last 13 years worth of Great Model Railroads and Model Railroad Planning sitting next to my desk, and I thumbed through all of them last night looking for good ideas on 4x8s - most seem to advocate short trains, or single scene/single industry layouts. As I didn’t fancy the latter options, I defaulted to the former.

Edit And I wanted to add, I am not trying to sound snide or defensive. But rather, I am really open to suggestions to fixes for the problems you present.

6

You could use ore jennies for the quarry. They are very short at only 26 feet. That would make for a longer number of cars. Also GE 70 and 40 ton locos can be good branch power. Short and good for tighter curves. Much shorter than gp s. Or. Go really creative. Make the branches electrified using trolley wire. Thing of city streets and the corners interurban frieghts go around on thos city streets. Those sharp curves open up other track arrangements for the branch as well. Somethin to think about in gettin around the radius problem

7

So you don’t think the Geep could make 15"? I mean if it can’t, it can’t. I cannot deny an interurban element might be interesting, although the lack of a major-manufacturer-produced steeplecab might put the brakes on that idea from the start.

I could always redesign that portion of the layout with a more favorable curve radius - nothing is really set in stone until I start cutting plywood. However, that would probably mean killing off the cannery/wetlands scene in the process… which would kind of stink.

Oh, and as a wildcard, I could always add a 6-inch ‘wing’ in that area to accomodate a broader curve, although the bigger I make the thing, the harder it is to move.

8

I like the plan a lot.

My suggestions only.

remove turntable 14 and use space for scenery. You will need it.

tweak your plan at the log load out 5 to to not cross over the main line there. Keep tracks level. You can make the viewblock narrower there and use the space to curve the siding.

squeeze the waterfront a little to move the main line off of the main street in front of stores. it Will be too busy and you will not be able to place cars or people on the street.

as others have said layout the swithches to make sure there is room.

Take lots of pictures of build.

Steve

9

Once you allow for clearances with trains passing or cars spotted on adjacent tracks, the tail of the switchback appears to have only about 16" of useable length. That’s about 115 scale feet in HO. If you consider the coupled length of engines and cars, that’s pretty short. Since many of your industries can only be reached via this switchback, that could prove to be a pretty tedious session.

Tight curves and significant grades can be a viable trade-off, but you need to allow for the greater track-to-track distances required.

I can’t spend the time working out the grades for you, but the seeming lack of transitions from level to grade and back will create problems, as the grades will end up much steeper than you expect and/or trains won’t operate reliably. Note that grades shouldn’t begin or end within or immediately adjacent to turnouts for the best reliability.

Sometimes ambitious track plan ideas don’t work in a given space just because of the physical constraints, unfortunately.

I think your concept could be addressed in a similar space in a more practical way with a different design. But I recognize that after spending a lot of time doing detailed work in CAD, most folks aren’t open to wholesale changes.

Good luck with your layout.

Byron

10

That tail lead to get up to the top will be too short unless you are wanting to run multiple times up the hill. Tight turns but you already talked it.

Have fun building it and enjoy.

11

I decided to take your collective input (thank you) and run with it. Originally, I had planned to just modify the old design, but it quickly became apparent that such an endeavor was going to take longer than it was worth. So… starting from scratch, I cobbled together the following:

1) Lumber mill, 2) Cannery (‘Cannery Row’), 3) Warehouse (1x boxcar), 4) Former cannery owner’s mansion, 5) Scrap metal yard (1x gondola, sited on LM lead), 6) Galinas depot, 7) Port facilities, 8) Mt. Tam depot (abandoned), 9) Farmhouse, 10) First switchback (approx. 4’ length), 11) Second switchback (approx. 3’ length), 12) Quarry, 13) Abandoned gold mine & shafts, 14) Mt. Tam lumber camp (w/ loader) and Alpine Lake, 15) Direct-from-truck log loader.

The following changes were made:

  1. No curves on the layout are narrower than 18".

  2. There is greater length of track between the start of the upslope and its initial flattening out near the rear of the layout.

  3. The first switchback is far longer. The second switchback is a new addition and is slightly shorter, but doesn’t need additional length because trains proceeding to the logging camp would leave any quarry cars on the run-around track (there’s no reason to lug what you don’t need further uphill).

  4. Two new industries have been added (the scrapyard and warehouse). However, both receive as-needed servicing, and their cars will not be exchanged during every operating session (though the engineer will still have to temporarily relocate the gon blocking their access to the lumber mill).

  5. Unfortunately, I was forced to shorten the staging tracks. Howev

12

I don’t see it mentioned anywhere, but I assume that you are considering HO scale. Have you given any thought to N scale. That would give you increased flexibility.

Rich

13

I may just not be seeing it, but the grades still appear to be unworkably steep. If you have calculated the grades and clearances, it would be informative to those of us trying to help if you would post a version with those elevations shown. What is the grade percentage that you calculate?

The over-crossing near “10” is one place (among others) where there would not seem to be enough clearance for HO with manageable grades. Again, changing grade immediately within or too near a turnout has proven to be unreliable.

Here’s what I am talking about with transitions.

If you are using a general CAD or drawing program, you may be underestimating the room required for turnouts. In a couple of spots, you have turnouts much closer together than seems possible in actual construction. What turnouts are you using?

In a couple of spots, you have tracks that should be at quite different elevations essentially side-by-side. From a construction and/or scenery standpoint, this may not be possible.

You have track centerlines drawn too close to the edge of the benchwork for safety in a few spots.

Without an accurate calculation of grades and clearances, it’s not possible (for me at least) to say if this is workable or not, but my suspicion is that once grade transitions and actual turnout sizes are incorporated, this approach will not be buildable as drawn. If I were you, I would look at these things before spending time on more CAD work. As I said before, there would be other approaches in the same space that would probably be more achievable.

14

The crossing at 10 is a diamond at-grade. The crossing near 15 is a bridge (elevation to which is gained from the long lead). As I stated in the above post, I have plans to shift the right-side inner curve downwards slightly to accomodate for track centers.

Logging railroads are often incredibly steep, but I appear to have approximately 5’ to gain 4 inches, which doesn’t seem at all challenging based on the few cars that can fit into both my switchbacks. I’ve also had great success in the past modifying turnouts via shortening them - as suggested by many switching and micro layout gurus. Only the primary, non-elevated full loop will see a train doing any speed above scale 15 MPH.

I tend to emulate Iain Rice when approaching model railroads - plans are guides, not precision roadmaps, and they are hand-drawn. CAD? It’s MS Paint.

Thank you for the suggestion, but I sold off all my N scale engines and rolling stock years ago, and have no plans to ever go back. It’s simply too small, and, to my eyes, never fully escapes looking very toy-like.

15

After allowing for transitions (which need to be longer for such a steep grade), I don’t believe it’s nearly this long. Even if it were, that’s over 10% (rise over run). Very few (if any) have been able to make this kind of grade work reliably – and as I noted, I think it might actually be steeper than 10%.

4" railhead-to-railhead probably isn’t enough where you have tracks paralleling one another one above the other. At least not in HO. You’ll need to get in there for maintenance, and you need to support the track above.

Unless you plan to handlay the crossings and turnouts to fit, commercial offerings won’t work in what you have drawn.

It appears that lessons from experience and concerns about practicality are not welcome, so I’ll bow out. Good luck.

16

Certainly not when they have been consistently delivered with a thorough air of condescending snark, no, they aren’t. You act as if this is my first rodeo - it isn’t. I’m sorry we don’t all do things the same way. No, wait, I’m not.

17

When it comes to clearances, it´s better to do the sanity check by using a trach palnning tool like RTS or SCARM. Both are freebies and fairly easy to learn.

Don´t forget, that HO scale standard gauge track is much wider than just a line on a plan. You need a minimum of 1 inch clearance from each side of the line on straight track and more on curves. There are a couple of spots in your plan where there is not sufficient clearance. Check the clearance close to the scenic divider.

There is a lot of valuable advice in the answers to your original post. If I were you, I wouldn´t just brush that off. Most of the folks have been active in this hobby over 50 years and heeding their advice will keep you from making frustrating and costly mistakes.

18

A couple of notes:

  1. Your lumber schooner is only about 50 feet long. If you bring the quay at the bottom center to the fascia line you can load a larger (virtual) ship in the ‘people’ space. Model the smaller vessel as a harbor patrol craft or small fireboat.

  2. The fishing boat docked at the cannery is about the size of a calm water cabin cruiser, and a lift bridge on a curve is ??? at best. Having one to allow access to a single short dock wouldn’t be cost effective unless the cannery paid for it. (What do they can? Caviar??)

  3. Have your ‘main line’ disappear under a canopy of trees just after it passes the lighthouse. You can even shape the visible canopies to have the track seem to straighten out and go off the right side.

#1 above was how we handled a port on the old Chanute club layout. The ‘ships’ were boxes of waybills, for which the car distributor had to find appropriate cars. One box was labeled S.S. Ronald McDonald.

#2 reflects a basic fact - Things that float are a lot bigger than they look in pictures. A serious fishing vessel would be about 18 inches long in HO scale - and the location and surroundings don’t allow the luxury of selective compression.

#3 is a stunt I have planned for Pagoda Hill, at the (real) north end of Tomikawa. The track appears to curve away to the right, but actually enters a left-turning 540 degree helix. It reenters the scene on the opposite side of the river at a much higher level where the river appears from behind Pagoda Hill. Since the whole area is covered with cedars growing right against one another…

It’s obvious that you gave serious thought to operation early on. Well done.

Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

19

Disagreement and condescension differ completely in my mind. I am sorry that you found the time I spent trying to analyze your work and share best practices to be “snarky.” No offense was meant.

20

Hmmm, the basic concept of a switchback heading to the upper level with another switchback on top of that should work…

If it was my layout:

I’d straighten the backdrop and put #15 closer to where #9 is now (I wouldn’t need a farmhouse on a logging layout)

No need for a runaround on the upper level. Or it could be relocated to the now longer #15 track along the backdrop.

I’d then shift the #12 turnout farther left and curve the track to make it parallel with #11. The quarry would remain where it is but would now be between the track and the table edge.

I’d try to swap the location of #3 turnout with the turnout that creates the upper loop. This should drop the upper loop down and keep it from looking like it rests on the lower loop track. Also, the now curvish #12 track would not rest on top of the orange track and would not cross it until the very corner. These adjustments could help reduce the grade issues and provide more space for vertical easements.

On my logging