So my father recently got me wanting to make a layout, due to space I decide a shelf layout in a L shape would suit me best, and also decided to go with HO scale. I guess my main concern is I want prototypical, this certain layout is not going to be modeled after any certain area, it is just my first layout to get me going and to experience some of what this great hobby has to offer until more space is available. I have been having some issues finding a decent spot for my runnaround but still keeping it prototypical at the same time. Any advice is welcome, the size is 7’x2’x4’x2’ and the track runs right to each border on this picture. Thank you for any help and suggestions.
There is no this picture. There is a specific post sticky in the general forum on how to post pictures. It is different than other forums you may participate in and you have to follow the rules. For me Imgur.com is a bit easier than Flickr.com
22" radius gives you 2" from the edge. The rest of the world think everyone needs 30" if you choose your rolling stock and locos with 22" in mind it’s doable.
John Armstrongs book Track Planning for Realistic Operation is a must read.
Since you are not looking at a particular prototype, you have a lot of flexibility. In the relatively small space that you have, a key technique is overlapping the runaround with industry tracks, switch leads, etc. This often happens on the real-life railroads in tight spaces.
Some examples in smaller spaces than you have available.
This 5X7 HO switching layout could certainly be improved by a little more running length down the left-hand side for a longer switching lead, but it illustrates the overlap well. Often incorporating the runaround into the curve of the “L” works well.
I’m not sure to what you are referring. 2-foot-wide benchwork can support a significantly broader curve than 22" radius. The L-shaped layout I posted above uses 24" radius minimum curves on the main running track and could be broader still. I must not understand your point, but I wouldn’t want the Original Poster to be similarly confused.
So originally the design i was going for was just a bit too complex, as far as not being prototypical. A few people also pointed out that I would make some track crews VERY angry, I redesigned my layout roughly based of Byron Hendersons Alco in Alcove layout and came up with this, https://imgur.com/I3HgZzj Thank you for the reply.
Yea I found Byron Hendersons kinda roughly what I wanted, I kind of redesigned it and took a few things out, originally my layout just had been TOO much. To many turnouts and to many switchbacks to make it actually realistic. I decided to google some shelf layouts and really liked his so gave designing something like it a try. I figure this is my first layout and in the future when space is more plenty I will go bigger but for now this will keep me VERY busy and almost able to use it for training for the day I can have a full room. Thank you for your reply and help
[quote user=“Cj41218”]
Yea I found Byron Hendersons kinda roughly what I wanted, I kind of redesigned it and took a few things out, originally my layout just had been TOO much. To many turnouts and to many switchbacks to make it actually realistic. I decided to google some shelf layouts and really liked his so gave designing something like it a try. I figure this is my first layout and in the future when space is more plenty I will go bigger but for now this will keep me VERY busy and almost able to use it for training for the day I can have a full room. Thank you for your reply and help https://imgur.com/I3HgZzj <<<
Your track plan:
You’ve made some changes to my original plan that I don’t understand and wouldn’t recommend. In particular, the runaround is arranged in a way that will make it much less useful than in my original.
You’ve made some changes to my original plan that I don’t understand and wouldn’t recommend. In particular, the runaround is arranged in a way that will make it much less useful than in my original.
Good luck with your layout.
Byron
[/quote]
Im finding it hard to make realistic curves, I am new to all of this but from my understanding cars have a harder time running around less than 18" radius and with that foot less I seem to keep running into the problem of having to start my cornering early which takes up a decent amount of space. For me to connect my rails and do it like the alco in alcove layout it would shorten my tail tracks A LOT thats why I had the runaround over there, maybe move the runaround to the inside more. Either way all apart of the fun and learning.
As Cuyama pointed out, you moved the runaround to where it isn’t as useful.
Your runaround should be in the middle tracks. Use a Walthers curved turnout (#6.5 which has a 24 inch radius outer curve) up in the main curve and draw the runaround track down from there. Putting the runaround in any place other than where Cuyama put his is simply less efficient.
Many of the digital trackplanning programs don’t account for curved turnouts, so planners get boxed into using only what the CAD provides. If you can, plan for a curved turnout. In your case, with a small L shaped footprint, you really need one, IMO.
Also, don’t plan for every spur or stub track to have an industry on it. You don’t need that many industries to switch and it will make the layout look cluttered.
Took the advice and moved the runaround to the middle, Also I was definetly not planning for every spur to have an industry but I do want some sort of cold storage warehouse and a transload yard. After some redesigning (and I have been using curved turnouts but I have been using all peco in the trackplanning program) this is what I came up with. https://imgur.com/0XfR4Db One of the issues is the only curved turnouts in the Anyrail program(free) for peco is #7 so yea i might need to switch brands of track for some of the turnouts.
The outside radius of a Peco curved turnout is pretty broad and would not be very effective for that main curve. The Walthers 6.5 would better suit your space. It has an advertised inner radius of 20 inches but I think its more like 18. You could use Atlas #4 turnouts and Atlas Flex and they would match up to the Walthers pretty well.
I’d make the runaround as straight as possible on the south end, like Cuyama’s paln, to make it easier to couple cars, which is sometimes difficult on a sharp curve.
Your new plan has two runarounds stacked on each other, a waste of space, IMO. One runaround has almost no “tail” track. You need a long enough tail for a loco and probably two cars to clear the turnout throw.
Seriously, try to fit Cuyama’s plan into your space. Its the best option since many of the pitfalls that can happen in design have been eliminated by his professional experience.
If it was me, I’d use the 6.5 right above the straight part of the runaround to transition into the curve, making the runaround shorter. Then shorten the interchange track or eliminate it and use the elevator lead to double as the interchange. And eliminate the house track. Those modifications should allow the stubby side to be only 4 feet instead of 5.
So I have totally redesigned in Anyrail with walthers track, it seems their track might be a bit more suitable seeing as the turnouts branch out a bit further, not sure if i overcomplicated it again or not but this is what I came up with now with walthers track. https://imgur.com/5ksvujY
Well my problem with my switching yard is that I plan on having at least one industry down at the bottom of my layout, which kind of means I need a runaround so I thought it was ideal for me and for my alloted space I have. Another thing I want to add is I do want it to be somewhat “busy” but still sticking to a realistic vibe https://imgur.com/5ksvujY
With appologies to Byron for murding his plan - it almost fits your space. I played around with it a bit, and while the interchange track was lost, with the use of a couple curved switches from Walthers it essentially fits. The tail track for the grain elevator is 18" radius as pictured in my image, but everything else is 20" minimum. Track centers are 2.5" or greater, keeping in mind that the clearance points for the curved tracks can be problematic.
The grayboxes are potential industry spots.
“A” could potentially be a relief structure of a station, with “B” as a freight house, team track, or as Byron suggests the “house track” which offered many different uses. Depending on your modeled era, it could have anything from a loading dock to a milk platform and shanty.
“C” is the tail track for “F”, but you could probably sneak a small car spot for a single car at the very end if you straightened out the curve a bit, without losing too much switching ability.
“D” and “E” could fall similar to Byron’s plan as he had it.
“F” presents you options where Byron had the interchange tracks. I’m not a fan of grain elevators. They are stinky, slimey, fly havens when it rains. I hated switching them in real life, and don’t plan on including one in MY layout. My vision for “F” would be to have an industry along the top most track, using the bottom track as your interchange. Caveat: The switchback, and 30" tail track limit the number of cars you can easily switch.
I’d imagine this layout is ideally suited for 50-60 foot cars, smaller 4 axle road units, or even small switchers like the 70 Tonner or even S1 sized units. This would give you a little more headroom for cars.
With regards to your latest plan, you’ve got a redundant run-around. I’ve highlighted the first in yellow, the second in blue.
The configuration of the area in orange limits how useful the switchback is, by limiting the amount of tangent track available for coupling or spotting railcars at the potential industry/industries.
This comment isn’t directed toward you specifically, but we see many newcomers to layout design crank out revision after revision of detailed CAD designs on this forum without a good appreciation of the underlying layout design principles.
Owing to this, the designs are less efficient and less engaging than they could be in the same space. It does take time to learn these design best practices. John Armstrong’s Track Planning for Realistic Operation is a great overall reference. Lance Mindheim’s How To Design A Small Switching Layout is a bit more specific to your current needs, but does not have as much background on basic principles. My NMRA clinic slides on designing small switching layouts are a bit cryptic, but may offer additional ideas (these may be downloaded as a large [2.7M] .pdf file).
My unending advice to folks to step away from the CAD, learn some basic design principles, and only then work on a detailed design usually goes unheeded. So I won’t bore you or anyone else with any further entreaties.
There are a number of things I would do differently from the way you’ve done them in your latest plan, and unfortunately I don’t have the time to walk you through all the changes. Perhaps someone else will be kind enough to do so. So I’ll step aside and wish you good luck with your layout.
Byron
Edit: Granite Railroader’s done you a great service above and that’s a
I think that’s one good adaptation to the space with a much more realistic overall track arrangement than the Original Poster has accomplished so far. Because they are so much more compact overall, I might tinker with the PECO C83 curved turnouts in place of the Walthers, even though they are more broadly curved – just to see if they could be made to fit. That might eliminate the tightest effective curves on the runaround as well.
By the way, if the industry chosen for “F” is not a roll-through-to-load industry like a grain elevator, you wouldn’t need the switchback “C”. With some rearrangement, the track for “F” might come from the main lead. It might then be possible to use “C” as an interchange.
