Hi Chip and others,
I’d like to consider adapting the June MR’s “Montreal Harbour” layout fom it’s published 9’ width down to
fit an 8’ wide room. Can anyone make any suggestions on “relatively” easy ways to achieve this or
if you’re really up for a project, a CAD or other computer generated track plan? Yeah, like THAT’S gonna happen :-0
I’m a flex tracking beginner, just coming from the snap track world (although I’ve constructed grades, wired some, etc. on an older layout.)
Are don’t seem to be enough straight sections or truly disposable tracks to “get rid of” to reduce the published plan’s width by l ft. Is it possible? How would you accomplish this? I’m not experienced enough
to picture how.
Also, does anyone know if this layout was actually ever built and if the track plan actually works? Peco curved turnouts aren’t going to be cheap.
Shift the main yard around clockwise a little and that will open up a couple straights. You don’t have to get this plan exact. With the 16 foot side you have a lot of room to work with. You will have to play with it, but it will go.
As for whether it has been built, it looks like not. It should work very well.
Oh, make up your mind to learn CAD. XtrkCAD is free and the tutorials take about 4-8 hours. Time well spent if you are serious about really make a nice layout. You wouldn’t want to tackle the Port of Montreal without working out the details.
I seem to be hopeless with track planning programs so far. I’m not the best computer person in general
I’ll try again. I have MACs only.
I wish I had a local buddy who WAS good at this sort of thing.
Yes, Chip you remembered the room dimensions correctly: 8X16’.
If this plan does indeed look more accurate than the Armstrong and Wescott plans we’ve discussed do you
think it’s possible to lay out this grid on the floor and just fit and move things around a bit to make it work or is finding someone with enough computer savvy my only hope?
Thanks as always.
I’m on a Mac and used Empire Express to help me plan my current HO layout. It helped me to get an idea of what was doable in the space I have. But beware of one thing: some of the track libraries may not be accurate. I’m specifically talking about the Atlas code 83 turnouts in HO. The #6 turnouts do not match the CustomLine ones. The parts selector doesn’t say which ones they DO match. I found this out when I decided to print out full size some complicated trackwork with multiple turnouts to help me lay roadbed. The program gives you center lines. I took the turnouts I was going to use and put them together on top of the print out and there was no way I could get them to match without a lot of gaps or kinks. Not good. Also, the program doesn’t have the CustomLine #8’s or wyes either.
So us non-Intel Mac users are left out in the cold once again.
You can get the general Idea if you use templates of your turnouts, photocopy them, and lay them out on the floor. I would not buy the stuff to try it. Flex track is easier than sectional and the learn curve is very shallow so don’t worry about that.
Although, the plans as drawn should work, they don’t tell what kind of turnouts the plans are drawn for. You could write and ask the author. He might even give you some other ideas on how you can improve the plan in your space–stuff he had to cut out.
Umm - actually the Montreal Harbor plan does seem to say what kind of turnouts the designer used - mostly Peco mediums, with a smattering of Peco small turnouts (labelled S in the plan) and some Peco double radius curved turnouts (labelled C in the plan), a three way, a 24 degree crossing and a double slip (I believe) in the yard throat.
This plan has a few things going for it, but overall, I think there are quite a few concerns. On the positive side, there is staging, the use of large industries, a fairly large yard, and calling-out specific track components would help someone to build it.
In terms of concerns, the plan does not go very far in exploiting these positives, in my opinion. One of the spurs is only about 4 1/2 inches long when one considers clearance from the adjacent track. That’s a single 30’ car in HO, and the plan requires a turnout and a crossing to reach it. This is just one of the multiple examples where the trackwork seems overly complex for the operating interest it provides.
The large industries seem to have very short tracks to serve them – and only one track each, for the most part. Not very realistic, in my view. Real-life railroading is driven by large industries which receive many cars each shift, often on multiple tracks.
The single Molson Brewery spur holds about four 34’ boxcars total. The large Canadian Rubber Company complex gets by with even fewer. And because those two spurs are connected with the CPR interchange track in an extremely unrealistic switchback configuration, one might have to empty cars from Molson and CPR just to get a couple of cars out of Canadian Rubber. In some cases, it appears the designer did not consider how far away from the turnout the clearance point actually lies – this limits the useable length of the track.
While these industries are large and have short industry tracks, other industries are very under-sized. A grain elevator measuring 100’ by 30’ overall is not very plausible, in my opinion. It should be noted that the design is intended for 1912-1914, so cars would be shorter … but anyone who wants to use this design for the 1950s or later eras would find the spurs very short for later equipment. This grain eleva
Byron,
Thanks so much for your detailed analysis. These are exactly the skills I currently lack in evaluating plans.
I did sense rather immediately that this plan has a LOT of yard for its’ size and not a whole lot of other scenic opportunities, etc.
In the “Top Notch” book (which I formerly borrowed) I seem to remember the plans not being drawn to scale with grids, but perhaps I’m thinking of a different book? Did the Free Haven Terminal Plan allow for continuous running (also) and have at least 24" radius curves for that option? That’s my number one “druther”. If it does, and you can let me know today, I can see if the guy I borrowed it from can bring it to the operations session tonight.
Even larger curves for larger locos is my ultimate druther, but so far I’ve only found the double tracked oval in Armstrong’s 101 track plans (Plan #56 “Dayton and Northrn”) to easily fit my room with it’s right hand corner doors and 30"-32" curves.
I may still have to resort to an oval but Chip (Space Mouse) pointed out the desire for more staging.
It’s very tough for a track planning beginner to choose ANYthing from magazines and books because
one never knows (from inexperience) if the thing will work efficiently and will even be able to be built
as literally shown). I’m extremely frustrated. I’d like to work with the cardboard or paper template method
(I’m a “rope & pulley” man compared to a computer literate dude) but I need plans that will literally translate to grid drawings!
What to do?
Thank you Chip, Stein, Byron and all!
Jackn2mpu, yes besides the immense learning curve, I was having the same trouble with turnout libraries in the limited Mac stuff out there. Now that “Super Track” #6s are on the scene it’s been even harder.
I messed with several tutorials and I think I’ll never get proficient. Give me some paper templates and I think I could get track laid out and tacked down in relatively short order.
Some of the plans are to-scale, some are not. In any case, turnout make and # are usually not specified, and there would be re-layout required for your space anyway. This could be done with masking tape and Xeroxed turnout templates on the floor.
Any to-scale plan can readily be converted with an Architect’s scale (what most of us call a ruler). Plastic versions (accurate enough for our needs) are cheap at office supply stores. I bought a replacement recently for under 10 bucks that has most of the common scales (such as 1/4", 3/4", etc. to the foot) used in the Kalmbach books and articles.
No, sorry, but these elements could be added when you convert it to your space. The radii in general are pretty tight on Schoof’s plan, but you have room to lay things out in a more relaxed fashion.
As we talked about earlier, that plan’s not optimal by today’s standards. But then again, if this is your first layout, or your first in many years, maybe starting with something
As has been pointed out several times, commercial turnouts vary in their geometry. An alternative to the learning curve of software is to buy the turnouts you plan to use (at least one copy) and create a template by tracing the rails and making copies. Or make copies directly.
Make your templates, cover the floor with butcher or similar paper, and draw away in full size. Direct drawing is generally faster than computer programs, especially if you are not proficient with the software. Just be prepared to replace the paper a couple of times - it can only take so much erasing! A big advantage to full size drawing is that you can set engines and/or cars directly on the drawing to see how well they will fit.
If you can rework without regrets, recriminations, or anger, you can do a lot of learning through building and operating, and get by with a minimum of planning. How did I learn to leave space for structures in my plans? Or that a switchback tail track needs to be an engine plus a cut of cars long - and without an industry on the tail track? Or to leave enough space between parallel tracks at different elevations to allow a scenery slope of 45 degrees or less? To know the difference between a switching puzzle and an efficient configuration of industrial spurs - and to know which one I’m going to use, and why?
Most of my self-developed guides for evaluating plans came from doing, often poorly. The “aha” moment should not be under-estimated. And it’s part of the fun. Build a layout, operate it, realize its shortcomings, and design and build a new layout. Just as there is no perfect house, there is no perfect layout.
OTOH, some of my knowledge came from reading - “lessons learned” are really good for me. There’s something nice about not having to learn everything the hard way. You’ve been presented with some good points for analyzing a plan. Incor
Byron and fwright,
Yes, thanks more than I can say. All of that DOES make perfect sense.
I completely (obviously) agree about the magazines and track plan books doing a disservice.
I think that anything beyond snap track plans are extremely intimidating to beginners, teenagers,
and those like me, who have some decent amount of experience but am moving on to “scatch plannning”.
There is an EXTREME need (and indeed, I believe a lucrative market) for published plans that have been test built, critiqued and corrected and list the actual brand and track components for people to build something they like and admire, cookbook fashion.
Even with snap track, I’m amazed that Atlas hasn’t come up with some 24" radius plans by now.
Their 24" sectional curves have been on the market for some time now!
Guess it’s off to the butcher paper with me templates then…
You are asking for something that doesn’t exist and isn’t likely to. Some of the Atlas layouts and the Model Railroader project layouts come closest, with perhaps the Turtle Creek being the closest modern project layout that had fairly complete instructions.
But almost all the MR project layouts specifically tell you not to try to slavishly duplicate what they did. Although many of the Atlas were built before being published, very few of the Atlas plans will build exactly as planned - I know, I’ve tried. Here are some of the reasons:
Choosing a different make or model of turnout. Commonly, folks will want to substitute a Custom-Line turnout for a Snap Switch for gentler curves and fewer derailments. Or use a Walter-Shinohara or Peco curved turnout to lengthen a siding or eliminate an S curve that coudn’t be avoided in an Atlas-only layout. As previously discussed, models and makes of turnouts are not exact substitutions for each o
Thank you Fred. That was a concise and instructive as one could possibly ask for! There really needs to be a
“disclosure” page in every issue of MR and track plan books explaining what you’ve outlined here for me.
How would we know otherwise?
I was hoping not to have to redesign things beyond small-ish adjustments later, (and with such a small space it wouldn’t be as easy as with a larger one to make many/large changes) but I guess I’ll just start in and see where this takes me.
I just need to find that 24" minimum radius (30+) would be better, with realistic operational design.
I keep finding plans I like, but can’t spot right off how many cars I’ll be able to fit on that there siding, etc.
In other words, Does the " Montreal Port" layout still appeal because I can see the changes I’d need to make as I proceed? How can I spot large discrepancies from “reality” operationally without more experience?
Will Armstrong’s “Track Planning for Realistic Operation” provide me with ALL the answers I’ll need as I
attempt building each yard, adjoining mainline sections etc.? It’s the only/best guide I have available to me.
I was hoping that the operations guys I get together with who’ve built fantastic layouts, would give me more specific feedback (like you guys, here have) on plans that I’ve shown them and am considering, but they don’t seem to want to go that deeply into it beyond fairly general comments.
Fantastic guys and I’m really grateful for the operations procedures they are teaching me, but I’m still
on my own for track planning.
I’m not easily frustrated with the jobs that need doing. It’s just getting to the point where I know I can start and end up with something that’ll MOSTLY work out. I can’t afford to rebuild TOO much and I do want to start by this coming Fall at the latest.
I greatly appreciate your (all) taking the time to educate. I do have most of the Kalmbach “specific” books like "loco servicing yard
Just a note, and it doesn’t not solve the philosophical issue involved with whether you take the bull by the horns and just design the layout you actually want instead of adapting someone elses plans–which doesn’t seem to be working out as easily as you hoped.
The Port of Montreal is mostly track, and I figure you might want something with a tad more scenery.
However, most of the problems Byron pointed out with the Port of Montreal can be solved by the fact that you do have more space than the author does and you can lengthen most of those short sidings.
Thanks Chip. That SEEMED to be the case regarding lengthening sidings. I think the additional length of
room/layout available to me would provide a smattering of mountain scenery (back drop mostly) and more urban area. We’ll see if this plan is going to be the basis of whatever is to (eventually) come. I’m still looking around but I did like quite a bit of the features. (Maybe a bit too much yard(s) and staging, but we’ll see…
There is never too much staging. Perhaps the biggest regret among people who design their ownplans is no or not enough staging. Staging adds vairety and increases operations geometrically. If anything PofM does not have enough staging. The yard totally overpowers staging.
I’ve been around sailboats most of my life - building several kit boats, owning, repairing, and assisting others. When I graduated high school, I wanted to apprentice in a wooden boat yard (showing my age and other things). Thankfully, my dad insisted I go to college instead - on my nickel, not his!. A few sentences just to say I can guarantee that building those sailboats was not quite as simple as cutting out the patterns. The bevels in the patterns would not be perfect, even if the mold dimensions were. There was lots of hand planing, fitting, measuring, sanding, and likely some cussing before a seaworthy boat was completed. Having had my experiences, track planning and implementation is actually easier. Compensating for track plan errors is much easier, and less risky. FWIW, airplanes and houses never get build exactly as per the original design, either. In the case of aircraft, the plans are redone to reflect the changes. For commercial buildings, as-built drawings are sometimes made, but not always. The customer orders and pays extra for the as-builts.
But back to model railroading…
Nobody has a magic formula for the perfect layout.
These are some of my guidelines for evaluating a plan, whether my own or somebody else’s:
are the “precious few” scenes from my Givens and Druthers included? Are they connected in the correct logical sequence? Is there space enough to adequately incorporate the scene? This is the first test of a plan, and to be honest, I usually have to pare the “precious few” down from 5 to 3 or even 2 to make it f
That was an extremely helpful outline. I’ve read some or maybe all of those things before but the way you put 'em all in one place was great!
I want you to know that I appreciate the time it took to think all of that out and to type it all out and shan’t waste or under appreciate your efforts on my (and other’s) behalfs.
Now, if only you lived just down the street I wondered if including a coulple of switching puzzles was the easiest way to be sure that I’d get some challenging operational switching in that made sense. Although I suppose the danger of that is that it wouldn’t necessarily make sense as pertains to the REST of the layout’s concept…
Capt. G.
P.S. My buddies boats were all fiberglass built off of molds. Easier to fudge and fix than wooden plank construction. Mostly from Bruce Roberts plans.
My wife and I lived aboard a 31’ fiberglass cutter (of traditional double ended design) for 5 years with a dog AND a cat! Not much room for a layout. Maybe Z (or SEA) scale…
My father was from Gloucester Mass and saw and worked on some of the great 1930’s fishing/racing schooners. I live near Port Townshend, WA these days. A bastion of modern day wooden boat building.
There’s a school and annual festival there. I imagine that you weren’t from CO. originally?
Thanks again for all of the advice and particulars.
The Old Hound sees some problems with using this design.
Most of the layout appears to be three or more feet wide. Fixing problems that occur on the oval is going to require some very long arms. This is especially true of the track hidden in the buildings since the first floor is going to be fixed. Having some structure in the fore ground will make things even worst.
The curve yard may look interesting, but will make couple difficult in some areas.
The track does NOT cross one end of the drop leaf at right angles. That is going to make maintaining track allignment accross the joint difficult.
The classification yard seems too be too large and the industrial switching too limited.
The round house maybe interesting, but access is difficult. Should the only access require going under the coaling tower? Where is the water plug?
Yeah, like THAT’S gonna happen :-0