I have just finished the benchwork for my shelf layout. It is two 2’x5’ boards wedged together to collectively make a 5’x7’ area. After doing much research, I am stumped at maximizing the switching potential of this space. I was wondering if anyone out there had similar HO plans that they have previously built or drawn up in their spare time. Thanks in advance.
HO 5X7 switching layout inspired by the Milwaukee Road. This particular track plan was designed for a relatively small number of cars, but gives you an idea of what is possible in the space.
Edit: I see by your past posts that I am repeating myself. You received some other good advice last time around:
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/212570.aspx
Hi Alex:
That is a bit of a challenging question. As you likely have already discovered the Track Plan Data Base doesn’t seem to have anything quite that small in HO scale, although there are a few ‘L’ shaped layouts that might lend themselves to a bit of shortening.
I would suggest a somewhat broader approach by first showing us a diagram of the room space that you have to deal with including doors, windows and obviously walls.
It would also help to know what type of equipment you would like to run, given that your space restrictions will likely limit that to switchers and very short cuts of cars.
One opportunity I can see right off the bat is to add a web between the two legs, i.e. a triangular piece of bench work that will allow you to more easily curve your track(s) from one leg to the other.
One other possibility is to temporarily forget about the short leg and simply design a switching puzzle on the long leg to start. John Armstrong designed one such puzzle called the ‘Timesaver’ and there are other similar designs. You may want to look at this site:
http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/
Once you have the main track plan in place you might be able to see opportunities to use the smaller leg, perhaps in part as a staging track, and/or with other possible destinations for your freight.
Anyhow, there are a number of quite capable layout designers on the forum, but you perhaps should consider providing a bit more information before asking them to do all the work.[:D]
Dave
John Allen, not John Armstrong.
In my personal opinion, John Allen’s Timesaver is a railroad-themed puzzle, not a realistic layout. He viewed it the same way – it was a (literally) parlor game, not something he saw as more than a puzzle. To each his or her own, of course.
A less restrictive plan that could also be bent around a corner is Linn Westcott’s Switchman’s Nightmare.
cuyama
I always get those two guys mixed up. Thanks for correcting me…
Dave
Don’t just look for small layouts, many towns on larger layouts can be used for inspiration for your layout. Also, more isn’t necessarily better; don’t feel like you need to cram in as many industries as possible. A single industry can take 10-15 mins to switch if done in a realistic manner and less industries and track means less cost, maintenance and more time you can spend detailing your layout. If you want to mix things up, you can change time periods and swap out locos and rolling stock (structures too, if you make all the bases the same size). If you make it a sectional layout, once it’s ‘done’ you can store those 2 modules and start another two; you could even set up all your modules in a garage for a week or so of train running. If you plan it right, you could even make the ends FreeMo compliant and take your modules on the road and become part of a much larger layout (which is exactly what I do with my 2’x4’ modules that I use at home as a 2’x12’ switching layout).
One interesting switching layout I saw was an engine terminal. Perfect if you have a lot of locos, and there are a few car spots possible too (more if you incorporate a RIP track).
I’m just trying to understand.
Why would you build your bench work before you had a track plan in place? Shouldn’t the two go together?
I understand that you may have limited space but …
Anyways sounds like you have the bench work all ready. I would take the time to study closer what Byron H. has suggested at least twice already.
Derek