Thinking and rethinking is always the process that gets me into trouble but over the winter, since its been too cold for me to get into the garage to work on the railroad, I’ve given thought to both the space and the plan… My prior plan was a gradually evolving mess, that I’d gotten started on just prior to working enough mandatory overtime at my job that the prospect of working on my railroad seemed more like a throat than a time of enjoyment… Luckily that situation has changed…
Anyhow, I’ve come up with a modest plan in replacement, which I think will satify mywants, needs, givens, and druthers pretty well, knowing from the outset that no plan is perfect, and all battle plans change… I want a railroad that will allow continuous running, some staging and operations, and some scenic opportunities without being overly difficult to build…
I’ll base this on the fact that each square is a 12" x 12" area. So let’s see. Roundy round for two or more trains. Check. Staging areas. Check. Expandability. Check. Can comfortably reach all areas. Check. Looks good to me. But I’m sure there will be those who disagree. Good Luck! Jay
Do you have room for buildings and industries? would be a concern looking at the track plan. Heavy on track with minimal room for scenery and structures.
It looks like you’re trying to cram a lot of track into that space. It looks like most of your sidings only have a few inches between them at most- hard to fit an industrial building into that space. The similar lack of scenery space may or may not be an issue for you.
On the inner track you can switch if you like, or let them roll on both tracks. And a short single track passage over the bridge, just to keep the engeneers awake.
A large mill and lots of trees are keeping the staging tracks less visible.
Have fun
Paul
BTW Atlas RTS, main with #7 or #10’s and a min mainline radius of 15".
I like your idea… If I can make the space available, I’ll name an industry after you- Jas Motorwerks, or Dutch Boy Paints, or Paulus Sofa King-Comfortable! Anyhow that plan looks like fun to play with…
With the usual latuitude I am given for projects, I’m told by the planning and development that we have to share space, with consideration to the recession and that the quilt production facility cannot be rezoned to fit my needs… so instead of 10x 12 I have 6x10 So I retooled my original a bit… I’m thinking of doing a 1/12 mock up on a piece of foam board to make sure my buildings and things will fit, eyeballing it isn’t going to work. I need to get some problem solving happening and stop pining for the space I want and use what I have… Otherwise my trains will remain boxed for another 20 years.
I had drawn the previous plan with rather big radii (15 and up); I’ve made a redraw with 12.5 / 13.75 radii. Even to my surprise it fitted in a 10 x 6 space. Some minor changes were made; most had to do with keeping some space for the river. However the staging tracks are still hard to reach.
After I’ve drawn the main line and decided where staging and where the station had to be laid out I started thinking about scenery. To separate the station and the staging tracks I chose for the river/mill scene. The engine service/ interchange scene was nicked from the Railroad in the Alcove design by Byron Henderson. Even before going back to the railroad for adding sidings and spurs I drew in the roads. Beside being great scenes, they are great scenic deviders too.
Umm - 10x6 feet. We still don’t know how that room that the layout will need to fit into looks, but a HOG (donut) style layout (either on free standing benches or wall shelves or a combination thereof) might be a good idea to maximize railroading in a space that size. Needs a liftout or duckunder or some such thing, but maximizes real estate usable for tracks and railroad served businesses, maximize reach, and needs only one aisle - the central operator’s pit.
You didn’t asked for comments. But if you are interested:
I would take full advantage of the 10 foot long layout area for the mainline. Related I would make it look like a double track mainline on the top, left, and right and separate them from the each other on the far right for scenic effect.
The industrial area on the inside of the upper left has limited use for anything except for tracks on a flat board. The top track is basically one modern car or two 40 footers. The one curving down from that is the same as one cannot really spot the cars on the curved section. All four tracks are too close to each other to fit in nice structures.
Move the curved track on the far right inside (Is that supposed to be an intermodal) and bubble the main line out farther.
The industrial area on the inside lower part wastes a lot of capacity by having the switchback. Make the lead to the left track come off the main and cross (crossing) the lead to the right hand tracks. That way the sidings are still facing both ways but the switchback space conflict is removed.
A possible really big change would be on one side swoop the mainline more the center and put the industrial area on the board side of it. Sort of like what you did on the right side except for on the top or bottom. This makes the main line longer and makes it easier to reach and work an industrial area while trains parade by on the main(s).
thank you for your excellent suggestions… when I haver time today I’ll look at your plan in my space, or modify my own plan according to your suggestions to see what I can come up with… I appreciate the assistance…
Just for the sake of academics… I doodled this up figuratively speaking of course… Am I learning anything or just getting worse… I’ve been reading Linn Wescott and John Allen, and that Armstrong guy and I’m in aww of what they accomplished… I just seem to make a mess… But I think I’m learning…
This probably isn’t a candidate for my space, but it was kind of fun to work up.
I like your last track plan better than the first one. I still wonder if you are not trying to put too much trackwork in too small of a space. I would want to know how long will your longest train be? This would tell you how long your passing sidings should be. Additionally, what is the “theme” of the railroad? Are you trying to emulate a specific prototype are is this completely a “freelanced” railroad. The era in which your layout exists should help with the equipment that you run. The small size of your layout will dictate the minimum radius curve that you will be able to have on the layout. The curves should in turn help you decide how large a locomotive and rolling stock that you can run. The Dash 9’s look great, but run on tight radii, look out of place. The same can be said for the rolling stock. I would think that 40 foot boxcars and the like would look more prototypical. Another factor is the size of the turnouts that you plan to use. You can probably use #4 turnouts for industrial spurs, but for passing sidings, I would suggest at least a #6 turnout. Curved turnouts can help you save space but not at the expensive of the radii of the curves. Make certain that you have enough space for scenery any industries. Have fun!!!
The thing you seem to have a problem with in your plans is allowing for operator space and reach.
I’d suggest starting with a drawing of the room your layout will be in, showing doors and windows, other uses of the room etc.
That will allow you to figure out where you will have room for aisles (preferably minimum 30" wide), and how to have less than than (preferably) 24" reach from an aisle to any point on your layout.
Craig the layout will be mostly steam mostly, though I do have an F unit and an E8 that I use to pull some short passenger cars on occasion when I run my current layout which is built on a 29.5x60 inch folding table… The 11 inch radius curves are not a problem for any of my locos or cars that I run. I’ve planned in #6 turnouts on the mainline and will use them also in the engine facility at the bottom on the layout. in the coal mine area at the top, I will use #4’s.
This is a completely freelance project, though I do have a soft spot for the Big Four/ NYC and DT&I.
Stein, you’re correct clearance for wide bodied modeler’s is something I often neglect… Go figure… I am a wide bodied modeler… LOL… What I was trying to do was use the tabled I have on hand as a platform for the layout- I have three of these 29.5x60 tables, and we know that we won’t be living in this house forever, so I don’t want to build a permanent layout-shelves, L girder, domino… What I plan to do is brace between the side frame of these tables and clamp or drill and bolt them together in whatever configurattion I finally decide on and then build with breakaway sections at the joints so that I can break it down for moving, or separate and expand.I’m working it… So many unknowns at this point… Grr…
Making a layout on three sections that each are 29.5 x 60" (ie 2.5 x 5 feet), and with a footprint that can fit into a standard room of e.g. 10x12 feet isn’t all that hard.
You could always just make a T shaped layout, with room for aisles on both sides of the short leg. Maybe something like this:
Not at all a complete plan - I have just sketched in some possible locations for scenes. It would fit into a generic 10x10 room with minimum 30" aisles and reach no where more than 30". Curve radius in the drawing above is 13".
One scene can always double as staging for another scene, if you can’t see them both at the same time.
Problem with this way of combining your tables is that it uses more floor space. That peninsula will take up quite a bit of the center of the room.
Design is always about trade-offs. You get separate scenes and better access, you lose floor space.
You could use an L shape into the corner, too. Uses less floor space, but at the expense of having tracks less accessible
You got me thinking again, and I’ve got “See the room!” ringing in my ears, I spent a good chunk of last night reading Byron Henderson and making real sense. I keep trying to build more into the available flat surface than I should. I made a template in RTS the size of my room and I was actually working on T an U shaped Templates when I logged in here… I’ve had several “Ah Hw!” moments in the last day, its going to take a significant amount of coffee to sort it all out… I’m ordinarily a very intelligent person, I have no idea why this is difficult for me.
with Paul and Stein you have two of the most apt people and experts in layout design interested in your issue. Listening carefully to what the two can tell you will be of a big help to you developing an interesting and rewarding layout.
I had both of them helping me in my quest for a layout design and it was a pleasure to work with them!
Nice of you to keep saying so, Ulrich, but I am most definitely not an “expert in layout design”. I’m just an average, or possibly below average, model railroader who have an interest in discussing layout design and track planning.
Aw, shucks, Stein - no need to be so humble. You have given me and others in this forum so much valuable advice and input, eloquently, a little persistent sometimes, but always with patience and a smile. You have, and I am unfortunately lacking this ability, the gift to see car movements on a paper track plan.
It is people like you who make this forum alive and a pleasure to visit!
