Industrial Switching Layout - in other words just a small layout that depicts an industrial area, like a belt line in a big city. Operation consists mainly of moving cars to and from industries with some sort of yard or staging as the origin/destination of all traffic. Few ISL’s have a continuous loop and train movements are typically limited to one or two trains at a time.
But they are not always small - I know a guy who has one that fills a nice sized basement - just a point to point run cramed with industries from one end to the other and a staging yard at one end - He uses one Aristo throttle for the whole thing.
I plan to build one as an urban water front scene, seperate from my main layout, but with the same Roadname, era, etc.
I think it is helpful if folks would refrain from using lessor known achronyms so we don’t have to spend post after post in a state of confusion. I’ve noticed that some people like to throw achronysms around but its better for the community to take a few extra seconds and type it out. Having done some scientific reports as a geologist where achronyms are common, the standard format is to ALWAYS define the achronym at first occurance in the report and then the reader knows what it means. Also, one of the golden rules of writing is to pretend everyone reading new to the topic and has no clue of what you are talking about. This doesn’t mean you have to talk as if to a 3 year old, but you do have to explain things - it saves the rest of us a lot of wasted time and confusion.
Cost of track - industrial switching layouts sound like they would save more on lumber and space more than track, since they would have a high density of a lot of track in a small place. Switching a few freight cars around doesn’t fire the imagination of the general population, so I don’t see industrial switching layouts as becoming very popular.
Just enough that Lane Mindhiem has wrote 4 books covering the subject and MR had several articles covering the same subject over the past few months…I think those Godzilla size layouts that fills a basement may become a endangered species except for those with extremely deep pockets since they can cost thousands to build plus the thousand dollars worth of locomotives,cars,structures,figures,vehicles,trees etc needed to operate and populate those mega size layouts.
As far as acronyms I think they help…I been using ISL since I heard it on several forums including the old Atlas forum.
As far as switching a few cars around.That’s the very basics of railroading far more then running units or intermodal trains(which can cost several thousand for cars and trailers/containers).
All you need for a ISL is 40 or 50 cars(for rotation),a engine or two,some switches,some track and structures.
I am interested in most all aspects of railroad operation - that is why my “Godzilla sized layout” includes the equivalent of an “Industrial Switching Layout” within it - largely separate from the “expensive” long mainline “Godzilla” part of the layout - which I can afford. “Extremely deep pockets” is a subjective area we would likely be better off not discussing, but I know lots of guys with big layouts and few of them are “wealthy beyond average” as the economy in this region goes. As I stated earlier in this thread, judging how wealthy someone is by the size of their model railroad does not allow for a long list of other life c
Brakie, you have repeatedly in other discussions talked about the great union jobs you had when you were younger - where did that money go that you cannot or will not afford a basement empire?
First I’m a scrooge when it comes to some things…Secondly,as you may recall I’ve also stated several times that the majority of my layouts has been ISLs since that is my favorite type of layout…
Seeing I have a passion for fishing I bought a used bass boat and brand new Chevy C10 to pull it with…My wife favored a Thunderbird…We enjoyed the nicer things in life and I paid cash for a lot of things including the car I’m driving now.
Exactly my point - we all spend money differently and we all have different likes and dislikes.
For me there is nothing more boring than fishing, now a day at the rifle range…
My wife drives a brand new loaded Ford Flex with the twin turbo engine, but I drive a 13 year old F150 because it still works fine.
My house is paid for, my cars are paid for, my trains are paid for - but I don’t have or want a boat - grew up near the water and got over all that at a young age.
Lance is a nice guy, I have spoke/e-mailed with him a few times, but nothing he is doing has changed my view or methods in this hobby.
Still happy to have my ISL “within” my Godzilla layout.
I would love that simple pleasure but,being a combat vet I shy away from such things…
BTW…I’ve got nothing against Godzilla size layouts…I just never had the urge to build one but,if I did it would be a Godzilla size urban industrial branch with loads of switching-I suspect you already knew that though.[(-D]
As I have explained before, my layout, while large, is relatively simple. Extra space is used for a longer yard, broader curves, a bigger engine terminal, a bigger passenger terminal, not more of them.
Example - the electrical and trackwork complexity of a 8 track wide yard is the same whether it is 8 feet long or 18 feet long - mine is 18’. My passenger terminal has plateforms for 12 car trains - not 6 - and so on.
I also like building “non railroad” scenery - so I want real estate for towns, farms, etc. - as well as my ISL “belt line” weaving through part of the layout.
Well…this thread is about how expensive turnouts can be, so I don’t want to turn it into a layout trackplan thread…but…
Just some thoughts, knowing nothing about what you want your layout to do.
You have 2 runarounds when you really only need 1. You can save 2 turnouts there.
The SW corner has a nasty S curve on the mainline that’s created by using the diverging route of 2 turnouts. And that third track is probably too short to be very useful.
Generally speaking, switchbacks tend to cause you to use one more turnout than what you need to switch an industry. If you have an industry on the tail track of a switchback, you couldn’t have a car sitting on it or else you’d need to move it before you had enough space to get to the other industry. Maybe that’s operationally “challenging”, maybe that’s a pain-in-the-neck. You decide.
Actually at scale speeds there shouldn’t be a issue-at way to fast speeds all bets are off.I do agree the track is too short to be of any use.
As far as switch backs where a car has to be moved…Why not use a crossing instead? Another thing the industrial siding is owned by the industry and not the railroad and I truly doubt they would be happy to have their rail car unloaders to get paid for standing around while a switch crew switches another industry while using their track and not to mention it can take up to 30 minutes for a crew to pull and spot a car or cars.
Antonio, I am indeed a Trans Am man, although I don’t own one anymore. I still keep my eyes open for a good, cheap one to come on the market but the model railroading is taking all my spare cash now anyway. I’ve had the '88 GTA and a '97 WS6. I’d love to have that car back.
Getting back to the cost of track. I suppose I started out the most expensive way possible with EZ track. Once I figured out its limitations I began tranisioning to flex track/used sectional track which is much cheaper. Live build and learn.
I guess I’m the odd man out here since I’ve always favored industrial scenery and thus my love for ISL type of layouts.
There’s something about the sound of a locomotive’s prime mover reverberating off concrete buildings while weaving through a industrial area that gets my attention.My favorite type of train is the urban local.
