Has anyone ever built this plan? I want to build it but I would like to know the level of difficulty and is it a good plan for operating.
Depends upon what you are calling operating. There aren’t any industries at all.
As noted, there is no space for industries in the original. Most folks like to have some industrial switching and industrial buildings for scenery, especially in a layout this large.
The book 101 Track Plans is over 50 years old now, so there has been a lot of thought given to layout design in the interim. This particular plan has significant access problems and could probably only be built as drawn with the use of some custom trackwork, not off-the-shelf track switches (turnouts).
This plan was typical of design goals in the ‘50s: lots of track, lots of loops back and forth, a good-sized turntable and roundhouse. Since many layouts did not progress very far past the tracklaying phase, crawling on the layout to reach far areas for maintenance or to rerail trains was not seen as too big of a problem. The table is 7’X10’ (in HO). At the least, you would need a couple of feet for aisles all around, so the true space this layout would occupy is more like 11’X14’. In that much space, one can do better. Even in N scale, one could probably do better in the equivalent space.
In a way, it’s a shame that author/editor Linn Westcott’s drawing skills were so terrific – he made these tightly-packed layouts look much better in the book than they ever could in plaster and plywood, IMHO.
Byron
Model RR Blog
Where in does the significant access problems lay with this layout? Nothing is outside 3 ft and most is within 2 ft (all switches and crossings + turntable, where common derail problems might lay), always felt that that is the maximum you can reach over a layout, this case calculating for HO ofc, in 0-scale i can understand the reach problems. The access area in the middle should ofc be built and not covered up.
And I bet you get plenty of switching just from backing in and out of “Baltimore” there is even a note on the map about using part of the inner mainline for yard switching. I understand it’s not the standard “spotting cars at various industrys” type switcher but it could get advanced enough.
On the other hand #57 is a double tracked loop with loops added on for turning things around. So should make a fairly good “starter” or “first” layout to complete. Wiring this one will be intresting but on the other hand what layout doesn’t have wiring complications. (One tracked loops? Pt-to-Pt without switches/turnouts?)
“101 trackplans” offers plenty of switching layouts 6,7,8,11,12,51 and 55 however as the thread maker wanted input on this particular one I’d say go for it its a good “display” type layout with some switching action built in. However the 14" turntable might be a bit small for Big Boys the layout can probably handle most Mikados and such. Diezelisation is also ofc an option!
about needing 11x14 ft of space i guess you can figure out it needs that much since its in the 12x16 ft space layouts of the book?
I do agree that most his layouts are track-heavy but this is the typical thing for the 50:s.
20 degree crossings it says in the book and that probably makes the switches #6:s which is 91/2 degrees? Probably going to need to use flex-track but switches/turnouts and crossings shouldn’t be a problem anyway.
<
You make a good point. If I use it I will make it flat with some modifications that will allow industry. Also make it a little bigger. But is there a good 8’ x 10’ or 11’ “flat” layout somewhere with good opporating potential?
Personally, I can’t easily reach across three feet of finished layout. 30 inches is about my max. And I’d rather not crawl under and pop-up a few thousand times in the construction, operation, and maintenance of the layout.
My major point, and I’ll stay with it, is that there are better options for 11X14 feet overall (with minimal 2-foot aisles) in HO than this 50+ year old design.
Byron
Model RR Blog
[quote user=“Frisken”]
Where in does the significant access problems lay with this layout? Nothing is outside 3 ft and most is within 2 ft (all switches and crossings + turntable, where common derail problems might lay), always felt that that is the maximum you can reach over a layout, this case calculating for HO ofc, in 0-scale i can understand the reach problems. The access area in the middle should ofc be built and not covered up.
And I bet you get plenty of switching just from backing in and out of “Baltimore” there is even a note on the map about using part of the inner mainline for yard switching. I understand it’s not the standard “spotting cars at various industrys” type switcher but it could get advanced enough.
On the other hand #57 is a double tracked loop with loops added on for turning things around. So should make a fairly good “starter” or “first” layout to complete. Wiring this one will be intresting but on the other hand what layout doesn’t have wiring complications. (One tracked loops? Pt-to-Pt without switches/turnouts?)
“101 trackplans” offers plenty of switching layouts 6,7,8,11,12,51 and 55 however as the thread maker wanted input on this particular one I’d say go for it its a good “display” type layout with some switching action built in. However the 14" turntable might be a bit small for Big Boys the layout can probably handle most Mikados and such. Diezelisation is also ofc an option!
about needing 11x14 ft of space i guess you can figure out it needs that much since its in the 12x16 ft space layouts of the book?
I do agree that most his layouts are track-heavy but this is the typical thing for the 50:s.
20 degree crossings it says in the book and that probably makes the switches #6:s which is 91/2 degrees? Probably going to need to use flex-track but switches/turnouts and crossings shouldn’t be a proble
Personally, I think a better approach to layout design is to consider the overall space (room entrance location and door swing, obstructions, etc.), then from that decide what will fit. This is an alternative to looking for the largest table that will plop into a given space.
Often, a dogbone or other walk-in style will fit into the overall space, then you can add in engine facilities, yards and such to fit the overall footprint. If you look closely at the yard in #57, a number of the tracks are only a couple of feet long when you consider the clearance points. Those are pretty short to be very useable. The connection to the engine terminal is also a bit convoluted – a more modern approach would be to set up one or more arrival-departure tracks that are double-ended and make the connection to the turntable from those. The plan is designed so that you have to loop and back in every train. I guess some might see that as fun.
Another more-modern concept is the use of staging tracks to represent locations beyond the visible layout. Staging tracks are absent from nearly all of the designs in 101 Track Plans.
You are probably going to spend at least a few years on building a layout this size. To me, it makes sense to optimize it for the overall space you have in terms of operation, access, “maintainability”, etc. – rather than just plunking down a rectangular table design from an old book. That approach will take more time and study, but seems to me to give the best chance of long-term satisfaction and enjoyment.
Byron
Model RR Blog
Really? Looking at it closely I don’t really understand it. I don’t see any clear arrival or departure tracks. If the bottom area is used for arrival the bottom three tracks are blocked from being used. I can’t identify anything that would be a caboose or RIP track. The two tracks that look like yard leads aren’t. They are just tracks sort of there not connected to the working of the yard at all - maintenance of way storage?? To work cars between the upper and lower sections of the yard will require the switcher to go out on the main - way out onto the main. The main yard ladder is also the only access to the locmotive service/storage area, which happens to also be a switchback. There isn’t even a locomotive excape crossover anywhere.
Before you commit to this yard make some paper train cars. Sit down and do some normal yard work. Bring in a train off the main, break off the road locomotive and take it to the facilities, break off the caboose and store it, then classify the train. If you are satisfied with this scenario, then bring the train in from the opposite direction. Then reverse and make up a train from both directions.
Personally I think you will be pulling your hair out and planning on how to change the yard to make it more workable. For example the large version of this layout #58. Much more workable yard. Pay attention to changes noted by the circled 5, 7, and 9. No, I still don’t like it but it is better.
Well I can always change the yard. So what would be needed to make the yard work?
I suspect it would take handlaying turnouts and other complex trackwork if one wishes to make these plans a reality in the space they’re allotted.
Folks:
The yard does look like it needs some help. I took a quick glance this morning, when I was on my way out the door. I’ll need to look again and think some more.
I like that book. I don’t know if I like all of the plans, and some are very weird. I have to wonder how Bill Wight saw the Lime Ridge, Hercules, and Portland being operated, for instance, but he died young, in the Speedrail accident, so not even Westcott could have asked him that before publishing. Still, there is more variety in that book than might be gathered from the remarks seen online about it. Many of the plans do tend to be compact, so they may look weird, but I still think we can learn things there.
I don’t like to reject plans hastily. When I see a plan posted online, or published, and it doesn’t make much sense to me at first, I still try to give it a chance, and see what I might be missing. I think this is especially vital in this case, because this plan, according to LHW, was very popular. When I read that, I like to try and understand just what made it popular, and what relevance that can have for us today.
It’s a table, but a big table. Thinking about this, I had an interesting thought. A round-the-wall layout surrounds its room. Even if it’s small, it’s everywhere you look. Generally, it looks like a permanent fixture, like the kitchen counters, not furniture.
A table is an object in the room. Even if it’s big, and takes up much more space than wall shelves would you still get the impression that it’s furniture, and can be moved. Maybe this psychological difference is part of the attraction. It’s easier to “sell” a piece of furniture to The Building Management than a permanent room alteration. Just a thought.
Anyway, back on the layout in question, what are its strong points, and why did people like it? <
I mentioned in another thread that I’ve found that these plans are not build-able with today’s track in the space available, and that he should try to work out the plan with track planning software before he builds. I’ve found between 15% and 50% more space needed to make track plans from 101 Plans work. I mentioned this to the poster a couple weeks ago in another post, but since he posted this after, I think he is ignoring and hoping for the best.
I believe that is contained in what I just posted. Change each question to a “it needs a”. For example - it needs an arrival/departure tr
The software idea is a good one but I don’t have any such software nor do I want to purchase any because I would most likely not use much.
XtrkCAD is free. But even if you spent $100 it would be worth it. Your layout will cost you between $50 and $100 per sq ft to build and take you 50 hrs. sq ft to build. That’s a lot to invest not having a workable plan to start with.
[quote user=“Texas Zepher”]
I believe that is contained in what I just posted. Change each question to a “it needs a”. For example - it ne
If you haven’t read it start with my Beginner’s Guide.
The problem is that everyone has a different vision that everyone else, so no track plan done by anyone else will meet your expectations–unless you work with a pro and that pro forces you to do your homework so he can do his job.
So you need to start by coming up with your givens and druthers. Givens are the factors that you cannot change–the room you have for your layout, the location of the water heater, what your wife says, etc. Druthers are anything you can change–the shape of the layout, the era, industries, type of operations, etc.
In other words, Givens are non-negotiable. Druthers, no matter how strong you want them, are negotiable.
You have to flesh out your vision and make choices.
Once you start make choices these choices, and the more specific the better, then we will be able to help you come up with a workable plan. All the newbies here went through the same process, including me three years ago.
Givens:
layout size: 8’ x 11’
era: steam
Druthers:
Industry: coal
operation: hauling coal from a mine
In truth though I’m not really sure about what I want for a railroad. That’s why I wanted to look at some proven layouts of different types and see which one I like. The only thing I’m really stuck on is the era and the layout size.
Perhaps building a smaller layout will help you to zero in on what aspects you like. You can enjoy building it while you plan for the next one. You can also get a feel for what level of complexity you feel comfortable with.I was getting ready to build a 9x15 N-scale layout then decided to build a 32" x 60" layout first. So far, its been a great experience.
The book “Realistic Model Railroad Operation” might be a good thing to check out if you are interested in building for operations. I learned a lot from it I have applied to both the little layout I am building as well as the larger layout I am designing. I would also try checking out some more modern track plan books for ideas, such as Ian Rice’s books perhaps although I think those may be out of print. I think it was one of his that had a whole series of layouts designed to fit in an 8x10 spare bedroom… perhaps someone can correct me if I am wrong I dont have my library here at work!
Chris