Track Plan For Critique

Model Railroader Layouts and layout building
1

Good day to all,

First, I would like to wish our neighbors to the south a happy Fourth of July weekend. An upcoming move has caused the dismantling of my layout, I had considered trying to save it and re-assemble at my new location but then I said what the heck, I will start from scratch and try a different approach. The track plan is based on a plan from John Armstrong. It has been said here before but I will say it again, if you don’t have his book “Track Planning For Realistic Operation” it would be highly beneficial to get it. The man was light years ahead of his time. The plan is basically an out and back with a branch line. I have chosen to model a paper mill at the end of the branch. Loads and empties for the paper mill would transfer between railroads at the branch junction. There would be a scattering of industries along the main line and an industry track at the main yard. Due to the limitations of RTS, the plan is not as crowded as it looks. John’s original plan was for a 10’ X 12’ room. My room is 11.5’ X 12.5’ So I don’t think there should be a problem with making it fit. There are a couple of elevated areas that I could not show, haven’t quite figured that out in RTS yet. The paper mill complex is reached by a long and steady grade up the branch; it should be less than 3 %. The main yard is also elevated above the return loop. Staging will be underneath the layout. I model in HO, the era is the 70’s and I run all 4 axle diesels with 40 - 60 foot cars. Thanks for any and all coments.

Scott

2

That doesn’t look like any John Armstrong plan with which I am familiar. Maybe you can share the opriginal source and then we can compare and make some comments. There are a number of concerns here that I wouldn’t normally associate with an Armstrong plan, but I haven’t seen them all.

3

The plan came from an MRR Infostation download “Best of John Armstrong vol 4” One of the articles is called “Build Your Pike to Suit Yourself” He gives 3 examples of each type of plan; The Engineer, The Dispatcher, and The Spectator. I chose the Engineer.

Scott

4

November 1954. My magazine collection is in such a mess I can’t put my hands on that one right away, but I remember that the plans in that article were definitely not among his better efforts.

Martin

5

Thanks Martin, that’s a help. I have a couple of 1954 issues in storage, I’ll see if this is one of them.

6

Well, there’s only one way into the yard. And once a train leaves, it can’t get back in, due to the rversing loop set up, unless it backs in. Also, I don’t easily see a way to take a train off.

To me, and this is just me thinking, this is a fairly well done logging layout. If I were you, I’d re-arrange the two loops, so that they are a point-to-point from Yard (and transfer to a larger off-layout railroad) to the lumber mill, or change them to become other logging camps. The latter may actually be more useful to you for the added industries, and I think I may actually like that better, ansd it could work the way you have it. but there then becomes “industry” that’s hidden. Things like tents needing food, and tools, clothing. Or, you take the non-train route and focus on trucks. it’s up to you.

Look at the last bridge on the left wall, towards the bottom, where the blue main heads over the logging track. That can’t happen, in order for it to plunge into the reversing loop. Instead, the lumber mill track needs to be a flyover, to do that just take the bridge you had planned, and cut the ends at an angle, lay the track on top in the curve
Int that same spot, on the logging track, you have an S kink. For short cars, you might be able to get past it. But you need a straight section right there for ideal running. Based on your speeds, a short section only as long as the engine’s truck would suffice.

There’s also an S-kink on the way to the turntable.

At Branch Junction, the interchange skewered. I see what your tring to do, but the joint was not connected in the program, and when track was added in, RTS pushed the switches away and closer together. You should be able to take the short section out of the angled main to pull it up, and you’ll need to squeek it to the left to get the diverging

7

I’m having a hard time seeing how your gonna fit that into your space. Maybe on paper, but reality??? In your blue yard on the right, you have 9 tracks in about an18" wide space. I’m having a hard time getting 6-7 tracks in that same width on a ladder I’m building right now with Atlas #4’s.
Looked fine on paper, but not once I started laying track. I’m no expert, just sceptical if it will really fit.
I like the plan as a whole.

8

Well, to me it looks like like a point to loop (go out and return back on the same route) mainline and with a stub-ended branch. Lots of interesting operation here … but:

The layout is full of track, limiting scenic opportunities.

The main yard is awkwardly laid out (switching of ladder tracks interferes with departures/arrivals, access to engine services is poor, etc.)

Most of the passing sidings are partially or entirely hidden, perhaps making access to turnouts awkward and result in non-prototypical practice of having double-track tunnels on an otherwise single-track line.

Some of the spurs are poorly placed along the mainline and look vestigial. A two-foot long single spur to a sawmill complex? Come on.

The sharp radius and probably similarly sharp turnouts greatly limits the type of rolling stock. As is, it would be best asa 19th-century railroad.

Access along three sides of the lower-left blob will be necessary. Removable access is totally inadequate.

It would be nice to have more staging at the reverse loop.

I don’t want to spend time to check out what kinds of grades are needed here. Any potential builder of this layout should check that.

9

And grade problems you’ll have. It took me not even a minute to find out. And with the bonus of non level passing tracks switching spurs will be a challange. When you want an interchange between a main and a branch the junction is where the yard should be. Andy Sp. designed years ago the Hemet and Santa Fe, i can be wrong with the name, on Bryon Henderson’s webside you’ll find the trackplan. Perris can be the intercange yard, San J. an industrial zone and Hemet your beloved papermill. Since i first saw that design decades ago i knew this is the way to go with a roomsized layout. Never listen to a stranger, go your own way and have lots of fun Paulus Jas

10

The layout you are talking about seems to be Andy Sperandeo’s 9x12 foot H0 layout “San Jacinto District” from Model Railroader February 1980, presented as inspirational layout #5 on Byron Henderson’s blog post http://mrsvc.blogspot.com/2008/10/sperandeos-san-jacinto-dist.html

Smile,
Stein

11

If that was a junction between two separate railroads, I agree to the extent that another track sufficient to hold pick-ups and drop-offs would be handy. But since this represents a junction of a branchline and a mainline, all that is necessary is a single turnout connecting the two lines. Branchline trains can originate and terminate at the mainline terminal. Leaving that terminal, they would travel the mainline until coming to the junction, then go onto the branch. The returning branchline train would reverse the route. Boy, that results in a very long run!

IMHO, the common, over-used practice of placing a substantial yard at the junction of branchline and mainline is frequently a poor use of limited layout space when there is a substantial yard elsewhere on the layout. (Please excuse my fanaticism. This issue is one of my crusades in layout design.)

Mark

12

Actually, I think he’d be fine if the bridge is on the lumber branch instead of over, starts the grade just past the junction, and possibly drops the blue line down as well, he’d be fine.

13

Good feedback so far. I have made some changes to the plan and I think it will be easier to see the track arrangement this time. Some points to note; there is only one return loop and it is located under the yard. The loop under the paper mill just crosses back upon itself.

Scott

14

Boys and Boys

Lots of comments

First things first Babyfluff and Flashwave

You have a grade problem’. When you come out of the loop or at the yunction your altitude is 0". Only when this line drops to minus 3" under the papermill you will have the blue route (going to the terminal) leaving the tunnel at 0". This route has to climb to 3" again to get the terminal above the loop. So the branch can cross this last line at 3’'. Resulting in passing sidings on steep grades.

Mr Mark, i agree an extra interchange track would do the trick. I like your attitude but as a CEO of this RR i would still have my doubts; put the yard near the yunction and ride as light as you can to the terminal. Going around twice or thrice is not bad when you’r after a long mainline run.

For Babyfluff. I also think the passing siding in your terminal is way to short.

Have lots of fun, don’t listen to strangers and go your own way

Paul JAS

15

Scott: Loop tracks are space hogs, especially for a 11x12 room, which is why you’ll be finding suggestions to change the layout to more of a doughnut around the room design. Working within the guidelines of your plan, keeping the loops to 18 inch radius would help to keep them shallow, and you’ve done a good conceptual job of hiding any sharp radii by concealing the loops under your two main scenic elements, the yard and the paper mill.

However, I might be missing something, but I don’t understand the purpose of the reverse loop. It allows a train to reverse direction and return to the yard after making some moves at the junction. Couldn’t a diesel just do a run around maneuver at the junction and drag the cars up the hill to the mill, and reverse the operation on the way back from the mill? Is the loop for staging? Couldn’t that be accomplished by running the green staging tracks along a shelf under the yard? Is it for continous running? No, one reverse loop won’t provide that.

I think there is still an access problem with the extreme southwest corner of the layout. I like the overall concept of the mill. The space devoted to one industry like that is very prototypical. Perhaps if you make all radii 18 inches ( the blue tracks as well) you could find away to narrow the benchwork and improve access to the corner.

Doug

16

I did a grade check and it seems that I will have 10+ feet to rise and fall the 3 inches required. That translates to a grade of 2.5 % and if I split the difference the grade will be about 1.2 % . To Paul Jas, what passing siding are you referring to?

17

From your replies, it seems as if you are committed to this trackplan. I had a chance to see the article and the original plan is definitely not one of John Armstrong’s more notable efforts. Ffity years ago, point-to-point plans, even small (and somewhat contrived) ones, were regarded as the most “serious” style of layout.

But in those days, rolling stock was harder to come by (in time and relative dollars), there was no viable walk-around or command control technology, and the idea of realism in a layout concept was often viewed as less important than cramming in a lot of track.

In the intervening decades, principles such as staging, interchange, and realistic prototype inspiration have come more to the forefront. In fact, Armstrong’s more recent designs of the 1980s, '90s, and beyond (after years of experience and development), look very little like these 1950s efforts.

One of the basic tenets of the original design was simplicity in the “terminals” at each end, but I think you may find that some of the complexities that have been added, such as the switchback spurs in the paper mill area, will be more tedious than fun in the long run.

Bottom line, in your space, there are better options, IMHO. The concept you seem to be developing, of two separate railroads that interchange at the junction, would best be served by a different overall schematic. It’s a fine concept, but the layout Armstrong designed fifty years ago does not support that concept, nor really do the changes you have made so far.

Other concepts would work, too, such as a branch line connecting to a mainline of the same railroad, or even a branch line reached via trackage rights over another railroad. But each of these concepts would best be served by a different schematic and corresponding layout design.

As I often do, I’ll recommend that you take a step back from the CAD

18

How could i be so wrong? I asumed the mainlinecrossing under your papermill was on different levels. You drew bridges elsewhere, i should have known better.

There is only one place in your yard where a train can go around its consist without being helped. And this track is not even two feet long.

I have maybe a 1000 questions, to many to ask. Read Cayuma’s remarks very carefully. He is an professional mrr-designer, with an outstanding webside.

You have two independent lines coming from the same staging area. Making these lines operationaly more connected seems (to me) a planning goal.

Try out different uses of your space. With Amstrong’s square aproaoch you can’t go wrong.When you turn your papermill 4 to 8 a ninety degrees, you’r getting a peninsuala, and an accessproblem is solved.

Wish you all the best, go your own way and have fun

Paulus Jas.

19

Hello, Babefluff.

Don’t mean to be brutally blunt, but I will.

Follow these instructions:

"

As I often do, I’ll recommend that you take a step back from the CAD to think about the concept you find most interesting, the story you want to tell with your layout, and the kind of operations or train-running you’d most like to see.

From that, you’ll see what layout elements (staging, yard, runaround, interchange, industries, etc.) are needed to support the concept and then figure out how to string them into your space, starting with a blank sheet of paper (or screen) containing only the walls, room entrance(s), and any other obstructions. The concept will provide a ready reference to determine what you need and don’t need in your plan." (by Byron)

You are going to be floundering in a sea of tracks unless and until you step back and review what you want in terms of what a railroad would need. Then you can proceed with a track plan that incorporates the elements your railroad will need to accomplish it’s purpose.

Most of the responses you’ve received so far have pointed out the inherent problems with your layout plan. Many of these problems will not lend themselves to an easy solution. Do yourself a big favor and listen to Byron’s advice.

Sorry to be so blunt. It will help you in the long run.

Darrell, quiet…for now