For weeks I have been attempting to come up with my dream layout plan. I guess I went through all the stages - from being totally enthrilled to utterly frustrated.
My planning work started with the idea of an around-the-wall shelf-type layout, where I could just see my trains circle the loop and do an occasional switching job. So far it ended up as a switching layout, with sidings off a double track main line that I will use for staging.
Here is my plan now:
My sincere thanks to steinjr, Spacemouse and many others , who gave me a lot of valuable advice!
The industrial spur/branch line (ISBL) will be hard to switch without a runaround track.
The very last industry on the ISBL (at the bottom of the plan) will be hard to switch without a second track, otherwise when you have pulls and spots, you’ll need to run up to the workbench area, every time you want to switch a car.
Interesting shift! It’s been very engaging watching the development of yr layout & I admire yr dedication to exploring many different options in the planning stage!
I like the space & openness of this plan (I usually end up packing the space with track).
It seems like all of the switching along the front of the layout is limited by the 2+ foot track at the far right (circled in red below). Is that enough space?
Also, I seem to recall that one of yr first druthers was that you favored continuous running over switching. Is there a way to add a couple feet for a loop at the ends? You could block off part of them as either a staging area or a separate scene (the green dashed line is the backdrop). Just a suggestion, and, since I’m in N Scale, I’m not sure how much space the loop would involve.
Thanks, Mark, for your suggestions. Unfortunately, the space my plan occupies, is just about all I can squeeze out of the room, which also needs to “house” any overnight visitor. Used to be my son´s former room, when he was at home.
Seriously, I needed that shift in view from continous running to switching to come up with something that I know will give me the joy I am seeking to get out of it. It, means, however, seeing my UP TTT-6 only going back and forth a little. But who knows - I may be selling my house and get a smaller one, but this time with a big basement…
Mmmm - I thought Ulrich had worked in 4 feet from the rightmost end of the main to rightmost turnout on the main (enough space for an engine and 6 or so 40’ cars) and about 5 feet from the rightmost end of the main to the turnout to the other industrial spur.
So, what made you change your mind on this one, Ulrich ?
Would be heck on reach - you pretty much need 4x4 feet for a return curve in H0 scale, and your would not be able to reach the industry tracks on the lowermost half of the left wing and rightmost third of the top wing.
But I agree on the switchback tail on the main - that should be made a little longer again.
What I am assuming is that you are doing an interchange with the main line. So assuming the locos drop off cars for switching, you need a yard to sort cars going in each direction. That can be done using the 2 tracks lower tracks of the three tracks making the turn above your workbench. The “throat” is at (5,1.25).
I’m assuming that you don’t mind using the main as de facto staging. There would be one track in the upper left and two in the upper right.
That brings me to the only issue I see. A switcher would not be allowed on the main. (Okay you need to pull the cars in, but after that you don’t want to call the dispatcher and wait for permission every move you make sorting a string.) That can easily be solved by adding a turnout at (11,1) and running your switchback track, the middle of the 5 tracks on the right, straight forward to connect at about (9,1).
… sounds like an excellent idea, Spacemouse, but may be I am to stupid to put in into the track plan (or my English is deteriorating). Could you make a drawing for a poor soul from old Gemany?
Here is a suggestion - Do what mouse suggested, but put the entire length of the siding at the same level as the mainline (ie on a bridge across both roads) on the upper wall.
one of the “crazy” features of this layout is the raised mainline - gives it a scenic highlight in an actually simple and somewhat dull setup. I have been fiddling around with the plan to come up with a decent solution in terms of grade, just to keep this feature. I may have to sacrifice some operational possiblities, but for me, it´s worth it. You know, we want also to be pretty…
Fair enough - but won’t that slope from the main down to the road crossing be unworkably steep?
Looks like about 2.5" drop in about 2 feet (ie 24 inches) from the main down to the road by the name “Clinton”. That is about 10% incline, isn’t it ?
Edit: how about elevations somewhat along these lines ?
Would give about 2" vertical distance between the front spur and the main/siding in the upper left corner, about 1 1/4" between the upper level track and the road surface for the road underpass in the middle, and about 3/4" between the track level on the mainline/mainline siding and the lower level tracks at the right end of the layout.
Would also give about 2 1/2" vertical separation between the low spur and the high spur about halfway down along the left wall, making room for another road crossing/underpass scenic combination down there.
I’ll stop suggesting this elevation profile now - your layout, your decision - but I think 10% will be way too steep.
At the risk of bursting your bubble the TTT-6 would have vitrually never been seen in Clinton. Clinton is ex-CNW. The UP engines would have changed out at Omaha or Fremont for CNW engines. It would be in the diesel era that UP engines would commonly be seen at Clinton, and mostly in the trailing position, because only a few UP engines were equipped with CNW ATC cab signals. It wouldn’t be until around the UP merger with the CNW that large numbers of UP engines would be equipped ot operate on the CNW and would become very common as leaders.
Operation on the main would be rule 251 current of traffic, yard limits, with ATC (automatic train control).
Having said that, if you could extend the double track around the perimeter of the room, Clinton would be a great place to base the layout on because that’s where the lift bridge over the Mississippi River is, so you could make a liftout section in front of the door and call it the lift bridge.
I choose the name Clinton not for prototype reason (I know it is on the CNW), but for the pun the name has now. From Clinton to Obama Siding via Bush Junction - how does that sound?
The BLI UP TTT-6 is just a fantastic looking and performing loco - I had to get it.
Quite right Stein, that´s one of the pitfalls but also challenges of careful planning - sometimes you get carried away…
Any grade above 5 % is impossible, unless you model a rack railway. Since I have a clear picture of how this layout needs to look like in terms of scenery, it will be hard to find a solution. If I had an extra 4 feet of length available, it´d be easy to solve, but without those 4 feet I do not see a way, yet. So this means back to the drawing board, considering the following alternatives:
Discard the idea and find a new one - difficult, I like the idea of a raised main line as a scenic feature a lot.
Sell the house, get a new one with a big basement - fascinating thought, but difficult to get SWMBO´s approval.
Give up model railroading - after 45 years, I say - NEVER!
You know, you don’t need to have a 5% grade to create the illusion of a raised main. Since you pretty much know the viewing angle, you can work with it. Raise the main about an inch so the engines do have to climb a little. Then cut out a culvert or a creek that runs along the tracks of the main. The water should be 3-4 " down. Then when you look at the main, you see it is up and you see the distance to the water and you create the illusion of a highly raised main. If you get down to “ground” level you lose the illusion, but who is going to do that?
Not saying you should discard the idea. But how about adjusting how high the raised main must be relative to the lower industrial spur at the front of the layout ?
If you look at my latest drawing below, you can get a similar scenic effect (lower industrial spur at front, raised main at rear) with workable grades - if you are willing to fudge things a little at the far left end of the main:
Btw - I forgot to change the text on a couple of labels. Where it says Elev: 2.2" it really is elevation 2.25" (2 1/4").
Having the main (and the main siding) on an embankment where the tracks on top of the mainline embankment rises from being 3/4" (2 cm) about the tracks on the front industrial spur to being 2" (5 cm) above the front industrial spur should give at least some of the same scenic effect, even though it is not as high as in your original plan (2.5" = 6.25 cm).
You don’t get the industrial spur along the wall down the left wall down well below the main. But that is really only noticable in the very left hand corner of the main - maybe a worthwhile trade off to get the raised main effect along the rest of the upper wall ?
you are an early bird - I did not expect an answer this early!
At the moment, it is difficult to get the picture I have out of my head and that is adding to the level of frustration I have. I can look at the issue which ever way I want, the room I have available seems to be suitable for a switchman´s nightmare type of layout, where solving switching puzzles is the sole purpose. If I were a Brit, I´d say, this is not my cup of tea! I need to have some scenic features and highlights - and I do not mean the Rocky Mountains on 2 square ft.
I guess it must be a normal experience within the process of planning a layout, to go from being hilarious about the idea to utter frustration - the situation I am in right now. I have been preparing plans for more than a year now, and this is now version no. 29 that does not work (and here follow words that can be descibed as “expletive, deleted” or “beep”)!
I have prepared a drawing of the room:
I need to stay clear of the door and the windows. As you can see, the room is about 15´ by 12´, but the space for the layout is only 9´ by 6´, if I just ignore the “noses” left and right- less than a third! So this smells like an ideal place for one of those 4´ by 8´s, but risking to create an uproar in the fan community of rectangular table- layouts, this is not what I am going for.
At the moment I am totally upset and lost. I know, that I will have to live with a compromise of some sort - that´s life! -but I am not yet prepared to give up my dream.
Couldn’t sleep - got a very annoying head cold that makes me wake up feeling pretty suffocated - especially since I can’t use my CPAP machine - which helps me prevent sleep apnea.
How about going back to your original donut type plan - you could possibly squeeze in something like thi
