Passenger Trains Layout in Jan. MR: Opinions?

While it was nice to see with passenger operation, the layout presented had a little too much track crammed into too little a space - for my taste.

I enjoyed the article and layout, and it comes at a great time for me, because I'm designing for passenger operations with my extension room layout that I will start building soon.

I think MRR should feature more of these passenger types of layouts. Or even how to incorporate passenger operations to an existing layout.

I found it very interesting but I am very new to model railroading, so I don't have a strong (or well-informed) opinion right now. 

I too would also like to see more attention to passenger operations in MR, as this is a major interest area of mine.  More examples of high-speed passenger ops in the magazine would be much appreciated.    

IMHO, that layout is a throwback to the, 'Bowl of spaghetti,' layouts of the mid 20th century.  My own layout is oriented toward extremely dense passenger operations, but I concentrated on a subdivision point in a rural area and avoided the many track, 'Urban freeway,' look.

Note that I don't think that the layout's designer and owner will be unhappy with it - but it really needs to be spread out into something like a basketball court to provide enogh elbow room for the trackwork featured.  It would make a poor fit for my personal givens and druthers.

Chuck (Modeling Rural Central Japan in September, 1964)

There were a number of problems with this layout, access and clearances among the more noticeable. IMHO, it's a shame that many of these theoretical plans (even "prize winners") are published without at least a comment or two about areas that could (or should) be reworked for better appearance, operation, or reliability.

Newcomers to model railroading or to layout design may not notice the areas where improvements should be made, both to the physical plant and the operations concept.

It's great that layouts are published featuring different approaches and concepts. But since so many newcomers take their cues only from published plans and have little experience of their own, I don't think it would be a bad thing if the magazines were to suggest areas where a small change might provide significant benefits. I do recognize that it's a tricky line to walk, informing readers without disappointing or upsetting authors.

Byron

 Thing is, in a dense urban environment, a large passenger terminal IS a bowl of spaghetti. Check the articles in Classic Trains, each issue usually highlights some major terminal. A pair of tracks crossing 9-10 other tracks, on a cruve - sometimes through a turnout. It's all there.

 Me, I don;t really have an opinion one way or another as I'm not a big fan of passenger operations. My modeled branch had no passenger service in the era I model, not so much as a rail bus or a combine tacked on the end of a freight train.

                             --Randy

Byron lst hipped me (about 3 yrs. ago) to the fact that published layout plans not only are somewhat unrealistic (optimistic)and since pinpointing spots on my own layout's original plan that were, I've not only known what to change/fix, but have a better eye for seeing trouble spots in magazine plans, now. Luckily, I was able to get my grades down with some initial tribulations. In fact just got my lower level's main line up and running (finally!) just last night, two years in!

With this experience and hand wringing I agree 100% that It would be nice if  the NMRA or the editors would strongly encourage MR and other magazines and book publishers to only publish plans that are truly to scale and have realistic grades, and possibly even brand names used in planning, for the turn outs. 

I also feel that a prize winning design should certainly be up to snuff in all of those areas. It's pretty ludicrous-really when they aren't.

The thing I found attractive about the passenger oriented layout in January's issue was the fact that it's narrow and woulda/coulda been a candidate for my train room 3 years ago. But...all of those doughnut hole work stations!  I'm still analyzing the plan to see if it would have a realistic feel for operations (with my still beginner's level of knowledge). I agree that the spaghetti bowl aspect is more tolerable with a passenger terminal/commuter trains layout than mainline run kinda designs.

I guess what I was wondering when I started the thread, was whether or not this track plan was fairly realistic (at least plausible) for a passenger terminal layout and if anyone's spotted any glaring/complete " fictions".  

I did like how much layout was squeezed into a narrow room with the lower level staging, etc.

Byron educated (more than 2 years ago) me to the fact (with my own chosen, published track plan) that a lot of magazine layout designs are not to scale, have overly optimistic turn out configurations, unrealistic grades, etc.  As a beginner, it was a shock to find several issues that needed fixing before I could continue to build. A completely unnecessary situation and one that should never have passed an editor's perusal.

Luckily I was able to get my grades down to 2.5%-ish but I am in complete agreement that it's irresponsible of the magazines (and other sources) to publish plans that are just...wrong!  In the case of prize winning contributions in my opinion it's just plain irresponsible!  Many of us are beginners when we chose a track plan and if the hobby is to continue growing, the publication of these optimistic plans is damaging to the hobby.

I guess what I was asking when I started this thread was whether or not the passenger layout in the January issue is operationally realistic or at least "more than plausible".  It's hard to find a layout this complex for narrow rooms so I was intrigued. Plus, I love passenger ops but just now learning about them.

Any passenger oriented layout owners here who'd care to comment?

Cheers.

Capt. Grimek

I guess what I was asking when I started this thread was whether or not the passenger layout in the January issue is operationally realistic or at least "more than plausible".  

It's hard to find a layout this complex for narrow rooms so I was intrigued. Plus, I love passenger ops but just now learning about them.

Complexity does not equal plausibility or realism. Usually, the opposite is the case.

It's quite possible to design passenger-oriented operating layouts for longer, narrower spaces. I've done a couple (hopefully they will be published in the future).

"Passenger Operations" covers a lot of ground: Mainline long-distance passenger trains; commuter operations; terminal switching; union passenger terminal operation; express, LCL, and head-end activity; etc.; etc. Designing a passenger-oriented layout in a modest space involves prioritizing among these interests (along with any desired freight ops), and then designing the layout to suit.

In some cases, it may make sense to optimize length-of-run and number of stations with multiple laps around the room. In other cases, prioritizing a metropolitan terminal with only a suggestion of the "rest of the world" is in order.

In my opinion, "one-size-fits-all" does not apply for passenger operations. Because of a lack of focus, most published plans do a poor job of providing the infrastructure for engaging and realistic passenger operations, IMHO.

Byron

[1]  January 2010 MRR's "Metropolitan Union Passenger Terminal" does a nice job of multi-mainline passenger runs.  The layout is 10'x20'.  There is a lot of action in this tighter layout space.

[2]  The 8-page "12 Hours at Argentine" (PDF-download) in Modeling Realistic Passenger Operations, for Chuck Hitchcock's ATSF Argentine Division, depicts passenger operations with essentially the same track-planning "concept areas" with a major exception:  Each passenger yard track is specifically labeled as to the purpose of each track.

For example:  Pullman set-off track, South Depot track, North depot track, Overflow express track, etc.  This better understanding of the specific purpose of each track is insightful.  This article is also quite a bit more more in-depth at explaining its comprehensive passenger operations.  The layout is 28'x54', and allows for more walk-around.

In Common:  Each trackplan has a ton of passenger yard trackage.

For me, there's a lot of curvyness to it. Granted, it was in a tihter space, and granted, Pass ops often have a balloon track too. I do however like the plan, and he seems to have all the elements for ops at a terminal.

Like has been said, Pass Ops covers a lot. You have the "Local Switching" that can be anything from dropping REA to even piucking up dropping Sleepers, even some roads didn't take the Dining Car the whole way. (The George Washington ((C&O)) Picked up the Dinign Car En-rout and dropped it again before terminating), but you also have the switching within the terminal. Trains turning directly have to be scattered, the Observation cars turned, the sleeprs and dining cars re-linened and restocked, cars need to be wqatered, cleaned, it's an intenser bit of switching, and I think he's got it. In a perfect world, one would ditch the pop-ups, but it is what it is.

It's interesting you all mention having suggestions for tweaking the plan, the article does mention alternatives for sqwitch placements for the staging yard.

I'm coming to this discussion rather late, but in spite of some of the rather conflicting opinions so far presented, I think that I would probably enjoy this particular layout's design from an operator's standpoint. I would certainly accept the overall design, which I find quite plausible and be willing to build it were I a passenger-only operations kinda guy (I'm personally more of a mixed service, short-line, operator).

The "pop-ups" several posters remarked about are distracting and something of a throw-back to designs often seen long, long, ago. While these prove less acceptable today, I can see ways of reducing their size and minimizing their perceived presence from the operator's point of view.

The trackplan itself is reasonably realistic in my opinion and experience, although I would definitely eliminate that first station in the upper left corner of the trackplan. It comes much too soon after leaving the main terminal. The design does include much of the support facilities that would make an essentially passenger service only pike fun to operate, yet is often overly minimized on pikes of this size.

Overall, I liked it, found it interesting and would encourage publication of more such designs.

CNJ831

For my taste, it has too much track and not enough scenery.

But that's not why I read those articles. I like reading about how someone else chose to incorporate their givens and druthers into a unified design, and envisions creating the kind of operations he wants to have on his layout.  The designer of this particular layout was after a particular concept of operations, and I think he achieved it.  True some of us would find fault with his choices, but it's his layout, not ours.  I don't think the editors include these layouts to mess up newbies, but to stimulate their thinking about what is possible.  Only by building it and running it yourself can you know what you want from your layout.

A further word on the use of pre-published track plans.  I started by adapting an MR design for a logging and coal hauling line to my own uses.  It turns out that the design, as published, had an elevation change of 3" in about 72", for a grade of a little over 4%, as well as a switchback that limited train length to a small loco and 2-3 40' cars.  Experienced hobbyists will recognize that as not unheard of for a mountainous road, especially geared logging locos like Shays.  For what I wanted, however (long freights and the occasional passenger flyby) it was a nightmare.  So was that an "unrealistic grade"?  Looking back on my experience from ten years later, it's obvious that it was my ignorance that led me into trouble, and that if I had read and really understood the designers intentions, I wouldn't have tried to adapt that particular plan.

BTW, have a look at overhead imagery of a good-sized passenger terminal (Union Station in New Haven, CT comes to mind).  The track plan is not at all far fetched.

Speaking as a "newbie" I want to reply with my impressions; but first I have to say that after studying the layout constantly ever since I received this issue, I agree with CNJ831 completely.

I just bought a house last year and I finally have a garage (9'3" x 22'6") unfinished and most of all UNCLAIMED by the Mrs.!  So for better or worse, this space is my train room to be.  I was looking for a layout with a 50-50 mix of freight and passenger traffic.  This requirement makes me desire a pike with large curves for HO scale operations.  Before I critique this plan I want to say that it shows me that one can have 30' plus radius curves in roughly a one car garage.  So I like the plan and initially was considering building it as-is.

Then I started running trains on it (in my head).  I tried different routes, switching passenger and freight traffic, dropping cuts of cars - etc.  For my mixed service desires, it needs some customizing.  One half of the total track is hidden; and the yard and engine facilities lack a "flow" into and out of them both.  It seems that for my mixed service needs, there are too many reversing moves neccessary to move freight cars into and out of the yard.

Having said that, I realize that I AM a newbie at RR planning (and everything else outside of research and reading) so I may be speaking out of turn.  Is this layout (specifically the yard and engine facility) prototypical??  Do engines have to make the reversing moves to move cars into and out of BOTH the yard and turntable off of this proposed main line?  Does anyone wish to share their tweaks for this layout??  I am trying to get the track plan into my computer to try some tweaks myself - this plan is very close to perfect for my garage!!

I think I want to stay away from the pop-ups.....since I am (and probably will be) the only one to operate my future empire, crawling under the layout to switch the yard and service my locomotives is not an attractive option. 

This track plan has got me thinking....and hard ........about broad curves in a garage!

First major passenger terminals was massive and had could have 20-30 tracks with lots of  double slip switches..

In the hey day of passenger trains there could be a passenger train departing or arriving within minutes of each other..Some times they would arrive or depart at the same time.

These inbound passenger trains had to be switchout ,the coaches to the coach yard for cleaning and servicing,the Pullmans to the Pullman yard,the diners to the dining car track for cleaning and then to the commissary building for restocking,the express cars to the REA building and the mail cars to the Post Office building..

The above was a 24/7 operation and would make a very interesting layout.

Of course one would need to have a love of passenger cars and equipment and like switching a passenger terminal.

I've recently become slightly enamored with passenger operations.  Its too bad they're just so huge and require such enormous outlays of space.  My girlfriend asked me how big a model of DC's Union Station would be after I'd mentioned something about wishing I could do modern Amtrak operations on a layout.  She seemed to have a hard time grasping that the station alone, not the platforms and trackage, would have the same footprint as her car.

The layout does have a lot of track in a small space, but I don't think of it as a spaghetti-bowl at all.  If you look at the mainline runs, most of this layout could be stretched out into an almost linear point-to-point.  It looks complex because it's folded back on itself, and it uses hidden track and staging to extend the linear run of the main lines while staying within a room-sized space.

If you actually built this, I'd argue for making the access openings into scenery-covered liftoffs, high enough so that the trains could disappear behind them.  I think I'd also figure out a way to put a few switchable industries along the main line, so that you could run a local freight during the afternoon before the commuter rush begins.

It's a pretty good plan if running passenger trains is your goal.  It reflects the usual problems of trying to get a lot in a small space. Access openings aren't ideal, but you gotta compromise somewhere.  And it looks like the layout will be mostly run from the main aisle anyway.

Personally, I would eliminate all the freight sidings.  They appear to be mostly scenery anyway.  Use the extra space in the top of the plan to expand the coach yard - those 80' cars take up a lot of room.

Second I would raise the layout 8".  Crawling around under the layout gets old.  With more height you can at least roll around on a desk chair.  Bonus is you can fit a work desk or two under the layout.

I applaud MR for including something a little different. from the usual walk arounds.

Enjoy

Paul

Wow. This has turned into quite a discussion! Byron, no, I have no intention of tearing anything out to start over (besides my room is only 8' wide) but I do have a love for '30s-40's passenger operation and would have at least considered this plan 3 years ago.  Thanks for all who've found the  original post/thread/layout interesting enough to contribute to it.

I think this plan is outstanding!  No objections with the three Access Openings as they won't be needed during operation - all track work and sidings appear to be within arms length.  I am looking at this plan as a way to incorporate it into the CNJ Newark Terminal plan from a few months ago.  The branch and stub end terminal saw quite a bit of traffic in the 40's and 50's.  The passenger trains were for the most part 4 to 5 cars.  And lots of sidings with many old time factory buildings for plenty of freight operation. Referring back to the CNJ plan the Newark Stub End Terminal was situated in a very narrow and elevated section of very crowded downtown Newark.  The bottom right part of the plan is perfect for the CNJ Terminal with the addition of a few industrial tracks.  I like the fact that a train can leave the terminal, run a lap around the layout and be parked in an out of sight staging yard and be brought back out for the return trip later on in the day.  If the plan was flopped from right to left the terminal would be on the left side and the Y junction would be properly oriented to the prototype's Brills Jct.

My space is 9 x 16 and I too am taking a serious look.  I will need to comprise some areas, smaller radii, eliminating the turntable and round house etc.

Getting back to the access openings it looks like the only purpose for these is to do scenery and structures as well as track maintenance.  Otherwise there is no need to go into these areas.

Thank you to Stan Sweatt for designing the layout and thanks to MRR for publishing it.

Great track plan for a narrow space.

Enjoy

Bill

I agree, it's a great track plan. I also have recently become enamoured with passenger trains. I am starting to build my extension room layout very soon. it's a 9'x9' room. I am including a 5 track passenger terminal and plan on using the Walthers MILW Train Shed. I will also have a nice passenger loco facility.

This track plan has giving me some ideas, so I might do some tweaking on my plans.

Here is my track plan, can you guys review this for me, I would appreciate any suggestions on how to improve it for passenger ops. The upper left corner will poke through a wall and connect to my main layout.

I liked the fact that Model Railroader published an article on passenger operations. But, I did not like the train plan. There was too much train in a small space. I am interested in passenger trains and am trying to think of ways to incorporate passenger operations into my new layout. Since, the new layout will be a point to point layout, I will probably run one train east from staging and another train west from staging. Pretty boring as a whole! Would like to see more articles about passenger operations in the future.

I'm building Phase 2 of my layout now.  The original concept was a 4-track, double-ended staging yard.  I decided to put a long passenger station in front of it, both to hide the track and to give me something else to do.  I then noticed some express ice-bunker reefer cars (Railway Express Agency) on sale at Walthers, and realized I had something that could add switching and operational interest to passenger operations.  I've already got the icing platforms, and I'm planning a small REA depot.  So, I'll be able to add some head-end equipment switching to my passenger operations.

IRONROOSTER

It's a pretty good plan if running passenger trains is your goal.  It reflects the usual problems of trying to get a lot in a small space. Access openings aren't ideal, but you gotta compromise somewhere.  And it looks like the layout will be mostly run from the main aisle anyway.

I applaud MR for including something a little different. from the usual walk arounds.

Paul

I would add to Paul's note of approval that this trackplan is really quite representative of many eastern stub-end terminals found in moderate to larger cities. Often these were accessed either via a long cut, or "raceway" as a below grade approach. This automatically lends itself to minimal scenery, at least beyond a suggestion of cut stone walls either side of the tracks. Alternately and probably a more difficult approach from a scenicking standpoint, the trackage could be elevated on girderwork above street level.

Incidentally, although most posters seem to find that this urban passenger trackplan is novel relative to what has been seen in MR for some years now, I would point out that in the 50's and 60's MR ran quite a number of trackplans similar to this design. Back then many prototype examples of this type of situation still existed, ones that today have vanished, except in the fading memories of hobby oldtimers.

CNJ831

Wow, you guys are tough, if not downright brutal - - - LOL - - - bowl of spaghetti, access and clearance problems, too much track and not enough scenery, too much train in a small space, boring as a whole.

My wife and I often watch HGTV, and the channel has a segment where 3 couples have a budget to do a home improvement project - - - finished basement, back yard deck, upgraded bath or kitchen, or whatever.  Then, the couples watch on close circuit as a realtor and a home designer critique the three houses and pick the best outcome of the budgeted project.  Each homeowner cringes as the critique unfolds.  The designer of this layout, if he is following this thread, is probably cringing as well.

I love passenger train operations and, about two years ago, I added a 4' x 12' passenger station facility to my already large layout.  As I look at the track plan in the January issue of MR magazine, I really like it as well. 

I will concede that the three access openings can be problematic although, as someone pointed out, the layout could be designed high enough to permit relatively easy access.  The article doesn't specify the height of the layout.  Access could also be enhanced if there were room to move the layout away from the wall so that it would be more of a walkaround.  In that case, the approach tracks to the turntable and roundhouse could be extended so the access to the roundhouse and storage tracks could be made available from the bottom of the layout.

I don't really see the layout a bowl of spaghetti.  Sure, the layout is folded due to space considerations, but all of the trackage is smooth flowing, logical, and prototypical.  The mainline track is 120 feet, so hardly too much track in too little space.  As far as the lack of scenery, that's what you get if the focus of the layout is a passenger operations track plan, again very prototypical.  On my layout, once you get beyond the passenger station complex, the scenery is more plentiful. 

But, boring as a whole?  I guess compared to mountainous terrains, flowing streams, towns and villages, sure to some it may appear boring.  But the layout in question is anything but boring.  It meets all of the criteria for a passenger station facility - - large urban passenger station with multiple platforms, a passenger car storage yard, an engine servicing facility with turntable and roundhouse, REA facilities and commissary, and a freight yard.  Plus, the bonus of lower level staging tracks.

Someone questioned the appropriateness of  a commuter station so close to the passenger station.  Aside from the modeling aspects of selective compression, most large urban areas often have commuter stations within a few miles of the downtown passenger station.  Also, in cities like Chicago, a significant passenger station facility would often be located relatively close to the downtown passenger station so that passengers could avoid the hassle and congestion associated with downtown arrivals and departures.  A good example was Englewood Station on the near south side of downtown Chicago, a major passenger station for PRR and NYC passenger trains just seven miles outside of downtown Chicago.

This featured layout is somewhat reminiscent of a portion of Gary Hoover's layout, an ATSF operation between its downtown Dearborn Station passenger terminal at 8th Street and its storage and servicing facilities at 18th Street.  On the prototype, engines backed out of Dearborn Station for the 10 city block run to the turntable and roundhouse.  The engines, once turned and serviced, then backed up into Dearborn Station to prepare for departure to points west.  Most downtown passenger operations didn't have the luxury of a large wye track to reverse the direction of trains.  On my layout, engines operate in a similar manner.

On my layout, I have a double mainline continuous loop with the passenger station facility at one end. I struggled for years with the notion that trains departing out of Chicago to the east wound up returning to the passenger station from the west.  Trains departing out of Chicago to the west wound up returning to the passenger station from the east.  That never seemed realistic.  Finally, just in these past few months, I reconfigured my layout to add reversing sections so that eastbound trains could return from the east, and westbound trains could return from the west.  The layout featured in the January issue of MR magazine overcomes that objection by means of the lower level staging tracks and the built in reversing loop.

All in all, I think that this featured layout is splendid in spite of any of its shortcomings.

Rich

I have a layout that services alot of passenger service.  My layout has trains from B&O, C&O, W&M and Pennsy.  I have a main terminal that is off of one of my clasification yards, I have 6 sheds and most trains have to be broken up and backed into the station, I have a wye for engines to use to turn around, also I include support buildings and details such as a comminsary to recondition the cars as well as a passenger car washer to keep the equipment clean.  I am not a fan of piling too many tracks on top of each other.  I think they could hve desiged the trackage more realistic with the use of wyes, plus what about the baggage/ postal action that occurs at passenger stations too.  Just a few thoughts about how to make a passenger operation more realistic and fit in a smaller space.