I started building a small (18" x 80") switching layout based on John Allen's Timesaver a couple of years ago. I have since moved out of the one bedroom apartment I was renting and purchased a side by side duplex (two bedrooms each). I now have quite a bit more room to work with and would like to build a larger switching layout in the spare bedroom. I use the room as an office and as a place for guests to sleep so I am still limited on the size of the layout I can build. My plan is to build an 18" wide C-shaped layout along three of the walls. The outside lengths are 100", 136" and 110". I want to include a yard with an engine servicing track and an interchange track along with numerous smaller industries for lots of switching opportunities. I want to allow for lots of scenery, with about 1/3 of the layout having no railroad related industries in it. The layout will be set in the steam/diesel transition era and will be limited to switchers and 40' cars. I was using DC, but I think I'm going to switch to DCC so that two locos can be run at one time.
The layout I'm considering uses parts from several of Lance Mindheim's layout designs. Track spacing is at least 2" center to center and 3-4" fron the front and the rear of the layout. I've including multiple road crossings to add to the complexity of switching (can't block the roads for extended periods of time).
Is this too much track for an 18" wide layout? Is there a better way to include a runaround track outside the yard than what I have here?
Any suggestions or advice on any aspect of this plan would be greatly appreciated.
to the forum. A newbie that can post a photo on the first try gets a trophy!
My concern with your plan is that on the left and right bottom, there isn't much width for the actual industries. You can fudge that with flats on the backside, but I don't know that it would look good on the near side.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
Welcome to the forums! This is a fantastic resource for getting advice and learning more about everything related. You can also help yourself in doing more reading on various Kalmbach books.
I too have a DCC layout after starting with DC. The fomer, from what I found, is a bit less forgiving than the latter. Not trying to stir up another DC/DCC debate, but just pointing out my observations with both systems. You are right that DCC provides the opportunities to run two locos together.
While I can't see your layout, I would suggest not making things too complex. Here's a saying I just made up: spaghetti is a pasta not a layout! In other words, keep it simple.
The ButcherIs this too much track for an 18" wide layout? Is there a better way to include a runaround track outside the yard than what I have here?
I get myself in trouble every time I comment on track designs, but I will say yours is not cluttered at all, and actually looks a lot more sensible than many plans that are shown on here. I shut my mouth now.
But I will go on to say, you will have lots of room for great scenery.
With all of your turnouts pointing the same way, I think your local can leave the yard shoving it's train, with a neat looking transfer caboose at the lead.
I think with any turnouts pointing in the opposite direction, you could squeeze a runaround in the longest part of the main, on the N/S leg of your layout. But there I go again.
Looking good!
Mike.
My You Tube
The two corners offer open space for industries, all they need is a siding. In the lower left extending the one siding that's along the wall in to the corner would provide opportunities for industries. A siding may have to be added to the upper corner.
floridaflyerThe two corners offer open space for industries,
Yea, I suppose, but I'm liking the uncluttered look instead of usual "lets cram this full of track" look, with industries that don't really fit, with most of it being represented with a backdrop photo or painting.
It's not mine, so I'll watch.
I started out the very same way. Time saver , then added a table on both ends.
I didn't have a plan, just layed track around the corner, then layed some more. It became tight,to get what I wanted.
By adding just 2in to one table and 6 to the other,made a huge difference.
My point ; any chance of going wider then 18 ?
It actually took me a few tries and some google searches to figure out how to post a picture. Where's my trophy?
I was thinking that some of the industries on the front sides might be partials rather than the entire building(s) represented.
Thanks. I did try to not have too much track for the space I have. I struggled to keep it simple because there's so much I wanted to include, but keeping it less cluttered seems more important than including every single thing I want.
I'm going to try a redesign with the runaround where you suggest it.
I'm willing to go a little bit wider, but probably 6" at most. I think I'd be tempted to add a bunch more track if it was wider. Do I want to go that route? I'm not sure. Back to the proverbial drawing board I guess.
I've gone back and forth with this same idea several times. While more industry is appealing to me, I think I want to leave the corners to scenic elements. The top left will have a little bit of residential area and some "undevelped" area to give a feel of distance between the yard and the industrial area. I like the idea if the bottom left having apartments or office buildings or some other non-rail related businesses to show that it's still an urban area, but that there is a little distance between the two rail-served areas. I want to try to stick to the plan of having roughly 1/3 of the area of the layout being devoted to scenic elements rather than operations.
You are going to have a lot of flats for your rail served industries. You might want to consider losing one track on each end and open up some room.
Bear "It's all about having fun."
"Is there a better way to include a runaround track outside the yard than what I have here?"
You could remove the runaround "up top", and put a crossover towards the bottom of "the left side". That would create a runaound with considerably more room.
A few thoughts:
Extend some sidings into the two back corners.
Eliminate some or all of the siidings between the viewer and the main track, move the main track forward, make the main track not parallel to the layout edge in a few places.
Have some of the sidings at odd angles to the main track, rather than having them all parallel to the main track.
Do not have all the sidings coming off the main in the same direction, have a balance of both directions.
Sheldon
The Butcher I started building a small (18" x 80") switching layout based on John Allen's Timesaver a couple of years ago. I have since moved out of the one bedroom apartment I was renting and purchased a side by side duplex (two bedrooms each). I now have quite a bit more room to work with and would like to build a larger switching layout in the spare bedroom. I use the room as an office and as a place for guests to sleep so I am still limited on the size of the layout I can build. My plan is to build an 18" wide C-shaped layout along three of the walls. The outside lengths are 100", 136" and 110". I want to include a yard with an engine servicing track and an interchange track along with numerous smaller industries for lots of switching opportunities. I want to allow for lots of scenery, with about 1/3 of the layout having no railroad related industries in it. The layout will be set in the steam/diesel transition era and will be limited to switchers and 40' cars. I was using DC, but I think I'm going to switch to DCC so that two locos can be run at one time. The layout I'm considering uses parts from several of Lance Mindheim's layout designs. Track spacing is at least 2" center to center and 3-4" fron the front and the rear of the layout. I've including multiple road crossings to add to the complexity of switching (can't block the roads for extended periods of time). Is this too much track for an 18" wide layout? Is there a better way to include a runaround track outside the yard than what I have here? Any suggestions or advice on any aspect of this plan would be greatly appreciated.
Welcome! A good chance for me to critique a switching layout, which I love doing. I'm no expert, but I'll critique anyway.....
How do you plan to have the loco run around the cars? As it stands, as you pull cars out of the yard, they will trail the loco and you wont be able to switch the industries because the turnouts are facing the wrong way.
This will to give the loco a chance to position itself on which ever end of the cars it needs to in order to switch any industry on any turnout facing either direction.
You're wasting too much space in the yard area. The runaround with the double slip or crossing track provides little function.
This should make the yard tracks slightly longer than they are, helping the yard function better.
Also, since the layout is only 18 inches deep,
Its out of balance, if that makes sense. Not to mention, the Lance Mindheim approach tends not to have things too crowded looking.
And as another has said,
Try making those adjustments and see if something else inspires you.
- Douglas
I took a lot of the advice from this thread and made some changes to my layout.
I changed the width from 18" to 24". What a difference 6" made. I moved the runaround to the center of the longest section and made it long enough to fit at least 6 cars and a switching loco. This allowed me to lengthen the yard tracks. I also added an additional yard track to give even more capacity. I changed the direction of several sidings and had one of them run into the lower corner. I got rid of two of the grade crossings as there wasn't really room for them after the changes I made. The hardest thing for me to do was to have sidings not be parallel to the sides of the layout. I think I need to do at least one more, but I'm having a hard time visualizing and justifying why the tracks would be at an angle. I know it adds variety, but it's not coming easily to me. The same goes for making the main track undulate here and there. I know it would probably look better, but I'm having a hard time with that aspect. I decided to not do anything with the upper left corner as I want to keep a large part of the layout devoted to non-rail scenes. I think these changes will allow me to have more complete buildings rather than skinny flats and give a greater sense of openess to much of the layout.
What do you thing of these changes?
I may have missed it, but HO?
This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements
GraniteRailroader I may have missed it, but HO? Yes. It is HO. I never mentioned that.
Yes. It is HO. I never mentioned that.
The Butcher I took a lot of the advice from this thread and made some changes to my layout. I changed the width from 18" to 24". What a difference 6" made. I moved the runaround to the center of the longest section and made it long enough to fit at least 6 cars and a switching loco. This allowed me to lengthen the yard tracks. I also added an additional yard track to give even more capacity. I changed the direction of several sidings and had one of them run into the lower corner. I got rid of two of the grade crossings as there wasn't really room for them after the changes I made. The hardest thing for me to do was to have sidings not be parallel to the sides of the layout. I think I need to do at least one more, but I'm having a hard time visualizing and justifying why the tracks would be at an angle. I know it adds variety, but it's not coming easily to me. The same goes for making the main track undulate here and there. I know it would probably look better, but I'm having a hard time with that aspect. I decided to not do anything with the upper left corner as I want to keep a large part of the layout devoted to non-rail scenes. I think these changes will allow me to have more complete buildings rather than skinny flats and give a greater sense of openess to much of the layout. What do you thing of these changes?
Much better.
Scenicly, it could still use some odd angles.
Looking towards Lance Mindheim for insight when planning & building a switching layout is a good idea. Wish I'd read his thoughts about track planning based upon op. session length & prototypical switching sooner as it was helpful in realizing that less track/industries was a better approach for me.
Regards, Peter
Much better. A few more observations:
You have 4 spurs that have two industries on them, which means that cars spotted on the closer industries will block access to the farther industries. This will require alot of back and forth moves just to switch out the farther industries. That can get annoying. Doing that with, say, two spurs might be interesting. I think 4 spurs would be frustrating and not very fun. JMO.
There is a nasty S curve entering the yard where you have a LH turnout immediately after the long RH curve. If you cut down the number of industries, you may be able to reduce the total number of yard tracks and build the entire yard on the south side of the main starting with a RH turnout or a curved turnout. Then the road could run along the entire north side, incorporating small businesses which would provide more scenic interest.
Also, make sure your spurs are long enough to handle the amount of cars you plan. Some look short for 3 cars. Nothing wrong with having only 1 car at an industry.