Hello Everyone,
I am a returning modeler after a number of years and have been working to develop a plan that is achievable for me. I have decided a smaller switching style shelf layout would be a good place to start. After looking around and my limited planning knowledge i have decided to mostly copy one by someone else, in this case the East Rail by Lance Mindheim.
I thought i would post my revised plan with a few comments/questions and see if anyone has any advice or suggestions to improve it, or if anyone dissagrees with my changes. Note I still need to develop the non-rail served areas/landscape still..
-I rotated/flipped the plan to better fit my room, as well as shortening the left side.
-Removed the scrap yard and added a interchange track, I thought this would allow me to move alot of different kinds of cars that dont have an industry on the layout. Interchange connects to the syrup spur instead of the team. As well i could switch cars from the interchange track to the industries as well.
-Flipped the spur leading to the food processor so it faces the opposite way. I thought this would add more interest as i can run trains in both leading or shoving movements.
-I am wondering about instead of the stagging cassette just extending the bench work to include it. I do have space for it, but that would mean i would then need to scenic it. Does anyone have a guess why lance used a cassette? was it just for space (possibly a door etc in the way?)
-Thoughts on the additonal spur? Thoughts on if it should go in the block on the right with the food producer? Actually not sure if the turnout and spur would fit there though...
- thought there might be enough space to extend the team track and fit the scrap yard back in at the bottom with both the scrap yard and team track off the same spur. But i worry that would effect the balance of the rail served area's to scenic elements ratio/balance.
-all turnouts are #6, planning to use micro engineering track and turnouts.
Anyway, i thought i would post the track plan and see what comments/discussions it develops.
thanks to everyone.
As a general rule, use any space available to you. NOT to cram in more trackage, but to improve the appeal, utility, or complexity of the track plan so that it doesn't go stale...AND to give you more space to try your hand at different scenicking techniques. I mean, practicing one way more is not normally a bad thing, but trying different materials, shades, coarsenesses, etc, or just new construction, may be what motivated Mindheim. Maybe he wanted to try his hand at crafting a good working cassette, even though he had room to do something different. I have done that and never regretted the attempt. Well, I did, actually, but I learned what I can't pull off (and that other people can...), or what I prefer for one reason or another. I have carved rock faces and done a passable job for a neophyte..if I do say so myself. Most recently, I tried cutting up a large slab of Cripple Bush rock faces and am very pleased with the results. I'm glad I tried the product (and would heartily recommend it to anyone else interested in rock cuts).
Any particular reason #6 and not #5? Do you want shallower diversions and tracks closer together after paralleling them? What's your rationale?
Why an additional spur? Is it necessary? Remember, more tracks in a defined area isn't necessarily a good thing, not even on a well-crafted switching layout. There ought to be some fidelity to a prototype, at least to an extent, in my view, so what would the prototype be doing with an additional spur? Would you improve the final appeal of the product by putting in some converted boxcars as storage sheds, or a loading ramp...stacks of creosoted ties....?
I cant access the plan to see your changes from the East Rail plan. If you could post a pic, that would be helpful.
I agree with Selector. As a general rule, I would take up the available space if I have it, and scenick the space no matter what you use it for. If its just staging, scenicked staging is still more interesting than unscenicked staging, even though its not really part of the layout.
Also, ER is supposed to represent the railroad AFTER it has collected cars from interchange (and brining them to the industries on the layout), so there is no reason to have the interchange on the layout. That's what the staging cassette is supposed to do, replicate interchange. So think about why you might want interchange to generate additional traffic AND also have a cassette to stage oncoming trains.
Another reason to just extend the benchwork and make the layout longer, if you want to have interchange on the layout.
I believe ER does not have a runaround. You will either have to have the loco mid-train in order to serve any turnouts that have been flipped (creating both facing and trailing turnouts) or restage a train to handle the opposite turnouts. (pretending that the runaround is off-layout) Not sure I'd want to do the latter.
Also, since this is a modern era layout, try to make sure that any industry that takes long cars is positioned so that the cars traverse the broadest curve. Those cars will never have to traverse a sharp curve and will look better. OTOH, the corn syrup tank cars can traverse a sharp curve and will look fine doing so because they are shorter. If you follow.
- Douglas
Let's see if I can post the track plan:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oykBsgrRtm0eqRtl76Z8OkVk47Kt48OG/view
I don't see a run around track, but my knowledge of switching layouts it pretty limited. Would a run around track be of any benefit to the OP?
Edit, I can't get the track plan to show up in the post, but the link will take you to it. Sorry.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Page
looks like there might be space to add a siding or two depending on size.
shane
A pessimist sees a dark tunnel
An optimist sees the light at the end of the tunnel
A realist sees a frieght train
An engineer sees three idiots standing on the tracks stairing blankly in space
I think i know what i did wrong posting the track plan image. Hopefully this post displays it properly.
Also providing a link to the image
Thanks for the comments and questions!
selector As a general rule, use any space available to you. NOT to cram in more trackage, but to improve the appeal, utility, or complexity of the track plan so that it doesn't go stale...
As a general rule, use any space available to you. NOT to cram in more trackage, but to improve the appeal, utility, or complexity of the track plan so that it doesn't go stale...
Ok, understood. I will keep that in mind. I think once i develop the scenic area's a little more that will play out.
selector Any particular reason #6 and not #5? Do you want shallower diversions and tracks closer together after paralleling them? What's your rationale?
A few reasons. 1) i think for the spurs parallel to the main it makes the curve easier, I think thats what you mean by shallower diversions? 2) The 2 turnouts that lead to the curve i suppose could be #5's but that would likely push the turnout into the roadway thats there.. I suppose the roadway location could change... 3) reading lances books he seems to suggest only using #6's. and 4) in trying it i dont think it makes that significant of a difference to the plan, so better to stick with the more reliable turnout. From what i have seen larger turnouts are more reliable (generally speaking)
selector Why an additnal spur? Is it necessary? Remember, more tracks in a defined area isn't necessarily a good thing, not even on a well-crafted switching layout. There ought to be some fidelity to a prototype, at least to an extent, in my view, so what would the prototype be doing with an additional spur? Would you improve the final appeal of the product by putting in some converted boxcars as storage sheds, or a loading ramp...stacks of creosoted ties....?
Why an additnal spur? Is it necessary? Remember, more tracks in a defined area isn't necessarily a good thing, not even on a well-crafted switching layout. There ought to be some fidelity to a prototype, at least to an extent, in my view, so what would the prototype be doing with an additional spur? Would you improve the final appeal of the product by putting in some converted boxcars as storage sheds, or a loading ramp...stacks of creosoted ties....?
Well, It seems like there is a lot of space there, and Lance's original ER had a turnout on that side.. I was thinking it could be added in the future though when time allows. The upper long side benchwork seems quite wide for the plan, have to go back and compare that to the original
I can see the trackplan ok as posted by the original poster.
Like others, I would recommend a runaround, or the layout can only be switched using 2 engines. That would require an additional spur to hold the extra engine.
I don't think the interchange would add much interest, since the staging would already fulfill its purpose, except for introducing cars that have no destination on the layout. I am not sure though if I would sacrifice an additional industry for that purpose, but it is your layout that you are building.
Regarding visible staging vs cassette, the cassette will allow you to put made up trains on the cassette, and have several of those ready that you can drive on and off the layout. It wil also allow you to easily turn the train around, if you have connections at both ends of the cassette. An alternative would be to use a traverser, but that does not solve the problem of turning the train around, after it goes into staging. Staging doesn't necessarily have to be scenicked, you can model a view block (highway overpass, tunnel etc. where trains go into and come from staging.
Good luck!
Doughless Also, ER is supposed to represent the railroad AFTER it has collected cars from interchange (and brining them to the industries on the layout), so there is no reason to have the interchange on the layout. That's what the staging cassette is supposed to do, replicate interchange. So think about why you might want interchange to generate additional traffic AND also have a cassette to stage oncoming trains.
Looking at ER im not so sure about that. I believe ER connects to a main line which has a runaround, which are off the ER layout. My understanding is the train would come from its yard with cars, use the run around if needed, and then push all the cars onto the main spur and then switch the industries it has cars for.
Doughless I believe ER does not have a runaround. You will either have to have the loco mid-train in order to serve any turnouts that have been flipped (creating both facing and trailing turnouts) or restage a train to handle the opposite turnouts. (pretending that the runaround is off-layout) Not sure I'd want to do the latter.
that is correct, no runaround. The prototype did run with the loco mid-train but one could also book end the cars with 2 loco's to do the switching.
But, i dont think its normal to switch all the industries at once. There actually isnt enough staging room to hold all the cars needed for all the industries. You would only stage a train to switch a couple industries at a time.
Also with the additional interchange a loco could first switch the trailing turnout with cars from staging and then also switch a industry with the intercharge cars. and then collect its first set of cars and return to staging (shoving the cars of course)
Doughless Also, since this is a modern era layout, try to make sure that any industry that takes long cars is positioned so that the cars traverse the broadest curve. Those cars will never have to traverse a sharp curve and will look better. OTOH, the corn syrup tank cars can traverse a sharp curve and will look fine doing so because they are shorter. If you follow.
Good point, i think by moving the interchange to the larger radius spur (29r) should help with that.
Going back to your interchange comments. My thinking is that my plan represents a industrial spur with a number of customers. The train comes in either pulling or shoving cars depending on the industry(s) served. The spur also connects to a interchange with another railroad, some cars would simply get pulled from interchange and go back to staging or vise versa.
Thanks for the comments its made me think about things more.
This is the original East Rail plan by Lance Mindheim.
It is not supposed to have a runaround.
IIRC, the train is supposed to come on to the layout pre-staged after its runaround move. IOW, because its mostly facing point switches, the loco is entering the layout shoving cars.
But because Weeks Gas is a trailing switch, the loco is pulling the tank car.
So the loco is mid-train so to speak. No need for a runaround then.
It can swap Weeks first, or just drop the tank car on the spur while it goes and switches the rest of the layout, making Weeks its final move before exiting the layout.
If OP is going to mix in more of a balance of facing and trailing switches, his loco will have to be even more mid-train. He might have to switch cars at one end of the loco while dragging different cars on its other end.
Not a problem, its the way CSX would probably do it, saving a bunch of runaround moves. Tacking the cars onto the other end of the loco would save the need for another loco, and save the need for more turnouts to maintain.
;buts its kind of an odd look he should be prepared for.
Thanks Everyone, Thanks Doughless for posting the original ER
Regarding the runaround and trailing vs facing points..
IMO, I think Lance's intention with the layout was not to switch all of the industries at one time. but to only switch 1-2 at a time making for op sessions of about 30-45mins (that could be extended if some existing cars are re-positioned because they are not empty). If you look at the number of car spots vs the size of the cassette its really not big enough to switch the whole layout. Actually the whole staging cassette is needed as a lead to switch colmar storage.
with that in mind a run around really isnt needed because the train is staged correctly as needed.
If your layout is more about switching than taking pictures, for sure, you have room to expand with more escape tracks and storage tracks for locos and rolling stock. I'm guessing that Lance Mindheim probably designed the layout more for the "looks" than for operations. Do you have a lot of locos and rolling stock?
Simon
cdndmr Hello Everyone, I am a returning modeler after a number of years and have been working to develop a plan that is achievable for me. I have decided a smaller switching style shelf layout would be a good place to start. After looking around and my limited planning knowledge i have decided to mostly copy one by someone else, in this case the East Rail by Lance Mindheim. I thought i would post my revised plan with a few comments/questions and see if anyone has any advice or suggestions to improve it, or if anyone dissagrees with my changes. Note I still need to develop the non-rail served areas/landscape still.. -I rotated/flipped the plan to better fit my room, as well as shortening the left side. -Removed the scrap yard and added a interchange track, I thought this would allow me to move alot of different kinds of cars that dont have an industry on the layout. Interchange connects to the syrup spur instead of the team. As well i could switch cars from the interchange track to the industries as well. -Flipped the spur leading to the food processor so it faces the opposite way. I thought this would add more interest as i can run trains in both leading or shoving movements. -I am wondering about instead of the stagging cassette just extending the bench work to include it. I do have space for it, but that would mean i would then need to scenic it. Does anyone have a guess why lance used a cassette? was it just for space (possibly a door etc in the way?) -Thoughts on the additonal spur? Thoughts on if it should go in the block on the right with the food producer? Actually not sure if the turnout and spur would fit there though... - thought there might be enough space to extend the team track and fit the scrap yard back in at the bottom with both the scrap yard and team track off the same spur. But i worry that would effect the balance of the rail served area's to scenic elements ratio/balance. -all turnouts are #6, planning to use micro engineering track and turnouts. Anyway, i thought i would post the track plan and see what comments/discussions it develops. thanks to everyone.
I was able to access the plan. Just took a long time to load.
I think the plan is fine the way you have it.
All facing point switches, except one.
Adding the new switch will be a facing point, so I say go for it if you prefer a more cluttered look.
Extend the BW or leave the cassette? I've never understood cassettes. No matter if you use a single track cassette or extend the BW, you're still going to have to hand build a new train before each OP session. I guess cassettes are for the purists who say that its verboten to build a train on an attached or scenicked part of the layout.
I think adding a runaround would detract from operations. Mindheim designed the layout to be efficiently operated, like a real railroad. A runaround would just make the crew spend the time doing a lot of runaround and turnout throwing and not really go anywhere. Mid train locos are more realistic and operate better.
You don't have to drag all of the other cars around. You park them somewhere handy then fetch them when needed. Notice several long spurs with industries at the very end .......empty inches/feet of track for car parking.
As mentioned, the cassette or on-layout train build represents interchange. No need for an interchange track.
It's unfortunate that my posts have to wait to be moderated before posting as it makes it hard to cont. conversations.. At the time of writing this post, Doughless I am still waiting for my response to your first post to be posted. I hope it didnt get lost, i might have to try reposting.
Doughless You don't have to drag all of the other cars around. You park them somewhere handy then fetch them when needed. Notice several long spurs with industries at the very end .......empty inches/feet of track for car parking. As mentioned, the cassette or on-layout train build represents interchange. No need for an interchange track.
cdndmr It's unfortunate that my posts have to wait to be moderated before posting as it makes it hard to cont. conversations.. At the time of writing this post, Doughless I am still waiting for my response to your first post to be posted. I hope it didnt get lost, i might have to try reposting. Doughless You don't have to drag all of the other cars around. You park them somewhere handy then fetch them when needed. Notice several long spurs with industries at the very end .......empty inches/feet of track for car parking. As mentioned, the cassette or on-layout train build represents interchange. No need for an interchange track. You first point is a good one, I think the layout could even be staged with excess cars being left on the unused track for later delivery, and then finally delivered to there correct spot at the next op session etc.. Thanks for that. I am starting to lean towards no interchange. My original idea was that cars could be switched from the interchange to an customer and back.. As well as having cars that are not represented by an industry on layout to be taken to staging (or back to interchange) to increase the variety of cars on the layout. But maybe thats over-complicating the layout and a industry might look better. Also i was trying to change the layout in little ways so it wasnt a straight copy of Lances lol. I'm not wanting the layout to represent miami but rather northern central part of the country. With the space between the team track spur and the industry spur i am trying to figure out what to fill the space with instead of the canal as this area doesnt have canals. I could do a dryish ditch with a culvert going under the track to a low spot on the other side i suppose. But still looking for ideas.
I like my last post better than my first post, so I'm not waiting for any response to that one coming though.
Yes, many times we get into the rut of operations where we think that every time we touch a car, it has to go directly to its destination and be spotted at the final spot . You can move cars around and leave them there for whenever its convenient to switch the industry when it needs it. To a railroad, sometimes there isn't a lot of difference between storing the car in the yard or storing somewhere else close by, at least for a few hours.
As a comparison, when people move, those big moving vans dont always go directly to your next house. Your contents sometimes float around the country in the back of the truck until such time its efficient for the company to drop it off at your place. Storage while on the move, not always sitting in a warehouse (or a yard).
With two man crews, its a big deal for a train to stop, conductor get out, throw a turnout, uncouple a car, go back, throw the turnout etc. just to park a car somewhere. it saves time to just keep that car on the train draggin it around until its ready to be spotted. Fragile contents and potential shifting loads would be consideration for a crew. Empties wouldn't matter.
I see your point about having on layout interchange. That's a good point. But ultimately the cassette staging almost has to operate like interchange, so you'd want to think about having two interchanges so close together prototypically. It may not matter. There is a prototype for everyhting. I'm not a huge stickler for accuracy about a lot of things, but somehting like that would bother me if I'm already thinking about operating the layout as real as possible.
Small layouts are going to look a lot like each other. Scenery, era, theme, and industires will matter. I wouldn't worry about how much it looks like East Rail. Its kind of unavoidable for an L shaped switcing layout with no runaround and facing point switches to not draw a strong comparison.
Well I guess with removing the interchange that makes the track plan fairly close to Lance's, maybe i should call it North Rail lol!
One thing i do need to be carefull about is that there is enough of a lead for the food producer to be able to switch the cars. I might be limited to 4 cars on that spur, which is ok.. Just need to be sure i can fit 8 cars plus loco on the track after the turnout (well actually i could pull the cars out a couple at a time i suppose). I wonder if that was also a reason why he had it facing/where he did, he could use the turnouts to the scrap yard & archives bldg's to hold cars from colmar storage..
I thought i would post another track plan i had been developing to see what the comments are.. There would be a staging cassette or yard off the side. Hopefully the link works.
P.S Nice! my posts are finally being posted with out delay!
If looking too much like another layout bothers you, then it will probably not make you happy. Either build something else or have it not bother you.
Personally, I would not hesitate to build an exact copy of another layout if that's what I really liked. I guess I don't see the issue.
Yes, think about how may cars will be going to an industry and how much of a switch lead you have to move that amount of cars. Also, because of crowded conditions, real railroads sometimes have to break up a cut due to a constricting pinch point somewhere, so its not essential that every industry has to have the right amount of lead.
My new layout has a really long spur that doubles as the main switch lead for three industries. I have to make sure the cut of cars I'm moving, plus the loco, doesn't back into the parked cars I have on the end of the spur. I had to take a measuring tape to figure the length of each car I plan to move, cut total, parked cars and loco; and compare that to the length of that track. I have about 8 inches to spare, so in rare times where I might move more cars, I'll have to break up the cut. Call that "operational interest" that provides an occasional challenge.
Doughless If looking too much like another layout bothers you, then it will probably not make you happy. Either build something else or have it not bother you. Personally, I would not hesitate to build an exact copy of another layout if that's what I really liked. I guess I don't see the issue.
It really doesn't bother me, just had thought a interchange etc. would add some interest. But after looking at it more I dont think it needs it. As a first time layout I think it makes it more achievable, having something to go by.
It's to bad the link to the magazine article on his site stopped working, wouldn't mind reading it again.
i think i will keep it mostly the same. Just change the industries and the scenery a little.
Probably wont start on it until late July, have a few other projects first. See how I feel about it then and if I still like the idea of the loco always pushing cars onto the layout for the most part! lol
snjroy I'm guessing that Lance Mindheim probably designed the layout more for the "looks" than for operations. Do you have a lot of locos and rolling stock?
I'm guessing that Lance Mindheim probably designed the layout more for the "looks" than for operations. Do you have a lot of locos and rolling stock?
From what i have read he operated the layout ALOT. as for stock, I have almost none. Just a few pieces from 30 years ago that for some reason I have kept.
Hello everyone,
So I have been thinking about the track plan and also about what I want to see on a layout. With that I started working on a new version. Its still very similar to ER but I have fit a runaround in the plan.
My thinking is its an end of a long spur where the loco would likely need a run around. I had also done a version where the Line running right to left extended past the turnout to the syrup producer and would extend off layout into the corner (if that makes sense) to replicate the spur extending. But i didnt see the point in doing this, dont think it helps the layout.
Anyway, dont wont to say to much. Would rather hear what peoples reactions are.
New track plan: