Hi all-
Apologies for what appears to be ANOTHER one of these posts (I've been lurking on this forum for a while, but this is my first post) but I would love some advice, suggestions, critiques and flat out "get real" advise from fellow modelers. Let me introduce my concept:
BACKGROUND
This project is my return to model railroading. My father and I built a never-finished O Scale model when I was growing up, and this is the first time since then that I've had the desire and the space to do it. I'm definitely a beginner in this, so I've decided to give a 4' X 8' with a 4' x 4' peninsula a go. The idea was to create something manageable in size, but at the same time set up in a way that's readily expandible.
PREMISE
I have a love of switching, and in particular my favorite railroad EVER is the Hoboken Shore Railroad. I want to model something similar, set in the mid ot late 1970's. The railroad will use a 44 tonner as motive power to move cars around the dockyard industries and back to the mainline interchange.
CURRENT STATUS
The attached image is the layout as it stands. I've laid my track for the most part, and placed a few placeholder industries for the time being. Just a few notes on the plan below:
1. I know the interchange yard is probably unnecissarily large, but I am working under the premise that one day I may use this layout as the backbone of a D&H freelanced laytout.
2. After reading through spacemouse's site (that's a GREAT site, THANK YOU!!) I've tried to build my railroad with a purpose: The major customer will be a marine repair shop that occupies the buildings on the left side of the layout. I've also tried to place enough run-arounds to accomoate realistic operations (I've purchased a few of the MR planning books to aid in this) but please let me know if anything looks "screwy".
3. I've built the layout using 18" radius curves, which seem to be OK for 50-60' boxcars and similar era equipment.
4. I built the track plan using Altas Code 83 snap switches for most of the layout (excepting primarily the curved turnouts_ but only because they were "first on the list". I would love to know if there is something that would be more appropriate to what I'm modeling.
4. Is there a good site to get an idea of typical equipment for the time period I was after? I know I can go to the D&H website, but I was hoping for more information on what might be seen on a typical train running in the Northeast.
The image below is from XtrkCad, but since it doesn't show clearly in my post you can also see a larger version here:
http://img352.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rfblayoutxj4.png
" border="0" />
I'm also more than willing to email the XtrkCad file if people want a closer look at where I am in cons. tructionPlease let me know what you think as this is close to 10-12 hours of work to this point. Thank you in advance for any assistance.
Best,
~Rich
A couple big things right off -
Your interchange yard is absolutely dead in terms of operations. The top most two tracks are not usable, at all.
Many of your industries require doing switch backs back and forth numerous times to spot cars. This becomes a problem when you need to bring in loads, pull empties, and then spot the loads in their place.
With a 4x8 area, with a 4x4 tacked on to it, you're going to have a hard time reaching 100% of the layout without having access to all sides. With that amount of space, it may be a time to evaluate how big your layout needs to be. It seems like you decided on a large 'flat' area to work with before trying to analyze how the track plan should flow.
A "plywood prairie" is not the greatest way to start railroading. You're going to find that it's difficult to cover all 32 square feet right away, and that seems to be a big detriment right off - It just doesn't look like a "railroad".
I've got a solution for you that I'll post in a few minutes that uses about the same amount of space, but will offer great improvements over operations.
This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements
The interchange yard isn't useable at all.
Any train using the docks has to saw through the engine facility to get there, not really user friendly.
The "main yard" looks like it will hold maybe 3 cars.
if you are absolutely wedded to the footprint ( a 4x8 with a 4x4 tacked on it to form an "L") I would suggest the concept that you draw a line down the middle of the benchwork and for an 8x8 two foot wide "L" and a 6x6 two foot wide "L" back to back. Put a stb ended yard on the 8 foot side of the big L with a small industrial area around the corner. Then have a industrial area on each of the 6 foot legs of the small L. A row of tall buildings would go down the middle. That would create a "yard " zone and 3 separate switching areas.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
I noticed the exact same things the prior posters have noted.
1. The interchange yard is practically unusable. The first track (from the top) is totally unusable, and the 2nd can only take cars one at a time. There just isn't any lead track for it anywhere.
2. It is a "saw" design. To get almost anything done one must saw back and forth over several tracks (often ones that need cars spotted on them).
3. The 3/4 of a square design is going to make reaching some of the most interior parts difficult. Depending on the space availability two 2x4 wings might be a better choice.
Do you have some real locations we could research to help with the critique.
Many thanks for the initial comments. It's amazing, you spend hours and hours making sure your runarounds are the proper length, turnout radii are ok, and you forget the big giant monolith taking up a 3rd of your layout is a waste of space!
The best informaiton on hte prototype I'm using as inspriation can be found here:
http://hbs.railfan.net/
It's funny, but after looking through your critiques (and you all basically revolve around the same basic ideas) I notice there are few if any switchbacks on the prototype (the major exception is at the Bethlehem Steel Rapir facility). To your point, I may be pushed back to the drawing board, but I'm having trouble with the concept of the separate "L"s.
On the actaul working space, I have a large semi-finished basement to work with. I started simply with the idea of a 4x8, but it grew as I needed to make room for the waterfront area.
I've actaully already tried to remove some of the switchbacks, but I may see if there isn't a way to remove some more.
Many thanks for the help so far, and the patience with the noob!
~rb
First of all there's a lot to like about what you have done. First of all, you created a vision of what you wanted to do then set out to recreate it. You threw out the notion of a roundy rounder and set about making a switching layout.
The second thing you did well was to spot the buildings so that there was plenty of room to fit them in.
Both of those things, creating a vision and allowing for buildings is something that some modelers don't get until they've made a couple layouts.
The biggest problem is that you need a little help understanding how trains do business. The main thing here is that they try to keep it simple, why go back and forth a lot when you can get the track in on a straight shot. What seems like fun at first, even on a model layout gets old pretty quickly.
There were two suggestions given that you might consider. IF you look at the space you have and design for the space, you might find you have more flexibility than an island layout.
If you have to have the island, then Dave's suggestion to run a divider down the middle of the layout has a lot of merit. You could easily design 4 scenes, or four switching opportunities, and you would have room for both a yard and an inter change area. And you could have continuous running with out sacrificing your operational capabilities.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
The Hoboken Shore is a very interesting prototype. I've done a couple of layout designs based on the HBS. One is a 12-foot-long HO shelf-style switching layout that could be bent to fit your space.
Here's a thumbnail image:
You can read more detail and see a larger, labeled track plan here. We had to make a couple of small modifications to this plan to fit the client's space and one of the improvements was a longer runaround than is seen in these images. But you can at least see the outline of what we did.
As others have noted, there are lots of challenges with the first plan you posted. One of the problems with CAD is that it lets you do a lot of things that aren't workable from an operations standpoint.
I'd also strongly suggest that you rethink the use of Snap Switches. Switching operations involve a lot of shoving cars -- that can sometimes be a problem with a Snap Switch and a 50- or 60-foot car.
Good luck and have fun!
ByronModel RR Blog
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
I hope you don't mind...here's a larger version of your photo so it is easier to see...
Don Z.
Research; it's not just for geeks.
Do you have the space to do a sort of "G" shaped 2' wide walk-in layout in the same space? That would give you a lot of flexibility in how you lay things out and make it easier to factor out the switchbacks. With an industrial switching layout you don't need to plan continuous running which allows you to get away with a spiral shaped shelf layout. This would also allow you to have larger curves in places which will look better.
Your layout may be a good candidate for a sectional layout made of 2x4' sections allowing you to start modestly and add more industries and switching as you go along.
Rather then a large interchange perhaps just a staging track behind a backdrop where cars can enter and exit the layout?
Chris
SpaceMouse wrote: created a vision of what you wanted to do then set out to recreate it.
Texas Zepher wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: created a vision of what you wanted to do then set out to recreate it. Yeah, How about using this railroad for the next layout contest?
What I was pointing out is that he brought more to the table than the typical first-timer who comes here and says, "I got me a train, now what's a good layout?" He has an idea of what he likes and what he is trying to accomplish. Just because he failed in his first attempt, doesn't detract from the fact that before he's done, he'll have a plan that meets his needs. He has what it takes to get there, a vision of what he wants.
SpaceMouse wrote: Texas Zepher wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: created a vision of what you wanted to do then set out to recreate it. Yeah, How about using this railroad for the next layout contest?What I was pointing out is that he brought more to the table than the typical first-timer who comes here and says, "I got me a train, now what's a good layout?" He has an idea of what he likes and what he is trying to accomplish. Just because he failed in his first attempt, doesn't detract from the fact that before he's done, he'll have a plan that meets his needs. He has what it takes to get there, a vision of what he wants.
Again, my thanks to everyone for their advice. To spacemouses point, I can understand the frustration that people here must get over time with "please tell me everything I must do because I refuse to try on my own". Also, thanks to Don Z for the larger image, I was having a lot of trouble getting things properly sized.
Benchwork: I’m in no way wed to the shape I have. I was actually only going to make a 4 x 8, but as I started to lay out track I ended up extending the “L” to accommodate the docks etc. It just grew into the giant amorphous “L” you see before you now! Based on the comments posted, maybe it’s not realistic to think I can work in the corner of the layout effectively so I would be more than willing to reshape things.
Track Layout: Obviously I will need to rework the interchange which opens up a lot of space and I think if I switch to more of a “G” format as suggested I could streamline operations quite a bit. I could then put my yard on the “north end” (top of the image) with a north-south mainline that goes down the “G” terminating at the pier. I could also put a runaround track on the stem of the "G" to reach inland industries located back on the base 4 x 8 section. That would more or less cut my back and forths down to only 1 (unless of course I want to reverse into any assocaited industries.
My only challenge will be that i want to maintian a "primary customer" in the marine repair shop, so I don't know that I will have enough space on the G to model it in a prototypcially realistic space.
This is something I will have to work on. I guess it's a sign the wife is on a business trip Wednesday and Thursday!
Thanks again to everyone for their help and the kind words from Spacemouse (although I think that's only because I said nice things about his website).
Please keep the comments coming, I'm going ot try and integrate them into a new "master vision" and then attack my layout again.
rfbranch wrote: Please keep the comments coming, I'm going ot try and integrate them into a new "master vision" and then attack my layout again.
Most newcomers hate it when I suggest it, but I haven't learned my lesson yet. Creating an engaging track plan with which you'll be happy in the long term is not a matter of brute force and repetition. Sometimes the best way forward is to step back and spend some time learning about how real railroads (and good model railroads) work.
John Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operation is an excellent resource. Spending some time learning some background will pay off in a plan that won't frustrate you and gets the most out of your space.
If you really are keen to design your own layout, some hours studying and learning will pay off a lot better than a dozen iterations in CAD, IMHO.
Many thanks for the suggestion cuyama, I already own it. I purchased that, the Realistic Yard book, as well as the benchwork and wiring book (probably could have passed on those, plenty of info on the net that's contained in there) but it's been a reference Iv'e been using. Now if only I could apply it better
My main challenge has been the unique nature of what i want to do, I'm having some trouble applying it to this specific situation.
Again thanks for the pointer.
So after a round of veyr helpful advice, I've gone back to the drawing board and come back with a new vision for my layout. The first and most noticable change is to the basic design of the layout. My initial design was a modified 4x8 but it's clear that was abad use of the space.
So as a result, I've taken the same 9x8 space in my basement, and have changed it to a wraparound layout that I think better uses the space and better complements the flow of the layout. I started to aly track, but I realized that I was perhaps putting the cart before the horse as it were. So I took the basic dimensions of the table, and colored areas that occupied significant operational areas of the railroad.
I'd love to see if others thought this framework more workable, and if so I'd invest some time on my end in a more flushed out design. Here is the lin, because I'm having one helluva time getting an image inserted in the forum:
http://img527.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rfblayoutnr9.png
Again my thanks to everyone who has given their time and advice so far.
Rich
i think this works ...
what i did was paste your link in my browser to get to the imageshack page with your drawing , then down at the bottom of the page there's a box with HTML , Forum , Alternate Forum etc.
I clicked on the text next to Forum and it highlighted (blue in my browser , your's may be differnt , or you may need to double click the text) then i went under the Edit menu of my browser and selected Copy . then i came back to my reply here and clicked into the reply window then went under the edit menu and selected Paste .then i wrote this text
try it , see if it works for you
EDIT: hmm interesting , when i click on the link while editing the text the imige shows up full size , when i click on it after i post the message it stays small
anyone have any ideas why ?
Sorry I end up in some myspace page, no layout plan.
Dave H.l
ereimer wrote: i think this works ... what i did was paste your link in my browser to get to the imageshack page with your drawing , then down at the bottom of the page there's a box with HTML , Forum , Alternate Forum etc.I clicked on the text next to Forum and it highlighted (blue in my browser , your's may be differnt , or you may need to double click the text) then i went under the Edit menu of my browser and selected Copy . then i came back to my reply here and clicked into the reply window then went under the edit menu and selected Paste .then i wrote this text try it , see if it works for you EDIT: hmm interesting , when i click on the link while editing the text the imige shows up full size , when i click on it after i post the message it stays small anyone have any ideas why ?
Pure guess - the link contains a .th part. Could be for "thumbnail". Try to remove that - thus:
Smile, Stein
You're definitely on a better tack with this benchwork shape. I would suggest that you try to overlap layout elements a bit more, rather than segregate them into "chunks". Real railroads are relatively long and skinny, and that's even true for terminal and switching areas, for the most part.
Here's a small shelf-style layout (about 2'X12' in HO plus the removable car float), but it illustrates the way the different functions (yard, switch lead, industries, runaround) overlap to some degree in the same linear space.
Note how each element overlaps some other element. The industry tracks (bright green) serve a series of flats, both against a backdrop and toward the aisle ("fascia flats"). In your case, you have a bit more room, so you can mix in larger 3-D industries. But you can still overlap with yard tracks, switch leads, etc.
An improved version of this concept was published as a folding 1'X6' N scale design in Model Railroad Planning 2005. It's inspired by the erstwhile real-life Alameda Belt Line. Here's the version I submitted to MRP, their artwork was much nicer. You can also read more on the web here.
Again, note how many elements overlap to pack more operating interest into less linear space.
rfbranch wrote:I've gone back to the drawing board and come back with a new vision for my layout. ... I've taken the same 9x8 space in my basement, and have changed it to a wraparound layout that I think better uses the space and better complements the flow of the layout.
Seatrain at the bottom, turn off to the bottom left goes to the Bethlehem shipyards & rest of layout. The shipyard looks like a 4x8 all by itself, and then the HBS floatbridge and General Foods Maxwell house looks like another...... Just make the layout a series of scenes. Even one of the bluge around the Stevens Institute (castle point) would be cool.
Looks like you are on the right track, as it were. I like how you have organized it and it will really put your wharf scene in a prominent position. Your interchange is positioned such that you could even use a cassette system of some sort to add and remove cars.
I look forward to seeing your completed track plan!
steinjr wrote: Pure guess - the link contains a .th part. Could be for "thumbnail". Try to remove that - thus: Smile, Stein
ahhh well done , thanks !
Hi All-
I've gone ahead and modified my track plan to fit around my redeisgned benchwork. The image is attached again below (I'm hoping using photobucket will allow the link to work successfully). Just a few quick notes and questions:
I. GENERAL ARRANGEMENTS
I've laid out my tracks roughly as outlined in my previous schematic, however due to some space limitations some things ended up in different places than planned (Engine House and & MOW "east" of the yard rather than "west" of it - assuming a North-up orientation). Given my space, this seemed a better use of the dead area that would end up between the near end of the yard and the edge of the benchwork. It allowed me to squeeze a couple of industries in the back area, so on balance it looked to be a better use of space. Additionally, I can lengthen my benchwork in the bootom right corner another 6" if needed to accommodate a longer yard lead, but given the general length of consists, I don't know that I need it. But again, let me know if that's a potentiall pitfall I'm overlooking. Finally, I didn't include the double slip switches in the yard like the prototype (although I should really say this is a freelance that I'm trying to incorporate aspects of a prototype into) but if it makes sense to have them running along the straight edge of the tracks to allow easier switching, please let me know. I did capture the curved yard as mentioned, but have decided against the floatbridge interchange. I could still capture it if I wanted by simply widening the peninsula with the docks and waterfront if my layout is too operationally limited.
II. TURN RADIUS AND TURNOUTS
I'm guessing that I may be overly conservative, but I've planned the entire layout with Walthers #5's and 18" track radii (this that the plural...my guess. If I'm mostly moving around a maximum of 4-5 cars behind a 44-ton center cab, can I tighten things up to allow for more operational freedom? John Armstrong's book has aschematic of Prot Trackage but really only says "curves can be very sharp here" but I don't really have an idea of I an tighten things up at all. Can I go all #4's? Can I tighten the curves? I won't be running 80' auto parts cars or the like, and I figure short consists should be able to get around fairly tight curves but the experience of the group would be greatly appreciated. I will of course test things out once I have benchwork in place, but for planning purpose I'd like to know what I can realistically expect.
III. STAGING
In short, I don't have any at the moment, but there isn't a reason I couldn't helix down to tracks located below the layout if need be. My only issues is operationally I don't know how I would use them. The company itself will only have 1-2 locos, so I would be sending the unit off layout to bring a string of cars back. I assume the "cassette style" staging implies a piece of track I take on and off the layout? It's another possibility, but I don't know that I lose any operational aspects by just using the rather extensive yards I have now. I would love some thoughts on that.
Again my thanks to all, below is the link to my trackplan.
Not at all bad!
Still a little heavy on the use of shortish switchbacks, though. I count at least 5 on the layout - yard lead, track next to yard lead, engine house, pier and behind Medusa.
H0 scale, right ? A foot of switchback in H0 is just barely enough space for a short switcher and one car. Makes it tedious to pick up two cars and drop off two cars at a siding when you just can move one car at the time.
Try to use some special turnouts to make things flow better - e.g. like in this example:
Room this layout is in is 6.5 by 11.5 feet - ie comparable to your room which is 8x9 feet.
Some general ideas :
Don't know if it makes sense - but maybe worth considering.
Again - looks pretty good now. A little tweaking, and you have a runnable layout here!
I've tried to make a sketch showing what I meant by my comments - this is just an illustration of concept - you must tweak it to work for you:
Main changes:
The north end switching lead (the piece of curved track from the north end of the yard) is the key that keeps it all together - it serves many functions:
As it stands now, the only two industries that you must reach by a switchback move is Medusa and Reliable. Everything else can be reached directly by an engine pushing a cut of cars ahead of it out of the yard.
Many thanks for the time, effort, and detailed suggetsions Stein!
I will incorporate some of this tonight when I get a chance to tweak my design a little more. I've already put in a 3 way switch leading to the docks as per your previous suggestion, and I will incorporate your further advice into my revisions. I can see the advantages of what you have laid out, you are doing "more with less" as it were so again my thanks.
One futher question: the more literature I read about designing industrial switching districts, the more I see that I can always plan for "tight" corners, but I haven't seen it spelled out exactly what that means anywhere. Iv'e been 18" radii as my minimum, but if I'm pusing around trains with 4-5 maximum of a 70's vintage, as this too severe (I don't think so) or can I go tighter with mycorners? I will be using a small 44 tonner as my switchign loco, so my motive power will have a pretty minimal wheelbase. Any direction I can get on that would be appreciated.
Again thanks to all for their time.
rfbranch wrote:the more literature I read about designing industrial switching districts, the more I see that I can always plan for "tight" corners, but I haven't seen it spelled out exactly what that means anywhere.
Iv'e been 18" radii as my minimum, but if I'm pusing around trains with 4-5 maximum of a 70's vintage, as this too severe (I don't think so) or can I go tighter with mycorners?
I will be using a small 44 tonner as my switchign loco, so my motive power will have a pretty minimal wheelbase. Any direction I can get on that would be appreciated.
Sorry for taking so long on this one, real life definitely got in the way of posting the latest iteration of my plan, but based on the input I've had so far, I think this is a pretty solid final plan. I've more or less incorporated all the suggestions offered, and made one addition and wanted a suggestion on one other idea:
A. I've put an additional storage track in by the repair shop complex (it is in the front of the engine facility) with the idea that as the primary customer of the railroad (the frequent moves between various shops justifying the need for a railroad to service their needs, but the other industries in the area providing economic viability for a short line and therefore remove the need for the repair facility to have it's own switcher) and the need to keep things moving between the shops I thought it likely the facility might have an extra track for cars with miscelaneous shop supplies or as a track to keep their flat cars when not in use (I was thinking of having a flat car or two that will be owned by the repair shop to move heavy machinery from the ships on the pier to the different buidlings within the shops).
B. While I haven't implimented it, I was also wondering if my railroad might also have a few storage tracks off the Medusa Cement lead. My original prototype had them, and I thought it might be a way a shortline could squeeze out some free revenue by laying a few extra feet of track. The obvious point of discussion is that it would require several reverse points for a train to service, but I thought since these tracks wouldn't be used much it might not be that far from reality.
With the snow up here, I think I'm going to start my benchwork this weekend, but again any thoughts on this latest version of my layout would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks