Layout plan critque.

[Packers#1]

So here it is:

So, it starts out with the yellow. The U25B couples on to the head, and it departs. The first seout is at Indiana farm supply, today a boxcar of feed. It then continues on to town #2 (i haven't named the towns yet). The first set-out there is at a spur track on the outskirts of town. It then sets out a hopper of plastic pellets and 3 beer can tank cars at the soda bottling plant. It then places 2 boxcars at the local train/truck interchange. It's final moves in town are to put a boxcar of lumber on the siding, run around it, and shove it into the lumber supply siding. the train gets reassembled, and the crew goes to lunch. On the return trip, their only move is to set out a covered hopper for grain at the Indiana Grain Co-op elevator. It returns to town, and the local switch crew (which is done with classification for tommorow and has switched the 2 local industries) using their RS3, breaks down the train, while the U25B goes to the engine house.

[Packers#1]

I was just thinking a little more.  Rememebr, the railroad would prefer to have as little switching as possible.  Obviously it is necessary, but it is slow, and isn't an efficient use of their time, manpower, and equipment.

there's only 4 spurs in the end of line town (the track that sneaks around and joins the yard is a spur on one end, loco servicing on the other). I have an area for running trains through (the spur that goes off the end at the bottom left, and the spur off the layout in the middle of the right side). The yard crew has two industries to switch at a time when there is no switching in the yard. Let me design a day running the way-frieght.

[Vail and Southwestern RR]

I was just thinking a little more.  Rememebr, the railroad would prefer to have as little switching as possible.  Obviously it is necessary, but it is slow, and isn't an efficient use of their time, manpower, and equipment.

[Vail and Southwestern RR]

Design and build what you are happy with.

But, here are the thoughts I'll leave you with.  In general the point of the railroad is to move stuff, over large distances.  So, unless you modelling an industrial area, where the only operation is switching, you need some space to run!  More tracks don't necessarily make better switching.

XTrkCad is not that hard to use, but there's no substitute for running through the tutorial.  Once, and then again after you use it for a few hours.  It is a pretty powerful program.

I think one of the best parts of this hobby is what we can learn.  I would seriously recommend really reading "Track Planning for Realistic Operation".  Not just skimming it.  There is a lot to learn in there.  And then get one of the books with a compilation of Armstrongs plans, and see how he implemented the ideas from the book.  (18 Tailor Made Track Plans comes to mind.)

I believe that designing your own plan can be one of the most rewarding parts of the hobby, if you do it well.  If you do it poorly, it can probably be one of the most frustrating.  Take the time to learn, and do it well!

[Packers#1]

Downloaded it, tried to figure it out. the most confusing thing that anyomne ever invented. I'll stick to the Atlas Right track software. Thanks for the tip, though.

[jwhitten]

 

Try 'XtrkCAD'. Its a good package. It used to be a commercial program but its now Open Source so you can just download it and use it. Be sure to Google for it and go to the Open Source version of the website (I think the current version is 4.0.2-2). You can get it for Windows or Linux (or download the source code and compile it yourself for some other platform maybe-- or else add new features if you're so inclined). As a program I've found it to be a little dated, though with lots of good useful features. If your needs are modest though (and from your description and drawings they seem to be) it would be an excellent CAD package to use to help you lay out your layout. 

[Packers#1]

Adding "a few more spurs" is where you get in trouble!  Leave some space!  It will actually look better.  I get the feeling that you are trying to get every inch of track down that you possible can.  I thin that makes everything look that much closer together, and you lose the illusion that your trains actually go anywhere.

i wasn't happy with how much switching there was. Let me work on rearranging those.

Edit note: here's the new track plan:

[Vail and Southwestern RR]

Adding "a few more spurs" is where you get in trouble!  Leave some space!  It will actually look better.  I get the feeling that you are trying to get every inch of track down that you possible can.  I thin that makes everything look that much closer together, and you lose the illusion that your trains actually go anywhere.

[Packers#1]

Okay, so I added a few spurs.

[Packers#1]

Packers, I think you're giving up way to easily on this. You know what your givens and druthers are, and what your dream is.

To just up and walk away from something at this point, when so many people have given feedback and helped with plans shows a lack of commitment to whatever you do model.  

The guy on this thread who said that it was a bit ambitious was right. I like this 6x6 plan. It can support single operation (and myself being the only modeler that I personally know in town, that's important). The big layout has gone way too far from what I set out to build at the begining. I'm sticking with the Indiana Southern.

[GraniteRailroader]

Packers, I think you're giving up way to easily on this. You know what your givens and druthers are, and what your dream is.

To just up and walk away from something at this point, when so many people have given feedback and helped with plans shows a lack of commitment to whatever you do model.  

[Packers#1]

A 2x3 hole is no prob. for me, besides, the yard operator is on the outside.

I cut out one spur.

BTW, the sawdust won't start for (hopefully), at most, one year.

[Autobus Prime]

P1:

Looks good. Just make sure the 2' x 3' center hole is big enough for you. If it is, pick up some lumber and start making sawdust.

[Packers#1]

This layout is going in my bedroom, and a 4x8 table is a real space hog. Anyways, any forsee-able problems with my 6x6 plan (other than the town switch lead)?

[Autobus Prime]

P1:

I don't hate 4x8s. In practice, mine doesn't hog space. Its access space overlaps access space for my workbench, shelves, electrical box, and furnace. There haven't been reach problems. Of course, in HO and larger, any reasonable turnback curve is going to have a reach problem at the back. N scalers would have inserted a plug for their pet scale here, but I sneezed and blew it on to the floor, sorry.

The nice thing about a design whose deficiencies are widely talked about is that many solutions are available. Often the new concept solves one problem but introduces others that must be solved - wall space that is needed for other uses, duckunders or movable benchwork to reach central operating areas, turnback curves that offer their own reach problems and eat lots of real estate.

And there are good things about a 4x8. It's a reasonable table for 18" radius curves, which work reasonably well with small equipment. People say that the size is arbitrary, and might as well be 3x7, if building materials were that size, but that's just the point - the 8 foot module has developed for other reasons, and the 4x8 takes advantage of standard sizes, a Good Thing. Tables are very easy to build quickly, and if flat-topped they are very easy to work out a design on by "analog computing" with snap track.

There are very few "bad solutions". There are lots of solutions that aren't well-matched to problems. The 4x8 works for me, but it might not work for you.

I'm talking too much today.

[Packers#1]

This is my 6 ft. by 6 ft. Ohio, Indiana, & Southern. Inspired by the Red Rock Northern. Basically, the way frieght operator is in the middle, and the yard operator is on the outside.

BTW, i absolutly hate 4x8 ft. tables. You can do a great deal with them, yes, but they are absolute space hogs. You hav to acces to at least three sides, and you can't get into their middle w/o an access hatch. I like the donut style better.

[Autobus Prime]

P1:

Have fun. Make sure you complete a continuous main line and a few spurs first, so you can have fun running construction trains. Gondolas of track nails.

Also make sure to stretch the scaled plan to keep the aisles big enough. If you have room, consider building the plan to its HO size, but with N track and track spacing. It will be nice and roomy, with very broad curves and lots of landscape.

[Packers#1]

P1:

You know, for what you want in a RR, it wouldn't be a bad idea to follow the "Red Rock Northern" plan in the June 2007 MODEL RAILROADER. Pick up a back issue from Kalmbach, or stop by your library, if you don't have one. It's a rural branch with some industries,which you could change or add to, it has a good-sized yard and an engine terminal, and a lower staging level.

At least it would be a good start for any changes you'd like to make. The RRN looks like a decent operating line.

I have a copy of that (secong copy of MR I ever bought), and I'll follow that, but it'll have some changes. And it'll be half the size (n scale is almost half the size of HO[just 7 scale inches off]).

[Autobus Prime]

P1:

You know, when I was your age, I had a 4x8 layout. It wasn't really complicated, but I had a lot of fun with it, running trains, building and rebuilding stuff. Then I decided to rip it down and build something bigger, because it's what Serious Model Railroaders did. I did get a lot built, but it never ran right, and was too much work and not much fun. I got Seriously Bored with the whole thing.

What you want right now is not the Ultimate Dream Layout or anything like it. You want something to have a little fun with for about 3 to 5 years. The layouts you're presenting here, and that one I mentioned, would take me several years to finish completely, and then there's no time for fun.

Why don't you put up a 4 x 8 with a double track oval, a couple of crossovers, and a town with some industrial spurs? Have some fun running trains and switching cars for now, and let people with more time and money make the big plans. A lot of the big layouts you see in MR are built by people with a lot more scratch and a lot more free time than you have, or I have, or most people have.

You can get a 4 x 8 up and running in a month for maybe $200, not counting the trains. Put a sheet of plywood on some 1x4 framing and braced 2x3 legs, stick down cork roadbed, nail down track, enjoy. Once you get something running, I think you'll find it absorbing enough that you don't need to make huge plans any more. If you like, consider the 4 x 8 a "test layout" to see what you like to do. Try different scenery methods, run different equipment and different trains, etc.

I know this is true, because right now my own layout is a fairly simple 4 x 8, and I'm having lots of fun with it, where before I was just bogging down in planning and unfinished projects.

[Packers#1]

OK, here's the new plan.

Funny how you ask for critiques and reviews, but when you use someone elses advice you don't show any credit towards them.

You know what I'm talking about.

I actually got that plan from oneforakick on NTRES (national teenaged rail enthusiasts society).

[GraniteRailroader]

OK, here's the new plan.

Funny how you ask for critiques and reviews, but when you use someone elses advice you don't show any credit towards them.

You know what I'm talking about.

[Autobus Prime]

P1:

You know, for what you want in a RR, it wouldn't be a bad idea to follow the "Red Rock Northern" plan in the June 2007 MODEL RAILROADER. Pick up a back issue from Kalmbach, or stop by your library, if you don't have one. It's a rural branch with some industries,which you could change or add to, it has a good-sized yard and an engine terminal, and a lower staging level.

At least it would be a good start for any changes you'd like to make. The RRN looks like a decent operating line.

[Packers#1]

OK, here's the new plan.

1. Think Troy Cold storage from the MR WSOR Troy Branch
2. I think this solves the problem Hyce was talking about
3. Yes, I know that a track in the staging yard is crooked. this will be worked out with track lengths in practice.

[Packers#1]

new bottom plan.

[Packers#1]

new bottom plan.

[GraniteRailroader]

I think it's time for some layout planning books, Pal.

Your yard is unusable, the radius for most of the curves is way too tight with no easement into them, and your track arrangement for industry makes me go .

I would hate trying to be an engineer and switch your yard.

[Packers#1]

New bottom plan.

Few industrial sidings, but hey, it looks a heck of a lot better.

[Packers#1]

Drastic changes to the top one.

And the bottom (The turntables are for the SEC's leasing co. [SECL's] ternminal. locos ship out, arrive, get repaired, and get painted here).

[Packers#1]

They're connected by a removable one track staging yard. still have to put the switch in the upper staging yard. I was going to mak them 1 ft. apart, but now I think 2 ft. would be good.