In the thread "Industrial layout dilemma", David Starr (dstarr) made the following general comment on the location and orientation of tracks and roads in industrial areas:
dstarr wrote: Old industrial areas had the buildings set out along the rail line[s] so every factory had a rail served loading dock. New industrial areas have the buildings set out along the roads, (and don't ship by rail). I'd start the arrangement by locating the rail spurs and the the roads. An old area will have the buildings loading docks facing the track and the road access will go where evey it needs. I'd make sure the straight lines of the rail spurs and / or roads don't run parallel to the table edges, run them catty corner.
Old industrial areas had the buildings set out along the rail line[s] so every factory had a rail served loading dock. New industrial areas have the buildings set out along the roads, (and don't ship by rail). I'd start the arrangement by locating the rail spurs and the the roads. An old area will have the buildings loading docks facing the track and the road access will go where evey it needs. I'd make sure the straight lines of the rail spurs and / or roads don't run parallel to the table edges, run them catty corner.
That comment (and Byron Henderson's excellent "Webster Street lead" plan in the same thread) made me go to bed last night thinking about my own layout.
I am reasonably happy with my basic track plan, which is heavily inspired by Minnesota shortline Progressive Rail's Airlake Industrial Park, in Lakeville, MN, ca 2000-2001, but backdated to the early 1960s and transplanted to more urban surroundings (4-6 story brick warehouses instead of 1 story modern warehouses etc).
The track plan schematic is like this:
This is what my layout plan looked like:
I know that the runaround along the lower wall is out of the way - but the prototype location didn't have any runarounds at all - instead they used two engines, one on the east side of the cut of cars and one on the west side, so they could make pickups and drop offs to tracks facing either east or west.
But what I was unhappy with was those industries on the upper part of my layout that I had put at weird angles relative both to the tracks and the road. I woke up at 4 am this morning with an idea for a potensial fix that might make the location of the industries look less haphazard. This is what I came up with - the changes are all in the upper right hand corner:
Does anyone have comments or suggestions on industry location/orientation and where to put stuff like access roads ?
Stein
A lot depends on the age of the industrial area. If it is an area that was designed and built post WW2 then it may have a very regular pattern and have the tracks parallel to the roads. On consideration is that the roads tend to be along the front of the buildings and tracks tend to be along the backs or sides of the buildings.
If its an industrial area that pre-dates WW2 (and if you are using large brick buildings, that pretty well means it is) then the tracks and the roads and the buildings are more likely to be at odd angles to each other. The roads and tracks were developed independently of each other. Tracks tend to be at the sides or rear, but may be along the fronts of the buildings also.
Here are some shots I took in Kansas City, Mo., down in the West Bottoms. If you Google "Doc's Caboose" hobby shop, this is about 2 blocks NW of there.
Obviously the people who built these industries didn't read the "right angle" rule.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
FoulRift wrote: Stein-Your changes look OK to me evcept for the chemical plant I would add a small pump house and pipes for the tanks.
That's a good idea - will do! Somewhere in the miscelanous pile I have a loading/unloading rack I can fix up a little and use - looks like this:
I do have concerns with the two industries on the left side.It looks like you have the track running into them but the track length looks too short eveb for a 40' box car.Other than that I think your plan look great.Bob
Yeah - the inside dock as drawn now is a little too small to get a 40 foot car totally inside
I can always make the building a little deeper, but I am okay with the car (or cars) not getting totally inside.
Thanks for the suggestions!
Smile, Stein
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
dehusman wrote:A lot depends on the age of the industrial area. If it is an area that was designed and built post WW2 then it may have a very regular pattern and have the tracks parallel to the roads. On consideration is that the roads tend to be along the front of the buildings and tracks tend to be along the backs or sides of the buildings.If its an industrial area that pre-dates WW2 (and if you are using large brick buildings, that pretty well means it is) then the tracks and the roads and the buildings are more likely to be at odd angles to each other. The roads and tracks were developed independently of each other. Tracks tend to be at the sides or rear, but may be along the fronts of the buildings also.Here are some shots I took in Kansas City, Mo., down in the West Bottoms. If you Google "Doc's Caboose" hobby shop, this is about 2 blocks NW of there.Obviously the people who built these industries didn't read the "right angle" rule.
That's for sure!
By all means - I didn't mean to imply that older prototype industries always was lined up nicely along the track.
I've also seen prototype buildings located at all kinds of angles (and buildings made into all kinds of more or less weird shapes to fit in between the tracks - like this maps.live.com overhead picture from an interestingly shaped building in the town of Alvin south of Houston in Texas: http://tinyurl.com/5ztqrh
Or buildings around New York Cross Harbor's Bush Terminal in Brooklyn, where tracks cut through the corner of a building on the corner of 2nd avenue and 42nds street (or possibly 3rds and 41st - somewhere in that neighbourhood, anyways).
I guess that my challenge is that I based my track plan on a neat modern suburban industrial park, but I now would like to try to transplant the core of that track plan to an older (pre WW2 built) urban neighbourhood, without doing too many changes to basic track plan.
But given the space I have available, and that I am trying for the look and feel of an older industrial midwestern neighbourhood in the early 1960s - any suggestions on things I could (or should) change in my layout plan to strengthen that "feel" - change the way sidings branch off, building location/orientation or location of roads/parking lots ?
gandydancer19 wrote:I think the first one looks better to me. Particularly for a small space. Tracks at different angles breaks up the same-ness that you would have on the newer plan.
Hmm - that is a point. How about if I do something like this - a combination of the two latest plans - Menasha Paper placed at an angle to the rest - creating a little more depth, while ChemCentral is straight ahead instead of jutting up at the same angle as Menasha ?
I am also toying with another change - moving Rytway distribution from across the track from Lakeville Mill down to the bottom of the layout (where it bumps out the transload facility), to allow me room for more tracks (and more switching) at the mill.
I know I have to make the final decision for myself in the end - but I am open to suggestions here, people.
Grin, Stein
steinjr wrote: I've also seen prototype buildings located at all kinds of angles I guess that my challenge is that I based my track plan on a neat modern suburban industrial park, but I now would like to try to transplant the core of that track plan to an older (pre WW2 built) urban neighbourhood, without doing too many changes to basic track plan.
I've also seen prototype buildings located at all kinds of angles
To me, getting the "old" look is more of a "scenery and type of buildings" choice more so than a track layout plan. I think a crowded look would acheive what you are looking for. I would use backdrops and background structures (meaning background flats) to acheive it in the space and track plan you already have.
The third plan looks OK too.
gandydancer19 wrote: steinjr wrote: I've also seen prototype buildings located at all kinds of angles I guess that my challenge is that I based my track plan on a neat modern suburban industrial park, but I now would like to try to transplant the core of that track plan to an older (pre WW2 built) urban neighbourhood, without doing too many changes to basic track plan. To me, getting the "old" look is more of a "scenery and type of buildings" choice more so than a track layout plan. I think a crowded look would acheive what you are looking for. I would use backdrops and background structures (meaning background flats) to acheive it in the space and track plan you already have.
Absolutely a point. What I am concerned about is whether I have left myself enough space to work with for scenery (even cramped scenery), or whether I am pushing tracks way too close to the walls.
But I got about 7" inches of depth at ChemCentral. Guess I could try something up in that corner with Menasha and ChemCentral there that is similar to something I did on an earlier layout I worked on: make ChemCentral about 4" deep, leave about 3" behind ChemCentral and put a paper background building across the street - and try to make it look like the street goes off to the right behind ChemCentral.
Something like this:
On my earlier layout, the effect became something like this:
Not sure that it is all that convincing, but maybe it will just have to be good enough for now.
One of the things that makes layouts seem more realistic to me is when there is a reason for the buildings to be located as they are. Sometimes the roads came first, sometimes, the railroad came first, sometimes industries grew over time. Each of these will impart a slightly different look and configuration to the resulting industrial locations.For example, on my little N scale switching layout I imagined that the road grid was laid out first and that the railroad curved to accommodate the roadway locations.One thing that always makes things look just a little less realistic (to me, anyway) is when all the industrial tracks branch off at exactly the angle of the off-the-shelf turnouts. (Not a specific comment about Stein's layout, just a general point).
ByronModel RR Blog
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
cuyama wrote:One of the things that makes layouts seem more realistic to me is when there is a reason for the buildings to be located as they are. Sometimes the roads came first, sometimes, the railroad came first, sometimes industries grew over time. Each of these will impart a slightly different look and configuration to the resulting industrial locations.
One of the things that makes layouts seem more realistic to me is when there is a reason for the buildings to be located as they are. Sometimes the roads came first, sometimes, the railroad came first, sometimes industries grew over time. Each of these will impart a slightly different look and configuration to the resulting industrial locations.
That makes sense. I guess that the impression I want to create is something similar to the milling district on the south (western) bank of the Mississippi in Minneapolis.
Industries (mainly mills) were clustered close together in neat parallell rows near the river to take advantage of water power from Saint Anthony's falls (either directly from the river or from water channels that ran under the streets), but they were also very dependent on the railroads to get grain in and flour out.
Road access was not nearly as important as staying close to the river and having access to the railroads. Some pictures to give a general impression of the area in the late 1950s/early 1960s:
Looking north from downtown Mpls towards the milling district : http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/image.cfm?imageid=71773
Looking south from the Milwaukee Road yards at 2nd street south towards downtown: http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/image.cfm?imageid=183349
One thing that always makes things look just a little more toylike (to me, anyway) is when all the industrial tracks branch off at exactly the angle of the off-the-shelf turnouts.
Also a valid point. Hmmm. How about this modification ?
Stein, I wasn't specifically talking about your design ... just a general point.
It may just be personal preference, but I think layouts look slightly more realsitic when the tracks line up along one or two (or a very few) different axes. I think it makes it look as if there is a reason that the buildings and tracks are set-up as they are. In most real-life situations, the surveyors that site the buildings orient them in response to some external element ... where the roads are, where the tracks are, natural features such as hills or rivers, even the cardinal compass directions.
For example, one more opportunity for this in your latest design would be to have the Twin City Brick track align parallel with the Lakeville Mill tracks (and the "main" between them). It just suggests that all of those tracks are oriented in the same way for some reason.
But we're now getting down to the fine points of what makes something look good to one person vs. another -- so a lot depends on what looks good to you!
cuyama wrote:Stein, I wasn't specifically talking about your design ... just a general point.
I understood that. I just like to grab ideas (general or specific) from others, and then go play with the ideas by trying to apply them to some situation I am interested in.
That is a good point. Now for an application of the principle in this particular case:
For example, one more opportunity for this in your latest design would be to have the Twin City Brick track align parallel with the Lakeville Mill tracks (and the "main" between them). It just suggests that all of those tracks are oriented in the same way for some reason.But we're now getting down to the fine points of what makes something look good to one person vs. another -- so a lot depends on what looks good to you!
Certainly - and I do realize that in the end I of course have to make up my own mind about how to do it. Following your principle, I have now tried out three combinations for Twin City Bricks:
a) Orienting the buildings perpendicular to the road, but taking straight track diagonally into yard @ about 20 degrees of the horizontal (ie not as steep as in front of Lakeville Mill:
b) Curving the track around to make it end up going parallell to the tracks over by the mill:
c) Making the tracks parallell to the main track along the upper wall.
I guess it does indeed come down to personal taste in the end, but I think I will stay with the first one. It somehow looks like a more natural (to me) way of taking a useful RR track into the slightly irregular shaped Twin City Brick lot - bounded by the road, the track curving down towards the lower right hand corner of the room and another industry (ISG respources) on the left. And presumably another road perpendicular to the the modelled road below the industry.
I'll go play a little more with the other front edge industry - the team track one.
To everybody who has commented thus far - thank you for the comments so far - it has really helped me a lot!
Also, in regards to the whole pre/post WWII you might consider when the streets were laid-out in respect to the invention of the automobile. There are few intersections in some of the older neighborhoods here in Charlotte that make me think "what the heck were they thinking here" then I have to remind myself the street was laid-out thinking horse-drawn cart, not cars.
The same goes in effect for trains: sometimes the train came after the industries were built. So the question is when was your railroad built compared to the history of the town? Was the railraod built to go to the industry, or did the industries grow around the railroad?
Some of the newer manufacturing facilities that were built post war were built on lots that held older wood structures. The older structures were probably built for ease of shipping things by rail, so the newer ones also took advantage of that setting and orientation. The street layout on your last three drawings looks good and does a good job of avoiding roads going into the backdrop where they are seen, and the building locations look good too. (Except for Twin City Brick) I do think that Twin City Brick should be parallel to a siding of some sort. Maybe modify the shape more to a rectangle, or add an extension on it if it is a building that you already have.
As to the room you have between the tracks and backdrop, 7 inches is a lot. I am used to working with about half that. The best separator that I have found between the tracks and the wall behind it with background buildings on it is an old wood fence of vertical boards. I set the fence about an inch away from the wall. The hardest thing I have found to match up between foreground and background is a road, so I try to avoid that when possible, but on my current layout it seems that is not possible. You have avoided that on the last plans.
It looks like you are getting there.
gandydancer19 wrote: Some of the newer manufacturing facilities that were built post war were built on lots that held older wood structures. The older structures were probably built for ease of shipping things by rail, so the newer ones also took advantage of that setting and orientation. The street layout on your last three drawings looks good and does a good job of avoiding roads going into the backdrop where they are seen, and the building locations look good too. (Except for Twin City Brick) I do think that Twin City Brick should be parallel to a siding of some sort. Maybe modify the shape more to a rectangle, or add an extension on it if it is a building that you already have.
Haven't got a building for Twin City Brick yet. Could be that I turn it into Twin City Building Supply Co or something like that.
I am kind of envisioning that business as having a small yard office by the gate (where truck drivers get paperwork taken care of), and an open storage building for lumber and bricks and suchlike along the fence on the left - leaving the center of the lot open for unloading RR cars and loading trucks or moving stuff from flatcars or boxcars to the storage shed.
Mmmm - I have a Washington Salvage Yard building laying around - I might be able to use that one. Or maybe pick up something like the Cornerstone Walton & Son Lumber kit from my LHS.
I'll think about building location, though. But I think I'll leave the track configuration for the brick/building supply business as it is for now.
That trick with using a fence I have to try - maybe on the far left end of the layout - where the tracks is only about 2" away from the wall. Thanks for the tip!
I personally like your original plan the best. To me it just "looks" best. When it all comes down to it mimicking prototypical layouts may be the ultimate goal but there are always compromises. When you try to model some things down to the exact detail of the original, it doesn't always work. The key is to recreate the "feel" of the intended place you are modelling. I have to agree with an earlier comment that this is mostly determined by scenery. I think for every "rule" you learn when it comes to orientation of roads or track vs buildings, you will always find something that didn't follow those general rules. That's the beauty of modelling. There's a good chance it's prototypical somewhere. There are many places that look like buildings were afterthoughts and there are other places that are the opposite. Some places look well thought out. As long as your track is arranged in a way that makes it easy to work in a way that is believable, it'll be fine. Work on scenery to complete the feel. That's just my $.02
fredswain wrote:I personally like your original plan the best. To me it just "looks" best.
I personally like your original plan the best. To me it just "looks" best.
I do understand the difference between "immutable laws of nature" and "suggested good practices".
And I understand that pretty much any kind of design has a large element of art, which cannot always be replaced by the mechanical application of simple "rules".
Having agreed on that, I am curious - why does the first plan look better to you ? What is it that you like about the first plan (version 28 of the plan, actually) vs the latest (version 32).
Version 28:
Version 32:
Improve #32 by putting a crossover from the Lakeville Mill #3 switch to the main track, giving you a run around.
Put a right hand switch next to the "P" in Progressive Rail Warehouse and run a spur into the warehouse (that recovers some spots you lost by moving the Ryt Way building.)
dehusman wrote:Improve #32 by putting a crossover from the Lakeville Mill #3 switch to the main track, giving you a run around.Put a right hand switch next to the "P" in Progressive Rail Warehouse and run a spur into the warehouse (that recovers some spots you lost by moving the Ryt Way building.)Dave H.
Hmmm - will have to think a little more about that one - if I put in that crossover, I basically abandon the core concept of my original layout plan - where the scene along the upper wall is a place which do not have a runaround, and consequently these spurs are switched by two switchers working in concert - either by two operator, or by one operator that switches engine when needed.
I don't see a need for a runaround track there. You already have one. You mentioned that it was far away and at the other side of the room it may seem like it. However it this were truly prototypical and the distances scaled exactly, the runaround would only be a few blocks away. Perfectly normal. This is assuming of course that you were running the whole thing on your own with only 1 engine. With 2 anything is possible.
The more I look at it, the more I am liking plan #32.
steinjr wrote: where the scene along the upper wall is a place which do not have a runaround, and consequently these spurs are switched by two switchers working in concert - either by two operator, or by one operator that switches engine when needed.
While I know that Progressive Rail does that kind of thing, I also know it is relatively rare and horribly inefficient in the long run so I am loathe to incorporate something like that. But that's my perspective and if you want to use two engines that's your perogative.
dehusman wrote: steinjr wrote: where the scene along the upper wall is a place which do not have a runaround, and consequently these spurs are switched by two switchers working in concert - either by two operator, or by one operator that switches engine when needed. While I know that Progressive Rail does that kind of thing, I also know it is relatively rare and horribly inefficient in the long run so I am loathe to incorporate something like that. But that's my perspective and if you want to use two engines that's your perogative.Dave H.
I figure it like this: I don't really need to optimize my layout for efficiency. After all - for me (as opposed to a real life railroaders like e.g. my brother) switching will be time spent relaxing with a hobby at home, not time spent working odd hours away from home - I don't really expect I will be in a hurry to finish switching and get off "work".
If I for some reason decide I want to run an engine around some cars instead of using two cars, I will just have to take the cars and trundle "a few blocks down the line" - down to the lower left hand corner - and use the runaround there. Which visually is in a different scene.
Putting in an extra runaround in the upper right hand corner just doesn't gives me a lot of added layout flexibility beyond what I already have, but it does mar the illusion that this scene is from an area where there is no runaround - which otherwise would be used as an explanation of why there sometimes (usually ?) will be two switchers working the same train up there instead of just one.
So I don't think I will be adding a second runaround along the upper wall. But thank you for taking the time to look at my plan, think about it and make a suggestion - even when I don't end up using a suggestion, I do appreciate receiving it.
Now, if that "blessed" kidney stone that has kept me up all night just could pass so I could go back to sleep, I would be a pretty happy camper over here.
A friend of mine with kidney stones described it as "passing a flaming porcupine".
dehusman wrote: A friend of mine with kidney stones described it as "passing a flaming porcupine".Dave H.
Fortunately, the second time you have a kidney stone, you recognize the symptoms early and go see the doctor before the flaming porcupine makes it's appearance - the doctors have these nice little pills - so it becomes merely a matter of passing a something that feel the size of a well shaven & cool porcupine - piece of cake, relatively speaking ....
More brain-storming thoughts----
On Plan 32
- Use the Twin City Brick layout as in version 28, but move the building to the left so you can still get a road in similar to version 32, or combine it with the new building added between TCB and ISG.
- Re-instate a building at the original location of Ryt Way Distribution on the right. I think this would give you a more crowded look for an industrial district around the chimney base.
- Can you disguise the chimney base as part of a building? Have you thought about it? Is it at layout level? You really haven't said one way or the other and now I am curious.
Also, here is a photo of my background fence seperator.
gandydancer19 wrote:More brain-storming thoughts----On Plan 32- Use the Twin City Brick layout as in version 28, but move the building to the left so you can still get a road in similar to version 32, or combine it with the new building added between TCB and ISG.- Re-instate a building at the original location of Ryt Way Distribution on the right. I think this would give you a more crowded look for an industrial district around the chimney base.- Can you disguise the chimney base as part of a building? Have you thought about it? Is it at layout level? You really haven't said one way or the other and now I am curious.Also, here is a photo of my background fence seperator.
The fence looks really good! Here is a set of pictures showing a very hasty mockup of this area - haven't taken the time to do much about the team track and Twin City Brick - these buildings are not necessarily the buildings I will use in the final scene - but these are from boxes that were open and available:
Plan 28:
Image 1: looking right (towards chimney) from the team track area:
Image 2: Looking left by Twin City Brick
Image 3: Looking left across road RR X-crossings - Menasha on rear left, ChemCentral on rear right
Image 4: More straight on shot along road
Image 5: Chemcentral w/tanks up against chimney base
Image 6: Mill and Rytway seen from left
Image 7: Mill and Rytway seen from right/straight on
Some more (older) shots of the corner showing the chimney base better: