I was pretty much thinking of operating the way Andrew described for the original design - a train pulls in on the main, in my case from either side (he mentioned only coming in from one direction) which means an almost pure fiddle operation - I pull a loco and some cars from my storage drawers and set them on the track, Loco does whatever runarounds are needed to service each siding adn reassembles the outbounds on the main. I then fiddle these to the storage drawers and replace with the next set (realistically they ALL come off, even the spotted cars, lest the cat decides to abscond with a hopper).
I can certainly do the drop leaf on the left, rearrange the spur on the left to curve a bit so it ends parallel to the edge (I don;t need the added complication of making some crazy angled drop leaf). In fact I even have a 6' shelf that would work perfectly, although a lighter weight piece of material would probably be better - plus I need to get some foam scraps to build up equal height. I have the perfect leg solution, the new modules they built for the RCT&HS use these nifty folding leg brackets that lock in both positions. Just need a hinge and I'm all set. I really kind of like that idea. That does end up assuming all trains enter and exit to the left, since I can;t do a similar treatment to the right side. I have approximately 4' available on the left side, and I could conceivably clamp on maybe 1' to the right although I dunno if it's worth it for 2 more cars.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
I have no problem with it for functionality, but I think you could improve on it operationally.
Right now you really don't have a spot that represents "down the line" or off layout. What can serve as an interchange track is the track parallel to the main on the left. Unfortunately, it will only handle about 4 cars and that is wanting for the amount of work you have to do. You can gain about one more car by moving the turnout as far as you can left, but that only dents the problem. You can also gain another spot by moving the crossover left as well.
If you keep fudging everything to the left, you can gain more and more spots on the interchange. Adding the drop down lead allows you to get even more room without sacrificing the capacity of your runaround. If you can get 4 feet, or 8 cars, you should be able to run a pretty good ops session.
Of course, operations can be varied by also using the track as a fiddle track.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
OK, yes, i am crazy, should be doign othe rthings but I jus thad to draw a track plan instead.
No double slip, but I adjusted the lengths of the tails, and cut the 3 parallel tracks to 2 (no more Inglenook puzzle). Adjusted the sidings on the bototm - no engine house, just a single track, and rearranged the lower right to be more interesting. Also added another siding on the top right. That oen is the only one that simply projects from a turnout, the others all have various curves and so forth. Less straight lines, at least less straight lines that are in any way parallel to the benchwork. I'm not sure this is an improvement, but it's balanced as far as sidings on each side, but the number of spts varies. The runaround is a different radius curve than the main, so even that's not parallel other than on the very right hand side. I see this taking multiple runaround moves to have a train come in from the left and switch all spots, or if it comes in from the right. Or the alternate, have one from the left switch all those trailing point sidings, and the return trip or a second train that comes from the right to switch all those sidings.
Just some quick comments, maybe I'll get a chance later to draw in some of the suggestiosn and see what comes out.
For Chip: Your #2, well, that's almost the original plan I posted in this thread. The difference would be that the 3 parallel sidings would be about 16 feet to the left with a long lead, and they's be more than 3 tracks - scaled down perhaps 2 gorups of 2 plus another track comign off, that being the cement plant. To the right, both tracks would continue, the lower one continuing as the main and the upper one branching into a 4 track double-ended yard. That would actually be, allowing for compression, the track arangment at Chapman yard and the siding leading to the Lehigh Cement plant. Remove anything below the main. However, as pointed out, this would not, in the 'condensed to fit on a 2x8 version', be terribly interesting to operate. On #3, a drop leaf is possible on the left side about where the main is. The right side is against a wall, and a drop leaf closer to the top would interfere with the radiator - another reason I decided to stick with a 8' width for now - anything bigger goes over the radiator. I have plenty of clearance but if I'm here come cold weather again, I can't be blocking it - I don;t fear damage to the layout, I fear insufficient heat in the room.
More on #2 - I'm trying to be realistic, which not being has probably what's been holding me up. I think I need a spare room, about 10x12, to build a credible version of the C&F, greatly compressed but functional. I don;t ahve it, and I'm not going to - so my realistic expectation is a 2x8 that I can have fun switchign on. I do suppose it could be helpful to draw out exactly what I've visualized for said 10x12 room, and see if there's an 8' chunk of it I could lift out and use for now. I've actually been digging through track plans looking for a section that is 2x8 that would be workable, as another way to try and get something locked in.
Selector: I haven't so much as handlaid straight track yet, and you're wanting a double slip? Hey why not
I would reverse the direction of your crossover at top right, and end it at a DS where it meets the "main". Eliminate the rest of the curving track that leaves you with the too-short lead to switch over the crossing and to the lower right industry. Mind you, that now makes the tail at upper right a lot shorter.
Three things.
1) Once you make a few turnouts and see how easy it is, you will be comfortable making something like a crossing without even thinking about it. Do not limit your layout by crossings that are commercially availible.
2) I agree with what Byron said earlier. Think in terms of your overall goals and create something that both fits that plan and is functional now. You may have to make certain compromises as to what you can place in the space, but you should never settle for something that doesn't meet all your needs.
3) One way you can expand your options is to use fold-down extensions of your leads. They stay out of your wife's way most of the time, but you can swing them up into place when you are operating. You can then place turnouts right to the table edge and still have them be functional.
I think it's am improvement, though I still don't get the three parallel tracks at the upper left. Maybe it's just me. And the upper right is unused, at least for track. For me, spreading out the tracks along the back in some fashion might be more interesting, even if the tracks were shorter. The lead to the right is too short to swith the three parallel tracks in one shot anyway.
The only reason the three tracks were there together in the original were to maintian the Ingelnook Sidings puzzle. If that's not important to you, you don't need to keep the configuration. But whatever you like ...
Best of luck with it.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
They're actually #5's, Fast Tracks/NMRA size. With an Atlas crossing. I draw my plans in 3rd PlanIt so I can print out individual pieces at 100% size if needed. I actually went to the toruble of printing out my entire previous railroad and then taping all the pieces together (don't know anyone with a plotter and didn't want to fiddle to make a copy that would be printable by Staples or someone) and marked off all the track. In the end it was more work than it was worth, my intention is pretty much usign the rigid 'rules' enforcement of CAD to make sure what I want will actually fit in the available space (no cheating on curves or making #2 turnouts) and then building all but the most critical things essentially freehand.
There's approximately 2' from the points of the left turnout to the edge of the table - should be enough room for a loco and 2 cars. However, I'm sure I can move it over some and make more room. Also better balance with more stuff to the right.
I do mostly diesel, so that's a good idea, single track with a fuel pad and some sort of sand tower. Hmm, keep a short siding for a tank car with fuel, but also need an unloading spot for a covered hopper with sand. Ideas, ideas.
Well, my opinion is, of course, that it's a lot better. My only concern would be the length of the lead on that track right above the engine house that gives access to the industry at the lower right. But you can get around this by rigging up some sort of temporary single track drop leaf that extends this lead when required. I also think that the distance between the frog ends of the two turnouts that lead to the crossing is more than required. If you had the same arrangement using Atlas Customline switches, the track planning book I have shows this as 2-1/2 inches using #4s, and 2 inches using #6s. For reference, the overall length from point end of turnout to point end of turnout is 20-1/2 inches using the 4s, and 26 inches using the 6s. Your diagram shows this to be almost 36 inches, so some compression of the plant will probably occur when you get the actual track pieces.
Concerning the engine house, I don't remember if your branch is steam or diesel. If diesel, maybe you can give up the house and replace it with a nicely detailed fueling pad and downsized sanding tower.
One thing that I might suggest is trying to obtain some turnout pieces that you can move around the table. Maybe the guy at Iron Horse would allow you to make copies of a couple turnouts on his copy machine. What I did was make a bunch of copies and glue them to some minila folder material to give them some strength. When the glue dried, I cut out the pieces and had almost instant paper turnouts. Since these are full sized, they really are an aid in seeing how various track arrangements will fit.
Regards
OK, here we go with the latest version.
No more switchback, it's a crossing. Very little is actually parallel to the table edge. Both the main and the runaround in the middle have shallow curves to them (> 50" radius). There's also a large radius curve after the crossing leading to the two spots in the lower right. Even the tracks that look dead on parallel to the edges are not, however it's very subtle and doen't really show in the plan so perhaps it would still appear to be parallel when built.
The one thing here I really don't like is the engine house. However, I have no requirement for there to be an enginehouse. I'm thinking that to balance things out a bit, sinc ethe left side is all filled in with various tracks and the right side is somewhat bare, it might be better to change the enginehouse to a single siding (one less turnout).
Better, worse, or just as bad as the first one?
Lots of good ideas. I'll post a more detailed reply when I have time, that silly thing called 'work' is greatly interfering in my fun this week. I'll eave one thought - I wasn't even thinking 'cement' with this plan until it was mentioned about changing the direction of the sidings.and I looked again and realized they go off in the same direction as the cement plan on the actual branch. No need for it to actually BE cement at this time. I'm probably 90/10 on the "rebuild/reuse" issue at this point. 90% side being, if I ever have larger space again, wipe the slate clean and just use the benchwork section. My feeling is that trying to make something fun in a small space AND totally reusable is too much of a conflict. And I have yet to find something along the real C&F that could be reasonably modeled as an LDE in only 2x8 and still be workable - outside of simple siding scenes. Again, the conflict between fun to operate today in 2x8 vs plopping it in the middle of a future larger layout.Which is why I'm all but fully convinced to design a fun to operate 2x8 that doesn't need to duplicate or even resemble any actual bit of the C&F.
As for actual space - yes, I probably COULD build something bigger in the space I have, but it would hugely compromise the room and possibly become a point of conflict even though at the moment I have full support to fully utilize the area. So I am stickign with this single 2x8 section for now. If I want some continuous run and the ability t build long trains I can do that at the RCT&HS modular shows since I am now a member there and working with the modular group. And no, I don;t really want to build a module for it as my home layout. That doesn't mean I won't build a module at some point, but it won't be my only home layout if I do.
Byron - thanks for the insights. I really want to learn as much as I can and come up with the best thing I can for what I want to do. I don't post my ideas here just to hear a bunch of 'attaboys', I want to know what's wrong as well as what's right so I can attempt to fix it.
rrinker I can certainly get rid of the switchback. I may try doign it without the crossing though, as leads off a #5 won;t be a comemrcial crossing and I don't know that I am capable of building one. I do believe I can build top quality turnouts with the FastTracks tooling, but for one crossing, it's too expensive to buy the bits, although I'm thinking some of the #5 turnout parts make things the right angles I need. Hmmm.
I can certainly get rid of the switchback. I may try doign it without the crossing though, as leads off a #5 won;t be a comemrcial crossing and I don't know that I am capable of building one. I do believe I can build top quality turnouts with the FastTracks tooling, but for one crossing, it's too expensive to buy the bits, although I'm thinking some of the #5 turnout parts make things the right angles I need. Hmmm.
I forgot to mention this earlier, but the crossing doesn't have to match exactly the turnout angles unless you need the two turnouts maximally close to each other. A very short 24" radius (or any radius) curve at the end of each diverging leg of the NMRA/FastTracks #5s allows a stock Atlas Code 83 25-degree crossing to be used.
And of course, this is true for a variety of turnout/crossing combinations. Depending on the specific components used, if you trim the legs of the crossing a wee bit, you can sometimes bring the turnouts closer together.
rrinkerI can certainly get rid of the switchback. I may try doign it without the crossing though, as leads off a #5 won;t be a comemrcial crossing and I don't know that I am capable of building one.
In general I like the plan as is.
rrinkerI may try doign it without the crossing though, as leads off a #5 won;t be a comemrcial crossing and I don't know that I am capable of building one.
The Atlas Track Planning book I have for their Custom Line track shows a 25 degree crossing used off #4 turnouts. I believe that the Atlas #4s are close to #4-1/2. This crossing is available in code 83, if that's what you are planning to use. The crossing was just a suggestion, and I'm not trying to push it one way or the other. BUT, if you are capable of building turnouts from the Fast Tracks fixtures, and also capable of handlaying track, I'm pretty sure that you would also be able to tweak whatever you needed to tweak to get the commercial item to work with the handlaid.
rrinker. Future use is up in the air, although if I spend the money for FastTracks tooling, I hope to at least use that, even if I clear the top of this section and start over in the future. I guess future use as-is depends on what my next space ends up being. If only slightly more than i have no, I'll probably just add a secotion to one side or the other, but if I get enough space to actually duplicate the actual track arrangment on some part of my modeled prototype, I'll rebuild and just reuse the benchwork and save the turnouts I'll be building plus whatever else can be salvaged.
Future use is up in the air, although if I spend the money for FastTracks tooling, I hope to at least use that, even if I clear the top of this section and start over in the future. I guess future use as-is depends on what my next space ends up being. If only slightly more than i have no, I'll probably just add a secotion to one side or the other, but if I get enough space to actually duplicate the actual track arrangment on some part of my modeled prototype, I'll rebuild and just reuse the benchwork and save the turnouts I'll be building plus whatever else can be salvaged.
My recent attempts to help folks with design questions on this forum have been pretty futile, but I'm a slow learner, so here goes ...
The future is always unknown, but I personally think you would be better off making the choice now to prioritize for one or the other: a section that has maximum re-use potential in the future, or the most interesting thing you can build now in the available space. Trying to do a "fair" job of both satisfies neither, it seems to me. For future re-use, for example, the straight tracks across the middle of the section might be OK. But for maximizing the visual interest in the current space, those straight tracks are kind of humdrum compared to alternatives.
If you wanted to do a cement plant in the available space, three closely-spaced parallel tracks doesn't really look like a cement plant and it will be hard to model even relatively convincingly. An alternative would be to move the tracks around so you had a place along the backdrop to dump coal and additives (like bauxite or iron) and another location where you could load covered hoppers below silos and/or boxcars at a baghouse. Yes, these would all be short tracks with only a few cars, but I think that would be more realistic in terms of portraying the essence of a cement plant than the original layout's Inglenook. And the plant could spread along one full side of the section.
Of course, this would not be the cement plant you would want to build for a later larger layout, so you would face rebuilding.
If you choose maximizing the interest in the current space without worrying quite so much about future re-use of the section in a possible larger layout, a plausible mix of industries might be more interesting to build, view, and run. It's not clear to me now how much space you actually have at this time, since you've talked in the past about 10-foot designs. Somewhere in there, my adaptation of Jonathan Jones' fine layout from the May 2001 issue of Model Railroader was suggested.
I think the curved tracks make a smaller shelf layout more interesting to look at, but that's certainly a personal preference. This layout was discussed on the forum a while back.
rrinker As for adjusting the siding/lead ratios, do you think I should shorten up the sidings on the top left so that more space can be allocated to the lead on the right? Andrew used to have another plan on his old site, a variation of this one that added more track in the mostly empty upper right area. That one though I think jams a bit too much into the space in the interest of adding what for his particular industries was a plant switcher that would take the inbound cut of cars and do all the spotting.
As for adjusting the siding/lead ratios, do you think I should shorten up the sidings on the top left so that more space can be allocated to the lead on the right? Andrew used to have another plan on his old site, a variation of this one that added more track in the mostly empty upper right area. That one though I think jams a bit too much into the space in the interest of adding what for his particular industries was a plant switcher that would take the inbound cut of cars and do all the spotting.
Well, it may just be me, but I don't see that the original plan has enough going for it to try to tweak and trim, given your interests. It just seems (to me) like a lot has been compromised to work in the classic Inglenook Sidings scheme.
In my opinion, you'd be better off deciding what you want to model, and then planning around that rather than to try to overlay your operation and modeling ideas on a somewhat generic track plan. A local switcher concept is not necessarily a bad idea for this space, though there are probably better track plans for it. Good luck!
ByronModel Railroad Blog Layout Design Gallery
maxman Well, if you want my opinion, switchbacks should be banned in Boston, and just about everywhere else. The business about trying to move a car from point A to point B and having to disturb a bunch of other stuff used to have its proponents. Mainly, in my opinion, by those who tried to make a small model railroad big by increasing the complexity and time required to perform a task. Hence, the switching puzzle. The track plan at the club I belong to was designed and built by a bunch of old-timers who subscribed to the switchback idea. Every switching area had one, and one area had a double switchback. Problem became that once folks got to the point where they actually wanted to run trains around in some semblence of operation, the switchback locations never got switched after the first time, mainly because they were a pain in the backside. I understand the small railroad issue, because the space I'm dealing with is also restricted. But I still wouldn't have one of the darn things. In your particular case, I'd get rid of the switchback that goes to the enginhouse/possible industry. Have the turnout to the enginehouse connect to the middle track (eastbound main?), and have the lead to the house cross the lead to the industry at the lower right with a crossing. I think crossings always work well in restricted areas. The other thing I might consider is changing the direction the leads to the upper and lower industries connect to the eastbound main and the westbound passing siding. That way, if your railroad ever grows in either direction, the leads to all the industies will be trailing point with the exception of the one to the enginehouse. And you'll still have everything you have now. Just my quarter's worth.
Well, if you want my opinion, switchbacks should be banned in Boston, and just about everywhere else. The business about trying to move a car from point A to point B and having to disturb a bunch of other stuff used to have its proponents. Mainly, in my opinion, by those who tried to make a small model railroad big by increasing the complexity and time required to perform a task. Hence, the switching puzzle. The track plan at the club I belong to was designed and built by a bunch of old-timers who subscribed to the switchback idea. Every switching area had one, and one area had a double switchback. Problem became that once folks got to the point where they actually wanted to run trains around in some semblence of operation, the switchback locations never got switched after the first time, mainly because they were a pain in the backside.
I understand the small railroad issue, because the space I'm dealing with is also restricted. But I still wouldn't have one of the darn things. In your particular case, I'd get rid of the switchback that goes to the enginhouse/possible industry. Have the turnout to the enginehouse connect to the middle track (eastbound main?), and have the lead to the house cross the lead to the industry at the lower right with a crossing. I think crossings always work well in restricted areas.
The other thing I might consider is changing the direction the leads to the upper and lower industries connect to the eastbound main and the westbound passing siding. That way, if your railroad ever grows in either direction, the leads to all the industies will be trailing point with the exception of the one to the enginehouse. And you'll still have everything you have now.
Just my quarter's worth.
As far as direction - this plan actually mimics part of what's on (or rather, was on) the branch I really want to model when I have a proper space to work in. To the right of this would actually be a small yard. All trains in either direction ont he main would probably drop their cars in the yard, and a local job would gather them and shove them back to the cement plant and pull out the loads (and empty coal hoppers). On the real thing, there is no enginehouse there, nor the other two spots. Plus the 3 tracks are about 8, and woudl be located about 2 sections to the left of this area (8 foot sections), and that would be a compressed version. But that's really just secondary to the whole thing - I just can't adequately simulate the real thing in a 2x8 space so this is just ssomething that...hmm, I guess it simualtes the area. Maybe that was the wrong word choice - I guess what I am doing IS simulating something much much larger. I can always make the track to the right go to the enginehouse and the one to the left be the industry spots - then all industry tracks will be trailing point. Although - having two single car spots be facing point means either leaving those setouts and pickups for the opposite train, or using the runaround. I dunno - that sounds like added operating options without being totally contrived. Hey, i did say I'd listen to anything said. I'm getting to the point where I actually want to do soemthign beisdes run engines back and forth on a piece of flex track, and I want to get a practical and workable plan down so i can proceed.
cuyama Like some others of the plans from that site, I think the leads and switchbacks are a little more restrictive than necessary, but if you like it, fine. In terms of turnouts, it's not the closure radius that is the limiting factor, I think often it's actually the straight bit through the frog. In any case, well constructed #5s should work fine with 24" radius. The FastTracks templates use the NMRA turnout dimensions, which have a relatively short lead to make the turnouts more compact. Because of that, you're probably better off with a #5 than a #4 for 24" curves, if you hope to use this section as part of a larger layout someday. ByronModel RR Blog
Like some others of the plans from that site, I think the leads and switchbacks are a little more restrictive than necessary, but if you like it, fine.
In terms of turnouts, it's not the closure radius that is the limiting factor, I think often it's actually the straight bit through the frog. In any case, well constructed #5s should work fine with 24" radius. The FastTracks templates use the NMRA turnout dimensions, which have a relatively short lead to make the turnouts more compact. Because of that, you're probably better off with a #5 than a #4 for 24" curves, if you hope to use this section as part of a larger layout someday.
ByronModel RR Blog
Believe it or not, when I drew it like I did with #5 turnouts, the lengths of the various connecting pieces of track became LONGER than what was shown on the original plan - probably because of the short lead you mentioned.
Haven't had a chance to read all the RPs. Are they internally consistent with each other?
Co-owner of the proposed CT River Valley RR (HO scale) http://home.comcast.net/~docinct/CTRiverValleyRR/
Crandell, based on my observations of trains pulled and pushed slowly through various turnouts in good light, I think a variety of factors come into play: lead length, closure radius, frog #, etc. In my opinion, most commercial turnouts (and the commercial templates) don't have all these factors in balance, but I haven't had time to do the research to make this more than a slightly-informed hunch.
By the way, the really interesting observations I find are for a string of cars pushed or pulled through the turnout by an engine, not a 1:1 hand sliding a single car or two cars through. The coupler lurch and thrust offsets caused by varying car and engine lengths can also have an impact on the forces that lead to derailments through turnouts.
Your observation is interesting, Byron. I had not considered that the path through a given frog might be the bottle-neck for a wheelbase trying to negotiate the curve offered by the closure rails, but you may be on to something...or in some cases, it could be the case exactly. I wouldn't doubt that the influence changes with the curvature of the closure rails: if they are highly curved, the frog could very well be the problem. But wouldn't it depend on the approach to the turnout? If via points and closure rails, they would be the limit. Then, as the frog is encountered, it may want to force the engine to align with its axis and place too much strain rearward, thus forcing a derailment.
Anyway, sorry for the diverting post...
-Crandell
Wrong RP. The one for turnouts is this one: http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/rp12_3.html Look at line 11 for a #5: 26" radius for the closure rail, which is the tightest point of the turnout. The substitution radius is much larger, see line 6: for a #5 it's 43" Given those numbers for radius equivalents, I think it's a bit disingenuous to say that is the turnout size to use when your curves are 16.5" radius. A #5 feeding a 24" radus curve even provides a bit of easement effect. Having 30" radius curves feed #5 turnouts, now that would be backwards, but for 24" a #5 is more than sufficient.
Given that everything I own or owned, including a 4-8-4 Northern, ran derailment free through Atlas #4's (which actually measure as a 4.5) even at warp speed, I should be more the safe with #5's and proper speeds. It's all a compromise, I would love to build a layout with nothing smaller than a #8 even in the yards, but I don;t have a gymnasium to build in.
If you check the NMRA recommended practices page, they list a #5 switch between 16.5in and 20in depending on usage, #6 at 23in or 26.5in.
(BTW all the recommended practices PDFs can be found at this link
Quite possibly. It also doesn't have to be an engine house (diesels, BTW), but then I'd have one of those 'dreaded' switchback industry spots. It could even be two seperate branches off the main. That's what I posted it for, to get ideas that would make it better, or as best as I can get in the limited space I have.
i'm just guessing , but wouldn't the railroad prefer to have the industries on the switchback rather than the enginhouse ? in other words instead of an upper-left to lower-right , a upper-right to lower-left switchback .
ernie
Heck whats wrong with that plan, darned if I know looks like some interesting switching possabilities, Gee it might even just work in an area in front of my engine servicing area'
So I hope you don't mind if I steal I mean borrow it.
Yup, been messing around with track plans again. Still using Andrew Martin's site for inspiration. This one is based on his 'Supernook' plan, but I added some new track at the bottom (front) of the layout using a switchback to access 2 spots plus a 2 stall enginehouse. The car spots are simple trailing point moves (with maybe a runaround off the main), only locos heading to the engine hous ehave to reverse on the switchback.
Andrew doesn't always mention what turnouts he uses - this plan was drawn with #5's (assumign Fast Tracks fixtures). #5 seems like a reasonable compromise that would also be usable in a future larger layout, since the radius equivalent is 26", plenty for 4 wheel diesels and 40 foot cars. In fact this plan fits a bit with my original cement plant idea - the three sidings on the upper left which make up the Inglenook configuration could be the cement plant, with low relief structures along the backdrop at that point. What's left is the main with a runaround and tail to switch the 3 tracks.
Here is the link to Andrew's new page which has the original plan I copied from. http://www.huntervalleylines.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=random&cat=0&pos=-1