The “Quest” continues………..in this new thread.
Here are two re-designed track plans that are variations of the plans I have been working on for several weeks. (Please see my other “Great Dream Layout Quest” thread elsewhere.)
For those of you who haven’t seen my previous plans, the layout will be in a 12’ x 10.5’ spare bedroom. There is access all along the bottom of the layout plan.
Here’s the Version 8 track plan:
Here is another, similar plan that is labeled 6-25 Layout because that’s the date I started it. (I have SO many different plans, it’s getting hard to keep track of them!)
I devised a method of comparing layouts by estimating how close a design element meets one of my 8 most important druthers. Each ‘druther’ is valued at 100 points and up to 100 points are awarded depending on how close the design element meets my druthers. The Version 8 plan rated 90% (720/800)! The 6-25 Layout plan rated 88% (700/800).
Although all the earlier plans included a roundhouse, none of them could be modified to allow enough room for my large roundhouse.
I’m not married to either plan. There are features I like and dislike about both of them. Although I don’t favor the yard design on Version 8, I think it’s possible to add a river feature in the upper right corner, which would slightly increase the 90% rating with the addition of more bridges. I also like the short siding off the main line at the top.
The 6-25 Layout plan has a better yard and might allow for a narrow river/creek in the upper right corner. It also has a better design in the lower left corner where the swing gate/lift out section will go. On both layouts, the staging in the lower right corner will be under the main town on the layout. There are sidings located in the town that is reached from the mainline on the left.
Also on both layouts, the staging area can be built about 3/4” lower than the rest of the layout. Grades into and out of staging will be about 1%. Unfortunately on the 6-25 Layout, to get enough clearance for the town sidings above the staging tracks, the grade will exceed 4%. Version 8, with a longer siding to the town, has a grade slightly over 3%. Since trains going into town will be short, I can probably live with either grade.
Comments, suggestions and criticisms are VERY welcome!
Darrell, quiet…for now
Hi Darrell,
You have studied well and executed this planning stage very well. It is NOT my favorite part of the hobby.
I like your second version the best for a number of reasons, but I only have one concern and that is the distance (reach) required over your roundhouse to those five tracks behind it. This could be problematic.
If this is all the room you have you might have to go with it, however do take a look at bringing the roundhouse out on to a penninsula in the middle and then you would gain great access to that Loco servicing area as well as those five other tracks. By the looks of it I think it would woork fine. If you can end up with 24" to 30" aisles it would work for you as there isn't going to be a lot of operators on a pike that size.
In my humble opinion, this is only a suggestion for you to ponder. Keep us posted on your progress.
Johnboy out...............................
from Saskatchewan, in the Great White North..
We have met the enemy, and he is us............ (Pogo)
Hi, Johnboy. Thanks for the comment.
The will be an aisle along the bottom of either layout plan, about 24-30". The door into the room and a closet are on the wall. The door swings into the room, hence the angled section in the lower left corner. I'll have access to the staging from that aisle.
I thought about a peninsula for the roundhouse but haven't tried to draw one in yet. The bottom of the layout will be at least 45" high to give clearance for my desk and computer on the left wall. Bookcases will be along the top and right side walls under the layout. With those things in the room, I'm not sure I can use a peninsula. I'll pull up one of the plans and give it a try and see how it works out. Great comment!
Darrell, quiet...for now
BTW, Johnboy, what is it about the second plan that you prefer over the first plan? I'm always interested to learn how others view my trackplans. I can't be impartial enough on my own! LOL
Well Darrell; This is strickly personal on my part, but I really like the flow of traffic through the yards in the upper left corner in the second one rather than all the stub end sidings in the first. My home layout "The Last Mountain & Eastern" has lower level staging and classification yards on both sides that cannot be anything else than stub ends. It truly makes for more realistic operating when you can run through the yards in both directions. When you have that opportunity I would definately go for it. Also like the two routes into the roundhouse as well as other subtle items.
The LM&E is a fictiscious Division of the Western Pacific Railroad. We run mainly WP equipment along with their subsiduaries TS. & SN and some of other roads in the northwest. Burlington, BN, SP&S, NP. D&RGW
Looking forward to how you proceed.
Johnboy out.........................
I tend to agree with you, Johnboy.
I didn't like the yard in Version 8, but I liked the longer lead up to the town which kept the grade to less than 2%. The 6-25 Layout has the better, double-ended yard, but the siding up to town was pretty steep at over 3%. I thought I might just live with it since trains going up to the town would be short. But I started playing with both plans.
On both layouts, I planned on putting the staging tracks about 1/2" to 3/4" below the main level of the layout. That way, the town wouldn't be as high above the rest of the layout. Grades into staging would be about 1%.
I couldn't do anything with Version 8 yard, but on the 6-25 Layout, I was able to add a turnout and re-arrange some track to give me a longer siding lead. That brought the grade down to less than 2% up to the town! Made me a happy camper!
So I think I've just about settled on the 6-25 Layout as a 'final' plan. I've started drawing some scenic features, laid out where the lift gate will go and am planning the benchwork supports. Most of the layout will be shelving supported by brackets, either gusseted wood or commercial shelf brackets.
I originally thought that the area around the swing gate/lift section would have to be built with legs to the floor, but if I use only a lift out, I think I can have one end attach to the shelf on the left wall. The other end would attach to more substantial tablework that also goes under the staging tracks and roundhouse.
I'm a little surprised, and somewhat disappointed, with the responses I've gotten on this thread. I got more feedback on my first thread. It could be that my layout plan is just so fantastic that no one could see anything that needed improvement! LOL I seriously doubt that! Most likely, the forum is getting tired of my nearly endless requests for comments and feedback. Heck, I'm getting tired of the process myself! All of my previous layouts were done with virtually NO written plans! What planning I did was in my head (where it often got lost!). This being my "Dream Layout", I've taken the time to do a lot of advanced planning and sought feedback from this and other forums. I think it will make a BIG difference to the final results.
The basic plan right now is a laminated sandwich of 3/8" plywood and 2" foam with a 1x2 perimeter frame. Cross-bracing will be used where the shelf brackets are located. I'll use 1 1/2" foam in the staging area. Other areas may recieve a build up of foam to vary the terrain.
There will be changes to the track plan during construction, so the 6-25 Layout probably won't be exactly as drawn. RTS doesn't have exotic track like curved turnouts. I have a few and will use them where needed so there's a variation from the plan right there!
Not sure when construction will start. I have to clean some stuff out of the train room and remove some existing shelving. Might be able to re-use the shelf supports, though! I will also be time-limited in July and August.
Thanks for your feedback. It has been very helpful. I'll post again as I near construction.
I think we have a winner!
This could be the layout that I build:
I tweaked a few areas, relocating a turnout to lengthen the siding going up to the town over the staging tracks, moving the roundhouse out a bit and adding the river. The heavy black lines are the edges of the benchwork. The light lines through the tracks in the lower left corner are the edges of the swing gate/lift out section. Don't know yet if it will be a swing gate OR a lift out. That will depend on the support structure.
The staging tracks and roundhouse will be on a table. The rest of the layout will be on shelves supported by shelf brackets. Construction will be a laminated sandwich of 3/8" plywood and 2" foam except under staging. Staging will be on 1 1/2" foam.
If a swing gate is used, the hinge end will be mounted to the roundhouse/staging table for stability. The other end will attach to the shelf on the left wall. If there doesn't seem to be enough support for a swing gate, access will be by lift out.
I want to thank everyone who offered comments, suggestions and criticisms. This is the first time that I have invested a lot of time into pre-planning a layout. The feedback I have received has been invaluable in improving what I started out with. I could not have come this far without a great deal of help from forum members.
Start of construction will be delayed probably through August as other responsibilities take precedence. I'll start a new thread when construction commences.
Thanks again for all the assistance!
Darrell,
congrats for coming up with something you like! Really a step-up improval of your first ideas.
There is one issue i´d like to draw your attention to. Whenever something happens, i.e. derailment etc. in the lower right corner of the layout, you will not be able to reach it. I take the grid to be of a 12" spacing and you to be a normal human being, not havong arms of a length of 4-5 feet.
Do you reall need 18" long tracks coming from the turntable? If you size that down a little and move the turntable a little up north that should help with this issue!
Got it covered, Ulrich!
There is an aisle along the bottom edge of the layout about 24-30" wide. I'll be able to get to all the staging tracks from there.
As to the roundhouse, RTS software only uses Atlas products. I will use Walthers 130' turntable and their roundhouse. I measured the roundhouse (which is already built - 23 stalls!), and looked up the dimensions for the turntable and calculated the space needed. Then I used the RTS turntable and added enough track to give me the overall dimensions of the Walthers products. That was part of my problem with previous track plans; I failed to account for the larger Walthers products. The roundhouse looks big on this track plan and it IS big! A big roundhouse was practically a 'given' for my layout!
In earlier posts, I showed pictures of a track plan built to 1"=1' scale and how it fit into the scale model I made of the train room in the same scale. If I had done that with this plan, you would have seen the aisle on that side of the layout. I just got a little lazy! LOL
After I posted the current plan, I was reviewing it and noticed that I had lost most of the industry sidings I originally had. I've made another revision, decreased the width of the layout slightly to be able to fit a long siding along the left wall. I sort of envision the siding servicing a long low-relief food or produce warehouse. An included companion siding could be used for icing reefers with an ice house at the far end of the siding (in the top left corner). I'll probably post the newly revised plan later.
I continually go back to my original list of givens and druthers and compare how well the new revision meets those goals. I'm still in the 90% bracket of meeting those goals, so I'm pretty happy!
Many, many thanks to you and all the other members who have contributed to this effort. This layout wouldn't be as good as it is without those contributions!
the nitpickers and rivet counters certainly will find numerous flaws in that layout, but what the heck... You know what I like best about it? It is YOUR layout which you have developed and not a copy of somebody else´s plan.
Congrats again!
I wouldn't mind some nit-picking from more experienced modelers. I'm not a strictly prototype, rivet-counting modeler, and it wouldn't bother me to get more feedback.
The two main reasons for this layout are continuous-run mainlines and the roundhouse. All the extras, staging, industry sidings, etc., are bonuses. The more of them included in the layout, the bigger the bonus, but they are NOT the driving force behind building this layout.
As I said, I've already tweaked the last posted revision and I'll probably do it again. Much easier to do it when correcting a mistake is as easy as clicking "undo"! Try THAT on an already built layout! LOL
Since I probably won't start construction until after August, I still have plenty of time to get more feedback and twiddle and tweak the plans. Who knows? By the time I start construction, the plan may be entirely different that what it is now!
Still thankful for the great comments I've received. Much better than trying to reinvent the wheel all on my own!
I'm going to be blunt, Darrel. To me, the plan is a glorified toy-train set-up. There is little resemblance to prototypical track arrangements, and the layout's concept-for-being is not apparent so as to create some resemblance of a real railroad. Regardless, that may not have been your intent. Pursue your joy, as there is no better alternative. After you've built and operated the layout, please report your experience. Enlightenment awaits you if you give it a chance.
Mark, just a fat, old man who has played with model trains for 50 years
PS -- my Norwegian Dream became a Norwegian Nightmare in the Montevideo, Uruguay shipping channel following a collision with a barge and later complete power outages in the middle of the South Atlantic ocean.
markpierce said "I'm going to be blunt, Darrel. To me, the plan is a glorified toy-train set-up. There is little resemblance to prototypical track arrangements, and the layout's concept-for-being is not apparent so as to create some resemblance of a real railroad. Regardless, that may not have been your intent. Pursue your joy, as there is no better alternative. After you've built and operated the layout, please report your experience. Enlightenment awaits you if you give it a chance."
A good point, Mark, very good. Yes, there is a 'toy train' element to this layout. But that may be because I like seeing trains run, toy ones, model ones or real ones. I do want some of that on my layout. But maybe it shouldn't be the reason for the layout.
I also can't deny that there doesn't seem to be much reason for my railroad to exist. Aside from the staging, which in this case is hidden, the layout doesn't "go" anywhere. There isn't any way for trains to enter or leave the layout (except through staging) and there's nowhere to interchange cars with other railroads. There also isn't any justification for UP and ATSF to use the same tracks or service facilities. I KNOW all that, yet I still designed this layout! I must be nuts! (Okay, okay! I hear that chorus of agreement in the background!!! LOL)
Additionally, my previous layouts suffered from being too roundy-round, a condition existant on this layout, too. Hopefully, I've put in enough elements to prevent total boredom while running trains.
But you've given me pause for thought. Am I repeating the mistakes of previous layouts? Am I doomed to keep repeating them because I don't KNOW any better? Could be!
And that's why I keep posting layout plans and variations and changes, etc. The combined knowledge of our forum members is tremendous. I know the things I'l like to have on a layout, but I'm not sure of how to include them on a layout that at least resembles the prototype.
You commented "Persue your joy, as there is no better alternative." What bothers me is that there may BE an alternative and I'm not getting it! May not even be aware of it! Any pointers in that direction are appreciated.
You also stated "Enlightenment awaits you if you give it a chance." Boy, that's scary! Almost like a fortune teller predicting your future! And the implications of what that future may or could be like!
So you've put a monkey on my back. Making me review what my goals are and what they COULD be if I give them a chance.
I don't look at this as harsh criticism. This is honest commentary (okay, criticism, if you will!). But it is what I have been asking for from the beginning. And don't get me wrong. I like the layout I have drawn. It's a nice layout, for what it is. But, as you alluded, is it THE layout of my dreams? Now, maybe, I'm not so sure. If I built it, would I be happy? 100% happy? Yes, I'd be happy, but no, not 100%. And that's an honest opinion, too.
Now I'll put the monkey on your back. What changes would you make to make this layout more 'real'. Specific changes, like a smaller yard, less mainline, etc. Where would you go from here? Or would you just chuck the whole thing and start over? Give me more direction. I've read and re-read the books and magazines. But translating what I've read into a viable track plan that imitates reality has elluded me.
Sorry for the long reply. You've really given me reason to re-think where I'm going. I appreciate the "slap upside the head". LOL I'd also appreciate a little nudge to get me moving in the right direction.
criticism is always a difficult issue, for both involved parties. As a friend of the "less-is- more" - attitude, I have to partially agree to Mark, although most of the layouts build in the world follow the principle he humorously calls a glorified toy-train set.
A lot of track does not necessarily mean a lot of operation or should I better say action? Just watch a train or more than just one train circling along the track gets boring after a little while. A lot of people then start to add other "attractions" or action gimmicks to their layouts, wondering that boredom starts only a minute later than before...
Prototypical operation is really rewarding and a lot of fun. In my younger days, all the boys wanted to be a train driver - on my own layout, this is what I am!
Look at the graph below:
(Source: Lance Mindheim at www.lancemindheim.com)
I know it is a little provocative, but I just ask you to think a little about that, before you start to invest $$$ into something you may want to cahnge later on.
dgwinup Now I'll put the monkey on your back. What changes would you make to make this layout more 'real'. Specific changes, like a smaller yard, less mainline, etc. Where would you go from here? Or would you just chuck the whole thing and start over?
Now I'll put the monkey on your back. What changes would you make to make this layout more 'real'. Specific changes, like a smaller yard, less mainline, etc. Where would you go from here? Or would you just chuck the whole thing and start over?
You might "chuck it" and maybe do something more on the order of the Ozark Lines Division Point at Oldburg which is plan 46 in 102 Realistic Track Plans and in the July 2002 MR (the primary operating position is outside the pit, but you could flip the yard so it can be operated from inside). Although the plan is N scale, you should be able to work in the important elements. The engine servicing facility and yard are well laid out. Notice the arrival departure tracks and ancillary industries: RIP track, car repair, engine supply track, caboose (shorter, double- ended track), freight house and team track, express building, etc. Also note the handy run-around in the left hand of the yard below where it says "Team track" which comes in handy if a car needs to be placed at the other end of the locomotive so to serve the "industries" and at the same time providing dual-access to the engine facilities and the caboose track.
Back to your plan ... the staging tracks are too short in comparison to the rest of the layout, the switching lead to the yard fouls one of the main tracks, the yard might be too big but most importantly is missing interesting/useful ancillary trackage (caboose track, etc), and the tracks from the engine servicing area shouldn't merge before coming to the turntable. Also, I'm not sure of the purpose of the extra trackage on the bottom left part of the layout. ... Have you read the track planning guidance at the ldsig.org website? It is full of wisdom.
It is good you moved away from the two-parallel-ovals concept.
Hope that helps.
Mark
PS -- I wonder how the railroad's engineering department convinced your CEO to construct two expensive bridges to access the engine servicing facilities placed across the river from the yard. Is there not a suitable location elsewhere for a river?
markpierceI wonder how the railroad's engineering department convinced your CEO to construct two expensive bridges to access the engine servicing facilities placed across the river from the yard.
He probably said, "Hello CEO, aren't you glad we both work at the famed and venerable Imagination & Fantasy RR* instead of some boring old cargo delivery company?"
I’ve been really quiet for a few days after receiving a huge slap upside the head from my good friend Mark (markpierce). His comments really got me to thinking. I looked up the Ozark Lines layout he mentioned and used that as a starting point for some modifications.
The Ozark Lines layout (sorry, I don’t know whose it is) was a pit-style layout designed with a large staging area at the back of the layout. A large yard and engine service facility was at the front of the layout. A backdrop behind the yard area served as a view block for the staging area on the other side of the layout. It was designed to be operated from the front with staging hidden from direct view. There was a lot of special trackage used in the yard/service area that may have been custom-built. I know it can’t be duplicated with commercial track.
That was my starting point. I had to move many key elements to accommodate the dimensions of my layout room. The design I came up with is about the same dimensions as my last design and a 24” aisle remains on the bottom side of the layout. It is this aisle that allows the lower right corner of the plan to be so deep while still maintaining access.
I’ve kept my beloved huge roundhouse! The yard has three working tracks and four storage tracks. There are separate passenger and passenger service tracks. There is a very long lead track for the yard which doesn’t foul the main for through trains but utilizes part of the main line that passes through the yard area.
In the upper right corner, there are a few industry sidings off the main and a pair of tracks for a freight house. There is even a rip track and caboose storage track on the right end of the working yard!
For an around the walls layout, there has to be either a duck-under or lift out section. That is located in the lower left corner where there are only two tracks. Those tracks are angled to provide clearance for the door into the room.
Here is the plan that I came up with:
Okay, Mark (and anyone else who would care to comment!), is THIS one better than the LAST one? The operation of this layout provides for continuous running and light switching, although I can’t run two trains at once on the mainline. There is a huge staging yard which can be covered to add a town or city scene (eye candy!). There is even enough room to run a branch line up to the town! All trackage is on one level. The staging tracks could be slightly depressed to keep any scenery over staging from being too high.
I haven’t compared this layout to my druthers list yet, but most of the main elements are present. I like it and I’ll like it more if I can get some feedback on it. Good, bad or indifferent, I treasure the feedback I’ve been getting!
Thanks for looking and thanks in advance for any comments!
dgwinup The Ozark Lines layout (sorry, I don’t know whose it is)
Designed by Andy Sperandeo, found in the July 2002 Model Railroader and in Kalmbach's 102 Realistic Track Plans, as well as in Kalmbach's The Model Railroader's Guide to Freight Yards. (A fine book, by the way). The intention of the design is to simulate a division-point yard, that's why the substantial staging.
Subscribers may view it here:http://www.trains.com/mrr/default.aspx?c=a&id=1420
A few of the changes you've made compromise some of the finer points of Sperandeo's plan, in my opinion. But then again, he had a specific concept and purpose in mind when he did the original design. And he has a deep understanding of yard operation, so each track and each connection has a reason for being.
This is why I think it's so difficult to design a layout by starting with a conglomeration of track first and then grafting on a concept, as you've been attempting. At least, it's difficult for me. That may be why you have lingering concerns with each of these plans you've developed that they will not be a good long-term choice.
And it's also why I suggested some time ago that I personally thought you'd be better off stepping away from the CAD for a while. Instead, some time spent developing a concept (which I believe is the crucial next step beyond givens and druthers) and studying layout design principles would probably yield better results.
The advantage to this approach is that one can periodically compare the developing track plan against the concept as a kind of a "plumb line" or "touchstone". Understanding whether elements of the track plan support or detract from the concept helps one make the decisions that can seem maddeningly random otherwise.
But nobody ever takes that piece of advice -- I should probably just stop giving it. It seems to serve only to distract and annoy the help-seekers amidst their flurry of CAD revisions.
There is another approach, as someone called it, the "big train set" approach. Throw in a bit of this and a bit of that, and then do the best you can in the longer term with however things turn out. Some folks can be satisfied with that kind of result, so I wouldn't condemn it for them. But many others find that the lack of an overall concept results in a layout that's not engaging in the long term. I've seen a lot of those kind of layouts get torn down after a few years of gathering dust.
I guess it comes down to whether one just wants a generic model railroad or a model of a railroad. I wouldn't necessarily criticize either path, as long as the builder makes the choice knowingly.
Best of luck.
ByronModel RR Blog
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
"The advantage to this approach {starting with a concept of a railroad} is that one can periodically compare the developing track plan against the concept as a kind of a "plumb bob" or "touchstone". Understanding whether elements of the track plan support or detract from the concept helps one make the decisions that can seem maddeningly random otherwise." - cuyama
I think I'm beginning to get your point, Byron. I thought that using my list of druthers would do the same thing, but obviously it doesn't. I hadn't given much thought to a 'history' of my railroad layout, how it came into being and how it developed. That would certainly affect what is actually ON the layout! Perhaps I was too involved in getting as many of my druthers included rather than developing the rationale of why they're included.
This is going to be an uphill battle for me! LOL It's rethinking my starting point and developing a natural progression for a RAILROAD, not a layout. I wasn't smart enough to understand that the first time you said it. And I either wasn't smart enough to understand it or just didn't pay attention when others said something similar.
Since I won't have time to actually begin building anything until Fall, I can use the intervening time to develop the reason for the layout, rather than just designing a layout that includes all my druthers. Once I have a reason for my railroad's existance, I can look at how my druthers fit into that reasoning.
In my case, my overwhelming desire for a large roundhouse will still be a defining factor in the development of a railroad. I will need a purpose for the roundhouse that makes sense using the railroads that support it. A bit of "modeler's license" will be necessary, since I don't believe the UP and ATSF ever shared a major facility, but that can be part of the history of my layout.
I did approach this topic some time ago, actually doing research into areas where the UP & ATSF operated close to one another (aside from El Cajon). I found areas in southeast Colorado that would be a good location for combined facilities. Maybe this should be the starting point for a model of what could have been. I don't know why I didn't follow up more closely on that, but I will go back to the information I collected and see what I can come up with.
You also commented that a modeler can have a generic model railroad or a model of a railroad and that neither choice is bad, only that the modeler makes the choice knowingly. What I end up with may turn out to be generic in nature, but at least I will have made that choice knowingly! That should go a long way towards providing ultimate satisfaction with my layout.
Byron and Mark, you have BOTH been exceptionally helpful with your comments and advice. I'll do my best to follow your advice to develop a layout that depicts how real railroads might have evolved. But whatever my layout ends up being, I will know that I made more knowledgable choices based on more than just a list of druthers.
Gee, when you guys slap heads, you really mean business!! LOL
Hello, Paulus JAS, thanks for your words of advice, especially about modeling a division point. I think that's pretty much what I had in mind with a large roundhouse. Using staging to represent the rest of the service facilities is a great idea. Getting everything else I want in a layout makes the layout 'toy-like', as Mark said.
I am a lone wolf operator. I like seeing trains running on mainlines but I want a little something for the trains to do besides looping in circles. I am not an 'operations' guy. I really don't want to use timetables or car cards, etc. It's just me and I guess I'm really "playing" with my trains. I do want a layout that will keep me interested in running the trains, though.
My layout room is a spare bedroom. It is 10.5' x 12' and the door into the room is in one corner but at an angle. It swings into the room. I am sufficiently skilled to reverse the door to swing outward, but that would interfere with other doors in the hallway. The door can be removed if necessary or it can be replaced with bi-fold doors or even a curtain. The closet is on the same wall as the door. The closet doors have been removed and the closet serves as a workbench and storage area. I even installed electrical outlets in the closet. So I won't gain any layout space changing the room doorway because I need to leave an aisle along the wall that has the door and closet on it. There will also be a desk and computer in the room, along with several bookcases. The bookcases are short but the computer moniter on the desk will dictate a minimum height of 45" to the bottom of the bench work.
John Armstrong. He's always been referenced for track planning. I have the book and I've read it several times. Probably time for another reading. I have several other books about layout design and am well aware of the LDSIG. I suppose I'm not using those resources to the fullest!
I'm amused by your comment that I'm new to the hobby. I'm 61 and have had trains since I was 5 or 6 years old! I've built several layouts, some better than others. The small layout I have now is based on John Allen's Gorre & Daphetid (his original 4'x8' layout!). My layout is fun to operate for a short period of time but is not big enough for longer trains nor is it big enough to run a Big Boy! (Both of which I want, by the way.)
I appreciate the layout references. I'll look them up. I enjoy seeing how other people solve problems with their layout designs.
As for me, I have a lot of reading to do, a lot of history to develop and a lot of quick sketches to draw up. Some of that information may be posted on the forum before I get back to any CAD drawings.
I've gotten a lot of helpful advice this time around. I hope I can rely on more advice as I proceed!
Mmmm - I am still not sure I totally see what your main design goal is.
I guess I am a little confused about you apparently still mentioning having mainline running on your list of druthers, and you apparently not wanting to model engine servicing (abstracting that away to staging).
To my way of thinking engine servicing kind of comes between a train arriving in the yard from somewhere and it's engine being put into the roundhouse.
You have said quite a bit about why the roundhouse is important to you, but not so much about what kind of mainline running you want.
What (if anything) do you want for your mainline running? What kind of trains are you visualizing running? Through what kind of landscape?
What do you want to do with that part of the trains which are not engines - ie the freight or passenger RR cars?
a) During their mainline run
You say you don't want operations with time tables and car cards. Which presumably means that you are not so interested in playing mainline meets between trains, where one train waits in a siding when another passes by. Or that it isn't important to you to route RR freight cars to this or that off layout customer. You haven't said anything (as far as I can recall) about any on-layout industries that is shipping or receiving stuff, or stations or depots. You haven't said anything about sorting RR cars.
What, if anything, do you want to do with your trains and RR cars while running on the mainline(s)?
b) When they come into your yard
In the Ozark lines plan you mentioned that your yard had three working (ie arrival/departure) tracks and four storage (ie classification/sorting) tracks, with separate passenger and passenger service tracks, plus a few industry sidings off the main and a pair of tracks for a freight house.
What (if anything) do you envision doing with passenger or freight cars after they arrive in your yard?
Are you sure you want mainline running?
Are you sure you want to model the car handling parts of a yard, and not just the engine handling parts? Are you sure you want abstract away engine servicing?
Smile, Stein
Hi, Stein. You're not the only one who can't see what my main design goal is! I thought I had it, but it seems not to be the case. OH, well.....
I may have been unclear about mainlines and engine servicing. I operate alone. I would like to have a continuous-run mainline where trains can run while I operate in another area. I thought a double tracked mainline would work; one train running unattended on one mainline, me running a local on the other main line. I want good sized freight and passenger trains on the mainline pulled by large steam or multiple diesels (an ABBA PA-1/PB-1 combo with 10 or more passenger cars! Big Boy for the freight!)
Scenic landscaping would be rolling hills, although I'd want to keep the track level and let the scenery rise and fall around it. Grades, if any, would be kept at or near 1%.
I have always wanted a large roundhouse. Paulus commented that I didn't need to have a large yard associated with a roundhouse. The yard could be implied off-layout (in staging), allowing for a large roundhouse but without a huge attending yard. It's a good thought if it could be pulled off.
If I end up with a single mainline, I will have at least one passing siding for meets between trains. On a double main, crossovers would serve for meets. As stated, I'd like one train running continuously while I perform other work, such as a local picking up and delivering to on-line industries. I don't need many industries, but enough to justify running a local switch job. Every design I've done has a classification yard for sorting cars. I think one big problem is that I haven't allowed for cars to enter or leave the layout (except through staging). No interchange areas have been on any of my designs.
One of my druthers was to have a passenger station. An extra siding behind the station would serve as storage for in-transit passenger cars and delivery of supplies to the depot. The passenger trains would just run on the layout into and out of staging.
As you can tell, I'm not sure of almost anything. I have my list of druthers, but as yet I have no reason for the railroad's existance. Having a reason will dictate what needs to be included on the layout in support of that reason. My list of druthers will be a guideline in developing a history of my railroad's past. That goes back to your original statement of not seeing what my main design goal is.
But there's more to come!
dgwinup Hi, Stein. You're not the only one who can't see what my main design goal is! I thought I had it, but it seems not to be the case. OH, well..... I may have been unclear about mainlines and engine servicing. I operate alone. I would like to have a continuous-run mainline where trains can run while I operate in another area. I thought a double tracked mainline would work; one train running unattended on one mainline, me running a local on the other main line. I want good sized freight and passenger trains on the mainline pulled by large steam or multiple diesels (an ABBA PA-1/PB-1 combo with 10 or more passenger cars! Big Boy for the freight!) Scenic landscaping would be rolling hills, although I'd want to keep the track level and let the scenery rise and fall around it. Grades, if any, would be kept at or near 1%. I have always wanted a large roundhouse. Paulus commented that I didn't need to have a large yard associated with a roundhouse. The yard could be implied off-layout (in staging), allowing for a large roundhouse but without a huge attending yard. It's a good thought if it could be pulled off. If I end up with a single mainline, I will have at least one passing siding for meets between trains. On a double main, crossovers would serve for meets. As stated, I'd like one train running continuously while I perform other work, such as a local picking up and delivering to on-line industries. I don't need many industries, but enough to justify running a local switch job. Every design I've done has a classification yard for sorting cars. I think one big problem is that I haven't allowed for cars to enter or leave the layout (except through staging). No interchange areas have been on any of my designs. One of my druthers was to have a passenger station. An extra siding behind the station would serve as storage for in-transit passenger cars and delivery of supplies to the depot. The passenger trains would just run on the layout into and out of staging. As you can tell, I'm not sure of almost anything. I have my list of druthers, but as yet I have no reason for the railroad's existance. Having a reason will dictate what needs to be included on the layout in support of that reason. My list of druthers will be a guideline in developing a history of my railroad's past. That goes back to your original statement of not seeing what my main design goal is.
Well, some like to make a history of their railroad's past. I don't really care all that much for it myself - feeling that it is more of a detour then a help (at least for me), but there is more than one way to do things, and most ways work (for someone).
To me, it is more important to come up with an idea of what you want to end up with (both what things should look like and what kind of things you want to be able to do), and then make some hard headed decisions of what to drop to make things doable.
You have a fairly normal sized (about 10x12 foot) spare bedroom for your layout.
I can't remember - you were planning N scale, right? Which makes a 40-foot box car be about 3" long. So 4 box cars (or two 85-foot passenger cars) is roughly one foot long. So a big boy with a fairly realistic looking (for a model railroad) string of forty cars plus a caboose needs a siding (or A/D track) of 11-12 feet, while an ABBA set of PA/PB's with ten 85-foot passenger cars would take 8-9 feet or so of track.
For H0 scale, multiply all lengths with 1.8.
For me, those are kind of consists and train lengths that would be much better fitted to a basement empire than to a spare bedroom layout, even one that is on two or three levels to make mainline runs longer, since that would pretty much demand a 5-foot x 5-foot behemot of a 30" radius helix taking up almost 25% of the floor space in the 10x12 foot room.
I am not saying that it can't be done. It certainly can be done. I am just not sure that it can be done well, if your desire is to follow a Big Boy stretching her legs while pulling a longish train across Wyoming. It probably can be done if your desire is to pretty much stand in one location and see a longish train either slowly pass by your location or slowly pull into or out of your location.
Which is why I am wondering whether you really want to try to model mainline running in your spare bedroom, in addition to the roundhouse.
Or whether it would be smarter, given the amount of space you have available, to focus on the engine terminal (with engine servicing - both diesel and steam, plus the roundhouse and a diesel house), maybe with a single track mainline running past on the far side of the engine terminal, where longish mainline trains can do roll slowly by - just arriving or just having departing from an unseen yard (staging) ?
Another approach could be to use Byron Henderson's disconnected multi-deck idea. An upper deck could feature the Big Boy steaming around with a long train, while a lower deck could feature a large engine terminal and a portion of a yard for switching fun.
The upper and lower decks are not physically connected. Instead, they can be "connected" operationally by having the Big Boy exit the service area on the lower deck and move offstage, ostensibly to go to its train on an unmodeled A/D track. In reality, it moves onto a cassette. The cassette can then be manually lifted from the lower deck to the upper deck and attached to a train of cars hidden in some kind of staging area up there. Then the Big Boy heads out on the open road for as many laps as desired.
The lower deck can also have some yard-side industries near the service area, or maybe it could have your druthered passenger terminal and its associated facilities (REA/car cleaning/etc). Plenty of things for a switcher to do while the big power orbits on the upper deck.
I don't really plan on making up an entire history of a railroad. I'm looking for a starting point that lays some basic groundwork for the existance of my railroad. In my case, a justification of an engine service facilty serving both UP and ATSF, sitting alongside a mainline. I haven't found evidence of that actually happening anywhere, so my end result will be make-believe.
There is an area in Eastern Colorado, between Pueblo, CO and Kansas, where the UP and ATSF had mainlines that were within 50 miles of each other. The topography in that area is rolling hills. It isn't too much of a stretch of the imagination that a shortline railroad connected the two Class 1's early in history and that the Class 1's jointly took over the short line at some point in time, creating the joint facility.
That may be all the history I need. LOL Coming up with an idea of what I want to end up with, aye, there's the rub! Goes back to my druthers of mainline running and a large roundhouse. Are they totally incompatible? Maybe not. Are they probable? Maybe not. Can it be done? Sure. Can it be done well? Who, ME? Sorry, what was the question? LOL (That's called 'avoidance'!) I doubt it can be done well. The elements are too disparate. But that's a problem faced by all modelers. How many layouts are built where the towns really ARE 15-20 scale miles apart? None? So we take 'modeler's license' and pretend that 5 to 6 FEET represents 20 or 30 MILES. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but we do it anyway! LOL
So, since I don't have a basement available in which to build an empire, I must compromise and do what I can with the space available. I'm not interested in multi-decks that require a helix. Helices with low enough grades take up too much space. Valuable space that I'm not willing to sacrifice. Even in N scale, a helix uses too much space for me to consider. In a basement empire, I might re-consider and use a helix, but then, I'd have the room for a helix with a 7 or 8 foot, or larger, diameter!
Thus we arrive at trying to fit two very different elements together on the same layout without appearing "toy-like". And I really want to have those two elements. The roundhouse has been in my dreams for as long as I can remember and running longer trains on a mainline is just as important to me as the roundhouse. I mean, if I can't have both, then whatever I build isn't going to be my Dream Layout, is it? And I'm not interested in building another layout, I want to build my Dream Layout.
Is there a way to accomplish this? Perhaps. As the last post suggests, perhaps a mainline running separate from the other tracks is a way to have both. Dedicate the first 6 inches around the walls to a mainline or double mainline where those long trains can run 'roundy- 'round. That appeals to the railfan in me and would certainly appeal to my grandkids, who just like to see the trains run. Separate, and on a slightly lower level, the 'operating' portion of the layout having the roundhouse, some industry sidings and a small yard. That would still be squeezing a lot into the space and come frightfully close to "toy-like". I might be able to live with that. Perhaps having the engine servicing in a town that has several industries and several tracks adjacent to the town that serve as a little yard. Compact, yet it can be believable.
Your comment, Stein, about focusing on the roundhouse and having a single mainline running behind the roundhouse, says pretty much the same thing. The focus is engine servicing and mainline running is secondary. They don't even have to interconnect, which is what the last post indicated.
These are some great ideas to consider. Re-capping, we have a general location, Eastern Colorado, with rolling topograpy, some justification for combined UP/ATSF facilities, and mainline running that almost incidentally occurs behind the major elements of the layout. Yup, it's a possibility.
More to come!
O'Dave, thanks for your comment. I addressed it above in my reponse to Stein's comments. Stein suggested something similar. I like the idea, focusing on the working parts of a service area while retaining a mainline presence, even though the mainline may be incidental.
I doubt that I would use a cassette or similar device to connect separate parts of the layout. If I couldn't connect them physically, I'd just leave them separate.
I don't know if I'm making progress, but I know I'm getting lots of good comments that are encouraging. I hope that continues!
dgwinupI don't really plan on making up an entire history of a railroad. I'm looking for a starting point that lays some basic groundwork for the existance of my railroad. In my case, a justification of an engine service facilty serving both UP and ATSF, sitting alongside a mainline. I haven't found evidence of that actually happening anywhere, so my end result will be make-believe. There is an area in Eastern Colorado, between Pueblo, CO and Kansas, where the UP and ATSF had mainlines that were within 50 miles of each other. The topography in that area is rolling hills. It isn't too much of a stretch of the imagination that a shortline railroad connected the two Class 1's early in history and that the Class 1's jointly took over the short line at some point in time, creating the joint facility.These are some great ideas to consider. Re-capping, we have a general location, Eastern Colorado, with rolling topograpy, some justification for combined UP/ATSF facilities, and mainline running that almost incidentally occurs behind the major elements of the layout. Yup, it's a possibility. More to come! Darrell, quiet...for now
Another possibility is the now jointly (BNSF & UP) operated Front Range section from Denver to Pueblo. Between Colorado Springs and Pueblo, the original 2 mains were within 1/2 a mile of each other for a good portion of the distance. Just rewrite history a little and say that the UP got control of the D&RGW trackage much earlier. And agreed much earlier to operate both the original ATSF and D&RGW mains jointly. The grade over Monument Pass and through Palmer Lake (either or both directions would work) could make for some good scenery and reason for being for your Big Boy. The D&RG established a picnic resort at Palmer Lake (the summit on the route) to boost passenger traffic from both Colorado Springs and Denver. You have the choice of the Front Range scenery from Colorado Springs/Pikes Peak north to Denver, or the high plains (desert) between Fountain and Pueblo.
Pueblo had smelters that processed ore from Victor and Cripple Creek and perhaps as far as Leadville. And Pueblo still has a steel mill. The Pueblo Army Ammunition Depot was a major site of rail traffic during WW2.
Your joint engine service facility could plausibly be located at Pueblo, Colorado Springs, or Denver.
just some thoughts
Fred W