hi mjm,
you should listen better to some people on here.
1) your aisles are way to narrow...........;they should be 30" not 18"; could be cured hopefully.
2)the switches on the right side of your visible staging yard are not appropriate.
3) to many spurs are hard to reach, by nasty switchbacks only; beside being to short.
4)you do not understand how and why crossovers were used on the original design; eastbounds can enter the yard easily, for a westbound its almost impossible, unless the eastbound is parked in the yard first. Switching the yard is impossible, unless all traffic on the outer oval is stopped.
5) leave the squares visible please, its way more easy to check on issues then.
6)you do not seem to worry about how you could operate or run your trains, what is worse...........
you refuse to talk about it.. You copied a lot of the plan, but omitted some very important parts.
7)you could flip your plan, the blob on the wider side of your space.
IMAO you're on the wrong track, but only if you are willing to talk about how you could run your trains, i can help you.
Paul
What do you think about this change? I put the liftout on the outside to make more room for the isle's.
hi,
the design was meant for shows, trains ran on auto pilot; hardly any switching was done. The moment you start switching your spurs you're into trouble, no additional runarounds, nasty switchbacks..........all mainline traffic has to be stopped. The double ended yard is not suitable for classification without fooling the main.
http://www.housatonicrr.com/yard_des.html (Bisguier-yarddesign)
This is were holding tracks are useful.... beside having the advantage not seeing the very same trains doing their laps all the time.
http://www.chipengelmann.com/trains/Beginner/Staging.html
IMAO you should think hard about adding staging and changing the design of your yard. I do not know which switches you intend to use, the angles seem pretty steep to me.
Thats a really good thought, I will see what I can do.
mj
Mmm - should work for your preferences.
But those aisles inside the layout look pretty narrow. Maybe do the cutout in the leftmost part on the inside of the table instead of the outside,so you can make your aisles inside the layout a little wider?
Stein
Here is a quick update of the layout. I have decided to stay close to the BN Layout with a few twists. I will have a tunnel in the top right & a little different water. Let me know what you think so far.
What do you think about the start of the layout below. It's very similar to the BN layout, with some major changes, like the double track going all around. I still have yet to put the river & bridges and industry in.
MJ:
One of the problems with the BN plan you posted is the lack of a good location for a drop in section to enter the layout. There is either a lot of scenery or staging/yard tracks all around the layout. It looks like its strictly a duck-under plan.
Notice in Paul's plan how he made a drop-in section where there is only one track and not much planned scenery. You'll want to have a simple section of benchwork, track, and scenery where you make your removable section, if you use one.
- Douglas
the first plan is simple; servicing the local industries or warehouses by a wayfreight can take more then an hour. Holding mainline traffic in the mean time is needed. Those trains are supposed to be beyond the layout; in staging (or holding).
General outlines of a possibility, the hard work has still to be done, filling in the details.
Having an idea how you intend to run your trains is needed. One operator running fast through trains, having the single track section over the bridge as a bottle neck, while an other engineer is running the wayfreight servicing industries and ware houses.
could your layout be build a foot (or 6 inches) wider, using a small part of the open space at the right?
Paulus,
Thanks for the reply again. I will mock up some ideas and drawings today on Atlas software. I will also try to get some pics of some things we were talking about.
its just a starter.............
ad 2) study my plan, if the operators are in the central pit, the holding / staging tracks are out of view. Though from the open side these tracks can be maintained easily, or in case of a derailment reached rather well. If these tracks are placed between a scenic divider and a back wall....they are out view and out of reach.
ad3)in both the original BN and in my adaption the mainline is single track over the bridge; of course a double tracked bridge is possible. This short section of single track add some drama to your layout, operators can't dream away.
ad4) i do not understand what you mean, i am afraid you like to see your mainline also used for yard-switching. This might look good on an exhibition layout, where hardly any switching is done. On real railroads and on model railroads even more, yard switching should be separated from the mainline. It is blocking through traffic. Looking good is not enough for a working (model)railroad.
ad7) i couldn't be more specific.................mainline trains setting out and picking up blocks of cars; a switcher making up the wayfreight (the local servicing the industries) and a local wayfreight running to the branch and back (a turn). This is not necessary....... you could assume the local is made up some- where else, in a yard not modelled (the local is made up or fiddled in staging), so building and switching a yard is just an option.
ad8)might be the wrong decision.........especially on a rather big layout......... finishing part for part is not a bad alternative, my thoughts your decision.
paul
Wow, ok, you give me many things to think about. I really like where we are getting now.
1) Lift out bridge must be somewhere on the left side where the open space it, I don't mind where it goes.
2) I don't know where the best place is for staging or holding tracks.
3) I guess I don't understand about the short piece of single track?
4) I want both mainline tracks running through switching. I saw this at the Milwaukee Train fest & really liked it. Kind of like Global III in Rochell.
5) Yes #7 & #10 will be main switches.
6) 2 operators at most.
7) I don't know about the vision yet, I am still trying to learn
8) I will be building all together. I thought it & talked it over with a friend and I don't want to have to add a lot later.
Thanks again & I hope to keep working with you.
i think something like the original BN or my HO adaption can be done in your space.
But before going to the drawing-board some questions have to be answered.
1) must the lift out be in the middle?
2)Will the side facing the open space be the place for staging or holding tracks?
3)what do you think about a short piece of single track? (keeps the operators awake.)
4)do you want both mainline tracks to be free from yard switching and spurs, so 2 trains can doing their laps all the time?
5)we need standards. At least #7 switches(atlas, code 55), #10 in case of crossovers, a min radius of 16.5" and a trainlength of 4 feet?
6)how many operators do you envision? Three? You'll have to allow ample man-space as well.
In general i envisioned mainline trains setting out and picking up blocks of cars in the yard. These cars are built into a wayfreight; servicing the various spurs along the line. This will take time, so holding one of your freights in staging will give you that time-frame.
7)what do you think about the operational vision above?
8)is it wise to build only a part first to gain experience?
mjmueller ....One thing I really hope someone can explain, is what hidden staging is for? mj
....One thing I really hope someone can explain, is what hidden staging is for?
The name "staging" kind of gives it away. It comes from the theater, where actors and props not in immediate use are kept off-stage hidden in the wings or backstage (staged). When they end their presence on the stage, they go out of sight in the wings, waiting to reappear when their presence is due again.
Simply put, trains are "staged" out of primary sight in the same way when not being featured on the main stage. Staging allows many more trains to be seen and displayed in a given amount of time than could be possibly made up and broken up in a yard (assuming you had an interest in doing so). Hiding staging helps the visual illusion at the price of all the things that can and do go wrong with hidden and/or less accessible trackage.
Those that are into more extensive operations use staging to represent parts of their railroad system that are not visibly modeled. In other words, town B is visibly modeled. A train going from A through B to C comes from staging (representing A), stops at B in sight, and goes to staging (representing C).
hope this helps
Fred W
Does anyone know where I could find a sharper version of this?
Thanks,
Hey Paulus,
Thanks for the reply. That design I do like, but seems to be to long for my layout. I have a 12X13 area to fit this this in, more like a square. It's funny though, my last design, which I just got done tearing down in my garage looked very similar to yours.
This layout was 13X17.
My new area is this:
My good friend was over last night and said he remembered in 1990 Kalmbach made a book & Model Railroader had a 7 part series, on building the Burlington Northern in N Scale & this was very close to the space that I have. I will look for it. If anyone has it, or could send me some shots I would really appriciate it.
I will have a look at your design, to see if there is anything I can take away from it. One thing I really hope someone can explain, is what hidden staging is for?
this trackplan is an adaptation, for a 23 x 15 space in HO; hidden staging added. On the original design visible staging was done where the yard is now. It was build for show purposes, not for real operating. On the original a small branch was added on the peninsula, i replaced it to the bottom. The general idea is the same, a double tracked main along a big river with a short single track section over the bridge.
If this plan can be fitted in your space in N-scale is still to be seen.
You could start by making a drawing of your room. All obstacles drawn in, and tell us precisely where the duck-under or lift out can be placed. The basic form is presented to you by Stein, if you had mentioned you really liked it, a lot of unnecessary entries could have been skipped.
Some notes: switching in the yard can be done independent from the mainline. Way freights are run as turns to the branch; switching the spurs along the main will block through traffic, the holding or staging tracks are creating time for the wayfreight.
mjmueller Does anyone have a shot of the "Building the Burlington Northern in N Scale" Kalmbach article. I heard this would be perfect for my idea. Thanks
Does anyone have a shot of the "Building the Burlington Northern in N Scale" Kalmbach article. I heard this would be perfect for my idea.
Thanks
You can order copies of any Model Railroader article from Kalmbach Customer Service. Used copies of out of print Kalmbach books can usually be found on eBay, Abe Books, and Amazon.
mjmueller How would i design this into a double track main? You think it would work good? mj
How would i design this into a double track main? You think it would work good?
Personally, if you are actually building an N version of the HOG in the HO space, I wouldn't worry much about designing in advance. Build the benchwork, and lay out the track full size right on the benchwork. Use the track plan for a guide, and arrange and rearrange until you have what you want where you want it. It's just not that critical to follow the plan exactly. Put 2 tracks at normal N spacing where the HO main is. Then add the passing tracks and spurs on either side as appropriate.
The idea for a beginner's layout is to keep costs reasonable while building "good enough" to learn from - which is the enemy of perfect. For instance, the HOG would gain considerably by making each shelf wider than 12". But that's another $50 in lumber for a second sheet of good plywood and extra supporting grid.
Assuming you leave all the existing turnouts, spurs, and passing sidings, double tracking the main adds about 30ft (10 sticks flex) and 8 turnouts for 4 single crossovers between the 2 mains. In addition to the 13 turnouts the layout already has, that's not chump change to me. You are adding about 50% more to your total cost of track. Hopefully, you will lay your track so that most of it can be reused on your ultimate layout. Again, the idea is to keep the time and cost investment reasonable for what is in essence a 2 or 3 year layout. Of course, you can change your mind and stick with your 1st layout for a much longer period of time.
This is why I suggested you may want to build up to the final track plan in stages. For me, it would cost too much to front all the track at once. And for me, rearranging things on a small layout is half the fun. Want to try a different track arrangement at a location? Go ahead and rearrange. Move the scenery as necessary, take up the old track, put it in the new configuration, put in new scenery (or put back the old). Model Railroader used to push this concept of enjoyable change as part of the layout experience in the early '60s. HO Railroad That Grows was a whole 4x8 layout built around this concept, as was the 1964-1965 project layout the Ma & Pa and the 1962-1963 Portage Hill & Communipaw. Making the changes is itself a valuable and pleasurable learning experience - and an easy way to try out new ideas to find out what you really like and don't like.
The latter is the reason I why I recommend that if you build the HOG, you start off with single track main and passing sidings, then add the double track later. Then you will know from 1st hand experience whether you really want a double track main, and why.
again, just my thoughts, your choices
Thanks so much fwright.
I did see this one & had it printed out to help me design mine. I didn't mean to build the layout above, just wanted to know your thoughts on the general benchwork & specific areas.
After re-reading this thread a few times, I'm coming to a few conclusions:
There is nothing wrong with the above; most of us started at a similar point. And many of us still don't know for sure what operational aspects, if any, interest us the most.
My personal thoughts are that the OP is trying to come up with a large room-filling layout that will take substantial time and money to build. I would start with a KISS layout to begin with - to minimize the investment in time and money until mjm has a better feel for his vision. Given his large, modern rolling stock, I would stay away from the traditional door or 4x8 starter layout.
Rather, an around the walls shelf or a dogbone with two turnback blobs with plenty of access to the blobs from 2 sides (if you hate duckunders) would be a good starting point. Use progressive construction to taste the various aspects of layout construction and operations. Start with a single track with one passing siding and maybe 2 spurs attached to the passing siding. Build a town near the passing siding area. Put in some scenery in other areas. Manually change out your trains to watch different trains run. Try a little switching at your passing track and spurs. When you are ready, expand to a double track main, and perhaps add some visible staging (2-3 passing tracks). Add additional switching areas if you find them fun. At any point, when you feel the simple layout is not what you want, stop and design your ultimate layout, based on the lessons learned.
An example of a good beginners layout to learn what you like while not busting the bank or taking decades is the Better Beginners Layout - the HOG (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OWJKbUUCx00/SyMKs_oR-xI/AAAAAAAACC8/4dZCKnp6I8E/s1600-h/Heart+of+Georgia+HOG+Layout+Rev+511.jpg). Build it in the same space as the HO version, which will leave you room to double track the main if/when you want. As simple as the HOG is, you don't have to build the full plan initially. Just build the main and the staging spurs to start with; add the passing sidings and other spurs (and/or double track the main) later as desire and $$ permit. The HOG benchwork is pretty simple, and will fit in your room. And you will learn quickly if you can live with a duckunder in return for the wide radius curves and improved operational capability.
Another advantage to the HOG is that are several on-line drawings and articles on building it. Things like how to cut the 4x8 plywood sheet and other topics are covered - though not in as much depth as the typical MR project railroad. I would also pick one of the MR N project layout books to get some initial guidance on things like laying track and building scenery. If you pick project layout articles that use the same track system you plan to use, you will be that much further ahead.
my thoughts, your choices
mjm,
i think it is about time that you come up with an own design for us to see which way you want to go. Having us comment on various design which you dig up, will not help you at all in finding what you want, and it is wasting our time. Sketch out a rough idea and we can help you refine it.
i doubt if it will fit, you can't scale down man-space. As said before it could easily be the kind of layout in need of a hand full of operators.
As usual your avoiding go give straight answers. This pike is completely different from your wishes, why spent time on it. The Free Haven Terminal is a condensed version of this layout, again no response from you.
You are asking to let us do your work, changing your wishes won't help getting better responses.
If you really want a condensed version of this scheme, you'd better understand its a huge switching pike with hardly tracks suitable for train watching. Are you really into operating nights with a handful of friends? Do you really want to give up your double track main? Do you really want to give up lap running?
BTW its pretty unclear where both mainline tracks are heading for, a second deck for staging?
If you scale it down to N scale, it would just about fit into your room, BUT:
There would be areas which would be out of reach, as you cannot scale down the aisles below a minimum of 2 ft.
For my taste, there is a little too much track crammed into the available space!
This is not my design, just one I ran across yesterday. Like I said in the post, mine would be much simpler. Just wondering if you like the general layout design.
you mentioned a layout with a double track mainline and minor switching. You can tell a lot, this layout is rather different.
Is this a design by you?
If have lots of questions about this complicated design; no use to spend time on it, cause you want something completely different.
In 48 Top Notch Track Plans and on Byron Henderson's web log (inspirational layouts) you'll find the Free Haven Terminal by Russel Schoof. An HO design for a 11 x 10 room that could easily be done in N-scale. The layout needs a three-man crew to be operated to the max.
I really like this design, but more simple. I will come up with some ideas and drawings for you later. Please let me know what you think?