Maybe so, but I think the real issue is that you probably took an HO scale plan and changed it to N scale to have enough room in some places. Plans don't scale down well like that.. There ends up being a whole bunch of space that gets wasted just to keep the same basic shape. For example, its a really long ways from the 3 way switch to the propane dealer in N scale.
Here is an N scale plan copywrighted by Byron Henderson. I hope he doesn't mind me posting it (whoever he is...). The meat of the plan fits in your space, with the short side needing some adjustment to ensure the "switching lead" was long enough.
But, for discussing concepts: Notice how the yard is large enough to support the rest of the layout. Notice how all of the tracks tend to be straight and somewhat parallel to each other instead of unecessarily curving and using up space. Notice how industries are placed againt the wall to save space. Your space is deeper so you can do a few more things, but shelf layouts that try to be linear rather than randomly curvy do a better job of space utilization.
- Douglas
Even in N scale though? I mean the team track is almost a foot of N scale track which is about 160 feet, also same for the yard area and the sidings are well over a foot, in another plan i did make the runaround a lot longer, almost three feet now and attached it direct to the freight yard like such. As far as "finding a reason to use the 3 point turnout" no, I wasnt sure if I could connect the points of c55 n scale peco to the frog end and kinda ladder it out a bit for that rail in the middle. This was the other addon i put earlier in the morning after i looked a bit more, everything else is same besides an extra 3 feet of track just for the runaround https://imgur.com/4rfAjG1
Getting better, but:
A common error in design is answering the temptation to fill nearly every spot of benchwork with railroad served industries.
Which creates an imbalance between the amount of cars that would be parked at industries and empty yard tracks with which to store their swap-outs. Think about how you would switch out cars on the layout and where they would go, how a train could be assembled to take the swapped-out cars off the layout.
And, as a general observation, I think the layout would work better if the long bottom part had the yard and the stubby part had the industires. Longer yard tracks work better than short ones for swapping out cars and building trains.
In addition to too many industries, I don't think you have enough space in between the tracks to make the buildings large enough to look right. Again, cutting down the amount of industries should help.
One of the advantages of a shelf layout is the ability to use building flats as industries, saving space. In order to do that, some spurs need to be against the backdrop. Instead, your mainline is up against the backdrop taking up prime layout real estate.
Also, its a design pitfall to have an industry on a "lead" or "tail" track. Specifically, if there are cars occupying your trash/metal track, there won't be enough space for a loco and a car to clear the turnout throw and switch the pellet and propane industries.
As mentioned, the runaround is too short. It needs a curved turnout pointing downwards somewhere. If you put the curved turnout below the turnout just below "tower", then the curved track going to the "rei" in freght yard can be eliminated opening up space for an industry on the other freight yard track. Maybe a new location for the trash/metal yard. (assuming the freight yard is at the bottom of the layout).
The teamtrack is too short to be useful for a team of anything (and a transload area is pretty much the same thing as a team track).
It looks like you tried to find a reason to use a 3-way turnout. The prototype hardly ever used them, and never would have on your layout given the amount of space around it to put in normal turnouts.
Sorry for what probably seems like tearing your plan apart, but you're not that far off.
Your plan
There are a number of challenges and issues with this plan. The much-too-short runaround is the most obvious, but certainly not the only one.
After years of trying to help folks on this forum with track planning, I do finally recognize that for some doing it themselves is more important than trying to incorporate the best practices that would result in a more-engaging layout. So I’ll bow out of this thread and wish you good luck with your project.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
So after some time away from CAD and some research, along with dropping down to N scale I realized less is more, it does not need to be an excessive amount of track to be "busy". I think with this layout I have made, this satisfies the prototypical feel i am looking for, within the budget im looking for(time of no concern) to get me into the hobby. Please feel free to give any advice on the following layout but i kinda feel i hit it on the head this time. KEEP IN MIND THIS IS NOW N GAUGE https://imgur.com/a/dHrRA
Perhaps Lance Mindhiems book "8 Realistic Track Plans for Small Switching Layouts" would help?
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Note to Cuyama...that 2X9 is a really really neat layout.
Bear "It's all about having fun."
cuyama I think that's one good adaptation to the space with a much more realistic overall track arrangement than the Original Poster has accomplished so far. Because they are so much more compact overall, I might tinker with the PECO C83 curved turnouts in place of the Walthers, even though they are more broadly curved – just to see if they could be made to fit. That might eliminate the tightest effective curves on the runaround as well. By the way, if the industry chosen for "F" is not a roll-through-to-load industry like a grain elevator, you wouldn't need the switchback "C". With some rearrangement, the track for "F" might come from the main lead. It might then be possible to use “C” as an interchange.
I think that's one good adaptation to the space with a much more realistic overall track arrangement than the Original Poster has accomplished so far. Because they are so much more compact overall, I might tinker with the PECO C83 curved turnouts in place of the Walthers, even though they are more broadly curved – just to see if they could be made to fit. That might eliminate the tightest effective curves on the runaround as well.
By the way, if the industry chosen for "F" is not a roll-through-to-load industry like a grain elevator, you wouldn't need the switchback "C". With some rearrangement, the track for "F" might come from the main lead. It might then be possible to use “C” as an interchange.
Byron, thank you for the compliment, but it truely is your plan with a couple curved switches thrown in, and using Walthers/Shinora versus the Peco switches. I did play with mixing in some Peco #5's versus the W/S version this evening, and did try to fit in the Peco curved switches. I actually found it difficult to get the curved ones to work without shuffling everything else around... and to be honest I just wanted to get something similar to your plan into the program so I could operate trains on it to see how I liked it.
I think there would be an advantage to using the Peco #5 or #6 "straight" switches though, because the main-route of them is much more compact than the W/S version, while keeping similar geometry. I haven't actually compared them next to each other to check the frog and point lengths, but I imagine they are similar or close.
There seems to be an advantage to the switchback and keeping the tail track even if it's not a roll through type industry is that it helps give you the offset from the rest of the track as well as giving you the option to angle it, versus being like the bottom two industries which are essentially parallel to the rest of the "left to right" track.
I think this plan executed in N-Scale, in the same foot print, would be absolutely amazing.
This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements
Doughless Couldn't curved switch A be located farther to the right and into the curve more? (maybe even a #7 instead of a 6.5) Could you butt A and B together like you would if you were to make a crossover? The goal would be to make the tail track near A longer. More operating potential. As you note, the clearance points pinch two cars together, so I try not to have the curved turnouts near the end of the curve but near the beginning, if that makes sense.
Couldn't curved switch A be located farther to the right and into the curve more? (maybe even a #7 instead of a 6.5) Could you butt A and B together like you would if you were to make a crossover?
The goal would be to make the tail track near A longer. More operating potential. As you note, the clearance points pinch two cars together, so I try not to have the curved turnouts near the end of the curve but near the beginning, if that makes sense.
Absolutely. When I started throwing this down into the CAD program, I placed a few of the curved switches, fitted them together to make the 90* curve, with a 30* or 34* curved section between them, simply to make them "work together".
I don't picture "A" being used as a spot for car placement, and the 18" tail seemed to leave enough room for a small engine and one car, dependant on what's being modeled of course. MY vision was to have a reduced profile station building against the backdrop, with the platform facing "A". Use of the tail track would mostly be limited to motive power regardless of length, simply due to how the industries are located.
With a blank canvas, I like to start by fitting the most problematic turnout combination where it needs to go, then design the rest of the layout around that. It should get close to Byron's original plan.
For me, at least, trying to adapt Byron's plan to this wasn't difficult with dealing with turnouts. It was trying to make it work after losing an additional 12" of space in the upper left corner that the OP doesn't have. Byron's footprint allowed for what appeared to be standard "straight" switches versus the curved ones. That lost 12" makes a huge difference in terms of the length of the runaround as well as the switch placement if you're concerned about the tail track length.
By no means was the adaptation of his plan finished; it was simply a throw-together exercise in free time while eating a (whole) box of Girl Scout cookies ... Please don't Tell Mrs. Granite!
My current layout started as an L-shaped switching layout, 16" wide shelves 6' by 15'.
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/m/mrr-layouts/2290019.aspx
I would resist the urge to use sharp curves and turnouts. The curved track in the corner of my L is 31"R, and all turnouts are No.6. Yes it takes up more room, but it's nice to be able to move say an 85' piggyback flatcar around without it derailing or looking unrealistic.
Walthers Cornerstone background buildings work great on a shelf, especially when mixed with a good backdrop. You can have several industries along the backdrop, only taking up a depth of a few inches.
https://www.walthers.com/search/category/products/layout/structures/scale/ho-scale/manufacturer-name/walthers-cornerstone/show/20?match=AND&q=background%0D%0A
I used Kato Unitrack, and would recommend that or maybe Bachmann's similar system of "click track". It allows you to try things out before settling on a final plan.
GraniteRailroader
Cj41218 Well my problem with my switching yard is that I plan on having at least one industry down at the bottom of my layout, which kind of means I need a runaround so I thought it was ideal for me and for my alloted space I have. Another thing I want to add is I do want it to be somewhat "busy" but still sticking to a realistic vibe https://imgur.com/5ksvujY
Well my problem with my switching yard is that I plan on having at least one industry down at the bottom of my layout, which kind of means I need a runaround so I thought it was ideal for me and for my alloted space I have. Another thing I want to add is I do want it to be somewhat "busy" but still sticking to a realistic vibe https://imgur.com/5ksvujY
Following prototype "get the job done" you could arrive with those facing point cars in front of the engine and still be 100% prototypical.
A runaround move takes a lot of work espeically if the operating rules state you need to unlock and relock the switch every time its thrown.
GraniteRailroaderWith appologies to Byron for murding his plan - it almost fits your space.
GraniteRailroader"C" is the tail track for "F", but you could probably sneak a small car spot for a single car at the very end if you straightened out the curve a bit, without losing too much switching ability.
Here’s your latest:
This comment isn't directed toward you specifically, but we see many newcomers to layout design crank out revision after revision of detailed CAD designs on this forum without a good appreciation of the underlying layout design principles.
Owing to this, the designs are less efficient and less engaging than they could be in the same space. It does take time to learn these design best practices. John Armstrong’s Track Planning for Realistic Operation is a great overall reference. Lance Mindheim's How To Design A Small Switching Layout is a bit more specific to your current needs, but does not have as much background on basic principles. My NMRA clinic slides on designing small switching layouts are a bit cryptic, but may offer additional ideas (these may be downloaded as a large [2.7M] .pdf file).
My unending advice to folks to step away from the CAD, learn some basic design principles, and only then work on a detailed design usually goes unheeded. So I won’t bore you or anyone else with any further entreaties.
There are a number of things I would do differently from the way you’ve done them in your latest plan, and unfortunately I don’t have the time to walk you through all the changes. Perhaps someone else will be kind enough to do so. So I’ll step aside and wish you good luck with your layout.
Edit: Granite Railroader's done you a great service above and that's a good path to explore.
With regards to your latest plan, you've got a redundant run-around. I've highlighted the first in yellow, the second in blue.
The configuration of the area in orange limits how useful the switchback is, by limiting the amount of tangent track available for coupling or spotting railcars at the potential industry/industries.
With appologies to Byron for murding his plan - it almost fits your space. I played around with it a bit, and while the interchange track was lost, with the use of a couple curved switches from Walthers it essentially fits. The tail track for the grain elevator is 18" radius as pictured in my image, but everything else is 20" minimum. Track centers are 2.5" or greater, keeping in mind that the clearance points for the curved tracks can be problematic.
The grayboxes are potential industry spots.
"A" could potentially be a relief structure of a station, with "B" as a freight house, team track, or as Byron suggests the "house track" which offered many different uses. Depending on your modeled era, it could have anything from a loading dock to a milk platform and shanty.
"C" is the tail track for "F", but you could probably sneak a small car spot for a single car at the very end if you straightened out the curve a bit, without losing too much switching ability.
"D" and "E" could fall similar to Byron's plan as he had it.
"F" presents you options where Byron had the interchange tracks. I'm not a fan of grain elevators. They are stinky, slimey, fly havens when it rains. I hated switching them in real life, and don't plan on including one in MY layout. My vision for "F" would be to have an industry along the top most track, using the bottom track as your interchange. Caveat: The switchback, and 30" tail track limit the number of cars you can easily switch.
I'd imagine this layout is ideally suited for 50-60 foot cars, smaller 4 axle road units, or even small switchers like the 70 Tonner or even S1 sized units. This would give you a little more headroom for cars.
So I have totally redesigned in Anyrail with walthers track, it seems their track might be a bit more suitable seeing as the turnouts branch out a bit further, not sure if i overcomplicated it again or not but this is what I came up with now with walthers track. https://imgur.com/5ksvujY
Cj41218,After looking at your plan I fully believe you should study Bryon's plans to get a better idea.
I never use a runaround on my ISLs since those can lead to a switching puzzle.
The outside radius of a Peco curved turnout is pretty broad and would not be very effective for that main curve. The Walthers 6.5 would better suit your space. It has an advertised inner radius of 20 inches but I think its more like 18. You could use Atlas #4 turnouts and Atlas Flex and they would match up to the Walthers pretty well.
I'd make the runaround as straight as possible on the south end, like Cuyama's paln, to make it easier to couple cars, which is sometimes difficult on a sharp curve.
Your new plan has two runarounds stacked on each other, a waste of space, IMO. One runaround has almost no "tail" track. You need a long enough tail for a loco and probably two cars to clear the turnout throw.
Seriously, try to fit Cuyama's plan into your space. Its the best option since many of the pitfalls that can happen in design have been eliminated by his professional experience.
If it was me, I'd use the 6.5 right above the straight part of the runaround to transition into the curve, making the runaround shorter. Then shorten the interchange track or eliminate it and use the elevator lead to double as the interchange. And eliminate the house track. Those modifications should allow the stubby side to be only 4 feet instead of 5.
Took the advice and moved the runaround to the middle, Also I was definetly not planning for every spur to have an industry but I do want some sort of cold storage warehouse and a transload yard. After some redesigning (and I have been using curved turnouts but I have been using all peco in the trackplanning program) this is what I came up with. https://imgur.com/0XfR4Db One of the issues is the only curved turnouts in the Anyrail program(free) for peco is #7 so yea i might need to switch brands of track for some of the turnouts.
As Cuyama pointed out, you moved the runaround to where it isn't as useful.
Your runaround should be in the middle tracks. Use a Walthers curved turnout (#6.5 which has a 24 inch radius outer curve) up in the main curve and draw the runaround track down from there. Putting the runaround in any place other than where Cuyama put his is simply less efficient.
Many of the digital trackplanning programs don't account for curved turnouts, so planners get boxed into using only what the CAD provides. If you can, plan for a curved turnout. In your case, with a small L shaped footprint, you really need one, IMO.
Also, don't plan for every spur or stub track to have an industry on it. You don't need that many industries to switch and it will make the layout look cluttered.
You've made some changes to my original plan that I don't understand and wouldn't recommend. In particular, the runaround is arranged in a way that will make it much less useful than in my original.
Good luck with your layout.
[/quote]
Im finding it hard to make realistic curves, I am new to all of this but from my understanding cars have a harder time running around less than 18" radius and with that foot less I seem to keep running into the problem of having to start my cornering early which takes up a decent amount of space. For me to connect my rails and do it like the alco in alcove layout it would shorten my tail tracks A LOT thats why I had the runaround over there, maybe move the runaround to the inside more. Either way all apart of the fun and learning.
cuyamaI'm not sure to what you are referring. 2-foot-wide benchwork can support a significantly broader curve than 22" radius
My brain processed run around as a return loop. I edited my post, I don't want anyone else confused either.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
[quote user="Cj41218"]Yea I found Byron Hendersons kinda roughly what I wanted, I kind of redesigned it and took a few things out, originally my layout just had been TOO much. To many turnouts and to many switchbacks to make it actually realistic. I decided to google some shelf layouts and really liked his so gave designing something like it a try. I figure this is my first layout and in the future when space is more plenty I will go bigger but for now this will keep me VERY busy and almost able to use it for training for the day I can have a full room. Thank you for your reply and help https://imgur.com/I3HgZzj <<<
Your track plan:
Yea I found Byron Hendersons kinda roughly what I wanted, I kind of redesigned it and took a few things out, originally my layout just had been TOO much. To many turnouts and to many switchbacks to make it actually realistic. I decided to google some shelf layouts and really liked his so gave designing something like it a try. I figure this is my first layout and in the future when space is more plenty I will go bigger but for now this will keep me VERY busy and almost able to use it for training for the day I can have a full room. Thank you for your reply and help
https://imgur.com/I3HgZzj <<<<my design loosely off alco in alcove
So originally the design i was going for was just a bit too complex, as far as not being prototypical. A few people also pointed out that I would make some track crews VERY angry, I redesigned my layout roughly based of Byron Hendersons Alco in Alcove layout and came up with this, https://imgur.com/I3HgZzj Thank you for the reply.
Ahhh sorry about that, it was late when I posted. I did a redesign of the picture that was suppose to be up there though and came up with this.
https://imgur.com/I3HgZzj
BigDaddy22" radius gives you 2" from the edge. The rest of the world think everyone needs 30" if you choose your rolling stock and locos with 22" in mind it's doable.
I'm not sure to what you are referring. 2-foot-wide benchwork can support a significantly broader curve than 22" radius. The L-shaped layout I posted above uses 24" radius minimum curves on the main running track and could be broader still. I must not understand your point, but I wouldn’t want the Original Poster to be similarly confused.