I'm considering a change from a table top layout to a switching layout. The Pike City Belt line appealed to me when I first saw it in MRR and still looks very good to me. Anyone see any weaknesses in the track work which makes switching a problem? I'm thinking I might combine some of the smaller industries into bigger ones that require timely spotting of carloads. Plan is available to MR subscribers below:
http://mrr.trains.com/-/media/import/files/pdf/2/c/f/f0998_pike-city-belt-line.pdf
I've looked at this track plan as well, just to get ideas. First, I think it was designed for shorter freight cars, like 40' or smaller. Also looking at the plan, I think some of the curves are tight and the author also uses Peco track, which could be an issue for some. I would take some creative liberty and change some track areas to fit your space, unless you are going to rubn for that earlier time period. I run modern, and while I like the plan in general, some areas won't be able to handle my 60' box cars..
Good luck in your quest!
Neal
Thanks for your thoughts Neal! I'm probably going to play with this layout using AnyRail software. I agree with your thoughts on several areas. First, I will delete the little notch from the upper left to make it a basic L shape. Second, I would increase the width of both tables to 24 inches and add 2 feet of length to the left side of the L. Third, I would change the minimum curve from the yard to 24 to 27 inch radius and use same for the curve from top leg to left leg. These two changes would look better and allow larger box cars. Finally, I would switch out several of the small buildings for larger ones that require multiple spots. Will be interesting to see how it works out. Thanks again for your suggestions!
The biggest problem with removing that extra bit to the left means you then have no access (though it was a rathr narrow aisle as drawn) to the main yard on that side of the vertical leg. The plan idea was that there's be a divider going up the vertical part to visually separate the yard on the left and the industries on the right - reaching over that to switch cars in the yard would get old fast.
Cutting out that upper left section doesn't really seem like it will have much if any operational impact - you just lose those industries on that section.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
rrinker The biggest problem with removing that extra bit to the left means you then have no access (though it was a rathr narrow aisle as drawn) to the main yard on that side of the vertical leg. The plan idea was that there's be a divider going up the vertical part to visually separate the yard on the left and the industries on the right - reaching over that to switch cars in the yard would get old fast. Cutting out that upper left section doesn't really seem like it will have much if any operational impact - you just lose those industries on that section. --Randy
Good point, the left side is necessary to access the yard and in my layout room, there would be 8 feet of access to the yard on the left side. I was dropping the notch in the upper left corner to remove two very small industries and to eliminate the curve to access these industries. I was planning to keep the divider between the left and right sides of the vertical leg. Thanks for your thoughts!
There is only one (1) run-around track. I think it would be more "railroady" if there was more than one. It means that EVERY move out to an industry has to be planned back at the yard. Kind of a PIA. Unless you like that sort of thing. Not the end of the world, though--just a thought.
Even though it kind of looks it, there's no wye. Which means there's no need for reverse-loop wiring. If you're doing DC.
I do like the plan, all in all.
Ed
Randy, as I understand IDRick's proposed modifications, I don't think that there would be any issue with eliminating that upper left section since reach to get to the yard would be 24 inches maximum, and I think that is doable, or at least it is easily doable for me. The only problem might be the resulting corner where the maximum reach would be 34 inches.
Bear "It's all about having fun."
7j43kThere is only one (1) run-around track. I think it would be more "railroady" if there was more than one.
Ed,Run around moves takes time so,think like a conductor and any industry switch that requires a run around would be switched on the return trip.
There's no rules stating you can't put cars on both ends of your engine you will need a extra caboose for the shove or nothing more then red flag protection on your last car.
Like so, caboose,freight cars,engine,freight cars, caboose or caboose,freight cars,engine,freight cars red flag..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Since there is a runaround in the yard, and I think the entire layout is suppossed to represent a short total distance, the crew could arrange the cars in the yard so the trailing switches are switched with their own train, then the loco comes back to grab the facing switch cut to switch them; making two separate trains basically. One a pull and the other a push, if he didn't want the loco to be in the middle of a rather long cut.
- Douglas
bearman Randy, as I understand IDRick's proposed modifications, I don't think that there would be any issue with eliminating that upper left section since reach to get to the yard would be 24 inches maximum, and I think that is doable, or at least it is easily doable for me. The only problem might be the resulting corner where the maximum reach would be 34 inches.
The way I understood the plan as published wa that there would be a scenic divider between the industries on the right and the yard on the left, so reaching over, even though it's only a total of 24" or so, would be kind of touch. However, as he states that there is actually plenty of space in his room to allow access to the yard side, it won't matter. I was under the original assumption that he wanteds to eliminate the extra 'tail' to put the layout in a corner, which is why I had access concerns for the yard, but that is not the case so the modification only has the effect of removing the industries that are on that little square.
Gotcha, Randy. I did not notice the scenic divider. and if the OP is going to extend the shelves another two feet then there is room to add another industry or two to "make up" for the lost one in the corner.
IDRick Thanks for your thoughts Neal! I'm probably going to play with this layout using AnyRail software. I agree with your thoughts on several areas. First, I will delete the little notch from the upper left to make it a basic L shape. Second, I would increase the width of both tables to 24 inches and add 2 feet of length to the left side of the L. Third, I would change the minimum curve from the yard to 24 to 27 inch radius and use same for the curve from top leg to left leg. These two changes would look better and allow larger box cars. Finally, I would switch out several of the small buildings for larger ones that require multiple spots. Will be interesting to see how it works out. Thanks again for your suggestions!
Personally, I think having the notch in the upper left is the major point of the as-published plan. Along with the left side aisle, the operator has a way to view the yard with the scenic divider shielding the building flats from view. Essentially, the notch creates three separate scenes, as oppossed to only two scenes that a typical L would have.
Making that shelf deeper, and possibly allowing for full structures (but low enough to still see and operate the yard from the open space), would tend to turn the entire left leg into one scene. I think your modifications can certainly make for a fun layout, but it changes the flavor of the originally published plan by quite a bit, IMO.
I actually built this layout a number of years ago. It was very enjoyable and could work with one or two operators. It was simple to build and if you use numbered spots at industries (where cars have to be spotted at particular doors), the switching can become much more complicated than it appears on the plan.
I think you will enjoy it.
I'm not sure removing the short section on the left will do you any good as you still need space to stand in front of the yard. If anything, I'd add six inches or so. Also, having to switch the industry on that little piece actually adds some complexity to the switching.
Since, for the most part, you will be looking into the curve, increasing from 24" to 27" won't make much of a visual difference as any overhand from larger cars will be away from you. You might try laying a 24" curve and test it out to see.
With regards to the depth of the layout, increasing to 24" would help on the peninsula. 18" works nice if you use hollow core bifold doors for the base, however.
As I mentioned, I built this layout. I had extra room, so I added length to both the left and the right sides. On the left, it made it more comfortable between the wall and the yard. On the right, I added space between the staging and the peninsula.
Since its not a very big layout, you could lay some track and try out various modifications more readily than using a program.
Looks like another great MR trackplan. I like it a lot. About the only change I would consider would be to see if I could tweak it to allow the warehouses on the right side of the yard throat to be rail-served. As drawn, the structures would have to be made thinner to allow room for a spur off the top of the rightmost yard track. That would add room for two or three additional car spots.
As usual with MR track plans, this one could be made part of a bigger layout later on if you wanted. Nice design.
Bubbytrains
Bubbytrains Looks like another great MR trackplan. I like it a lot. About the only change I would consider would be to see if I could tweak it to allow the warehouses on the right side of the yard throat to be rail-served. As drawn, the structures would have to be made thinner to allow room for a spur off the top of the rightmost yard track. That would add room for two or three additional car spots. As usual with MR track plans, this one could be made part of a bigger layout later on if you wanted. Nice design.
I would eliminate the non rail served buildings next to Lee Street and replace them with a river and two bridges. It would give more scenic interest but not cut out any operations.
As published, the access to the upper left notch is a bit contrived with the big curve and crossing. It could be accessed more effectively by a simple turnout placed along the top edge facing left. As it stands now, it would be more efficient to have the left side accessed with a straight spur, but a river would require the railroad to build a third bridge just for that spur. So having a river in place of the Lee street buildings would give a reason for the left notch access to be where it is now.
Sometimes, rivers and other natural barrieirs cause railroads to create otherwise wonky track arrangments. The as-published plan doesn't have any barriers, so the wonky arrangment seems a bit contrived, IMO.
I happened to look up the issue this appeared in to see if there were any operating insights (there are). It turns out this issue is also home to Tony Koester's infamous comment to "use green wire to power frogs because frogs are, well green"
The article explains it pretty well, how it was intended to be operated. September 1998 is the issue, if you have Archive access or the 75th DVD.
rrinker I happened to look up the issue this appeared in to see if there were any operating insights (there are). It turns out this issue is also home to Tony Koester's infamous comment to "use green wire to power frogs because frogs are, well green" The article explains it pretty well, how it was intended to be operated. September 1998 is the issue, if you have Archive access or the 75th DVD. --Randy
Does the author talk about the history of the belt line? It looks like it could be an old interchange between two railroads where one is defunct and the other took over.
The track coming in from the left could be an old mainline that interchanged with the second railroad in front of the building flats. The second railroad took the cars and operated the yard and switched most of the industries.
All of the abandoned track, and particularly the second runaround, makes me think the combined railroad eliminated track when the left notch mainline became abandoned and converted to a spur.
The wonky arrangement makes more sense to me now with that back story.
Doughless I would eliminate the non rail served buildings next to Lee Street and replace them with a river and two bridges. It would give more scenic interest but not cut out any operations. As published, the access to the upper left notch is a bit contrived with the big curve and crossing. It could be accessed more effectively by a simple turnout placed along the top edge facing left. As it stands now, it would be more efficient to have the left side accessed with a straight spur, but a river would require the railroad to build a third bridge just for that spur. So having a river in place of the Lee street buildings would give a reason for the left notch access to be where it is now. Sometimes, rivers and other natural barrieirs cause railroads to create otherwise wonky track arrangments. The as-published plan doesn't have any barriers, so the wonky arrangment seems a bit contrived, IMO.
I looked again at the plan, and the way I imagine it, the Belt Line used to be two separate railroads that crossed at grade at the diamond. Their interchange would have been on the right side of the scenic divider. At some point the railroad that heads towards the "notch" was abandoned beyond that point, and the second railroad took over the line and retained the mainline as a spur to serve the remain industry.
I have three more observationa about the layout:
1. I really like it.
2. I was wondering about that 90 degree upper left crossing
3. There does not appear to be any non-rail access to the buildings south of the interlocking tower. When I was doing my research on layout planning, I was struck by an article I found on line where the author pointed out that in the real world there is some sort of access to all buildings where people live or work....roads, parking lots, walkways etc.
Bubbytrains Doughless I would eliminate the non rail served buildings next to Lee Street and replace them with a river and two bridges. It would give more scenic interest but not cut out any operations. As published, the access to the upper left notch is a bit contrived with the big curve and crossing. It could be accessed more effectively by a simple turnout placed along the top edge facing left. As it stands now, it would be more efficient to have the left side accessed with a straight spur, but a river would require the railroad to build a third bridge just for that spur. So having a river in place of the Lee street buildings would give a reason for the left notch access to be where it is now. Sometimes, rivers and other natural barrieirs cause railroads to create otherwise wonky track arrangments. The as-published plan doesn't have any barriers, so the wonky arrangment seems a bit contrived, IMO. I looked again at the plan, and the way I imagine it, the Belt Line used to be two separate railroads that crossed at grade at the diamond. Their interchange would have been on the right side of the scenic divider. At some point the railroad that heads towards the "notch" was abandoned beyond that point, and the second railroad took over the line and retained the mainline as a spur to serve the remain industry.
I agree. See my post in reply to rrinker. I don't have the issue with the article to confirm it, but that may be exactly what the author was thinking.
Still, if it were me, I'd eliminate the commercial buildings to the left of Lee street and add a creek and two bridges. Expanding the notch a foot to the left would provide a longer spur and a 3 ft aisle.
DoughlessExpanding the notch a foot to the left would provide a longer spur and a 3 ft aisle.
If I read the OP's posts correctly, the area to the left of the proposed layout is open, hence there is not an aisle.
Yes. That was my initial concern when the OP proposed removing the notch, but he replied saying that there is plenty of space on that side of the layout, it is not going up against a wall.
maxman Doughless Expanding the notch a foot to the left would provide a longer spur and a 3 ft aisle. If I read the OP's posts correctly, the area to the left of the proposed layout is open, hence there is not an aisle.
Doughless Expanding the notch a foot to the left would provide a longer spur and a 3 ft aisle.
Ok, I've sort of drifted into discussing the plan as published, not so much the OPs specific situation.
Since the Original Poster seems to have a larger space, there may be better options for his interests than the published plan. Some of these alternatives might require less special pleading in terms of the track arrangement, better accommodation for longer equipment, etc., etc.
If he would post the dimensions of his actual available space, folks might be able to help with alternative suggestions. At one point, I think that he was considering an island 5'X9', so (with aisles) that would suggest a good amount of overall room available – and a different plan might work better in that space.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Excellent discussion on the Pike city belt line! I'm a 64 yr old novice so I have much to learn and picked up great tips in this discussion! :)
Our downstairs family room is 24 ft wide by 18 ft long and I have negiotiated rights to a 12 x 12 corner of the room. I'm still very early in the planning process.
For givens, I want the following:
No hidden tracks
All tracks must be easily accessible
Manual operation of turnouts
Minimal number of turnouts (less is more)
Railpro operating and sound system
A yard to make up and block trains
An interchange track or two
My vision is to build a C shape layout based on Idaho agricultural industries. The trains are on display when inside the C and in staging when outside the C. Lone wolf running with a locomotive of choice (2 BB 4 axle GP athearn, a P2K SW9 and a P2K GP30).
Which is better: have the interchange track(s) on the visibile layout and a yard as staging or vice versa? I'm not sure which I like better.
For industries, I'm thinking:
1 leg has a processed potato plant and a fresh pack plant
Another leg has a flour mill and a malting plant
A dairy commodity company and a pet food plant
Still very early, likely will change as look at alternatives and consider how to build some custom industries.
Blair Kooistra's former Walla Walla Valley Railroad in Great Model Railroads 2005 has a similar agricultural industry theme in a slightly smaller space (10X11). Subscribers may view the track plan here:http://mrr.trains.com/how-to/track-plan-database/2007/08/walla-walla-valley-ry
Although he has moved on to modeling Australia (!) there is also some information on his WWV on this blog page:
http://northofnarrabri.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html
The links to his former WWV site on that web page all seem to be dead.
You seem to have a slight contradiction in that you don't want any track out of sight, but seem to be suggesting staging behind a backdrop along the wall -- but maybe I am imagining something that you do not intend.
In any case, good luck with your layout -- perhaps others will have more suggestions.
Apologies, I didn't explain it very well. Think of the Pike City Beltway and the vertical leg. Remember, there is divider between the R and L side of this vertical leg. Thus, the yard on the left side is visible to operate on the left side but is hidden from the right side by the divider. And vice versa. In no case is there any tracks hidden beneath the layout or under a building. l would use a divider in a similar fashion to enable visible staging when outside the C shape. The other two legs of the C are against a wall.
Thanks for the links!
IDRick I'm considering a change from a table top layout to a switching layout. The Pike City Belt line appealed to me when I first saw it in MRR and still looks very good to me. Anyone see any weaknesses in the track work which makes switching a problem? I'm thinking I might combine some of the smaller industries into bigger ones that require timely spotting of carloads. Plan is available to MR subscribers below: http://mrr.trains.com/-/media/import/files/pdf/2/c/f/f0998_pike-city-belt-line.pdf
Rick, Thanks for adding that track plan to my "collection" of downloaded track plans.
Although I've kinda had it with point-to-point operations, as my last layout was point-to-point, I like the 8 ft peninsula on this plan, which I am considering having on my new layout (the room for which is presently under construction), and it will have continuous running. Don't get me wrong, I totally enjoyed the last layout, as I am still into industrial switching, which my new layout will have as it's focus on. I just like the idea of having trains run around the layout from time to time. I would definitely play around with this track plan. 18" radius turns are definitely out for my 1970's-themend railroad. I would incorporate a modified version of this plan into an around the walls/walk-in style layout, with the peninsula either down the middle of the room or diagonally placed into one corner. I do like the wye, which is inconspiciously placed. Not so sure about the view block backdrop down the middle of the peninsula, but would consider it. Probably would make it viewable from both sides. My staging will likely serve as my "yard", for making up what few trains will be run, which will probably be somewhere other than on the peninsula.