N-Scale Switching--Givens and Druthers

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Jetrock

That three-track area where your kids store their assembled trains and the runaround track near it could certainly serve as a small classification yard--heck, my layout has a classification yard in six square feet.

You're right. Right now it is industrial but if I celared it out, it could be a yard. I could even do the yard then do the industrial.

QUOTE: It just seems that your mind is always on your next layout, rather than making use of what you have.

Guilty. The basement layout was always the end game. The 4 x 8 was supposed to be temporary to keep the kids busy. I just ended up working on it as a learning tool.

[Jetrock]

That three-track area where your kids store their assembled trains and the runaround track near it could certainly serve as a small classification yard--heck, my layout has a classification yard in six square feet.

It just seems that your mind is always on your next layout, rather than making use of what you have.

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Jetrock

It seems like you put a high priority on changing things as often as possible.

I'm not sure where that came from. While I was working on the 4x8 I realized that I didn't know enough about my druthers to invest the time and money in a larger basement layout. Now it could be that when I start operating and switching on the 4 x 8 I may indeed be ready to skip the N scale. But as of right now. I'm not. My club has done a 180 as well. They are starting to come up with an operation plan. We might be running trains as early as next week. That may make the difference as well. But neither the 4x8 or the club layout has a classification yard.

The N scale was to fill a void in my education. If it is not needed, I'll know. I won't start it for a couple months anyway. I still have a lot to so on the 4x8. I want to take it to conclusion to see what comes up. Just today, I learned again the importance of planning the structure locations.

[Jetrock]

It seems like you put a high priority on changing things as often as possible.

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Jetrock

Why not do some switching on your 4x8? You've got spurs on it, enough to set up a basic operational scheme, and the layout is aleady built.

I plan to. There's actually a lot I can do on it.

But it doesn't change anything. [8D]

[Jetrock]

Why not do some switching on your 4x8? You've got spurs on it, enough to set up a basic operational scheme, and the layout is aleady built.

[SpaceMouse]

Geez, everyone is trying to talk me out of N scale.

I want the N Scale to run Modern Diesels in Pennsylvanis . The HO is 1890's California Coastal Mountain. I want to experiment with switching to get a feel for it so I can design the larger layout more to my tastes. I can do more in the space with N.

Also A zillion years ago I put a coule loops pn a piece of plywood. At the time I regretted not using N scale. This time when I did the 4 x 8, It hought I should have tried N. I'm going to get the little critters out of my system once and for all. (Or not)

In the next few years my wife and I plan on building on to our house. I will get an office. At that time I might put in an top of the desk N scale layout that runs around the room. I'll know if I have the what it takes to model N before then. If not, there's always HO.

And I already planned a leg on another shelf for the HO. It would go to my workbench Which would also be where the programing track would be.

[rrinker]

Well, if you were going to dogleg it around the water meter - couldn't you connect it to the HO layout and use it as an HO industrial switching area or maybe an in-town type of thing like the small switching layout that John Pryke did that attached to his main layout? They ran it a few years back in MR, it could be used as a standalone switching layout but he also built a bridge similar to what I described to connect it to his main layout and provide more operator interest.

--Randy

[SpaceMouse]

It would be on the right wall. I wanted to start on the side of the panel and head toward the bottom and if I did I could build it higher. But the plan I'm working on now is 14 feet long wth a dogleg up under the water meter.

It is one of those powers that be things as well. When Iayed out the space in the basement I wanted plenty of room on that side. I figured with a classification yard and the staging yard below it, I'd want room for 3 people along that wall if I ever held an op session.

My wife sees it and says you could add a bookcase over there and you would still have access. So I think shelf layout.

[rrinker]

Well I don't knwo what I am proposing - where did you intend to put this switching layout among all that?

Depending on how much space the rest of the laundry facilities take up - you could relocate the workbench to be at least partly under the edge of the layout, freeing up more space there.

I face similar issues, there are three large old (but not so antique as to be worth anything) cabinets that we use to store extra stuff, and the powers that be INSIST these must remain - never mind that I could build in some shelving that would store more and intrude less on the space - so I keep shuffling them around trying to find the best place in relation to maximizing railroad space. I included their footprints on my cad plan so I can just move them around. Likewise the old actual PRR relic desk that my father in law has that we use as a workbench. But that is lowe enough, that withthe benchwork height at 48", there is enough clearance over the desk to even clear the multi-drawer storage organizer that sit on the desk now and has all the screws and couplers and other miscellaneous part in.
If it were upt o me, I'd raise the existing layout and build all the new stuff by 6", but it's not solely up to me - my father in law is quite short, so 48" is about a shigh as we can go. The main reason is the 48" height means I have yet again built a layout that isn't the right height for me - it's always too low or too high. 6" more and I could comfortable sit on the roller chair while wiring. At 48" even, I have to scrunch over to clear the benchwork and it kills my back. I should jack it up 1/2" a week for a few weeks and see if he notices. LOL. Anyway, the duckunder is killing me already - however once the whole thing gets built, there will be little or no reason to go into the center of the current donut, other than retrieve derailed equipment.

--Randy

[SpaceMouse]

Randy,

Here is the area:
Ignore the Hogwarts aspects.



The electrical box is 2' to 3.5 feet down the right wall.
The Water meter is 2.5 feet from the right side of the top wall.

What are you proposing?

BTW: I ordered my Zephyr a couple days ago. Can't wait.

[rrinker]

OK, let me see if I have this correct - if you build a shelf layout 14' x1', you can keep that AND still have room for your proposed large HO layout? In that case, why not just take the space to be used by the N scale layout and add it to your regular plan? If your electrical box is in the middle of a wall - aliftout section woudl work fine. Especially if you narrow things down at that point and only have a single track passing in front of the box - you can make the lift out from simple dimensional lumber - make a H-shaped section wide enough to span the gap (the verticals provide strength, plus if the sides extend above the horizontal piece, they act as a fance to keep anything from falling off). If your box is in a corner - so much the better. When I had my wiring upgraded, I had the new panel installed in a corner, so leaving 3' clearance just means I have to stop the layout 3' short of running all the way into the wall.

--Randy

[SpaceMouse]

That Atlas layout is really cool. I mean really cool. That is one you could play with for hours I bet. As for eliminating the Y, well, if you turn your train around, you have a whole new set of problems. Don't think I'd want to eliminate it.

Just for the record, I ain't talking myself into or out of nuthin.

I think my next step will be to draw up that one from 2001 Model Railroad and see what you all think. From the beginning I thouth it was a better plan, I just couldn't work it into my space. Now that I've conceeded 14', I'll try to rework it.

[Jetrock]

It just sounds like you're trying to talk yourself out of N scale in the above post--and 1 foot wide is just fine for an HO scale switching layout (again, speaking from experience here.

If you can manage an L-shaped space, I am fond of this particular Atlas plan:



It has a runaround track, a small yard, and a wye, as well as a few industries. It could also be reduced in length by eliminating the wye. Atlas has a couple of good shelf layout plans.

Another idea: Take a look at Carl Arendt's site. Most of the standard-gauge plans are under the "Shelf Switchers" category. Look specifically at the "End of the Line" and "Dense Track" sections. Visualize your shelf layout as two separate modules--one dense-track section, one end-of-the-line, with a view block, such as a tunnel, hill or building in between. This gives you some operational interest, two different types of landform, and two potentially different scenes to model.

Having two separate scenes brings us back to one of the great strengths of a long shelf layout: because you can't see the whole layout when looking at it up close, you can change scenes, enhancing the sense that you are traveling from place to place, rather than just along a few feet.

A switching layout doesn't have to be a puzzle, but it should continue to be puzzling. The admonition to avoid putting an exact copy of the "Timesaver" in one's full-size layout doesn't mean that a small "Timesaver" type plan (basically a runaround with spurs) can not be a worthwhile endeavor on its own.

Oh, by the way--E.L. Moore's "Shortline Terminal" plan, on Carl Arendt's site, is a great example of a small steam-era engine facility, with all the basics.

[SpaceMouse]

Bryon,

The explanation of why N was ort of addressed to Jetrock but also to you too. I saved the port plan as I have a port in mind on my basement layout.

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dinwitty

switching takes advanced planning, any switching layout is supposed to be a puzzler.
So what if you run your train all the way back down to do a runaround, the trick is your having fun doing it.
I plan on modeling a CSS&SB switching area based on the prototype, and there can't be a runaround nearby, soooo off you go to do a runaround...

I don't believe that a switching layout has to be a puzzle. I believe that switching layout can be operationaly sound and still provide ample moves. The problem with creating a puzzle is that once you solve it, it is no longer a puzzle but drudgery.

If you have a realilfe situation and a runarouund is a ways off, then you do what you have to do. But for the most part, I think railroads were designed to make things easy and git er done.

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Jetrock

As to modeling the B&P: Have you done much looking around to find real-world track plans? Satellite photos, area maps, published schedules, plat maps, old photos, anything like that? In my own modeling, I try where I can to make my layout resemble what was actually there--key buildings, track layouts, industries.

What is the terrain like? The plan you are basing it on is hilly with mountains--would you be modeling real-world mountainous terrain, or placing mountains where there are none?

I live about 30 minutes from Horseshoe Curve. It is hilly--nothing is flat. I have not looked at satilite photos. Perhaps it is time to start. Also I don't know much about the B&P except that I have photos of almost every engine on their roster. I'll dig a little and see what I can come up with.

QUOTE: Where do you want the focus to be? Any switching-based layout will be based on going from one end to the other, switching industries along the way, then turning around and doing it again. If you don't like the idea of doing that, a switching layout isn't for you.

I have the no problem with the point to point concept. My critique of the layout was that it was one directional and that it was designed to run only one train at a time. It wasn't a value judgement.

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Is there a reason you're dead set on N scale rather than HO? I'm here to tell you that 14 feet is plenty for an HO switching layout.

There are a couple reasons I wanted to go with N on this project. It has mostly to do with space and an electrical panel. We've just had a new set of regulations passed that have made inspectors aggressive. Part of the regulations is any alterations to the house require that the power boxes are compliant. One reg. we have is that there is 3' clearance in front of the box. That 3 foot of clearance pretty much forced the design of the basement layout you saw earlier.

I originally thought of building a 2x8 or so switching layout out of HO scraps, but after working for 5 months on my 4x8 layout I've become attached to what I've done. It simply
will not fit anywhere in the house when I start construction of the basement layout. I figure I will have the same attachment with the switching layout so I thought to build one I can keep.

Now if the layout were part of an non-permanent structure like a bookshelf and it did not interfere with access to the panel, I would be able to save the switching layout without affecting the basement layout. Add to this that every inch beyond 9-12 inches means I loose and inch off the basement layout and N seems the logical choice.

I also like running diesels, and this layout would give me that opportunity. To run diesel I would have to buy all new locos, structures, and track anyway. And I plan on powering it with my Zephyr which can handle both the basement layout and the switching layout.

That being said, I think that N is too small for the modeling I want to do for the long term. I like painting up Lilliputians and creating scenes. I don't think N is scale is large enough to have an impact with these types of scenes even if I could see well enough to paint them. N would make a good functional operational layout and if properly designed, would not be the kind of work I plan on putting into the basement layout and it would still look good.

[Jetrock]

I think plan 51 is for the guy who likes yards. There are four industries to serve, but for the most part it's a set of yards to be connected to a larger layout later.

As to modeling the B&P: Have you done much looking around to find real-world track plans? Satellite photos, area maps, published schedules, plat maps, old photos, anything like that? In my own modeling, I try where I can to make my layout resemble what was actually there--key buildings, track layouts, industries.

What is the terrain like? The plan you are basing it on is hilly with mountains--would you be modeling real-world mountainous terrain, or placing mountains where there are none?

Where do you want the focus to be? Any switching-based layout will be based on going from one end to the other, switching industries along the way, then turning around and doing it again. If you don't like the idea of doing that, a switching layout isn't for you.

Is there a reason you're dead set on N scale rather than HO? I'm here to tell you that 14 feet is plenty for an HO switching layout.

About structures: Wherever possible, use flats rather than 3-D buildings on a shelf layout. Put the mainline in the foreground, industrial spurs in the background, yard or passing tracks in the middle ground.

[cuyama]

Many of these older switching layouts are based on fairly tortuous swithcbacks to make the run longer from one end to the other, which was rare in the real world. There is also the added complication that some of them could not be built as drawn even in their original scale becasue the turnouts are not realistically sized for commercial components.

By contrast, some of the more current layout designs are based on the idea of a more realistic traffic flow: cars come onto the modeled layout from "beyond the basement", are switched into and out of a small yard and industries, and then back out to the "outside world".

I thought I read a post of yours some time ago that sggested you were in HO. Is the N scale change a new direction or just for this project? If you are looking for the basics of switching in a roughly 12 foot long space, it can be accomplished in HO as well (although N would offer more operating possiblities in the same space, obviously).

For exploring the basics of switching, a terminal or port theme is a good alternative. I recently designed a 12 foot long HO shelf layout for a client that is a little tight, but workable. And it could certainly be reworked in the same space in N scale and would be more spacious and more fun.



You can read more about the prototype inspiration and the layout design at this link:
http://www.modelrail.us/gallery/id23.html

This design includes interchanges with two Class 1 railroads, a small "yardlet", a runaround, and some industry spots. If you were reworking it into a similar space but in N scale, adding yard tracks would be a first priority along with more industry tracks.

But you can also do a lot in less space in N scale. One of my designs was published in the 2005 issue of Model Railroad Planning that offers quite a few of these same elements in 1' X 6'.

If your goal is to learn a bit about switching and operation but not a permanent change in scales, you might want to stay with an HO design so that you would not have to buy all new equipment. Personally, I model in N scale and enjoy it, but if your long term plans are definitely HO, it might not make sense to go down the N scale path.

Regards,

Byron
http://www.modelrail.us

[dinwitty]

switching takes advanced planning, any switching layout is supposed to be a puzzler.
So what if you run your train all the way back down to do a runaround, the trick is your having fun doing it.

I plan on modeling a CSS&SB switching area based on the prototype, and there can't be a runaround nearby, soooo off you go to do a runaround...

[Anonymous]

Mouse a word of advice, many of the plans in 101 are not operationaly sound by todays standards, I'd look in other places.

[SpaceMouse]

Jetrock,

I could really go for #68, especailly if it had a yard. I like the point to point idea, but in this case it is too large for my space. Granted I could straighten it out and take out the long mainline runs. I do like the end points. (My wife is part owner of a cabin about 30 minutes from Fond du Lac) IT will be worth playing with.

#51 I don't understand. It seems like it would be switching for switchings sake. Maybe you could enlighten me.

#55 I see as starting at Burnham Junction with a load of freight you make your pick-ups and deliveries as you head to Belfast. There are no runarounds so deliveries are pretty much made in this direction. The only runarounds involve the turntables. Once you reach Belfast you make your final deliveries turn around, use the industrial sidings as makeshiftyard and sort your freight. You then head back to Burnham Juction makint the one delivery at Unity. Now with your train presorted, you use the turntable and turn around to do it again.

There's one I like a lot: It is in the Model Railroad Planning 2001 (page 56) Tony Koester modeifies a shelf layout where two lines meet by adding a staging yard. There are pleanty of deliveries and a yard at each end. He goes on to suggest a second staging yard at the other end. I didn't condiser it at first because to make it work I had to use all 14 feet of space.

[SpaceMouse]

Givens:

I have approximately 14 feet to work with and one foot deep. It would be better if I kept it to 11 feet.

Druthers:

N-Scale Deisel
I'd like to run Buffalo and Pittsburgh. I'm familiar with their roster and can alter exisiting engine types and road names to match. They run mostly coal from the mines to the power plant, but also do some local freight as well. I have no problem making stuff up for the locos to do.

I'd like the layout to be fairly simple to build.
I'd like an operation based layout with switching and logical commerce.
I'd like a combination of yard work and industrial switching.
I want a layout that will keep my interest after it is built.
I'd like a classification yard and at least a fiddle track.
I'd like two locos--a GP-38 and a switcher--the Gp-38 and a GP-9, etc to be able to work together or at least do different jobs at the same time.

That's all I can think of right now.

[Jetrock]

There is a runaround track at the yard throat--but the lack of a runaround anyplace else makes operation difficult. Maybe that's the idea--but it makes the layout a lot more work to operate, as you have to scoot back to the yard to do a runaround move. It wouldn't be too hard to add a runaround track or two at various points.

This layout is intended for switchback moves--lots of zig-zagging back and forth, so hopefully you really like running your trains backwards half the time.

Personally if I built a shelf layout that long (and, well, I did, kind of) I'd prefer one that went from point A to point B: take a look at Plan 68 in 101 Track Plans (Iron Ridge & Mayville) or plan 55 or plan 51, and imagine how they would look straightened out (if it helps, photocopy those pages, cut the plans out, and cut them up & reassemble them in a straight line.) A 12 foot long layout in N is enough to create a sense of going from place to place, rather than zigzagging back and forth--and all of these plans are pretty flat, making them easy to model (a plus, since this is just supposed to be a diversion/experiment, right?)

Or you could get a 1x6 board and model the Switchman's Nightmare, plan 6, and really give switching operations a try, using HO equipment you already have.

[jacon12]

Chip, you know I'm very very new at this, but I see two trailing point (I think thats what they're called) turnouts and the rest are facing point. So, if a short train left that very top track in the yard and it had a car to drop off at the very first facing point turnout (where the second green line is, how would that be done?
Jarrell

[SpaceMouse]

OKay, I'll go. If you take a train out of the yard and head i t out for delivery, you are facing the wrong way for most of the deliveries. There are no run-around tracks. One direction or the other you are screwed. The more I look at it, the more I figure this design is in-operable.

It won't work. Am I wrong?

[SpaceMouse]

Don't hold back. Tell me what you think. Would you build it? Why or Why not?

[SpaceMouse]

Or contest to out design Linn Wescott.

The following layout is based on #8, "Port Ogden and Northern RR" in MR's 101 Track Plans. If you have that book, the three dimensional view gives a better feel for this layout. The dimensions in the book are 6 inches by 8 feet, but to get it all in using XtraCAD and their Atlas #4 templates, I had to stretch it in both directions. It is now 9" x 10.5 feet. This has reduced the grade so this is a good thing. Instead of 4% it is now about 2.8% and I think I can smooth it out closer to 2% with a little work. I can reasonably expand the layout to 12" x 12ft or maybe a little more in length, so I have a little elbow room.



The elevations did not come through in the bitmap conversion. Basically the yard is at 1". The topmost track in the yard area is 3 inches. On the other end,,

The pier (two parallel tracks is a 0 elevation while the trestle (next track up) is at 2", Everything else is somewhere between. In the track plan, Linn Wescott calls out all sorts of industries, but they are not pictured in the 3d drawing.

The purpose of the layout is for me to experiment with switching and operations. The idea is that use this layout to explore what I like about model railroading so that when I go to a basement size layout, I'll know what I want.

I'm going to be modeling our local short line the Buffalo and Pittsburgh. The biggest engine to work the track will be a GP-38. I figuring it should handle the #4 turnouts okay.

The industries? Right now I have settled on coal because that is the main thing hauled by the B&P, but there is also short freight so the industries are wide open.

The yard I can extend by a foot or two to add to it's capacity. When it was small, there was not much you could do with it, by extending it, it opens up possibilities. I'll take suggestions for improving it.

I'm concerned that there might not be enough room for structures, without which, the layout doesn't make a lot of sense.

So, how would you out-design Linn Wescott?