Help with/Critique Spare Room Layout Plan, Please

[rockythegoat]

Okay, here’s part of my plan for my new HO layout for the Superior Railway and Navigation Co. The road will be in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan or thereabouts, and is a modern shortline that hauls timber and some ore, using double or triple headed SW’s and MP1500’s, similar to Weyerhaeuser, Simpson Lumber, and CanFor. Great Northern has trackage rights (the occasional Empire Builder will make an appearance), as will C&NW (gotta have a C628!) and whoever else has units I like to see! Additionally, the road has several carfloats it uses to interchange equipment on several islands (yet to be named) in Lake Superior.

For discussion purposes, the walls are numbered 1,2,3,4 starting at the top and going clockwise.

The plan is the Spokane, Pasco & Wallace from Kalmbach’s Book 48 Top Notch Layouts and will be built in a spare bedroom that is dedicated to my hobby pursuits, so I don’t have to worry about space for beds, desks, etc. The room is 11 foot by 13 foot, with a closet taking a chunk out of one corner on wall #4. However, I plan on putting holes in the walls of the closet and using that space for more layout. A removable bridge of some sort will connect the closet to more layout (yet to be designed) on wall #3. Wall #2 has a window which I don’t need access to, however, there is a paint booth by it, that will prevent a second level of track here.

Here is a dimensional picture of the layout from the Kalmbach book, 48 Top Notch Layouts .



Here is a picture of the plan from Kalmbach’s Book 48 Top Notch Layouts



Here is the plan copied and placed on a scaled drawing of my room. The scale is 1”= 1’ and the graph paper is from CTT products. I modifed the rail ferry to be a scale 3 feet long to match the Walther's car floats I have.



What I still need to get in here is hidden staging. Since the layout will be going around the walls, I don’t need the constant run portion of the 4x8 section. Any ideas out there on changing that for staging? Remember, wall #2 has the paint booth.

Thanks for any and all help!

[SpaceMouse]

I like that plan, but you still have to draw it to fit your space. Often, what works in books doesn't work in your space. They may be using a turnout that is no longer available--anything might be wrong. You want to find that out now.

There are also variations of that plan that go around the room instead of stubbing on the two walls. Also when you draw it, you are learning it's intricacies, and you may want to make changes to fit your wants or need.

[SpaceMouse]

The Atlas RR or program or XtraCAD, which I like better but is harder to learn, are both free downloads.

[rockythegoat]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

I like that plan, but you still have to draw it to fit your space. Often, what works in books doesn't work in your space. They may be using a turnout that is no longer available--anything might be wrong. You want to find that out now.

There are also variations of that plan that go around the room instead of stubbing on the two walls. Also when you draw it, you are learning it's intricacies, and you may want to make changes to fit your wants or need.

I'm not too worried about that, as I've built several RR's in the past from published plans. There really isn't any trackwork here that is too dependant on a turnout being lined up within a 1/16 of an inch or so.

I don't plan on having the trackwork stubbed out. It will extend through the walls into the closet and back out of the closet along the bottom wall. That trackwork will all be Phase 2, while I work on this portion.

[SpaceMouse]

I drew out a shelf out of an MR book. Used what they suggested. The plan said it would fit a 6 inch by 8 foot space. By the time I got it layed out. It was 9 inches by 11 feet. It just wouldn't work as advertised.

[cuyama]

You've received some good advice about checking things to scale in your own space. As far as staging, you may find room for a variation on the "x-factor" staging I discussed in the 2004 edition of Model Railroad Planning.

The layout from that article, based on the real-life Southern Pacific and Santa Maria Valley Railway, is also online on my site at:
http://www.modelrail.us/gallery/id20.html
(when you click on the image to make it full-sized from that page, you'll probably need to expand it in your browser)

This layout has a similar boat-shaped section with "wings" on each side. The staging goes along the wall on each "wing" and the crux of the "X" at the end of the boat-shaped section connects the staging yards to each other and to the layout itself.

Good luck,

Byron

[selector]

Generally, these published plans are very thoroughly researched and executed. You should enjoy it immensely if it suits both your purposes and your space limitations. Since you are an experienced modeler, I don't see that scaling it will be detrimental in any way, as long as you have the flexibility to effect it.

I'd say bash away.

[dtbowyer]

Rocky,

I like this plan, too. I was going to suggest the "x-factor" staging from MRP, but got beat to the punch by the man himself!

There are some elevation issues on the Pasco side, but those could be easily adjusted. It could be a simple solution to your need. Of course, I'd have to point out the closet as a possible location, also.

Keep us posted on progress!

David

[ndbprr]

A couple of negatives:
1. The coal mine tracks are practically unreachable so if you have a derailment or cars won't couple there it will be tough to correct.
2. The way the layout is drawn if you are working the right yard you have to go around the island to pick up your train then follow back around the island to work the industries then go back around the island again to follow it to the left yard.

Both those could be corrected if you could move the island out say 24" and just leave the crossing tracks at their current locations. Then you can at least have better access. If you can do that then you might also be able to continue the curve from the right yard back to the right side of the island and reverse flow on the island with the tracks climbing up and to the left, crossing back across the island by continuing the curve at the bottom and then swing left into the left yard. then you can stay with your train all the way.

[Anonymous]

It's a corner plan.

[Anonymous]

how about haveng a run thru staging yard in the closet. your main will run thru it so you have the loop still and just add some staging track in the closet . granted it would not be alot of staging but it could help

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BigRedneckRob

It's a corner plan.

Somebody had to say it, right?

[rockythegoat]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ndbprr

A couple of negatives:
1. The coal mine tracks are practically unreachable so if you have a derailment or cars won't couple there it will be tough to correct.

Yes, I've thought that could be an issue, too, as I don't have the room for the access aisle on the back side.

So, I'm wondering, what do you guys think if the lead to the mine actually becomes the mainline leading to Pasco (the town on the right would be elevated). Then the level under Pasco would be staging, which would be fed off of the peninsula? It could be a double-ended yard and would come out above the "track to be" on wall #4 at the bottom, just before the bridge linking into the closet? Anything I'm not thinking of?

QUOTE: I drew out a shelf out of an MR book. Used what they suggested. The plan said it would fit a 6 inch by 8 foot space. By the time I got it layed out. It was 9 inches by 11 feet. It just wouldn't work as advertised

Holy-Schmoly! The 9 inches isn't too bad (although, it is a 50% error) but instead of 8 feet it was 11 feet? "Lewseee, I think you have some 'splainin to due 'bout chore track plan!!" That's quite a difference.

Where I've had track fitting issues is when there is a lot of complicated turnouts and crossing's, such as a yard throat or complicated switching layout. Those can become "brand dependant" on a specific switch / crossings piece.

QUOTE: how about haveng a run thru staging yard in the closet. your main will run thru it so you have the loop still and just add some staging track in the closet . granted it would not be alot of staging but it could help

That could work, but my druther here may be an engine servicing facility as it is right above my workbench and being basically lazy, [:o)] I have an area to test stuff right in front of my gord.

[cuyama]

QUOTE: Originally posted by selector

Generally, these published plans are very thoroughly researched and executed.

I don't know if that's the case for this plan or not, Selector, but in I strongly disagree with the use of the term "generally". It's all too often not the case. Many published plans cannot be built as drawn in the space shown.

Many reasons for this -- sometimes it's just an error from miscommunication between the author, the artist, and the editor. Sometimes it's that the plans are drawn way too optimistically. Things like turnout angles drawn impossibly sharp, track-to-track or track-to-wall spacing being too tight, etc.

Two of my recent projects involved complete redesigns of published track plans by well-known authors. My clients discovered that it was not physically possible to fit the published track plan in the same (or more!) space as shown in the article. We had to go back to square one and design something different that would fit the space.

And this is not just a factor with older articles, although it happens more often there. In the September issue of MR there is a layout that can't possibly fit in the space shown if the specifications are correct. Either the drawing or the specs are wrong.

I believe the Kalmbach track plans are drawn with a graphics program, not a CAD program. Although many authors, me included, provide track plans in CAD formats, they are usually redrawn to match the Kalmbach look-and-feel (and they look a lot better for it, in my case!). The same is true for other publishers; in fact many of them don't even redraw the art people send in. But in most cases there is no detailed check of the finished drawing vs. real-world constraints or the specifications that are provided by the author.

If the published track plan does not include specifications for a particular turnout manufacturer and line, it may indicate that it has possibly been drawn less-precisely.

Another problem is that some plans are published because they look good, not because they will work well as an operating layout. Leads or runarounds that are too short, an over-reliance on switchback industry spurs, and other similar subtle issues can make a plan less fun to run in the longer term.

Not to say that there aren't many fine trackplans published that can be used nearly as-is … just that there is no guarantee that they will fit or work as suggested. Sometimes these have been well-thought-out by the authors, sometimes not -- but being published does not mean that a knowledgeable editor has gone over it with a fine-tooth comb.

Regards,

Byron
http://www.modelrail.us

edited for typos

[rockythegoat]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cuyama

QUOTE: Originally posted by selector

Generally, these published plans are very thoroughly researched and executed.

I don't know if that's the case for this plan or not, Selector, but in I strongly disagree with the use of the term "generally". It's all too often not the case. Many published plans cannot be built as drawn in the space shown.

Many reasons for this -- sometimes it's just an error from miscommunication between the author, the artist, and the editor. Sometimes it's that the plans are drawn way too optimistically. Things like turnout angles drawn impossibly sharp, track-to-track or track-to-wall spacing being too tight, etc.

Two of my recent projects involved complete redesigns of published track plans by well-known authors. My clients discovered that it was not physically possible to fit the published track plan in the same (or more!) space as shown in the article. We had to go back to square one and design something different that would fit the space.

And this is not just a factor with older articles, although it happens more often there. In the September issue of MR there is a layout that can't possibly fit in the space shown if the specifications are correct. Either the drawing or the specs are wrong.

I believe the Kalmbach track plans are drawn with a graphics program, not a CAD program. Although many authors, me included, provide track plans in CAD formats, they are usually redrawn to match the Kalmbach look-and-feel (and they look a lit better for it, in my case!). The same is true for other publishers; in fact many of them don't even redraw the art people send in. But in most cases there is no detailed check of the finished drawing vs. real-world constraints or the specifications that are provided by the author.

If the published track plan does not include specifications for a particular turnout manufacturer and line, it may indicate that it has possibly been drawn less-precisely.

Another problem is that some plans are published because they look good, not because they will work well as an operating layout. Leads or runarounds that are too short, an over-reliance on switchback industry spurs, and other similar subtle issues can make a plan less fun to run in the longer term.

Not to say that there aren't many fine trackplans published that can be used nearly as-is … just that there is no guarantee that they will fit or work as suggested. Sometimes these have been well-thought-out by the authors, sometimes not -- but being published does not mean that a knowledgeable editor has gone over it with a fine-tooth comb.

Regards,

Byron
http://www.modelrail.us

Thanks for the heads up on this! The real interesting part is that some of the plans are drawn with graphics programs and not CAD. I would think, repeat think, that that would add the potential for accuracy issues.

One of those things to keep in the back of my mind......

[SpaceMouse]

Byron hit the nail on the head. It was not the turnouts that caused my problems, it was the impossible curves between the turnouts that made me have to create space for them to fit.

[robengland]

Re making it fit: I've learned to hack the ends off turnouts as promoted by Andy Sperandeo.

And hey Byron, I LOVE the X-factor staging. I worked it into the plan for my next layout. The only downside I can see is that, since I have a DCC layout, I'll have to coordinate activities well to make sure there are no collisions in the X, as it doesn't reporesent a "real world" crossing. Since it is hidden under the layout, I'll have to operate it with CTC I think

[selector]

Byron, I stand corrected. I should have been less 'general' in my opening sentence. Thanks for pointing those issues out to me and to Rob.

I agree that just because a plan is publishd doesn't necessarily mean that it is a 'good' one from a modeler's point of view. And, yes, some of them are more eye candy than useful diagrams. Hence, my several cautions in the ensuing remarks. I would most certainly advise a prospective user to measure all aspects carefully for fit before getting too far over his/her head. [:)]

[chateauricher]

A concern I have (that no-one else seems to have raised) is : How will you deal with derailments in the tunnels ? There doesn't seem to be any provisions for getting in there to fish out derailed equipment.

Another concern : its not always curve radii and turnout geometries that can be "distorted" (to be kind to the designers); but also the grade requirements.

My first layout was based on one from an Atlas book (the title of which escapes me). It included a track that passed over another (a viaduct). However, in order to gain the elevation required to have the minimum clearance, the grade I needed would have had to have been close to 4% (or more) !!! Way too steep, of course. That forced me to rework the design (ie: tear up and relay close to 2/3 of the layout). Silly me, who'd-a-thunk that so-called experts would have made such a goof ! [swg]

I also ran into the same problems mentioned above where tracks actually went beyond the table edge. That meant I had to re-lay some of the curves to make them tighter. It was only a question of a couple inches; but it was very frustrating to say the least. Fortunately, my LHS suggested I use flex-track instead of the fixed-radius curves the plans called for. Silly me; but I thought that a 48" x 48" layout would actually fit on a 48" x 48" table. [swg]

I just hope that, as I begin construction of my new layout, I am no longer so silly. [swg] I guess we'll see soon enough. The sod-turning ceremony is tentatively scheduled for late September (if the gods be so willing).

[rockythegoat]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chateauricher

A concern I have (that no-one else seems to have raised) is : How will you deal with derailments in the tunnels ? There doesn't seem to be any provisions for getting in there to fish out derailed equipment.

Well, my track will be laid so good, there won't be any derailments!!! Bwa-Ha-Ha-Ha!!!![(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]

Chateau: I have that same concern, and I plan on sliding one of the turnouts out a bit so it is more accessible. And in the back corner I will have the table top open so I can crawl my bigg butt back there and fix any "badness" that may happen. I will spend an inordinate amout of time in those areas making sure all is as smooth as can be, but, we all know when Mr. Murphy strikes, it will be in the most inaccessible spot. In the event this ends up being a consistent issue, there will be some serious "earth moving" and "track realignment: taking place.

I may still try to re-engineer the tunnels out, but, that is going to be quite a challenge and I hate to do it now. I've been arm-chairing too long as it is, since we moved 4 yrs ago, when my last layout was deep sixed.[sigh] I've spent too much time on trying to find / design / etc, the "PERFECT" track plan.

I gotta lay some rail! I miss the smell of solder in the morning, wafting in on a gentle breeze of ozone as I yet again short circuit something, somewhere! The gentle sounds of a "cornfield meet" followed by the thoughts of, "Wasn't the turnout set for the main?"

Thank you all for your comments! I'm finding them very helpful and I've already redesigned the area on the right. I will post that change as soon as I get a good drawing done.

Headin' to Lowe's this weekend to get a pile of "stuff" for the benchwork.

[cuyama]

QUOTE: Originally posted by robengland

And hey Byron, I LOVE the X-factor staging. I worked it into the plan for my next layout. The only downside I can see is that, since I have a DCC layout, I'll have to coordinate activities well to make sure there are no collisions in the X, as it doesn't reporesent a "real world" crossing. Since it is hidden under the layout, I'll have to operate it with CTC I think

Thanks. As I said in the article, I'm sure many others have used the scheme. I bumbled onto the "X" idea, but the kernel of the inspiration came from Joe Taylor's track plan article in the Oct '94 MR. The staging tracks aren't arranged exactly in an "X" in that layout, in fact, they are kind of a jumble, but I know I had been thinking about putting staging behind shelves based on his article when I designed the SP/SMVRR layout in '95.

As far as traffic control across the crux of the X, the long term plan for the SP/SMVRR layout was to use the position of the turnouts to route power to the proper tracks. But the owner never got around to installing that, so we were just careful (usually!).

It would probably be helpful to do something similar in a DCC environment, only powering tracks that are aligned. That would be a first step toward avoiding collisions. One could use contacts on turnout motors to switch the power.

As you mention, it would also be possible to wire in detection to avoid routing trains into occupied tracks. Or you could just add a mirror or inexpensive video camera so you can see the hidden area.

Regards,

Byron
http://www.modelrail.us

[rockythegoat]

So, while not doing work today (gotta love conference calls) I did the following per your guys' suggestions:

1. The mine on top of the hill in the corner is gone. That will likely be either a closed off mountain top or an opening for access, shielded by trees, etc. I know the grade will be steep, 5% I do believe, but, my trains will be double-headed.

2. I took the logging lines, straightened them and now connect them to the two tracks leading into Pasco, where the car ferry is.

3. This, of course, requires Pasco to be raised about 7 inches. No problem, as that is where the staging tracks will be on a lower level, connecting to the track that formerly connected to Pasco, under the mountain. This will be double-ended., coming out on somewhere on the door side of the room, leading into white space at this time. That are will be multi-level.

4. To improve access to the tunnel(s), I'm thinking of moving the one tunnel opening by the GN interchange back a bit.

5. The X-factor I'm going to look at this weekend, to see where/how to use this concept. I like interchange as a concept/practice, but, there are still some features I want to shoehorn in here yet.

6. And hopefully the Lowe's trip occurs. I'll put down some foam or whatever, and try some of the trackage pieces which look like fitting will be challenge. The only area of concern I see is the large curve at the end of the peninsula. Everything else, I really think can be adjusted in place.

7. The point of the peninsula is gone. Didn't see it adding much, and it will improve traffic flow.

And to clarify an earlier post of mine, while I've built several (4x4 L switcher; 2 4x8s and a 9x16 dogbone) layouts over the years from plans before, NONE of them were exact fits or duplicates. All required a little tweak here and there, which I expect on this one, even in the areas I don't plan on changing. Judging by the comments on issues with published plans, I got lucky with the plans fitting. So, if it seemed like I was busting somebodies chops, that was not my intention. I appreciate all the help everybody has given!

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rockythegoat

So, while not doing work today (gotta love conference calls) I did the following per your guys' suggestions:

1. The mine on top of the hill in the corner is gone. That will likely be either a closed off mountain top or an opening for access, shielded by trees, etc. I know the grade will be steep, 5% I do believe, but, my trains will be double-headed.

2. I took the logging lines, straightened them and now connect them to the two tracks leading into Pasco, where the car ferry is.

3. This, of course, requires Pasco to be raised about 7 inches. No problem, as that is where the staging tracks will be on a lower level, connecting to the track that formerly connected to Pasco, under the mountain. This will be double-ended., coming out on somewhere on the door side of the room, leading into white space at this time. That are will be multi-level.

4. To improve access to the tunnel(s), I'm thinking of moving the one tunnel opening by the GN interchange back a bit.

5. The X-factor I'm going to look at this weekend, to see where/how to use this concept. I like interchange as a concept/practice, but, there are still some features I want to shoehorn in here yet.

6. And hopefully the Lowe's trip occurs. I'll put down some foam or whatever, and try some of the trackage pieces which look like fitting will be challenge. The only area of concern I see is the large curve at the end of the peninsula. Everything else, I really think can be adjusted in place.

7. The point of the peninsula is gone. Didn't see it adding much, and it will improve traffic flow.

And to clarify an earlier post of mine, while I've built several (4x4 L switcher; 2 4x8s and a 9x16 dogbone) layouts over the years from plans before, NONE of them were exact fits or duplicates. All required a little tweak here and there, which I expect on this one, even in the areas I don't plan on changing. Judging by the comments on issues with published plans, I got lucky with the plans fitting. So, if it seemed like I was busting somebodies chops, that was not my intention. I appreciate all the help everybody has given!

I, for one, am anxious to see it.

By the way, I'm pretty thick skinned.

[selector]

Rocky, I must confess that I missed some of this exchange, and I am afraid that I missed the discussion that led you to a 5% grade. Unless you are modeling a logging/mining steep spur on which you will use a geared or similar loco, I strongly advise you to find a lower grade....somehow. I say this fearing that Chip and you (and others) may have done a wonderful job of getting to this point. But, I have made, and discussed, grades for some time now. They will often work as you intend them to, but they may become a disappointment once you get used to what you build and once you spend a bit more time on this forum.

Grades on the prototype rarely exceed 4% unless double-heading is factored in by the locating engineers and directors. If this is not the case for you, then please reduce yours to around 3%. Two reasons: it will actually look better, and your locos will thank you for it.

if I am out in left field....I apologize now.

[hminky]

Here is a plan I came up in the early eighties from the John Armstrong "monitor" idea for a 4x8 which is a similar design.



I discuss it in my web article for optimizing the 4x8 in an 10x11 room.

http://www.pacificcoastairlinerr.com/4x8/track_plan/

Thank you if you visit
Harold

[rockythegoat]

Okay, here is the revised plan. Changes are:



1. Pointy part is off the end of 4x8 section.

2. Pasco has been raised 7-8 inches or so and is now on the upper level. Also, the logging camp and ore mine are gone.

3. I’ve drawn in the approximate connections, although only as one track, and added the removable bridge by the door, so folks can see the main route. (Note, my track planner using track centerlines as opposed to the original drawing, which show both rails.)

4. Deleted some trackage by the GN interchange area. It didn’t add much operationally and it cleans up the scenery.



5. The second photo shows the second level staging, 5 tracks offering about 13 foot of storage per track. The switchwork is located where access can be gained from the aisle. I also tested the diagram by laying it out and while the drawing is not exact, the space it is taking up is correct, approx. 24” by 11” using Atlas Mark 3 components that I had on hand.

6. For the staging, I’d like to use Track 5 to hold my GN Empire Builder passenger set, as it has the broadest (although not broad) curves. The staging on the right wall is 18 inches wide, leading to the bottom wall, which is 12 inches wide. For the other 4 tracks, would there be advantages to adding crossovers so each track could hold two complete trains? This would allow (4) Inbound and (4) Outbound. Radius of the curves is 18 – 26 inches. Will 5 tracks do this in this area, onto a 12 inches wide table, or will it need to be wider?

QUOTE: Grades on the prototype rarely exceed 4% unless double-heading is factored in by the locating engineers and directors. If this is not the case for you, then please reduce yours to around 3%. Two reasons: it will actually look better, and your locos will thank you for it.

if I am out in left field....I apologize now.

selector: you're fine. appreciate the advice. the 5% is on the short section which goes from Wallace, the town on the left "arm" which goes over the peninsula, leading to Spokane. I agree the 5% is too much. I had a layout with a long 4.5% before and operationally it presented no problems, but, it did look steep. What I will do is after I build the peninsula, I'm going to "temp" this 5% section in and see how bad it is. Since it's so short, it may not be too shabby, and appearance-wise, can be hidden some by trees. If it's a no-go, I think I will slide the turnout leading to this area to the left (closer to the closet) so I can get it reduced to 3 - 4%.

hminky: Nice web site!

More to follow. Boss is coming![(-D]

[SpaceMouse]

If you can do something to eliminate the 5%, I'd do it. Don't you loose something like half your towing ability for every % increase.

I know on my layout I have a 3.1% incline and a 3.7% decline. I use old steam so figure that diesel will fare better, but still look at the loss of pulling power.

Of my 14 locos, 4 can pull 10+ old-time cars with metal wheels up the 3.1% incline. If I trun them around, only one can get 3 cars up the 3.7% decline. The rest can either get themselves of a single car up.

1.5% on your layout is a huge increase in operational ability. And you certainly don't want to have to have a helper every time around. Even if you are double heading, 1.5% could mean the difference between 15 cars and 5 or 7 cars.

[Tom Bryant_MR]

How do you get those images to expand in another window[?] That's cool.
I see how to include the images.

[rockythegoat]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tom Bryant_MR

How do you get those images to expand in another window[?] That's cool.
I see how to include the images.

Dunno. Mine just do it. Must be something the forum does. If anyone knows the answer, can you help Tom Bryant_MR?

[selector]

Your image has to be URL'd in full-size from the webhost. Also, it has to be in 'landscape' format, not higher than it is wide (portrait). Dunno why, it just is.

So, click on your thumb, and then copy the full-sized image URL in your post here. Others will be able to get a bigger version when they click on it.