Since you've already decided on a prototype and time period you have half the battle won. Track Planning for Realistic Operation will give you the tools you need to achieve victory in the form of an operationally satisfactory track plan.
One thing that will jump out immediately. Your space will fill up very rapidly. I was dismayed about how small a double garage seemed to be when trying to bend the prototype track plan spaghetti to fit in the available space bowl. A lot of strands ended up on the floor - and I found out what I wanted, what I thought I wanted and what I had added to the dream that was purely dreamland. (The snow scene at the far top of the narrow gauge might end up on the backdrop, maybe. Don't bet on it. As things stand, that slim gauge tourist route is a static display, aka scenery.)
Good luck with your planning. I hope you end up as happy with your layout as I am with mine.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
First off, show a diagram of the space, so many times I have seen space discribed but things left out or asumptions made that could or did change everything.
I'm already reading it, great insight! Thanks
I really liked the article on Pelle Soeberg's UP layout; especially the videos. I can see I'll be copying some of his tactics & learning from his past work & updates.
Hi Elmer, thanks for the tips, makes me think I can achieve most of my goals!
Steve
Hi & thank you for the tips, especially painting the backdrop before building the benchwork. I'm a maintenance geek so have a number of ideas about how to build the layout, some I'm going to copy from other layouts...the lift bridge in particular; a small rigid welded steel frame with piano hinge on one side.
Hi Dave,
I will take your advice and purchase the book(s) you recommended. I've heard alot about and have glanced through some of Mr. Armstrongs books & recognise he has made a great impact on the model railroading community.
BTW, I'm old enough to remember & read the Li'l Abner cartoon strip for a number of years. lol
Thank you!
i suggest you read Frank Ellison's The Art of Model Railroading (you may have to download it to read it).
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
Looking at track plans and reading books by the experts is a good start.
You'll find the space will fill up quickly, so to save space I would keep the run to a single lap, not a double, JMO.
Also, the larger industries, like an auto plant, can be represented by a 3 sided backdrop building set along the back of the layout, protruding a few inches. Having the building ending in the backdrop conveys the sense of depth and a larger strucutre that wouldn't really be accomplished with a 4 sided smaller structure . Grain elevators are long and narrow, and will fit along the backdrop very well.
Industries like cement and ammonia can be modeled with smaller structures, so I would put them in the front of the shelf, towards the center pit.
Don't be afraid to just doodle. You'll probably end up with something that is not much different than a big oval with several spurs. Look at Pelle Soeberg's UP layout in the March? or Feb? 2014 issue of MR. Its really a simple plan, but its laid out very nicely.
- Douglas
My layout is in a 9x24 room and goes around the walls. You may want tot take a look at it to get some ideas. I'm not saying it is perfect, but I am having fun with it. My minimum radius is 18 inches. I am running four axle locomotives and 40 to 50 foot cars. I have a passenger train that has 60 foot cars. Everything works well.
Cutting the room size down to 16 feet will still give you some opportunities for good modeling.
http://waynes-trains.com/site/HO/C&A-Main-Page.html
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
It sounds like a lot of space, but it will be all too easy to fill up.
I'll take a different tack. You seem to have a pretty good idea of what RR you want to model and roughly what location. I recommend researching the prototype. They often have everything worked out for you, except fitting it into your space.
Also consider joining a historical society for the MP or Kansas City area railroads. You'll find people will have most of the answers to your prototype questions. Someone may have modeled something simular so that you may be able to see what works for you and what doesn't.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
I'm also going to throw my hat in the ring for the Amrstrong book [Track Planning for Realistic Operation 3rd edition]. The first half of the book covers how prototype railroad companies plan their trackwork - I found this incredibly useful as well as enjoyable. [In fact I've re-read it several times.] The second half focuses on actually building the layout, including some common mistakes to avoid.
-Ken in Maryland (B&O modeler, former CSX modeler)
IPWarrior Somewhere around here I read an article that stated the Holy Grail of Model Railroading was settling on one's personal layout.
Somewhere around here I read an article that stated the Holy Grail of Model Railroading was settling on one's personal layout.
I'm not a big believer in other people's opinions in what is in fact a very personal hobby - unless of course I agree with the opinion. :-)
My first question is - do you really want a personal layout? Are you OK with the compromises your space will force upon your dream? Or would a club layout where you contributed the desired scenes be more to your liking? Going even more out of the box, is building your scenes on Free-mo (or other modular standard) modules a possibility? Just my way of saying that a personal layout is not the right answer for every model railroader, much less a Holy Grail. My intuitive guess is that only half the forum members have a personal layout under construction or in use at any given time.
I have a 9 x 16 space that open on each of the long & short sides; so far, all I've been able to come up with is I'd like to loosely model the MoPac in the mid to late 80s, with lots of switching action in HO starting somewhere near Kansas City. I really like the idea of an around the room layout with a duck under (raised bridge more like it) to access the center section. The South long side can be rather narrow; I'll be able to run the track along the bluff on the S. side of the MO River with staging hidden behind the bluff. I can bow the center out for access behind the bluff to the staging but that will narrow the room somewhat. I want to keep the minimum radius as large as possible, have an anhydrous ammonia dealer on the South run to feed the farmland, with the bulk of the industries on the long North side, spilling into the East & West sides. The other industries I'd like to model would be concrete/cement, Grain, & refrigerated goods. I could also run Auto Parts to KC and built Automobiles outbound. I figure the longer North side could be 3 to 4 ft wide since there will be access to both sides.
I really like the idea of an around the room layout with a duck under (raised bridge more like it) to access the center section. The South long side can be rather narrow; I'll be able to run the track along the bluff on the S. side of the MO River with staging hidden behind the bluff. I can bow the center out for access behind the bluff to the staging but that will narrow the room somewhat.
I want to keep the minimum radius as large as possible, have an anhydrous ammonia dealer on the South run to feed the farmland, with the bulk of the industries on the long North side, spilling into the East & West sides. The other industries I'd like to model would be concrete/cement, Grain, & refrigerated goods. I could also run Auto Parts to KC and built Automobiles outbound. I figure the longer North side could be 3 to 4 ft wide since there will be access to both sides.
Your words suggest that you are still hoping against reality to somehow cram 10 pounds of model railroad into a 5 pound sack, and that somebody will show you how it can magically be done.
What Armstrong's Givens and Druthers attempted to do was prioritize what was most important to his clients. That way when he presented a design that met the top priorities, but not the lower-rated desires, he had a better chance of gaining client acceptance of the result.
What Armstrong did not do in his designs was worry about physical implementation. That was up to the builder. And this is true of almost all published track plans that have not been built. And of those plans that have been built, how many plans have been revised to reflect the changes made in achieving "as-built" status?
But I contend that intended implementation should also be a driver in design. Some key implementation factors:
- cost and schedule. Do you have the finances and time to build an around-the-walls 9x16ft layout? Will you be living in your present house long enough to drive the layout to a reasonable completed state, given the constraints of your time? Given your anticipated rate of progress, do you have the money to buy the supplies needed each month to meet that rate of progress?
- operational style.
You said you wanted a switching layout, but without fouling the main. This suggests you are having one train circling the room on "automatic", while you conduct switching operations. How much of a priority is this second train, and its associated track?
Will you be operating standing up, or sitting down? Will the answer be the same 5 years in the future?
Will you use a handheld throttle, or operate from a panel? How will your turnouts be thrown?
What couplers, and what coupling/uncoupling technique will you be using? Sergent couplers require a very different amount/type of access than Kadee, especially if you use uncoupling magnets and delayed uncoupling with Kadees. Skewer uncoupling of Kadees are yet a different method with different sight and access requirements.
- construction methods
Do you build exactly as planned? Or are changes made as you go along? This would dictate how precise your planning needs to be. Some construction methods are more amenable to changes than others - L-girder, all screws driven from underneath is easier to make changes in down the road. But it makes a thicker layout than other methods, and drilling and screwing up from underneath is not very convenient.
Do you already have a plan in mind for the raised bridge? How many tracks will cross that bridge? The bridge will likely dirve the height of the rest of the layout. Will that height be both reasonable for ducking under, and also reasonable for your preferred operational style and viewing angles?
I'm sure others could come up with other considerations, but you get the drift. A personal layout is just that. My answers and priorities are not going to be the same as yours.
You have already started by looking at various layout plans for something that may be adapted. Armstrong's "squares" method is a good "clean sheet" approach. Another approach would be what I call the LDE method - design your elements around the theme for that element. An element might be a major industry, a town, an area, a passing track, or even a scenic feature. Then, just link the elements with main line.
just my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
I also highly recomend the Armstrong book, "Track Planning for Realistic Operation". It discusses everything you want to do.
An around the walls layout will get you a lot more railroad in the 9 by 16 foot space than a table in the middle of the room will. A duck under is a necessary evil in such a design. I went with the duck under. I made it removable and that was only moderately successful. After replacing the duck under I have to do some shimming and clamping and connecting before the trains will run over it. Next time, I might try a bridge that lifts out.
My layout is a no leg design, the benchwork is totally supported by L shaped brackets secured to the studs. Think about putting up the backdrop before installing the bench work. Even just painting the walls a nice sky blue will help your layout photographs a lot.
I view track plans as a main line, and industry spurs upon which you set out and pick up freight cars. That's basic. You can then add a classification yard, an engine terminal, and staging tracks. The staging allows you to run different trains with grace and ease. The train currently on the main line runs into one staging track, and another train departs a second staging track onto the main.
Good luck. Have fun.
David Starr www.newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com
I would add "18 Tailor made trackplans", another Armstrong book, to that list. In it he takes the Givens and Druthers of 18 of his customers and explains how he translated them in custom plans.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
John Armstrong's book "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" is very helpful in taking you through the steps you outline and arriving at either a series of decisions or the realization that you might not get everything you want for your given space. Another useful book by Armstrong, but which I think is out of print at this time, is Creative Layout Design.
When Armstrong worked with fee paying customers he had them fill out a questionnaire to determine their "givens and druthers." Givens- what space you have and can devote to the layout, special needs for access, that sort of thing. And yeah, resources.
Druthers (from the once wildly popular old newspaper cartoon Li'l Abner where the characters talked a sort of hillbilly dialect and "I'd rather eat pork chops" came out as "Druther et poke chops") would be the things you want, with some priorities listed.
It is not possible to summarize here all the issues but clearly how much space you have, what access there is to that space, how big are you and your operators so how large will the aisles need to be -- those things tend to come first.
Choice of prototype and era tends to dictate things like radius and turnout number -- modern era stuff is so much larger than was assumed when some of the popular track plan books were written. Armstrong's planning always started with figuring the minimum radius, creating a square out of that figure, and then analying how many such squares he had to work with in his design.
Again I strongly recommend buying the Armstrong book(s) when at the stage of things you are at.
Dave Nelson
Hi,
Somewhere around here I read an article that stated the Holy Grail of Model Railroading was settling on one's personal layout. I have been reading a number of MRR magazines, the 101 & 103 Realistic Track Plans, etc.
I have a 9 x 16 space that open on each of the long & short sides; so far, all I've been able to come up with is I'd like to loosely model the MoPac in the mid to late 80s, with lots of switching action in HO starting somewhere near Kansas City.
Any ideas on how to best accomplish thoes goals providing ample room to switch without fouling the main, with a couple of passing siding too would be much appreciated?