Quick Question: What Era is this from: A discussion of layout design.

[SpaceMouse]

Sorry about the straight lines. It was one of those things where you are thinking about it in bed jump up and ru***o get it out before work. XtraCAD has a create parallel track feature that I over-used in this case. I'm still learning the program.

[Jetrock]

For purposes of a micro layout: If the passing track is not usable while the layout is a stand-alone unit, there isn't much point in modeling it. If it is a module for later inclusion in a layout, then the currently-unusable pasing track is fine.

A passing siding and a runaround track are basically the same thing--it isn't really intended to let trains pass each other, but rather to allow the way freight switching the mine spur to run around to the back of the train and spot the cars.

And yes, what IRONROOSTER says is true: especially in the age before in-cab radios and centralized traffic control, only tight rules about track occupancy and close attention to scheduling, coupled with safety rules like posting flagmen, prevented trains from smashing into each other with disturbing regularity.

I would still consider making the track a bit more "curvy"--mountain roads benefit from lots of gentle curves, as the track wends its way around the mountainside.

[SpaceMouse]

I just got this vision of a cowboy flat out on horse pulling up to the 0-6-0.

"Boss says ya kaint pull out onta the main track."

"Why come?"

"Says thars a train a comin."

"Caint see no train."

"Says thars voices in his head thet told im."

Actually, the way I see it only the mainline engine would pull out on to the main and only when he had a load of about 8 full cars. Then he would back up to the empties, and pull back to the main for a couple seconds and back them into the yard. Pu***he full cars back to the train and pull out of the siding. These small steamers aren't pulling more than 6-8 26-40 footers and a caboose.

[IRONROOSTER]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

...
But what I envisione was just getting the ore down the hill and taking empties up. A train of empties would pull into the siding, disconnect the engine, back in to get the filled ore hoppers, back out attatch to the empties and back them into the small yard.

The engine would pop out onto main twice for a couple seconds.

That will work, but unless the mainline is a lightly used branchline, you ought to have a run around in the yard itself.

Normally, the mine switcher would have to get clearance from the dispatcher before going on the main and might even be required to put out flagmen as well. All of this takes time and ties up the mainline. For a busy mainline, this would not be acceptable.

Just my thoughts.
Enjoy
Paul

[SpaceMouse]

I really didn't enviison this as a stand alone. But I admit I went at it backwards. I really liked the track configuration.

But what I envisione was just getting the ore down the hill and taking empties up. A train of empties would pull into the siding, disconnect the engine, back in to get the filled ore hoppers, back out attatch to the empties and back them into the small yard.

The engine would pop out onto main twice for a couple seconds.

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Jetrock

I assume that the section at the bottom is supposed to be a runaround track--the only problem is that it is unusable as it is. There should be enough room past each switch for a locomotive and one car--assuming a short locomotive and a 40' car, that means about a foot in HO. You could reduce the length of the runaround, or if you're assuming two-engine use you could just eliminate it entirely.

Actually I envisioned it as a passing siding for the main.

QUOTE: Two switchers would just barely fit on those spurs--in other words, no room for the cars you're trying to move.

Each extension beyond the turnout is 16". That leaves room for 4 26' old time hoppers or two and a geared loco.

QUOTE: Getting rid of that unusable "passing track/main" section would also allow you to make use of depth--turning straight tracks into broad curves will allow more running or storage space, as well as being more realistic in representing a line going up a steep hill.

I see your point and if I was thinking of it in terms of a stand alone...I haven't givne up on the idea of incorporating the "mine" into the basement layout.

QUOTE: Expanding the small "yard" tracks would make a little more sense, too--no reason why they wouldn't go all the way to the edge of the table.

Software glitch, the layout shifted when I saved as bitmap.

QUOTE: Why is the mine up the side of a hill?

Ore is where you find it.

[Jetrock]

I assume that the section at the bottom is supposed to be a runaround track--the only problem is that it is unusable as it is. There should be enough room past each switch for a locomotive and one car--assuming a short locomotive and a 40' car, that means about a foot in HO. You could reduce the length of the runaround, or if you're assuming two-engine use you could just eliminate it entirely.

Two switchers would just barely fit on those spurs--in other words, no room for the cars you're trying to move.

Getting rid of that unusable "passing track/main" section would also allow you to make use of depth--turning straight tracks into broad curves will allow more running or storage space, as well as being more realistic in representing a line going up a steep hill.

Expanding the small "yard" tracks would make a little more sense, too--no reason why they wouldn't go all the way to the edge of the table.

Why is the mine up the side of a hill?

[SpaceMouse]

Below is a modification of the switching layout we've been talking about. By eliminating the crossover, I've reduced the grade to under 4%.

What it is is a mining operation in a box canyon. Two switchers can bring down 4 ore cars at a time for storage in the small yard. A geared unit can bring down two at a time without complicated manuevering. The ore cars are stored in the yard to be picked up and replaced with empties by freighters. The more I think about it the more I like the idea of increasing the elevation and grade and going with the geared unit. (any excuse right?)



On the other hand, a single geared unit would be limited in it's manueverability--getting trapped at one end or other of the layout. The turnout at the top, although useful with two switchers would be useless with a single unit.

[IRONROOSTER]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

So, is the Gumstone and Snowshoe a Switching Layout or a switching puzzle?

I would call it a Switching Layout. It would not be difficult to switch the cars and unlike the Timesaver or Inglenook layouts, this one does not limit capacity on the leads. Also, there is no puzzle aspect where you have to temporarily spot cars several times. The only difficulty is that is requires 2 locos since there is not runaround.

If you added a runaround in the little yard, then I think it would definitely be a switching layout. You could also use just one engine.

Enjoy
Paul

[SpaceMouse]

So, is the Gumstone and Snowshoe a Switching Layout or a switching puzzle?

[Jetrock]

I suppose it's important to mention that there is a difference between a small "switching layout" and a "switching puzzle." A switching layout is designed for operation--a puzzle is designed for difficulty. A switching layout can provide operational challenges--it can't help but do so if it is small--but it is intended to make the best use of the available space, rather than the worst possible use.

Both can be fun in their own context--and are good ways to get more hands-on experience in operation. And cobbling up a quick switching-puzzle out of spare bits is an easy way to work on your skills, that you can play with afterward.

Just make sure that the switching districts on your layout are designed with switching layouts, rather than switching puzzles, in mind.

[SpaceMouse]

Okay, No switching puzzles. I may just build it out of scraps I have sitting around though.

[Jetrock]

Chip: Be very wary of including "switching puzzles" on your layout! Others have discussed this in depth (do a forum search for "Timesaver") but to summarize, switching puzzles are deliberately designed to be frustrating and overly complex, specifically because they are intended as puzzles, not layouts. Your industrial areas should be designed around operation of the layout as a whole--which is a whole different ball of wax from "switching puzzles."

Here's a pic of the original Gumstump & Snowshoe:

Taken from Carl Arendt's page of classic "compact layout" designs.
http://www.carendt.us/scrapbook/page4/

The idea behind a small layout is to make such a small space useful and interesting to someone who wants to operate model railroads, rather than simply create a diorama. They're kind of like a Rubik's cube or other physical puzzle--entertaining for their own sake, with some replay value, but really not that useful out of context. Real railroads generally designed their track plans to be as simple to use as possible--the vagaries of working on the railroad meant that things could get unpredictable and weird even in the best of circumstances, making real "switching puzzles" more trouble than they are worth.

Your instinct to not use others' track plans is a good one--but there is one exception: Where possible, look at how the prototype solved problems, and imitate their approaches, if not their exact dimensions.

[cmrproducts]

Chip

Looking at a picture of a layout and seeing it in person are way different. I try and co-ordinate the pictures in the MRR mag with the places shown on the layout print they always have.

It is funny how, when you begin to really study the pictures that you can find things that really stick out, mostly that the layout is so much smaller than what the pictures lead you to believe.

Do a search on the Plum Creek railroad. This site has pictures of my layout as well as other members of the Division 11 group. The owner of the site is a member of the Division 2 (Pittsburgh group) but he was gracious enough to put the Div 11 members layout on the site also.

The owner of the site was on the layout tour we had last year. He found places on my layout and the other member’s layout that we had a hard time figuring out where they were.

Then when you come to see the layout it will look a lot different and this is not because I did anything to the layout but the camera makes the layout look a lot different.

Maybe we can get into a discussion about layout design, if there is time as things rather hectic during the OPs.

As for your B&P unit, if you have not changed the number on it, I already have that unit running as well as others available and some custom decorated units. But bring it along anyway (be sure to mark it – as there going to be about 30 people there – so far)

BOB H – Clarion, PA

[SpaceMouse]

Bob,

I have it roped off on my calendar. I was told not to bring anything, but I was hoping I could run my new Atlas B&P GP38. I hear it is the right layout for it.

I cannot conceive of using someone else's track plans--not because they will or will not work, but because I have a bone-headed streak that makes me think I know what's right for me. I am studying track plans though.

the most difficult thing for me is not being able to see the track plans after they have been build. I understand this might be a limitation of space/camera/commercialism, but most layout pictures focus on details not overall inter-operablity or elevational perspective.

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by IRONROOSTER

Chip,
While I have the issue, it was also reprinted in "Track Planning Ideas from Model Railroader" in 1981. It is my favorite small switching layout. It is also the basis for the slightly larger Vandalia Short Line on the NMRA's site http://www.nmra.org/beginner/vandalia.html
Enjoy
Paul

That one looks better than what I had. It also give me ideas on how to give it theme continuity. Thanks.

[cmrproducts]

Chip

It sounds like you are planning on coming to my place on Apr 30 for OPTUD 6 (OP Till U Drop).

This is not a Club layout but my home layout, and YES it is almost a Club size layout.

And from the frustration you are expressing about trying to get all of the elements of staging, classification yard and long running, you need to see my layout to understand how I get 6 independent railroads plus the Conrail Lowgrade line to work together.

With having 5 or so levels on my layout you will be able to see first hand how there are ways to put something in here and there. When I designed my layout I was only concerned with the main level, even though it changes elevation from 36” to 60”. Most of the layout is set at the 45” level.

This design comes after many years of trying to fit it all into the first design. Now, I usually can look at a room and the layout that is there and envision that you could add a track here and a grade there. I did at one of my operators beginning layout. He was new and had only been a modeler for a year. He was frustrated with the little amount of track he was able to get into his basement. I went there just to look at how far he had progressed when he stated that he wished he had more room.

I began looking the area over and stated that he could begin a grade here and add a second level there. I pulled out my pocket tape measure and did a little checking. It would work. And then I went off the deep end and ask what is behind this wall. It was the rest of the garage! So I went out there and said well a shelf here and you could add a class yard there along the other wall and, and, and. He looked at me like I was crazy. I told him well it was just a thought. About 2 weeks later he came in and stated that he started to put the shelves in the garage, as he had done some checking and it would fit.

So what I am trying to say is to visit every layout you can. Observe how they put track in and how they used the available space. That is the key. I have found most book designs will never quite fit your area. I use these designs for just what they are, a design, not to try and duplicate them. For a beginner duplicating a layout design is one way to get some experience but it always seems that the new modeler is not happy with the layout.

Keep on trying out new designs, you will find your ultimate layout!

And see you on the 30th.

BOB H – Clarion, PA

[IRONROOSTER]

Chip,
While I have the issue, it was also reprinted in "Track Planning Ideas from Model Railroader" in 1981. It is my favorite small switching layout. It is also the basis for the slightly larger Vandalia Short Line on the NMRA's site http://www.nmra.org/beginner/vandalia.html
Enjoy
Paul

[SpaceMouse]

Paul,

I'm totally amazed that you would know that. It was 40 years ago this month that it was published.

[IRONROOSTER]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

QUOTE: Originally posted by prompter

Spacemouse, where did you find that 2x8 switching layout?

Prompter

IT's called "Better Late than Never" and it was created by Dan Wilson. It was patterened after a designe that appeared in the April 1965 MR by Chuck Yungkurth. I got it from The Model Railroading Handbook Vol 1 by Robert Scheicher

Chuck Yungkurth's plan called it the "Gum Stump & Snowshoe". It was originally designed as a 1x6 ft layout.

Enjoy
Paul

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by prompter

Spacemouse, where did you find that 2x8 switching layout?

Prompter

IT's called "Better Late than Never" and it was created by Dan Wilson. It was patterened after a designe that appeared in the April 1965 MR by Chuck Yungkurth. I got it from The Model Railroading Handbook Vol 1 by Robert Scheicher

[prompter]

Spacemouse, where did you find that 2x8 switching layout?

Prompter

[SpaceMouse]

Yesterday, I found a 2 x 8 foot alyout that I thought I would like to incorporate into my track. It's titled Better Late Than Never. It is a switching track. Here's my best approximation using AtlasRR. Using two switchers it is suppossed to take 30 minutes to move 3 cars from one end of the layout to the other.



The blue portion is 4" lower than the brown section.

I was thinking it would fit in the layer above Kings Cross Terminal. To make it work I would have to use the spur in the upper left continuing accross the bridge to the right as the main line. But I would have to roatate the layout 180 degrees and make the lower level the high one and the higher level the lower one. Well, you know what I mean.

I included show you kind of what I envisioned for my "towns." In this case, however, I haven't figured out what kind of industry or industries would use a set-up like this. And there is very little room for structures, etc.

[Jetrock]

Feel free to relocate the Red Tail Ale brewery if you want--after all, it wasn't there inthe 1880s anyhow.

About that center-layover point-to-point plan: Yes, that's the right one--and realize it doesn't HAVE to be in a corner. Visualize putting such a plan in your space, three feet away from the wall to maintain access to the breakers and such. This means you have BETTER access to the back of the layout than the plan would indicate. Starting from this point, you could expand the lower yard area to include that city area (a natural place to put a medium-sized passenger terminal and a division-point yard), and you could send some track from the higher-elevation portion of the plan northwards to connect to the Hogwarts section of the layout.

As an added bonus, because you'd have access tothe back of the layout, you could add a couple of hidden staging tracks under the mountain.

heh. maybe I'llhave to do some drawings...

[SpaceMouse]

I think I found it. IT is the last page in my book and called 8-4 Center Layover Point to point.

It is a complicated layout, and I don't have a corner to work with. My corner has a circuit breaker and I have to maintain a 3' clearance in front of the box. But I will take a look at it more closely. I think track plans are sadly lacking in elevational drawings.

I do have a litlle more space than it shows.

You know if I just eliminated the mountains and the trees, my logging operation would be a lot simpler to design.

I'm going to pull up the floorplan design again.


And focus on the logging area.



My impermanent thinking, now is to eliminate the shelf in this area, but have the track from the upper level above Kings Cross Yard be the point where the mainline enters the mountain/logging area. The main stays at the upper level on the mountain, has a small interchange with the logging road and continues to the upperlevel above the city. Notice that the zag in the room (see basement view) makes the track narrowdown to a 6-8" and this makes a natural transition.

The pond, which for me has always been in the "north" end of the detail diagram moves to the "north" tip of the penninsula, and the geared unit climbs along switchbacks to the higher level. The transitions now have space barriers so getting from the oak-forested areas like "Ukiah" don't seem so stupid.(the Narrows)

The transition to the city area, which was/is handled by a cliff with tunnels up from staging and the underground main (A time warp from London to SF) remains the same. The transition on the upper level is trickier and might have to be handled with a backdrop/tunnel.

You'll note I am stubornly holding on to all the facets, although in this version I have wiped out one town. I hope it wasn't Hopland. I do like that Red-Tail Ale.

[Jetrock]

I was beginning to think you were taking those remarks about needing reefers to go with your beer service a bit too literally...

That's the problem with mountain railroads--you either need a LOT of space or minimal amounts of track.

I'm not sure if my copy of "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" has the same illustrations as yours (mine is older than I am and missing the cover) but there is a plan in back that could be adapted to your needs--it's basically a corner layout, a double loop with a pair of "wings" which provide terminal yards on each end, but it still has continuous running. An access hole in back provides access to hidden track in tunnels and, potentially, staging. It's figure 11-7 in my version...your copy may vary.

[SpaceMouse]

If I had my druthers, I run my Buffalo and Pittsburgh GP-38s hauling coal through the flat Redwoods switching out of the City of Industry's yard located in Eureka, while wood burning Hogwart's 2-6-0's link up with Heislers and Shays to bring pulp to the paper mills at Willits.

About now you're probably wondering if I have a supply of Eureka's other industry and guys who argued that looking too large creates indecision are going "See, told ya."

At the end of this month, I'm going to a model train club about an hour from my house. They have a session called "Op till you Drop," with a section of the local railroad so precise that rail workers could tell their location from the signals and locals can find their house. I think whatever my thinking is now, it will evolve after that day of running trains. Up until now, I have only seen two layouts other than my own.

I have to do a "Clean Sweep" of may basement before I can build which means I have a couple months to plan the layout. I know there are incongruencies with what I have in mind, but I have no doubt when the time comes to make a decision I'll make it and it will be a good one.

The thing that really bothers me is that I'm becoming more and more interested in modern diesels.

I also have to add that I love trying to decipher what John Armstrong is thinking in his layout designs. The one thing I can tell you is that they look more like what you are describing than what I have been hashing out.

[Jetrock]

I can relate to the "moving diorama" idea--it makes sense, since as I mentioned, the line that brought logs to the mill was often not the same railroad that brought milled lumber to market.

Considering the era and locale, why the emphasis on longer trains? Railroads of the 1890s were still largely coupled and braked by hand--part of the limitation on the size of trains was the manpower needed to brake a train by hand in fairly short order.

I keep bringing up logging because that was the primary business on the Northcoast--has been for more than a century. There really weren't many industries in the region that were not based on doing things to trees and sending bits of said trees south.

Big passenger yards, on the Northcoast? Why? There were no big cities--heck, only a couple of small ones. Even today, the biggest city north of Sonoma County is Eureka, 28,000 or so people. 110 years ago, the only passenger service were short locals serving the small communities in the region. There was no through traffic to San Francisco (that would have been routed around the Bay, via Napa and south to San Jose) and no direct connection to Oregon (that went via the Shasta Route, via Redding.) Passenger yards would be limited to a couple of tracks in the local yard to store a couple of coaches--the stations on the northcoast were modest affairs, without large-station features like multiple tracks for passenger boarding--typically the kind of lines that saw two or three passenger trains a day.

About operation: There is no reason why a sleepy Northcoast line can't feature lots of operation--moving of cars and distribution of product can keep a layout plenty busy. It just sounds like you're going farther and farther afield from what actually exists on the Northcoast. Which, of course, it's okay to do--but it becomes more and more difficult to explain why a Class 1 railroad with extensive passenger facilities and large cities and a diverse industrial base, running on mostly level track, is running through a part of the country that featured none of those things.

About the second level: Unless your lower level is only a foot or so off the ground, you're going to have some real difficulties if the upper level is the "operation" portion. Any place where you're going to do switching, you'll need to reach the cars--to throw switches, uncouple cars, and rerail trains. Give this some serious thought: How high off the ground will your second level be? How well can you see and manipulate objects at that height? Might it be simpler to put these "second level" items at a different elevation on the first level?

[SpaceMouse]

Jetrock,

I am really enjoying this conversation.

I think we are experiencing a cross-vision problem and it is my fault because I have evolved a bit in what I am becoming in terms of a model railroader. I hoping I will continue to evolve becasue if I am to take on a 3-year railroading project, I want it to fit my needs.

So here is situation as I see it. I am envisioning a railroad with a lot of switching--a big as I can classification yard, big as I can staging yard, and big as I can passenger yard. The upper level in my mind is devoted to industry tracks with a variety of different spur and siding track "puzzles". Even Hogwarts and Diagon Alley will be built to receive and send freight. Each location will have a passenger station as well so the Hogart's Express and locals have things to do. I was envisioning zero elevation changes to accomodate longer trains. I was picturing the two mountains as visual obstructions to create the illusion of time movement. In fact, the mainline passes under the logging mountain and immerges in the city. The logging operation is an industry, but in terms of the "action" of the operation, it is a simple one.

In fact, even from the very beginning, when I was dealing with a cut-off 11x11 space, I was seeing the logging operation as a seperate and barely connected element. My original vision, simply was to run old trains through the trees and across a bridge. I got the idea of the logging operation from you.

So I have two layouts in reality. The main "operation" layout and the logging layout.

In my mind, I see the logging layout as running on auto pilot with a geared locomotive always running bringing logs down the mountain, through the trees, across hastily built log bridges and to the mill. Then it heads into a tunnel and appears back at the top and comes down again. All on auto-pilot, slow speed, a moving diorama. This section is valued for it's visual effect, not it's operational quality. Turn the Heisler on slow and let it go. While I head back over to the yards. I had the same idea for the trolley in the city. Let it run in a circle to add action to the layout.

I also think the logging operation will be the most fun to build.

And, if I plan it right, a person could spend some time delivering water, men, logs, finished lumber, wood for whatever, and building cars for freight pick-up. But the important part of the layout, for me in terms of running trains, is everything else.