The terminology here is really, really throwing things.
I do have a 12 foot wide "module." I call it "my model railroad." It consists of two six-foot sections, attached in the middle. It isn't two feet deep, however--for 10 feet of its length it is 1 foot deep, and for two feet it is 3 feet deep (imagine a snake that swallowed a Rubik's Cube.)
A "module" is a "modue" because it is modular--it implies a common standard and portability. A 2x12 foot section doesn't imply a common standard, and it certainly isn't portable.
"Just a switching layout" is also kind of a misnomer too. A "switching layout" can be a three-foot shelf layout, but a basement-filling monster industrial district can also be a "switching layout." My layout is the beginning of an around-the-room layout that will span 11x25 feet, but it will still essentially be a "switching layout" because the focus of the layout is industrial switching, not mainline running.
Now, on to your plan: There are plenty of places where a passenger station is across the street from a switching yard. Where I live in Sacramento, the passenger station sits directly across from what was a large yard and shops complex (UP closed it down.) Up the mainline a ways, Roseville's passenger station is right next to one of the largest switching yards in the western United States. Same with Sparks, Nevada, Salt Lake City, Utah, and, quite frankly, MOST cities with intercity passenger rail service also have a yard near the train station. Industries are generally nearby: cities are where industries are located. In recent decades there has been a move to move industrial sites out of central city areas, but a lot of them are still there. So yes, yards and switching near a passenger station do make sense, and you can find examples all over the country, regardless of prototype.
I whipped up a sample track plan to explain what I am talking about in graphical form. It's not meant as a detailed solution, just something I drew in about ten minutes:
The plan is intended for a 17x4 space, a "dog-bone" with 4' wide ends, allowing 22" radius curves. The mainline is a loop around the outer perimeter, with a large passenger station as a flat along the back wall. A passing track is included in order to serve more than one train at a time, or to have a train in a siding while another passes.
The yard in the foreground is physically separate from the passenger servicing tracks (and includes a reversing loop that must be wired correctly) but adjacent to them, a common practice for yards near a passenger station. I like long, straight yards without many tracks: it is perfectly feasible to fit a 4-5 track yard in a foot of layout space, leaving room for the mainline in front.
In order to make the industries not immediately adjacent to the passenger station, they are set off to either side, in the middle of the return loops that would otherwise be wasted space. You have your choice in terms of access to these: by putting the spurs on the mainline a trip around the "dog bone" would be required, but would require interruption of continuous run (facilitated by the passing track at the train station: basically, when the passenger train is dropping off passengers, the freight train can scoot by) but would provide a little more prototypical travel distance. If you didn't want to interfere with the outer loop while switching, you could put a spur off of part of the yard, which is also a prototype practice: many industries are located right next to yards, as they are a handy and easy to serve location.
Combining these two features is not hard, nor does it require more space than you called for. It also means simpler benchwork, and you don't have to build a helix. Helixes are clumsy beasts--because of the grades, the effects of sharp curves is increased and you probably would need a 5-6 foot wide helix. Assuming a 2% grade and a 30" radius, you would need to make 9 or 10 turns to go up 18" to the upper level, and of course because the helix takes up all the space you wouldn't be able to use the middle space of that loop for industrial switching.
You have room for a layout that incorporates both passenger and freight operations. A double-deck layout with helix would take more time, more money and more space than the sort of scheme I have suggested here.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Your terminology is the problem. It doesn't sound like you're planning on two modules, it sounds like you're planning on having two separate 12x2 layouts that are stacked one above the other. Seems reasonable to me. Our club built a N scale layout in our LHS, and above it is a simple HO dogbone with a Three Rail oval inside.
Thanks for the input guys.
I really should put up a picture to better display what I'm referring to. It's really my fault that my idea isn't coming accross due to lack of pictures.
Imagine you have a 2ft x 12ft "module". It's just a switching layout. Now, you take a loop of atlas code 100 flextrack, and while you're standing there looking at the layout, you make it loop around you. When you're not doing continuous running, you remove the loop.
Now you stack another one of those on top - about 18" or so above the first one. This one is just for scenically pleasing continuous running. (in my case, a passenger station).
I do not have room (or time or money) for a huge layout that would have both passenger operation as well as switching. So instead, I could have just basically a passenger station module, then a separate switching module.
If I try to combine the two into one (as I've tried in many plans), I end up with like a switching yard right smack in front of the passenger station, which just doesn't make sense. The passenger station could be based on a prototype, while the switching module will be more fictional.
I'll try to get some images up before too long...
TGindy - yes, I saw part of that series in RMC. Unfortunately, while buying them, I missed an issue or two, so I didn't see the whole series.
Maybe I'm just being a nitpicker for terminology, but is it still a "module" at 2x12 feet? Maybe if there are three 2x4 foot modular "domino" units on each level that can be removed, but personally I'd call this particular arrangement a two-level dog-bone layout.
Why not scenic the upper (continuous run) level? Personally if I'm going to watch trains run, I'd rather watch them run through scenery than over plywood, but that's just me.
Why have two levels? It's certainly feasible to have an outer loop around the perimeter of a layout with switching action taking place in the center of the loop, and a 17 foot dogbone seems like it would have plenty of potential for exactly this sort of action, without having to build a helix. Having a second train running around an outside loop seems like it would add some atmosphere to a switching area--plus the added operating challenge of sometimes having to dodge the through trains!
You might be surprised what you can do in each level with just a little thought.
[1] As Agent Maxwell Smart would say...
"How about the old fitting in a broader curve radius at each corner because of the 45 degree triangle with two equal sides trick?"
For each corner, construct a benchwork triangle with two 12" straight sides with one 90 degree angle and two equal 45 degree angles. You will fit in much broader curves without the middle of each quarter circle intersected by a square corner.
[2] Don Spiro had a 4-issue HO Scale series called "A New Layout" in Railroad Model Craftsman from September - December 2006...
It was an around the walls shelf layout based upon a well-planned out: "How can you do benchwork without having a trackplan?" - theme.
The minimum radius in each corner was no less than 22-inches.
There were also viewblocks and some tunnels used in two of the four corners, plenty of yards, industrial sidings, downtown scenes, plus there was room for staging.
Needless to say, this was a very experienced perspective producing the layout to not repeat a past layout mistake of constructing a L-girder lumber factory with resulting limited train operations.
09/2006 - Part 1 (8 pages): Things to think about before you build.
10/2006 - Part 2 (7 pages): Benchwork using the Dorfile metal shelf rails and brackets.
11/2006 - Part 3 (7 pages): How the trackplan was designed.
12/2006 - Part 4 (7 pages): Filling the void on the backdrop with photograhphs of models.
The depth of forced perspective & scenery accomplished here is just plain awesome. Each of the 4 parts is extensively photographed.
I am track-planning a two level N Scale layout and will be wearing out these pages as time goes by.
Highly Suggested: Go to RMC or eBay for these 4 back issues.
Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956
So, what you're planning to do for your continuous-run 'mainline' module, is have the straight area scenicked, with some extra-wide unscenicked turnaround sections on each end?
-Ken in Maryland (B&O modeler, former CSX modeler)
SBCA wrote: Each one would be 2ft deep and 12ft long. My garage is just over 17ft long, so this would give me nearly 30" radius curves.Just thinking out loud...
Each one would be 2ft deep and 12ft long. My garage is just over 17ft long, so this would give me nearly 30" radius curves.
Just thinking out loud...
Call me confused, but how do you get a 30" radius on a module that's 24" deep?
Don Z.
Research; it's not just for geeks.
In my never-ending procrastination (uh, I mean planning), I've somehow come accross the idea of making two modules.
Top Module: Made for continuous running roundy-roundy, watching full-length passenger trains go past on a module with an un-scenicked continuous run loop.
Bottom Module: Switching layout for when I want to do some "work" and switch cars around, break up trains, make new trains, etc.
The top module could be extremely basic track-wise and would allow full-length passenger cars, autoracks, etc..
The bottom module would have industries, short sidings, etc.
I've been trying to figure out how to get my "fill" of both railfanning as well as having a layout that doesn't get boring too fast. Maybe two modules will fill the need!