Would love a critique of my 1st track plan NOW 2nd Plan

Hi all-

Apologies for what appears to be ANOTHER one of these posts (I've been lurking on this forum for a while, but this is my first post) but I would love some advice, suggestions, critiques and flat out "get real" advise from fellow modelers.   Let me introduce my concept:

BACKGROUND

This project is my return to model railroading.  My father and I built a never-finished O Scale model when I was growing up, and this is the first time since then that I've had the desire and the space to do it.  I'm definitely a beginner in this, so I've decided to give a 4' X 8' with a 4' x 4' peninsula a go.  The idea was to create something manageable in size, but at the same time set up in a way that's readily expandible.  

PREMISE

I have a love of switching, and in particular my favorite railroad EVER is the Hoboken Shore Railroad.  I want to model something similar, set in the mid ot late 1970's.  The railroad will use a 44 tonner as motive power to move cars around the dockyard industries and back to the mainline interchange.

CURRENT STATUS

The attached image is the layout as it stands.  I've laid my track for the most part, and placed a few placeholder industries for the time being.  Just a few notes on the plan below:

1.  I know the interchange yard is probably unnecissarily large, but I am working under the premise that one day I may use this layout as the backbone of a D&H freelanced laytout.

2.  After reading through spacemouse's site (that's a GREAT site, THANK YOU!!) I've tried to build my railroad with a purpose:  The major customer will be a marine repair shop that occupies the buildings on the left side of the layout.  I've also tried to place enough run-arounds to accomoate realistic operations (I've purchased a few of the MR planning books to aid in this)  but please let me know if anything looks "screwy".

3. I've built the layout using 18" radius curves, which seem to be OK for 50-60' boxcars and similar era equipment.

4. I built the track plan using Altas Code 83 snap switches for most of the layout (excepting primarily the curved turnouts_ but only because they were "first on the list".  I would love to know if there is something that would be more appropriate to what I'm modeling. 

4. Is there a good site to get an idea of typical equipment for the time period I was after?  I know I can go to the D&H website, but I was hoping for more information on what might be seen on a typical train running in the Northeast.

The image below is from XtrkCad, but since it doesn't show clearly in my post you can also see a larger version here:

http://img352.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rfblayoutxj4.png 

" border="0" />

I'm also more than willing to email the XtrkCad file if people want a closer look at where I am in cons.  tructionPlease let me know what you think as this is close to 10-12 hours of work to this point.  Thank you in advance for any assistance. 

Best,

~Rich 

A couple big things right off -

Your interchange yard is absolutely dead in terms of operations. The top most two tracks are not usable, at all.

Many of your industries require doing switch backs back and forth numerous times to spot cars. This becomes a problem when you need to bring in loads, pull empties, and then spot the loads in their place. 

With a 4x8 area, with a 4x4 tacked on to it, you're going to have a hard time reaching 100% of the layout without having access to all sides. With that amount of space, it may be a time to evaluate how big your layout needs to be. It seems like you decided on a large 'flat' area to work with before trying to analyze how the track plan should flow.

A "plywood prairie" is not the greatest way to start railroading. You're going to find that it's difficult to cover all 32 square feet right away, and that seems to be a big detriment right off - It just doesn't look like a "railroad". 

I've got a solution for you that I'll post in a few minutes that uses about the same amount of space, but will offer great improvements over operations.

The interchange yard isn't useable at all.

Any train using the docks has to saw through the engine facility to get there, not really user friendly.

The "main yard" looks like it will hold maybe 3 cars.

if you are absolutely wedded to the footprint ( a 4x8 with a 4x4 tacked on it to form an "L") I would suggest the concept that you draw a line down the middle of the benchwork and for an 8x8 two foot wide "L" and a 6x6 two foot wide "L" back to back.  Put a stb ended yard on the 8 foot side of the big L  with a small industrial area around the corner.  Then have a industrial area on each of the 6 foot legs of the small L.  A row of tall buildings would go down the middle.  That would create a "yard " zone and 3 separate switching areas.

Dave H.

I noticed the exact same things the prior posters have noted.

1. The interchange yard is practically unusable.  The first track (from the top) is totally unusable, and the 2nd can only take cars one at a time.  There just isn't any lead track for it anywhere.

2. It is a "saw" design.  To get almost anything done one must saw back and forth over several tracks (often ones that need cars spotted on them).

3. The 3/4 of a square design is going to make reaching some of the most interior parts difficult.   Depending on the space availability two 2x4 wings might be a better choice.

Do you have some real locations we could research to help with the critique. 

Many thanks for the initial comments.  It's amazing, you spend hours and hours making sure your runarounds are the proper length, turnout radii are ok, and you forget the big giant monolith taking up a 3rd of your layout is a waste of space!

The best informaiton on hte prototype I'm using as inspriation can be found here:

http://hbs.railfan.net/

It's funny, but after looking through your critiques (and you all basically revolve around the same basic ideas) I notice there are few if any switchbacks on the prototype (the major exception is at the Bethlehem Steel Rapir facility).  To your point, I may be pushed back to the drawing board, but I'm having trouble with the concept of the separate "L"s.

 On the actaul working space, I have a large semi-finished basement to work with.  I started simply with the idea of a 4x8, but it grew as I needed to make room for the waterfront area.  

 I've actaully already tried to remove some of the switchbacks, but I may see if there isn't a way to remove some more. 

 Many thanks for the help so far, and the patience with the noob!

~rb 

First of all there's a lot to like about what you have done. First of all, you created a vision of what you wanted to do then set out to recreate it. You threw out the notion of a roundy rounder and set about making a switching layout.

The second thing you did well was to spot the buildings so that there was plenty of room to fit them in.

Both of those things, creating a vision and allowing for buildings is something that some modelers don't get until they've made a couple layouts.

The biggest problem is that you need a little help understanding how trains do business. The main thing here is that they try to keep it simple, why go back and forth a lot when you can get the track in on a straight shot. What seems like fun at first, even on a model layout gets old pretty quickly.

There were two suggestions given that you might consider. IF you look at the space you have and design for the space, you might find you have more flexibility than an island layout.   

If you have to have the island, then Dave's suggestion to run a divider down the middle of the layout has a lot of merit. You could easily design 4 scenes, or four switching opportunities, and you would have room for both a yard and an inter change area. And you could have continuous running with out sacrificing your operational capabilities.  

The Hoboken Shore is a very interesting prototype. I've done a couple of layout designs based on the HBS. One is a 12-foot-long HO shelf-style switching layout that could be bent to fit your space.

Here's a thumbnail image:

You can read more detail and see a larger, labeled track plan here. We had to make a couple of small modifications to this plan to fit the client's space and one of the improvements was a longer runaround than is seen in these images. But you can at least see the outline of what we did.

As others have noted, there are lots of challenges with the first plan you posted. One of the problems with CAD is that it lets you do a lot of things that aren't workable from an operations standpoint.

I'd also strongly suggest that you rethink the use of Snap Switches. Switching operations involve a lot of shoving cars -- that can sometimes be a problem with a Snap Switch and a 50- or 60-foot car.

Good luck and have fun!

Byron
Model RR Blog

I hope you don't mind...here's a larger version of your photo so it is easier to see...

Don Z.

Do you have the space to do a sort of "G" shaped 2' wide walk-in layout in the same space? That would give you a lot of flexibility in how you lay things out and make it easier to factor out the switchbacks. With an industrial switching layout you don't need to plan continuous running which allows you to get away with a spiral shaped shelf layout. This would also allow you to have larger curves in places which will look better.

Your layout may be a good candidate for a sectional layout made of 2x4' sections allowing you to start modestly and add more industries and switching as you go along.

Rather then a large interchange perhaps just a staging track behind a backdrop where cars can enter and exit the layout? 

Chris

SpaceMouse wrote:

created a vision of what you wanted to do then set out to recreate it.

Texas Zepher wrote:

SpaceMouse wrote: created a vision of what you wanted to do then set out to recreate it. Yeah, How about using this railroad for the next layout contest?

What I was pointing out is that he brought more to the table than the typical first-timer who comes here and says, "I got me a train, now what's a good layout?" He has an idea of what he likes and what he is trying to accomplish. Just because he failed in his first attempt, doesn't detract from the fact that before he's done, he'll have a plan that meets his needs. He has what it takes to get there, a vision of what he wants.

SpaceMouse wrote:

Texas Zepher wrote:  SpaceMouse wrote: created a vision of what you wanted to do then set out to recreate it. Yeah, How about using this railroad for the next layout contest? What I was pointing out is that he brought more to the table than the typical first-timer who comes here and says, "I got me a train, now what's a good layout?" He has an idea of what he likes and what he is trying to accomplish. Just because he failed in his first attempt, doesn't detract from the fact that before he's done, he'll have a plan that meets his needs. He has what it takes to get there, a vision of what he wants.

Again, my thanks to everyone for their advice.  To spacemouses point, I can understand the frustration that people here must get over time with "please tell me everything I must do because I refuse to try on my own".  Also, thanks  to Don Z for the larger image, I was having a lot of trouble getting things properly sized. 

Benchwork:  I’m in no way wed to the shape I have.  I was actually only going to make a 4 x 8, but as I started to lay out track I ended up extending the “L” to accommodate the docks etc.  It just grew into the giant amorphous “L” you see before you now!   Based on the comments posted, maybe it’s not realistic to think I can work in the corner of the layout effectively so I would be more than willing to reshape things.  

 
Track Layout:  Obviously I will need to rework the interchange which opens up a lot of space and I think if I switch to more of a “G” format as suggested I could streamline operations quite a bit.  I could then put my yard on the “north end” (top of the image) with a north-south mainline that goes down the “G” terminating at the pier.  I could also put a runaround track on the stem of the "G" to reach inland industries located back on the base 4 x 8 section.   That would  more or less cut my back and forths down to only 1 (unless of course I want to reverse into  any assocaited industries.

My only challenge will be that i want to maintian a "primary customer" in the marine repair shop, so I don't know that I will have enough space on the G to model it in a prototypcially realistic space.   

This is something I will have to work on.  I guess it's a sign the wife is on a business trip Wednesday and Thursday!

Thanks again to everyone for their help and the kind words from Spacemouse (although I think that's only because I said nice things about his website).

 
Please keep the comments coming, I'm going ot try and integrate them into a new "master vision" and then attack my layout again.

~rb

rfbranch wrote:

Please keep the comments coming, I'm going ot try and integrate them into a new "master vision" and then attack my layout again.

Most newcomers hate it when I suggest it, but I haven't learned my lesson yet. Creating an engaging track plan with which you'll be happy in the long term is not a matter of brute force and repetition. Sometimes the best way forward is to step back and spend some time learning about how real railroads (and good model railroads) work.

John Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operation is an excellent resource. Spending some time learning some background will pay off in a plan that won't frustrate you and gets the most out of your space.

If you really are keen to design your own layout, some hours studying and learning will pay off a lot better than a dozen iterations in CAD, IMHO.

Byron
Model RR Blog