Layouts and layout building

 Yup, been messing around with track plans again. Still using Andrew Martin's site for inspiration. This one is based on his 'Supernook' plan, but I added some new track at the bottom (front) of the layout using a switchback to access 2 spots plus a 2 stall enginehouse. The car spots are simple trailing point moves (with maybe a runaround off the main), only locos heading to the engine hous ehave to reverse on the switchback.

Andrew doesn't always mention what turnouts he uses - this plan was drawn with #5's (assumign Fast Tracks fixtures). #5 seems like a reasonable compromise that would also be usable in a future larger layout, since the radius equivalent is 26", plenty for 4 wheel diesels and 40 foot cars. In fact this plan fits a bit with my original cement plant idea - the three sidings on the upper left which make up the Inglenook configuration could be the cement plant, with low relief structures along the backdrop at that point. What's left is the main with a runaround and tail to switch the 3 tracks.

 Here is the link to Andrew's new page which has the original plan I copied from. http://www.huntervalleylines.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=random&cat=0&pos=-1

                                    --Randy

 Heck whats wrong with that plan, darned if I know looks like some interesting switching possabilities, Gee it might even just work in an area in front of my engine servicing area'

So I hope you don't mind if I steal I mean borrow it.

 i'm just guessing , but wouldn't the railroad prefer to have the industries on the switchback rather than the enginhouse ? in other words instead of an upper-left to lower-right , a upper-right to lower-left switchback .

ernie

 Quite possibly. It also doesn't have to be an engine house (diesels, BTW), but then I'd have one of those 'dreaded' switchback industry spots. It could even be two seperate branches off the main. That's what I posted it for, to get ideas that would make it better, or as best as I can get in the limited space I have.

                                             --Randy

 If you check the NMRA recommended practices page, they list a #5 switch between 16.5in and 20in depending on usage, #6 at 23in or 26.5in.

 (BTW all the recommended practices PDFs can be found at this link

 Wrong RP. The one for turnouts is this one: http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/rp12_3.html Look at line 11 for a #5: 26" radius for the closure rail, which is the tightest point of the turnout. The substitution radius is much larger, see line 6: for a #5 it's 43" Given those numbers for radius equivalents, I think it's a bit disingenuous to say that is the turnout size to use when your curves are 16.5" radius. A #5 feeding a 24" radus curve even provides a bit of easement effect. Having 30" radius curves feed #5 turnouts, now that would be backwards, but for 24" a #5 is more than sufficient.

 Given that everything I own or owned, including a 4-8-4 Northern, ran derailment free through Atlas #4's (which actually measure as a 4.5) even at warp speed, I should be more the safe with #5's and proper speeds. It's all a compromise, I would love to build a layout with nothing smaller than a #8 even in the yards, but I don;t have a gymnasium to build in.

                                    --Randy

Like some others of the plans from that site, I think the leads and switchbacks are a little more restrictive than necessary, but if you like it, fine.

In terms of turnouts, it's not the closure radius that is the limiting factor, I think often it's actually the straight bit through the frog. In any case, well constructed #5s should work fine with 24" radius. The FastTracks templates use the NMRA turnout dimensions, which have a relatively short lead to make the turnouts more compact. Because of that, you're probably better off with a #5 than a #4 for 24" curves, if you hope to use this section as part of a larger layout someday.

Byron
Model RR Blog

Your observation is interesting, Byron.  I had not considered that the path through a given frog might be the bottle-neck for a wheelbase trying to negotiate the curve offered by the closure rails, but you may be on to something...or in some cases, it could be the case exactly.  I wouldn't doubt that the influence changes with the curvature of the closure rails: if they are highly curved, the frog could very well be the problem.   But wouldn't it depend on the approach to the turnout?  If via points and closure rails, they would be the limit.  Then, as the frog is encountered, it may want to force the engine to align with its axis and place too much strain rearward, thus forcing a derailment.

Anyway, sorry for the diverting post...  

-Crandell

Crandell, based on my observations of trains pulled and pushed slowly through various turnouts in good light, I think a variety of factors come into play: lead length, closure radius, frog #, etc. In my opinion, most commercial turnouts (and the commercial templates) don't have all these factors in balance, but I haven't had time to do the research to make this more than a slightly-informed hunch.

By the way, the really interesting observations I find are for a string of cars pushed or pulled through the turnout by an engine, not a 1:1 hand sliding a single car or two cars through. The coupler lurch and thrust offsets caused by varying car and engine lengths can also have an impact on the forces that lead to derailments through turnouts.

Well, if you want my opinion, switchbacks should be banned in Boston, and just about everywhere else.  The business about trying to move a car from point A to point B and having to disturb a bunch of other stuff used to have its proponents.  Mainly, in my opinion, by those who tried to make a small model railroad big by increasing the complexity and time required to perform a task.  Hence, the switching puzzle.  The track plan at the club I belong to was designed and built by a bunch of old-timers who subscribed to the switchback idea.  Every switching area had one, and one area had a double switchback.  Problem became that once folks got to the point where they actually wanted to run trains around in some semblence of operation, the switchback locations never got switched after the first time, mainly because they were a pain in the backside.

I understand the small railroad issue, because the space I'm dealing with is also restricted.  But I still wouldn't have one of the darn things.  In your particular case, I'd get rid of the switchback that goes to the enginhouse/possible industry.  Have the turnout to the enginehouse connect to the middle track (eastbound main?), and have the lead to the house cross the lead to the industry at the lower right with a crossing.  I think crossings always work well in restricted areas.

The other thing I might consider is changing the direction the leads to the upper and lower industries connect to the eastbound main and the westbound passing siding.  That way, if your railroad ever grows in either direction, the leads to all the industies will be trailing point with the exception of the one to the enginehouse.  And you'll still have everything you have now.

Just my quarter's worth.  

 Haven't had a chance to read all the RPs.  Are they internally consistent with each other?

cuyama:

Like some others of the plans from that site, I think the leads and switchbacks are a little more restrictive than necessary, but if you like it, fine.

In terms of turnouts, it's not the closure radius that is the limiting factor, I think often it's actually the straight bit through the frog. In any case, well constructed #5s should work fine with 24" radius. The FastTracks templates use the NMRA turnout dimensions, which have a relatively short lead to make the turnouts more compact. Because of that, you're probably better off with a #5 than a #4 for 24" curves, if you hope to use this section as part of a larger layout someday.

Byron
Model RR Blog

 Believe it or not, when I drew it like I did with #5 turnouts, the lengths of the various connecting pieces of track became LONGER than what was shown on the original plan - probably because of the short lead you mentioned.

 Future use is up in the air, although if I spend the money for FastTracks tooling, I hope to at least use that, even if I clear the top of this section and start over in the future. I guess future use as-is depends on what my next space ends up being. If only slightly more than i have no, I'll probably just add a secotion to one side or the other, but if I get enough space to actually duplicate the actual track arrangment on some part of my modeled prototype, I'll rebuild and just reuse the benchwork and save the turnouts I'll be building plus whatever else can be salvaged.

 As for adjusting the siding/lead ratios, do you think I should shorten up the sidings on the top left so that more space can be allocated to the lead on the right? Andrew used to have another plan on his old site, a variation of this one that added more track in the mostly empty upper right area. That one though I think jams a bit too much into the space in the interest of adding what for his particular industries was a plant switcher that would take the inbound cut of cars and do all the spotting.

                          --Randy

maxman:

Well, if you want my opinion, switchbacks should be banned in Boston, and just about everywhere else.  The business about trying to move a car from point A to point B and having to disturb a bunch of other stuff used to have its proponents.  Mainly, in my opinion, by those who tried to make a small model railroad big by increasing the complexity and time required to perform a task.  Hence, the switching puzzle.  The track plan at the club I belong to was designed and built by a bunch of old-timers who subscribed to the switchback idea.  Every switching area had one, and one area had a double switchback.  Problem became that once folks got to the point where they actually wanted to run trains around in some semblence of operation, the switchback locations never got switched after the first time, mainly because they were a pain in the backside.

I understand the small railroad issue, because the space I'm dealing with is also restricted.  But I still wouldn't have one of the darn things.  In your particular case, I'd get rid of the switchback that goes to the enginhouse/possible industry.  Have the turnout to the enginehouse connect to the middle track (eastbound main?), and have the lead to the house cross the lead to the industry at the lower right with a crossing.  I think crossings always work well in restricted areas.

The other thing I might consider is changing the direction the leads to the upper and lower industries connect to the eastbound main and the westbound passing siding.  That way, if your railroad ever grows in either direction, the leads to all the industies will be trailing point with the exception of the one to the enginehouse.  And you'll still have everything you have now.

Just my quarter's worth.  

 I can certainly get rid of the switchback. I may try doign it without the crossing though, as leads off a #5 won;t be a comemrcial crossing and I don't know that I am capable of building one. I do believe I can build top quality turnouts with the FastTracks tooling, but for one crossing, it's too expensive to buy the bits, although I'm thinking some of the #5 turnout parts make things the right angles I need. Hmmm.

 As far as direction - this plan actually mimics part of what's on (or rather, was on) the branch I really want to model when I have a proper space to work in. To the right of this would actually be a small yard. All trains in either direction ont he main would probably drop their cars in the yard, and a local job would gather them and shove them back to the cement plant and pull out the loads (and empty coal hoppers). On the real thing, there is no enginehouse there, nor the other two spots. Plus the 3 tracks are about 8, and woudl be located about 2 sections to the left of this area (8 foot sections), and that would be a compressed version. But that's really just secondary to the whole thing - I just can't adequately simulate the real thing in a 2x8 space so this is just ssomething that...hmm, I guess it simualtes the area. Maybe that was the wrong word choice - I guess what I am doing IS simulating something much much larger. I can always make the track to the right go to the enginehouse and the one to the left be the industry spots - then all industry tracks will be trailing point. Although - having two single car spots be facing point means either leaving those setouts and pickups for the opposite train, or using the runaround. I dunno - that sounds like added operating options without being totally contrived. Hey, i did say I'd listen to anything said. I'm getting to the point where I actually want to do soemthign beisdes run engines back and forth on a piece of flex track, and I want to get a practical and workable plan down so i can proceed.

                                             --Randy

rrinker:

.

 Future use is up in the air, although if I spend the money for FastTracks tooling, I hope to at least use that, even if I clear the top of this section and start over in the future. I guess future use as-is depends on what my next space ends up being. If only slightly more than i have no, I'll probably just add a secotion to one side or the other, but if I get enough space to actually duplicate the actual track arrangment on some part of my modeled prototype, I'll rebuild and just reuse the benchwork and save the turnouts I'll be building plus whatever else can be salvaged.

My recent attempts to help folks with design questions on this forum have been pretty futile, but I'm a slow learner, so here goes ...

The future is always unknown, but I personally think you would be better off making the choice now to prioritize for one or the other: a section that has maximum re-use potential in the future, or the most interesting thing you can build now in the available space. Trying to do a "fair" job of both satisfies neither, it seems to me. For future re-use, for example, the straight tracks across the middle of the section might be OK. But for maximizing the visual interest in the current space, those straight tracks are kind of humdrum compared to alternatives.

If you wanted to do a cement plant in the available space, three closely-spaced parallel tracks doesn't really look like a cement plant and it will be hard to model even relatively convincingly. An alternative would be to move the tracks around so you had a place along the backdrop to dump coal and additives (like bauxite or iron) and another location where you could load covered hoppers below silos and/or boxcars at a baghouse. Yes, these would all be short tracks with only a few cars, but I think that would be more realistic in terms of portraying the essence of a cement plant than the original layout's Inglenook. And the plant could spread along one full side of the section.

Of course, this would not be the cement plant you would want to build for a later larger layout, so you would face rebuilding.

If you choose maximizing the interest in the current space without worrying quite so much about future re-use of the section in a possible larger layout, a plausible mix of industries might be more interesting to build, view, and run. It's not clear to me now how much space you actually have at this time, since you've talked in the past about 10-foot designs. Somewhere in there, my adaptation of Jonathan Jones' fine layout from the May 2001 issue of Model Railroader was suggested.

I think the curved tracks make a smaller shelf layout more interesting to look at, but that's certainly a personal preference. This layout was discussed on the forum a while back.

rrinker:

 As for adjusting the siding/lead ratios, do you think I should shorten up the sidings on the top left so that more space can be allocated to the lead on the right? Andrew used to have another plan on his old site, a variation of this one that added more track in the mostly empty upper right area. That one though I think jams a bit too much into the space in the interest of adding what for his particular industries was a plant switcher that would take the inbound cut of cars and do all the spotting.

  

Well, it may just be me, but I don't see that the original plan has enough going for it to try to tweak and trim, given your interests. It just seems (to me) like a lot has been compromised to work in the classic Inglenook Sidings scheme.

In my opinion, you'd be better off deciding what you want to model, and then planning around that rather than to try to overlay your operation and modeling ideas on a somewhat generic track plan. A local switcher concept is not necessarily a bad idea for this space, though there are probably better track plans for it. Good luck!

Byron
Model Railroad Blog
Layout Design Gallery

rrinker:

I may try doign it without the crossing though, as leads off a #5 won;t be a comemrcial crossing and I don't know that I am capable of building one.

The Atlas Track Planning book I have for their Custom Line track shows a 25 degree crossing used off #4 turnouts.  I believe that the Atlas #4s are close to #4-1/2.  This crossing is available in code 83, if that's what you are planning to use.  The crossing was just a suggestion, and I'm not trying to push it one way or the other.  BUT, if you are capable of building turnouts from the Fast Tracks fixtures, and also capable of handlaying track, I'm pretty sure that you would also be able to tweak whatever you needed to tweak to get the commercial item to work with the handlaid.