I am currently preparing the benchwork of my 6x12 foot layout for a completely new setup. I have a track plan in mind, but not entirely 100% concrete on exactly how I want it. My benchwork has 2 operating pits in the middle (being 17 years old I can still crawl in there easily enough), that usually are home to myself and a friend of mine, sitting on rotating chairs. There is an island between the two operating pits which is roughly 3x4 feet, and that is the section I am having the most trouble finding a use for (it used to be home to a small turntable).
I have included a photo of my current concept plan made in AnyRail 4. Again, it's just a rough. I prefer to have mainline operations (I model modern era), but I would like enough switching to keep 2 operators busy. Double track would be nice, but I am willing to sacrifice it to make more room for industries and/or yardspace. I hope to have at least a small yard in some capacity.
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.-W.B.
My Railroad:Fictional Heartlake Southern RR, in the Greater Toronto Area, early 2000s.
First the track plan, then the benchwork. When you start out building the benchwork before having a track plan for your layout, you may be limiting your options.
A 6`by 12` is quite a large foot print, and even with two operating pits, the actual space requirement is much larger. I´d suggest you prepare a drawing of your room, allowing us to find out what is the actual space available to you for a layout.
One more recommendation. In 2009, MR ran a series of features on the Milwaukee Road "Beer Line" - a sectional layout with lots of operation on a 4`by 12" foot print. Being sectional, it can also be assembled in different ways. Check the January 2009 issue of MR - should you be a subscriber, you can find the track plan here.
Hi,
Sir Madog A 6`by 12` is quite a large foot print,
A 6`by 12` is quite a large foot print,
Ulrich knows what he is talking about, but is it really large? Yep it will occupy a big chunk of the room, but you want to run modern equipment. In the past 50 feeters were the longest type of cars and a 18" radius works fine with them. Today's cars are 89 feet long and this means the minimum radius should be 32 at least.
A good old 8 x 4 with a 18" radius becomes at least 14 x 7 if you apply a 32" radius. The 12 x 6 you have seems suddenly small.
Mainline operation? Or are you talking about two ovals where trains can chase their tails? They are back that fast, you will not have any time for some switching, unless you add a third oval with a passing siding or a staging area.
An alternative might be a trackplan like John Armstrong's "Tailored for the wayfreight" . At first glance a double track mainline, but in reality both lines had a separate passing siding and various spurs; so both could be used for wayfreight operations independent from each other.
Also the way you like to operate your trains, from a engineer's perspective or from a tower-man's perspective is important. Do you like to walk with your train, being close to the action?
You do like some switching: what kind of (un)coupling do you envision? By hand or by magnets?
The issue is not "having fun", the issue is which way does give you the most fun.
Dream, think and plan before doing your bench-work. A plan of your room is the very best first step.
BTW, never take a duck-under lightly, during the build and during operation you will have to duck to many times, a lift-out or swing-gate would make a hell of a difference.
Smile
Paul
I like your plan, especially the the two operator stations right in the middle of everything. I would use the space between the stations for locomotive storage/repair. It would be most convenient for either operator.
To me the uncluttered loop on the right side of the diagram would be a good opportunity for some imaginative scenery.
I would add a reversing loop or a wye to take the place of the turntable - perhaps in the space between the operator stations.
At the risk of exciting a "roundabout vs. realistic point to point" discussion I would also add a second track to my main line, so I would have a double track main. This is just something I like, without wishing to justify it.
You now have me asking myself if I should consider an operating pit in the middle of my layout.
Please keep us posted on your progress, and have fun.
I did not intentionally make duplicate posts; I don't know how that happened. I tried to delete them, but the software did not follow through. My sincere apologies.
Don't give up too easily or quickly on the concept of a double mainline. The addition of a second mainline by forming an outer oval will only require the use of another 3" or so of layout real estate.
Trains can run on the outer mainline unimpeded by the operations taking place on the inner mainline and associated yards and sidings.
Rich
Alton Junction
It would be helpful to see a drawing of the space available and a list of what you want. Even though you are able to duck under you layout to pits I will let you know now that you will get sick of it fast.
Take a look at my layout plan (below) to see what I am building in a 6x10 island type layout.
V/R
Chris
Check out my railroad at: Buffalo and Southwestern
Photos at:Flicker account
YouTube:StellarMRR YouTube account
The space I have available is only a 6x12 foot rectangle, of which the layout resides. Using my trackplan above as reference, all sides except the bottom rest againt the room's walls, which is why the operating pits are there - so the far side is still reachable. If I could have avoided the duck-unders I would have, but they basically are required.
I'd prefer a loop over any point to point setup, as I do enjoy the mainline run. Double track is a definite plus, but as I said before I am willing to sacrifice it for more switching options. I am trying to make a plan that could keep two operators busy in a sort of cycle of local switching jobs, which would make a small yard a good plus. Although, I do enjoy running my huge intermodal doublestack train (which takes 3/4s of the largest loop you could fit on there) despite "chasing it's tail".
The reason for the plan before the benchwork so to speak is becuase the table, as shown in my plan is already there - it's just going to be fixed up and receive a new set of track atop it. What was there before was not working operationally or quality wise so it was torn up. I have considered taking the center "island" and splitting it in half and placing a half to either end of the operating pits to create a single large one in the middle. With 3 out of 4 sides of the layout againt the wall, the idea of "walk-along" is not going to work, unless you do so from the center, which hardly has room for walking, even if opened up.
Thanks for the information and suggestions so far, I hope with other people's input I can create a very "user-friendly" layout, in my somewhat awkward space.-W.B.
Any particular reason for why the benchwork has to be symmetrical? Why not just make one single pit far bigger, make the part where you duck under narrower, and vary the depth of the benchwork around the room?
The reason for why I am asking this is that you seem to be more concerned with maximizing layout surface area (and minimizing operator pit area), instead of focusing on what features you would like on your layout.
Om your sketch you have a yard, a passing siding and a handful of industries. If I try to add the same features first, without drawing a table, combined with keeping curve radii at or over 24", and getting more operator space, I could e.g draw something like this:
It is not a given that this specific plan will work for you. But the principle might be applicable - thinking about what you want to have on your layout, instead of thinking about how to make operator space as small as possible.
Smile, Stein
I'd make the pit just a little narrower and continuous as well. The continuouse pit can be a little shorter also. As far as the duck under, make the layout height about 48 inches or more and you won't mind as much.
Springfield PA
Wow it's been a while since I posted on these forums (but I have still been reading them!) so forgive me if I'm a little long-winded.
I don't think you will have too much of a problem with the benchwork configuration you've got. I had a similar situation in a 5x9 alcove with a plank of ply shoved against the wall. I had it on castors to get to the back in case of poblems, but I didn't have any switches back there and the trackwood was (almost) perfect.
I would recommend that you remove the centre "island" area to give way to a full walk-in area. The space is difficult to work with and it may cause problems with operation (you probably don't want to duck-under every few minutes). If you can make the central pits narrower as previously mentioned that will give you much more room to work with adding tracks, industries, and scenery alongside the main line that will be much more usable space than the central island area (what good is area if it isn't very useful).
With regards to the trackplan, first thing I'd recommend is that you use another curved turnout to join the first (top) yard track to the mainline on the top-right hand side of the plan. This will give your CCW trains access to the yard without reversing, and will give you the opportunity to use it as a passing track on occassion.
Also, if you can sacrifice a few inches (3 or more) off the radii of your outer curves, you can pull the whole loop down slightly and add two or more double-ended tracks at the top end of your plan. Hiding them will add hidden staging to give you more trains to work with in your mainline operating scheme.
I was going to continue with an example of what this may include, but then I realized how long my post was. Long-winded after all.
Regards,
Matt
PS: Cheers to fellow-teen model railroaders
- Matt
Right now you can't switch the industrial area without fouling the main. Have you considered double tracking the main or adding a switch lead as you have done with the yard? Then it could be treated more like a branch.
Since you often have 2 operators, I would consider a single-track main line with a good-sized passing siding on either side of the layout, so you could run 2 trains in opposite directions, but you would have to manage the "meets." You could do this manually, or you could consider some sort of automatic system with detectors and signals.
I have a 5x12 foot HO layout, to which I've added a new section, but the original track plan is still there. The 30-inch "reach distance" is a good rule, as I've found that I can reach the center of that layout from either side, but not much beyond that.
At one end of the layout, the track loops around the edge. At the other, though, I used tighter (18-inch) curves and left some space in the corner, which gave me a foot or so between the layout edge and the main. This is more interesting scenically, as I view the layout from that edge and I've put a small urban scene there. In your case, you could put warehouses and other background buildings against the wall, and use the edge for industrial or yard switching instead of having the main go all the way around the perimeter. Of course, this does depend on what minimum radius you've decided on.
Think about a diagonal crossover for that space between the operator pits. You can use this to reverse train or locomotive direction without having to use the big 5-fingered crane.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
ApacheC424 Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.-W.B.
I suggest removing the green trackage and consolidating the pits. I would also place the yard and lead on the outside of the loop where the classification tracks can use the corner of the room. As another poster said, the radius of your loop will have to be narrower, at least on one side, but the trade off is worth it. In general, I think you gain more efficiency when stub yard tracks are located outside of a loop.
- Douglas
Great advice, I forgot about placing the yard on the outside, that would create alot more space for it. I have been considering removing the island anyhow, as curving in track to access it would either take very small radius curves, or alot more space. As for the corners I planned to use the largest radius possible, however I could consider going as low as 24" radius. I have a pair (1 left, one right) #7.5 Shinohara curved turnouts already, which would be nice to use rather than purchase another size (32" outer radii, 28" inner radii).
I guess I could do a 24"-28" radius on the curves, that should give some extra room for moving the yard to the outside (I'll have to make a plan to see). If I can use 28" on the loop, then I could use the #7.5 curved turnouts to break off from the loop on one side, and connect to the yard situated on the other side, making it accessable from both ends. The extra space on the inside will fit scenery and/or more industries. I also have an old Atlas 9" turntable, which as my friend suggested I could re-use only for the purpose of turning locomotives, that way I dont have to worry about a wye, and it won't take the space of having a roundhouse.
I guess it's back to the drawing board. :)
ApacheC424 If I can use 28" on the loop, then I could use the #7.5 curved turnouts to break off from the loop on one side, and connect to the yard situated on the other side, making it accessable from both ends.
If I can use 28" on the loop, then I could use the #7.5 curved turnouts to break off from the loop on one side, and connect to the yard situated on the other side, making it accessable from both ends.
Don't know if I follow exactly what you're saying.
My suggestion was strictly related to having the yard tracks being stub-ended., or accessed from one side, basically That way the yard tracks could file into the edge/corner of the benchwork, gaining storage space compared to having the tracks cut off by the curve of the loop.
Having one side of the yard start by using a curved turnout makes sense, but with 12 feet of benchwork length, that wouldn't be necessary in order to have a good size yard. You could start the yard by using a straight turnout. You could use both curved turnouts as a long passing siding, however.
If you create a double-ended yard and essentially two ladder tracks (the tracks where the turnouts are located) using the curved turnouts, you lose the ability to have the yard tracks file into the corner.
I have 2 shinohara #7.5's, and like them a lot. If you used them to form a double-ended yard, I would probably just put the yard back inside the loop. 12 feet of bench length combined with curved turnouts at the throat would give the layout a dominating yard, if that's what you're going for, even if the storage tracks are inside of the loop.
Might want to think about what the overall goal of the layout is.
ApacheC424 I have a pair (1 left, one right) #7.5 Shinohara curved turnouts already, which would be nice to use rather than purchase another size (32" outer radii, 28" inner radii).
I have a pair (1 left, one right) #7.5 Shinohara curved turnouts already, which would be nice to use rather than purchase another size (32" outer radii, 28" inner radii).
I believe that if you check, you will find (as I did) that the radii of that #7.5 are actually 32/26. All those Walthers/Shinohara curved turnouts are mislabeled for the diverging route: all are 6" less rather than 4" less.
Dante
Doughless Don't know if I follow exactly what you're saying. My suggestion was strictly related to having the yard tracks being stub-ended., or accessed from one side, basically That way the yard tracks could file into the edge/corner of the benchwork, gaining storage space compared to having the tracks cut off by the curve of the loop.
I think the idea (or at least the one I suggested) is to make one, bi-directional arrival/departure track for the yard, so that the main line isn't fouled up with reversing moves. The rest of the yard would still be stub-ended to maximize storage space. The double-ended track could be a passing track as well, since you would need two of them to allow for continuous, bi-directional travel of two trains
I think you would be ok with going down to 24" min. Most RTR, modern equipment can handle that no problem, and with the operators in the middle of the loop as opposed to outside, the overhang and separation of your long autoracks and cente-beam flats will not be as noticable.
Another idea is to give the passing siding at the lower end a bit of curvature to it. Perhaps start it off with a curved turnout along one end. It will give you much more length and be a little more visually interesting.
hi
you might read this:
http://www.housatonicrr.com/yard_des.html (Bisguier-yarddesign)
So after a few months of working with the track planning software, trying a couple ideas and talking with a friend, I made this revised plan using some more practical ideas including some suggested here. I can't seem to get things to work without a "bowl of spaghetti" looking track plan.
It's not perfect, I still have to check all the clearances and get everything squared and straight. The idea this time is a yard that can hold some extra cars allowing the layout to cycle locals. Maybe 3 "shifts" of cars, one being sorted, one in the industries and one on the local about to do the switching. 2 of the 3 industrial sites are purposefully facing-point spurs. This way, there is more work required to be done and a purpose for a siding/runaround. The two sites with multiple tracks can host traffic for more then one industry.
Working a yard lead in for an outside-the-loop yard seems a tad awkward. The loop's curve radius is 26" to make space. The yard has a runaround connected to arrival-departure if needed, and the curved turnouts at each end make sure things fit together okay.
Finally, in the middle is a small, and simple site for basing engine servicing. Storage, fueling and rotation. The small turntable will do fine, as this plan is more focused for switchers and 4 axles.
Thoughts and opinions appreciated,-W.B.
It seems to me the place for the turntable is in the NE corner, coming off of the shortest yard track. If you really plan to keep the benchwork in the middle, I would reserve that for a single spur serving a single industry, maybe snaking through a downtown area if there is enough space.
I suggest that you take another close look at Stein's suggestion back on May 22. But if you really want to provide that area in the center, reduce its width to 18" or no more than 2'. 3' will be a real killer, especially because you have to squeeze in and out of small operating pits!
PS. I have a 2' wide duck-under with 45+" clearance that accesses a commodious operating pit. It works fine despite my 5'-9+" aged body, but I wouldn't want to negotiate it every few minutes as your plan might require.