Track Planning dilemma

[rrinker]

OK, here's the deal. THose of you who have seen my wed site will have seent he 8x12 I have so far. And also probably have seenmy entire basement that I intend to fill.
The existing layout stays, and gets connected. I need a turnback at the end anyway, so even if I ripped up what I did so far and started over, it would be mostly the same. That's why I did the 8x12 with 30"+ radius curves, so I could incorporate it in the full layout.
Now, I've been reading John Armstrong articles in old issues of Model Railroader (sometimes more detail on ideas that later got wrapped up into the book "Track Planning for Realistic Operation"). All my plans I've drawn so far are variations of the basic narrow-shank dogbone. Armstrong brings up a good point, especailly when using a plan like this with open-top loads (which I am - lots of coal traffic), in that the same train is seen going both directions, quite unrealistically. In a 1957 article he offers an alternative to this. The downside is that almost half of the track is hidden. This is great for staging - add some more sidings in the hidden part and you have great staging yards. But in the case of a full basement plan, I'd end up with as much hidden trackage as visible.
Maybe I'm making too much fo the hidden track issue, as this woud mostly be staging, and in regular operations a train would levae staging at one end, travel over the line, and enter the staging at the other end, and not reappear again until the next session. But I know I will not be happy with an operation-only layout, there are times I will want to just run trains, maybe even let a train or two lop endlessly while I switch the yard or something. If it takes 15 minutes at scale speed to cover the visible portion, it's going to take another 15 minutes for the train to cover the hidden part. That just seems silly to me. Or maybe it's not?
Alternative arrangements that would work are few and far between, mainly because my space, while very long (50') is very narrow (12' max, much only 8' wide), which kind of rules out much in the form of various peninsulas that would break up the railroad from just being wall-following. Further complicating matters is the necessity to include a second road in the mix. At one end I plan a flyover junction to connect it to the main road, at the other end, some other sort of connection or a seperate staging area.
Any and all ideas accepted and appreciated.

--Randy

[ukguy]

I'm kind in the same boat randy and had the same feelings as you with the train being hidden 50% of the time. I'm toying with various options/plans right now although my space is 18x21 so I have the peninsular option. I'll be interested to see the other replies though.
TIA
Karl.

[cuyama]

Randy,

I guess we each have our own problems to bear -- many of my clients (and I!) would love to have a space like that, even if it is a bit narrow.

It seems like there are a few options. If you don't want to hide the entire back side of the dogleg, perhaps making part of the line double-track (with apropriate short-cuts to keep the coal trains from running loaded both ways) would be helpful.

Also, even if you don't have room for a full peninsula across the width, the edge of the shelf can certainly undulate out to form mini-blobs out into the aisle. With a hillside or big industry here, it would help block the overall view -- maybe even provide a place for one of the alternate connections to sneak off to staging.

Alternately, you can turn the spur(s) for an industry out into the aisle so that they are perpendicular to the main shelf. It will use some depth, but it would not impede people walking along with their train -- they just swing wide at the industry.

The "second railroad" also may offer an easy way to address the model railfanning issue. With the appropriate optional connections, it can form the "return path" for your main railroad for those "just watch 'em run" times.

So it seems like there are a few interesting options, but maybe I am not cognizant of some other issues that aren't apparent to me from the website.

Regards,

Byron
May / June Newsletter on-line
http://www.modelrail.us/news

[selector]

Randy, would it be possible for you to post a diagram, even in two pages if necessary?

Would the 'far', or return, track HAVE TO be out of sight the entire distance? Couldn't you have it meander into view between at least two tunnels at some point, with a diversion or spur going out of the open section between the tunnels for variety and interesting ops? With 50", could you grade the return at one or both ends (helix at the other, if only one). Are you ambitious enough at this stage to contemplet building a modest trestle (it doesn't have to be huge, just appreciable)?

I am kind of fishing in the dark, here, so I feel awkward about offering any thoughts...I'd like to help.

[rrinker]

No, you haven't missed anything - I think this is what I need, a fresh look at things because I keep designing variations of the same thing over and over. Instead of a junction with the second road, use the second road as the 'hidden' side - I like that.
The one thing I leftout, it's ALL double track, so it's not like a single main running through all the scenery and the hidden conenction being another single track, it would be double track in both places. But by having the second road be what would have been hidden track, I solve the hidden track issue. At the expense of finding another option to sneak off to staging at each end.
The 'problem' I have is that I am building this with my father-in-law. The good part is he has a lot more equipment than I do, and he's far better at painting and so forth than I am. The bad thing is that he has different interests, and he is a lot shorter than I am - that's a problem because if it were just for myself, I's jack evrything up 8" or so, and put staging underneath so as to not have to make removeable scenery sections for access - I can't go below a certain height because there is a lot of storage required which is also outside my control - but make the wife mad and I can forget a layout altogether. And I can't make it higher than it is or it will not suit my father-in-law. The other day I said I once again succeeded in making a layout that is the wrong height for me - years ago they were always too low, and now it STILL is just a bit too low - 6" more and I could sit on a roller chair underneath and wire it easily instead of bent over. Anyway..
I will work up a plan based on the idea of the second road being the 'back' side of the loop. Staging connections I will have to work out. Perhaps raising the second line and putting staging under it. I keep thinking I need two tracks into staging as well, but maybe I don't.

--Randy

[wrumbel]

Randy I have the same feelings about hidden tracks. In the mid 80s I was in a club and some of the members help design a layout for a 12 x 22 foot room. It was loop to loop with the loops stacked on one end. The layout formed a "G". I had a yard area and 2 branch lines. I had to move so the layout never got built. I had bought most of the track and many trunouts. In January of this year I got the bug again and dug out the old plan. After looking it over many times I decided it had too much hidden track; so now it's back to the drawing board for me too. By the way I'm also modeling the Reading.

[dehusman]

Why are you doing a dogbone?

Build an around the walls layout. Problem solved. loads go one way, empties the other. Staging can be anywhere you want it.

Dave H.

[Anonymous]

Randy,Ithink Dave's on the rght track.Double track both walls into a big loop,put a large staging area into one of your wider alcoves ,then run a loaded train one way and anempty one the other way.They don't have to run at the same time-try reusing the locos and caboose when you run the opposite direction.Then it'll be like you're actually modeling a section of line between the mine and the final destination.
Have fun,
Charles.

[rrinker]

Ah, but that would require a liftout around the freezer, a liftout around the furnace, a liftout around the door to the stairs, and a liftout around the storage cabinets that, per rules from SWMBO MUST stay in place. Duckunders are definitely out - the duckign under the section I have now is already getting old, at least with real operations there will be little reason to ever duck under where I do not.
I've managed to get all the non-removeable objects lined up in one place, right by the door and the furnace, so as to maximize the railroad space. So I can basically go up to the obstacles on one side, all the way around the basement, and up to the obstacles on the other side. Thus - dogbone-type layout.
In fact, as it's working out, this will end up being a Reading layout in name only, what with a parallel PRR line. It's definitely NOT what I would do if I were working alone, or rather, for my exclusive benefit. However, I am determined to make the best of the situation and have a decent railroad.
So what I have now (in planning) is 2 tracks around the walls I have access to, which loop around and become two MORE tracks following the walls around the basement as a different railroad. No 'stairstep' effect, the two lines will alternately cross over and under one another as well as run parallel at grade. I have an idea to do the yard sort of like Coatesville, with the yard on the low ground and the other main passing behind it at a higher elevation. And somewhere on the psuedo PRR line, Hell Gate Bridge needs to be put in (yes I know that wasn't on the PRR. But my father-in-law bought one of the MTH repro versions and wants to have it on the layout somehow with 3 or 4 tracks passing over it.). I WAS going to build this all as a double deck layout with one deck being Reading and the other PRR, and connect them with a helix. But because of the huge bridge, the PRR had to be the upper deck, and with the upper deck height limited, the lower deck would be too low for comfortable operation as well as too low to allow for the required storage underneath. Not to mention workbenches and bookshelves. And no, there is no way to convince him to forego the PRR line.
I think what I've gotten myself into here would give even a professional designer the shakes. But I've got to pull this off somewhow, or just forget about a basement empire for now. The current plan revision allows for eastbound Reading trains to go back out as Westbound, and vice-versa, but does not allow for PRR trains to do the same. This already drew negative reviews, but short of adding a second loop and making it into essentially two different layouts, I don't see it happening. Besides, with the way I've started drawing it, for Reading operating sessions, the PRR tracks become the staging yard, albeit visible.
My head hurts now... [:D]

--Randy

[pcarrell]

Hi rrinker,

I too have had to deal with a similar problem before. I don't know your exact situation but it strikes me that maybe this is a good place to use the "loads in - empies out" concept. In case you aren't familliar, it goes something like this;

Model two industries that serve one another such as a coal mine and a power station (logging operation / sawmill / furniture factory, whatever, the key is that they serve one another).

Model them on opposite sides of a large hill, scenic divide, anything to break the view.

Model them offset from one another.

Through the middle of the hill or whatever, lay in a small two track double ended yard.

Inside the hill (on the yard tracks) store empty coal cars (whatever) on one side and loaded on the other.

Now loaded cars always get pushed into the power plant to the left and empties always get pulled from the right (or whatever). Vise versa at the coal mine.

Just make sure that you can couple and uncouple where you need to so that it will work. You can either leave some cars in the hill or not. Eventually they will all come out at one time or another.

By carefully modeling the scenery you can diguise the fact that you are just shoving cars back and forth.

Now lay the rest of the tracks for your layout so that in order to go from one industry to the other you have to go all the way around the layout.

You could also put a third track throught he mountain that stays empty so that you could go roundy-round.

You could also model a cutoff track that is open scenery to go round in circles. Maybe negociate some shared trackage rights from the other railroad for the cutoff?


This is described in better detail in one of my modeling books but I don't remember the title right now. I've got it at work (yes, work, quit laughing) so I will post in tomm. and let you kow the title.

Maybe this will work somewhere on your layout, maybe not.

[rrinker]

Good stuff. Probably "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" That's the BIBLE of track planning. I have two copies, two different editions (I wore the older one out).

That's also why i like my collection of old Model Railroaders. Much of what went into that book came from various articles John Armstrong did ove the years. The articles often have a bit more detail on a particular concept. IE, the reverted loop is a 4 or 5 page article in the magazine.

--Randy

[Anonymous]

I saw in the current issue where we have the "Timesaver Revisitied" that shows the corner module with the mainline between two tunnels; otherwise that curve would be just one big tunnel.

You can have several feet of exposure on the track that you might otherwise not be able to see.

The first set would be simply several feet of track between two slightly different tunnel portals, the next set a sort of a set of bridges over a draw, river etc.. the third set if needed can be "coming" out of the woods that are thick and high enough to screen both ends of this section. The train will exit this "Woods" by disappearing behind whatever you choose (Tunnel, hillside, cliff etc etc or just more trees)

My concept is driven by three issues

1- unwatched trains derail
2- if you can see and enjoy your trains go for it
3- Photo ops for yourself or your visitors who might be "Ambused" by a train suddenly passing them to one side. A steam engine or set of desiels roaring out of the tunnel at a person's elbow unexpected can be good to watch.

[Anonymous]

Randy,

Sounds like a regular rats nest. I would suggest a careful deliniation of the design parameters might be helpful. I took a look again at your website and the drawing of the basement and the layout section that is completed. It appears that this section is in the short part of the" L" and would be connected to the longer part of the basement . It also appears that you want to avoid running on the walls next to the door, furnace etc.... Thus necessitating the turnback you were speaking of instead of an around the walls idea. It also sounds as if we are talking single deck. I begin to lose the train of thought at the dicussion of the two competing lines and the idea of persons nixing the traffic in one direction or another. It sounds like there might be too many chefs (which appears to be unavoidable in your situation). A few observations etc...

1. are you suggesting with the double mainline idea that both lines will return through the scene creating a four track run through ( two coming and two going)???

2. The idea of empties going in both directions or loads runing in both directions appears to be a non-sequitor because most layout designs will have this problem when any train is run in a loop and not point to point.

3. I totally agree with your dislike of hidden track. My last layout had half of the loop in hidden trackage and while I didn't have too many problems with it, I would not reccomend it as standard operating proceedure. My new layout has 300' of hidden staging and track, mostly in the helix and staging yards. This is my deal with the devil and I will let you know how it worked out in five years from now!!! I kept that track pretty acessible and turnouts out where they could be reached.

4. The industry idea described by Pcarrell is a solution for your loads in operation, but doesn't solve the run through problem.

5. What scenes or operation are a must have in your book? It seems to me that you and your father in law will not get exactly what you want from this layout so you should both get a little of what you each want and compromise on the rest. Let him have the bridge, you get a scene that you want etc.....

6. I think that you can avoid the extra track by making one main line eastbound run it around the loop at the turnback and have it return throught the scene as the westbound main. You will have a pair of mainlines running along through each scene next to each other. This avoids the spaghetti bowl look and means that you won't have to hide track. You can then have room for scenery and industires along the main. You will have such a long run that it shouldn't be a problem as far as not being able to run lots of trains....

7. Staging might be possible as a stub end yard 7" below the main deck connected to a two turn helix. You could store quite a few trains in a 15' long section. I have this on my new layout and it works well. Most people will tell you that you need at least a foot of clearance between decks but these are unusual circumstances....

8. How much do you value scenery and prototype look versus being able to run lots of trains??? Do your father in law and you agree on this point??? If you were to go with the run trains approach you would have track every where with little room for scenery. the other approach could yield quite a spectacular scenic layout with only minimal provisions for train running.

It would seem to me that maybe the scenery could be more generic and have the trains themselves create the look of hte PRR or the Reading...

What ever you do, I think that it will take some effort on the political side of things...We all like to the master of our own empires...Hope this is helpful..

Guy

[pcarrell]

Randy,

The book that I was refering to is "The Best Of Model Railroaoding Magazine's Track Plans" edited by Robert Schleicher. The copyright on my issue is 1983. The ISBN # is 0-9612692-0-0. I payed $6.75 for mine, but that was a few years ago.

Track planning for realistic operation is indeed an excellent book, and it remains a steady source of information, but I use the ideas in this book quite a lot also.

It is worth every penny you spend on it - trust me on this one!

Good luck, and let us know how it comes out.

[rrinker]

Great stuff Guy:

1. Essentially, yes. Although they will NOT be directly next to each other making the appearance of a 4-track main. They will be seperated by something - opposite sides of a river, one higher than the other, etc. The arrangement will be varied to prevent the tiered look.

2. You're probably right. The idea of hiding half a dogbone from an Armstrong article DOES eliminate this - if you have say a westbound loaded train, once it reaches the west end of the railroad, you wo't see it again until it loops all the way around to the east end of the layout and reappears, heading west. But trains wouldn't be looped during operations so it really doesn't matter.

3. nothing more needs to be said

4. exactly. I'll probably incorporate that 'trick' some place or another, but it doesn't solve the overal layout problem.

5. Well, I was already resigned to a more generic design rather than attempting to duplicate anything exactly. Even the yard is not going to exactly duplicate the real thing. My first attempts at design actually included the wye arrangment around the Outer Station (I figured eventually I could build a model of it, seeing as how I've never seen anyone else do it), but with my basement shape it just didn't work out. The connection at Alburtis with the C&F branch I would like to include with the line heading out a narrow penninsula industrial area.
Oh did I mention, he wants to have at least a short stretch of four track on the PRR side? Although where I am at with the plan right now there is a good place for that.

6. That is what I originally planned for, at least at the far end (opposite where the existing layout is). That concept doesn't work too well with incorporating the existing section, but is posisble at the opposite end. Although the simplest arrangment is where one side of the double dogbone is one line, and the other side is the other. Maybe if I seperate them at the far end - continuous runnign would then have a train run the length of the basement FOUR times before returning to the same track. That's a good thing.

7. I've really thought about it. But the end result would be that at each end there would be some 15-20 feet or railroad almost a foot lower (floor to bottom of benchwork clearance) which would definitely impact the ability to store things in the basement and that's strictly off limits. Basically I have air rights over the entire basement, to put it in prototypical terms. At least mostof the storage materials are containerized, not willy-nilly. That was one concession I got. I probably should have bought stock in Rubbermaid before buying all the tubs though.

8. Ah another problem. He prefers to run trains. I'm more into operating. This MAY change when he gets a taste of operating with a handheld throttle instead of from the console. He hasn't had a layout since his large Lionel layout in his parent's house in the 50's. All this time since he's been collecting and building equipment with no place to run it. He's a huge passenger train freak. I could care less about running a passenger train, I prefer way freights. (Which raises the question of why I chose the East Penn Branch of the Reading in the first place - which was mostly through trains. I was going to apply modeller's license and add more on-line industry than there really are). We're not even really era-compatible. I prefer the mid-50's. He runs anything from the late 40's up til Penn Central, meaning he includes those (ick!) green and yellow things.

There is plenty of time to plan and re-plan. I need to do some electrical improvements before we build any more benchwork, so for now we work with the 8x12..

--Randy

[leighant]

My first thought, especially where open-top traffic is an important consideration, would be around the walls with a duck under, or liftup, or drop gate, etc.

If that is definitely out, and I can see you have plenty of reasons, partly with personal preference, physiological limitations and "stuff" blocking the walls in certain parts of the room... you might consider what I will now dub a "split-level dogbone". A continuous loop that goes one time through a scene on one level and once through on a different level with a helix connection at each end. Your train is physically moving to the right on one level and to the left as it continues on the other, but the two are scenically separated to look like different places along the line. On one level, you are in effect looking at the train from the south side of the track and on the other, from the north side.
If you do something like this, you might make whatever level is most user friendly the one with more track complexity-- yards, industry, interchanges etc, and the level that is less convenient primarily a "run through" scene, perhaps with one or two passing siding locations and the staging on that level.

I dreamed up a scheme with a two level layout (warning: I haven't actually built it yet so it is untested) as a solution to a direction problem as well as space utllization. I want to model a north-south major Santa Fe line to the Texas coast, and I usually envision this trip as north to the left and south to the right.
I also want to model a secondary line to the piney woods of east Texas that goes east from the north-south line, and on that line, left should we west and right east. But regardless of the space, I want to be able to follow the train on both lines without ducking under while operating. My solution was a helix at one end with the more intense industrial metropolis and island seaport on lower level
http://www.railimages.com/albums/kennethanthony/abq.jpg


and more laid-back line through piney woods on upper level.
http://www.railimages.com/albums/kennethanthony/abr.jpg

[SpaceMouse]

I'm not sure how you are going to fit this into your layout, but I am using scenery elements to seperate tracks, so that trains running twice through an area, are running through two different scenes. For instance, a train going one way runs on the flat with spurs to industries. Running the other way, it running on a grade in and out of trees, only partially visable.

[dinwitty]

Your same problem I am solving with loads in/empties out..etc
adjoining locations on the layout are sceneically separated, a coal mine , the a power plant with tracks going thru a tunnel or hidden opening to the other side.

[Anonymous]

Randy,

Some follow up:

Lets talk benchwork height: How much clearance do you need underneath the layout???

Have you worked this out with your wife and others??? For example if you were going to build a double decker with say 40" and 55" deck hegths what would be the difference as far as the storage goes, in raising the height of your single deck to say 52" and going underneath for the staging we were talking about earlier?? I would try to get a commitment from the other parties on amount of storage underneath.....

One other thought did occur to me. Sounds like your father in law is in serious need of of a train running fix......He may calm down a bit after he has run his 10 car passenger trains around the basement at 90mph for a few hours.

My solution for the short term would be to build some generic benchwork in a rough approximation of the finished project in all of the space that you have in the basement for the big layout and put up a couple of big temporary loops on foam that run the whole length of the basement (Atlas code 100 flex, buy a box of 100 from mail order). Let him run till his stuff until he gets tired of going in circles.

I did this in my train room while I developed my evil (track) plan. It won't take you too much time and it will give you both an idea of what it will be like to run trains all the way around the basement. You will be able to use the benchwork as the basis for the permanent layout and you can use the flex for staging or what ever depending on what type of track you prefer. This wil buy you time to design the "Uber layout" while he gets to run trains. It will also define the space as a railroad space for the rest of the family and may make it easier to negotiate on storage, etc once the temporary layout has been up a while.

Some thoughts,

[pcarrell]

Trainnut is brilliant!

Do ya think the same concept would work for running staging down the hallway out of my trainroom?

[selector]

Ah, Dr. Evil is really Trainnut! [^] What a deliciously feindish idea, to make your kid learn that running trains in circles, even big ones, gets old really fast. He looks up at you with this look of realization, you look at him with innocence and one raised eyebrow (Dr. Evil), and mouth the words as he asks, "Daddy, can we get into more serious ops, 'cuz this sucks?"

You pat him gently on top of his head, and warmly reply, "Sure, Son. I was just thinkn' the same thing." [:D]

[rrinker]

Interesting thoughts. The lowest hanging part of my benchwork must be at least 36" off the floor to clear the storage containers and bookshelves. Setting a lower deck level of 40" would be tough, unless I stopped using foam. Where I'm at now with over 42" clearance underneath, I can actually stack 3 of the smaller ocntainers, which is highly desireable.

I think the key may be to stop thinking of it as a Reading line and a PRR line, and just do it as one big "Generic RR" and just run different sets of equipment. Sort of Batavia-style - load up appropriate equipment and it's whatever railroad we want it to be for that session. That may be my next angle.

--Randy

[Anonymous]

Randy, would a shelf style rail road work for you, approximately 24" wide off the side wall and then running the perimeter of the room? This is what I have done for the most part but I have included a section that now gives it a "G " shaped configeration. I have tied in all four walls with a duck under. The one lone peninsula runs almost the entire length of the room and runs parallel to the side wall and allows for more switching and operational possibilities. Food for thought.

Larry

[Anonymous]

I had the same issue when I started planning my new layout which is still under construction. I didn't like the idea of lots of hidden track so I only hid the return loops for when I want to run trains. Then it's my fault if I run a loaded coal train both 'East' and 'West' so I can be mad at myself. For Ops. sessions, the loaded coal train makes one pass from West to East and disappears into the return loop for the rest of the session. Ops. sessions don't use the return loops for anything else as they are planned to be point to point. Empty coal drags run from staging in the East to staging in the West and are returned after the session is over. Both my West and East staging 'yards' are visible and are near engine service facilities so they will give the appearance of being operating 'yards' when they really are not. Hope this gives you some more ideas.

[railroadyoshi]

Mr. Rinker (hey, im 12 and respectful)

My space is actually more like 8-9 feet
What I suggest is that you try a free standing dogbone, as I mentioned, and at the end where there wouldnt be enough space to walk around ( assuming 30-34in radius curves, create lift bridges to move you to the other side of the backdrop.
You could justify the train stopping for you to cross as a crew switch
This means at this end you could use very wide curves comepletely utilizing the 8 ft wide space. Inside of this you could put a helix down to staging(though that means more bridges, it would make more sense for there to be a junction near the turnback which wold branch, dtart moving to the lower deck down your 50ft straightaway, and still have 20-25 ft for staging on each side)
At the other end near the stairs you could turn the layout so there would be enough space to walk around without bridges.
I will try to send you a drawing of what I am thinking.

Siddharth Agrawal

[railroadyoshi]

Scrap the whole bridge junk I just mentioned (well, lets keep it on the back burner)
I took a second look at your space.
It seems PERFECT for the Free Standing Dogbone design
You have to wider spaces at the end that would be great for the turnbacks, and a long narrow space in between for the straightaway, well, maybe not the track, but the benchwork

Oh yeah, gotta attribute the idea to the University of Minnesota RR design, this is pretty much what theirs is.

Good luck
Siddharth Agrawal