Layout Design Update

[Anonymous]

Okay, here's the latest plan after quite some time of reconsidering/reworking. Prep work on the room is done and I'm ready to start benchwork. Any comments before I do that are most welcome.

Pertinent facts:

Room size: Approx. 20x30', grid is 1' squares.

1. Minimum mainline radius - 30"
2. Era - Late 40's
3. Line - PRR
4. Locale - Central Pennsylvania "protolance" river valley... Think if PRR ran a line up the Susquehanna river from Enola northward...
5. Terrain (not shown on plan). The idea is a line running up a river valley a la the NYC's Hudson branch. The front 1' or so of the benchwork is therefore flat and level, sloping from there up to the wall as rolling hills. The central peninsula is a taller hill with access underneath to loadsin-emptiesout, reversing/hiding loop, etc.
6. Benchwork. Around-the-walls with a peninsula. Height will be about 50" (I'm still playing with the exact number, but quite high. I'm 6'1" and plan to build it roughly chest-high to me.
7. Grades: None. I prefer to add verticality with terrain. In the future a logging/mining line (perhaps narrow-gauge) will occupy the higher terrain.
8. Room. Walls are shown in Red. The area where the tracks seem to go "through the walls" is a void space under the stairs - just open studs that are accessible from the staging area. Two entrances: one at lower left goes into hidden staging area. Primary entrance is at lower right. Yes it's a "nod under," but at the benchwork height I plan, I'm okay with that... Rather nod under than hassle with a lift-bridge or similar.
9. Other Known issues. There are some long "reaches" in places, up to 36". Most of these have no track at the "back," but a few do. I've reconciled myself to this, though 36" reach is not undoable for me (long monkey-knuckles-scrape-the-ground arms, as my wife calls 'em)

That's all I can think of... Feel free to ask ?'s...

[Anonymous]

FWIW, here's how I'd integrate the "logging line" ... The apple farm will be modeled after a nearby mountaintop apple farm, served by a rickety, steep old branch.

[Tom Bryant_MR]

kchronister, wow! That is a lot of space.

You have a wye at the 9 o'clock position. It runs into a reversing loop. You could get rid of the loop and just extend the tail of the wye up to the 11 o'clock position.

I'm planning my deck at 52" and I personnally do not want to be "nodding" under it. I'm 5' 11".

[Anonymous]

Sorry dude, but thats a pretty poor design, with that kind of space you need to plan carefully and slowly, I'd suggest picking up the Tony Koester and John Armstrong books on track planning, and get back to the drawing board.

[Anonymous]

Tom - Thanks: I'll think again about how I get trains to reverse from either direction. You definitely make a good point.

The idea was to provide an easy "disappear" (to another locale) then "reappear later" (coming back the other direction)...

I must admit part of it is just personal preference, avoiding the start-stop-reverse-start again a wye requires. I find that tougher than just "continue through" and flip a couple turnouts (all underneath a mountain, working off location sensors or maybe a cc cam if I get really ambitious)... But that's quite possibly just my own bias/preconception and I'll re-examine it.

The nod-under is what it is: a compromise. I can give up continuous running, deal with a lift-bridge of some kind, or duck... None is ideal, all are reasonable solutions. I certainly recognize that many absolutely feel my chosen solution is not for them.

[MEC568]

Okay, I'll bite...

Why is it a poor design?

Chris

[Anonymous]

Armchairing - If you're genuine in your opinion, help me out here with some specifics.

Here's my dilemma, and why I need more than a "pretty poor" from you... Right now, I'm looking at responses on 3 message boards and you seem to be alone in your "pretty poor" opinion; some folks love the layout, some are okay with it, some are ho-hum... I'm not getting one single "Pffft total thumbs-down" in dozens of other responses... So I start off a bit mystified.

Then, you're definitely alone in the lack of ANY specifics, suggestions, feedback, or reasons for your opinion. All the other posts I see say "I like this" or "don't like that" or "consider rethinking A and B"... But since you haven't seen fit to give any specifics, feedback or useful/actionable info, I have nothing to go on.

The one thing you offer is the standard, rote advice to read Koester and Armstrong... But you see, the thing is I'm sitting here looking at my well-worn copies of both Mr. Koester's and Mr. Amstrong's books, the 3 previous layouts I've actually built and enjoyed over the past 25 years using them (and many others I have, not to mention years and years and years of MR back issues).

I'm then looking at the design that (to me) incorporates a lot of what they say (sans some common elements they use which I simply don't like: multiple decks, lots of grades and crossovers, a tendency to spaghetti-bowl design with more track-to-surface density than I like, and a general aversion to continuous-running). And I gotta wonder what the heck you're talking about. I gotta wonder 'cuz you aren't giving me anything to work with here..

But I also realize that maybe all you wanted to do was glance at the thing and toss off quick response with the generic "read Koester and Armstrong"... If that's the case, it's cool. I already took your advice starting about 20 years ago... and I can simply say Good Luck with that bus full of scorpions thing. It's an... um... interesting thought.

[rolleiman]

Is this a final exact plan with all the trackwork shown?? I'm seeing,

A double track mainline [tup]
Lot's of yard space [tup]
Loads in Empties out [tup] I wish I could cram one into my layout..
Very small turntable [tdn].. It looks like you've drawn the atlas turntable in there (smaller than 12" diameter) just to place one for reference.. By the time you get a big enough turntable and roundhouse (you did say 1940s right?) in there, you will have over a 48" reach to the back tracks, Over the roundhouse...

The reverse loop off of the wye.. I'm not seeing any particular advantage unless you are planning on the feature that Armstrong had where the train would disappear into the tunnel, with no turnout showing outside of it, and later would come back from wherever it went.. I think there was also a tail track on the loop that was used to assist in that operation.. (which is partly why I ask if you've drawn ALL the trackwork)..

The industrial switching near the passenger terminal... ho-hum.. Mosly because you have quite a long run in there to drop off a few cars.. That space, to me, screams Timesavers.

I could spend months drawing plans for a space like that and don't know that I'd come up with a whole lot better but I would be planning on multiple routes out of that class yard using the WYE idea as the routing option.. Probably put the passenger terminal in that area too. Which ever plan I would draw though, the benchwork would end up being basically the same.

I just spent hours writing ebay ads so I'm probably a bit loopy right now.. I hope something I said made sense..

Good luck, Keep us posted on the progress...
Jeff

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rolleiman

Is this a final exact plan with all the trackwork shown?? I'm seeing,

A double track mainline [tup]
Lot's of yard space [tup]
Loads in Empties out [tup] I wish I could cram one into my layout..
Very small turntable [tdn].. It looks like you've drawn the atlas turntable in there (smaller than 12" diameter) just to place one for reference.. By the time you get a big enough turntable and roundhouse (you did say 1940s right?) in there, you will have over a 48" reach to the back tracks, Over the roundhouse...

The reverse loop off of the wye.. I'm not seeing any particular advantage unless you are planning on the feature that Armstrong had where the train would disappear into the tunnel, with no turnout showing outside of it, and later would come back from wherever it went.. I think there was also a tail track on the loop that was used to assist in that operation.. (which is partly why I ask if you've drawn ALL the trackwork)..

The industrial switching near the passenger terminal... ho-hum.. Mosly because you have quite a long run in there to drop off a few cars.. That space, to me, screams Timesavers.

I could spend months drawing plans for a space like that and don't know that I'd come up with a whole lot better but I would be planning on multiple routes out of that class yard using the WYE idea as the routing option.. Probably put the passenger terminal in that area too. Which ever plan I would draw though, the benchwork would end up being basically the same.

I just spent hours writing ebay ads so I'm probably a bit loopy right now.. I hope something I said made sense..

Good luck, Keep us posted on the progress...
Jeff

Thanks, Jeff. Believe me when I say I hear you about the "I could spend months" thing... I have (okay, okay... 3 months)! I've actually reached the point where I'm guilty of dragging my feet, and part of putting this out here is to draw a line in the sand for myself saying "after I bring in any feedback from this, I will start building..."

Yes, it shows all the track, but some is a little more "final" than other bits. More on that in a second.

You nailed me on the turntable. I put the little atlas as a placeholder because that's what RTS has. It's actually a 130' walthers (i.e. that's what I own) and by making the tail tracks awfully long I had created a "circle" that left enough space for it (the table is actually 20" diameter all told). But in working and reworking the bloody thing, I think you're right -- I sort of "forgot" it was a representation only, ended up designing to it "as is" and messed that up.

And yep, that's also the area with the worst "reach" issue already. Sigh. The one mitigating factor I can offer up is tthat those tracks behind the roundhouse are to be under the terrain and accessible from underneath the layout (i.e. the roundhouse would back right up to a retaining wall in the side of a hill or something similar).. Not ideal, but possibly better than a 48" reach!

The wye-loop thing is 100% inspired by Armstrong, and that's the exact idea. It's not only to reverse trains, but also to park one in and have it later "reappear" coming back the other direction. The best way I can put it is that both parts are there for a reason. The Wye is basically to allow trains to enter in from and exit out to either direction: thus it can actually act as a "reverse"... or not. In some ways, the wye is actually a by-product of two tracks coming off the mainline in opposing directions - the third track of the wye is actually just the main going on its merry way. Once we get through the wye, the loop is then there to both reverse trains (without the need to start-stop-backup, etc.) and/or to act as a holding loop... Regardless, it seems like I should drag out the Armstrong book and look that over again. It's certainly the single-most commented upon aspect thus far.

The industrial spur behind the passenger terminal is what I meant when I said some track is less 'final'... That was really there as shorthand for "I'll put some sort of industrial trackage back here." I readily agree the lead is too long, and will need to be reworked somehow. At a minimum, I can simply move the turnout "down" and have a much shorter lead to the drop off area... But I'd love any ideas for an interesting way to use that space.

I'm not 100% clear on what you mean when you say you'd put the passenger terminal in "that" area, but it intrigues me. I love the idea of having more exit paths from the yard using the wye, and will definitely be playing more with that.

Cheers,

Kris

[Anonymous]

What kinds and mix of cars are you going to be using?

[Anonymous]

Lee -

It's PRR late 1940's, and I try to be relatively prototypical, though not fanatically so... So you won't find any Acela's or late model diesels, but the occasional anachonism or not-quite-right element doesn't bug me. Example: I have some nice early F-series diesels that really weren't prevalent until the early 50's.... But I runs 'em anyhow. And if my daughter or son ventures down to the basement, Thomas the tank engine usually comes out to run about too... Considering how many times we've ridden on the "real" Thomas over at the Strasburg Railway, I'm willing to say there's a prototype justification for that (though a bit out of era...)

All the rolling stock in question ran nicely on the previous layout with 22" curves (excepting the T-1, which was tested on a basic 22" loop and did fine). So operationally no issues there. Looks-wise, we can do better even if things "run" okay. That's why 30" minimums on the new layout (and most of the curves that are "out front" and more visible are even higher radius - 36-40")

I'm very into passenger rolling stock and operations (thus the large space devoted to this). So there are lots of passenger cars. In keeping with the era, there are some "fleet of modernism" streamlined cars, but still a goodly number of holdover 'heavyweight' cars. FWIW, these are mostly Rivarossi with some Spectrum thrown in. The Walther's cars came out after the old layout was deconstructed, so I've not yet given those a shot.

Passenger motive power is handled by a fleet of K-4 4-6-2s, and a couple T-1 4-4-4-4s. There's a GG1 that puts in an occasional appearance, though on none of my layouts have I yet strung actual catenary to make it look reasonable... So I mostly just deal with having a "magic" GG1 that runs without electricity! There's also the previously mentioned F-series diesel set (A-B set)

On the freight front, there's a lot of ice-reefers and box cars. Nothing overly-long in keeping with the era. Mostly 40' or less. Some gondolas and older tankers in there too. Broad mix of brands, a fair number of Athearn bluebox items through. A roster of shorty ore cars is there for mine duty. Motive power here is largely light and heavy mountains working out their final days. I plan to bring on some appropriate diesel power over time too.

On the "logging line" front, we're in new territory. I have a collection of shays, a 2-6-6-2 articulated logger and a heisler, that previously had no real purpose or rationale on my layout... I just like 'em and thus a logging line was born. The apple farm on the same line is based on a real prototype near my home, and will likely end up using custom-decorated reefers (as the prototype does) and I have no idea what motive power... Today they use small switcher-type diesels. I'll have to research what would have been realistic back in the day.

I'm miserably void of switchers, having had very little yard area in the prior layout. Switching is handled by a single 0-6-0 and there will have to be significant additions in this realm...

That's probably more than you needed to know. Feel free to comment and or ask if you think I'm missing anything.

[Anonymous]

Here are a few questions I have.. or maybe questions you should ask yourself.

1) While I think the idea of the hidden wye is interesting, it's operationally kinda boring. It's right outside of your yards so, it looks like it would take about 3 minutes from the time you depart the yard to the time you park the train. Not alot of fun for an operator.

2)Your staging is in a really bad area in my opinon. The trains coming out of staging look like they are by-passing the class yard. This is pretty unprototypical and has me "lost". Staging is best when it feeds trains into your yard, not around them.

3) Your classification yard has a problem. Lets say you are bringing a train travelling from right to left into your yard. 4 tracks stub on the left so you cannot get the engine to the roundhouse. Two of the tracks do have a switch on the left but, you would have to keep both of those tracks clear everytime you brought a train that is running right to left.

4) How do you plan on having your passenger engines run around their trains and shove them into the terminal? The whole passenger yard and terminal area looks like it won't work once you start operating. Unless this is a huge city or the terminal for evening commuter trains you really don't need a whole passenger yard. Maybe a small REA terminal but, that's about it.

5) How busy will the passenger terminal be? Looks like it could get cramped with 3 or 4 operators at once. 1 terminal switcher, 1 passenger engineer, 1 freight engineer and 1 industry switcher engineer. Are you sure you want to be reaching over your terminal to switch cars into the industries located against the wall there?

Here are my suggestions.
1) Move the class yard against the wall on the left. Double end the yard.
2) Place the roundhouse in the top left corner
3) Place a passenger terminal/station against the top wall.
4) Arrage the tracks in and out of the roundhouse so you can send engines to both the freight yard and passenger yard without entering the main.
5) Instead of having a hidden wye and loop I would suggest a hidden two or three track staging yard. Maybe fake a local. Have an operator make his train up in the class yard, pick up cars at industries along the way then park it in a clear track in the hidden staging. Then a few hours later he comes back and pulls the other train out of staging. Making pick ups and set offs on his way back to the yard, then yarding his train. In fact you can still have this as a wye but I would make it more visable. Maybe have 1 local, 1 clear track and one loaded coal train. The loaded train could run out to the loads in/out and do his thing and head back home into the hidden staging.

Ok, hope I did not discourage you too much, Just wanted to get you thinking about how the plan you have would work.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kchronister

Armchairing - If you're genuine in your opinion, help me out here with some specifics.

Here's my dilemma, and why I need more than a "pretty poor" from you... Right now, I'm looking at responses on 3 message boards and you seem to be alone in your "pretty poor" opinion; some folks love the layout, some are okay with it, some are ho-hum... I'm not getting one single "Pffft total thumbs-down" in dozens of other responses... So I start off a bit mystified.

Then, you're definitely alone in the lack of ANY specifics, suggestions, feedback, or reasons for your opinion. All the other posts I see say "I like this" or "don't like that" or "consider rethinking A and B"... But since you haven't seen fit to give any specifics, feedback or useful/actionable info, I have nothing to go on.

The one thing you offer is the standard, rote advice to read Koester and Armstrong... But you see, the thing is I'm sitting here looking at my well-worn copies of both Mr. Koester's and Mr. Amstrong's books, the 3 previous layouts I've actually built and enjoyed over the past 25 years using them (and many others I have, not to mention years and years and years of MR back issues).

I'm then looking at the design that (to me) incorporates a lot of what they say (sans some common elements they use which I simply don't like: multiple decks, lots of grades and crossovers, a tendency to spaghetti-bowl design with more track-to-surface density than I like, and a general aversion to continuous-running). And I gotta wonder what the heck you're talking about. I gotta wonder 'cuz you aren't giving me anything to work with here..

But I also realize that maybe all you wanted to do was glance at the thing and toss off quick response with the generic "read Koester and Armstrong"... If that's the case, it's cool. I already took your advice starting about 20 years ago... and I can simply say Good Luck with that bus full of scorpions thing. It's an... um... interesting thought.

Okay i'll bite:


Your staging/fiddle yard is in a strange spot, directly behind your main classifcation yard. II'd have it away from the main yard so your trains can travel from yard to yard realsitically without using completely bypassing it then coming back, that isnt productive. Plus the staging is stub-ended and short. Not very usefull.

Stub ending classfication yard tracks: Not really a good idea as you normally want a drill crew at both ends of the yard. I'd place a staging yard along that wall where the town under the trestle is. If your not heavy into operations like I am, just ditch it.

Whats the purpose of that reverse loop/wye? You have a turn table, you dont need 3 different ways to turn power

Turntables too small to turn anything but a Geep at a time. And your modeling the 40's, that tiny atlas turn table isnt gonna turn I1sa's and 2-10-4's!

Engine terminal is lazyly designed, no offense, but you have room for a nice terminal, just tossing it there as an afterthought isnt selling to me. Service and ready tracks are needed.

The yard lead could be longer.

Whats the point of a classfication yard? You dont have many online industrys and the way your staging works into the plan it makes no sense for it to be there. Which leads to...

Online industrys are slapped in as an afterthought and the placement isnt very prototypical. If your not big on having industrys on the main layout, put a smatten on that logging deck, you can run turns out of your main yard and into the branch, serve them, come back and assemble them into trains and run it to staging, rinse and repeat. Its basic op's.

The loads in/emptys out operation needs a tail track.

Passenger terminal is too big, unless your running crack streamliners through 24 hours a day your not gonna need such a big terminus. Plus theres no swiching leads. If your gonna be running crack passenger trains, your not gonna want to foul a mainline track with the switch work being done on them! If your big into running the station, design it so it can be operated on its own with its own leads and engine terminal.

Your plan for the logging line would be better suited to move coal.


If your more a railfan modeler then a serious ops guy, then just ditch the staging yard, Build a workable classfication yard and passenger terminal, then just have fun.

[rolleiman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kchronister

I'm not 100% clear on what you mean when you say you'd put the passenger terminal in "that" area, but it intrigues me. I love the idea of having more exit paths from the yard using the wye, and will definitely be playing more with that.

Cheers,

Kris

I think the best way I can explain it is to show it to you.. I'm sure you've seen this plan before, it's published both on the atlas website (which is the source for this photo) and in thier book 6 model railroads (or something like that)..

[image]http://www.atlasrr.com/Code100web/images/10029.jpg[/image]

Forget about the overall track plan but concentrate on the terminal area that comes into the double tracked wye.. That's what I'm talking about.. It's something I've always wanted to do but the way my space lays out, I can't maintain the 30" minimum radius.. In a space like Yours, however, it would be my starting point for the plan. Kind of an East/West sort of thing, basically 2 seperate mainlines eminating from a huge passenger terminal.. I'm thinking on the scale of St. Louis Union Station here. That, of course, would require an entire rework of your plan and that's not what I"m suggesting but I do think the classification area of your plan is where I'd put the passenger termnial.. Just for the visual effect of it. With a free 20x30 space to work with, I'm having serious space envy issues here [:I]...

Jeff

[Anonymous]

Jeff - Thanks, that clarifies it a lot. I like the concept, and might well try a "blank sheet" approach using it... After all this itme one more design won't break the bank or anything... And part of me would LOVE to just give over the entire peninsula to a reasonable approximation of St.L Union Station... Would also justify going into rolling stock above/beyond PRR (which might be a very bad thing, at least for the wallet!)

armchairking... Thanks, I'll take all that into account. Several of the items you mention have been raised before, and I addressed some of 'em in prior posts (the turntable thing, for instance, which is a vagary of RTS, not an actual intention to use a little Atlas, or why the wye...) It certainly gives me more direction to improve the plan than "pretty poor." Thanks for taking the time.

[Anonymous]

kchronister
Thanks for the reply on the rolling stock. You already have some good input from others that I tend to agree with.

[Leon Silverman]

One reason many model railroads have access problems (36" plus required reach) is that many planners insist on running parallel to a room's wall. Straight runs are protypical, but if the center of those runs bowed away from the wall, at, say, a 100" radius curve, you would create a space between the layout and the wall that would provide easier access.

[Anonymous]

I like the wye but as said earlier I would use it for hidden staging. The problem I have with it is that I was under the impression that a double main had one track devoted to each direction. You need some crossovers if that is the case.

The loads in empties out is nice but I don't see one cutting across the peninsula like that. If the shortcut were possible the railroad would have done it. Work a little with the industries. You have a great start there.

[SpaceMouse]

Hi,

I'm joining in late, but I would ask a couple of questions.

What is it you like about model railroading? Is it watching trains run, beer in hand flipping a switch, here or there? Is it taking trains from somewhere breaking them down building them up and sending them off. Is running passenger trains from place to place and pciking up passengers. Is it long trains meandering through the hills.

What do you see as the most interesting thing?

Do you see your scenes intact, or do you have trouble visualizing them and just put out buildings because you think you need them?

Have written down you givens and druthers? Or did you just kinda sorta mentalize them?

What is the purpose of your railroad? Why did the PRR build it?

[pkeppers]

I think spacemouse is asking the right questions. It all depends on what you want to do with the layout.

I'm building a layout very similar in size (mine is about 22 X 28) and I had a very specific goal in mind with mine, recreating mainline traffic on a mountain crossing of the Northern Pacific in a reasonably realistic manner (as defined by me). As such I have about 6 scale miles of mainline but I dont have a classification yard, major passenger terminal, or engine facilities which most layouts that size have.

So, do you have a good idea of how you want to operate? Multilple operators, mostly just you, timetable, classification yard operation (making and breaking up trains), local freight on line switching, etc?

[Anonymous]

Thanks again for all the input, gang. After due consideration here's a significantly revised layout.

I've tried to color code for clarity too:

Blue track = mainline
Red track = yards
pink track = hidden
brown track = sidings
green track = logging/mining branch
green lines = edges of benchwork
red lines = full-height walls

A couple caveats:

1) Armchairking: I have not yet fully laid out the engine service area. The space is there for it and the tracks there are really just 'placeholders'

2) I am generally a lone wolf operator. I'd say I have other operators about 10% of the time, and generally only 1 or 2 others, not a whole gang. (I live in a very small town, there just ain't that many of us here)

3) I'm into having my cake and eating it too. I don't favor "just let 'em run" over "build/undo/switch/etc." operations. I generally like to incorporate both - for instance, have a couple trains circling the mainline continuously, while I do my switching/delivery operations and deal with avoiding the 'mainline' trains. Having said all that, continuous-running is one of my givens.

4) I am distinctly skewed toward passenger operations, thus the large passenger terminal (and extensive city scene planned for that edge of the room).

5) I'm considering a change of my "protolance" locale to a midwestern river city, where the "union station" can justify passenger operations by multiple roadnames. Think St. Louis in an alternate dimension (I'm not going to try actually modeling St. Louis Union Station!) to get the right idea.

6) The reverse loop is there on purpose, and purposely has an entry/exit in both directions. I like the old having a train disappear for a while, then reappear coming back the other direction, particularly for passenger ops where the train went to City X and is now returning to City Y.

On to the plans:

Main level:



Logging/Mining Line: