nucat78 wrote: (Stein, I like your expanded Progressive Rail design.)
(Stein, I like your expanded Progressive Rail design.)
Thank you! Work is going slow among other committments, but it is moving in the right direction:
Verifying that I have enough room for trucks and other scenery:
Benchwork, lights - and a ton of assorted mess on top of the layout :-)
Next step is getting the backdrop in place and then lay roadbed and tracks. Still quite a while away from running the first train.
Grin, Stein
steinjr wrote: mammay76 wrote: Thank you everyone for your input and advice, its really helping and opening my eyes to alot more options. SPACEMOUSE, you are right im having a hard time seeing around the certain plan. th main reason why i was keeping the track straight w/ a 90 degree turn, is because the prototype's yard is straight, but of course theres no 90 degree turn!! my brain has been churning different ideas, and you are right again spacemouse...a operational challenge like i mentioned WILL become a pain and will get old quick!! i know from my past layout having a 3 car runaround track..i had to do 4-5 extra moves to get the engine on front of the cars for the trip back, it was fun at first,,but it got old quick!! again, thank you everyone for the advice and opening my eyes a bit!!! keep the comments/advice/suggestions coming!!SPACEMOUSE: im having a hard time understanding what you were saying about keeping the angle with the yard...could you please explain? thanksJoe I suspect he meant something like this (red lines show change): First turnout in ladder would change from a right hand turnout to a left hand turnout, and all tracks (and the switchback at the top) would be a little longer. You could also change the runaround track to a regular yard track and use the same trick to create a runaround parallell to the yard ladder (instead of moving the yard ladder). There are quite a few tricks that can be used to make do with less space than you originally think. Btw - I changed the title of my response back to your original thread title. Smile, Stein
mammay76 wrote: Thank you everyone for your input and advice, its really helping and opening my eyes to alot more options. SPACEMOUSE, you are right im having a hard time seeing around the certain plan. th main reason why i was keeping the track straight w/ a 90 degree turn, is because the prototype's yard is straight, but of course theres no 90 degree turn!! my brain has been churning different ideas, and you are right again spacemouse...a operational challenge like i mentioned WILL become a pain and will get old quick!! i know from my past layout having a 3 car runaround track..i had to do 4-5 extra moves to get the engine on front of the cars for the trip back, it was fun at first,,but it got old quick!! again, thank you everyone for the advice and opening my eyes a bit!!! keep the comments/advice/suggestions coming!!SPACEMOUSE: im having a hard time understanding what you were saying about keeping the angle with the yard...could you please explain? thanksJoe
Thank you everyone for your input and advice, its really helping and opening my eyes to alot more options. SPACEMOUSE, you are right im having a hard time seeing around the certain plan. th main reason why i was keeping the track straight w/ a 90 degree turn, is because the prototype's yard is straight, but of course theres no 90 degree turn!! my brain has been churning different ideas, and you are right again spacemouse...a operational challenge like i mentioned WILL become a pain and will get old quick!! i know from my past layout having a 3 car runaround track..i had to do 4-5 extra moves to get the engine on front of the cars for the trip back, it was fun at first,,but it got old quick!! again, thank you everyone for the advice and opening my eyes a bit!!! keep the comments/advice/suggestions coming!!
SPACEMOUSE: im having a hard time understanding what you were saying about keeping the angle with the yard...could you please explain? thanks
Joe
I suspect he meant something like this (red lines show change):
First turnout in ladder would change from a right hand turnout to a left hand turnout, and all tracks (and the switchback at the top) would be a little longer.
You could also change the runaround track to a regular yard track and use the same trick to create a runaround parallell to the yard ladder (instead of moving the yard ladder).
There are quite a few tricks that can be used to make do with less space than you originally think.
Btw - I changed the title of my response back to your original thread title.
Smile, Stein
Yup, that's the ticket!
Thank you stein! makes alot more sense now...i like it! i also like the plan you drew up for me, with that long spur following the main then branching off, looks really natural and prototypical...thank you!!
Modeling:
Providence & Worcester Railroad
"East Providence Secondary"
HO scale
That Guy wrote: Stein,What are the dimensions of your updated Progressive Rail Layout?
Stein,
What are the dimensions of your updated Progressive Rail Layout?
Layout scale is H0.
Room is approximately 11 1/2 foot by 6 1/2 foot.
Long shelf is 18" deep and about 10 1/2 feet long (chimney base at end is about two feet deep by one foot wide).
Shelf on left side (Wausau side) is about 10" deep and comes down about 4 1/2 feet from the outer edge of the long shelf.
Shelf on right (Rytway side) is about 2 feet deep in the corner by the chimney base, and is about 30" long along the tracks.
Rolling stock shown is not typical of the modern industrial park engines and cars.
Engines is short disesel switchers (a GE 70-tonner and an Alco S1) - prototypical engines would be EMD SW1500s.
Cars shown are 40' cars - which are unprototypical for the prototype in modern times (and the prototype didn't exist in the era I want to model - early 1960s in Minnesota).
So I am mixing and matching here - I am copying the track plan from a modern industrial park ca 2002, but I am using engines and cars from around 1960 or so.
The name "Progressive Rail" comes from the track plan, not from engines and rolling stock.
Guess I am postulating that the railroad (and the suburban industrial park) sprung into existence about 40 years earlier than it did - which is the opposite of what most people assume for protolanced railroads - that a fallen flag lived on longer than it did. Mmm - I suppose that means it is a "raised flag" instead of a "fallen flag"
Oh well, I can always update buildings and cars to more modern stuff later, if it should start to bother my conscience too much that my track plan is lifted from a modern prototype. As of now, my conscience is not bothering me about this
mammay,
i think that everybody has strengths and weaknesses with the different skills that are involved with the hobby. some guys are more artistic while others have a better ability to understand tech. and electronics, usually their layouts will reflect that. Eric Brooman's Utah Belt for example, he's an art teacher (i believe) but admits to being a "neanderthal when it comes to electronics", his layout looks excellent but i'm sure the wiring is probably fairly simple. 6 yrs. is a long time but it's not a long time, i'm sure that structures you build 5 yrs. from now will look alot better than one you build now, and so on, and so on. most important factor HAVE FUN with it, know you will get better with time.
a buddy of mine is figuring out a way to have easily interchangeable modules that can be stored under the layout (possibly can store 2 modules under each section). if you plan this in to doing your benchwork , while it's more work, could help you big time with the "i'm bored" syndrome. after you finish with your first sets of modules, you can run those while you work on the second set and then the third set. THAT'S A 3 IN 1 SPECIAL! also if you develope a standard for these modules you could join them all together if you ever wound up with more room someday.
good luck,
mammay76 wrote:Stein, Thak you very much for your advice!! ill take a look at some optons following those guidelines! thanks!
You are welcome. Btw - here is a 7x2 foot shelf switching layout I designed based on a real prototype (Progressive Rail in Airlake Industrial Park in Lakeville, MN).
It is not totally prototype true - the prototype didn't have a runaround - instead they (back in 2002) used two engines - one from each end of the mainline, to switch cars into spurs facing east or spurs facing west.
But it packs lots of switching into a small shelf, use standard turnouts (Peco code 75), and should be buildable and possible to operate.
I have since extended my plan (since more space became available when I relocated the layout to another room) and now my shelf switching design inspired by progressive rail looks like this:
Benchwork has been built and I hope to start laying track this weekend.
Good luck on your switching layout! Let us see what you end up with.
I like NuCat's idea of shifting the first plan to the right. Sometimes an idea sticks in your mind and you can't see around it--for instance a 90 degree turn. If you stop the turn at the angle of the yard ladder track, and then just run the ladder from that point (about 9" right of where you are now, you gain 9" or one and a half car lengths on each track, including the track that you need to pull cars off All American.
I want to comment on one thing you said, "operational challenge."
Operational challenge that creates extra moves becomes operational tedium very quickly. That is why it is avoided both on the prototype and layouts.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Joe,
I've dismantled my layout so many times, can't remember what the original concept was. Initially, I was going to model Georgia or Florida so I bought 3 HO Kato Seaboard RSC-2's and a Stewart Seaboard Alco switcher. I never opened up the boxes before I switched to C&O coal hauling to a power plant I scratch built. Now, I am inspired by Lance Mindheims's "Voodoo & Palmetto" layout to build something based in Florida (again). If I keep the RSC-2s, I need to have someone install decoders and the list goes on...... I decided the major problem with me getting bored with my layout concepts was the fact that my layout is primarily a winter project. I don't step foot in my layout room hardly at all in the spring and summer. In the fall, I have to jump start my interest. After three years, all I have is track that is "T" pinned down to Styrofoam.
Larry
mammay76 wrote: well, heres my track plan......the minimum radius will be a tiny 18", all turnouts will be #4 or the smallest size. track i plan to have micro engineering code 70. some of the industries might have to be scratchbuilt,, so i will have alot of opportunity to learn. seeing as the structures wont be large, i dont think it will be to pricey to learn how to do this. the runaround track is small..and theres only room for the engine to really squeeze through under the overpass..but i only plan on having 4-5 cars being brought in on the interchange. heres the other thing about the interchange....i will have to manually simulate it (i can live with that). so,,,YES i am happy with this plan, if you would like to critique it, feel free to. this is the only space i will work with at this time. i feel the shed should be off limits until i can get some more skill.
well, heres my track plan......the minimum radius will be a tiny 18", all turnouts will be #4 or the smallest size. track i plan to have micro engineering code 70. some of the industries might have to be scratchbuilt,, so i will have alot of opportunity to learn. seeing as the structures wont be large, i dont think it will be to pricey to learn how to do this. the runaround track is small..and theres only room for the engine to really squeeze through under the overpass..but i only plan on having 4-5 cars being brought in on the interchange. heres the other thing about the interchange....i will have to manually simulate it (i can live with that).
so,,,YES i am happy with this plan, if you would like to critique it, feel free to. this is the only space i will work with at this time. i feel the shed should be off limits until i can get some more skill.
Suggestion: run your mainline (red in figure below) down along the center line of the two shelves (or along center line of largest shelf and close to wall on the other shelf).
Why ? Then you can branch off both towards the wall and towards the aisle. Put the yard tracks closest to the aisle, industries along the wall, on the far side of the mainline.
Also, I suggest not having switchbacks on the ends of the main. By all means - have some spurs that are facing spurs relative to traffic, so you need to do runaround moves.
But branch them off in such a way that spurs goes towards the end of the shelves, not from the end of the shelves towards the middle - allows you to use the main part of the main as a switching lead when switching these spurs.
An illustration of the concept:
My tipping point was all those fine Walthers Kits sitting unbuilt. And a purchase of a small glass topped table for building them on.
That was 4 months ago. Now the layout gets built around them in my space. I have definate plans for future but for right now, getting those basic buildings in place and track laid to them has priority.
Maybe I run a helix. Maybe not.
If I can do it, anyone can and I am a dummy incompare at layout construction.
Good luck!
I like the first plan and there are a couple of minor tweaks, that in my opinion, you can do to improve upon it some more.
One is to try to not run tracks exactly parallel to the front edge of the layout. Your software may not be this flexible so it is what it is. But by using slight angles, curves and jogs you add some interest and it makes the space look bigger and more realistic.
You can also save a little space by eliminating the engine house. Often times small shortlines don't have engine houses and they simply park the engine out in the open. Build a small building or put an old caboose up on blocks near the spot to use as an office. Have an accessible parking area nearby for the fuel truck, too.
I think starting with a smaller and manageable shelf layout like this is an excellent way to start because it will be relatively easy to 'complete' it and not feel so overwhelmed with the amount of things to do or space to fill.
BTW: On my two-rail O-scale switching layout it took me many months to come up with the right track plan. But when I did I knew it. It was pretty exciting, actually, to finally hit upon the right plan for me and the space allocated.
OPTION II: here's another variation of the same plan...
the reason why i made another variation is because the mainline would be at the back of the layout..on the left of the layout is a closet..with the main line being up against the wall, i can tunnel through the closet (about 8 feet) to the other side going into the living room where i could make a small 2 track staging yard so i can have a real live interchangeand a link to the outside world for real. HOWEVER!!!! i do know the downside to this is having a long reach to the interchange and runaround track. (18" at 57" high) i know its not a great idea to have the yard arrangd like this, i remember reading about it in the 2001 MRP and other articles as well. i would also have to have the switch throws under the layout, if not i would have to reach over the AAF building. i would most likely go with rods under the layout to the switches push/pull operation.
should i make this sacrifice for better operation purposes and go against the rule?
thoughts and comments are always welcome!
Larry, yes I was thinking of scratchbuilding the AA foods building, it doesnt look to complex, pretty basic actually! it will be a great way to start learning basic scratchbuilding techniques and also be a unique building for the layout which will finally give a layout of mine some "local" feel.
Will you be scratch building the food plant? It looks pretty straight forward for that sort of construction.
Nucat, yes that is a short lead coming off the spur for the switchback, but i was wanting a operational challenge with the AAF spur, mainly to add a few more moves to make the job last a little longer! Trico will be getting/able to handle 2 bulk/covered hoppers and will have a few in the yard for when needed. AAF will be getting 1 box a day, as well as BB &s getting one load a day. i figure by adding a short lead coming off the spur, it would add at least 1-2 more moves, lengthening the session a bit. im just hoping it doesnt become a pain in the butt and i get sick of it!! lol!! im hoping to be able to move the yard to the right a bit more, the way im figuring i will only be able to hold maybe 8-10 cars in the yard at most. i did mess around with a 15" radius in RTS, but i think it would be way to sharp and would be just UGLY!!! Thanks for the input and advice, its greatly appreciated!
There isn't much room to pull cars off the All American Foods spur. Looks like enough room to pull one car, two at most before you foul the switch. But maybe you want that as an operational challenge.
I'd be inclined to shorten the AAF spur and lengthen the yard tracks, probably by shifting everythig to the right a bit if possible. I do like the plan though.
Just my opinion...
well, heres my track plan......the minimum radius will be a tiny 18", all turnouts will be #4 or the smallest size. track i plan to have micro engineering code 70. some of the industries might have to be scratchbuilt,, so i will have alot of opportunity to learn. seeing as the structures wont be large, i dont think it will be to pricey to learn how to do this. the runaround track is small..and theres only room for the engine to really squeeze through under the overpass..but i only plan on having 4-5 cars being brought in on the interchange. heres the other thing about the interchange....i will have to manually simulate it (i can live with that). one of the engines the seaview uses is a EMD SW-7 http://photos.nerail.org/showpic/?photo=200709051257219692.jpg&order=byrail&page=11&key=Seaview%20Railroad so this will be easy to replicate.
heres a picture of one of the industries i will replicate on this phase: all american foods
http://photos.nerail.org/showpic/?photo=200709071214439285.jpg&order=byrail&page=11&key=Seaview%20Railroad
EDIT: image fixed BTW... i drew the plan with RTS, i then did a printscreen and pasted it in MS paint to add the roads and buildings and text
Thanks for the advice guys!! i know i made a mistake when i dismantled the layout i already had...for the same reason that was mentioned, without a layout to operate on i will grow antsy and will want to rush through things to get up and running. BUT..i did make a small ho scale roundy rounder layout for my 7 year old son with 2 spurs, so im sure he wont mind if i join him on his "missions" (what he calls switching LOL!!). its good to hear that this is pretty common, when i first started making real layouts, i was a true roundy rounder with a few spurs here and there, but it got boring quick without true operations and purpose. i have learned ALOT..which i guess is all part of the big picture and the hobby. like i said, its good to hear im not alone! i will try to get a track plan up on the forum here in the next few days of what i am planning on doing. basically its a condensed version of the seaview railroad, i've compressed the 6 track yard into 3 tracks, not including the main and run around track, hiding the dead end of the yard (the real one connects back to the yard lead) under a overpass (very common i know..) that actually exists further down the yard, and i will use the good ol' mirror trick to give some more depth to the yard. its amazing how much of an effect the mirror has on the yard!! i will also represent the engine shed, and a few of the daily customers. the link i provided in an earlier post shows almost 200 pictures, and they all explain the customers names, and what service they get from the Railroad. i feel its a solid plan for phase I. i will have a live interchange with another road, 3 industries to get some operations in, AND most importantly,i can learn how to build detailed structures. all of this in HO scale in a space 6'10" x 18" with a 4' L and i still have more room to expand later.
i guess i am human by saying im very reluctant to build structures, its my biggest weakness, i have always been dissatisfied with my work. most likely because i never had the right tools and right mind set to do the job. i now have plenty of different exacto blades, sanding papers, metal magnetized blocks and a cookie sheet for forming the buildings, some good artist brushes (not the wally world value pack) now all i need is to get busy i guess!! AND take my time...theres no rush!!I am very motivated to learn, and i want to be able to create structures in high quality, that i can be proud to show or take pictures of and show. thank you everyone forr the advice and inspiring comments its great to hear!
Joe, even after a few layouts I restricted the size of my current project so I too could get to that point where I can super-datail. So Start off small and make it expandable or stike it up as a learning project. But never remove, dissmantle, or salvage the old layout until your new project is operational. You have to be able to run trains and switch from time to time.
I can think of two good examples of starting small and building onto the original;
John Allens Gore and Depheted(spelling). His original layout was in the middle of his layout. It housed a few landmark hobby structures like his enginehouse and the bridge accross the front.
Bob Grech. He used a trackplan from the '80 MR project Jerome and South Western, then expanded on it. Look him up on this forum. He has a current thread called "layout pics". He has some very good looking models.
John
Having made numerous layout designs for both my current home with a large basement, my old home with a smaller basement, and an apartment with a 10x11 spare bedroom, I have come to one conclusion. There is no such thing as a perfect layout design. No matter how much space we have, we are always going to want more railroad and more features than we have room for. At some point, you have to accept that whatever you come up with isn't going to have everything you want. That's why I am a firm believe in John Armstrongs approach of givens and druthers. The givens are the things that absolutely must be incorporated in any design. The druthers are the things we'd like to have if space permits. Your design should begin with the givens. Make sure those get in. Then look at the druthers and prioritize them and decide which are the most important and be prepared to jetison the rest. You might not have room for as large a classification or staging yard as you wanted, or your large passenger station might have to get by with 4 tracks instead of the 5 or 6 you wanted. Maybe it's a loads in/empties out operation that looks fascinating but is difficult to work into your schematic. (The last one was a big hang for me on some of my early design efforts). Layout planning is all about learning to compromise with yourself. Get as much of what you want in the space you have to work with and then go for it. And along the way, be flexible enough to change your plans as new ideas occur to you.
Lynn
Present Layout progress
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/290127/3372174.aspx#3372174
I've been sketching plans for the new layout since we decided to buy this house back in Spring 2006. I've finally decided that rather than try to cram all my ideas together on one layout, I'm going to build a double-deck layout with each deck being in essence a separate model RR: The upper a 12" shelf layout which will emphasize northern MN iron ore operations and be point-to-point (well staging-to-point), it will widen out at one point to allow an iron ore receiving yard and roundhouse/turntable and engine facilities, and feature switching of ore cars to and from the ore dock, and making up and breaking down trains which will run to and from staging; and the lower level, largely a 16" shelf layout which will probably be double-track continuous run mainline (widening out to around 6' to allow "dogbone" loops) featuring more Twin Cities type railroading - long passenger trains, grain trains, piggyback trains, and a fair amount of wayfreight switching.
But from experience, I know I can only plan down to a certain level of detail, at some point I have to have move stuff around and try different things before deciding where each building and siding etc. will go - and even then, I might move things around a time or two before I'm satisfied.
Do you need to have any kind of layout to build structures?
You could mount individual structures on a small base. Build kits that interest you rather then worry about where they would go. Once you did build a layout, you could easily move the structures to it. Perhaps building some structures will give you inspiration on the design of your next layout.
I have a few kits I am going to build before I move on to the kits for my small n-scale 3x5 "test" layout. They have no place on it.. but are inexpensive small brick buildings that will help me develop skills I will need to make the two kits going on the layout.
Chris