SpaceMouse wrote: created a vision of what you wanted to do then set out to recreate it.
Do you have the space to do a sort of "G" shaped 2' wide walk-in layout in the same space? That would give you a lot of flexibility in how you lay things out and make it easier to factor out the switchbacks. With an industrial switching layout you don't need to plan continuous running which allows you to get away with a spiral shaped shelf layout. This would also allow you to have larger curves in places which will look better.
Your layout may be a good candidate for a sectional layout made of 2x4' sections allowing you to start modestly and add more industries and switching as you go along.
Rather then a large interchange perhaps just a staging track behind a backdrop where cars can enter and exit the layout?
Chris
I hope you don't mind...here's a larger version of your photo so it is easier to see...
Don Z.
Research; it's not just for geeks.
The Hoboken Shore is a very interesting prototype. I've done a couple of layout designs based on the HBS. One is a 12-foot-long HO shelf-style switching layout that could be bent to fit your space.
Here's a thumbnail image:
You can read more detail and see a larger, labeled track plan here. We had to make a couple of small modifications to this plan to fit the client's space and one of the improvements was a longer runaround than is seen in these images. But you can at least see the outline of what we did.
As others have noted, there are lots of challenges with the first plan you posted. One of the problems with CAD is that it lets you do a lot of things that aren't workable from an operations standpoint.
I'd also strongly suggest that you rethink the use of Snap Switches. Switching operations involve a lot of shoving cars -- that can sometimes be a problem with a Snap Switch and a 50- or 60-foot car.
Good luck and have fun!
ByronModel RR Blog
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
First of all there's a lot to like about what you have done. First of all, you created a vision of what you wanted to do then set out to recreate it. You threw out the notion of a roundy rounder and set about making a switching layout.
The second thing you did well was to spot the buildings so that there was plenty of room to fit them in.
Both of those things, creating a vision and allowing for buildings is something that some modelers don't get until they've made a couple layouts.
The biggest problem is that you need a little help understanding how trains do business. The main thing here is that they try to keep it simple, why go back and forth a lot when you can get the track in on a straight shot. What seems like fun at first, even on a model layout gets old pretty quickly.
There were two suggestions given that you might consider. IF you look at the space you have and design for the space, you might find you have more flexibility than an island layout.
If you have to have the island, then Dave's suggestion to run a divider down the middle of the layout has a lot of merit. You could easily design 4 scenes, or four switching opportunities, and you would have room for both a yard and an inter change area. And you could have continuous running with out sacrificing your operational capabilities.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Many thanks for the initial comments. It's amazing, you spend hours and hours making sure your runarounds are the proper length, turnout radii are ok, and you forget the big giant monolith taking up a 3rd of your layout is a waste of space!
The best informaiton on hte prototype I'm using as inspriation can be found here:
http://hbs.railfan.net/
It's funny, but after looking through your critiques (and you all basically revolve around the same basic ideas) I notice there are few if any switchbacks on the prototype (the major exception is at the Bethlehem Steel Rapir facility). To your point, I may be pushed back to the drawing board, but I'm having trouble with the concept of the separate "L"s.
On the actaul working space, I have a large semi-finished basement to work with. I started simply with the idea of a 4x8, but it grew as I needed to make room for the waterfront area.
I've actaully already tried to remove some of the switchbacks, but I may see if there isn't a way to remove some more.
Many thanks for the help so far, and the patience with the noob!
~rb
I noticed the exact same things the prior posters have noted.
1. The interchange yard is practically unusable. The first track (from the top) is totally unusable, and the 2nd can only take cars one at a time. There just isn't any lead track for it anywhere.
2. It is a "saw" design. To get almost anything done one must saw back and forth over several tracks (often ones that need cars spotted on them).
3. The 3/4 of a square design is going to make reaching some of the most interior parts difficult. Depending on the space availability two 2x4 wings might be a better choice.
Do you have some real locations we could research to help with the critique.
The interchange yard isn't useable at all.
Any train using the docks has to saw through the engine facility to get there, not really user friendly.
The "main yard" looks like it will hold maybe 3 cars.
if you are absolutely wedded to the footprint ( a 4x8 with a 4x4 tacked on it to form an "L") I would suggest the concept that you draw a line down the middle of the benchwork and for an 8x8 two foot wide "L" and a 6x6 two foot wide "L" back to back. Put a stb ended yard on the 8 foot side of the big L with a small industrial area around the corner. Then have a industrial area on each of the 6 foot legs of the small L. A row of tall buildings would go down the middle. That would create a "yard " zone and 3 separate switching areas.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
A couple big things right off -
Your interchange yard is absolutely dead in terms of operations. The top most two tracks are not usable, at all.
Many of your industries require doing switch backs back and forth numerous times to spot cars. This becomes a problem when you need to bring in loads, pull empties, and then spot the loads in their place.
With a 4x8 area, with a 4x4 tacked on to it, you're going to have a hard time reaching 100% of the layout without having access to all sides. With that amount of space, it may be a time to evaluate how big your layout needs to be. It seems like you decided on a large 'flat' area to work with before trying to analyze how the track plan should flow.
A "plywood prairie" is not the greatest way to start railroading. You're going to find that it's difficult to cover all 32 square feet right away, and that seems to be a big detriment right off - It just doesn't look like a "railroad".
I've got a solution for you that I'll post in a few minutes that uses about the same amount of space, but will offer great improvements over operations.
This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements
Hi all-
Apologies for what appears to be ANOTHER one of these posts (I've been lurking on this forum for a while, but this is my first post) but I would love some advice, suggestions, critiques and flat out "get real" advise from fellow modelers. Let me introduce my concept:
BACKGROUND
This project is my return to model railroading. My father and I built a never-finished O Scale model when I was growing up, and this is the first time since then that I've had the desire and the space to do it. I'm definitely a beginner in this, so I've decided to give a 4' X 8' with a 4' x 4' peninsula a go. The idea was to create something manageable in size, but at the same time set up in a way that's readily expandible.
PREMISE
I have a love of switching, and in particular my favorite railroad EVER is the Hoboken Shore Railroad. I want to model something similar, set in the mid ot late 1970's. The railroad will use a 44 tonner as motive power to move cars around the dockyard industries and back to the mainline interchange.
CURRENT STATUS
The attached image is the layout as it stands. I've laid my track for the most part, and placed a few placeholder industries for the time being. Just a few notes on the plan below:
1. I know the interchange yard is probably unnecissarily large, but I am working under the premise that one day I may use this layout as the backbone of a D&H freelanced laytout.
2. After reading through spacemouse's site (that's a GREAT site, THANK YOU!!) I've tried to build my railroad with a purpose: The major customer will be a marine repair shop that occupies the buildings on the left side of the layout. I've also tried to place enough run-arounds to accomoate realistic operations (I've purchased a few of the MR planning books to aid in this) but please let me know if anything looks "screwy".
3. I've built the layout using 18" radius curves, which seem to be OK for 50-60' boxcars and similar era equipment.
4. I built the track plan using Altas Code 83 snap switches for most of the layout (excepting primarily the curved turnouts_ but only because they were "first on the list". I would love to know if there is something that would be more appropriate to what I'm modeling.
4. Is there a good site to get an idea of typical equipment for the time period I was after? I know I can go to the D&H website, but I was hoping for more information on what might be seen on a typical train running in the Northeast.
The image below is from XtrkCad, but since it doesn't show clearly in my post you can also see a larger version here:
http://img352.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rfblayoutxj4.png
" border="0" />
I'm also more than willing to email the XtrkCad file if people want a closer look at where I am in cons. tructionPlease let me know what you think as this is close to 10-12 hours of work to this point. Thank you in advance for any assistance.
Best,
~Rich