First of all- hang in there- it will get better eventually. I went through a spell in the early 90's working for a company that filed Chapter 11- it put a squeeze on hobby expenses- but caused me to learn how to scratchbuild.
A recent issue of Model Railroader featured a layout that was large scale built in a 2x4' space. It refers to a site:
http://www.carendt.com/
They feature small but detailed layouts and track plans. It has inspired me enough that I am considering a larger scale small footprint layout in the future.
mike
Mike Habersack http://rail. habersack. com
Maryland - the land of pleasant living...
As my "government" has put up a ban on all transportation related capital investment, all I can do is revv up my PC and do a bit of track planning.
This is Bob Smaus´ charismatic "Port of Los Angeles" layout converted to Peco and Atlas track and made a little longer than the original 6 feet - just for those of you who collect track plans for small shelf-type layouts. MR ran a series on this layout starting Dec 1990.
No, guys, this one is not for me - I have "found" my dream layout.
No longer all that relevant for Ulrich's layout (since he has come up with an excellent design that meets his goals), but since this thread already has quite a few shelf layout plans - here is a link to a British web site that has quite a few small British switching layout plans:
http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=24472
Smile, Stein
The boatnerd site was mentioned above, but here's a link to their tug specific images.
http://www.boatnerd.com/pictures/tug/
These may give you an idea of what you'd see around Milwaukee or other Great Lakes ports.
A Dutch company named "Artitec" makes boat models that look more like canal or river tugs to me.
Could this one go for a US prototype canal tug?
The mention of barges reminds me of The Battle of the River Plate, version 2007. In this case a cruise ship rammed a barge in the Montevideo harbor channel while not taking evasive action or giving warning signals, so it seemed a "deliberate" act of "war." Losses included several SUVs and containers knocked off the barge and sinking to the bottom of the channel. The errant cruise ship didn't come away unscathed as evidenced by this picture of the repair of the deep dent in the ship's bow.
The passengers renamed the Norwegian Dream to the Norwegian Nighmare. Both the ship and its captain have been disposed of.
Mark
marcimmekerI noticed that the tugboat you are thinking of is more of the coastal harbor kind instead of the river kind. I don't have links so you have to check yourself but it seems on the Mississippi the are called towboats and are distinctly different. Don't know what is used in Milwaukee's harbor though and it has no direct link to the canals and major rivers. You may want to check into that.
This link should help with the kinds of boats in the Great Lakes: http://www.boatnerd.com/
There is a connection from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River, through the Chicago area. Not sure on size of the ships, though.
Mike WSOR engineer | HO scale since 1988 | Visit our club www.WCGandyDancers.com
Thanks, Fred, that info is most helpful!
I think I better stay the NMRA way. I´ll check with Proto87Stores with respect to the replacement of the CV points.
Mark, your remarks are more than welcomed! I am a bit of a lone wolf in my region, not by own choice though. None of my MR buddies share my interest to model US prototype, so this forum is a way to compensate the lack of direct communication in my neighborhood. German model railroading is very much different, it is stikll highly dominated by Marklin and the like. Scratch building is the exception and not the rule, and most rolling stock is r-t-r. Weathering is a no no (given the cost of a steamer being up to 1000 bucks, that´s understandable). So my idea of building a pure switching layout US-style, with prototype operation is not really understood.
And I like your "imagineering approach - that word pretty much describes what is going on in my head, when I start to draw a track plan...
Sir MadogFred - thanks for your comments on handlaying track. I have checked Fast Track´s home page and made up my mind - this will not be the way I will go. Checked also on CVT and Proto87, the latter one providing ready-made turnouts now. Could be a way, just in case my hand does not improve further. What I do not understand yet, is, whether Proto87 will accept RP25 wheels. I always thought it to be finescale, that required intensive rebuilding of all locos and rolling stock (which I am not prepared to do). Am I wrong?Camaro - great picture. That is, what I intend to do, but no idea on the load, maybe gravel.... I ckecked Walthers and they have resin kits for barges, which look very close to the ones on your picture. I am not happy with the tug, though. Walthers has one with a 12" x 4" "footprint", which I find a little bit to big, although it is the one depicted in my latest track plan. Will keep on searching.Stein, also thanks for the links - very inspiring pictures as well. The track and switch issue is the most important for me- - if I am able to scratch up some extra funds, I will order a test kit from CVT. Fred, the kit includes a frog, should I replace that with a Proto87 one?Have a good day?
Fred - thanks for your comments on handlaying track. I have checked Fast Track´s home page and made up my mind - this will not be the way I will go. Checked also on CVT and Proto87, the latter one providing ready-made turnouts now. Could be a way, just in case my hand does not improve further. What I do not understand yet, is, whether Proto87 will accept RP25 wheels. I always thought it to be finescale, that required intensive rebuilding of all locos and rolling stock (which I am not prepared to do). Am I wrong?
Camaro - great picture. That is, what I intend to do, but no idea on the load, maybe gravel.... I ckecked Walthers and they have resin kits for barges, which look very close to the ones on your picture. I am not happy with the tug, though. Walthers has one with a 12" x 4" "footprint", which I find a little bit to big, although it is the one depicted in my latest track plan. Will keep on searching.
Stein, also thanks for the links - very inspiring pictures as well.
The track and switch issue is the most important for me- - if I am able to scratch up some extra funds, I will order a test kit from CVT. Fred, the kit includes a frog, should I replace that with a Proto87 one?
Have a good day?
The major differences between Proto87 and NMRA are:
- RP25 (NMRA) wheelsets have a tread width almost double that of scale (Proto87). The wider tread width allows wider flangeways at turnouts that most commercial (and Fast Tracks) feature without wheel drop at the frogs. More importantly, the wider treads allow more gauge widening on curves without the wheel falling between the rails. The gauge widening allows operation on much smaller minimum radius. Proto87 track has to have gauge widening limited because of the narrow tread width, and hence has higher minimum radii for locomotives and rolling stock - on the order of 25% higher.
-ME flex track will run both P87 and NMRA wheels. Atlas flex track, which is usually gauged wider for sharper curves, may have problems with P87 wheels.
- Turnouts have to be built to one spec or the other. P87 wheels will not go through NMRA turnouts and vice versa.
Proto87 wheel sets are available for most rolling stock, and some diesels. The remaining issue is equalization. Many modern model diesels - even with 6 wheel trucks - have enough vertical flex or slop that the axles are effectively equalized. Soft sprung trucks also are already equalized. Rigid frame freight trucks with their short wheel base often do well enough with something like the EZ riders to give a 3 point suspension. FWIW, working equalization improves tracking of NMRA-spec rolling stock, too.
Depending on actual model locomotives being used, a P87 layout similar to the one you are planning is quite doable. However, nothing off the shelf will work on it without at least wheel set substitution, and neither will any friends' equipment.
There is a workable compromise that works even better with handlaid track and turnouts. Use the code 88 wheels where you can on HO rolling stock where it shows. Some trucks are available with code 88 wheel sets from the get-go (I have bought Tahoe Model Works trucks so fitted). You will end up with a mixture of code 110 (normal HO) and code 88 wheels. Both will work on NMRA-spec turnouts. But the code 88 wheels may suffer wheel drop at NMRA frogs that have the wider flangeways, especially on higher number frogs.
By hand laying your turnouts, you can adjust the track gauge and flangeways to the minimum NMRA spec. This provides 0.040" flangeways instead of the typical 0.050", and prevents wheel drop with code 88 wheels - wheel tread width should be at least double the flangeway width for proper support through frogs.
Bottom line: P87 is an all or nothing approach to prototype modeling. Wheel sets and turnout specs must match - NMRA wheels with NMRA turnouts, P87 wheels with P87 turnouts. Keep your NMRA frog on the CV turnout kits unless making the switch to P87. The parts least liked on CV turnouts are the stamped points. Proto87 Stores sells points that will fit. A forum member named Greg (handle Deadhead Greg, IIRC) has more experience using CV and Proto87 Stores components than I do. Maybe he will chime in.
hope this answers the questions
Fred W
Looks good!I guess I'd be a little concerned about getting too caught up on a boat. (or a particular model / make).Think of the scene elements, and you can (almost) always find a way to fill it.(Unless yr goal is to model a specific prototype as close as you can).
Like I said, I think in terms of scenes like mini-dioramas, and you have at least 8:
that 8th is more open space, but I'd argue is probably one of the most important spaces, in terms of how the layout comes together as a whole (so the whole DOESN'T look like 7 mini-dioramas).
the 9th would be the backdrop, the 10th would be sound, etc.
1st priority, to me, is to imagineer yourself operating this layout: the train pulling in, breaking up the cars, shunting them off to their proper spots, collecting, reassembling, etc.Will that be "work" (in a good way)?Then you need to make sure that each siding has enough spaces for the cars and engine to perform their duties.Does the layout work as a whole to yr operational satisfaction?
THEN, imagineer each scene. What structures, details will you need for each, and do you want to scratchbuild or purchase the elements necessary for each? Do you just want a structure for business at the place, or is there a specific facility your want to model and will enjoy crafting it as such?
This will change from scene to scene within yr layout.
For example, on mine, while I want to enjoy operations soon, I also want to handlay turnouts, which will take time, so operations will have to wait while I do that. For structures, some factories (like back against walls) I can put in place relatively quickly with modular stuff from catalogues, others like dockside structures, coal dumps and the turntable, I KNOW I want to spend the time to scratchbuild, and so mentally calculate that into the FUN of building the layout.
The patience will pay off.
I know you know all this: I'm just expressing my thought process for your consideration. I think you've already got yrself a layout that is very flexible in terms of construction, with many different areas you can focus on, so you'll be excited to work constantly (it's not like you have to wait to build a bleeping-bleep helix before anything else can move forward).
Long story short: don't worry about specific tugs. Start building! Get a piece of plywood and some track and physically lay it out. Play!Sorry if I'm rambling: we're at the same place, empire-wise, so much of this is to get my own mind in order & my own rear-end going.
Cheers!--Mark
M.C. Fujiwara
My YouTube Channel (How-to's, Layout progress videos)
Silicon Valley Free-moN
Good morning Ulrich,
Once again I was chased out of bed by a pile driver that started merrily banging away at 7 am (like it has done for the last month and me being on sick leave, grr...) not even 50 meters from my home. So I checked the latest messages in this thread. I noticed that the tugboat you are thinking of is more of the coastal harbor kind instead of the river kind. I don't have links so you have to check yourself but it seems on the Mississippi the are called towboats and are distinctly different. Don't know what is used in Milwaukee's harbor though and it has no direct link to the canals and major rivers. You may want to check into that.
Also, have you thought about Dutch manufacturer Artitec? They may have a tug that is smaller and you can rework that to look North American.
@Steinjr: thanks for the links to the pictures from Minnesota (great resource!), I wonder how many modellers ended up with fingers tingling in anticipation of wanting to model that barge terminal...
greetings
Hi again, Mark,
took a close look to the Seaort tug - I like, although it is a little expensive. Anyway, this tug allows me to move the barges and the tug back to their original position, which I also like a lot more. Just added that to my plan:
Tug and barges now have the right dimension - looks ok to me!
I am a late bird, but it's still early here (10pm) in California. I think the forum is in Kalmbach time (2 hours earlier, depending on which scale you model), and the East Coast is an hour earlier than that. So NY, Boston, etc. are at 1am right now.
It confuses me too (hey, China has the same time zone for 5 zone's worth of land).
The ME is a good way to go. I'd go as low as you can go: it'll look fabulous and its not like yr going to have 80-car trains blitzing through. If you do decide later to try yr hand at handlaying turnouts, fastracks has all the stuff to go with ME rail (and you do not need a jig! & that's the most expensive thing).
The beauty of this layout is in 1. the satisfying switching ops you'll be able to do (having different types of barges will help, as well as think of having removeable / interchangable industries, like Barbara Brunette does in her Wasup Dock Co. layout in MR March 2009) & 2. the construction of detailed scenes at various places around layout that has something the eye catches on, then rests, taking in the scope of the scene (which you dictate), and then joyfully explores the details of each.
The trick is to create a flowing balance of them all so the layout is not just a mess of "scene splotches".
I think this has great potential for being a very satisfying layout for many years to come. Enjoy!
Cheers,Mark
Hi Mark,
either you are a late bird, or I am a really early bird - it is zeroing on 7 o´clock in the morning here.
Thanks for the links - the Seaport stuff is really good looking (and the tug slighly smaller than the one from Walthers), but close to 100 bucks (plus shipping + tax and duty, so that is about 180 bucks!) - it will have to wait for a while...
Lance Mindheim uses ME turnouts and track - and that´s pretty good looking, too. We´ll see...
Tug:Seaport Model works have groovy kits, but expensive:http://seaportmodelworks.com/index.php?cPath=23_24
there's this frieght barge:http://www.bonanzle.com/booths/HarborLightModels/items/Ho_Scale_Railroad_Harbor_Canal_Freight_Barge_Built_Up
and Sylvan has a whole bunch of groovy stuff:http://www.isp.on.ca/sylvan/homarinecontents.htm
I say get the block of wood & whittle!(just make sure you're sitting on your doorstoop, leaning back in old chair, one eye squinting, pipe in mouth, humming a sea shanty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_Sailor )
Personally, I perfer the barge on the left side (original position). So what if it takes up most the canal. That's what barges are for! Just keep it low (or removeable), so there's a dip in forward presence between the chair factory and the siding/building far right. (you don't want a "wall" up front right blocking most of the action in the middle.
As for trackwork: whatever will allow you to lay the most bulletproof trackwork possible, because the operations side of this layout will be as fun as getting root canal work while attending an insurance seminar while listening to the home shopping network on yr ipod while getting nagged by your better half if the trackwork isn't smooth. not only smooth but the curves & angles right & at proper place to allow the best un/coupling.
So while we all fantasize about layingtrackby hand:you should go with what you can work with best to make sure your operations work smoothly & be a "smooth operator" [start elevator muzak here].
Painting & Balasting does wonders to whatever track you choose.
It's looking groovy! Keep rolling!--Mark
Good Morning, Guys,
now we have entered the dtailing stage - great!
Stein,
Thank you for the tutorial on posting. Yes, it should have 35th and and 65th. I don't know where I came up with that. I was referring to the last plan in the string. As for someone who has lived on the Great Lakes my entire life, I have seen pretty much everything that can be carried on a barge. He is a link to the Miami River and rather large barge with crushed stone.
http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTSN&cp=n90ch189byzq&style=b&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&scene=35174899&encType=1
Larry
camaroI personally like this plan. What will the barge(s) have on it? I am considering a barge and canal on my version of Lance's layout, however I will probably restrict it's size to about 12". We have barges setting in the bay with clamshell cranes that are about the same scale size. I would think a short round around could be incorporated into the removable cassette that would cross 65th street. This would allow a loco to get ahead or behind a series of cars for various moves.
If you hit "reply" instead of "quick reply" and then quote enough of the post you are responding to, it would be possible for others to see which one of the many plans in this thread you refer to when you say "this plan".
It could have been the latest plan, but there doesn't seem to be a street labelled "65th street" that is crossed by tracks on that plan - there is a street named "35th Avenue" which is an overpass over the tracks, and this plan already has a runaround, so it is probably not that one.
Suggest you find the post you want to comment on and hit "reply", and then "quote", so people can tell what you are responding to.
As for Barge sizes - I scratch built an H0 scale 1950s Mississippi towed coal barge a while back - after some experimentation, I ended up selectively compressing it to 4" wide and 12" long (29 scale feet by 87 scale feet).
A ratio of 3:1 length to width worked out for me esthetically, even though these babies really can get quite a bit bigger, especially for a more modern layout - modern coal barges are often about 200 feet long by 35 feet long (ie a width to length ratio of almost 1:6).
These things could carry quite a few different things - here are some Minneapolis prototype pics from the 1930s - 1970s:
http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/image.cfm?imageid=102086
http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/image.cfm?imageid=81148
http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/image.cfm?imageid=81513
http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/image.cfm?imageid=77011
http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/image.cfm?imageid=179994
http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/image.cfm?imageid=97361
Ulrich,
I personally like this plan. What will the barge(s) have on it? I am considering a barge and canal on my version of Lance's layout, however I will probably restrict it's size to about 12". We have barges setting in the bay with clamshell cranes that are about the same scale size. I would think a short round around could be incorporated into the removable cassette that would cross 65th street. This would allow a loco to get ahead or behind a series of cars for various moves.
Sir MadogHad an argument with SWMBO about the additional space requirement and I lost it, well nearly Found a compromise by moving tug and barge to the other embankment.About handlaying the track. With a layout that small, it should be a feasonable undertaking, once my hand is ok. I don´t want to go all the way to Proto87, but a lot of detail is, what I would like to capture - also in terms of track. The - feeling can only come from details, not from size or any "spectacular" thing. Is handlaying track producing better results than using already well made track (and turnouts) from makers like ME or Central Valley? Never laid any track by hand before... AND I cannot just run down to my local LHS to check on ME track or CVT track,a as there is only one mailorder source here in Germany...
Had an argument with SWMBO about the additional space requirement and I lost it, well nearly Found a compromise by moving tug and barge to the other embankment.
About handlaying the track. With a layout that small, it should be a feasonable undertaking, once my hand is ok. I don´t want to go all the way to Proto87, but a lot of detail is, what I would like to capture - also in terms of track. The - feeling can only come from details, not from size or any "spectacular" thing. Is handlaying track producing better results than using already well made track (and turnouts) from makers like ME or Central Valley? Never laid any track by hand before... AND I cannot just run down to my local LHS to check on ME track or CVT track,a as there is only one mailorder source here in Germany...
- For representing latter 20th Century North American prototype, the overly large spike heads every 5th tie, intermixed PC board ties, and lack of tie plates are not as realistic as CVT or ME track. My understanding is that Sir Madog is after a highly detailed shelf layout, including the track. The CVT tie strips and ME track have tie plate detail and smaller than normal spike heads molded in. While you can buy tie plates and scale size spikes, individually applying all this detail is a very time consuming process.
- The CV turnout kits have the same tie plate and spike detail as their tie strips and ME flex track. Proto87 Stores sells detailed frogs and points in both P87 and NMRA spec.
- Fast Tracks jigs and kits are expensive for a layout of 8 turnouts - especially if all turnouts are not the same frog #.
That said, track handlaid with wood ties in place on the layout will have a "flow" and graceful looks that will be difficult to duplicate with any other method. And it's not too large a layout that scale spikes (P87 Stores) every tie would be impractical. But the tie plate detail would still be missing unless the OP took the extra time to add them.
Finally, all the components I have mentioned are available at places that are used to shipping overseas.
my thoughts, your choices
I'm constructing a similar shelf layout in N Scale, and I chose to go with hand laid track (FastTracks) for a couple of reasons: I think it looks much better, and I figured it would prolong the construction process and give me more of a challenge.
I'm a below-average modeler, and even worse with tools, etc. I found the Fast Tracks system to be remarkably well done, and the instructions and videos are unbeatable. The best I've ever seen. I can now construct a great looking Code 55 turnout in about 40 minutes, and it's a great feeling of accomplishment. The mechanics aren't very difficult, and the fixtures make working with the details a lot easier.
For smaller layouts, and really any visible trackage, I'd strongly recommend giving it a try. Worst case, you're out a couple hundred bucks, or basically one or two locos, and I'm sure you could resell the fixtures on ebay without issue.
Had an argument with SWMBO about the additional space requirement and I lost it, well nearly Found a compromise by moving tug and barge to the other embankment. Now I need only 2little inches more...
Here is the amended version:
Sir Madog ... Did some investigation into the sizes of tugs and barges - guess what? They are much BIGGER than I thought. Either I just let the canal be a canal without anything floating on it or I have to negiotate some more inches with SWMBO. I made a drawing - just in case
... Did some investigation into the sizes of tugs and barges - guess what? They are much BIGGER than I thought. Either I just let the canal be a canal without anything floating on it or I have to negiotate some more inches with SWMBO.
I made a drawing - just in case
How about flopping the general locations of the canal and Milw Term Warehousing? It seems like there is more space for the canal in the center of the layout. Flopping them would kind of make the barge a focal point of the layout and the taller building moved farther right would help to frame the whole scene.
- Douglas
Sir Madog<snipped to save bandwidth>Some additional remarks:Era will be late 80´s or early 90´s - so structures will be a mix of old time brick buildings and these corrugated steel things you see nowadays. The types of industries are not yet fixed, so they might change. I know I have to do this before I start buying rolling stock...
<snipped to save bandwidth>
Some additional remarks:
Era will be late 80´s or early 90´s - so structures will be a mix of old time brick buildings and these corrugated steel things you see nowadays. The types of industries are not yet fixed, so they might change. I know I have to do this before I start buying rolling stock...
Just my understanding - code 83 (132lb) rail would be on the heavy side for this type of trackage. I would lean towards code 70 with possibly code 55 on some spurs or keep code 70 and use code 83 on the runaround and leads to staging.
The "Sentry Chair and Table Manuf. " will be in any case a 1-story building, so I can reach the turnouts, which will, offcause, be manually operated. While typing this, I think, I will change into a warehouse...
Rather than change the layout for turnout throw access, bring the throws for those turnouts to the front of the fascia. Use a slide switch in the linkage to provide latching and power the frogs.
Barge and tug need to be resized - I still have to make up my mind on what type and make I will use.
It's very common for a large modern barge to take up nearly half - sometimes more - of a canal, especially a stub end of a canal like this. Miami canals are indeed quite narrow, and it is difficult to get a barge past another.
To my knowledge, railroads tried to avoid single or double slip switches as much as possible, not only for reasons of cost. I may be wrong here, but the reason why I removed it was availability and look. Peco Code 83 track has no double slip available, yet, the code 75 material has "European" tie arrangement, ME has none available, only Atlas, which is hard to get where I live. The decisions which track to use needs to be made as well - I might even start to handlay the track (providing that the tremor in my right hand is gone). Does anyone have experience with building Fast Track switches - it looks so easy in their videos.
The decisions which track to use needs to be made as well - I might even start to handlay the track (providing that the tremor in my right hand is gone). Does anyone have experience with building Fast Track switches - it looks so easy in their videos.
Normally, I am an advocate of handlaid track. In your particular case, not so much. My recommendation would be Central Valley tie strips with code 70 rail, or Micro-Engineering code 70 flex track. Turnouts are much more problematic, especially in code 70. Fast Tracks is a good solution for 1st time hand layers - the hand-holding through the videos tools and jigs is very good. Central Valley turnout kits are another option with more detail - but make or buy your own points (and possibly new frogs if you like Proto87 Stores offerings better). In any case, be prepared to substitute commercially made turnouts if the tremor acts up at all. ME makes code 70 turnouts, but only in a #6 size. There are several custom turnout builders at surprisingly reasonable prices - Railway Engineering, Litco, and Cream City Turnouts all come to mind.
Whether you make your own via Fast Tracks or have your turnouts made, don't hesitate to cut the turnout back to very close to the frog and the points to fit into your track plan. Cutting back turnouts will likely be essential if you use Peco or Atlas code 83 - the things come with quite long extensions.
Edited to add that I recommend powered frogs for small switching layouts. The short trains, slow speeds, and smaller locomotives all benefit from not having to bridge dead frogs.
hope this helps - it looks like the beginning of a very exciting project
Wow,
I am overwhelmed by the comments on my now "nearly finished" design - lotsa food for thought, again.
I am also insecure about the grain elevator. The sheer size of it (height) makes it an LDE of it´s own and adds "structure" to an otherwise fairly flat layout, but I am not sure wheteher this is not a bit too much. Once I start building the layout I will make a mock-up of it to check.
To my knowledge, railroads tried to avoid single or double slip switches as much as possible, not only for reasons of cost. I may be wrong here, but the reason why I removed it was availability and look. Peco Code 83 track has no double slip available, yet, the code 75 material has "European" tie arrangement, ME has none available, only Atlas, which is hard to get where I live.
You see, there is a lot to do before I can start to build. The next step is to print a 1:5 version of the track plan and build a cardboard mock-up.
selectorI am happy to see this resolved for Ulrich's sake. I must admit, though...I am disappointed that the double-slip switch had to go. For me, it would be an important part of any small layout.
I am happy to see this resolved for Ulrich's sake. I must admit, though...I am disappointed that the double-slip switch had to go. For me, it would be an important part of any small layout.
I agree with you Crandell. I would rather see a single slip though, that would be a nice touch and something we don't see every day, I don't see the need for a double slip there.
Svein
marcimmekerSir Madog ... you mean like this? Looks more elegant to me! Like it! Yes, that is almost exactly what I meant. If you are short half a carlength on the runaround you could push the right crossover even more to the right (around the 350 mark) and change the canalside righthand switch for a lefthand (mirroring the left crossover) and locate it at the curve to the canalside spur.
Sir Madog ... you mean like this? Looks more elegant to me! Like it!
... you mean like this?
Looks more elegant to me!
Like it!
Yes, that is almost exactly what I meant. If you are short half a carlength on the runaround you could push the right crossover even more to the right (around the 350 mark) and change the canalside righthand switch for a lefthand (mirroring the left crossover) and locate it at the curve to the canalside spur.
Good idea. Also - I would double check the size of your barge - it might be the correct right size, but looks a little on the small side to me compared with the size of 40' boxcars.
-Crandell
Like Madog said in one of my posts, we are both in pretty much the same boat. Just my boat has one less seat. In a way I'm lucky in that I will be the only one doing anything with the layout. So his idea's of keeping 2 operators busy for 30-45 minutes would keep lil ole me busy for 60-90 minutes. And as I've mentioned in other posts I live close to tracks. Even the little WC MP15's can make the couch vibrate a little. So I've gotten to the point that once the layout is completely built I would be operating it every day, more less on a prototypical fashion.
I think Stein maybe a genius in disguise though. I really like his "Federal Overpass" design. I think I might have my layout built as a two level and have that layout on the lower level. It just looks like it's begging to be switched by an old RS2 or GP7.
Great plan. Please share photos of its construction along the way.
Following up on Marc's suggestion, if you make the canal a little narrower by bringing its right side down and to the left, you may gain a half a car length by shifting the colmar storage switch down and left along with it. You would be extending the end of the track to the extreme southeast corner of the benchwork and taking advantage of all of the available space. If you then used a left hand switch instead of a right hander like Marc suggested, that would also eliminate somewhat of an 'S' curve you have now.
Very groovy! It's been fun to watch the development process.I think in terms of "scenes" and, with this layout, you can create almost a separate world at each section / siding / spotting. By separate world I mean a unique and focused scene that makes you forget about the rest of the layout (and thus makes yr layout larger psychologically).
I like how you've framed parts with the overpass, miller bev, and milw central warehouse. The angle of the canal helps.
A couple of ideas:
1. The feed & grain siding is, to my taste, too parallel to the layout. ("too parallel"? yes yes, I know. But we use "wet water" so...). Perhaps a slight angling of the siding back would A. get rid of the "too parallelness" (how's that for an English teacher?), B. open up a wee bit of space for whatever scenery (you could cut the grain structure in 1/2 or 3/4 or?) and C. create more an illusion of depth. I marked it in red.
2. Access to switching. I assume you'll be throwing the turnouts manually (isn't that part of the switching fun?). In that case, think of how big the table & chair factory building will be. It stands in front of FOUR turnouts (circled in purple/pink). Chopping the building a bit on the left opens up space for hands. Personally, I like the big building (acts as good viewblock, and provides a nice asymmetry with the miller building), but just food for thought.
This looks like it will be fun to build and operate! Good luck!--Mark
Have fun building this Ulrich, I like this too!
Marc
PS Now if you want to have some real fun, why not move the switchPOINTS of the first switch of the left crossover to the LEFT of the road and run the track gantlet style across the street?
I guess I have found my "dream"-layout.
It is not that I don´t like big layouts, but I just don´t have the space nor the necessary funds to go much beyond of what I have planned. For the time being, this has to, and also will,suffice. Now I am going to detail my plans on how to build this little layout. I will try to be a good guy and document each step properly - maybe MR makes a lttle story out of this. But please be patient - it will still take some time before I can start. There are a couple of issues that need to get solved first...
It took quite some time for this plan to develop. Without this forum and its contributing members, it would not have been possible for me to come up with this idea. My special thanks to steinjr, fwright, odave, marcimmeker and many others, who contributed with good advice and help - it´s been a pleasure to go through this with you!
Stay tuned!
Sir MadogLooks more elegant to me!
Looks good, and should work okay, too - not bad at all.
Grin, Stein
Don´t know why, but somehow I do not like the double slip - changed that:
Hi Ulrich,
I see you got a very nice plan now. A couple of scenery suggestions: at the left instead of all shrubs between the overpass and the bar, maybe a yard office?
At the right side: why not have the canal parallel the spur all the way to the edge?
And lastly, what about flipping the right crossover the other way around and move it to the right, along the 350 to 375 mark? The curved part of the spur could be the curved part of the lower switch. It gives you a longer run around, you do not have to send the switcher inside the building in the top righthand corner.
greetings,
... it´s a long way to Tipperary...
I just took out the track next to the canal and enlarged the canal...
I start to like it!
Sir Madog The top right track goes all the way into the building, so that is an extra 50 cm track lenght. I am not to sure whether I will build the structure the way I have drawn it.
The top right track goes all the way into the building, so that is an extra 50 cm track lenght. I am not to sure whether I will build the structure the way I have drawn it.
I see your point. Fair call either way. You don't strictly need to have room for an engine and three covered hoppers on that side to switch the grain silos.It
Inbound hoppers can be left on the lower runaround, then outbound hoppers pulled right and backed far down the main - under the bridge onto the staging extension, before you run the engine around the inbound cars using the upper runaround, push them out on the main between the bridge and the runaround, pull ahead up the upper runaround and back into the silos.
Sir MadogThe team track may not be necessary in terms of operation, but I kind of like the way the tracks are "fanning" out when you look from left to right. I might just leave it, but not as a team track. It may be a spur leading to an industry not on the layout.... - have to make up my mind on it.
The team track may not be necessary in terms of operation, but I kind of like the way the tracks are "fanning" out when you look from left to right. I might just leave it, but not as a team track. It may be a spur leading to an industry not on the layout.... - have to make up my mind on it.
Guess you will just have to make the call on that one. All three ways (none, team or spur) work.
Sir Madog The left side needs to be worked on - I am not yet happy with it. Ideas?
The left side needs to be worked on - I am not yet happy with it. Ideas?
Shrubs and dumped old cars? Maybe a power transformer on the edge of the layout right next to the bridge ? Or maybe non rail served scrap dealer or auto repair shop along front edge, left of the bar ?
But you are far better than me at scenery planning.
hmmh, have to think about it.
The top right track goes all the way into the building, so that is an extra 50 cm of track. I am not to sure whether I will build the structure the way I have drawn it.
Sir Madog But I do need to avoid crowding it with too much track!
You are right. I reconsidered the need for work space - see my updated post from this morning.
Maybe you ought to axe that storage track south of the elevator again, and make the extension single track again, plus maybe lose the team track.
The dockside has the same function as a team track - it receives and ships assorted cargo. And you can always back a truck up to the leftmost RR car on the pier track.
I would also re-evaluate the top right spur to the right of the rightmost turnout - if you make that longer, it greatly simplifies switching cuts of three cars in and and out of the elevator while at the same time using the mainline on the lower left as work space.
Smile,
Stein
So here is the update!
The changes I made are:
Moved the grain elevator up "north" and linked it via a double-slip switch to the spur leading to Miller Foods & Beverages.
Left the switch off the "main" to get an extra spur for "stashing" away cars, also made the detachable staging lead double track.
Last but not least, made the road do not cross a switch.
I think the plan is far from being perfect, but it is taking shape!
But I do need to avoid crowding it with too much track!
... that little folk wakes me up also quite early - usually around 4 o´clock. My wife feeds them in winter, but I´d rather - boom!
Sir Madog Hi Stein,you are up early this morning again - hope, you are ok?
Hi Stein,
you are up early this morning again - hope, you are ok?
Yeah - just a summer morning in southern Norway - sun rises way early (even with the clock turned an hour forward) - about an hour earlier than in Hamburg, and about an hour and a half earlier than in e.g. Minneapolis, and that starts a lot of birds singing right outside our bedroom window.
Somehow, I figured that my neighbors wouldn't really appreciate it I got a shotgun and started blowing away little singing birds in the wee hours :-)
Besides - better enjoy it - in another couple of weeks the days start growing shorter again.
I like the changes you made to the plan, you are definetively an expert! I guess we have a good basis for further thoughts now. Will post the amendments here during the day...
Hals und beinbruch - as long as you don't take it too literally
steinjr To get a longer track for the elevator - could you extend the runaround on the left end, and let the track to the elevator branch out from inside the runaround - ie just swap the position of the two leftmost turnouts ? Might help with not having the road cross at the points as well.
To get a longer track for the elevator - could you extend the runaround on the left end, and let the track to the elevator branch out from inside the runaround - ie just swap the position of the two leftmost turnouts ? Might help with not having the road cross at the points as well.
Or just use a double slip and do something along these lines ? :
One potential operating challenge is the lack of an industrial support track or two on the layout - where you can have a little "work space" to stash inbound and/or outbound cars while you swap them around.
But that can be simulated by first picking up outbounds and pushing them under the bridge to a "siding" (ie a cassette) a little down that way, before swapping cassettes, and returning with new cars to spot at the industries.
Edit: actually - you do have room to stash about four-five 40' cars temporary on the curved track past the top of the water's edge, about four 40' cars on the mainline at the bottom left, and four-five cars in the runarounds in the center of the layout - enough space to temporarily stash cars while working:
With 3 feet of staging cassettes you won't have much more than 6, maybe 7 cars in a cassette anyways.
Industry sizes, harbor etc doesn't look half bad. I have used 4" wide roads and buildings that are a multiple of 4" (e.g. Walther's modulars come in 2" and 4" sections). Barge is a copy of mine, which is about 4"x12". RR freight cars are 40' cars. Turnouts Peco code 75.
Smile,Stein
I like this one a lot better - but that's me. I find it much more interesting oeprationally without sacrificing the scenic possibilities you had before.
As far as the removable staging is concerned, you could use 4-5 cassettes as a manual replacement for the desired traverser. Have each cassette with a train loaded sit on a shelf, along with a few empty cassettes. When a particular train is wanted, simply attach the desired cassette to the staging point. Use an empty cassette to remove cars or a train from the layout. Build a shelf above the layout to provide layout lighting, dust protection, and a place to store the cassettes that are not in immediate use.
Which is exactly how I plan to have some staging. My cassette will fit in the 31" space between the layout and the door (in closed position). The door will have a hangar to support the far end of the cassette, and the layout will support the near end. There are various examples of using cassette staging at http://www.carendt.com/.
yours in small layouts
odavef the elevator has only one loading spout/unloading pit, then it should be located in the middle of the spur, with the total spur length being long enough for 2X the number of cars you expect to handle at the facility. This is because a cut of empty cars would be spotted with the first car under the spout, and the rest of the empties "upstream" of it. As the cars are loaded, some kind of motive device (bulldozer, trackmobile, cable & winch) will index the next car under the spout, with the loaded cars moving "downstream". So if you want to load 3x40' boxcars here, then the spur track needs to be at least 36" long for this kind of operation.
well, if he wants to be really tight about space, loading three cars from a single loading spout can be done with room for just five cars - the position under the spout can hold the first empty car when empties are spotted and the last loaded car when they all have been loaded.
Ulrich - I like those plans. These are yours, and they look good.
O´Dave,
you are right with the level crossing - I will move it a little when building the layout. Thanks also for the info on the grain elevator - I cannot get info like this on this side of the big lake. Hopping by and taking a look at real life takes a minimum of 9 hrs flight, not to mention the cash involved.
I'm far from an expert, but either one looks good to me. There seems to be a good balance of scenery and trackage, which is what gives me a "wow" too. The only things that jump out at me are:
A. Your grade crossing looks like it's going across the points of a turnout. You may want to nudge the road either way to make the crossing easier to model.
B. You may want to think about how the Feed & Grain is going to do its work, either with a single loading spout/unloading pit or multiples.
If the elevator has only one loading spout/unloading pit, then it should be located in the middle of the spur, with the total spur length being long enough for 2X the number of cars you expect to handle at the facility. This is because a cut of empty cars would be spotted with the first car under the spout, and the rest of the empties "upstream" of it. As the cars are loaded, some kind of motive device (bulldozer, trackmobile, cable & winch) will index the next car under the spout, with the loaded cars moving "downstream". So if you want to load 3x40' boxcars here, then the spur track needs to be at least 36" long for this kind of operation.
I think you can pull this off by mirroring the elevator, and extending the spur underneath the overpass and into your staging area. It might interfere with your traverser idea, though. Maybe it could coexist with a sector plate better.
If you have multiple spouts/pits, then the cars can be loaded/unloaded without indexing and there's no issue. But I think that kind of operation is found generally at larger facilities. Your call.
Fred and O´Dave - I took up your recommendations and tried to incorporate them into my plan. This is what came out of it:
With the above changes to the original idea, operation seems to be more interesting. What I am not yet fond of, is the single track staging. I was thinking of building a 3 - 4 track traverser in order to have the option of running a "morning train" and an "afternoon" train, without taking loco or rolling stock from the rails. Unfortunately, there is a window on that end which needs to be opened now and then. So something detachable is a must. I guess I need to think it over...
While looking at the plan, some more changes come to mind. If I move the tracks west of the canal a little more to the left, I can make the canal a little wider und put a tug and a barge in there, plus some loading/unloading facility. How´s that?
... and here it is!
What do the experts say?
I agree with Fred. If I remember my John Armstrong correctly, he suggested having all spurs in an area facing the same way except one. If you want a spur in the opposite direction from the rest, I think it could be fairly easily done at the Feed & Grain by moving the "main" down one trackspacing unit. You'd have to do some fiddling with the track downstream, or maybe put the main on an angle, which is not necessarily a bad thing. The runaround could be worked into the trackage northeast of the canal, maybe a crossover going from lower-left to upper right around the 9' - 10' gridline
FredW,
my first version of this plan had a switchback, which mad a run-around necessary. I gave up this concept for reasons of simplicity - was I wrong? Where would you put a run-around, without stacking up to much track again?
Help
Sir Madog Over the last weeks, I have been playing around with a lot of ideas on how to come up with a simple, but also scenic design for a small shelf switching layout. The forum provided a vast number of contributions as food for thought, so did a lot of surfing the internet for small layout ideas. A lot what I had posted here was "borrowed" , either copied or adapted. Somehow all these ideas did not create this "wow - that´s what I want to build"-feeling in my stomach. So how to proceed from here? I negiotated with SWMBO to get some extra space - if I make the layout not as deep as 2ft, say only 18", I can get a couple of feet extra in length, up to 11´ or even 12´ in total - plus a 3´ switching lead for staging, if it is detachable. Her desk can than go under the layout! I am fascinated with Lance Mindheim´s work - his East Rail project is just fantastic. I like the simplicity of the design, yet complex and highly detailed in the execution. His East Rail gives me that wow-feeling! This is what it looks like: Most of the buildings will have to be scratchbuilt, but that´s part of the challenge. I welcome any improvements!
Over the last weeks, I have been playing around with a lot of ideas on how to come up with a simple, but also scenic design for a small shelf switching layout. The forum provided a vast number of contributions as food for thought, so did a lot of surfing the internet for small layout ideas. A lot what I had posted here was "borrowed" , either copied or adapted. Somehow all these ideas did not create this "wow - that´s what I want to build"-feeling in my stomach. So how to proceed from here?
I negiotated with SWMBO to get some extra space - if I make the layout not as deep as 2ft, say only 18", I can get a couple of feet extra in length, up to 11´ or even 12´ in total - plus a 3´ switching lead for staging, if it is detachable. Her desk can than go under the layout!
I am fascinated with Lance Mindheim´s work - his East Rail project is just fantastic. I like the simplicity of the design, yet complex and highly detailed in the execution. His East Rail gives me that wow-feeling!
This is what it looks like:
Most of the buildings will have to be scratchbuilt, but that´s part of the challenge. I welcome any improvements!
Strictly personal opinion - the new design will be great fun to build. Things are spread out enough that you can truly capture the essence of the prototype with attention to detail.
But....will you be satisfied with efficient but boring (IMHO) operations for very long once the layout is built? The real railroads prefer track arrangements that are efficient. Routine is a good thing, because it means predictability in schedules for both the railroad and for customers.
In the model railroading world, there is an influential group that is very down on designing in intentional roadblocks to efficient switching in small layouts. Their points are that the prototype prefers efficiency, and does everything within monetary reason to get rid of roadblocks. And that we should be modeling that efficiency. A switching puzzle track arrangement epitomizes the wrong approach to this group.
Depending on your personality and desires, it may or may not be boring to operate a small layout prototype style. And don't get me wrong, a specific impediment to efficient switching can be become boring, too. A hurdle like a switchback that has to be used on nearly every move, or a runaround that only clears one car at a time may become just as old as all spurs stacked in the same direction as your suggested plan has.
Bottom line: the lack of a runaround and having all spurs face the same direction concerns me, but it might be just fine for you. If you are concerned about boring operations, the given track arrangement with attention paid to spur lengths could contain an Inglenook "game". If you have no worries in this area, enjoy building.
As I cannot build an L-shaped layout, I took some "modeler´s license" to adapt some features of his East rail into a straight shape and "relocated" the whole thing to the Milwaukee area.
Thanks for bearing with me!
... sorry - I forgot the credits - yes, it is a track plan from Bill Baumann. I like the idea of the industrial line underpassing the main quite a lot as a scenic feature. I have not checked the operational challenges, yet.
Also, the grade is a little to steep for my test - I guess that may be one of the reasons why Wolfgang Dudler made it much longer than the original 10´.
Thanks, cuyama, for the links!
If you are going to simply copy others' track plans and post them, please at least give them credit. This is the Third Street Industrial plan by Bill Baumann from the November 1985 Model Railroader and the Kalmbach book 48 Top Notch Track Plans. The layout has a number of limtiations and challenges,as we discussed here the last time this came up.http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/p/139817/1558416.aspx
Wolfgang Dudler has built a versionhttp://www.westportterminal.de/thirdstreet.html
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
... just because a new month has started, here is another plan/idea... (We should make a contest out of this)
I'm really torn as to what looks/works better - a railroad overpass over a road somewhat perpendicular to the track, or a road overpass over the tracks. I really like the railroad bridge over the street approach, maybe because there are many around here. But the street bridging the railroad is a great way to disguise the end of the module and/or break it up so that the track lengths seem longer. I guess both are in order!
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
... borrowed again, from you, Stein!
Those two highways passing over the track give a lot of "urban scenery" and depth to it ...
So it´s just another plan on the path to my "ultimate" plan. I hope I do not run out of food for thought, as planning and collecting ideas is all I can do for the moment. I have to get rid of that ... tremor in my right hand first, before I can start any work...
Sir Madog ... Just because I have started to love drawing up new track plans - here is one more idea, taken from MR´s book "48 Top-notch Track Plans". Did not know that I still had the book, bought more than a decade ago. Here is the plan:
... Just because I have started to love drawing up new track plans - here is one more idea, taken from MR´s book "48 Top-notch Track Plans".
Did not know that I still had the book, bought more than a decade ago.
Here is the plan:
I have that book too and it has several interesting plans (Art Curren's Break The Rules for instance).
I have looked upon this plan many times and each time a buzzer went of in my head suggesting something was wrong. Only this morning while once again reflecting upon it did I notice that Larry Forgard, the designer, probably intended to give the impression of a double track line. I always assumed this was a junction of a single track and double track line but it isn't. It is a junction of 2 single track lines where one line has a runaround and leads to serve industries which give the impression of double track. The key is the crossover at the right side, opposite the bottling plant. Oh well, better late than never.
If I would build this plan, I would change the orientation of that crossover at the right side. Either move it to the right so it is a junction of double and single track or move it to the left of the junction switch (making it a junction of 2 single track lines) so the runaround does not interfere with a train running from right to lower left.
I would also build it in N-scale, probably at least 6 feet long or 2 meters even to make sure I could use them as modules.
Sir Madog ... Just because I have started to love drawing up new track plans - here is one more idea, taken from MR´s book "48 Top-notch Track Plans". Did not know that I still had the book, bought more than a decade ago.Here is the plan:
Mmm - this one doesn't have a lot of industry spots, and has quite a few switchbacks to get into the two uppermost industries. But it definitely has scenic possibilities - I like the junction look and the RR overpasses over the road - those really say "urban".
marcimmekerInteresting place, I can see the potential for a module here. A couple of questions. - was there a run around in the past? - if not and if you need one, were would you like to have it? - the building in the upper right (in the corner of the lead and W. Silver Spring Drive), did it have doors at the lead end of the building? Thanks for psoting this!
Interesting place, I can see the potential for a module here. A couple of questions.
- was there a run around in the past?
- if not and if you need one, were would you like to have it?
- the building in the upper right (in the corner of the lead and W. Silver Spring Drive), did it have doors at the lead end of the building?
Thanks for psoting this!
I don't think there was a runaround down in there. Looks like there was a runaround up on the main. Would just have to have things lined up before you go down in there. The middle track on the south end would have probably stayed clear, to enable shoving ahead to spot.
By zooming in closer, there is a roll-up door on the south end of the building next to the lead, and track peeking out. The switch seems to be long gone.
Stein's plan has it pretty good. If there is room, more curveature would be nice, but it seems to capture the flavor pretty good. Could use pretty sharp turns, 18-22" radius in HO scale.
Must have taken a while to switch the place out when all the tracks were in, and things were busy. I think the switchback lead holds 5-6 cars plus 1 engine.
Ray,
whenever I draw up a track plan, I do it with a lot of imagination on how it would look like when built up. It is exactly what you say, it is the little details that create the atmosphere, the "Wow"-feeling. What´s the sense running a super-detailed loco thru a non-detailed scenery?
That is also the reason why I always add some details, like structures, roads etc. to make track plans - to kindle my imagination.
cuyama rayw46 I think this idea is called something like Individual design elements. The term is "Layout Design Element", or LDE. These are sections of the prototype (real-life) railroad to be replicated on the layout. The challenge for the original poster is that there are relatively few small sections of real-life railroads that will have the "Wow" factor he is seeking. In order to get that much appeal in that small a layout area, some significant editing and enhancing of real life may be needed. Not impossible, it's just unlikely that any real-life stretch of railroad will have what the orignal poster is seeking, since he has already found a number of fine small layouts to be lacking the "Wow" factor he is seeking.
rayw46 I think this idea is called something like Individual design elements.
I think this idea is called something like Individual design elements.
The term is "Layout Design Element", or LDE. These are sections of the prototype (real-life) railroad to be replicated on the layout. The challenge for the original poster is that there are relatively few small sections of real-life railroads that will have the "Wow" factor he is seeking. In order to get that much appeal in that small a layout area, some significant editing and enhancing of real life may be needed. Not impossible, it's just unlikely that any real-life stretch of railroad will have what the orignal poster is seeking, since he has already found a number of fine small layouts to be lacking the "Wow" factor he is seeking.
I think the issue seems to be this, "Wow," thing. The, "Wow," is not going to come from the track plan, especially on a small switching laylout? A switching trackplan is a switching trackplan and that's about it. A lot of people like operating in a prototype manner and some of them have gone for the, "minimalist approach;" no scenery, cardboard structures, etc. That's all well and good, it's their railroad, they can do what they want. But are you going to say, "Wow," when you see such a layout? I doubt it. The, "Wow," comes when the modeler adds the super-detailed scenes; the beautifully modeled rock work, trees, structures, etc. That can be done on a small switching layout. I've even seen dioramas with just one piece of track running across it and said, "Wow." That's because the modeler took the track plan and modeled a representation of the real world, or maybe a world from their imagination, around it. So, if someone is looking for a trackplan that, "Wows," them, he or she will probably be out of luck. But when the modeler takes that trackplan, adds their imagination, time, talent and hard work to it, then, "WOW."
Ray
It's not Milwaukee (and not very "scenic" either ), but I've often thought that this area in Detroit near Delray might be a good candidate for a switching layout of some sort. Maybe you could give it a MILW flavor. Anyway, FWIW:
Live Search
The Detroit Produce Terminal is in the upper right, lower left is an intermodal facility, and the branch curving off on the right is the Delray Connecting Railroad, which serves US Steel's Great Lakes Works and other industries. Lots of variety in car types here.
marcimmekerInteresting place, I can see the potential for a module here. A couple of questions. - was there a run around in the past?
Just follow the track north of the Silver Spring Drive RR overpass - there is a runaround (or something that may have been a runaround) over there.
Here is an attempt at a module based on this location:
This one probably would be better in N scale - it would take just 8-10 feet in N scale.
WSOR 3801 Here is a smaller industry area in the Milwaukee area that could be worth modeling. Map Bird's eye view Starting from lower left, the mainline heads up and to the right. There is a switch right past the bridge for the lead. The line then goes down, pretty steep hill. The building at upper right hides the end of the tail track, but not much further is a street. Here are some views from inside the area. The only place in there now is a paperboard plant, but it looks like either they did a lot more business, or other industry was in that 2-block area.
Here is a smaller industry area in the Milwaukee area that could be worth modeling.
Map
Bird's eye view
Starting from lower left, the mainline heads up and to the right. There is a switch right past the bridge for the lead. The line then goes down, pretty steep hill. The building at upper right hides the end of the tail track, but not much further is a street.
Here are some views from inside the area.
The only place in there now is a paperboard plant, but it looks like either they did a lot more business, or other industry was in that 2-block area.
There's a lot of information in this thread so I don't know if any one has mentioned specifically the following site, http://carendt.com/ . I know that some specific trackplans have been referenced but go the the main site. It's fun to browse throught the many trackplans available and the monthly newsletter going back several years that features actual layouts that modelers have built. The layouts are mostly all micro and macro layouts but if you have a little more room the layouts could be expanded.
Also, Tony Koester, a contributer to Model Railroad Magazine, has championed the idea of taking a small portion of a prototype railroad and building a small layout or module based on that. Compression is almost always necessary but the idea is that one day it could be a portion of a larger layout. I think this idea is called something like Individual design elements. Maybe there's a railroad near you, or one you remember from you past, that has an interesting track plan or industry you could model. Someone have rightly noted that it's better to build a model of a prototype than a model of someone else's model.
I hope everything works out for you.
Hi Marc,
not so long ago, they had 31 copies left.... Took them only 5 days to deliver it to me.
I guess it was MR´s feature on the Beer Line that attracted me to the Milwaukee Road, plus the fact that a friend of mine gave me an Athearn Genesis MP15AC in Milwaukee Road livery. And I like Beer...
I hope all will be well (Ich werde die Daumen drücken für Dich).
If you are interested in the Milwaukee Road, I recommend you go to the website of the Milwaukee Road Historical Society and buy their books about the Beer line (of MR fame) in Milwaukee and the book about Chicago. I have both and recommend them heartily. The Chicago book is very fascinating with lots of pictures from the air taken by the company photographer. As far as I am aware the society's quarterly publication regularly has an article with these aerial views.
See here for the books:
http://www.mrha.com/catlist.cfm?passid=BK
The one about the beer line has only 30 copies left....
Yes, Sir, that´s what I am! And it all started, when Santa (my parents) brought me a Marklin starter set in 1963, together with a Faller kit for a little train stop. I still have that. In the 1970´s MR had a poem about a guy like me, does any one remember it? Must have been in 1971 or ´72.
Came from the doctor´s this morning - must have had a minor stroke a short while ago. Makes me worry...
Sir MadogWhat do I expect from my layout? I´d like to use the term "operational diorama" in an urban setting (preferably Milwaukee Road area), allowing for a realistic operation that does not get boring after 5 minutes, but could keep 2 people "busy" for 30 - 45 minutes in a session.Am I a helpless case ?
What do I expect from my layout? I´d like to use the term "operational diorama" in an urban setting (preferably Milwaukee Road area), allowing for a realistic operation that does not get boring after 5 minutes, but could keep 2 people "busy" for 30 - 45 minutes in a session.
Am I a helpless case ?
You are probably an incurable model train nut, like the rest of us :-)
Some prototype photos of Milwaukee Road trackage in Minneapolis, for possible inspiration:
View of downtown Mpls from the Milwaukee Depot
Corner of the Milwaukee Railroad Yard in Minneapolis
Switcher by North Start Woolen Mills in Minneapolis
Grain elevators along Hiawatha Avenue, Mpls
I guess my "Wow"-effect comes from the level of detail and a highlky realistic look of small and individual scenes on my layout. I am not the type of model railroader who wants to build that basement filling layout with spectacular mountain scenery, sweeping curves, 50+ car trains etc., that will never come close to being finished in some sense of the word. I have always built small and very individual layouts with a focus on detail.
Sir Madog I now have a number of plans - could fill a scrapbook - but still I don´t have that wow-feeling. What am I doing wrong? Too much thinking and planning?
I now have a number of plans - could fill a scrapbook - but still I don´t have that wow-feeling. What am I doing wrong? Too much thinking and planning?
I guess you will just have to reevaluate your goals and try to formulate to yourself why you want a layout and what you want from a layout.
What makes you go "wow" ? What era(s), locations(s), type of railroading inspire you ? Have you looked at prototype pictures from earlier times in various places ?
If you are expecting one of these small switching plans to "wow" you as much as a room-sized layout, you may continue to be disappointed. This thread has included some great plans, some good ones, and some poor ones. But it's not likely that any track plan in 2X8 or 2X10 feet will have as much appeal as a well-designed layout for a 10X10 or 10X12 room.
One of the great things about small layouts is you can build and finish them relatively quickly, enjoy them for a while, then revise or rebuild them if they become too familiar. I'd suggest that you might be happier if you could embrace the positives of the smaller layout without dwelling on the limitations or expecting to find a "perfect' small plan.
ByronModel RR Blog
... that´s where I "borrowed" the idea from.
Sir Madog Ok, the bug has bitten! I am still ins earch of the ultimate plan for a small shelf layout. The following is an adaption of Bob Smaus´ Port of L.A. RR, which MR covered somewhere in the 1990´s.
Ok, the bug has bitten! I am still ins earch of the ultimate plan for a small shelf layout. The following is an adaption of Bob Smaus´ Port of L.A. RR, which MR covered somewhere in the 1990´s.
http://mrsvc.blogspot.com/2008/09/smaus-port-of-la-inspirational-layout-1.html
Lance Mindheim says, that the greater the knowledge on RR operation, the less track you need - am I on the "right track" now?
Lance Mindheim will be publishing a new book on small switching layouts - check his web page for the announcement.
http://www.lancemindheim.com/news_and_notes.htm
If it is within my financial reach, I will order it to get some more inspiration.
cuyamaBut I think it unnecessarily creates work when a more realistic, less convoluted configuration with more overlap of elements (and a viable run-around) could be a lot more interesting and less tedious to operate in the long term
I am a fan of Byron's overlap technique (which I first noticed in his 1x6 foot N scale Alameda Belt Line plan in Model Railroad Planning in 2005) - if you look at the four layout plans below, they all have a longish (for a small shelf layout) runaround at the core, where the track that is part of the runaround also serve other purposes at the same time - mainline, siding, yard switching lead, industry switching lead.
Designing a small layout like the "scenic" shelf switchers we are discussing here is, IMHO, as challenging as designing a big one. True, you don´t have to consider a "big" picture, but you need to take care of a lot motre detail. There is not much room for mistakes. In a small layout, you have no area to compensate for a mistake. As the layout is also easily overlooked, you have to pay also a lot of attention to detail. Personally, I favor building small layouts for that very reason.
mcfunkeymonkey Just curious what people thought of it operationally. Is this a fun & realistic switching layout or one that unrealistically creates work for itself.
Just curious what people thought of it operationally. Is this a fun & realistic switching layout or one that unrealistically creates work for itself.
Well, I'm a big John Armstrong fan, but this was not one of his stronger efforts, IMHO. The turntable as a part of the runaround is an unnecessary gimmick, although it did probably selll some Atlas turntables when he did a similar plan originally for one of Atlas' trackplan books in 1958, which may be why the TT is included.
In 12 feet, there are many better choices, some have been shown in the thread, such as the modification of Jonathan Jones' layout or an adpatation of the trusty Switchman's Nightmare shelf switching layout.
There are some good ideas, such as the interchange yard at one end to act as visible staging. But I think it unnecessarily creates work when a more realistic, less convoluted configuration with more overlap of elements (and a viable run-around) could be a lot more interesting and less tedious to operate in the long term. Then again, some prefer clutter to realism, of course.
All these groovy plans make me want to start building 5 projects at once (as opposed to the 2-3 going on now!).
The small size would seem to be a plus: you don't have to think of the "big picture" of a large layout, until you realize this is more difficult since everything here IS the big picture!
It's definitely a fun challenge to create a little little empire.
While reading the earlier threads, John Armstrong's "Switching layout for shelf" popped into my mind. It's on page 139 of Track Planning for Realistic Operations, and since line drawings sometimes lie, I had to try it out on Anyrail:
I used Atlas 83 track with a Walthers Cornerstone 12 1/4" turntable. There's no dimentions in the book, but it lays out 18" x 12'. (Those are 6" squares). I think his indicates a grade, with the rear line elevated a bit. Armstrong says "Turntable serves to get end-loading and 'unload-from-the-side' cars into position for delivery - also completes longer runaround track."
Just curious what people thought of it operationally. Is this a fun & realistic switching layout or one that unrealistically creates work for itself. Also didn't know if the turntable was a consideration for Sir Madog.
You are right, Stein.
When you connect different "stand-alones", you need to have at least one concept or theme behind, as the common denominator. That requires a certain amount of pre-planning, aside from deciding how and where to connect the sections/modules, so the tracks actually "meet".
I am still a member of a group of mrr´s building such type of a layout. The overall theme is a fictious narrow gauge line in the west of Germany. We meet a couple of times each year for operating sessions and a charity drive. Last time we were able to collect 25 k $ in donations for a children´s cancer ward in a hospital.
The group´s home page is www.sbeg.de
It is in German, but the pics show what I mean!
Sir Madog True, they are all meant to be stand-alones, but the idea of creating a little "empire" of interconnected, individual scenes is fascinating. How about designing a connecting "black box" to disguise the change in scenery?
True, they are all meant to be stand-alones, but the idea of creating a little "empire" of interconnected, individual scenes is fascinating. How about designing a connecting "black box" to disguise the change in scenery?
You are right - I was too categorical. I was trying to communicate that just stringing standalone switching layouts together with some mainline between wouldn't necessarily work well for a larger layout.
You certainly can connect several small shadow box style layouts if you want to. Either connect the separate shadow boxes physically (e.g. by having portals/holes in the "backdrop" or "sidedrop" on both layouts match up), or connect the shadow boxes operationally (e.g. using a train cassette to transfer cars and/or trains from one layout to another - e.g moving stuff left on an interchange track on one layout onto the interchange track of another layout).
Physically connected scenes obviously can be connected with or without a black box in between two scenes simulating a longer running distance between the scenes (drive into the tunnel, wait 10 minutes, run into next scene.
In either case, it makes most sense to me if the scenes connected are set in the same era and same area, so it makes sense to have a train that passed through scene 2 appear in scene 1, scene 3 or scene 4, depending on the route taken out of scene 2.
So as long as you are still just running with one operator and one train at a time, you are okay, as long as the scenes are not too jarringly disjoint in time era and location (it would look pretty yucky, in my opinion, to have an Acela first running through a 1990s scene from the NE corridor, then past a small town at the end of a prairie line in the 1940s, then past a Colorado narrow gauge mining railroad set in the 1890s).
Or building the Milwaukee Road Beer Line in indivudual, but interconnected scenes? Maybe a good idea for a club layout...
Mmmm - the basic approach of modular model railroads is that each scene can be built on its own, but interconnected into a far bigger layout through the use of a standardized end profile - either personal/club module standards like the Milwaukee Road Beer Line or David Barrow's dominios (mentioned by Svein earlier in this thread) or by the use of standards followed by more people (like FREMO or Free-mo or Ntrak or Austrak).
That is often a good idea for a club setup, since it is flexible - modules can be swapped out for new modules if a member moves or changes modelling interests. Provided that the modules are big enough to allow reasonable length sidings etc.
The modular approach usually try to make each module visually complete (and visually compatible), though - it is normally not considered desirable to need a visual viewblock on the right and left end of each module down along a modular setup.
But I still think I would have most likely have wanted to redesign a larger layout as a whole if I was going to run it operationally as a larger layout - to review the interdependencies between desired train lengths, staging capacity, number and length of sidings, classification capacity, types of runs, run lengths, possible routings and so on and so forth.
MPRR I would be interested to see how these small shelf designs would fit in the "grand scheme of things". Take all of your different ideas, and designs and connect them all into a giant empire. Each design could be a seperate town miles away from each other.
I would be interested to see how these small shelf designs would fit in the "grand scheme of things". Take all of your different ideas, and designs and connect them all into a giant empire. Each design could be a seperate town miles away from each other.
Wouldn't work.The layouts in this thread are not designed as scenes that could be integrated in a larger layout (or at least - it would take a major redesign to make these into scenes on a larger layout) - they are quite deliberately designed as standalone switching modules.
For one thing - note the extensive use of partial buildings along the left and right side of the layouts here. Works when the world ends there. But it would be hard to create a natural looking transition from pretty cramped downtown area to "miles of track before next town".
Here is a couple of examples of scenes designed for possible later inclusion in a larger layout:
I would be interested to see how these small shelf designs would fit in the "grand scheme of things". Take all of your different ideas, and designs and connect them all into a giant empire. Each design could be a seperate town miles away from each other. I like all of the desigs you guys came up with. Keep up the good work.. I hope to see some progress shots of the design you deside to build.
DJOIf this is a dcc powered railroad, how do you set up the power distrits with all of those switches?
If this is a dcc powered railroad, how do you set up the power distrits with all of those switches?
Don't need separate power districts for a small railroad with just one operator - when you create a short and things stops, there is no point in still having power to another part of the layout be a separate power district so other people won't be affected by the short.
as it will take some while before I can start to build any layout, I´ll make use of the time to collect ideas, applying the motto "the better is the enemy of the good". Your Fed Street layout is thrilling!
The two of us should collect all these ideas systematically and publish a book
Sir Madog After a little research in the internet, I found a homepage with a lot of helpful hints and ideas for shelf layouts. I "borrowed" one of the ideas and transformed it into this:The track plan is pretty close to the original, just omitting a three-way switch. Does it look familiar, Stein? Hope you don´t mind me "stealing" your idea... The track is all Atlas Code 83 flex-track and no.6 super switches, the double slip switch is Peco Code 83.
After a little research in the internet, I found a homepage with a lot of helpful hints and ideas for shelf layouts. I "borrowed" one of the ideas and transformed it into this:
The track plan is pretty close to the original, just omitting a three-way switch. Does it look familiar, Stein? Hope you don´t mind me "stealing" your idea...
The track is all Atlas Code 83 flex-track and no.6 super switches, the double slip switch is Peco Code 83.
LOL - my old living room layout plan? I don't even think it got a proper name - just "industrial switching in 2x7 feet" or some such thing. Looks much better with your buildings and scenery superimposed on the track plan than the layout ever did in my living room - where it got about half built before I changed prototypes.
Btw - sorry to keep throwing new ideas at you all the time, but that Federal Street plan has kept moving around up in my head. Here is a variant of some of the ideas from Federal Street in 2 x 8 1/2 feet - I am calling this one "Federal Overpass".
It has some of the same elements as federal street - diagonals, street crossing the layout, small buildings in the front you look over, big factories in the back.
Any good, or just more confusion ?
we had a terrible thunderstorm yesterday evening - so I did not dare to switch on my computer. No major damage in our area, though. The more I look at my plan, the less I start to like the "tangled spaghetti" track work in the middle of it. No railroad would do that - too expensive. I guess I have to do some more research and planning -. It´s a challenge...
... which I took up again. After a little research in the internet, I found a homepage with a lot of helpful hints and ideas for shelf layouts. I "borrowed" one of the ideas and transformed it into this:
steinjrSir Madog Stein, you have a certain way of putting things to the point! You are right - it is not the operation, but the overall look of this plan I like about it. Somehow there is a picture of it in my head, generated while I was drawing it.I am also a little unsure about the operations - I need to learn to think more in ops terms. Is there a way to "simplify" this plan while keeping its character? Must be, but I haven't found it yet. Let me first put labels on the existing layout, so it is easier to refer to tracks while discussing how they could be used. Ooops - time to cook dinner - my turn to cook today. More later.
Sir Madog Stein, you have a certain way of putting things to the point! You are right - it is not the operation, but the overall look of this plan I like about it. Somehow there is a picture of it in my head, generated while I was drawing it.I am also a little unsure about the operations - I need to learn to think more in ops terms. Is there a way to "simplify" this plan while keeping its character?
you have a certain way of putting things to the point! You are right - it is not the operation, but the overall look of this plan I like about it. Somehow there is a picture of it in my head, generated while I was drawing it.
I am also a little unsure about the operations - I need to learn to think more in ops terms.
Is there a way to "simplify" this plan while keeping its character?
Must be, but I haven't found it yet. Let me first put labels on the existing layout, so it is easier to refer to tracks while discussing how they could be used.
Ooops - time to cook dinner - my turn to cook today. More later.
Well, both the wife and our two kids (and I) survived dinner, so I can't have botched it too badly :-)
Have been mucking around with this track plan. I am not sure that this is an actual improvement, but here is a suggestion:
Main changes:
1) Added an extra crossover between the running main (track 3-4 in the original plan) and the rear/top industry track, allowing you to switch two of the five industries without having to move cars at other industries at all, making sure that you never will have to move cars at more than one other industry to switch one of the industries that are behind other industries, and making sure that you won't have to shuttle back and forth several times to get at the car or car spot you want.
2) Moving the tracks to the dockside industries on the bottom/left side away from the middle diagonal yard track, and moving the runaround up to the main running track above the yard.
Of course, the core problem has not been solved - that 6 industries/spurs are are on spurs where an engine moving cars from the yard to industries (or the other way around) needs to make a runaround move, while only three industries (packing plant, dept store and maybe pai co) are on spurs where movement from the yard to industry spots do not require runaround moves. In an ideal world, the yard is oriented the same way as the industries - so an engine grabs cars and back out before driving forward again into the right spot for the car.
steinjr Ooops - time to cook dinner - my turn to cook today. More later. Smile, Stein
... did that only once in 25 years of marriage. My wife used to teach cooks in a vocational school - no chance to create anything that withstands her discerning eye or tongue.
Enjoy!
Sir Madog Stein, you have a certain way of putting things to the point! You are right - it is not the operation, but the overall look of this plan I like about it. Somehow there is a picture of it in my head, generated while I was drawing it.I am also a little unsure about the operations - I need to learn to think mor in ops terms. Is there a way to "simplify" this plan while keeping its character?
I am also a little unsure about the operations - I need to learn to think mor in ops terms.
Sir Madog Did some finetuning work on my favorit plan - the fictious Milwaukee Fed Str. Yard. Unless I come up with something better, this will be it... Found a way to squeeze out the extra couple of feet of space needed, but this is the max now SWMBO will allocate to me.
Did some finetuning work on my favorit plan - the fictious Milwaukee Fed Str. Yard. Unless I come up with something better, this will be it...
Found a way to squeeze out the extra couple of feet of space needed, but this is the max now SWMBO will allocate to me.
Well, if that's the one you like the best, that's the one you like best.
I don't think I would have picked that one if I was picking a design for myself. Track plan creates too convoluted moves for my taste when it comes to switching - there seems to be very few moves that can be done in an easy way from the yard tracks to to the industries or the other way around.
Anyways - what are your favorite features from this plan?
The deeper I dig into the subject of small shelf-type switching layouts, the more I start to like them. They are a challenge to design, to build and to operate - may be even a little more, than bigger layouts. Is that the reason they are so popular in the UK?
Anyway, I am still collecting ideas...
Sir MadogStein,you are a fountain of information!
you are a fountain of information!
Unfortunately I do not have the "change" any longer to purchase those issues of MRP you mentioned
Then again - look on the bright side - if Kalmbach had published a series of books with shelf plans only (as I think you suggested), those books would have been about three times the price of an back issue of MRP, and would have been even further away from being affordable.
And having the old MRPs, it is quick to summarize ideas from such track plans. E.g. Linda Sand's 1 x 8 foot layout from MRP 2006 looked roughly like this (my interpretation of her plan, not a photo copy of the plan):
Some ideas of making such a small plan more interesting operationally - some mentioned by Sand in the accompanying article in the 2006 MRP, some mentioned by her (and others) in other articles elsewhere:
Modeling _one_ larger industry with multiple car spots makes for a more interesting flow of traffic than modelling four or five tiny industries that take one boxcar each - and will spend three weeks using up the stuff inside that one boxcar.
Here there is not a lot of structure to build - two or three flats along the back track, two or three chemical tanks (or trackside pumps) and a shipping building at the front left. But you can build those background structures big - say 4 stories big. Plenty of space to make them seem like a part of a big plant.
You got three little bridges over a creek here. One built for the in-plant switch lead. One built for one railroad (in Linda's article Wisconsin Central) main. One build for an interchange track from another railroad (in Linda's article C&NW, later UP). Can be built in totally different styles, with totally different balast colors and styles.
You can have the crossing of the two railroads over in the front right corner, and scratchbuild a small tower in a suitable style.
This plan has 10-11 car spots - I've labelled them R1 and R2 (for receiving spot 1 and 2), P1 and P2 (for powerhouse spot 1 and 2), W1 and W2 (for Wood unloading spots 1 and 2), C1 and C2 (chemical spot 1 and 2), S1 and S2 for shipping spot 1 and spot 2 and T1 for "Team track" spot 1.
You can add all kinds of interesting rules - like "Kaolin sludge in covered hoppers must be delivered to R2, where they can be unloaded into a tank truck". Or "road must not be blocked more than 15 minutes at a time, to allow town emergency vehicles access to houses on the other side of the WC main". Or "Old WC main between the interchange track and the old C&NW/WC tower can be used for temporary storage of cars".
It would even be possible to have an engine from the railroad the plant is located along take the cars from the interchange track and shove them into the plant, where the plant switcher takes over, thus modeling two railroads (within-plant RR and class 1 RR) in this tiny amount of space.Of so, you could drop the in-plant runaround.
Or you can just allow the plant switcher trackage rights on the main over to the interchange track.
Lots of options packed into a small layout, isn't it ?
i know what you mean, Ulrich. i don't want to get too political either but the way things are going, the whole country could find itself in a fuhrer, oops, i meant furor.
grizlump
Unfortunately I do not have the "change" anylonger to purchase those issues of MRP you mentioned
I know we should not get political in this forum, but this financial crisis is affecting all of us, whereever we are in the world. Our hobby is also affected, with more and more companies filing insolvency or just going out of business. Marklin/Trix/LGB and Mehano are only the more spectacular cases. It is not only a credit crunch anymore - it is a desease which may impose a threat to many a democracy all over the world - also Germany! We will have general elections in September and I expect a tremendous gain in votes for both the socialistic "Left" party as well as ... (expletive, deleted) "national Rights".
I am woriied!
DigitalGriffinIt seems everyone, except retires, is effected by the downturn now.
What makes you think that retirees are exceptions to the rule? Have you noticed the stock market and/or interest rates and/or home prices during the recent economic disaster? And remember that retirees don't have the time to recover that younger folks do. We all are being hit hard, some obviously and tragically harder than others.
Dante
Sir Madog Stein, I took your idea and transformed it into using Atlas Code 83 track and no.6 turnouts. Another step in the right direction. Here it is:
I took your idea and transformed it into using Atlas Code 83 track and no.6 turnouts. Another step in the right direction.
Here it is:
Looks good to me!
A suggestion to MR´s staff - why don´t you run a series or even make a book about "scenic" shelf switchers? Not all of us have the space (and the money) to build one 0f those 15´by 30´ or even bigger layouts, filling an entire basement.
Well, they have several books which show small shelf switching layouts. Several (most) issues of Model Railroad Planning has shelf switching layouts.
MRP 2006 has Ian Rice on sectional shelf layouts and Mike Aufterderheide's "Modeling the Monon's Hoosier Hub", Linda Sand's excellent "Industrial Railroad on a shelf"and an excellent article by David Barrow: "From model railroad to railroad model" where he shows a linear shelf layout based on LDEs, and a scene (Elevator A) from Chuch Hitchcock's Argentine Industrial District Railway
MRP 2005 e.g. has Scot Osterweil's adaptation of Linn Westcott's Switchman's Neightmare and Byron Henderson's Alameda Belt Line
MRP 2004 has en interesting plan based on Long Island's Oyster Bay Branch and a 4x8 Illinois Midland model railroad improved by turning it into an L shaped shelf layout
MRP 2003 was a theme issues - with 9 bookcase layout (small shelf layouts that would fit on top of a bookcase): including Bernie Kempinski's New York Cross Harbor and two good plans by forum regular Dave Husman, plus some ideas by Tony Koester on how to model big industries on small shelves.
Most issues of MRP has some good shelf plans in addition to bigger plans. This was just a random selection of four issues from the pile next to my computer.
tcf511The do have a book out about Shelf Layouts. It is written by Iain Rice. It doesn't have too many layout plans but does discuss the theory and a lot of options in building a shelf layout. I found it very useful as I try to design my first shelf layout. Good luck with everything.
The do have a book out about Shelf Layouts. It is written by Iain Rice. It doesn't have too many layout plans but does discuss the theory and a lot of options in building a shelf layout. I found it very useful as I try to design my first shelf layout. Good luck with everything.
... was delivered to me last week - a good book for those who have not yet built a shelf layout. Could have more track plan examples, for my taste.
Hey Ulrich
I'm so sorry you are having problems. The economy is hitting a lot of us hard. It seems everyone, except retires, is effected by the downturn now.
The pier front switching layout you are working on looks like a good fit. I have several variations of a pier front I've done myself. The advantage of a pier front layout is you can use short wheelbase switchers which handle R18" well. So you can get away with #4 turnouts if you want. (Providing you don't have anything over 50'->55' scale feet cargo wise)
Don - Specializing in layout DC->DCC conversions
Modeling C&O transition era and steel industries There's Nothing Like Big Steam!
Tim Fahey
Musconetcong Branch of the Lehigh Valley RR
Found another interesting one - from the Carendt site. Switching urban layout with elvated mainline at front of layout, looking down over the front structures for the switching.
Original can be viewed here: http://www.carendt.com/scrapbook/page62/index.html
An adaptation to 8 1/2 foot long with 2 feet cassettes and 30" deep (little deeper than the 24" you wanted):
Allows you to have a mainline train arrived on the elevated rail, run around its cars and shove the cars "onto a car float" or "into a siding" or some such thing (ie onto cassette).
Then move the cassette down to the switching area at the bottom rear, and have a smaller switcher come out and start grabbing outbound cars and inbound cars and do it's thing.
toughen up, things will get better. it all takes time.
now about your model railroad. my entire basement layout is done in the "urban grunge" theme. i have never enjoyed making trees etc. so my railroad's neighbors are other railroads (as in E St Louis) and factory buildings. my walls are lined with walls and instead of pastoral scenery, i have streets and sidewalks.
justification for this idea came from two sources. when i first went to work on the old Big Four at Brooklyn Illinois, we had to climb through the Wabash yard to get to our yard and across the main line was the GM&O yard. at least four other railroads used our main line. second source was my first train ride from Philly to New York. almost a hundred miles and we were never out of town. every time i looked out the window all i could see was the back side of a building with an occasional street or highway.
Sorry to hear about your circumstance. Its good to have a diversion to take your mind off your problems.
Here's another suggestion for an industrial switching track plan...follow the link to Scot Osterweil's shelf layout plans:
http://www.carendt.com/articles/highland/index.html
I'm currently building a shelf layout using this track plan. Although the plan calls for a 1' x 6' shelf, I'm using an 18" wide hollow core door as the base. This gives me some extra space at the front edge for some street and storefront scenery and a few inches at the left and right ends for additional structures to "frame" the layout. Take a look at this plan...it may work for you.
Bruce J.
There seems to be a family tradition in having to start up all over again. My grandfather lost everything he had and could save only his bare life in the wake of WW I and WW II, my father nearly lost his skin during the terror reign of that Austrian with this funny moustache and I seem to be a victim af the global financial crisis, which is somewhat like a war...
It is good to know that there are fellow model railroader and friends out there in the world, with whom we can keep in touch through forums (fori!) like this one.
Stein, as usual your plan is just ... wow!
Phoebe Vet - I am a lone wolf - modelling US prototype is not very common in my area, most clubs have German themes. I have been dreaming of having a US model railroad since I was an exchange student to the US back in the early 70´s.
Thanks to all of you!
Sometimes life rises up and kicks you in the ... well, let's just say "kicks you".
Hobbies can help you keep your sanity.
Have you considered looking for a club? Participating in the club layout can help hold you over while you reassemble the pieces of your life.
In the meantime be thankful for the good woman who loves you just as much during the bad times as she did through the good times.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
E-L man tomThe May, 2001 MR has a layout article authored by Jonathan Jones, who lived at the time in NY City in a small apartment. His layout inspried me, as I live in an apartment right now and only have room for a small layout. This is an "urban corridor" that is 2' x 10'. I have modeled my small 2' x 14' L-sahped layout roughly after his
I agree with Tom. That Jonathan Jones layout is a very good basis for a small urban shelf switching layout. Byron Henderson played around a bit with it the last time it was discussed here, to make it a little easier to switch. This is my interpretation of what Byron ended up with:
That could be made into an 8 1/2 by 2 foot layout with a nautical flavor fairly easily, maybe something loosely like this ?
Btw - "bulk transshipment" is probably not the right term - but some kind of transfer of stuff from rail to sea transport (or the other way around). Could be pretty much anything - stuff from flatcars, gondolas, hoppers, maybe even covered hoppers (if you put a pit with conveyors under the track).
The May, 2001 MR has a layout article authored by Jonathan Jones, who lived at the time in NY City in a small apartment. His layout inspried me, as I live in an apartment right now and only have room for a small layout. This is an "urban corridor" that is 2' x 10'. I have modeled my small 2' x 14' L-sahped layout roughly after his
So sorry to hear about your terrible misfortune. I too have been pondering my own business, which, in the last month or two has taken a seasonal as well as an economic downturn. I am just hanging on trying to keep up two households right now (my children, all grown, are going to college and live in my house two states away) and it is becoming very tenuous.
I have found that keeping busy with my small railroad is a good distraction from the troubles. I certainly wish you all the best.
This is a very nice plan. You don't need a lot of depth to set up a realistic scene. My shelf layout is set up with only 22 inches of depth from the wall. I am currently doing an adaptation of Lance Mindheim's "East Rail". However, this is how the actual "East Rail" looks in that the Seaboard Warehouse/Archive Americas complex at the far end of my layout are actually tied together with a breezeway that allows movement of materials between both buildings. The pastel green building is Colmar Warehousing and yes it is green. I went with East Rail only because it had palm trees and I wanted to do something different this time. It have included a link that shows the true building on 54th Street in Miami.
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=25.8245~-80.251594&style=h&lvl=19&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1
Best of luck.
I did some research this morning and came up with an adaption of a plan published in MR´s May 2003 copy. It is slightly larger than what I figured out I can do, but maybe I can squeeze out a couple of feet.
What do you think, folks?
Thanks for all the good ideas and the warm words. Although my economical situation is, to say the least, very tight, I feel somehow relieved, now that most of the folding up work is done. Losing most of the posessions is not as hard as losing one´s health - which was my main worry. So I don´t have a big and expensive house any longer, I do not drive a BMW 7 series car any more. Now it is going to be a tiny house with three tiny rooms and a 15 year old Mercedes that a friend gave to me - so what! My wife and I will celebrate our silver wedding anniversary this year and we our closer together than ever!
There is even room for thoughts on model railroading. I will pick up the ideas and post the results here.
If there is more food for thought - it is most welcome!
Hi Ulrich.
How about something like David Barrow's South Plains Industrial Switching Layout? With its four 2x4 sections it is easily movable, and the two modules (South Plains and Industry Yard) may even be placed on separate levels on the same wall, with the detachable switch lead doubling as a cassette to move cars between the two levels. It might be better though if you had a 4' lead on one side instead of 2' on each side, I don't know if that's an option.
You could flip the track plan of one of the modules to ease the movement of the switching lead/cassette, and instead of an engine terminal or a grain elevator you could make a harbor scene. I think this layout offers both operation and scenic posibilities as it is, but changes can be done quite easily.
I'm sorry to hear about the loss of both your business and your home, that's just to sad! I lost my job two weeks ago when my employer filed for bancrupsy, but I can't even begin to imagine what you are going through. As Bill said, hang in there.
Sir Madog The little cubicle my wife and I will live in (I cannot call it a house) does not allow for an L-shaped layout, just something straight forward. I know Lance Mindheim´s wonderful East Rail layout, but its setting is a little too rural for me.So I am still searching for some ideas...
So I am still searching for some ideas...
Hmm - nautical flavor and industrial/urban. How about something like the Bush Terminal RR in Brooklyn, New York ? Bernie Kempinsky had an excellent layout based on this water/rail terminal in Model Railroad Planning 2003.
I made a plan partly inspired by Bernie's plan back in March 2008, as part of a forum debate on how much layout you could get from a single sheet of 4x8 foot plywood - maybe you could steal some of the ideas from something like this to create a small urban/harbor switching layout ?
Sir Madog , but doing some planning for the future keeps me from going insane, after losing everything I had been working for for more than 30 years.
, but doing some planning for the future keeps me from going insane, after losing everything I had been working for for more than 30 years.
Some times it's nice to have a little world that YOU actually have control over to keep from going nuts.Really sorry to hear about your bad luck.
Hi Ulrich
Sorry to hear of your financial woes. Hang in there.
For me the best switching layout that I have come acrossed is John H Wright's PRR
An article appeared in the May 2003 MRR "The Pennsy in Britain.
It's a 2' x 11' - 6 inch shelf layout with interesting track arrangement and terrific buildings
and scenery. He also has website www.xclent.freeuk.com
He models in Proto:87
Hope this helps and hang in there - Better times are coming
Enjoy
Bill
thanks for your reply. I am still not completely on my own two feet yet, but doing some planning for the future keeps me from going insane, after losing everything I had been working for for more than 30 years.
The little cubicle my wife and I will live in (I cannot call it a house) does not allow for an L-shaped layout, just something straight forward. I know Lance Mindheim´s wonderful East Rail layout, but its setting is a little too rural for me.
Hi Ulrich --
Glad to see that you are still into model railroading, despite having taken a nasty body blow from the state of the economy.
First thing I am thinking is something based on Lance Mindheim's East Rail (set in Miami): http://www.lancemindheim.com/track_plan.htm.
A countryman of yours named Kurt (cnw1961) has done some very impressive modelling based on the same idea, with two quickly detachable modules:
http://www.the-gauge.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=169