New Layout - Looking for feedback

[Aralai]

My layout progress continues in this thread...

[Anonymous]

 Hi Aralai,

I have been out for a few days and am just digging into to this thread again.

 I am not about to add more comments to your layout design, which I thought to be pretty mature already at the time I went out. I just want to give you a word of caution regarding planning, which can turn into some kind of  a mania searching for the "best" plan ever. I have the feeling that you are running the risk of entering this loop - I know what I am talking about, I am running the same risk.

When you have a track plan that you quite like - leave for a few days, look at it again, and if you still like - build it!

 

[Aralai]

 All fair points Doug. I appreciate it. At this point, everyone's feedback has been invaluable to me, and your comments about real estate are a good example. I need to focus more on the layout making sense operationally and from a logical perspective to make it realistic and as you say, not worry as much about recreating the prototype in whole, but rather in parts. I think that is where I am finding my biggest challenge. I'm real close with the layout Version 9.4, so will probably just make some minor tweaks to it. Thanks everyone for your interest and advice!!!

[Doughless]

I fear the enthusiasm for responding to your thread will wane when more severe changes are made to your plan.  But...  

Aralai,  I don't understand your consistent desire to have what looks like a double track main line spaced so widely apart.  Most double tracked mains run parallel and as close together as possible in order to use the least amount of real estate.  Same with runarounds.  I don't understand the island-like industry with the track splitting around it.  Also, access to the yard is a long reach.

I don't know how much you want to stick to a particular theme, but you'll have a tough time modeling your theme exactly after a prototype, given the small space you have.  You may have to choose particular elements of the prototype area you like, such as a station, a building, a bridge, and arrange them each in a way that fits your space, rather than have the train pass near them in the order they would on the prototype.  For instance, a layout might be based on a prototype in one part of the State, but an industry that's in another part of the State might be modeled because the modeler likes the look of the building and the type of traffic it generates. It could be modeled accurately, but just because the industry is not in the precise location as on the prototype (in some cases not even on the same railroad) does not necessarily make the layout unprototypical. The trade off of having the traffic and the look of the factory provides much more enjoyment to the modeler than the blemish created by the inaccurate location.

I like the yard and/or staging on the leg of the P, or the yard where Yonge street is now, using curved turnouts as the ladder.  I think you can get the shape of the curve you need for Newmarket station along the middle of the top wall, possibly any other wall, if you build the mainline using the tightest radius curves you can in the corners.

You could also experiment with having east and west staging on the P leg and gaining a broad enough radius across the drop in by moving the drop in one square to the north.  The train could travel around the layout through all of the elements you want, and terminate on a staging track that also rests on the P leg.  You could cross the staging tracks there to gain length and drop in radius if you need to.

Good Luck

Doug 

[Aralai]

steinjr

 2) Newmarket GO station - why not take the curved track coming around the upper right hand corner and take it straight ahead into the lowermost siding by the GO station (just mentally redesignate that as the main spur. Then do a crossover to the track right in front of the station, with the industry lead going off the end of the siding.

 Like this:

 

 Smile,
 Stein

 

 

I thought about that, but it would mean the regular GO Train would need to use the crossover everytime it ran along the main line.

Not to throw a monkey wrench into a good plan, but since I am getting better at RTS, I put together a plan that switches things around a bit. One thing that has been really bugging me (and I have not voiced it yet) is that the real Newmarket GO station has a platform curved the opposite way to my plan. I did not think I could model it the real way easily, thinking the station platform would only be able to face the back wall, but this new plan allows it to be modeled with the correct curve. The station would be located in the bottom left on the inside of the curve. Thoughts?

 

[steinjr]

 

Aralai

 

 Is looking good. 

 Two suggestions :

 1) To switch that small industry at Wellington Street, you have a fairly short switchback tail. You could move the turnout right to create a longer tail. Probably also would have been room for another industry at the very corner left of Yonge Street, but it would take some track changes there.

 2) Newmarket GO station - why not take the curved track coming around the upper right hand corner and take it straight ahead into the lowermost siding by the GO station (just mentally redesignate that as the main spur. Then do a crossover to the track right in front of the station, with the industry lead going off the end of the siding.

 Like this:

 

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[Paulus Jas]

Dear Aralai

you performed a miracle, i really love the layout as it has turned out.

The spur left of Newmarket could start south of the crossover, to avoid the heavy curves. When you angle the main to Barre a little bit too, almost invisible, the last crossover will be more sleeky (maybe the #5 are doing the job allready).  With curved turnouts it will be a beauty.

You obviously don't like the switch on the bridge, i would try to get the switch as far to the bridge as possible. Makes it far more easy to hide the lapconnection. I found the idea of two high buildings around the connection very appealing. With an overhead passage between the buildings you virtually hide the tracks.

Chapeau sir

Have fun, good luck (and start the build soon)

Paul

[Aralai]

I really had to think this through. I moved the main back to behind the yard, so I can keep the main able to stop at the Newmarket GO Station and at the same time isolate the yard and have a yard lead. I extended the yard lead to cross Davis Drive as a double track and rejoin the main there. The yard also has a runaround to the main at the bottom. The main splits north of Mulock to provide the spur for the industries north and south of Mulock. From there it enters the hidden staging (two tracks) which use the drop-in for loop traffic.I'm not sure I really need the spur at top left. It is not the yard lead anymore, although could be used to store some freight cars if needed. I got back the angled yard and straight main which I like. Bear in mind that I will substitute curved switches or #4 or #5 switches for freight areas. Nothing jumps out at me as a problem - I am liking the layout.

 

[odave]

Looks better to me - I like the single track look by the lake.

I agree with Paulus that you should consider putting in a runaround at Davis Drive.  Otherwise your freights would need to back all the way to the yard when working facing point industries.  Or you could run your local out-and-back, and only switch the industries when they are trailing point.  The only kicker is your industry at Wellington St., that one needs some kind of runaround somewhere, unless backing all the way to the yard is OK. 

You could get some more length for your yard lead by curving it off to the right, but then it would need to be paritally hidden in the mall.  I just got a visual of that car chase scene from the Blues Brothers movie

As for the turnouts and curve radii, I believe the timeframe being modeled here is the late 1980s, so 40ft cars will be a rarity.  Maybe compromise at #5's?

And here's some background reading at the LDISG site on curve radii, so you know what to expect.

For more operations, you might want to try to put some backdrop-flat industries along the left side (in addition to the current reserved yard lead).  You can access them by putting a double-slip at one of the ladder turnouts, and adding a runaround somewhere.  The tradeoff would be that one of the yard body tracks would need to be reserved as a lead for those industries. 

[Paulus Jas]

Aralai,

you seem to have mastered RTS, chapeau nice drawn plan you are presenting us; i tried to install Rts anew but still no curved switches.

The gravine is talking about a !:2 ratio, give and take an inch. Your coaches will be 11"long, so your radius will be  22". When i looked right the radii you have drawn recenntly are over 25". You"ll have some space to add a lot of the old goodies.

• Restore the double track in front of Newmarket with a crossover between Davis and Queens, it will give you a much longer yardlead. And the Queensbridge is still ready for the spur into the Fairy Lake area.
• I loved the little angle between the Barre-main and the Bradfort-yard. A few very short pieces of flextrack could do the job.
• Consider the use of #4 switches in the freightyard. Too tight for your coaches, the older 40' and 50' freigtcars will do well on them.
• You could also use a curved switch on the drop-in to restore the passing siding in staging. Makes operating more flexible.

Still a few things to decide. I feel you will start building soon. I'd love to see some pictures of work in progress. In a relatively small space you've created a great empire.

Good luck, have fun

Paul 

[Aralai]

Thanks Doug - Awesome feedback - I understand what you describe. With my 80 foot GO cars, what is the tightest radius recommended? I was trying to keep the radius as large as possible in the space I have. How do I get the curved turnouts in the RTS program?

Here is the updated layout incorporating your suggestion...

 

[Doughless]

Aralai

 I made a modified layout that switches the yard to the back of the main line, and takes the drop-in out completely. It keeps the yard from fouling the main and uses the spur in the left top as a switching lead. It takes into account the smaller size I have to work with - approx 1 foot shorter from the top to the furnace.

 

I agree w/dave, the yard works much better against the wall.  Personally, I would rework the main and the trackage to the right of it. Seems overly complicated.  Its also not a good idea to combine a yard lead and an industry spur on a short track, having to constantly move a spotted car out of the way in order to switch the yard.

I have an idea I wish you would consider, but my computer illiteracy only allows me to describe the changes, not draw them, which may seem confusing: 

I would eliminate the current crossover in the yard and flip the switch on the longest track to diverge towards the main, then bring the main closer to the yard and connect them.  This would give you a longer siding with which to store a train and enough length at the bottom to have a loco consist (short one) runaround if needed.  In the upper left, I would use what is now the main (the broader curved track) as the yard lead, truncating it somewhere along the top wall, (disconnecting it from the main and eliminating the switch there).  This would give you a yard lead that would be about as long as your new runaround and your longest storage track, all of which operate best when they do not vary in length a lot.  I would install a new switch at the top of the new runaround siding (about the second or third "dot" from the top) which will connect the main to the inner curved track, creating the new main.  I would eliminate all other track to the right of the main, except a new spur which diverges towards the former drop in section, with the building it serves being in front of the track, helping to conceal the connection with the drop in should you want it restored (may as well now).

If I'm seeing things correctly, these changes allows your train length to be longer than it is now, fully parked on the siding, pulled almost entirely into the yard lead and broken down without fouling the main.  The industry in the upper left will remain, and the new spur (drop in connector when in continuous run mode) would give the switcher a reason to use the runaround since the two industries are switched from opposite directions, one trailing and one facing.

 Also, in general, I think the layout would benefit from some tighter radius curves and stock curved turnout switches.

Just having fun trying to help.

Doug

[Aralai]

 I'm not sure if the continuous loop is a 'must-have' for me. I am leaning towards it not being necessary, although I could make it work. I will normally be running one train at a time - either the GO Train or freight, although I'd like to be able to have the freight park on a passing track and have the GO train pass. Most times if I am running the GO train, I might be doing some switching in the Yard with the freight, so it will probably be important to isolate the yard from the main as in the new diagram. It would be nice to have a yard crossover to get the locomotive behind freight cars, but you are right about needing room for the locomotive.

[odave]

In general I think the yard works better on that side of the main.  But as sketched, the crossover at the bottom isn't really useable, since there's not enough tail to get a locomotive or car to clear the points.  Likewise for the bottom turnout just to its right.

I'd hate for you to lose that continuous running option, because it seemed like a fairly important druther of yours.  Why did you take it out?  I think the suggestions for hiding the connector were workable... 

You may want to do some thinking about the need for a full length passing track.  Yes, you do need one if you want to model meets or have one train work an area while another passes by.  But it seems like trying to get that siding to fit in your space is making other parts more difficult or look non-prototypical.  If modelling a meet "on stage" is very important to you, then I'd say keep trying to fit it in. 

But if it's not, then maybe you should let yourself off the hook and just make a short runaround somewhere to help out your freight switching.  This may clear up some space for spurs and scenery.  Meets can be done offstage in your staging track or in the yard.  It does mean that you need to run your GO & CN freight trains one at a time, so that's the tradeoff.  Your call on which trade is the better one.

[Aralai]

 I made a modified layout that switches the yard to the back of the main line, and takes the drop-in out completely. It keeps the yard from fouling the main and uses the spur in the left top as a switching lead. It takes into account the smaller size I have to work with - approx 1 foot shorter from the top to the furnace.

 

[Aralai]

It should not be a problem with multiple operators. When I run the loop, nothing else will be going on. I may need to move the yard to the outside though, as I discovered yesterday when cleaning out the room that I am almost a foot short in length for the direction the yard goes, so I need to re-do the layout to make sure everything fits.

[Paulus Jas]

Dear Aralai

I did a bit of thinking and one thing is still concerning me. I should have posted a drawing, makes it easyer to understand, alas. In my vision, we have the main from Barre, through holland Landing and Newmarket under Queens into Wellington on the outsidetrack along the wall. The yard and the yardlead are on the inside track up front, till its connection with the main just before Queens.

The layout will be looking very much now as a point to point system, with an almost hidden lap connection. As i remember well this precisely what you were after. But if you use the laprunning option a lot, to create some running time between stops, you'll have a problem when two operators are around. Suppose one is switching the yard, the other running the GO, the last will have to cross the switch lead again and again. The double slipswitch makes the crossing itself beautifull; it takes the dubble S-curve away, but it will dearly annoy the switchjob. Mark noticed this early'r on as well.

Reversing the yard (to the outside) and the main (to the front) could be an answer. Just something to tinker about.

Have fun, good luck, a little bit of thinking

Paul 

 

[steinjr]

Aralai

To clarify - a double slip switch is a two sided point? That is it has points on both sides but takes up less space than two points (switches) put end to end?

 

 Four different ways of having two tracks cross each other:

 

 In a crossing, you have only one setting - you can only go straight across.

 In a single slip, you have two settings - go straight across, or diverge (but diverge only on one side, depending on how you installed the slip - either between the two top tracks or between the two bottom tracks).

 In a double slip, you can go straight across, or diverge (on either side).

 With two turnouts end to end, you have this:

   So yeah - a double slip is functionally as two turnouts back to back, but takes up far less space.

 

 In a yard ladder, you might want the flexibility of being able to run trains on either of the four routes allowed by the double slip:

 

 If you don't need one of the two first routes, a single slip would have done the job.

 Smile,
 Stein

 

 

 

[Aralai]

Yes Paul I think that would work. To clarify - a double slip switch is a two sided point? That is it has points on both sides but takes up less space than two points (switches) put end to end?

Sorry I am so used to using the UK term points instead of switch - old habit...

Not sure I will be able to actually place the right pieces in the RTS program, but I get the idea..

 

[Paulus Jas]

Aralai

I like to use names, so the industry hiding the lap-track switch is called Hol Lap Ind.(HLI).

Very good thinking indeed, yard work blocks the main to Barre, while the connection into staging is usualy not used that much. May be so in the great outdoors, but also on your layout?  A solution:

• Put the switch of the staging yard on the drop-in and place on its original spot in HLI a new switch to the ladder. (And remove the switch to the ladder on the Barre main)
• You could use a double slip switch. It will make the yardtracks a foot longer and will create more space between Holland Landing and the staging area. And space to keep the spur up front.
• You could also add a crossover from the southern end of the yard to the Barre-main. Gives you a runaround in the yard as well; you'll need that one.

I made a little sketch, it emphasizes the main to Barre so much more, and sneaking through HLI is downtoning the lapconnection nicely. In my vision the line between Queens and Barre has three crossovers, one between Queens and NewMarket, one between Holland Landing and HLI (with the double slip switch) and one on the southern end of the yard towards Barre. 

At your service

Good luck, have fun

Paul

[Aralai]

 I am wondering if it would be possible to have the yard connect to the loop track instead of the main? That way, the yard switching would not foul the main. Do you think there is room to run a switch in between the two switch from the main to the loop track and the second switch inside the building?

[Aralai]

Doughless

The issue that I see with that building is that in order to use the curved runaround or switch the industry at the top of Holland Landing is that a loco or train would have to enter that building first, which is very unusual.

Scenicly, I think you could accomplish the same thing by simply having a building that was close to the tracks, rather than having the tracks pass inside the building.  It would still tend to conceal the tracks by giving your eye the break in the scene it needs without having to absolutely conceal the tracks.

Doug

 

That makes sense. I can make the tracks run along behind the building.

I am hoping to start building this month... :)

[Doughless]

Aralai

 

When you are talking about the industry at Holland Landing - bear in mind a few things - firstly, the line entering the building is not intended to be a main line. The actual main runs from Barrie, around the outside perimeter until it crosses Mulock, then it is the track that crosses the Yonge Street Bridge, although trains heading into the hidden staging represent trains heading to Toronto. The drop-in loop is ti allow continuous operation, not to complete a main line. The building could be a maintenance shop or I was thinking an industry that had inside unloading of trains. 

Aralai:

The issue that I see with that building is that in order to use the curved runaround or switch the industry at the top of Holland Landing is that a loco or train would have to enter that building first, which is very unusual.

Scenicly, I think you could accomplish the same thing by simply having a building that was close to the tracks, rather than having the tracks pass inside the building.  It would still tend to conceal the tracks by giving your eye the break in the scene it needs without having to absolutely conceal the tracks.

Doug

[Aralai]

 A few things. The layout is a compromise mostly because it is intended to emulate as much as possible the real thing. In real life, the main line from Toronto to Barrie is virtually north-south as it goes through Aurora and Newmarket. Because of this, when I build it on my layout - North - South gets curved around the room, hence the roads appearing in a radial pattern instead of at 90 degrees or parallell to each other. In real life, there is no crossovers at Davis Drive/Tannery, although in the past there were sidings. The main reason I put them is to have a passing track.

When you are talking about the industry at Holland Landing - bear in mind a few things - firstly, the line entering the building is not intended to be a main line. The actual main runs from Barrie, around the outside perimeter until it crosses Mulock, then it is the track that crosses the Yonge Street Bridge, although trains heading into the hidden staging represent trains heading to Toronto. The drop-in loop is ti allow continuous operation, not to complete a main line. The building could be a maintenance shop or I was thinking an industry that had inside unloading of trains.

Some of the ideas are great, but change the real life design a lot - ex: multi-track at Wellington. That is the biggest challenge with this layout is to strike a balance between making it as real as the prototype and yet have the features that work well.

[Paulus Jas]

Dear Aralai

Mark is right with the viewblock industry (near Holland Landing), for every run-around move in your yard the engine has to enter the building. You'll have a lot of run-around moves to perform, it's the only one you have operationally. When you split the building up in two parts and when you remove the switch of your staging yard to or on the drop-in, you'll have it all. And you don't have lift off the building in case of a derailment or maintenance.

The extra crossover to Tannery Mall seems odd to me, so does the very short spur under Queens. You could consider removing the Tannery Mall crossover and putting the Davis crossover a foot to the left. When you also lengthen the spur into the Waterstreet area, your spur can serve two big industry's with Queens in between.

Did you ever think about adding a second spur at Youngstreet? It could be used by the wayfreight working the plant at Wellington without disturbing the GO-train on the other track.

Keep thinking, your plan is almost perfect; starting the build is due soon? 

Have fun and good luck

Paul    

[Loco]

Just a quick note, this has really been a great thread.  I've been following and have learned some good stuff.  Nice way to see the thought process for some of us who are still a learning.

[markpierce]

Yes, I see a lot of progress. 

Does the short spur under Queen Street serve a purpose?

Holland Landing industry view block?  I'm not fond of the mainline entering a building unless the approach over the aisle is hidden too, and unless this is at a high enough level in relation to a person's eyes to block the image, I'm disturbed that a locomotive must enter an industry in order to gain access to the presumed enginehouse.

Sorry, while the yard lead doesn't foul the circle route, it does foul the mainline to Barre.  Also, while the yard would be effective as an interchange point or to assemble/disassemble blocks of cars, it is poorly situated to assemble or breakdown complete trains, if that was your purpose.  I haven't followed this thread closely.  If mainline trains merely drop off or pick up cars rather than being assembled/disassembled here, you're OK.  Still, to run around a cut of cars one must foul the circle route.  Can you live with that?

The street layout looks like it is a radial design.  More common in the US is the 90-degree grid.  I'd eliminate/realign most of the streets, especially the southeast and northeast streets.

The industries served are tiny.  I would rely more on flats against the layout edge suggesting larger industries, and you're missing an opportunity to develop a more complex industrial arrangement in the Welling St. area.  May I suggest using the track going under Yonge Street as a switching lead to a multi-track arrangement serving a sizeable industry where Wellington Street is drawn?

Mark

[Doughless]

Aralai

odave

Thanks for adding the context - forgot about the furnace & hot water heater.  Just a couple of things:

* There is a grade crossing over the points of two turnouts on the right-hand side.  This may look funny and not work well (especially considering the switching mechanisms).  Ulrich's edit appears to take care of that.

* I don't see how the yard on the left hand side can be worked without fouling the main.  This may not be an issue for you, depending on how you plan your traffic.

* I wonder if you could work in a curved turnout where the loopback track gets hidden on the left-hand side, then run two tracks over your liftout.  This would make the other Toronto staging track double-ended.  It would give you more options.

If you're like me, you will find yourself continuously making tweaks and improvements as time goes on.   Good luck!

 

All good points odave. There will be a trade-off if I lose the switch at the level crossing, as I'm not sure the lap siding will work for me, so I would lose a passing track at the top right, although a switch at the crossing will not work well. I'll fool around a bit with that.

Yes - the yard should be able to be worked without fouling the main line. I will look at that too.

Doubling the drop in would work well and be pretty easy - good idea.

ETA: Got rid of the switch at the level crossing - added a second hidden loop track, enlarged the industry that hides the loop tracks (ignore the botched photoshop job of the switch and curve there - I will fix when I build it)

I think I'll have to live with the yard the way it is with the mainline. Any changes to isolate it more from the main line take length away from the yard that I really need. It will be a challenge operationally, but I am ok with it.

 

 

I've been following this thread and I am very impressed with the plan, especially from where it started. 

What does everyone think of the pass through industry at Holland Landing? Specifically, how do you swith the switch back industry at the top, or even use the curved run around there, without the loco or cars diving into the building?  Aralai, is that building representative of something that is located specifically in your area? I think it would be pretty unusual.

[Paulus Jas]

or put the curved turnout on the drop-in?

Paul

[odave]

It's better, but there are some tradeoffs.

* The main will still be fouled when cuts of cars are moved across the double-slip.  Seeing how this part of the main will dead-end into the wall (but it will be implied to continue, yes?) there won't be much real through-traffic here anyway, so it may not be a big deal for a little fouling.  It's a matter of looks, I guess.

* You will lose the industries on the existing track, so you'll have to think about the tradeoff - eliminating the need for a freight to back up the main while classifying cars vs. two less industries to switch. 

Maybe you could mirror this whole section, with the main shooting out diagonally, and the yard continuing straight along the wall.   You might still lose those industries, but maybe there's room for two tracks there - one for the yard lead and one along the wall serving some flats.

Edit - one thing about my previous curved turnout idea, since it is a hidden turnout, you should have a plan for maintenance access.  Maybe the industry can lift up or something.

[Aralai]

Thanks Ulrich - that would work...

[Anonymous]

Aralai,

if you replace the switch off the main to the yard by a double-slip crossing, you could use the spur going north as a switching lead for the yard.

You still need to cross the main while switching, but you can clear it using the spur. It is, IMHO, more of a "looks" or a logical issue, as the main line going south leads into Nirvana...

 

[Aralai]

odave

Thanks for adding the context - forgot about the furnace & hot water heater.  Just a couple of things:

* There is a grade crossing over the points of two turnouts on the right-hand side.  This may look funny and not work well (especially considering the switching mechanisms).  Ulrich's edit appears to take care of that.

* I don't see how the yard on the left hand side can be worked without fouling the main.  This may not be an issue for you, depending on how you plan your traffic.

* I wonder if you could work in a curved turnout where the loopback track gets hidden on the left-hand side, then run two tracks over your liftout.  This would make the other Toronto staging track double-ended.  It would give you more options.

If you're like me, you will find yourself continuously making tweaks and improvements as time goes on.   Good luck!

 

All good points odave. There will be a trade-off if I lose the switch at the level crossing, as I'm not sure the lap siding will work for me, so I would lose a passing track at the top right, although a switch at the crossing will not work well. I'll fool around a bit with that.

Yes - the yard should be able to be worked without fouling the main line. I will look at that too.

Doubling the drop in would work well and be pretty easy - good idea.

ETA: Got rid of the switch at the level crossing - added a second hidden loop track, enlarged the industry that hides the loop tracks (ignore the botched photoshop job of the switch and curve there - I will fix when I build it)

I think I'll have to live with the yard the way it is with the mainline. Any changes to isolate it more from the main line take length away from the yard that I really need. It will be a challenge operationally, but I am ok with it.

 

 

[odave]

Thanks for adding the context - forgot about the furnace & hot water heater.  Just a couple of things:

* There is a grade crossing over the points of two turnouts on the right-hand side.  This may look funny and not work well (especially considering the switching mechanisms).  Ulrich's edit appears to take care of that.

* I don't see how the yard on the left hand side can be worked without fouling the main.  This may not be an issue for you, depending on how you plan your traffic.

* I wonder if you could work in a curved turnout where the loopback track gets hidden on the left-hand side, then run two tracks over your liftout.  This would make the other Toronto staging track double-ended.  It would give you more options.

If you're like me, you will find yourself continuously making tweaks and improvements as time goes on.   Good luck!

[Anonymous]

Aralai,

it was a pleasure!

Keep us posted on the progress - sharing is half of the fun!

[Aralai]

Thanks all for great responses. To answer Paulus,

• Are your intentions to use #6 switches everywhere? Short (40 ft) freight cars do well on #4; and you end up with a bit more extra length in your sidings (if needed?) - Yes all switches are #6. I may use a few #4 switches on freight only sidings - good idea.
  
• Is the railroad you'r building doubletracked all the way? Having a single track section could be a must.  - The current prototype is single track. I am modeling 1989 when there were more sections with sidings, passing tracks etc. These were all torn up when CN gave up the line in the 1990's. I am taking a few liberties to add some track to make things more interesting.
  
• Just for operational flexibility, can your lower staging track be made accessible from both sides? - It will be accessible from the back only. I can live with that. I will probably design a lift-out section of backdrop so I can get front access if need be.
  
• Is the runaround near the yard long enough for all your trains? Your passengertrain fits in beautifully. - Yes - I do not anticipate trains any longer than the passenger train.
  
• Do you allready have an idea how you want to service your industrial plants? The yard local, a turn? - I anticipate servicing the industries mostly from the yard.

A few other points - all the curves in the plan are at least 24" radius.

I am pretty tall and have a long reach. My desk here at work is an 'L' shape - 28" on one leg and 24" on the other, and I can reach into the corner with no problem so I don't anticipate a reach issue to the corners. If I have to lose the diagonal bench corners I will, although I think they look better.

Yes - the building in between the tracks is just a little shack.

I am pretty happy with the layout and think that other than minor changes, I will go with it as my plan. 

To all of you - I am very appreciative of the help you have all given me, and as you say the layout has come a long way since my first plan - mostly due to your valuable input. I know your help has saved me countless mistakes that I would have learned the hard way. As I build, I hope I can still ask you questions that will help as the layout takes shape.

[Paulus Jas]

Aralai,

your layout is really turning out great. I've some questions, you have to take the decisions. I know fine tuning will have to be done in the future, but still I would like to know a bit more about the following points.

• Are your intentions to use #6 switches everywhere? Short (40 ft) freight cars do well on #4; and you end up with a bit more extra length in your sidings (if needed?)
• Is the railroad you'r building doubletracked all the way? Having a single track section could be a must.
• Just for operational flexibility, can your lower staging track be made accessible from both sides?
• Is the runaround near the yard long enough for all your trains? Your passengertrain fits in beautifully.
• Do you allready have an idea how you want to service your industrial plants? The yard local, a turn?

great job so far

Good luck and have fun,

Paul 

 

[Anonymous]

Aralai,

I have picked up some of Stein´s ideas and incorporated them into your plan. Unfortunately, Photobucket is down for the moment, so i can´t post the plan here. I will send you the RTS file via e-mail.

 Edit: Photobucket is back!

[steinjr]

 

Aralai

 OK - this should be more clear. I angled the yards to separate from the main line and added roads, buildings etc.. I also made more space between tracks in the bottom right - between hidden staging and the main (visible) track.
 

I assume you have checked lengths of sidings etc relative to planned train lengths and radius of curves ?

 Not a biggie, though - there is room for pretty wide curves and pretty long sidings.

 If necessary, you could always use the old "lap siding" trick (two sidings, one on each side of main, partly overlapping - allows you to put two short trains on sidings and a long train on main, or let two long trains pass each other, each using part of the main plus one of the sidings).

Like this:

Probably wouldn't look right for your location, though. 

 Looks like a lot of roads down along right side of layout, but that is a purely aestetic issue - whatever you like.

 Mmm - reach might become a problem in upper right and upper left corner ? 

 Would it be possible to e.g move the structure in the upper left corner around to the upper side (across the tracks from the GO station), and maybe move the layout edge even closer to the walls in the upper left corner and along the right side ?

 Something like this:

 Well, I'd better head in for work.

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[Anonymous]

Wow, Aralai - your track plan has come a long way from the first idea you posted here! Starting to look really good! Two things you need to check. 1. What is the radius of the curve you have added on the upper left - don´t go below 18". 2. The building between the tracks close to Davis drive can be only a very small one - tracks are not much more than 2 1/4" apart. I like the angled yard!

[Aralai]

 OK - this should be more clear. I angled the yards to separate from the main line and added roads, buildings etc.. I also made more space between tracks in the bottom right - between hidden staging and the main (visible) track.

 

[odave]

Aralai

The bench on the left runs to a wall, so if I am understanding you correctly - I could angle the yard to the right away a bit from the main line - is that what you mean?

Actually I was wondering if the whole bottom grid row, the width of your entire space, and 12" high, could be the yard.  That would leave 24" of aisle space from the top edge of that yard to the bottom edge of your Toronto staging (which would need to be fully enclosed to remain hidden, I guess - but you can do something easy with hinges or curtains there).   You could think of the shape of an @ sign with the top of the "a" cut off or a backwards 9.  A picture would be better, but I am sans drawing tools at the moment.  I'm not sure how this would work out with the curves, though.

Sir Madog

I have noticed that switchbacks on layouts are one of those like/dislike items.

I agree, but sometimes it seems people aren't aware of the problems they can introduce, so when it's up and running they end up saying  "wow, this really stinks" as opposed to "that's the challenge I intended".

 

[Anonymous]

I have noticed that switchbacks on layouts are one of those like/dislike items. Fact is that switchbacks always provide some drawback (switchback = drawback - my English is deteriorating rapidly) and real railroads will try to avoid them for that reason like the devil the sacred wate. However, sometimes it pays off to artifiacially create a bottleneck in operation to add some suspense and challenge to operation. Just think about it... SMILE (my emoticons are gone...)

[Aralai]

odave

Gotcha.  I lost some context when the buildings, streets, and backdrops went away.  I know it takes time to put them in, but they do help with evaluation and also ensure that you're leaving enough space for scenic elements.

So I take it the bottom two tracks there are still hidden behind something?  If so, you may want to look at the spacing between them and the scenic'd main.  I'm not sure there's enough room for the backdrop or whatever it is that hides them to fit. Remember that you'll have roadbed, ballast, and the turnout mechanism to account for.

Is the bottom 12" off limits?   It might be nice to pull the yard around the corner and down there, so you'd have an inverted "G" shape.  It seems like the single-track look of this area has been lost in the current plan, and that might help open things up.

 

Yes - the bottom two tracks are hidden behind backdrop for staging. I will probably need to pull the main track further away - you are right. The bench on the left runs to a wall, so if I am understanding you correctly - I could angle the yard to the right away a bit from the main line - is that what you mean?

I am putting roads and buildings on the plan as we speak...

[odave]

Gotcha.  I lost some context when the buildings, streets, and backdrops went away.  I know it takes time to put them in, but they do help with evaluation and also ensure that you're leaving enough space for scenic elements.

So I take it the bottom two tracks there are still hidden behind something?  If so, you may want to look at the spacing between them and the scenic'd main.  I'm not sure there's enough room for the backdrop or whatever it is that hides them to fit. Remember that you'll have roadbed, ballast, and the turnout mechanism to account for.

Is the bottom 12" off limits?   It might be nice to pull the yard around the corner and down there, so you'd have an inverted "G" shape.  It seems like the single-track look of this area has been lost in the current plan, and that might help open things up.

[Aralai]

odave

I noticed you have a switchback in the lower right corner, they can be more trouble than they're worth if you don't keep part of it clear for switching moves.  Make sure you know what you're getting into when you include switchbacks - see Byron's article for the details.

 

Thanks odave - It is technically not a switchback. The track continues to the left as the main line in the real world, although in my layout it stops. To the left of the switch is just a rail bridge over a road (Yonge Street), with no industry or stops. The siding is to an industry. I do need to ensure enough room for moving cars there, but the intent is for there only to be minimal movement there.

[odave]

I noticed you have a switchback in the lower right corner, they can be more trouble than they're worth if you don't keep part of it clear for switching moves.  Make sure you know what you're getting into when you include switchbacks - see Byron's article for the details.

[Paulus Jas]

Dear Aralai'

yes, keep it straight and keep the spurs as well. But I was also thinking about double tracking between Mulock and the drop-in on the Wellington side, combining staging and the passing-siding; thought the Mulock crossing had to become singletrack,  To switch the spurs around Mulock you may still need a short runaround, so the added crossover near Wellington. Queens remained single track territory in my initial thinking

But I still think you'll need a runaround near or in the the yard, i would have a sleepless night or two; so many passing-sidings. You do not really need an extra runaround between Mullock and Wellington. You could always switch the spurs on the way east or west, working the trailing spur only. Having a passing-siding at Queens (a runaround for the yard) and one in staging (partly?hidden), gives you all the operational flexibility you'll need. 

You'r really learning fast sir, chapeau. There is a great plan emerging!! 

BTW, if you look on the thread  " is 24" plausible? " you will find a picture of a huge elevator complex in Wichita. To scale it down you can deminish the size of the cylinders, the number of them or truncate the building. The first two have to be done with care, a big building should remain big and still dwarf the environment. The last option is more easy to our brains; it seems to invent the remainder of the build itself.

Have fun , good luck

Paul

[Anonymous]

Aralai, it is a pleasure to see, how your track plan develops! I see that you have lengthened one track of the yard to the left by some 10 inches - is there a reason you don´t want to have the other tracks a little longer as well?

[Aralai]

OK - updated the plan...

 

[Aralai]

@ Paul - you are right about the staging tracks. The lower one stops at the edge of the bench and the middle one also stops there - except when the drop-in is in place. Both are hidden behind the backdrop.

I will probably be only running one train at a time most of the time, but it would be nice to have the passing track. Do you mean to keep the mainline straight across the top  and get rid of the siding and switch to the left and just keep the one to the right starting from a switch to the right of the crossing?

 

[Paulus Jas]

Aralai

I struggled with the passing siding at the middle top. I wanted to keep it, but I am also trying to keep true to prototype and that is where my main street has a level crossing and it is single track there. It would have been nice to have operationally, but then I would have to change too much from the real world.

Dear Aralai,

two short remarks.

You introduced two S-curves in Mulock, your coaches will not look right there; you can keep the upper track and let the lower track begin beyond the crossing.

I feel you really need a passing track, unless you run only one train at a time. The one you have now seems to be very short indeed. You can make the passing track longer, even as far as the drop-in, and you could add a crossover just before entering the hidden section. May be i am wrong here, but i my memory you wanted to use the lowest two tracks, just before the drop in, for staging. 

Stein had on his thread a discussion with Cuyama, about conflicting prototype and modelling-needs.

Have fun, good luck

Paul

[Aralai]

OK - I took Ulrich's modifications to my plan and tweaked it a bit.I flipped the siding at the bottom right to face the other way, as I need to model a street and bridge at the bottom toward the center.

I struggled with the passing siding at the middle top. I wanted to keep it, but I am also trying to keep true to prototype and that is where my main street has a level crossing and it is single track there. It would have been nice to have operationally, but then I would have to change too much from the real world.

I extended the track at top right and bottom left - thought it might be good to have them go off somewhere to give a better feeling of distance. I am much happier with the yards the way they are now - thanks!

I need to overlay my streets and buildings to make sure that there are no major issues. Let me know what you think of the track plan though...

 

[Paulus Jas]

Aralai

The wheel flanges seem so shallow compared to my old stuff,

Dear Aralai,  it's not the size of the flanges that matters it's the form, so don't worry.

Aralai

the cars are pretty light.

there are NMRA standards for weight versus length; you can add weight if needed. I run only 40 and 50 foot long freightcars, I have no good idea about your coaches. For shorter cars it's 1 ounce for every 10 scale foot; with a 3.5 min. A 40 foot car should be 4 ounces; a new thread?

As far as i can see your coaches never have to negotiate S-curves, #6"s with a 24"radius will do a great job, the only problem is Mulock. The main is now (on Ulrich's plan) right in front of the factory. You'll have to lengthen the spur to serve both factory's.

have fun and good luck

Paul

 

[Aralai]

 I will be operating the GO Train in push/pull mode, and the coaches are the Ahearn Bombardier B-Level coaches - 85 feet. The wheel flanges seem so shallow compared to my old stuff, and the cars are pretty light. When looking at them my first impression was that if the track is not laid just right, I am going to have derailing problems, especially if they are being pushed through a switch, so I need to make sure it is done right.

[Paulus Jas]

Aralai

would a #6 switch work ok? I am not that familiar with switch sizes

Hi Aralai,

to find out you have to experiment. Do you have allready bought switches? I once bought two(left) #4, two(right) #6 and made crossovers just to find out. Sometimes snaptrack comes handy. Especially when pushing ^#6's will make the difference. When S-curves and pushing are involved, as with crossovers, even a #8 should be considered; but this applies only to track where you run your coaches (or modern autoracks). In another thread "yardladder" ,still on page 1, the space a yardladder takes was discussed.

John Armstrong the dean of modelrailroading liked to speak about standards.

Freight only branches need a 18"mainline radius and #4 or #5(S-curves)switches.

Moderate mainlines, with short passanger coaches need a 24"radius and #5 and #6 switches. 

Modern mainlines need 30"radius with #6 and #8 switches.

He always stressed that you had to develop your own set of standards, usualy later you found out he was right after all.  

 Good luck, have fun

Paul 

 

[Anonymous]

Aralai,

No. 6 turnouts should be ok with almost any loco or rolling stock, unless you plan to operate a UP 9000 steamer or a similar monster.

The plan I have drawn is based on the Atlas No. 6 "Super-Switch", minimum radius on the main is 24", the upper right spur has a radius of 18" and the lower right one of 22.5". You should not have any problems running a 6-axle Diesel or normal steamer over this layout.

I you could squeeze out an extra foot to make the yard trackage longer certainly would enhance the operation. Just give me your feedback and I´d be happy to make the changes!

[Aralai]

Thanks for the feedback. Yes - the switches are hand-drawn and I will need to fix them and adjust the layout. So for 85 feet coaches, would a #6 switch work ok? I am not that familiar with switch sizes.

Yes - the Bradford Yard needs to be longer - thanks for the feedback on that too. The extra turnout at Mulock is to serve the industry there, I actually added the part that made the track a passing siding - I believe originally there were only two sidings into the plants - I am still researching. 

I may have to lose an element to give me more room - I really want some space between Newmarket and the Bradford Yard, and my train platform at Newmarket has to fit the train which is 43" long!

Some adjusting will need to be done. Maybe I can move everything clockwise - place the Aurora GO Station closer to the Yonge Street bridge and shift things to give me more space where I need it.

 

[Anonymous]

 Aralai,

I tried to put your ideas into a track plan. Could that be a basis for your thoughts?

 

It is much easier to discuss on the basis of a workable track plan... 

For my taste, there need to be some more spurs added - for better operation.

Edit:

...and here is the plan with some minor modifications:

 

Edit no. 2:

PM me your e-mail address if you want me to send you the RTS-file!

[Paulus Jas]

hi Aralai

nice trackplan, gives a real good impression about your intentions. Some remarks:

all your switches seem to be drawn optimistic by hand. A #4 switch must be about 8" long to get a 2" spacing (4x2=8), so passing sidings are may be shorter then you think. A little bit of fine-tuning is needed, the basic idea is great.

I like the staging were it is, you can reach into the backside.

Your long passanger cars and modern? freightcars would love an even higher numbered switch, at least on the main. A #6 switch is about 12" long, you'll have to find out what is best for you. 

The second crossover on Mulock is not really necessarily, an extra spur to serve the other plant?.

The junction between Bradford and the drop-in could be near Davis, creates more length for the yard. Adding a (imagined) connection south of Bradford can add some more freight switching.

Your tracks are kept far away from the pit everywhere. A little bit of variation would ......... again only some fine tuning to do.

Am I right? One of the hidden tracks is for staging the other an industrial spur? Nice solution; Stein used a road overpass to camouflage the entrance.

Good luck, have fun

Paul

 

 

 

 

[steinjr]

 

Aralai

OK - here is my new layout. It will run point to point using hidden Toronto Staging behind backdrop as GO Transit Commuter train from Toronto, stopping at Aurora, Newmarket and terminating at the Bradford Yard and back using push/pull as per the prototype.

Freight is local to several industries - Rimply Mfg in Newmarket, an additional industry (need to research what it was in 1989), and industry in Aurora, which serves as the hidden entry to the Toronto Staging sidings - 1 for GO train and 1 for freight.

Bradford Yard has 5 sidings for GO trains and freight.

The Aurora line ends normally after the track crosses Yonge Street on a bridge. A drop-in can be placed to allow continuous loop operation. A hidden siding under the Newmarket Cemetary completes the loop. This siding is hidden from view by trees and foliage.

Let me know what you think...

 

Main part of layout looks doable.

But I believe that the yard on the lower left has way too optimistic turnouts (yard ladder is way too short).

 Try drawing up a no 4 turnout (smallest advisable - diverges from main at 1:4 - one unit to the side for every 4 forward). As a quick rule of thumb (not accurate - you can cut down a bit, but good enough for rough estimates), for 2" between tracks, it takes 8" along one track for the track to cross over to the other track .

 Four turnouts one after the other would create a yard ladder that is 4x8 = 32" long - almost three feet.Yours is drawn as taking about 1 foot. Way too optimistic. 

Here is a sketch of a pretty minimal yard ladder for short staging (cars shown are 80 foot passenger cars, engine GP40-2):

Note that even for a configuration like this, the yard ladder takes about 2 feet.

Try to move Bradford right (closer to the layout operator pit edge), and see if you can run staging up along the wall behind Bradford

 Grin,
 Stein

 

[Aralai]

OK - here is my new layout. It will run point to point using hidden Toronto Staging behind backdrop as GO Transit Commuter train from Toronto, stopping at Aurora, Newmarket and terminating at the Bradford Yard and back using push/pull as per the prototype.

Freight is local to several industries - Rimply Mfg in Newmarket, an additional industry (need to research what it was in 1989), and industry in Aurora, which serves as the hidden entry to the Toronto Staging sidings - 1 for GO train and 1 for freight.

Bradford Yard has 5 sidings for GO trains and freight.

The Aurora line ends normally after the track crosses Yonge Street on a bridge. A drop-in can be placed to allow continuous loop operation. A hidden siding under the Newmarket Cemetary completes the loop. This siding is hidden from view by trees and foliage.

Let me know what you think...

 

[Aralai]

Yes - all good ideas which I will definitely incorporate. Thanks!

Bought my GO Transit GP40 loco and coaches today! They look awesome - just like the real thing! Feeling better about deciding to go with the Newmarket locale and the space is looking much better too...

[steinjr]

 

Aralai

Stein - I like the layout. Advantage to have a passageway to get behind the staging tracks. Disadvantages to me - less backdrop around whole layout, plus I was planning to multi-use the room by storing boxes under the bench - still would work but not as neat I suppose. Gets me thinking out of the box though - and that's good....

 Was not intended as a layout for you - but I thought it possible that you could use some of the track planning tricks as part of your design for your layout like:

 - tracks going behind or into buildings,
 - staging,
 - sidings designed to fit trains length,
 - locating scenes with passing tracks in the opposite corners, so you don't see them both at once from inside the operator pit,
 - using crossings and special turnouts to get two industry tracks into the same area
 

 Stuff like that. But I think you will be better off starting your design from the prototype, and only retort to "modeling tricks" if you can't make the  prototype design work.

 Smile,
 Stein

 

 

[Aralai]

Stein - I like the layout. Advantage to have a passageway to get behind the staging tracks. Disadvantages to me - less backdrop around whole layout, plus I was planning to multi-use the room by storing boxes under the bench - still would work but not as neat I suppose. Gets me thinking out of the box though - and that's good. (Actually looking at my plan, I can access my hidden staging siding from the back end of my furnace / water heater. A bit difficult but could be done in case of trouble. I guess alternatively a lift-out section of backdrop would be pretty easy to do, so could access from other side.

 

[Aralai]

Some updated measurements for sections:

1. GO Train Staging - Bradford - 36" x 30" with at least 3 sidings off the main line - each siding would hold about 2 of the Bombardier GO coaches or one coach and GP40 loco. Maybe 3 at a squeeze. (GO Train is made up of GP40 and three coaches - well technically two coaches and a control car. Total length of train is approx 35" plus GP40.

2. Newmarket - two sections - L shaped. One section -  84" x 30" - includes existing GO Station & Platform - level crossing across Davis Drive and old Grand Trunk station, as well as Fairy Lake and Main Street. Second Section - round bend of "L" - 48" x 24" - level crossing at Mulock St and Magna Auto parts plant with siding.

3. Transition section of 42" x 24" thru countryside towards Aurora.

Edited: as we speak the transition section is getting eaten up by a siding and industry :)

4. Aurora - Two sections in an L Shape - One Section - 36" x 18" has siding to industrial plant. This siding enters the plant and from there curves into hidden staging siding representing Toronto. Siding will be hidden behind backdrop. Siding length - Hidden = 60" plus. Visible = approx 30" from frog to building entry. Second Aurora section around bend of 'L' - in front of backdrop that hides staging siding - 48" x 24" - this section has Wellington Street level crossing, Aurora GO Station (former Grand Trunk Station). Line terminates at end of bench.

A Drop-in can be placed so the hidden staging siding can continue and hook up to the Newmarket loop, or as pointed out by stein - an option to run pendulum mode for the GO Trains. 

Working on the layout. 

 

[steinjr]

 Btw - maybe not directly applicable to your layout, since you will be basing your tracks on prototype locations, but here is a track plan I drew up a year ago or so to aide a discussion on some standard tricks I would consider to fit in industries etc on a bedroom sized donut style layout.

 As always - it is not a great work of art - but it may illustrate some concepts.

steinjr

 

 What I have done:

 1) I decided that I was designing the layout for train lengths of one GP7 + 8 40' cars 

 2) I decided that I was designing the layout for 1-3 operators 

 3) Basic idea is from HOG (Hearth of Georgia) "better beginner layout", ie 

• donut shaped layout with operator in pit
• narrow benchwork, wide pit
  
• two passing sidings curving around opposite corners
• fairly gentle (25-27" radius) curves on the main
  

  4) Let access track go behind industries, but not places where you need to couple/uncouple 

  5) Keep most track within 20" of the operator's edge - ie reachable

 This would look the best if you get it up fairly high, so you look in on the layout instead of down on the layout.

 Some points I wanted to illustrate:

 A: Primary Yard lead - preferably long enough to pull an entire track
 B: Two A/D tracks long enough for a standard train - w/engine escape between them
 C: Two classification tracks for primary yard operator
 D: Either secondary yard lead, part of runaround or third class track for primary yard operator
 E: Four shorter class tracks for secondary yard operator - or caboose, RIP & engine service
 F: First passing siding - long enough to let a train of engine + 8 cars take the siding
 G: Second passing siding - long enough to let a train of engine + 8 cars take the siding

 The latter siding also is part of the access to three of the industries (3, 6 and 7) - note that you can let industry tracks cross each other in a diamond, or run off the end of the siding to save space.

Edit: I forgot a crossover rightwards from the main to the uppermost A/D track - coming in just to the right of the engine escape crossover between the two A/D tracks. It is desirable to have a way to get a train going counterclockwise into the yard or staging, or a train going clockwise out of the yard/staging, without having to back the train up to get out on or in from the main.

Notes on industries:

 1: Team track (train to truck unloading) - probably will want fairly frequent switching. Can be tucked away in a corner of the yard

 2: Some kind of fenced yard type industry - observe position between main and operator pit. Allows trains on main to pass behind industry. If necessary the industry can be imagined to be "in the pit" - with just the siding between the main and the pit.

 3: Longish and narrow industry, track on pit side of industry. Functions as a view block - you cannot see the entire train waiting in the double ended siding. Benchwork (and industry) could be made wider here.

 4 & 5 : industry flats up against a backdrop - you can have several industries on the same track. Putting the track up against the backdrop and having industries just 1-2" deep works well - because you are probably primarily interested in what is going on at the track, not in what the opposite end of the factory looks like.

 6: if you want some kind of tipple loader - make sure there is enough room beyond the loader to shove some empty cars past the loader - and then pull them out again past the loader while they are being loaded. To load 3 cars, you need space for 5 - 2 before the loader, 1 under the loader, 2 after the loader. Two under tipple tracks probably will be enough - one for leaving 3 empty cars, one for picking up 3 filled cars.

 7: Track can go into buildings or under the front of building - as in by a covered loading dock.

 8: A building can be used to hide the sneakoff to staging from being too obvious

 9: Hidden staging track w/access from the backside. Each staging track can hold two trains during a session without any need for fiddling trains in staging : one train that leaves the staging track to arrive on the layout, and one train that leaves the layout to arrive at the staging track. 

 Just intended as a handful of potensially helpful hints - obviously you don't have to apply any of these tricks to your design, but if you see something you like, just grab it - I have pinched every one of these ideas from other and better designers over time :-)

 I had been drawing a design like this today, I would have tried at all cost to have wider aisles  - that 18" space on the back by the staging in the plan above is really asking for trouble.

 

 Grin,
 Stein

 

 

[Aralai]

steinjr

I'd say that both the number and size of scenes and the chosen theme sounds both very realistic and very fun!

 Btw - if your GO trains are push/pull train sets, you could possibly also do continuous run in pendulum mode for display running too - sensors by track to stop the trains and after a while send them off in opposite direction.

 

They are push/pull - and that is a great idea! Thanks.

[steinjr]

 

Aralai

I am thinking about a different locale which would be much easier for me to detail well, as it is the area I currently live in - the Bradford / Newmarket / Aurora corridor. It was originally the first Grand Trunk line in Canada, then taken over by CN and now run by GO Transit - commuter passenger service.

I would model from Bradford (GO Train Staging in real life), main section of 72" x 30" and 60" x 24" of Newmarket with both the new GO Station and old Grand Trunk station as well as part of Main Street, a section of 60" x 30" for Aurora and then some hidden staging to represent Toronto for GO trains.

The era would be present, so freight traffic is limited to a few local industries - a Magna Auto parts plant at the south end of Newmarket and one or two industries in Aurora.

I would have a drop-in to run continuous when needed, otherwise operation would be GO train from Toronto staging to Bradford and back, and freight would be various to and from industries. It would allow a large focus on detailed modeling of Newmarket area. Thoughts?

 I'd say that both the number and size of scenes and the chosen theme sounds both very realistic and very fun!

 Btw - if your GO trains are push/pull train sets, you could possibly also do continuous run in pendulum mode for display running too - sensors by track to stop the trains and after a while send them off in opposite direction.

Smile,
Stein

 

[Aralai]

I am thinking about a different locale which would be much easier for me to detail well, as it is the area I currently live in - the Bradford / Newmarket / Aurora corridor. It was originally the first Grand Trunk line in Canada, then taken over by CN and now run by GO Transit - commuter passenger service. I would model from Bradford (GO Train Staging in real life), main section of 72" x 30" and 60" x 24" of Newmarket with both the new GO Station and old Grand Trunk station as well as part of Main Street, a section of 60" x 30" for Aurora and then some hidden staging to represent Toronto for GO trains. The era would be present, so freight traffic is limited to a few local industries - a Magna Auto parts plant at the south end of Newmarket and one or two industries in Aurora. I would have a drop-in to run continuous when needed, otherwise operation would be GO train from Toronto staging to Bradford and back, and freight would be various to and from industries. It would allow a large focus on detailed modeling of Newmarket area. Thoughts?

[Paulus Jas]

Aralai

I had not even calculated train lengths.

Dear Aralai,

when you are thinking about long mainline trains you have to find out what this means in terms of space, two engines and 20 modern 60-feeters eat up 15'. (and 20 cars is a short train ) It also means that when you want to break up or build those trains your yarddesign must allow these trainlength. Tony Koester's Frankfurtyard, well covered in mr-planning, may give you an idea about the size it takes. And Tony's NKP is a small backwater RR in comparison to yours.

Aralai

I may need to take a second look at what I want to include in my layout.

When reading your last posting, a "small" New York based layout came into my mind. Basically a doubletracked oval with a small yard, for locals only, and an industrial or wharehouse-zone in the centre. Part of the oval was hidden to create some staging. But, i can't find it back in mr-database. Is some one out there....? Basically it's an urban Fox River; with a donut footprint and a nice bridge to duck or nod under before entering the operating pit.

I would have some sleepless nights about N-scale. Also Tony Koester said "it's what N-scale can do for you". But, for the same reasons?, he build in HO-scale too. 

So many things to consider

Good luck, have fun

from Holland,   Paul

[odave]

On the car lengths, keep in mind that in the 1970s, 40' boxcars were being phased out.  You'll want to figure for a mix of 50' and 40' boxcars.  IIRC an HO 50' boxcar is in the 7" range.

On the yard issue, one approach would be to model just one end of it, and terminate the body tracks at the wall or backdrop, and maybe use a mirror to "extend" them.  The modeled yard is therefore stub ended, thus allowing you to sort cars, with the rest of it being implied to extend through your walls off into the distance.

I'm not sure if your space would allow multiple decks, but you may want to consider it.  The decks do not need to be directly connected by a helix or a nolix.  Intead, they are connected conceptually via operations or staging.  This is an idea put forth by Byron Henderson (cuyama) in his Oahu Ry. & Land Co. layout found in the 2008 issue of Model Railroad Planning.  Maybe an upper deck could be used for continuous running, with your bridge scene and Joffre yard.  The lower deck could have your industries and switching.  Trains can be transferred between decks on cassettes if you're feeling energetic, or even just through staging.  If you're interested in this concept, it would be worth ordering that back issue as Byron can explain it better than I can.

[steinjr]

Aralai

The yard may be the biggest issue. Would it be wrong to scale it down in terms of number of tracks and length do you think - or best to hide it representatively like you suggest?

 

 Depends on why you want the yard on your layout - do you want it primarily as a scenic background element, or do you want to actually sort cars and build trains there for quite a few different destinations ?

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[Aralai]

That really puts things in perspective. I kind of found that out today when I took everyone's advice and put pencil to graph paper - at least in terms of track - I had not even calculated train lengths. I am not fussy about N-Scale - it is hard to see the details without my glasses :), however may be worth considering before I get into things too much. Alternatively as you say, I may need to take a second look at what I want to include in my layout. I will do some measuring and calculating tonight and think some more about it. The yard may be the biggest issue. Would it be wrong to scale it down in terms of number of tracks and length do you think - or best to hide it representatively like you suggest?

[steinjr]

 

First the description of the area you find your modeling inspiration from, with a few line feeds added :-)

Aralai

 in a nutshell, Charny (Joffre Yard) is on the south shore of the St.Lawrence River just south of Quebec City which is on the north shore.

The CN mainline there runs to the west to points west - ex: Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Windsor, Detroit and Chicago. To the east in runs to points east - New Brunswick, Maine, New Hampshire. There are two main wyes that run to the north, across the famous Pont du Quebec to Quebec City, and to the south to points south - New York, Boston, Washington, Atlanta.CN located the Joffre Yard there for obvious reasons.

The track is one of the busiest in North America, and runs both freight and passenger traffic. Passenger traffic is a mix of commuter and long run along the Windsor-Quebec City corridor for the most part.

Freight is sorted at the Joffre Yard for every conceivable kind of traffic - local and long distance, with a focus on Joffre as a hub for cars coming from the west, east and south, to be stored, organized, setup in new trains and sent on their way to points west, east and south.

Local freight traffic is mostly to and from Quebec City.

 

Aralai

So to simplify the layout - a manline running east-west with the Joffre Yard in the middle and two wyes - one heading north and the other south.

There is a lot of possibilities for LDE's in the area - ex: Ultramar has a refinery on the banks of the St. Lawrence River, there are multiple industrial areas and intermodal facilities.

My vision anticipates minimal passenger  - Commuter train service and perhaps a train running the Windsor-Quebec City run.

The operations will be mostly freight - mixed, and will be both local and long distance.

The long distance will sort as detailed above, and the local will be sorted to the local LDE's that I will have - ex: Intermodal, perhaps the refinery, and industries.

 For the most part, it is helpful to hear how to translate a real world railway into a scale operation - ie: size and number of passing tracks, sidings, spurs, distances between LDE's, where to stage and why.

 

 Mmm - I think you are overly optimistic about how much you can fit into your layout and still have room to run trains (which was your main interest, right ?).

  Think about it this way - 20 feet is quite a bit of space on a 10x10 foot H0 scale (1:87.1) layout. It is up one wall and down the adjoining wall - or roughly half your available circumference, if you view your layout as a circle that you will run from inside the hole.

 In real life, those 20 linear feet on the H0 layout corresponds to a mere 1700 feet - a single not very long siding or a single yard track.

  If you run 1950s 40' boxcars, each boxcar is 40x12" = 480" long in real life. In 1:87.1 scale, it is 480/87.1 = 5.5" long. Or put another way - you can have two 40' boxcars per 11" of siding. If you want to run 89 foot cars, you can fit approximately one such car per foot of track.

 Let's say a reasonable siding or spur or yard track for a small 10x10 foot layout is about 6 feet long.

 Then that 6 foot siding has room for six 89-foot cars or twelve 40-foot cars. Less, since you probably need some room for the engines as well :-)

 For a H0 layout in the kind of space you are talking about, you are not going to be running longish trains of say twenty 40-foot cars or ten 89-foot cars - you would need 10 foot of track to just have the train standing still, and 30 feet of track to have the train stand still on one side of the yard, creep into the yard, and then move out and stop just on the other side of the yard.

 So it is probably not going to work all that well to try to model traffic flow of multiple long trains between multiple points.

  What you probably can find room in H0 scale for is to pick two or three small scenic spots you like (or industries you like), and do a twice around the room loop, with hidden staging tracks representing Joffre Yard down along the left wall.

 An illustration showing a train consisting of two GP40-2 engines and six 89 foot cars relative to the length of a loop around the room:

 

 If your main interest is running longish trains through the scenery, with a train length or more separation between the main scenes, you should look into N scale  (divide lengths needed for H0 by 1.8, or equivalently - fit 1.8 times as many cars into the same track length) or Z scale (where the multiplier is 2.5, since Z scale is 1:220).

Stein

 

[Paulus Jas]

Stein (or Aralai or both)

i've read it, it carefully describes  the pain you'll get when running two trains around a single track oval; even(?) if you have two passing sidings. Also the late John Amstrong advocated to doubletrack the layout in those circumstances; if running two trains at the same time is what you'r after anyhow. A rural example that's discussed on the forum right now is called FOX River. With some nice comments by Cayuma; he is also giving a link to his outstanding webside.

You'r right, we Dutch are also famous for being too direct or rude. I maybe offended Aralai, but deep down i felt a bit offended too. I should have learned to respond in another way. Again: i am very sorry. 

Dear Aralai,

when giving comments on someone's work it's very hard to find out where to start. I am a mrr'er since i was 12 yrs old, more then 50 yrs ago; i made all the mistakes you can imagine. learning the hard way. Torn between the feeling to race to the hobbyshop (and start building) and all those old guy's incl. the shopowner, in my case, telling to start thinking first.

There must be some wow-layout, you've seen in a MRR-magazine. Share those feelings, so we can get an idea about your likings. Ulrich is probably right, so much to chose between. Just like him, you can always "copy" the one you like most. He started with a MR-project layout Bob Smauss designed and build 10? years ago. Stein is showing you a lot of completely different rr, i tried the same in my first comment. You can find so many designs on the web; do you have access to the MR-layout library? Witch one has the X-factor for you?

Back to your design, i like the donut, you can have moderate radii (24") and switches(#5 or #6) so more modern equipment is not out of place. The duckunder is something you should really think about. I would love to build a fragile and working swingbridge, but i would be the first one also to bump into it. In mr-planning 2009 you can read about the bridge David Stuart made. He and his crew are very happy with it, but he created more a nod-under; he build his layout rather high. Stein also has a bridge closing the gap, he likes to be a railwatcher himself occasionally (my guess only, you can ask him); but he is going for a less brittle one.

Ulrich presented you the HOG, rural and 50'th; waiting for it's demise? With some staging added in the lower left corner you have a nice, simple and buildable layout. Rural area's 50 yrs ago can be trans- formed into modern suburban area's to day. When reading Cayuama's webside you will encounter the word balance a lot of times. I like you to think about consistent-design too. When you try to run modern very, very long auto-racks over (too) small radii and pushing a string of them over a #4 crossover you will quickly discover the consequences. While those radii and switches perform swell on the Milw. Beerline; equipment, trackwork, theme and era just match.

Have fun, I apologize for being too rude and I would love to see a neat version of your ideas.( a pencil, a ...... is all you need.)  Are you familiar with the square concept of John Amstrong? It helped me a lot to find out quickly what fitted in my space.

From holland, with respect

Paul 

 

 

[Aralai]

Thanks odave & Stein. No slight intended to anyone, but for me, good solid positive feedback is much more useful as I can build from it. You have picked up well on the fact that modeling and being a railfan is probably a higher priority for me than hardcore operations. While I understand a lot of people here are obviously extremely hard core ops folks, I appreciate that you respect that others may not be. That said, I do want to run operationally as I feel it will keep things from getting boring. While I am not a hardcore railway operations guy, my family has been in real railway operations for several generations, and one of the reasons I picked Quebec, is because I am quite familiar with the area. I do need to get a better understanding and document the various operations in the area, but in a nutshell, Charny (Joffre Yard) is on the south shore of the St.Lawrence River just south of Quebec City which is on the north shore. The CN mainline there runs to the west to points west - ex: Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Windsor, Detroit and Chicago. To the east in runs to points east - New Brunswick, Maine, New Hampshire. There are two main wyes that run to the north, across the famous Pont du Quebec to Quebec City, and to the south to points south - New York, Boston, Washington, Atlanta. CN located the Joffre Yard there for obvious reasons. The track is one of the busiest in North America, and runs both freight and passenger traffic. Passenger traffic is a mix of commuter and long run along the Windsor-Quebec City corridor for the most part. Freight is sorted at the Joffre Yard for every conceivable kind of traffic - local and long distance, with a focus on Joffre as a hub for cars coming from the west, east and south, to be stored, organized, setup in new trains and sent on their way to points west, east and south. Local freight traffic is mostly to and from Quebec City. So to simplify the layout - a manline running east-west with the Joffre Yard in the middle and two wyes - one heading north and the other south. There is a lot of possibilities for LDE's in the area - ex: Ultramar has a refinery on the banks of the St. Lawrence River, there are multiple industrial areas and intermodal facilities. My vision anticipates minimal passenger  - Commuter train service and perhaps a train running the Windsor-Quebec City run. The operations will be mostly freight - mixed, and will be both local and long distance. The long distance will sort as detailed above, and the local will be sorted to the local LDE's that I will have - ex: Intermodal, perhaps the refinery, and industries. I believe I have a good base to build on, and that I will be able to flesh out the details of both the operations and the LDE's prior to building. For the most part, it is helpful to hear how to translate a real world railway into a scale operation - ie: size and number of passing tracks, sidings, spurs, distances between LDE's, where to stage and why. I can be blunt too - if you just want to criticize, save your time and move along. If you are interested in helping out someone who is interested in building a layout based on the above and feel you can offer some positive suggestions and specific constructive criticism, then I very much appreciate it. If each time I review the layout and start to get a better picture of my specific operations and move closer to a good layout before I build, then that is my short-term goal.

[odave]

In addition to Stein's suggestion of developing a vision of how you see yourself running the layout, it would be good to write down your givens and druthers on paper (or print them out) and tape them up in your work area so you can constantly refer to them as a reminder of what you want to do.  From gleaning information from various postings in this thread, a start of this list would be:

Givens - constraints that can't be changed, or are difficult to change:

1. Available space = ~9.5' X ~10.5'

 Druthers - things you want, but can be changed:

1. Era is 1970s
2. Setting is the Quebec City area
3. Scale is HO
4. Would like to model part of Joffre yard
5. Would like to model the full-circle roundhouse at Joffre yard
6. Would like to model the  Quebec Railway Bridge
7. Would like to model a key industrial area

You already realize that you probably can't achieve all of your druthers in your space.  But don't forget that you don't have to model it in exact scale. 

Also from that list, I think that maybe you picture yourself as more of a modeler and railfan than a hardcore "operations" type.  And that's perfectly OK.

From Bing, it looks like this is the area you're looking at.  It does seem very interesting and scenic!  The bridge and the roundhouse are in close proximity.  The full-round roundhouse will take up quite a bit of space, but it does seem like a high priority druther for you.  But if the act of modeling it, and then doing hostler and service operations around it will give you great satisfaction, then you should give it a shot.  Maybe a mainline train can orbit on a loop and across the railway bridge as you operate in the service area.  This might be boring for some, but it may not be boring for you.  You are the only one who counts.

Here's an HO model a full-round roundhouse in Durand, Michigan (website):

 

 As you can see, they put it in a corner and it takes up a lot of space.  But I can tell you it is very impressive when you see it.  Maybe a next step would be to get some measurements on the real roundhouse, scale it to HO, and see if it can reasonably fit in a corner.  Don't forget access, too.  The Durand roundhouse can be accessed on two sides from an aisleway, but they have a freight house worth of space to use.

But concentrating on the railway bridge and roundhouse may preclude the industrial area, or yard operations.  That's where having your head together about what you want will guide your decisions and compromises.

Good luck!

[Annonymous]

 TWaters, check your PM.

Svein

 

[steinjr]

TWaters

http://rapidshare.com/files/258299463/shape_of_track_plan.pdf.html

 

 Looks like your web link goes to an ad filled web page where someone wants me to fork over money to download a PDF file containing God alone knows what. 

 Thanks, but no thanks - the combination of ads and possible virus attacks is not too tempting for something that from the description sounds pretty far out.

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[TWaters]

A source on realistic operation track planning for layouts smaller than the ones discussed here is in Realistic Revenue Operations, Eugene Villaret, Greenberg Publications. However most of the book is about operations rather than track planning.  

 

EDIT: Links removed, due to popular request :)

[steinjr]

 

Aralai

Paulus Jas, I trust that your post loses something in the translation. I appreciate your feedback, however perhaps positive suggestions for beginners would be more appreciated.

 LOL - Paulus can be prettydirect. I guess the Dutch can be every bit as direct as Norwegians sometimes. It takes some doing - people from most other countries find us Norwegians to be an annoying combination of honest and rude at times :-)

 Yes, there are quite a few issues with the tracks the way you have laid them. Ulrich (Maddog) has gone through some of those.

 Also the drawing program you are using is apparently not being very flexible, and it draws track plans in such a way that everything looks pretty "bulky" - the visual impression you get from the plans is that a lot of wide, and yet surprisingly short spurs are filling up the landscape, so there won't be much space left over for the actual industries etc that is served.

 It has been mentioned that it might be smart to have an idea about what kind of railroading appeals to you, so you can design the track plan to support what you want your layout to do. In the same place, you can design a lot of different plans that support different ways of running the model railroad.

 As an example, from another thread, here is something I wrote for a poster that was thinking that he wanted a layout where he could have cement covered hoppers - he liked the look of those short, two bay hoppers, to make him consider a few different ways of using those hopper cars on a layout.

 You are obviously not making the same layout as him, but read this stuff and think about your vision for your layout - how do you picture your role in running your layout :

 - a railfan watching trains pass by your location?
 - a helicopter pilot flying above the landscape watching a train move below ?
 - a dispatcher trying to keep traffic moving ?
 - a conductor figuring out in what order you want to set out and pull cars at an industry ?
 - a yard switching crew, sorting cars and building train consists ?
 - something else ?

 Here is what I wrote to rcato:

 For possible inspiration while doing concept planning (thinking about what style and type of railroading you want to model on your layout) for your railroad:

 8x12 foot U-shaped N scale (I know you are in H0 scale) shortline running a local between a small interchange yard and various industries, including a cement plant: http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/1063 - very simple cement plant trackage (just an unloading shed over the single track).

Here is a web page with some pictures of a modern cement plant tucked into a corner on a H0 scale shelf layout : http://www.zealot.com/forum/showthread.php?t=158180&highlight=Cement&page=12 - three tracks for the plant.

  The Windsor Model Railroad Club has a largish layout (http://www.scratchbuildersguild.com/follow-the-build/layout-builds/70-wmrc-ho-permanent-layout?showall=1) which includes a pretty large (16 foot long) cement plant (http://www.scratchbuildersguild.com/images/clubs/windsor/wmrc_pt1013.jpeg) - shows some buildings and tracks for a larger cement plant model.

 Here is small (6 foot by 2 foot) British switching layout called Cement Quay, which essentially is an in-plant switching layout - look at the pictures below and note the hidden 42" fiddle tracks on left (which could be replaced by a larger staging shelf for a permanent layout) -overview pics and track plan from micro layout site carendt.com:  http://www.carendt.com/scrapbook/page55a/index.html. More pictures from layout: http://www.nevardmedia5.fotopic.net/show_group.php?id=4544.

 Might help you think about whether your main modelling desire is:

 a) Building a large and imposing cement plant (or a harbor dockside scene) and just shuffle cars from staging into the various plant tracks, or within the plant - ie a focus on building and detailing structures, and possibly focus on the industrial process itself (how concrete is produced or ships are loaded/unloaded), or

 b) Running a local dropping off and picking up a couple of cars at each of a number of industries - ie focusing mainly on the train crew's job in planning the order of pulling and setting out cars, or

 c) Having a layout that is mainly a yard, where the main goal is to sort inbound cars into blocks and then send them off outbound to various (mostly not modelled/off-layout destinations in staging) on various trains - ie focusing mainly on the yard work of sorting and routing cars), or

 d) Having a layout where the trains mainly will be moving (perhaps slowly) through the landscape (which may be industrial/harbor like), and where a train occationally will have to take a siding to let another train past, or where a train occationally will stop to drop off or pick up some cars, but the main emphasis is to be able to lean back and admire the train rolling slowly by or through your scenes, while having gates go down and the train sounding its horn for RR crossings, or

 e) something else entirely

 Just wanted to throw a handful of ideas at you, to maybe get you thinking about what the main goal of your layout is. Only you will be able to figure out what your main goal with the layout is, but you should try to figure that out before you start drawing up track plans.

 

 Good luck with your design!

 Smile,
 Stein

 

 

[Anonymous]

 RTS also has a feature to form flex track - try to get acquainted with it and you will not be tied to using Atlas Snap-Track curves and straights. I must admit that it is a little tricky though, just take your time to explore the feature...

Wit a little exercise you will be able to come up with plans looking like this:

This is my projected layout - still in the planning stage!

[Aralai]

Very helfpul Ulrich! Yes RTS clearly has its limitations...

[markpierce]

What scale/gauge is this layout plan?  Looks like G.  The planner would be better off studying railroads and layout plans and planning instead of wasting time with these track plans.  Later get paper, straight edge, compass, pencil, eraser, and then begin doodling.

Mark

[Anonymous]

 Aralai,

don´t let some of the comments you get here discourage you. They may appear to be a little gruff, but are never meant that way. One of the big disadvantages of a forum is, that it is not really a dialogue, just because you have to type up everything. Words are easier said than typed.

A lot of the people in this forum  have a background of 30 + years in model rairoading and therefore a lot of experience in how not to do things and maybe a little less experience in how to do things properly. Sharing that experience is not everybody´s strength, though...

OK, let me come back to your plan. From a slightly more experienced MRR´s view, what is "wrong" with it?

Unfortunately, quite a lot. Some of the issues are:

All track is neatly lined up with the sides of the layout - this gives it a toy-like appearance you don´t want to have.

The turnouts are very sharp - go for no. 5 or no 6 turnouts. I assume you are using RTS from Atlas as your planning tool and are still fighting with it. Forget CAD for the moment and use paper and pencil - it will help you better than a "rigid" system like RTS.

Some of the sidings and leads are to short. - the shortest "train" is a locomotive plus at least 1 car, all of your tracks should be that long for a minimum.

I know I will be beaten up from some of the experts here, but IMHO you do not always need to have a story which is basically a theme that you´d like to model. It does help, though, but I feel it makes planning too complicated for the beginner, as you do have to understand quite a bit about prototype rail roading to develop one. Building a layout and just letting trains run is also a good reason...

 As  a dialogue is somewhat difficult in a forum, here is a piece of advice which will help you a lot. Locate your nearest mrr club and visit that place. You will find people that will help you there and you will be able to see what we try to tell you here in abstract words!

 Btw, here is my interpretation of the HOG RR - drawn with RTS:

 

Enjoy!

[Aralai]

Thanks. I appreciate your feeback. TBH most of the issues in regard to length of spurs / staging sidings and distance between tracks is due to the software I am using, or my needing to learn to use it better - just started last week. In reality the switches will allow longer spurs and closer tracks - I know that.

I had a couple of thoughts when I hid the track to the right of St.Redempteur. One was to create more of an illusion of point-to-point and hide the loop, although based on the rest of the layout, I'm not sure that is entirely successful. The other was to use it as a staging track to meet scheduling concerns, although it is not labeled that way. I do agree it could be used well as part of the town.

@doughless - I will be the only operator most of the time, and I had planned remote switches and magnetic decouplers.

[Paulus Jas]

dear Aralai,

i was really blunt, i admit; but i meant every word i was saying to you.

You have a small terminal, a junction with a loop and after running around and around for some time, where are your trains going? You can push them backwards on a staging track.(Try to let the stagingtracks face the other direction, under st Redempteur)  Behind the hidden switch is less then one foot space. A rather short "train". To call a less then one foot long spur a parc industriel is also asking for a lot of imagination. A lot can be said about the word (Joffre) yard. On a railroad it usualy is the place where trains are being build or cut apart. I do not know if Joffre was just a terminal or that more connections were made. The decline towards Joffre seems a bit short( you do not need the second crossover)  and why hiding the second track at St Redempteur? This a nice place for a second station; with space up front and at the back to add some serious urban railroad scenes.

What Stein is trying to tell you is: you should come up with some story first. Let's have a look at his old layout. Railroading in the 50-Ths in a very urban setting. A lot of cars (most 40 and some 50 feet long) still being individualy switched. Short transfercuts are coming in from staging. (how many a day? from witch company's?) Those transfertrains are cut apart in the yard and build into new still shorter trains to a milling complex or other industrial zones. And visa versa of course. His transfertrains are appr. 6-8 cars long; 5 feet long trains, incl. an engine and a caboose. His arrival (or departure) and staging tracks must accomodate those trains. There are still many different industries being served, also bigger ones, with "long" spurs and sometimes with more then one track.

You have to come up with your story. Your trackplan has to be consistent with your story. Then only you can ask if things will work the way they are supposed to do. Believe me, some good old fashioned doodling on paper (use Armstrong's squares or Barrow's domino's) is the best start.

The space you have is far bigger then you think. Due to the oversized spacing it's difficult to get a good impression. I would try to start with a "level" loop, with two facing branches going down. One to Joffre inside the oval and one outside the oval to staging under StR. One track in Joffre could go to the very edge of your shelf, giving your RR a southern connection as well. When Joffre is really up front (on a one foot wide shelf you can have a 6-track yard) you create the space for a bridge that's more straightend out.

It's only my thinking, but you have to design, build and pay it. There are so many questions left, about passengertrains, about trainlength, about the size of your crew, about the era, etc, etc.

Try to read as much as you can, may be you'll find a modelrr you really like and yust build a "copy". Most of us start all over again and again.

Have lots of fun doing so

Paul

 

[Doughless]

Aralai

Paulus Jas, I trust that your post loses something in the translation. I appreciate your feedback, however perhaps positive suggestions for beginners would be more appreciated. Ex: Staging tracks - what length do you suggest? How do you see them working? Which parts of the new plan do not fit in well with train operations? What is improved in the new plan vs the old? What is specifically not good and why? If you take the time to provide feedback, constructive feedback would be more useful for me.

Yes - the scale is HO and each block is one foot. I have added a few room features to help visualize. I am using a program to draw for now so I can be more sure of radius curves and to be able to make changes easily. Track spacing can and will be adjusted. I am currently looking for feedback on the overall layout, operational pros and cons. 

 

Its tough to post enough information here that would replace the amount of information found in several hobby publications.  I'm no expert on this stuff, but I'll try to add something.  Much more detail to it than what I can explain.

Staging (if you want it):  You want enough length to hold your longest train.  For example, if a switcher is operating a town, staging allows another train to run by at the same time, being stored in the hidden tracks until it is required to make its appearance on stage.  If you create a schedule of trains, you might have three different trains run by, for instance. #1 a heavy coal drag, #2 the Amtrak special, #3 a mixed freight.  You build the trains by hand in the staging area, then begin your operating session and run your timetable.  You design the layout with your operating plan in mind, meaning, you have to get close to envisioning how long your longest train will be before you make the first cut for your benchwork.  A lot of planning.

I'll ask you a question:  In your yard, the crossover that is the farthest south, closest to the door, how are you going to operate that?  How is the locomotive or a car going to be switched there?

If you're not going to have remote control switches or uncoupling magnets, you might have to bob under the bridge an awful lot to follow a train from the yard to parc industriel.  That would be a pain especially since the aisle is only 24 inches wide. 

[Aralai]

Paulus Jas, I trust that your post loses something in the translation. I appreciate your feedback, however perhaps positive suggestions for beginners would be more appreciated. Ex: Staging tracks - what length do you suggest? How do you see them working? Which parts of the new plan do not fit in well with train operations? What is improved in the new plan vs the old? What is specifically not good and why? If you take the time to provide feedback, constructive feedback would be more useful for me.

Yes - the scale is HO and each block is one foot. I have added a few room features to help visualize. I am using a program to draw for now so I can be more sure of radius curves and to be able to make changes easily. Track spacing can and will be adjusted. I am currently looking for feedback on the overall layout, operational pros and cons. 

 

[Paulus Jas]

Dear Aralai

You've got a lot of comments, but i think you should should do three things first to deserve any.

1. Don't just draw a trackplan, it takes only a few more lines to also draw the outlines of your "room"; with doors, windows  and other obstacles. May be it gives some more experienced modellers(designers) a chance to comment on your use of  space as well. (are you working in HO?, is a square a square foot?)

2. If you do draw a trackplan try to do it as the HOG. Tracks with a 5" spacing? WHY ????? Staging tracks two feet long?  WHY?????? (Questions about how to change the direction of an engine or a whole train are coming much later. Staging can be done in so many ways and i am not sure if you really understand the concept of staging.) Make in general a far better effort to show off your idea's. Some good old paperdoodling instead of CAD. Armstrong's squares or Barrow domino's are doing a great job against over-optimistic planning.   

3. Stein gave you the advice to start answering a lot of why and what questions. You don't seem to understand what he is talking about. You are much to eager to incorporate something you fancy. Buy the latest MR-Planning and find out what you like: Lance Mindheim's modern urban less is beautifull aproach, the multitrack also urban Memphis layout, the Santa Fe rural branchline, or ................... And there are folks out there that just want to see their trains running over a big bridge, along a large TT and simply enjoy the show. When you start operating there again are all the questions to be answered first. Just do it. How big is your crew?, is one of them also.

LDE's are not what you think. Tony Koester is using them in an other way. My first lesson came 40 yrs ago; someone had build a unbelieveble beautifull scene, where a loaded coaldump-truck passed the railroad over a bridge only suitable for light vehicles. A road engineer commented on that; the nitpicker, how did he dare. But when you start looking for a real situation and find one, is Tony's thinking, your bridge will automaticaly come out right. So it is the other way around, first you need a scheme that's fits your room, and only then you start filling in the details(LDE's).

From Holland with love. but homework first please.

Paul

 

[Aralai]

OK - New plan. Let me know what you think...

 

[Aralai]

 Thanks - just looking for ballpark budget numbers right now.

[fwright]

Aralai

...so how much is this DCC going to cost me???

I'll give you the standard legal answer, "It depends..."

DCC costs are mainly driven by number of locomotives running simultaneously, number of throttles wanted/needed, and whether or not you want wireless.

My pricing of a starter DCC set with a second programming walk-around throttle, a couple of face plates to jack into, and a computer interface puts the total slightly over $300, regardless of whether you choose NCE, Digitraxx, or MRC Prodigy Advance.

And even at that price, each system will have a couple of drawbacks that may or may not be show stoppers for you.  For instance, the Zephyr throttle does not remember speed/direction settings when recalling a 2nd locomotive (but other Digitraxx throttles do).  On the NCE PowerCab, using the computer interface decreases the already limited number of additional throttles (1 for PowerCab itself, 3 if using Super Booster) by 1.  The MRC computer interface uses MRC proprietary software instead of the open source Decoder Pro.

my thoughts, your choices

Fred W

[nucat78]

I think it is very brave of you to let the world see the "underbelly" of your layout. You are showing us that a train room does not have to be a surgically clean and perfect place. We all have to live in the "real world", and when concentrating on the trains, the other distractions do not matter.

- Gerhard

And the nice thing is that one can hang some cheap fabric from the front fascia and the mess "disappears".

[steinjr]

Aralai

So with DCC, the controller controls the locomotive directly - like remote control, as opposed to the track? If so, then there is no direct connection between controller and track, but between controller and locomotive?

 

 Rough picture is that track has "constant" voltage (except that the voltage actually is square wave AC, not DC).

 Your throttle is connected to the command station either by cable or by radio. DCC command station is connected to the track.

 When you give a command from your throttle (which has a selector so you can say "I am now controlling engine no 4" before you start speeding up, slowing down etc), the DCC command adds a little string of commands (e.g. "Engine 4, turn on engine function B", where function B can be e.g. "sound horn") to the track voltage.

 Signal is small relative to track voltage, so voltage variations on track will be minimal. All engines on the track receive the same track voltage, all engines on the track "sees" the commands from the DCC command station.

 But only the engine which has had it's id number set to 4 will react to the signal. By having the DCC decoder in the engine letting through more or less current to the motor on the engine, or by having the DCC decoded sending power to the sound chip or to a light or whatever.

  All other engines on layout will just continue to do whatever they were doing - running, sitting still, engine idling or whatever.

  Pretty nifty system, isn't it ?

 Grin,
 Stein, not an expert on DCC by any standards

 

[Aralai]

I feel like a kid again! So with DCC, the controller controls the locomotive directly - like remote control, as opposed to the track? If so, then there is no direct connection between controller and track, but between controller and locomotive?

Looked up some info on it - this will be much better - I am liking this even more...

...so how much is this DCC going to cost me???

 

[Anonymous]

 Aralai,

things have certainly moved on since the late 1970´s. There is a lot more R-T-R equipment available and the level of detail has seen a step up improvement. Those can motors equipped with flywheels improved performance a lot as well, but the real killer is DCC and sound. As one forum member stated in an earlier thread, with DC you control the track, but with DCC you control the loco. Add sound to it, and you are as close to feeling like a real "train man" as you can get. With DCC, wiring has also become less effort.

My turnouts will be manually operated. I am in the process of planning (not yet building) a small shelf-type switching layout with about 6 - 8 turnouts. I will be using Peco track, with sprung points, so I do not really motor-driven turnouts. With DCC, I don´t need to "assign" the current to a specific track, so I don´t need  a switch board.

I do need other electronic gadgets, though. My layout will be a port scene, so I´d like to add the typical noise of a harbour, including that bone-shattering "keeyah" of the seagulls. 

For me, sound is the dimension that had been missing for so long.  Just listen to the new Bowser F-7a going through the starting routine, the rumble of those EMD prime movers is terrific. The only thing missing is black smoke belching from the exhaust stacks...

All these features give you a complete new railroading feeling - you actually will need less track to get more enjoyment.

Now I have to stop before I get carried away... 

[Aralai]

odave

And by lift device, I mean one of these thingies

 

Wow, I need to move into this century! 

So help me catch up a little, since my last layout was in 1979. A few questions:

1. My system and engines are DC. I understand DCC is the latest technology. Do you guys suggest I chuck the DC system and move to DCC, or can I use either both or stick with the DC for now? The DC controller I have is a dual controller and works well, even running the engines slowly.

2. I also assume you all run electric points (switches) - forgive my UK Speak. - Do most of you run a central control for switching / lighting / signals etc? On my last layout, almost everything was manual.

3. I checked my inventory of old engines and rolling stock and other than my 3 car CN Budd train and one CN Road Switcher, and maybe one decent CN Box car, I am going to have to buy new - which may be better anyway. I am not going to be buying $1800 locos though - not in my price range right now!

Anyway, looking forward to starting into it again - getting excited about the potential...

ETA: #3 is not a question :)

[odave]

Doughless

OMG! You can actually do that? 

You can in my shed - I won't tell anyone if you don't   Note that I won't be doing it during a session, though.

I don't have nor do I plan on having any expensive brass or superdetailed models, so the manhandling doesn't bother me. 

And by lift device, I mean one of these thingies

[Aralai]

Doughless

Original poster Aralai:  Sounds like you have a sense of humor and a willingness to listen to input.

 

Yeah - been around the block enough times, and happy to listen to others. When I was younger I thought I knew everything - I hadn't learned yet that I didn't :) I did not get a chance to re-do my layout today - had to build a storage loft in my garage. I know it does not sound related, but it's all part of the plan to get the basement room cleared out for the layout!

[Doughless]

odave: 

In my case (10'x18' available), I didn't even want to give up the space for a small wye, so I decided that any locomotive turning would be done outside of an ops session by hand or with some sort of lifting device. 

OMG! You can actually do that?  I didn't think that was possible without being sent to operations purgatory. 

Original poster Aralai:  Sounds like you have a sense of humor and a willingness to listen to input.

[gerhard_k]

steinjr

The tracks are at 52" off the floor, so I can fit some storage and a workbench under the layout.

 

Hello, Stein -

I think it is very brave of you to let the world see the "underbelly" of your layout. You are showing us that a train room does not have to be a surgically clean and perfect place. We all have to live in the "real world", and when concentrating on the trains, the other distractions do not matter.

- Gerhard

[odave]

Sorry, no photos, as the benchwork isn't even built yet . All the "operations" I've done has been in my 3rdPlanit 3D model.  I am currently working on lighting and backdrops, with benchwork and track coming in August (hopefully).

Yes, I plan to use the hidden end curves for staging & holding trains to simulate mainline running - when I operate both sides of the layout together.  When operating either side individually, I can use the opposite side as staging.

In an earlier revision I did have two dedicated staging yards in a deck underneath the main deck, accessed by a no-lix, but when I started looking at the benchwork requirements I realized that a couple of my givens would be violated.  So the lower-deck staging had to go. 

I will be using a "roll under" approach to my donut, as my layout will be at 50" and I have a chair with casters.  I think it will be fine for me.

[Aralai]

Thanks O'Dave. I like the siding you have on the bottom. It's nice and long. Back to my drawing board tonight to try to incorporate some of the ideas. I think a Wye might be the answer for me to turn engines. I like the one in Dr. Wayne's layout. My passenger train is a 3 car Budd so no issues with turning, but I like the idea of being able to do it. My last hurdle is deciding if I will have a duckunder or lift out to make a continuous loop or not. I like the idea of a hidden part for staging that could also be used as the continuous connection, but I have the door to deal with, so not sure how I might do that. I could do a kind of L shape with a hole in the middle - but then I'd have to duckunder to get into the layout - not a big problem as I plan to have the layout fairly high. Maybe a doughnut layout with one leg - I guess that's more like a 'P' :) and then hide the loop at the back (top of the P). That way it appears point-to-point, but can run continuous. I'm getting less fussy about the visible crossover.

ETA: It looks like that is what you have done O'Dave with both sides being hidden/staging. Any photos of your layout?

[odave]

Just a couple of comments to add to what stein posted 

* turning/reversing loops take up a lot of space, so you may want to consider if turning/reversing a train or locomotive is necessary for what you want to accomplish with this layout. 

In my case (10'x18' available), I didn't even want to give up the space for a small wye, so I decided that any locomotive turning would be done outside of an ops session by hand or with some sort of lifting device. 

* make sure to reserve space for structure models, roads, etc when laying out your track.

* In an earlier post you commented about the length of yard tracks.  I know that design has been scratched, but you should consider putting your yard body tracks on the long sides of your space, or around corners where the curve radii can be larger.  Coupling/uncoupling on tight radius curves in a curved yard can be difficult. 

And don't overlook putting the body tracks at an angle.  Here's the current revision of my trackplan, the small yard is on the bottom.  The yard is somewhat contorted and does not have a very prototypical look, but it can perform all the functions it needs to.  In this instance, the function of the yard was more important to me than it looking prototypical.

[steinjr]

Aralai

Excellent. Thanks. Sorry for all the newbie questions - it's been a long time...

 

 Trying to answer questions from someone who can formulate clear and thoughtful questions and understands the answers is a joy.

 It makes for a very refreshing change of pace from trying to communicate with some impatient and semi-illiterate 12 year old who dash off some poorly thought out question with hopeless spelling and punctuation, and just wants someone to "give him the answer", rather than the kid making any serious effort on his own part to learn how to do things for himself :-)

 Just continue to ask questions. Nobody minds intelligent questions. 

 

 

Aralai

 What is the max gradient recommended? I've seen anything from 2% to 4%.

 

 That's what I have seen too - max 4%, preferably less. Around 2 is not bad.

 Some people have reported success with more, but it is probably smart to try to stay within that range. Having the gradient on a curve makes it worse.

 The Armstrong book has a chart saying something about pulling power/train length for various gradients.

 You can always do a field test - take a long plank, raise one end to get the desired gradient, and try to run an engine  pulling the desired number of cars up a piece of flextrack laid on top of that that plank.

 But somewhere in the range 2-4% sounds sensible based on what I have read. My own layout is flat, so I haven't tested (other than with the plank test - and I can't remember what I found out).

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[Anonymous]

 Anything not exceeding 3 % is comfortable and looks ok, but is way above what the prototype does...

[Aralai]

Excellent. Thanks. Sorry for all the newbie questions - it's been a long time...

What is the max gradient recommended? I've seen anything from 2% to 4%.

 

[steinjr]

 

Aralai

Questions for steinjr - I don't see any way for you to turn your trains to face the other direction - do you just run different ones different ways?

 

 I run diesel hood road switchers (like RS3s or GP7s) or small diesel switchers like this little GE 70-tonner:

 Diesel hood engines can run both ways.

 Either just backing the entire train with the engine pushing the cars in front of it (short trains only on my layout, but would also have worked for modern passenger push-pull traffic - with a control cab built into the rearmost car of the train).

  Or uncoupling the engine, then running it around the train body (using a double ended siding) and then coupling the engine to the other end of the train, before heading back, with the engine now running "backwards" pulling the cars behind it.

 Another solution would have been to run with one engine at either end of the train - with the one at the tail end leading the train heading back.

 If I had been running diesel carbody engines (like an F7), where engineer visibility is good only out one end of the engine (the cab end), I would have coupled two engines together tail to tail (so there is one cab at either end of the two engine combo), and run those two engines around the body of the train as a unit.

 For steam engines, if I had run them, I would either have used a roundtable to turn the engine, used a short turning wye to turn the engine, or just have run the steam engine backwards around the train body, coupled it to the other end and backed the engine down the other way, pulling the cars.

 Like with the prototype railroads, there are a lot of ways to do this on the model railroad as well.

 The Milwaukee Road  had a passenger station in downtown Minneapolis, and no way to turn its engines there. They turned at their yard in southern Minneapolis and backed up their entire passenger trains for 30 blocks to get into the station, with the conductor presumably at the tail end of the train, with some way (flag, whistle, lantern or something else) to be able to tell the engineer "stop" if something got in their way.

 

Aralai

Also, your loop that passes the door - how did you handle it?

 A liftout section. Looks like this:

 

 Not very pretty - I am not planning to use it in normal operations, just when I feel like running trains around and around (for display running for kids or to break in an engine). 

 Made from a plank, with two L-shaped aluminum profiles fasted to the plant one Woodland Scenics road bed section apart, and tracks laid on top of that. Aligns with sections on both sides with holes drilled down into the sections on both sides and dowels fastend to the underside of the liftout section.

  Cross section across the liftout:

 

 

Aralai

How high is your layout?

The tracks are at 52" off the floor, so I can fit some storage and a workbench under the layout.

 

Aralai

It seems deceptively simple, but maybe that's part of my problem right now when designing - making it too complex.

 Could be - how to create the desired effect on your layout really depends on what the desired effect is - e.g going out and back during the same session, or always going east to west during a session.

  For an over-the-road type of layout - where trains e.g. come onto the layout from east staging, pass through the modelled layout and disappears off the layout into west staging, scheduled to repeat its movement next operating session (instead of going out and coming back the same session), it would also have been possible to back the entire trainback from west staging across the layout into east staging between operating sessions.

Smile,
Stein

 

[Aralai]

These posts are very helpful for me, and as a visual person, the photos help even more.

Questions for steinjr - I don't see any way for you to turn your trains to face the other direction - do you just run different ones different ways? Also, your loop that passes the door - how did you handle it? How high is your layout? It seems deceptively simple, but maybe that's part of my problem right now when designing - making it too complex.

[steinjr]

And here is a couple of examples of what a great modeler (in this case forum poster Dr Wayne) can do with an around-the-wall style layout in a bigger room, with a combination of city, industry, small town and countryside modelling (even based in Canada :-)

 

 

 

 

Photo tour of his layout: http://www.the-gauge.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=1107

 Grin,
 Stein

 

[steinjr]

 

Doughless

You may think a simple doughnut plan looks boring on paper, but check out pictures of stein's layout (linked somewhere in this forum) and you may be more inspired. 

 This is not necessarily a super layout plan, and it very obviously is not super structure modeling, but at least it illustrates that you can fit in quite nice sidings even on a smallish (6.5 x 11.5 foot) around-the-operator (and in my case around-the-walls) layout. Version of plan illustrated in photos below (version 44):

 

 

 Some pictures from how some scenes-in-progress looked before tear-down:
 

Municipal Barge Terminal (was on the lower wall before):

 

3 pictures from the 5x2 foot milling district scene (along right hand wall, from chimney towards door):

 

 

A view down along the elevator for the mill (by the chimney base in upper right hand corner):

 

 

The modeled corner of my yard (three tracks), with warehouse district buildings in the background:

 

Some more warehouse district buildings:

 

  I am currently rebuilding my layout. I decided I so hated the access problems of working under and at the rear of my layout with wiring and scenery that I tore down the entire layout to start over rebuilding it as sections that can be taken out to work on each section individually.

 Since I am rebuilding anyways, I have played around a bit with the plan, to try to bring tracks closer to the layout edge, fewer tracks parallel to the layout edge and to give me a bigger yard (which can be used as visible staging).

 Still not so sure about that left end along the top wall ...

 Current plan (version 55):

 Anyways - not trying to force anyone to do their layouts in the same style - just trying to illustrate some of the things which is possible for this style of layout, even in a fairly small room of 6.5 x 11.5 foot - about 74 square feet - actually a little less when you deduct the chimney base.

 You have a bit more space available - judged from your figure at least 90-100 square feet vs my 74 square feet, maybe more - depending on how your room looks.

 Grin,
 Stein

 

[Anonymous]

Aralai

Fair comments. Yes we have those gopher games :) Let me try a HOG type layout... It's fun to keep designing.

 

 

... indeed it is! Take your time to do it - don´t rush yourself. After all you will be investing quite a bit of money and time in your layout.

Here is another example of a small donut-shaped layout. It is steinjr´s layout (hope you don´t mind me posting this here, stein) - earlier version, though .

Just as food for thought... 

 

[Aralai]

Fair comments. Yes we have those gopher games :) Let me try a HOG type layout... It's fun to keep designing.

[Doughless]

No.  The latest version is a head-knocking access nightmare. You'll hate it.  It reminds me of those carnival amusement games where you score points by walloping fake gophers that pop out of holes in a table.  Do you have those up north? 

It sounds like you are very much interested in learning more and more about theme,operation, and design.  That is an enjoyable process in itself that you'll likely continue to do.  The last thing you want to do is to build something permanent now, only to find yourself six months later much more knowledgeable but stuck with something unsuitable and encased in foam or hydrocal.

Your space suits itself to a design like the HOG, so your final benchwork will likely be very similar to it.  You said you want to get it right first off.  That's tough to do, really. You could start by building some simple table benchwork like the HOG and put a yard LDE in the top side and some spurs along the other sides, hook up two wires and start running trains.  Its easy to rearrange and add/delete track, spurs, sidings, and even yards when the track is not affixed to the benchwork.  Three months later, after you've accumulated more knowledge and experience, you'll be in a better position to crystalize your theme, plan, and permanent design. 

You may think a simple doughnut plan looks boring on paper, but check out pictures of stein's layout (linked somewhere in this forum) and you may be more inspired. 

Just my opinion.

Doug

[Aralai]

 OK - redid the layout. Not sure that the length of the sidings in the yard are long enough - I may have to move the yard. The track that runs along the top is hidden as it inclines from the top right to top left. Again - comments are welcomed. Still fine-tuning things...

ETA: Yeah don't pay too much attention to the detail of the tracks in the yard. I need to fix them to allow assembly of trains.

 

[Aralai]

odave

In addition to what stein posted, two books would be good to read through to assist in your planning journey.  My preferred reading order would be:

Track Planning for Realistic Operation by John Armstrong

Realistic Model Railroad Operation by Tony Koester

Since you are interested in Quebec City, it would be good to do some research on the railroads that run/ ran in that area.  To see modern trackage, I've found the aerial maps at Bing and Google to be good search tools.  Just zoom in on Quebec City and scroll around the tracks to find interesting scenes.  Even abandoned railroad grades can still be found and traced - some going back to the 1920s and 30s and maybe older.  This can give you some town names to start your research with.

 

Got em both today! Thanks. Found an amazing Model Railway Store - I have a feeling I am going to be there a lot. Good bunch there that seem like they know a lot about Model Railroading.

 

[Aralai]

 Thanks again for your feedback! It is very helpful. I'll make a point of answering the questions steinjr posted so I know myself exactly what I want. Of the top of my head, I see the layout as an ongoing project where I will continually either improve details or tear down and rebuild in some cases, although that would be scenery more than tracks. Once I have the tracks in place, I intend to leave them so I want to get them right. I am familiar with Quebec, having grown up in Montreal in the 1970's, hence my interest in modeling 1970's Quebec. I also have exisiting locos and rolling stock as well as scenery from that location/era. Last time I built a layout was 30 years ago, starting with a 4 x 8 sheet which progressed to three 4 x 8 sheets, and the layout was based on Charny, St.Nicolas, QC area on the south shore across the St.Lawrence river from Quebec City. Charny is/was a big CN town, and has a great railway yard (Joffre Yard) with the only extant full-circle type roundhouse in Canada built in 1880. While part of me wants to recreate that area, I realize that the scale would make it difficult to reproduce properly, however I'd like to incorporate elements - the LDE's you talk about, so I might have an LDE that represents a part of the Joffre Yard, and other LDE's from areas around Charny. I'd love to tackle two projects - building the Joffre Roundhouse and the Quebec Railway Bridge. I know they would be big projects, but they would be awesome elements. I guess a lot of modelers DO take real places and adapt them to their layout due to scale. Just taking a google map of the area and trying to reproduce exactly is not going to work, but grabbing 3 or 4 LDE's and incorporating them might work. So right now my big question is: Do I attempt to reproduce some real elements or just create my layout from my imagination? My preference is leaning to recreating some real elements - the roundhouse, bridge and perhaps a key industrial area.

[odave]

In addition to what stein posted, two books would be good to read through to assist in your planning journey.  My preferred reading order would be:

Track Planning for Realistic Operation by John Armstrong

Realistic Model Railroad Operation by Tony Koester

Since you are interested in Quebec City, it would be good to do some research on the railroads that run/ ran in that area.  To see modern trackage, I've found the aerial maps at Bing and Google to be good search tools.  Just zoom in on Quebec City and scroll around the tracks to find interesting scenes.  Even abandoned railroad grades can still be found and traced - some going back to the 1920s and 30s and maybe older.  This can give you some town names to start your research with.

[steinjr]

Aralai

 Great comments! Thanks! I agree that the layout as is would get boring fast. I guess I am having trouble noving my mindset from a loop to a point-to-point layout that actually allows more complicated train operation - which is definitely one of my bigger objectives. From your feedback, the biggest issues seems to be sidings, spurs and crossovers to allow a realistic operation. I will go back to the drawing board today and see what I can come up with. This is one of the fun parts - planning...Any specifics on components that allow for realistic operation? Ex: single line siding, passing track, etc..

Here is my standard answer to the question "what should I model" (copied and pasted from a previous reply - some details may not be applicable to your situation :-)

 

 

steinjr

 FWIW, here is my approach to this.

You need to ask yourself three questions, and the first two questions should not be skipped:

1) Why do I want to build a model railroad ?

 A surprisingly large number of people fail to consider why they want a layout, or just go "because it is cool, duh!" and leave it at that.

 Don't skip this step.

 No one but you can define why you want  a layout and what you expect/hope to get from your layout.  

Think about what you hope to get from your layout, and write it down. 

 For three reasons:

  a) there is no "one size fits all" when it comes to how to design two layouts for two widely different purposes.

 A layout designed to support you playing dispatcher at a CTC will often be quite different from a layout built mainly to give you a place to show off and take pictures of your detailed model trains, or a layout which can run in continuous display with various animated effects to entertain young grandchildren, or a layout built to allow you to do a lot of yard switching,

  Some people like to build, and tear down their layout and start over again pretty much right away after they finish building their railroad. Some people feel that the building part is a necessary evil they have to go through to get to the fun part of running trains, and want to keep it as simple as possible.

b) if you can't explain even to yourself why you want a layout, it may not be the smartest thing to commit to spending quite a bit of money and quite a bit of time on building a layout until you have figured out why you want a layout, and

c) Once in a while when you are working on your model railroad you can do a reality check - are you getting what you wanted from what you are doing? If not, it is probably a good time to change either your goal or your approach :-)

 

2) What would I like to model ?

 Two subphases:

  a) Identify a theme, era and location that inspires you

  b) Find scenes that inspire you 

 Different people like different things. Tastes are different. No one but you can define what you want on your layout.

 But if you start out with era, location and theme, you are well on your way.

 An 1890s narrow gauge logging line in the west is pretty different in character compared to switching in Brooklyn in 1942, which is pretty different to having Budd RDCs carrying passengers to a remote settlement in the arctic north of Canada, which is pretty different from a helper base in West Virginia in the 1950s, which is pretty different from a modern 110 car coal unit trains departing from the Powder River basin in a steady stream of traffic, which is pretty different from a Harry Potter layout, which is pretty different from a Thomas The Tank train layout and so on and so forth.

 Once you have a theme, an era and a place in mind, it is time to go look for "scenes" from that time and place that fits your desired theme.

 Tony Koester came up with a smart layout design concept in an early issue of Model Railroad Planning (an annual from the same people who publish Model Railroader Magazine): the Layout Design Element (LDE).

 An LDE is a small model railroad scene that is based on modelling a smallish part of a real railroad somewhere and sometime. Inspired e.g. by a photo that grabbed your attention or a place you have lived, or visited or read about or whatever.

 By breaking layout design into first designing a small number of scenes you want to model, and then afterwards figuring out how to string your scenes together in the space you have available, the design job gets less overwhelming.

 By "small" I mean something on the order of 3 or fewer LDEs for a H0 scale bedroom sized (10x12 foot) layout, and typically fewer than 10 LDEs for a H0 scale basement size layout, even though you obviously can squeeze in more scenes by making each scene smaller, running shorter trains, having more viewblocks that prevent visual interference between scenes etc.

 To find LDE candidates, you look at pictures - both pictures of your prototype railroad/area/era, and pictures of other layouts that inspire you.

  If you have a location and a theme in mind, it will be easier to figure out what kind of LDEs to look for and where to look.

 Let's work some more on theme and selecting some scenes you would want to include on your layout:

 Some things to think about:
    Location(s):
     - Urban, small town or rural area?
     - Farming communities or industries ?
     - Mountains/Hills? Forests? Riverfront ?
     - mainline or branch line ?
     - RR junction, "on the line" or "end of line" ? 

    Traffic/Operations:
    - Express streamlined "named" passenger trains stopping at the Union Station ?
    - Long through freight trains passing through, possibly dropping off blocks for a local switcher ?
    - Local switching - one car at a time for various small local dealers ?
    - Big local industries needing lots of in plant switching ?
    - Lucius Beebe's "Mixed Train Daily" serving sleeping branch line ?

 Have you had a quick google for sources about "your" railroad to see if you can spot interesting themes or locations ?

 If you start from the wikipedia entry on e.g the L&N, you find links to various historical societies and suchlike:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisville_&_Nashville_Railroad

 One of those lead on the archieve of the L&N historical society: http://www.lnrr.org/archive/

 System maps, junctions, rosters, photos of people, places, structures and junctions.

 

3) How do I fit what I want into the space I have ?

 This is where advice from more experienced layout designers can help you see solutions you maybe hasn't thought of yourself. There are quite a few tricks and tips on fitting in layouts in rooms in various ways.

 But the time to worry about the how to model (and to make the decisions on what comprimises you need to make to make things fit the space) is after finding out why you want a layout and what you want to model.

 Think a bit about the why and what, write it down and go through it a few more times on your own.

 For some more questions you might want to ask yourself about the why and what, have a look at these web pages which contain more questions you might want to ask yourself in order to narrow down some more what you want:

Byron Henderson's checklist for potensial customers: http://home.earthlink.net/~mrsvc/id13.html

Layout Design SIG primer: http://macrodyn.com/ldsig/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Primer

 

 

Good luck with your design!

Smile,
Stein

 

 

[Aralai]

 Great comments! Thanks! I agree that the layout as is would get boring fast. I guess I am having trouble noving my mindset from a loop to a point-to-point layout that actually allows more complicated train operation - which is definitely one of my bigger objectives. From your feedback, the biggest issues seems to be sidings, spurs and crossovers to allow a realistic operation. I will go back to the drawing board today and see what I can come up with. This is one of the fun parts - planning...Any specifics on components that allow for realistic operation? Ex: single line siding, passing track, etc..

[markpierce]

You know what?  It is very difficult to provide comments on a plan unless one is aware  of the planner's objectives and details on the available space.  So, I'm not going to try to comment.

Mark

[steinjr]

Sir Madog

I have seen that steinjr already gave you an answer - he is a wizard when it comes to trackplanning and a fountain of information. You can´t make a mistake learning from him... 

 

 While I of course appreciate that people speaks well about me, I do not want anyone to think that I think of myself as a wizard track planner, let alone a wizard layout designer.

 People like Byron Henderson (and Lance Mindheim and quite a few others) are the true master layout designers who turns out layout plans that both works functionally, and at the same time are pieces of art that also conveys the look and feel of the era and location modeled. 

 I am but an apprentice track planner who can draw up a reasonably *functional* track plan for small scenes and layouts, and can do (and present) research reasonably fast. But I do not have the artistic flair of those guys when it comes to creating truly *great* looking layout and scenery plans.

 But enough about that.

   I totally agree with Ulrich that a Heart of Georgia style layout is (IMO) a pretty good starting point for a layout plan for someone wanting a H0 scale layout with both continuous run, possibilities for creating cool looking scenes where the track passes just once through each scene (instead of first passing a the same spot twice, first going left on the foreground, then going right in the background), and with plenty of switching action.

 That is - if a duckunder or liftout to get into the core operating pit is not a big problem e.g. for medical reasons.

 Industries and scenery can of course be changed to something else, if you want to give the layout a Quebec flavor instead of a Georgia flavor. A backdrop can be mounted along the outside edge of the layout (it is operated from inside the pit), so mountain scenery is not out of the picture.

 In another debate way back, I tried to illustrate how an around-the-operator type layout could add e.g. a mountain scene even on fairly narrow benchwork. Now, where did I put that sketch - ah - found it. 

 

 Just an illustration of the concept of just modeling the side of the object which faces the pit, not a serious fully fledged track plan. And it would be dead easy to add a little access door right into the core of the mountain from the fascia on the outside of the pit, of it is not up against a wall. You can also make the layout low enough that you can operate it from an office chair on wheels, while any viewers can look over the top of the backdrop into your scene to admire your work.

 There are many other possibilities here. You don't have to do an around-the-operator style plan. But it is a good starting point for thinking about your layout as going from somewhere to somewhere, through one or more modeled scenes.

 Anyways - good luck with your design!

 Grin,
 Stein

 

[Anonymous]

 Aralai,

I hope you don´t mind me voicing bluntly my concern over your layout. IMHO, your track plan is just too simple and unrealistic to give you some kind of a satisfaction operating it once you are getting close to finishing it. Building it will be fun and you will learn a lot while doing it. Your layout is doomed to be torn down, because you will get bored after a very short time.

Before you start, do a lot of reading. Kalmbach offers a lot of beginner´s books, that will help you to get the right idea. There are many web sites offering good advice and finally, don´t hesitate to post your questions here - the community will be glad to help you. I have seen that steinjr already gave you an answer - he is a wizard when it comes to trackplanning and a fountain of information. You can´t make a mistake learning from him... 

From your track plan idea I see that you have plenty of room available.

Here is just an idea, what can be done. The HOG is a well designed beginner´s layout, developed by Scott Perry (IIRC). It already combines quite a lot of what you would like to see in your layout.

 

[Aralai]

I hope to do both - train operation and landscape and building. Ideally I am looking for a balance between allowing a continuous loop and train operation switching. I'm not unhappy with the elevated loop, but the low track as you point out does not allow for much in the way of operation. Any ideas on how to improve that? I have space at the right that could be used for sidings or spurs perhaps - I could expand that area to approx 30-40 sq ft - moving the control bench elsewhere. This is the kind of feedback I need. It's easy to change on paper - not so easy once I start.

[steinjr]

Aralai

I am building an HO layout - my first in over 30 years!!! Here is a draft of the layout. It consists of a low track at bench level which is a point to point that is hidden under two mountains in the top left and right corners, and a high track that hugs the sides of the mountains and has a high bridge duckunder. Any feedback or comments are appreciated. It is planned to be 1970's Quebec outside of Quebec City.

 

 

 Figure is hard to grasp, and may lack a lot of sidings and spurs, but if I take it at apparent face value (and if I don't misunderstand your figure and description totally), your only possible operations for this layout seems to be to let one train circle endlessly around and around an elevated loop, while the other train leaves the end of the line, run down a single line to the endpoint, which may or may not have a single ended siding next to the mainline, and then backs up again back down the same line to get back to the place it started from.

  Mmm - guess it says "town" in one corner. So you might have a depot on the mainline where the go-forth-and-back-up-again line can stop to pick up and drop off passengers. 

Is this layout intended as a fully automated display layout where your main focus is on building the landscape and structures, rather than on running trains?

  Stein

 

[Aralai]

Thanks - I was planning to leave the mountains open from underneath for access. It will be tight but I think it will work if needed.

[CPbuff]

The only suggestion at first glance is too ensure you allow access to the inside of the tunnels in the case of a derailment by either being able to remove the mountains from out front or get access from underneath the layout in the corners for both your arms and head.