New Layout - Looking for feedback

[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]

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 :)

[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]

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???

 

[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

 

[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".

[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

[Aralai]

 Thanks - just looking for ballpark budget numbers right now.

[Aralai]

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

 

[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]

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. 

 

[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. 

[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

 

[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.

[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!

[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

[Aralai]

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

[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!

[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

 

 

[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]

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

 

[Annonymous]

 TWaters, check your PM.

Svein

 

[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!

[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.

[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 

 

 

[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

 

[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]

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

 

[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.

[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