Hi guys --
I am redesigning my track plan, with the intent to rebuild my layout as a sectional layout where I can take out sections individually to work on outside or in less cramped conditions.In that context, I'd like to hear what you guys think about 4-5 proposals I have worked up - what you think is strength and weaknesses of each plan, and whether you spot things I might not have considered.
Design goals for new layout
My main goal for the redesign is to create an urban/industrial switching layout (ISL) which hopefully will give me (or a visitor) a rough idea of how things would have looked for a train crew doing switching for customers on the West Bank of the Mississippi river in Minnesota in the late 1950s.
More specifically, I'd like to get some of the feel of switching rows of tallish (4+ stories) urban warehouses in the warehouse district, sneaking your train through narrow gaps between buildings to switch stone or brick mill buildings or towering elevators, or spotting cars on the dockside by the river to have stuff transferred from your RR cars to a barge or the other way around.
The prototype would have a lot of railroad tracks in this area - this part of Minneapolis had several railroads serving it. There were yards and industry tracks and temporary storage tracks all over the place.
Warehouses scenes:WD01: Omaha Road yard, GN Union Depot, First Street OverpassWD02: Omaha yard and "hole in the wall" (first street overpass)WD03: Warehouses on 500-700 block North First StreetWD04: Security warehouse by first street overpass
Yard scenes:YD01: Milwaukee Road Yard, downtown Mpls in backgroundYD02: Milwaukee Road Yard curveMill and elevator scenes:MD01: Tracks in milling districtMD02: Mill buildingMD03: Urban canyon between mill buildingsMD04: Calumet Elevator CoMD05: Pillsbury Mill yard MD06: Washburn Crosby Elevator
Barge terminal scenes:BT01: Washington Avenue dock, loading tractors into bargesBT02: Transferring stuff between barge and gondola RR carsBT03: Coal piles at coal dockBT04: Unloading coal from BargeBT05: Barge terminal overview pictureBT06: Barge terminal warehouse
Operations wise, I intend to focus exclusively on local switching (yard to customer to yard). I do not intend to model yard work like receiving trains from off-layout places, classifying inbound cars, engine servicing, building outbound trains and departing trains for off-layout places.
For flavor, I wish to let one railroad switch some industries, and another railroad switch other industries. E.g. letting the M&StL switch the barge terminal and mill buildings, and letting the Omaha Road switch the warehouses.
It is desirable to be able to let a train (possibly from a third railroad) pass through the scenes and loop slowly around on the main while one or max two operators do local switching.This will be for display running and kid running.
Some possible redesigns, with some thoughts on each plan:
Plan 46
Thoughts: main change is removing the three track yard from the front center, and adding a curved three track yard in the upper left hand corner instead. Both for looks (breaking up some of the parallel-to-edge look) and to get the yard throat to face right (clockwise), ie so trains from staging can back into yard.
In the space vacated by the yard tracks in the front center, it would be possible to put some other kind of scene - like a freight house with room for trucks facing the viewer, and/or a team track scene.
Plan 50 and 55b
Plan50
Plan 55b
Thoughts: putting the three track yard back into the top front center zone, like in my original layout, but orienting both the yard and the warehouse tracks in the upper left hand corner diagonally instead of parallel to the wall and layout edge. Yard throat is also moved to the right instead of the left side, for the same reasons as given in the notes for plan 46 above.
A team track has also been added by the yard, and a freight house has been put below the three tracks in the corner, giving a chance to do another truck scene.
Difference between 50 and 55b is mainly scenery/cosmetic (55b has straighter tracks in the corner, 50 has road going diagonally into upper right hand corner, 55 has an overpass), but there is also one functional difference - in 50 both the yard and the industries on the right wall come directly off the main, while in 55b the yard lead is far longer, and the industries on the right wall come off the yard lead instead of off the main.
Plan 55c
Thoughts: this one is a bigger mental reorientation than may be immediately apparent.
My main thought was "how about if I take yard switching out of play, focus my operations on pure industrial set outs and pulls, and instead use the lower wall for an expanded yard scene that is essentially just used for visible staging and storage during operations ?".
That prompted a second thought: "any reason for why I can't put the barge terminal scene where I had the yard scene before ?". So I worked out some tracks for the barge terminal, with a runaround track that also would function as an industry lead for the industries on the right.
Looking at a prototype photo of an industry yard by the Pillsbury Mill made me think: I want to model a multi-track mill scene. So I sketched in such a scene in the upper left hand corner, instead of warehouses and the freight house. The warehouses were dropped, the freight house was relocated to the bottom, by the yard.
At the same time, I wanted to develop the left corner up by the chimney based on some of the ideas from plan50 (e.g. the rail served building in the corner behind the elevator), which made it necessary to remove some of the silos from the elevator by the chimney base.
Also - if you compare tracks in the upper left hand corner with 55b, I have eliminated the double slip and the rearmost industry spur ("Robinson manufacturing" in 55b).
Plan 56 and 56b
Plan 56
Plan 56b
Thoughts: I tried to orient all industries (and tracks) in the upper left hand corner along the same axis, instead of having the elevator poke off at a different angle than the other industries.
More tracks and crossovers in the upper left hand corner (maybe too much tracks and crossovers).
Also, the main double ended siding is now in front of the main (towards the barge terminal), rather than towards the tracks on the rear, which hopefully should make it possibly to switch industries both in front of the main and in the rear of the main without fouling the main.
Difference between 56 and 56b lies in that 56 has the right end of the double ended siding tied to the main, while 56b has it tied to the track to the harbor warehouse, which makes the double ended siding longer, while at the same time making it possible to also use the double ended siding as an industry lead for the barge terminal and for the industries on the right wall, without fouling the main.
Plan 58
Thoughts: Main difference between plan 56 and plan 58 is that the main in 58 also have a crossover to the tracks on top on the left side of the scene, creating one double ended siding on each side (front and back) of the main.
But has I long ago passed the point of "way too much tracks, way too many crossovers", or am I on the right track here ? :-)
I'd appreciate any thoughts and comments you may have on the various track plans, and if you see options I have not considered.
Smile,Stein
Hi Stein
from what I can get, operation will be very similar on all of the plans, so for me it boils down to a question of "looks" . For me, plan no. 55b has the "sleekest" look, which is very difficult to accomplish in such a small space.
Sir Madog Hi Steinfrom what I can get, operation will be very similar on all of the plans, so for me it boils down to a question of "looks" . For me, plan no. 55b has the "sleekest" look, which is very difficult to accomplish in such a small space.
Yes, to a large extent it comes down to look and feel. Still, there are some functional differences between the layouts as well.
I have now added some more information on this in the post above.
Stein
Smile, Stein
Hi Stein,
Is the part between the door and chimney base fixed? It is the same in all designs. I would think that place would be a great place for a descending line to the barge terminal with some spurs pointing back in front of the chimney. Or start descending from the door end to a point in front of the long wall with a runaround track lower than the mill buildings in the background. The warehouse would be roughly near the chimney base and the coal unloading in the lower righthand corner.
Alternate place would be above the workbench but if you lower tracks there it might interfere with work on the bench.
Also, what about the piece between workbench and door? Can you enlarge it and point it toward the chimney base, a kind of mini peninsula? That way you can model 2 warehouses/mills with tracks between or 1 with tracks at both long sides.
Just thinking out loud. Happy designing.
Stein, you're making too much work for us (leastwise me). If you pointed out the differences among the plans and your reason(s)/expectaion(s) for the changes, there would be greater incentive to evaluate. I'm not willing to go back and forth comparing the several plans to identify the differences nor guess your objectives/reasons for doing so.
Mark
marcimmekerHi Stein, Is the part between the door and chimney base fixed? It is the same in all designs. I would think that place would be a great place for a descending line to the barge terminal with some spurs pointing back in front of the chimney. Or start descending from the door end to a point in front of the long wall with a runaround track lower than the mill buildings in the background. The warehouse would be roughly near the chimney base and the coal unloading in the lower righthand corner.
Are you thinking a going down counterclockwise from the main on the right side to the barge terminal scene, and have then tracks back from there to the industries inside the main along the right wall ?
marcimmekerAlso, what about the piece between workbench and door? Can you enlarge it and point it toward the chimney base, a kind of mini peninsula? That way you can model 2 warehouses/mills with tracks between or 1 with tracks at both long sides.
Mmm - it is already pretty dominant in the room as it is. It is a pretty small room - only 4.5 feet from the layout edge along top wall to lower wall. Not sure I would like to go any further out than 15-18" in this spot.
Good ideas - keep em coming while I go on to describe the thinking behind all my variants.
markpierceStein, you're making too much work for us (leastwise me). If you pointed out the differences among the plans and your reason(s)/expectaion(s) for the changes, there would be greater incentive to evaluate. I'm not willing to go back and forth comparing the several plans to identify the differences nor guess your objectives/reasons for doing so. Mark
I know - working on that part now :-)
Okay - at long last I am done describing the various alternate plans and my thoughts for the various changes.
I know the post is hellishly long. But if any of you can bear reading through it and offer comments or suggestions (both on looks and function), I'd be grateful.
My apologies for not initially completing the whole post in one sitting, before hitting "post".
Stein, are the board sizes fixed as it appears that some of the pointwork, especially in the top left hand corner, will overlap boards. I know, from the hard way, when trying to draw plans for small sectional layouts, that you then have to make further changes when actually track laying.
Brian
www.deadwoodcityrailroad.blogspot.com
Yampa2003Stein, are the board sizes fixed as it appears that some of the pointwork, especially in the top left hand corner, will overlap boards. I know, from the hard way, when trying to draw plans for small sectional layouts, that you then have to make further changes when actually track laying. Brian
No, sections still hasn't been cut, so they are open to changes - I just haven't adjusted the section lines on all the drawings as I have been messing with the track plans.
Stein:
Its tough to take a lot of time to analyze all of the variations closely, but I kind of like plan 46. It seems to accomplish all of the switching you need, but with the least amount of track, which is very prototypical. Some modifcations to think about:
It would look better if you straightened the yard tracks and flip the office so its next to the main. Add a crossover from the 1st st. switch lead to security warehouse so you don't have to move the car at Lindsey Bros. (unless that challange appeals to you). Swap the locations of the Omaha Warehouse and the harbor like 55c. I think you would still have room to have the harbor and Williams hardware track work arranged so the harbor could be switched without fouling the main. You would have all of the industries you have now, with two yard tracks tucked into the upper left corner and a long yard lead as well.
You could modify 55c by adding a yard track and keeping the Int. Harv. industry high up in the corner and get to my thinking as well. I think they would both be similar if I follow my own thinking correctly.
I read in another post sometime back, where you wanted to add a grade element. How about if you add a table top over the staging area, and add another warehouse or grain elevator? Don't know if you have enough distance to get a spur up there with a reasonable grade however. Maybe try to make the harbor tracks as low as possible, where evr you locate them. Having the tracks descend to meet the harbor would seem prototypical.
A bunch of ideas that may or may not work.
good luck
Doug
- Douglas
DoughlessIts tough to take a lot of time to analyze all of the variations closely, but I kind of like plan 46. It seems to accomplish all of the switching you need, but with the least amount of track, which is very prototypical. Some modifcations to think about: It would look better if you straightened the yard tracks and flip the office so its next to the main. Add a crossover from the 1st st. switch lead to security warehouse so you don't have to move the car at Lindsey Bros. (unless that challange appeals to you). Swap the locations of the Omaha Warehouse and the harbor like 55c. I think you would still have room to have the harbor and Williams hardware track work arranged so the harbor could be switched without fouling the main. You would have all of the industries you have now, with two yard tracks tucked into the upper left corner and a long yard lead as well. You could modify 55c by adding a yard track and keeping the Int. Harv. industry high up in the corner and get to my thinking as well. I think they would both be similar if I follow my own thinking correctly.
Yes, your thinking is correct. The modification you describe for 46 would apparently end up in a track plan very similar to the track plan in 55c.
Main differences in track plan between a 55c with the International Harvester track straightened out and a modified 46 would be that in 55c I have also removed the double slip and extra spur to "Robinson manufacturing".
Plus of course that in a modified 46 you would keep the two warehouses (Security warehouse and Lindsey bros) on the rear and a yard office on the front of the four diagonal tracks in the upper left hand corner instead of a mill complex.
So what is it that appeals to you about a modified 46, rather than going with 55c ? Keeping the warehouses in the upper left, or keeping things like in 46 in the upper right or something else ?
Doughless I read in another post sometime back, where you wanted to add a grade element. How about if you add a table top over the staging area, and add another warehouse or grain elevator? Don't know if you have enough distance to get a spur up there with a reasonable grade however.
I read in another post sometime back, where you wanted to add a grade element. How about if you add a table top over the staging area, and add another warehouse or grain elevator? Don't know if you have enough distance to get a spur up there with a reasonable grade however.
Hmmmm. That's something I haven't considered. Doing some testing in xtrakcad. Se this figure:
Track marked in red is inclines - going up from staging at elevation 0" on bottom (track closest to wall) to a midpoint at elevation +1.4" at turnout by diagonal tracks in upper left corner along top wall.
Then up again from there along other red track to cross over the first track with 3" elevation difference and ending up with 4" elevation difference where staging yard tracks along lower wall is straight.
Would take an incline of 3%, which in principle should be within the realm of doable.
And tracks on the other side of the layout (right wall) could do a 1.4" downhill from chimney to the liftout-out by door and cross over to the staging deck at elevation 0" at a reasonable 2.3% downgrade towards the door.
It would be too hard to cross over to an upper deck at elevation 4" - that would take an incline of 4.4% in a 22" radius curve - not smart. But crossing to a lower deck would be doable.
But would 4" difference between the top of tracks at the staging deck and top of tracks at an upper deck along the lower wall afford enough access to trains on lower staging deck ?
Doughless Maybe try to make the harbor tracks as low as possible, where evr you locate them. Having the tracks descend to meet the harbor would seem prototypical.
Maybe try to make the harbor tracks as low as possible, where evr you locate them. Having the tracks descend to meet the harbor would seem prototypical.
Stein,
I still vote for plan 55 b.
I´ll try to give you some reasoning: Given the space you have, you need to put in a lot of track. There is a risk of overloading your layout, just to catch that last bit of switching challenge. Either plan has a lot to offer, but if I had to decide, i would go for a compromise between operation and looks. After all you don´t want to build that "Plywood Central" but a challenging switching layout with some well thought of scenic features. For me, that´s plan 55b. The overpass to the upper right corner makes a nice scenic divider, distracting the view from the chimney base. You don´t need two truck scenes.
In some plans, your "water front" is also on the upper part. That area is already pretty "loaded" so I think it is better to leave that LDE to the lower part. I´d even go one step further and take away one track out of each yard or lead you have in the plan.After all you will do your switching with one loco and you have 10 + industries to serve...
"Less is more"
My vote would be for 56 or 56b. The buildings-on-same-axis look is a better match with the prototype photos you posted. I also like the separation between the "main" and the upper industry tracks in the 56 plans than say #58. I haven't been able to devote many brain cycles to the operating characteristics of each element, especially with the mill in the upper left, but my gut feel is 56b. I may be of more assistance when you've narrowed the field a bit.
I got a thought provoking question by personal message:
What is the change in layout concept that you would like the new design to reflect? From that will likely come your answer.
Here are some musings on that subject:
The main concept for my old layout plan was that I had a mix of local switching and yard work. I wanted to have a "home road" that had a yard (of which only a tiny corner was modeled) and switched the industries, and then I would have a couple of trains from neighbor roads that would do transfer runs to the home road yard to drop off cuts of inbound cars and pick up cuts of outbound cars. The yard was a core element in operations (and looks).
What I am considering now is whether to totally drop transfer runs and abstract away yard work, and just do local switching, but let engines from different companies switch different industries. I still want to try for the look of long rows of tallish buildings dwarfing the trains, and quite a bit of tracks squeezed in where cars can be temporarily stashed while the switching engine pulls cars from industries and sets out cars at industries.
Have to head for bed now - it has been a long day at work and there will be a long day tomorrow too. I have read the comments from Ulrich (SirMaddog) and Dave (O'Dave) and they both make sense, as does everyone else who has offered advice.
Will comment more tomorrow.
Dear Stein,
I really like your #50 plan; sometimes there are lots of tracks, sometimes your RR is almost modest in appearence. It's sleak and leaves space for road access too.
I am a bit concerned about all the large buildings between you and your trains, but that's what you just fancy as i understand well. The one thing i am thinking about is the dockside. The concealed staging is in the dock's freighthouse, so the tracks in front could be serving both the barge and the freighthouse. You may need a pipe system to get grain out of the barges into the whare(freight)house. I've seen it in Liege (Belgium). These tracks could also be paved in; even some more road access. So you don't need the freighthouse up front and you could make your marine scene a bit longer. But is this prototypecally for M.stP?
Nice thinking, but as you stated many times, what do you want? Cutting transfercuts into pieces? No, but that influences staging. How many RR's came into your area? do you need that many staging tracks? Do you still need a small yard, just to get the cars in the right order? Does your RR needs a scale? Do you need the bridge during operating sessions? (if yes, forget the remarks about the marine scene.)
Have a good and fun time finding your perfect solution.
from Holland with love and respect
Paul
Not that anybody cares, but Minneapolis "West Bank" area is actually about a mile east of what you're talking about. It's across the river from the University of Minnesota main campus (although the U now has a "West Bank Campus" on the west side of the Washington Ave. Bridge. The area around the Milwaukee depot, the big mills etc. are considered to be "downtown".
Keep in mind too that it's a long way down!! The city is built up fairly high compared to the river in many places. It's pretty close to water level near the GN depot and the Post Office, which is near the area you're modelling (north side of downtown) but then, barges can't get up the Mississippi that high because of St.Anthony Falls which is due east of downtown. There was a pretty large coal unloading area in the West Bank that was served by rail, getting coal from barges coming up river.
To be honest, I liked 46 right off because it seemed like you maintained all of the industries you started with, had two or three dedicated yard tracks, and a decent switch lead for 1st street, and you still had a lot of open space which was occupied by Omaha warehouse. I thought better use of that space would be the harbor. Then I realized those mods just about made 55c. I'm not sure I like either one better. If you go with two grain elevators total (instead of Security warehouse and Lindsey Bros), I think the railroad might want to have the yard tracks to store some extra grain hoppers close by.
After looking again, I'm not sure how the IH building would look best. Something you might have to work out on site, so to speak. Could possibly sneak in another building or spur in that upper right, really having buildings and track on top of each other in that small space, on the far side of the road. Kind of an "old town" district. Wouldn't want to have it that crowded over the whole layout however.
I like all of the plans, really. The other plans line up the buildings straight along the tracks. Depends on what you think will look better. Midwestern river towns are usually crowded and laid out at funny angles, having to follow the the river, with streets and buildings having funny angles as well. So having things line up perfectly straight might not be in keeping with the area your modeling, if being that accurate matters to you.
On the other hand, I think I recall you writing in another thread that you weren't totally satisfied with the minimal third dimension cut up background buildings provide (the photos look great to me). So pulling the buildings away from the wall might give you more depth with the buildings.
On the latest version of the plan, I like the top side, where you made the changes. It seems like it provides yard storage and long enough switch leads without having to move cars out of the way. If you decide to lower the harbor a bit, you have some space there to slope the scenery away from the main line little, instead of having to rely upon only a retaining wall to make the vertical change. Can't really visualize how the inclined tracks will impact the whole layout that well. Might make your sectional benchwork idea a bit more complicated.
You've provided a lot of info in this thread, and you seem to know where every switch and building is on each plan, along with the details of your operating plan. Its probably hard for me to keep up (but fun to try). So my comments are offered in a way that might not make sense to an aspect of your layout that you envision, but that I can't.
Thank you for a lot of thoughtful (and thought provoking) comments. It is fun to see almost everybody picks a different favorite plan, or different favorite elements of the plans! At least it makes me feel quite a bit better about not having been able to decide on my own :-)
Having slept on it, I guess that my main problem is trade-off between trying to preserve as much as possible of the "look and feel" of the prototype (which I am starting to know almost "too much" about after having looked at many pictures and having read quite a bit about the area), and making a layout that can be operated in a sensible way.
Two interesting blog posts about this trade-off can be found here: "Carricature, copy or close enough?", and "Selective obsession". (as always - just right click and "open in new tab" or "open in new window" to follow links without losing you place in this post).
Basic point Byron makes is that it is a trade-off. Being too prototype true can make the layout not work very operationally. And going to far in the other direction makes the layout become just a "generic" layout, with little of the "look and feel" of the prototype that inspire you in the first place. The only problem is figuring out where the famous mid-line between Scylla and Charybdis lies :-)
And sometimes (see the second blog post above) you have to be prepared to give up some of your favorite elements to make a plan that is better overall. Hanging on too hard to one favorite element of a plan can compromise the whole layout.
One of the big decisions about my layout plans is: Three visually separate scenes, or a mix of stuff from different scenes?
I know I have a tendency to overemphasize tracks to the detriment of look and feel. Let me try to steer a little closer to look and see what we get.
Stix - you are totally right about the name "West Bank" being weird to anyone who knows this area, and also with the (implied) comment about how the top scene loses a lot of the prototype "look and feel" if I try to stick the barge terminal in the front part of warehouses - those scenes are miles apart in the prototype.
I started out calling this layout "The Warehouse District", and the desired main visual focus of the layout, and the main scene of the layout (along the top wall) was to give the impression of a mass of yard tracks (belonging to the Omaha Road) in front of a straight row of tallish buildings (mostly warehouses - hence the name of the area in real life - the Warehouse District), between the river and First Street North, maybe with a low railroad freight house in front of the tall warehouses.
Here is a link to a prototype picture showing my starting point: Warehouses on 500-700 block North First Street
I later found two more scenes I wanted to include a visual impression of - switching in the more cramped confines between the mill buildings of the milling district (downstream from the Warehouse District), and the railroad/barge transfer at the the barge terminal downstream of Washington Avenue Bridge (even further downstream).
My initial design tried to create three visually fairly separated scenes here. The three scenes are not in the right prototype order (which going upstream looking south/west would have been barge - milling - warehouse, but are instead based on how much space I felt I could allocate to each scene.
Visually, I pictured the three initial scenes as the Barge Terminal along the bottom wall,a corner of the Omaha Road yard and First Street North warehouses in the Warehouse District along the top wall of the layout, and cramped Milling District switching on the right side of the room.
For someone who are familiar with the area, it would be visually jarring to stick the barge terminal in front of the warehouse district. Ulrich also commented on the barge terminal visually overloading that scene. Paulus also mentions how the barge scene would work better along the bottom wall.
I agree with you guys. If I end up with the barge terminal here, it will be because it makes the layout operate better, not because it makes it look more prototypical.
For looks, the best place for the barge terminal (if I don't drop it altogether) is visually well separated from the other two scenes - probably about where I have it in the first place.
Also, I would like a straight row of warehouses in the main scene, with yard tracks in front.
Hmmm - how about if I go combine the straight row of buildings in 56 with the yard scene from 55b - would that work both visually and operationally ?
Plan 56c :
It could work visually. But would it work operationally ? I suppose it would - I can actually combine having transfer runs into the yard with having one RR switch the warehouse district and having another switch the Milling District and the Barge Terminal.
Have to look some more at the barge terminal and staging tracks area later.
One thing that I remember John Armstrong saying (and that's seemed to be proven correct in my modelling experience) is that if you put in all the tracks you think you'll need in doing a trackplan to do what you want, and then remove about 1/3rd of the track, you'll end up with the right amount. Even on a smaller layout I think it's important to let the layout "breathe" a little with some open space. How about a model of a railroad bridge over the Mississippi, like GN had near their depot?? Ya something like that doesn't increase the operating potential of the layout, but it may make it more balanced and interesting.
wjstixEven on a smaller layout I think it's important to let the layout "breathe" a little with some open space. How about a model of a railroad bridge over the Mississippi, like GN had near their depot?? Ya something like that doesn't increase the operating potential of the layout, but it may make it more balanced and interesting.
How about a model of a railroad bridge over the Mississippi, like GN had near their depot?? Ya something like that doesn't increase the operating potential of the layout, but it may make it more balanced and interesting.
Well, a railroad bridge scene is not a must-have for me. But if I should decide I really want to add a river railroad bridge scene, the most obvious place to put it would be on the lift-out in front of the door.
It seems to me that I could in principle fairly easy move the lift-out down a bit, put bridge pillars on the lift-out, add water around the pillars, put a bridge deck on top and put up a low background along the outside of the lift-out (towards the door).
I have seen pictures of such a solution (on a swing gate) in these forums, and it looked good.
Anyways, thanks for the suggestions!
In response to 56c, the yard looks better now in that access is easier from the staging tracks. Also you have a longer run-round. I know you've still got more to do with the staging tracks and barge terminal but I think it would look better if the staging tracks were still partly hidden. Also to swing the barge track parallel to the barge terminal. Visually the layout looks fine now, not too cluttered. Operationally 56c would work as you say with more than one switcher, probably two, one for the warehouses and one for all the other locations.
Being that I'm in the less-is-more camp too, this plan looks good to me. I like the open feel, and the buildings-on-same-axis is a good fit with your prototype image. The fact that they're not parallel with the front of the benchwork adds depth, and I like that you can fit in another street's worth of buildings in the upper-left.
I agree that the barge scene fits better on the bottom.
The only thing I would suggest is trying to get another car or two of length in the bottom yard track, maybe by using a curved turnout near where the yard office is now. That would bump the office down a bit, but I think you've got the room. Or maybe it won't buy anything, given the angles and the edge of the benchwork. But it's something to play with.
I think that with plan 56c you are nearing perfection of what can be done in the space you have available. Just a few things for consideration:
All of the track at the lower part is paralleling the layout´s edge. To break that I´d suggest to put the track leading to the warehouse and the barge at an angle.
The plan shows 3 street overpasses - turn one into an underpass and you have one more scenic element, a bridge, without overburdeneing your layout. The one to the left could easily be converted...
I like very much the street behind the buildings adjacent to the upper yard, followed by back drop buildings. This will give a lot of "viewing depth".
GREAT plan, Stein!
Very nice Stein.
It looks like you tightened the radius on the mainline just slightly, which allowed you to pull all of the tracks towards the front of the benchwork and add depth behind them. I like the depth that's added with the full 3 dimensional structures and flats in the corner.
I agree with some others who believe the harbor scene should ultimately remain on the bottom like the original, along with the staging being concealed.
Please post photos as you progress.
Brian, Dave, Ulrich and Doug --
Thanks for the suggestions.
Dave - good point about making the yard tracks on the top front scene a little longer using a curved turnout. I'll look into that.
Ulrich - I hear you about the RR bridge instead of road overpass. And you are right that that on the left side, next to the freight house, would probably be a good place to do it.
And Doug - you are totally right about me making that corner curve in the upper left sharper. Had to take it down from 23" radius to 20.5" radius to be able pull the main forward a little in the front center along the upper wall.
I still haven't decided on the staging and scene along the bottom wall.
There are several interesting options - e.g. to keep the barge scene (possibly along shelf of at an angle, jutting into the room towards chimney base) and than hide 3 or maybe 4 staging tracks (of which one is a run-through track that can used for continuous running) behind a low backdrop or a building.
Would be reasonably prototype-like to have a hillside with some retaining walls just behind the barge terminal. Observe that the warehouse can even be on a fill that goes into the river - loading dock on one short side towards barges, on the long side towards the railroad.
Prototype pic: http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/image.cfm?imageid=81148
Maybe something along these lines:
Or to ditch the barge scene, and fill up the space with more staging tracks instead. Either hidden, visible unscenicked staging or a visible scenicked staging (e.g masquerading as a group of curved yard A/D tracks for an unmodelled yard where 3-4 trains either have just arrived or is just about to depart).
Maybe something like this:
Have to think more about what I want to do here.
Grin, Stein
steinjrOr to ditch the barge scene,
Don't give up the ship - er, barge! It's not clear to me that the extra staging would be a good tradeoff for you - you favor switching and I think removing an industry would reduce the amount you have. Unless you consider the staging to be an interchange point and actively switch it. But the barge scene seems more fun to model to me. I can't think of any better way to handle the tracks than what you have. Having the tracks parallel to the benchwork would not bother me, but it's your call.
hi stein,
thx, you provided us with some wonderfull pictures. A really great dock scene worth modelling. I was afraid(what it's worth) you wanted to build the coalterminal. All those piles taking so much space. I asume the little shed houses a scale. Are there more postwar pictures? The Liege-scene i mentioned gave me the same feeling as I had looking at the wood and tractor (un)loading facility's on your photo's.. The mills or elevators in Liege, at the back of the yard, were connected by a overhead pipe. Amsterdam had a 50 yard stroke for wood-"wharehousing" between the canal and the tracks or roads. Most transloading of wood took place between large vessels and the smaller barges that sailed the Dutch canalsystems.
I like to see your work. Even more now i've seen the pictures;
Keep grinning and good luck