Hey Doughless, What Railroad is that? It's like the track plan for someone's O scale layout, The New Castle Industrial Railroad.http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4UXG2ZPMWGw/TSaBsUOlMNI/AAAAAAAAAdI/ivYTvVMgLR8/s1600/NCIR+Trackplan+Final.jpg
If there are any runarounds on your map, I didn't see any, but that's OK because then you have a reason for a caboose as a shoving platform.
I agree, the room is a little tight for a 4x8. The trickiest thing to balance for a switching layout is to justify enough cars for an eight hour shift. Scott Osterweil's Highland Terminal does this in 6x1 feet. There's also David Barrow's Domino plan that he did in Model Railroader (I think it was called the South Plains District). Great starter layouts.
__________________________________________________________________
Mike Kieran
Port Able Railway
I just do what the majority of the voices in my head vote on.
Mike Kieran Hey Doughless, What Railroad is that? It's like the track plan for someone's O scale layout, The New Castle Industrial Railroad.http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4UXG2ZPMWGw/TSaBsUOlMNI/AAAAAAAAAdI/ivYTvVMgLR8/s1600/NCIR+Trackplan+Final.jpg If there are any runarounds on your map, I didn't see any, but that's OK because then you have a reason for a caboose as a shoving platform. I agree, the room is a little tight for a 4x8. The trickiest thing to balance for a switching layout is to justify enough cars for an eight hour shift. Scott Osterweil's Highland Terminal does this in 6x1 feet. There's also David Barrow's Domino plan that he did in Model Railroader (I think it was called the South Plains District). Great starter layouts.
Its the Lousiville, New Albany, & Corydon, (LNAC) one of the oldest original railroads (survivor, non merged) railroads in the U.S. That industry on the map made auto parts and, sadly, has closed its doors, leaving the railroad's future in question. Just to the SW of that spur are the shops of the railroad. The runaround is just to the east. It may be visable in the SE corner of the picture. Its a short runaround. Looks to me like the spur is storing a bunch of cars; the cut being much longer than any runaround on the railroad.
Anyway, as far as a 4x8, something like that is doable but I would use an industry that was more robust and add more spurs for a layout. With the low flat building that dominates the area, I'd be spending all my time modeling the roof top!
I don't know if a layout like that would be the best use of Chad's space, but it belongs in the discussion of 4x8 layout's IMO.
- Douglas
Doughless, LNAc runs an SW7, right? I'll tale a better look at the map when I get home and put on my reading glasses. Another one industry railroad is the Kendallville Terminall Railway (KTR). They switch the Kraft marshmallow plant. in Kendallville, IN. I mentioned it on one or two threads. I found out about it on Carl Arendt's website. Who doesn't love marshmallows?
For buildings, like IO said, Art Curren came up with a great plan to build double sided buildings. His first article was in RMC and he made it so there were 2 story structures on one side and 3 story structures on the other.
hi Chad and Stein,
thx for the information, was the door at the lower left corner? On the drawing the size of the room is just under 11 feet by 8 feet.
A question remains is the height of the layout, when build for standing during operation, you could easily have shelves on top of a desk or printer.
I agree with Stein, it will be hard to walk around 3 sides of an 8x4. Your desk and printer will be in the way and the remaining aisles are just 24", so rather narrow. So i do understand why you are choosing for a L-type layout. When using narrow shelves and a lift-out along the other walls a continuous run is possible. But again it depends on the height of your layout.
Paul
Mike Kieran Doughless, LNAc runs an SW7, right? I'll tale a better look at the map when I get home and put on my reading glasses. Another one industry railroad is the Kendallville Terminall Railway (KTR). They switch the Kraft marshmallow plant. in Kendallville, IN. I mentioned it on one or two threads. I found out about it on Carl Arendt's website. Who doesn't love marshmallows?
Mike,
Any OP on a public forum should expect banter that strays from his primary topic. I also consider the benefit to the many lurkers my posting may have. But, I don't want to turn Chad's thread into one about short lines.
So, unless Chad responds with specific questions or comments here, I'll leave you with this:
The LNAC is an all ALCO railroad. They run an S4 and a RS36 (still in IAIS paint). If they had an SW, it was for a short time years ago:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=258224
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?city=Corydon&country=Indiana,%20USA
http://www.locophotos.com/~locophot/PhotoDetails.php?PhotoID=78799
If you, Chad, or any lurker wants to model the LNAC in HO, Atlas's product would be a great start. It even has the right road#
http://www.atlastrainman.com/Images/HOLoco/HORS32/0309/10000577_TQ.jpg
OTOH, the KTR uses an SW8:
http://www.fwarailfan.net/community/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2220
Now back to Chad's thread.........I hope he found something here useful.
When layout builders are designing a layout, they often start with what's known as a Givens & Druthers. Now I know what Chad listed as what he wants, but this goes even further to narrow down the design. John Armstrong used to use this to guage his clients when it came to a trackplan.
Remember, designing a layout without a full knowledge of how it's going to be used is putting the cart before the horse (I know I'm a real cliche hound, but they are really appropriate and pertinent). Here it is:
Givens and Druthers(Railroad Name)Scale: Gauge: (Std, Narrow)Prototype: (the railroad you want to model)
Era:Region:Railroad:
Space:
Describe Space e.g. basement. Provide diagram showing Overhead clearances and any obstructions or limitations.
Governing Rolling Stock: (Biggest planned)Relative Emphasis: (move the V)|______________________V_______________________| Track/Operation .................................................. ..Scenic realism|_________________________V____________________| Mainline Running .................................................. ........ Switching Operation Priorities: (rearrange as required)
Typical operating Crew: ______ Eye Level (Owner) ___In.
Two other things that should be added are equipment already owned and finances (budget) for the layout. Like it or not, this can be an expensive hobby.
Paulus, I'm sorry if I was rough with you. I need to remember to keep my thick skin on.
hi mike,
no bad feelings,
i do not agree with your remark about the car before the horses.................
Often enough i make a drawing to make my ideas visible. But i am not designing someones railroad, but giving some thoughts. It is up to the OP to take them or not.....if i have to do the whole design work, i want to get paid for it. You used the words: "hard to envision"........sometimes it really is for me or for someone else. A good drawing might be more enlightning then 1000 pages of words.
Newbies are facing more problems, even the questionaire of John Armstrong will be like Chinese to them. They do not have a clue what operating means, let alone what staging means. And how can they know what they will be liking a few years from now. Beside being often unable to think beyond a 8x4.
A middle of the road approach is needed......starting the build soon, not learning for years, but also not starting now. And accept good practice, like the 1:3 ratio and keeping some distance from the edge of the layout. It may sound rude......accepting that you might learn something worthy means you have to be willing to listen. Try out alternatives and set a deadline.
BTW, i am abusing Chad's thread now, i hope he will be posting soon.
Paulus Jas ... And accept good practice, like the 1:3 ratio and keeping some distance from the edge of the layout.
... And accept good practice, like the 1:3 ratio and keeping some distance from the edge of the layout.
What's the 1:3 ratio?
Cheers,
Colin
PS Chad, sorry for abusing your thread even more... but IMHO this is turning into a very valuable discussion.
Colin 't Hart Frösön, Sweden http://www.flickr.com/photos/cthart/
hi Colin,
the ratio between the longest car/engine you are using and the minimum "main/branch" line radius you apply.
1:2 is pushing against technical limits, if possible at all
1:2,5 might be used in industrial areas, with very short trains and very low speeds
1:3 still toy like, but ok
1:4 good looking, it is what we all would like to have
1:5 for probably hands-off (un)coupling
In a time when 40 and 50 feeters were the longest cars (max 7 inches in HO), in the 50's and earlier, a 30" radius was great.
Today coaches and freightcars can be as long as 89 feet (12" in HO), so applying a 1:3 ratio is leading to radii (36" in HO) way to large for small layouts.
It is pretty rough, but divide the prototype length of your car by 10 and you have an idea about the appropriate switchnumber. A 50 feet long freight car will do well on a #5 switch, a #4 is not impossible, nice for spurs (low speeds) while a #6 would be great for crossovers. A modern 89 feet car will need #8 to #10 switches.
Having said this, you will have to understand that some guys around here are able to lay down their track so well and are able to tinker with their cars so much, they are coming away with smaller radii and switch numbers. The length of the train, pushing or pulling and a soft hand on the throttle are beside the quality of the trackwork important. The combination of short cars next to long ones is killing, even real RR companies had rules against it.
I did not invent those ratio´s my self, the NMRA has pages with it. It is always hard to read between the lines. A short passenger train, pulling only, with 3 or 4 coaches might do well on small radii. European trains with couplers fixed to the boogies, not to the body, can run well through almost any curve. A 1 to 1.5 ratio is the minimum here. But running through it and looking well is something different. Give and take a few inches (John Armstrongs words) the 1 to 3 ratio is a great starting point for any design, especially for newbies.
Even I have week knees in the local hobby shop, i just bought a lovely RDC, one foot long, way to large for my 18 inch min radius.
Smile
Oh yes, that ratio. I myself don't like the look of longer cars on sharper curves... so have limited myself to just a few 60' cars as the longest I have. I have many 54-55' covered hoppers.
I plan on using a minimum radius of 30" on at least one through track of the main, 24" elsewhere. Slightly sharper radii possibly used within industries, where you want it as much for the effect as for saving space.
#6 switches on the main, #5 in the yard and in industries.
Now we should really let Chad have his thread back ;-)
Agreed. To use less than an 18 inch radius can lead to major problems. I've seen track plans for 15 inch radius curves or less and unless you are doing an urban environment layout (such as the Bush Terminal Railroad/ New York Dock Railway New York Cross Harbor Railroad/ New York & New Jersey Railroad) going through building corners (such as the corner of 41st Street & 2nd Avenue), there's no need for them.
If you are modeling a former traction line, only city streetcar lines would use these radii. Interurbans outside of the city would rather open them up to speed up transit times.
Another problem is many HO switchers being sold only run on an 18 inch radius or more, even though their prototypes would have been able to run on sharper radii.
Paulus, I think it was you who mentioned earlier that Chad should not have used the side by side curves for a runaround. I've seen trackplans with the same curved runarounds and what you said about not putting the runaround on a curve gets amplified even more with these same sharp curved because of overhang and the danger of a viscious side swipe. Our railroads cannot afford to make repairs for damage to other railroads' rolling stock.
P.S. Lets see if we can break 100 postings for this thread.
i did not talk about double tracking in curves in general. The extra run-around at the upper left corner was intented to serve some industries only. It was tucked away behind scenery and an overpass and is not needed at all. A simple spur would do fine, beside creating more space for the yard, the spur could be straightened out, so (un)coupling might be done more easily.
On Byron henderson's California Layout the minimum radius is not under 18" , more important however upfront, so (un)coupling can be done without having to reach in the deep. The double tracked curve is the only longer passing siding. Both legs of this run-around are used too as seperate drill tracks, for the upper and lower " yards ". The short run-around at the bottom can be handy for the "lower" switcher; he can run around his train, without hindering the "upper" switcher a lot.
Smile Paul
Since Chad has lost his thread anyway :), I just wanted to drop a couple of words from Europe here. First, European trains indeed run on a lot smaller radius than American prototypes. I believe this is mostly a modeling tradition, where manufacturers are careful in selecting a prototype that would run and look better on small layouts and also because they don't hesitate to loose a little bit of a prototype to make it shorter or able to run on small curves. If you pick up a European track plans book, you will have a hard time finding a layout that does not include a couple of 15" curves on industry spurs. The same goes for grades - most small layout plans offered here are two or even three level plans. Clearly, if you want to take a train up 4" in less than 4'- this is a serious climb/descent. But the equipment seems to be made just for that. So when we discuss plans on these forums, it is essential we pay attention what equipment is being used.
Another realization that hit me recently was about the "real" size of 4x8. For me, without doing the actual math, I thought 4'x8' must be about equal to 1.00mx2.00m. Probably, because I heard 4x8 is coming from the size of a door. All the doors I have seen here are about 0.70-0.95m to 1.90-2.10m in size, so this felt reasonable. Still, a lot of things that people magically managed to put on 4x8, did not make any sense on 1.00x2.00m for a long time. I was also a bit dubious about why 4x8 was such a bad idea in terms of reach and moving around. Until I realized that, what I was talking about was 3.3'x6.6' while everybody else here was going on about 1.22mx2.44m! That is a very big difference in HO and another switching layout worth of a difference for N!
Edmunds in Latvia http://www.edmundsworld.net HO Transition Era modular layout being built with Faller Car System, DCCar, German Style Signalling, Computer Control and Automation
cthartWhat's the 1:3 ratio?
Layout Design SIG curve radius rules-of-thumb
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Mike KieranAnother problem is many HO switchers being sold only run on an 18 inch radius or more, even though their prototypes would have been able to run on sharper radii.
I can't think of a single example of that, except perhaps for brass switchers. Which models are you thinking of?
Often the issue is coupling to cars of mixed lengths, not only the radius the switcher will negotiate. The prototype had the same problem in the tightest spots. The Bronx Terminal operation that is often cited sometimes had to use chains or poles to move cars because they could not be coupled to.
Mike Kieran. I've seen trackplans with the same curved runarounds and what you said about not putting the runaround on a curve gets amplified even more with these same sharp curved because of overhang and the danger of a viscious side swipe.
Using 90-degree and 180-degree curves for runarounds can work fine and is often a good use of track length that might otherwise be wasted. One just needs to be mindful of track-to-track distances, minimum radius and the type of equipment being operated. Paul showed one example that worked well day-in and day-out for its builder, here are a couple more.
My design from MRP 2011
And this HO switching layout that would probably fit the Original Poster's space and could even be extended a bit for longer leads. [As drawn, it can handle fewer cars than if the layout were extended a bit toward the bottom of the track plan.]
Note the overlap of model railroad operating elements: runaround, leads, industry tracks.
Sorry Edmund. I was talking about North American prototypes. Chad, the individual who started this thread was trying to design a plan based on a North American prototype.
Paulus, sorry I thought that the siding was a runaround in the upper left. You're right, putting that siding on a curve, especially in the back corner of the layout can be troublesome.
Cuyama, are you Byron Henderson? I was talking about an 18 inch outside track and a 15 inch inside track. It can be troublesome. With larger radii and proper spacing, the problem can be cut down if not eliminated.
The Switchman's Dream is a perfect example of space utilization. You can even do away with the backdrop if it's run as an industrial switching layout.
Mike KieranCuyama, are you Byron Henderson?
Guilty as charged ....
Byron, I'm a big fan of your work.
cuyama cthart: What's the 1:3 ratio? Layout Design SIG curve radius rules-of-thumb
cthart: What's the 1:3 ratio?
This is the one I used mostly. The NMRA standards and RP's are a bit dryer :-)
I don't know why I couldn't figure out what Paul was talking about, since I used these ratios myself in trying to decide on a suitable minimum radius.
Mike Kieran Byron, I'm a big fan of your work.
Me too. And I don't think we're the only ones!
Byron,
When are you going to write a book?
I really like the second layout you posted. a lot.
I think if I extend the top by 3', I can just angle a small yard and that would be perfect. except one thing....
The executive chairman of the housing space comity has requested a City on the small shelf layout in the terms outlined in our original negotiations
taking your second layout, adding a yard to the top right, where could some city-esk scenery fall?
Chad
There is enough short rolling stock freight available--55 ton coal hoppers --ore cars--short tankers--40ft box, gondola, reefers, --short covered hoppers---34 ft and 40 ft Billboards to make a 4x8 with 18/22 radius look pretty good
It is the desire to run passenger trains unless 50 ft Old Time Overlands that is the problem
Personally unless running FanFare Old Timers I would stay away from passengers trains on 4x8s
51% share holder in the ME&O ( Wife owns the other 49% )
ME&O
UncBob There is enough short rolling stock freight available--55 ton coal hoppers --ore cars--short tankers--40ft box, gondola, reefers, --short covered hoppers---34 ft and 40 ft Billboards to make a 4x8 with 18/22 radius look pretty good It is the desire to run passenger trains unless 50 ft Old Time Overlands that is the problem Personally unless running FanFare Old Timers I would stay away from passengers trains on 4x8s
Agreed. Using equipment even up to 50 foot cars can work. I was actually planning on doing a layout based on Atlas Trackplan HO-13. It just didn't work into my portability needs.
Byron, the BLI NW2 switchers and some of the newer models don't operate on less than 18 inches (or so I was told). Many model railroad publications have also stated the same in their reviews. There are still some switchers that can be used on smaller radii like the Atlas S Series, the Kato NW2, and Bachmann Spectrum GEs .
cuyama
Dear Byron,
It took me less than 60 seconds to see that plan of yours is a killer! And the next moment I said to myself "no, not again back to the drawing board!" since I'm kind of finished with the planning and ready to start building :).
I will, however, look into incorporating the idea I like most about your plan - the curved approach to the mainline serving as an interchange WITH the dummy peace of the actual mainline.
Thank you for sharing!
hi chad
by adding two tracks at the lower part the top right can become a town.
smile
ChadStrat Byron, I really like the second layout you posted. a lot. I think if I extend the top by 3', I can just angle a small yard and that would be perfect. except one thing.... The executive chairman of the housing space comity has requested a City on the small shelf layout in the terms outlined in our original negotiations taking your second layout, adding a yard to the top right, where could some city-esk scenery fall? Chad
Welcome back Chad....
If I may be so bold as to offer a suggestion before Byron. I would put a small yard up in the corner, where the ACB building is and move the interchange to the NE corner, angling the green main line track to accommodate.
If you put the yard in where ACB is, access to cars would be no worse than what it is now, and since a yard implies moving a longer cut of cars than an industry does, most of your uncoupling would be down towards the throat, where there is better access to couplers. L shaped layouts have a natural viod in the corner, so yard tracks stacked there make sense. You can add a mirror if you think that scenic trick will visually extend the yard, if you know what I mean.
Specifically, I would eliminate both of the turnouts to ACB as they are now, and use the CCO spur as the yard lead, with the yard tracks splitting off of that track back up to the corner. You'll lose the small townish buildings of course. You may have to shove the CCO/lead turnout one track north (where the ACB turnout is now) in order to get enough length out of the lead relative to the yard tracks, but my eyeball doesn't see that as a need for sure. Operationally, you don't want to run around the cars every time you store them, so having the yard and that corner and the interchange the NE corner would be efficient, since you can just pull the cars from the interchange around the corner and on to the lead, then push them into the yard in the corner. Then, you'll only use the runaround when you switch industries, not every time you interchange and store.
If you splice in an extra 3 feet along the top wall, you may be able to move the ACB and CCO over there. Perhaps even the small townish buildings too. I wouldn't touch the grain elevator or its lead.
I would lean heavily on the use of backdrops and building cuts to represent the city scene. Perhaps you could angle the main and yard lead tracks away from the wall in the SW corner and put more 3 dimension city structures down there. The entire backdrop around the layout could be a city, in fact.
BTW: This post has been edited to actually make some sense.