I have negotiated an L shape space in a sewing room to construct a super detailed shelf, switching layout and came up with this modified atlas HO plan. I have added some under table staging and a mainline to switch to and from. I am looking for some thoughts (no I DO NOT) have any more space.
Thanks Guys, Mike
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.” -- John Lennon
Hi Mike --
Guess I can only repeat what I posted on modelrailroadforums:
Tell us more what you are intending to model - what I see in your track plan is lots of track, lots of switchbacks, a turntable, but no indication of how you intend to run trains or switch on this layout - no industry buildings indicated, no labels. no information about what kind of place you are modeling or what era.
Makes it hard to make any meaningful comment on the track plan itself - apart from the obvious fact that the original plan was drawn by someone who was into selling turnouts and tracks :-)
Smile, Stein
In addition to Stein's comments, unless I am missing something, I don't see how you are going to switch all those spurs after you come out of staging with your train. Perhaps one car at a time?
Dante
Yes , this layout is more of a switching puzzle than prototype operations and all of the quirks make the job a challenge.
Thanks , Mike
If you want to stay with the switching puzzle and add scenery I would eliminate a couple of your spur tracks. The first one directly above your turntable and if you look to your right the middle of the three at the right side of the layout. I would also recommend a grade check on your route to staging as it looks like it will be too steep for your switcher to pull a train up the grade. Also your turntable could be rotated so your control box is in another position closer to the front and then you could add a one stall engine house to the table for minor repairs to your switcher and a place to store it between runs.
One thing that was repeated by the designer of this track plan John Armstrong it is used in one of his examples in the back of his famous track planning book is all of these plans look better if they are given more room for scenery. Since your space is fixed you could accomplish the same thing by eliminating a bit of track.
Nice thing about advice from here is you are not forced to take it and it is your railroad so do what you want.
I offered Mike the advice (over on modelrailroadforums.com) that complex and interesting switching is not necessarily a function of many short switchbacks and runaround moves.
If we look at the bean turn spot diagram and the bean turn train instructions from one of Linda and Dave Sand's layouts (the Cedar River Terminal layout), you can get quite a bit of interesting switching from a simple track plan:
Or one can look at the prototype based information Steve Sandifer gives for meat packing house operations on the ATSF: http://atsfrr.net/resources/Sandifer/Clinics/Packing/Ops.htm
Lots of ways to make switching interesting, without creating a pile of short switchbacks.
Smile,Stein
This is your opinion. I find the multiple industries and multi-car legs as fun as your idea but with working quirks that need to be worked around as in the real world.
mfifer This is your opinion.
This is your opinion.
Indeed it is, Mikey, indeed it is. T'is what I offer when someone asks for "thoughts" on a track plan. Funny how that works, isn't it? Ask for comments, and sometimes you will receive comments :-)
Oh well, good luck with your layout.
Grin, Stein
steinjr mfifer: This is your opinion. I find the multiple industries and multi-car legs as fun as your idea but with working quirks that need to be worked around as in the real world. Thanks , Mike Indeed it is, Mike, indeed it is. T'is what I offer when someone asks for "thoughts" on a track plan. Funny how that works, isn't it? Ask for comments, and sometimes you will receive comments :-) Oh well, good luck with your layout. Grin, Stein Yeah, I have to agree with Stein on this one. If you initiate a post and ask for "thoughts", then there is no reason to resent constructive criticism which is what the OP got here. Now it is one thing if a reply ridicules your plan, but that is not what is happening here. The OP offers up a plan for a layout complete with diagram and essentially asks, "What do you think ?". So others reply and make suggestions and comments about the limitations of the plan. Isn't that what the OP asked for? Rich
mfifer: This is your opinion. I find the multiple industries and multi-car legs as fun as your idea but with working quirks that need to be worked around as in the real world. Thanks , Mike
Indeed it is, Mike, indeed it is. T'is what I offer when someone asks for "thoughts" on a track plan. Funny how that works, isn't it? Ask for comments, and sometimes you will receive comments :-)
Yeah, I have to agree with Stein on this one. If you initiate a post and ask for "thoughts", then there is no reason to resent constructive criticism which is what the OP got here.
Now it is one thing if a reply ridicules your plan, but that is not what is happening here. The OP offers up a plan for a layout complete with diagram and essentially asks, "What do you think ?". So others reply and make suggestions and comments about the limitations of the plan. Isn't that what the OP asked for?
Rich
Alton Junction
richhotrain steinjr: mfifer: This is your opinion. I find the multiple industries and multi-car legs as fun as your idea but with working quirks that need to be worked around as in the real world. Thanks , Mike Indeed it is, Mike, indeed it is. T'is what I offer when someone asks for "thoughts" on a track plan. Funny how that works, isn't it? Ask for comments, and sometimes you will receive comments :-) Oh well, good luck with your layout. Grin, Stein Yeah, I have to agree with Stein on this one. If you initiate a post and ask for "thoughts", then there is no reason to resent constructive criticism which is what the OP got here. Now it is one thing if a reply ridicules your plan, but that is not what is happening here. The OP offers up a plan for a layout complete with diagram and essentially asks, "What do you think ?". So others reply and make suggestions and comments about the limitations of the plan. Isn't that what the OP asked for? Rich
steinjr: mfifer: This is your opinion. I find the multiple industries and multi-car legs as fun as your idea but with working quirks that need to be worked around as in the real world. Thanks , Mike Indeed it is, Mike, indeed it is. T'is what I offer when someone asks for "thoughts" on a track plan. Funny how that works, isn't it? Ask for comments, and sometimes you will receive comments :-) Oh well, good luck with your layout. Grin, Stein Yeah, I have to agree with Stein on this one. If you initiate a post and ask for "thoughts", then there is no reason to resent constructive criticism which is what the OP got here. Now it is one thing if a reply ridicules your plan, but that is not what is happening here. The OP offers up a plan for a layout complete with diagram and essentially asks, "What do you think ?". So others reply and make suggestions and comments about the limitations of the plan. Isn't that what the OP asked for? Rich
Yup , I understand , I just do not like the idea. Sorry
I guess I should have been more clear.
Thanks for the opinion.
Mike
Hi Mike,
just a few comments:
1)the incline towards staging is about 8 or 9 feet long. Take vertical transitions in to consideration and added drag due to the curves (min radius of 10") on the incline and you will have to deal with a grade of over 7%; probably even more.
2)real railroads were definitely not in love with switching puzzles; "like the real world" is obviously not what you are aiming for.
3)You don't seem to be very knowledgeable in track-planning, so adding a drawing of the room would be nice; just to have a second opinion about the bench-work you have chosen.
4)you could be more specific about how you imagine operating your trains, also about the number of operators involved during a session.
5)i can imagine a train entering from staging, what will happen next? Taking out cars from industries (which ones) and replacing them by cars from the train. A lot of sorting and getting them out of the way is needed, so a small yard would be a nice feature.
6) the right wing of your plan is rather empty, you could have your TT there (with or without engine service facilities?)
7)a drawing with your room, and where and which industries you envision, would be a great next step.
8)Did you think about interchanges and team tracks?
Smile
Paul
This was the basis for the plan and this Atlas plan has been around since the 1950's.
I did not design it but adopted it.
I am currently working on a less crowded plan.
mfiferThis was the basis for the plan and this Atlas plan has been around since the 1950's.
Unfortunately, that original plan has a number of flaws. It was designed to sell a lot of track, turnouts, and turntables -- and does that well.
Best practices in model railroad layout design have progressed in the intervening five decades.
mfiferI am currently working on a less crowded plan.
As you do, you might consider:- Why real railroads and well-designed model railroads avoid short switchbacks- Overlapping elements for more engaging operation in the same space- How far you can reach easily into the back corner. If that corner is more than 30 inches deep, it probably won't work well- Traffic flows from staging onto the rest of the layout. If this requires many convoluted maneuvers or several trips with one or two cars at a time, most folks have found that sort of pattern tedious and lose interest.
But of course, it's your layout and these are your choices. Best of luck.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
I have been working on one with a dock.What about this.
Mike - a better and more workable idea. But, here are few changes to suggest that would make it even more workable for you. First a marked up drawing, followed by some comments:
1. The track from A to B (note the addition of a dummy turnout at the top center) can be considered as Class 1 RR that this switching RR will interchange cars with. The actual interchange would happen at the Interchange Track as now labeled. In practice cars would be routed on/off the RR at A onto cassettes or what have you.
2. The depot has been removed and a spur added in this area. This would serve as the place to store cars to/from the interchange process.
3. The curved trunout at the Ag Supply has been dropped and the facility can be larger.
4. The Stock Pens have been removed and the Manufacturing Plant is moved to this spur. This lets the warehouse and plant building to be combined into a single industrial scene with multiple car spots. BTW, as designed it would be impractical to service the Manuacturing Plant via the RR.
5. The turntable is really not needed and the engine servicing area as designed is too complex for this type of RR. A single spur would work out well and still allow basic services to be provided.
One way this RR could be operated is that the engine picks up a string of cars at the spur as noted in 2, moves them to the interchange, these get removed and replaced with new cars. This new set of cars get spotted on the spur and the engine goes about the job of moving cars to the designated industries (exchanging as needed).
Charles
Mike,
here is a plan I developed some time ago, but was not able to realize. It is not based on Kat Unitrack, but I guess it could be adapted accordingly.
Thanks Henry, Mike