I mentioned I was working on something to keep me busy while I was planning "the big one" and getting my basement in order to house it - well, here it is. A micro switching layout based on an Inglenook pattern plus an extra track just because. Since I have a 2x4 sheet of 3/4" MDF I probably won;t be using, I figured I could build something like this on it. Since it uses Peco turnouts it doesn;t NEED switch machines, but I have a spare Tam Valley Quad (older style one) and plenty of servos so I will be powering them. All equipment will go in the upper left and center, concelaed behind a large structure wall - no wires or linkages will go through the board, so it can be laid flat on a table. The wires and linkages will be conceleaed under a thin layer of extruded foam, notched to clear said wires and linkages, and then the top will have what little scenery there will be applied. Lower right, I haven't decided yet what will cover that, but there will be a small control panel, or if I just use my Zephyr as the power source I can set it there.
Ideally it would have used Peco small radius turnouts, but I want to work witht he Code 83 stuff I will be using on the big layout. I already have plenty of Peco Code 83 flex to build this, and one #5 right hand turnout, so all I needed was a second #5 and a #4 wye. With smaller turnouts I could have just made it straight across and cut off the excess board to make more of a long narrow shelf, to fit it witht he #5's I had to put the tracks diagonally.
Edit: squares are 6", not 1 foot - it's 2'x4' overall.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Since you have spurs facing in both directions, aren't you going to need a runaround?
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
No runaround needed if one "pre-sets" the cars on either side of the engine before starting to operate. Personally I think it's more fun and realistic to include the runaround ... just my opinion.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Not really. If there was just a little more space, I might have been able to get the one track to have at leas a full car lenth behind the proposed building where I could offstage fiddle cars on and off. The standard form of one of these does not have the upper left track, and functions mainly as a switching puzzle, though one that has photographic evidence of existing in the real world, unlike the more commonly known (in the US anyway) Timesaver puzzle. A full scale Inglenook has sidings proportioned for 3, 3, and 5 cars, but it's not possible in 4 feet (N scale would work). The alternative is a 2,2,3 arrangement, which does fit in 4 feet, and that's what I have. Plus I added the extra siding for some interest. My idea is to use 2 locos, one comes in on that upper left track, drops a car, and then goes back to that track. The other loco, waiting at the bottom left, takes that car and set it in one of the two other sidings while pulling one or two of the existing cars out and putting them up at the top right, for the other loco to come and pick up.
Or just run as a standard Inglenook and ignore the upper left track. The typical Inglenook is envisioned either at the end of a branch, with the rest of the world off to the lower left, or a setout spot alongside a main which would be the continuous diagonal track.
However, making that left track into a runaround instead would result in there being room for JUST the loco, at least on one end of the middle main track. Definitely makes for a different sort of puzzle, if you can only spot the loco or one car beyond the runaround. The 2x4 dimensions are absolutely fixed, I am not going to try to attach an extra scrap to make a bigger layout just to add some additional trackage - feature creep and all. I actually do havce some additional same type MDF left over from kitchen work, I could build a frame and make is 2x8, and implement a much nicer ISL. Oh heck I could make it two pieces and go along a 12 foot wall and have myself a REAL layout..... Or I could get other track components totally not what I plan to use and fit more in the same space - that was the other consideration, having not used Peco track in the past, to build this all with the same Code 83 track I plan to use (ok, the big layout will have #6 and a few #8, but I will have #5 in industry areas). I know there are definitely better track arrangments for small switching layouts, but my overall constraint was to stay within the limits of what I have. While it may not be the ideal, it does fit those contraints and should be plenty of fun in the short term.
Hi Randy,
I like it. Sounds like a fun little project while you get your ducks in a row for the larger layout.
Just a quick thought, have you given any thought to building a small part of your layout. You could incorporate this into the larger layout later on.
Just a thought
Happy modeling, Derek
UPinCT Hi Randy, I like it. Sounds like a fun little project while you get your ducks in a row for the larger layout. Just a quick thought, have you given any thought to building a small part of your layout. You could incorporate this into the larger layout later on. Just a thought Happy modeling, Derek
Yea. This is what I would do with it. Make it one of your towns or something.
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
In that case I should build it on the plywood instead of the MDF, so it will line up better. Perhaps on the branch line. There are no curves, so the limiting factor is the #5 turnouts. To place it as a usable part of the layotu would mean extending the short sidings and probably actually adding the runaround - I did try redrawing it with a runaround and got it to fit, with a sub 18" radius curve on the runaround - OK for a small switcher and a 40 foot car but otherwise even tighter than I want for the branch. If I extended it out either end, I could make a more normal size runaround with curves to better match a #5 turnout, which would make it pefectly useful.