cascadenorthernrrHi, I am considering adding a hump yard (nothing big like UP's North Platte Bailey Yard) to my model railroad (still in the planning stages) what would be the implications of building such a thing.
This is discussed in Track Planning for Realistic Operation by John Armstrong. https://kalmbachhobbystore.com/product/book/12148
cascadenorthernrrI have read that some have used air jets in place of retarders
I read about that somewhere, dont remember where, or how well it worked
cascadenorthernrrI also read that a guy actually built a retarder system that worked like the prototype.
Where?
cascadenorthernrrWould powerful magnets work too or just do nothing?
They would do something, but that something is nothing that you want to happen.
The club I belonged to had a hump yard with air jets. Turnouts were all air thrown, too, it was the old Del-Aire control system.
It's quite tricky to get it all to work right, because physics just doesn't scale. It was fun working it during an open house, it's where I usually put myself, but prior to the open house I had to run cuts of cars through and pick out ones with proper rolling characteristics, and then I would run a train through the hump process then use the hump bypass to go down into the bowl and collect all the same cars and haul them back out for another pass. Top of the hump had 3 Kadee magnets in a rown, running at slow speed you could reliably uncouple with a quick flip of the direction switch.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
If you would take the time to build a simple 4' x 8' layout, you would get some idea of the space needed to operate like the prototype, or not, and the skills needed to operate a model railroad.
A lot of things that seem to make sense just musing about them, prove to be impractical in reality.
What the vast majority of us have done is to take a stab at building a layout so that we can understand and appreciate the complexities involved.
If you were to build a simple 4' x 8' layout, a lot of theoretical questions would be answered for you on the basis of experience. Why not get started?
In this specific instance, I believe that you would quickly find out how much space it requires to build even a small hump yard.
Rich
Alton Junction
Some HO scale hump yards in action:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBQudMMcjAI
Take Care!
Frank
There is a user video posted on the Lehigh and Keystone Valley, you might get a shot of the hump yard in it. That's not the one I operated, since I was a member the club moved to a new building. But they yard was HUGE, between the receiving yard, hump, and class tracks it was at least 30 feet long.
Great YouTube link Frank. Plenty of others included. It sure gives an idea of the space required.
Mike.
My You Tube
At 16 years old, you sure have a lot of ambition! First kitbashing slug units with no kit bashing experience and now a hump yard with retarders! Whats next, a space shuttle in your garage? just kidding.
There was a guy in California who I read an article about who was building a sizable hump yard in his rather large home attic layout - this guy, mind you, looked like he had a lot of experience under his belt. Many of us don't have space for a decent smallish home layout, let alone consider a working hump yard. Dream and dream big!
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Here's a track plan in O:
http://www.rrtrack.com/html/nyc_selkirk.html
The plan is 238' long and 37' wide. If you divide by 2 (no HO is not exactly half of O), you get a 119' x 18.5'.
It can be done in less space than 119x18.
The yard hump will need to have sufficient grade to get the cars rolling, but not excessive. You will likely want to have your rolling stock all properly weighted per the NMRA standards. You will want free rolling metal wheelsets, so that all the cars will roll down the same grade and not stop in the middle. The cars need to be traveling fast enough that they reach the near the end of the classification yard tracks.
On each side of the hump is a yard. Those tracks should be of sufficient capacity to each hold the length of train that you typically run. This requires space. They yard ladder requires space. The hump requires a grade up to the top, this is usually shallower than the grade rolling down.
All of the cars should have the same type and quality of couplers (ex: Kadee and Protomax couplers work well together).
Nearly all smaller models claiming to be "hump yards" don't work like the real thing: they can't handle single cars; the operator just shoves cuts of cars over a too-steep hump, causing them to slam into cars already in the body tracks.
The few successful hump yards are relatively large. Air jets that allow cars to be retarded and accelerated seem to be the best approach.
As others have said, this is far from a beginner project. Talk is easy, but building is more rewarding. I hope you will try building a smaller layout to gain a realistic view of the hobby.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Try emailing these guys: http://www.dupagemuseum.org/model_engineers.htm
They have working retarders that "squeze" the flanges and I have operated myself very succesfully. This is quite old and really didn't require any special characteristics.
So the magnet idea would not work? Also would using DCC remote uncouplers and ball bearing wheels help?
Steve
If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough!
cascadenorthernrr So the magnet idea would not work? Also would using DCC remote uncouplers and ball bearing wheels help?
The magnet idea seems like it would work, at least for humping single cars. A cut might be more of a problem. Unless you calibrated it. Which you're going to have to do with single cars, too, I think.
I don't see what you'd gain with DCC remote uncouplers. Except huge expense and installation problems. Of course, I'm assuming you're talking about installation in rolling stock. If you're talking about the ground-based uncouple, I again see absolutely no gain.
No. It would probably make things work, 'cause the cars would (presumably) roll even farther.
Ed
PS: Steven responded (below) to my comments before I modified/improved them.
I kinda figured the magnets would do nothing. But ball bearing wheelsets would not help? I would think that they would guarantee the freerolling of cars.
Well how are cars usually humped in cuts or solo?
One thing I have to consider is the field that would be generated by the magnets and the possible affects it would have on the decoders.
Once again you are wanting start by enrolling in a doctorate course before you have even made it out of elementary school.
AFTER you have built your 4x8 layout and AFTER you have a yard that is a double ended track plus 2 or 3 yard tracks and AFTER you have figured out what you need to make that operate, then talk about a hump yard. They are very large (even the model ones), very commplicated (even the model ones) and the model ones have issues operating (because a 125 ton car doesn't roll the same as a 4 oz. car).
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
cascadenorthernrr Well how are cars usually humped in cuts or solo?
Both.
cascadenorthernrr One thing I have to consider is the field that would be generated by the magnets and the possible affects it would have on the decoders.
Are you planning on putting decoders in your cars? Because there's no reason for a locomotive to be over an active magnet.
No, but if a locomotive is in the vicinity of a powerful magnet it might pose a problem.
Ok here's an idea (just putting it out there) would a roller coaster style chain lift work? (of course in a down hill sense)
I watched the video from above and I also watched this one.
https://youtu.be/9bkI9r5I2d0?t=344
I'm guessing the prototype would never operated that way, right?
Kadee uncoupling magnets won't hurt a decoder, or the loco motor, or anything else. Lots of people have kadee magnets on their layout, I've even used very tiny up super powerful magnets to make a more precise uncoupling spot and had no issues with DCC locos running over that track. In a hump yard the loco wouldn;t even run over the crest, and putting 2 or 3 Kadee magnets in a row doesn;t make them stronger, it makes a logner area where uncoupling can occur. Kadee couplers are designed to not uncouple if there is tension on them, and with a hump and cars of varying size, the place where the car to be cut is far enough downhill to keep coasting yet not too far to put too much tension on the coupler is going to vary, and the length of one uncoupling magnet usually isn;t enough to account for that. We had 3 in a row in ours.
My response eariler was based on an assumption that you were trying to use magnets as a retarder. Yes you would use kadee magnets for uncoupling.
As someone stated earlier the weight of the cars does not scale down correctly to keep the momentum looking right. I think that if you experiment with making the cars much heavier you can reduce the grade needed. this would look a lot more realistic. Of course then you would need to beef up the coupler pockets and modify all your rolling stock to match.
watch some videos of the real thing vs. the models. real 5-10mph vs. models 50-60mph
cascadenorthernrr I watched the video from above and I also watched this one. https://youtu.be/9bkI9r5I2d0?t=344 I'm guessing the prototype would never operated that way, right?
Steven,That is not a hump but,a unloading dock for loading lake or sea going vessels and yes,that's exactly how they work once a hopper car been through the rotary dumper its shoved by a electric mule and the car rolls down grade through a spring switch rolls upgrade,stops and rolls downgrade through the switch and into the holding track...
This should give you a general idea how it works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynjSgkwDL8c
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
7j43k cascadenorthernrr Well how are cars usually humped in cuts or solo? Both. Ed
Cars are also humped in flat yards. If we're gonna model prototypical practices, someone needs to take a crack at that.
LINK to SNSR Blog
ROBERT PETRICKCars are also humped in flat yards. If we're gonna model prototypical practices, someone needs to take a crack at that.
That's called kicking cars. I would love to be able to kick cars while switching.Kicking is done to save time and unnecessary switch moves.
It can be done but,how is the question.
John Armstrong (yeah that John Armstrong) built a box car with a big flywheel in in (O scale of course) so it would coast for quite a distance once kicked, but that's not exactly practical to do to every car in your fleet, and getting a train of them moving would be interesting to say the least.
As for actual, constructed scale model hump yards . . . I've seen one. Built by one of the best modelers I know. N scale, about 40 feet long. I have photos, but they're on another computer. I'll try posting them later.
The yard kinda worked. I think the biggest problem was inconsistent free rolling caused by over-weathering the cars, the wheels, and the rails.
The neat thing was his retarding feature. He used monofilament fishing line in small bundles of three or four short threads sticking up between the ties at 6-inch intervals or so. They looked like frog hairs or isolated tufts of grass or something. They worked by brushing the axles of cars that passed over.
Like I said, the hump yard worked, but a lot of fidgeting involved with it.
Robert
ROBERT PETRICKThe neat thing was his retarding feature. He used monofilament fishing line in small bundles of three or four short threads sticking up between the ties at 6-inch intervals or so. They looked like frog hairs or isolated tufts of grass or something. They worked by brushing the axles of cars that passed over.
Retarding all cars by the same amount doesn't really work realistically -- not only because different cars weigh different amounts and roll differently, but also because one needs different amounts of retardation as the various bowl tracks fill. This is one of the common failings of many model "hump yards" .
It will work for some number of cars in some number of tracks, but if cars can roll fast enough to pass through the bristles and roll near the end of the bowl tracks (first into that track), later cars into that same track will be going too fast and slam into cars already on that track.
This can be seen in a number of model “hump yard” videos.
cuyama Retarding all cars by the same amount doesn't really work realistically -- not only because different cars weigh different amounts and roll differently, but also because one needs different amounts of retardation as the various bowl tracks fill. This is one of the common failings of many model "hump yards" . It will work for some number of cars in some number of tracks, but if cars can roll fast enough to pass through the bristles and roll near the end of the bowl tracks (first into that track), later cars into that same track will be going too fast and slam into cars already on that track. This can be seen in a number of model “hump yard” videos.
I agree. The whole process is fraught with problems, but you gotta admire someone who takes a good stab at it.
As mentioned earlier, here are photos of the yard I was talking about. Standing in about the middle, looking left and right. The model construction was about half finished when these photos were taken. The complete buildout was about 25 or so tracks.
rrinker John Armstrong (yeah that John Armstrong) built a box car with a big flywheel in in (O scale of course) so it would coast for quite a distance once kicked, but that's not exactly practical to do to every car in your fleet, and getting a train of them moving would be interesting to say the least. --Randy
I agree..To much resistance in a normal train.
While that is a dated thought I'm sure there is a way to add a gimzo in order to kick cars.
When it comes to such thinking one must be open minded like any invention and the same goes for a gizmo that will give us a workable hump yard. It can be done but,how???? Recall not so long ago the nay saying "experts" said on board sound couldn't be done.
Air hump yards works quite well but,it demands a skilled hand to operate it and the air compressor could become noise pollution for the rest of the family..
The one I operated used working retarders like the prototype that are spring loaded. A fishing weight closed them as I was told when it was released, the only changes to the cars I was told about involved metal wheelsets many of the cars are old tyco and not many other upgrades other than body mounted kadees.
cascadenorthernrr Hi, I am considering adding a hump yard (nothing big like UP's North Platte Bailey Yard) to my model railroad (still in the planning stages) what would be the implications of building such a thing. I have read that some have used air jets in place of retarders I also read that a guy actually built a retarder system that worked like the prototype. Would powerful magnets work too or just do nothing? I look forward to your replies.
Hi, I am considering adding a hump yard (nothing big like UP's North Platte Bailey Yard) to my model railroad (still in the planning stages) what would be the implications of building such a thing. I have read that some have used air jets in place of retarders I also read that a guy actually built a retarder system that worked like the prototype. Would powerful magnets work too or just do nothing? I look forward to your replies.
Unless you are modeling a specific protoptype yard, I would skip the hump yard. It might seem like it might be fun but after the novelty wears off, you might find it a bit gimmicky. I have lots of fun sorting cars in my flat yard and it requires a lot less space and fancy engineering. Some things just don't scale down well. Gravity is one of them. I think you will find even if you can get the retarders to work reliably is the cars will roll much to fast to seem realistic. But as the saying goes, it's your railroad. If you are determined to go ahead with it, I wish you luck.
Larry Keeler did it back in the early 70's, with an early computer system as well. Mechanical retarders as well. It was the subject of a story in MR at the time. There was a huge amount of setup he did, calibrating every car and storing them in the computer, so that as a car came over the hump he keyed in the last 4 digits or so of the car number and it selected the destination track and applied the retarders based on the car's programmed characteristics and the number of cars already in the destination track.
Even that, though, could change based on temperature and humidity in the train room, and if an axle was slightly dirty, or whatever.
rrinker Larry Keeler did it back in the early 70's, with an early computer system as well. Mechanical retarders as well. It was the subject of a story in MR at the time. There was a huge amount of setup he did, calibrating every car and storing them in the computer, so that as a car came over the hump he keyed in the last 4 digits or so of the car number and it selected the destination track and applied the retarders based on the car's programmed characteristics and the number of cars already in the destination track. Even that, though, could change based on temperature and humidity in the train room, and if an axle was slightly dirty, or whatever. --Randy
That sounds like a good system of course in the early 70s I was in the Army and MR magazines came far and few between.
At next month's train show I will nose through the old magazines to see if I can find that article simply because I've always been interested in such things..
January 1979 is the one you want. Page 92. For whatever reason, this article does not appear to be indexed by ANY of the model railroad mazaine indexes, the only hit you ever get for Larry Keeler is a 1984 article in RMC. WHich may also have information on the hump yard, but Russ Larson's interview in the Jan 79 MR definitely talks about it. I always remember that one because it's one of the first if not the first issue of MR I ever bought.
Sadly, in searchng for the article, I discovered Larry passed away last January.
So am I correct that the hump yard in the video is not prototypical?
cascadenorthernrrSo am I correct that the hump yard in the video is not prototypical?
As was pointed out to you earlier in this thread, it's not a hump yard.
BRAKIESteven,That is not a hump but,a unloading dock for loading lake or sea going vessels and yes,that's exactly how they work once a hopper car been through the rotary dumper its shoved by a electric mule and the car rolls down grade through a spring switch rolls upgrade,stops and rolls downgrade through the switch and into the holding track...
Sorry I missed that.
So it would be like this, right?
ROBERT PETRICK cuyama Retarding all cars by the same amount doesn't really work realistically -- not only because different cars weigh different amounts and roll differently, but also because one needs different amounts of retardation as the various bowl tracks fill. This is one of the common failings of many model "hump yards" . It will work for some number of cars in some number of tracks, but if cars can roll fast enough to pass through the bristles and roll near the end of the bowl tracks (first into that track), later cars into that same track will be going too fast and slam into cars already on that track. This can be seen in a number of model “hump yard” videos. I agree. The whole process is fraught with problems, but you gotta admire someone who takes a good stab at it. As mentioned earlier, here are photos of the yard I was talking about. Standing in about the middle, looking left and right. The model construction was about half finished when these photos were taken. The complete buildout was about 25 or so tracks.
That is a very wonderful mighty huge yard. But I am not seeing the hump. I suppose it is implied by the raised tracks in the foreground, but the cars on those tracks aren't arrayed as if they are on a hump.
As far as those bristle clumps go, if you have a bunch of them, you can raise and lower them with solenoids to vary the retardation. To do it well, you'll need a computer loaded with the rolling characteristics of each car. And you'll have to enter the car numbers. If there's a significant change in rolling quality caused by something like termperature changes, that can also be entered into the computer.
I watched cars roll over the hump at the old Potomac Yard when I was a kid. I do seem to recall some pretty loud ker-thumps out in the bowl tracks. Which might explain the "do not hump" signs placed on occasional freight cars.
I have no reason or need to build a hump yard. But I really don't see why having a nicely operating one would be anywhere near impossible--especially these days, when a computer can store all your data and also manipulate it.
To address the original question, Ed Ravenscroft had an operating hump yard with timed air jet retarders, which I saw in operation. Each car of a ten-car cut was pushed off individually. Once it cleared the lower retarder a photo cell triggered the hump engine to push off the next car. Faster rolling cars got the full benefit of both retarders. Medium rollers would only get blowback from the first retarder, while the slowpokes wouldn't ge any retarder action.
The yard was only four tracks wide, and the retarder grade was about six feet from hump to the far end of the second retarder. Total length to the farthest points of the double-ended yard was about eighteen feet. In a similar space only slightly wider I have a six track flat yard, a passenger station, engine facilities and an interchange yard/terminal for a separate shortline. Hump yards are massive space-eaters.
While I was there the hump yard automation got out of step with the real world. Not pretty. Having seen the air and electrical requirements, I shelved my own desire for a hump yard even though I could have adjusted the freight handling part of my master plan to justify it.
BRAKIE ROBERT PETRICK Cars are also humped in flat yards. If we're gonna model prototypical practices, someone needs to take a crack at that. That's called kicking cars. I would love to be able to kick cars while switching.Kicking is done to save time and unnecessary switch moves. It can be done but,how is the question.
ROBERT PETRICK Cars are also humped in flat yards. If we're gonna model prototypical practices, someone needs to take a crack at that.
Larry, I'm considering the use of 'pusher' air jets on the ladder and the first car length of each yard track. I have a little foot pump meant for blowing up an air mattress, but haven't tried a test rig. I'm sure it will take a fine touch on the air to roll the car gently but firmly to a point clear of the fouling point of each turnout.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Hey Ed-
The yard is about 40 feet long and there is a long hump in the middle that doesn't show up in the photos. I was standing in the middle and looked left and right. That's the thing about indoor photos with no room to stand back and encompass the whole scene.
The hump tracks are only a part of the yard; about 4 tracks I think. The yard is modeled on Russell Yard near Ashland, KY. The guy who built the layout does not believe in compression, selective or otherwise, so you can bet it is accurate.
Here's a link to a photo I found online. I'm sure more can be found with a little effort. I'm typing this on my cellphone. I've had this phone about three years, and still haven't figured out how to cut-and-paste.
http://www.railpictures.net/photo/591589/
I was addressing my question about the video.
Yes Steven, your drawing of the BR&P Genesee Dock, is like the loading video that Larry posted. The NS facility is still operating, and the BR&P is long gone, nothing but bike trails, and a few concrete piers.
http://gold.mylargescale.com/Scottychaos/maps/Genesee-Docks.html
ROBERT PETRICKThe hump tracks are only a part of the yard; about 4 tracks I think. The yard is modeled on Russell Yard near Ashland, KY. The guy who built the layout does not believe in compression, selective or otherwise, so you can bet it is accurate
I worked out of Russell and the Fitzpatrick hump was on the West end and could be viewed from Greenup Ave then heading East you would see the Raceland car shops and on the East end the roundhouse plus the RRYMCA..The East end was flat switched.You could watch the action from Vernon St at the RR YMCA.
There was a engine house lead that passed under the East end of the yard.
The yard in the photo reminds me of the Huntington(W.Va) Yard.
Still a beautiful yard that I could spend a very happy day switching with my C&O RS-1..
BRAKIE I worked out of Russell and the Fitzpatrick hump was on the West end and could be viewed from Greenup Ave then heading East you would see the Raceland car shops and on the East end the roundhouse plus the RRYMCA..The East end was flat switched.You could watch the action from Vernon St at the RR YMCA. There was a engine house lead that passed under the East end of the yard. The yard in the photo reminds me of the Huntington(W.Va) Yard. Still a beautiful yard that I could spend a very happy day switching with my C&O RS-1..
Hey Larry-
It's been a good 5 or 6 years since I last saw this layout, and I have to shake out a lot of cobwebs to remember the details. Greenup and Raceland ring a bell. Also, I have to reconcile layout geography and real-world geography. The layout is viewed as if the viewer in the aisle is standing in the Ohio River. The time frame is very specific: a sunny day in September 1969. The overarching design criteria was for strict adherence to prototype, no exceptions. I don't know if the yard looks like that today or if the hump is still there. I seem to remember that the few hump tracks were specifically for coal cars.
That photo link I included was found by a quick-and-dirty internet search. It might be Huntington. I dunno. Huntington is modeled on the layout, but it is on the other side, and knowing the builder's almost fanatic insistence for accuracy, he would never confuse the two.
Robert,The Fitzpatrick hump was used for classifying coal cars and C&O used a 0-10-0 as the hump engine.Fitzpatrick was the first electronic hump yard in Ky. At one time Russell had two roundhouses.
I haven't been there in about 25 years but,Bing and Google maps shows a lot missing.I'm not even sure the hump is still there.
A late added PS. I found this 13 minute drone flyover of the Russell yard.Excuse me while I go and have a good cry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh7se5gqxpk
Just something I came across while looking in the May 1989 MRR, and Tankcarsrule's (Bobby P.) "Model of the Month" tank car for transporting Kymene, is an article about making cars move realistically after it leaves the hump, and makes it's way into the bowl.
The article is by Paul Mallery, and it's a system that was built for the Model RR Club of Union, NJ.
It uses a rail, that slides back and forth, and keeps the car moving at a realitistic speed.
It's worth the read, if you have the issue, or the archives sub., and your interested in yards, hump yards, and kicking on a flat yard.
Just thought I'd pass it along in this thread.
BRAKIE A late added PS. I found this 13 minute drone flyover of the Russell yard.Excuse me while I go and have a good cry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh7se5gqxpk
Hey Larry,
Sorry about the crying business, but Holy Cow, what a great video! Thanks for the link.
Robert,You're welcome..When I worked on the Chessie(C&O) that yard was full of cars,the car shops was working 24/7,there was a roundhouse,several yard crews,a 24/7 RR YMCA cafeteria and a train ln/out of the yard every 15-30 minutes.
Today its a shell of its former past.
This is my first posting to this forum, so be gentle.
I was going to ask this same question. I have a soft spot in my heart, or is it my head, for hump yards. My first job out of college was writing programming for an automated hump yard, for a Great Metropolitan Railroad (SP). We were automating the Colton Ca hump yard.
I too was thinking wouldn't it be neat to have a hump yard on my yet to be designed layout. Living in Arizona, I am "Basemently Challenged" and real estate inside my house is at a premium, so I get the ever popular 4 X 8 railroad. The first thoughts were for an oval for continuous running, and a hump yard in the middle. From what I have been reading, that may not be a great idea.
Jim
Congratulations Jim on your first post and welcome to the forum! I'm seriously considering dropping the hump idea but as a replacement I found a more simplistic solution. In the Track Plan Database there is a plan called the Schuylkill Iron Works its 4x21 and it appealed to me because the mainline is pretty long comparatively to other layouts of similiar size. So I was thinking that I could start with a 4x8 section then do another and then add two 2x4 sections at each end! And after I have run it I can begin stage two! I build a coal/ore dump like the BR&P Yard at Genesse Dock in another 4x20 section that buts up against the original layout and the mainline gets rerouted through the new section and I could even add a coal/ore mine at one end if space permits! I will post a scan of my purposed track plan (it's not perfect and it was drawn completely freehand) and any suggestions/revisions are welcome and needed.
I should clarify that stage two is the hump yard replacement!
JustJimI too was thinking wouldn't it be neat to have a hump yard on my yet to be designed layout. Living in Arizona, I am "Basemently Challenged" and real estate inside my house is at a premium, so I get the ever popular 4 X 8 railroad. The first thoughts were for an oval for continuous running, and a hump yard in the middle. From what I have been reading, that may not be a great idea.
Hump yards are large, large yards. If you have to switch hundreds of cars an op session they might be an answer. On a 4x8 there isn't enough room.
This doesn't address the whole issue of physics on how the cars roll and how far. Yes you can make one. Just realize it is a "graduate" level project.
IF you were going to build one on a "4x8", the A&S Gateway yard in East St. Louis would be the prototype.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5915386,-90.1402264,2660m/data=!3m1!1e3
A quick google search found this.
dehusmanIF you were going to build one on a "4x8", the A&S Gateway yard in East St. Louis would be the prototype
And it would be a BIG "4X8". That's about 1½ miles by ½ mile. So in HO a room maybe 100 feet by 40 feet wide, plus room for aisles. With some compression, say 60' X 30'. But then you'd need to add staging to create the traffic in and out of the yard.
As Dave H. and others have been saying on this thread, real hump yards are huge (even the "small" ones) and pose many physical problems in modeling.
And here's my track plan. I just revised it.
cascadenorthernrrSchuylkill Iron Works its 4x21 and it appealed to me because the mainline is pretty long comparatively to other layouts of similiar size. So I was thinking that I could start with a 4x8 section then do another and then add two 2x4 sections at each end! And after I have run it I can begin stage two! I build a coal/ore dump like the BR&P Yard at Genesse Dock in another 4x20 section
If you had that much overall space, why would you limit yourself to four-foot-wide sections that constrain the minimum radius in HO? There are always much more efficient designs that aren't limited by the stock sizes of building materials.
Edit: Now seeing your sketch (which unfortunately likely wouldn't fit exactly as you hope when drawn to scale), how would you reach the center of that (assuming) eight-foot-wide table? A 12’X24’ space large enough to hold this layout and minimal aisles would support a much more accessible design.
With all due respect to the OP, isn't a lot of this just fantasizing? It's OK to fantasize about a possible track plan, I do it myself. But if one really wants to build a layout, then drawings cannot be done freehand but, rather, such drawings need to be drawn on quadrille paper, or something like that, to ensure that the drawings are made to scale. Nothing more than a quick glance at the freehand drawing illustrated here would draw the conclusion that it is not doable unless track is laid on a much larger footprint.
What is the actual size of that? 4x12? Or it that 8 feet wide? Because if it's only 4' wide I hope you're really doign this in N scale, because all that will never fit in a usable radius in only 4' wide in HO.
If you truly have that much space, consider a donut shaped plan with the center mostly open for access. You will be able to use a larger curve radius and yet keep the sections narrow enough to be able to reach everything.
It's 8x20 in two 4x20 sections.
So how much space do you really have? To get around an 8x20, the space needs to be at least 14x26. If you have that kind of space, you can get a lot more railroad in by going along the walls plus a penninsula or two. All while leaving 3' or better aisles to get around in. Think in 2x4 and 2x8 sections, not 4x8. To build a giant 8x20 island, you will need to leave plenty of liftout sections to be able to pop up and access the inner areas. Unless you are really tall or have orangutang arms, the best you can reach in is 24-30" unless you build the layout very low, and even then you risk damaging scenery, structures, and trains by leaning over them.
Think in terms of narrow benchwork - it doesn;t even all have to be the sme width. In an area where the track is running through the countryside, 12" wide is even plenty for double track and trackside scenery. 18" gives plenty of room for a trackside industy. Yards and other busy areas can expand to 2' wide. All of it within easy ready, and you will be able to walk along and follow your train rather than operate it from a static control panel.
But to fit the coal/oar dumping op how deep would you say it should be?
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lamberts+Point+Coal+Terminal/@36.878237,-76.3267998,635m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x8313cf8c4d04b52!8m2!3d36.8774225!4d-76.3198368
A 2ft wide peninsula would probably handle the dump just fine. Check out Lamberts Point.
Well I really like the BR&P yard, somewhat like the setup in my drawing?
I just ordered The Model Railroaders Guide To Coal Railroading and The Model Railroaders Guide To Steel Mills that should help, right?
cascadenorthernrr I just ordered The Model Railroaders Guide To Coal Railroading and The Model Railroaders Guide To Steel Mills that should help, right?
I dont have either of those, because its not what I model. Have you gotten a copy of track planning for realistic operation? That will help more.
https://kalmbachhobbystore.com/product/book/12148
I will pick that up at my LHS next time I'm there.
cascadenorthernrr I will pick that up at my LHS next time I'm there.
Good Idea
cascadenorthernrr But to fit the coal/oar dumping op how deep would you say it should be?
How about a two 4x20 peninsula connected by a 4x4 bridge at one end?
Here's my expanded and revised track plan.
You really need to acurately lay out your plan using a layout design program. Both Xtrakcad and Scarm are free easily downloadable, contain extensive track libraries and although both have a learning curve, they are actually easy to get started with. Both will also let you check grades and "run" trains to see how the arangement works.
I personally prefer Xtrakcad. It's easier for me to control track placement. However, Scarm does have at least one nice feature Xtrakcad does not have. You can place a copy of your sketch in the workspace adjust it to size to use as a guide when accurately placing the track components.
In addition they are fun!
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
DSchmittYou really need to acurately lay out your plan using a layout design program. Both Xtrakcad and Scarm are free easily downloadable, contain extensive track libraries and although both have a learning curve, they are actually easy to get started with. Both will also let you check grades and "run" trains to see how the arangement works. I personally prefer Xtrakcad. It's easier for me to control track placement. However, Scarm does have at least one nice feature Xtrakcad does not have. You can place a copy of your sketch in the workspace adjust it to size to use as a guide when accurately placing the track components. In addition they are fun!
Layout desing programs do not teach basic model railroad concepts. They will allow you to create unworkable track plans, because the tracks will physically connect. Read the books.
They will give you an idea of what radius curve will actually fit in the allowable space.
DSchmitt You really need to acurately lay out your plan using a layout design program. Both Xtrakcad and Scarm are free easily downloadable, contain extensive track libraries and although both have a learning curve, they are actually easy to get started with.
You really need to acurately lay out your plan using a layout design program. Both Xtrakcad and Scarm are free easily downloadable, contain extensive track libraries and although both have a learning curve, they are actually easy to get started with.
Nearly 80 replies, over 2,100 views, this thread has turned circuitous.
richhotrainthis thread has turned circuitous.
We are now talking about circles, so it makes sense that we would be talking in one.
BMMECNYC richhotrain this thread has turned circuitous. We are now talking about cirlces, so it makes sense that we would be talking in one.
richhotrain this thread has turned circuitous.
We are now talking about cirlces, so it makes sense that we would be talking in one.
Good one.
Why does Billy Preston's song "Will it go around in circles" come to mind?
While we're talking about circles, curve Number 5 on this latest plan appears to have a radius of about 9 inches. No CAD, no quadrille, just an eyeball.
ROBERT PETRICK While we're talking about circles, curve Number 5 on this latest plan appears to have a radius of about 9 inches. No CAD, no quadrille, just an eyeball.
What then do you suggest I do with curve 5?
That's a 4ft wide table that it's on and it's 1/2"=1'
I've got it now I use a 22" radius tuck it under the yard the tighten the radius as it comes up like a helix?
My word...Where is Captain Ahab when you need 'em...???
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Ok, a quick look at my plan and a quick realignment shows the helix will NOT work so I figured it out the track runs under the mainline, inter the mine in 22" radius comes out of the tunnel and into the yard! EUREKA!!!
Now would be a good time to mention the reason the track has to do that turn is because that track is below the yard due to the coal dock.
cascadenorthernrr Now would be a good time to mention the reason the track has to do that turn is because that track is below the yard due to the coal dock.
I dont think anyone knows what part of your track plan you are describing, because there are on labels, or key to the numbers you placed on the plan. Also you might try to post your new plan?
tstage My word...Where is Captain Ahab when you need 'em...???
Ok here it is.
A 22 in radius hhelix isn't a really good idea either.
Here's a suggestion, why do you need a loop there anyway? Just come off the yard track and go straight to the down track.
Point 1 marks the begining of flat level track. 2 marks the point where the line begins upward towards the yard at 2% grade. 3 is end of grade for the yard. 4 begin downgrade. 6 is the coal approach. 10 is upgrade? 8 track closest to the aisle is level the other downgrade. 7 downgrade continues. 9 tail track level. After the switch by 6 track begins to climb uphill. Track enters tunnel under mainline and exits with just enough clearance and enters the yard.
Like this.
Prototype.
Now for some fun stuff. The third boxcar of a train must be a Bangor Astook and have a Dean Martin hobo figure inside like the song (King of the Road) The river will be Moon River of course. At the steel mill there will be a Billy Joel figure playing guitar somewhere. I'll think of some more.
This is an impossible grade.
Sorry to be blunt, but it's just the most glaring of many unworkable things in your sketch.
Folks are trying to help you by encouraging you to take a step back and understand layout design principles better, draw to scale, etc., etc.
Since this is a “dream” for a space that doesn't exist, it probably does no harm if you are enjoying yourself and others are willing to entertain the notion. But if you ever get serious about designing for a layout that is actually to be built, you would do well to note what others are telling you.
And of course it would make the most sense to build at least one layout yourself before contemplating anything of this scope.
Well the mill area is stage 1 it will be built in 4x8 sections then after I have some experience I will move on to stage 2 to solve the grade I move the yard back by shortening it. Also please note track 5 will have the impossible grade not 4 the mainline.
What other unworkables are there?
Here's the inspiration of the layout.
Don't use Billy Joel near the steel mill, the steel mill was in Bethlehem, not Allentown. Plus why would there be a piano in a steel mill? But wait - there is now, since the former steel mill is now an entertainment complex with various spaces for shows and a casino.
FOr a loader with a kickback, you can have what are otherwise impossible grades, but you need some way to lift the cars up, the prototype didn;t push them with a locomotive, there is a cable lift which pulled a small block knoown as a barney up behind the cars and hauled themn to the unloader, then the steep grade doown through the spring switch intot he kickback is how the empties left. Just like a hump yard, it's hard to get model cars to behave consistently enough for this to work well. There's no reason for a loop in that area. You would have a receiving yard for loads, then a track up a slope to the unloader, then on the other side the slop and kickback, and the exit side would slope down to a yard to collect empties. None of that has to loop back on anything else, and both yards can be nearly on the same level to easily connect with the rest of the layout. ANy loop for continuous running could run around the far end of the complex, under the kickback track and use the full width of the table (still limiting you to 22" radius with a 4' wide table).
cascadenorthernrr Here's the inspiration of the layout.
I was looking for that, I was using the term steel instead of Iron.
Have you checked out the Steel Mill Special Interest group rescources I linked?
In the Allentown music video he plays a guitar not a piano.
I did visit the special interest website and in some YouTube videos the cars are pushed by a switcher with a spacer car.
Randy could you make a quick sketch of what you said?
In my drawing there are three tracks the main, loaded and empty that's why there's the loop.
richhotrain DSchmitt You really need to acurately lay out your plan using a layout design program. Both Xtrakcad and Scarm are free easily downloadable, contain extensive track libraries and although both have a learning curve, they are actually easy to get started with. There is no learning curve with quadrille paper. Each square is 1/4", so four squares equal 1". Each 1" can represent 1'. So, you sit down with a pencil, ruler and compass, and go to work drawing. It is that simple. Nearly 80 replies, over 2,100 views, this thread has turned circuitous. Rich
There is no learning curve with quadrille paper. Each square is 1/4", so four squares equal 1". Each 1" can represent 1'. So, you sit down with a pencil, ruler and compass, and go to work drawing. It is that simple.
Simple but not accurate except in an overall way. I designed numerous unbuildable layouts in more than 40 years before computer layout programs were available. Inacturately drawn switches and crowding can really mess up a plan. Commercial templates helped, but did not completely alieveiate the accuracy problem.
The computer allows 1. Accurately drawn plans. 2. With practice can be done quickly. 3. Are easy to modify to correct mistakes and try different ideas. 4. Allow runing trains to try out arrangements. 5. Is fun.
Even today, I often start with a hand drawn sketch (on grid paper) of an idea. But I quickly go to the computer to try it out. One actually can learn more by using the computer, than by using paper and pencil alone.
DSchmitt One actually can learn more by using the computer, than by using paper and pencil alone.
Except the computer doesnt teach you basic design concepts. You can draw a perfectly rendered unusable plan in 1 afternoon.
This also assumes that the turnouts are properly drawn in the computer program, and that the information used to make the components was accurate (this is not always the case).
BMMECNYC DSchmitt You really need to acurately lay out your plan using a layout design program. Both Xtrakcad and Scarm are free easily downloadable, contain extensive track libraries and although both have a learning curve, they are actually easy to get started with. Both will also let you check grades and "run" trains to see how the arangement works. I personally prefer Xtrakcad. It's easier for me to control track placement. However, Scarm does have at least one nice feature Xtrakcad does not have. You can place a copy of your sketch in the workspace adjust it to size to use as a guide when accurately placing the track components. In addition they are fun! Layout desing programs do not teach basic model railroad concepts. They will allow you to create unworkable track plans, because the tracks will physically connect. Read the books. They will give you an idea of what radius curve will actually fit in the allowable space.
DSchmitt You really need to acurately lay out your plan using a layout design program. Both Xtrakcad and Scarm are free easily downloadable, contain extensive track libraries and although both have a learning curve, they are actually easy to get started with. Both will also let you check grades and "run" trains to see how the arangement works. I personally prefer Xtrakcad. It's easier for me to control track placement. However, Scarm does have at least one nice feature Xtrakcad does not have. You can place a copy of your sketch in the workspace adjust it to size to use as a guide when accurately placing the track components. In addition they are fun!
True, but they give a pretty good idea of what will fit (inclusing yard and industry layouts, structures and scenery). They can prevent many costly mistakes before commiting to actual building.
I have Atlas TPS and I do NOT like using it I have tried but it just isn't for me.
DSchmittTrue, but they give a pretty good idea of what will fit (inclusing yard and industry layouts, structures and scenery). They can prevent many costly mistakes before commiting to actual building.
So will a compass, ruler and graph paper.
I am a paper and pencil guy so there is no need for you guys to be debating which method of track planning is best.
BMMECNYC DSchmitt True, but they give a pretty good idea of what will fit (inclusing yard and industry layouts, structures and scenery). They can prevent many costly mistakes before commiting to actual building. So will a compass, ruler and graph paper.
DSchmitt True, but they give a pretty good idea of what will fit (inclusing yard and industry layouts, structures and scenery). They can prevent many costly mistakes before commiting to actual building.
Two words: art gum eraser. About the size of a small block of cheese. And a decent drafting brush, of course.
BMMECNYC DSchmitt One actually can learn more by using the computer, than by using paper and pencil alone. Except the computer doesnt teach you basic design concepts. You can draw a perfectly rendered unusable plan in 1 afternoon. This also assumes that the turnouts are properly drawn in the computer program, and that the information used to make the components was accurate (this is not always the case).
True, but computer is more accurate than paper and pencil alone.
As far as leaning concepts, one needs to read the books and magazines and blogs and websites to see what others have learned and done. Also visit withand talk to model railroaders if possible. In my 1000+ book library more than 40 are specifically on trackplans and layout design (dating from the 1950's though current) and numerious other books with chapters on the subject. I also have many books that show prototype track arragements and many that discuss operations (both model and prototype).
Kinda sounds like a lot of work, but I enjoy it.
There are several good free programs, so the cost is even less than paper and drawing materials.
cascadenorthernrr I am a paper and pencil guy so there is no need for you guys to be debating which method of track planning is best.
cascadenorthernrr I am a paper and pencil guy so there is no need for you guys to be debating which method of track planning is best. Do what you enjoy. T[here are a ;ot of aspects to Model Railroading and it's supposed to be fun.
I am a paper and pencil guy so there is no need for you guys to be debating which method of track planning is best. Do what you enjoy. T[here are a ;ot of aspects to Model Railroading and it's supposed to be fun.
OK. Just pointing out that the computer is a useful tool that could help you come up with a more accurate, more buildable design. There is no best. Do what you enjoy. Model railroading is supposed to be fun.
Thank you. Now back to the plan what other "unworkables" are in my plan?
cascadenorthernrrNow back to the plan what other "unworkables" are in my plan?
Draw it to scale, using accurate templates of the specific turnouts to be used, calculating grades (including transitions from level-to-grade and back), incorporating the actual lengths of the cars and locomotives that you plan to use, allowing for sufficient and consistent track-to-track clearances, maintaining adequate space from the centerlines of track to the edges of the benchwork, etc., and you will find the unworkable areas for yourself.
If you don't yet know how to do those things, study the references others have suggested.
Talking about things is easy. Doing things with care and accuracy is more rewarding. Good luck.
Edit: In my humble opinion, you were on a better course a while back (March 3) for an experience that would be more achievable and provide a chance to build some skills.
cascadenorthernrrI think I am going to build a version of one of the MRR Project layouts.
cascadenorthernrr Thank you. Now back to the plan what other "unworkables" are in my plan?
What is the minimum radius you are shooting for with this layout?
What are you planning on turning on the Wye at the top left?
What is the length of the longest locomotive you might want to put in that roundhouse?
Is the room that this layout in the size of the outside of the layout, or can you walk around all sides?
If the room is the same size of the layout, how do you plan to reach to the outside edges to clean track, correct derailments, couple uncouple cars...?
Many of your turnouts are not drawn to scale.
cuyama cascadenorthernrr Now back to the plan what other "unworkables" are in my plan? Draw it to scale, using accurate templates of the turnouts to be used, calculating grades (including transitions from level-to-grade and back), incorporating the actual lengths of the cars and locomotives that you plan to use, allowing for sufficient and consistent track-to-track clearances, maintaining adequate space from the centerlines of track to the edges of the benchwork, etc., and you will find the unworkable areas for yourself. If you don't yet know how to do those things, study the references others have suggested. Talking about things is easy. Doing things with care and accuracy is more rewarding. Good luck.
cascadenorthernrr Now back to the plan what other "unworkables" are in my plan?
Draw it to scale, using accurate templates of the turnouts to be used, calculating grades (including transitions from level-to-grade and back), incorporating the actual lengths of the cars and locomotives that you plan to use, allowing for sufficient and consistent track-to-track clearances, maintaining adequate space from the centerlines of track to the edges of the benchwork, etc., and you will find the unworkable areas for yourself.
I would add that while published plans can be used as a guide. Even copying them exactly may not always work. Many have never been built so are not tested, or they use track componets that are not readily available, or a brand you don't want to use, or are available but unreliable, or are custom designs by the builder. Even using a different brand of switches can make a big difference in what will fit, even when their geometery is close.
Here's a thought . . . why not just build the Schuylkill Iron Works? Exactly as designed, exactly as drawn, exactly as published. A great learning opportunity. Headaches have been long since solved. Errors, omissions, inconsistencies . . . none. A worthwhile use of time, in my opinion.
EDIT Uh-oh . . . DSchmitt typed two minutes faster than I. His opinion is sound as well. Published plans might have discrepancies. I say copy the essense of the Schuylkill Iron Works.
Note that the Schuylkill Iron Works includes a 15" radius mainline curve and has lots of track perilously close to the edge of the benchwork as drawn. Breaking out of the "sacred sheet" four-foot-width straitjacket would help this plan a lot and solve those problems. Interest would be added by including some spurs switched in the opposite direction (which would suggest the addition of at least one double-ended siding).
What I want to do is build the SIW as is and then after I am finished begin stage two which is the rest of the layout. Would that be a good idea? Also since I am horrible at track planning could you make a rough sketch of what you are suggesting?
What is the size and arrangement of your currently available space? I don’t think you’ve ever answered that, and it matters. For a younger person, life will entail many changes in the coming years. Can you be assured of an 8-foot-wide, 25-foot-long space in the next few years – it will take a while to build something this large and a long time to scratchbuild the structures (which mostly aren't off-the-shelf footprints).
cascadenorthernrrWhat I want to do is build the SIW as is and then after I am finished begin stage two which is the rest of the layout. Would that be a good idea?
Not to me, but that’s just a personal opinion based on my experience. Every layout is a reflection of the builder’s unique interests and circumstances. Outside of that context, any published layout may not be satisfying to someone else. There’s nothing magical about a published track plan.
According to the article in the March 2008 MR, the original builder of that layout was interested in scratchbuilding steel and other heavy industry structures of the early 1900s (when locos and rolling stock were smaller than in later eras). From your other posts, this doesn’t seem to match your interests. The tight curves and turnouts in this plan as drawn will limit what you can run on it in later phases.
Because he started with an HO 4X8, the original builder was a bit hamstrung as he added to it. As noted many times in this and your other threads, if you have enough space right now (and in the immediate future) for this big rectangle and its aisles, you certainly have room for a different layout that wouldn’t be so restrictive of the rolling stock that could run on it.
But if you don’t have that space now or in the immediate future, in my humble opinion you’d be much better off with a smaller layout that offered a broader variety of opportunities and challenges (such as building grades) and could be built to the point of running trains and completing some structures and scenery before you move on to college or other later pursuits.
cascadenorthernrrAlso since I am horrible at track planning could you make a rough sketch of what you are suggesting?
Sorry, not able to help there. Perhaps someone else will, but I encourage you (and them) to consider what best meets your interests before going too far down the road with this specific (and specialized) layout.
Ok thanks. My main interest is running trains on a long mainline and mountain scenery. I just got a BLI PRR T-1 that is limited to 22" radius minimum. And I would like the capability to expand if I want to. This of course would be a 4x8.
cascadenorthernrrOk thanks. My main interest is running trains on a long mainline and mountain scenery. I just got a BLI PRR T-1 that is limited to 22" radius minimum. And I would like the capability to expand if I want to.
So none of that works with the SIW as published.
cascadenorthernrrThis of course would be a 4x8.
Why limit yourself to a stock building material size? Don't fear the saw.
I guess you're just not going to answer the basic question: what is the size and arrangement of your currently available space?
I don't think that there is any more I can do to help -- good luck with your layout.
I can use a 16x16 (thats a round about number) space.
Ok I reworked the plan again to accomodate larger locos and rolling stock in the transition era.
Your sketch looks like it is 12' x 16'. If you put that in a 16' x 16 ft room you would have a 2' inaccessible aisle on each side. It's important to know the exact space you have. Is your approximate 16' x 16' the actual room dimension, or a space allocation in a larger room? Folks are being very patient and trying to help you, but they need to know the specific details of your space.
Given your railroad's name (presumably in the Pacific Northwes) and your desire for mountainous mainline running, the whole concept of the steel mill seems out of place. Why not look into a copper smelter like in Anaconda/Butte, Montana, or Trail, British Columbia.
Ray
I really like steel for some reason. Here's a PDF I found. And iron is mined in the west too, right? Also how was coal handled on the west coast? I mean in small amounts like at Genesee dock.
https://www.steel.org/Making%20Steel/~/media/Files/AISI/Making%20Steel/2010_SteelPlant_NorthAmerica_HypocycloidVersion6.ashx
Ok maybe I'll just shelf the whole steel mill/coal-ore dock. And just build a mine oriented layout but I'm stumped I just don't have a knack for trackplanning which stinks but anyway I found this really great thread the mount coffin & Columbia River in N scale and I like the idea of simple mountain railroading. I could have a mainline that runs in an oval around the layout with a mining and logging branch have an interchange yard small town and that's it no myriad of structures and track no massive coal/ore docks just simple railroading with great scenery.
I will be creating another thread for that idea in the layout forum here in the morning I will post the name and a link here so all of you can find it. And I'd like to thank you all for your help and suggestions, my biggest downfall has always been setting my sights too high, going for the highdive first in a way. So if you all would please continue having patience with me as I try to find the right layout for me I would appreciate it.
To the OP.........
Nothing wrong with having your "sights too high", as long as one realizes what is "reasonably" attainable and what is not.
Curious.......many of your posts are late at night (per my central standard clock). Where do you live - west coast, Hawaii, or ???
Being 16, I assume you are in the later years of high school. Do you have college in mind, and/or a major or career path?
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
cascadenorthernrr I will be creating another thread for that idea in the layout forum here in the morning I will post the name and a link here so all of you can find it. And I'd like to thank you all for your help and suggestions, my biggest downfall has always been setting my sights too high, going for the highdive first in a way. So if you all would please continue having patience with me as I try to find the right layout for me I would appreciate it.
Once you start building a layout, or simply start laying track, experience will trump all of this back and forth about what works and what doesn't.
I liken this to golf, my other passion. I can read all of the golf magazines cover to cover, memorize all of the golf tips, watch YouTube videos on the proper golf swing, stand in front of a mirror trying out the latest recommended swing sequence. Then, I get out to the course, the practice range, and I re-evaluate what I think that I learned from all of the foregoing actions and recommendations.
One way you could do this is to build the published plan but WITHOUT the continuous loop - make it narrower, and put a temporary staging yard on each end. Operate it like the industry it is - there's a LOT of switching in a steel plant. Later add on and go around the walls to add a continuous loop as well as other scenery and industries.
That PRR T1 MIGHT make it around 22" radius but not very well. You'll want closer to 30" radius to run that loco. Which means giving up on the idea of 4' wide sheets of wood. Again, around the walls in a 16x16 area can get you a LOT of layout, with nice wide curves for running plus plenty of room for various industries. Steel takes a lot of space - one way you can cut that down is make the main mill just a backgrop and have some of the tracks for switching materials in and out, saving on the bulk of all those structures.
Do pick up Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operation, and particularly read the section on the 'squares' method. If you have access to the MR Archive you can also read his original articles ont he topic in old issues, offhand I forget the exact ones. The squares method defines what fits into a unit called a square, the size of which is determined by things like your minimum radius and so forth. If you divide your space into squares instead of feet and inches, you can reliably draw a plan that will fit using pencil and paper, even if you don;t draw the turnouts and curves exactly to scale - as long as you limit yourself to what fits in a square, it should work in practice even if it doesn't look pretty.
I actually prefer the older edition of TPfRO because there is more detail on the evolution of a design in that chapter, some of it was left out to make room for the modern railroading addition. It's quite an interesting plan and shows you what you can get in a fairly limited space. It's not perfect but it may also give you some ideas on getting decent curve radius in your space.
cascadenorthernrr Ok I reworked the plan again to accomodate larger locos and rolling stock in the transition era.
Now you need to learn to think vertically since you have tracks on multiple levels.
For example your loop on the return from the coal dock. Look at where it connects back to the yard. It goes under the inside main and then about a foot or less away connects into the same level as the main. That would create impossible vertical curves, that would be so steep, it would not be a case of whether an engine could pull a train up, but would be so steep an engine would bottom out or catch the pilot sheets on the track and cars would uncouple.
Take a sheet of plywood, cut it into three 16" x 8 ft pieces and then cut one of those into two 4 ft pieces. Assemble them in a big "square", 80" wide and 96" long with a big hole in the middle. That will allow you to put 24-30" radius tracks around it, which will allow your T1 to operate nicely.
You can choose to operate it from the center or operate it from the outside.
The new thread is: The Cascade Northern R.R. Mining-Logging Branch
Heres the link.
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/261849.aspx
Making the link to the new thread clickable:
...and locking the old one.