Looking for a new layout strategy

[SpaceMouse]

The following layout outline is how my thinking has been going so far, but the more I think about it, the more simplistic and unsophisticated it is. In a way it mirrors the only two layouts I've seen, my club's and my club president's as both of them are basically flat, the club having two levels with a helix. This is the track outline I am moving away from. The blue line would be an upper level.



However, when I look at the designs in the magazines and books, these designs are anything but flat and with the exception of John Anderson's mega-layouts very few utilize helices above the main track. At this point I must add that for me a lower level hidden staging track and a helix to the main is a given.

The theme I'm looking for is an operation-based fictitious railway set in the Coastal Range of Northern California in the 1890's. The road name is Hogwart's Freight and Ferry and sports the Hogwart's colors. The main industries of the area are logging and mining.

As my daughter was the main impetus for the Hogwart's theme and her interest in the trains is waining, so is my interest in giving more than a nod to the Hogwart's theme. My son still wants his Hogwarts Express as his main train, but I think he'll get into any theme. If I build Diagon Alley using turn of the century architecture, there's no reason why it would look out of place as a 1890's city. My kids can call it Diagon Alley and when they are not around I can call it San Alejandro or something. Hogwarts can be some rich dude's fantasy ala Hearst Castle.

So I am basically starting fresh.

The problem is that although there are many examples of mountain railroads shown in MR, none give any guidelines or even basic strategies on how to design such a thing. I saw a track diagram of Gorre and Daphited for the first time yesterday and it explains a lot in terms of how railroads have been designed. Even if they don't mention it, I can see that this is where modern model railroad design gets it roots.

Yet this design theory is not mentioned in any of the literature. It's almost as if it is implied and you should just get it.

Gorre and Daphited's rails loop and disappear underground leaving one clean area after another while changing elevation. I have the space for a decent size layout and while not the size of John Allen's basement, there is no reason why it cannot be as well designed.

The problem is getting from where I am to where I need to be.

[SpaceMouse]

See Jetrock, I am listening. Thanks.

[cwclark]

Chip
I built my layout in 4 levels...instead of a flat railroad on flat sheets of plywood, do it in the "L" girder cookie cutter style"...you can cut the subroadbed 2 1/4" wide out of sheets of 1/2" or 3/4" plywood and use cleats and risers to elevate the track to different levels...I rose my track on a 1.5% grade or 1/4" every 16" and it runs great...I don't know if you've ever been to my webshot picture album but you might want to take a look at how i'm building the layout, especially the benchwork it's at http://community.webshots.com/album/137793353fwcjGj
take some time and look at the pictures carefully to see how i built the benchwork...the only flat sheets of plywood are in the yard and the rest of the layout roadbed is done throughout the layout in 21/4" wide subroadbed cut from 3/4" plywood ...Chuck

[SpaceMouse]

Thanks Chuck. Actually you site was among the first I book marked. When I saw how you had layed out your benchwork I thought immediately, "I can do that." Of course I had been a carpenter for 15 years of my life so naturally I changed everything.

But that doesn't explain how you came up with your design, which is what I'm seeking now.

[cwclark]

Chip...I came up with the design by drawing hours and hours of layouts on sheets of paper...in fact..the final design in my trainroom is actually not the one i was going to use...the original didn't use all the space so I redrew it again and then three more times before i came up with it...I like figure 8 layouts and dogbones so i tried to combined the two and it worked...it's just going to have to come from your head and hours of doddeling on paper until you finally get it....looking at your space you have room for a dogbone and lots of industrial switching..a run around or two and even a wye to turn the trains around can be fit in the space you've alloted....you'll get it...it just takes a lot of drawing, perspiration, and perseverance...chuck

[Anonymous]

Spacemouse,

If I was designing a mid-sized layout, my #1 priority would be: Trains enter and leave each scene only one time. That is, they go from left to right, or right to left - just like the "real ones" do when you go see them on the tracks. There would be no "U-turns" - unless they were considered "off the stage" such as staging, etc.

David Barrow and a few others are huge proponents of this - get your hands on his articles if this sounds interesting to you.

I'm assuming Joe Fugate on this forum would be a proponent of this also, just by looking at his layout design / track plan.

The trick is you end up with either a duckunder, two reversing loops, or a removable "bridge" if you want to have continuous running. I personally would go with a removable "bridge" with some switches built into it so when you remove it, you wouldn't have any trains taking the big plunge. This would take up less room than a duckunder. However, it would cause your trains to continually go "clockwise" or "counterclockwise", whereas two reversing loops would allow your trains to go from one end of the layout to the other, then come back, which is very cool.

This type of layout has some very nice features, including no requirement of very deep sections that are tough to reach/scenic/repair, etc.

Just some tips from a mostly armchair guy.

[Anonymous]

Also, I think it's wise that you're considering a prototype that interests you as opposed to what the kids prefer. As they grow, etc., their interests will likely change faster than yours.

Also, you can run any kind of train on your "serious" layout, and it will be the same thing to them most likely.

I saw a modular "serious" layout with thomas the tank running all over it. Kids dug it.

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CARRfan

Also, I think it's wise that you're considering a prototype that interests you as opposed to what the kids prefer. As they grow, etc., their interests will likely change faster than yours.

Also, you can run any kind of train on your "serious" layout, and it will be the same thing to them most likely.

I saw a modular "serious" layout with thomas the tank running all over it. Kids dug it.

I've come to that conclusion.

[West Coast S]

It was typical of lumber lines to lay track on a temporary basis, when the area was cut over the tracks were relaid at a new site, rail was too expensive to sit abandoned. Due to the need to access remote timber sites, complete loops, reverse loops, switchbacks, figure eights were more the rule then the exception with steep grades, light rail, very little, if any ballast and questionable bridge construction in areas where mountain goats would fear to tread with the most rudimentry grading, cut/fill as was required.

Taking all the above into consideration, lets persue the out and back design, a lumber branch wrapping its way up a mountain(s) to the cutting/loading area would allow you to use visible, justifible series of loops for the transition to a upper level and not bury it that black sinkhole called a helix .

I personally would not include any minning activity on the lumber branch, but model it as its own branch line, depending on what your extracting from mother earth, you may require a higher standard of track and bridge construction to support the simulated loads.

I envision a junction with a yard where the logging and minning branch converge, loads/empties could be classified and all car movements to and from the port dispatched, I would use the continous run concept here as this would be one of the layouts main focal points and a good stagging yard location.

[robengland]

Chip

Have you read Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operation. "Givens and Druthers", planning by Squares... classic guidance and rules of thumb.

The only big thing I can think of that has emerged since he wrote that is Koester's LDE, Layout Design Element, which is about taking a piece of reality and copying it. This came up just the other day with a friend who is ripping out a wharf/yard complex and doing it again because it didn't work. Thios time insterad of trying to think what he needs he is just copying an existing prototype. The assumption of an LDE is that they knew what they were doing when they designed it, or they refined it as they used it. I made the same mistake: I came up with a yard design from rules of what a yard needs - next layout I'm going to slavishly copy the schematic of a prototype.

Joe Fugate has a good thread going on layout design too
cheers
Rob

[selector]

Chip, so many mountain roads use switchbacks that I wonder if you could incorporate some of those. If carefully situated, they needn't take up too much flatland space and will keep your trains in view longer. You can even have little hamlets at each switch, just like in real life; you know, a little store, switchman's house with yare and swing set, a small warehouse or storage shack, whatever. Of course, if you intend to keep a strictly flat layout main surface, this is all by the way.

-Crandell

[Anonymous]

Spacemouse,

The Layout Design SIG of NMRA has a website that may offer you some guidance in your quest.

http://www.emuck.com/~rufus/ldsig/index.html

Doug

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by selector

Chip, so many mountain roads use switchbacks that I wonder if you could incorporate some of those. If carefully situated, they needn't take up too much flatland space and will keep your trains in view longer. You can even have little hamlets at each switch, just like in real life; you know, a little store, switchman's house with yare and swing set, a small warehouse or storage shack, whatever. Of course, if you intend to keep a strictly flat layout main surface, this is all by the way.

-Crandell

I would love to see some layout plans that show switchbacks. I admit that I cannot conceive of how to do it. I can picture doing for an automobile, but a train takes a minimum of 36 inches to turn around not counting Shays, et al.

I designed a smaller layout in the space above marked entertainment and storage. By end-looping the the track from one end of the layout to the other three times with a 2% I was able to climb all of 5 3/4" (14.5 cm). So achieving a second level without a helix has eluded me.

[tstage]

Chip,

Unlike an automobile switchback but more like a hiking one, your railroad switchback could have a short secton of flat track on each end - just enough room for your locomotive and a couple of cars - and a switch (turnout). You'd travel up the grade to the flat spot, throw your switch, travel the opposite direction up the grade to the next level, throw your swithch, and so on and so forth - till you make it to the top.

t will still take you some room horizonally to do that but it would eliminate the need for a huge curve or helix. Probably best left for a logging route. It would definitely make for some interesting switching.

Tom

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by robengland

Chip

Have you read Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operation. "Givens and Druthers", planning by Squares... classic guidance and rules of thumb.

The only big thing I can think of that has emerged since he wrote that is Koester's LDE, Layout Design Element, which is about taking a piece of reality and copying it. This came up just the other day with a friend who is ripping out a wharf/yard complex and doing it again because it didn't work. Thios time instead of trying to think what he needs he is just copying an existing prototype. The assumption of an LDE is that they knew what they were doing when they designed it, or they refined it as they used it. I made the same mistake: I came up with a yard design from rules of what a yard needs - next layout I'm going to slavishly copy the schematic of a prototype.

Joe Fugate has a good thread going on layout design too
cheers
Rob

The good thing is that I have several months to plan my railroad. Yes, I've read Armstrong --twice now, and will probably do it again before I complete my layout plans. I actually came across a book by Kalmbach that was sort of a follow-up (it was written after and refers frequently to Armstrong's book) called How to Operate your Model Railroad. It's not one I've seen advertised and in fact is quite a bit bigger than the thin books you get today.

I have been following the Operations Clinic, but it too assumes a level of design knowledge that seems that model railroaders are expected to know.

I'll keep your suggestion about modeling a prototype in mind. The yard I have was about a s generic a diamond yard as you can get. I was thinking simplicity and functionality.

I'll have to look for Koester's Layout Design Element

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by douort

Spacemouse,

The Layout Design SIG of NMRA has a website that may offer you some guidance in your quest.

http://www.emuck.com/~rufus/ldsig/index.html

Doug

I've seen this, but haven't acted because I've never seen or heard of anyone that has subscribed. I'd want to see a sample and it bothers me that there doesn't really seem to be any interaction--is it more than a newsletter subscription? Is the newsletter worth it?

What is your experience of it?

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tstage

Chip,

Unlike an automobile switchback but more like a hiking one, your railroad switchback could have a short secton of flat track on each end - just enough room for your locomotive and a couple of cars - and a switch (turnout). You'd travel up the grade to the flat spot, throw your switch, travel the opposite direction up the grade to the next level, throw your swithch, and so on and so forth - till you make it to the top.

t will still take you some room horizonally to do that but it would eliminate the need for a huge curve or helix. Probably best left for a logging route. It would definitely make for some interesting switching.

Tom

That kind of switchback would seem strange for a main line train. Geared maybe, but I just don't picture a double headed steamer or backing up a grade.

The real truth is I want to keep continuous running in the picture for my son.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: I've seen this, but haven't acted because I've never seen or heard of anyone that has subscribed. I'd want to see a sample and it bothers me that there doesn't really seem to be any interaction--is it more than a newsletter subscription? Is the newsletter worth it?

What is your experience of it?

Spacemouse,

You don't need to subscribe to the newsletter unless you want ongoing new information.
There's a primer on layout design on the site that was somewhat helpful to me in my design efforts. Look further down the main page link in my previous post. The link is in blue. It's titled "LD SIG Primer".

I don't subscribe to their newsletter so I can't comment on that.

Doug

[West Coast S]

Chip, there were examples of mainline switchbacks, the orginal Great Northern line over the Cascades employed a switchback until the first tunnel was dug. The SP aquired a road that employed a switchback on its mainline and operated it for several years before selling it off to a lumber company when they deemed the route too inefficient as a through route.

Not too long ago on a former L&N line a switchback was used to access a minning branch, 6 axle EMDS and GEs were the rule here even after the CSX takeover, similar examples could be found on the C&O.

[selector]

Chip, my only experience with switchbacks came many eons ago during my childhood in Peru, South America. The mining company that my Dad worked for owned and operated all of the railway between La Oroya and Cerro de Pasco, up at 14,000 feet in the Andes, and on down to around 8,000 feet. Steamers made a 180 across the narrow valley right behind our house (literally) and went up the other side of the valley for about 1 mile. It was a 2% grade...at least. When my borthers and I walked to the far switch, we watched countless trains run past the switch, power long since off. They'd brake, and when the switch was thrown by the switchman who lived at that location (hence my description of the environment and structures last post), the gongeer would simply throw the reverse lever and the train left up the other leg facing the same way he'd entered the switch. No loco turning required. Back and forth, until he got to the top.


iI you contsruct such a setup, you will have it in sight., right opposite where you stand, and still have your main surface for your main lines. Just plan an industry at the top of the switches. Consider the length of train that the industrial operation will need, and build the switchback runouts to that length with bumpers at the ends. NO "S" CURVES!!!

EVER!!

I hope this gets ya thinkin".

[robengland]

I think that How to Operate book is Bruce Chubb's one, yes? Good book too but I felt he didn't break much new ground from Armstrong.

The thing with even the simplest yard is do you need and where do you put: switch lead, caboose track, runarounds, engine servicing, RIP track, MOW, escape track to engine servicing etc....

One lead to engine serving or two? How many yard sorting tracks? Do you need a separate arrival/departure track(s)? How many?
You can either :
- make it up and try it and hope it works and is efficient and fun
- think through what is going to happen in the yard: there will be a morning train come up full of coal and a passenger run into the branch and etc etc then walk through the movements in the yard
- copy the real thing - close as you can get to what you want - and figure they went through all this already

cheers
Rob

[dehusman]

There are problems with using LDE's and expecting that because you followed a prototype plan *exactly* that it will result in a a better layout operation:
1. Even with a "faithful" copy, you still have to compress things, mostly length.
2. There is nothing that says the prototype is a *good* design. It may be a terrible design that the railroad just doesn't want to spend the money to fix.
3. A design copied from the prototype will operate well, IF you have the same operation as the prototype. If the prototype yard had 3 tracks and operated 1 train a day, but you want to run 3 trains per session out of the yard, following the prototype *exactly* will not get you where you want to go.

Instead of LDE's, I prefer to think of "signature" items. REcognizable features that capture the feel of where you ate ing. For example if you are doing Northern California in the 1890's, weaving through stands of huge pine trees would be signature item. If you had a horse drawn skidder hauling a log with tracks going through huge fir trees and showed somebody a picture of that (no trains, no title) they would think west coast, 1800's or early 1900's.

I also wouldn't hold up the G&D as an example of "modern" layout design. It is about as "old school" as you can get. A big spaghetti bowl. If you want a "modern" design, the original V&O by McCelland or the AM by Koester are probably the best formative examples of "modern" design.

Dave H.

[Anonymous]

First decision is: how "serious" do you want to be? "Serious" folks all go for point-to-point (meaning, in short, no continuous running), others have continuous running. Myself, I enjoy semi-serious operating sessions in which I treat the road as a point-to-point, but I also enjoy just watchin' 'em roll (sometimes, I must confess, with an adult beverage in my hand), so my track plan is continuous.

If you want continuous, I, like CWClark, am a fan of figure-8's and dogbones. Not everybody likes 'em.

In terms of genuine advice I offer two points:

(1) Have grades! Moving from a flat single-elevation main line to grades - and tracks crossing one another at elevation - totally transforms the visual and operating interest of a layout.
(2) Doodle away for basic ideas - but get a simple planning tool (e.g. WinRail) that will let you do a reality check.

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by robengland

I think that How to Operate book is Bruce Chubb's one, yes? Good book too but I felt he didn't break much new ground from Armstrong.

Very true in terms of layout design. He expands on the acutal running of the model railroad. I'm hoping to work backward here. If I learn how a model railroad is supposed to work, or better yet, the different ways it can work, then I can look into adding those design elements into the layout.

I'm hoping that a lot will become more clear after I attend my first real op session in two weeks,

QUOTE: The thing with even the simplest yard is do you need and where do you put: switch lead, caboose track, runarounds, engine servicing, RIP track, MOW, escape track to engine servicing etc....

One lead to engine serving or two? How many yard sorting tracks? Do you need a separate arrival/departure track(s)? How many?
You can either :
- make it up and try it and hope it works and is efficient and fun
- think through what is going to happen in the yard: there will be a morning train come up full of coal and a passenger run into the branch and etc etc then walk through the movements in the yard
- copy the real thing - close as you can get to what you want - and figure they went through all this already

cheers
Rob

I'm not dismissing the importance of studying yards. The fact is I've never seen one. I did read Serandeo's Freight Yards, but it is only half the stroy. The other half is the engine service facilities and I am totally ignorant in that respect. However, I think I could come up with a better yard design than I could a mine or a logging operation becasue I have not cracked the books on those yet. I do need to start the design somewhere.

[Anonymous]

Ever heard about "making a model" All you need is a 6inx6in piece of wood, green
felt(grass) balsa wood benchwork & buildings, & some pencils & paint.

[Anonymous]

Oh some black strips of paper for track.

[dinwitty]

I think a lot of layout design came from what the technology was doing and where and how you operated and watched your trains. Layouts that looped up and down and ran past the operator's stationary position in front of a control panel.
But we can today travel with our train with wireless DCC and get up close to the train's action all the way.
All railroads have a purpose, to move the freight or passenger. And there are stories behind it. Give the line a meaning and purpose.
I've been down the line of layout design from personal and club layouts and I ended up with shelf modules that you don't tear down if you have to move, just separate and move. I could design a portable setup to show on public display.
The ideas are still developing about it, I've done modular layouts.
I never want to tear down a layout especially if its a good design.
John Allen's layout was still in place after he died but a fire took it out.
His layout is no more.
All the great planning of layouts, I have to think about, well, what happens afterwards?...
If you believe this layout will be fun for a long time, give it the long thought about what you want to do. To make it fun for everyone.

[Jetrock]

A switchback in the context of your layout, Chip, might be for a branch line rather than the mainline--the mainline would be a continuous but meandering loop, and the points where logs or ore were brought to the mainline could include switchbacks to get that precious altitude. Essentially,

Because you've got mountains, you can use the varying heights of track on the mountainsides to create additional "levels" via track at different elevations up a mountainside, instead of physically separate levels.

Even though I prefer point-to-point switching layouts myself, I have never taken issue with layouts that loop around on themselves, even those where a train passes through the same portion of the layout multiple times (though not necessarily on the same piece of track.) Some consider this "dishonest"--is it more dishonest than a hidden staging yard?

Oh yeah, what mac4884 is referring to is physically making a model of a model railroad--many layout designers did this in the days before 3-D rendering layout design software. I did it myself when I was a kid--essentially, you build a teeny track plan, using balsa sheet or shirt cardboard for your benchwork, balsa sticks for your risers, and scenery out of clay or even paper towels painted with felt-tip pens, and track drawn in place with a pen. It's a neat way to visualize a plan, but of course you need a plan first--and now we can just draw the plan in some railroad CAD software and render it for viewing.

I would recommend trying out some drawing of layout plans on paper, rather than using the CAD software all the time. Your first designs will of course have some problems, and your radii and frog numbers won't be precise, but that's not the point--freehand track-plan doodling is about developing ideas, not making exact plans. Also, the more you do it, the better you'll get at it--and it can be a good way to kill time in staff meetings or other potentially boredom-inducing social situations.

[SpaceMouse]

Jetrock,

I'm not much for sketching as I find it unnecessary. Let me explain. I spent 15 years as a contractor in California before I moved out to PA. I spent a lot of time drafting and it got to the point where can quite accurately imagine 3D objects. Even now when I build a piece of furniture or anything else, I never make a plan rather just take an overall measurement and start cutting the pieces. This is becasue I see the the finished product in my head, already designed with all the pieces.

The CAD programs are necessary because I'm not familiar with the relationships between tracks and trains and turnouts and easments, etc. But the sketching is in my head and I have been doing it constantly for the last two days.

Like the little song ditty that won't go away.