In light of getting the weekend off (no forums whilst the site is down), I'm going to pose an easy question today... no books, no tomes, no icky "feelings"...
How did you develop your track plan?
Which came first? The track? The town? The terrain? Did you plan it? (Really..??) Or did your track plan just sorta "happen", as you went along... If you had it to do all over again, knowing what you know now, what would you change? (And WHY?) What do you especially LIKE about your track plan? What do you absolutely HATE? (And WHY?)
(It wasn't me... )
Feel free to post pictures of your track plan-- I'd enjoy seeing it!
Do you have a single deck? A double-deck? Triple-deck? (How do you manage that, btw-- doesn't that strain your neck just a tad??)
(Oh, and be sure to include a quick overview of the purpose behind your railroad, if you have one, to help us interpret your plan.)
As always, I look forward to hearing your thoughts and opinions!
Thank you everybody, very much, for making these Philosophy Friday posts so much fun!!!
John
This'll have to be real quick...one hour left before lights-out!
First, I knew what I wanted in the way of function and form for my tracks and bench respectively.
Then I mapped it out on 1/4" graph paper, the large stuff measuring 14" X 18" or so. I scaled out large curves with clearances, long turnouts, and made sure I had the yard I had learned to include (which my first effort did not).
I also wanted some good elevations, so a folded loop seemed to be in the offing...no multiple decks for this kid.
The purpose, for me, was foremost to be able to enjoy watching my steamers on the move with their valve gear and rods in motion. That meant I had to be the center of the universe for them gals, and it logically meant I had to centralize operations in a pit, since I was being shoved into a corner of the basement. No regrets, although having to duck under is no picnic. Still able to do it easily...it's just a pain in the back too literally when I scape the skin off it.
-Crandell
selectorThis'll have to be real quick...one hour left before lights-out!
Yeah, I figured I'd try to squeak it in there and hope that some peeps could see it before the line went silent... how did we all *cope* before the Internet anyway? I have distant memories of having to *go* places and do *things* and actually *interact* with *real* people and everything...
UGH!!!
... it was awful!
Maybe it was all just a dream...
selectorThe purpose, for me, was foremost to be able to enjoy watching my steamers on the move with their valve gear and rods in motion.
You have some very broad and beautiful curves on your layout-- great for rail-fanning.
Have you ever tried crashing them together like on the Adam's Family???
(blinks eyes innocently and then high-tails it for the hills!!! )
For me, the prototype has always come first.
I spent a considerable amount of time actually walking the line and drawing the exact track plan of my 1:1 inspiration. In the process I learned exactly how (and to some extent, why) trains were operated as they were.
Granted that my layout doesn't have a single station that has EXACTLY the track plan of its prototype equivalent. All of them were compromised, but the intent was (and is) to duplicate, as nearly as possible, the operation of the prototype.
The Tomikawa Tani Tetsudo portion of my layout is, "Protolanced," but the timetable is that of an existing JNR branch and the station plans for the two intermediate stations are based solidly on prototypes I have seen and sketched.
That didn't start when I decided to model the Upper Kiso Valley. I remember, as a schoolkid, trying to figure out how to build a reasonably accurate model of the Third Avenue "L" in the south Bronx. That was a couple of decades before I decided on my final prototype.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
I started by downloading a copy of Atlas RTS and learning to use it a bit. Then I drew a 4x8, for a start, and quickly expanded it to a 4x12. I knew I had part of the family room to work with, but I didn't know how much, so I didn't want to press my luck. I also didn't want to start a project that would be discouragingly large.
I put down some track, a continuous loop, mostly around the perimeter, with a crossover, yard and roundhouse. I realized that 4 feet was just too narrow, and I didn't want to be confined to the perimeter just to make 18-inch curves. So, I went out to 5x12, which became the size of the layout I eventually built.
I also provided for expansion with a number of sidings around the edge which could be turned into connecting tracks to new layout sections. Now that I'm building a new section, though, I realize that none of those would really have worked very well, so they have remained spurs while the new connecting tracks were carved out of the existing mains.
For more, well, it's about the witching hour...
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Well I am on about on my eight layout after over forty years in the hobby and I can tell you two things that get written in stone more every year:
1. Use the biggest radius you can fit in the area. My HO mainline will have nothing smaller than 48" radius and larger where possible.
2. The prototype trackage is done for a reason. Study it, copy it and find drawings of the trackage you want to model and use it as close to what is on the paper as possible.
Both will lead to the maximum enjoyment.
In my case, a few realities dictated how the plan would evolve: the freelanced midwestern shortline theme was set, because that's what interests me. Being a multi-use room, with household storage, mechanicals, and treadmill to share the room, two-foot deep shelf benchwork around 3.5 of the 4 walls had to be the footprint. With a 13x35 room and around the room shelving, there was ample space to develop a plan for a flat, midwestern shortline.
Those realities allowed me to not have to plan the exact trackplan in detail. A rough sketch was all that was needed initially. After laying the track loosely on the flat benchwork according to plan, I was able to adjust many finer points of the plan, like angles, curves, location of spurs, and angles of buildings (many buildings a building flats set at angles to provide some depth) by simply sliding the track around the benchwork. Seeing things in the flesh reveals some issues about a plan that even detailed drawings or programming software might not reveal.
After settling on a few certainties of the layout, I ran a bus wire and allowed for some blocking at the towns and got to the point where I was running trains. I'm still working on some of the finer adjustments to the angles of curves and buildings in some places. The parts that have been settled are now permanently affixed with roadbed and caulk, and even ballasted in some places. Other parts are still loose on the benchwork, just like a train set, waiting for my final assessment of the area.
This method won't work for everyone. A theme with lots of vertical scenery elements tends to require open grid construction with risers, and experimenting with track arrangements isn't possible after that type of benchwork has been built, so a mountainous themed layout might have to be more carefully planned up front. Again, the realities of what I want and what I had to work with allows me to sort of plan the exact track arrangement as I build it.
However, I've also wasted about two sections of flex track in the process and have become very handy with the rail nippers, since I have to snip track here and there every time I make adjustments to the plan.
- Douglas
I took a sheet of blank paper, a black thin marker, and started drawing a line as track, turns, angles, overhead loops(dotted lines) until it seemed right, then added trestles, switches, sidings, next, stuck in where a town or village should be.
Thats all there was to it, now this is a logging operation with lots of leeway, stubby little engines so don't worry about that turning radius foolishness, need a siding? bingo ! there it is, the same as a trestle or a lumber storage area.
I will keep is short and sweet. I new the railroad, CNW, I choose Madison, WI because a lot of the CNW track is still in use, making research easy. Madison just happens to be were I live BTW. Then I went to the good people on this forum for help and I needed a lot of it, thank you again Stein, Paul Jas and ODave amongst others. Here is the link:
http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/p/158171/1751078.aspx#1751078
As I started laying out the track plan, I realized what a waste of space that small "yard" is, so I plan on replacing it with another industry. I think I build a fiddle or actual yard off the layout once the main part is up and running.
Have a great weekend.
Sean
I went a different route that will probably make CNJ, Stein, and the other real model railroaders cringe.
I took some published small layout plans I really liked and tried to plan out how these might fit my proposed operating scheme. Some changes were made to link these together, and to better match my vision. The best of these ideas are in the planning hopper for "the" layout.
The layout consists of the Tidewater Central (Dec 1956 MR project layout), the Gum Stump & Snowshoe (April 1966 MR among others), and the Mower Lumber Co (Carl Arendt). An example of my process is starting with the Tidewater Central:
This is my second time building an adaptation of the Tidewater Central. On the harbor side, I have added a second spur and a "house track" behind the station. Unfortunately, I don't have enough room to expand the layout enough to put in a runaround at the harbor. So switching runs at the harbor will have to be blocked correctly at the "yard" on the other side. The big addition is a branch that goes up to a transfer facility with the narrow gauge. I've drawn this in RTS:
I used handlaid track on the 1st version of this layout. So I was able to start the branch mid-curve with a curved turnout, making the grade up more reasonable. There was also an engine terminal with 9.5" turntable tucked between the branch and the passing siding - and yes it all actually fit with scenery in 4x6. My 1st version did not have the extra spurs at the harbor.
The narrow gauge will have a cassette attachment point at the left side side, and connect to the left end of my adaptation of the GS&S (in HOn3) on the right.
My adaptation will have a second spur up top, and adds a turntable to connect the upper 2 tracks at the lower terminal. The turntable completes the runaround if/when I want it. The front spur in the lower terminal will be on a pier to serve the dog hole schooners at Port Orford. Since I have 10ft of length, the lower terminal track lengths have been adjusted to a 5:3:3 Inglenook shunting puzzle, should I desire to operate in that fashion.
The tail tracks have been increased to 21". The right tail track will extend around a corner and become the connection to the saw mill scene.
In the meantime, I am building a 4ft x 70.5 inch test layout.
Initially, the narrow gauge is starting out as a simple loop with spur (for the transfer platform). The continuous loops will allow me to test and tune my kit built and bashed locomotives. It may eventually end up something like the plan - or not. The plan was just a quick rendition of some ideas in RTS to see what might work. This version is obviously way overcrowded. Putting in the structure footprints helped me see just how overcrowded it was. Atlas HO standard gauge components were used for the narrow gauge in the plan, so I gain a little space there.
By moving this portable layout around in my layout room, I can use it a full-size mockup to get a feel for whether "the" layout should be as proposed above or changed to a donut configuration, and what my aisle width must be. In the meantime I can refine my layout and model building skills.
just my way of enjoying the hobby
Fred W
I am currently moving into my retirement home so my track planning is still in the early stages and ongoing. The basement is a nominal 1400 sq ft.
Since I have a large space, I started by identifying my operating concept and the features of the Maryland & Pennsylvania railroad that I wanted to include. Then I calculated my minimum radius. Then I measured the basement and critical dimensions such as location and height of electrical box, stairs, doors, future bathroom, etc. - my usable space is 1050 sq ft. Next I determined the benchwork configuration based on the foregoing. The space is large enough for what I want to do without having to double deck the layout.
My next step is detailed planning of the tracks. While most of the layout will feature 3ft aisles or better and be fairly relaxed, I have identified one place where the aisles and benchwork are going to be tight. That will be where the detailed planning starts.
Enjoy
Paul
fwright I went a different route that will probably make CNJ, Stein, and the other real model railroaders cringe. I took some published small layout plans I really liked and tried to plan out how these might fit my proposed operating scheme. Some changes were made to link these together, and to better match my vision. The best of these ideas are in the planning hopper for "the" layout.
<scratches head in puzzlement> Why would that make anyone cringe? You looked at various sources (in this case model railroad layouts) for inspiration, gave thought to how you want to be able to run your trains, you have a vision of what you want to accomplish, and you adapt things to fit your space and vision. To me, that sounds like an entirely rational way to go about it.
Smile,Stein
My basic list of givens and druthers developed before creating the track plan-
Givens: DC, single deck, one operator, tucked into a corner of the basement so it would be accessible on two sides, able to run two trains hands-off
Druthers: Able to run as single line, not less than 24" radius curves, operational potential to run as simulated point-to-point, one line crossing the other over a bridge, ample scenery and locations for buildings.
Because I have an engineering background, I couldn't stand to just "start building and see where it goes." The very idea of that just drives me nuts. I used Autocad to lay out a plan that would be followed pretty faithfully during construction. Here's the track plan that resulted
It's a combination of a folded dogbone and a simple loop The two are joined by a double crossover to make into a single-line road. It I treat both ends of the yard as separate locations, the layout becomes a poit-to-point with interchanges at each end. I did have to sneak in one 22"-radius curve to make it all work, but it's in the back corner where you don't really notice. The line at the upper elevation crosses over a Central Valley truss bridge.
Downsides: the 2.5% grades are pushing the envelope and limit train lengths. 2% would have been better. Plus, the sidings at the spurs are too short for real serious operations, though I don't really "operate" the railroad.
Overall I'm quite pleased with how it's all coming together.
Jim
"I am lapidary but not eristic when I use big words." - William F. Buckley
I haven't been sleeping. I'm afraid I'll dream I'm in a coma and then wake up unconscious. -Stephen Wright
Hi!
My current "under construction" HO layout is a replacement for one built in 1993 and lasted until 2008. Its in the same 11x15 room, two level, with a large duck under right where the door opens.
The new design took the prior one as a base, and worked from there. I wanted a double main, a lower level easy to get to staging/storage area, a yard, a loco terminal, a handful of industrial sidings, and a farm area. I believe I have accomplished that, but the actual laying of the yard/sidings/terminal tracks remain to be done.
Ok, I confess, my Lionel roots are showing....... No matter how "artfully" I disquise my double mains, they are still convaluted circles running around the perimeter of the room. I wanted to be able to just let trains "run", while I switched cars, etc, inside the mains.
All in all, I think I'll end up with what I wanted, and the "best" plan for me, and it doesn't get any better than that. After all, I am the major (only) stockholder, and represent all of the employees (just me)!
Hey, whatever you have or however you get to it, ENJOY !!!!!
Mobilman44
ENJOY !
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
steinjr <scratches head in puzzlement> Why would that make anyone cringe? You looked at various sources (in this case model railroad layouts) for inspiration, gave thought to how you want to be able to run your trains, you have a vision of what you want to accomplish, and you adapt things to fit your space and vision. To me, that sounds like an entirely rational way to go about it. Smile,Stein
Stein, you are an expert at using real prototype LDEs and creating a viable model representation of them. There's not a single prototype anything in my design (mostly plagiarism) efforts. I've gone the reverse, and try to take an existing generic model, and make it into a slightly more realistic might-have-been.
I love the Gum Stump & Snowshoe plan. I decided I wanted to build it, but the plan just didn't make sense as part of any larger system or entity. I have spent hours trying to come up with a way to make it a plausible design. Most attempts revolved around using the lower yard as an interchange or branch take-off point, and expansion from the upper end. I just couldn't make it believable in my own mind. Other builders of the plan have said the same thing.
Then with my new interest in dog hole lumbering, the answer came to me. Use the lower terminal as a dog hole port with transfer to the lumber schooners. For some of these tiny Northern California and Southern Oregon ports, the topography would work for switchbacks up the cliffs facing the "port". I searched the topo maps, and came up with several real-life possibilities. Mendocino, north of Pt Arena and south of Ft Bragg, has a cliff on the north side of the "harbor", and IIRC the museums said there was a once a railroad there, using high lines to load the lumber on the ships. Up at Caspar, the Caspar Lumber Co had a mill at the creek entrance and a narrow gauge line up to the cliff from the mill where the lumber was high-lined to ships.
In Oregon, Pt Orford also has the right topography. Currently, a tiny harbor has been carved into the bottom of the cliffs on the NW side of the "bay". A few miles away, there are remnants of saw mill ponds on the Elk River - which does not flow into Port Orford. The availability of the premium Port Orford cedar would have justified the ships going further north.
With the lower end and switchbacks explained, expansion off either end on the upper levels becomes plausible as access to the other features of a lumber line (mill and log landings). Time will tell how this will work out. I believe the LDE approach you take results in greater realism and purity, but my heart tugs at me to build these models of models.
having fun
Hi,
I have only very limited resources available for my layout, in terms of money and space. After a long web search, I came to the conclusion, that:
That´s why I decided to go for a British outline layout.
My space is only 2´ by 6´, with detachable fiddle yards at both ends. The layout depicts a station on a two-track main, somewhere in a bigger city in the north of the UK. Though Glasgow sports a Argyle Street Station, I do not follow this prototype - just took the name. The track plan was influenced by designs I have seen in other forums.
The layout´s objective is not so much on operation, but acting as a stage - sort of a functional diorama. All buildings will have to be scratch-built, which will give me hours and hours of modeling fun.
Here is the track plan:
Construction of the benchwork ill commence within the next days. I don´t expect a quick progress, as I have to save up the necessary funds for each step. Getting the track and turnouts is next, but a big drain on the budget.
This will be my 7th layout in my MRR career of 47 years.
I designed my first layout at about age 15 (the one I had before that was designed by my father). Since then I have designed and built several for myself, and desgined about a dozen layouts for others (drafting is one of my professional skills).
I have a simple system I have used for years, long before "fancy" names like LDE's. It works like this:
Define the available space.
Make an outline and definiton of the desired operational goals such as, type of railroad (branch line, class I, logging, etc), era of the railroad, continious or point to point, lots of switching/industries, etc
Make a list of the desired scenic and operational features such as, large passenger terminal, coal mine, car float operation, swing bridge, trackage winding through mountains, etc.
Make a list of STANDARDS - minimum and prefered curve radius, turnout size, maximum grade, minimum length of sidings, likely train length, etc
Than I start sketching ideas. when one really pops, I start laying it out to scale.
Sheldon
PS - I should also add that I have never tried to "copy" a scene from real life to the point that it would be recognizable and/or I have never tried to model a prototype railroad in a strict way. Wether I called it the B&O or the ATLANTIC CENTRAL, all my layouts are/have been freelanced scenicly. I have no interest in duplicating specific scenes from real life. I do take "inspiration" from real scenes, but then let them take on a personality of their own on the layout.
John,When planing my ISLs I like to follow prototype practices..I also avoid a switchback that requires a car to be moved from a customer's dock.
As a example:
This one is loosely based on a real industrial area that was located at the end of a industrial branch on the NYC in Columbus,Ohio.Today this area is long gone.
As you can see its void of any switchbacks but,requires run around moves.
The key to operating this ISL is to make each move slow allowing time for the brakeman to unlock and open the derail.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
I started with my list of priorities which were gained from previous projects, the more important ones were: point-to-point operation with continous running ability, five towns, the middle one with the yard and engine terminal, the terminal towns connecting to double ended perpetual staging tracks, loads-in-empties-out, 3 ft-ish asiles and no duck-unders.
The train room is grade level so an round-the-walls dogbone E shape was the obvious starting place, and I tinkered with many different configurations before settling on the final design... then added several after-thoughts while I was finishing the room out.
This time, the table came first.
With retirement and a move to a house without a basement, a shelf layout in the extra bedroom was going to have to be the place for the layout. Needing to be able to still place a bed in the room made a shelf layout a necessity. I knew that I did not want a duck-under (again, keeping the room usable as a guest bedroom when needed), so a shelf around three walls - or two walls and then into what had been the closet - had to be the space. So I built the shelf layout, with most of it 2' in width. That was all the space that was going to be available regardless of what track plan I developed, so I built the shelf first.
The shelf construction and this method of track planning followed the articles by Don Spiro in RMC starting in the Sept. 2005 issue... especially the October 2005 issue.
I had the turntable and roundhouse assembly that had been cut as a whole piece out of my former layout. Once the shelf was in place, I sat that engine servicing area roughly atop the layout in one corner and thought about that for several days, then moved it to another site on the layout and considered the possibilities from there. Once the decision was made on the turntable, then I laid actual turnouts directly on the homosote in various arrangements while I considered the remainder of the layout. Clearly, I was bound to an out-and-back with a need for a run-around track on each end. I was able to incorporate a hidden track for the "connection" to the Clinchfield main line and curved out the backdrop so that I have a load in/empties out two-track powerhouse with the coal mine on the other side of that backdrop.
The restriction of size means that to switch the coal-mining town, the locomotive is actually almost up in the log-loading area, but still I'm generally pleased that I was able to get a lot of logging and mining operation into a managable shelf layout.
Bill
jwhittenWhich came first? The track? The town? The terrain? Did you plan it? (Really..??) Or did your track plan just sorta "happen", as you went along... If you had it to do all over again, knowing what you know now, what would you change? (And WHY?) What do you especially LIKE about your track plan? What do you absolutely HATE? (And WHY?)
Any way I believe a good track plan can be realized from every method and every starting point. I've seen good plans come from the limitations of a bench or room. I've seen good plans come from a prototypical arrangement smushed into a given space. I've seen good plans come from the published track plan books. I've even seen good plans designed around a given structure. But the best plans come from people who have operated on many different layouts with many different operational goals. It is only when a plan is exercised by actual operation that its personality becomes apparent.
What I hate?
1. Any time I see someone say, "a good plan has to have xxx". Through time the xxx has changed but as a general statement it just isn't true. People who use that statement are probably those who have just learned enough about operation beyond toy train layouts that they want to be helpful to others who have not crossed that threshold. Sort of the knowing enough to be dangerous category.
2. People who simply lambast the simple track plans in 101 track plans or the Atlas books as being old fashion or just as marking to sell as much track as possible. It was just two months ago that someone wrote me a personal note and said how much better people would be if they used one of my plans and listened to my advice instead of buying one of those vendor books. I had to write them back and say "No, almost everything I know about track planning I learned from the Atlas Custom Line Layouts for HO Scale Railroads book", which I've studied since I was in the 3rd grade. I believe most people just look at the outline of the track and write it off. On the other hand if one reads the text and follows intellectually the concepts being developed there is lots of good information contained within those pages of spaghetti bowl plans. People often miss that it has the same author as "Track Planning for Realistic Operation". They contain the same information just different presentation. In fact, when I got my first copy of TPfRO I said to myself, 'I already know this". How?, because I had the Atlas book memorized and then added all the examples from the 101 track plans book. I guess I also have to credit the Practical Guide to Model Railroading which I also memorized in the 3rd-7th grades.
For a story about a real track plan how about my old N-scale layout from Jr. High - college:
It started when I switched from HO to N-scale in 1969. For years I just had enough room for a 2'x4'. That layout grew from a simple oval, to having a swtich-back siding in the center, to a double track and finally it got a cross over. I was up two 4 whole turnouts and it just sort of happened. Then I got a job. I could actually afford to buy a new 2x8 sheet of plywood - all my previous had been used wood.
All the available track went down on the 2x8, and the same sort of plan emerged. Simple loop with two passing sidings. Track parallel to the edges. Stub ended siding started appearing yard like along the inside straight edges. Boring and unimaginative. Fortunately I realized this before I got any scenery started. I thought this is the same as the 2x4 only twice the size. I should be able to do much more in this new area which is twice the space. I noticed the center of the layout was wasted. So I redid the inside loop. I left one end like double track but the other was shorted separating the two tracks. I pinched the center so the inside track was not parallel to the edges of the board. I put a cut off between the pinch and the front straight creating a reversing loop. I could now run from the yard out, around the outside loop as many times as I wanted. The train could switch to inside loop, go as many loops as desired there before through the reversing and back into the yard. Basically an out and back concept. The train could actually go from and to somewhere instead of just looping.
Then two things happened almost simultaneously. First, I started putting in the scenery and it just didn't work. Track track track track everywhere and no room for anything else. Even where I had separated the mains there was not enough to do much of anything. The years from 1974-1979 were not concerned with track plans but consumed with college and learning about electronic throttles, command control, and on-board sound) so Second, by now it is 1981(?) and the Jerome & Southwestern was featured in MR. I thought how can they get that much into a 4x8 in HO and I can't in N. Ah two things, curved turnouts and grades? I had played with grades before but never seriously, once can fit a whole lot more railroad into the same space if the tracks are on two different levels. So, I sat down and actually PLANNED a layout from the ground up. Applying everything I had learned.
My want list was something like this:1. Layout needs to seem larger than it is so all trains cannot be seen at the same time. 2. Can disguise the appearance of a train going around in a loop on a board. 2a. No track running parallel to the edge of the board. 2b. Use grades, tunnels, and curves to disguise what it really is.3. Still have to run the passenger trains on a schedule.4. I had a really cool mine I had built, detailed, and weathered. It needed to be the centerpiece of the layout.5. So the operational concept was the mine was a big operation that had its own railroad which interchanged with the class 1.
With that, while waiting for my new version of computer billing program to run in the Kansas City data center, the first time Grease was aired on broadcast TV, I designed my layout on the back of a cocktail napkin. I think I still have it somewhere. At 1:00 a.m. the following plan emerged. I flipped the board around and the former "yard" became the hidden yard. I always wished I would have totally redone it too for better use of the space. So that would be the think I didn't like about it. Three people could operate trains simultaneously. Two on the main and one working the mine, but most of the time it was a one man operation. It lasted until I just didn't have enough space to keep it anymore and it was razed in 2003 along with my O-scale layout. Now I have none.
This RTS version is a little crunched from the actual one. On the actual plan the outside curve went all the way to the edges of the board on both sides, making the center reverse curve less sharp.
I do have a "method" that I developed for creating a free lance track plan from the ground up. I developed it for a Youth In Model Railroading seminar, and it used to be posted on their web site. I see it is now gone and I am planning on fixing it up a bit more and publishing it into one of those thin how-to books.
Mine actually started about 35 years ago: I built an N-scale version of the Epithet Creek Railroad (published in MR) and its terminal while I was in high school and college. Having hand-laid the track, I have those plans permanently fused in my mind. One thing that I really liked about the plan is that the upper terrace of track had a built in limit preventing more than a single loco or car to get there. It made for interesting switching at first, then it became tedious.
About 15 years ago I was pondering a return to the hobby in HO scale, so I started by sketching out those plans. I decided to eliminate that bottleneck, so I tweaked it, then I adjusted for my available space and after 4 years of sketching, I finally built it. Overall, I'm happy with it:
Phil, I'm not a rocket scientist; they are my students.
TZ,As food for thought..
Your 2x8 could have been operated as a point to point layout either from a coal mine to a interchange-thinking a shay powered industrial road or it could have been a logging road..
A great design for a small layout.
jwhittenWhich came first? The track? The town? The terrain? Did you plan it? (Really..??)
Yes, I planned it; well, sort-of. As to what came first, I'd have to say the town - except substitute it with the phrase "steel mill". I had been wanting to model a Great Lakes waterfront steel mill ever since I was 9 yrs old, and thanks to AbraCAData planning software, I was able to devise the plan shown below. My trainroom was a 2-car garage whose walls were lined with shelves, so I had to make it an island-style layout. [Later on I added a staging yard on one of the adjacent shelves.]
Initially I figured the steel mill would generate enough traffic to keep things interesting, so all I wanted at first was a main line to circle the mill, with view blocks. One of my main line sections was to be a single-track 'country' main line which I would use for 'railfanning'. I got all the benchwork built and the track laid according to the original plan, but then a friend invited me for an op session on his club's layout, where I was put in charge of a 'way' freight. I had such a blast, I realized I needed to add some lineside industries on my own pike. Adding the turnouts was easy since I hadn't yet ballasted the track.
As I mentioned above, I soon realized I need an "off-layout" destination for my trains, so I put a staging yard on one of the shelves. The tracks weren't quite long enough to hold full-length trains, so I put in a separate yard for locomotives. I had several op sessions which kept 3 guest operators and myself busy for 3 hours at a time, so I was quite happy with what I had. Until...
jwhitten... If you had it to do all over again, knowing what you know now, what would you change? (And WHY?) ... ... What do you absolutely HATE? (And WHY?)
Eventually, one of my regular operators [whom I considered a mentor] mentioned that the various duck-unders were preventing the layout from being enjoyed to its full potential. In his words: "If you don't git rid of those duckunders ASAP, yer gonna hate 'em til the End of Time!" He also noted that the narrow aisles made it difficult for more than one normal-sized adult male to move around freely in a given area. Long story short: Much as I was enjoying the old layout, I needed to rebuild it now while I was still healthy and agile enough to do so. SWMBO released her claim on the garage shelves and found other places for her "stuff", so that made it possible to build a new layout all the way against 2 of the 4 garage walls. The plan below is the most recent, except I might put in a few helixes so I can have my staging [blue track] on a separate lower deck, rather than in the back of the main deck.
As of now, the old layout has been dismantled and the wall shelves removed. I'm painting over the walls and the concrete floor in preparation for the new-and-improved version.
-Ken in Maryland (B&O modeler, former CSX modeler)
My current (3rd, 2nd in N) layout started loosely based on the prototype, then evolved.
Givens:- Needed to be transportable (I was living in rental accomodation at the time)- Had to fit into bottom of 'L'-shaped living room my housemates were letting me use- AT&SF Prototype- 18" minimum mainline radius
Druthers:- Plenty of operation - preferably a yard- Had to have a roundhouse and loco servicing facility
I did some research, and found that the town of Las Vegas, in New Mexico (the other Las Vegas) had an AT&SF yard with a roundhouse. I fired up RTS, and drew up a 9.5 x 4' table, marking out a 7.5x3 area in the middle to house the yard, with a 1' margin for staging. It currently looks something like this:
The siding along the bottom with the river crossing is an addition, along with the passenger station on the branch line to the resort town of Hot Springs. The Branch did exist, according to a railroad atlas, so I decided that making it an active branch would add to operation. The four stub-ended sidings on the right were double-ended on the prototype satellite photos, but I didn't have the space to do that. And I am aware that there isn't a lead track, but that doesn't really matter - it's a one-man job, and only one train is running at a time. Staging is mostly provided by a traverser (details here) and there are two sidings curved around at each end (the west end one was added after this plan was drawn). It's everything I want, and a single session keeps me busy for around 3-4 hours.
The Location: Forests of the Pacific Northwest, OregonThe Year: 1948The Scale: On30The Blog: http://bvlcorr.tumblr.com
I came to the very same conclusion about british layouts after years and years of planning: "Less is more". It was a time I thought the more turnouts you could put on a layout meant it was getting better. I built a large basement layout (never went to scenery step) mimicking Quebec Port in the 40's-50's. Large, looking and operating like the prototype and... boring. It was too large to be convincing, too muck trackage and no possibility to ever complete the scenery (I love to built and weathered buildings, trees, cars and all that make a lyout like a part of the real world). I then decided try to shrink down the scale to something smaller in my new house.
The actual track plan is a complete no-brainer. I wouldn't call it track planning, there's nothing original about it. A runaround with 3 sidings. Boring, no modelrailroading tricks, nothing special, nothing worth to be written about it. And you know what? That's the same track plan the real railroads built over and over around the world in thousands of exemples. The same one we always follow while railfanning. It took me something like 20 years to finally understand that we are always modelling the "extraordinary" instead of the ordinary. What is interesting is to model the typical station that found its way in our memory...
I started with a 4'x4', then a 5'x4'... I rebuilt it twice. Never got satisfied. Then, I decided to opt for a shelf layout with minimal trackage. Less is more said an architect.I read a lot about that and found out how you could keep somebody busy with a few well-planned track.
Prototype. I wanted to model the QRL&PCo but found out I should go back in the 20's to make it interesting. And I couldn't set on a exact location/station to model. So I decided to do some generic CNR station in Quebec area to put in good use some of the rolling stock I've been collecting since many years.
Recently, I found a track plan that met my need, mocked it up on a hollow core door with sectional tracks and operated it. Switching 3 sidings took me an average of 30-45 min. That enough for me. More than this, I lose patience and start to fire up the engine!!! But honestly, it was hard for me to accept using somebody else layout track plan without meddling with it. And you know what? After many trials, I put my pride aside and built it per se. I want something that WILL operate.
The last step was to find a prototype suiting the trackage. After a quick search I found an insurance maps of Lyster showing a similar track plan and exactly the industries I was looking for: a grain elavator with a cattle pen, and a woodware manufacture. Also, there was a junction with a small branchline there with a wye and an engine house, excellent subject for a future expansion...
The layout is 18"x79" and in two days I was able to build, paint and weather the track and carve the topographic features in the styrofoam board.
I think the FIRST thing to do when planning a layout is to stop from drawing doodles on paper and LEARN TO KNOW YOURSELF BETTER. That way, you will plan a layout sized and operated according to your expectations, ressources and talents. A large layout will always strike the imagination of anybody, a smaller one gives you the change to control and enjoy the hobby in a realistic way.
Matt
Proudly modelling the Quebec Railway Light & Power Co since 1997.
http://www.hedley-junction.blogspot.com
http://www.harlem-station.blogspot.com
Great topic. Ken, I'm looking forward to see how your layout evolves. Your steel mill is amazing, and connecting it to a more complete transportation system will really make the operations hop!
In my train room, the planning always starts with the room. Afterall, it's the room, and the space available that drives most of the design decisions. In my case, the main limitation of the room is that it's in the attic, so I've got 45 degree sloped ceilings to contend with. That forced my table height to be lower than I'd like, and seriously limited my ability to do add an upper deck for ops and a lower deck for staging.
I start by laying out the general location of aisles that are wide enough for my "above average" carcass, then I locate the general location of things like the work bench, and where I'd like to have a yard/engine facility. Next, once my "dominoes" are established, I'll draw out a general route for my mainline. I'll look at that diagram, and think about how it relates to the prototype geography, and decide what elements can be worked in with consideration of track location, key scenery elements, and of course, operations.
At this point, I'll play with several options on paper. I cultivated several designs based on different facets of the Western Maryland's operations in the 1960's. I looked at being hyper faithful to a short segment of the line, as well as a more general concept employing vignettes that might be less prototypically accurate, but offers more operations possibilities.
A few things that are "must haves" are always a working yard, a substantial amount of staging, and scenes that can be isolated for close up photography, even if in person there might be a little more "spaghetti" than some might like to see. I also like to work in a separate branch line to provide some point to point and switching action if I can.
The trickiest part in all of it is thinking three dimensionally. Making sure you have the clearances you need without requiring ridiculous grades or situations that compromise the integrity of the scenery.
Once built and operated, there's always adjustments to make, a process I'm in now. I'm substantially revising the layout to improve the flow of traffic in and out of staging, and expand the capacity of the main yard. Should be pretty interesting once it's all done.
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
Since about 1975, I have wanted to build a layout with a big city scene similar to Houston with the Santa Fe passenger trains that were running in the 1950s, Texas Chief, California Special, Mail express #5/6 (former Ranger). And a classification yard with through trains dropping and picking up cuts of cars.
Didn't have the space, but built a 3 x 7 N layout starting in 1980, which was one part of a scheme for an overall huge railroad...a Santa Fe secondary line the piney woods of East Texas 50 miles north of Houston. I wrote up the track plan as “Lost River District of the Santa Vaca & Santa Fe,” in Model Railroader Feb85 p.106 and it was reprinted in Top Notch Railroad Plans.
I thought of trains south of Houston going to staging representing Galveston, then to making that be visible staging with at least a hint of Galveston scene. Galveston kept taking on more importance and I tried to figure out a fully modeled scene with the causeway, the big passenger station which is now the Galveston railroad museum. I "built" segments of the dream layout in Laser 3D computer rendering toi try to out in cyberspace.
I finally deicded I was never going to get that 20 x 30 "train palace". I would have to settle for a room with about 11 feet square for trains. I settled on JUST the Galveston scene. This is "plan D."
I started building in sections in 2006 in the garage and was planning to install over the Christmas holiday in 2007 in the "spare bedroom"...(sections test-assembled on garage floor with mockups and placeholder buildings, etc)
But then an inlaw lost his apartment and moved into the "spare" bedroom.
He finally got a place to live this past summer and layout installation resumed... Long way from being ready even to test run on "first phase"
But it is coming along...
Really long drawn-out discussion of prototype and track plan development HERE:
http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/showthread.php?t=88991&highlight=island+seaport
Sailormatlac It took me something like 20 years to finally understand that we are always modelling the "extraordinary" instead of the ordinary.
This manifests itself often in the freelance world where someone says, "I'll make up some exception for every thing that tickles my fancy." The layout ends up looking bizarre and toy like. Too many extreme exceptions an not enough rule. Or a prototypical modeler who collects all the one off paint schemes or unique locomotives and they don't have enough of the typical locomotives in the common schemes to make it look right.
tomikawaTTI spent a considerable amount of time actually walking the line and drawing the exact track plan of my 1:1 inspiration. In the process I learned exactly how (and to some extent, why) trains were operated as they were.
You are definitely lucky in that regard. I live out in the 'burbs and haven't seen a railroad track in decades. Leastways, not around here.
tomikawaTTGranted that my layout doesn't have a single station that has EXACTLY the track plan of its prototype equivalent. All of them were compromised, but the intent was (and is) to duplicate, as nearly as possible, the operation of the prototype.
Well, who's does? Very nearly everyone has to make some tough choices when selecting the scenes they can model. Even if their intent is to model the original as faithfully as possible. Even if money were not a consideration, the technical challenge of recreating absolutely every nuance in miniature would be daunting, to say the least, and more like "overwhelming" in all likelihood. The art of the modeler is in the selection of the details and the ability to omit the parts that won't be missed-- or at least the parts that can be edited out and still have a story to tell.
tomikawaTTThe Tomikawa Tani Tetsudo portion of my layout is, "Protolanced," but the timetable is that of an existing JNR branch and the station plans for the two intermediate stations are based solidly on prototypes I have seen and sketched.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Chuck!