Beach BillWith 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.
You know, I am constantly amazed by the kindness and generosity of Model Railroaders with respect to the "average Joe". The MRR builds a layout in his spare bedroom and gives space and consideration to the non-railroader if / when they come to call for an overnight visit. Yet how many "average Joe's" give Model Railroaders the same consideration and have set aside a small switching layout or some such in their spare rooms to meet their needs? Not many I'd wager. It just goes to show you the caliber of people we're dealing with in this hobby!
Beach Bill I'm generally pleased that I was able to get a lot of logging and mining operation into a managable shelf layout.
Sounds like you've got a nice layout going! Show us some pictures!!!
John
hardcoalcaseI 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.
Why a yard in the middle? It is often suggested that having a yard directly after coming out of staging-- or else just before going into staging-- is a good idea. Why did you select the center?
For myself, I am coming to the decision that having a yard wherever I need it is the best method. Also I find that people often use the term "Yard" generically and without distinction-- or else to generally reference some sort of "classification" facility-- whereas I'm starting to understand that there are many different types of yards and each one is best suited for a particular aspect of railroading or another. For example, some "yards" are designed for interchange-- setting out cars for one railroad and picking up others in return. That "yard" may actually be nothing more than a siding or two. A different "yard" could exist for the purpose of marshalling coal-filled hopper cars from different branches, until sufficient numbers have been accumulated to warrant a trip down the line. Still yet another yard may be utilized by an industry to receive and store blocks of cars from various shippers until they can be processed and unloaded. Each one of these is a "yard" but each one has a different purpose, look and operational characteristics.
hardcoalcaseThe 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.
Do you have any pictures of your layout? If so, they would be be fun to see!
BRAKIEJohn,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. 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.
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--
You are what this hobby needs a lot more of-- a person with knowledge and experience who can explain this type of stuff and make it accessible to other modelers. Sure Armstrong wrote a book about it-- and its a very good one BTW, "Track Planning for Realistic Operation", but it would be nice to have additional viewpoints and perspectives on the subject. Or for more in-depth or expanded coverage about this detail or that. I really enjoy reading about "operational tidbits"-- stuff that maybe doesn't warrant a whole chapter but is "nice to know" or just interesting that might come in handy someday in some situation.
Thanks for your input!
ATLANTIC CENTRALI have a simple system I have used for years, long before "fancy" names like LDE's. It works like this:
Those sound like practical suggestions and a good starting plan for building pretty much any type of layout.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL 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.
This, I think, is a most interesting statement-- even though I think it, in truth, is largely the ubiquitous methodology employed by most modelers-- if they even have a well-reasoned theme at all. I think it is interesting because there are some who get so caught up in "modeling the prototype" and go to great lengths to accurately detail and depict a particular locomotive or piece of rolling stock, and yet give not one thought to the accuracy of their locale, beyond the generalities. And beyond that, I think many people-- prototypers included-- who are "scared" (for lack of a better term, please forgive me) of attempting to model a "recognizable place" for fear people might not recognize it-- or worse, that someone *will* recognize it and be able to spot substantive differences. But-- for me-- I say "To heck with them", model it anyway. Do your best. Tell your detractors to take a long walk off a short pier while everyone else just enjoys your handiwork. So what if its not exactly the same? Chances are neither is their memory of the place.
Sir MadogI have only very limited resources available for my layout, in terms of money and space.
Have you considered perhaps a smaller scale that might let you model a larger area in the same space?
That's the problem
I didn't
Now I have tracked myself into a corner
51% share holder in the ME&O ( Wife owns the other 49% )
ME&O
fwrightWith 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.
Fred,
As the new owner of a shay and wondering how I'm going to fit it into my layout and operating scheme, I find that I have newfound interest in logging and mountain-region coal / minerals operations. I hope you will keep us up to date, from time-to-time, how your layout is coming along.
mobilman44My 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.
I'm surprised you were able to get him to stand still that long....
(Sometimes I just quack me up! )
mobilman44Ok, 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.
Actually you just hit upon why I often have problems with a double main. My uncle keeps pushing me (gently) toward a double main. And I know he has a pretty good perspective on it, but in my mind it doesn't seem right. I know I have a decent-sized layout space and everything, but it really cuts into shelf depth and "fattens" everything up visually. And if that's not done exactly right and well-controlled, it can get "toy train-like" really quick, IMO. Not that other people haven't done it well-- they have and I've seen (in pictures) some very good examples of well-done double and multi-track lines. Particularly Pennsy lines. People just sort-of expect them to be double or even quad-tracked. And oddly enough, it doesn't seem as bad to me to see a three or four track Pennsy mainline. Just double-tracked for some reason-- maybe I just need to get out more, who knows??
mononguy63 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.
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.
All your Givens are Druthers!
"Givens" are absolutes and immutables-- things you can't change (or at least not practically or without great expense) that you just have work around. "Druthers" are what you want.
mononguy63Here's the track plan that resulted
You have an interesting track plan. That's very cool!
mononguy63the sidings at the spurs are too short for real serious operations, though I don't really "operate" the railroad.
For some people the joy is in the building. Other people just like watching the trains. Nothing wrong with either view, or something else if you'd prefer.
Thanks for letting us see your track plan and hear your ideas. I'm hoping you'll tell us more as you make progress!
steinjrfwright 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
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.
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
Hey, that's what I said!
Oh, but I guess you said it first
IRONROOSTERWhile 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.
I'll bet that once you really start thinking about it an elegant and clever solution will present itself. One of the things that I did in my own space was to relax my notions regarding scene "depth". You can squeeze a track into about a 4-inch shelf (less if you like living on the edge... umm, literally! ) and maybe 6-8 inches if you want a little bit of scenicking to go along with it. When you think of it that way it gets a lot easier to figure out how to squeeze in something that can work. That means you can take a 24-inch or maybe a 30-36 inch depth, split it in half with a backdrop or scenic divider, and get two very interesting and usable spaces out of it (front and back). Another thing is that there is no rule that says your bench has to be evenly divided right down the middle with no variation at all down the line. If you put a gently undulating curve in the backdrop, you would have naturally-occuring spaces that would lend themselves to a little more scenicking ("depth") as well as some visual appeal-- trains on shallow curves-- and break up ("separate") the modeled scenes a bit more.
I look forward to seeing your progress photos (feel free to post a URL if you already have some!)
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.
Cringe?? Why on earth should they cringe? I should think they would applaud you for doing your homework, figuring out what you want and what you have space for, and then figuring out a reasonable, practical way of getting it accomplished. I think you should be commended for your efforts!
fwrightjust my way of enjoying the hobby
That's what counts!
SeanthehackMadison just happens to be were I live BTW
Based on the comments I've seen, here and elsewhere, that seems to be either the number one or number two reason given for "Why I picked what I did to model." (The other answer, btw, is "Because its what I saw growing up.").
SeanthehackI realized what a waste of space that small "yard" is
On a small plan I think you may be right. Having an off-stage fiddle yard is probably a better idea.
tatansI 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.
Urban planning & development at its finest...
tatansThats 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.
He's a lumberjack and he's okayWorks all night and he sleeps all dayThen on the weekends he goes shopping....
He's a lumberjack and he's okay
Works all night and he sleeps all day
Then on the weekends he goes shopping....
DoughlessIn 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.
I think that, or something like it, is the situation for many modelers. Personally, speaking for myself, I like the look of the shelf layout-- with one addition-- I like "bump-outs" (or "Lobes" as Tony Koester would term them). I think they do a lot to "disguise" the "shelf nature" of the layout while contributing quite a bit to the layout. They don't have to be deep. Even an extra few inches can be enough to add some variety or "obstruction" to obscure the view, so you can't just look up and down the line to take the whole thing in at a glance. Another thing about "Lobes" is that you can use them to place industries at interesting angles and / or to provide additional operational space or access, which can improve the enjoyment of the layout.
DoughlessSeeing things in the flesh reveals some issues about a plan that even detailed drawings or programming software might not reveal.
I wholeheartedly concur with that opinion. Even though I know I have a really good representation of my basement space set up in the computer, and I know that the computer can lay out a curve to millimeter precision-- I often find there are things I *can* do that the computer says I cannot. And not just inconsequential things either, I'm talking about entire benchwork placements and such. Being able to *see* it and work within the space often makes a big difference in how you think of and perceive the space. While I know the computer is completely correct in its depictions, its hard to substitute the "being there and seeing it" human aspect. And to be fair, I know that in all liklihood the reason it isn't always up to expectations in the computer is due to human (meaning "me") input error. Sloppy input, can't blame the output. So I use the CAD program-- quite a bit actually-- but I also spend plenty of time with my tape measure and drawing pad actually *IN* my layout space looking, thinking, considering.
DoughlessThis 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.
Yes, that's possible. On the other hand, even in that situation its possible to lay down track in a temporary manner to be sure that's what you want. That's what I've been learning with my temporary layout-- nothing has to be cast in stone until you're ready for it to be. I myself prefer to limit the consumption of my "consumables" (track, scenicking supplies, etc) because of the expense. Even wood is somewhat expensive, though nowhere near the cost of the other stuff. So I am not minding "trying stuff out" in the temporary space first before I commit to anything. In the meantime I'm continuing to lay in supplies-- I have a pretty good idea of what I'll need so I'm actually sort of in the best of both worlds at the moment. I have the opportunity to "play and learn" while being able to sit back and take advantage of opportunities and "good deals" when they present themselves.
And even though I hate using Atlas Code 100 track, and especially turnouts, on the other hand, its reasonably cheap (cough) and my ultimate plan is to use it in the staging and hidden areas. So I was planning on having it on-hand anyway, so there's no harm in utilizing it for the temporary layout until I'm ready to go to the next step. And it gives us somewhere to run our trains in the meantime.
Thanks for your comments!
ndbprr Well I am on about on my eight layout after over forty years in the hobby
Well I am on about on my eight layout after over forty years in the hobby
Congrats! There oughta be some sort of ribbon you get for every decade or something...
ndbprr1. Use the biggest radius you can fit in the area. My HO mainline will have nothing smaller than 48" radius and larger where possible.
Yeah, its that "where possible" bit that gets most of us-- I decided I'm not going to have any more than a 2-1/2 degree curve on my layout.
(Where possible )
I know what you're saying though-- its a tradeoff whatever you do. If you're lucky enough to have lots and lots of space you have the luxury of being able to set "gold standards" for yourself and maybe meet them. There's a lot of people out there though who would count themselves lucky if they could only dictate 24-inch radius curves and stick to it. As for myself, I have the room to make the pronouncement, but I have a strong desire for more mainline and (so far) the only way I've been able to see how it can be done is to specify smaller curves-- I'm thinking in the 30-36 inch radius range-- so my turnbacks will be skinny enough to fit a couple side-by-side. I'm also double-decking most of the layout so that will add to it of course. And while I would love to have 48-inch (or even bigger) curves all over my layout, I just can't fit it all in. So I'm going to use the age-old artifice of the "tunnel", or some other misdirection, wherever I have to cheat and use smaller radius curves (28-30 inches) on the turnbacks.
ndbprr2. 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.
That one I agree with wholeheartedly. The only drawback I'd say is that its not always easy to find a plan for the prototype, nor a good explanation of why its there and how it works. If you just faithfully reproduce what you see without understanding the "why" of it-- you're not really learning anything. You're just copying what someone else did without understanding the logic behind it. But that could certainly be a way of gaining insight though, just do it, run some trains around on it and see what happens.
Taking the opposing side of the argument though-- suppose the original railroad didn't have very good engineering or track-planning skills. Suppose they went out of business for a reason-- and it wasn't supply & demand. Suppose their chief engineer only copied what some other engineer did on some other railroad-- and it didn't really work for them in their situation....? While certainly if you're following a particular prototype you might not have a lot of choice-- they did it and so should you-- even though that's why they're a "Rails-to-Trails" bicycle park in the present day...
I hear people say that a lot-- "The prototype trackage is done for a reason. Study it..." without giving people the skills or resources they need to understand it-- or to even be certain they're analyzing the right portion of it. One of my [least] favorite examples of this is in a well-known book by a well-known MRR author-- who says something to effect of "Study the prototype trackage" yada yada, and then a sentence or two before or after-- in the general vicinity-- he also says something like "the prototype may have used a runaround 10 miles away to make a section of track to work..." (not an exact quote) and when I read that-- and I have a number of times-- all I can think of is "Well, if that's the case, how in HECK could I know that!?!?!" So, in direct contradiction with the author's stated intent-- the answer is NOT clear and its NOT (necessarily) staring me right in the face when I look at some bit of prototype track or other.
There's another possibility that might be at work also-- things change. What was done "then" for one reason might be done a different way "now" for another reason-- or it might not even be being done at all now for some yet different reason. Or to complicate matters, it might have been done one way in the distant past, modified to work a different way in the recent past, and then modified again to work some other way now. And unless you have the vantage point of being able to see all three modifications in context, you can't necessarily understand it just by looking at it.
And though the adage of "Study the prototype trackage..." might be worthwhile (and probably IS worthwhile, I'm not really suggesting NOT to do it)-- its important to note that someone who is experienced in looking at track and studying rail operations is going to be able to look at it and see / understand it in far greater detail than a novice who looks at it and can't really make heads or tails out of it unless its crystal clear and there are no hidden, lost or unknown aspects.
However, all that said, I don't think you're wrong either You have to start somewhere.
MisterBeasleyI 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 definitely know and can relate to that feeling...
MisterBeasleyI 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.
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.
I, myself, didn't start out to build a 'temporary' layout-- but owing to a number of factors, that's what I've done. And over the weekend I just built a pretty nice, and large, extension to it-- well, am building, got part of it finished. The rest will go pretty quick though, just need to finish up adding legs and tying it in to the existing "temporary" layout. But it is "temporary"-- and that's not just something I'm telling myself-- regardless of how long it has to last. For awhile (a couple of years really) I was negotiating territory with my wife-- but we've finally gotten all that settled (I hope) and now its just a matter of getting the stuff to finish putting the basement back together-- the tile mostly, the wallboard and studs are cheap enough. Its going to be longer than I figured to save up for the tile, and in the meantime I have all this wood and "pink foam" I can use.... (you can see where I'm going with this... )
But, overall I think I've been pretty happy about having a "temporary" layout-- sure its a little embarrassing when people see it because its all PINK-- and to tell the truth its a little spartan as well-- but what I really like about it is the fact that I can try stuff out for very little cost other than the time it takes to do it. Its been helping me a lot to put down track and try different configurations to get an internalized sense of "how to do it"-- for switching, etc-- and even though I would consider myself definitely still a novice when it comes to the track-planning business, I already know I've grown quite a bit in my understanding of what works and what doesn't, and why trains do some of the things they do. You can read about it in books all day long-- but until you have tracks laid and are attempting to apply the "business of railroading", its difficult to really get in there and "grok" it. Its getting easier for me to look at other people's track plans and understand what they're doing and why. I find myself sometimes imagining trains running on their plans to see how it works.
I'd be happy to hear more about your expansion plans now that the witching hour is over!
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!
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.
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
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
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
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
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)
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.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
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.
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.
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
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.
Jim
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: