Quick Question: What Era is this from: A discussion of layout design.

[SpaceMouse]

Paul,

I'm totally amazed that you would know that. It was 40 years ago this month that it was published.

[IRONROOSTER]

Chip,
While I have the issue, it was also reprinted in "Track Planning Ideas from Model Railroader" in 1981. It is my favorite small switching layout. It is also the basis for the slightly larger Vandalia Short Line on the NMRA's site http://www.nmra.org/beginner/vandalia.html
Enjoy
Paul

[cmrproducts]

Chip

It sounds like you are planning on coming to my place on Apr 30 for OPTUD 6 (OP Till U Drop).

This is not a Club layout but my home layout, and YES it is almost a Club size layout.

And from the frustration you are expressing about trying to get all of the elements of staging, classification yard and long running, you need to see my layout to understand how I get 6 independent railroads plus the Conrail Lowgrade line to work together.

With having 5 or so levels on my layout you will be able to see first hand how there are ways to put something in here and there. When I designed my layout I was only concerned with the main level, even though it changes elevation from 36” to 60”. Most of the layout is set at the 45” level.

This design comes after many years of trying to fit it all into the first design. Now, I usually can look at a room and the layout that is there and envision that you could add a track here and a grade there. I did at one of my operators beginning layout. He was new and had only been a modeler for a year. He was frustrated with the little amount of track he was able to get into his basement. I went there just to look at how far he had progressed when he stated that he wished he had more room.

I began looking the area over and stated that he could begin a grade here and add a second level there. I pulled out my pocket tape measure and did a little checking. It would work. And then I went off the deep end and ask what is behind this wall. It was the rest of the garage! So I went out there and said well a shelf here and you could add a class yard there along the other wall and, and, and. He looked at me like I was crazy. I told him well it was just a thought. About 2 weeks later he came in and stated that he started to put the shelves in the garage, as he had done some checking and it would fit.

So what I am trying to say is to visit every layout you can. Observe how they put track in and how they used the available space. That is the key. I have found most book designs will never quite fit your area. I use these designs for just what they are, a design, not to try and duplicate them. For a beginner duplicating a layout design is one way to get some experience but it always seems that the new modeler is not happy with the layout.

Keep on trying out new designs, you will find your ultimate layout!

And see you on the 30th.

BOB H – Clarion, PA

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by IRONROOSTER

Chip,
While I have the issue, it was also reprinted in "Track Planning Ideas from Model Railroader" in 1981. It is my favorite small switching layout. It is also the basis for the slightly larger Vandalia Short Line on the NMRA's site http://www.nmra.org/beginner/vandalia.html
Enjoy
Paul

That one looks better than what I had. It also give me ideas on how to give it theme continuity. Thanks.

[SpaceMouse]

Bob,

I have it roped off on my calendar. I was told not to bring anything, but I was hoping I could run my new Atlas B&P GP38. I hear it is the right layout for it.

I cannot conceive of using someone else's track plans--not because they will or will not work, but because I have a bone-headed streak that makes me think I know what's right for me. I am studying track plans though.

the most difficult thing for me is not being able to see the track plans after they have been build. I understand this might be a limitation of space/camera/commercialism, but most layout pictures focus on details not overall inter-operablity or elevational perspective.

[cmrproducts]

Chip

Looking at a picture of a layout and seeing it in person are way different. I try and co-ordinate the pictures in the MRR mag with the places shown on the layout print they always have.

It is funny how, when you begin to really study the pictures that you can find things that really stick out, mostly that the layout is so much smaller than what the pictures lead you to believe.

Do a search on the Plum Creek railroad. This site has pictures of my layout as well as other members of the Division 11 group. The owner of the site is a member of the Division 2 (Pittsburgh group) but he was gracious enough to put the Div 11 members layout on the site also.

The owner of the site was on the layout tour we had last year. He found places on my layout and the other member’s layout that we had a hard time figuring out where they were.

Then when you come to see the layout it will look a lot different and this is not because I did anything to the layout but the camera makes the layout look a lot different.

Maybe we can get into a discussion about layout design, if there is time as things rather hectic during the OPs.

As for your B&P unit, if you have not changed the number on it, I already have that unit running as well as others available and some custom decorated units. But bring it along anyway (be sure to mark it – as there going to be about 30 people there – so far)

BOB H – Clarion, PA

[Jetrock]

Chip: Be very wary of including "switching puzzles" on your layout! Others have discussed this in depth (do a forum search for "Timesaver") but to summarize, switching puzzles are deliberately designed to be frustrating and overly complex, specifically because they are intended as puzzles, not layouts. Your industrial areas should be designed around operation of the layout as a whole--which is a whole different ball of wax from "switching puzzles."

Here's a pic of the original Gumstump & Snowshoe:

Taken from Carl Arendt's page of classic "compact layout" designs.
http://www.carendt.us/scrapbook/page4/

The idea behind a small layout is to make such a small space useful and interesting to someone who wants to operate model railroads, rather than simply create a diorama. They're kind of like a Rubik's cube or other physical puzzle--entertaining for their own sake, with some replay value, but really not that useful out of context. Real railroads generally designed their track plans to be as simple to use as possible--the vagaries of working on the railroad meant that things could get unpredictable and weird even in the best of circumstances, making real "switching puzzles" more trouble than they are worth.

Your instinct to not use others' track plans is a good one--but there is one exception: Where possible, look at how the prototype solved problems, and imitate their approaches, if not their exact dimensions.

[SpaceMouse]

Okay, No switching puzzles. I may just build it out of scraps I have sitting around though.

[Jetrock]

I suppose it's important to mention that there is a difference between a small "switching layout" and a "switching puzzle." A switching layout is designed for operation--a puzzle is designed for difficulty. A switching layout can provide operational challenges--it can't help but do so if it is small--but it is intended to make the best use of the available space, rather than the worst possible use.

Both can be fun in their own context--and are good ways to get more hands-on experience in operation. And cobbling up a quick switching-puzzle out of spare bits is an easy way to work on your skills, that you can play with afterward.

Just make sure that the switching districts on your layout are designed with switching layouts, rather than switching puzzles, in mind.

[SpaceMouse]

So, is the Gumstone and Snowshoe a Switching Layout or a switching puzzle?

[IRONROOSTER]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

So, is the Gumstone and Snowshoe a Switching Layout or a switching puzzle?

I would call it a Switching Layout. It would not be difficult to switch the cars and unlike the Timesaver or Inglenook layouts, this one does not limit capacity on the leads. Also, there is no puzzle aspect where you have to temporarily spot cars several times. The only difficulty is that is requires 2 locos since there is not runaround.

If you added a runaround in the little yard, then I think it would definitely be a switching layout. You could also use just one engine.

Enjoy
Paul

[SpaceMouse]

Below is a modification of the switching layout we've been talking about. By eliminating the crossover, I've reduced the grade to under 4%.

What it is is a mining operation in a box canyon. Two switchers can bring down 4 ore cars at a time for storage in the small yard. A geared unit can bring down two at a time without complicated manuevering. The ore cars are stored in the yard to be picked up and replaced with empties by freighters. The more I think about it the more I like the idea of increasing the elevation and grade and going with the geared unit. (any excuse right?)



On the other hand, a single geared unit would be limited in it's manueverability--getting trapped at one end or other of the layout. The turnout at the top, although useful with two switchers would be useless with a single unit.

[Jetrock]

I assume that the section at the bottom is supposed to be a runaround track--the only problem is that it is unusable as it is. There should be enough room past each switch for a locomotive and one car--assuming a short locomotive and a 40' car, that means about a foot in HO. You could reduce the length of the runaround, or if you're assuming two-engine use you could just eliminate it entirely.

Two switchers would just barely fit on those spurs--in other words, no room for the cars you're trying to move.

Getting rid of that unusable "passing track/main" section would also allow you to make use of depth--turning straight tracks into broad curves will allow more running or storage space, as well as being more realistic in representing a line going up a steep hill.

Expanding the small "yard" tracks would make a little more sense, too--no reason why they wouldn't go all the way to the edge of the table.

Why is the mine up the side of a hill?

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Jetrock

I assume that the section at the bottom is supposed to be a runaround track--the only problem is that it is unusable as it is. There should be enough room past each switch for a locomotive and one car--assuming a short locomotive and a 40' car, that means about a foot in HO. You could reduce the length of the runaround, or if you're assuming two-engine use you could just eliminate it entirely.

Actually I envisioned it as a passing siding for the main.

QUOTE: Two switchers would just barely fit on those spurs--in other words, no room for the cars you're trying to move.

Each extension beyond the turnout is 16". That leaves room for 4 26' old time hoppers or two and a geared loco.

QUOTE: Getting rid of that unusable "passing track/main" section would also allow you to make use of depth--turning straight tracks into broad curves will allow more running or storage space, as well as being more realistic in representing a line going up a steep hill.

I see your point and if I was thinking of it in terms of a stand alone...I haven't givne up on the idea of incorporating the "mine" into the basement layout.

QUOTE: Expanding the small "yard" tracks would make a little more sense, too--no reason why they wouldn't go all the way to the edge of the table.

Software glitch, the layout shifted when I saved as bitmap.

QUOTE: Why is the mine up the side of a hill?

Ore is where you find it.

[SpaceMouse]

I really didn't enviison this as a stand alone. But I admit I went at it backwards. I really liked the track configuration.

But what I envisione was just getting the ore down the hill and taking empties up. A train of empties would pull into the siding, disconnect the engine, back in to get the filled ore hoppers, back out attatch to the empties and back them into the small yard.

The engine would pop out onto main twice for a couple seconds.

[IRONROOSTER]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

...
But what I envisione was just getting the ore down the hill and taking empties up. A train of empties would pull into the siding, disconnect the engine, back in to get the filled ore hoppers, back out attatch to the empties and back them into the small yard.

The engine would pop out onto main twice for a couple seconds.

That will work, but unless the mainline is a lightly used branchline, you ought to have a run around in the yard itself.

Normally, the mine switcher would have to get clearance from the dispatcher before going on the main and might even be required to put out flagmen as well. All of this takes time and ties up the mainline. For a busy mainline, this would not be acceptable.

Just my thoughts.
Enjoy
Paul

[SpaceMouse]

I just got this vision of a cowboy flat out on horse pulling up to the 0-6-0.

"Boss says ya kaint pull out onta the main track."

"Why come?"

"Says thars a train a comin."

"Caint see no train."

"Says thars voices in his head thet told im."

Actually, the way I see it only the mainline engine would pull out on to the main and only when he had a load of about 8 full cars. Then he would back up to the empties, and pull back to the main for a couple seconds and back them into the yard. Pu***he full cars back to the train and pull out of the siding. These small steamers aren't pulling more than 6-8 26-40 footers and a caboose.

[Jetrock]

For purposes of a micro layout: If the passing track is not usable while the layout is a stand-alone unit, there isn't much point in modeling it. If it is a module for later inclusion in a layout, then the currently-unusable pasing track is fine.

A passing siding and a runaround track are basically the same thing--it isn't really intended to let trains pass each other, but rather to allow the way freight switching the mine spur to run around to the back of the train and spot the cars.

And yes, what IRONROOSTER says is true: especially in the age before in-cab radios and centralized traffic control, only tight rules about track occupancy and close attention to scheduling, coupled with safety rules like posting flagmen, prevented trains from smashing into each other with disturbing regularity.

I would still consider making the track a bit more "curvy"--mountain roads benefit from lots of gentle curves, as the track wends its way around the mountainside.

[SpaceMouse]

Sorry about the straight lines. It was one of those things where you are thinking about it in bed jump up and ru***o get it out before work. XtraCAD has a create parallel track feature that I over-used in this case. I'm still learning the program.