Back from the drawing board

[Wheels70]

After spending quite a lot of time designing and redesigning my layout, I decided I ought to run some virtual trains on it. Lesson learned: you ain't got a layout if you can't run your trains.

So I'm fresh back from the drawing board with a slight (ha ha) revision. This time, I ran trains on it first. I put about forty 40' cars, 3 cabeese, and 5 locos (3 road haulers and 2 switchers) on the track and I could still run trains and do some switching, although it got a bit delicate.

Here's the plan, with a few comments on it and notes following:

The switch at (1) is a single-slip. I've read about the reliability problems of double-slip switches, but I didn't find much about their single-slip brethren. Should I just go with two regular switches and be done with it, or am I (probably) okay here?

Not shown here are elevations/grades. I have a maximum 2.8% grade on the main (on the reverse loop), and the short section from the spurs on the reverse loop to the logging camp at the far northeast corner is 3.6%. Minimum vertical clearance is 3.5".

Operationally, the railroad is an out-and-back. Trains leave the yard going towards the left ("westbound"), bound for the rest of the layout, and arrive from the left (going "eastbound") via the reverse loop, in a loads-out/empties-in fashion. There is also a loop for "watch the trains go 'round" interest.

I'll stop now before I bore you (further)...as always I appreciate any comments and feedback. Thanks for reading!

Thomas

 

[steinjr]

Now draw some rectangles showing the footprint of your buildings. Do you have room for any?

You wanted to have a yard - you now have no yard whatsoever.

Have a look at the old Red Wing plan, as improved by Byron Henderson:
http://www.layoutvision.com/id49.html

As you can see, he is not trying to cram in the maximum amount of tracks. He is not trying to create several alternate paths for trains around the table.

He is creating three small scenes - a yard in one corner, a large industry on the same side of the backdrop, and a small town.

Sometimes less really is more.

Smile,
Stein

 

[Burlington Bob]

What brand of spaghetti sauce do plan on using on your layout? I would recommend that you spend a good amount of time reading the wealth of info on www.layoutvision.com. There is a lot to said for a more open track plan that will allow some room for sceanery as well as industrial buildings.

 

[Pete V]

If you buy into the idea that a railroad needs a purpose, I think it worth asking yourself what is it that you think this does? Stein is right about the disappearing yard and it is a lot of track. If you like to run trains, it works OK. If you want to landscape it in any meaningful way, it's going to be a major challenge.

I tried too much track on my first attempt. I did make cardboard cutouts of the structures- to scale for the major structures and I strongly advise you to do that. It made it clear that their was no space for roads to get to those industries and was forcing a wall to wall installation which wasn't going to look very good. An 80' long scale station is almost a foot long. This is a 5x9 layout. What are you going to do?

 

[Wheels70]

Here's a bit more of the backstory and my goals.

After tossing out a good chunk of my last design, I put together something that had a lot less track. Then I put trains on it and ran them (in Xtrkcad). Operationally, it was (for me) a disaster. I could do a little switching but for the most part operating the layout consisted of sending a train around and dropping off/picking up a couple cars here and there. That's just...boring.

I've tried to fulfill my dual primary goals of operations and scenicking by using the viewblock: The bottom half of the layout supports operational interest at the expense of scenicking, and the top half is more about scenicking than operating potential. I am planning to use flats and smaller structures along the bottom half, recognizing that it still may not look great.

I agree, it's a lot of track (and Bob, I think I may have to put in a spaghetti sauce plant to honor your comment ). I have thought about where the structures ought to go, but I haven't tried placing them for real yet. That, along with scenery design, was going to be my next design step (considering Google Sketchup for this purpose since Xtrkcad doesn't have 3D rendering). It may be that I will find I don't have quite enough "givens" to support my "druthers" when I take this step.

With all that said, if you think this design will not support my goals/desires as stated above, please say something. I will also go back to my drawing board and see what I can do to reduce trackage without impacting operations appreciably, and welcome any thoughts on what I could do in this regard.

Thanks!

Thomas

 

[steinjr]

After tossing out a good chunk of my last design, I put together something that had a lot less track. Then I put trains on it and ran them (in Xtrkcad). Operationally, it was (for me) a disaster. I could do a little switching but for the most part operating the layout consisted of sending a train around and dropping off/picking up a couple cars here and there. That's just...boring.

I think the question becomes what you want to do. With a simple design like the Henderson variation of the Red Wing plan (see previous link), you can have a train that picks up cars from the town, and take them to the yard, pull the interchange track, put the outbound cars in the interchange track (and possibly in another track), then sort inbound cars by destination.

Then you take inbound cars for the industry on the same side as the interchange track, loop around the layout, run around your cars, pull outbound cars from your industry, spot inbound cars, respot any cars that are not supposed to be pulled, then take outbound cars from that industry back to the yard.

Now you run another train from your yard to the town (on the far side of the layout) with inbound cars for the town). Pull outbound cars from the town, spot inbound cars, respot any cars not supposed to be pulled, take outbounds back to the yard, maybe put some of them on the interchange track (which may have been emptied by hand in the meantime), before finally taking your engine back to the town to tie down for the night.

A small layout is by it's nature run and switch. It is how you run and switch which makes it more or less interesting.

For instance - instead of having four short spurs with room for one car each, having ine long spur with room for four cars, where specific cars have to be spotted at specific spots.

Say beverages have to be unloaded at door 1, frozen goods at door 2, produce at door 3, and various canned items at door 4.

Add that some cars are not yet unloaded and will have to be put back if they need to be pulled to place cars inside them, and that maybe you will have an excess car or two which will have to be placed somewhere nearby temporarily.

You now have to jockey around to inbound cars sorted in the right order, and you are running trains with a purpose.

Smile,
Stein

 

[joed2323]

Steinjr- u are like model train god. You are very smart, and very understandingl Unless im just so stupid, u make everything seem way to easy. Thanks for guiding ppl in the right direction.

 

[Wheels70]

I think the question becomes what you want to do. With a simple design like the Henderson variation of the Red Wing plan (see previous link), you can have a train that picks up cars from the town, and take them to the yard, pull the interchange track, put the outbound cars in the interchange track (and possibly in another track), then sort inbound cars by destination.

...

For instance - instead of having four short spurs with room for one car each, having ine long spur with room for four cars, where specific cars have to be spotted at specific spots.

Smile,
Stein

Hey Stein, you just made my day with that post. One long spur, several industries. Operational interest, less track and more space for structures. Yes!

BTW, that URL you posted looked familiar, and so did the name. So I had a look -- and it turns out that track plan was the one I picked as a starting point. It looked good and I figured I could adapt it to my 5x9 space without a lot of time/effort spent.... Well....

Thanks again. All this "design time" is getting a little old, but I know the things I'm learning from everyone here will pay off when it's time to nail track to cork.

Thomas

 

[steinjr]

Steinjr- u are like model train god. You are very smart, and very understandingl Unless im just so stupid, u make everything seem way to easy. Thanks for guiding ppl in the right direction.

Thank you for the kind words.

I can assure you that I am most definitely not a model railroading god - and that can be attested by anyone who have seen the wiring beneath my layouts, and how it takes me forever to go from operational tracks to ballasting and scenery work

Smile,
Stein

 

[steinjr]

Hey Stein, you just made my day with that post. One long spur, several industries. Operational interest, less track and more space for structures. Yes!

BTW, that URL you posted looked familiar, and so did the name. So I had a look -- and it turns out that track plan was the one I picked as a starting point. It looked good and I figured I could adapt it to my 5x9 space without a lot of time/effort spent.... Well....

Thanks again. All this "design time" is getting a little old, but I know the things I'm learning from everyone here will pay off when it's time to nail track to cork.

Well, I can't claim that it is a new idea of mine - "sure spots" is a concept that has been around in the layout design community for several years.

E.g. Lance Mindheim has long been a great proponent of that concept - he even came out with a couple of small book with suggestions on how to design and operate small switching layouts:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Design-Small-Switching-Layout/dp/1449505643

http://www.amazon.com/How-Operate-Modern-Switching-Layout/dp/1467956996

Richard Schumacher of the Gateway (St.Louis) Chapter of the NMRA has a nice little introduction to planning operations at their web site: http://www.gatewaynmra.org/designops.htm

And Byron Henderson has several pages of good tips on his web site.

Smile,
Stein

 

[Doughless]

and it turns out that track plan was the one I picked as a starting point. It looked good and I figured I could adapt it to my 5x9 space without a lot of time/effort spent.... Well....

Thomas

Hmmm....so you're moving from a 1/2 logging 1/2 industrial layout to a small town granger theme?

Sound design concepts for operating your layout apply to each, but achieving realism is not as easy with the granger on a 5 x 9.

On a 4x8 or a 5x9 loop layout, the sharp curves dominate the layout. Unavoidable. Almost never can you find sharp curves on a small town granger railroad, so I don't think that is the best theme for a small layout. OTOH sharp curves are common on logging railroads and in tight urban spaces.

I would stick with your current plan and modify it, heavily if needed, to achieve the more sound operating qualities suggested by Stein:

1. With an out an back concept, you will not need a reversing loop at the logging camp. You do need a runaround and a turntable (to turn a steam locomotive). Fortunately, that takes less space than a reverse loop does, so you could eliminate the loop and gain some more real estate. Also, you might be able to reduce the grade on the logging spur a bit since it won't have to clear the loop.

2. Loop 1 main should be tightly next to loop 2, which would allow you to flip the loco servicing and such to the outside with the yard.

3. Thin out the number of tracks in the industrial zone. Having a few longer tracks is better than many short ones.

If you want to change to a midwest granger, just lengthen and widen Byron's plan by a foot in the middle of each side.

 

[joed2323]

Thank you for the kind words.

I can assure you that I am most definitely not a model railroading god - and that can be attested by anyone who have seen the wiring beneath my layouts, and how it takes me forever to go from operational tracks to ballasting and scenery work

Smile,
Stein

Sorry for hijacking this thread but stein if you dont mind me askin what do you run on your layout dc or dcc and what system do you have pushing your trains around? Ive been curious ... thanks

 

[psychobeagle12]

I can assure you that I am most definitely not a model railroading god - and that can be attested by anyone who have seen the wiring beneath my layouts, and how it takes me forever to go from operational tracks to ballasting and scenery work

HAHAHAHAHA!!! That sounds just like me!!! If I had my layout to do over again I would make sure that I incorporated operations for interest. I think that stein's advice is sound for sure. I wish I had asked these kinds of questions before I started. Luckily for me this is not the last layout that I have planned

 

[Wheels70]

Thanks again for the feedback, all. So much to learn...and I haven't even put down a piece of track yet! I've spent an hour or so reading about sure spots and some other operational concepts, and I am going to do some more studying and then go back to the drafting table (aka laptop equipped with Xtrkcad).

Doughless, I think I see the benefits of your ideas. I'll give them a try, and am also going to revisit the previous plan -- which I also like quite a bit -- and see what happens when I apply my new "operational wisdom" .

Thomas

 

[steinjr]

Sorry for hijacking this thread but stein if you dont mind me askin what do you run on your layout dc or dcc and what system do you have pushing your trains around? Ive been curious ... thanks

Nothing very advanced, I am afraid. I have two small layouts - one small 11 foot x 15" or so switching layout upstairs operational, and one aound the walls layout in a room about 6.5 x 11.5 foot downstairs - probably about 60% operational downstairs (I cannibalized some turnouts from it to do my smaller switching layout ...).

I am basically just doing switching with one operator. I use DCC - but that's mostly because of sound and because it is easier to have a couple of engines interact with DCC - not because I am have many operators.

To run, I just generate a small scenerio - a sort of switchlist, using a simple excel file, modified from an idea by Mike Rose, modified first by Dave Husman (posted in the Model Railroad Hobbyist forum), and then further modified by me.

Nothing very fancy - I just mark off what spots are currently occupied, and generate a list of which occupied spots to pull, and where to spot new cars.

I could have just written the lists by hand, but I like having it at least semi-random.

Smile,
Stein

 

[Burlington Bob]

Thomas, please don't take offense at my sauce comment. On my first layout, I made a twisted, tangled mess of track that looked good to me on paper. Less than halfway through putting everything together, I saw what a mistake I was making. Then, I went on to make dozens more. I wish I had the resource that this board provides available to me then. I would still have made mistakes, just hopefully far fewer of them.

Seriously, consider having an industry, Bob's Sauces or some such. Ten years from now you will get a kick out of remembering your beginning attempts at the hobby. Plus, I would be honored to have had a small influence on your layout. Also, it could provide for an assortment of cars to switch, from tank cars for bulk ingredients to boxcars for finished product.

If you were in N scale, you could have a small yard at one end leading to a large town at the other end for switching an industrial area. You could have a twice around with a spur or two along the way. Run a local between the two, maybe pulling the cars to and pushing them back. A chance to do a lot of operating in a small area. It's still possible to do that in HO, but it will be more limited due to size restrictions. Good luck, Bob.

 

[Wheels70]

Bob, no offense taken. I admit your comment stung for a moment (Oh! My wounded pride!) but when I looked at my plan had to laugh. And "Uncle Bob's Sauces" is definitely going to be part of the plan!

Okay everyone, I have made a few changes to the two most recent plans, I appreciate any feedback.

On the left -- removed the outside loop, converted the reverse loop into a turntable and runaround, and simplified the industry tracks.

On the right -- added a couple of runarounds in the yard and a couple yard tracks, removed the crossover on top between the loops, and simplified the industry tracks.

I think they need more work (simplification?) but hopefully there is some improvement....

Thomas

 

[Wheels70]

Okay I've been thinking about this all day, and I've either had an inspiration or a brain fart -- hopefully an inspiration. I'm going to approach this from a different angle: rather than see how much yard trackage I can fit, I'm going to spot some cars, put together some train orders, and then create just enough yard tracks to support those moves. Then I'll know how much yard track I really need, rather than assuming I need all I can get.

Thomas

 

[Burlington Bob]

Thomas, I think you are taking a good approach to planning your layout. Thanks for the inclusion of Uncle Bob's Sauces! Please post pictures if you definitely do include it in your finished layout. Good luck, Bob.

 

[Doughless]

I'm going to approach this from a different angle: rather than see how much yard trackage I can fit, I'm going to spot some cars, put together some train orders, and then create just enough yard tracks to support those moves. Then I'll know how much yard track I really need, rather than assuming I need all I can get.

Thomas

Yippie! That's the way to do it. That approach also applies to the number and the length of spurs and runarounds you need. You don't want to make a four car runaround for a five car train. And to save as much space as possible on a 4X8, you don't want to make a five car runaround for a four car train. This approach will also allow you to determine exactly where a turnout should be placed to maximize spur length and operations, and maybe realize some spurs may just not work where they are. You might find that you still have a wee bit too many spurs on the layout.

I think both plans are much better than what you started with. I like the one on the left better. It could use a crossover to the main on the S side to make a continuous run loop, if you hadn't noticed.