Good Switching layout examples?

[LoudMusic]

Golf involves hitting a smallish ball. And tennis involves hitting a smallish ball. You certainly can hit a golf ball with a tennis racquet, or a tennis ball with a golf club, but that does not necessarily mean that it a brilliant idea to use a golf ball when you play tennis, or a tennis ball when you play golf.

If your goal is to simulate switching in a small town in a somewhat realistic way (which seems to be the original poster's goal), it is not very clear that creating a puzzle switching game is a good way of achieving that goal.

There are many ways of creating small switching layouts that create challenges without being a "combination of Rubiks cube and a Time Trial", as Craig so eloquently put it.

Lance Mindheim has a series of books (which you can find e.g. on Amazon) about how to design, how to build, and how to operate a small switching layout based on prototypical practices.

Smile,
Stein

I think there's too much emphasis on prototype in layout construction. Union Pacific, Santa Fe, Burlington Northern, CSX, CP ... all the thousands of smaller and shortline railroads ... they didn't build their track configurations for "the enjoyment of running trains". If you more accurately mimic prototypical design opportunities the layout will become more dull, making train moves as simple and efficient as possible. I don't want that! I want it to be really interesting with lots of moving around, back and forth, turnout control, pickups and drops, pushing and pulling the same car, waiting for track to clear, and require some thought process as to how to get to a car and how to put it where it needs to be.

I don't see anything wrong with taking a 'puzzle' layout and expanding it so that scenery fits. I don't know that 'Time Saver' is the exact arrangement I'd go with, but using it as an example, it seems like it could be a good small town on a bigger layout. Though again, I'd probably stretch it out so that more buildings and scenery could find their way in between the tracks.

 

[nwdrummer379]

I've knocked the small town out, no room to justify that. Once I figure out a way to save the Atlas software design as an image file I'll show you guys.

-Jeff

 

[steinjr]

I have seen that trackplan pop up from time to time and have often wondered the same thing. It seems like the "frog" of the crossing and the frog of the switch are the same number, so a switch should work there too.

Well, if access to that spur is straight across over the crossing, your engine will not be coupling or uncoupling on a curve (as it would if you put a 5.5" car into a 6" spur off a Peco small turnout).

Also - doing a track that curves away and the recrosses the track it would look visually more interesting for a layout set in a crowded urban neighborhood.

Still - seemingly not what the OP was looking for - which sounded more like a small town feeling on an L-shaped layout 2 feet deep, stretching 8 feet out from the corner along one wall and 10 feet (8 feet of shelf, 2 feet of width on the other leg) out from the corner along the adjacent wall.

This is how the OP described his vision
"Small town industrial setting
Small engine facility
Chemical facility (walthers interstate oil)
rail/truck terminal (I have the city classics kit)
A couple of back ground industries like warehouses to spot box cars at.
Lumber yard
Grain elevator
Finally a small 3 to 4 track yard to interchange cars in and out.
"

Which is why I suggested he had a look at this plan - which seemingly goes a long way towards what he is looking for:

(It is a track plan heavily inspired by a track plan by Robert J Beaty).

As for random plans not in particular related to the OPs desires - here is my small H0 scale switching layout:

Smile,
Stein

 

[steinjr]

I think there's too much emphasis on prototype in layout construction. Union Pacific, Santa Fe, Burlington Northern, CSX, CP ... all the thousands of smaller and shortline railroads ... they didn't build their track configurations for "the enjoyment of running trains". If you more accurately mimic prototypical design opportunities the layout will become more dull, making train moves as simple and efficient as possible. I don't want that! I want it to be really interesting with lots of moving around, back and forth, turnout control, pickups and drops, pushing and pulling the same car, waiting for track to clear, and require some thought process as to how to get to a car and how to put it where it needs to be.

Dull is as dull does. Here is a track configuration:

Your engine has arrived with three cars. There are five cars spotted at industries, three of which should be pulled, and there are three inbound cars at the WP/SP interchange.

Of the three cars you have with you,
- one will go to the WP/SP interchange
- one will be spotted at Superior canning, door 1 (replacing the car there)
- one will be spotted at the team spot (replacing the car there)

WP/SP interchange
- one will be spotted at Frosty cold storage door 1
- one will be spotted at the lumber unloading (replacing the car there)
- one will be spotted at the mobile oil track (on the inside of the car there)

Superior canning:
- the car at door 1 will be pulled and brought back to the yard
- a new car (from your train) must be spotted at door 1

Frosty Cold storage:
- A new car (from WP/SP interchange) will be spotted at door 1
- The car at door 2 must be put back - it is not done unloading

Team spot
- One car will be pulled and brought back to yard
- One car (from your train) will be spotted

Lumberyard
- One car will be pulled and left on WP/SP interchange
- One car (from WP/SP interchange) will be spotted

Mobil oil
- Old tank car will be pulled,
- New tank car (from WP/SP interchange) will be spotted at end of track
- Old car spotted "on top of" (in front of) new car

You now have one to two hours of switching. The challenge is not "move the missing tile" or "my switching lead is so short that I can only fit the engine and one car", but to think through your moves.

Smile,
Stein

 

[cuyama]

Operating fun without puzzles

Stein posted his HO adaptation of my 18"X72" N scale switching layout. As he noted, even without any artificial "puzzle" constraints, there is a lot of challenge and enjoyment in a layout designed to operate realistically and logically.

(Labeled view as an attachment below)

I've operated my version dozens of times, and it has really been enjoyable. I honestly never thought I would find it engaging for so long. Much better than a "shift the empty spot" timesaver in not much more room. Even without scenery!

For a long while I used a series of three interleaved switchlists (where one left off the next began). I have one of those posted on the web page linked above.

Eventually I added car cards and waybills to add even more variety. Using prototype concepts such as shifts, seasonality, and varying customer demands creates plenty of operating interest with no puzzle frustration for me.

 

[nwdrummer379]

Here's what I came up with as a rough draft, open to critisism and suggestions.

 

[Doughless]

Well, if access to that spur is straight across over the crossing, your engine will not be coupling or uncoupling on a curve (as it would if you put a 5.5" car into a 6" spur off a Peco small turnout).

Thanks for clearing that up Stein. Having no experience with the software used, my eye didn't detect a difference between using a crossing and a turnout there. Thought it was strictly for visual interest.

 

[Doughless]

Here's what I came up with as a rough draft, open to critisism and suggestions.

Stein and Cuyama are experts at this, so I don't want to tread on their turf, but I have a few suggestions:

Your curved runaround makes it difficult to couple cars, since it is so sharp. I would want straight sections of track of at least 12 inches between the curved portions and the turnouts. Stein's L shaped plan has broad enough curves to where coupling should not be an issue. If you look closely, his adaptation of Cuyama's plan eliminates the curved section that Cuyama's plan has. I suspect the curved section in Cuyama's plan is not intended for coupling to take place there, probably just a lengthening of the runaround for other reasons. Also, the runaround on his plan has a long straight section to locate cars for coupling/uncoupling.

You may want to flip the auto parts bldg with its track, placing the building next to the wall. Most rail served buildings on layouts are really too small to look right. Unavoidable. But having a building in the corner allows for a three sided structure that gives the impression that it continues beyond the scene. Makes the track more accessible too

Also, think about where roads will be located. Notice how with both Stein's and Cuyama's plans, the roads look linear. Also, they do not cross a turnout over any moving parts or frogs. This may be a reason why Cuyama lengthened that runaround with a curved section, in consideration of where the road would go.

With your plan, it is hard to vision where roads will be without them being chopped up, which tends to look more toy like.

Generally, a plan that looks more realistic in that way will also tend to operate better. You tend to get interesting switching without so many frustrating back and forth moves to nowhere, not that yours has a lot of that.

 

[nwdrummer379]

Thanks for your input sir. First I fixed the goof up with the auto parts plant. It is now against the wall and will be of course, A back ground structure. Probably the Bud's Trucking kit from Walthers. Second the roads are merely driveways serving the industries. No grade crossings are planned either. Third, When it comes to switching cars I would move 2-3 at a time. When either placing them on the run around track or the curve above it I don't think coupling should be a problem. If I have to place the cars on the curve above the run around track I could back them onto the ladder.

 

[cuyama]

Without getting into too much detail on your plan, I would encourage you to think about overlapping layout elements even more than you have done so far.

The runaround can overlap industry tracks and even a portion of the interchange tracks. This approach allows all to be longer and less tightly curved, perhaps.

There's another example with the different elements of the HO switching layout attached below color-coded on this page

Best of luck.

 

[nwdrummer379]

I appreciate all input given fellas! I feel pretty good about my current design, I'll be using it as a base and tweak it a bit here and there.

 

[steinjr]

I appreciate all input given fellas! I feel pretty good about my current design, I'll be using it as a base and tweak it a bit here and there.

1) If you actually take two 2x8 foot boards and mount them in an L shape, you get a shape that goes 8 foot out along one wall and 10 foot out along the other wall (since the second board butts up against the edge of the first board - which builds 2 feet out from the wall ..)

I am not sure whether you actually have two 2x8 foot boards, or whether you meant that you wanted to go 8 foot out from the corner along each wall - but it does make a difference for a layout this size.

2) That runaround will not work well - the curve radius is way too sharp.

Smile,
Stein

 

[nwdrummer379]

1) If you actually take two 2x8 foot boards and mount them in an L shape, you get a shape that goes 8 foot out along one wall and 10 foot out along the other wall (since the second board butts up against the edge of the first board - which builds 2 feet out from the wall ..)

I am not sure whether you actually have two 2x8 foot boards, or whether you meant that you wanted to go 8 foot out from the corner along each wall - but it does make a difference for a layout this size.

2) That runaround will not work well - the curve radius is way too sharp.

Smile,
Stein

I do have two 2x8 foot boards. I think the only reason I would go 10 feet out on the upper wall is to make the runaround track longer, The top radius is 18" and the runaround track radius is 22"

-Jeff

 

[steinjr]

I do have two 2x8 foot boards. I think the only reason I would go 10 feet out on the upper wall is to make the runaround track longer, The top radius is 18" and the runaround track radius is 22"

A rule of the thumb is that you get automatic coupling with standard self-centering couplers at a radius that is about 5 times the length of your rolling stock.

40' (1950s style) cars are about 5.5" long in H0 scale - a good radius for automatic coupling would be around 28" radius (or more). Modern cars are longer.

22" radius is perfectly appropriate for automatic coupling for cars that are 22/5 = 4.4" long. That would be, in H0 scale, about 4.4" x 87.1 = 383" - i.e. 31 foot long. Are you planning to run only short iron ore cars?

You can of course compensate for coupling challenges on curves by replacing centering couplers (ala Kadees) with non-centering couplers (like Sargent - sp?).

But it would look better and work better if you did not do undersized curves when there is no need to do so.

As for making an already small layout smaller - it is not immediately obvious to me why you would want to do so, if you have the space available for using two 2x8 foot boards as they are.

But it is your layout - you get to make the decisions, and you get to learn what works for you and what does not work for you.

Smile,
Stein

 

[nwdrummer379]

I went back to the drawing board and came up with this, the runaround curves are now 24", a little better? The longest cars will be 54' long.

 

[steinjr]

Smile,
Stein

 

[Doughless]

I went back to the drawing board and came up with this, the runaround curves are now 24", a little better? The longest cars will be 54' long.

Not really better.

Do you need the runaround on the curve, in the middle of the plan?

All you really need for a runaround to be effective is enough room for the engine to clear the switch on one side. You don't need 3 feet of clearence on both sides. Therefore, you could locate the runaround on the ends of one of the legs of the layout, rather than the center of the layout. Have some spurs originate from the center of the layout, or some off of the runaround itself. The spurs that don't need the runaround can be located anywhere you have enough clearence to switch them.

This configuration will probably require a crossing or two, since some of the spurs will probably overlap.

As it stands, your plan tends to have both facing and traling spurs located at the ends of the runaround. This is making it more difficult to fit everything in and is requiring switchbacks and leads, which require two tracks to switch one industry. Not a lot of room on the layout for excessive track.

 

[LoudMusic]

Observing Stein's example, if you can get away from the rigid parallel to the edge of the table design you'll end up with a lot more interesting operation, and design opportunities.

 

[nwdrummer379]

Well, if access to that spur is straight across over the crossing, your engine will not be coupling or uncoupling on a curve (as it would if you put a 5.5" car into a 6" spur off a Peco small turnout).

Also - doing a track that curves away and the recrosses the track it would look visually more interesting for a layout set in a crowded urban neighborhood.

Still - seemingly not what the OP was looking for - which sounded more like a small town feeling on an L-shaped layout 2 feet deep, stretching 8 feet out from the corner along one wall and 10 feet (8 feet of shelf, 2 feet of width on the other leg) out from the corner along the adjacent wall.

This is how the OP described his vision
"Small town industrial setting
Small engine facility
Chemical facility (walthers interstate oil)
rail/truck terminal (I have the city classics kit)
A couple of back ground industries like warehouses to spot box cars at.
Lumber yard
Grain elevator
Finally a small 3 to 4 track yard to interchange cars in and out.
"

Which is why I suggested he had a look at this plan - which seemingly goes a long way towards what he is looking for:

(It is a track plan heavily inspired by a track plan by Robert J Beaty).


Smile,
Stein

Is there a list of track for this plan? I caved on my own, that was a stupid design now that I think about it

 

[steinjr]

Is there a list of track for this plan?

Well, I drew it with Peco code 75 medium turnouts (7 LH, 5 RH) for everything but the first turnout in the yard, which is a Peco code 75 curved left turnout. The rest is just flex track.

Don't know what track Robert Beaty (the guy who made the original design I based that track plan on) used for his layout.

Smile,
Stein