My track plan, finally... Would appreciate some critique/advice.


F

fotoflojoe

Member
After forging ahead on several fronts for the last few months, I've finally got a track plan together, and I'd appreciate it if the board gurus would cast a critical eye upon it.

A little background:

My total negotiated space is 10' x 22' (half the basement). Of that, 8'x22' is actually usable - I need to keep a two-foot breezeway clear for access to the basement's outside exit. The 8x22 area is completely open.

After much magazine/book reading and lurking on multiple boards, I decided that I wanted a layout with as many of the following features as possible:

- Plenty of switching; not interested in switching puzzles, I definitely want to have realistic operation.
(No offense intended to those who like switching puzzles, it's just not my cup of tea.)
- Continuous running.
- Some sort of classification yard/staging.
- Plenty of opportunity for scenic variety (Town, rural area, countryside, etc.).
- A tunnel... By god, gotta have a tunnel!
- Varying elevation. (Given up on this for the time being, one thing too many to juggle.)

The layout will be HO scale, DCC controlled.
The era modelled will be (wait for it) the transition period of the early fifties.
Even though I definitely lean toward diesel, I reserve my right to run steam! :D
Originally, I intended to model the Boston & Maine Fitchburg division as faithfully as possible. I'm still calling it that, but adherence to the prototype has pretty much gone out the window.

My original plan was to start with the Heart of Georgia layout, and modify it to suit my needs. I built the benchwork to support the layout, temporarily set up the track, and then discovered that he HOG layout wasn't really for me. That benchwork is 8'x9', but will be expanded to 8'x11' to accommodate the new plan.

After twisting, turning, and agonizing over many ideas, the following plan is what I've come up with. It looks pretty good and do-able to me, but then, it's my first actual attempt at a track plan. Please tear up the design and help me make it better.

Some notes on the plan:

- North and west are tucked into the corner, so they're at a hard stop.
- Area beyond south must be kept clear for entry/exit of the basement.
- All expansion will be to the East - I could expand up to 11' in that direction.
- North is industrial area
- West is countryside, I'll try to get Hoosac tunnel into the southwest corner.
- South is sort of a transition area back to civilization.
- East will be a fifties-era town, possibly bordering on urban.
- Entrance to the "pit" is via lift-out bridge in the southeast corner.
- Random straight track in extreme southwest is meant to be an interchange with the Maine Central.
- Extension in Northeast corner is a 48" cassette used for staging. Eventually, I'd like to fully expand into this area (2'x?') to build my yard.

In the end, there's nothing original about this plan, I've lifted so many ideas from the hundreds of layouts I've perused, and tried to incorporate what I think is best for me. However, as I said above, I'm very open to change if it makes a better layout.

It's taken about a-week-and-a-half to grind out this much of the design. So far, I'm having a really difficult time trying to decide if the trackage is too little, too much, or just right. I keep looking at certain areas and thinking "I could probably fit another spur in there...", but I'm trying really hard to avoid making a bowl of spaghetti - hopefully, I haven't already done that.

My apologies for being long-winded, I wanted to include as much information as possible from the get-go. :)

Thanks for reading this!
 
Good start...
You indicated you wanted a yard or classification area. Expand east and build a yard. It could just be a peninsula.
 
Looks like a good layout!
I like the switching areas and the single track main to keep things interesting.
One thing I would change however... a railroad would place the switch north of the river to avoid building a double track bridge. Either move the river up a little or have a dummy or abandoned track coming off south of the bridge.
 
I also like the single track mainline, i think less is more versus a double main, but thats just my opinion.
You have plenty of room for making a yard off to the east. Do you plan on adding staging or hidden staging behind a low backdrop or maybe in a tunnel?
Imop staging is a must, it adds alot to a layout.
I like your plan, you can tell you put alot of thought into it.

Hopefully some of the layout gurus on here can chime in and give you better advice
 
Thanks all.

Yes, I agree about the need for staging. My plan for that is this: At some point, an actual yard - 2'x6' approximate - will be built in the area where the cassette is now. At that time, I'll also install a scenic divider along the eastern border of the main layout. The existing track that currently meets the cassette will travel underneath some sort of overpass/bridge. This will be the passage between main layout and yard.

My reasoning is that since there will be a visual barrier, the yard will serve double-duty, being both a classification yard and staging. It makes sense to me in principle, but who knows how well it will work in practice.
 
Looks like a good start....

Not sure I followed all of your thoughts, but why not just make the layout an 8 x 22 donut instead of expanding a smaller donut later? Do you want to keep the smaller loop then expand with a shelf to the east? This approach seems like it will force you to bop in and out of the pit constantly to operate the loop portion, then the shelf portion. Head bonks are no fun.

Not to comment on the track arrangement, but for a general use of the space, I would take advantage of the walkway along the south to place staging on that part of the bench. A long backdrop that would bisect the bench lengthwise would keep the staging area separate from the operating area.

As a vision, you would stage the trains along the south bench whilst standing in the walkway. When complete, you head into the pit and operate the trains according to plan, however detailed or undetailed the plan may be. The long backdrop allows you to still have a four sided layout, and the walkway allows you access to staging when it is needed.

Edit: Better yet, if you want the look of a big classification yard, just forget about a backdrop. Bite the bullett... build a 8 x 22 foot donut with a deep enough bench at the south end to build your mainline and some switching along the inside of the donut and a 22 foot long staging/class yard along the outside of the donut with access from the walkway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, believe me, the thought of an 8x22 donut has crossed my mind many times. :)

I started smaller for a couple reasons: the 8x22 space is my entire allocation for all hobby pursuits. Since R/C airplanes are another hobby of mine, I need to reserve some space for that. Railroading appears to be rapidly overtaking R/C, but knowing myself, I'll probably always bounce between the two periodically. Also, I'd be lying if I said the thought of jumping right into an 8x22 layout didn't scare me just a bit. I was afraid of the thought of getting part way through some phase of construction and then getting burnt out. The concept of build some, operate some, build some more, operate some more, rinse, repeat, appeals to me quite a bit.

The notion of placing staging along the south is a really intriguing idea!
Thanks for that!
 
Joe,

Although I think the duck under thing could get old after a while, it seems like an interesting trackplan and scenic concept. How about switching things up so to speak, and putting 'Hoosac Tunnel' in the NW corner? Would give you a chance to detail the interior of the buildings that would otherwise be backdrop buildings.

I'm of the ilk at this point that starting smaller is better, as long as you have a well thought out concept. The B&M along the Rt. 2 Corridor is an interesting line, as I recall from my vacations up that way, as a kid in the 1970's. Keeping things small to start, and not getting in over your head, has its advantages, independent of the economy.
Otis
 
fotoflojoe said:
Oh, believe me, the thought of an 8x22 donut has crossed my mind many times. :)

I started smaller for a couple reasons: the 8x22 space is my entire allocation for all hobby pursuits. I was afraid of the thought of getting part way through some phase of construction and then getting burnt out. The concept of build some, operate some, build some more, operate some more, rinse, repeat, appeals to me quite a bit.

The notion of placing staging along the south is a really intriguing idea!
Thanks for that!
Click to expand...

Compromise between your hobbies. Take your existing plan and extend another 3 or 4 feet. Leaving you 7 to 8 feet for other hobbies. Stretching your layout will allow a longer run, more scenic options and just spread things out a bit. You don't necessarily have to add anything else except more straight track. However, like most of the above have said, working a yard or staging into the long stretch would be beneficial to you and your layout.
 
fotoflojoe
My TWP comments (4/10/12) on your plan:
Overall a good switching layout. Since you're planning on DCC you can have another train running to "get in the way" of your switching. Could be a 2-3 pax/mail/milk train or even a doodlebug. Would put the switch from the cassette to the right of east Xover. That way you have the option of cars going to mainline or siding. Think about where the cars from staging need to go, i.e which switching area & how to assemble them into a train. You could also have the cassette be 2-4 cars wide vs just one track. Then keep the cassettes on a shelf. Move left siding switch on top of river for reason given in the other forum. You wouldn't need the middle Xover if closer to the top left curve. Would think about moving #2 to build flats as most RRs (read conductors who really run the RRs) absolutely hate switchbacks. Good idea for the Main Central interchange. What other interchange RR could staging be?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I personally think you really cant get burnt out. You can always walk away from your layout and take a break from building it

Going 8x22 isnt huge but it is a good size for us beginners.
I originally planned my layout of a 10x10, then came to realize it wasnt big enough for what i wanted in having a good size mainline and industries.

Now my main level is 10x18. I have a helix planned in for one of my 360 blobs to get up to the second level where there will be a mine... the helix and second level is in a different
time, when i get far enough on the main level i will start to build up to second level.

You dont have to fully detail and finish a scene, you can always come back to it.
atleast get your track down first so you can always run trains when your working on other parts of your layout.
I cant stress that enough, its important to see your trains run so hey if you get stressed out, you can always run your trains

Just set goals. Its easy to get caught up thinking wow i have alot to do to my layout... but just relax take a deep breath and say in time. Modeling isnt a race, we all work at our own pace. I have a 2 and 4 year old so for me its hard getting alot done since they always need or want something :) i try to atleast put in atleast a hour every night sometimes i sneak in more or less time playinf with my layout.

Long story short, have fun, if its starting to become a headache, walk away. You will always come back to your layout. Walking away gives you time to think clear. Remember if it starts to drive you nuts, just take a break.. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
fotoflojoe said:
Oh, believe me, the thought of an 8x22 donut has crossed my mind many times. :)

I started smaller for a couple reasons: the 8x22 space is my entire allocation for all hobby pursuits. Since R/C airplanes are another hobby of mine, I need to reserve some space for that. Railroading appears to be rapidly overtaking R/C, but knowing myself, I'll probably always bounce between the two periodically. Also, I'd be lying if I said the thought of jumping right into an 8x22 layout didn't scare me just a bit. I was afraid of the thought of getting part way through some phase of construction and then getting burnt out. The concept of build some, operate some, build some more, operate some more, rinse, repeat, appeals to me quite a bit.

The notion of placing staging along the south is a really intriguing idea!
Thanks for that!
Click to expand...

I see, it seems like your situation is well thought out...

My main point is that I think the walkway and op pit create an opportunity to try to have a deeper than normal shelf along the south side since you'll have access on both sides. But you'll want to keep the outside reserved for aspects of the plan that need only occasional access otherwise you'll be ducking in and out of the pit a lot.

I would not expand a donut plan by adding appendages to it. I would just plan to expand the donut itself by inserting more straight track modules to the north and south benches, like another has suggested. A little more construction and lumber as you go, but far fewer operating hassels in the end.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with one of the prior posters. I would rework the lift out section so that the tracks could be straight across it. Either by extending the layout slightly to the east, or by starting the curve further to the west and angling the tracks straight across the bridge.

I would straighten the industrial sidings (not their angles just the sidings themselves) just to make coupling and uncoupling easier.

I don't see staging as too much of an issue. One could use that pre-existing dead end track on the SW corner. Take it down and curve it under the west end for a staging area.

Concerning your space for other interests/hobbies, why could that space not be "inside" of a larger donut?
 
Thanks for the great feedback everybody, I very much appreciate it!
Based on that feedback, I'm rethinking portions of the original plan, and also working up a larger plan which utilizes more of the available space and incorporates a yard from the start.

Unfortunately, we've entered a busy period at my job, so I don't have much time to spare for the fun stuff.
It's all "Go! Go! Go!" right now.

I'll post up revised and new plans as soon as they're complete.

-Joe
 
Well, it's been several months and I'm not really any closer to getting together a full sized layout. Life and work gets in the way. In the interest of creating some kind of layout, I've decided to build a shelf-style switching plan. For now, I'm going with "Ness St. Yard". I'm not sure if the plan I drew out is a variation of Shortliner Jack's or Steinjr's - I know Shortliner created the original and Steinjr made a variation, but I'm not sure which one I started with. I expanded mine to 1.5 x 8. I figure that eventually this can be integrated into whatever "big" layout I build. The only industries that I'm sure about are 5 and 6; team track and scrap yard respectively. Comments/criticisms/ideas welcomed and appreciated.
Thanks!
 
Don't know why you have the spur going to the 3 spot Xing the main. You could just as easily put a switch in place of the Xing & use that switch for another industry off the interchange track.
 
As Cajon as mentioned, the spur/crossing combo is redundant. Stein contributes to this forum so he may be able to explain better. I think the original plan by the designer required a crossing since its angle was steeper than what a turnout could provide, or, to make the spur long enough. I think through the lengthening modification process, it has become redundant. You can do what you want just because it looks cool, but I think there was more practical reason behind it in the original design.

Also, the plan was probably designed for the transition era, since the spurs tend to be short. If you are looking for a more modern look, you might want to eliminate some industries to provide room to lengthen the remaining spurs.
 
Doughless said:
As Cajon as mentioned, the spur/crossing combo is redundant.
Click to expand...
Yes but it certainly adds interest and gave me a thought that with a slight modification that track could be used as another railroads line crossing over this one. The location of the interchange track could be changed. That would be an excuse to have a differently painted locomotive show up from time to time.
 
Doughless said:
As Cajon as mentioned, the spur/crossing combo is redundant. Stein contributes to this forum so he may be able to explain better. I think the original plan by the designer required a crossing since its angle was steeper than what a turnout could provide, or, to make the spur long enough.
Click to expand...

I believe Jack's original reason for the crossing was two-fold:

1) visual interest - have a spur curve off to the right and then come back across the main track to make it come around a sharp corner on the left. A feature of really crowded conditions - like old harbor tracks or such things.

2) Jack had a short track for the industry there - so short that there wasn't room for the switcher to straighten out before uncoupling or coupling. With self centering couplers (like the standard Kadees), it is an advantage that the loco can straighten up on the track before attempting to couple to a car. Coming straight in across the crossing means that the engine is aligned with the car where coupling happens.

Not a biggie - you can certainly choose to not use the crossing if you don't want it - especially of you are using #6 turnouts and have a bit of space on the spur for the cars to straighten out.

Smile,
Stein
 
The spur curve is what initially caught my eye about the plan. So for me, visual interest is definitely the reason I used it - apart from having no idea that it may or may not be prototypical :D. Also, I'd like to try my hand at scratch-building the diamonds.

Thanks for the comments!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top