New around the walls layout
- Thread starter GMTrainNut
- Start date
GMTrainNut
Member
Sorry for disappearing for a few days, like I mentioned earlier work tends to rule my life during the week. But in my travels I did bring the John Armstrong bible as well as one of Tony Koester's books with me for when I had down time.
Devin,
Believe me, I am more grateful for the feedback I've gotten in this thread than you can imagine! Great bunch of folks here.
Ok, so here's a couple more plans that I put together (oriented the right way so no head tilting is required!). This first one is a revision of the last plan that incorporates some of the items mentioned by Paul and Doughless (thanks guys). The runaround in the NE corner looks a little awkward, will have to play around with that some more. But I like the new arrangement of the S wall for sure.
The second plan is my first attempt at Doughless' plan. Which, by the way, I can't thank you enough for taking the time to do that for me, it's very much appreciated! There are some rough spots that need to be ironed out, again I'd rather the runarounds were straighter. But it's at least down on virtual paper.
I'm thinking that maybe I need to be a little more realistic about the standards for the layout. These plans are drawn using all #6 turnouts on the main, #7.5" curved turnouts, and a 26" minimum radius. Might be just a little lofty for a slow speed branch line/shortline type of operation...
Thanks again for all the feedback.
Devin,
Believe me, I am more grateful for the feedback I've gotten in this thread than you can imagine! Great bunch of folks here.
Ok, so here's a couple more plans that I put together (oriented the right way so no head tilting is required!). This first one is a revision of the last plan that incorporates some of the items mentioned by Paul and Doughless (thanks guys). The runaround in the NE corner looks a little awkward, will have to play around with that some more. But I like the new arrangement of the S wall for sure.
The second plan is my first attempt at Doughless' plan. Which, by the way, I can't thank you enough for taking the time to do that for me, it's very much appreciated! There are some rough spots that need to be ironed out, again I'd rather the runarounds were straighter. But it's at least down on virtual paper.
I'm thinking that maybe I need to be a little more realistic about the standards for the layout. These plans are drawn using all #6 turnouts on the main, #7.5" curved turnouts, and a 26" minimum radius. Might be just a little lofty for a slow speed branch line/shortline type of operation...
Thanks again for all the feedback.
GM,
I like the plan overall and you have gotten some great advise from some experienced modelers. Your plan has a lot similarities to the layout I just took down. The only thing I have to add is watch out how close you get track to the backdrop. I found anything less than 2-3” made it difficult to fit in a convincing tree line, building flat with a loading dock, etc.
I like the plan overall and you have gotten some great advise from some experienced modelers. Your plan has a lot similarities to the layout I just took down. The only thing I have to add is watch out how close you get track to the backdrop. I found anything less than 2-3” made it difficult to fit in a convincing tree line, building flat with a loading dock, etc.
I like both plans. If you have the space for the broader curves, you will not regret it. The trains will definitely look better on the broader curves and it will work just fine for a short line or branch line.
If you build the second plan, you want to be sure you can switch the scrapyard by having enough space for a locomotive and car(s) to clear the turnout. It looks a little tight between the points of the turnout and the drop in.
Now that the plan has been drawn more to scale, it looks like you could fit another industry in the NE.
Looks good.
If you build the second plan, you want to be sure you can switch the scrapyard by having enough space for a locomotive and car(s) to clear the turnout. It looks a little tight between the points of the turnout and the drop in.
Now that the plan has been drawn more to scale, it looks like you could fit another industry in the NE.
Looks good.
GMTrainNut
Member
Thanks for the replies. Good point Joe, I will pull everything in a bit from the edges as I perfect the plan. Hey, just curious...any particular reason you tore down the layout? Anything that you didn't like about it...or, hopefully, you acquired more space??
Doughless,
What can I say, you've been such a help with this. Good catch on the scrap yard in plan 2, there's only about 17" between the points and the liftout as drawn. Will shift things around a bit. Agree that the NE corner has a hole in it that could be filled with another industry, or perhaps a second track for the "blue" industry.
Here's some random thoughts as I sit here and stare at these plans...
Plan 1)
I still hesitate slightly on having a curved yard, even though it's only a small portion of the yard tracks that are curved. I checked the radii, one is about 34", the other just under 32". But I do like the fact that the yard is close to the aisle.
Typical operation: I envision assembling a train on the runaround by the yard, then heading west, perhaps doing some work at industries C and D, then heading on to the interchange and scrap yard. Do the runaround, then head back, serving industries A and B.
Now, if I've got cars from the interchange for C or D, I've got a choice of either pushing them from the runaround by the interchange, or using the runaround all the way over by the yard. Or, add a short runaround on the W wall, or on the N wall and have industry B come off the runaround.
But most importantly I'm trying to picture how to arrive back at the yard. First thought is I pull into the yard runaround, then run the power around on the main to the other side of the train, back up and shove into the yard. This seems like the logical way of doing things, unless I wanted to use separate road and yard power (which I don't have my heart set on, but it might make it a little more interesting). In this case maybe a switcher pocket would be a good idea.
Plan 2)
I've got to get the runarounds a little straighter. I certainly don't want a stiff racetrack type of plan here, but the way I've drawn them now just looks funny. More tweaking to be done here.
The yard against the wall is only a minor concern, it's not like it's going to be a major classification yard! And it is a straight yard.
The tiny industrial spur off the runaround by the yard looks too short to be much of anything, except maybe a team track. Again, some shifting around might lead to a way to have a longer spur here.
Bottom line is I'm close, real close, and that is a good thing. Thanks to all!
Doughless,
What can I say, you've been such a help with this. Good catch on the scrap yard in plan 2, there's only about 17" between the points and the liftout as drawn. Will shift things around a bit. Agree that the NE corner has a hole in it that could be filled with another industry, or perhaps a second track for the "blue" industry.
Here's some random thoughts as I sit here and stare at these plans...
Plan 1)
I still hesitate slightly on having a curved yard, even though it's only a small portion of the yard tracks that are curved. I checked the radii, one is about 34", the other just under 32". But I do like the fact that the yard is close to the aisle.
Typical operation: I envision assembling a train on the runaround by the yard, then heading west, perhaps doing some work at industries C and D, then heading on to the interchange and scrap yard. Do the runaround, then head back, serving industries A and B.
Now, if I've got cars from the interchange for C or D, I've got a choice of either pushing them from the runaround by the interchange, or using the runaround all the way over by the yard. Or, add a short runaround on the W wall, or on the N wall and have industry B come off the runaround.
But most importantly I'm trying to picture how to arrive back at the yard. First thought is I pull into the yard runaround, then run the power around on the main to the other side of the train, back up and shove into the yard. This seems like the logical way of doing things, unless I wanted to use separate road and yard power (which I don't have my heart set on, but it might make it a little more interesting). In this case maybe a switcher pocket would be a good idea.
Plan 2)
I've got to get the runarounds a little straighter. I certainly don't want a stiff racetrack type of plan here, but the way I've drawn them now just looks funny. More tweaking to be done here.
The yard against the wall is only a minor concern, it's not like it's going to be a major classification yard! And it is a straight yard.
The tiny industrial spur off the runaround by the yard looks too short to be much of anything, except maybe a team track. Again, some shifting around might lead to a way to have a longer spur here.
Bottom line is I'm close, real close, and that is a good thing. Thanks to all!
Cjcrescent
Master Mechanic
GM, I wouldn't worry too much about this being "just" a team track. A team track was just that. A customer would come up to the car with a team of horses and his wagon, and unload his item(s). Hence the name.
The team track can be viewed as a universal industry. It can receive any type of car you want to put there for unloading, LCL, bulk materials, farm equipment for a dealer, oil/gas for the petroleum company. The list goes on and on!
Team tracks often served as a RR connection to industries that were either too small to warrant their own spur, or too far away from the main RR to be served by a dedicated spur. These type of industries would receive their raw materials once a week or so via one car, that would stay there until unloaded.
I would leave it as a team track, and as you say, maybe set its length to hold maybe 3 cars.
GMTrainNut
Member
Guys,
Sorry for the lack of activity. Part of it has been work, and part of it has been me staring at these various plans and trying to figure out what direction to head in.
See the below plan. It's a melding of some of the earlier plans...
I've decided that I really like the arrangement on the N, W and S walls. As Doughless pointed out early on, I like the idea of returning back from the interchange and having to use the runaround to serve a couple of the industries. I like the straight yard, and it's got enough of a lead to allow for some yard activity without fouling the main. I also like the background industries on the N and W walls.
Another Doughless recommendation that I'm grateful for: having the liftout clear of the door swing so it could be left in place and just "nodded under". Priceless information!
I wanted at least one scenery only area, and the E wall provides for that.
So this plan for me is just about perfect. Except for one thing...
STAGING.
I want to have one staging track, whether it be single or double ended. I'd prefer for it to be hidden. I know how it'll fit into the operation on the layout, I'm just not sure where it makes the most sense to fit it in. The N wall is definitely not an option, I'm really liking the current arrangement there. The W wall isn't a very good option either. The E wall is short, so it would seem that the S wall is the only option.
I'm thinking about simply adding a siding that parallels the interchange track, single ended and hidden. But since I have a hard time thinking outside the box, I just wondered if anyone saw any other way to fit in a short staging track without adding a lot of complexity to the plan. Some of my earlier efforts were getting too jammed in and spaghetti like, I'm trying to KISS!
Thanks in advance, if I haven't said it enough I'm very grateful to all that have participated in this thread, I've learned a lot along the way.
Sorry for the lack of activity. Part of it has been work, and part of it has been me staring at these various plans and trying to figure out what direction to head in.
See the below plan. It's a melding of some of the earlier plans...
I've decided that I really like the arrangement on the N, W and S walls. As Doughless pointed out early on, I like the idea of returning back from the interchange and having to use the runaround to serve a couple of the industries. I like the straight yard, and it's got enough of a lead to allow for some yard activity without fouling the main. I also like the background industries on the N and W walls.
Another Doughless recommendation that I'm grateful for: having the liftout clear of the door swing so it could be left in place and just "nodded under". Priceless information!
I wanted at least one scenery only area, and the E wall provides for that.
So this plan for me is just about perfect. Except for one thing...
STAGING.
I want to have one staging track, whether it be single or double ended. I'd prefer for it to be hidden. I know how it'll fit into the operation on the layout, I'm just not sure where it makes the most sense to fit it in. The N wall is definitely not an option, I'm really liking the current arrangement there. The W wall isn't a very good option either. The E wall is short, so it would seem that the S wall is the only option.
I'm thinking about simply adding a siding that parallels the interchange track, single ended and hidden. But since I have a hard time thinking outside the box, I just wondered if anyone saw any other way to fit in a short staging track without adding a lot of complexity to the plan. Some of my earlier efforts were getting too jammed in and spaghetti like, I'm trying to KISS!
Thanks in advance, if I haven't said it enough I'm very grateful to all that have participated in this thread, I've learned a lot along the way.
N
North Coast Railroad
Guest
The last iteration of your plan looks so much like the BIRR that was published in MR mag a few months ago. It's funny, I really think you should look at that plan. For staging alone.
GMTrainNut
Member
Devin,
You're right, I'm looking at the Big Island plan now. I've actually got a little more room to play with, and yet he's got a peninsula and hidden staging. Perhaps it's my standards, have to find that copy of MR in my pile but I've been trying to stick with a 26" radius, #6 turnouts except for the yard, and #7.5 curved turnouts. I think it's time to revisit the article on that layout, and thing twice about my standards. Thanks.
You're right, I'm looking at the Big Island plan now. I've actually got a little more room to play with, and yet he's got a peninsula and hidden staging. Perhaps it's my standards, have to find that copy of MR in my pile but I've been trying to stick with a 26" radius, #6 turnouts except for the yard, and #7.5 curved turnouts. I think it's time to revisit the article on that layout, and thing twice about my standards. Thanks.
N
North Coast Railroad
Guest
Yeah, he's got a 6 min turnout, not sure about the radius...that peninsula can come or go, but its nice to have a major industry, I would put a wye there, so i can turn my locos. But the hidden staging on that layout is awesome. Figure the sw corner is trains heading south, and the south east corner is trains heading north. I understand you have your set of operating standards, and i totally respect that, I just wanted you to revisit that plan as you have slowly evolved towards it. I have a 10x13 space, and am planning on evoking some sort of iteration of that design.
It looks a lot like your first plan, which was always fine to begin with. And its always good to spend time exploring other options.
But like your first plan, its difficult to see why a train would have a reason to travel along the E wall, unless you are just continuously running or you have a train coming from staging and across the dropout. I think that's what the author of the Big Island does, and staging on that layout is double ended.
So to have the train have an operating reason to cross the bridge, you need staging along the S wall and having it pointing towards the SW, or double ended as well.
But like your first plan, its difficult to see why a train would have a reason to travel along the E wall, unless you are just continuously running or you have a train coming from staging and across the dropout. I think that's what the author of the Big Island does, and staging on that layout is double ended.
So to have the train have an operating reason to cross the bridge, you need staging along the S wall and having it pointing towards the SW, or double ended as well.
GMTrainNut
Member
Thanks again Doughless for pointing out the flaws in my plans, what you say makes a lot of sense. I'm going to have to find an alternate spot for a "scenery only zone", perhaps the SW corner. I'll hopefully have a couple of ideas to post shortly.
Its starting to seem like maybe there just isn't enough space for including everything you want, without making some trade offs.
I think the easy solution w/b to have scenery only along the W wall, and put Middlesex and the blue building on the E wall. The train c/b dropped at the yard before taking and switching a few cars to the E wall.
You'd be losing the ability to switch industries along the way from the interchange to the yard, but you w/b gaining the ability to run over the bridge each time. Might give you more of a feeling of going somewhere too, running through scenery only on the W wall.
I think the easy solution w/b to have scenery only along the W wall, and put Middlesex and the blue building on the E wall. The train c/b dropped at the yard before taking and switching a few cars to the E wall.
You'd be losing the ability to switch industries along the way from the interchange to the yard, but you w/b gaining the ability to run over the bridge each time. Might give you more of a feeling of going somewhere too, running through scenery only on the W wall.
GMTrainNut
Member
Right you are, it's time to sacrifice a little. And having the scenery/bridge area between the yard and interchange makes a lot of sense. It's funny, I had a few versions of the plan that I was quite content with until I learned more about the importance of staging, and how much it would add to the operation of the layout. That's where my ideas started to become more splintered. Especially with all the background building flats that I had in the original plans. But I'm glad I went through that process, it was a good learning experience. Thanks to all who have participated.
I would hate to not have anything to do between the yard and interchange, and I did really like the E wall arrangement on your (Doughless) plan, so perhaps if anything is going to be sacrificed it should be the size of the open scenery area, even if it means losing the bridge.
So of course another plan or two will be drawn up and posted...
I would hate to not have anything to do between the yard and interchange, and I did really like the E wall arrangement on your (Doughless) plan, so perhaps if anything is going to be sacrificed it should be the size of the open scenery area, even if it means losing the bridge.
So of course another plan or two will be drawn up and posted...
GMTrainNut
Member
Here's a few ideas I've worked on this morning.
The first is my greedy, have it all plan. Lots of switching for sure. It just doesn't include staging, although I hint at a single ended staging track on the S wall, it's the blue dashed line:
Then here I sacrifice a couple of industries for a double ended staging track, although there's not much room to hide the staging track:
And here I tighten up the plan a little to allow for staging track hidden behind a thin backdrop, with one industry in front of the backdrop. I see the S curve in the staging track, will straighten that out...:
I like all of them, although I'm feeling that they're a bit too busy, and I should sacrifice an industry or two (the first plan has 9 industries plus the interchange!).
Obviously I've eliminated the bridge in these plans, but I think I can still do a decent "scenery only" area in the SW corner.
I'll continue to work on some other ideas, but wanted to get these posted to see what you all thought.
Thanks!
The first is my greedy, have it all plan. Lots of switching for sure. It just doesn't include staging, although I hint at a single ended staging track on the S wall, it's the blue dashed line:
Then here I sacrifice a couple of industries for a double ended staging track, although there's not much room to hide the staging track:
And here I tighten up the plan a little to allow for staging track hidden behind a thin backdrop, with one industry in front of the backdrop. I see the S curve in the staging track, will straighten that out...:
I like all of them, although I'm feeling that they're a bit too busy, and I should sacrifice an industry or two (the first plan has 9 industries plus the interchange!).
Obviously I've eliminated the bridge in these plans, but I think I can still do a decent "scenery only" area in the SW corner.
I'll continue to work on some other ideas, but wanted to get these posted to see what you all thought.
Thanks!
The use of staging is going to be dictated by your operating vision. Only you know what that is. To me, double ended staging allows one train to appear from staging then return without backing into it, or, allows two trains to appear from different directions. How you want to use staging will dictate if it should be single or double ended.
Personally, I prefer the first plan, only because it serves my preferences better. If this was my layout, I would place Middlesex on the E wall where the empty spur is, and place a bridge where the Middlesex switch is now. I would also not have the brown building in the NW. That way, the buildings would be grouped in the NE/E, except the blue flat on the W. The train takes cars around the layout and switches the NE, then switches the blue flat on the way back to the interchange. I would also convert the blue flat to a more rural industry, like a propane or oil distributor, with no large buildings to clutter up the rural scenery in that area, just storage tanks. The one track staging can bring a different train into the yard.
That's just my vision, to give you more thoughts.
Edit: Many of the details of the ultimate track and building arrangements can always be worked out during construction too.
Personally, I prefer the first plan, only because it serves my preferences better. If this was my layout, I would place Middlesex on the E wall where the empty spur is, and place a bridge where the Middlesex switch is now. I would also not have the brown building in the NW. That way, the buildings would be grouped in the NE/E, except the blue flat on the W. The train takes cars around the layout and switches the NE, then switches the blue flat on the way back to the interchange. I would also convert the blue flat to a more rural industry, like a propane or oil distributor, with no large buildings to clutter up the rural scenery in that area, just storage tanks. The one track staging can bring a different train into the yard.
That's just my vision, to give you more thoughts.
Edit: Many of the details of the ultimate track and building arrangements can always be worked out during construction too.
Last edited by a moderator:
After realizing how much staging is needed, i made sure i had staging on my current layout.
I did go with double end staging to make things easy.
I agree with doughless on alot of points he made.
I like how plan 3 has hidden staging, makes it seem like trains are coming and going from somewhere else then the layout
I did go with double end staging to make things easy.
I agree with doughless on alot of points he made.
I like how plan 3 has hidden staging, makes it seem like trains are coming and going from somewhere else then the layout
GMTrainNut
Member
I'm sure many folks figured this thread was dead..but here I am digging it up!
Sorry for the long delay in posting. Many factors have come into play...long work hours, other obligations, etc.
I went through several other variations of track plans, some so bad I don't dare post them here. Like the double track plan in this space...really was getting carried away with myself.
So I've reeled myself in and the final plan is below, save for some final tweaking.
I kept wanting to add more, in particular a second mainline, just to let something rip when I was in the mood to "railfan" the layout instead of getting involved in serious ops.
But I tried to look at the realities of life, as stressed by professional track planners like Lance Mindheim and Byron Henderson. Good advice.
I recently was forced back into the blue collar world after many years doing white collar work. I have some health issues, all brought about by a serious case of Lyme Disease. Money isn't all that abundant anymore, and neither is time. I work a lot of hours, and weekend time is pretty busy, with trying to keep up on the house chores, etc.
When I look at how long it took me to detail and paint my last diesel project, I realized that I needed to keep the scope of the layout simple.
So here we have it, a basic loop around the walls, liftout section, with some decent switching opportunities, and a short hidden staging track. The layout will make use of some of Walthers background structures. Other areas have to be worked out in detail, like a town scene, a river under the bridge, etc. But I've stared at this long enough to realize that this will be interesting enough, and hopefully will be attainable within my constraints.
Construction will be as simple as possible, double track shelving components with either hollow core doors (a la Lance Mindheim) or simple open grid construction. Foam layer to add some sub grade features, and a highway overpass or two to help separate various sections and provide some above grade interest.
I realize I have reverted back to something less interesting than some of the earlier plans, but I think it's the best fit for me right now.
I'm going to start with the long wall with the yard and background industries, and build out from there.
Once again many, many thanks to all for the invaluable input that you provided! No more fussing over the plan, the next thread will be a construction thread.
Sorry for the long delay in posting. Many factors have come into play...long work hours, other obligations, etc.
I went through several other variations of track plans, some so bad I don't dare post them here. Like the double track plan in this space...really was getting carried away with myself.
So I've reeled myself in and the final plan is below, save for some final tweaking.
I kept wanting to add more, in particular a second mainline, just to let something rip when I was in the mood to "railfan" the layout instead of getting involved in serious ops.
But I tried to look at the realities of life, as stressed by professional track planners like Lance Mindheim and Byron Henderson. Good advice.
I recently was forced back into the blue collar world after many years doing white collar work. I have some health issues, all brought about by a serious case of Lyme Disease. Money isn't all that abundant anymore, and neither is time. I work a lot of hours, and weekend time is pretty busy, with trying to keep up on the house chores, etc.
When I look at how long it took me to detail and paint my last diesel project, I realized that I needed to keep the scope of the layout simple.
So here we have it, a basic loop around the walls, liftout section, with some decent switching opportunities, and a short hidden staging track. The layout will make use of some of Walthers background structures. Other areas have to be worked out in detail, like a town scene, a river under the bridge, etc. But I've stared at this long enough to realize that this will be interesting enough, and hopefully will be attainable within my constraints.
Construction will be as simple as possible, double track shelving components with either hollow core doors (a la Lance Mindheim) or simple open grid construction. Foam layer to add some sub grade features, and a highway overpass or two to help separate various sections and provide some above grade interest.
I realize I have reverted back to something less interesting than some of the earlier plans, but I think it's the best fit for me right now.
I'm going to start with the long wall with the yard and background industries, and build out from there.
Once again many, many thanks to all for the invaluable input that you provided! No more fussing over the plan, the next thread will be a construction thread.
good to hear you are back in the saddle 
Thats what i started with building my yard and working outward, but alot of people said you are suppose to design your layout and build the yard according to your layout, ive always tried to be different
Its true, alot of time less is more. I think a person should always allow room for scenery. Its easy to get caught up in thinking i need to have this on my layout and i gotta fit this too. But i know i had this problem, i kept thinking i can fit more but then it ends up looking like a clutter mess
I like your plan, i think sometimes its better to just get the bench work built then you can tweak the track a bit if need be. One could ponder forever over track plans (i know i did) I would sit around and just think of some many different things of how i could do this or how i could do that but in the end nothing was getting accomplished. Pull the trigger and go!
I like what you have planned out, it should work pretty good, Now go to your train room and get busy
btw- do you already have the lumber yet to get going on your benchwork? i sure hope so, cant wait to see some updates
Thats what i started with building my yard and working outward, but alot of people said you are suppose to design your layout and build the yard according to your layout, ive always tried to be different
Its true, alot of time less is more. I think a person should always allow room for scenery. Its easy to get caught up in thinking i need to have this on my layout and i gotta fit this too. But i know i had this problem, i kept thinking i can fit more but then it ends up looking like a clutter mess
I like your plan, i think sometimes its better to just get the bench work built then you can tweak the track a bit if need be. One could ponder forever over track plans (i know i did) I would sit around and just think of some many different things of how i could do this or how i could do that but in the end nothing was getting accomplished. Pull the trigger and go!
I like what you have planned out, it should work pretty good, Now go to your train room and get busy
btw- do you already have the lumber yet to get going on your benchwork? i sure hope so, cant wait to see some updates
Last edited by a moderator:
GMTrainNut
Member
good to hear you are back in the saddle
Thats what i started with building my yard and working outward, but alot of people said you are suppose to design your layout and build the yard according to your layout, ive always tried to be different
Its true, alot of time less is more. I think a person should always allow room for scenery. Its easy to get caught up in thinking i need to have this on my layout and i gotta fit this too. But i know i had this problem, i kept thinking i can fit more but then it ends up looking like a clutter mess
I like your plan, i think sometimes its better to just get the bench work built then you can tweak the track a bit if need be. One could ponder forever over track plans (i know i did) I would sit around and just think of some many different things of how i could do this or how i could do that but in the end nothing was getting accomplished. Pull the trigger and go!
I like what you have planned out, it should work pretty good, Now go to your train room and get busy
btw- do you already have the lumber yet to get going on your benchwork? i sure hope so, cant wait to see some updates
Thanks for the words of encouragement. You mention "ponder forever"...that's what happens to a lot of us. Someone, I forget who, dubbed it "analysis paralysis". It's been a few years since having a functional layout, so it's time to get going, even if it winds up being a chainsaw layout!
I've got the shelving components, and today started mounting the standards to the walls. I'm torn between some basic open grid benchwork and hollow core doors, will have to make that decision in the next week or so.
The liftout section is the only real thorn in my side, I want to keep it basic, am not up for engineering anything complex.
Will keep you posted, thanks for the reply.
