Hi everyone! I've been pondering with a few ideas and drawing a lot of trackplans lately, and I'd like to share some of my favorite drawings with you. The setting behind my ideas is a modern industrial park. The prototype is the Canadian National, the MMA, or a freelanced shortline - I'm not sure yet. I have read Mr. Mindheim's books and I have found them to be very helpful. So on to the plans. I don't have a scanner, but I did take well-lit, high quality pictures of my plans with my DSLR. First up is a plan that includes an interchange on the left, three industries, and a team track. I like that this one allows for future expansion on the left side. Next is a Mindheim-inspired plan without a run-around, with all the switch facing the same direction. I have drawn an extension to this one to allow continuous running, should I ever feel to just run trains. Perhaps this extension could be removable/foldable. I'd like to have some input on that idea. My last plan is quite diffent from the first two, and is inspired by a plan I found on modelrailroader.ca. The only thing I don't like about it are the 3.5% grades needed to drop 2 inches in such a short distance. I would run short trains, so that may not be that much of a problem afterall! Any ideas/thoughts/comments/critique on any or all of those plans would be much appreciated.
Of the three, I would choose the 2nd plan, simply because it does give you continuous running without steep grades. For whatever reason, it reminds me a lot of Guelph, Ontario. I have no idea what sort of structure you were planning for your Feed Mill, but I have drive past this transfer station almost daily, and think it would be a cool build. What I like about your plans is you are giving a lot of space to the industry. You are making the space for large impressive structures. I am not really the one to comment on operations, however your large industries would generate a lot of traffic, and there really isn't a lot of place for running or storage. Depending on your ability to expand in the future, the first plan also is a good option IMO. If you came off the bottom left with another door, you could easily tie into your team track and form a continuous loop. Just my thoughts. I will leave comment on operations and logistics to the experts.
As for your layout sketches, I like the top two. I can't decide which one I like the best at this point. I lie the versatility of the first one, but the fact you've got all your turnouts going the same way on numer two is really cool too. The only draw back to that is you always have to operate in the same direction and that may get boring. Both plans look good though.
Not to hijack this thread, but I really agree. I think when I get a little further on my layout (and perhaps need a break), I would like to scratch build a module with this industry.
Thanks Ben! Very inspirational picture, indeed! A grain handling facility is definately something I want on my layout, since I like cylindrical hoppers a lot, and I envision something like the picture your posted... scaled down, of course, although there are many smaller feedmills that are rail-served (plenty of prototype in southern Quebec to work from).
I love your detailed drawings/plans! I can plan trackwork but I have a hard time imagineering the scenery around it...I have a feeling that's going to come bite me in the butt as I progress on my Mindheim inspired switching layout. What scale are you doing? What's the dimensions of the plans above? Are the layouts reachable from all 4 sides, i.e. is it in the middle of a room? I'm leaning towards the first 2 plans...Depending on the scale/dimensions I might have suggestions for what I (stress on the I) would do.
layout I am an against the tide kind of guy. I like the third one best by itself. The first looked good as well because the three tracks leading down could connect to an ntrak module which I am partial to since I do that as well. Even a basic four foot ntak module would make a really good staging yard when you wanted to operate on the first. But for stand alone I like the third. Here are my two suggestions. In the top one you give up the continuous running and gain another industry and a long tail track for switching in addition to a lot of under town staging for operating interest. In the other you keep the continuous running but change where the track disappears on the left. I would use a bridge or a building or something to hide it's steep departure. You could also dump one more industry into the area you free up when you hide the tracks departure. 3.5 % is a lot but modern diesel models will handle it with 4 or 5 cars no problem. If you want a few more double head the locos. I see it quite a bit around here 2 4 axle locos and 7 or 8 cars. Also you could model a modern genset pair.
Thanks for the advice, you guys. The scale is N, the size of the layout is 30 x 80 inches (standard HCD). No space for any extensions except maybe a removable staging cassette on one side.
***Note - Please forgive my lengthy post. I'm stuck in a hotel on a business trip and I have nothing better to do. Also don't take my lengthy comments as criticism...I have so much to say because it's so close to something that I myself would have interest in making. So please take this post as enthusiasm and not negativity *** MagicMan - you mention Mindheim...are you going for his level of realism? I'm assuming you are when I say that I prefer the first 2 designs. I think the 3rd design is great, but to me it seems more suited for a logging line...a 3.5% grade doesn't scream "modern industrial." Sure, there's a prototype for everything, but I'm speaking generally. Thanks for clarifying the scale and dimensions, but, can you access the layout from all sides or is it going to be up in a corner or against a wall? As for specific opinions on the first 2 designs...I may not have solutions to all or any problems I point out...but I'll state them anyway. Design 1 I'm not a fan of the wooded area, especially if the layout is not walk around. If it's only viewable from one side the wooded area would seem to block a significant portion of the layout. If the layout IS viewable from all sides I'd consider some sort of backdrop down the middle, sort of like design 3 to make 2 different scenes. This may be more complicated than what you want, and that's fine...just throwing it out there. If you can walk around the layout then I'd be okay with having the trees as a visual block. I also don't think all the track in the lower left is necessary. It's slick, for sure, but I think too complicated for representing an interchange. I do like one track going off the layout for a cassette or future expansion, like the one going to the left. But the part at the bottom left with a switch back to a track that just goes top to bottom seems unnecessarily complicated and non functional. WWLD (What Would Lance Do?, lol). The clearance beyond the switch looks like only enough room for a loco, and not a loco with a car so I can't imagine you're using this part of the layout for running trains. I think you can convey trackage that extends off the layout much more simply, or even use that space for another functioning industry. In general I think there's a lot of track that could be edited out. I think you only need one runaround and the other can be scrapped. Personally I'd keep the runaround on top and then only have one track make the 180 degree turn on the right. Have the team track split off this one track right before that first industry that's inside the loop (sorry I can't read name you've given it). With design 1 I do like the point to point aspect. Design 2 I like the simplicity, but personally I'm not a fan of the loop for continuous running. Especially since there's no backdrop barrier to split the layout into 2 scenes. That's really all the issues I'd have with building the Design 2 as my layout. I really think you could come up with something AWESOME as a compromise between 1 and 2. For me I'd keep the point to point aspect of Design 1 along with a runaround for an opposing switch/siding but make it simpler and cleaner like Design 2. There's definitely a happy-medium in there somewhere. Again - I envy your attention to detail in these plans. LOVE IT! -Dave
I like Plan 2 the best personally. I am actually modeling a prototype line near Olympia, Washington - a several mile long industrial spur of sorts - that has all of the switches aligned the same direction. They happen to use a wye to turn their train, but there is also a now-unused runaround at one end that I will be using. Were I to go without both, I would have a train staged ready to head out on the branch, then do all of the switching en route before running as a reverse move back to the "beginning". Conversely, you might be able to have a unit on each end a la Providence and Worcester and simply do it that way. Anyhow, I'm sure you'll be happy with whatever you do.
Hi Dave! Thank you for the lenghty comments. I actually quite enjoy you taking the time to study my plans carefully and share your feedback. I am nowhere near as seasoned a modeller as mister Mindheim is, but I like is minimalistic approach to layout design and his prototypical approach to operations. That's more what I have in mind as far as my Lance-inspiration goes. Agreed. I don't think grades are viable on a layout this small. I will be able to access this one only from the front... it is going in a pretty tight space in a small room. So designing with ease of reach in mind is definately a prerequisite. Right. I wanted to add a wooden area to break the scene and not have a layout that's just buildings, tracks and roads. I could replace the wooden area with another non rail-served industry/building and just add a bunch of trees behind it, without cluttering up too much. I like my layouts to be at a rather low height (pilot's view) and sit on a chair to operate them. I could get up whenever I need the extra reach, and could reach above trees and building pretty easily, even with a 30"-width door. Great comment, appreciated it! I wanted the left part to serve as an interchange and a small yard. I could build a 3'x1' extension branching vertically off the bottom left part (I drew that, will upload an image when I get home, so you can better understand what I mean) with a yard ladder reducing the three track into one single track, and have space for a engine house for my short line's engines. Having two interchange tracks would allow me to shuffle cars around, and gives me a little space for off-spots and storing unused cars. The top to bottom track on the left is just to give a better feel of the interchange and of the junction between two railroads, and I wouldn't run trains on it... heck, I might now even power it up! As for the runaround track spanning the 180 turns, I thought it would be great to have that one once again for car-storage purposes, and to give me room to switch that bottom right industry (labelled "transload", FYI ). Imagine it is not there. I have a centerbeam flat spotted on the left transload track, and two boxcars by the warehouse that are ready to be pulled. I arrive with my engine and 2-3 spots. There is not enough space on the switchback for me to put an engine and 6 cars. So I would leave my spots on one leg of the runaround, go pull the empties, leave them on the other leg of the runaround, then spot my inbound cars. (You following me, here?) Otherwise, I have to run light to get outbound cars, go leave them somewhere, then go spot my inbound cars. I don't want to have a spaghetti bowl of a layout, but I don't want every inch of track to be cluttered with cars either. I won't take a lot for this layout to be "saturated" with cars. Here is the car count. Top left industry = two boxcars Feed mill = two or three hoppers Transload = one car on the left track, two on the warehouse track. Team track = one or two cars. This means that a maximum of 9 cars can be spotted at all industries at any time. Add to that 7-9 inbound cars left by the interchanging railroad, and you have between 15 and 18 cars on the layout! Hence my desire to have space to store and shuffle cars around. More later with a trackplan update! Thanks everyone (and especially you, Dave) for the comments!
I LOVE the extension. Excellent idea. Make sure on your runaround that you have enough clearance for a loco plus how many cars you need to switch. I know it was a quick sketch. Is the extension a possibility for your construction? Perhaps it can be removable. As far as your replies now that you say you like the layout to be low the 'wooded area' doesn't matter as it doesnt block as much. I'm an eye level kinda guy so that's how I imagine things. I also like your idea of using your long runaround for car storage. Makes sense. There's a siding I have to cross on a bridge to work everyday. It's got about 7 autoracks that have sat there for at least 2 years between 2 grade crossings and the kudzu has completely engulfed one of the cars. Would be cool to model. Whats your time frame for making the layout? Hopefully you post progress on here.
The lead of the extension's yard would extend an extra foot towards the bottom of the plan... I just ran out of paper to draw that, and since it's just straight track, I didn't bother with it too much. Yes it is. I'll post a picture of the space that the layout would occupy (occupied by my bed right now) so you can get a sense of what I'm working with... I'll probably start construction this coming July... still plenty of time left to perfect my design!
Here's a slightly different version with less track. This one removes a redundant runaround and adds an LPG dealer on the now-longer grain elevator spur.
Here is a U-shaped version I came up with. Could be a lot more practical for the space I have for a layout, and easier to work with than a door. Watch'all think?
I am really liking this last layout. From what it looks like, the two legs extend an extra 16" off the page? There is a really good feel of a rail-served industrial park. I know I alluded to it before, but this plan really reminds me of a couple of stretches of track in Guelph, Ontario. I would say that if you can afford the space, this would be a more satisfying route to go than an HCD. It doesn't offer continuous running, but there is a good deal of switching to be done.
Yup! I just ran out of space with the scale I was using (1 square = 2 inches)... It seems that this requires less space than an HCD... it will be a lot less massive and offer a much spacier-feeling room... and a 30" reach is quite a stretch to put ballast down... not so for operating, but you have to think that I actually have to BUILD this thing... lol!
