After reading a few of these discussions, I have been 'inspired' to order Lance Mindheim's new "How To Build A Switching Layout" book from Amazon and work on putting an 'alcove' in the corner of my home office to better use than the current bookshelf. This area is exactly 80 inches long by about 28 inches wide (looks like it might have been a closet that someone chose to build as an offset to the room). I have negotiated with 'planning and zoning' (my family) to hide staging track along an adjacent wall behind a roll top desk and will connect that with a removable 'bridge' when in use. The plan is designed for a 2' wide hollow core door which I already acquired. As a result of that, my plan is pretty much fixed in terms of real estate. The end of the layout to the right in inside an adjacent bathroom and the area to the left is out in my side yard. I'm not crazy about the staging/drill track being on that curve (and even less crazy about having to have the 'connector' be a piece of 19' Curved Atlas track, but I think I can make it work. I'm attaching that plan for your comments and suggestions. I'm a little fearful of scratch building industries, but hate the fact the all the commercial kits in N-scale are too small to justify rail service, etc. Era is modern...either an industrial park job of a class 1 or a shortline. Thoughts, comments and suggestions welcome. I've started on this several times, but have always gotten frustrated, busy or distracted and never finished, but I'm trying to make a commitment to do this on a scale that I can finish it this cold winter season. Comments, suggestions, etc. are welcome. Thanks in advance!
I think you should work in some industries with a facing-point spur and identify a team track (if that's not one on the middle right). It doesn't have to be a switching puzzle, but my concern is there's not much operational challenge/interest with this design. Ben
I see the siding at the bottom is for a scrap yard and suppose wagons arrive empty and leave with product for "recycling". How do you plan to fill them? Have you had any thoughts yet on what track system you'll be using, and how you're going to couple/uncouple? Regards, Pete
Gator: Thanks for the reply and the input. I really do appreciate the feedback. I'm willing to listen otherwise, but please allow me to explain what I"m thinking operationally right now. I'm planning on buying a caboose/shoving platform and having the train enter 'caboose first' to do their work...so I'm inclined (at least initially) to remove the run around altogether, except for the extra switching room that it provides. I know up front that this is a somewhat 'passionate' topic with some, but I have actually found the run around move to create more of a limit to operations than an enhancement. It seems to limit your train size to the number of cars that you can run around..in this case about 6 cars. My current operational 'plan' in my head is to use the two 'mains' in the following way: Train enters with caboose leading...pushes cars for the corrugated paper plant & the caboose into the northern or 'top' main track. The locomotive hangs onto inbound cars for the plastics plant and the scrapyard, then uses the south or bottom main track for those industries. They leave the outbounds from those two plants on that bottom track once switching is completed. The crew then works the paper plant, this time using the top track as a place to 'work' and store cars during switching. Once done there, you double the outbounds from the two tracks together and your day is complete. In my area, it appears that most of the newest industrial parks have made an effort to have all the switches face in the same direction, though I will admit there are examples of both around me. The 'kicker' for me however is that in those locations where cars need to move from the front to the back of the locomotive, the 'locals' in my area seem to use 'gravity switching' to allow those cars to roll past the locomotive instead of running around them. That prototypical move is obviously not possible on a model railroad. With that said, I'm positive that there are plenty of examples to the contrary...my sticking point is primarily the limit on train size the short little 6 car siding creates for me. Thanks VERY much for the feedback...I just wanted to better explain the method behind my madness!
That track has the special 'challenge' of being in front of the paper mill switching activities, so I was looking for a minimal amount of potential 'vertical' obstacles. A team track would work fine here as well. My thought was to borrow the concept of a 'virtual' industry on the layout. This would be an industry large enough switch their own cars in the plant (small locomotive, Trackmobile, fork lift). My track would end at a gate that 'implies' that the industry is somewhere off the layout, but my railroad would only deal with the part 'outside the fence'. When my crews arrive, we find the loaded cars that have been pushed out for interchange. We pick up their loads...leave them new empties...and away we go. Spotting and loading the cars would take place between sessions and those same cars would be back outside the fence the next day (or in a few days) loaded and ready to be picked up by my train. I've suggested scrap metal (just because I have a prototype in my area where this exact scenario occurs), but tank cars or almost anything else would work as well. Thoughts?
Geno, I think you're off to a little better start than you realize. A few random comments. -First off, don't worry about the plan being perfect before starting construction. Perfection is over rated. -The curved staging is fine. I do suggest some major trimming of track though: -You don't need a runaround since all of the turnouts are facing point. Eliminate that siding. The real railroads deliberately orient their turnouts this way specifically to avoid a runaround. -Label the track extending from the siding (which will be eliminated) the interchange track. -Cut the tracks in front of the pellet plant from two to one. -Just to the left of the label 'plastic pellets' is a turnout which will be eliminated. That will now be a straight track. Designate it as the team track and put a gravel or asphalt apron next to it. -Better access may be achieved by swapping the location of the scrap yard and pellet plant. This is just a matter of swapping labels really. -At the corrugated paper plant eliminate the third track from the wall. -Identify and label the car spots at the corrugated paper plant. Carefully read Jack Hills operational system and you'll quickly see why your plan will hold more than enough interest. Here's the link: http://oscalewcor.blogspot.com/ I just got back from the Naperville RPM meet and talked extensively to the N scale modular guys. The generaly consensus was that for reliable N scale track your best bet will be Peco insulfrog turnouts. Lance www.lancemindheim.com
Depends what control system you are using - if you are old school DC, then from personal experience with small locos, I would go Peco electrofrog. No extra wiring required, but far smoother running for the same level of reliability. DCC is a different matter I believe. Cheers, Kev
Lance: Thanks for the great ideas. I've spent some time this evening studying your suggestions and also reading back through Jack's blog. I've updated the plan based on your suggestions and am attaching it for further discussion and/or suggestions. I appreciate the confirmation that I was ok in 'leaning' toward not using so much of what little space I have for that run-around. I like the plan much better without it. Borrowing from Jack's operating scheme, would you suggest that I use the second lead at the paper plant for car storage or would you make that an additional 'spot' for say, the caustic soda cars? I'm torn between using it for that extra spot and the additional switching that using it as 'off spot' storage of cars for the plant that Jack's idea provides. Since we will only be running a single train at at time, I think I'll pass on DCC right now, which would make using the Peco Insulfrogs a perfectly fine option. Thanks to everyone who has contributed ideas so far. I can really see this plan being on a scope that I could actually FINISH! Any additional suggestions and comments on the revised plan, including what to do with those foreground idustries will be much appreciated!
I don't get the interchange track idea in this layout concept. Theoretically the switcher is coming from somewhere else to a dead-end industrial park, no? Or are you changing that? If you are keeping with your original operation (coming in from the tail track) then you could change the interchange track to a storage track and have someplace to put those extra paper or plastics cars. Your interchange to the rest of the world is via the tail track.
Corey makes a good point regarding the interchange. I'd use his suggestion and make that a storage track instead. I'd give some thought to Kev's suggestion regarding the electrofrogs also as it's been a long time since I've used either and he probably knows better. Keep in mind that industrial park tenants change over time so it is not critical to have the perfect industry selection before starting. In the real world they would change anyway. Finally, yesterday I forgot to mention who good that diagonal area for non-rail activity will look. At this point you are close enough to at least start getting the bench work up. You can always make adjustment and label changes on the fly. Lance www.lancemindheim.com
You could also just remove that interchage track altogether, or leave it in and pretend it is the continuation of the industrial park lead going to other industries and what not (and use it for storage). I agree that having an interchange track in the middle of an industrial park is rather unusual. I think that for such slow-paced operation, you will want to use Electrofrog turnouts. They are simple to wire : basically you only have to make sure that the current is coming from the point-side of the turnout. Use #6's if you can, too! I think you have a very fine plan! Very inspirational (I'm designing a door industrial layout as well... perhaps I'll post some drawings soon!)
Now that I think of it...I like the concept of this being an industrial park at the end of a largely abandoned former mainline. The train arrives 'caboose first' with the day's cars from staging...does its work...and departs back to the hidden/removable staging. I'm concerned that if I take that track labeled 'interchange' away, it makes switching much more difficult. Having it there allows me to stash cars before and after handling them and gives me a place to build the outbound train. Is the only concern about the insulfrogs that with DCC nothing sitting on that unpowered track gets any input from the controller...or is there something else? Thanks everyone for the input...this is looking better all the time!
You are right, and that's a more prototypical way to operate, too. You do have to keep you average train lenght in mind... Even with as few as 4 industries, you will have 6-to-10-car trains, which in this little real estate is quite the monster (and we're not counting the cars that are already on the layout at the time!!!). Now, don't forget that in the real world, not all industries get serviced every day... some get serviced every day, some every other day, some every week, some only a few times a year on demand, even! Sometimes the switcher might even run light to the industial park, shuffle cars around at an industry which does not have its own switcher/trackmobile/tractor/etc. (your corrugated plant is a good example), then go back to the yard (here, staging) light.
I have run Peco insul frogs with DCC (Atlas GP30 loco) with no hiccups whatsoever. Just my experience though, YMMV. I plan to build an N scale layout using the Peco insul frogs I have.
With regards to the Peco switches, I would like to keep everything on the layout at a #6 or greater. When I look up Peco switches online, they all seem to say 'Large Radius' and "Medium Radius", so I can't easily translate that into something I can order. Do I correctly recall that those listed as 'medium' are #6 and 'large' are #8? Want to make sure that I don't order five of the wrong radius switch. I was also wondering if there was a practical use for a right hand 'curved' switch where the 3 switches are together at the lower left...most likely as the second of the 3 switches in that line. The software won't let me draw a curved switch, so I can't see the impact of that. Does the inside radius of a curved switch drop below the #6 minimum that I'm trying to avoid. Is there any other reason that a curved switch might be a bad idea? The rest of the track would be Atlas flex track and/or indiviudal pieces of Atlas Code 80 track. Can I presume that I can use Atlas track and Peco switches with no problems? Thanks as always!
That's right. Small radius is equivalent to a #4, medium to a #6, and large to a #8. When they say radius, they refer to the radius of the diverging track, whereas numbers refer to the angle of the frog (right?). Curved turnouts can be an option to make things smoother. The only advice I can give you is order some and try them for yourself. I do believe the Peco curved switches are at least equivalent to a #6. I think the radius on them is not as tight as the new Atlas C55 curved switch which is 20/15" if I recall correctly. My only experience with Peco is with their C55 line only, but I don't think there will be much of a problem using Peco C80 switches with Atlas C80 flex. You may have to tweak the rail joiners a bit, if that. Makes you wish Peco made american-prototype track in N like they do in H0, though...
As I recall Geno, Peco has a unique double flange, the bottom of which is embedded in the tie. Don't let this scare you as aligning different grades of rail is pretty easy. In this case, slip the joiner on the Peco end, flatten the exposed end if necessary with pliers, and then simply solder the Atlas on top of the joiner. It's actually simpler to do than I'm making it sound. In short, forge ahead with the two brands. Lance www.lancemindheim.com
That is only true of their Code 55 track! Good pictures here : http://www.nscalesupply.com/PEC/PEC-.html
Thanks for your answers. The link helps a lot. As usual, each reply makes me think of new questions (no good deed goes unpunished, right?). Is there any reason for considering Code 55 instead of Code 80? I'm thinking the increased reliability of keeping things on the track for switching outweighs the slightly more prototypical appearance, especially in N-scale, perhaps? Also, I was planning on using Atlas flex track vs. Peco. Seems like I remember from years ago that the Peco track doesn't look enough like the North American prototype? Same question...is there any reason I should re-think my Atlas flex track decision. I've (slightly) updated the plan again. You will recall that my space is an 'offset' in my office, so the layout will have walls on 3 sides. I realized that gave me an additional opportunity to not only have 'flats' along the back wall, but also along that right side wall. I've reworked the plan a bit to make that industry along the right side more of a flat, moving it 'off the layout' and therefore out from in front of the team track, etc. I've also 'roughed in' a small stream (more of a weedy drainage ditch in my mind) that would help provide some visual interest, provide some separation of those two foreground industries and allow me to use a few culverts/drainage pipes, etc.unde the track, road ,etc. I'm thinking that maybe that still 'to be determined' spur is some kind of tank car industry...perhaps one that transloads to and from trucks? Thanks very much for your patience and all your advice so far.
