Hi, Small switching layout, 1 x 7 foot N scale. No evil switchbacks - yay! The plastics manufacturer uses "sure spots" to make switching more engaging. I also wanted a small yard to do some minor classification. Since I have a thing for grain elevators and covered grain hoppers that was a given as was the oil dealer - I need an excuse for those beautiful Atlas tank cars. Also an engine facility was also a must. I think I managed to cram that all in quite nicely. Ops session starts with the loco picking up cars left on the interchange and moving them into the yard. Added to some cars transferred from the main yard, the loco then sorts these into those going to local industries and those that are outbound (off the layout). The local industries are then spotted - some cars remain in position (respotted). Finally some more classification is done, and the cars destined for the interchange are spotted on those tracks. Cars for the main yard (the rest of the railroad) can then be sorted into east bounds and west bounds. That's the theory anyway. Granted it is very linear but I like that kind of design anyways, some might not. I think I'm going to switch to N scale. Just so much more you can do in a limited space. Let me know what you all think.
My first comment would be about the linear quality, but you've already addressed that. My second comment would be that both sides look like fiddle yards. I think a lot of that can be contributed to the...linear-ness. If just a few of the industries were angled just a bit I think it would look a lot less like 2 yards connected by 6" of straight track. I think the problem might be that you are trying to explain where the cars come from (the interchange) and where they end up (industries) and vice versa but obviously even in 7 feet of n-scale its hard to do the Point A to Point B thing, especially with the room taken up on the right side with your yard ladder. So I have 2 solutions I can think of that, in just my opinion, would help the illusion of the layout. 1. Take the interchange out and attach a removable staging cassette with a few tracks on it and perhaps a runaround/engine escape. Make the layout one continuous scene and cars come off the staging cassette and into your scene. 2. Lose some of the trackage, especially on the right side of the layout to reduce the amount of room you lose to the yard ladder. This will distance the left side interchange from the right side industries/yard. I think this would make it look more like 2 separate scenes and that you're going from Point A to Point B. Another way to think about it is to combine the interchange and classification yard onto one side of the layout. Let's say we do that on the left. Then on the right side you'd have much more room to make the industries the focus of the scene. Right now I don't see a grain elevator or a plastics warehouse. I see a backdrop structure with 6 tracks of staged cars in front of it. If I could take your layout, split it at the 2.5 ft mark from the left right before the yard office, put a single track with no buildings, no industries in the middle and make it an L shape with legs about 6' in each direction, I like the design. With your size constraint I'm missing a buffer between the left and right sides. (But I understand about not having room, I couldn't fit a layout that size in my house...so I feel your pain!) HOWEVER, I do like your industry choices. A team track is an awesome choice that could see almost any type of car with any type of load. The warehouse on the right is perfect because of the multiple doors to spot cars at. The grain elevator and oil distributor give you added variation in the types of rolling stock you can have. You certainly won't be boxcar heavy. So in a nutshell I think you have some great ideas, but with the room you have to work with I would try to think simpler. And it's totally just my opinion.
Over all I like it. My thoughts: I agree - shorten the "yard" on the right by about one 60' car length which lets you lengthen the oil dealer's track You could put two stub end sidings where the plastics company is now thus giving you one more industry - Maybe something that would use flat cars which could have interesting loads I feel you should keep the interchange track I strongly feel the team track should be off at an angle. This will visually set it apart and give you the ability to make a vignette in and of itself. The human eye / mind moves from upper left to bottom right. In a layout like yours you could exploit this by creating small scenes that grab the focus.
Hi, Thanks for the comments - much appreciated! All good points to consider. I definitely need to go refine this some more. I have to admit I had a hard time deciding on whether to locate the interchange on the right or left side. In essence, locating it on the left means I have now deprived myself of a dedicated yard / switch lead. I actually wasn't trying to do the point A to point B thing. The interchange serves as an added "industry" and provides a point for cars to be taken off the layout and new cars put onto the layout so that ops sessions don't become monotonous - seeing the same box car go to the same industry over and over again. "beyond the basement" as Allen McClelland put it, and more like beyond the layout in my case. One way to help alleviate the linearness of this would be to curve the team track and oil dealer tracks toward the front of the layout. This will also extend them and help create visually appealing little scenes. Layout design is definitely not easy, especially when you have a limited space and a large number of things you want to include. I do agree keeping things simple is a great alternative and I might just make the interchange a "normal industry" with no additional ops constraints and then just stage the yard with some cars prior to an ops session. A lot for me to think about and loads more doodling to do! :tb-biggrin:
Hi Trevor, you might want to consider using a hollow core door for the benchwork. I know that you are in South Africa, but here in the States, you can buy a 24" bi-fold door that would have a pair of 12"x80" doors, and it could you give you an option to make an L shaped layout or perhaps a staging yard.
Trevor, I really like the concept when you posted - have you looked at Lance Mindheim's site? I had a fiddle with your plan on Saturday and only getting around to posting it up today. I had made some changes that Dave and Steve have noted above. Mainly, I have moved your interchange track to the right, reversed the crossover and created another outgoing interchange track. This cleared your original interchange to be the 'mainline' through the scene doubling as the on-layout staging. The incoming cars would be dropped at the interchange track the (single) loco detached and run around and attached to the outgoing cars. Once gone the local switcher can go to work moving cars around and preparing the next set of outgoing cars. It leaves a storage track between the engine service and outgoing interchange.
I like Gat's version a lot. Another advantage of the team track off to the left is if the "on layout staging" is being used as a "fiddle track" then there is more room for fingers and knuckles to fiddle.
Similar to my 1X6 N scale Alameda Belt Line design from Model Railroad Planning 2005. Good luck with your layout. Online here: ABL Shelf Switching Layout
Hi All, Many thanks for the comments, thoughts and ideas - much appreciated. Spent some time tweaking it to use some ideas presented here. This is what I have so far, I might refine it a little more. The main line through the layout now acts as a switching lead on the left side of the layout and curving the team track and bringing the oil dealer track outward was a great idea.
Love it. Especially the overpass to conceal that end of the layout. I hope it doesn't hinder uncoupling in a tight area though. I'd try to make the team track and the oil siding not so parallel. But that's a tiny personal thing. I was trying to think of a way to fit it in facing the other direction but came up with nothing. If it were my design I'd just try to keep their angles different. Great work! Keep posting. What's your timeline for construction?
Like Dave, I reckon the left side looks great. Still think the crossover on the right hand side may be better the opposite way. What I did when working out what was a better operational scheme on a the previous layout was to set out the track configuration on the dining table. I used a large sheet of paper I had on hand and photocopies of the turnouts (Atlas C55 5's and 7's) and swap them around drawing the lines between. Thomas and friends came to the rescue for 3D switching... ... until the little fella came home and spoiled the fun!
Thanks again for all the comments, really very much appreciated. I will keep posting updates as I make progress. @Dave: Timeline 1-2 years, not in too much of a hurry. I want to enjoy the construction phase as much as possible. What I like is that I'm in no way overwhelmed due to the size of this layout. I'm actually very excited and inspired to get on with it. @Gats: I kept the crossover the way I had since I see no real difference except that with my way the runaround becomes a little longer and I can run around 1 or 2 more cars. While I dont forsee the need for this, it will be great to have in the unlikely event that I will need it.
The difference is that with Gats downwards right end crossover, your engine will aligned for a straight in coupling to cars on the siding, whereas with your upwards right end crossover, you either have a coupling with an engine coming in on the crossover, or have to leave your cars on the main for a straight in coupling. Smile, Stein, who also commented on Trevor's design on modelrailroadforums.com
The crossover direction makes no difference. On a real railroad, the clearance point would be just about equal to the switch points on the other track. So in reality, both tracks of the runaround are the same length "to clear" the other. You can certainly cheat this a bit in modeling, but the tracks will still be the same length. I would actually suggest eliminating the crossover and the track to the right of it, and just close the runaround to the "main". You'd only lose a few cars of storage and it would break up the look of the layout some.
Just remember that whatever you do and how it finally turns out...needs to be the way you want it. I like the one where you extended some of the dead end spurs out at a angle. This gives you a bit more train car room. This little yard will work well for you although limiting your ability to make up trains or locals to run the main. The bonus here, in time... it can grow into a full fledged shelf layout. It's what I refer to as a layout with possibilities.
Stein, your images may be indicative of what you can slip an engine past, but they are clearly out to foul. You could put the cars on the runaround hanging into the crossovers and have the same clearance to get by on the main. And in the middle one, if you put a 6th car that hung into the crossover, you would find you could fit an engine past if you could in the other configurations. According to the definition I laid out of "in the clear" all three configurations you show can clear no more than 5 cars.
Hi All, Thanks for the comments and pics. I get what Gats / Stein are saying regarding the alignment when you want to couple. In my case - since I'm modeling a small town on a small branch I'm going to use my modeler's licence and say that fouling the main isn't an issue. Having said that, I like Harron said, just close the run around. I don't know why I didn't even see that, it makes perfect sense and will ease the look of the layout on the eyes. Great idea!
