OK, I am planning smaller and smaller, I currently have a ton of Atls Code 80 flex, 4L and 4R #6 customline switches and ground throws, this will be a simple switching layout, trying to spend as little out of pocket as I can. I drew this up in RTS, and it is 10"x72"....the center is a line that could extend. I was planning to have a warehose in the upper left, a grain silo in the upper right and a liquid feed plant in the lower left. Again, this is N Scale, and the power will be a pair of 4 axle units, unless I want to run a tunnel motor. It is freelanced in central Arizona and is an industrial park.
OK ... you made a first plan ... and ... you asked for critics, hmmm? See what I got for you: Very good is your self restriction to only 5 switches! Good is your decision to operate with small engines! BUT Why is your run around so short? Why do you need to have a switch back? Therefore I tried to use your theme to create an alternative with the same amount and types of switches! Yes I used only #6 switches, but this can be altered by yourself easily. Greetings scopewime
Scope, I like the second plan, the switchback was mainly from a lack of sleep (I work nights and could not sleep yesterday afternoon) The run-a-round was short since I was trying to make the lead longer.
Now me personally, I like switchbacks. Especially when it comes to a switching layout. It makes it more complex and fun. I know that real RRs try and avoid them at all costs, but it is my RR and I can do as I want, right? Just my $0.02 on it.
The problem isn't in having a switchback (I like them, too!); it's that there's no way to justify it when the siding is sitting directly adjacent to the mainline. Now, if you want to justify a switchback, try this on for size: Track is Atlas Code 80 with #6 Custom Line switches.
Hi, I do like Davids plan, though IMHO it is a bit off balance. The number of carspots is way larger then the capacity of the run-around and yard leads. Adding a cassette to the right would allow to lengthen those tracks with about 8 to 12 inches, or two or three 50 ft cars in N. The slanting track to the switchback-lead would then be replaced a foot, or a bit less, to the right as well. The large industrial plant at the right could be done against the backdrop, so you don't have to reach over that building when (un)coupling or spotting cars at sure-spots. On this plan by Byron Henderson the left part is about 6 ft long, though in HO. The connection to the main could be modeled virtually by means of a cassette. Anyway in N-scale this plan can be done quite realistically. A lot more background information is available too. paul
While a cassette would absolutely enhance ops of this (or any similar) plan, I don't think it's as imbalanced as it might appear. For large industries like the one in the upper right, usually one track is used to store empties, and the other one loads. So you wouldn't be switching all of the cars on both of the sidings into the runaround, just some, and then you'd be swapping the cars between the two sidings. Also, the sidings are long enough to afford uncoupling to the left end of the building, so I don't see a reach problem (if anything, the enclosed siding on the middle industry creates more of an access issue, but that's for another day). Besides, it's an opportunity to model a nice big detailed structure, as opposed to just slapping a flat on the background. For that matter, you could make it a dense industrial area, and do both.
Hi David, as far as my knowledge goes, a second spur was not ususlly added for empties. When the local switcher or wayfreight has done its job, it would be easier to take them away at once. The second spur might be used for overflow cars (more cars in the local then spots at the plant) or for (un)loading both tracks at the very same time by having doors open opposite each other. If (un)coupling is done by hand or by magnets is another question, spotting a car inside a plant might indeed be a bit troublesome. Personally i've problems with industries without road-access. At the left you have already two of them, both big enough to build a completely detailed structure. Just slapping against a background of the third industry sounds a bit like bullying to me. And yes having the trains before my very eyes most of the time is an asset to me. Paul
No "bullying" intended; I apologize if you took it that way. As far as having all cars visible, we'll each have varying opinions. Except for the middle industry, they're all visible from various angles, depending on your (presumably varying) point of view. The industry at the right could be a single-story freight depot to keep the view block to a minimum. As for road access, I see no problems at all for any of the industries; the center one, for instance, can be reached via a road crossing the tracks at points where cars are never spotted; alternately, the tanks at the back of the left industry could be omitted, and a road run through. The industries on the ends would have roads running off each end of the layout. If you want parking areas to reinforce this, you can trim the buildings back an inch or two.
Hello all together, just give another plan a chance. I would like to call it "TOTAL SWITCHBACK" ;-)) It's pattern concerning operation is continous switch back and zick-zack movement for nearly each an every car to be spotted. In terms of theme it is likely to display the west (or east) end of a yard which starts to the right. The run around is necessary for the car movement to the industries. The top right track can be considered to connect to a small engine facility. Just enjoy my own antithesis of "There shall be no switch on your plan!" LOL scopewime
The original plan looks like a time saver. Search with google for time saver and you'll find lots of pics and articles. It was designed by John Allen, you really can't go wrong there. The switch back doesn't need to be justified if you are trying to make a small layout where operating is both difficult and interesting. Some info and how to run it: http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/sw-timesaver.html The original plan from model railroader: http://forum.atlasrr.com/forum/data/Bill Hebb/200912518377_TimeSaver cropped.jpg The plan gives you kadee magnate placement as well as length of track section in terms of car/loco lengths.
I agree, I think that's an excellent plan. If I ever get the chance to extend my layout with an industrial switching area, I'm going to steal that plan and plug it right in
thanks for the 2 additional plans, but to me, they seem to look more eastern in design compared to Arizonaish, the second plan to me looks like a possible winner...the switchback in my subconscious rip-off of John Allen, the more I look at it, I think was to force more thinking.
sounds like a great idea for NJ, but not so much out here....3 industries spread out will still be close.
Sooo.... just to give a third proposal to discussion! Here is something of modern times and grain elevating buisiness. Additionally there are two small industries on the left. The big Minus (I declare myself guilty!:funny is the too short lead/main to the left, as it is not very comfortable to sample the empties from the elevator to the A/D track / run around. But I think this is an up to date track pattern for a BIG grain elevator, where loads can be placed to one side and gather the empties from the other side stubb tracks, without crossing the load out shelter with the engines!! Scopewime
If you already have you structures, I would suggest mocking up the layout with your track and structures to see how it will look.
