Truth be told, I have never built any sort of train layout or diarama. I just had a loco, some kato unitrack and couple of cars. However, I have alway enjoyed the hobby and figured it was time to take those items back out of there boxes after many years of sitting. But this time actually build that layout. To start out I wanted to build something simple, small and cost effective. The good news is this can always be part of something bigger. For some reason, I decided to look at my old threads on this forum and found this from 2018. https://www.trainboard.com/highball...itching-design-questions.121464/#post-1077145 Out of that thread was a pretty good track plan. It focuses on the runaround part of the line. So, 6 years later the 1x6 Progressive Rail switching layout is gonna get built. Better late than never LOL. First time she has moved under her own power in years!!! I should have the legs built this weekend and the track order is on the way. Thanks for tuning in.
That is a nice plan. You can spend a lot of happy hours switching cars. I’m looking forward to following this thread.
I appreciate all the kind words. I did get all of the track in for the layout as well as some other goodies. An ebay score of some BNSF boxcars. This Rapido Procor hopper is a thing of beauty. I will definatly be getting more of these down the road. I still need to make the legs and get this thing off my tool chest. And after that I plan to add a layer of foam and paint that brown. Then the track laying can begin.
I had just glossed over the Airlake Industrial Park layout from MR that Barton posted... That's a really nice layout too, but it lacks a run-around (I assume the prototype has one elsewhere.) Not sure how the layout is supposed to be operated without one, unless you did some creative uncoupling and switch throwing on the run... I would probably add a run-around route at Tyco Plastics and/or Menasha Packaging, connecting back to the CP mainline.
Now that you mention it the MR plan does lack a run-around. But I think in general that would be okay because you wouldn't switch every industy during an ops session anyhow. However, im not building that part of the progressive line (atleast not yet). Right now I'm modeling the industries to the left of Highview ave. Which actually holds a run around.
I find it interesting how many local switching jobs simply have an engine on each end of the cut of cars, one to switch cars in/out in the facing direction and one to switch cars in the trailing direction. I have seen this locally with as little as one car! Relatively easy to simulate on model pikes that have DCC... and no worries about not having a runaround.
I haven't seen that (though it is slick!) Many local freights just handle the trailing point sidings on the way out, run the back-back locos around to the other end of the train at the far end of the route, switch cabs, and handle all the now trailing points, on the way back. Of course, assuming there's run-around trackage at/near the end of the route. This and many other railroading subjects, are described & illustrated in John Armstrong's book "Track Planning for Realistic Operation: Prototype Railroad Concepts for Your Model Railroad" (highly recommended!)
I put a run around (Passing siding) on my Granite State Industrial and now regret it. Why? Because: The prototype I'm basing it on doesn't have one. They are more expensive in the prototype world I added more "play value" than prototype operations. Performing a "run around on a short train isn't really necessary with modern (1960s up equipment). Number three might bug some of you, but I like prototype operations, your mileage may vary. To answer the question on industrial switching, most prototypes will have spurs facing in one direction. That is not the rule in modern switching but is the norm. In cases where there are both facing and trailing spurs, often the railroad will have a locomotive run for each direction based on when pickups and drop offs are scheduled. This can be as already stated, a locomotive on either side of the freight cars or two separate trains. In a case like my layout, the B&M sent out an NW2 with its cars for the industries and used the buggy (caboose) as the lead from the yard, in what today would be called a shoving platform. Dropping off the caboose on the main in my case, the crew would then switch the industries making up the train that would return to the yard. Once completed the locomotive would be in the lead with the buggy trailing. This is still common, and I see CN/IC do it here in Champaign pretty regularly. In the real world, sidings and infrastructure are expensive. Unless the road you are modeling only has one locomotive and even then, a siding would more expensive than a push or shove move. I've actually found a switching layout without a passing siding a lot more fun to operate than with. The Old City Job I had years ago had a passing siding, but I only used it when the caboose was a woodside caboose and not steel and could be shoved. It was much easier to set cars out and do push or pull switching. Just more food for thought.
I've been thinking about taking out the LH swith that goes to the Lakeview switching complex. It just seems like a waste of space and I don't like way it looks on the layout. This also helps add length to each end of the runaround. The American Cast Iron Pipe Co can also get a longer spur now. Do you guys prefer it with a curve or just straight like the spur for C H Carpenter Lumber Co? I leaning towards the curve just for some variety. but either way I'm happy that it takes a switch out for a more prototypical look.
I like the look of the curve but think the straight track will make coupling easier and is also better for putting a loading dock next to the track.
Jim... Could you just use the runaround siding as a RIP track for some rolling stock as opposed to tearing it out ? Do what the prototype does with switching and ignore the runaround. Just a thought.
I prefer straight industry tracks for better coupling, etc., but at asymmetric angles. Too much symmetry gets visually boring.
Just a quick update, the layout stands on its own now. The benchwork is basically complete, I just want to put some adjustable feet on the bottom. Oh and excuse the messy garage. Fall cleaning will take care of that lol. I hope to get the track laid out later this week. But if the weather stays nice its gonna be hard to not do other things like golf lol. Looking forward on this project the next step is wiring. Do you guys wire your feeders to the sides of the rails or underneath? Wiring them to the side in nscale seems like a chore.
Chancellor, Answering your question on Track Wiring (below). For my MicroEngineering Code55 track, I solder to the bottom of the rail on the flex track and #6 switches. Solder connections on the side of the rail would be easier but it spoils the fine appearance of this track. This of course means marking out the track for solder joints and drilling holes for the wires accurately. Similarly, I use Tortoise switch motors for the #6 switches to switch route position and frog polarity. The Tortoise also eliminates an out of scale Caboose manual throw next to the switch. - Tonkphilip “Do you guys wire your feeders to the sides of the rails or underneath?”
I truly have enjoyed my time lately working on the layout. Its realaxing to go into the garage with wobble pop, put a sports game on, and just starting working away. The track work is mostly laid out. Its not glued down or anything but I wanted to get a feel of what the plan was gonna look like in the flesh. I also soldered one piece of track. Definitely an area i need more practice on lol. But we got the loco to run back and forth and move some cars. However, BN's 1528 days are numbered, as there will soon be a new kid on the block when the layout goes DCC. Hopefully in the near future
