My guess is that this article meets the needs of at least 90% of model railroaders because it presumes a modest but realistic space and a modest but realistic stable of equipment and an amount of structures and scenicing that a single modeler can imagine accomplishing in addition to the usual demands of living and, it should be mentioned, at a cost that won't kill the kids' college account.

Mega-layouts are exciting but realism is comforting.

Thanks

Artarms 

It doesn't seem that the track plan articles, whether for small, large, or in-between layouts, are very interesting to most MRH readers. So I do appreciate your comment very much.

This does represent a more achievable scope for many folks. And it is something that could be worked on in the present day for many, rather than waiting for a giant future space. I've found that there's almost always room for some kind of a layout in nearly every living situation.

That is, if one is willing to take the risk of actually building something rather than fantasizing about some dream layout safely out of reach in the future.

But maybe it's just as well. If folks were busy with actual modeling, who would we have left to pontificate in endless posts about scratchbuilding and what levels of expertise are required to make a "real" modeler? 

What I like about this article is that I'm still learning the whole operations gig, and it explains very well what the premise is and how the layout is to be operated.  Showing what each track can be used for helps put more of the pieces in place for me, the visual learner.  I learn more from simple diagrams like this than I learn from many pages of written work.  Its just who I am, so I appreciate this.  Look forward to more articles.

I'm not sure if its a matter of people not finding the article interesting, it seems more, perhaps, that people aren't commenting.  Its a little discouraging to me on some level, as one of the big advantages of this medium is the instant "here's what I think of this" aspect, where you can comment directly to the author and have questions answered, critique or provide a bouquet.  I hope that more people start to comment on all the articles in MRH.  Its really where more value can be gleaned based on the interaction of reader and author.  I think when you get no comments, it may simply be a case of "I've got nothing to add."  People are far more likely to comment on something they disagree with, as shown in the Reverse Running article.

My two cents anyway.  Look forward to more, Byron. 

Thanks, Dave. I'm neither complaining nor fishing for comments -- it is what it is. My experience is just different with articles in MRH vs. other publications, where there is usually more feedback. Maybe my MRH articles are just that much better (or worse) than my others!

Glad you got something useful out of the diagram showing how the various tracks may be used and re-used while operating. This is a great tool in tight spaces that neophyte designers don't always exploit to full advantage.

This is my favorite type of article: One that describes switching moves that can keep someone occupied for a reasonable amount of time, with color-coded track diagrams.  Running the 'local' is always my favorite assignment at an op session, and your descriptons of the pickups and setouts allowed me to do that vicariously. 

I had a similar insight about dual-usage of track on my own steel mill-based layout last year.  I needed someplace to locate a commercial strip [Merchants Row 1 & 3 plus a few restaurants].  My slag dumping pit with its single spur was consuming 6 sq.ft. of real estate; I decided to eliminate the pit, and excavate another one beside my coal empties' return track.  I doubt if this arrangement matches prototype practice, but 99% of the people who see it and operate on it don't know the difference - so it works for me!

All the layout designs I've done have, either to a lesser or greater degree, are designed around footprints of specific structures.  The structures are usually already built or the specific structures have been identified.  Now at least I know Byron knows what that feels like.

I also place the actual footprints of built and unbuilt structures on the layout when placing/laying track on the layout.  It is going to fit, by golly.

I like this design - it uses space very efficiently.

 In particular, I really like the device of putting the crossing between the modelled line/railroad and the second line/railroad all the way back into the right innermost corner of the alcove, while letting a longish interchange track between the two lines curve around the corner and exit over the aisle side of the layout near the second line, implying that it joins the other line just a little bit beyond the layout edge.

 The second line is long enough (about 18" without fouling the crossing, 24" to the back wall) that you can put "the front" of a train from the second railroad there as a scenic element, starting from the outer/aisle side edge and reaching up towards the crossing - say an engine + a couple of boxcars, or an engine plus a passenger car, or a doodlebug stopped at the station to pick up or drop off passengers.

 Using the lead for the ADM elevator to hold cars which has been loaded was also a neat "cheat". They say necessity is the mother of invention - and this is not a bad trick at all, despite having more or less been forced upon the designer by lack of space on the elevator track for (2 * n) - 1 spots on the elevator track to load n cars. It also saves one switchback move when picking up the outbound loaded cars.

 I like the way the runaround around the inside corner has been made long enough to run around quite a few cars, and that it include a bit of straight track on the left side, so coupling and uncoupling can be done on straight track instead of in a curve.

 I notice that the crossovers between the main and runaround both cross over from the rightmost to the leftmost track on both ends of the runaround. Byron - is there any particular reason for that arrangement, instead of using a left track to right track crossover from the main to the siding on the left end of the runaround?

 Only thing I could find to nitpick about (and it is a very small nit :-) is the industry tracks for the ACB structure in the upper left hand corner.

 Scenically, I think it will look very good to have the track disappear behind the building (and it allows the modelling of trucks or whatever on the side of the building not facing the RR tracks, but reach wise, it might be pushing it a little bit when trying to couple or uncouple cars, if this is done by hand and skewer, rather than by an under track magnet and delayed action couplers.

 But that really depends on how high up the layout shelves are, the height and reach of the owner/operator, the height of the ACB building and the number of cars spotted here normally. I guess the owner/builder will just test it with a cardboard mockup of the ACB building (or the building itself, if it already has been built), to make sure it works okay. If not, it is dead easy to just reverse the position of the building relative to the tracks and have the tracks aisle-wards from the building.

 Everything taken into account - another excellent design from Byron, who has shown us all a neat way to use one of those annoying alcove corners which pretty much seems like wasted space until a good designer takes a look at the problem and opens up our eyes to the possibilities.

 Smile,
 Stein

Byron,

Thanks for some more great ideas.  Eeyore expressions by the author not withstanding, there are a bunch of us who pay attention to what you write.  I've even "borrowed" the wife's colored markers to lay out "function" in some industrial/yard trackage I'm working on.

Thanks to all for your comments.

I decided to eliminate the pit, and excavate another one beside my coal empties' return track.  I doubt if this arrangement matches prototype practice, but 99% of the people who see it and operate on it don't know the difference - so it works for me!

There are always compromises in layout design, particularly in tight places. The elevator trackage is the most obvious in this plan, but there are others (see below).

All the layout designs I've done have, either to a lesser or greater degree, are designed around footprints of specific structures.

For a large custom design, I usually don't have time to research and incorporate particular kits. But when the client has specific kits or built-up models, or the space is really tight, we have to spend the time incorporating specific footprints. It's a lot more challenging than drawing in a few tiny generic boxes and calling them "industries" (as one sees on many published plans), but it's especially critical in cramped quarters such as this.

In particular, I really like the device of putting the crossing between the modeled line/railroad and the second line/railroad all the way back into the right innermost corner of the alcove, while letting a longish interchange track between the two lines curve around the corner and exit over the aisle side of the layout near the second line, implying that it joins the other line just a little bit beyond the layout edge.

That wasn't my first thought for the location of the crossing, but it turns out to work well because it means that a train switching the area won't be going back and forth through the crossing (which seems unrealistic to me). And the crossing is really only there to justify the specific station model that was already on hand, although it does make the interchange track plausible.

The second line is long enough (about 18" without fouling the crossing, 24" to the back wall) that you can put "the front" of a train from the second railroad there as a scenic element,

I hadn't thought much about it, but that's a good point. The Chicago & Northwestern is a logical crossing railroad and had both gas-electric Doodlebugs and RDCs. The MILW had some early motor cars, too, but I don't know if they made it into the modeled era. The client is not on-line, but I'll drop him a note and mention your suggestion – thanks!

Using the lead for the ADM elevator to hold cars which has been loaded was also a neat "cheat".

It wasn't my favorite, but the client really wanted the granger "feel" of the grain elevators across the tracks from one another. So I struggled between unrealistic industry spurs that didn't allow room to roll the loaded cars past the spout and the contrived elevator lead. Contrived-but-barely-plausible won over clearly unrealistic (at least this time). And if I was going with contrived, I wanted the imagined rolling cars to be moving in the direction of frog-to-points through the turnout.

I like the way the runaround around the inside corner has been made long enough to run around quite a few cars, and that it include a bit of straight track on the left side, so coupling and uncoupling can be done on straight track instead of in a curve.

Some of that was luck, not planning, but it's important to be lucky, too.

I notice that the crossovers between the main and runaround both cross over from the rightmost to the leftmost track on both ends of the runaround. Byron - is there any particular reason for that arrangement, instead of using a left track to right track crossover from the main to the siding on the left end of the runaround?

A couple of reasons. One is that the client didn't want to trim any turnouts and he wanted the street that crosses the shelf to not cross any turnout points. So once you look at where the various industry turnouts need to be (including that darned ADM lead) and the fact that you don't want to create an s-curve by starting the crossover in the opposite direction too close to the inside curve of the siding, it sort of dictates this position. I also had to keep the end of the runaround long enough for the two RSC-2s, so that entered into the calculation also.

One thing I didn't mention in the article and probably should have is that the way I would probably switch this area is to use the siding track at the lower right as the lead and shuffle cars onto the interchange track and the upper right siding while putting them in spot order. From that track you can reach into the ADM elevator lead as well for those loads.

Only thing I could find to nitpick about (and it is a very small nit :-) is the industry tracks for the ACB structure in the upper left hand corner. <snip>

Scenically, I think it will look very good to have the track disappear behind the building (and it allows the modelling of trucks or whatever on the side of the building not facing the RR tracks, but reach wise, it might be pushing it a little bit when trying to couple or uncouple cars, if this is done by hand and skewer

It's a good point and represented another trade-off. I really wanted all the structures to be on exactly the same angle relative to the shelf. (The Merchants Row II is 90 degrees to that angle)

So if one places the AC Brown structure at that same angle against the wall, it's not possible to serve it with two tracks (which I wanted for variety) without a wye turnout off the main or making the main the curved route of a straight turnout, both of which I wanted to avoid for esthetic reasons.

The owner can make use of the "delayed action" position of the Kadee turnouts, even hand-operated with skewers, to allow the uncoupling to be done "in the open" and then the cars shoved into the tracks.

Also, the variety of having the tracks behind the structure was very attractive and this was virtually the only spot to try it.

Eeyore? Naw, more like Rodney Dangerfield …

I always find helpful in Byron's layout palns and accompsanying articles - I hop you continue to provide him opportunities to bring his expertise and thought provoking layout designs to the MRH readership.