First impression

More turnouts.  Shorter sidings.

Could also use a run-around track.

I would say you need two more

I would say you need two more turn outs. You have two turn outs with a short section running under a highway or crossing at grade. I will call the sections of the layout top and bottom based on the orientation of the page when viewed on here. Adding a track on the top section will allow a runaround move with the two turnouts placed just to the outside of the existing turn outs on the top track. Doing so will allow all tracks to be worked. The road will get blocked while this is going on so trains would not be permitted to block it for long in the real world.

Hi all. Thank you for your

Hi all.

Thank you for your time.

I am trying to follow Lance Mindheim teachings, about the layouts with no runarounds.

I think I can add more turnouts, but I am afraind that it can be two crowded.

What if I add a main line, with a heavier rail, for instance, code 83? (the track is code 70 at the moment)

That won't help the track

That won't help the track function any better. If you have limited space and tracks leaving the main in both directions you need a run around. The alternative is the flying switch which is frowned upon or prohibited in most prototype situations I am aware of and very hard to do in a scale model.

Luis - I'm in the same boat as you

Copied across from my post in track plans Mon, 2014-07-14 10:42 

A very neat (and simple) track plan in O gauge - which I'm currently experimenting with in HO - is here - I don't know if this will show you the (slightly strange) trasnslated version or not http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fteamtrack.xooit.com%2Ft984-Reseau-modulaire.htm- if not put it into Google translate. My version is HO, and uses the same 3 turnouts that you have and you don't have to turn it around the corner into an L shape, but if you read through the article you will see how the track plan has changed as the idea progresses - I've got mine up and running with 50' and 60' cars, but no buildings as yet and it is very operable - hope it helps

usually

if there is no run around on these small layouts, then all the turnouts face the same way.

Perhaps you can find a small segment of prototype that you like and can model your plan after it?

Actually that is when it

Rob said

That won't help the track function any better. If you have limited space and tracks leaving the main in both directions you need a run around. The alternative is the flying switch which is frowned upon or prohibited in most prototype situations I am aware of and very hard to do in a scale model.

Actually that is when it works best with two locos - gets around the flying switch problem.

Angle the track?

Luis,

i don't know if it would help or not, but we are often reminded to avoid running parallel to the edge of our bench.  Since you are still planning what would happen if you angled the tracks across the layout?  One thing that might happen is that you should be able to get larger structures at both ends on opposite corners.

An interesting yard layout for switching was the folding portable N scale layout that M.C. built some time ago.  I don't know if you can adapt it to your scale, but it might a least give you some inspiration to solve you reaching the  AHA!

Den

Lots of situations with no runarounds

Lots of track does not have a runaround and the switches are facing the wrong way. They switch in one direction one day and the other direction coming back the next. The line I model had a southbound train that switched the sidings it could get into and the northbound handled the opposite-facing sidings. You need a runaround is not always a practical solution. Railroads didn't always have room for that.

Charles

Hi all.   Lance Mindheim

Hi all.

Lance Mindheim replied to me saying that it look good to him. The many ends at the left side of the layout. I think you call it a "stub end", right?

An average prairie town

How about something like this?

Bill, you really understood

Bill, you really understood my way of thinking!

This is more what I was searching for.

Thank you!

Maybe it's not the track plan

Luis

Perhaps the problem is not the track plan.  On a small layout it is particularly important to carefully choose the industry that is being served on a spur.

Industries that take multiples of the same car type don't really provide a lot of operational diversity and take up a lot of space.  That grain elevator takes a lot of cars that only differ in paint job.  You could switch one or three, it doesn't make much difference.

You could have an industry in the same space that has three loading doors, each taking a different car type, delivered at a different schedule.  That would provide much more operating interest in the same space, with the same track.

gs

One man's opinion on run arounds

If at all possible run arounds should be avoided on your layout; however................

When YOU are operating YOUR layout what will you find the most enjoyable?

Real railroads try to avoid run arounds because they are not efficient; however.................

Your model railroad is a MODEL not a real railroad.

Do you care if someone criticizes your railroad because it has a run around?

I don't know the answers to this for you - only you do.

And yes, my layout based on the HOG (Heart of Georgia) does have a run around.

Car Spots

• Elevator: Grain cars - 3 or 4
• Grain Bin Manufacturer - boxcars or coil cars
• Scrap metal - 2 gondolas - mainly sheet & coil scrap from grain mfr.
• Fertilizer - covered hoppers or tank car
• Fuel - This could be oil shipping out - as found in Manitou MB

...these tank cars are parked at a fertilizer dock, but are RECEIVING crude oil from a nearby, recently opened, fracking site. This single track gets oil and granular fertilizer, and liquid fertilizer traffic!

Scenery Will Help

Bill's post looks like a prototypical layout which would be my suggestion.  

"There's a reason railroads design track placement the way they do"   My suggestion would be to do some research on industries and areas you are interested in. "Google Earth" is s great tool to get a birds eye view.

Also, once you find a plan, do an imaginary operating session to make sure you will not run into issues such as not enough track length to switch cars properly for example.  

I think your "moment of zen" will come more with detailed scenery.  The size of your layout will give you an advantage because "super detailing" can be done in a short amount of time.  

Hi all. Thank you so much for

Hi all.

Thank you so much for all your help.

I decided to stick to a version of Palmetto Spur, but I want to0 make it more "country-ish" and Less industrial.

So, I think I'll stick with a grain silos, add the fertilizer, and for some operation interest, I'll add something related with corn syrup on the lower left side.

On the right, I am think about having a quarry, just for scenery purposes, or I can add a turnout there and have just two or three hoppers.

The idea of the Quarry came yesterday when I was reading the articles about the Allagash getting a quarry, and I found that Chris Nevard (a great Brit modeller), made a nano layout picturing a quarry in a smaller place than I have) I could make this quarry just serviced but truck, or I can add a spur there, and make it railserved as well, just to add operational interest.

What do you think?

I think...

if you connect the fertilizer and cereal sidings, you'd have a run around

For the corn syrop spur, consider a corn syrop distributor. This one will appear on my layout:

Bill is absolutely right on

Bill is absolutely right on adding a switch to make a run around. 

I have switched, run the engine and managed several short lines in the midwest and a run around track is the conductor's best friend. The idea of just shoving back to switch industries is okay...if you use a caboose to provide a safe shoving platform for the conductor to ride, rather than hanging onto the side of a freight car for several miles.

Most modelers who like to build "shove and pull" layouts have never had to ride the side of a freight car for a long distance, in bad weather not realizing how tiring and un-safe that can be.

My advice (even if I don't agree with my good friend Lance) is build the run around track. It will provide more of an "out and Back" feel to the layout and make it more satisfying to operate. 

Barry

not to mention...

Not to mention making it possible to access the proposed quarry track.

Speaking of this track, I think I would put the cement dealer there and that way, you can still park a loader beside the track   A busy rural cement company could receive cement in covered hoppers, stone in open hoppers, and gon's to send away concrete rubble for recycling.

Ok, you got me thinking,

Ok, you got me thinking, but Bill, I'm not getting your idea.

which one?

Which idea Luis?

Bill, this: Thanks Speaking

Bill, this:

Thanks

Cement Plant

Local cement plants are often combined with trucking companies that include large dump trucks. These tricks are often used to take concrete rubble away from large projects like highway re-construction. Many prairie highways are made from very thick concrete.

When the concrete is taken away, it is sent to a concrete recycler to have the rebar removed and to be reduced to usable fill and concrete powder again. It is reasonable to think that a local concrete company that is involved in a "10 year project" to rebuild a major highway could receive cement by rail and take the rubble away as part of the contract.

so... Here is what I am thinking for your layout, if you want to have a quarry at the right end - ok, but putting the concrete plant there will give you 3 different car spotting options.

If you have any industry in this location, it will require a run around track. Of course, to use the run around will require you to re-spot the grain cars when you are done