A couple of thoughts for you

As a participating Free-mo modeler for several years now I've come to recognize where the spirit or intent of a standard may be safely used to massage a standard.

The 4" from the edge is to prevent cars and locomotives falling to the floor in the event of a derailment. In a home layout situation you may have a lower aversion to risk. If YOU are comfortable placing rails closer to the edge than at a meet you can close that track by locking out the turnout and maybe placing the appropriate flag. (side note I know of a couple of modules with spurs that run right along the edge and no run chief has turned them away or even locked out the spur). Another consideration is your buildings. If you have a grain elevator, warehouse or something that is preventing a car from falling than you have met the spirit of the standard and this is usually acceptable too.  

It appears you have all of your spurs stopping 6" from the end plates. This isn't necessary and you can run right up to the end plate. One of the intentions of Free-mo is to have some sort of continuity. So be sure to visibly terminate your spur with bumpers, wheel stops, a mound of dirt etc so that it doesn't look like the tracks just randomly stop. 

Do you have room to store and transport an 8ft module or will this be two 4ft sections? If built in sections I would suggest simplifying joints between sections by adjusting your track plan to minimize the number of rails that cross the joint.

Have you seen any photos of Mike McMamara's "Woodstown Junction"? http://njfreemo.org/page2/index.html I suspect his module is the definition of what you want to achieve.

Operating from both sides

Hi it looks like you will have a problem operating the railroad from the side with the grain elevator, warehouse and heavy equipment.  These structures create a great view block and Free-mo standards have you operating from both sides of the module.  Also the engine service and house are really just a place to park a modern diesel engine.  Several local yards in Baltimore have nothing permanent set up. Fuel is delivered by tanker truck and light servicing is done with by a maintenance crew in trucks.  Eliminate that and you can add more industries to switch. Your track is parallel to the sides and that give you straight line running however by placing a kink in the middle you create more interesting track to operate vs  straight line running.  You can kink the track by making one side of one section shorter than the other side but keeping the other a rectangle.  Now you have a slight curve to the module but almost everything else is the same.

Dan

Ben

As an active Free-mo participant I say welcome to the fold! The Free-mo Standards are very flexible and open for interpretation in a lot of areas. There is currently some things in the works to clear up some of the confusion and also make the process more practical. The main thing that I cannot stress enough is that the track is flat and level for at least the first 6" of the module. The track really should be level, both lenghtwise and side to side over the entire module, but it is vital at the ends.  I also recommend really spending some time getting the modules trued before slapping down track. I know for most people they do not like building benchwork, but it will be well worth it in the long run.

As for the track plan you have posted, I see that you are running into some of the confusion that other have had in the written documents. One thing I always try to do in any design is the ability for the plan to grow. In the plan you showed you have a lot more room to play with if you extend the tracks to the modules ends and closer to the sides. I would never recommend having the track come right to the edge of the module and parallel it without having some sort of protection. I have seen plenty of tracks like in the drawing I have provided that are protected by structures or just good trackwork.

I used Anyrail for the drawing, using the Walters #8 for the mainline switches and #6 for the spur tracks. I used the Microengineering template for the track. With this plan in order to switch larger trains you could build some small extensions off the ends that could be added or removed as needed.

Best of luck with your new project and congrats on the new kiddo!

Operations and Restrictions!

Matt, Dan and Greg,

Thank you for all of your valuable input. I have been watching the replies come in and it has given me some ideas to re-evaluate my layout plan. I will post a revision to the plan soon.

One of the more challenging considerations for this layout is that there is not presently a club in my area to operate with and therefore this layout should be able to operate on it's own. That means that the turnouts off of the mainline have to be placed so that there is enough space to fit the locomotive and one (preferably two) cars on the mainline to throw the turnout without driving off the end. (There isn't enough space to not foul the main line.) In the plan that I have posted I have used a measurement of 9 inches per rolling stock or locomotive; therefore to allow enough space to perform the runaround or switching maneuver, I would need at least 18 inches at one end (locomotive and one car) and 9 inches at the other (locomotive only). The plan currently has 18 inches (actually 20 inches) on one end (locomotive and one car) and 27 inches (locomotive and two cars) on the other. Do you have any thoughts on this restriction? Is it too restrictive and there is something that I have missed? Greg, I have considered using extensions as you suggested, but I was trying to keep this entire layout in the 8 foot X 2 foot space. If in the future there is space to add on to this layout I could build another module, maybe a nice bridge scene.

When operating on my own, I envision that there will be a string of cars on the interchange track that will need to be spotted at the various industries and some full loads ready to be set our for pickup on the interchange track. Using my 9 inch rule, the interchange track is 36 inches long (4 cars). I have also tried to design a bit of a switching puzzle to keep some operational challenge and interest for the long term.

Thank you again for your comments.

- Ben

Part of the process

Ben,

I understand the plan to make it a stand alone, I just like to try to make it easier so I do not have to compromise with the track. I am not a big fan of making things more difficult then they need to be when I design track plans as there is plenty someone can do to make switching easier or harder.

Have you considered using one of the New Bachmann 7o ton locos to do the switching? They would save you some space, are pretty affordable units and would fit in any era.

Also where are you at? There may be a Free-mo'ers nearby, not all groups have a website.

 "I have previously planned

Congratulations on the new child. You better start planning Brio and Thomas track plans:> )    As an interim layout perhaps an N scale scene mounted high on a wall shelf? 8 feet long by 16 inches wide would give you plenty of switching space for industries and interchange. The track on my N layout is only partially laid but I can spend an hour switching the part that is operational, probably about 8 feet or so.....DaveB

I assume you are in the Toronto area

Based on your first message. The Credit Valley guys are really good. I've met Bob Hill a couple of times now. His Astra module is really impressive. Besides them to your south there is the Western Reserve Free-mo group in Ohio, to your East is New England Free-mo and a fledgling New York Free-mo group with several members in Albany. There are some pretty big shows in Massachusetts and New York that have large Free-mo set ups each year. 

I'll admit I build dioramas that trains run through, so I'm not much help when it comes to planning home operations. But I'll mention that on the Woodstown Junction module I referenced earlier Mike had an extension that came off the SIDE and not the end for his "junction". This gave him room for a few more cars but didn't make the module any longer. 

Free-Mo Module OPS

Ben, you can add some temporary OPS help by using a cassette or two on your modules. Helps to manuver.

Wayne

Revision 2

Greg thank you for the track plans. There is something to be said for the simplicity that you planned. Considering that I will likely be a while before I lay any track I will keep this plan close at hand.

I have looked at this layout and tried many ideas since I last posted. I created a concept with using all number 8 turnouts instead of number 6. I also attempted planning one that had the interchange track come off the layout and could have been joined to another module. I tried having the mainline move to one side of the layout to allow more switching and industry room on one side of the layout. I considered, but didn't plan, a layout with a bend in the middle. More to work on, I guess.

After toiling away, I ended up going back to my original idea and altering it (for the better) based on some of the suggested from the those of you who replied. The layout no longer has the large view block but still maintains most of the industries. The Warehouse has been replaced by a Team Track for unloading directly to Trucks; no building to block the view. I have also moved the heavy equipment manufacturer to the other side of the mainline. This produces a view aisle diagonally across the layout. On paper this seems to work well. I also tried to get the feel of Greg's layout plan, it has curves as opposed to my straight lines.

Dan, I considered removing the Engine House that I had planned but I wanted to have somewhere to start and end my 'day'.

Wayne, I love the cassette idea and it may still find its way into this plan, but for now I'm sticking to my 2 X 8 (and no larger) guideline.

Matt, to answer your question, I love just east of Toronto, in the city of Pickering.

DaveB, glad to hear that you are getting so much enjoyment out of your layout. I hope this one will bring me the same. This is my first attempt at switching.

Please let me know if you have any other comments regarding this layout. I'm hoping that a fresh-set-of-eyes may catch something that I missed.

Thanks again for all of your input.

-Ben

I like the way you are headed

Ben,

I like the way that you are headed with the plan.

One suggestion would be to swap the interchange track with the Team Track. The reason I say this is that is a customer was unloading a car and Quaker was in need of cars they probably would be pretty upset that they could not get their cars on time.

Also if you are modeling a Team Track they most likely would be a Transload. The difference is that instead of being an open track railroad owned they are usually private companies that are in the business of getting materials to/from railcars. They focus on a variety of products and often change with the market so they are usually always busy. Team tracks could have a cars daily or may not have cars for years, depending on where you are at.

Are you going to model this as part of a shorltine or will this be part of a larger railorad?

Keep us posted!

With the same idea

Hi Ben,

Last few month I start building a small switching layout with the same ideas (size, freemo, modern..). After multiples trials, i finally have a sketch, my layout inspiration is Los Angeles, more precisely the Dolores Yard ( http://nano-railroad.blogspot.ca/).

Hope it can help you.

JC

Edit: Sorry, i resize it, it's my first post on mrh.

JC

Looks like a busy section of railroad.

It looks like your drawing got cut off, can you post the rest of it?

Right Click and

"Open image in new tab" or window. It's a wide and not very tall drawing so resized to fit onto MRH would also make it harder to read. Good looking set up. Later I'll pour over it in detail and offer my amateur advice. 

Credit Valley Freemo

Hi Ben

I'm a  member of the Credit Valley Free-mo group, that I think you kinda sorta hinted at in your original email.  If you are interested in seeing free-mo in operation for reals, we will be taking part in the 2015 Double headers layout tour, at the main site in Cambridge.  This is a link to more information:
http://www.trainweb.org/doubleheaderstour/DH_Tour_site/Tour_Info.html

I hope to see you there

Credit Valley FreeMo

ReganJohnson,

Indeed I was talking about the Credit Valley Free Mo group. I would love to attend the Double Headers' layout tour but I have prior family commitments. I would have loved to attending.

Maybe someone will set up a Free Mo group out in Durham here one day.

Thanks and have a good show.

- Ben

Revision 3

I continue to re-design and tweak. I have now broken two of my one rules but I think its for the better. This plan is not complete but I wanted to post some of my progress.

I have changed the module type to be a double track through. There are two reasons for this change, 1. I believe that this will fit better with the future railroad. (Not designed), 2 The it wasn't much of a stretch to make the runaround into two mainlines. This change to a double track mainline means that the module is now 26 inches deep as opposed to the original 24 inches. The module will still have to be designed to separate into two 4 foot sections for transportation, etc.

The second rule that I broke was that I now have two different numbered switches, number 6 and number 8. The number 8's are off of the mainline; number 6's everywhere else.

As I already mentioned, this current plan is not final. I don't really like where the engine house is because now the engine house is the switching lead for the Quaker Oats factory. The siding to the south of the engine house is too tight for anything.

On my ''chainsaw layout" I had a Transload facility. The model of the building is still around. Not sure I will be able to fit the entire building on this layout but I can try.

Continue bringing your thoughts to me.

Thanks always,

- Ben

Visit Credit Valley!

Ben,

Before I would build anything I would visit with and exam some of the Credit Valley modules. I think once you see the way the modules interact with each other you will be able to come to a final plan for your modules.

As for your latest plan I would move the engine house to the next track further down. One of the Pikestuff single stall should work great. the Other track would be left as a lead to get to Quaker. I would take the ties to the edge of the layout and make it appear the lead use to go farther but was cut back just to keep serving Quaker.

Keep us posted!

Ben,  There is also a show in

Ben, 

There is also a show in Bowmanville that we attend, hosted by a group that is much more local to you, the Soper Valley Model Railroad Association (http://www.svmra.ca/index.htm), which meets in Newcastle.  

I wanted to thank you all for

I wanted to thank you all for your input. I intend to checkout the Bowmanville train show coming up shortly (in October, LOL) to see how the Credit Valley Free Mo modules work together.

I have made a few changes to my plan since I last posted. I was able to move my interchange track to the North West corner, this meant giving up one car spot and rearranging the crossovers to better align with the westbound traffic. But it frees up the South East corner for a larger Transloading or Freight House Facility, maybe the original warehouse (but it might be a view block) idea. That corner will be seeing my attention again soon. I just can't put this down and I love having a project.  FYI, My current freight house model does not fit in this location without having it hang off. Decisions to be made.

For the time being, life is going to be busy. The new baby is expected at the end of next month and my other daughter's second birthday is coming up at the end of this month. Plus with spring in the air it will be time to get out the garden tools and get my butt outside.

Thanks again for all of your help. I will try and post progress if I make any more changes or actually start cutting wood. Also, there is that box of unweathered freight cars to upgrade.

- Ben

Revision 3

You could have kept it at 24" just by changing the curvature of the 2 sidings at the bottom of the drawing.

Jim

Free-mo Standard for 2 track is 26"

Jim,

The reason for 26" instead of 24" in revision 3 would be to maintain compliance with the Free-mo standards. Free-mo double track standards call for 26" wide modules. Although you are right that all things being equal 24" would have still worked for the track plan.

In your latest revision you

In your latest revision you have the heavy equipment industry "flat" hanging off a corner... that will create a scenic discontinuity with the next module. I suggest shortening or moving the structure so that it does not extend off the end of the module, only the side. Scenic continuity is an important part of Freemo.