I like it

Luke,

I like your plan. It has a nice flow to it.

I am wondering about the track arrangement at Factory 1 and 2.
Can you tell us about how you decided on this arrangement, and how each track will be used?

Lower module

Factories

Thanks Bill,

The main reason behind placing factory 1 and factory 2 in line like that on the same siding was to create an operational problem. I wanted to make a slightly more complex switching operation to add a little bit of difficulty and interest without becoming un-realistic. 

I haven't decided on the type of factories they are yet, I'm thinking I may be able to make them connected in some way. Like a large factory that has specific buildings that accept certain types of freight cars, similar to a brewery.

Hi sleetcutter, 

The module on the very bottom is going to be a removable staging piece, I have decided to make it a shunting puzzle, namely the Inglenook Siding. This will give me a job to do before driving the train onto the module to deliver the cars to their industries.

I was thinking I could have standard freight cars that go to their specific industries and have a playing card for each freight car, before an operating session I will shuffle the playing cards and place them (the freight cars) on the Inglenook siding in whatever random order they fall in, then I'll need to do some switching to prepare the train for departure onto the module.

Sounds confusing but I assure you it all makes sense in my head....

It will just make my short operating sessions a little more interesting.

Cheers
Luke

Suggestions

So, now I have some suggestions

1. At Factory 1: I would make the 2 tracks the same length. I can see no reason that one track would be shorter than the other.

2. The lumber facility: Consider facing this the other direction, so it's not crammed into the curve. This will make the layout feel bigger and will give you the opportunity to have a larger facility. Instead of modeling a lumber retailer, consider a lumber transfer yard.

A lumber transfer yard acts as a lumber warehousing location where loads are delivered and held for various regional retailers and loaded onto trucks for local delivery to the stores. These locations are very busy with truck and rail traffic and can easily be the largest customer in an industrial park.

Luke

Interesting concept, I like the overall feel of the plan and the added complexity of the spot in the way.

What era are you modeling, this may help people provide you with some more ideas on what you are planning.

I really like the updates Bill has provided as they seem to enhance what you are trying to achieve. My suggest would be to move the Factory 1 to the back of the track in order to keep from reaching over a building. It also would place the spur as the main spot track, which could also keep the front track as a place to cross spot additional cars.

Have you considered combining Factory 1 and 2 into a single industry? They could take raw materials on the two back tracks and ship out finished product at Factory 2 location.

Factory spur

Another possible option would be to have both factories on the same spur, then the other track could look as though it used to carry on to other since closed industries. I also prefer Bill's alternative with the Lumber transfer, and the positioning of it. This way, you could switch the team track on one day (or shift), and the factories / lumber on the alternative day (or shift).

Whatever you decide, don't over complicate it, you'll be surprised how long what you have there can take to operate.

Brian

Experiment

Luke - Very nice plan. Before you build the entire layout you might build the section at the left end of the runaround where the curve leads into the turnouts.  Push some of your longer cars through it with your longer locomotives. If you're in the 1980s the majority of your cars will be 50 feet or longer. Use a 3-axle diesel if you plan to use one in operations. 

Given the size of the layout the curve is probably fairly tight and the turnouts are likely #4s or #5s. (assuming it's HO, the scale didn't jump out at me, I was reading pretty fast.)  This is your most likely trouble spot from a track standpoint. 

Try to make the straight section between the curve and the first turnout at least one car length long.  This will help things stay on the track. 

One other thing. Make sure there is enough room to pull cars from the factory back out onto the main. You might want to move that turnout (from the runaround to the factories) a little more to the left so you have more room to back out with two or three cars and a locomotive.

Introducing problems to make things harder sounds like a good idea until you have to deal with the problem every time you operate. Eventually those things just become annoying. Make your life as easy as possible. On the days you want to make things more difficult you can always come up with a scenario that closes are track for maintenance or introduces some other limitation.

Looks like you have the start of something that will be a lot of fun to operate.

gs

Thanks for the invaluable advice

Thanks for the great advice,

I like your idea about the transfer yard Bill, I originally wanted that module relatively bare so I could model a tunnel coming from the staging and a forest area but you’re right about the lumber yard looking crapped in the corner. The transfer yard is a much better idea and I can give myself plenty of room to model a decent sized one.

I’ve also taken onboard your suggestions gsinos, I’ve moved the switch leading to the factories in to allow more room to pull cars out onto the main. The turnouts are all PECO code 83 #6 and the radius of the main corner is 28 inches which eases out to 32 inches where both of the points are.

And I like Greg’s idea of combining the two factories into one with multiple car spots and also building them in a way to avoid reaching over, it’s a good point because I will be building this layout to operate a fair bit.

The era I’m intending to model towards the end of GN, I don’t really know the history but I’m thinking around 1970ish?

Here is an updated layout plan incorporating the ideas and advice so far:

Looking great

Luke,

I can see a lot of thought has gone into this after checking out your website, great stuff. 

In the MR special issue "How to build more layout in less space" there is a layout built in a garage in Florida. They have used PVC tubing to reduce weight and incorporate folding lets. The entire layout can be taken down and stored in an hour if need be. 

There is also a good article by Lance Mindheim about packing in lots of operating potential in a small space. 

Anyhow, thought I would just let you know if you haven't seen it. Not sure if it would help but you may be interested.

Cheers

John

PS: I lived in Perth for 5 years. Loved that city. Now in Colorado. 

Capturing the feel

Luke,

I took a look at your blog.  Nice start....By reversing the spur, you may miss on some of your other objectives (view block to staging and bridge).

You have a nice plan that fits into the space and might be fun to operate.  But would it capture the feel of prototype railroading?

1. All of your spurs "diverge" from the main line.  My observation is that railroads often ran spurs parallel to the main.  So a set of silos would often be parallel to the main tracks.  On model railroads, we tend to run spurs into corners to increase the utilization of the space, but over use of that tends to make our railroads look like models.  I've admired Bill Brillinger's plan, as he seems to have the parallel track.  Take a look at his track plan http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/13651(I'm sure there is a more recent plan).  Considering making one or more of your spurs parallel to the main line.
2. You passing/run around track seems short.  It looks like it might only handle three-four 50 foot freight cars.  Will that length be sufficient for the switching you desire?  If not, then you may want to put your passing track on the curve.  Longer lengths also look more realistic, but putting it on a curve may not look better or feel more prototypical.

Good Luck,

David Keith

http://www.sn2modeler.com

plans...

David,

Thank you for the compliments regarding my track plan.

The final plan can be seen here: http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/track-plan-database#comment-101604

I tend to agree with you about parallel spurs, but it is not always the case.

Here are some of my thoughts about Luke's plan...

• I would encourage you to not hide the staging yard. Your blog post indicates that you intend to use it in operations beyond just bringing the train out, so why not make it a visible and active part of the layout. Many trains begin their run at an interchange yard, and many locals service industries clustered near a yard. Your staging cassette could be sceniced and represent a portion of a larger facility.
   
• I would leave the mountain on the backdrop and use a smaller scenic element for a view block when the cassette is removed.
   
• I would move the siding at the 2 factories to the other side of the tracks..

 "My observation is that

That's a great point that many modelers don't seem to understand, look at all the stub end yards with a mainline loop running around their ends, or industries in the corner when the mainline turns around the end of the table. In real life if the terrain requires the mainline to curve then it also usually makes it easier to curve the industrial spurs along with it. I can usually tell whether a modeler is a railfan or not by seeing how they laid out their track plan. I'd also lengthen the runaround to at least 1/3  of the total mainline run for more train length flexibility, if it's longer than the cuts of cars being worked that's better than having it shorter than needed.Perhaps add up the length of the industrial car spots and use that as a minimal length for the passing siding.....DaveB

Great Point

I really appreciate all the input everyone has put in, there are some really great points and suggestions.

Bill, your design of my layout plan is amazing! just adding a few trees, roads and buildings starts to bring the layout to life. Your input has been invaluable. 

I'm over half way through building the modules, it's taking quite a bit longer due to the fact I'm filming everything and making a video series while I build it! 

As for train length and the available space in the run around, I plan to use a small loco the BLI EMD NW2. If I can fit at least 5 cars in the run around I think I'll be able to work with it, there is slightly over 39 inches of clearance on the runaround (I'm guessing about 7.8 inches per freight car). I guess if I tighten up the curve on the main line I could fit another car in the run around?  However I'm not that keen on making the mainline curve too sharp.

I don't plan on having a lot of cars on the layout at any one time, maybe a few inbound and a few outbound during each switching session.

Thanks again for all the input!
Cheers
Luke

 "I guess if I tighten up the

I'd leave the curve broader and just move the passing track turnout to the  left onto the curve. If you put the points right near the bridge you could gain some length, or move the river and bridge a bit left if you want to gain even more siding length.....DaveB 

Looks really sharp Bill

Hey Bill great job in adding some texture to the layout design, it really makes things pop.

IF you think only having one locomotive may become stale you may want to move yourera to Early 1971, as the GN merged with the NP, SP&S and CB&Q on March 2 1970. Shortly after that point power from all 4 roads could be seen all over the system. Many of the Alco's were pushed west towards the old SP&S lines as they had the expertise to keep them running. The BN was purchasing new model of engines and also repainting older models. Just a thought...

Bill's picture

Hey Bill,

I am such a fan of your design and scenic inputs on top of my track plan that I put the picture up on my website. 
Hope you don't mind, I'm still editing the page itself but I'll put an annotation to say it's your picture and I'll put a link there to your MRH blog... Only if you don't mind?  http://www.bouldercreekrailroad.com/modular-layout.html

I can't thank you enough for your input in the track plan. I should have the page updated later tonight.... Aussie time, so should be done in the next few hours.

Thanks Bill

Cheers
Luke Towan

Great How-To's

Hi Luke,

I am still very new to the model railroading scene, so I will not even try to comment on your trackplan, except for saying that it looks like it will be a lot of fun in a small space.

I have been following your How-To videos on YouTube for quite some time.  They are brilliant - thanks for sharing your methods with the rest of us.

Guys,

If you haven't seen Luke's channel on YouTube, do yourselves a favor and go have a look!

All the best

Stefan

I'm becoming more and more

I'm becoming more and more convinced that runarounds are a waste of space.  (Yeah, Im a Lindheim disciple.) They do exist in the 1:1 world but I'd stage trains for pushes or shoves as needed.  If you must have a runaround, I'd make it as long as possible.

OTOH, if you prefer making runaround moves, have at it.

Bill's picture

Thank you for your kind words.

I'm honoured.