Getting Started

Hi Christian and welcome to the world of model railroading.  Judgeing from your description you must be un the Ottawa/Hull area or the Three Rivers (or Trois Riverieres) area.

Your layout idea sounds sound an is doable (and feasable) the only issue I have with the plan at this point is that the layout may be too deep to reach the switching area.  Normally you wouldn't want to reach more than 30".

As to the question about "how many industries is too many?", I believe that is a matter of personnal choice.  If you plan to model the paper industry, that industry alone can provide plenty of switching with chemical cars (clorine), pulpwood or hardwood depending on the paper produced, boxcars for finished products.  An interesting ssituation in Thurso, Quebec is the sawmill right beside the papermill.  There is a small yard on the paper mill/sawmill property where the QGRY dropped off/picked up cars and the mill switched did the switching, whish sounds like the type of operation you hope to accomplish.

As for going proto or fictitious again that is a personal choise.  personally I model a fictitious narrow guage line with operations based on industries that served the area.  The operation I described above can be modeled or a fictitiuos version can be modeled.

You can install light in a slug and have them operate via a decoder and there is a number of ways you can achieve it.

Hope that answers your questions and give you food for thought.  When you remember other questions (don't worry, there are always lots of questions), ask away.

Grades

Hi Christian and welcome!

To add to the post above, also give some hard thought to the grade needed to get that 6" vertical separation.  I think you'll find that it will be a major operating problem on a layout of this size and focus.  Since you'll be emphasizing switching, it would be nice to have a decent size flat (or nearly so) stretch of track on both ends of the industry run-around track (upper layout) as well as adjacent to the yard.  Add these flat spots and you're looking at a truly excessive grade around the left edge of then plan. 

It appears the only thing requiring the grade right now is the pair of industry tracks that cross the curve at left.  Honestly, I'd shorten those to clear the curve and build the layout MUCH closer to level.  Doing so will increase the chances of making a satisfying small switching layout where cars don't run away down the hill.  Use some creative scenic treatments to separate the two areas (industries and yard) and keep them distinct (road, fences, drainage ditch, etc.), and the result will likely be more convincing than a big retaining wall anyway.

As for proto or freelance, only you can decide that.  I do something in-between, modeling the Western Pacific in a fictitious location.  You can narrow down your tolerance for one philosophy or another over time.  I'd suggest trying to concentrate on learning the layout building and operation lessons now, and learn about a specific prototype later to ease the potential for frustration that can come with trying to absorb so much at once.

I think you're off to a good start.

Never too many industries.

Never too many industries. Most people who haven't too much space would prefer a working railroad, meaning you move cars to suit the needs of your industries and businesses.  This is much more suited for a smaller space than a loop of track with a train going round.

 Also, not too many GP-9's were around in 99-00. If your railroad had one, I'd suggest a GP-15. Or an MP-15.  These smaller engines will look good as  yard workers also.

Thanks all for your fast answer…

and great comments!

@ Ron

I live in the Ottawa region and I have been fascinated with the QGRY as it has been my first contact with a shortline ever! You also seem to know a lot about the paper industries, care to share your knowledge a bit?

Thanks for the info on the slug, I'm happy! This one will be the lead engine (as in real life too) pretty often, so lighting is a must!

@ Rob

I have been thinking a lot lately and going through much information and found that the 6" elevation difference will be way too much but I would really like to have something to separate the yard and the industries apart. I would probably lower the elevation difference to 3" and start the grade as close to the switch as possible (the one coming into the yard) and stopping it at the beginning of the run-around track (I want both the yard and run-around to be flat but forgot to mention it!). I will indeed shortens the industries tracks overlapping the curve.

I do understand the problem with the 48" depth, but since I'd really like to be able to run trains from the Yard to the run-around, I think I'll have to find a way to reach into that far corner (maybe with a removable or drop-down panel?). Originally, the curve was to be hidden (tunnel) but since thinking about it, I realised that this will not be feasible so what I'll most likely do, is a "cut in the rock" (often seen in Hull for roads). I was hoping to use 22" radius (to handle centerbeam flatcars) for the curve but this might not be practical and I might have to revert to 18" radius. What do you think? Will the centerbeam flatcar handle it?

I thought about giving the left industry tracks (and the one on the far right as well) a little grade, just to add some depth and curves in the landscaping to the layout.

I'm beginning to think about the industries as well. I don't want to end up having to place industries as an "afterthought" on the layout. But I am indeed concentrating on the layout and the operation part at the moment. I want to make sure that it's plausible and believable too.

And thank you for the compliment!

@ m302

Yeah, better have a crowded layout in which you can make a lot of things than one where there is nothing to do!!! Concerning the GP9, I do know that not too many aren't around anymore… but I have a thing for high-hood diesels… and sadly, they are slowly disappearing (the only RR company that still runs them, from what I know, is NS) to low-hood diesels! I was thinking at first, to add one of my Trainmasters… but that would be really pushing it!

Thanks again and I will definitely take your generous and wise advices into consideration!

Christian

A few more thoughts

"I have been thinking a lot lately and going through much information and found that the 6" elevation difference will be way too much but I would really like to have something to separate the yard and the industries apart. I would probably lower the elevation difference to 3" and start the grade as close to the switch as possible (the one coming into the yard) and stopping it at the beginning of the run-around track (I want both the yard and run-around to be flat but forgot to mention it!)."

22" Radius

I will have to agreed with Rob. Don't go 18" but use the 22" or bigger if you can. I really like the layout. A lot of possibilities with a lot of switching.

Check out the curve radius article in issue 1

Indeed this is a great site!

Full of helpful people with good advice.

@ Rob and Nick
I'll stick with the 22" radius but I can't go any wider...  unless I change the layout for an 8' x 10' L-shaped...  hmmm...  now that would be nice!!!
Oh and Nick, thanks for the compliment!

What about a 2" difference with a small ridge between the two levels and fence?  Is there a way to calculate the % of a climb?

@ Joe
Thanks for pointing me to this great and very informative articles.  If I can fit wider radius curve, I'll definately fdo it! I'm in the process of also reading the magazine and so far, I really liked what I've read.

I'll see if I can change the layout to a bigger L-shape than what I have right now...  but this would mean that I'll have to sacrifice the closet in the opposite corner...

I never thought layout planning would be that complicated!  It's a god thing that I can't start the construction until early next year!  I'll have some more time to fine tune the layout... with your wise advice of course!

I'm supposed to receive my locos sometimes next week (the second gen geeps) and I'm in the process of shopking for decoders.  What would be your general advice on them?  Considering that I'm looking to model flashing ditch light, dimming lights, and sound. What decoder would you recommend I use?  I'll need 4 for the powered locos and one for the unpowered slug that has no power but needs light and no sound (I can use the one from the powered loco, right?). As mentionned previously, I'm going to get a NCE PowerCab (I don't like the Digitrax Zephyr because you can't move around) and if need be, I'll be able to expand it (I'll need a bigger house for this tho!).

Thanks again,
Christian

Turnouts...

I couldn't help but notice that some of the turnouts you've drawn appear to be very, very sharp.  Your centerbeam cars will be happiest on #6 turnouts or larger.  A #5 will work in a pinch. I'd expect you will have trouble with #4 turnouts. Yet some of what you've drawn seem to be sharper than #2 turnouts, perhaps even close to a #1 turnouit.

I think that when you actually start laying out track you may have some unpleasant surprises about what will actually fit in your space.

I'd also recommend seriously reducing the yard to upper area vertical separation. John Allen, found a separation of 1/2" was sufficient to make adjacent areas appear to be separate. Assuming you can keep the 22" curve, the circumference of a half loop of 22" is   3.14 * 22" = 69"  which is 5' 9".  At 4% a foot of linear travel changes elevation about 1/2".  So 5 feet would change elevation about 2.5". For a grade of 2% elevation change is reduced to 1.25", while a 1% grade makes it about .625" (5/8 inch).  THis supports Rob Spangler's suggestion of a 1/2" vertical separation is probably right on the money when it comes to keeping grades reasonable.

Be aware that access will be problematic at the rear of this trackplan and not just in the corner behind the U-turn curve. A 36" reach is a long reach indeed - you'll need to make the benchwork low (36" or lower) for such a reach to be possible and it will still be very easy to snag sleeves and elbows on foreground buildings, trees, and rolling stock.  This will be and esepcially nasty problem when switching the two industries along the rear of the layout.

Frankly, I don't see lots of opportunity for access to the rear portions of the layout as drawn.  But two alternatives suggest themselves:

1) Build the layout on wheels so it can be rolled (pivoted) out into a more central part of the room when running trains allowing acess from all sides.

2) Sell off your HO equipment and build in N scale. This will let you put your benchwork on a diet to it's depth becomes 3' and 2' respectively for the left and right ends. A much more nanagible reach. N would probably also allow a continuous loop connection should you desire one.  NOW would be the best time to consider such a change while your investment in locos, rolling stock, track, and structures is small. However, you listed HO as a given so I recognize that this may not be feasible.

Cheers,

Charlie Comstock

Knowing the Paper Industry

@ Ron

I live in the Ottawa region and I have been fascinated with the QGRY as it has been my first contact with a shortline ever! You also seem to know a lot about the paper industries, care to share your knowledge a bit?

For sounds and functions I would recommend Soundtraxx Tsunami decoders, they have great sound and will have the functions you need.  Another option is Locsound.  Digitrax also make sound decoders but I have experience with them as most of the work I do for others (and myself) usually involves Soundtraxx sound decoders.  As for buying decoders I buy mine from one of the advertisers that advertise here. All the advertisers here that sell decoders give great service.

If you break down the

If you break down the railroad you have drawn to actual Scale feet your 10 feet is only 1/6 of a mile that is 880 feet from one dead end of the table to the loop and then around and back 880 feet back to the dead end. so what you have is basically a one or two engine switching railroad.

If you call the 1760 scale feet as scale feet as in scaling down you could consider the whole railroad as covering 1/2 mile end to end so unless your building it  "N" scale don't crowd yourself with the super short sidings you have and I don't believe you have enough space for two levels or any track crossing over another in such a small space.

Dan

Dan might beon to something....

You might want to consider N Scale, you might be supprized on what is available, and  it would make it more prototypical. The radius of 22" is more than the minimum for a road switcher, plus the run will be longer.

Thank you... and some more!

Thanks everyone for your inputs and comments.  I really appreciate the time you are taking in helping me out figuring a way to get a nice operating, small layout.

@Charlie
I should have mentioned this earlier but the turnouts will be #6.  The drawing is unfortunately not to scale but I have made another version of it that I'll upload tonight. There is also the fact that it's not a view from the top, this was done In Goggle Sketchup. I should do it in Autocad, at least, I'll be able to have the dimensions right.

The height diffrerence will be reduced to 1/2" - 1".  I'll find a way to make it look separate!

@Ron
I'm also pleased to see a fellow modeller from my region.  I didn't think about the Tsunami decoders but I'll definately consider them.  I'm only at the beginning stage right now, so I do have a lot to learn to make this right.

@Dan and Bremner

I've never been a big fan of N scale.  Altho I do not have kids, I have nephews and nieces that will most likely be involved in running the railroad when they visit. Another point is that detail-wise, it's easier to detail the rolling stock in HO than N scale for me.  Without being a rivet counter (I won't scrap the side doors on a body because they are in the wrong place) but I will add obvious missing details (like plow, ditch light, repositionning of a bell, etc.) and I do not feel confident enough doing this in N scale but I do thank you for bringing this to my attention.

When I speak of level, I'm not saying that I want 2 levels to operate on, just a little "step" between the two areas to separate them a bit and give the illusion of it being bigger than it actually is.

I have v1.1 of the layout, taking into consideration some of your comments.  I have made the spacing between tracks at 1 13/16" as suggested by NMRA.  I have also modified the turnouts to more closely reflect the #6 ( I hope I got it right).

Again, I really appreciate the time you take to comment on this.

Christian

Something you need to know about NMRA Standards

First the 1-13/16 is Minimum spacing center to center and not advised to use any Minimum as a standard for laying tracks. First you can't get your fingers between two trains when there is 1-13/16 center to center between tracks and when your try to put a car back on the tracks in the middle of the yard you will knock cars over on the two adjoining tracks. Actually you should make that minimum 2 inches just for that reason alone.

As far as running two engines at a time with a single track end to end RR will not be a lot of fun unless as a single operator. Yes with two operators you can have two engines running at the same time but where are they going to go unless your running 5 or 6 cars per train you will be in each others way all the time with all the switching done at the same end.

On The upper right side: -- The last turnout on the right is pretty much useless for anything but one engine and all your turnouts are drawn as #4 or smaller.

You really need to rethink most of what you have drawn and draw your Railroad to exact scale. If your wanting all turnouts to be #6 that's basically going to mean remove all the #2 turnouts you have drawn in the lower yard and the #3 & #4s on the upper yard. This will change all the angles and show you what kind of room you really have.

The main thing you have done wrong is not drawing your layout to exact scale. Trains and engines will in no way stay on the tracks with what you have drawn. The plan needs to be redone or your going to waist a lot of money.

Three LH #6 turnouts require approximately 30" from the first set of switch points to 4 inches past the 3rd turnouts Frog and you have a number of spots with 3 turnouts shoved into 16 inches in your drawing and all your angles are totally wrong. That's why I said you should use "N" gauge as HO won't work with what you have drawn in "N" scale and that's what most of your layout has been drawn in.

Remember you cant stuff a 10ft tuna in a sardine can so rethink and redraw In Exact Scale so you will be able to see what you really have room for.

Keep posting and we will help you as much as possible.

Dan

Thanks Dan!

I have actually bought some really big draft paper today (17" x 22") at my local art store.  To be honest, since I have no real experience with designing a layout, I just slapped a few lines here and there (as you have realised).  By reading the comments of most people here, I will definately do a scale drawing (yes, on real paper!) of my proposed layout. If I find out that space is less that what I was looking forward to have, then I might change my mind regarding the scale. I indeed see the problems with not having a scale drawing of the proposed layout. I used to be a technical drafter, so this shouldn't be too hard, right?

What I had in mind for 2 operators was that one operator get a consist up and uncouples from it, then another operator takes over the switching of the industries while the operator of the first train prepares another consist in the yard below.  For the trip back to the yard,  the empties prepared by the second operator is handled by the first oprator, hence the reason for 2 operators. This can also be done by a single operator and it's probably the way it will be done more often than not (my wife likes trains a lot, but I'm not sure she likes miniature trains as much as the real ones!  ).

Thanks for your honest feedback, I will greatly learn from this.

Christian

P.S.: Is there any ressource anywhere that I can get real measurements of HO scale tracks and turnouts?

track measurements....

Christian, I would look at using a free track planning program that Atlas has on their site called RTS. It only has Atlas track,but it will give you a better feel of what can be done.

Christian That's the same graph paper I use

I find drawing 1in  = 1 foot is very Helpful when laying out my railroad track plans. I start by Drawing the whole room or the wall side border then from there I work out the track and table size.

Bremner mentioned going to the Atlas web site and using their Track templates these are great if your using Atlas track on your layout.  the PDF for their track templates are as follows: plus some track plans for areas close to the area your building

  http://download.atlasrr.com/TrackCat2010/47-91%20HO%20Track.pdf

There is a second site that will also help you with full size down loadable turnouts that you can print out and cutout. Then you can layout the yard areas on the floor to get a real look at what your building.

you'll find these templates at    http://www.handlaidtrack.com/  they also are one of our Sponsoring Advertisers here at MRH and make turnout fixtures for building hand-laid Tracks and they make a number of very helpful layout templates and tools for laying out your railroad.

Dan

I'm still here...

...just absorbing all the good info you all shared with me!

I am rethinking my future layout to maybe make a shelf, U-shaped, point-to point layout instead with between 10" class="bbc_img" rel="lightbox[1330966961]">

Right now, since the room is not done yet, I'll gather as much info as possible so I can make this perfect!

Thanks all and I'll keep this post alive as soon as I have settled on something!

Christian

shelf type

Christian,

The biggest advantage of the shelf type that you can still use the room for something else. Also point to point will make it more interested in the sense it will be more prototype.