Blobs

First issue I see is that the radius in the "blobs' on either end is going to be way tighter than 20" R to replicate that plan.

That probably needs a redesign, then see how that affects the rest of the layout.

  "the radius in the "blobs'

Looks like there's 64 inches of width between the walls on the left end so shouldn't be a problem getting 20 inch radius in there, but I'd go with as large a radius as possible ,say 32 -4 inches =28 inch radius, then redraw the end loops to scale....DaveB

Passing siding?

I am not sure if it is how it is drawn but it looks like this can only accommodate a single train (or perhaps two in the same direction), as I don't see any passing siding anywhere and the drawing of the tracks at the manufacturing area doesn't look like any of the tracks aside from the mainline connect back to the mainline.  Am I seeing the diagram right, and if so is a single mainline train operation with no meets the desired plan? Or are some of those tracks at the manufacturing area actually connected back to the mainline?

Also, I didn't see mention of scale, but I am surmising HO based on the dimensions indicated of the McCabe sawmill.

Love seeing these plans come together for new layouts!  

-Ed

Design

Also watch putting a module joint under a yard ladder.  Much better to put the joint under yard tracks or main tracks than switches.

Putting the yard lead behind a view block isn't a good idea.

General comments on a "portable" layout.

The layout you have designed will only fit well in a space the same size.  If you move to a house with a basement 2 feet shorter, or even 2 feet longer, it won't fit and there really won't be a way to make it fit without major reconstruction and redesign.  The culprit is that every piece is critical and every piece has the track crossing the the section joints on a curve or at an angle.  While that looks great, it ends up making the track plan unique to the space.

If you have a section where the tracks go perpendicular to the joint across both section joints, then that section can be used as an "expansion joint" to adjust the size of the layout.  

For example if on your plan if you had the section that Pier B connected to be only 5 ft long (other advantages to that), you could make the section between the pier and the corner your "expansion joint".  If the next basement you go to is 11" shorter or 3 feet longer, then you just rebuilt that section to fit and can save the rest of the layout. 

There is also an advantage to having pairs of sections the same length and width.  I found that it was easy to move layout sections when you placed them face to face, then attached a piece of plywood across the ends and used pieces of old backdrop material to cover the front and back.  That makes a "box" that can easily be move with a hand truck.  I did that with a previous layout and moved it 3 times.  I never did reassemble the layout because by the time I got a house with a space where it would fit, my interests had changed and I wanted a new design.  However the layout was a in great condition and COULD have reassembled it even after moving from Omaha to Arkansas to Utah and back to Omaha.  In fact the frameworks and the track was stripped of the sections and the "benchwork" was recycled into the new layout.

You yard does not have a locomotive escape.

It does not seem to have a ladder at each end, that may be intentional, but if a train pulls into the yard with the loco in front it should have an escape crossover between one set of two tracks to allow the engine to get out.

Utility Run-Around?

You might consider adding a utility run-around (or two) over toward the yard/industrial area. (Crossovers between the two mains would do it.) As drawn, a switch job in that area would be a lesson in frustration.

Andre

You need a scale drawing program.

I use xtracad. There is also SCARM. Both free programs.
I assume that you plan on steam locomotives based on your era. I would recommend 24” minimum radius. Even if you start off with small switchers you will  want a bigger locomotive one day. 
 

Many medium sized steam locomotives will derail on the diverging track on smaller than number 6 turnouts. Remember that when you do your yard ladder, I found out that the hard way. I think 4 axle diesels would be fine. 
 

I would develop the plan better before making the bench work. You have close to 15” radius curves if you guesstimate from squares on the blob on the left. You also will need old school pop ups for access to the wide bench work . 

Your ‘yard ladder?’ will take up much more space for those turnouts than is drawn there. 

A favourite prototype!

Hi Teagonmurray, I think you're getting some good advice here on your plan, and I second the advice to assess your plan using a trackplanning program.

But I want to geek out a bit about your prototype, which is a favourite of mine! I grew up in Vancouver (in the 1980's) and model Victoria in the 1940's, but I also really really like Vancouver and New Westminster in the 1940's as a prototype as well. 

In my own research, I've found some really fantastic resources about Vancouver in that era, and I'd be happy to share whatever I've come across if you're interested. A few of my very favourites are:

http://vintageairphotos.com/ has amazing high-resolution aerial photos of the lower mainland and Vancouver Island in the 1940's and 1950's. For example, check out Rogers Sugar and the GNR pier in this one:  http://vintageairphotos.com/bo-47-2658/

A super-talented modeller named Colin Dover (never yet had the pleasure of meeting him or seeing his layout) created a beautiful layout of Vancouver in the 1940's. The only photos I've ever found are at these two sites:

• http://www.vanrail.ca/node/211
• http://www.cwrailway.ca/Vancouverwaterfront

Some great high-resolution maps:

• https://www.flickr.com/photos/vancouver-archives/5613475519/sizes/l/in/set-72157626484421302/
• http://data2.archives.ca/e/e431/e010761693.jpg

The City of Vancouver has a great online archive with some gorgeous high-resolution images, examples of which include:

• Ballyantyne Pier in 1925:  https://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/ballantyne-pier-2;rad
• A panorama with Hastings Sawmill, Rogers Sugar and GNR dock in 1920:  https://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/view-of-water-front-showing-hastings-sawmill-b-c-nail-factory-balfour-guthrie-warehouse-and-dock-g-n-railway-dock-and-b-c-sugar-refinery

If you're interested in a super-obscure prototype with steam engines with almost a short story written on the tender, check out the wonderfully-named "Vancouver Harbour Commissioners Terminal Railway"! It later was folded into the National Harbour Board. 

• A gorgeous compact 0-6-0:  https://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/vancouver-harbour-commissioners-terminal-railway-steam-engine-202;rad\

All the best!

Like it.

Hi,

this is a nice track plan!

Others have mentioned a couple of optimizations, I have another one

Looking at the plan you have a switching district "behind" Pier B. Which may be a rather long reach-in. I would consider moving the industry area a little to the right and the Pier a little to the left. Just to bring the switching district a bit closer to the layout edge (especially that team track).

Apart from a few small optimizations, it looks good!

Have fun!

PS: moving the pier right and the switching district to the left would also work. In fact that could give you a steeper angle on the pier's tracks, in line with Dave Husman's "portable layout" comment. Try different options in a track planning software

Karl – Wow. Thank you!

Karl – Wow. Thank you! Amazing resources. I’ve stumbled upon a few of those but not most. Yes, please do share what you have, that would be great! I’ll try to return the favor.

Hi everyone, Thanks for all

Hi everyone,

Thanks for all of the comments! It is HO scale indeed.

-Radius “blobs” – I agree. This is meant to be more of a mock up than to perfect scale. The left loop is quite close to what it will likely actually work out to, but the right side is definitely not. I might even merge the two tracks leaving the pier and then split them into a reverse loop to get a wider radius.

-Passing siding – The yard can act like a passing siding, though it is a good criticism. I might try to find a way to put one in on the right side; maybe at the top near the pier.

-General comments around making it “portable” - Dave – good criticisms. I don’t really see this becoming a true “portable” layout and would expect a move to be a major job. I might try to make it more portable by changing the section sizes/more standardization. The basement is weird so I’m a bit stuck I think (unless someone has an alternative benchwork plan). Though I think I might do the change to five feet as you suggest.

-Yard lead behind a view blocker – Good point. I will shrink/re-arrange the view blocker.

-Russ on ladder – It does not have a full ladder on each end intentionally. Rear tracks get too short.

-Utility run around – Good call and will look at adding a crossover.

-Scale drawing – I was more concerned about the benchwork and be doing either full-size mock up or do a scale drawing as suggested.

-Good call on moving the pier around to get better access to the switches.

I’m going to complete a new draft. I look forward to documenting on this goes. Cheers!

Benchwork

The way I did corners on two of my "open grid" type benchwork layouts was to make the corner either a 3x3 or a 4x4 square with one corner cut off, generally so that the truncated sides were 2 ft long since the benchwork sections between the corners were 24" deep.  For a blob end on one layout I made a pair of 3 ft x 5 ft sections and cut one corner off, mirror pattern.  Then when I put them back to back, I got a large enough blob for 24" radius that still mated with the 24" sections along the wall, but they could be broken down into two pieces that could fit through a door and that one person could carry.

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback!

.