# Critique my track plan



## Aminnich (Nov 17, 2014)

Hello everyone, 

As some of you know, I am starting a new layout and soon it will be time to buy the track and start laying it out. I will be using code 100 Atlas flex track with Walthers turnouts, HO scale of course. 

I wanted to see what you guys thought of the track plan I came up with. I did this in Anyrail, using the trial version, so there are 2 pictures because of the 50 track pieces limitation. I am not really sure of a good track plan for a paper mill. The lumber mill will directly feed the paper mill, so their individual track plans could intermingle. 



















Let me know what you think. Even if you think it is awful and I need to redo it, tell me. 

Thanks


----------



## MtRR75 (Nov 27, 2013)

I'm not an expert on layout design, but three things come to my mind.

(1) You've got a double main line almost all the way around -- except for the lower right section. If you want to run 2 trains simultaneously without having to flip switches you could complete the double track all the way around.

(2) At the top, near the break between the two diagrams, you have a "turnout to nowhere". Is that for a spur to the paper mill?

(3) You might want to put the fueling station along the inner main line, next to the engine service area. That way locos could refuel without having to disconnect from the train. If are doing diesel, you could have two fueling stations -- one along the main line and one in the service area. If you are doing steam, just one coaling tower along the main line -- they were too big and expensive to duplicate.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

A couple of thoughts:

1) I second MtRR75's comments on the double mainline (which is an easy fix--- just pull one turnout) and the "turnout to nowhere. 

2) Do you have access on both sides? If not, where will the access hatches be? 

3) I'm having trouble visualizing the flow because of the broken diagram (really, you can create a track plan that will cost several hundred dollars in track, etc, but can't scrape up $60 for the full version of Anyrail?). It seems to me, though, that you have two crossovers in one direction, but none in the other, necessating a reverse move to head in the opposite direction on your other track. Reversing the direction of one of those crossovers, and completing the double main as above, would fix this.

4) The layout is a closed loop. Presumably your coal will go somewhere, and logs / pulpwood for the paper / lumber mills will come from somewhere. Where is that? Perhaps a turnout leading to some removable double ended staging on the lower left side would solve that problem. You could put this staging on a cart that would roll under the layout, or into the center when not in use.

And not a criticism of the layout, per se, but this doesn't much resemble the "downsized" approach that you adopted a few weeks ago when you were thinking of quitting completely. Or is the bug harder to lick than you thought?


----------



## Aminnich (Nov 17, 2014)

MtRR75 said:


> I'm not an expert on layout design, but three things come to my mind.
> 
> (1) You've got a double main line almost all the way around -- except for the lower right section. If you want to run 2 trains simultaneously without having to flip switches you could complete the double track all the way around.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your comments MtRR75

1) I was not really sure what to do for the bottom right side, but continuing the double mainline is most logical. 

2) The turnout to nowhere is for the paper mill. Like I said, I was not sure how I wanted to do track work within the paper mill, so I just left an open spur there. I have to look at other layouts with paper mills to get a better idea of what I could/should do. 

3) The middle section for the engine facility and fueling is not really planned, that is an area that I really should go back and really try and figure out what I should do. I am doing diesel engines, so that you are saying about having 2 fueling tracks makes sense. I will try and incorporate that into the next update. 




CTValleyRR said:


> A couple of thoughts:
> 
> 1) I second MtRR75's comments on the double mainline (which is an easy fix--- just pull one turnout) and the "turnout to nowhere.
> 
> ...


2) I am going with the idea we talked about in my layout topic, having an "aisle" on both sides of the layout for me to get to the unreachable areas. I guess my screenshots did not include that area. 

For everyone else, the wall that the layout is going against is roughly 15'. The layout length against that wall will be 13' with 1' aisles on both sides (I am skinny and can fit). In my layout topic, we talked about having lift out access areas, but the aisles idea would be much better and easier to do. 

3) I knew you would say that  I just did not see the value in buying it for a one time use, but after finishing the track plan last night before posting, I realized I need the real version. This 50 piece track limit is a pain. The next purchase will be the AnyRail full version. Hopefully, it will help you and I both better understand my track plan 

4) For the middle section of the layout that is not built yet, I was considering putting a staging area under the layout. I would rather keep all the benchwork to the size it is now and not have a removable piece. Your idea would work, I just do not have a good place to keep in when it is detached. 

5) Yes, I know what I said, but once I started doing track planning, it just got bigger and bigger. So I figured I have all this stuff, why not use it. Once I got the benchwork built, I have been working on getting the surface prepped and ready to get some track laid. I am happy with the size of the layout, hopefully I do not regret it being so big. I have a lot done in the 2 weeks I have been working on it, progress is much faster than the last layout.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Aminnich said:


> Thank you for your comments MtRR75
> 
> 1) I was not really sure what to do for the bottom right side, but continuing the double mainline is most logical.
> 
> ...


In other words, the bug is pretty hard to lick! Don't say we didn't warn you. I thought i had licked it, but it was only in remission for about 25 years.

The important point in my #3 wasn't the cheap shot about Anyrail (which was just that). Didn't you have the full version at some point? Anyway, look at the direction of those crossovers and see if I'm right about not being able to reverse.


----------



## Aminnich (Nov 17, 2014)

CTValleyRR said:


> The important point in my #3 wasn't the cheap shot about Anyrail (which was just that). Didn't you have the full version at some point? Anyway, look at the direction of those crossovers and see if I'm right about not being able to reverse.


I was using SCARM before, but I decided to go with AnyRail this time. 

I will make revisions and post again tonight.


----------



## Nikola (Jun 11, 2012)

I would find a way to make the dual main lines not parallel at some point. It would add interest. Maybe the inside main line on the right side of the lower diagram can detour into the center of the table.


----------



## Aminnich (Nov 17, 2014)

I did some modifications. I still am stuck on what to do with that paper mill. I made the footprint of the buildings just to get an idea of size and where they should go with track.


----------



## deedub35 (Jan 29, 2014)

As noted by my esteemed colleagues - more crossovers - the only place to switch mainlines is at the lumber mill.


----------



## 1905dave (Sep 18, 2016)

The answer to whether or not its a good plan depends on what you want it to do? Do you just want to run trains around in a circle? (what type of trains?) Do you want to do switching, are you just building dioramas of rail served industries because you like building the structures?

What do you want it to do?

If you built it and were going to run trains, what trains would you run, how many people do you want to run it? What will the people do and what will the trains do?

Its an acceptable track plan as just a track plan, but if you really want to run passenger trains, then it won't meet your needs and you'll be disappointed. I like staging and a yard, I'm assuming the last iteration swapped the engine terminal for a freight yard.


----------



## Aminnich (Nov 17, 2014)

1905dave said:


> The answer to whether or not its a good plan depends on what you want it to do? Do you just want to run trains around in a circle? (what type of trains?) Do you want to do switching, are you just building dioramas of rail served industries because you like building the structures?
> 
> What do you want it to do?
> 
> ...


Dave, all good questions to ask before starting a track plan, and definitely best to have completely answered before laying track. 

I will be running diesel engines mainly for switching and running around the layout. No passenger trains. They do not interest me, I would much rather have industries with interesting loads than a bunch of people in a car. 

The layout is mine, no one else would be running it. Of course, if someone would want to give it a go with the controls, I would not mind, but I am not going to be having train meet-ups to run some trains. 

The last track plan I posted still has an engine terminal. I am having trouble finding a good track plan I like for the middle section. 

I still have some work to do to this plan before I start laying track.


----------



## 1905dave (Sep 18, 2016)

I would do some more thinking before I started laying track.

Switching normally involves having a group of cars that came from someplace else that are going to your industries (inbounds) and swapping them out with cars that are at your industries and are going someplace else (outbounds).

On your layout, you get your engine from the engine terminal and put in on the train of inbound cars. Where is that train located physically on your layout? How did it get there?

You run around the loop several times, switch the industries, it time to terminate the train, you stop the train, take the engine off and return it to the engine facilities. What happened to the outbound train? Where is it physically on the layout? What happens to it when you run a different train?

Are you 0-5-0'ing the cars on and off the layout whenever you start and stop a train?


----------



## 1905dave (Sep 18, 2016)

If I were building a layout in that space I would make it single track because if I'm going to be switching most of the time I would probably block the "other" train enough that making a double track wouldn't be as useful.

I would put 2 or 3 double ended staging sidings along the back and one of the corners. I would hide the staging tracks with a low backdrop, a row of trees or buildings maybe 8 in tall, just enough that the average viewer wouldn't be able to see the staging tracks from the front, but if I stood on a low stool, I could easily see and reach over the low backdrop to access the cars and track if I needed to (or else make it removable).
I would move all the industries to the front of the layout for access. I would put the lumber yard and scrap yard close together near the middle, maybe put the lumber mill and coal mine on the right side and the paper mill on the left side. If I HAD to have an engine terminal, I would put it near the center.

I might make the track along the front edge "double track" (actually more a main and a siding or running track), with the main track against the aisle and make most of the industries off the running track. There would be a 4 or so car runaround on the running track and only the scrap yard, lumber yard and maybe the engine facility off the front/main track, everything else off the runner.

For operations I would have 2-3 trains staged back in the staging tracks. A local that does industry work would com out of staging and then go on the runner. Since I have a run around on the runner the local could spend the rest of the session switching industries clear of the main track (except when it has to switch the scrap yard and lumber yard). That would allow me to run another train out of staging on the main while I was switching and the two wouldn't get in each other's way. If I wanted to, I could swap out engines on the through train since the engine facility breaks off the main.
If I had several staging tracks I would have and eastward and westward trains, so when the local wasn't switching I could run trains and then use the runner as a siding and make train meets.

But then again my interests are probably not yours.


----------



## Aminnich (Nov 17, 2014)

Dave, thanks for your ideas on what I could do with the space I have available.

If I have a staging area, it will be under the layout. It would basically be a long shelf that will slide into place from one end of the layout and the 3 tracks would be easily accessible from inside the "U" of the layout. I like the idea of having somewhere to go with the trains once I am done, but I do not like that it would take up some space on the layout that I could have more industry. Sure it would not take up a lot of room, but once you factor in the small hill and the 3 tracks, it all adds up. 

As for having a single mainline instead of double makes sense for this layout, but I think I would want more than one run around track then. One long one along the back wall and one where you described.


----------



## Aminnich (Nov 17, 2014)

completely different plan


----------



## Nikola (Jun 11, 2012)

Aminnich said:


> completely different plan


I like the siding with the crossing.

But way too many sidings for me.


----------



## Aminnich (Nov 17, 2014)

I like the amount of sidings, I am not too sure about how crazy the top section is. But everything comes from that area and provides me with longer spurs, which I like. 

I need to make the coal area better and make use of the space next to the lumber yard.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

I like that plan better. It still allows you to run in a loop, but is much more versatile, and actually less cluttered than the other. 

You absolutely DO NOT need to fill up all the space. Just because you have an open area doesn't mean you need to fill it with something (other than scenery). I assume that little stub siding in the center is so you can put a track down into the open space. I would just delete it.

Instead of thinking "what can I put there?", try asking yourself what you think is missing from your plan or operations. If you can't think of anything, then you probably don't need anything there.

The only thing obviously missing from my perspective is staging. Yes, it may be under the layout, but how will trains get there?


----------



## Aminnich (Nov 17, 2014)

I changed some things around. I did not like that the lumber yard was so close to the lumber yard. I wanted some distance between them. So I switched the coal mine and lumber yard. I also added a small staging area on the layout behind the lumber yard. Do you think it makes the area too crowded?? 

Also, I made the same track plan but with a double mainline. What are your thoughts? I say way too crowded, but it might just be all the lines on the computer screen messing with me, i dont know. 





















CTValleyRR said:


> I like that plan better. It still allows you to run in a loop, but is much more versatile, and actually less cluttered than the other.
> 
> You absolutely DO NOT need to fill up all the space. Just because you have an open area doesn't mean you need to fill it with something (other than scenery). I assume that little stub siding in the center is so you can put a track down into the open space. I would just delete it.
> 
> ...


Looks like without reading your post, I did what you suggested. Great minds think alike, or at least I try and keep up


----------



## 1905dave (Sep 18, 2016)

*New plans*

Latest iteration is getting very busy. I am not a big fan of the running on both sides of the table in the same scene design. Very hard to make it look real. The double track version screams "TRAIN SET". You have industries set in a rural, mountainous area but enough track for a major city.

To me it seems like a problem to have the yards and a lot of the industry on the outside edges, and having to squeeze back in those 12" "aisles" to do anything. Putting switching yard at the end of 4 ft lead in a spot you can't reach from the main aisle is not a real handy situation.

Have you considered an "around the walls" design? Cut the last plan down the middle and press it against the walls. You end up with more access, better scenic opportunities, less crowding and there is lots of room to slide stuff around to make room for a lift out, gate or drop down.

In a previous post you mentioned putting staging under the layout. Have you designed the benchwork to accommodate that? Where are you going to put the connection down? To go down 4 inches for clearance you will need about 200 inches or 17 feet of run If you have a table made of plywood with 1x4's under it you'll have to go under the 1x4's so that means going another 4 in down, for a run of 32-35 ft, that's about twice around the whole layout.


----------



## Aminnich (Nov 17, 2014)

1905dave said:


> Latest iteration is getting very busy. I am not a big fan of the running on both sides of the table in the same scene design. Very hard to make it look real. The double track version screams "TRAIN SET". You have industries set in a rural, mountainous area but enough track for a major city.
> 
> To me it seems like a problem to have the yards and a lot of the industry on the outside edges, and having to squeeze back in those 12" "aisles" to do anything. Putting switching yard at the end of 4 ft lead in a spot you can't reach from the main aisle is not a real handy situation.
> 
> ...


I agree that the last track plan I posted is crazy busy. I only posted it to show what a double main line would look like for the track plan I have. The picture right about that one is the one I am lending towards, possibly without the staging area altogether. 

I just finished building the benchwork this evening and only have some finishing touches to do before I can lay some track. That being said, whatever layout I decide on will fit that benchwork. I had originally thought about an around the room layout, but it just would not work right. The room itself is not finished (we just moved in) and even after it was finished, that type of layout still would not have worked. 

Like I said, I finished the benchwork this evening and the "aisles" are present now. I had no problem getting to the unreachable areas of the layout. Sure, it would be a pain to bend down and pick something up, but I could manage. 

Staging for this layout is not crucial for me to have included. I would rather have one long siding would I can park a train and still be able to run another train on the mainline. Sure staging makes everything run a little better, but there are a lot of sidings on this layout plan and that means a lot of space for cars.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

1905dave said:


> Latest iteration is getting very busy. I am not a big fan of the running on both sides of the table in the same scene design. Very hard to make it look real. The double track version screams "TRAIN SET". You have industries set in a rural, mountainous area but enough track for a major city.
> 
> To me it seems like a problem to have the yards and a lot of the industry on the outside edges, and having to squeeze back in those 12" "aisles" to do anything. Putting switching yard at the end of 4 ft lead in a spot you can't reach from the main aisle is not a real handy situation.
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure that the OP isn't overly worried about realism, but about creating a design that holds his interest.

Your point about the staging is well taken, though.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Aminnich said:


> I changed some things around. I did not like that the lumber yard was so close to the lumber yard. I wanted some distance between them. So I switched the coal mine and lumber yard. I also added a small staging area on the layout behind the lumber yard. Do you think it makes the area too crowded??
> 
> Also, I made the same track plan but with a double mainline. What are your thoughts? I say way too crowded, but it might just be all the lines on the computer screen messing with me, i dont know.
> 
> ...


No, actually, not really.

I was arguing for keeping it simpler and not adding a bunch more spaghetti to the plan.

I understand WHY you relocated the industry, but I don't think it helped your layout much.

Taking into account what you said about staging in your other reply, I think you're backing yourself into a corner. Creative scenery can be used to visually separate two industries. Since you will presumably be "taking a lap" between deliveries from one to the other. But really, your problem is that you are trying to get the effects of staging (separation between industries) without actually using it. I don't really think there's a good solution to that.

Either accept the artificiality of the closed loop and embrace it, or see what steps you can take to make things more realistic.

For my money, I still think you would be well served by a cassette or moveable staging area, but obviously that's your call.


----------



## Aminnich (Nov 17, 2014)

But like you said, I am not going for realism for this layout. So I do not need a staging area to keep the realism, because I do not have any. 

There are many kinds of layouts, the coolest ones are the most prototypical and have the most realism possible. Mine is not that, I building this to run some trains and have fun building it. 

I do not like making tracks plan at all, I hope you understand that. I am looking at the space I have and figuring out how I can use that space in the most efficient way, with the most industries, but not cramming the entire area full.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Aminnich said:


> But like you said, I am not going for realism for this layout. So I do not need a staging area to keep the realism, because I do not have any.
> 
> There are many kinds of layouts, the coolest ones are the most prototypical and have the most realism possible. Mine is not that, I building this to run some trains and have fun building it.
> 
> I do not like making tracks plan at all, I hope you understand that. I am looking at the space I have and figuring out how I can use that space in the most efficient way, with the most industries, but not cramming the entire area full.


That's why I said "embrace the lack of realism". It's not wrong to participate in the hobby that way. What is important is that you enjoy it.

Unfortunately, making a track plan is (for you) a necessary evil. Come up with something that does what you want (and you may be there already) and build the darned thing. Run it for a while, and then fix the things that don't quite work for you. Repeat as necessary until you feel it's right. Then fasten it down permanently.

Posting it out here and asking for advice is like begging to have endless iterations of a track plan, as you try to do what WE want, not what you want.


----------



## Aminnich (Nov 17, 2014)

CTValleyRR said:


> That's why I said "embrace the lack of realism". It's not wrong to participate in the hobby that way. What is important is that you enjoy it.
> 
> Unfortunately, making a track plan is (for you) a necessary evil. Come up with something that does what you want (and you may be there already) and build the darned thing. Run it for a while, and then fix the things that don't quite work for you. Repeat as necessary until you feel it's right. Then fasten it down permanently.
> 
> Posting it out here and asking for advice is like begging to have endless iterations of a track plan, as you try to do what WE want, not what you want.


Thank you for that, sometimes I just need the push just do it instead of making things last forever. 

I will be ordering track and some turnouts this weekend hopefully.


----------



## Nikola (Jun 11, 2012)

Aminnich said:


> Thank you for that, sometimes I just need the push just do it instead of making things last forever.
> 
> I will be ordering track and some turnouts this weekend hopefully.


Again, my personal opinion:

- keep the two main lines

- tweak one of them so that they are not exactly side by side all the way around

- eliminate half of the sidings

- embrace the extra space for landscaping


----------



## deedub35 (Jan 29, 2014)

I would agree with my esteemed colleagues that less is more. Less track would be more realistic and also keep your costs way down. Remember that for every industry building that is serviced by trains on the other side there are parking lots, loading zones, and roads. Also having space for scenery adds to the overall scene.


----------



## dinwitty (Oct 29, 2015)

this is why we have track planning, you can fiddle with design. You might be able to get a lot more in this size of area if you want to double loop up and over and get more mainline. Tahachapi loops were popular in the past as a way to get more running. I would let the running main poked towards the rear while switching areas brought forward. The effect you want is the train going somewhere than loopdedoo. I have a reverse loop on my layout but its sorta hidden by design. If you intend to stay level, fine, crossing your own track makes it interesting. but you could have a double dogbone easy making the train "go somewhere"


----------



## Aminnich (Nov 17, 2014)

I didn't order track, but (and I'm sorry for this) I am rethinking the track plan. Adding a staging yard would be nice and I think I have an idea of how to do it. It is just going to take some thinking and redoing some of the benchwork to accommodate the idea. I am not 100% sure of the idea, but once I figure it out and have an file design, I will post it. 

I did order track and some turnouts, over the weekend though.


----------



## Aminnich (Nov 17, 2014)

I make this throughout the day, I really like it. I know a lot of you are going to say it is too busy, but it includes everything I want. The staging is under the paper mill. You can kind of see it in the second picture.



















More details later, I have to go. Comment if you have any concerns or questions.

EDIT:
Sorry about that, I had to leave and I wanted to at least post the pictures of what I had just finished a minute before. 

Let me explain. 

The track plan is a single mainline with an extra long secondary mainline that runs into the staging area. The full mainline can be seen in the first picture. 

On the right side of the bench work, you will notice a line going through the middle, that represents a change in elevation of 3". The paper mill is raised 3 inches so that the staging area could go underneath it. The staging goes down an inch (maybe 1.5") from the main level of the layout. This height for the staging will accommodate the 2.25 inch rolling stock, track height and the thickness of the foam board under the paper mill (either 1/2" or 1" depending on how much the drop down is for the staging area. The maximum grade is 2.2%. 

The engine house/dealer area was the last to be done and it obviously needs help after looking at it again for the second time. I will figure something out. 

Let me know what you think. I have some work to do to the bench work for this track plan idea. changing the foam on the right side and lowering the left side's end so that the bridge is "cut out" of the mountain. 

Thanks for reading and thanks for everyone that gives their true thoughts about my track plans, negative constructive comments are better than nothing


----------



## Aminnich (Nov 17, 2014)

After actually looking at the track plan, I realized how bad it actually is. There is no way to turn the train around. So it's back to the drawing borad. 

Is the staging area worth the change in elevation hassle?


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Aminnich said:


> After actually looking at the track plan, I realized how bad it actually is. There is no way to turn the train around. So it's back to the drawing borad.
> 
> Is the staging area worth the change in elevation hassle?


No one said staging has to be on a different level. If you look at my track plan, you will see that my staging is on the same level, separated by a low backdrop.

For my money, yes, staging really adds to both the realism and operational flexibility of a layout, so it is always worth the elevation hassle.

Again, though, detachable double ended staging would enable to easily solve both the elevation and the turning trains issue.

But if you want to do it the way you have, rather than elevating the paper mill, take that INSIDE track and drop it down, following the curve of the board. Your staging would end up under the Engine house area, and you could potentially run a Y track under the left side of the layout, which would enable turning trains.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Since you have spurs that require cars to be pushed
forward for entry, and others that require cars to be
pushed backward you need passing sidings. One could
be installed above the loco service area. 

A second passing siding could be established by
installing a turnout at the top end of track 1 in the
right hand yard to the main or secondary main it
just about touches. Or is that secondary main elevated?
Unclear.

I'm not sure of the spur to superior paper. Is it
elevated over the yard tracks on the right?

A reverse loop to turn trains around could be
created by connecting the track feeding the 
3 yard spurs on the left to the main on the left.

Don


----------



## Aminnich (Nov 17, 2014)

CTValleyRR said:


> No one said staging has to be on a different level. If you look at my track plan, you will see that my staging is on the same level, separated by a low backdrop.
> 
> For my money, yes, staging really adds to both the realism and operational flexibility of a layout, so it is always worth the elevation hassle.
> 
> ...


I did the change in elevation strictly so that I could have the staging area and not give up area for industry. I know, not the best idea, but I wanted to see what it would be like. 

I have another idea for a double ended staging area, but I do not know how well it will fit in the room. I will design it and post it, hopefully you like it. I am going to work on this before modifying the elevation change track plan. 



DonR said:


> Since you have spurs that require cars to be pushed
> forward for entry, and others that require cars to be
> pushed backward you need passing sidings. One could
> be installed above the loco service area.
> ...


A lot of the spots you mentioned, the tracks have different elevations and well I can not join the two. 

This elevation change layout plan is awful for so many reasons

EDIT: The double ended staging idea I had did not work


----------



## dinwitty (Oct 29, 2015)

he has a loopy track, he can just run around the loop to get to the other end. If you have ever seen the Central of New Jersey island line, its a simple loop around a building. If you are trying to get a more railroad going somewhere a design change is needed. I see no reason for a return loop to turn trains. That gives you some electrical issues. A fiddle track needs to be in front to place/remove cars. My layout has taken a no hidden track rule and no fiddle tracks rule, the trains all go somewhere. I made a "fiddle track" using the Walthers carfloat for getting cars on/off. Its realistic with purpose, about the same a fiddle yard can do. One of the model magazines covered that CNJ island setup and even drew a plan in HO for it. The bottom plan shows a track looking like it is going hidden to a fiddle yard, if you have easy access, thats fine if not, scrap that. 
Keep cranking, something will suit you. CNJ ran a boxcab diesel, one of the early first diesels. Usual switching layouts like shelf layouts have no turnaround capabilities.
You have to catch his purpose, see how far he can go with the size restrictions and see what can be done. Some industries do not have to be fully represented, they can be almost flats on the wall with tracks beside them, walthers sells some virtual flat industries just for that purpose. Something called selective compression is done a lot for modeling. This is why I say you can get a lot more into this layout. Knowing what you CAN do will push the layout further.


----------



## 1905dave (Sep 18, 2016)

The whole engine house/caterpillar dealer will be a nightmare to switch, requiring up to 4 switchbacks and if you already have cars spotted, to spot new cars it could require a train to run from there back to the scrap yard area 2 or 3 times just to spot a car and then reverse the process to put back any respots or else move cars to the lumber mill until you finish switching the engine house. Why make it harder?

You will get more bang for your buck having one or two long double ended tracks than 4 or 5 short stub ended tracks. You only have about 6 ft to get down below the main track, so that's a 4-5% grade, very steep, on a curve, into a bunch of hidden switches in an inaccessible area. A really bad combination.


----------



## dinwitty (Oct 29, 2015)

http://www.bronx-terminal.com/?p=5

just for jollies, someone is making the CNJ Bronx terminal. Source for some inspiration and possibilities what you can do in small areas. Give him time to think and try things.


----------



## Aminnich (Nov 17, 2014)

I am just scrolling through google images looking for some ideas; what about having a swing out section to make the layout a continuous loop? I could still run the layout with out it as a point to point layout, but if the swingoht was available, I would have a continuous loop? 

Thoughts? Or are you guys tired of this?


----------



## 1905dave (Sep 18, 2016)

That's been suggested by several posters previously and you said it wasn't an option. But if its on the table it will open up a whole bunch of possibilities.


----------



## Aminnich (Nov 17, 2014)

1905dave said:


> That's been suggested by several posters previously and you said it wasn't an option. But if its on the table it will open up a whole bunch of possibilities.


Around the room was brought up, but not a swing out section. Or are they thought to be the same thing?


----------



## 1905dave (Sep 18, 2016)

Around the room means that you stand in the middle of the room/layout and the layout goes around you on a "narrow" (12"-30" typical) bench on or near the walls. 

Swing out/lift out/drop leaf are all ways to have a "duck free" entrance.


----------



## Aminnich (Nov 17, 2014)

I would be using the same benchwork I have now, just connecting the two with a thin section with no major scenery. 

If I did this, I could easily have a double main with all the industries I wanted without it being as crowded AND have a dpuble track double ended staging in the back with a low profile hill hiding it.


----------



## dinwitty (Oct 29, 2015)

a swing out/drop out has been done, the owner of Tomar near me has a layout and pulls that trick on it also, I have similar plans I didnt expect to use that idea. Give it a shot on planning and see what you think. My layout is still in planning processes. I have 2 decks now, the lower one I laid out snap track got trains running and see how my plan was working out and if I needed to tweak my idea or change it. The upper deck is a more solid planned design wont change it much. A model railroad is really never done.


----------



## Aminnich (Nov 17, 2014)

Just so we are on the same page as what am I thinking:


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

That's the idea, yes.


----------



## Aminnich (Nov 17, 2014)

Ok so plans have changed, parents are deciding to change their mind on what they want to do with the "train room" in the basement. Originally they wanted the close off under the steps and make it a storage room with a full-size door (space killer). Now they are deciding now to close that area off, but instead just leave it open for storage of stuff we rarely use. 

So I could redesign the benchwork and make my workbench a lot more functional (L-shaped) A picture best describes what I am talking about. 

Old idea with the storage area with door










New idea with better workbench and STAGING area (single ended not double) 










As for track work, I have no clue. I have Thanksgiving break starting Monday, so I would like to have something make up so I can start laying track next week.


----------

