# Free Track Planning Help



## Dreadnought

Hello,

For several years now I have been designing track plans, all for my own usage, though only recently have I truly found a plan that I feel I will be satisfied with. However, this has left me with nothing else to design, and thus, I have decided to try and extend my services to you guys.

If anyone would like, I will help you by drawing a track plan for you, or refining one of your own design, in order to better accomplish what it is you want to in the space you have available. If you wish for me to help you, it would help if you could fill out one of the below forms and post it as a reply.


*Form A*
This form is for people who are new to the hobby and have limited or no experience with it.
1. Physical Properties
How much space do you have for a layout? Does it have any intruding features (i.e. an inward-swinging door or a staircase?)

What scale do you want your layout to be?

2. Layout Properties
Is there a specific prototype you wish to model? If not, what is the nature of the freelanced railroad?

What is the locale of the layout?

What era is to be modeled?

3. Operating Properties
What type of trains do you want to operate?

Do you prefer continuous running or point-to-point running?

Is there a specific style that is preferred for the mainline (i.e. loop-to-loop, point-to-point, out-and-back)?

Lastly, please provide an overall concept for the layout - how you want it to feel. Do you want an Appalachian Coal Hauler or a Modern Desert Layout, or some other thing?

*Form B*
This form is for people who have some experience in the hobby (including having constructed or been heavily involved in a complete layout).
1. Physical Properties
How much space do you have for a layout? Does it have any intruding features (i.e. an inward-swinging door or a staircase?)

What scale (and gauge if not standard)?

What is the minimum turnout size you will be using? What is the minimum radius you will be using? (When answering these questions, it helps to think about what type of trains you will be running. Most passenger trains should not be running on anything below a 30" HO Scale Radius (62" for O, 19" for N) in order to achieve the best look and reliability. Also, locomotive type is important here; larger locomotives generally require greater curve radii and larger turnouts.)

Is there a specific type of layout that is desirable (i.e. walk-in, island, around-the-walls, multiple decks)?

Are there any structures or other things from previous layouts that are to be incorporated into the new one (i.e. bridges, turntables, etc.)?

2. Layout Properties
Is there a specific prototype? If freelanced, what is the nature of the freelanced railroad?

What is the specific locale of the layout (that is, if you are wishing to model the Pennsylvania Railroad, which part?)

Are there any specific places or scenes that want to be modeled?

Is there a specific era that is to be modeled?

3. Operating Properties
What type of trains do you plan to operate on the layout? What size?

Do you prefer mainline running to switching, or switching to mainline running?

How many operators will usually be present to operate the layout?

Is there a specific style that is preferred for the mainline (i.e. loop-to-loop, point-to-point, out-and-back)?

Will the mainline be one, two, or another number of tracks? If the mainline is one track, how long will passing sidings need to be (think about train size)?

Is a large amount of staging required? Is it preferable to have a large on-line yard or mostly off-line yards?

If staging is present, will it be above, below, or some other arrangement in regards to the main layout?

Are there any particular industries that would like to be modeled?

Are there any special features of the layout that you would like (that is, grades, a waterfront, a large coal mine, many large viaducts, etc.)?

Lastly, please provide a general description of the layout with regards to its operation and overall feel. Do you want an Appalachian coal-hauler with huge articulated steam locomotives, or a modern desert layout with huge trains of double stacks?


*NOTE:* Providing photographs in addition to any of your responses is VERY beneficial. You can also provide photographs on the concluding paragraph to help me get a feel for your layout. Any amount of photographs is acceptable.

Thanks!


----------



## Shdwdrgn

Since you are offering to help with any scale, maybe this should have gone under General or the Layout Design section so more people could see it?

Also in addition to your list above, you might also ask if the person has a sketch of what they had in mind, or if they have pictures of another railroad that gives the 'feel' of what they are looking for. I see this a lot when people are talking about designing something, they had seen another item that caught their interest, and they want to mimic that in their own design.


----------



## Aminnich

Umm, you are my new best friend! I hate track work, I like physically doing it, but actually designing it... nope. 

I will definitely keep this in mind for my next layout. You don't wanna touch the one I have now, it would make you quite the hobby, it is not well planned at all


----------



## Dreadnought

Shdwdrgn said:


> Since you are offering to help with any scale, maybe this should have gone under General or the Layout Design section so more people could see it?
> 
> Also in addition to your list above, you might also ask if the person has a sketch of what they had in mind, or if they have pictures of another railroad that gives the 'feel' of what they are looking for. I see this a lot when people are talking about designing something, they had seen another item that caught their interest, and they want to mimic that in their own design.


Right you are, it slipped my mind - I am used to only posting in this forum! I will move it immediately.


----------



## Dreadnought

Thank you, gunrunnerjohn.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn

I merged the threads, one thread to a topic please.


----------



## Viperjim1

*Passenger multi level*

Do I have a job for you, if you choose to accept it. It is currently a ho scale in a model railroader by Stan Sweatt, Metropolitan union passenger terminal. I need it converted to n scale using all Kato track and the HO layout has radius end curved turnouts, but we all know Kato does not make these so # 6's have to be incorporated as such it has about 36 turnouts and the slip switches are going to be 15 degree crossovers, as I don't think I need a slip switch at these points. The layout will be about 9 by 12 as the ho size is 10 by 20. I'll have to look to see what edition the layout is I. And I've already contacted Stan and he sent some better drawings then were published. So if you interested pm me and I'll send you the diagrams I have upper and lower. Oh and will be dcc, if that makes a difference? Thanks and hope to hear from you to take on this task. All passenger have widest radius double tracks Kato makes as well as enough track to probably do 2 or 3 of these. Thanks again.


----------



## Odyknuck

I'm in. You have a PM. Thanks much for your generosity. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## CTValleyRR

I have helped many people over the years myself. I have posted several of my track plans in the "A Collection of Track Plans" section under the Layout Design Forum.

Perhaps you would consider doing the same with some of yours?

Also, just for consideration, anyone who has been doing a lot of research on the hobby may be able to answer your questions (and all of your current responders are in that category), but the true newbie is going to respond to most of them with a hefty shug and an "I don't know". I have tried in the past to get them to respond to a long detailed questionnaire, without a lot of success. I have found that it's better to engage in a dialogue, beginning with location, theme, method of operation, and basic design (loop, point to point) as well as their overall concept, then going from there on things like turn radius, turnout size, number of operators, specific industries, grades, etc. This allows me to use my experience to guide them away from potential trouble spots (big locos on tight turns, for instance).


----------



## Dreadnought

CTValleyRR said:


> I have helped many people over the years myself. I have posted several of my track plans in the "A Collection of Track Plans" section under the Layout Design Forum.
> 
> Perhaps you would consider doing the same with some of yours?
> 
> Also, just for consideration, anyone who has been doing a lot of research on the hobby may be able to answer your questions (and all of your current responders are in that category), but the true newbie is going to respond to most of them with a hefty shug and an "I don't know". I have tried in the past to get them to respond to a long detailed questionnaire, without a lot of success. I have found that it's better to engage in a dialogue, beginning with location, theme, method of operation, and basic design (loop, point to point) as well as their overall concept, then going from there on things like turn radius, turnout size, number of operators, specific industries, grades, etc. This allows me to use my experience to guide them away from potential trouble spots (big locos on tight turns, for instance).


Once again, right you are - I'll add a more 'newbie' section promptly. As for posting layout plans, I will if I should get one from this project. My reason for this is because none (or very few) of my track plans are of quality that I can post it online. I plan to make any plans under this project of a much higher quality than I accept for myself.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Dreadnought said:


> Once again, right you are - I'll add a more 'newbie' section promptly. As for posting layout plans, I will if I should get one from this project. My reason for this is because none (or very few) of my track plans are of quality that I can post it online. I plan to make any plans under this project of a much higher quality than I accept for myself.


Don't sell yourself short. That thread is intended for inspiration, not build-ready plans. Several of the ones I have posted aren't ready for prime time, either. You can also see how two of mine are revisions of earlier ones, based on someone's wishes to modify it.

The way I see it, it's easier to edit a printed page than a blank one.


----------



## Dreadnought

CTValleyRR said:


> Don't sell yourself short. That thread is intended for inspiration, not build-ready plans. Several of the ones I have posted aren't ready for prime time, either. You can also see how two of mine are revisions of earlier ones, based on someone's wishes to modify it.
> 
> The way I see it, it's easier to edit a printed page than a blank one.


Is it acceptable to post hand-drawn images on that forum? If not, what program do you use to post there?


----------



## Aminnich

Like I said before, I will definitely use this, but not just for someone to do my track plan, but someone to work with to better my design. 

I fell like this is more of a collaboration between 2 or 3 of us to design a great layout for someone, newbies especially.


----------



## Dreadnought

Aminnich said:


> Like I said before, I will definitely use this, but not just for someone to do my track plan, but someone to work with to better my design.
> 
> I fell like this is more of a collaboration between 2 or 3 of us to design a great layout for someone, newbies especially.


Sounds good to me.


----------



## Shdwdrgn

Perhaps for the newbie section you should start with a series of labeled pictures... This is a switching yard, this is a dogbone, this is your classic over/under figure-8, etc. Beginners probably don't know that various common starting points have specific name, but anyone can point to a picture and say "that's what I want!" It's always a slow process to get the correct information from someone who doesn't speak the language, but once you a good set of measurements and a general idea of what they're looking for, then you can help them visualize filling in a more complex layout by adding multiple mainlines, various sized yards, or mountains/tunnels in certain areas.

I think the hardest thing you will run in to is trying to explain why someone can't make an HO scale layout on a 3x5 foot board complete with tall mountains and a 20-track yard. "But I've seen it done!" No, you haven't. "Well you just don't know what you're talking about." *sigh* ok...


----------



## Homeless by Choice

*Homeless' Design Request Part 1*

Dreadnought,
You started this topic just as I needed all this help. I have been putting together a list of Decided’s, Desired’s, and Undecided’s so I could ask this forum’s assistance in designing a model railroad layout. Please HELP as much as you can. Here is what I have so far:

*Decided’s:*
Scale:	HO
Track:	Nickel silver flextrack
Turnouts:	PECO Insufrog size: unknown
Control:	DCC (<= was DDC)
Room:	24’ X 27’ heated lower level house open room with temperature range of 45-90F and relative humidity of 25-90%; laminated flooring; large windows on two walls; furnace, drain pipe, two support columns, and two heat ducts as shown on attached Jpegs.
Benchwork:	30” maximum reach; mainline 50” above floor; 40” minimum aisle width (48” better)

*Desired’s:*
Operations based layout with a mainline (manually and/or computer controlled) with a few passing sidings where two or more trains can operate at the same time. Each train would consist of two engines and 15 cars maximum. This layout would be operated by one person most of the time and up to four people sometimes.

I am thinking of a fictitious rail line of the 1950’s-60’s era with a mixture of stream and diesel. The mainline could service the yards. The local lines would service city centers, logging and mining industries, farming communities, etc. The scenery would include mountains, farm land, forests, open pit mine, and desert of the southwest USA. I am not railroad savvy in terms of correct terminology and/or proper operational procedures. I would like the operation to be somewhat prototypical. Maybe the mainline could (<= was come) go thru tunnels or hidden views to give a feeling of distance. I am thinking that the mainline could be something like a Saladbowl express train from California to New York or a container train from the Pacific docks to the east coast.

*Undecided’s:*
Minimum radius: 26” for mainline?, 22” for yards?
City industries = unknown?
Country industries = grain elevator, logging/mill operation, etc?
Open pit mine with N-scale operational mine ore train? Commodities = Copper? Coal? Gravel? Marble? Granite?
Multiple levels?

The above gives you an idea of what is running thru my mind. Since this is my first real layout, it is over whelming. My vision is to lock in the benchwork. Then start with one section at a time. I have about five months to work on the actual layout at 20 hours per week each summer and another five months of planning and scenery work at 20 hours per week each winter in Arizona, 2200 miles away.

The first attachment is my lower level room layout.
The second attachment is the room dimensions.
The third attachment is my beginning idea of the benchwork.

Like I stated in the beginning, this is only my first thoughts that have not been fully developed. Please feel free to suggest any and all improvements. Everyone's comments will be fully appreciated.

Thank you,
LeRoy


----------



## Dreadnought

Homeless by Choice said:


> Dreadnought,
> You started this topic just as I needed all this help. I have been putting together a list of Decided’s, Desired’s, and Undecided’s so I could ask this forum’s assistance in designing a model railroad layout. Please HELP as much as you can. Here is what I have so far:
> 
> *Decided’s:*
> Scale:	HO
> Track:	Nickel silver flextrack
> Turnouts:	PECO Insufrog size: unknown
> Control:	DDC
> Room:	24’ X 27’ heated lower level house open room with temperature range of 45-90F and relative humidity of 25-90%; laminated flooring; large windows on two walls; furnace, drain pipe, two support columns, and two heat ducts as shown on attached Jpegs.
> Benchwork:	30” maximum reach; mainline 50” above floor; 40” minimum aisle width (48” better)
> 
> *Desired’s:*
> Operations based layout with a mainline (manually and/or computer controlled) with a few passing sidings where two or more trains can operate at the same time. Each train would consist of two engines and 15 cars maximum. This layout would be operated by one person most of the time and up to four people sometimes.
> 
> I am thinking of a fictitious rail line of the 1950’s-60’s era with a mixture of stream and diesel. The mainline could service the yards. The local lines would service city centers, logging and mining industries, farming communities, etc. The scenery would include mountains, farm land, forests, open pit mine, and desert of the southwest USA. I am not railroad savvy in terms of correct terminology and/or proper operational procedures. I would like the operation to be somewhat prototypical. Maybe the mainline come go thru tunnels or hidden views to give a feeling of distance. I am thinking that the mainline could be something like a Saladbowl express train from California to New York or a container train from the Pacific docks to east coast.
> 
> *Undecided’s:*
> Minimum radius: 26” for mainline?, 22” for yards?
> City industries = unknown?
> Country industries = grain elevator, logging/mill operation, etc?
> Open pit mine with N-scale operational mine ore train? Commodities = Copper? Coal? Gravel? Marble? Granite?
> Multiple levels?
> 
> The above gives you an idea of what is running thru my mind. Since this is my first real layout, it is over whelming. My vision is to lock in the benchwork. Then start with one section at a time. I have about five months to work on the actual layout at 20 hours per week each summer and another five months of planning and scenery work at 20 hours per week each winter in Arizona, 2200 miles away.
> 
> The first attachment is my lower level room layout.
> The second attachment is the room dimensions.
> The third attachment is my beginning idea of the benchwork.
> 
> Like I stated in the beginning, this is only my first thoughts that have not been fully developed. Please feel free to suggest any and all improvements. Everyone's comments will be fully appreciated.
> 
> Thank you,
> LeRoy


Thank you for this much information, it is a major help. Tomorrow I will definitely begin work on getting some semblance of a track plan together, but as of now I have a few questions. Are the shaded areas in your images (which, by the way, are extremely helpful) backdrops that you wish to, or have already installed? I am assuming that this is only a benchwork idea, and not what benchwork has already been installed. Also, what height is the furnace (or does it go all the way to the ceiling)? And what diameter are the heat ducts, columns and sewer line? Finally, what does the oval in the bottom right of the room dim file near the words 'Mountains and Logging' represent?


----------



## Homeless by Choice

*Homeless' Design Request Part 2*



Dreadnought said:


> Thank you for this much information, it is a major help. Tomorrow I will definitely begin work on getting some semblance of a track plan together, but as of now I have a few questions. Are the shaded areas in your images (which, by the way, are extremely helpful) backdrops that you wish to, or have already installed? I am assuming that this is only a benchwork idea, and not what benchwork has already been installed. Also, what height is the furnace (or does it go all the way to the ceiling)? And what diameter are the heat ducts, columns and sewer line? Finally, what does the oval in the bottom right of the room dim file near the words 'Mountains and Logging' represent?


Q: Are the shaded areas in your images (which, by the way, are extremely helpful) backdrops that you wish to, or have already installed? 
A: There are 5 red diagonal shaded areas. They represent areas that are beyond the 30" reach. The bottom, left, and top perimeter blue outline represent existing 24" shelf that is the result of how I finished the lower half level of the house. Under it is a 12" poured concrete wall with 6" of insulation. Above it is a 6" insulated wooden knee wall finished with drywall. The walls are painted a light tan. The ceiling is made of suspended 2'X4' grid tiles. The window sills are 50 inches above the floor.

Q: I am assuming that this is only a benchwork idea, and not what benchwork has already been installed.
A: That is correct, benchwork idea only. No bench work has been started.

Q: Also, what height is the furnace (or does it go all the way to the ceiling)?
A: Yes, for simplicity sake, consider the furnace (30" depth X 40" width) to go all the way to the ceiling tile because of the vertical duct work. The ceiling is 90" above the floor. The benchwork behind the furnace can only be 8" wide.

Q: And what diameter are the heat ducts, columns and sewer line?
A: Heat ducts = 8" diameter; columns = 3" diameter; and sewer line = 6" diameter.

Q: Finally, what does the oval in the bottom right of the room dim file near the words 'Mountains and Logging' represent?
A: I was toying with the idea of a (spiral oval track) helix going to a higher or lower level around a Mountain and then tunnels inside the mountain as it continues. The oval represents an inside bottom access to the track for derailments, etc.

Additionally, the aisles are shown as 40" wide and the remainder of the benchwork is shown as 60" wide.

Thank you for your interest and assistance,
LeRoy


----------



## Homeless by Choice

*Homeless' Design Request Part 3*

I have started labeling these with a Part X number to tie my stuff together so that it maybe easier for all to follow.

This is general information to give a better idea of who I am and what I would like.

I am a 70+ year single guy spending summers in my son’s house. I no longer like the cold damp weather so I have been spending my winters (Nov thru Apr) in the SW Arizona desert where I live in a 30’ fifth wheel trailer in a campground. I ride about 3000 miles per season in my ATV thru the desert and the nearby mountains. I come back home to visit with family and friends during the summer months (May thru Oct).

In 2000, I originally built this house with the notion of the lower room being my train room. As I developed my list of ideas, it became obvious that I didn’t have the skills needed to even begin a laying out a working model railroad. I sketched out a possible layout and that’s where it ended. I was overwhelmed and stuck on how to proceed.

For the past five years or so, I have been looking very seriously for a new hobby to replace my past hobbies of hunting, soft and hard water fishing, gardening, and maintaining my little 30 acre woods. I stumbled upon this forum last month (April 2016) and I realized that the hobby of Model Railroading could become a reality. And thanks to Dreadnought for so generously offering his design assistance, there may be light at the end of the tunnel.

A 20 year older guy I knew had a full basement model railroad. He had a BASIC language computer program that randomly assigned the appropriate cars to the proper industries and yards. The program remembered where each engine and car was. You would print out the “start” location of each; check the layout to be sure that all was in place; print out new “orders”; and then go about following the schedule. I believe the program was set up for six operators: six sets of “orders”. We would each take one set of “orders” and complete them. Then we would move on to the next if there were not six engineers working that night. When all “orders were complete, the computer was told to continue. It would print out “finish” location of each engine and car and the program would SAVE that information for the next time. We would then check to see if we made any mistakes and correct as needed. This is what I would like to be able to do with my railroad. Since most of the time I would be operating this alone, I would like the mainline to be operating by itself so that I can see and hear the train(s) running with minimal input on my part while I go about completing the "orders".

My friend and his wife have long since past away. I have no idea of where the program ended up. I am looking for a similar program. Do any of you have any ideas or suggestions for a computer generated set of “orders”?

Thank you,
LeRoy


----------



## CTValleyRR

Dreadnought said:


> Is it acceptable to post hand-drawn images on that forum? If not, what program do you use to post there?


I don't see why not. I use Anyrail, but there are half a dozen others that work fine.

You could always convert your hand drawn ones using the software of your choice.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Leroy -- don't worry if your plans are only half baked. Designing a layout is a give and take process, not a once and done. You're off to a great start. Good luck!


----------



## CTValleyRR

Shdwdrgn said:


> I think the hardest thing you will run in to is trying to explain why someone can't make an HO scale layout on a 3x5 foot board complete with tall mountains and a 20-track yard. "But I've seen it done!" No, you haven't. "Well you just don't know what you're talking about." *sigh* ok...


NEVER had that happen. Ohhhh, no, never!  In my experience, it's grades that are most abused.

BTW Dreadnought, now you're seeing why I didn't do this. I couldn't handle the volume of requests. May you have better luck with it!


----------



## /6 matt

As the creator of the collection thread I wholeheartedly encourage you to submit your track plans. Whether they are subpar and/or hand drawn it does not matter. As CT pointed out, the plans in there are really only there to serve as a starter for other people to take inspiration from.

Also CT recommended Anyrail, I draw my programs with SCARM cause it's totally free and I'm cheap.


----------



## /6 matt

It was brought to my attention that I should post a new link to my thread "A Collection of Track Plans" 

Ask and ye shall receive.

http://www.modeltrainforum.com/showthread.php?t=66818


----------



## Dreadnought

Homeless by Choice said:


> Dreadnought,
> You started this topic just as I needed all this help. I have been putting together a list of Decided’s, Desired’s, and Undecided’s so I could ask this forum’s assistance in designing a model railroad layout. Please HELP as much as you can. Here is what I have so far:
> 
> *Decided’s:*
> Scale:	HO
> Track:	Nickel silver flextrack
> Turnouts:	PECO Insufrog size: unknown
> Control:	DCC (<= was DDC)
> Room:	24’ X 27’ heated lower level house open room with temperature range of 45-90F and relative humidity of 25-90%; laminated flooring; large windows on two walls; furnace, drain pipe, two support columns, and two heat ducts as shown on attached Jpegs.
> Benchwork:	30” maximum reach; mainline 50” above floor; 40” minimum aisle width (48” better)
> 
> *Desired’s:*
> Operations based layout with a mainline (manually and/or computer controlled) with a few passing sidings where two or more trains can operate at the same time. Each train would consist of two engines and 15 cars maximum. This layout would be operated by one person most of the time and up to four people sometimes.
> 
> I am thinking of a fictitious rail line of the 1950’s-60’s era with a mixture of stream and diesel. The mainline could service the yards. The local lines would service city centers, logging and mining industries, farming communities, etc. The scenery would include mountains, farm land, forests, open pit mine, and desert of the southwest USA. I am not railroad savvy in terms of correct terminology and/or proper operational procedures. I would like the operation to be somewhat prototypical. Maybe the mainline could (<= was come) go thru tunnels or hidden views to give a feeling of distance. I am thinking that the mainline could be something like a Saladbowl express train from California to New York or a container train from the Pacific docks to the east coast.
> 
> *Undecided’s:*
> Minimum radius: 26” for mainline?, 22” for yards?
> City industries = unknown?
> Country industries = grain elevator, logging/mill operation, etc?
> Open pit mine with N-scale operational mine ore train? Commodities = Copper? Coal? Gravel? Marble? Granite?
> Multiple levels?
> 
> The above gives you an idea of what is running thru my mind. Since this is my first real layout, it is over whelming. My vision is to lock in the benchwork. Then start with one section at a time. I have about five months to work on the actual layout at 20 hours per week each summer and another five months of planning and scenery work at 20 hours per week each winter in Arizona, 2200 miles away.
> 
> The first attachment is my lower level room layout.
> The second attachment is the room dimensions.
> The third attachment is my beginning idea of the benchwork.
> 
> Like I stated in the beginning, this is only my first thoughts that have not been fully developed. Please feel free to suggest any and all improvements. Everyone's comments will be fully appreciated.
> 
> Thank you,
> LeRoy


I have been giving your layout some thought and have come to a few conclusions, though I still need some input from you before I start piecing together your plan. Once again, thank you for all the information so far provided, it makes my job easier. 

The first conclusion I have come to is my proposed routing for your layout's prototype. I am thinking that, considering you want farmland, mountains, and desert, the best route for your fictitious railroad to follow would be starting out somewhere in California and going through farmland there. After that, it would proceed through Arizona desert before going over the mountains in Colorado or New Mexico, and ending in Texas. This would allow all of the terrain you requested to be modeled. Trying to model a whole railroad from the West Coast to the East Coast is inadvisable, as, even with a bowling-alley sized room, you would have difficulty conveying that sort of passage of distance. This is just my recommendation.

This brings one of my questions up. Would you like to simulate grade operations on the part of the layout going through the mountains? It cold be interesting (at least from my perspective) to have to have helpers or double-headers to get over a certain section of the line. These could be diesels or large steam locomotives, depending on your preference. 








This is what I am thinking for the grade operations.


Furthermore, what kind of operations are you most interested in? Are you more interested in operating large freight trains? Or a mix of freight and passenger? Passenger trains could include streamliners if you so desire; your layout would be the proper size for them.









Streamliners such as this could run on your layout between the larger cities.

My final question is, are you most interested in running trains over the mainline, most interested in switching the trains, or into a mix of both? 

Thanks, Dreadnought.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Dreadnought said:


> The first conclusion I have come to is my proposed routing for your layout's prototype. I am thinking that, considering you want farmland, mountains, and desert, the best route for your fictitious railroad to follow would be starting out somewhere in California and going through farmland there. After that, it would proceed through Arizona desert before going over the mountains in Colorado or New Mexico, and ending in Texas. This would allow all of the terrain you requested to be modeled. Trying to model a whole railroad from the West Coast to the East Coast is inadvisable, as, even with a bowling-alley sized room, you would have difficulty conveying that sort of passage of distance. This is just my recommendation.


Not trying to muscle in on your show, here, but this situation lends itself well to a scenic divider or two, dividing the layout into distinct terrain blocks. A short stretch of hidden track (in a tunnel, behind a mountain, in a forest, or just behind a backdrop) between each section would allow you to pause a train, simulating the passage of time between leaving one area and entering another.

Just an idea for how to handle disparate terrain types.


----------



## Homeless by Choice

*Homeless' Design Request Part 4*

*Dreadnought,* 
Great response! I can see that we are both on the same page with the overall plan. Below are replies that may help to narrow down some options. This is a fictitious layout so no resemblance to the true terrain of the United States is required. My reference to California, Arizona, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pacific Ocean, and the Great Lakes, is only used to pass along the geology and terrain ideas that I have.

*Statement 1:*
_The first conclusion I have come to is my proposed routing for your layout's prototype. I am thinking that, considering you want farmland, mountains, and desert, the best route for your fictitious railroad to follow would be starting out somewhere in California and going through farmland there. After that, it would proceed through Arizona desert before going over the mountains in Colorado or New Mexico, and ending in Texas. This would allow all of the terrain you requested to be modeled. Trying to model a whole railroad from the West Coast to the East Coast is inadvisable, as, even with a bowling-alley sized room, you would have difficulty conveying that sort of passage of distance. This is just my recommendation._
*Reply 1:*
I understand and agree that you have the correct idea that a Coast to Coast simulation is too long. I winter in a southwest Arizona desert; grew up on a southeast Wisconsin dairy farm; worked as an off-highway transmission (big mining equipment) design engineer; retired and built a house in northeast WI; and had my property logged in 1995. Therefore I would like to incorporate Midwest farming (dairy barn and a corn, hay and/or wheat field(s), a mining operation, along with a logging operation. So could my fictitious railroad go from a simulated California ocean port > desert with cactus and sand dunes > across the Continental Divide high snow covered mountains like Colorado > Midwest dairy farm > logging area > and maybe terminate at a Great Lakes iron ore dock (Duluth, MN). This ore dock area could include an open pit iron ore mine (Hibbing, MN) operation with N-scale switchers to provide depth and narrow gage railroad scale perception? Both docks could service many industries: containers, fuels, various imports/exports, etc besides iron ore.

*Statement 2:*
_Would you like to simulate grade operations on the part of the layout going through the mountains? It cold be interesting (at least from my perspective) to have to have helpers or double-headers to get over a certain section of the line. These could be diesels or large steam locomotives, depending on your preference._
*Reply 2:*
Yes, that would be great to the simulated grade operations. This could be a combination of helper freight diesels over the mountains going pass or stopping at a yard where N scale Shea (N-scale = narrow gage railroad scale perception) would bring the timber from a logging operation on the mountain side. Hopefully, the Shea could be operating on zig-zag switch backs (several turnouts) due to the mountain steepness. The loaded log cars could return to the top of the logging operation inside of the mountain out of view. The empty logging cars could return to the logging operation via the switch backs and go down to the yard inside the mountain out of view again. I’m a big day dreamer. If the hidden view doesn't work out, I can always use my five finger crane to load and unload the log cars.

*Statement 3:*
_What kind of operations are you most interested in? Are you more interested in operating large freight trains? Or a mix of freight and passenger? Passenger trains could include streamliners if you so desire; your layout would be the proper size for them._
*Reply 3:*
Initially, I was thinking only freight. I am not into passenger train operation. However, maybe my desire to have train(s) moving while switching is happening could be addressed using passenger train(s).

*Statement 4:*
_Are you most interested in running trains over the mainline, most interested in switching the trains, or into a mix of both?_
*Reply 4:*
Quick reply is “switching trains” is my primary interest with a couple of trains operating (passenger as stated in Reply 3) on their own while switching is occurring.. Please see my thread above titled *“Homeless' Design Request Part 3” *especially where I talk about computer generated switching orders.

I also encourage everyone else to jump in here with your ideas or suggestions. I appreciate all thoughts. I have no problem accepting new ideas or critiques.

Respectively,
LeRoy


----------



## Homeless by Choice

CTValleyRR said:


> Not trying to muscle in on your show, here, but this situation lends itself well to a scenic divider or two, dividing the layout into distinct terrain blocks. A short stretch of hidden track (in a tunnel, behind a mountain, in a forest, or just behind a backdrop) between each section would allow you to pause a train, simulating the passage of time between leaving one area and entering another.
> 
> Just an idea for how to handle disparate terrain types.


CTValleyRR,

I welcome and appreciate your interest and input. I was also think of scenic dividers especially on the wide (60 inch) sections of the bench. In the beginning, I didn't want to influence the initial design too much so as to limit other possibilities.

Again, please follow along as this layout develops and add your comments.

Respectfully,
LeRoy


----------



## Dreadnought

Homeless by Choice said:


> *Dreadnought,*
> Great response! I can see that we are both on the same page with the overall plan. Below are replies that may help to narrow down some options. This is a fictitious layout so no resemblance to the true terrain of the United States is required. My reference to California, Arizona, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pacific Ocean, and the Great Lakes, is only used to pass along the geology and terrain ideas that I have.
> 
> *Statement 1:*
> _The first conclusion I have come to is my proposed routing for your layout's prototype. I am thinking that, considering you want farmland, mountains, and desert, the best route for your fictitious railroad to follow would be starting out somewhere in California and going through farmland there. After that, it would proceed through Arizona desert before going over the mountains in Colorado or New Mexico, and ending in Texas. This would allow all of the terrain you requested to be modeled. Trying to model a whole railroad from the West Coast to the East Coast is inadvisable, as, even with a bowling-alley sized room, you would have difficulty conveying that sort of passage of distance. This is just my recommendation._
> *Reply 1:*
> I understand and agree that you have the correct idea that a Coast to Coast simulation is too long. I winter in a southwest Arizona desert; grew up on a southeast Wisconsin dairy farm; worked as an off-highway transmission (big mining equipment) design engineer; retired and built a house in northeast WI; and had my property logged in 1995. Therefore I would like to incorporate Midwest farming (dairy barn and a corn, hay and/or wheat field(s), a mining operation, along with a logging operation. So could my fictitious railroad go from a simulated California ocean port > desert with cactus and sand dunes > across the Continental Divide high snow covered mountains like Colorado > Midwest dairy farm > logging area > and maybe terminate at a Great Lakes iron ore dock (Duluth, MN). This ore dock area could include an open pit iron ore mine (Hibbing, MN) operation with N-scale switchers to provide depth and narrow gage railroad scale perception? Both docks could service many industries: containers, fuels, various imports/exports, etc besides iron ore.
> 
> *Statement 2:*
> _Would you like to simulate grade operations on the part of the layout going through the mountains? It cold be interesting (at least from my perspective) to have to have helpers or double-headers to get over a certain section of the line. These could be diesels or large steam locomotives, depending on your preference._
> *Reply 2:*
> Yes, that would be great to the simulated grade operations. This could be a combination of helper freight diesels over the mountains going pass or stopping at a yard where N scale Shea (N-scale = narrow gage railroad scale perception) would bring the timber from a logging operation on the mountain side. Hopefully, the Shea could be operating on zig-zag switch backs (several turnouts) due to the mountain steepness. The loaded log cars could return to the top of the logging operation inside of the mountain out of view. The empty logging cars could return to the logging operation via the switch backs and go down to the yard inside the mountain out of view again. I’m a big day dreamer. If the hidden view doesn't work out, I can always use my five finger crane to load and unload the log cars.
> 
> *Statement 3:*
> _What kind of operations are you most interested in? Are you more interested in operating large freight trains? Or a mix of freight and passenger? Passenger trains could include streamliners if you so desire; your layout would be the proper size for them._
> *Reply 3:*
> Initially, I was thinking only freight. I am not into passenger train operation. However, maybe my desire to have train(s) moving while switching is happening could be addressed using passenger train(s).
> 
> *Statement 4:*
> _Are you most interested in running trains over the mainline, most interested in switching the trains, or into a mix of both?_
> *Reply 4:*
> Quick reply is “switching trains” is my primary interest with a couple of trains operating (passenger as stated in Reply 3) on their own while switching is occurring.. Please see my thread above titled *“Homeless' Design Request Part 3” *especially where I talk about computer generated switching orders.
> 
> I also encourage everyone else to jump in here with your ideas or suggestions. I appreciate all thoughts. I have no problem accepting new ideas or critiques.
> 
> Respectively,
> LeRoy


Below is my preliminary sketch for your layout. The sketch is not to scale and is only a rough idea of the final product. I apologize for the subpar quality of the image. I am not at my house right now and am therefore had to take the picture with my cell phone. 










The line starts out at the California Port (the names will be changed later and are only placeholders) where a large yard and waterfront is. The line then curves around a corner into the Arizona Desert and past a Copper Mine. After that, the long grade starts that ends after a tunnel behind the Furnace at the Colorado Logging Operation. Here, an HOn2 1/2 line (that is, HO Scale Narrow Gauge locomotives running on N Scale Track. This could be changed to any other narrow gauge as well, or to standard gauge if so desired) runs up into the mountains via switchbacks to a logging camp at the top of a mountain. The mainline meanwhile goes though a tunnel below the mountain and exits just as the grade ends and the line proceeds into farm country in Wisconsin. The line then disappears into another tunnel hidden by a grove of trees to go below the large iron ore mine, appearing just before the line to the mine reconnects to the main line. There is a small sorting yard astride the main track at the iron ore mine. The line then proceeds finally to the Great Lakes Port, with the mainline disappearing into a tunnel to go below the main benchwork to a staging area.

Please tell me what you think. I tried to include everything you requested or had an idea for. This layout would allow you to run diesels and steam, or just diesels with perhaps a shay running on the narrow gauge line. If you wanted, the iron ore mine could also be a narrow gauge line.


----------



## Homeless by Choice

*Homeless' Design Request Part 5*



Dreadnought said:


> Below is my preliminary sketch for your layout. The sketch is not to scale and is only a rough idea of the final product. I apologize for the subpar quality of the image. I am not at my house right now and am therefore had to take the picture with my cell phone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The line starts out at the California Port (the names will be changed later and are only placeholders) where a large yard and waterfront is. The line then curves around a corner into the Arizona Desert and past a Copper Mine. After that, the long grade starts that ends after a tunnel behind the Furnace at the Colorado Logging Operation. Here, an HOn2 1/2 line (that is, HO Scale Narrow Gauge locomotives running on N Scale Track. This could be changed to any other narrow gauge as well, or to standard gauge if so desired) runs up into the mountains via switchbacks to a logging camp at the top of a mountain. The mainline meanwhile goes though a tunnel below the mountain and exits just as the grade ends and the line proceeds into farm country in Wisconsin. The line then disappears into another tunnel hidden by a grove of trees to go below the large iron ore mine, appearing just before the line to the mine reconnects to the main line. There is a small sorting yard astride the main track at the iron ore mine. The line then proceeds finally to the Great Lakes Port, with the mainline disappearing into a tunnel to go below the main benchwork to a staging area.
> 
> Please tell me what you think. I tried to include everything you requested or had an idea for. This layout would allow you to run diesels and steam, or just diesels with perhaps a shay running on the narrow gauge line. If you wanted, the iron ore mine could also be a narrow gauge line.


Dreadnought,

Good morning,
It is 5:30 AM so I took a quick look. I don't know anything about *"an HOn2 1/2 line (that is, HO Scale Narrow Gauge locomotives running on N Scale Track."* I will have to look into that after Church today.

One thing that I noticed that maybe a conflict is an existing solid wall shown in RED and marked by a Yellow arrow on the attached .jpg. It is the side of the stairway and blocks access to the layout.

I will be a good boy today and not think about your proposal during Church. Your concept looks good. I will study it this afternoon but please be patient with me as it will take me some time to absorb your ideas. 

Great Job again,
LeRoy


----------



## Aminnich

I'm trying to follow along with this track build. I do have some questions though

1. Is the staging area a loop with one entrance/exit? (blue in picture)

2. Do you want the layout a point to point? 

3. Do you want industries in the areas you cant reach or scenery? 

4. Are you using scenic dividers? (orange in attached picture)

Now I have suggestions for the questions I have, you do not need to use them, I just wanted to give some more ideas. 

1. I included a picture of a staging yard idea. I believe the box near the top right of the layout is the furnace, right? If so, I always thought stuff like that built into the room was a great way to easily divide the layout into different scenes without needing a scenic divider. You could make the area behind the furnace a mountain and from the right have 2 tracks going in and 1 coming out. The other track would be the staging and it would go under the layout. 

2. If you want it to be a point to point, thats cool. But another option could be a swing/ liftout bridge at the doorway. 

3. For the areas you cant reach an idea could be a larger building that takes up that space, but have the spur to the building that you can still reach it. Basically, the building is filler, but it gives you more industry instead of scenery if that's what you are looking for. 

4. Scenic dividers are great for peninsulas specially. Again, in the picture attached, the orange is where I think dividers are being placed. I agree with the divider in the middle, but the other one, I don't. It is a good use of space, but you would only be able to see the port from the doorway. Instead, if you use the liftout bridge, you could run the mainline in the front or the back of the layout and start the grade where it is now. 

Also, when you say open pit mining, I think of something like this...










If that is what you are thinking, you could easily fit that in place of the divider and port, it would give you a lot of room for one larger operation.

Dreadnought, im not trying to destroy what you made. I really like it, im just trying to think of more ideas for Homeless by Choice to consider.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Homeless by Choice said:


> CTValleyRR,
> 
> I welcome and appreciate your interest and input. I was also think of scenic dividers especially on the wide (60 inch) sections of the bench. In the beginning, I didn't want to influence the initial design too much so as to limit other possibilities.
> 
> Again, please follow along as this layout develops and add your comments.
> 
> Respectfully,
> LeRoy


Yes, but at the end of the day, it's YOUR layout. Even if Dreadnought designs it for you, you are the customer and get the final decision. Don't constrain him with artificial restrictions or arbitrary decisions, but you need to push the design to what works for you and suits your vision, not let someone else tell you what to do.


----------



## Homeless by Choice

*Homeless' Design Request Part 6*



Aminnich said:


> I'm trying to follow along with this track build. I do have some questions though
> 
> 1. Is the staging area a loop with one entrance/exit? (blue in picture)
> 
> 1. Is the staging area a loop with one entrance/exit? (blue in picture)o you want industries in the areas you cant reach or scenery?
> 
> 4. Are you using scenic dividers? (orange in attached picture)
> 
> Now I have suggestions for the questions I have, you do not need to use them, I just wanted to give some more ideas.
> 
> 1. I included a picture of a staging yard idea. I believe the box near the top right of the layout is the furnace, right? If so, I always thought stuff like that built into the room was a great way to easily divide the layout into different scenes without needing a scenic divider. You could make the area behind the furnace a mountain and from the right have 2 tracks going in and 1 coming out. The other track would be the staging and it would go under the layout.
> 
> 2. If you want it to be a point to point, thats cool. But another option could be a swing/ liftout bridge at the doorway.
> 
> 3. For the areas you cant reach an idea could be a larger building that takes up that space, but have the spur to the building that you can still reach it. Basically, the building is filler, but it gives you more industry instead of scenery if that's what you are looking for.
> 
> 4. Scenic dividers are great for peninsulas specially. Again, in the picture attached, the orange is where I think dividers are being placed. I agree with the divider in the middle, but the other one, I don't. It is a good use of space, but you would only be able to see the port from the doorway. Instead, if you use the liftout bridge, you could run the mainline in the front or the back of the layout and start the grade where it is now.
> 
> Also, when you say open pit mining, I think of something like this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that is what you are thinking, you could easily fit that in place of the divider and port, it would give you a lot of room for one larger operation.
> 
> Dreadnought, im not trying to destroy what you made. I really like it, im just trying to think of more ideas for Homeless by Choice to consider.



This forum and you guys are great.

First off, the Good Lord never let my mind drift into thinking about this project while in Church. Not even on the drive home.

Aminnich, I appreciate your interests and suggestions. Your ideas along with Dreadnought’s concept from last night give me a lot to think about and absorb. I printed your attachment so that I could follow your comments while viewing your orange and blue lines on the concept sketch.

While I don't want to make any rash decisions, here are a couple of quick answers to your questions and suggestions.

*Q1.* Is the staging area a loop with one entrance/exit? (blue in picture)
*A1.* No comment. I still need to visualize this myself.

*Q2.* Do you want the layout a point to point?
*A2. * Originally I was thinking about a combination of point to point and a continuous loop where trains would run on their own while switching was occurring. Is this possible? How would it be accomplished using the walk thru layout that I proposed? Additionally, please see Suggestion and Reply 2 below.

*Q3.* Do you want industries in the areas you cant reach or scenery?
*A3.* I hadn’t figured this out but I was think about putting a curved backdrop in the corner(s) to hold tracks within reach. Scenery and buildings could also accomplish the same effect.

*Q4.* Are you using scenic dividers? (orange in attached picture)
*A4.* I was visualizing view blockers of some type. Your suggestion is basically what I had in mind. The full plan will need development once some of these other ideas are solidified.

Now for your suggestions and my replies
*S1.* I included a picture of a staging yard idea. I believe the box near the top right of the layout is the furnace, right?
*R1.* I don’t understand the full concept of staging yards so I won’t comment on it at this time. The box is the furnace and it will probably be a natural scenic blocker.

*S2.* If you want it to be a point to point, thats cool. But another option could be a swing/ liftout bridge at the doorway.
*R2.* The more that I review other layouts, the more comfortable I am getting with a hinged swing up bridge. Some type of precise track alignment devise would be needed. I would still want the opening to be 40- 48 inches to accommodate people and servicing the furnace. I am not at all comfortable with a lift out track section. The lift out would need a place to be stored while open. They are heavy and easily dropped hurting someone or damaging the layout.

*S3.* For the areas you cant reach an idea could be a larger building that takes up that space, but have the spur to the building that you can still reach it. Basically, the building is filler, but it gives you more industry instead of scenery if that's what you are looking for.
*R3.* Good point. I believe that I prefer more buildings than scenery.

*S4.* Scenic dividers are great for peninsulas specially.
*R4.* They will need to be developed as the layout progresses.

*Q.* Also, when you say open pit mining, I think of something like this...
*A.* Yes that is open pit mining. I was envisioning a larger mine with a railroad track bringing the ore to the surface. That is why I suggested N-scale to enhance the size and depth of the pit. If you Google *“Ajo,AZ open pit mine pictures”* you will see how huge this mine is. It had steam engines hauling the ore from the bottom of the pit to the surface.

This project is moving right along and that is good. A lot of information has been presented that I need to absorb. I will continue to give feedback as I make decisions. 

Thank you for your input,
LeRoy


----------



## Homeless by Choice

*Homeless' Design Request Part 7*



CTValleyRR said:


> Yes, but at the end of the day, it's YOUR layout. Even if Dreadnought designs it for you, you are the customer and get the final decision. Don't constrain him with artificial restrictions or arbitrary decisions, but you need to push the design to what works for you and suits your vision, not let someone else tell you what to do.


CTValleyRR,

I agree with you that the layout needs to meet my requirements. Hopefully, I am giving good feedback. As I stated in *Homeless' Design Request Part 6*, "This project is moving right along and that is good. A lot of information has been presented that I need to absorb. I will continue to give feedback as I make decisions."

Thank you for your guidance and interest,
LeRoy


----------



## Aminnich

Just one more comment from me for now.

I was thinking swing gate bridge for the continuous loop. Something like this....






Again, CTValley is completely correct, it is your layout, im just giving advice.


----------



## Homeless by Choice

*Homeless' Design Request Part 8*



Aminnich said:


> Just one more comment from me for now.
> 
> I was thinking swing gate bridge for the continuous loop. Something like this....
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI675Y8-XJA
> 
> Again, CTValley is completely correct, it is your layout, im just giving advice.


Aminnich,
Keep the ideas and comments coming. I need and appreciate all the help I can get.

Concerning your swing gate picture. It looks like there is a diagonal cut across the track section so that this swings like a half door. Is that correct? I really like that idea much better than a swing up bridge that I have seen on another posting. I can envision how a half door can be securely latched to control alignment.

*Update:* I just went back to your post and noticed that the picture was actually a movie. All my questions have been answered.

We are making progress.

Thanks again,
LeRoy


----------



## Aminnich

That is a youtube video to show you how it works.

For my next layout, I will be using a similar style bridge for wherever there is a doorway.


----------



## Shdwdrgn

CTValleyRR said:


> In my experience, it's grades that are most abused.


*raises hand slowly*

Yeah I might be guilty of that myself. Trying to get a large amount of over/under mountainous operation inside a 12x12 Ho layout, I have one line over the top of the mountain which approaches a 4% grade. Yes, it's steep, but I'm also modeling early steam mining operations and wanted at least one pass where I would be justified in running dual locos as needed, and really it just comes down to trying to fit a lot of track into a tight space and dealing with the consequences of that. This also gave me an excuse for having tunnels under the mountain, as a very slight grade option for trains that couldn't make it over the top.


----------



## Homeless by Choice

*Homeless' Design Request Part 9*

Good Morning All,

As you may have noticed, the Homeless Rail Line has been quiet the last two days. To quell all the rumors of mismanagement, turmoil, and company disintegration, it has the following announcement to make.

_The Homeless Rail Line (HRL) has been actively reviewing its accumulated notes, re-visiting websites, talking with their suppliers, and analyzing the Homeless’ Design Project results. Based on all this information, HRL is in the process of refining its direction.

•	HRL has been looking at Staging and Fiddle Yard designs
•	HRL has been reviewing a proposal to bridge the canyon at Walk Thru Gap
•	HRL has been studying its sister rail lines at Hillside Logging and at Deep Pit Mining
•	HRL has been studying its overall route to verify it best meets the transportation needs of the adjacent industries
•	HRL has been talking to its Marketing Department about the commitments that it has in place with various industries
•	HRL has visited one of its major suppliers
•	HRL will rewrite the goals for its rail line based on the above results
•	HRL has terminated the present Design Project Contract
•	HRL will enter in to a new Design Contract under the name of “Homeless’ Design Project – Phase 2” by week’s end
•	HRL would like to thank the MTF Design Firm and their Consultants for their fine responsive work

It is expected that HRL will remain behind closed doors until all the details have been defined and the new Design Contract is issued. Hopefully the MTF Design Firm and their Consultants will again be able to participate.

Thank you,
The Homeless Rail Line 
LeRoy, CEO_


----------



## Aminnich

CEO, how did you get that?!?!? Haha, sounds good boss, if you need anything you can call the intern (me). My PM is where is always was.

BTW dreadnought, sorry for taking over your thread, maybe homeless should start new one with [track plan] in the topic name?


----------



## CTValleyRR

Shdwdrgn said:


> *raises hand slowly*
> 
> Yeah I might be guilty of that myself. Trying to get a large amount of over/under mountainous operation inside a 12x12 Ho layout, I have one line over the top of the mountain which approaches a 4% grade. Yes, it's steep, but I'm also modeling early steam mining operations and wanted at least one pass where I would be justified in running dual locos as needed, and really it just comes down to trying to fit a lot of track into a tight space and dealing with the consequences of that. This also gave me an excuse for having tunnels under the mountain, as a very slight grade option for trains that couldn't make it over the top.


I had a guy who wanted to have an 8" elevation change on a 4x12 set-up. He got really pissy when I told him that at 4%, he would need 33 feet to do that, or more than one complete lap of his area.

Never did finish that layout....


----------



## CTValleyRR

Homeless by Choice said:


> Good Morning All,
> 
> As you may have noticed, the Homeless Rail Line has been quiet the last two days. To quell all the rumors of mismanagement, turmoil, and company disintegration, it has the following announcement to make.
> 
> _The Homeless Rail Line (HRL) has been actively reviewing its accumulated notes, re-visiting websites, talking with their suppliers, and analyzing the Homeless’ Design Project results. Based on all this information, HRL is in the process of refining its direction.
> 
> •	HRL has been looking at Staging and Fiddle Yard designs
> •	HRL has been reviewing a proposal to bridge the canyon at Walk Thru Gap
> •	HRL has been studying its sister rail lines at Hillside Logging and at Deep Pit Mining
> •	HRL has been studying its overall route to verify it best meets the transportation needs of the adjacent industries
> •	HRL has been talking to its Marketing Department about the commitments that it has in place with various industries
> •	HRL has visited one of its major suppliers
> •	HRL will rewrite the goals for its rail line based on the above results
> •	HRL has terminated the present Design Project Contract
> •	HRL will enter in to a new Design Contract under the name of “Homeless’ Design Project – Phase 2” by week’s end
> •	HRL would like to thank the MTF Design Firm and their Consultants for their fine responsive work
> 
> It is expected that HRL will remain behind closed doors until all the details have been defined and the new Design Contract is issued. Hopefully the MTF Design Firm and their Consultants will again be able to participate.
> 
> Thank you,
> The Homeless Rail Line
> LeRoy, CEO_


I detect the symptoms of information overload leading to a potential case of cranial disruption! Not good.


----------



## Dreadnought

Aminnich said:


> CEO, how did you get that?!?!? Haha, sounds good boss, if you need anything you can call the intern (me). My PM is where is always was.
> 
> BTW dreadnought, sorry for taking over your thread, maybe homeless should start new one with [track plan] in the topic name?


I wouldn't recommend it. This kind of conversation is exactly the type I want to happen in this thread, so please keep it here.


----------



## Homeless by Choice

CTValleyRR said:


> I detect the symptoms of information overload leading to a potential case of cranial disruption! Not good.


CTValleyRR’s analysis of the situation was partially correct: “*information overload*”. Yes, to a certain extent but it was being dealt with by quietly sequestering management as they reviewed the stash of information from the last 15 years and the latest brain storming results in light of the Homeless Rail Line Company goals.

_(This was my standard way of addressing all developments throughout my working career: Let everyone toss out any idea, no matter how extreme. The outliers many times lead to substantial discussions that trigger other possibilities or work themselves into the final answer.) _

So the rumor of “*a potential case of cranial disruption*” was an over statement. 

Homeless Rail Line’s management remains strongly committed to the new rail line and thought that their announcement should be delivered with the proper verbal spin to ensure all that they hadn’t abandoned the project but were temporarily involved in intense in-depth research.

Thank you,
The Homeless Rail Line
LeRoy, CEO


----------



## Homeless by Choice

*Homeless’ Design Project-Phase 2, Part 1*

Following the Board of Directors (Board) of the Homeless Rail Line (HRL) Meeting on Wednesday, May 18th, HRL has issued the following Press Release:

*The Board* of HRL has reviewed the findings of our Consultant’s Design work and determined that it met the initial goals of the *Homeless’ Design Request*. It has therefore terminated that project and thanks all that were involved. 

*The Board* decided: 
1.	That there isn’t enough capital, time, or space available to build a Coast to Coast Railroad Empire.
2.	That the best financial Return on Investment will be from localized switching of short run freight trains from the urban, farming, logging, and mining communities around the Continental Divide. 
3.	That passenger service will not be pursued at this time.
4.	That assistance to the nearby cross continental rail line is available.

*The Board* has approved:
1.	The designing of six switching yards, the tracks between them, and two small sister rail lines. 
2.	The switching yards will be built using standard HO gage rolling stock and DCC control.
3.	The sister lines will use N gage rolling stock and DC controls. They will run completely independent of each other and from the parent HRL Company. 

*The Board* is still reviewing the economic and engineering feasibility of a bridge crossing along the eastern property line. After submitting the Design Proposal to local, state, and federal authorities for approval, seismic scientists pointed out their concern about the fault along HRL’s eastern property line. They stated that an earthquake could occur in the near future possibly closing the canyon at Walk Thru Gap and creating another further to the north. The Board will keep this in mind.

*The Board* has decided to put the Computer Generated Train Orders project on-hold while the HRL is under construction. At this time, information only will be gathered.

*The Board* has approved a new design project called “*Homeless’ Design Project-Phase 2*” based on the following parameters: 
•	Priority needs to focus on localized switching and short run trains using standard HO track and rolling stock under DCC control.
•	A minimum of six switching areas. At least one will be a fully functional staging yard; not a fiddler yard. The others would be full switching yards on the main layout.
•	Staging yard(s) can only be located at an upper or lower elevation area around the perimeter of the HRL main layout property a.k.a. the 24” areas and will always remain in rough graded condition. No staging yards are permitted above or below the wide property areas a.k.a. the 60” areas.
•	All HRL property could contain elevated tracks, logging, or mining operations.
•	Switching yards and the point to point mainline will be finished graded and ballasted ASAP. Landscaping will occur in the future as time and revenue permit.
•	The point to point mainline will travel over hill and dale, near snow covered mountains, near logging and mining operations, and thru farmlands.
•	Temporary tunnels, bridges and elevated tracks will be constructed as required by terrain and industries. Tunnels, bridges, industries, roads, buildings and finished landscaping will be upgraded, constructed, or completed as time and revenue permit.
•	Sister railroads in the logging camp and the open pit mine areas will use N scale track and rolling stock under DC control.
•	Immediate negotiations should begin with the nearby cross continental rail line to see what revenues could be generated.

*Additional Board Activities:*
1. The Board was told that a meeting with Engine House Services (EHS) at http://www.enginehouseservices.com/ was held on May 16th at their facility in Green Bay, WI. EHS has been in operation since 1995 with the same owner, Paul Pasowicz. They have plenty of name brand HO and N gauge supplies in stock and will demonstrate all their products on their test tracks to HLR representatives prior to delivery. EHS has on-site repair, installation, and paint facilities. Part of their services includes free weekly demonstrations. They took a brand new three truck N scale Shay out of its package and demonstrated its slow motion under DC control. They have been added to HRL’s approved supplier list. There is a Capital Expenditure Request for a Shay engine waiting for the Board’s approval.
2. The Board thanked the MTF Design Firm and their Consultants for an ahead-of-schedule completion of the original Homeless' Design Request and is hopeful that they will participate in this new project.
3. The Board elected LeRoy as their new Chairman.

Homeless Rail Line
LeRoy, Chairman and CEO


----------



## MacDaddy55

*Outstanding!!*



Homeless by Choice said:


> Following the Board of Directors (Board) of the Homeless Rail Line (HRL) Meeting on Wednesday, May 18th, HRL has issued the following Press Release:
> 
> *The Board* of HRL has reviewed the findings of our Consultant’s Design work and determined that it met the initial goals of the *Homeless’ Design Request*. It has therefore terminated that project and thanks all that were involved.
> 
> *The Board* decided:
> 1.	That there isn’t enough capital, time, or space available to build a Coast to Coast Railroad Empire.
> 2.	That the best financial Return on Investment will be from localized switching of short run freight trains from the urban, farming, logging, and mining communities around the Continental Divide.
> 3.	That passenger service will not be pursued at this time.
> 4.	That assistance to the nearby cross continental rail line is available.
> 
> *The Board* has approved:
> 1.	The designing of six switching yards, the tracks between them, and two small sister rail lines.
> 2.	The switching yards will be built using standard HO gage rolling stock and DCC control.
> 3.	The sister lines will use N gage rolling stock and DC controls. They will run completely independent of each other and from the parent HRL Company.
> 
> *The Board* is still reviewing the economic and engineering feasibility of a bridge crossing along the eastern property line. After submitting the Design Proposal to local, state, and federal authorities for approval, seismic scientists pointed out their concern about the fault along HRL’s eastern property line. They stated that an earthquake could occur in the near future possibly closing the canyon at Walk Thru Gap and creating another further to the north. The Board will keep this in mind.
> 
> *The Board* has decided to put the Computer Generated Train Orders project on-hold while the HRL is under construction. At this time, information only will be gathered.
> 
> *The Board* has approved a new design project called “*Homeless’ Design Project-Phase 2*” based on the following parameters:
> •	Priority needs to focus on localized switching and short run trains using standard HO track and rolling stock under DCC control.
> •	A minimum of six switching areas. At least one will be a fully functional staging yard; not a fiddler yard. The others would be full switching yards on the main layout.
> •	Staging yard(s) can only be located at an upper or lower elevation area around the perimeter of the HRL main layout property a.k.a. the 24” areas and will always remain in rough graded condition. No staging yards are permitted above or below the wide property areas a.k.a. the 60” areas.
> •	All HRL property could contain elevated tracks, logging, or mining operations.
> •	Switching yards and the point to point mainline will be finished graded and ballasted ASAP. Landscaping will occur in the future as time and revenue permit.
> •	The point to point mainline will travel over hill and dale, near snow covered mountains, near logging and mining operations, and thru farmlands.
> •	Temporary tunnels, bridges and elevated tracks will be constructed as required by terrain and industries. Tunnels, bridges, industries, roads, buildings and finished landscaping will be upgraded, constructed, or completed as time and revenue permit.
> •	Sister railroads in the logging camp and the open pit mine areas will use N scale track and rolling stock under DC control.
> •	Immediate negotiations should begin with the nearby cross continental rail line to see what revenues could be generated.
> 
> *Additional Board Activities:*
> 1. The Board was told that a meeting with Engine House Services (EHS) at http://www.enginehouseservices.com/ was held on May 16th at their facility in Green Bay, WI. EHS has been in operation since 1995 with the same owner, Paul Pasowicz. They have plenty of name brand HO and N gauge supplies in stock and will demonstrate all their products on their test tracks to HLR representatives prior to delivery. EHS has on-site repair, installation, and paint facilities. Part of their services includes free weekly demonstrations. They took a brand new three truck N scale Shay out of its package and demonstrated its slow motion under DC control. They have been added to HRL’s approved supplier list. There is a Capital Expenditure Request for a Shay engine waiting for the Board’s approval.
> 2. The Board thanked the MTF Design Firm and their Consultants for an ahead-of-schedule completion of the original Homeless' Design Request and is hopeful that they will participate in this new project.
> 3. The Board elected LeRoy as their new Chairman.
> 
> Homeless Rail Line
> LeRoy, Chairman and CEO


Homeless by Choice, Hey LeRoy...This is absolutely the most refreshing thing I've seen on the forum in quite some time...I hope you don't speak in "The Third Person" while in public..you might get some strange looks!!:laugh::laugh: But this is OUTSTANDING!! Don't let your head explode and EHS ROCKS!!


----------



## Homeless by Choice

MacDaddy55 said:


> Homeless by Choice, Hey LeRoy...This is absolutely the most refreshing thing I've seen on the forum in quite some time...I hope you don't speak in "The Third Person" while in public..you might get some strange looks!!:laugh::laugh: But this is OUTSTANDING!! Don't let your head explode and EHS ROCKS!!


No, I don't speak in third person in public. After going thru all my saved notes and brochures, the ideas presented on this thread, and re-defining my goals, my head was spinning in a very good way. I just got a little goofy and decided that a Press Release would update others so they could continue to contribute.

I really appreciated all the input and was amazed at the amount that came so quickly. By the way, the comment about _Capital Expenditure Request for a Shay engine waiting for the Board’s approval_ was my way of endorsing EHS and the N scale Shay engine. I don't plan on any rolling stock purchases for a long time. The layout takes precedence.

Thanks for visiting this thread,
LeRoy


----------



## CTValleyRR

It's a refreshing change. I like it! :thumbsup:


----------



## Dreadnought

*Odyknuck Design*

Odyknuck has suggested that I post the design that we have been working on through e-mail, so here it is. There are two variations of it.









Here is the first plan I drew up. 

*NOTE*: Odyknuck wanted to have elevations on the layout but not have a multi-deck layout, so the line passing through the city flats of Big City is about 10" above the yard in Big City, accomplished via helices. 

There is a large yard area at 'Big City' (any name you want can be used) with both West- and Eastbound yards, as well as an Engine Servicing Facility. The line then goes through a short tunnel to town A, before entering another tunnel and the helix and exiting on the second layer, 10 inches above the first one. A town can be located here if so desired. The line then goes above the yard for a little before being concealed behind city flats until on the other side of Big City. Here, the upper line crosses over the lower line to access Town E. Then, the line goes across a large bridge (Odyknuck had a 6' long bridge left over from a previous project which would be incorporated here) over Town B and a large river to access Town D, where a large producing industry (such as a coal mine) is located. If another coal mine or some other producing industry is wanted, it could be placed at Town F or Town E. After Town D, the line enters a tunnel and goes through another helix down to Town C. Out of Town C the line goes through a tunnel and then into Town B, the largest town behind Big City. A large receiving industry could be here. After the line goes out of Town B, it passes under the large bridge and through one more tunnel before going under the other bridge. Here, a large receiving industry (such as a power plant for Big City) is accessed. The line then goes into Big City and starts again. Staging is accessed through a tunnel under the city flats, and represents trains leaving or entering Big City to or from other destinations.









Here is a revision of the plan to include a scenic divider on the lower peninsula. The rest of the layout is identical. This was to increase the mainline run of the trains. This version allows two versions of an out-and-back scheme to be run in addition to a continuous run, on both the top and bottom levels, whilst the other scheme is solely continuous run.

In this version, the line from Town E crosses through a scenic divider before reappearing above Town B, which has been relocated to the other side of the scenic divider. The upper line then continues through Town D, with its producing industry, and goes around the end of the peninsula, passing through a tunnel which also contains the Helix. However, the upper line can continue on without going down the helix to go across the large bridge that was originally at Town B and end up back at town E. Meanwhile, the line from Town B to Big City has been relocated on the other side of the scenic divider. This line then goes around the corner to Town C, where the exit for the helix is. A producing industry is between Towns B and C. After Town C, the line passes through two tunnels before linking back with the line that goes to Town B, and continuing into Big City.


Please tell me what you think of these plans. Me and Odyknuck would certainly appreciate it.

Dreadnought


----------



## Odyknuck

Thought I would post the layout area. The main area is 12 1/2' x 29'. The work room/ staging area is 8'W x 12'L.. Total area 12 1/2' X 41' less stairway.


----------



## Odyknuck

Hmm! Interesting, no thoughts on this?


----------



## Homeless by Choice

Odyknuck said:


> Hmm! Interesting, no thoughts on this?


I have been studying these designs to hopefully glean an insight into another person’s layout to see if some of it could be applied to mine. Unfortunately these designs are way beyond my comprehension. I held back from commenting because I didn't know what to say and I certainly don't want to sound negative.

Good luck, 
LeRoy


----------



## Aminnich

Honestly, I did not know what to say. If the given track plan fits your wants and needs, go with it. If you want something different, whether that be a small change or a totally different idea to work off of, you gotta tell us that.


----------



## Odyknuck

I suppose a clarification would be in order. This is the first draft of a plan an I thought it would be a good ideal to put it here for all the experts to review, critique and advise. I am for sure not the best track plan designer hense asking Dreadnought for his help. So now I am asking the forum to participate in its design. So far I like it however putting it into a 3 dimensional perspective has been a challenge lol.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## CTValleyRR

What I would have to say is that, as a conceptual design, it doesn't sound bad. As a practical matter, I have several comments:
1) If this is your first layout, I would build something much simpler first to get your feet wet.
2) I get no sense of scale from the drawings. Likewise your "layout area" photos. Before I do anything else when I'm designing a layout, I make sure I have the space and any obstacles defined TO SCALE first. Not doing so inevitably leads to problems.
3) I am extremely wary of any freehanded drawing. What looks like it works in freehand often leads to extreme frustration when you try to build it and things don't really fit within the space required. I strongly recommend that one or both of you invest in some layout design software and make sure you can do this as planned. If not, get some drafting tools and / or templates and really draw it out. Use a larger scale (like 1/12) to make sure your curves and tolerances are pretty close to what you need. Clarity wise, it is difficult to tell in the drawings what is track, what is contour, what is structures, and what is benchwork. Using different colors would help.
4) Your staging tracks in the upper left are way too small to accommodate any significant number of cars / locos. If this isn't just a placeholder for "much bigger staging area goes here", then just get rid of it and add a few sidings on the layout proper which can hold entire trains.
5) In HO, if you use a 15" radius curve, thus limiting yourself to very small equipment and short trains, you will need at least 32" diameter area just for the helix. If you double track it to allow simultaneous up and down, 36". More realistically, you will need about 42" for 18" radius curves or about 50" for 22" radius. Conceptually, what you have drawn is fine, but in practice, I think the helix will overwhelm your available space.
6) It's hard to tell from the drawing how much space there is between tracks, or between the tracks and the edges, but it doesn't look like you've left a lot of room for structures anywhere. Even small industrial buildings have a good sized footprint. You can help this problem by using flats against the edges, but the between track spacing doesn't appear to allow for much. This can be a matter of personal preference, depending on how you intend to operate your layout.

Finally, we don't have the benefit of all the information you have passed to Dreadnought via e-mail -- minimum radius, turnout size, how you intend to operate, and so on. Some description of that would help us evaluate whether this meets your needs or not. It's also difficult to evaluate how this layout may meet those needs when it's really just a rough concept, and may have to change drastically during the detail design phase.

Like Homeless, I really don't want to sound negative, but I don't really know how to present this without coming off that way. I apologize in advance if my comments are overly frank.


----------



## Aminnich

Odyknuck and I have been working on another layout design for a last day now. Yesterday all we talked about was getting the bench work dimensions very close. Since then I have it drawn to scale. Now once I get the time, I'll be transferring that to SCARM and making re track plan on there. I hope to have this done and posted by Wednesday for us to discuss. As CTValley knows, I'm an engineering major, "to scale" to my middle name


----------



## Dreadnought

Aminnich said:


> Odyknuck and I have been working on another layout design for a last day now. Yesterday all we talked about was getting the bench work dimensions very close. Since then I have it drawn to scale. Now once I get the time, I'll be transferring that to SCARM and making re track plan on there. I hope to have this done and posted by Wednesday for us to discuss. As CTValley knows, I'm an engineering major, "to scale" to my middle name


What do you mean by 'another layout'?


----------



## Dreadnought

CTValleyRR said:


> What I would have to say is that, as a conceptual design, it doesn't sound bad. As a practical matter, I have several comments:
> 1) If this is your first layout, I would build something much simpler first to get your feet wet.
> 2) I get no sense of scale from the drawings. Likewise your "layout area" photos. Before I do anything else when I'm designing a layout, I make sure I have the space and any obstacles defined TO SCALE first. Not doing so inevitably leads to problems.
> 3) I am extremely wary of any freehanded drawing. What looks like it works in freehand often leads to extreme frustration when you try to build it and things don't really fit within the space required. I strongly recommend that one or both of you invest in some layout design software and make sure you can do this as planned. If not, get some drafting tools and / or templates and really draw it out. Use a larger scale (like 1/12) to make sure your curves and tolerances are pretty close to what you need. Clarity wise, it is difficult to tell in the drawings what is track, what is contour, what is structures, and what is benchwork. Using different colors would help.
> 4) Your staging tracks in the upper left are way too small to accommodate any significant number of cars / locos. If this isn't just a placeholder for "much bigger staging area goes here", then just get rid of it and add a few sidings on the layout proper which can hold entire trains.
> 5) In HO, if you use a 15" radius curve, thus limiting yourself to very small equipment and short trains, you will need at least 32" diameter area just for the helix. If you double track it to allow simultaneous up and down, 36". More realistically, you will need about 42" for 18" radius curves or about 50" for 22" radius. Conceptually, what you have drawn is fine, but in practice, I think the helix will overwhelm your available space.
> 6) It's hard to tell from the drawing how much space there is between tracks, or between the tracks and the edges, but it doesn't look like you've left a lot of room for structures anywhere. Even small industrial buildings have a good sized footprint. You can help this problem by using flats against the edges, but the between track spacing doesn't appear to allow for much. This can be a matter of personal preference, depending on how you intend to operate your layout.
> 
> Finally, we don't have the benefit of all the information you have passed to Dreadnought via e-mail -- minimum radius, turnout size, how you intend to operate, and so on. Some description of that would help us evaluate whether this meets your needs or not. It's also difficult to evaluate how this layout may meet those needs when it's really just a rough concept, and may have to change drastically during the detail design phase.
> 
> Like Homeless, I really don't want to sound negative, but I don't really know how to present this without coming off that way. I apologize in advance if my comments are overly frank.


This is a rough concept - I made no illusions as to it being anything other than that. If you wish to nitpick my rough concept, then please direct it towards me and not Odyknuck - all work done by me is my responsibility alone. He simply thought it would be a good idea to see if the plan, as has been posted, is a good one, and if it has any obvious problems in it. Your comment on the helix is appreciated, but your others are verging on unhelpful. The tracks are hilariously out of scale in my drawing, and no structures have even been included - the track layout is not even final. Odyknuck already constructed the staging tracks in the upper left of the layout, thus their inclusion. And, again, the drawing is not to scale, and I made no such illusions to it being so. I named this thread 'track planning help', not 'nitpick rough designs'. Please, if you have to apologize for the language in your post, think before you post it.

I do not mean for you to be offended. Rather, I just feel that, in this thread, you have been more apt to criticize than to help. Please, we want all the help we can get. Constructive criticism is fine, but I feel that you are not being constructive in this post.

Dreadnought


----------



## Aminnich

Dreadnought said:


> What do you mean by 'another layout'?


This is where this great idea of yours, can be a little hard to manage. It is Odyknuck's layout, all we are doing is making a different layout to see what he likes most from each layout so he can have the best results for his layout. It is HIS layout and he can he whatever he wants. 

I am taking my time and making it to scale and will be doing track work on SCARM, this is only so he can see what the true track plan could be. 

I'm sorry if I have hurt your feelings, but Odyknuck is entitled to do what he wants.


----------



## Dreadnought

Aminnich said:


> This is where this great idea of yours, can be a little hard to manage. It is Odyknuck's layout, all we are doing is making a different layout to see what he likes most from each layout so he can have the best results for his layout. It is HIS layout and he can he whatever he wants.
> 
> I am taking my time and making it to scale and will be doing track work on SCARM, this is only so he can see what the true track plan could be.
> 
> I'm sorry if I have hurt your feelings, but Odyknuck is entitled to do what he wants.


Of course. Please, if you can help him, by all means do - however, please don't imply that any work I've done did not take time or is not a 'true' track plan. I drew a rough sketch for the purpose of testing concepts and ideas. If you wish to draw everything to scale and whatnot, by all means, do. However, please do not imply that, by not doing so, my work is of inferior quality to your own. I would like this to be a collaborative effort, and that requires respect for all work put forth for any project.


----------



## Aminnich

If you make the track plan in a SCARM file, we can edit, save and repost into the thread. We can work on the track plan together. I'm game for that. 

Please don't think that I think my track plan is superior over yours, we all have different ways of doing things and a rough sketch is a good start. It giving the "customer" a good idea of where things will be placed. 

But as CTValley said, if you could post the general info about the layout; radius, size turnout, etc that was discussed, that would be very helpful. 

Adam


----------



## Odyknuck

CTValleyRR said:


> What I would have to say is that, as a conceptual design, it doesn't sound bad. As a practical matter, I have several comments:
> 1) If this is your first layout, I would build something much simpler first to get your feet wet.
> 
> This is my 3rd layout. The first one was your typical 4x8 that i built when i was 17. The second one was at around 30 years old however do to a move and life getting in the way it was never completed. I build the bench in the pics around 10 years ago and then another move. I m here to stay and semi retired to all good to go.
> 
> 2) I get no sense of scale from the drawings. Likewise your "layout area" photos. Before I do anything else when I'm designing a layout, I make sure I have the space and any obstacles defined TO SCALE first. Not doing so inevitably leads to problems.
> 
> I have done considerable measurements of the 12 1/2' by 41' work area to have a fair ideal of what will fit. One helix will have 30" radius and the other will have 36" radius . The helix material will be CNC cut in one of my buddies mills. I will be stacking mutipal 4' X 8' sheets so all of the sections will be cut at the same time. The bench work shown in the pics is abot45% of what will be built.
> 
> 3) I am extremely wary of any freehanded drawing. What looks like it works in freehand often leads to extreme frustration when you try to build it and things don't really fit within the space required. I strongly recommend that one or both of you invest in some layout design software and make sure you can do this as planned. If not, get some drafting tools and / or templates and really draw it out. Use a larger scale (like 1/12) to make sure your curves and tolerances are pretty close to what you need. Clarity wise, it is difficult to tell in the drawings what is track, what is contour, what is structures, and what is benchwork. Using different colors would help.
> 
> Point well taken. as stated this is a very ruff draft and will need to change im sure.
> 
> 
> 4) Your staging tracks in the upper left are way too small to accommodate any significant number of cars / locos. If this isn't just a placeholder for "much bigger staging area goes here", then just get rid of it and add a few sidings on the layout proper which can hold entire trains.
> 
> I plan on doing both the staging and sidings. I do not plan on real long trains as my space is just not large enough to look realistic IMHO.
> 
> 5) In HO, if you use a 15" radius curve, thus limiting yourself to very small equipment and short trains, you will need at least 32" diameter area just for the helix. If you double track it to allow simultaneous up and down, 36". More realistically, you will need about 42" for 18" radius curves or about 50" for 22" radius. Conceptually, what you have drawn is fine, but in practice, I think the helix will overwhelm your available space.
> 
> Scale is HO. My minimum radius will be 22" with transitions. The helix areas will be aproximatley 5 1/2' to 6 1/2' in diameter and still have 24" walkways.
> 
> 6) It's hard to tell from the drawing how much space there is between tracks, or between the tracks and the edges, but it doesn't look like you've left a lot of room for structures anywhere. Even small industrial buildings have a good sized footprint. You can help this problem by using flats against the edges, but the between track spacing doesn't appear to allow for much. This can be a matter of personal preference, depending on how you intend to operate your layout.
> 
> Flats will be utilized wherever needed. The layout is based on the C & O in the mountains of West VA. I am sure the track plan will need to be toned down to accomadate structures etc.
> 
> Finally, we don't have the benefit of all the information you have passed to Dreadnought via e-mail -- minimum radius, turnout size, how you intend to operate, and so on. Some description of that would help us evaluate whether this meets your needs or not. It's also difficult to evaluate how this layout may meet those needs when it's really just a rough concept, and may have to change drastically during the detail design phase.
> 
> Gauge HO with NCE DCC
> Minimum radius 22"
> #4 turnouts in Yards
> #6 turnouts on the main
> 
> This will be primarly a coal hauler with a few othe industries like lumber, Propane and small LCLs. No passenger service. I will be the primary operator with the possibilty of one or to other operators on occasion. Note that I have the entire basement 35' x 53' for expansion in the future if so desired.I do not consider any of the comments here as negative, more as real world facts that need to be brought to my attension. Afterall I did ask for it to be reviewed and critiqued. I just want the do overs to as minmum as possible. Based on my prior layout building I accept that there will be plenty even with the Perfect (play on words lol) layout design.
> 
> Here is a dimensional sketch of the area:


----------



## Odyknuck

Just a comment to get us all back on track (pun intended lol). It was not my intension here to get people upset with each other over helping me on a plan. I simply want to have the best plan going forward as I can. Having options on the table will help me greatly in this endeavour. I respect all of your input on this and felt a collective of your experiences in model railroading will help complete the task at hand. I will answer any questions you have to the best of my ability. I would like to thank each of you in advance for participating.


----------



## Dreadnought

Aminnich said:


> If you make the track plan in a SCARM file, we can edit, save and repost into the thread. We can work on the track plan together. I'm game for that.
> 
> Please don't think that I think my track plan is superior over yours, we all have different ways of doing things and a rough sketch is a good start. It giving the "customer" a good idea of where things will be placed.
> 
> But as CTValley said, if you could post the general info about the layout; radius, size turnout, etc that was discussed, that would be very helpful.
> 
> Adam


Have you created a SCARM File? If you have done so, then you could share it with me and we could start working on it together. I was just under the impression that you were using SCARM yourself, and your reply made it seem as if you wanted me to create the file.


----------



## Aminnich

As soon as I have the bench work complete in SCARM, I will post the file. Then I will start working on my layout plans


----------



## CTValleyRR

Dreadnought said:


> This is a rough concept - I made no illusions as to it being anything other than that. If you wish to nitpick my rough concept, then please direct it towards me and not Odyknuck - all work done by me is my responsibility alone. He simply thought it would be a good idea to see if the plan, as has been posted, is a good one, and if it has any obvious problems in it. Your comment on the helix is appreciated, but your others are verging on unhelpful. The tracks are hilariously out of scale in my drawing, and no structures have even been included - the track layout is not even final. Odyknuck already constructed the staging tracks in the upper left of the layout, thus their inclusion. And, again, the drawing is not to scale, and I made no such illusions to it being so. I named this thread 'track planning help', not 'nitpick rough designs'. Please, if you have to apologize for the language in your post, think before you post it.
> 
> I do not mean for you to be offended. Rather, I just feel that, in this thread, you have been more apt to criticize than to help. Please, we want all the help we can get. Constructive criticism is fine, but I feel that you are not being constructive in this post.
> 
> Dreadnought


I don't take offense. And I didn't apologize for my language, I apologized if it seemed too harsh. It's not meant to be harsh, but it IS meant to be constructive.

It also wasn't directed at Odyknuck, but simply a response to the post.

But straight up: having designed some 3 dozen layouts over the years, both for myself and others, I have learned that you can't divorce the "rough concept" from some consideration of dimensions. "Hilariously out of scale", as you put it, leads to overinflated expectations for what is reasonable and feasible in a given space. The concept of designing "by the squares" is almost as old as the hobby -- you divide your concept drawing up into squares representing, say, one square foot, and you freehand into that, so you have some idea whether what you're proposing will actually fit.

But that's just my opinion, based on my experience. If you don't find it helpful, fine with me. I'll bow out. This is your thread. You do what you want.


----------



## Dreadnought

*Introduction*
Since this (I hope) is becoming more of a collaborative effort, I thought perhaps that I could get some feedback on one of my private designs which I am considering. Picture is below. I have typed all the words on the page in order for you to be able to read them. The numbers in the aisles represent clearances. The numbers in boxes represent elevations, and the numbers along some of the curves represent their radii. All the tracks in the yard have been labeled on the left. 

*Track Plan*
This plan is for a layout that can fit in a bedroom, along with a (small) bed. The top shelf measures 8.5 feet long, the right shelf measures 10 feet long and the peninsula is 7 feet across. Each square in the plan represents 6 inches.

The minimum radius (excluding sidings) is 22" and the minimum turnout size (again excluding sidings) is No. 6. I plan to hand lay most, if not all of the turnouts on this layout though, so I did not design them to rigid specifications.










*Line*
The line starts out in Lenoir at a stub-end terminal with a yard and engine servicing facility. From there, it proceeds across a junction through West Lenoir and through a tunnel to Morganton. This tunnel contains a turnout leading to staging below the layout. Through Morganton, the line goes into a curve up to Gamewell Junction and then through Sawmills, before coming to Hudson. At Hudson, another curve takes the line back through West Lenoir. It continues through the same route back to Hudson, where a train can take the reversing loop to go back through Sawmills, Gamewell Junction and Morganton to arrive back at Lenoir.

*Industries*
This layout has many possibilities for industries modeled, though I picked a few specifically. Many of these industries were picked in order to be able to transfer cars from one industry on the layout to another, and vice versa.

At West Lenoir, a Rendering Plant, Chemical Producer, Lumber Company and Fuel Dealer are located. The Rendering Plant and Chemical Producer would receive some tank cars from the Meat Packing Plant at Morganton. The Lumber Company receives wood from the Sawmill at Sawmills, and the Fuel Dealer receives coal and oil from interchanges with other railroads.

The large complex beside the track at Morganton is a Meat Packing Plant (inspired by the Feb 2010 Model Railroader) which will receive reefers, tank cars and hopper cars for the power plant, in addition to other supplies via boxcar. The reefers would need to be transported via the fast symbol freights in order to maintain their content's quality (see below). Additionally, a paper mill is located at Morganton, above the town.

At Sawmills, a large sawmill is located that produces lumber for a lot of other industries on the layout. A small narrow gauge track with a shay could be located here, or even an N scale track for some forced perspective. 

A large furniture mill and food company are present at Hudson. The food company receives meats from the meat packing plant as well as produce from other railroads, while the furniture mill receives lumber from the sawmill. 

*Operations*
Foremost, this is a layout designed for operation.

This layout can be operated either on a continuous, or, preferably, on a point-to-loop _cum_ loop-to-loop basis. The layout includes two reversing loops as well as a terminal at which to end and start trains.

This layout has a single-track mainline, making for an interesting job for the dispatcher because he has to arrange meets and the like. The passing tracks are on the short side as of now, but can be extended in every location on the mainline. 

This layout is set up to run both passenger and freight operations. A typical operating session would include 2 or 3 scheduled limiteds, 2 commuter trains, and 2 or 3 locals. The limiteds would start at Lenoir and go out on the main, passing through West Lenoir, Morganton, Gamewell Junction and Sawmills before stopping at Hudson. Then, it would make another loop, stopping at Morganton. Afterwards, the limited would go through Hudson again and take the reversing loop, stopping at Hudson one final time before returning to Lenoir. The commuter trains would stop at every station, and the locals would do the same, but set up or put down cars at several stations. For freight, 2 symbol freights, 3 or 4 locals, 1 or 2 long drag freights and general merchandise freights to fill out the timetable would be possible. The symbol freights would travel similarly to the Passenger Limiteds, though including a stop at the industrial town of West Lenoir. The locals would switch the industries at every town, whilst the drag freights would be longer than the passing sidings, thus making for a more difficult (and interesting) job for the dispatcher.

*Conclusion*
Please tell me what you think of this. This is a plan which I seriously am considering constructing when I move apartments and have more space at hand. If there are any obvious problems, please tell me. Since this is my own work for myself, I am open to all criticism, and all suggested improvements. 

In addition, if you wish to adapt this track plan for your own use, please feel free. I feel that it is a very effective way to fit a lot of operation into a manageable space. The plan allows for a yard, engine terminal, lengthy mainline run (at least in relation to the size of the layout) and many different industries in a spare room. If you were not constrained by having to fit a bed in, the layout could be extended in any direction to accommodate more towns and more industries. The industries and town names I've picked correspond to real places in North Carolina and industries found there, but they could be changed to any locale easily.


----------



## Odyknuck

Curious why you chose a stub yard. Was it a location decision?


----------



## Dreadnought

Odyknuck said:


> Curious why you chose a stub yard. Was it a location decision?


Yes. I wanted to have a terminal yard where trains would both begin and end, and the location that presented itself most obviously was where the yard is now. However, of course, a stub yard has its disadvantages. I suppose that I could move the yard to where Morganton is now in order to make it double-ended. Thoughts?


----------



## Odyknuck

If you move it to Morganton then you could have east and west traffic that returns to the same location. That's what I have in mind for my layout.


----------



## Dreadnought

Odyknuck said:


> If you move it to Morganton then you could have east and west traffic that returns to the same location. That's what I have in mind for my layout.


That sounds good. Where exactly on your layout are you planning to have the yard? In the location I originally suggested, or another one?


----------



## paulrail

*I would love your input!*

I am trying to attach a drawing of my space but am doing something wrong. Could someone help me with that (I'm pretty low-tech)

thanks


----------



## Odyknuck

Where you show it is where I had it planned.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Dreadnought

paulrail said:


> I am trying to attach a drawing of my space but am doing something wrong. Could someone help me with that (I'm pretty low-tech)
> 
> thanks


What I do is upload my pictures to an image sharing website such as imgur (imgur.com). After doing this, copy the url of the page which has your image on it and then hit the small picture of a mountain and a sun in the upper bar when you hit 'reply' (it is to the right of the envelope and to the left of the text bubble). Once you hit that button, a dialog box will pop up telling you to put the URL of the photo you're trying to post in it. You then paste the imgur url into this dialog box and it should work.


----------



## Stultus

*Ok Dread... you asked for it...lol*

Here's my thoughts on my 20x14 layout...
See the JPG file for my 'grand scheme'
Modular... based upon five 8x4 sections that connect only via the Mainline. Moveable, in theory.

Physical Properties: 20’x14’ aprox (garage)
1.	_What scale: _ HO
2.	_What is the minimum turnout size:_ Not sure… I have at least two articulated trains and will run some passenger
3.	_Specific type of layout that is desirable:_ Modular – based upon 5 8x4 sections that are each semi-independent but connected to the mainline – each section able to be disconnected and moved reasonably easy. Long term helix up to wall run staging
4.	_Are there any structures or other things from previous layouts:_ None – Clean install

Layout Properties

5.	_Is there a specific prototype?_ Semi-Freelanced. New England/Maine circa 1940-1959. Tentatively ‘Arkham & Bangor’ or ‘Arkham & Nor’East Coastal’. A ‘Boston & Maine’ on drugs.
6.	_What is the specific locale of the layout:_ Arkham, Mass
7.	_Are there any specific places or scenes that want to be modeled?_ See PDF. Rural, Urban small industry, dock/waterfront, city station with switching, forestry other rural industry
8.	_Is there a specific era that is to be modeled_? Transition; 1940-1959

Operating Properties
_What type of trains do you plan to operate on the layout? What size?_ Yes, some of everything.

_Do you prefer mainline running to switching? _ Prefer mostly mainline but want to learn switching. Want a limited switching yard w/turntable. 8x4 area dedicated to city station & switching

_How many operators will usually be present to operate the layout?_ One. Will probably do manual turnout switching

_Is there a specific style that is preferred for the mainline (i.e. loop-to-loop, point-to-point, out-and-back)?_ Probably Loop

_Will the mainline be one, two, or another number of tracks? _Probably one mainline and several locals for each 8x4 module. Siding for 6-8 car’s width+

_Is a large amount of staging required? Is it preferable to have a large on-line yard or mostly off-line yards? _ One main yard. Local small yard as needed at industries, else off-line

_If staging is present, will it be above, below, or some other arrangement in regards to the main layout? _ Undecided. Probably mostly at ends or main city yard. How do you even DO below staging???

_Are there any particular industries that would like to be modeled? _ Too many. Musts: Forestry-to-timbermill-papermill; dock-cannery-distributer; dairy farm-dairy-distributer; coal-industry/electric generation plant and/or dock; quarry-????? Small oil distributer?

_Are there any special features of the layout that you would like (that is, grades, a waterfront, a large coal mine, many large viaducts, etc.)? _ Large coal mine/timber/log industry; dock. Would like mountain and a bridge crossing river at/near harbor and maybe several of the other modules. Water/bridges are nice.

_Lastly, please provide a general description of the layout with regards to its operation and overall feel. _ Rural Maine & New England, dark Lovecraftian theme… Arkham, Mass w/Victorian houses, ruins… Addams & Munster Family HO houses. Hehe….


----------



## paulrail

Dreadnought said:


> What I do is upload my pictures to an image sharing website such as imgur (imgur.com). After doing this, copy the url of the page which has your image on it and then hit the small picture of a mountain and a sun in the upper bar when you hit 'reply' (it is to the right of the envelope and to the left of the text bubble). Once you hit that button, a dialog box will pop up telling you to put the URL of the photo you're trying to post in it. You then paste the imgur url into this dialog box and it should work.


Thanks, Dreadnought. I will get that going and will be submitting something to you ASAP.

I am interested in getting your input as I just started some bench work yesterday for my spare bedroom size layout!

Thanks again
Paul


----------



## paulrail

*I'd love your input before I get started!*

Dreadnought, I've attached a drawing of the room and my layout space. I have already designed a track plan but would be interested in seeing what you would do in the space.

I may borrow some of your ideas or throw out my plan all together! 

- I model ho scale
-9'x11' layout in an 11'x12' room with inward swinging door and sliding closet doors (see pic)
-Modeling northern New England (Ma to Mn)
-Around the year 2000
-I want to run freight trains and a switcher in a freight yard or industrial switching area
-I prefer a continuously running mainline loop (double track if possible)
-I'd like to model things I see (or have seen in the past) around here (e.g., tank cars, covered hoppers and the appropriate industries)
-Lastly, some small grades would be preferable to the entire layout on the same plane.

I'm looking forward to your input.

Thanks
Paul


----------



## Dreadnought

*Preliminary Design*



Stultus said:


> Here's my thoughts on my 20x14 layout...
> See the JPG file for my 'grand scheme'
> Modular... based upon five 8x4 sections that connect only via the Mainline. Moveable, in theory.
> 
> Physical Properties: 20’x14’ aprox (garage)
> 1.	_What scale: _ HO
> 2.	_What is the minimum turnout size:_ Not sure… I have at least two articulated trains and will run some passenger
> 3.	_Specific type of layout that is desirable:_ Modular – based upon 5 8x4 sections that are each semi-independent but connected to the mainline – each section able to be disconnected and moved reasonably easy. Long term helix up to wall run staging
> 4.	_Are there any structures or other things from previous layouts:_ None – Clean install
> 
> Layout Properties
> 
> 5.	_Is there a specific prototype?_ Semi-Freelanced. New England/Maine circa 1940-1959. Tentatively ‘Arkham & Bangor’ or ‘Arkham & Nor’East Coastal’. A ‘Boston & Maine’ on drugs.
> 6.	_What is the specific locale of the layout:_ Arkham, Mass
> 7.	_Are there any specific places or scenes that want to be modeled?_ See PDF. Rural, Urban small industry, dock/waterfront, city station with switching, forestry other rural industry
> 8.	_Is there a specific era that is to be modeled_? Transition; 1940-1959
> 
> Operating Properties
> _What type of trains do you plan to operate on the layout? What size?_ Yes, some of everything.
> 
> _Do you prefer mainline running to switching? _ Prefer mostly mainline but want to learn switching. Want a limited switching yard w/turntable. 8x4 area dedicated to city station & switching
> 
> _How many operators will usually be present to operate the layout?_ One. Will probably do manual turnout switching
> 
> _Is there a specific style that is preferred for the mainline (i.e. loop-to-loop, point-to-point, out-and-back)?_ Probably Loop
> 
> _Will the mainline be one, two, or another number of tracks? _Probably one mainline and several locals for each 8x4 module. Siding for 6-8 car’s width+
> 
> _Is a large amount of staging required? Is it preferable to have a large on-line yard or mostly off-line yards? _ One main yard. Local small yard as needed at industries, else off-line
> 
> _If staging is present, will it be above, below, or some other arrangement in regards to the main layout? _ Undecided. Probably mostly at ends or main city yard. How do you even DO below staging???
> 
> _Are there any particular industries that would like to be modeled? _ Too many. Musts: Forestry-to-timbermill-papermill; dock-cannery-distributer; dairy farm-dairy-distributer; coal-industry/electric generation plant and/or dock; quarry-????? Small oil distributer?
> 
> _Are there any special features of the layout that you would like (that is, grades, a waterfront, a large coal mine, many large viaducts, etc.)? _ Large coal mine/timber/log industry; dock. Would like mountain and a bridge crossing river at/near harbor and maybe several of the other modules. Water/bridges are nice.
> 
> _Lastly, please provide a general description of the layout with regards to its operation and overall feel. _ Rural Maine & New England, dark Lovecraftian theme… Arkham, Mass w/Victorian houses, ruins… Addams & Munster Family HO houses. Hehe….


Here is my preliminary design.









*Mainline*
The design features a loop-to-loop mainline with a wye and an additional reversing loop at Arkham. 

At Arkham, there is a long yard lead leading to a three-track yard, along with a through-train track. Additionally, there is a caboose track and two RIP tracks adjacent to the yard. The yard lead goes through the station to form a passing siding, and ends at an industrial spur. The Arkham station also features a sleeper spur.

Coming out of Arkham, there is a wye that can lead in either direction. Additionally, one leg of the wye leads to an engine servicing facility. 

Taking the right leg of the wye out of Arkham leads to Kingsport. There is another passing siding going over the first bridge. Additionally, a spur leads from the mainline to the harbor, which has a variety of spurs for a number of industries. 

Following the main over the bridge leads to Salem, which has a spur for a coal dock at Kingsport.

Over the next bridge is a spur for a branch to the Danvers Quarry. The mainline, meanwhile, goes into a tunnel which comes out past Arkham at Townshend Junction.


Should we take the left leg out of Arkham, we would pass first a large industry, followed by a smaller spur for another industry. 

Proceeding to Townshend Junction, the track from Salem comes out of the other end of its tunnel to rejoin the main. There is another passing siding here.

Proceeding through another tunnel brings us to Lewiston, which has a mine, logging camp and an industrial spur. It also features a small river which is bridged twice. The track here then rejoins the main to form a reversing loop.

*Operations*
This line has many possibilities for operations. Being a single track main, the line would require some method to schedule meets between the various trains. This could be a dispatcher or a timetable.

For freight operations, many locals could be run connecting to the various industries and bringing their products back to the yard. Additionally, switching the industries at Arkham and Kingsport and operating the Mining, Logging and Quarry branches would require a large amount of trains.

For passenger operations, local trains stopping at every station as well as Limiteds could be run. The Limiteds would stop at Arkham, Lewiston and Salem before returning to Arkham. 

Finally, switching would take place mainly at the yard in Arkham, and at the various industries along the line.

*Conclusion*
Being a modular design, you could modify any portion of this design to your liking. The yard and reversing loop at Arkham is a complete portion, as are all the industries in Arkham save for the spur that connects to the reversing loop. Townshend Junction is a complete module, as is Lewiston. Kingsport and Danvers Quarry are both on the same module, but parts of the bridges and docks at Kingsport continue onto the Salem Module. The Salem Module could be shortened so that it only contains Salem to remedy this.

Since these are mostly complete modules, it could be feasible to 'plug and play' different modules to your liking. For example, you could replace Lewiston with a stub terminal, or replace the yard facility at Arkham with more industries. 

Dreadnought


----------



## Stultus

Very interesting take. That has possiblities


----------



## Dreadnought

Stultus said:


> Very interesting take. That has possiblities


Is there anything that you would like changed on the plan?


----------



## geekchris

Just wondering if you'll do an industrial area on a layout that has a mostly finished track plan? On my layout there's two areas that need some planning, and advice would be helpful!


----------



## Dreadnought

geekchris said:


> Just wondering if you'll do an industrial area on a layout that has a mostly finished track plan? On my layout there's two areas that need some planning, and advice would be helpful!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk


I'd be happy to help. Any pictures you have would be helpful, as well.


----------



## geekchris

Dreadnought said:


> I'd be happy to help. Any pictures you have would be helpful, as well.


Very well! This is the part of my layout I have flushed out:









The large empty space in the middle of that turn-around curve is where a Coke Oven/Quench Tower will go. That's the main thing I need. The siding off the inner loop in that area I would like to run and then cross the outerloop/passing siding, going to the upper edge of the layout, based on the above photo. The outer loop turnout is a walthers 3-way turnout. I would like to have a run-around track, and a siding for a track scale, as well as the sidings needed for the Quench Tower itself. (The exact siding arrangement is one for the coal loader (labeled as the larry car on the footprint), the track on the other side of the footprint, and one more and that side, as seen in the photo. The outermost track is optional, but preferred.
Footprint:








I would also, if possible want the other end of the switching area to connect to the aforementioned track from the inner loop that goes out. Minimum turnout is number 4, and number six where it connects with the crossover line, if possible. I'd like to stay above 20" radius for the industrial area, 24" for the other line. The coke oven area can go down to 18", if absolutely necessary.

For reference, each "square" in the plan is 4'x4'. The peninsula that this will be on is roughly 5' wide, give a bit for the irrational number that it actually is. In between the outer line tracks is about 4'.

More images of the general idea I'm going for:

Walthers image of the kit:









Also note: the Conveyors for the kit can do angles, so that exact foot print isn't necessary.


Thanks a lot!:thumbsup:


----------



## Dreadnought

*paulrail Response*



paulrail said:


> Dreadnought, I've attached a drawing of the room and my layout space. I have already designed a track plan but would be interested in seeing what you would do in the space.
> 
> I may borrow some of your ideas or throw out my plan all together!
> 
> - I model ho scale
> -9'x11' layout in an 11'x12' room with inward swinging door and sliding closet doors (see pic)
> -Modeling northern New England (Ma to Mn)
> -Around the year 2000
> -I want to run freight trains and a switcher in a freight yard or industrial switching area
> -I prefer a continuously running mainline loop (double track if possible)
> -I'd like to model things I see (or have seen in the past) around here (e.g., tank cars, covered hoppers and the appropriate industries)
> -Lastly, some small grades would be preferable to the entire layout on the same plane.
> 
> I'm looking forward to your input.
> 
> Thanks
> Paul


My sincerest apologies for the delay in response. I have been busy the last few days with an operating session and with an injury I sustained, and only got around to working on your plan today. Here is what I have so far. A note of warning, my camera flipped the image for some reason, so the image is from the opposite viewpoint than your drawing was - that is, the three-foot-thick part of the benchwork is on the right, not the left.









Based on what you gave me in your post, you would like to have a good amount of switching, with mainline running being secondary - please correct me if I am wrong. Based on that, I have designed this plan to have a large switching district off the double-track main, as well as several on-line industries. The mainline interchanges with the switching district via a third track (the reason for the three track bridge on the right side of the plan) off the main. A variety of industries are in the switching district - I left it up to you to decide what industries you want there, as I do not know of your personal experiences. The industry on the opposite side of the bridge from the rest of the district would be the largest industry on the line though, and its traffic level would reflect that. 

After the switching district, the main goes over a river and past an online industry. Past that, another, much smaller switching district is present where there are only two, smaller industries. The main passes over these on a bridge, before entering a tunnel. A spur here leads to staging.

I have left this plan relatively simple and open ended for you to apply your own experiences and preferences too. Please tell me what you think. 

Dreadnought


----------



## paulrail

Thanks for your input, Dreadnought.

No need to apologize for the delay of your response, I know quite a few people took you up on your offer so I was happy to wait my turn.

Unfortunately it's bed time for me (work tomorrow) so I will take a look at your ideas tomorrow afternoon.

Thanks again for your time. I'm sure I will have some questions or comments for you soon.


----------



## paulrail

Dreadnought, I'm so sorry it took me so long to get back to you.
I have been so busy with work I just recently took a good look
at your track plan for me. 

You are right that the mainline is for continuous running while I 
switch industries. I like the online industries which allow for an-
other operator to keep busy as well.

One question I have is what percent grades are shown on the plan? 

I'm glad I got another's input at this point as I'm still working on bench work (it's tough with only a few hours a week to work on it ). I will be re-doing my plan an adding some of you concepts.

Thanks again :thumbsup:


----------



## Dreadnought

paulrail said:


> Dreadnought, I'm so sorry it took me so long to get back to you.
> I have been so busy with work I just recently took a good look
> at your track plan for me.
> 
> You are right that the mainline is for continuous running while I
> switch industries. I like the online industries which allow for an-
> other operator to keep busy as well.
> 
> One question I have is what percent grades are shown on the plan?
> 
> I'm glad I got another's input at this point as I'm still working on bench work (it's tough with only a few hours a week to work on it ). I will be re-doing my plan an adding some of you concepts.
> 
> Thanks again :thumbsup:


It's fine, I have been so busy myself that I have had little time to work on this thread. The grade near the larger industrial district would be about 3%, going form the interchange track to the switchback that enters the district. The other grade would be more moderate, about 2%. Both these allow for a separation of about 5 or 6 inches from the industrial district rails to the bottom of the bridges.


----------



## paulrail

Great. It's my understanding that any grade greater than 2% is not proto typical.
I decided to avoid 4% grades but to permit myself 3% grades due to my comparatively 
small layout.

Thanks again.


----------



## Dreadnought

geekchris said:


> Very well! This is the part of my layout I have flushed out:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The large empty space in the middle of that turn-around curve is where a Coke Oven/Quench Tower will go. That's the main thing I need. The siding off the inner loop in that area I would like to run and then cross the outerloop/passing siding, going to the upper edge of the layout, based on the above photo. The outer loop turnout is a walthers 3-way turnout. I would like to have a run-around track, and a siding for a track scale, as well as the sidings needed for the Quench Tower itself. (The exact siding arrangement is one for the coal loader (labeled as the larry car on the footprint), the track on the other side of the footprint, and one more and that side, as seen in the photo. The outermost track is optional, but preferred.
> Footprint:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would also, if possible want the other end of the switching area to connect to the aforementioned track from the inner loop that goes out. Minimum turnout is number 4, and number six where it connects with the crossover line, if possible. I'd like to stay above 20" radius for the industrial area, 24" for the other line. The coke oven area can go down to 18", if absolutely necessary.
> 
> For reference, each "square" in the plan is 4'x4'. The peninsula that this will be on is roughly 5' wide, give a bit for the irrational number that it actually is. In between the outer line tracks is about 4'.
> 
> More images of the general idea I'm going for:
> 
> Walthers image of the kit:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also note: the Conveyors for the kit can do angles, so that exact foot print isn't necessary.
> 
> 
> Thanks a lot!:thumbsup:


Again, sincerest apologies for the delay. I have been mulling over exactly what you wanted for a while now. However, the delay is purely my fault, and I apologize.

Here is what I have for you:








(My phone flipped the image again, so it is the opposite way from what it is on your plan)

I'm not sure why you want that one track to cross over to the top of the layout, but I assume you have a reason for it. That outermost track inside the loop on the right of the image (the one that crosses the outer tracks) would act as the runaround track, while the track next to that one would be the scale track. Next to those tracks are the Coke Oven. It seems that with your space, the Coke Oven can be installed relatively intact in relation to its plan in the Walther's catalog. 

Sincerest apologies if the plan is unclear. The Coke Oven section confused me, and thus you should not stick to that part of the plan exclusively. However, because you appear to have enough space to accommodate the Coke Oven intact, you can just install it as it is in the catalog.

All of the curves in the plan should be gentle enough to accommodate the largest freight cars.

The only difficult part of the plan is the track crossing the outer loops. The track has to cross two curves, and unless you install straight sections, you would probably have to build curved crossings yourself.

Dreadnought


----------



## geekchris

Very impressive.
We want it to cross over to the outside in order to provide staging and/or future expansion point. One thing I may not have been clear on-I wished that the part that would crossover would branch from the inner line. However, I believe I can adapt this easily to that plan. 
This is very useful, thanks a lot!


----------



## Homeless by Choice

*Homeless Rail Lines*

Dreadnaught, I have been watching this thread and see that you are very busy working on other layouts. I decided that I needed a deeper understanding of a model railroading. I am trying to better define my goals so as not to have you waste your time on my railroad. I have reviewed all the comments about my previous posts, researched different layouts, and searched the internet to generate a more concise set of parameters. Here is a Fresh Approach to the design of the Homeless Rail Lines. Hopefully this helps 

These are my goals:
•	Point to Point freight train layout with three or more switching yards.
•	Staging yard(s) can only be located at an upper or lower elevation area around the perimeter of the room only. It would be nice if they were connected to the main bench level; in other words, not a fiddle yard.
•	Industries: Open pit ore mine, Iron ore dock, logging siding, grain silo siding, and various to be determined industries.
•	Continuous running mainline is desired but not require.
•	The Open Pit mine will be developed as a separate project. It will be DC N scale.

This is what I like:
•	Lots of little industries with 1 to 5 car sidings
•	Busy appearing layout with lots of track, some elevated crossing one over the other with bridges and/or tunnels, maybe some simulated grade operations going through the mountains
•	Switching yards that are connected by a mainline
•	Railroad that is functional ASAP
•	I prefer buildings more than scenery to fill in gaps
•	Design ideas of scenic dividers are needed now so I have an understanding of what they are but the building of them will be as time permits
•	Once the railroad is “Up and Running”, I will start on vegetation, scenery, and buildings 

This is what I think is unrealistic:
•	A transcontinental railroad
•	A functioning N scale logging site

This is what I like but may not be practical:
•	Farm fields, grain elevators, logging/mill operation, desert, and mountain peaks
•	A swing bridge across the walk-thru for continuous mainline operation

This is the setting;
•	Totally fictitious North American region
•	1950-2000 era mixed diesel motive power

These are the mechanicals:
•	HO scale
•	DCC powered with upwards of 3 throttles
•	Minimum radius: 24” for mainline
•	Maximum reach (arm length) to track: 30”
•	Walthers Cornerstone 3065 Ore Dock http://www.walthers.com/catalog/product/view/id/819524/s/ore-dock-kit-48-1-2-x-5-quot-121-2-x-12-5cm/

Classifying yards
Dreadnought wrote “Since you said classifying yards are your thing, do you want to have a very large yard, or multiple yards to run trains between? One possibility would to have a large classifying yard with both 'inbound' and 'outbound' divisions of that yard. Trains coming into the yard would be broken down in the 'inbound' section, then rearranged and sent to the 'outbound' section to be moved out of the yard.”

Response: I want to have three people busy moving rail stock during an operating session. Since I am not knowledgeable of classifying within the yard, I will trust that your suggestion makes sense. I am guessing that one operator works the yard while two other operators would move trains to and from neighboring sidings. Would the mine be a siding? The ore dock be a siding? I am envisioning the ore train moving at least 15 hopper cars and that they would need to be return the empty or full cars to the classifying yard. How would they function along side of shorter trains going to local industries using only 1-3 cars? Or would the ore cars go directly from the mine to the dock and vice-versa without stopping at the classifying yard? I need help understanding this phase of the operation.

Additional information:
I spend Nov thru April in Arizona. Planning, small buildings, scenery, and painting can be worked on at that time.

I spend mid May thru mid Oct at my son’s house in Wisconsin where the train room is located tin he lower level of his house. Bench work and track building can only occur during the summer months.

This is the train room:
View attachment 192170


The dimensions are:
View attachment 192178

The green area is an existing shelf.


Here is one idea of the layout expansion:
View attachment 192186

The yellow benchwork is at the same height as the existing green bench. The blue area is the iron ore loading dock tht could be recessed 3” (21’ scale). The dock rails would extent 7” (50’ scale) above the yellow deck. The pink area is an open pit mine cavity 24” (175’ scale) deep.


Here is another idea of the layout expansion:
View attachment 192194

I much prefer this layout expansion because the rail line seems more connected rather than the dead end peninsula. The green, yellow, blue, and pink areas are the same as described above.

The following is my thinking only is not a requirement for my layout. It is only “food for thought”. The Ore Dock and Mine Pit can be relocated as needed. The Ore Dock’s rail is 10” above its base. By depressing the blue water level area 3” below the bench top, a rise of 7” above bench top only requires 30’ (2550’ scale) at 2% grade ramp length. The nominal distance from the Mine to the Dock is greater than 65’. That is more than twice the required 2% ramp distance. I believe that length would allow a somewhat natural up and down climb varying grade thru the hills and across plains/plateaus rather than a long rigid slope.

Dreadnaught, please see what you can do with this when you have time.

Thank you,
LeRoy

*Edit Note:* Jun 15, 2016 
The last two expansion ideas above are just suggestions only. Any and all other bench top layout suggestions are welcome and appreciated.

Thank you,
LeRoy


----------



## Homeless by Choice

Homeless by Choice said:


> Dreadnaught, I have been watching this thread and see that you are very busy working on other layouts.
> .....
> Dreadnought wrote “Since you said classifying yards are your thing, do you want to have a very large yard, or multiple yards to run trains between? One possibility would to have a large classifying yard with both 'inbound' and 'outbound' divisions of that yard. Trains coming into the yard would be broken down in the 'inbound' section, then rearranged and sent to the 'outbound' section to be moved out of the yard.”
> .....
> Thank you,
> LeRoy


I stated that I wanted a minimum of three areas to be simultaneously operated on my layout. If I correctly understand Dreagnaught’s *large classifying yard with both 'inbound' and 'outbound' divisions of that yard* to be something similar to the lower sketch, then I definitely want it. Operator 1 would be classifying the A-D Yard;
Operator 2 would be working the EAST side industries; and Operator 3 would be working the WEST side industries.

View attachment 193410


As a side note, tomorrow I am going to the Strawberry Fest Train Show http://www.wamrltd.com/?action=strawberryFest. Hopefully, I will learn more.

Respectfully,
LeRoy


----------



## DonR

I really like your second layout idea. That long around
the room bench can harbor all sorts of scenes, small
industries, even hills and rivers to cross.

If you will be operating with DCC I would suggest a single
track main line with passing sidings at points along the
way.

However, the 'mine' area doesn't seem to provide for
a mainline return loop as did your first idea.

You can't have enough lineage in a yard. Those tracks
fill up quickly after a visit or two to a train show. I would
add a lot more to the 'possible' yard you show.

Don


----------



## Homeless by Choice

DonR said:


> I really like your second layout idea. That long around
> the room bench can harbor all sorts of scenes, small
> industries, even hills and rivers to cross.
> 
> If you will be operating with DCC I would suggest a single
> track main line with passing sidings at points along the
> way.
> 
> However, the 'mine' area doesn't seem to provide for
> a mainline return loop as did your first idea.
> 
> You can't have enough lineage in a yard. Those tracks
> fill up quickly after a visit or two to a train show. I would
> add a lot more to the 'possible' yard you show.
> 
> Don


Dreadnaught originally sketched hills, bridges, tunnels, etc. I assume that when he has time, he will redo it in light of what I just suggested. I will let him suggest the track design.

My railroad will definitely be DCC because of all the advantages: multiple trains on the same line, sound, etc.

The above yard layout was only to demonstrate my understanding of what Dreadnaught was talking about. I agree that it needs to be much larger so that many cars can be handled and switched around. I will wait for his comments on my sketch.

Thank you for your input, 
LeRoy


----------



## Dreadnought

Homeless by Choice said:


> Dreadnaught, I have been watching this thread and see that you are very busy working on other layouts. I decided that I needed a deeper understanding of a model railroading. I am trying to better define my goals so as not to have you waste your time on my railroad. I have reviewed all the comments about my previous posts, researched different layouts, and searched the internet to generate a more concise set of parameters. Here is a Fresh Approach to the design of the Homeless Rail Lines. Hopefully this helps
> 
> These are my goals:
> •	Point to Point freight train layout with three or more switching yards.
> •	Staging yard(s) can only be located at an upper or lower elevation area around the perimeter of the room only. It would be nice if they were connected to the main bench level; in other words, not a fiddle yard.
> •	Industries: Open pit ore mine, Iron ore dock, logging siding, grain silo siding, and various to be determined industries.
> •	Continuous running mainline is desired but not require.
> •	The Open Pit mine will be developed as a separate project. It will be DC N scale.
> 
> This is what I like:
> •	Lots of little industries with 1 to 5 car sidings
> •	Busy appearing layout with lots of track, some elevated crossing one over the other with bridges and/or tunnels, maybe some simulated grade operations going through the mountains
> •	Switching yards that are connected by a mainline
> •	Railroad that is functional ASAP
> •	I prefer buildings more than scenery to fill in gaps
> •	Design ideas of scenic dividers are needed now so I have an understanding of what they are but the building of them will be as time permits
> •	Once the railroad is “Up and Running”, I will start on vegetation, scenery, and buildings
> 
> This is what I think is unrealistic:
> •	A transcontinental railroad
> •	A functioning N scale logging site
> 
> This is what I like but may not be practical:
> •	Farm fields, grain elevators, logging/mill operation, desert, and mountain peaks
> •	A swing bridge across the walk-thru for continuous mainline operation
> 
> This is the setting;
> •	Totally fictitious North American region
> •	1950-2000 era mixed diesel motive power
> 
> These are the mechanicals:
> •	HO scale
> •	DCC powered with upwards of 3 throttles
> •	Minimum radius: 24” for mainline
> •	Maximum reach (arm length) to track: 30”
> •	Walthers Cornerstone 3065 Ore Dock http://www.walthers.com/catalog/product/view/id/819524/s/ore-dock-kit-48-1-2-x-5-quot-121-2-x-12-5cm/
> 
> Classifying yards
> Dreadnought wrote “Since you said classifying yards are your thing, do you want to have a very large yard, or multiple yards to run trains between? One possibility would to have a large classifying yard with both 'inbound' and 'outbound' divisions of that yard. Trains coming into the yard would be broken down in the 'inbound' section, then rearranged and sent to the 'outbound' section to be moved out of the yard.”
> 
> Response: I want to have three people busy moving rail stock during an operating session. Since I am not knowledgeable of classifying within the yard, I will trust that your suggestion makes sense. I am guessing that one operator works the yard while two other operators would move trains to and from neighboring sidings. Would the mine be a siding? The ore dock be a siding? I am envisioning the ore train moving at least 15 hopper cars and that they would need to be return the empty or full cars to the classifying yard. How would they function along side of shorter trains going to local industries using only 1-3 cars? Or would the ore cars go directly from the mine to the dock and vice-versa without stopping at the classifying yard? I need help understanding this phase of the operation.
> 
> Additional information:
> I spend Nov thru April in Arizona. Planning, small buildings, scenery, and painting can be worked on at that time.
> 
> I spend mid May thru mid Oct at my son’s house in Wisconsin where the train room is located tin he lower level of his house. Bench work and track building can only occur during the summer months.
> 
> This is the train room:
> View attachment 192170
> 
> 
> The dimensions are:
> View attachment 192178
> 
> The green area is an existing shelf.
> 
> 
> Here is one idea of the layout expansion:
> View attachment 192186
> 
> The yellow benchwork is at the same height as the existing green bench. The blue area is the iron ore loading dock tht could be recessed 3” (21’ scale). The dock rails would extent 7” (50’ scale) above the yellow deck. The pink area is an open pit mine cavity 24” (175’ scale) deep.
> 
> 
> Here is another idea of the layout expansion:
> View attachment 192194
> 
> I much prefer this layout expansion because the rail line seems more connected rather than the dead end peninsula. The green, yellow, blue, and pink areas are the same as described above.
> 
> The following is my thinking only is not a requirement for my layout. It is only “food for thought”. The Ore Dock and Mine Pit can be relocated as needed. The Ore Dock’s rail is 10” above its base. By depressing the blue water level area 3” below the bench top, a rise of 7” above bench top only requires 30’ (2550’ scale) at 2% grade ramp length. The nominal distance from the Mine to the Dock is greater than 65’. That is more than twice the required 2% ramp distance. I believe that length would allow a somewhat natural up and down climb varying grade thru the hills and across plains/plateaus rather than a long rigid slope.
> 
> Dreadnaught, please see what you can do with this when you have time.
> 
> Thank you,
> LeRoy
> 
> *Edit Note:* Jun 15, 2016
> The last two expansion ideas above are just suggestions only. Any and all other bench top layout suggestions are welcome and appreciated.
> 
> Thank you,
> LeRoy


Here is my preliminary design. I liked the second benchwork design more than the first one, and directly based my image off yours; therefore, sorry for the rather small image. 










The purple lines on the image are view blocks.

This layout has both point-to-point operations, starting at the Iron Ore Mine and terminating at the Farm Area, and a continuous run that bypasses the Desert, Mountain and Farm Areas. Starting at the Iron Ore Mine, the lines run past a junction with the continuous run to an area that could be used for any number of industries. Past this, it goes through a view block (the furnace) and comes out at the main switching yard, a large yard with both Eastbound and Westbound yards that require a lot of switching. Past this, the line goes around the corner, past another view block and to the Iron Ore Dock. The line goes past this and through another view block, emerging in a mountainous area. Here, the line branches off to either go to the continuous run portion, or to continue through the mountains. Here, the line passes over itself and then continues past a logging site, going around another corner and coming out in the desert area. The line here is descending down to come out below the line in the mountain area, in order to pass below it. Past this, the line comes out in the farm area before proceeding to staging, which is below the main yard. 

Tell me what you think. One flaw I already see in this plan is that the Iron Ore Dock is not at the end of the line. However, I am not sure if this is what you want. If it is indeed what you want, then the line coming from the main yard could curve to where the Farm Area is now, and the staging entrance could be past the Iron Ore Dock. This would make the Iron Ore Mine and the Iron Ore Dock at opposite ends of the line. Again, this is your personal preference.

Thanks, Dreadnought


----------



## Homeless by Choice

Dreadnought,

Your plan looks reasonable. I am sketching out a relocation for the Ore Dock. I am thinking that it could also include a second dock for shipping vessels. I am also filling in tracks, yards, and industrial spurs to see how they could work. This is going to take me some time so please be patient.

Thank you,
LeRoy


----------



## Greencardude

*Layout Design Help*



Dreadnought said:


> Hello,
> 
> FORM A
> 1. Physical Properties
> How much space do you have for a layout? Does it have any intruding features (i.e. an inward-swinging door or a staircase?)
> 
> ANSWER: Main Area: 17 x 12'8". The right side goes an additional nine feet by 30". The grey box on the left side is the circuit breaker box for my house, so I am trying to keep that at 1' in width, to be able to reach over.
> 
> What scale do you want your layout to be?
> 
> ANSWER: HO
> 
> 2. Layout Properties
> Is there a specific prototype you wish to model? If not, what is the nature of the freelanced railroad?
> 
> ANSWER: My father was the master mechanic of steam for the Kentucky Railway Museum, and I spent just about every Saturday of my life restoring L&N 152 (at 1 to 1 scale!), so I am partial to the L&N. All locos are L&N and I have several passenger consists that are L&N heavyweights and some lightweights.
> 
> 
> What is the locale of the layout?
> 
> ANSWER: I would put it in Kentucky, where I was raised.
> 
> What era is to be modeled?
> 
> ANSWER: Trying to model late summer, 1943.
> 
> 3. Operating Properties
> What type of trains do you want to operate?
> 
> ANSWER: Tough one. I love passenger trains and coal trains. I love the elegance of a passenger train and the earthy feel of coal hoppers.
> 
> Do you prefer continuous running or point-to-point running?
> 
> ANSWER: Continuing running is what has my attention, although I am wary of having too much of it. I've tried to build in some switching / industrial areas, as well as a decent sized yard, to make sure it doesn't become boring.
> 
> ANSWER 2: At this stage, my strongest desires are model building, rather than operating, so I kind of view the railroad as a purpose for creating structures and scenery.
> 
> Is there a specific style that is preferred for the mainline (i.e. loop-to-loop, point-to-point, out-and-back)?
> 
> ANSWER: Loop to loop, to provide for continuous running.
> 
> Lastly, please provide an overall concept for the layout - how you want it to feel. Do you want an Appalachian Coal Hauler or a Modern Desert Layout, or some other thing?
> 
> ANSWER: In my mind's eye, I envision the outskirts of a town, maybe a small community at the edge of a larger city. I would like to have old warehouses and industries along a part of it, but also a "town" scene with two and three story buildings. I would also like to include a trestle of some sort and perhaps a tunnel.


My pop always tells me not to try to impress people with how little I know about something, and that certain applies here, where so many of you have skills I will never have. With that in mind, I would love to take you up on your offer to help with track planning for my layout. I have attached a link to a jpg of my current design, made with Anyrail.

The engine servicing area is a question mark for right now, because I need to refine measurements to see what I can do in that area. Consider it a placeholder right now. 

I also wanted a reversing loop, so that's why there is the area across the middle. And as for the roads and structures, those are just placeholders--I've not settled on what they might be or how they will be laid out. I'm also working on block detection, but you can ignore the blocks in the attached. Nice folks on here have made me rethink that block design.

The outer loop is the "main." I've tried to keep radii to 32 inches. The inside loop is the "branch." Radii there are about 29.5"

The darker block toward the lower left is intended to be a lift up section to access the control pit. (And the lift up part scares me.)

Again, any thoughts would be greatly appreciated, even if it's to tell me it's awful!

Here's the link:

http://www.timbratcher.com/MODEL_TRAIN/DONE-001.jpg

Thank you!

Tim


----------



## DonR

Tim

You have a very interesting and complete track plan.
It offers very good continuous running and a lot of
switching operations.

But, I agree, the 'lift out' is scary. I have an almost
identical situation where I would want a lift out. It 
would have
2 turnouts with 4 diverging tracks on it. I
decided that keeping them in alignment
would be very difficult. At my age crawling under
is not a good thing, but it seemed the better way.

Don


----------



## Greencardude

Thanks, Don! So . . . did you include the lift up / out? Or did you devise some other way around the problem? I'm just horribly concerned that I will forever have alignment problems with it. I'm going to glue the track in the lift up area and I'm going to replace the plastic ties, 8 or so back from each cut, with soldered PC board ties. i'm thinking that might keep things in gauge. Also intend to use some sort of pin and slot mechanism to cause the bridge to come back to the same spot each time . . . but even a millimeter will wreak havoc. I just don't know. At first I thought I could do it, but now that I've built the benchwork (except for the bridge) I'm not so sure. It's in my basement and there's not a single square, plumb, or level surface down there. it's made building a level platform exceedingly difficult.


----------



## Odyknuck

Making the lift rigid is the first step in making it work. Using taper pins that you can adjust would help a lot to keep alignment correct. Also a good quality stainless steel continuous hinge along with 2 pins on that end will also make a difference .

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Greencardude

Any ideas on the tapered pins? Where I might find them? I've looked but haven't found anything that I think would work.


----------



## Odyknuck

Google regal componets

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------

