Posts: 135
Threads: 21
Joined: Aug 2009
Givens and Druthers
Erie & Southern Railroad
Scale: N
Gauge: Standard
Prototype: Inspiration drawn from NKP (Nickel Plate Road)
Era: 1953 (Transition era)
Region: Ohio
Railroad: N/A
Space:
Basement space. CFO has granted me a corner that will fit an L-shaped layout approx 9x6x3.
Governing Rolling Stock: Coal and grain cars, boxcars, a few tankers
Relative Emphasis:
|________________V_____________________________|
Track/Operation .................................................. ..Scenic realism
|____________________________V________________|
Mainline Running .................................................. ........ Switching
Operation Priorities:
1. Local Freight Operations
2. Engine Terminal Movements
3. Helper District Operations
4. Long Freight Train Operations
5. Passenger Train Switching
6. Main-Line Passenger Train Operation
Typical operating Crew: 1-2
Eye Level (Owner) 4 ft?
Tony
Posts: 4,553
Threads: 100
Joined: Dec 2008
9' X 6' X 3' L shape switching.
You should be able to put a lot of operation into that space, and still not have too much "crowding".
Keep us informed as you go.
We always learn far more from our own mistakes, than we will ever learn from another's advice.
The greatest place to live life, is on the sharp leading edge of a learning curve.
Lead me not into temptation.....I can find it myself!
Posts: 2,271
Threads: 155
Joined: Dec 2008
Welcome!
Members here have put up some great shelf layouts for switching (or with switching components) in the past several months. Try these for some inspiration:
Steve's Good things come in narrow packages
TrainNut's A hole in the wall x4
Sir Madog's Ideas for a shelf layout based on the MR project Port of Los Angeles.
And for some larger layouts whose components/ideas you might use:
CandO7430's Chessie System - Athens Subdivision
Trucklover's The Modesto & Empire Traction Company Layout Trackplan
Stein's Stein's Minneapolis Warehouse district 1957 (HO)
Hope that helps!
Andrew
Posts: 437
Threads: 24
Joined: Dec 2008
Welcome aboard!
Are you doing construction now? Any pictures?
Loren
I got my first train when I was three,
put a hundred thousand miles on my knees.
Posts: 135
Threads: 21
Joined: Aug 2009
Thanks for the replies, everyone. And no...zero progress to report thus far. I don't have a track plan, which is the reason for this thread, which will serve as a sounding board for ideas.
For my space (think of two 3x6 tables placed in an "L" shape so that one stretch is 9 ft long), I should be able to fit plenty of N scale action. My old layout used a canned track plan (Scenic and Relaxed), so this venture will be new for me. I have a really good idea of what I want visually, but from an operations standpoint, I don't know how to make it all come together.
There is an HO plan that I really like, which should scale down nicely to fit my space. In The Classic Layouts of John Armstrong, the layout is called French Broad Valley. In HO scale it is 18x6x10. Here is a rough scan of that plan, with a little bit of editing. This is the shape of my space as well:
Tony
Posts: 1,897
Threads: 40
Joined: Dec 2008
That plan looks like it will give you plenty of industries to switch for operation and a nice mainline run as well.
Posts: 437
Threads: 24
Joined: Dec 2008
I have seen that plan before and like it. I remember wondering if there was a way to move the interchange and connect it to the branch to make it an active interchange.
Loren
I got my first train when I was three,
put a hundred thousand miles on my knees.
Posts: 3,262
Threads: 115
Joined: Dec 2008
Nice looking layout but,I wonder how you make up your locals without a small yard? :?:
Larry
Engineman
Summerset Ry
Make Safety your first thought, Not your last! Safety First!
Posts: 135
Threads: 21
Joined: Aug 2009
Brakie Wrote:Nice looking layout but,I wonder how you make up your locals without a small yard? :?:
Yeah, one of the things I don't like about this layout is the lack of a yard. I don't like the interchange track either. The pictured plan will serve mostly as inspiration, since I'll probably end up coming up with something on my own.
On p. 26 of Track Planning for Realistic Operationn, there is a great division point yard w/ about 6 tracks that I think would be perfect for a layout this size. I would like it to be front and center, right in the middle of the layout.
Tony
Posts: 1,229
Threads: 23
Joined: Dec 2008
That division point yard in the Op book is a nice example. I'd look to the Division Point yard on Frank Ellison's Delta Lines for inspiration as well.
The French Broad Valley, at first blush, might fit my space pretty well if flipped vertically...hmmm...
Welcome to The Gauge!
Galen
I may not be a rivet counter, but I sure do like rivets!
Posts: 133
Threads: 15
Joined: May 2009
Seems like you could build a nice and big fiddleyard underneath with entrances on two sides. You have pretty many industries here, so you could get rid of a pair and change it into a yard for on-layout switching possibilities. All this would keep the loop to watch your trains run.
-norm
Posts: 89
Threads: 3
Joined: Jun 2009
Looks like fairly tight curves, though. I can see a need for at least 11" if not 9.75". I don't favor such curves for general use. In your case, they could be troublesome for steam and passenger equipment. "Governing rolling stock" isn't the predominant equipment, but the longest, stiffest and tallest.
Fan of late and early Conrail... also 40s-50s PRR, 70s ATSF, BN and SP, 70s-80s eastern CN, pre-merger-era UP, heavy electric operations in general, dieselized narrow gauge, era 3/4 DB and DR, EFVM and Brazilian railroads in general... too many to list!
Posts: 133
Threads: 15
Joined: May 2009
To echo what Triplex mentioned: The curves are too tight (not much more than one foot diametre on some...none but the shortest engines and cars will make them. And some spurs are too short (6" doesn't hold more than one engine or two short cars) H0 doesn't exactly scale down to N if you divide everything by 2 - 1,84 is closer, but I would use 1,5 to allow for just a little more breathing room (slightly longer trains, slightly more open space and track to enjoy the trains run...cramped layouts are only fun if they are an exercise in small layout building, imho) While in H0 one would be inclined to accept overshort trains as space is very limited, in N I would rather not.
-norm
Posts: 135
Threads: 21
Joined: Aug 2009
Just an update...
I took some actual hard measurements of my available space. NOTE: This is the maximum the CFO has allotted me! Please pardon the rough drawing:
Here is another scan of French Broad Valley, which has been flipped to roughly fit my available space. Some concerns I have have been noted as well:
A) I'm no John Armstrong, so I'm not sure what all the trackage located near the interchange is for. Perhaps for making/breaking trains? I don't know, but I don't like it there.
B) There is a lot of wasted space here. I would like to move the roundhouse and service area located at © and move it here, and add a larger yard.
C) See above. After moving the roundhouse, I would like to reduce the trackage and put in another town and depot so that I can run passenger trains.
Tony
Posts: 89
Threads: 3
Joined: Jun 2009
The trackage at A appears to be industrial spurs.
Fan of late and early Conrail... also 40s-50s PRR, 70s ATSF, BN and SP, 70s-80s eastern CN, pre-merger-era UP, heavy electric operations in general, dieselized narrow gauge, era 3/4 DB and DR, EFVM and Brazilian railroads in general... too many to list!
|