TPBO

[FCIN]

After months of coming up with various track plans and operating concepts I think I've developed "TPBO" (Track Planning Burn Out)! :?

I've pretty much settled on doing a freelance industrial spur along the lines of what some others have done, but which could also possibly be treated as a separate short line on the order of what Jack Hill is doing (http://oscalewcor.blogspot.com/). But none of the track plans have really grabbed me to the point that I'm really fired up about starting. Even though I've really been inspired by some of the great looking switching layouts I've seen on here and elsewhere, I just can't quite settle on a plan that really says "This is the one!!!".

I know what industries I want on the layout and the era (late 1970's-early 1980's) - got all sorts of equipment to operate on it and plenty of Peco turnouts and flex track running out my ears, but....

About all I've done at this point is lay temporary track the length of my benchwork (20ft) and put a couple of sidings on it just to have something to operate those sound equipped loco's I've acquired and do some simple switching. I'm eager to start scratch building structures, doing some scenery and really operate something, but just can't get motivated. Can't even follow my own advice to "Just Do It"!

Any of you fellows ever have this problem and if so, how'd you over come it? I'm open to suggestions.

[Justinmiller171]

I would build something similar to Jack Hill's track-plan

Here is an example of Jack's plan in your area:


It is nice, simple, and there is plenty of room for scenery

[Herc Driver]

Just maybe a better idea is to start "big" and work to "small"?

What I mean is start with google-earth, pick a city, and start looking for rail yards and lines...maybe something you see there might spark an idea and give you a starting place to work from. You want to model Chicago? LA? Houston? Newark? Miami? Boise? Seattle? Take a look at several cities and the ideas might jump out at you.

Another idea is to decide on the exact measurements of your layout. That will force you to think only "inside the box" and really see the area you have to work with. This is basically what I had to do with my shelf layout. Once I figured out the external layout dimensions, cut the wood, and laid it on the shelving units it now rests on, I was able to start the track planning with a clearer understanding of the dimensions (and limitations) I had to work with. Even then, I still ended up changing my track plan a bit as the layout progressed. I moved things around, changing what I thought was going to be the "final" plan three times before I ballasted the rails. And while you're at it, cut paper or use some boxes to mimic the buildings or building-ideas you want to add. You'll need room for that grain silo, or transfer building, or big industry. Maybe by "seeing" the buildings on the layout, that will force some track planning ideas to come to life.

Hope this helps!

[Brakie]

I would build something similar to Jack Hill's track-plan

Here is an example of Jack's plan in your area:


It is nice, simple, and there is plenty of room for scenery

Lovely!!

I agree with your assessment of the layout.

[FCIN]

I would build something similar to Jack Hill's track-plan
Here is an example of Jack's plan in your area:

It is nice, simple, and there is plenty of room for scenery

Justin - like the track plan. You've got talent! I like what Jack Hill is doing - simple yet prototypical with a nice amount of operation and doesn't try to put track on every square inch of the benchwork. I've toyed some with doing something similar to this myself.

Just maybe a better idea is to start "big" and work to "small"?
What I mean is start with google-earth, pick a city, and start looking for rail yards and lines...maybe something you see there might spark an idea and give you a starting place to work from. You want to model Chicago? LA? Houston? Newark? Miami? Boise? Seattle? Take a look at several cities and the ideas might jump out at you.

Gosh Mark, I've spend hours and hours on Google/Bing looking at various areas looking for the "ideal" industrial spur or branch not to mention actually getting out and going to look at a few locations in my area! I've found some really interesting ones that I could use, but just can't seem to pick one and go with it!

Here are some industrial spurs that I've located that interest me one way or another and are all former L&N operations:
Lynch Rd Evansville IN: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=38.01...5&t=h&z=17 Really like this one, but as you can see, it would have to be really straightened out to fit my benchwork and I tend to get hung up on trying to keep the track arrangements as close to the prototype as I can. If this industrial spur were straightened out, it would lose its character in my mind so that's why I've decided to freelance whatever I end up doing.

Also found a couple of really interesting industrial spurs in Marietta GA. http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=33.97...7&t=h&z=18 First is the spur that crosses Industrial Park Dr twice and then move northeast of that one and there is another interesting one that runs parallel to I-75. The first one includes the Coca-Cola bottling plant that is one industry I'm going to include on my layout for all those corn syrup tank cars I have!

Also there is the Effingham Railroad in Effingham, IL.http://www.efrr.com/ A short line serving an industrial park and a line I've visited several times since it started up in 1996. Interesting operation, but again would have to be straightened out a lot to fit my benchwork - but it is workable and I've made a track plan or two that would more or less capture the "feel" of the EFRR. Here's a PDF file showing the track arrangement of the prototype: http://www.efrr.com/EFRR%20Site%20Layout.pdf. I even own a switcher in their paint scheme which was adopted from the Chicago Great Western, although it's an NW-2 rather than a SW-1200, but what the heck...

Another idea is to decide on the exact measurements of your layout. That will force you to think only "inside the box" and really see the area you have to work with.

Well this part is done. Layout foot print is 18in x 20ft with room to add a 6ft "staging" track if desired, but I'm trying to more or less stick with the main dimensions of 18in x 20ft. The benchwork is all in place and as I mentioned I have some temporary track down on it now, but am hung up on really getting started.

And while you're at it, cut paper or use some boxes to mimic the buildings or building-ideas you want to add. You'll need room for that grain silo, or transfer building, or big industry. Maybe by "seeing" the buildings on the layout, that will force some track planning ideas to come to life.

This is something that I really need and want to do. I have quite a few structures that I've acquired over the years, but doesn't look like I'll be using any of them and am eager to scratch build some of those "shoe box" warehouses, etc. Putting some boxes of appropriate size on the layout is a good idea so will see if that helps. I can see a lot of this stuff in my mind and have found examples of real structures that I'd like to include, but it would help to get a better idea of how they'd fit my plan.

Anyway, I appreciate your input guys. Maybe I should just step back, take a deep breath and put this on hold for a while.

[Brakie]

Ed,Its refreshing to see prototypical switching layouts instead of a glorified "time saver" or a"Inglenook puzzle".

I really like Jack's design for HO ..Its a tad to simple for a N Scale layout unless one is building a 1x4 footer.


I would use Walthers background builds as well as building flats.

[FCIN]

Ed,Its refreshing to see prototypical switching layouts instead of a glorified "time saver" or a"Inglenook puzzle".

I'm with you Larry! It has been very refreshing for me as a former railroader to see how the hobby is now going more toward prototypical layout designs and operations. Maybe I'm weird, but I always thought that was the purpose of "modeling" a railroad. Even as a kid with that Lionel layout, I did the best I could to duplicate what I saw almost daily on the real thing and find out why and how things work on the "real" thing. I was a regular fixture at the Southern Ry yard in Danville, KY and all the railroad men knew me and were always willing to take the time to explain something to me.

I'll probably get chewed out by someone over these next statements, but I get really frustrated when I hear someone say they are going to build the Timesaver as an operating layout. Even in a small space, you can come up with something far more prototypical. Anyone considering the Timesave should read this article: http://www.housatonicrr.com/timesaver.htm

It also frustrates me when I look at all the web sites where folks post numerous track plans and I see switch-back track arrangements that can't be worked or built in puzzle's that are supposed to "increase operation" when simply duplicating prototype operations is all the "increased operation" you need. Here's another good read: http://www.layoutvision.com/id16.html

Jack Hill's O scale switching layout http://oscalewcor.blogspot.com/ is a great example of a neat little prototypical operation, and were I confined to a very small space (an apartment for example) I'd sure consider doing something like that in N scale. I guess his plan in N scale would fit in a 6 or 8 in deep by 4 or 5 ft wide space? I'm still considering something along the same theme myself, but with a couple more industries. Justin really did a nice plan based on Jack's work. And I must say that I'm proud to see young people like Justin who are really into prototypical operation and layout design.

Everybody - don't get me wrong - if building a model railroad layout that lets you run trains continuously is your thing - or you just want a switching puzzle/game - then that's great. The two or three model railroaders that I've run into around my town, are strictly in to the round and round type layouts and aren't the least bit interested in prototype operations. As one of them puts it: "I just like to watch trains run!" - yet that same person isn't interested in going with me to watch and photograph the real thing. To each his own.

[faraway]

There is definite something changing. The old thinking was to make the track layout as complicated as possible to need as much time as possible to do the switching in the limited space. The discussions of the last months starting at the focal point "run around" did change that very much.
The new goal is much more aligned with the prototype. "Get the thing done in an efficient manner".

My new north yard follows that new goal. The older south yard makes switching really a pain. I got very fast adopted to the new goal. Efficient switching is fun

[FCIN]

There is definite something changing. The old thinking was to make the track layout as complicated as possible to need as much time as possible to do the switching in the limited space. The discussions of the last months starting at the focal point "run around" did change that very much.
The new goal is much more aligned with the prototype. "Get the thing done in an efficient manner".

My new north yard follows that new goal. The older south yard makes switching really a pain. I got very fast adopted to the new goal. Efficient switching is fun

Reinhard;
You do some outstanding modeling work! Love what you are doing and like several others on this thread and elsewhere - you are an inspiration! It is a bit disappointing for me that some of your first posted photos no longer show up on the thread for some reason, but really love watching what you are doing.

Yep, things are changing and for the better in my opinion. I clearly remember when I first ran across Lance Mindheim's web site and thinking to myself "Wow, here's a model railroader that understands prototype operations and has created a model railroad layout that really captures it!". Hard to say how many people have been influenced by Lance. Seeing his work and then finding this group and seeing the work done by some of the folks on here - got me to completely change my plans. Maybe that's my problem - just too many good, small, realistic layouts these days and every time I think I've settled on something - along comes another neat operation or I find another nice looking piece of railroad on Google or Bing!

By the way (and off topic a bit) how do you like those GenSets? Were I modeling the current day rather than "the good old days for me), I'd sure have to get one of them! Just too modern for me, but I love the older switchers and geeps.

[Sumpter250]

I've pretty much settled on doing a freelance industrial spur along the lines of what some others have done, but which could also possibly be treated as a separate short line.
I know what industries I want on the layout and the era (late 1970's-early 1980's) - got all sorts of equipment to operate on it and plenty of Peco turnouts and flex track running out my ears, but.... About all I've done at this point is lay temporary track the length of my benchwork (20ft) and put a couple of sidings on it just to have something to operate those sound equipped loco's I've acquired and do some simple switching.

If your industries aren't built yet, start there. Leave your temporary track in place and play, while the structures are being built.
As each structure is done, place it on the "layout". At some point there will be several structures on the layout, that you can move about, and lay temporary sidings to.
Then, with a little research, you can think about what industries should never be close to each other and insure you don't have that going on. get all your structures placed in a pleasing arrangement.........and then lay your track to fit the "topography".....kind of like what happens in the prototype world. ( some slight building movement can be done where adjustment is required to ease a curve, or lengthen a siding. )
Personally, I believe that planning, in some cases, is highly overrated.( see how quickly plans changed on my "new modules" )
It's far more interesting, when a structure is "oddly shaped",or even exists, because of the shape of the available property. This natural and common adaptation is almost impossible to "plan", and lends a touch of reality to a modeled scene. The simple placement of structures and "seeing" the area around them leads to setting the "real estate" that your trains will have to move through. Grades, rivers, highways, etc. all affect the placement of track, and, if in fact these things can cause the track design, it will look all the more realistic.
A working track plan, and a plausible environment, the end result of "playing with all the elements" ( and the fun of playing as it all happens. )

[FCIN]

If your industries aren't built yet, start there. Leave your temporary track in place and play, while the structures are being built.
As each structure is done, place it on the "layout". At some point there will be several structures on the layout, that you can move about, and lay temporary sidings to.
Then, with a little research, you can think about what industries should never be close to each other and insure you don't have that going on. get all your structures placed in a pleasing arrangement.........and then lay your track to fit the "topography".....kind of like what happens in the prototype world.

Good idea! Might just have to head over to the LHS tomorrow and pick up a truck load of styrene sheets and shapes. I have some structure designs in mind so maybe that's the way I should go. To keep things down to a realistic look, I only plan on having at most 5 industries on the layout. One large one that would hold 5 or 6 cars at specific spots and then a few smaller prototypes that only spot 2 or 3 cars at any time.

I agree that planning may be over rated. You can sure spend a lot of time trying to come up with that "perfect" (non-existent) plan - I know! Without a specific prototype to follow, there is a tendency to make the industries fit the track plan rather than the track fitting the industry layout.

Most of the plans I've come up with thus far, tend to have a similar arrangement of tracks for the proposed industries - mostly because prototype industrial spurs have sort of a standardized look as to how they are laid out. Most prototype industrial spurs were first built to serve one industry, and then as the area developed, more tracks were added as needed.

The idea of making the track plan fit the structure arrangement as on the prototype is a good idea that sure bears investigating. I would like to have at least one structure that is not just a box, but is angled on at least one end to fit the area or existing rail line. You sure see plenty like that on the prototype.

[faraway]

...some of your first posted photos no longer show up on the thread for some reason,...Hard to say how many people have been influenced by Lance.... how do you like those GenSets?...

My old web space provider had a multi week down time and I had to get a new one. They did never recover the data...
I would add Pelle too ( http://www.soeeborg.dk/fotogalleri.html ). His clean layouts did influence me too.
The Genset is a great model (somewhat thick handrails) but the engine is loong and e.g. UP like to run them in pairs. Smaller layouts (like mine) might look "funny" with that monster switching two box cars.

[FCIN]

My old web space provider had a multi week down time and I had to get a new one. They did never recover the data...
I would add Pelle too ( http://www.soeeborg.dk/fotogalleri.html ). His clean layouts did influence me too.
The Genset is a great model (somewhat thick handrails) but the engine is loong and e.g. UP like to run them in pairs. Smaller layouts (like mine) might look "funny" with that monster switching two box cars.

That's a real shame about losing your photos! But it happens now and then. Just wish I had seen them before everything got lost.

That's some outstanding modeling on Pelle's web site! I'd never seen that web site before. Doubt any layout I do would even approach that level of detail.

Just got the January MR today and it has a pretty good photo of the Atlas GenSet in it and I noticed immediately what you said about the hand rails being a bit thick. With your talent, shouldn't be too much of a problem to replace them. Cheaper alternative then purchasing a $900 Overland Brass model!

As for running two of them coupled and seeing them switching a single box car - if the prototype does it and it isn't effecting your operations by the extra length - then go for it! If I ever visited the prototype and that's what I saw - then I'd expect to see the same thing on a layout.

Heck, I can't get used to seeing NS/CSXT using SD40/50/60's/70's as yard switchers or on local freights! Give me a nice NW-2, SW-1500 or MP-15 any time!

[faraway]

... shouldn't be too much of a problem to replace them.. Give me a nice NW-2, SW-1500 or MP-15 any time!

No way:-) I will not touch the Gensets. I will not take the chance ruining them and with my substandard eye sight are the handrails a lesser problem. My ears enjoy the smooth Atlas drive.
I have to admit I do quite frequently use older, shorter switchres. Currently two Athearn SP MP15AC are on duty. They fit perfect on the shorter stub tracks and leave room for some cars. Two SP SW1500 are on order.

[Brakie]

Ed wrote:Give me a nice NW-2, SW-1500 or MP-15 any time!
-----------------------
Agreed!

I had planed a switching road that would have used 2 SW1500s for motive power and for some reason I never got around to modeling it..I had 2 names picked out Ohio Valley Ry(a Cincinnati switching road) or North Shore Rail-a switching road in Toledo.