You have obviously done some thinking about this - well done. One small point - you will notice on my original trackplane all the buildings /works/premises started with A, B, C etc. This was because I thought that the best form of operation was to use playing cards with a lettered lable stuck onto them, shuffle them up, and draw a card for each inbound car, then do the same for the outbounds. I'd also suggest buying a dice (die?) and filling in some of the marks with milliput - that way you can have 1, 2 or 3 showing twice, and use it to determine the number of cars to be moved.
One other suggestion - If you can spare a little more width at the right, and the fact that the cars don't go anywhere bothers you, add another piece of totally unconnected and unpowered track in front of the "interchange" that starts at the right hand side parallel with the siding, and as it moves left curves away off the front of the board. Then, at the far right, add a highway over-bridge with a mirror underneath at the end of the tracks. The new track is the main line and the "interchange" track obviously joins it some way beyond the bridge in the unmodelled rest of the world, but the tracks in the mirror "extend" the layout tracks visually.

I like #1. Looking at how long your spurs are, that is the only track plan that would allow you to run around more than 1 or 2 cars, and your capacity on your spurs would allow as many cars as you could fit in between the two switches in the top track of #1.

Russ Bellinis Wrote:I like #1. Looking at how long your spurs are, that is the only track plan that would allow you to run around more than 1 or 2 cars, and your capacity on your spurs would allow as many cars as you could fit in between the two switches in the top track of #1.

But would it provide any more fun to be able to shove three or four cars into a siding than it is to shove one or two cars into a siding?

The probably quickest way of switching a bunch of industries would be to have no runarounds moves at all. Just take a string of cars, make the mainline long enough that you can fit your entire train beyond the outermost turnouts both on the right and the left, and have one engine at the front of your train and another engine at the end of your train. All industry spurs are then switched as trailing spurs.

Not nearly as fun to run (f*) as Jack's plan, though.

Smile,
Stein
(*) from the comfort of our layout aisle, not from a too hot or too cold cab of an engine, being dog tired and having to get out in all kinds of crappy weather. Some aspects of real railroading I'd rather not model :-)

Russ Bellinis Wrote:I like #1. Looking at how long your spurs are, that is the only track plan that would allow you to run around more than 1 or 2 cars, and your capacity on your spurs would allow as many cars as you could fit in between the two switches in the top track of #1.

Russ,Just because the capacity is there is no sign it needs to be used..One spot at the end of the siding could be for a tank car or covered hopper and both can take up to 2 days to unload.

Also again do you think the warehouse owners would be happy with their track being used as a around around? After all not only does the industry own their track but, a forklift operator will be standing round on the clock while you make your run around moves-such moves can take up to 45 minutes including the removal of the empties and spotting of the car(s) at the industry being switch and then respotting the car(s) that had to be moved.Which brings up a question..Where you going to spot these cars where they would be out of the way? Other industries wouldn't want you to use their track.

I suspect your agent would hear these words"Sorry,but,we will be using trucks for all our needs".

Over the years I found the best urban ISL plan is one that follows prototype practices in tight urban industrial areas and that of course calls for thinking outside of the outdated switching layout ideas put forth over the years in books and magazines by the so called layout design "experts"..

There is hope for improved ISL designs based on prototype practices..Lance Mindheim seems to be on the cutting edge of modern ISL designs that follows prototypical practices.Of course such ideas isn't new and been around for several years but,never made print until MR ran a article on Lance's East Rail.

Even the above designs is based on the end of a urban industrial branch or a industrial complex where space would be at a premium and would be off the main line..After all you are looking at 2-4 hours work to switch those industries in the real world.

Thanks for the feedback!

Russ Bellinis Wrote:I like #1. Looking at how long your spurs are, that is the only track plan that would allow you to run around more than 1 or 2 cars, and your capacity on your spurs would allow as many cars as you could fit in between the two switches in the top track of #1.

I think I follow, but wouldn't the lead on the left end (on all the plans) be the limiting factor (it holds one 40', possibly two hoppers, with an 0-6-0), assuming that the inbound cars are coming from the right?

One thing I haven't done for plans 2 - 4 is determine what the car capacity is on both sides of the runaround. I might be able to stretch the runaround a couple of inches if it's close to being able to hold an additional car, because I may eventually stretch the left lead (and this end will be the eventual connection to the layout).

On a slight tangent, I've been having a conversation with a friend of mine who is an engineer on the CSX, and who also has an interest in layout design. I thought of this exchange after Brakie's comment about more modern switching plans. He's described some contorted prototype switching situations in older locations, but lamented the following:

CSX Engineer Wrote:After I sent my comments I was thinking of some of the things I have seen out in railroad land. Granted that most of today's railroading looks like Atlas and CAD Rail heavily influences the actual plans.

Something else worth considering is elevation changes, which I don't recall seeing a lot of in MR switching layout plans. The reacher car comment is also golden.

CSX Engineer Wrote:There were at least two customer's I remember servicing on the C&O, when I used to work between Columbus and Toledo. Both of these customers were agriculture products venders working out of line-side structures built on land that was considerably lower than the fill of our right of way. With both of these customer's we had to use reacher cars, going in and down grade to the spotting location. I can recall that at least 8 reacher cars were required at one location. From the cab of my locomotive consist, I could see the top of the ninth car, the one being placed at that location! How is that for a visualization?

Brakie, you now have a warehouse on the plan, so you have a legitimate reason to call my railroad and gripe about service!

Russ, I need to get you a property... :oops:

Time to start building! I'm going to go with #4. Thanks to everyone for the planning pointers - more input is always welcome!

On my switching layout I use a combination of a runaround track and a switchback to spot cars.This way I do not have to move a car from another industry in order to spot a car. I have one long lead that holds 3 cars one of which is a tank car which as mentioned may sit for a couple of days before it is unloaded. I also have a couple of non industrial spurs where I can put cars that are waiting to be spotted. At present I am trying to come up with a simple method for switching,something like Jack suggested.
Anyway-have at it and have fun with it.
Bob

Another way of complicating your life, and extending the "gameplay " and "time period" while switching on a small switching layout is to use "Games Theory". Use two six-sided dice (dies) - or look around the internet or your local war-games store for a 12-sided dice. Either roll the two dice, or the single 12-sided one, to simulate weather conditions Two D6 (added together) have a minimum roll of 2 and a maximum roll of 12, so you have 11 possible scenarios - a D12 will obviously be able to roll a 1. Roll for weather and read it off a chart - the weather conditions apply for your complete shift - not all conditions are bad, but some are really nasty, and may make your switching really difficult - I have a chart for north-eastern USA RR's where the weather can give you some severe conditions - if anyone wants a copy email me, chacmool at lineone dot net (no spaces/ symbols replace words).
Have Fun!
Jack

Another suggestion for you is to add a restriction to your layout.This was suggested to me and this is what I came up with-

The small side building is used to park a flat car of lumber that can be unloaded directly into main building and also to access wood chip tower, however,not the switcher cannot go past entrance so not I have to use an idler flat.Makes things a little more interesting.
Bob

shortliner Wrote:Another way of complicating your life, and extending the "gameplay " and "time period" while switching on a small switching layout is to use "Games Theory". Use two six-sided dice (dies) - or look around the internet or your local war-games store for a 12-sided dice. Either roll the two dice, or the single 12-sided one, to simulate weather conditions Two D6 (added together) have a minimum roll of 2 and a maximum roll of 12, so you have 11 possible scenarios - a D12 will obviously be able to roll a 1. Roll for weather and read it off a chart - the weather conditions apply for your complete shift - not all conditions are bad, but some are really nasty, and may make your switching really difficult - I have a chart for north-eastern USA RR's where the weather can give you some severe conditions - if anyone wants a copy email me, chacmool at lineone dot net (no spaces/ symbols replace words).
Have Fun!
Jack

Jack,I have found over the years of operating ISLs that it hard to beat car cards/waybills or a switch list since both allows time for a car to be unloaded or the need to pull a partially loaded/unloaded car-other then cover hoppers or tanks cars which should be unloaded at the last spot on the industry spur due to the unloading devices being use on or around the cars- to spot a inbound load or empty and allowing time for the switchmen to release or set the handbrake..

IMHO its best not to operate a ISL like a board game..Its far better to operate prototypically at scale switching speeds and allowing time for the switchmen to do their work.It would probably take me 45-60 minutes to switch Matt's layout prototypically..

Larry-how do you generate your switch list? I have 6 areas to switch and my A/D track holds 3-4 cars. I could possibly bring in a couple of more than 4 cars but I would have to seperate them at some point because there is a road that crosses the tracks from a freight handling area to the other side of the layout.
Bob

Oh yes, Larry - I entirely agree - I allow 15 seconds per car after each connect/disconnect to "pump up the air". Far too many layout operators seem to have no actual idea about switching - coupling up and the immediately rocketing away at 20 mph until an Instant stop without slowing at the next position. Actually, I'm seriously considering building one of John Allens "Hotbox" shock cars with a rolling ball inside to prevent exactly that. All coupling/uncoupling and switch operation is done by hand. I don't go the "Timesaver" route where it is a game being played against a clock. The weather simulation can force you to do things more slowly though.

foulrift Wrote:Larry-how do you generate your switch list? I have 6 areas to switch and my A/D track holds 3-4 cars. I could possibly bring in a couple of more than 4 cars but I would have to seperate them at some point because there is a road that crosses the tracks from a freight handling area to the other side of the layout.
Bob

I use a random rotation with switch lists or waybills.

I operate my ISLs based on Monday through Friday work week ..I like at least 7 industries and a "transload" track.

As examples.

Monday.
I will switch industries A,C,E.

Tuesdays
I will switch industries B,D,F.

Wednesday.
A,C,E G and the transload track.

Thursday

B,D,F

Friday
G,A,E and transload
---------------------
I also like a 2 track "overflow" yard.This yard gets switch as needed.

I type each days switch list using Note pad and and then save it and then print it..I do this every week so I can rotate cars and eras at will without the need to retype the industry's name..Some days I may make a setout without a pickup or a pickup without a setout..I may spot a car in the "overflow" yard.

Larry-Thanks for the info.I appreciate it.

I'm going to have to re-read this thread - the operations side still has a lot of gray area to me.

Foulrift, I forgot to thank you for the input. The restricted space using reach cars is an interesting idea, and timely since I'd just read that note about a CSX engineer having to use NINE reach cars to get to one customer site.

I've updated the plan with a couple of changes to the interior of the design. These are minor in that they don't change the track plan, but I think important from a reliability and construction standpoint.

- Corrected the alignment of the "main" to meet the turnout on the right end of the run-around. For those with sharp eyes, you'll notice on the previous iteration of this plan that the short connection between the two turnouts inside the run-around was at an angle. That was an expedient cheat...
- Made the runaround several inches longer
- Increased the length of the tangent off the tail of the right run-around turnout to about 3.5". Previously this was under an inch, and created a pretty abrupt reverse curve.
- Re-drew the right crossover - previously, the lead from the "main" entered the crossover while still on a curve. This has been eliminated.
- The various jiggling of the parts to accomplish the above shortened the interchange by about 1/2" and increased the spur to Holderbaum Supply (in contract to be sold to Bellinis holdings) by about 2"
- Various curves have been tightened to accomodate the changes, but also to give a the plan a little more "squeeze". The tightest radius is 18" on the approach to the crossover to Angle Brothers. I have another around 20", the remainder are 30" or greater.


(full size image here: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://goodman312.zenfolio.com/img/v11/p520004231.jpg">http://goodman312.zenfolio.com/img/v11/p520004231.jpg</a><!-- m -->)

The corrections to the "fudged" sections are important for a more practical reason - this final is the template I'll be using to lay track. I've printed the plan (track only) and laid it on the shelf. It looks good - especially with some rolling stock sitting on it!

<edit - added new image - original was missing part of the image on the right side>

Current Progress:

I've cut a new shelf to accommodate the increased depth of the latest plan, and printed the CADRail plan full scale for a test fit.

As it turned out, when I cut shelf's back edge to fit the wall (a Maple that used to be in the front yard had caused it to bow inward), I took about 1/2" too much wood off, so I'll have to shim it shelf out. Not a big deal at all, but I was pleased that the 1:1 plan showed my error immediately.

Before the cut


Cut and mounted


Full size image here:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://goodman312.zenfolio.com/img/v9/p324875281.jpg">http://goodman312.zenfolio.com/img/v9/p324875281.jpg</a><!-- m -->

<edit, added pre-cut image>