Hi ---

Looking at Justin's thread reminded me how fun really small switching layouts can be. I found an 8 foot wall (over the computer nook in our living room) in our house where I think I probably can get forgiveness from my beloved wife if she finds a small sectional shelf layout there, as long as the layout is not too deep and visually domineering :-)

Here are some quick sketches of possible track plans:

1) Andrews Street Yard - based on a track plan by "Shortliner" (Jack Trollope) - 8 x 1 foot (extended from 1 x 5 foot in the original):


2) 32nd Street - 8 feet x 18" - heavily inspired by an N scale track plan by Byron Henderson (San Jose Switcher ):


3) Giles Checical - 8 feet x 10" - an Inglenook similar layout inspired by tracks around Giles Chemical in Wayneville, NC


With my tendency to cram in as much track as possible, either no 1 or no 2 seems most like my style.

But I guess it is time to try minimalism for once, since this layout is intended to be portable. I now have two 4 foot x 10" platforms (each made from four pieces of 3" x 1" pine assembled into a box, with a lid made of 1/2" decent quality plywood)in my hobby room, clamped together while the glue dries.

Maybe a smaller project is a good way of kicking myself back into building.

Smile,
Stein

Hello,

I'm following most of your posts in many forums. I'm always impressed by your plans and suggestions.

I have a N scale layout which was built for running trains in a great scenery (Somewhere West) but now I would like to build a switching layout in HO scale.
It should be set up for the modern time and your plan #1 could be a good start. I will add 4' and perhaps 6" in the depth because those 60' cars need much more place. Not speaking about the 64' reefers I'm waiting for. On the other side, I'm also trying to match old tall brick warehouses and some street running with modern "box shoes" factories.

By the way, what turnout number do you use for your drawings? I think that #6 should be a minimum for my modern time layout.
Daniel

bnsffan Wrote:By the way, what turnout number do you use for your drawings? I think that #6 should be a minimum for my modern time layout.

Hi Daniel --

The default turnouts I use for most drawings are Peco streamline code 75 medium LH and RH turnouts.

Main reason is that these turnouts are available locally where I live (in Norway), they are sprung (so you don't need a switch machine or a ground throw), and they have a geometry well suited for small switching layouts, which is what I like to play with.

The Giles Chemical one used one Peco small, and two mediums.

The 32nd Street one used two Peco small turnouts (one RH and one LH), one Peco curved left, four LH mediums and one RH medium.

The Andrew Street Yard one also uses uses one double slip, one small RH, 3 medium LHs and one medium RH.

Smile,
Stein

Hi Stein,

Thanks for this quick answer. It's now time to go back to the drawing board.
Regards
Daniel

Stein-I really like the first two,but the first one would be my choice.One question-do you really need the crossover by the fuel dealer?
Good luck with the one that you choose.
Bob

I'm not a much of a "track planner," Bob, but isn't that the only place to "run around" and get to the other end of a train to then switch facing-point turnouts?

BTW, I'm paying close attention to what you "small switching layout" guys have been talking about, as I recently came to the realization that I will soon have a mechanically sound, painted and weathered Reading GP39-2 with a Tsunami sound decoder in it and it would be a huge waste not to be able to use it!

Of course, I'll have to add some rolling stock from the '60's/'70's to my collection. All of the rolling stock I have represents the twenties through the mid-to-late thirties, and that would look downright ridiculous behind a well-used GP39-2!!

bil-thanks.I guess I missed that when I was looking at the plan.
Bob

Stein,I really like that first design..

foulrift Wrote:Stein-I really like the first two,but the first one would be my choice.One question-do you really need the crossover by the fuel dealer?

No, you don't strictly need it, but if you don't have the runaround, you would have to have to start with the cars for the team track and the cold storage on the left side of the engine, and cars for the other tracks on the right side of the engine, pretending that the cars have already been sorted that way before the train came to this area.

Smile,
Stein

Stein - I posted a link on one of the other groups <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php/topic/32881-good-things-come-in-smallish-packages/">http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index. ... -packages/</a><!-- m -->
Jack

Whew!

That was quite a trip! I'm exhausted, and jet-lagged out ... traveling back and forth accross the pond so many times in rapid succession!

I followed your link, Jack, whereupon arriving, I followed your link ...

Stein-like I mentioned above,I didn't look close enough at the plan to see that there was a runaround there.Sorry about that (waiting for new glasses )
Bob

I see someone else is "cheating" on their main layout . Last weekend I turned the scraps I use for practice into an Inglenook. I kept shooting guilty glances over at my layout shed while I was putting the benchwork together, saying, "don't worry, I still love you best - this little guy will just make you better!"

Of the three you posted, I'd probably go for #2, as it seems to have a more protoypical feel to it. I like the simplicity of #3 - but maybe reverse the spur with the orange tank cars on it and work in a runaround. That adds a bit more complexity to the operations without sacrificing too much of the simple feel. Might preclude the Inglenook game, though.

One suggestion on the theme - how about going for "one big industry w/multiple car types" vs. multiple small industry? Your main layout already has the latter - maybe the former will let you explore a different aspect of the hobby. I've had a milk condensery industry in the back of my mind - big but not too big: milk in, coal in, empty cans in, full cans out. Or it could be an industry that receives /ships cars to industries your other layout. That might be fun for you and your boys to do together (and another selling point for the wife )

Layout number 2 gets my vote -- it just looks better than the first one, and it looks like it would be more fun to switch. The first one, to me, just doesn't look prototypical. of course, there is always a prototype for everything.... Both #1 and #2 will make great switching layouts.
Chuck

Sorry about not getting back to this before - it has been a fairly insane week at work. But never so bad it is not good for something - it gave me time to think some more about the track plan for the small layout.

And I fell back to my old ways, I just couldn't resist the somewhat more urban look of the 32nd street yard layout. I just had to compress it a bit more, to make it work in 10.5" of depth (which is how far I can go on this layout - 12", 15" or 18" will be too deep):

Track plan:


A mock up on the sections:


Looks like the runaround should work just fine:


The two industries at top left will have to be background flats fastened directly to the backdrop (which will need to be removable).

Will work some more on this tonight, the day today is taken up by the spring meet of the MR society over Kløfta - fellow Norwegian model railroader Svein and I will carpool over there to attend clinics on FREMO module building, weathering, soldering brass models and various other things today from 11 am until 5 pm.

Will try to remember to bring a camera, and get some pics (if they don't mind).

Smile,
Stein