Hi all,
suffering from a little bit of designers block.... So I decided I turn to my fellow modelers at Big Blue to see if they can nudge me in the right direction. Imagine the following: Two modules, rectangular in shape, each 18" by 48" . The only 'rule' is a centrally located single track running the full length, with it's centre at 9" from the front fascia.
These modules are intended to provide a little switching fun as 'stand alone' , modern' ish' era (roughly mid 70's till mid 90's), Southern Pacific territory. The trackplan to be relatively prototypical (not a MUST, but to avoid switching puzzles etc, which only lead to frustration etc). cars on average to be 50' box cars size, and 4 axle diesels like SW1500 and GP35 or similar.
At the same time, these modules should be able to be integrated into a larger modular layout, at any given location, hence the central single track, to be able to provide trackage for through trains.

I have already drawn several 'noodles' on paper, looked at other small switching layouts, checked my books by Lance Mindheim , etc etc and I am still stuck. Does anyone have any creative juices flowing at the moment that can provide me a (start) track plan, which I might shamelessly copy, or use as a basic inspiration to create my own track plan?

Yes I've also looked at the trackplans Steinjr had published in MRH magazine, and they are great, but it turned out the one I liked most (figure 9 , if you know which one I mean) was really for N scale in the given space.

So , who's feeling creative? I will think of a way to thank the person(s) who provide me with the right 'push' in a creative way. Perhaps a street , industry or similar named after you on the modules? ;-)

Thanks, Koos

How about posting your "noodl;es" to give us a clearer view of what your looking for ? As for the "main" line if these are to be paired modules the only place you would really need the 9" centers would be at the extreme ends of the module set.

Check out the library of modules at our local modular club:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.hotrak.ca/Modules.html">http://www.hotrak.ca/Modules.html</a><!-- m -->

Yes, they are (mostly) 2'x4', and (mostly) double main configuration, but they might give you ideas. The "Free-mo" type (single centred main) ones of note are:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.hotrak.ca/Module_Sheets/BrantfordDescription.html">http://www.hotrak.ca/Module_Sheets/Bran ... ption.html</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.hotrak.ca/Module_Sheets/CorbyvilleDescription.html">http://www.hotrak.ca/Module_Sheets/Corb ... ption.html</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.hotrak.ca/Module_Sheets/NTC_BranchDescription.html">http://www.hotrak.ca/Module_Sheets/NTC_ ... ption.html</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.hotrak.ca/Module_Sheets/NTC_YardDescription.html">http://www.hotrak.ca/Module_Sheets/NTC_ ... ption.html</a><!-- m -->

There are also photo/video pages for each of these.


Andrew

Catt Wrote:How about posting your "noodl;es" to give us a clearer view of what your looking for ? As for the "main" line if these are to be paired modules the only place you would really need the 9" centers would be at the extreme ends of the module set.

that's it, the noodles are uninspiring bits, that I've discarded, and I don't want them to distract anyone from thinking up their own. Once an idea is planted in someones head, it seems to 'obstruct' the vision needed to come up with something original. you are right in regards to the 9" requirements. The first 6" of each extreme end of the set are located as such, in between any thing can happen, but be aware that trough trains should be able to pass ok , and these can be multiple 6 axle locos hauling a long freight, so I can't have too tight turns etc to avoid problems.

Other than that, I don't have any 'musts'.

thanks, Koos

Hmmm - the one you liked ("Missauga", an 8 foot long N scale plan) was similar in nature to this one, posted by Paul Schors in thread http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/show...a-Traction on trainboard.com:



Observe that Paul used a removable switching lead added to the end of the module when using it as a standalone layout. This is a trick illustrated e.g. by excellent model railroad planner and builder M.C Fujiwara in his thread on building a two-module Shoofly section of an N scale Freemo layout in this thread: http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/2031...ageIndex=2

It is of course also possible to make a simple track plan for 8 feet based on some California location - say Weedpatch, CA, with a crossover added and a siding re-appropriated as an industry track :


Or adding even more track to give more switching opportunities:


Smile,
Stein

Thanks Stein,

Those have a nice feel to it. Just wondering if you've planned with no 6 turnouts here, or are they different?
I will likely be using a cassette for the standalone application, but the 6" of straight at modules extreme is a requirement from our module standards. (the NMRA-BR specs) As these could end up anywhere in a modular layout, there could be a curved module next, so to make sure everything runs smoothly this 6" section is introduced. For my total length of two modules this means 1ft is 'lost', and have 7ft left to play in between. By the way which railroad software do you use?

Koos

Hi Koos --

I used Peco streamline code 75 medium turnouts - track plan drawing software was XtrkCad.

Smile,
Stein

steinjr Wrote:Hi Koos --

I used Peco streamline code 75 medium turnouts - track plan drawing software was XtrkCad.

Smile,
Stein

Ok thanks. I've just played about with my trackplanning software (Empire Express, on the Mac), and made another version of your Weedpatch, CA layout.
I've used Peco Code 83 no'6 turnouts in my version. You will notice that in this version, I have included a small warehouse of GERN industries, in true Big Blue tradition, and you'll find that the silo's on the right now represent an industry that deals with sand.. ;-) (not sure why the trackplan doesn't show properly, so click on the image)

I might still tweak it a bit, but at the moment, I'm just looking at it and trying to visualise it. I'll keep you posted.
Koos
[attachment=11720]

LOL - I like the GERN and Sorum's sand :-)

Your version looks better scenically. But it you take the double ended siding further to the right and to the left, you will need an add-on switching lead to use the double ended siding.

The reason for why I left the runaround so short and left a foot on the main to the left of the turnout to the double ended siding and about 30" on the main to the right of the turnout to the double ended siding was to allow an engine to fit between the left end of the siding and the left end of the board, and for an engine and two cars to fit between the right end of the siding and the right end of the board.

Smile,
Stein

Catt Wrote:As for the "main" line if these are to be paired modules the only place you would really need the 9" centers would be at the extreme ends of the module set.

I have to ask the same question, which begs the next question - - - would your "two module SET" ever have to be separated, and placed in different locations ?

Because both of my three module sets, are a single scene, they are always considered " one long module ", and, in fact, the two track main "separation" of two inches, has to vary to accommodate the spacing of the bridges. I do have to adhere to the minimum radius specifications for any mainline track, but could move the interface points of the center module, and the inner end points of the adjoining modules, to allow some variation within "the scene".
( I don't, but I could ) Maybe it's a question you should ask of the group, just to see how much leeway you could have.

Sumpter250 Wrote:

Catt Wrote:As for the "main" line if these are to be paired modules the only place you would really need the 9" centers would be at the extreme ends of the module set.

I have to ask the same question, which begs the next question - - - would your "two module SET" ever have to be separated, and placed in different locations ?

no, in fact, a technically correct term would be to call the two sections 'boards', that together make up a 'module'.
So my module, consists of two boards, that are not planned to be separated. However, as a pair, they could end up anywhere in a modular set up.

Koos

steinjr Wrote:LOL - I like the GERN and Sorum's sand :-)

Your version looks better scenically. But it you take the double ended siding further to the right and to the left, you will need an add-on switching lead to use the double ended siding.

The reason for why I left the runaround so short and left a foot on the main to the left of the turnout to the double ended siding and about 30" on the main to the right of the turnout to the double ended siding was to allow an engine to fit between the left end of the siding and the left end of the board, and for an engine and two cars to fit between the right end of the siding and the right end of the board.

Smile,
Stein

I did think of that, and indeed I will use some add switching leads in stand alone mode. In a modular set up, these are provided by the adjacent modules. This will make the actual 'run around' siding more useful, and I would be able to park up a loco with about 4 to 6 cars, and 'run' around for switching purposes.

I'm letting this plan settle for a bit, and also waiting if anyone else is able to chip in with something , before I make a decision.

Koos

Quote:Because both of my three module sets, are a single scene, they are always considered " one long module ", and, in fact, the two track main "separation" of two inches, has to vary to accommodate the spacing of the bridges.

I'm curious about your modules, I might already have come accross them here , but just to be certain, do you have any trackplans or threads about them here ?

Thanks, Koos

[attachment=11744]The first of two boards has been put together, made of board , re-enforced with some wooden beams and a styrofoam underlay, providing some extra rigidity and some sound insulation. The track is Roco Line code 83. While this has a european geometry , once ballast has been applied, I don't think that will be so obvious, besides, I think I'l get some Peco code 83 turnouts anyway. I put the track down loose here and am just moving it about , together with a 54' reefer , a loading platform and a GP35 to get a feel for the available space, and try to visualise what I want to do.
I'm hoping that it will provide me with some inspiration. I have also marked the 6" location from the edge to see how far 'in' the first turnout needs to be, to adhere to the module standard I'm trying to follow.

Koos

After a little bit of moving about with tracks, I decided that Steinjr's 'Weedpatch,CA' was a plan I liked. As I have a few bits of track to move about with, I have made a few tweaks to it, and here's the modified plan.[attachment=11756]

Below you can see part of it in the flesh (as a trial). I decided to place the road somewhat diagonal as to lose the 'boxy' look, and give it more of a feel that it is a slice out of a real scene somewhere. Talking of which, I am not sure about the name 'weedpatch' at the moment. While it describes part of SoCal, I would like a more believable name, it can still be fantasy, but weedpatch is just a bit too far fetched for my liking.
Does anyone have some suggestions?

Thanks, Koos
[attachment=11755]