Having read the forum for a while I've registered and decided to post in the hope I can profit from others experience and ideas. Givens are at the bottom

I live in the UK and have been out of the hobby for a couple of decades. Previously I built micro layouts or dioramas rather than anything that required due diligence to track planning. So I know I'm missing on experience of US modern prototype and track planning. I'm aware of my weaknesses enough to read on the subject but I may fail miserably to put any of it into action. I hope you'll bare with me :oops:

Like many I have modest accommodation with typical small British rooms. I have secured the spare room, 9ft by just under 9ft and I plan on using two walls. On the 9ft wall I need to fix the width to 12in but on the other I can go to 18in with a little bit extra in the elbow of the corner to fit the 90 degree curve in.

The biggest problems I can see is the space a 90 degree curve takes up with a minimum 24-27in radius, dead space around the corner area if facing spurs are to be avoided, and ending up with short spurs that will only take 1 or 2 50ft cars. I recognise I am suffering from the worry of having too simpler a plan and fear the layout won't be operationally interesting. I accept the recommendations about thinking in terms of car spots over industries and ensuring industries are valid sizes for getting rail service. I think I need a little help here .

What interests me is industrial switching of the smaller end of industrial size with a varied range of freight cars. Grade crossings and the typical slower operations seen in these locations are important. The kind of layout designs and operations popularised by the likes of Lance Mindheim and others. Call it a bell and horn thing....

In my explorations of this, and other, forums I've come across layouts that have inspired me, to provide some kind of reference these are -

Kurt's NW 58th <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://bigbluetrains.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=169">viewtopic.php?f=46&t=169</a><!-- l -->

Bushwick terminal <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://bigbluetrains.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=6560">viewtopic.php?f=46&t=6560</a><!-- l -->

Mal's Deerfield beach <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://bigbluetrains.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=5569">viewtopic.php?f=46&t=5569</a><!-- l --> and <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://bigbluetrains.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=4317">viewtopic.php?f=46&t=4317</a><!-- l -->

Callum's SSWUP <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://bigbluetrains.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=4271">viewtopic.php?f=46&t=4271</a><!-- l -->

Larry's Miami River <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://bigbluetrains.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=5300">viewtopic.php?f=46&t=5300</a><!-- l -->

Chris's CTU Spur <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://bigbluetrains.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=5147">viewtopic.php?f=46&t=5147</a><!-- l -->

KU4PC 15th Street <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://youtu.be/fPUs_aE8-5E">http://youtu.be/fPUs_aE8-5E</a><!-- m -->

Maybe a common thread beyond the excellent modelling is the impression of "feel".

Today I spent some time learning AnyRail and came up with a plan that fits, however my gut says it's playing to my comfort zone of adding more track than in reality I need. I ended up with needing a run-around in order to switch two facing spurs. These were an attempt to use space parallel to the "main" as I have no space for an straight lead off either 9ft leg of benchwork. I may have the option of another 90 degree 6ft section continuing round the room but right now I think that would only make things more complicated.



For me using one 9ft to have something similar to Lance Mindheim's "skills builder" bottom of <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.shelflayouts.com/blog.htm">http://www.shelflayouts.com/blog.htm</a><!-- m --> would not satisfy me enough other than as a stepping stone. So I'd like to use the other space I have to use for more than just a lead. I like the idea of being able to use the fact there are two legs at 90 degrees as a means to not be able to see the whole layout so I can deal with a lack of prototypical track connecting the two. That said there are enough 90 degree curves leading off a main into industrial parks

I would be really interested in any thoughts or advice. I am not committed in any way to the track plan above but felt I should at least show I was playing with track work rather than just expect someone to come up with a plan for me.

Thanks in advance and warm regards,

Steve.

Givens :

Scale: HO
Era: Modern 2005 to now
Region: Open as long as CSX though I do like the warm southern states

Governing rolling stock: 4 axel GP38-2 & MP15 with mostly 50ft cars with the odd 60ft

|______________________V_______________________|
Track/Operation .................................................. ..Scenic realism
|____________________________________________V_|
Mainline Running .................................................. ........ Switching

Space: 9ft (12in width) x 8ft 9in (18in width)
Minimum radius: 24in
Track: ME code 70 with #6 turnouts

I don't see any problem with that - for a first draft that looks fine - I'm about 550 mies north of you at the other end of the country! - If you are running DCC, you could have two locos - one each end - and switch without needing a run-round. You might be able to join that disconnected piece of track to the loop , using a Setrak turnout

Thanks shortliner. I can't claim too much uniqueness for the plan as it has was inspired/plagiarised by Kurt's 58th street and another modeller's zone 4 Lubbock (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://thestagingyard.wordpress.com/category/inspiration/">http://thestagingyard.wordpress.com/cat ... spiration/</a><!-- m -->). Both however have the benefit of a 12ft straight...

I had a thought last night to try putting scale freight cars and locos on that plan to check exactly what it will support. I'm pretty sure I got the continuation of the main in the left long enough to switch the industry spur to the right by the disconnected parallel track. That was intentional to have that disused rail and industry ceasing rail service.

Today I think I may lay out some turnouts and track on the living room floor to see how it looks. I would like to order some ply modules in time for delivery at Christmas as I have two weeks off work to put them together.

Steve

Steve - something I have found works for me is putiing the track on the layout - with cars in the appropriate places, and then leaving it for a week or so to see if I still like it, or if things need modifying - surprising how looking at it and thinking more, produces changes
Best
Jack

shortliner Wrote:Steve - something I have found works for me is putiing the track on the layout - with cars in the appropriate places, and then leaving it for a week or so to see if I still like I,t or if things need modifying - surprising how looking at it and thinking more produces changes
Best
Jack

Indeed..I usually drink a cup of coffee while looking over the track work,industry and car placement and then I do some "switching" in my minds eye and then study some more.

Agreed Jack and Larry. I've already laid out the close cluster of turnouts necessary to fit the Spurs in that length and it feels too busy and tight. They have to butt right up to each other. I've taken another look at Chris's CTU spur (<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://bigbluetrains.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=5147">viewtopic.php?f=46&t=5147</a><!-- l -->) where a crossing is used. Although I wanted to use just ME code 70 track maybe a Peco short code 75 crossing could be used and disguised enough especially if I ran a road over that as Chris does. I'm surprised how in less length Chris gets about the same number of car spots in and still have a feeling of space. My on,y co corn is that the CatU spur is designed as a show layout and not a home layout where easy repetition isn't the primary concern.

I'm considering grabbing the extra 5ft of run by continuing around 90 degrees to create a chopped U shape and have that as a single track lead even though it would be mostly curved and run a lomg multi industry spur along most of the 9ft length. Hmmm options....

I like your track plan and if I had the space I would do something similar ..I like long industrial sidings since any "overflow" cars can be held there until needed.

Brakie Wrote:I like your track plan and if I had the space I would do something similar ..I like long industrial sidings since any "overflow" cars can be held there until needed.

I think I could do with another 2ft in each direction though

Engfanuk Wrote:Today I spent some time learning AnyRail and came up with a plan that fits, however my gut says it's playing to my comfort zone of adding more track than in reality I need. I ended up with needing a run-around in order to switch two facing spurs. These were an attempt to use space parallel to the "main" as I have no space for an straight lead off either 9ft leg of benchwork. I may have the option of another 90 degree 6ft section continuing round the room but right now I think that would only make things more complicated.

I think this situation calls for all three of my signature lines:
You have a really diverse quantity of "Learning Curves", and I'm sure there will be lots of "Advise", and "mistakes".
I think you too, have already found "Temptation".
May all go well, and, may anything that doesn't, be easily fixed.

Thanks Sumpter I have indeed more temptation that I can reasonably be expected to deal with:-)