New switching layout

[postman]

Hello!

Actually I´m building a switching layout and I would like your feedback on the current design. I have listed my givens and druthers:

Givens:

1. The layout will model Csx- Conrail

2. Era: in the late '90s

3. Region: Southeastern USA

4. Space: 9'x8' ( 24'' wide maximum). L shaped layout and single deck bench work.

5. Scale: H0 scale.

6. Rolling stock: 4 and 6 axle diesels, cement hoppers, grain hoppers, 20700 gallon tank cars, coal gondolas, Ortner aggregate hoppers.

7. Structures: grain elevator and Walther´s Medusa cement.

8. Track: Atlas code 83 flex track, #6 turnouts, 1 #7 and 1 #7.5 left curved turnout, 1 #7.5 right curved turnout, manual turnout throws.

9. Grades: 0 %.

10. Theme: industrial switching and no main line.

Druthers:

1. Proto operations.

2. Industry and local switching.

3. Transload

4. Future expansion plans.

Here is my current track plan:

[Ralph]

Hi postman, glad you could join us! I like the idea of having a storage or staging track where cars seem to come "off layout". Switching layouts have been very popular topics here lately, so I expect you'll get a number of replies.

Ralph

[postman]

Hi postman, glad you could join us! I like the idea of having a storage or staging track where cars seem to come "off layout". Switching layouts have been very popular topics here lately, so I expect you'll get a number of replies.

Ralph

Thanks Ralph.

[sailormatlac]

Welcome aboard Postman! It will be a pleasure to follow up your project.

Looks like a promising little ISL there. As Ralph said, there's a switching layout epidemia here roght now... Hope I won't catch it!!!

Matt

[shortliner]

Without wanting to breakup your thread, but seeing the comment about the switching layouts, can I draw everybodys attention to this French website - this link should give you the translated version of a rather nice US switching layout. The Auto translation does give some strange results - you have been warned!

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http://teamtrack.xooit.com/t984-Reseau-modulaire.htm&usg=ALkJrhjK6Vp76KUlu23IMLKtbKl-pgR-cA">http://translate.googleusercontent.com/ ... bKl-pgR-cA</a><!-- m -->

If you read French - the original version is here - <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://teamtrack.xooit.com/t984-Reseau-modulaire.htm">http://teamtrack.xooit.com/t984-Reseau-modulaire.htm</a><!-- m --> - sometimes the photos in the translated version don't load, but you can usually find them on this version

Have your thread back
Best
Jack

[Brakie]

First welcome..

I like your plan..Simple and straight forward like most prototype industrial leads.

[Mike Kieran]

What brand of track are you using?

[postman]

What brand of track are you using?

Thanks all for your welcome.
Mike I'm using Atlas code 83 flex track. The turnouts are Walters Shinohara and Atlas.

[postman]

Any feedback will be greatly appreciated.

[Kev1340]

Welcome aboard

Nice clean track plan you have there, something I always fail at miserably, as I try to cram too much in to 'create' operating interest.

Plenty of scope for some interesting modelling, and your staging area appears sufficient.

If you haven't already looked through the layouts on this forum, it's well worth taking the time. There is some amazing work and great inspiration to be found.

I'll be interested to see how you progress with this.

Cheers,

Kev

[FCIN]

Very nice clean track plan! I especially like the use of curved switches into the industrial area; a feature you often see when exploring various industrial areas. Having experimented with many variations of my own switching layout, I know there is a temptation to try and add "just one more" track and industry, but it isn't really necessary. Just one, two or three large rail served industries with specific spots for certain car types generates far more operation then a simple track plan would seem to have. Having worked many years on the prototype and working large industries like I describe, I know very well how much "operation interest" can be found in a simple looking track arrangement.

Having tried out several track arrangements with as many as 6 separate industries and spurs on my 20 foot long switching layout, I've found that not to be necessary. It's just a matter of selecting interesting industries that often handle more than one type of car and require a good amount of switching at each one and you've got a simple (read: low cost to construct) layout with a lot of operation. You can find numerous examples of such industries in the "Industries Along The Rails" section. In fact, almost too many to choose from! You can even do like several of the folks on here have suggested and change out the industries from time to time for variety - something I've considered doing.

I also reached the conclusion some time ago, that by going freelance, I can pick and choose the industries that I want and also vary what the railroad is from one operating session to the next. Like most of us, I've managed to acquire a lot of different types of motive power (that I really didn't need) so one day my industrial spur is L&N (one of my former railroad employers), the next it might be MP, Conrail or something totally freelance like a private switching service.

Seems like Lance Mindheim recently proposed a single industry switching layout on his web site that is based on a prototype bakery in Miami, FL. Most model railroaders would shy away from such a simple looking plan, thinking that the lack of spurs would not be interesting, yet the fact that this one industry supports three car types with specific spots makes it worthy of note and of course supports prototype operation.

Will be very interested in seeing how your plan progresses. Keep up the good work - you will no doubt inspire some of us to get going on our own layouts.

[sailormatlac]

Ed, it's always nice to have input from someone who worked the real thing. It gives perspective to what we do. One of our club member works for the CN, mainly switching industries and yard work. Each time he describes a job, it feels like he did "nothing", but in fact, it took hours and hours to spot a few cars to one place.

When you check up how an industry works, you find out there's often much more than what may seems to be. For a long time, I thought a coal dealer was necessary to explain why coal hoppers where on the layout. When you check up old photographs and maps, you just find out that any industry with a boiler back then received such shipment.

And, as you said, interchangeable industries à la Faraway are the best way to use these rolling stock bought on impulse!

@Postman: I think we overlook siding lenght on an ISL. Your proportion right, even if they seems very generous. We often just make it long enough to hold the cars, but with a slimmed down track plan like yours, siding are long enough to give room for the train to actually travel the layout. That's a large part of the fun when you don't have continuous run or very long main line. That makes room for more little interesting scenery details and trackwork without crowding the place...

Matt, who is still debating what it next ISL should be.

[Green_Elite_Cab]

Seems like Lance Mindheim recently proposed a single industry switching layout on his web site that is based on a prototype bakery in Miami, FL. Most model railroaders would shy away from such a simple looking plan, thinking that the lack of spurs would not be interesting, yet the fact that this one industry supports three car types with specific spots makes it worthy of note and of course supports prototype operation.

Thats pretty much exactly what I've been doing since about 2009, when I replaced all the industries on my layout with Walther's Magic Pan Bakery. I definitely think there is some legitimacey in that approach.

My theory is that the distance between someone's eyes and the layout only lets them see ~4 feet. One industry is about all you can model in that space. I suppose you could see more in your periphery, but if you're focused on your train and what you're doing, you're not really taking in the distant scenery.

[FCIN]

My theory is that the distance between someone's eyes and the layout only lets them see ~4 feet. One industry is about all you can model in that space. I suppose you could see more in your periphery, but if you're focused on your train and what you're doing, you're not really taking in the distant scenery.

GEC - you're on to something here. I currently have my yet to be finalized switching layout with only three large industries on it - each of which is at least 4 feet long and on a track that is 5 or 6 feet long. When working each industry, you focus on the work to be done and not the overall layout. Even works on much smaller layout's. It's quite surprising at times just how long it can take to switch just one of the industries and that's without any added time killing.

The more I think about it, the more I'm looking at the idea of periodically changing what one or two of the industries represent, just to add a little variety and not have to focus on making sure that one industry will support two or three different car types. Since I'm already swapping around what railroads operate it - it makes sense. Back to the drawing board!

[postman]

Very nice clean track plan! I especially like the use of curved switches into the industrial area; a feature you often see when exploring various industrial areas. Having experimented with many variations of my own switching layout, I know there is a temptation to try and add "just one more" track and industry, but it isn't really necessary. Just one, two or three large rail served industries with specific spots for certain car types generates far more operation then a simple track plan would seem to have. Having worked many years on the prototype and working large industries like I describe, I know very well how much "operation interest" can be found in a simple looking track arrangement.

Having tried out several track arrangements with as many as 6 separate industries and spurs on my 20 foot long switching layout, I've found that not to be necessary. It's just a matter of selecting interesting industries that often handle more than one type of car and require a good amount of switching at each one and you've got a simple (read: low cost to construct) layout with a lot of operation. You can find numerous examples of such industries in the "Industries Along The Rails" section. In fact, almost too many to choose from! You can even do like several of the folks on here have suggested and change out the industries from time to time for variety - something I've considered doing.

I also reached the conclusion some time ago, that by going freelance, I can pick and choose the industries that I want and also vary what the railroad is from one operating session to the next. Like most of us, I've managed to acquire a lot of different types of motive power (that I really didn't need) so one day my industrial spur is L&N (one of my former railroad employers), the next it might be MP, Conrail or something totally freelance like a private switching service.

Seems like Lance Mindheim recently proposed a single industry switching layout on his web site that is based on a prototype bakery in Miami, FL. Most model railroaders would shy away from such a simple looking plan, thinking that the lack of spurs would not be interesting, yet the fact that this one industry supports three car types with specific spots makes it worthy of note and of course supports prototype operation.

Will be very interested in seeing how your plan progresses. Keep up the good work - you will no doubt inspire some of us to get going on our own layouts.

Like the idea of changing out the industries from time to time for variety.
Today I have been laying some track, want to test fitting my track plan.