N Scale Shelf Layout Concept - Feedback Appreciated

[johnjpeebles]

Hello -

After 5+ years, I finallly have some space to be able to build a layout again - an entire room!  I'd like to build a shelf layout using modules, and I've done a first run of the track plan, but figured I'd ask for some feedback.

I actually have two rooms (one very large, the other smaller) that I can use.  I'd like to start in the small room b/c I'm not sure if I can finish a layout and would prefer to have something smaller that actually gets built.  In the future, I can punch through the wall to expand if I want to.

The concept is a railroad loosely based on the CB&Q.

Wishlist

• I want it to be modular so I can work on modules one by one, and if I ever move again I can perhaps take them with me.
• I want to operate the railroad realistically
• Only once through a scene, point to point
• Needs to have plenty of staging
• Expansion possibilities (either my moving the modules into a new room or punching through the wall)
• Targeting trains of roughly 28" in length (5-7 cars + engine)
• Want the ability to run trains round and round if desired, for visitors

Phased Construction
My thought is that I can do the construction in phases.  First build the part I have planned, then build the rest of the parts around the room, then, staging underneath.  I'm sure this is a really bad idea to put staging underneath, but I figure I might as well see if it'll work in theory.

Inspiration
The waterfront scene is inspired by the Port Kesley railway, and the yard by a bit of David Popp's Naugatuck.  I want to be able to run passenger and freight, have some nice switching of industries, and a bit of yard work.  This part will be pretty much all grimy city with the other half of the layout mountains and scenery.

Feedback
Thoughts on the trackplan would be really helpful.  I'm particularly concerned about the yard layout and the positioning of the crossovers, etc.  I'm planning on using FastTracks switches as I'm very familiar with building them and like how they operate and look.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[johnjpeebles]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[johnb]

If your goal is a simple, one wall layout, why not do just that? All that extra building will cost a lot of time and money that can be used on the main layout section. If it was me, I would build 2 staging yards, and have a simple return loop at the end of each yard to allow for continuous running...just add a line behind the backdrop to make it an oval

[johnjpeebles]

Yeah, good point.  I guess that could be phase 1 - just loop it back behind the backdrop and put in some staging there.  Then if I finish it and am bored, continue on from there.

[MVW]

I think you have a logical approach for how you want to build you railroad. Modular, phased construction makes a lot of sense, for the reasons you mentioned.

But your switching opportunities are a bit limited. I assume the layout would function like this:

a) A way freight drops off a handful of cars.

b) You set out/pick up cars at local industries.

c) A way freight comes through and picks up/drops off cars.

If that's the case, you'll have limited need for yard space, since you're not making up/breaking down entire trains. Your needs for staging would also appear to be limited, unless you want to use staging to store a lot of cars. Enough capacity to stage 2-3 small trains at each end is probably more than you need.

My impression, FWIW, is that you have a lot of space to work with, and that you may be able to wring more out of this space (operationally speaking) than your current plan allows. On the other hand, the only opinion that matters is yours. Good luck!

Jim

[johnjpeebles]

Hi Jim,

Thanks for the feedback!

Regarding operations, yes - I was envisioning the following:

• Way freight coming in from each direction.
• Passenger service coming in from both directions
• Rail Diesel Car and freight service to branch line (To be constructed)
• A through freight that's bringing cars in from an off-layout location destined for another off-layout location, but which will require switching in the yard.

Were you thinking perhaps kill the yard and add another track to the current A/D tracks, and use that space for industries?

[wazzou]

My first takeaway is that I don't see any obvious way to switch the yard on a dedicated drill track.
You should have a track that won't foul the main and can fit all of the cars from the longest A/D and/or yard track.

[johnjpeebles]

My first takeaway is that I don't see any obvious way to switch the yard on a dedicated drill track.
You should have a track that won't foul the main and can fit all of the cars from the longest A/D and/or yard track.

Yeah.  The drill track is the one just to the left of the cannery.  The yard throat and A/D tracks are the part I'm worried about the most.  I also just realized I can't pull the train off of the left most A/D track without fouling the main, so I'm going to reconfigure that now.

[johnjpeebles]

OK, here's an updated version.  Really appreciate the comments!

• More industries (purple).  Added 3-4 more sidings, lots more switching and car delivery options.
• Trashed one of the weird parts of the yard throat and made it possible to drag out the entire length of a train from either A/D track and move into yard.
• Canned the (Very Bad) idea of hidding staging.  Will just do a simple loop while building and put staging on the other wall.
• Moved the pier a bit to give it more breathing room.  Brought the water under the tracks for additional interest [ Guests cannot view attachments ] .

[basementcalling]

The north end by the freight house was already tight,  as you have no  way to switch the 2 spur industry south of it without fowling the main. Now the yard lead also runs through there,  making it even busier.

I love the idea and approach. Is there a specify location you are trying to model. If so,  copy the track arrangement from that spot.

[johnjpeebles]

The north end by the freight house was already tight,  as you have no  way to switch the 2 spur industry south of it without fowling the main. Now the yard lead also runs through there,  making it even busier.

I love the idea and approach. Is there a specify location you are trying to model. If so,  copy the track arrangement from that spot.

It is tight.  I kind of figured that I'd add in a challenging area and that's it.  I could put in a double slip but that seems like it would be very unprototypical.   I was thinking too that I could designate the main as the part that runs by the station (is that legal?) or perhaps replace the crossover just before the platform with a double crossover.  That would let trains come in without bothering any switching taking place, but still be able to bypass a passenger train if there was one there.  Thoughts?


There's no specific area I'm trying to model.  Basically, trying to combine elements of some of my favourite model railroads and incorporating a very dense city scape.

[Rossford Yard]

John,

Just finished the track laying stage of a similar sized (8 x 17 U shaped) N scale switching layout.  Based on that, and about 4 other layouts of experience here are my opinions for you to take or leave.

I like the straight drill track, provided you can get where you want to go.  Looks like a revised crossover or two do the trick. Curved drill tracks are not as reliable, even with cuts of 5-7 cars.  The engine tends to push the first car off the track.  So, adding a second track into the area might be typical, but yours works better (and eliminates one more headache on the lift out/drop down)

I don't think you need more switching ops in the port area, and if you want more, add them on the next modules.  Use N to get more realism in your highlight scene.

Conceptually, the port is logically the end of the line, so I might stage on the "south end" of this plan (hidden) and run three walls to the port in out and back fashion.  The staging could be hidden by low backdrop, but really doesn't need to be.  Then, fill in industries along the ROW from main staging to port.  You could place it on the "east wall", hidden, setting up a switchback to the south wall as part of interesting ops, along with running by the rest of the east wall and north wall until you hit the scenic highlight.

For that matter, port is logically the low point of the line (water level) so you might be able to use and uphill grade around the layout to hide staging (or at least lower backdrop requirements to hide it)  Of course, if you leave it level, you can keep your original concept of continuous running when desired.  After much thought, I gave that up, but most would prefer to keep it.

Hope any of the above provides inspiration to improve your plan to your liking a bit more.

Cheers.

Lastly, your duck under/drop down/lift out will be more reliable is it is a straight track at the seams.  I would redesign that area to pull port back, or in some other way, get rid of the curve connections.

[johnjpeebles]

Thanks so much for the detailed response!  Was traveling all day yesterday so didn't have a chance to make any modifications yet.

Regarding the drill track - are you saying the one in the plan below is good?  I was looking at it based on your comment of a straight drill track and started to get a little worried about the potential S curve as the switcher pulls a string out and is beside the cannery.  I'm also thinking of cutting down to one A/D track and shortening the yard overall.

Lastly, I was also thinking that I could bring in the mainline on what's now the middle track on the upper part of the port.  That gets me a straight line through he lift-out and also provides a lot more switching for the industries without fouling the main.

[Rossford Yard]

John,

I meant to say the drill track is good vs. laying a parallel track to your main on a relatively tight radius.  When pushing around a curve, the loco and coupler tend to go straight, pushing the first car off the track.  I doubt you will have problems with the small reverse curve on your "straight" drill track, but on the other hand, straighter is better and usually more prototypical, if you can straighten it without affecting the plan too much.

Given your relatively low volume, I would endorse cutting the A/D track to one, using the main as passing siding, etc.  I envision mostly one man operations, and one track at a time for AD (or using Passenger, assuming only a few arrivals a day which could be scheduled around) makes sense. I had a much bigger yard on my last layout, and Coal Driver of these forums (and a BNSF guy) recommended I cut my AD to one track in a 21 track yard....and I never missed the second one. 

I might also alter the entire yard so the drill tracks are longer, which happens if you reduce to one, basically the passing siding in front of the station on your current plan.

And yes, I agree with your last suggestion of using the upper track as main to leave the connections over the gaps straight.  I think it will cause you less problems, unless your construction is bullet proof.

[johnjpeebles]

OK here we go.  Several changes based on feedback.

1. Changed mainline loop to be in the middle on the northern end.  This also means I reconfigured and simplified the northern industries.
2. Removed a crossover just in front of the passenger station, figured it wasn't necessary.
3. Reconfigured the yard a bunch.  Now we're using a double slip for the entrance / lead which meant I changed to #6 turnouts from #5s previously.  This also fixed something that was bugging me about the spacing on the yard tracks so I think that's a nice improvement.
4. This means more space for loco servicing track.
5. Now we have a caboose track.
6. changed to 1 A/D track
7. Changed the geometry of southern mainline to be a 20" radius and made the southern industry much less complex.

Overall, we've got a lot more breathing room I think.  I'm conflicted about the double slip.  I've always wanted one (I really like complex trackwork) but I'm worried it's not prototypical.  I do think they could be found on a busy industrial / waterfront scene where space is at a premium.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]