N Scale Shelf Layout Concept - Feedback Appreciated

[Rossford Yard]

And my last bit of unsolicited and possibly worthless advice.. is to just get started.  The reason is I doubt many layouts get the track plan perfectly right in advance of construction.  Either it looks like too much trackage, planned structures don't fit, new structures come on the market you like better, etc.  No better test of a track plan than building it and running it as you intend for a bit before scenery, or even after.

And, the unmeasurable is how many layouts never get started due to unrealistic fears of not getting it perfect?  If building a model railroad is fun, well, making changes as you go has to be at least half as fun, but fun, too.

[MVW]

And, the unmeasurable is how many layouts never get started due to unrealistic fears of not getting it perfect?

Quite true. The best advice is to get started.

Jim

[johnjpeebles]

Yes, great advice, thanks!  Can I bug you to weigh in on the latest update?

Keen to get your thoughts on the changes!  I think I'm getting close TBH.

[Rossford Yard]

John,

Will do.  Reviewed it again, and have one more suggestion.....

I have never liked stub end yards inside a curve.  Just can't find that in the prototype very often.  Plus, your drill track, while straight, does require switching over the main, which wouldn't happen because you would be fouling a busy main.

If I was drawing/building the plan, I would bring the mainline to the front, and class yard to the back, where the stub tracks could angle slightly right, and end at a John Allen style mirror under a bridge to double their apparent length.  However, a simple stub there would also be okay.  Also, doesn't look like the reach is so far that you need that lift out and it has to go to implement my suggestions. Overall, you would probably get a few more feet of storage capacity by doing this too.  Granted, switching the docks now requires fouling the main, but still seems more prototypical.

Now, that would require the passenger station to be up front, and if that took up too much room, you could build it as a front flat to save space (a full station would be a focal point, however)

You would probably have a passenger station siding on one side of the main, with one platform serving both from the middle.  The A/D track on the other. I would put a bit of a gap between it and the main (and/or between it and the class yard) to identify it.  Then, it serves a few functions - passing siding if main line is busy, or AD track in most cases.

Love the X crossing to serve the docks, looks cool and prototypical to save space.  Think you could fit in similar spur track arrangements  with the new plan.  For example, the back track of the class yard could be an industry siding.

Okay, think I am up to 3 or 4 cents now, but things to consider.

[johnjpeebles]

Stub ends inside a curve is pretty valid.  I've redrawn the plan slightly to hide the main part of the curve within a building / scenery.  We're talking 18" so agreed the reach won't be a problem.

I'm still struggling on both plans to figure out a way to get a lead that doesn't go across a switch.  I kind of have that achieved on the "Inside Loop" plan.

Here's the inside loop vs. outside loop I've managed to come up with.

[Rossford Yard]

Think the second one looks good, just what I was thinking.  I actually love the long lead, might even move the yard ladder up so longest yard track is just shorter than the full lead length.  Not sure what you are saying on avoiding a turnout on the lead, they do happen.

That said, it would be more reliable.  You might consider switching the passenger station and port locations on plan 2 to see what that yields.

[johnjpeebles]

Intrigued by the idea of switching the waterfront and passenger station, so will work on that, but will probably take me awhile.  I've changed the yard to all #5s and got some more space and it breathes a bit more.

I was meaning the idea that the yard lead isn't perfectly straight on the "inside loop" plan, but managed to nail that on the outside loop plan.

[johnjpeebles]

OK, here's a very rough, quick idea of how the passenger station and the port could be swapped.  I think it's got promise.

[Rossford Yard]

Looking good to me.  The port looks more realistic in plan view in this arrangement, at least to my eye, so I like that change.

Last question....and I am definitely projecting my bias here.....but are you sure you will never be bitten by the long train bug most of us are plagued with?  You do have room for a longer AD track, whether you add it now, or make some track changes later.

[OldEastRR]

Is this a terminal? With the yard all stub tracks pointing one way, getting a train to run the other way will involve lots of out and back switching. Looks like you want yard operation and waterfront switching in the same space. Are they both equally important to you?
The "bible*" says the longest length of your layout space should be where you put your big yard. That idea for this space gives you the option of a double-ended yard, which then gives you the option of two yard switchers making up trains in each direction at the same time. Or staging tracks in each direction, or both.
With so much space you could build a big, no-frills double-ended yard on the RH wall, a more industry-heavy scenic-detailed port scene on the left, and join them with single tracks into a big oval. The port may be where you'd like to do your building/scenery work; the big (possibly temporary) yard just flat sheets of unpainted plywood on modular frames you slap the track down on. No scenery, just a staging/switching area. Then you could try running like that and see if you want to enhance them or try something else.

*"Track Planning for Realistic Operation"

[Rossford Yard]

Old East makes a good point.  We discussed the problems of complicated trackage on the lift out, and you could avoid that whole scenario and make room access easier by moving the yard to the right, and having a simple, single track bridge near the door.

I have also wondered if conceptually, a port would be end of the line or part of a through system?  End of line seems more typical, but through terminals exist.  Although you want to get both scenes built now, and build more not yet designed sections later, it would be a bit more fun to sort cars in a small yard away from the wharf (other side of layout) and then make just that portion end of the line. 

If you dog boned the right side, with a yard and hidden staging behind, and used the bottom side as a connector to the industrial park/wharf, you have to run a few more feet to start the fun switching action in the industrial area.  It could be either max 2.5 feet deep (maybe 1.5/1 split in front of and behind a low backdrop, depending on how many staging tracks you want) or your room is probably wide enough to get a 1.5 foot access aisle behind the yard somehow, but it narrows your main aisle.

I will disagree with Old East on the double ended yard.  My last two layouts large layouts (24 feet long on both) had double ended classification yards (had two double ended on my last layout, former layout had double ended and a single ended classification yard similar to your last arrangement.  In the end, you will use one of the other side, based on quality of track work, ease of access, visibility (yard ladder has shortest tracks at front so you can see each car, as you currently have it drawn), etc.  While prototypical, saving the expense and complications of the double end yard is rarely worth it on a mid size model railroad, as long as your AD tracks are double ended, which they are in all your plans.

I am basing the above, again, on my experience.  I love big yards, but have decided they are too complicated to be worth it, and on my new smaller industrial layout, I am down to six tracks, single ended, which is actually a bit more fun.  I think they yard as you drew it is a nice size which will provide plenty of satisfying operations.  And, if not, you will and can change it later.....

[randgust]

I've always been the designated contrarian, no need to stop now I guess.

Faced with a similar situation, I had a completely different approach to running around the walls on a shelf.   i.e. had to be modular so it could be moved out, basically a shelf-style railroad, and the track was never to go through the same scene twice, and as much staging as could be done...and more if it couldn't.   I wanted both long trains and continuous running, as well as a point-to-point concept, and the ability to run any train in staging in two different directions.   I also added the provision that absolutely nothing was to be bigger than 27x48, which in my experience, was as big as could fit through a normal door and be kept upright. 

Instead of building along the walls, I built back from them on at least two sides, basically to fit a small bedroom.   Overall plan size was 8'6" x 5'6" with a center 'pit' and outer aisles.   The layout has 48" clear under the duckunder.    The entire layout disassembles into six sections and has been moved three times.

By going to an 'inner'/'outer' view I essentially doubled the scene footage of the layout by having two different views in over half of the layout with a scenic divider down the center.   In my prototype I had two vastly different scenic areas only 50 miles apart; Winslow in the desert and Flagstaff in the forest/mountains.  I really wanted that distinct scenic contrast. 

You're stuck with the duckunder across the door in your design.   I have a duckunder in mine as well, but visitors that have trouble with that can stay to the outside aisle and not climb into the center pit at all.   The pit is still tight, expanding the end modules out would fix that.  My workshop is 'down low' under Williams Jct.   I also have a lower desk chair that now rolls me to the workbench from the outside, clearing the benchwork, rather than ducking under all the time.

This design has held up amazingly well over time, although the carpentry to make the tables come apart (as well as all the wiring through Moulex connectors) turned out to be a real nightmare.  I'm running absurdly long trains on this - the Phoenix loop limits me to about 30 cars plus power, and the ruling grade is 2.5% from Williams up through Riordan to Flagstaff.   The rest of the grades run around 2%.

http://www.randgust.com/atsfplan.htm

I am looking at tearing out a non load-bearing wall that is now behind Flagstaff and moving it back three feet to allow another 'shelf' scene behind it.   That may or may not ever happen, but the design allows it.   

I'm a big believer in relatively shallow shelf scenes, high, and an emphasis on backdrops and visual cues for depth.   It doesn't matter whether you do a wall-shelf or a center-island like I did, you really need to be thinking about visual point of reference and potential backdrop scenes from the very start on something like this.

[johnjpeebles]

Great points guys, and I really appreciate the comments!

A few thoughts:
1. I've never had the opportunity to really operate before, so I'm not actually sure if I like yard operations, but when I think things through, I really like the idea of being able to build up and tear down a train, etc. so I'd like to at least try it.  That said, I could be persuaded to make that gamble on an unscenicked "temporary" module that can be tried out and then discarded if I decide I don't like it.

2. I'm probably going to be operating this one by myself, or with max 2 other people, so I'm not sure a big double-ended yard is the best idea (unless it's a staging yard).  I'm also a bit nervous at biting off more than I can chew.  I know for sure I can build (and enjoy) building the turnouts and get the track down, I'll pay a joiner to do the benchwork, and I like modeling scenery.  Operations, continuous time invested, and being able to barricade life enough to devote consistent pressure towards the layout are big question marks.

3. I also need to use the room as a guest room from time to time, so the suggestion of bringing it off the walls isn't really feasible right now.  I'm going to get a joiner to build the benchwork and mount it on the walls using a bracket (stone walls so they're strong).

Based on the above thoughts, perhaps the suggestion of focusing on modeling a industrial port theme with passenger station and punting the yard to the other wall (starting first with something temporary to try it) might be a smarter idea.  I could use cartridges for staging in the meantime and see how I like "low key" operations by switching industries, etc. and running in the odd passenger train through.

Oh and to answer the last question, in my mind the port city with yard was a "Destination" for a short line, but still maintained a connection to the outside world so was a through line as well.

[gkoproske]

Consider double deck, cantilevered from the wall, no legs. Depth can be kept to 18". Allow at least 12" between levels so you can see and work on each. You can avoid a helix by incorporating a ramp along the back that runs along the walls gaining elevation. Light the lower shelf by using LED tapes mounted to the underside of the top shelf.  The top would need good ambient room lighting. I'd avoid a valence on the ceiling if possible.

[OldEastRR]

Even if you don't make a double-ended yard on the temporary yard shelf, you can use double ended staging tracks there. East and west trains are then always coming inbound from their same direction, always leaving outbound in their same direction.