Maybe smaller is better,,, for now atleast!! UPDATED PLAN 1/22/16

[soo]

Howdy,,

I have sinced moved in to as new house, so the old layout is gone. I was thinking,,, hmmm.

I bet I could come up with something that would be easy to build and even easier to put away.

I always liked the plan that David Barrow drew up in '96 for MR. South Plains Switching District, so with using that as a template,, I came up with this...



  I labeled the tracks as if the parent road of the Wisconsin Belt Terminal is the SOO. So taking ideas from the SOO ops in the twin cities area. I could even throw in a GB&W interchange also. This is meant to be a tide me over till I get the new out building built,, 14'x20'. We all know how that thought process works out!!!LOL

  It is going to be built on 2 16"x80" hollow core doors, so it can be easily broken down to be moved or transported. I used 3rd Plan-It to draw the plan using Atlas CD55 #5 turnouts through out. I could also make the plan with unitrak pieces, I just would need 8 more #6 left and right turnouts. So 16 total,, what to do what to do?? ( I already have the CD55 on hand) I know some of the leads could be longer,, maybe little shelves?? hmm.

The dreamer in me even thinks someday I could take this to shows,, ya never know.

Thoughts, ideas,?

See ya,, Wyatt

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I like it!

I'm a big proponent of simplicity.

I take it you've read the Lance Mindheim books?
http://www.amazon.com/How-Design-Small-Switching-Layout/dp/1449505643/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1452202100&sr=8-3&keywords=lance+mindheim
http://www.amazon.com/How-Operate-Modern-Switching-Layout/dp/1467956996/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1452202100&sr=8-4&keywords=lance+mindheim
http://www.amazon.com/Realistic-Track-Plans-Switching-Layouts/dp/1442176490/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1452202100&sr=8-2&keywords=lance+mindheim

[wcfn100]

I don't like the idea of a double switchback for a grain elevator. I'd put a crossing in there instead.


Jason

[soo]

Thanx Ed,, I have perused some of his books,LOL

Jason,, I see what you are talking about. I will noodle on that.

Thanx for the comments

See ya, Wyatt

[Ed Kapuscinski]

While being more critical on the plan, I also don't like that approach to engine service. You essentially lose a track. What about having it peel off of the drill track?

[railnerd]

I'd add another runaround track on the section with the aggregate facility.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[soo]

Thanx for the replies guys!

While walking through the local home dumpo,, I saw they have a 36" bi-fold door,, which means,, I could a 18" wide section, I can get both doors I need for 46$.

   I had also thought about just framing out the modules to 1'6" x 8' dimensions and making them freemoN compatible. I have all material on hand. The only thing that I would need to buy would be some sort of leg leveler thingy ma bob.

   Yes I know there are some sort comings and pitfalls of the track plan,, my initial thought was just to have something to piddle with to get my mind off of other problems.

   Well after playing with it a little more I came up with this on 18" doors with a separate corner piece.

[wcfn100]

How are you imagining the exchange track to work that needs a space for 2 locos and a caboose? 


Jason

[soo]

Jason,, The interchange track is the same track,, the whole track,, after the crossover. The part that is labeled is just the pocket for the power.

See ya,, Wyatt

[lajmdlr]

I'd add another runaround track on the section with the aggregate facility.

(Attachment Link)

Would do the same thing (run around on yard ladder) to the top left yard also. Then there's no need for wasting two tracks in the yard to do run around moves. Also move the yard track up at least two spurs to make the run around longer.
Also rearrange the switchback lead on top. The lead is only long enough for one loco & maybe 1 or two cars depending on how long they are. It looks like there could be at least six cars in there that would need to be moved. There could be alot of wasted time moving them out of the way to get one car.

[MichaelWinicki]

Nice plan!

There is a lot to be said for a smaller pike.

Between the financial commitment, not to mention the time involved, investing the resources in a larger model railroad should not be taken lightly. 

[soo]

Men that wear hats made of hide,

Whilst thinking what makes the world rotate on it's axis,, I came up with some interesting ideas,,at least I think so..



The pentagon,,, not a good idea,, intentions might have been well placed,,, but nothing else is..LOL. You would have to pull from one side and push to the other,, naaa

Next Idea:




On this one you would have to move the power around using the Y,, there is no way to access the top industries/Interchanges if you want to avoid the Y. So like a Led Zepplin,,,, this one does not fly very well.

Then there is this one:



This is the current iteration that I am noodling on at the present time. First, you can work the top industries/ interchanges from the bottom parts of the RR. The Y would act as the interchange/transfer connections,,, So even if one wanted to make the other industries ( top) separate from the RR on the bottom half,,, you could,, so the BN could work the industries to the left and the Rock or the GBW could work the industries to the right and still run their transfers also.

I had also thought of making these to FreemoN standards,, getting tired of being a lone wolf,,who knows.........

Ideas,,comments,,suggestions for a good mental health provider?

See ya, Wyatt

[soo]

Here is the plan with the 3rd leg



Sorry about the small font,, I guess ya'll can mess with your zoom if you would like to read it.

See ya, Wyatt

[Rossford Yard]

Revisiting this one, as I have decided to move and thus, tear down the IHB of Texas.  My new space will have small space for a switching layout not much different than this one, and I have noodled very similar ideas, including the Y coming out from the hidden staging in the next room (i.e., unfinished attic)

Great minds think alike.  As usual, as I look at Wyatt's track plan, I believe he would take out a few tracks.  As to the switchback to the grain elevator, he gets that from the Dakota Northern (plan 62 in 102 Realistic Track Plans) where we operate frequently, and one of the grain elevators has that feature, which works fine.

One question for anyone who has built one of these (Bill Denton, I'm looking at you.....only because I saw your track plan in some book or magazine, and also love Chicago railroading......) are you satisfied operationally speaking with shelf switching layouts? 

I am thinking I would be, because for all the complexity of my last two layouts (hidden storage, helix on the last one, etc.) to support continuous running of perhaps 20 different trains, most nights, I just switch the various industries for a half an hour or so.  And, in reality, my concept is come to the yard, drop cars for local industries, switch.  Probably no need for all the rest of it. 

Comments appreciated!

[coldriver]

Revisiting this one, as I have decided to move and thus, tear down the IHB of Texas. 

 for all the complexity of my last two layouts (hidden storage, helix on the last one, etc.) to support continuous running of perhaps 20 different trains, most nights, I just switch the various industries for a half an hour or so.  And, in reality, my concept is come to the yard, drop cars for local industries, switch.  Probably no need for all the rest of it. 

Comments appreciated!

Wow Jeff - say it ain't so! 

I often wonder how I would downsize when the day comes, and my thought is to keep my major yard with surrounding industries, but eliminate the majority of the mainline.  Trains would enter staging just beyond the limits of both ends of the yard.  It would still provide big time railroading flavor (when desired) but reduce construction complexity and layout footprint.  Operations in the large yard would be pretty much the same as what I do my Monument yard today.