Midwest Terminal; a modern era first layout

[J_Von_Random]

Modern era, primarily Norfolk Southern, freelanced.
Size: one wall of a room, approximately 14 feet (haven't been able to measure yet). Can have temporary extensions on one or both ends.

Goals:
* Fairly quick to build. Between this being my first layout, and that I will probably be moving again in a year or so this isn't meant to last very long.
* Learning a lot of the scenery and construction basics along the way
* Focus on long trains (2 locos + 25 60' cars ideal), shallow curves (I'd like to have a 2-400" curve on the siding and mainline).
* 1 major industry, possibly with it's own small yard and switcher
* 1-3 smaller industries
* Using Atlas code 55 track and turnouts. I had considered using Fastracks jigs, but see the first bullet point.

Very rough first draft. (this could be flipped either way... unsure of which will work better)

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[dem34]

2 Points from my space of the peanut gallery.

*How accessible will the hidden staging be? Even bulletproof track can be subject to occasional mishaps. I'm half assuming its not an issue.
*I personally don't trust the Atlas Code 55 turnouts and  always had issues with them, would suggest that for ease of construction going with Peco C55 turnouts even if there is some prep work in order to mate it to Atlas/ME flex track.

Otherwise I am a personal fan of the concept of rather simple layouts with extensive run through options provided by staging.

[Rossford Yard]

I call my layout the Midwest Terminal, too.  Actually, most of my layouts have been called something terminal.  Somewhere near the south side of Chicago, and mine is switching only, no mainline. I am considering expansion so I can bring the trains into the yard and terminal area.  Right now, I have to be satisfied to open the train room door and tell operators that the daily drop off from the main line trains "arrived a few minutes ago." (every single time)  Also, while I change out cars every so often, the switching tends to be the same.

Short version, I think your plan is the bomb for the space available.  Agree on notes about accessibility.  Perhaps even leaving a triangle on the corners would help (and by one of those grabbers used by older folks)  That said, the middle portion of the layout is only 2 feet deep, so if the backdrop was low enough, you can probably reach over.

I use atlas code 55, but would NOT use their curved turnouts in hidden (or really any) areas.  I would consider Kato unitrak for the back portion.  There are code 55 to code 80 rail joiners from ME to make this work, or you can solder the smaller rail on top of the rail joiner.  My main reason for Kato, besides reliability, is the rail just seems to stay cleaner.  Also, I would eliminate one storage track, IF that is what it takes to make sure the spacing allows your tallest car to tip over, and not hit the train next to it, just to reduce the mess.  N scale train dominos is not very fun.

I do like the placement of your turnouts near the middle of the layout.  I have always found that pushing a cut of cars around a curved lead tends to derail the first car behind the loco, and only your shortest one car spur might have that problem, although if you keep it short, it probably won't.

I would also use your backdrop to put flats along it (or build your backdrop from a string of buildings) which saves some space in front, making it more realistic.

Take all that for what it is worth, since it's your layout.  But, since I have built a layout with the same name and goals, I hope it helps.

[J_Von_Random]

Regarding staging accessibility, I'm probably going to build at siting-in-chair height, so standing + relatively low backdrop should be fine.

5 staging tracks is almost certainly more than needed, and also interferes with train length. 3-4 is probably fine, but I need to run the iteration on trains vs cars vs industries vs etc etc etc

I'm fine with doing some work to mate up track. Part of the "learn the basics" goal is being through to the point of absurdity in making the trackwork solid, short of handlaying. I do have a bunch of unitrack, raising the problem of what do I do with all of this now.

For industries I only have vague ideas so far. I've read enough about modern operations layouts (*cough* lance mindheim *cough*) to lean heavily on simple trackwork requiring complex switching. So it could be as little as one large industry and one "small" industry. Unfortunately one possible large industry (ethanol plant) has tons of available tank cars..... but no DDG hoppers in n scale  .

It is possible that there could be an expansion with a small yard on the other side of the room using temporary conncections, but that is a huge if, and only if it could be done without interfering with the use of the room as an office.

[dem34]

Regarding staging accessibility, I'm probably going to build at siting-in-chair height, so standing + relatively low backdrop should be fine.

I am going to tell you from experience from a layout I sold a week ago that this sounds like a non issue, but having to reach over everything (even on a 2x4) to get to the back of a layout becomes s a PITA and a half even if that is just to run a track cleaning rag on a single hidden track. Every time I went to do a full cleaning I would inevitably break something every time.

[Rossford Yard]

My layout is also 38-40" off the ground, with tile floor and roll around office chairs for sit around operation.  I like it.  Great minds DO think alike!

I decided to do it on this layout, since in op sessions on my last layout, several operators took the chance to sit on the chairs I had in the room.  Another layout in Houston where I opped had two levels, and the main yard on the lower level was a sit down job, which everyone seemed to like.  And, I'm not getting any younger, so this is probably my "lifetime" layout, and I need to consider later stages, which are coming oh too soon.

My only advice is do NOT use typical kitchen cabinets as sub base. If you are sitting, you need leg room under the layout to not have to switch "side saddle" LOL.

I also think you are wise to follow the Mindheim method.  To me, 1990's+ railroading is all about simpler track, well-spaced to make the larger industries seem real.  While not prototypical, having at least one turnout going the other way is a necessity too.  I have 5 distinct switch runs on my layout, and the one with 3 tracks into a faux steel mill, all facing points, gets switched the least.  I have another without trailing point spurs, but the loco must go down the hill and runaround the entire train before switching, and then the branch is 10 foot long until the last industry, so at least that gives them something to do.

Thinking about cleaning staging, again, I had a Unitrak helix around a water heater on a garage layout, and it never (luckily) gave locos any reason to stall.  When we dismantled the layout, I was amazed at the gunk that came off that track even though it still ran perfectly all that time.  Also, I have noticed that any hidden tracks I had on that garage layout did stay cleaner a lot longer than open ones.  I fashioned some hills and sometimes buildings on lift out sections to cover them.  That might help, and added scenery depth is always nice, at the expense of having to lift out sections of foam every so often.

Then, my last recommendation (I promise) is to simplify that left side ladder.  Not only the curved turnouts, but the compound nature of it, even at the expense of track length.  That said, I have done that, and with enough slow running and great trackwork, it is possible to get it functioning well, but overall, the simpler hidden yard ladders are, the better they work.

[J_Von_Random]

Been tweaking things to get long enough siding and staging tracks while taking into account the issues that everyone has mentioned.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[Rossford Yard]

Nice!  Main line is perfect, sidings okay, but I predict the exact arrangement will naturally move around as you build your structures and then fit the sidings to them.

[basementcalling]

Been tweaking things to get long enough siding and staging tracks while taking into account the issues that everyone has mentioned.

(Attachment Link)

As drawn in this version, your staging yard throat is at the widest part of the benchwork, and the turnouts are the most likely places you'll need to reach back there when you stand up. I would mirror image the RH yard throat with the original LH version using curved turnouts, the Peco ones are 36/18 radius, so they can be used to make the curve still fit your space. A side benefit in addition to the easier reach for maintenance and cleaning is longer staging tracks.

You can never have too much staging.

[J_Von_Random]

Nice!  Main line is perfect, sidings okay, but I predict the exact arrangement will naturally move around as you build your structures and then fit the sidings to them.

True, those are just rough placeholders.

For one thing I have to figure out *what* industries!

[J_Von_Random]

As drawn in this version, your staging yard throat is at the widest part of the benchwork, and the turnouts are the most likely places you'll need to reach back there when you stand up. I would mirror image the RH yard throat with the original LH version using curved turnouts, the Peco ones are 36/18 radius, so they can be used to make the curve still fit your space. A side benefit in addition to the easier reach for maintenance and cleaning is longer staging tracks.

You can never have too much staging.

Are the Peco curved turnouts good enough? In tinkering with this I've considered going ahead and getting a fastracks jig.

It would also be possible to have temporary loop extensions on both ends instead of just the left, squishing that giant circle out of the plan.

[J_Von_Random]

Oh, something I forgot to mention in other posts: been using a 15" minimum radius, and wider when possible.

[basementcalling]

Are the Peco curved turnouts good enough? In tinkering with this I've considered going ahead and getting a fastracks jig.

It would also be possible to have temporary loop extensions on both ends instead of just the left, squishing that giant circle out of the plan.

I find them more reliable than the Atlas Code 55 curved turnouts.

[Rossford Yard]

I never had any problems with the Peco curved turnouts, whereas I have had troubles with atlas curved turnouts dating back to an HO layout in the 1980's.  The positive snap will help, as long as you adopt the idea of moving your ladders forward as suggested, eliminating the need for power turnouts in the back.

BTW, you do have the opportunity to add one switchback type spur, coming off your front spur, which might add some operating interest.

[CRL]

Agree. Peco curved turnouts are just as reliable as their other turnouts… especially the code 55 turnouts… almost bulletproof.