Track plan vs benchwork

[daniel_leavitt2000]

I don't want to go off on a tangent on my Boston Line thread, but I am running into some problems.

Up until this point, I have been designing the room for the layout's benchwork rather than a track plan. I have a rough idea where things should go, but I am awful at making actual track plans on software. Dave Smith was going to help with this, but in his absence, I have not found anyone willing to take on such a big project.

Have any of you ever built a layout without a track plan finalized? Did you run into any major issues?

[Csxmtsub]

My first n scale layout was built to be an extension of my HO layout, so when I decided to switch to n scale I hand to fit the track plan to the existing bench work, I came up with a ruff plan for the mountain sub and put down poster board and maped out were the tracks best fit. I then cut out the plan the size of the sub road bed to use as a templet. I would do about eight feet at a time and use the scrap poster board to move on. No computers.

[Scottl]

I think it is worth laying out your ideas, even in a simple way, to make sure the flow and operations are what you have in mind.  You can always depart from this as you construct, but at least you know where you are going in a clear way.  You have big plans for this layout by all accounts, so it would be a pity paint yourself into a corner.  I've see people change the benchwork plans after discussion, so if you are not to that stage yet, I would definitely do some feasibility planning.

[Philip H]

Daniel,
I did something of the same thing - albeit on a smaller foot print. I started with the 2 major LDEs I wanted figured out where they would best fit in my room and then monkeyed the track to fit. I honk in your situation that would work too. Tape an outline of your benckwork to the floor, put down copies of the track for your necessary LDEs and then decide how to connect them.

[Specter3]

I have read your stuff for a while but I cant remember what your givens and druthers are and what you like to do. Railfan or ops? Big division yard or no? Staging? Helix, nolix, visable? Designed train length? What are your feature scenes? Just you running, or is a crew coming over to run? Refresh our memories a bit.

[Bsklarski]

Go old school. Figure out the room dimensions and get a pencil and paper. Its never failed me or my father in 50 years.

[Ian MacMillan]

I do this all the time. I have a general idea of what I want in my head and tweak as I go along. I found that by having a completed plan before hand I will end up with nothing but disappointment in the end because sometimes the plan doesn't work out and I feel that I have failed those that drew it for me. I find it easier to do a very rough plan in the beginning and then do a formal plan once its completed. I generally will only draw up a detailed plan in the construction stage to double check a track arrangement that I am having doubts on it fitting.

[carmelmodelrr]

When I built my layout I spent weeks, perhaps months, looking at track plans in various books.  I wanted some "mountains" or at least hills and I wanted a single track rather than a double track layout.  I also wanted to eventually connect with a much smaller layout that I'd already built and had running.  Once I determined all of that, I added ceiling lighting to accentuate certain areas.  That--lighting--might be the most important preliminary step.  It would be much more difficult to add ceiling lighting in my finished train room after I had the layout in place.  I think working in reverse order--build the supports, then make the layout fit, would be the more difficult method of creating a layout.  Just my nickel's worth.

Dick Wroblewski
Carmelmodelrr

[LIRR]

I've built and rebuilt several layouts. I've never had a track plan "finalized". For planning, it's freehand sketches on a drawn-to-scale scale background over and over again until I'm satisfied with the concept. Then it changes as I build - every time. On my current layout I've partially rebuilt and/or changed each area at least once. I'm in the middle of a significant rework of trackage now to accommodate an expansion into the adjacent room. The only problem I've encountered a few times is having a turnout over a splice-plate or a framing member which made it difficult or impossible to install the switch machine (I use the Blue Point type)

[C855B]

In planning the GC&W, AnyRail has been my friend. I resisted at first... well documented... and then relented, started by drawing the room, then adding crude benchwork to the space more or less reflecting a track plan still in my head at the time. IIRC you were in on some of the initial thinking. So I guess that also makes me a "benchwork first" kind of guy. Mold your thoughts into the space first keeping aisles and other accesses in mind, then tweak as necessary if a curve or other detail doesn't quite fit as you start laying virtual track.

I do, however, believe you really should have an accurate sense whether your track plan visualization is going to fit. This, as opposed to an OMG! halfway into it and find you have to make serious, oh-I-really-didn't-want-to-do-that compromises. Changes during the process, sure, they're going to come as you learn things, but at least you'll be in a better position by then to know what does and doesn't work. Bottom line, tho', is don't put benchwork down and then wing it. That's going to result in disappointment.

Oh... to Dick's comments about lighting... ABSOLUTELY! You guys know how much angst I've poured into the lighting plan for the GC&W. That has been 90% dictated by the benchwork, so know what you're going to do first. I have to, because with my space, making significant lighting changes with benchwork constructed becomes a monster project in near-impossible access.

[Specter3]

And oh, is it point to point with track that simply ends or do there need to be return loops whether they lead to staging or are returns.

[MVW]

I'd recommend doing something (software or pencil and paper) for the mainline, anyway. That will give you a chance to make sure grades are workable. And it will give you a rough idea of space available for particular scenes. (Let's see, there's a 1x4-foot space available for that major industry over there, is that going to be big enough?)

That's the route I've usually gone, anyway. Works for me.

Jim

[daniel_leavitt2000]

The layout will be roughly a large "G" shape with an additional peninsula in the middle for Framingham yard. Starting with the top of the "G" going counter clockwise:

Worcester (P&W interchange, Guilford interchange, Worcester Union Station, Worcester Intermodal Yard)

Grafton (G&U interchange, G&U freight house and cement plant)

Westboro (GM distribution, Cumberland Farms bottling and packaging, AE Staley corn syrup plant)

Framingham (Nevins yard and Cerestar corn syrup plant, North Yard and Westboro branch on the peninsula, South Yard GM distribution tunout, Walpole Junction turnout)

Short section of tracks paralleling I90 (representing Newton)

Beacon park yard (Yard, Boston engine house, Grand Juntion)

Fenway Park (hey, why not?)

South Station Terminal (stub end passenger station)

The entire prototype length is about 55 miles. I estimate I should have about 100+ feet of linier layout length or about 3 straight scale miles. Not a bad compression ratio. I would like something good for running and enjoying the scenery, but with the ability to do operations alone or with a small group. I will need hidden staging and a return loop on the Worcester end and hidden storage tracks with return loops at Grand Central, Beacon Park, Walpole Junction, and Framingham South tournouts to allow proper operation of those branches.

There will be 5 primary train types:
Commuter; Boston - Worcester (push/pull)
Intercity Passenger; Boston - through Worcester points west (Lakeshore Ltd)
Intermodal; Boston - through Worcester points west
Mixed freight; points west, Worcester, Westboro, Framingham, Boston
Specialized and location specific locals; Autorack, Corn syrup, paper, reefer, mixed short run freights

Train length will very from short commuter trains (5 cars and one engine) to 60 car mixed freight with 4 engines.

The layout is not perfect for operations. Worcester is a gateway, but trains are made up in Selkirk. Interaction on the east end of Worcester in limited, but I will not have room to build out the P&W yards to the west. Also, Guilford very rarely ran into Worcester. But for the sake of operations, these will need to be fudged a bit. That being said, I sometimes I just want to let a train run around without stopping, so I will need hidden return loops.

I'll try and get room dimensions tomorrow.

Oh, I will be using Atlas C55 flex, #10 switches for the mainline, nothing smaller than #7 for sidings and minimum radius should be 24" or better (I would like 30+).

[conrail98]

I built my benchwork and have been figuring out a track plan to fit. Truthfully, most layout spaces only have a few benchwork configurations that will fit to do what you want so it's a matter of figuring out which one works best from a people flow and then place the major LDEs,

Phil

[basementcalling]

Daniel, your last post is on the right track.

To be satisfied with a track plan, it has to meet your "givens & druthers" as John Armstrong coined them. What types of trains and operations do you want to feature? Do you want rural or urban scenery? Mainline running or switching focus?

Once you know the what, then you can work on the druthers that you are forced to because of the size and shape of the layout area.  After setting some standards, then you are ready to think in terms of use of that space.

Byron Henderson has a great article called "CAD Too Soon" on his website you should try to find and read.