Rick's 26' X 40' RailRoad Layout Plan

That looks awesome! Wish I had that kind of space.

Outstanding - Well thought out plan. Thanks for sharing Ken, and Rick I hope to see the build progress. Enjoy!

Nice plan but would you mind telling us who Rick is????

Where does it go and what does it do?    I see no staging or interchange with out railroads.    What is Rick's desire for operation?    Or does he just plan to run trains around?     Fine to do a display layout for just running trains, but there is a lot of track there for that kind of layout in my opinion.

Wow tough room. 

In my view, much better than 500 feet of track in a 5x9 layout.

IMHO, it's a GREAT layout.  If I had the room, I'd build something very similar to that. 

For how I like to run trains and what I model, that layout is a 10 out of 10.

The gent's name is Rick Arestad, a forum member.

PRRJIM:  As to the purpose of the RR,  to have fun and enjoy the hobby.   Not every model RR needs to be a reduced/compressed version of a prototype RR subdivision, this RR is not modeled on any prototype.   Folks differ in their views about what a train layout is and how prototypical these toys need to be in order to enjoy them.   This sort of topic has been discussed on the forum before, with differing opinions.   Perhaps it boils down to the level of abstraction (and imagination) each individual prefers for their layout.

• yes, one purpose is to run trains.
• But you can also see that there are two stations and a station platform: passenger trains can run from station to station, and make additional loops in between.  Houses or apartments for each pretend passenger are not needed, nor are cars and taxis and highways to get the pretend passengers from station to home to work required, nor jobs for each of them to work in the city or suburbs.   
• There are also eight industry sidings on the main lines.   There are four involving coal - a coal loader and unloader, and a power plant, and a mine, so a "prototypical" movement of coal from the mine to the yard, then out to the power plant with empties back could be done. Diverting some coal to the coal unloader for fun.   
• Rick will be able to make up and run trains and service industries on the spurs, moving cars from the yard to the spurs, and then in another run, pull the cars back to the yard.  Abstractly "modeling" the function of real railroads.
• It would be a small feat of imagination to pair-up industries in the two towns, so one can pull a car from one industry, drop it in the yard, then make up a train to take them to the other town.  Lots of possibilities for Rick to explore.
• There are other sidings for animated accessories - milk unloader and cattle car pen.   

Sure, one could claim (for instance) that you must not have a cattle car and pen which loads and unloads the same cattle into the pen because its not realistic or prototypical, but its a fun accessory.  No abstract representation of a ranch, or meat packing plant, or meat market, or dining customers are needed in order to enjoy it.

A spur or siding could certainly be added to abstractly model a connecting railroad, I have done that on other plans.   But that would still be just an imagination idea, whether the spur is there or not.   There would not actually be a connected railroad even if the connection spur exists, it would have to be modeled in the imagination, but would really just be a place to store some cars, and then pull them back to the yard again later.    For this plan, perhaps a connection could be added to an imaginary connecting RR coming off the right side of the yard and running to the right beneath the "high line" could be added, might be fun to do.

Anyway, this is the kind of 3-rail O-gauge RR Rick wanted, and I think it is perfectly fine, I would love to have this in my basement! 

As a more practical consideration, Rick wanted relatively broad curves and turnouts, looking forward to running some longish passenger trains.   I thought about squeezing a second yard into the space (in order to run trains between division points), but decided it would mean deleting a town and tightening the curves for a more compressed layout.   And the runs between yards would be pretty small  Always a trade-off.   We initially talked about a shelf above for a longer run, and we discussed return loops so one could have a point-to-point that allows trains to turn for continuous running.

-Ken

You make a lot sense including only one  yard.   John Armstrong emphasized in his many books, that generally (there are always exceptions),  you should include only one of each element, and do it well, rather than including 2 or more and making each one too compressed or reduced to be interesting.

I don't fault your approach for a display layout.   If that is what is wanted, that is fine and will be enjoyable.    I was just asking.   There seemed to be quite a few elements pointing both directions in the plan - it was not quite apples, and then not quite oranges as they say.  

My interest is more toward operations, so I always look at a plan to see what the trains are going to do.    Generally my concept is a spur or two as interchange tracks, and then a yard, and finally quite a few industries, since I like switching them.     The interchanges can be expanded to include whole trains with locos or just be a string of cars.     The operating plan is to put a train of outbound cars together in the yard, and run to the interchange.   There the outbound cars are exchanged for the inbound ones, and the train returns to the yard.     The cars are then classified by destinations served by the local freights - could be by town, or type industry etc - based on what the operator has envisioned.     Locals are then assembled and go out to the towns and exchange setouts for pickups.    They return the pickups to the yard and the cycle begins again.      This concept can be so small as it is all one train and the yard is an engine house and a passing siding.    Or it could be big enough to include many trains all doing different things.    

I do notice you do not have a yard lead separate from the main, and it looks like to me the single track loop is not connected to the rest of the RR.    A separate lead allows the yard to be worked without interfering with the mainlines.

Jim, thanks for your comments.  The yard lead does connect to the main for convenience, but is not on the main itself.   Using the lead does NOT block the main lines, and this connection allows a train that is heading into the yard to pull in via the yard lead, so as to clear the main line more quickly, not leaving its caboose dangling on the main, and slowing down the following train (likely a fast passenger), while the locomotive works through the ladder and the classification tracks at slow speed.   I thought about extending the lead for more length, but then it would effectively wrap around to the town above the yard - not sure if that is a good idea or not.  And I thought then the lead would need its own bridge over the stream on the right side, so there would be THREE bridges AND a trestle all in the same small footprint, perhaps not a good visual idea.  Extending the lead would be easy to do - what do you think?

The operating plan you describe is one that Rick can be able to implement: making up outbound trains in the yard, running around the road switching industries and returning to the yard.  An interchange operates as one more "industry", where cars are picked-up and dropped off - albeit a bigger industry, and perhaps requiring the cars to be dropped-off to be organized and ordered.   I'll look at adding a connecting spur off the yard on the right side if Rick is interested.   Things are pretty tight there already.

-Ken

What is the thinking for locomotive storage?  The TT area is somewhat limited.

I know we all model in different ways( loop running, prototypical operation, etc.) and tend to view a layout from the perspective of how we operate our own trains.  I think diversity is one of the things that makes this hobby so great. That being said, this plan would be perfect for me. Double track main for continuous running and just enough sidings/industries to keep the switching interesting.

There is one thing I would do different with this plan. Since the upper loop is physically separate from the rest of the track and seems to run through a mountainous area I would make it an On30 logging road, and maybe put a mine in the top left corner.

Ultimately this is Rick's layout and he has to build a railroad that makes HIM happy. 

Ken,

Sorry, I missed the crossover from the yard lead to the ladder when looking at the small picture.    When I opened it, I saw that.   I originally thought the lead just went around the yard.   You are right visually and prototypically,   running the lead out across the bridge does not seem to appeal.    I suppose you could move the river if you wanted a longer lead.   I am not sure how long string it can hold.    It looks like you could pull any but the longest track.   

A thought, if you want more yard, make it stub-ended.    I would love to have a double ended yard like that, but with number 6 switches, the 2nd ladder eats up enough space to put 25-30 cars.   

As for the following comment on the engine terminal, it could be moved to the other end of the yard and jutted out into the room to add more tracks, or longer tracks and the "car storage tracks" could be moved to the other end of the yard.

Rather than put the interchange next to the yard, consider putting it on the other side of the room.    You could run a track or 2 off the main and go under the scenery and the upper level loop.    Perhaps instead of the coal mine scene behind the trestle, have the interchange come off near where the road goes up to the trestle and go under the trestle and under the upper level scenery.     Might room enough for 2 whole trains side by side.

Another really far out plan is to come off the main across from the elevator and go under the upper level in onto a shelf in the "acess" area.   A 4 inch shelf would hold one string of cars and an 8 inch wide shelf would hold two.    Additional shelves could be put in above and below and used to store cars not on the layout.    Then they could be "fiddled" on and off the staging tracks.   

Jim

I like it. Wish I had a space like that to work with.

SouthernMike:  I am also a fan of On30, and would strongly consider that guage for the upper level route if this was my layout.   Rick decided on O-gauge for the "High Line".   Either way, this route adds more interest and fun, and opportunity for great scenery and structures. 

The yard lead is 79.5 inches in length, not counting the switches or any use of the ladder.   That seems likely to be sufficient for pretty much all switching moves of cuts of cars.

-Ken

I came up with this modification the other day, as a possible change.   Looking at the town at the right, and extending around toward the mine and coal power plant.    The siding through town is extended around the curve toward the power plant.   It extends the siding for a longer train to pull through the this town, and allows Rick to switch the power plant from the siding, thus clearing the mainline, and also allows longer industry/accessory space.   What do you think?

Looks good Ken, like this change.  Rick and I have been friends for a long time, he's a class act.  As well, I believe, you are too. Birds of a feather so to speak.

Here is an option for a connection with another railroad, a branchline, or perhaps an interchange track as we have been discussing.  Its on the left hand side along the access to the breaker-box.   Being on the other side of the mountain adds a feeling of separation and "over there" supporting the idea this goes somewhere else.   Its all visible, so no hidden tracks to hassle with.   And it adds another bridge with the connection running beneath.  [Though it certainly could dive into a tunnel instead, creating a hidden track, with open access to the passageway.]  The diverging turnout is a #6, and the track is just over seven feet long, if used as an interchange track, its a "facing-point" turnout for right-hand running, but is OK if imagined as a branchline or connection.   The "high-line" mine spur was shortened, and some scenery area is lost, for a busier look more dense with track.  

On the right-hand side, I experimented with a connection to another railroad running beneath the bridge of the high-line.   Not sure I like this addition, left a bit rough/unfinished in the picture.   Its a bit hard to see unless you can zoom the picture or download it to view it.  This connection is made with an O-120/O-96 curved turnout on the outer main.

Comments?

Ken,

I'm a fan of operations.  I think that there should be a yard lead on the left side of the classification tracks to allow a switcher to move a string of cars from and to these tracks to the car storage tracks without having to do a lot of running around the string so that it pushes the string into car storage.

I think it would enhance operations if the upper track was connect to the lower tracks so that it could function as a branch line.   You would need to add an interchange track and adjust grades ans elevations.

Jan

WOW!

Peter

Jan, a yard lead on the left-hand side of the yard to allow switching service from both directions would have to cramp the space for the turntable and whiskers, and would need its own lift-out bridge across the access passage.   All of that to avoid a runaround move of a switcher?   If your idea is to have a switcher "posted" to the left side of the layout just for these moves, couldn't a switcher from the engine terminal already on the left-hand side accomplish this?

I am thinking that a switcher on the right side can assemble a cut of cars on the top yard track, and a switcher from the engine service area can push the cars into the car storage tracks.  Seems simple.

As mentioned, I discussed with Rick connecting the upper track to the lower level, but he decided against it.   The grade(s) would take up a lot of real estate.   Here is one version where I played with the idea of inclining the outer main line (at the bottom of the plan) to reach the level of the "High Line" (which was at 6" in this plan), to make a connection.

Some of you may find this interesting:  during the early conceptual exploration of possibilities, I sketched-out possible return-loop possibilities in Rick's space.   Rick decided he was not interested in these return-loops, and they certainly do fill the available space and cramp access and movement around the layout.   One can imagine alternate positions for these return loops, but this serves to get a feel of what can be done in the space.   Return loops of large width create access/reach problems - the loop on the lower right is accessable from multiple sides, as is the loop on the left.

Going back to the comments about the location of the turntable and engine area, I thought about swapping this with the car storage area earlier in the design.   The space available is actually larger on the left-hand side than the right, so the TT-engine yard is in the bigger area.   

Still, with a swapped locations, the TT-engine area could be made larger by jutting-out into the human space toward the current stream.   This would create an unreachable deep area in the lower-right corner.   Plus humans need a space to congregate without being cramped.

Anyway, these two whiskers can be lengthened for more loco storage.   Is that a good solution to this concern?

One more engine track can be squeezed-in this way (O-96-O72 curved).   I would want to test this idea of having a curved turnout just off the turntable.   Will the sideways forces of a loco on a curve push against the TT causing it to slip its alignment against the whisker track?  - depends on how strongly the TT holds its alignment.   It think this will probably be OK with slow speeds and the deep flanges of our O-gauge locos, but worth testing.

That this track plan is not overdone and over-cluttered is part of its appeal, IMHO.

Sometimes, less IS more.

If I had the space, I'd be honored to have this layout in my basement.  I get what Ken and Rick are trying to do and I think this layout accomplishes it.  Very well, actually.

I did a bit of scenery detailing around the two connecting route options (so far), and off-colored the track for visibility.   I like the connecting track on the left for the reasons mentioned above.   Trains heading out on the connecting route diverge on the turnout right-hand running.  An arriving train must travel against the normal direction around the layout to the cross-over adjacent to the mine, and there cross-over to the "inside" main for proper direction running.   If Rick wants to replace the single cross-over beneath the top trestle, with a double cross-over, a train could change mains there.  But that is a lot of additional expense for an imagined connecting route junction.   Perhaps better to add a single cross-over past the station for this movement.   I see that the car storage shelves are directly adjacent to this connecting route, and would be an easy place to add or remove cars and locos from the layout.

Still not sure about the one on the right:  the connection runs beneath a long bridge or trestle for the high-line, making for a complex scene here, which could be a cool look.

Here it is with a single cross-over for the connecting RR junction on the left, making a proper junction.   #6 turnouts would be restricted-speed appropriate for a junction (though for our O-gauge trains, they could handle this at full-speed). 

The connecting-road junction on the right is already close to a cross-over.   Rick might occasionally position a loco and a car on this connecting track, with headlight dimmed, as if holding for permission to enter the main, as a kind of lighted accessory.   Add a lighted signal to complete the impression.

This is a great thread! not only is Rick getting an awesome layout designed by Ken, he gets the critique of everyone here to make it all the better. 

Thanks Atanz!  I also agree that the discussion and critique from other forum experts is a great way to look for improvements and additions!  

Thanks to everyone here on the forum, for suggestions and really nice comments and praise!   --Ken

I thought the mine in the center of the layout should have two tracks.

I thought about this possible enhancement:   servicing the mine (two-track in the center of the layout) currently requires holding the main to switch the spurs.   This area is tight, and does not easily have room for a siding for a train when servicing the two mine spurs, though one could perhaps be worked in.   But this alternative may be interesting:   

I pulled the single cross-over further north (up) to make more room between the mine spur turnout and the crossover, so that a cut of cars plus an engine can fit in this space (about 50").   So that a train crew can break a train with a short cut of empties that can be pushed into a mine spur, and a cut of full loads pulled back to the main, and then coupled to the rest of the train still on the main.

Meanwhile, the two crossovers (the one above the mine, and the other at the far end of the town around the curve to the right) can allow a right-hand running train to use the "inside main" to work around the local servicing the mine and holding the "outside main".   To me, this would be a fun operation, coordinating the movements of trains on both mains during the run past movement in the opposing direction.   What do you think?

Just thinking about a related consideration:  the mine that provides coal and the power plant that uses the coal, are both located close together, perhaps troubling the imagination and the need to pull cars around the layout and to the yard: why not move loads and empties directly between the two, using the cross-overs?   Operation could be done that way.   Or perhaps the two industries could be separated - the power plant could be swapped with the coal ramp/unloader/loader in the town on the left, thus separating the source and destination.   I will ask Rick to comment as to whether he likes the industries where they are, or would like them to swap locations.   Any comments?

I realize that I have not yet responded to a comment about the double-ended yard.   Many of you probably realized that this allows trains from either direction on either main, to pull into the yard, and then leave the yard, with the outside main trains using the two curved cross-overs.

All I can say is it looks like running trains would be really fun on this layout.  When can I come over and PLAY!!!!

Ken, I like the idea of routing the passing trains to the inside main while the mine is being switched. It seems more realistic than having a passenger or fast freight held up by the local. While this layout would be fun for one operator, it also looks fun for three or more operators at a time. Two "through trains" having to work around the "local" makes for interesting operation, maybe with a fourth working the yard and a hostler working the turntable-engine house area. I also agree with moving the power station further away from the mine.  I think this is one of the best layout plans I have seen. If I had a similar space I would be very happy with it. Looking forward to seeing construction begin and hope you will keep us updated as it comes along.

Well, I'm the guy that asked Ken to design this layout, and I have to say, I am really happy with the result! The purpose of the layout, as Ken stated, was to have fun, run some trains with my friends, and maybe do some "operations". I've "operated" on some great model railroads, many that have graced the pages of Great Model Railroads, and Model Railroad Planning, etc. I've used a timetable and train orders to move my train safely along the mainlines of some beautifully created miniature worlds. That was fun, but not really what I was looking for in my model railroad. I didn't need something that was too prototypical, but wanted something that still allowed for some switching of cars, and breaking down and making up of trains in the yard. I also wanted a layout that would allow for some nice scenery, and fun creating scenes for the trains to run through. I wanted something rooted more in postwar hi-rail, with a nod to more current practice. Let's face it, there are many times, I think most of us just want to watch the trains run. I think Ken achieved exactly what I was looking for!

I really appreciate the great feedback from all of you. I think it's resulted in a few additions and alterations I will probably incorporate. I really like the idea of having interchange traffic, and Ken's changes around the mine are very nice. I'm curious about making the yard partially stub-ended. Making two arrival and departure tracks, and three stub-ended classification tracks would increase capacity and versatility. I don't think the yard lead needs to be any longer- it's very rare that you'll see a switcher pulling a full yard track out at once, while building a train for departure. I'm attaching a pic of the yard design that inspired me to include such a feature. It's from one of John Armstrong's books.

After construction of a few smaller layouts, one of which occupied the 12x20 area in the lower right of Ken's plan, I'm beginning the process of  preparing the the basement for this new empire. It'll be some time before I get to the point where I'll be building benchwork, laying track, and creating scenery. I will be sure to document the progress and share with you all. I'm also sure I'll need some advice along the way, as this will be my most ambitious, and likely my "lifetime" layout.

Thanks again for all the great feedback! 

Everyone, here is a possible revision with a fairly massive stub-end yard, swapping the location of the turntable and eliminating the car storage yard.  I added one more yard track, widening the yard a bit, and the aisle space is a bit narrower.   Comments?

Locomotive storage seems a bit less, though perhaps one more whisker track could be added, but again encroaching into the aisle space.

Or this version with one additional whisker track.   The aisle space is just over 4 feet at the narrowest point of the new whisker and loco storage track.

The reach to the "High Line" tracks beneath the yard is long, about 42".   And reach to the lower right-hand corner across the turntable is definitely long/difficult.

I had to look at this next revision, it had been bothering me that switching the elevator in the upper left was a bit difficult, needing to use the main line.  So I added a switching lead between the two turnouts of about 34", shifting and realigning the town tracks downward a few inches, so that a short cut can be switched without fouling the main.   The mainline cross-over beneath the trestle was shifted 6" or so to the right.   Minimum diameter got tighter, a bit better than O-72.  Better?

Ken:

The drawing is very well done.  My immediate thoughts are:  you have all that space, yet there is no way to reverse the trains.

Secondly, instead of circling consider placing a reversing loop at each "end" and run this operation point-to-point.  I don't necessarily mean a true point-to-point.  I'm suggesting that by placing reversing loops at two "ends" it creates the illusion that the trains are actually going somewhere, and gives you the option of reversing trains.  It would make for a more realistic looking operation.

Regardless, you obviously have put a lot of thought into your plan.    

Best wishes on your plan!

John

John,

Thanks for the feedback. I first want to say that I really admire your layout and your videos. I'd like to get a copy of your book too! I understand what you are saying regarding the reversing loops. Ken suggested that to me in a couple of the earlier versions of the plan. When I saw how much space a loop would eat up in the narrow-ish spaces in my basement, I decided against it. From an operational standpoint, I believe the plan allows for some great operating possibilities without the use of loops, by utilizing the yard as a stand in for two or more locations. A freight train can be assembled in the yard and sent out on the mainline headed to a distant location. After making a set number of passes around the main, that train would pull back into the yard, on the arrival track at it's "new" destination. The train could drop a cut of cars designated for the new location, and pick up a cut going it's direction, or could be broken down and put into smaller locals that could head in either direction from the yard to swap cars at local towns and industries. These locals would then return to the yard where their trains would be broken down and assembled into cuts that could be picked up by another through freight, or assembled into a train originating in the yard, bound for somewhere else. Add to this action a mine run, interchange runs, and passenger service, and you've got some fun on your hands! Sure it takes a little imagination, but I don't feel it's any more than what's required when watching a train go back and forth between two loops. The added advantage for me, of not having loops, is the narrower benchwork, and ability to just watch the trains run!

Rick

John, if you are interested, you can scroll up the thread to see a draft layout plan that illustrates what Rick means about the real-estate occupied by the reversing loops and access/reach.   I also want to thank you for your layout pictures and videos - I grew up in a Fargo ND serviced by both the GN and NP (and there was a Milwaukee Road connection to the NP when I was a kid).

This version adds a bit more length to the siding at the grain elevator (after I scrunched it a bit to create the switching lead leading to the mainline).   And there was room at the far right of the right-hand town, to add another spur leading to the right - there are now two facing point turnouts at this location, requiring a run-around move by the locomotive using the mainline in order to service - just another option for Rick to consider.  -Ken  

Great looking layout.  I am a life long looper and would love to sit with a full pot of coffee on a winters day with Christmas music playing and just watch the trains going round n round.

ENJOY