I like the idea of incorporating the yard into this layout but, and it's a big but, I'm not a prototype modeler. I use the prototype as a suggestion of how I might do things but a fun layout is far more important to me than prototype fidelity.
I'm shooting for prototype-ish. I also like the idea of incorporating the yard, so I think that's what I'll do even though it makes it a bit less prototypical. Plus, having the yard in the layout makes it more fun for me. If I do the yard I'll probably eliminate the helix and hidden staging and just use the yard for staging. I may even try to find a way to incorporate the Amtrak station and Railroad Museum...just because it looks cool and I can.
Hoss, I think your idea of a module, and mine, are much different in size. You look at that huge prototypical yard, and treat that as a potential module. I look at it as three or possibly four modules (two ladder modules, and 1 or two optionally insertable yard track modules. The differences are in flexibility WRT to the size and shape of the area where you might set it up, and particularly if you may move and have a completely differently sized/shaped area(s) for your layout. Another example is your loop "module." Most modular modelers would treat each industry along that loop as one or two modules. Depending on how much space you have, and what dimensions it has (long and skinny, squarish, etc.) and where/when you move, you will probably need a lot of flexibility in how the overall layout "lays out." You might want to keep corners as separate modules, and your scenes as in-line modules. This would allow you to have two back-back rows of industry modules, with "end cap" modules making the 180 degree turns at each end. Or you could set the scenic modules up around the walls of a room, with 90 turn modules in the corners. (and a lift-out module in front of the entry/exit.) Smaller modules allow you the flexibility to keep the essential elements of your layout, while fitting into varying spaces you may have at different times in the future. There are some modular standards that you may want to follow, or take elements of as you need them. Pay particular attention to how different modular standards connect trackage between modules, and which might work best for you. If you already know the dimensions of the layout space you will have forever, then there's not much benefit to a modular layout at all. Only you can make that decision.
I hear ya and follow what you're saying. And with some modifications I can definitely see good ways to make the blue boxed areas below into separate modules that allow for flexibility. The right side where the yard might go could be a bit more of a challenge, but I suppose even that could be modulized in some way. I haven't settled on a design yet, obviously, but I do know I'll likely be moving in the next 4-7 years so I want to build this in a way that in can be both easily dismantled/moved AND set up in a different location that may not have the same space allocation. So, as I start drawing this thing up I'll definitely be keeping that in mind. Thanks for the feedback! It's helpful!
Hoss, I like that. I'd pay attention to selecting a common distance from the front* of a module for the track(s) to cross the module boundary, and they should always cross at a right angle (it just makes things much simpler mechanically.) You may or may not want to choose a modular standard for the track-to-front setback distance, depending on whether you would want to participate in a modular club and shows, etc. I would look at slimming up the bottom two balloon modules, so they are more manageable, and so that they create a potential entry-way into the interior. (Duck-unders will soon not be nearly as fun, or even tolerable, as they are today.) I could also see those as a wye** and three 90 degree turn modules As I mentioned earlier, I see the yard broken up into probably four modules for portability & flexibility: one for each end ladder, and two for the straight yard tracks in the middle. This gives you the option of adapting to new spaces by adding (or subtracting straight yard track modules in the middle.) Given typically available track switches, the ladders will not be nearly as long as they are in the original views you show. Unless you're into hand-laying your own track and switches... *Consider some modules may transition the track(s) from front to back, allowing other modules to be reversed (industry in front of vs industry behind, the tracks, if that is important to you.) ** not necessarily a wye designed for reversing, especially since the other three quarter-turn modules accomplish a reversing loop anyway. More like a combined/overlaid straight and corner module.
Great feedback again, @BigJake. I had a little time this morning to hop on Rail Modeller Pro and draw up some benchwork. I increased the overall size to 12x24 and designed it in 3x4 modules. As you mentioned, I have it in mind that one of the corners will be the entry point into the layout. I'll get started on track planning soon and I follow what you're saying about ways to break the yard up and keeping track at right angles and such. I don't know the "standards" but I'm somewhat familiar with how the clubs do modules so I follow what you're saying. I may have a couple of places where track crosses a joint at an angle but I'll try to limit those. Here's what I have for now. Grid spacing is 12 inches.
I think that will be much more workable for you! It is also technically within the NTRAK modules standard (2x4' modules, with allowable 6" extensions front and back (i.e. 3' deep by 4' long) Note these will be heavy and awkward modules to move by yourself. They are typically joined with a Unitrack expandable track section between modules, but the track within the module can be anything you want. Modules use removable legs of conduit with levelling feet. The expandable track pieces could also support crossing between two of your modules at an angle. Making your modules compliant with NTRAK would also allow you to participate in modular railroading clubs, and NTRAK layouts at train shows, etc. Note that crossings between standard modules are required to be within the central 2' of the expanded 3' depth of your modules. If you want to go this route, I would urge you to research and abide by the NTRAK specification, and perhaps contact a local NTRAK club if available. If you develop your layout as a horseshoe, rather than a closed rectangle, the corner (end) modules will provide room for turn-around loops.
I was able to get some work done on Rail Modeler Pro over the weekend and below is what I have so far. @BigJake - I'm still fiddling with this but I've about decided the bulk of the yard will need to be one big module. I tried several times to build it in a way that made for easy module connecting and disconnecting and I was just never happy with the way it looked. As it is I could probably cut it right through the middle of the ladder and split it up that way, but it's a lot of connections at a slight angle. I like the angle though. It sort of mimics the prototype yard I'm modeling and also makes for better angles to help maximize the curve radius for arrival and departure tracks. Anyway... Overview Blue - Mainline Green - Yard or Yard Lead Red - Engine Maintenance/Storage This is till a work in progress, obviously, but I decided to incorporate the yard into the "loop". I just noticed I have the north yard lead connected to the wrong track so I need to correct that. And I see a few other things I might reconsider. Feedback is welcome, but this is a start. Also, all mainline turnouts are Peco "large" with a few curved turnouts as well, but I used Peco "small" for the yard ladders. I'm not sure if that's a good decision or not. Any experience y'all have tih Peco small turnouts is appreciated. The Yard It's pretty straightforward. There are eight ladder tracks arrival/departure/classification, one thru track, a couple more tracks "west" of the through track and a few engine/caboose/runaround/whatever tracks on the south end. The engine yard is at the north end (red).
Also, I liked @BigJake's suggestion to leave out one of the end modules to make a U- shape. I'm going to design a track plan for the circled section below just for future accommodations, but right now the plan is to leave that section out and let it be the entry point into the layout.
Not all track plans are well-suited to modularization. Sometimes it works, but sometimes it does not, requiring too many compromises. When tracks are not perpendicular to the module-module boundaries, then it gets more difficult, and sometimes, just not worth it. So you move forward with what does work, and is worth it!
Update to come a little later but what I've got drawn up so far certainly isn't going to meet NTRAK standards. I'm okay with that though. This isn't really intended to be part of a club layout. If I ever join a club I can just make new modules! I'm having a lot of fun designing this layout regardless. I've also decided to design a small Christmas layout to go under the tree. I'll probably build that one first so I can practice and develop my skills while starting to acquire materials, locos, and rolling stock for the big layout (which now looks a lot different from my original plan but I like what it's turning into.
Building your home layout to a modular standard is important if you plan to occasionally remove 1 or more modules to participate in a modular group. If you have no intention of doing that you can build your modules to your own specifications. As you said, if you want to join a group you can build a module to their specifications.
Alright friends, I've made a few changes in the past few days. Where I could use help... This is a pretty large N-scale layout but I feel like it's lacking in industry service. Stuff just doesn't fit in the way I thought it would. If you have suggestions on things I might be able to improve or shrink down or add or whatever then I'm all years. Except the yard. My ladders are 8 feet long which equates to trains that scale to about 8/10ths of a mile (using 1:10 scale instead of actual 1:33 scale for miles), so I don't really want to shorten it. Things I haven't done yet... The yard is modeled after the BNSF yard in Temple, TX. I had to take some liberties but the overall shape and orientation is basically the same. I plan to make this side of the layout look pretty industrial since that's what it looks like real world. I plan to add more "stuff" around the cement distribution plant area. I don't know what yet, but it's pretty bare now. Open to suggestions. Same comments where the road and spur run off layout. I plan to add more "stuff" around that. Open to suggestions. The community grain is going to be modeled after a rural central Texas town. I have three in mind. My wife and I plan to take a little road trip soon to take pics and get ideas. The back of the loop will be at a higher elevation (levels off at 3 inches). I intend for that to be mostly just scenic. I made a minor change to the yard by relocating the loco service area to the south end since that's how BNSF did it. I added an industry off the main line similar to one that exists just north of the yard in Temple. At the south end of the yard there's a lot going on. The engine service area, Amtrak station / Railroad Museum (red roof), and the Central Texas Model Railroaders club (green roof) all exist at this location and all have been added. I was there yesterday and there's a great view of the engine service area from the CTMR's rail-fanning platform so I positioned the one on my layout the same way. The cement distrution area is one I still want to work on. I put it on the opposite side of the tracks from the real life version just because it worked better... Next is the interchange spur. The UP line does cross the BNSF double main just south of the yard, but mostly I just put this here because I wanted to. I wanted to make the track cross the double BNSF main like it does in the prototype but I couldn't find a track manufacturer who makes a double cross like that so I put a road there instead. Last thing for today is this little rural community. I used the photo below from Heidenheimer, TX (which is 7-8 miles south of the yard in real life).
A little closer shot of the Railroad Museum / Amtrak Station and the CTMR building and engine service area.
So, you want more industrial operating opportunities? The first place that stands out to me is the outer tracks on the left side. Lots of track, nothing to see. I'm assuming the layout will be operated from the inside "pit", not walking around the outside. Of course, this starts to mess with the prototype, but let's face it, industries are not very densely populated along most railroads, unless you are in an industrial park/district. This is just one of those issues when trying to mimic real railroading on a reasonably sized layout. Truth is, there IS a long distance between most trackside industries in 1:1. So, if you loosen up your fealty to reality a little more, maybe you can include some interesting industries that are elsewhere on the 1:1. Place then along/behind the outer track at lower left, and inside the balloon at lower left. Also consider that local trains are generally much shorter that cross-country trains. A mix of both running on the tracks will add visual and operating variety and interest. Where I worked for the last 15+ years of my career, our offices, labs & assembly buildings were spread out amidst an industrial area, with several rail-served firms. The daily freight was short, and handled by a consist of 3 smallish, 4-axle GPs (UP RR). Our main manufacturing facility was even rail served for some goods and products, though we were not a high-rate manufacturer. We were mostly engineering, test and product development, with the manufacturing at sites elsewhere.
This is exactly what I am thinking. Compress the industries on the layout and add others that are not in the area you are modeling. A 30 car train is a respectable mainline size and feels long. An 8-10 car way freight also feels right. More smaller industries make for more operating fun.
@BigJake & @country joe I did a little more work this morning and followed your suggestion to add industry in the lower left. I also added more industry in the upper right and a few other things along the way. Updated overview below. The outside lines are elevated above the inside lines anywhere from 2 to 3 inches depending on location. My intent for the areas shaded in green is to basically mimic central Texas scenery. It'll be a mix of hills, pastures, trees, stock ponds, rural roads, country homes and things of that nature. I don't really want industry in those areas. The south end of the yard in Temple is mostly low income housing and businesses, so I want to model the lower right module near the engine yard similar to what's actually there... At the north end of the yard I added more industry. These are all actual businesses located near the north end of the yard and I've tried to situate them somewhat like real world... Reynolds Consumer Products Wilsonart Mars Petcare Buzz Unicem USA American Surface Materials Moving south along the line into Rogers I didn't make much change to the industry but I did outline the area I'd like to model as a small rural town and added in the Brazos River behind it. The Brazos isn't this close to Rogers in real life, but it does run all through this area somewhat parallel to the BNSF line. I couldn't decide what I wanted to put in the lower left balloon area so I hopped on Google Earth and started following the BNSF line south toward the coast. I came across several opportunities for single service industry but then I found a little jewel just outside Rosenberg that I thought provided some interesting track work that fits that corner well. I think I'm getting closer to what I'm envisioning. Penny for your thoughts.
Wow, that looks much better! Don't forget to plan for road/rail over/under-passes for busy areas. It's one thing to have roads blocked for passing trains, but switching moves back and forth over a grade crossing, without ever clearing it, will get the attention of local authorities quickly. But they'll be ignored for low-income residential areas. I'd consider swapping the mainline crossover and the switch into the Rosenburg industries, lengthening the lead so switching operations (particularly at LOLPF & MM) do not foul the main (as much?) I like to think about local switching operations running concurrently with an un-interrupted fast freight or passenger train orbiting the layout, to add "operating interest" (aka degree of difficulty) without completely fouling up both. The goal is NOT to have to hit the emergency stop button! But this really looks good!
BTW, I like the inclusion of the Martin Marietta site on your layout. I spent my entire career at Lockheed Martin or its predecessors, and remember LM spinning those (mostly aggregate and heavy building materials) businesses back out as Martin Marietta Materials, after the MM merger with Lockheed.
