192x32" Switching layout

I have a 2 rail switching layout with a similar plan.  Mine is 8 ft by 2 ft.  The back and forth may get old and this type of plan can be subject to some criticism from other layout planners.  I would share my plan with you except I use older Atlas turnouts that don't seem to show up in any of the track planning software.  If you take your lower plan (in yellow) and add 2 more turnouts in the upper right your have it.  These are great opportunities to add detail.  I wish I had the 12 foot length because I would have left out a turnout.  If you are doing this in 3 rail, command control (either legacy or the MTH product) is the way to go.  Slow speed and electronic couplers will make this fun to run.  Mine is straight DC, all manual turnouts with the power pack set to keep things at a scale 8 to 10 mph.  

I wrote an article on an O Gauge Timsaver that was published in the OGR Run No. 265 Aug/Sep 2013 Issue. It is 144x32, so basically identical in size to what you're talking about building. willbacker45 has also done one too. He gave me the inspiration to put mine together.

 

I used all Gargraves 072 with manual switches and remote uncouplers. In order for it to "work", you've got to get the siding lengths right. I hear what you're saying about having engines that need 072 minimum. What you may want to consider is a smaller switcher. We've run bigger stuff on mine, but it doesn't leave much room for switching.

 

My layout is as close as I could get to the original John Allen plan. The original includes a LH switch that was used to join two Timesavers together. I ommitted that layout.

 

I have run mine both with DCS RC and TMCC. NECRAILS is right, command control is the way to go. Let me know if you have questions, I'll do what I can to help.

 

Gilly

 

 

 

 

Do you have a pic you could post?  I would like to see what you have done. 

Not really sure what you are saying regarding the two extra turnouts either.

Lastly, are you saying I can eliminate a turnout because of the 12 foot length somehow or somewhere?

I will look that issue up.  Not sure I can make much use of DCS as I have all conventional stuff.  With he exception of 2 Lionel TMCC Locos.  I do have the TMCC setup but find the throttle erratic.  I had about 12 feet of track on the carpet and frequently the knob was turned and I could not stop it in time.  It seemed like I would need to turn the wheel a bit and when the motion started she was rolling at a good clip.

I will try to take a pic of my work in progress and post.

TL

 

I always enjoy seeing 3 railers taking on switching fright cars.  It can be a very enjoyable aspect of the hobby that makes us tackle 1:1 scale problems.

 

I have a few questions and suggestions based on the posts on this thread.

 

Every time I plot a layout on my SCARM track software it just does not seem to fill the space adequately.  This may be because I want to use larger radius turnouts. #11 as suggested by many others on the various forums.  I have some larger diesels and they require 072 minimum.

 

Um, #11 switches?  Either that is a typo or you are getting some odd advice.

 

Number 4, 5 and 6 switches allow for the operation of all three rail trains. They also allow for closer track spacing than O-72s, closer than even smaller curve replacement switches.  Numbered switches are available in 3 rail O from Atlas, MTH ScaleTrax and Ross.  Given that I see a 3 way wye I assume that you are planning on using Ross switches.  That is good since Ross makes the greatest variety of switches in O and that will allow you the greatest design flexibility.

 

What conventional or TMCC diesel do you have that requires O-72?

 

Not sure I can make much use of DCS as I have all conventional stuff.  With he exception of 2 Lionel TMCC Locos.  I do have the TMCC setup but find the throttle erratic.  I had about 12 feet of track on the carpet and frequently the knob was turned and I could not stop it in time.  It seemed like I would need to turn the wheel a bit and when the motion started she was rolling at a good clip.

 

I have to second those who recommend command control for a switching layout.  The speed control available with DCS or Lionel TMCC or Legacy with Odyssey II make switching much more realistic and reliable and the ability to uncouple the locomotive anywhere is a big advantage too.

 

In terms of design I would start with the industries you want to have on the layout, select your car and locomotive fleet to serve them and then design the layout to fit your industries operational needs.  Or you might begin with the types of cars and locomotives you have and then consider what industries they could serve. 

 

Steve Brenneisen of Ross switches has called model railroads "model transportation systems" and observed that the layouts that have a purpose give the most enjoyment.

 

I think Steve is correct.  What industries do you want?  A grain elevator, an oil dealer, a factory, a scrap yard?  Find the structures that depict the industries you want that will fit the layout.  Decide how many cars a day or a week that they will need and what siding length that will require.  Then design your mainline, and perhaps a siding or run around track and figure out how to get from there to your industrial sidings.  

 

I highly recommend reading John Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operation.  It has good information  on track configurations used in tight industrial settings. Also, take a look at OGR run 247 and read the feature article on Pat and Jean Marinari's layout.  Although it is a larger layout with continuous running possibilities it has several towns with industries that require challenging switching.  Since the article was published Pat has even added an isolated shelf switching area.

Here's a few pictures of my TimeSaver layout.....

 

 

Hi Ted,

 

Thanks for responding.  I think it is an SD90 or DD40 that requires the 072.  I know it is goofy but I have it and will only have this layout so I really want to run it.

 

As far as industries I am really not particular on that.  It will likely be fictionalized to fit what ever I see as good to build at the time.  Scrap yard hauling metal to a smelter, reefer picking up cargo or something similar.

 

I am planning on using all Ross products because I have a fair amount of their track forming my loop layout.  The switch thing does have me confused a great deal.  The problem I have is equating the switch numbers (#4 for example), wye's and 3 ways to radius.  For example, given a #4 turnout, will an 072 minimum radius locomotive pass through it?  Given an 11 degree wye, will an 072 make it through?  I was just told to stick with #11's by several people.  So if they are wrong feel free to enlighten me.

 

To tell you the truth though I am getting a bit frustrated.  There is not a heck of a lot of information out there on O switching type of layouts that I have found in terms of small area track plans.  Not knowing the track lingo or best way to design this layout makes me wonder if I will put a lot of work into it only to find out it is bad for switching.  Put myself in a box so to speak.  Bad as in ooops I missed something and Spur#2 becomes useless.

 

It is also very hard for me to visualize what will be a good layout.  Sure the curves look nice but I want to avoid S curves.  To me it looks like my designs above do not really utilize the 144x30 space well.  More curves would fill it, but does it matter if it operates well and has good scenery?  If I am not taking the space now, should I plan for future expansion?

 

I am going to go all manual throws so I do not think wiring should be that hard on the switches but some have even gone so far as to tell me to stay away from switches as the wiring is a pain even if manual throws are used.  In 3 rail I thought it was as simple as providing common and poser to all three sides of the switch but I am told it is not that simple.

 

To be fair, there are not many 3 railers or even O scale people around my town so I could be getting some bad advice.  I think I might have had analysis lead to paralysis.  Coupled with the frustration it is kind of tough.  That is why I joined the forum.  So I appreciate your response and help.

 

It is proving to be a lot harder to plan than I ever thought.

Very nice Gilly.  Let me study this for a bit. Is that layout all 072 minimum radius?

Laidoffsick is probably out doing real switching ops, but I assume once he sees this thread he'll chime in.

Here's his 20' x 3' hi-rail layout, very cool:
https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/t...ail-switching-layout

Here's a video, it's older but does a good job of showing what's going on:



In addition to the Armstrong book referenced above (which is really great!), I'd encourage you to read Lance Mindheim's thoughts on how to maximize the operational interest (in O gauge I think we can just call it "fun") of a small switching layout. I've picked up his books on the subject as well and have found them to be really great. http://www.lancemindheim.com/

I'm currently in the process of designing and will soon be building a 7.5' x 16' around-the-room layout that is basically a U-shaped point-to-point with a continuous run loop around the perimeter.

I got interested in switching layouts thanks to a random web stumble across the Inglenook Sidings and Timesaver switching puzzles. I've currently got a tubular track Inglenook with O-72 switches setup on the floor and my kids and I enjoy it.

We're using conventional control and have a remote uncoupling section in each spur. So long as your couplers behave properly, and your locomotive will run at a low speed (it's a Williams by Bachmann NW-2 that I rewired in series for better low speed performance), you can have a lot of fun with very little complexity.

I'd still eventually want actual industries to spot cars at, however, as opposed to just doing switching puzzles.

Good luck!
Steve

One other suggestion: if you have RR-Track software, you can simulate operations on your layout before you ever set down a piece of track. While it's not perfect, it is quite helpful for dialing in the length of sidings and whatnot, to ensure sufficient capacity that you won't get "stuck".

 

RR-Track has good support for the Ross catalog as well.

 

Steve

Yes it is. I have it on RRTrack if anyone would like a copy.

 

You're going to need every inch of siding you can get. There are two sizes on TimeSaver. One is Engine plus two cars, the other size is engine plus three cars. You'll probably be able to get the SD90 to fit, I really dunno about that DD40!

 

Gilly

I am planning on using all Ross products because I have a fair amount of their track forming my loop layout.  The switch thing does have me confused a great deal.  The problem I have is equating the switch numbers (#4 for example), wye's and 3 ways to radius.  For example, given a #4 turnout, will an 072 minimum radius locomotive pass through it?  Given an 11 degree wye, will an 072 make it through?  I was just told to stick with #11's by several people. 

 

TL

 

All the numbered switches available in three rail O gauge including the entire Ross Premier line will handle locomotives requiring O-72.

 

An O-72 switch has a diverging route (the curved part) that is equal to a piece of O-72 curved track.

 

A numbered switch only has a curve on the diverging route between the points (the moving rails) and the frog (the angled crossing in the center of the switch which is plastic on Ross switches).  Beyond the frog the diverging rails are straight.  If the diverging route moves away from the through route 1 inch over 4 inches of travel you have a #4 switch.  If the ratio is 1 inch for 6 inches of travel you have a #6 and so on.  The curve between the points and the frog on a #4 or larger numbered switch is a broader curve than O-72.

 

Here is Ross's statement on that question.

 

Can my 072 engines run through a Regular switch?

 

Yes, with ease. The Regular (#100 and #101) is much more gradual than an 072. If you had to put a number on the curve in the regular it would be over 100" diameter.

 

 

The Ross 11 degree wye has a departure of only 5.5 degrees from the centerline.  That makes it very gentle indeed.  It is much broader than an O-72 curve.

 

Ross makes a # 10 switch.  It is intended for sidings or crossovers on high speed main lines and would not be useful on a compact switching layout.  No one makes a #11 O gauge switch.

 

I think it is an SD90 or DD40 that requires the 072.  I know it is goofy but I have it and will only have this layout so I really want to run it.

 

The MTH SD90MAC only needs O-42.  Their DD40, with its 4 axle trucks and greater length calls for O-72.  When I said..

 

It can be a very enjoyable aspect of the hobby that makes us tackle 1:1 scale problems.

 

...you have one if you will be switching with a DD40.  With numbered switches you will be OK radius wise.  The MTH version has good speed control and remote couplers.  But the length will limit its usefulness.  It will cut down on the number of cars you can handle on many of your moves.

 

A real railroad crew would have flipped out if anyone gave them a DD40 as a road switcher.

 

I am going to go all manual throws so I do not think wiring should be that hard on the switches but some have even gone so far as to tell me to stay away from switches as the wiring is a pain even if manual throws are used.  In 3 rail I thought it was as simple as providing common and poser to all three sides of the switch but I am told it is not that simple.

 

If someone told me to stay away from switches on a layout I would simply stay away from them! 

 

Ross manual switches do not come with the center rails or the inside legs of the switches pre-wired together.  You can easily wire them together or power them through the pins where they connect to other sections of track.  There is nothing complicated about the wiring for a permanent layout. For the layout (actually two side by side layouts) you are looking at needing 15-20 power drops if you do not wire the switches for power.

 

The only way it might seem complicated is if you are coming from a carpet central world with only two wires to a lock-on. 

 

If I am not taking the space now, should I plan for future expansion?

 

Absolutely!  If you can think of your shelf switching layout as a module for a future larger layout you can add to your future enjoyment with continuous running, a yard for your local switch job to originate and terminate and more industries and scenery.

 

To be fair, there are not many 3 railers or even O scale people around my town so I could be getting some bad advice.  I think I might have had analysis lead to paralysis.  Coupled with the frustration it is kind of tough.  That is why I joined the forum.  So I appreciate your response and help.

 

You are in the right place here.  Welcome aboard!

 

To add variety to your switching operations include a ferry terminal.  I've seen switching layouts where cars arrive and depart on the ferry.   Many harbor railroads had no outlet for goods other than trucks or the ferry/ship.  They would serve a few industries, warehouses, and docks.

 

Here's an extreme example:  the Bronx Terminal.

 

You can fine information on the web.  Here's the New York Dock Company Railroad.

 

 

 The spur running out the top goes to a warehouse a few blocks away.

 

Jan

 

 

Gilly,
Would you be willing to export the track plan to a jpg and include a parts list?  I do not have RR Track.  I use Scarm.

Steve,

Thanks for the reply.  I saw the info you posted on laidoffsick and Mindheims stuff.  I asked laid off for his track plan.  Seems like a very nice well thought out layout like Gilly's.

 

As a matter of fact, I am sitting on a train right now..... trying to leave Barstow but some
drunk guy wanted to ride our train so we are waiting for the police to come get him. I will chime in on this one later.

Jan,
I did some reading on this.  Amazing stuff... http://www.bronx-terminal.com/?p=5

I think Ross does make an 11.  They call it Regular 11 degree.  Part number 100 and 101.  Or is 11 degree different from #11?  See I told you I was confused.

 

Well, even Ross says their Regular switch is a little confusing.

 

Here is where we confuse you. The regular switch is made like a premiere switch (all three legs are straight with the curve in the middle) but the regular remains in the Superline because it is about 1.5” shorter than a scale #5 switch would be. We designed it to be a direct fit to replace the old pre 1996 GarGraves switch.

 

The number comes from the ratio of divergence over run.  A higher numbered switch, say a No. 8, has a smaller frog angle than a lower numbered switch like a No. 4 or a No. 6.

 

The Ross Regular is has an 11 degree frog angle.  It is very close to a No. 5 which would have a 11.25 degree frog angle.  Size and curve wise the Ross Regular is between a Ross No.4 and a Ross No. 6. 

 

The Ross No. 4 has a 14 degree frog angle and the Ross No.6 has a 9.5 degree frog angle.  The frog angle matters if you need to mate up with a crossing or if you need to know the amount of curvature needed to come back to parallel.  Fortunately, Ross makes that easy with their 11 degree crossing to mate with the Regular and their TR series of track to mate up with their No. 4 and Regular switches.

 

 

 

Thanks for that explanation Ted.  I am saving this in the layout file.  As 072 locos will pass through 11 4 or #6 turnouts perhaps some adjusting is in order.  Although, I am liking the layouts I see in this thread. 

Just call them a No.4, a Regular and a No.6 to limit the confusion.  For what you want to do No. 4s or Regulars should be fine.  A No. 6 or larger will eat up too much length.

My pleasure. You can see a hand-drawn plan on his Photobucket for the layout:

http://s19.photobucket.com/use...ut?sort=2&page=1

One other tip I picked up from Lance Mindheim, perhaps the most insightful of them all:

Don't focus on the number of industries alone, but rather the number of unique car spots across all your industries.

A given industry - a warehouse for example - would in many cases have multiple loading docks / doors and hence multiple car spots.

There's plenty more but that's good food for thought. He goes further into trying to really emulate realistic operations, i.e. allowing time for simulated brake checks and whatnot, that is maybe going too far for some, but it gives a good sense of what real-world operations are like. To each their own but I felt his books were very helpful.

Another great switching layout, this time in N scale. A lot is packed into a small area, but the ideas of having to deal with interchanges and mainline traffic in the midst of switching operations is prototypical and can result in more operational interest.



Sorry for geeking out, I'm a total newbie but switching operations have completely captured my interest!

Steve

You might want to consider building it so it can hook up to the LCCA standards on each end of the "yard".

We use Ross 11-degree turnouts on the club layout and they've been reliable for years with all types of hi-rail and scale-wheeled equipment. Even large hi-rail steam and my scale-wheeled Hudson go through them nicely.

 

As to switching. This is one I dug up from past Free-Mo module designing. It happens to be 12' x 2'8" and uses the Ross 11-degree regular turnouts. No particular prototype area, just fiddling around.

 

I find this thread very interesting.  I don't think I'd ever build a switching layout such as this, but I would probably incorporate a lot of this into a larger point-to-point (with hidden reverse loops at either end.  I think having a "hotshot" running on it's own around the mainline would add an extra level of intrigue to these switching operations... have to get it done and get the main line cleared before it gets here and catch **** from the dispatcher!

I'll be happy to. At work it will be later this evening.

 

Two other things no one else has mentioned:

 

1. Regardless of whose track you use, Gargraves end bumpers. They are tough as nails and are very "helpful" when you need to give those claw couplers a little extra push to get them latched. The Atlas bumpers are pretty, but they won't stop squat.
2. Put your longest engine at right up against the bumper(s) and mark the center rail where the pickup roller farthest from the bumper is located. Take a Dremel tool and cut the center rail before that point. This forms a dead section that will help stop your engine when you get a run-away.

 

 

 

Gilly

Here's my 2 bits.  First, have you read this about Timesavers?  I believe it's a valid point, especially for someone new/renewed to model railroading.  The Timesaver is a puzzle game, not a real switching layout.  Like stated above, I would pick the industries you want to model/service and then work on a track plan once you know the size requirements for the industries.  I have SCARM, and am playing with the space you listed and I'll post what I come up with.  As for switching with the DD40, it is a bit large for thus, but I'd do it anyway.  So I'd make sure each siding is at least as long as the locomotive plus your longest car.  I don't know how long that is, so what I may come up with may be too small.

 

EDIT:  I hate double posting since no one has posted after me as I write this.  Anywho, I couldn't get what I wanted with Ross, so I went with Atlas, but it'll give you an idea.  But I'm not sure if a DD40 will  be able to move about this with any cars in tow or not.

 

That's a good point. I think the author of that article is a little over-the-top with his criticisms (is anyone really so clueless as to go to the effort and nontrivial cost (all those switches!!) of building a Timesaver while somehow having no idea what it is?), but the point stands that it's a track plan designed around a very specific set of rolling stock which themselves are intended to move in very specific ways around the track. It's meant as a game, not a simulation of reality.

 

That said and for what it's worth, there are prototypical examples of the Inglenook track plan. In the layout size (144" x 30") and scale being discussed here, an Inglenook will certainly fit (even if built from tubular track) and allow plenty of space for scenery, including a few industries / team tracks that would allow for multiple car spots.

 

So you could make the case (as its proponents do) that an Inglenook, unlike a Timesaver, is a reasonable subject for an attractive and reasonably prototypical small layout. You can run it as the puzzle or run it as an extremely compact vignette of local freight operations. That dual purpose, along with its potential for scenery, can make it an appealing option for a limited-space layout.

 

Steve

 

On my switching layout, most of the switches are Ross Regular (11 degree, basically a #5 as Ted stated). Your DD40 will have NO issue running through them. I do have a couple 072, 096, and the smallest is 064 going into the packing house on the right side of the layout. I know you want to run your DD40 on your layout, but that monster is not a switch engine, in real life, or the model RR world. With 12' to work with and that engine being so long, that engine plus 1 or 2 cars will eat up over half the length of your layout for switching purposes. 

 

You'll be surprised how fast your space gets eaten up while laying down track, especially the switches. I had 20' to work with and it was still tough to get the space I needed. My stub tracks will hold 3-4 40' cars plus 1 4 axle engine.

 

I would really try to figure out what buildings/industries you are going to use. There is a limited selection in O scale, so you may have to kitbash or scratch build. Get the buildings done far enough to at least have the footprint, or make foam/cardboard templates and fit your track to the industries. Don't lay your track and try to fit the buildings to the track....that's just about impossible. Doing that will also help you maximize your space.

 

My track plan is very similar to this one. I can spot cars in both directions. I added a mainline with crossovers on each end to the siding (or industry lead as I call it). I can use the industry lead to run around cars, which you have to have if you spot cars in both directions. 

 

I haven't worked on mine in a long time because my free time goes to the big layout at my parents house. It is fully operational though, and I can spend hours switching the entire layout by pulling the empties and spotting the loads.

 

I use TMCC on it currently but may upgrade that to DCS/Legacy. I run Atlas and Lionel diesels on it and they will crawl across the entire layout without stalling. Spend some time with your Ross switches and make sure the power feeds all sides if you don't get the "Ross Ready" switches. Really though, start looking around for building and figure out what your going to use, and that will help when it comes time to putting down some track.

Another thing that occurred to me is that the "main" line doesn't have to parallel an edge.  This turned out too symmetric for my tastes, but it gives some ideas.

 

 

Definitely a good point. As much as I like the Timesaver as a switching game, I've never seen a prototype matching it. I've seen a few Inglenook variants "out in the wild", mostly two-track spurs. There's one north of the club on Gaffey and Westmont in San Pedro. They switch out two pairs of loaded tank cars for two empties. Fortunately for the switch crew each spur can carry four cars.

One other super helpful link, if you're trying to decide how much you'd really like a Timesaver or Inglenook Sidings -style layout:

 

http://www.fosweb.dk/tspil.htm

 

The site is in Danish and English and provides (at the lower part of the page) the free download TrainPuzzle, which includes a bunch of switching puzzles including Timesaver and Inglenook Sidings.

It's really very well done, but only works for Windows machines.

 

In any event, if you've got a compatible machine, it's a great way to give these switching puzzles a whirl. Could be the perfect virtual "second layout" to entertain while you work on building the "real" layout.

Steve

Excellent video Steve.  I learned a lot from it.

Matt,

Here is what always messes me up.  If your pic of the layout below is using 11 degree regulars it lines up parallel.  If I try it with 11 or #4's look what happens to mine.  The red circles indicate where the angles go wrong on my plan.  I cannot get a nice parallel runaround like yours no matter what I do.

 

What is your clearance between the runaround tracks?

Looks more like an issue with how SCARM wants to layout the track than anything else?

 

The screenshot you're comparing against appears to have been created with RR-Track.

 

Steve

I appreciate everyone's advice about how a Timesaver and Inglnook layouts are games or a wrong direction.  I think it would be enjoyable.  My problem has been coming up with anything better that will fit into my 144" x 30" space.  I am open to suggestions.

 

Secondly, I really do not plan on switching with the DD40.  I would likely just run it up and down the tracks.  Better than having it collect dust.  So I am not really caring about it being "goofy" in terms of switching.  I most likely will just exercise it as opposed to switch with it.

Boy Steve, If I find out it is a Scarm issue that I have been pulling my hair out over I will ....well I don't know what I will do.  It is not just a little off if that is the case it is way off!  I hope you are wrong but I must admit, I thought about that.