Thinking of scrapping my layout

[Gary H]

Well its finally come to that time, I've totally lost my mojo where my layout is concerned and Ive a good mind to start again.

First, some background.

My current layout is / was based on continuous running but as always happens, this gets old after a few of years. The layout is about 10 years old.

The time era and railroads chosen is not the problem but the mistake I made was having to much emphasis on continuous running and not enough

on interesting, realistic operation so....

Over the last few years I have added some small industries but as it was predominantly built as a CR layout, these industries are squeezed in on a single spur with little spare space. This approach I've come to realise has been merely 'papering over the cracks', that is, I still don't have interesting and realistic operation and the its shortcomings still exist!

I don't mind a continuous run but this layout really does tie you down to it.

 

What I am leaning towards now is greater emphasis on industries and switching.

My space is 12 x 9.5 feet

 

Back in 2005, I thought I'd planned and planned again. So, where did I go wrong?

Rather than trying to describe my current layout, I thought it would be easier to make a short video overview so here goes-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9heOvRnncE&feature=youtu.be

 

[APOLLO]

Very nice scenery Gary, be a shame to rip it all up & start anew. 

 

How about a change of theme, keep main line & scenery generally as is and add loads of industry / spurs etc. Thinking of Pittsburgh steel area - a hilly area with lots of industry - perhaps a steel based short line. Another idea would be add lots of trees to make it a logging road, or perhaps an Appalachian coal mine railroad.

 

Keep the scenery, well, the best bits. - I would !!

 

Good luck.

 

Brit15

[Parthia27]

We all go through periods where our modelling becomes sour or unsatisfying. I'm moving in the opposite way sort of. I have a small HO switching layout which is the last of a series of similar endevours for which I can no longer drum up any enthusiasm. I'm too much into big BNSF power to be too interested going back either. U.K. Outline fails dramatically to float my boat and moving to n scale would be easy but unsatisfying. My priority is to have somewhere permanent to have my BNSF ES44s, SD70ACEs, Dash 9s on display, similar to a servicing point or holding yard whilst having the option for having an other way of getting my fix of continuous running. I have been trying to come up with some way of incorporating the servicing point / holding yard scheme with some shunting of gas cars and sand cRs using smaller power. That will cover all the bases for me. Think of what you want to do with your operating time, if you enjoy switching then go for it, if you incorporate a continuous run that may tick another box etc. Think carefully before destroying what you have and starting again, I'm not saying procreastinate, just make sure you are moving in a direction that gives you what you want. Cheers Chris

[Pacific231G]

Hi Gary

Do you have a track plan of the layout?  It doesn't look as though it would be impossible to rework it to a more operational version without ripping everything up but maybe making the main line into an entirely single track with shorter passing sidings and using the real estate released for more industries and even for traditional depots with a freight house and a team track.

I was always very impressed by Cliff Young's  first D&RGW layout which was based in the transition era and was RM's Railway of the Month in October 1966. It was a continuous run but was worked point to point from the main station Denver to a three road yard representing Salt Lake City. The short link between them that completed the continuous run was used to transfer cars to the CB&Q at Denver that I think became cars transferred from the UP at SLC. The whole thing  was worked by a card and waybill system plus a passenger timetable and though in a larger room than yours (15x12) I suspect you could apply similar principles.

I can't post the plan because it's copyright but I'll PM it.      

Edited December 14, 2015 by Pacific231G

[Gary H]

Firstly, thank you for the reply's chaps.

Apollo, cheers for the kind comment. Funnily enough, I dislike building scenery more than any other aspect of the hobby!

The amount of work involved with it would make it a bit "disappointing" to break it all down but I'm struggling to see any other way at the moment.

I think part of my problem is that I have to much of it.

I also think I had track for the sake of having track if you know what I mean?

 

Trying to incorporate another plan into some of what I already have is mind boggling.

 

Chris, sounds like we need to do a swap but seriously, I know where your coming from!

What I envisage, is having maybe a continuous run but with more emphasis on industry switching whereas the latter would be its primary function.

At the moment, its the other way around!

 

Pacific231G,

here is a track plan to what the layout is today.

Note, the dashed lines are hidden trackage.

 

 

 

[Spitfire2865]

I can definitely see the problem with the track plan if you want more than to watch trains go by.

Honestly, the boards may still be useful.

Maybe a double track mainline around the outside with maybe one side a small marshaling yard and on the other side, industries with a sort of switching puzzle to immerse you at times. If you want, the industries side can have the mainline going through a tunnel so you can focus on setting a scene rather than too much visual track.

[davknigh]

Hi Gary,

 

I can see what you mean about the continuous running and the lack of industry. But, nil desperandum, you've got plenty of room and track and your benchwork looks to be solid enough to be adapted to a fair amount of change. Iain Rice has a fair number of plans in the Model Railroader track planning annuals which might provide some inspiration. It would be a good idea to spend a bit of time with book and pencil (Templot?) before getting out the wrecking bar as it may be possible to adapt parts of your layout without having to rip it all out. I agree with Apollo, nice scenery, and love the NAR GMD1! How did that sneak in there?

 

Cheers,

 

David

[skipepsi]

I think if you remove a lot of stock then take another look you may be able to see more positives about your layout you could model some of the track as abandoned ?

[PaulRhB]

Have you considered building a second switching layout on top? Leave the existing layout alone just cantilever a new level off the walls about 18inches higher. Best of both worlds if you have the space. Some use simple shelf brackets into studs or you can add studs cut into the back of the existing layout. Just a thought

[Pacific231G]

Hi Gary

I can see your problem as you've effectively just got a double track continuous main line with a branch that leaves it and then rejoins it and just one yard. Fine if you just want to run trains through the scenery but not good for more intricate  operation. 

I've done a bit of doodling on your plan to try to get an idea of how much more operation you could get into this layout with minimal changes to scenery or track and my first very crude thought is this..

 

By removing some of the visible second track on the main and turning the very long hidden section into two parallel but unconnected lines this gives a continuous single track line that goes three times round the room with three separate stations/yards that all have a passing siding. You do have to switch between the two parallel tracks somewhere and though I've done this with a flat crossing there are probably more elegant solutions.

 

I tnink the key is for trains to go from somewhere to somewhere else and do something useful on the way.

The idea would be to work it as a point to point from yard/station A to C with the short track between C & A being the continous run link that you normally wouldn't use for operation.  A transfer freight couldthough  be made up in A  and taken directly to C to arrive as if from another RR and vice versa. This idea is pinched from  the direct link between Denver and SLC on Cliff Young's plan though they're a bit closer together and might need headshunts to avoid being in each other's yard limits. The placing of the three station isn't critical and though I've tried to use as much of the existing trackwork as possible this really is just a back of the envelope sketch.

 

I've only really marked in the main runing lines and suggested passing sidings in the three stations but there should be scope to add sidings both to the main stations and as industry sidings or minor stations out on the line. I haven't allowed for any hidden staging tracks but these would be useful.

Station A would be the largest yard (a bit like Denver on Cliff Young's D*RGW layout) and would have more trackage than I've shown including possibly a small marshalling yard There may be a way to run a line from C to a hidden but very accessible staging yard. B is a passing siding plus whatever industry, house and or team track you want to add and I think the three stations would enable freight operation of way freights with car cards.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Pacific231G

[Glorious NSE]

Sharing some similarities with David's post, how about converting one section of the double track main (the main line would now be the single track that bypasses that piece) to form part of a yard, that will enable you to model "main line" trains dropping blocks or originating/terminating, or to originate/terminate a local for the main line, and the now redundant double track grade further on could be removed to give a large industrial zone served from the yard.

[SwissRailPassion]

Such a good layout. It would be a shame to break it up. The pair of bridges on the reverse curve is particularly good.

Is too much of the running out of sight? Does there need to be an industrial focal point to balance the countryside opposite?

I would pinpoint exactly what frustrates you. What are the things missing etc., what is good? Then see if by making minor adjustments you can transform what you have. There's good suggestions above.

 

Could you post another video of trains running from a couple of static viewpoints?

 

Edit

I've just seen the other videos including the drivers eye. It takes 6 mins to get round. Excellent scenery. I would add more of a yard where the engines start and a develop a couple more of the small sidings.

Edited December 15, 2015 by SwissRailPassion

[Gary H]

 love the NAR GMD1! How did that sneak in there?

 

Cheers,

 

David

I often ask myself the same thing.  

They are such fine models and a joy to operate, I couldn't resist!

Mind you, there are a few like that here!

[Gary H]

Sharing some similarities with David's post, how about converting one section of the double track main (the main line would now be the single track that bypasses that piece) to form part of a yard, that will enable you to model "main line" trains dropping blocks or originating/terminating, or to originate/terminate a local for the main line, and the now redundant double track grade further on could be removed to give a large industrial zone served from the yard.

Well I have certainly got a lot more to think about now than what I had this time yesterday.

Thank you all for the guidance and help.

Martyn & David, I think you are onto something here. By taking out the 2 running lines from the summit and tunnel at right I would have so much space released.

It would also eliminate a rather steep grade, its never an operational burden but it looks unrealistic, especially when viewed from the plastic pellet silos 'on the level'.

It would also more than halve that roundy, roundy feel of the whole thing in general and leave just one circuit of track around the whole layout. I plan on leaving the

hidden trackage 'as is' as this will serve as useful passing loops.

Its a lot of work but to completely start over would be very much more and extremely expensive.

 

I would like to incorporate a lumber yard with paved access to both sides of centre beam flats and some room for trucks to load / unload etc.

That's just one idea I have out there at the moment and Il no doubt have a couple more as time goes on.

Best thing to do now I guess is to dust off some of books (Armstrong etal) and measure & plan.

[Gary H]

Such a good layout. It would be a shame to break it up. The pair of bridges on the reverse curve is particularly good.

Is too much of the running out of sight? Does there need to be an industrial focal point to balance the countryside opposite?

I would pinpoint exactly what frustrates you. What are the things missing etc., what is good? Then see if by making minor adjustments you can transform what you have. There's good suggestions above.

 

Could you post another video of trains running from a couple of static viewpoints?

Thank  you for the comment.

To answer your first question, no, not really.

2nd question, yes definitely. I would like a large industrial focal point. I think if I used the space that's at moment occupied by the 2 running lines Martyn has taken out of the plan above, I could achieve something more interesting and believable!

It was also be more interesting to operate hopefully.

Video? I think I may have a couple of ones on my HD, Il have a look and may upload one.

[SwissRailPassion]

From GNSE's plan there are difficulties with anti-clockwise running. Clockwise trains have to reverse back too. Am I reading this right?

 

How about a return loop? This can be very satisfying.

[Glorious NSE]

You'll need a backup move either in or out of the yard depending on direction yes, but there are prototype examples of that.

[Pete the Elaner]

I understand the way you feel. I have just dismantled my old layout because I have wanted to do something else for a long time (model a real location). What I was working on was just not giving me much satisfaction. There are lots of things I would like to model but would look silly all on the same layout. I had to accept that I cannot do them all & decided to concentrate on what I wanted most.

I thought hard about it the decided that the only way forward for me was to dismantle the old layout & start from fresh.

Each layout is a learning experience. There is always something 'I will do differently next time' & sometimes starting from scratch is the only way.

 

Your layout looks great & you have obviously put in a lot of effort, but if you want to do something else then you must move on.

It doesn't really matter about other people's opinions. It is there for your enjoyment so while others can make suggestions, the decision is ultimately yours.

Before touching your old layout, make some detailed plans of what you want. Enjoy the planning process. It can be fun just to visualise it. Think about it & be certain you want to start again before touching the old layout.

Make sure you take loads of photos/videos of your existing layout. You can't have too many. Once it is gone you will have something to remember it by & you will look back on it with fond memories but you will not have any regrets if you've thought it through.

If you do decide to build a new layout, then your enthusiasm will return once you get started. I barely touched the hobby for years but now I look forward to getting home from work so I can lay some more track.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Gary, never mind scrapping your pike come and scenic mine!  Yours is great,fella, 

 

Scenery is my nemesis,I seem to have no flair for it at all.

[dave1905]

With respect to operation I would suggest using the hidden lower level loop as staging and sequentially stage trains down there. Then arrange the connection over on the right side as "bow tie staging" where you have two groups of staging tracks facing a common connection.  At the start of the session all the trains face the connection and then at the end of the session all the trains face away from the connection.  Restaging is basically backing the trains over the connection so they face the connection again, but in your case you might be able to run them around the loop  to restage.

 

Anyway, use the double track loop as staging and the single track loop as the "main".  Trains come out of staging orbit the single track loop as required, set out, pick up at the yard, then go back to staging.  The locals run out of the yard and switch whatever industry you've added.

[Gary H]

I've been making a few changes on paper and this is what I've come up with.

Plan 1 is pretty much how it is now if when the main lines have been taken away at the bottom and developing an industrial zone as Martyn suggested.

 

Plan 2 is the sort of thing I envisage.

The spur on the right side has gone and now joins to the main to form another yard track / loop.

Shall I remove the cross over marked 'B' as it now appears redundant??

The new industrial area is a rough scribble at this stage, I have little idea of how to develop the track here without more research plus available space etc.

[Gary H]

Well, I now have some progress after a few hours of total destruction!!

It surprised me just how much hard work it was to 'destruct' a layout!!

Seeing as the forum is mostly to do with construction, I thought I'd share some pictures of the destruction phase!

 

This is where a hand made copper clad crossover resides, next to the steel rule.

It was made by a company (well known) but Ive never been particularly happy with it, its quality was poor if I'm honest so I took this opportunity to take it out and I will build it myself. The last straw was when a switch blade came adrift from its timber.

The bridge carrying the 2 upper tracks in foreground has also been removed.

 

More destructive forces at work........

Another bridge gone.

This was the spur that led to the plastic pellet transfer facility.

 

I toyed with the idea of replacing both of these bridges.

They are a kit bashed and a 'skewed' version using 'I' beam and Atlas sides IIRC.

I thought about using the new Walthers plate girder version coming out soon (like the one in the background)  but without big modifications to the existing road bed and, risers etc, the new ones would also have to be skewed. An equal sided bridge 'as is' out of the box would also require more straight track on both approach's so the whole idea was virtually impossible so Ive decided that both of these skewed jobbies will stay!

As the following pictures show though, I still have to make new abutments.

The lowering of the road bed underneath means that my abutments are now to short.

 

Oooops!!

 

Here is where the original double track truss bridge was.

I've decided on a home bodged / made highway over pass here, coming from the direction of the silo's (silo's not staying here ofcourse)

This will create a good view block and scene separation here. It will also give those lower double track "some where to go" creating the allusion

of going off scene.

 

 

Now you see it-

 

 

Now you don't, track bed gone!!!-

 

The last of the destruction phase is now more or less done.

Ive been cleaning copydex from road bed and doing general tidying up before I lay the board for the new industries that will occupy the area.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Gary H

[Joseph_Pestell]

Nice illustration of what a good system L-girder is. That sort of modification would be very difficult with any other baseboard type.

[Gary H]

Thanks, Andrew, enjoyed those a lot and found them useful.

The conductor riding on the cov-hop was an eye opener as was the 'ramp' down into that lumber yard!

The remote controlled GP38 was also cool to watch.

I am at the same opinion as yourself though, a minimalistic track plan is whats needed.

 

I'm going with the Walthers bakery complex as it uses 3 different car types, box cars, airslide cov-hops and tank cars aswel as vehicular traffic.

The below plan is the current way of thinking.

As regards the X-over 'A'  and 'B', I figured I may as well keep them as they enable loco's to be run round trains without interfering with the mainline but I'm open to any suggestions!  

[Pacific231G]

Thanks, Andrew, enjoyed those a lot and found them useful.

The conductor riding on the cov-hop was an eye opener as was the 'ramp' down into that lumber yard!

The remote controlled GP38 was also cool to watch.

I am at the same opinion as yourself though, a minimalistic track plan is whats needed.

 

I'm going with the Walthers bakery complex as it uses 3 different car types, box cars, airslide cov-hops and tank cars aswel as vehicular traffic.

The below plan is the current way of thinking.

As regards the X-over 'A'  and 'B', I figured I may as well keep them as they enable loco's to be run round trains without interfering with the mainline but I'm open to any suggestions!  

layout plan 3..jpg

Looks good Gary and I'd agree about keeping the crossovers. So, you'll now have a long mainline for the through trains to run on but a largish and satisfyingly sprawling yard and  industrial zone with plenty of scope for switching and both road locos and switchers at work. Looks like the best of both worlds and much better than scrapping and starting over. 

Edited December 30, 2015 by Pacific231G