Re-starting in American HO

[Allegheny1600]

Bentonite is another mineral that is transported in these lovely little shorty hoppers.

 I know that because that’s one of the loads “my” road, the C&NW hauled out in the prairies. Later, they cut the rooves (roofs?) off some of these hoppers and used them in ballast traffic.

What is bentonite? It’s the mineral used to make cat litter and is very absorbent! Hence the need for weather protection.

[dave1905]

Bentonite is a very fine light colored clay.  It is used as a binder or filler in a lot of things.  For example, it is a binder used in taconite pellets.  It is mixed with iron ore, rolled into pellets and baked.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

If I’ve understood it correctly, apparently one of the principal uses of bentonite is as ‘drilling mud’, which would easily justify shipping industrial quantities of the mineral.  All useful information, thank you.
 

Returning to the subject of a possible track plan, I know I can easily lose hours aimlessly pushing track pieces round a Computer screen on Anyrail, so I’ve been trying to take a different approach to thinking about a switching layout.

 

There were two basic pieces of information I needed before I began.  The first was the minimum length I wanted for a switching tail, which I set at 26” using my longer locomotive and two 60’ freight cars:

 

 

I also needed to settle on a maximum ‘Design Train Length’. A locomotive, four fifty foot boxcars, and a caboose look OK to me in HO, and measure in at 44”:

 

 

I spent time reading thought-provoking blog pieces on layout design by @James Hilton and Lance Mindheim.  I also watched some prototype YouTube videos of switching operations by Scott Taipale, and modelling videos by John Farrington (Channel name: John2618).  Having added ‘Workbench Space’ to my list of requirements, I then doodled some things to think about - starting with how best to incorporate a workbench into the space available:

 

 

Joining these up gave me a pencil sketch of a schematic that would a) fit, and b) probably work:

 

 

You’ll note I’d intentionally angled my tracks, as discussed earlier in the thread, with the southern leg a staging track at the back of the workbench (sited by the window to get the best light).  Although I drew three tracks leaving the scene, what they represented wasn’t something I thought much about, which was my mistake.

 

I did play around with this (and other ideas) in Anyrail, but I just wasn’t quite convinced by any of them.  When I reached the point of frustration I dipped back into Rob Chant’s online ‘Journal of Model Railroad Design’ and spotted that a couple of the designs I liked most (and were of similar size to my space) both use a planning trick whereby track is only on the front half of a baseboard.

 

So I had another go:

 

 

Again, it would fit and could work, but still left me with a nagging feeling that I’d lose interest before I got very far with this: other than finding a space for my buildings that used the switches I have, I couldn’t decide what the purpose of this layout was ?

 

A breakthrough came when I was watching a video about how John2618 designed his Railserve switching layout by imagining how his proposed buildings and track might extend beyond the confines of the layout.  It gave me an idea for a through route connecting with a branch line.  I quickly drew a very simple sketch in pen showing just that, which I later added to with some ideas in pencil to flesh it out:

 

 

Schematically it’s not radically different to the earlier doodles, but conceptually I felt it was entirely different, as it started with what happens elsewhere to explain why this junction exists.  

 

The long stub ended spur at the top of the layout is not a kickback (except when operating the model), but is a spur off the through main line.  The sweeping curves of the main line and branch really work for me, and the rest slotted into place very quickly, using the ideas I’d already been playing around with.

 

I felt this was worth trying out in Anyrail - the blue supporting tables are shown under the layout.

 

 

I moved a couple of switches, but have a design with a 36” minimum radius worth rimunating on.  The Branch Line doubles as Staging, with the operating assumption being that the Local heads to the Junction before switching the Warehouse and Loading Dock.  Through trains (imaginary) can leave a couple of cars for the Local to switch in the run-round / Interchange siding between the switches for the Transload Spur and the Grain Elevator.

 

December is one of my busiest times of year, so now is a good time for me to put down my pencil, and my mouse, and see what I think about this design in a fortnight or so.  Have a good week everyone, Keith.

 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke

[D9020 Nimbus]

Just as a guide, in one of his articles in Model Railroad Planning, Iain Rice suggested that the layout (terminus/fiddle yard type) needed to be about three times the length of the longest train.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

18 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Just as a guide, in one of his articles in Model Railroad Planning, Iain Rice suggested that the layout (terminus/fiddle yard type) needed to be about three times the length of the longest train.

 

Good point - thanks for the reminder: looks like I'm OK as long as I keep trains to my stated max. length.  It's not a long run, which is why I need to think if I'd really be happy committing to this.  Compared to my other 'fallen projects' the key difference with US HO is that I already have quite a bit of stuff to start with, and this includes building kits, not just some trains I like.  But I still want something I won't lose interest in before I start cutting wood.

 

 

One of the advantages of using Anyrail (or equivalent) to verify the planning assumptions in the sketch - this only took a couple of minutes to check.  Thanks, Keith.

[Oldddudders]

On 05/12/2022 at 17:07, D9020 Nimbus said:

I'd have thought the short covered hoppers would likely be used for something like cement—anything heavy and dense that needs to be kept dry.

I have a number of these somewhere. Back in the '80s, a firm called Front Range made a decent model. I found they did a single car and a six-pack, all in Rio Grande livery, so I bought all seven. Some years later I got a handle on just how many of these Rio Grande owned. You guessed it - seven!

[James Hilton]

Glad the blog posts prove inspiring, I think the thing to consider in small spaces is the balance between realism and frustration. If you complicate a track plan due to perceived 'boredom' then you can fill a baseboard with track quite quickly. On the other hand, my experience of lot of North American prototypes is a lack of track either through simplicity or distance, i.e. things are spread out. In your space I'd be looking to reduce the amount of 'clutter' and looking for something more focused, but the main thing is enjoy it! I'd say buy a copy of my book (!!!) for more conversation on this sort of thing but I think it's getting quite difficult to get hold of (which is great news for me, but less so for everyone else!).

[woodenhead]

Rapido do some short barrel ore wagons you could repurpose, aint cheap though, but you do get 6

https://railsofsheffield.com/products/rapido-trains-inc-143004-ho-short-barrel-ore-hopper-cn-mineral-brown-6-pack-2

 

My bad, the shorties ended up as ballast hoppers, it was the longer version, still tiny that ended up doing cement and other powdered goods in the 1970s

https://railsofsheffield.com/products/rapido-trains-inc-143008a-ho-long-barrel-ore-hopper-onr-chevron-scheme-single-car

Edited December 8, 2022 by woodenhead
additional comments as I'd recommended the wrong version

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Well, it hasn’t taken me anything like a fortnight to realise this plan needs work - simply plotting a few switching moves in my head last night highlighted three issues:

 

First, as drawn the spur serving the Creamery and Fuel Dealer becomes impossible to switch - not only is the spur much longer than the tail track feeding it, but further zig-zagging would be needed to sort the cars coming in and out, as there’s nowhere convenient to spot or swap cars nearby.  I really should know better than to make such a basic error in a plan designed for operation.

 

Second, the layout could too easily snarl up - doubling up the run-round as the Branch Interchange leaves me without any spare track needed to service the relatively large number of switching locations.  

 

Which brings me to the third point, also noticed by @James Hilton:

 

6 hours ago, James Hilton said:

Glad the blog posts prove inspiring, I think the thing to consider in small spaces is the balance between realism and frustration. If you complicate a track plan due to perceived 'boredom' then you can fill a baseboard with track quite quickly. On the other hand, my experience of lot of North American prototypes is a lack of track either through simplicity or distance, i.e. things are spread out. In your space I'd be looking to reduce the amount of 'clutter' and looking for something more focused, but the main thing is enjoy it! I'd say buy a copy of my book (!!!) for more conversation on this sort of thing but I think it's getting quite difficult to get hold of (which is great news for me, but less so for everyone else!).

 

The stripped back plan (Bi earlier) shows just how many buildings and industries I’ve scattered about.  James’ description of ‘clutter’ is a good one (good to hear the book sales are going well, by the way).  Although there are some good aspects to the design, I think it’ll be back to the sketchpad when I get some time.

 

Thanks too to @woodenhead for this pointer:

 

5 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Rapido do some short barrel ore wagons you could repurpose, aint cheap though, but you do get 6

https://railsofsheffield.com/products/rapido-trains-inc-143004-ho-short-barrel-ore-hopper-cn-mineral-brown-6-pack-2

 

My bad, the shorties ended up as ballast hoppers, it was the longer version, still tiny that ended up doing cement and other powdered goods in the 1970s

https://railsofsheffield.com/products/rapido-trains-inc-143008a-ho-long-barrel-ore-hopper-onr-chevron-scheme-single-car

 

Very nice, but I’m afraid my budget per car is closer to £12 than £50, even if it would be really nice to buy some Rapido cars.  Have a good weekend everybody, Keith.

 

Edited December 8, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Keith Addenbrooke]

(Note: This is probably one of those posts of most use just to me for future reference): 

 

I had a lightbulb moment this morning that helped me understand why my current track planning is still a bit messy.  These are the two principal reference books I’ve been using for this project so far:

 

 

Although they’re both Kalmbach books, they were actually published 40 years apart: Track Planning ideas in 1981, and Thomas Klimoski’s book in 2021.  With model railroading having changed as much as prototype railroading in the four decades in-between, perhaps it should come as no surprise that my ideas have also been showing signs of confusion!

 

Take this quote for example, from a plan I like included in Track Planning Ideas (reprinted from a May 1976 MR article):

 

”Operators will find many little delights hidden among the track patterns.  For example, the tail track for the switchback in Pleasant Hill should be just long enough to clear the usual switch engine plus two 40-foot cars.  The builder can then let his eyes gleam with delight as he routes one 40-footer and one 50-footer to that area, to the consternation of the unwary operator.”

 

Would a designer include that kind of trap today?

 

I noted in an earlier post (12th Nov on page 1) that the building kits I have show the kind of selective compression more suited to the ‘traditional’ kind of layouts in my old plan books - it only took a few minutes to revisit the examples I drew and develop my analysis further:

 

 

All four examples here have the same footprint, but A and B use the kind of larger industrial structure (or combination of structures) quite often favoured on contemporary switching layouts, while C and D have the separate industries I’m used to.

 

Which looks ‘biggest’?  To be honest, I think idea A would win that for me - despite (or perhaps because of) using a larger structure.  I think A looks better and more realistic than B, I don’t think C works visually for me (as I also concluded in my previous ‘test’), and while D looks to me reasonably proportioned, A is the one I’d probably spend most time watching.

 

All food for thought.  Have a good weekend, Keith.

Edited December 9, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke

[dave1905]

One thing to think about is the era.  You have rail served creamery, that pretty much screams 1950's or earlier.  Not that that is a bad thing, by backdating to the 1950's you can use smaller engines, smaller cars.

[DCB]

4 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

All four examples here have the same footprint, but A and B use the kind of larger industrial structure (or combination of structures) quite often favoured on contemporary switching layouts, while C and D have the separate industries I’m used to.

 

Which looks ‘biggest’?  To be honest, I think idea A would win that for me - despite (or perhaps because of) using a larger structure.  I think A looks better and more realistic than B, I don’t think C works visually for me (as I also concluded in my previous ‘test’), and while D looks to me reasonably proportioned, A is the one I’d probably spend most time watching.

 

All food for thought.  Have a good weekend, Keith.

Its a bit apples and pears , B and D have run round loops so you can run the engine around the shunt, A and C need you to propel  But A and C can handle almost three times the stock as B and D. Then gain B and D without crossovers (in use) hold more stock than A and C,   None are really big enough, you can do a shun t from a main depot a few hundred yards away but there's no real way to add a Caboose. OK as  G Scale micro layout but I feel it needs at least an extra foot in H0 so you can run round 3 X 50 footers and a 40 ft Caboose

My 00 BLT is 7ft from first point to buffers and can just cope with an 0-6-0  tender loco and 4 X 60ft  coaches.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Thank you @dave1905, I didn’t have a date for the Creamery, so that is helpful (I snapped it up when I saw it as it was dramatically underpriced for a Branchlines Laser Art kit, thinking I’d probably use it for an HOn30 layout).

 

Thank you also @DCB, fortunately I can add up to one more foot at the right with an overhang over the bed to give me 9’.

 

Useful feedback to start the weekend.  Thanks, Keith.

[F-UnitMad]

3 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

fortunately I can add up to one more foot at the right with an overhang over the bed to give me 9’.

IIRC 9ft is the 'magic number' for @Alcanman's series of excellent Switching layouts. 😉👍

[Keith Addenbrooke]

34 minutes ago, F-UnitMad said:

IIRC 9ft is the 'magic number' for @Alcanman's series of excellent Switching layouts. 😉👍

Agreed - so we know it works!  Mind you, I was watching one of @Alcanman’s videos recently and got rather confused when a locomotive appeared at the head of a short train - I’d forgotten one of the recent plans had included a run-round 🙂.

 

Following my post last night, I decided to supplement Thomas Klimoski’s planning book in my small collection of resources and have ordered Lance Mindheim’s Kalmbach book on Layout Design.  I enjoy reading Kalmbach books anyway, and it will help bring my thinking up to date.  I could have gone for James Hilton’s book recommended earlier, as it does include several North American examples and is a very good book, but I just felt there’ll be more prototype photos for me to refer to in the Mindheim book.

 

We have snow here today, so maybe I’ll see how / if that affects the damp wall problem!  Have a good weekend, Keith.

[dave1905]

A lot of the difference between the 4 layout options is what are you doing with the other two tracks.

 

There isn't really a need for a runaound on any of those layouts because there aren't a mix of facing switches, unless you just have to have the engine "leading" into the switching area. or you are designating the center track as a through main track and can have a train enter from either direction.

 

With B,C&D the obvious improvement is to move the end ramp down to the bottom track and have the bottom track (or the stub of the bottom track in B&D) as a team track.

 

As far as switching goes any of the plans can have more or less the same amount of switching, it is after all essentially the same track plan on all three.  The only real difference is whether you want one large building or several smaller buildings on the layout.

 

I don't see any reason why you couldn't do both.  Make the area around the top track flat and then you can just change out buildings.  You could go from 1900 with 34' wood cars and 4-4-0's to 2022 with 50 ft cars and GP38's in a matter of moments by just swapping out buildings and equipment.

[Alcanman]

As mentioned by Jordan, (F-unit mad) all my small US switching layouts are built are 9ft long (15ins wide)

 

A couple of years ago I build this one which has only 2 switches and similar to your plan A and plan C. It has only 1 'large' industry capable of handling boxcars, hopper cars and corn syrup tank cars.

I hope this is helpful and look forward to following your layout progress.

 

Mal

 

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Thanks @Alcanman - it's particularly helpful to have the plan showing how long the spurs / tail track are: a great thing about small layouts is how close-up photography can make well-planned detailed scenes seem much larger, and the Reading and Northern Industrial Spur was a good example, thank you.

 

I've been reflecting on the buildings I have (and would quite like to use) as I have several structures more suited to a town setting.  However, I've come across a brilliant switching layout with a row of small town stores: Tom Johnson's Cass County Railroad.  If anyone hasn't seen it, do take a bit of time to have a read the MRH thread - and be wowed! (I'm not pretending for one moment I could ever produce anything like that!).

 

In project terms, I'm pausing for the next couple of weeks due to the busyness of the season and with the family coming to stay (this means clearing everything away - which is why I've not started any of the kits I have either).  Such necessary pauses have often led to a new idea to accommodate changing family requirements.  As I've not yet put a saw to wood here, I may be in the stronger position of not having anything to undo!  With Lance Mindheim's book on Layout Design due to arrive shortly, I expect to stay on this track.

 

Incidentally, reading about Tom Johnson's Cass County reminded me of another helpful book of ideas for modeling details (in all settings).  This is a 2020 volume by Jeff Wilson:

 

 

(I think this one is more general than John Pryke's older 2000 book 'Building City Scenery' which I also have).  As I've mentioned before, I'm partial to Kalmbach's publication style - it's not for everyone, but has always been a big part of my hobby.  Have a good week, Keith.

[F-UnitMad]

4 hours ago, Alcanman said:

A couple of years ago I build this one which has only 2 switches and similar to your plan A and plan C. It has only 1 'large' industry capable of handling boxcars, hopper cars and corn syrup tank cars.

The key being, of course, that they all need switching in the right order. 😉👍

One of the 'blindingly obvious' things that I learned from Lance Mindheim's writings.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 11/12/2022 at 16:50, F-UnitMad said:

The key being, of course, that they all need switching in the right order. 😉👍

One of the 'blindingly obvious' things that I learned from Lance Mindheim's writings.

 

Good point.  I hadn’t planned an update until after the post-Christmas break, by which time I hope to have read Mindheim’s book:

 

 

But having reached the half-way point, two things strike me - one about the book and one about my objectives:  

 

The first is that Mindheim does such a good job of simplifying the complex world of railroad operations and layout design into the simple and the “blindingly obvious” (as @F-UnitMad puts it) that 143 pages gives plenty of room for generously-sized diagrams and big pictures, plus regular summaries of content covered, both of which I appreciate.  I like the way he builds up to layout design starting with the basic building blocks of railroading - very different to the “101 Track Plans” I’ve poured over for years.

 

The second is that my answer to the key strategic question is the hardest one.  The question is fair enough:

• What do I want the layout to do for me?

And my answer is: “I like to see trains run - from the headlights coming towards me, to the caboose disappearing into the distance.  Fair enough, but if I rephrase the question, I give myself a problem that keeps sending me round in project circles:

• In the space I have available, what do I want the layout to do for me?

I want the answer to be the same, so that’s what I’m still working on.  Of course, plenty of modellers here would have built a complete switching layout in the time I’ve been treading water, but I don’t expect to do any practical modelling between mid-November and Christmas anyway: it’s my thinking time.

 

May I wish everyone a good Christmas and, I hope, a peaceful New Year.  Keith.

Edited December 22, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke

[dave1905]

If you want small cars, in some cases surplus ore jennies (the little short 28 ft hoppers or gons) were cascaded to sand or aggregate service.  Rather than a quarry, model an aggregate dealer or a batch cement plant.  For the aggregate dealer all you need is a track with an under the rails pit and a conveyor belt.  Then add as many dumper trucks and front end loaders as you budget will allow.  For the gon style you will need a backhoe type tractor or facility to dig the rock out of the car.    Very easy industry to model, very small foot print, very small cars, 100% prototypical and shortline oriented.  For example, search for the Omaha Lincoln and Beatrice Railroad.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

A general update:  I didn’t plan to spend the New Year wiped out by the ‘flu bug (who does?) but I’m starting the new year off sick and lacking the energy and clear head for modelling.  My sympathies to those who have it worse than me of course.  

 

Layout building will be on hold until the weather improves sufficiently for the damp in the room to be addressed, but I wanted to kick off 2023 with kit building - especially as it’s some months since I built anything.  Oh well, best laid plans and all that…

 

I’ve finished Lance Mindheim’s Design book, which I’d recommend - a lot that can be applied to the generally smaller rooms we have in the UK.  It also reminded me of some principles I’d forgotten and brought me back up to date - my aim when I bought it.

 

In terms of the direction I’ll go - I think I’m happy with either a contemporary approach to small layout design, or the ‘old fashioned’ (or “retro”) approach I grew up with: but it’s helpful to have a clear understanding that they are quite different.

 

Hardly a stunning first update for the new year, but here’s to the power of Lemsip!  All the best for 2023, Keith.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

One for the ‘prototype for everything’ department - a screen grab from a “Delay in Block” video showing St John’s Catholic Church and Johns Manville Defiance Plant 2 in Defiance, Ohio:

 

 

The tight curve is too close to the Church Building, and there are two very short spurs (not one longer one) going into the plant, which is itself just across a road from the Church.  Would just not look right on a model!
 

The railroad is the Napoleon, Defiance and Western now run by Pioneer Rail.  Oh, and the loco in the video is an old GP-20 still in Santa Fe colours (yellow freightbonnet livery).  Keith.

Edited January 13, 2023 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Keith Addenbrooke]

With several active areas of interest, my focus has been on another project (a TT:120 station kit) this past week.  That’s nearly finished, and I just wanted a small job for this evening - something different for a change.  
 

Top of my list is this Inter-Mountain covered hopper I’ve acquired second hand.  Having grown up reading about companies like Varney, Mantua and Tyco, Inter-Mountain is one of those names that’s new to me. They have a good reputation so I figured this was worth a go - all that needs fixing are the walkways, which have popped up at one end on either side:

 

 

I’d not appreciated they’re etched metal parts, so had been planning to use a Polymer plastic adhesive (Deluxe Materials Glue ‘n’ Glaze).  I was advised to avoid the kind of plastic cement that melts the parts together when detailing rolling stock.

 

Realising the walkways aren’t plastic means I’ve used a tiny amount of Superglue carefully ‘brushed’ across the supporting pieces instead, but it seems to have taken OK:

 

 

Possibly the most basic fix ever.  It’s still the sort of thing I’d have avoided until recently: now I wonder can why.

 

The build date on this particular car is a bit late for my 1970 target period - it’s 1973, but I’ll let that slide as I like it, Keith.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Update - three steps forward and one step back

 

“Really?”  

 

Looks like it.  On the positive side:

1. Improved weather this past week means the landlord’s contractors did the repointing work needed on the outside wall by the layout space.  It’ll take time to dry out, but I’d expected to wait longer.  Good news.
2. There’s other stuff in the room besides furniture.  It looks like this may get tidied up at the end of this month (in half-term).  I can then move modelling in.
3. Following delivery of a final few freight cars (including some as kits), I think I have everything I want - a nice selection of covered hoppers and tank cars, an assortment of boxcars, some cabooses and the two locomotives.  Good to go.

What’s the setback?  I don’t have a track plan yet - some nice ideas and advice, thank you to all who’ve contributed.  There’s easily enough space for a decent switching layout, it’s just I prefer a continuous run.  Why is this only a small issue?  I have plenty of kits (freight cars and buildings), plus some pending repairs and couplings to sort out, so there’s loads to be getting on with anyway. 

 

I also have other projects running in parallel - as mentioned in my previous post.  These are just as exciting for me, so nothing will go to waste if I spend a bit of time on them next.  I have re-started, and with a full stock box and stash awaiting my attention, what could possible go wrong…?

 

Have fun, Keith. 

 

Edited February 5, 2023 by Keith Addenbrooke