Opinions on an Idea I had.

[Irbricksceo]

So, as I may or may not have mentioned, I haven't really been able to afford a proper Layout (Being in college will do that) But I was  looking at shelf Layout Last night and thought to myself, This looks like a fun way to  Build a small but entertaining thing that could still be fun. Now, Obviously making one still will take a LOT of time, budgeting, and care but as we all know, a good layout starts with planning so I made a quick Track plan for a 1x12 that looks kind of cool and, more importantly, Affordable. So I was wondering if anyone had any opinions on it as well as advice for these small layouts.

[Doneldon]

Irbrick-

I envy you. The only thing I could afford to do in college and grad school was to build a couple of loco kits.

As regards your track plan, you have an awful lot of expensive turnouts for very little sorting and storage space. I suggest that you set the layout up so it works from only one way which will allow you to at least double the lengths of your yard tracks. I'd do that by removing what appears to be a short drill track on the far left, stretching as far as possible to the left, shortening the distance to the engine house and accessing both ends of the yard from the upper main.

This looks very much like a component for a future larger layout. As such, it makes sense to maximize its capacity. If and when you install it in a larger pike you'll need to make a provision for a real yard throat. As it is, you must use the upper parallel main as the lead.

Also, may I suggest that you build your yard on two pieces of 2" extruded foam? Six-foot pieces will easily hide under a bed. The foam will be stiff enough to survive handling. And, you'll be able to go a bit wider if you want more yard tracks and/or a true yard throat now.
                                                                                                                                                                  -- D

[K487]

Irbrick:

The track diagram looks like it is set up only for breaking up and building trains.  Might be fun to have some industrial trackage and buildings too - even if just temporary.

K487

[Irbricksceo]

Heh, yeah well my parents haven't kicked me out yet so that saves some money, though this will be less "Oh look, i have a layout" and more "I think I can afford another switch this week!" (Dont you hate it when real life gets in the way!) But still, does anyone ever really "finish" a layout?

Funny you should mention the part of a larger thing, that was my intent, so that if i wanted, i could use this in a big layout years down the line. Additionally, it is likely that I will use mostly flex track as it allows better spacing and easier dividing at the midpoint  (I intended to make it two or three parts for storage/transport because I have not really got a place to set it up permanently.

Regarding the turnouts, it was my understanding that anything smaller than a number 6 can't be traversed by larger equipment and, if this DOES become part of a large layout, I will use things like Berks. For now of course, my Connie is my go to Locomotive for General Use (love those things)

The track that extends on the top left is supposed to have things like coal and water stations as well as an Ash Pit. I can relocate it of course. Regarding your suggestion to attach it to both sides of the upper main, the reason I didn't do that is I never like the look of those yards on smaller layouts, they always looked silly though will be playing around with that look anyway.

I am looking into your suggestions, especially that I extend the yard tracks and shorten the lead to the Engine house, as both were very good Ideas. I will show a modified version when I have it.

Of course these plans need tinkering (and that is why having advice from others is so good) and of course, as said before, Planning is the most important part of the project, as the saying goes, Measure thrice cut once!

[Woody Elmore]

Why re-invent the wheel? The late great John Allen, a model railroading legend, designed his time saver switching layout. It is a switching puzzle and can be great fun. Just Google " John Allen timesaver layout." the beauty of it is that you can later include it in a bigger layout.

For the uninitiated, John Allen was a professional photographer who also was a great model railroader. His layout featured floor to ceiling mountains as well as nifty bridges and lots of buildings. These were mostly scratchbuilt by Mister Allen as there were very few kits in the fities until the Revell line came along.

Allen was known for silly things like the brontosaurus being used as a switcher and using mirrors to make the layout look bigger. His reputation increased when people saw his "Gorre and Dapheted" layout featured in Varney ads on the back page of Model Railroader.

He died prematurely and his house burned down. Very little of the G&D was rescued.

[jward]

anything you wanted to know about john allen and the g&d can be found here, including a section on the timesaver:

http://www.gdlines.com

I built a timesaver to hone my tracklaying skills some years ago. the layout as mr allen designed it will fit in about half the area of the original poster's layout, has only 5 or 6 switches depending on whether you add the connection track to the outside world, and can lead to premature baldness. if you keep to the lengths of the tracks n the original design, a small locomotive and 6 cars will be all you'll need to run this layout.

[Skarloey Railway]

My thoughts.

1)Too much trackage for the available space.
2)Not enough opportunity for modelling - i.e., no scenic elements and no structures apart from an engine house and not much free space to put them. Operationally the layout is going to be limited - how can it not be in 12' x 12" - but you can get a lot of modelling into that area which will help develop the skills you'll need when a larger space becomes available.
3)No off-stage trackage to represent the rest of the world. Even a small layout like this should have some kind of staging/fiddle-yard where trains can go to and come from, otherwise you're just switching cars all the time. Depending on prototype and train length, staging can be as little at 30" using a cassette/sector plate design.
4) Looks too much like a plank of wood - consider having one end of it a little wider than the other, say 10" at one end and 14" at the other. More width means you can have tracks at an angle to each other rather than everything parallel. Makes it visually more interesting and more like the real thing.

The June issue of Model Railroad Hobbyist has some good plans for small RRs. http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/magazine/mrh-2012-06-jun/small-track-plans. It's free to download as a PDF
Good luck

[Woody Elmore]

By the way, the Allen Timesaver is more of a game than a layout. You could do one with scenery but the idea is to have some fun switching cars around. Allen used Baker couplers and today's knuckle couplers might make the task a tad easier.

I think the layout on the plank has too many switches.

[CNE Runner]

IR - It certainly looks like you want to have a manageable layout - with ample operations to keep your interest. I tend to agree with the other posts made: too many turnouts and too little car storage space. May I suggest you become familiar with Carl Arendt's website? http://www.carendt.com/ Plan on spending a lot of time perusing this wonderful website.

Another good website is English and concerns itself with shunting games ('shunting' means 'switching' in US-speak). This site is found at http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/[/url and is full of ideas for switching layouts.

I have been involved with mini layouts (and switching operations) for years. Please use the 'search' function to locate some of my previous posts on this forum (look under "Monks' Island Railway"). I have also made several contributions to the Free Rails Forum at [url]http://freerails.com/]http://freerails.com/]http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/[/url and is full of ideas for switching layouts.

I have been involved with mini layouts (and switching operations) for years. Please use the 'search' function to locate some of my previous posts on this forum (look under "Monks' Island Railway"). I have also made several contributions to the Free Rails Forum at [url]http://freerails.com/ where you can search under the Micro Layouts...Minis, Switching and Pizzas [p. 2 "Monks' Island"] There are also some [rather dated] pictures in the "Gallery" section. Operation is always a concern with very small layouts. How does one keep ones interest over the long run? I suggest you also see my posts on the Free Rails Forum site under "Operations" [p. 1 - two posts "Monks' Island..."]. I hope these suggestions are of use to you.  Ray

[Irbricksceo]

Hey all, thanks for the responses, The timesaver is an interesting layout, to be honest, I completely forgot about it! I doubt i will just recreate it but I may use it as an idea source. I will probably spend a while coming up with ideas, maybe try some other sizes like 18 inch wide or ten feet long, then, when I have an idea what I wand to build, I can work from there. the biggest thing I need to keep in mind is that it needs to come apart into smaller pieces since I don't have a place to set it up permanently yet. So yeah, I'll keep playing around while keeping the suggestions I get in mind. I'll also check out those links you put up. I am teetering between a simpler design that looks prettier and a more complex that is operationally more interesting.

[Doneldon]

I am teetering between a simpler design that looks prettier and a more complex that is operationally more interesting.

Irbrick-

It is possible to do both operationally interesting and neat looking a the same time.
The key is deciding where your divide is between operations and appearance and
then designing to that criterion. Remember, it's your layout and he only person you have
to please is yourself.
                                      -- D

[Desertdweller]

I was a big fan of John Allen's G&D RR.

But I built his Timesaver in HO and found I quickly got bored with it.  Too many short moves.  A real railroad would not be designed that way.

Real railroads are designed to save time switching by allowing the work to be done efficiently.  The Timesaver was designed to require the maximum number of moves (and therefore, time).

The G&D, on the other hand, was designed for realistic operation, with a long main line and passing tracks, terminals and branch lines.

Les

[Doneldon]

The Timesaver was designed to require the maximum number of moves (and therefore, time).

Les- 

This isn't quite right. The timesaver is a switching problem and the solution is to be the
quickest and fastest one possible, with the fewest moves.
                                                                                             -- D

[ebtnut]

I expect you've noted it, but Model Railroader is beginnning a new project railroad with the new issue that is both a conventional "table" layout but is modular and can be re-arranged as a shelf layout as well.