Layout Plans

The plans for the garage layout have come a long way recently in terms of my satisfaction with operations and appearance. I’ll refer to the layout as the Richmond Belt Line. I have a few variations on the name that I’m toying with but that’ll do for now.

Layout Premise

I’m not a big fan of elaborate stories about how a layout came to be, alternative history and the like. I tend to concern myself with plausibility and focus on the degree to which the layout and it’s operations evoke strong representations of railroading that I enjoy or have enjoyed. The simple rule is include things that strengthen the realistic representation and leave out anything that detracts.

Since there is almost never enough layout room to do an accurate tie-by-tie reproduction of even small parts of the prototype, I strive for the “look and feel” of the prototype as well as a healthy dose of believability in the layout design and it’s operations.

The Richmond Belt Line (RBLC)

As much as I like the Richmond Pacific (RPRC), I couldn’t figure out an acceptable way to cram all the important parts of the railroad into my single car garage space. The key operational features of the RPRC that I would want to see in layout form include:

• Daily interchange with the UP and BNSF
• Up to 18 cars exchanged in and out of each connecting railroad each day
• BNSF trackage rights trains including two daily manifest and autorack turns, stacktrains and baretable trains behind road power
• Street trackage along Wright Way
• Active double-ended rail yard
• At least 14 rail-served industries
• Little change in elevation generally
• Short steep grade associated with the interchange to Class I (a la Stege wye trackage)
• Distinct switching neighborhoods akin to the Port of Richmond, 8th street bypass, North Richmond, Point Richmond (actually served by the BNSF)
• SW1200 power for switching
• Small storage yard similar to Safeway Yard

The MR boys would be quick to point out that these are “layout design elements” but I tend to think of them as a feature set and the job at hand is to get the best set of features into layout form. I decided that since I can’t do justice to the Richmond Pacific, I’d model something that is a lot like it.

Proto-freelancing the Richmond Pacific into the Richmond Belt Line

By taking the prototype freelancing route, I felt it better to not directly adopt the Richmond Pacific name either. This way, my layout will be heavily reminiscent of the RPRC but I will not get all tangled up in trying to replicate anything specific to the RPRC including the name or paint schemes or even particular track configurations. The more I learn about the RPRC, the more aware I would be of the inaccuracies and fudges an RPRC layout would have in my available space.

The rule of thumb in deciding design choices is ” In my layout terrain, would the RPRC do things the way I have represented them?”

The Richmond Belt Line Plan

Here’s what I have settled on. It’s best described through 3rd Plan It  renderings from the layout design. The heavy blue grid are on a one foot spacing. The layout space is about 19’ x 9.5’.

The main area of the plan is our double-car garage. We don’t store our cars in here and the open space is for all the usual garage inhabitants like bikes and cleaning stuff.

The door on the right hand side leads to our kitchen. The one on the lower right corner leads to the back yard. As you can see, about half the space is devoted to the layout which will be in an enclosed space of it’s own. The left hand side of the main garage space has a roller door which will open up and over the left hand end of the layout space. Clearance will be tight between the ceiling of the layout room and the roller door but quite acceptable as far as headroom for operators inside the layout space are concerned - at least eight feet.

Here’s a closer view of the layout space itself.

The layout room is entered through a door which swings outwards adjacent to the kitchen door. All aisles in the room are three feet wide. This is an acceptable minimum. Four feet would be better but the room is only about 9 feet wide. I started this plan with the aisle ways first and moved them around till I had an arrangement that would result in the most layout I could get in the space while not compromising the aisle ways. I also thought a lot about how operators would circulate around the layout or perform switching in dedicated locations.

Before describing the track layout, I want to provide some background underlying my operating concepts.

Layouts are about watching the trains

Of course they are, but watching the trains do what?!! When watching prototype railroads operate, mainline trains run from the first point of visibility to the point where you lose sight of them. In urban locales, it’s often all over in minutes, the train is soon gone, blocked from view by a hill, building or road overpass. (Indecently, that’s one of the reasons I like the Mojave and places like it so much, trains are visible for a long time from far away.) For modelers with limited space, short periods of visibility are inevitable. The train is soon at the end of the line or curves out of view - just like the prototype. That’s a good thing right?

Yes, it’s good for realism, but no it’s not good from an operator’s perspective. The model engineer collects his train from staging (no realism), runs it onto the visible/scenicked portion and then a few moments later, it’s heading out of sight and on it’s way to staging again. What’s needed are ways to realistically and plausibly cause trains to spend more time on the visible portions of the layout.

[Note that in all of these considerations, I’m ruling out continuous running with the train reappearing a minute or two later in a repeat performance as detracting from realistic operation. I’m also ruling out staging that is hidden on the same mainline level. The latter approach does deal with the train going out of view and staying out of view but is problematic from both operational and maintenance standpoints. I don’t want to have hidden staging that is not easily worked on and maintained which cuts down the options for this type of approach substantially.]

Put it on a mountain!

Modeling mountain grades is an answer in part to the problem of short viewing times as the train slows down and is visible for longer. The twists and turns needed for trackage in mountain terrain are also an advantage to the layout designer because there is always a wall or aisle looming that causes the track to bend, enter a tunnel or the like.

But before rushing to draw up plans for a Tehachapi or Feather River empire, there’s a problem: There’s basically no switching on mountain lines and care needs to be taken to make sure that the line is flat where switching will take place so the train doesn’t head unexpectedly back down the hill when switching the mountain mainline industry. In addition, mainline traffic is all going to have to start and end in staging if you’re like me and you don’t have room for a decent size visible yard and a mountain layout.

So what to do?

The magic layout combination - Shortline with trackage rights and interchange operations

I have come to realize that the ideal operating concept for me is a shortline with Class 1 trackage rights over it and interchange operation with the two western Class 1 railroads. Why is this so great? Because it ensures all the things I’m looking for!

Firstly, the concept accommodates mainline trains. Consists of big multiple units pulling long trains can be comfortably run and from the BNSF and UP, or AT&SF and SP if I get nostalgic. So I can run all those Kato units patiently waiting for rail time! The design exploits the limitations of short viewing times - mainline trains either serve as periodic traffic on the main, coming and going and not visible for very long, or stop and interchange cars with the shortline. Continuous running on the main provides the appearance of a busy main but is not the main focus of the layout and at some point even computer control could be employed to cycle mainline trains over the mainline part of the layout.

Notice that this replicates the railfan perspective quite faithfully, standing at a mainline location a limited amount of track can be seen and trains come and go, visible for a short time and don’t return minutes later.

Notably from an operations realism standpoint, mainline trains serve the important function of dropping off or setting out cars for the shortline. The burden of forcing mainline trains to do industrial switching is largely gone except for the interchange switching which they actually do. The nice thing about it is that this is a time consuming activity which is actually good for operators of those particular mainline moves.

Mainline trains can also show up at slow speed as trackage rights moves on the shortline rails. This is another way operators get a good run time even though the run length is relatively short.  I’ve frequently enjoyed the sight of both BNSF mainline and locals taking their time to get over the BNSF Siberia Lead and the RPRC rails. BNSF trains also wait to get onto and off of the UP at Stege. All really good scenarios for the layout due to the long “face-time” they afford their operators.

There’s plenty of switching on the shortline and since there’s no requirement for continuous operation on the shortline, the shortline is laid out linearly which is ideal for shelf-style designs. Peninsulas can branch perpendicularly from the shortline main just as they do in reality. These leads are common access points for several industries. On the layout they serve as distinct locations in the train room where operators will be busy in one place for a while. Mainline operators are typically much more in motion following their train as a primary activity.

Operations and the number of operators

Controlling the flow of operators is especially important in the space I have allocated. I am expecting that three maybe four operators in the room simultaneously. More than that and I think it will feel crowded. The operational concept means that there’ll be a couple of operators focused on switching in specific areas of the layout, mostly away from the places where through trains operate so that everyone feels like they are unencumbered as they operate their train. This will become more apparent as we go through the layout plan.

Comments

[Daryl Dankwardt]

Your layout plan has come along way and is looking great. When are you starting to build it. I have always put my layouts to paper first as it saves a lot of time redoing areas that didn't work out as you may have thought in the first place. If it doesn't work on paper than it won't work on the layout. Great job!
I have started more scenery on my layout including the mountain range separating the room which includes a large rock cut, rocks jutting out of the side of the mountain and a rock blasted portal. I have also detailed the lift out section within the mountain that was needed.
Stop by sometime and send me some images and i can include them in my Hall of Fame Gallery.
Thanks again
Daryl

[Steve Cox]

The plan is to get building early this year after getting a space set up in the garage. I'm mainly time constrained at the moment and the time I do get is at inconvenient times like late at night when construction would be very unappreciated. The actual construction will be pretty straightforward, kind of a lean-to with a door on one side of the garage.

I don't have any layout pics worthy of a Hall of Fame yet but give me a few months okay!

I like the scenery work. Nice job. (Check out Daryl's Blog.)

- Steve