Hi folks--my nas=me is John Morris and I live in Battle Creek, Mi.--I am planning on building a layout having Post Cereals and the old GTW Yard as subjects--would you please take a look at it and make comments (don't worry I have a very thick skin)--this is n scale 36x 80 hcd. I also have a heart condition and had to make some changes to accomadate that situation. Thanks tons. http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/picture.php?albumid=514&pictureid=6670
John, Will you have access on three sides? Your engine facilities and yard would be hard to reach at 36". I'm not any good at track planning itself so I can't help you there. Eric
You are going to need to shove all the way back to the cereal plan from the yard. It might be nice to exit the yard to the left with a couple of cars and pull into the cereal complex then shove into the sidings. You would need to add a switch to the cereal area lower left to accomplish tha.
I'd condense the 5 spurs (near labels 8-10) into 4, or 3 depending on taste, and make some dual-sided loading docks. Also what's going on down the middle - left to right? Port access Road? You could make that a 4-5 lane mega-access thrufare! Also, I can see a giant oil tank farm/refinery in the loop (right of label 10), but I'm partial to tankers ! Cant wait to see progress! Also, concur with access/reach issues concern - will this against a wall(s)?
I don't know anything about the prototype, and you may have reproduced that very well and to your liking, however I see some things I would question. You have a lot of yard and many sidings but very little actual space to spot cars. Seems that you have room for one car to be spotted at tracks on either side of 7, and one, maybe two at 2 and another two at 4. You can spot two cars on either side of 5. That's a total of 9-10 cars. Your support facilities and extra storage spurs are way overbuilt for that kind of traffic in my opinion. Did Post Cereals get such little rail traffic? If you want more, redo the entire lower half to make for a bigger plant area in the center with spurs coming in that can handle more car spots. I also don't like the double use of the main spur to the plant being shared as the main yard lead. It is tough to get a lot in a small space, so I'd consider some changes to the yard and engine facilities, maybe dropping the service facilities to create room for another lead to the plant area.
thanks guys: i have access to all 4 sides of table. i am still modifying layout. question: why is it bad to push cars that distance--i have seen it done in the norfork-western yard here in town? i am new at this-1st layout ever-so i will need all the help i can get. can't tell you aboout car traffic as all cars are pushed into inside loading and unloading area-it is out-of sight. thanks for help guys--i shall return. John M. btw if you use flashearth--go to battle creek and move screen to 42.310763 by -85.161662-----this is Post then go to 42.311231 by -85.161672 ---this is entrance to underground facilities. these buildings have been here since 1925.
Nice start on that, John. One thing I would offer for your consideration. Think about flipping your cereal plant. Take the 1-3-4 complex to the top and bring 2 to the bottom. A couple of reasons for that. It will make it easier to access when you are switching your Receiving without having to reach over, around, and down around your structures. That is a recipe for disaster. Stuff will get broken. And the longer buildings in the center will provide a view block to seperate your scenes. Have fun with it.
Hi John, I don't know anything about that area but I always suggest following the prototype as much as possible. For instance how did they switch the plant area? Was there an interchange yard or holding yard nearby? Do you really need loco servicing to do the operations? Can you enhance the reality of the operating pattern with staging? Can you open up the plan and make it linear around the walls to better replicate a condensed version of the operations and position of the various parts etc. If you know a lot about the GTW worked the plant you will probably enjoy the layout more if you can follow their practice and create scenes that bring back memories of the things you've seen as opposed to thinking in terms of model train track configurations....dave
I'm a minimalist and a linear, around the walls person but I like your plan. Could be fun to operate. Aside from the earlier suggestions, can you reach and maintain your turnouts without trashing trains or scenery in the foreground, especially in the upper yard area? That's always one thing that I'm concerned about. But I'm lazy so I dislike anything that adds to my maintenance burden at all.
Hi John, What power is it using and what turnouts etc I am just starting to build a layout as well (Atlas N-9) and power is a major consideration, I am using DCC and the turnouts on mine will be all remote controlled. I have had a rather serious stroke a few years ago and only the LH stuff works now Just waiting for some LS150's for turnout control and I have a 6' x 3' board with the 50mm foam stuck on it so I am getting close. I am using NCE for the controller.
Background: I have visual limitations I Care more about aesthetics than prototype I Care more about running trains than operating them I really like the separate line to the plants - had somthing like that in an earlier plan myself I find it visually crowded. I would: Remove the run-a-round track in the yard. They may be prototypical but when it comes to making up trains after a while it gets monotonous. GHA (Giant Hand Action), works for me. Also allows for storing more cars. Remove tracks leading to engine house A and lengthen the tracks to B. Lengthen track for fuling and sanding area. You will always have more locos than you can fit on the layout anyway. Remove buildings 3 and 4. They are in the way both visually and practically Remove track 10 - , no, remove track to the left of building 5 Reduce the plant area to 3 tracks Make sure each spur can hold 2 to 3 cars You might consider a backdrop / divider down the middle. I am not an expert by any means and have never finished a layout. These are just my thoughts based on the "Visual" and "Practical". I could be dead wrong from what you want.
Hi Bob: I will be running GP 38's with nothing larger than 40 ft. cars. I am also going to run NCE DCC. I have also had a couple of heart attacks and the doctor is keeping me on a real short leash. None of the turnouts will be remote controlled--just the old-fashioned push button. But I am planning on having magnetic uncoupling on some of the spurs that are further away. All my turnouts are no. 4 (small ones) and the largest radius is 9.75 inches. The time setting for the layiut is mid 70's. However because Post has not built a new building on this site since the mis 20's, I could also run steam with a few changes to the loco facilities. Any further questions feel free to ask. Later--John M.
revisions I have been through at least 6 revisions on the origional layout. Things have not been going my way lately but i will post the last 2 revisions shortly along with some further info on layout. Later John M.
layout revision HI GUYS: here is another version of the post cereals layout--please take a look and see if this is better--I have tries to correct some of the problems that came with the first one. In answer to your questions about access , the answer is yes I will be able to have access from all 4 sides. Let me know what you folks think. locos 4 axle gp38's--cars 40' cars--nscale--time frame mid 70's. Thanks guys.--John. http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/picture.php?albumid=514&pictureid=7045 opps--sorry guys--John M.
Hi, if you have access to all sides, i would go for a different L-shaped footprint. Any reason why you are using such short and short turnouts? Paul
