New Layout--Point to Point or Geometric?

[Anonymous]

I'm in the process of building a new layout in my train room. I have 3/4 of a 24x20 basement room available. The bottom right corner of the room has 2 doors and a closet so that part is unavailable due to high traffic. I was going to do an L shaped layout.

As a part of my planning process I bought Linn Westcott's book "How to build Model Railroad Benchwork". One of the things he clearly advocates in the first chapter is the use of point to point mainlines over more traditional geometric designs (ie ovals and loops).

I don't want my layout to be anything but fun. I'm not trying to recreate any protypical railroad, but I do want to have some detailed modeling. I also don't want to have an "all-toy-postwar" railroad look, but I do want to use my dad's postwar trains and accesories. So I guess I'm saying I want a mixed layout, a little toy, a little model, and a lot of fun.

So, my question is, and I AM looking for opinions, what are the advantages of a point to point vs. traditional layout? and how do I find the perfect mix?

[cnw1995]

I guess the major question for you to answer would be - do you ever want to just watch trains run by 'themselves' - a loop allows you to do that. There are also ways to hide aspects of a loop so that the train seems to move through one scene at a time. My humble opinion would be to include a loop in so far as it allows you to change your mind if you wish and just sit back and watch trains run. The point-to-point alternative always requires you to run your trains.

I love the concept of a railroad going somewhere - pioneered by the Virginian & Ohio HO road - you seem to have plenty of space - a real hindrance in our scale when you want to do point to point unless you model a relatively small part of a road. Depending on how prototypical you wi***o be - create a history for your road - a reason for a railroad to exist - to move A to B. I confess I've never done that - though I have a name for the pike and a few places for a train to stop along the line, but I'm more toy-trainey and prefer to pick a consist, fire it up, and run it along the main line through different scenes.

[palallin]

Perhaps a compromise useful to you would be the point-to-point-with-loops. Each terminal has a revering loop that allows continuous ops but also allows strictly point-to-point. You can, for example, make up a train, let it run for a while, and then break it down at the other terminal.

[Dr. John]

Doug nailed it - it depends on what YOU want. Westcott was a great HO modeler but he definitely falls in the school of realistic operation as opposed to just letting them run.

You can actually do both - have a basically point to point layout with an option for continuous running. Two reverse loops or a hidden or open oval can be incorporated into your design with the room you have for a layout. The "water-wings" or folded dog-bone design allow continuous running while disguising the oval as the two sides are squeezed together, similating double track mainline. Yards, industries and/or towns can be incorporated inside of each return loop, similating a point-to-point design.

[FJ and G]

I'm with Pallalin on this.

I've designed myself a long shelf point to point that I plan to use as a switching puzzle layout; but also planning a couple of reversing loops at both ends that can be taken down easily, so that continuous runnning is possible.

Not keeping the loops up permanently because the layout is in a hallway and need access. Unlike many, I've designed the basement (built it myself in fact) for multiple usages such a theater, pool room, workout room etc. The trains don't take up that much space and I'm going vertical with 4 level shelves so that much much more trackage can be layed.

I'll eventually expound upon this more.

Another reason to take it easy with the layout space, is that you don't want to overbuild. I don't want to use Elliot's layout as an example, but I will anyways. He's an experienced layout builder and knows his limits. But for someone like me, who has just built a couple of small layouts, a layout of his extent would leave me frustrated and even if I could build it all, I wouldn't be able to devote the amount of time I think I would need to get it just right.

And besides, I don't spend that much time building the layout anyways. I've got the hound who always demands to chase rabbits and my daughter is on summer break and wants to go sea kayaking with me this weekend; so I take it in moderation.

Would be happy to try & answer any specific questions. Or, post your plans.

[Anonymous]

well, I spent some time with the Atlas RTS software this afternoon. Here are two "concepts" for tracks I'm working with. The first one is basically a series of ovals bent in upon themselves. It would have a lowered trolley line and town in the front, and a higher level main line above it. The walls of the room are shown as is the support column in the middle, so you can see my limitations.


the second one is a modified point to point layout with a passing siding. It's main features would be a river gorge with the two end loops close together.


So all feedback is appreciated.

[Anonymous]

They have software for track layout, ***, it has been a long time.

[Anonymous]

hey guys, how about some opinions on 1 or 2?

[johnnyc]

Hi plasticlizard ,
I vote for the top one . It looks like it would be more fun than two connected loops .
Check out the NMRA website . They have an excellent list of guidelines in regards to structure and scenery that will help you give it that highrail look .

Wescott's book also recommends a second level which would be perfect for a "serious" point to point layout . You could have the best of both worlds .

I also used Atlas RTS and found it to be VERY accurate .
Have you given any thought to a hidden staging yard ? I didn't and wish I had . Being able to have a variety of consists that are on the track and ready run at any time is a nice feature . Goodluck , johnnyc

[Anonymous]

JohnnyC,
The hidden staging area is a good idea. I could put it on a lower level. I have a bunch of smaller diameter switches that I could use to build a yard. It wouldn't look as nice, but I'd put it under my main track and no one would see it. I could turn around my engine at the roundhouse, back it "down in the hole" and pull out a line of cars. Not a bad idea.

thanks

[FJ and G]

PL,

The second plan I prefer from my own philosophical view of having max scenery (natural or manmade).

However, there are some real advantages to the first plan, namely double-track running (nothing like passing or racing trains) as well as longer trains.

In the second plan, train length is limited by the reversing loops, though short trains aren't a bad thing.

The best compromise, IMO, would be to use plan #1 and completely hide the uppermost portion of most of the loop with trees, a mountain, or a tunnel below a city (a trolley could be run in the city, as a matter of fact. That way, your trains look like they are coming and going long distances.

Better yet, in addition to what I just recommended, I'd run a hidden staging area under the table.

[Anonymous]

I've made some edits and have come up with plan 3. It has a hidden yard that goes below the roundhouse and turntable. I've also combined elements of both point to point and geometric.

So any comments?

[FJ and G]

That'll work!

There are no switches (turnouts) near the backdrop that are not within reach so I don't anticipate too many problems. Except possibly with the one mainline turnout below and to the right of the turntable.

(next thing I'll try to do will be to convince you to add 3 levels using a helix via the top loop)

[spankybird]

I also like your 3rd layout best. It does allow for 2 train operations and total reversing. If you would add a long passing siding on the outside loop, you could run three trains at once.

tom

[Anonymous]

So let it be written....so let it be done!

I'm sure I'll make some modifications, but I was concerned about the switches. I'll probably bring the one in the bottom left corner a little closer to the beginning of the lower left inside curve, so it will be easier to reach.

Good ideas, keep em coming everyone.

TPL

[BigJim]

Lizard,
I have designed a multi-level around the room layout that not operates point to point and continuous. It does this by using a double helix. On one level there would be a large passenger terminal and on another a freight terminal.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by plasticlizard

I've made some edits and have come up with plan 3. It has a hidden yard that goes below the roundhouse and turntable. I've also combined elements of both point to point and geometric.

So any comments?

I like this one! It has two independent paths with reverse capabilities in both directions. When it gets right down to it, pure point to point is not for most people.

Even I have a way to form a loop on my layout, though during normal operation it would not be used. Here is the schematic of my layout. Keep in mind, like Dave said, I have a lot more space to work with. The mainline will be around 1100 feet when complete.

[DCmontana]

#3, have fun!

[1688torpedo]

Hello Plasiclizard ! With the modifications you made. # 3 Looks like it would be a fun layout to have in your House.So,My vote goes to # 3..............Keith

[Anonymous]

Well, I went by the Virginia Inland Port today....here's a background....

Operated as an intermodal container transfer facility, the Virginia Inland Port (VIP) provides an interface between truck and rail for the transport of ocean-going containers to and from The Port of Virginia. Containers are transported by truck to the VIP for immediate loading upon a rail car or for short-term storage prior to loading. Containers arriving from Hampton Roads terminals are unloaded from the train and dispatched by truck to inland destinations. Land is available to steamship lines for container storage and ancillary service companies.

I wanted to see if I wanted to model part of this intermodal facility instead of a roundhouse in the lower left corner. I then thought that it would mean that I'd have to buy about 100 model trucks, so I decided against it.

On the way back to the highway I went the wrong way and had to turn around in the driveway of a Virginia department of corrections minimum security prison.

Not 1 minute later, what should happen but the ipod shuufled over to "Folsum Prison" by Johnny Cash.

Well that was it...1) I was thinking about modeling on my new layout
2.) I just saw a prison
3,) the man in black sealed the deal.


I'm going to add a prison yard somewhere on my layout. I'll think about where tomorrow....

I figure a couple buildings, a work yard, and a lot of stone walls and voila, Fulsom Prison in O gauge.

whadya think?

[csxt30]

I think that would be a great idea, & possibly a new one! They do make fencing now in O scale, but it may be hard to come up with the Concertina wire on it. Don't forget the exercizing area & proably a basketball court! I made TV antennas out of wire when I was young, but now they have cable. Let us know how it turns out. [:)] Thanks, John

[daan]

Just my 2 cents. In all your layouts the base is set by a double oval. There is no way that a train follows a different route. I've been in that "circle" for about 20 layouts in h0 and 2 in 0. The point to point (dogbone) has been in the other 7h0 and 1 in 0.
The main problem is the same train running the same way again and again. I have a small +/- 6x11 ft space for my layout and I made a redraw of the "four routes" plan in the CTT.

This is my layout, I've never built something like this before and it really is a change. The train has more way's to go and still features the oval AND the dogbone at the same time.
Add a few sidings and, as I did, make some tracks where you can switch the power off to run a few trains at once.
The best track plan is a plan which surprizes and isn't overseeable in one eyeglimpse. The unpredictable part keeps the layout attractable. (such things as a hidden siding is a surprize-thing).

To all of your plans so far, though they are really good and should give a great layout, it will start boring you, because the main thing you use are the two ovals.

Why let the two tracks run together continuously? You can also make 2 ovals going completely different routes; Why try to get your tracks behind the support structure in the middle? You could build a mountain around it and the tracks could use more space in front of it. Make islands where you can walk in between and bridges to cross the space between them; bridges are attractive, even as tunnels.

[lionelsoni]

If you've ever ridden Amtrak through Texarkana, you may have noticed that the depot and the Bi-State jail are in the same building, right next to the track:
http://www.rrshs.org/Texas/bowie.htm

[mackb4]

Hello.I was in the same situation like yourself.I've got a room roughly 32x14 with another room 14x14 that could be used via a tunnel access.I had gone over and over plans from the loopy loop,to A to B.My biggest problem was trying to forget my 1:1 scale job (I'm an engineer on a class 1 r.r.) and what I got to work with at the house.I've had all these idea's and just not enough room.So I've come to the conclusion work with what you got.So I'm going to build just enough layout territory to fit what I already have bought and nothing else,unless I retire something in the future and include it on the layout.Oh I'm building an around the wall main line with a major section for the yard and service facilities in a area between two doors.A branch line will go thru a tunnel to the ajacent room mentioned.Point to point was just out of the question for any realism for me.Hope this helps you !

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the info guys...I wi***here was a picture of the train depot/jail there in Texarana.

This weekend I start benchwork on my plan....but I'm having some second thoughts on something. I am using all gargraves flextrack but was planning some big curves. Almost all of the curves are 72 or larger on the outside track and 63 or larger on the inside. I don't have anything that is even close to needing curves that big. I was just thinking about the future, so should I scale down a little and go with 42-54 inch curves? I've heard that most everything will run on O-54 with the exception of some of the articulated stuff.

If I go smaller, I'll have more options. But am I limiting to much for the future?

[mackb4]

If you got the room to stretch the track around to make big curves my advise would be to do so.How many people who built permanent layout's 20years ago would have thought there would be so many 072 monster locos. being made like there is today .Also the bigger curves are easier on those wheels than say 042,much better speeds too.