Can't decide on layout design - HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

I have a train room of dimensions 21 X 17 feet. I want to build an O guage layout but can't decide which would be the best with my dimensions. I could build an around the wall layout. This would allow me to keep things simple and run a multiple level layout. However, I am afraid it might be boring with just going in circles. The other alternative is to create a folded dogbone. The disadvantage of the folded dogbone is that I may not have room for sidings once I squeeze everything in. Also, there may not be as much room for scenery with the folded dogbone. Does anyone have any thoughts to add to this. Has anyone been happy with a circular, just around the four walls layout????

[lionelsoni]

My layout is around the walls of an 18 x 11-foot room. I have two main lines around the room. There is an 8-track yard between the mains on one long side and turning loops in the other two corners that can also be used as a short dogbone. I have 5 engine-storage tracks in and around one loop and 3 stub sidings elsewhere on the layout, including one very long one. So I can do round-and-round as well as lots of switching.

[Anonymous]

Lionelsoni,

Do you have any schematics or photographs that you could share. - Thanks

[daan]

I've made all kinds of circulair layouts where trains did run in circles or ovals all the time, and in the beginning they are satisfying. But after a while, running in one direction, even with switching included, does get boring. If you build a layout around the walls, you could think about returning loops in the corners to make other directions possible.
The best layout design is a design which doesn't reveal it's essence in one glance. An oval is too obvious and doesn't excite. You know far in advance where the train will be going and that gets booring.
On my homepage (click on the "web" icon below) I have a plan of my layout. It's about 1,6 x 3,5 metres and has a lot of running possibilities (look for the "salt river railroad" in the index on the right side of the page) where you can't make up where the train will go after a few rounds. If you run with 3 trains, like I do, you have to find a free track and that's making the routes unpredictable. It's a sort of puzzle and constantly keeps you thinking because otherwise you make a move which will block all tracks and you have to back up with a train.
There are enough possibilities to run trains for a long time in ovalshape or figure eight if you want and you can leave all other trains on the tracks as well.
The disadvantage is that you can't run 2 trains at once. The 3 trains I drive on the layout have to wait for eachother 'till the tracks are cleared. So only one runs at a time, the rest is on a shut off track waiting for the track being cleared.

With the scenery added it looks like the trains are heading into various directions and no visitor could tell me at a glance how the tracks where connected. It only becomes clear when the trains are running when they see where trains emerge after disappearing behind a mountain..

Besides aal that, the track plan was in the CTT and there are more very usefull trackplans in the CTT. One of the others is "a bridge left out" where a dogbone style layout is hidden in a trackplan which should have 2 bridges, but one is out of use due to repairs.

[pbjwilson]

Daan,

That's a great layout! For a small space, lots of operating interest. Thanks for sharing.

I especially like the picture of the caboose at the zuidelijke splitsing!

[cnw1995]

What a delicious problem - every CTT also has sample layouts - if you can access past issues at a library or with a friend, you may find many many ideas.

[lionelsoni]

Jdoll, I have nothing I can get to you quickly. I designed and maintain my layout with a Q-Basic program that draws a map on an old 486 computer. But I have no way to print the picture out or make a file. Your request however has inspired me to augment my program to write a bit-map file. I'll let you know when it's done.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for all of your responses!!

[daan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by lionelsoni

Jdoll, I have nothing I can get to you quickly. I designed and maintain my layout with a Q-Basic program that draws a map on an old 486 computer. But I have no way to print the picture out or make a file. Your request however has inspired me to augment my program to write a bit-map file. I'll let you know when it's done.

There is a very easy and quick way for designing layouts. With Autocad. You can make "blocks" which you can copy into your space. You can see if it fits, I used that too. The only problem is that you have to make the rail library first before you can make a design.

[lionelsoni]

Daan, my program is very specialized for designing the layout in my own weird way. The layout description is actually the program itself, in the form of subroutine calls that insert tangents, curves, switches, table sections, etc., into the design. The program calculates the track location as it goes. I like to work out the track geometry analytically and then specify the building blocks to the program, which effectively checks my work by confirming, to the picometer, that the track went where I wanted.

[daan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by lionelsoni

Daan, my program is very specialized for designing the layout in my own weird way. The layout description is actually the program itself, in the form of subroutine calls that insert tangents, curves, switches, table sections, etc., into the design. The program calculates the track location as it goes. I like to work out the track geometry analytically and then specify the building blocks to the program, which effectively checks my work by confirming, to the picometer, that the track went where I wanted.

That's even more sophisticated than anything else. I have the choise between "paint" and "autocad". Paint is not that acurate so that leaves autocad as only option to simply make a drawing and see if the things fit as I planned.
Your program doesn't only insert a certain railpiece, but also asks where it should fit to and calculates angles etc all by itself. And if you're doing a lot of designing, that is the best you can have.

[lionelsoni]

Jdoll, (and anyone else who's interested,) I now have a bit-map file of my layout diagram that I will be happy to attach to an e-mail if you will send me your address (which you can do without publishing it by clicking on the "Email" icon below). Would anyone else who is able be willing to post it here?

[daan]

Just to return to the original question. I saw a nice option in the september 2005 issue of CTT for making a double oval around the wall with a return loop. The return loop is a construction where the outer oval runs behind and the inner oval runs in front of the loop. The loop intself is connected to both ovals with a total of 4 switches and it works like 2 returnloops mounted back to back. You'll only need to make a corner where the loop fits and the rest of the layout can be made to the walls. It works in both directions too and requires less space than 2 return loops apart from eachother.

[FJ and G]

Your mention of around the wall layout is best; and multilevel is even better. You mention boring just watching them go round and ruound; well the big advantage iw/shelf layout is switching. You can reliably switch (couple/uncouple) by hand cause everything is within reach and with this layout you'll have plenty of walking clearance.

Remember, the 2 MOST common problems w/layouts is REACH and CLEARANCE

Also, there's plenty of scenery possibilities, even with a relatively narrow 2 ft shelf.

An idea I have had (which someone copied recently and put into MR mgazine), is to attach w/velcro styrofoam blocks to the front of a narrow shelf layout with industries or stuff on them. When additional clearance or other activities are needed in the room, you can simply remove the "blocks" and slide them under the shelf layout. Also, you can even swap industries on the spurs in this manner.

I was surprised when I saw a recent MR article advocating this as I've posted this on the forum for about 18 months now.

[daan]

@David, you should copyright your ideas [:D]