Hi there...new to the site and this is my first posting...please bear with me.
I have decided to tear down my existing N scale layout for a couple of reasons, tired eyes and a case of "spegetti track" and decided to move up to HO and I need help on planning the layout. My N scale layout was in a inverted U shape consisting of two 34 3/4" x 96" tables with a 36" x36" portion forming the base of the inverted U. This allowed me sufficient space to get completely around the tables in the room. I want to keep the bench work only mount the two side tables to the wall and increase the width of the center portion to make an around the room kind of shelf layout.
The room dimensions are (using North to South) width = 11' 4 7/8"(West to East) legnth = 10' 10 7/8"(North to south). On the South wall there is a closet door which the frame is 25" from the west wall. The closet door is hinged on the west side of the frame and swings into the room. It is not imperative that the clost door open all the way only just enough to allow access. The door frame itself measures 41" across. From the east side of the closet door frame it is 33 3/8" to the entry door frame. The entry door frame measures 35 3/4" across with another 3/4" to the east wall. The entry door is hinged on the east side of the door frame and swings into the room.
The east wall has no impediments and the 96" table will fit against it and the door will not interfere with it.
The North wall has a window and it is 36" from the east wall to the window frame. The window frame is 40 5/8" across. It is 60 1/4" from the west side of the window frame to the west wall.
The west wall has no impediments and the 96" table will fit nicely on the wall with the possibility of a 24" extension on the south end of the table for maybe a small staging yard.
My concept is that "BIG CITY1" (west and off the table) has an interchange daily small train to "Big City2" (easet and off the table) with service to an small interchange yard that will service a mine of some type, the daily run dropping off empty hoppers and picking up full ones for one of the big cities.
The daily run would also drop off a box car of supplies and an occaisional tank car to be used to service the mines needs and pick up the empties.
The daily milk run will have to be a continous run.
The mine is serviced by a switcher which makes twice a day runs from the mine to the interchange yard dropping off full hoppers and taking empty hoppers and the ocassional box car of supplies and tank car to the mine. This run should be an up and back run between the interchange yard and the mine.
As an alternative if there is room, I would maybe have a consumer (power plant in the case of a coal mine) on the layout which could be serviced along with the product for the interchange yard.
I plan on using Atlas code 100 flex track as much as possible. Also PECO SL-91 and SL-92 Turnouts. It will be a DCC controlled system.
These are the givens:
I do not want to build new bench work other than the larger section needed to cross the tables along the north wall, and maybe extending the west wall table the 24" to make the small staging yard (fiddle yard?)
Maximum radius for return loops or reversing loops is 15" radius. I have tested my equipment and they run fine with the 15" radius. (LifeLike SW9/1200 Switcher and a Bachman F7A). My period would be 50's - 60's with nothing larger than 40' cars.
There Must be a continous run of the main line.
Like to haves:
Mine on a different level than the interchange yard and the consumer if that can be worked in.
Passing siding on the main line hidden to stage another train. Maybe one daily run east and another west via seperate consists.
I have thought about this a long time and I hope the HO gurus out there can offer some help. There is not much space to work with and I have been banging my head against the wall trying to figure out something that would give me what I want to accomplish but have not been able to figure it out. I don't mind edge of the table track as I am not very prototipical...I just want it to WORK smoothly. I plan to lay the track and scenenik the tables one at a time so there will be no problem reaching things. I am 6'3" with a 36" reach and can reach completely across the tables with some to spare.
Thanks in advance for any help offered.
If you could post a rough sketch of your layout space and what you currently have, it would help us, and ultimately you, immensely.
Your current footprint is very sparing for an HO layout. Could you possibly widen or deepen the benches that you have, even if using a few blocks screwed to the current fascia area, the front boards, to support another 6"-8". It would allow more generous curve radii and greatly improve your 'expandabiliy' into all that HO offers that you might find appealing. I know I had no idea how much my desire for longer rolling stock would impact my initial setup...or rather, the other way around, how limiting it was.
What did you have in mind for structures on your layout? The mine, for instance . . . do you want to have full 4-sided 3D buildings with open industry space and the cars traveling into, through, and out of the compound? Or, can you live with building 'flats', basically facades that are maybe an inch deep or so? What about the extreme case of a 'flat' where the cars pull into a siding that runs parallel to the backdrop with a mural depicting a power plant or something?
Just trying to get an idea of what your track-to-scenery ratio is.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
A rough sketch of the room would definately help and as Selector suggested, consider adding on to the existing benchwork you have by extending, we all do it.
Lynn
Present Layout progress
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/290127/3372174.aspx#3372174
I could possibly add enough to the facia to widen the tables to 42" or 44" which would allow a 15" radius and a 18" radius loop at each end of the tables. I only expect the main line run to be 6 or 7 cars long including a caboose, and the mine service to consist of only the switcher, couple of hopper (empty of full) an ocassional box car or tank car. Nothing longer ever.
For the mine I would like to go with the 4 sided 3D Structure with minimum of 2 sidings, one for empties to be loaded by the mine and one for full ones to be picked up and hauled to the consumer. The consumer (power plant?) can actually be a building flat with two sidings one for full cars and one for empties. I could get away with a flat in the mine compound for a small warehouse, and thinking of a small oil storage facility with a siding to it. This would be a 3d and not a flat.
UI would post a rough sketch if I knew how, that is why I was very specific about room details and benchwork as I could be in my original post. If someone could let me know an easy way to post a sketch I would gladly do that. The room is a small bedroom slightly over 11' x 10' with the closet door, entry door and window as I put in my post.
wickman A rough sketch of the room would definately help and as Selector suggested, consider adding on to the existing benchwork you have by extending, we all do it.
Here is a rough sketch of the room and what I am working with. (finally figured out the photobucket thing.)
Here is photo of the room with my tables...it's messy been trying to figure something out and still taking the n scale down.
That is the ho SW9/1200 on the 15" radius test loop.
I'm not very good at all with designing layouts but only know what I like from starting over from previous layouts.
Seeing your room dimensions and a photo of your present layout I would suggest adding onto that layout by seperating either left or right sides leaving an L Shape and then pushing the two long sides to the wall and filling in the gap, add onto the two legs and make a loop to loop. I've done a quick drawup in xtrackcad to show what I mean.
I'm not sure if the door opening is 41" on the left side as this would change benchwork location if it were less?
Thanks for the reply...nice sketch...both tables are 96 inches long. The 41 inches is across the closet door on the south wall. The left table will interfere with the closet door opening all the way but that is not important as long as I can get some access to the closet. From the south end of the left table I can extend a 24" long by 24" wide extension for a storage yard. I do plan on widening the tables to 44" as was recommended, then mounting the tables against the walls. The center section will have to be constructed after the tables are placed against the walls and an accurate measurement can be taken. I hope this helps clear up what I am facing.
Semi4I do plan on widening the tables to 44" as was recommended, then mounting the tables against the walls.
44" wide tables against the walls may pose problems as you build and add scenery to your layout. Most folks find that they can't reach more than 30" across a scenicked layout without damaging details at the edge of the layout.
For that reason, many builders in a situation similar to yours vary the depths of the benchwork, as in the HO layout below (with- or without the change in elevation).
It may mean rebuilding your benchwork, but that will make things easier down the road. You may still need openings for access to keep the reach-in distance down to less than 30”.
Good luck with your layout.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
How about just removing the closet door, then you could take the plan that Byron posted above (which is one I've always liked) and make it wider across the top since the plan is 8 feet wide and you have 11. That would also reduce the grades a bit. Do note the need for access inside the loops, since they are only accessible from one side there's no way you can reach the back corners, unless you are a 7'+ basketball player. With the 22" minimum radius mainline your equipment will look nicer and you can squeak in locos that are really too big for the layout. You'd loose the interchange though, because your door opens the other way - but it could be done as a removable or drop leaf as seen in some of the MR project layouts, installed only when operating the layout. For a small room layout, that one has it all - continuous run, branch operation, a decent yard, and a good number of switching spots.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
What elevation do you plan to make the new layout? From the photos of the old layout you provided, it appears the height is about 36" or so. Is that correct? Is that the same height you plan the new layout to be?
I'm asking to see how you feel about duckunders. A lot of people don't like them, maybe most. But there are some who have no problems with duckunders (or removable sections or swing-out or fold-out gates). There are some who physically cannot negotiate under them. Still others don't like them but put up with the nuissance because they can provide a little layout flexibility. In your case, access to existing doors and closets might be possible even though the benchwork appears to block the way.
Agree with Randy, I would not let the closet be the defining feature that limits my options. The plan Byron shows is much more interesting than what could be attained with the rectanguler tables in the photo. I would raise the layout level to 44/48" and duckunder into the closet, or if everything is move to the left do to the wider space available, you may be able to reach into the closet. Actually a removable section could be used at the entrance door, however that is a bit more complicated and may not be worth the effort. Really like the plan Byron showed
I wasn't suggesting my plan for the Original Poster's space as-is, more of an example of varying benchwork depth. A similar shape would fit well in the room if flipped and rotated. One lobe could go on the west wall down near the closet door (leaving room to open it partway) and the other lobe on the east wall allowing enough clearance for the entrance door to swing open fully.
In the larger room, grades could be reduced a bit (or eliminated) and it would be a fine layout. But it would mean re-doing his existing benchwork completely, which may not be in the O.P.'s plans.
I think I have decided to remove the closet door. Also I am going to take the west table and put it across the north wall the build new bench work to extend along the west wall so that I get the full 10+ feet along the west wall. The new bench work will be 4' wide to allow larger radius curves. I also had a nutty idea to use the closet for a helix but realized the largest radius I could use would be 15" radius so I ditched that idea.
Cuyama: very nice layout plan and as rinker said gives me everthinge I wanted. I may have to do some little revisions, but overall that is the plan I will build. I am using code 100 flex and I noticed you used c75 turnouts...are using the peco sl-91 and sl-92 turnouts going to be a problem setting up the yard?
The tables are now at 42" in height and I plan on raising them to 48 to 50 " when I mount them on the walls.
The Peco Code 100 and Code 75 turnouts have the same geometry.
If you are going to riff off of Byron's plan I would make the benchwork angled and not just 4' wide along the entire wall. I doesn't need to be that wide in the narrow parts of the plan plus it will be much easier to reach in when building and when trying to retrieve a lost car. Nicely curved is fancy but not as easy, but even a cheap miter box can make 45 degree cuts to angle it in nicely to narrow sections in the middle, widening out at the ends where the loops go.
I’m glad that you found the layout interesting. I know of a couple of people who are building variations of it.
4-foot-wide benchwork against the wall may prove troublesome. Most folks find it hard to reach across more than 30" of scenicked layout. I posted the layout in the first place to show how varying the depth of the benchwork helps accommodate wider curves in spots and still allows easier access for most of the layout.
Rebuilding your existing benchwork as necessary for better access is probably a good investment in time and materials.
As Randy notes, the geometry of the Code 75 and Code 100 PECO parts are the same.
I want to thank all that provided suggestions and advice. I have almost completed all the track work but just yesterday noticed something that may or may not have been noticed in the forum. I was thinking of creating my own track cleaning car and was moving a piece of 3/4 inch square stock to check width requirements and I noticed that at every peco turnout ( SL-91 and SL-92) where it mated up with the Atlas flex track or Atlas set track the peco turnout rail stop was higher than the Atlas track and the block would catch on the peco rail. So I did some checking with my micrometer and found out that both the peco and atlas rail are exactly to code at .100 in. However the peco track measures 0.180 from the top of the rail to the bottom of the ties, whereas the Atlas set track and the Atlas flex track measure 0.165. This leaves a difference of 0.015, the peco track trailhead being that much higher. Has anyone ever noticed this? Is there a way to correct this. I would prefer not to take up all the track and buy peco track. I really like the peco turnouts and want to keep them. Any help would be appreciated.
How is you track attached to the layout? I'm thinking styrene shims under the atlas track.
One of the tricks to joining code 83 to code 100 rail is to solder the code 83 to the top of the rail joiner and slide the code 100 into the joiner. That might be close enough to work in your case.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
Mating track from different manufacturers, even of the same nominal Code, will often require some shimming or light filing at the interfaces. The Code only applies to the rail height itself, ties vary in thickness from manufacturer to manufacturer.
I'd use a fine jeweler's-style file. Work slowly and check the progress often, and it should turn out fine.
If the track is not yet fastened down permanently, for areas where you have a lot of turnouts close together, changing out the Atlas flextrack for PECO will probably be worthwhile. This will minimize the number of interfaces without wasting a lot of track.
Byron