I am in the process of planning a layout. I just bought a house so the available space will likely increase somewhat, but this plan will likely be the starting point. I thought I should get some feedback before making a major revision.
I am generally more interested in the process of building the layout and do not plan to have complicated operating sessions. So there aren't a lot of staging and industries.
Requirements:
Ability for continuous running
Primarily short passenger cars (60-70 ft)
Reversing loop
Moderate radius curves (nominally 24")
Some mountainous grades (nominally <3%)
The current plan is 7x12 and would be operated primarily from the two cutouts inside the layout. The timeframe will be roughly 1940s. I need to find a good way to show the elevation on the plan.
I need to find a place for a small yard. I would also like to change the wye turnout into two normal turnouts.
It looks like a lot of crawling into and out of the cut-outs to me.
I'd check out an around the walls type, using a drop section or duck-under to enter the room, or maybe a center island type with a scenic devider in the middle, and be able to walk around the layout, and be able to reach everything.
Just my worth.
Mike.
My You Tube
I get the impression that the room is 12' by 7', and that the popup access holes are the only way to get into the room; that there is no access to the perimeter of the layout.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
Thank you for adding those dimensions Mel.
The current space is actually slightly larger then 7x12, but there are too many shelves and such along the wall to make room for the train. Also being a rental makes it difficult to attach to the wall. Moving into a new space, I hopefully will have more control and will be able to fit two of the sides along a wall.
I did have a lot of difficulty getting the continuous running and reversing loop with out ending up with a large reach. That is why there are two cut outs. I have thought about making a lift out section between them, but I'm not sure if there is enough space between the turnouts.
I also realized I didn't mention this is HO scale.
Thank you for the responses.
Hi hgodling,
I am by no means an expert layout designer so I could be wrong on this, but it looks to me as though trains running in a clockwise direction won't be able to reverse direction without backing through the wye.
Also, trains running in a counterclockwise direction will only be able to run on the outer loop if they want to stay running in that direction. If they enter the center north/south track through the wye they can only go clockwise from that point, again unless they back up through the wye.
You may be fine with having to back through the wye occassionally. After all, that is what most wyes are used for, but I thought I would point the situation out to you.
Somebody sort me out if I am wrong please.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
That‘s a little bit of a spaghetti bowl plan! Old style and intended to just run trains...
The plan is great for just endless run trains in loops, but often people like a bit of a switching opertunity here or there! That’s not saying you need to have that, but it is certainly something you should consider.
You will definitely want a place to park you trains, if you want to run different trains! You don’t want to be forced to ”armstrong” your trains off and on the track whenever you want to run something new!
Good luck with your planning!
Regards, Isaac
I model my railroad and you model yours! I model my way and you model yours!
hon30critterSomebody sort me out if I am wrong please.
You are spot on, Dave!
This is a typical toy train set-up of the 1960s, the spaghetti-bowl design, which packed a lot of track into tight spaces, but bearing no resemblance of prototypical operation whatsoever. It actually reminds me more of a slot car track than a layout for trains. If that´s what the OP wants, fine, but if he is looking for a "real" model railroad following prototype practices, he needs to say good bye to this type of design.
There are plenty of quite nice designs "floating" around in the Internet, which roughly fit the space available, one of them being Byron´s (Cuyama in this parish) famous "water-wings design".
Happy times!
Ulrich (aka The Tin Man)
"You´re never too old for a happy childhood!"
Tinplate ToddlerThis is a typical toy train set-up of the 1960s, the spaghetti-bowl design, which packed a lot of track into tight spaces, but bearing no resemblance of prototypical operation whatsoever.
Ummm, Ulrich and Isaac, I think your comments are a bit harsh. Yes, the plan does not provide a lot of opportunity for operations as it currently sits, but the OP clearly stated that he isn't much interested in operations. He wants to run trains. Describing his design as a "typical toy train set-up of the 1960s" or a "spagetti bowl" is a bit of a put down whether it was meant that way or not. Yes, his plan can be improved upon, but your comments could be interpreted as implying that he has done something wrong.
Please don't be offended by my comments. I'm just expressing what I would feel if I was the OP.
Cheers!!
Dave - I don´t think the truth is harsh. If the OP comes to this place for help, he has to be prepared for some criticism on what he is about to embark on. Afterall, even a badly designed layout will cost quite a lot in terms of involvement and money and it´d be a shame to see that go to waste. Layouts of this type usually don´t last long, as they become boring quite quickly.
Maybe this is a cultural thing. In my country, we are quite outspoken and direct, even if it does not earn us new friends - at times.
Tinplate ToddlerDave - I don´t think the truth is harsh.
Hi Ulrich,
Maybe I'm too sensitive. I try to put things in terms that avoid risking offending people. I'm sorry if I failed to do that when I commented on your post. However, if I was the OP reading your comments I would react somewhat negatively, but that's just me.
I tried to write my post in a way which presents some of the issues I see in a constructive way, and I do hope I was clear that my opinions can be taken anyway the OP likes!
The intent of my post was to warn the OP of the potential issues with a plan that lacks storage tracks. I have found it difficult in the past on both my own and other railroads to find enough space to keep all the trains I wanted on the track!
I will note the OP is working in a very small space, especially for HO, and there are going to have to be some things that may be wanted that are left of due to space constraints. The OP will need to decide what things are most important for him.
Again everything I say is intended to assist the OP, and you have my sincere apologies if anything has been viewed as to harsh or offensive. I assure you that is not the intent!
SPSOT fanI tried to write my post in a way which presents some of the issues I see in a constructive way,
Hi Isaac,
I'm sure that you didn't intend to be overly critical of the OP's plan. I was worried that the OP might react negatively to your's and Ulrich's comments. Maybe I'm too sensitive about the "spagetti bowl" reference. If someone were to refer to the layout that I designed for our club in those terms it would upset me. I feel that the term suggests a failure to properly design a layout.
I would like to suggest that we drop this aspect of the thread and let the OP get on with designing his layout.
Respectfully,
Tinplate ToddlerI don´t think the truth is harsh. If the OP comes to this place for help, he has to be prepared for some criticism on what he is about to embark on. Afterall, even a badly designed layout will cost quite a lot in terms of involvement and money and it´d be a shame to see that go to waste. Layouts of this type usually don´t last long, as they become boring quite quickly.
Ulrich makes a good point. Often newbs come looking for advise or feedback and many wanting to "build self esteem" or make the newb feel good, just offer only happy thoughts or compliments.
The downside to that is the newb may have a false sense of what works, or what looks good. I can't tell you how many people have shown off weathering jobs on a freight car that look terrible and they get nothing but compliments and how wonderful it looks, when it looks awful.
Of course it does no good go say only good things or only bad things, like how crappy something looks, but instead offer constructive critism or helpful hints at how to improve.
On forums and such, there can be an art to communicating carefully as possible to get a point across without being harsh. Emoticons are one aid, if used effectively, to alter the perception of a post. And how one words things can go a long way to come across as helpful and not overly critical.
But in principle, I agree with Ulrich, truth can be more helpful and constructive than only offering compliments. There "truth" on how to offer help is "out there" and probably somewhere in the middle of "harsh" and "sugar coat".
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I'm not one to sugar coat things either, must be my PA Dutch (German) background. But do remember the OP's second paragraph.
Based on that, I'm going to say what would be a nice layout for many of us wouldn;t appeal to the OP. And I also suspect from that second paragraph that it's no big deal if the layout doesn't hold interest for long past its completion - he did say he likes the process of building a layout more than doing operations. So at this point, I can only conclude that the OP is in the 'chainsaw' phase of the hobby and will build and tear down a few more layouts until something really catches his eye to model in a more prototypical manner.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.