Ok, so I am considering starting on a second layout for my son and I. the first was an attempt to get him and I into the hobby. well, we outgrew it quite fast, actually even before it was finished.
So, after looking at the reasons why we dont use the layout, we came up with a few reasons.
1. only one town, stuff comes and goes, but there is no feeling of delivery of either people or goods.
2. only one main line. limits how many trains can run at once without issues.
3. feels small. it started out as a 4x8 and then grew into a 4.5x9 with on section of line going behind a wall to hide the train as it "went to a different town". although this seemed to work for a while, it just didnt as a train could not be allowed to go out there and stopped for a long time without a second train needing to use the same route. again due to a single main line. a second train could keep running, but it never leaves the one town on the layout.
So, to fix this I came up with a wicked nice layout design, problem is it needs a lot of room. and well, I am not allowed to have the room needed. So I designed a 9'x7' hollow center layout, it uses just a tiny bit more room than the current 4.5x9 does once you consider how much room we use when we stand in front of the current layout. problem came with this 9x7 is there were a ton of turnouts and reach became a problem. I really need to keep reach minimum as Nicholas is only 7 still. we use manual hand throws. we find it makes operations better as we are constatnly needing to make sure the turout is the right way where as with electric, we might forget and cause problems. is a personal preference and seems to be working great so far. other issue is that with the large amount of turnouts, and the fact that I am not going to use non peco turnouts, there was a lot of $ that would be needed...$200 almost just in turnouts. I dont have that much to put to just turnouts.
So, the 9x7 has been scrapped.
I have a 9x4'8" layout that I have designed, its not a hollow center, but it has a full length partition. so on one side is the "country" and the other side is the "city" Now with it being two sidded we will need more room to be standing on both sides. so when in use the layout takes up 9'x6'8" pretty much the same as the 9x7. But the advantage to this layout is I can push it up against the wall when not in use. casters will be a savior here. Plus this layout has a lot less turnouts. in fact I will only need to purchase 3 lefts and 1 right. not bad since i have the rest already.
So here is the design:
ok, so its using 22" radi on the outter loop and a mix of 22 and 18" radi on the inner.. the inner will be the freight line, the outter the passenger line. we will be able to run the two trains in opposite directions with no issues, and a 3rd engine can be snuck in there somehow. we have 2 factories on the city side to bring supplies to the country town, and we have a place on the country to have a quarry and logging(both hidden but used by the siding in the country) so logs and stones can be brought back to the city to the "sticks 'n stones" company. we can also bring fresh food from the country's farm to the city. so we now have freight being taken and dropped and new freight being picked up and brought back. passenger service will run between the two towns. the passenger engine will run counter clock wise so when the engine stopps at the stations, the front of the train is not sticking out the other side of the partition. I have just enough storage for the cars we have, we dont have much, we are not talking 60 car freight lines nor are we talking more than 3 70' car passenger service, the last layout limited what we could run, so we just dont have the stock.
At first glance, the layout looks limited, but after considering how we seem to run trains, we dont run for more than say 45min at a time. so we dont really need a huge around the wall layout that I was designing. although it looked nice in the design, we really dont need it. this layout seems to tackle the shortcomings from the last layout without making the layout much larger. when pushed against the wall, it will only be 1" deeper than the current. Also, I can redo my track laying, wich I found there are several issues from the last one, I messed up pretty good and my wife's K-4 derails every time when coming into the turnouts. I need to have the layout run well this time. with that I think I will stick with sectional track and solder the joints so I know I have good allignment. there are sections of flex in there, but they are yard lines.
Ok, so enough rambling. this was a much longer post than I planned. took my whole lunch period. I am just wondering if anyone has been able to realize their desires in a layout that would normally seem limiting.
Kevin
Well I can offer up a solution to keep the town interesting, I'm about to start my 3rd layout and one of the things that I found was that I get board with the stagnant look of my town after only a few weeks so I'm going to make all my building lots with the same shape and size foot print so that I can make new ones and rearrange them when I'm board, I just pick one up, building, yard and all and replace it like big puzzle pieces, I'm starting a collection of interchangeable lots.
The things that will remain the same is the tracks and streets of course and the telepoles, trees and bushes not on the individual lots, in the end it will look like any normal layout but with the abaility to change its look and function as I see fit.
good luck and have fun above all.
Jess Red Horse of the "Hard too please" Tribe!
the exchangable buildings idea is a great one. I will use that.
The thought process and practical learning experiences for the evolution of any layout are always interesting to read. Yes, I have a similar story about my son's layout. Unfortunately it has been over 10 years now and I am certain I only remember the most gross details of how it came about. Similarly it would probably take a couple hours to write it out in a prose that could be easily read and understood.
The design and transformation took and entire summer, and even then there was an immediate change to add a "run around" track out on the main line. The story there is that one can plan forever and still overlook something significant. Overall though, I am still pleased with the design and two people can still go down and play with it for hours without becoming saturated.
Comments about your layout. 1. Nothing says the divider between the city and country has to divide the board evenly, go straight across the board (angled), or even has to be straight (curved backdrops can look less contrived.).2. I think I would try to straighten the industrial tracks in the city a little more. Coupling cars on curves can be tricky to impossible.3. Almost the opposite for the country side. Maybe curve the industrial track to run back to and then parallel with the backdrop divider. That would add some capacity. For that matter you could even run it through the divider and hide the tracks with a factory on the city side.4. Do you really want a 3-way switch? They can be confusing for even experienced "older" people. What is the top most track from that turnout for anyway? 5. You realize the top most factory track (left) is a double switch back? Not really a problem just a bit unusual and one has to leave enough space empty on both the tails of the switchback to get at least a loco (and preferably one car) through to it.
Autobus Prime-
Those are some interesting ideas...
The deal with the farm is, it has to stay. its the wife's request. the part with farm is actually up on a hill. and the land overlooks the two main lines. then the main lines actually go into a tunnel as it passes from the country to the city. thats what that green lines were trying to represent.
the idea of the mine isnt a bad one too...I could have that track go "underground" as it enters the hill the farm is on. I will think that one over.
the round house. I know it takes up a great deal of room. the son likes the idea of it, and I already have one built up and I have a atlas turntable in preperation of this layout. the round house I have is small, its only 7" deep and 7" wide at the entrance and 10" at the back. all the engines will stick out no matter what. unless I extend the back with sheds, which was a plan. I will mess around though and see how it looks. one thing that could be done if it was eliminated is I would be able to get to a 9x4, and that would make the building process easier as its closer to the standard 4x8 sheets of foam.
thanks for the ideas.
anyone see a major problem with using sectional and soldering them? I had issues with flex and the process I used for laying, i ended up pinching a curve too tight somehow in my last layout. I was thinking of the sectionals in order to keep myself from having that kind of thing happen again.
it looks like a good plan , and the suggestions others have made will make it even better . but i have to wonder if a better solution wouldn't be to use the full around-the-room space you have (9x7?) but design a less complicated trackplan to fit it . you don't need to use dozens of turnouts just because you have the space , trains look very realistic running through fairly empty country between towns .
ernie
ereimer-
I have this layout designed the way it is so that one side, the side that will be out into the room, the country side is very uncomplicated. this way trains can be just watched as they roll through, the city side is where I will spend most of my time and nicholas too i suppose. but I see him walking around as the train travels.
I do hear you wit the around the wall idea. it would be much easier to scenic too. I guess I will revisit that plan before any bench work is done. it is pretty simple too, but it has several turnouts that create a staging/storage area and thats where the $ started adding up. that layout plan does not have a roundhouse.
Again, good points.
HHPATH56-
Nicholas has been able to manage the 7 turnouts we have on the current layout. he has been running trains on it for almost 3 yrs now. so I am not too worried with this design.
the track is all level, the landscape on the country side will rise up and the farm will be on the hill. I thought of what you mention, having a track go under the hill and into the city but I wasnt able to agree with where it was coming out.
I didnt think I was going to have any shorting with the layout of the turout tracks, other than the turn table, I didnt think I had any reversing loops in there. can you tell me what you mean?
the 3way is there because, well I have one, and it also provided me with two storage tracks one on each side of the round house and at the same time continues to the round house. this will allow me to have a place to store nicholas' passenger cars, 3 70' cars and a place to store maggie's passenger cars, 3 40' cars that get pulled by her K-4. she doesnt run often so having a place to keep them is key.
what is the angle degree on a peco double slip? is it 19.5? or something else? the atlas program I used for this does not have peco in the list, so I would substitue a 19.5 degree crossing for a double slip if they use the same angle. I have found that the atlas #4 turnout is the same as the peco medium so i am able to use the #4 for the design. i was suprised when I printed a #4 out of this app at 1:1 scale and placed the peco medium on it, it fit in the lines perfectly.
Hey Kevin - Chris up in Burlington... We spoke about your garden layout before.
Have you thought about doing a "modular" layout? Yes, it would take time to setup, but you could do a shelf layout with additional "modules" that can be taken out when you want to run trains etc. Total setup time might only be ten or fifteen minutes and could be left up as long as you like, then taken down when you need the space again.
I'll be coming down to the greater "Exit 7" area in a few weeks, probably next weekeend. I'd be glad to help you with a bit of planning and laying things out. There's a few local people with layouts, perhaps I can give them a call and see if we can stop by...
This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements
ondrek wrote: anyone see a major problem with using sectional and soldering them? I had issues with flex and the process I used for laying, i ended up pinching a curve too tight somehow in my last layout. I was thinking of the sectionals in order to keep myself from having that kind of thing happen again. Kevin
What I do is solder the flex track as it lays straight and then I'll bend the curve and tack/glue down. If theres still a problem, use a small straight section in between the curved sections. That will definatly help on the kinking.
good luck
Mike
thanks mike. What I think I will do is play around with a 2'x4' laying flex and trying that idea out. something that will be temporary and practice.
on a completely different track (!) some of your buildings seem to be pretty small . if you haven't already done so you might consider buying some of the kits you're thinking of putting on the layout and checking their actual size . some manufacturers websites even have the size listed .
you don't want to lay all your track and then find out later that the buildings don't fit where you want them too
GraniteRailroader wrote:Hey Kevin - Chris up in Burlington... We spoke about your garden layout before. Have you thought about doing a "modular" layout? Yes, it would take time to setup, but you could do a shelf layout with additional "modules" that can be taken out when you want to run trains etc. Total setup time might only be ten or fifteen minutes and could be left up as long as you like, then taken down when you need the space again. I'll be coming down to the greater "Exit 7" area in a few weeks, probably next weekeend. I'd be glad to help you with a bit of planning and laying things out. There's a few local people with layouts, perhaps I can give them a call and see if we can stop by...
I'm just across the border, so if you come down this way, you can take a look at my 4x8 test layout.
Cheers
I'm trying to model 1956, not live in it.
Just curious, but what program did you use to draw the plan? Thanks.
- Harry
Looks like a promising start.
1. If you really want to have 3 trains going at once you'll need to modify the city area to not require the 3rd train to come out on the inner oval to go from the roundhouse lead to the industry lead.
2. That switchback will be a pain to deal with since using the run around will foul both of the main tracks.
3. Unless you're in love with the roundhouse and turntable perhaps a 3 track yard could use that space (with yard ops being that 3rd train)? Or run a short branchline around one end of the layout to the country side. Let it serve a grain elevator or mine or ?
4. Making the run around a bit longer will let you deal with longer trains.
5. If sectional track is what you're comfortable with, then by all means go ahead with it. But flex track will give you a lot more planning flexibility (and with fewer rail joints it should be a bit more reliable).
6. The idea of making the backdrop/divider curved or offesting it seems like something to look further at (to me anyway). It might allow some more interesting scenic opportunities.
7. Putting another cross over on the country side of the layout might allow for a bit more interesting operation.
Looks like you're going to have fun with this one.
And don't feel bad about the first layout not turning out the way you'd hoped. If we all waited until we had perfect track plans before building anything, nothing would ever get built.
When I had my 4x8 layout I made a bunch of 'tiles' by cutting 3/4" plastic I-beams into 1" long pieces. I labeled each piece with the name of an industry and stuck 'em in a small container. When I wanted to do freight switching I'd pull the freight train into town then pull tiles out of the container and set them on top of cars in the train. Then I'd deliver those cars to the industries the tiles said they should go to. If there was already a car at that industry I'd pick it up. After a while I got a bit more persnickety and if the tile for a tank car said it should go to the warehouse I'd start pulling more tiles until I found one for an industry the tank car would be appropriate for. Just a suggestion how you might do some easy 'operation'.
Good luck to you!
Charlie Comstock
HarryHotspur wrote:Just curious, but what program did you use to draw the plan? Thanks. - Harry
Autobus Prime wrote:Another idea: I have come to the conclusion that divider backdrops are somewhat of an eyesore. How about a tree-covered ridge going irregularly across. The trees will screen the view, but still allow one town to serve as a vague "backdrop" for the other. A big ridge isn't needed, just a low rise that provides some mental and physical separation.Crude sketch:
Exactly. A ridge, even a low one, and some trees, bushes, etc. will produce a much more natural looking view block than a center board. And it doesn't have to be a complete view block - just enough to make the structures on the other side less obvious, same as in real life.
BCSJ wrote:<p>Looks like a promising start. </p><p>1. If you really want to have 3 trains going at once you'll need to modify the city area to not require the 3rd train to come out on the inner oval to go from the roundhouse lead to the industry lead.</p><p>2. That switchback will be a pain to deal with since using the run around will foul both of the main tracks.</p><p>3. Unless you're in love with the roundhouse and turntable perhaps a 3 track yard could use that space (with yard ops being that 3rd train)? Or run a short branchline around one end of the layout to the country side. Let it serve a grain elevator or mine or ?</p><p>4. Making the run around a bit longer will let you deal with longer trains.</p><p>5. If sectional track is what you're comfortable with, then by all means go ahead with it. But flex track will give you a lot more planning flexibility (and with fewer rail joints it should be a bit more reliable).</p><p>6. The idea of making the backdrop/divider curved or offesting it seems like something to look further at (to me anyway). It might allow some more interesting scenic opportunities.</p><p>7. Putting another cross over on the country side of the layout might allow for a bit more interesting operation. </p><p>Looks like you're going to have fun with this one.</p><p>And don't feel bad about the first layout not turning out the way you'd hoped. If we all waited until we had perfect track plans before building anything, nothing would ever get built. </p><p>When I had my 4x8 layout I made a bunch of 'tiles' by cutting 3/4" plastic I-beams into 1" long pieces. I labeled each piece with the name of an industry and stuck 'em in a small container. When I wanted to do freight switching I'd pull the freight train into town then pull tiles out of the container and set them on top of cars in the train. Then I'd deliver those cars to the industries the tiles said they should go to. If there was already a car at that industry I'd pick it up. After a while I got a bit more persnickety and if the tile for a tank car said it should go to the warehouse I'd start pulling more tiles until I found one for an industry the tank car would be appropriate for. Just a suggestion how you might do some easy 'operation'. </p><p>Good luck to you!</p><p>Charlie Comstock </p><p> </p>
I have taken the idea of a ridge for a separation and implemented it, its a great idea.
I talked things over with nicholas and my wife and things were as i figured. the small town with a center green must stay. I MUST include a model of our house, something that was suposed to be done for the current layout, but just not done yet. the Farm must stay. the country side of the layout will not change. this side of the layout is to be just for watching mostly. thats the reason for the simple siding for the freight. this is the side of the layout that will be facing out to the room.the city side had minor changes, i put in 2 double slips. now, the atlas doesnt have them in the program, but the 12.5 degree crossing they have is close to the 12 degree double slip that peco has, so i used that as a stand in. also the crossing in the program is 25.5 degrees, where as the peco is 24 degree. this difference has caused my track sections to no longer fit in the program, but I feel that in reality, the peco ones will. I will test this all out before actual constructions starts of course.These double slips will do 2 things...1 allow a freight engine to come out of either the roundhouse end or the sidings end and stay on the inner loop, the freight line. 2. allow for smoother transitions, the s curves that were created by the previous #4 turnouts could have posed problems for everyone. All this and I still get the run around. I understand that the run around causes issues because it uses the passenger line, but I will have to live with that.dealing with the issue of will the buildings fit where I have drawn them...they might, they might not. the boxes on the drawing are just to give me a ballpark idea.
The round house got a lot of smiles. looks like it will stay. it may not be the best use of space nor get used a whole lot, but no one said that they wanted something else either.
I dont think that the switchback will be all that bad, as I dont see freight being more than 3 to 4 cars total. so any kind of work can be done one car at a time. we dont have much nor do i plan on getting more rolling stock. I see a typical session being made up of nicholas running his passenger service. having a freight engine running on the inner loop, and if I feel up to it sending out a small 2 car stone/log from sticks n stones to go get more raw materials from the siding in the country. but doing so will mean that that engine is the lowest on the totem pole and will have to wait its turn to get into the loop.
The setting will be october just as the current layout is, hopefully this one we will get to the point where pumpkins will be on door steps allong with holloween displays on porches.
thanks for the ideas, they were great. Now what I need to do is get a 24 degree crossing and 2 double slips without costing me an arm and a leg.
ondrek wrote:I talked things over with nicholas and my wife...
I don't see the advantage of the double slips. They reduce the length of the runaround track and they'll set you back $$$ (of course there are only 2 of 'em vs 4 other switches). I'd keep the original configuration.
Sounds like you've been thinking alot about the layout plan!
Good luck,
What about the s curves that the use of the #4 turnouts creates?
there is an scurve when an engine goes from the outter loop to the inner one...but then lets say the engine continues on to the 24degree crossing, there is another turnout, the cars being pulled could still be on the outter loop. wont this "staircase stepping" design cause some possible problems? that was the real advantage I saw with using the double slips. I know they are more $, I didnt like that part, but if it made the trains run more dependable then I would do it.
Well, those S curves won't do full lenth passenger equipment any good. But then full length passenger equipment probably won't be too happy on the 22" radius curves let alone the 18" radius curves. And using the double slips doesn't eliminate this problem, all crossovers have an S-curve built in as you go from one parallel track to the next.
To make this nicer you could go to #6 turnouts for the crossover. They may not fit entiredly well in front of the town. How about moving one crossover to the country side of the layout?
Perhaps you could fit a run around track into the town area itself off the mainlines?
As long as you're running smallish locos (4 axle diesels or 2-8-0 or smaller steam) and 50' or shorter cars the #4 cross overs, while not ideal should work ok. But you can test this out before building the layout by tacking a couple of switches together in a cross over configuration adding some track to the ends of the switches, add some power with clip leads, and test it out with what you've got.
Although it may be a bit out of your comfort zone, if you were to forsake the sectional track for flex track it would allow you to be more flexible in your track planning. Including using #6 turnouts for cross overs.
I hope this helps.
Regards,
Charlie -
the passenger service is made of the following:(and this is HO, I dont think it was ever mentioned)
modern passenger service - Amtrak AMD 103 (4wheel trucks 9" total length) with three matched passenger cars each being about 9" long each, 4 wheel trucks. By the time this layout is built there will be a second AMD 103, but a dummy to trail behind the second passenger car, the 3rd passenger car will be left out to dry as it was a observation.
Steam passenger service - my wife's K4 pacific 4-6-2 with three 40' passenger cars
I know the AMD will work on the 22 radi, I have it running right now on 18" radi. the K4 runs on the current layout with 18" as well. that engine only derails on two different snap switches, and thus is the reason why I will not use snap switches in the new layout. I used 22 in this layout just to make it look better, no other reason, i originally designed this to have 18 on the outside and a mix of 18 and 15 on the inside, that got it to fit on a 4x8.
Freight service will consist of 1 GP38 and will haul a vari of different box cars. 40' mostly, I do have 1 50' flat car that nicholas uses. but that navigates the current 18" layout with ease already so no worries there. other freight will be handled by my 0-8-0 and my small 0-6-0 these will haul the stones and logs, 3 loads and a stub caboose only.
So short trains, and short cars, the only exception is the Amtrak and my wife's K4. the K4 does not get run often though.
I just scored 5 peco #4's and one #4 right for $52 so the double slips are not going to make the cut.
so after the sections arrive, I will put out a test track using the #4's and a 24 degree crossing and see how things run.
Flex track, well, i have some, well, see...maybe I will do some test runs and see how they come out. I am going to have to take the current layout down before I can do these tests though as there is no other room to set up test tables.
Oh and to the advice of everyone, I have taken out the switch back.
ondrek wrote:Oh and to the advice of everyone, I have taken out the switch back.