Hey,
First post here, thought I would pick the brains of this community for a bit of direction. I'm building my first layout (HO scale), but unfortunetly I'm severely limited by space and money (paying for college + small apartment). I originally was going to go with a 4x5 layout, but decided I could squeeze in a 4x6. This is the layout plan that I'm most likely going to go with:
The period will be loosely in the early 1950's, since I have an SW7 unit that will be my primary motive power on such a small layout. My issue at this point is I'm not sure what industries would be good on such a small layout to allow some operational variety. On such a small layout I'm not as concerned about prototypical operations as I am about a layout that I can do more than just watch trains go around in circles all day.
I'm open to any suggestions about possible industry/placement/operations, etc, or anything in general about ways to improve the layout design.
Thanks a bunch,
Cody
In terms of the layout design, since you have spurs coming from the mainline in two directions and no other runaround, you'll need to go around the whole oval to get the engine on the correct side of the cars to be spotted. If you recognize this already and made that choice consciously, fine, otherwise a runaround would be easy to add.
The s-curves created where the two crossovers connect with the end curve on the right-hand side may prove troublesome, especially for backing moves. Replacing them with another arrangement to ease that s-curve won't cost you anything and will improve the chances of reliable operation. Here's one way, the angled crossover:
There are some interesting pictures of completed small HO layouts on this page
Such as this one in 4X6:
Good luck and have fun.
ByronModel RR Blog
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
ivanfurlanis wrote:you need a passing siding as there are spurs facing in both directions.
I think that you can get a lot more stuff into that space. The first thing I noticed is that the center is vacant and wasted. I've always liked the one called "Morgan Valley" in this book (see page 22 & 23) shown at this site - http://books.google.com/books?id=sKUetsS-SpMC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=4x6+HO+Atlas&source=web&ots=O-6vYdcLQ1&sig=ZMFC9vlxVvbMz_hrQK_tZY_HQvM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA21,M1 If nothing else it shows one way to get some track in to the center of the board.
You could take this exact layout and tilt it just a little so the straight track isn't running parallel to the edge of the board.
To the main point of the thread, Do you already have a set of frieght cars to use, or will you be purchasing them after the industries are determine? I mean you would not want to design the lindustires around a midwestern grain theme, if you already have 5-20 ore cars.
Also don't get caught up in the "closed system syndrome". Nothing says that the cars have to go from one industry to another one ON the layout. Make at least one of the tracks an interchange to the rest of the world. I would design operatiosn to make MOST of the traffic will come from that track to your industries and then return to that track. Otherwise the industries would be using trucks for a short term haul.
It was during the 1950's that freight cars started specializing and the dominance of the box car started to decline. Up until that time the 40' box car was used for just about everything grain, lumber, automobiles. So if you want a variation in the freight cars on the layout the industries need to be selected accordingly. A fuel company might still have been surviving (requires chemical tank, oil tank, multi-tank(2-5 domes), & coal hoppers). A metal works could require flat, gondola, and box. Some sort of aggregate company (sand, gravel, cememt) would require hoppers, gondolas, and the "new" covered hoppers. If they worked with asphalt one might be able to justify a tank car too. A lumber yard would take box cars and bulk head flats. A grain elevator and or feed & seed would take boxes (they did make special grain-loading boxes, but most of the time just just put a board up blocking the lower half of the doorway), and a maybe a few of the "new" covered hoppers.
Reefers could come for something related to produce or packing plant. Actually one could do an entire layout just for a packing plant operation where the reefer's have to be cleaned & sanatized, then iced, before being loaded with meat.
Breweries are interesting requiring grain, chemicals, bottling or canning materials coming in, and refrigerated products out.
Good "industries" on a small layout are ones that take up little (or no) room, like a team track for example. It's just an open area next to a track to unload freight directly from a car to a truck (or in olden days, a wagon with a team of horses). It can paved, or just dirt or gravel. It can have an unloading ramp, but doesn't have to. Nice thing is any car pretty much could go there - boxcars, reefers, flats, etc.
How about an oil dealer?? I go by an oil dealer in Bloomington (MN) every so often that is basically a small office building and a rack for loading oil into trucks. Rest of it is just an open lot with gravel; the tank cars unload into underground storage tanks so except for some piping by the rails and the loading platform, the office is the only above-ground structure.
Thanks for the input everyone. I actually hadn't considered a shelf layout, probably because I over-estimated the usefulness of a full closed loop. My other issue is trying to use track that I already have in order to keep costs minimal, but on the other hand no one said the track had to be layed all at once.
I was doing some more measuring today and I might actually have a little more area to play with. I can probably get away with an 8x3 and 5x3 in an "L" shape, which opens up some new options (and cost... oh well, it's worth it..). So now back to the layout drawing board.
Texas Zepher, you raised a good point about car types that I haden't considered. While I don't have an abundance of any type of car, I have 5 ore and 5 tank cars that could make a good start to a collection (and industry types!). The rest is mostly mixed freight.
So now it looks like I'll be looking at slightly larger L layouts. This could at the very least allow me to do some point-to-point with a small staging yard at each end and maybe some branches off in the middle.
3' might be a little wide for a shelf layout, be hard to reach the back. My 12' x 13' shelf layout (first stage of an eventually much larger layout) is 16" wide shelving sections made by John Sterling. Once you put the vertical tracks up (to mount the shelfs on) it's nice because you can adjust the height until you're sure it's right, and you can put shelves under or over the layout for storage.
BTW mine will eventually be a two-deck layout, right now I'm just using the upper level with the lower level being storage tracks. You might be able to do that too, but I wouldn't go wider than 2 feet. In my case I'm modelling essentially two different parts of the same railroad. The upper and lower level don't connect (no helix etc.).
the_fly_boy wrote:Has anyone built the NMRA Gateway Central IX? (here). I was trying to input the layout into XtrkCAD using code 83, and then again with code 100, and I can't seem to get the layout to fit properly with either. Is this likely a result of "fudging" done while building that can't be duplicated in CAD?
The web page says they used Code 83. From the High-resolution photo, it looks as if a number of the turnouts were trimmed a bit at one or more ends to make everything fit. When things get this tight, it can be harder to use CAD because the trial-and-error process of trimming turnouts is pretty tedious in most of the CAD programs. Xeroxed paper templates sometimes work better, because you can trim them easily just as you would the real turnouts. Just be sure that you take care to line tracks up so that they meet squarely if using paper templates.
They might have trimmed the turnouts a bit. I can (apparently) get fairly close using unmodified Peco code 75 switches - except for the two diamond crossings, which I don't have in my Peco code 75 track library:
Sharpest curves is 18" radius, turnouts are a mix of some Peco small and some Peco medium turnouts.
Link to xtc 4.0.2 file (right click on link and "save as" to download to your computer): gateway.xtc.
Smile, Stein
the_fly_boy wrote: I also got pretty close using Code 100 #4 switches and flextrack when the rails didn't quite line up. Standard snap witches didn't fit too well. The upper diamond I believe is a 19D, and the other one 60D.The 19 I got to fit correctly with #4 switches, the 60D one though was off by about 5-10 degrees.
The upper diamond I believe is a 19D, and the other one 60D.The 19 I got to fit correctly with #4 switches, the 60D one though was off by about 5-10 degrees.
Ah - I didn't notice the first time that they had used Atlas Code 83 sectional track. Btw - I would think the bottom diamond would be a 90D rather than a 60D ?
FWIW if you do decide to look into a shelf layout (or two, one above the other) - once you eliminate the need for continous running, your minimum radius etc. can go up quite a bit. On my 16" wide L shaped layout I'm using Kato HO Unitrack with 31" minimum radius (and a few short sections of 34" radius) and No. 6 turnouts exclusively. 31"R curves fit nicely in the corners on 16" shelfs, it's a tight squeeze but you can just fit it in on 12" wide shelving too...but a little tighter curve (26"-28") might work better.
the_fly_boy wrote:Do you know anywhere I can find plans (or partial) plans for shelf layouts? I tried designing one myself, but my layout design skills are sketch to say the least. I've found some shelf layout plans but they're all for large layouts (like around the outside of the room).
A handful of places to start where small shelf layouts have been discussed fairly recently:
http://cs.trains.com/forums/1/1487687/ShowPost.aspx
http://cs.trains.com/forums/1288241/ShowPost.aspx
http://cs.trains.com/forums/1502494/ShowPost.aspx
http://cs.trains.com/forums/1523271/ShowPost.aspx
A couple of forum regular Spacemouse's layout design competitions:
http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/2x8Contest.html
http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/4x8PlywoodContest.html
I suggeest you locate a copy of the Kalmbach publication Smart, small and practical trackplans by British modeller Iain Rice. He has good ideas for shelf type layouts, include how to handle staging, stacking to or more levels of shelftype layouts above each other etc.
I think it is out of print, so check the usual second hand sources besides your local hobbyshop.
Further, Tony Koester came up with the idea of Layout Design Elements, see his Kalmbach book about this: http://kalmbachcatalog.stores.yahoo.net/12405.html. Using stations as building blocks for a layout.
If you haven't done so, join the historical society of your favourite railroad and check their sources. There are usually a number of branchline endpoints or inner city locations that can be converted to a shelftype layout. Condensing the length of those stations will get you a long way.
Hope this helps some,
greetings,
Marc Immeker
the_fly_boyDo you know anywhere I can find plans (or partial) plans for shelf layouts?
I have several shelf layout plans in my Layout Design Gallery.
Many shelf layouts are drawn for a straight shelf, but can easily be bent somewhere along their length to go around a corner. N scale plans can be re-sized for HO and vice-versa, so don't let different scales throw you off.
I also posted the following in another forum a few days ago, apologies to those who will be seeing it again.
The first is the classic switching layout that has inspired so many others (including John Allen's more-famous, but less realistic, Timesaver). That's Linn Westcott's "Switchman's Nightmare". This is one of the few truly buildable designs from Kalmbach's 101 Track Plans.
This HO version would also fit on a hollow core door. With more length, you could make the switch leads at each end longer as well as extend the central runaround. I'd probably build this as a small switching terminal where the yard tracks on the right represent an interchange yard with another railroad and the tracks on the lower left become a multi-spot large industry. I'm not crazy about the switchback in the upper right corner, but that's easily remedied if desired.
Jonathan Jones built a terrific urban 2X10 foot layout in HO scale described in the May 2001 Model Railroader. My slight modification shown here made some small changes that might make operating the layout a little more fun by eliminating switchback industry spurs that must be disturbed in order to switch other industries.
Another is my own N scale Alameda Belt Line layout from Model Railroad Planning 2005 magazine. The main part of the layout is 1X6 feet, with some additional length for the simulated car float. Like Westcott's design, this is based on a central runaround, with yard and industry tracks overlapping as much as possible. This layout was designed to fold for the MRP article, but of course could be built as a solid shelf or wrapped around a corner.
My own small N scale switching layout is 18" by 72" and would fit on a longer shelf in HO or aroudn a corner.
Here's how it looks without scenery.
You can read more about this layout here.
Good luck and have fun
steinjr wrote: A handful of places to start where small shelf layouts have been discussed fairly recently: http://cs.trains.com/forums/1/1487687/ShowPost.aspx http://cs.trains.com/forums/1288241/ShowPost.aspx http://cs.trains.com/forums/1502494/ShowPost.aspx http://cs.trains.com/forums/1523271/ShowPost.aspx A couple of forum regular Spacemouse's layout design competitions: http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/2x8Contest.html http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/4x8PlywoodContest.html Smile, Stein
Stein,
I like your designs for Thawville, Ill. and Fergus Falls Mn! Will seriously investigate them for future AmericaN use (http://www.america-n.de/)!
In the second link you had a post with a link to Metusa junction and one to Paliz Bay Railway and Navigation. They do not work.
PS Say NO to the Timesaver (http://www.housatonicrr.com/timesaver.htm)!
marcimmeker wrote: steinjr wrote: A handful of places to start where small shelf layouts have been discussed fairly recently: http://cs.trains.com/forums/1/1487687/ShowPost.aspx http://cs.trains.com/forums/1288241/ShowPost.aspx http://cs.trains.com/forums/1502494/ShowPost.aspx http://cs.trains.com/forums/1523271/ShowPost.aspx A couple of forum regular Spacemouse's layout design competitions: http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/2x8Contest.html http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/4x8PlywoodContest.html Smile, SteinStein,I like your designs for Thawville, Ill. and Fergus Falls Mn! Will seriously investigate them for future AmericaN use (http://www.america-n.de/)!In the second link you had a post with a link to Metusa junction and one to Paliz Bay Railway and Navigation. They do not work.
Glad you liked those two towns - I'd love to see someone build one of those two LDEs for real some day.
I found another link to Metusa junction: http://www.miba.de/miba/05/05/66.htm
My link to Paliz Bay was wrong. Here: http://www.palizbay.com/layout.asp
I would like to thank everyone in this thread for their suggestions, thoughts, links, information, and ideas. I'm still reviewing my options here and deciding what I want to do, so no doubt I'm going to have some more questions shortly. So far everyone has been a great help and I'm learning a ton. Thanks again.
I certaintly like some of those shelf layouts. I'm really betwixed inbetween doing a small layout with continious run and some switching or a shelf layout with tons of switching. I have a small collection of rolling stock (probably about 20-30 cars), but it's heavily mixed (which isn't necessarily a bad thing I suppose for switching!). I'm still trying to keep the costs realistic for a college student so I can't invest too heavily. Decisions decisions...
You know, the one does not have to exclude the other.
Time and especially money will be your major problems as a student right now I think.
Think of it this way: build two small shelftype layouts, you can store them above each other on a wall and still have operating capability (with a little thougth with regard to staging). Make two curved segments and put it all on legs and you can have a layout where you can go round and round if you want it.
Even if the curved segments and one straight (you do not even have to have switches on it, just a straight track) are without scenery, you can still go round and finish it as time and money allow.
Probably you cannot keep that one up all the time but it should not take too long to set up and have fun on a rainy sunday afternoon.
I looked at the layouts on Andrew Martin's website, and his modified Turtle Creek extension (he calls it "Tuttle Creek") caught my eye. It's a modifacation of the Turtle Creek extension that appeared in MR.
I did up a version of it in XtrkCAD:
I played around with running some trains in Xtrk with it and it appears to offer a good deal of running options.
The other one I looked at was this one here:
Personally, I like the first one better. It doesn't have as much track or industries, but the second one is really starved for space on a 6' shelf and doesn't have much room at the ends of the lines for shunting more than one or two cars at a time; seems like it would be more of an act in frustration than anything else. The "Tuttle Creek" shelf won't allow for as much operating but I think it will be more fun to model and still offers enough option to have fun operating sessions. It also allows for easy expansion onto another shelf or larger layout.
Autobus Prime wrote:Let me step away from all the Evil Plywood Tales for a while. I wish we could give that a rest and just relax for a while. That argument totally harshes the mellow..
If you had read the thread, you would have seen that some of us posted both 4X6 continuous run and shelf layout suggestions. The OP decided he'd like to look at shelf layouts along with the 4X6 oval.
the_fly_boy wrote:
To each his own, but both of those are really packed with switchbacks that can only be handled one or two cars at a time -- unless you have room for extensions at the ends for the switch leads. Many people find that the back and forth on these layouts as drawn grows tedious very quickly. If you are interested mostly in a "moving diorama" and don't think you'll ever be interested in having more operating fun, they could work.
Westcott's Switchman's Nightmare or something similar offers more potential for longer-term engagement and enjoyment after the building is done, IMHO.
cuyama wrote:To each his own, but both of those are really packed with switchbacks that can only be handled one or two cars at a time -- unless you have room for extensions at the ends for the switch leads. Many people find that the back and forth on these layouts as drawn grows tedious very quickly. If you are interested mostly in a "moving diorama" and don't think you'll ever be interested in having more operating fun, they could work.Westcott's Switchman's Nightmare or something similar offers more potential for longer-term engagement and enjoyment after the building is done, IMHO.
The lack of switch leads was something I noticed and I wouldn't mind trying to fix it, though it seems that on such a small run (~6') I've either run into having no switch leads, or no runaround. Getting rid of switch leads makes enough room for a runaround, but no room for shunting on either end, whereas placing in switch leads doesn't seem to leave enough room for a runaround. I'll play with the designs some more but it seems that in such a small space in HO scale there are unfortunetly some compromises.
I stumbled across this design here, and it looked like it offered quite a significant amount of operating potential in a small space. I'd be tempted to do it on a 2'x6' instead for a little more modelling room, but same idea.
the_fly_boy wrote: I stumbled across this design here, and it looked like it offered quite a significant amount of operating potential in a small space. I'd be tempted to do it on a 2'x6' instead for a little more modelling room, but same idea.
Scott Osterweil's layout you linked to is derived from the Westcott design I keep suggesting.
You are right, Osterweil's layout would probably be a better operational choice than the other two you showed because it offers the opportunity for more complex operating patterns if you ever choose them.
On wider benchwork you'll have more room for industry modeling. One of the first things I would do on the Osterweil plan is to change the track at the upper left from an industry track back to the switch lead of Westcott's design to avoid a pesky situation where you have to empty one industry to switch another. But that's just me. It would be relatively easy, especially with more depth, to keep the switch lead and add back an industry track.
Best of luck.