The easiest way to convey the concept behind staging yards it so send you to my article, "What is staging and why do I need it?"
http://www.chipengelmann.com/trains/Beginner/Staging.html
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
MrFordOn the other hand, I was looking to go for 48-50" for the main part replacing my current bench at 42". If I stay with the rectangular setup like I drew, I think even 48" may make some parts of the layout hard to reach. But if I go with a duckunder/access, and keep each side at under 30" reach as per Stein' drawing, would 50-52" be too high?
Nope - 50-52" it would pretty much be at ideal height for a single level shelf layout.
Model Railroad Planning 2007 has a great discussion of pros and cons of various layout heights, including discussions of the interaction between layout height and shelf depth for viewing, lighting and reach while switching or working on scenery.
You can pretty much go from 40-60" off the floor for your layout, but Tony Koester ended up recommending about 50" +/- a few inches as a good height for a single level shelf layout of normal depth (ie up to a maximum of 30" deep - although there is a photo illustration of a 5' 11" man standing on a step stool to just barely be able reach in an uncouple cars 36" from the front).
Back issues of the Model Railroad Planning annuals (which has a lot of great advice on layout plans) can be purchased from Kalmbach from this link: http://kalmbachcatalog.stores.yahoo.net/model-railroading-model-railroad-planning.html
Smile, Stein
Great illustration.
I think the phrase closing the loop means to join the two sections that are now separated, which would also close off the room. Pretty doable if the layout is high enough. Not sure if 52 inches is. From a pure layout design standpoint, that is the best option, but there are other considerations.
Duckunders and doughnuts are best when you enter the layout and stay put, not wanting to bob in and out of the pit to follow trains to other parts of the layout, or enter a room for other reasons.
Considering this is your first layout, a large commitment made to carpentry to just get started may frustrating and may be getting the cart before the horse a bit. But, hey, if you're going to stay with it, after you saw, screw, swear, unscrew, re-saw etc before you have even run a train, go for it.
I think we have all covered the basic shapes of the layout that will fit. I suggest since the room is not strictly dedicated to the layout, decide what shape makes the most sense for you and make some sketches of the track plan.
- Douglas
Texas ZepherYup, I now have up to 20,000 square feet for a layout. It was cheaper than building a 20x20 outbuilding for a layout. It is just not as convienent. And then there is the time spent mowing the lawn rather than working on trains..... http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/91251.aspx?PageIndex=1http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/p/81789/971105.aspx#971105http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/p/146568/1626317.aspx#1626317 And to the real content of this thread. Looks like the ideas are progressing well. Sorry I've not made any real contributions. I've intended to, just not gotten to it.
Yup, I now have up to 20,000 square feet for a layout. It was cheaper than building a 20x20 outbuilding for a layout. It is just not as convienent. And then there is the time spent mowing the lawn rather than working on trains.....
http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/91251.aspx?PageIndex=1http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/p/81789/971105.aspx#971105http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/p/146568/1626317.aspx#1626317
And to the real content of this thread. Looks like the ideas are progressing well. Sorry I've not made any real contributions. I've intended to, just not gotten to it.
Wow congratulation! Now I get the school gymnasium picture heh... Yes it is a much bigger planning. Don't be sorry, you are all of great help and inspiration!
One thing, as Stein pointed out, is that by having a rectangular layout, lots of space is wasted for curves. And that is with 18" curves. I was thinking about that yesterday, and today (hey, I can take breaks from work), about how to adapt some sort of oval and a duck under to that plan. My main concern right now is that to go along the edge of my desk hutch (and on top of an existing light switch), the shelf part needs to be at least 52" off the ground. Currently, my trains are placed on top of my hutch, and while I wouldn't go any higher, it looks good for a shelf. On the other hand, I was looking to go for 48-50" for the main part replacing my current bench at 42". If I stay with the rectangular setup like I drew, I think even 48" may make some parts of the layout hard to reach. But if I go with a duckunder/access, and keep each side at under 30" reach as per Stein' drawing, would 50-52" be too high? The good thing is that it would pretty much eliminate the grade that cuts in the middle of the layout.
SpaceMouseYou drawing pretty much describes what I would have done. I would probably go with the duckunder and finish the loop . Don't forget to plan for staging. If you don't it will be the weak link in your layout design and the lack of it will most likely lead to the layout's demise.
When you talk about finishing the loop, do you mean a loop around the oval or connecting the shelf at the other end? I was thinking about a stub ended branch on the shelf.
And yes, it is the Life-Like freight house, but no beer hidden behind; it's the water tower on top of the building. And beer needs to be where it belongs: next to the computer, in an ice-cold glass heh :)
Last question: I've heard of staging yards, but I'm not sure I fully understand the concept. What should I plan for exactly? Something similar to a line yard, or some off-scene tracks? Or did I read that wrong, and you're talking about scenery staging? Slow brain here today!
Etienne
HarryHotspurYou bought a school? That is way cool!
You drawing pretty much describes what I would have done. I would probably go with the duckunder and finish the loop . Don't forget to plan for staging. If you don't it will be the weak link in your layout design and the lack of it will most likely lead to the layout's demise.
Again, great advices!
I've been fiddling on a sort of drawing, using Doughless idea. It's very rough, but that gives a visual cue nonetheless.
It's getting late now, but tomorrow I'll try something with the oval and a duckunder.
Definitely, I'm not in a rush to build anything, and that's why I have a good couple plywoods to play with, an you can see with the current table. I have enough EZ-Track to give me an idea or track placement, and also remember me how crap they run heh. Oh well, gotta start somewhere!
lesterperryAlso start with a 4x8 plywood and sectional track
In my opinion, going for the "standard" 4x8 sheet is not great advice in this case.
4x8s are fine for freestanding (or removable) layouts in largish rooms - like in the middle of the floor in a large room. They are not necessarily a great use of space in a bedroom sized room. Have a look at the room the original poster has available:
Four simple options for footprints:
1) Footprint of the 4x9 layout the original poster initially envisioned:
Advantage: ?
Challenge: very bad access to top and left part of layout.
2) 4x8 sheet of ply, placed to there is access to both long sides and one short side:
Advantage: lots of published 4x8 track plans. Lots of people will expect you to do the standard thing. You get a continuous loop without a duckunder.
Challenge: will get cramped down by the computer desk in the lower left hand corner. 50% of a 4x8 layout is spent on having a turnaround curve at either end.
3) 4x6 sheet of ply, placed in same location as 4x8
Advantage: at least it won't make it as cramped down by the computer desk
Challenge: Stuff on the layout will need to be cramped even closer together than a 4x8
4) Simple donut shape
Advantage: allows wide curves, visually separated scenes
Challenge: needs a duckunder or liftout. Probably not a good idea for an elderly or handicapped person.
To show that it would be possible to do quite a bit of experimentation on small donut shaped layouts as well, let me throw in the first rough sketches of a track plan a friend and I am discussing for a 6x10 donut shaped layout:
By all means - experiment with different type of railroads, different locations, different eras, different types of scenes.
But try to do that without feeling that you have to use a 4x8 sheet of plywood.
Pretty much any piece of plywood can be thrown away or reused - doesn't matter if the piece is 4x8 feet or 2x6 feet or some other shape or size. Large pieces can be cut to make smaller, smaller can be joined to make larger pieces. Try to use your available space sensibly, rather than saving a few minutes with a saw in a project that will take months or years.
Also, by going for the continuous run 4x8 your track and scenery plan has to be worked out under pretty tough constraints. A great modeler can still make a 4x8 layout look very good. But it is not necessarily easy for a beginner to create believable scenes on a 4x8, and it is certainly not easy to create multiple believable scenes on a 4x8 for a beginner experimenting to find out what type of model railroading he or she likes.
Smile,Stein
Texas ZepherMrFordObviously, having a 40'x50' layout would be wonderful, Rabbit Trail! - So it would seem at first. But there is such a thing as being lost in space. I have been much more successful cramming essentials in an interesting way into a small space than I have been trying to design a 90'x60' for my new layout space. I mean, where does one even start with this space? I was thinking I wanted an observation balcony.
MrFordObviously, having a 40'x50' layout would be wonderful,
I mean, where does one even start with this space? I was thinking I wanted an observation balcony.
You bought a school? That is way cool!
- Harry
MrFord:
I think Lester and Ulrich's advice is better than mine.
We can get carried away with designing something on paper, after all it is fun, but seeing the trackwork and models run for real is when YOU really decide what you like. I'm sure you read other threads in this forum and can tell that even experienced modelers need to actually lay the track, and adjust it, because their best effort plans don't work exactly as they thought when actual track laying starts.
VERY good advice, Lester!
We "experts" tend to forget where we started from and that some of those experiences we made you need to make yourself to find your own way. So the idea of starting with a "simple" 4´ by 8´ sheet of plywood and to build a non-permanent starter layout to fiddle around with instead of jumping into the attempt to build that wonderful dream layout (that you won´t be able to build unless you have 25 years of mrr experience) is the way to go!
I have a few suggestions here that I have compiled over the years. I have it stored in my computer so I can just copy it.So here it is.
If it was me, I would devote the entire south wall to your main industry that you see the reason for your railroad to exist, your lumber mill, coal mine, or grain elevator. I would use an 18" deep shelf, since that credensa you have appears to be that deep, and a shelf of similar depth shouldn't impede your mobility around that area. (btw, is that the life like feed mill with beverage of choice on the credensa?) You could incorporate another industry (like the feed mill) to give that area more operational interest other than just the one industry.
The part that has your existing benchwork I would use for the destination point, whether it be a lumber yard, power plant, or even an interchange track for the product to go off-layout. One or two other industries could be located there as well, as well as your loop for continous running.
Getting from here to there is the challenge. I would not use the hutch as support for a shelf, in case you need to move it. And, the distance that must be spanned to go above it might need a verticle element, like a 1x4 set on edge along the span, to give it structural support. That will raise the height of the layout to about 57" or higher. That might be okay if you're taller, but at that height, every inch you increase the height cuts down on the amount of layout you can see and reach more so than going from, say, 44 to 45 inches high. Another option:
It looks like you have some space to move the desk away from the window wall enough to properly support a 1x4 or 1x6 to use just as an unscenicked way of tieng both scenes together. You could lower the height to a more manageable 48" and even maybe put tunnel portals on either side of the desk to simulate the train leaving one town and entering another. You might have enough open space in the hutch to provide access to the trains behind it.
I like that picture of that shelf... nice size. I see you mounted it on the wall using those rails for 16" shelves?
There's a couple pictures of the room; computer desk on the left, and the current table on the right. I measured the top shelf height of my hutch; it's better than I expected at 53". As you can see, it would be difficult to come any lower anyway, and that's only with my 22" LCD heh.
Texas ZepherI mean, where does one even start with this space? I was thinking I wanted an observation balcony.
In phases. I'd start with 20x20 in a corner and start looking for club members.
MrFordI will measure my computer desk, but since it comes with a hutch, it sits pretty high. the good thing is that the hutch is basically a shelf, so it could be easily integrated. But my guesstimate is that it sits at least 55-60" off the ground. Unless I add an incline/ramp; probably a good 3.5-4% ramp, which may look steep but shouldn't be a problem for my short trains.
I will measure my computer desk, but since it comes with a hutch, it sits pretty high. the good thing is that the hutch is basically a shelf, so it could be easily integrated. But my guesstimate is that it sits at least 55-60" off the ground. Unless I add an incline/ramp; probably a good 3.5-4% ramp, which may look steep but shouldn't be a problem for my short trains.
Or just cut off the top and turn the top into shelves standing on the floor. I have a couple of shelves on the floor right next to my computer desk here that used to be on top of the computer desk.
Cut them off and put them on the floor to make the computer desk fit under a 2x7 foot layout I was working on in our living roombefore I decided to change to building the 6.5 x 11.5 foot layout downstairs - you can see the cut of computer desk shelves under this old picture of the first shelf layout I started on:
About the closet: yes unfortunately, that's my clothes closet, so I need very frequent access. I never thought about a removable bridge, it could be a very nice solution to use that part of the wall, and maybe add a looparound there. I don't need to have the layout in a complete functionnal state all the time; I can link different parts whenever I wanna run a train on it.
Makes sense.
Btw - I saw this German guy named Kurt use a very simple (and effective) way of mounting a lift-out in this thread on another forum: http://www.zealot.com/forum/showthread.php?t=163541&page=2.
I see that you used the blue styrofoam. It seems like the preferred choice to build on. I was planning to use that as well, would you still recommend it?
Well, if I was starting over again, I would probably do an Ian Rice type of sectional benchwork - using 1/4" plywood to make lightweight "boxes" maybe 4 feet by 20" or so, so each section could be taken down if I needed to work on wiring and turnout controls or whatever, and each section could be replaced easily if I decided to swap out one of the scenes on my layout.
I see he has a new book out now on making shelf layouts - haven't bought it yet, but I suspect it will be packed with useful advice, like his previous books.
Oh man, too bad you couldn't remove the hutch, place it on the floor on the north wall with the layout over it. Since a computer desk sits 30" high and on monitor on top of that is probably no more than 18", you could wrap a branch of the layout around the two walls occupied by the desk and build shelves for storing your hutch items in the 18 -20" that's under the layout and on top of your desk.
Just sell your current computer desk and by a new one
Nice pictures! It's always inspiring to see how people dealt with their space constraints, and found a way to maximize the space utilisation. I realize that a longer, narrower layout may be more fun than a wider and less accessible one.
Regarding the height of the layout, my (now!) temporary benchwork is sitting at around 42" off the ground. There's stuff you need to visually see and feel to be able to make a decision, and that was one of them. The main reason for that height was that first, it needs to clear my 40" access doors for my central AC unit, and second, it was the height of the longest 2x3 I used as legs, coming from the free lumber I got. Also, I imagined that it would be high enough. But once i got everything up, I could see that it is still too low to really appreciate the scenery, and I'm still looking down to the table (I'm 6'1"). Also, the space under the layout is used as storage and for my servers. So, the higher, the better. Not to the point where I'd have a very narrow shelf type layout, but around 50" sounds better than 40". I will measure my computer desk, but since it comes with a hutch, it sits pretty high. the good thing is that the hutch is basically a shelf, so it could be easily integrated. But my guesstimate is that it sits at least 55-60" off the ground. Unless I add an incline/ramp; probably a good 3.5-4% ramp, which may look steep but shouldn't be a problem for my short trains.
Excellent summary of given and druthers!
A couple of quick clarifying question about limits on usage, referring to the room sketch and description:
1) The cupboard in the upper right hand corner - does it need frequent and easy access? Or does it contain stuff that only needs very infrequent access, and could e.g. be covered by a lift-out section of some kind (like a bridge scene) ?
2) Computer desk. Would it be possible to build the layout high enough that your computer desk (or a reconfigured computer desk in another shape) could fit under the layout (or partly under the layout) ?
Here are some picture from my layout room:
Lift-out bridge section in front of a door used when I want continuous running - doubles as a cassette for moving a train of one engine and five cars into or out of the layout. Obviously could have been made to look more like a real bridge, if I had wanted to have it removable instead of emplacable (ie have it in most of the time instead of having it in just sometimes).
Layout above work desk/shelves:
Work desk (which is extremely messy ...) is about 50" long x 24" deep - not very big. Railroad tracks are at level 51" off the floor (20" below my height - ie at chest level). This allows about 14" between the my work table surface and the bottom of the layout fascia (which is about 5" high in this area).
Layout top could have been lifted to about 55-57" without getting too extremely high up relative to my height (I am about half an inch short of 6 feet tall). Layout thickness can be held made to go well below 4" by using e.g. metal L profiles as part of the benchwork in this area.
On the opposite wall, the layout extends over two 24" deep and 8-10 feet long shelves below, with a shelf above the layout as well:
This is what a scene beside the door looks like from normal viewing height for a standing person (without the continous run bridge put across the door):
Same scene (which is about 24" deep and 60" long, without interfering visually with the other two scenes in the room), seen from the left end of the scene - still at normal viewing height for a standing person:
Here is a rough idea of the first part of harbor scene (which will be about 16" deep and 72" wide) to the left of the entrance door seen from a normal viewing height from the doorway:
So it might be worthwhile to consider putting the layout at a higher elevation - both to force viewing of scenes to be more from the side than from above, and make it possible to put e.g. your computer desk under the layout.
Stein
Thank you all again for your help!
It's all about 'thinking outside the box'.
There, I've draw a quick sketchup of the room. It's very crude, but it should give you an idea about available space.
As you can see, it's pretty small, but considering it's an appartment, it'll be hard to find bigger space heh. Right now, the bench, as drawn, sits at the top of the plan, starting between the column and the top wall, stretching 9', to clear the closet door. If it wasn't for that door, I would have the perfect place for an L benchwork!
I need some space to get to my computer, so I can't get the table too close. The limit is pretty much the bottom part of the column.
Now, regarding the layout and operations: I really like the U/cockpit, or the L setup, if there's a way to integrate it in the available space, that would be great. About the curves, you're right, I thought that the most visible curves should be 22" only for appearance, but it does take a lot of real estate. I read that progressive curves can make 18" radius looks a bit better, so I may try that, what do you think? I will concentrate on equipment that runs well on tighter curves (no Pullman/autorack/TOFC).
I've been thinking for a while what kind of operations and era I would like to model. Obviously, there's nothing fixed yet, and I like the idea that I can add on later or modify it slightly if the need arise, but for this one, this is what I'm looking to do:
-Model/Era: I'm not looking at prototyping anything, mostly freelancing. Early-mid '70s, maybe stretch it to either late '60s or early '80s. The more layouts I see, the more interested I am with brach line operation, and it looks like it's a more realistically approach for a small layout. I'm originally from Northern Quebec, in Canada, so something inspired by a mix or Canadien National, New England or Great Lakes region railroads. That could include one or more type of freight: lumber/wood chips, general boxcar loads, grain, scrap metal, oil/gas. Some could be local industries to be switched, some could be through freight.
-Type of operations: I'm looking to do some switching, cars sorting, and loop operations. I wanna be able to have the train run for a lap or two, but I would like to drill sidings and reassemble trains. It would be slow operations, I like to run at a realistically speed. After you pointed it out, I would probably limit my trains to 5 to 7 cars, probably with one GP, two if it's going around on the main. Only one train to operate at the time; one barely fit on the layout anyway!
-General layout: I would like to add some relief, a tunnel if possible, but very little grades, if any. I wanna try to visually separate the further and the closer part of the main, so that it helps the eye into thinking that the train isn't just looping around, but coming from nowhere. After reading your comments, I'd let go the over/under with the bridge and favor a crossover or another solution. Or it could be something like a dogbone, where the eastbound and the westbound leg of the main are closer to each other in the middle. Main industry could be a lumber mill or a foundry, with a grain elevator and a freight depot along the way. A small downtown, plus maybe a remote house on a hill, maybe a small river. There will be plenty of trees to give a more rural appearance, like New England (closest example of Quebec). I will not add passenger operation. Some layouts that gave me inspiration are John Grosner's New Haven's Derby Junction (http://www.trains.com/mrr/default.aspx?c=a&id=3062 http://www.trains.com/mrr/objects/images/mrr-apr09_1024x768.jpg) and George Dutka' White River Division (http://www.trains.com/mrr/default.aspx?c=a&id=2996 http://www.trains.com/mrr/default.aspx?c=a&id=3002). Also, MRR own' Milwaukee Beer Line is another great small opetation.
I think that should answer some questions, hopefully! And the reason why I want to build my own model? My friend, from when I was 5, had a small layout in his basement, and from that day, I always wanted one too heh. But more than that, I like the challenge, and while operating it will be a lot of fun I'm sure, I think building it and adding details to it is the part I'm looking forward to. And better start small to practice.
Impressive responses to 'Ford's post.
I think an upside down U with 18 inch radius curves is the way to go for a basic shape, provided you have no other means by which to expand the space. I think that smaller layouts lend themselves to an urban/industrial themed setting, like Stein's plan, with an out and back (main industry to interchange point) or car distribution (switching) operating theme.
Consideration given to realistic placement of structures and the tracks that serve them will be important when you decide if you are pleased with your layout after its built. In addition to roads, trees (if any) etc. Using building flats against the walls would be a good way of maximizing operations and the overall look of your layout.
You mentioned the number industries you wanted, plus passenger operations. Not that what you described is too many, especially if you go with an urban setting, but keep in mind that railroads tend to survive on fewer but larger industries, rather than many smaller industries, which tend to get served by trucks. For example, packing a lot of small industries, with spur tracks pointing in every direction, into a rural themed setting would probably look unrealistic when the layout is finally completed.
First of all, as Chip stated, there are other benchwork configurations that may work better for you.
One is the "cockpit" configuration Iain Rice used for a 4x8 in his Kalmbach book on small layouts, now out of print. Basically, this creates an open area in the middle of the rectangle that puts all areas withing a 30" reach. A single "cassette" is used to span the opening to the cockpit when continuous operations are needed.
Another is the center pit type, which fits in much the same overall space. A good example of this type is the HOG RR (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HOGRR/).
But going back to your track plan, I've built a number of 4x6, 4x8, and similar layouts. Here are my comments on your proposal:
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
Draw your entire room, showing all walls, columns, doors, windows, other uses of the room etc. Then it might be possible to offer some more or less sensible advice on space use for a layout.
Some examples from another thread:
Original plan - 4 feet wide island:
One possible alternative use of the same space:
Another possible alternative use of the space:
I have a layout that looks like this in a 6.5 x 11.5 foot room:
Here is a small 2 x 8 foot shelf switching layout:
There are several options to a oval or a the figure 8 on 4-5 foot deep benchwork.
But first rule : start with a drawing showing the whole room, with distances marked off clearly.
Then start formulating why you want a layout, and what you want to model.
Some suggestions another poster got: http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/p/149953/1660712.aspx#1660712
Thank you for your reply Chip. this is exactly the kind of tips I was looking forward to get.
Your website is great, I'm looking at it right now. You're right when you say that you need to have a vision before you start cutting and buying. Obviously, having a 40'x50' layout would be wonderful, but the more I read article and posts here, the more I realize you can have a lot of fun if not more with a smaller one.
About the benchwork, I must say I got all that wood for free, it was a former Lionel layout that someone had to get rid of. So it's basically a couple 3x4 plywood with 1x2 beams. I've been thinking of a way to fit it in a U-shaped layout (since that's how it was installed originally) but my main constraint is a column to the left of the plan. I updated my plan to reflect that.
I'll try to take a photo of it tonight and post it, that will give you a better idea of the space available. I realized (and even more after I put the bench together) that 48" is very deep, and while I can always use a stepladder to reach the end, it's not an ideal situation. I can (and will) modify the benchwork before laying down anything serious tho.
One thing I could always try to do is to extend the leg of my extention to the right another foot toward the bottom of the plan, and cut inside the middle part about a foot. How would that be?
Check out this sheet of plywood design contest. Each contestant got a sheet of plywood to act as the base for their layout. They could cut the plywood anyway they wanted.
Pay as much attention to the use of space as how the plywood is cut--even in scales you don't use.
Sheet of Plywood Layout Design Contest
Hi and welcome,
You came to the right place.
The biggest problem you have is that more than half your track is out of your reach. What do you do if you get a derailment, or you need to repair your track work? A large person has a maximum reach of about 30" without damaging scenery.
There are a couple assumptions you are making and they seem to be based upon ideas of layout design that are several decades old. Unfortunately, you have already built your benchwork. Fortunately, this is easy to rectify without wasting a lot of your work and materials. Yes, I'm suggesting you might want to take a step backwards, or at least examine a few options before you get any further along.
One of these assumptions is that you have the best design for the most layout for the space. Grated you have only showed me two walls, but if you assume that you need at least 30" of space to comfortably walk around your layout, you could build a U or a donut shaped layout and have a lot more layout for the footprint.
One thing you might do is take a look at my Beginner's Guide to Layout Design clickable from my signature. It will take you about 5 minutes or so to read.
Hello to everyone!
I know I'm not the only one who asked for help here regarding his layout design, but since this is my first layout, I'm all about learning and getting tips and suggestions from you guys.
My layout won't be big by any mean, and is unfortunately against 2 walls. I've already built the benchwork, but that's about it. As you can see on the plan, the base benchwork measure 9'x4', with a 4'x1' L-shaped extention at one end. The walls are at the top and to the left. It's deeper than what most people recommend for easy access, but I wanna have a run-around layout, and this was the best way I could find to utilise as much space available as I could.
I'm gonna build everything in HO, as I already have some rolling stock and structures, but I would like to use flex track (Atlas Code 83 or something similar). Right now I have a bunch of Bachmann steel EZ-Track, but it's only temporary. I'll go the DCC way, as it seems to be the most practical and future-proof way.
I've been looking at a couple track plans that gave me some ideas. A couple of them had 8-figure mains, and without having something that looks toyish, I tried to integrate an overpass in my design. that way, it gives me a longer run. On the other way, I'm looking for a minimum 2.5% incline with this setup, and it adds to the complexity of the plan. I don't wanna go under 18" radius curves, and I tried to integrate as many 22" turns on the main as possible. Since I wanna go flex track, I'll try my luck with progressive (spiral?) curves.
I'm not looking to run very long trains, something like 1-2 GPs and 10-12 cars maximum. I'm setting the timeframe around 1970-1975, so maximum car lenght should be around 60 scale feet (hoppers, box cars, gondolas, tank cars, centerbeams). If possible, I'd like to run a 3-cars Pullmans but I realize curves may be too tight.
I'll add some industries along the main: a grain elevator, a freight house, maybe a scrap yard, lumber or some sort of gravel pit/mine, plus a small downtown. That would enable some switching, with the addition or a small yard or passing tracks. I didn't add any turnouts to my plan yet; I figured I better nail the main before.
Here's the plan :
I'd like to add a tunnel on the left side, and where the mains meets, I would have the one coming from the bottom crossing under. The curve at the bottom right would be by the water. I wouldn't mind replacing the bridge by a level junction, but I didn't yet find a way not to have the train run on itself.
The other way would be something like a twice runaround.
Any ideas to help fill the space, optimize the layout, or a completely different approach? I'm open to all suggestions :)