The Great Dream Layout Quest
I’m ready to build my “Dream Layout”. This layout has been in planning for years and supplies have been stockpiled in anticipation of construction. Given my age, this will probably be the last layout I build for myself, so I want to include as many of the things I have dreamed about for years. By definition, a dream layout includes everything you’ve ever wanted to have in a layout.
Unfortunately, in spite of all my efforts, I have been unable to come up with a trackplan that satisfies me. I know, I know, model railroading is a series of compromises. I understand that. This being my final layout, though, I want as few compromises as possible.
Now, I’m NOT asking anyone here to design a layout FOR me. Each layout is individual to the modeler. What someone else designs may not be what I’m looking for, even if ALL of my givens & druthers are included.
What I’m looking for is more brain power. And fresh eyes! People who can offer criticism of and advice on my efforts.
Here are the givens:
Room size: roughly 10x12’; one angled doorway and a closet on one wall, two walls with windows. The windows don’t need to be accessible, the closet does (it’s my supply storage and workbench area!)
Scale: N scale
Prototype: Santa Fe & Union Pacific
Timeframe: Transition era, prior to 1955
Equipment: Large and small steam; first generation diesels
Track: Atlas Code 80 flex, Atlas & Peco turnouts, cork roadbed
Here are the druthers:
Double-tracked mainline operation (continuous running for passenger & through freights)
Passenger terminal (not huge, but decent sized)
Light switching
Staging (can be hidden or open)
Large roundhouse
Classification yard
One or more towns
Large bridge or multiple bridges
The Vision: An around the wall layout that allows multiple train operation; continuous running on the main, switching on sidings. Reasonable adherence to the prototypes, but not strict adherence. (There aren’t too many locations in the USA where SF & UP were close to each other!) Single-operator. DC to start, DCC conversion planned. Avoid reverse loops (difficult DC wiring, expensive reversers in DCC). Avoid the use of a helix (uses too much room.). Single or multi-level with mainline grades of 1% to 1.5% (or at least under 2%).
Construction type or style: Will consider any style, box-frame, L-girder, foam or any combination. A combination will most likely yield the best results.
Let’s get to it!
First, I built a scale 1”=1’ model of my room using foam core board. The first picture shows the room with the major furnishings as currently arranged and shows where my existing layout is located within the room. The entry door is in the lower left. The closet is along the lower wall. The large rectangle on the left is a desk with my computer on top. The smaller rectangles are shelf units (3 on the upper wall, 2 on the right side wall). The desk/computer set-up mandates a MINIMUM height of 45” to the BOTTOM of the lower level. Track on the top of the upper level shouldn’t exceed 55” in height. Scenery can be higher as long as it doesn’t block the upper level tracks.
The second picture shows an alternate location for the furnishings. The desk has been moved to below the window (upper wall) and 3 of the shelf units have been re-arranged to the right wall.
Using Atlas’ Right Track software, I drew this 2-level plan:
Upper level:
Lower level:
There are glaring flaws in this plan. There is little switching opportunity. The roundhouse area may not be big enough as drawn to accommodate a 23-stall roundhouse. There isn’t enough room for the proper engine service facilities that would be indicated by such a large roundhouse.
There is no place to locate a passenger terminal, even a small one. Finally, the grade to the lower level doesn’t provide enough clearance. (I measured about 170” from the upper to lower level. At 1.5%, that gives a clearance of only 2.5” RAILHEAD TO RAILHEAD. In other words, not enough clearance! 2% gives only 3.5”, which would be enough to run trains under, but not enough room to reach any derailments in staging. I have fat hands! LOL)
A lift-out or swing gate would be located on the bottom of the layout for access. It is not shown on the plan. Its actual location would be determined during construction.
I printed out the RTS plan (surprisingly, it printed out at 1”=1’!!). I cut up the prints and glued them to foam core board. This next picture shows the new layout in the existing room:
There is a little more room below the roundhouse area. I’m not sure what the best use of that area could be. Part of the closet opening can be obstructed (about 12-18”). The upper and lower levels are shown in the picture only to give an idea of how they fit in the room.
As you can tell, I’ve put some thought into this. I’m old and I want my Dream Layout this time around!
I intend to post this on several forums. Many of you belong to different forums, so be prepared to run into this several times. I don’t expect anyone to post a response to every forum and I will try to copy and post anyone’s comments into the threads on different forums so everybody can see what comments have been made, regardless of where they were made. (I hope that’s clear!) In the meantime, I’m going to try designing some layout design elements to fit on dominoes. That may be a good way to get the features I want.
So, anyone care to take a stab at this?
Darrell, quiet…for now
I have lots of comments but let's start with this....
dgwinupUsing Atlas’ Right Track software, I drew this 2-level plan:
I've wondered about that myself. It seems to me that I should be able to fit more track on a layout this size. Other layouts in N scale that I have seen posted have more scenic areas with more complicated trackwork than what I have. Don't understand that! I checked the RTS libraries. Both Atlas Code 80 and Code 65 libraries are listed. I used the Code 80.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Is it possible that RTS SAYS it's N scale, but it's really HO?
I'm fairly new to using RTS. So far, it's the only track planning software that I've been able to use with any success. Could be me! It's confusing, though.
Texas Zepher, thanks for the comment. Hopefully, someone will be able to offer more information or suggestions.
Darrell, quiet (and confused)...for now
My layout designs in HO definitly suggest that this has been drawn in HO.
Suggestions:
Take off the door and store it somewhere even if it is under the bed. Let your decendents put it back on after they put you on the caboose to train heaven.
Check out Ian Rice's new layout design book for bench work ideas. And put into play his cassette train storage idea instead of a staging yard.
Set up to pieces of flex track side by side and place cars on them. When you can get your hands safely around the cars on one track you have your spacing bettween the tracks. The width of both is your mainline. And all the rest of the benchwork width is good for industries and scenery.
Use ALL of your wall space for the layout with a swing gate or lift out at the door. Do that and you have increased your layout by 25% on one level. Design one section at a time to your ideal and then place on on a room grid and Then make comprimizes to get it to fit.
Jack
I have never used RTS, but when looking at the length of the turnouts (5-6") and the size of the turntable, I would say this is N-scale. Is it possible that you are used to working in H0-scale, and are using the H0 radii and H0 parallell distance while working on this N-scale plan..?
Svein
Offhand, Svein, I'd say no. I've only done N scale planning in RTS, never HO.
That doesn't mean that I'm using the program correctly! LOL I only learned enough to describe benchwork and lay some track. Many of the details of RTS are lost on me 'cause I haven't taken the time to learn them!
Am working on some more ideas. I'll be back........
Darrell, quiet...for now
I can really relate to this thread. My daughter married last year and I immediately claimed her bedroom in the honor of "Model Railroading". The room size is 10 x 12.5 and the closet and door are just about in the same location. I wanted a 2 track mainline, town, small switching yard,bridges and a tunnel or two. I drew up all kinds of plans on graph paper with compass in hand and could not design something I was satisfied with. My previous layouts were in the den in which my wife finally got tired of so the bedroom was all mine.So one night I was bored with tv and decided to read some model railroad stuff and picked out the "MRR 102 Realistic Track Plans no.5" book. Low and behold I found a plan (#34). This plan requires some modifications to work like going from 9 x 11 to 8 x 10 to allow access to the closet,door and shelf loaded with mrr stuff but it's a perfect start and with some minor modifications, I can make it work.
Is that the newest layout book? I don't think I've picked that one up yet. I'll go have a look at my LHS later this week. I have NO reservations about stealing, er, I mean, "Borrowing" ideas from anywhere! LOL
Stay tuned, willy6! Progress is being made! You never know when a great idea will slap you upside the head. Maybe the suggestions offered to me will be of use to you, too!
When you're ready, start a thread on your layout so we can watch your progress.
THE LATEST UPDATE (6/7/09):
If I start a downgrade near the roundhouse corner, by the time I get completely around the room, I can get nearly 6 inches of clearance below the roundhouse with a 1.5% grade.There is a turnout on the left wall that connects to one end of the yard and far enough away from the yard to allow for grade adjustments to bring the track to the same height as the yard and roundhouse. There is a long lead to the roundhouse that splits into two tracks for fuel & water facilities and a separate lead off the A/D track (outermost yard track). A caboose track and rip track are located off the left end of the yard. I think I may need a better yard lead somewhere.I added staging tracks to the loop under the roundhouse section. Almost all curves are 19"R and most turnouts are #6's. The vertical dimension of the layout was reduced to 8' which allows access to staging from both sides (in front of and behind the roundhouse). It also allows more room in front of the closet.There still isn't much switching. I know I want the mainline running, but I think I'd be happier with a few more switching duties. Not sure where I can squeeze more in.Additional comments were made concerning the yard entrance track grade. I did some calculations and determined that the grade would be in excess of 2.5% as drawn. I will have to move the yard entrance turnout further around the bottom of the layout. A quick calculation indicated I can get enough length to drop the grade down to 1.8%. I can live with that (I think!).
Comments, suggestions and/or criticisms are welcomed!Darrell, quiet...for now
As promised, here is the latest track plan that I have been working on:
It is heavily modified from Will Annand's CVR layout (my apologies to Will!). The original CVR uses sharper curves than what I wanted so part of the re-design was to enlarge the radii. Most are now 11”R+, many with 19”R easements. I had to shorten the length from 10’ to 8’ to fit my space and shorten the left leg to 74” to clear the doorway into the room. Most of the turnouts are #6.
Now might be a good time to review my druthers and compare them to this layout plan. I originally posted these:
Double-tracked mainline operation (continuous running for passenger & through
freights)
The new design doesn’t have double-tracked mainline. However, I’ve added several passing sidings that will allow for multiple trains on the main, accomplishing the same purpose. The area on the left leg can serve as a passenger terminal. There are many more provisions for switching than my previous plans. Staging can be accomplished using either of the two passing sidings that have multiple tracks (one on the top, one on the right leg). It may be possible to enlarge the right leg passing siding further and possibly hide some of the tracks behind industrial scenery. I moved Will’s turntable outside the lower loop which allowed me to expand it considerably. Additionally, I was able to expand the stub-end classification yard.
Haven’t decided yet where to locate towns. I was originally thinking a good-sized town could be located around and below the passenger terminal area on the left leg. That leg can be extended a few inches to add more residential space, although I was thinking that the lower curves on that leg would look spectacular with curved bridges on it. It would be the first thing anyone saw not only as they entered the room but also from all the way down the hallway leading to the room!
So a lot of my druthers are addressed or satisfied with this plan. I am concerned that there is too much track (can you say spaghetti bowl? LOL). Will’s layout allows for lots of scenic space, as if the land came first and the trains came later.
Comments, suggestions or criticisms? I’m open to all.
Hi Darrell. I like the latest one level design plan much better than the initial that required a duck-under. With that much space in n scale, I would definitely double track the mainline and reduce some of the other extra track to leave more room for scenery. I did a turntable and roundhouse on a previous layout and would not do it again as it looks great but is a bear to get to reliably work in n scale. I know it's hard to do with track planning software, but at implementation time try to vary the track so its not always so parallel to the edge of the benchwork or symmetrical in nature. What are the chances that you are going to move in the future and would you plan on taking the layout with you? It would influence some construction decisions. Jim
Hi, Jim, thanks for the comments.
No, I don't plan on moving. But you know what's been said about plans! LOL With that in mind, I intend on making as much of this layout salvageable if not outright moveable. I haven't gotten into the benchwork design phase yet but it's been on my mind almost as much as the layout design itself!
I am looking over my last track plan to see if it can be double-tracked. That was an important design criteria in the beginning and I haven't abandoned the idea yet. A lot will depend on what I can squeeze in and what I can eliminate. The roundhouse will stay. It's kinda been a dream for nearly 40 years and I've got a roster to fill it with, too! I plan on using Walthers programmable turntable.
There are some problems using track planning software. For instance, RTS does NOT have a 1/2 section of 19"R in it's track database. 9 3/4" and 11", but not 19"! Also, it's hard to tell how far the tracks are apart from each other unless you zoom in. I suspect that during construction I'll be able to free up some additonal space by being more accurate in the spacing of the tracks. As in the past, any trackplan is more of a suggestion than a mandate. I always make some changes on the fly!
One time, years ago, I entirely flipped a plan during construction. I didn't go back an re-draw the orignal plan, just worked with it as it was. Without modern computers and track planning software, it was really difficult to keep everything straight since it was all backwards from the drawing! It was only good fortune that the number of right and left turnouts was about equal! LOL
I'll go back and play with some double-tracking and see what happens.
dgwinup It is heavily modified from Will Annand's CVR layout (my apologies to Will!). The original CVR uses sharper curves than what I wanted so part of the re-design was to enlarge the radii. Most are now 11”R+, many with 19”R easements. I had to shorten the length from 10’ to 8’ to fit my space and shorten the left leg to 74” to clear the doorway into the room. Most of the turnouts are #6. Now might be a good time to review my druthers and compare them to this layout plan. I originally posted these: Double-tracked mainline operation (continuous running for passenger & through freights) Passenger terminal (not huge, but decent sized) Light switching Staging (can be hidden or open) Large roundhouse Classification yard One or more towns Large bridge or multiple bridges
Beyond the large roundhouse, I'm not sure this plan meets many of your givens and druthers all that well, given your space. But if you like it, fine. There are a number of areas of potential concern. If you really want double track mainlines for running two trains unattended, single track plus sidings is not equivalent. The yard could be configured much better to offer better operation for trains arriving and departing in both directions. I don't see the staging, but you may feel that there is some track here that works as staging.There's certainly a lot of track and every scene will have many tracks visible. That doesn't seem to go with what I thought was interest in scenery expressed earlier (but I may not remember that correctly). I don't immediately grasp the purpose of some of the short spurs and short sidings adjacent to other short sidings, but that could just be me.
In terms of curves and radii, you might be better off with a simple easement rather than a fixed 19" curve leading into a fixed 11" curve. Easements are not that hard to do with the "bent stick" approach and flextrack.
Finally, it may not matter to you, but there are elements of the trackwork configuration that could look more realistic. On the real railroad, the main line rarely passes through the curved side of a turnout, it happens often with this plan. Especially if the turnouts are #6, this will probably work OK. But it just looks different than the real thing.
In addition, on the real railroad, adjacent tracks (such as passing sidings) are typically aligned. In some places on this plan they seem to curve independently of one another. There is some of that in the real world, but it's much rarer than on this plan. The resulting layout might not be as realistic-looking due to those variations from the real thing and from the usual layout design practice.
Again, the bottom line is that if you are happy with the plan, your opinion is the only one that matters. But if you'd like to understand the principles behind real-life railroad design and best practices in model track plans, some time spent with resources like John Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operation might be more helpful than time spent at this stage on CAD revisions.
Best of luck.
ByronModel RR Blog Layout Design Gallery
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Hi Darrell. Been there and done that in about the same space you have, although I didn't have a closet to contend with.
http://rides.webshots.com/album/570623353LSWCAy
The above is a link to that layout. It is gone now due to a move, and I am now building another layout in HO scale.
Now for my comments. Build your benchwork so it goes around the walls. Two foot wide seems to be right for reaching across to the back. The corners will be deeper but you can still reach them if you stand on a small work platform about 9 inches high. (Build it yourself) It will also double to sit on while working underneath. Get rid of all the furniture. If you have to have your computer in the room, find or build a LOW desk. Get a SHORT chair for it. Build lift bridges to cross the door and closet. If the room door opens inward, remove it. I am fond of track arrangements where the main line goes around the room twice, so it has a grade or two and has to cross under / over itself. You would probably need four lift bridges, but they are not hard to do. My current HO layout has four lift bridges and I have written up how I did them. Here is a link to a PDF file that includes photos.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzescsbb/HO_MRR/Room%20Access%20Lift%20Bridges.pdf
You should be able to get the roundhouse and turntable in a corner and the yard next to it. The lower lift bridge that spans the closet entrance can be your stagging yard or interchange with a through track. So I would put the yard on the wall accross the room from the closet. On the upper level behind the yard could be some city type industries. The other two walls could be used for intermediate towns.
Hope this helps,
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
I just KNEW somebody was going to look at this with a totally unbiased view! LOL
Okay, Byron, let’s look at the record (as they used to say):
First, to make sure we’re talking about the same thing, I’m referring to the last track plan I posted, a heavily modified version of the CVR layout by Will Annand.
The druthers, as originally posted:
Double-tracked mainline operation (continuous running for passenger & freights)
I have to agree, single track with sidings is not an effective replacement for double tracked mainlines. I re-drew the layout adding a second mainline. I will post the plan later, but my first impression was that adding MORE track to an admittedly already crowded layout may not be a good solution, either! % of goal achieved (poga): 0
The “passenger terminal” has essentially been downgraded to a passenger station. I envision it on the left side of the layout. Poga: 40%
Light switching may be accomplished with all those short spurs and sidings. I’m not saying this is correct, but without those spurs, there’s NOWHERE for switching outside the yard. Poga: 75%
Large roundhouse – yup, that’s in there! LOL poga: 100%
Staging? Is there any staging? Well, not in the traditional sense. I was thinking that the long sidings on the right wall could act as visible or partly visible staging. Once more, not the best solution. I’d MUCH prefer to have totally hidden staging below the layout but I don’t think that’s easily accomplished without exceeding my mandated maximum 1.5% gradient. My first plans were along those lines. Poga: 50%
The classification yard is stub-ended. I don’t particularly like it. I’d prefer double ended, which I had in the earlier plans but didn’t translate to the latest plan. Poga: 20%
Having one or more towns may still be doable. I actually haven’t worked out a placement for ANY towns yet, but there seems to be enough room to populate the layout with residential areas. Poga: 65%
Since I haven’t drawn in ANY bridges, it looks like the poga is 0%. I mentioned the possibility of putting a large curved bridge on the bottom left side loop. It would be fairly substantial, but at the expense of one of those much needed residential areas. The best use for that area may be residential because of its proximity to the passenger station. That area would also lend itself to a small downtown district mixed in with the residences. Poga: 10% if residential area installed, 85% if bridge is installed.
So what’s my score? Out of 8 categories with a potential score of 800, I score this between 360 and 435. In other words, less than HALF of my goals have been achieved! DANG!!!
Addressing some of your other comments, Byron, although I want and like scenery, like most model layouts, scenery takes second place to track. At least with this layout, most of the areas are flat or neatly flat which lends itself to more believable scenery (however much there is of it!).
RTS, the track planning software I’m using, has an easements feature. I haven’t taken the time to learn its use. Leading into a curve with wide radius into narrower radius performs a similar function and is a LOT quicker than learning more features of the software. (Have I mentioned that I have a steep learning curve? LOL)
On the elements of track work that don’t appear prototypical, I can take the easy way out and blame it on the track planning software, but that wouldn’t be the whole truth. There ARE limitations with RTS. Most of those areas with un-prototypical track work could be improved with specialty track work, especially and specifically curved turnouts. I know they’re available, and I have a few, but RTS doesn’t believe in them! I will fall back on the old reliable “it’s only a PLAN, not a mandate!” LOL If actually constructed, those curved turnouts would be utilized to alleviate some of the un-prototypical track work problems.
Finally (Finally? Jeesh, I thought this guy would NEVER shut up!!!)…..finally, I think the adjacent passing siding tracks that you refer to are consequences of RTS once again. Now I WILL cop out; RTS doesn’t have a ½ piece 19”R track. That’s what’s needed to re-align a diverging route with the straight route of a turnout to make parallel tracks. There is a way to draw the plan better but I didn’t take the time to do it. I will next time.
Analysis: am I happy with the plan? Not completely. Can it be better? Definitely, but I’m not sufficiently well-versed in track planning to translate my druthers into reality. That’s why I’m posting on these forums. There’s GOT to be whole bunches of folks out there with more talent than me and who can offer suggestions. And yes, Armstong’s “Track Planning” is in my arsenal of planning weapons.
Byron, thanks for taking the time to honestly and completely evaluate what I’ve posted. I will keep working at it. (Which also means that I’ll keep bugging the forum members for comments! LOL)
Darrell, quiet (AT LAST HE SHUTS UP!!)…for now
Well, with this response and my previous response to Byron, it looks like it’s going to be another long night at the drawing board for me! LOL
Darrell, quiet (Gee, he didn't stay quiet for very long, did he?)...for now
Sorry for another long post!
I made a measurement mistake when working on the last trackplan, making the upper wall 10’ instead of 12’. Guess my brain had left without leaving a forwarding address!
It was correctly pointed out to me that one mainline and multiple sidings do not a double-track mainline make. (Sorry, poetic license.) While fooling around with squeezing in a double track mainline, I found my measurement error. The layout plan below is the result of correcting that error and adding the second mainline.
With the increased width of the layout, I was able to add the second mainline and modify some potential trouble spots. Except for a couple of locations, the mainlines follow the straight routes through the turnouts. I also added several single crossovers, although if built, they would be double crossovers.
Comments on the above?
Another well-thought-out suggestion led me to what I call a combined track plan. Using elements from the first multi-level track plan posted and the layout pictured above, I drew up this plan:
One feature of the first track plan was a swing/lift gate allowing access to the middle. The multi-level plan created a long grade that would have been hard to get right. The first plan in this post eliminated that long grade by keeping everything on one level.
This plan has addressed the grade problem and includes a double main line. (Actually, it's two different loops of track.) A swing/lift gate in the lower left corner would provide access. My precious roundhouse sits next to a larger, double-ended yard. There is even staging in the lower right corner of the layout! What appears to be sidings overlapping the tracks in that corner don’t actually cross the tracks. The staging tracks are actually hidden under a city/town area built above the staging tracks. Those sidings serve the city/town. It is a steep grade to get up to the city/town area but I know of prototype locations that have very steep grades. The town would be served by a single switcher delivering only one or two cars at a time, so the grade shouldn’t present a problem.
In a previous post, I graded my plan by comparing it to how closely the plan achieved my goals. I assigned a ‘percent of goals achieved’ score in each category. The graded plan scored a maximum of 435 out of a possible 800 score. That’s what forced me back to the drawing board.
Here are the goals with percents achieved with this latest plan:
100% Double-tracked mainline operation
40% Passenger terminal (not huge, but decent sized) (not shown on plan)
100% Light switching
100% Staging (can be hidden or open)
100% Large roundhouse
100% Classification yard
100% One or more towns (on left wall and over staging)
70% Large bridge or multiple bridges (on the swing/lift gate)
A whopping 710 out of 800!! I’m not sure I can get any closer than that!
Now I need the cooler, wiser heads on this forum to review the latest plan and point out the deficiencies that I may have turned a blind eye towards. Any and all comments are welcomed.
Thanks for all the help I have received. I couldn’t have come this far on my own!
Darrel,
I have been following up on this thread for quite some time now, observing how your layout ideas develop with the input through this forum. Although I am not in a position to comment on your recent ideas, allow me to make some remarks.
Designing a layout requires multi-level thinking, i.e. track and scenery or LDE´s. I find it difficult to picture your layout ideas in terms of scenery, which IMHO, is the spice to each layout.
Your layouts have a lot of track and a lot of turnouts, but the focus is on letting 1 or more trains run. I assume that this is one of your druthers. If you like to watch your trains run through some nice scenery, may I suggest that you kind of concentrate the passenger station, yard and loco facilities in one area - your "city, maybe? - and thus open up space for scenery? If you then lead your trackage into a (hidden) staging yard and add some lineside industries along the way, you can come really close to what you expect to get, I assume.
Darrel, I have never designed a "big" layout like you do, so these are just my thoughts.
Great thoughts, Ulrich!
As visually oriented as I have always been, when it comes to track plans, my abilities often fail me! Maybe I'm too concentrated on the track and ignore the scenery during planning. Some of my earlier layouts suffered from having contrived scenery. I always wondered if it wouldn't be better to design the scenery first, then try to fit the track in like the real railroads do!
Yes, there is a lot of track and many turnouts on this plan. The main purpose of the layout will be to have trains operating on the main lines. Switching operations are secondary to main line operation, but I don't want to ignore that aspect completely.
What is my vision for scenery? On this plan, there are no serious grades, no mountains to climb, no great rivers to cross with impressive bridgework. Although I LIKE all those things, they just don't translate well on the layouts I have built. Serious grades limit train lengths, mountains are hard to climb and tunnels are hard to reach into for that occasional "oops". As much as I love bridges, I just can't justify their extensive use on this layout. Those are parts of the compromises we make on our layouts.
Much of this layout will be flat, with slightly rolling terrain. I want to include several residential areas and some industry sidings for switching purposes. I envision a railroad station on the left side of the layout with attending residences. And trees. Lots of trees! LOL
Like you, I don't have a lot of experience designing "big" layouts. The importance of posting plans on this forum and getting responses from modelers with more experience cannot be underestimated! I appreciate all the help I've received!
I will be making a mock-up of this layout to place in the 1"=1' model of my train room. I will post pictures of it later.
if you leave me some time, I will try to design a track plan - just tell me, which track you would like to use.
I am using WinRail as the tool to draw track plans, which is the same as RTS from Atlas, only with a bigger library to choose from. Room size is 8´ by 12´, right?
Thank your for your offer, Ulrich.
I have a lot of Atlas Code 80 track, turnouts and flextrack. I will also use Peco and other turnouts in some places.
The room itself is 9.5' x 12'. The right side of the layout can be 8-8.5' long but the left side cannot be longer than 78" to provide clearance for the door that swings into the room. the wall along the top is 12'.
I'm nowhere NEAR the point of starting construction, so time is not critical yet! LOL After I decide on a track plan, I'll begin working on designing the benchwork for it. Since the layouts I've drawn have been about 24" wide, I am planning on some sort of shelf support, at least around 3 walls (left, top and right walls). With a swing or lift gate in the lower left corner, I'll need more substantial benchwork in that area.
Please let me know if you have any more questions.
ARRRRRGGH!!
Wrong room dimensions! The layout room is 10.5 feet by 12 feet, not the 9.5 dimension in my last post. The layout size and other dimensions given ARE correct.
Sometimes my brain just up and walks out on me without any notice whatsoever! LOL
OK, Darrell,
let me recap your givens/druthers
U-shaped layout, with the left leg being 6 1/2´ long, the "upper" part 12´ long, and the right leg 8 1/2´.
Atlas Code 80 track (do you have that much track already, that you cannot change to code 55?)
Double track main
Classification Yard
Engine service facility with roundhouse
Passenger station / depot
Some lineside industries
Open items:
Will you be using DCC?
How many operatores?
How many trains simultaneously?
Will you be running one of those glorious "Streamliners?
What era? Steam/Diesel? Steam only? Diesel only?
Things start to form uüp in my mind, but I need the input to the above.
Hi, Ulrich.
Yes I have a LOT of Atlas Code 80 - about 600' of flex and enough cork roadbed for it, too! I have a mixed supply of Atlas, Peco and other turnouts. I like the Atlas and Peco Code 55, but I'd rather not go to the expense of replacing the Code 80 stocks I already had. Call me cheap...... (Okay, YOU"RE CHEAP! LOL)
You have the layout dimensions correct and you've correctly identified my druthers. Below are the answers to your other questions.
Will you be using DCC? Eventually, and most likely not from the beginning. Too many older locos that need to be DCC'd first!
How many operatores? Most of the time, just myself. I can't imagine more than three people in the room at one time.
How many trains simultaneously? One or two on the mainlines, one working the yard. Maybe one local switcher working between or in place of one of the trains on the mains.
Will you be running one of those glorious "Streamliners? If I find one at a price I can live with, absolutely! In the meantime, I'll have to settle for my Big Boy and several 2-8-8-2's in freight service and some E8/9 A-B or A-B-B-A lashups pulling the varnish.
What era? Steam/Diesel? Steam only? Diesel only? Transition-era layout with late steam and early diesel.
Hope the additional information helps. Can't wait to see what you have in mind, but don't let me rush you!
Thanks for your help.
Darrell,
before I start to draw a proper track plan, I´d like to agree upon the layout schemeatics with you.
Here is a pic:
Now this is not a track plan, so some comments on it.
Focal point is the "town" with it´s depot, yard and engine facility. I plan to put that on the upper part of the layout, with the town in the back of it. To the right, there will be some industries connected by spurs, the track then moving through some scenery to disappear in a tunnel to disguise the return loop. The the left of the town, the track will eventually double up in order to simulate a double track main, crossing a bridge over a river, then finally disappearing in a tunnel, again to disguise the return loop.
I hope you can picture that...
HI, Ulrich.
Good looking schematic. Yes, I'm familiar with them.
I'm not 100% comfortable with loop-to-loop layouts, especially on DC. Wiring them isn't difficult (at least not for me). The difficulty comes in operating. While a train is in the reverse loop, the operator has to reverse the polarity on the track outside the loop. If another train is operating outside the loop, it's direction will change when the polarity changes. The simple solution is to use multiple control blocks so the train outside the loop isn't on the control block whose polarity is reversed. But multiple control blocks have to be tended, which pulls an operator's attention from his own train. On a large layout, I can see the operator (ME!) doing a St. Vitus dance trying to keep polarity correct for multiple trains! LOL
Now, DCC is supposed to be easier and hands-off. That's an aspect of DCC I don't really understand yet. The DCC reverser module detects the movement of a locomotive into the protected block and automatically reverses polarity so the train continues without slowing or stopping and with no input from the operator. So what happens to other trains when that polarity reverses beneath them? Do the decoders sense the change and react to it, thereby keeping the trains running in the proper direction? That's the only answer I can imagine that would work. As I've said before, I'm not the brightest bulb on the string when it comes to DCC! Anyone reading this who can explain the theory to me is welcome to try. LOL
But I'm not afraid of reverse loops. I've used them in previous layouts with success. They just don't lend themselves very well to hands-off operations. I have been able to eliminate some reverse loops (when I didn't absolutely need the feature) by converting a loop-to-loop track plan into a simple loop track plan. Of course, you have to be careful about placing crossovers or double crossovers in a simple loop plan because they can create unintentional reverse loops.
With that in mind, I'm not sure you'll want to proceed with a track plan, although I'm very much interested in seeing what you have in mind. I'll leave the decision to you.
In any event, you have my gratitude for all the help you've given me. It's always amazing to see how different people can take the same parameters and devise multiple solutions. Shows how inventive and creative the human mind can be!
ofcause I will continue, but as I said, it takes some time. I need the thoughts to settle down in my brain before I can start to draw. If you don´t like reverse loops, that is no problem. I just think it looks better, when a train "returns" instead of circling in the same direction all the time. But let´s wait and see what I can come up with.
In general, I go for "simple" straight forward design, that do not look like a bowl of spaghetti.
If you have a chance, go for DCC. First of all, you save a lot of time wiring your layout, and also cost, especially when you want to go into multiple train operation. NCE Power cab or MRC Prodigy Express should be sufficient and they are not so expensive. Plus the decoders...
DCC operation brings you really close to real railroad operation.
You commented that "it looks better when a train "returns" instead of circling in the same direction all the time." I have to agree with you on that but I am willing to sacrifice some looks in the interests of much easier single-handed operations. If this layout were to be used by 3 or more poeple at one time, I would have no problem at all with the reverse loops. Being the lone wolf operator, I'm really looking for simple in terms of operation. LOL
You also stated: "DCC operation brings you really close to real railroad operation." On that, I must agree! I already have a Digitrax Big Boy DCC system. I also have a supply of Digitrax and other decoders. I don't know how many locos I have, but it's more than I have decoders for!! Maybe 30 or 40 locos, and that's speaking conservatively. Some of those locos will not be converted to DCC. Those that are NOT decent runners to begin with will not be converted. I will either sell them off or hold on to them for future re-motoring and DCC-ing.
As I have already mentioned, time is not critical at this stage. I suspect any layout plan is going to be subject to myriad revisions, adding more time to the process. Then there is the benchwork and scenery designs to plan out.
Although your schematic shows reverse loops, it doesn't look like it's overcrowded with track. That can change in the actual design, but I know you will avoid the spaghetti bowl look! LOL
In the meantime I have completed a model of the last layout plan I posted with some topographical features. Soon I will get pictures of it set in place in the model of my train room.
I am anxious to see what you have in mind but don't want to rush you. To coin a phrase in the style of Casey Stengel, "Take your time, but be quick about it!" ROFLOL
Thanks in advance for all your work on my behalf.