Im designing a first layout in an area of my basement that is 9'x13'.It is my first layout so my main goal is to keep it as simple as possible. The layout will be freelanced with a continuous main line. I would like to have a decent size yard, 2 towns with switching in the towns and along the main line. I have been using cadrail to come up with some ideas but I always get to a point where I get indecisive. I ask my wife for her opinion, sometimes it helps but I could use the opinions of others who have built layouts before.
Welcome to the forum.
Some simple questions to start with:
What scale (H0 or N or some other scale) ?
What type of railroad (e.g. Midwestern granger, Appalachian coal hauler, Colorado mining road, Maine two footer etc)
What era ?
Typical train length (number of cars, type of cars) ?
Can you draw us a sketch showing your entire room - with doors and windows, where you have walls etc ?
What have you drawn yourself already ? What are you not satisfied with ?
Smile,Stein
If you want to consider not constructing your own benchwork, permit me to point you in the direction of "Benchridge Benchworks" for a suggestion.benchridge.com/
Roger Hensley= ECI Railroad - http://madisonrails.railfan.net/eci/eci_new.html == Railroads of Madison County - http://madisonrails.railfan.net/ =
steinjr Welcome to the forum. Some simple questions to start with: What scale (H0 or N or some other scale) ? What type of railroad (e.g. Midwestern granger, Appalachian coal hauler, Colorado mining road, Maine two footer etc) What era ? Typical train length (number of cars, type of cars) ? Can you draw us a sketch showing your entire room - with doors and windows, where you have walls etc ? What have you drawn yourself already ? What are you not satisfied with ? Smile,Stein
broseberrysteinjr Welcome to the forum. Some simple questions to start with: What scale (H0 or N or some other scale) ? What type of railroad (e.g. Midwestern granger, Appalachian coal hauler, Colorado mining road, Maine two footer etc) What era ? Typical train length (number of cars, type of cars) ? Can you draw us a sketch showing your entire room - with doors and windows, where you have walls etc ? What have you drawn yourself already ? What are you not satisfied with ? Smile,Stein Im modeling in HO scale in modern day era. Not sure what type of railroad, but what I am thinking is 2 towns with passenger stations along with some industrial switching atleast one yard. Longest yard track should be long enough to hold 6-8 cars of mixed freight. I am building the layout in a 9'x13' area in my basement. The layout would back up to 2 walls, no other obstructions. What Im having problems with designing is the yard. I will post some plans as soon as I figure it out.
Ummm - if you want to run modern era freight and passenger traffic, I would very seriously consider going to N scale.
A 40-foot car (1950s typical freight car) is 5.5" in H0 scale, 3" in N scale. An 89-foot freight or passenger car is a foot long in H0 scale, about 7" long in N scale.
(How calculation is done : prototype car is e.g. 60 foot long. That is 60 x 12 = 720 inches long. In H0 scale: 720/87.1 = 8.3", in N scale: 720/160 = 4.5").
Going N scale or going older era makes quite a difference in train lengths. Your yard tracks would have to be this long to fit 8 cars in respectively H0 scale and N scale:
8 x 40-foot cars: 3.6 feet in H0 scale, 2 feet in N scale 8 x 60-foot cars: 5.5 feet in H0 scale, 3 feet in N scale 8 x 89-foot cars: 8 feet in H0 scale, 4.5 feet in N scale
Your sidings would have to be a bit longer, so you also can fit engines, in addition to the cars.
Some yards were discussed in this recent thread: http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/160504.aspx
What people often forget is that a yard can be pretty small, and still be fun to switch - it does not have to be a big yard with dedicated A/D tracks, an engine terminal, a weight track, a RIP (Repair in Place) track, a washing rack, a coach yard and a lot of double ended body tracks.
Smile, Stein
broseberryIm designing a layout ... that is 9'x13'.main goal is to keep it as simple as possible. freelanceda continuous main line.decent size yard2 townsswitching in the towns and along the main line
I agree with the prior poster. That is a lot to ask of HO scale in 9'x13' with modern equipment. Modern equipment is huge. A passenger siding will take up a strip on that whole 13' side.
I assume the "yard" means a classification yard. It was not mentioned how many "off layout" towns there would be, or what sort of hidden/stagging tracks there are. These will dictate the make up of the yard. A yard simply for two switching town only needs 3/4 tracks. One arrival track, one make up track (departure) and two classification tracks - one for each town. On the other hand if there are multiple towns off the layout somewhere. One could add a track for each of those. So take the most simple scenario - add two tracks to the yard for all points east and all points west. That brings it up to six tracks. Once again for modern equipment, assuming a nice 24" minimum (preferably 30") curve in and out, room for a ladder (two if double ended), and that will probably consume at least a two foot wide strip down most of the 13' side of the layout. It could be worked in conjunction with the passenger tracks.
And thinking about this. 9' is a tough size. Not wide enough for an island. If one doesn't want a duck under then it almost dictates two blobs, which dictate the yard on the opposite side. Hmmm. Are you adverse to bridging the entry? Exposure on two sides helps as it can be deeper along those sides.
Hmmm - did a quick sketch to explore options. For shorter cars (or N scale) it would possibly have been feasible to have two yards (which double as on-layout staging) on a central peninsula, combined with an around the wall layout, at least if 24" aisles are okay:
But for longer H0 scale equipment, like modern passenger and long freight cars, 22" radius going into the yard is probably pushing your luck.
Tall order for HO in the space given, but not impossible depending on your standards. Consider a smaller interchange yard where you may have a dedicated switcher that could do local work to. The passing sidings would have to be so long that you may as well double track the entire layout or restrict your layout with two towns, one served by the yard. You could have a continuous run through the interchange and one town then have a branch line for more interest. You may be surprised how a small yard and one town can fill a space.
There are some great sources for track plans so invest in some books or downloads. Try a book or two on operations to maximize your fun.
http://www.trainplayer.com/
The above has many plans from people all over.
Lots to consider.
John
Everyone has different ideas on how things should be.
Try different things, design things on paper. Read MR magazine to have a look at what other people are doing in the space you have for yourself. This is my approach to layout building.
Study the track designs, ask a bunch of questions as well.
Since this is, I'm assuming, your first layout, keep it simple at first but allow yourself to expand at a later date. Build a mainline ( a simple loop) so that you can see how much space you have for yards & spurs & to see how much space "your" average train is going to take up. By building a simple loop, you can also have trains running while scoping out your yards, spurs, scenery & towns.
Gordon
Brought to you by the letters C.P.R. as well as D&H!
K1a - all the way
hi,
you've got a lot of advices, some great, some tmho not so great. I will present you an other railroad, the HOG (Heart of Georgia).
The main reason is the radius. Since 50 years a 2.5 ratio between the longest car and the radius is called tight. With modern 90 feet long cars your mimimum branchline radius in HO will be 30 inches and with it goes the use of #6 and #8 switches. The math: 90 : 87 x 2.5 x 12 is about 30.
Your space is a bit longer not wider, but the radii used are a under 30, trainlength is 5 feet. So you could built a pike like that in modern times in your space. Two stations, a small yard, an interchange and continious running, but no staging yard and no online switching.
Classification usually means building different trains for different destinations. Blocking is the word used for getting the cars in a train in the right order. So the first cut of cars is for the first station on the line, the second cut for the second station, etc. You don´t need a yardtrack for each station along the line. Blocking was often done apart from the main yards, and just two tracks will do the job, more can be handy of course.
Study`Ãng trackplans is nice to do, there are way to many. The two plans presented to you will give you an idea what can be done (or can´t be done) in HO in your space given your druthers (wishes). Both plans are single track branchline designs. Do they come close to what you were thinking?
Have fun, keep smiling
Paul
hi
Milw asked some questions and stated Stein's trackplan is good as usual. I second that, but Stein had a message; question is: did the message came home?
A backdrop is the end of a scene: a background. When put between two scenes like the two yards on Stein's design, it is called a double sided backdrop.
A granger road is a rural line through the great plains; I don't know where the word is coming from. Important in Stein's story are the consequences; straight as an arrow, large radii and scattered buildings. So tight radii are out.
About carlength you are right, Stein talked about it too. Max. carlength in the 50's was 50 feet, in the 70's 60 feet, in the late 80's 80 feet and today even 90 feet. I talked about a 2.5 ratio before as considered tight; on a granger road a 1:4 ratio would look more appropriate.
In the end you always have to set your own standards. It is your layout and you should have all the fun.
It sounds expensive, but do a little experiment; try to run three 90 feet coaches over a #4 switch. Pushing and pulling, with slow speeds and at full speed. May be you know some one who can set it up for you? Same with easements. Trying it out before starting a major built can be a way to go.
If you want to build a layout of that size as a starter project you are headed for problems. not because of your skill but because of you previous lack of failure so that you have enough experience to avoid the problem issues. I would strongly suggest a four by eight railroad to generate the following skills:
1. laying straight track
2. laying curves that work
3. laying turnouts
4. wiring skills
5. scenery skills
If you still want to build a bigger layout right out of the box then you ought to do each one of these things on a test section so you have some experience before beginning. Even those of us building layouts for forty years in my case still run into things we never saw before.
ndbprrIf you want to build a layout of that size as a starter project you are headed for problems. not because of your skill but because of you previous lack of failure so that you have enough experience to avoid the problem issues. I would strongly suggest a four by eight railroad to generate the following skills: 1. laying straight track 2. laying curves that work 3. laying turnouts 4. wiring skills 5. scenery skills If you still want to build a bigger layout right out of the box then you ought to do each one of these things on a test section so you have some experience before beginning. Even those of us building layouts for forty years in my case still run into things we never saw before.
I agree that a test layout is probably the way to go.
But why not try Scott Perry's HOG (Heart of Georgia) plan instead of a 4x8. It's the one Paulus Jas mentioned further up in this thread.
You get to learn all the skills mentioned above, it is fairly simple to build (comes with complete cutting instructions etc), and yet it gives you curves that are good to go with modern equipment in H0 scale (which is what the OP wanted), as well as a number of visually separate scenes where one can try out different scenery techniques.
Website: http://home.comcast.net/~scottgperry/site/?/page/Heart_of_Georgia_Beginner's_Train_Layout
for some it seems a daunting task, but the Hog is built, except the triangels in the corners, out of 4 boards. All four are 8 by 1 feet; together just a 8x4 sheet of plywood.
The result is far beyond the possibilities of the usual 8x4. Much larger radii are possible and curving the stations results in a decent trainlength. Using the curve as a scenic devider you even have a layout with four scenes. The resulting design is far more spacious and much more suited to a rural area then a 8x4.
The Hog was meant as a starters layout, tmho a very good one if you want a branchline out in the country.
Broseberry,
In your situation, something like the HOG layout wouldn't be too complicated. If it were a midwest theme, scenery would be simple, as well as benchwork since there would be no need for grades. You can selectively tighten the radius of the curve in places too, if it made sense. The states of Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Iowa, to name a few, have areas near rivers that can be quite hilly, maybe requiring a railroad to have a tighter than desired curve to line up the track for where it chose to cross the narrow part of the river. (cheaper to build a short bridge to cross the narrow portion of the river than a long bridge to cross the wider portion, duh) . If your layout was 52 inches, your 2x6 or 8 table top that had the river scene could be built at 48 inches, using simple risers to support the track as it decends slightly to the bridge. Not difficult to build and the scene would have a slight realistic looking grade.
For the HOG in your case, I would eliminate the two staging tracks and rework that town a bit to have a small yard on the outside of the loop, terminating into the wall in a corner. You could install a mirror and practice that scenic skill. Any one of the tracks in the corners of the layout could be used for staging, if you wanted it. I would eliminate the town of Pitts and replace it with scenery or a single larger industry, but that's a matter of personal taste.
Good luck and keep us posted.
- Douglas
I do believe I came to the right place for information. All who have responded have given me some very helpful tips and great insights.As this is my first layout I had been considering a 9'x13' shelf layout with a duck under, but after reading all the comments and thinking about each, I will reconsider my original ideas and even consider switching to N scale. Either way I will continue to ask questions, read and respond to all comments, ideas and insights for further modeling tips. I thank all who have responded.
Well I was finally able to get a picture to post. the picture is of the area that intend to build in.
broseberryWell I was finally able to get a picture to post. the picture is of the area that intend to build in.
Excellent job in getting an image posted.Important step in your design process.
I suggest a new sketch that shows the entire room, and where you add some dimensions to the sketch, so it is easier to picture what the sketch shows.
I assume from your initial description (that you had a 9x13 feet area in your basement) that the front wall from the RR workbench to the lower right hand corner is 13 feet and the right wall from the lower right hand corner to somewhere up along that wall is 9 feet, but it is not possible to say from your description whether that e.g is allowing for some distance between the layout and the furnace, or whether you need an walkway/aisle between the layout and the furnace.
It is also not possible to tell whether your layout has air space rights above the two workbenches you show.
First impression - I would still have considered an N scale, and doing an 15-18" deep L shaped shelf layout on simple wall brackets on the two walls shown, with turnback curves (which can be done in a 30x30" blob in N scale at either end.
Im considering an N scale layout and I have a question. In N scale what is the smallest turnout I can use that will still look realistic?
broseberryIm considering an N scale layout and I have a question. In N scale what is the smallest turnout I can use that will still look realistic?
The question that you are asking is not really making sense. The answer is exactly the same in N scale as in H0 scale. The smallest (sharpest) turnout you can use depends on what kind of trains you run and what type of railroading you are trying to simulate. Larger frog number turnouts for higher speeds and longer equipment, lower frog number turnouts for industrial trackage in cramped conditions.
But since you are comparing H0 scale and N scale - the relevant question is not how sharp turnouts you can use, but how much layout length a group of turnouts (of some suitable sharpness) will take in H0 vs N scale.
Here is a yard ladder for a small four track yard in H0 scale, using Peco code 75 medium turnouts:
Center-to-center distance between adjacent tracks are 2" - which corresponds to 2" * 87.1 = 174" = 14.5 feet.
Here is the same ladder in N scale, using Peco code 80 N scale medium turnouts:
Track distance is 1.3" (since I haven't cut down the turnouts). That corresponds to prototype track distances of 1.3" * 160 = 208" = 17.3 feet.
But as you can see - that yard ladder takes 22" of layout length in N scale, 40" of layout length in H0 scale. Yard also takes a little less depth (6" vs 10"). But that is usually not that critical - it is length we tend to run out of first on a model railroad layout.
Of course - if you are running N scale instead of H0 scale, each of those yard tracks will also fit more cars or longer cars (or both - more and longer cars).
A cut of ten 40-foot cars (ie about 400 feet or 400 x 12 = 4800 inches in reality) will take about this much space in H0 and N scale:
H0 scale: 4800" : 87.1 = 55" (4.5 feet) N scale: 4800" : 160 = 30" (2.5 feet)
A cut of ten more modern 60-foot cars will take 1.5 times more (since 60/40 = 1.5 ...), ie H0 scale: 82" (6.8 feet) N scale: 45" (3.75 feet)
In the 55" (ca 4.5 feet) you would need to fit ten 40-foot cars in H0 scale, you could fit either eighteen 40-foot cars or twelve 60-foot cars in N scale.
So the decision N vs H0 is essentially one of how much you can fit into a given length on your layout.
Not one of how sharp turnouts you can use - a #4 is sharp, a #6 is medium, a #8 is long and a higher numbered turnout is very long, no matter what scale you are modeling in.
Hi Berry,
steinjr I suggest a new sketch that shows the entire room, and where you add some dimensions to the sketch, so it is easier to picture what the sketch shows.
TMHO you have forgotten something. In the 102 Realistic Track Plans, published by our host, Andy Sperandeo is showing you the way how to do it.
I will give you three rules of thumb, they are mine and in the end you have to make up your own rules. John Armstrong called it, in his famous book Trackplanning For Realistic Operation chapter 5, Operating reliability through standards.
1) devide the prototype length of your longest car by 5, and you have a pretty good idea of the mimimum radius in inches in N-scale. (In HO devide by 3)
2) devide the prototype length of your longest car by 10, and you have a good switch number in N-scale.(in HO devide by 10 or 12)
So, if you want to run modern 90 feet long autoracks in N-scale you end up with a 18" radius and #9 switches. As you may have noticed a 18" radius is considered to be a good minimum radius in HO as well, alas for a freight only branch in the 50"s, where the longest cars and diesels were 50 feet long.
3) maximum train length is 40% of the length of your room. When your room is 11 feet long train length can be 0.4X11= 4.4 feet. Eight modern autoracks are 4.5 feet long in N-scale, and you still have two add an engine or two. (In HO ten 40-feeters are also 4.4 feet long)
The questions asked are always about your scale, era, locale and kind of railroad. The answers pretty much determine the appropriate radii and switch numbers.
In the very same 102 trackplans, Andy Sperandeo also explains how to design by "squares"; another invention of John Armstrong; it takes the radius as the important design value. A bullit proof approach to get a quick idea about what will fit, and bulletproof also against overly optimistic designing.
BTW John Armstrong wrote his book almost 50 years ago, it was first published in 1963.