After being a long-time lurker, I am finally joining the forums in order to get help with my new dream N-scale layout.
This is my first venture into free-lancing a large layout. My previous adventures have all been small table-top layouts that followed published plans. I would like this new layout to have as many switching oportunities as possible - an operator's paradise if you will, and all of the curves on the mainline to have the maximum possible radii. I started off by listing my wants and druthers and, at that point I recognized that I do not have the required carpentry skills to design and construct benchwork on the scale that I planned. So, I invited a family member over, and discussed my ideas with him. Before I knew it, he and his wife called to see if they could come over for him to deliver the benchwork! What could I say? Yes, of course! The only part that he had not already constructed was the center peninsula. And, that is what brings me to move from a being a long-time reader of the posts, to joining and making my own post.
Whether sitting with a large pad of graph paper, or pieces of track in hand, I am daunted by the blank slate that I have to work with! So much so, that I can not even bring my self to make what I am sure should be an easy decision about the peninsula. Should I go with a single peninsula:
Or, would I better off with two shorter peninsulas. And, if two shorter peninsulas, should they have small blobs:
or larger blobs:
I would love to have the layout go around the entire room as well, but am wondering if I would gain enough benefit to offset the bother in making a swing-gate to allow access through the doorway into the room in the upper left corner, and a swing-gate or lift-out to allow access into the wide closet in the top wall.
So, I welcome any suggestions or ideas that you may have!
Oh, I realize that the aisles are all very tight by normal standards. But, I am an extremely slight man, and will usually be the only operator. And, when there is another operator it will be my wife who is even more slight then I am we were sure they would be fine. We have tested this by using empty cardboard boxes and chairs to set them upon, and found that the space will be comfortable to work within.
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
I would go with the single peninsula. I think it will make for an easier and better layout.
My Build Thread: https://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/185298.aspx
Follow me on Instagram: https://instagram.com/stephenkingsmaine
Thank you for the quick feedback. I remember that the original reason for the two small peninsulas was to provide a visual break, allowing for more scenes to be modelled in a smaller area. But, given your feedback I think we'll go with the single, longer peninsula. And, timely! My wife and I have invited the carpenter and his wife to come by for a family dinner this weekend!
Does anybody have any notions regarding the benefit gained by going around the entire room versus the difficulty caused by bridging the room doorway and the closet?
Thanks again for any advice and ideas.
Kind of hard to say what would be a sensible benchwork configuration without knowing what you want to put on those tables/shelves/whatever.
Take an example: your peninsula - does it make sense to have one long peninsula with room for the track to loop around the end of the peninsula?
Perhaps - if one of your design goals is to have a longish run for a train, and you don't mind walking around that long peninsula.
How about short peninsulas ? It can be a great idea to have several shortish and narrow pensinsulas (peninsulae?) if you want the peninsula for adding a big industry or two, or maybe a yard.
How about going across the door? Depends on what you want to do - do you want to have a continuous run? Okay - provided you are not into doing push-pull service with trains that auto-reverse at the end of the layout (which is also an option for continuous run), then you need a closed loop in some form.
Can be done with loop-back curves at both ends of your benchwork - possibly with the benchwork beeing deeper than 2 feet at the point where you want the loopback, or by having one end of the benchwork connected with the opposite end using some kind of temporary shelves or cassettes or whatever.
A layout designed for continuous run railfanning with passenger trains passing through a mountain landscape has pretty different requirements compared to a railroad designed for point to point switching of warehouses in Brooklyn.
Form should follow function. It is pretty smart to first decide what you want to be able to do on your layout, and then decide how to fit it into the room, instead of first deciding how much benchwork you can shoehorn into the room and only then deciding what to use it for.
Smile, Stein
hi Sora,
Lesson one: a lot of help is available if you just ask it.
Lesson two: if you do not know what you want start to think first and build later
Lesson three: listen to the pros.
If in any recent publication a minimum aisle width of 30" is "preferred" and explained, why you as a newbie "must" do something else? Keep in mind you will have to work in that aisle and remain away from all the pristine detail on the table.
If you were great scholar in track plans you could have noticed a 18" shelf is wide enough. Even in HO.
So first read Stein's comment carefully.
In your space you can easily build a six-men-crew layout. All the people willing to help you might think it's fun to participate in operating as well. Are they or will they all be that slight as you? Start thinking a bit more forward please. And when operating not alone people have to get around each other. Even without the penninsula you can make three men or women happy.
Wanting the biggest radius possible, the longest possible mainline and wanting as much switching in as possible can or will be conflicting druthers. Probably you have seen a few trackplans or layout stories you liked. Lance Mindheim's Down Town Spur? Rob Hahn's layout? Lloyd Millar's Memphis Terminal(Model Railroad Planning 2009)?
Paul
Once again,
Thank you for the feedback! I have to appologize if my original post was not clear, and in advance if this one is not any better. I confess, that I was nervous in submitting that first post - it is always intimidating to speak about a topic one is interested in, but is far from an expert, especially when speaking in a room full of experts! In addition to the nervousness, I was also trying to balance keeping the post from being too long with providing enough information.
Okay, I am still nervous with this post too! But, I will do my best to clarify some of the points.
I fully appreciate Steinjr's point about "form should follow function", but, since the benchwork was built, delivered, and assembled already, one must work with what they have. And, in my case, I am very grateful for what I have there!
Okay, so here is my attempt to clarify the questions raised by Steinjr and Paulus. And, please forgive me if this is too long.
The benchwork is L-girder "tables" with a height of 43", and I am hoping to have curves with the greatest possible radii so as not to restrict the type of rolling stock that can be operated smoothly on the layout. While, long runs for a train look great, they are at the lowest priority in my list of "givens and druthers" as you will see further in this post. The era of the layout will in the early to mid-1960's, but I know that I may change this in the years to come by replacing the rolling stock and buildings, etc.
As I mentioned in the first post, I can state with certainty due to reasons too lengthy to bring into this forum, with the exception of my wife, and when my family member is visiting us (both of whom are as slightly built or smaller than myself) I will be the only operator. So, while I know that it would be great fun to have an operating session with a number of people, that is not likely to ever be the case.
The layout itself will not be set on a particular prototype. It will be a free-lanced one with particular scenes utilizing aspects of prototypes. Since my wife and I find ourselves with an unused (except for the closet where out of season clothes and outerwear are stored) second bedroom, I thought that I would build my operator's paradise filled with as many industries and other point to point switching opportunities as possible. It will also provide me with a life-time of scenicing pleasure!
Actually, what I envision (and I realize that in writing this here I am risking ridiculre for wanting to put too much into the space that I have) is a very distance compressed version of a very broad geographic range. So, moving across the line from end of the benchwork in the top of the room towards the end where the large peninsula could potentially situated:
A larger urban center set on a a harbor for the arrival of goods to be shipped via rail eastward and some small industries to provide lots of opportunity for switching.
Then into mountains with a mine(s) at a high eleveation in the background (or foreground - decision still to be made) and ideally a (smallish) town to support the mining, on a branch line which conencts to the relatively level mainline to justify a variety of cargo to the mine(s) and community, and ore the other way.
Continuing east, foothills transitioning east from the mountains which will be home to cattle and farming, and another town(s). Again, more small industries in these towns as well.
Further east to flat agricultural lands and another (largish town) with a meat processing plant, grain elevevator(s) and a connection with a southern railline to explain other types of cargo coming into the layout. Yes, more industries!
East still, into a forested and rocky outcrop filled region where there would be a logging operation and yet another town with a lumber mill. And, of course more industries.
And, I was thinking perhaps another twon with a harbor at the eastern end of the existing benchwork to represent another source of cargo and swithing.
I thought that the portions of the layout that are deeper then the two foot standard, would be ideal to house the larger industries such as the mountainous region with the mine(s), meat plant, etc...
So, the purpose of the peninsulas, is to provide more linear real estate on which to fit all of this. The advantage to having two small peninsulas was that if they are divided with a backdrop down the middle (indicated with the faint line of a different color) they would provide a visual break, allowing for a realistic visual break/transition between regions/scenes. But while working with graph paper and track placed on the floor, just as Vail and Southwestern pointed out, it appeared that I would use up a large part of these peninsulas with curves and little or no straight track getting on and off the peninsula. On the other hand, I was afraid that the long, uninterupted straight stretch of the existing benchwork and the option of the long single peninsula would make it far more visually jarring to transition between the different scenes/regions that I would like to incorporate. And, that is what brought me to writing my first ever post!
Finally, (sorry for this being so long , but I wanted to be sure to fill in all details missing in my original post) going across the door. My wife, and the family member that constructed the benchwork, think that it would be a good idea to have the option of having a continuous run. I hadn't even thought about a "push-pull service with trains that autoreverse at the end of the layout [Steingjr]". But, during my thinking hours last night, I have decided that won't be a really good option in case down the road I decide to switch to modelling the steam era.
As far as reading and studying different layouts, I think that is in part contributing to my writer's block while staring at the blank canvas of the benchwork - there are too many ideas running through my head! Especially since, for the first time I have to use my own creativity and imagination to place the track, rather then simply following the published plan with variations that were dictated by space and available track/structure limitations! That being said, thank you Steinjr for the references. I have read some of them, but will go back to them prior to committing any track to benchwork! But, Can too much reading and thinking be a bad thing?
So, with heart racing with nervousness at having put my thoughts out to this community of experts, I post this hoping that it fills in the details that Steinjr and Paulus felt might be missing!
I look forward to reading your thoughts!
SoraRail Actually, what I envision (and I realize that in writing this here I am risking ridiculre for wanting to put too much into the space that I have) is a very distance compressed version of a very broad geographic range. So, moving across the line from end of the benchwork in the top of the room towards the end where the large peninsula could potentially situated: A larger urban center set on a a harbor for the arrival of goods to be shipped via rail eastward and some small industries to provide lots of opportunity for switching. Then into mountains with a mine(s) at a high eleveation in the background (or foreground - decision still to be made) and ideally a (smallish) town to support the mining, on a branch line which conencts to the relatively level mainline to justify a variety of cargo to the mine(s) and community, and ore the other way. Continuing east, foothills transitioning east from the mountains which will be home to cattle and farming, and another town(s). Again, more small industries in these towns as well. Further east to flat agricultural lands and another (largish town) with a meat processing plant, grain elevevator(s) and a connection with a southern railline to explain other types of cargo coming into the layout. Yes, more industries! East still, into a forested and rocky outcrop filled region where there would be a logging operation and yet another town with a lumber mill. And, of course more industries. And, I was thinking perhaps another twon with a harbor at the eastern end of the existing benchwork to represent another source of cargo and swithing.
SoraRailWhile, long runs for a train look great, they are at the lowest priority in my list of "givens and druthers" as you will see further in this post.
Two quotes: the long first one indicates a very long main; the second says: no!
SoraRail I fully appreciate Steinjr's point about "form should follow function", but, since the benchwork was built, delivered, and assembled already, one must work with what they have. And, in my case, I am very grateful for what I have there! Okay, so here is my attempt to clarify the questions raised by Steinjr and Paulus. And, please forgive me if this is too long. The bench-work is L-girder "tables" with a height of 43", and I am hoping to have curves with the greatest possible radii so as not to restrict the type of rolling stock that can be operated smoothly on the layout.
The bench-work is L-girder "tables" with a height of 43", and I am hoping to have curves with the greatest possible radii so as not to restrict the type of rolling stock that can be operated smoothly on the layout.
My feeling is, your bench-work is way too low and way too wide on the wrong places. Doing it allover now is better then doing it later when track-work and scenery are partially done. I understand your feelings and how to tell your family friend? Dream-think-plan-buy-build is the order; you have started building while you are IMHO still dreaming.
I could confront you with even more contradicting quotes quotes. And this all I can do for you. Planning is a series of coherent decisions.
Just to make it more easy to understand; e.g. you want to build the B&O from Cleveland to Baltimore. Cleveland is larger urban centre indeed, but with smaller industries?. Railroad served industries never were small and larger towns had lots of big industries. And just as fun to build and just as complicated to serve. In Model Railroad Planning 2010 you can find Paul Dolkos's design for Baltimore. Just for Baltimore he has a HO layout that could be done in a 22 x 17 feet room; in N-scale it would be 15 x 11. He is building six scenes and i think a four-men crew can have quite a busy night on his system.
Maybe that's a way to start planning;
This is the footprint of Paul Dolkos's layout; you can put the scenes on the map. E.G. 6A and 6B are Cleveland you can try to design a larger town with a harbour and some bigger industries on that part of your layout. Even before doing that stuff, you should think about a global operating plan. Paul Dolkos has scene "one" reserved for staging/interchange.(the rest of the world)
Have fun and keep smiling
Well, let me start by saying that do not consider myself an expert on layout design. I am just another model railroader who has read and thought a bit about layout planning/layout design, and who enjoy discussing layout planning and layout design.
If I was to summarize my impression of your design goals, it sounds like what you want maybe is essentially a series of linked "shadow boxes" - with each box representing a pretty different type of scene?
But do you want to switch each scene as it's own little world - kind of building your layout having a separate light over or in each scene, which gets turned on when you work in that scene, with the "lights off" in the other scenes, so they are kind of hidden in the shadows while you are doing switching in that one scene?
Here is a link to some shadow box scenes on well known modeler Joe Fugate's H0 scale Siskiyou Line: http://siskiyou.railfan.net/model/constructionNotes/shadowBox.html
Here is a link to another forum thread that discussed shadowbox scenes: http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/p/162291/1787340.aspx
Here is a link to Carl Arendt's Micro Layouts site that discusses theatrical techniques for presenting layouts: http://www.carendt.us/articles/Theatrics/index.html
Or are you more thinking of having a train move on a route from one end of the railroad to the other end, serving the various towns etc it passes through on the way from one end of the layout to another, with some stuff e.g. transported from scene 3 to scene 6 or from scene 5 to scene 1 ?
What train lengths are you envisioning? Figure on how many cars you will be wanting to run, and considering that e.g. a 50 foot (600 inch) car in N scale would be about 600 / 160 = 3.75" long, so ten such cars would be 37.5" long - just a tad over 3 feet long.
Btw - I see Paulus has made the point that "it's easier to make changes now than later". It is certainly true, but if it is hard to do things like making the benchwork higher (so tracks are more or less at chest level than at waist level for the relevant operators), you can always compensate for that by not laying your tracks directly on the bench, but instead build some kind of "box" that will sit atop the benches.
There are pretty much always more than one way to do things :-)
If you feel that design analysis gets too overwhelming, just pick one scene and start with that. If you don't superglue your tracks to the bench, but instead use e.g. latex caulk to hold them down, tracks can always be taken up and reused somewhere else later, if necessary.
Edit : I see Paul has posted an overall footprint suggestion based on Paul Dolkos' layout. For whatever it is worth, it is, in my opinion, a pretty good footprint for your room and desired number of scenes.
Hi Paulus,
I very much appreciate your pointing out the contradictions within my post. It will help to clarify my thinking as I continue planning. In the case of "long runs" vs "long main", yes indeed the mainline will be a very long one! But, because in my "dreaming" stage I am envisioning so many things in the layout, I don't forsee being able to run long trains between scenes. I'm sorry, I am likely using the wrong terms. Did this help to clarify this part?
As for the height of the benchwork, I know that it is much lower then the standard. But, it is the ideal height for my stature.
In reading this back to myself, I am afraid it sounds argumentative...or at best like I am defending my ideas. Please understand, that is not at all my intent. I am attempting to clarify my thoughts, so that I can continue to receive feedback!
As always, I'm grateful for your feedback!
My last question, now that I have worked up the courage to face the answer. Am I trying to put 100 pounds of cargo into a 5 pound bag?
Hi Bob (HHPATH56),
I just scrolled up to the top and noticed that you have added more to your post. Thank you for sharing the photos with me! Yes, you are providing me with some wonderful ideas! If it isn't too bold of me to ask, would you able to post a larger copy of your layout?
Your first bench configuration, at the top, is one I would favour for all the reasons expressed so far. I would not make it a loop at the end, but you may find it so desirable that no one should stand in your way. However, a couple of things come to mind: that lone long peninsula would, if constructed with a divider along its spine, provide a nice room/scene break all by itself. It could have the scenic divider nearly 4' tall if need be, painted on each side differently for that scene's appropriate theme. Alternatively, you could make that long peninsula, near the foot of it, a turnging wye if you wanted it for some reason.
But, please do keep the working space. You won't be the only person ever in that room running trains, and not alone...even so, you can't have enough elbow room. If you can find a way to elevate the layout so that the mean operating surface is near sternum height, that would be ideal for most of us. If you know it is the ideal height for you, then what more could be said about it?
I suspect that you are finding friction between your dreams and what you will eventually accept as sober truths. Yes, I think you are a bit ambitious this time around. It might be better to apply yourself to two main industrial components, a modest built-up/urban area if that appeals to you, and then a switching and storage facility...storage could be staging (which you would want before long) or just a place to park unused rolling stock out of sight and so that it doesn't confound your enjoyment of your track plan.
A common mistake is to cram too much trackage into a first layout, but it is also true that a layout may be too 'rail-fan' oriented, more for just sitting back and admiring your trains running in a loop. That gets boring quickly...so now what are you going to do if you want some variety? You need switching, both classification of trains and at industrial complexes....empties in, fills out.
I don't know if this is helping, but have you read Track Planning for Realistic Operation by the late John Armstrong? It is one of the two or three great Bibles of modern model railroading. John tells us about the way railroads earn revenue, and how to plan our model accordingly. He teaches us how to parcel off the layout space into 'squares', and depending on the scale, what can reasonably fit into a square. The book is published by our hosts, Kalmbach Publishing, but it is widely availabe at larger hobby shops.
Lastly, the whole shebang, the whole idea, is to enjoy the process. The journey is what counts, not the arriving. So, enjoy! Take your time, learn, save yourself aggravation and uneeded expense but taking stock of your circumstances and figuring out where to go from here. Nothing is cast in concrete. Even your bench elements can be modified if need be. Wood can be cut, or new wood cut and added.
Good luck!
-Crandell
Hi Sora,
N-scale is great when viewed from armpit height.
To answer your last question: yes. But as I said, when you have a footprint you like you can e.g. start small. Connect, in my drawing, scene 3 and 4 with a temporary bridge and you will have a great start. This can only fit in the big system if you have an overall plan. In this stage the help of Stein is invaluable.
The "scene 3 and 4" area could be a mountain and mining district. Thurmond (West Va) comes into my mind. See we are putting your layout on the map again.
When you have a plan like this you can talk about the operating scheme or why you want to change the plan; e.g. the lap connection could be directed towards the staging tracks; so you can use the staging for two directions.
BTW this scheme is my old time favorite. A point to loop scheme with a lap connection. The lap connection makes it possible to let your trains run for a long time. Running clockwise a change of direction is easy, just use the loop. But counter clockwise your trains have to enter the terminal (yard / harbour) and you must do the switching involved yourself.
Welcome. I read your original post with interest as I will be having a similar situation when I begin designing my "dream" HO layout. Also read some of the first posts and see suggestions that I will be using. I'll keep my eye on this thread.
I am planning for continuous running, so am planning a full around the room, but the penninsula situation is similar. If you have a subscription to MR you can go to their layouts and find many that have a basic bench pattern similar to several of yours. You can look in both N and HO scale for basic bench ideas. The one thought I have had is two pennsulas, one from each of the narrow ends, with a passage between the tips. This would allow for slightly longer straights, but still offer different "scenic" areas. I am not concidering any ot the TRACK plans, but the benchwork patterns are of interest.
You are fortunate to have such a wonderful friend with the skill and time to build your benchwork. It certainly shouldn't be wasted as long as it fits your space. It does not dictate your track plan, only the height (could be altered) and width. Sounds like a good start.
I don't recall seeing a room size listed. As I said, I read the first post and replies. When I came back there were many more responses, so am not sure if I am repeating anything.
If you want continuous running, I would go for it. There are many rather simple lift out, swing up/down/in/out ways to have access. You can search these forums or the Index of Magazines for many of them. Just be sure that when you have one that it has a provision to shut off the power to the track both sides of the access far enough to prevent your trains from taking a dive when the gate is open. If you are agile enough you can just duck under for the next few years, use the gate for your less agile guests. A friend of mine has a rolling chair he sits on to go into his layout, rather than have a gate.
Think about things you want to model most, a scene, a town, an industry. Find a good place for them on your bench work, then build between them. I am planning a fairly large yard, with customers along the side and interchange with another rr. Also another smaller yard, but more of the town in the scene. In between will be a single track mainline with a couple of passing sidings, flag stops, and sidings at a business or quarry where space and appearance allow. A scenic divider on the pennilusa will give the appearance more distance and block seeing from one side to the other. Also, the track running behind a hill or through the trees to give more suggestion of seperation.
Hope this helps a little. I'll be interested in following the responses you get.
Good luck,
I would definitely shoot for continuous running, if at all possible. It can be via an unscenicked drop leaf or a bridge or whatever. You will appreciate it when you want to run the railroad while working on it, or just want to see trains running for a while.
Hi all,
I don't even know where to begin in thanking everyone for the wonderful suggestions and ideas that have been posted since I was last on yesterday! It gave me a lot of food for thought. While I spent the rest of the afternoon and evening with my wife. But, if truth be told, while I was sitting with her, my brain was actually "walking around" the spare bedroom thinking, dreaming, and planning model railroad empires!
I am afraid that I just can't bring myself to have my family member modify the width and footprint of the beautiful benchwork that he built for me. I appreciate the suggestion of height...but I am realizing that not only am I a slightly built man, but I must be shorter then the average model railroader too! The benchwork is sternum height on me. I agree with Paulus that the optimal viewing height is chin height, but I would rather sit on an adjustable chair to view the layout and be able to stand and comfortably work on it.
Crandel, I haven't yet read the Track Planning For Realistic Operation book. Sadly, our community library does not have a copy, but I have ordered it and, hopefully the post-holidady mail rush is finished (we just Friday received a Christmas card that was postmarked December 12!), and it should get here soon. I also really appreciated all of your obervations and suggestions, especially the point of the "journey is what counts, not the arriving." That is exactly what my intentions are for this dream layout.
Paulus, I am in awe at how quickly you can create trackplans for peope! While I am not likely to copy the trackplan as such, it did indeed give me a very good starting point and already has me doodling on paper. But, the notion of doing things in phases, which was also said by Crandel and later by Cowman is just what I will do. Stein's suggestion of temporarily laying track combined with Bob's of laying dead turnouts for future development. I appreciate the photos and other ideas that Bob gave.
Cowman, thank you for your kind words! The room size is 12' x 17'. I am sure that when the house was built it was intended to be the "master" bedroom. But, it has only a very small window set high on the wall. So, when we moved in years ago we opted to go for the smaller room with the more typical bedroom sized window as our bedroom.
Thank you to everyone again, and I will continue to enjoy people's input! I will also, if there is any interest keep people updated on my progress through the journey!
it weren't track-plans yet. Just some footprints. I just chose one different then yours to give even another alternative.
I said armpit high and not chin high. But your missing a point. We are walking along with our trains; especially on a pike with lots of switching.
Have fun and good luck and come back with the result of your doodling.
BTW without the peninsula you still have a big space. I made a suggestion for how a continous run could be added if you like to have one of course.
SoraRailI am afraid that I just can't bring myself to have my family member modify the width and footprint of the beautiful benchwork that he built for me.
Since you seem to have more trouble removing stuff than to add it, then just have your relative not add the peninsula or pensinsulas yet. I suggest you start experimenting with some of your scenes in the nice space you have. Put a few staging tracks on the left, a few staging tracks on the right, and build one or two scenes in the middle where you can experiment with various types of railroading.