You are learning fast, the idea is to slow down and find out what you really have.
If you have a room and want continuous running, some sort of gate is usually necessary, unless you are in a basement or attic where the stairs come into the middle of the room, If you have your layout high enough, you can have a duck under, but when age creeps up on your back they don't look quite as attractive. The other caution is to be sure you wire the gate so that when it is open trains cannot come close to the gap and take a dive.
Access holes are fine if needed and since they are usually used only for emergency access an occasional crawl isn't as daunting. They are often disguised either by a curved backdrop or can have a liftable section of scenery. More things to think about.
As you have noted, around the walls gives you a lot more running space without a long reach over a table. The layout I hope to build someday will have an around the room shelf and a peninnsula with a blob on the end so I will have a divider down the center of it. Others have a single ended yard or a single line going to a mine, quarry or some other isolated industry.
You mentioned the new, large locomotives. Era is one of the "druthers" in this hobby. If you like modern operations, go for it. If you prefer steam, then you purchase locos and structures to match that time period. One nice thing is that older buildings still exist, so you can have some nice old structures on a modern layout. It's your layout, if you want steam pulling modern cars, it's your choice.
Go slow until you have a good grasp of what you want to do, then go for it.
Have fun,
sailingdude I thought I was close to starting to build - but after speaking with the people at this forum (and others) I find that would be a mistake. I bet I design another 10 track plans before I decide on something :-) ---Carl
10?? I must have drawn a couple 100 by now for my new layout !!
One thing I did was establish early on what size benchwork I could fit and make a diagram of that with the lines in heavy black - as it happens at a scale of 1/4"= 1 foot, my basement fits nicely on a standard sheet of printer paper (I actually wrote "typing paper" first...wonder if anyone under 50 would have known what that was??). I use that as a template, and if I get an idea I trace the benchwork onto a blank sheet of paper. Then I can doodle with everything still in a somewhat realistic perspective. BTW in 1/4" scale it turns out a twist off pop top is about 60" across so can be used to create a 30" radius curve. You could try coins to see what they would turn out to be.
Anyway, I've done a LOT of sketches like that. I have the general idea of what will go where, but sometimes when I get a new idea and try it out, it gives me another idea. Still, in the part I have built already, I ended up changing the track and buildings and bridges around a bit until it worked just the way I wanted it too - an advantage of Kato track, you can 'click' it together and try something and then change it and try something else.
DrilineThat maybe true but they look stupid as heck on such a small radii.
Stupid is just a little harsh, toy like would be a better way to put it Drline. I just wanted to let Carl know if he does not have the room he can still run big engines on tight turns. When I redo my bench, smallest I will run expect in yards and team track will be 28".
Cuda Ken
I hate Rust
cudakenFar as big engines cannot take 18" turns, IMHO it is sort of a myth. If you read the recommend the manufacture list for the given engines you will be fine.
That maybe true but they look stupid as heck on such a small radii. I'm using 27" and that is too tight. 36" should be the norm for a big engine.
Hi Carl, and glad to hear you have got back into the hobby.
Far as big engines cannot take 18" turns, IMHO it is sort of a myth. If you read the recommend the manufacture list for the given engines you will be fine. Do to bad planing on my part, I have one 18" turn that I am stuck with and 2 more that I have not changed to larger turns. (cannot see them) I run a lot of big 6 Wheel Diesels, including Dash 9's, SD 50's, SD40-2, E-6's, Erie Built and GE AC 6000's. They track fine around the 18 inch turns. I all so run steam, Class J, M1A, Hudson, Y6 b (articulated 2-8-8-2) and a Big Boy. But the key is they where all made to run on 18 inch turns. Far as rolling stock, most of mine are 50 footers and again no trouble tracking. I all so do run one passenger train, but they are shorties by Con Cor.
The one I am stuck with all ready had the Mountain pretty much built before I realized I messed up. Just to much to rip up for now with every thing tracking well. Yes, the engines and rolling stock due look better on my bigger turns, and there are a few engines I cannot buy because they need 22 inch turns. But, I cannot see any of the 18" turns so I never messed with them.
On the 4 X 8 section to turn the trains. Build them at a angle so you can get to the other side of them. That way you don't need a opening to work on the track. One of the biggest mistakes I made was using 4 X 8's against a wall. Bench started out as a slot car track and 4 foot wide was not a big deal then.
sailingdude I guess my old Lin Westcott books are kind of out of date. I had built the "HO railroad that grows" - my father started it back in 1968 or so. I loved that thing! But, I read to my surprise that 18"R curves and atlas snap-switches are now considered bad. Never had a problem with the switches or curves, or the 4x8 foot layout space.
Keep in mind that layout was originally built by Linn and the MR folks in the early fifties. Back then much of the appeal of HO was that you could fit a layout into your house, and didn't need a huge area like you needed for an O scale layout where radiuses were often cited in feet rather than inches. ("80' passenger cars only look good on six foot (i.e. 72" radius) curves.")
In later printings of the book (mine is from about 1980) LW noted that he ran the layout as his home layout for a while, but eventually removed it because the sharp curves and steep grades made it very limited in what could operate on it...short trains, short cars, small engines.
Anyway, there's nothing wrong with Atlas track (I'd use code 83 if you go that route). Their flextrack isn't quite as detailed looking as some other companies in my opinion, but it's good. Atlas and Kato make "click" track in code 83 with built in roadbed. I'm using the Kato version on my new layout and it makes layout building much easier...and makes it easier to test things out and make changes as you go along.
Similarly, 18"R curves aren't "bad" they're just very limiting. Some big diesels like say an SD-45 may be able to take the curve but not stay coupled to the cars...especially if you're using modern 55-60' freight cars, or 85' TOFC cars. If you have room for 4' wide "blobs" you can do 22" radius curves but anything inside of that would have to be smaller.
You don't have to have a continous run layout of course. With the modern smooth and slow running engines, switching layouts are becomming more common. My current layout is an L-shaped layout built on 16" wide John Sterling shelf components, approximately 12' by 16'. It uses Kato track with 31" minimum radius and no. 6 turnouts. I have several industries along the backdrop (Walthers low-relief backdrop buildings), and a team track and small engine house in the foreground nearest the aisle.
I find I can spend 45 min. or so switching the entire layout. I use Digitrax DCC. I set up an engine or two-engine consist to go about 8-10 MPH and then leave the throttle as it is. My system has a "center off" direction switch, so I just use that to stop the engine and then reverse direction. My engines all have pretty strong momentum settings so the engine drifts to a smooth stop when I put the direction switch in the center position, and then starts up slowly when I reverse direction. Right now I generally only use the engines I have that are sound equipped, to me that really adds to the enjoyment of the layout.
sailingdude...I havent seen a lot of discussion on building gateways or bridges..
The topic is rarely further off the front than the second page. If you go back five pages, you are sure to find two threads....at least! However, to help orient you better, look to the right and see "Search Community". If you type a reasonable syntax in there, it is quite likely you will pull up lots of reference threads.
More to the point about drop-downs, lift-ups, swing-ups, lift-outs, and such, many of us use them because we must in order to realize all the other advantages of a given profile or style of layout in a given space. We can never have it all in this hobby...or so it seems. But, if the prospect of not-so-deep shelving around the room is that appealing, and it is for a great number in the hobby, you are pretty much going to have to have a bridge of some sort IF a loop is what the end product is to be.
Depending on the style, you can hinge one end and use stereo jacks as alignment pins at the other, or lift the whole shebang up and out of the way and use jacks at both ends. If you google alignment pins, you will find many varieties of metal ones, many quite suitable for your purpose. In my own case, I have a diagonal bridge across my open pit layout so that I have have a turning (reversing) loop. I built it so that it swings down, hinged, on one end and it is held in place by simple brass cabinet style barrel locks. In each case, both ends, the brass fixtures also double as continuity for electricity. I screw a bared wire tip under one of the retaining wood screws, and have a wire feeder from the bridge rails nested under another screw head on the bridge side of the hinge or barrel lock. Simple, effective*, and fast...and cheap!
-Crandell
*It would be quite important to control the climate in the space occupied by the layout. You would not want swings in humidity to affect dimensional lumber used for the frame, for example. I think most common layout framing methods can tolerate swings in humidity near 25-30%, but once you go from ambient 50% up to 80% and beyond, you can expect things to go wonky. A bridge will likely be among the first things to suffer in some undefined way, but the pins will take a lot of the resultant load. Not likely to be good.
Good to have you back in the fold. I had about a 20-year break in my model railroading career and have been active again for about 9 years.
Yes, there are some changes in products and there is an undercurrent of folks who seem to think that prototype specific dead-on accuracy is the pure form of the hobby, but it is essentially the same: You still participate in your own way and there really are no rules.
When I returned to the hobby, I found that most of what I saw at the local hobby store was not of any interest to me - too much plastic and too much ready to run. Mind you, that's just me. I read these forums a lot and there are a lot of model railroaders who really dig the plastic stuff; it's just not for me. I found a great place to buy most of the old familiar stuff from the Linn Westcott era: eBay. There I can buy brass locos, craftsman kits, etc. I even buy little stuff like light bulbs and track there, because the price is better.
By shopping eBay and train shows I've found that I can bring the old school with me. If that's your thing, I think you'll find that you can do it too and be very happy.
Regarding 18" radius curves, for a short line with small equipment, that will work fine. It was the same 30 years ago - the broader the curve the better trains look. Like before, we all still make compromises when it comes to curve radii. I think Atlas turnouts are still made with the same molds as before, it's just that there are some really nice other options, now. I'm a fan of Micro Engineering and I love their code 70 standard gauge track. It equates to rail that is 6" tall, and that seems about right. It makes Atlas code 100 seem a little "less good."
Two great improvements that we enjoy now are Digital Command Control (DCC) and much better motors. With DCC the track is all live with 16V A/C. Then electronics (decoders) in each loco use what they need from that power based on digital signals that are sent through the track from the controller. There is a learning curve to it, but it allows for multi train operation without electrical blocks. It also allows for sound, light controls, and lots of other cool stuff.
As far as motors go, the old open frame motors of 30+ years ago are surpassed by "can" and coreless motors. These are powerful for their size, smooth, and dependible. New locos are great runners right out of the box, and a retrofit of a new motor into 40 year old brass makes it run as good as it looks.
Finally, my favorite addition to the hobby is this forum. I've learned a lot from the other modelers here, and it allows for interaction - something that model railroading has lacked up to now.
In short, the hobby has changed in that there are more options now than before, but it is still the same in that you get to decide how you do it. If you're having fun, you're doing it right.
Phil, I'm not a rocket scientist; they are my students.
BiL Marsland (P5se Camelback) Lehigh Susquehanna & Western Northeastern Pennsylvania Coal Hauler All Camelback Steam Roster!! "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" -- George Orwell, Animal Farm, Chpt. 10
Welcome back, Carl.
I also returned to the hobby after a hiatus of about 25 years and had my eyes opened when I found out how much the hobby had changed. The advice given by others is right on the mark IMO. With the space you have available, enlarging the bubble at each end to 5' and leaving an access hole in the middle will allow you to run larger radius curves and subsequently longer wheelbase equipment.
The bottom line is to just have fun. Hard decisions are required, but once they're made and accepted then you're off to the races. Please keep us posted on your progress.
Roy
To post imagery here, you must provide this server with a link to a web host server that stores your images in a permanent gallery. So, you provide a URL to the full-sized image. Many of us use railimages.com or photobucket. Both are free and provide you with usable storage. You upload your images, get the URL to the image, come back here, and paste the URL with 'img' tags on either end inside of square brackets. Last img tag has the / in front of it, inside the bracket.
I have no experience with the switching puzzles. Some like them, some feel they are contrived and the resort of someone who had little space and a lot of imagination. Perhaps what they mean is that it would be highly unusual to find trackage laid out that way in real life situations. So, apart from any influence you many find in other responses here, my own feeling would be to create as unique a track plan as I could, and that is just my personal orientation to building a layout. It can be as complicated as you wish. Go to handlaidtrack.com and look at Tim Warris, the proprieter's, harbour freight set up. You will be astounded...and he built it all himself. That is modelling! Not knowing the puzzle of which you speak, I can't really offer more than I have...sorry.
back
One thing to consider is that the layout can be wider that 48" but you don't have to fill in the center. My last layout included a peninsula that was 70" wide but had a 14" gap in the middle. Thus the benchwork was 28" deep on each side.
Enjoy
Paul
sailingdude...I read to my surprise that 18"R curves and atlas snap-switches are now considered bad...
Welcome! Yes, some consider it "bad", but it is a relative/subjective term. On some layouts, and in some circumstances, ya do whut ya gotta do. Your sentence prior to the one I quoted above is really what matters in the hobby...you call the shots and live with the feedback. Hopefully it will be kind, encouraging, utilitarian, and not so negative. But, truthfully, whatever you can do that makes you have fun is what this hobby is all about. Let others find happiness as they operationalize it.
sailingdude...I am interested in modelling and scenery...
Moi aussi. It is just that the culture has shifted somewhat, and modeling now means trying really hard, creatively, almost ruthlessly, to approximate real railroad conditions as you can, and that means broader curves (when you can practically), revenue generation represented in switching and setting out cars at spurs or industrial sidings and such, and generally trying to show a lot of fidelity...as the word 'model' suggests. Nowadays our toy engines are highly realistic, even somewhat more prototypical in their movements thanks to DCC, so layouts have tended to keep up...no more simple ovals with a siding or two and a crossover. No more figure 8's. Oh, and there's not a valid reason I can think of to disdain anything you have gleaned from Wescott's writings. Many today could learn a thing or two from him.
I hasten to remind you, though, that you pays the bills, so you calls the shots. Set your absolutes on a piece of paper and then refer to the list often as you use the software programmes for planning your track plan.
We do try to encourage newcomers, experienced or not, to at least consider alternatives to the 18" solution. Same goes for the 4X8 sheet of ply....there really are ways to cut one up to provide a more interesting operational layout than an oval or variant. So, with that said, we do encourage you to try for 24" curves, maybe a couple in the 28" range, and just take pains to make it all usable and satisfying. Give it some 'legs' so that you will still be enjoying it in a year's time. That means some learning/re-learning...maybe some unlearning...and hard-nosed, sober planning so that you know exactly what to expect when you power it up for the first time. You have a ton of room for an HO layout in that living room, although I would not consider using that space unless I were a sudden or long-term single fellow/widower.
What has not changed is the orientation you should take to the project. If 18" curves are what it will take, so be it...and enjoy!
Welcome back and welcome to the forums.
Your old books may be old, but not all is out of date. Old methods still work and many folks use combinations of scenery building, old and new, on their layouts.
Have you read John Armstrong's "Track Planning for Realistic Operations"? It is the longstanding bible of layout design. Since you haven't found a plan that you like, it will give you many ideas on designing something you like, whether you are interested in operations or not.
You will find many new scenery materials. Extruded foam (pink or blue insullation board) is a material that is used often as both a layout base and to build land forms. If you see a building site where they are using it, offer to pick up the pieces. Even small pieces can be used for piles of dirt and other small items. Full sheets of 2" will support a layout, very well if you build a light frame under it. Materials such as ground foam and a world of other products will make it easy to have a nice looking layout.
After you have done a little more reading and following these forums, make up a list of givens (room size, obsitcles, doors, windows) and druthers (what you would like to have, era, location, passengers, operatons, switching). Let folks here know when you are ready for the next step and they are ready to give you advise using their experiences.
Welcome back! I just came back this year after a 30 yr break also. I am modeling in "N" scale though. You can have an HO layout with smaller curves but your choice of rolling stock will be limited to 4 axle diesels and 40'-50' freight cars. Forget about big steam and most passenger cars.
I have 9.5'" R curves all along my short line which would be equivalent to what you want to do in HO. I even use the Atlas switches like the old days. Everything runs flawlessly so far but my biggest loco is a GP-38. Personally I'd rather run smaller locos in tandem rather than have one large loco and I really like the look of a train with 40' box cars. I think the trains appear longer with them.
Good luck and I look forward to seeing your progress.