After deliberating for two years I finally took the step toward creating my first layout. After a lot of internal struggle, I decided to go with a 5x8 rather than an around the room in my space. I chose 5x8 because I could afford the extra foot and thought it could give me a bit more opportunity than a standard 4x8.
I built my base benchwork (L-girder) last weekend and now just have to come up with a track plan for it.
I've been researching a lot and really like the Cactus Valley plan that was featured in MRR a few years back. It is also in this book here for those that want to see it (not sure if I'm allowed to post the plan directly here) on page 6: http://tinyurl.com/bgufbq6
Now my question...I'm wondering if there's any way anyone can think of to modify this plan slightly to allow for 2 train operation. Ideally it would be 2 trains operating continuously, but I'd also be happy to have one train run continuous, while another train does a short point-point ops movement. I have two kids and would love for them both to be able to operate it at the same time.
I do have an extra foot in width from the original plan's 4x8.
Another plan I like is the Granite Gorge layout, but from what I've read this is really not a good plan for a first timer.
I would love to be able to run two trains continuously, one passenger and one freight or industry but I think the most important thing for me is to have a plan that I can realistically complete, and have minimum to no derailments.
Thanks!
H
Dave Frary holds the copyright and has placed the Cactus Valley article series on-line here as a .pdf
hominamadNow my question...I'm wondering if there's any way anyone can think of to modify this plan slightly to allow for 2 train operation. Ideally it would be 2 trains operating continuously, but I'd also be happy to have one train run continuous, while another train does a short point-point ops movement. I have two kids and would love for them both to be able to operate it at the same time.
As you'll note, the grades are pretty steep (on very sharp curves) and things are pretty tight overall. The five-foot width will help a bit, but without a corresponding increase in length, you won't be able to ease things as much as you might like like.
Adding another path is going to be a bit of a challenge -- it will likely take more than modifying it "slightly" to have two trains in continuous motion. In my humble opinion, beginning with a plan already designed for two separate ovals or paths would be easier than retrofitting them to this plan. But others may see an easy approach that I am missing.*
As published, the plan does not offer much in the way of long-term operating interest, but that's perhaps not on your list of desires.
Note that the grades are around 3% before allowing for the additional friction caused by the 18" radius curves. That puts the effective grades at 3% + (32/18) = 4.75% or so. As drawn, the plan does not allow room for the vertical easements into the grade, but you'll need them when you build, so that will have the effect of increasing the grade a bit more. But you will get a little break on grades from the extra width if you use it well. In any case, short trains of short cars will be the order of the day. Which is not a show-stopper, so long as you are aware and use care in setting the grades and vertical easements as you build.
Frary's published Cactus Valley was a neat scenic exercise on the HO 4X8 sacred sheet. As a beginning model railroad track plan for two trains in continuous motion, perhaps not the ideal starting point. But if you are careful and patient in the construction, it's not impossible.
Best of luck.
Byron
*Edit: Obviously, the simplest conceptual way would be to make the layout double-tracked with the same general plan. But this does create some grade and clearance challenges, I think. Some or all of these might be solved through thoughtful use of the additional width.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
H:
I hope you are not annoyed by this question but I have to ask. Is your benchwork located against the wall permanently or will it be moved into open space? If it is going to stay against the wall, how will you reach the back of the layout when (not if) you have a derailment. How will you do scenery etc.?
All that is necessary is to pull the layout away from the far wall enough that you can get down that side of the layout. Depending on your girth that might only be 24" but more would be nicer. You could temporarily pull the benchwork further from the wall to make construction easier and then move it closer when things are done. Castors would make that easy to do.
If I can suggest, it looks like you have left a generous amount of space between the right wall and the benchwork. If you can relocate the shelf (workbench?) unit elsewhere you could add another 12" - 18" of benchwork to the right side. That might make double tracking a bit easier.
Keep in mind that the benchwork only has to be accessable on three sides, so the left side can stay against the wall.
If you have already figured this all out I apologise for not giving you enough credit.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
I doubt that the plan can easily be adapted for two-train operation. You´d have to change the single-line track into double track all the way, which would make the layout look like a bowl of spaghetti - even more than it already does.
Take a look at last year´s MR project layout, the Virginian. It may not be as fancy as the Cactus Valley RR in terms of scenery, but it offers ops for two people.
Hi Byron,
the grade at the right side is much steeper; 22" length for a 1" rise is already 4,5%. The effective grade will then be 4,5% + (32/18)% = 6,25%.
Also the length of the passing siding indicates very short trains only.
Smile
Paul
Hi Dave - good question. No, the layout is not fastened to the wall and when operating and working on it I will pull it away from the walls so I can walk around. Haven't decided if I want to put casters or some sort of leveler-glide-type feet. Also I haven't fastened the joists to the girders yet because I want to figure out my track plan first. I also need to add the long-way cross braces as well.One of the things I like about this Cactus Valley layout is that it has a pretty long main line for a small plan. I guess the trade off for that is less operational opportunities.I want to ask a question about that, and I hope I don't sound ignorant. I'm not sure I totally understand what people mean actually when they talk about operations. If you have some sort of industry, does this mean that you just go back and forth from the industry to another part of the layout to simulate operation? This also seems like it could get boring after a while, no? I can't really picture myself creating work orders, carrying them out, etc . I also don't think I would be interested in doing extensive yard switching ever, other than maybe swapping out one locomotive for another. I can envison passenger operations though, seems like it would be fun to go through stations on a schedule, stop at the right platform locations, have express/local trains, etc. With my kids I think it would be most fun to just be able to give each of them a controller and let them control the trains going around, switch up locos, etc. Or have one control the train and the other do the switching. Not sure extensive operations is my goal, but that may be because I don't completely understand what that means.So far I'm considering this plan, as well as the Virginian but am open to other ideas as well.
November 2012 MR features a number of 4 by 8 layouts which may fit your bill much better than the Cactus Valley RR.
This one also offers nice scenic possibilities. The scenic divider down the middle will make appear the layout much larger and gives it two different faces.
operation means you let trains move over your layout. However since about 70 years ago Frank Ellison wrote about "the Art Of Model railroading" and 50 years ago John Armstrong wrote "Track Planning For Realistic Operation" the word is merely used for layouts which try to make more realistic operation possible. It involves building trains, switching industries or interchanges or servicing engines.
Fun-operation is sometimes used for layouts designed to let train just orbit around.
You will face another problem when you want to run passenger trains. The radii used on the Cactus Valley are way to small to sustain 85 ft long coaches.
A design with 2 independent main lines might be your best option. Like Byron Henderson's wonderfull Falls Mill RR.
Paulus Jasthe grade at the right side is much steeper; 22" length for a 1" rise is already 4,5%. The effective grade will then be 4,5% + (32/18)% = 6,25%.
Good point Paul, I measured a different grade that seemed the steepest at first glance.
hominamadI'm not sure I totally understand what people mean actually when they talk about operations.
Operation is actually pretty broad, but generally means moving cars and trains purposefully, usually suggesting to some degree real-life activities. Many people enter the hobby thinking they have no interest, but then find it becomes a lot of fun. Running trains in circles can get boring for many pretty quickly. Ops can be very formal or pretty casual, depending on your interests.
Running passenger trains, switching out power and head-end cars, dropping sleepers, etc. could be another fun way of operating. But you need the track to support it.
The good news is that if one chooses a plan that offers both fun-running and ops, you have the option to add more operating challenge and fun later if you like. If you choose a plan to begin that offers little potential for operation, then you have no option to add ops except with the Sawzall and a rebuild.
A plan like this HO 5X9, for example, offers two separate ovals plus a yard and some switching. No grades and broader radii than the Cactus Valley mean it might be easier to build and operate reliably (both plans use flextrack). You'd also need to add the foot in length to your benchwork for this (or any 5X9), but that's easy with L-girder. And there are many others.
With a plan like this, one still has the chance to build a little vertical scenery, but it's not necessary to build steep grades for the trains.
[And I know that you don't want to contemplate this, but now that you've seen how fast and easy it is to build benchwork, you could always add a "lobe" to the side to create an L-shaped layout and give yourself more room to work.]
Sir Madog
The 15" minimum radius and handlaid-to-fit curved turnout of this layout might not be the best choice for a beginner as-is. But with the extra width, it might be possible to resolve those issues.
The others all posted some great plans and info but I saw the Fender amp, looks like the Princeton Reverb,great old amp what do you play? I have 2 peavey amps, a Nashville 400 and a Custom 400 stereo chorus that I play my pedal steel guitar thru depending where I'm playing at. When I get tired of working on the trains I do a little picking and practice a little. Jim.
Here is a layout idea I have for an N scale layout on the upper bunk of a bunk bed. It is 40" x 74" and the mainline radii vary but the minimum is 13 inches. (One siding has a short 12.2 inch radius curve). The spurs are all over 10 inch radius. The tracks going off the table would connect to removable staging.
The tracks to staging in the upper center could connect to form a Y, but I think I would make them go to completely separate staging yards.
Plan drawn with XTRAK CAD. One Peco curved turnout, The rest are Peco medium (main to siding, main to staging), and Peco small (to spurs).
BLImage1_zps62f6ee33 by Donald Schmitt, on Flickr
It ia based on a 4 x8 HO plan in a 1950's Boys Life Magazine
HO1_zps6baddc64 by Donald Schmitt, on Flickr
The Cactus Valley plan has a 15 inch minimum radius. My plan in HO should fit in a 5 x 9 space with over an 18 inch minimum radius.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
Hey Gondola - I play guitar and bass, but not so much these days. That amp is actually a Fender Blues Deluxe. Really love the Princeton Reverb though. Also have a Hartke bass amp, not shown in the photo. I noticed the amp was in the picture after posting it and was actually wondering if anyone would comment on it.
Getting a lot of good ideas from everyone here. I see the appeal of cuyama's plans but was hoping I could do something that had a crossover somewhere. I really like the look of tracks on different levels. I guess I could take one of the other plans and have a track go down or up slightly to give the effect, but without having it actually crossover anywhere.
And I will admit that the benchwork was a lot easier than I anticipated it would be. I basically did it in a weekend.
DSchmittHere is a layout idea I have for an N scale layout on the upper bunk of a bunk bed. It is 40" x 74"
40X74 in N scale is 73"X136" in HO, larger than the Original Poster's desired layout. Your 13" radius in N scale is equivalent to almost 24" in HO.
DSchmittThe Cactus Valley plan has a 15 inch minimum radius.
That's a good point about which I had not remembered. Mr. Frary doesn't seem to mention it specifically in the MR article (December 1998) or in his on-line article, but the tightest turnback curve does seem to scale to about 15.5" to 15.75" radius. Perhaps he meant to keep it at 18" but couldn't within the confines of the 4X8. That curve is level, so it doesn't exacerbate the grade, and the original poster could probably broaden it with his wider benchwork.
But definitely worth pointing out -- very challenging for a lot of equipment.
Two ovals on a 9x5 bench, one for each guy. The two are connected with each other; through a small yard cars or engines could be transfered between the two loops.
An addional interchange or fiddle tarck is the connection with the remainder of the world.
With a 20" minimum radius and #4 turnouts (some S-curves might cause an issue) smaller equipment would be mandatory. The grades are just under 3,5 percent.
This plan was just an idea, not yet completely matured.
BTW your boys will love the "blue" crossing, engines at full speed just missing each other.
Thanks Paul. I really like this one! Has elements of everything I'm looking for. Do you think it's "buildable" as is?
Due to the grades I would build it "cookie-cutter" style. The turnouts just above the engine service track might need some tinkering. The plan was drawn with Atlas C83 snap-track. I would shy away from long coaches and engines.
Access to three sides is needed, so it requires quite some space.
Paulus JasBTW your boys will love the "blue" crossing, engines at full speed just missing each other.
Paul's plans are always clever, but I wonder about the wisdom of the at-grade crossing on every lap. Perhaps Dutch kids are more attentive and better behaved, but my younger brother and I wouldn't have gone very long before we would be racing and a crash would occur when we were that age.
My dear Byron,
I still remember the exitement my brother and me; 30 years later it were my kids having great fun. Despite the crashes my old Marklin trains are still working flawlessly.
cuyama Paulus JasBTW your boys will love the "blue" crossing, engines at full speed just missing each other. Paul's plans are always clever, but I wonder about the wisdom of the at-grade crossing on every lap. Perhaps Dutch kids are more attentive and better behaved, but my younger brother and I wouldn't have gone very long before we would be racing and a crash would occur when we were that age.
Who among us who had trains when we were kids did not stage a wreck?
In Paul's plan wouldn't making the one track decrease in elevation under the bridge help keep lower the grade a little?
Lone Geep
\
UPinCTWho among us who had trains when we were kids did not stage a wreck?
I didn't. We knew that if we broke something, the parents wouldn't spring for a replacement.
cuyama UPinCTWho among us who had trains when we were kids did not stage a wreck? I didn't. We knew that if we broke something, the parents wouldn't spring for a replacement.
My bother and I used to share a layout, which had a similar track arrangement. One day, my little 0-6-0 crashed into his prized big red Diesel and sent it flying to the floor. Damage was little, but it required a repair for which I had to pick up the tab out of my Sunday money. That hurt a lot!
Hi gentlemen,
my sunday or pocket money was taken for maybe 6 weeks; however the fun continued. Probably in a more modest way.
Happy New Year in good health.
Only thing I staged to crash when younger was putting Hot Wheels cars on the crossing and seeing how far they flew.
Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm.
Hey everyone - I'm back again and wanted to get everyone's feedback on a plan I came up with on my own while playing around with a demo version of Anyrail. Some parts of this are crude because I'm still at the 50 track limit of the demo and I had to do some crazy things with flex track to connect everything. I am going to purchase the full version and do it correctly but I'm pretty sure the measurements are sound even though it looks strange.
I started out thinking about the things I wanted to do and built out from there. The outer loop is 24" radius and would serve as a small passenger line. The next loop inside that is a 22" radius which will connect in one or two places with the outer loop and could be a mixed passenger/freight line.
Just with those two tracks, I can have two trains running continuously in a boring oval. Great for the kids. There is also an option to switch to either a town or industry or small rail yard on either side of the layout.
Finally, there is an option to switch to a track that begins a 2.7% climb that ends up being 4" high by the time it crosses over the first rack. I can even make that 5" if I want but it will be a grade of about 3.7%.
Once it crosses the track, it curves back with 18" turns and keeps climbing back as high as I want at that point. Eventually it will terminate at an industry which can be as high as I want in a mountain that would cover the bottom tracks.I can run operations if I want from the mountain industry to the structures at the bottom of the layout.
Maybe this is a case of CAD-to-soon, but I seem to have gotten everything I want in here with even some room left over for scenery.
Am I missing anything here that makes this difficult or unbuildable in any way? I know I've gone a bit outside my 5x8 space but I think I can expand slightly to 5x10 if I have to. I think in some ways this layout is similar to the Virginian, I like this better for some reason.
Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
hi H,
It would be great if you were able to explain why you prefer your design over the Virginian.
The track going uphill could lead to small station, not to an industry only.
I would prefer the Virginian cause it has a small yard and run-arounds. Part of the Virginian is its staging extension, so hoppers from the mine do have a destination.
BTW i can't see the way you could build a small yard where you have it indicated; length is not sufficient.
Hi Paul - there are a few reasons why I like it better than the Virginian. For one thing it seems simpler and easier to build with a bit more room for error. It's basically just two connected ovals and then the center operations areas can be as complex as I want to make them. It also allows for two trains to run continously which you can't really do with the Virginian. Depending on what I do with the center areas, maybe I can even have a 3rd train doing something else while two trains run continuously? (please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this)It also seems that my grades and radii are less than the Virginian since the elevated portions don't have to climb within the center area of the layout. It may be getting too tight, but it looks like I could possibly fit a two or three track yard on the top, straight section of table. I definitely need to tweak it some more. I would like to add the run arounds like you mentioned as well. The elevated portion of the layout is high enough that I could probably have a relatively large, plateau section where I could have more robust industry tracks if I want. The one negative is that the mainline tracks are somewhat boring but I think I'm ok with that. I can do some creative things with the scenery to make it more interesting. The thing that appealed to me about Cactus Valley type layout was that it has a long main line for a small layout. Thanks for the input.
hominamad - I think you underlay a common beginner´s mistake. The Cactus Valley RR certainly has a fairly simple track plan, but is certainly not easy to build. The various grades require a high degree of accuracy in terms of benchwork and track laying.
Another item is the limited operation such a layout offers. While I can understand the need for continuous running, you should be aware that letting a train circle around track won´t catch a child´s attraction for more than 10 minutes. It gets boring pretty soon. IMHO, the Virginia Central is a much better choice, as it offers both.