Hi There,
You may have troubles with wiring in a layout with a return loop. I have an article on growing a layout to incorporate a return loop at
http://www.meltonmrc.org.au/newsletters/issue22-september13.pdf
which may be of interest to you
The previous issue has an article also by myself with a view to operating a small layout
http://www.meltonmrc.org.au/newsletters/issue20-march13.pdf which may also be a help to you
Good luck enjoying the hobby,
Regards from Australia
Trevor
Consider moving s4 and s6 down to the bottom of the layout between s9 and s1. This will give you some run around options you currently do not have while still allowing cross overs.
Jim
Hollow core doors are very sturdy. I run a 15x17 O scale layout on hollow core doors and have built HO modules with them. A luan 24x80 slab is only $17 at my local Menards. Enjoy!
Dan
To make your layout look bigger, you might want to consider a view block. It will make it so that your trains go some place (out of sight from the other side). Have it high enough so that you cannot see what's going on on the other side of the layout. For best appearance, in my opinion, don't have it parallel to the sides, even a slight angle makes quite a difference. You could run it from the curve just below B to some point to the right of S8. Might want to have a curve in it, to make your industrial plans fit better. You can mask the places the trains pass through by having them come out from behind a building, go into a tunnel, go through a clump of large trees or through a rock cut, pass under a bridge and there are probably other things you can do. At the ends use similar disguises to hide the view of the curve.
My HO 4'x6' seems much larger, since the trains go away for awhile before they return to view.
Glad to see you listed "having fun" as a primary goal. You will find frustrating moments, but part of the fun is solving the problems that are bound to pop up.
Have fun,
Richard
xsvtoys- S8 allows a reversal of direction for the inside line. It looks to me that if you used this reverse section to change from CCW to CW, the only way you could go back to CCW would be by backing all the way from S9 to S8 and beyond, then switch S8.
Here is a revised plan based on the inputs I have so far. It is about 34x76 which is about "door size". I am not sure that I want to tackle something of this scale for my first try, but I am thinking about it. Again I am throwing it out here to see how "real" it is. Let's see if I paid attention in class.
Like before there are 2 main lines, outside for passenger and inside for freight. But there are a lot more features with the bigger size. This is my interpretation as a novice:
- Freight running CCW. Passenger could be CCW or CW.
- A nice fat radius of about 16" should be suitable for the passenger cars I hope.
- S1 is a trailing turnout for access to industry spur A.
- S2 is a facing turnout for access to industry spurs B and C.
- S4-S7 provides a run around section for handling the facing turnout spurs.
- S4 allows the freight train to wander to the outer line if desired. It can go back to the inner line by S7.
- If passenger and freight are on the outer line, then S4-S7 provide a passing siding.
- S8 allows a reversal of direction for the inside line. It looks to me that if you used this reverse section to change from CCW to CW, the only way you could go back to CCW would be by backing all the way from S9 to S8 and beyond, then switch S8.
- I tried to make the turnouts such that S-shapes are avoided or minimized.
- I have not thought much about elevation changes yet.
xsvtoysFreight: SD40. Introduced in the late 60s as I understand it.
Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running BearSpace Mouse for president!15 year veteran fire fighterCollector of Apple //e'sRunning Bear EnterprisesHistory Channel Club life member.beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam
I have been doing my planning on those things as well. Again I am a first timer so there may be issues.
Era - late 1960s
Local - Southern Cal
RR - ATSF
(Not too original I know)
Reasons:
- Santa Fe is always cool. And there is lots of reference material to be found.
- I live in that area.
- Interesting era possibilities for modeling: Route 66, post modern, new aerospace, etc
- Industries: Oranges for sure. Still thinking about additional ones.
What I have picked out so far (nothing bought yet though):
Freight: SD40. Introduced in the late 60s as I understand it.
Passenger: F3. Classic locomotive, originally built very early but often updated/rebuilt and many continued to run in the late 60s.
Various 50' boxcars and 51' reefers (for oranges).
Super Chief for the passenger carswith the F3.
One more thing to add to all this good advice here, I'd add another crossover to the opposite side of the layout and put in one siding with a facing point turnout (opposite from the others so you can see how you like making runaround moves). If adding this siding to an existing industry track, consider the length of the siding and the lead for it; it's not fun switching three cars from a siding when you can only pull one car at a time out. Maybe put in a diamond so it can be switched directly from the main and to add variety to your track work? Switchback industries can be a bit tedious to switch and usually aren't found in the real world too often (imagine having to move your neighbors' car every time you want to pull your car in/out of your parking space, especially if your neighbor is doing a brake job at the time...you'll have to wait til he's done (same thing if one industry is loading/unloading their car).
Great job so far! Planning is fun and you've already learned a lot! Not to complicate anything, but what era, local, and railroad are you thinking about modeling?
http://delray1967.shutterfly.com/pictures/5
SEMI Free-Mo@groups.io
Thanks to everyone for your comments so far. I am glad I decided to put my ideas here, because I have learned a lot from this thread; basically in this short thread I have learned a lot of little things that didn't turn up after tons of "reading stuff on the internet".
I am thinking about all the new things I learned and I will come back later with a revised plan. And, I can see that working on your plan before you start building anything might be a good idea so you have a really logical system to work from.
These are my main goals:
- Have fun. This is the primary goal. Whatever I do, it is all for having some fun and learning stuff.
- Learn how model railroading works. You can only go so far reading about it.
- I like hobby stuff, so I would enjoy all aspects of it - woodworking, metalworking, track laying, scenery, and the electrical/electronics.
- In particular, i do want to spend some time messing around with the electronics, so I am interested in playing around with things such as: DCC, motor switch control panels and DCC and/or Arduino control, accessory items and lighting, and maybe even computer control.
Going to a hollow core door, or at least adding to the length of the layout may allow you to make a reversing section by extending the upper siding down to the lower inside track. This would allow you to run the trains in any direction you want to. It is a little more complicated, but nothing that you couldn't handle. It would also give you some experience with reversing section in DCC, as well as having trains changing direction shows some of the capabilities of DCC. A door would also allow you to put some sidings on the outer loop. If space doesn't allow for this then it is a no go, but if space is available, going to a 30' by 84" or so gives a lot more available options. Adding some complexity to the layout would give you more experience in DCC. As the layout is currently designed, DC would work as well as DCC. Whatever you do, have fun doing it.
DSchmitt xsvtoysThe freight could NOT run CW on this layout and access the spurs. This is because s3 will then be a facing point switch, and there will be no way to be able to move cars in and out to A and B without a runaround section or siding. Actually the freight can run CW and still switch the facing point spurs. The oval configuration can be used as a run around track. Uncouple the loco from the train, Run it solo CW around the loop to the rear or the train, Switch the spurs, Run the loco CCW back to the front of the train. Couple to front resume running train CW.
xsvtoysThe freight could NOT run CW on this layout and access the spurs. This is because s3 will then be a facing point switch, and there will be no way to be able to move cars in and out to A and B without a runaround section or siding.
Actually the freight can run CW and still switch the facing point spurs. The oval configuration can be used as a run around track. Uncouple the loco from the train, Run it solo CW around the loop to the rear or the train, Switch the spurs, Run the loco CCW back to the front of the train. Couple to front resume running train CW.
xsvtoysQ: When you talk about the hollow core door size, do you literally mean building it on a hollow core door, instead of for example a piece of plywood?
Personally, I'd still rather build out of plywood than to use an actual door, because you are right about drops for feeders, etc. But that happens to be a handy size for N scale for which many plans have been drawn.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
You can get various width hollow core doors. If you have the space, I would suggest a 36". If you do not feel you can store something as long as a full height door, you can cut one end off to make it shorter and insert a block of wood in the opening to replace the end you cut off.
If you go with manually operated turnouts and DCC, your wiring would be quite simple and duct tape might hold it in place alright. A bit more complicated, but you could put 2" foam insulation on the door, so that you could have below grade scenery and cut a channel to embed your wires. A third option is to make a small frame so that your door would not set directly on the sawhorses and give you space for your wires, held up by wire clips.
I am planning to do a small two piece N scale on hollow core doors, probably DC. Haven't decided which way to go for the wiring, but leaning toward the light frame, as I plan to transport it to various functions and think it would protect the wires better. I am planning to have the foam on the door for scenic uses. I'm going for a two piece layout so that I can have it longer than will fit in the back of the station wagon. The pieces will clamp/bolt together when set up, giving me about a 3'x8' layout made of two modules. If you have room to store two (or more) pieces, it's a thought to give you a little more room.
Suggest consider how you will throw turnouts (e.g., manual throw or under table machines) when considering door versus plywood base.
Paul
Modeling HO with a transition era UP bent
With a hollow core door, you can lay it across a couple of saw horses and your bench work is done. You can also lay it on a table.
If you glue the rest down you can remove the trains and store it vertically. If you leave it up permanently clamp or screw it to the saw horses or table.
If you use sectional track and don't fasten it down, you can try out different track plans/configurations.
Good luck
XSVTOYS,
I am certain,,Cuyama,,brought up the hollow core door idea,,because,for a starter layout,you would not need a frame around it to support it,like you would need for a sheet of plywood...As far as drilling holes in it,a tip,would be to insert a common soda straw,in the holes you drilled,then insert your wires...
Cheers,
Frank
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.
Ok, now there is a lot more to think about. Everything you all said makes sense. I am not locked into 2x4, it just seemed like a logical size to make a starter layout when I first started looking. I will do some more planning and see if I can improve it with a slightly bigger size.
Q: When you talk about the hollow core door size, do you literally mean building it on a hollow core door, instead of for example a piece of plywood? It seems that would be difficult to work with as far as drilling holes, routing wiring, etc.
I'm not as positive as some others are on the track plan. Not every published track plan is worthwhile.
That plan is fairly limiting if you want to try out a lot of things. In real railroads (and well-designed models), trains don't just run in one direction or the other. Adding another set of crossovers pointed the other way will let you move trains more flexibly. And having spurs in each direction adds to the fun and interest by creating the need for a runaround move.
Limiting yourself to 2X4 if you actually have a little more space may prove frustrating in the long run, as it limits the radii you can use. 2X4 in N scale is actually smaller than an HO 4X8, which is itself fairly limiting. (An N scale 2X4 would be 44" X 88" in HO - not 48" X 96" - since it's a little larger than half the size of HO)
Expanding to the size of a hollow core door (30"X80") opens a lot of opportunity in N scale.
Note also that the placement of your crossover currently creates a potentially troublesome S-curve, as seen below:
Best of luck with your layout.
skagitrailbirdConsider adding another crossover connecting the two loops. I would place it just to the left of your dc1 label running from upper right to lower left. This would permit trains to go from one loop to the other and back again.
This is actually similar to my first N-scale layout.
I don't know if N-scale has 10" radius equivalent turnout or not but you could eliminate a double S-curve by substituting it into the actual curve. Finally don't overlook the corners for small industries.
One question and one thought:
Good luck!
I am working up a small N layout. It is roughly 2' x 4', and while it is small partially due to limited space, it is more so because I want to make this a "test run". The goal is to set up a basic operation so I can learn all the ins and outs and see how much I like it, and then use that knowledge for a future bigger setup.
So obviously there is not a lot of room, but I would like to have various elements in there that will challenge me beyond a simple loop, without going too complicated. My idea was to be able to run 2 trains at once (to learn how to do that and exploit DCC), one freight and one passenger, and have some industrial spurs to do some switching. I quickly found out that even small isn't necessarily simple, unless you would just like to make a loop.
There are tons of plans to find on the internet. Here is an example that I found that l thought looked suitable. The thing is, when you are a beginner, these plans look neat and all, but the reality is you have no clue what to do with them! (Well, at least I didn't). The plans don't come with instructions (at least that I have found), and even something as basic as which way the trains run isn't obvious to a beginner.
So, I did some research (which itself is fun) and I think I have it figured out. But I would like a reality check to see if my thinking is correct.(I think I will leave the top spurs off to keep it simple).
So with the labels on it, here is how I figure it:
There are 2 main lines, numbered 1 and 2.
There are 2 industrial spurs, labeled A and B.
There are 4 switches labeled s1-s4.
There are 2 decouplers labeled as dc1-dc2.
My interpretations of the operation:
Typically a passenger train will run on line 1 and freight will run on line 2.
The freight would have to run CCW on this layout. This would cause s3 to be a trailing point switch. Therefore, cars can be moved in and out of positions A and B using typical trailing point operations where decoupler 1 is used to separate the rest of the cars from the locomotive to be left on the mainline while the locomotive then backs in to put or get the cars. Decoupler 2 is used when the cars are being placed into positions A and B.
The freight could NOT run CW on this layout and access the spurs. This is because s3 will then be a facing point switch, and there will be no way to be able to move cars in and out to A and B without a runaround section or siding.
The freight could wander over to line 1 by using s2. At that point, you would have passenger and freight running on the same line. The freight would be going CCW. Therefore, with this arrangement, the passenger must also be going CCW, because if it goes CW then they will meet with no way to get by.
If both the freight and passenger are running on line 1 and the freight is going slower, then the passenger will need to slow down because there is no way to pass.
In order for the freight to get back on line 2, it has to do so by backing into s1 past s2, then s2 can be switched and it can go forward onto line 2.
After thinking about this simple layout, some questions came to mind.
Is it typical for any loop-based layout that there would be one set direction for the trains, either CCW or CW? Or would a modeler change it back and forth as desired on a whim? (I know you can also set up a reversal but I don't think there is room for that here).
And related, is there a standard or "accepted" direction that is most commonly used, CW or CCW? Or is it just as determined by the layout?
And in relation to this layout: It would seem to me that 2 additional sidings would make for more interesting (realistic?) operations. This of course would require the layout to be expanded in depth.
- If there were a siding on line 2 near s3, you then could have a runaround location and you could run the freight train CW and be able to handle the spur switching with the facing switches.
- If there were a siding on line 1, you could then have an arrangement where the freight and passenger trains could both be on that line at the same time, and they would be able to pass, either by meeting or overtaking.
If I am completely off base or making do sense, just lay it on me! I have NO IDEA what I am doing!