Hi everyone. It has been a while since the last time I've posted, but I finally have some time to get back into my favorite hobby. I have put together a track plan and would really appreciate feedback on the general approach. I only have a small space to work in for now. (Hopefully that will change in 3 or 4 years after a couple kids move out!)
Here are some details...
Room size: 11'-6" x 10'-6".
HO scale (committed to it, no need to suggest a smaller scale).
Era: Mid 1940's to early 1950's, solely using steam.
Small space so small-ish rolling stock ~50' max.
Minimum radius: 22" except in yards/sidings.
Maximum grade 2%.
No. 6 turnouts.
Desire ability for continuous run.
Will be using DCC.
Some of the businesses to be served by my railroad are still TBD, but I figure I can probably fit 10-12 served businesses in. There is a return loop on a lower level that would also provide some space for staging if I decide it's needed.
I realize there are a couple spots that will be a bit of a reach, but I have longish arms and a 30" reach is not a problem. I plan on mocking some of the longer reach areas up beforehand to make sure I can access everything.
Let me know what I'm missing. It has been quite a few years since I have been able to have a layout to work on, so I'm likely to be overlooking something major.
Thanks!
Rob
No matter which way you go around the loop, your locomotive will be in the front of the train and it will be trapped there. It would sure be nice to have a run around track at the end of that branch line, to let the locomotive back into the lead, even if it will be running tender first. This way too, it will be able to work the other sidings on the way home again.
No, wait, I see that your lower loop takes care of this, so that is less of a problem, but I would still like that ability to run around the consist at the top end of your layout there.
But if you do have that lower level, then the road (street) cannot cross both tracks there at the top end of the layout.
What elevation is the upper level of tracks. What elevation is the lower level of tracks. Getting to that center area will be difficult with that duck under. LIONS do not have DUCK UNDERS... Him eats the ducks for lunch, and then walks around the layout like a gentlefelid.
IT LOOKS GOOD, the LION had to stretch to make the comments him made, bue then FELIDS are good at stretching.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
This looks like a layout with a lot of potential. If your lower level return loop encircles your center operating area, that will limit headroom under your duckunder. Putting the return loop under the wide part at the top right will eliminate this, but might involve very close clearances.
I would suggest adding another passing siding on one of the relatively straight stretches of track. This layout has a lot of switching that would justify it.
I see no mention of staging, except for the hidden, subterranean loop. It would be good to add some sidings in that area to provide for staging, but be sure you can reach those lower level areas.
Tom
Rob,
An interesting plan.
Where the upper loop connects back to itself could be turned into a wye to add visual interest. Although the loop is obviously there already, a wye could be used to turn locos instead.
I agree a runaround track would be good. One thing about the wye is it can also be used as a runaround track, a feature not often utilized, but would work great here. I would still try to work in a runaround track, but the wye could serve in that capacity.
The "pit" could stand a few more inches, eked out wherever.since it lopks like you'll have to operate from there
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
I like what you've designed. I think Mikes suggestion of a return loop; or, wye is a good one. Being able to get the loco behind cars is important from an operational standpoint. For the size of your design, you have plenty of industries to work which will add interest from an operational standpoint.
You migh have people tell you 22 inch radius is too small, you don't need DCC for a one man operation, etc... I'm a one man operator, my radius are 22 inches and I use DCC. You can listen to them; but, do exactly what you want to do!
NP 2626 "Northern Pacific, really terrific"
Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association: http://www.nprha.org/
Take a look at the "105% solution" at this link as an example of how to make the most effecient use of a room like that.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmrsvc.blogspot.com%2F&ei=5HjXVMuLJcuMNu6QhNgN&usg=AFQjCNE3oS_JvkjFXPfGvCoaxDm9YRnfOQ&sig2=ommnkmtQoedKrZwB2j_AjQ
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
A number of good ideas from everyone so far! I think I'm going back to the drawing board for a few tweaks. A couple comments on the duck under have left me with some second thoughts. I had planned on running the lower return loop around the cutout operating area, but that will add a lot more 'under' to the duck. I don't think I have enough vertical clearance for a lower level return anywhere else. Maybe I will kill the duck and compromise with a return loop at the north end and try to work some magic with landscaping and such to make the loop look less loopy.
I like the idea of another passing siding and the use of a wye has given me an idea or two as well. I'll go back and take a look a the 105% solution again. I think the room they were working in for that was a couple feet larger in each direction and I could really use a couple more feet. The window and closet door I need to work around aren't helping my situation much either.
Thanks for the feedback, very helpful!!
Since you're headed back to the drawing board might I suggest on your loop with the passing siding you remove the switchback siding and replace with a crossing and switch on the passing siding. I've never been a fan of switchbacks.
Wayne
Made a few changes. I figure if I create enough loops, maybe it will look like there are no loops . I liked the idea for adding a wye/runaround. I think I can probably get the leg closest to the wall long enough to fit another car - it will fit about four 50' cars right now. The loop on the south side of the layout has turned into more of a long passing siding. The lower level has been eliminated, so the duck under should be a little more manageable. I'm not a huge fan of duck unders either, but I think it adds enough functionality here to make it worth the annoyance.
I added a wee yard/staging area of sorts and I should still be able to service 10-12 small industries. Haven't worked out elevations yet.
Wayne, you lost me a little on what you were suggesting instead of the switchback at the bottom of the layout. Feel free to take another stab at explaining what you had in mind.
Thanks again, everyone!
Thank you for sharing your layout plans. I too, have a room this size, actually 10 X 9 and I am committed to HO. I didn't know how to pull it off, but your plan actually helps me to think outside the box.l
It's entirely up to you, but I think you could avoid the duck-under entirely in that space. Here's an example of a “Water Wings” style HO layout in 8'X10' using 22” radius curves. Since you have a little more space, you might be able to move things around a little. With some rearranging, you could stack an end loop.
I always like to at least try putting the layout around the room and allow the people to walk into the middle.
robsmith_ncMinimum radius: 22" except in yards/sidings. Maximum grade 2%. No. 6 turnouts.
If your minimum is 22” radius, the #6 turnouts are a little broader than you need. If the manufacturer that you’d like to use offers #5s, they will save quite a bit of space and still be a gentler curve than your minimum radius. The PECO Code 83 #5s are a great option -- quite compact.
Best of luck with your layout.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
I remember looking at this plan at one point and I think I kind of wrote it off because of some bad experiences with access hatches in the past (worse than duck unders). But, I guess if I kind of rotate it, I could probably get away with just one access hatch. Maybe I should give this one another look...
You probably need an access hatch in the last plan you posted as well, that's white a reach from either the outside or the pit to the middle of the bigger half.
If you're careful with your tracklaying, you may never have to use those access hatches. Derailment free (outside of operator error) is completely achievable. Best have a way to reach in there though, just in case.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Cuyama's water wings layout has a lot to recommend it. If you were to build a mirror image of that layout and reroute the mine branch, it might be just about right. If you built it high enough, the mine branch might be extended into the repair area, above the workbench.
Something like this perhaps?
Now you have something. If the hillside is high enough, you might get away without a removable hatch, since you'll only need to go under there to reach cars on that back track, which, having no turnouts, should be very reliable - and if the hill is high enough, you can peep over the benchwork at that track without your head sticking up higher than the hill.
Can you go through the wall into the work area, and have the staging above the work area, or is there something big there at the top left? If you did that, you'd have more space for layout items in the main room, plus you could use the nearest staging track as a test track when building stuff at the workbench.
Randy,
I was kind of thinking the same thing on the hill - make it high enough to give my head/hands enough access to retrieve what should be a rare derailment.
There is a chase for some ductwork preventing me from going into the work area, so I will need to stop at that wall.
All in all, I think I'm liking this approach better. An area for a water feature will be kind of nice as a connection to the rest of the world too. I might make a few more changes, but unless anyone can see anything major, I'll probably go with this approach.
I like what you've done here. The trackwork at the bottom of the page looks a bit crowded. I suspect you could simplify it without losing anything.
This arrangement gives you a legitimate yard at the top of the page, with a wye for turning locos. Another approach would be to eliminate that yard and put in a branch which leaves the mainline near the bottom of the page, rises as it follows the right-hand wall, and terminates where you have the yard, but at a higher level. Or, you could do this and retain that yard as hidden staging under the branch terminus.
robsmith_nc Randy, I was kind of thinking the same thing on the hill - make it high enough to give my head/hands enough access to retrieve what should be a rare derailment. There is a chase for some ductwork preventing me from going into the work area, so I will need to stop at that wall. All in all, I think I'm liking this approach better. An area for a water feature will be kind of nice as a connection to the rest of the world too. I might make a few more changes, but unless anyone can see anything major, I'll probably go with this approach.
Hi Rob,
Your plan looks interesting and dense with great operational potential. I would still explore an around the room 50" or higher shelf type layout with a few yard tracks on one side and perhaps a turntable or wye in another corner. Lance Mindheim and others have really impressed me with modest width shelf layouts with longer mainlines and the necessary liftouts.
Brodie Hi Rob, Your plan looks interesting and dense with great operational potential. I would still explore an around the room 50" or higher shelf type layout with a few yard tracks on one side and perhaps a turntable or wye in another corner. Lance Mindheim and others have really impressed me with modest width shelf layouts with longer mainlines and the necessary liftouts.
Brodie,
Thanks for your reply, but I guess I've just never been the shelf layout type of guy. The continuous run thing is pretty important to me. I also enjoy creating scenery and while my feeling is probably unjustified, shelf layouts feel a little limiting to me with regards to scenery creation. I might like it if I tried it, I suppose, but I feel a little more comfortable with the walk in plan.
Your last plan is definitely better than your first plan.
Layouts look more realistic when they have fewer but longer spurs, rather than a lot of short ones.
- Douglas