JUst wanted to get some opinions from everyone on your thoughts about building your benchwork without really having a trackplan ?
I know I want to have some switching , run passenger trains , industry and so forth.
I have a 9mtr long X 6mtr wide area to work with , HO scale.
I want to have a 3 level around the walls shelf layout, no-lix, But for the life of me I cant come up with a trackplan that I am happy with. Ive been trying to design one for 3 years
Are you ever really happy with a trackplan?
Would it be very daring and courageous to build the benchwork and sort of "wing it" laying track ?
Could I just lay the track out any which way an see if I get satisfied with it that way.?
What are the pros and cons of doing it this way ?
Thank you all wise ones
Tom from
Down Under
Ok, I'm going out on a limb here. I have built four layouts without a 'trackplan' as such and I am very happy with the results. They all progressed from a simple 4 x 7 1/2 foot layout into what they are today. They all have progressed nicely without a trackplan.
But... do I recommend anyone else doing that? I don't believe that many of today's modelers can do that or would want to. I am 75 years old and have been designing layouts and modifying them since 1970. Yes, you can do it but be prepared to make changes as you go.
Roger Hensley= ECI Railroad - http://madisonrails.railfan.net/eci/eci_new.html == Railroads of Madison County - http://madisonrails.railfan.net/ =
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
Track plan? What's that? I may doodle around with a track planing program with some ideas but,in the end its "lay and move around" track planing until I find what I like and then I spike it or glue the track in place..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Building without a track plan is a perfectly workable way to do it. You just have to go about things a bit different in the process to accomidate the fact that you will be removing and changing things constantly during construction. As long as you are in the mindset that you may have to make a lot of frequent changes as you build, there is no reason you need a set track plan before you start, or at all. Frankly, I never consider any of my track plans to be set in stone.
I like doodling trackplans and offering comments on plans that are posted here, but I do not think that a detailed plan is necessary.
However, I recommend having a good idea of what will fit in a given space, like turnouts, crossovers, and curves; so good planning software might help with that if a person has little other experience.
Also, planning "on the fly" is much easier when your layout is on table top benchwork. Layouts that would require cookie cutter benchwork take a bit more planning before you cut the subroadbed, of course.
- Douglas
Normally I wouldn't recommend it, especially if you are a beginner. I have build two sizable layouts, one 16x19' in a garage, and one 14x25' in a basement, so I had a good idea what I could get away with in my current space, so I began building my benchwork in my 10x18.4' room before completing my track plan, which I began drawing out while I was building. I knew roughly what I was going to build and what would fit there and it did fit - a twice around the wall layout with a 11 track staging yard under a main yard which is on a 30-inch wide by 18' long area.
So if you've got good spacial ability and know what can fit in a given area, and can rough things out, then sure, you can do it. Really it's up to you and what you can get away with. It's better to draw things out to scale, at least partially if you are worried about what can fit, but your the one who is going to be stuck with building it so you have to deal with the consequences if it does or doesn't fit.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I would say building a 3 level layout without any track plan would be a very bad idea. A 4x8 layout, go for the gusto, a really big multilevel, not so much.
Having said that there are lots of degrees of detail in what a "trackplan" is. Do you need to know the location of every switch and joint in every piece of track from the beginning? No. Would it be a good idea to know here your switching areas are going to be located so you don't end up with three switching areas stacked one above the other and all the operators in one place fighting for a view? Yes.
I would at least plan where the sidings, yards and switching areas are going to be. From that you can get an idea where the operators will be and plan the layout to minimize the operators elbowing each other. Having a rugby scrum in the middle of an operating session can be very distracting. You can also get an idea of what the operation would resemble, at least knowing which trains will work where and what they might block while doing it.
Once you get the basic design down so you know where you are going, you can then do the detail design as you build. That's basically what I do. I know generally where the stations, sidings and yards will be. I photocopy switches and cut out the paper templats, I then arrange them on the benchwork to plan where I want switches, industries etc. I use chalk to mark track centers so if I want to change something its not too hard. When I get something I like, I mark the centerlines and switch locations in pencil, then build it.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Tom,
A few thoughts...
Three decks? I'd be cautious, as a lot of multideck layouts really need some thought given about what is over or below what else. This relates to both ease of construction and later maintenance and operations. You don't want three really busy spots stacked above each other if you're planning for multi-operater operations, even if the aisles are generous. Maybe develop one deck first, the proceed from there? The warm up may give you ideas about how to handle the rest. That said, there's still room for lots for improvisation if you pay attention to a few things now.
Gettting from deck-to-deck is crucial. A nolix tends to depend on the exact location of the grade at least being determined in advance. Yours is a largish space, but the fundamental trade-off between run vs rise needs to be determined in order to get between decks. What might be more flexible -- and you have space for -- is a helix. Preferably, it should at least be double track, so that you can go up or down between levels with more flexibility than a single track helix gives. Determining its location won't solve all your grade issues, but will likely leave you much more flexibility on what you do on each deck.
I have a rather simple nolix design for my layout. My space is a bit limited, so getting its grade right was crucial to things fitting. It's not quite as large as your space but close once my Cascade Branch is taken into account: http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/t/219241.aspx?page=1
There was a small rough plan for it that got me from the main room and up far enough for the storage and staging it would have to be located over. It's on the first page of the above link. After that, I was free-styling and, because I did have room, I just kept going to what is most likely the end of track at Snowden. It was a pleasant task. I think experience elsewhere on the layout and not trying to cram everything together helped.
One thing does need some thought before you get too far. If you are planning on doing it largely without a plan, you'll want to use benchwork that adapts well to changes. L-girder fits, but wood in general will be better than big slabs of foam, because you can move things around and reset them more easily than all the special carving for both roadbed and scenery that occurs on foam.
Finally, plan a robust bus for electricity. Whether DC or DCC, better to have extra capacity built in to handle the additions that come later than having to redo power distribution.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
I concur with Mike. You specify that you are already certain that you want three levels, and those grades/transitions would need to be planned. Additionally, the actual track laying on a multi-level layout may need to be constructed in organized stages to allow that before the constriction of the next level up interferes.
Building the shelf or benchwork first without a trackplan can work fine when one is constricted to a set space. At least that is my perspective after having done it. I had a "second bedroom" that needed to keep a bed in the middle, so I built the shelf around the walls knowing that was the maximum space that I could allow for the layout. I then positioned turnouts, structures, and such on the shelf and visualized how things would work. The turntable/roundhouse placement (which had been cut from my earlier layout) was critical. I allowed each of several options to sink in for several days before making my decisions. I am happy with the result, believing that I did organize as much of a workable railroad into the space that I had to work with. I don't think that I would try that with multi-levels.
Bill
Building the layout I currently have under construction would not have been advised without a reasonably detailed plan.
Modeling an HO gauge freelance version of the Union Pacific Oregon Short Line and the Utah Railway around 1957 in a world where Pirates from the Great Salt Lake founded Ogden, UT.
- Photo album of layout construction -
Building without a plan? I don't reccomend it.
A thought or two:
It is possible that you might be happier with a single deck layout?
I can tell you from experience that the construction of a multideck layout is more than twice as much effort than a single deck.
You are proposing a big layout. Big multideck layouts are commitments that are not to be entered into without some serious thought. They require vast amounts of time, energy and money. They become a lifestyle of sorts, if you are going to make any progress towards completing them in this lifetime.
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
I have one point to add to all the "don't do it" advice. Building without a plan is harder than building from a plan. Some folks have the skills to do it, most don't. If you are dissatisfied with your planning results on paper, how could you possibly think you'd be successful doing it on the fly?
There is lots of planning help available here and on other forums or from professionals. Seek it out.
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.
Plan? What is theis plan that you speak of? LION has never seen a plan, and even if he did, he would probably line the litter box with it and then do things his way.
As I was taking down my second layout, I was planning, in my minds eye what the table would look like. Yes, it is three levels around the east ans south walls. The west wall is windows which demands an isle, But the windo isle is kind of like the arm pit of the layout.
As I was building it the idea was to have two six track storage yards on the lower level, so that level only had ten inches of clearance, and the tracks were completley installed before the second level was built.
My general Idea was a commuter railroad, mostly operating push-pull equipment into "Penn Station". Once out of the station the two track main opened up into a four track main with both local and express stops, One line would diverge and return to the lower level, the other line would clime to a secondary terminal, with two track continuing to the end of the line.
All well and good, and THEN Life-Like introduced SUBWAY CARS. The whole idea of a commuter railroad was scrapped and the line became 100% subway. The lower level yards were no longer needed, they became a four track subway tunnel. The Penn Station commuter terminal was ripped out in favor of a 34th Street subway station. The helix went from two tracks to four.
But how can you operate a SUBWAY if you have only one operator? So I automated the layout and am running eight trains at once, soon to be 10 trains, and I only have to operate the Tower. (Running a local train against the wall is just as boring in HO as it is in 1:1. AUTOMATE it, and let the LPPs run the trains.
You just cannot build this on a plan, you have to go with the flow.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
I think the important thing about planning is how will potential changes to the track arrangement impact benchwork, if at all. If it won't require tearing it up and rebuilding portions of it, then track planning isn't really critical.
A Nolix usually requires flat areas for towns and switching, so you'd probably want to know where those will be before you build the benchwork, although some use methods to hold cars in place on slanted terrain so flat areas may not be needed.
I would suggest you read Tony Koester's book Designing and Building Multi-deck Model Railroads to see his track plan. It is more or less just a multi-loop single-track mainline with appropriately located sidings and terminals at either end. Tony discusses the need for steadily rising long runs, but with flat areas around sidings, in order to achieve the height separation between decks.
But, you don't need to have a multi-deck layout in order to have a multi-level level layout. Consider the Gore & Daphetid. The track runs around the layout multiple times, gaining height as it goes.
Lower level tracks can becloser to the front edge of the layout and move toward the back as height increases. Consider the photo below showing tracks at three levels.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
I have a little more than half your space - and places with a lot more levels! Of the five visible stations, five staging arrangements and three special purpose hidden single track spurs only two [both for Down (catenary) freight staging] are on the same level.
My 'track plan' started as a straight line, one end labeled Minamijima and one end labeled Takami. About half way along I drew a rectangle and labeled it Tomikawa. Other rectangles at appropriate positions along the line got other names (all of which date back half a century.)
Then I took this string and started bending it along what I felt would be a nice, efficient benchwork system - a long dogbone rolled up into a double-G shape, kind of like a piece of pastry. Exactly what went into each rectangle was determined when construction reached it - designed full size on cardstock that became a permanent part of the track/roadbed/subgrade sandwich. A couple of them are still ??? - a single track through the site of something more complex.
As things worked out, Takami/Minamijima (aka passenger staging) ended up as a double-ended yard with access to a return loop. The two ends of the string knotted together.
Even now, the 'track plan' is actually a bunch of track schematics. No need to stamp them, Do not scale this drawing. Nobody would ever try.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - freehand)
Ok you asked so I will give my personal beliefs.
Its pretty hard for a layout to have purpose without having a track plan on some sort of guide to hint you along. A layout without purpose would generally be a layout that is perhaps simply scenic and filled in with building here and there. If you want a layout that will simply have some scenery bridges waterways and simply run a train around that is fine but if you want the total package of a sceniced layout that is for simply watching trains but also used for ops sessions once in a while well then you will need a trackplan for not only giving an indication of industries serving industries but also a well structures railline with proper length sidings etc.
Lynn
Present Layout progress
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/290127/3372174.aspx#3372174
My layout was built without a trackplan because I lost about half the space I was supposed to have. What was left didn't suit the pencil sketch I had for the larger space, so I marked out the aisle space, then filled the rest with open grid table tops around the oddly-shaped room - there are 7 inside and 3 outside corners in the room. I decided that double-decking part of it might allow me to have almost as long a run as the original, and once I had calculated the heights needed to keep grades at about a 2.5% maximum, I began laying roadbed. This was arcs cut from 3/4" plywood: a couple at 30", a couple more at 32", a bunch at 34", and a couple each at 36" and larger. These were tried, in various combinations, in the corners of the room, and most on the mainline are 34" or larger. All that was left was to connect the curves with straight-ish roadbed, then attach risers to it all and jack it up to the required levels. I added passing sidings where I thought the towns would fit, then added industrial spurs. I'm very pleased with the results - much better than the original sketch for operation and scenic possibilities, it's basically a point-to-point-to-point...a "Y", with the arms stacked one above the other. I'm still laying track on the upper level, but when it's all in place, I'll have 5 staging yards to keep operations interesting.
Wayne
I would recommend you have a basic plan of the main line. You dont need to design every siding on the layout but the main line needs to be planned out as much as possible. You dont want to end up with an extreme grade or a sharp curve. you can fill in the sidings and industries later.
Steve
For a solid table top layout, you can just built the table and start laying track on it until you have something you like. But when you get to filling the room, you probably should a some idea of what you want.
I build my layouts with stand alone sections that I bolt together. On my current layout, I used the sections from 2 prior layouts that I arranged and rearranged to get something I liked. But I had a general idea of what the layout would be like. I also modified/rebuilt a couple of sections and added filler where needed.
Same with the trackwork. I have a rough plan then put the track down and rearrange it until I get something I like.
But my layout is intentionally flat. Both so I can modify stuff as I go and because I think the the trains operate better.
In your case with 3 levels and a rising grade, I think you need more planning - you can still modify as you build, but you don't want to end up with a 10% grade somewhere.
EnjoyPaul
I would make the comment that the amount of track planning required before benchwork construction depends a lot on the complexity of the layout. A folded dogbone on 8'x4' actually requires more detailed planning than say a round the walls 9m x 6m shelf layout.
I wonder what the OP means by "3 level around the walls shelf layout, no-lix"? A nolix doesn't really have levels, it would just be a three times around continuous grade point to point with perhaps some level sections for industry etc. A quick calculation suggests he could achieve adequate separation and reasonable grades in the space he has so he could go ahead and build benchwork as long as he allows adequate shelf width for his industry and desiree curve radius.
A three level layout with levels connected by nolix would also not require any detailed planning either.
My own experience is with a 10m x 6m U shaped layout with turnback blobs at the end of each leg. Apart from the general concept of a double track continuous main we didn't do any detailed planning, rather things evolved as we went along. The challenge of fitting things in as we go has been quite fun and I doubt that what we have ended up with would have been true to any detailed initial plan anyway.
My layout is 20' by 30' single level. Did I have a plan? Yes and no, knew the basics of what I wanted but I am no good at drawing stuff like that. It has come out very well, runs good etc. Thayt said you need to be prepaired to tear stuff out that does not work and redo it until it does. Then again you and others may be different in what you may be comfortable doing. I have built a lot of furniture from an idea in my head as well as a lot of remodeling. I also can sight read music but prefer playing by ear. It really depends on how ones mind works. Have a plan, whether you put it on paper or not is only a call you can make.
Tomcat
Unless my mathematics have deserted me your area is 29.5 ft by 19.6 ft. This give a length around the room of 96 ft.
For a 16 inch railhead to railhead rise of 16 inch at 2% would require 67 feet, or 2/3 of the way around. A 12 inch rise would require 50 ft, or more than half way around.
You had best plan exactly were these runs will be and how to get on and off them as desired.
This an ambitious project. I hope you are young, patient and determined.
Good luck
Dave
Dave,
Thanks for doing the math. It matches pretty well what I surmised from my off-the-cuff quick mental imaging of what the likely run over rise scenario would be.
It should be noted that with three levels, 67 linear feet of rise can be spread around so that only about 34 feet at a time need be included in one spot, Deck A to Deck B, then Deck B to Deck C. Since it's a nolix, some planning for this is highly suggested.
I'm fairly sure the OP's room varies from your assumed dimensions, but it's easy enough to make your numbers apply. The middle deck's arrangement is the key here, since it both receives track coming up from Deck A and serves as a launching point to Deck C. Thus it will have to accommodate the 67 feet of rise in some form or fashion within it's ~96 feet of run. This will leave less room on Deck B for other things.
On the other hand, Decks A and C will have to deal with only ~34 feet of the nolix rise, allowing the other ~62' to be wide open for other construction.
What might work best is to have Deck B represent a shortline, branch, or maybe a narrowgauge connection. The last might be especially useful, as it could be more plausibly interleaved with parts of the nolix going up and down expanding the space available to ut in Deck B. The main line for the bigger part of the line could stretch from Deck A to Deck C, with an interchange or transfer facilities located on Deck B. Or that interchange or transfer could be on one of the other two decks, with the secondary line following on a slightly different route but basically paralleling the main until it gets to Deck B where it spreads its wings.
Also, Deck height and what goes on will be crucial. Unless one does the "mushroom" thing, things can esily end up too low and hard to see or get under for maintenance or too high making it hard to reach in for uncoupling, etc. Sometimes staging goes on Deck A and is out of sight. But you could also do staging on Deck B with its relatively limited level run and the lower overhead space to reach in may not be so much of a obstruction as limited deck height down low could be tough to deal with. Having the shorter deack height between B and C would allow more space above Deck A. Often Deck C has compressed overhead space anyway, so no loss there and you might even be able to make "reach in" space more accessible and the mountains taller.
Of course, just some things to think about. None of this requires set-in-stone planning for the rest of what goes on with each deck. But it does suggest the need for some minimal planning in order to best take advantage of multidecking in the space.
Tom from Down Under
For starters as this is your first layout I'd suggest you start with one level and not let the size of it overwhelm you. Later you can add to it.
In my case I had a general idea of what I wanted so I bought a bunch of flex track and the number of turnouts I'd be needing to get started. Then bought more as needed. My base was foam so this made it very easy to lay the track and change it as needed. For my first try I'm real pleased with how it turned out. I included at one end of the layout, track which leads to a possible layout extension if the BH ever gets rid of some of chairs we never use.
Don't over think this and let that keep you from laying some track and get the trains rolling. Procrastination can be a problem for the best of us.
Bob
Don't Ever Give Up
Mike
Again unless I messed up the math I meant 67 feet from level A to level B and 67 more feet to level C. Quick check at 2% eight foot run rise 2 inches, 8 eight foot runs rises 16 inch. Eight times eight equals 64, and that is at 2.1% rise.
If I blew this calulation somebody please correct me.
No, I think I just misread your correct math and assumed that was the total rise. If it's that much rise there will either be much more back and forth on a single level to get that much rise -- or there will be a helix.
Personally, if a fellow is worried about keeping his options open, the helix works better with numbers like that, because it leaves you much more room for going places on reasonable grades on each deck vs needing to devote that run to gaining altitide
Is this another one of those topics where the original poster tossed a grenade and then ran off and went missing in action? LOL. I see topics like this all the time. Like where to they go? Seriously?!