I decided to go to a 30" wide shelf and replace the log dump with a carfloat capable of taking three cars. That gives me some ability to introduce or remove cars from the layout to places "elsewhere". It was suggested I try to leave more room after the turnouts to move trains around better and I am hoping that when I actually lay it out, I can do that. Otherwise, I think there is adequate room for buildings without squeezing it too much. Thoughts?
Dave
" />
So I found a layout I liked, belonging to Terry Halmsey (did I get that right?) and duplicated that with some minor alterations. I will still draw this up in full scale to see what it looks like but this is where I'm going. Logs come from the "interior" and get dropped off at the log dump, they will eventually make their way back by barge as lumber. The empty space in the middle will have a few buildings to represent a town, edge of town, or something similar. The mine will ship out ore but I haven't figured out how it will make its way onto the barge to go on its way. There is opportunity to have coal shipped in for the industries there. Warehouses on the wharf will have businesses devoted to shipping and handling. A small shack on the shore line can be seafood-related. The engine maintenance facility is just that. The layout will be broken into two halves 6 1/2 feet by 30 inches.
Hi Tony,
I got more than 2 cents there! Thanks for the comments. I have indeed started making some buildings to use a planning tools and I have a couple of rolls of brown wrapping paper to plan on. I am in BC, Canada, so basements are de rigeur here. I think you nailed it on the head with what I want to achieve and I need to remind myself of that and not get too carried away.
Several years ago, a friend and I were railfanning the Arkansas and Missouri RR (specifically the former Frisco line from Fayettville to Ft Smith). We were well off the paved roads and happened to find a functioning sawmill. NOT one of the large lumber mills that ships multiple modern cars daily. This guy shipped a couple of flatbed 2 ton trucks "maybe" if he worked hard all day. Small, local saw mill that made fence posts, 6x6 corner posts and barn framing lumber.
That is exactly what your On30 would service back in the 1920s-early 1950s...don't try to build an industry that ships 6 or 8 carloads daily, just try to make a 4 or 5 car train daily. The ferry, river boat would bring in a fair amount of freight and pick up some as well...maybe two cars daily? In the Ozarks, both wood and coal were used by regional steam back in those years, so that might effect your options for a coaling tower depending on what part of the world you plan to model. (I would keep it coal for the extra car loads.)
In your first version of this layout, you showed a track between the engine service area and the main line that curved down to a ?mill? along the river??? That would give you a place to move more freight in/out AND the lead track to that industry would make a good "team" or "house track" (as would the area between the depot and the warehouse at the landing dock).
Now don't throw rocks at me...but...I would start with a perfectly flat sheet of plywood, perhaps 18 inches to as much as 24 inches wide and 10-14 feet long...perhaps in a spare bedroom or the garage or on top of the kitchen table one night a week. Put your basic track plan down and run trains...make buildings out of card stock or even small boxes just as "place takers" with the name of the future industry on the box...if you find you don't like the switching activity, figure out what you can change.
There are few basements in Oklahoma. But you can survive the winter months in the garage with a couple of decent space heaters if you are banished from the comfort of running your "temporary layout" inside the house proper.
Me? Banished to a 16x20 storage building in the back yard. I had it insulated and put up sheetrock dry wall and carpeted the floor...with a couple of space heaters and a window air conditioner, I can survive almost year round...possibly 8 to 12 weeks when it is just too cold or too hot.
One last thing...I know several On30 guys who learned to hate HO track and simply went back with commercial On30 track (difference is the spacing of the ties...as you already surmised). If you opt for a temporary layout, I will note that HO track is usually less costly than On30...but you will find you are drawn into the looks and feel of the On30 far more with the correct track in "visible" portions of the layout.
That is my 2 cents...
Edit to add: I like the design and look of your first version, but found out myself how large 1:48 really is. I converted from HO to 3 rail "semi scale" O gauge. To give you an idea...in my 16x20 building, I can build a very nice 3 rail version of an HO 4x8 layout. Now I am leaving a lot of explanation out...I can only reach 30 inches so I went with a shelf. O is twice HO size (actually it is nearly 4 times HO when you account for length is twice as long and width is twice as wide.) So, a 20ft long O gauge shelf is about 10ft in HO, starting to get the point? On30 is still 1:48.
(FWIW: I got around the real estate issue by designing a shelf layout around the wall with a peninsula down the middle. Entry is a "duck under". At 67, I can still duck enough to step under the 53 inch tall benchwork. Alas, I run single diesel geeps with no more than six 40ft cars and a caboose. Branchline stuff. Good enough for my eyes.)
Hi Bill.Thanks for the input. I've been struggling with this layout. I mocked up some buildings and (like everyone said) they take up a lot of room. I don't think I will ever have a room full of train and this module will certainly keep me entertained for years so ensuring it has an "in/out" route is not too important. I am thinking of going back to just a straight shelf layout (no curve, which just takes up a bunch of room). Yes, the sawmill is likely too small for a prototype operation but I was hoping would be enough space to represent - it could be a mine or something else, however.
DeeCee
DeeCeeIf I'm going to do some 1:1 planning I need to know what size my turnouts will be. My local Hobby shop can get Peco On30. If I go to a handlaid track like the ones from Fast Tracks it seems not only more expensive but they seem to physically take up more real estate. The Pecos seem pretty short.
Fast Tracks work well for those with the patience and desire to build them, or who wish to purchase them from a custom builder. Note that they can be built shorter on the same jig -- you would be looking for the dimensions labeled "Minimum Turnout Length" in the specifications. For example, the Fast Tracks On30 #5 template is the full "Default Turnout Length" of 13”. But the minimum length turnout built on that jig is 8.2” (close to the PECO On30 "Medium" 7.91").
Personally, I’m a big fan of the PECO On30 parts – a couple of clients have used these with good results in On30. Even though the ties may not quite match prototype dimensions, I think they look “right.” And the diverging curved length makes the turnouts quite space-efficient.
Since you will probably be using PECO flex track anyway, having the appearance match is a plus – but some don’t care for the look of the curved diverging leg on the turnout. Also, one is limited to the "Medium" and a similarly dimensioned wye with PECO On30 -- at least for now.
Good luck with your layout.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
So I finally got some time to re-visit my layout. I have been trying to come up with alternate (and possibly less complicated) layouts. My lovely spouse started throwing out alternate uses for what was going to be a train room so I couldn't pin down available space. I am now thinking that having a final layout to built to will not be possible so that just having a couple of modules might be a better way to go. That might mean just running a train back and forth for a while.
The point of this is to see if I can figure out which turnouts to use. If I'm going to do some 1:1 planning I need to know what size my turnouts will be. My local Hobby shop can get Peco On30. If I go to a handlaid track like the ones from Fast Tracks it seems not only more expensive but they seem to physically take up more real estate. The Pecos seem pretty short. I was wondering if anyone had experience with either.
They would have been fine as background semi-flats, but not standing on a pier!
I made mock-ups for the rest of the buildings I had planned and decided to let go of the layout. It just didn´t look right to my eyes.
The reason I decoded to go into On30 scale was because I thought it would be easier to handle with my ageing eyes - how wrong I was. I hadn´t thought that the bigger the scale you are modeling i n is, the more detail you have to include. Here they were again, those tiny details I thought I was not able to handle any longer.
Dave,
I was beginning to think I might have frightened you away...
Your "less is more approach" is the right attitude , as is having a kind of master plan for a layout built in segments. What you need to know is how much space you may eventually have one fine day for that layout. Having a rough idea will be sufficient and also having a rough idea of what the layout may look like in it´s final stage. Maybe you need to do some more thinking on that, before you can actually start with one or two segments of that layout. Take your time and look around for some inspiration. A first start could be Laurie Green´s Snake River RR & Navigation Co.
Sorry, SCARM is not available for Mac.
I don´t know how computer savvy you are, but you could download SCARM (it´s for free) and do the same job on jour computer.
Your layout is not much different to what I had started to build.
While it looked fine on the drawing, it pretty soon proved to have not enough room for correctly sized buildings. The buildings I scratchbuilt looked like caricatures of buildings.
I was able to sell the layout and retrieve some money I had put into it, but in the end it was more than a year´s of work down the drain!
I have a hunch that your layout will suffer from the same fate. It looks OK on paper, but later on ...
Before starting to draw anything, make those cardboard mock-ups and see whether you will be happy with the dimensions and the looks of them.
You may not like this, but if that´s all the room you can dedicate to a layout, I think you´ll be much better of with HO scale.
Ulrich, that's awesome! Thanks. I am starting to get the picture (literally). I thought leaving 8 scale feet between buildings would be adequate, but apparently not. Next step, a roll of craft paper and some real-life scaling.
I took the liberty of putting your track plan into SCARM.
I still think you need more real estate for buildings ...
Edit:
A couple of more views:
The grades still seem a little too aggressive, but this is closer to something that would be buildable. Try leaving room for transitions, measuring lengths of grade to scale, and then see what elevations result. I think it will be less than you hope (with reasonable grades), but there will be room for some variation in elevation.
So, taking the comments under advisement, I've come up with another revised plan. I drew this one at 1 inch to a foot. Elevations have decreased and (I think) buildings have more room. I tried to draw the turnouts as accurately as I could but I imagine that the angles will not be quite right and things will change once I lay out the track in "real time". I am hoping that using a cookie cutter sub bed will build in the vertical easements I need. I am not sure how else to figure it out. Maybe I will have to live with little to no vertical height change, or get relief by dropping the bottom.
I'm starting to think that I need to abandon the idea of elevation except for what little I can get from the left side of town after the turnout and then maybe from the middle of town right to the covered bridge. :-(
DeeCeeo if I understand Cuyama, for a 2.5% grade, I would need 2.5 car lengths or about 16"-18" for the easement. Now is distance at the start, end, and middle of the curve? If so, my track would need 3' of easement - half at the beginning and half at the top?
Whatever length you choose, you need an easement at each end of each grade, as shown in the drawing. The middle is the grade itself.
As for buildings, I was using the drawings of Pat Harriman for dimensions and scaling them into O scale. I thought I read somewhere that I needed 3" between centrelines for double track but I will go with 4" - thanks for that.
Sounds like I need to some more planning for my elevations and vertical easements. So if I understand Cuyama, for a 2.5% grade, I would need 2.5 car lengths or about 16"-18" for the easement. Now is distance at the start, end, and middle of the curve? If so, my track would need 3' of easement - half at the beginning and half at the top?
DeeCeeI was using building dimensions from other plans as a guide, so I'm assuming the building sizes are OK.
Maybe. There are many poorly planned and incorrectly rendered layouts on the Internet, so they can be misleading. You might measure your planned strucures in O scale feet to decide if they are large enough for you.
DeeCeeAs far as elevations go, I hadn't considered the transitions so I will have to do that. What do I allow - couple of inches?
Unfortunately, significantly more than that for best reliability. I have had good luck with about one car length of transition for each per cent of grade, others have gotten by with less. Also, I try to allow one car length away from a turnout before changing grade.
When you redraw the plan, don´t forget to allow about 4" for clearance - that´s 2" on each side of the center line of the track. This will help you to see how much "real estate" you really have for buildings.
Thanks a lot gentlemen. I see I goofed in the elevations - I didn't intend for the right side to be higher than the left and then dip down before crossing the trestle. I hear what you are saying about clearances but maybe I don't understand or get it and that won't come until I build some mock ups. Definitely will have to do that before building. I will draw another plan but in a larger scale that may allow me to better plan clearances. I won't be able to scan that one, unfortunately, for comments. Some problems I am seeing for clearance will be the depot backing on to the retaining wall; perhaps the engine service facility might be too bunched together; crate and barrel can be pushed more into the backdrop so I don't see that being an issue - anything else? I was using building dimensions from other plans as a guide, so I'm assuming the building sizes are OK. As far as elevations go, I hadn't considered the transitions so I will have to do that. What do I allow - couple of inches? As mentioned, I don't need 3" on the left side and can drop that without affecting the layout. I was planning on a 2.5% grade - ish. I wonder if the big warehouse on the wharf might be too much and will end up blocking everything behind it? It only leaves a narrow corridor on the right side to peer down to the covered bridge. Thanks again, folks.
Ulrich makes a good point about the size for 3-D structures in O scale. Also note the track-to-track spacing and the distance needed between tracks and structures are larger in On30 than in HO and may not be adequate in your rendering in a few spots.
DeeCee - May I join Byron in voicing some concern? IIRC, I already mentioned that O scale building have about 4 times the footprint of an HO scale building. While I like your plan very much, I think there are some pretty tight spots and the buildings you have drawn appear to be too small for the scale.
Out of my own experience I can only recommend to make scale cardboard mock-ups for the structures before starting to build the layout.
I did this after the track was down and ballasted and ended up "killing" the layout.
I have some concerns about the grades as shown. At the left, rising from ¾” to 3” in about 54” is over 4% (and effectively a bit more because of the curve). That by itself may be what you intend, but note that you don’t really have room to ease back out of that steep grade, so the spurs will still be on a pretty steep grade rolling back towards town. You might need to look at some way of holding cars on the hill. Of course, you could reduce the grade there without impacting the plan.
More troublesome might be the grade across the main part of the layout. You show 1” at right and the track going up from there, but it’s down to ¾” at the left side of the siding.
Additionally, the track is a bit steep moving up from the 0” location to the ¾” spot.
Once you allow for transitions from level-to-grade and avoiding changing grades within a turnout, I don’t see that the planned elevations work, but perhaps I am reading your plan incorrectly.
The last time I mentioned grades to a poster there was a big kerfuffle, so I hope that you can accept these concerns as simply an attempt to help.
I'm very impressed with your artwork! You sure you didn't pay Ian Rice to draw that? Looks like a great plan, best of luck as you build it.
Regards, Ray
So this is my final (for now) layout design. I have decided to have the back of the layout rise from the wharf area to a few inches (3 by the time the track reaches the sawmill) to give the layout some more visual interest. I enlargened the wharf area based on the input I received that I might not be giving enough real estate for buildings. The engine house is partially cut away - that will give some visual interest and some protection for the trains near the board edge. The second (left-hand) track bypassing the sawmill can be a potential expansion if I manage to find more room and/or finish the first part (LOL).
In my world, logs float down to the sawmill where they are cut up and the sawn lumber shipped out by rail to destination or wharf, depending on final destination. Coal is barged in and off-loaded on the dock and can be furthered by ore car or truck to customers in the area. I stuck in what could be a water mill but I'm not sure if it might be a bit much and perhaps the layout might be less cluttered without it. The wharf will have some fishing or boat industries. The barrel and crate manufacturer will use local lumber and make shipping material for the local businesses.
Any comments would be appreciated.
Thanks Bill,
I was looking forward to some critical input! I think that you are correct in that I will have lots to keep me busy.