I did think of a number of shapes to fit in the space, but as a n00b I am not too sure whether these shapes are the best I can do/get. Dots are for the duck-under or swing-gate bridge.
These aisle spaces are pretty tight, probably 2-2,5'
I'm also thinking about around the perimeter incline/decline to the second level, instead of a helix (the space hog).
S is the staging and trains could arrive into it from either 1 or 2. As long as there's access to the panel then 2 can remain lowered.
YouTube Channel
Website
I do not have a prototype railroad I'm modelling, nor I wish to really base myself on one, as I do not have a preference. I'd rather select from various ones features I like and incorporate into my model.
What I'm struggling with, beside H0 or N scale, is how does one actually go about planning a room size layout:
- do you come up with the layout shape first, and fit the industries and locations into it; or the other way around; or even something else?
- how do you know where to put yards, interchanges, stations, industries, etc. in your layout shape?
- what method one uses to determine whether all these features (industries, yards, stations) work together in a meaningful operational manner?
- how do you create interest (switching puzzles, etc) in specific locations such as yards, interchanges and industries?
...
Thanks.
I believe it is 3' from the front face of the panel board, and that space is basically what is needed to open the door enclosing the electrical closet space anyway.
Hey TrainzLuvr -
Looking at the third and fourth images where the benchwork appears to be fairly deep.
Can you sketch in a line, approximately parallel to the front edge of the benchwork, that represents your personal reach-in limits? 24" is comfortable, 30" starts getting a little far, more than that creates concerns.
It isn't just reach-in-and-grab something. You need to be able to reach in and remain steady while you perform fairly delicate hand maneuvers to re-couple stubborn cars or clear tiny bits of unwanted debris. Switch throws may or may not be a problem. There are electro-mechanical devices to help; even piano wire gizmos to extend to the fascia.
And there are always the trusty BBQ tongs . . .
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
There was an article a while back (I believe in RMH) that did an extensive analysis comparing the space efficiency of the different shapes. In case you don't want to go searching for it, the punchline is that the G shape is the best choice.
The one thing I would suggest you change in your sketches is that since you need both access to the electrical panel and access to the center of the layout, make the sacrifice do double duty by flipping your first sketch so the entrance to the center is at the electrical panel.
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.
I'm not much use regarding trackplans or even layout benchwork arrangements, but my suggestion would be to make that area a separate room, with walls between the posts and a wall with an outward-opening door on the angled area. This will make layout maintenance (cleaning - track and other stuff) a lot easier and less frequent.I also think that the space would be more useful in N scale, as an HO layout as ambitious as your drawings suggest would have greatly compromised radii if you want a reasonable aisle width.Carl's suggestion regarding layout and electrical panel access is a good one, too.
Wayne
A good place to start is determining your minimum radius curves, then placing 90/180/etc. degree curves around the layout space to try out different arrangements.
Answers to many of your questions can be found in publications on "planning for realistic operations" offered by MR. These are especially valuable in avoiding rookie mistakes and helping you decide your priorities.
Jim
TrainzLuvrWhat I'm struggling with, beside H0 or N scale, is how does one actually go about planning a room size layout:
There are a number of ways to approach layout design. There are a couple of good examples in Track Planning for Realistic Operation. In the 3rd Edition, Chapter 9 describes Armstrong’s method pretty well. Appendix A is another case study of the process.
Personally, I like to do a fairly unstructured Conceptual Phase first, followed by a Structural/Footprint Phase, and only then moving to Details. This is briefly described in the notes page to the four-hour Layout Design Bootcamp I have presented at NMRA national conventions in conjucntion with the Layout Design SIG. Notes page found here:http://www.layoutvision.com/clinics.html
I would suggest that you might want to step back to the Conceptual Phase. Think about what kinds of trains you’d like to see and what you’d like to do (yard switching, mainline running/model railfanning, etc., etc.). Many newcomers find that they’re not really sure _what_ they want to achieve in their model railroad, so visiting other layouts is a really helpful thing. (As is a smaller “chainsaw” layout where you can try things out, as I suggested to you elsewhere. You can start small, figure out what you like, and then design the next larger layout with those things in mind.)
Basically, you’re coming up with a stretch of railroad that you’d like to model – either prototype (a real railroad) or freelance (from your imagination).
From this, you’ll be able to have a rough idea of the types of trains and equipment, era, locale, train length, etc., etc. As I think I posted in another of your threads, this “lineal” of train length helps me decide how long yard(s), passing sidings, staging, etc. should be. That yardstick also suggests a minimum radius necessary, which might help make your N vs. HO decision.
Some general best practices today are to try to keep aisles broader than those Armstrong suggested – more like 30” rather than 24”, for example. (John Armstrong was himself a thin man – most of your model railroad visitors will likely not be). Similarly, most folks find that they can’t reach more than 30” over a scenicked layout – and a shorter distance is more comfortable.
Generally, it’s best to minimize the number of “blobs” or turnback curves. Especially in HO in your space, the width of a turnback curve at 24-28” takes up a lot of floor space. If you want walk-in entry, you’ll need at least two.
Combining all those ideas yields a few somewhat tight, but usable footprints, like this one I quickly derived from another project.
Note that moving beyond this to multiple visible decks is a significant jump in complexity and sheer amount of layout to complete. So depending on available time and resources, you’ll want to be realistic about what is achievable. To be reliable for longer trains, an HO helix must be fairly broad (28-30” radius and up). That’s 5-feet-square or more, so it would be a big chunk of your floor space.
The alternative to “blobs” is some sort of donut-style approach. Your space is actually good for this because you can use the inside, outside, and “backside” (against the wall). In HO, this helps mitigate the issues with radius as well since you don’t need a blob. Here’s a crude not-to-scale sketch.
In N scale, of course, all of this is easier in your space, primarily because of the smaller minimum radius and the fact that a train of a given number of cars is just over half as long as the equivalent in HO.
Good luck with your layout.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
I updated all of my sketeches with 1' grid so it's easier to see the relationships. Although my shape sketches are not that precise, they are just an idea to go off of.
I'm not sure enclosing this space in the room would work for me, it is already conditioned (heating and cooling) plus if the layout needs to be taken out and space restored back to the original look, no walls makes it easier.
As suggested, I flipped sketch #1 over horizontally, but this configuration does not appear to give my choice for any kind of a yard or such.
TrainzLuvr:
If you are interested, I posted instructions on how to make local links work in the old thread. I won't repeat them here.
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/t/260082.aspx?page=3
Scroll down quite a ways.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Byron:
I really like the 'G' shaped layout suggestion.
hon30critterI really like the 'G' shaped layout suggestion.
Yep, one can learn a lot from John Armstrong! As he suggested, a spiral peninsula is often the best approach for a given space and minimum radius.
cuyama,
thanks for the crash course in layout planning thinking. We (my SO and I, the primary operators of our railroad) did sort of go through those phases but keep turning back to the fundamental question of H0 vs N, besides those you mention.
We did visit couple of bigger layouts to see what's possible in similar (to bigger space). One was a LHS display (H0) and the other semi-club layout (N) connected to another LHS.
In your second drawing the doughnut shape is what Armstrong described in the Track Planning book on page 88, correct (it is an evolution of the island shape, and he called the access area problematic due to a duck under)?
To me the central access area seems like wasted space, especially on the size of the space we have here, or do you suggest we build a chainsaw layout like this first?
Overal, N scale seems to be getting more appealing now considering that our space could use additional 3-4 feet on the short side to get that additional aisle space for H0. Althoigh, we are not concerned with 30" aisles as we would most likely be the primary users, and are both slim to fit 24". :)
TrainzLuvrWe (my SO and I, the primary operators of our railroad) did sort of go through those phases but keep turning back to the fundamental question of H0 vs N, besides those you mention.
Sharing more of the priorities that you and your partner have already decided upon may help others help you.
TrainzLuvrIn your second drawing the doughnut shape is what Armstrong described in the Track Planning book on page 88, correct (it is an evolution of the island shape, and he called the access area problematic due to a duck under)?
Yes, it's similar to the middle-left image on that page. But there is an important adition. Because of the opportunity you have along the "column" side of the room, the benchwork could be quite deep along there -- with access from both the inside and the outside of the donut. A double-sided backdrop would separate the scenes.
Access to the center may be via duckunder or some sort of movable gate.
TrainzLuvrTo me the central access area seems like wasted space, especially on the size of the space we have here, or do you suggest we build a chainsaw layout like this first?
Once you widen the benchwork section that has inside/outside access, there may not be as much excess space in the central aisle as you think. The donut may offer a little more usable space in HO for a yard and similar elements as well. The spiral peninsula usually curves a bit more for the given area, so there may be less space for some of those elements. It's all trade-offs, there's no one-size-fits-all answer.
If I were doing a chainsaw for your space, I might do something simple in a corner in a water-wing style. Building an island in the center of the room seems logical, but an island and its aisles take up a lot of floor space and may be hard to work around (if you want to leave the chainsaw up while you begin construction on the long-term layout).
TrainzLuvrAlthough, we are not concerned with 30" aisles as we would most likely be the primary users, and are both slim to fit 24". :)
If you ever plan to host visitors or operators, you'll find that most model railroaders don't share your body type.
I personally always prefer a walk-in arrangement if at all possible -- so I'm biased that way. But things are just a little tight in your space in HO – depending on your concept.
The 13’X19’ HO layout I posted in another thread shows that an HO walk-in based on a spiral peninsula with two lobes can work, but that’s a backwoods/logging theme. If you are looking for more modern equipment, longer trains, longer cars, etc. in HO, then the donut-style layout may help by eliminating “blobs.” In N scale, the spiral peninsula works well in your space due to the smaller minimum radius for a given type of railroading.
Another vote for the G, in any scale that will fit.
About aisleways - 24" is wide enough for one person to move unimpeded. If people have to pass, or there are controls to operate, 32" is better. Also, that isn't distance between opposite fascia. That's distence between convenience shelves, cupholders, card boxes and other protrusions.
How big a yard do you want/need. Even in N, a major hump yard is the impossible dream in anything smaller than a basketball court. OTOH, a small yard serving as a consolidation/distribution point for a few towns (or a branchline terminal) can get away with a few tracks for classification and storage, a yard lead/thoroughfare and a main track, possibly with a passing siding thrown in. In N scale, a foot will give plenty of width and leave room for MOW storage and a yard office. My own subdivision yard is 28 inches from the fascia to the ends of the diagonal body tracks - in HOj, which is twice N in scale in bulk (but most of my freight cars are close to N scale length.) Mine also includes rather elaborate arrangements for handling passenger trains and engine changes, which add to the width. I doubt that any North American rail line sees equivalent traffic outside the commuter zones, so facilities can, and should, be simpler.
If at all possible, arrange stand-up entry to the center of the pastry roll, wherever it's needed. Having to limbo-dance into the central area will get VERY old in a hurry. (You and your co-operators will, too, but not as quickly.)
This is a time to make haste slowly. Your 'let's try things' layout might end up as a corner and the end and one side of the G peninsula, or it might live on as a test bed until all the new things you want to try have been built into the main layout. My test spiral seems to have acquired immortality - every time I think I can recycle the flex track elsewhere I come up with a new radius/clearance question about a specific locomotive or car. It now has a permanent hook under the shelf along the north wall of my layout space.
Hope this has been helpful.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Just a quick post about a big yard, we'd love *this* one that the LHS has in N scale:
We are actually seriously thinking to go N instead of H0 as it seems a logical direction to give us most out of our space. I actually went out and bought a Dash 8-40C, some cars and flex track to play with so we can get a feel for N and its scale.
I will post more specific replies for cuyama and tomikawaTT shortly - I want to talk to my partner first then formulate it into productive queries.
Happy Holidays everyone!
After a brief break, back on the forums (no break from trains though). In what media might call a "landslide" victory, whereas my vote counted for 1 and my partner's 1.5, it has been decided that we will go with N scale.A small concession was gained on my part that if possible, a 2nd (or 3rd level could be built to house a small H0 operation thus keeping some of the equipment while the rest will go for sale).
Now that my bemoaning over scales is over, time to focus on what can be done in my space with the N scale.
For the sake of posterity, I made the idea #6 and #7 as mentioned above. One is a G and the other a "doughnut". I am not sure I did that one right but I'll fix it if necessary.
So, my question is where do I go from here, what changes with N and having more rail and scenic real-estate?
I also have no clue about minimum curves needed and will have to get that established as well. And, what kind of a layout shape do I now think of when it comes to N scale, in this space?
Thoughts anyone?
One of the benefits of going with N scale is that you can run longer trains. However, to do that you need lots of track. I believe the 'G' gives you about 100' of continuous track (give or take) whereas the donut gives you about 75' of continuous track assuming two basic ovals. If you run three ovals of track on the donut it would give you about 100'. IMHO ovals would be very boring whereas the 'G' has lots happening. Scenes can be spread out much more on the 'G' as well, and you don't have to have a duck under or a lift-out.
TrainzLuvrSo, my question is where do I go from here, what changes with N and having more rail and scenic real-estate?
Not much changes in terms of the footprint, except that the minimum radius is smaller so the "blobs" can be smaller. That opens up aisles, allows longer straightaways for yards, etc.
TrainzLuvrI also have no clue about minimum curves needed and will have to get that established as well.
As with a number of other issues, this will depend on the type of railroading you'd like to incorporate, era, locale, etc. As noted earlier, if you can share more about what you'd like to see on the layout, it will help others help you. That piece of the puzzle is still missing.
The ratio of N scale to HO scale is 160 to 87.1 -- so N scale is about 55% of HO. A 28" radius curve in HO would be 15 1/4" radius in N and would handle most equipment. Broader curves look better with longer equipment.
Although it requires knowing more about what equipment you plan to run, the Layout Design SIG's curve radius rule-of-thumb can be handy.
TrainzLuvrAnd, what kind of a layout shape do I now think of when it comes to N scale, in this space?
The "G" still works and provides walk-in access. Double-sided backdrops will divide the benchwork into a separate scene on each side. You can go multiple passes through the scene for a longer run, if that's what you want (or multi-deck, a much bigger undertaking).
With the smaller minimum radius for N scale I'd probably not bother with the donut. But if I did, I'd think about docking the donut to one wall as I posted earlier. But the donut is not walk-in -- and really helps most with radii that are broader relative to the room than N scale will be.
If this will be an HO scale layout, the radii and aisles will be fairly tight on the plans you've drawn.
Cuyama makes a good point about the bottom of the layout being open to the other room. You can view or access the layout from that room, essentially giving you another side of the layout with which to build a scene.
Closing off the room might also be beneficial. If you approach it that way, try a simple around the room donut plan with a center blob. With 12 feet in width, things will be a little tight at the loop pinch points however.
- Douglas
Well, I'm cowaradly back here to admit I have been "soul searching" past days. My heart seems set on H0, even though my partner and I sort of decided we'd go with N.
I don't know anymore, I still feel I should try going H0 seeing so many layouts out there made in much smaller space than ours here...
We did put together a Givens/Druthers list that I'd like to share here for comments, while we are still trying to figure out the Conceptual/Structural/Detail phase breakout.
Givens--------- Room size 22'x12' (irregular, two columns on the North edge, doorway access to the North-East, electrical closet on the South-West)- Ceiling at 6'6"- Actual space closer to 19'x12' with optional 18"x96" along the West wall allowing for 2' passageway- Two windows on the South side starting at 55" above floor level- The layout will remain in the train room (no foreseeable expansion)- Climate controlled space- Scale: ?- DCC operation- Era: transition- Prototype: Freelance- Operating crew: two (most of the time, but visitors possible)- Single deck with an option for future multi-deck expansion- Benchwork: stand-alone L-girder modules (not attached to walls)- Min. radius: TBD (considering scale and long passenger and freight cars)
Druthers----------- Track: Code 83 for H0 or Code 55 for N- Min. turnout size: TBD- Prefer double track mainline- Capability for continuous running- Minimum 24″ aisle width- Signaled operation (ABS or CTC)- Option for fully computer controlled trains- Swing out bridge is preferred, if required- No need to reach more than 24″ into the layout- Longest main line runs possible- Trains may pass through the same scene area more than once (using a different track and/or elevation)- Like longer trains (only possible in N)- Like yard switching- Like intricate track work (more prototypical to Europe than North America e.g. double slips, wyes, 3-way, etc.)- Industries to keep the operational interest- Adequate staging (in a sub-level?)- Like scenic views (full vistas only possible in N)- Like rolling hills, canyons, rivers, tunnels, rock faces, bridges- Like both freight and passenger service- Interest in rail-fanning
TrainzLuvr- Scale: ?
Big difference what will fit in N vs. HO. Until you settle on a scale, folks won't be able to help much.
Just FYI, here are a couple of HO donuts. In some places, hidden track must be reached over a low backdrop or via a removable backdrop.
Also (armchair) layout planning here, but you have a nice concrete space alotted for your pike, so you're ahead of me!
Looking at your givens & druthers, a couple things stand out to me. You want a double track main line, with long trains, and (big?) yards. These all scream 'N scale' to me, in that space (I'm an HO guy myself, though).
In either scale, I'd be designing around the 'G' shape benchwork, and definitely making use of the 'open' column side of the layout room and a double-sided backdrop to create "extra" mainline run. I'd also be very tempted to use that extra linear run to create enough vertical separation to allow a sublevel for staging and a turnaround loop (or double ended staging) beneath the sceniced portion of the layout.
If you plan to model a substantial classification yard and are interested in operations, you'll need to have lots of staging capacity to support multiple trains coming in to set cars out, as well as a place for the trains you build to go. The other option I would consider, is to use the aisle you already have to leave for electric panel access as a place to put a 'fiddle yard' for staging, behind a full-height backdrop that would hide the train-building operations going on there. That would probably require you to turn the 'G' back around the other way though.
Another vote here for the "G". Byron reviewed my layout before the build. You won't go wrong following his advice.
www.lkorailroad.com
Your vision will deteriorate and your hands will become less steady as you age. Keep this in mind as you decide HO or N.
More is not necessarily better. The quality of the run is just as important, if not more so, as the length of the run.
Alan
Freelancing the LK&O Railroad
Thank you all for being patient with me. I reall can't explain why I'm flip-flopping on the decision to go N scale. Somehow I feel I might regret not trying to squeeze H0 in there first, yet N seems to be the most sound choice for the space. :(
Thank you for those H0 donut ideas. In your expert opinion, is what you have shown here really the most I can get in the space (when it comes to donuts)?
I was playing with some organic shapes rather than a G, trying to see what else could be put there so here's one of those attempts:
The way I envisioned this is, the orange track (the outer loop) would be 4" lower than the rest of the layout, all around the islands/blobs. It would climb back up on the left side blob and decend on the right side blob. This would give some scenic separation from the inner loop and double the main line length.
Each island could support any number of LDEs connecting to the inner loop as well.
RRR_BethBr,
I'm trying to understand your suggestions from the last two paragraphs regarding designing around G, but I'm having a hard time seeing it in my minds eye. Could you please elaborate on
I'd also be very tempted to use that extra linear run to create enough vertical separation to allow a sublevel for staging and a turnaround loop (or double ended staging) beneath the sceniced portion of the layout.
What exactly are you referring to, the linear stretch touching the two columns? Where would you start going into the sublevel and where would you emerge from it?
The other option I would consider, is to use the aisle you already have to leave for electric panel access as a place to put a 'fiddle yard' for staging, behind a full-height backdrop that would hide the train-building operations going on there. That would probably require you to turn the 'G' back around the other way though.
What side of the room would the fiddle yard be, along the far right wall, or? Would it connect through a swing out bridge of sort?
lifeontheranch,
I love your LK&O railroad build and have been following your writing for months now. Thank you for sharing your experiences with us! :)
Regarding H0 vs N and vision/dexterity, I always liked the size and solid feeling one gets when holding H0 equipment. With N, I always fear I'll break something accidentally. Although I've been issued a prescription for reading glasses, I'm still promptly ignoring it. :D
I'd really like to get a decent run (as long as possible) in the space I have, but how does one improve its quality?
TrainzLuvrI'd really like to get a decent run (as long as possible) in the space I have, but how does one improve its quality?
Ah, glad you asked. That's where Byron and forum members come in. First things first, you must decide why you are building a layout. I know that sounds dumb but I am serious. I like trains is a weak answer. Once you decide exactly why your layout exists in the first place then you move on to how it is laid out and how it operates. Byron and others can then help you optimize the design based on the "why" i.e. creating a better quality run.
Love switching? Fill the layout with industries and logically arranged spurs and leads. Love railfanning? Create long winding track woven through beautiful vistas. Fascinated by a particular railroad? Dedicate your layout to replicating a prototype subdivision or section thereof. Modeling museum quality structures your thing? Build a city that happens to have a railroad passing through it. You get my point.
Using myself as an example, I combined three specific prototype areas (from three different railroads!) into one. For each of the three prototype areas I have cherished memories as a youth. So for me, the "why" and thus "quality of run" is defined as my layout helping me relive my childhood memories. I play with trains for the purpose of enjoying my youth a second time. Byron assisted by making sure my amalgamation of the three rail components would actually create a functional, operable model railroad.
There is "playing with trains" and then there is "enjoying playing with trains". Focus first on the "enjoying" part as it relates to you. It's a soul searching adventure. Once you have that clearly defined then layout design becomes a straightforward engineering excersise at which Byron excels.
If you nailed the "enjoy" definition then a high "quality of run" will be the outcome whether it be 10' or 1000' feet of track.
TrainzLuvrThank you for those H0 donut ideas. In your expert opinion, is what you have shown here really the most I can get in the space (when it comes to donuts)?
Those were quick ideas I knocked out using the yard from another project while waiting for an appointment. So they aren’t presented as perfection, just an idea of what fits.
“Most” is subjective. Those donuts are sort of balanced ideas with double-track mains, a small active yard, some switching, some staging, and a reasonable length of run. One could probably re-design to emphasize more of any of those elements – but not all of them. Layout design is an exercise in trade-offs. If one was willing to forgo the movable gate to enter the inner layout (and use a duck-under instead), for example, one could probably work in another loop of track to subterranean staging.
As I once told my boss when I worked in product management, "You can have it fast, cheap, or fully functional. Pick two."
TrainzLuvrI was playing with some organic shapes rather than a G, trying to see what else could be put there so here's one of those attempts:
Some thoughts in terms of practicality, easily corrected: - the yard along the back wall is unworkable as an active yard because of the difficulties in accessing it from multiple places. If it’s just for staging/storage, not as big of an issue- Most folks would want 3-4” of benchwork between tracks and the aisle.- The track in the ̶t̶o̶p̶-̶r̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ top-left corner seems to be out of an easy 30” reach.
More importantly from a footprint standpoint, 3 blobs will usually be less desirable than a “G” (two blobs) for a given space because relatively more of the track is curved. This can make it trickier to place towns, yards, etc. (even though the length of run can be greater). If you are interested in an active visible yard, it’s often hard to find a place for it with more blobs.
TrainzLuvrI always liked the size and solid feeling one gets when holding H0 equipment
Then maybe you should go with HO and accept the trade-offs. Fine HO layouts have been built in much less space -- but the key is selectivity and prioritization. As comedian Steven Wright says, "You can't have it all. Where would you put it?"
I'll again suggest that a "chainsaw layout" might be a good investment in time and resources. Build something that's not a space-filler but gives you a chance to run some trains, work a small yard, do some switching, etc. That experience will tell you a lot about what you like and don't like and will help inform the later larger project. Importantly, you’ll gain an appreciation of how long things take – which can be an eye-opener when contemplating a project of this scope.
Alan, thanks for the kind words – but you were well on your way when you got me involved – I just suggested a few enhancements and alternatives.
lifeontheranchIf you nailed the "enjoy" definition then a high "quality of run" will be the outcome whether it be 10' or 1000' feet of track.
Exactly ...
It seems I have quite a bit of soul searching to go through then. I grew up around trains, had relatives work on the railroad. I honestly can't poinpoint exactly what I like about trains, something about machines on tracks that always appealed to me.
I like watching trains pass-by or shunt cars around, trackwork disappearing into the distance, or curving through the valleys, signals changing aspects or turnouts switching points; I like freight just as much as passenger trains; steams, diesels, electrics, no matter, I like it all. :)
I don't even know where to start if I was to narrow things down. And I'm not sure I want to take away from the wholeness of experience that trains are to me. Sigh.
If I was to build a "chainsaw" layout, what kind of a layout do I build, how big, what shape, scale? Do I just find a plan on the internet I like and dive into it?
As I was tired of imagining various curve radii, I though it would be worth while seeing them instead, and comparing the scales as well as cars in real-world space.
Those autoracks are on the 26" curve, and it appears barely enough for them, although that flatbed has the same footprint as autoracks and it seems it could make the 24".
And then the sad realization of the size of H0 curves needed to make a full turn and how it fits (or doesn't) inside my space. To the right is a mockup of a small yard made with compound ladders. Not fitting much as the track before and after the yard would need another foot or more, and then make the turns.
My space seems incompatible with H0 as my train area depth is only 12' which falls short of two full turns at 28" and a decent aisle space in-between. :(
Looking at N, I could make full turns at 16" or 18" radius and have multiple aisles in-between.
https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/r270/15875426_10210145517508748_465228777900503975_o.jpg?oh=40d2254d634eff0d284672c801b5b9c9&oe=58DC58C7
Consider using the space on the other side of the columns as an operator area. You are gaining layout area without building into the space.
The above layout I envision a main yard along any of the three long runs. There could be some staging below between A and A. ho scale. Easy access to electri panel.
Steve
TrainzLuvrMy space seems incompatible with H0
It's compatible with HO -- with compromises. Smaller radii (and corresponding limitations on equipment) allow a walk-in lobed arrangment like the "G" to work. Donut-style layouts would allow larger radii, but have their own trade-offs.
Your photo shows some of the largest modern equipment. If you want to run that, then it places demands on the minimum radii that aren't so severe with other layout eras and concepts. And if you want it to be double-track; that uses more space, not just for the extra track, but for the crossovers needed to enter and leave yards, for example.
N scale offers much more flexibility in the same space, of course.
TrainzLuvrIf I was to build a "chainsaw" layout, what kind of a layout do I build, how big, what shape, scale? Do I just find a plan on the internet I like and dive into it?
Personally, I think the purpose of a chainsaw layout is to build experience and answer questions. What are the key questions you'd like to answer? If the key question is "Will I be happy with N scale?", then it should probably be an N scale layout. If the key question is, "Will I be happy with equipment restrictions that come with a 26” (or whatever) radius in HO?”, then it should be an HO layout.
As far as where it’s located, I'd suggest something that's non-inuitive. I might build it in an L-shape partially against the wall that in the future will be the 36” “keep clear” aisle. Then you can start construction of the later layout in the far corner and still have a path clear to the electrical box for a while before you must take down the chainsaw.
You have more space than many model railroaders will ever have the good luck to enjoy. You can build a lot of the things you want into that space – just not everything. Good luck with your layout.
cuyama Personally, I think the purpose of a chainsaw layout is to build experience and answer questions. What are the key questions you'd like to answer? If the key question is "Will I be happy with N scale?", then it should probably be an N scale layout. If the key question is, "Will I be happy with equipment restrictions that come with a 26” (or whatever) radius in HO?”, then it should be an HO layout.
See where this is going? Do the soul searching first, then build a layout or a chainsaw. If you just dive in without knowing the "why" then you will likely spend a lot of time and money only to end up dissatisfied with the hobby. Nobody wants to see that happen. It truly is the World's Greatest Hobby if done for the right personal reason(s).
cuyama You can build a lot of the things you want into that space – just not everything. Good luck with your layout.
You can build a lot of the things you want into that space – just not everything. Good luck with your layout.
Sage advice.
Since you like modern equipment go n. Some of the stuff you showed looks best on 36" radius at least in HO which would be a more manigable 18" in N. Although the size of the stuff maters when you get older, modern stuff tends to be much bigger than the stuff from my layout era the 1930's, like twice an long or bigger.
Thank you all for your posts.
Choops,
That was one of the shapes I had on the B-line but I keep putting it aside because of that large empty area in the middle left. My partner keeps telling me that I'm like "go big or go home", trying to use every square inch of space.
Looking at it, I think I'm on my way to understanding the "quality" run part, because of a choice made not use every square inch of space in favour of a layout that works on more than one level (scenic, operational, etc).
To be fair, I only have those two autoracks because they are the most-extreme cases. I bought them for the exact reason of seeing what the largest equipment does to various curve radii. I do have a number of passenger cars that are about the same length but would probably work even in 24" radii, unlike the autoracks.
We had some discussions about "G" vs donut, and although my partner is kind of indifferent to either, we both like organic shapes better. Yes, that's neither here nor there when it comes to fitting track, so it's more of a curiosity.
Soul searching for H0 vs N to me is probably the toughest decision I have to make. I still need to shake off the feeling of "hold me gently or I'll break" that N gives me. :)
rrebell,
I do not mind modern North American equipment, although to be honest it looks too plain and all the same to me, built for a single purpose - to maximize the capacity. I find older North American units, and especially European equipment much more pleasing, for many reasons.
And there lays the conundrum, H0 has the selection of equipment I like in abundance, yet N offers me better choices in overal track length and scenic possibilities in my space.
Now, my current equipment roster is perhaps 8 or so locomotives, 9 passenger and maybe two dozen or so freight cars in H0. Then 3 locomotives, couple of passenger and 20 or so freight cars in N.
I do have a dozen or so PECO c100 turnouts (mostly small and medium, a few large and curved) and Atlas straight and curved sectional track (15, 18, 22 deg). Nothing in N though.
My question for everyone is going back to "Will I be happy with N scale?" and "Will I be happy with equipment restrictions that come with a 26” (or whatever) radius in HO?”
Someone could be happy with anything (or the first thing). Build H0 and never really know fully about N, or vice-versa. Should've, could've, would've.
Do I investing into any more equipment to build a "chainsaw" layout for that scale (or both)? Furthermore, what type of a "chainsaw" layout(s) do I build, how much track, scenery, level of completion, etc. should it/they have?
I will obviously have to buy track to build, but if it's going to be torn down, is it worth investing any money to begin with?
Am I over-analyzing all this? I seem to only have more questions.
Trainzluvr:
It seems to me that you want to go HO scale despite the curve radii challenges. I'm basing that simply on the way that you talk about HO scale vs N scale. HO scale you speak of positively, but N scale you keep asking if you will be satisfied.
FWIW, when I look at N scale I say "nice, but not for me". It just doesn't appeal to me. I scratch build switching locomotives and railcars/trucks in HO and HOn30. Trying to do that in N scale would seem to me to be an exercise in frustration, but that's me and what interests me.
Here is a suggestion that might help you make the choice. Forget about the 'chainsaw' layout approach. Put some of your locomotives and rolling stock in front of you in both scales. Then ask yourself "which ones do I want to reach for first?", or, "which locomotive would I like to hug?". Yes, I'm serious about the 'hug' part! Which locomotive(s) do you really love?!?
TrainzLuvr RRR_BethBr, I'm trying to understand your suggestions from the last two paragraphs regarding designing around G, but I'm having a hard time seeing it in my minds eye. Could you please elaborate on I'd also be very tempted to use that extra linear run to create enough vertical separation to allow a sublevel for staging and a turnaround loop (or double ended staging) beneath the sceniced portion of the layout. What exactly are you referring to, the linear stretch touching the two columns? Where would you start going into the sublevel and where would you emerge from it?
Yes, that's the area I'm talking about. Here's a rough sketch based on your plan #6:
The main yard would be on the upper (modeled) level, with realistic track work, etc, though I'd almost certainly try to discretely incorporate a reverse loop for continuous running. Leaving the yard, we'd start heading down a gentle, but constant, grade as the train winds its way through the modeled scenes of towns/industries. At the point I show the tracks passing through the backdrop at lower left, we're heading on to the staging sub-level, and the line turns grey to indicate that. I'd run staging under the main yard, and include another reverse loop to facilitate continuous running, where trains could come in from the stagin level, climb the grade through the railroad, and end in your yard.
With some real cleverness, it might even be possible to include a 'ramp' track back down to staging at the rear of the main (modeled) yard, so trains could 'continue on' beyond your railroad.
The other option I would consider, is to use the aisle you already have to leave for electric panel access as a place to put a 'fiddle yard' for staging, behind a full-height backdrop that would hide the train-building operations going on there. That would probably require you to turn the 'G' back around the other way though. What side of the room would the fiddle yard be, along the far right wall, or? Would it connect through a swing out bridge of sort?
I was thinking along the right side of the layout, like this (even rougher) sketch:
You want a long run.... How about double decking the whole affair. Extend the upper right blob out to 5' so it is large enough to house a 30"r helix (orange line). Position a backdrop on the lower deck to hide staging (dk green line).
Is the other side of the pillars the wife's forbidden zone?
As the Brits say, you could always go "pear shaped" - j/k.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Thank you everyone for your comments and suggestions.
So the concensus for my space is the G shape, regardless of the scale used. I would like to avoid a helix in H0 as to me that is a space monster, which most people prefer to tuck away somewhere.
I wish I had a nook somewhere I could put the helix in, but the space I've shown is the final space. I can't go below the columns since that would block access to the rest of the basement (it was a challenge to get even this much approved by the "committee"...just kidding, of course :) ).
I did spend a lot of cycles contemplating H0 vs N, yet I feel I haven't reached the decision point yet. What I did accomplish is find a local MRR club really close to where I live, which I plan to visit in a week or so.
My "cunning" plan, if all goes well, is to get access to their H0 layout and hopefully be around like-minded people, while learning many MRR things hands-on. And perhaps they will benefit from my skills in the process as well.
But ultimately, it might quench my thirst for H0, let me run some of my equipment there, and free me of having to make a scale choice. Then I could model N at home and have access to H0 at the club. A potential win-win situation.
I'll post an update once I visit the club, and maybe I'll have a clear(er) direction what I'm doing in the space at home.
I apologize for being absent for the last 3 months, though I kept busy during that time (while the dreaded Winter went on and on...)
I started hanging out at the near-by MRR club, and as it turns out, they organize model train flea markets, twice a year even!!!
Suffice to say, I partook in their Spring event and was overwhelmed by it. So many model trains in so little space...
Got a video from the flea market up on my YouTube channel:
Also, I bought couple of KATO N Scale Variation sets; a few Atlas locomotives and some rolling stock, then setup a small layout to test things out.
Overal, even N Scale takes space, granted less than H0, but now I can see the curves N needs to look nice. I like KATO turnouts as they are both manual and remote, all in one. And the track seems solid and foolproof with roadbed built in.
What I don't like are the whining, squealing, and grinding noises that these N SCale locos make:
Turns out replacing wheels on the Atlas locomotives with KATO ones reduces the grinding noise, but whining and squealing of the motors is still there, ugggh:
I find the noise of N Scale locos a bit irritating, and I wish to have sound in them, but with tiny spaces available inside, not all could accomodate for it. Plus I like steam locos, and it appears to me there's much less of those in N than H0.
My SO and I have also had a chance to go on our first ever layout tour (Doubleheaders MRR Tour) at the end of March. That turned out to be such a wonderful experience.
We visited 8 different layouts (2 club and 6 home ones), spoke to people there and took lots of photos and videos (I'll be posting layout videos on my YouTube channel, as I edit them).
The tour showed us that we could build in H0, as some layouts were in about the same space that we have. Others were just...HUGE, spanning an entire basement (George Watson's Bear Mountain Southern Pacific )
While my SO favours the N, she is really indifferent to the scale and just wants me to pick one so we can get going. But, I feel like I'm back to square one...
It has been suggested to us to do both - put H0 in-front and put N at the back, creating a false perspective and depth. Though it seems to me it might be twice as hard to pull that out of a hat.
So, that's my update. And, I'm still open to whatever words of wisdom anyone can impart. Thanks!
Note that loose Unitrack on top of foam is about the noisiest combination possible, especially when running locos alone at high speeds.
TrainzLuvrIt has been suggested to us to do both - put H0 in-front and put N at the back, creating a false perspective and depth.
Hard to pull off successfully and thus rarely worth it.
TrainzLuvr wants me to pick one so we can get going
Good advice.
cuyamaNote that loose Unitrack on top of foam is about the noisiest combination possible, especially when running locos alone at high speeds.
That's good to know, thank you.
From your experience, what combination of materials works best with KATO Unitrack, when it comes to sound dampening?
Should I only use plywood as a surface, or do I combine it with rigid foam board, homasote, or something else?
I've been trying to source homasote up here, but it does not seem to be a widely popular material, while a 2" rigid foam board is out of stock quite often at my local big-box hardware stores, not leaving me with much choice.
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.
DSchmittFor foamboard. Are there any specilaist insulation dealers in your area. The big box stores in my area don't have it, but tere is an insulation dealer in the "big" city about 50 miles away that does.
There are suppliers of building materials in the area, but I believe they only sell to General Contractors and professional license holders. Not sure if they also have a minimum quantity orders, as well.
Come to think of it, I do have a GC friend, maybe I could "coerce" him to be a middeman for my hobb...err building needs. ;)
TrainzLuvr DSchmitt For foamboard. Are there any specilaist insulation dealers in your area. The big box stores in my area don't have it, but tere is an insulation dealer in the "big" city about 50 miles away that does. There are suppliers of building materials in the area, but I believe they only sell to General Contractors and professional license holders. Not sure if they also have a minimum quantity orders, as well. Come to think of it, I do have a GC friend, maybe I could "coerce" him to be a middeman for my hobb...err building needs. ;)
DSchmitt For foamboard. Are there any specilaist insulation dealers in your area. The big box stores in my area don't have it, but tere is an insulation dealer in the "big" city about 50 miles away that does.
You could ask. The company I am aware of actually at one time had an ad advertising the material to model railroaders. I bought 3 or 4 sheets. It was many years ago.
TrainzLuvrFrom your experience, what combination of materials works best with KATO Unitrack, when it comes to sound dampening?
Extruded foam seems to me to always be a sounding board to some degree. Unsecured loose foam sheets like the video are the worst.
I saw a layout with a "soft" layer between the Unitrack and a plywood subroadbed that was very quiet. This was a thin, soft craft foam -- the Woodland Scenics roadbed is similar, but likely more expensive.
TrainzLuvrI've been trying to source homasote up here
Homasote dealer finder. You are looking for "Homasote 440" But personally, I don't think Homasote adds anything when using Unitrack. It's great for handlaying or for flextrack with track nails.
There are also dealer finders for extruded foam. Call the dealers first before driving to find out the stocking situation and/or minimum order.
Byron
Somethign else to keep in mind, also more sage advice from John Armstrong - stack the loops.
With the G shape, if there is enough space for a turnback curve, you don;t need to cut across the open side of the G with aa lift gate or other contraption for continuous run - you loop back and on the one biggest blob, stack loops above one another. If there is wnough room, the looops can be multi-track and also be the staging yards. The tail of the G with the turnback can be used to gain altitude to start a second deck, if there is enough distance around the G you can have level town areas plus still have enough room to gain reasonable clearances between decks without resorting to impossible grades. This is similar to how my plan is developing, although I have a double track main and will have a helix at the end of the first level to get me to the start of the second, and at the far end, two loops stacked over one another with multiple tracks to be the staging.
On a single level this could also be implemented as a dog bone, a double track main for most of the run and then a loop on either end. For decent operation this would require with both loops to be extra wide, or some alternate form of staging, vs stacking the loops so that only one end needs an extra-wide loop.
--Randy.
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Hi Randy,
Thanks for your suggestions, I'm just finding it hard to convert words into visualization in my mind. Could you quicky draw something up (perhaps over what was already posted earlier here to make it easier) or perhaps if you have a pre-made drawing?
This is to fit in my space, but it's the direction I've been going. Upper left is the lower level staging loop, below that in about the middle is the helix, second level is not shown, but it will go over top the lower level and there will be another loop on toop of the one shown in the upper left. Instead of a helix, that could also just be a turnback curve with the vertical seperation gained via "no-lix", grades along the run.
--Randy
The best bet for you in your space for the amount of cars you seem to want and action, is to limit yourself to an older era. Just taking boxcars in HO, 40' ones look great on 18" curves but go up to 50', even though they will still make it, the curve needs to be bigger to look great, like 22", go 60' and it goes up to 27" etc., basically 4.5" per 10'. I am sure N scale has a similar chart. Now you can go smaller curves and it will work but the visuals are not as good.
Thanks Randy, I see what you mean now. Myself, I would prefer to do a no-lix as it saves space and could visually be made to look intersting (plus gives trains a longer run).
Speaking of a no-lix, I really liked how it was done on the Hillside Central Railway - here's a YouTube video showing the layout and the route trains take between levels:
I thought it was a great idea to make the trains run on the outside perimeter, then once enough clearance is achieved, go under the tabletop towards the back and then continue down until tracks merge with the lower level.
There are no cutouts in the tabletop, no worrying about clearing the framework or any supporting brackets holding that level, etc.
And yes, I would focus mostly on the transition era (I like steam locos) either in H0 or N. I feel today's railroading reduced all that variety down to a handful of monster size diesels, MUed and pulling never-ending autorack consists. Meh.
Sadly, the more I read about steam in N Scale, more disappointed I get. It seems the thin selection of the N(ot available) scale is even thinner once all the bad performers are removed. What's left is a handful of hard to find locomotives, at mid to high prices. And even among those, some need a bit of tweaking as well...
You have plenty of room for HO. You just have to realize that 50 car trains aren't going to cut it. Heck, our club layout stretches 160 feet long and while once in a while we drag out a 100+ car coal train, it severely clogs up the layout. Most trains run 15-20 cars.
Steam locos in most scales need a bit of TLC to keep running smoothly, or at least a bit of tweaking. In my time period there was pretty much 3 different steam locos running, I have models of 2 of the three (one is a one-off, used only in the engine shops), one has been done in plastic for a couple of runs now, and the other is pretty much brass only (and I am pretty much not willing to pay what they usually go for). Most any diesel I need ia vailable in plastic, and if not factory painted, the paint scheme is simple enough - it's all one color, so painting my own is not a problem.
Hello once again.
Sorry I've been MIA past couple of months - spent most of the time spinning in circles in my head between H0 and N (it is very exhausting).
Also, spent the time drawing more layout shapes (I'm getting better at it!) although none of them seem to lead me anywhere. Just not getting that "right" vibe from it.
Here is a selection - I'm up to #33 so far. You can see all of them from the folder.
I'm having a hard time imagining where things would fit in any of these shapes...
I sort of settled on H0, with N as a fall-back, only realizing that I need another 2-3' on top of the 12', to have a decent aisle space and a peninsula. Curse the 12' size, it's neither here nor there!
Even entertaining a helix idea and multi-deck setup, to extend the mainline run. Some people tell me that you could put a lot of railroading into 18" depth, but I'm not seeing it.
That's my update, all and any comments, ideas, critiques, etc. are welcome.
Wow, six months later and you still haven't decided on a scale or the shape of your layout.
I'll make it easy for you. Let me pick it. Go with HO scale and select the "G" as the shape.
Why? Simply because your heart is with HO scale and the "G" is an efficient use of available space. Resist the temptation to block off that electrical service panel. Not only does code require access, but in an emergency, you may need to get at it quickly.
Rich
Alton Junction
I know, I know...
The G that was discussed here does not give me wide enough aisles nor the longest main line, at the expense of a fairly complicated and narrow benchwork that needs to be self-supporting.
Two of my club members really drummed into my head that people tend to lean on the benchwork, which was even more exemplified by three of us leaning onto the club layout while having that conversation.
I did build some test benchwork, as seen at http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/263563.aspx, and realized that it needs to be much more sturdier than 2x3s in order to make sure it does not move when people lean on it.
I overdid it and built my framework completely out of 2x4s, but I can walk on it if need be.
Is your framework connected to the walls though?
Mine needs to be free-standing, if possible, so I don't damage the walls. Plus, I don't have a wall on the opposite side making it kind of a bummer.I was even considering framing a wall there, but that would probably be an overkill.
richhotrainI overdid it and built my framework completely out of 2x4s, but I can walk on it if need be. Rich
Mine is freestanding.
TrainzLuvrWhat would you do different another time around, if not using 2x4s? Also, is it a multi-deck, and if so, what are the level depths and heights from the floor?
The only problem with 2x4 framing is the amount of space that the framing members take up. Some of my framing sits up against the basement wall, though not attached to it. I cannot run my mainline close to the wall because I use Tortoises to control my turnouts, and I need space to mount them under the layout surface. Same for the cross members. It seems that I always need to mount a Tortoise where a 2x4 crosses in that exact spot. So, my next layout, if there is one, will be 1x4 framing.
richhotrain The only problem with 2x4 framing is the amount of space that the framing members take up. Some of my framing sits up against the basement wall, though not attached to it. I cannot run my mainline close to the wall because I use Tortoises to control my turnouts, and I need space to mount them under the layout surface. Same for the cross members. It seems that I always need to mount a Tortoise where a 2x4 crosses in that exact spot. So, my next layout, if there is one, will be 1x4 framing. Rich
Hey Rich-
If it makes you feel any better, the odds of hitting a 1x4 are exactly the same.
richhotrainMy layout is a single deck, two track mainline with a 42' x 25' footprint, a sort of open-P shape. The only problem with 2x4 framing is the amount of space that the framing members take up. Some of my framing sits up against the basement wall, though not attached to it. I cannot run my mainline close to the wall because I use Tortoises to control my turnouts, and I need space to mount them under the layout surface. Same for the cross members. It seems that I always need to mount a Tortoise where a 2x4 crosses in that exact spot. So, my next layout, if there is one, will be 1x4 framing. Rich
That's a very nice space, 4x of what I have available. :)
Would it not be a problem when people lean and push the benchwork, if it was made from 1x4s? I presume it would all be 1x4 including the legs and depending on the kind of wood used, it would still be lighter than 2x4s.
I guess with L-girders one can move the joists to accomodate for the location of the tortoise motors, but then the L girders take valuable height in multi-deck layouts, which I kind of loath having a 6'5" ceiling.
ROBERT PETRICK richhotrain The only problem with 2x4 framing is the amount of space that the framing members take up. Some of my framing sits up against the basement wall, though not attached to it. I cannot run my mainline close to the wall because I use Tortoises to control my turnouts, and I need space to mount them under the layout surface. Same for the cross members. It seems that I always need to mount a Tortoise where a 2x4 crosses in that exact spot. So, my next layout, if there is one, will be 1x4 framing. Rich Hey Rich- If it makes you feel any better, the odds of hitting a 1x4 are exactly the same. Robert
TrainzLuvr Would it not be a problem when people lean and push the benchwork, if it was made from 1x4s? I presume it would all be 1x4 including the legs and depending on the kind of wood used, it would still be lighter than 2x4s.
When I was into tropical fish (discus) breeding, I built all of my own aquarium stands that had to be capable of holding some fairly large tanks, and water weighs 8 pounds per gallon.
TrainzLuvr richhotrain My layout is a single deck, two track mainline with a 42' x 25' footprint, a sort of open-P shape. The only problem with 2x4 framing is the amount of space that the framing members take up. Some of my framing sits up against the basement wall, though not attached to it. I cannot run my mainline close to the wall because I use Tortoises to control my turnouts, and I need space to mount them under the layout surface. Same for the cross members. It seems that I always need to mount a Tortoise where a 2x4 crosses in that exact spot. So, my next layout, if there is one, will be 1x4 framing. Rich That's a very nice space, 4x of what I have available. :) Would it not be a problem when people lean and push the benchwork, if it was made from 1x4s? I presume it would all be 1x4 including the legs and depending on the kind of wood used, it would still be lighter than 2x4s. I guess with L-girders one can move the joists to accomodate for the location of the tortoise motors, but then the L girders take valuable height in multi-deck layouts, which I kind of loath having a 6'5" ceiling.
richhotrain My layout is a single deck, two track mainline with a 42' x 25' footprint, a sort of open-P shape. The only problem with 2x4 framing is the amount of space that the framing members take up. Some of my framing sits up against the basement wall, though not attached to it. I cannot run my mainline close to the wall because I use Tortoises to control my turnouts, and I need space to mount them under the layout surface. Same for the cross members. It seems that I always need to mount a Tortoise where a 2x4 crosses in that exact spot. So, my next layout, if there is one, will be 1x4 framing. Rich
My module club, and many others, are just 1x3s and 2x2s and they take vastly more abuse, leaning on, dragging around, throwing in the back of the car, etc than any home layout. No problems there.
NittanyLionMy module club, and many others, are just 1x3s and 2x2s and they take vastly more abuse, leaning on, dragging around, throwing in the back of the car, etc than any home layout. No problems there.
For your modules, are you using dimensional lumber or plywood ripped into strips, and what type of wood?
Though I figure your modules are single level so you can add crosses and what not. I'm trying to build multi-deck so any bracing will interfere with levels...
TranzLuvr
Have you looked at plans in the Model Railroader database. Instead of trying to design your benchwork then trying to design a track arrangement to fit look at what others have done in a similar space. There are a number of plans that would fit your space (both N and HO) with good access. I am not suggesting copying them, but find some you like and use them as a starting point for your own designs. Many of the plans that fit your availble width are shorter. They could be expanded lengthwise to fit your space.
I don't know your experience, but I get the impression you are being too ambitious. A problem I still have after 50 years in the hobby.
DSchmittTranzLuvr Have you looked at plans in the Model Railroader database. Instead of trying to design your benchwork then trying to design a track arrangement to fit look at what others have done in a similar space. There are a number of plans that would fit your space (both N and HO) with good access. I am not suggesting copying them, but find some you like and use them as a starting point for your own designs. Many of the plans that fit your availble width are shorter. They could be expanded lengthwise to fit your space. I don't know your experience, but I get the impression you are being too ambitious. A problem I still have after 50 years in the hobby.
In this case, my SO likes to say that I'm a "go big or, go home" kinda person, so you are probably right about being (too) ambitious.
Unfortunately, I do not have access to the MR database (I think it's subscribers only?)
What I'd like to understand is the logic behind layout planning (Armstrong isn't helpeful in this case).
How does one decide where to put a yard in the layout, or an industry, or any other element, and what follows or precedes what.
For that matter, how do you decide what industry do you include, and which industries pair together. Along the same lines, how do you know what kind of cars are used in specific industries?
It seems to me that the whole process is a convoluted mishmash of magic and fantasy. Some things are winged out, others are presumed, etc.
Heck, we put the rail down first, then build scenery around it. :)
I am not currently a subscriber. But I can search the database, see the thumbnails and by clicking on them read some basic info like overall dimensions as well as an invitation to subscribe.
Also the database is sometimes temporairly opened to non-subscribers as a lure to get people to suscribe.
Model Railroader is worth subscribing to, but unfortunately I am currently in circumstances where I have to economize and decided MR was one of the things I could do without temporairly. When I do suscribe again I will add the Online Archive.
DSchmittI am not currently a subscriber. But I can search the database, see the thumbnails and by clicking on them read some basic info like overall dimensions as well as an invitation to subscribe. Also the database is sometimes temporairly opened to non-subscribers as a lure to get people to suscribe. Model Railroader is worth subscribing to, but unfortunately I am currently in circumstances where I have to economize and decided MR was one of the things I could do without temporairly. When I do suscribe again I will add the Online Archive.
Hmm that's just bizzare, because I could swear to not being able to see the thumbnails before, just the sq. footage and the text about plans being avaiable to the subscribers.
In any case, I'm glad I'm out of the twilight zone and can search through it now. :)
Since I have been unable to fine untwisted 2x2's around here to use as legs, and I con't have a table saw to rip 2x4's, I make my legs like little l girders, a 1x4 on one side and a 1x3 on the other. One of the recent MR project layouts did it that way as well - but I did mine first. I use a short section of 2x2 at the bottom, which allows me to drill a hole in the bottom for a T nut and carriage bolt for leveling. The open L shape at the top allows me to bolt the leg to botht he logitudinal frame as well as the cross piece.
For a double desk especially, Tortoises are HUGE. I use RC servos. They are a fraction of the siz of a Tortoise - and I still managed to have a turnout located almost directly on top of the cross brace of my last layout, so i just improvised a linkage using the upside-down J sort of thing alloowing the servo to be a couple of ties away from the actual throwbar position, which was all the room i needed to fit it in. They are tiny, and you can get them on ebay for about $1.50 each. They do need a control circuit but that is easy enough to make (several articles in RMH by Geoff Bunza shows how - $10 of electronics to control 12 servos.) or you can buy commercial ones ready to plug in and use (the servos plug in, there is a standard 3 wire connector used by all of them).
TrainzLuvr What I'd like to understand is the logic behind layout planning. How does one decide where to put a yard in the layout, or an industry, or any other element, and what follows or precedes what. For that matter, how do you decide what industry do you include, and which industries pair together. Along the same lines, how do you know what kind of cars are used in specific industries? It seems to me that the whole process is a convoluted mishmash of magic and fantasy. Some things are winged out, others are presumed, etc. Heck, we put the rail down first, then build scenery around it. :)
What I'd like to understand is the logic behind layout planning.
At that point, you need to decide whether you will go freelance or prototype. Freelance will give you the freedom to do whatever you want whereas prototype will require you to maintain some standards regarding topography, industries, etc.
Which do you prefer? Passenger operations, freight, both? Era? Steam, diesel, or both?
Once you finish that basic planning, a lot of your questions will be answered and then it is simply a matter of selecting structures, industries, track work, and scenery. But, you need a plan. Putting "the rail down first, then building scenery around it" seems a bit haphazard.
TrainzLuvr NittanyLion My module club, and many others, are just 1x3s and 2x2s and they take vastly more abuse, leaning on, dragging around, throwing in the back of the car, etc than any home layout. No problems there. For your modules, are you using dimensional lumber or plywood ripped into strips, and what type of wood? Though I figure your modules are single level so you can add crosses and what not. I'm trying to build multi-deck so any bracing will interfere with levels...
NittanyLion My module club, and many others, are just 1x3s and 2x2s and they take vastly more abuse, leaning on, dragging around, throwing in the back of the car, etc than any home layout. No problems there.
All of the above. Mine is cheap dimensional white wood from Lowes. I'm not building high end furniture here.
Don't over think it. Even if it is a self supporting two level layout. I've got bookshelves that were functionally 2x2s running vertically up the wall, with 1x2 spars holding the three levels of shelves. It carried far more load than any layout ever will. It was pretty sturdy and didn't move or flex at all when bumped into or whatever. It was attached to the wall with drywall anchors.
richhotrainWell, you already know the limits of the space. Next, you need to decide on the scale....HO or N? Then, you need to settle on a footprint...."G", donut, whatever.
I agree he needs to decide on a scale. But I think my suggestion that he look at other's plans is a better starting point for him. He might even find a plan that substantially fits his desires and modify it. At least he will be able to see what will fit in his space and where using different configurations. He has been trying to settle on a footprint for over 6 months. Setting the footprint first can be very limiting and fustrating.
The decisions about freelance or follow a prototype, era, predomitely passenger or freight, etc. should be decided before or at least while looking at plans as they will help him evaluate the plans to determine what fits his goals.
I guess dimensional lumber must be really cheap in the U.S.
I was at Lowes yesterday and a 1x3x8 costs CA$9+tax. That's insane, IMHO.
It was labelled as Top Choice Pine, but so what. We grow and export lumber up here (Canada) and yet most of these big-box stores charge arm and a leg for it.
Considering I would need at least 5 pieces of 1x3x8 to make a 6' open-frame section including L-girdered legs, the cost comes up little under a 4x8' sheet of 3/4" Fir plywood. Spurce plywood would be cheaper even.
From a plywood sheet one can rip 18 1x3x8 pieces that would otherwise cost CA$162+tax as dimensional lumber.
But, the plywood isn't anything to write home about either. Birch costs CA$70 and Maple even more. On a piece of Spruce I got couple of days ago, I had plys separate in a few spots.
Seems like once again, the big-box stores get lousiest quality plywood possible, some even imported?!, just so they could rake maximum profits.
/rant
DSchmittI agree he needs to decide on a scale. But I think my suggestion that he look at other's plans is a better starting point for him. He might even find a plan that substantially fits his desires and modify it. At least he will be able to see what will fit in his space and where using different configurations. He has been trying to settle on a footprint for over 6 months. Setting the footprint first can be very limiting and fustrating. The decisions about freelance or follow a prototype, era, predomitely passenger or freight, etc. should be decided before or at least while looking at plans as they will help him evaluate the plans to determine what fits his goals.
I did settle on a H0 scale but my alter ego keeps coming up from time to time, teasing me about N scale. And so I keep running in circles...
Looking at the big picture, the expense is considerable, and I'm afraid to jump into one just to find out later I should've gone with the other.
We did write, and revise recently, our Givens and Druthers:
Givens--------
- Room size: 22.5’x12’ (irregular, open space/no wall with two columns on the North side; doorway access on the North-East, electrical closet on the South-West)
- Finished hardwood floor, but uneven/sloping
- Ceiling: 6’5”-6’6”; pot lights, two speakers, air-vent near the South-West window
- Two windows on the South side starting at 55" above floor level
- The layout will remain in the train area (no foreseeable expansion)
- Climate controlled space
- Scale: H0
- Full DCC operation (Roco Z21)
- Era: Transition (steam/4-axle diesels)/post-Transition (6-axle diesels)
- Prototype: Freelance
- Region: North America
- Operating crew: 2 (most of the time, but visitors possible)
- Open to multi-deck
- Benchwork: free standing, open-frame, or whatever works (not attached to the walls if possible)
- Min. radius: 24” (considering scale and longer passenger and freight cars)
Druthers----------
- Track: Code 83/70, depends on cost and availability/requirements of the plan
- Min. turnout size: whatever works, ideally #5+
- Single track mainline is ok, with passing sidings where needed for added ops interest
- Preferred 3’ aisle width, but 2’-2.5’ choke points are ok
- Signaled operation (CTC - automated)
- Option for fully computer controlled trains
- Swing out bridge is preferred, if required, no duckunders
- No need to reach more than 30″ into the layout
- Preferred longer main-line runs
- Moderate length trains are ok, long might not be possible
- Like yard switching and operations
- Like intricate track work (more prototypical to Europe than North America e.g. double slips, wyes, 3-way, etc.)
- Various industries to keep the operational interest
- Adequate staging (in a sub-level beneath the benchwork)
- Scenic views where possible
- Scenery: rolling hills, canyons, rivers, tunnels, rock faces, bridges, trees, lakes
- Like freight, but also some passenger service
- Interest in rail-fanning the layout
- Trains should pass through the same scene only once
- Potential for continuous running, if possible but not mandatory
I recently read The Art of Model Railroading by Frank Ellison and I totally dig that. I am going to re-read it once again, otherwise I think he was spot-on and things he said really left an impression on me.
Anyway, I went to one of the local hobby shops this week and spoke to another model railroader there who suggested I do around the walls layout on two levels, and put the staging on the peninsula in the middle, divided by a double-sided backdrop.One side for outgoing and the other for incoming trains. Plus a main-line running around the edge of the peninusla, set at a lower (or higher) elevation to separate it from the staging tracks.
A layout shape resembling something like #23 might work for that:
I'm also contemplating a helix somewhere in the space, if I can't figure out how to nicely do the no-lix.
I also wish to use the space inside the helix for something, so putting a large 130' turntable and roundhouses inside appears befitting.Most people keep their turntable and roundhouses out in the open as a centerpiece, but they take a lot of space, just like the helix does, so marrying the two seems like a win-win to me.
Portions of the helix will be open so you can still see trains inside it. I do not see that much going on with the turntable and roundhouses, beside turning locomotives around or storing them. Locomotive facilities would be outside the helix and those seem to me to be more in-use, operationally.
Based on the #23, I made a #37
But this time I have a honest to God layout plan (can you believe it?). You could say I had a "brainfart" this weekend. I actually have two plans, but this is the one I favour at the moment:
If you would kindly provide feedback on it, I'd appreciate it.
Certain things seem unconventional like that yard (which I'd like to flip so it looks like the one in the G below) and there are no industries or towns yet (where should they go?).Staging is at the right, 4" elevated over the rest. The main track is in yellow, A/D in orange, engine facilities in gray. Areas in blue are rivers (lift-outs/swing gates).The center peninsula is basically a nolix (in turquoise) that climbs around in a figure 8 with several tunnels and a trestle bridge in the blob, as a center piece.
I do not have the upper level done yet, using AnyRail 6 here which is easy to use, but not really friendly to multideck layouts and lacks some features.I also have 3rd Plan It 11 which has great features but atrocious user interface and experience in general (slow).
And, for the lovers of the G shape, based on #34 here is a rough plan for it, although I have no idea how would I nolix this to climb up to the upper deck, it's tight and not enough space:
Plus, the construction of these narrow areas in the center, and keeping them stable worries me, too.
Again, comments and critiques are appreciated.
To provide more background, originally I thought this would've been a scenic layout as it started with a smaller footprint (12x16). Then I read more books and seen more YouTube videos, and realized that a scenic layout was not for me. Watching trains run in circles gets boring pretty fast and I don't need a racetrack on rails.
I wanted to give my layout life of its own - once finished it needs to still be a place for me to go back to and enjoy it. The operations side sneaked up on me and the more I learnt about it the more I knew that would be the direction to take. And somewhere in the process, I was "permitted" to take the entire portion of the space, too. :)
Coming back to this thread from http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/263563.aspx I want to address what was said in the last few posts there.
I did not pick a theme for the layout. I always thought that I could build it out of LDEs, scenes that would not necessarily be connected in some meaningful way. My SO and I thought to equally have mountains and deserts, rivers, trees, a few towns, etc.
Although, it does not appear that would make sense, if I'm to make this a believable railroad geared towards operations. Most people would have a hard time with having their train move from a forest into a desert, just by turning the corner.
I understand that picking a theme would actually dictate what happens on the layout (one doesn't have logging in the desert, or grain and biodiesel production in the mountains). Yet, I'm reluctant to just pick anything because of the kinds of scenes we want to have on the layout.
When it comes to train sizes, I was never a fan of extremely long trains. At the beginning I thought the space would allow for maybe 20 or so (40'-50' box) cars. And, I kept planning for a huge yard 15'+, and staging beneath it, along the longest wall, which you can see from most of the layout shapes I posted here.
Yet, in the past couple of months with the focus on operations and learning about selective compression I'm realizing that it is not necessary to have long trains. Actually they are detrimental to believability of a layout because industries could be represented with just a few cars each.
When you have 20-30 car coal drag, how many more do you need, to prove it's a coal drag? A 100 car train is unrealistic IMHO because most layout spaces are not sufficiently big to represent enough world around that train. It just looks "cool".
I now believe that focus should be put more into extending the mainline run and going places, which also creates more time on the layout for every train. The distance between A and B becomes more believable when the train does not look like it's leaving A and entering B at the same time.
TrainzLuvrCertain things seem unconventional like that yard
I guess that's one way to describe it. Why have you done the yard that way?
carl425I guess that's one way to describe it. Why have you done the yard that way
It was going along the lines of selective compression, not having excessively long trains and being able to represent industries with a few cars. Each spur is 3' long, and could fit anywhere from 3-6 cars.
Since then it was suggested to me that this would not work just as well as I envisioned it, one reason being there would be a lot of movement to assemble trains (but is that a bad thing?)
Simple soultion to that yard is to have the ladder along the right side where the benchwork bulges out after the liftout section and extend the body tracks the length of the long dimension - not sure why you drew it the way you did, either in that plan OR the G shaped one.
-----------------------/
---------------------/
-------------------/
(like so)
Yes, I realized that later on and made a revision to the plan, I just never posted it to this thread here...
This one I consider old plan though. I think I will go back to hidden staging because that space on the right could be used for industries or a town...
The G shaped plan fromt he same message - if you could negotiate just a tiny bit more space below the pillars, that track running along the outside could become the staging with a backgrop along the pillars, isolating it from the layout proper. Plus it would be double ended, allowing trains to depart and arrive from either direction. Whether you need that or not depends on your operating plan. I was able to get away with 2 tracks only letting on to the layout in one direction because all trains originated off that end of the branch terminated back where it started after reversing direction. There was no "off the other way" to worry about.
Another way might be to have a loop at the root of the center penninsula, on a lower lever, with the staging tracks fanning out under the penninsula. Armstrong reverted loop sort of thing. Trains enter visible trackage on the pillar side of the center pennenisula and climb along it and loop back along the upper side. No-lix around the room, but make the lift outs flat, and you should be able to gain enough to be well over the start of the lower level. Scenery section along the penninsula again to facilitate a steeper grade, then no-lix around the room again, ending with another staging loop on the penninsula. Yes that's effectively 4 levels of track but you get two trips around the room that are completely usable trackage and just the end stagings are at levels lower or higher. Have to do some calculations t see if you can get enough vertical distance without having crazy grades, but that would get a lot of railroad in the space. Neither liftout would have more than 2 levels on it.
I can't really go more beyond the pillars as that's a hallway - already into it 6-8" in the plan.
The non-G plan has a no-lix in the peninsula.
I keep trying to figure out how to no-lix the G shape but not coming up with anything. I thought about around the room but some places are very narrow and taking up space for the incline would make them even less useable or anything else.
Also, where would I put towns and industries in the G shape anyway, most of the areas are very narrow (counting that I would need to have a mainline, siding, industry spurs and a no-lix incline in the space)?
You need a lot less width for two tracks seperated vertically than you think - at least at the beginning of the grade when the difference is small. Retaining walls work well. Just don;t use the same trick EVERY place.
On the G shaped version - if the isnide the pillar side ont he bottom is level, allowing for easy sidings, and you start climbing where the loopback goes, and climb all along the edge that is on the other side of the pillar (place for mountain scenery visible from the hall side), and along the right hand wall where you have it depicted as hidden, leveling off as it hits the lift out. just that distance there, allowing for vertical transistions, gets you 10" of vertical at a 2% grade. Once across the liftout for the electric box, since that track is buried in the back, it can continue to climb behind the yard. By the time it emerges on the pilla side of the middle penninsula, that's another 5+ inches vertical climb. Level here along the length of the penninsula (I'd make this side the wider part of the penninsula, for locating industries - if the industries are on the same side as the yard, you will have crowded operating conditions). If needed, you can gain another inch or two along the turnback curve of the penninsula and a few more inches along the yard side of the penninsula. From the curve around behind the roundhouse to the liftout, all level for the yard and facilities. Along the inside of the right wall, you can mix in grades and flats. You are, at this point, some 18" above the starting point on the bottom leg. Which would have been the staging yard. A full 18" clearance (less benchwork thickness) isn;t always necessary for staging, so grades could be reduced or other areas made level. Now that you've gone from staging once around the room, repeat to get the second level of the layout. Perhaps witht he climbing and level areas switches up a bit since you aren;t going to have another big yard above the first one. ANd when that loop comes around the room, you are now high enough to put the opposite end staging above the second running level on the right side wall - the right side ends up with 4 levels of track - bottom is the staging for one way, then 2 operating layers, and the top desk is the staging for the other way. Upper staging may need stepstools to easily reach equipment, especially on the rear tracks, but considering the trade off is you get to wrap the layout around the room twice... the center penninsula and the yard area would have 2 levels of track, the lower penninsula and the right side wall get the 4 levels.
As for supporting the center of the middle penninsula - you worry too much. You have a > 5 foot wide anchor piece at the turnback curve, plus the wide section wedged into the corner at the room of the penninsula. The shank is not going to be unstable. Either make the legs L girders, or use plain old 2x4's and that will keep weight down low. The wider parts at the two ends will keep it stable.
I'm trying to visualize what you wrote, before I put it on paper/screen, and it sounds like it would work but the piece I'm missing is the direction - which way are you climbing up (leaving the lower level staging on the right wall and going down (west), on the outside of the pillars then around the turnback, or...)?
I really do not like my upper left corner, and I'm wrecking my brains trying to figure it out. That turntable/roundhouse was just a placeholder but even putting them there as in my non-G plan still does not feel right.
Alternatively, I've been trying to figure out what part of the room is the least useful, so it can house a helix, and that's proving a bit difficult. Around the right pillar; in the upper left corner; or in the lower left on the diagonal...
Thanks!
I was going upgrade going counter-clockwise. Staging ladder under bottom leg, above the pillars, witht he tracks extended back along the right wall if the length is needed. Actually pushed back as fas as possible, so you have room after the ladder to start the climb. It climbs up and around the left pillar, and slimbs all along outside the pillars, around the bottorm right, and climbs along the back wall (the outside track). Level throught he liftout so that's not an engineering nightmare, then climb again along the wall behind the yard. If necessary - since this is staging, you might be able to stop climbing along the right wall and have enough room to reach in to rerail cars in staging. You don't need the same headroom you'd need to install full scenery. The track going across the back wall behind the yard might then be alternately visibile and hidden, say running under some buildings and stuff. You start climbing again around the left corner behind the roundhouse and along and around the middle leg to get the yard level high enough over the line coming out of staging. Yard area is all level, across the liftout, witht he staging line under it. Think vertically, under, not one track in front of the other, but one above the other. If you then make part of the right wall flat and part climb, same witht he bottom leg, and then once again climb all the way around the pillar and across the bottom and up the right side, and this time climb along above the yard and left curve, you should be high enough over the yard for a true second deck. Climb on the right wall again and you cna put staging over the bottom leg.
Don't forget to calculate track length properly going around curves - you get a lot more track in even a half circle than you might think. What I did was all based on the climbing parts having a 2% grade, which isn't killer.
My only suggestion is go HO' Why because their is so much more stuff to pick from and it look so much more real compared to N' I have never has a person at my place pick N over HO. I keep some N scale trains and when I ask them what they like better they all pick HO. N scale looks toyish compared to the detail on a a HO Loco or car. Yes we all wish we had tons more room to work with. But in the long run it is the quality not the size of a layout that counts. Also some like just to run trains around a long mainline though the country side and some like more of a switching layout with many business and industries' Its hard to have everything but with your room which it very close to my size room 11ft by 22ft one can do a very nice HO layout. Now start building.hehe
@fender777
I am going with H0, I actually changed the title of the thread to reflect my final committment, too.
Do you have a layout plan of your layout you can show, and some photos perhaps?
EDIT: I'd love to see how you managed your space because we are almost identical in size.
I have come up with another layout plan. The #34 (G shape) was an inspiration to start with, then it was morphed along side with #37 into what it is now. It's really a variation of #18/#19 that I lost track of.
I feel that I'm getting closer to the finish line as I can see more meaning in how things should operate.
Here's #40 in shape and track (v1, with v2 being worked on already). This is a double deck layout with lower staging.
Mainline is about 140' long!!! The larger turnbacks are 29" radii while the center one is 26". I'm open to suggestions whether I should alter them to 28" and 27", having in mind that 24" is the smallest choke point I'd contend with and would prefer 30" there, if I could.
The way I see this operate is as follows:
Staging would be below the center peninsula and trains could leave going either eastbound (right, then down towards the columns in gray) or westbound (right then up towards the upper wall) while climbing up to the main level. They would emerge somewhere on the bottom turnback (location TBD) or upper wall (location TBD) and merge the main line. They would have to traverse the entire main line, to reach their respective yards on the north/south side of the peninsula.
When trains leave the yard, they can either go to the other respective yard, or to the opposite staging, through above established route.
Industries and towns/stations would be somewhere along the main, and I hope I can fit them with a decent spacing in-between.
Originally, I thought I would put a helix in the upper turnback and was ready to settle for losing that space. Then today while surfing the web I stumbled upon a linear/curved elevator concept that I totally lost track of (I've seen it before).
To reach the upper deck, trains would take the linear elevator in the bottom, just below the columns, symbolized with the light green box with the track in it.
I have not connected the track yet, but I plan to have two sidings to the main line there, one of which will be the elevator.
EDIT: Forgot to mention, aisle are very generous, aside from the two chokepoints around the center peninsula.
Still much more to be added, but as I said, I feel I'm getting really close to something I would build.
I won't post the v2 of the track because I'd like to hear any feedback first and whether this makes sense or not.
Please and thank you.
A folded g shape will give you the same amount of main line with one less "blob" and a straight run along the east wall.
fender777Here is a link and pic.
@Choops
I tried the G and it has a shorter mainline than what I posted above in #40.
Plus the G has these narrow areas that really do not help much with putting anything on them beside just scenery...didn't really look that hot to me.
@DSchmitt
thanks for reposting the image.
At least your ceiling appears taller than mine, and there's much more trackwork and scenery, too. :)
#17 was a suggestion from one of my club members. He figured that to utilize the two columns at the bottom, make that portion of the layout wider so that it could be operated from both sides of the columns.
That bottom arm could facilitate a larger yard etc. while the top arm would be more scenic with track overlapping at various heights, and a fold down turnback section in yellow, to allow access to the electrical panel.
The last two plans I posted (#37 and #40) are walk arounds, although #40 has two turnback loops, I still favour it more over #37.
Would you not put a peninsula in the middle? Just a 24" walk around would leave a lot of space unused in the middle of the room and would end up looking like #29.
So something like this:
I made the top wall portion 30" instead of 24" so that the yard can go at the front and main can pass behind, as well as the no-lix track could climb around the wall.
Or would you have some other suggestions, I'm open to anything...
You probably don't need 30" there. I have 6 yard tracks, 2 AD tracks, plus a 2 track main in 2' and the spacing between the main and AD tracks and the AD tracks and the first yard track are somewhat excessive as I haven't gone back and totally cleaned up the first draft yet.
On the opposite side - maybe go down to 18" wide instead of a full 24". You can still get plenty of scenery and even sidings in that space. Those two changes save a full foot, which if you adjust the penninsula menas each aisle can gain 6" of width. Without really sacrificing any layout.
TrainzLuvr So something like this: I made the top wall portion 30" instead of 24" so that the yard can go at the front and main can pass behind, as well as the no-lix track could climb around the wall. Or would you have some other suggestions, I'm open to anything...
The space on the south side of the columns is perfect for hidden staging. Run a backdrop between the columns.
And I agree with Randy. 30 inches is probably overkill, and the base of the peninsula is probably also too wide
Thanks for the suggestions guys!
I was going to either put the staging on the peninsula (lower level) or on the top wall, that's why I kept it at 30".
I'm not sure there's enough room for staging in the space below the columns - just 12" there and the no-lix track was going to pass there with perhaps one siding. I did not put it but yes a backdrop was going to go just below the columns all along to the right wall.
What about left and right walls, should I keep them as is or thin down too. Again, need space for the no-lix track and I'm not sure of the best way to incorporate it into the rest of the layout so the trains don't go missing for long periods of time.
Speaking of which, how do you come up in the benchwork when you have a climbing track, assuming I build with open-grid or L-griders frameworks?
I've lost track of your overall concept so I apologize if my observation muddied the waters.
My thought was that you are able to access the layout from both sides of the columns, even though the room allowing south side access isn't part of the normal operating space. When operating the layout within its confines, I thought the track beyond the columns might be difficult to scenic and might not be very efficient operationally. Using it for staging hidden from view from the operating ailes, but yet totaly accessible from the south, could be a useful situation.
Devoting a few more inches of benchwork to the south side might eliminate the need for below or above grade staging and the complexities thereof.
have you studied the latest issue with the HO scale CSX's KD Subdivision? It is very similar to what you want to build.
I've gone beyond the columns for 12" and that's probably the most I can get away with. That space is basically a hallway through the basement and has to be kept clear and accessible.We also plan to add a closet space below the left column on the opposite wall. With me taking those 12" there and the closet space, it's making that part of the hallway fairly narrow at 3' or so.
Would it be worth while putting staging there into the 12" of space, considering that I don't have much space on the opposite side of the columns for a pass-thru track, or a no-lix incline?
I did see the CSX KD Sub plan and its shape is similar to my #42. This brings me to a question whether it would be better to go all the way around the walls like #42, or two turnbacks like #40.
Also have this variation made
You can certainly get a few staging tracks into a 12 inch space, but I'm afraid I can't make the judgment of how many or few staging tracks would be adequate for what you are trying to accomplish. You probably need professional design help for that, in that a person would have to take the time to discuss your goals and wants probably in more detail than what can be provided here.
It why making suggestions on a forum is tough, since it impacts a bunch of other decisions you may have already settled on.
You can easily get 5 staging tracks in 12" width and still have space away from the edge of the table - although since it's staging you can also put up a small fence to prevent 'issues' since it doesn't have to look as nice as the visible part of the layout. In fact, a removeable full height 'fence' made to look like furniture may help the acceptance factor. Is 5 staging tracks enough? You need to come up with some sort of operating plan to determine that. Plus that's 5 trains the full length of the longest wall, just about. Too big to run on the layout. On at least 2 if not 3 of the 5 tracks, you could easily stage 2 trains per track. Either back to back, one staged to run east, the other staged to run west, or serially, both facing the same way. So that's 7-8 trains staged. Also, having the staging outside of the main layout means you could have a workign staging yard - here's where the removable cover comes in. Normally the cover is on, makign the room look nice. When it's tiem to operate the layout, someone could stand or sit in that hallway to actively shift cars on and off the staging tracks to make up new trains and break down ones that finish the run, making for unlimited operation. Like mole staging but since this person wouldn't be buried behind the benchwork I wouldn't call them a mole. This may make for a good compromise between having enough tracks and not using prime real estate for staging.
That second one with 2 short penninsulas - personally I nope out on those because everything is then curved, no places for sidings or anything. Someone gave me a similar suggestion for my old space (I had 50+ feet of linear space but only about 15 feet wide) and while I've sure something could be done liek that, it just didn't register with me. Rather than sharply defined blobs, some gentle curving of the benchwork so it's not all square improves the appearance and just one penninsula seems to me a more effective use of the space.
#42, if the staging is outside the pillars, that interior, if you don;t mind the duckunder entrance, gives you more than a scale mile run just with a simple single lap and no double decking - it's actually more because I didn't calculate curves by circumference, just diagonal blocks - which is also off because diagnonal on a 1' square block is 1.4', not 1'. On the inside of the pillars you could run a bypass track that bypasses the staging and gives a completely visible continuous run. You could do a twice around design with only slight height difference (not a true double deck - so you can get back down to have just the one staging yard) and get something like 2.5 miles or more of main line running.
You can get 6 tracks in at 2" spacing, but that assumes that you intend it to be a staging yard and not a fiddle yard. If you want a fiddle yard, I'd suggest having 4 tracks so you have plenty of room for not-quite-scale fingers.
Have you determined how long you would like your trains to be? I took a read through this thread, and I don't recall seeing it. I like trains that are 12 to 14 cars long, plus an engine or two and a cabin car (caboose for those who are not Pennsy-literate). In HO scale:
Remember to do the train length calculation using the dimension over the pulling faces of the couplers. Afterwards fudge a little extra to allow for oversize model couplers and operational flexability. For example, I'd probably design the sidings and yards for an 11 foot train rather than the calculated 10.5 foot maximum train length.
Dimensions for various cars and locomotives are available here (sorry, PRR only): http://prr.railfan.net/diagrams/PRRdiagrams.html?sel=&sz=sm&fr=
I feel that the track plan for CSX's KD subdivision, as previously mentioned in this thread, gives a good idea of what can be done with a very similar space. The CSX plan is 15'x22'3" while your space is 14'x22'8", and it appears to be designed for roughly 10-11 foot long trains.
I would suggest avioding a pair of turbacks like you show in #40. It's going to make the no-lix a bit harder because you will be doubling back instead of maintaining a gentle spiral, and it adds an area in the top left corner of the room that will require a lift-out or duckunder to access.
I agree with rrinker that #41 could cause you problems trying to place sidings and yards. Coupling on curves that tight is quite possible, but only with near-equal length cars and locomotives. If you want to put more curves in the track, perhaps incicative of a line that had been cut into the side of a mountain, then some gentle curves in the track, combined with a gently undulating fascia can provide that effect without having to add peninsulas. Had I been the one to build the KD Subdivision, I would have cut the layout edge along the top and left walls to follow the tracks to give it a more fluid feel.
S&S
Modeling the Pennsy and loving it!
I still think the g shape will give you the best results. multi deck or single deck.
With the e shape you don't get the long straight runs. There are turnbacks everywhere. The whole east wall is almost useless.
As far as the duckunder or bridge I would be against it. Looks like the room you are puting it in is nicely finished and you will want to show the layout to friends and family. reliability of removeable bridges is debatable but it will never be as easy as walking into the layout.
I agree that in general a "G" is preferable, but using it as part of a no-lix design becomes problematic. To complete the no-lix, the track has to run along the north and east walls, back around to the south-east corner of the room to re-emerge on the sceniced portions of the layout. Personally, I don't like long stretches of hidden trackage, and trying to no-lix a "G" shaped layout is going to require 35+ feet of hard to access hidden track.
A lift-out or swing bridge can be a problem, too. Lift-outs tend to wear and eventually lose their alignment, and swing bridges need to be rigid enough to maintain vertical alignment at the open end. There have been some nice articles published by Kalmbach on building lift-outs and swing bridges that are rigid, durable, and have easy alignment adjustments.
Ideally, we could use a teleporter to get inside the layout, but for now we'll just have to compromise. Between inaccessible track and a possibly finicky but easier to access swing gate, I'd choose the gate, but that's just me.
Schuylkill and SusquehannaI agree that in general a "G" is preferable, but using it as part of a no-lix design becomes problematic.
When John Armstrong first used the no-lix, it was on a G shaped layout.
carl425 When John Armstrong first used the no-lix, it was on a G shaped layout.
Looks like I need to brush up on my John Armstrong plans. Do you recall the article title or what the layout was called?
EDIT: Found it. "To Hardscrabble the Hard Way" For those who looked and said TLDR, Armstrong doubles the track back through scenes and uses one peninsula as a transition between the lower and upper decks.
G shape? I'd say that layout is more of an E than a G. A G shape would either the top or bottom leg around towards the middle, not have an extra (though somewhat short) leg in the middle. That, my friends, is an E. With seriphs on the upper and lower leg.
Thanks everyone for your replies...I'll take it from the top.
My current Givens and Druthers are on page 3: http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/260185.aspx?page=3#2973314
~~~
When it comes to train lengths I am not a fan of long trains. And I'd like to concept of selective compression, applied on train lengths as well.
I read somewhere that for my size of space/sq.footage/mainline length, trains should be average 12-15 cars long, and I'm kinda leaning towards the lower number, or even 10-12, plus the engine(s) and the caboose.
I'd like to follow the rule to have 2-2.5 train lengths separation between populated areas/towns, if that's possible in my space. At 11-12 cars, plus engine, plus caboose, we are looking at 8.5-9' for 50' box cars.
This is all based on Bob Sprague's Curve and Grade Calculator from https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/fce877_c65b63916d8f4742bebdfdcfb6ab882a.xlsx
I like the idea of staging below the columns as it doesn't take space inside the layout nor does it require a layout sub-level. Since the hallway space is open and can be accessed if/when needed, someone could potentially work the staging as a "hostler" (I believe is the term).Also, there could be upper and lower staging in the same space of 12", potentially providing 5-6 tracks, 14-15' long.
Now regarding the layout shape, what if I was to put a helix into #40 turnback at the upper-left?
It would be a pretty big waste of space (28 sq.ft) but I could put something ontop of that helix, on the upper level: turntable+roundhouses+engine facilities; some kind of a mine or a quarry; etc.
Sadly, I have to contend with a ~6'5"-6'7" ceiling height which does not leave much room for upper level scenery/structures.
I don't like duck unders (and neither does my SO - I've been explicitly told against them) so there would have to be a swing gate on #42, probably in the lower-left, on the diagonal portion. By the way, csxmad on YouTube made an awesome swing gate:
There would also be some removable section in the upper-right for the electrical panel, unless someone here has a suggestion/idea how to go around it (mine is in a closet behind a full height door). I'd love to get rid of it, but I need electricity in the house, and for the trains.
Armstrong's Hardscrabble design looks more like an E to me not G.
Why do some of you feel that the G shape is more preferable?
Byron (cuyama) suggested it:
And so did Bob Sprague (to whom I've been talking to on and off past couple of months):
The G shape just does not appear, at least to me, to offer as much room for industries, towns, etc. There are many narrow sections, all I see are scenic areas. And as S&S said, building a no-lix into it would make a lot of hidden track.
The G to me seems to give the most runnign room for a single deck layout - though even mine is essentially a G with an extra tail goign to the staging loops. A helix is a space eater but I can't think of any other way to handle it on my plan. And even if I didn;t have a helix there, I would need a turnback loop anyway, occupying the same space, so why not go up? In that case, a G shape works well, if the one lobe can be a helix.
On the other hand, the E shape, while having a partially unusable wall at the base of the center penninsula, well, that otherwise unusable wall could be part of the climb for the no-lix.
I had considered switching the staging to 3rd and 4th decks and putting my helix in the otherwise unusable laundry room, but then I don't knwo how to handle the other end of the layout. I want a continuus run option, and the helix as going to be in teh middle of the run - if I have staging come in from either direction at the middle of the layout ti changes the whole concept. And of course there is tht small part of me that wants to make it all single track - but my prototype was double track, even back when they laid the first rails in 1840 or so. I suppose I could split the diffeerence and make one deck double and the other deck single. Seeing as how at the base of the helix is a major yard.
ANd I've been working on this for 3 years now - so don;t get discouraged, it can be a long process to get what you want and can live with. Granted I have not been designing continuously for 3 years - I've barely looked at it in the past year and a half, just starting again now that I have contractors lined up to redo the basement and make it layout ready.
After reading your last post, and that you are considering a helix, you obviously want a lot of mainline run...with the mainline going through different scenes, not running laps around a big loop (BTW which is an effective way to build mileage between towns. A couple of towns could represent many different towns every time the train passes through each, but it does remind us of the 4x8 train set)
Then, you are concerned about not having enough space for industries and switching if the G shape is built.
My observation is: you want it all, but, frankly, you'll probably need to use the entire basement to get it. I don't think your space supports having everything. I think you're going to have to decide if you prefer the long diverse mainline or "plenty" of room for "lots" of industries. Once that is settled..going back to theme here...I think planning the space will be easier since it will eliminate some choices.
If you build a helix, that might give you enough run to provide most everything. But then that is a bit of a tight space to use a helix, so there's that issue.
Once you take some time to really settle on the priorities and what you're willing to sacrifice, I think the forum will be in a better position to offer more specific suggestions.
rrinker, I wish I had your space, I would've made the basement layout ready myself without the contractors long ago. Then again, maybe there are other factors involved so I guess everyone has their own path to follow, towards a railroad. :)
Doughless, when you say to settle on priorities, what do you mean exactly? I thought that a long and diverse main line, and lots of industries are synonymous. A long main line would support a few towns (compressed of course) and along the way spurs and sidings for the industries.
I really do not know, and have been trying to understand, the process of deciding where one locates a town or an industry on their layout. I suppose if one goes off of a prototype it makes the task somewhat easier, but still...when one looks at their layout shape, how/where do they see space for a town vs space for an industry vs scenic space?
I've seen a number of layouts in person, and many more in videos and on paper. How did their owners locate their towns and industries right where they are. Or even the track arrangements for that matter...
TrainzLuvr rrinker, I wish I had your space, I would've made the basement layout ready myself without the contractors long ago. Then again, maybe there are other factors involved so I guess everyone has their own path to follow, towards a railroad. :) Doughless, when you say to settle on priorities, what do you mean exactly? I thought that a long and diverse main line, and lots of industries are synonymous. A long main line would support a few towns (compressed of course) and along the way spurs and sidings for the industries. I really do not know, and have been trying to understand, the process of deciding where one locates a town or an industry on their layout. I suppose if one goes off of a prototype it makes the task somewhat easier, but still...when one looks at their layout shape, how/where do they see space for a town vs space for an industry vs scenic space? I've seen a number of layouts in person, and many more in videos and on paper. How did their owners locate their towns and industries right where they are. Or even the track arrangements for that matter...
I was feeding off of your concern about the G shaped plan not allowing for industries or switching...since the backdrops divide the peninsula into narrow shelves, essentially.
So if you wanted plenty of space for 3 dimensional structures/industries, the G shape migh not afford you enough depth between the backdrops and the edges of the benchwork.
You could use building flats or three sided buildings shoved against the backdrop. That would provide the scenic effect and switching possibilities while still fitting into the shallow depths of each scene.
Which is probably the way I would go. If you want a long mainline run without getting into nolix's and helix's the G shape is proably the best. After 30 years in the hobby, I still wouldn't want to rely upon my carpentry skills to build a helix.
To see how to scenic the shallow scenes and build towns, you can research "shelf layouts". While technically the G shape has pensinulas and not really shelves, the shallow depth between the backdrops and the edge is similar.
For inspiration about what you can do to scenic narrow shelves, google "Tom Johnson INRAIL".
TrainzLuvrI really do not know, and have been trying to understand, the process of deciding where one locates a town or an industry on their layout. I suppose if one goes off of a prototype it makes the task somewhat easier, but still...when one looks at their layout shape, how/where do they see space for a town vs space for an industry vs scenic space?
towns and industries switching area main yards will fit best on the long straight sections on a layout. placing these things around a curve is possible but uncoupling/ coupling on curves is difficult, trackwork is more complex, and square buildings are more difficult to place.
I still can't see how G shape would fit well into my space. As S&S mentioned earlier, there is a very long stretch of hidden track - we are talking about 30 feet of it.
And, I've tried flipping and rotating the G around, and in every position there is the issue of the hidden track, or an access to some area, or something else that does not fit.
The way I see it, G would work if *all* of the space around it was accessible with an aisle so it's a true walk around and an engineer can follow the train all the way.
I think losing the train inside a hidden track is worse than waiting for it to climb the helix. At least some people make their helices open so you can see the trains go around the spiral, or put light indicators announcing each stage as it climbs/descends.
TrainzLuvr I still can't see how G shape would fit well into my space. As S&S mentioned earlier, there is a very long stretch of hidden track - we are talking about 30 feet of it. And, I've tried flipping and rotating the G around, and in every position there is the issue of the hidden track, or an access to some area, or something else that does not fit. The way I see it, G would work if *all* of the space around it was accessible with an aisle so it's a true walk around and an engineer can follow the train all the way. I think losing the train inside a hidden track is worse than waiting for it to climb the helix. At least some people make their helices open so you can see the trains go around the spiral, or put light indicators announcing each stage as it climbs/descends.
As you mention, there are drawbacks with a G, but you get the longest mainline run through different scenes. It would work if you didn't care about hidden track.
Every shape has its advantages and drawbacks. Only you can determine which ones matter more than others.
A walk in plan will have tight radii on the turnback blobs, but it doesn't have a duckunder.
An around the walls shape needs a duckunder/lift out and it has probably the shortest mainline run, but the advantage is lots of space in the middle and broad curves.
Anything with a helix creates a carpentry/construction issue, and the helix itself takes up a lot of space, but people tend to fit in most everything they want.
Personally, my favorite shape for a layout is an around the walls plan without a peninsula, because a long mainline run is not that important to me and I can live with the duckunder if the layout is over 50 inches high, and I like the wide open space in the middle. And, they are generally the simplest to build. With the width of your room, I'd consider making a narrow peninsula in the center to hold a switching area, yard, or staging.
An around the walls plan can be double-lapped. The advantage is a long mainline run but the disadvantage is the train tends to go through each scene twice unless there is some creative.....and more importantly, successful...scenery design. To avoid that, it needs lots of hidden track. I don't like tricky scenery, so I would never build a double-lapped around the walls layout.
Its seeme like you have a long mainline run and a big yard as your first priorities. Priorities differ from person to person, and nobody can really gauge how much something matters to another. Only you can sort out the conflicts.
You are trying to come up with a benchwork shape that will fit your space then fit a layout to it. While a valid and very common method it is not the only way.
Try looking for layouts and even prototype track arangements that have features you like.
Fit the layout(s) or portions of them into your space and see where the benchwork goes. Modify the elements and move them around to get something you like and ensure good access. This can be done on paper, but a track planning program allows easier manipulation of the elements and modifications.
I'm really sold on the idea of trains coming from somewhere and going somewhere, as I've realized early on that I'm well past watching the trains run in circles. So, I'm trying to come up with some meaningful layout that will continue to keep the interest after it's built e.g. operations instead rail fanning.
My problem is logistics now, where should trains come from and where should they go, physically in my space that is.
I'd like a train to leave lower staging and traverse as much of a lower deck before going into the yard. And then on the upper deck, again traverse as much of it before entering staging there.
I have been trying to incorporate items I see in other layouts, but every layout is unique and it feels like I'm squeezing a square peg through a round hole. :)
I'm not sure I can squeeze a double main line, and have a no-lix though. But I'd love to be able to look around the room and know where industries would be.
Is there some specific order people put them on, like larger industries further away, or just where they could fit basically?
I worked on another plan, this time based on #23 and added a 27" helix to it. I included a (more correct) yard and staging below the columns.
Everthing else like that wharf scene between the columns, the oil tanks and platform right of the columns, the grain elevator on the right wall, and structures in the aisleway below the yard are just there for me to see how big objects end up.
Looking at this layout, the space I have looks so small and when I actually go downstairs and measure that 5x5' area for the helix, I realize how big the helix would actually be (a monster).
I wish I had some extra space outside this area for the helix. But then again, I think that corner there might be the least useful for anything else, in the space I have.
Unless someone else has a better suggestion for the helix placement?
An interesting line from the first post in this thread:
Posted by TrainzLuvr on Friday, December 23, 2016 9:03 AM
That's seven months ago! And it starts with a comment about how this is a continuation of another thread.
No disrespect intended, but...
The reason you can't reconcile all the choices/tradeoffs you need to make is the fact that having never done anything, you don't actually know what your preferences are. I understand that you're afraid you'll end up tearing it all down and starting over if you don't get it right up front, but you can't get it right up front because you don't have the experience to really understand what you want. Catch 22.
Get over the fear of failure and do something. Get some actual first hand experience. If it makes you feel any better, don't worry about having to start over because of a bad plan because you're going to start over anyway as you learn what it is you really like. Even if you get lucky and have the "right" plan, you'll still end up trashing the layout and starting over because of the rookie mistakes you'll make in the construction. It has happened to all of us - most of us more than once. Welcome to the hobby.
No worries there, it's taking me years to get this all down and this is far from my first layout. But I would agree that if you've NEVER built a layout before, don't try for the ultimate in the first shot. Yeah, we've all read the articles in the magazines where the owner says it is their first layout and all, but that's very much the exception, not the rule. Or you dig a little more and find the person built a bunch of layouts as a kid/teenager, then was our of the hobby for 10 years, got back in and built their 'ultimate' layout.
So it really wouldn't hurt to build a freestanding 'donut' type of layout int he middle of the space to get a handle on techniques and what sort of things you might like, what sort of equipment you want to run, and what sort of track standards that will require. Then go back to designing the full space filling one - salvage what you can - you can always salvage the expensive bits of track like turnouts. Just be prepared to pretty much chop up the rest - there's a reason a layout like this is called a 'chainsaw' layout.
TrainzLuvrUnless someone else has a better suggestion for the helix placement?
You are adding a blob for the helix. use the blob that is at the end of the peninsula. this will allow you to make the peninsula about a foot and a half longer also.
I agree about the lack of long-term experience, I came back to the hobby after 20 years of absence. Though I do believe I have sufficent know-how and the skill set to build (almost) anything. So my problems are not really of practical, but theoretical nature.
The idea is not to build a chainsaw layout as that's wasteful in my mind, and with so many people here having so much experience, all the mistakes and pitfalls should be easilly avoided. That's all in theory, trying to get someone's years of experience into words is not that easy. I think I need a mentor. :)
do you mean in the most recent plan I posted above (based on #23)?
If I used that blob in the peninsula for the helix, wouldn't there be much less room left for some largish industry like a papermill or a grain elevator/silos, which could ideally fit in that blob?
fender777,
Oh sorry, I thought you saw my Givens & Druthers few pages back - it would be a transition era layout thus the turntable.
I do like modern locos as well, but I do not have the space for a modern layout, or it would be a really really short run considering the length of locomotives and cars, and the needed radii to run them. Besides, the transition era has so much more variety and interesting things (to me).
And yes, I am planning to build two decks, and a helix if need be, to maximize the main line run. The problems I am facing are engineering issues related to my layout space (low ceiling, uneven floor, lack of walls to hang things onto), not really my skills.
EDIT: Actually the biggest problem is related to committment to something specific, and making priorities...but I'm getting there. :)
If you are set on having a helix as part of your design, I would first seek advice from experienced builders how best to design that into your layout.
If you want continuous running, then the helix will need to have a double mainline for trains going up and down, unless you have a reversing loop blobs in the top and bottom decks. Of course, that would mean the trains go through a scene twice to make your long continous mainline run...which is the same problem as a double lap donut.
Also, many experienced modelers find that 27 inches is too small for a helix, and if it has a double mainline, one of those tracks will have to be about 24 inches or 30 inches. And, you'll need space for the track to cross over to the other side of the helix.
My personal opinion is that helix's are best for making a point to point layout longer, unless you have a lot of space to devote to the double mainline and to angle the approach and departure tracks.
Edit: You could probably do a nolix with a single track helix in a corner. One part of the helix would have to accommodate the mainline going around the room.
If you're looking for a way to aviod a large helix blob, you could try building a train elevator. Kalmbach has published several articles on building train elevators, and the 12" space outside the columns would be more than large enough. People have also used multiple-deck train elevators for staging. One I remember had 3 tracks per deck and I think 6 decks.
Small elevators can be counterbalanced and manually operated, while larger ones are often motor driven with automatic vertical alignment by counting gear teeth or chain links on the motor drive. My layout plan (if I ever manage to get the basement finished) includes a 5' 4" long manually operated train elevator.
I wouldn;t be too concerned with continuous run having the train run through each scene twice, once in each direction - that's almost a given for any sort of decent length layout unless you do a Nolix and then have a very long helix to connect the uppermost deck with the lowest one. But that ends up with as much hidden in the helix as is visible on the two decks. And real trains don't run around and around in loops always going the same way anyway (please don't post one of those exceptions where the actual prototypical track plan is a loop, I know they exist). My plan is effectively a long dogbone, first layer the helix then second layer then the other end loop. A continuous run will run in one directions through all scenes, then come back the opposite way. Nothing wrong with that at all - it's the standard "engine runs over the division, is turned and comes back" operation though in actual operation I may use the yard as a division yard to change engines from flatland types to mountain types and back.
I'm trying to picture a concept I have in my head with the helix at the penninsula root, meaning it wouldn't take up much more space than the penninsula itself would use - and 27" radius will be a bit tight, and also cause the grade to be fairly steep because regardless of the radius, you need a certain vertical clearance to clear the rolling stock and allow for some sort of subroadbed to support it all. You can cheat a little using thinner subroadbed if you add more supports, but the more supports you add, the more limited the access is in case you need to rescue derailed equipment - anyway I am picturing 4 distinct levels, but no more than 2 decks on either half of the layout. Lowest level will negotiate one half of the layout plus the penninsula, then up a short helix to level 2, which runs around the other half of the layout and back to the penninsula, then p again for level 3 stacked over level 1, and finally helix again to level 4 stacked over level 2. I know I've seen this somewhere before. It's a shorter run than a true double deck but the hidden track on each loop around the room is reduced. This would probably work as a nolix design as well because the verticla distance between 1 and 2, and 2 and 3, and 3 and 4 each do not have to be all that great, you have TWO levels to gain the vertical spacing between stacked levels. Say a 9" climb per trip around instead of the full 18" in one trip.
On the previous page at http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/260185.aspx?page=4#2980557 I show layout #40 with a linear elevator below the columns. I kinda liked that concept, though it would require a bit more engineering to accomplish.
Yet, the triple blob E concept wasn't really favoured by some and so I went to work on the around the wall with peninsula layout instead.
@rrinker : your idea means I would have two helices instead of one, no? Although it would be a split-level layout, there would be two large areas that are blocked off by a helix and I'm not sure that compromise is worth the precious little space I have. :)
I'm not sure why does everyone thinks that a 27/28" helix is tight, most people with small to mid-size layout spaces build a 22", 24" or 26" helix and have no problems running trains up or down.
My calculation on a 27/28" helix with 4" rise per turn has a ~2.3% grade. With drag caused by centrifugal force we do 1.1x compensation for this radius and the grade goes up to ~2.53%.
To me that sounds acceptable, as my trains will be ~9 ft long, and occupy 2/3 of a single helix turn, which is 14.6 ft.
But, I will go back and explore the #40 no-lix concept again to save the 25 sq. ft that a helix would eat up. A no-lix would also add more time to running, as trains would traverse a fair distance before they climb up to the next level.
Technically I guess it would be 2, but stacked one above the other so it would be just one structurally.
Another simpler option - do the nolix design, but taking an idea from the MR&T, where the second level starts, run an optional route with a steeper than normal grade as a continuous run connector - downhill only. If you've seen any of the videos showing the MR&T staging, or the full track plan from a few months ago, you can see what they did. It's seen in the latest Ask MRVP video as well. That way you can keep a simpler layout design while getting the length of run you want plus have an option for continuous run to show off the layout.
Each time I think I'm getting somewhere closer to what I'd like to build, a gotcha moment happens and I'm back to square one.
I went to work on #42 hoping to avoid a helix, and build a no-lix around the wall.
What I'm trying to accomplish is have the trains leave lower staging, go around the layout, enter the main yard, then either continue via the no-lix (around the walls) to the second level. From there again go around the upper deck and enter the yard on the upper level, then either terminate there or continue to the upper staging, somehow.
So, we leave the lower staging climbing up to the main deck. Except that we need to climb at 10%+ grade in order to merge with the deck at the lower left column. "What the !@)^%*#."
Once on the main deck, we go around the entire level, and enter the main yard. We can do whatever there. Except that there's no room for any meaningful engine facilities, of which we need both steam and diesel ones.
After we leave the yard, we head towards the upper level via a no-lix (in yellow), but we cannot start climbing up until the left column. This is because we have to end up below the upper deck benchwork just before the electrical cabinet in order to make a left turn.
We then proceed alongside the upper benchwork on the outside still climbing so we can merge somewhere right after we make the turn downwards.
On the upper deck we make a run through the entire upper level and arrive in the upper deck yard. Except that the yard is right above the main yard. Not really a good thing if we are going to have two different yardmasters rub shoulders there. Another "what the !@)^%*#" moment.
From the upper yard we are to leave on the other side and again make a run (somewhere?) around the upper level to reach the upper staging, which is at 70" or so, basically 8" below the ceiling. Yet another "what the !@)^%*#" moment.
I'd like to hear what everyone thinks about this scenario and how it could be improved (or not). I know it should be possible to do all this but I must be blind to something obvious, and I'm hoping more (experienced) eyes could point it out.
Also, I'd like to know how to deal with, imho the "unruly" no-lix, as I'm trying to avoid going all along the walls because then I have to be avoiding brackets that might hold the upper level, or need some creative upper deck framework to avoid the crosses/joists in it.
I will concurrently work on #40 layout option, putting the helix in the blob around the lower left column. I'll post more when I have it.
Thanks everyone!
Why a 10% grade? How much seperation are you putting between the lower staging and the main deck? a 10% grade tells me you are putting the lower staging more than a foot below the first level. You can reduce that a few inches, and also enter the first level down by the right column instead. Or better yet, run the climb out of staging outside the columns, and have it enter the visible part after it makes the turn to point along the right side wall. That gives at least 37' of track, leaving room after the last staging turnout before starting the vertical grade. 12" of deck seperation results in a less than 3% grade.
Now run a slight partial grade around the penninsula - the whole thing doesn;t need to be a continuous climb, just parts of it, although it could all be level for all it matters. In fact, keep it level, see why in the next paragraph. Come around to your yard. Make the roundhouse have fewer stalls andou have room for the service facilities. 3 or 4 stalls is enough to get the idea. And 1 AD track is probably enough as well.
Exit the yard and start climbing. I'm thinking also outside the pillars. Then straight up the right wall. NOT around the penninsula. That's at least 48 feet of track, at a 2.5% grade it puts you 14+" above the yard. You can keep climbing over the yard and be 17" apart by the middle of the yard, or more than 18" by the end of the yard. Now flat all the way around and make the top staging along the top side of the penninsula, with a reverse loop connection back to the main. FOr the bottom level staging, continue the right side of it under the penninsula to a reversing loop. With auto reversers that control the switch motors as well, you have continuous running. Even part of the nolix loop around the room is visible and can represent a mountainous area, and nothing says you can't run some sidings out off the grade at any given level to put a level siding even though the main is on a grade. The end result is nearly 2 full loops around the room including the penninsula, with staging under and at the top. If you put lower staging at 36" off the floor, the yard would be at about 48", and the highest part would be at about 66". Start an inch or two lower, and/or have an inch or 2 less seperation between decks, if the highest levels are too high.
Maybe I should draw out some of these ideas, see what truly fits. If we get the rain we are supposed to get I won't be able to work outside or hit the pool.
I'm sorry, I should've included what my deck heights are: lower staging is at 28", main deck at 42" and upper deck at 58".
With the lower staging at 28" it's giving me 14" separation to the main deck at 42", although with the framework thickness etc, actual separation is less than 14".
I could probably get away with 8" spacing or so, but the reason the grade ends up steep is because I levelled up at the left column so there's a longest possible main line run around the main level.
If I merged the main past the right column and above, it would shorten the run by more than two full train lengths, normally going above the columns.
I like the idea of extending the right side of the lower staging to a reversing loop in the peninsula as it would enable auto re-staging of trains.
The reason for two A/Ds was purely based on what I read about yards and their sizes. Generally, I belive the idea is to have 3-4 A/Ds on a larger layout, and 2-3 on a mid-size. I'll reduce the roundhouses down - just plain track for storing locos should suffice really.
When I exit the yard (on the right side) I do start climbing - right next to the lower left column, continue below the columns, and go along the right wall not entering the peninsula. That is about 32' coming in-front of the electrical cabinet.If I were to start climbing after I turn out of the yard, it would give me 43' at the same spot. That's about 4.15% and 3.1% grade respectively for 16" height.
I'm not sure how you mean to continue to climb above the yard because the upper deck is there, unless I do it on the inside perimeter of the upper deck, which is what I originally show in the plan above.
If I use up the top portion of the peninsula for upper staging, I won't have any room for potential industries that could be served in the upper level.
I can't put the upper deck at 66" because my ceiling is at ~77", leaving me no room for scenery or the valance. My spouse would also need to use a step stool to operate that high as she couldn't see the upper deck (above her eye level).
There are two ways to go about a multiple deck nolix design - set the deck hgeights and try to make the grades work, or work backwards with an acceptable grade and see where you can put the decks. If you are hard set on the benchwork heights for the levels, a helix may be the only option to get reasonable grades, because once you decide on a helix design and climb per turn, the grade is set by the diameter of the helix, and the distance you need to go up or down is determined by how many turns you put in it. You can "tap off" a helix at various levels so one helix can server as the connector between multiple levels, but that does restrict the entry/exit for each level to the helix location.
There's always a compromise in a multi deck design. You usually end up with the lower sceniced deck being lower than the absolute perfect level (and even that is only going to be 'absolutely perfect' for you and someone who is your exact height) and the upper deck usually ends up too high. Add a staging level above and below that and those end up being way off - however access is not needed as frequently and you really don;t have to see - sensors and indicators can show ehen you are int he clear, or CCTV can be used to provide a visual. The key with staging is to be able to reach in and retrieve equipment - so while you many need 18" between decks to be able to put scenery on the lower one, you don't need anywhere near that for staging, just enough room to easily reach your hand in to grab stuff. Same thing up top, you can be relatively sloe to the ceiling as long as you cna stand on a step stool and reach your hand in. There doesn't really have to be a valence for the upper staging, you could hide it with removable fascia panels since it's up above straight viewing height.
By continuing to climb above the yard - if you doa nolix, it's not the same as having a helix and two completely disconnected levels, with the helix connecting the two. When you first start climing above the first level, it is still the first level. All the way around. By the time you've made one circuit of the room, the idea is to have enough vertical clearance that now you start the second level. I've seen it done with each level taking two laps around the room. For that you'd have a flat deack from the yard all the way around back to the yard, then the main would run behind the yard at a grade, on a hill or with a retaining wall sort of arranchement. For the first part of it past the yard, it would still not be high enough to start a true second deck of benchwork, it would just be on hills higher than the first level in the foreground. At some point there will be enough vertical seperation to transition to the upper deck with dedicated benchwork - this is where you need to come up with some sort of scenic transition from it being two tracks in the same scene but at different heights to now the upper deck has its own benchwork. That is not where you have the full 18" seperation between levels, at that point the upper deck will be relatively close to the lower, so this upper deck still must be on a grade and can only level out for good once you reach the desired vertical seperation. You can repeat the whole thing again to go up to a third level for staging, but you really don't have the height in the room to make the third level also 18" over the second one. 2x18 plus the 28" level for the bottom staging plus 12" above that to the first deck puts you at 76" leaving no clearance above the tracks for the trains. So the upper staging either has to be closer to the second deck, or part of it.
A slightly more complex helix would make it possible to use just one staging yard to be both ends of the railroad. Ramp up from one end of the staging yard to the first deck level, run around the entire first level and enter the helix at the base of the penninsula just before starting a second trip around (level 1 continuous run connection could cut across the root of the penninsula to the right of the helix). Up the helix to level 2, also a flat deck. Run around the walls, out the penninsula, and then when it comes back to the base of the penninsula it enters the helix (left turnout could join it to the start of the second level where it exists the helix for a level 2 continous run connection - now you cna have a train looping around on each level for demonstrations) and goes all the way back down to staging level and enters the other end of the staging yard. The only tricky part would be at the top of the helix on the second level where somehow the end of the second level has to cross over the start of the second level to get to the helix down. Unless you don't care if the train on the first deck going left to right becomes a train on the upper deck going right to left. It took me a while but I've accepted that's how it has to be if I want to get the kind of run I want. If you can accept that, the helix design becomes a common 2 track helix except that the starting point for the inner and outer tracks is at different points around the circle. The inner track would be the one connecting deck 1 and deck 2, the outer one would connect the end of deck 2 back down to staging level so they don't ever have to cross over one another.
That's a pretty interesting idea with the double track helix with one track being a dedicated "penthouse" elevator. Although that means I would have to make that helix even bigger to accomodate necessary radii and track spacing for the double track. The space keeps shrinking smaller and smaller... :)
I know what you mean about transitioning from the main deck to the upper deck while slowly climbing and changing scenery. Unfortunately, I'm not experienced enough, yet, to create something like that as I think there are many variables that need to mesh together for a successful and belieable execution of the idea.
I'll start another thread, just to draw more attention to it, and solicit opinions where should a helix be located in my space. I have a number of ideas, but I'd like to know where everyone else thinks is the ideal place (and least useful location for anything else).
The base of the penninsula is wasted space anyway, and has to be well over 2x minimum radius, which leaves room for a helix of greater than minimum radius - always good.
I was considering running arounbd my helix and putting a small branch over to the other side, which is otherwise the passage from the downstairs front door intot he basement, someone switchign over there would be completely isolated from the rest of the layout, but I could also add a cutoff that would allow a continuous run just on the lower level.
When you say "base" of the peninsula, do you mean the blob at the end, or where the peninsula arm begins?
I thought that with a backdrop divider a lot of things could be put on the blob: a city scene; large industries on both sides; trestle bridge...
Base is the root, where it attaches to the main part of the layout.
I spent some time to evaluate my thinking processes and realized that I boxed myself in by focusing on the top wall being the only place for a yard.
Thus I scaled things here and there to create #43:
Based on it I drew a new track plan for the lower staging and main level:
In colours: black is the main; orange is A/D; teal is the yard (no engine facilities yet); yellow is the nolix and blue is the lower staging.
The main level is currently at 42" all around (but could change); the lower staging is offset below the main level at 38" so that the trains originally come out underneath the main/yard tracks in the lower right and then gradually climb up to 42" along the top wall and level at the base of the peninsula.
EDIT: This is *now* true point-to-point layout which was one of the goals, although the upper level is still to be seen.
The nolix begins the climb on the top wall just after the liftout in the upper right area at 42" and reaches 58" just before the electrical cabinet on the upper right wall.
Should I go around the peninsula for the nolix or not, anyone has any thoughts about that?
If I do then the train would not be hidden out of the view as it is now going behind the backdrop above the staging and then re-appearing on the right wall.On the other hand I don't know yet where it would reach the required height so might not be at a desirable location.
I ran this through a Train Player just for fun, and a 4-8-2 with 10 x 50ft box cars and a caboose (train is about 8ft long) leaving staging, reaches summit of the nolix in 4'42" at 40mph average speed.
I do not know whether Train Player offers accurate simulation speeds, nor whether 4'42" is a good time to traverse the current track (is ~40mph close to some prototypical speed)?
Your suggestions, ideas, thoughts or paddlings are always appreciated.
I'l a little confused as to where the yellow track goes. Usually the idea of a nolix is to not have a complete lap around the room of hidden track, otherwise you just have a big helix. If you put the staging outside the pillars, going counter clockwise around the room you could have the track climbing out of the staging appear along the top wall. Still has to be on an upgrade around the penninsula but by the time it gets to the main yard you should be able to level it all out and be high enough above staging for plenty of clearance - especially as they won't be right on top of one another. After the yard you can have a track peel off from the main and drop (somewhat steep grade) to connect to the opposite end of the staging yard for a continuous run connection while the real main makes another climbing lap around for deck 2 over the yard on deck 1, and then once more across the top wall before disappearing into a track cutting throught he base of the penninsula to the upper level staging also outside the pillars. That gets you twice around the entire room, including the penninsula, plus 2 extra runs the length of the top wall. You could also run another through track through upper staging that goes downgrade left to right to connect in to the upper level main on the right wall for an additional continuous run connection.
Yellow is the nolix track and it goes around the walls, slowly climbing up.
It is not hidden as I'm thinking nolix should not be hidden, else why bother, might as well stick a helix in there? :)
But I'm really having a hard time visualizing your suggestion. It sounds cool that the main would branch off and reconnect with the lower staging on a steep decline, but I can't see it where or how.
I made #43 v2, with a nolix going around the peninsula. Also changed the main line colour to red so it's stands out better.
In this version the nolix starts at the same place (look up right where red turns into yellow) and climbs around the entire layout at 2.2% reaching the summit at the lower left liftout.
My interpretation of a nolix is that it's a slow climb/decent around the room, but not hidden. It extends the main line run for a long while offering an alternative to a helix.
If it was hidden then operators would be waiting for their trains to come out of whatever hidden areas the train went into, just like the helix (kinda boring).
When it's exposed and in the open, trains can go through sceniced places, bridges, tunnels etc., making the whole run more interesting to wait for.
I'm probably late to the party, but are you planning on double decking both the outside walls and the peninsula? If so, I think you'll be sorely disappointed with your isle widths and viewing angles of the lower deck. The average shoulder width is 18.5 inches (as quoted from a recent article on airline seating - won't go there) so your upper deck clearance of +/- 25 inches doesn't provide much wiggle room, let alone enough distance to stand back, or stoop over to see the lower deck.
I'd suggest a single mid height deck for the peninsula. You can have a visible two lap lower level nolix (violates the once-through a scene mantra - but I think adds more drama) and once around the peninsula. A quick grade check for 16 inch deck separation would let you use a constant 1.7% grade, or flatter at towns with steeper sections between them. The single level peninsula would let those pesky shoulders extend up to, or over, the single deck making the entire space seem less crowded.
Ray
Welcome to the party, food and drinks are over in the corner, please help yourself. :)
I thought my aisle widths are "ok". The top one is 33" and bottom 40", with pinch points at 25" top and bottom of the blob.
The blob itself is not going to have much depth on the lower level due to the nolix going around it 50-54", so the middle of it is really lost space (might as well put a helix into it).
If I did a single mid-height deck for the peninsula, wouldn't it be awkward for the operators on the upper level to have to go around the peninsula to catch their train when it's on the left wall?
EDIT: Updated the above image to include aisle widths
OK, since the last post I drew this up - quick and dirty, I was not careful with curves other than to maintain a 28" radius minimum (many are larger) and I didn;t carefully align the penninsula to the aisles would be equal, or any of that fancy stuff. Each level is on a seperate layer (that's how I roll with 3rd Planit) and a different color, starting with lower staging, then level 1, then level 2, and finally the upper staging.
(notice I got so lazy I didn't even draw a yard for the upper staging... )
I also did no grade checks, but if you reduce visible dek seperation to 16", you can get the 4 levels in., Lower staging would be pretty low, but you only need 12" or less up to level 1. then 16" up to level 2, and another 16" up to level 3. Level 3 would be, well, level, it doesn' have to climb any to maintain clearance since it sneaks behind the penninsula. As it is top level staging it can be fairly close to the ceiling level, again 12" clearance is plenty. Working down, if level 3 is at 66", level 2 would be at 50" level 1 at 34" and lower staging at 22". Or shift as desired.
Isn't this basically the same as I made it?
See...
Pretty much, now that you broke out the levels to different layers, or frames in an animated gif, as it were. Only real difference is that I climb on the first level after it leaves staging, up to the main yard, where it is level, then climbs again afterwards, rather than having a flat loop around the first level plus another track that goes off and climbs to the second level. And then the second level also has a grade in pretty much the same places until it becomes the level third level that goes to staging.
In my plan the lower staging is actually climbing up to the base of the peninsula, then it flattens out around it all the way to the yard. Might actually climb more, depending on where I figure the industries and towns along the way will be. Really don't want to climb too much because it takes away from the upper level separation, since I'm constrained with the low ceiling in this space.
The nolix (in yellow) also climbs up all around with constant 2.2% starting at the upper right, though I think I'd like to flatten some areas to add a siding or two.
I have no idea how will any of that work out because coming closer to the upper level, the track is really against the backdrop and hard to see unless person is short.
I would like to add another yard in the upper level, just smaller. My guess is that it should not be at the same spot as the lower yard is, no? Maybe on the opposite (top wall) although the depth there might not be favourable for a yard.
Especially with not a lot of room for aisle, keep the yards at different spots. Or at least put the throat of one on the opposite side as the other, so someone switching in one yard won't have to stand in the same sport as someone switching in the other.
Climbing out of staging is where you can save vertical - you need something like 16" or more between sceniced levels in order to fit decent scenery, unless the area is very shallow. At least between the lowest sceniced level and the next one up, as this will be low by nature and if you stand close to the layout, the upper level will obstruct your view, With the second level being closer to eye level, the clearance between level 2 and the upper level can be smaller since you can still see right in.
My personal opinion is that I would be cautious about having narrow aisles with the multideck in a less-than-huge room to begin with. I'd feel clostrophobic and uncomfortable, especially if the structure impeded my view of the trains in some way.
Just my thoughts. Yours may be different.
I agree about really narrow aisles as I've been to at least one layout this year that had very narrow aisles - it seemed like 24" or less all along except at the turns, where people could (try to) pass each other. That layout was not multi-deck and its height was probably around 48-50".
Having said that, my goal is to have at least 30" aisles or better, with 24" allowed in pinch points, and for up to a foot or so in length. I also understand I can't compress the aisles or the people, but the space is what it is and won't change.
The only recourse I see to having larger aisles is going to a smaller scale, or reducing the effective layout footprint, which reduces everything railroading related.
TrainzLuvr The only recourse I see to having larger aisles is going to a smaller scale, or reducing the effective layout footprint, which reduces everything railroading related.
Most railroad rights of way were under 100' wide, so you can have everything railroading related in a 12" to 15" inch shelf in HO. Only go deeper for your main yard on the lower level and keep the upper level as narrow as possible.
This may be a generalization, but most people that want double decks do so for the long runs and operating potential. They sacrifice a lot of space for scenery. Those with high interest in scenery likely opt for a one level layout with wider scenes. You'll still be able to have deeper scenes on the upper deck of the peninsula.
Personally, I'd suggest a minimum of 36" aisles in the pinch points and 48" elsewhere for a double deck layout. If you must go tighter than that check out some of the limits in some of the more famous double deck layouts. One that may have fairly narrow aisles as I recall is Mark Dances's Canadian Pacific.
It seems to me the OP is traying to fit too much into a given space with narrow aisles being one of the drawbacks. My own layout has a 27" pinchpoint and if I was building again I would have a minium of 30". Two decks in the OP's space is always going to be a challenge. A form factor that intrigues me is the Spine Line in the April MR. It looks like it could be adapted to the OP's room. I wonder if the author of that aricle is on the forum and could comment?
Bill
TrainzLuvr I agree about really narrow aisles as I've been to at least one layout this year that had very narrow aisles - it seemed like 24" or less all along except at the turns, where people could (try to) pass each other. That layout was not multi-deck and its height was probably around 48-50". Having said that, my goal is to have at least 30" aisles or better, with 24" allowed in pinch points, and for up to a foot or so in length. I also understand I can't compress the aisles or the people, but the space is what it is and won't change. The only recourse I see to having larger aisles is going to a smaller scale, or reducing the effective layout footprint, which reduces everything railroading related.
Visual appeal is a big part of the hobby for me. I like operations, moving cars from A to B...a purpose...but watching a train moving through a scene is a big deal for me.
I like wide vistas. Open space. Standing back and taking in the whole scene if I want to.
If I were to plan the layout you've just shown, stacked decks with a multideck penisula in the middle and not much room to move around, I would expect to always be looking at a lot of fascia. For me, that would take away from the pleasurable experience a great deal.
I see pictures of those kinds of layouts from time to time in MR, and while they are impressive in a lot of ways...um...no thanks.
My thought was that your plan is living on the edge a bit, sort of at the point where crampness might be overwhelming. And its hard to judge whether you've crossed that line until you've built it and lived with it.
Sorry to add to your design paralysis.
Sorry for the delayed reply, life (!@#$&*) got in the way. ;)
@Doughless
I really appreciate the candidness, because in any situation the observers have a better POV than person(s) involved in it. And I understand where you are coming from - being able to step back and soak in the view makes sense. Especially if there is a lot of effort put into that view.
Although I am not sure scenic vistas could be modeled in H0 without a 1500+ sq.ft space, and even then, the space owners focus more on operations and less on scenery, having baren areas with just tracks and plywood. Come to think of it, I never understood that because model railroading is not just about the track but also things around it.
I guess from a POV of real railroad owners, the nature is in the way because the track can't go straight all the time and it costs money to go through/around it. :)
@bagal, Colorado Ray
I'm really trying to utilize my space to its highest potential. As I'm compressing everything else, the aisle space has to give in to some of that compression, too. I'd love to have 3-4' aisles but that would require a 15+' deep space instead of 12' that I have.
I could remove the peninsula and only go around the walls at 30"+18" depth having a 7' aisle in the middle. But then, out of 270 sq.ft total space, half of it would be an aisle (empty). Not to mention trains running in circles, where's the fun in that? :)
Looking at H0 Spine Line, the space there is 10'x18', and 30 sq.ft of it is used up by a helix right in the middle. The N Spine Line appears more interesting to me because of the peninsula in the middle that divides and separates the space.
Mark Dance's layout is in N scale though so tighter aisle make operators be up-close and personal with the trains, which becomes an advantage. And I like the shadow box look which really frames the scenes up.
These N Scale temptations are very difficult to deal with...teasing and luring you in.
A quick update...
I reversed the peninsula in #43, which makes it look like #42, with the yard in the same location (lower wall).
There's still more to do, yet in this version the peninsula blob is at the entrance to the layout, which begs to have a "hero" scene on it. The no-lix is going around the walls and not entering the peninsula, freeing it for all kinds of cool uses.
You can see full size levels in my folder at http://trainz.luvr.net/for_forums/ under "basement_layout_plan_ref_42_v6_..."
C&Cs are welcome.
I think you are under estimating the inconvenience of building, operating and maintaining movable/removable layout sections. One drop bridge built on straight and level track with a reasonable amount of care is a manageable task. Add a grade OR a curve, and the difficulty increases. Doing it five times (if I counted correctly), with multiple sections stacked above one another could be a nightmare.
Since your benchwork experiments demonstrated your willingness to do a proof of concept, I'd suggest doing some experiments with movable sections as well before you commit to this design. Too bad there is no way to simulate seasonal expansion and contraction (this is what proved to be a problem with my own design).
A good reason to include metal and/or engineered wood products rather than plain dimensional lumber for such things. We have a lift bridge for access on the club modular layout and therehave been (for nearly 10 years now) no issues with it. And not only does the temp and humidity vary at different venues (some have AC, others do not), the bridge section travels and is stored in oen of the trailers along with the layout sections, which are parked in an unheated space.
With a bit more space tow ork with, I came up with a design that does not need a liftout for access. All I need is a sction I can take apart when needed for furnace or water heater replacement. For that I plan to have a 6 to 8 foot long section that is bolted to adjacent benchwork instead if continuously attached. Gaps at the joints in the rails, and something like PowerPole connectors for the track bus. Scenery will probably be continuous - when I have to remve the section I'll cut through it, and then once back in place, patch up the scenery.
TrainzLuvr It seems I have quite a bit of soul searching to go through then. I grew up around trains, had relatives work on the railroad. I honestly can't poinpoint exactly what I like about trains, something about machines on tracks that always appealed to me. I like watching trains pass-by or shunt cars around, trackwork disappearing into the distance, or curving through the valleys, signals changing aspects or turnouts switching points; I like freight just as much as passenger trains; steams, diesels, electrics, no matter, I like it all. :) I don't even know where to start if I was to narrow things down. And I'm not sure I want to take away from the wholeness of experience that trains are to me. Sigh. If I was to build a "chainsaw" layout, what kind of a layout do I build, how big, what shape, scale? Do I just find a plan on the internet I like and dive into it? As I was tired of imagining various curve radii, I though it would be worth while seeing them instead, and comparing the scales as well as cars in real-world space. Those autoracks are on the 26" curve, and it appears barely enough for them, although that flatbed has the same footprint as autoracks and it seems it could make the 24". And then the sad realization of the size of H0 curves needed to make a full turn and how it fits (or doesn't) inside my space. To the right is a mockup of a small yard made with compound ladders. Not fitting much as the track before and after the yard would need another foot or more, and then make the turns. My space seems incompatible with H0 as my train area depth is only 12' which falls short of two full turns at 28" and a decent aisle space in-between. :( Looking at N, I could make full turns at 16" or 18" radius and have multiple aisles in-between.
Interesting subject thread, and particularly interesting diagram of long cars on curves. I need to come back and read thru this long thread as I plan my dbl-deck, around the wall, peninsula HO track plan in my new 12x16 dedicated train shed.
I think I will post a new subject thread on my plans.Brian
Brian
My Layout Plan
Interesting new Plan Consideration
@carl425, rrinker
The problem I have been running into is the available space in the lower left (the layout entrance). Going from the bottom wall to the left wall does not leave much space for a large enough curve and a straight section in the entrance point.
I'm already encroaching into the passageway to the room on the left side, and if anything, I wish I could pull back to the right rather than go further into that space. Yet the column stands to the right, immovable in all its might of solid bricks covered by drywall. :)
If I can't get the entrance section straight I will have to deal with some curvature in it. :\
I'm working on another variation that doesn't cross the entrance corner. It leaves no room for a penninsula with a turnback curve, however you could build a narrow penninsula for a branch line - akin to the cement plant in my last layout. That's with all curves at 30" radius.
rrinker A good reason to include metal and/or engineered wood products rather than plain dimensional lumber for such things. We have a lift bridge for access on the club modular layout and therehave been (for nearly 10 years now) no issues with it. And not only does the temp and humidity vary at different venues (some have AC, others do not), the bridge section travels and is stored in oen of the trailers along with the layout sections, which are parked in an unheated space. Randy
Randy
How long is that lift bridge you spoke of, and what material is it constructed of??
The opening is about 3 feet. It's ,ostly wood, steel hinges. The moveable part is U shaped, 2 side rails and the base where the track is. The sides are fairly thick as well, also U shaped, and there is a tread plate across the bottom to tie it all together.
Narrow AislesI've had lots of disparaging comments on my possible use of narrow aisles on my new dbl-deck layout planning. I've even decided to cut down on the overall size (mainly the length) of my peninsula.
But in defense of narrow aisle widths I present this PDF document that was given to me by a gentleman who had a VERY nice round-the-wall layout up in southern MD.
Layout Design For Operations - From Concept to ExecutionOrHow to Put Both You and the Layout in the Same RoomRockville MER 2013 Bob Reid
...oops, turns out I can't attach a PDF (or don't know how to). He had some interesting observations on aisles widths. I can send a copy of the PDF to anyone interested.
A word on aisle width•24” aisles waste space•24” aisles will not allow two persons to pass•A person (plumpish) requires 20” two people require 28” to pass back to back (front to front gets a little tricky)•So..one 20” aisle plus one 28” passing aisle equals 2.5 aisles in 48”•Narrow aisles can cause problems in double deck railroads (more later)
Broad Radii in a small room interferes with operation because crews have to cross the center peninsula to follow their train. Factors to consider when using very broad radius•If broader radius is used operators must jump from side to side while operating which disrupts following the trains•Broad radii also reduce the amount of yard and industrial opportunities and consumes space in the corners•Operators will be going from side to side so aisle width at the end of the peninsula becomes more of an issue. Stacked Loops allows broader radii/longer run, uses the vertical space in the room 70’-76’ Lessons LearnedUse of vertical space expands main line run (and everything else)Put wider aisles next to yards and other design elements where operators will congregate
Factors to consider when using very broad radius•If broader radius is used operators must jump from side to side while operating which disrupts following the trains•Broad radii also reduce the amount of yard and industrial opportunities and consumes space in the corners•Operators will be going from side to side so aisle width at the end of the peninsula becomes more of an issue. Stacked Loops allows broader radii/longer run, uses the vertical space in the room 70’-76’
Lessons LearnedUse of vertical space expands main line run (and everything else)Put wider aisles next to yards and other design elements where operators will congregate
In all honesty, build what will work, and don't let anyone tell you what's right and what's wrong for you.
If you are going to be the sole operator of the railroad and you do not foresee anyone else coming over, build to your size. And even if they do come over, you are under no obligations to provide any comforts for anyone else, it's a matter of courtesy if you would.
This is just a hobby and not a rocket science engineering project with millions of parameters where lives could be at stake. Bend and twist the parameters until they work to your satisfaction, why regret decisions later when everything is said and done. :)
At this particular stage of planning I am almost happy with my decision to accept some of the criticism and modify the size of my peninsula. I lose a little of my total track lengths, but I do gain some empty space inside the center of the layout to move around, and to put a small workbench area inside, rather than only on the exterior of the shed.
BTW, I liked some of your observations as to who one is building their layout for.
What software are you using to draw up these variuos track plans so quickly?
Are you a proficient computer person?
What software program are you using to draw up these various track plans so quickly?
Are you a proficient computer fellow?
Somehow this forum site is 'bouncing' me all around after I make a posting, so much so that I can't tell if the posting even made it to the correct subject thread?????
And I can not tell how to delete a duplicate posting?
I noticed that there are glitches with posting, too. Internal links do not parse properly and embedding items is finiky. Not sure you can remove posts, might require a moderator privileges.
I use AnyRail (http://www.anyrail.com) for those drawings. AnyRail is not fully featured (yet) as 3rd PlanIt is, but at least it has a very responsive user interface so designs go fast, and track support/coverage is excellent.
Strange. Always just puts me right back in the same thread after I make a posting.
My drawings are in 3rd PlanIt, I've been using it for years now. I do have prior CAD experience but that was long before 3rd PlanIt appeared and I never did CAD work, I merely went to the same class as our design guys who did allt eh drawings so I could better support them when they had a problem (I was the computer guy at that company, among other things).
Well, it's been a few (busy) weeks here, sorry I dropped off the radar. Don't you just hate it when work and life get in the way of model railroading? :)
You could say that I was in the layout pre-construction phase, getting rid of some of the obstacles in the room.
This is what the West side used to look:
And this is the new look:
The electrical closet is gone and so is the bulkhead. Took two weeks, hour or two a day - slow progress due to time constraints, but I got it done.
The electrical box depth is 2 inches now. There would still be a pull out section on the upper deck, but that's minor compared to keeping 3x3 feet space clear for the door to swing open.
I will post my revised Givens & Druthers in another post since there were major changes there, too.
Givens & Druthers(updated as of Oct-6-2017):
- Room size: 22.5’x12’ (irregular, open space/no wall with two columns on the North side with a potential to go 1’ beyond the columns into the hallway)
- Finished hardwood floor, but uneven/sloping, ~1” difference
- Ceiling: 6’5”-6’6”; pot lights, two speakers, and a central air register near the South-West window
- Doorway access on the North-East to another room
- Electrical cabinet in the South-West corner at 46.5” height, up to the ceiling, dimensions 32x30x2” (WxHxD)
- Two windows on the South side starting at 54.5” above floor level, dimensions 31x22” (WxH)
- Scale: N
- Gauge: Normal
- Full DCC operation (Roco Z21 base station, two additional boosters), RailCom in the future
- Operating crew: 2 (1?) (most of the time, but visitors possible for ops)
- Multi-deck
- Benchwork: whatever works
- Min. radius: 18” visible (15” hidden)
- Track: ME Code 55 and/or hand-laid turnouts
- Min. turnout size: #6
- Single track mainline is OK, passing sidings where needed for added ops interest; or double if necessary
- Intricate track work is OK: double-slips, wyes, 3-way
- Preferred 36” aisle width, 30” is OK, 24” pinch points are OK
- Signaled operation (CTC) and option for fully computer controlled trains in the future
- Swing out bridge is OK, no duckunders (lean-under OK)
- No need to reach more than 24″ into the layout
- Prefer longest main-line runs
- Moderate length trains (8-9’, 20-25 50’ cars)
- Various industries to keep the operating interest
- Staging: preferred open; beneath the benchwork is OK; loopback for re-staging
- Scenery: rolling hills, canyons, rivers, tunnels, rock faces, bridges, trees, lakes, arid areas
- Like mostly freight, though passenger service is OK for additional op. interest,
- Like to railfan the layout
Further to the changes in the layout space and Givens & Druthers, I worked on the layout shape by creating two matrices:
...and from these derived:
* #47v6 early draft - no entry point yet
They all have their pros and cons, but my focus was on maximizing the mainline run, having as many straight sections as possible, and simplifying the benchwork wherever possible.
It also finally came to my head that benchwork does not need to be 24-30" deep everywhere, or at all, for a good railroading experience. That happened after many trials of various double- and triple-deck combinations on my free-standing benchwork rig (for details in my thread on benchwork testing linked in my sig.).
Another realization was that being 6'3" tall is not a good thing for model railroading, as I fit nowhere "standard" heights are being applied (which is really everywhere as most people are of average height).
So, if I want others to operate on my railroad I will have to build it for them, not for myself...
There is no 'standard height' - there is "your height". Any double deck is a compromise, the lower dick will be lower than the ideal for your height, and the upper deck will be too high. It's just another choice and compromise to get the run length - which is more important, ideal layout height, or total length of the run? I did some mockups, I think my chouce was 42" lower deck and 60" upper, or maybe it was 44" and 62". I'm 6' even. Someone who's 5'3" will pretty much never see the trains on the upper deck without a stepstool. Most people I know are about my height, if someone shorter who is not easily able to see the top deck wants to operate, there will be jobs that don't leave the lower level, including various jobs in the main yard, which will be on the lower level.
I envision the lower deck to be generally wider, the widest spot being the yard. The upper deck will tend to be narrower, in general. Not ALL narrow, there will be ome large industries up there, like a big coal breaker. The yard and switching required for that alone means there is one place it's guaranteed to NOT be - above the main yard. It will be above one of the quieter places on the lower level, to keep people from crowding each other.
And there is always the "who am I kidding" concept - I will probably run this thing by myself 90% of the time anyway.
My grandson will be running trains on my layout. Right now he's about 2 feet tall.
The "who am I kidding" is an interesting concept, but could I really build a layout for myself, even though I would want people to eventually operate on it?
My spouse even said to just build whatever I want as it's my railroad. She's willing to use a step-stool if needed to reach some too-high-for-her level, but would other people be as accomodating?
I've read some modelers comments who basically take that approach, building to their spec. (height) while everyone else needs to adjust to it. Does that make ones railroad less appealing or desirable to operate on?
TrainzLuvrI've read some modelers comments who basically take that approach, building to their spec. (height) while everyone else needs to adjust to it. Does that make ones railroad less appealing or desirable to operate on?
Probably not. No mater what height you chose, it will be wrong for someone.
For a home layout, I doubt anyone has done other than built to the owner/builder's specifications. For a public club or portable layout - there is the expected audience to consider. Our club modular layout is only about 3' high so kids can see. If I had to work on part of it at standard operating height for an extended period of time, it would kill my back - to high to sit in a chair and work and too low to bend over for long periods of time. But for working on the individual sections, they can be set on a workbench or at any desired height, so construction is never an issue.
I've visited bunchs of layouts, public display ones tend to be what I would consider too low, but since the primary audience is families with kids, it is completely understandable. Private layouts, I haven't been to one yet that I would say is too high - even 6' is above average for males. Maybe the one thing I actually AM above average in . My old layout was at about 48" which was ok for me and also for my ex father in law who was helping on it, and he is like 5' 7". My last layout was slightly lower but that was a compromise due to the sloped ceiling on one side of the room. It wasn;t uncomfortable for me to work on but a few inched higher would have been great. Unfortunately, a few inches higher would have cut the usable width by more than 6".
It's been a few weeks of going back and forth between variations of layout shapes so in this time I made a matrix of 4 candidates:
Each has its benefits and trade-offs and I'm not sure how to weight those against each other.
In summary, the plan is to put the staging under the top longest wall and use the blobs in 7, 8 and 9 for reverse loops/auto-restaging.
What do you think from an operational point of view...in 47v7 would it feel awkward to enter that first area on the left, go around the inner perimeter, then exit and enter the other area in the bottom right then do the same?
The 47v8 and 47v9 do not have that issue as you just follow the train along.
Then I tossed 47v2.3.1 out, and made a 3 candidate matrix:
I brought 47v4 back in as it seems to be appealing to a number of people I talked to. The 47v9 is there because it's simple to build and straight forward (no pun intended).
Also, because all of these plans are walk-ins, there is no complete full circle and so two helices are needed. I'd like to avoid having two helices but it seems there's no way around it unless I put a swing-gate/drop-down bridge instead.
I just can't find a nice out of the way spot for a single helix...
How does everyone feel about the trains going through the same scenery twice? Or having to walk around the blob to get the train on the other side of it?
The track would go towards the back of the benchwork as many have done in the past, in a separated/elevated area, but it would provide for only one helix needed.
I also thought that utilizing 12" of the area in the hallway below the columns has potential, and that's why these 3 layouts have track on both sides there. Although, it makes it awkward to come back to the helix to climb to the next deck...
Just a quick update to this thread.
Finally selected a layout shape to go with, and it's #40v3. Also, named the railroad "Newbridge & Lockport" to make it distinct, rather than calling it a "no name railroad." :)
I started posting updates to my website and also there's an ongoing thread on nScale.net forums.
Thanks everyone for your help in this thread.
So you are more or less doing things the same way I am - staging with turnback, traverse the room, helix to second level, traverse the room again to another staging with turnback. I figured this to be the best way to get the most track without any duckunders or lof up areas. I originally was going for a plain straigh staging yard, but the space int he next room where the curves are isn't big enough to long enough tangent tracks plus a turnback curve at minimum radius. But I CAN do JUST the curves at well over minimum radius - thus curved staging tracks. There may be some serial staging, as even the shortest track with this method ends up longer than my typical train size.
You can probably easily double track this as well, turning the entire thing into a giant dog bone - that's what I'm doing. Single track would be good, but it doesn;t fit the character of my prototype which, aside from some branch lines, was almost all double track, even back in the early days.
Yes Sir!
Actually I am contemplating to double track it as I do not have a prototype, so anything goes on my railroad. :)
I'm still not sure about staging and classification yards being next to each other like this, but I've seen other people do it...Others have told me to put the classification yard half-way on the railroad and, next to the helix so it can serve both decks. So, I managed to do both.
Trains leave the staging, climb up to the 1st deck with the helix on the left, go through the main classification yard, traverse the 1st deck, climb up the other helix (in the left column) to the 2nd deck, probably enter a smaller classification yard somewhere on the way and traverse the 2nd deck in the process, descend down the first helix to the staging, loop around and auto restage.
Rinse and repeat.
Wait, that sounds way more complex than it needs to be. Why 2 extra levels for staging? If you come out of that staging enad just enter the lower deck, run around the room until you get to the helix, then repeast, with the two staging yards stacked on top, you've got twice around the room with no need for all sorts of extra levels, just 2, and on either the lower or upper level you have lots of room for the operational yard along the top wall.
You could conceivably put an additional backdrop down the staging yard and hide all but say 2 of the tracks so the two visible ones could be a small classification yard or an industry/ Yes it gets bypassed when a train exists the other end of staging, heading back the way it came, but so what? Think of it as a branch. On one level keep say 2 tracks visible for an industry, on the other level just keep one track visible for a run through scenery.
No need for 3 helices and 4 levels of layout. 2 levels is already a compromise when it comes to deck heights. Especially when the area that would have 4 levels is below the LOWEST part of the ceiling.
I apologize for not being clear, it's just one staging. Trains come from it and return back...
It's been awhile since I posted here, so I thought why not make an update. By the way, continuous updates are on my Website where I'm documenting the build and also on the nScale.net forum thread.
I'll post a few photos, as they are worth all the words. This benchwork is all for the Staging level, at 31" from the floor.
Right now my focus is on the Staging level and hope to be done with the benchwork soonish (early January 2018), then I can do its track laying, wiring, testing, and more testing...
This is the Staging level plan, as of today.
There are other documents on my website regarding the build, so instead of me duplicating the information, please see it there.
Wow, steel studs, don't think I've ever seen benchwork built like that before.
Looking good.
Mike.
My You Tube
I'm a little late to this thread, and I haven't read every post, so excuse me if this has been covered before.
In the corner, you have a box labeled 'electrical panel'. I don't think it's prudent to build anything in front of it. But, if your local building code allows you to build in front of it, I would make the benchwork as narrow as possible. Just wide enough for the track.
I noticed in your drawings and pictures you have electrical receptacles along the wall under the layout. You might want to consider putting a few in the front fascia. It really makes it easier than crouching under the layout just to plug something in. It would also allow you to have receptacles all the way to the ends of the peninsulas. A company called 'Wiremold" makes boxes and raceway that would allow you to use your existing wall receptacles. If you run any wires through the metal studs, be sure to install the plastic bushings in the studs holes first to prevent the metal from cutting into the wires.
The electrical panel is 50" off the floor, 30x30" box. It will be accessible from the aisle as the benchwork there won't be deeper than 18" and upper deck will have a removable section. There used to be a full door there closing the cabinet, but I got rid of the whole thing including the bulkhead on that wall and rebuilt it all slim. :)
Before:
After:
I was planning to put some outlets on the metal studs below the benchwork - do you think I should mount them closer to the aisle instead and beneath the benchwork?
I don't want any interefence from the AC power, so would have to make sure sufficient distance from the main bus, or always crossing and not parallel.
Already got the plastic grommets for the studs, thanks!
You can put the receptacles where ever is most convenient for you. Mine are in the wall below the layout and are a real pain. I need an extension cord just for a soldering iron.
I would keep rail power and AC power separated as much as possible. Crossing over should not cause any problems.
Maybe someone else on here that has AC and track power can help.
Crossing at 90 degress would be no problem. Also don't bundle 120VAC wires to any low voltage - any failure of insulation could make the whole layout hot. Definitely protect all corners of the metal studs, they will slive right through even an outdoor extension cord. That goes for both any 120 volt lines as well as all the layout wiring. They make plastic inserts for the standard holes in the steel studs, definitely use them.
Since the 120 volt lines would be running across the benchwork from back to dront, you already would have any crossing with low voltage or signal lines at 90 degrees, so there should be no issues.
Another option is to make something portable - use a short heavy duty extension cord (longer than the benchwork is deep) and cut off the female end. Wire that to a standard duplex outlet in a plastic box. Put a plate over it. Glue some magnets to the box. Now you can have an outlet stuck on the front of the benchwork when you need it, and move it to the next work area as needed. One crawl under the layout for the entire work session as tools would be connected at the front in the box.
I think outlets are necessary throughout the layout for those small DC adapters that power all kinds of things on the layout. We got bunch of those around on the club layout too, so I figure I should prepare for it.
In any case I will ground the entire metal framework to the Earth ground. One can never be too sure, right? :)
I also twisted my layout wires because I am running DCC.
Quick update - it's been over a month since my last post and more things have happened on the layout.
I finished the peninsula, installed twin track uprights (standards), and painted everything sky blue. Basically the benchwork foundation is complete.