Thanks for the reply BNSF! I'm not a layout designer so I'm not the best to comment. I will say that I am concerned about reach with your current setup. It appears that all of your layout buildings will be between the operator and the main lines. Thus you will need to reach over the buildings to clean track, realign cars, disconnect cars, etc. I personally prefer track on the front side with a short reach. Someone earlier mentioned Pelle's Daneville layout as an example (12 ft by 22 ft). It is a gorgeous layout where you want to step into the scene! It is a very realistic design and clearly shows how much space is required for a large yard and for switching industries with long rail cars. Based on your interests, you will need to downsize your expectations as you do not sufficient room to do them all. I like 1:1 designing by using HO track, really helps to see what can and cannot fit in a given space. Good luck with your layout!
I can do both!!!
1:18 scale plan:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1M3w8HTRBrrnqNaaZUHWp1BbM9xV9YrWI
1:12 scale plan:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1XRTenHGxjLsKcuqchq1yztmY8DNu8_Xh
Current layout progress:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1GTyHW52O3x3FCW29-PJef8qPxyzD4Ddr
To answer a few likely questions...
I model in HO. I am still open to track plan ideas. I only have a few things established. I know I would like a big yard, one that can accomodate trains longer than seven actual feet, and boy am I willing to sacrifice space for it. There will be a double track mainline, as you might be able to tell already from the two trains I have up. The PROBABLE location of the yard would be mostly in the left 3ft by 6 3/4ft section of the layout, but would start off the mainline farther up. I want it to have the full shebang: rip tracks, engine service tracks, main tracks, A/D tracks, etc. And caboose tracks if I can fit them... and I want all of it to be VERY realistic (notice I didn't say prototypical) and VERY operational.
There might be a helix (for future staging and second level), and the layout was designed to accomodate one...
I want industries popping off of the mainline at various places for even MORE operation. If I can do that prototypically. At least a stock yard/and or meat industry (if I have space) and a boxcar loading dock (wooden platform). Also, a decent sized tank car unloading platform/s to accomodate my tanktrain and other cars. Maybe a couple of tracks for my hoppers, gons, flats, etc.
Power would be very modern. Nice BNSF and UP engines. But since my layout is freelanced, I might decide to run some of their predecessor's equipment occasionally...
Said mainline trains would be an intermodal, a mixed freight bound for the yard, and a passenger train (I will have a long passenger station for that). And whatever else I feel like and can squeeze in.
Scenery will be NW United States. I dont really like winter scenery or fall scenery, and I can barely stand desert, hence my choice to model the NW, plus, that is where most of my favourite railroads ran.
I know it is impossible to fit everthing I want, but I listed it all so that yall can help me make the best choices. I am also sure that I missed something in that way to big chunk of information above (sorry about that) but oh well... Any help moving forward would be greatly appreciated!!!
I'm beginning to realize that Windows 10 and sound decoders have a lot in common. There are so many things you have to change in order to get them to work the way you want.
Hey BNSF, what did you decide to do with your layout? I'd love to see what you've done! Can you post pictures and/or layout drawing? Thanks!
Good news! Believe it or not, I can get everything I mentioned and want in ho scale, and I have started doing it! Want proof? I can post my layout plan and pictures of my progress if you don't believe me!
BNSF UP and others modelerI have the MRR magazine with the salt lake route, will see if i can find any ideas.
They key idea there is switching to Nscale. I am almost certain that is why that layout was suggested.
I will try to do all of this, although, as is probably evident, it will take time. As for your question, I just might be able to have it hang slightly over the car, don't know how tall it is. The rest of the garage space along the walls is chock full of suitcases, rubbermaids, gardens tools, etc. The car takes up the middle, so I really don't have more space to work with than the possible overhang above the car. Thanks for all the suggestions though! Much appreciated.
I decided to provide you with a quick assessement of each of your drawings.
A quick key to what radius you will need:
2x physical length is the absolute minimum for a piece of equipment to operate (in most cases), and 2.5x will likely provide trouble free operation.
What does this mean?
An 89' intermodal flatcar will need at absolute minimum of 24-25" and would be happier at 30"
A 40' box car will work on 15" but will be happier on 18"
Given the following facts provided by you:
The space is 6.5' wide.
Plan 1
Plan 1 as drawn is a U shape plan. With the long legs of the U being on the long sides of the space.
In order to have a turn back loop, each leg would need to be a minimum of 48" at the end (22" radius loop). This leaves 2.5 feet for aisle space and the other leg of the U at the widest point of the return loop.
Each balloon will occupy a 4x4 space, and will need to be offset from each other. Given 11' of length, your long ballon will end about the 7' mark and the short balloon will likewise start around 6' to allow you to walk between them. I would have to draw this out to scale to see if would even be workable.
Plan 2
The two end boxes sticking down would need to be at a minimum of 4x4 to accoplish turn back loops, and you will need to add some triangles in the inside corners to support the track to curve back to parallel with the back wall.
This eats up 8 feet of your length. Providing you with only 3 feet for the center peninsula and two aisles.
Plan 3
Plan 3 is basically the same as plan two with out the peninsula (which Im guessing that you may have guessed wouldnt fit)
Plan 3 again would require two 4x4 shaped boxes at a minimum to accomplish the turnbacks for continuous run (with the affore-mententioned triangles added to support the track turning back.
Question:
Is there a way you could run the benchwork down one side of the garage or the other? How tall is your car? Could the benchwork be over the car slightly in any area.
Some food for thought.
BNSF UP and others modeler"some reworking on the other stuff mentioned in the article to make it fit my CRITERIA and SPACE".
Basically all you are saying is you like the overall concept.
A turnback loop in HO will need to be at the absolute minimum 48" across (for the benchwork) with the equipment you want to run, and will likely need to be larger.
A helix with a tighter radius is highly inadvisable for a couple of reasons. Top of the list is that as the radius gets tighter, both the actual grade and effective grade due to curvature goes up. Trains want to run in a straight line. Turning adds friction. More friction = more drag. More drag equals fewer cars that can be pulled. Somewhere I have a helix calculator that someone ginned up awhile back, but if memory serves, a 22" radius helix puts you in the 5-6% grade+ range.
Intermodal is not probably workable in your space. 89' flat cars and 53' well cars like big curves, not little ones. You might beable to modeler's license a bit a get away with smaller intermodal cars, Front Runners might be workable, but I would guess that your track work will need to be bulletproof (the prototype had trouble with the things derailing).
I would suggest either getting a compass and several sheets of graph paper or using a CAD (CTSS notwithstanding) program to draw your space to scale, then put scale minimum radius circles into your space and drag them around a bit. Af
Since youve stated you want continous run, locating where the turnbacks will exist is probably going to be the most limiting thing.
We are not knocking your space, don't take it personally. Everyone (and I mean everyone) has to make some sort of concession to their available space when compared to what they want to model. What we are trying to do is help you understand what actually will fit in your space and get you as close as possible to your stated goals.
This is my compromise to space.
Here is what I want to model:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Terminal_Company#/media/File:PortlandTerminalCompanyMap.png
I have a 13 foot (nominal) x 23 foot space. (I say nominal because its not a rectangle, and one end is wider than the other). What fits in HO starts where it says yard 2 and runs to the bridge across the water to the right.
This is the track plan that really drove home the concept for me that everything I wanted would never fit in my space:
http://mrr.trains.com/how-to/track-plan-database/2017/03/ho-scale-union-pacific-daneburg-subdivison
Hmmm... Maybe. Although I would need it lo lift whole trians, which still takes up a lot of space. Also, the payload has to exit in the same direction it entered, unless you add the additional complication of turning 180 degrees. I will have to see.
Why a helix? An elevator takes up much less space and can stop on many levels with out the needed approach design considerations. No curvature and berticle space issues either
A pessimist sees a dark tunnel
An optimist sees the light at the end of the tunnel
A realist sees a frieght train
An engineer sees three idiots standing on the tracks stairing blankly in space
Helix Size,....larger than you first think
Helix Rings,....steel or alum
They will intersect with some 68” steel circles I am having bent up from 1.5” angle iron. Those two steel circles (one top, one bottom) will be joined by 12 vertical post made up from 1” square alum sections I salvaged elsewhere. It should be strong, and rigid.
Regretably I was not able to find a fabricator to make these steel rings of angle iron and/or at a reasonable price. So I had to settle to some rings bent of 2"x1/4" thick aluminum strips. They arrived a couple of days ago, and I'll start some drilling work on them tomorrow.
Sure look bigger in real life, particularly when standing on edge
These are for building a dbl-track helix of 32.5" & 29.5" radius tracks.
Brian
My Layout Plan
Interesting new Plan Consideration
Please guys!! I know my space is too small! That is why is said I would have to do some "reworking on the other stuff mentioned in the article to make it fit my CRITERIA and SPACE". Obviously raidus and layout size would be smaller. I just liked the scenery, the helix IDEA, not saying I will definitely do it, and the triple shelf concept the transitions from mountians to the sea. Thats all.
BNSF UP and others modelerI guess I'm on my own then? Thanks for those of you who contributed layout ideas and suggestions. I wanted that, not critiques.
Well, I guess maybe your are alone. Any of your 3 sketches CAN be made to work, if you want point to point, and NO continuous running, and NO helix, and on 1 level, not 2 or 3.
Cuyama is trying to be realistic with you, and trying to make you aware of what space you have. It's been pointed out to you how much space a helix takes up, and for continuous running, looking at your sketch #3, each section on the left and right needs to be a minimum of 4' wide, just to have a 22" radius for the return loop.
And the plan you linked to in MRR, it's 16'6" x 16'6". You have 6'3" x 11'. You have to come down to earth with the space you have, or leave the car parked outside.
If it was mine, I'd go with the donut shape that Byron (Cuyama) shows, or maybe something in the shape of my first suggestion, leave enough space to walk all the way around the layout, divide whats left with a backdrop divider, and have a continuous loop.
BUT, Cuyama is a professional track plan designer, I'm nothing close to that.
Do a scaled drawing of your space, with a proposed track plan, but be real, and use a compass to draw loops and curves on the track plan, with an actual scaled radius, and see for yourself what will fit. The absolute bare minimum you want for a return loop, in HO, is 22", most modern equipment will work, but 24" is better, and recommended for modern equipment, and 30" is best.
Mike.
My You Tube
BNSF UP and others modelerI guess I'm on my own then?
Or you might choose a published layout that's closer to your actual space -- that will put you in the right ballpark from the beginning.
BNSF UP and others modelerThanks for those of you who contributed layout ideas and suggestions. I wanted that, not critiques.
Would you rather have been told, "Yes, go ahead with that much-larger layout published in MR (even though it won't fit)."
Or encouraged to go ahead with your sketches even though they won't work for your concept, scale, and space?
I tried to help you with the suggestion of a donut-style layout which would fit well in your space, allow a broader radius for your modern equipment, etc. But as is so often the case, people seem to take any alternative suggestions as criticism.
Best of luck, perhaps others will provide information in a manner that you find more palatable.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
I guess I'm on my own then? Thanks for those of you who contributed layout ideas and suggestions. I wanted that, not critiques.
BNSF UP and others modelerThis caught my attention too: http://mrr.trains.com/how-to/model-train-layouts/2018/05/mountains-to-seaside-on-a-triple-deck-model-railroad I could go for triple deck too, although I would have to do some reworking on the other stuff mentioned in the article to make it fit my criteria and space.
Sorry, it doesn't fit in your space. It's a 30" minimum radius in the helix. That's about 5½' across in all dimensions once you allow for supports and clearances. It would take up nearly half of your space just for the helix, unless you have more area than you've told us about.
The plan you cite from MR is 272 square feet. You have about 70 square feet. That layout is four times the size of your space. Until you get real about space, you’re spinning your wheels.
Likewise, the other sketches you posted don’t seem to be realistic about space – especially the space needed for turnback curves broad enough for the modern locomotives and intermodal equipment you wish to run in HO.
Either the dimensions you gave us in the beginning are way off or you need to reset your expectations substantially.
Good luck.
Yeah, you are right. Here it is:
https://imgur.com/ELb2tGR
This caught my attention too:
http://mrr.trains.com/how-to/model-train-layouts/2018/05/mountains-to-seaside-on-a-triple-deck-model-railroad
I could go for triple deck too, although I would have to do some reworking on the other stuff mentioned in the article to make it fit my criteria and space.
BNSF UP and others modelerHere are my 3 main ideas: file:///C:/Users/Public/Pictures/Sample%20Pictures/Layout%20idea.png
file:///C:/Users/Public/Pictures/Sample%20Pictures/Layout%20idea.png
I can not see anything here, nor if I cut & paste that address into my browser. That looks like an address within your pc.
Paul
Modeling HO with a transition era UP bent
Here are my 3 main ideas:
They are very crude and primitive, I know. These are illustrations of the VERY basic shape, no staging, hidden trackwork, etc. All corners would be rounded. I expect the final result to deviate quite a bit from these scetches. My hope would be that the upper deck would be the same shape as the lower, but I only illustrated the lower deck for clarity. Feel free to offer modifications or other advice!
Hello all,
BNSF UP and others modelerI want to start over. I have 6ft 3/4 inches by 11ft 2 inches.
Oh, my mind reels with the possibilities!
BNSF UP and others modelerI would like to have a nice double track mainline as long as possible with a boxcar loading dock on the layout
Obviously changing to N scale would provide for longer mainline runs in the same space over HO.
Might I suggest an asymmetrical dog-bone shaped island layout.
Rather than cross-overs you could make them bridges/viaducts. This would add a vertical dimension.
This would also simplify the central junction.
Yards, industries or terrain features; tunnels or bridges, could be incorporated into the lobes of the bone.
Please keep us updated on your progress and have fun!
Hope this helps.
"Uhh...I didn’t know it was 'impossible' I just made it work...sorry"
Thank you for all the comments! I am very much prepared to dismantle the 4x8, and I have the MRR magazine with the salt lake route, will see if i can find any ideas.
The best use of that space would involve dismantling the 4X8. And then I would think in terms of a donut-style layout using the inside, outside, and backside (against the walls) of the donut. As in the conceptual not-to-scale sketch below.
An HO helix is likely not practical in that space. Two physically unconnected decks might be possible.
Some folks have allowed part of a layout to extend over the hood of the parked car (of course, the car must be out of the garage for construction and full operation).
Good luck with your layout.
Byron
Looking at what you want to model and the space you want to do it in, may I suggest a change of scale? A few years ago, MR did a N scale project railroad, which featured a double mainline track, an intermodal yard and some industries to switch. It lacked a staging yard to act as the origin or the destination of trains, but that could be easily incorporated into the layout as well as your room.
The project layout´s handle was "The Salt Lake Route". It was a roughly 5 by 9 ft. affair with breathtaking scenic features - and a bridge, which is on your list.
Happy times!
Ulrich (aka The Tin Man)
"You´re never too old for a happy childhood!"
My suggestion is to think about what you want and the space you have.
A 4x8 limits you to an absolute max of 22" radius, practically something more like 20" radius (if you don't want the track right on the edge of the layout) and much less than that on the inside main of double track. The inside main will be at or below the suggested minimum radius of larger equipment.
You want intermodal trains. Intermodal trains use LOOOOOOONG cars and LOOOOOONG locomotives. Long cars and long locos work better on wider radius. If you have really well laid track and everything is tuned and smooth, yes you can get really long cars to work on a tight radius. If its not high quality then there is a large potential for problems. On tight curves long cars and engines need wider track spacing. You will need at least 2 1/4 to 2 1/2 inch separation on curves below 24" radius. Longer cars and longer engines work best on longer switches. I would suggest #6 switches if you are operating intermodal trains through them, definitely #6 switches if you will be shoving intermodal trains through them.
Yes, I know, everybody wants the 150 platform stack train with 3 SD70's pulling it. However one of the first concepts of track planning is the Harry Callahan rule: "A man's got to know his limitations."
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Helixes have always been huge space eaters. It helps to have an area where they can go that might not otherwise take away space from important parts of the layout.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
BNSF UP and others modeler A helix would be needed though... I'll have to see.
A helix would be needed though... I'll have to see.
I want a double track mainline, if possible, that would go around. But, I want bridges and tunnels for scenic variety, and a way to disguise the fact that it is going around and around. The more sidings I can logically squeeze in for extra operation, the better (for me). I also have plenty of space for another deck, which I think will drastically enhance the mainline's illusion of length.
Here it is. The 10" doesn't give you a lot of room for bigger structures. Would you be satisfied with point to point operation or are you someone who want to see his train go round and round?
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley