HO Layout Design 10 x 14 want your inputs please

[Tom Bryant_MR]

Sept 10th I started an HO layout design for a 10x12 bedroom. After several good inputs, more reading and researching the area of the model, I ended up clearing out space in the garage to get a 10x14 space plus an area for staging.

This is only my second design so I need your expert eyes and inputs.

Goals are:
1) Location of prototype is Taylor Texas, (north of Taylor, #2, are Hearn and on towards the Dallas area). South of Smithville, #7, are Fayetteville and on towards Houston and the ship channel.
2) Time period will be early to mid 80's with Southern Pacific, Missouri Pacific, the Katy and some Union Pacific diesel.
3) Switching and ops more interesting to me than just running loops. The loop around the staging area, #1, and the double switch allow trains to be backed into staging when ops are complete and allows for the occasional run the trains round-and-round. I have grandkids [:D]
So, current design is - http://home.austin.rr.com/tomsandy/Garage_k_shinorar.pdf.

I went to Taylor this past weekend to see if the yard is still intact. It's there but I have no way of knowing how it looked in the early 80's.

Appreciate your thoughts; how can I make this better before pulling out the 'ole saw and hammer.

[Anonymous]

I love Smithville and Englin. You should have good towns there.

Taylor yard is going to choke on your trains being double ended. I dont like the fact that your rear loop track with it's passing siding is visually so close to the Taylor's yard.

You need a passing siding somewhere. How about moving it Between Smithville and Englin on one of the curves?

Your small LCRA yard behind Smithville could be converted into a different town with some kind of back drop between the two.

The right side of the layout with it's double crossover and that huge yard filling the entire loop shouts spagetti. Is it possible to compound ladder from one of the curves and reduce the area of the present yard?

If it is staging you are gunning for... why not find a hole to burrow into so you can use the volume under the layout to stage trains. They can come up when it is thier turn to perform and reduce the amound of yardage above ground.

I think you might be able to snip some inches off the straights and "Fatten" the radius of the curves a bit. 20 inches is a bit tight. Try for 24 inches or better.

Make one of the straight tracks that follows the edge of the table for a distance a very large radius curve that is a sort of a slow right then a slow left back (Or the opposite) as it works it's way around a scenic feature. This would help destroy the "Toy train Layout" look and make your railroad actually surveyed around the land instead of building the straight edges everywhere.

That is my initial thought. I like your plan and hope that you will try to have some kind of vertical seperation between the loop track or maybe having it behind a back drop and or a short tunnel.

[selector]

I, too, like what I see. However, in many instances your tracks, mostly the curves, are far too close to the edges of your benchwork if the benchwork is that golden or yellow colour. You'd be well advised to reconsider.

Yup, that is one busy yard down to the right. Too bad you have elected to forego a service facility..it ads realism and variety.

You do need at least one more passing track, maybe at that loop lower left...another at the spaghetti.

Otherwise, you will have a lot of fun with that, and could have several guests to operate.

[Tom Bryant_MR]

HighIron2003ar and Crandell, excellent inputs! I was off today so I decided it was time to get this "before the public" so to speak. I'm back to work tomorrow, so I will take all of your ideas and try to see what I can modify this week.

Thanks again for the inputs.

[vsmith]

Personally if I had that much area I'd make sure to have a double mainline and some passing sidings, even if that means cutting back a bit on the yards a bit, but thats me...otherwise nice layout.

[Tom Bryant_MR]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

Personally if I had that much area I'd make sure to have a double mainline and some passing sidings, even if that means cutting back a bit on the yards a bit, but thats me...otherwise nice layout.

Yeah. I really love the look of the Pennsy's and all those double and tripple lines. The area I'm modeling doesn't have double main lines. I do need more passing sidings though - Taylor yard taking a little too much space. I ran the numbers through jfugates formula's and the number of cars that can be moved is too low IMHO compared with my previous design in a smaller space. So, back to the drawing board.

[Anonymous]

Think about your trains first.

How long are you gonna run em? 15 cars? 20? or even 30?

Whatever the lenth of your train plus locomotives is going to be your passing siding need. Dont make that siding too short or you will not be able to get two trains by each other.

I think short areas can be double tracked but some single track will provide some visual relief and perhaps operational choke points that your trains will need to share.

Anyone can do the roundy roundy. Those are great for the kids. But to make that train travel a roundy once and look like it is actually going somewhere is the rub.

[jxtrrx]

I really like your layout. Nice space utilization, and lots of interesting features. You've obviously put in alot of thought and alot of work. Only suggestion would be to repeat the thought of trying to increase those radii a little.

[jawnt]

Tom, I live about 35 miles East of Taylor and have been crossing the Taylor yard off and on since 1958. About the only major change to the yard in that time has been the SH95 overpass which was built in the 70's. Of course there has been buildings come and go, but primarily it looks the same as it did back in '58......
John T.

[CNJ831]

I'm a little dubious on that multiple-track arrangement at Elgin. In the real world railroads don't like switching puzzles and typically try to use the minimum amount track and switches to handle the industrial or customer needs for a given area.

CNJ831

[Tom Bryant_MR]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jawnt

Tom, I live about 35 miles East of Taylor and have been crossing the Taylor yard off and on since 1958. About the only major change to the yard in that time has been the SH95 overpass which was built in the 70's. Of course there has been buildings come and go, but primarily it looks the same as it did back in '58......
John T.

Great! Thanks for the feedback. Small world [;)]. Do you know if the yard in Taylor is single or double ended?

BTW, my name is John T (Tom) also.

[Tom Bryant_MR]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831

I'm a little dubious on that multiple-track arrangement at Elgin. In the real world railroads don't like switching puzzles and typically try to use the minimum amount track and switches to handle the industrial or customer needs for a given area.

CNJ831

I was in Elgin last weekend and have some modifications to make. I hope I got good enough pics.

Thanks for looking [;)]

[dehusman]

The major problem I see is that Mopac trains wouldn't have operated through any of the towns you modeled (other than Taylor). Taylor was a big X with the east-west Mopac crossing the north-South MKT. The Mop had trackage rights over the MKT north of Taylor to Waco, but only MKT trains ran south to Smithville. On the Mop, trains from San Antonio to Ft Worth would leave and go up the MKT to Waco. Trains for Houston and N Little Roock would go straight East to Valley Jct. There was no crew change point at Hearne, the change was at Taylor. At Valley Jct the trains for Houston would hang a right onto the "BV" and go down to Spring Jct and enter Houston from the North. Littel Rock/Chicago bound trains would run straight away to Palestine and then points north. The SP never was in Taylor in the early 1980's.

Dave H.

[Anonymous]

Think of the same layout but in N scale.

Just a thought.

[Tom Bryant_MR]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

The major problem I see is that Mopac trains wouldn't have operated through any of the towns you modeled (other than Taylor). Taylor was a big X with the east-west Mopac crossing the north-South MKT. The Mop had trackage rights over the MKT north of Taylor to Waco, but only MKT trains ran south to Smithville. On the Mop, trains from San Antonio to Ft Worth would leave and go up the MKT to Waco. Trains for Houston and N Little Roock would go straight East to Valley Jct. There was no crew change point at Hearne, the change was at Taylor. At Valley Jct the trains for Houston would hang a right onto the "BV" and go down to Spring Jct and enter Houston from the North. Littel Rock/Chicago bound trains would run straight away to Palestine and then points north. The SP never was in Taylor in the early 1980's.

Dave H.

Thanks Dave. I had not delved that deeply yet into what trains ran exactly where. I did find material about what railroads were in business during the early eighties in this area. Thanks for the info. This helps.

Regards,

[dehusman]

Taylor yard was used for some block swaps between trains and was used as a base for the locals that served the aggregate and cement industries along the Mopac Austin Sub (Palestine to San Antonio.) The Mop ran trains from Houston to San Antonio (HOSA, SAHO), Ft Worth to San Antonio (FWSA, SAFW) and N Little Rock to San Antonio. They ran an intermodal train each way a day. There were several rock trains a day from the Austin Sub to Houston. Plus there was a hot connection for a while where the local would bring in a cut of aluminum ingots from Marjorie to make a close connection with the SAFW. Most of the local business was rock or cement with some coal to the cement plants.
The MKT ran three or four manifest freights each way through Taylor on their line.
Amtrak #21 and #22 operated on the Austin Sub, San Antonio to Taylor, then up the MKT to Temple and one the ATSF Temple to Ft Worth.
The MKT served a coal fired power plant at Halstead, south of Smithville and the Mop served a coal fired plant near San Antonio (actually it was on the SP and may not have begun serving it until after the MP-MKT merger).
The MKT was ABS train orders and the MoPac was CTC.

Dave H.

[Tom Bryant_MR]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

Taylor yard was used for some block swaps between trains and was used as a base for the locals that served the aggregate and cement industries along the Mopac Austin Sub (Palestine to San Antonio.) The Mop ran trains from Houston to San Antonio (HOSA, SAHO), Ft Worth to San Antonio (FWSA, SAFW) and N Little Rock to San Antonio. They ran an intermodal train each way a day. There were several rock trains a day from the Austin Sub to Houston. Plus there was a hot connection for a while where the local would bring in a cut of aluminum ingots from Marjorie to make a close connection with the SAFW. Most of the local business was rock or cement with some coal to the cement plants.
The MKT ran three or four manifest freights each way through Taylor on their line.
Amtrak #21 and #22 operated on the Austin Sub, San Antonio to Taylor, then up the MKT to Temple and one the ATSF Temple to Ft Worth.
The MKT served a coal fired power plant at Halstead, south of Smithville and the Mop served a coal fired plant near San Antonio (actually it was on the SP and may not have begun serving it until after the MP-MKT merger).
The MKT was ABS train orders and the MoPac was CTC.

Dave H.

Dave, you are a veritble gold mine. [:)] May I ask, where did you find this info? I have been scouring the net and came across the power plant at Halstead south of Smithville.

[Tom Bryant_MR]

BTW, janwt and dehusman, I followed the RR from State Hwy 95 from Taylor south to Coupland, on to Elgin and then Smithville.

[Tom Bryant_MR]

As has been suggested, I am moving the staging I had on the lower right peninsula to under the layout and then bringing the trains up as needed.

One thing I am looking for is a way when the trains go back down into staging is to get them backed into their berths without having to pick them up.

Here's the lower level so far. I've only moved it intact and connected it to the upper level.
http://home.austin.rr.com/tomsandy/Garage_k_shinorar_lower.pdf

Would it be better to split this staging into two pieces, one along each straight side of the lower peninsula?

[SpaceMouse]

I haven't read the other posts yet, but I will and maybe add to this later. First of all, it looks like a great layout. I'm jelous.

In the Taylor Yard you might want to extend the lead on the right so that it is as long as the AD track it is servicing. That way you can classify an inbound train all at once instead of having to split it up.

Also in the Taylor Yard, you have two mains, an Eastbound and a Westbound. Only one enters the yard. It seems you could increase your capabilities if both directions had access to the yard.

I don't understand the reason for the dual trackage between Lycra and Elgin. Neither seems to be the clear main and both have to make an S turn to join the main. You may have a good reason for this, but I don't see it and either way it could be cleaner. If you used the inside of the two tracks and continued it throught straight to main (like it was going to run into the "Number 4" on your plan) you could eliminate the other track without any loss of functionality. If you are looking to switch off a siding, you can make a much tighter more effecient one.

I like the way you handled the staging.

I'll read the others comments in a little while and get back to you.

[SpaceMouse]

Okay, I'm back. I didn't have a problem with the staging being on the upper level. I like it being accessible. You could have hidden it with a backdrop. The older I get, the harder it is to bend down and get into tight places.


I see what HI says about the tight turns. I can get away with it with small steam and 36' cars, but anything bigger than a geep... Are you planning any panneger service?

[Tom Bryant_MR]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse
...
In the Taylor Yard you might want to extend the lead on the right so that it is as long as the AD track it is servicing. That way you can classify an inbound train all at once instead of having to split it up.

Thanks for the observation and good input. I compromised. Extended to 40". The arrival track can hold a train 80" long. Currently, I'm expecting to consist about 10-12 cars maximum (depending on type), ~ 60" plus loco. See #2 in plan. I have some work to do on my sidings.

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse
I don't understand the reason for the dual trackage between Lcra and Elgin. Neither seems to be the clear main and both have to make an S turn to join the main. You may have a good reason for this, but I don't see it and either way it could be cleaner. If you used the inside of the two tracks and continued it throught straight to main (like it was going to run into the "Number 4" on your plan) you could eliminate the other track without any loss of functionality. If you are looking to switch off a siding, you can make a much tighter more effecient one.

Again, good input. I did not like that S curve anyway. I was planning to switch Elgin with a local out of Taylor. See southeast of #5 in plan.

Latest incarnation of upper level. I now have to also work on that area at #1. Also, I fixed all the radius to 24+ inches. I had one or two that were a little shy.
http://home.austin.rr.com/tomsandy/Garage_k_shinorar_upper.pdf

Lower level. This is working out better than I had hoped. Thanks HighIron2003ar for the input. [8D]. I was able to split the two staging yards and gained an extra 10" or so by moving one along the straight, plus, it's easier to get to from the side.
http://home.austin.rr.com/tomsandy/Garage_k_shinorar_lower.pdf

Again, let me thank everyone for the excellent inputs I've received. [:D]

[SpaceMouse]

Okay, good progress is being made.

Let's start with Taylor. You've increased significantly the capacity. If you use the two upper tracks as AD, the part below the main can all be used for building trains. This is really good news.

The bad news is that the AD are isolated from the yard lead. Can you get the main to be the top track and attach the lead to where they can service the ADs.

And with the increased capacity it is now vital that you yard lead be as long as the longest yard track. You have the space.

IF you don't do it you will kick yourself the first time you have a couple guys over to operate and they are sitting fouling the main waiting while you classify half a train so that you can get back to clear the AD. This is more likely to happen if every train requires extra moves to break down.

Elgin is still a bit of a mess. My suggestion just for playing around's sake. I don't know how closely you are following the prototype here or what your ultimate goals are.

If you look Elgin and disconnect the main from both ends you see three parallel tracks. My suggestion would be to make the center one the main. From the top of the drawing, that would mean extending the main about 3" to connect with the now nonexistent extension of the middle track of the 3 parallel tracks.

Form the bottom of the drawing the main would extend straight to attach to the middle track in the center.

Leave the right parallel track attached to the main and you have two runarounds so that you can switch on either side of the main and clear the main for through freights and passengers when needed.

[Tom Bryant_MR]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

Okay, good progress is being made.

Let's start with Taylor. You've increased significantly the capacity. If you use the two upper tracks as AD, the part below the main can all be used for building trains. This is really good news.

The bad news is that the AD are isolated from the yard lead. Can you get the main to be the top track and attach the lead to where they can service the ADs.

And with the increased capacity it is now vital that you yard lead be as long as the longest yard track. You have the space.

IF you don't do it you will kick yourself the first time you have a couple guys over to operate and they are sitting fouling the main waiting while you classify half a train so that you can get back to clear the AD. This is more likely to happen if every train requires extra moves to break down.

Elgin is still a bit of a mess. My suggestion just for playing around's sake. I don't know how closely you are following the prototype here or what your ultimate goals are.

If you look Elgin and disconnect the main from both ends you see three parallel tracks. My suggestion would be to make the center one the main. From the top of the drawing, that would mean extending the main about 3" to connect with the now nonexistent extension of the middle track of the 3 parallel tracks.

Form the bottom of the drawing the main would extend straight to attach to the middle track in the center.

Leave the right parallel track attached to the main and you have two runarounds so that you can switch on either side of the main and clear the main for through freights and passengers when needed.

Changes (revision k) - http://home.austin.rr.com/tomsandy/Garage_k_shinorar_upper.pdf
1) At Taylor I connected the main to the two arrival tracks and the yard lead via a double crossing - See left of #2. I've also added a scenic divider - the solid red line. My wife snapped some really good pics beyond the yard area. I hope to take those and make the divider.
2) I extended the track lead in Taylor to be able to pull one train intact from the two arrival tracks. Spacemouse, I'll go with your suggestion here as I've never operated a yard and switching. I'm really looking forward to it [:p] See below #2.
3) Elgin - I've totally redone. See left of #5. Got my pics out from a couple of weekends ago. Here is the track leading into Elgin. Note the industry (not much today) leads off to the left in the pic. On the layout this is looking from the top down at #4.


Thanks again to all of you that are making this an enjoyment for me. I love it [^]

[SpaceMouse]

Tom,

I think your solution to the Taylor Yard will work. It's hard to see the interchange off the lead, but it seems doable.

I'm going to assume that you are going to be operating and that you trains will be running both directions. If that is the case, you still have a couple problems. Imagine you have 3 guys running. One guy has a passenger train running counter clockwise. He is going to be stopping at every town and he has right of way. You have a through freight running clockwise and you are running a way freight clockwise and switching as you go.

You need passing sidings to let trains pass each other. Ideally, you will have you passenger stations in the vicinity of a passing siding (either on the main or on the siding) so that traffic can continue while passengers are being boarded. Likewise, you may want sidings at your major switching areas. These are not requirements, just if you don't, operations will be more interesting.

Also assuming that your way frieghts will switch in both directions, you need runarounds to handle both Elgin and Lycra. Putting a passing siding between Elgin and Lycra could kill three birds with one stone. This would also eliminate the need for a runaround on the right side Elgin. You might as well save the $$ for the turnouts.

At this point, I would start a new thread and call it Draft 2 or something. Obviously, people have thought they have given their input and this has become a dialog between you and me. Keep up the good work. IT keeps getting better and better. You are moving towards a layout that will be fun for you by yourself, and I can forsee 4 guys (or kids) operating as a team and having a great time.

[Anonymous]

Look at the Taylor yard.

See the double crossover on the right center area near the number 2 and above the words "South-North"

It is my opinion that removing one leg that is already duplicated by the ladder on the left near the number three will help alot.

so if a train passes number 4 and enters the yard near number three it can continue over to the "east" main without making so many S curves.

If a train on the rear track entered from behind number 2 it can climb it's own ladder without the vicious twisting presented by the double crossover if it wanted to proceed to the "South"

as a final argument for devil advocate's sake... that double crossover takes away valuable siding space.

If you insist on having a double crossover somewhere Then put it one track down to the "East" towards the bottom of this paper and put it in the exact middle of what appears to be a long passing siding between both yards.

I hope this helps. I tried to be very precise with words because my artisitic imagary is quite bad.

The rest of it I love it!!!

[Anonymous]

The first thing that grabs my attention is how close the tracks are to the edge of the layout / bench work. this has potential for the pride and joy testing your ability to replicate feats of superman (Faster than a FALLING Locomotive) in the event of the unpredicted derailment.. Of particular concern are the points at either end of Smithville
Are you going to need all the tracks in the off layout staging area? How much clearence will you have between the bottom of the bench work of the upper level and the top of your rolling stock on the lower level? Will you be able to recover any derailed units easily or are you going to have to move a lot of other trains to get to the offending unit?
Where were you linking your down grade on to the upper level? To achieve a more Point to Point feel two smaller staging yards could be used, running from the outer(wall side) track. If the down grade started from arroung the current double crossover near "2" and near "5" behind Elgin. This could incerase the depth for Scenary or an extra track at Taylors Yard. the length of grade will provide a good clearence in staging yards located underneath the main layout but be aware of how much bending is required to check and access those trains in yards.

[Anonymous]

I hadn't seen the updated draft with the relocated double crossover. My previous post was IRT the original plan. I like the potential for the double crossover in this location but moving the main line swich to the north a bit, add a right hand swich to the loop, a crossing (on the swich lead) and double slip onto the inner (edge) track at Taylor Yard
With the revised plan how are you going to disguise the access to your staging yard?
Will there be a viewblock between Smithville and LCRA Yard or are they in close proximity in reality?
Could a passing loop be included at Elgin? The requirement for this would depend on how many operators you plan to run in a session.
The duplication of the passing loop at Smithville seems to be an overkill but if you are running LONG trains this is the only place that two could pass.

[Tom Bryant_MR]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Peter Skennerton

Will there be a viewblock between Smithville and LCRA Yard or are they in close proximity in reality?

Thanks for the inputs Peter. It's the weekend [:D], so I get to spend time workin on the railroad as it were.
On your specific questions.
1) Disguishing the entry from/into lower staging ? Still thinking about this.
2) Passing sidings. Spacemouse had simlar input. With expanded staging I have to work those passing sidings or everything will clog up.
3) The LCRA yard is in Smithville.
http://home.austin.rr.com/tomsandy/smithville_map.pdf.

I was thinkng about making the peninsula at #6 and #7 a model of the town. Lot's of interesting buildings. Got these off the internet. If you note from the map, the trackage in Smithville is in the town. I have some other better pics of the LCRA yard from a weekend or two ago. Also got to speak with a railfan living there. They said a train goes through this area every 30 minutes or so during the week.

[Tom Bryant_MR]

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar

Look at the Taylor yard.

See the double crossover on the right center area near the number 2 and above the words "South-North"

It is my opinion that removing one leg that is already duplicated by the ladder on the left near the number three will help alot.

so if a train passes number 4 and enters the yard near number three it can continue over to the "east" main without making so many S curves.

If a train on the rear track entered from behind number 2 it can climb it's own ladder without the vicious twisting presented by the double crossover if it wanted to proceed to the "South"

as a final argument for devil advocate's sake... that double crossover takes away valuable siding space.

If you insist on having a double crossover somewhere Then put it one track down to the "East" towards the bottom of this paper and put it in the exact middle of what appears to be a long passing siding between both yards.

I hope this helps. I tried to be very precise with words because my artisitic imagary is quite bad.

The rest of it I love it!!!

Thanks. I'll need to think about this. Maybe some of the confusion is because the "main line" is not visually evident. I've noted on several CAD layouts posted through out that the mainline is highlighted or darker. I'm not figured out how to do this. Put it in a different layer ?