Am I going overboard for 1st layout?

[Anonymous]

My first post.

My son & I are planning an HO layout. We did an O-guage layout on a 4x8 table a couple years ago, & had a great time. We did mountains & scenery, & spent a whole winter working on it. It was a folded figure-8, & was excellent as my kids were young. We found that most of the fun was in building it, as opposed to running it, but it only had 5 switches.

We want to build another, and want to do an HO layout, & found one we really like. It's in the Atlas book, HO-29. It's L-shaped 12ft x 10ft overall, & a little scary. It has something like 30 switches, which is a lot for starters, so we've scalled it back to have only 5 switches to start with.

The other thing I kinda' don't like about this layout is that it looks like "all trains". We like more scenery, buildings, & etc. We plan to hide some of the track with bigger mountains & etc.

Anyway, a few things scare me about this layout. First of all, it's 4-times the size of the O-guage layout we did, & it'll take a long time to get running. Second, the "tables" are 5ft front-to-back, which seems awkward. Third, it seems like the rectangular dimensions will make having significant mountains & tressels & changes in height difficult / unrealistic.

We have a pretty open room in the basement, & I expected to have a layout with longer narrower shelves along the wall, so this is really different. It looks well thought-out though, & I think would be fun to build & to drive.

Are we going overboard?

I appreciate your advice,
Paul

[Jetrock]

If you're concerned about it, then certainly take the time to think about it! There are many, many books of track plans--make a list of things you'd like to include in a track plan and look for a plan that meets your requirements. If you find something close, odds are you'll be able to modify it to reflect what you want out of a railroad.

Many of the Atlas track plans are older ones, which reflect a more track-heavy philosophy than many modern modelers like--also, folks seemed less concerned about reach for some reason. A table 5' wide means the farthest reach is 30", assuming you have access from both sides of the table.

Another thing to consider is building a layout in stages. Rather than build the whole thing at once, concentrate on one portion of the layout first. Once it is up and running, you can move on to the next section. That way, it won't take you too long to actually run some trains and make use of the layout, but you will still be able to expand at a comfortable rate.

Layout planning can take a while--don't rush it!! Keep trying until you find a plan you fall in love with.

[SecretWeapon]

You'll never be big enough.I have a 15x12x8 layout in "n".I don't even have a yard to speak of.Mike

[Anonymous]

Use the space you have to build the largest radius curves you can - this will help as you'll be able to run pretty much anything. go for over 30inch radius if you can - all trains look better on more gentle curves.

[MAbruce]

Want a better scenery to track ratio (in a smaller space)? Go N-scale. [:D][;)]

I'd say if you have concerns with the layout design, then maybe you should keep looking. This is a major investment of your time and resources, so take your time finding the "right" plan.

As far as getting in too deep with a too large a layout, that is a good concern to have. One must carefully consider their experience, available time, and resources (mainly money as it won't be cheap). The last thing anyone should do is to take on something that becomes too difficult to manage. A hobby can suddenly become a burden and not much fun.

It sounds like you already have the experience; it’s the time, money, and plan that you have to ponder on.

[nfmisso]

QUOTE: Originally posted by pgottshall

My first post.

My son & I are planning an HO layout. We did an O-guage layout on a 4x8 table a couple years ago, & had a great time. We did mountains & scenery, & spent a whole winter working on it. It was a folded figure-8, & was excellent as my kids were young. We found that most of the fun was in building it, as opposed to running it, but it only had 5 switches.

We want to build another, and want to do an HO layout, & found one we really like. It's in the Atlas book, HO-29. It's L-shaped 12ft x 10ft overall, & a little scary. It has something like 30 switches, which is a lot for starters, so we've scalled it back to have only 5 switches to start with.

The other thing I kinda' don't like about this layout is that it looks like "all trains". We like more scenery, buildings, & etc. We plan to hide some of the track with bigger mountains & etc.

Anyway, a few things scare me about this layout. First of all, it's 4-times the size of the O-guage layout we did, & it'll take a long time to get running. Second, the "tables" are 5ft front-to-back, which seems awkward. Third, it seems like the rectangular dimensions will make having significant mountains & tressels & changes in height difficult / unrealistic.

We have a pretty open room in the basement, & I expected to have a layout with longer narrower shelves along the wall, so this is really different. It looks well thought-out though, & I think would be fun to build & to drive.

Are we going overboard?

Hi Paul;

In a way yes, but not due to size.

I suggest that you go back to your shelf idea, with most of it at a height and depth that both you and your son can reach all the way to the back.

My basic suggestions for a larger layout are that it include: a yard - three or four tracks is enough, a mainline with industries (sources and receivers of loads) that are easily reached for switching, that it be designed as a point to point, but with continuous running capability for just watching the train go by.

Given your space, I would do a "folded dog bone" which is basically a squashed loop, or two parrallel mainline tracks connected at each end with a loop, arranged in a U or E shape - along the walls. Put the yard near one end, and spread out some industries along the mainline with spurs. Understand that you will be adding more switches and industries later, moving some around, etc. On the loops, make provision for a helix under and over them to access a level down and a level up. Try to make your loops 30" radius.

Later, you can add staging to the level down, and more rr to the level up.

If it is in your budget, go for DCC right off, Digitrax Zephyr and the Atlas Commander (made by Lenz) are both reasonably priced, easily expanded systems.

If you e-mail me a sketch of your space, I will send you a sketch back of what I am talking about.

Have fun.

[orsonroy]

The relative size of a layout is really more deopendant on how many switches you have, rather than the table size. A layout that runs around a 20x20 room that only has four switches is a lot "smaller" than a 6x8 layout with 32 switches crammed into it.

To me, trains always look better with a lot of mainline to run on. I'd suggest rethinking the idea of a shelf layout in your basement, which really don't eat up a lot of space (and the space underneath can be used for storage!). Add a 1 foor shelf around the entire rom (2' at the corners for 24" or larger curves, which are desireable), add just a mainline on that, and work slowly from there. Add a single town with a passing siding and a couple of stub sidings for industries. Add towns one at a time as your interest grows. But always remember to keep adding as few switches as possible, and you won't get overwhelmed!

Adding scenery to "all that layout" works the same way. Once you get your basic terrain shapes in (whether you're using plaster or foam), paint everything tan "dirt color", and add a little basic green ground cover. This gives the layout a more finished look, and provided a good base to eventually go back and add your final scenery. A layout doesn't hacve to look like a construction site forever!

And whatever you do, have fun! My father and I had a model RR together, and it was great fun, and a great way to bond and do stuff together. Now that we live 200 miles away from each other, we still play trains at each other's houses whenever we get together.

[vsmith]

I would say yes, only if you think you'll be finished anytime soon. Whatever you decide to do get a basic loop started based on your overall plan so at least you'll be able to run trains. The longer you are doing benchwork, track laying and wiring without being able to run trains, the greater the chances you'll get bored or frustrated and not finish. I would either do a loop section first, get your trains running, then branch off from there.

[ndbprr]

One always has the balance of building a railroad that isn't too small and isn't too big but "just right" ( boy would that make a good kid's book!). Most of us keep tearing down and starting over bigger so no I don't think you are building too much. You have recognized that you are building a railroad where you are on the outside and the railroad is in the middle. There is a favored concensus that around the walls with you in the middle is prefered but that is opinion based on wants and desires. What I would do if you choose to go ahead is to pick a route through the plan that allows you to get something running while you add to it. That way you wouldn't give up from frustration. I would also look at building the structure in a way that you could separate it into two halves. Since it is 5' wide it would divide nicely into two 2 1/2' deep sections which is a pretty ideal depth should you choose someday to go the around the walls route. Then you would have a large portion already to drop in place with the help of a few strong backed friends. You may have to modify some track but you could salvage the bulk of your work. I could see a situation where the two pieces create a railroad with return loops added on the ends that would be either 20' long on one wall or two ten foot section on two walls with a return loop at either end or future expansion. I say go for it!

[Anonymous]

Hi Paul,

I just started actually building the layout that you're thinking about building. (Atlas HO-29 Central Midland). I chose it becuase it had a bunch of neat features and was 'big enuogh' to keep me busy for a while and not too huge to overwelhm. Anothe factor was that all of the benchwork and trackwork were already planned. I built the basic benchwork 2 weeks ago, bought the tracks & pieces last week (about $800) and started laying the track and building the subroadbed.

This site (http://www.medcomres.com/OurHOTrains/) has info about the layout. It contains pictures of how one person used the layout, modified it and built it. I believe it has since been dismantled, but the pictures give you an idea of what 'could' be done..

Anyway, good luck with it.

[DSchmitt]

What ever you chose to build, you don't have to do it all at once. You don't have to put every track and switch shown on a plan in right away. If you want continous running you could construct the main line with a minimal number of key switches (plus any track and switches it would be difficult to reach) and add the other switches and track latter.

[Anonymous]

One possible way to simplify this track plan is to go to an all single-track main line, with a much simpler wye leading into the yard. You would still want one decent-length passing siding somewhere on the mainline, of course. Most of the complex trackwork would thus occur within the yard itself, and this could be built at a later stage, after you've gained some confidence from laying all the rest of the track. I think the double-tracked wye is the major hurdle of this track plan, and you don't gain much in operation for all the trouble. Otherwise, it's a rather good track plan (I remember being inspired by this one when I was younger) since it affords a decent mainline length which snakes through a lot of scenery.

Incidentally, a single-track mainline will allow you a greater scenery proportion, not just because of the two extra inches you've saved on roadbed, but because of the relative visual mass of railroad to terrain; a single track is half as "visually heavy" as double track (I would argue even less than half) while the scenery is modestly increased in proportion. My N-scale layout was originally double-tracked but I'm rebuilding it as single tracked with passing sidings, for precisely this reason.

[willy6]

good luck,i wish i had that much room i'd be in model railroad heaven and proablely divorced.................................lol

[Anonymous]

Great advice, everybody.

Celarde, that site's excellent! It pretty much supports my concern that it's a lot of trains.

I'm not sure yet what we'll do, & will let you know when we decide.

Thanks for your thoughts,
Paul

[AntonioFP45]

Some additional questions.

Have you considered DCC?
What brand of track are you using?

[rrinker]

A tip for building in stages - include any switches off whatever part you start with right away. Even if you keep them locked in one position until you start the next stage, it's a lot easier to put the switches in place as you lay the track than to come back later and try to fit them in.
As an example - I started with my main outside loop. It has two crossovers tot he opposite main, plus two industrial tracks coming off it. A total of 4 switches. Even though they obviously aren't needed for a continuous loop, in they went. I am now working on the second main, it has the two crossovers and a double-ended switch lead, a total of, interestingly enough, another 4 switches. After that, I will install the switch lead, 3 switches there. Then I can build the yard and industrial sidings, assuming I actually fini***his part first and not start on the around the walls extension.

--Randy

[Anonymous]

Track plans in books are great. But they are not made to optimize the area you have available. Make measurements of where your layout will occupy and then design your own track plan.

[bikerraypa]

I've found most of the track planning books pretty useless (for me, anyway). As someone said earlier in this topic, they seem concerned with more track and less scenery. Plus, building a layout from a book would probably cause one to lose interest, as you're just going through someone else's motions.

A book I've found that was very helpful is Iain Rice's "Mid-Sized & Manageable Track Plans." Not only does he have some interesting track layouts, but he prefaces the book with an entire chapter on what you should look for in a layout. I've taken bits and pieces of ideas from every layout in that book, and read it cover to cover more than once. Kalmbach has it at http://store.yahoo.net/kalmbachcatalog/12245.html

Good luck!!!

Ray
www.westernallegheny.com

[TurboOne]

[#welcome] Paul, I too am into the layout design stage. Randy, who wrote you above, on the list has an 8 x 12 with a 4 x 8 work island in the center. Go to the layout forum and check out my question and some of the answers, here is the link. http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=28630

Also go to his website, and see what you think of the layout.
www.readingeastpenn.com

I started out with a 4 x 8, then after rolling an engine onto the concrete, it became a 6 10 with wider curves, then I saw randys layout. Big main lines.Biggest advantage, You can have trains running quickly, and then decide what you want to add. Lots of things you can add. Check it out and let me know what you think.

Tim

[Anonymous]

I also am newbee to this hobby, but I sure hope you have way to get access to the center of your layout. 5 or 6 feet is a long way to reach from the side of a layout.

just my two cents
ennout