Gotta like a guy who plays a Rick!
My nickels worth of free advise is to start with a 2' or 3' wide by 10'-12' long switching lay out. MR web site is a great source for plans also check out "the worlds greatest hobby" for great tips etc. I have received wonderful advise right here. From looking at your photos it seems to me you like "operations" over a tail chaser layout, as a guitar player, I'll assume, your skill is in the subtile moves and chord changes/progressions as opposed to 3 bar power strokes. Your layout should be the same way
Rock On
Angelo
Freelancing MCRR/NYC Northern Division - Angelo
There are people that like watching trains go round and round but on a 4X6 that is going to get boring quickly. I agree if at all possible split the board in half and make it 2 x 12.
On the SIW for example I have 3 industries a Troipicana Juice transfer station where inbound juice gets transferred to trucks for local distribution. A small Intermodal yard using a container lift to transfer cargo that is either truck or ship bound. A Hess Oil facility that distributes Petroleum products. I have one track to store Maintenance of Way (MOW) cars. Another is for loco storage and one that connects the SIW with the rest of CSX.
The layout is temporarily running DC but eventnually will run DCC so that 2 locos will service the area. One is a beat up GE 70 tonner bought second hand and re-patched the other is a GP 38-2.
Just so you understand this is my third layout. The first two were roundy roundy but I learned a lot by trial and error.
Joe Staten Island West
hornblowerThe original "timesaver" layouts were intended as a switching game
Exactly. So I personally think it is confusing to generically refer to small switching layouts (or switching areas) as "timesavers."
John Allen's Timesaver was never intended to be part of an actual operating layout -- the puzzle aspect of moving a single empty "slot" is tedious (at best) for many folks. It was literally a parlor game and the arrangement never appeared on his layout.
Semantics are important, expecially when posting to a thread from a newcomer.
Small switching layouts (or switching areas in larger layouts) can be well-designed to provide a fair operating challenge and realistic car movement without resorting to puzzle machinations. So I would suggest and request that we not use the term “timesaver” when we actually mean switching layout or switching area more generically.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
I would cut the 4x6 in half(s) and start over with a 2x12.
Modeling an HO gauge freelance version of the Union Pacific Oregon Short Line and the Utah Railway around 1957 in a world where Pirates from the Great Salt Lake founded Ogden, UT.
- Photo album of layout construction -
As others may have said....... pick up a couple of basic Kalmbach books (i.e. ho primer, etc.) and study them well. Don't buy anything else until you have a feel for what you want (i.e. scale, era, road, etc.).
I know way too many folks that went out and bought first, and later realized they really didn't want what they got, or for whatever reason could have spent their money more wisely.
I know its hard to restrain oneself, but you will not regret it later on.
Yes, I know this first hand...........
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
Since you are a "beginner," it is safe to assume that the layout shown will be only the first of several you will build. Like most of us on this forum, you will learn from your mistakes and discover techniques that will help future efforts. One of the problems with loop-style layouts is that we quickly get bored with operating the layout because trains running around in circles isn't very realistic. Even if we add several sidings and alternate routes to a loop-style layout, the trains still go nowhere! The other problem with a 4x6 or 4x8 stand-alone layout is that they really need a space of 8x10 or 8x12 in order to access all sides of the layout.
On the other hand, a switching layout duplicates prototype switching operations that, depending on the complexity of the trackwork, can require hours of time in order to complete a single session of switching. If you have the wall space, you could construct a "timesaver" style layout on a 12, 18 or 24 inch deep shelf along one wall of a room. Such a layout requires only about 4 feet of space along one side of a room and minimizes the need to squeeze curves into the track plan. A small switch engine with excellent slow speed characteristics and car lengths of no more than 40' would allow a lot of action on such a layout.
Adding a two or three track staging yard on a narrow shelf along a second wall would allow new trains to arrive and switched out trains to depart the main layout giving you the impression that your trains are actually going to/arriving from somewhere else. Such a yard could also be used as a fiddle yard where another operator adds and/or removes cars and locos to create new trains.
The original "timesaver" layouts were intended as a switching game and so did not include scenery. However, there is absolutely no reason not to add scenery. In fact, an industrial building with multiple loading doors adds yet a new wrinkle to the switching chores. Building flats can be used along the rear of the layout while additional building flats can be used along the aisle side of the layout (keep these single story so you can see/access the layout beyond). Fully 3D buildings can be used between tracks or at the ends of tracks.
While a 4x6 can entertain a single operator, a shelf layout with a fiddle/staging yard could keep several operators busy. One thing about operating your layout with others is that it is very fulfilling to see others enjoy your efforts as much as you do. Whatever you choose to do in the future, make sure you plan your layouts with a purpose. Such a purpose will keep your layout interesting for a much longer time.
As far as track, I would recommend Atlas flex track and either Atlas or Peco turnouts. It is very easy to create smooth curves using Atlas flex as the rails have more temper (springiness) and will flex without taking a permanent curve until permanently fixed to the layout. Atlas Code 83 turnouts are also good but Peco turnouts include sprung points that allow fingertip operation without the need for ground throws or other switch machines.
Good luck!
Hornblower
I’m not clear on whether the Original Poster wants to try to fix the current layout or start over from scratch. Although busier than some might like, the problems he is experiencing with the current layout may have more to do with track-laying than with the design.
As others have noted, it looks as if there are a couple of spots where tracks don’t meet squarely. That’s often a problem, so it’s something to work diligently to avoid, either with a new layout or this one. It’s hard to tell from the photo, but it looks as if the crossover might be built with fairly sharp turnouts, perhaps with curved diverging legs (like a Snap-Switch). This type of sharply angled turnout is common in train sets.
Although some on this forum claim that s-curves don’t matter, in fact crossovers with sharp frogs create s-curves that are often problematic (especially when shoving). Some of these problems can be exacerbated in trimming the curved diverging legs if the work is not done carefully to make sure that everything lines up squarely. Broader turnouts work better in crossovers in general.
There also appear to be a couple of paths through multiple turnouts (one of these is through the wye turnout) that create sharp s-curves that may be causing some of the derailment issues.
If the Original Poster is planning on a re-do, a bit more width will allow broader curves that may ease a number of problems, as others have noted. A bit of width will help more than additional length. And if the option exists to use the entire area of the future layout and aisles rather than a rectangular island, there are many alternatives.
Good luck with your layout.
Not Bad. You have track down and trains running. Track is ballasted. You have scenery and structures. As far as derailments go, it's either the trackwork or the rolling stock. Keep some records and a pattern will emerge. Get a pack of those real small post-it notes. Each time something derails, put a postit on the rolling stock involved and the bit of trackwork. Pretty soon it will be obvious which things are real trouble and which are just random. Start to work fixing the real trouble spots one by one. When you geet 'em all, operation will be smooth.
Was it me, I would brush paint my rails with rust or rail brown. Kill the bright shiny nickel silver look. And some trees would do good things. Your ballast sort of spreads out from the rail more than is good to my eye. I might sweep the edges of my ballast back toward the ties some. It will make the track look a bit smaller which is always helpful on a small layout.
David Starr www.newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com
I second that point about kinks in track because I have spent several nights running trains on my small switching layout to be sure my trackwork is bullet proof before I ballast and yes I found and corrected these issues.
Sojourner67 Here is my layout, so far. I have crammed a lot of operation in this I think. Much of the track was cut to fit, and I have issues with derail on some of the turnouts.
Here is my layout, so far. I have crammed a lot of operation in this I think. Much of the track was cut to fit, and I have issues with derail on some of the turnouts.
I don't think you have too much track. After all part of the fun pf running the layout is having options. But you need to go over your turnouts to make sure that they are in gauge (use an NMRA gauge) and that the point rails close tight when thrown. It looks like you have ballasted the turnouts, so make sure there is no ballast or glue holding the points open a little bit or in the flangeways. Second make sure that you have no kinks where the track sections join. Even a small kink can give trouble, especially if it's at a turnout.
Good luck
Paul
Being that I'm doing my first layout, I can certainly validate the statement about trying to squeeze in too much scenery, track, etc. Again my wife is right with the 'less is more' theme. There are plenty of books on making an enjoyable 4x6' layout. Certainly starting with a concept is better and chaeper than just plopping down track.
Besides the excellent suggestions written above, I would also stay active on the forums and in a local club. Both are great resources for taking to others, getting advice, dos/taboos, etc. There are plenty of people here who produce jaw-dropping layouts (present company def not one!). Asking for advice and being open to criticism is crucial to enjoying this hobby more.
Hi sojurner67
OK this is going to hurt a bit.
Unfortunatly I can't put up a picture so I hope you can follow this
Way to much track for such a small layout I can appreciate the need for operations.
OK over by the depot the factory siding stays the empty one between that and the main line goes rearange the factory siding so it doesn't curve in so much.
Now on the other end the track over the bridge stays and runs straight to the edge of the layout, make sure you can easily extend from that line.
What looks like a loco depot ?? and the part inner loop at the other end take the lot out.
Move the crossover back a bit join back into the main line on the straight, now try and make the three track yard piece a bit more compact and a better fit in the space.
Move the tower and water tank if you have to.
Along the back move the ridge so you can make it longer and higher running into the exsisting tunnel, hide a woodland scenics flag stop behind it and perhaps a couple of the small buildings from the same kit range as the flag stop.
Your hill is about to get a whole lot bigger so create a couple of flat spots for a couple of houses a store and a bar as the hill is created.
You have a small space so make sure you make good use of the flat table space and the vertical air space above it.
I hope you could follow this and that it did not hurt to much.
regards John
I have had a 4x6 layout for years (due to the small space available for my model railway in my home). I have a simple loop with a large siding. I use the older Code 83 Roco Line track with the soft roadbed attached using 18" curves with four straight tracks on two sides . I devoted alot of effort into the "village" on the board. I chose a southern german setting. I run mainly german shorter passenger cars (short distance cars) and freight cars of the 1950-1970 timeframe. I also have a fair amount of US trains. My collection of US equipment includes switchers such as Alco S4s, EMD SW1s, Alco RS-2s, and a couple of geeps. Most of my US rolling stock is orientated around 40 foot freight cars and a few 50 foot cars. The majority of my rolling stock are Kadee RTR cars with some Atlas and Athearn. Most of my US freight trains are if 3-4 cars in length and a caboose at the end. I am very happy with my layout.
My first advice is get a copy of "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" by John Armstrong. Kalmback Books, ISBN 0-89024-504-5. It covers track planning, layout design, prototype practices, grades and standards. Invaluable.
Then I would draw a plan for my layout. 4 by 6 is very tight for HO, 4 by 8 is still tight but a zillion 4 by 8 layouts have been built. An around the walls layout gets you a LOT more track in the same space as a table-in-the-center-of-the-room does. Depends upon your carpentry resources. A 4 by 8, based on a sheet of plywood is the easiest carpentry. You just set the sheet of plywood on saw horses or short two drawer file cabinets or what ever and you are in business.
For drawing use squared paper, as large as you can get. Big drawings are easier to get right than small ones. For HO make sure that your curves are an honest 18 inch radius or more and that you haven't cheated by tightening a curve to avoid some obstacle. We used to say "If it doesn't work on paper it won't work in the real world." Your drawing wants to have the track plan and the industries, the stations, the scenery features rivers, mountains, valleys, and such.
In HO, code 100 track looks fine, and is widely available used. My layout is code 100 cause someone donated an armful of used code 100 flex track. Painting the code 100 rail does a lot to make the rail look smaller and closer to scale. If I was buying new, I'd look at code 83, it's closer to scale and all the pros like it. I think code 83 is only a little more expensive than code 100. Both sizes operate just fine.
Quality equipment (rolling stock), also structures, track, what ever. All the makers that advertise in MR or RMC make good stuff. Quality is in the looks of the model. If it looks good, nice paint, markings for the prototype of your choice, and it runs, it's good. Not to worry. I get a lot of my stuff used at train shows.
Track plans. First read the John Armstrong book. Put some curvature in your straights. A dead straight track running down the straight edge of the layout emphasizes the tabletop nature of your model railroad. A gentle S curve makes it look like the track is following some terrain feature, rather then the edge of the table. Consider a having deep river valley somewhere, to be spanned by a soaring bridge. Beware of vertical curves. If you have grades, you must allow a generous (at least one carlength, more is better) transition from flat to grade otherwise you get derailments.
Good luck. Post your track plan here and you will get more feedback.
If you can go with more than 48" wide then you can use curves wider than those tight train set curves.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I think part of my problem is I complicated the present layout. I have 12 turnouts squeezed into my 4x6 HO layout. As a result, derails are riff with those turnouts. I've been following the MR 4x6 layout in the magazine but I obviously over did it. My railroad, the Mauch Chunk RR is a short branch line and I've tried to put too much "action" into it. Going N scale is out of the question due to age and eyesight. I should add that future plans call for an expansion to 4x10.
Go HO for the most options, code 83, gives a better look than 100 and not a fussy as 70. Track brand, as far as turnouts go, Peco because you can use them without anything else like switch machines or ground throws and can be converted later if wanted. Build modular as your first layout can be the start of a larger layout, I did it and only needed to change a few things when incorperated into my 15x30' layout I have now. I personally went with code 70 in HO and Shinohara track.
First, start with a concept. Whether it be a prototype or a fictional layout, develop a sense of era and location. It will save you spending money on stuff you later figure out doesn't belong. If you don't want your layout to be location or era specific, that's OK too but it's a decision that needs to be made.
Unless you want a purely switching layout, a roundy-round track plan is your only option. But that doesn't mean you have to limit yourself to just running a single train around and around. Be sure to include several industrial spurs for switching and sidings for meets and passes. If you can find room for a small yard, that would be good too. If I were to build a roundy-round, I would put a viewblock down the middle to seperate it into two distinct scenes. That would give you the sense your trains are traveling from one location to another rather than chasing their tail around the layout.
You might also take a lesson from John Allen. His first G&D layout was a 4x6 but he included that original layout in both the next two versions of his layout including the one that filled his basement. You might want to include plans for expanding your little 4x6 into a piece of a much larger layout.
Hi Sojourner67
I would first off have a scale chart visable so the onlookers can see where in reality the set up fits what may be the right scale for "ME" is not nesasarily so for some one else.
We are talking entry level here so HO code 100 N code 80 track and the contence of or stock from a good quality set stuff that is easy to get.
Don't get the cheap rubish sets.
Keep the track plan simple don't go overboard but keep it interesting and do-able.
I would emphasise the need for good solid bench work (I tend ot over engineer here a bit) But a good solid base is important, a poor one will ruin the the fun real quick
I would also emphasise the need to take care when laying track and get it as close to perfect as you can.
Get a quality train controler the ones in sets rarely handle more than is in a set use this only to run the train.
Have a seperate transformer for lights, points, windmills anything else wanted in the way of acsessories
Small space small trains to keep the sembalance of reality and believability.
There is a layout on the forums that is an HO scale 4' square.
My layout is OO scale and 4'6" square so don't be to quick to discount HO scale as a posibility.
Even if you don't have a RR company preferance at least have a theme to guide purchases this will minimise wastage on stuff you will later regret.
If you don't already know how to make things like structures from scratch youself learn, a great deal of satusfaction can be gained from making it your self and it cuts cost and gives a point of difference on the layout that makes it yours and yours alone.
There are many things in common we all have on our layouts but that one thing no matter how small or simple, you make yourself is enough to make that big difference.
I use DC but with DCC and other things about better to choose what control system you are going to use right at the start it will save unnessasary cost and a lot of reworking later.
Lastly when it comes to the plan make sure you have a couple of convienient points to expand the layout these have the tendancy to grow and expand to fill the avalable space over time.
thats my on it
I would suggest a tabletop layout with a double track oval so you can run 2 trains. Using Atlas code 100 you can use 18" and 22". Put a 3" straight in the mid point of each end of the 18" oval. This will give you a track spacing of 2 1/2" which will look better than 4".
On the inner loop add 2 turnouts on one side. Either snap switches or number 4 turnouts leading into the center with some additional track to make spurs. This will let you do some switching moves.
Don't fasten the track down with any adhesive. Either leave it loose or use track nails in pre drilled holes so you can rearrange the track. Don't worry about connecting the 2 ovals it simplifies wiring to have them separate.
After you have run the trains and switched some cars, you should an idea of what you like and can rearrange the track / add new pieces to suit.
Don't spend a lot at this point.
Buy books before trains because you don't know what you don't know. Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operation is a must read. If you think there is a snowball's chance that you might be interested in DCC you should read up on that. Run your track plan by the group here because newbies invariably put too much track in a given area. If moving is in your future, I would consider a 2x6 switching layout. Two feet is as far as most of us can reach if you were planning on put the 4x6 in a corner.
Atlas snap switches are easiest to work with, but they aren't prototypical in shape nor can you power the frogs. In HO there are a lot more angles available for crossings in code 100 vs code 83 but code 83 looks more realistic. As one strives for greater realism the cost goes up. This chart shows the difference in features of the "operator" line vs the "rivet counter" line. It only costs 40% more to go first class
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
Sojourner67 Since I only have space at present for a 4x6 what advice regarding track plans?
recognize that this is probably only going to be your first layout. You will make many mistakes, so don't procrastinate, make them and learn from them.
N gauge may be the right size for a 4x6' layout, but may not be in the future.
given the size, even if N gauge, you may want to start with a small switching type of layout with small locomotives (less $$) and short 3-4 car trains.
while you could buy high quality rolling stock now, eventually you may decide on a different type of railroad or a specific road name. So you may want to go with inexpensive rollingstock.
You're first layout is the experimental model that you learn from. Be realistic, don't be araid to try new things and be willing to redo things. You'll learn a lot quickly.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
You can successfully do HO or even HOn3 narrow gauge in 4x6 space. My last layout was 33" by 53", just a simple loop of HOn3 narrow gauge flex track and a small DRGW C-16 steam loco. I now have a 4x7 fold down layout that folds into a frame work on the wall. I used 1x10's for the frame work so most items can be mounted and left in place when layout is folded shut. I am planning to use older HO equipment. I have a nice older PFM/United brass 2-8-0, beautifully painted and weathered by the previous owner. He also had PFM sound installed. PFM's sound was the first onboard sound set up on the market. Analog in nature, the actual sound electronics were in a console that also doubled as the throttle. The engines had a reciever and sound trigger/cam for timing the chuffs. The whistle was quillable in real time, something DCC still cannot do very well. I am going to use Atlas code 100 track, that way older engines from Rivarossi ect can run without issues(older stuff sometimes has deeper flanges). The layout has some Marklin HO stuff on it now, was dabbling with it before I got the brass engine. I will work on the layout in the coming fall once the weather turns cold. Here is a pic of the engine, the one below is also brass, a Canadian National EMD GP40 I got at a show for around $50. I got the steamer for $100. Mike
Silly NT's, I have Asperger's Syndrome
Given the size of your available space my suggestion would be N scale. I will qualify that by adding that you must consider your ability to work with small items. Those of us on the older end of the life often have eyesight or dexterity problems which make working in N difficult.
I have an HO layout on a 4x6 and it offers some operations but it was started as a "pratice layout" and is still fulfilling that role, long after I had hoped to have had something larger. If this is a fill in layout because you may get a larger space in the reasonably near future you could build a layout and track plan with expansion in mind. If you are a subscriber you can check the Track Plan Database offered by our host. There is no need to follow the plans to the letter, just use them as a guideline.
For locomotives in HO Atlas. Kato and Athearn are good names and Bachmann products have improved conciderably in recent years. Not sure of their N scale product availability but I know that both Atlas and Kato have good N scale products. As for non powered rolling stock there are many good brands.
Good luck,
Richard
[quote user="Sojourner67"]
If you were guiding someone (like me) into MR, what advice would you offer? What guage track (100, 83?), what brand of turnouts, etc, are easiest to work with and what have you found to be quality equipment (purely subjective I know). Since I only have space at present for a 4x6 what advice regarding track plans? I tend to make it more complicated than needed in the past!
Read and research what will work Best for your situation. Look at the 4x6 layout MR started in January. Ask lots of questions and have fun.