Layouts and layout building

The Great Dream Layout Quest

I’m ready to build my “Dream Layout”.  This layout has been in planning for years and supplies have been stockpiled in anticipation of construction.  Given my age, this will probably be the last layout I build for myself, so I want to include as many of the things I have dreamed about for years.  By definition, a dream layout includes everything you’ve ever wanted to have in a layout.

Unfortunately, in spite of all my efforts, I have been unable to come up with a trackplan that satisfies me.  I know, I know, model railroading is a series of compromises.  I understand that.  This being my final layout, though, I want as few compromises as possible.

Now, I’m NOT asking anyone here to design a layout FOR me.  Each layout is individual to the modeler.  What someone else designs may not be what I’m looking for, even if ALL of my givens & druthers are included.

What I’m looking for is more brain power.  And fresh eyes!  People who can offer criticism of and advice on my efforts.

Here are the givens:

Room size: roughly 10x12’; one angled doorway and a closet on one wall, two walls with windows.  The windows don’t need to be accessible, the closet does (it’s my supply storage and workbench area!)

Scale:  N scale

Prototype: Santa Fe & Union Pacific

Timeframe:  Transition era, prior to 1955

Equipment:  Large and small steam; first generation diesels

Track:  Atlas Code 80 flex, Atlas & Peco turnouts, cork roadbed

Here are the druthers:

            Double-tracked mainline operation (continuous running for passenger & through freights)

            Passenger terminal (not huge, but decent sized)

Light switching

            Staging (can be hidden or open)

            Large roundhouse

            Classification yard

            One or more towns

            Large bridge or multiple bridges

The Vision:  An around the wall layout that allows multiple train operation; continuous running on the main, switching on sidings.  Reasonable adherence to the prototypes, but not strict adherence. (There aren’t too many locations in the USA where SF & UP were close to each other!) Single-operator.  DC to start, DCC conversion planned.  Avoid reverse loops (difficult DC wiring, expensive reversers in DCC).  Avoid the use of a helix (uses too much room.).  Single or multi-level with mainline grades of 1% to 1.5% (or at least under 2%).  

Construction type or style:  Will consider any style, box-frame, L-girder, foam or any combination.  A combination will most likely yield the best results.

Let’s get to it!

First, I built a scale 1”=1’ model of my room using foam core board.  The first picture shows the room with the major furnishings as currently arranged and shows where my existing layout is located within the room.  The entry door is in the lower left.  The closet is along the lower wall.  The large rectangle on the left is a desk with my computer on top.  The smaller rectangles are shelf units (3 on the upper wall, 2 on the right side wall).  The desk/computer set-up mandates a MINIMUM height of 45” to the BOTTOM of the lower level.  Track on the top of the upper level shouldn’t exceed 55” in height.  Scenery can be higher as long as it doesn’t block the upper level tracks.

The second picture shows an alternate location for the furnishings.  The desk has been moved to below the window (upper wall) and 3 of the shelf units have been re-arranged to the right wall.

Using Atlas’ Right Track software, I drew this 2-level plan:

Upper level:

Lower level:

There are glaring flaws in this plan.  There is little switching opportunity.  The roundhouse area may not be big enough as drawn to accommodate a 23-stall roundhouse.  There isn’t enough room for the proper engine service facilities that would be indicated by such a large roundhouse. 

There is no place to locate a passenger terminal, even a small one.  Finally, the grade to the lower level doesn’t provide enough clearance.  (I measured about 170” from the upper to lower level.  At 1.5%, that gives a clearance of only 2.5” RAILHEAD TO RAILHEAD.  In other words, not enough clearance!  2% gives only 3.5”, which would be enough to run trains under, but not enough room to reach any derailments in staging.  I have fat hands! LOL)

A lift-out or swing gate would be located on the bottom of the layout for access.  It is not shown on the plan.  Its actual location would be determined during construction.

I printed out the RTS plan (surprisingly, it printed out at 1”=1’!!).  I cut up the prints and glued them to foam core board.  This next picture shows the new layout in the existing room:

There is a little more room below the roundhouse area.  I’m not sure what the best use of that area could be.  Part of the closet opening can be obstructed (about 12-18”).  The upper and lower levels are shown in the picture only to give an idea of how they fit in the room.

As you can tell, I’ve put some thought into this.  I’m old and I want my Dream Layout this time around!

I intend to post this on several forums.  Many of you belong to different forums, so be prepared to run into this several times.  I don’t expect anyone to post a response to every forum and I will try to copy and post anyone’s comments into the threads on different forums so everybody can see what comments have been made, regardless of where they were made.  (I hope that’s clear!)  In the meantime, I’m going to try designing some layout design elements to fit on dominoes.  That may be a good way to get the features I want.

So, anyone care to take a stab at this?

Darrell, quiet…for now

I have lots of comments but let's start with this.... 

dgwinup:

Using Atlas’ Right Track software, I drew this 2-level plan:

I've wondered about that myself.  It seems to me that I should be able to fit more track on a layout this size.  Other layouts in N scale that I have seen posted have more scenic areas with more complicated trackwork than what I have.  Don't understand that!  I checked the RTS libraries.  Both Atlas Code 80 and Code 65 libraries are listed.  I used the Code 80.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?  Is it possible that RTS SAYS it's N scale, but it's really HO?

I'm fairly new to using RTS.  So far, it's the only track planning software that I've been able to use with any success.  Could be me!  It's confusing, though.

Texas Zepher, thanks for the comment.  Hopefully, someone will be able to offer more information or suggestions.

Darrell, quiet (and confused)...for now

My layout designs in HO definitly suggest that this has been drawn in HO.

 Suggestions:

Take off the door and store it somewhere even if it is under the bed. Let your decendents put it back on after they put you on the caboose to train heaven.

Check out Ian Rice's new layout design book for bench work ideas. And put into play his cassette train storage idea instead of a staging yard.

Set up to pieces of flex track side by side and place cars on them. When you can get your hands safely around the cars on one track you have your spacing bettween the tracks. The width of both is your mainline. And all the rest of the benchwork width is good for industries and scenery.

 Use ALL of your wall space for the layout with a swing gate or lift out at the door. Do that and you have increased your layout by 25% on one level. Design one section at a time to your ideal and then place on on a room grid and Then make comprimizes to get it to fit.

Jack

I have never used RTS, but when looking at the length of the turnouts (5-6") and the size of the turntable, I would say this is N-scale. Is it possible that you are used to working in H0-scale, and are using the H0 radii and H0 parallell distance while working on this N-scale plan..?

Svein

Offhand, Svein, I'd say no.  I've only done N scale planning in RTS, never HO.

That doesn't mean that I'm using the program correctly!  LOL  I only learned enough to describe benchwork and lay some track.  Many of the details of RTS are lost on me 'cause I haven't taken the time to learn them!

Am working on some more ideas.  I'll be back........

 Darrell, quiet...for now

I can really relate to this thread. My daughter married last year and I immediately claimed her bedroom in the honor of "Model Railroading". The room size is 10 x 12.5 and the closet and door are just about in the same location. I wanted a 2 track mainline, town, small switching yard,bridges and a tunnel or two. I drew up all kinds of plans on graph paper with compass in hand and could not design something I was satisfied with. My previous layouts were in the den in which my wife finally got tired of so the bedroom was all mine.So one night I was bored with tv and decided to read some model railroad stuff and picked out the "MRR 102 Realistic Track Plans no.5" book. Low and behold I found a plan (#34). This plan requires some modifications to work like going from 9 x 11 to 8 x 10 to allow access to the closet,door and shelf loaded with mrr stuff but it's a perfect start and with some minor modifications, I can make it work.

Is that the newest layout book?  I don't think I've picked that one up yet.  I'll go have a look at my LHS later this week.  I have NO reservations about stealing, er, I mean, "Borrowing" ideas from anywhere!  LOL

Stay tuned, willy6!   Progress is being made!  You never know when a great idea will slap you upside the head.  Maybe the suggestions offered to me will be of use to you, too!

When you're ready, start a thread on your layout so we can watch your progress.

Darrell, quiet...for now

THE LATEST UPDATE (6/7/09):

If I start a downgrade near the roundhouse corner, by the time I get completely around the room, I can get nearly 6 inches of clearance below the roundhouse with a 1.5% grade.

There is a turnout on the left wall that connects to one end of the yard and far enough away from the yard to allow for grade adjustments to bring the track to the same height as the yard and roundhouse. There is a long lead to the roundhouse that splits into two tracks for fuel & water facilities and a separate lead off the A/D track (outermost yard track). A caboose track and rip track are located off the left end of the yard. I think I may need a better yard lead somewhere.

I added staging tracks to the loop under the roundhouse section. Almost all curves are 19"R and most turnouts are #6's. The vertical dimension of the layout was reduced to 8' which allows access to staging from both sides (in front of and behind the roundhouse).  It also allows more room in front of the closet.

There still isn't much switching. I know I want the mainline running, but I think I'd be happier with a few more switching duties. Not sure where I can squeeze more in.

Additional comments were made concerning the yard entrance track grade.  I did some calculations and determined that the grade would be in excess of 2.5% as drawn.  I will have to move the yard entrance turnout further around the bottom of the layout.  A quick calculation indicated I can get enough length to drop the grade down to 1.8%.  I can live with that (I think!).

Comments, suggestions and/or criticisms are welcomed!

Darrell, quiet...for now

Darrell, quiet...for now

As promised, here is the latest track plan that I have been working on:

It is heavily modified from Will Annand's CVR layout (my apologies to Will!).  The original CVR uses sharper curves than what I wanted so part of the re-design was to enlarge the radii.  Most are now 11”R+, many with 19”R easements.  I had to shorten the length from 10’ to 8’ to fit my space and shorten the left leg to 74” to clear the doorway into the room.  Most of the turnouts are #6.

Now might be a good time to review my druthers and compare them to this layout plan.  I originally posted these:

            Double-tracked mainline operation (continuous running for passenger & through

        freights)

            Passenger terminal (not huge, but decent sized)

Light switching

            Staging (can be hidden or open)

            Large roundhouse

            Classification yard

            One or more towns

            Large bridge or multiple bridges

The new design doesn’t have double-tracked mainline.  However, I’ve added several passing sidings that will allow for multiple trains on the main, accomplishing the same purpose.  The area on the left leg can serve as a passenger terminal.  There are many more provisions for switching than my previous plans.  Staging can be accomplished using either of the two passing sidings that have multiple tracks (one on the top, one on the right leg).  It may be possible to enlarge the right leg passing siding further and possibly hide some of the tracks behind industrial scenery.  I moved Will’s turntable outside the lower loop which allowed me to expand it considerably.  Additionally, I was able to expand the stub-end classification yard.

Haven’t decided yet where to locate towns.  I was originally thinking a good-sized town could be located around and below the passenger terminal area on the left leg.  That leg can be extended a few inches to add more residential space, although I was thinking that the lower curves on that leg would look spectacular with curved bridges on it.  It would be the first thing anyone saw not only as they entered the room but also from all the way down the hallway leading to the room!

So a lot of my druthers are addressed or satisfied with this plan.  I am concerned that there is too much track (can you say spaghetti bowl?  LOL).  Will’s layout allows for lots of scenic space, as if the land came first and the trains came later.

Comments, suggestions or criticisms?  I’m open to all.

Darrell, quiet…for now

As promised, here is the latest track plan that I have been working on:

It is heavily modified from Will Annand's CVR layout (my apologies to Will!).  The original CVR uses sharper curves than what I wanted so part of the re-design was to enlarge the radii.  Most are now 11”R+, many with 19”R easements.  I had to shorten the length from 10’ to 8’ to fit my space and shorten the left leg to 74” to clear the doorway into the room.  Most of the turnouts are #6.

Now might be a good time to review my druthers and compare them to this layout plan.  I originally posted these:

            Double-tracked mainline operation (continuous running for passenger & through

        freights)

            Passenger terminal (not huge, but decent sized)

Light switching

            Staging (can be hidden or open)

            Large roundhouse

            Classification yard

            One or more towns

            Large bridge or multiple bridges

The new design doesn’t have double-tracked mainline.  However, I’ve added several passing sidings that will allow for multiple trains on the main, accomplishing the same purpose.  The area on the left leg can serve as a passenger terminal.  There are many more provisions for switching than my previous plans.  Staging can be accomplished using either of the two passing sidings that have multiple tracks (one on the top, one on the right leg).  It may be possible to enlarge the right leg passing siding further and possibly hide some of the tracks behind industrial scenery.  I moved Will’s turntable outside the lower loop which allowed me to expand it considerably.  Additionally, I was able to expand the stub-end classification yard.

Haven’t decided yet where to locate towns.  I was originally thinking a good-sized town could be located around and below the passenger terminal area on the left leg.  That leg can be extended a few inches to add more residential space, although I was thinking that the lower curves on that leg would look spectacular with curved bridges on it.  It would be the first thing anyone saw not only as they entered the room but also from all the way down the hallway leading to the room!

So a lot of my druthers are addressed or satisfied with this plan.  I am concerned that there is too much track (can you say spaghetti bowl?  LOL).  Will’s layout allows for lots of scenic space, as if the land came first and the trains came later.

Comments, suggestions or criticisms?  I’m open to all.

Darrell, quiet…for now

Hi Darrell.  I like the latest one level design plan much better than the initial that required a duck-under.  With that much space in n scale, I would definitely double track the mainline and reduce some of the other extra track to leave more room for scenery.   I did a turntable and roundhouse on a previous layout and would not do it again as it looks great but is a bear to get to reliably work in n scale.  I know it's hard to do with track planning software, but at implementation time try to vary the track so its not always so parallel to the edge of the benchwork or symmetrical in nature. What are the chances that you are going to move in the future and would you plan on taking the layout with you?  It would influence some construction decisions. Jim

Hi, Jim, thanks for the comments.

No, I don't plan on moving.  But you know what's been said about plans!  LOL  With that in mind, I intend on making as much of this layout salvageable if not outright moveable.  I haven't gotten into the benchwork design phase yet but it's been on my mind almost as much as the layout design itself!

I am looking over my last track plan to see if it can be double-tracked.  That was an important design criteria in the beginning and I haven't abandoned the idea yet.  A lot will depend on what I can squeeze in and what I can eliminate.  The roundhouse will stay.  It's kinda been a dream for nearly 40 years and I've got a roster to fill it with, too!  I plan on using Walthers programmable turntable.

There are some problems using track planning software.  For instance, RTS does NOT have a 1/2 section of 19"R in it's track database.  9 3/4" and 11", but not 19"!  Also, it's hard to tell how far the tracks are apart from each other unless you zoom in.  I suspect that during construction I'll be able to free up some additonal space by being more accurate in the spacing of the tracks.  As in the past, any trackplan is more of a suggestion than a mandate.  I always make some changes on the fly!

One time, years ago, I entirely flipped a plan during construction. I didn't go back an re-draw the orignal plan, just worked with it as it was.  Without modern computers and track planning software, it was really difficult to keep everything straight since it was all backwards from the drawing!  It was only good fortune that the number of right and left turnouts was about equal!  LOL

I'll go back and play with some double-tracking and see what happens.

Darrell, quiet...for now

dgwinup:

It is heavily modified from Will Annand's CVR layout (my apologies to Will!).  The original CVR uses sharper curves than what I wanted so part of the re-design was to enlarge the radii.  Most are now 11”R+, many with 19”R easements.  I had to shorten the length from 10’ to 8’ to fit my space and shorten the left leg to 74” to clear the doorway into the room.  Most of the turnouts are #6.

 

Now might be a good time to review my druthers and compare them to this layout plan.  I originally posted these:

            Double-tracked mainline operation (continuous running for passenger & through

        freights)

            Passenger terminal (not huge, but decent sized)

Light switching

            Staging (can be hidden or open)

            Large roundhouse

            Classification yard

            One or more towns

            Large bridge or multiple bridges

 

Beyond the large roundhouse, I'm not sure this plan meets many of your givens and druthers all that well, given your space. But if you like it, fine.

There are a number of areas of potential concern. If you really want double track mainlines for running two trains unattended, single track plus sidings is not equivalent. The yard could be configured much better to offer better operation for trains arriving and departing in both directions. I don't see the staging, but you may feel that there is some track here that works as staging.

There's certainly a lot of track and every scene will have many tracks visible. That doesn't seem to go with what I thought was interest in scenery expressed earlier (but I may not remember that correctly). I don't immediately grasp the purpose of some of the short spurs and short sidings adjacent to other short sidings, but that could just be me.

In terms of curves and radii, you might be better off with a simple easement rather than a fixed 19" curve leading into a fixed 11" curve. Easements are not that hard to do with the "bent stick" approach and flextrack.

Finally, it may not matter to you, but there are elements of the trackwork configuration that could look more realistic. On the real railroad, the main line rarely passes through the curved side of a turnout, it happens often with this plan. Especially if the turnouts are #6, this will probably work OK. But it just looks different than the real thing.

In addition, on the real railroad, adjacent tracks (such as passing sidings) are typically aligned. In some places on this plan they seem to curve independently of one another. There is some of that in the real world, but it's much rarer than on this plan. The resulting layout might not be as realistic-looking due to those variations from the real thing and from the usual layout design practice.

Again, the bottom line is that if you are happy with the plan, your opinion is the only one that matters. But if you'd like to understand the principles behind real-life railroad design and best practices in model track plans, some time spent with resources like John Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operation might be more helpful than time spent at this stage on CAD revisions.

Best of luck.

Byron
Model RR Blog 
Layout Design Gallery