No one has mentioned the Mecca for small layout planning, the late Carl Arendt's micro layout website, which is now be updated again by a new group. Be sure to check out the Layout Design Gallery and the Small Layout Scrapbook to see how others have squeezed some amazing layouts into some very small spaces.
www.carendt.com
BTW, Atlas sells 15"r sectional track
Have fun with your trains
Paulus Jas SUX, you seem to talk in riddles. thought yesterday the end of your layout was 4 feet wide, now it is 8 feet, hence this drawings for HO; If i understood your dimensions well. On the other side of your room you'll have the space to walk along the return-curve. A 4 feet long train probably has just 3 or 4 coaches, since your layout is rather long this is a very short train. When you are talking about 30+ radii as well, you will need a much larger space, but also the "not access " part will become much larger. When the return curve is a bit hidden it will still be looking good in spite of a smaller radius. If the staging tracks are behind the car / engine repair shop you will have hidden or concealed most of the return-curve. Freight trains are usually longer then passenger trains, 6 or 7 feet? Please start talking with exact drawings, often more revealing then a 1000 words. Paul
SUX, you seem to talk in riddles.
thought yesterday the end of your layout was 4 feet wide, now it is 8 feet, hence this drawings for HO; If i understood your dimensions well. On the other side of your room you'll have the space to walk along the return-curve.
A 4 feet long train probably has just 3 or 4 coaches, since your layout is rather long this is a very short train. When you are talking about 30+ radii as well, you will need a much larger space, but also the "not access " part will become much larger. When the return curve is a bit hidden it will still be looking good in spite of a smaller radius. If the staging tracks are behind the car / engine repair shop you will have hidden or concealed most of the return-curve.
Freight trains are usually longer then passenger trains, 6 or 7 feet?
Please start talking with exact drawings, often more revealing then a 1000 words.
Paul
Paul, first sorry for not directly responding to your response with the drawings. I thought by answering with my response about the size of the space I have available would clear up the question.
Second, You second drawing is kind of close to the shape of what my layout will eventually look like. 8' wide at one end, 5' wide at the other, 27' long. To answer the question as to the open space, yes the space in between the 8' and 5' sections is open. that section is 4' wide.
Third, what free software can I use to simply draw the size and shape of my layout nad include dimentions? Keep in mind all I want to do at this point is show the space available, Not include track or anything else for right now.
hi sux,
glad the dimensions are fixed now.
in the drawing I asked three questions.
1) is the south side of your layout space open, or is it a closed room? If so where is the door and where are other obstacles? A good drawing could solve this issue.
2)I asked about the preferred place for staging, in one of the reversing loops or elsewhere?
3)I asked if it would be an idea to double track the main between the two reversing loops. Creating a water-wing or dog-bone. Trains running up and down the tracks without the need to build in extra electronics.
Not asked, but just meant to show you some other issues in the drawing are :
* at the west wall you find a remark about reach-in or access problems. Since no-one can reach in further then 30 inches, any layout wider then that has access problems. Shelves could be built easily with a width of 18" . This is one of the problems with a 8x4. You must be able to walk around it. That is why I added an access hole inside the left loop.
* As you can see i used sub-standard radii for the end curves. As long as these tracks are not used for coaches with diaphragms between them or are not involved in pushing long cuts of cars it will not be a real problem. At the west - end i showed a way to hide those substandard radii curves.
*as you can see the end loops are no circles. They are, due to switches to get into the centre, more then twice as long as they are wide. If you have a much larger radius at the east-end the result will be a very short run between the loops, if any. Going around the corner , as is done on the east end could be an option.
* you could have a thought about the loop to loop configuration.
In the text i also asked some questions e.g. about train-length. Before you are being specific about it, who can answer your question about the space required for a passing siding. At least it should be as long as a train. If you run a 7 feet long freight-trains your siding need to be that long. But adding a turnout at both sides ( a # 6 turnout is about 1 foot long) and adding some space for contra curves you will need about 10 feet of length.
In general i draw anything with Atlas RTS, for just drawing a room some furniture outlets use dedicated and free software. By using a compass and ruler you could draw some plans of reversing loops and you might get an idea about how many tracks can be built in and about the number of trains.
IMHO it is up to you do show us more about your plans, also your ideas about the trackplan. Getting a main in, is the first thing to do. It forces you as well to think about a scheme (loop to loop, a water-wing or a donut or whatever you fancy) and staging area's.
Wish you luckPaul
Paul, as a former draftsman I can assure you up is not always north nad down is not always south on a drawing. But for these purposes up is north, down is south, right is east and left is west. This also happens to be how my basement is oriented and how the layout will actually be built.
One other thing the dimensions I have given are the maximum space available. It may not be the maximum amount of space I actually end up using. For now we'll assume that it is though. I would rather start with too much and reduce, than not start with enough and have to figure out a way to increase.
I do understand what you mean by being able to reach across at a max distance of only 30" and display shelves and he ability to reach them are on my mind. I am thinking with HO this will be very difficult. I am about 6' tall but reaching across 4' is not easy, especially when this layout is against 2 walls of my basement.
The south side is completely open and will have to be for walking space between the support wall of the basement and the south side of the layout. This will create a corridor affect that will have to remain open for access to the secondary use of the room.
If by staging you mean where the consists will be parked until they are running, they will be staged, or parked in the yard that will be inside the large reverse loop that will be in the 8' x 8' section. This will be on the east end of the layout. It will also be the very first thing built for the layout. There could be some trains staged, or parked in the middle of the 5' x 5' section as well. This section will be at the west end of the layout and will be the last section built.
I don't know about double track yet. Along the section between the ends will be the industry specfic part of the layout. I have given examples of a coal fired power plant, brewing company, food warehouse/distribution center, passenger train depot just to name a few. The max. available space available in this section is 4' wide. A double track would depend on how much width the buildings take up. In addition to the buildings will be parking lot, semi truck and regular motor vehicles as well.
Could I start out with a single track and switch to double if I choose HO scale?
This will be a loop to loop configuration. large loop at the east end and small one at the west end.
I'll be back later to contine discussing this.
Thanks.
I am going to have to go with N scale. For 2 reasons. One it will be impossible to reach across even the narrow span of 4' to a shelf that will have engines stored on it. The second and biggest reason is with even with a consist that is only 4' long and with only 14' long section for sidings that is 2 sidings at most if both trains are 4' long. Even if use double track in the middle with industry specific buildings on each side with 4' sidings that is still only up to 4 trains max. I want to run more than that.
A coal fired power plant, gran Co-Op, passenger depot. food distribution warehouse, fuel/oil storage depot and brewing company are 6 that come to mind.
So its decided, I'm going with N scale for the permenant layout.
Now a question about it. What is the smallest radius I can run for consists from 1970 to today, including passenger cars with baffles in between?
I understand there can be a differance between what is possible and what looks correct. I need it to work right and look right.
hi again,
IMHO you should choose for length. Long narrow shelves and using the open south side as well for staging (parking). A branchline above the staging area is also possible. You could explore some other footprints.
This could be done in N-scale using 18 inch radii. A ratio between 1:2,5 and 1:3 for the longest cars. Not bad.
Only by going to the drawing board your self you will find out what you fancy the most.
Thanks Paul. Though N scale take less space than HO this will not work. The entire width of the room is only 12', wall to wall. I'll need at least 30" along the wall for the sidings and buildings, then at least 3' of walking space in between and another 30" on the other side for the rest of the layout. That is 8'. It only leaves 4' of open space left for secondary things. I need more space than this to move my bicycles in and out of the basement along with other things that this room is used for.
Will an 18" radius work with the way the layout will be built and the trains I intend on setting up?
Thanks SUX
SUX V R40 Rider So its decided, I'm going with N scale for the permenant layout. Now a question about it. What is the smallest radius I can run for consists from 1970 to today, including passenger cars with baffles in between? I understand there can be a differance between what is possible and what looks correct. I need it to work right and look right.
I believe that you have made the correct decision to go with N scale, all things considered.
As far as what is possible and what looks correct regarding radius, my advice is to go with the broadest possible curves that will fit your layout, since that will be as close as you can get to what looks correct.
If you think about it, what is possible and what is correct can be opposite extremes. What is possible implies tight curves to meet restrictive conditions on your layout. What is correct implies broad curves on the prototype. Of course, the prototype doesn't always have the luxury of broad curves, but that is when rolling stock looks its best.
Rich
Alton Junction
"BTW, Atlas sells 15"r sectional track"
There was a layout in MRR, the Walla Walla Valley RR, that used 15"R track. I don't know what issue, and as I recall it was a walk in U-shaped point-to-point. It is on the track plan data base. Looks kind of neat if you are into point to point layouts.
Bear "It's all about having fun."
bearman"BTW, Atlas sells 15"r sectional track"There was a layout in MRR, the Walla Walla Valley RR, that used 15"R track. I don't know what issue, and as I recall it was a walk in U-shaped point-to-point. It is on the track plan data base. Looks kind of neat if you are into point to point layouts.
That was a truly fine layout, but handled nothing larger than 50' cars with small 4-axle diesel switchers. The Original Poster's requirements include more modern longer cars and 6-axle engines -- not appropriate for 15" curves in HO, IMHO.
Real-life railroader Bair Kooistra's Walla Walla Railway appeared in Great Model Railroads 2005. He started building a larger WWV with broader curves but has since moved on to an Australian prototype. There are a couple of pictures of the first WWV layout on his new blog:
http://northofnarrabri.blogspot.com/2011/02/bedroom-sized-layout-version-2-walla.html
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Thank you for all of the advice. For now I am going to continue to work on and finish my portable HO layout I am currently building. After it is done I will then work on the permanent N scale layout. I am going to purchase the Walthers N Scale catalog and reference book from my LHS when the time comes.
On a side note the track that came with the HO scale set I have has 18" radius's and the engine is an SD40. I did put it together and run it on my hardwood floor and it went around the turns just fine. Though I am not going to use the track that came with the set and go with Atlas pre-beded track with 2 switches and a siding I will likely use the 18" radius since I know it already works for this train set.
richhotrain SUX V R40 Rider: So its decided, I'm going with N scale for the permenant layout. Now a question about it. What is the smallest radius I can run for consists from 1970 to today, including passenger cars with baffles in between? I understand there can be a differance between what is possible and what looks correct. I need it to work right and look right. I believe that you have made the correct decision to go with N scale, all things considered. As far as what is possible and what looks correct regarding radius, my advice is to go with the broadest possible curves that will fit your layout, since that will be as close as you can get to what looks correct. If you think about it, what is possible and what is correct can be opposite extremes. What is possible implies tight curves to meet restrictive conditions on your layout. What is correct implies broad curves on the prototype. Of course, the prototype doesn't always have the luxury of broad curves, but that is when rolling stock looks its best. Rich
SUX V R40 Rider: So its decided, I'm going with N scale for the permenant layout. Now a question about it. What is the smallest radius I can run for consists from 1970 to today, including passenger cars with baffles in between? I understand there can be a differance between what is possible and what looks correct. I need it to work right and look right.
I hate to say this but i may change my mind and go with HO scale. A good friend of mine who has been model railroading for many years made a good suggestion that I think will work.
As I said I have max of 27' of length to use for my layout with a max of 8' wide at one end and a max of 4' wide at the other.
My friend who runs N scale because prior to buying his house lived in apartments and was tight for space, but wishes he now had HO and has his layout in 20' of space with a U shape at the one end suggested 4' and 2' modules along the length of the 27' of space I have to use. We used his layout and space in his basement as a mock up for spacing. The room my layout will be in is wider than his and I have more length. He advised if he can run HO, if me made the switch it, withe less room than I have, I can certainly run HO on my layout.
With 27' of space I can have up to four 4' long modules and up to four 2' long modules. If you do the math you'll know that equals 24'. I can put the 3' that is left over anywhere along the length.
2 of the modules can be at the ends where my yard with either the turn around or wye is set up with the maintenance buildings. The ends modules would also be 4' wide.
I would run double track with cross overs. Each of the other two 4' modules could have the larger industries and the 2' modules would hold smaller industries. The 4' long modules can be up to 4' in width, the 2' modules up to 32" wide. I also have the additional 3' to put where I would need it. This would still allow me adequate reach over distance ,either across or from the inside corners and the outside ends or edges for the larger modules.
Because I will be running industry specific consists my trains will be shorter than prototypical trains. With the exception of a maybe a passenger train, none of my trains should exceed 4' long. with spurs and sidings for the industries I should be able to have a very cool layout.
As I said in a another thread my friend gave me an N scale train set. I now have 2 sets, one is HO and one is N. Building the portable smaller layouts for each of these will really help me decide which scale I want to go with.
SUX V R40 Rider I hate to say this but i may change my mind and go with HO scale. A good friend of mine who has been model railroading for many years made a good suggestion that I think will work. With 27' of space I can have up to four 4' long modules and up to four 2' long modules. If you do the math you'll know that equals 24'. I can put the 3' that is left over anywhere along the length. 2 of the modules can be at the ends where my yard with either the turn around or wye is set up with the maintenance buildings. The ends modules would also be 4' wide. I would run double track with cross overs. Each of the other two 4' modules could have the larger industries and the 2' modules would hold smaller industries. The 4' long modules can be up to 4' in width, the 2' modules up to 32" wide. I also have the additional 3' to put where I would need it. This would still allow me adequate reach over distance ,either across or from the inside corners and the outside ends or edges for the larger modules. Because I will be running industry specific consists my trains will be shorter than prototypical trains. With the exception of a maybe a passenger train, none of my trains should exceed 4' long. with spurs and sidings for the industries I should be able to have a very cool layout.
I think you are under-estimating how much space models of more modern prototypes take.
Let's start with train length in HO. I'm guessing your SD-40 is about 8" actual length. Each 50ft car is another 7"+. That means your 4ft train is the engine plus 5 cars. I hope that 5 cars is what you meant by shorter than prototypical trains. Full length passenger cars are 12" long each, so that means a 3 car train plus engine to fit inside your 4ft long distance between crossovers.
A more respectable 10 car train, assuming 50ft average cars is 7ft long, including locomotive. Longer cars (60ft) are going to take more space or fewer cars in the same space.
In N, that same 4ft train length gives you 10 cars plus locomotive.
According to Atlas HO templates a double crossover with #6 turnouts is 26" long. Two of those, plus 4ft of clearance between the crossovers is a total of 8ft 4 inches. Even a single crossover with #6 turnouts is 20" long if you use 2" spacing instead of the 3" spacing for the double crossover.
I would not use a standard module length in your situation - interchangeability does not appear to be a requirement. I would instead base section (not module) length on what makes sense, and won't have turnouts spanning the section boundary. If you are not committed to an oval racetrack, fixed module lengths makes little sense other than benchwork standardization. I am a firm believer in letting layout design drive benchwork design, not the other way around.
I am not recommending N over HO - that's a personal decision. I'm just pointing out that your space will fit a lot more of your desires than in HO. You can build a fine HO layout in the space you cite. But I doubt the kind of track plan and layout you seem to want will fit well in the space.
I fully agree with the small portable layouts in each scale to gain experience to help you make the choice. Include at least one turnout and uncoupling ramp on each, and try some switching operations. Then at least you will have a feel for how much switching operations you want in the "big" layout.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
I have one radius that is 12" on my HO scale layout. It is on the industrial portion of my steel mill area. I've used 4 axle diesels on that turn with no problems (GP38). Shorter diesels look better. Six axle diesels can't make the turn.
Additionally I am using Reboxx semi-scale wheels. To insure that my track is right, I pull cars through the turn at speed, then back 5-6 cars through at speed. If I have not derailed, my trackwork is OK. All of the rail joints are soldered then ground down / smoothed out with a Dremel followed up with a jeweler's file. All of my turns are slightly super-elevated just a bit - it helps keep the wheel and coupler aspect right.
~Mike~
Mike Habersack http://rail. habersack. com
Maryland - the land of pleasant living...
The reason I am considering HO scale is in part what my friend advised, but also because of what I have seen in Model Railroad Magazine. In the last few issues, plus the suppliments that come with the magazine I have seen layouts that modelers have built in HO scale with a smaller foot print than mine will use. I figure if they can do it, so can I.
I already know this for a fact with HO scale. I cannot go with anything less than 18" radius. My current set, has an SD40-2 with 50' cars. The cheap track that came with the set has 18" radius that I already know will work. I am not going to use the cheap track on the portable he layout I am building for it. Going with pre-bedded track.
Based on research in full size railroading I've decided to run GP units to each of my industries, with the exception of the passenger train. It will be a daily commute type train. Similar to the trip from Milwaukee to Chicago, not the long passenger runs that require the sleeper or dining cars.
The industries will be serviced as if they were along local runs GP loco's pulling less cars are likely to make. IE: brewery train, food warehouse distribution center, coal train, fuel storage depot to name a few.
With this I should be able to accomplish 5 of the most important things in HO scale: Sticking with 18" radius, running double track with cross overs, reach over distance across the layout, ,a yard built at each end, one larger than the other as needed for both loco and car maintenance and repair and the ability to have at least 5 industries and the passenger depot.
CTValleyRR I have to agree with Phoebe Vet about "minimum" radius. Having done it myself, I can assure you that all my equipment WILL run on 22" diameter curves, and I have some long 6 axle diesels and 85' passenger cars. Now, is that ideal, from both an operational and appearance perspective? Probably not -- that would be closer to the 1:2.5 or 1:3 ratios suggested by Paul. But, given the space constraints or my layout area, I have two choices, give up the longer equipment, or tolerate the substandard appearance. I chose the latter.
I have to agree with Phoebe Vet about "minimum" radius. Having done it myself, I can assure you that all my equipment WILL run on 22" diameter curves, and I have some long 6 axle diesels and 85' passenger cars. Now, is that ideal, from both an operational and appearance perspective? Probably not -- that would be closer to the 1:2.5 or 1:3 ratios suggested by Paul. But, given the space constraints or my layout area, I have two choices, give up the longer equipment, or tolerate the substandard appearance. I chose the latter.
1:2.5 or 1:3 ratios work for most equipment in HO scale when minimum radius is determined. However there's another observation I made about very specific equipment: TTX Front Runner spine cars. Due to their rigid 2 axles with a long wheelbase of 36'6" or 11125.2mm they are second longest wheelbase flatcars in the world as I am aware. The car with longest rigid wheelbase that I am aware of is a 2-axled Italian passenger car "Corbellini Tipo 1947" http://www.ildeposito.net/Pics/Preview/tipo1947assi.jpg and prototype http://www.claudiovianini.com/pages/LIBRARIES/CORB/corbe3.jpg with rigid wheelbase of 11400mm or 37'5". Unlike turning trucks rigid axles are really in a way when track is something other than straight. I have TTX Front Runner model by Walthers mainline. 36.5' wheelbase = 5.02" or 127.75mm. The minimum radius car can run through is 30" (advertized 24" minimum radius on the box is non-stable and prone to derailment even when it comes to moving the train under tension of pulling locomotive with some freight train behind it, pushing - forget it). During 30" curves there is still some flange grinding. This is 6:1 ratio of radius to rigid wheelbase length. Trouble-free operation begins on 10:1 ratio respectively. Thus on 50+ inch curves.
You can do the commuter train if you run them push-pull so they don't have to go through any tight curves. You can use 18"R curves at each end of the line for continuous running, but use larger curves (and higher number turnouts) on the rest of the layout. If you're doing modern commuter cars you'll probably need 24" radius curves at a minimum.
BTW I'm guessing your HO trainset came with cars with talgo trucks - couplers attached to the trucks? That allows them to go around tight curves better. Most HO freight cars have body mounted couplers.
Necro alert
The two guys who posted the most in this thread, haven't posted in the forum since 2013.
Carry on
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
The dead threads continue. Not sure what mr. masterist (?) and the Front runner cars is all about, I have 4 I run at the end of a train, 24" radius is no problem.
I guess I better stop that nonsense! as it's not suppose to work.
Mike.
My You Tube
BigDaddy Necro alert The two guys who posted the most in this thread, haven't posted in the forum since 2013.
I have also long felt that a thread without any replies for at least one year should be locked. It can be linked in a new thread, but it should no longer to be permitted to reply to such a thread.
richhotrain BigDaddy Necro alert The two guys who posted the most in this thread, haven't posted in the forum since 2013. I have long felt that newbies still under moderation should be required to undergo basic training in forum usage. Replying to an 8-year old thread is just plain pointless. I have also long felt that a thread without any replies for at least one year should be locked. It can be linked in a new thread, but it should no longer to be permitted to reply to such a thread. Rich
I have long felt that newbies still under moderation should be required to undergo basic training in forum usage. Replying to an 8-year old thread is just plain pointless.
I don't think stale threads should be locked, but some message boards warn you if you're going to reply to a message thread that hasn't been posted to in NN months/years. That way you are at least aware when you are resurrecting an old thread.
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 -
lock en, but let the original poster unlock, if they ever come back and want to.
For me, minimum radius depends on the situation.
.
Currently I am trying to use a minimum radius of 22" for hidden mainline track, 18" for hidden branch line track, 36" for visible mainline track, and 24" for other visible curves.
All equipment must be able to go through an 18" radius S curve with a 6" straight track in the center as a proof of perfomance test.
-Kevin
Living the dream.