Well-intentioned folks often cite John Allen's first layout to newcomers as an ideal track plan without also noting that it had extremely tight curves (14" radius or so), very steep grades, and handlaid-to-fit turnouts, all of which are beyond the abilities of most newcomers. Not to mention completely inhospitable to the OP's U23B..
As others have pointed out repeatedly, some sort of folded oval or folded dogbone or donut-style layout would work well in the space -- better than a 4X8 monolith.
There is plenty of room for changes in elevation and even for a track to cross over another, as has been shown early in the thread.
If the OP would like a bill of materials and step-by-step instructions for this first foray into layout building, perhaps one of the Atlas layouts from a book would be appropriate. These are track heavy and often limited to 18" radius, and the inefficient HO 4X8 monolith, but they otherwise seem to meet the OP's personal needs for complete details and a fast start. They aren't the best layouts, but they are the best documented.
The one thing I would say is certainly do not wire the Atlas layouts using their components as shown in the books. But if going DCC from the start (a good choice), that issue is eliminated. And of course, flex track would be a better choice than sectional track, but that's an easy substitution.
Best of luck.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Paul_in_GA]This is what I have decided to do. I have some track on order. I have an old train set with snap together track in an oval. I plan on getting some plywood very soon, putting the oval crap on it, wiring it for DCC and running trains. I also have the full-sized paper templates from Walthers. I plan on doing a paper track mockup.
cuyama Well-intentioned folks often cite John Alien's first layout to newcomers as an ideal track plan without also noting that it had extremely tight curves (14" radius or so), very steep grades, and handlaid-to-fit turnouts, all of which are beyond the abilities of most newcomers. Not to mention completely inhospitable to the OP's U23B.. As others have pointed out repeatedly, some sort of folded oval or folded dogbone or donut-style layout would work well in the space -- better than a 4X8 monolith. There is plenty of room for changes in elevation and even for a track to cross over another, as has been shown early in the thread. If the OP would like a bill of materials and step-by-step instructions for this first foray into layout building, perhaps one of the Atlas layouts from a book would be appropriate. These are track heavy and often limited to 18" radius, and the inefficient HO 4X8 monolith, but they otherwise seem to meet the OP's personal needs for complete details and a fast start. They aren't the best layouts, but they are the best documented. The one thing I would say is certainly do not wire the Atlas layouts using their components as shown in the books. But if going DCC from the start (a good choice), that issue is eliminated. And of course, flex track would be a better choice than sectional track, but that's an easy substitution. Best of luck.
Well-intentioned folks often cite John Alien's first layout to newcomers as an ideal track plan without also noting that it had extremely tight curves (14" radius or so), very steep grades, and handlaid-to-fit turnouts, all of which are beyond the abilities of most newcomers. Not to mention completely inhospitable to the OP's U23B..
Thanks for the advice and the links!
Paulus Jas hi gentlemen, Svein's work is great, so are those lovely Nohab's. (F7's build for a lot of European railroads with two cabs just after WW2) From Luxembourg: Some still in operation today Paul
hi gentlemen,
Svein's work is great, so are those lovely Nohab's. (F7's build for a lot of European railroads with two cabs just after WW2)
From Luxembourg:
Some still in operation today
Paul
WOW! This post and the one above it with the links are AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!
I CANNOT believe the detail and the QUALITY! I guess some people have skill, some have TALENT, and some have both. This guy in those links has both. Stunning work. I could only HOPE to achieve that someday.
Paulus Jas Hi, to many on here are seeing bears on their way who are not really there. Wether you are buiding your layout the "cookie-cutter" way or with foam inclines, adding some elevations changes are very easily done. Even more important, changes are just as easily made. Stein's pics are pretty clear, don't overdo or don't expect the differences of elevation between the two lines to be huge. On my plan only an overpass over a road was worked in. And yes, you might start with a completely flat layout first, also with my plan. Add the river and grades later. Whatever constuction method you choose you will have to choose one that allows you some space in the future under the tracks for a river or a road underpass. When building in one of the styles mentioned above this not an issue at all. EDIT: BTW some planning elements were mentioned worth thinking about. Radius versus length of equipment, the limitations of an 8x4, double tracking or single tracking or partial single tracking (like on my drawing) or even a twice around. Staging was mentioned, just like possible issues with open top traffic (empties in, loads out). Even the way the storage / staging / terminal tracks could be added, if they are added at all.. Books are written about coal hauling, which part should be incorporated into your plan? Going for switching (Stein's plan) or is the emphasis more on trains running along? However looking back 10 years from now, you might still be thinking about plan 1123version32Z behind your drawing board, or maybe start building your third layout. Famous layout builder and designer Lance Mindheim is talking about a 7 years time span of love for his latest layout (where did I hear this mentioned before?); starting all over is part of the fun. Plunge in the deep despite of the bears or........? End of Edit Big smile Paul
Hi,
to many on here are seeing bears on their way who are not really there. Wether you are buiding your layout the "cookie-cutter" way or with foam inclines, adding some elevations changes are very easily done. Even more important, changes are just as easily made. Stein's pics are pretty clear, don't overdo or don't expect the differences of elevation between the two lines to be huge. On my plan only an overpass over a road was worked in.
And yes, you might start with a completely flat layout first, also with my plan. Add the river and grades later. Whatever constuction method you choose you will have to choose one that allows you some space in the future under the tracks for a river or a road underpass. When building in one of the styles mentioned above this not an issue at all.
EDIT:
BTW some planning elements were mentioned worth thinking about. Radius versus length of equipment, the limitations of an 8x4, double tracking or single tracking or partial single tracking (like on my drawing) or even a twice around. Staging was mentioned, just like possible issues with open top traffic (empties in, loads out). Even the way the storage / staging / terminal tracks could be added, if they are added at all.. Books are written about coal hauling, which part should be incorporated into your plan? Going for switching (Stein's plan) or is the emphasis more on trains running along?
However looking back 10 years from now, you might still be thinking about plan 1123version32Z behind your drawing board, or maybe start building your third layout. Famous layout builder and designer Lance Mindheim is talking about a 7 years time span of love for his latest layout (where did I hear this mentioned before?); starting all over is part of the fun. Plunge in the deep despite of the bears or........?
End of Edit
Big smile
Thanks Paulus, you have been a tremendous help with your information. I would also like to thank cudaken for speaking with me at length this morning. He gave me a lot of information. Thanks Ken!
we
Paul_in_GA Paulus Jas hi gentlemen, Svein's work is great, so are those lovely Nohab's. (F7's build for a lot of European railroads with two cabs just after WW2) From Luxembourg: Some still in operation today Paul WOW! This post and the one above it with the links are AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!! I CANNOT believe the detail and the QUALITY! I guess some people have skill, some have TALENT, and some have both. This guy in those links has both. Stunning work. I could only HOPE to achieve that someday.
... unless I'm mistaken, that's a "RL" shot of the locomotives, rather than a model (mostly because you can see the "heat" from the exhaust coming off the locomotives)
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site
NeO6874 wePaul_in_GA WOW! This post and the one above it with the links are AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!! I CANNOT believe the detail and the QUALITY! I guess some people have skill, some have TALENT, and some have both. This guy in those links has both. Stunning work. I could only HOPE to achieve that someday. ... unless I'm mistaken, that's a "RL" shot of the locomotives, rather than a model (mostly because you can see the "heat" from the exhaust coming off the locomotives)
Paul_in_GA WOW! This post and the one above it with the links are AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!! I CANNOT believe the detail and the QUALITY! I guess some people have skill, some have TALENT, and some have both. This guy in those links has both. Stunning work. I could only HOPE to achieve that someday.
Yeah, I realized that right before I posted, I knew it was real, I was referring to the Swedish links I think it was stein who posted.
Paul_in_GA I was referring to the Swedish links I think it was stein who posted.
I was referring to the Swedish links I think it was stein who posted.
Svein Sando's pages in Norwegian. Sweden is the next country over, like Canada is next to the US :-)
Grin, Stein
steinjr Paul_in_GA I was referring to the Swedish links I think it was stein who posted. Svein Sando's pages in Norwegian. Sweden is the next country over, like Canada is next to the US :-) Grin, Stein
OOPS! I stand corrected, sorry if I offended anyone.
Although that's not so obvious now that they've removed the locations from our avatars.
Connecticut Valley Railroad A Branch of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -- Henry Ford
To address the comments on elevation changes -- several people tried to read more into the comments than was actually there. Sure, slight changes in elevation are possible on any layout. My point was to try to give the OP some sense of the amount of real estate required to build sensible grades. What I meant about Paulus's design is that by keeping it in the corner or the room, you remove any possibility of constructing enough grade at a reasonable incline (2% or less) to make the tracks cross -- that is, you couldn't adapt the plan to incorporate a crossover. I apologize if I confused anyone (especially the OP)
Never the less, while small changes in elevation are certainly possible on any layout, I would still recommend that a newbie stay away from that kind of roller coaster effect until he has some more experience in track-laying. Distinguishing what is possible from what is wise (just because you can doesn't mean you should).