Hi,
I have been out of the hobby for many years and would like to get started again in HO scale. I have an open concept basement where I would like to build a 6' by 12' walk around table "E" scaped table. Here is a link to a diagram i drew: http://i63.tinypic.com/30wqq9w.jpg (can't see how to upload the picture directly here) I would like to have more track but I don't want the layout to seem cluttered since it isn't huge. I'm would like to hear other suggestions for layout designs but I need to stay within the 6' by 12' as much as possible.
I have some lumber and milling buildings, small town stores/houses and coal/gravel mining building which I would like to reuse. I would say I'm staying around the mid-50's to 80's timeframe based on what I already have.
Thank you!
You were close, RTM
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/t/249194.aspx Having said that, I can't make the link clickable
SCARM is a free program, with educational videos that will let you draw a more accurate plan. The turnout to the lumber yard looks a little optimistic and your inner track looks less than 18" radius
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
If the 6x12 is a totally walk around table, then you can use all of the area and have a max of 3 ft "stretch" to get to anything on the layout. I normally would not recommend this arrangement (6x12 table) but it would work for you.
Do not "cheat" when drawing out plans. If you are using sectional track, I would keep the small 18 inch radius only to yard tracks. Everything else should be the 22 inch or bigger.
Pick up a Kalmbach layout design book (lots on Ebay) and you will likely find something to start you off. Trust me, planning is perhaps the most important step in building a layout.
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
BigDaddy You were close, RTM http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/t/249194.aspx Having said that, I can't make the link clickable
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/t/249194.aspx
Rich
Alton Junction
Unfortunately, once drawn to scale your concept won’t work in that space. Benchwork lobes only 3 feet wide limit a single track turnback curve to about 15” radius, because curves are measured to the center of the track and you need additional buffer space around the edges. Double-track would be even worse. That area is just too small for an “E” in HO.
If you have access all around, a donut-style layout might be better and would allow broader radii. Or you could possibly fit two lobes in a “water wings” style dogbone. If your basement is open and you can use a bit more space, then there would be many other options.
Good luck with your layout.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Thank you very much for all the advise and suggestions. I started following the SCARM tutorials so next time I post a layout design, it should look for much reaslistic and proportional.
I have been looking over dogbone layouts and think I'm going to switch over toward that type since it would better suite the space I have available. There are a few interesting onces I've come across on this site http://www.thortrains.net/4holayx.html but in any case I would change the 18" inside radius to 22" and use a 24" radius for the outter track.
jbiss_ca:
First, welcome to the forums!!!
And, welcome back to the hobby!!!
I'm sorry to rain on your parade as it were, but, as Byron says, you won't be able to fit a functional HO scale model railroad with standard HO scale locomotives and rolling stock into a 6' x 12' 'E' shaped table. Byron is a professional layout designer. He knows whereof he speaks.
However, you still have lots of choices for that size space. You could do HOn3 narrow gauge in the 'E' pattern, perhaps a logging railroad. That would allow for much sharper curves (although the three foot wide peninsulas could still be a bit restricting).
You could do N gauge but somehow I don't think that suits you, especially since you have some HO scale treasures that you want to re-use.
As has been suggested, you could do a dogbone.
Or, you could put a scenic divider more or less up the middle of the 6' x 12' table and effectively get 24' of scenery lengthwise and lots of depth in the scenes. Judicious use of elevation changes could get you partially hidden return loops so everything is not always running in the same direction.
You have tons of options.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
hon30critterYou could do HOn3 narrow gauge in the 'E' pattern, perhaps a logging railroad. That would allow for much sharper curves (although the three foot wide peninsulas could still be a bit restricting).
Dave - I am sorry to rain on your parade, but the Blackstone locos require a minimum radius of 18" and Shays, Climaxes and Heislers are rare brass items.
Ulrich - OOPs!
Thanks for correcting that. For some reason I thought HOn3 was able to run on tighter radii.
Maybe the OP could consider HOn30. Then again, the offerings aren't all that numerous.
A Blackstone K 27 may negotiate a 16" radius curve, but that does not help the OP.
He should drop that "E" layout design and go for a doughnut shape instead. Not to forget some of those excellent primer books Kalmbach sells
Generally, the ThorTrains layouts are exercises in cramming the largest number of short spurs possible into the available space. Unless that’s specifically what you are after, there are almost always choices that will operate and look better. But the general footprints are sometimes OK.
Here is the layout I plan to build. I have used 18" radius since I don't have any longer car or engines, the outter loop is 22" radius. As for locomotives, I have C424s so from what I can tell, there's able to handle the 18" radius fine. For the road sections, it's just to give an idea, I'll rearange them once the track is down. Any thought orcomment on something I may have missed out on?
jbiss_caAny thought orcomment on something I may have missed out on?
You have a number of S-curves where at least one path runs the train through a sharp curve in one direction and then immediately into a curve in the opposite direction. These can often be problematic, especially when shoving cars as in a switching move.
The grades look to be pretty steep and don't seem to allow room for a transition from level to grade and back.
Track is very close to the layout edge in a few places. Most folks choose to have at least three inches or so from track to layout edge to avoid brushing off cars as they pass or having derailed cars fall all the way to the floor.
The many short spurs may actually hold fewer cars than you would like once you allow for clearance to adjacent tracks. (One of the same problems with many of the ThorTrains layouts)
Sorry to be direct, but there would certainly be better choices for most people in your available space. A more straightforward concept would probably be more reliable and more interesting to operate in the long run.
Thank you for the comments Byron, I'm taking them very constructively. My main goal is to have some form of a loop for the main track however I'm finding it hard to make that possible along with having sidings with out making sharp turns seeing as the width is limited to 6ft. If you have any links to "narrow" layouts that do allow for a loop, it could give me a lot of inspiration. I tried googling but what I've come across is very limited. I may be trying to cram too much into the space I have (different terrain height, over pass, two different siding areas for forestry and mining along with a small town for general freight).
Here is a quickly sketched alternative that still retains the basic dogbone footprint but likely provides more long-term interest and better reliability. This is what I meant by a more “straightforward” design.
Routing the mainline around near the edges of the layout provides a longer run but still allows access pretty much everywhere with a 30” reach or less. The double-sided backdrops divide the layout into scenes.
Trains may be made up in the small yard and run out to switch the various industries. At the lumber yard, there are multiple places to spot cars – at the open lumber structures or the molding shop. The gravel scene could also have a good-sized loader.
This sketch was done with flextrack, which is easier to fit into the space than would be sectional track.
Another alternative would be a donut-style layout. If width were available at one end or the other, extending the layout into a longer “L” rather than a “U” might also be interesting to try. And of course, a layout designed to fit the room rather than a specific rectangular area might offer even more possibilities.
Yikes! That last sketch might have been a little too quick. But I’ll leave it there for comparison. While that approach does yield the longest mainline, it’s probably not the best layout. Something like this might be better, giving more of a feeling of two different locations. Industry tracks and structures could be modified, of course.
jbiss_caI may be trying to cram too much into the space I have (different terrain height, over pass, two different siding areas for forestry and mining along with a small town for general freight).
I didn't realize that you were thinking of logging or lumbering rather than a lumber yard. In that case, it might be better to move the logging operation over to the same side of the layout as the gravel pit in my last track plan so it feels distant from the "city" where the yard is located.
The trade-off with having the tracks pass over one another in that space is that it takes away more of the level areas that I personally like for longer industry tracks. But it can certainly be done and there are lots of published track plans with that approach.
A twice-around arrangement for more of a donut-style layout might be the best approach to get tracks to pass over-under without excessive grades while still allowing room for level towns for switching. Here's a simple sketch to show the general idea, it's not optimized for your layout desires. Note that you can't reach the center of a 6X12 monolith.
And, of course, some other shape might fit your overall room better than an island layout of any style.
jbiss_ca I need to stay within the 6' by 12' as much as possible.
Mike
Water Level RouteEd Vondrak drew up a number of walk in track plans for a 6x13 space
Ed Vondrak's layouts are always clever, but these particular examples are sort of "inside out" compared to what the Original Poster has described -- but might be useful as general inspiration. The OP has access all around the 6X12 area, Vondrak's layouts in this article are designed to be enclosed on four sides with one entrance.
This barely works for walk-in access with 18" minimum radius (in Vondrak's examples), but the OP's requirement was for at least one 22" radius loop. At 22" minimum radius and in the original 12' length, not really practical for the walk-in folded dogbones of Vondrak's article.
Neat article, though.
Of course, if the OP does have the potential for additional space in either or both directions, many options might fit.
So I was able to settle on a little more space. I've included a quick draw-up of the maximum space I have, I'm fine using less however.
I was thinking of putting a yard at the bottom with an 18" radius turn to loop the track arround to help create a continus flow but I'd be curious about thought on that. The width of the table for the tight turn would be 40" and then tapper back to 24" where track would go behind the column.
I would appreciate any ideas for a layout with in this space. Due to having a wall partly on one side, and the maximal size of the main table (8' x 12') I think a walk-in or donught would be the best options. As previously mentionned, I would like to have a logging area and a gravel/mine area. I must as possible, I would want the main track to loop (not point to point). Thanks so much for everyone's input so far. Thank you very much Byron for your layout designs, extremely appreciated.
There are a number of options in the new space, I would strongly suggest that you not limit yourself conceptully by thinking of only plywood sheets laid down in a grid. Rectangular tables based on the size of plywood sheets often limit the radius of the turnback loops in HO and/or create access problems.
Let the benchwork flow as needed to accommodate the plan, not vice-versa -- as in this smaller example layout in HO.
Good luck with your layout -- don't fear the saw!
cuyama There are a number of options in the new space, I would strongly suggest that you not limit yourself conceptully by thinking of only plywood sheets laid down in a grid. Rectangular tables based on the size of plywood sheets often limit the radius of the turnback loops in HO and/or create access problems. Let the benchwork flow as needed to accommodate the plan, not vice-versa -- as in this smaller example layout in HO. Good luck with your layout -- don't fear the saw!
richhotrainAs I contemplate a new layout, I find myself thinking about plywood surfaces of rectangular shapes so that the bench work can be easily framed. In your drawing, how would you frame the benchwork?
To me, benchwork is a secondary issue and shouldn't dictate design. I'm such a big fan of L-girder for layouts with curving edges that I possibly over-apply it, but I think it would work well here. One end of many joists could rest on an L-girder along the wall, and then another couple of L-girders (plus an outrigger or two) would support the joists elsewhere. I think it's fine to mix benchwork types as well to suit the room and plan.
It's a shame that Westcott's How to Build Model Railroad Benchwork was allowed to go out of print, or that his examples of how to apply L-girder to a variety of shapes weren't carried over to later Kalmbach benchwork books. But at least used copies are reasonable right now.
cuyamaIt's a shame that Westcott's How to Build Model Railroad Benchwork was allowed to go out of print
Westcott's original article on L-girder "framework" was in the September 1963 issue of MR. If you've got access to the digital archive or the MR DVD, it's worth a review.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
I have a "E" configuration layout in my garage since 2006. I use it daily by both DC & DCC. My engines are mostly B-B. E-Mail me at xxxxxxxx@xx.xx.com for additional info.
[Edited by admin to remove personal contact info. It's not a good idea to put your real e-mail address on a public Forum like this. Please contact this user via Forum private message instead. Thanks.]
I already have a lot of stock in HO scale from my previous layout. I want to reuse as much as possible instead of buying all new buildings, track, locos and cars. It's the layout/table I am working towards building new.