I posted my initial layout design ideas earlier this year and got a lot of good feedback from you guys. Since I'm (finally) getting close to laying some track, I'm posting my latest version for your comments, suggestions, critiques.
It's HO, around the walls of a 10x20 room, twice-around with lower level staging, central Wisconsin in the late 1960's - loosely based on the Soo Line in and around Marshfield. I'm aiming for look-and-feel, not strict prototype since I'm definitely an amateur.
Here's what I have...
What I don't like? I think it's a little too much trackwork for small town WI railroading. I want enough to support two person ops, though my co-operator is only in second grade right now, but not too much. Do you think there's too much trackwork? If so, any suggestions on where I could simplify? Of course, any general suggestions and critique are welcome also. Thanks in advance for any advice.
Dave
Could be more yard than you need compared to the rest of the visible trackage. What is the clearance to the staging tracks and what is the grade of the connections between staging and visible layout?
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
You have about 18 ft of run to get below the yard, that's a little over 200 ft. At 2%, that means you will be at a little more than 4' clearance below the yard. how thick is your roadbed and benchwork? If its more than a 1/2 total you will be in trouble. Also since the yard will be right above the stacging you won't have room for ANYTHING to protrude below the yard (wires, nails, switch linkages, nada). Also you will have hidden staging with minimal clearance to stub end staging. I guarantee your operators will spend the entire time the train is coming in or out of staging on their knees peering into the 4" gap between decks for their trains.
An alternative is to move the whole yard 1 foot to the right and put a 1 ft wide staging yard behind the switching yard with a low backdrop between them, just high enough that when you are standing in front of the layout you can't see over it to the staging yard but if you stand on a step stool you can see the whole yard. You can also put a little mirror on the ceiling as a cheap "detector" for the operators to see when their trains have cleared. It will also require a crossing (somewhere to the left of Willard). This solution also removes any grade problems.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Dave H, you're making me nervous.
The grade/staging clearance aspect of my design is one of the concerns I posted on the forum way back when. There were differing opinions, but a number of replies from members I consider to be very reliable were "tight but doable".
Here are my calculations - According to Right Track, I have about 350" of run from the turnouts in staging to each of the corner towns as I call them (Willard and Tioga). A 2% grade yields a 7" rise. Increasing to 2.4% ups the rise to almost 8 1/2". Probably OK with the length of trains I'll have. Sneaking a 1% grade into a few sections of the scenicked layout could add another 1/2".
Subroadbed is 1/2 plywood and 1/2 Homasote. I've seen 1" aluminum angle-iron in the hardware stores that, with some experimentation, I think can support the Marshfield yard. Turnouts will be manually controlled using Caboose throws.
From a usability perspective, I did debate under layout staging versus your suggestion a lot. Neither is ideal to me. But I opted for lower-level staging tracks on the front edge of the layout, maximize clearance/grade tradeoffs, and matching layout height to my height - resulting in some stooping but hopefully not kneeling.
If you see errors in my grade/clearance calculations, please let me know. I've been thinking and flip-flopping on this one for months.
Dave M
The most critical spot is the left side of the lift out on the top. The down track has to be about 5" below the rest of the layout at that point (1" roadbed plus 4" clearance). I count 18-19 squares from there to the right switch at Willard. 18 feet is 216". At 2% that gives you 4 3/8" clearance. Not quite 5' but it will work.
If you are going with the grade all the way to the "bowtie' staging, then that does give you another 11 ft of run (132") so I figure you probably have 340" of run (which is close enough to your 350'). So that would give you 6.8 or 7 in of clearance, less the 1' of the roadbed, 6" of "hand space" (less any space consumed by supports, wiring, fascia, turnout linkages, etc.)
So yes you would have enough room to do that. I had a similar arrangement on my previous layout (about 7-8" of clearance). One thing to remember is that you don't have to support the layout every 16-24" left to right, you can support it front to back. Put a riser along the back edge of the layout and a support or supports every 16" or so along the front edge of the layout.
If you think that having that much of your layout hidden on a grade is acceptable, go for the gusto. You still will have everybody bending over and peeking under the layout watching the 'subway' for half the train's trip around the layout, I guarantee it.
How do you plan to work the stream on the left end of Willard where the track in front will be 4 in below the track in the back? The front track at Willard will be 3.5 to 4' below the town, will that be hidden?
PS: I am rebuilding my layout to change the era, the new track plan doesn't have the hidden staging under the layout.
Dave H,
That's a good call on the pinch point in the upper left. If the track out of staging hugs the back edge and the upper level track moves in from the edge more, I could eliminate the track being aligned one on top of the other and may improve that area. Thanks for pointing that out.
To answer your question on the track coming out of staging from the bottom left, my idea is a shelf in the facia. The track would be visible but visually separated, merging into the scenicked layout (somehow yet to be determined) in the middle right module. It's taking the concept of a no-lix and putting it on the front of the layout. (I may abandon this once I start laying roadbed and track, but it's working in my mind.)
Can I run another idea past you? On the right side middle section I had considered a sort-of cross over to directly connect Tioga to Willard when travelling clockwise. This would allow for continuous running on the upper scenicked portion of the layout - for spectators to address the scenario that you describe with the subway or when I'm just running a train for kicks. Staging would only be used for actual op sessions. What do you think?
Cuyama,
I didn't want to skip past your suggestion that there's more yard than I need.
I've read that the Soo had a 4 or 5 track yard in Marshfield in the 60's. I think it was used primarily to service the industries in Marshfield and a couple of turns to nearby towns. I don't know the configuration of the yard. My approach has been to read as much as possible about "good" model railroad yard design components and, of course, fit them all into my design. Plus you gotta have a locomotive servicing facility just because they look so cool, even though I know that didn't exist.
Do you think the actual yard would have enough interest to model or is there such a thing as too simple a prototype for interesting model rr ops? Maybe I should just pull some of the extras from my design? I have recently joined the SLHTS, maybe I need to investigate the resources they have to offer? I guess I'm not sure what my question is, maybe I just need to think on this one for awhile. But if you had any advice to offer, I'd appreciate it.
Rather than a crossover, what I would try to do is just the right of Willard cross the lower "down" line to the back of the layout, running it behind Willard. Then put in an "interchange" track (which would be the continuous running connection). That would solve some scenic problems, but might create some grade problems instead.
Dave H.
DMarkerI've read that the Soo had a 4 or 5 track yard in Marshfield in the 60's. I think it was used primarily to service the industries in Marshfield and a couple of turns to nearby towns. I don't know the configuration of the yard. My approach has been to read as much as possible about "good" model railroad yard design components and, of course, fit them all into my design. Plus you gotta have a locomotive servicing facility just because they look so cool, even though I know that didn't exist. Do you think the actual yard would have enough interest to model or is there such a thing as too simple a prototype for interesting model rr ops? Maybe I should just pull some of the extras from my design? I have recently joined the SLHTS, maybe I need to investigate the resources they have to offer? I guess I'm not sure what my question is, maybe I just need to think on this one for awhile. But if you had any advice to offer, I'd appreciate it.
One of the things to look at is how you will use the yard versus how the prototype used the yard. Like everyone, you have a finite amount of space, so the industry tracks in Marshfield and the adjoining towns might be fewer and shorter than the real-life situation.If you are planning to originate two different locals to head off in each direction to serve those other towns and maybe continue on into staging, then the amount of yard may be necessary. But I notice that some of your industry sidings in the other towns may end up fairly short (once you consider track-to-track clearances), so these locals might actually be working with only a few cars. Nothing wrong with that at all, it's just that for towns as small as the modeled versions the real-life railroad probably would not have generated a separate local.If you are comfortable with stipulating that there are two or three unseen towns "beyond the benchwork" (represented by staging) and you will enjoy building traffic into your locals for these imaginary locations, that could help justify the size of your yard and the engine service facilities. In any case, understanding for yourself how you will be using the staging and the traffic it generates is another important element to consider.Designing an operating layout requires consideration of multiple factors. The way the real-life railroad you are using as inspiration was configured is one of them, of course. But a very important consideration, often overlooked, is how you will be using the model. This could be very different from the way the real-life railroad operated, so the way the prototype track was configured may not really be optimal for your layout from the standpoint of realism and long-term engaging activities.Of course, ultimately you are building the layout for your enjoyment, so there is also the factor of what you think will be the most fun and bring the most satisfaction. All of this is why designing a layout for operation is not as simple as plunking down "LDEs" and calling it good.
ByronModel RR Blog
dehusman Rather than a crossover, what I would try to do is just the right of Willard cross the lower "down" line to the back of the layout, running it behind Willard. Then put in an "interchange" track (which would be the continuous running connection). That would solve some scenic problems, but might create some grade problems instead. Dave H.
It would be great to get the bottom track from staging to the back of the layout. When you say cross the lower "down" line, do you mean that the two lines from staging would intersect with a grade crossing versus an over-and-under (not the best terminology) crossing? I've been working some sketches and I can't seem to fit it all in the available space. I was working with a 19 degree crossing and putting the interchange track towards the front edge of the layout. The current design has 2+% grades going in opposite directions. Trying to level both tracks for a crossing and an interchange - do you really think I have enough room, or is that what you mean by creating some grade problems?
Backing trains into staging becomes tedious and problematic.
No matter how much staging you put in, it will never be enough.
I would highly recommend getting rid of the 2 stub-end staging yards and do one, huge, pull-through staging yard. Rough guess by looking at your drawings, I would say you could get 8 tracks that are all longer than the 6 tracks you currently have planned. Take a look at the diagram in my sig. I have one staging yard (Only 3 tracks and not nearly big enough) which acts as both ends of my layout (El Paso, TX and Hurley, NM).
Check out the Deming Sub by clicking on the pics:
DMarker Can I run another idea past you? On the right side middle section I had considered a sort-of cross over to directly connect Tioga to Willard when travelling clockwise. This would allow for continuous running on the upper scenicked portion of the layout - for spectators to address the scenario that you describe with the subway or when I'm just running a train for kicks. Staging would only be used for actual op sessions. What do you think?
I have something very similar on my layout allowing continuous operation on the upper level. However I never use it. In fact, when I moved my dispatchers panel 6 months ago, I disconnected the crossover section and I still havn't rewired it. The only time I did use it previously was when a section of the lower layout was under construction and the only way to have continuous operation was to run on the upper loop.
As far as this "subway" issue goes, in my experience, people aren't too concerned with watching a train travel through unscenic areas of the layout anyway. And I also think it adds to the experince when the train disappears for a time and then reappears. If keeping the train visible at all times was that important, that circle around the christmas tree would be perfect.
Hello, I have just popped in for the first time. If I intrude, please excuse me. The first thing that catches my eye is a very tight curve at lower left on your plan, where the main curves around Industry E to orient itself toward the lift-out bridge...if that is what that is. I really would urge you to do something about that curve.
-Crandell
Edit - I reposted my track plan at the top of this thread, using colors to show the track grades. Red and green are 2.4%% up from staging, lighter colors are stretches where I plan to sneak a little more elevation.
el-capitan - In past revisions, I tried many times to design a staging yard as you describe but couldn't get it to work. I decided on the bow-tie configuration to get the maximum run out of staging to get the most clearance. The grade/staging clearance issue has been the biggest challenge with my design.
Dave H - I put an orange circle on the plan where I think you're suggesting a grade crossing. As I ponder this more along with el-capitan's comments, I like the idea of the crossing but no interchange. I'll lose a little clearance in staging, but get that darn track out of staging on the bottom to go behind Willard. Thoughts?
Crandell - Thanks for joining the conversation and calling me on the tight curve. I've cleaned up the curves a few times through my various revisions, only to re-introduce them back into the design again. You've confirmed my plan to build some plywood templates before laying things out on the benchwork so that I don't go below my minimum radius standards. I've not been able to understand how the Right Track software calculates the radius on flex track sections, that's why I have that floating arc in the middle of the room.
Thanks again everyone for your help. Keep the comments coming! (I'm still hoping that Stein jumps in.) Getting back into this hobby has been great fun for me, and this forum has taught me so much.
Staging, I dont like, it, its a personal perspective, some my disagree with me but...
Why cant you use both side for staging? As said above backing in and out of staging is tedious, and WILL foster alot of derailment from pushed cars derailing on the switches. For the type of layout you've designed you already have the opportunity to provide for a continuous loop on the lower level with can feed double sided approaches to each staging area, put one staging area under the left side and one under the right side, not to mention your staging area doubles in size for each direction, as someone else said you can never have too much staging.
Something like this
Have fun with your trains
You don't back into or out of "bow-tie" or "x-factor" staging as shown during regular operations. You drive straight out of it and straight into it, just like any other stub-end staging. You only back across the "X" between sessions when restaging. I've seen this work in practice over time on an N scale layout and it works great, especially if you have the stub-end tracks descending slightly. If through-staging or loop-staging fits, it works well, too, but this x-factor staging can work fine.
DMarker el-capitan - In past revisions, I tried many times to design a staging yard as you describe but couldn't get it to work. I decided on the bow-tie configuration to get the maximum run out of staging to get the most clearance. The grade/staging clearance issue has been the biggest challenge with my design.
Another thing to keep in mind is that staging yards, unlike regular yards, can be on grades. Mine was on a 2% grade in order to bridge my upper and lower loops. It works great.
cuyama You drive straight out of it and straight into it, just like any other stub-end staging. You only back across the "X" between sessions when restaging.
You drive straight out of it and straight into it, just like any other stub-end staging. You only back across the "X" between sessions when restaging.
True, however if the layout and operating session is properly designed, there is no need to restage.
DMarker Dave H - I put an orange circle on the plan where I think you're suggesting a grade crossing. As I ponder this more along with el-capitan's comments, I like the idea of the crossing but no interchange. I'll lose a little clearance in staging, but get that darn track out of staging on the bottom to go behind Willard. Thoughts?
Hmm - I do like the idea of having the track coming out east staging climbing up behind the buildings in Willard, with a crossover at Dairy Farm instead of the climb from staging passing in front of Willard. That also allows you to move the industry siding currently between some buildings and the wall in Willard to the outside edge of the layout instead.
What's the current height difference for those two tracks by the Dairy farm (orange circle) ?
Btw - what kind of train lengths and consists were you envisioning for this layout ? Looks like your shortest passing track (at Tioga) is about 6 feet long, and your shortest staging track is about 7 feet long ?
Smile, Stein
Yep, that' where I was talking about. if you are going to operate each "half" as a different crew/local district, then I would put the interchange connection in and let each half interchange to the other half. Each half would go through only one route of the diamond so to them it would be a live interchange. You could ship from the town on the top of the layout to the town on the bottom of the layout, both would be served by different trains.
While there are a lot of suggestions about what to do on the hidden areas, my preference is to minimize the hidden trackage and the number of turnouts in hidden areas. Keep hidden trackage the absolute simplest you can.
Wow, thanks everyone for the great discussion! I always assumed that staging tracks had to be level. That's a new one for me. Makes sense though. Using the same premise, a yard lead could be on a grade also, correct?
My ideas for operations are still pretty rough, but I always expected to have to restage between sessions. Here's the general concept for a daily schedule (and be kind, I'm still a nube). Two freights coming from staging, one from each direction, stop in Marshfield for some drop offs and pick ups, then continue on their way. Make up a local for Tioga to go out and back in one day. Make up a local to service Willard, then continue on to the next town (staging) which has a paper mill, then back to Marshfield. This is where it gets really fuzzy - pulpwood out and empties back? The third local job would service the industries in Marshfield. Finally a few freights that just run straight through. Still much to be refined and sequenced, etc. As always, critique is welcome.
I've been studying vsmith's sketch. Still not seeing how I could get the red staging on the left side as drawn and maintain reasonable clearance. I am intrigued by the idea of moving the staging to the right side. Does that transform my twice-around into a thrice-around? My head is starting to hurt. A couple of pros and cons come to mind right away.
Pros: 1) The double ended staging would support much longer through freights. 2) Eliminates any potential problems of backing through the x-staging (still think I need to restage though). 3) Traditional twice-aound on the upper level with only moderate/cosmetic grades could lengthen the runs through the scenery (I don't mind two different trains through the same scene). Diamond on the right side should fit easily. 4) Most important - still fits on my benchwork.
Cons: 1) More track. But probably not more complexity. It seems like pretty much the same amount of hidden track. 2) Three tracks on the lift-outs instead of two. 3) For some unknown reason, having staging under the Marshfield yard seems more comfortable for solo operations. Not sure why.
I have the house to myself tonight with plenty of time to start on a new version of the design. Thanks again everyone!
steinjr Hmm - I do like the idea of having the track coming out east staging climbing up behind the buildings in Willard, with a crossover at Dairy Farm instead of the climb from staging passing in front of Willard. That also allows you to move the industry siding currently between some buildings and the wall in Willard to the outside edge of the layout instead. What's the current height difference for those two tracks by the Dairy farm (orange circle) ?
The two tracks in the circle are both on 2.5%% grades, but in the opposite directions. As I visualize it, they "intersect" each other somewhere in the orange circle, or maybe a little more towards the bottom of the plan. So a diamond should work there. The consequence, as I see it, is that both downgrades to staging now start after the diamond instead of the turnouts. This appears to lose about 3 or 4 feet of run which translates to about an inch of clearance in staging. Comments?
steinjr Btw - what kind of train lengths and consists were you envisioning for this layout ? Looks like your shortest passing track (at Tioga) is about 6 feet long, and your shortest staging track is about 7 feet long ?
I explained my rough ideas for operations in my post last night. Re-reading it now, I'm not sure that I explained very well. Here's a map.
Longer freights run through east and west, dropping off and picking up in Marshfield. Then, I'm "reusing" the same mainline for the turns (I hope I'm using that term correctly) to Tioga and to Willard/Paper City. This is identified by the "A" and "B" on the map - maybe a little whacky? Yes, I was envisioning 6 foot trains for the local traffic, but longer trains running through.
Based on what I've learned over the past few years (mostly from "unofficial" stuff on the Internet), this is pretty much how Marshfield (actual town) operated. My other towns have fictuous names, but are meant to match the Greenwood turn, a small agricultural town, and the run to the paper mill in Nekoosa. I have no space/interest in actually modelling a paper mill, so I came up with an interim town and a run back to staging.
So, what do you think of this approach to ops, and how it matches the track plan and track lengths?
DMarker steinjr Hmm - I do like the idea of having the track coming out east staging climbing up behind the buildings in Willard, with a crossover at Dairy Farm instead of the climb from staging passing in front of Willard. That also allows you to move the industry siding currently between some buildings and the wall in Willard to the outside edge of the layout instead. What's the current height difference for those two tracks by the Dairy farm (orange circle) ? The two tracks in the circle are both on 2.5%% grades, but in the opposite directions. As I visualize it, they "intersect" each other somewhere in the orange circle, or maybe a little more towards the bottom of the plan. So a diamond should work there. The consequence, as I see it, is that both downgrades to staging now start after the diamond instead of the turnouts. This appears to lose about 3 or 4 feet of run which translates to about an inch of clearance in staging. Comments?
Mmmm - that should still work. As Dave H commented - the most critical clearance points is ducking under the layout on the left. Still - you should have a minimum clearance there - a little over 4" drop from the crossover until the duckunder points - 1" roadbed thickness plus 3" of clearance - will be fairly tight, but should be workable.
DMarker steinjr Btw - what kind of train lengths and consists were you envisioning for this layout ? Looks like your shortest passing track (at Tioga) is about 6 feet long, and your shortest staging track is about 7 feet long ? I explained my rough ideas for operations in my post last night. Re-reading it now, I'm not sure that I explained very well. Here's a map. Longer freights run through east and west, dropping off and picking up in Marshfield. Then, I'm "reusing" the same mainline for the turns (I hope I'm using that term correctly) to Tioga and to Willard/Paper City. This is identified by the "A" and "B" on the map - maybe a little whacky? Yes, I was envisioning 6 foot trains for the local traffic, but longer trains running through. Based on what I've learned over the past few years (mostly from "unofficial" stuff on the Internet), this is pretty much how Marshfield (actual town) operated. My other towns have fictuous names, but are meant to match the Greenwood turn, a small agricultural town, and the run to the paper mill in Nekoosa. I have no space/interest in actually modelling a paper mill, so I came up with an interim town and a run back to staging. So, what do you think of this approach to ops, and how it matches the track plan and track lengths?
Looks like it ought to work just fine, from my point of view.
I worked on a design revision last night. Not sure that I like it better than the first version, but I'm posting it up for any comments. The design is rough, just to test some concepts.
The primary change is to move the staging to the opposite wall, greater length and double-ended. Also changed the runs from Marshfield to the opposite corner towns instead of the adjacent towns in an attempt to lengthen the run through scenery.
The expanded staging is great, but overall it feels too much like a round and round, and more hidden track. I'm thinking about it, but leaning towards the first design, adding a diamond on the right side and paring down the Marshfield yard a bit.
Thanks again everyone for you help. Any additional comments are always welcome.
Lots of good ideas being floated here. Just one question, did you make a mistake posting your room size as 10' X 12'?
If you build the design with the double ended staging on the right, reverse the position of the leads and put the switches in the track closest to the front. makes them easier to see and maintain.
OKrlroads Lots of good ideas being floated here. Just one question, did you make a mistake posting your room size as 10' X 12'?
Sorry to confuse you. The room size is 10' x 20'. It's "my room" in the basement. A door roughly in the center of the south wall to enter the room. Door on the north wall goes to the backyard.
Speaking of backyard, I was pondering the layout design as I was doing yardwork this afternoon and realized a couple more consequences of moving the staging to the right side of the room. I had planned for some below-track-level scenery on that side. There's a small river in the first sketch. Also, not in the sketch, but I was thinking about a railroad overpass over a city street maybe. (There are a couple in Marshfield.) Staging underneath could conflict. The second consequence is switch machines. I had planned for manual switching in Marshfield, but undecided about under layout switch machines in the other two towns. Still pondering...
LocoThought I would pop in and mention that I'm following along.... still a long way from being good at this whole layout design thing.
Thanks for popping in. I feel kind of selfish asking everyone for help with my layout design, question after question. It's nice to know others are following along. The members of this forum are so willing to share their knowledge and experience with the new guy. I'm always impressed by that, and in this case, most grateful.
Is anything else ment to fill the middle of the room? Gardening stuff, bookshelfs, storage?
I'll throw in a sort of classical idea here "the helix" you have to excuse my bad paint job on this one but its faster than 3rd PlanIt i usually use. I'll de-complex it for you below the image.
It is essentially your original plan with the addition of a helix and 2 shelfs extending into the room.
Key to the map:
Purple lines = Main city with the four lines converging.
Dark Blue and Red lines = the two industrial outposts along the branchlines, one of them operating off a junction off the mainline along the "east" wall.
Black Arrows shows where the branchlines close thier loop and lets train run in circles, however the branchlines could also be connected to the helix and thus to staging to avoid that arrangement.
Brown lines are diffrent scenery hieghts.
Grey lines are optional trackage for industries etc. the south wall shelf extending into the room is also optional ofc but then the lead the the yard would be seriously troublesome to fit in.
Light Blue line is a scenic divider to divide the industrial area somewhat, it could be made shorter and only cover the portion where the mainlines run through it. This to increase the feeling of a massive industrial park ("massive")
Some other notes are: Dark Blue line is below pink and red lines, but only enough to clear the tunnels at each end.
Basically closer to front = lower level tracks only exception beeing blue lines entry into "mount helix" where it at the south wall crosses below purple line and then gradually raises along south and west wall to almost be level with them at "mount helix" entry.
An open centre design of "mount helix" is recommended, Either have "mount helix" have a common outer loop that collects each levels tracks then forwards them into the spiral inside to change levels or do "loops" to put them into the correct exit level. Using such an arrangement would make it less complex but on the other hand use turnouts in places where accessibility would be low.
With a good helix design you won't have any problems with the height and accessability of the staging area. The helix however almost certainly prevents any usage of long ridgid frame locomotives such as Steamers with 4 main axles ridgid and thier larger friends. 20" to 24" radiuses in the helix others are 3' or more on mains and down to 20" on industrial tracks. Using a helix really saves alot of layout space.
Greetings Hans from Sweden modelling ITR in any area!