Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
I need a little help with a HO scale plan. A little background, I am in the Air Force currently located in the desert of Southern California at Edwards AFB. With the frequent moves in mind I am starting a small layout to refine my modeling techniques and run some operations on. I am working on a few different 5'x9' plans, one of which is pictured below. The layout would be set in the 1960's, 4 axel power and 40/50 foot cars. The layout has a continuous loop option that has a 24" min radius, the inner branch has a min radius of 18" with all switches using the Fast tracks #6 turnout jig I own. The will be a slight grade of no more than 2% to add some elevation differences. Comments, questions, concerns?
Check out my railroad at: Buffalo and Southwestern
Photos at:Flicker account
YouTube:StellarMRR YouTube account
Thanks for your service to our country. I grew up in the High Desert and worked (very) briefly at the base one sumer, so I'm always glad to see a "local" interested in model railroading.
First question: I think it's great that you are looking at 5X9 instead of the tired old HO 4X8, but are you really sure you want a 5X9 monolith? These are hard to move and hard to find space for in new quarters. A sectional layout like the MILW Beer Line in the recent issues of Model Railroader magazine is a great option for folks who know they will need to move.
Second question: is there a particular place, era, or theme of railroading that interests you? The current design could probably be tweaked to look and work a bit more like something in real life.
As you probably know, the #6 turnouts are not the ideal match for 24" and smaller radii, sicne sharper turnouts will work fine and take up less room. But if the tool is on hand, I can appreciate the reasons you would want to use it.
ByronModel RR Blog
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
cuyama As you probably know, the #6 turnouts are not the ideal match for 24" and smaller radii, sicne sharper turnouts will work fine and take up less room. But if the tool is on hand, I can appreciate the reasons you would want to use it.
#5s are a better match for 18/24-inch curves except where they create S-curves as in crossovers where #6 should be good.
Mark
cuyamaFirst question: I think it's great that you are looking at 5X9 instead of the tired old HO 4X8, but are you really sure you want a 5X9 monolith? These are hard to move and hard to find space for in new quarters. A sectional layout like the MILW Beer Line in the recent issues of Model Railroader magazine is a great option for folks who know they will need to move.
I had that in mind and I was going to make this layout out of 4 sections (2.5'x4.5') to make it easier to move.
cuyamaSecond question: is there a particular place, era, or theme of railroading that interests you? The current design could probably be tweaked to look and work a bit more like something in real life.
I am originally from Buffalo, NY so the scenery will have that northeast feel to it. The theme is a shortline/branchline with an interchange with the mainline which then takes its cars to the yard where the trains are made up to go to the two towns. As I said before the time frame would be the 1960's.
~Chris
Along the right edge, you effectively have a passing siding. If you re-work the lower left corner, you could have a passing siding on the left side, too. Sure, they're only about 3 feet long, but with 4-axles and short freights, that would give you the option of running two trains around the outer loop in DCC, either in the same or opposite directions.
Don't feel constrained to using that one jig for all of your turnouts. For example, Peco makes curved turnouts which can get solve track-planning puzzles where a straight turnout just doesn't fit.
Think about putting in a short wye, maybe near the bottom where the inner sidings come close but don't meet. This would give you the option of reversing engines and cabeese without using the big 5-fingered hook.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Mike
stilson4283I need a little help with a HO scale plan. A little background, I am in the Air Force currently located in the desert of Southern California at Edwards AFB. With the frequent moves in mind I am starting a small layout to refine my modeling techniques and run some operations on. I am working on a few different 5’x9’ plans, one of which is pictured below. The layout would be set in the 1960’s, 4 axel power and 40/50 foot cars...Comments, questions, concerns?
I was a member of Uncle Sam's Frequent Move Society for 30 years. Different service, same story. Thanks very much for your continuing service.
I would recommend against a 5x9, no matter how tempting it is for the present space. Simply because of my tale of woe with a couple of 4x8 layouts:
Keeping the length of an island layout to less than 80" lets it pass through most doorways on its end. This gets rid of most of the hassles of moving such a layout. And it fits in the crates should you be blessed with the correct code on your move. A 4ft x 79" layout will move anywhere, will fit in almost any spare room with reasonable aisles, and will fit 18" radius curves. Since you have smaller engines and cars, this size will work well for a trial layout.
But your track plan options are much more limited with the smaller layout. A different option - if you can live with a duckunder - is something like the Heart of Georgia (see http://home.comcast.net/~scottgperry/site/?/page/Heart_of_Georgia_Beginners_Train_Layout/). The HOG is made of 4 relatively portable sections cut from a single sheet of plywood. Although, the single sheet of ply is kind of a gimmick, it shows what can be done with a portable layout in a 9x10 room. If you keep each section to less than 12" thick and less than 2ft wide, the 96" long sections can usually be manuvered through a house. Actually, I would cut the sections to 95" long if you ever envision using the overseas moving crates.
just my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
Maybe use your existing track plan only expanded and on shelves around the room.This would give you more efficient use of your space,Smaller pieces to move,and more efficient use of the room its in.. BILL
fwright A different option - if you can live with a duckunder - is something like the Heart of Georgia (see http://home.comcast.net/~scottgperry/site/?/page/Heart_of_Georgia_Beginners_Train_Layout/). The HOG is made of 4 relatively portable sections cut from a single sheet of plywood. Although, the single sheet of ply is kind of a gimmick, it shows what can be done with a portable layout in a 9x10 room. If you keep each section to less than 12" thick and less than 2ft wide, the 96" long sections can usually be manuvered through a house.Fred W
One stupid question. What is the jiberish at the top of your post ? Delete it!
5ft.x9ft is a ping-pong table size. I see that you plan to cut it into modules, which will make it movable. Your plan is interesting, but has unnecessary limitations. The cross-over on the right side is in the wrong place. Move it down and substitute a doubl-slip switch. The outer and inner loops, at the top, could be moved closer to each other, to allow the use of a double-slip switch. This would allow you to reverse direction, if you then connected the inner loop to the outer loop, (instead of the "mish-mash" of cross-overs in the right center, which limit the use of structures, and are too close together to have any functional purpose.) Make your "run-arounds" long enough to handle an 8-10 car consist. As several others have suggested, think about using double curve turnouts. They are rather expensive, but solve a lot of problems that straight-curve turnouts have. Good luck with your "Dream-Plan-Build" movable layout. Bob Hahn
nucat78 The HOG is a really cool plan if you can do an around-the-walls layout.
The 10x10 HOG is a doughnut plan unless the room happens to be 10x10 when it would also be around-the-walls.
Just weighing in with a couple of notes -- a lot of people have given you some good ideas for portability.
My two real comments are these:
1) You have a lot of track, but what are your trains doing. Parking on the siding for a while and then moving back out? You haven't left enough room for structures around any of those sidings, so unless you can find some REALLY SKINNY over-the-track structures, you're trains won't have anything to do. I'd go for less track and more things to do.
2) The center of your layout is basically wasted space. A doughnut layout does solve this problem. Another option is to use a double-sided backdrop down the middle, effectively giving you two unrelated areas to model.
Whatever you do, though, remember that anything anyone says on this thread is a suggestion, not a requirement. Good luck.
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
This is a pretty good trackplan. Basically your trade off is less scenery for more operation, which is a good idea for a small layout. I like the idea of the small yard and the long branch line in the middle. I would suggest a few things.
1. As others have suggested in the lower left corner, rework the turnouts so you have a passing track.
2. Eliminate the first run around on the branch, this improves the scenery possibilities and provides an extra operational interest in that you switch one track on the way up the branch and the other on the way back.
3. Instead of starting your branch at the bottom of your drawing, I would start it at the top. Your current set up has the train heading up the branch immdiately after leaving the yard. Putting it at the top means running through the town on the left to get from the yard to the branch. This will probably require a curved turnout, but results a longer run with more operational interest.
Enjoy
Paul
Thanks for the comments everyone. First I understand the love of the HOG, I have been a member of the yahoo group for a while now. But my concern is that with my unknown spaces at my future assignments I felt that a 5x9 left a little more flexibility, plus I really dislike duckunders. I took a few of the suggestions and came up with this new plan. A few things I did was mess around with the siding on the lower left, switch where the branch started and worked the two towns a little. I am using a few more curved turnouts to help lengthen the sidings. The black lines are showing the module breaks, the long green rectangle is the double sided backdrop. The structures are all 12”x6” just as a placeholder to give some representation of space needed for structures. Let me know what you think.~Chris
Hi Chris,
This layout plan is great. Your pass-over should have adequate space for 2-3% grade, and the ladders are so much better than the former cross-over mess. The double sided backdrop will add a great deal of interest, and is portable, when you move. I use SceniKing sequential photos for my long backdrops, with sky color (above the SceniKing 7"x11" sequential photos), matched at the paint store. The use of modules makes moving feasible. Have you considered using 3-4 drawer cabinets, on wheels, for your modules. I have four of them on my large layout, and find them great for the storage of locos, freight cars, road vehicles, and tools. One cabinet combines as a pull-out workbench.Bob Hahn
This photo shows the use of 7"x11" Sceniking sequential photos, with matching sky blue above. The photo also shows the "forced perspective" of an N scale train on a rough grey 2"x2", directly behind an HO train. For a city scene, you can stack cardboard mounted building photos, behind each other and slightly raised, for "forced perspective'. Background "partial structure kits" are available. If you care to view the photo album of my layout, click on the photo, and then on "View Album" in the upper left.
Very nice Chris.
Another suggestion would be to simplify the plan a bit by cutting down the number of industries on the first branch line town, the one next to your yard, to only one. Make it a facing point switch as the train heads to the branch. That industry could be switched on the way back to the yard after you've completed the moves in the final town, as someone else has suggested. Having less clutter there will make scenicing your layout a bit easier. You could even angle the top of the backdrop a bit more to the right and create a bit more room for the branch town also.
How about the crossover near the bottom of the yard, after the lead switch? I think if you used a regular straight turnout on the inside track, just south of the lead switch, and a curved turnout on the outside, you might be able to shove that crossover farther south, thereby returning your drill track back the way it was and creating some distance between the yard and the interchange siding on the left.
However, when operating, the train can make several laps around the layout to gather distance between towns, so the lack of distance between switches on a small layout doesn't have to be that big of a deal, if you're just willing to use your imagination a bit.
- Douglas
I think you have it! Time to start building.
Here is the plan with the change at the yard and the less is more approach in the first town. To fit the yard crossover redesign I had to shorten the yard so I moved the entrance to the engine service facility which opens up that last track for yard space. My only concern is that you cannot be working the yard without taking out that siding so I might add that crossover back in. Anything else you can see?
MisterBeasleyAlong the right edge, you effectively have a passing siding. If you re-work the lower left corner, you could have a passing siding on the left side, too.
Other than that, I think one would be over-thinking it. Both first and second try look good. There are certain elements of the first one I like better.
In the third one I hate the double crossover in the yard. It actually limits the possibility of breaking a train into two parts to work as the crossover fowls the yard ladder from the drill track. I also don't like the simplified center industrial area. As someone above pointed out. What are the trains going to do? There isn't much mainline action so removing the complex industrial areas is a double whammy. The answer here is, do you want to switch the cars or look at nice looking scenery? I'm a move the cars person, even if the "structures" are just flats against a wall.
I think the second plan will be more interesting to operate than the third.
markpiercenucat78 The HOG is a really cool plan if you can do an around-the-walls layout. The 10x10 HOG is a doughnut plan unless the room happens to be 10x10 when it would also be around-the-walls. Mark
Chris:
I see the dilemma with your yard and kind of like the yard in your original plan better. I think having runaround tracks in four separate locations on a 5x9 is over kill. The three you have now should be enough. You could add another spur in the first branch town in the opposite direction and use building flats to keep that town from encroaching on your yard area too much.
I'm interested in seeing your solution to your yard concerns.
Doug
It is not intended to be around-the-walls. It is designed for the middle of a room which might otherwise hold a 4x8.
Once again: tables and around-the-walls are not the only types of layout designs available.
stilson4283But my concern is that with my unknown spaces at my future assignments I felt that a 5x9 left a little more flexibility,
Given that you'll never be able move a 5x9 layout without damage (as much as you think you wil now), and the fact that the HOG can be broken into moveable sections, I think you're short-changing yourself here.
I'm liking both your 2nd and 3rd plans; they really start telling a story, which is that you're modeling this important branch line out to a major customer, and the yard where this branch meets the main. I live right adjacent to such an industrial branch, and see short trains of one Geep plus 3 to 10 cars (longest I've seen was 14 cars) at unscheduled intervals.
However, I think you should do everything you can to increase the length of your yard tracks, because it just feels stunted right now, and if you're like most modellers you'll find ways to occupy every yard track you get! One suggestion is to reconfigure how one gets into the enginehouse. Right now, you've got a turnout off the drill just ahead of the double-slip that leads into the ladder. You could start the ladder at the location of that enginehouse turnout, and gain one car length on each track. Then, to get to the enginhouse, you could have a trailing-point turnout at the top of the ladder. One thing this would do is allow a larger engine servicing area, as it could stretch to fill the inside of the bottom curve of the drill and main.
It would mean relegating the last yard track to remaining empty, though, unless perhaps you want to declare this the caboose track and spot a couple of cabeese there - an industrial branch wouldn't need more than a couple assigned to it. Having longer yard tracks, though, will be a good trade off, as it allows the switcher to assemble more of a complete train on one track.
Alright let's do a little compare and contrast. Let's look at a few designs:
Yard 1
This is the yard from the first design. What is nice about it is that the switches line up with the module gap. The engine terminal is only accessible from the last yard track which makes the first foot of that track useless and there is no dedicated caboose track.
Yard 2
This design opens up that last track but it makes all the tracks shorted by shifting the yard up to fit the curved turnout and the double-slip turnout. The turnouts do not line up with the module joints. This plan also does not have its own dedicated caboose plan.
Yard 3
This plan adds a second track that can be used as a dedicated caboose track.
Yard 4
This is a design based off of the inputs WP&P. Just like earlier plans you need to use the last track to access the engine terminal and there is no dedicated caboose track.
Yard 5
This plan replaces the switches with #4s instead of #6s. It also shifts a few things around to fit the new yard layout. The engine terminal and a caboose track are fit in as well.
Yard Lenghts
This shows the lengths of yard tracks for each plan, note this does not take into account lost yard space for access to engine terminals or space needed for caboose storage. As you can see, the Yard 4 plan has the largest amount of usable track, but with the space needed for engine terminal access it is going to be close to Yard 5. I think I am going to go with Yard 5. It has the best length and both a dedicated caboose track and engine terminal.
As always questions and comments are welcome.
I like Yard 5, but can you incorporate a curved switch at the entry to the engine servicing? Even if it isn't the same radius, I think it would feel more natural than the flattening out to tangent that you now have. Maybe it's just that the straightness makes one wonder why the curve is there at all (obviously the real-world corner of the layout requires it, but I mean in terms of the logic of the model world). A curved switch would help to suggest that there is a reason the drill track and main are bending as they exit town. I guess it depends on what is available, and which brand of track you intend to use. On my own layout, I've worked in some Peco curved switches, even though I'm using Micro-Engineering for everything else; I'll just have to deal with the difference in rail profiles (for code 55) in some way, which I haven't figured out yet...
I like yard 5, but I wonder what the other yards would look like if you used #4's on them as well.
You have alot of operations packed into a 5x9. That's great, but to have all of the space you need for your yard and service/caboose tracks, you may need to use the outside corners of the layout more.
If you can convince yourself to use tighter than 24 radius on the mainline, you could flip the yard and main line and have the yard tracks on the outside of the main, thereby extending them into the northeast corner and using the southeast corner for servicing and maybe the caboose track in between. Currently, your yard is very much constrained by the curvature of the main line.
Here is the latest and greatest plan:
~ Chris