Welcome back to the greatest hobby on earth!
Suggesting a layout is a quite difficult task, if we don´t know, what you are really looking for. There is something in the back of your head, which we cannot see, unless you let us know.
Byron Henderson (cuyama) has compiled a list of questions and issues, which you should address and answer for yourself. This will help you to find out, what you really want and why, thus forming a basis for further help.
You can find the questions here
to the site and back to Model Rail Roading.
As Mad dog stated, do some reading to find out what kind of railroad you want to model. I will give you a few tips I learned the hard way.
You did not stated what scale you are modeling. I have based my ideas on you having HO scale,not N scale.
1 Don't make the whole track 4 foot wide if 1 side is against a wall. It is all most impossible to do good scenery and lay the rail well when you lay on your stomach. Plus, if there is a derailment, it will be in the hardest spot to reach. Most people like to keep there bench 24" to 30" wide.
2 At the ends of the bench, try to make those sections 5 foot wide. Engines and cars will look better on bigger curves. Plus it puts less strain on the engines and the rolling stock. 48 inch wide bench will support a 22" turn where a 5 foot wide bench handle a 28" turn. Now, that is only leaving 2" on either side of the bench for a safety cushion. Might want to added a safety rail till you get good at laying track.
3 Instead of a L shape, looking at making it a slight V shape, so you have room at the end's for the 5 bloop's. (5 foot section)
4 Run two main lines, it gets boring watch only 1 train.
5 Use Flex Track. At first it is a little difficult to work with. But it is cheaper that sectional track, and the track that has the roadbed built in. Plus if you need a 20" 18" or what ever sizes turn you need, if you have flex track you can make it.
6 You are talking about a good sizes track. Make sure you have plenty of power feeder wires that go around the bench. Rather you use DC or DCC for power, then engines will run better. My self, I have a feeder wire ever 9 feet. Many will add a feeder for ever section of track.
Few things to think about or should I say daydream about. Do a lot of reading and ask questions.
You will need around $60.00 in specialty tools for MRR when you get started. When you are ready we will help fill up the shopping list.
Cuda Ken
I hate Rust
Hey welcome to the forum brother. You are in the same position my wife and I were in a few weeks ago. I got ahold of an older Bachman Golden Spike Trestle set at my dad's auction and it sent me back into memory bliss. Then I came here and found a huge amount of help and ideas. The guys here are great and have been very helpful. As far as layouts go, my wife and I are in a similar position. We are going with a "2-sheet" layout for now that will be detachable as we know we are moving in a few months, but refuse to wait to start our layout.
Good luck and keep us posted on how you do.
Shea
80ktsClampI found the Rancocas Harbor Belt on Atlas after getting frustrated trying to engineer my own layout, which is nearly exactly what I was trying to come up with.
I had a look at that plan on Atlas' web page.
From my point of view it is a pretty bad plan for the following reasons:
- It is a basically a loop layout on a table, mainly intended for "standing on a mountaintop" and watching a train loop around and around below you. Fun to build, most likely fairly boring to run after a short while - not much you can *do* on this layout.
- It would be very hard to create an illusion of a train (or trains) arriving from somewhere else into the area where you are, and departing from the area where you are towards somewhere else. No provisions for what is called "staging" - hidden tracks that represents "that way".
- Reach is pretty bad. You can comfortably reach about 20-24" in from the edge without knocking over scenery or trains. You can reach about 30-32" if there isn't too much in between, or if you can stand on a chair or something like that. Reaching across 3+ feet is not fun. neither when making a layout nor when running trains on a layout.
- For a table that is 8 x 8 feet, you would need a floor space that is 12 x 12 feet, even for pretty minimal 2 foot aisles all around the layout. This layout would use up a whole bedroom or a good chunk of a basement, without giving you a chance to let that layout co-exist with anything else (like storage above or below the layout, a workbench or whatever).
In short - I wouldn't recommend this layout plan. Which is not to say it would not work for you. Different people have different goals and like different things.
It probably would be a lot easier to make suggestions if you could tell us more about what:
1) How big your room is (not the layout space - the whole room), how it is shaped, where doors and windows are located, what other uses of the room the layout have to or should co-exist with and stuff like that, and
2) What do you want to be able to *do* with your trains. When you close your eyes and dream, what are you dreaming about?
Standing on a mountaintop watching a train loop around a race track below you? Standing somewhere and just watching several trains pass your location?
Being a train crew-member, setting out and picking up railroad cars from line-side industries?
Will you be running a train on your own or together with others?
Lots of stuff like that - the better you can describe your vision or goal, the easier it is to make suggestions.
There are three links in my signature below you might want to have a quick look at - they contain quite a bit of advice about track planning.
Welcome back to the hobby.
Smile, Stein, working on a switching layout inspired by the warehouse district of Minneapolis in the late 50s
HI!
Welcome to the Forum, and back to the Hobby! I've been playing with trains since the '50s, and am currently building a new HO layout.
May I say that everyone's taste in layouts is different as we all have personal likes and dislikes, and of course space, money, and time constraints. If I knew you and your situation well, I would be able to come up with suggestions, but then you would be building "my" layout and not yours.
As others suggested, I would first pick up a number of Kalmbach's more basic MR books. If money is a consideration, EBAY always has a ton of them out on auction. And the older versions are just fine, for the basics of layout design/construction are not a whole lot different today as they were yesterday.
The big change over the last 10 years is the growth of DCC operation (as opposed to DC). I recently changed to DCC, and am glad I did - but that doesn't mean you should do that. So again, reading up on the subject is strongly suggested.
Like a lot of folks on this forum, I've been in the hobby for years and built a number of layouts. While the urge to start "cutting wood" and laying tracks is strong, I urge you to:
- build your knowledge base first, then design your layout (there are a lot of layout books out there that you can copy or adjust to fit your requirements)
- determine the type layout you want, scale, time frame, and railroad to model. In example, you may choose the Santa Fe, circa 1950, in HO, and the southwest. Or, you may choose the D&RGS in the 1930s, O gauge, and in the Colorado mountains, etc., etc., etc.
- design the layout in scale format. Do not "cheat" on curve radii or turnout constraints. If you optomistic on your drawings, your layout just won't turn out correctly.
- prepare the room! Ideally, a walled room with covered ceiling and sealed floor with heat & AC and lots of outlets will make your layout 100% better than without.
- build the benchwork, use reasonable quality materials, and take your time.
- lay roadbed, track, wire, and test, test, test before going further. Make sure your "good enough" level is sufficiently high, or you will suffer from it for the duration of the layouts.
- put in scenery, structures, and ENJOY !!!
Hey, the above is an ideal guideline (in my opinion), and while you may choose your own way, consider the advice of the folks on this Forum - for it is usually right on the money.
Mobilman44
ENJOY !
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
I, too, would advise against a strictly canned layout. It was designed by someone else, and can therefore never be exactly what you want or need.
They can, however, serve as a great source of inspiration. Pull an idea from one layout, a scenic element from another, and industrial area from a third, and make it your own.
Ultimately, though, only you can decide what suits your needs and taste. For myself, while I enjoy switching and car pick-ups or set outs, I also want to be able to have trains go in a circle. A little clever scenery work (many different options here) can disguise the fact that your trains are going in a circle.
For the impending moves, you have a couple of options. The first is to consider your first layout an experiment, and expect to rip it up and start over when you move. Sounds drastic, but I ended up starting over on my layout a few years ago, because I just couldn't overcome many of the design limitations of my original attempt. Secondly, you can build a true modular layout, with each section able to be detached from the others and moved separately. 4x4 is probably about as big as you'd ever want to go on one of these. Finally, you can just build the layout, then saw it into pieces for the move and reasemble it at your destination, repairing the places you had to cut up.
On the reach issue, pay attention to what the previous posters have said. If you have some extra money, though, this item is very useful, although pricey.
Welcome to the hobby, and good luck! Don't be afraid to ask questions. Just remember, the more specific your questions, the better the answers will be. And that no one can design your layout for you -- we can only tell you what works for us.
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
For starters I'd set up an oval, oil the engines and give them a run to see how things are so you know where you stand. Make sure the track and joiners as well as the loco wheels are good and clean before starting.
Springfield PA
Welcome back! To give you an idea of what is possible in contrast to the canned Atlas plans, check the Salt Lake Route in MRR (either online or in the early 2010 issues). It is N-gauge but will give you an idea of one possible approach to your desert theme. Of course, there are many others in the same 2 resources.
Dante
80ktsClamp My favorite memories of railroads are from driving out west when I was younger. Think desert/mountains type setting...especially Arizona and Utah... and in a modern setting.
To get an impression of a more modern style of layout than the Atlas track plans, have a look at some of the layout photos on this Austrian model railroader Franz Reichl's travelogue from a summer of layout visits in the US in 2001:
http://www.8ung.at/golden_spike/us_2001.htm
Note that a trend if you want a layout for operations (ie to simulate real train movements) is to often go for relatively long and narrow benchwork along the walls and along peninsulas.
Some western prototype examples:
Len Applebaum's "New Mexico Western":
Randy Meyer's "Canyon and Rocky Mountain Railroad":
Mike Peter's "Wyoming Rail Link":
Eric Broman's ever changing "Utah Belt Railroad" (2001 edition):
Jim Budde's "Kansas, Santa Fe and Pacific":
To be sure, one can make a lot of other styles of layout. But this is the modern tendency - narrower bench work along walls and peninsulas, trying to model a railroad more than having train doing an amusement park ride while crisscrossing it's own track again and again.
Another modern tendency (last 50 years ...) is to go for smaller scales. If what you want is to run longish trains through the scenery, going N scale (1:160) instead of H0 scale (1:87.1) tends to give you a lot more options in a given space.
The classic minimum loop on a table is in H0 scale often 4x6 or 4x8 feet. Needs to be about that big to allow turnback curves on the ends to be 20+ inches radius (ie 44-48 inches diameter, when you include a 2" safety zone along the edges of the table).
Since you cannot reach well across 4 feet of layout, you need aisles down both sides of the layout. Now you need 8 x 10 feet of floor space for that small 4x8 foot table.
Going N scale instead of H0 scale means that okay return loops can be 11-13" radius (less than 30" diameter, including a safety zone of a couple of inches on each side).
It now becomes practical to reach across a return loop from one side only.
So you can e.g. have a loop on table layout built on a 30" x 7 foot hollow core door, pushed into a corner of a room. Even allowing for a 2 foot aisle along the front, your total space need now is 4.5 x 7 feet (31.5 square feet), compared with the 80 square feet of the 4x8 with access aisles.
And since N scale can fit about 1.8 times (160 / 87.1) times the amount of track length in a given room length, the 30" x 7 foot layout in N scale is the equivalent of a about a 5 x 12 foot layout in H0 scale, with regards to what you can fit in there of sidings and spurs and yard ladders and stuff like that.
A layout will cost you a lot of time and money over time.Unless you have a very big collection of engines and cars from before, the cost of swapping scales might be fairly low relative to how much money you will end up sinking into a layout total.
So exploring a change of scales might very well be worth exploring too, even though you have some H0 scale trains from before.
Just a handful of suggestions. Doesn't mean that this is the right or only approach.
Smile, Stein
Welcome to the forums. Glad the old "bug" got to you again.
If you think you are going to be moving the layout, anytime, build with that in mind and it should be no problem. There are several ways to do this, go to the search function to the right and search for "modular layouts", "portable layouts" and similar terms. Go to a train show and talk to the folks that have a layout setup, it is a modular and are made to move easily. There may even be a book on building them, not sure.
I would suggest using 2" foam insulation board (blue or pink) for your base and giving each section a frame which supports and surrounds it to protect it during moves. You can buy it in 2'x8' sheets at most building supply stores. 8' is a little long to handle moving a layout around, through doors, etc, especially after it has been scenicked. I would suggest making it a 6' piece and using the 2' to carve up and make your terrain forms.
I would recommend looking into shelf layouts. They offer more operational choices and better use of most spaces.
Good luck,
Wow! Thanks for all the great replies and making me feel right at home. You guys are awesome. So many things to consider...
The room is in an unfinished portion of the basement, although the basement is very well insulated. It never gets very cold down there in the winter nor hot in the summer. Also there are no moisture or humidity problems. The space I have to work with is 11' down a wall with windows, and then it is 13 feet deep. In one corner is the A/C unit and water heater. The 11' is a self imposed restriction as the room continues on down actually more than additional 15 feet, but the 11 foot mark is where the utility doors are and on the other side of the room is all my yard equipment.
I would prefer HO scale- I have a nice variety of engines as well as about 30 or so cars. I like the size of them and the way it looks. Also, with the way the room is, something going around the walls is not an option... hence refining what I consider "optimum" into an L or modified L layout. The 8 foot and 8 foot outer dimensions of the L will permit enough walkaround space to access the entire layout. Obviously, it doesnt have to be a perfect L, but that is what looks like will fit best in the room while still being able to access the layout. I do like the modified V as well as the setup on the "Chippewa Central" from the MRR "basic model layouts book. As far as N scale layouts- I LOVE the Silver City Central from the same book, and I also like the Mineral Range Route from the Atlas N scale Code 80 tracks. If I could do something like the Silver City in a workable HO layout, I'd jump on that tomorrow.
As far as operations- I don't particularly mind the "loop" concept, as I'm not looking to perfectly model real world ops. I work in a very mission oriented field, and this is something I'm looking to do to relax and enjoy, haha.
The reason why the rancocas layout stood out to me (certainly not perfect) is that it satisfied a number of things that I would like. The things I want to be able to do are this:
1. not a standard 4x8 or or simple oval. something that is more "interesting"2. a mix of mainline operations and switching2.5. Modern in the sense of contemporary look of buildings and equipment. As far as doing a shelf or around the walls layout, that isn't workable in any place in the house that my wife won't kill me for putting it up in there... 3. the ability to build in southwestern mountain, valley/canyon scenery and wind around and through it. 4. room restrictions are previously outlined earlier in this post 5. be able to split it to carry it out in the event of moving or finishing the basement (not something bearing down, but absolutely future consideration. I'm 29 years old, married with no kids yet...so we've got a lot coming down the piper in the future, hopefully)6. I have very limited design knowledge myself as far as the track and what's required, so extensively modifying or freelancing a design is a bit out of my league right now.
Ok...that's enough for now... I'll be around the computer for the rest of the evening. Thanks again for the feedback and suggestions. It's given me a lot to think about so far.
Hold my beer... ya'll watch this!
Hmm - trying to visualize your room. Is this how it looks:
What is wrong with the drawing above? Reverse anything? Any other doors or windows you need to take into account?
What's on or along the 13 foot walls?
Smile, Stein, curious
Thanks much for the quick reply!
The A/C and water heater actually are in the 0' 0' corner and go along the 13 foot wall for around 4ish feet. Beyond that, it is bare concrete until the meeting the outside wall with the windows. The wall opposite the windows has the entry way and is just open studs.
-Denny
80ktsClamp The A/C and water heater actually are in the 0' 0' corner and go along the 13 foot wall for around 4ish feet. Beyond that, it is bare concrete until the meeting the outside wall with the windows. The wall opposite the windows has the entry way and is just open studs.
Mmm - are you saying that the entire lower wall in the drawing is open to the rest of the house (so there in principle e.g. would be no problem blocking off direct walking access between the layout area and the yard tools area along the dividing line between the two areas, e.g by a table along the dividing line, with access to one end of the table from the yard storage area?
What's beyond the studs?
Are the windows along the left end of the top wall the only windows in the entire area? Ie - do you need light from those windows to reach the yard tool area and maybe the area behind the studs?
How big and high are those windows? Would it be possible to put a table or shelves under the windows along that wall?
Water heater and AC - 4 feet up along left wall from (0,0) corner. How far out from the left wall do these stick - 2 feet or so, plus another foot or two of safety zone, or more ?
Any shelves or anything on or along the rest of that left concrete wall?
Btw - forums will go down on Monday and stay down until Tuesday afternoon for an upgrade of software.
The entire lower wall is just studs and the entry way which is about 5 feet over. On the other side is a smaller studded in bathroom area that is pre plumbed and set up for being finished in the future.
Light would be preferred from the windows- there are two large ones that go from about 2.5 feet off the floor up to around 7 feet up the wall.
I would say that the AC sticks out 3 feet and the heater sticks out around 2.5 feet. No shelves or antyhing... just bare concrete once you get past the pipes associated with the heating and air area.
Thanks!!
Okay, trying to summarize available room in a drawing:
Do you need access from the entry door on the lower left along the lower wall to the yard equipment area to the right?
Do you need access to the windows to open them or wash them or any such thing?
Will it be possible to use 2 or 3 feet of floor space to the right of the dividing line as aisle while operating trains on a table along the dividing line?
Ie - is the requirement for the border 11 foot into the room that no benchwork may cross the line (or at lest not cross that line within e.g. 5 feet of the utility doors)?
Or is it that you need the space right up to the edge of that line for storage from the yard storage side, so you might even want to have a little space between that line and the layout?
Would it e.g. be an option to put a light wall (perhaps with a couple of small windows near the top) down along the dividing line between yard storage area and layout area?
The reason why I am asking all these questions is to try to understand which space limitations are absolute (givens), and which are druthers ("I'd rather not").
steinjr Do you need access from the entry door on the lower left along the lower wall to the yard equipment area to the right? Do you need access to the windows to open them or wash them or any such thing? Will it be possible to use 2 or 3 feet of floor space to the right of the dividing line as aisle while operating trains on a table along the dividing line? Ie - is the requirement for the border 11 foot into the room that no benchwork may cross the line (or at lest not cross that line within e.g. 5 feet of the utility doors)? Or is it that you need the space right up to the edge of that line for storage from the yard storage side, so you might even want to have a little space between that line and the layout? Would it e.g. be an option to put a light wall (perhaps with a couple of small windows near the top) down along the dividing line between yard storage area and layout area? The reason why I am asking all these questions is to try to understand which space limitations are absolute (givens), and which are druthers ("I'd rather not"). Smile, Stein
Wow! You are good!
I do require access from the entry door...around 3 feet of clearance is required, as there is no actual "door."
Space to the right of the dividing line is 100% up for grabs for walking space. The dividing line is simply the limit for any structures!
As far as putting up a wall, that is definitely not an option.
I'm quite intrigued as to what is running through your head-- thanks again for taking this time for a complete stranger!
80ktsClamp I'm quite intrigued as to what is running through your head-- thanks again for taking this time for a complete stranger!
No problem, Denny. I enjoy track planning.
Don't have any track plan suggestions for you yet, but I figured that even if I don't come up with a plan right away, exploring the available space and your wishes for the layout will be helpful anyways.
Let's move over to what you want to model. I know you want modern trains, you want the western (or maybe even southwestern) look - ie dry and/or mountainous.
You want running, maybe with some switching, but running through mountains is the main thing, right?
Do you visualize being at the end of a railroad line (where the trains turn), or somewhere in the middle of a railroad line (where trains pass through)?
Do you visualize walking along with and following a single train as it enters an area (from somewhere down the line), snakes through the landscape, and leaves the area (for somewhere up the line) ?
Or do you visualize standing at one spot and watching several trains arrive come from somewhere else (perhaps coming out of a tunnel or around a curve or something), passing by your location one after the other (or at the same time, in opposite directions, on a double track section), before they head off somewhere else?
I'll have some more questions for you later (after the forums come up again on Tuesday afternoon American time - ie the night between Tuesday and Wednesday my time) - hope you won't get too tired of all these questions :-) Smile, Stein
steinjr 80ktsClamp I'm quite intrigued as to what is running through your head-- thanks again for taking this time for a complete stranger! No problem, Denny. I enjoy track planning. Don't have any track plan suggestions for you yet, but I figured that even if I don't come up with a plan right away, exploring the available space and your wishes for the layout will be helpful anyways. Let's move over to what you want to model. I know you want modern trains, you want the western (or maybe even southwestern) look - ie dry and/or mountainous. You want running, maybe with some switching, but running through mountains is the main thing, right? Do you visualize being at the end of a railroad line (where the trains turn), or somewhere in the middle of a railroad line (where trains pass through)? Do you visualize walking along with and following a single train as it enters an area (from somewhere down the line), snakes through the landscape, and leaves the area (for somewhere up the line) ? Or do you visualize standing at one spot and watching several trains arrive come from somewhere else (perhaps coming out of a tunnel or around a curve or something), passing by your location one after the other (or at the same time, in opposite directions, on a double track section), before they head off somewhere else? I'll have some more questions for you later (after the forums come up again on Tuesday afternoon American time - ie the night between Tuesday and Wednesday my time) - hope you won't get too tired of all these questions :-) Smile, Stein
Here is a scene that well illustrates what is running through my head, although during the "mainline" representation portion of the track with a double track.
I think track planning is something I could really enjoy in the future, but I do not have enough knowledge yet to appropriately design anything that I like off of a clean sheet.
As far as what I want to represent, there is certainly the southwestern (I also love the area around Salt Lake City and Provo) feel that I would like, but I also would like to incorporate at least a town, some industries, and a yard and switching. The switching doesnt have to be crazy, but something like in the Rancocas Harbor setup or that N-scale setup is plenty.
The great thing is that you are jogging my mind to further develop what I would like!
Another factor to be considered is I do have a DD40. Someone previously mentioned 5 foot wide "fat ends" for the turnaround areas to be able to support longer trains and, in my case, a fatty locomotive. While I won't be sticking solely to one company operating the tracks (my step-grandfather was Seaboard Coast Lines of which I have a very nice engine, as well as some Chessie System engines), UP and Southern Pacific have a very close place in my heart for what I witnessed when I was younger.
I'm going to be getting a big bill in the mail for layout consulting, aren't I?
Hey Denny, glad to see you are not a one time poster.
More than likely will not see a reply till Tuesday. How tall do you want your layout, and how tall could you stand? Are you worried about blocking the windows? Also how tall is your yard equipment? Is there any reason you could not store some of the equipment under a train bench?
Being a train nut as well. looking at your spaces has my mind turning.
Denny,
Lots of people love track planning, but we can't do more than just plan, since most of us don't really want to tear down our layouts just because we get the urge to design something.
I was just thinking yesterday that I wished I had something to design. I'll throw some ideas out as well while the forums are down. Again, though, we're just throwing out ideas to stimulate thought. The actual design, whether we spark a totally new idea or you just modify a pre-made design, has to come from you.
As far as which trains you are running, there's no law that says you have to model reality. My own layout is a "what if". Admittedly, Chessie / SCL (both predecessors to CSX, as you probably know) in the West is a bit of a stretch. But long about the time the modern Norfolk Southern and CSX were wrangling over the division of Conrail, there was some talk of one or both finding a merger parner in the West to form a Megarailroad. Perhaps in your world, you have a Burlington Northern Santa Fe Chessie Seaboard (BNSFCS?)? Railroads don't instantly repaint their equipment when they merge, so having BNSF (Or BN and SF, Chessie and SCL) paint schemes all at once wouldn't be that un-protoypical. The real problem with this approach is that the new railroad would likely want it's own paint scheme after a while.... and you'd have to design it an paint some locos. Hows that for a challenge?
Welcome!
Atlas is a great company. They make a lot of nice products with reasonable prices. Their trackplans, however, are not really the best choice. It would be better to search the trackplan database and or review as many books/magazines as possible.
Since you can use the space to the right for walking, that helps a lot for access. Maybe for accessing staging, if you know what that is.
It seems like you want what is called a "railfanning" layout, where you tend to kick back and watch different trains/ locomotives/rolling stock run through scenery; rather than shunting cars back and forth when switching industries.
And, if you really want to run that DD40, I don't think you really have enough space to have a dogbone shaped layout, or any plan with a lot of over/under to it. I don't think the turn back blobs could be big enough to accomodate the broad radius curves that are needed.
You might be looking at a donut shaped layout, with an operating pit in the middle, and staging along the right behind a backdrop.
But others are better at visualizing this than I am.
- Douglas
I admit it.... real life (and Cub Scouts) caught up with me and I didn't do much more than get your layout space drawn into AnyRail. Most likely, it will be this weekend before I get anything else done.
Sorry to raise false hopes! Maybe Stein will come through for you.
I am new to the hobby too and not to mechanically inclined so I bought the Atlas ho kit #1 which is just an oval with 2 spurs and will go from there as that layout is expandable just to about anything you want to do and am looking at making one that depicts the Canadian Rockies
This is not really a serious proposal for you, just an attempt to get an impression of how big the available space is if we plan for a H0 scale DD40X pulling a train of ten 40-foot cars
We see that if we go twice around, the total run length still is only about 7 or 8 train lengths, even for a fairly short train of 10 cars.
N scale would have given a more impressive train of 15-18 cars in the same space you get a 10 car train in H0 scale, and have allowed curve radii down to about 15" instead of 25-26", allowing a far longer mainline run.
Quick sketch of N scale DDX40 and fifteen 40-foot cars on an E-shaped walk-in plan.
Aisles are pretty narrow (24"), so it is possible it would have been smart to drop the peninsula for an U-shaped layout instead.
24" aisles is tight for one operator, not a good idea for more than one operator.
Anyways - just some rough sketches to make you think about some options for getting a longish run and room for industries without cramming it all onto a big table in the middle of the room. The benchwork I have shown does not have to be shelves - it may just as well be on free standing tables.
Very interesting.. the second one really got my brain churning and also started getting me going on being able to imagine more what is possible with the space. Additionally I can see a layout like that being able to built "modular" without many issues.
I have a couple modifications to the room as I went and got refined measurements tonight.
The area is exactly 12 feet 8 inches from the back wall with the door to the front "window" wall. Then the "window wall to the beginning of the utility area is 13 feet 4 inches.
The airconditioning/water heater complex extends 3 feet out to toward the door, and up the wide wall it extends 6 feet, with the last 2 feet being only 2 feet wide. Also, there is a pipe going into the floor against the front left corner of the room (near the windows) that takes out a 1 foot square area in the corner.
Running the DD40X isnt a strict requirement, or the main thing I plan on running. Is there anyway you could take the peninsula layout and just have the outer peninsula be the "mainline" DD40X loop and shortline smaller town area on the peninsula?
What I mean is, it's not required to have the real heavy mainline able to support very long trains and the big motors extend throughout the whole layout.
All in all... really amazing job!
Doughless Welcome! Atlas is a great company. They make a lot of nice products with reasonable prices. Their trackplans, however, are not really the best choice. It would be better to search the trackplan database and or review as many books/magazines as possible. Since you can use the space to the right for walking, that helps a lot for access. Maybe for accessing staging, if you know what that is. It seems like you want what is called a "railfanning" layout, where you tend to kick back and watch different trains/ locomotives/rolling stock run through scenery; rather than shunting cars back and forth when switching industries. And, if you really want to run that DD40, I don't think you really have enough space to have a dogbone shaped layout, or any plan with a lot of over/under to it. I don't think the turn back blobs could be big enough to accomodate the broad radius curves that are needed. You might be looking at a donut shaped layout, with an operating pit in the middle, and staging along the right behind a backdrop. But others are better at visualizing this than I am.
I definitely like the Atlas track that I've seen so far. I gota chance to get my hands on one of their books today for trackplans, and I definitely agree. Neat ideas.. but something is a bit off as you've stated.
A railfanning layout is definitely a bit of what I'm looking for, and stein is barking up the right tree. A donut layout I think is also a possibility, but it can't be a full donut.
As far as staging, I would prefer to instead utilize an actual yard on the layout and not hidden for staging. Real estate is critical, and I just can't say I like the idea of staging for what I will be using the layout for. Having a fully functional yard incorporated into the layout I think will be optimum usage as well as more what I'm looking for in general.
Just my personal tastes so far.. and I am truly impressed with the kindness and creativity of people in this hobby. It's extremely refreshing!
OK, here's just something I threw together quickly. I left out crossovers and kept curves at 24" radius and #8 turnouts so your DD40 could manage. At the top, I tried to incorprate the sweeping vistas you were looking for, while giving your trainss something to do at the bottom.
Food for thought. On the left is a tableland / mesa with a hidden track underneath it (you could make it a tunnel or not). This gives you some staging if you want trains to show up. You could also disconnect one end and have this line run down to some real staging underneath. Also, I did use double crossovers, which can be a lot of trouble to wire.
And, of course, you'd have to duck under to get into the middle.
Looks like the donut is the way to go. I'm working on a modified version of what you did since the A/C and heater actually extend 6 feet off the back wall instead of 3.
Beautiful design!
80ktsClamp Very interesting.. the second one really got my brain churning and also started getting me going on being able to imagine more what is possible with the space.
Very interesting.. the second one really got my brain churning and also started getting me going on being able to imagine more what is possible with the space.
Thinking about train lengths and desired rolling stock and locomotives (and thus what kind of curve radii are desirable) are two of the first things I try to do early in the design phase.
It tells me several things - e.g. how long sidings must be for two trains to meet, how long staging or yard tracks must be (if applicable), and, if continuous run is required/desired, whether turnback loops is an option - ie whether we are talking about a walk-around type of layout, a walk-in type of layout or a duck-into type of layout.
80ktsClamp I have a couple modifications to the room as I went and got refined measurements tonight. The area is exactly 12 feet 8 inches from the back wall with the door to the front "window" wall. Then the "window wall to the beginning of the utility area is 13 feet 4 inches. The airconditioning/water heater complex extends 3 feet out to toward the door, and up the wide wall it extends 6 feet, with the last 2 feet being only 2 feet wide. Also, there is a pipe going into the floor against the front left corner of the room (near the windows) that takes out a 1 foot square area in the corner.
Mmmm - something like this:
80ktsClamp Running the DD40X isnt a strict requirement, or the main thing I plan on running. Is there anyway you could take the peninsula layout and just have the outer peninsula be the "mainline" DD40X loop and shortline smaller town area on the peninsula? What I mean is, it's not required to have the real heavy mainline able to support very long trains and the big motors extend throughout the whole layout. All in all... really amazing job!
Thank you.
Here is another rough sketch to give you an idea about another thing you could do in H0 scale, with a fairly modest sized trains - in this case a Dash 8-40B and eight 50-foot boxcars, and 24" radius curves on a 5 foot wide table with a center viewblock:
As you can see, a table is not half bad for your space - just putting in a viewblock along the spine of the table turns this into "two shelves" visually.
You didn't say explicitly - but do you need an access aisle to the pipe in the upper left corner and the windows alongs the left part of the top wall ?
To get an idea about how much could fit into each 11.5 foot long and 30" deep scene, here is an 11.5 foot long and 25" deep urban scene from my layout - engine shown is an RS3, cars are 40-foot cars (I model 1957 in Minneapolis):
Here is a work-in-progress photo showing the 8 leftmost feet of my layout::
So two 11.5 foot wide x 30" deep scenes is not necessarily all that cramped. It certainly is enough to model one side as a small town with a little yard, and the other side as running through the mountains.
I am still just throwing some generic ideas at you to see if they spark ideas in you about what you would like to do - not trying you to do things any specific way.
After some very specific measuring and further consideration, here is a rough layout that I've come up with... not all that neat as I'm scribbling down ideas as fast as I can come up with them. Something about the modular table in a donut config has really grown on me.
Each square is equivalent to 6 inches and all lengths written next to stretches are in feet.
6 inces clearance have been added against each wall, as well as adequate walk in access for maintenance on the water heater and a/c systems.
Minimum table width is 1.5 feet and maximum is 3.5 feet (where it is accessible from both sides).
Minimum width in the donut hole is 2.5 feet and maximum is 6 feet.
I plan on a yard and town area over on the wide section to the right and no backdrops on any section that isn't next to a wall.
Thanks for all of your inspiration so far!
Just an addendum,
A yard or extension could continue a few feet to the right at the bottom right of the table if necessary.
The purpose of designing the table early like this is to build the optimum table design with the maximum flexibility. This table design should be able to be broken down into workable sections with what I came up with. The walk through Is in the narrow area at the 8 foot section length.
stein- that is a perfect representation of the room. I can fly an airliner, but haven't quite figured out this computer graphics thing, haha.
Your home layout is absolutely excellent.
I've got a long way to go from my graph-paper pen and pencil sketches! I figure a solid plan and foundation is the quickest way to something exceptional. :)
80ktsClamp 6 inces clearance have been added against each wall, as well as adequate walk in access for maintenance on the water heater and a/c systems. Minimum table width is 1.5 feet and maximum is 3.5 feet (where it is accessible from both sides). Minimum width in the donut hole is 2.5 feet and maximum is 6 feet.
Just some quick comments in passing:
A 6" clearance along walls is pretty useless - to narrow to be used for anything useful. Either do a minimum 24" aisle, or no aisle along walls.
Max reach during train running is about 24-30" in from the sides. You can go deeper with just scenery in the background, if you build the back bit first. But 18-24" deep scenes is a good size (in my opinion).
Minimum cockpit width of 30" is sensible. But the bigger, the better. If often (but not always) is smart to go narrower on benchwork (and to vary benchwork depth along wall) to get wider aisles.
Gotta run to catch my train (1:1 size) :-)
Grin, Stein
All great suggestions, Stein! First round is on me on my first layover in Norway. :D
The 6 inches is simply there as slop... There is no anticipation of my butt fitting in between there, however, I want some amount of space because I do not want the layout snug against the wall. The requirement being room to duck under and fight the never ending battle against spiders, haha.
As you can see, the prelim layout was designed to ensure the fattest portion has adequate reach from both sides while preserving the crucial 30 inch maximum reach from the areas where it is only accessible from the interior.
What I envision from that table setup is the mainline gently manuevering through the layout with a yard and town on the fat wide portion and spurs and in the portions where the table widens... probably access to a mine in the upper left. Definitely a tunnel or two or three, and some good grade changes along with the highest elevation above base in the far left.
Does anyone know of any HO scale airport setups? While I know I cannot possibly imagine to put a full airport on here, I'm thinking one corner or portion including a small part of an airport would be pretty snazzy, as I'm beginning to base my ideas more and more off of the large rail switching and then transit area of Salt Lake City. We stay just south of the primary rail yard when on layovers there and it is always enjoyable to be able to look out of my room and be able to see both the rail operations as well as the airport operations in the distance.
I must say.... everyones pointers here have been absolutely invaluable with taking an idea that I have had for years and something that was going end up being a stock layout at best into something that is becoming tangible in my head.
Some of the use of terms here are new to me.... I think of cockpit as "where I'm sitting while driving," and I believe by that you mean minimum center area width being 30 inches, is that correct?
Enjoy your ride on the "RL" scale train. :)
80ktsClamp Some of the use of terms here are new to me.... I think of cockpit as "where I'm sitting while driving," and I believe by that you mean minimum center area width being 30 inches, is that correct? Enjoy your ride on the "RL" scale train. :)
I did - first took a Swedish Regina 2-car EMU (Electric Motor Unit) in from my home to Oslo Central. An about 40 minute ride, the last 9-10 miles or so being in a tunnel.
Then took an NSB Class 69G EMU about 7-8 minutes from Oslo Central to Nydalen on the northern outskirts of Oslo, and walked two blocks to my office.
Cockpit as in the original meaning of the word - an enclosed area - originally used for fights between cocks (roosters), later extended to mean enclosed area in ships, airplanes, cars and model railroad layouts :-)
Grin,Stein
steinjr I did - first took a Swedish Regina 2-car EMU (Electric Motor Unit) in from my home to Oslo Central. An about 40 minute ride, the last 9-10 miles or so being in a tunnel. Then took an NSB Class 69G EMU about 7-8 minutes from Oslo Central to Nydalen on the northern outskirts of Oslo, and walked two blocks to my office. Cockpit as in the original meaning of the word - an enclosed area - originally used for fights between cocks (roosters), later extended to mean enclosed area in ships, airplanes, cars and model railroad layouts :-) Grin,Stein
Very cool! I'm still learning the world of railroad propulsion. I need to do some further research and figure out what engines I currently have. I have 7... and an additional 27 railcars. The largest is the DD40X (go figure I find out what the biggest beast is and go for it), and the smallest is a 2 axle steam loco. All but one of the rest are standard 4 axle diesel (UP, SCL, Amtrak, and Chessie). One of them is a 6 axle diesel Chessie System that looks to be of mid to late 60's design from the look of the nose.
As far as relevance of words, my current real world cockpit is the Boeing 737 with previously being the 757 and 767 just a few months ago (ah.... mergers can make you go back a bit). We in the US airline world actually fall under the railway labor act with union negotiations, and many of our duty rules stem from old railroad rules doubled since we have 2 "pilots."
While my true passion is aviation, railroads have always held a very special place in my heart with my travels and scenes when I was younger. My parents got me a 4x8 layout while I was around 9 years old and after a couple years I always wanted to go into something more involved. This was made stronger by travels to the western US and the truly beautiful terrain and massive rail machines I saw out there.
After setting on a layout, the next major task in conquering will be the wiring. While I am used to very complex electrical systems, actually setting up something along with soldering and figuring out current loops will be something of a challenge. I bought the MR wiring book today... here we go!
80ktsClamp After setting on a layout, the next major task in conquering will be the wiring. While I am used to very complex electrical systems, actually setting up something along with soldering and figuring out current loops will be something of a challenge. I bought the MR wiring book today... here we go!
You may also want to consider how to build the benchwork. I know your sketch was just a rough plan on how to maximize the available space, but the amount of funky angles you presented, along with modular tables, may present carpentry challenges that go beyond your present skill level. Adding grades would also complicate the issue.
You'll probably want to simplify the shape. It would be shame to have your well thought out plan for a finished layout completely foiled by not being able to get the benchwork built like you need to.
I drew up an exact and blown up version of the table today and got exact on the angles and lengths. All angles were "fixed" to even numbers and lengths are at worst 2 decimals and easily convertable to fractions of an inch.
The next trick is to figure out where the support structures need to go, what kind they will be and the way the boards will be done.
I've done some prelim drawing on the way the track is going to go, but I don't have anything exacting yet. How wide in inches is a double mainline?, also what would the width of two regular parrallel tracks be?
This is a larger scale version of the board. I've refined the angles with 2 exceptions which will be cleaned up a bit later easily (the 159 will become 160 and the 137 will become 135). you can see the way it will be divided up into the individual board cutouts as well.
And here are the dimensions of the boards:
Now to figure out the underlying support structure!
Progress update... here is the prelim track layout that I envision. 4% grade getting up to the high area to the left with mountains, tunnel, and quarry.
Town to the right with it's own short line, yard just by it and the mainline scoots on by the yard.
Comments, suggestions, insults?
Without commenting on the track plan, I must say that the benchwork is so specific to your present location that it will be very difficult-if not impossible-to easily relocate it (one of your initial criteria) let alone make it sectional (certainly not modular). Even that plan could fit rectangular units of benchwork-why such irregular shapes?
Hey dante,
I'm working on engineering the bench work right now. Each of the individual "boards" will have their own support structure. 3 will be a standard L-girder, and it looks like that the boards to the left will be a square support structure on each with support beams with legs extending out.
I've kept trying to create a more standard shape, but keep coming back to this. Something about the challenge of it and the interesting shape are attractive. Additionally, it is the absolute optimum shape while allowing entry requirements and maintenance on the utilities. I could square off the inside of it better at the exppensve of some space.
This isn't a layout that I plan on moving around until we move from the house... sorry if I implied that it would be frequently moved. With each of the boards having their individual support structure, I plan on attaching them together with blocks and bolts attached to the base of the boards so they will interlock
Too rube goldberg?
80ktsClamp Hey dante, I'm working on engineering the bench work right now. Each of the individual "boards" will have their own support structure. 3 will be a standard L-girder, and it looks like that the boards to the left will be a square support structure on each with support beams with legs extending out. I've kept trying to create a more standard shape, but keep coming back to this. Something about the challenge of it and the interesting shape are attractive. Additionally, it is the absolute optimum shape while allowing entry requirements and maintenance on the utilities. I could square off the inside of it better at the exppensve of some space. This isn't a layout that I plan on moving around until we move from the house... sorry if I implied that it would be frequently moved. With each of the boards having their individual support structure, I plan on attaching them together with blocks and bolts attached to the base of the boards so they will interlock Too rube goldberg?
I wouldn't say too Rube Goldberg, but even though you don't really want to make it easily relocatable or modular, the shapes are unnecessarily irregular; therefore, more fussy to build. I really believe that you could make your sections (or "boards" as you call them) rectangular and/or parallelograms with triangular fillers at corners if necessary and not lose area. Actually, you could gain board area if you didn't try so hard to conform the shape of the boards so closely to the shape of the track plan. The benchwork won't look as interesting on paper but will be a lot easier to build without penalizing the track plan. (Also more accommodating if you tweak the plan as you build it.)
In my previous post, I was exploring L girder support, and the solution for that was going to be well beyond my building abilities right now.
After banging my head against the wall for a while and about to give up the ghost on the "interesting layout," I realized that an extremely simple solution was right in front of me.
I looked at the open grid structure and realized that I could easily adapt it to this board structure, while allowing me to be able to bolt interlock the sub sections as well as have legs that can be dettached from the frame. Also, it allows for fairly creative leg positioning on the odd areas.
The plan is:
1. Cut out individual board sections and ensure proper fit. I'm sure plenty of cuss words will be uttered. 2. Install open grid underneath each section along with legs. 3. More cussing while checking alignment for attachment of sections.4. Install 2 inches of foam that conforms to the shape of each board. 5. Bolt all sections together6. ???7. Choo choo! Here is what I envision the open frame support structure to look like underneath the boards... not a pretty picture but easily convertable into actual blueprints:
dante I wouldn't say too Rube Goldberg, but even though you don't really want to make it easily relocatable or modular, the shapes are unnecessarily irregular; therefore, more fussy to build. I really believe that you could make your sections (or "boards" as you call them) rectangular and/or parallelograms with triangular fillers at corners if necessary and not lose area. Actually, you could gain board area if you didn't try so hard to conform the shape of the boards so closely to the shape of the track plan. The benchwork won't look as interesting on paper but will be a lot easier to build without penalizing the track plan. (Also more accommodating if you tweak the plan as you build it.)
Didn't see your reply when I was making my previous post. I know it looks otherwise but, the benchwork came before the track plan, haha. It's that tailored to the room.
Do you see me having problems building the grid structure? It seems quite simple...
Also, any suggestions from anyone on the track layout?
80ktsClamp Progress update... here is the prelim track layout that I envision. 4% grade getting up to the high area to the left with mountains, tunnel, and quarry. Town to the right with it's own short line, yard just by it and the mainline scoots on by the yard. Comments, suggestions, insults?
Turnouts drawn too optimistically. It is always a shock to realize just how much space you need for e.g a yard ladder.
Here is a rough copy of part of your plan, drawn with H0 scale Code 75 Peco turnouts
:
Note the three 40-foot (ie short) cars on that yard track. In H0 scale, you will not get a big double ended yard in 10 feet of length.
MIght be smarter to put a single ended (or mostly single-ended) yard by the aisle towards the big open part of the room, and let the main run inside the yard. Something like this:
Main design goal of yard - mostly being a staging yard, where you can hold two or three 7-8 car trains before sending them out on a run through the mountain scenes, but also make it possible to do some light switching in the yard.
Some tricks used:
RH + LH turnouts placed like this (red on left part of drawing) to avoid unnecessary S-curvesUsing curved turnouts to lengthen yard tracks
I have been following up on this thread with great interest. I quite like the track plan you have come up with, but I have to admit, that building this layout will be quite a task for the newbie. Are you sure that you will be able to build a layout of this size and complexity as your first layout? I don´t question your dexterity, but you are about to invest a sizable amount of $$$ and time, without knowing, whether you will get the "reward" you are expecting. If I were you, I´d try my hand at a smaller, less complex layout, just to put my abilities to test and to develop my abilities. A smaller layout does not need to be a 4´ by 8´, but may be a shelf switcher along one wall of your room, which you can expand at a later date, once your interest and abilities have grown.
"Less is more"!
steinjr 80ktsClamp: Progress update... here is the prelim track layout that I envision. 4% grade getting up to the high area to the left with mountains, tunnel, and quarry. Town to the right with it's own short line, yard just by it and the mainline scoots on by the yard. Comments, suggestions, insults? Turnouts drawn too optimistically. It is always a shock to realize just how much space you need for e.g a yard ladder. Here is a rough copy of part of your plan, drawn with H0 scale Code 75 Peco turnouts : Note the three 40-foot (ie short) cars on that yard track. In H0 scale, you will not get a big double ended yard in 10 feet of length. MIght be smarter to put a single ended (or mostly single-ended) yard by the aisle towards the big open part of the room, and let the main run inside the yard. Something like this: Main design goal of yard - mostly being a staging yard, where you can hold two or three 7-8 car trains before sending them out on a run through the mountain scenes, but also make it possible to do some light switching in the yard. Some tricks used: RH + LH turnouts placed like this (red on left part of drawing) to avoid unnecessary S-curvesUsing curved turnouts to lengthen yard tracks Smile, Stein
80ktsClamp: Progress update... here is the prelim track layout that I envision. 4% grade getting up to the high area to the left with mountains, tunnel, and quarry. Town to the right with it's own short line, yard just by it and the mainline scoots on by the yard. Comments, suggestions, insults?
Stein,
Absolutely fantastic as always.
Would using, say...18" radius curves leading into the yard improve it? What turnout length are you using?
Additionally, I used 24" radius curves for the mainline, and around 20" entering and exiting the yard. I figured it was probably at least a bit optimistic.... and I was!
Also, I see the yard leads in layouts... what are their real life purpose? is that for the switching engine to position itself with cars or what?
Thanks so much!
Sir Madog I have been following up on this thread with great interest. I quite like the track plan you have come up with, but I have to admit, that building this layout will be quite a task for the newbie. Are you sure that you will be able to build a layout of this size and complexity as your first layout? I don´t question your dexterity, but you are about to invest a sizable amount of $$$ and time, without knowing, whether you will get the "reward" you are expecting. If I were you, I´d try my hand at a smaller, less complex layout, just to put my abilities to test and to develop my abilities. A smaller layout does not need to be a 4´ by 8´, but may be a shelf switcher along one wall of your room, which you can expand at a later date, once your interest and abilities have grown. "Less is more"!
When I entered into this project, "go big and do it right" is what has been going through my head the entire time. This is also why I am spending so much time doing detailed planning and research. You should see the stack of books on my desk! It helps to be quite OCD, haha.
I am typically on reserve at my airline, which means a lot of time spent at home waiting for the phone to ring. Additionally, I finally have a paycheck that can support a project like this. I plan on spending at the very least a year on this. Probably more. I figure once the basic plans are finalized I might have a train up and running in a few months... What you are seeing develop here is something I have envisioned much of my life and finally have the resources, time, and technical ability to do.
I have really enjoyed the input on this forum... it has truly been invaluable. Additionally the books available are fantastic!
I'm glad youve enjoyed watching this develop... I've had a tremendous amount of fun taking something completely intangible into something that is on the verge of starting to take physical shape!
80ktsClamp Would using, say...18" radius curves leading into the yard improve it? What turnout length are you using?
18" radius curves into the yard would make it necessary to only run engines and cars that can handle 18" radius curves. Which is why I tried to use fairly generous 26" radius curves in the second sketch.
Turnouts are Peco Mediums - which are roughly like a #6 turnout.
Yes - to be able to pull a cut of cars forward from one track, clear the switches, and then push cars back onto whatever tracks they go on (sorted by destination).
Preferably without fouling (ie blocking/sticking out into) the main past the yard, thus preventing collisions between trains on the main and stuff being switched in the yard, or trains on the main having to stop to avoid collisions.
The mainline certainly can be used as the switching lead if you don't have any traffic on the mainline while switching the yard - e.g. because you only have one person running one train on the layout at any given time.
But since there was adequate space for a yard lead on the lower end of the yard, and for an engine runaround on the upper end of the yard, both without fouling the main, I just sketched them in.
Excellent, Stein. As always, you've got the hamster in my brain churning full speed ahead.
To further refine and see if I can get this to work, I only have one "large" engine... the DD40X. The rest are all 4-axle except 1 6-axle and a 0-2-0 steamer. What I envisioned was that it "delivers" the train to just prior to the yard where one of the smaller switching engines grabs it and pulls it through, or to the short line through the town.
Perhaps 20" radius for the yard (which is looks like is what I used).
What kind of modelling software do you use?
edit: if it helps, I plan on using flex track and non-constant radius turns as necessary.
additional edit: Looks like the medium turnouts work to a 165 degree angle as the yard grows and contracts. Let's use a pico medium for the first turnout and then a wye for the next, and then a pico short for the spur into the engine service. reverse process for the exit.
80ktsClamp Excellent, Stein. As always, you've got the hamster in my brain churning full speed ahead. To further refine and see if I can get this to work, I only have one "large" engine... the DD40X. The rest are all 4-axle except 1 6-axle and a 0-2-0 steamer.
To further refine and see if I can get this to work, I only have one "large" engine... the DD40X. The rest are all 4-axle except 1 6-axle and a 0-2-0 steamer.
Probably a 0-4-0 steam engine. For some reason, Americans count wheels, while e.g. the French or Germans count axles. That is a pretty tiny steam engine, from an age way, way back, compared to e.g. a DD40X.
Up to you what engines you run, of course - but if you want to invest a significant amount of time, money and effort in building a layout, you might want to consider picking a rough era and location for your layout, and running engines and rolling stock that would look somewhat normal for that era.
It is much easier to get a layout to look somewhat plausible if there isn't too many disconnects between the elements of the layout. Engines are (relatively speaking) a pretty small part of the expense of building a layout.
Anyways - I don't know if you ever got around to following those links I used to have in my signature (lost in the forum reshuffle) ?
Here is a link to a pretty good page on layout design principles from the Layout Design Special Interest Group.
Think a bit more about what your goal is. Because you first told us you wanted to model trains running through a contemporary mountainous/arid landscape in the SW. Not sure it is a good idea to design a contemporary SW layout built around switching a yard with a tiny 0-4-0 steam engine :-)
Would 18" curves instead of 26" give you much for the yard as you first drew it?
It would give you maybe 15-16" longer tracks. So instead of just being able to fit 3 short cars on the longest track, you would be able to fit 6 shortish cars on the longest track (a 40 foot car in H0 scale takes about 4.5" of length). More modern 60 foot cars takes 1.5 times the length of a 40-foot car - so your longest track would be able to fit 2 cars (as originally drawn by me - with 26" radius curves) or 4 cars (with 18" radius curves).
IMO, not enough of a difference to be worth the hassle of using sharp curves.
Just put the yard between the main and the aisle - that automatically gives you significantly longer tracks - larger circumference on the outside, eh? Also, you won't have to lean across the main while doing things in the yard.
Making the yard a mix of double ended and single ended tracks also helps with length and flexibility of the yard - because you are going to have to use it as staging (*) as well - the longer you can make those tracks, the longer trains you can run.
(*) staging - like the wings in a theater - a place to keep whole trains waiting to come onto the main stage, and a place for trains to depart to when they leave the main stage. Allows you to have one train leaving the layout, and then another train arriving - makes your layout look like a small section of a bigger world, instead of a small self contained layout on an island.
You asked what I used to draw this stuff - XrkCad. It's a freeware program for drawing track plans. Hard to learn, but pretty flexible once you have mastered it.
I wouldn't recommend that you spend a lot of time on learning a track plan drawing program right now, though - the most important work at this stage is the conceptual design - working out what impression you want to create - era, location, theme, major scenes etc, not the exact placement of every turnout.
steinjr Probably a 0-4-0 steam engine. For some reason, Americans count wheels, while e.g. the French or Germans count axles. That is a pretty tiny steam engine, from an age way, way back, compared to e.g. a DD40X. Up to you what engines you run, of course - but if you want to invest a significant amount of time, money and effort in building a layout, you might want to consider picking a rough era and location for your layout, and running engines and rolling stock that would look somewhat normal for that era. It is much easier to get a layout to look somewhat plausible if there isn't too many disconnects between the elements of the layout. Engines are (relatively speaking) a pretty small part of the expense of building a layout. Anyways - I don't know if you ever got around to following those links I used to have in my signature (lost in the forum reshuffle) ? Here is a link to a pretty good page on layout design principles from the Layout Design Special Interest Group. Think a bit more about what your goal is. Because you first told us you wanted to model trains running through a contemporary mountainous/arid landscape in the SW. Not sure it is a good idea to design a contemporary SW layout built around switching a yard with a tiny 0-4-0 steam engine :-) Would 18" curves instead of 26" give you much for the yard as you first drew it? It would give you maybe 15-16" longer tracks. So instead of just being able to fit 3 short cars on the longest track, you would be able to fit 6 shortish cars on the longest track (a 40 foot car in H0 scale takes about 4.5" of length). More modern 60 foot cars takes 1.5 times the length of a 40-foot car - so your longest track would be able to fit 2 cars (as originally drawn by me - with 26" radius curves) or 4 cars (with 18" radius curves). IMO, not enough of a difference to be worth the hassle of using sharp curves. Just put the yard between the main and the aisle - that automatically gives you significantly longer tracks - larger circumference on the outside, eh? Also, you won't have to lean across the main while doing things in the yard. Making the yard a mix of double ended and single ended tracks also helps with length and flexibility of the yard - because you are going to have to use it as staging (*) as well - the longer you can make those tracks, the longer trains you can run. (*) staging - like the wings in a theater - a place to keep whole trains waiting to come onto the main stage, and a place for trains to depart to when they leave the main stage. Allows you to have one train leaving the layout, and then another train arriving - makes your layout look like a small section of a bigger world, instead of a small self contained layout on an island. You asked what I used to draw this stuff - XrkCad. It's a freeware program for drawing track plans. Hard to learn, but pretty flexible once you have mastered it. I wouldn't recommend that you spend a lot of time on learning a track plan drawing program right now, though - the most important work at this stage is the conceptual design - working out what impression you want to create - era, location, theme, major scenes etc, not the exact placement of every turnout. Smile, Stein
Ah- I've been counting axles. The steamer is a 2 axle, and really has no purpose but just to scoot around, haha.
All the rest of my engines fall into contemporary era. All the rolling stock does as well except for a smattering of cabooses. When I bought most of the stock cabooses were still in occasional operation.
The rest- all excellent suggestions. I actually visited your links that are in your signature numerous times, and they provided excellent insight.
Looks like I'm going modify to the main inbetween the shortline and the yard on the outside...works just as fine. I do have zero plans to use dividers- just not a big fan of that. The "yard" that i intend on using will serve functually as well as for staging.
I know it may seem a bit hardheaded, but I really don't want to limit myself to a very specific scene. I do have specific ideas in my head, but they are from varied scenes... the integration of them makes it all the more enjoyable. Just as one may not enjoy all parts of a specific piece of music while really enjoying some parts of another piece of music... I am attemping to take the parts, modify them, set them in the same key, and put them into something all around enjoyable here.
I dont have the time now to do a reconfig of it... but absolutely excellent corrections!
The fun continues...
ah ha! I figured it out. On the original scale drawing of my layout, have the track after the initial yard lead parrallel the main track through the yard. Same with the exit.
How does that work?
80...
You're throwing a few more variables into this thread than some of us were expecting. What was once thought to be a railfanning type of layout is becoming more of an operating layout with some/much switching.
I agree with Ulrich in this respect, this layout will command a good amount of money and time. It would be easier for members to offer more helpful suggestions if you formed a more focused vision of what you want in a layout and whether or not it needs to be modular. Or else you might find yourself spending a lot of time and money building something that really doesn't suit your givens and druthers.
Now that you've gotten some general ideas about shape and available space, perhaps its time to focus a bit narrower on what you want.
Perhaps you have that focus, have settled on a theme, and have prioritized your givens and druthers. I haven't been able to really detect that based upon your comments so far.
80ktsClamp Looks like I'm going modify to the main inbetween the shortline and the yard on the outside...works just as fine. I do have zero plans to use dividers- just not a big fan of that. The "yard" that i intend on using will serve functually as well as for staging.
Your layout, your decisions.
But in my opinion a viewblock across the rightmost table would give you a fair shot at at two fairly descent looking scenes, plus create the illusion (when viewed from either side), that trains are coming from somewhere else and is departing for somewhere else.
No viewblock means that the background when looking out of the pit will be a room filled with various tools and gardening implements, and when looking into across the yard a table with tracks, then a pit and more tables in the background.
Of course - no viewblock also makes it easier to see where engines are in the yard from inside the pit.
So like everything else, it is a trade-off. But I would advise against being too quick to write off viewblocks seemingly without first considering both advantages and disadvantages of both approaches (viewblock or no viewblock).
80ktsClamp I know it may seem a bit hardheaded, but I really don't want to limit myself to a very specific scene.
I know it may seem a bit hardheaded, but I really don't want to limit myself to a very specific scene.
Not suggesting that you do that. By all means pick 3 (or 4, if you use a viewblock across the table) different scenes with room for transition scenes in between between.
But I am suggesting that you perhaps should try to stick with a common underlying theme. It may sound cool to e.g. do a "little of everything" sampler, but in my opinion a collection of *very* dissimilar scenes seldom work as a whole.
Unless perhaps if they are visually completely separated, so you cannot see both scenes at the same time.
Anyways - I am just throwing out some ideas for you. Doesn't means that you have to follow my suggestions.
Well, time to start a pizza dough for dinner tonight, and then go get some more tracks wired up.
Hey guys... update. After Steins reality check last night on turnout optimism, I did some measurements and derived what was required to model the yard the way it actually will go.
I broke off the initial feed into the yard on the bottom side earlier and had it parrallel the track, the same is for the exit. While requiring a slightly tighter radius for yard entry and exit, it made it work and allowed the yard to fan out and close in actual dimensions (something I had no clue what it actually took until stein most graciously showed me last night). Here is the refined layout:
I'll explore the possibility of running the mainline inside and the yard on the outside further in the next couple of days... but I've got to say this is what I really envisioned.
Now that I've refined the benchwork and the layout... the next major step in planning is going to be how to wire this monstrocity.
Thanks again for all the input!
Looking further at the yard layout, I will probably extend a spur off of the shortest section on the yard to increase its length at least a foot and a half or 2 feet off of the "upper side." Probably not the most realistic, but certainly functional and interesting to look at. Increase capacity efficiently...
hi
if you really think you have refined your plan, your very optimistic.
IMHO your switches are not drawn to scale, and your not specific about the kind of cars your gonna use.
it makes a hell of a difference whether your using 40 feeters from the 50's or modern 90 feet long cars.
In stead of using a 18" radius with #4 switches, you should use a 30" radius with #6 and #8 switches.
I am not sure about the location of the yard. Most of the switching will be done there, so it might
be better to have the yard up front.. (unless the yard is used for staging only)
John Armstrong invented designing by the squares, a great way to avoid overly optimistic planning without using cad.
Paul
I as well have been enjoying this thread a lot. By the way, what is your real mane? You are very lucky that Stein and others are helping you as much as they are.
One of the reason I asked how tall you want your layout is what you just brought up. Running a yard off into the yard equipment section of the basement.
Far as your motto "Hold my beer... ya'll watch this!" I love to see the looks of your passenger faces if you say that over the intercom!
80ktsClamp Now that I've refined the benchwork and the layout... the next major step in planning is going to be how to wire this monstrosity.
Now that I've refined the benchwork and the layout... the next major step in planning is going to be how to wire this monstrosity.
Hmm - I am still uneasy about the design - I feel like you perhaps still have quite a bit of design work left before you can skip ahead to wiring and benchwork building.
How do you envision running your layout?
Where will your trains come from and go to?
What kinds of trains will you run?
What kinds of cars in those trains?
How long will these trains be?
How many trains will you be running during a session?
How many trains do you plan to keep on the layout, available to go?
Form follows function. If you think about (and describe) how you want to run, then perhaps the rest of us can suggest some ways of getting the traffic you want to run.
Don't get frozen in analysis paralysis. But maybe spend a few more minutes on considering how you want to *run* your trains before freezing the design and hurrying on to benchwork building and wiring.
cudaken I as well have been enjoying this thread a lot. By the way, what is your real mane? You are very lucky that Stein and others are helping you as much as they are. One of the reason I asked how tall you want your layout is what you just brought up. Running a yard off into the yard equipment section of the basement. Far as your motto "Hold my beer... ya'll watch this!" I love to see the looks of your passenger faces if you say that over the intercom! Cuda Ken
Hey Cuda (and all actually!),
Been on a trip the past three days and couldn't post. I carry an ipad with me on trips and I can read the replies but can't post due to the coding on the "post message" part of the forums. Anyyyhoooo.
My name is Denny... and my signature is what I say pretty much every time I click off the autopilot on approach, haha.
The help on the forums has been pricless and has helped me wrap my head in more and more realistic terms. It is definitely a growing process. As for the height of the layout... the track will probably be around 40 inches at base elevation...sitting on 2 or 3 inches of foam, then the plywood and the underlying structure. I haven't settled on that yet.
The idea of running a yard off into the yard other section of the basement has come accross my thoughts a few times... but I've got to say I really need to nip the size of this thing in the bud at about this.
See next post for further!
steinjr 80ktsClamp: Now that I've refined the benchwork and the layout... the next major step in planning is going to be how to wire this monstrosity. Hmm - I am still uneasy about the design - I feel like you perhaps still have quite a bit of design work left before you can skip ahead to wiring and benchwork building. How do you envision running your layout? Where will your trains come from and go to? What kinds of trains will you run? What kinds of cars in those trains? How long will these trains be? How many trains will you be running during a session? How many trains do you plan to keep on the layout, available to go? Form follows function. If you think about (and describe) how you want to run, then perhaps the rest of us can suggest some ways of getting the traffic you want to run. Don't get frozen in analysis paralysis. But maybe spend a few more minutes on considering how you want to *run* your trains before freezing the design and hurrying on to benchwork building and wiring. Smile, Stein
80ktsClamp: Now that I've refined the benchwork and the layout... the next major step in planning is going to be how to wire this monstrosity.
Stein...again.. many thanks!
I took the suggestions to heart, and I am honestly a good ways away from before I start buying any sort of structure, track, or wiring. I've got a lot of learning to go before I am ready to move to the next step!
As far as what I want... the layout is primarily railfanning with a "heavy" with a good amount of cars (intermodal, coal... stuff like that) going around the outside with some mild (in my opinion.. apparently it's medium!) switching to and from the town, yard, mine, and quarry.
On my most recent trip I had a very nice 24 hour layover in San Francisco and spent much of the afternoon with grid, protractor, compass, and pencil in hand. I also boosted my level of tolerance to very strict with track turnouts (#6 for all except yard and a couple other switches that are #5). In my previous sketches, I was using what I thought were 6 turnouts but actually were #4. Additionally minimum outer radius for the "heavy iron" (what we call the big machines in the airline industry) is at least 26" and could work to 26.5. Min radius on the inner curve into the yard is 21.
The yard is a compromise. I want the long outer run to be mainline for sure... the "yard" is there for some mild enjoyment in sending engines to the service house, storing and connecting cars and sending them out to a heavy train....and honestly it just looks cool. As part of the compromise I put an extention off of the shortest section of the yard and modded it to double as a car servicing or something like that.
That's the fun of all this... it is a daydreaming world I'm creating! It's representative of real life scenery without the stress of operational strictness.
You'll noticed a light shaded extension in the bottom right which is just "there" to see what it could look like.
The rail itself looks a bit "scribbled" as I went over the fine pencil drawings and darkened them .
So, for your review, here is a to scale layout:
Denny, nice to meet you so to speak.
I said this I believe one other time, but I would add a second main. If your main objective is to rail fan, one train gets boring. You could easily add a second main on the left side (from picture point of view) of the bench. Yes, you would have two mains running through the yard, but so what. When you want to do some yard work just stop one of the trains.
Adding staging into your yard equipment storage area will be help as you model more. I have been in the hobby for only 5 years. I started out with three engines and 15 cars. I now have around 25 engines that I run (another 20 I don't and I have gave away 10 or so) and 300 rolling stock. I have around 150 cars stored under the bench, on shelf's and all over. If you are like most of us, you will do the same thing.
I would add access to staging (turnouts) at the top of the bench so later you can add staging. I can all most guarantee you three years from now you will be glad you did.
Ken
My only suggestion would be to change your yard tracks. It looks like you have short double-ended tracks. Change them to stub-ended to get more length out of the yard tracks and keep the arrival/departure tracks.
Oh and keep those hands on the wheel up front there, I might be one of your passengers!
Michael
CEO- Mile-HI-RailroadPrototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989
cudaken I said this I believe one other time, but I would add a second main. If your main objective is to rail fan, one train gets boring. You could easily add a second main on the left side (from picture point of view) of the bench. Yes, you would have two mains running through the yard, but so what. When you want to do some yard work just stop one of the trains.
Ken - he already has double track main lines over about 80% of his mainline length (except for a single track section on the left).
Single track part or double track all the way depends on what *kind* of railfanning you want.
You can e.g. sit and watch two trains loop around and around and around without any interaction from yourself.
You can e.g. control one train, holding that before the single track section until the other train is past, and then cross the single track section - giving you something to *do* (except just sitting and watching the trains run).
Or you can automate the trains, so whichever train first gets to the single track part goes, and the other trains get a halt (e.g. because power is removed from the last part of the track at the other track).
Lots of ways to have trains running as the main entertainment. To me, it sounds rather boring to just have two trains circle endlessly on two parallel tracks. But to others, that is just what they want.
Which is why I recommended to Denny that perhaps he should try to describe how he thinks he wants his trains to run, rather than concentrating on what curve radius and turnouts he needs to create a a double ended yard with pretty short body tracks along the right side of his layout.
Stein, that is why I said he could easily add the second line.
80ktsClamp When I entered into this project, "go big and do it right" is what has been going through my head the entire time. This is also why I am spending so much time doing detailed planning and research. You should see the stack of books on my desk! It helps to be quite OCD, haha.
I've been away from this thread for a while, but I'll try to summarize some of my reactions to the 2+ pages of posts which have appeared in this thread since I read it.
First of all, Denny, banish your illusions. You have not yet spent any significant amount of time doing "detailed planning and research". You're still jumping from idea to idea -- and this is a great thing. Obviously, we have you juices going. What you need to do now is start nailing things down: exactly what do you want to model, where is your layout (Salt Lake basin?, Southwest?,) what are your trains doing there (if going in circles is your bag, that's fine), etc.
Make a list of your Givens (things you must do or have have on your layout) and Druthers (things you want if you have the funds / space / ability). Decide on your design elements (location, road name, setting, industries, etc.). If you can't do this, you're not ready for detailed design yet. Again, that's fine. Play with the concept as long as you like. Go back and forth from a "sample" layout to your Givens & Druthers and layout elements until you find the best options for you.
I'd also forget about wiring and benchwork for the time being. Design your layout, then figure out how to best wire it. Finally, build (or buy pre-fab) benchwork that will hold it. Benchwork should evolve out of your layout design, not vice-versa.
Finally, DON'T go big, because unless you are Leonardo Da Vinci reborn, you WON'T do it right. At least not the first time. Probably not the second or third, either. Don't be afraid to rip something out and try again if it doesn't work for you. Start small. Build one corner or side, or even a "temporary" layout, just to practice the techniques you will need to build "the big one".
It may sound like I'm trying to squelch you. I'm not. It's great to see an enthusiastic newcomer. It would be a shame for you to get in over your head with a layout that doesn't really meet your needs, get frustrated, and quit.
steinjr cudaken: I said this I believe one other time, but I would add a second main. If your main objective is to rail fan, one train gets boring. You could easily add a second main on the left side (from picture point of view) of the bench. Yes, you would have two mains running through the yard, but so what. When you want to do some yard work just stop one of the trains. Ken - he already has double track main lines over about 80% of his mainline length (except for a single track section on the left). Single track part or double track all the way depends on what *kind* of railfanning you want. You can e.g. sit and watch two trains loop around and around and around without any interaction from yourself. You can e.g. control one train, holding that before the single track section until the other train is past, and then cross the single track section - giving you something to *do* (except just sitting and watching the trains run). Or you can automate the trains, so whichever train first gets to the single track part goes, and the other trains get a halt (e.g. because power is removed from the last part of the track at the other track). Lots of ways to have trains running as the main entertainment. To me, it sounds rather boring to just have two trains circle endlessly on two parallel tracks. But to others, that is just what they want. Which is why I recommended to Denny that perhaps he should try to describe how he thinks he wants his trains to run, rather than concentrating on what curve radius and turnouts he needs to create a a double ended yard with pretty short body tracks along the right side of his layout. Smile, Stein
cudaken: I said this I believe one other time, but I would add a second main. If your main objective is to rail fan, one train gets boring. You could easily add a second main on the left side (from picture point of view) of the bench. Yes, you would have two mains running through the yard, but so what. When you want to do some yard work just stop one of the trains.
You nailed it on what I envision with the operation of the main loop. Having the double line shrink into a single line through the mountains. Just more interesting.
As far as the operation, what more are you looking for in me describing? I thought I hit it pretty well on my previous post.
One thing that I am not doing is modelling a very specific operation... frankly it doesn't interest me and I don't want to limit it like that.
Future expansion may be an option, but that will be a long ways down the road. The most logical extension is off of the bottom right with the light shaded "optional" trackage.
80ktsClamp steinjr: Which is why I recommended to Denny that perhaps he should try to describe how he thinks he wants his trains to run, rather than concentrating on what curve radius and turnouts he needs to create a a double ended yard with pretty short body tracks along the right side of his layout. Smile, Stein You nailed it on what I envision with the operation of the main loop. Having the double line shrink into a single line through the mountains. Just more interesting. As far as the operation, what more are you looking for in me describing? I thought I hit it pretty well on my previous post. One thing that I am not doing is modeling a very specific operation... frankly it doesn't interest me and I don't want to limit it like that. Future expansion may be an option, but that will be a long ways down the road. The most logical extension is off of the bottom right with the light shaded "optional" trackage.
steinjr: Which is why I recommended to Denny that perhaps he should try to describe how he thinks he wants his trains to run, rather than concentrating on what curve radius and turnouts he needs to create a a double ended yard with pretty short body tracks along the right side of his layout. Smile, Stein
One thing that I am not doing is modeling a very specific operation... frankly it doesn't interest me and I don't want to limit it like that.
This is what I asked initially:
steinjr Where will your trains come from and go to? What kinds of trains will you run? What kinds of cars in those trains? How long will these trains be? How many trains will you be running during a session? How many trains do you plan to keep on the layout, available to go?
Note that none of these questions say anything about simulating real trains - they are pretty general questions aimed at trying to establish the desired number and lengths of trains and where they will be moving from and two
Your answer essentially said : "I dream of running longish trains (with a good amount of cars), I also want to have somewhere to store some extra cars and swapping engines on my trains, and I would also sometimes like to some industry switching".
We all dream of running long trains and having a nice yard and some nice industries.
But here we are trying to go from dream to plan to build, and we need to start getting more specific about our design goals.
Take a specific example - what do you mean by "a good amount of cars"?
Does this mean that you are envisioning running a train consisting of two 8" long engines and twenty 89-foot intermodal cars for a total length of about 2 x 8" + 20 x 12.25" = about 21 feet of train?
Or that you are thinking of running a train of one engine and e.g ten 50-foot older boxcars, for a total train length of about 8 + 10 x 7" = about 6.5 feet of train?
Or something else? There is a pretty big difference in design specs between being able to hold a 21 foot train vs being able to hold a 6.5 foot train, if you want to be able to hold such a train somewhere while another train runs through the single track section.
Do you envision that one longish train looping and looping, only occasionally stopping it while you run another train?
Is your dream to be able to sit down on a comfy chair inside the cockpit, with a cold beverage in your hand, facing e.g. towards the mountain scene along where the concrete wall used to be, and just watching that one longish train loop continuously past you - rolling slowly into your field of vision from one side, passing through the mountains scene and going out of your field of vision heading off to the other side?
And then the same train appearing over and over again?
Or should there be a *different* train following the first one?
Should we alternate between several other trains running sequentially through your field of vision before the first train come back through the scene(s) again?
If you want to alternate between several trains - what kind of train lengths and what number of trains are we talking about? How do you envision bringing those extra trains into play - taking the engine and cars off the tracks by hand, putting new engines and cars on the tracks by hand? Or having somewhere on the layout where you can hold an extra train or two while the other trains are running?
See my point? I am trying to make you close your eyes and describe how you envision running your layout will be.
Smile,Stein
All good points... let's see if I can communicate a bit better, haha.
For the longest trains, I plan on using the DD40 or a combo of a couple of engines running about a 10-20 car intermodal train. I don't know about the 89 foot cars... I always really liked the look of the spine cars which are shorter. Intermix that in with coal cars, box cars, and tanker cars.
Then having it in a somewhat constant loop around the outside while I "work" a smaller switching loco between the town, quarry, and mine. I also envision probably "building" the longer train by pulling cars and such from the various areas and mating them up to the heavy engine(s). Also, vice versa- the heavy train arriving by the yard and splitting with the switcher coming out and delivering cars to the various locations.
I don't see or envision alternating different long trains coming around the outside.
I'm sure there will be some days that I just want to watch a big train rumble around the whole thing, however I tend to follow the train around and change perspective when watching them. I love seeing it "travel" through the different areas from different perspectives... or standing back accross the room and watching it loop around the entire combined thing (one of the many reasons I don't want view blocks)
So, to summarize- 2 trains at most moving with those two different missions.
Any better?
Thanks again- Denny
Oh... for train length I don't see anything longer than around 10-12 feet at the highest.
80ktsClamp All good points... let's see if I can communicate a bit better, haha. For the longest trains, I plan on using the DD40 or a combo of a couple of engines running about a 10-20 car intermodal train. I don't know about the 89 foot cars... I always really liked the look of the spine cars which are shorter. Intermix that in with coal cars, box cars, and tanker cars. Then having it in a somewhat constant loop around the outside while I "work" a smaller switching loco between the town, quarry, and mine. I also envision probably "building" the longer train by pulling cars and such from the various areas and mating them up to the heavy engine(s). Also, vice versa- the heavy train arriving by the yard and splitting with the switcher coming out and delivering cars to the various locations. I don't see or envision alternating different long trains coming around the outside. I'm sure there will be some days that I just want to watch a big train rumble around the whole thing, however I tend to follow the train around and change perspective when watching them. I love seeing it "travel" through the different areas from different perspectives... or standing back accross the room and watching it loop around the entire combined thing (one of the many reasons I don't want view blocks) So, to summarize- 2 trains at most moving with those two different missions. Any better? Thanks again- Denny
Much better. A couple of quick observations in passing:
1) You don't need double track mains all around.
2) You have no need whatsoever for double ended yard tracks - you are not going to have two switchers working the yard from opposite ends at the same time. Just make your yard single ended, with longer tracks.
3) I still would recommend making the main run on the inside of the yard along the right side of the layout, so your big train can run past the yard on the main without interfering with or being interfered with by hands trying to do coupling or uncoupling in the yard having to reach over the main to reach the yard.
Oops - gotta run for my train. More later.
Hi Denny and Stein,
i have to comment on point 3)
What you want is bringing a "mainline-train" into the yard, set out one or more blocks of cars and picking up a block of cars before leaving the yard again.
In real life trains don't go only eastwards, so having a staging or holding yard with at least two tracks is mandatory. From a modellers point of view its best to have these tracks at the back of the layout, because no switching is involved. Between a view block and out in the open is "obscured". It might be great to have different views, sometimes up front...a moment later behind houses or a row of trees.
The yard and local industries where all (un)coupling is done could be up front, you'll never have to reach over scenery to uncouple a car at the back.
BTW your train-length will be about 15 feet (15 cars and 2 engines); to accommodate these train-length will be quite a problem.
IMHO planning should be flexible, better think about running 2 mainline freight trains at the very same time now. If you will ever do it is not the issue, researching how much it will affect your plan can be sensible. If the only prize is a bit shorter single track main, i would consider it.
Probably the most interesting spurs are a teamtrack and an interchange. I don't have to explain this one, you'll have all the information needed. (or just ask)
Paulus Jas In real life trains don't go only eastwards, so having a staging or holding yard with at least two tracks is mandatory.
In real life trains don't go only eastwards, so having a staging or holding yard with at least two tracks is mandatory.
Hi Paul --
Nice to see you posting again!
To nitpick a little : it is not *mandatory* (meaning that you *have* to do it) to have staging for two way traffic.
It is perfectly possible on a model railroad where trains only run one way around a loop. It may not be very good for modeling traffic flow in both directions on a mainline, but it certainly is doable.
In fact, I was considering suggesting to Denny only running his long train clockwise, and having a single ended yard branching off as trailing tracks for a train that is going clockwise - either located where the town is now, or located along the right edge of the right end of the layout.
For that matter - with two mains for 3/4 of the loop, he can always hold a second train on the second main, wiithout having *dedicated* staging tracks.
Denny has a set of requirements - it may not be what you would have liked to do with the space. Or what I would have liked to do with the space (visions of wall to wall urban scenery with lots of switching comes to mind :-)
Or what Cuda Ken would have liked to do with the space (running several trains on different loops at the same time?). Or what a fourth and fifth and sixth person would have liked to do with the space.
Quite possibly all of us would have wanted to do something else, but not necessarily the *same* else :-)
Hi All,
I too have enjoyed following this thread and also can't resist asking a question.
There has been a lot of discussion about a complete two track double main. Also Denny likes to railfan (as do I) so would it be possible to fit in reverse loops with crossovers on the mains??
This would provide a lot of activity for the operator as well as seeing the trains from different views and looks.
Happy Railroading
Bob
Don't Ever Give Up
Hi Stein and Denny,
of course you'r right; I would keep the doubletrack main along the back. It can be used also to hold two trains if needed. If the view on these tracks is a bit obscured these trains can be considered somwhere in the rest of the world. Or let them run orbits around and around the layout and just enjoy looking at them.(or at just one)
I have read Denny"s requirements, IMHO its quite possible he will like running in the opposite direction too in the near future. My advise is just to have a good look at it.
superbe There has been a lot of discussion about a complete two track double main. Also Denny likes to railfan (as do I) so would it be possible to fit in reverse loops with crossovers on the mains??
Loops is one of those words that often seems to mean different things to different people.
Bob - what do you when you write "reverse loops with crossovers on the mains"?
stein
Consider how much you plan to have switching activity in the yard. If your'e going to have a lot, you should consider flipping the yard so it is located near the operating pit rather than having it on the outside of you loop and accessed by the equipment storage area. You don't want to be ducking in and out of the operating pit to switch cars on the left side of the layout, then also needing to switch cars in the yard.
For that reason, early on this thread, some of us suggested that the area of your plan that has limited access,would be best devoted for staging rather than for operations that needed more than limited access. Having the staging yard be visible, instead of behind a backdrop, could be an asset in that you could scenic the area in an appealing way. Operationally, it would only be used to set the stage by assembling the trains you are going to run, then ducking into the pit only once to then operate your trains.
It seems that the thoughts are starting to draw towards using the yard in a more operationally significant way, which would require you to duck in and out of the pit frequently. If that is the case, I would rethink the location of the yard.
Reserve the space that has limited access for a spot on the layout that has limited switching.
superbe stein In newbe speak when I refer to crossovers I am referring to a pair of turnouts installed opposite each other with one on each main enabling a train to move from one main to the other. With two crossovers the trains can move back and forth from one main to the other By reverse loop i'm referring to a loop that turns back into the track the train approached from thus reversing direction. IMO the reverse loop would have to be on the inside if you have a double main. The loop has to be big enough to contain a whole train as it is isolated from the main. The crossovers and reverse loops don't both have to be installed but do for maximum maunuvering of the trains. This involves atleast 6 turnouts and without switch motors and direction indicators it will drive the op nuts because a lot of the time one or more turnouts wont be thrown properly. Don't ask me how I know. I an installing these now.
Your proficiency in English astounds me.
Doughless Consider how much you plan to have switching activity in the yard. If your'e going to have a lot, you should consider flipping the yard so it is located near the operating pit rather than having it on the outside of you loop and accessed by the equipment storage area. You don't want to be ducking in and out of the operating pit to switch cars on the left side of the layout, then also needing to switch cars in the yard.
I agree - I was thinking the same thing when replying to Paul's post earlier today - best place for a yard that he will be fiddling with more is where Denny has the town now.
Rough concept sketch - ignore details of crossovers etc:
You will have access to the main along the back (far right) from the open part of the storage area anyways, if need be.
Taking a quick break from yard work here...
As far as which direction the trains will be running- the answer is both which is why I designed the yard the way I did- for access from both directions. Also- I can't see reaching over the main into the yard as too much of an issue. It's only 6 inches in...
Also, the double main goes around most of the layout to allow one train to be going one direction, wait for the other to clear the hill/tunnel and then start its trek while the other waits for it to clear (or if it's short enough both could run at the same time).
Anyways... back out to slave away!
80ktsClamp Also- I can't see reaching over the main into the yard as too much of an issue. It's only 6 inches in...
Also- I can't see reaching over the main into the yard as too much of an issue. It's only 6 inches in...
hi Denny,
depends from where you operate your layout...........i assumed from the central pit. Was not aware you can walk around your layout easily. You've no duck-unders or drop-ins indicated; its hard to guess human traffic.
80ktsClamp As far as which direction the trains will be running- the answer is both which is why I designed the yard the way I did- for access from both directions. Also- I can't see reaching over the main into the yard as too much of an issue. It's only 6 inches in...
Are you envisioning turning the long train around - ie having a long train first run clockwise, then cut off the engine, run the engine around the cars to hook onto the other end of the cars and then head out in the opposite direction?
Or are you just talking about the switcher occasionally going out with a couple of cars, and coming back in the opposite direction either pulling or pushing a couple of cars after switching an industry up the line somewhere?
Or are you envisioning running more than one mainline train after all ? :-)
Reaching over the main to work the yard is mainly a problem if you get distracted by trains zipping by right under your shirt sleeves while you are trying to concentrate on coupling or uncoupling cars a couple of tracks deep into the yard beyond the main.
As for getting into a single ended yard with trains arriving at the yard from both directions: engines can go both forward and backward, pulling or pushing cars. In a pinch, you can always use the switcher to help out getting cars onto off a train on the main or onto a train on the main.
Trains don't need to go through the yard, as long as you can push cars into the yard using either the road engine or your switcher.
Example A - train is heading in such a way that yard is trailing tracks. Road engine can take a cut of cars forward, back them into yard and leave them there, pick up outbound cars, pull forward, back onto rest of train and continue:
Example B - train is headed in such a way that yard is facing spurs. Send out the switcher to couple onto the last cars of the train, cut off from rest of train, pull forward, back into yard. Pick up outbound cars, pull forward, back onto train, couple to rest of train, uncouple switcher. Brake test and off the train goes, continuing in the counterclockwise direction:
There is couple of other possible variants as well - like taking the road engine off the front of a clockwise bound train and moving into a siding, having the switcher come out and pull a block off the front of the train, take it into the yard, pick up and outbound block, pull out, push onto train, then get out of the way, so the road engine can couple back onto the train.
Or having the road engine on a counter clockwise run cut off, run around it's cars, couple to cars at the rear of the train, pull them up the line and shove them into the yard, pick up outbound cars from the yard, pull onto the line, shove onto end of train, then run around again to couple to the front of the train to continue the journey.
If you take a long train into a double ended yard with short tracks, you have blocked the other end of the yard. So now you functionally have two single ended short tracks:
You honestly do not need a double ended yard with short tracks. It's only effect is making switching more boring, and having far less yard capacity :-)
Paulus Jas 80ktsClamp: Also- I can't see reaching over the main into the yard as too much of an issue. It's only 6 inches in... hi Denny, depends from where you operate your layout...........i assumed from the central pit. Was not aware you can walk around your layout easily. You've no duck-unders or drop-ins indicated; its hard to guess human traffic Paul
80ktsClamp: Also- I can't see reaching over the main into the yard as too much of an issue. It's only 6 inches in...
depends from where you operate your layout...........i assumed from the central pit. Was not aware you can walk around your layout easily. You've no duck-unders or drop-ins indicated; its hard to guess human traffic
Hey Paul- Yeah the area to the right is completely open... only the top and left sections abut walls. The rest have access from both sides. The duck under can be accomplished either in the bottom section or in the narrow section to the lower left.
Either that or you can do a flying ninja kick over the wide section to make a really awesome entrance. The choice is up to the user.
What I was getting at, and I think Paul and Stein are as well, is it appears you will have to move from outside the pit to inside the pit frequently if you plan to, for example, switch the yard and then switch the quarry. The yard can really only be accessed from outside of the pit.
You may be nimble, but that would still get old quickly. I think most experienced modelers would try to convince you to avoid having to frequently duck under benchwork as you operate trains.
steinjr Are you envisioning turning the long train around - ie having a long train first run clockwise, then cut off the engine, run the engine around the cars to hook onto the other end of the cars and then head out in the opposite direction? Or are you just talking about the switcher occasionally going out with a couple of cars, and coming back in the opposite direction either pulling or pushing a couple of cars after switching an industry up the line somewhere? Or are you envisioning running more than one mainline train after all ? :-) Reaching over the main to work the yard is mainly a problem if you get distracted by trains zipping by right under your shirt sleeves while you are trying to concentrate on coupling or uncoupling cars a couple of tracks deep into the yard beyond the main. As for getting into a single ended yard with trains arriving at the yard from both directions: engines can go both forward and backward, pulling or pushing cars. In a pinch, you can always use the switcher to help out getting cars onto off a train on the main or onto a train on the main. Trains don't need to go through the yard, as long as you can push cars into the yard using either the road engine or your switcher. There is couple of other possible variants as well - like taking the road engine off the front of a clockwise bound train and moving into a siding, having the switcher come out and pull a block off the front of the train, take it into the yard, pick up and outbound block, pull out, push onto train, then get out of the way, so the road engine can couple back onto the train. Or having the road engine on a counter clockwise run cut off, run around it's cars, couple to cars at the rear of the train, pull them up the line and shove them into the yard, pick up outbound cars from the yard, pull onto the line, shove onto end of train, then run around again to couple to the front of the train to continue the journey. If you take a long train into a double ended yard with short tracks, you have blocked the other end of the yard. So now you functionally have two single ended short tracks: You honestly do not need a double ended yard with short tracks. It's only effect is making switching more boring, and having far less yard capacity :-) Smile, Stein
Good suggestions, Stein. I do require a town, which is why the yard is placed where it is!
Here is the proposed layout for review:
Notice that I placed the yard feed line far in advance of it spreading out on both ends to allow better access as well as a huge amount of room to park a large train on the two mainline tracks without fouling entrances to the yard or town spur.
The yard could be modified to single access to the inner 3 (from the lower portion) yard tracks. The inner 2 already have the extensions on there so modding that would be any issue.
To further clarify- I plan on the mainline being occupied by the heavy engines, and the switcher engine to come out, grab cars and place them in the yard or wherever they need to go.
Reverse process to build the mainline.
As you can see, I'll be on the outside of the layout a decent amount as well... don't know about jumping in and out frequently being too much of a problem. I'll prob end up with a remote power pack system where I can plug in on the outside.
Or just have a longer cord...
80ktsClamp I'll prob end up with a remote power pack system where I can plug in on the outside. Or just have a longer cord...
I'll prob end up with a remote power pack system where I can plug in on the outside.
I was thinking along the lines of a hard hat.
BTW, as adjustment for your yard.... the two crossovers that lead from the one mainline to the outside track creates nasty S curves for the trains as they exit the big curves. Reversing the direction of the crossovers will avoid this potential derailment issue (especially if you are inside the pit when the cars derail and you have limited access to the derailed cars as another train is approaching )
Would there be any problem with moving the turnout a couple feet to the left? Anything wrong with having one on a bridge?
That was the original plan but I wasn't sure if you could do that or not.
I've always wanted a viking helmet. I can look cool and keep from getting a headache.
Ok- two new updates:
For the first mod, I took the previous S turn suggestion and modded the upper entry to where the mainline keeps going straight and the yard feeder turns into the mainline instead of the earlier configuration. This should fix the previous issue. Also I extended the outer most yard line through the... don't know what it's called but let's just call it "yard spread." Or just turnout... to see what that looks like and if it works.
I don't really like the way the yard is working like this, so I took stein's (and others) advice and nuked the upper yard turnout feed thing (yeah...that!). This really does enable a lot more room and looks just as good. Secondly, I added a turnout to shorten the run that the switcher engine will be running out to the outer/primary main from the lower portion of the layout. I really like this version:
80ktsClamp . The duck under can be accomplished either in the bottom section or in the narrow section to the lower left. Either that or you can do a flying ninja kick over the wide section to make a really awesome entrance. The choice is up to the user.
. The duck under can be accomplished either in the bottom section or in the narrow section to the lower left. Either that or you can do a flying ninja kick over the wide section to make a really awesome entrance. The choice is up to the user.
I love the ninja jump or duck........I really like to see you doing it often. I would make a choice from where to operate the layout. Adding the yard tracks to the inner track in stead of the outer tracks won't effect your plan much. All switching can be done from the central-pit; avoiding headaches and back-bruises.
My thoughts, your decisions
80ktsClamp Good suggestions, Stein. I do require a town, which is why the yard is placed where it is!
Cross section:
You: Operatior pit - town - yard - main - outside of layout.Yard has to be worked from outside of layout
Alternative: Operator pit - yard - town - main - outside of layout.
Yard and town worked from inside operator pit. If you make the benchwork fairly high (to make duckunders less painful also - mine has it's underside at 52" off the floor and only is uded when entering and leaving the room altogether), you also get the benefit that the view of trains on the main will be partly hidden behind the town (except for glimpses seen between the houses), when seen from the operator pit.
You now have a design where you can spend most of your time running trains on the inside - only very rarely needing to duck out to handle problems on the main towards the storage area of the room.
Paulus Jas I love the ninja jump or duck........I really like to see you doing it often. I would make a choice from where to operate the layout. Adding the yard tracks to the inner track in stead of the outer tracks won't effect your plan much. All switching can be done from the central-pit; avoiding headaches and back-bruises. My thoughts, your decisions Paul
I love the ninja jump or duck........I really like to see you doing it often. I would make a choice from where to operate the layout. Adding the yard tracks to the inner track in stead of the outer tracks won't effect your plan much. All switching can be done from the central-pit; avoiding headaches and back-bruises. My thoughts, your decisions Paul
I've tried to put the yard on the inner loop... I've got to say it's just not working for me. Thanks for the input :) Looks like the base elevation of the lowest structure in the layout is going to be around 40 inches. I'm 29 years old... I figure I've got a few years left of jumping below stuff and such. I can't imagine that a 40 inch tall 2.5 foot wide structure is too hard to hop beneath anyways.
Now then, about my entrance into the pit... take this guy, put a viking helmet on his head, and you have me on a standard day operating Trogdor Burnination Lines:
If anyone is wondering about the name of this operation.... behold the origin, from homestarrunner.com.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/786970/
Don't forget the consumate v's!
Hey Stein...
I just haven't worked out a solution that I like yet for having the yard on the inner loop with the town outside of that with workable servicing. If you can take what I've got and transfer servicing the town to the outside and moving the yard to the inside, I'd love to see it!
Thanks,
Denny
hi denny
i made a drawing.............it has to be fine tuned, but gives you an impression how it can be done.
I do not think you have much space for a city......but a row of buildings and a road are no problem.
I would serve the city from the yard..........and suggested possible options for an interchange.
And here is another possible rough sketch of a way of doing a town and a yard along the inside of the loop:
Of course - it also depends on what kind of town you are envisioning. The houses I have drawn in to give an impression of size are: 4" x 5" small town main street type commercial buildings, a small town freight house and a planing mill - I just picked some random structures from Walthers online catalog. Cars shown are 50-foot cars (olive) and 60-foot cars (dark green).
Also, be aware that your insistence that you do not want any viewblock down along the spine of the table at the right means that you cannot use Ye Olde partial buildings up against the backdrop/viewblock trick, since your town buildings will be viewable from three directions (from inside the pit, from the aisle along lower edge and from the storage area on the right). Makes it harder to create a perception that the scene is deeper than it really is.
Anyways - maybe my sketch and Paul's sketch will spark some ideas which will allow you to come up with an idea of your own that fits your vision better.
I really like both of those last designs from Paul and Stein. These guys have been helping you alot, I think you owe them a free tour of the cockpit in one of your planes.
Ditto Motley.
Paul and Stein's drawings are what I was thinking. Stein also makes a good point about using backdrops/viewblocks. The OP could place a viewblock just behind the town and gain another scene on the other side, viewed from the outside. Those buildings are only about 4 to 5 inches deep, which doesn't really provide any more depth than a properly constructed viewblock/backdrop placed just behind the first row of buildings would. Even less depth probably. The scene that would be outside the view block does not have a lot of track and could be sceniced like the wide open vista photo the OP posted very early in the thread.
With Paul and Stein's drawings, hopefully the OP will start to see more possibilities for the layout space.
Hey all!
Been on a trip, and we all now know that the iPad doesn't like me posting on the trains forums, haha... Paul and Stein's drawings are excellent and I've been working on what I can do with them. Thanks so much!
As far as a view block, any view block that isn't a natural ridge line or tree line isn't going to be in my layout... sorry! Just a small strip of a town is all I was looking for. You can see it lightly shaded in my original drawings...
FYI- stein's yard is excellent!
Stein- is there any way you could patch that into the board framework with the other spurs on the left I had in the most recent drawings?
Well, you guys got my noodle cooking good. I didn't draw in any buildings, but it allows one row with a road. A heavier industry of some sort will be down at the double spur. Passenger station on the inner bypass on the mainline.
The wide board that makes the slight indentation running up and down on the left I am probably just going to extend straight down to where it meets the narrower board at the bottom. Simpler cut and allows me a bit more room for fun.
If you guys are in ATL ever, I can give a tour of the training center and stuff. We can't take people down to the real airplanes anymore thanks to our extremist friends and their antics.
Here's a better scan along with the board cut modifcation:
Aha, very nice. I like that. The yard is perfect now.
Now..., enough of all the planning talk and go build it already.
btw, I used to live in ATL, just north of Buckhead. (back when that was the party place).
Motley Aha, very nice. I like that. The yard is perfect now. Now..., enough of all the planning talk and go build it already. btw, I used to live in ATL, just north of Buckhead. (back when that was the party place).
I believe some decent partying continues in Buckhead, haha. We've finally had some semi-fall weather here lately. Sure has been nice. I passed through Chicago Midway on Saturday... 59 degrees and holy moley that is a crazy rail yard just south of that airport.
Thanks for the compliments on the design! There was something that I wasn't quite happy with as I was envisioning operations around and I've corrected it in this by reversing the feed to the "servicing" spur:
Now, do I have to start a new thread on power routing vs insulated turnouts and DC vs DCC?
80ktsClamp Motley: Aha, very nice. I like that. The yard is perfect now. Now..., enough of all the planning talk and go build it already. btw, I used to live in ATL, just north of Buckhead. (back when that was the party place). I believe some decent partying continues in Buckhead, haha. We've finally had some semi-fall weather here lately. Sure has been nice. I passed through Chicago Midway on Saturday... 59 degrees and holy moley that is a crazy rail yard just south of that airport. Thanks for the compliments on the design! There was something that I wasn't quite happy with as I was envisioning operations around and I've corrected it in this by reversing the feed to the "servicing" spur: Now, do I have to start a new thread on power routing vs insulated turnouts and DC vs DCC?
Motley: Aha, very nice. I like that. The yard is perfect now. Now..., enough of all the planning talk and go build it already. btw, I used to live in ATL, just north of Buckhead. (back when that was the party place).
Oh do I miss Hotlanta and all the hot women there. We don't have any here in CO.
I think 8 pages is enough on this one. Easy, just go with an NCE DCC system, they are great for newbies. And just solder track feeders every 6-10 ft. or so, and ones for every diverging track on turnouts. Get the PECO insulfrogs (which I have) they are already good for DCC, and they work great. I have 24 of them on my new layout.
Motley Aha, very nice. I like that. The yard is perfect now. Now..., enough of all the planning talk and go build it already.
Not saying that this latest design of Denny's has huge challenges, but I still see a couple of points Denny might still want to consider before he starts building.
For instance - if Denny wants to be able to reach the main track from inside the pit when adding or removing cars to a train on the main, then maybe he should consider whether he wants to put so much distance between the inside of the pit and the main at the lower right that he can't reach out to the main in this area without ducking in and out of the pit ?
The switchback to the servicing facility at the lower left end of the yard - any particular reason to make it a switchback, instead of just having a plain spur branch off from the left side of the yard ?
Look at that long track curving down along the right end of the yard down to the industry with two tracks by the yard throat (entrance).
How about putting in a crossover between that spur and the yard lead next to it? Making that track do double duty as a runaround and as the approach to the two track industry would allow you to run around cars in that area, and thus not having to tie up two of the yard tracks for runaround moves, increasing yard capacity significantly.
Some more nitpicking : the crossovers on the main at the right still form S curves. S curves at a crossover can be avoided like this: http://mrsvc.blogspot.com/search?q=crossover
I see there is an extra siding added along the double track main. It's purpose is what? Where do you intend to access it from?
Stein-
For mainline access I can reach that from either of the two areas before it enters the wide area. The siding next to the mainline I plan on using for a train station line for the shorter pax trains or parking a shorter train. That line will only be used for shorter stuff.
The servicing spur will have equipment at each end of it... tanks for refueling and engine servicing as well as car servicing on the other end.
I like the idea of the crossover between the spur extension and the yard lead. I haven't quite figure out where to place it yet. I've tried a couple options and haven't found anything that I like the looks of.
The S-turn will be eliminated by reversing the mainline crossover directions on the long straight and adding parrallel crossovers on the siding as well. The problematic crossover will be completely eliminated.
Thanks for the nitpicking!
Motley Oh do I miss Hotlanta and all the hot women there. We don't have any here in CO. I think 8 pages is enough on this one. Easy, just go with an NCE DCC system, they are great for newbies. And just solder track feeders every 6-10 ft. or so, and ones for every diverging track on turnouts. Get the PECO insulfrogs (which I have) they are already good for DCC, and they work great. I have 24 of them on my new layout.
Shoot.. in Boulder there be some gooood looking girls! I suggest looking there, haha.
I'm still learning about this whole DCC thing... the wiring does seem simpler with that. Is it expensive to mod my engines for DCC?
I'm assuming I should isolate all the track divergences and the sections that I have the feeder wires added... thus making it a block control more or less?
80ktsClamp Motley: Oh do I miss Hotlanta and all the hot women there. We don't have any here in CO. I think 8 pages is enough on this one. Easy, just go with an NCE DCC system, they are great for newbies. And just solder track feeders every 6-10 ft. or so, and ones for every diverging track on turnouts. Get the PECO insulfrogs (which I have) they are already good for DCC, and they work great. I have 24 of them on my new layout. Shoot.. in Boulder there be some gooood looking girls! I suggest looking there, haha. I'm still learning about this whole DCC thing... the wiring does seem simpler with that. Is it expensive to mod my engines for DCC? I'm assuming I should isolate all the track divergences and the sections that I have the feeder wires added... thus making it a block control more or less? -Denny
Motley: Oh do I miss Hotlanta and all the hot women there. We don't have any here in CO. I think 8 pages is enough on this one. Easy, just go with an NCE DCC system, they are great for newbies. And just solder track feeders every 6-10 ft. or so, and ones for every diverging track on turnouts. Get the PECO insulfrogs (which I have) they are already good for DCC, and they work great. I have 24 of them on my new layout.
Ya Boulder is either college kids or what we call "tree-huggers" and "hippies".
You can add DCC decoders to your DC engines no problem. Non sound decoders are under $50 and the sounds ones are around $80-100.
No need to isolate the turnouts, that's why the insulated turnouts are designed for. (Peco insulfrogs).
No need for block control at all with DCC. And the most important thing is you can run multiple engines at the same time, same track. It's all digitally controlled by the decoder. And the sound engines are really cool. Controling different sounds, coupler clank, air vents, air horns, everything can be controlled with the DCC throttle.
Another thing is you can control your turnouts if you want with the throttle. I have 24 switches and I control them all remotely with my throttle.
I would recommend picking up a DCC for beginners book at your LHS.
i think you should replace the two right hand crossovers, the one at the top and the one at the bottom, by two left hand crossovers. This enables you to keep a mainline freight running, while using a part of the second main as a drill track.
I've reworked the crossovers to allow for better operation and eliminated the S turn completely.
Working on shopping for track... I really like the way the Atlas Code 83 with the concrete ties looks, and it seems to be what the railroads are using now.
Looks like the best price I can find for the super flex track is $3.99.
The Peco turnouts are quite pricey... haven't found anything below 24 dollars. Anyone know of any better places?
This thing has 99 feet of flex track and 28 turnouts... every penny saved counts!
Peco track and switches are quite pricey, but they are worth it! $ 24 for a #6 code 83 is about the best deal you can get. MSRP is $34.98.
Yes Peco switches are a bit pricey, but they are worth. every penny. I have 24 of them on my layout and they work flawlessly.
How are you controlling your turnouts? Manually? or remotely? I control all of them remotely using the Peco selonoid switch machines all connected to NCE snap-it accessory decoders.
The Peco switch machines are nice as they mount under the switch and are hidden from view. I have 2" of foam on my layout and I just cut out a little hole for the switch machines to drop into. It's very slick.
Micheal-
Good to hear. The funny thing is that when I look for other turnouts they don't have the options and variety that the Peco ones have... plus the reputation. Do it once do it right, haha.
I haven't decided on control. At this point, I would prefer to do manual for cost savings- How much are those decoders?
Here is what is more or less the final version of the layout. It will be tweaked as need be. I found a quarry that I really liked that required me to tweak the track. Glacier Gravel model by walthers cornerstone. Fit what I wanted to do perfect up against the backdrop!
As far as track selections:
What are everyone's opinions here on contemporary ops with concrete beams for the track? Is that more of a mainline thing or is that going everywhere?
Modelling HO Scale with a focus on the West and Midwest USA
Wholesaletrains.com seems to be th best deal anywhere.
23.87 for each Peco turnout.
3.85 for each section of regular Atlas Code 83 flex track.
3.99 for each section of Atlas concrete tie Code 83 flex track.
Using the concrete for all mainline sections.
Free shipping and no tax!
80ktsClamp Good to hear. The funny thing is that when I look for other turnouts they don't have the options and variety that the Peco ones have... plus the reputation. Do it once do it right, haha.
Actually, I believe you will find that Walthers/Shinohara has a greater variety (especially if you want any curved turnouts) and are quality products also.
Bought all the turnouts already.
No curved ones required.... just 5 and 6 L and R.
settled on a scenery motif:
viewphoto.php?id=337739&nseq=13
Stein -
I value your opinions on model railroads, and when I saw your "E-Shaped" track plan a light bulb lit up in my head. Several years ago I saw photos (in MR mag, I think) of a layout roughly similar to your E-Shape, but rotated 90 degrees counter clockwise. The layout height was approximated chest level or a bit less, so the isles between the prongs of the E were not visible to the observer. Those isles were for access only (without the pains of a lift out) and they appeared to be canyons or valleys to all viewers, whose position was at the bottom of your diagram.
So my question is, what do you think about this approach? Any pitfalls?
I realize my idea doesn't conform to the modern approach, but it is exactly what I want in a MR. It most closely conforms to your third paradigm, "Or do you visualize standing at one spot and watching several trains arrive come from somewhere else (perhaps coming out of a tunnel or around a curve or something), passing by your location one after the other (or at the same time, in opposite directions, on a double track section), before they head off somewhere else?" which I call a panoramic view from a low tower.
But please understand that I am not looking for trains whizzing around each. I want prototypical speeds and intervals between the arrival and departure of the trains. I also want to simulate a depth of vision as shown in the OP's photo.
I would add some operations to keep my interest, but mostly I want to entertain the grandchildren and friends.
Thanks a lot for any thoughts you might have.
- Harry
Progress report:
Bought all the lumber and styrene sheets last week. The base of the layout will be set on 4 inches of the pink styrofoam boards. Plenty of leftovers... those will be used for terrain creation.
I got 26 Atlas code 83 flex track sections for the mainline- 23 were min required. 21 sections of standard "wood" code 83 flex track were purchased with a minimum measured of 17 required. Slop is a good thing.
For Peco turnouts, 6 #5 L and 3 #5 right were acquired, along with 7# 6 L and 13 # 6 R. 1 #7 L curved was required for the yard entry.
The Woodland Scenics was the cheapest option for once... bought their road bed in lieu of cord board.
I'll include pictures once the last of the initial materials trickle in!
Build it and they will come....
Sounds like things are moving along. Post some pics of the benchwork once you get that completed.
Finished the last cut of the base plywood sections tonight! Next up the underlying support structure for each of those sections.
Before the first cut:
Another angle, showing the area where it will be going:
Tonight before finishing up the last cutout... confirming final measurements after doing a fit check:
Good fit! One angle of the final shape..shifted 12 inches to the right for the the way the pipe angles:
A view of the entire layout from another angle, with my furry little helper. As you can see I modified some of the angles and gave myself a bit more surface area in a few places. TADA!
Now that I've got this part done, what is the best thing to cut the foamular pieces with?
Looking really good! Looks like you're quickly becoming a jigsaw master. I remember doing all of that.
You can use any kind of saw or knife for cutting the foam. A drywall saw, a hacksaw blade not attached to the hacksaw, or even a sharp steak knife will work.
I used my expensive chef's knife. LOL
Looks good so far! I hope you continue to post updates as the layout moves along.
Thanks for the compliments!
Progress for tonight: I completed all the matching foamular overlay cutouts in one setting tonight. 4 inches of foamular is matched on top of each base section.... with rather large mound of it left over for some fun terrain!
I tried a couple techniques on cutting- the guy at home depot recommended at drywall saw. That just did not give smooth edges. The kitchen knife might have worked, but was very labor intensive.
I then tried a longer wood saw blade on the jigsaw...and wa-la! Super fast and accurate cutting and extremely smooth edges...as smooth as the original outside edges!
Next up will be constructing the base framework.
Just an update-
I've been worked to my wit's end through November and December, and recently got a chance to cut the base framework 1x4's to be attached to the plywood cutouts.
Unfortunately, the some of the 1x4's for the framework have warped/twisted a bit.
Will "forcing them" and screwing them in do the trick, even though I preferred to drill a pilot hole and then screw, or is there some other method that would be more appropriate?
The original plan was a screw every 6 inches to a foot (whatever gave decent security of attachment), with cross support 1x4s every 18 inches.
Thanks!! Tiptoeing in progress....
Forcing your 1 by 4´s into shape may end in sad results for your layout, so I´d not do it. Getting straight lumber seems to be an issue all over the world, so I have given up on this and use plywood, ripped into appropriate pieces ( my local home improvement store does that for me - at no extra cost).
Progress update:
After the warped 1x4's stalled my plans, plus working so much.... I had to take a step back and rethink my game. I've worked with a few guys that were quite skilled at woodworking, so I was able to formulate a good plan of attack. That was just too much wood ($$$) to toss out, so I wanted to exhaust every avenue before chucking it.
As it turns out (after completing the first frameworked board cutout tonight), gently forcing the 1x4's to behave works out quite nicely. Appropriately using the screws to apply the right amount of torque seemed to work very well.
5 more frames to build and then I can finally get to the fun part!
I can't stress highly enough that you use the best and straightest lumber you can find. Trying to force warped or twisted 1 x 4's into benchwork will cause almost certain grief over time.
I went through this myself and I can truly speak from experience. In the past I've tried to save money by using discount or salvaged lumber to build benchwork for my model railroads and they would eventually always exhibit problems, and the whole shebang would end up out on the curb for the trash man after being chopped up by my reciprocating saw.
I now build all my benchwork out of plywood, ripped to length on a table saw. You can get can get 12 8 foot 1 x 4's out of one sheet of half inch plywood for less than a third of the price of pine, and you don't have to deal with any warping or twisting. Nor do you have to waste time picking through lengths of lumber at your local Home Depot. You simply can't go wrong with plywood.
Winning!
dexterdog I can't stress highly enough that you use the best and straightest lumber you can find. Trying to force warped or twisted 1 x 4's into benchwork will cause almost certain grief over time. I now build all my benchwork out of plywood, ripped to length on a table saw. You can get can get 12 8 foot 1 x 4's out of one sheet of half inch plywood for less than a third of the price of pine, and you don't have to deal with any warping or twisting. Nor do you have to waste time picking through lengths of lumber at your local Home Depot. You simply can't go wrong with plywood. Winning!
That's interesting. 1x4's that are warped along the fat side are worthless, but I've found when they are warped along the skinny side, if you know what I mean, or untwisted using three pre-drilled screws when attaching them to other boards, I have not had any problems. Of course, 2x boards are too stout to unwarp or untwist.
I'm curious about ripping 1/2 inch plywood into 1x substitutes. It seems the 1/2 inch product would be kind of thin to either make L-girders out of or to nail directly into the side of.
The first table that I built had the worst warped wood. I made one tonight and am in progress on another that did not have warped wood and are turning out fantastic.
The first one was a test... we'll see how it works out as construction progresses. The finished product has about a 1/4 inch twist over a 6 foot 9 inch length. I tested mating the foamular to it which went well. The big test will be the final fit check before everything comes off the ground. I may try soaking that whole table and putting weights on it.
I was almost to the point over the weekend of seeing how steel support would work instead, but after tonight's progress I'm very happy with the results.
It's a very enjoyable learning process nonetheless.
This is a picture of the progress thus far. Notice the two completed support sections that were done tonight by the window. You can see the matched spars laying on one of the sections in the foreground.
Here it is from another angle... The problem section is the front left from this view:
A view of all the foamular stuff is next. In the back are the matched sections that will form the 4" base on each table. In the foreground is all the extra after creatig the matched sections for terrain building fun. :) Vacuum for the nights cleanup made it in the pic as well:
[quote user="Doughless"]
dexterdog: I can't stress highly enough that you use the best and straightest lumber you can find. Trying to force warped or twisted 1 x 4's into benchwork will cause almost certain grief over time. I now build all my benchwork out of plywood, ripped to length on a table saw. You can get can get 12 8 foot 1 x 4's out of one sheet of half inch plywood for less than a third of the price of pine, and you don't have to deal with any warping or twisting. Nor do you have to waste time picking through lengths of lumber at your local Home Depot. You simply can't go wrong with plywood. Winning!
Sorry, perhaps I should have elaborated further.
I don't use L-girder construction instead opting for a modular system. Portability is a must and for weight considerations I find half-inch plywood to be sufficiently strong when glued and screwed together with drywall screws. I also drill pilot holes first to countersink the screws.
My modules are usually 2 feet by 4 feet, but I have one section which is eight feet long and on this larger frame I laminated two 1/2 inch 1 x 4's together to produce a more robust unit. I also make the legs for the modules out of plywood as well and so far have encountered no issues with this cost-effective method of construction.