Thanks again for your suggestions... I will take a look at them and come back later with remarks/comments
Regarding your remarks:
- I thought I had answered all or most of questions raised, sometimes I am at the office and I got to answer quickly so perhaps I might have skipped some of them inadvertently. Apologies
- Maybe I got quite a confusion in my mind that I envision something too complex for too little room. I mean, maybe I could build due to room characteristics a seaport environment and I think of it too simple, too focused on one "core" subject and I would like to have many things at the same time, and that is the paradigm in my mind of what I should develop. I thought of a medium size station, for instance, and not of a small town that could hold one. I just tend to focus on the station and I isolate it from the rest of the world. This is my second project, the first one was an oval but being too simple the trackplan I just don't consider that as a serious project at all. My biggest concern was: could it be possible to hold a three level layout in this room where I could place a midsize station, a country rural station, at least an industry and some goods yard? If so, where to place them and how best to connect them? Also, how one would operate this thing? Does it make sense?
- When I thought of type of "modellers" I thought of myself more of a guy who wants to control its trains doing some activity (such as the sawmill needs 2 cars instead of 3, due to drop of production, so I need to drop a car somewhere) that was what I had in mind when I thought of dispatcher
- I made some rough sketches on paper, but I thought that before doing some serious drawings I had to get the layout of the benchwork designed first . I mean, once you know how your "table" is going to be like, then you can start designing track plan (is it more suitable a #4 or a #6 turnout? for instance)
- I am a rookie here and apologize for not "knowing" the codes of the community, if so speaking, but I am anxious to do something and I don't know how to design it and the fear if I am too ambitious with all of my interests add-inns. I apologize if I am not clear or being too messy with my thoughts. I value a lot every comment posted.
Find below the previous layout I had made for my son and which I would like to avoid now. I worked a lot on the scenery and such, but I left behind the trackplan so I got bored almost immediately.
I will try to do some trackplanning on Winrail later on and see if I can go somewhere...
Thanks to everybody once again!
kokomo - I made some rough sketches on paper, but I thought that before doing some serious drawings I had to get the layout of the benchwork designed first . I mean, once you know how your "table" is going to be like, then you can start designing track plan (is it more suitable a #4 or a #6 turnout? for instance)
Sometimes it is smart to think about where you can fit bench work first, and then think about the plan. But not always. Often times it is smarter to adapt the bench work to the plan instead of adapting the plan to the bench work.
The choice of turnouts (and curve radii) is determined more by how long locomotives and rolling stock you want to run is than by how much space you have.This is determined by your desired era and desired type of railroading.
How long scenes need to be and how much space you need between scenes is more determined by typical train lengths (in inches or centimeters or whatever you want to measure it in). If you want to create an impression of run length between stations, you may need at least one or two train lengths between the stations and run your trains fairly slowly.
One approach that work for some people of analytical bent is to think in three main phases of design (with some iterations and back and forth between the phases): - Conceptual design - figuring out what you want to model. Era, location, theme, continuous run, point-to-point, possibly staging to represent trains that come "up the line" or head out "down the line", interchange with other railroads, main traffic patterns desired and stuff like that.
- Structural design - figuring out where the main elements of the plan will be located - towns, yards, aisle widths, bench work depth and reach, placement of view blocks to visually split a table into several visually separate scenes
- Detailed design - figuring out the exact placement of each track. Beginners tend to skip conceptual design and structural design and go directly here, producing and posting page after page after page of beautifully drawn but dysfunctional track plans.
Other people need to just dive in to start building, and then evaluate and rebuild over and over again until they have something they are satisfied with.
There is no single one-size-fits-all approach to layout design/track planning.
Some more tips on conceptual planning, from the website of layout designer Byron Henderson: Layout Design Bootcamp from LDSIG 2011: http://www.layoutvision.com/id51.html Cornerstones of design: http://www.layoutvision.com/id8.html Designing operations: http://home.earthlink.net/~bhender730/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/ops_dsgn.pdf
Smile, Stein
I sort of plan as I go. Below is my process. I hope it helps you.
What I do for layout design (have done so far) is define my area and bench work first. Next I decide on a theme. (Mainline running, with a branch line(?) or other special interests.) Then I put in a mainline. I am fond of single track mainlines that run twice around the room types, divided by scenery and grades.
Since I have gotten into operations, I also have a staging area of some sort, whether it is a lay-over for entire trains, or a yard that simulates an interchange yard. One track in staging can be a through track for continuous running. If I put cars on it, the layout becomes point to point for operations.
Next I try and determine how many small towns I can have, and possibility one city with a yard and loco facilities, without them crowding one another. Usually small yards and facilities unless I have the room for larger ones. I will try to fit in a way-side industry or two just for variation as long as it won't crowd things.
Then I go looking at plans for modular railroads. I look for ones that would make good towns or cities because their track plans are usually fairly compact, and most of the way they will be switched is already determined with a good track plan themselves.
Because I freelance, I don't worry about town and city names etc., but if you want to model a specific prototype, you can name the towns as the railroad you are modeling would, and build or plan you scenery to suite the area you want to model. Also, some of the industries that may be recognizable in a town you choose to name from a real one may have to be built or otherwise implied to achieve the "feeling" of the real town.
When building starts, I try and get all of the bench work built first. Then plan where the towns will go and install the mainline to get some trains running. Then I work on one of the yards so I can store stuff when not running. Then I plug along on the other track work and scenery design and continue from there.
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
Thnx for the suggestions
Ok, I'll try to follow your suggestions Steinjr and see if I can shed some more light
Conceptual design:
[quote user="kokomo"]
I am by no means an expert track planner or layout designer, but I think you would be hard pressed to fit even half of your desires into the space you have available. I think you seriously need to pare down your list and focus on one or two elements and build your layout along a "less is more" philosophy. Cramming in as much as what you are looking to do will surely result in a cluttered and unrealistic layout.
I went through pretty much the same thing recently trying to fit an N scale layout into an 8 x 20 foot space. Even with 160 square feet of real estate available, I was being overly enthusiastic and attempted to shoehorn in too much. I cut out approximately two thirds of the scenes and track and I also broadened the curve radii of what was left and I am certainly more pleased with where my layout is going now.
Try to be happier with less and live with the limits of the space you have available. And then you will see how quickly things progress when your scope is more focused.
Frank B.
Dorval, Canada
Aha - a Brit (I presume - "loco shed" instead of "engine house", "cargo yard" instead of "house track" or "team track" or "freight house", centimeters instead of inches) modelling Switzerland instead of someone modeling US railroads?
Your theme is perfectly sensible, but you will find relatively few modelers in this forum modeling an European prototype - most people around here model American prototypes or even for freelanced layouts use American inspired themes.
For those that struggle with centimeters, kokomo's room is 320 centimeters wide by 239 centimeters deep, or 126" (10' 6") wide by 94" (7' 10") deep.
Maybe Ulrich in Germany or Paul in the Netherlands will be able to suggest a track plan more typical of the Alps?
Btw - found a track plan on a web site for a Swiss Alps based layout for a space 14' 6" wide by 8' 5" deep (a little bigger than your layout) : http://www.layoutsbysteve.com/fin08.html - possible that this may provide some inspiration for the style of layout you are looking for?
Btw2 - why Atlas code 83 tracks for the Alps? I would have expected to see some European brand of tracks - are you located in the US, so it is easier to get US tracks?
Bear in mind that houses in Europe tends to be smaller than in the US, so e.g. European Märklin brand tracks, locomotives and cars are engineered to handler sharper radius curves - it is perfectly normal to run European passenger trains with truck mounted couplers around 14.75" radius turn back curves on 80 centimeters (32") deep bench work where conventional wisdom would say that 120 centimeters (4 feet) is pretty much minimum bench work depth for a turn back curve for an American style model railroad layout with shortish (40-50-60' cars) and locomotives.
This has some pretty significant differences when it comes to things like reach - you can reach 30" deep into a scene from the aisle, but need access hatches to reach 44-46" deep into a scene.
Btw3 - you will tend to find more about modelling Swiss railways on e.g. the UK based rmweb.co.uk website - a link to the Swiss railways sub-forum there: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/forum/156-swiss-railways/
Smile,Stein
Hi Kokomo,
one remark about your wishes. They are very common on European layouts. Also Marklin sells larger radius curves and long turnouts. Also the physics involved remain the same, to long trains in a small steep helix will derail. When you want your trains to be candy to eye as well, you might better choose for more then the standard 14" Márklin radius.
More important at this moment are your thoughts on how to operate the layout to be. When running rail-buses terminal work does not really exist; an oval would be great for a longer running time. Though you are back to what you found boring on your previous model railroad. Maybe an engine pulling a couple of rather short coaches would be a better choice.
On small US-layouts and the European layouts i am aware of, the emphasis of freight traffic is on the local or wayfreight. The daily run that serves industries along the line. Not that easy if cars are brought in at random order, and cars that were spotted earlier on can't be replaced. Even more complicated when some cars have to be placed at a certain spot at the industrial site. With only a few industries along a few spurs this can keep you busy for hours. Lance Mindheim is famous for building and operating this kind of layouts.
Electrification will result in far steeper grades, you will need a lot more clearance. Or longer grades of course, though the extra length will be hard to find on a small layout like yours. I do have quite a few German books about track plans. Most of them published by Miba.
Anyway the minimum radius is the first standard you will have to set. Long time ago (almost 50 yrs) the Miba staff found long modern coaches out of place on the standard radii (about 15") applied by Fleischmann and Marklin. A branch line with 6" , 7" or 8" coaches pulled by small engines would be appropriate; maybe even the last steam. Those tight radii could make a U-shaped plan possible, also with a turnback curve you will hardly have reach-in problems.
What you will have noticed however, i was immediately jumping from concept to practical issues and back. The same applies to benchwork first and tracks later. IMHO they can't be done as two separate issues.
Wish you luck
Paul
dexterdog I am by no means an expert track planner or layout designer, but I think you would be hard pressed to fit even half of your desires into the space you have available. I think you seriously need to pare down your list and focus on one or two elements and build your layout along a "less is more" philosophy. Cramming in as much as what you are looking to do will surely result in a cluttered and unrealistic layout. I went through pretty much the same thing recently trying to fit an N scale layout into an 8 x 20 foot space. Even with 160 square feet of real estate available, I was being overly enthusiastic and attempted to shoehorn in too much. I cut out approximately two thirds of the scenes and track and I also broadened the curve radii of what was left and I am certainly more pleased with where my layout is going now. Try to be happier with less and live with the limits of the space you have available. And then you will see how quickly things progress when your scope is more focused. Frank B. Dorval, Canada
Yes. i am finally reaching to the conclusion that I am being quite ambitious and that I cannot put everything on the layout *sigh* I guess I should be looking in that direction "less is more".
Thnx
steinjr Aha - a Brit (I presume - "loco shed" instead of "engine house", "cargo yard" instead of "house track" or "team track" or "freight house", centimeters instead of inches) modelling Switzerland instead of someone modeling US railroads? Your theme is perfectly sensible, but you will find relatively few modelers in this forum modeling an European prototype - most people around here model American prototypes or even for freelanced layouts use American inspired themes. For those that struggle with centimeters, kokomo's room is 320 centimeters wide by 239 centimeters deep, or 126" (10' 6") wide by 94" (7' 10") deep. Maybe Ulrich in Germany or Paul in the Netherlands will be able to suggest a track plan more typical of the Alps? Btw - found a track plan on a web site for a Swiss Alps based layout for a space 14' 6" wide by 8' 5" deep (a little bigger than your layout) : http://www.layoutsbysteve.com/fin08.html - possible that this may provide some inspiration for the style of layout you are looking for? Btw2 - why Atlas code 83 tracks for the Alps? I would have expected to see some European brand of tracks - are you located in the US, so it is easier to get US tracks? Bear in mind that houses in Europe tends to be smaller than in the US, so e.g. European Märklin brand tracks, locomotives and cars are engineered to handler sharper radius curves - it is perfectly normal to run European passenger trains with truck mounted couplers around 14.75" radius turn back curves on 80 centimeters (32") deep bench work where conventional wisdom would say that 120 centimeters (4 feet) is pretty much minimum bench work depth for a turn back curve for an American style model railroad layout with shortish (40-50-60' cars) and locomotives. This has some pretty significant differences when it comes to things like reach - you can reach 30" deep into a scene from the aisle, but need access hatches to reach 44-46" deep into a scene. Btw3 - you will tend to find more about modelling Swiss railways on e.g. the UK based rmweb.co.uk website - a link to the Swiss railways sub-forum there: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/forum/156-swiss-railways/ Smile,Stein
I very much like my tea with scons, if you don't mind! Let's celebrate the glorious diamond jubilee!
I know that looking for background information in an American forum about Swiss railways may not be the most appropriate place, however I was looking for some assistance on how to develop the layout, if my ideas were correct, if my space was enough for what I had in mind. Some basic (basic for advanced modellers, not for rookies!) notions to help me realize if what I wanted to do was feasible.
why Atlas? Let's say I bought some really really cheap track in clearance and I want to take advantage of it. Nevertheless I am planning to made some home made track, thanks to handlaidtrack.com, especially for curved turnouts, which Atlas doesn't provide (instead of Peco's, which doesn't come in code 83, but 75 instead).
I am planning to use Faller, Kibri, Vollmer and such brands for infrastructure (apart from homemade design) so I will take that into consideration.
Thanks also for the useful links, I will look at them later on.
Paulus Jas Hi Kokomo, one remark about your wishes. They are very common on European layouts. Also Marklin sells larger radius curves and long turnouts. Also the physics involved remain the same, to long trains in a small steep helix will derail. When you want your trains to be candy to eye as well, you might better choose for more then the standard 14" Márklin radius. More important at this moment are your thoughts on how to operate the layout to be. When running rail-buses terminal work does not really exist; an oval would be great for a longer running time. Though you are back to what you found boring on your previous model railroad. Maybe an engine pulling a couple of rather short coaches would be a better choice. On small US-layouts and the European layouts i am aware of, the emphasis of freight traffic is on the local or wayfreight. The daily run that serves industries along the line. Not that easy if cars are brought in at random order, and cars that were spotted earlier on can't be replaced. Even more complicated when some cars have to be placed at a certain spot at the industrial site. With only a few industries along a few spurs this can keep you busy for hours. Lance Mindheim is famous for building and operating this kind of layouts. Electrification will result in far steeper grades, you will need a lot more clearance. Or longer grades of course, though the extra length will be hard to find on a small layout like yours. I do have quite a few German books about track plans. Most of them published by Miba. Anyway the minimum radius is the first standard you will have to set. Long time ago (almost 50 yrs) the Miba staff found long modern coaches out of place on the standard radii (about 15") applied by Fleischmann and Marklin. A branch line with 6" , 7" or 8" coaches pulled by small engines would be appropriate; maybe even the last steam. Those tight radii could make a U-shaped plan possible, also with a turnback curve you will hardly have reach-in problems. What you will have noticed however, i was immediately jumping from concept to practical issues and back. The same applies to benchwork first and tracks later. IMHO they can't be done as two separate issues. Wish you luck Paul
Thnx for your design Paul, I am using it as a guide. May I contact you in case I have any doubt about the comments you placed on it?
My previous layout was rather short and trains appeared rather quickly once they got into the tunnel. Plus, I used steel track, instead of nickelt silver, on most of the layout thus cleaning was frequent and had electricity issues inside the tunnel frequently.
Ok, I get the point with rail-buses (as a matter of fact I have Br 515 available) and I could also use some 2 or 3 coaches maximum. As explained, I envision a layout where trains will be rather short. So if the possibility of short trains with a couple of industries scattered could add operation for hours, then that is something I value. Although, as I said before, I guess i should limit myself...
I was merely considering the possibility of electrification, but so far that is low priority right now.
Thnx again!
kokomoespecially for curved turnouts, which Atlas doesn't provide (instead of Peco's, which doesn't come in code 83, but 75 instead).
Not correct. PECO Code 83 curved turnouts have been available for some time. They are larger (#7s) than PECO's Code 75 curved turnouts, but very useful.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
cuyama kokomo: especially for curved turnouts, which Atlas doesn't provide (instead of Peco's, which doesn't come in code 83, but 75 instead). Not correct. PECO Code 83 curved turnouts have been available for some time. They are larger (#7s) than PECO's Code 75 curved turnouts, but very useful.
kokomo: especially for curved turnouts, which Atlas doesn't provide (instead of Peco's, which doesn't come in code 83, but 75 instead).
Indeed.
I had in mind code 100 & 75, but forgotten 83. You're right. I was using Wintrack and showed Peco 100 & 75 only. thnx
IMHO you are going to fast. One of the things i would go for at first is doing more research about the minimum radius in your helix. What I've heard through the grapevine and more directly is radii under 27" can easily cause problems in a helix.
The offender is string-lining; cars climbing the inner rail due to the drag of the train. If the weight of a car is not sufficient the cars climbs over and the result is a derailment. Often adding weight does not help since it adds to the drag as well. Curves and especially grades add a lot of drag, hence a helix is prone to derailments. The angle between cars is a factor as well, the use of short cars (40 ft) or coaches might help.
Almost no situation is alike, with so many factors like train-length, car-length, different car-length's in one train, weight of cars, radius and grade you are basically on your own. Throw more factors like immaculate trackwork, a soft hand on the throttle, running qualities of cars and engines in the game and you can understand why a general advise is hard to give. Anyway i would start with building the helix before anything else. So the results of failure are limited.
BTW John Armstrong's Track Planning For Realistic Operation and Lance Mindheim's How To Design A Small Switching Layout are worth a billion. They will give you an insight in "shunting" among many more features.
I could not resist some doodling. If European radii of about 15" are accepted a U-shaped layout without a helix is possible; without huge reach-in problems. Already more then 50 yrs ago the staff of Miba (Miniatur Bahnen, the German MR =-magazine) found those tight radii not appropriate for modern, read long, equipment. About 7" would be the maximum length.
This might give you ideas (the comments are by Fred Wright, the underlining by me):
It's not an RP. The LDSIG (Layout Design Special Interest Group) developed a rule of thumb relating radius to length of longest cars. The rule is fairly conservative. But it does allow pretty quick evaluation of the practicality of a given curve radius in light of planned operations (the intent of the rule of thumb). All the empirical and anecdotal evidence I have seen suggests that the 3X minimum is right on for long trains and for operations with a helix.
Here are some curve radius guidelines based on the lengths of your longest pieces of rolling stock.
2X - Some model equipment may be able to track reliably on 2X their length, but this is generally considered pushing it.
3X - Making your curve radius at least 3X the length of your longest cars gets reliable tracking around curves, but looks toylike.
4X - If you make your curve radius at least 4X, your longest cars will look much better on curves.
5X - If you make your curve radius at least 5X, your longest cars will couple easily with minimal manual fiddling of the couplers.
This measurement is based on the length of your longest car (coupler to coupler).
The branch line could also be added to Byron Henderson's proposal. The curved branch-line terminal was done to create space for a loop-to-loop design, however both tracks going down to staging could be connected to form a big oval; with an underground staging area under Fallsview / Sunnyvale. A second reason was to create more visual distance between the little terminal and the remainder of the layout.
I think you could develop many more alternatives before taking a final decision.
Wish you wisdom
Hi!
Sorry for not replying earlier but I have been away on a business trip this whole week long.
Thnx for your ideas and suggestions, as well as the layout you attach. They are of rich value to me.
I was taking a look at a 1996 book "Modellbahn Anlagenbau: praktischer Ratgeber fur den richtingen Anlagen-Unterbau" and they were mentioning that if you consider at least 7 cm (2.75") between each "floor" of the helix, and a slope of 3%, then the track length to overcome 10 cm ( 3.93") would be 3.33 meters (10.92 ') , therefore the diameter needed oughta be 1.05 meters (3.44').
I have also found an excel file over the internet, from a Spanish place IIRC, that easily allows to calculate radius by simply entering space between floors and slope desired. I don't know hot to attach an Excel file here, sorry.
Anyway, I will take into consideration this matter, because I just want my trains to go to level -1 where they could be parked or even turned back if so needed. I thought the best way to achieve this was with a helix, but I am not in love with it per-sé, just considering it as a tool, not a "must-have".
Going to that rule of X. If I understood correctly I have a 2 axle Lima car whose length coupler-to-coupler is 126 mm (4.96"), that means that my minimum radius for a helix should be 3@126 = 378 mm (14,9 "). My longest loco is 8.8" long so the radius should be 26.4" accordingly? Did I get it right? However, if I take a shunting loco, I got 6.4" instead.
I was thinking that my helix will be covered so I don/'t mind looking it very silly. I just don't want derailments in hard to reach places!
I will analyze a bit more your track layout suggestion. Thanks!
hi Kokomo,
as i wrote earlier a helix can cause problems. If it will do depends on many factors.
The LDSIG "factor-rules of thumb" is taking your longest car as a starting point. However this table is valid for American cars, all of them with bogies. Binding will be more problematic with 2 axle cars. So the factor for good tracking (almost no binding) should be set higher, maybe 4 times the length of your longest car. Running very short trains can possibly keep the total amount of binding within limits.
With European equipment, no doublestacks, no high cubes nor tall autoracks, you will come away with a three inch rail-head to rail-head distance. IMHO building a mock-up is the most sensible way to proceed. A 1,5 or 2 turn helix would do.
Your four-axle ETA 150 is almost 11" long; if it has to pull a couple of 5" long two axle coaches the angle between the motor-car and the first coach will be large in a curve. It is this angle that is causing the problems, unless the applied radius is large enough.
Perhaps I should build a mock up helix and see how I fare with my rolling stock afterwards. I am not much of a carpenter myself so any suggestion about how to do so is very much appreciated.
However, I would like to mention that the ETA 150 does not need to be turned around so it could be put into hiding (if needed) somewhere because it has push-pull system. I wouldn't do it just for that item specifically, BUT I do get the idea of taking into consideration the longest rolling stock for template. I don't mind the helix looking silly, ie short raidus, as long as it is covered and out of sight and rolling stock don't cause trouble.
As usual thanks a lot for all of your suggestions, I really appreciate them. I would like to start using a design tool to start making my own plans.
Cheers
hi kokomo,
what about a pencil, ruler and a compass. One of the best things to do might be reading Track Planning For Realistic Operation by the late John Armstrong. Designing by his "squares" doesn't even need a compass nor a ruler.
Designing and building a multi desk layout is pretty well covered by Tony Koester. A look at this thread and weblog could help as well.
EDIT: did you read this article by Jim Kelly?
END EDIT
Smile
Kokomo,
there have been a lot of words of warning to you about building a helix with too small a radius. Out of experience I can confirm that building a helix with a radius of less than 2 ft. is suicidal, even if you run truck-mounted European stock with pizza-cutter flanges. A helix with a 2 ft. radius eats up a lot of your precious space.
I am definitely going to get that book you've been mentioning and give it a read.
I have been quite busy lately and haven't had much time to be around here.
I am still undecided about the helix and I thought that 2 ft radius was somehow prudential; but now, taking into consideration all the words of caution posted I am doubtful.And after reading those articles, kindly provided by Jan Paulus, I have even more concerns!
I guess I will have to limit myself and do not what I'd like but what I can. Or a mixture of both and try to be happier.