Content removed due to a completely frak'ed up and incompetent Kalmbach customer service.
If you are limited to a table top, a scenic divider can break up the round and round illusion, as the train disappears and reappears. I have only a 4'x6' in HO, but with the divider I can have a little yard on one side and could have one on the other, but for now I only have a passing siding. You can easily have one train slowly loop while you do some switching in a yard. When your incoming train gets to the yard, it can either drop off its cars and pick up a new group or the other loco can pull out with its train and the incoming loco can switch what it brought in. With the passing siding, I can have one train disappear, then another appear from the same direction the other one left. It can drop off/pick up cars then be on it's way. The other reappears and does its thing at the yard. Simple, but has continuous running when I want and limited operation when I feel like doing it.
My divider is neither centered nor parallel to the sides of the layout, breaks up the straight lines of a small table layout. It comes within a few inches of the end of the table, but with a larger table you could move it in a little. To disguise the ends a tunnel, buildings, trees, bridge or as I did on one end, a deep rock cut, make the trains disappearance less noticable.
An around the room shelf gives you more options, especially for your larger locos, but a table can give you some fun too.
Good luck,
Richard
Unless Im reading your drawing incorrectly you have less than 3 in of separation between railheads (I see 2 31/32). Thats not going to work out very well for HO scale. You need at a minimum 3in of separation. With 22" curves you would need approximately 2.1% grade over 12 linear feet of track (one direction), less since you are going steeper 3% is 8ft of track. These of course are approximate numbers obtained from John Armstrong's book. You will probably need more than 3in of clearance for running certain modern equipment.
I thought I made this clear but maybe not, the Layout is in a garage. one side of the garage is a wifes car and other side is shelves for storage, so train table in in between that wall of storage and the car. I bearly have walking distance around the layout as it is now, but its usable and workable. I know of the pages and sites that show how 4x8 is bad idea and the usable stuff on outside could be used. I read all about that stuff. but when your really stuck to that Small of an area, you have to use what you got. Like other posters said once you start your always craving more area! I have a Club layout i can us efor my Long Train runs with 40+ cars if i want. I thinking for at home just 6-8 cars max, maybe small local freight. I will post a new layout design when I get home, just made some changes. my max elv change is 3%. everything i read says its possible. all my turns are 22 or 24 turns. My trains are pretty heavy (MTH) and i did a test with 8 cars with one GP 35 (MTH) and it pull up with a much higher than 4%. I been searchign all over the interwebs for a better 4x8 or 5x10 layout, very hard to find.. Also I will mostly run boxcars, coal, wood hoppers, local frieght, not really intermodal stuff or passager cars. my locos are 2 GP60s, 1 GP 35, 2 SD70ace, 1 Alco S4.
My 13x9 L Shape Garage Layout build
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/225242.aspx
I agree completely, Byron's site is an excellent place to get ideas. And since you know how to use design software you should be able to come up with a really nice, interesting track plan if you are willing to move away from the island concept and put some time into it.
I am not a point-to-point guy either. I would describe myself as a modeller more than anything else, and like to be able to watch the trains run hands-off. My new design is an around-the-wall dogbone and yes it has elevation changes and a crossover, but all the grades are 2% or under, and my min radius is 24". The total plan fits in 13x14 ft space.
I am still waiting for someone to post an operating HO figure 8 layout that is truly successful- just to prove that it is possible. But I haven't seen one yet. Closest is the Virginian since it has some of the same elements and looks like a fun build, but the design is not a true figure 8.
Huntington Junction - Freelance based on the B&O and C&O in coal country before the merger... doing it my way. Now working on phase 3. - Walt
For photos and more: http://www.wkhobbies.com/model-railroad/
Svein,
Excellant advice! Forgot about Byron's work.
Cheers,
Frank
Yeah i was wondering why im getting so many hits but no replies. So yeah I dont like Point to Point operation. I like to just let them go and take it in or take pictures. I really liek operations and doing stuff like moving cargo from one area to an other. the Area I have to work with, (rather allowed) by Wife is garage :-). so I started with 4x8 but started to get 6 axel locos and wanted larger turns, so I went with 22 and 24 inch turns and increased my area to 10x5, you can keeo the turns on the outsides and have 26-28 turns. problems is that ovals are boring and thats why i went with with set up. I been playing around with an lumber area in the right side mountains using 15in turns ( short switchers and short 1-2 cars. I know 15inch is doable.
So yeah, If someone can lead me to a better Idea Im all for it. But Space is limited me. I can add maybe 2 more feet at end of table and have 5x12, If a dogbone design was doable in 5 feet lenght that would be cool, but i dont think it would fit right.
This post has just been hanging without a response (but has 200 hits). I think the reason may be that nobody wants to be the bearer of bad news?
A figure 8 design in HO is a real challenge. I tried this with my first 4x8 layout many years ago and was not at all successful. It looked pretty good but operationally it was a mess. Grades were too steep and on tight curves, vertical easements were too short, turnouts on grades were problematic, tracks at different levels were too close together, and throw in some S-curves... it was all but un-usable. A few months ago there was a post by a member here with a similar design already built, with exactly the same problems. After a lot of discussion how to make it work he decided to start over.
In theory going with a 5x10 should help a bit, but since much of the extra width on the proposed design is taken up by the yard the gains are minimimal. And the extra width makes it much harder to reach into the center to work on the critical track there.
Not saying its impossible, but more than I am willing to try (been there, done that.) If you really want an over/under crossing in HO I suggest you think about an around the wall style layout instead of an island. That gives better opportunity to lay track long enough for reasonable grades. Here are some general guidelines based on my experience- both back then and now.
All of the above is especially recommended if planning to go with modern locos and rolling stock, since they tend to be longer than the old stuff and that just compounds the problems.
Hope this helps. May not be what you want to hear, but better than jumping in blindly like I did back then.
I wanted to give credit another member in this fourm for the great idea. I've been looking for a more interesting layout than my double mainline oval. Good thing i only layed track so far on old layout.
Any Ideas for suggestions would be great. I plan on using modern Loco's and mostly UP. Reason I used 5x10 and not 4x8 (though thats was what i started with) was because I wanted larger turns for SD70ace, 22in radi is the smallest turns. Will be all DCC with NCE.