After a 20 year hiatus from the hobby my 8yr old son and I just completed the benchwork for our HO layout.I feel we utilized the available space the best we could. I figure over 200' track total and at least a 75' continous run. I have preliminary track plans but unsure how or if possible to attach SCARM files.. I would love to share them with anybody for feedback/inspiration.
Modeling an HO gauge freelance version of the Union Pacific Oregon Short Line and the Utah Railway around 1957 in a world where Pirates from the Great Salt Lake founded Ogden, UT.
- Photo album of layout construction -
LION does not know what SCARM files are, but LION does have a big layout, 900 feet of track, eight trains running on a five minute headway. Him has been building this layout for more than 10 years, and more than 30 years of serious layout building, and another 20 years before that of less serious building.
LION likes the layout of him, and so him will just keep building it. Been making some street/station lamps from scratch, and they are looking very good if I do say so myself.
Your benchwork is first class (mine comes from scraps that I have cobbled together), so enjoy your layout and time with your son... before you know it he will be 18 and have ideas of his own.
Do not forget time to visit the zoo, The TIGER wants to say hello to you.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
First, welcome. Second, good looking benchwork! Third, your best best for attaching your layouts would be to export them as a JPEG and post them the same way you post pictures.
Richard
Lion - SCARM is a freebie track planning software, which is actually quite nice. Not as capable as those paid CAD tools, but more than good enough to do the sanitary check.
IIRC, you can export your track plan as a JPG, upload it into a host like photobucket and than integrate it into your post.
What is theis "Track Planning" You speak of. LION slaps down some track and if it fits and the train does not derail then it is good to go. Sure LION knowed what him wanted to do: To run as long a layout as possible on three levels, but him moved form a two track mane lion to a four track mane lion, and has pulled out and replaced helixes as him found need so to do.
Thanks for welcomes and replies! Ive already learned something and will attempt to get the files/pics loaded shortly. The SCARM program has tremendous capabities but a little overwhelming for the first timer. There wasn't even internet last I was involved with MRR! Fortunately the forums have a ton of valuable information (too much information at times!) and members that have gone above and beyond to getting me off on the right foot..
Yeah dogbone style is what Ive got in mind. Unfortunately due to needing to have 5 posts before the probation period expires it will likely be Friday before the other pics get posted. Thanks again and check back on Friday!
And, very nice looking bench work! I think I could crawl overtop of that if needed, which does sometimes come in handy... Mine, you can climb on top of, but only one section. (The biggest part, 4 feet + wide, and about 42" high.) The rest of my bench work, is lean over only.... Any weight and you just might go through the layout. (Attached to wall, free standing cantilevered style, and hardboard/foam/foam below roadbed. Very light weight construction, but had to do that because of the area being used.
Ricky W.
HO scale Proto-freelancer.
My Railroad rules:
1: It's my railroad, my rules.
2: It's for having fun and enjoyment.
3: Any objections, consult above rules.
Sorry for the delay in response time due to my newbie probation period. Here is an idea of my benchwork size and preliminary track plan. I have 48" on the left hand end and 42" on the right end. I realize this is not ideal for turn radius but is what I have to work with due to restrictions at either end.
Starting from scratch so nothing is set in stone other that the area I have to work with,DCC and being HO Scale. Im really new to the SCARM program and have been fortunate to have assistance getting what I have. I would like to have a couple mountainous area as well as a trestle. Nothing enormous but maybe 5-6" off bench height. I plan to start with 2" foam on top of existing benchwork. Looking for advice for feedback on how to best utilize the space. A long continous run and a dual main line, to minimize possible collisions, (an 8yr old and I will be primary operators) are things Ive felt are important. Getting the elevations to all work out is where Im struggling the worse. I would like to share the actual SCARM file with anyone that would be willing to put there spin on the area? I realize how critical the planning stages are and want to do it right.
Looking for inspiration/advice others maybe able to provide, likely things Ive never thought of! Please PM or email me at jblanchette@ahwllc.com and Ill get you the files. Again this is more of a journey for me than a destination and appreciate any and all feedback. Thanks!
jb7778I have 48" on the left hand end and 42" on the right end. I realize this is not ideal for turn radius but is what I have to work with due to restrictions at either end.
I hate to be the bad news guy, but 42" creates a turnback curve that is far worse than "not ideal". The generally accepted minimum for "tight" curves in HO is 18". That puts you at 36" diameter on the centerline of the inner track. Track center spacing at that radius is going to need to be 2.5" so you are at 41" diameter for your outside track. You generally want the center line to be a bare minimum of 2" from the edge of the layout which puts you at 45" absolute minimum edge to edge.
You don't mention what you want to run, but 18" only supports the smallest of equipment like 40' cars and short 4-axle diesels and even although it works, it doesn't look very good.
Additionally, most consider 30" the maximum reach from the front of the layout to trains on the back. You've got access problems to those back corners.
Consider moving the ends of the layout away from the doors. This could create an access aisle between the layout and the end walls and give you the opportunity to widen the blobs enough for some decent curves.
jb7778 I realize how critical the planning stages are and want to do it right.
Again, sorry for the bad news, but "doing it right" usually means having a workable plan before saw hits lumber.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
That let a little wind out of my sails! LOL Didnt realize just how limited I have myself. Wasnt real concerned with look as I expect most the area to be hidden by tunnel/scenery but it HAS to be functional.
Anyone willing to make a recommendation if 54" was removed from the center of the benchwork? (this would give me a 27" opening at either end or 382"total length) I could then probably get by with 48" on the east end and likely be able to expand the west from 48" to 60. Again Id be willing to email my existing SCARM files.. I could probably design the bench work but wouldnt know where to begin with the track work.. Thanks in advance
Otherwise N scale get more attractive by the minute.. LOL
jb7778Otherwise N scale get more attractive by the minute.. LOL
What you have built could provide the base for a very nice N-scale layout. If you've been away from MRR since before there was an internet, you probably have an outdated opinion of N-scale. It is an entirely reasonable choice these days. There is a large selection of good looking good running stuff available. You could run some really long trains in N-scale - 50 cars would be about 15 feet in N.
Before you go any further however, you should step back and make some decisions about exactly what you want out of the railroad. Filling the space you have prepared will take a long time and you want to make sure it will keep your interest long enough to finish it.
John Armstrong used lists of "givens and druthers" as the basis for all his plans. Givens represent things that are not flexible, like the space available in your case. Druthers are preferences like double track mainline, continuous running... Make yourself some lists.
You'll still need access to whatever scale track you put at the back of the layout on the turnaround blobs. Cut your self some access holes. You did good by not putting the shelf under the blobs. They can be covered with lift-out scenery, hidden by foreground scenery or ignored. The lucky thing for you is that you have that 8-year old. They're great at crawling under benchwork to fix derailments.
You can of course choose the scale of your choice and you could fit a very decent HO layout in that space IF you widen the ends to accomodate wider radius curves. I have 32-inch minimum radius curves on my relatively small and even on those curves, long cars such as 85' passenger cars or 89' autoracks or flat cars make those curves look sharp.
With a 42 inch width bench work, you'd be limited to a 20 inch radius at the very best and that is extreemly tight by todays standards in HO. Yes, many trains will run on even an 18 inch curve, but much of todays rolling stock have an absolute minimum of 22 inches, and a few even need minimum of 24 inches.
Bottom line, if you want to go with HO, I would strongly recommened widening the ends of your benchwork to accomodate 28-inch minimum curves - that would require you widen to about 60-inches on each end. It looks like you are good with wood working so that shouldn't be a problem, unless you simply don't have the space or can't be bothered. In the latter case, N-scale might be the way to go. My close up vision has gotten worse with approaching senior status so HO is as small as I care to go. YMMV.
Cheers, Jim
Here is a photo of my staging yard which has the 32 inch radius. Now shorter cars like 50 and 60' look great, but 89' those curves start to look sharp. A 28 inch curve is even sharper but will handle most any HO rolling stock except maybe a few brass steam engines.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I am guessing that the reason you can't go wider on the turns is because of the doors that have to be accommodated. I have door problems also. Here is a pic of what I did (excuse the mess) I made the bench 6' wide for the turn and where the door is I put a siding in there. It will likely be a stock yard one day.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
I don't see any doors near the end of his layout in either photo so it appears the ends could be widened.
It shows on his plan, and I could have sworn he mentioned it, but I didn;t see a reference to teh doors but he did state "obstructions" in an earlier post. If it's doors, then Brent's way of dealing with this seems just about ideal.
For maximum mainline run, I'd do it as stacked loops at one end, going down to the opposite end and looping back, so the actual mainline would be 2x the length of the room plus the loop on one end. Mains could be single or double tracked, either way. Allowing a cutout for the door should allow the ends to be much wider, maybe as much as 66" would would allow 30" radius curves - could run nearly anything on that.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Thanks for the replys.. It was hard to see in the photos that a doorway on the right end WAS my restriction. I was able to address both the reach a radius issues without too much headache this afternoon. I removed 54" out of the center of the bench, giving 27" aisles at either end now. In doing so I was able to expand both ends quite a bit.. Still not 28" radius capable but 22 very comfortably possibly upto 24". The end with door clearance issues is now 51" and leaves me exactly a 30" walkway (This is a relativley high traffic area) On the left end a book case before a doorway was my hurdle but it miraculously found its way to a different area.. Here are a couple pics I will get the new dimensions in a SCARM file to share, hopefully yet tonight.
" target="">
" target=""> " target="">
jb7778The end with door clearance issues is now 51" and leaves me exactly a 30" walkway
I left a 30" walkway to access the two doors on the left. My wife thought that it might not be wide enough. I told her that if people can't walk through there , then they couldn't get through the doors and so it didn't matter.
Nice benchwork! I see that you are using EZ track. My comment would be to cover the entire thing with a layer of 2" foam. My layout started much the same. As I gained knowledge and experience on what I wanted and "finished" the layout, I began replacing the EZ track in small sections with regular cork, flextrack, etc. as time and money would allow. The foam will let you do this much easier.
Also, check your plan to see if EZ track's geometry will let you do what you want. When I replaced mine, I found that my design options increased greatly, and I was able to add more realistic arrrangements than the EZ track would allow.
As long as you are using the EZ track, let your 8 year old have some imput on the design as you build, you won't regret it's value for keeping him interested.(it can always be changed later) Enjoy!!
Agree, the benchwork looks good!
Based on the additional photo's, it looks like the benchwork could indeed be widened a few inches near the door since the end of the layout is off-set away from the wall with the door, enough to make a significant difference in the radii.
I can't emphasize enough that even a small increase in radii makes a large difference at those low radii figures. Going from say 18 to 24 inches is HUGE in HO and removes most restrictions on what you can run. These days in HO I'd strongly suggest a minimum of 28 inches but anything you can do in that direction would make a difference in what you can run with smoothness and reliability.
In HO, 24-inches should be an absolute minimum - you'll notice these days that some longer cars such as passenger cars or long autoracks in some cases suggest a minimum of 24 inches. Usually that minimum is exactly that - just like a computer you don't want to use the minimum memory, its best to us a radius above the minimum recommended for HO train cars. Most longer cars are manufactured to run on 22 minimum but to be safe, go with 24-inches if you are very limited on space.
The other end appears to have a book shelf next to the side so there is a little room to widen that too.
If you use KATO Unitrack in HO, they have a wide range of curves between 18 and 31 inches. I've read that the EZ track turnouts are very poor quality - I've read a lot of complaints of the quality Bachman EZ track turouts. So I'd recommend KATO HO Unitrack if you are going with modular track - and it's fairly economical surprisingly when ordered from places like MB Klein etc. KATO does make 24 inch curves in sectional as well as other radii so it's got lots of options.
Again all feedback is greatly appreciated! Here is a snapshot of the revised benchwork dimensions. Both ends will accomodate up to 24" radius now the left end more comfortably...
As for the EZ track it is my sons oval that is normally setup on the floor I just borrowed it gauge things up. I will actually be using Peco code for the layout with cork road bed for the layout, unless convinced otherwise. I know there have got to be folks out there that like designing in SCARM as much as I like bench work... Anybody willing to give me there recommendation on track work considering the bench work? I will gladly email the file and a summary of the important things to us.. PM or jblanchette@ahwllc.com Thanks again!
As for the EZ track it is my sons oval that is normally setup on the floor I just borrowed it gauge things up. I will actually be using Peco code for the layout with cork road bed for the layout, unless convinced otherwise.
I know there have got to be folks out there that like designing in SCARM as much as I like bench work... Anybody willing to give me there recommendation on track work considering the bench work? I will gladly email the file and a summary of the important things to us..
PM or jblanchette@ahwllc.com Thanks again!
When I was at about your stage of development years ago, I was informed that if I wanted to run certain brass engines I would need at least 30" radius to do so, so I made my minimum 32". It required a little rebuilding, but I got'er done. With your situation you can go ahead with what you have there and if down the road you decide you need to go wider on the ends, you should be able to add to the width or make up some temporary "clipons" to use when running big engines and or rolling stock.
Good luck!
Have you considered flip up "wings" to hold parts of each turnback? Basically the front half table for each curve would be hinged to drop down when not in use. They could be down for normal access and flipped up when in operation. This would allow much wider curves.
Now on my railroad, I do use 18" curves and Atlas #4 switches. I know it's not ideal and my layout probably breaks half the rules of design, but the space I got is the space I got so I live with it.
jim
jb7778 Again all feedback is greatly appreciated! Here is a snapshot of the revised benchwork dimensions. Both ends will accomodate up to 24" radius now the left end more comfortably... As for the EZ track it is my sons oval that is normally setup on the floor I just borrowed it gauge things up. I will actually be using Peco code for the layout with PM or jblanchette@ahwllc.com Thanks again!
As for the EZ track it is my sons oval that is normally setup on the floor I just borrowed it gauge things up. I will actually be using Peco code for the layout with
Again, I'd make 24 inch radius your "minimum" rather than your "up-to" or maximum. That way you wan't be limited on what you can run - tight curves are a model railroaders enemy as are things like S-curves. I'd also recommend using minimum #6 turnouts and save anything smaller for industrial yards.
You should be fine with Peco other than it can be a bit pricey but it's good quality. I've got some Peco code 100 turnouts in my staging track, but am using code 83 and 70 in the main visible portions of the layout as it looks a little finer.
First, terrific work so far! Second, I am SO envious of the space you have available.
On constructive ideas, please take into account that I may have missed or may build upon some points already made above. Having said that, I would emphasize, much from my experience with constraints and compromises on my smallish 5 x 10' or so HO layout still in progress:
- I did not take note of what you plan to run / not run. I wanted to be able to run UP passenger cars and large (big boy) locos so I wanted to have all the radius I could but could not achieve the 30"-plus desired. So I set my target radius at 26", maybe having some at 25 but most at 26+. It gets down to not operability (I did not plan old brass engines, etc) but looks. Depending on the particular rolling stock, the Walthers 80' streamline cars look worse than the (Athearn) Big Boy and Challenger. But I am happy I can have them and run them (and the grandkids don't care). My point is to determine what radius is your target and push to that.
Next, do consider carefully what minimun distance to allow between your outer tracks and the edge. Basis my experience, you may want more at the "back" (and sides) than at the front, and underdoing it can really limit the end result. You can add a "rollover guard" at the front, so in my opinion that can be somewhat smaller. I found later that I wanted to add "flats" plus background buildings at the back, particularly, and wish I had included another inch! This competes with your min radius but if you plan those together you will be happier.
- Having said the above, I'd look carefully at how to get more width radius at the one (narrowest) end, in particular. I think someone above hit the nail on the head...pulling the curve away from the door would help, in combination with making a wider benchwork at the turn(s) with a greater bulge, while giving the 30"-plus walking space along the way.
- On laying things out. Since there is benchwork there you can experiment in the real world. I found it useful to make some curve templates on wide, brown paper I found at Home Depot. I made curves from 22" to 36' and cut them out. It took some time but was worth the effort. Or you can make a trammel with a yardstick and draw curves with a pencil. Just suggestions.
I'll include a couple of photos of my small layout so you can see an example of these tradeoffs:
You've done super work. I would encourage biting the bullet on related revisions that may be much worthwhile later.
Paul
Modeling HO with a transition era UP bent
Again thank you everyone for the feedback and advice... With the latest revision, my bench work will comfortably allow for 24" radius on both ends. Consuming anymore space may end up with me looking for a place to live! I feel this will be perfect for the trains I plan to use and how I plan to use them. Working on track design and acquiring materials, I will continue to update as things progress.
Pretty well set on Peco track and switches, Im sure everyone has an opinion on cork vs foam roadbed? I only have experience with cork and tenatively plan to go that route.. Pros&Cons?
Also overwhelmed doing research on DCC systems. Looking for some input.. Obviously attracted to wireless but want a reliable, user friendly system with support? Only 1 controller to begin with, dont see ever using more than 2 and think 5amps will be sufficent. NCE/MRC others?
Im sure these will have varying opions but Im curious to hear them and learn what other questions I need to be asking myself... Thanks!
jb7778:
Pretty impressive so far, and I have to congratulate you on asking for advice before you make mistakes you will regret.
As far as DCC goes, I am an NCE fan, but I think the best advice is to stay away from the lower end systems like Bachmann and MRC. If you can get an opportunity to try the various systems out that would really help you decide. I went with NCE because I was much more comfortable with the layout of the throttle than I was with Digitrax, but that's just me.
I think you are right to go with wireless throttles given the length of your layout. Wireless will allow you to follow your trains without tripping over long cords or having to move your throttle from one socket to the next.
I look forward to following your progress.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
jb7778 Again thank you everyone for the feedback and advice... With the latest revision, my bench work will comfortably allow for 24" radius on both ends. Consuming anymore space may end up with me looking for a place to live! I feel this will be perfect for the trains I plan to use and how I plan to use them. Working on track design and acquiring materials, I will continue to update as things progress.
I think you will be glad you pushed your minimum to 24 inches radius. You will find longer cars may not look pretty on them, but at least most should operate with a minimum of tinkering. AFAIK, Genesis, Walthers etc. 89' freight cars are designed to operate on 24 inch curves, auto racks, passenger cars etc.
Peco has always been considered a very good quality track. The code 100 switches are fairly reasonably priced too. Code 83 Peco is pricey however, but is the only Peco that is manufactured to look like American track FYI. The code 100 is designed to look like British track details, although if you don't look close, you might never notice the differences. British track doesn't use spikes but spring clips instead - I was just over there with my British wife and was looking at the track when we were traveling down to London's Kings Cross station.
I'm old school and use cork since I prefer to fix my track down with Atlas track nails and or spikes - easy to pull up with needle nose plyers if I need to change track orienation etc. I prefer not to use glue or adhesives because it is permanent essentially the moment you put your track down. Others prefer adhesives and foam. I do plan on using foam for scenery, just not under my track.
I recommend trying out both NCE and Digitrax - those are the two most popular systems. Why? If you ever participate with a club, 95% of them use one or the other. When I was in England last month, both places I visited used NCE there. Here in the northern Virginia area, I see lots of Digitrax. So if you know what is used in your area, that might influence your decision. It's also a good way to try out the throttles. Both are excellent systems and it really comes down to preference of which throttles you feel most comfortable with and how the systems operate. I'd avoid less common systems like MRC, EasyDCC or Lenz since your less likely to encounter those at clubs or operating sessions you may attened. It's very handy to have a throttle at home that you can bring and use at a show, or club etc.