We have been enjoying this hobby for eons. A few days ago, we were sitting around, thinking about our numerous layout constructions, and reminiscing about our experiences. So we thought it would be a good idea to ask others.
Here is our Premise:
You have the space. You have built the basic benchwork. You have a general concept. You have the power source, rolling stock and enough track and accessories. It is time to get started.
Based on your experience, what unexpected "pitfalls" and "problems" have you encountered in the process? (Aside from 'budget')
We would really be interested to know if you encountered the same things that we did. And as always, many thanks.
I discovered that point to point layouts and hidden staging yards suck. I was use to being able to run around on a loop with a couple of spurs with my toy train set. When I was in junior high school I built my first real model railroad. I built it as point to point which was susposed to be better because it was more realistic. It had two hidden staging tracks at one end and a turn table at the other. Once the trains had ran their route it was kind of a dead end and I would have to either back a train into the staging yard to do it again or squeeze into a tiny aisle and stage a new train fiddle track style. This soon got old so I blasted a tunnel through a mountain and once again had a loop which would automatically feed the staging yard. Not only did this make runnning trains so much more fun it also improved the operational aspect.
It's not truely a loop. It's more like a gerrymandering figure 8 with overpass.
My next layout had a much larger staging yard which wasn't hidden. It was modeled and has full scenery. Trains enter and leave from both directions.
A couple of items come to mind.
a) some day we may move and the more than 5' x 10' layout will no doubt be too large and heavy to handle down the stair and out the door should I wish to preserve it. It would have been pretty easy at the start to make it divisible into moveable chunks if desired.
b) I decided to rearrange some track on the top level of a closely spaced pair of decks (with a turnaround loop underneath). I added 3 turnouts, and one had the throwbar above the lower loop track. It was inpossible to put a Tortiose in the usual spot and also very difficult to add a remote Tortoise actuator due to limited working space. Better planning (and bothering to look underneath) would have been easy.
c) speaking of looking first, I drilled a hole for an added trackside turnout indicator light, right through a Tortoise underneath. Yes, the one that runs the above mentioned remote actuator. (There's a pattern here).
Paul
Modeling HO with a transition era UP bent
Well, one of the 'pitfalls' is having benchwork built and NO trackplan - How are you supposed to build the benchwork if you have no idea where the track is going?
In my case, not having enough staging was an issue. I planned for 4 staging tracks, but one of them was the 'clear alley' when running trains...the new layout will have 11 staging tracks 18" below the 'on stage' layout. You never can have enough staging tracks(even if you do not 'operate')....
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
The only pitfall I found was the one that had me build a house on a basement that was going to be all train layout, and then lose about half of it to "family considerations".
jrbernierWell, one of the 'pitfalls' is having benchwork built and NO trackplan - How are you supposed to build the benchwork if you have no idea where the track is going?
I had a sketch for the original layout but tossed it when my plans were changed. I moved what benchwork had already been built, fitting it in or modifying it to fit into the smaller and oddly-shaped space. After setting my minimum aisle width, I built the remaining benchwork along all walls, leaving only the door unblocked. I decided that the layout could be partially doubledecked, which would reclaim some of the lost track, but it would result in the layout being a point-to-point-to-point (with South Cayuga as the centre point). I layed out the widest curves that would fit at all 10 corners/direction changes of the room (not counting those on the penisula, which is where the line gains elevation to the partial second level), then simply connected them with sorta straight track, adding passing sidings where necessary and industrial tracks where they'd fit. The benchwork for the second level is in place, and track layed in the upper staging, but that's as far as I've made it. When time allows, track will be put down as before - curves first, then fill-in-the-blanks. There'll also be a fifth staging yard added, connecting into the upper level, but located in another room.In the diagram below, the area in grey is double decked, and there are lift-outs for both lower and upper levels:
In a way, I'm glad that I was forced to abandon the original sketch, as what I have is more interesting and fun to run, too.
Wayne
My biggest pitfall (or maybe prattfall) involves deteriorating health. When I started I could run around the one layout table without pain or strain. That is no longer the case. Now moving my fingers is a chore and just standing up is, to put it mildly, uncomfortable. My present rate of progress reflects that.
My mind still has all the visions of the desired finished product - and it is achievable. Budget is no problem. I'm still building, but not very fast.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
I discovered that point to point layouts and hidden staging yards suck.
The above problems are a consequence of not having enough space, which sucks. I have only a 10x18 room, so guess what? I have a hidden staging yard, which is a necessary "evil", if you will, of not having enough space to have open staging. To have that, you need a generous space/basment! And while point to point is more interesting operationally, it it is nice to be able to run trains mindlessly at times, which requires a complete loop.
jrbernier Well, one of the 'pitfalls' is having benchwork built and NO trackplan - How are you supposed to build the benchwork if you have no idea where the track is going?
Thats a scenerio I have never considered! The only way I know of to design a layout is to design a track plan to fit a space (John Armstrong style) and then design the benchwork to fit the track plan, in that order. Benchwork first? That boggles my mind!
In my case, not having enough staging was an issue. I planned for 4 staging tracks, but one of them was the 'clear alley' when running trains...the new layout will have 11 staging tracks 18" below the 'on stage' layout. You never can have enough staging tracks(even if you do not 'operate').... Jim
Thats for sure. Even with my smallish layout in the 10x18' room, my staging was designed to fill all the space available on one side on the bottom level - 11 tracks ranging from about 14 to 22 feet total capacity. I have collected quite a few trains so I wanted to have many/most of them on the rails rather than boxes!
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I remember working feverishly building benchwork, then laying track, then I realized that I should have wired the track BEFORE adding scenery.
I made my layout using the cookie cutter method. My BIGGEST mistake was not using cleats underneath so I could screw the subroadbed from underneath, not from the top. It's a real pain to make changes when you have to hunt for screws that have been scenicked over..
Marlon
See pictures of the Clinton-Golden Valley RR
Hi
Heres some I have run into.
Finding out there is a piece of wood that canot be removed in the exact same place you want to put an under board point machine
Having to move a building because it will not fit where the plan says it should OOPs
Finding out to late you cannot make a particular train move because you forgot to put in a half track feed before some more wood work was done over the track in the same area and realising the half feed is on the plan.
At a club I once belonged to finding out some one had put in a live frog point in the place where the one and only insulated frog point on the whole layout should be.
The plan is only any good untill the first move is made I don't know who said that but they where right.
regards John
Medina1128 I remember working feverishly building benchwork, then laying track, then I realized that I should have wired the track BEFORE adding scenery.
Predicting the future is a major part of planning and building a model RR.
#1 Build your benchwork in a semi-modular format because it makes dismantling and removing it much easier for that inevidiable point in time.
#2 wire the drops as you lay the track - at minimum put the drops in so you can connect them to the bus below.
#3 add benchwork elements that you won't have access to later - e.g., I was building benchwork sections with rises on the back side to support an upper level. I added those before I put them against the wall so they were in place - even though the rises on the front side could wait until later.
#4 Lay your track with removing it in mind (I use track nails and spikes to hold it down), because you may need to remove sections of it during the construction phase to revise it - for various reasons, change in grade, change in track geometry, or plan etc.
My BIGGEST mistake was not using cleats underneath so I could screw the subroadbed from underneath, not from the top. It's a real pain to make changes when you have to hunt for screws that have been scenicked over..
I always wondered why cleats were used. Depending on how wide they are, it would be hard to drill up from under neath anyway if the cleats were so close to the riser - but if they stuck out on either side, that would help.
Medina1128My BIGGEST mistake was not using cleats
Instead of cutting and installing cleats, I just bought one of these:
I figured that I'd spend more in time and lumber making cleats than the $19.95 that this jig cost.
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.
To all: We've been reading.
Yes......Staging - "too big to move" (been there) - scenery on plans doesn't actually fit in space - etc.
Just thought about one.....Lay the track and then find out that the curves are too close together - not enough clearance for two trains turning at the same time.
Thanks, so much.
traindaddy1 Just thought about one.....Lay the track and then find out that the curves are too close together - not enough clearance for two trains turning at the same time.
Or just go crazy and get a copy of John Armstrongs "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" and read the chapter on Minimums. John makes it easy and gives you recommended minimum track centers for popular curve radii - e.g. 2 1/4 inches for 24 inch curves, 2 1/8th inch for 30 inch curves and 2 inches on the straight away.
The above book is fun and interesting to read. Heck, I was laying out some easements on my current under construction layout and had to go back and re-read what the recommonded off sets were.
For those unfamiliear with easements, they are transition sections where the curve is spirals out from the end of the curve to the straight-away. Real railroads use them and it also is beneficial on model railroads to reduce the "co-efficient of lurch" so trains have a smooth transition from curve to straight. It also looks nice! The sharper the curve, the more they are beneficial.
However, recommendations are just that. Always test. I had 2 1/2" centers on 30" radius curves and it was not enough for full length passenger cars. Luckily this was discovered before the outer track was fastened down, AND the plan did not have the outer track coming so close to the edge that the spacing couldn't be adjusted.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Another thought (two days in a row!). I noted a weakness in the layout today that I never would have considered at the time but might have, given the obvious and the scale analogy. I recently acquired and converted to DCC w/sound two heavier diesels that I have not tended towards (I started with more of a transition era bent). Well, I acquired a Lifelike Proto 2000 SD50, liked the result, so similarly added an SD60. Thinking they make a nice consist pair, I got them speed matched yesterday and was running them around for fun today. Well, as they crossed a Central Valley 150' truss bridge (it connects to a girder bridge but that is isolated by an intermediate pier) I noticed these heavier guys were on a long span; i.e., was the weight a practical problem. With observation I could see some definite vertical sag, so I immediately started worrying (what problems can this cause?).
I suspect the issue is not enough to cause a problem, hopefully sustainable over time. But I'll think twice about heavier consists within the 150' length. I could always trim the weights. The general point is that it is not necessarily automatic to make the connection to practical problems, even when analogous to the prototype. Not saying that it should be engineered, including the scale to volume adjustments. But when building the CV bridge, since it included some steel lengthwise sections, my brain surely skipped the issue of "are these stout enough for whatever may traverse the bridge?". In hindsight, especially since there are heavier locos, I'd perhaps have substituted more stout supports. This would be very difficult to modify now, given how I built the rails into the surrounding trackage (the bridge support section is not readily removeable).
The interesting things here, for me, are the full scale versus modelling analogy (how much can something support), plus the issue of "assuming" that a purchased item is designed for any typical use to which it may be subjected on the layout.
For what it's worth.
peahrens...I suspect the issue is not enough to cause a problem, hopefully sustainable over time. But I'll think twice about heavier consists within the 150' length. I could always trim the weights. The general point is that it is not necessarily automatic to make the connection to practical problems, even when analogous to the prototype. Not saying that it should be engineered, including the scale to volume adjustments. But when building the CV bridge, since it included some steel lengthwise sections, my brain surely skipped the issue of "are these stout enough for whatever may traverse the bridge?". In hindsight, especially since there are heavier locos, I'd perhaps have substituted more stout supports. This would be very difficult to modify now, given how I built the rails into the surrounding trackage (the bridge support section is not readily removeable)....
Are you certain that you included the steel stiffeners when you built the bridge? I often ran three of these...
...over my CV bridge...
and if there was any vertical deflection, it wasn't apparent to the naked eye. The locomotives weigh 33oz. each, although only two of them would have been on that span at the same time.
carl425 Medina1128 My BIGGEST mistake was not using cleats Instead of cutting and installing cleats, I just bought one of these: I figured that I'd spend more in time and lumber making cleats than the $19.95 that this jig cost.
Medina1128 My BIGGEST mistake was not using cleats
Carl, is that one of those drill at an angle dooma-jobbies that keeps you from splitting the wood?
rrinker However, recommendations are just that. Always test. I had 2 1/2" centers on 30" radius curves and it was not enough for full length passenger cars. --Randy
However, recommendations are just that. Always test. I had 2 1/2" centers on 30" radius curves and it was not enough for full length passenger cars.
That is pretty wild to have 2 1/2 inch centers at 30 inch radius and still interference ... hmm.
Anyway, the salient point for this topic is, for new modelers you have to have a set of standards to work from. So be sure to get a good book like John Armstongs Track Planning for Realistic Operation and read it. At least you'll have some basic minimums to work from, and if you want warm fuzzies, add a little on to them. The by all means, test with long cars - I used Walthers 89' autoracks and 89' TOFC flat cars - which are a bit longer than many standard full-length passenger cars (85').
I tend to think of 28 or 30 inch curves as a minimum myself since reading many layout articles in the 1980's, but this time went with 32-inch minimum curves on my current layout because at that level, adding two inches makes a significant difference.
For turnouts, I consider #6 a minimum as I run long freight cars such as autoracks and TOFC/COFC flat cars. I'm using #8 turnouts for a cross over in the yard.
Also remember the evils of the S-curve. John Armstrong discusses those too and how to provide sufficient space between those two legs of the S curve to minimize issues.
Medina1128Carl, is that one of those drill at an angle dooma-jobbies that keeps you from splitting the wood?
It's called a pocket hole jig. I use it so I can attach risers to the subroadbed from the bottom. It's also good for the cross members in a grid framework since it overcomes the problems of screw threads in the endgrain of the lumber. It's handy when one of the main members of the grid is against the wall too.
Lighting. Spend the money and have good lighting wired and installed. Wifey did this for me one father's day, and it has made all the difference. All too often, I've been invited to view other's nicely done layouts, only to see many details hidden by shadows or dim room light.
Clearance! Said I'd never go bigger than a 2-6-6-6 or 4-6-6-4 wheel arrangement and based swing clearances on that basis as I had a turn with a bridge over it where these beasts would "narrowly" make it. Darn if I went out and got a Big Boy Now the bridge and upper track and adjacent track will have to be realligned and re-graded... It never ends
Stick with the NMRA track guage! and don't compromise cuz it will bite you!
http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=5959
If one could roll back the hands of time... They would be waiting for the next train into the future. A. H. Francey 1921-2007
Thinking everything has to be "once and done." Build it, test it, improve it. All the time. What was "good enough" five years ago might be "meh" now.
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
"S" curves... d'oh!!
+1 for lighting. And anything to improve the environment for that matter. Spending hours doing anything in a cold dark basement can lead to burnout. I painted all the walls white, installed a drop ceiling (to keep dust from falling on the layout) and bought anti fatigue mats to stand on (Best Step brand from Home Depot are about $18 for a 2'x8' strip that's modular (4 2'x2' pieces) so it can be moved/removed for cleaning is what I've found to work well and not cost too much). Heat is another thing, but slippers (with padded insoles) and a comfortable hoodie allow me hours of comfort while in the basement.
It kinda sucks having to spend a lot of time/money improving the basement, which doesn't show as progress on the railroad, but it improves the house, which increases the resale value and makes spending time down there pleasant, which translates to better enjoyment of the hobby and better modeling.
As for modeling...I always do research (either online or in books on my favorite railroad; books,remember those old things? lol) before doing any modeling and I try to make my models resemble the prototype as much as my skills allow (and my skills improve). Wiring? Thought shall put a feeder in the middle of EVERY piece of track! Rail joiners should never be used to conduct electricity (even though they usually do), they are there only to line the rails up, not provide a reliable path for electricity. Turnouts (MicroEngineering) get 7 feeders each (the frog gets a wire soldered to it even if it isn't powered...it's easier to power it later if need be and it's easy to add one more feeder when adding all the others.
Plan ahead! I sketch trackplans on paper many months before I start laying track (or even building benchwork). This allows me time to test switching of industries and and train movements. Also, it helps to put a plan down for a few days and come back to it to see if you still like it. Try to visualize the building placement to be sure it isn't crammed in too tight and everything in the scene looks right to you.
It's your railroad, you make the rules, you end up having fun the way you want to. Personally, I don't prefer snap track layouts, but I'd be happy to operate on one as long as we have fun!
http://delray1967.shutterfly.com/pictures/5
SEMI Free-Mo@groups.io
Medina1128 "S" curves... d'oh!!