New newbie layout - Feedback request

[JeffH]

Hi guys. I've been continuing my layout design effort. The odd shape is due to me using the maximum space I can squeeze out of the area I'm in.

I could really use feedback from those with more experience than I (basically everyone).

I've been working to create a layout that is fun and functional.

Considering function and operations, any gotchas, areas for improvement, or things I've flat out done wrong?

Thanks in advance.

 

[BigDaddy]

Welcome to the forum.  A newbie who doesn't resurrect a 15 year old thread and posts a picture on his first post.  Must be a college boy. 

I'll assume this is HO?   I will also assume you know the lower right loop is a reversing loop.

  The thing that jumps out as me is that it is generally agreed that most of us can't reach more than 2 feet.  That puts the upper mainline and the left and right corners out of reach unless the top side of the layout is accessible.   If you plan on crawling under the layout to get there, I hope you are younger than I. 

Edit From the top down, how much spacing is between yard lead, run around and the industry spur?

Your posts are moderated for the first couple handfuls so we won't hear from you until tomorrow.

[cuyama]

Welcome to the fourm and the hobby.

It will help others help you to know where the walls are (if any). As Henry said, reach may be a concern.

You have quite a bit of yard for only a few industries. But that may be fine, depending on how you plan to use it.

This layout seems designed to have multiple trains in motion running laps on separate loops simultaneously. That's fine if that's what you like best, but other concepts would also fit the space if your interests are different. Your current plan doesn't leave much room for industries or other scenery.

One immediate concern would be that your outside blue loop with the passenger stations has the tightest radii (KATO 20-100 9¾" radius). Full-length passenger cars run much more reliably on broader radii.

Edit: What you have labeled in Yellow as an A/D track won't really function well as drawn relative to the yard tracks. The lower of the two white sidings that you have labeled as "Caboose Track" is closer to a traditional A/D track location.

Good luck with your layout.

[cuyama]

BigDaddy

I'll assume this is HO?

Those are KATO Unitrack N scale part numbers.

BigDaddy

I will also assume you know the lower right loop is a reversing loop.

As is the diagonal connection across the center oval.

[MisterBeasley]

One thing I noticed is that you're fine if you want to reverse a train going counter-clockwise, but if you're going clockwise, you'll have to back the train through the reverse loop.  You could fix this by reversing everything inside your inside oval, so that that crossover loop will face the other direction.

I also think you've got a lot of track for a small space.  This gives little room for scenery.

[JeffH]

Haha 53 year old college boy.

This is a N-Scale layout using Kato Unitrack.  For the lower right single reversing loop, I have a Digitrax AR1 reverser. For the two reverse loops in the inner oval, I think someone makes a dual reverser that makes sure the reversing is handles properly. I was a little concerned about reaching that far right corner. Now I'm sure it's an issue. Maybe an access hatch? As far as spacing, one small square is an inch and the larger square a foot if that helps. Thanks for letting me know about moderation :)

[JeffH]

Thanks for the tip! Here's the image with the room lines drawn. Regarding the loops, my initial plan was to build a switching yard. Then I added a mainline. Then I became concerned about turning the trains around at either end, and lack of continuous running so I looped the ends. Then, I also looped the yard lines so they fit withing the other loops. So, one thing led to another with my layout lol

Regarding the 9 3/4" radius, That's really all I could fit in my space constraint. I don't believe I plan on running passenger cars, though it's a bummer that I can't on those tracks.

Can you elaborate on why the A/D track won't function well as drawn? I appreciate the suggestion that the Caboose track is more like a traditional A/D track location. 

Thank you!

 

[JeffH]

I had thought about that and hadn't updated the drawing. Glad you noticed it. Drawing updated and attached above. Thank you!

This will be my first real layout since having trains as a kid and I have no experience yet with operations. Any suggestions are more than welcome.

[hon30critter]

Hey JeffH!

Welcome to the forums!!!    

I agree with the comments that have already been made. Most importantly, Ed's point about needing to have one of the reverse loops running the opposite way is one thing I noticed right off. Otherwise you will be trapped running clockwise once you run through either of the reverse loops. You could do as he suggested by flipping everything inside the inner oval or you could make the change in the lower right section as well.

Another thing you could consider is eliminating the yellow track all together. You could then expand the radii of the purple yard lead to give you more space in the center of the layout. As Byron suggested, you can use the lower white track for A/D track. Also, if you increase the radii of the yard lead you might be able to use the space to extend the A/D track part way around the inside of the oval. That would allow you to accommodate longer trains on the A/D track without compromising the A/D track radii. 

Bottom line is that it is your railroad so by all means have as many tracks as you want!

Dave

[Anonymous]

Don´t be mad at me if I am rather outspoken in my criticism.

Your layout is a typical beginner´s layout, which manufacturers of track like to promote, because nearly every square inch is filled with track.

Most of the operations related points have been addressed in the preceeding posts, so I won´t repeat them. My point is will this layout look like what you envision, as there is hardly any space left for structures, roads or any type of scenery. If that´s OK with you, then go for it. If you like to watch trains run through some nice scenery, you should revise your plan.

A few years ago, MR ran a feature on a project layout called "The Salt Lake Route" using Kato Unitrack. It was a beautiful scenic layout, which is certainly worth taking a look at. IIRC, the articles on building this layout appeared the in January 2010 up to May 2010 issues.

 

[JeffH]

In the time that it's taking for my posts to be approved by the moderator, I've revisited my entire layout.  So, my saga of trying to determine the layout I'll use for my first build continues. All my prior layout attempts have been loop based. I came across this MR article about a layout on a 3x8 base, with an extension making an L. It expanded to a U or Z shape, but I thought it would be interesting to take the L portion and base a layout upon it. Here's the article and my layout. Feedback is more than welcome. Thanks in advance. Jeff

[JeffH]

Responses released by the moderator :)

[BigDaddy]

Byron is one of the Regulars here.  There is a recent thread (as in the last 2 weeks) on the Howard Terminal that you should look at.

Take as much time as you need getting opinions and change your mind as often as you like.  It's a whole lot easier to do major revisions on paper than it is to do it on the layout.

4 more posts and you will be golden

[cuyama]

JeffH

Can you elaborate on why the A/D track won't function well as drawn?

Arrival/Departure tracks should be accessible from the same lead that is used to switch the yard. The independent oval you had identified as the A/D track in your first design wouldn't work that way. It's a little better in the later version you posted, but still not ideal. (And as others mentioned, the reach-in distance is likely unworkable.)

An introduction to efficient yard design is here. The track diagram on that page is a ltitle misleading, but does show how the same switching lead should be able to easily access the yard tracks and the A/D track.

JeffH

It expanded to a U or Z shape, but I thought it would be interesting to take the L portion and base a layout upon it. Here's the article and my layout. Feedback is more than welcome. Thanks in advance. Jeff

I am glad that you found my article useful. But even a well-designed layout (in my humble opinion, of course) may be unworkable as revised and arranged in a room.

The hollow-core-door 36"-wide plans in my article are meant to have aisles on three sides with a short side (possibly) against a wall. Not with a long side against a wall as you have drawn. The against-the-wall plans in my article are narrower for access.

Your revision places much of the layout out of easy reach, unfortunately. Most folks find that they can only reach a maximum of 30" across a scenicked layout. And the internal revisions you've made create some significant operating challenges compared to my original plans (based on the operating roles assigned in your legend). Here’s the earlier thread on a version of that layout being built a bit closer to the original plan.
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/260233.aspx

As just one example, "sorting" and "staging" are usually two pretty distinct functions, so they probably wouldn't work well combined as you have on your layout. In another example, the A/D function in your revision isn’t really workable as such.

In addition, my layout design was based on a specific prototype and a particular kind of railroading – terminal switching operation. For a first layout, you might want to choose something different that would allow some mainline running of trains (which seemed to be the idea behind your first plan).

There are a number of subtleties to model railroad layout design, and unfortunately without being aware of them, it’s easy to spend a lot of time in CAD on a plan that ultimately won't work as you hope.

Although almost no one ever takes the suggestion, you might want to step away from the CAD for a while and spend some time learning about basic layout design principles if you want to design your own layout – or heavily modify a published layout (mine or anyone else’s). John Armstrong’s Track Planning for Realistic Operation is the classic foundational resource.

Good luck with your layout.

Byron

[JeffH]

I very much appreciate the input and feedback. I ordered John Armstrong's book a while back and am waiting for it to be delivered. I definitely plan on reading it cover to cover. 

Best wishes and thank you.

 

Jeff

[Drumguy]

Definitely read the Armstrong book before you start any benchwork much less lay any track. Then read it again :). It's an eye opener for sure--wether your interests lie in operations or elsewhere, it's invaluable.

[Bundy74]

In addition to Byron's comment about stepping away from the CAD, I recommend getting a few pieces of track and experimenting in real life.  This can help to convey the scale of what you're attempting, and how easy/difficult access can be.  Get an appropriate sized piece of cardboard roughly the size of your layout plan, or even a folding table and just play with track arrangements.  Take some small boxes and use them as buildings.  

Mocking things up this way can be very useful, and shows issues that a 2D track plan may not.  While discussions can be very helpful, at some point actually building something and learning is the best way to go.