Hello all,
I'm new here, and new to model trains in general. Played with them when I was a kid, but looking at getting more seriously into the hobby. Anyway, I've been working on a layout plan and wanted to get some feedback. I plan to build it in 3-4 phases as I can get time / money for it. I plan to use the Kato N scale Unitrack.
Phase 1 - Mainline loop. Just a basic set of loops to watch the trains go around initially.
Phase 2 - Inner and Outer branch lines
Phase 3 - Staging Yard
Phase 4 - Elevated Mainline
3D views
I haven't done any of the scenery yet as you can see, but just thinking about the plan layout itself. Will it work, will it be entertaining to operate, etc. I mainly like passenger trains, but will probably do at least one freight train on the outer loop possibly. I have a number of longer passenger trains already with 6-10 cars in the consist.
Here is the SCARM layout if anybody is interested.
Layout.scarm
Thanks,
-Raven42
Welcome to the forum. If your interests run to watching lots of trains orbiting, it should work out fine.
Raven42will it be entertaining to operate
In the same space and amount of track others might opt for an active switching yard and industrial switching, but that’s entirely up to you, of course.
It seems that trains from your staging yard can only go in one direction around the ovals without backing – but maybe I’m just not seeing it. In the space you have, it should be possible to set it up so that trains could move in either direction from the staging yard without backing.
Where the end curves feed directly into a double-crossover, you have potentially troublesome s-curves when set to crossover.
Good luck with your layout.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Hi Raven42:
Welcome to the forums and back to the hobby!!
I would agree with Byron (cuyama), who is far more experienced than I am, when he mentions that most of the action will involve watching trains circle the layout. Like he says, that's fine especially for passenger trains, but if you were to add in some spurs and a few industries it would give you something to do with your freight cars other than just run them in circles. That is assuming that you are going to model a mixed freight train. If you are running unit trains watching them go through the layout is fine but it might get a little repetitive over time.
I also agree with Byron's suggestion to add in a reversing track that would allow you to run trains in both directions without having to back up. That might be easier said than done given the current track plan. Maybe you could fit a line just above the yard and have it run west from the bottom of the center loop to connect with the inner branchline on the left headed north. Could be tight.
I'm going to do a little guessing here, but one other thing I noticed is that it appears that you intend to use the inner and outer branch lines on the bottom of the layout as sidings, perhaps for passenger stations. I'm guessing that simply based on the way you have offset the branchline tracks. The potential problem occurs when you want to move trains from the branchlines to the mainlines. You have to travel through the 'sidings' to get from one to the other. If you have a train parked on one of the sidings you are blocking the crossover from the branchline to the mainline. You can solve the problem by simply switching the turnouts on either end of the sidings from left to right or vise versa. That would, however, require the train to make an extra trip around the branchline to get into the siding from the main. Maybe I'm way out to lunch on my assumptions.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Is this an 8' X 4' island layout?
Bear "It's all about having fun."
Thanks all for the thoughts. I'll play with some of that and see what I can make of it.
cuyama you have potentially troublesome s-curves when set to crossover
you have potentially troublesome s-curves when set to crossover
how troublesome can s-curves be? Is this something that should be avoided?
bearman Is this an 8' X 4' island layout?
I think you have too many loops doing the same thing. The scenery is going to be very challenging also. I would suggest a layout with a double mainline that wanders and curves around and back to a main yard. I would also try to incorporate a hidden staging yard somewhere for train storage. Both yards should be thru yards to avoid having to back into the spaces. You may end up needing less track but a more pleasing layout to look at and operate.
Steve
http://www.digitrax.com/static/apps/tsd/images/cpslsfrr1.jpg
something like this cajon pass layout designed by john armstrong could be converted down to n scale and fit your space well.
What about this? I reversed the crossings at the main junction, added a double sided yard, and took out one line on the inner branch line to add an industry location for pickups (though it may be a bit short).
ChoopsI think you have too many loops doing the same thing. The scenery is going to be very challenging also.
Hmm... ok I'll keep that in mind. For the scenery, I was planning on doing a city layout, possibly adding some trams going around the city in the future, but some good ideas I'll have to think about. I'm looking at a more modular layout, something that may not be permanent. It may not look as authentic when it is complete, but just looking for something that can be setup and/or moved if need be but still interesting to operate. At some point I'd like to model a shipping port with an operational crane, but that is a ways down the road.
The Cajob Pass layout looks pretty interesting. Might have to see if I can adapt it.
Raven42 What about this? I reversed the crossings at the main junction, added a double sided yard, and took out one line on the inner branch line to add an industry location for pickups (though it may be a bit short).
This version adds a new S-curve at the lower right corner and potentially troublesome ones at the lower left-hand corner. They might work OK, but not the best design for reliability.
Your staging yard still can send trains out onto the ovals in only one direction without backing, unless I am missing something.
Personally, I might take a break from CAD and think about what you’d like the trains to be able to do, then work from that to create a design. But if your interests run to mostly trains orbiting the ovals (which is fine), then this may be close to what you want to build.
Choopssomething like this cajon pass layout designed by john armstrong could be converted down to n scale and fit your space well.
While that's a classic, the grades are already pretty steep and will be steeper with Unitrack because of the extra clearance needed for track with roadbed built-in. More importantly, the fixed radii and size of Unitrack sections will not match up well with the varied radii and handlaid turnouts of the Armstrong design if simply scaled down.
cuyamaYour staging yard still can send trains out onto the ovals in only one direction without backing, unless I am missing something.
I think you may be missing something. The 4th track from the right (along vertical axis of drawing) allows trains to exit in clockwise direction. The 4th track from left (also along the vertical axis of drawing) allows trains to exit CCW.
There is no way to reverse the direction of a train. Once it is on the layout it will always run CW or CCW. There is nothing wrong with that if its what you want. Just something to consider.
BMMECNYCI think you may be missing something. The 4th track from the right (along vertical axis of drawing) allows trains to exit in clockwise direction.
You're right. I lost track of the ovals.
cuyama BMMECNYC I think you may be missing something. The 4th track from the right (along vertical axis of drawing) allows trains to exit in clockwise direction. You're right. I lost track of the ovals.
BMMECNYC I think you may be missing something. The 4th track from the right (along vertical axis of drawing) allows trains to exit in clockwise direction.
I had to trace it a couple of times myself to make sure. How would you correct the S curves just out of curiosity?
It appear the OP is trying to maintain the wide spacing along the lower part of the layout.
Before doing any additional layout design 'planning', I would suggest you purchase and study John Armstrong's 'Track Planning for Realistic Operation'. It's a treasure trove of hows/whys of layout design.
https://www.amazon.com/Track-Planning-Realistic-Operation-Railroader/dp/0890242275/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486727753&sr=1-1&keywords=john+armstrong
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 -
Onewolf I would suggest you purchase and study John Armstrong's 'Track Planning for Realistic Operation'
I would suggest you purchase and study John Armstrong's 'Track Planning for Realistic Operation'
Heh heh... I am in the middle of that book now, along with a number of others in the series. Maybe I'll have to wait until I finish it before finalizing on a plan. I understand what some of you are saying about the limitations of unitrack vs hand laid track, but just getting back into the hobby, I don't want to take on more than I can handle for a first layout.
I played around a little bit more adding a couple more industrial spurs, and a turn-table for the locomotives. But sounds like I'll have to work on the yard a bit more and have a better way to get trains in and out in either direction a little easier.
One specific question though, is the switching at the bottom done correctly now for getting trains on and off the mainline and the inner / outer lines?
Most experienced model railroaders find that having more than two trains moving at the same time can be more destracting than fun. It looks like you are trying to fill the layout with many moving trains. A layout only needs no more than a double tracked mainline to have two trains moving at the same time.
If your goal is to have one or two trains move through different scenes, having several loops of tracks bundled inches together wont' accomplish that...from a visual standpoint. You will need to reduce the number of loops, and allow room for scenery in order to convey the sense of the trains moving a long distance.
To keep up their interest for more than a few minutes, many modelers want the trains to accomplish something, like moving cars over a distance, or switching them into industries. Just like real railroads, each track should accomplish something different than another track.
One thought on how to marry that thought with your plan:
Using your plan, I would reduce the amount of loops. Pare it down to a double-tracked loop around the table. That allows two trains to move simultaneously. The inner yard and loop can be thought of as an industrial park, where an outer loop train drops a cut of cars in the yard, and then a switching loco picks up the cars from the yard and delivers the cars around the inner loop to various industries. You'll need to possibly add a couple of spurs coming off of the loop, but that should be esay enough.
This is just a suggestion for how to adapt your current plan to fit into the concept of every track having a purpose. Mainlines, yards, branch line, spurs.
If you don't want the branch line and spurs part, and simly want to watch trains orbit (which is fine, its called more of a "railfanning" type of layout) then you really don't need 4 or 5 loops doing the same thing. A simple double tracked mainline leaving plenty of room for scenery will convey the idea that the trains are going somewhere and will be more enjoyable in the long run than what you have now.
- Douglas
How do you plan to reach the center part of the layout to correct derailments, clean track, vacuum dust, etc? 3ft is a long reach for just about everyone (assuming you can access 4 sides of the layout. Your layout design will become a maintenance nightmare if you can only access 3 or less sides.
BMMECNYC How do you plan to reach the center part of the layout to correct derailments, clean track, vacuum dust, etc? 3ft is a long reach for just about everyone (assuming you can access 4 sides of the layout. Your layout design will become a maintenance nightmare if you can only access 3 or less sides.
BMMECNYC How would you correct the S curves just out of curiosity?
The addition of a longest-car-length straight section (and/or adjusting the position of the crossovers and double-crossovers) would solve most of them, and there is room overall.
BMMECNYCIt appear the OP is trying to maintain the wide spacing along the lower part of the layout.
Some of that might need to be modified a bit.
Raven42I am in the middle of that book now, along with a number of others in the series. Maybe I'll have to wait until I finish it before finalizing on a plan.
That would seem logical. The N scale 4X8 out-and-back layout below is similar to some ideas in Armstrong’s book. (This yard is single-ended, but it wouldn’t require much modification of the layout to make it double-ended). Even with two independent ovals for trains to orbit, there is room for scenery, industries, etc.
This layout is found toward the bottom of this web page that explains the concept. It's designed using flextrack and off-the-shelf turnouts and could be reworked for Unitrack.
Raven42I understand what some of you are saying about the limitations of unitrack vs hand laid track
I don't see anyone arguing that you should go to handlaid track. I was only pointing out that the layout that was recommended to you by someone else couldn't be built as drawn in the same relative space with Unitrack.
Raven42One specific question though, is the switching at the bottom done correctly now for getting trains on and off the mainline and the inner / outer lines?
You still have S-curves, just in case that is what you are trying to address. Here's an example.
A break from CAD while working on determining what you'd like to do with and see on your layout might be worthwhile.
And as others have mentioned, if you can't walk all the way around your layout, 4-feet-wide will likely prove to be too deep.
No need for two double crossovers or even one.
Welcome! I share some of your issues as I am trying to come up with a 5.5'x10' plan. I have decided to open up the center with an operating pit because of the reach. If you want to see my thoughts, I have a thread here:
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/260890/2937956.aspx#2937956
You might want to consider flex track and off the shelf turnouts - laying flex track on cork road bed is not as hard as handlaying track, but gives much more flexibility than sectional track. Maybe buy a couple of pieces and some cork and try it - I think you would find it is really simple! A good pair of rail cutters are the key in my opinion.
No matter what, enjoy the process of designing and building something! Worst case, it is a stepping stone as your ability and interest progresses.
Pennsy nut You might want to consider flex track and off the shelf turnouts - laying flex track on cork road bed is not as hard as handlaying track, but gives much more flexibility than sectional track.
You might want to consider flex track and off the shelf turnouts - laying flex track on cork road bed is not as hard as handlaying track, but gives much more flexibility than sectional track.
Very true. But . . . one of the great things about sectional track is that you can design and assemble complex layouts and play with them for an hour or two (or maybe for years) and then tear them down in five minutes and start over. Or make little piddling changes as you go along. And as far as sectional track goes, Kato Unitrak is amongst the very best.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
Pennsy nutYou might want to consider flex track and off the shelf turnouts - laying flex track on cork road bed is not as hard as handlaying track, but gives much more flexibility than sectional track. Maybe buy a couple of pieces and some cork and try it - I think you would find it is really simple! A good pair of rail cutters are the key in my opinion.
Raven42 never said the plan was to handlay. Kato Unitrack was the specified track in the first post. Byron said that a plan that Choops had mentioned would not directly scale down to N scale because John Armstrong's plan called for handlaid track and sectional track that is not available from Kato. There was never a suggestion that Raven42 try handlaid track on his first layout.
Raven,
What size/shape space is your layout space? Could you post a drawing of just the room with the layout space indicated and measurements, as well as obstructions: windows, doors (dont forget closets if you want to access), electrical panels, washer, dryer, toilet (Ive seen at least one layout with a train running through the bathroom), etc
Also have you decided on a layout height? Depending on your age, physical ability/agility etc, you may want to consider an around the walls type layout vice an island. You can get more train running with an around the walls (needs only be 1-2 feet wide) and as a bonus the space in the middle is useable for other things. A duck under or lift out may be workable depending on the climate in your layout space.
BMMECNYC What size/shape space is your layout space? ... Also have you decided on a layout height?
What size/shape space is your layout space? ... Also have you decided on a layout height?
Space isn't really the issue... I have a wide open basement 50' x 30' right now. Three windows along the 50' wall spread evenly... but the wife would never let me take up the entire basement.
The plan for now is a semi-temporary 4'x8' up to 8'x16' layout in the middle of one side of the basement at least 3' from the walls so we would have access on all 4 sides. I suppose we could look at doing a u-shaped setup against a wall though... I'm not looking at getting too ambitious for my first layout though. The space I can use is a 17' x 28' rectangle in the basement with nothing in it 8' cieling throughout. However again it does need to be semi-permanent... I.E. I need to be able to take it down easily enough at some point.
So even though I could go bigger, I don't want to bite off more than I can chew. I do want it at a reasonable height for kids to see though too. I have a number of nephews that are fairly young that I'm sure would like to run some trains... hence another reason there are a fair number of loops to just run trains on. However I do want something that I can have fun with too, so some industries and switching yards are good.
Robert Petrick one of the great things about sectional track is that you can design and assemble complex layouts and play with them for an hour or two (or maybe for years) and then tear them down in five minutes and start over
one of the great things about sectional track is that you can design and assemble complex layouts and play with them for an hour or two (or maybe for years) and then tear them down in five minutes and start over
This is one of the key reasons I'm looking at the Kato Unitrack. As I mentioned, this will be semi-permanent. In a few years we will likely have to take it down when we finish the basement, or at least move it.
I have looked more at the Out and Back plan and I'm starting to lean toward adapting that one to a 4' x 8'. It should give enough interest for my needs and give me a feel for getting back into the hobby.
Pennsy nut If you want to see my thoughts, I have a thread here: http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/260890/2937956.aspx#2937956
If you want to see my thoughts, I have a thread here:
Thanks for the thoughts Pennsy. Your setup looks neat. I'll have to keep an eye on that.
BMMECNYC Raven42 never said the plan was to handlay. Kato Unitrack was the specified track in the first post. Byron said that a plan that Choops had mentioned would not directly scale down to N scale because John Armstrong's plan called for handlaid track and sectional track that is not available from Kato. There was never a suggestion that Raven42 try handlaid track on his first layout.
I was referring to his own statement about unitrack vs. handlaid - I was trying to clarify to him that flextrack is different than handlaid and flextrack is not that hard to work with.
You might check out this track plan from the Dec 2016 MR:
http://mrr.trains.com/how-to/track-plan-database/2016/10/n-scale-annaville--adirondack
I dont know how convertable it is to Kato Unitrack. The benchwork would have to be made a bit wider to accomodate additional tracks, but you could lop off the right hand side lobe and double track the whole thing with wider benchwork.
You might also consider something like the Virginian Project Layout from 2012, or the Rice Harbor layout (concept vice exact track plan).
If you want easily disassembled you could try T-track modules:
http://ttrak.org/index.html
List of basic modules
http://ttrak.org/modules.html
You could build 4 corners and a couple set of straight modules. Bonus if you have a T-Trak club in your area.