hjQi wjstix may be too sharp for many brands of full-size passenger cars Indeed, 22.5" might be too tight for passenger cars. Although most manufacturers suggest a minimum radius of 24" in HO, most people use 30" or more for more realistic operations. In your case, if you just want to run passenger cas, you may change the couplers by using long shank couplers to alleviate this problem. I didn't do this. So just a guess. You can buy a few Atlas 22" curved track to try before you finalize your tack design.... Jerry
wjstix may be too sharp for many brands of full-size passenger cars
Indeed, 22.5" might be too tight for passenger cars. Although most manufacturers suggest a minimum radius of 24" in HO, most people use 30" or more for more realistic operations. In your case, if you just want to run passenger cas, you may change the couplers by using long shank couplers to alleviate this problem. I didn't do this. So just a guess. You can buy a few Atlas 22" curved track to try before you finalize your tack design....
Jerry
Thanks Jerry. I'm up to 30" now so I should be fine.
Ray
wjstixmay be too sharp for many brands of full-size passenger cars
OK Here is the same plan but with 30" minimum curves. I never thought I'd be able to fit it all.
I've had to lose the passing siding on the highline which would have been fun. And I've have to move the main double line to the rear but its probably worth it to be confident that I'll be able to run a lot more rolling stock and locos.
Here is my revised track plan. I've removed many turnouts and sidings to reduce the maintenance burden and reduce the crowded feel. As time goes on I can add more industries if wanted. Minimum radius is now 24".
Some compromises I'll have to live with are:
1. The reverse loop in staging jutting out into the room. The alternative of two ramps to staging is a little daunting for me. Another alternative is a much simpler plan with open staging on the main level but I don't want to lose that much scenic space.
2. The turnouts in staging being at the back against the wall. This isn't so bad as they are still only a 40cm/15" reach away and there is about 10 inches clearance over staging.
3. I'll restrict myself to shorter passenger cars and sometimes use longer couplers, bogie mounted couplers etc where necessary.
What I like about it is:
I'll be able to railfan all my collection and run functional freight and passenger ops in diesel and steam.
Trains will spend a most of their time on the visible layout.
Trains passing above and below each other on bridges etc.
Gradients in the visible mainline area are kept to a minimum. My trains won't always be short.
What I'm doing now is starting again with 30" curves but that will mean increasing the size of my turnouts as well and its hard to fit in all that I want to.
Am I right in presuming that if I'm aiming for 30"minimum curves then there is no point using turnouts smaller than an atlas #6 turnout on mainlines and maybe #5 in yards?
or in PECO terms :
SL - 95 and 96 Medium 914mm radius and PECO SL86 curved turnout Radius: Outer: 1524mm Inner: 762mm
Absolutely Sheldon
Well, again, my proposed concept would/could have all track visible until each end heads down to the staging level, and would take the trains thru every scene twice.
I suggested running the mainline hidden behind the freight yard because that would allow the industries to be in front of other trackage and not have to cross the main. But that is not a requirement. And even if the main is behind the yard, it could likely remain visible.
And, if you noticed on my track plan, there is a cutoff that bypasses the staging completely, keeping trains in view all the time. This could be done here as well.
Sheldon
Thanks for sharing Colorado Ray. It looks like a great layout but having trains out of sight for 2/3 of the time is annoying so I can see why you've moved away from it . Also the supporting the 2 ramps while do able is an added complexity.
I opted for only one ramp to avoid a little complexity. But then the reverse loop in staging is needed to turn trains for returning up that one ramp. It's all about trade offs.
In my plan trains will also have to do about 2 laps of the room to reach the sceniced level however once there they will spend a far higher proportion of their time in view. Once around the double mainline level and once around the last gradient,( which will be partially visible and sceniced) and then once around the Highline. And this is not including any loops for simulated travel. Some people would probably hate seeing their train traveling through scenery twice though. It's all about preferences and trade offs I guess.
In the 3d drawing, your ramps appear to be over your staging yard but I cant tell if its close to the wall or over the yard a bit off the wall. If its against the wall, simple metal L brackets of your choice will do the trick. If not, you could cut some brackets out of plywood, attach from the isle side and run them under your ramps for support. This will visually impair the view of the yard where you place the brackets but, not so much to be a huge hinderance.
Sheldon, what is the minimum railhead to railhead height that you will have over your hidden staging yard turnouts?
Colorado Ray MurBall Colorado Ray I contemplated a similar arrangement (laps around the room to avoid a helix) to get down to a staging yard with sufficient vertical clearnace between the staging and layout above (i.e. greater than five to six inches). When I was planning the benchwork in 3rd Planit, I discovered that supporting the ramps without interferring with the main benchwork was going to be tedious. I also simulated some train running and discovered my trains would be out of site for nearly 2/3s of their run. I scrapped the whole idea. My current plan will have accessable open top staging with only two staging turnouts on one end of the five-track through staging yard under scenery (six inches) but accessable from the layout edge. This is roughly a twice around plan with only one loop visible. Trains will still be out of site for nearly 1/2 the time, but visible for one complete trip around the room. Ray Hi Colorado Ray, your 2nd plan sounds interesting, could you post a track plan of it? Also in your 1st plan what was so tedious about supporting the gradient ramps? Was it because you had 2 gradients, one up and one down? In my proposed plan I am trying to avoid that and have only 1 gradient Since what goes up, must come down. My orignal plan had ramps from staging up and from the main level down to staging. This required that there were up and down ramps on each side of the room (two laps remember). Where the ramps "crossed" each other (actually side by side but looking from the edge they "crossed". Here's the track plan for the main level and staging. This plan is to fit in a standard 20ft container and has 30 inch minimum radius curves. The ramps aren't shown in the plan views, but you can see them in the 3D picture. I hadn't even figured out how to support the ramps yet - hence no risers. I'm not quite ready to upload the new plan since I'll start a seperate thread about that as construction gets closer. It's much less complex and has eased 32 inch minimum radius curves. Ray
MurBall Colorado Ray I contemplated a similar arrangement (laps around the room to avoid a helix) to get down to a staging yard with sufficient vertical clearnace between the staging and layout above (i.e. greater than five to six inches). When I was planning the benchwork in 3rd Planit, I discovered that supporting the ramps without interferring with the main benchwork was going to be tedious. I also simulated some train running and discovered my trains would be out of site for nearly 2/3s of their run. I scrapped the whole idea. My current plan will have accessable open top staging with only two staging turnouts on one end of the five-track through staging yard under scenery (six inches) but accessable from the layout edge. This is roughly a twice around plan with only one loop visible. Trains will still be out of site for nearly 1/2 the time, but visible for one complete trip around the room. Ray Hi Colorado Ray, your 2nd plan sounds interesting, could you post a track plan of it? Also in your 1st plan what was so tedious about supporting the gradient ramps? Was it because you had 2 gradients, one up and one down? In my proposed plan I am trying to avoid that and have only 1 gradient
Colorado Ray I contemplated a similar arrangement (laps around the room to avoid a helix) to get down to a staging yard with sufficient vertical clearnace between the staging and layout above (i.e. greater than five to six inches). When I was planning the benchwork in 3rd Planit, I discovered that supporting the ramps without interferring with the main benchwork was going to be tedious. I also simulated some train running and discovered my trains would be out of site for nearly 2/3s of their run. I scrapped the whole idea. My current plan will have accessable open top staging with only two staging turnouts on one end of the five-track through staging yard under scenery (six inches) but accessable from the layout edge. This is roughly a twice around plan with only one loop visible. Trains will still be out of site for nearly 1/2 the time, but visible for one complete trip around the room. Ray
I contemplated a similar arrangement (laps around the room to avoid a helix) to get down to a staging yard with sufficient vertical clearnace between the staging and layout above (i.e. greater than five to six inches). When I was planning the benchwork in 3rd Planit, I discovered that supporting the ramps without interferring with the main benchwork was going to be tedious. I also simulated some train running and discovered my trains would be out of site for nearly 2/3s of their run. I scrapped the whole idea.
My current plan will have accessable open top staging with only two staging turnouts on one end of the five-track through staging yard under scenery (six inches) but accessable from the layout edge. This is roughly a twice around plan with only one loop visible. Trains will still be out of site for nearly 1/2 the time, but visible for one complete trip around the room.
Hi Colorado Ray, your 2nd plan sounds interesting, could you post a track plan of it?
Also in your 1st plan what was so tedious about supporting the gradient ramps? Was it because you had 2 gradients, one up and one down? In my proposed plan I am trying to avoid that and have only 1 gradient
Since what goes up, must come down. My orignal plan had ramps from staging up and from the main level down to staging. This required that there were up and down ramps on each side of the room (two laps remember). Where the ramps "crossed" each other (actually side by side but looking from the edge they "crossed".
Here's the track plan for the main level and staging. This plan is to fit in a standard 20ft container and has 30 inch minimum radius curves. The ramps aren't shown in the plan views, but you can see them in the 3D picture. I hadn't even figured out how to support the ramps yet - hence no risers.
I'm not quite ready to upload the new plan since I'll start a seperate thread about that as construction gets closer. It's much less complex and has eased 32 inch minimum radius curves.
Very similar to what I suggested.
MurBall "There is really no need to turn each car in a freight train since the cars don't care what direction they are facing" Thanks Douglas, phew you saved me a lot of effort there, "Loop to point to Loop" requires you to turn the train by hand when it reaches the point, run around the train to run the loco backwards, or to break down the train and turn each loco and car using the TT? " Your list of 3 options is not exhaustive. Turning each car on a TT would obviously be a pain. My planned option when turning a passenger train in the terminus is to detach the loco from the train, drive it over to the TT and turn it if it is for example an F unit. I might turn another car such as an observation car on the TT as well. Then the loco can 'build' the train for the return journey, run around the baggage to the new front of train, place turned observation at new rear of train. Etc. Things can get as complicated or relaxed as the operator feels like. (in prototype observation cars were often run backwards behind the loco in these small terminus scenarios). Then the train sets off along the layout having been turned and looking well without a hand or reverse loop.
"There is really no need to turn each car in a freight train since the cars don't care what direction they are facing"
Thanks Douglas, phew you saved me a lot of effort there,
"Loop to point to Loop" requires you to turn the train by hand when it reaches the point, run around the train to run the loco backwards, or to break down the train and turn each loco and car using the TT? "
Your list of 3 options is not exhaustive. Turning each car on a TT would obviously be a pain. My planned option when turning a passenger train in the terminus is to detach the loco from the train, drive it over to the TT and turn it if it is for example an F unit. I might turn another car such as an observation car on the TT as well. Then the loco can 'build' the train for the return journey, run around the baggage to the new front of train, place turned observation at new rear of train. Etc. Things can get as complicated or relaxed as the operator feels like. (in prototype observation cars were often run backwards behind the loco in these small terminus scenarios). Then the train sets off along the layout having been turned and looking well without a hand or reverse loop.
Well, you described turning the cars in response to me suggesting that you could run the diesels backwards, so I assumed that you were "wanting" to turn each car of a freight train. I certainly did not come up with that idea on my own.
My point is that you do not need a TT to "operate" a freight train, but you generally would want one to "operate" a passenger train when there is only one reversing loop...just like you have described. You've described passenger train ops at a terminus pretty well.
So when your first sentence talks about designing a layout for freight train ops but passenger train "railfanning", I was wondering why you need to have the elements of passenger train ops in the design.
I think you really want passenger train ops too? Is this right?
- Douglas
No worries. Its tough to give advice here because it often conflicts with a person's Wants. Just trying to be dispassionate about the elements, which might help you to find out what Wants are causing more than their share of the issues.
Your original post said that ops are 1930's to 1970's diesels. But that you will be railfanning british steam. With railfanning, you really only need to have the trains run around the loops in a continous fashion. It seems like you are planning and designing for passenger ops more than what you let on in the beginning, like breaking down a passenger train at the point and turning each car with a TT. That's what I would call passenger ops, not really just railfanning.
MurBallI will be railfanning all of my collection diesels and steam. I also want to use the turntable to reverse single diesel locos which are not part of a double head consist and some carriages like observation passenger cars. This might not be prototypical but it is something I want to do. The loops will be used for railfanning when I am not in the mood to operate. Also during an operating session the loops can to used to simulate travel between stops.
I think its a great idea to have the loops build mileage in between destinations.
I only offered the prototypical explanation as to show how real railroads run their trains. Because they don't have help from the giant hand in the sky, they come up with efficient ways to get it done. You have the same goal, to not ever turn a car by hand for even a railfanning session, so showing what the real railroads do actually helps show us what we should do.
Having only one reversing loop on a layout tends to solve the problem only one half of the time. You'll be using the TT it seems...see below.
MurBallNo problem let me explain my operating plan in more detail. I won't be turning trains by hand. Maybe you could say the op session will be 'one train running from point to loop and back to point.' I'm thinking of it more as running from loop to point and back to loop. The reverse loop in staging will turn trains in staging ready for their next use. The turntable and run around track in the terminus station will be used to turn locos and some cars at that station. At the start of an operating session a frieght train will enter from staging to drop and collect cars from the yard. It will then exit to staging. Shunter will classify and local power will deliver and collect cars to industries around the layout. Shunter will classify cars ready for collection at the start of next session. During this session a passenger train or two will enter from staging, visit the station on the double line, carry on up the last gradient to the terminus station. Here the loco and come cars will turn on TT (when nessessary) and carry on down the layout to staging. Here it will turn using the reverse loop. Ready for the next session. A coal train of empties will enter the layout, probably travel direct to the mine, swap empties for fulls and take fulls to staging, turn on reversing loop, ready for the next session. Coal loads will then have to be swapped by hand.
Thanks for the explanation. As far as the reversing loop, "Loop to point to Loop" requires you to turn the train by hand when it reaches the point, run around the train to run the loco backwards, or to break down the train and turn each loco and car using the TT?
There is really no need to turn each car in a freight train since the cars don't care what direction they are facing, as well as most diesels. Passenger ops often requires the train cars to be in a specific order as they progress away from the loco, so turning a passenger train or its cars is why you need a reversing loop and a TT, (you don't want to run a F unit backwards for example) and a TT for steam locos.
If you are just railfanning the steam ops, you don't need to do that prototypical turning of the train. Just swap it by hand and set it up to head in the opposite direction for many laps.
MurBallThis is a issue that I am worried about. So far I wasn't able to figure out a track plan that brought the staging turnouts to the front of the baseboard while also stopping the reverse loop from jutting out into the room more than it already does. Any ideas would be great here.
Well, ideally you'd probably want the inner most of the three loops to be the one that heads down to staging. Keeping the track closest to the edge, and allowing the visible portion of the outer loops to have the broadest curves, an added benefit.
But that would likely take a complete redesign at this point to get the grades right, so I'm lost as to how to get it done with what's been posted.
SeeYou190 Douglas makes a lot of great points. I might have missed it, but what is your skill/experience level? I am in the group of people that have a lot of experience building layouts, but I am very bad at track planning. When I get to actual construction, I will also be seeking a lot of advice from the group. -Kevin
Douglas makes a lot of great points.
I might have missed it, but what is your skill/experience level?
I am in the group of people that have a lot of experience building layouts, but I am very bad at track planning. When I get to actual construction, I will also be seeking a lot of advice from the group.
-Kevin
He certainly does make great points. I am new to the hobby and built my first layout during lockdown. It is a table top and measures 1.5 m by 2.4m with a 2.5% gradient up to one highline loop which often crosses over the lower main lines. I'll try and insert a video here of a railfanning session.
https://i.imgur.com/iHHkLIe.mp4
Doughless MurBall Hello, I'm looking for advice on my planned DC freelance HO round the room layout MurBall Thanks for any input I assume that constructive comments about layout design is what you are looking for. None of us know how married you might be to your wants. MurBall 1930's to 70's diesels from Santa Fe and other US railroads along with rail fanning a few British steamers. It's designed for a room 2.3m or 7 feet 6 inches wide by 4.7m or 15 feet 5 inches long with a door in the bottom long wall. Not factoring in any particular theme, era, operating plan, wants, etc. and just looking at maximizing track in a given space: Using some quick math, and leaving 6 inches between your outer track and the wall; 7 feet can provide a radius of about 40 inches for the outer curve, about 37 inches for the middle, and 34 inches for the inner. And that could be at the point where there is the least amount of verticle separation. Great for passenger trains and excellent for freight trains. For a railfanning type of layout, you could run long equipment of any kind and it would look good. Keeping in mind that excessively broad radius curves...with easements....eats into the straight aways and keeps them short. MurBall For operations the layout will work as dead end branch line with a terminus station at the end. The other end in staging has a reverse loop for turning trains for the next session. So loop to point. I'm confused. The train will be turned for the next separate op session? I think you mean that the return loop will provide an op session that is an out-and back-run. The op session is one train running from point to loop and back to point. (And either way, you have to turn the train by hand at the point to restage it). I guess I don't understand the relationship between the reverse loop, staging tracks, and op plan as designed. BTW, In North America, The BN and ATSF often never turned a train when using diesels. The loco just went backwards when going back to the origin point. Diesels eliminated the need for turntables and many reversing loops. In modern times, they double head two locos with each facing the opposite direction, even on branch lines. When they run around the train, they will always have a loco cab pointed forward. 1930's to 70's diesels from Santa Fe and other US railroads along with rail fanning a few British steamers. Reversing loops and turntable are space hogs. If the steam train element of your wants is not a big part of ops but is really a part-time railfanning portion of the layout, you don't really need a loop at all...or a TT. Especially if you are going to have to step over the loop, or kick it while working at the bench. Having staging on the lower level, I would want all of the turnouts near the front of the operating pit and not along the back wall, for both track maintenance and potential derailment fixes (especially if I'm backing whole trains onto staging tracks). You could also finger flick the switches and not have to install expensive switch machines since they are within easy reach. So, given those contraints and not considering any scenic Wants at the start of planning, I would start the plan by drawing three loops around the room with 3 tracks 2 inches on center, then pull various tracks away from the walls to give space for the verticle differences and the main scenic elements; understanding that they may not all fit. Maybe that's where you started and this plan is the result after many iterations. Also, there are curved turnouts that allow a yard to be started on a curve. In theory, you could have about a 12 foot long yard if you wanted to. Hope this advice helps in some way.
MurBall Hello, I'm looking for advice on my planned DC freelance HO round the room layout
MurBall Thanks for any input
I assume that constructive comments about layout design is what you are looking for. None of us know how married you might be to your wants.
MurBall 1930's to 70's diesels from Santa Fe and other US railroads along with rail fanning a few British steamers. It's designed for a room 2.3m or 7 feet 6 inches wide by 4.7m or 15 feet 5 inches long with a door in the bottom long wall.
Not factoring in any particular theme, era, operating plan, wants, etc. and just looking at maximizing track in a given space:
Using some quick math, and leaving 6 inches between your outer track and the wall; 7 feet can provide a radius of about 40 inches for the outer curve, about 37 inches for the middle, and 34 inches for the inner. And that could be at the point where there is the least amount of verticle separation. Great for passenger trains and excellent for freight trains. For a railfanning type of layout, you could run long equipment of any kind and it would look good. Keeping in mind that excessively broad radius curves...with easements....eats into the straight aways and keeps them short.
MurBall For operations the layout will work as dead end branch line with a terminus station at the end. The other end in staging has a reverse loop for turning trains for the next session. So loop to point.
I'm confused. The train will be turned for the next separate op session? I think you mean that the return loop will provide an op session that is an out-and back-run. The op session is one train running from point to loop and back to point. (And either way, you have to turn the train by hand at the point to restage it).
I guess I don't understand the relationship between the reverse loop, staging tracks, and op plan as designed.
BTW, In North America, The BN and ATSF often never turned a train when using diesels. The loco just went backwards when going back to the origin point. Diesels eliminated the need for turntables and many reversing loops. In modern times, they double head two locos with each facing the opposite direction, even on branch lines. When they run around the train, they will always have a loco cab pointed forward.
1930's to 70's diesels from Santa Fe and other US railroads along with rail fanning a few British steamers.
Reversing loops and turntable are space hogs. If the steam train element of your wants is not a big part of ops but is really a part-time railfanning portion of the layout, you don't really need a loop at all...or a TT. Especially if you are going to have to step over the loop, or kick it while working at the bench.
Having staging on the lower level, I would want all of the turnouts near the front of the operating pit and not along the back wall, for both track maintenance and potential derailment fixes (especially if I'm backing whole trains onto staging tracks). You could also finger flick the switches and not have to install expensive switch machines since they are within easy reach.
So, given those contraints and not considering any scenic Wants at the start of planning, I would start the plan by drawing three loops around the room with 3 tracks 2 inches on center, then pull various tracks away from the walls to give space for the verticle differences and the main scenic elements; understanding that they may not all fit. Maybe that's where you started and this plan is the result after many iterations.
Also, there are curved turnouts that allow a yard to be started on a curve. In theory, you could have about a 12 foot long yard if you wanted to.
Hope this advice helps in some way.
Hi Doughless, thanks again for your input. I thanked you for your previous input and then I explained my rationale in designing the yard etc as I have done. I hope you didn't think my answer was too dismissive. It certainly wasn't meant to be. As you quoted I am looking for any input and have thanked everyone so far for theirs.
So onto your latest input, some great points.
'Also, there are curved turnouts that allow a yard to be started on a curve. In theory, you could have about a 12 foot long yard if you wanted to.'
Great idea but I personnaly don't want to devote that much of my space to a yard.
'So, given those contraints and not considering any scenic Wants at the start of planning, I would start the plan by drawing three loops around the room with 3 tracks 2 inches on center, then pull various tracks away from the walls to give space for the verticle differences and the main scenic elements; understanding that they may not all fit. Maybe that's where you started and this plan is the result after many iterations.'
I did start with a similar idea using curves of various radii. Maybe I will revisit that stage using your helpful 3 loop idea.
'Having staging on the lower level, I would want all of the turnouts near the front of the operating pit and not along the back wall, for both track maintenance and potential derailment fixes (especially if I'm backing whole trains onto staging tracks). You could also finger flick the switches and not have to install expensive switch machines since they are within easy reach.'
This is a issue that I am worried about. So far I wasn't able to figure out a track plan that brought the staging turnouts to the front of the baseboard while also stopping the reverse loop from jutting out into the room more than it already does. Any ideas would be great here.
'Reversing loops and turntable are space hogs. If the steam train element of your wants is not a big part of ops but is really a part-time railfanning portion of the layout, you don't really need a loop at all...or a TT. Especially if you are going to have to step over the loop, or kick it while working at the bench.'
I will be railfanning all of my collection diesels and steam. I also want to use the turntable to reverse single diesel locos which are not part of a double head consist and some carriages like observation passenger cars. This might not be prototypical but it is something I want to do. The loops will be used for railfanning when I am not in the mood to operate. Also during an operating session the loops can to used to simulate travel between stops.
'I'm confused. The train will be turned for the next separate op session? I think you mean that the return loop will provide an op session that is an out-and back-run. The op session is one train running from point to loop and back to point. (And either way, you have to turn the train by hand at the point to restage it).
I guess I don't understand the relationship between the reverse loop, staging tracks, and op plan as designed.'
No problem let me explain my operating plan in more detail. I won't be turning trains by hand. Maybe you could say the op session will be 'one train running from point to loop and back to point.' I'm thinking of it more as running from loop to point and back to loop.
The reverse loop in staging will turn trains in staging ready for their next use. The turntable and run around track in the terminus station will be used to turn locos and some cars at that station.
At the start of an operating session a frieght train will enter from staging to drop and collect cars from the yard. It will then exit to staging.
Shunter will classify and local power will deliver and collect cars to industries around the layout. Shunter will classify cars ready for collection at the start of next session.
During this session a passenger train or two will enter from staging, visit the station on the double line, carry on up the last gradient to the terminus station. Here the loco and come cars will turn on TT (when nessessary) and carry on down the layout to staging. Here it will turn using the reverse loop. Ready for the next session.
A coal train of empties will enter the layout, probably travel direct to the mine, swap empties for fulls and take fulls to staging, turn on reversing loop, ready for the next session. Coal loads will then have to be swapped by hand.
There are various other options available and the layout could be used in different ways.
Thanks for your very detailed response and input Dougless. This thread has really helped me understand my wants and needs better. I'm now working a thinned version of the plan and will post when ready.
Living the dream.
MurBallHello, I'm looking for advice on my planned DC freelance HO round the room layout
MurBallThanks for any input
MurBall1930's to 70's diesels from Santa Fe and other US railroads along with rail fanning a few British steamers. It's designed for a room 2.3m or 7 feet 6 inches wide by 4.7m or 15 feet 5 inches long with a door in the bottom long wall.
MurBallFor operations the layout will work as dead end branch line with a terminus station at the end. The other end in staging has a reverse loop for turning trains for the next session. So loop to point.
I want small industries with 2 car spurs.
I don't want a longer yard because I prefer to use that space for the dbl mainline that curves along the front of the baseboard. I'm looking forward to watching trains wind along it as I'm working the yard
Doughless richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL OK, let me re-phrase. I would never build a layout expecting to make major changes latter. Agreed, but I don't consider removing a siding or industrial spur as a "major change". Meanwhile, the OP is now worried about his layout looking toy like when the proposed plan is anything but that. Rich I meant that three levels are the complex part that will have to stay once he builds the benchwork. OP has a lot of 2 car spurs and a yard with its longest track holding 6 cars, which is a shame considering the space has quite a bit of length.
richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL OK, let me re-phrase. I would never build a layout expecting to make major changes latter. Agreed, but I don't consider removing a siding or industrial spur as a "major change". Meanwhile, the OP is now worried about his layout looking toy like when the proposed plan is anything but that. Rich
ATLANTIC CENTRAL OK, let me re-phrase. I would never build a layout expecting to make major changes latter.
OK, let me re-phrase.
I would never build a layout expecting to make major changes latter.
Agreed, but I don't consider removing a siding or industrial spur as a "major change".
Meanwhile, the OP is now worried about his layout looking toy like when the proposed plan is anything but that.
Rich
I meant that three levels are the complex part that will have to stay once he builds the benchwork.
OP has a lot of 2 car spurs and a yard with its longest track holding 6 cars, which is a shame considering the space has quite a bit of length.
Agreed, that is why I suggested moving things around.
Well, to quote Patrick Swayze in Road House "opinions vary".
I have visited hundreds of layouts, large and small. I have designed several dozen, most of which were built by myself or others.
I have been involved in operating sessions on a dozen or so layouts.
And I still don't consider myself a layout design expert - partly because I do have a few rigid ideas about what "works" and why.
But because it is also one of my goals, I think I understand the OP's display running goal pretty well.
In offering an alternative approach, I did not work out every detail, solve every problem, or maximize every feature.
My proposed concept can, and most likely would, end up being nearly as trackwork intense as his original plan.
But, I think it would allow slightly longer trains, provide more dramatic action with grades, bridges, tunnels, etc, and it might be a little more practical from a construction engineering standpoint.
Both his current plan, and my proposed concept will no doubt have a 1950's/1960's "old school" feel, which many today would call "toy like". And that's ok for what he wants to do.
Some would say the same about my new layout except for the fact that I stretched mine out spaciously over 1500 sq ft. My track plan could be done in a smaller space, with sharper curves, and it too would have that 1950's "Christmas Garden", display layout feel.
I like that about it.
It was with great reluctance that I offered any thoughts on this at all..... but I just can't stand all the mis-information about passenger cars.....
Alton Junction
richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL some people can build things knowing they are temporary, and others can not. Only once have I ever dismantled a layout with a plan to build a new one in its place. Every other layout demo was the result of a move. I could never build a layout already knowing in advance it might be temporary. I'm not suggesting that it be temporary. My suggestion is to build it as planned, and then if the layout as built tries to put too much in way too little space and proves to be an operational and maintenance nightmare, remove a siding or industrial spur here and there to simplify it. For sure, the OP should not build this layout knowing in advance that it will only be temporary, but there is no reason not to build this layout, recognizing in advance that some elements may later need to be removed or simplified. Rich
ATLANTIC CENTRAL some people can build things knowing they are temporary, and others can not. Only once have I ever dismantled a layout with a plan to build a new one in its place. Every other layout demo was the result of a move. I could never build a layout already knowing in advance it might be temporary.
some people can build things knowing they are temporary, and others can not. Only once have I ever dismantled a layout with a plan to build a new one in its place. Every other layout demo was the result of a move. I could never build a layout already knowing in advance it might be temporary.
I'm not suggesting that it be temporary. My suggestion is to build it as planned, and then if the layout as built tries to put too much in way too little space and proves to be an operational and maintenance nightmare, remove a siding or industrial spur here and there to simplify it.
For sure, the OP should not build this layout knowing in advance that it will only be temporary, but there is no reason not to build this layout, recognizing in advance that some elements may later need to be removed or simplified.
There will no doubt be minor "running changes" as I built my new layout. And who knows, way down the road changes can happen.
But I have done this before, and planning is a primary occupational skill for me. And I know exactly what I want to accomplish, so for me at least, I suspect the first version of my layout will conform to the plan to a 90 plus percental, and changes would be a long way off, if ever.
I hate doing things "over".
So if you look at my new layout plan, posted above in this thread, most of my staging is behind/under the scenery, not on a completely lower level from the main layout.
In some cases the staging is actually above the main layout level, just hidden by backdrops and other scenic elements.
One section of staging, a large multi track loop is competely below the visable layout, but is easily accessed from inside the loop (36" minium radius).
The staging is all accessed in different ways for maintenance, some areas have hatches, one has an access "aisle" behind/below the urban scenery, half of one staging yard will be in my workshop area.
In a perfect world I would have just put an aisle behind the whole layout, but I could not quite work that out and meet my other goals.
Rich, Any post that quotes Shaw has my full attention! Thanks Doughless and others for your insights.
This forum discussion has been really interesting for me and has helped crystallise what I want. Sheldon's idea for a less dense model of one spot where trains drive through on the way to a double ended staging has alot of merit. I am drawing it out on anyrail to get a better feel for it.
However I am beginning to think it's main merit is that it avoids what Sheldon called a 'toy' feel and would result in a more realistic and focused scene. It adds some extra complications such as a second down gradient to staging but removes the need for other things like the return loop in my staging.
However I really am not aiming to realistically model a particular prototype and having busy areas with trains passing above and below each other (perhaps toylike) is something I like. I would add a third train on a higher bridge if I could!
Also I think I do want the feel of trains traveling over an area , ideally this would be from east helix staging along a line to west helix staging. But my space is far too small for that. In my plan the travel is from 'rest of world ' staging along a line to a terminus and back out again. I want this much more than seeing trains travel through a realistic scene and disappear again to return to double ended staging. I want to see a train travel from one town to another. I hope I'm making sense here.
Yes my area travelled through and specific scenes will be hugely condensed (a fairly common model railroad technique I think ?). And my 24"curves will be unprototypical. And I will have to choose shorter passenger cars with things like bogie mounted couplers. No Walthers. This is all good for me .
My plan still might be beyond my abilities to build and maintain. I think I should come up with a stripped down version of it with the same number of levels but that allows the addition of extra turnouts,spurs, industries as time goes on.
I will be running trains from my collection from all sorts of places and backgrounds on this layout.
Doughless I think the benchwork itself seems complicated, with three? levels including below staging.
I think the benchwork itself seems complicated, with three? levels including below staging.
Wasn't it George Bernard Shaw who once said, "Some men see things as they are and say why, I dream things that never were and say, why not"?