11' by 5' L-Shape Layout Design - Input Desired

Model Railroader Layouts and layout building
1

Hi - I am fairly new to the forum, and I am in the process of designing a 11’ x 5’ L- Shaped Layout.

Some key characteristics/desires:

  • Location is a spare room, of which I get to occupy half [:D]
  • HO Scale
  • Minimum radius 18", max grades 2%
  • Time period early 1900’s, running small steam engines (2-6-0 and 4-4-0, maybe a 2-8-0) and 36-40’ freight cars
  • Max train lenghts engine plus 5-6 cars
  • Free-lanced
  • Want continuous running - I built an earlier layout (all track operational, but no landscape) as an out and return back in loop, and did not like that I could not let a train just run and watch for a while without intervention

So far this is where I am with my design:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/150771392@N07/36830106820/

The plan is designed with Atlas 83 rail, just because that is what I have on hand from my earlier layout (with exception of a #6 1/2 Sinohara curved turnout).

In essence, I believe I was able to stick to above set parameters, although I had to go slightly above my maximum desired grades (max grade 2.5% as designed). I planned sidings for a small wharf/port (bottom left), and a small branch going to a mine (left layout wing). I may or may not include a turntable in the yard, just thinking it will get too crowded, and I won’t really need one to turn, due to the continuous run.

Any input is welcome!

Urs

2

near the bottom left, i assume there’s a bridge where the loop crosses itself. there’s a turnout with a spur that also crosses the loop. isn’t the spur above the loop it crosses? does it need a bridge?

do you really need the crossover in the middle of the siding?

most of the spurs are oriented for counter-clockwise (right side loop) running. do you plan on running clockwise? should there be spurs, not on the siding that are oriented for cw running?

why do you have so many spurs off the siding?d

3

You will have to make sure your track is well done for such tight curves. The pilot trucks will object it there are any kinks. As long as you are running short trains(4-6 cars) the grades should work.

1900 era is 28-36 ft cars. A 40 ft car in 1900 would be like a high cube today. You will want mostly Bachmann 34 ft cars, Mantua 30 ft cars and the roundhouse 36 ft cars. 40 ft cars didn’t become common until 1910-1915.

The combination of grades and curves could be problematic, but as long as you want short trains you will be ok.

4

It looks OK to me. I, too, wonder at the crossover in the middle of the siding. But it causes no harm. Except that you then can’t have another spur track there.

I think that the layout should be operated point to point–from the port up into the hills, and back. In that instance, it would be nice to have a run-around track up at the mines. I do, also, endorse the continuous run, but only as a “fun option”. I would probably do the same thing. It is indeed nice to watch the train(s) run instead of operating them. On occasion.

This can be a fun layout if you really attend to the scenery and buildings. I do wish the rail size was smaller than Code 83. That is really huge, and will make things look “funny”. I do sympathize with the re-use concept, however. As much as you are able to pull off, I recommend Code 70 throughout, with some Code 55 on the industrial sidings.

A turntable can be fun. You’ll have to decide about whether it “works” or not.

In a way, the layout reminds me of the original (tiny) Gorre & Daphetid.

Ed

5

Welcome the the forum, if you share your flickr pic with the BB code, you can just copy and paste the link, without using the photo icon above or any sizing

Smallport Western Rev 8d by Urs Rathgeb, on Flickr

It doesn’t look like you have much space next to most of your sidings for any structures/factories.

6

Wow, thanks for all the constructive input, good stuff to help me refine my plan. Obviously, I will need to think things through a bit more (still - looks like I have been thinking forever).

Re: grades and curves, as two of you mentioned, that one is giving me the most headaches. I ran 18" and 2% grades successfully on the previous layout, but am a bit worried about going beyond. I guess I will have to do a mock up and experiment.

Dave, when I said early 1900’s I really meant somewhere in the time frame 1910-1920 rather than right at the turn of the century, which would include some 40’ cars. Definitely will not run anything larger though. I hear you regarding pilot trucks, in particular on the 2-6-0, it is why I avoid the Sinohara/Wathers curved turnouts when I can, even though they look nice.

Greg, regarding the crossover in the yard, my intention was to use it to switch the two sidings above the yard, without having to go outside the yard limits onto the main. I imagined one of those tracks to be a team track, and/or maybe install a small gantry, and use the other for storage. I’ll post another iteration of the plan and provide some labels what the tracks will be used for. Re: the turnout to the branch, it is going over the mainline below, but at that location the mainline will be in the tunnel, so no bridge. Could change that though.

Ed, you gave me some food for thought, operating as point to point (and using the continuous loop as option) - vs my plan, in which the continuous loop is the dominating scheme.

I too would like to use code 70 rail, but I hate to let all that Atlas track go to waste - I’ll get pennies on the dollar if I let it go on ebay. And it is extremely reliable, in particular those turnouts.

BigDaddy, thanks for the input re: posting pictures. Still need more input though what the BB code is(?).

Thanks again

7

Welcome to the forum.

Generally it looks like a good start. A few questions/comments:

For those designing their own layouts, John Armstrong’s Track Planning for Realistic Operation is a great introductory resource.

I wonder if there is enough vertical clearance at the bridge. Depending on the type of bridge model and the size (somewhat era-related) of your models, 2.9” railhead-to-railhead might not be sufficient (since the clearance is less). [Refer to NMRA S-7 “Classic” dimensions-- note that these measurements are clearances, railhead-to-railhead elevations calculated in CAD or manually must be greater to allow for track, bridge, and/or subroadbed.]

If the layout is going into a corner of the room at the lower-left of the diagram, most folks would prefer to have less than a 30” reach over scenicked layout areas to avoid damage. If the area at the upper left inside the loop is open, that would help. There may also be a reach concern along the back wall without an access hatch or opening.

Grade transitions are necessary for reliability, and grades should not change within or too near a turnout. If you haven’t allowed for this, the grades will be steeper than you hope.

Note also that the effective grade through the 18” radius curve is 32/R (R being the radius), which adds 1.78% effective grade to your nominal grade through the curves. You could still be OK as drawn, but there could be more impact on performance and reliability than you would like. (I mention this since you cited your concern about grades.)

With not much modificat

8

Regarding the bridge clearance:

This layout is meant to be set in the early 1900’s using small locomotives.

NMRA “old time” clearance is 2 21/32".

Plate B clearance is a bit under 2 1/8". And I am sure no equipment properly under consideration would exceed Plate B.

Also, the bridge would have been lightly built. One such is on p. 69 of my copy of Mallery’s “Bridge and Trestle Handbook”. On that bridge, the distance from bottom clearance to railhead is 7/8".

Thus, if you combine 2 1/8" plus 7/8", you get 3". Perhaps a clever bridge designer could pick up .1" and get the whole thing down to 2.9".

The idea behind this layout is very reminiscent, to me, of one in Model Railroader September 1960. 5’ x 9’, as I recall. There was a dock and a yard. A track went up in “the hills” to a mine. There was a continuous running option. The supposed prototype was a “stand-alone” railroad (set a bit south of the continental United States–as I recall) that had been built only to go inland to the mine(s) and bring out ore. So, you had a wharf, a small yard with some company buildings and such, and a run up to the mine. You would, incidentally, have to have an old coach to transport the miners up to work and back to partake of the small town’s wondrous night life.

One interesting difference is that the 5 x 9 layout is smaller than the subject one. But. You can get to both “sides” of that 5 x 9. So it’s kind of easy to have two scenes. With this one, the other “side” is sort of useless. I do think some more thought might be in order. One possibility would be to have the continuous run NOT include going up the hill to the mines–just keep it flat. I don’t know if that’s an improvement–might be, might not. Admittedly, t

9

Just by the way, Didrik Voss, MMR, the manager of the NMRA’s Standards and Conformance Department, has expressed concerns that the “Old Time” standard may be undersized for standard gauge due to long-ago errors. He was recently seeking input on this from modelers. (Layout Design Journal #59, page 40.)

So counting on the exact minimum clearance for model equipment (some of which may itself be slightly oversize) might be risky.

10

It adds quite a bit to length of run, so I wouldn’t personally consider that “useless”. But yes, within the same physical space, multiple footprints may work. Without knowing what’s in the rest of the room and the impact this would have on aisles, hard to say.

Edit: After a quick look at the published 5X9 you are suggesting, it would be a bit tighter if built as drawn. It’s drawn with handlaid-to-fit “true” #4s, which are a bit sharper than the Atlas “#4s” (actually #4½) that the Original Poster used. If using the Atlas #4s, it might not quite fit in 5’X9’. But an interesting concept.

11

It also reminds me somewhat of another plan in MR from later int eh 60’s. I think it was brought up here int he past year or so, but the heck if I remember what year or what it was called. I know I looked it up at the time and it was certainly interesting, althouth perhaps the same caveats as many of the plans - I doubt it was designed to sectional turnouts. I know, some help - but the one I’m thinking of was L shaped in a similar footprint.

–Randy

12

All the advise above is exceptionally good. I wasn’t going to add to this post but because of my personal experience I want to emphasize Byron’s statement “Grade transitions are necessary for reliability, and grades should not change within or too near a turnout. If you haven’t allowed for this, the grades will be steeper than you hope.” Byron is right on the money!!

I failed to leave enough distance between a #4 turnout and my grade and I had no end of problems until I removed and replaced the track.

My problems were selective to specific locomotives. My six axle Proto E8s & E9s and Rivarossi Cab Forwards would almost constantly derail at the turnout. Athearn PA six axle, Proto E7 six axle, as well as all of my SDs and other steam passed the turnout with ease.

After I rebuilt the transition everything works great, its been several years with out a single derail after the fix. When my GS4s pass a turnout any locomotive will

13

Thanks guys, this is really amazing feedback! Never thought I would get that much critical, thought provoking and encouraging input in that short amount of time!

I do have that John Armstrong Book, and will do a bit of study - and thanks for reminding me of the necessary easements in elevations, cuyama, I will need to seriously rethink that. Considering the curve, I would be dealing with 4% plus incline, in particular if increasing clearance a bit at the bridge, and the relatively light 2-6-0’s and 4-4-0’s that I have will start slipping, even with just 5-6 cars - not what I want to deal with. That makes Ed’s suggestion of keeping the continuous run flat and have the branchline go uphill a serious consideration. Will also study that 5x9 plan mentioned, I have access to the mentioned copy of MR.

Concerning access, as you guessed the layout is in a corner of the room, but I will have access from the side of the return loops (e.g. by the trestle over the water at the top right, and the small wharf scene at bottom left - just not from the rear.

I just would like to have the continous run. I know it’s not prototypical, but there is nothing more relaxing after a day of work than watching a little freight train doing a couple of loops chuffing over the tracks …

Will have to get back to the drawing board for a little bit. More to follow. Thanks again.

14

I think I would make a point of not buying oversize equipment. And keeping a lighter grade. Back in the (g)olden days of model railroading, there was sort of an excuse for models not having correct overall dimensions. There is not, now, for HO.

The Erie railroad was well noted for its extremely generous clearances. So,if any railroad were going to “go big”, it would be them. I looked in my earliest ORER (1926). Erie lists two car series that exceed Plate B vertical clearance (15’-1"). By 3/8". Add to this that these cars are listed 20 years later than the subject era. And, even more, we’re talking about a little backwater railroad, the cars of which are mostly going to be ore gons. Not the Erie.

I also checked my only two locomotives from the era: an 0-6-0 and a giant 4-6-0. They both will clear Plate B.

Also, consider what a real railroad like this one would have done. Mr. Moneybags, who is, yes, supplying all the money and making most of the profits says: "If I have a lighter grade, I can haul more ore. Make me such a grade. &n

15

One possibility to consider regarding a bigger railroad: You can have something like a fold down section that only extends into the other half when the occupant of that half is not there. Just as that person may get to “intrude” in your half in the same manner.

A thought.

Ed

16

I hope you also checked out the 4x8 on the facing page. THAT one I have always thought to be an excellent switching layout. You?

Ed

17

The Erie had generous clearances because it was originally built to 5’ gauge and later narrowed to the standard 4’ 8 1/2".

–Randy

18

Nope: 6’

Now, way down south, they did have a proclivity to build at 5’.

Ed

19

There are a couple of good ideas in that one (Delaware Branch, MR magazine Sept. 1960, page 28), including the overlap of runarounds, industry leads, yard tracks, etc. But the way the yards are broken up is somewhat awkward and inefficient. I understand why it was done, to allow more operators in a small space in an era before command control (or even walkaround control). This approach made DC block wiring easier. This layout has the same constraints of 18” radii and true #4 turnouts handlaid-to-fit.

It’s also actually 4X9, not 4X8, since the layout is not operable without the folding leaf in place. All-in-all, I think something better might fit in the overall minimum 8’X11’ space required for layout and aisles (whether island or other arrangement). And the claimed five operators would be pretty limited in what they could actually do without interfering with their partners.

So personally, not a fan overall. If trying to do something similar as an island in HO, I’d probably start with this HO 4X8 with its broader curves and turnouts and add in the marine elements and extra length while removing the turntable. I’d forego the limited tunback loop out-and-back schematic of the 1960 layout. I don’t think it adds much for this concept.

[A verison of this layout was published in Model Railroad Planning 2011.]

The broader radii and turnouts along with the more straightforward track arrangement would be more interesting to operate for me. (And I’d probably aim for two or three operators using DCC or other command control method).

Just my opinion, of course.<

20

Sorry for not posting yesterday, and for not having come up with some alternative/adjusted plans. Had some outdoors fun yesterday, and not much time to look at my planned railroad.

Another couple of good ideas, in particular with potentially dividing the scenes between the wings. I am still wanting the continuous run, but will likely forgo the loop running over itself, the grades would be unreliable. I tried to figure about every which way. More to follow early next week.

Thanks again for the input.