I need a little help with a HO scale plan. A little background, I am in the Air Force currently located in the desert of Southern California at Edwards AFB. With the frequent moves in mind I am starting a small layout to refine my modeling techniques and run some operations on. I am working on a few different 5’x9’ plans, one of which is pictured below. The layout would be set in the 1960’s, 4 axel power and 40/50 foot cars. The layout has a continuous loop option that has a 24" min radius, the inner branch has a min radius of 18" with all switches using the Fast tracks #6 turnout jig I own. The will be a slight grade of no more than 2% to add some elevation differences. Comments, questions, concerns?
Thanks for your service to our country. I grew up in the High Desert and worked (very) briefly at the base one sumer, so I’m always glad to see a “local” interested in model railroading.
First question: I think it’s great that you are looking at 5X9 instead of the tired old HO 4X8, but are you really sure you want a 5X9 monolith? These are hard to move and hard to find space for in new quarters. A sectional layout like the MILW Beer Line in the recent issues of Model Railroader magazine is a great option for folks who know they will need to move.
Second question: is there a particular place, era, or theme of railroading that interests you? The current design could probably be tweaked to look and work a bit more like something in real life.
As you probably know, the #6 turnouts are not the ideal match for 24" and smaller radii, sicne sharper turnouts will work fine and take up less room. But if the tool is on hand, I can appreciate the reasons you would want to use it.
Byron
Model RR Blog
#5s are a better match for 18/24-inch curves except where they create S-curves as in crossovers where #6 should be good.
Mark
I had that in mind and I was going to make this layout out of 4 sections (2.5’x4.5’) to make it easier to move.
I am originally from Buffalo, NY so the scenery will have that northeast feel to it. The theme is a shortline/branchline with an interchange with the mainline which then takes its cars to the yard where the trains are made up to go to the two towns. As I said before the time frame would be the 1960’s.
~Chris
Have you considered a couple of hollow core doors butted together? I scrounged a couple that measure about 80 inches by 30 inches - two together would give me an 80" X 5’ layout. Not long enough for your plan but maybe you could find another door for the “end” piece. Just an idea to think about…
Along the right edge, you effectively have a passing siding. If you re-work the lower left corner, you could have a passing siding on the left side, too. Sure, they’re only about 3 feet long, but with 4-axles and short freights, that would give you the option of running two trains around the outer loop in DCC, either in the same or opposite directions.
Don’t feel constrained to using that one jig for all of your turnouts. For example, Peco makes curved turnouts which can get solve track-planning puzzles where a straight turnout just doesn’t fit.
Think about putting in a short wye, maybe near the bottom where the inner sidings come close but don’t meet. This would give you the option of reversing engines and cabeese without using the big 5-fingered hook.
Interesting plan with good operating possibilities. You have a lot of track in a small space and may want to consider eliminating a couple of the one and two car sidings. This will open it up and allow room for structures. This plan really calls out for a central view block running down the middle. That gives you the opportunity to make it look much bigger by hiding half the track and to model two distinct scenes. If you don’t have Armstrong’s Track Planning for Realistic Operation, it is well worth the investment as he covers things like the benefits of curved turnouts in tight spaces, and all sorts of information to keep you out of trouble. Good luck and thanks for your service.
I was a member of Uncle Sam’s Frequent Move Society for 30 years. Different service, same story. Thanks very much for your continuing service.
I would recommend against a 5x9, no matter how tempting it is for the present space. Simply because of my tale of woe with a couple of 4x8 layouts:
-
it’s nearly impossible to move a 5x9x1(?) object without damage. Your only chance is to get lumber and plywood that is 9ft long so that the joints don’t come apart during the transport in and out of the house, or in the van when they stack on it and against it.
-
if you get an overseas move (crates) - regardless of whether the PCS location is in CONUS or not - the crates are about 95" high and 95" deep. A 4x8 does not fit without being placed on a diagonal. Don’t ask me how I learned this.
-
it’s nearly impossible to maneuver a 4x8 up or down stair wells or around corners into hallways. Don’t ask me how I know this, either. I have no clue how you would get a 5x9 through. And you have a lot of track joints that would cross any boundary to cut the layout into 2 sections. Each of these track crossings at joints has to align perfectly when setting up in the new location.
-
Even with just a 4x8, half the houses that had suitable spare rooms for the layout would not take a full 4x8 with adequate
Maybe use your existing track plan only expanded and on shelves around the room.This would give you more efficient use of your space,Smaller pieces to move,and more efficient use of the room its in… BILL
The HOG is a really cool plan if you can do an around-the-walls layout. And it’s very doable on 2-inch foam in place of plywood if you want to go ultralight. There’s a HOG discussion group on Yahoo groups with people’s experiences building it, modifications, N-scale versions, etc.
One stupid question. What is the jiberish at the top of your post ? Delete it!
5ft.x9ft is a ping-pong table size. I see that you plan to cut it into modules, which will make it movable. Your plan is interesting, but has unnecessary limitations. The cross-over on the right side is in the wrong place. Move it down and substitute a doubl-slip switch. The outer and inner loops, at the top, could be moved closer to each other, to allow the use of a double-slip switch. This would allow you to reverse direction, if you then connected the inner loop to the outer loop, (instead of the “mish-mash” of cross-overs in the right center, which limit the use of structures, and are too close together to have any functional purpose.) Make your “run-arounds” long enough to handle an 8-10 car consist. As several others have suggested, think about using double curve turnouts. They are rather expensive, but solve a lot of problems that straight-curve turnouts have. Good luck with your “Dream-Plan-Build” movable layout. Bob Hahn
The 10x10 HOG is a doughnut plan unless the room happens to be 10x10 when it would also be around-the-walls.
Mark
Just weighing in with a couple of notes – a lot of people have given you some good ideas for portability.
My two real comments are these:
-
You have a lot of track, but what are your trains doing. Parking on the siding for a while and then moving back out? You haven’t left enough room for structures around any of those sidings, so unless you can find some REALLY SKINNY over-the-track structures, you’re trains won’t have anything to do. I’d go for less track and more things to do.
-
The center of your layout is basically wasted space. A doughnut layout does solve this problem. Another option is to use a double-sided backdrop down the middle, effectively giving you two unrelated areas to model.
Whatever you do, though, remember that anything anyone says on this thread is a suggestion, not a requirement. Good luck.
This is a pretty good trackplan. Basically your trade off is less scenery for more operation, which is a good idea for a small layout. I like the idea of the small yard and the long branch line in the middle. I would suggest a few things.
-
As others have suggested in the lower left corner, rework the turnouts so you have a passing track.
-
Eliminate the first run around on the branch, this improves the scenery possibilities and provides an extra operational interest in that you switch one track on the way up the branch and the other on the way back.
-
Instead of starting your branch at the bottom of your drawing, I would start it at the top. Your current set up has the train heading up the branch immdiately after leaving the yard. Putting it at the top means running through the town on the left to get from the yard to the branch. This will probably require a curved turnout, but results a longer run with more operational interest.
Enjoy
Paul
Thanks for the comments everyone. First I understand the love of the HOG, I have been a member of the yahoo group for a while now. But my concern is that with my unknown spaces at my future assignments I felt that a 5x9 left a little more flexibility, plus I really dislike duckunders.
I took a few of the suggestions and came up with this new plan. A few things I did was mess around with the siding on the lower left, switch where the branch started and worked the two towns a little. I am using a few more curved turnouts to help lengthen the sidings. The black lines are showing the module breaks, the long green rectangle is the double sided backdrop. The structures are all 12”x6” just as a placeholder to give some representation of space needed for structures. Let me know what you think.
~Chris
Hi Chris,
This layout plan is great. Your pass-over should have adequate space for 2-3% grade, and the ladders are so much better than the former cross-over mess. The double sided backdrop will add a great deal of interest, and is portable, when you move. I use SceniKing sequential photos for my long backdrops, with sky color (above the SceniKing 7"x11" sequential photos), matched at the paint store. The use of modules makes moving feasible. Have you considered using 3-4 drawer cabinets, on wheels, for your modules. I have four of them on my large layout, and find them great for the storage of locos, freight cars, road vehicles, and tools. One cabinet combines as a pull-out workbench.Bob Hahn
This photo shows the use of 7"x11" Sceniking sequential photos, with matching sky blue above. The photo also shows the “forced perspective” of an N scale train on a rough grey 2"x2", directly behind an HO train. For a city scene, you can stack cardboard mounted building photos, behind each other and slightly raised, for "forced perspective’. Background “partial structure kits” are available. If you care to view the photo album of my layout, click on the photo, and then on “View Album” in the upper left.
Very nice Chris.
Another suggestion would be to simplify the plan a bit by cutting down the number of industries on the first branch line town, the one next to your yard, to only one. Make it a facing point switch as the train heads to the branch. That industry could be switched on the way back to the yard after you’ve completed the moves in the final town, as someone else has suggested. Having less clutter there will make scenicing your layout a bit easier. You could even angle the top of the backdrop a bit more to the right and create a bit more room for the branch town also.
How about the crossover near the bottom of the yard, after the lead switch? I think if you used a regular straight turnout on the inside track, just south of the lead switch, and a curved turnout on the outside, you might be able to shove that crossover farther south, thereby returning your drill track back the way it was and creating some distance between the yard and the interchange siding on the left.
However, when operating, the train can make several laps around the layout to gather distance between towns, so the lack of distance between switches on a small layout doesn’t have to be that big of a deal, if you’re just willing to use your imagination a bit.
I think you have it! Time to start building.
Enjoy
Paul
Here is the plan with the change at the yard and the less is more approach in the first town. To fit the yard crossover redesign I had to shorten the yard so I moved the entrance to the engine service facility which opens up that last track for yard space. My only concern is that you cannot be working the yard without taking out that siding so I might add that crossover back in. Anything else you can see?
~Chris
Bingo, That was my comment on the original plan as well. Two passing sidings = two facing trains simultaneously running on the main.
Other than that, I think one would be over-thinking it. Both first and second try look good. There are certain elements of the first one I like better.
In the third one I hate the double crossover in the yard. It actually limits the possibility of breaking a train into two parts to work as the crossover fowls the yard ladder from the drill track. I also don’t like the simplified center industrial area. As someone above pointed out. What are the trains going to do? There isn’t much mainline action so removing the complex industrial areas is a double whammy. The answer here is, do you want to switch the cars or look at nice looking scenery? I’m a move the cars person, even if the “structures” are just flats against a wall.