Here’s my proposed HO layout ( 9ft x 9ft) based on a suggestion from Byron Henderson (thanks Byron):
!(http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee501/maxx022/Model railway layout/Layoutimperial.jpg)
As I’m a newbie I only plan to do Stage 1 (green) first but I wanted to allow for future expansion. Any thoughts or suggestions?
Looks like you are into continuous running for the most part. You might think of a second yard or interchange, so that you could take cars from one place to another.
Can you get all around your layout? If not, putting in your second phase with the first already in place could be difficult. Also, if you cannot access all sides, I would cut out the corners to make access possible. They could be just hidden by a coved backdrop or be a lift out section. Might be wise other places too.
When you are putting in phase 1, put in the turnouts that will be leading to phase 2. A lot easier to put them in when initially installing track, than cutting them in later.
Good luck,
Richard
Thanks Richard, that’s great advice. I’ll certainly put in the turnouts during stage 1. Continuous running does sound a bit boring in the long term so I’ll put in another interchange on the right hand side, (hope there is enough room for scenery).
Do I have to put down a cork track bed immediately? As I am new to this game, I don’t want to glue anything down till I’m sure I have what I need & that it works.
Paul
Hi Maxx02
You have already received some good advice. I would add another suggestion which was made to me when I posted my plan some time ago. The suggestion is to add in a few sidings so your trains have a place to deliver some cars to. Your current plan, with both stages included, apparently only has one siding on the left middle and only one place where trains can pass each other. I would suggest having a look at what industries you plan on modeling and where they will be located to determine where sidings might be useful.
I have another suggestion which is based on some assumptions on my part. I am assuming that stage 2 is intended to be higher in elevation than stage 1. That would explain the significant distances between track centres. (If I am out to lunch on this just ignore me!) If so, I would change the crossover on the loop in stage 1 on the center right of the plan so that the upper track at the overpass goes to the higher elevation at the top of the plan. That will allow you to make the grade between the turnout at the stage 2 siding and the turnout where stage 1 is joined into stage 2 at the top of the plan more reasonable.
Third, if the dotted track indicates a tunnel, I would make sure you have a means of getting to it should you suffer a derailment in that area.
Is this making any sense? Sorry but I lack the skills to work directly with your plan.
Good luck with your plan.
Dave
Just copying some aspects of a published plan, perhaps without fully understanding how the original plan worked, is likely to produce something that looks a little similar, but functions totally different.
I am pretty sure that Byron Henderson probably would not have recommended doing what you are doing here.
I assume that what you have taken inspiration from is the concept of a water-wing plan - wide lobes and narrow waist as a replacement for a 4x8 foot rectangular table.
Except that when Byron does that, he leaves room for a pop-up inside or behind the lobes - like in this plan: http://www.layoutvision.com/id56.html or this plan: http://www.layoutvision.com/id58.html
And you have chosen to combine a water wing style plan - whose main advantage is that it gives you walk-in layout instead of needing a duck-under, with a doughnut style plan - whose main advantage is that you can have narrower bench-work, since you don’t need room for a turn-around loop.
Giving you a combination that combines the disadvantages of both ideas - both a duck-under and wide bench-work for turn-back curves, with no space for a pop-up to reach things at the rear of the wide lobes.
Trying to make room for a second lo
Hi Max,
one more remark about the differences between a donut and a waterwing (or dogbone).
The waterwing forces you to use pretty tight radii, while the dogbone allows a larger radius. The latter might be important when you wish to run longer coaches or modern freightcars.
And a question, how did you draw the brown aisle in your plan? The black boundary seems to be done with the “track” option. How did you fill that area in?
BTW between the crossovers you always added a straight? Any reason beside looking “good”?
Smile
Paul
I used AnyRail software to generate my plan (http://www.anyrail.com/index_en.html). The brown aisle area is created by using the draw line feature, plotting the points and double clicking when you complete your circuit at the first point. This creates the area and then it’s just a matter of selecting a colour (brown in my case) to fill in.
I added the straight between crossovers to create some space between the tracks. I wasn’t sure how much space a consist would need as in negotiates the turns at the left and right hand sides.
I’ve added a couple of industry areas in the latest version:
A couple of readers have suggested this which I thought a great idea. I’ll remove the straights between crossovers and see if that creates some space.
Keep the ideas coming.
Stein and Paul are giving you good advice, I’ll just add to it by saying that you appear to have much more distance between parallel tracks than is necessary for reliable operation. In turn, that’s limiting the amount of space you have left for other elements.
At a minimum radius of about 22"-24", you’ll only need about 2 1/2" between adjacent curved tracks. But you’ll probably want at least three inches from the center of tracks to the edges of the benchwork, unless you plan a plastic or other shield along the aisle.
If it were my layout, I’d probably choose either the dogbone/waterwings style or the donut style, not mix both, since that means one must deal with the challenges of each (access in the waterwings, bridging the doorway in the donut).
Anything beyond 30" is effectively unreachable, so you’ll need to plan for access hatches or arrange aisle-ways to reduce the reach-in distance (which was part of the problem with the original published plan you were considering).
Best of luck with your layout.
Byron
Maxx…You asked for thoughts and suggestions…
I’m not a professional designer or builder. Others are being cordial with their comments. But the simple truth of it is… it is a bad plan. Why? Because I don’t think you will like it after it is built.
Members here do not want you to be frustrated or disappointed with your final product. I’m afraid that if you build this as drawn, you’ll experience both right quick. Most of the source for disappointment has nothing to do with how the trains would operate, but rather how the shape of the track confilcts with the limitations of the human body. That’s why you’ll be frustrated if you build this.
All track work on any layout ( an absolute statement that will compel others to chime in with rare exceptions here) should not require you to reach more than 30 inches. Its because everyone’s arms are about the same length. The benchwork has to accomodate this fact., either by it not extending too far from the wall, or by it having access hatches if it does. Any plan that has track that is not within a 30 inch reach is a bad plan, period.
In addition to accessing derailments after you build it, when you build stage 1, and lay the track nice and pretty, how do you lay the blue track in the upper right corner of the plan without climbing all over the green track that was laid? Bad idea. Same goes for the tracks in the lower left.
This is a basic rule that need to be followed when planning a layout before you worry about where to put sidings and spurs, yards and tunnels.
My blunt suggestion would be to build only stage 1, and push the green track to the outside limits of the space. if you then don’t have access to the turnback loops on three sides, you’ll likely need access hatches i