I know that this topic has been beat to death, or “put out to pasture” and I know that it is my layout and it is ultimately “my” decision as to what I do. However, I am, by no means, a gifted track planner and cannot seem to find or design a plan that satisfies what I want.
So here’ is what I have to work with:
· 8.5’x12’ Layout Space
o This is concrete, there is no room for negotiation on this one as the room already has a desk in it. It also needs to be freestanding, as I cannot put holes in my walls.
Linked is a website that has a variety of Appalachian based trackplans. Most involve coal. You haven’t mentioned HO or N scale. Most of the HO examples are too big for your space but maybe portions of a plan can be used.
For HO, your space is limited but your era and theme provides an advantage since short cars can be run on the sharp curves you will need. My default thought is an around the room design with a liftout section for accessing the center, but mountain coal railroading lends itself to a curvy trackplan, so maybe a walk in design can work.
You should try to accomplish your main goal, and do that well, rather than try to accomplish many goals then find you have room to only accomplish any one of them half…uh…way.
Sorry for the general answer, but researching some plans then posting them here for others’ to comment upon or modify for a coal theme will provide more specific responses.
Try researching the track plan database on this site for plans that would fit in your space. Magazine subscribers only; however.
I am modeling HO scale, as I’ve amassed quite a collection of 40’ hoppers over the years (You can never just buy one [:$]). Also, the around the walls sounds like the best option to go with.
I’ve never been to that website, so I’ll have to check it out. Thanks again.
A sketch of the space available would help us help you.
Nothing fancy, but needs to show dimensions, walls, obstructions (windows, doors, pipes, columns, desks, etc.).
For the continuous running, you can have return loops at the ends (requires a “lobe” at least 3’ wide) or you can have narrower benchwork (18"-24") along the walls and a lift-out or swing-out bridge across the entryway to connect the ends.
My first layout as a teenager was in a 6x12 space with access only on the 6’ side so the design had to have gopher holes well placed for construction and operational issues / maintenance. It was an HO layout which limited my car and engine choices but it those days I had a small roster so no big deal.
Maybe include lots of tunnels if you can; my experience is that kids LOVE to see trains disappearing and then reappearing somewhere else…it’s fascinating.
Here is mine that has continuous run and is 9 x 11 that you could tweak to fit. What i like is the twice around but only seen once that gives the trains a sense of going someplace.
Modeling the Clinchfield Blue Ridge crossing, tunnels come with the territory. I’ve seen the full-scale prototype. More than a little similarity to the area I actually model.
I’d tackle this by researching the prototype Clinchfield, then using John Armstrong’s methodology to figure out how to fit the spaghetti (prototype track plan) into the available bowl (your space.)
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with coal mines that weren’t there)
I’ve always done my own trackplans (since the mid '50s) and suggest you give it a try.
Get a piece of quadrille paper and lay out the outer layout dimensions on it in heavy marker. Then, make several copies of it and with a pencil sketch out possibilities. Believe me, it may seem hard at first but will improve with your efforts.
While doing this, pick up a couple track plan books and grab the features you like from each of them.
Once you get down to a couple you really like, pick up a compass, ruler, and even a track laying template (for turnouts) and draw the sketch to scale.
The thing is, this is your layout, and the pride in designing it yourself is priceless.
Unless you can end up with around 10 inches between levels or the reach distance is less than one foot from the edge of the bench-work, stay away from under the bench-work staging yards, as they will be a guaranteed trouble spot! Unless you know for a FACT you can build bullet-proof track-work. The bigger the minimum radius, the better. Mainline turn-outs should be as large as fits the situation.
(Edited my comment on using #8 turnouts because the may not always fit the application).
You can go around the room, either on tables, or mounted to the wall, but you just have to build your own wall inside of the concrete wall, and this is not as hard as it may seem because you do not need 2x4s when 1x2s will do just fine.
Along the wall behind this table, the layout rides on three levels, the weight is carried down by the vertical members to the floor. I used screws to hold it to the wall, but since you cannot do that, a stripe or two of caulk should work just as well, especially since you would have to have at least one 90° corner which would stabilize the whole thing. Or the vertical members can go all the way up to the ceiling for attachment somehow there.
Along the wall, the two lower levels are 16" wide and are set out from the wall about 6" for the risers, the top level is 12" wide, and sits on top of the risers so that there is very little overhang against the middle level.
If this helps with ideas, fine, if not, also fine.
Many successful layouts are built with less clearance for hidden staging and work very well. More clearance is always better, but since the access is only needed for emergencies, one needs only hand clearance and 6" has often proved adequate in HO (even a little less in a pinch).
Keeping subterranean staging close to the aisle is always good advice.
That’s an unusual piece of advice. One-size-fits-all rarely does – and thousands of successful layouts have been built with less than #8s for mainline turnouts.
Turnouts should be matched to the minimum radius of the design, which in turn is determined by the type and length of equipment chosen (which in turn relates to the era, type of traffic, etc.).
The Original Poster mentioned coal hauling in the 1950s as the primary purpose of his layout, so there might not be any longer cars and engines that would demand curves broader than perhaps 24". And in only 8.5 feet of room width, broader curves may not make much sense, anyway.
With a minimum radius defined, one should then consider the turnout number that is a good match. A good guide to this is the NMRA Recommended Practice data sheet (RP-12.3 for HO). Line 11 is the key consideration, showing the tightest equivalent radius through the turnout.
From this we see that a #5 turnout is a good match for curves up to 26", which are probably the broadest the OP’s room will support comfo
Byron, The original poster asked for advice and I gave him some of the best advice I could, based on my experiences! If 26 inch radius curves are as big as he can use, so be it! I was simply telling him to use the largest radius he could is all. Number 5 turn-outs would likely never be seen on the mainline of a prototype railroad (maybe #8s wouldn’t, either); so I feel number 8s would look better and work well for mainline applications (if they will fit).
As far as clearance between bench work for staging yards is concerned: the clearance into my 6 inch clearance X 18 inch deep staging yard doesn’t work for me. Anything that happens beyond the first track in, has to have all the tracks cleared of trains to reach! Of course, anyone can choose to live with this inconvenience if they like! If I had to do it over, I would choose not to have hidden staging!
The biggest challenge of Model Railroading is designing the first layout and this is always the task of the new person with the least amount of experience! Many first layouts get torn apart because aspects incorporated into them simply are poorly designed. In my case, I am finally considering eliminating a feature I designed in the beginning that I’ve determined just is not working out! If a beginner can be steered away from these pit falls, so much the better!
(Again, changed mind on the size of turnouts as it is a necessity that they fit the application).
I see that Cuyama (Byron) is a layout designer and have read some of his blog here on this website. I would say it is a good idea for a person new to Model Railroading to be able to consult with people with experience about designing a layout. Don’t know that it is necessarily desirable/best to hire a professional designer to actually design the layout, as a part of the fun (to me) was the designing aspect of the process.
However, in today’s world, it appears to me that many people do just this and then go on to hire a professional builder to actually build it for them, buy RTR rolling stock and locos and must be completely stumped by having to build the structures for their layouts; or, have these built for them also! Maybe these types of people/businesses where available when I designed my layout, maybe they weren’t! It wouldn’t have mattered as I thoroughly enjoyed the process myself! I used John Armstrong’s “Track Planing for Realistic Operation” and many other articles as guides in the process and I found the study and research as fun as the “doing”!
Had these forums been around back when I started my layout, I would have taken advantage of them, also!
Good luck with your model railroading endeavors, runnerguy347!
perhaps you should make a more precise drawing. If the red part is your desk, you’ll need space to sit and walk in front of it. The door and window are obstacles as well. It seems to me the space for the layout is way less then 12 x 8 1/2.
In your first posting you mentioned you are not able to find a plan that suits your needs. With so many plans available on the web and in books this seems weird to me. There must be plans that come close. Or could you explain why you do not like the Reid Cap Ry (or the Virginian ), MR’s current project layout; or the Haysi RR (with smaller radii) or the Eagle Creek & Northern (with a different extension)
