Can't decide....layout shape...a tough one indeed...

Model Railroader Layouts and layout building
1

OK…here it goes…I’ve been accumulating stuff for a planned layout for nearly four years so far and while I do have a few parameters firmly settled (N scale,transition era,a couple of industries close to a small town,small yard,continuous running possibility,etc),I still haven’t made up my mind about the shape of the benchwork.

Actually,I’ve reduced my options to two basic shapes,meaning the walkaround type and the around the room design wich both appeal to me as both have interesting possibilities.I have an 11’X11’ room that I can use for the purpose,the layout has to be free standing and could have to be dissassembled as I might have to move some day.

With the walkaround design,I could have broader curves and a more realistic looking scenery as depth is possible from all sides.However,walking around and reach pretty much limit the size to about 6’X6’.On the other hand,the around-the-room concept would allow more layout area (square footage) but I’d lose the deep looking scenery,wich I can live without.However,I’d have to live with a duckunder or engineer some lift-out section unless I terminated both ends with dogbones.

I have the skills and tooling to do either options and find interests in all of them and that is the problem…I’d like to have the project moving on but can’t make up my mind.This is why I appeal to you guys who’ve done them all and hear of what you think…meaning trying to determine wich design is the most pleasant to operate on the long run.Thanks.

2

I can’t really be of much help here, but I have designed an around the walls HO layout (12x8’). I like the continuos running but operational potential. Can you do an around the walls with a peninsula that you can do your deep scenery on? Why don’t you pick up a copy of Model Railroad Planning 2007, if you haven’t already, and check out the accompanying track planning booklet. They have an overview of just about all layout shapes and designs, dogbones, shelves, peninsulas, G’s, all of them.

3

Why don’t you like the dog bone shape? What about a swinging bridge? The older one gets the more they HATE duck unders. That is the number 1 thing on EVERY SINGLE query our club has issued about re-designing the layout - Eliminate all duckunders.

4

I’ve done several plans about that size. Why not look them over and maybe one will spark an idea.

http://s83.photobucket.com/albums/j319/pcarrell/Track%20Plans/

5

You might want to try a “letter” shape. You might be able to get away without a duckunder or liftout depending on where the door to the room is.

I highly recommend John Armstrong’s book: “Track planning for realistic operation” He shows various shapes near the back of the book.

http://stremy.net/SRA/Tips/Books.html

Best of luck, and remember that a plan is easier to modify than finished benchwork. Draw it on the floor before you build it!

Karl

6

Where is the door? I’d go around the walls, with the blobs, and try to scenically separate the two tracsk, maybe even with a little elevation change.

7

I hear you loud TZ,the dogbone is a good idea I didn’t exclude as it probably will be my best option ultimately.What I’d like is to avoid the “backtracking in the same plan” effect along as having pretty sharp curves at the end of a rather small width benchwork.However,I hadn’t considered a blob wich is indeed a great idea.

Right now I could have almost any design as the space I have is opened in the basement with no consideration for a door nor any windows but I know this likely temporary as I might have to move any time in the future and may not have a huge room available for a 12’X12’ layout,and even worse have no idea where the eventual door might be.This alone makes me wondering about the benefits of the"around the room" design.

I have built a swing bridge on the club’s layout a couple years ago and have found out that no matter how accurate the fit is originally,the wood is temperature/humidity sensitive and moves all the time as per cyclic periods as seasons go by.My basement is cool in the summer with a de-humidifier running non stop to keep stuff from rusting while in the winter,the heating system keeps the place warm and dry.While humidity is quite well controlled,the temperature level does change substantially so I don’t favor the swing bridge option much.

Not knowing what the future reserves me has me trying to design a more “universal” bench that could fit almost any decent size room,like an island design,but then the reach problem shows up and limits widths substantially thus the trackplan itself along with the operational possibilities.I’ve considered a 9’x9’ with a removable center section (scenicked as a pond or other) to work on it and eventual derailments but the the duckunder comes back alive as never.I’m 55 and while still in fair shape for this age,I don’t foresee any improvement in the matter.

&n

8

I used blobs on my layout but unless you know the actuall plan you may think trains will collide. I hide some of the blob with tunnels and buildings.

It sounds like you have a great space to use. Where will you put the staging? Underneath, along the wall? How about along the wall behind the scenery so you can get to it.

If you put a small blob on one side leading to staging you could pu a larger blob with more switching actvity on the other, and maybe even leave it out fat enough to operate both sides.

Just my $.02.

9

Hey Jack,

[#ditto] Definitely get this book. I suspect that after reading it you’ll find far greater operational, scenic, and overall realistic potential to any plan you put in a walkaround (around the walls) style, vs. an island type layout.

With an 11’ x 11’ space you can come up with quite a nice plan that will satisfy all your needs.

A peninsula need only be 3’ wide to accommodate a turnback loop with scenes on both sides. Shelving along the perimeter of the room 12" deep. (More than sufficient for scenic possibilities in N scale.) That leaves you with 3’ wide aisles- quite comfortable.

If you go around the perimeter of room and set your layout height at say 50" or so, and add some grades, you should be able to do a nod-under at the room entrance without consuming too much of your mainline, and this will give you a great view of your trains too. This can leave an 11’ long wall for your yard. And all without backtracking…

A layout of this style is probably more readily broken up onto modules that are easier to transport also, with fewer odd track joints at the section seams. - JMO’s

Happy Planning [:)]

10

I have a 9’ x 11’ room, built layout out 30 inches out around room. I built my duckunder high enough so I can roll under it in an old computer desk chair sitting up. I’m young now but later in life the chair when come in handy. Just a thought.

11

I have John Armstrong’s book wich I’ve read through twice so far and it is “the” model railroad book to own indeed,along with Iain Rice’s Track Plans and MR’s 48 Top Notch plans book,so ideas for designing a workable layout are numerous to say the least but…the trackplan itself isn’t my main concern as I have to decide first on what type of benchwork will suit my particular needs best.

The “around the room” concept does have the majority’s favor for obvious reasons and I’ll probably go that route but then I still can’t use all the space I have now as I have to keep in mind that I don’t own my home and may be called to move in the future.If I use the full 11’X11’ space now,I know it will be hazardous to find a rented space with such a spare room other than the master bedroom.But then,I don’t believe that my lady would agree.So I believe that 9’X9’ would be more feasible with an “all around” 30 in. wide layout so that I’d have a 4’X4’ pit in the middle to sit on a stool and still be able to turn around easily.And if I round off the inside corners somewhat,I’ll gain some more space for broader curves to the inside.Then if I build high enough and plan differently situated duckunder areas on all sides,it could be adapted to different room sizes/plans without having to tear the layout apart.I guess this is a trade-off being sort of an “opened center island” layout but I can’t think of better right now.Your opinions have helped me a lot so far and I wish to thank everyone and will greatly welcome any further comments.

12

There is a nice summary of the basic issues involved in the special pamphlet supplement that comes with the latest version of Model Railroad Planning 2007. It appears to be Andy Sperandeo’s work and its brevity might actually help move the decision along with the John Armstrong book as a good source of further thought especially once a basic decision has been made

To my mind the key to EVERY layout decision starts with – how long are your arms, and how far can you reach with real dexterity? Everything else follows from that

Dave Nelson

13

You’ve read Armstrong. The first thing you should do is list your givens and druthers. Right at the top of that given list, is that you are moving. So think about the time frame. How many years do you have. Obviously it looms in your mind.

My suggestion is to go way smaller, but make it expandable. I’m posting this as a for instance.

I don’t claim this is the ideal layout for you, but check this out. There is big scenery on one side. A yard and an urban canyon on the other. The tracks to the top right are an interchange track, that with a 1 x 5 extension, gives 6-8 tracks of staging. This will take you 2-3 years to build. You will be up and running in a couple months, and when the time comes you move, you drop it into your overall plan.

14

Yea, I suppose the whole grade & nod-under thing isn’t really very versatile. But you could still take a module approach to an around the room style layout. Keeping your track centers/location consistent from the edges at the junctions, a-la N-trak. This way, a section could be left out, or a shorter one constructed for a smaller space.

You mentioned that your 9’ x 9’ design wouldn’t have to be torn apart, (unless you want to get it through the door, that is.) so you’ll have to design that in sections also.

A better option may well be a “U” shaped dogbone. That seems like a nice expandable plan. Just add more or less straight section between the legs with the loops as the new space allows. Or, if the new space is large enough, make another peninsula creating an “E” configuration.

Chips method also has merit, build what will ultimately be the peninsula now, which would be the approximate dim’s of what he proposed, and plan to expand it when the space presents itself…

You seem to have enough experience to know what you’re looking for in a layout, so don’t compromise so much now that you’ll end up trashing your efforts later.

15

Cwn3,reading your comment allows me to realize that you pretty much “see” what I have in mind.In fact,when I say that the layout wouldn’t have to be torn down I mean that it wouldn’t be subject to a major redesign.It will in fact be readily prepared for moving and/or future readaptations as it will be made of separate panels resting on a box type frame to wich they’ll be bolted.The 9’X9’ could be 8 different 30 in. deep panels leaving a 4’X4’ opening in the middle.

Most of the extra work is in the design and construction of the frame wich also will have to be sectional if I want to dissassemble it for moving but then the advantage becomes obvious should I ever have plenty of room…simply add intermediate sections to both the frame and the benchwork.But in the meantime,with the room I have now,I’d have the luxury of choosing to operate from the outside of the layout or simply sit in the middle and be the “dispatcher”.The electrical system will need to be adapted for this purpose but this makes the project even more of a challenge.I know I can do it and I’m not in a hurry,I may never finish it unless I live a hundred but then,it’ll keep me occupied during retirement ten years from now.

16

I understand where you’re going with your idea, but for me this would be too much of a compromise. I’m firmly in your camp when it comes to backtracking; it just seems to detract from any sense of realism we’ve created when we re-cover the same ground.

Doing the size you described, the layout will be against 2 walls in your present space of 11’ x 11’ leaving 2’ wide aisles along the other two sides. If you were to do a twice around, and accomplish some scenic division, you’d be constantly ducking in and out of the middle to see/operate the rear sides. (Which couldn’t have much scenic division, well vertically, maybe.)

So I was thinking along your lines, but way outside the box…

What if you built a set of 4 modules, 2- 180* curved ends, say 5’ wide x 18" deep, and 2- straight sections of 4’ long x 30" deep, with backdrops. Put the straights together, back to back, and cap with the end units. Now you have an island style 5’ x7’ layout with a middle scenic divider and a 2’ or 3’ wide aisle all the way around…

All fits on top of a framework, or is just bolted together on top of a pair of girders and legs. With this, you have a walk around layout now, with the flexibility to convert it into an along the walls type later, if space allows. (The straight sections would go against the walls, and the end sections become the turn backs of peninsulas.) This also gives you the scenic depth & division you’re looking for, and there can be some contrast from one side of the layout to the other. A 15" radius is a pretty gentle curve in N scale, and should fit comfortably on your end sections.

Now comes the trick… Use a bit of straight in the middle of the turnback curves so that the tracks are only say, 3" in from the outside edges at the junction to the straight modules, and keep the alignment consistent at all 4 points. (This is critical.) If you should end up with a smaller space, switch the straight secti

17

Well CWN3,upon reading your comment a first time,it seemed to me as quite far out not to say weird as you say,but reading a couple more times and drawing the results on my mind’s blackboard has me thinking even more.You’ve got a strong point indeed as building a layout in modules does allow much more versatility.However,to achieve this,one has to be very strict in term of symmetry so that almost any combination of elements will go together.But to achieve this symmetry you have to have an almost perfectly symmetrical trackplan also wich I fear may quite limit the extent of imagination that can be involved in creating an interesting layout.

What I had in mind is actually creating a trackplan designed to accommodate a few intended features on a “one size fits all” benchwork so that any future move wouldn’t call for a complete redesign or worse,yeld a layout that doesn’t have a meaning any more.This is why I’m trying to obtain a “right sized” layout from the start and if I ever have more room in the future,I’d only have to add intermediate sections that would only lengthen let’s say a yard and/or main/siding combo or else without changing the “soul” of the layout.It would only be longer and/or wider but still would operate the same.

May be without realizing it,you’ve raised another point I hadn’t thought about.In my actual room,the layout would indeed be pushed agaisnt the outer walls wich means that I’d have to have a complete set of turnout controls on one side not to say nearly absolutely flawless trackage at the far end since reach would indeed be a problem.I don’t want to constantly pass under the layout to use the center opening.In fact,I want to cover it (simulated pond,small mountain,etc) so no scenic divider was in my plan as I wish to see my trains from that far,but like I said,there must not be any derailments.But then,I couldn’t

18

In the Model Model Railroading Handbook, Vol. III, Robert Schlelcher devotes about 2/3 of the book to modular layout design. Perhaps, there is a compromise between what cwn3 is suggesting and what you are envisioning.

At any rate, his discussion of modular design takes things well beyond what I would have envisioned, and certainly beyond anything I’ve seen at train shows and the like. With just a little planning, you could design a layout that with by addition or subtraction of modules could fit any future space–smaller or larger.

The book has a lot of track plans and examples.

I’m sure this book is out of print. I would go to my library and request it on inter-library loan.

19

My personal preference for a moveable layout is an island with extensions. In each move, it is likely part of the layout will be rebuilt to fit the new room, but that is/was an acceptable trade-off to me. If going to a larger room, all of the layout is useable until you build the new larger sections. If going smaller, at least some sections are useable until you build the remainder to fit the room. Note that the basic concept and configuration of the layout doesn’t have to change with each move.

In almost all spare rooms, there is at least one doorway and one window often on opposite walls. There is usually a closet door on a third wall. This means an around-the-walls configuration has a lot of obstacles that many people (including my wife) would like to see remain functional.

For instance, in a 9x9 room, you are pretty much limited to a 4x6.5ft island if you want to keep 30" aisles on 3 sides. I have found it’s pretty hard to get the wife to go along with the inconvenience of 24" aisles to access windows and closets in the room. And I agree with her. A 6.5 ft length can be stood on end to pass through a doorway when you move.

If you get a 9x10.5ft room, you now add an 18" deep L-shaped extension off the island along the 2 walls. The back piece extends across the 30" aisle-width along the same wall where the island touches. The back piece ties the island to the shelf that parallels the 6.5 ft side of the island. Length of this latter shelf can be whatever is desired - I cut it short to not interfere with closet doors or windows.

The extension adds tremendously to operations on an island layout, especially in HO and HOn3. The island provides your continuous run, and the extension can be a branch, another terminal, or even just staging (like MR’s newest project layout). No duckunders, and 30" aisles, too. Bad news is train length