Finally after some doing I got found a track plan program which is easy enough for me to use.
I came up with this design which barely fits on a 5 x 9 foot table. It is pretty tight, probably should use guardrails.
Key features for enjoyment are:
A couple siding tracks which face different directions - this makes the trains have to move further around the track which for some reason is important to me maybe because they seem further apart then.
A bit of a yard in the bottom left
The ability to exit the yard in either direction (next time I might try for a decent hump yard!)
Six industry spurs to keep your trains busy.
Problems:
I still had some difficulty with the fine points of merging even straight track with the program.
Most curves are 18" so unit size is limited
Check out all them Remote Switches $$$$$
I was too lazy to draw in a lake top and center to satisfy the need for at least one bridge
Same with the need for a tunnel, probably top right
Let me know any other no-no’s you find (like my them switches better work well!)
Where is the yard in the lower left? You mention alot of switches and the amount of money involved in that…You could probably do with out half of them at least. Your industrial sidings are very short.
Maybe you could supply some room dimensions? I am not sure how much you have researched layout design, but plenty of folks try to stay away from the oval, and go with around the walls, or shelf style. A 5’x9’ sheet of plywood is an inefficient use of space in most instances…
Certainly give the above advice some thought. Around the room on a shelf takes up virtually no floor space as desks and tables can easily go under it. If you have a high traffic door that can’t be bridged, concider point to point, ending each side of it.
Instead of all remote switches, you could use manual ones for those in reach. You can either get ones that come with Atlas’ rather large, but hideable manual switch machines or I think it is Customline that does not come with any. Caboose Industries makes ground throws that will fit both. Use remote switches for only those that are not easy to reach, either distance or scenic elements in the way.
A 5 by 9 layout needs a footprint of minimum 7 by 11 and that nearly fills a spare bedroom. Aside from the space requirement, wiring this layout for multiple train operation in DC is going to be a nightmare. This will be less of an issue if you go DCC, but still you have to watch out for those return loops.
Scenery will be difficult to “plant”, as most of the layout is plastered with track.
It´s a toy layout, not designed for prototypical operation. If that´s what you want - fine.
I would advise against this design or at least eliminate a few things. There are 4 reversing features - 3 reverse loops and one wye, way too many in such a small RR. Those portions need to be re-examined. This will dramatically reduce the number of turnouts used. There are also some turnouts that lead to useless spurs - look at the bottom left hand corner; two won’t hold a single car and one has bad clearance problems. I’d make these go away too. I’d also think about reducing the number of spurs in the loops too.
Before going beyond the paper stage, you might want to look at the MR track plan database for some ideas and of course some of the older ‘collection’ books have some ideas that could be adapted. As presented I’m afraid you will be sorely disappointed and will turn away from this great hobby experience.
This implies you are planning on running two trains simultaniously. As a prior poster noted that is going to dictate either some complex wiring or DCC.
Ok, but I don’t know how that qualifies as a yard. I think you could do better at the upper right
I am not certain what you mean by exit in either direction, but by switching the yard to the upper right and making the “yard” into just a passing track one can get a semlance of a real yard and make the lower left less cluttered for a tunnel / bridge whatever.
I think I would eliminate the WYE industry arrangement in the loop at the upper right. The tail tracks are so short there would be much more capacity if it was all just one long track. Saves the $$ of one turnout too.
Well there are some critical turnouts very near the center of the layout. High probablity of derailments there. How hard is that going to be to reach? Then there are many s-curves all over the place. Look for derailment issues there too.
I think something like this might be more operationally interesting and it moves a lot of the congestion to the center-right top:
While pevious posters have a point about the pros and cons of different layout design concepts… I think that among the many island track plane out there, this is a clever plan with a very efficient use of space.
I would advice you to add scenery elements into your plan from the start. You might be surprised how much space they take.
Anyway I did some drawing myself; to separate the two reversing loops I had to use a 15" radius. This would limit the choice of equipment even more. Rich’s remark about going for N-scale might be to the point.
The second drawing illustrates Ulrich’s remark. A different footprint on the very same floor space could lead to a more spacious plan.
Now this is some food for thought! I have spent some time trying to work out some track plans based on anything besides a 5 x 9 rectangle this evening and I might be coming around to the idea.
Paulus, your work there really has me thinking. There is an area in my basement which would seem a natural for a “U” shaped set up if I move the TV Hook up. I could even stick out a few inches on the left side in particular if needed.
Zypher, your 5 x 9 is a thing of beauty though. One more switch and you even have another spur on the bottom left.
N scale IS very attractive from a layout and realism perspective I agree, you can even get scale trees more easily! But 18" curves and HO scale are what I am working with. I started all this RR stuff up again by digging the old equipment out and throwing it together on the ping pong table. I have owned it for a few decades now and the size just seems natural.
Often what our virtual mental picture is doesn’t pan out in reality. I would suggest making some scale overlays to visually see the problems for both rolling stock and structures.
I have called up your thread several times, wondering if I should butt in. I recently designed a 5x9 HO layout with a single reverse loop. However it is intended to turn trains both directions by backing, since that is commonly done on the prototype when wyes are used. I sketched up this layout for a gentleman who wanted to model the Missouri Pacific and Texas Mexican Rwy in Corpus Christi in HO on a 5x9 layout. This layout includes condensed versions of quite a few prototype scenes and operations.
I have over a dozen prototype photos showing how this layout incorporates real life features and operations. Rather than hijacking your layout thread any further, I am going to come back om a day or two with my nown thread titled “Corpus Christi in 5x9 HO.”
I would strongly advise against a reversing loop. If you go with DCC, you will need to get an autoreverser like the Digitrax AR1 or the a PSX-AR from DCC Specialties. I was using a PSX-AR which I could never get to work properly, so when I scrapped that layout in favor of the one I am buidling now, I made sure that there were no reversing loops. Sometimes simplicity is the more elegant way to go. If I were voting I like Paul’s lower layout.
I have two reversing loops with PSX-AR reversers and they work flawlessly. I got them wired and the insulated joiners in the proper places with help from the forum.
A double track main with two crossovers and the two reversing loops makes for some interesting running of the trains.
Now there you are not giving yourself enough credit. It is still really the layout you designed. I just flipped the yard to the opposite corner - straighteded it out a bit, and tweeked a few other things.
There is always a place another switch can be added for another spur, but before too long one ends up with solid track. Layout white space is a good thing. Especially if one wants mountains and bridges.
Reverse loops are trivial with DCC. Don’t even need to do anything but make sure the turnouts are lined properly. Autoreversers make coordinating toggle flipping a thing of the past.
The originally posted design reminds me a bit of the Ma & Pa (Manchester and Paradise, not the protoyype Maryland and Pennsylvania!) in MR in the early 60’s. It’s also in one of the layouts you cna build books.
I would strongly suggest considering what Paulus posted, using the same space needed fror a large island plus room to walk around it, you can have much more railroad. And no problems reaching the middle to lay track or build scenery.
I also like the lower layout shown by Paulus. If a reversing loop in a given you could cut across the upper loop. At any rate this design makes much better use of the space in my opinion.
