I can’t believe that layout design is taking me so long get my first tracks installed.[censored][:(!] I have done several 1/4" grid paper layouts, but just can’t seem to get things the way I like them. I am trying to model northern New England, VT,NH, ME and the northern part of MA on an HO scale, 10.5’ X 17’. There are the Green Mountains and White Mountains the CT river etc. to work in, as well as elevations ( Crawford Notch mountain division ). Time era 1920-1955. One of the industries will be the Milk industry from the farms in the three upper states to the Dairies in Boston.
Benchwork was a piece of cake, as was the swing gate. Wiring and soldering are no problem, I worked in electronics all my working career. But try to get this doggone plan done???!!![censored].
Am I the only one in the MRR world with this problem??? And I am not a procrastinator either, I like to get things done.
I’ve found that planning anything on grid paper to be frustrating at best. I went to school in the old days (graduated 1970) when they taught Mechanical Drawing. (At that time, a cad was an old term for a guy that was a jerk) I learned to make drawings with a T-Square, scale ruler, compass, and triangle on a regular drawing board. I’ve had a great deal of success laying out things in scale. I usually draw out several plans, choose the one I like bes, and refine it, so in the process I make quite a few drawings.
Track layout was the one thing that took the longest on my current layout. One reason for that is because I’m using all ns EZ-Track. There are many places where track sections had to be cut to fit a particular space. I have one piece that’s only 3/4’s of an inch long.
Does EZ Track have the equivalent of the Atlas Snap Track Assortment? Even though most of my track is flex, I still use these for small pieces because it’s rather difficult to cut a piece of flex as short as that. Incidentally, the shortest piece in the assortment is 3/4 inch long. They’re available in both code 100 and 83.
I didn’t find layout design to be difficult at all for the layout that I’m currently constructing. However, there are more than a few jokers in that deck:
I am working with a concept that is now approaching its 44th birthday, so the basic elements are pretty much set in concrete.
I have (by my standards) plenty of space, so I don’t have to try to cram 10 kg into a 5 kg sack.
When I came up with a workable benchwork shape, it was simply a matter of twisting and looping a predetermined schematic onto the connected L-girder tables. That simplified the procedure considerably.
I have not micro-planned every turnout, signal and rail gap. Detailed track planning is done on-site with flex track. (I hand-lay all of my specialwork, so I can get away with that.)
My construction trepidation is reserved for detailed scenery construction. None of my layouts prior to this one have ever reached the point where it was necessary!
They have track pieces down to 1 1/2" in length. I have a couple of these on the layout. As for curve pieces, they have from 18" radius up to 33" radius that I know of. The selection isn’t as good as Atlas but they have a lot. I like their new DCC controlled turnouts although I won’t be using any on my layout.
[#ditto] Maybe you could post a drawing of your space and benchwork and what main features you want on it. You may get a few new ideas.
Usually when I design a new trackplan (I model free lance) I try and pick switching module plans that have been published in the model press as my towns. I find the modules already have all the switching moves worked out and the track plan supports it.
Depending on when you start the clock, it took me anywhere from 5 years to 6 months or so. I used XtrkCad, as they don’t make an eraser big enough for everything I changed along the way. And I tend to get sloppy after about 10 minutes of working by hand, and the drawing becomes useless.
I spent a lot of time thumbing through Track Planning for Realistic Operation, and various Armstrong plan books gathering thoughts.
Good point and question Dick. I myself am in the same predicament. I have a general main line, but am stuck on configuring spurs, leads, yards, etc… Are you modeling a specific place?? You could take note on the prototype. Thats kind of what I’m doing. I just look up a specific industry type I might wanna model and see if theres anything out there. Then I get my track idea from that.
I used Atlas RTS Freeware and I started with a basic oval (it’s a 4x8 layout) then added an inside one, then a yard, turntable, and engine house, all in about 20-30 min. I officially started construction on my layout today. You’re all going to hate me for this hehe. Now throw in the factor that I’m only 13…
I had a room in the basement that had 10’-5" width by 16’ in length to use. I wanted to use every available “inch”. Personally, I think too much space is lost with loops and islands all over the place, but that is MHO only. So with that in mind, I constructed the benchwork as an around the room layout with a 30" isle that is offset from the center of the 10’ 5" width. In otherwords, starting at the left side wall, a bench that runs 16’ x 30" wide, then a 30" isle then a 5" - 4" wide bench x 16’ long. These two side benches are connected at the far end by a 36" X 30" lift out. The entrance at the upper end is connected by a swing gate.
The wider bench, 64" X 16’, has lift outs at the right wall that are 16" wide x 36" long. This will only have scenery, not tracks, and it allows me to reach any part of this wide bench ( either from the isle or the lift outs. I am 5’-9" and 180# so I can fit into these lift outs with ease.
The larger bench will hold Vermont and it’s industry, then the green mountains spine down the middle and the Connecticut river, with New Hampshire on the other side. The left side bench will have part of the state of Maine, and far end of the tables across the entire 10’ x 5" will have part of norther
Well, I’ve only be in MRRing for about 4 years now. I’ve learned a lot during that time. I’ve also learned that there is still a lot of learnin’ left to do. [(-D] (Probably moreso about RRing than MRRing.)
Learning how to design a believable and operational layout based on a prototype has been a challenge for me. I almost laugh at some of the first designs I came up with using the Atlas RTS software. I knew nothing about yards and traffic flow, etc. then. Now I know a little more than nothing. [:)]
Besides designing, learning wiring has been the other challenge. Even so, I’ve tried to embrace what I can and not rush into things; which may cause me to move slowly but has probably saved me from having to tear things out because of being too impetuous.
Realistic operations? Right now I am hopping for functional track plan Tom!
I had a solid plan and stuck by it for a while, then, I went free lances. All the rails track fine and the 4 percent is not a problem heading up to the mining camp. Bought the Walthers New River Mining camp and built the loading platform so I could test fit the tracks and turnouts. Not a problem again, cooking with gas so to speak.
Time to test fit the portals, NOT! Seems they are just, to wide to clear each other? Time to back up and regroup again.
Good, but the question would be what does that represent in reall life? I think you are going about it in a completely different mind set than the original poster. Two ovals of track, a yard, and a engine house could apply to just about any railroad in the world. The author of this thread is looking for the opposite, something he can put down that matches the specific situation he desires to model, and space he has available.
I actually took about 6 weeks to design my sons 4x8 layout. Even then after we started running it there was one major change we had to make (adding a run around).
I am overwhelmed trying to design my new layout which will be in an old basket ball gymnasium approximately 30’x90’. I want to make it interesting from an observation balcony, yet easily operated.
Sounds to me as though you are trying to fit too much in. While 10x16 sounds like a big space (and it probably is larger than the average model railroad), for HO it really isn’t. And no you aren’t alone. My current layout now in the benchwork construction stage is 11’ x23’ in S (with future extensions a possibility). I had a major problem designing the terminal and fitting in 4 additional towns until I realized that I was trying to fit 15lbs into a 5lb bag. In my case I decided that less is more. I’ll have a simplified terminal and 2 towns.
Iron Rooster is right. I realized straight out that even though I had a room large enough for a large loop style layout, this is what I didn’t want. I instead choose the shelf style layout, because I wanted more switching and I wanted the layout to move around the walls of the room, leaving the center of the room available for other things. I also realized that when building a shelf layout, you are more concerned with the railroad and it’s right of way. Whats happening on a hill on the back of the layout is of little consequence if no one is going to see it. Once I realized this and the fact that I was only modeling a depth of 24 inches, what I could and could not do became more evident. As a result, most of my track runs down the center of the 24 inch section and curves are more sweeping, because I’m not trying to make it so busy. I don’t waste alot of time and money detailing far off scenes that no one can see clearly. Everything on a layout happens or should happen in the foreground.
No matter if it is CAD or free hand, layouts never seem to meet our expectations due to size restrictions.