New to model railroading, building what is I hope a simple O-scale layout for my kids to enjoy. I found a layout that almost fits the space I have available (9 x 11, l-shaped). The pic below is from “Creative Toy Train Track Plans,” the “Crossing the Ravine” layout. I would like to add a second independent loop so a second train can be running, preferably crossing the other track at least once. Any ideas on how to do that and keep the layout size about the same? I plan to use Atlas track, if that makes a difference. I like the plan as shown but have an open mind, so if you know of any other similar plans, let me know. Thanks in advance.
That is basically a loop-to-loop arrangment, with an alternate ‘figure-8’ route. They have already crammed a lot of track into the space available. I think a simple loop could be fit on the inside if the two industry tracks were removed (highly not recommended). Another “L” shaped loop could always be put around the outside of the whole thing, but that wouldn’t cross anywhere. The only other loops I can think of are tiny, almost just circles, and I really think they would mess up the overall “workings” of this design.
The grey/yellow is the re-routed original track. The red is the new loop. It only crosses the other track on the siding. I’ve also put in a “cut off track” to let the two loops connect so equipment can me moved between them without having to use hands.
Note, I am not recommending this. It is just the only thing I can think of without a major re-work
Wow, thanks for the quick response and the great sketch. I had planned to add a tunnel on the left side of the layout, but the way you have it drawn, I could put the tunnel along the top part of the red track.
Since you said you wouldn’t recommend this, what are its shortcomings?
I presume you mean the upper left… I considered that and thought it might be impossible. The two tracks are each graded in the opposite direction. The outside track is going from high in the back to medium in the front, while the inside track is low in the back and medium in the front. So the only place to cross them would be about 1/2 way through the 180 degree curve. That would require a very sharp curve (at least relative to the others) in order to turn around and come back. I know many of the three-rail trains can turn on a 13 1/2" radius, but I didn’t know if you wanted to.
Yes, I was thinking sort of the top right down the right side a bit. One would not want to bring the tunnel too far toward the center as that would ruin the whole “bridge over the valley” concept of the layout.
Mostly the operations differences between the two, ummm, Loops for lack of a better turn. The person running the train on the original track can make large figure-8s, or go around the top loop and turn the train around the other direction. Once again a pretty long run before hitting the same piece of track again. The person on the other loop can, well, just go around a fairly small loop of track. I presume they would be come quite disenchanted with it quite quickly.
I am not familiar with large scale control schemes but if DCC were used two trains could share all the track - and I just had an idea for that… Let me ponder it a little more.
Atlas RTS software has libraries for their 3 rail O track, as well as their HO and N. It’s reasonably easy to use, if limited compared to other track CAD programs. It’s a free download from Atlas.
How to modify the layout depends a lot on what equipment you have or intend to purchase. Just about all traditional-size Lionel, Rail King, Atlas, and others’ equipment will run on O36 curves. Full scale Lionel and MTH often needs O42 or bigger.
The command control systems mentioned for 3 rail O are TMCC (Lionel and others) and DCS (MTH). Both will let you run 2 trains fairly easily independently on the same reasonably long loop. (It’s not as much fun to try to keep 2 trains running on the same short loop, and not very practical without command control.
I do have the Atlas software, and have found it fairly handy. I can scan in track layouts and “trace” over them to add parts I like from different layout. My problem is, not having built a layout before, I can’t visualize the 3-dimensional aspect of the layout. Right now we have a bunch of Atlas track on a couple of flat 4x8 plywood sheets on the floor. Based on what we’ve experienced so far, the smallest diameter track that I’d like to use is the 36", as the trains are close to derailing at fast speeds on tight turns at that diameter. We don’t have any of the bigger cars yet, but I think the bigger loop on the this layout is all 42" diameter. This is for the kids to enjoy right now, and they like speeding trains climbing mountains and going over bridges.
I was not aware that you could run two trains on the same track with the TMCC or DCS without them running into each other. Is there collision avoidance, or do you have to set the speeds of each train so that they don’t overlap each other? My current locomotive (yes, only one so far!) does not have the TMCC stuff built in, but I understand that the TMCC can control the track voltage to run non-TMCC trains. Would I be able to use it, or would I need two additional TMCC or DCS locomotives?
I would actually prefer one l-o-n-g loop, and this is why I initially liked this plan. It seemed to be a nice long non-repetitive run. But I also wanted the kids to have two trains running, so I looked hard at this layout because I thought I could squeeze in another loop somewhere.
to answer one question , no there is no collision avoidance built in , that’s what the engineer is for [:)]
and a warning … if you actually put that layout in a corner (most L shaped layouts are designed for that) there will be large areas that you can’t reach to fix derailed cars , uncouple cars etc. figure on being able to reach between 2 and 3 feet depending on the length of your arms and the height of the layout table . also consider scenery near the front of the layout may get damaged if you have to reach over it to get to derailments
My engineers are 3 and 7, so collision avoidance is high on my list of priorities!
Thanks for the advice on the layout. One side of the “L” will be against a wall, but the rest will have space. Hopefully I can make it work. I plan to build the table very low so the kids can see it easily, then raise it up when they get bigger.
Yes, I can understand that. Then why the desire to have them “cross”?
Anyway since you want to avoid the head-on collisions, the idea I mentioned in the post above is a moot point. BUT I did come up with the plan below. Still generally based on the original. Two fairly long circuits, that cross in exactly one point. Both circuits have a tunnel, as children seem to love tunnels. The blue indicates the tunnel entrances and the blue on the track indicate it is hidden. This sort of assumes the right hand side is the exposed side and the top is the part against the wall. The RED track is the connection between the two circuits, so it could be left out if that was not desired. As always some side tracks to park cars could be added in a few places.
It still has a few problems such as a train entering from the true loop from the loop-to-loop circuit through the red track, would have to “back-up” to get out, and a couple S-curves. But it might be sufficient to give some more options toward what you want.
The kids like to see the trains cross one another, not on a level track, but one on a bridge and one below. Maybe “cross” is the wrong word to use. Our figure-8 setup now has that and they like to stop the train on the bridge and roll a boxcar under it. Don’t know why-- just one of their things! And they definitely love tunnels. We have one of those styrofoam ones painted to resemble a mountain. I always have to check it to make sure there isn’t anything hiding in it before we start the train up.
Really like the track plan you’ve come up with. Is it in the Atlas RTS software? If so, would it be possible to e-mail it to me at fish_almighty at yahoo.com?
Ah, then I need to revise the plan again. Might even be easier…
Yes it is (version 7). Yes I will. You just need to note that I didn’t spend too long matching things 100% there are several 1/2" errors in there that will have to be resoved before the track would actually fit together properly.
Got the file via e-mail, thanks! And let me know if you get any more ideas. I’m still buying a few pieces of track a week, so I’m not ready to start bolting down track yet.
