I finally finished my first layout a couple of months ago. Well, finished to the point where I can run trains on it. Since then I’ve been working out bugs on it. Problem is, I picked one of those Atlas “spaghetti bowl” plans. The finished product is a 5x9 double-figure-8, with one double-track bridge and one single-track bridge crossing over several other tracks below. I’ve been tweaking it for some time now, but overall I’m not as pleased with it as I thought I’d be:
There’s not enough clearance between the bridges and the tracks below. The approach grades are so steep, I can’t adjust them any higher, or the trains won’t climb the grades.
5x9 is a lot bigger than I thought it was going to be when I started. Reaching into the center of the layout is a challenge. Also, it fills the room completely, and there’s not much space left between the layout and the walls (yes, I did measure the room ahead of time - I guess I just misjudged how massive this thing was going to be.)
I have a 4-8-4 steamer, which I love, but it has limited use on this layout. It can handle the 18" flat turns just fine, but when you combine those with vertical curves also, well, that’s just bad news.
I plan on moving a lot, so I built the layout in two 4-1/2’ x 5’ halves. The plan for transport was to la***he two halves together in a box-like configuration, track sides in to protect any scenery. Seemed like a good idea when I started, but once I got the layout finished, I realized that this would be freakin’ heavy to move around, and impossible to get up a flight of stairs if I had to.
If I had it to do all over again, I’d do a sectional around-the-walls modular deal, similar to Don Spiro’s new layout, featured in RMC the past few months. Problem is, I couldn’t just toss the old layout in the trash - too much money invested in lumber, cork roadbed, and track - the wife would kill me.
However, today I started thinking seriously about tearing down the layout and replacing it with a
Look at what you have as experience. The skills you learned will still apply, and you’l reuse a lot of material. We have gotten to the same point. We got track laid, and said, well, that’s not it. So we are in the process of starting over. Good luck!
Drop the lower tracks down to gain clearance.
Cut an access hatch.
Spaghetti bowls suck.
I did my first real half-zero layout as an around-the-room 6" wide shelf with switching and a small yard.
I’m a tad bigger now.
TOC
You will be happy with an around-the walls layout. I built 2 4X8s and now have a 10x11 around the walls layout. The current layout is 3’ wide, plenty of running and operation as well as scenery. Anid it doesnt take up ANY floor space. good luck[:D]
I did the same thing–well I designed a 4x8 layout for my kids, and had all the turnouts facing forward so that the kids could drive in and park. No sooner did I get the track running than they decided they weren’t interested. I was lucky in that I was able to make something semi-decent out of it, but I’d certainly do something different.
What I learned is that planning is crucial if you want a good layout. I learned a lot about what I want in a layout. Now I am designing a shelf layout with that in mind.
Be frugal, but don’t be afraid to show you wife how you learned from your mistakes and how your new plan will be better all around. Just maybe she will be supportive.
I imagine that very few folks who have been in this hobby for any length of time at all have built only one layout and then been perfectly happy with it. Most have probably constructed multiple layouts over the years, perhaps even in several different scales at various times to see what “fits” best for them. In truth, that’s probably the best way to learn about the hobby, and to improve one’s knowledge and skills.
Now’s your chance because the more you commit from now on will just be wasted money and you’ll be stuck with something with a lot of restrictions. The hobby will loose some of that appeal if not all of it.
I had a similar problem. I started with a 4 x 8 and slowly I added six inches to one side then 12 inches to another until it became a monster. I finally decided to tear it down and do a modular around the room. Now my layout is 24 inches with one spot 30 in. I have a lot more track and room for scenery. It was something I had to do I guess to get the expierience and practice to make the current layout fun. I learned enough building the “monster” that the round the room layout went together fast and easy.
Terry
I have never regreted the decison to rip it out and start over. The new one is always so much better… and the building it is 90% of the fun… when it gets too close to finished it’s less fun (to me). Fire up the saws!
If you do an around the wall and you move a lot, you will have to find a new dwelling with a train room of like size to avoid a third tear down.(just something to consider)
My present lay out is 42"X10’,I put it togethor in two 42"X4’ sections with an 2’X34" sectoin in the middle,When I get my train room back It be easy to move,and be re- done in an around the wall set up in an U shape with a 42"X4’ section at each end,and 24" wide around the wall.
I’m getting ready to take down my current layout (I think it’s my 6th one, but I’ve lost count) and build another one. In my case more space has become available that I want to take advantage of. So I say go for it, salvage what you can and move forward. I figure to reuse 90% of the benchwork and track.
Enjoy
Paul
Thanks for all the encouraging words, everybody. It’s good to know that I’m not the only one! The more I keep thinking about this, the more I’m resolved to do it.
I already looked at that, and it’s not an option - there’s just not enough track length between the “over” and “under” parts.
I think I can slice up the existing benchwork and get a bunch of 18" and 24" wide modules out of it. Since I’ll be moving into new houses often, with unknown room sizes/configurations, I have to be careful to design the modules to fit together in a few different ways to fit the particular situation.
So, it’s back to the drawing board! When I get home from work (hey, I should be working right now!), I’m going to start digging through my old MR and RMC mags, trying to get ideas for what kind of track plan I want to build. I already told my wife that for Christmas, I wanted power tools and train stuff. Maybe I can use this as an excuse to get the extra “parts” I need to pull this off. Heck, I might even be able to get that Digitrax Zephyr set that I should have gotten in the first place!
A couple of suggestions. Since you don’t know where you will be living, you might thinkin in terms of 2x4 Modules with 2x2 corners. I have a book at home that devotes several chapters on how to make such a model railroad. It is called the Model Railroader’s Hnadbook, Vol III. I forget the author. I can look it up when I get home. Someon here shold know it.
When you get a plan ready, post in on the Layoout Forum and get input. Come prepared with your givens and druthers and know your layout’s purpose. We should know your vision.
As a kid, my Dad and I had two unsuccessful starts at 4 x 8 HO layouts, and one unsuccsessful 5 x 9. I also had an unsuccessful start at a 2 x 4 N scale layout.
Having read MR for years now, here’s what I believe is right (for me):
Shelf or “around the walls” layouts are the way to go once you’ve got some basic skills. You can reach everything, you don’t have a “bowl of spaghetti”, and you could design it “modular style”.
You could also design it so that the track never goes through the same scene twice. This is key, in my opinion.
Good luck to you.
The 4 x 8 is sort of a “right of passage”. Without it, many would never get their trains running. If you’re not happy with it now, you’re not going to any happier with it in the future.
I recommend this: “play” on it for now - keep your stuff running, etc. Weather some rolling stock, etc. Do this for a couple months.
Meanwhile, spend lots of time planning your around the walls layout.
I recommend David Barrow’s series on creating a modular layout - (sept - dec 1996).
The cool thing about his approach is that he keeps stuff re-usable. Once he builds a small section of benchwork, he keeps using it as he changes track plans, layout arrangements, etc.
And I should add to what I’ve said above about 4 x 8’s - I think Model Railroader feels the same way.
Over the years, they’ve had quite a few 4 x 8’s. But they’re never very complex. They’re always pretty simple. I believe they do this because they know the 4 x 8 doesn’t work well with tons of track on it. You could have a very nice layout with a simple track plan, but once you bust out with the crazy atlas plans, things get out of control.
They also know (I would think) that a lot of people will move from the 4 x 8 onto something else, so they don’t have any crazy complex 4 x 8 designs.
Me and my Dad’s first layout was from the book “HO railroad that grows”. We never got beyond the first couple stages, but that was the ultimate bowl of spaghetti layout. I recently found the book on ebay, and had to have it just for memories.
Someone had a layout featured in MR a couple years ago based on that book. It was actually a very nice layout. If I recall correctly though, sure enough, he already had plans for his next layout (as Linn Westcott also did at the end of his own book!)
Simple 4 x 8’s are elegant. Complex 4 x 8’s usually get out of control, from what I’ve seen.
Reguardless of the current or future layout, there will always be things that one wishes they would have done differently. It is a continuous function. I don’t think I’ve ever “finished” a layout. It is never money wasted. Its part of the fun.
A real railroad doesn’t just put down track and be done with it. They are constantly re-routing, re-grading, smoothing curves, adjusting alignments, re-loacating spurs, new bridges, new tunnels.
Do you have the exact title and author of that book? I tried looking it up on Amazon and came up with nothing. Thanks.
I’m going to do a lot of planning before I break out the Skil saw. Meantime, I’m going to try to squeeze out max enjoyment of the 5x9. Thanks, everyone, for your input.