I threw together two layouts I like and could build in multiple stages - “Port Ogden & Northern RR” and “Mohawk & Hudson”. I modeled them for N scale in XtraCad, using Atlas Code 80 for Port Ogden & Nothern RR as a company railroad for smaller switchers, and using Peco Code 55 medium turnouts for Mohawk & Hudson with a minimum radius of 12.5" and easements on all connections.
There is a wall at the top as well as left and right. While the layout is fun to play around with, I will not be able to reach the far back - I put some red circles at 32" for the Hand-of-God in the pic… any idea what to change in layout or how else to make the back area accessible?
Was thinking that if if you slightly increased the length of the Mohawk & Hudson to retain your minimum radii then compressed the trackage in between the loops allowing you to move the Canalport station closer to the wall therefore giving you the reach that you, very correctly,have identified that you need. Am not sure but think the correct phrase is a “dogbone” layout.
Am sure that the far more clever chaps, than myself, who frequent this forum will offer you the benefit of their expertise.
A topside creeper to hang over the layout and reach things.
But it would very likely be a more intelligent approach to do a custom design, and get a layout which suits
a) your preferences and
b) your available space
I would not build a layout where I cannot reach every inch of track, including in tunnels. I don’t start with a track plan, I start with a benchwork plan and then see what track plan fits.
If it’s already built, then the Topside Creeper is probably your best bet.
Simple answer, don’t build it. Putting all the switching on the back side is a horrible design.
Flip the layout front to back to move the switching to the front. Cut the loopty loop portion in two pieces and move them to the ends of the layout, then squeeze the middle 6-8 inches so you can reach everything.
Flip the layout front to back to move the switching to the front. Slide the loopty loop portion as far to the right or left as it will go, then bensd the switching portion around it so one end of the layout is angled. That will allow you to reach everything.
Since its really two layouts, split it into two separate layouts and make an L shape out of it.
You have “extra” room on both ends. Cut that off and make the layout trapezoidal, with the front less wide than the back. That will allow you to reach in everywhere. That still doesn’t change the fact that burying all the switching in the back of the layout is a bad design, but at least lets you reach everywhere.
I would point out that as someone who actually has used a topside creeper (belonged to a friend) I found it accutely uncomfortable after just a few minutes. My ribs hurt and it was starting to become an effort to breath. Perhaps it would be OK if my knees bent backwards like an ostrich’s.
If it had been a matter of reaching down to briefly rerail a locomotive or adjust some scenery, fine. But if I had to be on it to actually lay track or do wiring or create scenery for long periods? I think my ribcage would crack first. It was also effortful to be facing up on the thing t change lightbulbs
I am not saying they are useless or have no place. But I would say to rely only on the topside creeper rather than also have access holes – and those, large enough to be real not theoretical access – is likely a mistake.
never heard of a topside creeper, this is hilarious
But you’re right, a custom layout would be much better. I just started copying layouts and transfer them to N scale to get a better feel of what’s possible, what’s difficult, and why some layouts are more fun than others to operate…
all great suggestions, the L shape is a good idea, should’ve thought of this… not sure if the heights work, with mountains or high areas in the front and lower areas in the back. Learned a lot while doing it, though!
After reading all the comments I think I will propose a new book to Kalmbach Publishing that I will write: “101 Hilarious Train Layouts for Beginners”. The actual business model will be a comedy reality show, following beginners with cameras around while they are trying to build these things…
I’m not exactly a track plan or layout design expert, but I would seriously reconsider building such a layout. To have such a switching area not easily accessible is not the best of choices. Having all those turnouts out of reach would become old really fast…
I compromised in similar circumstances on my last layout. I won’t do it again. What you can’t reach easily dogs you forever. You will appreciate having an access hatch, but not that you felt it was a suitable solution to the problem of access inherent in the design you currently fancy. Nip that problem at the outset by redesigning if necessary.
I would think that you would want all the switching area to be reachable with ease, hand of God way or not.
I would flip it around and NOT put any: switches, sidings, yards or tunnels in that area that is HARD to reach.
I also would not put any track where I can’t get to it.
I put my MRR layout on wheels so I could roll it out to get access to areas I could not reach regularly. Perhaps you could do the same.
All my switching save one spur with a sinding is in front near me and i can manually switch the switches.The two that are remote, can still be reached from the west side of my layout.
of course i’ve an opinion about the two very dated plans you picked, even a stronger opinion about the combining the two, it is your plan however.
If you want more serious thoughts you could start with a drawing of the room. Behind this question is the notion you need to be able to walk in front of the layout, the actual space it takes is about 10x7,5. In a space like that you could do so much more.
Labeling a maze of rather at random laid out tracks with yard, steelmill and docks does not mean you will end up with a credible railroad with feasible operation. This might be the difference between trackplanning in the past and more modern ideas. Are you just a model-railroader or do you also want to model an operating railroad?
