I’ve been having a ball with my layout for about a year. Although I’m FAR from an expert of any kind, I have learned so much from this forum that I find my recent work is much, much better than the early stuff – so lots of my track (except a new add-on area) is unreliable. I find I’m continuously repairing, tweaking, etc. Also, I did the usual table in the middle of the room design. So, am thinking I’d like to rip it all down and start over (actually sounds quite fun to me – to do it again only better). Around the walls would give me more track, and above all, nice slow, methodical track laying for absolute reliability.
I’d like to get some layout feedback on my new project before I start. Here are a few of my considerations:
• HO. DCC (Digitrax Zephyr). Mostly running 8-wheel diesel (but I have one BLI Mikado that I love to run occasionally – it seems to do fine on small curves). Up to 50’ rolling stock. I have one passenger train but it’s the 60’ cars to accommodate smaller turns. Atlas code 100 presently w/ Atlas #4 and #6 turnouts.
• I want to run the longest trains possible in the space provided.
• Dark blue mainline is 22” minimum radius. All else is 18” min. I tried some designing with wider radius, but am leaning toward the smaller curves to achieve a longer run. (Wider radius eliminates center peninsula, and causes reach problems in the space I have).
• I like several trains running at once. For the ability to run at least three unassisted trains together, I have incorporated three distinct loops. (On the plan: light blue, dark blue, gold).
• I like continuous rolling and some switching. I’m wondering if I’ll regret not having more sidings/ passing track. Do guys “grow” into the desire to do operations? Right now spotting a car just isn’t so interesting to me.
• I have trouble with the hidden staging concept (I just can’t get wrapped around fishing for a derailment under the layout), but I have lots of rolling stock, so I’ve opt
MR ran a nice series of articles on a Burlington Northern layout in 1990. It was in N scale, but if you enlarge things to HO, it should work. I’m telling you, since it’s pretty similar–except for the yards–to what you have now.
Layout looks cool to me. You not planning for buildings like having a town, industry, etc?? I see you have two huge dead end railyards on both sides within your reversing loops, what purpose do they serve??
You mentioned you liked having LONG trains and having a couple just running ‘un-attended’. That being the case, why wouldn’t you have big railyards that your trains can totally pass through and keep going out the other side?? My confusion is, if you like long trains and for them to be constantly running, why would you have so much dead end track??
Based on how you like to run trains, I’d have pretty much the length of the back wall be one big railyard all the way across where the trains can enter from one of the side loops and totaly pass through it to the other side, or switch off to go around through your center spagetti loop. Each of your spagetti loops is 3 tracks wide (being able to select each of the three tracks for your trains via the railyard in the center) then having room in the center of each loop for scenery, buildings, etc…that your trains pass around.
I’m not saying your idea isn’t a good one with what you have planned out, since you asked for suggestions…if it were me based on what you’ve said…that’s how I’d do it.
I have a 10X14 around the room layout now. I took out a center peninsula for less track and more working room and far more fun to work on. Change is good. Duckunders aren’t bad if your railroad is 54" off the floor and a whole lot easier to see. I’m 61 and don’t mind bowing down to layout. The duckunder in the doorway is removable so when I’m just working on the layout there is no ducking.
This is a trade off with the three separate loops. If two of the loops were consolidated into one longer loop the trains could be that much longer.
What you are calling spotting a car is what I call switching. So when you say switching do you mean working the yards? If so the yards aren’t really that workable. Especially the one on the right. There is no separate drill track so working the yard will block the light blue “loop”. Further it sounds like these aren’t really yards but storage tracks. The purpose of all the separate tracks in a classification yard is to sort the cars into the locations where they will be going. In this case there are only two destinations so theoretically the yard needs only two tracks. Even worse since this yard IS one of the destinations there only needs to be one classification track.
Only you can answer the question about the passing tracks. But I’ll tell you this. One of the moments I’ll always remember while operating was when I had a 14 car east bound AT&SF El Capitan (1959 vintage) and did a flying pass with a westbound 18 car UP “City of San Francisco”. It was on a passing track only about 20 cars long. It was on a public show night, and you should have heard the oohs and ahs. (A flying pass is one where neither train stops).
Two thoughts.
Don’t make them that hidden. Nothing says they just coul
Thanks everyone for the enlightening comments. This forum always exceeds my expectations. You’re all right… the yards are nothing more than giant parking lots wasting my resources.
L.B., I like the idea of a double ended yard across the back… going to play with that one.
T.Z. What an ambassador to the hobby you are! I know what kind of time and effort it takes to go through and respond question by question… and you do that not just here but on many posts I’ve seen. Thanks for sharing your wealth of experience. Your frankness is much appreciated… I DO need less spaghetti and more scenery options. One question. I understand that adding grades might give me more “interest,” but how does it give me a longer mainline?
Interesting design. Unfortunately, I think you’re trying to pack too much into the space. Some concerns I would have for this plan are:
Choke points. You’re showing 24" in two places and 23 1/8’ in another. If these are track to track distances (which is what it appears to be), then you’re going to lose some of that to the benchwork.
Also your reach in’s will be a little bit longer with benchwork. Some of them are already too long for turnout maintenance. I would suggest trying to get all your turnouts within 24" of the edge.
The track centers for your curves appear to be 2". For curves this sharp you probably need wider spacing to avoid passing trains sideswiping each other. You might want to mock up a test with your equipment
While you state that your minimum radius is 18", the green reversing loops around your yards appear to be 14 or 15".
The comments already made are valid and well thought out, so I won’t beat a dead horse here.
As to adding grades, I think it would add some interest, as well as lengthen your run. The lines could cross over each other, and even fold back on themselves in order to gain and lose altitude, thereby lenthening the run and adding interest.
Lets start simple.
How would it change the scenery (interest level) if you took the light blue loop in the center island and flipped it over on itself, making it an over/under figure 8 design?
What about if the gold line crossed the center island towards the back, then looped around the front of the island, and then crossed over itself ion the back to continue on it’s way?
Now what about doing both of those things at once?
The dark blue line could be the river run, and it stays low. The other two run up and down grades to provide a mountain run. You could even do one with slightly steeper grades that would “require” helpers (say,…the light blue one).
You could take one side and the center, and elevate the two lines and then leave the other side at ground zero.
You could have one small yard high, and one down low. This would enhance the idea that your trains are going somewhere too.
Oh, and that was real nice what you said about TZ. And you’re also right about him, he does share of himself alot.
Hey TZ, I’d like to second that thanks for all you do to help people around here!
Iron Rooster: Right. Right. And Right. Your bottom line hit it in the head. I’m trying to cram too much railroad into my space. At every trade-off decision I opted to make the layout as big as I could rather than opting for reasonable spacing and aisles… which I bet I would ultimately regret. I’ve been working with your suggestions. Interestingly, if you go up as little as to 2.25" centers with 2" edges on bench work, and minimum 24" aisles, you must eliminate the center peninsula. (Boy this doing it right stuff is tricky business).[:)] I’ve got to step back and do a more realistic look at my space.
P. Carell: Cool ideas on risers. Thanks for the thoughtful input. I’m thinking maybe before I take down my current layout, I’ll try some of your suggestions on it. I’ve never worked with grades yet, so better to do it now!
Unless you want to use something really steep like a 4 pct. grade I don’t think an over-and-under would work - and even at 4% the train on that line is pretty much going to only be on level ground for a short distance…and you’re going to need 3-4 engines to pull a longi***rain up that grade. However, using WS risers to raise one track section a little may be a better idea. On my layout I have two lines running roughly parallel about 6" apart, I found that having one 1" higher than the other makes it look more detached from the other line.
I’m also concerned about you wanting to run three long trains at once?? That’s kinda putting a lot of train into a small space, it’s going to look awfully busy - plus with sharp curves, long trains are prone to “stringlining” derailments. I would decide which you prefer - long trains or many trains. If long trains, I would re-do the layout to use broader curves and concentrate on one train at a time. On my layout, I can have one train running on the mainline by itself, while I run a switcher moving cars around in the yard. You could probably fit in a twice-around mainline too - again, better for a long train.
If broadening the curves meant losing the middle section, I would do it. You could always do a “riatta”, have a stub-end section where the middle loop is now - it could be a yard, or a stub end station, or an industry, or a branchline (like a logging branch).
It is said a picture is worth a thousand words. Below is a simple example that I originally came up with for Grandpa Coyote when he asked a similar question. If I think about it I could probably come up with a more specific one for your layout (unfortunately I’ve got an “article” due tomorrow" and have to get to it…) but maybe on Saturday I can look at it closer.
No grade -
This one consumes the same exact amount of space. Has the same exact amout of curves, but notice how much more straight pieces there are. Not to mention the possibility for a cool bridge.
I was originally thinking of something like this for your center island “yellow” loop, but there are lots of complications to that (mostly the reversing loop tracks from the yards).
P.S. everyone - thanks for the comments of commendation. They are worth more to me than you know.
However, what pct. grade will that loop be?? I suspect pretty steep - to run long trains, you need to stay away from anything steeper than 1-2% at most. If that grade is 4-5%, you’ve just cut the pulling ability of your locomotives by about 75% !!
That is irrelevant to the point. What was posted is just an example answering the question of “how it would increase the length of the run”.
Talking about a specific grades would imply a specific application. For the layout being discussed in the place that is was being suggested (ignoring all the other problems) that would be about a 1.5% grade.
