Hi everyone. I’m working on a plan for a layout in a small extra bedroom. I saw an idea on another thread here that got me thinking I could do something similar. (Thank you to Paulus Jan for giving me a badly needed place to start.) I’d like to get some feedback on my first draft. Am I trying to jam too much into too small of a space? Too little? Just right? Might I have room for a couple more sidings?
A little background on what I’m trying to accomplish. I want to provide rail service between the small towns of Connorton and Graceville. It wasn’t long after Graceville was founded that a feud of sorts erupted with the neighboring town of Connorton. Fortunately, the Mary River kept the two physically separated and helped prevent the various disagreements between Connorton and Graceville from spiraling out of control. As time has progressed, thankfully, the two have come to realize that they need to work together, to some degree at least.
So, my little railroad will connect these two towns for the purpose of moving goods and people with hopes that a stronger bond will form between them. The layout will be set around 1950. I need some sidings for a variety of small industries. There will be a couple bridges across the Mary River and a tunnel through a yet-to-be-named hill/mountain that juts out into the southwest corner of the layout. Minumum radius is 18", and I’m figureing #4 turnouts. Grades will not exceed 2% or so. I’m figuring I’ll have to deal with small steam locos and fairly short rolling stock. HO scale.
Here is the plan (assuming I embeded the image correctly):
What I see is a layout that will be a monster to wire (2 reversing loops back to back), our industrie’s tightest curves and a track plan that will yield 10s of minutes of enjoyment. If I were in your position, I would make one of the towns the end of the line and the other to have some sort of link to the outside world. That would make sense and would hold your attention for much longer. Also, have you considered a switch to a smaller scale? With N scale, you can produce an epic layout in that space. Just a few thoughts. David B
Forgive me for being blunt, but that is an utterly nonsensical “back story” for a railroad.
Instead of trying to come up with an excuse for why trains are looping endlessly back and forth between two small towns on your layout, occationally reversing directions in the reversing loops, try to imagine a railroad (or a part of a railroad) that is connected to the rest of the world somehow (a rail connection, a railroad ferry, a barge terminal or whatever), where stuff either is transported from somewhere on your layout to a customer far away, or from a producer far away to customers on your layout.
I figured I get the suggestion of modeling in a smaller scale and it has crossed my mind a time or two. But, that said, let me add a few more details about me.
First, I have too much invested in HO to abadnon it. I don’t know how many buildings I’ve put together over the years and they aren’t going to be cast aside. Second, my eyes are getting far enough out of whack that working on a scale smaller than HO will be nothing more than an exercise in frustration. Third, I will get hundreds of hours of enjoyment out of creating and detailing. It’s not all about moving cars around for me. Fourth, I’m planning on going DCC, so I’m not overly concerned about the wiring of the reversing loops. I realize it will be a little tricky, but it doesn’t sound like I’ll be the first to try it and/or make it work.
Sorry, I should have been a little more detailed in my original post. I hope this give a better picture of my current situation. So, please keep in mind I have a comittment to HO, limited space, eyes that aren’t improving with age and I find great pleasure in creation, not just running.
I may have missed it, but are you running DC or DCC? If you are running DCC, the gizmos (forgot the name) to facilitate the reverse loops are easy to install and do the job perfectly.
I can see the critique of the “running back and forth between towns”, but does that really matter to you. After all, your railroad is built to please you primarily. And frankly, what’s the difference between that and so many others that are fancy loops going in a circle. Given your space, I think you did a good job with the design - but I would consider the other advice you get as you might be able to improve upon it.
I’m 68, and have been in HO for over 50 years. When I was 50, I did not have an HO layout (had lots of HO stuff) but had room for an N layout. So I built one, and soon after came to the conclusion that it was just too small for me to properly work with and enjoy. That is NOT a critique of N, just a statement of an older guys experience.
On my current HO layout (2008-), I seriously considered doing an O narrow gauge but stuck with the HO.
Mobileman44 - yes, I’m planning to run DCC. The automatic reversing gizmos are called autoreversers. It doesn’t seem the marketing department put much effort into coming up with the name, but they do seem to do the job and that’s what matters most.
I’m hoping I will get some more advice that I can use to help improve my design. After the first two replies, I was thinking perhaps I just don’t know enough about getting enjoyment out of this hobby, or perhaps I just wasn’t taking it seriously enough. As far as I’m concerned, all model railroads just go back and forth or around in a loop. It’s all a matter of how far it is from point A to point B (to point C, etc.), or how big the loop is. I’ve never seen one of these things connected to the whole world yet. Anyway, I’m trying to do what I can within the limitations I have and it seems like you understand that. I appreciate your comment - it kept me from tossing my plans for continuing to pursue this hobby into an HO scale dumpster.
As for the critique of the ‘back story’ by Stein, I’m trying to include my children in this little adventure, which I think is important for the future of the hobby. I can’t invole one without the other or I’ll never hear the end of it. Hopefully, Stein can find a way to forgive me for bringing a bit of whimsy into what is otherwise a very serious hobby.
I see a real problem with reach. Generally, the rule of thumb we use is that you can’t reach and work more than 30 inches from the edge of a layout. The right side of your plan looks to be over 3 feet. Even during construction, you will have a hard time laying track against that right wall and down into the lower right corner. If you have a derailment back there once you’ve built up the front of the layout, you’re going to be knocking over foreground scenery to get to the trains in the back.
Your walkway between the peninsulas is very narrow. You’ll have to turn sideways and crabwalk through that space. That’s also awkward.
I’d suggest an around-the-walls concept, with two lift-off bridges to access the doorways. This would give you the center of the room to work with and eliminate the need for the large loops. You would still have room for a center peninsula if you wanted a wye or loop track for turning.
See that track drawn in blue going off the end of the layout. That represents the connection to the rest of the world. This is where inbound cars will come from, and outbound cars will end up.
What does that matter? Using an interchange/set-out track like that means that you instead of using up two industries on your layout to ship cars to each other, you can have two totally unrelated industries, which receives a variety of cars from various shippers “beyond” that connecting track, and ships a variety of stuff to recipients “beyond” that connecting track.
It means that you can sort outbound cars into groups that are “northbound” and “southbound” before you push them onto the connecting track.
For the cost of removing and replacing cars on the connecting track before you start running, you can have a connection to the world.
You can do something similar by modeling part of a harbor. You spot loaded cars on the docks, and they will be unloaded, and the stuff put onto ships (which are not modelled). Or you spot empty cars on the docks and they are loaded from ships.
By modeling the concept “connected to the rest of the world”, you can model a railroad.
As for “all model railroads are loops” - no, they aren’t. A lot of excellent model railroads are point-to-point layouts. Where the train arriv
MisterB - yeah, I had a little concern for long reach area as well and the narrow aisle. I’m 6’-2" and have a longer than everage reach, so the reach could be manageable, but I do have turnouts in the hardest to reach area. Hmmm, maybe I’m pushing my luck a little too much. I suppose I’m not getting any more narrow as I age as well. I’ve considered the lift out idea, but was perhaps a little overly worried about reliability problems. I know there are a million ways to approach a lift out… if you or anyone else has links/ideas on a particularly robust design, I’d love to hear about it.
I am 69 and I have to agree with MisterBeasley about the layout in general. But I would also build the layout up higher so you can go into your workbench area by sitting on a chair and rolling under the layout. (Maybe chest high or so) You can also sit in the chair when wiring it.
As for crossing the main door, if the layout is high enough, you can just stoop over some or ride a chair in to the room and not have to worry about a lift-out section of layout. And you can always take off the door and put it back on when you move or sell the house. If grandchildren are a problem getting into the room (later on) when they are not wanted, put on a half door. I forget right now what they are called. (Dutch door?)
It sounds like your kids are older. Maybe pre-teens or older, so they should be well behaved and take directions well, so building the layout this way shouldn’t be a problem.
An interchange track north of Connorton would provide a link with the outside world. You also should consider possible reach issues in the Connorton area. It looks like about 36" to that east side turnout switch. Could be a future problem getting to it if something goes wrong, and something will go wrong eventually. Murphy’s Law is a given in a model railroad.
Gandydancer - my biggest concern about crossing the main door isn’t my kids, it’s my wife! I had a plan that included a lift out at one one point, but gave up on it over concerns about reliability. I’m going to see if I still have it saved someplace and re-visit. Any recommendations on designing a reliable lift out will be welcome.
Don’t get discouraged. When people post plans and pictures on the forum and ask for comments, they’re inviting some criticism. Comments are usually presented with the goal of helping you achieve your goals and inviting you to consider something other than maybe what you were thinking. Most members have much experience and can see some problems that your design may cause you, or something that may cause you to grow tired of the plan and operation after a while. Maybe so, maybe not. They are offering thoughts that you may consider, or not.
David and Stein make good points (as do the others). Instead of commenting, I will ask you questions…
Why does the railroad take multiple paths to go to the same place? Specifically, why is there an inside path across the river without reversing loops, and an outside path with reversing loops?
I think some of us are having difficulty understanding what your goal is when designing both reversing loops and a second path into the plan.
And many have commented on the much more complicated wiring and/or gizmo expense that aspect of the design causes, without really providing much benefit.
As it stands, there are a few things that cause problems:
The aisle is too narrow. Try designing a plan that is rotated 90 degrees to the left. The space is wider N to S than E to W, meaning the reversing blobs will be farther apart and the aisle will be way more comfortable.
The access to the yard switches are too far from the edge of the benchwork. When derailments take place, turnouts are often involved. If you simply relocated the throat of the yard to the other side of the blob, near the edge of the benchwork, and angled the yard tracks back to the NE where they end now, access w/b greatly improved. (It would also create a longer run for the train, from town to town, when it took the outside path)
If you use the Search feature for these forums, I’m sure that “Liftoff” will produce results. A lot of people use them.
At a club layout, I saw a fold-down bridge where the pivot was several inches away from the end. This allowed the rails to come together more smoothly.
I ran my layout for years with a single reverse loop. When I was planning Phase 2, a significant expansion, I saw the opportunity to add a second loop opposite to the first. A second loop allows you to reverse a train, without backing it up, regardless of which direction the train is going. Some may disagree, but I think it’s a whole lot easier to be able to do this. With a DCC auto-reverser, it’s not a big deal to wire it, either.
Since the reverse loops complete the dogbone, I can’t see the need for the inside path. I don’t know if he planned a dogbone/waterwings layout just to have continuous running, or if he really wants to turn trains. (It sounds like he considered an around the walls layout, implying he just wants continous running, not necessarily the ability to turn trains).
Maybe he just wants the visual effect of having the train cross 2 different bridges from time to time in 2 different directions from time to time.
If the OP explained why he wants 2 reverse loops and a second path across the river, it would be helpful.
the plan showed above was made by me for another thread. It was done to show Mark to explore more alternatives then a 9x5 island type layout only. He also insited on a loop to loop design.
I even used a 15" radius; reach-in qualities, the width of the aisle and scenic possibilities were more important to me then the resulting limitations of the equipment.
Mark’s wish to build a layout as flat as a pancake was another limitation. Beside a donut-design swapping the long and short leg of the U of your plan could ease some aisle-width concerns.
Another reason for this plan is to illustrate some of Stein’s concerns. Trains are now running from the staging/interchange tracks; basically envisioned as fiddle tracks. (Swapping cars by hand) The next two stations are pretty well separated, the last one even has another interchange. Finally trains can enter a long tunnel, to a reversing loop. This loop represent the remainder of the system, where maybe one or two staging tracks could be added.
EDIT: I always liked the point to loop configuration, with a lap connection added. One terminal where you have to work to change the train’s direction, the other is like a breeze (the loop).
IMHO indeed this plan is a bit much for the space involved. The label is appropriate: a largish layout in a smallish space. I would surely explore a donut footprint with a larger possible radius. Or build it in N-scale. Jim Kelly’s observation was quite right; HO radii like 15" or 18" are very suitable for a modern N-scale layout. END of edit
Ok everyone, how about this approach. Any closer to workable? I added a lift out section, wider access area, larger minimum radius and a connection to the rest of the world that disappears to a lower level return loop. The return loop on the lower level gives me an option to change direction, which is desired. I also want to have the option for constant running. Keep in mind also, I’m planning for DCC.
I realize a derailment on the lower loop will be annoying, but I have limited space and need to compromise some convenience I suppose. I can leave the benchwork open under the hill for access inside the tunnel. I’ll make that section of track perfect anyway, so derailments will be unlikely.
The siding/spurs are kind of roughed in at the moment. I haven’t placed buildings/industries, so they may need to shift around a little. I’m also getting rather tired, so some less sleepy eyes taking a look at this will be appreciated.
Smitty, I like your plan and you’re back story. Kinda reminiscent of the Hatfield’s and Mccoy’s. Thinking along those lines, their should be lots of pics from the 50’s around the Big Sandy River. Keep the engines and rolling stock small.
Now, if you want a little more “run”, shift the Connorton return loop to next to the window, and the yard underneath the window. Yes, you lose a little of the Graceville “peninsula”, but you gain approx 10 feet more layout.
And I understand you have a lot of HO, but this track plan would work just as fine with O/3-rail. From a Hi-Railer (who still has a significant N-scale collection in storage now). [;)]
