Getting ready to finalize my plans to build the first ever layout, seems like it’s taken e forever and a day to get this far. Anyway, this first attempt isnt going to be huge (SWMBO has a lot of input here) and I have been trying to come up with different track plans that will fit in the available space.
I’ve given up trying to design my own and think that I like this plan I found in the track plan data base.
Name: Indiana & Aurora RR Scale: HO (1:87.1) Size: 6 x 7 feet Prototype: freelanced Locale: Northern Inidana Era: 1970s Style: doughnut Minimum run: 40 feet Minimum radius: 24" Minimum turnout: no. 5 Maximum grade: none
Originally appeared in the August 2008 issue of Model Railroader.
Interesting design, with potential for L-shaped expansions (e.g., Gary interchange).
I would imaging the benchwork is the same as for any layout. Seems to me the 6ft width would necessitate additional vertical supports for the span.
As to the 24in radius on the mainline, I would think that is a good thing. Looks more prototypical and allows more trouble free running of longer
“wheelbase” locos and cars.
Alan
PS Nice to have the “cookie cutter” design provided.
Only comment I have is that to get a twice around run on both mainlines, you need to make use of the wye at Waynesboro.
This would be a nice layout for using the plywood base “cookie-cutter” benchwork surface technique.
Also, for benchwork lumber support strength, you generally can’t go wrong with 1"x4" lumber such as a fir with little exposure to knotholes. You can always add additional materials on top of the plywood base such as cork roadbed, or foam. Remember, if you only use foam on the surface top that it can be unforgiving if someone inadvertently applies leaning weight to the foam.
You can obtain more bi-directional traffic control on the Indiana & Aurora RR trackplan by adding 2 pairs of turnouts between the “two wrap-around mainlines”:
One pair are left-to-left turnouts, and the other pair are right-to-right turnouts. A caution would be where to place each turnout pair, as this in reality does adds an “s-curve” factor, which all turnouts in essence are to any layout.
The suggestion would be to use #6 turnouts if you can do so while #4 turnouts will also work but give your turnouts slightly sharper curves. Look closer at the trackplan, and you’ll see the layout tries to use #6 & #8 turnouts.
Looking at the size of that layout, you’re going to need at least a 7x8 space just to “fit” it in. That only leaves you 2 feet on the right side if you need to go over and adjust things in your staging. Now add in space for your doorway into the room, etc, and you see that this “little” 6x7 takes up a lot more space then 6x7.
What is the actual space that you have available? Where are your windows, doors, closets, etc? What “obstacles” do you need to avoid? What else is the room used for?
What type of operation do you prefer? Roundy-Roundy to watch the trains through scenery? Industrial switching in the depth of down town? Simulating big pushers shoving trains over the top of a mountain?
In my opinion, I don’t care for the Indiana and Aurora layout. If you include the “optional” staging, your staging turns into a real mess. Unless you plan on using some form of “automatic” staging control to bring trains on and off the main track, the staging is just not practical to use both. If you include only the sidings that face up, you have room for two trains ready to go. That’s not so bad for a small layout.
The minimum radius of 24" doesn’t apply to the whole plan. If you come off the main track, and go through the curved switch on the bottom of the plan and stay closest to the operations pit, you’re at less then 24" radius. 24" radius would maintain four of the boxes between centerlines of the plan. That track is down around 18" radius again. Even the main track in that area is less then 24" radius. There are other curves on the plan that are less than the 24" radius.
I tried to make a detailed plan using WinRail track planning software with Atlas code 83 track and I did not succeed coming up with something looking clos to the plan in MR, given the size they mentioned in there - the actual space requirement seems to be much bigger than stated.
Hi, Guess I don’t have enough knowledge to follow this suggestion. Would one replace something on the original track plan to do this or is this in addition to the published track plan? Tom
I’m actually not a big fan of the track plan data base because if you are a newbie like myself it doesn’t give you any details other than a pictorial overview of the track plan. It would be nice if it had a break down of the needed track if one wanted to recreate the plan. Seems to me I remember this issue of MR, now if I can only find the issue again. Tom
That’s the sad part, this is all you get. In some ways the plan I like is better (Black River Junction), in the data base it comes with an overhead view. But it still doesn’t tell me much, which is kind of stinky considering it was a small layout MR actually built. I’ve ran into this problem with 2 or 3 other track plans that I liked, then asked around on the forum about them, and was basically told I had to print out a copy or two and figure it all out myself. It’s still driving me nuts. I’m starting to very much despise figuring out my own track plan and yet that’s more or less what I have too do. My latest idea was using the plan from the “Whasup Dock” layout that was in MR a few months back. Been working on that one for about 2 weeks now and I’m not much further than looking and re-reading the article. The Black River idea is easily done, it was made with Kato Unitrak and Kato sells a special track kit that IS the Black River Junction track plan, but it’s almost 900 bucks. And I’m tring to stick with a shelf so I can keep the spare room open for other things, like say a roomate to share expenses with. Like I said, so far it’s not working out. And because it’s not working out it’s making me less anxious t
I just looked at it in the track plan data base and it’s exactly what I thought it was. I don’t remember specifically the article’s tittle, but it was something to the effect of “3 track plans for a sheet of plywood”. It had 3 such track plans, the one the post is about, another HO scale that was made of a smallish table top with a wedge shaped leg added on, and a U-shaped N scale layout. At one point I was planning on making the n scale, I think that was the first one I was warned about following a published plan. Pen my name on the non-likers list, I don’t like the “donut” type layout configuration at all.
If you do have back issues look at the next months (Sept. 08) issue in the reader responses. A reader sent MR his idea’s for a few more configurations. There was 3, non of them looked like they made much sense, and ALL of them seemed to be extremely confusing to figure out track. All portions were narrow so with out using minimal curves (if even) it would N scale or bust. I will try to remember to get some pics of it to post tomorrow.
In the Feb 2007 MR issue, they give you a track material list with diagram of the different track sections.
As far as benchwork several people have posted pictures of there ideas and build - Mr beasley, a St louis Club - (Gateway) shows how they built a museum layout with a full pictorial of the benchwork with a foam base.
Hi Gordon, Thanks for the info. Well it figures I found the Aug 08 issue and was reading the original article but I know I don’t have the Feb 07, I have three years worth from 1995-98 and then I resubscribed in June of 2008. Tom
The one turnout pair (if that all you used), or the two turnout pairs (left-to-left & right-to-right), would be in addition to what is already on the published trackplan.
An easy way to visualize it would be as if you were using sectional track. For example: The straight part of a turnout in essence would replace one straight piece of sectional track.
If possible, it would be good to show the proposed layout space/ area. Show doors and windows, traffic areas through the space or any other givens that would limit the overall layout size.
Your preference in type of operations, scale, local, time period etc all are additioal factors to consider during these planning stages.
There maybe so many other options available to you that you haven’t considered yet.
This forum is chock full of competent modelers and layout designers that are willing to help.
I will see if I can figure out a way to get a shot posted of the proposed space tomorrow. I need to set up a photobucket account and also see if I can get MS paint or something to work and draw up a room shot.
To be honest with you I don’t really know how to answer the type of operations question. I guess I am looking to get a combination of both mainline and switching. I know I don’t want a going round and round and round with no need to do anything other than set the speed layout.
As to locale, East coast. I grew up in Southern Ohio watching the Chesapeake and Ohio running through the middle of town so I have always been partial to seeing Chessie the cat on the caboose. Now that I live in Fredericksburg Virginia, I still have CSX, plus I’ve just discovered the old Richmond Fredericksburg & Potomac and I really like their two tone gray scheme.
Of the several books and magazines I have collected over the years I like the design of the bench work in Jeff Wilson’s Building a Ready-To-Run Model Railroad, too bad I find the track plan to be a real snooze. I think the wife is picturing a 4x8 as she said yeah you’ll have to get a sheet of plywood. While I’m not one of those who despise the 4x8 I think I can come up with somethng a bit more creative if you know what I mean. Though I will say that I find the layout in the August 1993 MR for the National Train Show a neat concept. The Valley Forge Cen
Okay, I have made a some what primitive drawing of the proposed layout room. I welcome any suggestions as to what kind of layout could work in this space. As I have stated above my wife thinks it will be a 4 x 8 but I don’t really want that and instead was looking at the track plan data base which started this thread. With regards to the doors, they don’t have an actual door hung I used that for lack of a better term, maybe arch or entrance. Thanks Tom
Well yes and no, one entrance comes from the kitchen, the other from the front hallway. There is no swing radius as there is no actual door. They are just entrances into what would be considered the dinning room, which we don’t use as such. Tom
So are you saying that people will not be walking through the room from the kitchen to the front hallway or the other way around? Ie that you can, if need be, block one of the door openings more or less permantly and have a duckunder or lift-out in front of the other ?
How about the window - do you need to preserve access to that ?
As for what to model, you wrote
Here are some questions I asked another poster to make him think about various options - you may already have considered these things, but what the heck:
Why do I want to build a model railroad ?
A surprisingly large number of people fail to consider why they want a layout, or just go “because it is cool, duh!” and leave it at that. Don’t skip this step.
No one but you can define why you want a layout and what you expect/hope to get
