I am new to this forum and also new to model railroading US style. I have been into model railroading for over 45 years, building European prototype layouts in H0 as well as H0e narrow gauge. As my wife and I have been turned into “empty nesters” just recently, I was allocated some more space for my, well I guess, final layout. The room is about 15 by 12 feet, and the layout´s theme is planned to be UP style - something I have been dreaming about since I received my firts copy of MR back in 1971!
Does anyone have an idea how to fill this space with something that could be a dream layout?
Sure. But it would be our dream. What you need is something that matches YOUR dream.
To help you with that you have to tell us more information. Obviously UP, what era, what type of operation, minimum radius, what locale. If you want pre-1980 UP its a very limited area, if you want post-1997 it “limits” you to about 2/3 of the Continental US, everything from semi-tropical swamps to dense forests to high plains to rocky mountains.
Well, I have been thinking of modelling the contemporary UP, but running a steam driven railfan special occasionally. I do have a plan, but I cannot yet insert the picture…
Okay, but in the US it is HO, not H0 (just as O scale is O (“Oh,” not “Zero”) and not 0 scale). If you want to build an American prototype, you have to speak American now!
Ok, folks, it is HO scale from now on for my US model railroading activities, but will remain H0 scale for the European bit.
Here in Germany, most layouts are of the continious running type, not so much switching layouts. I have to admit, that I also like to just lean back and watch my trains run. I guess my dream layout will have to incorporate a little bit of both.
I have been searching the internet to collect some more info about the UP. UP´s Green Valley Division in Arizona is my choice of a theme. Modellin a desert landscape is a real challenge.
As soon as I have leared how to upload pictures I will share my preliminary layout idea!
Ulrich, you appear to have provided much of what you will need and want in the diagramme above. About the only item missing would be a passing siding out on the main, maybe in the space where the large sweeping curve is located at lower right. A second thing to consider is some turnouts to provide some run-around capability in case an engine has to escape when it leads a cut of cars in to one of the industrial sidings or spurs. It isn’t absolutely necessary, but it adds variety and some prototypical fidelity to the layout.
Ulrich, are you going to be sitting in the center of the layout?
My self, I would add a second line. You seem to have ample room for two mains. I like you like to sit back and just watch the trains run. I have 3 main lines. Next bench will have 5 mains.
I used to model German prototypes (was a Märklinist in fact) too but have switched over to American outline HO in recent years myself. I find the running characteristics of the American models to be far superior. Also I much prefer RP25 wheels to the NEM DC wheels (which are themselves an improvement over Märklin wheels).
Your layout plan looks nice and I can tell that you could automate it easily with some software like Railroad & Co. but it just does not look very American somehow. There is simply not enough space for staging. Whats the purpose of the passing siding on the bottom right corner?
My planned layout is of the shelf-around-the-wall type, as I have to share the room with a fold-away bed for the occasional overnight visit (mother in-law).
Although I am quite happy with the plan, I agree that it lacks that spefic US-flavor, despite being “kitbashed” from ideas I have seen in MR (Green Valley is a copy of Selway - published in MR 01/1973!)
Anybody´s got an idea on h2 “Americanize” it a little?
I like the second better than the first, to be honest. But we now get seriously into the question of access, already introduced a couple of posts back. You will quickly become unhappy with your choice of track plan if you can’t access it easily during its construction, and more importantly, later when you want to get the fun back out of it. You must be able to reach all parts of the layout to fix things that go wrong. For the majority of us, the distance we can reach safely and comfortably is about 28", and then only if there isn’t much in the way of structures, trees, utility poles, little people, etc between our chests, elbows, and the item of interest.
How will you build this, and then how will you manage it? Big question. Where will you stand?
I like this second plan better (the first one in the post with two examples) because it allows you to turn an entire train, if not just an engine that needs turning. Hickman Yard, if you have the space, could stand more development. It could, if nothing else, provide you with some storage space for unused rolling stock, for example. But that storage comes at the price of having no switching on the segments of track involved. So, I would want at least two more tracks there.
Whenever I take a look at my plans (and I have drawn quite a number of the recent weeks) I get more and more undecided which way to go. The second plan actually was my first plan, also based on a layout proposal recently published in MR. The changes i incorporated is the wye, enabling access to Hickman Yard from both directions, and adapting it to the available space. This plan seems also to be easier to build with “shelves” betweein 24 and maybe 28" deep.
The other plan is also a bit to “European” style… sigh!
Hickman Yard is meant to be a scenicked staging yard, so it should be extended a little by adding two more sidings for staging and storage - will do it and see what it looks like.
Thank you for all the valuable comments - will keep you posted on further developments!
Planning your “dream layout” is fun, but can also give you a headache… I spent two hours just sitting in the designated room for my layout, trying to picture how my layout will look in this room. Well, as a result of this severe cas of imagination i proudly present my preliminary final version of my dream layout.
I would say beware the use of switchbacks, Seems like ya hardly ever see them in real life.They also present operating problems concerning train length when servicing the indrustries they are on.In my 11’x12’ round the room layout,the track is about 4 feet high and I have a duckunder to get in but its also a liftout. I also removed the swinging door and put in a vinyl folding door to save space in the room.
Switchbacks are used extensively in real life, but not on a flat. If the layout will have grades, and have to climb a steep mountain side for a short distance upward, then a swtichback would be in the offing…provided, as the previous poster says, one has the room to allow a proper train length on the “tails” where reversal of direction takes place.
If the area is flat, a switchback would be very rare, I agree. So, it would raise the question: what is the purpose of the topmost track in the top of the diagramme? If it is a switchback to gain elevation to the left end of it, the ramp part, after the turnout, doesn’t look to gain more than about 10-15 mm of height.
The topic of switchbacks has come up a couple of times recently. I never paid a lot of attention to how common they are, or not, so on a recent ride on the TRE from Dallas to Fort Worth I made a point of doing so and spotted three. All were sidings alongside warehouses. That’s not an exhaustive survey by any means but it suggests they may be more common than we realize. It would be interesting to know what others have found.
Planning your “dream layout” is fun, but can also give you a headache… I spent two hours just sitting in the designated room for my layout, trying to picture how my layout will look in this room. Well, as a result of this severe cas of imagination i proudly present my preliminary final version of my dream layout.