I bought this giant pad of paper with 1" squares at Staples for $7.00. 1" = 1’.
I had a CAD architect program that I could design houses on and was quite proficient with it, however, there is something about using paper and pencil for a layout.
I have already built the STRATTON AND GILLETTE five times! Seven if you count the cardboard layout and the experimental segment. Eight if you count the NORFOLK STRATTON train show layout.
You can plan yourself to death, building is fun.
I have enjoyed EVERY one of the previous layouts, and only that kind of experience makes me certain I will enjoy and be satisfied with the final version.
As long as you know your first layout is for learning… leave the gate running and have fun along the way.
I am definitely a pencil and paper person. All I have ever needed was a good basic sketch and idea to get started.
-Kevin
I agree that drawing is no substitute for building. I find it helps to draw multiple versions of a planned layout, exploring radius and amount of track that you can fit, or maybe better put, should fit.
Then at some point you need to build some sort of benchwork and lay out the track in your real world (even though only a 1/87 world).
It’s a bit like boatbuilding: eventually you have to eyeball it and make it fit properly. Hand built boats are never exactly “to drawing” . Neither are hand built cars.
I have drawn hundreds of variations of my layout area. Not that you have to do that, but I found that what I thought I could fit and what I actually can fit in 3D space are often vastly different. The temptation might be to push trackage as far to the outside as possible to maximize the length of track you can run on, but not at the expense of reach-in distance.
I simply took a sharpie marker and stood at the edge of my around-the-walls layout and reached out as far as I could without bending at the waist and marked the location where the marker was plumb vertical to the foam. For me, anything behind that line is the “no go” zone. I’m not going to want to have complicated trackage with turnouts and the like in a place where I may have to frequently bend and reach.
I also avoided duck-unders for this same reason. I’m pretty flexible right now, but in 20 years?
[Y] + 1
I began with a drawing which I did on graph paper but I found I had to make a number of adjustments on the fly because either the track or the scenery didn’t fit. I remember one mistake I made was figuring I could put the Walthers ice house between the siding tracks and the backdrop. I had he dimensions of the structure but I failed to account for that being the footprint and the eaves extended beyond that. I ended up having to trim the eaves so the roof was flush with the back of the structure. I had laid too much track in that area to rip it up and move it.
Someone earlier mentioned avoiding duckunders in case flexibility become a problem. My best place for going under is 46" of clearance. I figure if it becomes necessary, a chair on wheels should do it.
Thank you all for the helpful replies! Here is my layout in SCARM if it’s helpful to see. Link is below:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6lzr4johzgk1dq5/Photo%20Feb%2021%2C%209%2000%2050%20AM.bmp?dl=0
Choosing between an island with backdrops or a shelf will probably depend on the size and layout of the room. Island layouts take a lot of real estate… Island with backdrops that block the view will also mean that you will need to physically follow your trains as they run… If you are running DC, then that’s not very practical. DCC with a throttle makes it easy, and you will get a lot of mileage with the backdrop.
I opted for a shelf layout for the tiny train room I was allowed to have ([:)]) and never regretted that decision. 24" is the maximum depth. You WILL need to access the back of your layout… In your case, it could be a “bone” shape layout, as mentioned earlier, with better access in the middle. Many will advocate for larger radii, and I must admit that I have 22" radius on mine. But it’s not absolutely necessary: 18" is fine with 4 axle diesels and steamers with 6 drivers (although Mantua’s 2-8-2 and oldtime 2-8-0s will do fine). Just keep the rolling stock within 60’ and all should run OK. But if you want to run modern diesels (6 axles), then 18" is insufficient IMHO. I think that big engines just don’t look right on a small pike. Small engines that run slower just look better to my eye, especially those small steamers…
Simon
Here is a SCARM diagram of my layout:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6lzr4johzgk1dq5/Photo%20Feb%2021%2C%209%2000%2050%20AM.bmp?dl=0
A lot of interesting topics:
duck-unders: They are great but get old. I had it on my 1st layout and glad to no longer crawl to reach the layout.
drawing layouts: def count me in! I used a free layout drarwing tool and then plotted points on the foam. I then replicate the layout with sharpies. They come in different colors, so use them for sidings, mainline, etc.
layout width: a step-stool gets tiring standing after awhile, so 24" is about my max reach. Also, always work from back to front to avoid reach and knowing over stuff.
I read that some create a removable panel in the layout to work on in a large area. This is cool for an island or peninsula. The peson created it and hid it with scenery. Thoughts?
No matter how much time I spend on drawing plans, when it comes time to build it I almost always make changes. That’s part of the reason I like flat-top construction and Kato Unitrack, I can run trains on the track and see what works and then easily change what doesn’t.
A suggestion for the OP - maybe build the first section of the layout, like 42" by 72", and then lay some track and see what runs on those 18"R curves. I’d hate to see you spend a lot time building the entire layout as you describe it, and then go out and buy a $300 engine that it turns out can’t work on those tight curves.
I have mentioned several times before, but worth bringing up again.
I am 53 years old, and the next layout should be my last. As such, it is designed with wheelchair access and durability in mind. You never know what the future will bring.
-Kevin
I am building a new layout now that is 53 inches tall. I like it. But, it will never be completed 100% because the wife and I have likely decided that we will be moving to somewhere just north of you in about 4 years.
That will be our last house. It will be ranch, because who knows if I’ll lose mobility. Hopefully, the layout can be in a third car garage or some other space within the footprint of the house.
Your vision of making it low enough for wheelchair access seems like sound planning. I can’t envision the desired height yet, but 53 inches will be too tall.
Doughless:
Might I suggest that a ranch house with a washroom in the basement, and a wide enough stairs to add a person lift on the side in the future. The lift plus a wheel chair upstairs and down will be much more pleasamt that coming in from the garage, or other outbuilding to go to the washroom.
We bought our current (ranch) house back when we were both around 50. One thing I noticed when house hunting was that so many of the houses we looked at were split-levels. I’m glad we opted for a house with most everything on one level. I remembered when my older sister had knee surgery, and if she was in her frontroom watching TV she had to go up a short flight of stairs just to get to the bathroom and the bedroom.
I might be done with the remodel work by then.
[*-)]
If Doughless is moving into my neck of the woods, basements are not an option.
-Kevin
As Kevin has mentioned, there are no basements where we propose living. When we start looking more seriously, I’ll take note of how high the transisition between the garage slab and house slab is. My guess is that in FL it isn’t huge and a small ramp could take care of it.
Mine is 3 1/2".
I am installing A 5 foot long wheelchair ramp to the front door, also a 3 1/2" rise, so the grade will be very gentle.
There are lots of houses down here with train rooms. I found that out when I was looking at houses a couple of years ago.
They go by different names, indoor gyms, craft rooms, bonus rooms, etc.
I saw a couple houses where the garage was simply extended 25 feet from the original plan, and that gave a 22 by 25 room in between the house and garage that could be a train room.
It was surprising the number of options there were.
-Kevin
The down side to your plan if the width is 42 inches, is your curves will be rather sharp and longer rolling stock won’t like sharp curves such as 18 or even 20 inches.
If you have the space, it might be much better to design an around the walls layout and then you could have much more generous curves such as 28 or 30 inches, and if you limited the benchwork to around 24 inches the reach whould be fine too. You’ll need to add a triangular section at the corners for the curves btw.