Hello, so I have always loved model trains but I have never built a layout. I grew up with O gauge and just building them on the floor and when the layout got Stale I just changed it. Now that I have a house of my own i have plenty of room and my father in law gave me quite a few HO trains this year over the holidays.
I just completed my benchwork, I made a U shape design in my basement. The large sides of the U shape are both 4x8 boards and they are joined by a 3 foot by 2 foot section. I currently only have a simple oval with a siding on one of the 4x8s the other areas are empty. I just got my insulation board on top of my plywood and am now looking for ideas on how to fill it with track.
I am looking to model a scene from Alaska with a rather large mountain foothills area, that the train can eventually climb in a section of the layout to achieve to heights of track, would like a town and an area of industry (probably coal or oil) I am going to put in a river and possibly the edge of a lake with a floatplane. Any ideas would be helpful
Welcome aboard! While I don’t model Alaska, I can offer some suggestions on a first layout. Perhaps consider getting insulation to serve as a base for creating scenery. Given that Alaska has high mountains, you can do a lot of very nice work with foam and cardboard.
Given that you (like me) are new to MR, you might consider joining a local group. You can talk to folks and possibly get a mentor who can help you more fully. I found a portal for folks to use that seems to have a ton of info about model trains in Alaska (e.g., groups, stores, etc.):
Perhaps putting up a picture of your layout would help. This way more people can offer up ideas on how to get a useful scene without creating an illogical mess of track. Going slow in laying down track is important which can easily happen by spending a lot of time doing research and talking to folks nearby.
Somehow, Alaska and “fill with track” don’t go together in my mind.
The obvious track plan to put in is a loop with the middle squished in across the 2 x 3 section and big loops at each end of the 4 x 8’s. Then you can kinda divide the layout into two parts: the obvious part with the two loops and the front connector section, and the “back” section, which would give you a long straight of about 11 feet. If there’s a view block, you can have your yards, industry, and/or ferry connection to civilization on the “back”. The front section can have a wide sweeping curve along a river bank, and the loops can have some hills.
This design envisions flat trackage. And lotsa scenery and not lotsa track.
Ed
Later comment: That 11 foot long straight I mentioned ain’t happening. It’s really 2’ + 3’ + 2’ = 7’. Sorry. That 11’ would have been fun.
I’m assuming a 22" mainline radius. 'Cause that’s the max for those balloon loops. That certainly isn’t great. But my first layout had the same mainline radius.
Yes. DON’T RUSH INTO ANYTHING. Thinking will be very rewarding. So will research. There’s a lot to learn–us oldtimers can forget that.
The 4x8’s mean a tight radius for turn-around loops. Not necessarily a problem as long as you run small locos and freight cars, but not so good for modern long passenger coaches. Going a bit wider where turnarounds go would help a bunch.
Do you have access to the other side of the 4x8’s? If not you will need access holes in the centers to be able to reach the far sides. If you can post a picture or sketch of the area it would help.
You have enough area to build grades into the trackwork and maybe even a crossover, but you need to decide on a construction method to do this. Starting with a flat piece of foam over plywood is not condusive to building grades. Suggest that you finalize the track plan before going any further with construction.
As far as developing a track plan goes others here can help but it would be good to have a starting point even if it is a rough sketch. As already mentioned you will only be able to fit long straight runs on the back side of the connector which will be a design constraint. Not a deal breaker- I have a bit of the same constraint in my design. It does limit where turnouts can be fit into the track plan though.
I like the Alaska idea. I wouldn’t think using a lot of track would fit the scheme but I do like dramatic landscapes and scenery which would certainly fit.
Hey guys, trying to upload a picture, having dificulty, hope it works. I have access to all sides of the table except the back. I want to clarify I dont mean a ton of track, just more than the tiny amount I have on about a half of my layout.
Here is a link to my table. The foam is not glued down yet so there is nothing done. Just lookign for ideas to not end up with two ovals connected with a switch on the back half
About nine and a half years ago I travelled part of the ARR, from Fairbanks, south to Denali National Park.
The scenery was wonderful, but the track was definitely single track, with short passing sidings, and not many, So short that the passenger train went into the siding so that the longer unit tanker train could go past.
The other potential problem is that 2% grades are considered steep for long trains. A two percent grade needs 100" to go up 2". Then you need to come back down.
Nothing is impossible, but posting a room plan, and potential layout bench work would make it better for people offering advice.
Here is a photo of the table and what I have so far. I dont want a lot of track, I do want to put in two levels where the track goes up onto a foothill and one track goes below into a tunnel. I want to run a freight train and alaskan railroad passanger train. I have 22 inch radius coming for the other side of the 4x8. I have a small bridge coming to go over a river coming down from the mountain area. (and to have a spot to place people fishing!)
I just dont want to have a plain looking layout where I have two ovals on each side. This will be a long work in progress so no idea is too large.
Hey guys here is the track plan i drew really quickly i need help finishing. The green is track that will be elevated on a 2.5% grade up into the mountain areas. There will be two mountain areas outlined in orange that will be separated by a valley, there will be two bridges crossing the valley one higher and one lower. I need help connecting these two tracks in a function way on the left hand side 4x8
Two things - I see some things that look like they might be tunnels in your layout? Tunnels and tight curves can be very tricky to do, especially if you plan to run passenger cars. As you’re building the tunnel, it might be a good idea to purchase at least one passenger car before doing so (the longest one) so you have it to test the tunnels with before you set everything down permanently.
I also see a bridge - if this implies a grade, you will want to search the forum here for more assistance. You would probably be doing a grade on a curve, which multiplies the percentage of the grade in relation to the curve radius.
I’m pretty new to this too, but these are things I’ve learned reading the forum and attending Trainfest seminars.
Depending on how hard you want to work to just get to the point of running trains, I would suggest getting sectional track to do your mainline runs, at least on your first layout. I started working with code 100 flex, and switched to code 100 sectional track because I just want to use my equipment, and know what I’m getting into.
Yes there would be a total of three bridges and a grade that would include tunnels and raising up to the grade eventually. Thanks for the advice on sectional track. I have all atlas code 100 silver track right now, I will continue to expand that way then. Thanks for the inputs. I am going to start with the layout flat and add the switches out to the grade later so I can run my setup, looks like I need to get some passenger cars too!
I am going to start by giving the opposite advice on sectional track. My Dad and I both started layouts three years ago. His is a simple 4x8 that is now essentially complete. He used sectional track in some areas and flex in others. And Atlas snap switches for turnouts. When I visited during the holidays a few weeks ago he told me the main things he would do differently is not use any sectional track and to go with better turnouts than the snap switches. As time went on he ended up having to solder all the sectional track to prevent electrical dropouts and he replaced two of the snap switches due to loosening points. And he gave up on the snap switch machines due to reliability problems and converted to manual throws. On the other hand he said the flex track went down a lot easier than he thought it would and it hasn’t given him a lick of trouble.
I am about half-way through the build on my much more expansive plan with about 130’ of track down so far, all flex, and my Walthers turnouts and Tortoise switch machines have all worked flawlessly. Lesson here- using good stuff helps prevent future problems.
It looks like you have a nice big area to work and a good start to benchwork. But I suggest that you get your plan in place before going any further. Here is a link to my thread asking for design help here three years ago.
I was maybe a step ahead because I had already worked on a track plan concept before posting. It has changed a bit since then but the basic flow is still the same. If you are good with computers then design software makes planning much easier. I used XtrackCad which is 100% free.
So i bought some sectional track to use quickly but i have not and will not glue anything down anytime soon, I want to have fun and run the trains and go slowly. And my wife won’t let me dive into this too quickly and spend a ton of money on this. But today I went down and measured the sides of the table, I can probably make each side section another foot larger into a 5x8 table. That way I could potentially have 24-27 inch curves, enough to run the pro to alaskan passenger cars. Would you guys recommend that? I could unscrew the plywood and add shelf brackets to support the extra 6 inches of plywood on each side. This would essentially turn the layout i posted into a double loop on each 5x8. The outside loop with large radius slowly climbing into the hills, and the inside radius 18 on one side and 22 on the other for the freight that will go through the mountains. Not sure I really want double loops or not, but i want to use the sectional track i bought and since the other side is rising into the mountains i don’t think it will look like a double mainline too much. What are your guys thoughts?
You’ve found the down side of using the standard 4x8 dimensional sheets of plywood. It locks model train track into tight radius curves. I think it’s a great idea to expand the width to 5 feet - it would allow you to go up to 28-inches curve radius - yes that puts the track-center within 2-inches of the edge but thats not a major problem, plus you can have it curve inward a bit and allow the track to run a little further in on the straight-a-way (tangent). If you do go double track, I still suggest you avoid using the 18 and 22 inch curves but rather choose a minimum radius at 25.5 and outer radius 28 inches. You could run passenger trains on either curve and if you choose to run longer freight cars, you won’t be hampered by those 22 or tighter curves. Remember, many “modern” freight cars are 60 or even 89’ feet long (autoracks and TOFC flat cars) so you will be glad for wider radius curves - plus you would have more freedom to run longer steam engines or diesels.
Once you begin running trains on even the 25.5 and 28 inch curves, you will even notice how they appear rather tight, although most commerical plastic rolling stock should operate smoothly on those curves including the longer types which recommend minimum 24-inch radius (in some cases). I put together