I’m getting back into the hobby after 10-15 years away. I’m starting a 4x8 layout as basically a practice layout to shake off some of the rust. Because of that, I’m looking to include a little bit of everything in this small space. My wish list includes:
Ability to run continuous loop, but some switching for interest and wiring complexity
Water, probably in the form of small streams
Mountainous or hilly terrain
Farm land
Small town/city
Each of the track plans below contain most of the items from that list. Each has a backdrop running through the middle of the layout. I’m looking for opinions, feedback, ideas for changes, things I might not have considered… I’ve never been an operations guy, so any future problems anyone sees in that area, please let me know.
EDIT: I initially had the wrong link for the third image and it was the same as the first one. I’ve changed it now.
You probably liked those two because they were the same! I had the wrong link up there for the third one. I’ve fixed it now. I could probably add a passing track to the third one pretty easily.
I am not going to tell you that a 4 by 8 layout is not the best way of using a given space. You need to have access at least to three sides of it, considerably enlarging the footprint you need for that type of layout.
Talking track plan, I have a feeling that with all of your three plans, you will end up just letting a train circle the loop, which I find gets boring after a short time. MR ran a series on 4 by 8 track plans beginning February 2011, with some interesting ideas. Maybe it´s worth getting hold of a copy. And not to forget the Virginian, MR´s 2012 project layout.
Besides a run-around an interchange track is IMHO a must have too. It’s the track where cars are coming from and going to. A team track is an other must have, it’s where translaoding into or from trucks takes place.
The only way to make a run-around track a bit longer is by going around the curve, like on the following plan by me.
BTW you can find some arguments for and against a 8x4 on Byron Henderson’s (Cuyama) amazing website.
This one is quite close to your ideas. It was featured in the March 2011 issue of MR. If you are a subscriber, there are a number of interesting plans in the track plan data base!
I like the first plan for several reasons: It has a runaround. The track arrangements seem more linear looking and prototypical. And the buildings line up nicely too. Many small layouts have buildings and roads at odd angles to each other that kind of spoil the realism of the scene, IMO. And, your plan does not suffer from having too much track. All of them have center dividers, which I think is essential for a small layout.
If you could add an interchange track off of the loop and into one of the corners, it would make it even better. If you could find a way to sneak a car storage track somewhere, that would help too.
One thing I notice right off the bat is the lack of a suitable length runaround (or passing siding as u call it). Although a one or two car runaround might be all that is needed, you’ll do yourself a favor if you can make it as long as possible (the plan from MR above looks like it has a really short runaround; I’d lengthen it).
Second thing are the switchback sidings; the first spur (dead end track) should be several cars longer than the spur it serves or you will be making a lot of back and forth moves to empty the first spur, then the second one. If possible, the lead spur should be 1.5 times longer than the spur it serves (standard formula for yard lead track length).
A suggestion: Make the backdrop go diagonally through the layout, rather than parallel to the sides. It will fool the brain into thinking it’s a slightly bigger. I built a project layout from the 90’s (I forgot the name, but it had a gravel industry on one side, and a small town on the other side).
Look through the trackplan database and see if anything there is close to what you want. Feel free to change the track/industries a bit to suit your vision. If you are going to use sectional track, it’s easy to try different track arrangements and see what works best. I prefer flextrack so I have to think a bit more before I start laying track.
MR website is a great lace to start, but it’s not the only place. Try searching other sites, youtube, or even your library for any books they might have (or can request from other nearby libraries).
In the end, if it looks good to you, you’re doing it right! If you do it wrong, it’s a great excuse to build another one! lol
Note: consider building it in sections so you can move it easier, or plan where you can make future cuts if you want to move it (a layout with scenery can get heavy and awkward to move).
Here’s another option I drew up. I modified my favorite of the three with a longer passing siding. The representation of the buildings are just approximate to give you a general idea of locations. I’d appreciaate any opinions on this one:
a passing-siding is a word used in timetables, where the dispatcher can set up meets between trains. The word run-around is not used for this purpose. Not necessarily known by the dispatcher, the track configuration might have additional possibilities where an engine is able to run-around its train or around a few cars. Such is track is called a run-around.
On my 4’x6’ I have a passing siding on each side of the scenic divider, they do h ave to be partially on the curve as the layout is so short. Your extra two feet might give you room for a straight one on one or both sides. On the larger side I have a two track siding, could have put a short one on the other side too. Even in DC, with the two passing sidings, I can run two trains in the same or opposite directions and surprise the viewers on the other side when the train they were expecting to reappear isn’t the one that comes back or even comes from the opposite direction.
I agree with one of the above comments, don’t have your divider parallel to the sides. I use trees on one end and a rock cut on the other to hide the trains disappearance. Buildings and going under bridges are also used to disguise disappearing trains.
I like to let trains run, but having a little operating once in awhile can be fun too. I can set out cars for the other direction to spot or I can use the siding as a runaround.
You can lengthen the runaround in that plan by originating it on the side straight, like you did on your very last plan. You have room to lenghten it to the right.
I would just have one runaround for the plan. A switcher pushing a few cars around the curve to access the industries is very realistic. The divider can separate two scenes that are just a few miles apart, not a huge distance. That makes the idea of pushing the cars to the industries, sort of around the mountain/hill, plausible.
To lengthen your passing siding (or run-around) you used a snap switch and if I am seeing it right a 15" radius. These two might limit the kind of equipment you are able to use.
The switchback is a nasty one, a short tail with an industry alongside serving two industries at the other end.
Where you are envisioning a mountain there is IMHO the right spote for a town. Keeping the upper half less urban would create a more rural area for a mountain and a farm. With maybe a few agricultural related industries and their customary spur(s) just beside the oval.
Missing is an interchange or a track that could be used for staging; your cars do need a place to go to or to come from.
