looking for help with a new layout design

Model Railroader Layouts and layout building
1

After being a long-time lurker, I am finally joining the forums in order to get help with my new dream N-scale layout.

This is my first venture into free-lancing a large layout. My previous adventures have all been small table-top layouts that followed published plans. I would like this new layout to have as many switching oportunities as possible - an operator’s paradise if you will, and all of the curves on the mainline to have the maximum possible radii. I started off by listing my wants and druthers and, at that point I recognized that I do not have the required carpentry skills to design and construct benchwork on the scale that I planned. So, I invited a family member over, and discussed my ideas with him. Before I knew it, he and his wife called to see if they could come over for him to deliver the benchwork! What could I say? Yes, of course! The only part that he had not already constructed was the center peninsula. And, that is what brings me to move from a being a long-time reader of the posts, to joining and making my own post.

Whether sitting with a large pad of graph paper, or pieces of track in hand, I am daunted by the blank slate that I have to work with! So much so, that I can not even bring my self to make what I am sure should be an easy decision about the peninsula. Should I go with a single peninsula:

Or, would I better off with two shorter peninsulas. And, if two shorter peninsulas, should they have small blobs:

or larger blobs:

I would love to have the layout go a

2

Do a little sketching. I find that getting on and off of a short peninsula takes a lot of gyrations, and you end up with lots of loops, and not a lot of straight. I think I’d lean towards the singlelong peninsula. I prefer to use the computer for drawing ( http://www.xtrkcad.org ). This one is free, and pretty handy. But do the tutorial, or you will be completely frustrated!

3

I would go with the single peninsula. I think it will make for an easier and better layout.

4

Thank you for the quick feedback. I remember that the original reason for the two small peninsulas was to provide a visual break, allowing for more scenes to be modelled in a smaller area. But, given your feedback I think we’ll go with the single, longer peninsula. And, timely! My wife and I have invited the carpenter and his wife to come by for a family dinner this weekend!

Does anybody have any notions regarding the benefit gained by going around the entire room versus the difficulty caused by bridging the room doorway and the closet?

Thanks again for any advice and ideas.

5

Kind of hard to say what would be a sensible benchwork configuration without knowing what you want to put on those tables/shelves/whatever.

Take an example: your peninsula - does it make sense to have one long peninsula with room for the track to loop around the end of the peninsula?

Perhaps - if one of your design goals is to have a longish run for a train, and you don’t mind walking around that long peninsula.

How about short peninsulas ? It can be a great idea to have several shortish and narrow pensinsulas (peninsulae?) if you want the peninsula for adding a big industry or two, or maybe a yard.

How about going across the door? Depends on what you want to do - do you want to have a continuous run? Okay - provided you are not into doing push-pull service with trains that auto-reverse at the end of the layout (which is also an option for continuous run), then you need a closed loop in some form.

Can be done with loop-back curves at both ends of your benchwork - possibly with the benchwork beeing deeper than 2 feet at the point where you want the loopback, or by having one end of the benchwork connected with the opposite end using some kind of temporary shelves or cassettes or whatever.

A layout designed for continuous run railfanning with passenger trains passing through a mountain landscape has pretty different requirements compared to a railroad designed for point to point switching of warehouses in Brooklyn.

Form should follow function. It is pretty smart to first decide what you want to be able to do on your layout, and then decide how to fit it into the room, instead of first deciding how much benchwork you can shoehorn into the room and only then deciding what to use it for.

Smile,
Stein

6

hi Sora,

Lesson one: a lot of help is available if you just ask it.

Lesson two: if you do not know what you want start to think first and build later

Lesson three: listen to the pros.

If in any recent publication a minimum aisle width of 30" is “preferred” and explained, why you as a newbie “must” do something else? Keep in mind you will have to work in that aisle and remain away from all the pristine detail on the table.

If you were great scholar in track plans you could have noticed a 18" shelf is wide enough. Even in HO.

So first read Stein’s comment carefully.

In your space you can easily build a six-men-crew layout. All the people willing to help you might think it’s fun to participate in operating as well. Are they or will they all be that slight as you? Start thinking a bit more forward please. And when operating not alone people have to get around each other. Even without the penninsula you can make three men or women happy.

Wanting the biggest radius possible, the longest possible mainline and wanting as much switching in as possible can or will be conflicting druthers. Probably you have seen a few trackplans or layout stories you liked. Lance Mindheim’s Down Town Spur? Rob Hahn’s layout? Lloyd Millar’s Memphis Terminal(Model Railroad Planning 2009)?

Paul

7

I happened to have,(intentionally built a 24’x24’ garage loft layout with an inside stairway, totally dedicated to my around the room HO scale DCC layout. You are going for an N scale layout in a 12’x 16’ room. That is an Empire! Could you make the part of an around the room layout in front of the door and closet, a push-pull, (or a swing out with rounded ends), on casters, instead of a lift-out.(which would be awkward to handle)! I, actually, built my around the room layout,with 110 turnouts and 6 reverse loops, in four phases over some 8 years. Last year I converted to DCC, and have not, actually, run the train around the entire Empire. I am more interested in scenery, than in train operation. I have two harbors, a 7 track stub ended yard,and a 7 track pass-through yard, two towns connected by an adapted Slot-car track over a bridge, that has Faller Car System cars,trucks, and depot parking bus, an Ashland Iron& Steel complex,(with two Hulett ore boat unloaders), Gas and coke complex, quarry, stock yard and meat packer. All built in mountainous country. In fact one of the mountains is placed on the center peninsula, such that it blocks the view,(on entering the room,) of the entire layout. The photo of my hand drawn layout, may give you a couple of ideas. Bob Hahn Click on the photo to enlarge it, This is the inner part of one of my harborrs, with two Hulett unloaders and an ore boat. Gravel industry [URL=http://s173.photobucket.com/albums/w78/ROBTAHah

8

Once again,

Thank you for the feedback! I have to appologize if my original post was not clear, and in advance if this one is not any better. I confess, that I was nervous in submitting that first post - it is always intimidating to speak about a topic one is interested in, but is far from an expert, especially when speaking in a room full of experts! In addition to the nervousness, I was also trying to balance keeping the post from being too long with providing enough information.

Okay, I am still nervous with this post too! But, I will do my best to clarify some of the points.

I fully appreciate Steinjr’s point about “form should follow function”, but, since the benchwork was built, delivered, and assembled already, one must work with what they have. And, in my case, I am very grateful for what I have there!

Okay, so here is my attempt to clarify the questions raised by Steinjr and Paulus. And, please forgive me if this is too long.

The benchwork is L-girder “tables” with a height of 43", and I am hoping to have curves with the greatest possible radii so as not to restrict the type of rolling stock that can be operated smoothly on the layout. While, long runs for a train look great, they are at the lowest priority in my list of “givens and druthers” as you will see further in this post. The era of the layout will in the early to mid-1960’s, but I know that I may change this in the years to come by replacing the rolling stock and buildings, etc.

As I mentioned in the first post, I can state with certainty due to reasons too lengthy to bring into this forum, with the exception of my wife, and when my family member is visiting us (both of whom are as slightly built or smaller than myself) I will be the only operator. So

9

Two q

10

Well, let me start by saying that do not consider myself an expert on layout design. I am just another model railroader who has read and thought a bit about layout planning/layout design, and who enjoy discussing layout planning and layout design.

If I was to summarize my impression of your design goals, it sounds like what you want maybe is essentially a series of linked “shadow boxes” - with each box representing a pretty different type of scene?

But do you want to switch each scene as it’s own little world - kind of building your layout having a separate light over or in each scene, which gets turned on when you work in that scene, with the “lights off” in the other scenes, so they are kind of hidden in the shadows while you are doing switching in that one scene?

Here is a link to some shadow box scenes on well known modeler Joe Fugate’s H0 scale Siskiyou Line: http://siskiyou.railfan.net/model/constructionNotes/shadowBox.html

Here is a link to another forum thread that discussed shadowbox scenes: http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/p/162291/1787340.aspx

Here is a link to Carl Arendt’s Micro Layouts site that discusses theatrical techniques for presenting layouts: http://www.carendt.us/articles/Theatrics/index.html

Or are you more thinking of having a train move on a route from one end of the railroad to the other end, serving the various towns etc it passes through on the way from one end of the layout to another, with some stuff e.g. transported from scene 3 to scene 6 or from scene 5 to scene 1 ?

What train lengths

11

Hi Paulus,

I very much appreciate your pointing out the contradictions within my post. It will help to clarify my thinking as I continue planning. In the case of “long runs” vs “long main”, yes indeed the mainline will be a very long one! But, because in my “dreaming” stage I am envisioning so many things in the layout, I don’t forsee being able to run long trains between scenes. I’m sorry, I am likely using the wrong terms. Did this help to clarify this part?

As for the height of the benchwork, I know that it is much lower then the standard. But, it is the ideal height for my stature.

In reading this back to myself, I am afraid it sounds argumentative…or at best like I am defending my ideas. Please understand, that is not at all my intent. I am attempting to clarify my thoughts, so that I can continue to receive feedback!

As always, I’m grateful for your feedback!

My last question, now that I have worked up the courage to face the answer. Am I trying to put 100 pounds of cargo into a 5 pound bag?

12

Hi Bob (HHPATH56),

I just scrolled up to the top and noticed that you have added more to your post. Thank you for sharing the photos with me! Yes, you are providing me with some wonderful ideas! If it isn’t too bold of me to ask, would you able to post a larger copy of your layout?

13

Your first bench configuration, at the top, is one I would favour for all the reasons expressed so far. I would not make it a loop at the end, but you may find it so desirable that no one should stand in your way. However, a couple of things come to mind: that lone long peninsula would, if constructed with a divider along its spine, provide a nice room/scene break all by itself. It could have the scenic divider nearly 4’ tall if need be, painted on each side differently for that scene’s appropriate theme. Alternatively, you could make that long peninsula, near the foot of it, a turnging wye if you wanted it for some reason.

But, please do keep the working space. You won’t be the only person ever in that room running trains, and not alone…even so, you can’t have enough elbow room. If you can find a way to elevate the layout so that the mean operating surface is near sternum height, that would be ideal for most of us. If you know it is the ideal height for you, then what more could be said about it?

I suspect that you are finding friction between your dreams and what you will eventually accept as sober truths. Yes, I think you are a bit ambitious this time around. It might be better to apply yourself to two main industrial components, a modest built-up/urban area if that appeals to you, and then a switching and storage facility…storage could be staging (which you would want before long) or just a place to park unused rolling stock out of sight and so that it doesn’t confound your enjoyment of your track plan.

A common mistake is to cram too much trackage into a first layout, but it is also true that a layout may be too ‘rail-fan’ oriented, more for just sitting back and admiring your trains running in a loop. That gets boring quickly…so now what are you going to do if you want some variety? You need switching, both classification of trains and at in

14

Hi Sora,

N-scale is great when viewed from armpit height.

To answer your last question: yes. But as I said, when you have a footprint you like you can e.g. start small. Connect, in my drawing, scene 3 and 4 with a temporary bridge and you will have a great start. This can only fit in the big system if you have an overall plan. In this stage the help of Stein is invaluable.

The “scene 3 and 4” area could be a mountain and mining district. Thurmond (West Va) comes into my mind. See we are putting your layout on the map again.

When you have a plan like this you can talk about the operating scheme or why you want to change the plan; e.g. the lap connection could be directed towards the staging tracks; so you can use the staging for two directions.

BTW this scheme is my old time favorite. A point to loop scheme with a lap connection. The lap connection makes it possible to let your trains run for a long time. Running clockwise a change of direction is easy, just use the loop. But counter clockwise your trains have to enter the terminal (yard / harbour) and you must do the switching involved yourself.

Paul

15

In order to enlarge any photo, all you have to do is click on it. Then, click on “Zoom In” in the upper left corner of the 59% enlargement. I build my present layout in four stages, over 8 years. Start small, with the final concept on a scale drawing. I installed dead turnouts, in anticipation of my planned enlargement. My latest project required doing away with a turn table and round house, in order to construct a 3’x6’ Ashland Iron& Steel complex, fed iron ore from the 2 Hulett unloaders,manually unloading ore (supposedly), from the 3ft. ore carrier in the fairly large harbor. Coke Retort,limestone quarry and crusher, iron ore mines, and a maze of railroad track, are all related industries. Note the paper footprints of the two Hulett Unloaders, that were placed next to the harbor, so that placement of tracks could be precisely constructed. What is really niceis that you can Print a copy of the “enlarged phot” without the computer printing out all of the umpteen other parts of the thread. Go to “Model Railroad Flea Markets” (where you can get locos, rolling stock, structures, cars and trucks), very cheaply. Bob Hahn Note how the use of “paper footprints”, is essential when one wants to place structures next to tracks. The Hulett unloader has a rear section that is above the rear tracks. You can plan and build roads and terrain with the "foot print in place, as a guide. Draw the footprint on your scale drawing of the proposed layout. [URL=http://s173.photobucket.com/albums/w78/ROBTAHahn/?action=view¤t=001_Untitled01-1.jpg][IMG]http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w78/ROBTAHahn/th_00

16

Welcome. I read your original post with interest as I will be having a similar situation when I begin designing my “dream” HO layout. Also read some of the first posts and see suggestions that I will be using. I’ll keep my eye on this thread.

I am planning for continuous running, so am planning a full around the room, but the penninsula situation is similar. If you have a subscription to MR you can go to their layouts and find many that have a basic bench pattern similar to several of yours. You can look in both N and HO scale for basic bench ideas. The one thought I have had is two pennsulas, one from each of the narrow ends, with a passage between the tips. This would allow for slightly longer straights, but still offer different “scenic” areas. I am not concidering any ot the TRACK plans, but the benchwork patterns are of interest.

You are fortunate to have such a wonderful friend with the skill and time to build your benchwork. It certainly shouldn’t be wasted as long as it fits your space. It does not dictate your track plan, only the height (could be altered) and width. Sounds like a good start.

I don’t recall seeing a room size listed. As I said, I read the first post and replies. When I came back there were many more responses, so am not sure if I am repeating anything.

If you want continuous running, I would go for it. There are many rather simple lift out, swing up/down/in/out ways to have access. You can search these forums or the Index of Magazines for many of them. Just be sure that when you have one that it has a provision to shut off the power to the track both sides of the access far enough to prevent your trains from taking a dive when the gate is open. If you are agile enough you can just duck under for the next few years, use the gate

17

I would definitely shoot for continuous running, if at all possible. It can be via an unscenicked drop leaf or a bridge or whatever. You will appreciate it when you want to run the railroad while working on it, or just want to see trains running for a while.

18

Hi all,

I don’t even know where to begin in thanking everyone for the wonderful suggestions and ideas that have been posted since I was last on yesterday! It gave me a lot of food for thought. While I spent the rest of the afternoon and evening with my wife. But, if truth be told, while I was sitting with her, my brain was actually “walking around” the spare bedroom thinking, dreaming, and planning model railroad empires!

I am afraid that I just can’t bring myself to have my family member modify the width and footprint of the beautiful benchwork that he built for me. I appreciate the suggestion of height…but I am realizing that not only am I a slightly built man, but I must be shorter then the average model railroader too! The benchwork is sternum height on me. I agree with Paulus that the optimal viewing height is chin height, but I would rather sit on an adjustable chair to view the layout and be able to stand and comfortably work on it.

Crandel, I haven’t yet read the Track Planning For Realistic Operation book. Sadly, our community library does not have a copy, but I have ordered it and, hopefully the post-holidady mail rush is finished (we just Friday received a Christmas card that was postmarked December 12!), and it should get here soon. I also really appreciated all of your obervations and suggestions, especially the point of the “journey is what counts, not the arriving.” That is exactly what my intentions are for this dream layout.

Paulus, I am in awe at how quickly you can create trackplans for peope! While I am not likely to copy the trackplan as such, it did indeed give me a very good starting point and already has me doodling on paper. But, the notion of doing things in phases, which was also said by Crandel and later by Cowman is just what I will do. Stein’s suggestion of tempora

19

hi Sora,

it weren’t track-plans yet. Just some footprints. I just chose one different then yours to give even another alternative.

I said armpit high and not chin high. But your missing a point. We are walking along with our trains; especially on a pike with lots of switching.

Have fun and good luck and come back with the result of your doodling.

BTW without the peninsula you still have a big space. I made a suggestion for how a continous run could be added if you like to have one of course.

Paul

20

What you have now is a nice big area for a layout - a 2-foot deep shelf around 3 1/2 walls in a 12 x 17 feet room, if each square on tour drawing represents a distance of 1 foot, with plenty of room to experiment with various track configurations and good access to all parts of your layout. And you will be modeling in N scale. Plenty of space.

Since you seem to have more trouble removing stuff than to add it, then just have your relative not add the peninsula or pensinsulas yet. I suggest you start experimenting with some of your scenes in the nice space you have. Put a few staging tracks on the left, a few staging tracks on the right, and build one or two scenes in the middle where you can experiment with various types of railroading.

Smile,
Stein