I’m very new to my model railroading journey. After a failed start using EZ track (I know), I’m beginning to learn the errors of my ways and looking to start fresh with Walthers code 83 flextrack in HO scale. The space I have to work with is a 10’ x 6’ table lined with 2" tall plexiglass walls that are removable (I worry about trains taking a tumble, but I want to maximize my space). I am not interested in being a prototypical modeler, but just having fun.
The inspiration for my layout is very loosely based on the areas where I grew up and where my fiancé grew up. I have a vision of dividing my layout roughly in half, representing these two areas, with a painted (or other method) divider to add a sense of background in each half. On the one half would be a railyard, with a turntable and 6 stall roundhouse. The other side would be access to a lumberyard and a small passenger station. I like the idea of having a double track mainline, with crossovers being hidden in tunnels that pass through the divider. I plan to make the tunnels open to the sides for access, but when observing from either side it should be hidden.
As I said, I am a newcomer to all of this, so please, I welcome all your feedback.
One of the first questions I always ask is where is the layout going. The size and shape of the room and does the room need to be available for other uses?
The layout is in my basement, which is a shared room used for a lot of different activities. The 10x6 table is already manufactured, and I don’t think I’m allowed any more room than that
Sometimes, depending on the room a layout will be more out of the way if it is placed around the perimeter on say an 18" shelf at a height that can be above the TV and other furniture. Plus, if that works you get more layout for the size of the room when it runs the perimeter.
Let me start by saying that this is coming from a roundy-round guy, so, hopefully, my constructive criticism won’t come off as negative. First, I would highly suggest avoiding the temptation to fill the space completely. What I’m seeing is the mainline pushed all the way to the edge, giving it the shape of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. You should consider altering the plan to get away from being so parallel to the edges of the layout. You’d be surprised by how much angling the track a little bit here and adding a cosmetic curve there will add interest to the layout. Your plan is to use flextrack, so put it to use doing what it does best. Model trains snaking through a cosmetic curve can look so good! Also, some scenery or a structure between your eye and the train will increase your viewing enjoyment.
Second, you might consider a single track mainline with a passing siding on each long side of the layout. This will not only eliminate those expensive and not-so-prototypical double-crossovers in your use, but the layout will feel larger. If all you want to do is turn on two trains and let ‘em fly, then maybe you’re good, but you may find that becomes boring watching the same two trains passing each other twice per lap (assuming they’re running in opposite directions). And, about those double-crossovers. If you hide them in a tunnel, you are guaranteeing that they will give you trouble. Complicated hidden track is not recommended.
The core of my layout (shown below) is also 6’ x 10’, so it’s a size that can provide satisfaction. In my case, I have three appendages outside that core for separate staging areas. If you can add even a couple of tracks to feed the layout, all the better. If not, you can work with what you’ve got.
@davefoxx thanks for your response. I assure you it did not come off as anything but constructive. It sounds like you recommend a passing siding on each side- would you essentially replace the outer mainline with these sidings and keep the inner (in its simplest interpretation of your recommendations).
I had kept most track straight because I am less familiar with how the trains will handle winding track, though I recognize the visual interest that provides.
No, I mean reduce the mainline to a stretch of only single track at one or two spots on the layout. I’m actually reducing the amount of track on your plan, not adding to it. I’m sure your first reaction will be to poo-poo that idea, because I get it. I once tried double-tracking my layout during construction. See?
It wasn’t long before I reverted to single track, because the racing loops was surprisingly unsatisfying.
Also, so long as your curves aren’t too tight for your rolling stock and you allow some straight track between reverse curves, trains run through winding track just fine.
Since the layout will be on a 6’X10’ table, an around the walls configuration is probably out of the question. I’m curious about the two areas to be represented as the track plan “should” follow features of the areas represented. “Should” is in quotes as it up to modeler as to modeling what is real or what the modeler wishes were real.
The original plan would be nice for operating two or more trains and having the track close to the edge would allow more space for scenery.
Consider how far you can safely reach for construction/maintenance purposes without wiping out trains/structures near the edge. 30" is a long reach unless you are really tall with long arms.
@mdmasc91, one thing to keep in mind is the length of a siding. If you wanted to have two trains running, particularly for a small operating session, that will dictate the length of at least one train. @davefoxx’s layout has a great example of utilizing a fairly long siding, wrapping around one end of his layout, with the other end single track. That gives him plenty of space to run longer trains, while also giving him a realistic looking mainline. Also, those gentle curves he has in the left side of the photo add interest and drama (they also likely make for some great photos) while making the layout seem like it isn’t just an oval. Those are likely pretty large radii curves with easements so I imagine there are no issues with performance. If you incorporate some scenic elements that may have forced the line to make thos curves (a stream, hill, etc.), all the better.
@Casey_Dowling I think having two trains running would be nice, so I guess I need to at least extend the lumber yard siding. It seems like maybe I should get rid of the passing siding at the top of my revised layout too (referring to the 2nd version I posted a few comments ago).
I would love to put some more curves in but I struggle to envision them, to be honest. My updated plan would have a larger geographic feature (e.g. hill/mountain) in the top right, with that area of the track passing through a tunnel. I’d love to incorporate water and a bridge(s) too.
From what I’ve read, code 83 seems more prototypical. While I’m not interested in a prototypical layout, I figure making it look a little nicer can’t hurt.
" I think having two trains running would be nice, so I guess I need to at least extend the lumber yard siding. It seems like maybe I should get rid of the passing siding at the top of my revised layout too (referring to the 2nd version I posted a few comments ago)."
I would leave the passing siding at the top yard area. Not only would it need to be there for 2 train operation, but it would also be needed as a run-around track for yard switching and train make-up. I would also extend the siding to the right and part way into the curve, for added length, and to avoid interfering with a switcher working the yard lead.
Forgive the poor mark up in the track plan…using my phone, but @mdmasc91, what if you considered what @MidlandMike suggests, extending the siding in the yard, while also starting the lumber yard siding a bit closer to the engine terminal as well? Because this was drawn with my finger, not sure if it will work with your turnouts, but it would give you some space on the right side for scenery like a mountain and maybe a stream.
A lot of good advice given already, so I’ll lower the bar…
It’s probably a throwback to my club days, but I also query your use of Code 83 track. I have no scientific basis but I do wonder if some running reliably problems encountered by some modellers who rum steam on Code 83, would be there if Code 100 was used. Besides with my eyesight I have to look real hard to see the difference.
I also wonder if your round house would be better placed closer to the edge, negating possible “reach” issues.
Very good advice. I have a rounded end peninsula on my layout with a double mainline running around the edge of the peninsula with the roundhouse backing up to the mainline tracks. The roundhouse roofs are also removable for servicing.
