I’m a newbie looking for feedback (starting with whether or not this is an appropriate discussion forum for this). Long and short on background info … last month visited the model railroad museum in San Diego, CA for the first time in many, many years and got intrigued (again) with model trains. The last time was a started but never finished layout with my son about 25-30 years ago. Now, I’m looking at it as a great retirement hobby.
The goal I set was a series of small layouts that could be of interest individually but that could also be joined in different combinations for some variety with larger setups. I wanted to do 2’ x 4’ modules but that kept taking me to Z scale for layouts that interested me and in which I could solve the reversing problem across interchange boundaries (but with Z there is not as diverse a selection of U.S. engines/rolling stock and it also pushed me to a different price point). So I arrived at N scale on 30” x 60” modules. I’m willing to give that much in my home office to permanently allocated space and I have places in the house to join the modules together for periodic larger, multi-module setups. Layouts would be fictional rather than prototypes of real world locations. Time period would be latter part of the 20th century. Yes, I know that is a relatively broad timeframe for things like locomotive selection, but it’s a best guess for now.
Lots of reading on the internet and looking at layouts out there and starts and restarts on de
In the total amount of space these sections will occupy, there are likely better choices if one views the overall space as an opportunity. Unless it is important to you that each section be operable independently as a round-and-round layout, there may be a lot of possibilities opened up by eliminating the full ovals on each section. There might be room for a larger yard, more industries, etc. by eliminating some of the redundancy on each section.
Current track-planning best practice concepts such as staging add to the long-term operating enjoyment for many people. Also note that not every plan published on the Internet is inherently useful.
I’m recommending it everywhere today (sorry for those of you reading multiple threads), but John Armstrong’s Track Planning for Realistic Operation might give you some good perspective on the ways a layout might function.
You might want to start with one of these for now, gain some experience and explore your own interests, and then make decisions on what you’d like to do with the rest of the space.
Good luck with your layout.
Byron
Something else to think about is to build modules that you can take out of the house and assemble with other people’s.
I am involved with (HO) Free-mo:
There’s also an N version:
http://free-mon.wesleysteiner.com/
There are other variations on modular modeling. Ntrak comes to mind.
Ed
Thanks for the feedback. I definitely understand what you are saying about sacrificing the ovals in each for the sake of a more interesting larger layout. Will have to think about that some more. Perhaps I can think in terms of some point to point (multi-track) modules that would help create a more interesting larger situation when combined but could certainly prove interesting on its own. It is important to me that each module be operable independently since that is all the “permanent” space I can give up but as I think about it more, not necessarily as a round and round oval.
Agree, it is something consider and had seen info about NTrack on the internet, but in all honesty, I believeI have a long, long way to go before I could seriously think in that direction [:)]. But will take a look at those links … everything I can get my hands on provides ideas.
Try the ntrak site http://www.ntrak.org/
Ron welcome to the Forum
I don’t know how you got the little font, but some of us are waiting for our eye surgeons to say it’s time to get rid of those cataract and see again. I don’t care if it’s Arial or New Times Roman but size matters
Henry,
Click on the pictures, it enlarges them and it sure helps. I know what you mean about things getting harder to see.
Good luck,
Richard
Help me here — are you talking about the text or the pictures? For the text I just typed with all the defaults in the message box. If it’s for the pictures, I can make sure things don’t get shrunk down too much 
Take a look at this link. http://otmodelrr.blogspot.com/2013/03/track-plan-version-10.html
He is using Dave Barrows “Domino” style layout design.
Steve
After a lot of trial and error, things have evolved to a point where I’ll seek outside advice again. The previous comments as well as acquiring and digesting (and continuing to digest) John Armstrong’s book and digesting “The Ten Commandment s of Model Railroad Yard Design” were the main influencers of the changes.
As before, still want to take the modular approach and still looking at 30” x 60” module sizes. The “all modules are round and round layouts” is gone. Have moved to single track with passing areas rather than double track. Have somewhat relaxed my requirement that each and every module be operable as a standalone unit.
The train yard area/engine service is now just that. As a standalone module it is an opportunity for train yard activities of consist assembly and breakdown. It no longer utilizes valuable space for any continuous running trains. There is just enough mainline to have a mainline exist and to join with other module(s) I “folded” the yard/engine service area around itself so I could fit what I wanted in the module while observing what I think I understand good yard setup to be. Don’t know if that is a good or not good thing to do.
The industry area (center module) is just a twice around with passing areas. There could be activity associated with the industries, but this could also be a let the trains run area (yes, I realize to do that I would have to get into some sort of computer control or the like to not require human intervention to
The yard is positioned so that every move in or out must be a switchback. This could become tedious over time. Pointing it in the other direction would be an improvement and arranging that section differently would allow longer tracks. Often folks make the arrival/departure double-ended track part of the yard, as with this simplified sketch (and the example yards in Track Planning for Realistic Operation).
The three passing sidings/runarounds on the central section might be one more than you need, but probably do no harm. Also on the center section, have you allowed for transitions from level to grade and back again (as below)?
Changing grades within a turnout can be a problem for reliability, so you’ll want to keep those on a consistent grade or level. Once you add transitions and make allowances for the location of turnouts, your grades may be steeper than you have planned.
Good luck with your layout.
Byron
Thank you for the input. I see what you are saying about the yard and will have to give that some more thought. I think I focused too much on having access to the engine house be as a result of passing through the A/D track, dropping off the load and then continuing to the service area. Clearly the primary focus should be on the yard itself and how well it functions.
On the center section, it in fact did bother me that the green mainline seemed very artificially linked into the “stand alone” blue mainline. But it took reading your post referring to the “extra” turnout that made it clear what the issue was and pointed me in the direction of the revised center layout in the picture below.
As for the grades, I think I am at close to 4% throughout. I plan to use Atlas Code 55 track and leaning toward all flex track rather than fixed segments. Do you know if there is any “vertical give” in the flex track to work the transitions?
I had already realized that changing grades within a turnout could be problematical and was sure NOT to do that in the layout. It is slope up to the turnout, the turnout is level, and then slope continues to the overpass and then down (so even more transitions to deal with). The whole cement company turnout area is on the same flat elevated plane as the turnout leading to it. Do you think that approach is workable?
One of the things that was mentioned in my readings was to be careful to not bite off more than you can chew. Hope I’m not being too ambitious for a newbie [:)]
Many would find that grade to be too steep. Something in the range of 2.5% is easier to work with, although some are successful with steeper grades. Note that curves increase the effective grade substantially through added friction, so if the nominal 4% continues through curves it is actually a much tougher grade.
In addition, most builders find that at least one car-length of the same grade on either side of the turnout improves reliability. I should have mentioned that earlier. So I am afraid that the effect might be to make your grades even steeper.
Note also that if the passing sidings are on a very steep grade, you won’t be able to use them as runarounds when switching – the cars will roll away when the engine is uncoupled.
As I mentioned earlier, one approach might be to begin with just one section that has a bit of all the elements: yard tracks, industry sidings, continuous run. After building and operating that section, you might have a better idea what you wish to do with the overall space.
Good luck with your layout.
Byron
Have pursued the layout a bit further. Reworked where the passing areas are and have things down to never exceeding 2.5% (including accounting for some additional level track on either side of the turnout). Has evolved to the state shown below. May still take your advice and create a little-bit-of-everything layout for my first build attempt and the twice around may just remain as paper-ware but wanted to see it through to something that at least on paper was a workable layout. Thank you for the learning experience and helping me get it to this stage.
That looks more practical in terms of grade. One additional fine point, those two industries would each be switched from the same direction – and that is not uncommon, as it is efficient. And it might allow for larger industries (which I think is generally more realistic) in your specific situation.
But in the model world, some folks would choose to have one point in the opposite direction to add more operating interest by requiring a runaround move.
Good luck with your layout.
Byron
Thanks.
Yes, I purposely had the industries switched from the same direction because of the efficiency. I had tried reverse switching one of them and, as you noted, it just didn’t provide as much working space for the industries.