Back again after a few days out of town. Glad to see that I at least got some discussion going and you are getting good suggestions on how to best make use of the area available.
You mentioned that you can run your trains at a nearby club and already have done some testing on grades. Also your design drawings are really good- you obviously have engineering/computer skills. That puts you way ahead of most of the guys that post these sort of questions.
The question in my mind is still how much track you can get down and whether you have enough room for an over/under crossing. I still say that an over/under especially in a figure-8 configuration is going to be a real challenge but if you can build as good as you can create drawings then maybe you have a shot at making it work. Sounds like you are determined, and I actually think it would be pretty cool. Just be sure to go into it with your eyes wide open and be very careful with the design and build.
No doubt a big diesel with 6 wheel drivers should be a great puller. Also runnining diesel consists (easy to do with today’s DCC locos) should enable you to run trains up 3% grades. But you will still need to include vertical easements, adequate clearances between tracks especially on the tight curves, avoid S-curves, etc. And the long reach will be troublesome. Your design has a lot going on in a very tight area so take your time with the build, use good materials, and think through each step carefully.
yeah, cant do that. There is hanging tools and other stuff on that side. I already had to (talk) wife into letting tear down the shelves and move them. I was just fiddleing around with the L shape table and trying to lay track down on it. seems i can have really long runs with 2%. having a real had time finding track plan ideas. Also what would Bench would look like for something this size?
Hey guys, I’ve watching this thread, thought I’d toss in an idea, no matter what size or shape you end up with, you could place a “view block” somewhat down the center, giving the feel and appearance of covering more distance, which would pretty much eliminate the problem of trying to reach accross the 5’ table. One hang-up with this would be the throttle, as you would want to be able plug a controller in on each side.
So, I’ve been messing around. this is what i came up with.
it may appear that some tracks are close, but im going to fix that, I only use flex track, but most the the track i used in here was snap track. I made a inside tunnel reversing loop so i can turn Locos around. I was afraid of using one of these until my club members told me how easy they are to wire. I also made the lumber logging area a bit better.
just did a speed timed test with trainplayer. at 25MPH took 2min 50 secs to go around the main line. at 55MPH took 1min 20 secs. I really like those times, gives me plently of time to enjoy or use two or three trains.
I kind of like the concept. But then I am kind of partial to long winding mainlines even if they do create a bit of spaghetti bowl effect. Grades are much more reasonable and for the most part critical track is within reach. You’ve got plenty of build challenges in there (curved overpasses on grades, etc.) and it looks like the track will be tight, but nothing jumps off the page that would stop me from developing the plan further.
With all the elevation changes getting the scenery arranged to be believable will take some thought, and then a bunch of time and craftsmanship to get it in place. And I would plan some popup sections in the center so you can get to everything. But there’s plenty of opportunity for dramatic scenes which I also like.
One downside- with all the complexity it will take a lot of work and a long time before you will have a continuous running loop. I had the same issue so adjusted my plan with some temporary track sections so that I could run trains while working on the rest of the layout. You might be able to work that in somehow.
I am not an operations guy so will leave comments on that to others. I do think that the turnaround is a good idea.
This looks like a great plan for a second layout! My only concern is your overall placement of the layout. The diagram you have showing your space and the 13x9 layout shows only a 2 foot isle between the layout and your workbench. This narrow isle will make layout operations difficult, and will keep you cramped against the workbench when you are trying to work. The up side is that you don’t have far to go between layout and workbench for the inevitable fine-tuning.
I’d suggest widening that isle to 30" to give yourself a little more room. (Extend the upper left part of the L by 6".)
I wish when I posted it would be quicker than 4-5 hours later. So my question is should I keep the current benchwork, or should I start from scatch. then current table is a 4x8 that has two bolted on sections to make 5x10. I could keep bolting on sections to make the L, but that would be like 2 more sections. or would it be better to make new benchwork, how would that look like?
Agree on the 4-5 hour delay. Posts from new members are moderated but it seems like you should be past that now.
You probably will get a variety of opinions on how to build the design that you are developing. But I think it will be very hard to get all your elevation changes worked in starting with a flat sheet of plywood on a basic frame (another lesson learned from my 4x8 layout years ago). Maybe this will help get some discussion started.
Since I also have a lot of elevation changes in my plan I am using L-girder style construction. Depending on how your existing benchwork is built you may be able to re-work it into L-girder. Pull all the plywood off, add "L"s to the existing grid, and lay support beams across the L-girders. And then use the plywood that you have to make cookies. Before jumping into this though I suggest that you do a search on L-girder benchwork and look at the variations.
Does the club layout that you mentioned have a lot of elevation changes? If so take a look underneath to see what they did. And you could probably get some good advice and ideas from members there.
I have done this I O gauge and I will caution you it gets expensive. I went with this method because it is the only one I knew about. Also scenery below track height has to be planned well in advance when using the woodland scenics foam risers and sheets of foam for scenery base. You also need to pick a starting or “0” height above the plywood just in case you discover that you need a bit more wiggle room for getting your track below another (bridges necessarily take up space below the height of the roadbed, quite a bit depending on the type of bridge. Also just buy foam board instead of using the foam risers for level track, it was cheeper and easier for the grades the foam inclines worked really well. You still need to be careful about vertical easements when transistioning from level track to incline and vice versa. You may have uncoupling problems if you dont, especially in HO scale. A good hot wire cutter (and good ventilation!) is necessary for the foam method of construction.
Ive done the bolt on method before and it is workable. I over engineered by O guage layout (I can walk on it), but it started life as an L-shaped N-scale layout. Bolt on becomes unworkable when you go to try to diassemble it for moving after youve put down scenery. I made this mistake on my O guage layout. I have angled pieces of steel holding the sections of the layout together. The angled steel is attached with counter sunk bolts in the top and nuts on the bottom, and run the length of the 4x8 pieces of plywood. I have 2in blue foam board glued and screwed down on top.
I do not reccommend my method of bolting on sections.
And some food for thought:
How are you planning to access the parts of the track that is in the tunnels for cleaning and re-railing derailed equipment?
yeah so what i did for the first section was 4x8 built the way worlds greatist hobby built there benchwork. then i just bolted on addional sections when i wanted larger 10x5. Now that i been thinking about it all day, I think its just better I start from stratch for benchwork. I made the whole table with just two sheets of ply that I cut into strips for the cross sections, saved money. i was thinking of reusing the wood, but i used nails and wood glue. I think if I try to rip it aparts its going to pull the ply apart.
I also have a Ply tabletop, but I used 2inch blue foam ontop which i semi glued with DAP 220. I was going to hotglue gun the risers ontop of the blue foam.
No simple answers to how you should approach benchwork. I think you will have to decide for yourself depending on your sitution. I like L-girder because it is very flexible and easy to build in elevations for both track and landscape, ply sub-roadbed naturally forms vertical easements, there is better access to hidden track, and its much easier to install under-track switch machines and wiring. But there are downsides- design details take some thinking, you end up cutting and fitting a lot of wood (a good mitre saw comes in handy), and the finished structure is more-or-less permanent. My layout would be a real bear to move without totally destroying it.
Suggest you be patient, do searches here and on other internet resources, and see what others have done and are doing. Then select a method that makes the most sense to you. It will be easier for everyone here to respond to specific questions once you get going with it.
For you “new” design i would start from scratch. Since this layout is still somewhat crammed into a working garage, it should be moveable if ever needed. Open grid w/ locking casters would be an option. MrB has posted many times his benchwork, this may be a great idea for your use as well. You could use foam over 1x or use cookie cutter. Don’t fear those inclines in cookie cutter, as the grade will be actually easier to construct and the “bending” of the plywood subroadbed will automatically give you the grade upeasements/ overeasings as you “flex” the plywood into the grade.
So it’s been awaile since I last was on here. I bought all the building materials, then I started to rethink. My first plan seemed a bit hard to build. so I came up with this
Let me know what you think. I need to give credit, found this in the layout section, but I fliped it vertical to look correct and added a rail from the lumber mill to the barn for a turnaround.
So two questions come to mind looking at this one:
What are the radii of the end loops? The scale grid makes me think this plan was designed for N, since the ends are only 3’ and 3.5’ across, too small for anything but the absolute tightest HO curves. Are you planning to blow this up to a larger-sized base?
Is the layout going to be in a corner, and if so, how are you going to access the staging tracks and that tunnel on both long sides for derailments, cleaning, etc.? If you are expanding the size, this becomes even more important-- you’ll need an access hatch if you can’t get to that far corner by walking around.
