Newbridge & Lockport RR (was: Help with layout shape and plan, please!)

Model Railroader Layouts and layout building
21

Not much changes in terms of the footprint, except that the minimum radius is smaller so the “blobs” can be smaller. That opens up aisles, allows longer straightaways for yards, etc.

As with a number of other issues, this will depend on the type of railroading you’d like to incorporate, era, locale, etc. As noted earlier, if you can share more about what you’d like to see on the layout, it will help others help you. That piece of the puzzle is still missing.

The ratio of N scale to HO scale is 160 to 87.1 – so N scale is about 55% of HO. A 28" radius curve in HO would be 15 1/4" radius in N and would handle most equipment. Broader curves look better with longer equipment.

Although it requires knowing more about what equipment you plan to run, the Layout Design SIG’s curve radius rule-of-thumb can be handy.

The “G” still works and provides walk-in access. Double-sided backdrops will divide the benchwork into a separate scene on each side. You can go multiple passes through the scene for a longer run, if that’s what you want (or multi-deck, a much bigger undertaking).

With the smaller minimum radius for N scale I’d probably not bother with the donut. But if I did, I’d think about docking the donut to one wall as I posted earlier. But the donut is not walk-in – and really helps most with radii that are broader relative to the roo

22

If this will be an HO scale layout, the radii and aisles will be fairly tight on the plans you’ve drawn.

Cuyama makes a good point about the bottom of the layout being open to the other room. You can view or access the layout from that room, essentially giving you another side of the layout with which to build a scene.

Closing off the room might also be beneficial. If you approach it that way, try a simple around the room donut plan with a center blob. With 12 feet in width, things will be a little tight at the loop pinch points however.

23

Well, I’m cowaradly back here to admit I have been “soul searching” past days. My heart seems set on H0, even though my partner and I sort of decided we’d go with N.

I don’t know anymore, I still feel I should try going H0 seeing so many layouts out there made in much smaller space than ours here…

We did put together a Givens/Druthers list that I’d like to share here for comments, while we are still trying to figure out the Conceptual/Structural/Detail phase breakout.

Givens

  • Room size 22’x12’ (irregular, two columns on the North edge, doorway access to the North-East, electrical closet on the South-West)
  • Ceiling at 6’6"
  • Actual space closer to 19’x12’ with optional 18"x96" along the West wall allowing for 2’ passageway
  • Two windows on the South side starting at 55" above floor level
  • The layout will remain in the train room (no foreseeable expansion)
  • Climate controlled space
  • Scale: ?
  • DCC operation
  • Era: transition
  • Prototype: Freelance
  • Operating crew: two (most of the time, but visitors possible)
  • Single deck with an option for future multi-deck expansion
  • Benchwork: stand-alone L-girder modules (not attached to walls)
  • Min. radius: TBD (considering scale and long passenger and freight cars)

Druthers

  • Track: Code 83 for H0 or Code 55 for N
  • Min. turnout size: TBD
  • Prefer double track mainline
  • Capability for continuous running
  • Minimum 24″ aisle width
  • Signaled operation (ABS or CTC)
  • Option for fully computer controlled trains
  • Swing out bridge is preferred, if required
  • No need to reach more than 24″ into the layout
  • Longest main line runs possible
  • Trains may pass through the same scene area more than once (using a different track and/or elevation)
  • Like longer trains (only possible in N)
24

Big difference what will fit in N vs. HO. Until you settle on a scale, folks won’t be able to help much.

Just FYI, here are a couple of HO donuts. In some places, hidden track must be reached over a low backdrop or via a removable backdrop.

25

Also (armchair) layout planning here, but you have a nice concrete space alotted for your pike, so you’re ahead of me!

Looking at your givens & druthers, a couple things stand out to me. You want a double track main line, with long trains, and (big?) yards. These all scream ‘N scale’ to me, in that space (I’m an HO guy myself, though).

In either scale, I’d be designing around the ‘G’ shape benchwork, and definitely making use of the ‘open’ column side of the layout room and a double-sided backdrop to create “extra” mainline run. I’d also be very tempted to use that extra linear run to create enough vertical separation to allow a sublevel for staging and a turnaround loop (or double ended staging) beneath the sceniced portion of the layout.

If you plan to model a substantial classification yard and are interested in operations, you’ll need to have lots of staging capacity to support multiple trains coming in to set cars out, as well as a place for the trains you build to go. The other option I would consider, is to use the aisle you already have to leave for electric panel access as a place to put a ‘fiddle yard’ for staging, behind a full-height backdrop that would hide the train-building operations going on there. That would probably require you to turn the ‘G’ back around the other way though.

26

Another vote here for the “G”. Byron reviewed my layout before the build. You won’t go wrong following his advice.

www.lkorailroad.com

Your vision will deteriorate and your hands will become less steady as you age. Keep this in mind as you decide HO or N.

More is not necessarily better. The quality of the run is just as important, if not more so, as the length of the run.

27

Thank you all for being patient with me. I reall can’t explain why I’m flip-flopping on the decision to go N scale. Somehow I feel I might regret not trying to squeeze H0 in there first, yet N seems to be the most sound choice for the space. :frowning:

cuyama,

Thank you for those H0 donut ideas. In your expert opinion, is what you have shown here really the most I can get in the space (when it comes to donuts)?

I was playing with some organic shapes rather than a G, trying to see what else could be put there so here’s one of those attempts:

The way I envisioned this is, the orange track (the outer loop) would be 4" lower than the rest of the layout, all around the islands/blobs. It would climb back up on the left side blob and decend on the right side blob. This would give some scenic separation from the inner loop and double the main line length.

Each island could support any number of LDEs connecting to the inner loop as well.

RRR_BethBr,

I’m trying to understand your suggestions from the last two paragraphs regarding designing around G, but I’m having a hard time seeing it in my minds eye. Could you please elaborate on

I’d also be very tempted to use that extra linear run to create enough vertical separation to allow a sublevel for staging and a turnaround loop (or double ended staging) beneath the sceniced portion of the layout.

What exactly are you referring to, the linear stretch touching the two columns? Where would you start going into the sublevel and where would you emerge from it?

The other option I would consider, is to use the aisle you already have to leave for electric panel access as a place to put a ‘fiddle yard’ for staging, behind a full-height backdrop that would hide the train-building operations going on there. That would probably require you to tur

28

Ah, glad you asked. That’s where Byron and forum members come in. First things first, you must decide why you are building a layout. I know that sounds dumb but I am serious. I like trains is a weak answer. Once you decide exactly why your layout exists in the first place then you move on to how it is laid out and how it operates. Byron and others can then help you optimize the design based on the “why” i.e. creating a better quality run.

Love switching? Fill the layout with industries and logically arranged spurs and leads. Love railfanning? Create long winding track woven through beautiful vistas. Fascinated by a particular railroad? Dedicate your layout to replicating a prototype subdivision or section thereof. Modeling museum quality structures your thing? Build a city that happens to have a railroad passing through it. You get my point.

Using myself as an example, I combined three specific prototype areas (from three different railroads!) into one. For each of the three prototype areas I have cherished memories as a youth. So for me, the “why” and thus “quality of run” is defined as my layout helping me relive my childhood memories. I play with trains for the purpose of enjoying my youth a second time. Byron assisted by making sure my amalgamation of the three rail components would actually create a functional, operable model railroad.

There is “playing with trains” and then there is “enjoying playing with trains”. Focus first on the “enjoying” part as it relates to you. It’s a soul searching adventure. Once you have that clearly defined then layout design becomes a straightforward engineering excersise at which Byron excels.

If you nailed the “enjoy” definition then a high "

29

Those were quick ideas I knocked out using the yard from another project while waiting for an appointment. So they aren’t presented as perfection, just an idea of what fits.

“Most” is subjective. Those donuts are sort of balanced ideas with double-track mains, a small active yard, some switching, some staging, and a reasonable length of run. One could probably re-design to emphasize more of any of those elements – but not all of them. Layout design is an exercise in trade-offs. If one was willing to forgo the movable gate to enter the inner layout (and use a duck-under instead), for example, one could probably work in another loop of track to subterranean staging.

As I once told my boss when I worked in product management, “You can have it fast, cheap, or fully functional. Pick two.”

Some thoughts in terms of practicality, easily corrected:

  • the yard along the back wall is unworkable as an active yard because of the difficulties in accessing it from multiple places. If it’s just for staging/storage, not as big of an issue
  • Most folks would want 3-4” of benchwork between tracks and the aisle.
  • The track in the ̶t̶o̶p̶-̶r̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ top-left corner seems to be out of an easy 30” reach.

More importantly from a footprint standpoint, 3 blobs will usually be less desirable than a “G” (two blobs) for a given space because relatively more of the track is curved. This can make it

30

It seems I have quite a bit of soul searching to go through then. I grew up around trains, had relatives work on the railroad. I honestly can’t poinpoint exactly what I like about trains, something about machines on tracks that always appealed to me.

I like watching trains pass-by or shunt cars around, trackwork disappearing into the distance, or curving through the valleys, signals changing aspects or turnouts switching points; I like freight just as much as passenger trains; steams, diesels, electrics, no matter, I like it all. :slight_smile:

I don’t even know where to start if I was to narrow things down. And I’m not sure I want to take away from the wholeness of experience that trains are to me. Sigh.

If I was to build a “chainsaw” layout, what kind of a layout do I build, how big, what shape, scale? Do I just find a plan on the internet I like and dive into it?

As I was tired of imagining various curve radii, I though it would be worth while seeing them instead, and comparing the scales as well as cars in real-world space.

Those autoracks are on the 26" curve, and it appears barely enough for them, although that flatbed has the same footprint as autoracks and it seems it could make the 24".

And then the sad realization of the size of H0 curves needed to make a full turn and how it fits (or doesn’t) inside my space. To the right is a mockup of a small yard made with compound ladders. Not fitting much as the track before and after the yard would need another foot or more, and then make the turns.

My space seems incompatible with H0 as my train area depth is only 12’ which falls short of two full turns at 28" and a decent aisle space in-between. :frowning:

Looking at N, I could make full turns at 16" or 18&quo

31

https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/r270/15875426_10210145517508748_465228777900503975_o.jpg?oh=40d2254d634eff0d284672c801b5b9c9&oe=58DC58C7

Consider using the space on the other side of the columns as an operator area. You are gaining layout area without building into the space.

The above layout I envision a main yard along any of the three long runs. There could be some staging below between A and A. ho scale. Easy access to electri panel.

Steve

32

It’s compatible with HO – with compromises. Smaller radii (and corresponding limitations on equipment) allow a walk-in lobed arrangment like the “G” to work. Donut-style layouts would allow larger radii, but have their own trade-offs.

Your photo shows some of the largest modern equipment. If you want to run that, then it places demands on the minimum radii that aren’t so severe with other layout eras and concepts. And if you want it to be double-track; that uses more space, not just for the extra track, but for the crossovers needed to enter and leave yards, for example.

N scale offers much more flexibility in the same space, of course.

Personally, I think the purpose of a chainsaw layout is to build experience and answer questions. What are the key questions you’d like to answer? If the key question is “Will I be happy with N scale?”, then it should probably be an N scale layout. If the key question is, "Will I be happy with equipment restrictions that come with a 26” (or whatever) radius in HO?”, then it should be an HO layout.

As far as where it’s located, I’d suggest something that’s non-inuitive. I might build it in an L-shape partially against the wall that in the future will be the 36” “keep clear” aisle. Then you can start construction of the later layout in the far corner and still have a path clear to the electrical box for a while before you must take down the chainsaw.

You have more space than many model railroaders will ever have the good luck to enjoy. You can build a lot of the things you want into that space – just not eve

33

See where this is going? Do the soul searching first, then build a layout or a chainsaw. If you just dive in without knowing the “why” then you will likely spend a lot of time and money only to end up dissatisfied with the hobby. Nobody wants to see that happen. It truly is the World’s Greatest Hobby if done for the right personal reason(s).

Sage advice.

34

Since you like modern equipment go n. Some of the stuff you showed looks best on 36" radius at least in HO which would be a more manigable 18" in N. Although the size of the stuff maters when you get older, modern stuff tends to be much bigger than the stuff from my layout era the 1930’s, like twice an long or bigger.

35

Thank you all for your posts.

Choops,

That was one of the shapes I had on the B-line but I keep putting it aside because of that large empty area in the middle left. My partner keeps telling me that I’m like “go big or go home”, trying to use every square inch of space.

Looking at it, I think I’m on my way to understanding the “quality” run part, because of a choice made not use every square inch of space in favour of a layout that works on more than one level (scenic, operational, etc).

cuyama,

To be fair, I only have those two autoracks because they are the most-extreme cases. I bought them for the exact reason of seeing what the largest equipment does to various curve radii. I do have a number of passenger cars that are about the same length but would probably work even in 24" radii, unlike the autoracks.

We had some discussions about “G” vs donut, and although my partner is kind of indifferent to either, we both like organic shapes better. Yes, that’s neither here nor there when it comes to fitting track, so it’s more of a curiosity.

lifeontheranch,

Soul searching for H0 vs N to me is probably the toughest decision I have to make. I still need to shake off the feeling of “hold me gently or I’ll break” that N gives me. :slight_smile:

rrebell,

I do not mind modern North American equipment, although to be honest it looks too plain and all the same to me, built for a single purpose - to maximize the capacity. I find older North American units, and especially European equipment much more pleasing, for many reasons.

And there lays the conundrum, H0 has the selection of equipment I like in abundance, yet N offers me better choices in overal track length and scenic possibilities in my space.

Now, my current equipment roster is perhaps 8 or so locomotives, 9 passenger and maybe two dozen or so f

36

Trainzluvr:

It seems to me that you want to go HO scale despite the curve radii challenges. I’m basing that simply on the way that you talk about HO scale vs N scale. HO scale you speak of positively, but N scale you keep asking if you will be satisfied.

FWIW, when I look at N scale I say “nice, but not for me”. It just doesn’t appeal to me. I scratch build switching locomotives and railcars/trucks in HO and HOn30. Trying to do that in N scale would seem to me to be an exercise in frustration, but that’s me and what interests me.

Here is a suggestion that might help you make the choice. Forget about the ‘chainsaw’ layout approach. Put some of your locomotives and rolling stock in front of you in both scales. Then ask yourself “which ones do I want to reach for first?”, or, “which locomotive would I like to hug?”. Yes, I’m serious about the ‘hug’ part! Which locomotive(s) do you really love?!?

Dave

37

Yes, that’s the area I’m talking about. Here’s a rough sketch based on your plan #6:

plan 6

The main yard would be on the upper (modeled) level, with realistic track work, etc, though I’d almost certainly try to discretely incorporate a reverse loop for continuous running. Leaving the yard, we’d start heading down a gentle, but constant, grade as the train winds its way through the modeled scenes of towns/industries. At the point I show the tracks passing through the backdrop at lower left, we’re heading on to the staging sub-level, and the line turns grey to indicate that. I’d run staging under the main yard, and include another reverse loop to facilitate continuous running, where trains could come in from the stagin level, climb the grade through the railroad, and end in your yard.

With some real cleverness, it might even be possible to include a ‘ramp’ track back down to staging at the rear of the main (modeled) yard, so trains could ‘continue on’ beyond your railroad.

[quote]

The other option I would consider, is to use the aisle you already have to leave for electric panel access as a place to put a ‘fiddle yard’ for staging, behind a full-height backdrop that would hide the train-

38

You want a long run… How about double decking the whole affair. Extend the upper right blob out to 5’ so it is large enough to house a 30"r helix (orange line). Position a backdrop on the lower deck to hide staging (dk green line).

39

Is the other side of the pillars the wife’s forbidden zone? [oX)]

As the Brits say, you could always go “pear shaped” - j/k.

40

Thank you everyone for your comments and suggestions.

So the concensus for my space is the G shape, regardless of the scale used. I would like to avoid a helix in H0 as to me that is a space monster, which most people prefer to tuck away somewhere.

I wish I had a nook somewhere I could put the helix in, but the space I’ve shown is the final space. I can’t go below the columns since that would block access to the rest of the basement (it was a challenge to get even this much approved by the “committee”…just kidding, of course :slight_smile: ).

I did spend a lot of cycles contemplating H0 vs N, yet I feel I haven’t reached the decision point yet. What I did accomplish is find a local MRR club really close to where I live, which I plan to visit in a week or so.

My “cunning” plan, if all goes well, is to get access to their H0 layout and hopefully be around like-minded people, while learning many MRR things hands-on. And perhaps they will benefit from my skills in the process as well.

But ultimately, it might quench my thirst for H0, let me run some of my equipment there, and free me of having to make a scale choice. Then I could model N at home and have access to H0 at the club. A potential win-win situation.

I’ll post an update once I visit the club, and maybe I’ll have a clear(er) direction what I’m doing in the space at home.