Opinions on a new layout and design

Model Railroader Layouts and layout building
1

I’ve been doing alot of reading lately about track plan design, and I have to say I’m still very confused. Everytime I try to put it on paper, it comes out looking very silly and I don’t feel the operation as I see it.

Here’s where I am right now. Over the past six years, I’ve been slowly messing with a layout in the garage, never got beyond the track stage. It’s HO, two 4x8 plywood sections, with another off of one side in a kind of L shape. I went with a block DC system, as I didn’t have the money for a DCC at the time. I have two small daughters who love trains, so I needed a few mainlines that ran around in a circle. What I ended up with was four power blocks, three circles on the main set of 8X8s, the inner ones containing a small three track yard, and an out and back on the L part of the layout. No industries, no real sidings yet, and it’s been this way for over five years.

Well, fast forward to now, and I’m thinking of tearing it all apart and starting over. The track runs aren’t long enough for the kind of trains I’d like to run, I can’t run my larger locomotives on the inner loops, and my caprentry sucked on the tables anyhow.

So, my Givens are a two car garage, of which I have designated a roughly 16X10 area for the layout. I believe I want to go around the walls at the front of the garage, in a roughly rectangle shape, maybe leaving a 4x8 sheet at each end connected with 2 foot by 4 foot sections of open grid benchwork. I figured the 4x8s would serve as towns, yard areas and industry switching points.

My druthers are I’d like to have a number of large industries, like coal, freight, fuel, etc. I am modeling a BNSF railroad, as that is what is in my area, but I do not care about being prototypical at all. I’d like to model some mountain area, some plains, a river, and a industrial city area. I’d also like to switch to DCC. None of my current locomotives are DCC capable, but are all Anthearn, so capable of bei

2

So the 4x8 sheets go on the 10 side or the 16 side? Is the open grid going to expanded from the 4x8 to fill the entire space or just keep the layout 8x?? with a 4’ isle down the middle?

So you aren’t modeling the BNSF railroad you will be running BNSF equipment on your railroad. [;)] Seriously, what is your definition of a large industry. A modern coal mine could probably fill your entire layout area. By fuel do you mean something like a refinery? The mountains and river are no big deal one can probably squeeze scenery elements like that in just about anywhere.

A common problem with a flat top layout design. You will find this much easier to do with an open grid.

3

The 4x8s would be on the 10 foot sides, with 2x4 open grid connecting them both at the corners, so like a rectangle with the aisle in the middle. I was wondering if that’s the best use of my space or if there’s a better way to do it.

Okay, you’re right, running the equipment, I like BN and SF :slight_smile: I guess I mean to model just to track connctions and loading operations of said large industries, ones that a double mainline realistically passes by or through. I read an idea about the coal mine/power station on different sides, but I don’t believe that may work on my layout, excepting if I used one of the 4x8 areas as that, which is not a real bad idea, actually!

I’m really interested in trying open grid, which is the main reason, beyond getting more straight runs, to switch from my flat top topography. I just have a hard time envisioning a layout that looks like this and that can realistically model the elevation changes on two foot sections. What I’d LOVE is to see a track plan from someone that has a layout like this, or a differing idea for what could fit into a 16x10 space. Like I said, I appear to

4

Oh, silly me, of course. That makes perfect sense.

Ok, that helps. I’ll think about that for a while.

You don’t necessarily have to change the elevation of the track to get non-flat topography. Here are my children’s “Youth in Model Railroading” modules that are 2’x4’. The one on the right titled simply “The Canyon” is open grid. A close up from a different angle below. With the open grid instead of raising the track to go over the bridge the base of the river was dropped, by building the open grid lower. On the lower picture, the bridge support that looks like “rock” is actually a real riser from the open grid going up to support the track.

1533×787 188 KB

As usual click the image to enlarge
809×887 182 KB

5

Open grid work looks like this. Mine is in the two car garage occuping 15 ft (along the garage door - behind me to my left in this picture) and 19 ft down the left wall you see here.

Since I am modeling central Texas area (not the hill country) the surrounding terrain is mostly flat, hence you see I covered mine. I will model the small hills etc in this area by building up around the track.

Hope this helps spur some ideas.

Regards,

6

Well here is my first doodle, totally not to scale. It has a double track main line and a single track main line - so three separate loops for the children. I was actually thinking the double track main line would be 24" minimum radius while the single track could do more interesting things with 18". You would just have to keep the larger equipment off of it.

A couple questions I came up with while doodling were:

  1. Is this up against only one wall or is it two? If two than I think there will be access problems with the 4x8 on that side.
  2. Is this to be viewed and operated mainly from the inside “pit”?
    876×1131 171 KB
7

Sorry for the late reply, but wow. Ya, that’s…freaking awesome. Just doodled it did you? That really helps me visualize something in the space, that’s for sure!

Yes, this would be up against the walls, but I believe I’m leaving two feet on one side for access, just not the other side. I guess I could manage to fit in another two feet on the other side.

The viewing I thought about, and honestly, the only reason you would “have” to be inside the pit, which is a term I like, hehe, is if I put up backgrounds that stop you from viewing from the outside. Upon reflection I’d have to say maybe both. I picked up the Zephyr Digitrax DCC kit the other day, and someday I’ll probably upgrade to a walkaround throttle with multiple jacks.

Thanks for the wonderful drawing, that’s really inspiring!

8

If you let me know some more of what you like/don’t like about it, I can start working it into something more scale and real.

I was just thinking mostly about the access. It is almost impossible to reach across 4 feet of space (especially into a corner) for maintenance and repair. This can be solved with “pop up” access hatches, but that is a game for young people. I will no longer even consider something I have to crawl under an pop up. We have one on our club that is just becoming annoying.

That can make some really cool scenes because it blocks one from another and makes tracks that are inches away seem miles away.

9

I can’t say there’s much about your design I “don’t” like. It has just the right amount of elevations, industries, and trackage. The one thing I kind of want to achieve on part of it, though, is kind of a area that has a “switching layout” feel, with multiple industires in a small area that represents a large city, which is where the main yard for the layout would be. I was thinking of having two yards, one large with the city area, and one smaller, local classifying yard maybe at the other end of the layout, if it can be fit in. They were just ideas I was considering and thought they would make operation fun.

Access would be kind of interesting. I’m 27, so ducking under wouldn’t be an issue, but my father is 45 and has back problems, and I definitly want him to be able to operate this with me and his granddaughters, so I must take that into consideration. What is really the best way to take care of that? I’m not a very good carpenter, so I’ve shied away from wanting to build a gated bridge, but that sounds like it’s the best option in this situation.

I would strongly consider adding backdrops if I could easily get into the pit area with ease. I agree they do make the scenes so much nicer and definitly constrain reality more for the viewer.

All comments definitly welcome!

10

Whoops, guess you may want to know what I specifically like about it.

I really like how you’ve got the double main line running, and the third 18’ line is very well placed as well. I like the amount of elevations and mountainous areas and how they are located. I really like the wrap around down past the mine of the 18’ line.

I really like the small switching area you have south of the intermodal yard. What the heck is an intermodal yard, anyhow? hehe. I kind of wish the area could interface better with the other industrial area, but I kind of see that you’re keeping them seperate for a feeling of distance.

One of the things I’ve always wanted on a layout was that large yard filled with cars that looks so good as the passing freight is heading through, or a new one being made up, or one just leaving for the smaller yard. I want to kind of build my city scene around the yard, with a highway pass over it, large buildings on the side, a large retaining wall seperating the city above from the working trains below. I catch that sort of scene captured on so many layouts and I really want it on mine.

I would like to keep my other engines on the layout when they aren’t being used, so I’ll also need to model an engine service area.

That’s all I can think of for now, I’ll probably think of something else in about five minutes. Hehe. Thanks for the help!

11

Don’t put the 4x8’s on the end, you won’t be able to reach across them. It will make it very awkward to operate. You might be able to crawl under the layout and pop up on the outside to reach stuff byt that will get old fast.

If you can squeeze 2-4 extra feet of widsth, you will have enough room to put a peninsula down the center with a “blob” on the end for a turn back curve.

Dave H.

12

The spiral around the mine (why?) looks to be very tight, unless you are doing this in N scale it will be very difficult to negoiate. You won’t be able to put long cars around it, plus to switch it you will have to leave the rear of your train on the incredibly steep grade in the spiral. It will roll away unless you have some sort of pin that retains the train.

Putting the staging lead between the intermodal yard and the mains is very awkward, put it in the back so you can hide it. The intermodal terminal tracks look to only be about 4 ft long, so you can put maybe 1 53 ft well 5 pak on each track. There are no crossovers around the intermodal yard and the tracks are not double ended so only trains going counterclockwise on the “wrong” main (left hand running) will be able to switch the intermodal ramp.

The grain elevator area will have to be redesigned because the switches are way too sharp, it will never fit like that on a real layout.

There is only one way in or out of staging and no way to turn a train on line, or ayrad to build a train going in the opposite direction, so you have to back all the clockwise trains out of staging and back all the counterclockwise trains into staging.

I would suggest thinking about a part of the BN you like and try to include elements from that area into a layout. Not every layout HAS to have a coal mine. Probably 99% of the coal mines on the BN didn’t look like that. Instead of that waaaaay too sharp and steep spiral, put in a 22" loop and a flood loader and load unit coal trains like the real BN did.

Dave H.

13

Intermodal yard is where the containers are transfered to and from the rail from truck or ship. Truck in this case. They are usually stand alone from other “switching” areas since they have been built more recently than other switching areas and usually out where truck traffic was not an issue. I thought one was appropriate since you indicated more modern equipment.

Second I had purposely had separated the switching areas trying to get some off of each of the three “loop” tracks so that switching any given area didn’t block the other two lines, but also that each “loop” operator would have some place they could switch.

Ok, and one reason I seldom include that on layouts I design is because I feel that most model railroads are way over yarded, and personally I find yard work to be boring (back and forth and back and forth and back and forth on the same track). Another reason is they consume tons of space. As soon as one includes a yard many other features must be sacrificed - especially on a layout this size.

[quote]
I would like to keep my other engines on the layout when they ar

14

Take 2. Considering some of the things stated I’ve made a second go around at it. As far as a modern mine that another posted suggested, I actually considered that first. However in my opinion, it would would consume too much space (like 1/2 the layout). It would also create unit trains which will not really fit on a layout this size. So this mine consumes otherwise wasted space on the inside loop, and is similar to the D&RGW mines near Phippsburg, or the one along the main at Castle Gate UT.

This design is now representing two railroads. The double track is a class 1, and the single track is a short line. The two interchanges (when cars aren’t sitting on them) can be used to run trains through from one set of tracks to the other.

The main yard is fairly simple with an AD track and three classification tracks. The double crossovers at each end allow one of the mainline tracks to serve as the station track (trains cross over to the other track when a passenger is stopped at the station). They also allow trains on the outside loop to get across to the yard. The crossovers also allow the inside main line to be used as a run-around to get locos to/from the loco shops for facing trains. The outside main might also need to be a run around for the lower industrial area.

This version is much more to scale than the previous drawing. I actually don’t like how the “mountain” district came out. I suppose it would have helped if I was looking at the original when I did this one [:)].

1414×916 303 KB

as usual click image to enlarge

15

So what happened to Travisty anyway?

16

Sorry, alot going on in the life atm. Haven’t had time to compose my thoughts.

Wow.I love your design, it is by far better than anything I could even begin to come up with. Two things. First was that it looks like you’re going each square is a foot in length. I wasn’t planning on having the connecting areas where you have the yard in a four foot across section, but honestly, that’s not an issue since you packed enough yard action in there to keep make it more than worth my while to go ahead and re-arrange the garage to fit it.

The second thing, I was after a realistic, moving of goods, if you will. I figured I’d have a small classification yard on the third single line, somewhere the small freights that go from the main yard will drop off the single or few cars that are going to the industries. I’m not entirely familiar if this is the way it really works or operates, I just figured it would add a step in the operations and add a local switching job. But, like I said, I’m fairly ignorant of actual prototype operations, but I’m not going to be a stickler for complete realism either.

Honestly, the design is wonderful and I can’t wait to take apart what I have and get to building some benchwork! Thanks again!

17

Yeah but after the last round where I realized it was reachable from both sides, and that you wanted a working yard, it makes sense to make it wider. With open grid benchwork it shouldn’t take any extra work to extend the bench another foot to the inside.

Aut-Oh, I thought I just made the pit smaller rather than giving it a larger foot print.

Not really a problem. Most of the industrial track is off of the inside loop. Instead of like I was thinking of two different railroads, just make the inside loop represent a branch off the double track. Trains on the main drop off cars for the branch in the yard where they are classified for the industries & vice-versa. To do this connect the yard bypass track directly into the inter-loop track infront of station #2, and convert the interchange to some other industy.

Any layout design is just a set of ideas. Any of the elements can be used as is, re-arranged or recombined to get a unique design that fits more closely what the railroad’s managment is trying to accomplish. And, oh yeah by the way, as drawn there

18

Hello Travisty, my name is Kraig. I have been modeling trains in HO scale for over twenty years. What I what is for you, your dad and daughters is to have fun with the layout. I have a great idea for your dad: there is something called “a lift out piece” which you can incorporate into your layout so there is no need to duck under the layout. I also what you to consider waiting on destroying your layout and going with someone’s plans. Nobody else is going to build the layout for you. It’s your and your family “bonding time”. So it will be only you who will spend the time, effort, and money on your layout. I also have the answer to your elevation problem. With foam on the wood base, you can change your tracks to any level you want or need. I also solved your problem with your yards. You can make them shorter and put them in different locations. You can do anything as long as it looks sensible and practical. That is what is great about this hobby. If this is encouraging you can respond to my postings, and we can discuss this further. Thank you,

Conrailkraig