I am preparing for a new HO scale layout. I have been impressed with the thoroughness of the layout critiques on this forum as of late, so I would like to throw my latest idea out to anyone who would take the time to comment. This plan has been a few months in development, after consulting the track plan database, old MR’s, some books and of course, the layout forum. Here are some of the parameters for this layout:
Scale is HO
Room size is 10’7” x 10’9”
I am modeling the UP in western NE and eastern WY as of about 1995 to 2005-ish, and will be running 6 and 4-axle diesel power. Train length would be 6 to 8 cars [including locomotive(s)]. I plan
Lower left hand corner - access will be a problem - both to tracks and to storage cupboard with folding doors - you may be able to open folding doors, but how do you intend to reach things inside cupboard and on layout in this corner ?
Mmm - how about if you cut the layout straight across the room, so your layout is contained within a rectangle about 6.5 by 10.5 foot, and put staging tracks along the lower aisle, while all industries were accessible from inside the pit, with a low backdrop between the viewing/staging side and the operator side ?
Miles - I have to agree with Stein - not enough access at lower left for the bo-fold closet and tracks. At best you have a space of about 10.5 ft x 8 ft (give or take a few inches) - still the possibility of doing what you want in the space from a given & druthers standpoint, but a rectangular shape with a central pit as an envelope to work with.
Thanks for the replies. Yes, I’ve been having concerns with the lower-left access to the closet and track. The closet would be used sparingly, and for track access - I’m skinny, but probably not THAT skinny. I am very intrigued by the rectangle/central pit idea with a scenic divider on the bottom side of the rectangle. I will have to work on that idea a while and see how it looks. Thanks!
The sidings upper left and top center aren’t long enough for 6 to 8 cars. I would say more like 4 or 5 cars. On the other hand the multiple-route arrangement should allow two trains to continuously run facing each other. One would have to spend a lot of time waiting but it would still work.
With 22" curves I think #6 turnouts are wasting space. If a loco and other equipment can get through 22" curves #5 or even Atlas custom line #4 (really a #4.76) will work just as well.
I don’t know how the railroad’s track work at an ethanol plant, but I don’t think the plan does it justice.
[quote]
A few general questions I have: Am I putting too much track, etc. in
I agree these sidings are probably too short for my max train. At the ethanol plant, I am thinking this would be an area for spotting tank cars for finished product, as given my space limitations, I can’t model both inbound grain and outbound ethanol on the layout. I am currently undecided for the industry on the top center siding, but I may just leave it a spur.
Thanks also for your input on how you would foresee operations taking place on the layout. That is very helpful. I’m going to take your operations comments as generally positive, perhaps especially considering the relatively limited space I am working with here in HO.
Good ideas on paper don’t always work out the same way when looking at them in real life. I think you’ll be disappointed in the scene separation you can achieve by dropping the inner loop just a few inches.
Using backdrops to separate scenes on a multiple looped layout is a great idea.
Yes, I think you are trying to do too much. I would lose the small inner loop and the ethanol plant.
Lately I have been reading alot of posts here about the HOG, which I like, and I’ve tried to see if I could adapt it to my trainroom. However, I’ve determined that my room has too many doors and closets which leaves me with only a 6.5’ x 10’ rectangle for any HOG-variant. Seperately, I’ve been looking at using some Peco curved turnouts (which aren’t in the track library of the Atlas Right-Track I’ve been using, of course) in order to lengthen some of my sidings or the yard lead. I have searched the forum and found indications that the Peco code 100 SL86/87 are 60"/30" radius. Is it correct then, that the Peco SL8376/77 curved turnouts in code 83 are also 60"/30" radius?
Lee - I think after that I might replace my train room with Reggie’s Miniature Trainworld’s basement…
You lost me, first you used the whole room, now you have only a 10x6.5 space. No problem at all drawing the Hog in your space even if it 10x6.5.
But the Hog is so different from your first draft. First things first, looking at your room my first thoughts were using a 10x8 space. It is up to you to be clear about pike size.
If you draw a plan without a curved switch you can always add the curved switch later.
My 10 x 6.5 dimensions are from the rectangle configuration idea as described by steinjr earlier in this thread. With the door on the lower-right, it leaves about 6.5 feet toward the top of the room drawing for one end of a true rectangle versus the trapezoid I have drawn right now. As I haven’t built anything yet, I guess my pike dimensions are still wide-open - with the only constraints being the 10’7"x10’9" room size, and of course all those doors.
I agree with your approach on the curved turnouts. I have been just drawing plans using straight turnouts and I figure the use of a curved turnout when I lay out track for the first time will only make the track layout a little more roomy. Thanks for the reply.
I found this in my archive. The HOG 11x8, Scott Perry design / Paul JAS. Built on four 8x1.5 boards.
A half foot to long, but close enough. It should be turned 90 degr. and you can lengthen the two staging tracks towards the closet. The design leaves you with a 30" aisle along the wall. The drop-in can be slanted a bit towards the inside of the room, so quite do-able in your space.
BTW, I used also #4 switches; but the stations are pretty long, so having #6’s is not impossible. My feeling is that keeping a good balance between trainlength and length of open spaces is the most difficult part of this design.
I agree with most of the other comments. But I feel that left hand corner access is a major concern. A 30" reach is about all you can effectively achieve and if you have delicate wrok to do, even that is pushing it. I think a walk around design would serve you better. And keep the #6 turnouts. That way you will never have a problem with longer equipment.
I’ve tried to analyze your goals, and they just don’t leave me with an internally consistent picture of what you are trying to accomplish.
You want modern era, you want coal loading in the Powder River basin, and you want coal delivery, to have a loads in/empties out scheme. In addition, you want local switching of several plants. In H0 scale, in a normal sized bedroom.
First - I don’t think the coal in/out thing will work very well on your layout, for two reasons:
The loads in/empties out scheme can work where there is quite a bit of run length between loading place and unloading place, relative to train lengths. But in H0 scale in a bedroom (as opposed to N scale in a basement), you just won’t get much run length from point A to point B, especially taking into account problem no 2:
More importantly - six car trains just doesn’t look anywhere near credible as a coal unit train that would require a flood loader. Unit coal trains in the Powder River basin are 110 car trains with 6-10 engines distributed throughout the train. You will not be able to create the impression “long coal unit train” with six H0 scale cars.
However, you might conceivably create the impression of long coal train with e.g. two engines and twenty Bethgon coal porters (prototype length 53 feet per car, 7.3" long in H0 scale, 4" long in N scale), for a total train length of about 8 feet in N scale or about 14 feet in H0 scale.
If you really want to create an impression of a coal loader in the Powder River basin, I would have gone to N scale, made a hidden staging yard of e.g. 4 curved 9-foot double ended staging tracks in a diamond pattern along two sides of your layout (e.g. top and right). To get loaded, the train departs in a counterclockwise direction, ducks out of hidden staging and immediately go under the flood loader (so you don’t need both empty and loaded coal cars
Replace the folding doors with sliding doors. More access width (if split 50/50) and more maneuvering room opening or closing the doors. I have a similar situation and need 12 inches for clearance on an opening about 48 inches wide. 18 inches might work for occasional access to the closet.
Thanks for sharing that HOG layout from your archive. I worked on this a little bit in RTS and came-up with the below:
I like the long staging tracks to the left side, although the top end would have limited access behind my proposed viewblock. I agree that it will be hard to give the impression of much space between scenes in the area I have. At this point I think I am going to pause and do some more reading/research about what I want to do in my proposed layout. Thanks again for your help!
Thanks for taking the time to reply and develop the trackplan that you have posted here. You have drawn a very accurate picture of the room I have to work with, as well as the obstructions (doors).
I don’t disagree that a 6-car train will lack any chance of a “unit train” feel. I don’t think that I ever had any dillusions of being able to accomplish this feat in HO scale in my room (or even in N scale, for that matter). This trade-off versus the prototype was one of the things that I was willing to forego on the layout. However, since I am in the planning stage and looking for just this sort of input from more experienced modelers than myself, perhaps I should revisit this point, as it might make more of a difference than I thought. That is, it may be too much to ask of those viewing/operating the layout to look past the lack of unit train feel, and I need to go in a different direction.
I like where you have positioned the staging yard on the opposite side of the main oval in the layout (versus the left side, for instance, where I was working with it on the HO
I don’t think you have the space to get the feel of a mile long unit train on the prarie. Focusing on the local industry switching might be the right thing if you want to focus on that era and that location.
After several more months of researching and reading posts here, I have made some changes to my earlier track plans in this thread. My most influential reading thus far has been the highly recommended John Armstrong book Track Planning for Realistic Operation.
The most significant changes I have made to my HO track plan are as follows:
Removed the duckunder
Eliminated several of the planned industries, including any attempt at both ends of “empties-in, loads-out”
Added a provision for lower-level staging tracks and reverse loop (branching off from lower-right, to be built at some point in the future)
Added hidden double tracks at top of plan for interim staging area/passing
Instead of a twice-around plan, I now have a dogbone (inverted U or G shape, per Armstrong). With hidden trackage on 3 sides of the “U”, the visable line will resemble a point-to-point, with a centrally located yard area. I am using a middle view-block on the right-hand side blob, which will give me an additional “scene” on that part of the layout. The reach-in factor should be limited to 24" for any of the front, mainline trackage. There will be further reaches to some of the hidden track, but that will be unsceni
Your new track plan is, IMHO, a vast improvement over your first idea. You may want to have a little bit more leeway - 1´ is not enough! You need to have a minimum of 2´ !!!
I like the long staging tracks to the left side, although the top end would have limited access behind my proposed viewblock. I agree that it will be hard to give the impression of much space between scenes in the area I have. At this point I think I am going to pause and do some more reading/research about what I want to do in my proposed layout. Thanks again for your help!