Help!! I have a mostly built HO railway. The track is laid, wiring done and most of the scenary also. The layout is a twice around oval in a 5 x 11 dogbone configeration are you confused? I have a small 3 track yard on one end and 2 spur tracks on the other. My problem is that I cannot seem to be able to generate enough operation. There are plenty of turnouts and even a small passing siding. I have thought about adding more turnouts but I am not sure if that will help. I am coming to the point of tearing everything apart and starting again. It is my first real layout and I have spent quite a bit so far. Can someone help me?
If tearing everything apart is a last resort (i.e. you really don’t want to have to do it), and if you have the space, you could just add some 2-ft wide shelf pieces along the wall to accomodate more switching/industrial areas. The benchwork for this would be easy and inexpensive. You’d just have to add a turnout on your “main” layout to get to the new shelf layout sections. Of course, if you make a dense industrial switching area, you’d have to get a whole lot more turnouts, and those things don’t exactly grow on trees…
If you don’t mind hearing this from a newbee, the first of anything is a throwaway. Your first computer told you what you wanted in a computer. Your first car told you what you wanted in a car. If you try to patch this layout, your first experiment in track design, you will just have a patched ineffective design.
Do some homework ask some questions and redo. Believe it or not, the most valuable resource most os us have is space. You can’t make the most of it if you are patching your first attempt. You can salvage most of it, so you won’t be starting over.
Build it the way you dream it can be.
I ran into the same type of problem, and I decided to scrap my layout and start over again, now that I have a better feel for what I want out of my layout. One BIG difference, though. My first layout is/was really more of a diorama — a 16-inch by 4 ft. shelf-type N-scale layout. I want something bigger (of course), but you already seem to have a fairly nice sized layout. If you’re basically happy with everything else about the layout, maybe just “adding on” more operating spaces would be the way to go.
Do you have a picture of this track plan that we could look at? If enough people look at it, there might be ways to add more operation interest without redoing it all. Or not, but we really need a better idea of what you have and what you want to do.
–Randy
I am finishing up my first layout (unless you count the simple oval I first built). I have not started on any scenery but I may not do any on this layout. I bought an Atlas kit layout as a learning tool ( and I learned a lot) and put it on a 4x8 sheet of foam on top of plywood. This layout has a lot of track on it and not a lot of room for landscaping. I may try to build some hills off of the incline and try some other landscaping to learn but I am in the process of designing another layout. This time I will build the benchwork and go from there. This is a great hobby and I all I want to do is work on it. Work just gets in the way but need the money to pay for the habit [:D]. Sometimes I catch myself sketching layouts on scrap paper at work.
This might seem intimidating at first but I really like Joe’s calculations for operations. Here’s a link http://siskiyou.railfan.net/model/layoutDesign/layout.html
You can look at what you have and see what kind of operations are available now and then after figuring out if you have additional space to add on just plug in any changes to see what you can do with the additions. SpaceMouse is right the first few or several dozen attempts even when working well, we will always try to find a way to improve upon it.
Chris
All is not lost. Use the layout to experiment a bit. Rearragne the track a bit. Move the siding around (as well as their directions). Practice some scenery on it. By doing little changes you’ll learn what things make your layout more interesting to you. Lionel Strang has been running a little series in MRR about changing his layout around to make it more interesting.
Of course there will come a time I"m sure when you’ve exhausted the possibilities of what you currently have and decide to start over. Hopefully you would have learned enough from your first layout and all the tinkering you did with it to get a feel for what makes you happy and will design your next layout accordingly.
Bottom line. This is a lifelong hobby of learning and improving. I don’t look at starting over as a waste (and I"ve started over 4 or 5 times now), but rather a progression to something that I will enjoy even more. Besides, if a guy like Tony Koester can decide that the AM was no longer making him happy and start over and enjoy the hobby even more because of it - maybe it ain’t such a bad idea.
Mimic what a real railroad would do in such circumstances.
Suppose you built the Dewey, Cheatham, & Howe railway as a point-to-point (let’s ignore the loop for the moment…pick a place to cut it in two). You built it hoping customers would show up.
None do.
So, you put on your sales hat and go. What’s the geography? Are mines in evidence? What other industries are there? Does your line provide a short cut between two destinations? Maybe it is a direct route between two busy places that otherwise had to go through two or more carriers to transfer people and freight.
In short, come up with an idea about what the location is like (what industries does it have, what other railroads are out there – the competition!), and why your railroad was built.
Figure out a decent industry in a location, and then connect a spur to that industry.
Decide what railroads connect with yours at your endpoints, and put in exchange tracks and some signalling to control who has right-of-way.
Doncha just love it when a new guy comes in and asks a question then never comes back. They just throw out the questions and we fight over them like a pack of dingos, but they never get involved so much as a qualifying question. Crawl space is the same.
Sheesh!
Thanks to everybody who responded. For rrinker I will get a picture of the track plan out there for anyone that might have some ideas.
Scott
I would suggest you get a copy of John Armstrong’s book “Track Planning for Realistic Operation”. I have found this book to be very helpful. Tony Koester has a couple of books on operation you might want to look at also.
Enjoy
Paul
Well I get to eat my words don’t I? I second Armstrong’s book. I’ve been wading through it and learning more each time I look at it.
I would also get a good software program and just start playing with different ideas. You can spend a lot of time playing with your ideas, trying to make them fit, and trying some more.
Well, here is the track plan. The left portion has a tunnel through it for the most part. The outside loop is hidden by the tunnel. The town of Bedford Is on the left and Pikesville is on the right. All help will be greatly appreaciated.
Scott
Not everyone managed to get 3 stars inside 2 months!!! [:D][}:)]
You mean people have lives?[:D][:D]
Babefluff, I hope you aren’t too far along with your scenery? That will probably be the very thing that must go first with any serious changes. You are absolutely right about seeking more “operation.” And, all of the above advise is valid up to the point of “decision time.” You may find the “double oval dog bone” easy enough to reconfigure into an “inverted 8” which would allow you a far longer “single” track mainline. This would entail the mainline crossing over itself once within 10 feet or so. It would open up more right-of-way for spur lines or sidings to enter and exit either left or right from the ‘single mainline.’ As per your description, I fear you must sacrifice some cosmetics to greater operation but is that such a bad thing? All of us have been down this road, so don’t be discouraged…You’ll find a way out.
At the risk of sounding stupid, what does an inverted 8 look like?
babefluff, the only comparison I can make is that it looks like a “dog bone” folded over itself. Imagine an ordinary paper clip but with loops on all ends instead of one “open end.” This will essentially double the length of a single track mainline while allowing turnouts on both sides of the “single track” rather than only one side on each of a “double track” mainline. In any case (if I understand your track plan) existing scenery will probably be adversly effected by such a change. It may [or may not be] an expedient in trying to salvage some of your pike. Best of luck with your final decision.