This is the track for the 4x8 HO Virginian layout I am building. It has two levels, with the coal mine, station, and small town on the lower level with the yard and engine facility. On the upper level is another station and some industry tracks. There is a bridge across the lower station the allows me to have a reversing loop on the upper level. Any suggestions will be appreciated.
Here it is made in RTS 10.0 with Atlas HO True-Track:
Some of those curves at the top and bottom look sharper than 18" radius. You might want to try using templates to scale for the curves if you want to draw by hand, or if try something liek the free Atlas Right Track software to draw it out with the curve and turnout sizes forced to be right, no fudging allowed.
It is HO. I have copied some 18" radius track and laid it out on my table and it does fit. I would kinda like to have two tracks coming off the upper level at the top of the drawing but couldn’t figure out what to change.
As has been mentioned to you before, the track plan that you are using as inspiration, Dan Sylvester’s HOn3 RGS (MR 3/11, Layout Design Journal #41, Winter 2011), is narrow gauge with handlaid-to-fit turnouts that are curved through the frog. Subscribers can see it here
Some of the turnouts you’ve drawn are extremely sharp and unbuildable, even handlaid-to-fit. With off-the-shelf turnouts it will be even less likely to fit as drawn.
You also appear to have significant grade and clearance issues or you are planning to handlay several odd and complex crossings.
I’d suggest that you take a step back and re-think your plans. If you’ve never built a model railroad before, you might be better off starting with a “How To” book and a quality published plan. Model Railroader magazine has published several 4X8 plans recently. Some are better than others, but most of them are at least buildable.
A different configuration than a 4X8 monolith might also give you a better chance of incorporating all that you would like.
Critical in planning a relatively small layout where everything is a pretty tight fit is knowing what track, and especially what turnouts you plan to use. Turnouts differ significantly in geometry from manufacturer to manufacturer. Atlas doesn’t make curved turnouts; Peco and Walters do. Handlaid turnouts from Fast Tracks have a pretty rigid geometry. But if you “roll your own”, your turnouts can take a lot less space. And although track planning software usually doesn’t allow for it, cutting or modifying a commercial turnout will often allow a track arrangement that wouldn’t otherwise fit. Keep this in mind when you read my comments.
I’m not sure of your experience level, either. My advice would be different if this is a 3rd or subsequent layout. If it’s a 1st layout, I would start from a similar 4x8 plan that has actually been built with available commercial track components, like HO Railroad That Grows by Linn Westcott. Then modify it to your desire using full size track pieces as you progress.
Your drawing is not to scale for any commercial turnouts I know of. Atlas turnouts in particular will not diverge as fast as you show, and will take more space than you show. The sidings on the left are spaced excessively far apart, while the curved siding on the bottom may be too close to the main.
You are going to have a very steep grade on the curve at the top of the plan to get from the lower level to the upper level - on the order of 6% or more, depending on clearance used from the bridge to the lower level. If you reduce the grade by extending it through the sidings on the left, any cars left there during swtiching moves will roll away unless you put in some form of retaining system.
Overall, the plan is doable, but with several severe limitations - short radius, very steep grades. It may take some custom (think handlaid) turnouts to shoehorn it all in to the 4x8 space. If you
First, the drawing is just a crude sketch of what I have laid out on my table with copies of the track and turnouts that I will be using. The drawing is not to scale and I didn’t draw the turnouts right, but the track works when laid out both in RTS and in real life. I will try to post the RTS plan ASAP. I am still figuring out to do that grade, though. Although I would like a bigger around the room wall layout, I can’t fit anything bigger than 4x8 because of the configuration of the room, slanted ceilings, furniture around the wall…
I know that the track will fit, but I am wondering if there are problems, like derailment prone s-curves, that I have not caught and will regret when I lay the final track.
I am not planning on running long equipment or trains, but I do want it to work reliably.
My opinion is you are trying to fit in a 4 x 8 more than I would attempt in an area as big as 12’ x 12’ or larger. Viirginian used massive steam engines or FM Trainmaster diesels which will need 30" radius curves as a minimum.
Thank you for the scale drawing. If I lower the tracks in the small town 1 inch with a 4% grade, I think I can have a 4% grade going up to the upper level. The RTS drawing I posted above have a minimum radius of 18" and the switches are not modified. I found some Virginian equipment that says it works on 18" radii.
You can’t do this because it won’t work. A 4% grade will allow you to maybe get an engine to the top with no cars attached if you can even transistion into it. Your sidings on the lower level have maybe one car length of space hidden under the upper level tracks. You have no room for scenery or buildings even though you can envision those in your head. The station you have drawn in appears to handle four or five passenger cars with the platforms. You will be lucky to get one car on that curve in the space you have. Unfortunately it is totaly unreliable and unworkable. If you try to build it you will tear it up before it ever gets operational. I don’t have an axe to grind with you I am just trying to save you frustration and grief. If you don’t believe what has been said why not conect a couple of turnouts and see the problems first hand. #4 turnouts and 18" radius curves are not the makings of dependable operation.
Perhaps a little too negative. It appears the layout can be built, albeit not easily. I certainly would not recommend it for a 1st layout because of the complexity and lack of space for variance from the plan. Will it be a successful layout? That’s an open question, and depends upon the true goals for the layout from the OP, and his skills. There have been more than a few equally crowded and cramped 4x8 and smaller layouts built in the past. Some were successful, some were not. Success depends not so much on the combination of track plan and space, but the owner’s appreciation for and willingness to live with the inherent limitations.
John Allen’s original Gorre & Daphtid and many other small layouts featured in MR over the years have had similar limitations - 4-5 car trains at best, 4%+ grades, room for only small structures, 14" to 18" radius curves, etc. Certainly the HO Layout That Grows
I will definitely mocking up structures and scenery. I don’t plan on operating long trains, my yards are not long and sidings are not long.
What I like in a layout is switching, circles are boring, but I like the idea of going from point A to point B, as indicated with the two levels on my plan. A layout needs some operating possibilities, which can be achieved better in a larger layout, but the biggest I can get is 4x8. This isn’t my first plan either, several others that I made packed in way more that would fit, and be fun. I am not afraid of the difficulties that I might face while building the layout, I think that planning and building are as fun as operating. And there are limitations to any layout, just more as you get smaller.
I have a basic DC power pack right now but am planning on getting a Digitrax Zephyr system.
If others really think that I should try a different plan, or at least play around with one, would you be kind enough to post some examples? The largest size I can fit is 4x8, I already have some HO things, so I am going to stick with HO, I like ope
One layout I have been partial to throughout the years is the Jerome & Southwestern built by John Olson. You can find it in the Kalmbach book Building an HO Railroad With Personality. It is out of print, but you can find them used starting around thirty dollars. Or you can try to get the back issues of Model Railroader that it ran in starting in Feb. 1982 and ending sometime around Feb or Mar of 1983.
It is based in Arizona but all you would have to do is change the scenery to match your prototype. If you have the space available you can build the 2 x 6 foot extension and model the harbor area. The premise of the layout revolves around hauling copper off a branch line in the mountains through the desert to the sea. It will fullfill you requirement of going from point a to point b. The mainline rolls through the desert cross’s a high trestle over a large canyon and then the branch line splits from there to gain elevation cross’s another bridge over the town and enters a mining scene. LIke I said, change from copper to coal, replace the desert with some forest and you’re all set.
I’m sure there are others out there with some better input but this is a pretty neat 4x8 and with the 2x6 foot harbor extension (space permitting) you should enjoy yourself.
Something I just realized. It looks like MR’s next project layout is going to be a 4x8 based on the Virginain. If you are a subscriber you can check it out on their website. LINK Might be worth looking into.
I will definitely look into this plan. I don’t have room to permanently attach the harbor extension but I could build it in two pieces and store it somewhere else.
You say that you want switching, and point-to-point run. So why are you making a track plan for loop to loop run, mostly on elevations, with short spurs?
You also say that the only layout shape you can fit in your room is a 4x8. How about a sketch of the entire room (with distances marked off), so we can learn what kind of aisle space you will have around your 4x8 foot table, where doors and other obstacles are located and so on and so forth.
A simple thing to do would e.g be to drop the attempt to have two “places” your train goes to stacked above each other (with poor access to the lower level - where you have put industries smack in the middle of the lower level, where they will be hardest to access), and instead simulate the “two places” feature by a plain loop around the table (not all the way out on the very edge of the table), with a view block down along the spine of the table visually separating two scenes.
One obvious thing to do would e.g. be to say that “my table does not have to be rectangular” - adding a little bulge here and there may give you and extra aisle side industry, o
i completely misunderstood your first drawing; it might be my computer but the big drawing and the two plans about the different levels were not visible at first. Did you add them later?
I agree with all remarks by Stein. So many plans are published lately, in MR magazine, in the track planning special and else where, you should not have problems to find some great ones.
Exploring the possibilities of your space first is the best way to go. Even only adding a cassette would give you loads of extra options.
Keep them rolling versus switching is a major design question. A drawing of your space is the very best start.
There have been many cartoons over the years about 4 x8 railroads where the brunt of the joke is a transcontinental railroad including a major city like Chicago. A sad fact is model railroads are like boats. They could always be bigger regardless of size. Everyone starts out with some variation of a 4 x 8. It is good experience for developing some skills and learning what does and doesn’t work. It also starts to develop the mental planning process to formulate ideas and track patterns that fit the space available .I’d bet if you asked everyone what their ideal railroad requirement was they would say, “just a little bit bigger than this one”. Ubfortunately asking others to develop a plan uaually doesn;t work. It has to be something that is right for you. It’s kind of like buying a car. Lot’s of models and lot’s of colors for a reason. one size and shape doesn;t fit all applications. Same with a railroad. The only choice is to start drawing using a pencil and paper to scale or a computer program. I heard Neil Sedaka say once he would come home from school and write one song per day to hone his skills. Same thing here. Look at pictures and find things that llok good and then start to fit them in based on rank. It ain’t hard but like everything else practice makes perfect.
use of some equipment painted in Virginian paint schemes to convey sense of location rather than scenery or prototype scenes
desired signature scene is elevated section crossing over multiple tracks
to get the layout plan you want, you are willing to have:
extensive areas where one track is directly over top of the other (I assume on piers of some sort)
4-5 car trains
very complex construction for a so-called beginner’s layout
overly sharp curves (appearance-wise) for the equipment you are running
track very, very close to the edge of the table.
In essence, what you have planned is a typical 4x8 Lionel layout in HO. There is nothing wrong with that, provided that is what you truly want. But if you are aiming for something that conveys more of the feel of the Virginian, you might want to take a closer look at the MR project layout.
I made the DCC recommendation because unlike 3 rail O, reversing loops are an exercise in toggle flipping on a small DC layout where continuous train movement is expected. Without auto-reversers, the reversing loops polarity matching togg
Hmmm…This statement may be insightful into your thinking. The more experienced model railroaders will probably agree that “exitement” from a model railroad does not come directly from the trackplan, but more from how the plan is executed and operated. Cramming a space with a lot of track may lead to a more interesting plan on paper, but it won’t necessarily lead to a more interesting layout.
An example: A trackplan can be a simple (boring) loop with, say, one depot placed on one of the long straights. You can run simple (boring) laps around the loop and with each passing of the depot, your imagination can tell you that depot represents a different town. Is that ideal? No. But you have a small space and creating the sense of traveling from point A to point B will require more use of your imagination than if you had a 30’ by 30’ loop.
Now, taking that loop and putting another loop on top of it and connecting them with a 4% grade allows you to have two different depots, but you eye is going to see those depots being relatively close together (because they are), and you will still need to use your imagination to create the sense of distance. Really, all you have done is make your layout more complicated to build and operate while not really providing your eye with any more sense of distance than if you just had a simple loop. Either way, you will need to have your imagination tell you the train has actually gone somewhere. Not only have you not accomplished your goal, you have also now limited the amount of space that you can give to the scenes since the amount of track added uses valuable real estate.<
