I have three track plans in my head for my next HO scale layout
first is a single town with staging tracks. Passenger station, a branch line, a couple industries to switch. the layout is continuous
second is the end of a line of a secondary subdivisio. Layout is terminal to staging (no continuous running)
The third is a switching layout, no mainline. Train comes to the harbor, works industries, and back to staging.
which one to pick? I feel I’d be happy with either one.
Perhaps pick one you’ve not done before or what really challenges you. NO need to bother polling us here because you probably have an idea of where to go. You can’t go wrong with doing what you enjoy.
A lot would have to do with how much room do you have and in that space, can you do justice to what you had in mind. The best idea would be to layout the three separate ideas either on paper on electronically to see what the ideas looks like. Take into account any equipment you might already have and what equipment you would need to get to make it happen.
You might even think about a design that incorporates ideas from all three. The harbor idea could be a small dock area that handles both freight and the occasional passenger car. That would cover your love of passenger ops and definitely cover your love of switching. That could easily tie into the idea that it is the end of the land tracks on a subdivison where a car ferry/float takes the cars offshore. Have some visible staging for car storage and have older part of a town where a combo station (freight/passenger) and your industry switching exists. Your track radius would be tight in the industrial areas. Put the combo station in an area where you could have a 22-24" R track (depending on the passenger cars).
Just my two cents worth.
Part of this is taken from ideas I have on my own layout including the harbor area although mine is not as developed as much as I think you’re going for.
I agree with kasskaboose in no need polling us. You probably know the way to go already. Maybe later it will change to something else, but whatever you do ‘Have Fun’. It is a hobby to enjoy.
David
There’s us of course the fourth “choice”.
Build all three as a point to point with continuous loop.
My ultimate intention is to do so. A classification and engine servicing yard at one “end”, a small and remote passenger station and tiny freight destination yard at the other “end” (physically close by but many miles away by track) and a pair of stacked continuous running loops which also include return/reversing loops in between to simulate miles and miles (unlimited miles in fact) of journey time in between.
If you have room for a continuous running loop, build it. You won’t regret it. You can always run such a layout as a point to point and you can switch anything if you stick a few sidings in or find a place for a classification yard.
The thing I notice right away about loops is all that empty space in the middle…
[Y] +1
Do what brings YOU the mosy enjoyment.
-Kevin
I like, a lot, that there’s staging in each concept.
Number one has continuous running. You have to decide how important that is to you. How much do you like watching trains “just running”?
The other two don’t have continuous running. Their difference is that #2 would have “real” trains arriving and departing from/to somewhere else. The daily passenger train, for example. It might just arrive, turn, and wait for departure time.
The last one is all switching. So if you REALLY like switching industries, that’s your choice.
Two and three are pretty close in concept. I guess #2 would have some mainline running, though. Three, by definition, does not. In this decision: How much do ya like mainline running?
#1 is “I gotta have continuous running.”
#2 is “I want to represent a small branch of a railroad.”
#3 is “I LOVE switching.”
What’s yer answer?
Ed
Whatever plan you go with…What is important on the next layout?
Flawless trackwork!
And you’ll be glad you spent the extra time making it right.
Tom
When I first saw the topic title, but had not yet read the original post, that is EXACTLY what came into my mind, also.
Ed
Ed,
I did read the OP’s post but still wanted to add the comment. It’s important for anyone who wants to mitigate frustration - albeit a switching or continuous run layout.
Tom
I would suggest taking the time to draw up scale plans for each of the three, and then spend even more time “playing with them”. By that I mean tracing train routes and simulate what you would do in a typical operating session.
Is there enough possibilities to keep you occupied for say an hour at a time? Or would you find yourself either watching a train go in circles or a switch loco going back and forth with the same cars to the same industries.
In other words, would the finished layout have enough running possibilities to keep you interested for an hour or so at a time?
And when you do determine what is best for you, keep in mind what TStage said about solid trackwork (and wiring), as it will make a huge difference in the long run.
What is most important on the next layout?
a. Don’t repeat any errors from a previous layout or series of them;
b. As already suggested, try something new that requires a few deep breaths;
c. Limit compromises. A third or fourth layout should have almost none; and
d. Keep it fun and achievable. Don’t set yourself up to fail.
What was your previous layout? What did you like and not like about it? I’m asking because it really depends on what you like about this hobby. I like both passenger and freight, which means that I need at least a passenger station plus a few sidings. Do you like steam? Then I would advocate a loop or dogbone: I find that steam just does not back up as well as diesels. Or just does not look right… And what about scenery and buildings, do you like building that?
And what space are we looking at? I don’t recall seeing that info…
Anyway, things to think about.
Simon
The space is approx 7’x14’ HO scale
I think I’ve come up with it. A oval of track with the end of line terminal raised with staging underneath. As the layout splits for an interchange, that will be the continuous loop connection.
Our Internet has been out for most of the last 24 hours (First World problems!), so I was tinkering with Dan’s plan, based on earlier off-line communication with him. But it appears that decisions have overtaken my doodling and he’s working in a different direction than I had sketched.
His basement space has quite a few opportunities and challenges. He posted a diagram over on the Layout Design SIG’s Facebook Group, and I cleaned up the drawing like so.
Off-line, he expressed to me interest in MR’s Bay Junction project, either with continuous run or point-to-point. If one were to choose push-pull commuter traffic (like Chicago), something like this might be interesting to explore. This is very rough and some things would need to be worked out. Using at least some of the walls and putting people in the middle often is more space-efficient … but does not offer continuous run, of course.
Specs are HO, 30” minimum radius mainline, PECO Code 83 #5 and #6 turnouts. Staging access would be over a low or removable backdrop.
Dan, best of luck with whatever you end up with.
Byron
Thanks for sharing Byron. Nice plan… One option would be to install a liftout in the south-west of the layout for continuous operation. I would do that (and I did! I have a 7X11 space) as I mostly run steam.
Simon
Agree, and I’ve sketched it roughly. Would be a little tricky to construct.
That’s a nice setup, but I wonder whether heis not wiser to make an end-to-end setup. Eh, not my layout.
It is end to end, in effect. It’s just that the two ends are different tracks in the same staging yard.
Well, and a clever little reversing loop section to allow trains to return directly to the staging but facing in the other direction.
Add just one tiny bit of additional track and you have the continuous running loop.
Then you’ll want a second reversing section, maybe through a Wye?
A tunnel through the separating backdrop connecting from East Acton to West Beechville would allow reversal in the opposite direction.