Start small or a bit bigger?


C

CbrandonB

Member
Question for you guys, especially those experienced in building layouts. I found the perfect track layout for my goals running a layout. However, I've not built a layout before and this one isn't a basement empire, but it is pretty large for someone who hasn't built one before and it also would need to be built in modules so I can get it out of my current room when the time comes. I was thinking about starting smaller with this classic guide:http://users.iafrica.com/c/ca/caroper/tutorial/index.tmp as a way to easy into it, but now I keep going back and forth between using code 50 or 83 track. Should I do the smaller one? Will it be interesting enough? Should I plan on reusing the track from the small one on the big one? Should I just chalk the little one up to a learning experience and do the big one from scratch?

These are all of the questions going through my head. What would you guys do? Start with the small one or the big one? The big one is two walls of a room big, it's not THAT big, but not having built a layout I'm afraid my skills won't be up to the task and that it won't hold my interest. At the same time, I don't want to waste a bunch of money on the small one that I can't do anything with when I'm done. What do you guys think? What would you do? I've attached a picture of the big one, too, FWIW. I'm looking for a continuous run along with a little yard work and some industrial switching. Both of these layouts provide those, but to a much smaller degree on the smaller layout, of course. FWIW, other than that double reverse loop on the big one (which I will probably seek to eliminate somehow), I'm very comfortable with wiring and electronics (I work in IT, it's the most natural part of the hobby for me). I'm more worried about biting off more than I can chew with the big layout my first time around. However, it is the layout that I really want and I feel like I'd be wasting time with the smaller one.

Sorry this is so long. Thanks, everyone!

Brandon
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10160400363670573&set=gm.2158887284390782&type=3&ifg=1
 

Attachments

  • Ottumwa Central.jpg
    Ottumwa Central.jpg
    258.6 KB · Views: 227
I had confidence in myself, so I started fairly big. I knew little, but I knew that between youtube, forum threads, and my innate intelligence, I could probably pull off something that I could both live with and that would suffice operationally for the foreseeable future. It was my bad luck that within about six months my wife decided she wanted the basement finished. It was where the laundry was, and it was unfinished jumble block with sow bugs, spiders, etc. So, I got to plan and build a new idea almost right away.

Even so, I would advise you to get your learning on a portion of a larger plan. If you can think modular, or sectional if that works better, pick a section to start with, learn how to do it correctly, even with a bit of do-over, and then go on to complete the rest of the Grand Scheme over the next two or three years.
 
If you have room, I'd start with the big one, but only do the mainline at first. Build the staging, using code 83 flex since it won't be visible. Then just build the parts you need to get trains running. I'd put in some of the critical switches to make it easier later, but basically as soon as you build the main track you'd have a nice long railroad to start running trains. This doesn't look too difficult.

Once you've got that done, pick a spot and start adding in the other tracks and structures and the like. You can take your time and work as money, time and skill allows. Having a nice long mainline will allow you to run trains right away, as well as being the backbone of where the other tracks are located.
 

Attachments

  • Untitled-1.jpg
    Untitled-1.jpg
    253.6 KB · Views: 197
Oh, and if it was me... I'd add a fourth track to that staging yard, maybe push it to the right a bit and if the curves will allow it, have all tracks go around the curve and connect in a few inches before the loop switch. You can never have too much staging, and in the DCC era you can easily park two or three trains nose to tail on one storage track, something that was probably impossible when that was drawn.
 
Some great advice given already. I went big on my first layout. I started an N scale layout that lasted for several years, then in the fall of last year decided to switch to Ho scale. I’m going to take the route Bob has suggested, and get a mainline running first then see where that takes me. Changes will be easy for me since I’m going with Unitrack.
 
CbrandonB said:
I'm looking for a continuous run along with a little yard work and some industrial switching.
I found the perfect track layout for my goals running a layout. It is the layout that I really want. I feel like I'd be wasting time with the smaller one.
I was thinking about starting smaller with this classic guide:http://users.iafrica.com/c/ca/caroper/tutorial/index.tmp
I feel like I'd be wasting time with the smaller one. Will it be interesting enough?
... that it won't hold my interest.
Click to expand...
When you are talking about losing interest, do you mean in the small layout or in model railroading in general?

The only "complex" thing I see about the big layout is the dual level, and mostly getting the trains from one to the other. Other than that it seems pretty straight forward.
Both layouts have 7 industries, the small layout actually has one more classification track in the yard, while the larger layout has more service tracks associated with the yard. So probably zero interest difference there.

I have found that size does not equate to interest. There are only so many switching moves - trailing point, facing point, switch back, with or without interfering cars that need to be respotted or worse can't be moved. The difference comes in how one strings them together such that one can be more efficient by combining them in a certain order. One can make the switching harder or easier with the track configuration and, of course, length. So if you are equating interest to the complexity of switching, that can be artificially generated on any layout. In this specific big layout's case, the industries have been made easier by the addition of a run around track within the industrial area. The small layout has the same thing in the "time saver" space, but it only serves four of the industries.

As another user already posted, if one has that much space on the lower level, I would certainly make full use of it and add as many staging tracks as possible.

other than that double reverse loop on the big one (which I will probably seek to eliminate somehow)
Click to expand...
I thought that was the most interesting part of the layout.
 
I agree with Bob, I think the bigger layout is interesting enough and will likely keep your interest up. However, all of this is such a set of personal decision that really, only you can make. Go ahead and listen to what others have to say; but, in the end it is something you need to decide. I also agree with Iron Horseman, size does not necessarily equate to interest. Gordan Odegard was/is a good designer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I started with a little 4x8 layout. Then I built a expansion. Then I cut a hole in the wall and tunneled into the next room. :eek:;)

My advice: Start with what you know you can do and leave room for expansion.
 
I am a bit like KB02, I started with a 4' X 6' HO (roughly) pulled that apart and expanded, then added to that expansion again and now have ripped everything up and converted to N Scale, expanded the size of the bench work (in progress) and still wish I had more room OR KB02's wife for letting him knock a hole in a wall :)

As such, I believe that you should utilize the maximum amount of space that you have available for the layout. That doesn't mean you have to fill that space with a track plan and scenery from the word go, all it means is that if you start small and really get into the hobby, you will want to expand and get bigger so as to do more things.

At the end of the day, you have to do what you are comfortable with and think you can handle then go from there.
 
Iron Horseman said:
I thought that was the most interesting part of the layout.
Click to expand...

I like the double reverse loop as well. It would be a focal point, and add operating flexibility. I think that you should try and keep that in there.

However, since you say changes are easy, you could leave it out at first, just doing a turnback loop, and then add those switches and crossover later. But personally, I'd put it in right away, it's a great feature.

I might put a tunnel in there instead of an open cut, but other than that, I like the design.
 
AH HA, TONY!
You forgot your venture into G Scale in between there somewhere!
You have done some beautiful work with your N scale, but if it were me-I might have stopped with HO instead.

BRANDON, I like the BIG track plan - and it you are comfortable with electronics - go for it!
The only thing I do not care for is/or the hidden tracks ... or two level operation. Just starting out - I feel that you are tackling too much infrastructure - especially if the layout has to be moved at some point in the future?
Other than that - I do like the track plan!
 
Sirfoldalot said:
BRANDON, I like the BIG track plan - and it you are comfortable with electronics - go for it!
The only thing I do not care for is/or the hidden tracks ... or two level operation. Just starting out - I feel that you are tackling too much infrastructure - especially if the layout has to be moved at some point in the future?
Other than that - I do like the track plan!
Click to expand...

There shouldn't be too much issue with the electronics. The only tricky bit would be the reverse loops, and it's getting pretty easy to find automated controls for that if you're using DCC. I presume anyone starting a new layout will be going with DCC these days.

I agree about the two levels, but since the lower level is only staging, that makes it easier. I really think staging is vital to almost any model railroad. Otherwise your yards become parking lots, and that's not what they're used for. If you have staging, then your visible yard tracks are used for sorting trains, as in the prototype, which makes for much better and more realistic operation.

Commuter and transit operations are about the only railroads that rarely switch cars and just park complete trains in the yard at the end of the day. If you're modeling freight, the yard is your sorting facility.
 
Last edited:
I apologize for the delayed reply, gentlemen. I greatly appreciate your input!

I'm currently thinking I'd like to build the big one and do it in smaller steps, as everyone has mentioned. Roughly, I want to build the three modules (not TOO worried about benchwork... I have the tools and the garage space to build them... only thing that concerns me is the staging level. I need to do some research specifically on how to do benchwork where I'm going to drop a track down (strategically placed L girder, maybe?) and then also how to attach the lower, non-scenic'ed part. If anyone has any ideas, I'd greatly appreciate it.

My first goal will be to get one of the mainlines setup, maybe both of them. And then I'll probably add some industrial spurs/industries for a chance to do some scenery work and a tiny bit of operating and then start working on the yard and more spurs. I'm thinking having the three modules and having them be easy to take off the wall will be key to making this plan work in my space and also making it easier to work on the layout at a work bench instead of standing on a step stool (this will be elevated above my desk in my home office). That may necessitate 4 modules, now that I think about it. We'll just have to see how light I can get my benchwork without it becoming too flimsy.

I own a LOT of HO equipment, including a fair amount of Great Northern brass. However, I don't have the space for HO right now and doing something in N scale is very intriguing due to being able to buy everything from the ground up, whereas a lot of my HO stuff was given to me by my father-in-law (Great Northern being his road of choice). A lot of it is also blue box and other locos that most of which are not worth the time to switch to DCC.

Speaking of such, this layout will be Digitrax powered (already have a UR92 and DT400D... just not sure if I'll use my Zephyr or go with one of the newer command stations... leaning toward one of the newer command stations). I'm also considering TCS' new DCC system due out later this year. I own probably 30 or so tortoise machines, so I'm thinking about using those with Arduinos to control turnouts, at least on the mainline mainly because I can also use them to juice my frogs, although I'm not sure I'll be running much equipment where it would make that big of a difference. I'd like to eventually work toward some layout automation of multiple trains running by computer, but that's just for fun more than anything.

Anyway, thank you guys, again, for your responses. If anyone has any suggestions for the double reverse loops on wiring for DCC, please do share. Haha! I'm thinking I may need 4 or 5 auto reversers to make that work. :)

Brandon
 
I would go with the larger layout, but like others have said, keep the track simple at first and expand the track work as your skills widen.

I built my 12x16 HO layout in sections, using sections of 1x4 lumber which I assembled using screws and then bolted the sections together into basic shapes and attached them to the walls. Perhaps I could say "sectional", but using plywood as the sub-road bed I was careful to not have the edges of the individal pieces of plywood meet at the where the plywood pieces joined together to make the bench work stronger. No longer a sectional layout, especially adding in the completed scenery, wiring and track work.

Making a around the wall layout, I think the your layout could be considered as sectional and moving it would present minor problems. Just keep the future move in the back of your head as you do construction.

The reverse loop could be handled by the "right" two right reversing units. Perhaps Digitrax would would the willing to plan the wiring for your if your ask them and provide the Digitrax folks a track plan. Digitrax reversing units are easy to wire.

Have fun constructing your layout.

Greg
 
Last edited:
Thanks, Greg! Great idea on asking Digitrax (or maybe even Tonys or someone else well versed in DCC) about this and how to make it work.

Iron Horseman said:
I don't know why 2 (one for each loop) wouldn't work just fine.
Click to expand...

I think it's because there's a cross over just above Champion Gravel Co. That means the reverse loops would have to interact, I'd think. I could also possibly move that crossover to infront of the loops and keep them separate. I'm not 100% sure.

Brandon
 
CbrandonB said:
I'm currently thinking I'd like to build the big one and do it in smaller steps, as everyone has mentioned. Roughly, I want to build the three modules (not TOO worried about benchwork... I have the tools and the garage space to build them... only thing that concerns me is the staging level. I need to do some research specifically on how to do benchwork where I'm going to drop a track down (strategically placed L girder, maybe?) and then also how to attach the lower, non-scenic'ed part. If anyone has any ideas, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Click to expand...

The benchwork would be a bit tricky, and you'll have to watch your vertical clearance. I'm a fan of L girder, but you may have to get creative with how you support the top level.

As a real rough first draft, I'd do the following.

Where the track drops down, the entire section would be supported by the bottom level. I'd use vertical 1 x 4s in a fan shape around the loop, and then connect risers to those... This is getting too hard to write, so I'll just suggest looking at this page:

http://layoutdynamics.com/benchwork.html

See the "Weber Canyon" layout? Something like that, except I'd have the vertical boards do more of a fan shape rather than just be square.

For the staging, I'd consider building the bottom portion really solid, then using a 1/2" plywood (even 3/4" if you have the vertical clearance) for the top deck. Support it on the back wall, and have occasional risers along the front, with openings in between that allow side access to the lower level.

Obviously, there's plenty of ways to get this done, but that's one option.
 
If you go with N scale, post the HO equipment you would like to sell in the classified section. It may help you finance the layout. (Some us of like the blue box equipment).
 
Thanks, Bob!

flyboy, I would, but I cannot. They were given to me from my father-in-law, and I'm still planning on using some of it, it will just have to be a bit later in life. :)

I am selling some of my locomotives that I bought to use at the last club I belonged to. They shut down and then I moved away. :( Sad, too, as it was a really wonderful club. Very little drama and a great layout (5000 sq ft, 850 ft mainline, etc.).

Brandon
 
What ever size and plan you decide on, the first focus after that is benchwork..Get all your measurements and build it as clean and solid as you can. Take no shortcuts.. I believe open grid type benchwork is somewhat easier to construct than L girder.. Try to find pics and how-to videos if you're not fully versed in benchwork construction.. Once you've got a bench done you can begin the sub-roadbed (in HO usually 4-6" wide, and usually 1/2" thick 5-ply plywood ), and its supports; adding risers where needed... Then of course, track... Personally, I'd go code 83 main and code 70 or even 40 for secondary and tertiary track (spurs, yards, engine facility)...No need for shouldered ballast other than main and some secondary lines...M
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top