First attempt at an HO layout

[cengel]

So my wife gave me the go ahead to take over the utility room to build my layout. I started with a 4x8 layout a few months ago and have learned alot and also found alot of things I don't like about it.

I'm planning to model a more modern railway and diesels. So no steam. I would like something that 1-3 people can operate using DCC. I tried to give it enough operations interest but with younger kids and also visitors I wanted to have at least one loop so I could just kick off a train and let it go. However the operations part is what I have liked to do with my current 4x8 even with it's limitations. I don't really have a location in mind at all for the layout either.

The table size is 10 1/2 by 7 1/2 which pretty much maximizes my space I think. I have a double deck staging which is accessible since it is against the aisle. My plan was to run a train into staging and then manually move the engine to the other end in between sessions to turn it around to come back out. Currently there is 7" of elevation between the decks does this seem reasonable to fiddle ?

I wanted to have a place where I could put in a lift out section so I don't have to duckunder all the time, I'm still hoping I can do that on the right side of the layout but it is fairly tight at the moment.

I have redrawn the yard many times based on ideas in this forum and still not sure that I have enough track length to handle a reasonable length train. My staging tracks are probably longer then they need to be based on my current yard limitations.

To try to get more space in the yard I put in a peco double slip switch. What is the reliability of those is that going to be a problem. To date I have only used atlas track/switches but alot of people on here say peco are better and they seem to look nicer. Also the 2 back to back curved switches are shinohara #6's that I already have so wanted to use them to get more A/D track space.

The first picture shows the lower staging which allows me to have trains enter from east or west. The second picture shows the upper staging which can only enter from one direction. The last picture shows a drawing of the room with the location of the layout.

Any comments are appreciated. Not being an expert gets a bit scary thinking about building a larger layout only to find something drastically wrong with it that impacts the joy in running trains (like my current layout).

 

[Jannie]

^ Nice ...I really like your second trackplan....keep us posted..J

 

[t_wheeler]

Hi cengel,

My initial feedback is to give you an idea for a somewhat different layout:

Operationally, you could have several options: run point-to-point (from Anna to Bellevue/Carrollton/Denver), out-and-back (Anna to the Bellevue/Carrolton "bulge" and back), or round-and-round (using the duck-under/hinged section). (Without doing a track plan I am not sure all of these are feasible.)

You might consider putting the staging under the mainline to the left of Anna, making it invisible and giving you more room for the stuff you want to see/operate. Or put it under the mainline between Denver and Carrollton. Or both, if there's room and you want that much staging.

The view block gives you additional options for scenery and destinations; and you can change its shape/location as desired.

Yeah I know, I'm asking you to consider throwing away most of what you've done and start from scratch. Your fault though, you did say any comments are appreciated.

Best,
Thomas

 

[cengel]

Your fault though, you did say any comments are appreciated.

Yeah I did make that mistake didn't I

The concept of Denver/Carrollton is kindof what I tried to get with being able to enter the lower level staging from 2 directions. I didn't want to put up a backdrop and make it double sided because then I would have to duckunder to get out of the main section to walk around to view the Denver/Carrollton side during operations.

As for the staging under Anna I had originally thought of that idea before I started drawing plans but heard alot of complaints about hidden staging like that as far as rerailing cars, fixing track issues. So that is when I thought it might be easier to stack the staging tracks the way I did with fairly easy access when problems occur. I will have to do some sort of presence detect (or maybe even a mirror on the back wall) so I can see where the trains are as I drive them into staging.

And because it is easier to discuss this with place names I put some names on the layout diagrams as well as another industry spur near the yard.

Oh, and I do very much appreciate the feedback.

 

[Selector]

I like this style of plan....have one myself, although it is a folded loop giving me height and an overpass and a longer main. However, my one great concern is the reach you are imposing on yourself in the two lower corners. The one on the right is physically impossible unless your layout height is going to be less than about 3' and you can lean over and into that corner with a three-point stance (meaning one hand on the layout surface).

 

[cengel]

One other note I originally had thought to satisfy my loop requirement I would use the lower staging to loop through it. But then I had problems getting the trains that exit from both directions of staging to get into the yard since I was coming at the yard from both directions. That is what then created the loop that goes between Rochester and Minneapolis.

I wonder though, if I moved the yard up to Rochester then I could be point to point to Minneapolis and all the staging trains would be able to get to the yard from east or west. It does cut down on the run time of a train coming in from staging however, but it simplifies the track work on the right side making a hinged section alot easier/bigger.

It's amazing what ideas you come up with when you are forced to rethink your previous decisions.

 

[cengel]

However, my one great concern is the reach you are imposing on yourself in the two lower corners. The one on the right is physically impossible unless your layout height is going to be less than about 3' and you can lean over and into that corner with a three-point stance (meaning one hand on the layout surface).

I have an aisleway on the right and bottom side of the layout so reach is not an issue there, however the lower left side is longer. It may make sense to turn the enginehouse a bit close to the yard lead which would then allow me to make the operations hole reach further into that corner.

 

[DoubleDAZ]

I'm under the impression that both staging yards will be hidden from the rest of the layout with access from that side of the layout and not from the operations area. It looks like you plan to stage 5 trains per session. When those have run through, you'll have to pause to flip engines and run them again. Is that the basic idea?

You do know you can build some actual consists in XTrakCAD to get an idea what train lengths will fit where, right? That way you should be able to figure out what lengths you'll need for staging, etc.

I assume Grand Forks is all at the 6" elevation. If so, have you thought about moving the 2nd turnout (a left instead of a right) forward to the last curved section leading into the yard? Would that let you add some length to the bottom branch and perhaps add a runaround to the right end. I don't know if that would be prototype, but it would let you pull a train into the bottom branch, run the engine around and move the consist to the top branch ready to go out again. If you extend the end of the yard all the way to the right edge of the layout, you might even be able to fit a runaround on the center branch too. Then you could pull the 1st train into the center, run around and move that consist to the top instead. When you pull the 2nd train to the bottom, you could then runaround to make the next consist ready to go on the bottom. Pull the 3rd straight in, then runaround after the top train goes out again and make the center train ready. Or some variation along those lines. Just a thought.

 

[cengel]

I'm under the impression that both staging yards will be hidden from the rest of the layout with access from that side of the layout and not from the operations area. It looks like you plan to stage 5 trains per session. When those have run through, you'll have to pause to flip engines and run them again. Is that the basic idea?

That is the basic idea I had in mind for an operations session yep.

You do know you can build some actual consists in XTrakCAD to get an idea what train lengths will fit where, right? That way you should be able to figure out what lengths you'll need for staging, etc.

I have seen that in other people's diagrams but haven't played with that feature yet. I figured I'm pretty much limited by yard length so when I figure out what that limit is then I will replicate that to the staging tracks using the actual consists like you mention.

I assume Grand Forks is all at the 6" elevation. If so, have you thought about moving the 2nd turnout (a left instead of a right) forward to the last curved section leading into the yard? Would that let you add some length to the bottom branch and perhaps add a runaround to the right end. I don't know if that would be prototype, but it would let you pull a train into the bottom branch, run the engine around and move the consist to the top branch ready to go out again. If you extend the end of the yard all the way to the right edge of the layout, you might even be able to fit a runaround on the center branch too. Then you could pull the 1st train into the center, run around and move that consist to the top instead. When you pull the 2nd train to the bottom, you could then runaround to make the next consist ready to go on the bottom. Pull the 3rd straight in, then runaround after the top train goes out again and make the center train ready. Or some variation along those lines. Just a thought.

So yes it is all at the 6" elevation and moving the 2nd turnout is a great idea. After rereading the rest of this a few times I think I understand what you were referring to and have made some updates to try to incorporate some runaround tracks. As far as extending the yard all the way to the right edge I kindof liked that the backdrop didn't run all the way to the edge and figured if I didn't need the extra length I may actually move it further to the left. However if I can find a way to get more yard space it may make sense to extend all the way to the right.

 

[DoubleDAZ]

So yes it is all at the 6" elevation and moving the 2nd turnout is a great idea...............incorporate some runaround tracks.

Thanks, you understood what I was saying just fine and I like the changes. When you get to the point of running a test train in XTrakCAD, you'll be able to see if those runaround tracks work for you or not. I just figured the less often you have to come out of the operation area to manually turn engines the better.

As far as extending the yard..........to get more yard space it may make sense to extend all the way to the right.

Given that you were able to fit the 2nd runaround without extending the backdrop, I suspect you won't need to. I think you're right that your train lengths will be limited by space in other areas of the layout and you'll find your staging yards already have enough space. As far as moving the backdrop to the left, I think that's a good idea if you find you don't really need that much yard. The deciding factor will probably be the length of the top branch. If you can turn an engine and store a consist there, you may have room to move the backdrop to the left a bit.

 

[cengel]

If you can turn an engine and store a consist there, you may have room to move the backdrop to the left a bit.

I was wondering though since I won't have the abilit to actually turn the engine around, is it prototypical to run the engines a long distance forward and backward ? being a diesel I suppose it doesn't matter much but part of the reason I wanted to physically move the engines was that I could reverse the direction so they came out of staging in the forward direction again.

 

[DoubleDAZ]

I was wondering though since I won't have the abilit to actually turn the engine around, is it prototypical to run the engines a long distance forward and backward ? being a diesel I suppose it doesn't matter much but part of the reason I wanted to physically move the engines was that I could reverse the direction so they came out of staging in the forward direction again.

I did say it probably wasn't prototype, but others have suggested it was okay to do with diesels. I guess it all depends on how much of a purist you are, how often you want to come out of the operation area just to turn engines, etc.

Having runarounds doesn't preclude you from turning engines manually, they just give you the opportunity to keep operating without turning them when you don't feel like it. When you have 2-3 operators, it probably makes sense to have someone turn them fr more realism. When you're by yourself though, will it really make that much of a difference for the return trip? They do get turned at the TT, don't they?

Of course, adding the runarounds means you also have to add decoupling. It might all be more trouble than it's worth depending on how long it will take to run trains through the circuit.

I must admit that during all the trips I've made between here and El Paso, I don't remember seeing a lead engine going in reverse, plenty of trailing engines, but not the lead.

 

[cengel]

So after much fretting, and a few minor changes I don't see why I shouldn't start building some benchwork. I think this layout will provide what I'm looking for in a railroad which is operations fun with the occasional just let'm run.

Anybody see any issues with what they see here?

 

[tooter]

So after much fretting, and a few minor changes I don't see why I shouldn't start building some benchwork. I think this layout will provide what I'm looking for in a railroad which is operations fun with the occasional just let'm run.

Anybody see any issues with what they see here?

HI cen,

I couldn't see any issues because I haven't begun to build my layout yet...

...but I have seen some really clever turntable ideas which I'm planning to use with the two Kibri manual ones that I have.

One idea is to run a second line out of the turntable and have it switched into the first line to make a runaround, so that you could have a line of cars, uncouple the engine, turn it around on the turntable, then run it around the line of cars and couple it back up to them facing in the opposite direction.

The other idea is to use the turntable as a straight track to complete the connection of a continuous line running through it, but not leading to the roundhouse.

If you want to see some of pics of these non-prototypical turntable uses take a look at "Small Layout Scrapbook""

"Small Layout Scrapbook"

Here's a shrunk down example of a line running through turntables...

Even though the focus is on very small layouts, it's still chock full of truly creative ways to make the most of whatever available space you have even if it'a large.

Greg

 

[cengel]

Wow, I thought my layout was somewhat small, that website takes small layouts to a whole new level ...

 

[cengel]

I also looked at this layout for a bit. Think it is a really interesting use of a helix but am worried that actually constructing it would be quite difficult. It does give for a fairly long mainline but doesn't really provide for the just let em run aspect unless you loop through staging.

 

[tooter]

Yes, it does!
I've spent countless hours poring over thousands of details for ideas to use when I build mine. There's quite a large "cult" of small layout enthusiasts scattered all over the world... and the creative ideas can be applied to any layout no matter what the size.

Greg

 

[cengel]

So I started the benchwork and in the process "claimed" some more space in the room for the layout. When I did that I went back to looking through plans again. I found this one on Modelrailroader that gives me a much longer mainline with the folded figure 8 and doesn't have the same little circle feel that my other thoughts did. I'm in the process of trying to redraw it in xtrkcad since my space is a few inches smaller then what is here.

I lose some staging space and I'm concerned about access to staging which would have to be by fingertip from below I think (at least on one side). And you would have to back the train out of staging to reverse things I think.

Other then that I'm really liking it. I will try to make more progress on the xtrkcad drawings and post those as well.

The layout would be against a wall on the left and bottom sides, the other 2 would be open on both sides.

The web links is : http://mrr.trains.com/en/How To/Track Plan Database/2007/08/Red Rock Northern.aspx

 

[cengel]

Well, my last post didn't make it past the moderator so here I go again ..

I started to build some benchwork for my layout and was able to squeeze some more space for the layout. So then I looked around for other layout ideas and was looking at the Red Rock Northern track plan in the model railroader track plan database. So now I'm back to the drawing board to try to lay that one out. It is frustrating how difficult it is to draw up those plans in xtrkcad nothing seems to fit as they have it. But I am adding easements which take up quite a bit of space.

On another note I was reading an article in the model railroader hobbyist talking about beginner's paralysis. I hope I don't have that and eventually come up with a plan I can commit to and build

 

[DoubleDAZ]

I'm in an even worse situation. I ran into some health setbacks (wife's knee replacement and my emergency gallbladder surgery), so I've had time to consider my choice of layout designs. Since I don't have much invested yet, I'm considering switching from N Scale to HO. I finally got my replacement Bachmann 4-8-4 loco (it runs so much better), but I'm now concerned about the 11.25" curves and my ability to deal with them and other difficulties imposed by the smaller N Scale equipment. I still like my design, but I have to be realistic about my level of patience, etc. I wish you luck and will contnue to follow your progress.