HO Scale Apartment Layout


C

CaptSuperCow

Member
I have a large apartment, but as it is an apartment, I'm likely not to stay here for more than a few years. I've been mulling over layout design for quite a long time now and am finally working towards a solution.

This plan is my first stab at the 2x6ft layout:
kiMB3.jpg


I plan to make this layout extendable with a double main line on the front of the layout that can be continued on further adjacent modules.

Next is the assembly/disassembly line and yard lead. From here branches a small yard and also a small branch line that would work with various small buildings that I have. I'm very flexible on what needs to be done to make this work other than enlarging the benchwork. I know it's a challenge but I think it's doable.

First thoughts? What would you change and how?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem that I have with this design is that it's inoperable by itself, it's an incomplete layout without the aforementioned lead module you mention.

As a module by itself, I don't see much I like. Your yard is too small to do anything, let alone have a purpose on the module. (why is there a yard?) It also looks like you're using snap switches in the industrial park, and the tail on that switchback is barely long enough for a diesel switcher and one car.

Building a modular layout is a good idea if you plan to move, but this particular module lacks a cohesive design, or it looks like it was cut out of the middle of a larger track plan. 2x6 can make a switching layout. 2x8 is better (you can use #6 switches then).
 
Lots of questions, I was expecting this!
Okay, well, the reason I want a yard is that it's something that I'd enjoy, I like switching and operating a within tight constraints, but still want a good starting module from which to run my stock out of. So instead of just doing a switching industrial module, I'd rather work with a yard. As for the other comments, what is a snapswitch? Also, what is a decent length for a switchback? I'm looking to use mostly smaller diesels on this size layout. Lastly, what size turnouts are recommended for yards vs. mainlines vs. sidings? I have been having a hard time finding that information.

Now back to the layout itself; What about extending the yard to fill the majority of the 6ft section, and moving the industrial area to a separate 4ft module and extending the assembly area into this part as well?
 
-Well firstly, (and I was simply guessing that's what it was based on the illustration's appearance) A snap switch is the very sharp radius turnouts offered by Atlas (and which Model Power, Life Like, ect used to offer) where the divergent leg is matched to a 18"R curve, so as to fit with standard train set rack geometry. Atlas offer conventional '#' turnouts (#4, #6, ect) where there is no defined curve, the curve of the turnout is measured similarly to the slope of a linear function (#4 turnout diverges 1 unit for every 4 units of length after the frog, #6 turnout diverges 1 unit for ever 6 units, ect).

-I think that 6' is still going to be too short for the kind of yard you're thinking of. You have to keep in mind the point of a yard. It's to break up trains, sort cars, and remake trains for new destinations. You would need at least two separate staging areas and the yard would still only have the capacity to be a very small shortline facility.

-Turnout sizing is determined by two factors; desired elements in the layout and space. People with large spaces for layouts or desiring to model a smaller area realistically will go as large as #8 or #10 turnouts. People also usually recommend #5 as a minimum for yards, but for certain places of selective compression #4 can work. The usual rule of thumb though is for #6 on the mainline or coming off of it, and #4 for yards/industrial track.

I think you need to invest in a copy of 'Track Planning for Realistic Operation' by John Armstrong. It will help you design the layout with operation in mind.
 
Can you pull more than an engine clear of the yard switch points? I count 6 to 14 inches clear of the points in various places or about 43 ft to 100 ft in scale.

I understand your desire to build something with operating interest that can later be incorporated (perhaps) into something larger, but the current design is extremely limited operationally IMO.
 
Message received! I've ordered the new book, and also decided that I will likely move to building 2 modules at the start instead of just 1. One quick question: what is the minimum recommended length to clear a switch point?

Thanks for the help so far!
 
Tail track length would be the length of your longest car plus longest engine (including couplers between them) plus a tad more. If you intend to run around an engine only, then the length of your longest engine plus a tad. (I just eyeballed the point clearances on my current shelf switcher.)

A weak point in my trackplan is that I can only pull one car at a time from a couple of longish spurs, but I did that based on my space constraints at the time. That's something I want to correct once I expand.
 
I haven't received the books yet; however, I've been analyzing what I really want out of the layout and taking into consideration my minimum switch clearance being 18". I've redesigned the layout accordingly:

zkIWs.jpg


I feel like this is starting to get more where I'm going. It is now comprised of two modules, one 2'x4', the other 2'x6'. The biggest part I'm questioning now is the curved switch point at the top middle, is it too sharp? I'm only planning to get a switcher and 40-50' box cars through there.

What do you think?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would get rid of the 3 crossovers at the bottom of the yard and move the one closest to the first yard ladder switch to the left of it and have it on the other module.
 
First off, I would try and get rid of the s-curves in the industrial park. It looks like no coupling occurs on them in question but they may prove problematic.

The Yard looks better but as a standalone module it could still use a little work. Mainly in that it doesn't look like you can pull a very long train in without fouling the second main/passing track. For reference, I'm labeling the bottom track main, the second track passing siding and the third yard service. Yard service has plenty of lead now, but as I said, not much of a train can be pulled onto it without it fouling passing track.

Inbound/outbound. Usually separate tracks unless your yard is very small and on a short line. I would try rearranging the crossovers so that a switcher drilling the yard can pull from and push to passing track. That would give you both inbound and outbound for the yard. (yard service to the right of the ladder becomes one of these)
 
This is great, and thank you for the fast feedback. I'm in no hurry, but it is nice to have more of a conversation about it.

It all makes sense what you're saying, but implementation is always up to some mis-interpretation; so I'm trying not to assume anything.

Also, I like eliminating switches out of this as I did my first cost estimate and it came in for around $250 just for the track!:eek:
I'm just out of college so I'm trying to be a little spendthrift as well.

So here is my current understanding of what you're saying:
W8akO.jpg


Eliminating some of the switches, trying to allow a longer train to pull into yard service and reducing the main lines to 1 main with a siding.

Let me know.

Thanks!!
 
Yeah, track is expensive :D It looks better, but I'd still flip the crossover just to the left of the joint so that the yard drill can set out an outbound train for pickup on the second track. If you flip it in place, instead of flipping it and moving it right so straddle the joint, it enables relocating the turnout into the industrial park to there. You can then place a small runaround and design the industrial park as a small standalone switching module to build first and help spread out the cost of track.



As you can see, the crossover has been moved to allow the 48" module to be built as an independently operable layout. Track 3 is intended as inbound to the yard, track 2 would be outbound, with the far left end of track 3 being imagined to rejoin track 1 off-layout. I changed the yard ladder to a compound-style to give a fourth track* while keeping the tail for engine service/switcher storage. The tail of track 3 at the far right end could also be engine storage or even a caboose track, though it is placed very inconveniently so and would be best either eliminated or turned into a team track/freight-house spur.

As it stands, the layout doesn't need dedicated staging, merely a drop-down extension for the left end of track C. Inbound trains can be staged on the inbound tracks, sort of an on-layout fiddle yard, and the operating session ends right before the road power takes the outbound train back out onto the main.

This is just a suggestion. Hope you find some use in it.

*The extra track @ AA was accomplished through the use of a Tillig brand curved turnout as it was the only one with the geometry to fit. Tillig track is hideously expensive, but even going back to the original configuration of three yard tracks, the capacity is the same as your original design.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That layout is magnificent! I will definitely take advantage of the split layout to save cost; I hadn't even thought of that. I'll obviously play around with the industrial park area as I don't even have my buildings yet; but that will work splendidly. Thank you so much.

As for the Tillig switch, it's $40 as opposed to $15-18 for a regular wye; so it's really not that horrid an up-charge.

Lastly, would I be able to get that SCARM file from you? My email is mikelangelier@gmail.com. I want to get the track estimates from it so I can order the first section of track! I'm almost done with the benchwork for both sections. I will post photos tonight.
 
I'd suggest looking at some of the British exhibition layouts, where they model a small terminal (with loving attention to detail!) and have a "fiddle yard" which feeds trains to and from it, very often with a road bridge defining the end of the modeled territory. The fiddle yard gets taken away and stored elsewhere when not in use. You could also use one track of the fiddle yard as a lead when switching the industries/station. The idea is definitely that a train comes in from the "outside world", the cars get placed, a new train is made up and away it goes.
 
I was also thinking of doing a modular layout and one side would be a passenger station for my future layout and the rest was going to be a yard for freight trains. Its just for running trains around and testing everything to make sure it runs good and having somplace to run things on. Here is my idea using 2x6' modules. Most of the switches are #6 and #8 with #10's for mainline crossovers maybe this will give you some ideas. I set it up so the yard switches on both ends fit on 2x6 modules and then you add middle yard trak modules to expand the yard.

Module%20Layout%202%20rev%20b_.jpg


Module%20Layout%201%20rev%20b%20closeup%20a_.jpg


Module%20Layout%201%20rev%20b%20closeup%20b_.jpg
 
CaptSuperCow said:
Also, I like eliminating switches out of this as I did my first cost estimate and it came in for around $250 just for the track!:eek:
Click to expand...

IMO, some of the most realistic looking layouts that I've seen don't have all that much track or complex trackwork - just a few spurs but long ones and larger number turnouts (at least #6). Well, aside from yards anyway.

Of course that all varies by era and what you intend to do with the layout. Like the man said, "There's a prototype example for EVERYTHING". ;):D
 
I'm struggling to understand the purpose of some of the turnouts and tracks in some of the layouts posted here.

One good way to approach a design like this is to think through the movements of cars from staging or interchange to industry (and back) and then design around that. As an HO example in a 2X10 space, here is my slight modification of Jonathan Jones' fine 2X10 switching layout from the May 2001 Model Railroader magazine.

mod_2_10.gif


One of the key opportunities in any compact design is overlapping the various elements, such as runarounds, industry tracks, leads, yard tracks, etc.

Best of luck.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CaptSuperCow said:
That layout is magnificent! I will definitely take advantage of the split layout to save cost; I hadn't even thought of that. I'll obviously play around with the industrial park area as I don't even have my buildings yet; but that will work splendidly. Thank you so much.

As for the Tillig switch, it's $40 as opposed to $15-18 for a regular wye; so it's really not that horrid an up-charge.

Lastly, would I be able to get that SCARM file from you? My email is mikelangelier@gmail.com. I want to get the track estimates from it so I can order the first section of track! I'm almost done with the benchwork for both sections. I will post photos tonight.
Click to expand...

Sent. And don't build the structures first. They're kits for a reason. Alter them to fit the layout, not the other way around.
 
i will second the "dont build the structures first". if you think about it, you will not have enough room for the industries that the kit is supposed to be, then you are stuck either limiting yourself on track arrangement, or going back and cutting up buildings. i also have a habit that if i buy a kit and like that particular kit, i will go back and buy several.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top