Layout "theory"


R

rrdrifter

New Member
I’ve been hammering out details, not really details, but design options of my attempt at a layout(HO). The only real design I like is a duck-under full size “oval” if you will. I have an area chosen that is 10’ wide on one end and 8’ on the other. Length can be upto 24’. I’ve chosen 20’ as my max length, but will probably go to 12' for starter. I’d rather build all my bench work and have it functional instead of starting a “smaller” layout that I’d have to tear up and redo upon expansion.

Am I trying to start too big? I will design, if possible, one industrial railroad that will basically go round and round(with a few twists, of course) with 3-4 businesses to deliver/pick up from. I “think” I would just like to see the trains run a little without being dedicated to a point to point only setup. Should not be too overwhelming to accomplish this. Probably 25 pieces of flex or so, a few smaller fillers,i.e. 1”, a crossing or two, and 5-6 switches, with attendant roadbed. Will use around 30” radius on mainline and arrive, departure tracks. I’d like a nice little yard in the mix, at some point. Will run GP38s-40s(SP) for spurline freight. I’ve got a couple of SW1500s for some yard work. I will try to expand and add a second railroad after I get this up and running and the funds keep up. Will go with SD45s with the second rail with Coal as the main business going up a Mountain terrain towards a norther coalmine and coming back down to a Power Generator Plant.

I have some of the benchwork built, one 4X4 and 4 2X4 that will bolt together as a “domino” system. Need to build 5 more 2X4 section, but before I get completed and almost locked in, I’ve got some basic building/operating theory to persue.

As stated above, the only thing I like so far is a duck-under or removable section bench. I don’t really care for the dog-bone type layout. It seems to get crowded real quick. I’m not particularly keen on the idea of reversing loops. I’m thinking on “open air” railroad” with some space between at least some of the track.

My questions are;
how agravating is it to duck-under all the time? I can see some irritation factor creeping into this. Are they to be avoided if at all possible?
Can a removable section be dependable? Can a device/system be incorporated so tracks line up without undo derailment problems or will it always be a source of trouble?

What are your thoughts on my basic idea of my setup? Do you think the “big oval” is a mistake? I’ve got the space and I want to keep things kinda “linear” without having to get too crowded. I’m just concerned a bit about the duck-under issue.
 
All of my tables are 42" High & I have a Duckunder at the back of my layout to open the back doors of my trainroom. I use an adjustable mechanics stool w/4 swivel wheels & I just bend my head down a little & roll right under. That section is about 4 ft. wide. Works for me & I'm 73 years old. The stool is a metal base & has a up & down adj. w/a padded seat. You can get them at Northern Tools & harbor Freight for about 30 bucks.
 
No, probably not too big, but you will stall if you run into unexpected difficulties that you ought to have predicted by careful and meticulous planning. For example, assuming you are going to have a single or double loop, or maybe a folded loop for a longer mainline run if you enjoy rail-fan roundy layouts where the trains run longer between stops, what will the surrounding terrain and contours be like? Will you have to build looooong lengths of retaining walls, or have cliffs everywhere because you forgot about side clearances, especially on the tighter curves? Happened to be in a way I understood could be a problem, and by gosh, so it was.

One way to get an image, in 2D, of what you would like to see, is to clear out the space and stick 1" masking tape on the floor to represent the bench elements and their perimeters and joists, and also the rails. Use a trammel or something to get the curves drawn truly to plan, carefully lay your tape 'tracks', and don't forget to nail down both the turnout location and angles of the frogs. If you fudge the turnouts, your nice floor plan of tape will be garbage. So, get one of each type you want to use, and actually place them where you think they will go on the tape. Do the angles work? What happens to the next curve?

And so on.

Your bench lumber is much more than you need. I am building a layout at the moment with 1X4 sideframes and joists supported by 1X2 legs that will get a gusset or brace. That's it...and capped with 1/2" plywood. It is plenty strong, but also light enough to move. Will you be able to move your layout next summer?

Here is my tape roadmap. This image shows my helix module that will have a ramp descending to lower level staging and a ramp above it that will raise the twinned Code 83 main to a higher level and over a trestle.


DSCF1512_edited.png


Here is an image showing my helix. It measures over 6 feet in diameter.

DSCF1652r.png


About the duckunders. I have had one for six years and don't mind it so much. However, this new build allows a walk-in, and I won't fib and say I'm ungrateful. In other words, if you are in good condition, not old and stiff, not too tall, go for it. Just accept that you will leave some hair and skin on the underside at least once. No, three times. As you raise the under-surface of your benchwork above 50" it gets easier. You'll leave more skin if you have to duck much under 50"

You can design a liftout or swing up/down/to side bridge or gate. Personally, I prefer the liftout. The way to make it work reliably is to use the cheap small metal L-braces you get for $.99 at the hardware store. You nest one set in the inner corners of your main frame of your gate complex and use another set to sit on the first set just described. That way, you get electrical contact and decent alignment. To change alignment due to wear and tear or humidity and heat changes, use small threaded handles, two at each end to lift, and two at each end to change the yaw. Those four adjustments at each end will have you with perfect alignment all the time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A similar HO layout in 8'X10' that would be easily expanded to fit your space. But perhaps this gives you an idea of possible scope.

red_wing_8_10_around_dtl.gif


Although no one ever follows this advice, I think the best thing one can do at this stage (before designing a layout) is to step back and really learn the theory and practice of layout design by studying John Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operation.

Note that if your 4X4 section will go against a corner, you will likely find it impossible to reach all the way across it once scenicked. Most folks look for 30" or less to reach across, if possible.

Best of luck with your layout.
 
Larry thanks for the info. Selector, I am building 2foot X 4 foot benches, not using 2 X 4's. Using 1X4 material also.

I've got a 3D rendering of my layout "hopes", but don't have it on the web so can't post it.

Thanks for the comments
 
One of the biggest things i can recommend if you are using the domino style benchwork (like we use), is to make sure you have adjustable feet. This will ensure that the tops of the boards can line up flush with one another. I just got our benchwork completed tonight (pics to come tomorrow) and without adjustable feet we would run into a world of hurt. We discovered real fast that our basement floor is faaaar from level. I made sure to cut the legs to a precise 36", but that doesnt mean anything if the floor isnt level. This also ensures that if you move your layout, you dont have to worry about the floor at another place as well. Another suggestion if you dont like the adjustable feet idea, is to just put shims under the legs to achieve "flushness" of your sections. Also, why are you doing them in just 2x4' sections? why not larger? Our layotu is 16x16x18', and we wanted to minimize as much joints as possible, so most of our sections are 3x8, and our smallest is a 3x6 section (without counting the 2, 2x5' sections in the airport, since this doesnt butt up to the rest of the layout) This is because when laying scenery, you have to keep in mind that whatever you lay over the joints will have to come apart/off the layout if you ever do decide to move it. So just some food for thought, goodluck, welcome to the forums, and of course, pics when you get some progress!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TRAINFAN9510 said:
..... Also, why are you doing them in just 2x4' sections? why not larger? ..........
Click to expand...

Everything I heard or read suggested about a 2' maximum for reaching over and 2 X 4 just seems to be geometrically right. I can buy quarter sheets of thin plywood, the 1 bys come in 8' lengths(cut em in half).
I don't like handling full sheets of plywood anymore. I guess it was the info I had and convenience, plus, hardly any scraps.

Thanks for the welcome and the discussion.
 
Whatever designs I come up with, I usually try and avoid duckunders and gates at all costs. Larry's idea of the adjustable chair I used on my last layout, only I got a 'garage scooter' at Sears with a cushioned seat. Sometimes a duck under to an isolated aisle can work, if it provides space for say a crew to do yard work, for a whole op session, etc.

The problem with gates as I've found and experienced, is they need to be built very precisely, and work consistently. I'm not that good a carpenter that I'd be able to build something that worked reliably. My other concern about gates, particularly, is egress should there be an emergency.

I have used 2'x4', 4'x4', and other size modules. New modules I'm looking to make 2'x6', to keep the size manageable, and reduce the number of joints.
 
rrdrifter said:
Everything I heard or read suggested about a 2' maximum for reaching over and 2 X 4 just seems to be geometrically right. I can buy quarter sheets of thin plywood, the 1 bys come in 8' lengths(cut em in half).
I don't like handling full sheets of plywood anymore. I guess it was the info I had and convenience, plus, hardly any scraps.

Thanks for the welcome and the discussion.
Click to expand...

Ah ok, that makes alot of sense. And yeah full sheets can be a pain, luckily I am still young enough that it doenst bother me. Lets fast forward 50 years and see if I still say that lol
 
rrdrifter, your circumstances, requirements and plan parallel mine almost exactly - right down to the layout space available. I'm getting back into the hobby after a 25 year hiatus. During the last couple months, I've read everything I can get my hands on pertaining to layout design, including/especially John Armstrong's "Track Planning for Realistic Operation". Also, I feel that I've looked at every track plan ever published in the history of the world. I'm just breaking out of "Analysis Paralysis" mode and moving forward with building.

I was originally going to simply copy the track plan that Cuyama posted above - Byron Henderson's site was a true revelation. I've since changed my plan to a modified version of the "Heart of Geogia", it fits my space a little better. There will be a lift-out incorporated as well as a large-ish yard off to one side. Final layout should end up being 8x12 feet with a maximum reach of 30 inches at any point. Haven't decided on a height yet.

For me, a duck under is an absolute no-no: First thing that entered my mind when I learned about them was "that will get real old, real quick". Also, while my wife won't be participating in the hobby, she will visit the empire every so often. Having to duck under would receive constant complaints from the management. :rolleyes:

Good luck, I'll be really curious to see how your layout evolves.
 
Modified HOG

I have built/am building (never really done!) a modified version of the HOG Railroad, the CB&Q Dragonfly Subdivision. It seems to serve my purpose well, that is modeling and operating a model railroad. Although I have a dedicated "train room", I do have other hobby items stored in the room and as such need to limit the space the railroad occupies. I would suggest to continue your research and plan, plan, plan...and then when you think you have it... leave it alone for a few days and go back for a fresh-eye review! You will be amazed at what you will see and how you view it differently. Something as simple as rotating the piece of paper the trackplan is printed on will give you new perspective.
 
Scott135, coming across your blog was the final kick-in-the-pants that I needed to just go ahead and base my layout on HOG.
I also need to be able to store a Super Cub or two... :D
 
Another idea (looking at the layout posted above) is you can run point to point most of the time by leaving out the 'bridge'. The layout posted above would have nice point to point operations.
Then when you want to run a continuous loop install the 'bridge'.

A around the room layout does provide better use of the space utilizing wider radius curves and longer straights then a centered layout.
Here is a web site that discusses layouts and operations that you may find helpful.
http://www.layoutvision.com/
 
rrdrifter said:
. . .
how agravating is it to duck-under all the time? I can see some irritation factor creeping into this. Are they to be avoided if at all possible?
Can a removable section be dependable? Can a device/system be incorporated so tracks line up without undo derailment problems or will it always be a source of trouble?

. . . I’m just concerned a bit about the duck-under issue.
Click to expand...
I guess it all depends on whether you think this will be a "permanent" layout, or something to get you started and keep you occupied for ~5-10 years until you build another one. And this assumes that only you [and maybe your kids?] will be going into it. Bring in out-of-family guests - especially those who are on-in-years or have back problems - and that totally changes the equation.

I was in your situation back in 2004, ready to build a new layout. I figured I would always be a lone-wolf operator, so I was willing to live with duckunders since that was the only way I could fit in all my givens-n-druthers. But eventually I started hosting op sessions, and saw how my guest operators [most of whom were a foot taller than me] avoided going into the interior areas. Finally one of the guys convinced me to tear-down and rebuild a layout that was duck-free, otherwise "..yer gonna live to hate them duckunders until the End of Time!" So I've spent the past few years building a newer and better layout and now I'm 99% done. And glad I did, because I'm definitely not getting any younger!:eek:

If you absolutely must have an enclosed layout, try to put in a swinging gate that will close automatically, rather than just a lift-out section. Otherwise a day will come that somebody forgets to put the lift-out back in place, and your favorite loco will take the 4-foot plunge.:eek:

Good luck!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The best practice to prevent tumbling locomotives is to leave about 16" of electrically dead track at each abutment of the bridge/gate. When the bridge is in place, the contacts also provide power to those dead sections. When a liftout bridge is removed, the locomotives stall short of the edge.
 
fotoflojoe said:
Scott135, coming across your blog was the final kick-in-the-pants that I needed to just go ahead and base my layout on HOG.
I also need to be able to store a Super Cub or two... :D
Click to expand...

Fotoflojoe- Happy to help... we may have to take the Super Cub part of this this conversation off-line!
 
Selector said:
The best practice to prevent tumbling locomotives is to leave about 16" of electrically dead track at each abutment of the bridge/gate. When the bridge is in place, the contacts also provide power to those dead sections. When a liftout bridge is removed, the locomotives stall short of the edge.
Click to expand...

And that statement is worth it's weight in gold. Not sure I ever would have thought of that on my own.
 
rrdrifter said:
My questions are;
how agravating is it to duck-under all the time? I can see some irritation factor creeping into this. Are they to be avoided if at all possible?
Can a removable section be dependable? Can a device/system be incorporated so tracks line up without undo derailment problems or will it always be a source of trouble?

What are your thoughts on my basic idea of my setup? Do you think the “big oval” is a mistake? I’ve got the space and I want to keep things kinda “linear” without having to get too crowded. I’m just concerned a bit about the duck-under issue.
Click to expand...

If you don't like the dogbone layout, then having an oval shape is well worth the duckunder.

When building the benchwork, leave the duckunder for the last part or you'll be ducking under during construction. If you want to run point to point most of the time, the drop in, swing gate, draw bridge section can be left out or open most of the time, thereby diminishing the irritation factor.

I think removable sections of benchwork have been around long enough that you can find some reliable examples and construction instructions on the 'net or in publications.

I have a dogbone set up but wish my space allowed an oval.
 
Thanks for all the input. I've been working on a dogbone I think I could live with. A lot of straight track tho. Two roads that go round and round(four tracks) and a thru yard sure gets a 2 foot wide section pretty crowded, but I think I might be able to live with this one.

Appreciate the help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top