Modified layout and added staging

[number9]

I have not had any time to put any benchwork up yet, but this has given me time to pause and look at the layout more. I have decided it might be a good idea to have some place to turn an engine around, and also to add a staging area, since I decided to move a false wall and extend the layout more on the bottom left.

I am wanting to know something from those more experienced than I. Looking at this layout and knowing that on the angled portion that goes form the lower left to the upper right, I will eventually add a "large" (as large as I can make it) yard, does anyone see anything wrong with this layout? (e.g. "you realize that you are missing a turnout here" or "looking at the loop in the top middle, this will not work or is pointless", etc.

Note, the loop in the top middle is so I can turn a (moderate length) train around without taking it off of the track. The strange middle track in the top that is not connected to anything else is a trolly line that runs through town. To give an idea of scale, the top from left to right is 24 feet. The diagonal section is 28 feet. The top to lower left is about 32 feet. The lower right of the room is "off limits". Any input is appreciated. Thank you.

 

[DougC]

number9:

What scale is this? N? HO? S? O? Large scale?
Do you have to duck under the layout to get to various spots?

I (we) could use more info.

DougC

 

[fcwilt]

We need drawing of the available space with dimensions, any obstructions, windows, door, etc.

My first reaction is what you have drawn is not a good start.

 

[wright2626]

i think that is one of the better plans you have, much better than the other ones. what radius did you end up with on the ends of the long stretch? keep in mind the gap between the benchwork for the long straight and the loop. ducking under or squeezing by sounds ok, but it does get old.

 

[number9]

This is HO. You have to duck under to get to the middle opening. You should be able to get from the left opening to the right top without ducking.

Here is the room layout, but note that the bench and door that says "can be removed" will be removed.

number9:

What scale is this? N? HO? S? O? Large scale?
Do you have to duck under the layout to get to various spots?

I (we) could use more info.

DougC

 

[number9]

I just posted the room layout with a note... Why is this not a good start?

We need drawing of the available space with dimensions, any obstructions, windows, door, etc.

My first reaction is what you have drawn is not a good start.

 

[fcwilt]

I just posted the room layout with a note... Why is this not a good start?

Thanks for the specs.

The drawing shows 16' on the left but in a post you state 32'.

Thoughts:
- "duck-under" designs quickly become a pain
- as drawn you can only turn the train when it is going in one direction, not in the other. Unless you are willing to back the train through the reverse loop
- watching trains go around becomes boring for most folks. As drawn you only have two industry tracks inside the loop.

Have you considered a classic "dog-bone" or "folded dog-bone" design?

You also might consider a "dog bone" design spanning two levels with the lower level serving as your staging yard.

You have the room for a very good layout with 30" radius curves.

 

[Lynnb]

You have lots of space for an around the room shelf layout plus a peninsula. My last layout I had a 2% grade that went into a tunnel went around the wall to a lower staging yard, just a thought.

 

[number9]

I will admit I jumped the gun with the ancient drawing of the room. I did the layout knowing I was going to remove the wall. The room from top to bottom (past the wall that says I can remove it) is over 32'.

I can see the point about the duck under, but my only excuse would be that the entire diagonal will be a yard. So making a movable section there would (later on) mean that something like 5-12 (or more) tracks would be split. I just don't see that working out well.

The turn around in one direction without backing up slipped my mind. What is the best way to "fix" this? More track? Are there other options? (I could do a dogbone like you mention, but in my mind that would make the diagonal unnecessary, and that is kind of my focal point (a large yard)).

Yes, there is a lack of industry right now. For this first run I was trying to minimize the turnouts. I am not so sure if a "long" train on a "long" track would bore me. I think the outside loop is roughly 75 feet long (I am not on the computer with scarm), and I would be embarassed to tell you how long I can watch an engine and two cars drive around my (maybe 18 foot) test oval without getting bored. I am thinking I could watch this loop forever.

I forgot to mention, the minimum radius is the 24" at the top left. All others are larger (around 30").

My first post about this was a three peninsula with dobgones and a yard in the middle. I kindof got lambasted for that one. I will admit, I did the original thinking that it would be "better" as there would be no duck unders. I think people were concerned that I had no idea what I was doing and that I was wasting a lot of space. I will admit I am still in the former camp, but someone suggested a diagonal and I gravitated towards it since I could have a much larger yard and longer trains.

Maybe I should also mention again that I am not into operations. I like putting rolling stock in a yard and making a train and then having that train drive around for hours while I work on a new rolling stock. I do not follow any kind of rules or schedule or anything when making my train or getting it out of the yard. So, it may be that I am not thinking of 100 other things like the rest of the members are. I am not sure if that helps or matters towards a reasonable design. I am still interested in hearing what caveats you think the design has as some/most/all of them could still prove very useful in that I probably have not thought about them (the train only being able to turn around in one direction for example, slipped my mind).

Thank you very much for your input and comments, even though I am not in to operations, I do find them useful and thought provoking as I figure out what I am going to do with this basement.

Thanks for the specs.

The drawing shows 16' on the left but in a post you state 32'.

Thoughts:
- "duck-under" designs quickly become a pain
- as drawn you can only turn the train when it is going in one direction, not in the other. Unless you are willing to back the train through the reverse loop
- watching trains go around becomes boring for most folks. As drawn you only have two industry tracks inside the loop.

Have you considered a classic "dog-bone" or "folded dog-bone" design?

You also might consider a "dog bone" design spanning two levels with the lower level serving as your staging yard.

You have the room for a very good layout with 30" radius curves.

 

[dave1905]

Maybe I should also mention again that I am not into operations. I like putting rolling stock in a yard and making a train and then having that train drive around for hours while I work on a new rolling stock. I do not follow any kind of rules or schedule or anything when making my train or getting it out of the yard. So, it may be that I am not thinking of 100 other things like the rest of the members are. I am not sure if that helps or matters towards a reasonable design. I am still interested in hearing what caveats you think the design has as some/most/all of them could still prove very useful in that I probably have not thought about them (the train only being able to turn around in one direction for example, slipped my mind).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This is probably the most important information you have given us, want you want.

You need to decide if you want staging or not. I would suggest a double track loop, twice around the room. On the diagonal portion I would put a backdrop down the benchwork and put a double ended staging yard on the outside, and a switching yard on the inside. If you don't like the backdrop I would put the staging 4-6" below the level of the yard and climb up to the level of the switching yard.

On one of the peninsulas, at the base of the peninsula, build an X across the base, using the track on the peninsula as a pair of revers loops.

 

[wright2626]

number9, you may want to find where your original post and plan were at and provide a link to it here. i would, but i am not sure how to do it. think it would make more sense to those that are not sure about the rest of the story.

you could put another wye on the loop on the right side to get trains to turn either direction. not sure if the trolley running through town would be enjoyable in the space you have for the long run, unless you have something to stop and reverse it automatically. still, it is your railroad, and ultimately it has to make you happy. it is a good start for doing scenery, watching trains run. i also think that you have ample room to make a couple industrial areas for an additional short line to switch, if you decide to, at an additional time without too much reconstruction.

ducking under may eventually get old, what is your layout height at the bottom of the benchwork? keep that part in mind. if your layout is at 56 inches at the table top, you could be looking at 50 inches.

 

[fcwilt]

Hi Number9,

You say you are not interested in operations. When was the last time you had a large layout and how long did you have it?

If watching trains run is what you like you have the space for a much more interesting layout for that then just a large loop.

You might want to consider a plan that would allow running 4 or more trains at the same time.

You might want to consider a computer automated plan - it's quite interesting to watch multiple trains interact as the computer controls the routing, starting, stop, etc.

How about making an "up-to-date" drawing of your space?

 

[Lynnb]

Number9 are you interested in scenery, bridges , waterways etc? Or simply a flat top with lots of track?

 

[goscrewyourselves]

Number 9,

With the amount of available room you have, and not having an interest in operations, per se, I also think you could do a LOT more. As an example, and I run HO Scale, I have a 20" wide by 30" length on my layout in which I have 4 tracks (paralleled) and could have another 3 or 4 tracks (comfortably) if I didn't want scenery.

I don't want to be "negatively critical" but I think you have so much more potential with the size of available room. So, a few questions:

1. What do you use to design your track plan?
2. What type of track are you using?
3. Is this your first layout?
4. What is your main intention for your layout - rural, industry, town/city, combination of the a fore mentioned?
5. What is budget for the layout?

As I said, don't take this as being negative criticism, but knowing what you want can help us to help you get the most out of the area you have to work with.

Based on your specifications for the room, including the removed wall, here is what you have to work with:

This was done using SCARM

 

[goscrewyourselves]

Here is an example of what is possible with what you have:

And this is how much room it took up of the entire area:

I am no good at track planning, so ONLY take this as what you could do.

 

[wright2626]

http://www.modelrailroadforums.com/forum/showthread.php?35675-Need-thoughts-on-new-space

his original layout thread

 

[number9]

Dang, I am not being clear again: The room is over 32' down (so, 16' past my original drawing on the left), however, there are a lot of other objects in there that I don't want to move. It is hard to explain, but "under" the part where I said I could move the door and wall, there is another room with a workbench area. My idea is that the "staging" with the three tracks will pass right over the back of the workbench. In this way, I could work on engines or add lighting or work on cars and just drop them on the track right there. I can not actually make a large layout in the bottom area any more than about the three tracks without giving up other walls and workbenches.

In summary, below the bottom left of the original drawing I can add a few tracks along the wall. I can also extend out the turn, which I did in the drawing I sent. However, I am not in a position to give up more than that.

I will also try to answer the other questions here:

I have never had a "large" layout. 30 years ago a friend of mine and I shared his layout, which was three 4x8 sheets of ply in a large L. My personal largest was 4x8.

I could make an up to date of my space. Wombat457s is a start, the bottom now is stepped. There is a large opening for a few feet (where the curve is on my scarm layout) and then the space I can allow for a train to be in goes very narrow, like 12" wide over a workbench.

As for bridges, waterways, etc. I am sure we would "like" that, but I am certainly not experienced enough for that kind of building. I would also note that at this time, I have little budget for scenery or for more track. I have enough to build 90% of what is in the scarm outline I attached, but more than that would have to wait a few months. Of course, I will reiterate here, at this time I doubt my benchwork will get off the ground until at least after the holidays.

Number 9,

With the amount of available room you have, and not having an interest in operations, per se, I also think you could do a LOT more. As an example, and I run HO Scale, I have a 20" wide by 30" length on my layout in which I have 4 tracks (paralleled) and could have another 3 or 4 tracks (comfortably) if I didn't want scenery.

I don't want to be "negatively critical" but I think you have so much more potential with the size of available room. So, a few questions:

1. What do you use to design your track plan?
2. What type of track are you using?
3. Is this your first layout?
4. What is your main intention for your layout - rural, industry, town/city, combination of the a fore mentioned?
5. What is budget for the layout?

As I said, don't take this as being negative criticism, but knowing what you want can help us to help you get the most out of the area you have to work with.

Based on your specifications for the room, including the removed wall, here is what you have to work with:

This was done using SCARM

Wombat457s questions:

1) I use SCARM
2) Peco code 83. I already have 225' of flex and enough turnouts (6 & 8) to do 90% of the layout I posted.
3) this would be my first layout beyond a 4x8 sheet back in the 80s. :O
4) a small town with some industry and a trolly, two large rural areas (that would be the left wall and the top in between the curves), and a large yard. We like "modern" towns. All diesel.
5) Interesting question. I will admit I purchased enough lumber to build 2' wide benchwork under all the track you see, with large sections being where the trolly is, and in the large turns
(upper left and right, and lower left). I have most of the track, I have enough roadbed to go under the track. Scenery would come much later and we are OK with that. I think in rural areas it would be just that, like in between towns.

To the other poster, I am inclined to think I am not ready yet for more than one level. Sure we have the room for a lower and upper, but I can not afford it right now in terms of extra time and cash.

Almost forgot, the bench will probably be at 48" or so. I did not want it too high, unless I really should. I can probably make a new room drawing later on today.

 

[goscrewyourselves]

Number 9,

The bottom line here is that this is YOUR layout; therefore, you build it the way you want it, and the way that makes you happy with it. All we can do is make suggestions based on our experience, knowledge and, in my case, mistakes and regrets at not doing something etc. You have an area with so much potential, it would be a shame to limit yourself and not use that space to its best advantage.

What I will tell you as a virtual MUST DO, is to make sure you reach every part of your track work. Murphy's Law, if there is one part of your layout that you can't reach, that is where all of your problems will happen.

 

[number9]

Number 9,

The bottom line here is that this is YOUR layout; therefore, you build it the way you want it, and the way that makes you happy with it. All we can do is make suggestions based on our experience, knowledge and, in my case, mistakes and regrets at not doing something etc. You have an area with so much potential, it would be a shame to limit yourself and not use that space to its best advantage.

What I will tell you as a virtual MUST DO, is to make sure you reach every part of your track work. Murphy's Law, if there is one part of your layout that you can't reach, that is where all of your problems will happen.

I understand it is "my" layout, but it seems like a lot of people think it is wrong for some reason (are the reasons the duckunder and that I can do "more" with it?)... I would like to explore what is wrong with it to improve it before I build, but I will admit from my perspective people keep saying that I can do "more" and I am not sure what that means.

I would like to fix the problem of only one "loop". I am a little interested as to why when I first suggested my peninsula idea that was completelty wrong and when I introduced a very similar version of what you see now most comments were that it was a good first start but now it seems like the comments are mostly that I should do something else. I am assuming that I am missing something... is the diagonal wrong? People have noted that the trolly will not be visible, I will have to look again at how far away it will be. Someone noted the "staging" area that I have is not very useful, but I actaully thought the track above the workbench would be clever and highly useful, am I missing something there?

Thanks for the input.

 

[goscrewyourselves]

I understand it is "my" layout, but it seems like a lot of people think it is wrong for some reason (are the reasons the duckunder and that I can do "more" with it?)...

Personally, NO track plan is "wrong". What (I think) is happening is that some people model "operationally accurate" and, most likely, to them what you have is wrong, in terms of real life track layout for the purpose of realistic operations. IF you want a realistic track plan for realistic operations then you might be best advised to listen to those people and their opinions. On the other hand, IF you don't care about realistic operations, then those opinions will not apply to what you are wanting to achieve.

As for the inclusion of a duck under, I see nothing wrong with that and a lot of people have them, especially if it allows you to utilize the area you have available to you better. In other words, if you have an area of 10 square feet, having a duck under to where you can stand in the middle of that area allows you to use the majority of it for your track plan. As said, I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with having a duck under.

I would like to explore what is wrong with it to improve it before I build, but I will admit from my perspective people keep saying that I can do "more" and I am not sure what that means.

I can't speak for others but, where I am concerned, I think you can have more track, something a little more complex and interesting. A double track with sidings, spurs, staging areas and secondary lines to industry's such as a logging area or mining area etc. You have a huge area to work with that allows you to have a great deal more track work than you currently have. You could have a city with a station with two or three or four platforms and so on.

I understand that this is your first large layout, and having that much space and area can be daunting when it comes to a track plane. As someone said, you don't have to build the entire layout at once. Maybe break it up into smaller areas that will allow for expansion.

I would like to fix the problem of only one "loop". I am a little interested as to why when I first suggested my peninsula idea that was completelty wrong and when I introduced a very similar version of what you see now most comments were that it was a good first start but now it seems like the comments are mostly that I should do something else.

I can't comment on this as I have not seen your first track plan. As for having a Peninsula, again, I see nothing wrong with that either. In the real world there are peninsula's where lines end. However, at those areas, there is provision for the engine to be disconnected and run to the front of the cars to be reconnected to the train. You don't need a loop for that to happen by the way, just a long enough section of the track to allow you to uncouple your loco and run it to the end of the line, then come back to the other end of the train via a passing line. For a peninsula, what I have described is more realistic than having a loop.

I am assuming that I am missing something... is the diagonal wrong? People have noted that the trolly will not be visible, I will have to look again at how far away it will be. Someone noted the "staging" area that I have is not very useful, but I actaully thought the track above the workbench would be clever and highly useful, am I missing something there?

Thanks for the input.

As for the staging area, see m first point regarding realistic operations. That being said though, your staging area could be a little better laid out, with more track perhaps running parallel to the main line, but that is just my opinion and how I would do it.

Don't become dejected by some of the comments, just understand that there are two types of model railroaders (basically) those of us who model fictitious layouts, that probably wouldn't work in the real world, and those who model real world rail road principles and track plans. Both types of modeler will have two different thoughts on a track plan design that will probably be very very different to each other.

I guess after all of that I need to ask you if you would like more track work and something more complex and/or, if a track plan for the amount of area you have is just hard to envisage.