a musing about forum layout sizes

There's a fair amount of the gang that haunt my LHS on Friday nights that drop some serious coin on O Gauge that aren't part of the forum.

 

Rusty

I don't understand why you can't put 0-72 curves on a 22x22 layout. I have STD-87 and 0-72 on 13x13. Now, my layout is a pretty simple "racetrack" affair, but with 22 feet there should be room for 72" curves and still have some complexity, yards, grades, etc. You will have to make compromises, but if you want the capability to run big stuff, 22 feet square is enough to do it. You seem to have chosen a more complex operational capability at the price of not running the largest locomotives. That's a legitimate choice, but if you want to run the big iron I would think there would  be some way to add a loop of 0-72 somewhere - maybe another level? I chose simplicity and big curves, in part because I can run at a 50-foot club/museum layout and I wanted the ability to test run the big guys without hauling all the way across town to the museum. 

My 14x44' layout is getting 0138, 0128, and 0120 curves at the far end. This is in the unfinished half of the attic and will be "out of sight". Where there's a will, there's a way.

 

Not piling on but without looking at the track plan, I cannot understand why 072 would be off limits for a 22x22 layout.

Gilly

 I do most of my running on our club layout where the mains are generally anywhere from o110 - O130 and never go below O96.

 

I have an O72 loop in the planning stages for my home layout which is 8 X 21 but it is not installed yet

My tinplate layout is 12 by 26 around the walls.  I have one loop of 0-72 so I can run some of the prewar trains that require it.  My other two loops are 0-54.  I am planning a second layout in hi-rail.  With the space left the best I can do is 0-63 and 0-54.  This will force me into the RailKing Challenger which I can live with.

 

Al

 

My layout is only 8 x 12 but on the "ground level" there are two concentric loops with 0-72 track...although as Hiawatha stated, it's a simple "racetrack" configuration.

 

- Mike

I chose to limit myself to minimum of 048 on the upper and 060 on the lower in my on going rebuild. I do have some 072 in those levels, but the reason I did that limit is because I am tired of lift gates. I want to be able to walk around all over without fooling with them. Just me. If it takes more than that it will just join the rest of the shelf queens. I'll still enjoy it. I may be a odd ball here,,but I don't have to run it to enjoy it.

Larry

Two layouts. Postwar-style layout is 5x9 in one room, and "scale" layout is 4x12 in a spare bedroom. My "scale" layout uses Atlas o-36 curves, on two levels. All but one of the curves is hidden on the lower level, along with a long tunnel on the backside. My largest engine is a Warhorse Santa Fe hudson, and I run 60 ft. passenger cars. Looks fine with all the hidden curves.

 

There is enough product out there for any sized layout, and with a little imagination it can be made to look good on any sized layout. Obviously a big-boy requires a large layout with large curves. From what I've seen on the forum, most don't have the curves for it. O-72 really isn't big enough for it, but you'll see a lot of pictures of it on layouts here after it's released.

 

I do think engines like this are targeted at forum members. I think the price point is as well. There's a huge concensus here that bigger, more expensive, is better. It keeps the price point up,and that turns into a "what the market will bear" price structure. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. It does effect what the starter set prices are, and what is produced on the high end of the scale. Bigger, remote control, features, and sound, are the major topics on the forum, so Lionel cater's to that mindset on their top of the line stuff.

I was wondering the same thing guys. I don't know why you couldn't do an interesting layout in 072. The layout I'm building and the last layout aren't giant layouts and all curves are/were 072 or larger except for my short line RR. I do think 072 is not big enough for some of the larger engines out there. They will make it around but look silly to me on curves. My largest steamer is a scale Berkshire and I think the largest non-steam are a couple of MTH scale Joes. They look fine on 072. Don

Just a comment:  If the room area is 22' X 22"  wall to wall, then  the OP would be only able to build a "race track" platform layout; however, if he were to go around the wall on three sides by use of the letter "E", and run the  o72 track around the perimeter of the letter "E", he should be able to get a good size layout with a long run around the letter. Just a thought.  Dennis M.

 

My guess is it is a matter of priorities, and in a 22 ft. x 22 ft. layout, I would think you could work in at least one 0-72 section. Unless of course you have other considerations that will take a priority over this space. If it were me, I would try my best to be able to serve the wonderful 0-72 or greater equipment that is out there. My layout space is 23 ft. by 36 ft. and all all but two of my eight main lines handle 0-72 equipment. Again, this was a priority for me.

Our modular layout is O81 & O72 and measures 21X34.

 

My 6X16 home layout has O54 and O45.....a personal choice. It a control that keeps me from obtaining one of those behemoths. While I drool over the Big Boy's features, I can't help to think that eventually the technology and detail will appear in engines in smaller dimensions.

 

Peter

The PRR Panhandle's mainline has a standard maximum of O54, although I do have a curve that has a composite O54/O63.  The lead to the storage yard under the layout has an O72, but it's a sharp descent.

 

Locomotives have been chosen (or not chosen) based on their ability to navigate O54 curves.  I don't buy shelf queens.  My largest engine?  Lionel PRR M1a Mountain.

 

George

I'm all O36 right now, and my 1st layout plan was such.  But Once the wife said I could go around the room, I went up to O60 max.  Now with the BB coming, I may have to figure out how to shoe horn at least one O72 loop so I'm not running the BB on a carpet layout.

I agree with Brian.  I have 072 minimum curves everywhere on my layout and it was a major priority for me.  I also have a minimum of 36" wide aisles and no duck-unders. My layout is 20 foot wide by 65 long.  You can turn an 072 in 7 feet, so the you have to decide if it is important enough to devote that much space to it.  I wish I had gone with wider curves.  I do have 081 on my outside curves on all my double track mainline.

My  rectangular (approx 6x12) layout is primarily an o-27 inner yard with 0-42 and 0-27 turnouts. 
Fine for 0-4-0 and an occasional 0-6-0.

Outer loop is o-36 Fastrack which handles my larger stuff with  wheels up front that do not like the smaller switches.

Recently added an L extension that ends with a reversing loop.

Wracking my brain trying to figure out how to tie the inner A/D track to the now expanded outer loop. Finally figured out that using a sweeping o-72 curve was the perfect solution. Allows me to get inside to pick up consists and really looks nice and makes a smoother transition. No need to slow way down either.
Planning on looping my roundhouse/turntable with 0-72 and some custom re-formed o-78. And playing with some easements.

Curves alone don't define what locomotives can be run.  Clearance on the outside of those curves is important, too.  My layout is large by most any measure and the entire mainline is O72 or greater.  I cannot run a Big Boy however.  All of my clearances for tunnel portals, retaining walls, rock cliffs, etc. on the outside of curves were determined using a set of MTH PRR Centipedes.  Inside clearances were designed to clear a 20" passenger car. 

 

I model the Pennsy in the early 50's and can run anything the Pennsy ran at that time.  The clearances are too tight for a Big Boy.  We tried to run one for a friend once and the boiler front would wedge against the tunnel walls.  I'm sure the prototype Big Boy couldn't run on the real 1950's PRR either.

 

My tunnel entrances also have only 5 inches of vertical clearance.  This is plenty for 1950's equipment but things like modern double-stacks are out.

I have a 15' X 30' layout that goes around the walls. I also hate duckunders so I built a gate. I love the big engines so the layout is an over/under figure eight with 120" minimum curves. The gentle grades and broad curves make for reliable operation. I'm looking forward to the Big Boy.

My layout is 46' x 5' x 16' wide around the wall layout the 5' is out from the wall, the dreaded duck under.  I am using Gargraves 128 & 138 curves because I wanted to be covered if I changed my mind and went big steam.  I do run 2 Weaver 800 series CSS & SB's so I like the look with the wider curves.  I say as wide a radius as you can get.  Just me though.

Once I got away from island style layouts and went around the wall I never had anything less than 0-120 curves, primarily 0-144 and larger. 

 

Anytime you turn the running direction of a train 180 degrees it wastes too much real estate, IMO.

 

 

Many years ago I made the decision to go with O72 mains for the layout, but also used O54 for subways.  The "racetracks" are separate.  So now that I am moving from PA to MA, I am limiting the house hunt to a basement that will accommodate this size.  I also realize that going above O72 is desirable. 

I too made the mistake of an island layout, and plan on using as much around the wall with a peninsula return as possible.  I want a walk out basement style, so with that door and the stairs down, I have to find a way to "run around" yet stay on the walls.  I figure I can do this, but only with a larger footprint in a basement. 

 

So the house hunt is on.  Leaving a 54 foot long basement that was 22 feet wide.  Hard to replace that in MA without breaking the bank.  We'll see.

 

Back to the topic - minimum O72 is critical to me.  I would love to run larger, but not concerned if limited to 72.  It looks just fine, and I'm in this for the fun, not the perfection.  I have K-Line 21 inch PC's, and yup, they're cramped on 72's, but I can live with it.  I PLAY with these darn trains.  Let me have fun and stop counting my rivets, please?

Peace to all.

I just erected an 11" X 14" around the wall layout (on three sides, fourth side adjoins a hallway). My outer loop is 0-99 with inner passing sidings with 0-90, &  0-72 curves leading to an engine house facility. I do have one half 0-72 curve on my innermost passing siding. 

With nearly 40' x 50', most here would think that I would have super wide curves (O120 or better) on my layout. But that's just not the case. In order to fit as much track as I have into the space, I have gone with O72 minimum on the mainlines, with some as wide as O96.

 

Because when I designed the layout, I had no real interest in steam engines, I didn't leave enough space between tracks or next to walls on curves. Furthermore, the really large engines didn't even exist until it was too late to make changes.

 

I now own a Big Boy and a Challenger. The Big Boy may never run, too many clearance problems. The Challenger will see action, but will not be able to run on all sections of the layout.

OK, to be clear I certainly could have done O72 in the space I have, but, I mentioned, it would have prevented me from doing some of the things I wanted to do (e.g. Sufficient loops to be able to have three trains running at the same time, but with the ability to run a given train anywhere on the layout). It is for that reason I do not have reversing loops.   They would take too much space.  I have one way operation, but I have alternate routes and passing sidings And two yards. 

 

I am am happy with what I have. 

 

Track plan can be found here. 

Shaking my head... just speaks volumes that folks here worry about even when they talk trains, their posts might be "moderated" into the proverbial bit bucket.  Very sad. 

 

David

Yes folks, as great a community as we have here on this forum, I too have discovered that it doesn't begin to scratch the surface of folks participating in the hobby as a whole.

 

When my wife and I gave York the full weekend treatment at a local B&B, for years I was the only one at the breakfast table (of perhaps 7-8 couples) who was on this forum.

 

Still a lot of folks out there to reach!!!

 

David

Forrest, your layout looks mighty nice.  And as you indicated, you had a bunch of criteria to include and are happy with the results.  That's VERY important.

 

For anyone "starting" to plan a new layout, I'd definitely write down a list of things that are important to them.  Then prioritize wants/desires in the list.  Don't rush to run out and purchase and cut lumber!  Make a few track plans... maybe even post them here on the forum to get feedback from others -- whether the layout is big or small.

 

I've seen absolutely FABULOUS O-Gauge layouts created in relatively small spaces.  Lots of layout techniques can be used to "compress" the action into smaller real estate footprints than you'd ever first imagine.  Look at some of the stuff posted online by layout designers -- TrainWorx is one great example.  Dunham Studios is another.  These companies have done large and small layouts in a wide variety of designs... and they all look superb!!!  There are some great layout-building and scenery techniques that make this all possible.  (It's no small irony that some of the great custom layout builders have also spent time with Broadway set design/construction!!!)

 

Certainly a lot of considerations go into a layout design.  Some folks want to run LOTS of trains simultaneously.  Others are happy to have a single-track mainline with a broad variety of industries packed into their railroad real estate to accommodate realistic railroad "operating sessions".  Lots of factors to consider.

 

But yes... if running articulated steam locomotives, full scale-length 80' passenger cars, and the likes of 89' auto carriers all rank HIGH on your list of "must have criteria", then we're talking lots of real estate to support curves where these monsters look "at home".

 

Don't take this the wrong way... but I've pretty much come to the conclusion that even O-72 doesn't cut it for the larger full-scale products that the importers are giving us these days.  My initial space that I had planned for a hi-rail layout ended up going towards a MUCH different Standard Gauge layout (approx. 10' x 28' island design), once my O-Gauge interests trended toward the larger full-scale rolling stock.  I now have two layout designs I'm considering for the "grand" O-Gauge layout  -- one I posted some time ago here on the forum, and an alternate slightly smaller design.  Yes, reality always seems to rear its ugly head even when we have the luxury of starting from scratch!!!     But whichever option wins out in the end, I hope to be happy with the result, 'cause I'm attempting to factor in LOTS of design elements and feedback BEFORE cutting the first piece of lumber. 

 

David 

 

 

P.S.  Oops!!!  Forgot to mention that with my two new O-Gauge layout designs, they both feature a double-track mainline with O-99 and O-108 curves minimum... and the larger design has several areas with extremely broad-sweeping curves for great visual effect -- especially when running passenger trains containing 10-12 full-scale-length (21") cars, like the Atlas-O California Zephyr or some GGD consists.  The larger articulated steamers should look right at home on those sections of the layout as well. 

I'd do whatever it takes to go with the "broad sweeping curves": I don't think even 108" curves really do it that well with big, scale articulated steamers.  I tested some 108", thinking if it really made a difference I would tear up one end of my layout and use that or try flextrack to go 112" (as broad as possible on my layout).  It cuts down the boiler stick-out by over a third compared to 72", but a reduction in a scale Big Boy's stick-out was from 3.5 inches to about 2.25 inches still looks ridiculous, if just a bit less ridiculous.  

 

I have concluded that the only way (for me at least) would be to lay out the whole track configuration so that I just can't see the loco well going around the 72" parts of the loop, and where I can see it, I have 200"+ curves that reduce that 3.5 inches to no more than one.  I could do that, but it would mean tearing up the layout and starting over, and I'd have to sacrifice one entire track loop - running just two not three train loops and a lot less 'Streets, too . . . that's not going to happen - as you say its a matter of priorities.

this post is one clue as to why more don't participate on the forum...rob

I've got a 22ft X 22 ft room and used 081 curves on my layout with the smallest curve being 063.  Why can't you use 072 curves in a room your size?

I don't think it's the curves that are the perceived liming factor -- it's the total available area and how the clearances for those curves affect what can be done in the remaining square footage. Around-the-walls makes the most sense when broad curves come into play, but then you have to deal with duckunders or engineering in gates or liftable sections, as well as figuring out how to work with the new limitation of a center aisle. It can be done, but it does get challenging.

 

I've been waiting for the better part of 10 years to finally get into a good "basement with a house on top," and saw a lot of places with cramped basements (or attics). I want something more than just a pure "racetrack" loop -- something with room for at least a small stub yard and adequate room to place a spur or two and industrial sidings to allow for switching and transfers. All the little things that add operating interest can take up some significant real estate and they get harder to fit into a too-narrow or compact and square space without getting squeezed for clearance somewhere.

 

What I finally wound up with was a generously-sized ranch house with a full basement (about 1400 sq. feet of basement) which in New England is like finding hens' teeth for any sort of reasonable price. Not all of it can be for trains, at least not at first, but the "Phase 1" area is about 20 feet by 14 feet in an irregular shape; basically two interlocking rectangles of area. The shape works out to be an advantage for an around-the-wall layout. The natural "jog" in the wall will create a place for a sweeping curve and provide some visual blocking to break up the area, and the other side will work out into the rest of the open basement on a peninsula, which can be expanded in later phases. There will likely be a gate or hinge-up bridge, but that's not a bad thing to me. Honestly, the first thing I thought when I saw the basement arrangement was that this area would be the best place to start an interesting layout. Adequate room plus an irregular shape would make for more opportunities in design.

 

So the real issue might be less of size limitations, but how the space can both be accessed as well as broken up to make the most of it. It's tough to find a good, workable space sometimes.

I started out using o36 and o48 fastrack on my layout and have recently expanded to using o72 and o60 on the main loops. But in order to fit the number of tracks I want into the yard space I have to use some o36 curves. Its not a problem because all my trains will negotiate o36 but I have many long cars that would look better on wider curves. I accept this limitation as necessary to achieve my goals on the layout.

Of course, once the attic layout is up and running you'll have access to running big curves there too!

 

Gilly

My layout is oddly shaped and tiny. My largest curve is O31 and that is the biggest I can accommodate in my hallway/walk in closet/office space in my Manhatten Apt.  Yes my eyes are bigger than my space and I have a larger roster than I can accommodate in both volume and length.

My layout developed (I won't say "was designed") as a backwards L, but my largest curve was O-54, until I bought the JLC Challenger in 2000. Then I reconfigured the outside loop to be O-72 all around. I can run the Challenger now, but it certainly swings out on the turns. The room won't allow anything larger in the way of a curve.

 

 

 

An often overlooked layout design concept is to use min. required radius, but hide them from view. Use broader more appealing curves where visible. It allows you to pack the most into a relatively tight space, but not have to look at the tighter curves. If that bothers you. Some people don't mind, others do. Personal preference...

 

By taking this approach you also breakup the monotony of watching the trains the repeat themselves the whole time. John Armstrong was a big proponent of this concept. Even his relatively small layout designs had the trains appearing and disappearing like "actors on a stage".

 

Something to consider anyways...

I think design considerations are simply based on available space as layouts conform to space available, and normally houses don't conform to ideal standards for curvature, or other aspects of the many considerations that go into a design. in the past, I recall the outside diameter of the layout was a sort of standard measurement and with the advent of mega-engines, it seems for some, it is curvature radius, however, I would think most layouts are more modest but just as interesting..some of the smaller layouts in the recent issue of OGR were  intriguing. At another publication, I have been surprised that until recently, quite a few of the layout designs offered were fairly large spaghetti bowls that brings up another consideration is cost..although recently more modest and doable layouts have been featured..A smaller layout that is well done is just as impressive to me as a large one as it's my view that quality precedes quantity. One thing I noticed is in the larger layouts, you really have to eyeball it to see the scope of details, something that is easier to appreciate in a smaller layout..in particular to visitors.

Our layout is 26' long, 17' wide on the east end, and 14' wide on the west end, and we have a minimum of 072 curves everywhere. With most of the curves being 080, a few 089, and some bigger custom curves we made using flex track.

 

I think it's just a matter of designing the right type of track plan that suits your priorities. With a 22x22 space, I wouldn't use anything less than 072 for your mainlines.

When I built my layout over 20 years ago, I had 6 loops, one of which was 072. Unfortunately, as time went on, just about every engine I purchased required a min. of 072 curves.

 

About 12 years ago I bit the bullet and redid the layout to 4 072 loops.

 

If you are running scale stuff, it's not only the big articulated engines that require 072 curves, it's many other engines.

 

I think every one of my Pennsy engines, Q2, S1, S2, T1's, J1a, Centipede, require 072 curves. Even my PRR streamlined Pacific needs 072 curves because of the shroud around the pilot wheels.

 

Even my NYC Hudsons require 072 curves because they all have the PT centipede tenders.