Skip to main content

157 replies

Almost Ready To Begin Construction

DoubleDAZDoubleDAZOGR Forum Member DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER

After spending half of last year and this year traveling some 35,000 miles in our Prius, I'm back from hiatus. Our daughter/granddaughter moved out in late July, so I'm almost to the point where I can start construction on a layout. The remaining obstacle is installation of tile and plans are for that to be done before Christmas. However, since the benchwork is going to be done in 7 modules and the final layout will have to fit the benchwork regardless of how it changes, I should be starting those after Thanksgiving.

About a year and half ago or so I thought I would have a 10x21 bedroom for an around the room layout. However, before they even moved out, that was switched to a 12x14 bedroom. Unfortunately, life means compromise and after a lot of discussion, I reluctantly agreed to half of the original bedroom, a final space of 10x12 enclosed by 3 walls. My goal has always been to build nothing more than a display layout, so I've chosen a tight horseshoe with a removable (lift-out, lift-up or drop-down) section for entry, no ducking under. I say "tight" because I'm only planning a 2' wide walk-in space and I don't really intend to use that unless there are problems.

As I mentioned, it's a display layout, for the trains as well as our Bedford Falls Collection from "It's A Wonderful Life". I enjoy just sitting watching trains run and have no interest in switching. I've always wanted to run 4 trains and the attached design will let me do that....with a slight twist, that being the hidden siding. Basically, there are 3 ovals on different levels, the mid level might end up being just a partial 3% rise of 3". The hidden siding will let me have 1 train go into the tunnel and a 2nd come out. Or I can have 1 go in one direction and the other in the opposite direction. In any event, the top train will run clockwise, the middle train counter-clockwise and the outer trains in both directions.

I realize the siding involves a hidden turnout, but the plan is for the top level to be split into 2 parts; one for the train and another for the town. The town will be further divided into removable sections for access to parts of the hidden siding with 1 dedicated to the turnout area. Due to the limited space, I gave up trying to connect all 3 ovals or include reversing loops.

The biggest problem is I have no idea what to do about landscaping other than sheer cliffs and a bridge/pylons to hold up part of the top level. Looking at the photo, I see I can rearrange the tunnel entrances in the upper left to make it look more like the siding goes toward the center of the layout vs the way it's pictured now.I see I could also probably shrink the middle oval to move the hidden turnout further to the left in the open. FWIW, the top level is at 9" to clear the middle level at 3". I haven't decided if I'll use 1x3's with 1/2" plywood or 1x4's with 3/4" plywood covered with sound deadening board.

The design uses Atlas track, mostly for flex-track to ease straights, but I'm not opposed to suggestions there too. With only 4 turnouts, and 2 of those are really just dummies, I'm not too concerned about which brand track I use as long as similar ovals fit. 

Anyway, I'm open to any and all suggestions, including a complete redesign if it meets my goals of multiple unattended trains, multiple levels and Bedford Falls.

Attachments

Hide
Images (2)
  • Atlas
  • Atlas3D
Last edited by DoubleDAZ
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

DoubleDAZDoubleDAZOGR Forum Member DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER

Thanks, rtr12, it's going to take some time to catch up with what everyone has been doing. It's nice to finally be able to move forward, even though things have been pared down considerably. I guess the main point is that something is finally going to get built in 2016. Given our travel schedule though, the goal is pretty lenient - to have tracks/village up by next Thanksgiving.

 

Last edited by DoubleDAZ
DoubleDAZDoubleDAZOGR Forum Member DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER
Jan,
 
Sorry, I usually include such data, but for some reason neglected to do so this time.
 
I intend to have a maximum of 5 locomotives, I’m not a collector, and all will be MTH RailKing rated for O-31 curves. I already have the 2012 Christmas 4-6-0 steamer passenger set that I’ve used the past 2 years with a simple oval on an 8x8 Christmas display of our Bedford Falls village. I intend to run it on the top oval during the holidays and want to add a 4-4-0 steamer passenger set to run the rest of the year. The outer bottom oval will get 2 diesels so I can use the hidden siding to switch between them, and the middle oval will get a 3rd diesel. I’m not concerned about overhang except for clearance on curves and I’m not concerned about the fact that the 4-4-0 didn’t run during the same era as diesels, I pick locomotives strictly for an appearance I like.
 
The current design uses O-45 Atlas curves, but that might change depending on my final choice of track and brands are limited to those with flex-track. I’d prefer ScaleTrax, but they don’t have a size between O-31 and O-54. If they offered an O-42/O-45, ScaleTrax would be my choice for its appearance. With only 2 functional turnouts, I’m not contemplating Ross switches. In fact, I may modify the 2 non-functional turnouts by cutting up a curve to mount close to a straight to mimic a turnout without the ability to actually switch. As I said, I have no desire to do any switching other than the siding, or reversing loops if I could fit them in. Chances are though that I’ll use real turnouts because they both run straight as opposed through the curved rails.
 
FWIW, the lengths of my trains will probably be limited to 5 passenger cars and whatever number of other cars fit a similar length. The Bedford Falls train will be 3 cars plus the locomotive and tender. I still intend to play with both O-31 and O-54 ScaleTrax curves and also curves that are eased using multiple sizes, like O54-O45-O31-O31-O45-O54 (or whatever sizes work). I run my trains fairly slow, so I’m not too worried about a lot of problems with slow short trains and I’ll have easy access to the turnouts even if all are functional.
 
When it comes to the center, I might overhang the tabletops by 6” thus reducing the center to 3x3 or 3x3.5. At a minimum, I’ll probably fill in the corners. On my 8x8 two-level (buildings only) Christmas layout, I had no problem reaching buildings in the center to replace lights, etc. I could use pop-outs for access, but I don’t want to duck under. Since any overhang in the center will only hold landscaping, I can easily make them removable. All the buildings will also be on removable platforms. One of the things I intend to do when we pull out the village for Christmas in a couple of weeks is draw an outline of each building on paper, so I can cut them out and use as templates. I also intend to cut out track templates, so I can set all this up on the floor to see how it’s going to look. Since I have some RealTrax and hope I can make it quieter, I’m redrawing the design using O-42 curves.
 
As far as the access goes, I envision the bridge being removable and the area below it being two 2x2.5 sections that can be removed rather than a drop-down. Looking at it just now, I think a 2x5 section might be a little hard for 1 person to drop down and raise back up. Truth be told, I don’t intend to operate from the center, so I think I only need 18” for access and could probably squeeze through with just 12”.
 
My main goal right now is to see if anyone has suggestions to make things better and still meet my goal of running 3 unattended trains on multiple levels. I’m not opposed to a completely different style benchwork either. I just don’t know what else to do with a 10x12 space, though maybe I should look through the layout books I have again. This design it something I did when I thought I was getting a 12x13 room and I just shrunk it a bit to fit the new space.

 

Last edited by DoubleDAZ
72blackbird72blackbirdOGR Forum Member

A nice design, but I see alot of access issues. When people design a layout they assume that they can let the trains run with little or no attention, but that often leads to derailments or worse. A popped coupler can cause collisions, especially when two trains share the same track. It may seem unlikely, but it does happen.

 

The lack of open aisle into the center will make access problematic as you get older- wheelchair access is non existent. Please don't take this negatively, but I see it as planning for long term use, not as a layout that has to be demolished because of a change in our mobility. My 80 year-old father is in a wheelchair now after a stroke, so it changed how I look at any access to any room. Your benchwork can reduced to give more access, and good scenery will always draw people's attention away from less real estate.

 

Your design seems to place the viewer/operator on the one open side of your layout, which is fine if that's your goal. But a more open viewing area in the center would not only be more inviting to visitors, but also give your layout multiple vantage points, and make access, maintenance, and doing scenery far easier. A town, and the depth made by buildings next to each other, can also be established visually by backdrops- you mention you layout is set against three walls, so backdrops would make the layout seem larger too.

JMO,

Geno

 

 

 

DoubleDAZDoubleDAZOGR Forum Member DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER
All good points, Geno, though there is some humor in saying “A nice design, but.......”.
 
I would much prefer an open horseshoe design. The underlying benchwork is an open horseshoe with 4x4 sections out front and 30” wide sections around the 3 walls. I planned on a 6” overhang out front and around the walls leaving me a 24” wide path for access to a 4x4 center. I just don’t see how I can get a larger opening with only a 10’ width to work with, though I do recall Jim Barrett’s article in issue 273 on how to build a removable section to accommodate 3 levels and deep valley. However, I really don’t want to be confined to a 4x4 operating area in the center anyway. I was even planning to add 6” drop drops downs to the opening, but only for added landscape space, not for tracks.
 
I haven’t settled on a final height, but your comment about a wheelchair makes me think I might want the layout low enough to view from a seated position. Right now, the design calls for the table top to be at 33”. I can’t do much about the 24” opening unless I do something like Jim did.
 
FWIW, at one point over the past 2 years, I played with a horseshoe design, though it was larger and I nixed it because it still required O-31 curves with all I was trying to fit in. I started with a single-line O-42/O-45 dog bone running around the perimeter. I then added an O-31 dog bone (or loop-to-loop) to a 2nd level. Initially, I thought about pushing the upper level against the walls, but I figured that would really make access to lower level tracks too difficult. However, now you’ve got me thinking. Maybe I could make it a mountain of sorts in the middle of the lower level. Rather than cover the lower level tracks with hard-cast mountain landscaping, I could simply add a mountain-themed backdrop to the upper level to hide the lower level tracks running along the walls. At the time, I was trying to add reversing loops, have 3 levels and connect them to each other. You’re mentioning running 2 trains on the same track now has me thinking I might be able to do just that using only 2 levels. I wouldn’t be able to run 3 trains unattended, but I could still run 2 for display purposes and manage 2 others by adding passing sidings on each level, if there’s room.
 
Initially, I thought the 10’ and 12’ runs were too short for 2 trains, but now that you’ve enticed me to think about it a little more, I see that by using dog bones each half would actually be more like 20’ and probably more than enough room for my relatively short trains. I could probably cover the O-31 curves with removable tunnels and maybe even add a figure 8 for more interest. Such a design would still meet my goal of having trains go over/under each other and allow me to stay within my 5-locomotive budget. It probably wouldn’t let me add all our Bedford Falls collection, but I could always display the excess on shelves around the room.
 
So, I guess it’s back to the drawing board to see if I can make something like that work to my liking.
rtr12rtr12OGR Forum Member SUPPORTING MEMBERDIGITAL SUBSCRIBER

Since you are headed back to the drawing board anyway, maybe a little more food for thought about table height here (and what I ended up doing).

 

I am not good at track plans, but the 33" table top height might be a problem if you ever need to get under the layout to work on the wiring or other items. It's only gonna get harder from here on out as we get older (I'm there already, and a bit prematurely I might add, IMO anyway). Top height for viewing from a chair would be nice, but also a problem when you need to get under it. I went with 40" to the top (Mianne's standard height) and while it's ok, I sort of wish I would have gone a couple inches higher.

 

Crawling under a table is out of the question for me, just can't do it anymore due to knee, hip and back. I had to have something higher that I could get under. I ended up getting a mechanic's stool. With that, I can roll around under there for about 15 min. or so at a time, then I have to come out and remove the kinks for a while. I'm not very tall, only 5'-9" and I have to duck a little to go under the cross braces. It's workable at 40", but not having to duck would be better (I forget every once in a while).

 

Another concern was that my grandson is still a little short for a 40" layout top. I got him a couple of stools that he uses to gain access to the inner parts of the layout that he can't reach. He just grabs a stool and away he goes. He has no problems running around under it either, gets around like a monkey under there. If I have something to do under there that is not urgent, I sometimes wait for him, he always asks if we need to do anything under there. I think he actually likes it, especially since I added the string of really bright LED lights.

 

Anyway, just some thoughts...

 

 

72blackbird72blackbirdOGR Forum Member

Dave,

You're fortunate to have a permanent spot to set up your layout- my second attempt a layout is in the same 20 x 20 family room, but more of a modular, around- the- walls design that can be broken down and moved if my wife wants to use the room. My last attempt was an L-shaped dogbone design with 072 and 080 curves- it took up so much of the room, my wife ordered me to take it down. It was only up for less than 2 two years, but admittedly I saw the issue with such a design- it limited the family room to trains only, and wasn't a fair use of such a large space.

 

A few years after layout 1.0 came down, we bought a 70" TV and I built a floating cabinet to hold the electronics, DVDs, etc. under it. Other than her organ, a couch and recliner, and a desk with cabinet over it, the room remains open for most part- we hold Bible study in the room as well, so it can hold up to 25-30 people. I built a 16 x 72 module that fits like a cap over the floating TV cabinet and I have a number of 24 x 72 and 24 x 48 modules that I set up around the room- height is currently at 40", but I can always change that with the legs. The door to this room is in a corner- I plan to build some type of hinged bridge to allow open access to the room.

 

I also want more than one level- you'd think a modular layout would be limited here, but with 20' runs I can connect the upper to lower levels with a single track grade running under the modules. My lower level would only be 12" lower, but that's enough for a staging yard. Ultimately you design your layout to fit the room, but everyone also has different design requirements. Smaller spaces make for more of a challenge, but I think you could still incorporate your Bedford falls buildings with some creative positioning of the city heights.

 

Geno

 

 

Last edited by 72blackbird
M MoonmanOGR Forum Member

Good to hear from you, DAZ!

 

here's a thought..why not support the entire upper level with 1" or larger dowels with a small base at the bottom and screw the deck from the top. Paint them concrete or rust color.

 

This would leave the lower level open to full view.

 

Since it is a display layout, it can be more abstract and fun! Of course, the requisite cliffs\tunnel would need to be somewhere.

DoubleDAZDoubleDAZOGR Forum Member DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER

rtr12, that is a very good point and something I've been wrestling with. Even though I can still do it, I hate crawling under too and extra space would certainly be welcome. I really only used 33" for the 3D view of the benchwork and I'm now working on a more realistic design. I've never paid much attention to benchwork because all I've had are tabletop layouts.

 

If I change the plan to an open horseshoe, I could always build at 40"-48" and build a ramp in the center if a wheelchair becomes a reality. We'll be getting a portable table out next week for Thanksgiving and I'll play with some different heights.

 

The one thing that concerns me is access to the tracks that will be around the 3 walls. If I put the bottom level too high, I might have problems reaching over the top level to fix derailments, etc.

 

I'll be posting a benchwork design soon to get feedback on it. Regardless of the track design I settle on, the benchwork is pretty much set.

DoubleDAZDoubleDAZOGR Forum Member DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER

Geno, I think you're right about the Bedford Falls buildings, but it's hard for me to envision in RR-Track. I'm not talking about 5-6 buildings, there are at least 30 in there and probably more. Like I said, I'll be taking some measurements when we set things up for Christmas and then add some filled boxes in the software to see how things might be arranged. Once I see if I can actually design something for the open horseshoe, I'll be see how things light be arranged. The design I posted had most on the top level, but I think I need to adjust my thinking and just place things throughout the layout strictly for display purposes vice a destination point. Who knows? Once I actually build the benchwork, I might see things completely different. I'm more used to HO when the height requirements for over/under operation is significantly less and it's hard to see in 2D just want I can/can't do. I was going to use tabletops for the 2 levels, but now I'm thinking open-girder might be better. Like you say, if I vary building heights, etc. I can probably get a lot more items in than a think.

DoubleDAZDoubleDAZOGR Forum Member DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER

Thanks, it's good to be back and active again, moonman. That is a pretty darned good idea. Instead of integrating both levels, I could have 2 completely separate levels, a Bedford Falls town on the bottom and a mountaintop town above. If I use O-42/O-45 on the bottom and then go with O-31 on the top. I could vary the sizes for visibility. That would let me use simply tabletop benchwork. Assuming that's what you mean, I'll play with that idea.

DoubleDAZDoubleDAZOGR Forum Member DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER

Thanks, E-UNIT-79. I was hoping for some good feedback and I'm sure getting it. I have no problem at all going back to the drawing board. At least this time around, I now know what space I have to work with. If I had more space, I'd definitely go with L-girder, but I think tabletop might work for me, especially if I change the large dowels moonman mentioned to hollow posts to run wires, etc., to the bottom level. And the best part is that this time around something will get built, so I'm not just designing wishful thinking. Plus, I can design in the post and then design the bottom level without considering the top level as long as I split them enough height-wise.

DoubleDAZDoubleDAZOGR Forum Member DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER

Carl, thanks for the link, plenty to think about there. Believe it or not, but I had a 3-level layout at one point very similar to that. I think I was working with a 12x13 space at the time, but limited myself to O-31/O-54 RealTrax. I got quite a bit of negative feedback because when you shrink that much down to 12x13, things get kind of crowded, leaves less room for entry and little room for scenery. I also didn't separate the levels near as much, 11" would require quite a grade in a 10x12 space. At the time, folks also didn't like my using O-31, but there doesn't seem to be as much resistance to tighter curves these days. I've been trying to keep my grades to 3%, but I'm not sure that I couldn't go up to as much as 5% given the size trains I plan to run. I understand that people don't like O-31 curves or grades above 3% and would "settle" for less track. I try to get as much track in as possible, too often totally ignoring the landscape. To be quite honest, if I could build a layout with no buildings, I'd be happy. Towns would be simple backdrops hung on the walls. However, I think the 2-level dog bone idea might let me have some Bedford Falls buildings on the lower level placed toward the outer tracks and more buildings scattered on multiple heights on the upper level. Raising the upper level as much as 11", like jhainer did, should allow visibility of those buildings and provide access to the track along the walls.

rtr12rtr12OGR Forum Member SUPPORTING MEMBERDIGITAL SUBSCRIBER
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ:

rtr12, that is a very good point and something I've been wrestling with. Even though I can still do it, I hate crawling under too and extra space would certainly be welcome. I really only used 33" for the 3D view of the benchwork and I'm now working on a more realistic design. I've never paid much attention to benchwork because all I've had are tabletop layouts.

 

If I change the plan to an open horseshoe, I could always build at 40"-48" and build a ramp in the center if a wheelchair becomes a reality. We'll be getting a portable table out next week for Thanksgiving and I'll play with some different heights.

 

The one thing that concerns me is access to the tracks that will be around the 3 walls. If I put the bottom level too high, I might have problems reaching over the top level to fix derailments, etc.

 

I'll be posting a benchwork design soon to get feedback on it. Regardless of the track design I settle on, the benchwork is pretty much set.

If I have something to do under my layout it is sometimes a good excuse to procrastinate, even though I can do it for a while with my mechanic's stool. I find it a lot more fun to work on things that are easily accessible and those things always get higher priority on the list.

 

As for the reach, I ended up with a 6'x16' table (40" to top) to start with. I can reach the center of the table, but it's a bit of a stretch. Looks like you may have a bit more of a reach than I do? Anyway, after getting the stools for my grandson, I ended up trying them out myself for things in the center of the table. They work well, extends my reach and makes getting to the center much more comfortable.

 

I like some of the suggestions others have made to you here about multiple levels, I am thinking about trying to add some in my expansions and revisions for the next phase. I have made a few plans, but can't make up my mind? None of them seem to be just the right plan. Now, if I could only come up with that perfect plan...

 

I try to watch all the planning threads around here. And I will be following along here to see how you progress. I'm sure you will come up with something interesting.

DoubleDAZDoubleDAZOGR Forum Member DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER
Base on suggestions from Moonman, Tom Tee and others in multiple threads, I decided to try something different with an “open” horseshoe for the layout in my 10x12 space enclosed by 3 walls. Again, my goal is a tri-level “display” layout for our Bedford Collection of buildings (not concerned about scale) with the ability to run 3 trains unattended and a 4th “hidden” train. The 3 levels consist of pretty simple dog bones using Atlas track. Level 1 uses O-45 curves and has a hidden siding with O-72 turnouts. Level 2 and 3 use O-36 curves and Level 2 has an over/under with a 3.8% grade. All my engines and rolling stock will be MTH RailKing rated for O-31 curves and trains will consist of an engine with 5 or so cars. As you can tell, I’m not concerned with the appearance of engine overhang other than track spacing and I run my trains fairly slow, much slower than I see in a lot of You Tube videos.The design currently has Level 1 at 34”, Level 2 rising to 41” and Level 3 at 49”. It’s all a rough design pending feedback. I can already guess that many/most won’t like the 3rd level because it hides a lot of track against the 3 walls. My idea there is to build the first 2 levels and see how they operate before adding level 3. If I run into a lot of trouble with the back tracks, I’ll either scrap Level 3 or simply raise it higher.
 
Photo 1 shows a rough benchwork design using L-girder 1x3’s or 2x4’s along the walls with a series of 32” square L-girder frames held up by 9 legs. The legs will be either more L-girders or 2x4’s. Levels 2 and 3 will also be supported along the walls and then there will be 2 “riser” assemblies comprised of a leg and some cantilevered wings for each level. When I was talking with Tom Tee, I considered using variations of the cantilevers he’s used to avoid legs, but 2 of the walls are Integra block construction and don’t really want to anchor into that, so the whole benchwork framing might end up being supported by legs as I had originally planned and only anchored to the 2x4 studs on the bottom inside wall. Based on the experience with 1x3’s and 1” thick foam boards for my 8x8 Christmas layouts the past 2 years, I’m still considering 1x3’s with 1/2” plywood covered by sound-deadening board.
 
Photo 2 shows Level 1. As you can see, it’s a standard tabletop and is pretty self-explanatory.
 
Photo 3 adds the over/under rise to Level 2. The tabletop here is just to support a few of the buildings and the section behind the buildings will probably be cutout for access to the tracks below. The tabletop will be supported by L-girders along the sides and then a pair of cantilevered brackets as shown in Photo 1. Right now the support for the brackets extend to the floor through Level 1, but if I use 3/4” plywood on Level 1, they might just sit on top of Level 1 instead of going through to the floor. Using 3/4” for Level 1 would minimize the number of “legs” beneath the layouts, so I will probably use 3/4” for Level 1 and 1/2” for Levels 2 and 3.
 
Photo 4 adds Level 3. It hides the 2 turnouts, but they’re right where the curves on Level 3 end and the platform for Level 2 begins, so I should be able to access them if I need to. I might make that section of Level 3 a removable module. In fact, Levels 2 and 3 might be comprised entirely of removable modules. In that regard, I’m not a landscape modeler, etc., so my idea for landscaping is just a series of cloth drapes simulating a sheer cliff between the levels, kind of like the landscaping around the city of Kanab UT and what I do with the white batting to simulate snow-covered landscape on my Christmas layout. The other alternative is a completely open layout kind of like that in the video of the 6x12 layout that was recently posted in the “O and S gauge layout together” thread. No matter how things work out, the main thing here is that whatever I end up with will have to fit the space defined by the Level 1 benchwork.
 
Photo 5 shows RR-Track’s idea of a 3D view, pretty lame compared to SCARM.
 
Ok, that’s it. I look forward to getting some feedback. This exercise was mostly to see what I could do with the open horseshoe vs the closed horseshoe I originally posted.
NOTE: Sorry about the notes in the photos, I forgot to crop those out.

Attachments

Hide
Images (5)
  • layout benchwork
  • layout level 1
  • layout level 2 added
  • layout level 3 added
  • layout
Last edited by DoubleDAZ
DoubleDAZDoubleDAZOGR Forum Member DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER

You know, Carl, at one point I had a loop-to-loop on Level 3, but it was when it was going to be quite a bit higher up to provide full access to Levels 1&2 along that back wall. Being completely separate at the point, I decided to turn it in to a dogbone and save the cost and hassle of turnouts because it would have been near eye-level and hard to reach without a stool. Once I lowered it and shortened the dogbone so the "balloons" didn't completely cover Level 1, I looked at it a couple of times, but never checked prices, etc. I also thought about running 2 shorts trains on that level, but I do like the idea of being able to display more buildings along that back wall and making it just a Bedford Falls passenger train route for the old-style 4-4-0 western train I plan to buy. That way I could probably leave buildings off the raised section of Level 2 and work in some better access to those hidden tracks below it.

DoubleDAZDoubleDAZOGR Forum Member DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER

Car, I made the change and really like it. I also replaced the O-36 curves in the corners with O-54's and found that by adding just a bit of real estate to the tabletop, I'll have more room in which to set buildings, etc. That's got me wondering how many O-36 curves I can change on Level 1, so that's what I'm doing now. I know I can't change any of the circles, but I should be able to change most of the corners.

 

Edit: Here's the reworked version. I also redid the curves on Level 1 in the corners to change them to O-54, but you can't see them. Since there's no landscaping back there, they just give me more room between tracks and more confidence I'll have minimal problems. I redid the curves around the center too, but that turned that section into one large circle right on the edge of the layout and I'm not sure I like the look.

Attachments

Hide
Images (1)
  • Layout-Atlas-Horseshoe-36-45alt.bmp
Last edited by DoubleDAZ
DoubleDAZDoubleDAZOGR Forum Member DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER

Ok, after chatting with Carl and some others, I decided to try a different approach with my 10x12 space and wonder what you think about it. I was just playing around with a “T” peninsula tabletop shape. When I added a basic run of track around the perimeter, I noticed it ended up looking like a space shuttle. Being retired Air Force and having stood on the launch pad with Discovery, I kind of liked that idea, so I continued playing with it. I came up with this design that meets my operational goals for a display layout with room for 3 unattended trains and a 4th “hidden” train. It also looks like it will be a better design to display for our Bedford Falls collection.

I still plan to use Atlas track because they offer O36, O45 and O54 curves to give me a slightly better separation between levels and the minimum of O36 is marginally better than the other brands I considered, O31 with ScaleTrax and O32 with GarGraves. I get more access via the peninsula than I would have had with the previous horseshoe design. I can build the benchwork in the garage in six equal 32”x48” modules and one 20”x36” module before connecting them in the bedroom. To make things even easier, I’ll use a hybrid open-tabletop tabletop for Level 1 by cutting out the inside of the oval for Level 2. I’ll also cut circles in the “wings” for Level 2&3 risers.

As you can see in Photo1, Level 1 has an O54 curve in the “nose”, O45 turnouts at the base of the “fuselage” and O36 curves on the “wings. I know the reach to the middle of the straight section along the back is a little far, but I'm willing to deal with that. My plan is to use a removable backdrop-type of cover between the wings as shown in Photo3D. Levels 1&2 will be open-style benchwork  and Level 3 will be a tabletop with removable platforms for buildings, etc.

In Photo 2, you can see that Level 2 will be a combined oval & figure-8. The landscaping will start out as another removable backdrop attached with magnets or something and then maybe become a sheer cliff using sections of stone backsplash or whatever fits the space.

Photo 3 shows the over/under on Level 3 where most of the Bedford Falls building will be set in a town-like configuration on the removable platforms . There will also be more buildings in the front and the wings of Level 1, whatever is left will simply go on shelves.

Photo 3D obviously shows the 3D view, crude as it is.

Okay, fire away with your comments.

Attachments

Hide
Images (4)
  • photo1
  • photo2
  • photo3
  • photo3d
Last edited by DoubleDAZ
DoubleDAZDoubleDAZOGR Forum Member DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER

Carl, I never got down there for a night launch, though I was supposed to, but it got delayed. I was stationed at Air Force Space Command at the time and made a few trips to Patrick/Cape to inspect logistics support contractors.

 

As far as the nose goes, it will stick out into the room. There is a wall on the bottom with 2 windows and other walls on both the left and top. The door to enter the room is in the upper right and it swings in from the right into the top wall. With the nose where it is, there should be enough clearance to open the door all the way and get things in/out of the closet off to the right. On one side of the closet is a sewing area and on the other is a craft area, that's why I can't have the whole room for a layout.

 

Oh, and I forgot to mention the over/under has grades of 4.4% and 5.2%. I'm not really too happy with that part, so I've got a pretty standard dog bone alternative that rises in the back going around a plateau and would probably work better with the bi-level Bedford Falls village scenery I have in mind.

Darren CarusoDarren CarusoOGR Forum Member DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER

Dave,

 

I know its been awhile, but I'm glad to see your getting ready for your layout.  As much as I like the Space Shuttle, and trust me, as a kid I think I built every shuttle model they sold and still have numerous rockets for my kids, but, just by looking at your latest two layout ideas I like the dogbone plans better.  Just my opinion.  Looking at the plans it appears as though you will have more space for structures/scenery, the rocket design does not appear to have much open space except for the top, which is limited by the figure 8.  Again, it's just my opinion, I prefer the dogbone, but whatever you decide to construct I'm sure it will come out excellent.

 

Darren

DoubleDAZDoubleDAZOGR Forum Member DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER

Thank you, Darren. I have to admit that after looking at the last horseshoe design I did, I'd have to agree with you. Compared to it, the shuttle ends up looking like a big wedding cake with little interest. I guess I figured since there's been so little feedback that no one liked the horseshoe. Carl's comment about the nose got me to look at the shuttle relative to the room it will be in and I didn't like what I saw. However, the shuttle exercise was not for naught, I always learn something. After I design the benchwork for the horseshoe, I think I'll spend some time converting it to SCARM to see what I can do to get a better 3D view. I want to have it ready for when Mixy adds the simulation feature, I'm really looking forward to that.

DoubleDAZDoubleDAZOGR Forum Member DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER

Darren,

 

One thing I'm concerned about with the horseshoe design is fitting the loops inside each other on both ends of tracks 1&2. (Track 2 is the over/under inside loop). Right now I'm using a 5.5" piece to expand the Track 1 outer loop, but I'm not sure that's going to be enough.

 

I'm also considering lowering the Track 2 inner loop 3" so that Track 3 doesn't have to be so high. By lowering the whole loop, the grade will start at -3" and rise going around the loops to +3" back in the center of the dogbone.

 

I'm still concerned about being able to reach the tracks along the wall on the right. Mind you, with O54 curves back there, I don't expect to have many problems, but it's still something to think about. Again, the whole back of that shelf where Bedford Falls will be is going to be removable in sections that can be handled easily. I intend to run a track cleaning car, but I'm still concerned about cleaning track more than derailments. etc.

 

I actually want to make Level 3 completely removable in 4 sections. That's why I'm still considering 1/2" plywood for the sub-roadbed with sound-deadening board for the roadbed, at least for Level 3.

Last edited by DoubleDAZ
rtr12rtr12OGR Forum Member SUPPORTING MEMBERDIGITAL SUBSCRIBER

Oh boy, now you are probably in big trouble by listening to me.  

I have the trains, track, power, lighting & etc. pretty well figured out (I think), at least as far as what works for me. However, layout plans are an entirely different subject. One which I am still struggling with and still have no idea what to do with mine, but your horseshoe layout does look a lot more interesting.

 

DoubleDAZDoubleDAZOGR Forum Member DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER

RTR12, not at all. As long as construction is not set to begin, I'm open to any and all suggestions for the space.

I've given up on the shuttle design, but I'm still on the fence between a closed horseshoe with a pull-out/lift-out/drop-down module for access or the open horseshoe. I'm working on the basic benchwork for the last open horseshoe design now and then I'll try to convert it to a closed horseshoe with Track 1 and maybe Track 2 crossing between the ends, Track 3 will remain a loop-to-loop. I'd like to build in modules that are 16"x48" and when connected will form a 16"x16" grid. A grid with risers to support tracks will be new to me because all I've had are tabletop layouts.

I went a little astray on the initial closed horseshoe layout I posted when I tried to fit in more tabletop real estate rather than just a narrow crossover between the ends of the horseshoe. If I turn the outer loop into an around the room oval, I won't have to deal with the 2 loops being too close to each other.

M MoonmanOGR Forum Member

Let me toss this your way-045/036 double on L1. Crossover on inner instead of L2 over/under. L3 at 15". 036 L3. Reshaped table. 1" dowels for L3 support.

Looks like you could fit a lot of buildings.

Trains on L1 can run in opposite directions. L3 auto changes. Could put r-loops on L1.

2 layers in SCARM.Double Daz

Attachments

Hide
Images (2)
  • Double Daz
  • Double Daz 3D
Files (1)
Last edited by Moonman
DoubleDAZDoubleDAZOGR Forum Member DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER

Thanks, Carl, I'll look that over a bit more in the morning. FWIW, I did consider more of a dual main, but nixed it in favor of the over/under. I really like to see trains go over each other as well as past each other in opposite directions. The crossover would add more operational interest if I ran 2 trains on that track and it does add space for buildings.

Not sure why I didn't use O45 for the outer train though. I think it would fit though I might have to bump out the aisle a bit for the curves, so thanks for the subtle hint....LOL  And I'm not concerned about having less than 24" for entry, I think as little as 18" would work for me. I could "scoot" through as little as 12", but that would probably get old fast.

One thing I'm going to try on my latest design is O54 for the out curves to a lift-out bridge connecting the 2 ends and O45 for the over/under inside track.

rtr12rtr12OGR Forum Member SUPPORTING MEMBERDIGITAL SUBSCRIBER

One thing I also like is having a grade and having one train pass over/under the other. I also like the 2 main lines so trains can pass or run together. I still like the open horseshoe too as opposed to the lift out. I know you probably don't want to use one, but if I could fit one of those Mianne lift sections into my layout, that would be exciting (I used Mianne bench work though). I think operating that thing would be as much fun as operating the trains. Guess I am easily amused...

Forum member Sandjam did a video on the installation and operation of one, if you happen to get the urge.

Oh well, I needed to try the new search stuff here so here is a link (just in case, of course )  O Gauge Layout Build

He made some good videos documenting his layout build and the use of Legacy and the new LCS, sensor tracks, and wifi stuff too, in case you get tired of drawing...

Last edited by rtr12
DoubleDAZDoubleDAZOGR Forum Member DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER

Trust me, RTR12, I've consider Mianne benchwork and the lift, I've also seen the one Sandjam did. The club over in Scottsdale has a metal one that Eaglewings Iron Craft here in Phoenix did for them and it is sweet. The nice thing about the iron one is it's structured like a bridge, so it's almost a part of the layout and doesn't look out of place. Unfortunately, I think they're all too big for the room and the layout is too small to justify the cost.

FWIW, I'm reworking the design and while I won't have a dual main, there will be more track running next to each other. I've increased the Track 1 curves to O45 for the front and around the center, and O54 curves in the back corners. I also changed the configuration of Train 2 by separating the tracks coming out of the loop more. Although I need to use O36 curves for the loops, I'm currently checking to see if I can use O45 curves in the over/under section and curves leading to the section.

rtr12rtr12OGR Forum Member SUPPORTING MEMBERDIGITAL SUBSCRIBER

I'll watch for the next revision. Sandjam has done some good tutorials, glad you saw some of them. He has a really nice layout and train room too. Too bad you didn't end up with a little more space for your layout, but it looks like you have a lot of stuff and some pretty good track plans going for the space you have available. I am not sure, but I'm thinking Mianne will make the lift gate in custom sizes in like 6" increments as they do the bench work? I am sure there is a minimum size, but I don't know what that is? I want one though (along with a ton of other stuff that would probably require a 2nd (or maybe 3rd) mortgage).

It's great you have a club you can visit for ideas. Probably a lot of information to be had from the club members as well. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find a club anywhere in my area. I did find a 2 rail O scale club, but I haven't checked on it yet. I am more of a 3 railer caught somewhere in between toy trains and also trying to be somewhat realistic. I am definitely not a 2 rail scale modeler. I don't know near enough about trains to be completely prototypical with layout and too old to learn it all now. Just want to run them and let my grandson have some fun with them too. 

My LHS does not even know of a 3 rail O gauge club here and O gauge is the main size they carry in the store (which is nice). They are the main O gauge train store in the area. There is one other one, but they are really small and have very little in stock. They also price things above MSRP on some items. My LHS gives me a small discount on everything except magazines. You'd think in a city of approx. 2-1/2 million there would be a 3 rail O gauge club? This is also a big railroad town. I read in a magazine a few months ago that we were #1 in the entire US in tonnage moved or passed through town or something like that. We do have a most of the class ones serving the area, but I was really kind of surprised about that one?

The one thing I am sold on is the Mianne bench work, it's so nice and easy. I wanted to get something set up to run trains (I am really green at permanent layouts and need some practice and experience before getting in too deep) so I ended up ordering a 6'x16' kit to get going. Some sort of expansion, possibly including revising the original kit was planned from the start. I talked to them about all that and they offered some good suggestions. After getting the first kit assembled, I ordered some more parts to add on after a couple of weeks. The ideas for this came from my initial talks with Tim before my first order. It worked out great. The initial 6'x16' took about 8 hours total and was ready for track. No sawdust and no mess. Screw driver (#3 bit), rubber mallet and a DeWalt 12volt drill (one with the small Lithium batteries) with long (think it was 12") #2 bit was all I used for tools. I would highly recommend that drill too, small, compact, lightweight, powerful and batteries last quite a while.

From the time the 6'x16' kit arrived I had it ready for a top in about 4-5 hours. That included unboxing 3 packages of parts, sorting and organizing them and reading the instructions. They provide really good instructions that are specific to your order with color coded drawings on how it all fits together, Very nice instructions. The next morning I went to Home Depot and got 3 sheets of their 1/2 'Sandply' plywood which is pretty nice stuff too. I was going to get birch, but the Sandply had more plies than the birch and the price was the same. Had them cut it into smaller pieces I could handle. I can no longer handle a full sheet. Went back home and installed that which took about another 2-3 hours and my table was ready for track. Painting would have added extra time, but since I was going to change it all later on, I didn't paint anything.

Got a little windy there, but in case it wasn't obvious, I really like the Mianne stuff (also fun to talk about layouts). Hmmm...maybe I should get into sales?

DoubleDAZDoubleDAZOGR Forum Member DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER

RTR12, I'm pretty much done with the revision, just need to prep some photos for posting. It's not all that different from my last horseshoe design except for replacing some O36 with O45 on Level 1 and adding 2 bridges across the entrance. I also added a lot more scenery to simulate cliffs and I even added a lake in the middle, more on that when I post the photos. I tried a lot of different approaches, but nothing seemed to satisfy my goals the way the last horseshoe did, so I ended up just tweaking it a bit.

When it comes to Mianne, I hear you, but I can't quite come to grips with the cost yet. For my purposes, I'd be looking at something close to the Model 11-30 kit, minus 1of the center sections in the back, at a cost of around $1,000 or so before laying the plywood tops. I haven't taken an inventory of what I'll need in the way of 1x3, 2x3 and 2x4 lumber for the DIY benchwork, but I have the tools needed to cut and assemble following MATTHEWG's technique.

It probably wouldn't hurt to email them a copy of my design at some point just to get a quote and see how close they can come to accommodating my needs. Since I'm in an enclosed space that might not be square, I don't want the sides or back going all the way to the walls and I plan to have an overhang so I can use the jigsaw to "sculpt" around the entrance and center. However, since I also want to use 1/2" tops, Mianne might be the best solution even if it does cost more. The cheaper 1x3 and 2x3 lumber is not the most straight, warp-free, etc., and I haven't priced the better stuff. One question I have with Mianne is if the 24" spacing is too wide for 1/2" plywood with the weight of 2 more levels on top of it. I guess if I made sure supports for the upper levels were on or near the benchwork, I shouldn't have a problem.

As for clubs, there are 3 O-Scale that I know of. The nicest one by far is the one that operates to layout at Scottsdale's McCormick-Stillman Railroad Park. That layout is one of three 1250 sf layouts (O-HO-N) in the railroad building. It costs $100/yr to join, you have to be sponsored (which I guess isn't hard) and attend 6 meetings before being voted on (I guess to make sure you really want to join).  Then all members are required to work two 4-hr running sessions on Sat/Sun, currently once every 6-8 weeks.

I haven't been to the LHS for over a year and need to go, if nothing else to see what his prices are these days. I bought my current 4-6-0 locally, but I'm not sure where I'll buy in the future. They are helpful over there though, so I'd like to support them. There are a couple more stores that sell O-Gauge equipment, but I don't consider them LHSs.

 

DoubleDAZDoubleDAZOGR Forum Member DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER

Ok, time to start getting serious unless someone comes up with something I really need to consider. I did a pretty detailed design of the benchwork in RR-Track and thought I'd let you see how it fills the space. Compared to Mianne, it looks like a ton of lumber and I'm not sure it's not overkill, especially since Level 1 looks like it may end up being a tabletop. After the failure of the shuttle design, I've pretty much settled on the horseshoe layout I've been working with.

I followed the examples I found in MATTHEWG's thread for his project, though he has a lot more space. It ends up being only 4 full-size (6') modules and 1 smaller filler module, so there won't be too many unique cuts. As you can see by the legend in the upper left of the photo, it's made with 1x3's, 2x3's and 2x4's. The legs are 2x4's with a 1x3 brace near the bottom for stability. For reference, the braces are 24" long. The rails are 2x3's topped with 1x3's to form the L-Girder and the cross-members are 2x3's. The 33" overall height is just a number I picked to see where it would take me relative to Level 3. It puts the track for Level 1 at 34", Level 2 at 41" and Level 3 at 49". FWIW, I prefer looking down a bit and I'd like to be able to see Level 3 where most of the Bedford Falls buildings and figures will be.

After looking at this and thinking of all the measuring, cutting, etc., Mianne is looking better.

Attachments

Hide
Images (1)
  • benchwork
Last edited by DoubleDAZ
DoubleDAZDoubleDAZOGR Forum Member DIGITAL SUBSCRIBER

Now that I've posted a photo of the benchwork, I thought I'd post a photo of the 3D View of the final(?) design. Since I wasn't 100% this weekend, I took some time to learn a little more about RR-Track and came up with what I think is a pretty good rendering of my "vision".

Anyone following this thread will see that I increased the curves on the ends of the horseshoe from O36 to O45, still using all Atlas track. You can't see them in this view, but I also increased the rear hidden curves from O36 to O54 and am using O72 turnouts and a leading O72 curve for the hidden siding (you'll see his when I post a photo of each level). The over/under has 3.4% and 3.8% grades going to Level 2 and Levels 1&3 are flat.

You'll see I also added 2 bridges. The one on Level 1 goes straight across from one end of the horseshoe to the other and probably won't have the structure under it. This bridge will not only give me some variety for a single train, but will let me run 2 trains with places to pass each other. In fact, I could even have 3 on the track and interchange them for even more variety. The bridge on Level 3 also adds some variety vice a simple loop-to-loop. Haven't decided if they will be lift-out, lift-up or swing-out.

Some of you may be wondering about the "lake". Well, it started out being something to enhance the photo, but soon turned into a removable piece of vinyl or maybe a sheet of painted Plexiglas or something that would lay on a small ledge around the perimeter. As I said in one of my earlier posts, I don't intend to stand in the middle turning in circles and getting dizzy while operating. I intend to be standing outside watching or be doing something at the craft table off to the left of the photo, unless something goes awry.

Attachments

Hide
Images (1)
  • 3dview
Last edited by DoubleDAZ
Next

Add Reply

Views: 5,285
Post
The Track Planning and Layout Design Forum is sponsored by

AN OGR FORUM CHARTER SPONSOR

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×

Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership

OGR Forum Supporting Membership

Help support this forum with an OGR Forum Supporting Membership.
You will be able to watch the videos in the INSTRUCTIONAL VIDEO FORUM!
A one-year OGR Forum Supporting Membership is only $12 per year, so sign up now!


    OR     


Access the ALL the OGR VIDEO FORUMS AND  over 300 back issues of OGR
with a DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTION!



$12.00 per 12 Months (plus tax if applicable)
×