Skip to main content

Hi All,
My name is Mike Miller and I’m a new forum  member.  I’ve noticed many of you have been of great assistance to others who were in the design stage of a layout.  After having a small layout as a kid many years ago I’m now retired and have the time and money to get back into the hobby again.  I’ve been working on designing a layout for my basement room, measuring 18’x 19’.  I'm very near the final stages of the design and would like to have some opinions and suggestions for improvement.  The room has 2 full walls on the top and left side.  The bottom wall has a door that leads to the furnace room but that room has access from another area in the basement.  This same wall is about 12’ long with a 6’ opening over to that square in the lower right corner.  The upstairs steps lead into that opening.  The right side wall is about 16’ long with a 3’ opening that leads into another room off to the right side. 
 
So, with that in mind I’d like to now your thoughts on the attached layout.  I’d appreciate your honest opinions and possible suggestions on the layout. 
 
Thanks and hope to hear from you soon. 
Mike         

MM V2 08C

Attachments

Images (1)
  • MM V2 08C
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Hi Mike, I'll start things off with the comments I sent you earlier. Hopefully, that will spark some helpful discussion.
 
As I said, I like your design so much that I’m going to see what I can do with it in my 12x13 space using smaller curves for the reversing loops. I like:
the triple main,
the amount of storage you were able to put in,
how you did the reversing loops without making anything look out of place or just thrown in for the sake of it,
your use of switches on curves to maximize space,
I didn’t see any dangerous “S” curves (though the ones on the peninsula could give you “some” trouble with really long trains),
and it’s not a commuter-type set of 3 boring ovals like some I’ve see posted.
 
It’s a very simple design with complete access all around and I think trains are going to look really nice meandering around. I’m sure some would say it lacks spurs to drop off and pickup up cars, but if you’re like me and just want to run train, that is not something you don’t need/want. I want a running layout and yours fits that bill quite nicely. I assume you know you might have to run a little slower with the multiple switches close together, but even that is something I like and I think they’ll support scale speeds vice the speed I used to run as a kid.
 
I’ve been trying a 2-level with split reversing loops and have not been really happy given the smaller space. So, I’ve been toying with an around-the-room design, but never thought of using a peninsula for reversing loops the way you have. Given my smaller space, I could make mine a single main for that part to save space. I’d have to flip the layout left to right because my entry door is on the lower left and I’d have to shorten the storage tracks, but I think it just might fit.
 

Mike,

 

Are you planning to add any industries along the mainlines? 

 

How about adding some staging tracks under one of the long sides?  You could gain access from the outside loop while in a tunnel.  You don't any long sidings (~7' max) so you train's length would be limited. 

 

Jan

 

 

Hi Mike,

I knew a Mike Miller. Railsplitter?

Hinged sections (or face to face "bascules") for the "blue bridges" over the gap. Light enough to lift easy. The bending, duck-walking, or crab-walking to gain access to the center will get old real fast. A few S curves without straights is about all I see to really whine about, but it wouldn't stop me.

Hi Mike,

I am with Jan regarding the yard. A couple of questions.

Have you looked at this in a 3D view?

Is the green object at 7 o'clock a passenger station?

 

The station would look better moved up to be completely on the straight. Both tracks could service it then.

 

The yard has limitations. Along with the length limiting the length of the train, the yard lead does also. I asked about viewing it in 3D because I think the yard will obscure the viewing of the passenger station and draw one's attention away from that entire area.

 

A couple of ideas came to mind...

elevate the area along the left\passenger station to change the view

move the yard to 5:30 and back into the opening off of the bottom right

move the yard and (future expansion, a roundhouse\turntable) to the peninsula(you have 9' off of the wye to work with)

 

It all depends on how you will operate. If you want to spend an hour or so in the yard without fouling the purple main you'll need to modify the design. If it will be storage for made trains and you go get them, then visible under the main level may work. A yard is visually appealing to me and deserves treatment as a layout design element, especially if you want to work in it.

 

Here is an article by Rich Melvin, that will provide some food for thought. Spend some time looking at photos of yards and their location on other layouts. 

 

It has the look of a very nice design. Don't be in hurry. More time spent now on design and planning will make the build go smoothly and the operation enjoyable.

Attachments

Mike

 

You are doing a lot of things right.  So many people get stuck on the notion of a 4x8 in the middle of the room and they just expand that idea and create many, many problems in the process.  By choosing to go around the walls with a center peninsula you are maximizing the running distance for trains and maximizing the space for people at the same time.  The peninsula is nice visually, adds mainline running distance and provides a wye and reversing loop for turning locomotives or entire trains.  You have also kept your reach in distances to 30-36 inches and aisles at 28-36 inches minimum.  Those all all very good features and will make for a user friendly layout.

 

Looking at the variety of switches and curves I am guessing that you plan to build with Atlas track.  What locomotives and cars do you have or want to get?  The longest locomotives and cars will define your track spacing on curves. The 4 1/2 inch centers on Atlas curves were fine back in the 1990s but today we have some equipment that may not be compatible with an O-63, 72 and 81 environment.

 

Keep up the good work.  It looks like you have the start of a very enjoyable layout design.

 

Hello all,  thanks for you comments and suggestions.

Jan - I'm planning on adding a small refinery in the upper right corner.  The Delaware City refinery is about 10 miles from my home in DE, so I'd like to represent that.  Never considered staging tracks under the sidings.  Good idea. 

 

Moonman - never looked at it in 3D.  Yes, that's a passenger station at 7pm.  I like the idea of moving it up to the straight section & elevating it.  Agree about the yard obscuring the station, but moving the yard to 5:30 is a big design change.  I'll discuss this with my co-designer.     

 

Ted - yes, Atlas track and Ross switches.  I currently have no equipment.  Other than the biggest steamers (Big Boy's, Challengers, etc.), won't most loco's run on O-63 minimum ? 

 

Adriatic - am planning a lift bridge of some kind. 

Other than the biggest steamers (Big Boy's, Challengers, etc.), won't most loco's run on O-63 minimum ? 

 

Most scale articulated steam locomotives along with many scale electrics and even a few scale diesels require O-72.  You have done a good job of giving yourself O-72 or greater routes around the railroad.  However, you may encounter problems if you are running a large steam locomotive (like a Northern that may only require O-54) on your O-63 curves and have a long car trying to pass on the O-72.  A long boilered locomotive like a Northern will have significant overhang at the pilot and at the back corner of the cab on O-63.  A long car like a scale passenger car or a scale auto carrier will encroach on the inside of a curve.  That could be a problem depending on what cars and locomotives you want to run.

 

The Atlas 3 rail track system came on the market back in the late 1990s and it is based on 9 inch intervals in curve diameter.  That means 4 1/2 inch spacing from center rail to center rail on curves.  That worked fine in the early 90s when the defining equipment in 3 rail were scale Hudsons and 60 foot long passenger cars.  But the world of 3 rail O had already begun to change in the mid 90s when MTH introduced the scale Challenger.  Now we have several scale challengers (the MTH Northern Pacific Z-6 challenger has the most overhang), Yellowstones, Big Boys, scale electrics (the GN W-1 is the overhang King) Gas Turbines and a few monster diesels like the Baldwin Centipedes along with 84 foot passenger cars and 89 foot intermodal flat cars and auto racks.  Several of those combinations can cause you problems on O-72 inside of O-81.  Six inch track spacing on curves is the universal standard today for safe passage of all known combinations of locomotives and cars.

 

If you want to be able to operate any combination of 3 rail O equipment you have some decisions to make.  Six inch track spacing means O-72 and O-84.  Atlas flex track is not easy to work with.  I would only recommend using their sectional track for most of a layout and restrict use of the flex track to short custom curves.  However, most people can get good results from Gargraves flex track.  You may want to consider Gargraves/Ross unless you want to accept the limitations of 4 1/2 inch track spacing.

Last edited by Ted Hikel

I like the layout. If your going to run large articulated scale engines like Big Boys just bear in mind that the over hang they have "might" run into scenery or buildings. Your Peninsula is  interesting as long as You don't run long 30+ car trains where the engine hits the tail on the return. I do like your design, keep us posted,

I like the design.  I am trying something similar - three loop main - but in a more narrow space.  I can't add the center island.

 

There are other work arounds to the clearance issues on the curves.   Start with a 6 inch spacing on the parallel straights and just "extend" the straight into each major curve.  This would work in the three major corner sections. Or another option is to go with some easement curves to broaden the curve.  Start and end each major corner curve with a larger curve than your desired minimum.  Sometimes folks recommend going two sizes up - so an 0

72 minimum would be 090,072,072,090.

 

In your case I might try a full 072 inner loop followed by a loop with an easement of 090, 081,081,090.  That may give you the spacing you need for clearance. 

 

Have Fun!

I've suggested to Mike that he see if his designer will post the RR-Track file so those of us using RR-Track can do some measuring to see what the clearances actually are. Given the 12" grid, it does look like there are 3 tracks inside about a 9" space (outside rail to outside rail). If that's the case, I set up a quick test with 2 tracks 9" apart and a 3rd track in the middle. I get a center-to-center rail measurement of around 3.80" for all 3 tracks. Given what I've read here, that may work okay on the straights sections, but could be problematic for 2 steamers, even smaller ones like 4-6-0, meeting on the curves. Am I right?

I did some quick checks for minimum distances. I mostly checked the right side because those appear to be the closest, but the lower left are similarly close. The center-to-center rails in the curves/straights appear to be around 4" and the "near" rail-to-rail appear to be around 2.75". I'm not qualified to state that these are too close, so I'll leave that up to someone who is.

FWIW, I assume it's a v5 file sine it opened just fine for me using v5.1. I had to fix a slight misalignment on the outside track in the upper right to the left of the switch. I was then able to run a simulation and things ran well. I parked a large steamer just heading into the lower right middle track curve and then ran another train in the opposite direction past it. Although I didn't collide, I don't know how accurate the simulation really is. I have been able to park a train too close to a switch and force a collision of sorts where the program asked if I wanted to couple the engines, but that might not be the same as a collision because tracks are too close.

Post
The Track Planning and Layout Design Forum is sponsored by

AN OGR FORUM CHARTER SPONSOR

OGR Publishing, Inc., 1310 Eastside Centre Ct, Ste 6, Mountain Home, AR 72653
800-980-OGRR (6477)
www.ogaugerr.com

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×