First Attempt to Plan Layout Focused on Operations (12'x14 1/2')

Well, if you want to run some through stuff as your passenger train, consider making the tracks to staging a Wye.   Use the existing leg and add a second leg off the straight along the bottom line in the plan.    Then make your staging tracks off the wye.  

The wye will allow you to run a through train or local in each direction, and to turn trains by backing through the wye.    Also, since your space is limited, you probably don't want to put in a yard.   You can use one or two staging tracks as a "fiddle" yard where you manually add and remove cars to set up a train to go out on the layout.

You would get much more space in HO obviously.   Longer modern cars are going to be more of a disadvantage also.      It works better to focus on 40 ft cars of the steam and early diesel era.    You might try drawing in one your industrial areas and see what can fit.    Figure a 40 ft car takes about 1 ft of track.   An 80ft autorack might take up near 2 ft.    And the industries that the cars go to have to be bigger.  

To do this, a lot of you industries could be done as facades of only the back walls rather than whole buildings. 

A totally different thought is to make the peninsula off the "top" straight from the plan to use the longer direction in the room.    Then where the current why is, put in a second town.    For this second town, pull the main away from the wall and put industries rears along the wall.    Then have some industries off the main in other places.

Thank you for your advice, @prrjim!  I redid the plan after reading your advice.  I also added in some "somewhat random" industry spurs so that I could see how operations might work.  I exported the plan to TrainPlayer for testing and you are right, using more modern/longer cars become hard to maneuver.  I made up a train with two autoracks and two container cars just to see how they could move around the layout and it gets pretty cramped.  I'll try the layout with shorter cars and test how it works so that I can see if I can live with O-gauge and shorter cars, or if I should think about HO.

Here's the modified plan.  I'm still very open to ideas.

Congrats on getting started.

My 2 cents...

I definitely recommend having a way to do continuous running even if you're focusing on switching.  Great for kids and visitors, and it can be very relaxing to just pop open a beverage and watch the trains.

As far as choosing between O gauge and HO (I'm assuming that you mean 3-rail O; if not you can disregard this portion of the comment) - what you can do within your space isn't really much different, since 3-rail O generally uses curves that aren't much wider than HO and would still fit your footprint.  It really boils down to your budget, personal preferences, and whatever equipment you already own.  IMO, your latest plan would work equally well in either scale - as mentioned above, long cars in O might look a little odd but you can always focus on shorter equipment.

I'd avoid multi-level for a first layout.  You will make mistakes and find things that you wish you had done differently - it's all part of the process, so don't overdo it on your first attempt.  Also suggest not ballasting your track until you've operated the layout for awhile - it's much easier to reconfigure track that hasn't been ballasted.

Good luck with your project.

You didn't indicate the size of your curves in your second post, but your first plan indicated O54 curves in two corners.  You will find that running longer freight cars and passenger cars through that size curve either doesn't work at all (most likely) or looks terrible in the process.  If your second plan is all O72 curves (and honestly, even if the curves are smaller), it looks like much more fun than your first attempt.  As an aside, it appears you are using track planning software of some type, and it would be helpful to some here if you included the program file as well as the pictures for your posts.

This is purely my opinion, but given the type of equipment you intend to run in the room size you have available, you should probably drop down to at least S scale or probably even HO scale.  You also might want to consider N scale which, I believe, has all the equipment you desire to run and would allow for a nicely designed layout in the room size you are talking about.

Chuck

Try some ideas with 40 ft cars and see how it looks to you.    A space that size implies a shortline or branch or short section of mainline as mentioned above.  

I think you could eliminate the wye for the peninsula.    One wye at the staging should be enough.    John Armstrong the great layout planner, plan on only one of everything and do it right especially if space is tight.   Another idea is that you could extend the peninsula a little.   You could reduce the aisle, just at the end of the peninsula to 2 feet or a little less.     Just enough to pass through.    

Also, I liked the idea of the  main and liftout along the outside the wall over the workbench.    You could put a siding with a RIP (Repair in Place) track above the workbench.

As mentioned above, if you are focused on the larger cars, going to a smaller scale might be worth considering.

Thank you for the advice, @Mallard4468!  Yes, I mean 3-rail O.  I can see how adding a second level would be too much for my first permanent layout.  I think I'll stay away from that.  I'll probably avoid grade changes, too, and keep everything the same height.  That's a good idea about holding off on ballast.

Thank you, @PRR1950, for the help!  In the second layout, the curves on the left are O-72, but on the right, they are O-54.  I'll try replacing the sweeping curve in the lower-right with O-72.  I think that should be doable.  Should I stick to O-72 for turnouts, too, if I can?

For track planning software, I'm using AnyTrack and I tried posting the source files in my posts, but I'm not sure if they came through OK.  I like AnyTrack because it's easy to export the layout to TrainPlayer so I can do dry-runs to see if the layout would work for operations.

Yeah, I'm having a bit of analysis-paralysis between HO and O.  Here are my Pros/Cons:

HO Pros:

• So much equipment to choose from.  When I discovered O, the collecting/acquiring experience through me off because it seems like in HO, whatever you want, you can just order.
• Price is cheaper than O
• Local club's layout is HO, so I can use my HO locomotives there

HO Cons:

• It's about as small as I can go with my level of patience for locomotive mods/wiring (adding DCC and sound, for example)
• Most used stock has no sound and usually doesn't have DCC

O Pros:

• Sound, beautiful sound! (it's important to me that locomotives have sound and command control)
• Sturdy for my daughter (2 1/2 years old).  I bought a Lionel Junction Dinosaur set that she uses and it can withstand her dropping/handling it
• Looks better (more substantial) for static display on shelves.  Which I may do mostly with longer rolling stock until I can upgrade my layout size
• Wiring/Electronics are so much easier
• Used market is wonderful!  People in the O gauge community seem to take great care of their stuff.

O Cons:

• Cost
• Size of larger layouts
• I cannot find a full Amtrak Southwest Chief in the latest paint scheme.  This train is near and dear to me and I've ridden it numerous times.  I want to eventually put together the entire consist, but so far only have a P42 Genesis loco in the proper paint scheme

But, moreover, I feel that with an HO layout, I would need to spend a lot more time on scenery and other things to fill in the space more than with O.  The transitional areas, so to speak.  I'm not very artistic and that part of building a layout would be my least favorite.  Basically, in O, there's not much room between "towns", so I can just put up a sheet of painted Masonite or short tunnel as a visual barrier between them and imagine that it was a longer distance.  With HO, I feel that more time would be needed on detailing those areas in-between the towns and industries.  Does that make sense?  Is that the experience of others on here?

Thank you, I appreciate all the feedback.  I'll see if I can update the layout with the O-72 curve in the lower-right tonight.

Michael

@prrjim, thanks!  I did some testing in TrainPlayer last night and found that this layout/size seems very functional to me with 40-50' cars.  So that's promising.  I was thinking that if I do collect the longer cars--which I like the looks of--I can just have them for display until I can upgrade to a larger room in the distant future.  I realized that while I like the looks of container cars and autoracks, the industries that support those are fairly boring from an operations aspect.  But those cars would look good on a shelf above the layout.  I'm still keeping HO in mind as a backup plan.  I feel like I'll be happier with O (see my previous post), but I don't want to make the wrong decision early on and "get stuck" in a scale with an inventory of equipment built up over time.  I'm currently fairly even with my HO vs O collection (both fairly small).

I'll tinker more on the update tonight with your changes in mind.  I like the RIP track idea.  Is there a reason you'd eliminate the top wye vs the bottom one?  Currently, I'd do the opposite, just because the bottom one requires me to cut through the drywall.  I'm not opposed to that, and it would give me some more storage for semi-frequently ran trains in the other room.  But, if I do the layout in stages, that seems like it would be good for a second phase.  I could be missing something, though.

Thank you!

My reason for eliminated the top wye instead of the bottom is because the top one goes to an industrial area.   A local would go in there and could just do a run around and run opposite end on the way back.

The bottom wye lets you run mainline trains in both directions out of staging and easier to turn mainline trains.

Also assuming your locals to do switching originate in stating they can come out in either direction.

@prrjim posted:

My reason for eliminated the top wye instead of the bottom is because the top one goes to an industrial area.   A local would go in there and could just do a run around and run opposite end on the way back.

The bottom wye lets you run mainline trains in both directions out of staging and easier to turn mainline trains.

Also assuming your locals to do switching originate in stating they can come out in either direction.

Ahh, that makes a lot of sense.  I'll keep the bottom one.  Thank you!

One more consideration about sound / digital control...

In HO, there are compatibility standards for DCC thanks to the NMRA.  In 3-rail, the digital control systems don't play together as well.  I'm not taking a side in this, and if you want to make this thread explode you can ask if DCS is better than TMCC/Legacy, but please don't open that can of worms .  There are tons of threads on here about those control systems that you can search.

Wiring is simpler in 3-rail, especially if you have a reverse loop or wye.

And congrats on joining LCCA and LOTS.

@Mallard4468 posted:

One more consideration about sound / digital control...

In HO, there are compatibility standards for DCC thanks to the NMRA.  In 3-rail, the digital control systems don't play together as well.  I'm not taking a side in this, and if you want to make this thread explode you can ask if DCS is better than TMCC/Legacy, but please don't open that can of worms .  There are tons of threads on here about those control systems that you can search.

Wiring is simpler in 3-rail, especially if you have a reverse loop or wye.

And congrats on joining LCCA and LOTS.

Ohh, I won't wade in there. It's funny you mention the NMRA standards for HO, though, because another benefit of O in my opinion is just how easy the locos are to work on at their size.

I'm an electrical engineer (in industrial controls) for some background.  I took apart a conventional locomotive (a Williams P42) and saw that there is a ton of room in there!  In my HO locomotives, they are mostly taken up by the internal "chassis" that is used for adding weight and there's not much spare room.  When I took apart the O-gauge loco, I was comforted that I could add an off-the-shelf Arduino board that has bluetooth support and some relays to make my own home-grown command control system. (Coincidentally, in another O-gauge magazine recently there was a column on just that.)

So, while O doesn't have that nice NMRA standard, I like that if both DCS and Legacy/TMCC fall by the wayside, I could retrofit my locomotives with a homegrown solution using off-the-shelf components.  Doing that in HO would be tough and would require custom PC boards to be made (at my level of experience, at least).

Thank you.  I'm loving LCCA and LOTS.  The communities in this hobby are friendly and very helpful!

If you are willing to forego the longer cars and engines, there is a surprising amount of track you can cram into a given space with O27! ( Not that you want to, but it can be done! There are an amazing number or 4x8' plywood layouts out there.) The longer the rolling stock, the bigger diameter curve you need to keep things looking good and operating smoothly. I'm not exactly certain how this would work in your space, but you could try an outside loop with O72 curves, which will allow you to run the big stuff, and then have say, O31 or smaller switches and curves inside for all your industries.  You can have these switches on your main line as well. Just don't try running the big stuff through the curved portion of the switch.  The straight side will be fine. Do watch out for the overhang on the curves, both inside and out!

For scenery dividers, you could run the tracks behind thin building flats that have a different industry on each side.

Chris

LVHR

Thank you, @lehighline!  I'm trying to go with a minimum of O54 just to avoid the looks of when the trucks on a loco turn really far compared to the body of the loco.  So far, I think I'm going to be able to keep O72 on the main line and dip down as far as O54 for sidings.

I like that idea for scenery dividers!

I'm started to get really excited for this potential layout!  I made some more changes based on feedback.  I'm thinking it will be a short-line that interchanges with--say--the BN at the off-scene staging area.

So far, here's what I really like:

• Mainline loop is all O72
• Workbench integrates with layout as a RIP track
• Bridge connection can be removed for "more realistic" point-to-point operation, but is available for when I just want to have fun and run trains
• I get 3 towns each with what should be several industries

Here's the only downside I can think of:

• The mainline loop is almost always behind any scenery instead of up by the front face of the shelves.  I'm not certain that this is an actual downside, though.  In some places, you'll be able to see the trains go by behind some minor landscaping.
• I would have liked to fit in an area for a "swap-able" module that conforms to Lionel's module standard, but that's pretty ambitious and I should probably wait until the next layout for that.

I have a couple questions, though:

• What is the recommended distance between parallel tracks? Curved tracks?  Are mine too close (the RIP track)? Or too far apart (in the cities)?
• Does anybody know of a O-Scale object library for AnyRail that has things like Menards structures?  I'll need to see how stuff like that would fit in the plan to see how the spurs need to change.

Thank you all!

I like the new plan.   You might want to double check your passing sidings in the industrial areas to insure they are as long as you want them for a enough cars.

Another thought, change the passing siding on the left side to continue around the curve before tying back into the mainline along the top straight.    This should give you a long enough passing siding to meet mainline trains or locals.

It is a nice plan for what you want to do.  I don't think the mainline behind the switching areas is a downside at all for the reason you stated.  Have the switching up close to you.

Really LOVE whoever submitted the upgraded plan to you.  Lots of possibilities.  If you are going with around the walls you will have to figure out how to enter WITHOUT ducking.  Don't duck!!!!  Major error.

Also, and I say this as tactfully and kindly as possible, if your daughter likes to watch the trains go around...she will tire of that quickly.  Set up a temporary layout on the floor to allow her to operate the train and circle to her heart's content.  She will grow bored with it not to far down the line.  Seen it a million times.

If you use the space on your regular layout to accommodate her wish to see the trains go around...that will be space that could have been used for operations.  And without the round the room...no duck under, swing gate, lift out, whatever at door--better!

I have a round and round layout for kids...portable.  I also have 2 portable switching layouts.  Get a piece of 2 inch thick foam and put an oval for round and round.  lean up against wall when done...or store in garage--that's where mine is. Foam is AWESOME! 

SWITCHING layout--use O scale!!!  Bigger.  Heavier.  Easier to see.  Cars stay on tracks much better!  I had HO for 40 years and am sick of them falling off tracks no matter how well you lay track or how excellent cars are.  O is ideal for switching!

I'm NOT trying to discourage your daughter's participation.  I think it's wonderful!  Build her her very own layout and let her enjoy the trains moving.  When she wants some more involvement she can learn to run your switching operation--make it like a game  where cars have to be randomly moved about.  Much more interesting and challenging.  Gets people actively involved.  Critical to sustain interest.  Good luck!  :-)

PS:  Instead of creating 3 towns in that space, simply create one switching district in one town.  Just have some different industries and have the local service/switch them!  That is a more realistic theme.

I know a gentleman who has a GIANT basement--and his 2800 square foot layout is a belt line (switching district) around one city!!!  Great theme.  Realistic.  Yours can be the same in 12 by 14.  You could make yours like his by building your layout in small sections that may be easily broken apart and transported.

The gentleman moved his layout from Georgia to Indiana!  Lots of time saved by making a layout portable.

I agree with no duck under to enter layout.  It was fine when I did it 40 years ago and no problem to get under there but now in my mid 70's it's a lot harder to duck under.  As for kids and the layout I support it 100% having their own layout to run and yes they will get bored watching trains run in a circle because with trains you can't text on them, watch a video on them, or play games on them.  This is what kids do today in my opinion, not play with trains.  My kids loved my layout when I started it and they were standing on milk crates watching it and also putting their toys in the empty gondolas and watching me run them around and hide the train behind the mountain but soon they needed a L.O of their own and they got it .  That lasted about 1 year.  Now that they are nearing 50 years old they love the layout and bring their friends over to run it.  Going to train shows here in Michigan I see a  lot of gray haired old men dragging their grand-kids around but the kids seem more interested in Hot Wheels or something else and also seem bored.  Trains are for kids but usually the older kids like us today.  It's a fun hobby to be in but kids hate seeing a train run around in circles or just running around and the most asked question is "what else does it do grandpa"  I hope this hobby never dies because it has been the most exciting for me for the last 70 years.

Some general ideas...

As you plan your operations, think in terms of producing and consuming industry pairs. For example, if you have a sawmill (a producing industry) then build a furniture factory (a consuming industry) somewhere else on the layout. Box cars can move back and forth between those two industries.

Do you have room to do the Empty-Load Trick with coal hoppers? (see the attachment) Here you have a coal mine (the producing industry) and a power plant (the consuming industry) but coal hoppers are open-top cars. You can see that they are either loaded or empty. The Empty-Load Trick fixes that.

Passing sidings - you are going to need them. If you have a local out switching industries along the line, you don't want their train blocking the main line while they do their work. If you have a passing siding, they can get in the clear on the siding to do their switching work, and you can still run a through train by on the main.

When you design your main freight yard, don't forget a switching lead (file attached).

You're off to a good start.

@Mark Boyce posted:

It is a nice plan for what you want to do.  I don't think the mainline behind the switching areas is a downside at all for the reason you stated.  Have the switching up close to you.

Thank you, Mark! You're right, it will make switching easier.

Your build thread was inspiration for me because I saw all that you could achieve in a space close in size to mine. Thanks for your updates!

@John C., thank you! I didn't really think about it before, but you're right, O is much easier for switching.

Yeah, I'm sure my daughter will move on eventually. But, until then, it's great to play with trains together! I actually have a 8'x5' layout that I built for us that is only 2' of the ground so she can play on it. That layout was how I first discovered O gauge, and I really started liking it. I'll make sure to build this layout for me, since she'll have that one.

I like the modular idea. I've built some 2'x4' bench modules before for HO and I'll try that same thing for this layout.

@Lary posted:

I agree with no duck under to enter layout.  It was fine when I did it 40 years ago and no problem to get under there but now in my mid 70's it's a lot harder to duck under.  As for kids and the layout I support it 100% having their own layout to run and yes they will get bored watching trains run in a circle because with trains you can't text on them, watch a video on them, or play games on them.  This is what kids do today in my opinion, not play with trains.  My kids loved my layout when I started it and they were standing on milk crates watching it and also putting their toys in the empty gondolas and watching me run them around and hide the train behind the mountain but soon they needed a L.O of their own and they got it .  That lasted about 1 year.  Now that they are nearing 50 years old they love the layout and bring their friends over to run it.  Going to train shows here in Michigan I see a  lot of gray haired old men dragging their grand-kids around but the kids seem more interested in Hot Wheels or something else and also seem bored.  Trains are for kids but usually the older kids like us today.  It's a fun hobby to be in but kids hate seeing a train run around in circles or just running around and the most asked question is "what else does it do grandpa"  I hope this hobby never dies because it has been the most exciting for me for the last 70 years.

Thank you for the advice! Yeah, I don't want a duck under. I'm just gonna use a 1x4 or something for a temporary bridge for when I want to do continuous running.

I'd love it if my daughter continued to love trains, but you're right, she might not. She'll have our 8x5 layout to make her own if she wants to. When she tires of it, I'll take it to our local club's open houses to get others interested in the hobby. Gotta keep the hobby alive!

That's a very nice layout in your photo!

@Mister Tea posted:

Thank you, Mark! You're right, it will make switching easier.

Your build thread was inspiration for me because I saw all that you could achieve in a space close in size to mine. Thanks for your updates!

I was going to share a couple photographs of my lift up bridges, but you must have seen them.  I would suggest some kind of movable bridge instead of a duck under.  

I appreciate your comment on my layout build topic.  I’ve gotten more help there, than I have given out.

@Rich Melvin posted:

Some general ideas...

As you plan your operations, think in terms of producing and consuming industry pairs. For example, if you have a sawmill (a producing industry) then build a furniture factory (a consuming industry) somewhere else on the layout. Box cars can move back and forth between those two industries.

Do you have room to do the Empty-Load Trick with coal hoppers? (see the attachment) Here you have a coal mine (the producing industry) and a power plant (the consuming industry) but coal hoppers are open-top cars. You can see that they are either loaded or empty. The Empty-Load Trick fixes that.

Passing sidings - you are going to need them. If you have a local out switching industries along the line, you don't want their train blocking the main line while they do their work. If you have a passing siding, they can get in the clear on the siding to do their switching work, and you can still run a through train by on the main.

When you design your main freight yard, don't forget a switching lead (file attached).

You're off to a good start.

Wow, Rich, thank you for the great tips! I was watching your ballasting video earlier today and it was also super helpful. I never heard of the empty load trick, but I like it! I'll see if I can fit that in.

The consumer/producer way of thinking does really simplify visualizing what industries I should plan on. I'll draw up a matrix of them.

Thank you for those materials! They are very helpful!

@Mister Tea  you may want to check out @Mark Boyce layout page. He is working with a smaller space than yours. Mine is 9x13 also smaller - see the TPRR link. There are a lot of great ideas posted, some will work for what you want.  You might want to add another loop, just to have the ability to run 2 trains.

I used to have an HO layout and found the cars do not go well with little hands - it only took one time to see how my oldest son picked one up and almost destroyed it. I also had some longer HO engines and passenger cars which needed 36 inch radius curves - as someone else mentioned - with 3 rail O gauge - there is not much difference in space needed - I have not seen a 3 rail engine that needed anything larger than 072 inch diameter (36 inch radius). 

Lastly if you are a digital subscriber - look at the OGR back issues - lots of ideas hidden in there.

@ScoutingDad posted:

@Mister Tea  you may want to check out @Mark Boyce layout page. He is working with a smaller space than yours. Mine is 9x13 also smaller - see the TPRR link. There are a lot of great ideas posted, some will work for what you want.  You might want to add another loop, just to have the ability to run 2 trains.

I used to have an HO layout and found the cars do not go well with little hands - it only took one time to see how my oldest son picked one up and almost destroyed it. I also had some longer HO engines and passenger cars which needed 36 inch radius curves - as someone else mentioned - with 3 rail O gauge - there is not much difference in space needed - I have not seen a 3 rail engine that needed anything larger than 072 inch diameter (36 inch radius).

Lastly if you are a digital subscriber - look at the OGR back issues - lots of ideas hidden in there.

Thanks for the advice, @ScoutingDad!  @Mark Boyce's layout was actually a big inspiration for me trying O-Scale in this space.  I actually have a bookmark directly to his build thread.  I checked out your build thread and it looks great too!  I'll see if I can use some ideas from it, too.

Right now, I've got a decent track layout using 072 for the mainline, but I'm finding the spaces to fit in industries are pretty tight.  I've been working on it each night, but don't have a good update, yet.  I'm debating making my benchwork a bit wider.

I've also been fighting layout software.  I feel like I want to go with Ross track and switches instead of Atlas, but AnyRail doesn't do track snipping which is necessary for Ross curves.  I like 3rd Planit because it has some features that I use that SCARM doesn't have, but for some reason 3rd Planit freezes several times a night on me.  The things I use in 3rd Planit that SCARM doesn't have are the ability to enter exact dimensions and the ability to create an object library.  I have created a 3rd Planit object library of Menard's buildings that I use to see how they would fit on my layout.  I can't see how to do that in SCARM.

Hopefully, I'll have a new update soon.

Have any of you tried AnyRail for your track planning? I use it often and find it very easy to use.

I am really glad I have given you some inspiration!!  All the time typing and posting photographs was totally worth it!! 

As you have seen, I'm sure, I used SCARM because DoubleDAZ Dave jumped right in to help design and that is what he uses.  I have never had much success snipping with it, but Dave has mastered it, so it certainly is built into that software.

@Rich Melvin posted:

Have any of you tried AnyRail for your track planning? I use it often and find it very easy to use.

I love AnyRail. The only thing it's really missing for me is track snipping. I've heard of a workaround using flex track. I'll look into that.

@Mark Boyce posted:

I am really glad I have given you some inspiration!!  All the time typing and posting photographs was totally worth it!! 

As you have seen, I'm sure, I used SCARM because DoubleDAZ Dave jumped right in to help design and that is what he uses.  I have never had much success snipping with it, but Dave has mastered it, so it certainly is built into that software.

I'm certainly glad you took the time to document your progress! Thanks!

Yeah, SCARM is pretty good, I just need better structure object support to see if the layout can work.

@Mister Tea posted:

I love AnyRail. The only thing it's really missing for me is track snipping. I've heard of a workaround using flex track. I'll look into that.

Right click on a piece of flex track, about 1/2 way down the pop-up menu is "Cut Flex Here".

@Mister Tea posted:

I'm certainly glad you took the time to document your progress! Thanks!

Yeah, SCARM is pretty good, I just need better structure object support to see if the layout can work.

You are most welcome!  I consider my construction a bit crude at times, but it works for a guy with average tools and skills like me.