First layout, need some constructive feedback

IMO, I believe the "Y" would be a nice location for a passenger train to back into a passenger station.

My first critical thought is that you might have too much track at the bottom, right side, where I would think some of that space would be better served with some industrial buildings.

Is it planned to have all track at the same elevation?

I think I would re-work the main yard a bit as I am not sure you could assemble longer consists that you might enjoy with all the nice running room you have.

Thanks for the feedback so far.

Terry: I have been thinking the same thing at the bottom, I think it needs to be modified for some sort of industry, maybe an area for intermodal operations? Right now I'm thinking that everything will be one elevation, i'm not sure how I would incorporate a second elevation, and I don't want to cover the yard. with anything. Although I could see that yard area looking like a Penn Central Station type station on top of it with platforms bellow.

Jim: This is my main concern with the yard as well: that the A/D track off the lead and the rest of the yard body is too constrained and that trains will basically be assembled occupying both of the mains. I'm not quite sure what to do to change the yard layout and keeping the wye to send trains off in different directions, any ideas on how you might change that area? My other thought was to scratch the peninsula and just run trains in the same direction and create a larger yard with a bigger A/D track. 

Bobby

Room size?  13ish X  18ish??

Maybe think about the ability of having your RR do something.  Pick up and deliver freight and/or  passengers.  Change  routes, central interchange yard with lines going off in multiple directions.

The more intricate you build the more interesting it may become.  As mentioned in another thread, circles can get boring.

Smaller engines, shorter trains can use smaller curves.  Also, S gauge will increase design concept potential.

I agree with the previous comment regarding the lengths of the yard tracks.  It's not clear what kind of track you are planning to use, but it might be worth looking into the brands of switches that allow for close spacing of yard tracks so that you can get longer sidings.  And perhaps use a 3-way switch at the mouth of the yard.

Also, it looks like you are going to be investing quite a bit of money in switches.  Since it's your first layout, you might build it and then discover that you would like to do some things differently.  Perhaps you could consider starting with fewer yard tracks and see if you like that arrangement before going all-in on it.

Full disclosure - I've never built a layout that I was happy with.  That's why I never ballast my track.

I probably should have put room dimensions and track radii in the beginning. The room is approximately 15'1/2" x 19'4". The outside track is O-72 and the inside track is O-63. The yard body is made up of O-54. I doubt i'll move to S gauge, and I think if I ever jumped ship out of O-gauge I would move to HO. I have a decent amount of FastTrack now, but I am planning on moving to Atlas track for this build. Since I was 18 and got back into the hobby, I have been collecting scale size proportion locomotives and rolling stock. For freight operations I've been collecting a lot diesels and rolling stock that is appropriate for 1970 to present. In the last few years I've been getting into steam era passenger trains. I don't really anticipate operating articulated locomotives, because I think even in O-72 they look a bit odd around the curves, but now that we will have our own space the possibilities are endless I suppose ( or at least end at 19x15).

Also, if you're wondering why I'm not utilizing the full corner in the top left, that room opens up to another area there, and the management (my wife) won't sign off on that. One of the attractions to the around the room build for me, is that I can build the layout into modules, and don't need larger pieces of bench work. 

Bobby

You can put a switch near where the 2 curved tracks are at near the long straight section and have a small siding.

Lee Fritz

I added crossovers, some sidings, and changed the yard layout to utilize Ross switches with 3" track spacing, the two central yard sidings at just over 8'. I'm trying to squeeze in a train station somewhere, somewhere I can make a little more residential, most likely by the train station, to at least the other side of the lift up section . Any new thoughts? I think it will be constructed in two phases: dual mainlines and then the yard. 

I have seen a fellow O-scaler who has a layout around the room. He built it high enough to duck under it to get to the middle. If I recall it seemed just below my chest. I actually like the height better than the typical layout height.

Added benefit is the additional storage space under the layout. Not to mention dealing with the removable section and proper fit.

Initially I'm thinking the top of the table would be somewhere around 40-48" from the floor. For the sections that are against the wall, I'll construct a "railing" around the wall and the back of the table would sit on the railing and then legs at the front. 

The hinge section has me a bit concerned. that section hanging down is obviously the simplest solution. For it to work like a draw bridge, it'll have to move away from the track a bit on hinge side of the bridge. I was thinking if the tabletop is high enough, I could construct that section to look like a lift bridge, and get enough clearance for you to walk under and maybe have to duck just a little bit, and I think it would look pretty cool.

Bobby

I really don't think you are going to be happy with your yard in the long term. It is just not long enough to do properly. I would try to put the yard along one of the walls. Make it double-ended so trains can enter from either end. It won't be as wide, but all the tracks will be longer than you have now.

You might reconsider the folded dogbone for the main. I know the rule of thumb is to not have any track out of arm's reach. But if the area you can't reach has no switches, chances are you will rarely ever have to reach back there to fix something. Just have an access hatch in case of the once-in-a-blue-moon problem.

Bobby I like your last Fortville vol. 3 PDF layout. I agree with the modular idea as its something I'm contemplating. As for around the walls and modular you can fit larger curves into your design, that's ultimately your decision.

You may want to consider having a hidden staging yard under the main layout elevation. You have enough space to accommodate the rather steep grade to get you under the table, then have hidden staging to start and end trains. The access track would be along 2 of the walls, and can be hidden behind buildings and scenery. 

You could also add some industrial sidings in each of the corners to add more switching opportunities.

The idea already mentioned of having a simpler yard with longer sidings is a good idea. The switches take up a lot of the usable yard space, and you may find you do not have enough space to store cars. You will want to maintain a run-around-track in the yard for removing the engine when a train enters the yard. The switcher can then remove the remaining cars and put them on the ladder tracks. The lead to the yard should be long enough to switch the yard without fouling the main line. (may not be an issue with your double main line)

 good luck and enjoy

Hey guys,

I did some modification work, opened the yard up for longer trains, the A/D track is much bigger in this version. I added the turntable in because I still want a way to reverse the departure of the locomotive. I think the yard curves are overkill, whats the minimum radii that I can go down to while still being able to get a large car through (i.e. Autocarrier)? The only thing I don't like about the large yard version is less room for industry, but it's late and my brain is starting to hurt, so maybe ill think of something in the morning.

I also attached the layout version that's a folded dog bone. It's a less along version here, but I felt like I didn't have enough space to get the reversing switches in, while still running  a yard on the bottom of the layout.

Thanks for all your comments! Getting others thoughts is important to me, especially the ones that have been through this a few more times. 

Let me know what you think!

Bobby

This originally was a 12' X 12' layout, it grew with a couple of remodels.

First expansion, into the next room.

Final expansion

Slideshow of a walk around.  Click on the underlined phrase.  Tunnels and bridges are part of the layout.

Most used item, turntable and house.  Mouse over and click on the triangle for a video.

Bobby:  

Dan (above this) has many great points of advice.

It appears as if you have a huge space.  I don't know if stairs lead into the "middle" of this layout or not.  If you have to duck or crawl to enter the "middle" of the layout, I would reconsider.

You have TREMENDOUS POTENTIAL here.  You are unbelievably lucky if this is your first layout.  Mine was 8 by 4 in a bedroom as is most folks.

PLEASE disregard if you are building a toy train layout or a just run them layout.

If you are building a model of a railroad I can't tell you if you have a good track plan or not.  Because in order to do that I would need to know: Who (name) this railroad is (even if you made it up), where it is located, why (purpose) is it, what it is doing (freight--what kind?, passenger service) and very most importantly what you and others will be doing to interact with it versus just standing there and watching.

There is nothing wrong with a toy train layout, or a display layout, or a realistic setup.

Regardless, it would be very helpful to know exactly what your design intentions are prior to judging a track arrangement.

My layout is based on the Great Northern Railway and is named: "The Glacier Line."  Please check out the Youtube videos.  My track arrangement mimics the actual line and for the most part follows the walls of my basement (1 center island) which makes reach/access very easy.

My railroad is a point-to-point as like real life with yards/staging/hidden fiddle areas at both "ends."  

My railroad has Plausibility, Purpose and tons of active participation for others because the trains share common tracks and are classified and staged on common tracks as well.

Your current configuration has just one yard area which is visually interesting--but without knowing exactly what you intentions are its hard to say yes or no.

Lastly, I wouldn't circle with this much space.  I would get these trains actually going somewhere, from one point to the next and then returning.  I would have two yards or staging areas, one on each end, because it will provide you with much more participation for you and your friends and be a lot more fun than just watching the trains circle. 

Bobby:

I Just read you are in Indianapolis!  So am I.  You can come and visit the Glacier Line to gain a better understanding of what I'm talking about.

Also, I wrote the following generic "open letter" to my fellow railroaders who inquire me about layout design:

YOUR FUTURE MODEL OF A RAILROAD LAYOUT

Dear Layout Dreamer:

I would like to share some thoughts with you in respect to your future model of a railroad layout.  This writing is intended to help and assist you (and others) so that you will make the best use of your money, time and resources in your construction of a model of a railroad.

This writing is for those who desire a model of a railroad; not a toy train or display layout.  There is nothing wrong with either of those two options.  However, the realistic option is seldom promoted and many aren’t familiar with the concept.  There are a great many advantages to realistic design.

None of us have endless amounts of money, space or time.  Therefore, it is absolutely critical that we properly DESIGN our future pikes by utilizing a systematic, logical and efficient design process which will help us accomplish our goal and that is to create a layout that is plausible (believable), has purpose, and offers participation for you, and others, so that it may be enjoyed.

First, it is critical to understand that there is a MONUMENTAL difference between the formal model railroad Design Process and track planning.

According to the dictionary as given below:

Definitions:

DESIGN:  to create, fashion, execute, a plan

PLANNING:  the act or process of carrying out a plan

Many model railroaders have the cart before the horse by track planning first.

Historically, the majority of layouts, in all scales, tend to be assembled via track planning; also referred to as: “track arranging.”  Typically, individuals will fill their respective space with whatever arrangement of track pieces.  There is no thought given as to: who this railroad is, where this railroad is, why this railroad exists, what the railroad is going to be doing, and most importantly how the people that are going to operate the railroad be involved and have fun.

People who merely arrange track pieces are missing the boat, if their intent is to build a model of a railroad. 

The largest number of all model railroaders desires a layout that is realistic, functional and fun, but yet keep arranging track to fill a space.  It’s puzzling. 

I’m expounding on the virtues of realistic design in an effort to popularize and promote a formal Design Process that is an outstanding method to: “create, fashion, execute, and/or construct” a model railroad.  It is my answer to how my railroad: the Glacier Line was created.

Design is ALL ENCOMPASSING including a track planning element.  Track planning is merely arranging track to fill a space, however with a formulated DESIGN, the track is arranged according to the needs and outline of the design; not the shape or amount of space. 

A DESIGN includes: a theme for your line, researching that theme, analyzing the information you gathered to see if it is a workable concept.  It also includes your bench-work design, your electrical and control design, and your operational design for how you and others will interact with the layout for satisfaction and enjoyment.

Here is specifically how a systematic DESIGN PROCESS saves you big bucks, time and a ton of wasted effort:

knowing what railroad (FREELANCE or based upon ACTUAL) you are building, where it is, why it’s there, what it’s doing, and how you and others are going to enjoy it, PRIOR to and without rhyme or reason, laying track to fit space and purchase a large assortment of rolling stock and engines with a variety of road names, WILL ABSOLUTELY save you from the “Ah Ha!” moment too many experience when they realize that have all this unrelated stuff and don’t know what to do with it.

There are people who enjoy collecting and running a “rainbow” railroad and there is NOTHING wrong with that.  We all love the hobby.  There is room for everybody!

However, the purpose of this writing is to make people aware that there are other options in model railroading versus just track arranging.  Many people don’t know where to turn and begin buying track planning books which unfortunately solely focus on fitting track to space which again leaves out 99% of the story.

The chances of YOU seeing a track arrangement in a book or on the Internet, that fulfill YOUR specific needs is about slim to none.  It is possibly, but unlikely.  And most of these plans just circle.  Real railroads go from one place to the next.  They do not circle.  Circling will NOT sustain most people’s interest for very long.  Again, this is NOT bashing or criticizing those who circle.  This is to educate others to the fact that model railroads do NOT have to circle or loop.

Lastly, please UNDERSTAND that you should strongly consider DESIGNING your future layout—that is totally and completely knowing what you are going to do before you do it, versus arranging your track to fill the space and hoping for the best.

I can tell you this with 100% confidence: “Great model railroads do NOT happen by chance.”    

I promise you that by using a formal design process, as a professional designer would have you do; you will save yourself a lot of money, effort and time.  You can be your own model railroad custom designer.

Bobby posted:

Hey guys,

I did some modification work, opened the yard up for longer trains, the A/D track is much bigger in this version. I added the turntable in because I still want a way to reverse the departure of the locomotive. I think the yard curves are overkill, whats the minimum radii that I can go down to while still being able to get a large car through (i.e. Autocarrier)? The only thing I don't like about the large yard version is less room for industry, but it's late and my brain is starting to hurt, so maybe ill think of something in the morning.

I also attached the layout version that's a folded dog bone. It's a less along version here, but I felt like I didn't have enough space to get the reversing switches in, while still running  a yard on the bottom of the layout.

Thanks for all your comments! Getting others thoughts is important to me, especially the ones that have been through this a few more times. 

Let me know what you think!

Bobby

Bobby, I like the around the room design with the lift out bridge areas.  With all due respect the sharp curve leading into the Turntable will limit the size of the engines you be able to move into that engine service area..The turntable area is a nice big area but real busy...

Not to push John Armstrong and the book above but I would read it if possible. Givens and Druthers.

Givens- things you will not change or give up= O 3 rail; 13'x18' layout; around the walls; 072 minimum curves for example, a turntable.. DCS or TMCC; 

Druthers-things we like to have but dont need to have for example 2 level layout with staging yards; JMRI computer control; 36" aisles ways to move around.

Wow guys, some great feedback.

George, this is definitely where I was starting: I want to make sure there are O-72 curves, a way to at least send trains in a different direction (does not need to be a reversing loop), i'll be operating with Legacy and DCS WIU (already have both of these for my carpet centrals). I figure passage ways need to be about 20" minimum, and larger in congregating areas (this will give me incentive to exercise, so I can get into my train room LOL). I'm making sure that the yard has a path that is O-72 at minimum to get larger locomotives in and out.

John, great to hear that you are in Indianapolis as well, I may take you up on that offer to see how you did everything. The space is only 15' x 19', if I did point to point, I would want to be much larger than what I have. You bring up some great points here, especially on the planning and designing. It easy to get trapped into the track planning part first. It's ironic too because I work in transportation systems planning and engineering, you would have thought if I can do this on 1:1 I could do it on 1:48- LOL!

While I think it'll definitely be more of a running layout, I think the theme will be Northern Minnesota. My first love railroad is the Duluth Missabe and Iron Range, as a result I've been collecting a lot in this road name, and continue to stockpile ore cars. The era i've collected is 1970's plus, and I love those DMIR tunnel motors. I would have also had the SD38's if Lionel hadn't botched the colors. In this regard I may reduce the mainline to single track with some passing sidings, and take a step back and look to mimic the yard after Proctor outside Duluth. I still anticipate running some other freight through it as well, and probably some passenger trains, but that's more because I love the classic streamlined passenger service trains pre-1945. I'd love to model actual ore-hauling operations on the DMIR, but I don't have the space for that in O (a 1:48 ore loading dock would be amazing, but outside of the 15' x 19' space, same with the pit mine operations). 

I suppose I need to set a vision, some goals and objectives, and then go from there.

Bobby

Bobby,

Not to get side tracked when you mentioned Minnesota all I can think of is Big Boys Triple Decker Monster 3 rail layout as he is out of Minnesota. It has helix's , staging , Computer control, live screen dispatching office with large screen monitors. If you have time and have not read about it here is the link. 

Big Boy's Layout

Alright, went back to the drawing board, rethought some things. I came up with this, which isn't perfect but I think i'm on the right trajectory because the layout just seems more interesting to me than before. It's two elevations now, this allows me run two trains if I want to at the same time without having to worry about them running into each other. What do you guys think now?

George, I have been following Big Boy's layout progress, his entire process terrifies me because I have no idea how to do any of the crazy electrical things that he has been doing, but I definitely want it!

Bobby