Topeka, Kansas City, and St. Louis layout 3-21-2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's some photo's of the space.  The previous owners were apparently shut-ins - instead of letting their little girl outside in the warm Missouri sun, they painted the basement and made her play on the concrete floors. 

 

Yet another reminder why Killz was invented, I see.    Looks interesting.  How wide are the door and tall window, and how far is the window from the wall?  Are you able/willing to put table space in front of said window? I assume the door needs to be unobstructed.  How much space can you use behind the furnace/water heater between the stairs & 18' wall?

 

My first though was an around the wall layout w/a turn-around in the corner w/the window, running around in front of the stairs and the second turn-around behind the furnace next to (but not obstructing) the opening to the storage area. I was thinking I'd leave the storage area open as well as the space along the "door" wall & around to the stairs.  The alcove would allow you to taper the bench work to allow more room at the base of the stairs. Any idea what your turn radii will be?  Are you thinking traditional O gauge, or more of O scale?

 Your possibilities are endless in this space! Plan, plan, plan and then plan some more. This will be a significant investment with lots of enjoyment if you spend much time planning! My layout space is about the same square footage, but a different shape. Consider a walk-in style that provides easy access  to many parts of the layout!

 

Window is 2 ft from corner - Windows and door basically extend from floor to ceiling  and span roughly 10 feet.  My initial thought had been to run an around the wall dogbone setup along the length of the  16 1/2' and 25' area with turn outs by the stairs and the windows.  But at that time I was thinking smaller diameter curves so the windows would still be somewhat accessible.

 

My thinking now is much closer to your thoughts.  As most of the Rolling Stock and locomotives I'm looking at are scale size - I'm thinking differently.  I'm looking at gargraves wood ties, tinplate rails for the track - at O-80 and O-89 for curves- but thinking I could possibly go up to O-89, O-96.  Not looking for 100% scale level realism, but closer to it than to traditional.

 

I was thinking I could use the 18' wall, the 37' wall and alcove, and the first 10 1/2 -15' of the far wall & alcove.  Leave the storage room open along with the area in front of the windows, door, and around the mechanical.  This would be a good start - and down the line leave me plenty of space I could expand into if that became an option - or it'd leave plenty of room for a man cave space.   

 

This of course would put the water shut off into play. It's 3 feet from the alcove and protrudes 13" into the room.   

 

 

The pillar beneath the stairs is right at 9'6" from the 18' wall and sits 6' exact from the back of the furnace and water heater.  It's 13' 6" back from the 37' wall and 2' in from the stairs. So my initial drawing is a touch off on that one pillar.  As far as a pass through under the stairs, it's about 11' from the 37' wall where I'd feel comfortable walking under it - I'm 5'10".

 

 

 

You have a fantastic layout. I love the details.   I'm thinking around the room for much of the layout - however, where the 37' and 10 1/2 -15' foot walls meet, I've been thinking I might just need to take some sort of walk-in / duck-under approach if I'm going to do elevation differences around the walls. 

If I could twist your arm a little....This is "the" one thing I planned properly and I am glad of it.Design a layout that you can walk around the whole perimeter.I know,"that takes up more space"the benefit is while running trains it gives you different perspectives of your layout standing in different areas.It keeps things interesting longer.Guys that come over are constantly making that point about my layout.Good luck.Nick

I'm starting to get some ideas together for how to tackle this layout... I'll get some sketches together and share tomorrow for some opinions.  

 

Right now my plans revolve around an exterior dogbone mainline. One end under the stairs and the other in the 37' x 10' corner.   Inside that mainline is a parallel running figure 8 mainline - which crosses over at the water shut-off.  Each dogbone features an smaller radius interior reversing loop - allowing each mainline to reverse on one end of the layout.  I'm thinking walk-ins for each of the ends of the dogbone so you can have views observing the track around-the-room and from interior vantages.  Curve-wise I'm pushing towards 100" diameter - my drawings all call for O80/089/096.

I visited a local store today and got to check out the 89' and 86' Lionel auto carriers and boxcars and am seriously considering these as some primary freight for my layout.  They are right for the period I'm interested in and should work with the size of my layout.  My main concern is getting the mainline curve spacing correct.  

 

While I like the Atlas ties better, I'm leaning towards Gargraves and Ross combo for the track / switches. For those that use Gargraves / Ross - would I be better off using Flex or sectional to achieve the curves?  If sectional: Gargraves or Ross?

The often published horror stories of Gargraves flex are much exaggerated in my opinion. I find it easy to work with....but I put down miles of flex in HO so maybe it's just me. I really like the look, ease and cost of GG Ross combo and I do have some GG switches too. 

Just get flex track. You'll save $. use it for the whole layout. Buy one piece of sectional curve for each radius to set up a jig. Watch the video on the GG site. Around the perimeter sounds good. You can always expand with a peninsula into the center.

 

there's a lot of great elements you can include. You can get maps and photos to help with your layout design. You have made it easier choosing a specific rr and a specific area to design your track plan. You'll just bend Kansas around for continuous running.

Here's a photo of Argentine diesel from the '60's.

As far as track goes I'd actually handle & look at samples of each to see what you like.  Your best bet cost-wise is clearly the GG flex, though the Atlas rail height & shape is more prototypical & is my preference.  You could also use the rail joiners/insulated rail joiners for power & blocking w/out any soldering or cutting.  You will pay for these conveniences, though, and Atlas is currently having production issues, so you have to factor that in, too.

Thanks for the info!  So is it better then to preform - or form in place?  I've read some guys who say they prefer to work on the layout itself rather than with a jig. 

Thanks for sharing the photo.  Lot of good memories of that place.  

 

I'm a history librarian / archivist - my first gig was researching metadata and digitizing the Walter M. Andersen photo collection at Emporia State University.  I've noticed Santa Fe Online Resources has displayed the work: http://atsfrr.net/resources/Sa...0Service/Rhse-TT.htm  

 

 

You are correct. Scribing your arcs on the table and bending to them works, also.

 

Just seemed easier to pre-bend most the arc and fit the ends.

Here's a copy of my first attempt at a track plan -  outer curves are drawn at O96 but could easily be over 100 - I'm a little concerned about getting too s-curvy - which is why I'm staying under 100 - even though I have room to go over.  Inner mainline is drawn at approximately O89 with the two reversing loops drawn at a graduated mix of O-89 and O-80.  

 

Was thinking about maybe doing an industrial area inside the loops by the stairs - maybe a brewery and train shop with the appropriate sidings. Other end would be your atypical Kansas town on a hill with trains in the river bottoms running around it.  

 

Elevation -  rear track is elevated and grades out at each end as it comes to the front. When at front, it's at low spot.   The inner track elevates from under the stairs - crosses over itself (figure 8) and remains elevated as it crosses in front of the water shut-off and over the duck-under - dropping in the reverse direction of the outer line.  I like that the figure 8 - and reverse elevations offer a nice contrast.  

 

Reverse Loops - The outside track tucks underneath the inner loop under the hill (see inset sketch),  wrapping around un-seen - emerging at the back corner of the walk-in.  The inner-loops reverse is a bit of a question-mark for me.  I didn't want three bridges at the stairs end duck-under, so I was thinking of putting a switch at the point the figure 8 drops - continuing the elevated track out - over it's lower self, then dropping it down to meet.  My concern is that might limit industry -  I'm thinking of adding a yard here inside this loop with a Topeka-esque shop and a Brewery. 

Hi Jacobpaul81,

Here's an attempt at the outer mainline on the benchwork that you designed. It's done in SCARM, which is freeware. Gargraves and Ross were used. Flex for the straights and some curves that needed different arcs and sectionals were to used to easily identify the curves. Those will be flex in the final.

 

there's spacing issues to decide. I left 12" on the West wall for flats and scenery along the wall and 6" along the NW wall. It's 2"-3" to the edge of the table. Losing the wall spacing would open up the center if you needed it for track.

 

various size curves were used. The return loops are 106 and the smallest inside in the NE around the water main is 080. I had to use some custom arcs to fit the table in the East coming to the center to follow that angle. So, playing with that angle of the table can make the track work a little easier with 30°, 15°, and 7.5° increments. I had to use a 9° in two places.

 

I hope this helps you with your design decisions.

 

Photos and SCARM file attached.

Nice Jacob and Moonman. How about sidings? Or a freight yard or better yet an engine service facilitiy, I like turn tables even though it might not fit into you theme or era. Best of luck.

Thanks Moonman!  That really helps - actually has really given me a better idea of what I can do with the space. Thank you for taking the time to put that into a SCARM file. I don't have a pc that I can download SCARM onto - we're pretty much mobile here at our house.   

The SCARM file really illustrated my concern that it was too snake-like on the one side. It also illustrated that I was under-utilizing that side of my space. While originally I wanted to be able to walk all the way around the outside of that end of the layout - I think a wrap-around internal view would better utilize the space - and make way for internal yards - once I get an idea of the mainline space.  I've done a mock up here that I feel like does just that.  

The mock - I've dashed in some edge of benchwork lines in certain places to figure out spacing some.  This moves the return duck-under bridge from the middle of the west space to right along the stairs - probably a double line lift bridge of some sort rather than  two duck unders.  The west reverse loop in this mock moves to where the previous duck-under return loop was located.  I've only left about 3 feet at the back for storage room access - should be plenty.  Couldn't get PDF to load - so converted to a jpg.

 

 

 

 

Hi Seacoast - Thanks! Yea, trying to work out the mains first - once I get that worked out - I can plan for a yard or two.  This new mock-up I think better allows for that.  While a turntable doesn't fit the era, I would like a shop / engine service facility like the one in Argentine that Moonman posted before -  I may need to build everything else first and add this in over time - but I think the new design would allow for that to be within the current footprint.  

That layout has a nice flow.  I didn't do cut-ins. The purpose was exactly what you did. I also didn't round out the benchwork.

 

I assume the track is on the rear of the furnace and it's serviced from the front.(side opposite the track).

 

I'll mod the first file.

Moonman - 

 

Thanks! I really like the flow as well.  I see opportunities here for an internal yard in the lower loop with an engine facility - down the line, it would also be easy to add on a yard down the North wall of the storage room. 

Technical stuff: 

Yes, furnace and water heater are both serviced from the East side of drawing.  I'm thinking I will install a stud wall behind them to provide a backing between them and the layout - so layout would need to be completely accessed from inside in the furnace space under the stairs.  

 Looking at the drawing again, the stairs are under-sized to the east - they extend towards the furnace another foot or so - I drew them at 3 1/2 ft wide and I think it's closer to 4 1/2 - 5'.  I measured furnace last night and it was exactly 17' to the back from the 18' west wall. I looked at the stairs and if I were to run a stud wall along them, it would line up perfectly to slip behind the back side of the furnace.   

Getting around the steps doesn't work as you drew it without using areal small radius opposite the stairs. I bowed out on the approach then crossed an turned with 080,089.

 

That will be the tricky area, around the stairs. I have them at 180" from the west wall. Width to the east. 4.5' (54") from the North wall.

Thanks for your help Moonman - somewhere I goofed in explaining the measurements -  it looks like I gave you reverse directions.  

 

The stairs are exactly 11'  (132") from the west wall and are 21' (252") from the East - so they overhang 6" past the west edge of the North alcove.  They sit 4' 9" back from the north wall - 6' 9" from the back wall in the North alcove.  That re-positioning should push the track back so that it can turn in the alcove with a bigger radius turn.  

Stairs are open underneath - so track can be curved under them - which was my plan.  I'll check the rise and run of the stairs again tonight but I believe it's not code (7"-11").  I'm 5"10" and at 11 feet from the North wall (13 feet from the rear of the alcove) my head easily clears by several inches.  That's roughly 10 x 10.5 rise - I knew those stairs felt steep!   At that rise, a train at a 36" counter height ( I assume most layouts are at counter height?)  - to achieve a respectable 10" of clearance- the center line would be set at 117" (9', 9") back from the wall - 141" from the rear of the alcove.  That'd cut the stair obstacle to get around to about 41-42"

Check my math - but that should work to aid in rounding the stairs.

Well, the snow stopped a little while ago, so it's machine time for this load. I'll mess with it later if I don't take a big nap.

 

I'm just counting blocks and guessing. Thanks for the stair location details. I was using 106 coming out of the South. It won't have to curve much. I had it parallel to the stairs, but it looked like you wanted a bump next to the stairs. If you want a narrow shelf, that shouldn't be a problem.

 

Have you decided on which track you'll use? I discovered much to my chagrin that the center to center spacing on the larger curves are 3.5" versus 4.5" so the track plan has different spacing.  Do have a preference for the spacing? I suppose on the large curves, you can get tighter than 4.5" as there is not much hang, except for the big  boy.

Here's the corrected step location. The steps are ok for when they were built. A 7" rise worked out. Not really that steep.

So, if your table height is 30", the rise to 37.5 or 38.5 to the bridge and overpass at the alcove, the incline under the stairs should stay under 36.

 

Going around the stairs you would raise the table height 42" and 50.5" at the bridge and overpass. The large radius doesn't make it look silly.

 

What table height do you want to have? I vote for 42" and get some step stools for the littles.

Wow - you've been busy!  My plan is to go Gargraves Flex with Ross Turnouts.  I'm concentrating on BIG cars - the Lionel 86' & 89' units and likely either the 18" MTH or 21" K-line streamliners - depending on availability.  I'd prefer the K-lines - in particular the High Levels - they would be more period accurate for 68-71.  At that size, I'm guess 4.5 would be more ideal.  To start I want to focus on building two big trains - I can add some misc. 50' boxcars or piggybacks later on.

I measured when I got home - 8" rise, 9" step.   I re-measured everything to inches.  I'll scan it and get the inch measurements up tomorrow morning.  I'm off by inches in a few places.

 

Originally Posted by Moonman:

 

I'm thinking 35" lower level and 42" upper level.  That feels about right.   

 

My vision of elevation is a bit different than the representation here in SCARM - obviously something that was difficult to convey in a pencil drawing -  I'm actually thinking the reverse elevation-wise -  My thought was that the level coming around the stairs would be at 35" and that the around the wall (east side) would be at 42".  So inside the alcove, the stair track would tuck underneath and re-emerge, not go over the top and back across.

Where the east loop begins - my thought was that the inner loop would cross over itself - the lower level from the stairs would follow the outer level upper along the North wall.

To make things more interesting: the lower level outer loop (inside curve in the alcove) would feature a switch somewhere here to initiate a third track for a return loop which would follow along the Upper outer and lower inner along North Wall at 35" height. While moving along the North wall - the outer loop would begin it's descent - while the inner loop would begin it's climb to 42".  

Once through the switch, the Outer lower loop - exiting the alcove, would somehow cross under the inner upper loop and the two would cross two separate bridges. Once across, the outer loop at 36" would include a switch to tuck under the upper inner loop to create the connecting end of the reverse loop. 

If the east wall were at 42", that would create an upper level that I could surely put a cool yard in below with an entrance from the south inner loop that could span  that 18' wall at 36" creating a nice two level effect.

My two cents is make sure you leave room to remove any appliances when you build it check their size and how much space needed to move them, they have shorter life spans than layouts. I remember reading on a double decker layout years ago, not sure it would work with O gauge, but is a great space multiplier. use a lower level for a major yard, and require helper engines to get back out, a machine shop area. Something that looks good even with a short ceiling, low sky, under a solid straight away that is easy to reach and see above comes to mind.

 

Most important have fun and share the good times and good luck.

OK,

Took the latest info into account. main track height 35". Elevation to 43". Allow for roadbed and track height of 1" to bottom of elevated track support = 7" for Hi-Cubes and Auto-Racks.

 

Elevated from East access bridge to alcove along North wall and to midway on West wall.

 

Access aisle in West is 24"-28". Maybe you want a hatch or two instead. Lost a lot of real estate.

 

Corrected rise in steps and added back. Track comes out 5th step from top. Will the clearance be ok?

 

The mains are 0106 outer and 096 inner with 5" center to center rail spacing. Should be good.

 

The rest of the plan will come later if you like the mains. Issue with the turnback would be that a switch will be needed where elevation is declining at the East from the North alcove. That's the reason I elevated the run past the stairs and alcove loop back, too avoid that issue.

 

The turnback switch in the South would be before the stairs and stay on the table and curve up to mid-point in the East for the other switch. Crossing the open area would be a physical blockage and a construction issue on top of running into the elevation.

 

You need to keep in mind how large this is and that the loops are sweeping. They're not even close to something like and lot of 048\054 that you've seen or may have in mind.

 

I need the exact location of the water meter obstruction indexed from the alcove edge to confirm track clearance.

 

What do you think? Are we getting there? photo and multiple view pdf attached

Wow -  yea - I think we're really getting there.  The stair clears easily -  I measured a 10" clearance (cars would have 3" of space) 73" back from front of stair. - thats at the 6 step going up.  I gotta get actual measurements scanned - it'll happen this afternoon.  

Water sticks out 12"  and is exactly 36" from alcove.  I was attempting to draw it with an additional 12" of clearance.  It sits at 40" from floor.


I am curious what your and others advice might be as to the curves - I am concerned that while 106 may look better with the big cars, that its too large and I should max out in the 90-96 range - sacrifice some of the more scale look to gain back some modeling space.  Thoughts?

The curves are not costing you any space. There is 8" on the west and the NE wall, the alcove, the corners if you don't round the table, 17' x 9" in the SE.

 

You have your choice of what extra track and radius if you want something inside the mains.

 

When the plan is done, you'll need about 80  + pieces of flex track to build it, plus switches and specials.

 

Just the two mains need are 80pieces to build as shown. The sectionals are only there to identify the curve. I get an exact count when they are converted to flex. 245' feet of track.

 

The water clears by 3.5" and 5" higher where the e is in slope on the track plan. Sounds like a mountain.

 

 

Do you want to cross the opening or create an r-loop in the SE to East?

 

You could a point-to-point with a r-loop in the center and run that line next to main in the N. The inside main could switch on and off of it. That could be the branch line to service freight or passenger and connect to a yard or something like that.

 

I'll wait while you ponder. Thought the pdf would work on mobile.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's the actual measurements in inches so we can be more exact.  Stairs are actually 131" from west wall, not 132"  - and they hang out 17" past the alcove -  which is 6" larger than I thought. Stairs sit back 56.5" from North wall, 80.5" from rear of alcove. 

 

Pillar is 113" from the North Wall, 116" from the West, and 163 from the south.  Same positioning for pillar on the east side - which I forgot to draw here.

There's 276" from North to South wall - I need to leave  36" off the south end - no appliances to move out of storage - just plastic tubs and Christmas decorations.  It's 174" from the west wall to where I plan to wall in behind the furnace. 43" of those inches extend past the stairs.  The North east wall is 200" - and the West wall is 126" to the alcove -  there's plenty of room here if we need to bump out a bit more south.

Opps  - Looks like we were typing at the same time!  Thanks for all your help Moonman.

Interesting thread. 0106 curves are great but eat up a lot of real estate. What will you be running that requires these huge curves?

Nothing that requires "that" big but I'm planning on running the new Lionel 89' and 86' boxcars and auto racks which will require a bigger curve to "look" right.

How does a large radius curve eat up real estate? It's only 3 1/4" wide. With flex track you can have any radius curve that you want. I want to understand this comment.

 

Do you enjoy straights more? There's plenty of 10' straights on this layout.

Honey, I shrunk the table.

 

Are you serious about having a 60" wide table in the SW end? Shrinking the wall length on the West made the layout an 048\036 layout?

 

What happened?

 

 

Ok, it can be as large as 240" on the West leaving a 36" aisle to the South.

 

"There's 276" from North to South wall - I need to
leave  36" off the south end...

That makes the SouthWest table about 83" , leaving a tight 072 maximum radius in that area.

 

"Measure twice and cut once" 

 

Now, what? Smaller curves on that end? There goes that track plan.

 

Now, you have good measurements to work from.

Carl, no offense meant. 096 and 106" diameter is what 8-9' wide curves unless your running the track plan around the walls, big curves take up a lot of real estate or area in any given space right? If one has the room for big curves go for it, why not life is short, and scale 3 rail engines look better on bigger curves.

I have a track plan dilemma myself with rr track. In the near future I would honored if you would give your opinion on few plans I have.

 

No problem, I am just trying to understand. Needing a large width is obviously needed. I interpret 'taking up real estate" as having a high track to scenery ratio type layout. The size of the curve doesn't have anything do with that.

 

I have RRT. I could look at your file. Email in profile.