Help me decide on a layout please

I like the first design. the second is Ok but the last one is a bit bla-ze, bla-ze, When you get to scenery, make sure you place a tall senic barrier down the middle on a 45 degree angle so you don't see the other side. this will make your layout look a lot bigger than what it is.

Thanks for your input. I also like the first layout except that I currently only have room for 5x10. This means I'll have to cut the bottom most siding leaving me with one decent sized siding and one little one in the figure 8. That's why I've been having a hard time deciding, but so far I'm leaning a tiny bit more towards the first layout.

Convert the center track plan to O42 and O31 in RealTrax for a 4' x 8' table. You could add the mountain and trolley line to that one if desired.

Baba - I see that you are looking at Fastrack.   Will you have 360 degree access?  You don't want a turnout where you can't reach it - will the table be on castors so it can roll out for access or will it be fixed in place?

Both plans you have indicated have crossings in the middle of the layout, making a divider hard to construct - the crossing should be reachable and not blocked by scenery for the likely derailments.  A ridge with breaks in it might work without restricting access to the crossing.

Is O-36 your minimum curve diameter?   Looks like these layouts have O-36 minimum.   If a plan can work with O-45 or O-48 (depending on track system) for the outer loop, with this be better, or would you not care?

Will this be conventional control, or Legacy/DCS/LionChief+?

One plan has an extension/spur that goes beyond the 5' width - is that acceptable or is that a problem?

It may be that either plan can add a passing track, and/or an additional siding in a mini-yard.   Would either of those be important to you?

-Ken

What about something like this?  The outer loop is now O-48 Fastrack, and the turnouts and curves to reach the 90degree crossings are also O-48.   There is one industry turnout of O-36.   5' X 10'.   If you like crossings - this plan now has three.   I would probably put a hill inside the loop on the right-hand side, perhaps with tunnels over the two main lines in the upper-right corner.

The inner loop is longer here than either of the two plans you posted - a bit longer run on the inside loop.

If you want a small yard, this curving yard can be worked in, but shortens the inner O-36 loop.

If you are willing to "live it on the edge" , this plan fits the 5X10 space, but barely.   There is a small border between the track and table on both sides, perhaps 1/16".   I run my trains along the edge of the layout - no mishaps so far .   This allows a small yard of two tracks.

Ken - The table is in the basement not touching any wall so yes there will be plenty of room around the sides of the table. We will be running dcs/lionchief and going fastrack since I already have a few pieces laying around from a previous lionchief layout.

The reason I built it at 5x10 is because I'm working on a budget and that's the amount of plywood and 2x4 I had laying around without needing to purchase any more wood. I could and probably will eventually add on a foot to the width, or at least just enough to the bottom part of the layout to add a small yard.

I would like to keep my minimum curve diameter as big as possible but also bring able to have a layout with more action rather sacrificing scenery/action for bigger curves.

Ken - To add to my previous post, I like all those layouts you posted. Do you have those plans without labeled tracks or possibly a parts list? The other thing is, it will be a while before I can complete a full layout due to the prohibitive costs of those switches. So one thing I like are layouts that are able to be built in stages. I will start with an outer loop then work my way in buying a switch here and there.

Are there any track pieces that can be substituted in for a 0-48 switch temporarily? Will a 10" piece of fastrack fit the straight side and a curved 0-48 piece if the switch is on a curve?

Baba, yes the O-48 turnout is a "drop-in" for an O-48 curve, fortunately.  The other turnouts don't exactly match a curve, they need a straight section.  I also build my layouts in stages to keep the cost down, and to get a loop running while another is being constructed.

Otherwise, turnouts are equal to straight sections:

• O-72: 14 1/4", used with a 1 3/8" fitter
• O-60: 13 7/64"  an oddball not an exact match, used with a 1 3/8 fitter
• O-48:  15", no fitters

Here is the track list for the first one that I posted:  (for turnouts choose manual/remote/command as you prefer).   Note lots of fitter sections unfortunately, which raises the cost 

• Track
  6-12014, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Straight 10". 6
  6-12015, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Curve 18", angle 45º (O36) 8
  6-12019, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Crossing 6". 90º 2
  6-12023, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Curve 18", angle 11.25º (O36) 1
  6-12024, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Straight 5". 4
  6-12025, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Straight 4 1/2". 11
  6-12026, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Straight 1 3/4". 23
  6-12042, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Straight 30". 3
  6-12043, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Curve 24", angle 30º (O48) 9
  6-12051, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Crossing 10". 45º 1
  6-12057, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Left turnout 13 7/64". (O60) (remote) 1
  6-12059, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Buffer/Bumper 3 5/8". 4
  6-12065, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Left turnout 15". (O48) (remote) 2
  6-12073, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Straight 1 3/8". 28
  6-16827, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Right turnout 14 1/4". (O72) Command Control 2
  6-16834, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Curve 24", angle 15º (O48) 7
  6-16835, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Curve 24", angle 7.5º (O48) 7
  6-81947, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Left turnout 10". (O36) Remote/Command 1
  6-81948, 0 Lionel FasTrack, Right turnout 15". (O48) Remote/Command 4

Do the outside loop first, without the turnouts to get something started.   You can tell what is what by visual inspection looking at the section joints.   The smallest straights are the 1 3/8, next is the 1 3/4.   5" and 4.5" are hard to tell apart, but should be evident.

-Ken

Great, thanks alot. It will be interesting when I try to fit everything together, hopefully I can figure out where the small fitter sections go. As for the 0-48 track, what advantages does it have over 0-36? Can it run bigger trains or is it mainly for aesthetics?

How do I tell apart the section joints? Are the ends of each section the bigger looking ties in the picture? For example i'm looking towards the bottom of the layout, there's the 0-48 left turnout then connected to the right of that is the 30" piece but then after there's a piece with approx. 6 thicker looking ties that I can't figure out if it's one piece or multiple pieces. 

If you are not dead set on having a figure 8 in your layout, I'd use that space for industries, town, etc. That crossover eats up a lot of real estate.

I guess I'm not really dead set on a figure 8 but would still like the ability to run 2 trains at once. The thing I liked about the figure 8 is that the train isn't constantly running in an oval.

BabaJaga - when I open the pic/diagram, I am able to see that the thicker ties with a small bubble in the middle are the section joints.   I would be happy to post the AnyRail plan here/below.   AnyRail is free for Windows for up to 50 sections of track.   You can open this track diagram with the free/preview version, but you cannot save any changes that you make.   Once in AnyRail, you can mouse over a track section and the description will appear a the bottom of the window.

I would keep the figure-8 reversing loops.   Just running two ovals gets boring after a while.   -Ken

Awesome, thanks Ken. That will help a bunch. I'll play around with the program and if I like it and if it's easier to use than Scarm then I'll consider purchasing.

Babajaga posted:

I guess I'm not really dead set on a figure 8 but would still like the ability to run 2 trains at once. The thing I liked about the figure 8 is that the train isn't constantly running in an oval.

In my quest for a realistic operation, IMO, the figure 8 is the most unrealistic look in model railroading. But I know many modelers like figure 8's.

I also noted that seem to prefer "running" trains instead of "operating" trains. On the "running" trains, today's slow speed operation makes 'running" more realistic. On small layouts two trains running fairly fast on two loops quickly gets a "too busy" look. If you incorporated an "operation" portion for the inner loop that accessed a few industrial spurs, you could allow the inner loop train the "run" slow while not "operating".

Just roughing in some terrain ideas, there are a number of spots for possible buildings, not knowing what you have in mind of course.

You can make room for Menard's Morton Salt, one of my favorite buildings.

You asked about O-48 for the outer loop rather than O-36.   No locos require O-48, the next level up is O-56, so this is for appearance and the look of two-track main lines, and for better operation - even O-27 trains look and run better on wider diameter curves.   Certainly, wider diameter turnouts are always preferred.

That looks nice. I'll tell you what I'm picturing in my head for the layout.

Maybe a slightly bigger mountain tunnel with a flat part on one side that has a short elevated bump and go trolly track running through the figure 8 (like the one layout in my first post). This is only if it doesn't interfere with too much.

Then a small water scene possibly in one of the triangular sections of the figure 8. And a small town/industries in the bigger sections of the figure 8. And by small town I mean whatever I have room for even if it's only a house or two and a shop. And hopefully maybe a saw mill or log loader and some other smaller accessory.

I like how you put that Morton salt factory on that siding. That's good that something fits there instead of just having a track to nowhere.

Sounds cool.  It might be possible to have an elevated bump-and-go trolley span the two mountain areas.

I am just playing here of course, its your railroad, I just was curious about the possibility.

That would be really cool. I know fastrack is sort of bulky so I wonder if the older tubular track or gargraves track would look better on tressles for an elevated track.

Agree, a different type of track would be better and visually interesting.   O-27 might work, or Atlas-O or Gargraves.  

Do you by any chance have that updated Anyrail file saved where you added the Morton Salt factory? From what I can see you deleted the 30" track and added a few 10" pieces along with 0-48 7.5 degree curves to push the track towards the edge of the table. It also looks like by adding those slight curves that you were able to take out those 6 small filler pieces that connected after the 30" piece. If that's the case and i'm looking at it correctly that should lower the overall cost as well.

Here it is.  Yes, sometimes you get "lucky" and a change one place has beneficial effects elsewhere.   Fastrack is expensive and the little fitters can add up.

Great, thanks. I will order some of the fastrack today or tomorrow. I've noticed allot of the online stores are running specials for Father's day so that will help out.

I didn't buy any little fitters. I just got a great deal on used 10" pieces and cut them up. After reading a post on here. It saved me about $100 bucks on my sons layout. It just worked better for me, might not for everyone.

Interesting, I'll look more into that today.

Jhagewood: I have also done the custom cut fastrack to avoid fitters and for a more perfect fit.   But I try to avoid it just because of the hassles, perhaps you have a better way.   What technique do you use for cutting and then aligning?   Do you cut straight across.   Do you insert track pins to connect the rails.   Thanks for any tips you can share with us.

Just for fun, I thought I would see what this plan looks like with more Menard's buildings, they fit fine, though some are large.   And I thought to try On30 for the bump-and-go elevated line.

So I purchased some track and waiting for it to be delivered but I was wondering about wiring this layout when I complete the inner oval.

Will one fast track power lock with power supply be sufficient or will I need to add another one to the inner oval along with another power supply?

I was also thinking about running a conventional engine one at a time, is there anything different I have to do with wiring? Or just running a positive and negative lead to one place on the track be sufficient enough?

I recommend two connections to power as a minimum, at least one for each oval.   With Fastrack, every section can be a power connection, you just need wires with connectors to the tabs under the fastrack sections for that purpose.   Lionel sells these wires with connections.

I would set this up as two isolated loops for conventional running as an option.   Do this by removing the pins on the center rail between the connecting tracks.  Make sure to phase two transformers (CW-80s would work fine) by plugging them both into the same power strip.   No problems when trains crossing the connections between the two ovals.

My preference would be to wire two curved tracks, one at each end of an oval; for both ovals (four connections).   You might want to isolate some of the spurs, with center rail connected through an on-off switch, so that a conventional loco can be powered down on one of the spurs if needed.

So when running DCS/Lionchief, would I be able to power the track using a transformer with leads ran to each oval instead of using the power pack that came in the lionchief set? I've also heard that if you have a regular transformer powering the track then this will need to be turned all the way up when running Lionchief or DCS locos?

Yes, if you run both ovals with DCS/LionChief (as I also do), you can use one transformer to power both ovals.  IF the transformer has enough power.   

Yes, turn the power all the way up.

On my current layout, I run two ovals, that are isolated from each other (removed center rail pins).   The transformers are then phased by plugging into the same power strip.   I also connect the two transformer common outputs (black) together with one wire.   The red (hot) wire then go separately to each loop.

When I run DCS, I connect the outputs from each transformer together (you could use one transformer if it has enough power) and pass them through the DCS and then to the track wires.   Lionchief communicates wirelessly, while DCS puts the signals in the power, so they do not interfere with each other.

Ok that's good because I have to keep the costs down as low as possible so I'll make do with one transformer and also see how conventional runs with it. I'll just use a bus wire and connect it to the 2 ovals.

Ken... What switch tower is that in your diagram? I looked at some Lionel ones but they seem pretty big and the one in the diagram looks like it has a small footprint.

That is the Weaver G1951 brass switch tower with interior

You could certainly substitute a larger tower, but I thought that a small tower would look cool here.

Thanks that will definitely look cool there. One more thing, is there a reason you used 0-48 switches for the interior oval instead of 0-36? 

Would it be possible for me to substitute them for 0-36 manual switches or would that throw the whole design off and make things not fit any longer?

It would be nice if they made 0-48 manual switches so I could save a few hundred dollars but I found no such thing. But if the 0-48 switches allow me to run bigger engines on the 0-36 track then that's probably worth the cost.

The plan could perhaps be reworked to substitute O-36 turnouts for the O-48 turnouts, but would require some work to reshape the curves to make everything fit again.  I had not noticed that Lionel does not make a manual O-48.  

My general rule is to use the widest curves and turnouts for better operation, and the trains look better on wider curves, even O-27 trains.   But there are no locomotives that require O-48 or O-42 that I am aware of, the next step up for locos goes to O-54.