Ideas for layout

Your picture did not display, at least not on an iPad.  Use the “add attachments” in lower right corner to upload pic.  

Picture does not come out complete with that yet its complete in the post body ?

Forgot to say I have a desk on the (S) wall  ( 9'6")

check this out _ 24" table around the walls - 30" on East end - 084 & 072 - yard - 40" table height - white rectangle is open - make bridge to enter- keep desk area(shown 30" x 60") - add some spurs - add your own ideas-keep your FasTrack - just add a little ballast on the sides

Thanks ! nice idea.  Im just not sure where bridges would go and would a control panel be put inside the triangle.  sorry for sounding stupid on this, would I be able to do a another level for buildings and such.  Is there a parts list of track pieces.  I just thought I could get more room on the layout with the atlas track.  Thanks 

Can I get on Scarm to do adjustments on this  with atlas track ? to see difference between the two style tracks?  Thanks

I would not sub contract out your layout to others.  They or we would not know you or your likes, dislikes, interests, building skills, aptitudes, objectives etc.

You should make a list of your desires for features of your layout to be.  If you can not do this you need to visit other layouts, search this forum, and read books and magazines.  In other words get educated and learn what you like and do not like in a model train layout.

Then get familiar with possible track plans that will include the most important features and that will fit into your space.  You can do this by sketching on paper or software in scale or by laying out track on the floor.  This has to include how you want to operate a layout such as continuous running loops or point to point or switching, or some of all, etc.

Many have found the planning of the layout one of the most rewarding and satisfying part of model railroading.

Charlie

Not seasoned yet posted:

Can I get on Scarm to do adjustments on this  with atlas track ? to see difference between the two style tracks?  Thanks

The SCARM file is attached with the reply above- right-click the attachment and select "save as" - then, open it locally

It will look the same with Atlas in SCARM - if you want a physically different looking track on the layout - I recommend Ross - primarily because of the switch operation and the switch options available compared to FasTrack or Atlas

It would permit you to add more operational "play value"

Thank You, I will play around with it.  One question I have is do I need to make a "new track plan" using the Ross tracks or can I use existing plan made and take out each piece of fastrack and add Ross.  I  did some looking about with Ross vs Atlas vs Fastrack  Like i said I use Fastrack now but wondering if Ross or Atlas would look better (more realistic).  Decisions, decisions,  Thanks again Carl, 

The easiest way to copy a design using a different track library is to use a different layer in SCARM. Simply make a new layer the active layer and start laying Ross, Atlas or whatever track on top of the existing track. It helps if you use different colors for each layer. You will have to make adjustments wherever the track dimensions vary, especially switches.

In the photo, I changed the original track to Yellow, made Layer 1 the active layer and then started adding the Atlas track in Blue.

Ok great !  Thank You !

Just a few thoughts, for what they're worth:

There is a zero-sum game with every layout, between how interesting the track plan can be versus how wide the curves can be. If you need O-72, you are pretty much confined to having an oval. If you can accept O-42, you will have a lot more options, including no-duck designs where the train reverses course at each end.

Do you want more options? It depends on your focus. Do you want to make the trains do something ('operate' as the model railroaders say) or are you happy just seeing them go 'round and 'round? Do you need to be able to run everything made, or can you give up the Big Boys and Centipedes in order to get more layout? Many good-sized engines in 3-rail, even up to 2-8-2s and 2-8-4s will run on O-42. They may not look graceful doing it, but sharper curves also enable longer straightaways, where the trains show to best effect.

Really, though, you will not be able to answer the question until after you have already built the layout. You need experience in order to figure out what you want. So don't spend a lot on this layout. You will be doing it over soon enough! I also would not do complicated scenery just yet. Give yourself permission to alter the track plan after you have built it, to try new things as you go.

Which track? My choice for a permanent layout would be Gargraves flex with Ross switches. For a first go, though? I think either Altas or Fastrack will work. And you should be able to make some money back selling the track components if you later switch to something different. Either is good: Atlas is quieter, and much easier to cut to custom lengths. Fastrack is a little sturdier. Atlas has had some supply-chain problems in the past, so check to see if components are available before committing to them. But from a pure cost perspective, old-style tubular track might be the best choice upfront.

Lastly, I am an advocate of paper-and-pencil design. You have a scale drawing already. Get a compass, scale out your curve radii, and start drawing. See what you can fit where. (Remember to leave room to stand / walk, and that you can only reach so far.) Nothing against our forum members who are real wizards at it and very generously offer to help others, but lo-tech is just easier sometimes, especially during the early doodle phase, which is where you are now.

Accepting smaller curves is always a trade-off between appearance and operational options. As Nick said, there are options for almost all engines that will run on O42 curves. They may not be the most detailed or look prototypical doing it, but tight curves can be hidden by landscaping to minimize such appearance problems. Everyone wants the widest curves possible, but is it worth sacrificing design options for the sake of appearance? I did some quick mods to another design (see photo) that uses O42/O54 curves to get more operation in a slightly different space. The plan obviously doesn't fit the space, but it's just to show you there are options other that ovals around the room.

IMHO, the fact that you're "not seasoned yet" doesn't mean you can't design a layout that will give you years of enjoyment, especially if you take some time to learn SCARM and let folks here help. One feature in SCARM that so many overlook when designing is the 3D Simulation. With it you can see almost exactly how your design will operate. Gone are the days when you had to draw stuff on paper, build and then modify as you go to get what you wanted. Now you can get a layout, with parts list, and run a simulation in 3D, complete with operating switches and couplers. If you upgrade, you can run multiple trains. Obviously, you'll still want to make changes over time, a layout is almost never finished, but you'll be well ahead of the game. And as you can probably tell, I'm a big fan of software. I've done the paper, compass, template thing and while it worked at the time, there's no way I'm going back. Not to mention that it's very hard to share designs and ideas on paper. Oh, and make sure you have plenty of paper and erasers.

While I'm not fond of track with built-in roadbed, mostly due to noise, there are many fine layout examples here done with FasTrack, so don't be too quick to change just for the sake of change. GarGraves with Ross switches seems to be the combination of choice when it comes to ease, cost and availability. Atlas arguably looks the best and is quiet, but it's not cheap and availability can be an issue. However, they all offer different size curves/switches and that often will dictate the brand of track one uses. And playing with the different options isn't something one can readily do on paper. I tend to do all my designs in both Atlas and GarGraves/Ross just to see the different possibilities with the different size curves and switches.

Thanks !  I understand what you are saying.  I have had experience with my other layout which I just took a part.  It was a 16 X 6 square table, it had  upper level, tunnels, and 2 bridges, had started scenery and so on.  Most was learned through You Tube especially with Eric's train videos and others including this great forum, many helped me with some wiring problems I was having  adding remote switches through the AIU.  I also look at Woodland scenic's a lot also.  It was really my second layout I had done.  Why did I take it apart ?  I still wanted something different, and sometimes see other peoples layouts and want to bring it to mine but problem was and is not enough space, and reaching at items and trains on a wide board, Thinking if I change thinks around and use different track it might give me what I would like, I was just looking for other people's ideas or suggestions.  I do have a problem trying to plan things out into what I want.  I have been using Lionel fastrack but I like the look of the atlas tracks, again do I switch and now have to ballast it all and now it becomes permanent. I know I could sell the fastrack I do sell and buy with ebay.  I would like to run multi trains that pass each other and have a yard and multi sidings.  I want to use bridges and maybe have an upper level again.  I just can't seem to plan it out right with drawing and sizing of tracks and switches and board . I seem to have left the impression that I am new at all this, but been doing it for a few years,  I use DCS and thinking about adding TMCC in the future.  I just want to see if others could help me in the planing stage with it.  I don't want to spend $ on a track program since I would not use it alot.  I know the Scarm gives a free trail but again I need to learn how to use.  So there you have it, I guess I want too much for two little space.  Thanks for the thought I do appreciate all inputs.  

Thanks Dave ! I appreciate the input, yes that's a great layout plan which I could fit with what space I have.  See, that's what I mean, I don't have that imagination with the track planning idea.  

Well, we all suffer from that.

I guess the first place to start is a more accurate idea of the available space. Carl has the lower right nook at 30"x30" instead of the 30"x36" in your drawing. You didn't specify the size of the desk, so he added a 24"x60" desk near to the door.  Is that about the right size and placement?

He also used minimum O72 curves which made the outside curves O84. I tried it with O60/O72 and it didn't make enough difference to warrant the change.

Your drawing shows the east wall at 10' 6" and then there is the 30" nook. That makes 13' total. Unfortunately the drawing then shows the pole at 8' 9" from the north wall and 4' 11" from the south wall. That adds up to 13' 8" and probably doesn't account for the size of the pole. The only things that really matter though are the distances from the north wall, so I used the 8' 9" and 10' 10".

While doing that I decided to add a crossover to move between ovals and a rise of 4" along the north wall. That results in grades of 3.3% on left and 2.7% on right. It would be fairly easy to add a water feature on the north wall for some bridges. I also added a passing siding/spur and changed the yard a bit.

NSY,

You have the same dilemma as with the old layout for an elevated area - where to run the rise/decline and what to do when you are up there.

I only have a the mock-up/build in process photo of the old layout. Do have one of it finished? That ended up having a nice flow to it.

What are thinking about for the upper level?

You can see that the lower level can varied in many ways with an around the walls table. Don't develop that too much now. Time to determine if the upper level can or should be worked in to the design.

Dave has demonstrated that a small rise and descent can add a good visual effect of terrain. A good place to work in your bridges.

How much did you like or use the yard on the old layout? How did you use it?

So, first, the desk measures at 40" long x 20" wide not much difference from Carl's size.  Also the nook is 30" since the other side of it is a closet.  Now I was thinking, if an elevated section on the east wall might be good since I could add buildings and street scenes with cars etc..  and keep the rise on north wall and come down on south side but it would interfere with the sidings and switches.  If I just add a separate  elevated section with a oval on top not connected to bottom track ? and have 2 entrance tunnel at bottom ? Would the level need to come over more than 36" for top ? Another question I have is about the entrance into the middle area that s opened,  how is the best way to get in using a hatch and not disturb tracks ?  I would have transformer and switch control on outside of pole at left since there is about 5 '.  I really like the idea of 2 trains passing each other side to side with singles and such in all I would like to run least 3 trains at a time.

Also for Carl....I do believe I have the mock up of old layout however after a while the width of the board was a bit annoying for access, and it took up much room. It was however, a great plan and I had it for 2 years until now.  It did flow nice and i made some adjustments into it.  

                                     Thanks All !

I did some playing around while waiting for a doctor's appointment. I added some O48 reversing loops and the entry point.

Only problem for me is the space being taken on that south wall (30") part.  Trying to reach would be hard on that side.  maybe if I took the radis down some on the outside curves.  I don't own any "Big Boys Trains" as yet so maybe I don't need the O72 ?  would that be silly to do.  You said you tried with 060/072 with not much difference with clearance but maybe there is no other choice.    Thanks !    Boy this would be tough for me to figure out ! 

I played with Daz' file this afternoon.The two loops are on at the same level.  The climb to the reversing loop is 4% but could be reduced if the 7" height is reduced to 6" or you allow the mains to climb as done in Daz' plan.

The yard can be shorten to allow access to the corner.

Jan

Try this version with some O48 and O60. I don't like the yard being covered, but that might be resolved with some removable panels for your upper level town. And these are just food for thought, nothing more.

Thanks !  I agree I don't like the yard covered either.   Jan's version looks good too.  What about an upper level on the other side before the hatch  ?  or maybe no upper it may seem too much of a problem,  it certainly looks like a lot of track there.

Thanks all

Unfortunately not. If I move it to the west wall, it doesn't fit and if I change the orientation to make it fit, it will end up in the same direction as the lower loop only in a different location.

Here's one more idea for tonight.

Not seasoned yet posted:

So, first, the desk measures at 40" long x 20" wide not much difference from Carl's size.  Also the nook is 30" since the other side of it is a closet.  Now I was thinking, if an elevated section on the east wall might be good since I could add buildings and street scenes with cars etc..  and keep the rise on north wall and come down on south side but it would interfere with the sidings and switches.  If I just add a separate  elevated section with a oval on top not connected to bottom track ?   YES  and have 2 entrance tunnel at bottom ? Would the level need to come over more than 36" for top ? YES, In the corners  Another question I have is about the entrance into the middle area that s opened,  how is the best way to get in using a hatch and not disturb tracks ?   No solid table with hatch - entrance with lift up/out section is easy and best way I would have transformer and switch control on outside of pole at left since there is about 5 '.  I really like the idea of 2 trains passing each other side to side with singles and such in all I would like to run least 3 trains at a time.

Also for Carl....I do believe I have the mock up of old layout however after a while the width of the board was a bit annoying for access, and it took up much room. It was however, a great plan and I had it for 2 years until now.  It did flow nice and i made some adjustments into it.  

You didn't tell me how you used the yard or if you used it - reason - Do you really need a yard?

                                     Thanks All !

See above - your questions in bold - answers in RED

Yes used yard for storing other trains and a little industry,  How is hatch detached with tracks on removable part, how to tracks keep connection to each other without disturbance and pulling apart for power . Sorry if sounding stupid here.  

Thanks !

The removable section is just a small piece of the train table that is movable or removable. The wiring is not that difficult. I know from seeing your old layout that you can build it. I can send you links to threads of a few ways that it is done. Don't sweat that now, let's work on an elevated deck or not as a separate line to continue the design process.

I like Jan's version with my yard to solve the reach problem from the desk area. Jan's version makes the ovals move interesting and smooth's out the crossovers.

I have had a lot going, so I'll try to get a another up for you review. I have an idea for the elevated line.

Here's the new idea - a little shrinkage on my original version with a O48 separate elevated loop

Great job, Carl, I like it. I was going to work on something similar today, but some medical issues I'm currently fighting dictated otherwise. Ever had an ear wick forced into a completely swollen ear? It's not fun, I can tell you that.

Anyway, the yard interferes with the outer main, so that needs to be dealt with. It and the switch on the main can be moved closer to the pole and I think there might be enough clearance with only a slight mod to the baseboard. I understand you're trying to keep reach to 36" or less, but the desk is still too large. That lower right corner is out of reach except from an open bottom either way. Just food for thought.

I still question the size of the closet in the lower right. NSY says it's 30", but he never said the 36" in his drawing needs to be 30". Your design will fit either way with just mods to the length of the yard spurs.

I just saw this topic a few minutes ago.  I think you have come a long way in just a few days, Not Seasoned Yet!  I like the basic concept, and Carl and Dave's  most recent rendition is the best.  "Do you need a yard?" Rather reminiscent of my plan discussion.  Yes, the yard is out in the open, where it will be easy to get to cars and engines.  

So the question I have to ask is do you want to have each loop separate from the other, or do you want crossovers.  Of course you could wait and make that decision later, as long as the tracks are the right distance, apart.  You could easily add the crossovers later after you have gained more experience building, wiring, and operating the layout.

Second question, do you want the one loop to rise in elevation to the second level so a train could transverse the whole layout, ans in Dave's plan a day ago?  Maybe that is a decision for Phase 2 as well, if you are as your name implies, Not Seasoned Yet.

Great work gents!!

So I asked for ideas and man did I get them !  I really love this layout design !  I am trying to see which way to go with this, Carl, the separate loop idea on it's own is really a nice concept and Dave, your plan of the loop rise connecting the entire layout brings me thinking  also.  But as Mark stated I could change it up later if I wanted to.  In any way it's more than I was looking for.  A little more tweaking here and there and it's on the money.  Thank's all, I could have never established this concept without your great help and insight's !  

Yes, you will get a lot of ideas here.  Just click on the link at the bottom of my signature line if you want to see where it can really go on this Forum! 

Though I have built several layouts in the past, I am not good at ideas.  The folks here really helped me out!!  I'm looking forward to seeing your progress.

Really nice with all the assistance. Why I love the Forum and DoubleDaz and the folks that know that software package gave me great ideas on what I want from my layout

Mark, I didn't notice that Carl's version didn't include crossovers to connect the lower mains, so thanks for pointing that out and here's a version with them added. It's up to NSY if he wants them or not.

NSY, they don't affect the alignment much, so they could be added later, but I wanted to add them now to make sure and see how they looked. I think I included the needed fitter pieces, but I'm not all that versed on FasTrack switches.

The yard still looks a little close, but as long as a car isn't parked on that curve or moved through it while another train is passing, there really shouldn't be problems. And, if more room is needed, the yard spurs could be shortened to provide some access to the lower right corner, albeit tight. As you can see by my note there I'm still a little confused about the size of that corner closet, 30x30 or 30x36???

As the design stands now, I don't see enough space to connect the 2 levels and certainly not enough to think about it during construction. The size of the curves on the left dictate where the 2 mains go and how much space they need. I didn't like my earlier attempt, but wanted to show what it would entail. Even if you could connect the 2 levels as they sit now, once you go up you have to reverse direction to come back down and then there's no way to go back up. That's why my earlier attempt had a loop on the top and a loop in the other direction on the bottom.

Ok  that space in corner is 36" toward the east wall and the 30" is toward the desk wall.  So then I would have Carl's idea of keeping the top line by itself ? Which is fine by me.  Spurs could be shortened and maybe one closest to desk taken away ?  Thanks !

Here's a mod to Daz' last plan

Jan

Not seasoned yet posted:

Ok  that space in corner is 36" toward the east wall and the 30" is toward the desk wall.  So then I would have Carl's idea of keeping the top line by itself ? Which is fine by me.  Spurs could be shortened and maybe one closest to desk taken away ?  Thanks !

NSY, thanks for the 36" clarification. If I have that and the desk dimensions right, here is how it would look. I don't see any reason to take away any of the spurs because they are all within a 30" reach. The part that will be over 30" (note the 30x30 boxes) is outlined in red, but IMHO taking away a yard spur won't help enough to justify losing the storage space. Jan's idea is another option, but puts more track out of reach, albeit just storage tracks. I don't think you'll have much trouble with the upper curve in the corner. FWIW, you'll have the same reach problem in the upper left, but that can't be avoided when walls are involved. The only negatives I see are the "S" curves in the reversing loops and the lack of space for more spurs off the inner main. You could maybe expand the north section from 24" to 30" to make room for a spur, but I don't know how much switching you really do or what your plans are for landscaping. As a "runner" I like it the way it is.

Yes I agree it is very well fit, I want as much reach as possible for me,  What problems do you see with the S curves in the reversing loop? I think I scared myself by looking at the parts list though.  Those 072 and 048 switches are a small fortune about $ 100 + each. I may have to start a go fund me account LOL.  Does anyone think I should just go with the Fastrack or switch to Atlas/Gargraves. I have alot of fastrack from my previous layout.  Anyway I love this concept Thank You All for the great ideas.  Next question is that lift up portion  Carl had mentioned wiring process and I am wondering how the tracks will connect.  I guess the bench work will be next, should it be done in module fashion or just one connection anyone with a preference idea ?  Thanks All !