If I had it to do over again...

@Ken Wing posted:

Darrell, are you saying there are non-proprietary DCC systems available in O gauge? I am only aware of the proprietary MTH and Lionel systems. Please elaborate.

MTH PS3 loco's have built in DCC decoders. Everything else is roll your own. Williams and Weaver loco's are great to add a decoder to. I actually got a 8 Amp digitrax DCC system to run them. Now you also have Blunami you can use, no base system needed. Since I'm basically starting over,  I'm going with an industry standard system. The 2 rail guys have been using it for years.

1. Built a proper passing track to facilitate more realistic train operations. Currently my layout has a second loop that doesn’t quite support this: great for making station stops but not so good for allowing trains to move both directions. It would have probably not been that hard to do, either.

2. I’m still not totally sure if I’d have gone point to point, as I do like the ability to just run the trains around a loop sometimes and admire them. But I do think having a layout that wasn’t quite so deep would have made doing scenery easier and made switches easier to reach...

3. Definitely my choice of switches. They are Lionel 027 switches, mostly of the O31 size and the number one cause of operations issues on the layout. They’ve caused more derailments than they prevented with the anti derail circuit, and the worst of the lot is of course the one that is the hardest to reach. I’ve also found I kind of like throwing switches manually, so if I were to do it all over I might have actually gone partly or entirely manual just to eliminate the issue. I also sort of wish this particular type of switch looked a little better in terms of design... not asking for 100% accuracy, but something that was lighted & had a signal head more like the real thing would have been nice.

4. Not making my sidings longer & straighter. There’s one in my industrial area that is so curved that it’s a real pain to switch. And I think I might have been able to get a slightly longer track 2 behind my depot if I’d had the switch nearer the throat of the yard.

5. Something that I might be able to do something about, but maybe putting casters on the train table. It needs to move in and out from the wall on occasion for maintenance on a semi annual basis, as well as making doing scenery easier (hard to model with your back to a wall).

6. I might not have do a big grade if I did things again, even though I really like the one I have on my current layout. It definitely does add some interesting complexity to operations, but eliminating it might allow for longer trains with the more “budget” power I run... though props to K Line Alco’s for thus far being able to lug just about anything I throw at them up that grade even though they aren’t the most powerful things on the planet.

I have always disliked the idea of having two or more levels of track and not having a connection between them.  So I build ta layout with an upper and lower level with two steep grades in between.  They work, but were a pain to get to be reliable.  If I build another layout, the track will be on one level, no grades.

@Mark Boyce posted:

I have always disliked the idea of having two or more levels of track and not having a connection between them.  So I build ta layout with an upper and lower level with two steep grades in between.  They work, but were a pain to get to be reliable.  If I build another layout, the track will be on one level, no grades.

I'm partially with you on this, and it's been interesting seeing how you work with it in your layout thread.  I have avoided an upper level because you either use a lot of real estate changing levels or need steep grades.  Where we differ is that I've come to the position that having an unconnected upper level is OK - many of us change trains by manually putting them on the track, and having an upper-level loop is an acceptable compromise for me.  Next time, I'll have an independent upper level - I think it will offer an attractive visual and operational component.

Having built several small layouts over the past 5 years with another under construction, I've already had the do overs and most likely it will not be the last.  Biggest lesson so far was using better grades of lumber and plywood (baltic birch type). Tracks lay flatter and there is far less warping.  Second allow space to access wiring from beneath the road bed. Third do not be afraid to tear it down rather than modify to get the layout to be what you want it to be. And finally the kicker - still learning this one -  be happy with the space you have available. 

@Mallard4468 posted:

I'm partially with you on this, and it's been interesting seeing how you work with it in your layout thread.  I have avoided an upper level because you either use a lot of real estate changing levels or need steep grades.  Where we differ is that I've come to the position that having an unconnected upper level is OK - many of us change trains by manually putting them on the track, and having an upper-level loop is an acceptable compromise for me.  Next time, I'll have an independent upper level - I think it will offer an attractive visual and operational component.

I spent too many years in smaller scales and reading magazines that catered to them.  😃 The push in recent decades has been for model railroads that feature trains that ‘go somewhere’. They don’t encourage layouts that have trains that go round and round, much less two unconnected levels going round and round.  

Well since I now chose a larger scale and have a smaller space, there isn’t much else you can do.  I am doing like you and changing trains by hand even with grades between levels.  It’s easier.  I really just like to build structures and scenery and let trains run.  It took me way too long to get the grades and tracks all working properly, so I postponed the scenery area I like.  

When I am at the Greenberg show, I find the point-to-point layouts with guys running trains really slow switching industries to be rather boring to me.  I go over to the Pittsburgh Independent HiRailers layout with 4 tracks reminiscent to the old PRR Broadway running 4 trains round and round, and I have fun!  I think I am becoming like the young children watching those trains instead of the switching layouts.  There is nothing wrong with either type layout.  There is room for all interests and for us to change interests as we get older.  I think I’m glad I will never grow up.  😃

Mark, on our modest layouts, having trains run in circles is incredibly boring, even if there are two or three loops. One reason why I "must" have level changes for one train to run over another or at least at different elevations. The other is with an interconnected layout, a single train running on all the track takes several minutes as opposed to seconds. Unfortunately for TwinPinesII I have the issue of all the mainline track on the same plane. Good thing the yard is at a lower level and I have a long grade. I have a feeling I may tear this all apart in order to get the varying track elevations I prefer.

@Mark Boyce posted:

I spent too many years in smaller scales and reading magazines that catered to them.  😃 The push in recent decades has been for model railroads that feature trains that ‘go somewhere’. They don’t encourage layouts that have trains that go round and round, much less two unconnected levels going round and round.  

Well since I now chose a larger scale and have a smaller space, there isn’t much else you can do.  I am doing like you and changing trains by hand even with grades between levels.  It’s easier.  I really just like to build structures and scenery and let trains run.  It took me way too long to get the grades and tracks all working properly, so I postponed the scenery area I like.  

When I am at the Greenberg show, I find the point-to-point layouts with guys running trains really slow switching industries to be rather boring to me.  I go over to the Pittsburgh Independent HiRailers layout with 4 tracks reminiscent to the old PRR Broadway running 4 trains round and round, and I have fun!  I think I am becoming like the young children watching those trains instead of the switching layouts.  There is nothing wrong with either type layout.  There is room for all interests and for us to change interests as we get older.  I think I’m glad I will never grow up.  😃

I get my realism fix by participating in operating sessions at local layouts (mostly HO).  It's challenging and fun, I've met some great local folks, and there's a lot of entertainment to be had when I "come out of the closet" and tell them that I'm a 3-railer.  The website operatingsessions.com contains listings for sessions for which one can sign up (no club membership required and no cost to participate), and it's searchable by location.   I recommend it.

@ScoutingDad posted:

Mark, on our modest layouts, having trains run in circles is incredibly boring, even if there are two or three loops. One reason why I "must" have level changes for one train to run over another or at least at different elevations. The other is with an interconnected layout, a single train running on all the track takes several minutes as opposed to seconds. Unfortunately for TwinPinesII I have the issue of all the mainline track on the same plane. Good thing the yard is at a lower level and I have a long grade. I have a feeling I may tear this all apart in order to get the varying track elevations I prefer.

I agree about boring loops - an option is to have the upper level disappear into a tunnel or behind a scenic break.  That's what I'm planning when I reconfigure mine.  And congrats for having the guts to contemplate tearing it down and starting over.

@Mallard4468 posted:

I get my realism fix by participating in operating sessions at local layouts (mostly HO).  It's challenging and fun, I've met some great local folks, and there's a lot of entertainment to be had when I "come out of the closet" and tell them that I'm a 3-railer.  The website operatingsessions.com contains listings for sessions for which one can sign up (no club membership required and no cost to participate), and it's searchable by location.   I recommend it.

I agree about boring loops - an option is to have the upper level disappear into a tunnel or behind a scenic break.  That's what I'm planning when I reconfigure mine.  And congrats for having the guts to contemplate tearing it down and starting over.

I took a look at operatingsessions.com.  That’s a neat website.  I’m sure interest will grow as more folks learn about it.

I agree, Jeff it does take guts to contemplate any major change @ScoutingDad

If I could do it over, if I had the money, the Lionel Fastrack would be gone, and it would be Ross Switches and Gargraves Track for sure. I only have a fairly small stub "L" layout single level 12 ft x 45" with a 2 ft x 4 ft stub L. 2 independent loops with a spur from the outer track crossover that splits for a small yard and one track to a Menards 2 Bay Engine House. The inner track has spurs for the other bay of the Engine House and another small yard. The layout depth is 45 inches is because of the entrance door, layout is on casters so it can be rolled. It sits against 2 walls, needs to be moved to access the other two sides of the layout, and I have just enough room to squeeze around the layout, only room I had available to use, a former bedroom. Using a combination of Fastrack O-36 and O-31 curves, and MTH Realtrax O-31 curves and Adapter Track Pieces to mate with Fastrack Transistion Pieces to fit in this space. I run conventional using 2 MTH Z-1000 Transformers, an old Scott's Odds & Ends Varible Voltage Outputs AC Transformer for AC Accessories, Fastrack Remote Switches, and Uncoupling Track sections. I use an old ATX Computer Tower DC Power Supply for DC Accessories, LED Lighting in Buildings, and WeHonest Crossing Signals when I get to those stages. Still getting track laid back down after I found I needed to make some changes.

I’ve enjoyed this thread immensely, and since I started it, I may as well weigh in myself.

I keep going back to Moon Mullin’s hilarious post. If I were starting over with that winning lottery ticket, I’d ditch the tubular track, increase the length of the main line from a little over one to at least 4 scale miles, more faithfully model B&O Cumberland Division East End trackage and trademark scenes, add a turntable and roundhouse, move from conventional power to DCC, improve access, raise my 45.5” duck under further to a walk under or eliminate it, acquire commercially available B&O prototype equipment for unique trainsets Capitol Limited, Columbian, Cincinnatian, and National Limited, have a big enough layout to support an B&O EM-1 2-8-8-4, have at least O-72 minimum mainline radius, maybe hire an artist to paint the backdrop, have the layout in a finished room with heating and air conditioning, with a separate entrance, and probably hire some people to help me build it since it would take me too long to do it myself. And all track and switches would be purchased new. I’d also replace all my non-scale cars. Would I go all the way to 2-rail scale? I think if I were going there, I’d have to address the discrepancy between 1/48 scale and 1.25” gauge—don’t ask me how.

If I focus only on regrets—what I wish I had done differently given the space and money I had at the time—the list gets a lot smaller. I made most decisions with my eyes open, knowing I was trading off for more realistic operation against less access, less convenience, more track complexity, more wiring complexity, and less scenic realism. I would have saved maintenance and rebuilding work with higher quality first time construction. I should have addressed layout room humidity better sooner. One 500’ spool of 20 gauge dog fence wire with super springy insulation I should have returned or given to Goodwill and bought another elsewhere. Some of my vertical transitions were not gradual enough.

The jury is out on a couple of things. All my single track sections are power-routed from adjacent switch machines using Z-Stuff DZ-1008 relays. Most of these work great most of the time, but I’ve had on-and-off issues with a few. The vast majority of my switches are Gargraves, many quite old purchased used. Most work fine; some have been trouble, especially those without point rails, but a stamped metal point section. Those bought new are fine. I have a Ross 11 1/2-degree crossing that is lovely when everything works, but has also had off-and-on performance issues, some related to the DZ-1008 relay. Perhaps I could have designed the layout’s twice around main without a grade crossing if I used different grades. The appearance of my wiring under the layout is pretty frightening, but so far I’ve gotten away with it (I bought a label maker, which helped).

The other reality is that I changed what I wanted over time. When I originally designed the layout, around 2002, I wanted a plausible setting to operate B&O, Western Maryland, PRR, and Reading trains. My single-track-with-sidings-twice-around made lots of sense in the context of parallel B&O and WM lines in the Potomac Valley with PRR and Reading connections—separate single and double track main lines in each scene on each wall. Today, I’m focused on modeling B&O operations through Cumberland, MD and on its Cumberland Division East End—B&O had a multi-track mainline, not single-track with sidings. A prototypical 1949 11-car Shenandoah consist is longer than three of my four passing tracks.

Without a financial windfall, I won’t be starting over, but I have been replacing track, benchwork, and rolling stock that falls below my (new) standards. I don’t regret the purchases I made (with some ebay exceptions not on the layout). Operational reliability is vital to my vision of realistic B&O operations, so I will rebuild/replace what I need to, to achieve it.

Ken, your’s is a very reasonable response.  I think a lot of us would concur!  Thank you for starting this interesting thread!!

Use foam or just lay the track on the bare plywood so I can glue/paint on scenery instead of using green carpet.

Use Realtrax or FastTrack instead of messing with ballast.

Lower the layout by 5 inches because I'm short and weak in my upper arms.

There's other things I would change as far as size and curves (072 instead of 054), but that's not entirely possible with the amount of room I have.

When K-Line was ending, and their superb scale length passenger cars were being dumped!!!, I should have bought more of their western road name cars, and maybe sets. I didn't realize K-Line was ending.

I would have never left N scale! Started in N scale in the late 60's that led into G scale. Went overboard in that scale. Went to a friends house and he introduced me to MTH and of course that really went off the rails. I still have all the N,G,and O. I often tell myself I am going to sell off the G but am hesitant when I look at it. I have over 20 of the USA trains Intermodal double stack cars I would like to part with but keep dragging my feet.

First off, I'm very happy with where I'm at in model railroading at this point. That includes: My choice of HO scale, my fictional theme/concept, my equipment, and my layout. Further, at this point I have the needed skills to handle most projects within the hobby. (But I will have to learn some new skill sets when I get more serious about scenery.)

Over the past couple years, or so, I have given the "if I had it to do over again" concept a lot of thought. (I'm an over thinker and a life-planner type personality, so it's natural for me to continually reflect back on my choices, as well as try to foresee future choices I may need to make.)

Here's the conclusion that I have come to:

Every false start, every failed attempt, every rabbit I've chased, each success I found, all of it... has been the road that has put me right where I'm at with model railroading. IF I changed anything, then my current state would be different.

Seeing as I'm quite content with where I'm at with my model railroad hobby, then I would not want to change a thing that got me here.

My goal now is to enjoy my model railroading just as it is for as long as I can in my remaining years. I want to make continued progress in the realm of completing engine and rolling stock projects, do some scenery, all that jazz... but overall I'm 100% accepting of my past my choices (both successful and failed, both good and bad) as well as the results of those choices. For I now see that it was those choices that have helped me to arrive at my contentment level today.

Andre

Andre, so well said!  I think as we get older, we can see the false starts, failures, etc as part of where we are and be contented with where we are.  I would have to say I am contented too.  I wrote if I had to do it again, I wouldn’t include grades.  The discussion that followed prompted me to run trains over those grades, and they worked well.  False starts got me there!
@Ken Wing what a great discussion topic!  Thank you again for starting us off!!

Everyone has different likes and preferences.  I learned from my childhood 5ft x 9ft, on the floor, portable O27 oval and figure 8 layout layout and of course conventional control being this was the 1950s.  I learned a limited layout like this got boring in a week or two operating during the Christmas holidays it down on the floor with a real Christmas tree in a mountain in the corner.

So for my first real layout, started in 1977, when my children were very young, I used those lessons make a layout with lots of switches, multiply trains with two loops, 2 trains on 1 track, reversing, turntable, portable and shippable when relocations  (6) came and expandable.  This has allowed me to move and store the layout, when not on the living room floor for 2 months, add a bypass behind the background, expand to an L shape, add legs to get off the floor, etc.  The shape allows for installation 4 feet from walls which then allows the walls to have 500 ft plus of train shelves, floor to 7 ft high, and have two windows on all four walls in the room.

This works for me as I am fine with 027 curves, used postwar trains and conventional control.

Therefore, I cannot think of a single change I would make, although I recently added a Wye after thinking a Wye was not buildable for 43 years.

Charlie