Layout Design Flaws

Hey Dave,

If you model  a specific railroad you won't find a lot of those elements. Since it seems like you want to build a display  type layout, then those elements are all about having a layout that is fun for you and will keep your interest.

I am not a big fan of multi-level layouts. I do like elevation changes and areas of different elevations.

Connecting the levels of a multi-level layout is another concept that may not add as much play value or visual interest as one would think for the work required.

However, you have discovered that you have to begin with a multi-level in mind from the start of the design to make it all work together.

I have found that the methods to handle elevation changes are on the outside, angling across the layout and yes, curves. You get more length in curves to handle the changes.

The elevations may need to be higher to account for sub-roadbed, railhead height on the bottom and sub-roadbed(deck) on the top to clear hi-cube and maxi-stack freight or GG-1's.

I like changing lines and reversing direction to be included.

3 trains running simultaneously and unattended looks nice. 2 mains and a "branch line".

Back to elevations...One can achieve elevation changes by designing terrain changes into the decks. Rising to 3" and then rising 4" is easier than trying for 7" in one run. But, what it hides on the base level is really not a space gain.

You can get the visual impact of terrain using only 3" up and down combined with scenic effects. Creating gorges or valleys can further increase the visual effect of a mountainous area without rising to great heights. Terrain sculpting

Look at a topographic map of area that you think is flat.

Yards and engine/car service areas can be layouts unto themselves. These can cram a layout. Think 3' or 4'W x 10'L for 1:48. Choose these elements of railroad and eliminate the scenic areas of the mainline.

9' x 15' doesn't permit the space to do it all.

Just tossed out my 2¢ after working with enough folks that have wrestled through these questions.

Take a read of the attached doc and focus on what's important to you. Find photos or videos of layouts that have what you want. Then, find the techniques to make it happen.

Finally, work up build plan with the software.

Take a look at this recent thread of a 30' x 24' layout. SCARM USAGE 

There are multiple elevations on this layout changing by 20" from the lowest to the highest.

The 3D's help to see how it will all look when the terrain is added. All of the slopes are 1.9%.

It also helps to see what kind of area is needed to incorporate everything.

A few comments:  two or three main lines to run continuously, but connect them in some way so trains can change routes, and to allow a "grand tour" over the entire set of mains.

Grades larger than 4% should be avoided, 2% is preferable, 3% is acceptable.   Many modelers have routes at two levels but avoid the grade issues by skipping connections between levels.  This idea saves a lot of hassles, and allows for more flexibility in track route planning, but of course gives up the feature of having trains go up and down grades.   Decide what is important to you - the elevation or the grades, or both. Be sure to calculate your clearances from the top of the rail to the bottom of any bridges or tunnel ceilings - that is, don't forget to include the extra height needed for roadbed, ties, and rails.

Make sure you can easily access everything with about a 30" reach.  

No turnouts in tunnels or hidden, all should be easily accessed.  

If "S" curves are used, they should be broad/wide diameter with a straight separation between the reverse direction curves of the "S".

Use as wide a diameter as allowed in the space.

If you can, use a turnout diameter that is one level wider than the minimum curves (O-60 curves with O-72 turnouts), because the internal geometry of a turnout is often (not always) sharper than the curve that it equates to (because of the point angles and the short straight sections within the turnout itself).   O-54 trains may easily negotiate O-54 turnouts, but will look better if the turnouts can be wider: you want trains to "ease" through turnouts, not "jerk" through them.

Minimum of 4.25 track centers, but check if running large scale equipment, you may need larger track centers.   Evaluate this before getting deep into track planning.

Include easements if you can:  for instance, even a short section of O-81 leading into O-72 curves will enhance the appearance of your trains while they are running.   Unless you like the "toy train"  effect of trains "jerking" into the curves - which is fine if that is what you like.

I agree with the comment above about yards - they can take up a large amount of space and dominate a layout.   Often curved yards can be used to fit a space.   Include one or more passing tracks, so you have the option of running trains on a main in opposite directions.  These can be part of a yard.  

See if you can find a place for trains to stand (visible staging) so that you can alternate trains - this could be a yard or passing tracks, this does not have to be "hidden staging".

I agree reverse loops add a lot of running variety, if you can include them.

Design a layout, not just a track plan.   Think about the visual areas that the layout will showcase.   Each visual area might be a small as 4 feet or so.   The trains are the center of attention as they transit from one visual area to another.   A layout should have at least three visual areas, but better with many more - with two areas that can be destinations allowing you to move trains and cars from one "place" to another.   Plan to operate trains, rather than just run trains, even if your concept is simple:  continuous running will get old eventually.

Definitely going to have to fiddle about quite a bit. I redefined some of the settings so I can tinker a little bit more with some proper restrictions(like making sure I don't have curves sitting too close together) as well as some other things. See what I can come up with. Brain sort of froze up a bit earlier today and required me to put everything down and take a step back. Thanks for the input.

I recommend a foot or more of straight track between reverse curves, if you plan to run larger steam locomotives (8 drivers or more).  I have a back-to-back O72 reverse curve that gave the apron on my 4-8-4 fits.

Number 90 posted:

I recommend a foot or more of straight track between reverse curves, if you plan to run larger steam locomotives (8 drivers or more).  I have a back-to-back O72 reverse curve that gave the apron on my 4-8-4 fits.

When I was in my HO days I used to do a S curve but would pop a small straight(I think 4" or so) in between the bends. This is going to take some work of course, already working some other ideas like breaking it into areas to try and make things easier. Sort of had that "aha" moment this morning here at work, see if I can get some of that into the Anyrail program without having a brainf**t or three like yesterday.

Thanks for the advice.