Layout Suggestions

Your document link doesn't work.

"The page you requested is not available. Please go back and try your request again. Reference ID: 159096764945615850[-1813113515][-1371202990]30.1.b16.de8e7f8-db075.ps001".

My first thought is with a 20 x 20 layout how do you plan to access it?

If you want a main around the outside for the passenger cars it may be possible to run an inner line that branches here and there for other cars and to access storage sidings.

If you are using GarGraves and want big curves I suggest looking into using all flex track. Flex track also give the option to break up long straights with just a slight curve which I think adds interest when watching a train move along.

I was able to see your PDF file just fine.  Since those are 4' wide tables, you will need to have access to both sides of the tables.  4' is just too far to reach across!

For real help with a track plan. we need to know the full size of the room, any impediments to use of the room (doors, windows, supports, utilities, other obstructions) and the answer to one big question.  Do you just want to watch your equipment run in sceniced circles (changing the running equipment occasionally) or do you want to operate like a real sceniced railroad?  If you are not sure how to answer this question, I suggest you read some topics, books (John Armstrong's "Track Planning for Realistic Operations" comes to mind), and magazine articles (Frank Ellison's "The Art of Model Railroading" is a good one).  With this info, we can be of more help.

Chuck

The doc link is working now, I see your square table made up of 8, 4x8's. Must be a big room, have you considered going around the walls?

@PRR1950 posted:

I was able to see your PDF file just fine.  Since those are 4' wide tables, you will need to have access to both sides of the tables.  4' is just too far to reach across!

For real help with a track plan. we need to know the full size of the room, any impediments to use of the room (doors, windows, supports, utilities, other obstructions) and the answer to one big question.  Do you just want to watch your equipment run in sceniced circles (changing the running equipment occasionally) or do you want to operate like a real sceniced railroad?  If you are not sure how to answer this question, I suggest you read some topics, books (John Armstrong's "Track Planning for Realistic Operations" comes to mind), and magazine articles (Frank Ellison's "The Art of Model Railroading" is a good one).  With this info, we can be of more help.

Chuck

For scenery, I am planning something different than what you would typically see on a model railroad layout. Lots of people recreate cities, towns, and indigenous businesses in their layouts. They look great and are extremely impressive, but I am not interested in doing that. My layout scenery will involve almost entirely forests and mountain areas. I definitely want to reproduce the wilderness areas that my wife and I experienced during our recent driving tour of the contiguous United States that encompassed 25,000 miles in the car. Additionally, back in the 1980s I crossed the United States twice in F40PH Amtrak trains, and those trains traveled through some of the most beautiful sections of our country.

In terms of books, I will investigate the books recommended here. Absolutely - thank you for suggesting them. But I am also looking for some creative ideas from OGR members for track plans. I don't just want to watch my trains run in large circles. I could simply run 3-5 large "square" circles around my tentative layout plan, but I would like something more interesting than that.

I am willing to change the arrangement of my platforms, as long as I can continue to use the 138 curves in the mix. I want to be able to run the 21" passenger cars on any section of the layout and have them look great. Based on the pdf that I attached, I could operate the trains from the inside (requiring me to duck underneath or cut out a section and put a movable bridge in the section) or I could operate the trains from the outside.

In terms of room size, I have a large cellar and would be able to easily walk around the layout. There are no doors, windows, supports, utilities, or other obstructions to contend with. I have a large, open area. I would not have to reach across 4' of board because I could always walk around the layout or enter the inside open area. I did consider something around the walls, but a few years ago we had to have one section of the wall replaced due to water entering from outside. Our house is a rancher, well built, with large concrete wall sections. If we were to ever have a leak again (I am hoping not), I would not want to have to tear apart my layout to access the wall section needing repair.

I understand the flexibility of flex track, but would prefer to use precut 138 curves as I really don't relish the idea of cutting track. Currently, the only track pieces I have are lots of GarGraves 37" straight flex pieces that I am going to use as straights in the track lines. All of my locomotives and cars are sitting parked on those straights as I build my layout.

Perhaps one way of doing this would be for members to share their track plans with me in the form of attachments? That might give me some ideas in terms of how to run the track lines. That way this would not be such an abstract concept. Sometimes just seeing how someone ran their track lines can spark ideas.

I’ll have a similar footprint in the new house.  One thing I’m considering is adding one or 2 peninsulas in the center for a yard or industries.  With a layout like this, you can’t really incorporate reversing loops (especially with the larger curve diameter).  One of my peninsulas will be an engine yard with a “wye” to be able to turn engines around.  

@VJandP posted:

I’ll have a similar footprint in the new house.  One thing I’m considering is adding one or 2 peninsulas in the center for a yard or industries.  With a layout like this, you can’t really incorporate reversing loops (especially with the larger curve diameter).  One of my peninsulas will be an engine yard with a “wye” to be able to turn engines around.  

You make an amazing point about turning around trains - and I have considered this. That is the one drawback to my current layout design. For that reason alone, I am open to moving the plywood sections into different formations. It would be nice to be able to turn the trains around. I might not be able to keep the current formation exactly as I have designed it if I want to be able to turn trains around. I might need to go with more of a wandering layout design that meanders around a bit. I am open to anything at this point, but I want to keep the big 138 curves. I have the room, so space is not a problem. It would be nice to see some photos of people's layouts. I think that might help me to visualize where I want to go with my layout.

I share your scenic preferences. I may have a barn, and maybe an engine service building but little to do with people. I grew up in rural areas with single tracks running from someplace to someplace else. I don't have the connection to multi-track mains, cities and industries.

Sounds like you have already thought through a lot. Do you have an adequate sump in the basement for just in case?

@turkey_hollow_rr posted:

I share your scenic preferences. I may have a barn, and maybe an engine service building but little to do with people. I grew up in rural areas with single tracks running from someplace to someplace else. I don't have the connection to multi-track mains, cities and industries.

Sounds like you have already thought through a lot. Do you have an adequate sump in the basement for just in case?

Yes - I am good with a sump. We had the water leak work done about 5 years ago and have not had 1 drop of water enter our basement since.

I think my forest and mountain plan will allow for more creativity in terms of where and how I run my track. When I was riding the F40PH Amtrak locomotives back in the 1980s, I could not get over how gorgeous the scenery was. The train was literally passing through the middle of nowhere - pure country, trees, mountains, rivers, lakes, and rock formations. It was unreal. No people or banks or schools or drive-in restaurants - just pure wilderness. I was mesmerized riding that train across the country. I want to recreate that. My wife and I experienced the same when we drove the 25,000 miles by car throughout every one of the 48 contiguous states. THAT is what I am going to recreate. But before I can do that - I need to figure out my track plan. LOL. Dan mentioned the turnaround potential, and I think that is something that I would want. That will entail changing the layout of my plywood tables, which is fine. That is why I am sharing my thoughts with the OGR. I want you guys to make me think about what I am doing and what else is out there.

With 20 x 20 you certainly have room for going up. Perhaps a raised reversing loop?

I understand the hesitance to cut track but their sectionals are made from their flex track and you may find they'll need some trimming once laid down. They may not be uniform like sectionals from other brands. GG does expect users to understand this. Anyway, I finding bending the flex to the curve I want takes more time and effort than the cutting the rails after getting the piece screwed down. And bending curves for me has been pretty simple using plywood forms to get smooth curves, not necessarily accurate. For instance, I cut a form for 080 but after laying the track it measures 081 across it. In my case I was more concerned with keeping a 4 - 4 1/2" spacing.

Here are a couple of examples of using flex track to break up a long straight section with some small bends. A concept I learned here in the OGR forums. You could probably do some bump outs here and there with 138 curves, or taking a bend in a mountain pass.

@turkey_hollow_rr posted:

With 20 x 20 you certainly have room for going up. Perhaps a raised reversing loop?

I understand the hesitance to cut track but their sectionals are made from their flex track and you may find they'll need some trimming once laid down. They may not be uniform like sectionals from other brands. GG does expect users to understand this. Anyway, I finding bending the flex to the curve I want takes more time and effort than the cutting the rails after getting the piece screwed down. And bending curves for me has been pretty simple using plywood forms to get smooth curves, not necessarily accurate. For instance, I cut a form for 080 but after laying the track it measures 081 across it. In my case I was more concerned with keeping a 4 - 4 1/2" spacing.

Here are a couple of examples of using flex track to break up a long straight section with some small bends. A concept I learned here in the OGR forums. You could probably do some bump outs here and there with 138 curves, or taking a bend in a mountain pass.

You layout platform looks real nice. Did you build that yourself or is it a Mianne system?

I thought about a turnaround that was elevated - it would somehow have to cross over the open center section if I place my plywood platforms as they appear in my original attachment.

I would like some kind of turnaround, but in the end I think I am going to have to change the platform layout design I have so far. I thought about a U shape. The ends of the U would have to be wide to accept the 138 curves. What do you think of the new attachment?

I like that arrangement, it solves a couple of issues for you.

I built my own bench work from birch plywood and it is mostly put together with pocket screws. There is a forum sponsor, Model Railroad Benchwork, who offers kits built in this fashion.

@DILLI posted:

I think my forest and mountain plan will allow for more creativity in terms of where and how I run my track. When I was riding the F40PH Amtrak locomotives back in the 1980s, I could not get over how gorgeous the scenery was. The train was literally passing through the middle of nowhere - pure country, trees, mountains, rivers, lakes, and rock formations. It was unreal. No people or banks or schools or drive-in restaurants - just pure wilderness. I was mesmerized riding that train across the country. I want to recreate that. My wife and I experienced the same when we drove the 25,000 miles by car throughout every one of the 48 contiguous states. THAT is what I am going to recreate. But before I can do that - I need to figure out my track plan.

I totally get this.  I’ve driven the country extensively including driving to Alaska.  The scenery is beyond amazing and it’s some of the scenes I want to create more so than cities and or people based scenes, other than industry sidings or a rural passenger station.

One thing I have in my mind when thinking about how I want to lay the track and incorporate landscaping …. I want the track to almost look like an afterthought.  The mountains came first, after all.  I want it to be apparent that the track has to circle around a mountain, or a tunnel punches through a hill that looks like a natural barrier, or bridges have a purpose and their form reflects that.   I’m probably overthinking it but that’s where my head goes when I think about scenery.  

Vin

@VJandP posted:

I totally get this.  I’ve driven the country extensively including driving to Alaska.  The scenery is beyond amazing and it’s some of the scenes I want to create more so than cities and or people based scenes, other than industry sidings or a rural passenger station.

One thing I have in my mind when thinking about how I want to lay the track and incorporate landscaping …. I want the track to almost look like an afterthought.  The mountains came first, after all.  I want it to be apparent that the track has to circle around a mountain, or a tunnel punches through a hill that looks like a natural barrier, or bridges have a purpose and their form reflects that.   I’m probably overthinking it but that’s where my head goes when I think about scenery.  

Vin

I like that. You are right, the tracks came afterwards.

I am not opposed to having a building or two buried deep in the forests or mountains, but my focus will be on the trains getting "lost" in the vast beauty of nature (rivers, trees, mountains, rock formations, etc.). My time passing through nature on Amtrak and in the car with my wife is what I want to recreate. I do want to have some sidings where I can park locomotives with consists that are not in use.

In my case, I am really liking the altered track plan in the form of a U. That would give me the creativity to make long track lines while also allowing for a turnaround at each end. What are your thoughts on my track plan? (See attached.)

@turkey_hollow_rr posted:

I like that arrangement, it solves a couple of issues for you.

I built my own bench work from birch plywood and it is mostly put together with pocket screws. There is a forum sponsor, Model Railroad Benchwork, who offers kits built in this fashion.

Well, your benchwork/platform looks impressive. I love the look of the birch. Any chance to see more of it perhaps with a wider view photo? I'd love to see a "helicopter" view of your overall layout, if possible.

I am going to inquire with Model Railroad Benchwork to see what their pricing is like. A lot of times those options can be costly. I will probably end up doing it myself with the help of a friend, but I would at least like to inquire.

I agree - I am liking the U shape more and more. It will allow for creativity and the turnarounds. I am glad you mentioned that. This is why I posted. I want people to mention things that make me think about what I am doing.

Can you show us a diagram of the entire area that you have to work with? If we can see where the walls, utilities, barriers, etc… are in the vicinity, we could suggest benchwork well as well.

I have a couple of thoughts.

1) I don't think you can do what you want to do without substantial compromises.  If you really want scenery to dominate the trains over the whole layout in about 20x20 feet, you are in the wrong scale.  Running large equipment like 21 inch passenger cars and wanting O-132 (11 foot diameter) curves only makes the problem tougher.

2) In your u-shaped plan, note that the end blobs are only 96 inches deep so there is no way you can get an O-132 return loop in there.

I have some scenes with "big scenery" on my layout but I have O-72 minimum curves, a 9-foot ceiling and a much larger space than 20x20.

Thanks for the compliment on my benchwork.  I do have a thread for Turkey Hollow but I need to update it since the holidays. It's about half the size of what you're planning. I have all the woodworking tools so for me it didn't make sense to pay someone and pay shipping. Last I looked the prices at Model Railroad Benchwork seemed pretty reasonable. The Mianne stuff is also interesting and popular but I don't know how the two would compare price wise.

@VJandP posted:

Can you show us a diagram of the entire area that you have to work with? If we can see where the walls, utilities, barriers, etc… are in the vicinity, we could suggest benchwork well as well.

I have a lot of room around the layout, so I could walk all around it with plenty of room. No issues with doors, windows, utilities, etc.

@Bob posted:

I have a couple of thoughts.

1) I don't think you can do what you want to do without substantial compromises.  If you really want scenery to dominate the trains over the whole layout in about 20x20 feet, you are in the wrong scale.  Running large equipment like 21 inch passenger cars and wanting O-132 (11 foot diameter) curves only makes the problem tougher.

2) In your u-shaped plan, note that the end blobs are only 96 inches deep so there is no way you can get an O-132 return loop in there.

I have some scenes with "big scenery" on my layout but I have O-72 minimum curves, a 9-foot ceiling and a much larger space than 20x20.

The curves are 138, not 132, so the diameter from center rail to center rail is roughly 11.5'. The outside diameter would be about 11.75'. The U design that I attached is only an approximation. If I wanted to go with a U shape, you are correct, I would need to make the ends bigger to accommodate the turnarounds. But I am liking the U shape so far. The other design I was considering was a 20' x 20' square with the center open.

I am decided on the 138 curves and am not willing to change my mind on those, so the layout will have to adjust to accommodate those curves. My final layout design will probably continue to morph as I read ideas and suggestions, which was my goal. Everyone's ideas are helping me to work this out and understand things better.

In terms of the scenery, I am not worrying about that right now. I know I will create forests and mountains at some point, and it will look nice. I first need to get the track plans figured out. My scenery will work around the track plans.

@turkey_hollow_rr posted:

Thanks for the compliment on my benchwork.  I do have a thread for Turkey Hollow but I need to update it since the holidays. It's about half the size of what you're planning. I have all the woodworking tools so for me it didn't make sense to pay someone and pay shipping. Last I looked the prices at Model Railroad Benchwork seemed pretty reasonable. The Mianne stuff is also interesting and popular but I don't know how the two would compare price wise.

Checked out your Turkey Hollow link. I would not have the tools or woodworking knowledge to produce something like the benchwork depicted in your photos. Very, very nice.

With 11 ft diameter curves, a "must" you will need to consider is a around the room layout.

Charlie

@Choo Choo Charlie posted:

With 11 ft diameter curves a must you will need to consider an around the room layout.

Charlie

agreed!

I think that you should check out John Coy's Glacier Line posts on the OGR forum and his website.  I believe that John and his wife have done a great job of building a layout that runs trains through beautiful wilderness.  John's layout was featured in an issue of OGR.  I don't recall which one.  

Here is a link to The Glacier Line website on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/channe...Eq3ajqVTUO6lw/videos

NH Joe

@Choo Choo Charlie posted:

With 11 ft diameter curves a must you will need to consider an around the room layout.

Charlie

Unless I were to go with the attached layout plan. (See attachment.) But - with this 20' x 20' rectangle, I don't know how I would make a turnaround for the trains. (Unless I had an elevated portion of track that somehow crossed over the open middle section.) Not sure. Need ideas.

Even with a layout that goes around the room, at some point at the ends I would need the layout to bulge in order to handle the turnarounds. Unless there are other ways to bring about a turnaround.

@New Haven Joe posted:

I think that you should check out John Coy's Glacier Line posts on the OGR forum and his website.  I believe that John and his wife have done a great job of building a layout that runs trains through beautiful wilderness.  John's layout was featured in an issue of OGR.  I don't recall which one.  

Here is a link to The Glacier Line website on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/channe...Eq3ajqVTUO6lw/videos

NH Joe

Nice- just watched it. Thanks for sharing that. Impressive how spread out his layout is, passing through walls and everything.

I use a track planning software called SCARM, and I just built an O138 quarter-curve (1/4th of a circle) to see how it would fit on 2 4x8s laid out in your "oval" plan.  As expected, each corner will take at least 6x6 of your 2 4x8s to hold the quarter curve.  Multiply that by 2 for a half circle (in two separate corners) leaves you with only 8 feet of straight track between each corner. (20 - (2x6) =8)  And, this only works if you O138 curves are on the outside edge of each 4x8 table.  If you try to move the curve closer to the inside edge, you will have even less straight track between corners, I think.

One of the purposes of any scenery, including what you like and prefer, is to fool the viewer into thinking the trains are running from point A to point B and not just around in circles.  Using the curves you desire, within the space limitation you set, defeats that purpose.  Effectively, despite the scenery, your trains will run way too much through curves, albeit wide sweeping curves.

However, as is often stated on this forum, it's your railroad, so build it as you prefer.  But I don't see how anyone can be much help if you aren't willing to use smaller size curves.

Chuck

@PRR1950 posted:

I use a track planning software called SCARM, and I just built an O138 quarter-curve (1/4th of a circle) to see how it would fit on 2 4x8s laid out in your "oval" plan.  As expected, each corner will take at least 6x6 of your 2 4x8s to hold the quarter curve.  Multiply that by 2 for a half circle (in two separate corners) leaves you with only 8 feet of straight track between each corner. (20 - (2x6) =8)  And, this only works if you O138 curves are on the outside edge of each 4x8 table.  If you try to move the curve closer to the inside edge, you will have even less straight track between corners, I think.

One of the purposes of any scenery, including what you like and prefer, is to fool the viewer into thinking the trains are running from point A to point B and not just around in circles.  Using the curves you desire, within the space limitation you set, defeats that purpose.  Effectively, despite the scenery, your trains will run way too much through curves, albeit wide sweeping curves.

However, as is often stated on this forum, it's your railroad, so build it as you prefer.  But I don't see how anyone can be much help if you aren't willing to use smaller size curves.

Chuck

Chuck - thank you for your ideas. For me,  the most important thing to figure out right now is the track line. I am decided on the 138 curves after months of viewing how 21” cars look in various curve sizes. What will need to change is the layout of my plywood tables. I am going to have to use another arrangement, which I am ok with. You can check out the U plan I also uploaded to my posts. I think it would be bether than the square/oval design that I first posted, but even the U plan will need adjustments if I want to turn the trains around. Who knows, maybe I will end up running my track along the walls. These conversations will help me sort it all out  

I don’t envision having scenery for a few years. What matters most to me is having a great track plan. I can add tables, remove tables, and move tables around to make my final design work. What I won’t be happy with is if the passenger cars don’t look realistic. That will haunt me. It took me about 2-3 months of viewing tons of photos and literally and physically placing 21” cars in different size curves. I am decided on 138 because the cars look the best on those curves. There is no denying this fact.

So… the challenge is how to create a track plan that accommodates the 138 curves, is creative, and allows for turning the trains around. Since everything will be command control with CAB2 and Legacy locomotives, I am leaning towards one extensive and creative track line (as opposed to separate multiple track lines) since I can run multiple locomotives on the same track line.

I agree passenger trains look best on broad curves. 20 x 20 is a good size space. But the large curves will really eat into it. In my opinion. Nothing looks worse than a train entering a sharp corner from a straight portion. Your 21” cars will make it around an 072 curve. Have you given any thought to using easements to enter and leave your turns. You will start out with wide radius curve and it will get tighter as you get further along into it. I don’t know of any fancy software to draw this. The old school way to do this. Was to buy,  say an 8 ft. Long 1/4 round molding. Tack one end onto to where the train enters the curve and the other end where it will exit. It will form the curve but it won’t be a perfect radius. It will bend with a natural easement. Of curse flex track is a must.  You should end up with at least the larger curves you desire entering and exiting the curve. But less overall space will be used. Even your straight portions can have slight changes of direction. I think when running passenger cars. They look better on a layout that doesn’t look like it’s drawn with a compass.

You can also use view blocks or tunnels to hide the tighter portions of the curve.

One of the standard track planning tricks is to use large curves where the track is visible and to hide sharper curves in tunnels and behind other scenery.  This assumes that not all of your track is going to be visible.  Most model trains aren't visible for some part of their run even if they only disappear behind a Christmas tree.  NH Joe

Excellent points, Dave and Joe. You guys are all amazing, which is why I shared all of this on the OGR Forum. All of the ideas are making me think about important pieces of this puzzle. I have had lots of layouts in my life, and the one thing I know I won't want is a typical small square or rectangular layout. I would literally be bored with it in 5 minutes. I am not criticizing those smaller and more simplistic beginner layouts - I started in the exact same fashion and I enjoyed getting started that way. Those first steps are an important part of the learning process. But after being around model trains my entire life, I am now focused on, and ready for, a very different kind of layout that is large and more sprawling in design.

I agree with you when you say that passenger cars look best on broad curves. They truly do. So do the longer locomotives. I also agree that there is something cool about the trains disappearing for a little on the layout - that adds dimension and creativity to the layout. This whole process of creating a layout design has been a very exciting, but slow-going process for me.

I have spent the last few months doing nothing more than viewing 21" passenger cars and longer locomotives going around curves. I have spent a ton of time viewing other people's layouts, photos, and videos. You are correct - the 21" passenger cars will navigate 072 curves with ease. The thing is, they still need a much broader curve to look more realistic. I experimented with every size curve that is made, literally placing cars on curves and photographing how they look from multiple angles. I have also watched them entering curves and coming out of curves. There is nothing that looks worse than having a long car or locomotive go into or come out of a tight curve. It is like watching a very tall adult try to ride a tricycle. It looks silly and unrealistic. It has been a slow process, but this is how I came to decide on 138. Rather than shrink my overall layout, I have decided to expand it to accommodate the broader 138 curves.

I am not going to be able to use the original square 20' x 20' design that I attached when I began this thread. I didn't know that then, but I do understand it now. But this is all positive news. It ties in well with my desire for a layout design that meanders about a little and that does not necessarily have a traditional shape. I need to keep thinking about this. In the meantime, I am going to set up some designs using 138 curves on the basement floor and experiment a little. I have a very large basement, so I can move pieces around and hopefully in the process learn more about what kind of benchwork I will need to build. I think the answer here is to play around with the track on the floor and just experiment. I agree - this is not a job for software. I just need to play around a little by moving pieces of track around on the floor until something clicks.

Thanks for the great ideas!

I understand your desire for as large a curve as possible. I've come to the point I don't like any cars/engines on curve less than 080, and even that shows a bit of overhang. I may have to use some 072 curves but I'm trying to avoid it while confined to a smaller foot print.

With your space you have more possibilities. May a long, arching table as the main view and hide the turnarounds at the ends?

I think software is exactly what I would use for your experimentation, but I've been using computer modeling for decades. Go with what you know.

@turkey_hollow_rr posted:

I understand your desire for as large a curve as possible. I've come to the point I don't like any cars/engines on curve less than 080, and even that shows a bit of overhang. I may have to use some 072 curves but I'm trying to avoid it while confined to a smaller foot print.

With your space you have more possibilities. May a long, arching table as the main view and hide the turnarounds at the ends?

I think software is exactly what I would use for your experimentation, but I've been using computer modeling for decades. Go with what you know.

Dan - I might reach out to you regarding the software. I am really into technology and love working with it. At some point, I may want to dive in. For now, I just need to move the track pieces around on the basement floor. I didn't realize that that was what I needed to do when I started this long thread, but I do now. Once I experiment with the track pieces and get a feel for the size and shape I will need, I will then have a better idea of an overall design. At that point, perhaps software will be the next step. Thanks!

Good idea laying out track pieces on the floor. When I was building my layout. I built the benchwork with just an idea of a track plan scribbled on a piece of paper. I knew where I wanted to go. I wanted it to look good getting there. I would lay track on the benchwork for a few days and just study it. Weigh out the plus and minuses and visualize trains running and what sort of scenic elements can fit in. I think it helps to see what your doing in real time rather than a paper drawing.
One thing you haven’t mentioned is the height of the layout. Laying track on the floor is a good idea as far as showing what you can fit in a given space. But your getting an airplane view of the cars on the track. With a high layout the jackknifing of cars becomes less noticeable on curves. You tend to focus more on what’s right in front of you. What curves you have and want to hide some of it is more easily done with with view blocks.  I like your approach of running through rural areas. Especially with passenger trains.

@Dave_C posted:

Good idea laying out track pieces on the floor. When I was building my layout. I built the benchwork with just an idea of a track plan scribbled on a piece of paper. I knew where I wanted to go. I wanted it to look good getting there. I would lay track on the benchwork for a few days and just study it. Weigh out the plus and minuses and visualize trains running and what sort of scenic elements can fit in. I think it helps to see what your doing in real time rather than a paper drawing.
One thing you haven’t mentioned is the height of the layout. Laying track on the floor is a good idea as far as showing what you can fit in a given space. But your getting an airplane view of the cars on the track. With a high layout the jackknifing of cars becomes less noticeable on curves. You tend to focus more on what’s right in front of you. What curves you have and want to hide some of it is more easily done with with view blocks.  I like your approach of running through rural areas. Especially with passenger trains.

Dave - I agree. The helicopter view exposes more (or even exaggerates) what one would normally see on a regular raised layout. Trains look WAY cooler, bigger and more realistic when they are raised up on a layout. I sometimes crouch down or even lay on the floor to get a different perspective. Best I can do right now. But I get your point - things will all look better once on a regular height layout.

I am thinking that I will want a table height of about 40-45". I also agree about the paper drawing not being the best method right now. Paper drawings would be easier if all I was doing was a simple 4' x 8' layout, or something similar. Due to the large size of what I want to build, I need to first lay pieces of track out to get a feel for how much space I will need and what I want the shape of my layout to be. I didn't realize that before and I was putting a lot of pressure on myself to first build something... anything... that resembled a layout. But through these threads I have come to understand that I just need to lay pieces of track on the floor for now and mess around a little with what would make me happy.

Hi Guys,

I can see two common threads in the discussion about longer cars and locomotives on curves and have come to the conclusion that viewing height and adding easement to the entrance and exit of curves makes a big difference.  Space constraints keep me from planning on any curves over 0-81, but I believe that taking in these two factors will keep the toy-like appearance at bay.

Regards,

Earl       

Hi Robert,

I saw your post and am only now getting around to a reply. First let me say I am building my first layout and am only now getting through the first phase of benchwork, however, recently I was in your shoes and thought I would share the little bit that I got out of it: i have also shared my track-plan. That's my disclaimer I don't know much, and have not finished anything, so take my thoughts lightly.

When I first decided I wanted a permanent O gauge layout my ideas and visions were quickly tempered, I like so many before me recognized the limitations of space as opposed to my wish list.

I needed to set priorities and what was possible within the confines of the space available, my skill set, and of course cost. I then needed to consider those priorities and the ones that needed to be modified or discarded in order to preserve my first priorities.

I mention this line of thinking as you consider track radius as opposed to turning a train around, to go the opposite direction. You may solve that conundrum; but at what cost to other priorities.

I am currently building my layout; the design may offend some as boring. However, for now (this is my first attempt) it is the best considering my priories against realities that I have been able to come up with. Many aspects are contrary to the many who have built layouts before me and no doubt I will have to agree on some points after the fact. But if I don't do the best, I can and give all I have mentioned, what's the point?

I have had some personal distractions that have kept me from getting much done quickly and that has given me the time to design, then design again and again; and yes, I found this design stuff very enjoyable. How many times did I think I had it right just only to see it better again? Besides how often in one's life does a man get to design his own railroad?

I knew I would want to model the NYC Railroad

I had to have a 4 track mainline

I had to have large radius curves with easements for 21” cars

I wanted a roundhouse for my many O scale steamers

I wanted to be able to turn trains and go the opposite direction

I wanted a lot of on track storage for long trains.

I wanted dramatic scenery including Bridges, Tunnels, Stations, Towns etc.

I wanted good access to the whole layout without climbing under.

I wanted to run 1-5 trains simultaneously

I wanted to run DCS, TMCC, PS-1, Conventional

I wanted everything above in a closed space of 24' x 14', Sure! Oh, that's easy,,,,,NOT

Below is what I am building.

I am still and will always be NYCRR.  It's a DNA thing

I will have 4 track mainline, for a while it was 3 tracks but I realized that extra track was only an additional 4.5” it became OK again

My large radii became 120” - 96” dia.  on the mainlines and Minimum 072 in yards

Got my roundhouse, but only 13 whisker tracks and only 1 lead

Turn the trains around; now it got interesting. If I could store long trains, some eastbound some westbound with easy access  to the mainline,.. well I had an interesting thought. I could turn around or change out engines with a turntable and remake the train and that could be fun.

I have good access as 98% of the time I will be alone and 23” aisles will help me watch my weight.

I figured out the wiring, I need 6 transformer handles, I think I got it covered.

Track plan, I ended up going vertical, leaving yards and engine services on a lower level and mainlines on an upper level using 2 ramps inclining in different directions, for 11” vertical separation. This made for easy entry/exit from mainlines for both east and west bound trains.

There was no room for jogs in the straight-aways and considering the trade-offs that was OK. No bridges, as the logic wasn't working for me considering 2 levels. Tunnels, still possible but unlikely.

Towns, still possible for building fronts and Front Street over top of ramps on North and East walls; for the future and after trains run. Buffalo station with 2 platforms and 4 track on south wall SE corner good chance.

Original plan called for lower level to be hidden but it will now be visible and lighted from above with LED tape (under-cabinet)

enjoy the challenge of design, ask for help and suggestions, get out of the box, don't try to do it for others-you will be disappointed, don't be in a hurry.

Consider after it is completed and how you will use or enjoy it. For me maybe 5-8 sessions a week 10-30 minutes at a time, mostly alone, a time of altered reality and introspection and on a personal level        “ If I build it they will come”       I'm expecting company from the past, regards, kevin

By the way this is a SCARM plan, if you are not familiar you might enjoy downloading the free trial.

@Fast Mail posted:

Hi Robert,

I saw your post and am only now getting around to a reply. First let me say I am building my first layout and am only now getting through the first phase of benchwork, however, recently I was in your shoes and thought I would share the little bit that I got out of it: i have also shared my track-plan. That's my disclaimer I don't know much, and have not finished anything, so take my thoughts lightly.

When I first decided I wanted a permanent O gauge layout my ideas and visions were quickly tempered, I like so many before me recognized the limitations of space as opposed to my wish list.

I needed to set priorities and what was possible within the confines of the space available, my skill set, and of course cost. I then needed to consider those priorities and the ones that needed to be modified or discarded in order to preserve my first priorities.

I mention this line of thinking as you consider track radius as opposed to turning a train around, to go the opposite direction. You may solve that conundrum; but at what cost to other priorities.

I am currently building my layout; the design may offend some as boring. However, for now (this is my first attempt) it is the best considering my priories against realities that I have been able to come up with. Many aspects are contrary to the many who have built layouts before me and no doubt I will have to agree on some points after the fact. But if I don't do the best, I can and give all I have mentioned, what's the point?

I have had some personal distractions that have kept me from getting much done quickly and that has given me the time to design, then design again and again; and yes, I found this design stuff very enjoyable. How many times did I think I had it right just only to see it better again? Besides how often in one's life does a man get to design his own railroad?

I knew I would want to model the NYC Railroad

I had to have a 4 track mainline

I had to have large radius curves with easements for 21” cars

I wanted a roundhouse for my many O scale steamers

I wanted to be able to turn trains and go the opposite direction

I wanted a lot of on track storage for long trains.

I wanted dramatic scenery including Bridges, Tunnels, Stations, Towns etc.

I wanted good access to the whole layout without climbing under.

I wanted to run 1-5 trains simultaneously

I wanted to run DCS, TMCC, PS-1, Conventional

I wanted everything above in a closed space of 24' x 14', Sure! Oh, that's easy,,,,,NOT

Below is what I am building.

I am still and will always be NYCRR.  It's a DNA thing

I will have 4 track mainline, for a while it was 3 tracks but I realized that extra track was only an additional 4.5” it became OK again

My large radii became 120” - 96” dia.  on the mainlines and Minimum 072 in yards

Got my roundhouse, but only 13 whisker tracks and only 1 lead

Turn the trains around; now it got interesting. If I could store long trains, some eastbound some westbound with easy access  to the mainline,.. well I had an interesting thought. I could turn around or change out engines with a turntable and remake the train and that could be fun.

I have good access as 98% of the time I will be alone and 23” aisles will help me watch my weight.

I figured out the wiring, I need 6 transformer handles, I think I got it covered.

Track plan, I ended up going vertical, leaving yards and engine services on a lower level and mainlines on an upper level using 2 ramps inclining in different directions, for 11” vertical separation. This made for easy entry/exit from mainlines for both east and west bound trains.

There was no room for jogs in the straight-aways and considering the trade-offs that was OK. No bridges, as the logic wasn't working for me considering 2 levels. Tunnels, still possible but unlikely.

Towns, still possible for building fronts and Front Street over top of ramps on North and East walls; for the future and after trains run. Buffalo station with 2 platforms and 4 track on south wall SE corner good chance.

Original plan called for lower level to be hidden but it will now be visible and lighted from above with LED tape (under-cabinet)

enjoy the challenge of design, ask for help and suggestions, get out of the box, don't try to do it for others-you will be disappointed, don't be in a hurry.

Consider after it is completed and how you will use or enjoy it. For me maybe 5-8 sessions a week 10-30 minutes at a time, mostly alone, a time of altered reality and introspection and on a personal level        “ If I build it they will come”       I'm expecting company from the past, regards, kevin

By the way this is a SCARM plan, if you are not familiar you might enjoy downloading the free trial.

Hey Kevin

Thanks for sharing - I loved reading about all the details! Sounds like you have an awesome layout. It also appears that you can relate to what I am going through. It is exhausting, confusing, challenging, and exciting all at once. You are way ahead of me, though, in terms of your layout progress.

I can’t wait until I can run my trains on my layout. In the meantime, as I experiment with moving track pieces around on the floor in an effort to decide on the eventual shape of my layout, I am going to run my trains on the temporary floor layout. This layout thing will take a while and I need to see trains running asap!!!

😀