Less track and simple opperation....is it possible to refrain?

Do we all "pile it on"….well, yes, especially 3 railers

 

can we resist?…. well, yes you can….but good luck

 

Simply resist?    ain't happening.

 

Simple and uncluttered?… it can be crowded yet still be uncluttered. It takes a bit of vision and creativity to have both, but I've seen it done.

 

Just do what you like. You can always change it. 

Generally speaking if you have no plan per se, you will become victim to the helter skelter approach of buying and piling to no certain end.

 

Better to carefully assess what you truly want in this hobby than to become a buying machine. Advice that is often not taken by the way.

 

I manage quite nicely using the "less is more" approach to model railroad building...failure to do so can cause you to become the owner of a spaghetti bowl of track and junk.

 

My opinion.

 

Bob

If your layout's size is dictated by available space, it's more than possible -- it's a requirement.

 

I envy you guys with room enough to worry about the possible drawbacks of a large layout.

 

True dat. When I'm done I'll have the equivalent of about a 6 x 8. What saved me was SCARM layout software. Forces you to plan and gives you an opportunity to see it before you build it.

In my humble opinion, if you have a layout plan and you stick to it, you can avoid the over proliferation of track that compromises scenery possibilities. Great layouts have a good track plan and scenery that compliments it.

 

 

I have tried very hard to keep myself from having too much track!  I stuck to a simple single loop with a wye in the middle of it.  I have just 1 siding for an grain elevator, a 2 track siding for a locomotive shed and maintenance area and a small yard to service the great lakes car ferry.  

 

Another thing I have done is cut back on the amount of buildings on the layout.  I want more room for just natural scenery not a whole town that fills up the whole layout.   I think that some people put way too many buildings on the  layout and it just looks cluttered.  

 

I am starting scenery and I feel that when I am done my tracks and trains will complement the scenery not over run it.  

If you want realistic scenic oppurtunity and you didn't have a plan going in you'll likely run into trouble if you have too much track. I'm not a planner and never will be. I've spent much of the last few weeks removing track to simplify things. I discovered O scale takes a lot of room to look real when I started with mountains, trees and water. Fortunately I was able to correct some of my problems early on before I really got into the scenery. I had a siding or a spur at nearly every turn as if the whole room was a massive yard. That's works if that's how you wish to enjoy the hobby. On the other hand, try to get a road in there somewhere with all that track. Roads are almost the last thing you think about when laying track and it should be planned with the track design for things to work well scenically.

My plans call for 2 mainlines, with a switching yard to the right. Be making up freight cars to be pulled. Also setting extra Pullmans for passenger. Scenery and a townscape will be a must.

To be sure, planning is the best.

 

My issue is time. I run the trains for a while and then am done. Simple loops work for me.

 

 

Rick,

  Yes it can happen, especially after breaking down a large layout.  In my case, the last 4 years have been no more than 2 ovals of different track on a 4x8 Christmas layout.   I do plan to expand next Christmas with some Command Control switches and a small addition to the FasTrack oval.  However I do not plan another big layout for some time.  It does take self discipline to keep from expanding a small layout, especially for a guy like me who loves to build layouts.

PCRR/Dave

 

The little Christmas layout.

 

 

Stay tuned.............my layout was the cover story in Run 255 in 2012. It is now being dismantled and will be replaced with a much bigger layout but with a lot LESS track and complications.

 

This time around, less will be more.

 

So, it is possible to refrain with the right mindset.

 

Donald

Yes, it's possible if its what you want.  It think I have done it.  I know how and where I could add another complete train loop and up to perhaps another 100 feet of track or 'Streets, as well as several sidings and such for even more, but in my case it would be at the expense of an "empty" open-country look I have in much of my layout, and I just won't go there.  

 

On the other hand I have seen photo-layouts of, and have several friends with, layouts that are bursting at the seams: there is track everywhere, and every square inch they cannot get track into is covered with buildings, roads, cars, industry, etc. There is no room left at all!  It is truly amazing how much is crammed in some of these layouts.  To me it seems almost claustrophobic, just too crowded, but the owners like it - and that is fine with me.  But I won't be going there, or even a step in that direction.

thats me more open country, less track and towns.

Thanks Guys...

 

I have a 16' by 27' shop that will host an around the wall shelf layout so as to leave room in the middle for shop space. The bench work is up, open grid at 48"high. Width varies from 24" to 18" and will have an 8' lift out across the shop door. I am thinking a simple oval at 54" and a point to point switching line at 48". Simple and doable, then go big with scenery.

 

Rick.

While I can't speak for others, I can say that my first BIG mistake was in trying to get in as much track as possible.  Admittedly it was great fun planning it that way but it didn't take long to realize it was a big mistake.  First, it overly complicated running trains thereby taking some of the fun away.  But for me the biggest problem with too much track is that it takes so much scenery/structure opportunities away.  After seeing so many great layouts in OGR magazine, meets, etc I always walk away being impressed not so much by the expansive track but by the specific scenes around the layout.  Even though I don't have a large space I do have enough to make some interesting scenes.  

 

In fact I might actually make one more "track downsizing" to give me more places to make some fun scenes.  

 

As they say less is often better.  I think that especially is true for track and model train layouts.

 

Ed

This thread really hits home right now.  My first O gauge layout effort was with a small, 3 ft. by 11 ft table, which turned out very well (see OGR run 220).  An addition to my home was planned, so I dedicated a 12' by 16' basement room for a new, expanded layout.  I wanted to place as much track on it as I could.  Several dozen track plans later, I settled on a design that was like a folded dogbone with two mainlines that had 2 reverse loops, sidings, even a storage yard tucked behind the door.  The plywood topped table was soon built, track laid, and trains were running.  To me, it was a dream come true - track everywhere, so many route possibilities, with the ability to park all of my engines on the rails and still keep the mainlines clear.

 

As I began to plan the landscaping, I soon realized the flaw in my design.  I enjoy the scenic side of a layout as much as track designs, but after staring at this layout for hours and hours, I couldn't find a spot large enough to place a town or a house or an industry.  Furthermore, I wanted a stream or creek, and roads, and maybe a mountain in the corner.  Every time I planned an area, I would hit a railroad track before I finished the placement.  The layout was also against two walls, which prevented me from being able to enjoy the trains on an eye level straightaway.  I finally decided that, although the design was great for running trains, I was retired and now had more time to devote to the train room, so new track plans began to fly.  This time, smaller would be better, and I addressed all the shortcomings the old layout had.

 

Tearing down the old and putting up the new took about 2 weeks.  The table is finished, and now it's time to lay down tracks.  I still have second thoughts about reducing track mileage, but it's melting day by day as I think of the many other opportunities I now have to expand my enjoyment of model railroading. 

 

This is the old track plan:

And the new plan, with the progress so far:  

Get cracking with that, Don, so I can make it the cover feature again in a future issue…hopefully a near future issue!  

 

I'm in the process of reconfiguring my own modest-size home layout, and even though the current track plan (FasTrack) is not what I would call a spaghetti bowl design, the new one (using GarGraves track and Ross switches) will be even further simplified to make space for more scenic elements.  I envision it to have one main line, one long passing siding, one shorter passing siding, a small number of yard tracks, and perhaps a couple of industry spurs.

 

Unlike many or most, I don't do a whole lot of advance track planning with computer software, drafting paper, or that sort of thing.  I just start putting down and arranging track until I come up with something that pleases me.  Since I use (primarily) sectional track, that's pretty easy to do and I find it to be a lot of fun.  Once I have what I like, I simply mark the track location; put down roadbed; and then proceed with ballasting, placement of accessories, and scenery work.

Basic for me: Outer loop, reversing loop, and a wye. Spent too much time as a kid lamenting my trains going in only one direction. Also, a majority of layout plans have a reverse loop that can only be accessed in one direction. Once you use that kind of reverse loop you are stuck with the second direction.

I have seen huge layouts that never seem to ever get finished or after the track gets installed that is all that ever happens.  I love the large layouts I see here, but sometimes it is apparent that some don't realize how big the project until they are knee deep in it.  

 

At 6x12 there was plenty to do, just thankfully I had built a layout and before that a couple uncompleted HO layouts.  

 

Having a smaller layout can get boring if all the trains do is go around in circles without the ability to switch.  I will probably be forever stuck with layouts no smaller than 6x12 but not much larger either and what I do know is that people that see layouts really like detailed scenery; so the solution lies in how can you make a layout with enough track variety and detailed scenery - balance.  And once you add command control the desire to have more complex track operations is very desirable.

 

-Ted

Allan Miller's approach to layout building is a mirror image of my own. I just like to "wing-it" and see what pleases me in the end. I think I've done a respectable job of keeping the track to scenery ratio in balance on my latest retirement layout.

My latest layout was the result of wanting to keep my Atlas"O" 7.5 degree turnouts and an 0-99 outer loop in a 11 X 14 foot space. Min radius came in at 0-72 (due to two half sections + one 0-72 turnout on the 0-90 & 0-81 passing tracks).

It's possible.  Desirable even.  But will you do it?

 

Pete

Stay tuned.............my layout was the cover story in Run 255 in 2012. It is now being dismantled and will be replaced with a much bigger layout but with a lot LESS track and complications.

 

Get cracking with that, Don, so I can make it the cover feature again in a future issue…hopefully a near future issue!  

 

 Will do that Alan......am thinking about working out a bunch of "construction articles" along the way. Still too young to retire, I will need about 2 years from now to finish!!

 

Donald

Sounds like a good plan to me!  Keep me posted!  You know where and how to reach me.  

An early (disappointing) lesson I learned in O is that it was impossible to have a lot of track, a lot of scenery and many buildings on the same layout.  Since I really like mountains and running trains, the buildings had to go:  I have only about a dozen on my 8'8" X 15'3" very irregularly-shaped layout.  But I managed to make three runs of track, none of them pure ovals.  I'm happy.

I think too much track for the layout size can be traced to: The layout plans by the "experts" that can be found online (spaghetti anyone?), and the idea that you can have endless hours of "operating" fun. On my 5x8 I have 2 loops, one siding, and enough scenics to keep visiters happy for at least 15 minutes.

Those who may be interested in seeing what can be done with a far more realistic track configuration and the possibilities it affords might want to check out this thread in the Layout Design forum.  It follows the ongoing development of a layout from conception to execution (and hopefully on to its eventual completion).  A fine learning guide for the inexperienced as well as the more experienced.

 

I think most would agree that when it comes to creating a convincing "world in miniature" in O gauge, Norm Charbonneau ranks right up there with the very best.

When you follow prototype practice and have an interchange, engine servicing, Industries freight yard etc it can get crowded fast and all the while you want to give the impression of going somewhere distant while if it the space available is typical, you will be lucky to leave the yard or quickly loop around it.

So that was crossed that scenario from my list. Then there's little room for buildings as well. Everything is compromise and compression while giving that sense of having more space between things..

Less is more..in that sense if "realism" is wanted or needed. Even at that, given a finite amount of space I gave up on a formal plan and kept tinkering with placement as to see what it looked like before I "nailed it down" What looks good on paper..sometimes even often comes out way different ( often in operating dissatisfaction) than imagined on a plan. I suppose it comes down to not being able to consider everything in relation to one another as an abstraction. 

 

 

Haven't finished the initial 5 x 8 display yet and discovered I could probably fit 4 more loops on the bottom shelves. Will I resist the urge?

 

 

 

I like this and would be interested in seeing the final "product". My own layout is really simply a backdrop to the trains rather than the trains being a backdrop for the scenery. This configuration reminds me of going to Field's Department store in Chicago's loop to see the Christmas display and my own followed this cue as well. With three loops and two bump and go sections the action is both hypnotic and relaxing. Great design!

I think there are multiple schools of thought when planning a layout.  Some opt for lots of track in the post war display layout tradition.  Others like to design a stage in which the trains are the actors.  Neither is wrong since this is a hobby after all and the end result should be do we enjoy what we do.  I have moved to the less is more camp but that doesn't mean that view is better or worse than others.  My layout, due to space constraints is a long narrow single track affair with a junction leading to return loops at each end.  At scale speed it can take about 2 to 3 minutes to run the full length in each direction.  A trolley loop and a back and forth mine shifter complete the action.  That is enough for me to manage.  

Small around the room layout with a wye track for reversing engines and trains.

 

Here is a small "around the room design".  It provides for continuous operation while allowing for some simple switching maneuvers.  The wye track is used with an "island" stub yard to allow reversing of an engine. The layout uses O-54 and O-72 curves but a more compact layout could be made using other radius track.

 

The layout uses "narrow" benchwork. Most sections are about 18 inches wide which make access to the tracks within arms reach. The largest section is about 3 feet by 6 feet. 

 

 

 

 

For me, I turn to my experience (and track plans) in HO.  HO is where I started in the hobby and they seem the have the right amount of track to scenery ratio.  I was able to scale up an Atlas track plan (Granite Gorge and Northern) that I didn't have enough space to build as a kid, but have plenty of space to build it in O-gauge now. 

 

I would recommend looking at track plans in other scales and adopting what works for you in O-gauge. 

 

Resist the urge ? Never !

 

I love my spaghetti track work.

 

When I used to play on my grandmothers living room floor with a Marx "Big Rail Work Train" I could only dream of a layout with interconnected loops and sidings and more than one train running at a time.

 

 

 

I achieved that dream 10 years ago when I built this layout...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My train room is only 11x15 so I was only able to fit a 12x8 table along the back wall. My LHS where at the time I was making most of my purchases was more than accommodating and let me buy all the track I wanted with the understanding I could return whatever I didn't use.I bought a little over 800.00 dollars worth of MTH track brought it home dumped it on the table and fiddled with it for a few hours until I had what I wanted and I ended up returning about 60.00 worth of track.

 

As you can see I have no interest in scenery or real train type operations but this layout has kept me more than occupied and its a long ways away from my grandmothers living room floor.

 

 

 

Great Post Rick!!

 

My answer is Yes....

If your doing a Ceiling Layout like Me you have No choice but to keep it simple and that's ok with me cause I want more scenery then track.

I just got out of Z scale and the track to scenery is the best part of z scale.

Here is a post I started and it has a few links of a 2'x4' Donner Pass Layout that I built which will be coming out in Z Scale This month.

For My first O Gauge Layout I only have room for a Ceiling Layout and from what I can see it's going to be a Fun Project!!!

 

https://ogrforum.com/topic/first-o-gauge-layout

From here on out Ihave a loop, circle, whatever of track with no switches or crossings.  Seems like everybody has an engine or car which does not like thase kinds of track for whatever reason:  flanges, gears, 3rd rail shoes, et. al.

 

I did plan my front of the layout based on the track layout at Newton KS Station, where I spent a lot of nights connecting between the TX CHIEF and SUPER CHIEF?EL CAP.

Rick,

How are you going to make your 8 foot lift out section?

 

Ed Kaz

Thanks Guys...

 

...for all the neat info.

 

Bob Taylor...I like your layout, the glossy "Grass" adds a touch of class. Neat.

 

Ed Kaz...right now a simple straight two by four sits in a cradle. Eventually a truss bridge will be there.

 

Rick.

Thanks Rick,

I have used a metal 2x6 to span an 8 foot area. The metal is 10 feet long and spans about 8 feet and rests on about 1 foot of layout on each side of the bridge. Works fine as a temporary solution. Will probably cut a 2x4 to place vertically in the middle for additional support. Got to spend some time figuring out how to dress the structure up. Has to be removeable as it goes across a double door leading from the basement to the outside.

Ed