New design for 12X15 room

Hi Tim,

1. The wall space at 3" doesn't leave much space for half buildings (fronts) or foam to create rock ledges or hills. Heck, a tree might rub a train. So, it depends on what you want to do with that space visually as to what you leave for clearance.

2. Sounds like enough room for a flop derail unless you hi-ball the train.

3. No thoughts

4. TW Trainworx used foam on edge as a mountain (2"-3") on it's BNSF Corporate layout to divide the city and country vignettes. (see attached pics)

5. Fueling, sanding, coaling fits in a narrow space.

Looks nice! Have fun!

Nice design, although I think the aisles are a bit narrow (but will work if you're not abdominaly endowed).

For a view block, a "Y" shaped view block with the forks of the Y creating a separate, small "sub-scene" at the end of the turn-back on the peninsula. This makes it impossible to watch both sides of the view block from the end. The tail of the y would extend to the wall.

Good job.

This is a very nice plan given the space you have to work with.  I would try to get 6" spacing between the wall and the top tack.  As far as trains falling on the floor you can always add some raised Lexan sides to keep trains on the table.

Al

What kind of equipment are you going to run on your outer loop? It has to be big to get through the curve switch.  I have an Atlas O54-O72 switch on my outer loop. Some of my smaller engines can't bridge the center rail power gap due to the spacing of the roller pick-ups.  Just a thought..... 

Some 3-D shots of AGHRMatt's concept. Nice idea Matt!

Most of the track spacing depends on the equipment you run. If you want to run articulated steam engine, 3" to the back wall isn't enough. As the engine comes around the curve onto the straight section, it will hit the wall at 3". Like Moonman says, no space for any scenery except track ballast, which maybe fine depending on your plans.

18" aisles are very tight to move around in.

Trains falling on the floor are ALWAYS a possibility, no matter what level the layout is, and doesn't matter how close to the edge it is. Take your time with the track work, and park trains away from the edge when you're done running trains or working on the layout. That spacing once again, depends on what you want to do with the scenery.

Reverse loops are fine, you can reverse a train in either direction.

Once again, depending on the equipment you run, you might have a problem with that big "S" curve right in the middle of the layout.

Thank you all for your comments.

Moonman you're right about even a tree wouldn't fit. I was think more about being able to get my hands back there and car and loco clearance.

Matt, the Y divider is a good thought and thanks Moonman for making it clear with the graphic. That same area would be a good candidate for yard too.

Al, Thanks for the support. I like this plan. Seems I try so many (getting really good with RR Track) And then they just lose the appeal. I want too much for space I'm in. I finally accepted o72 curves are not going to be easy to come by in my space. 

Putnam Division, I have a TMCC C-420 and two older conventional Lionel steam engines. The short loco curved switch issue is something I didn't know. I have two in a box. I will have to mock up some track and test it.

Laidoffsick, as mentioned I have a c-420 and interest in other diesels. I would stay away from the larger SD90 type locos. I can appreciate there must be many unforeseen ways to derail and good track work is an ounce of prevention and good defense.

Maybe I will need to go back to the drawing board. I could possibly free up some space on the left and right walls but bottom wall and center peninsula are about and tight as I'm gonna get it. I only recently considered this walk-in design after reading through "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" for about the 5th time.

Maybe like this?

I don't like the degree of separation for the upper tracks in the original design, but I also don't like the single upper track in the redesign. I'd have simply moved the topmost track closer to the other one to make kind of a dual mainline in that area.

I'd also be inclined to try consolidating the turnouts in the original design to form a double-crossover/pass-through on the right side instead of the individual reversing loops. I like having tracks near each other so trains can pass going in opposite directions. I do like how close the tracks are in the peninsula.

And while I'm at it, I'd add a tunnel off to the upper left and leave some of that track closer to the wall. I understand the desire to landscape the wall behind the track, but that doesn't mean you have to move all the track 18" from the wall. I think that upper left curve could be 6" off the wall and covered by a mountain.

Like everyone always says, so much depends on what you want to do with your layout from an operational standpoint. Given the amount of space, I'd also try to add some kind of storage yard even if it means robbing a bit of the peninsula. If you try that, I think you could move the right side turnouts in the original design to the leads of a 3-4 spur yard instead of a double-crossover and still have the reversing loops.

Just some thoughts not intended as criticism.

DoubleDAZ, I'm not taking it as criticism at all. I appreciate the experience on this forum. I've been reading it daily for the past 9 mos! :-) Here's a stab at how I interpreted most of your suggestions. I didn't cut out the excess benchwork but I could, There's already enough standing room there and that's a lot of usable real estate for scenery.

As for your last paragraph, The yard I always saw as a possibility. And I know what a yard lead is. But I don't follow what you're saying about yard leads (plural?) and exactly where the turnouts would go. I can't picture an example of two yard leads on a stub yard.

I see now that the passing siding on the right is gone and i'm gonna miss that. But I need some sleep. revisit this tomorrow.

Tim, those changes are pretty much what I was thinking of and I agree with keeping the real estate near that left side curve for landscaping. When I said double-crossover, I was actually thinking of 4 turnouts with an "X" in the middle, but what you did works just as well and will cost far less.

When it comes to a yard, I wasn't thinking about a stub yard, I was thinking about a through yard on the right side where you put the crossovers. I was thinking you could have a lead in from the top and a lead out at the bottom where you put the crossovers in. My thought was to separate the crossover by moving the top 2 turnouts up around the curve and the bottom turnouts a bit further down by bringing the bottom main tracks closer together. Then I was thinking you could add 2-3 more through sidings by widening the straight section by taking some real estate away from the end of the peninsula.

Unfortunately, now that I see the changes you made, I'm not sure it will all fit and I'm not sure I'd like how it would look if it did fit. Trouble is, 2-3 sidings is not a lot of storage. The obvious place for a useable yard is in bottom. I would try moving the top crossover turnouts up around the curve. Then I'd move the bottom turnouts further up to where the others were. Id see if I could fit a left turnout between the lower crossover turnouts something like the attached. Mind you, I'm not really happy with it either, but I thought I'd throw it together with ScaleTrax O-54 to illustrate what I was thinking.

You can keep some semblance of the passing siding by simply moving the top set of turnouts up around the curve.

I pulled some yard designs I did in other plan ideas and adjusted the turnarounds and didn't lose very much aisle space. I gained yard operations and lost quite a bit of places for business operations. And still no passing siding unless I use a yard track. I was still able to maintain at least 4" center to center spacing and 6" wall clearance on 3 walls.

More thoughts and comments? Please.

Tim,

I've always been a proponent of adding as much track as I can and then doing whatever mods I need to do to add the type of landscaping I want. That way I can "see" what I'll be giving up and make better overall decisions to balance things. Whenever you add a yard, you are almost always going to have to trade landscaping for the space, unless the yard is placed outside the original boundaries. Given the size of your layout, you might consider trying a hidden staging yard underneath the layout, but I think you'll like the looks of your yard when it's filled with rolling stock.

Personally, I think you now have a pretty terrific plan with a decent sized yard and 2 major areas for landscaping. You can still hide that outer track at the top inside a tunnel. The tunnel could either be a cliff or a faux town making it look like the train passes behind a row of buildings like a subway. I don't know what you have planned for landscaping.

Oh, and I don't think there is anything wrong with using a yard track as a passing siding when needed.

Here I tried making the yard a little shorter which freed up more real estate in the upper left corner. I also tidied up the benchwork to show a little more of what's possible. There was about 6ft of usable space on each yard track in the previous modification and 5ft in this one. That's 5 or 6 40' cars per track? I don't own much rolling stock yet. Maybe I could steer toward shorter cars and industries that typically use them. That and industries with smaller buildings could also help push the perspective illusion that the layout is larger than it is. Anyway back on the yard, maybe I get 10-12 stageable cars on two yard tracks and an empty track to build on? I appreciate you input Dave and everyone else's too.

I'm not even going to have a yard on my layout. If I do add a yard, it will be hidden, at least as far as I can see now. I'm not into switching, so if I want to mix my consists, I'll do it manually and my 4 trains will simply stay in place when I shut things down. I just suggested adding a yard if that was maybe something you wanted.

I'm also going to limit my rolling stock to smaller cars. I plan to run an Old West style scenic train of 4 cars and freight trains of 10 cars or less. My design has 3 levels with less than 3% grades, but I might bump that to 4 just to add some operational interest having to work the throttles. My emphasis will be on tracks and trains, not on landscaping.

I think you have good bones for a layout. Now you need to add the operating elements. I just read a thread where the OP added a bunch of spurs, etc., because people told him he needed them for interest, etc. He found that he didn't use them, so he pulled them all out. Layouts "look" good with spurs and industries, but they are an added expense and not really needed if you just like to watch trains run, like I do.

It will be my first layout. I want everything, but it's not possible. I want mostly to do operational stuff. I want trains to stop, drop off and pick up cars. And I want an area to switch a few cars in a yard. A yard of some sort was a must for me. I also want to scratch build every structure and use the room as a canvas for that work. I can see this plan as a good basis for those requirements. The long continuous run that this walk-in design gives is a bonus. And the turnarounds which I found so space consuming in my other plan attempts, can fit in a lot of different ways on this plan. 

Well then, all the more reason to have a yard and you'll need to add a few spurs to a mine, lumber operation or some other kinds of industries as you wind through those 2 large loops.

TIm

Refinement is a great thing. Track plan keeps getting better.  What track are you going to use and what diameter curves will you have?

Yard could be made longer (more storage) by using curved switches to enter from left.

Or You could elevate the track and put it over the other track.

Or you could go below and have a lot of hidden staging.

Good luck.

L.I.Train. Thanks I'm going to use Gargraves flex for everything I can bend it to and Ross switches. I've been buying up RCS whenever they come available on the forum and I happen to see it and I have money. The tightest curves are O42. I have to keep remembering my room size and not overreach. I stalled for months trying to get lots of O72 in this room and couldn't get happy. Then I accepted O42 and with this plan I actually still get quite a bit of O72 and O54.

ctr, I think for this first layout I will put some relief into the benchwork and terrain without adding much if any grade to the track. That being said, I think the plan will still evolve so who knows. I've been getting lots of good ideas in response to my recent posts. The forum is simply awesome.

Tim

Tim

There are lots of fine Railking and pRemeire trains that will run 042. Looks like you will have fun.

Steve

Tim........I love your plan. I still worry about smaller equipment on curved switches. Look in your email, I sent you a short video of my New Haven RailKing Hudson on an Atlas curved switch.

Peter

Hi Peter, Thanks for the encouragement. I got your video and see what happens. I have RCS curved switches and I will test to see if they present the same problem. I will update the post when I know for sure.

Tim

Peter,

I was able to test my NH C420 and two older Lionel conventional traditional locos, a 681 and another i don't know what model but a 3-axle. All three went through the RCS 54/72 curved switch without hesitation at various speeds. I also stopped and started them on the switch several times without a problem. I don't have anything shorter. I would be looking for a switcher in the future which might be shorter. As I recall my research on the C420 said it was a "road switcher" and was used in either role.

Tim

Good job! I'm glad it worked out.......by the way, the New Haven C420 is a great puller!

Peter

Tim;

I understand your concern on the short engines and curved switches.

Question is; Do the switches sit in a spot you expect your yard switcher to run?

And If you have trouble you can always cheat a bit.

Put a power pickup on a car and run a hot wire to the engine under the coupler.

Yes, you have to keep the car with the engine, but it won't get noticed that much, esp. if you do a couple of them and swap em out periodically.

Good point. A switcher could probably stay on the lead. It would need to be on the curved switch. But who knows; might never be a problem.

O-72/O-54 track plan in a 13 x 15 foot space

Here is another track plan in a 13 x 15 foot space. This plan uses a combination of O-54 and O-72 RealTrax. The focal point is a WYE entrance to a small yard.  Suitable for passenger service or an intermodal yard. It is designed for continuous operation and includes a long passing siding. This layout will handle scale size passenger cars and diesel engines.

This layout is being constructed in modular form. The modules are multiples of 3 feet.  The largest module is 3 feet by 6 feet by 4 feet in height. Assembled using carriage bolts. The 6 foot maximum allows transportation in the back of an SUV.

Construction uses a combination of 2 x4 and 1 x 4 lumber.

I tore out the closets this week. Here's some before and after pics. You'll see the 2 24" florescents I wired into the closets. I will leave those there for now and can always use the junction boxes above them for different fixture if they don't make enough light. And in case your wondering, the ceiling IS lower by the closets than the rest of the room  because there is ductwork/plenum hidden above. Next step is to figure out how what to do with the switches for those lights and the outlet that was in the closet wall. Then fill in the gaps with drywall and clean it up.

Before

After...

Something cool mixing RR Track with Sketchup

The basic outlines of benchwork can be drawn and shown in RR Track easily, but I like to do the real architecture of the benchwork in Sketchup. (A bit obsessively I confess.)

I needed a way to accurately transfer the outline of the benchwork of my RR Track layout plan into Sketchup.  Here are some shots from Sketchup of the benchwork I've been tweaking plus the RR Track layout added in. First is just the benchwork, then I exported a bmp from RR Track and imported it to a layer in Sketchup, then using a top plan view I drew the top deck outline. finally a shot of the benchwork in 3d. Here you can see how the track import sits on the floor of the drawing. If I could find a way to make everything but the track transparent, I could lift it onto the joists of the benchwork.

(For the record, the gridlines in RR Track and the gridlines I drew in Sketchup lined up almost perfectly.)

My room space is almost exactly the same as yours, 13X15 with the door in the same place.  I also ended up constructing a G style layout but with the leg to the middle coming from the right side of the door.  I also kept most of my table about 24" wide except for the left end loop and the middle leg is a full 48" wide.  I don't have a paper plan but you can get an idea  of the plan from these crappy basement and crappy layout pictures. 

I basically have an outer dog bone loop like yours, but I stuffed a second loop inside so I could run two trains.  I ended up with 042 Min curves in some places on the outside loop and 031 on the inner reverse loop.

One big drawback with this type of plan is that you don't have a lot of open space for accessories although I was able to stick in a 213 and 313 bridges, 115, 116 stations, and hopefully if I can ever get working on some scenery it won't look too bad.

I am also considering an elevated loop as well so I am probably risking to much  stuff in the old sock... We'll see

I want to visualize some different terrain/topography ideas for my layout design before building the real thing. To that end I've set out to build some small models from foam and carve them up and see what i like. I printed my layout from RR Track to 8.5x11" paper and set it to double size so it came out on four sheets which I trimmed and pieced together. This I glued to foam core and cut out the aisleways.

I bought some 2" pink foam and built a home made hotwire cutter.

The foam is not friendly when trying to dig out hollows under the track for rivers, valleys, bridges, etc. However, persistence and trying the right tools may yet give me the results I want. An aggressive rasp file and a surform tool can work the pink foam to a smoother surface. But for the hollows under the track I used a flexshaft for my dremel and an aggressive round topped burr cutter. This really does a nice job if you can maintain control  of. Here's a shot of what' possible. The terrain doesn't look great but it's my first attempt and it definitely helps me visualize and prototype the terrain. I cut out most of the sidings for this exercise since they were not definite.

By the way the the burr cutter made huge mess (not surprised fro what I've read on this forum), I will try to do more cutting with knives and hotwire next time before moving on the the burr cutter.

Tim

You may already know this, but I thought I'd offer it just in case.

My limited experience with foam suggests that some of your difficulty is due to the size of the foam you are working with and the size of the formations you are trying to create. Try to envision using full-size 1"-2" sheets to create your mountain and tunnel. You'll be cutting much large sections (like you did with your layout base) to then stack on each other to form most the mountain and then shaving areas to get the final shape. You might even just cut the basic shape from the foam and then drape cloth over it to form the final shape like a lot of folks do.

Right now you are trying to cut a complete miniature mountain from of a single piece of 1" foam. Using 1/4" foam sheets would have been closer to what you will actually be doing when you start the real layout. In reality you will be stacking several pieces of 1" foam to create the tunnel rather than digging the tunnel out of a single sheet of foam.

The same concept applies to "digging" rivers/lakes. When you stack 2 pieces of 1" foam together, it's easy to cut out 1 layer to the shape of the river you want and you won't have to do the "digging" you are doing now. You might even use 4 pieces of 1/2" foam in places to create shallower riverbeds/lakes.

Also, do you intend to put foam under all the track as your example suggests?

I just wanted to show people what I was doing. I discovered many things I failed to consider while I was brainstorming this. What I'm doing here is only for prototyping. I used a 2" piece to carve below grade relief and a 2" piece to carve above grade topography. But the above grade piece was a mistake. I will only need to carve small pieces where mountains an hills exist. And I should have really roughed it out with less precise tools before grinding, carving and filing. In fact I maybe after too much detail here. After whittling down a 2" piece of pink foam, now I know 1" pieces would've been easier but I spent $28 on the 2" and that's what I got. But this was a first attempt.

I understand what you're saying and I know I would layer thinner pieces gradually changing the shape as I stack them if I were to use foam on the real layout. I actually was leaning more towards lattice and plastercloth or hydrocal type buildups on the real layout. 

I do not plan to lay track on top of pink foam. The plan is track on homosote, homosote on 5/8" OSB. OSB cut out in cookie cutter where the surrounding terrain is not flat. This exercise came about because before I can start on the benchwork, I need to know where some of the benchwork needs to be built lower for the below grade terrain. This helps me identify where those areas will be.

Always appreciate your feedback Dave

Is that a scale model of a scale model train layout?

Hi Tim -

I followed this with interest as my train room is 12 x 16 also, and I slaved away with designs until I got it right.  I didn't want any less than 054 curves, because I had planned on using 042 and not buying anything that required more than that, but don't kid yourself (after going to my LHS and seeing the RF&P 2-8-4, which I couldn't resist taking home).  I am only posting the design to maybe give you some ideas to incorporate into yours.  The track that disappears in the upper left hand corner goes to a small 18" wide yard that is hidden behind the entrance door when its open.  The design includes turn-around loops for either direction of train travel, 2 independent right of ways, a passing siding, and room to expand and make a yard somewhere.  The only place that I formed a curve was on the inside loop in the lower right corner.  I could not expand the outer loop in that area enough to be able to fit an 054 radius inside for the inner loop, so I formed a curve on the inner loop that probably ended up as 050 or something like that.  The engines requiring 054 minimum passed through the curve without any issues.  The outside loop is a scale 1/4 mile, according to the DCS.  Running at 50 mph, it takes about 30 seconds for the train to come back to its starting point.

I built in two access areas for removable hatches, which were going to have scenery on them, but haven't decided for sure if that's what I'll do.  Standing on the floor and reaching over to the upper right corner and upper left corner can be a long stretch, but it's not extreme.

I think this design puts more emphasis on running trains than having a lot of scenery.  I have run 54 cars with 3 engines, one at beginning, middle, and end, and probably could have added another 50 or 60 before the lead engine was kissing the caboose.

All the track is Gargraves, and Ross switches, which have performed flawlessly for the past 5 years.  The design fills the room, but there's still plenty of places to stand and watch.  I wish the room was another 2 feet wider so that I could see the trains on the long straight stretch but I'll build that into my next layout.

Enjoy your creation. 

Mike  

Indeed!

Thanks for your input Mike. You did a great job of making use of your space. It is a challenge. And i't good to hear from someone who labored over it like me. I played with the same shape several times in RR Track. For my design, I like the long continuous run, not having any hatches, having at least one yard and several landscaping opportunities. I'm most attracted to operations and scratch-building. One thing you noted that does interest me is the yard behind the door. I have 13" of space and I could get 3 tracks in that width. But I also have been relieved to be done with major track layout revisions. I would like to see some photos of your layout.

Tim