Please Help Me Design My New Layout

Are you sticking with Fastrack?  The next radius down is 60, or are you going to use another maker of track?

hey jedderbob,

how's it going? I am not sure if the T shape really helps you.

Is that what you have to do to get access and more table?

Most of the T's get awkward smaller radius loops. Others use it as an island off of an oval, twisted or flat, that is a yard/storage area.

My first reaction was perhaps a three loop with center folded on to the T-leg for a longer continuous run.

Are you averse to elevations?

This should give you an idea of sizing - O84 & O72 circles

I came up with this plan using Atlas O. The lower level uses O-90 curves, but you could substitute O-84 if using Lionel Fastrack. The upper level uses O-72 curves. The crossover to create reversing loops may be difficult to build with sectional track.

I came up with this and then noticed it looked like Bullwinkle the Moose. I decided to stop. it's terrible.  It's O84 FasTrack. perhaps after some turkey, the ideas will flow better.

You created Bullwinkle and I created Mickey Mouse.

They both look funny on 2D, but are actually quite good starts in 3D with elevations, etc.

Dave, I am surprised you didn't come up with Pluto's layout Plan. LOL

Your all great with ideas for layouts!

Here's a variation on the reverse crossover. With Atlas O, it fits much better, not that it benefits the OP.

This is probably to much, but I like to go overboard.  The elevations are not all correct, but I hope this helps you get some ideas.

Thaddeus

I like your design more than mine.

Ok, turkey helped. I present the jedderbob Valley Lines. 3 independent loops, a yard (within reach), a station stop & by-pass.

You'll need O84, some O96 and O72 and switches. Minimum diameter is O72.

3 sheets of 2" insulation board to make the mountains (2 are 10" high, the front is 6" high)

There is an opportunity at the right center to interconnect all of the lines with a wye and crossovers on the straights.

The trains will be "moving" around mostly, rather than ovaling. Plenty of space for scenic items.

Engine service area and small spurs.

Jedderbob - it would also be helpful to know your goals. Meaning, are you, like many of us, basically a loop runner or are you looking more to emulate a real functioning road, with a timetable and freight (or passenger) action?  Are you seeking to have three distinct geographical regions, like (say) a town, a rural/undeveloped scenic area and an industrial area?  Things like this will help in terms of planning where to put rails.  

I like Thaddeus' plan as this triple folded dogbone allows for variety and a very nice main line run.  But if your goal is three discrete geographic regions, it would be easier to accomplish if that center area (where there is a nice yard set-up) were hills or some other view blocker that would create an optic break between the three legs.  

Peter

Oman posted:

Thaddeus

I like your design more than mine.

I like it too, but be careful to plan for access to the yard and the crossovers at the top.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Oman posted:

Thaddeus

I like your design more than mine.

I like it too, but be careful to plan for access to the yard and the crossovers at the top.

DD - good point that I forgot to mention. Yards should typically have easy access - not just the areas where the turnouts are located.  I've been looking through John Armstrong's books a lot lately as we plan to build a new layout and I don't recall seeing even one track plan example where the yard is located outside of easy reach from the aisles. 

PJB posted:

 

DD - good point that I forgot to mention. Yards should typically have easy access - not just the areas where the turnouts are located.  I've been looking through John Armstrong's books a lot lately as we plan to build a new layout and I don't recall seeing even one track plan example where the yard is located outside of easy reach from the aisles. 

And most would not like this design for that reason alone. Hatches give you access, but they can still be a PITA if you have to use them too often.

Jedderbob:

Is the table for sure set as it is, or could the new section be moved to the other end to make a 24' x 16' "L" or possibly an offset "T"? Is one or more side(s) against a wall or is there easy access to all sides? [Nevermind the last question - got to my desktop & got video to work.]

I like Thaddeus' general idea as well; it provides a long main line with room for a yard & several places for industry. As previously mentioned, thought, the "T" design does create some efficiency issues.  I'll see if I can produce an acceptable variant, though. 

Here's my initial crack at your design, using FasTrack. I'm not very good at getting a nice, clean design w/out the ability to fudge it with flex track sections, but I'm hoping there's enough play in the track to compensate for my imperfect design. 

I've tried to take advantage of the length of your table to give you a nice, long straight to use for a crossover/interlocking as well as a possible station.  The curves on the innermost line (green) and switches & curves on the larger industrial/commercial area (purple) are O-60.  All mainline (blue & teal) curves & switches are O-72 minimum.  I do utilize O-84 & O-96 for some of the mainline curves.  I managed to give you 8" of elevation, but the grade is 4%.  That's about the maximum you'll want, & if you like long trains that could be an issue. You could knock it down to 7" or 6" rise if you don't mind tighter tunnel/bridge clearances.  A yard +/- engine service facility could be placed inside the three loops, but you might have access issues unless additional access is cut out.  I'd imagine one of those lift-out sections from Mianne  might come in handy.  Additional crossovers at the far ends of the teal & green straights may facilitate use of the green loop as a yard arrival/departure track should you add one, especially for engines that cannot negotiate the O-60 curves.  You could also use the inner space for reversing loops, though you might be restricted to O-60 on those. 

I may play with this a bit more & see what I can do, but not tonight.  #Zzzzzzzzzz....

Please receive this in the positive spirit that it’s intended to be.  I hope to provide you with much “food for thought” for your future layout:

Many more numerous times than I can recall, for the past too many years, people have requested assistance in planning a layout.  Time after time, track arrangements are immediately shown and discussed.  Track arrangement is NOT planning a layout.  Obviously it is an important part.

Far too many times, regardless of scale, model railroaders end up with a collection of railroad engines and rolling stock from all over the place that circle and circle a loop(s) of track.  In the end, what do they have?

There are three main types of layouts:  Toy train layouts, Display layouts and Operational layouts.

A toy train layout doesn’t follow scale considerations and its purpose is to enjoy many trains and accessories and has a rainbow of railroads, actual and imaginary, not adhering to prototypical (actual) railroad modeling.  These layouts are almost always loops of track going pretty much nowhere all of the time.  This would include “starter sets.”    

A display layout is to show trains.  This layout may be a hybrid of toy train and operational model railroad layout or some combination thereof.  These layouts often contain multiple circles of tracks, with the tracks having no logical route, and allow the trains to be run with minimal human intervention.  A club modular layout would be an example.

An operational layout is set-up in a prototypical manner whereby the trains go from one point to another where they may drop off or pick up rolling stock simulating the actions and operation of a real railroad.  Typically, a specific railroad (or two) is selected and an operational theme is selected and followed.  The track arrangement is patterned after real life as well; meaning no circles or loops of track.

Again, without intending to upset anyone’s sensitivities, far too many model railroaders end up with a hodge-podge miss-mesh collection of railroad and rolling stock from the beginning of time to the modern day.  Their layouts aren’t very good as it is an illogical collection of unrelated items and time periods placed together.

You cannot let someone else tell you how to “plan” your layout unless you provide them with a multitude of details.  How can you or anyone else start to track “plan” when you or they don’t know what your railroad is supposed to be, where it is, what it is doing, etc.?

If you actually want to build a great model of a railroad, not just circle without rhyme or reason, you must first decide what it is you want and what you want your layout to look like when it’s completed.

People that haphazardly throw track arrangements together, via trial and error, will be disappointed in the end as they keep changing the arrangement over and over again seeking the perfect track plan that they will never find.

If you want to create a model of a railroad you must first decide:  What railroad(s) am I modeling?  What is my railroad doing?  (Freight, Passengers, Both or Other?)  Where is my railroad located and what other (if any) railroads is my line connected to?  When:  period of time am I modeling?   How will I research and gather all of the information required to construct a successful model of a railroad?

ALL truly great model railroads contain three essential elements:  Plausibility, Purpose and Participation.  Plausibility—is the design of the layout is believable even if it is entirely made up (free-lanced).  Purpose, ALL railroads have a purpose.  Your model of a railroad should have a purpose, a reason for being, how does it earn money to continue operating?  Finally, Participation!  This is where the fun comes in!  What will you or others at your railroad be doing?  If everyone is standing there simply watching the trains circle the same track with the same consist never changing direction and  seemingly going nowhere the fun won’t last long.

You, and others, need something to do.  The more you have to do, the more interaction is offered, the more enjoyment you will experience!  It is fun, entertaining and enjoyable to become part of a railroad crew.

BEFORE any track arranging can commence, you need to know the who, what, where, when, why and how of your layout.  The track arrangement for a switching operation is different from a main-line run.  A mountain route is different from a run along a seashore or prairie. 

If you are striving to create a model of a railroad attempt to get your trains going somewhere, not just circling.  I understand that people have limited space.  I did for years on end.  If your space is limited, plan a nice switching layout or small branch-line scene, maybe a logging operation?  There are numerous possibilities.    

If your space is limited, and you feel you must circle, use temporary on the floor track and circle to your heart’s delight!  When spending money to construct a layout surface and add scenery plan something nice for yourself and others.  Some spectacular layouts were/are 8 feet long and 18 inches wide.  It doesn’t have to circle or loop!

Most importantly, plan a point to point scheme.  Get the trains going somewhere.  Add return loops/reversing loops at both “ends” of your line so that a train may travel to the next town and then be turned around and return.  Have a siding at or near the ends of your line. 

Give your line a purpose.  You (or others) control the train.  Stop at the sidings.  Drop off and pick-up.  This will provide you participation and engage you in the activity.  I encourage and challenge you to stop running circles and loops. 

This is the irony of model railroading: real trains go from point to point and include much straighter track than curves.  In the model world, the vast majority of trains circle or loop, and there are far more curves.

I do appreciate that there are instances such as modular clubs that this wouldn’t apply.  I’m merely trying to help and suggesting to others to attempt to create a better design for a layout that will provide them with years of enjoyment.  Get involved with your trains!  Give yourself a part in the operations of your layout.  Get others involved!

Have fun!  But seriously consider the challenges and fun of modeling a railroad! 

My two cents. 

John C,

This is the best description of layouts, and serious food for thought.  Too bad Rich can't make this a sticky so others coming to this forum could read these words of wisdom.  I Like Thaddus layout as seems best of both worlds ie circling when you just want to run trains like for open house, and some operational when you want to play RR operation switching.  Could even be display by doing lots of scenery and towns that give layout purpose.

My layout is a circling type though is set in 1950 era and does have modest sidings however I dont really do switching other than five finger car swap outs  "switching".

If I could I would multiple LIKE your description

Thaddeus posted:

This is probably to much, but I like to go overboard.  The elevations are not all correct, but I hope this helps you get some ideas.

Curious the layout platform outside dimensions and track curves.

rrman posted:

John C,

This is the best description of layouts, and serious food for thought.  Too bad Rich can't make this a sticky so others coming to this forum could read these words of wisdom.  I Like Thaddus layout as seems best of both worlds ie circling when you just want to run trains like for open house, and some operational when you want to play RR operation switching.  Could even be display by doing lots of scenery and towns that give layout purpose.

My layout is a circling type though is set in 1950 era and does have modest sidings however I dont really do switching other than five finger car swap outs  "switching".

If I could I would multiple LIKE your description

I'm just trying to share some pearls of wisdom I've learned firsthand over 40 years.  I want people to be happy and stay involved with the hobby.  I can't tell you the number of times the hobby has lost people because they got bored with their trains.  These guys had lousy layouts---not trying to be mean---just loop after loop same train, same direction, no rhyme reason or scheme.  Yes, there are folks who prefer that, but I don't believe that the majority are.

My personal experience and observation is people don't have anywhere to turn to learn about how to properly design a model railroad.  Most people see circles of tracks and build circles of tracks.  Starter sets come with circles of tracks and always have.  Seemingly it just doesn't occur to many to look at what a real railroad does and construct a model of a railroad...It makes perfect sense when you think about it.

Unfortunately, I'm pretty hard headed and slow.  It took me many, many, many years to occur to me.  Now I spread the word!  :-)  Just trying to help man!  Not trying to rain on anyone's parade.  I still a loop under the tree!  I have a cute Halloween set-up too.  But the layout, is a model of a railroad.

I would go Around the walls with a similar space to what you have.

I am in the "design paralysis phase"!  I have  Literally dozens of layout designs each with its on merits but I get stuck on the designs instead of building the actual layout. So the carpet central has been running. So I am stuck for the moment.

Tons of plans until my rr track 4 went out on me with windows 10. I am now thinking of a redo from the L, T or E shapes talked about above to an around the walls with a lift out bridge. I do believe an around the walls will allow for much larger curves in the same space that your talking about.

I would go Around the walls with a similar space to what you have. If it all possible in your current space. Just my opinion.

I am in the "design paralysis phase"!  I have Literally dozens of RR track layout designs each with its on merits but I get stuck on the designs instead of building the actual layout. So the carpet central has been running. So I am stuck for the moment. I am thinking of going from the T or E shaped table top to an around the walls getting more out of the space and allowing me to put in larger curves.

I wanted to go around the room, but I didn't supervise the room construction. My bad. Around the room gives the most track with the least amount of table top,

Hey there, I with George, if you have a drawing of the room, you might get a better layout just using the materials you already have for your "T" shape table. Might even have enough to do a around the wall with a jetty or something like that or a small "T" area for a yard.

Just something to think about.

Seacoast posted:

Tons of plans until my rr track 4 went out on me with windows 10.

Have you considered installing SCARM? It takes a bit to learn and get out of the RRT habits, but it's a good program with a great simulation feature.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Seacoast posted:

Tons of plans until my rr track 4 went out on me with windows 10.

Have you considered installing SCARM? It takes a bit to learn and get out of the RRT habits, but it's a good program with a great simulation feature.

No I have not Dave. Is it difficult to learn vs. RR track or more user friendly?

mike g. posted:

Hey there, I with George, if you have a drawing of the room, you might get a better layout just using the materials you already have for your "T" shape table. Might even have enough to do a around the wall with a jetty or something like that or a small "T" area for a yard.

Just something to think about.

Hi Mike,

Its not whats best for me but whats best for the original poster of this thread. I think I would like to to keep things along the wall 2-3' deep and have maybe as you said a jetty for a yard or engine service facility. My layout would be located in a finished attic that has HVAC and has windows and doors etc and that equates to lift outs. I do not want "duckunders and crawling under the table etc.

I still think that a around the room will allow me to get the 080-090+ curves in. Not that I run big stuff (well on occasion). Toy/Model trains look better on larger curves.

Seacoast posted:

mike g. posted:

Hey there, I with George, if you have a drawing of the room, you might get a better layout just using the materials you already have for your "T" shape table. Might even have enough to do a around the wall with a jetty or something like that or a small "T" area for a yard.

Just something to think about.

Hi Mike,

Its not whats best for me but whats best for the original poster of this thread. I think I would like to to keep things along the wall 2-3' deep and have maybe as you said a jetty for a yard or engine service facility. My layout would be located in a finished attic that has HVAC and has windows and doors etc and that equates to lift outs. I do not want "duckunders and crawling under the table etc.

I still think that a around the room will allow me to get the 080-090+ curves in. Not that I run big stuff (well on occasion). Toy/Model trains look better on larger curves. As I age I want a simpler track plan and layout that I can finish in a reasonable time frame. I do not want a trackplan that looks like a bowl of spaghetti.

Seacoast posted:

 

No I have not Dave. Is it difficult to learn vs. RR track or more user friendly?

The hardest part about learning SCARM after RRT is getting used to the differences. Here are some examples of pros and cons:

- on my laptop with a touchpad, I have to select the Move command or hold the Ctrl and left button to move a track or section of track instead of just holding the left button.
- there is no way to specify points for rectangles or polygons like with the RRT Properties dialog. Because I define my bench work to exact dimensions, this is something I really miss.
- you can add the same track multiple times by simply pressing the space bar.
- you can define objects below the deck. For an example of how detailed in can get, see this sample.
- it is limited to 10 layers, something that prevents me from including all aspects of my small 4x8x10 layout in the same file for editing. To get around it, I keep my bench work in a separate file and if need be I keep multiple levels in separate files. I then merge the layers into one and copy that to the main file in order to get a complete 3D view.
- rectangles/polygons are called Figures and are in the track library area, not the Objects area. There is a minor display problem where they cover the track when editing unless they are put on a separate layer than can be turned off.

There are more differences, but once you play with the simulation feature, you'll see it's worth getting used to the differences. And these differences are mostly just irritants because I bounce back and forth between SCARM and RRT 5.0. Once I get into the groove with SCARM, the only irritant left is the definition of points for figures and to some extent the limit of 10 layers.

rrman posted:

Thaddeus posted:

This is probably to much, but I like to go overboard.  The elevations are not all correct, but I hope this helps you get some ideas.

Curious the layout platform outside dimensions and track curves.

it' 24' across the top. The rest of the sides are 8'. See jedderbob's first post with the sketch of the area attached.

You all realize that the OP hasn't been back to this thread at all - not once in approx 2 weeks - since the original post.  Not a comment on all your hard work nor answers to any of your questions to try and help him achieve his goal?  Curious if he's maybe decided on another path, forgotten about this thread and we're all spinning our wheels for a moot point?  Either way, some really good info being shared, so I keep tuning in.  Thanks. 

PJB posted:

You all realize that the OP hasn't been back to this thread at all - not once in approx 2 weeks - since the original post.  Not a comment on all your hard work nor answers to any of your questions to try and help him achieve his goal?  Curious if he's maybe decided on another path, forgotten about this thread and we're all spinning our wheels for a moot point?  Either way, some really good info being shared, so I keep tuning in.  Thanks. 

Nope, that's just jedderbob. Wait for it...wait for it...

Moonman posted:

 

Nope, that's just jedderbob. Wait for it...wait for it...

Thanks for my morning laugh. Sometimes we forget that people still have day jobs, families, even school, etc., that can keep them away from OGR for periods of time. There does come a time though when we end up just spinning our wheels due to lack of input from the OP.

DoubleDAZ posted:

- there is no way to specify points for rectangles or polygons like with the RRT Properties dialog. Because I define my bench work to exact dimensions, this is something I really miss.

 

Dave

That's what I thought, but then I stumbled upon it in Tool Box. Tool Box always opens with Start Point, but you can change it to Baseboard (Abs, Co-ordinates). The first point I add is X=0, Y=0. Then keep adding points until you come back around to the beginning. The last point you add, for example X=0, Y=96. Then click Done.

Oman posted:

That's what I thought, but then I stumbled upon it in Tool Box. Tool Box always opens with Start Point, but you can change it to Baseboard (Abs, Co-ordinates). The first point I add is X=0, Y=0. Then keep adding points until you come back around to the beginning. The last point you add, for example X=0, Y=96. Then click Done.

But that's only for the baseboard, not for other rectangles or polygons. For example, there's no way to define a 2x4 on edge that is exactly 1.5" wide and 48" long, you can only get close by eyeballing it. And you can specify a height of exactly 3.5" and where it's positioned in the 3D world using its Properties dialog, but that's it. If you copy it and want to resize a new one to 45", you have to be very careful not to mess up the width. In RRT you have access to each point through the Property dialog window and you end up with perfectly sized pieces with which to assemble exacting bench work and other elements. For  many, that won't matter, but I'm an exacting type who likes a rectangle to be 12"x12", not 11.3"x12.2".

Okay Dave

I did think that I may have not fully comprehended your point. 

Moonman posted:

PJB posted:

You all realize that the OP hasn't been back to this thread at all - not once in approx 2 weeks - since the original post.  Not a comment on all your hard work nor answers to any of your questions to try and help him achieve his goal?  Curious if he's maybe decided on another path, forgotten about this thread and we're all spinning our wheels for a moot point?  Either way, some really good info being shared, so I keep tuning in.  Thanks. 

Nope, that's just jedderbob. Wait for it...wait for it...

Ha!  Ok, I get it. As I said, it's all good as I'm learning and glad the OP started this thread even if he never comes back to it.