Postwar themed layout - feedback sought

Welcome and though I don't have many comments at the present to assist, I would suggest

checking out the recently posted tubular track thread.

i use k-line shadow rail with Lionel Fastrack as an outer run as a "mirror image". 

your plan looks very feasible and I think your off to a good start by securing "property

rights" from the wife. I am using a 100 year lease from mine.

one thing is that tubular track is very easy to shape and using lots of accessories does

add to the fun, whereas fastrack can be difficult to "form".

I think you've designed a very nice layout.
Plenty of folks are still using traditional tubular track, and Lionel is still making it.

My small layout is "O" gauge tubular, with one loop 031 and one loop 042.

One distinct advantage of "O" gauge tubular track is compatibility. Lionel accessories work with "O" and "027" track. I often read about issues with using Lionel accessories with other track systems. This certainly can be done, but it can take some ingenuity.

Hi and welcome. The layout design will certainly be post war like. There are some threads on the forum on duplicating the post war scenery detail such as the colors and using the old chunky grass material. The Dealer Display layouts will provide you with some inspiration.

The "S" on the divergence after the switch coming out the tunnel (at the bottom right)may look better smoothed out. It may annoy you down the road.

 I use FasTrack, but have seen posts on a particular switch number for tubular track that provides better operation and reliability.

Good luck and keep the family involved! (the better half may like scenery work). Most of all, Have Fun!

I really like the plan, but I second the concern about the reverse (S) curves coming out of both loops, especially the one that will be hidden, and it involves another no-no, a hidden turnout.

Still, I think the plan is a good one and there isn't much one can do with reverse curves in such a small space other than keeping speeds down. They may not be an issue at all, but if you have the track, I would suggest settings up a loop to test the rolling stock you have, especially the ABA with passenger cars. While I have no doubt they will run through the O42 curves, they might have a problem with the reverse curves.

You could try adding 2 straight pieces to expand each loop. The hidden one would encroach on the town and the other would extend closer to the siding. You do have room on the left to expand the layout, maybe enough.

Thank you Rufus. I have seen the tubular layout thread you mentioned and it's really great - quite inspiring. I've also spent some time going through the dealer layouts thread and those were influential on the above design, as was an old K-Line "O and O-27 Layouts" book that my grandparents gave me when I was getting going in the hobby with my dad.

Thank you very much CW. For me, the "Lionel Experience" is what I find attractive about the hobby. I appreciate scale detail but for personal enjoyment the nostalgia and overall impact of a classic postwar layout with lots of action and "sensory overload" really satisfies. Tubular track is, for me, an important part of that. I even prefer the layout to be really noisy rather than quiet - I love all the racket!

This is good advice Moonman and I was concerned about the same issue. It was one of the main motivations for posting here! I have worked on a few different layouts with my dad and know that reverse curves and switches rarely play nice together if you ask too much of them in too small a space.

Thank you DoubleDAZ. The suggestion to build a test layout with the intended track pieces and configuration is a good one that I will follow before finalizing the track plan.

Thanks again all for the great feedback!

Steve

Looks great, but I have some concerns about a 4% grade.  Make sure that all of the locomotives you will want to run, with a representative consist, can make that grade before going too far down the road.  Last layout I did I kept the grade to no more than 2% and some steam engines without magnatraction (671 turbines, 785 hudsons) had issues with it if the track wasn't spotless, etc.

I like your plan! Very creative layout! Looks like fun to run!

Looks very good, only concern is about the grade. (4% on a curve is a tough climb.)

Welcome to the forum and glad to hear about another Post War fan.

I was going to mention the Dealer Display Layout thread but see that you have already found it. Lots of great information (and pics) there.

I’ve just recently started on my own PW layout. I’m building the D-105 (a 5x9) from the 50’s.

Thanks guys for the comments on the grade. That, along with the reversing loops, are the biggest potential concerns with this layout.

I believe I can extend the grade a bit further into the left side of the layout without too much issue. There will have to be a "flat" spot in the grade near the switch to the train station / lumber loader siding but hopefully that won't pose too many of its own issues. If I extend it such that it's coming around the small hill on the left side of the layout, it would save me having to build a tunnel there as well.

Thanks again all of you for the great feedback and enthusiasm for this layout! When I get home tonight I'll take another stab at getting those reverse curves taken out, and getting the grade reduced.

Steve

Thanks all for the help - I think the layout has improved tremendously thanks to your feedback.

I like it, but I've been looking at it for too long. Need to come back with fresh eyes and think about if this is really the best use of the space.

Thank you again!

Steve

FWIW, I think if you go with this plan you'll be a lot happier with the changes you've made. The only remaining potential headache I see is the reversing loop turnout at the top that can only be reached using the access panel under the town.

The question of being the best use of the space is kind of hard to answer without more information. For example, judging by the space you left open, I assume there is a wall at the top and on the right, so it appears the layout is tucked into a corner of a larger room. Or, is there a wall on the left and/or on the bottom with a door to enter? A better use of the space might be a horseshoe that would allow access to all parts of the layout, but that would depend on access to the space itself.

Thanks Dave. This layout will be built in a long & narrow room, 16' long x 7'6" wide, with walls on all four sides. There's a door on the left side (which does not open into the room) as well as the bottom (which does open into the room), hence the angular approach here.

You're right, another really good option would be something like a 10'6" x 7'6" horseshoe layout. That would work for a more operations-oriented layout, with yards on both the long sides. And the well or aisle in the center would make access quite a lot better. There could still be a larger bench at the right edge of the room with a mountain and whatnot. Only concern with that is how feasible continuous operation would be. Presumably a bridge could connect the two "wings" along the long edges, turning the center aisle into something of a well.

Thanks again!

Steve

Looks like a great layout.  Best of luck and be so kind as to post photos of your progress.  Most of us have built layouts before and these exchanges permit us to learn from each other's experience and not make the same mistakes.  Thing to remember is to have fun building the layout. 

OK, I took a stab at a more rectangular layout but just didn't come up with something I liked as much as this more triangular approach.

I've added the room's doors to the plan, as well as reworked the yard area to accommodate better switching operations and more accessories, as well as smoothed out the grade to 3%.

I think this one's the winner!

Thanks again everyone for your help and valuable feedback. I hope to begin construction within the next few weeks and will post photos once I get something together.

Steve

I like the new version. Just be careful with the turnouts that appear to be on the grade, all 3 of those turnouts need to be flat. It looks like you can go up to that level, flatten out for the turnouts and then go up again to keep the grades around 3%.

Lots of time spent on planning how best to use this room... at the end, I think an around-the-room layout with no grades will result in better access, more reliability and definitely easier construction for the space available.

I also picked up some books by Lance Mindheim and while scale realism is not a priority, they really helped me understand what makes a switching / operations oriented layout work, and why.

The new design should prove a lot of fun, providing for two trains to run continuously, or for one to run while the other performs operations.

I've gone to all O-72 and O-54 curves, to provide a little more future-proofing and better running for our longer PW passenger trains (F3 ABA with streamliner consist), as well as an MTH Amtrak Surfliner set that will arrive hopefully soon.

My only concern / questions regards the duck-under at the door on the left (my wife said the other door, shown previously, doesn't need to open - what a gal!!). Ideally I'd like to turn this into a lift-out or drop-down bridge, but with the curves that could be more difficult... any thoughts on that?

Thanks again for all the helpful feedback!

Steve

surfimp,

Consider a valley lift out. Earth under curves and short bridges under straights. This thread has one and the hardware used.

You may want to add a way to turn the train around. I know the space is limiting, but it would add a final element for continued operational fun. Still pondering that one.

Thanks Moonman, something like that was what I had in mind... scenicking the edges of the tables to make it appear the bridge goes across some kind of chasm would be cool.

In studying my plan, I realized that it would be difficult to switch a train from the inside to outside (or vice versa) if they were operating in opposite directions (clockwise & counterclockwise).

I've amended the plan to put the interchange switches in a more useful location in that regard.

Not too concerned about the lack of reversing capability... I spent a LOT of time trying to figure that out before I realized it just wasn't that important, compared to switching and operating accessories. If the room was a little wider, things would be different, but I feel like this will be a pretty fun layout as-is.

Thanks again!

Steve

Which track will you be using?

Something like the second one (posted immediately above), although I think it can still use a little bit of tweaking to smooth the curves a bit more.

But it fixes the issue with the first one I posted earlier today, in that trains can operate in both directions at the same time, and switch from inside to outside tracks, without either having to back up.

Time to start seriously researching lift-out / lift-up bridges. Thanks again for that link.

Steve

I mean Lionel O tubular, RealTrax...?

Oh, sorry: it's designed to use O tubular. I love that stuff, so classic.

Thx

Welcome aboard. I like the layout plan. Looks like a lot of fun.

If you think you may want a wye, you could give up some aisle space and drop something like this on the bottom yard leg. Only enough at the end to barely fit an engine. I use SCARM, so, I can't recreate your plan exactly. Just a thought ...

Have fun and it looks nice. The accessories and switches will be fun.

Thanks Moonman, good food for thought.  I am also interested in SCARM, looks very cool. I have been quite happy with Anyrail, less impressed with RR-Track but wouldn't mind giving SCARM a shot too.

I was able to get the wye closer and leave 20" past each switch on the end. It would also require less of a filler triangle.

Stay with Anyrail for now. The learning curve on SCARM may take more time that you could devote to moving forward on the layout. SCARM is nice, but like most software, it has it's peculiarities.eg. the grid blocks are 5". All baseboard(platform) measurements are input in inches.

Good luck and enjoy!

Thanks again Moonman.

I did some more tweaking on the layout to get all the operating accessory sidings' switches onto straights, and smoothed out the curves on the inside track. I'm pretty happy with it now, just need to figure out the access bridge.

Thanks again for all the feedback!

Steve

You can smooth out the crossovers by moving them to the curves like this:

OK, I know it seems like I'm going in circles on this (horrible pun, sorry!) but I think I've finally got it!

Continuous running + point-to-point switching + easy access to all track + minimum O-42 radius + mountain + tunnel + no duckunder = WINNING!

I don't even know how many revisions I've gone through at this point, but I'm confident this one will work the best.

Have decided to go with Gargraves + Ross switches... so many cool options were opened up thanks to that decision!!

Thank you again everyone for the feedback and helpful suggestions. This whole project is so much better because of it!!

Steve