Rick's 26' X 40' RailRoad Layout Plan

ricka1 posted:

John,

Thanks for the feedback. I first want to say that I really admire your layout and your videos. I'd like to get a copy of your book too! I understand what you are saying regarding the reversing loops. Ken suggested that to me in a couple of the earlier versions of the plan. When I saw how much space a loop would eat up in the narrow-ish spaces in my basement, I decided against it. From an operational standpoint, I believe the plan allows for some great operating possibilities without the use of loops, by utilizing the yard as a stand in for two or more locations. A freight train can be assembled in the yard and sent out on the mainline headed to a distant location. After making a set number of passes around the main, that train would pull back into the yard, on the arrival track at it's "new" destination. The train could drop a cut of cars designated for the new location, and pick up a cut going it's direction, or could be broken down and put into smaller locals that could head in either direction from the yard to swap cars at local towns and industries. These locals would then return to the yard where their trains would be broken down and assembled into cuts that could be picked up by another through freight, or assembled into a train originating in the yard, bound for somewhere else. Add to this action a mine run, interchange runs, and passenger service, and you've got some fun on your hands! Sure it takes a little imagination, but I don't feel it's any more than what's required when watching a train go back and forth between two loops. The added advantage for me, of not having loops, is the narrower benchwork, and ability to just watch the trains run!

Rick

Rick:  Thank you for your kind words.  I'm very impressed with your plan.  You have a great plan for what you are going to do which puts you way ahead of the pack.  I agree that no reverse loops will save space--everything will be easier to reach and you have excellent people space!  

Ken-Oscale posted:

John, if you are interested, you can scroll up the thread to see a draft layout plan that illustrates what Rick means about the real-estate occupied by the reversing loops and access/reach.   I also want to thank you for your layout pictures and videos - I grew up in a Fargo ND serviced by both the GN and NP (and there was a Milwaukee Road connection to the NP when I was a kid).

This version adds a bit more length to the siding at the grain elevator (after I scrunched it a bit to create the switching lead leading to the mainline).   And there was room at the far right of the right-hand town, to add another spur leading to the right - there are now two facing point turnouts at this location, requiring a run-around move by the locomotive using the mainline in order to service - just another option for Rick to consider.  -Ken  

I envy you!  You got to see GN action live and in person.  Thank you for your compliments.  Love the drawing.  What is the program?

I wonder about the stub yard, just a poll for layout folks who have one, do they get used or do they make it difficult so they do not get used much?  Mine does not get used as much as I had thought.

WB47's comment about the how folks actually use stub-end yards got me thinking.   The other use for a yard might be to stage complete trains.   So I made one track a dual-purpose or hybrid track, which can be used as a long classification track and/or as a staging track (about 12' between turnouts).   It can also be used as a run-around track when one of the arrival/departure tracks are occupied, and as a third arrival/departure track.   And it can function as a locomotive escape track for clock-wise running arrivals.   This track also has a short spur which could be a caboose track or bad-order car track.

So from the top down, the yard has:

• three long classification tracks
• one hybrid classification/staging/arrival-departure track, with a short caboose storage track on a turnout at the left.
• two arrival/departure tracks

This made the yard just a bit wider, and made the engine tracks into the engine house about 2" longer each.

Ken, I don't know how close to the layout edge that top track off of the turntable is, but I don't think I would want to keep an engine parked there. I'd be too worried that a stray elbow or something similar could send it crashing to the floor. You might be able to squeeze in another short track along the bottom side of the engine house (at least long enough to park a diesel) instead. Just a thought.

Good eyes, Mike.   I increased the benchwork size a bit to add a bit more distance between the tracks near the edge at the turntable.

You are right, there is room for another curved whisker just below the engine house.   I will look later to see if this could be made a shorter but usable straight rather than curved.   -Ken

John, I am using AnyRail (anyrail.com).   The free trial version will allow you to examine a file of any size, but only allow you to save layouts of 50 track sections or less.   I have also worked with Scarm and RR-track, but I find AnyRail to be easier (for me) to put together layout plans quickly.   Biggest drawback of AnyRail (IMO) is that it does not generate a usable 3-D view.

After adding another whisker track off of the turntable (encroaching into the aisle space a bit more), I produced this pic of the engine terminal, with lengths of the engine tracks marked.

Zoomed-in views of the two towns:

Coal for steam engines is only available in the engine terminal.   But water (which steamers use more quickly) is also available in the two towns, situated for passenger trains (running the inside route) to stop at a station and also position the tender at a water tower for a quick top-off.

I have positioned one water tower for the outside route, near the turnout serving the mine.   If a train needs to stop here for water, a following train can use the cross-overs as previously described to work around.

Hey Ken. I have been enjoying this thread. Your plan looks great....it is exactly what I would do in that space. Stretch it out and run trains!! That is what my new layout under construction is like. Just my opinion, I am not a fan of prototype operation or switching out industries. I like to sit and railfan on my layout.

I have one suggestion since that is the purpose of your post. 

Every time I look at the plan....I tend to focus on the engine service area. For the size of the room and proposed layout, it just seems a little small crowded into that corner. I understand the location next to the yard (which I love the design, BTW) but I am not a fan at all of the curved "whisker tracks" leading into the turntable, engine house and storage. You do not have a straight run into the table anywhere.

That 24" long turntable seems a little small too for such a large layout. You have an ash pit so I assume there will be steam on the layout. At 24", I am sure you realize that only the smaller steam engines with tenders will fit. No 4-8-4 for sure. Also, I do not think a scale size set of "F" units in "A-B" configuration will work. I measured my Lionel F3A with F3B and they will not work.

On my old layout I had the same "curved" tracks leading in and out of the table and they were a constant source of problems for me, especially with steam engines. Also having those curved tracks going into the engine house are also problematic I think. Is the 3 stall house shown "custom"? Is so, I would have it built with wider doors just in case. 

OK...that is my critique..here is a suggestion. I would consider adding a peninsula out into the room to "feature" the engine facility. I know this takes up valuable floor space but I think it is possible and still have access all around. Your aisle space in that corner may be compromised and less that 36". However, such a grand layout deserves a grand engine facility...just like that fabulous yard and mainline. 

Maybe consider a transfer table instead of a roundhouse?  My old layout featured in Run 255 had the turntable and roundhouse. I was never happy with the design. However, this time around, I am going with a Millhouse transfer table. For me, I basically run diesels so not that big of a deal. With the table I am able to incorporate (2) repair shops plus a number of storage tracks. 

I draw all my plans with my CAD programs, either AutoCAD or Microstation so I do not use the available software that a lot of guys use on the forum. 

All of this is just my opinion, I think your friend is lucky to have someone like you to help him out. Thanks for sharing your design.

Donald

Donald, thanks so much for your post, you make excellent points.   In particular, I share your caution about curved whiskers.   There are two straight whiskers, and two sharp ones at O-72, and the others are much broader.   I will look at this again, so see if I can work in a straight lead of 6" or so for each of the curved whiskers.

I appreciate your comment about the size of the turntable.   I have been looking at Millhouse River Studio's turntables, but boy, are the expensive!.   I will think about a larger turntable, and using more of the aisle "people" space, but that space is also a priority.

Great post, many thanks -Ken.

Hey Ken. You are welcome. Yes...it is very tough to squeeze everything together even with such a large space to work with.

I agree, the Millhouse stuff is expensive, no getting around that. But Al builds a bulletproof table and in this case, you certainly get what you are paying for. It would be an investment I would consider for this large layout.

A layout this size will certainly run into the $1000's for lumber and track, even with doing all the construction yourself. With that price point, I would figure out a way to finance a fully indexed Millhouse turntable. Again, just my two cents.

Thanks for the reply and good luck with the design and ultimately the layout construction. I cannot wait for progress pics.

Donald

So here is a possible version with a 30" turntable.   Not sure how much of an investment in space and $$ Rick wants to commit to this feature, but it could work like this.   Four of the whiskers are straight.   There is 18" of straight on the lead to the turntable.   Other whiskers have six or nine inch straight leads.   Gentle curves.    Interesting problem, may try another version later.  Access/reach and the aisle are definitely compromised in this configuration.   -Ken

Excellent Ken. Great design work. Now, it makes more sense for using lash-ups or larger steam.

I like it. A lot.

Hopefully Rick agrees and sees the benefit of a larger table while sacrificing a little space and a longer reach!!!

A layout like this is an investment for a long time and certainly not built on a whim. Factoring in the price of a 30" table over the life of the layout should be a moot point in my opinion.

Donald

This looks like a spectacular layout in the planning! I am an S scale operator and have a medium sized custom layout with 18 months of operating experience with it. I offer the following thoughts on the plans. My minimum radius curve is 30" which scales to O-80 in O gauge, about the same as yours. We adjusted the track plan to include easements. If longer cars and engines are in your fleet the easements minimize the lurching as they enter the curves. We also deleted all the #4 turnouts in favor of #5 minimum, even in the freight yard ladder. I feel the trains look better and seem to operate better.

It looks like there are no reverse loops in the track plan. My original plan had none and I thought I did not need any but the plan was modified to include some. I am surprised how frequently I use them now that I am operating the layout.

My S scale turntable is 22", the same as 30" in O scale. As people recommended above, this is a good size, but it will still be a little short for the largest articulated steam engines. Be careful starting a curve on the approach to the turntable, a short length of straight track is desirable.

I can only wish I had as much space as you have. I hope you enjoy the layout for a long, long time.

Thanks AmFlyer, and I appreciate your comments.  In particular, your suggestion about easements - I am a strong advocate for easements whenever possible, and have incorporated them in this plan and in my other designs.   So I took another look through the design.   The minimum curve specified by Rick was O-72, but I thought that for running long passenger trains we should look at a wider minimum, so I went with a wider minimum of O-80 for the mainlines.   I have circled the two sections on the mainlines that are AT this greater minimum, these can't be expanded without compromising the length of sidings and switch leads.   Everything else is already wider than O-80 - at least O-89 - so pretty good!

 Mainline cross-overs are #8 and O120-O96 curved: wider minimums.   There is one #6 cross-over at the junction with the branchline or connection at the left.   So these minimums are pretty good for mainline passenger trains.

The "High Line" is minimum of O-72 by intention, to look more like a winding branch line, but with O-80 easements, or are even wider curves than that, so this meets and exceeds the standards.  I did go over the High Line and replace all the turnouts with #6s - there was room without compromising any other aspect of the design, so I thought - why not? - though perhaps the #4s might look better for this winding branchline concept.

For comparison, I have shown how the yard ladder would look with #6s (Ross doesn't offer #5s), and you can see it would alter the yard dramatically, and unacceptably in my opinion.   See what you think.   Regards - Ken.

One more tweek:  on the left side mainline above the elevator, there was a broad reverse curve where the mainline curve connects to a right-hand #6 for the junction cross-over.   I worked in a O120-O96 curve instead for the junction, eliminating this reverse curve, but separating the cross-over from the junction turnout.   This allowed me to ease the junction departure angle underneath the bridge, now its almost a straight-shot.

Hey Ken. Just an fyi about the yard switches.

I have used ROSS #4's for a long time on my old layout and then again for my new one under construction. I never had a problem with operation, either the locomotive or cars. One advantage we have with 3 rail track and O Gauge is the fact there is a lot of "forgiveness" in the tracking or interface between the wheel sets and the rails. The guys with the smaller scales have to be a little more exact, so to speak.

I use ROSS #6 for my crossovers, I never used a #8. I also use their "REG" switch for crossovers too. They are an 11 degree angle and when spaced properly between parallel tracks, work just fine, even at higher speeds.

Just my two cents. I was sitting here enjoying my cup of coffee before the CEO / CFO wakes up and reading the forum.

Have a good day.

Donald

I was able to ease the curves on the right-hand side over the bridges/trestle to wider than O-80 (using flex and sectional), and added a bit of separation between the mains and the high-line for a better scene.

Ken, I agree with your comment that #6's in the yard take up way too much space. I used #5's. Donald made a great point about the forgiveness in 3 rail operations compared to 2 rail. My track will allow either scale or highrail equipment to operate so tolerances are very tight. The minimum #5 turnouts make the yards accessible to many of the scale wheeled engines. I think the layout looks great as you have it now.

One area I would look at further is the yard to turntable to roundhouse area. All my roundhouse stalls are 23" deep, exterior tracks at the roundhouse vary from 20" to 12". Upscaling by 64/48 gives 30" in O scale, with a shortest of 16". If there were 4 stalls, 2 could be shorter. I can get engines longer than the turntable into the roundhouse because all 3 of the turntable approach tracks line up with a roundhouse stall track allowing engines to be driven directly across it into 3 of the stalls without the need to rotate the turntable.

I have 3 approach tracks to the turntable, two start from a main line, one from a tail track in the freight yard. I find when operating the layout I use the main line approach far more often that the freight yard approach. That might just be my operating style. If I had any great suggestions for how to improve the roundhouse area I would share them but so far I am stumped on how to get more space there.

Love it when a plan comes together.   

I have enjoyed watching this layout metamorphosis.  

Tom, track lengths are really helpful!   So one more revision of the engine terminal, which has now gotten large!   I realigned the connection of the engine service track to now connect to the run-around track (circled in red).

A minute and a quarter of three trains running, following the passenger train at 65mph, the freights at 50mph (no sound).

Five trains, following the passenger at 60mph. 

I remain uncomfortable with the amount of space the engine terminal takes up.   So I thought the two left long whiskers, one could be deleted in favor of two new "cold" engine storage tracks.  

My thinking is that one purpose of the engine terminal is to service and ready locos, and the other purpose is to store locomotives not needed for the next trains outbound.   This terminal allows seven or eight locos on the "ready" tracks or in the roundhouse, and another three in the storage tracks.   (A natural place for diesels, which never really go "cold" as steamers do.)   So that is 11 locos in the terminal, plus a switcher on the run-around tracks, plus perhaps another six locos pulling trains around the layout (two on each mainline):  18 locos easily:  16 on the mainline, and two on the "high line".   Not counting the turntable lead track and engine service track, which are available for loco movements.   Then there is "off-line" storage for locos on the car shelves at the far left, which can be loaded/unloaded using the connecting RR track.

The turntable whiskers are at 15 degree angles.   I wonder if for a 30" turntable, can these come off at smaller angles - is this configurable by the builder?  Is so, the facility footprint can be compressed a bit more.   

Hey Ken. Not sure if the plan is to purchase a quality roundhouse or scratch build. However, now is the time to decide. Once construction starts, no amount of tweaking will make it all fit unless the correct dimensions and locations are first determined, based on the building and location.

I can vouch for Dennis Brennan's beautiful roundhouse that he offers for sale. His website contains a ton of information of the proper geometry and dimensions for placement of the roundhouse in relation to the centerline or the edge of the turntable. I suggest you check that out.

Also, Bob at Altoona Model Works makes another impressive roundhouse to consider. He also can supply pertinent information concerning building set-back, etc. if you purchase one of his kits.

Finally, on my old layout.....I built an old Korber 5 stall kit with extensions. It was an old kit from the very beginnings of Korber and did not go together too well. I never took into account the correct set-back locations and my whisker tracks never followed the contours of the building since I crammed it into a smaller space that really required. Somehow I was able to make it all work but not without a lot of cussing in the process. However, once Rich and ultimately Mr. Muffin has taken over, there kits are a whole lot better and actually fit together. Just follow the instructions.

Al at Millhouse Studios can supply drawings that show the proper relation between his turntables and a roundhouse. If I remember, they may be based on a Korber kit, but I am not all that sure.

I know this is a lot to consider in the design stage but it is important to do so it all fits together in the end.

I do like your current design for the engine service area...you did a good job.

Donald

Thanks for that information Donald!   Rick is still considering some of these issues.

Assuming the turntable is configurable, I looked at a spacing of 7.5 degrees on the 30" turntable to see what that might look like.   Larger set-backs so that locos don't rub elbows of course, but more whiskers, and a big saving in footprint.   Ties may need to be trimmed, but the rails don't come close to overlapping.   I am careful about intruding into people space - if you look around the layout, there are plenty of places where the aisle space is just 36", and not much larger spaces for folks to congregate.   Rick and operators need to feel comfortable and enjoy moving around the area, and not feel "boxed-in" to a confined space, which can detract from enjoyment.   My opinion in the design.   Anyway, here is what something along these lines could look like:

Here is how I am looking one of the design criteria:  a comfortable space for operators.  There are only three areas where folks might easily congregate, or where someone might pull up a chair to railfan while others operate the railroad.

The layout could easily support seven operators (six engineers and one yardmaster/hostler) in an operating session, some following trains clock-wise, and some following trains counter-clockwise, moving past each other.   And if you add in one or a few visitor/wife/kids and you can see that the space for folks becomes a premium.   Rick may want to host an open-house at some point, which could get even more crowded.  Its a big and wonderful layout space, but we have done well in filling it with railroad, not wasting any space at all .  

The "dead-end" by the turntable and connecting RR junction is a space where folks need to not just shoulder-past each other, but have to actually turn around to continue in the opposite direction - needing more space than just an aisle.

Ken, great layout design!  I just have two suggestions regarding your latest engine service area revision:

• Be careful you don't crowd things too much in terms of the roundhouse footprint.  You're already into "custom" dimensions territory given the current set-up.  And you could find you need more of a set-back from the turntable to the roundhouse front-doors, in which case you might perhaps decide for just a 3-stall roundhouse. 

• Secondly, turntables tend to come as a SQUARE assembly.  Check with Millhouse and/or Ross, and you'll see what I'm referring to.  So while you might want the benchwork to be contoured to the curved portion of the turntable, that might not be an option given how the turntable assembly is constructed.

Just some things to think about.

David

David, thanks so much, and excellent point on the square turntable shape, I had overlooked that requirement.  The square can be angled of course to align with the benchwork edge.   I will look at this aspect.  Here is a roughed-in (not precise measurements) space for the square turntable, just to see.   Aligned with walls and grid seemed to be the most optimal rotation.

Close-up of this possible engine terminal and turntable arrangement:

I've never operated a turntable myself, but just curious in this case is it normal to back into the engine terminal from the run around track? or alternately back down the run around track and go head in to the turntable?

Ken......This is just my opinion, I really like your design on paper it looks excellent.  I would go bigger on the curves, at least 096.            I'm now at 120 curves and I won't go smaller

Clem

Rocky Mountaineer posted:

• Secondly, turntables tend to come as a SQUARE assembly.  Check with Millhouse and/or Ross, and you'll see what I'm referring to. 

The Ross turntable comes mounted on a square framework.  The Millhouse turntable is round with some flanges underneath to mount it to the layout.  You will need a couple of inches of table top beyond the turntable pit so the flanges can be secured in place. 

Also, you will not be able to fit as many tracks into a roundhouse as close to the pit as you have drawn.  There needs to be clearance between the tracks at the roundhouse entrance so that 2 locomotives can clear the roof support post.  It's really easy to be too optimistic in terms of what will actually fit when drawing plans.

Clem, I appreciate your comment about O-96.   I was wondering it it was possible, well it took some time and changing #8 cross-overs for #6, but it works.   Nice!!  O-96 minimum for both inner and outer mainlines.   Three of the curves were already O-96, and it took some work to reconfigure to adjust the final three.   People space on the right end got 1/2' larger.

Bob, thanks for your comments.   The enginhouse is just for concept/ideas, I will leave it to Rick to decide how he wants to handle this.

A reworking of the siding at the grain elevator, and a bit of scenery detailing and clean-up:

A pic of the engine terminal with some locos:  At the top right is an E8A-B pair, next down is a "J", then a 4-8-4.  These are scale, but I have not verified if there are any errors.  F7 pair on the turntable.

I worked in a run-around track in the right-side town, to service the industries at the facing-point turnouts.

It just keeps looking better Ken!

Had not really done much with the High Line to this point.   I added a passing track at the top-right on the curve, so that trains could run in opposing directions and pass each other at the two passing tracks.   Check the clearance of locos and equipment, the curves here are broad, but the center-rail separation is 4 1/8"- no modern auto carrier cars here.   I imagine short cars and small steamers.

I also added another siding on the left, with a water tank, coal loader, whistle-stop station and an access road.

Perhaps a freight running clockwise, servicing the three industry spur trailing-point turnouts, and a passenger train running counter-clockwise.

Hey Rick, when do you want to get started?  I really like the things Ken is doing with this, these "little changes"  are really fine tuning the operational value and are also providing visual interest.  Sorry about that, the professional came out in me for a second, in other words "Cool!"

@Nittany Lion Engineer

I agree, these small tweaks that Ken has added really have me motivated!! I think this will be a great place to run trains, hang out, shoot the bull, and relax!

I'm already in the process of clearing the basement, and preparing for installation of a new ceiling, and upgraded electrical and lighting. I recently ordered a new storage shed to put things in, which will free up the entire basement for a layout. I'll enclose the utility area where the furnace is, drywall the outside of the stairwell, and put in some shelves. Then comes the electrical, ceiling, backdrop, bench-work, etc. It'll be awhile before the first track gets laid, but I have a plan! I think I'll lay in the upper main, turnouts, and sidings, before moving on to the lower level. I'll put in the lower mainlines and turnouts, and then get everything wired. After that, trains will be running and I can build out the yard, industrial area, and town as time and $$ permit. This way I'll be able to get trains running, and keep my enthusiasm up! Of course I'll need a lot of help from anyone willing, NLE!!

Rick