Seeking Input, Ideas, and Feedback for a 13x25 Layout Space

I like the fact that you are considering switching and classification as well as loop running.

When I saw your drawings I had an emotional reaction without doing analysis, as “too tight and cramped in relation to people”.  All visitors must go through the lift bridge into the center in some versions, I think that version 3 is better for this reason.  Maybe others will comment on how lift out sections work with visitors.

How wide are the walkways?  Clearance to washer dryer and furnace looks tight.  When you need to work on that furnace you may have to tear down part of the layout.  Maybe you can make the layout removable in that area.  The idea with a peninsula does give a great opportunity for a yard, even though I suggest there are visitor problems.

Can you reach the entire track from the standing area to deal with derailments in the far corners (30 better than 36)?  Will there be a control panel? Where?  Is the classification (ladder) yard long enough?  Not sure how to make it longer.

Easy for me to have a critical eye, but I have no bright ideas of what to do instead.  Would help to visualize this going forward if there were some tick marks on the wall at 1 ft intervals.  You want O72, but can some track be smaller?  Have you considered multi-level?  Could an upper level go over dryer?

Just some top of head reactions.  Will give it a think

Bill

Not a criticism but a question.  Turntables and roundhouse tracks consume a great deal of space with in my opinion little in return.  Are you wholly invested in the large number of whisker yracks or can those tracks be reduced freeing up space for something else?

Following up on necrails question:  What is the purpose of the TT?  Do you really want to turn engines or is it to display your collection?  If display, consider a transfer table.  Allows for display in a smaller space.

I re-read you post and I see you rejected multi-level.  I missed the earlier threads.  I wonder why not, seems like you have room for it.

@ogaugenut posted:

I like the fact that you are considering switching and classification as well as loop running.

When I saw your drawings I had an emotional reaction without doing analysis, as “too tight and cramped in relation to people”.  All visitors must go through the lift bridge into the center in some versions, I think that version 3 is better for this reason.  Maybe others will comment on how lift out sections work with visitors.

How wide are the walkways?  Clearance to washer dryer and furnace looks tight.  When you need to work on that furnace you may have to tear down part of the layout.  Maybe you can make the layout removable in that area.  The idea with a peninsula does give a great opportunity for a yard, even though I suggest there are visitor problems.

Can you reach the entire track from the standing area to deal with derailments in the far corners (30 better than 36)?  Will there be a control panel? Where?  Is the classification (ladder) yard long enough?  Not sure how to make it longer.

Easy for me to have a critical eye, but I have no bright ideas of what to do instead.  Would help to visualize this going forward if there were some tick marks on the wall at 1 ft intervals.  You want O72, but can some track be smaller?  Have you considered multi-level?  Could an upper level go over dryer?

Just some top of head reactions.  Will give it a think

Bill

Thanks - adding opportunities for switching operations seems to be a common recommendation to mitigate the boredom that sets in with just watching trains go around loops. I still want loop runs for the days where I just want to watch and listen to trains run, but I would also like switching to keep things interesting.

@necrails posted:

Not a criticism but a question.  Turntables and roundhouse tracks consume a great deal of space with in my opinion little in return.  Are you wholly invested in the large number of whisker yracks or can those tracks be reduced freeing up space for something else?

@ogaugenut posted:

Following up on necrails question:  What is the purpose of the TT?  Do you really want to turn engines or is it to display your collection?  If display, consider a transfer table.  Allows for display in a smaller space.

I re-read you post and I see you rejected multi-level.  I missed the earlier threads.  I wonder why not, seems like you have room for it.

I 100% agree that the spaces are too cramped for visitors, I wanted to keep the space where the turntable is now as an open space for guest standing/seating room or a workbench. Since I ditched under-layout storage, I wanted a ton of spur tracks for large locomotives so I could avoid taking stuff on and off the tracks. Since I started this hobby during the pandemic, I have been enjoying it somewhat lonewolf with the exception of the OGR forum, so I thought guest space was something I could sacrifice (albeit reluctantly, it makes it difficult to show to friends and family that may come over).

The walkways/aisles are 24" in all cases. It allows me to walk and turn around without worrying about knocking things over or having to shuffle sideways. Access to washer/dryer is 36", it is enough for me to get things in and out and in all my designs I have made sure I can just walk up to it without having to interact with the layout (the design I posted shows only the space I am willing to devote to the layout, it does not show the whole basement). Furnace clearance is admittedly tight on the front, but I am inclined to make my benchwork semi modular and separable so that if I need to call someone to fix something (furnace, plumbing, etc), I can pull out a section of the layout for easy access.

I have not integrated reach space for layout corners (eg, the curves) but without a lower deck I can cut away some of the designed benchwork for easier reach. Much harder to do with a lower level and reverse loop.

I will post one of my multi level layout designs and talk through some of the problems I kept running into while trying to design it. But I will note now that the washer-dryer is a stacked setup (washer at the bottom, dryer on top) and tracks that can go over it are not feasible.

Thank you both for your inputs, I'll find that older design now.

As promised, here is the older design.

@ogaugenut posted:

I re-read you post and I see you rejected multi-level.  I missed the earlier threads.  I wonder why not, seems like you have room for it.

First, bear in mind that at the time I was adamant about keeping the layout restricted to a 10x25 space across the board, with the exception of a penninsula along the wall on the furnace's side. Doing this allowed for easier viewing of the whole layout and would make the basement feel less cramped. I was also insistent on having a town scene with the industrial switching, under-layout storage (would be on the second level, hidden under the upper level), with two reverse loops that allowed for traversing from the lower to upper level and back without taking anything off the track or requiring a TT (though I included one for operating reasons, I'll explain that in a bit).

BLUE TRACKS = upper level
YELLOW TRACKS = grade between upper/lower levels
GREEN TRACKS = lower level

The design is not complete, but most of the major elements are there.

The first major hurdle, and arguably the greatest frustration I had with designing the multilevel layout, was that the two reverse loops and graded track had to be oriented properly so that a train could change levels only by moving forward and without having to back through any of the loops. Because of this, the rest of the layout had to be built around the reverse loops and the grade. Add in any more constraints, like a turntable by the furnace or introduce a hinge/lift bridge, and the design became locked to a specific orientation (eg, putting a turntable in one spot means that I can only have the upper-start to the grade on an opposing side so that the descending train doesn't have clearance issues under the TT, which in turn means the reverse loops must be oriented to match the grade location, which dictates where everything else fits on the layout).

A second issue, which is less severe now that I am willing to give some things up, was the benchwork. Initially, I wanted to be able to climb atop to address derails in corners, etc. In order to stand on the plywood without breaking it, the upper level would need framing under it to support human weight. But when I did the math for vertical clearances, I discovered I would need about 12" of height or more from one base to another (leaving a few inches of space underneath for hands and arms in emergencies). I felt this height was too tall for what I wanted scenically, (eg, hill sides between layers would turn into sheer cliff faces, etc). Further, at the time I didn't want table height to go abover 42", which meant the lower level would need to be 30" off the ground. Without any sort of lift or hinge bridge, I would have to duck under it. I'm on the younger end of the hobby, but even for me a 30" duck under is a non-starter.

Operationally, I took some inspiration from HO and larger O layouts. The idea was a train would come up from the storage layer, run around on the main line, then pull into the yard where it would drop off its train and caboose. The engine would head to the TT and roundhouse for maintenance, while a switcher broke down the train into an outbound train (cars destined for imaginary towns beyond this yard), and a local freight for switching. The switcher would take the local freight and switch out the local industries, with the cars from the train as set outs, and any cars picked up would get put on the outbound train. Once the switcher returns with the pickups, it attaches a caboose to the new train, and another engine (could be the same as the first incoming train, or a new engine altogether) departs the roundhouse and arrives in the yard to pick up the train. It can run around on the double-main as long as I like, and when I get bored with it I send it to the lower storage level and bring up a new train from the storage level, and the cycle continues. Makes for very simple operations, but the system allows me to integrate storage, classification, and switching into one system while keeping a fresh rotation of motive power and rolling stock.

I'm willing to revisit this design (headaches and all), having finally relented on some of my wants I may be able to make it work. If anyone has ideas, I'm all ears!

@ogaugenut posted:

Easy for me to have a critical eye, but I have no bright ideas of what to do instead.

Critical feedback has saved me serious headache. I'll take it all! I can always discard ideas I don't like but I would much rather glean experienced wisdom than learn hard lessons like locomotive sideswipes, inability to run under a table due to too tight a clearance, etc. Thanks again!

A key issue seems to be your projection of visitors.   "I may have the odd visitor every few years", or "I will be having parties routinely in the train room and open houses".  Where you fall on this spectrum may influence the choices.

@ogaugenut I'd like to thank you for bringing up the idea of a second-level to the layout even though I had dismissed it. Now that I've let go of some "must haves" (it feels like many!), I've taken a second look at a two-level layout and it's coming together pretty well! Some pictures:

Spacing between the levels (rail-top to rail-top) is about 8.5", and affords me about 6" of space under the layout, just enough to store trains. I will probably cut access hatches (design TBD) and add removable scenery for easy access in case of accidents underneath. I am also pleased to say I was fairly successful in preserving the length of the yard while also keeping it as a double-ladder. Also note more outside space for visitors (again, not a priority for design but it's nice to have).

Sacrifices over older designs that had to be made include:

• Strong framing under upper level (meaning I can't walk or climb on it)
• Fewer tracks to/from turntable (was hoping to have more tracks for ingress/egress to the TT, and allow some locomotives to be parked on those, not really possible here)
• Grade down starts mid-curve instead of on the front end (don't like this for scenic reasons but oh well)
• Small town and industrial switching now at front of layout (wanted these to share the same aisle as the yard so all operations could be done without leaving the center, but oh well again. On the bright side, I can introduce any visitors to switching puzzles without having to bring them into the cramped interior)
• Generally smaller curves (O72/O84 instead of O84/O96- there's a few spots on the layout that still have O96, etc however)

I think the biggest positive to this design is that I now have lift/hinge bridges which will make getting into and out of the center vastly easier. Design is still a work in progress, but I'm liking where it's headed. Thank you again for inspiring a second look!

@ogaugenut posted:

A key issue seems to be your projection of visitors.   "I may have the odd visitor every few years", or "I will be having parties routinely in the train room and open houses".  Where you fall on this spectrum may influence the choices.

My visitors will mostly be family every once in awhile (once or twice a year, likely less, my house is not a hub for family activities). I live in a rural area, no train or hobby shops nearby. Highly doubtful I'll be hosting parties and meets

@0-Gauge CJ can you please post the .scarm files for your original design posted on 2/26, and the revised one in the post above?  Thanks!!

@Ted S posted:

@0-Gauge CJ can you please post the .scarm files for your original design posted on 2/26, and the revised one in the post above?  Thanks!!

Hi Ted, thanks for your interest! The SCARM file for the original 2/26 design is in my first post under the pictures (titled, "13x25 v3.scarm"), but I'll attach here again with the recent update.

I've tweaked the new design some more and am still working on it but am not happy with it right now, so I'll share the one from the post on 27th. Thanks again!

Coming back with a small update, I am leaning back towards an original concept (once again ). I have not finished but the general shape and design is there. To allow space for a town and (more importantly) switching, I also had to remove a double-track bridge. I will make these hinged/lift-out sections with removable scenery for interior access. Suggestions for more interesting switching are welcome, I don't like the switching section right now so I will look to make improvements. Switching aside, my chief frustrations are lack of space for an engine service area (eg, coal tower, room for a couple engines to park off TT, etc), and that the portion against the back (top) wall requires 4 feet of space.

I could add engine service space and reduce the back footprint if I shortened the yard. I may remove the left-side ladder, which would give me more space to compress things (and thus fix above issues), but it would be unfortunate since that takes away the option for engines to enter/exit from either side of the layout. I may need to remove a leg of the yard to compress that side of the layout against the wall more. We will see!

SCARM file is attached. Ideas or overhauls are welcome!