STD GA Track plan ideas, must haves, and obstacles

Do you plan to have any switches ??  Std or O ?

Hi Jim, I am not planning to have any switches at this time. I remember reading awhile back about different issues and I will probably incorporate fake switches to avoid problems. At least until I could afford a couple of Ross tinplate switches. 

Bob

That is a lot of track-8 loops !!  If you want to 5 rail it then you would have to have the Std and O next to each other. My old layout  had 5 loops, the outside was O72 for my M1000, then Standard gauge. I think I could have fit another Standard gauge inside for the 3rd loop if I had wanted to but that was about it.  The curves on the Standard are wider so you can't go too far on the inside. See if anyone has any good ideas. No duck unders but you couldn't reach across 8 lines of track.

Make sure you space the centers properly for your desired running.... In other words big locos (CV/Hiawatha/others) need more clearance.  I use 6.5 minimum, 7" nominal curve measurement between center rails.  If you are going to run smaller locos you can tighten things up.

Also, don't just run concentric loops.  Its Boring.  Make the track plan move a little, and put a crossover in.  A little change makes for big fun.

Thanks for answering the spacing. I don't own any big engines yet, but it is a definite plan for the future.

What ideas do you have for making the track plan move and what type of crossover would you suggest. Do they have problems like the switches do? I am open to all ideas.

Thanks,

Bob

Use 87 instead of 84 curves. This will make spacing even for 42,57,72,87 curves.

Bob, It will be important in your planning to accommodate those forthcoming large locos, and their passenger cars (for underhang on curves) for curve spacing, and for track planning near bridges and other pass-through areas.  NO S Curves as these big locos have short wheelbase for the length of the loco, and the coupler whip is really awful. Big Gentle movements as much as possible. Jim C is correct...the 87 make for even 7.5" OC spacing and a pleasing, even look.

I use both Flyer and Lionel original crossovers. I don't have issues with either on the flange/gear clearance issue... The Lionel is quieter but is flimsier ( I put 1/4" mdf support under neath it), while the FLYER is stronger,  but the base is a square (Lionel is a clipped square) and is painted red. The hard phenolic on the flyer crossing makes a crisper sound, but it is loud.

If you ever decide to install some switches, definitely spend the extra $$$ to purchase Ross Standard Gauge switches.  SGMA members were involved in their development and testing and the final design works so flawlessly that SGMA members changed the club's standards to allow them to be installed in our previously "switchless" outermost loop of track.

Bob Nelson

Agree with Bob 100%... Those Ross switches and USA Track make for a killer running combo.

Hi, 

Rob:  I will purchase 87 curves ( I have a loop of 84), and keep the spacing 7.5 . I have a 400e, State cars, and a 408 on order. I also have a couple of American Flyer crossovers. At our local meets, used STD GA track is practically given away. I have purchased 30 gal bins of assorted Ives, Flyer, and Lionel for $5.00 a bin. Not sure what to do with it, but it is not rusted just dirty. I bought USA track for my previous STD Ga layout.

Bob: I have followed your posts about SGMA and Ross switches. I have had the opportunity to purchase tinplate switches, old and new, but held off based on your and others comments to get Ross. I have Ross on my o scale layout and love them.

In trying to keep the access easier, what do you think about 2 separate layouts? One Tin O and 1 Standard gauge. I would like long runs, but want to avoid a duckunder.

Thanks,

Bob 

CP BOB posted:

In trying to keep the access easier, what do you think about 2 separate layouts? One Tin O and 1 Standard gauge. I would like long runs, but want to avoid a duckunder.

Thanks,

Bob 

One layout for O gauge and a separate layout for Standard Gauge maybe the way to go for your needs, particularly if you want to build and operate complex track plans.  That said, consider building a "forced perspective" layout where you place all Standard Gauge track in the foreground and all O gauge track in the background.  This arrangement gives the feeling of greater depth to a layout than on layouts without this design feature.   

Most often forced perspective is accomplished by placing all the Standard Gauge track loops along the outer edge of a layout and running all the O gauge track loops inside the Standard Gauge loops.  Routinely, the O gauge loops are run on elevated platforms located above the Standard Gauge track loops.  This arrangement helps to ensure that action on the O gauge track loops is not obscured by the action on the Standard Gauge track thereby contributing to the "forced perspective" nature of the combined Standard Gauge and O gauge layout.

Bob Nelson

What or how do recommend accessing the inner loops on a forced perspective layout? My initial thought was going with that type, but I hit a roadblock wanting 4 loops of each.

Thanks,

Bob

I tried running Standard Gauge and O next to each other, but the size difference made the O gauge look really small - not a good visual appearance IMO.

I would prefer keeping the different gauges separate from each other on different levels, if not on separate layouts.

Jim

CP BOB posted:

What or how do recommend accessing the inner loops on a forced perspective layout? My initial thought was going with that type, but I hit a roadblock wanting 4 loops of each.

Thanks,

Bob

Long arms!  However, where track cannot be reached from the side of your layout, one or more access hatches, which can be lowered, lifted, and/or tilted out of the way from beneath the layout, might work.  Bottom line, it all depends on the complexity of your desired track plan.  Finally, you need to recognize that sometimes you just can't have it all, i.e., a complex and interesting track plan that is also easy to operate and maintain!  Less can be more!

Bob Nelson

Jim Policastro posted:

I tried running Standard Gauge and O next to each other, but the size difference made the O gauge look really small - not a good visual appearance IMO.

I would prefer keeping the different gauges separate from each other on different levels, if not on separate layouts.

Jim

Jim,  I agree with you.  On a forced perspective layout different levels is the way to go.

Bob Nelson

You say you've built layouts before and you have a 28' x 28' space.  Why don't you sit down with some graph paper and draw something out.  Before buying any more random track.  Something doesn't make sense.

Hey CP Bob,

I went back and revisited our conversations from 11/16. There are givens that just aren't going to change. Reach and center rail spacing on the STD. Gauge track will limit you to 3 tracks in 30" based on the consensus of 7.5" centers and using 87, 72, 57 and 42 diameter curves.

Mianne makes a powered liftgate that you can place in front of door. Change the door to an outswing and you can build an around the walls table for the STD.

That leaves ~22' - 24' in the center which would permit a 16' x 16' area for an O Gauge layout. The hourglass shape that I proposed in November would resolve reach and access issues with the same restriction of trying to keep the reach to 30". This keeps a minimum of 36" around the O table for access.

Attached is the 28' x 28' room with a 36" table and four STD. gauge lines for conceptual design work.  A grabber tool may permit keeping the fourth STD. Gauge line.

The hourglass shape as an island,(no around the walls) ,would permit 2 lines for STD and 2 Lines for O. I did find in my files a variation of the hourglass island with 8 lines.

Here's my food for thought. I hope something helps.

Would some variation of a folded dog bone work ?? I was thinking about reach from outside or inside mostly.

I want to thank everybody for your input. I appreciate and value your experience.

Jim: I agree that multi level would be the way to go with Std Ga and O on the same layout.

Bob:  I agree I have to make compromises, and easy to maintain and operate would high on the list. Eventually, I would like club members to run trains at my house. 

William: I started with graph paper and rough drafts 6 months ago.  I started to build the room, and it is getting close to being finished. I just can't decide on a track plan. I know this is the last layout I will be building and I'm probably being ridiculous. The track was acquired during TTOS club auctions. When nobody started the opening bid, I would bid $5 to just get things started, never dreaming I would take the bin of track home.  3 bins later....., but the proceeds benefit the club.

Carl: I've looked at that plan several times and your swingdoor idea would work. The hourglass with O gauge on different levels is what I am leaning to.

Jim: The only problem with the folded dogbone is I have several conventional engines with no cruise control. I could use one loop like that and run DCS 2 or 3.

Thanks,

Bob

here is what I did the next level will be o gauge 

kevin

Bob,

OK. So, here is how a 24'L x 13'W hourglass fits into the 28' x 28' room and leaves space all around.

The eight lines are here, 4 STD and 4 O. Each loop is ~36'.

I left one side wedding cake and one side elevated for the O.

It needs some work to fit the O on the side where the turntable and 444 sections will be located. I am thinking that it should be close to the innermost STD loop to permit reach.

The O is 32" high. Is that reachable?

If you want to work on this further I'll create the 444 sections and 200 as objects and fit those in. Then, we can play with the O loop around it.

This addresses your givens and a lot of the druthers.

What about the TM Books and Video Tinplate Legends episode where they built that STD Gauge layout. I thought it was designed to run a lot of trains at once and a very similar concept to yours Carl? It has been a while since I saw the episode but it was pretty cool.

Tim

Carl; thanks for making the 3d diagram. I'll have time this weekend to evaluate it further.

Tim: I watched those videos in May and June. Awesome layouts. I have plenty to think about.

Thanks again,

Bob

I need some ideas how to work the O in after the roundhouse & TT are in. Draw on some paper and upload a photo.

Hi Carl,

This weekend I took and mocked up some of the buildings/ structures and ...I have to re-think the plan. I have accumulated too much stuff to fit on the hourglass track plan. Hectic week at work and obligations the next 2 weekends will limit my track planning. I appreciate all the advice and work you did on the 3D diagrams. It helped a lot. I will sketch out another idea and get your feedback near the end of the month. 

Thanks,

Bob

Figure out how to wire the layout. With a 24" height and a bad back, you are not going to be able to crawl under the table. I would suggest a wire gutter around the outside of the table to lay the wiring in.

CP BOB posted:

Hi Carl,

This weekend I took and mocked up some of the buildings/ structures and ...I have to re-think the plan. I have accumulated too much stuff to fit on the hourglass track plan. Hectic week at work and obligations the next 2 weekends will limit my track planning. I appreciate all the advice and work you did on the 3D diagrams. It helped a lot. I will sketch out another idea and get your feedback near the end of the month. 

Thanks,

Bob

yes, the STD structure footprints are large - I understand your dilemma - you really seem to want to 8 tracks - which crunches the structure space - it is amazing to have 784 square feet and not have enough space to meet the givens.

Fun puzzle to solve - the solution is there

I agree that those buildings take up vast amounts of real estate, but I can't part with them.

Bob

With school starting and extremely busy with other projects, my layout was put on the back burner. However, I was able to reevaluate the recommendations. Some form of Carl's wedding cake track plan will be incorporated. I'm still drafting ideas. The tinplate O will be a separate layout. I extending the room another 20 wide and 10 deep on one end to accomplish this. I hope to have pics and progress by Thanksgiving week. Thanks for all the help, and I know I'll have many more questions to come,

Bob