# Layout feedback requested



## dboone (Mar 22, 2021)

I got some great feedback here on my layout a couple of weeks ago so I'm back for more. The space is approximately 12 by 12, but I've got some obstacles to work around

I discuss some of my goals for this layout here, 



 so you have some context.

Let me know what you think.


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

Hi again. 
Unless you've decided to have it all flat, you could grab one of the spurs, or add one, and have a line climb up and over somewhere to a mine in a hill..Train could back cars (ore jennies, say) up grade to be 'filled', then head back down to an industry which utilizes the material... 
Another thought is: You could design it not as a 'continual' but as a 'point to point' plan with a turning facility at one or both ends via turntable, wye trackage, or balloon track (found at large passenger terminals)..This set up forces one to have to ops like the 1:1 scale, getting trains reversed to go back. 
I admit I'm not a 'continual' fan but a 'point to point only', guy, unless layout is to be a belt line or trolley system..
With the level of skill you've displayed I think you could grow tired of the 'water wings' type you have here...


----------



## dboone (Mar 22, 2021)

telltale said:


> Hi again.
> Unless you've decided to have it all flat, you could grab one of the spurs, or add one, and have a line climb up and over somewhere to a mine in a hill..Train could back cars (ore jennies, say) up grade to be 'filled', then head back down to an industry which utilizes the material...
> Another thought is: You could design it not as a 'continual' but as a 'point to point' plan with a turning facility at one or both ends via turntable, wye trackage, or balloon track (found at large passenger terminals)..This set up forces one to have to ops like the 1:1 scale, getting trains reversed to go back.
> I admit I'm not a 'continual' fan but a 'point to point only', guy, unless layout is to be a belt line or trolley system..
> With the level of skill you've displayed I think you could grow tired of the 'water wings' type you have here...


I do plan on some elevation change in the rural part of the layout. This will go to a lumber camp and a quarry that will service a sawmill and ready-mix concrete facility in the lower section of the layout.

Continuous running is one of my goals. I know it's not popular among more advanced modelers. Kids like it and I've got little nieces and nephews and hopefully some grandkids in a decade or so. If I get bored with it I'll add on. It's a good excuse to do so and I anticipate having more room in a few years when we're empty nesters. I've been hoping to settle on a layout that simulates operational accuracy with continuous running with as little compromise as possible

If I went with a balloon track for turnaround what would the increased operational interest over these "water wings", other than I'd have to switch a turnout? Thanks again.


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

With the small lettering I didn't notice label "spur for logging/quarry". Sorry. 
Cheers, M


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

dboone said:


> I got some great feedback here on my layout a couple of weeks ago so I'm back for more. The space is approximately 12 by 12, but I've got some obstacles to work around
> 
> I discuss some of my goals for this layout here,
> 
> ...


dboone;

Your track plan looks good.
I do have a lot of feedback, which of course, you can accept, or not, as you choose.

Let's start at the top.
The loop surrounding your "rural area" would be a good place for that "timber-covered mountain" that you mentioned in your video. Since timber tends to be high up, this is also where you could incorporate an elevation change. You probably had that in mind already.

On the other side of the mountain would be a good spot for the stone quarry / swimming hole. Since you want more than I think you can actually fit into your space, you might consider combining theses two features. I've seen movies where teens went swimming in an abandoned quarry (usually with some tragic result) but a working quarry would likely be fenced in, and possibly have a night watchman and/or watchdog, around, specifically to prevent this sort of trespassing. As quarries are simply deep holes in the ground, they tend to be at lower elevations, so this side of the loop could be a downgrade from the higher logging camp.

Moving on clockwise, and to the left, we come to your spur "for logging and quarry." Well, it's doubtful that a single, short, spur track would be sufficient to serve two separate industries, assuming either was producing any real rail traffic. More likely would be two tracks per industry. One to spot the empty cars to be loaded, and another with loaded cars to be pulled. This can be done with a single spur, but there would need to be some sort of runaround track close by for the loco to pull the loaded cars onto, and then couple on to the empties and push them into that single spur. The alternative would be to block the main line for the entire length of the switching move. Busy railroads would not permit that, but if your modeling a small branch line during the great depression, traffic might be so sparse that it wouldn't matter. I suggest putting the logging camp on the top side of the loop, back where we started. Install a spur, or two for the logging operation there. The quarry, down on the lower side of the loop, can have its own spur(s).

A different possibility would be to use that loop for a classic "empties in, loads out" operation, per John Armstrong's "Track Planning for Realistic Operation." 
This would involve say, the lumber camp on one side, and the sawmill on the other.
Cars loaded with logs leave the lumber camp, go around the loop either the long counter--clockwise way, or the short clockwise route. When the loaded cars arrive at the sawmill, they are pushed into the sawmill building (which butts up against the backdrop, or mountain dividing the loop, and emerge as a new load of logs to be shipped out of the lumber camp. Strategically placed trees & buildings hide the hole through the backdrop and make it appear that the loaded log cars have just arrived from "the deep woods."
The reverse is also true. Empty cars left at the lumber camp, are pushed through the divider and into the sawmill, where they wait to be picked up and hauled out to the lumber camp. 
This same trick can be used with any source, and consumer, industry pair. The quarry and cement plant for example. Fitting two "empties in, loads out" operations into that same loop area might be quite a trick! Have you ever considered switching to N-scale? 😄

Moving on again, we come to a good location for the river, and an alternate & safer one for the swimming hole. The slightly curving, but mostly straight , track that heads back toward the yard. 
I would throw a few more curves in the track and river to really sell the idea that the railroad follows the natural path of the river. This is a favorite route for railroad surveyors, and there are hundreds of real-life examples. 

Unless you're just glued to it, I'd eliminate the "switching lead." altogether. I don't see any real purpose for it, and you can use that space to relocate your main line tracks down and angled to the right.

General concerns:
1) On the drawing it looks like a lot of your track is too close to the table edge for safety, but maybe that's just due to the drawing scale?

2) What radius did you end up with for your mainline curves?

3) Are you aware that the two loops in your track plan are, electrically, both reverse loops? That just means you will need some insulated rail joiners, and a couple of "frog juicer" circuit boards.

4) A two foot aisle is an awfully narrow one. As we get older, we get wider, and two adults have a pretty hard time getting past each other in a three foot wide aisle, which I consider a minimum aisle width. 

Moving on, and straight down, we come to the yard. I love your basic yard design! Straight and simple, no trying to push a string of cars along a "snake trail" of turnouts & reverse curves. 😊 
You could however, get longer yard tracks, and more car storage capacity, (two things no model railroad can have too much of! 😄) by angling the yard, and filling in part of the square corner of the aisle between the "yard" and "downtown" sections of your layout. This is also my rational for eliminating the "switching lead" and angling the main line tracks toward the aisle. Speaking of sections, I highly recommend that you build your layout in sections. It's too big to fit through doors and you won't need to tear much apart, if you can simply unbolt one section from another.

The downtown section itself looks fine. You might consider extending the two "industry spurs" at the bottom, out onto/into the bookshelf, if that's at all feasible. The spur at the top of the downtown loop could stay as is, or run more parallel to the main line, or be relocated further to the left, and onto the other side of the main, where there is an empty area. The final location depends on you, and what you have in mind for an industry there. 

As I said earlier, I don't think you can fit everything you wanted into the area you have. Welcome to model railroading! 😄 And have you ever seriously considered switching to N-scale? 😄 I'm pulling your leg here, as an old N-scaler speaking to an HO-scaler ! 

Good basic plan! Congratulations! 

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## ecmdrw5 (Jan 16, 2021)

You don’t have tons of room for lots of elevation change but what you can do is keep the track flat and maybe lower the benchwork in places you want to portray as higher elevation. Keeping track level also helps with runaway cars that might come uncoupled. A coworker told me unless you need to change elevation for a reason to keep it flat. 

But, like always, it’s your layout.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dboone (Mar 22, 2021)

traction fan said:


> dboone;
> 
> Your track plan looks good.
> I do have a lot of feedback, which of course, you can accept, or not, as you choose.
> ...


I'm sure to have to make some compromises along the way and I'll figure that out as I go. I've always like the idea of modeling "hints" of things, because people tend to fill in details with the right prompting. For example. If there is no room for a quarry, you build the top of the quarry where dump trucks might come up to the spur from.


----------



## dboone (Mar 22, 2021)

ecmdrw5 said:


> You don’t have tons of room for lots of elevation change but what you can do is keep the track flat and maybe lower the benchwork in places you want to portray as higher elevation. Keeping track level also helps with runaway cars that might come uncoupled. A coworker told me unless you need to change elevation for a reason to keep it flat.
> 
> But, like always, it’s your layout.
> 
> ...


 Yeah with a 2% max grade, I won't be able to do too much. I'm planning on using 2" foam on the benchwork and figure I can give some more illusion of elevation change by going up and down at the same time.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Operationally, I'm not seeing how you plan to run things (and first of all, no there is nothing "basic" or "unadvanced" about modeling a continuous run). People who are more seriously into operations (and that's an interest within the hobby, not the "advanced form" of the hobby, as someone has obviously led you to believe), have a problem with runni g (for arguments sake) clockwise to reach an industry, and then continue clockwise with the loads, deliver them, and then continue clockwise to the same industry again to repeat the process. At some point, the train would have to head in the other direction. But that's up to you and how you operate.

Do you intend to swap cars at your industries, or simply pull in, say, "Ok, we're here" and back out again. If the latter, no problem. If the former, you need to address the problem of facing point sidings (IOW, those branching off in the lime so that the loco does not have to reverse move to enter it). In a trailing point siding, the loco backs the train in, drops the cars, assuming no Caboose, and that the cars to be dropped are at the end of the train. If not, you have to move back and forth a few times to Hubble cars, but not hard. On a facing point siding, the loco gets buried, unless it has a place to run around the train and shove the cars in from the rear. The only place you have to do that is over by your yard, so you'd constantly be making unrealistic backing moves halfway around your layout to drop cars. Likewise with the passenger service. You need to back in to be effective, otherwise, you have room for about one coach plus a loco. It really only works if you're traveling in a counter-clockwise direction.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

A very interesting track plan...it does seem to offer both
continuous running as well as challenging switching
operations.

You do have two 'reverse loops'...you will need to
make gaps or use insulated joiners in both tracks that
form the upper loop...they should be just above both
upper left turnouts. 

You would also need gaps or insulated joiners in the
two tracks that form the bottom loop. These should
be below the two turnouts in lower left.

Your main DCC bus will feed all tracks, yards and
spurs between the two sets of turnouts specified above.

Each of the two reverse loops will be fed by a reverse
loop controller. Each of the two required controllers will
take power from your main DCC bus.

Don


----------



## dboone (Mar 22, 2021)

DonR said:


> A very interesting track plan...it does seem to offer both
> continuous running as well as challenging switching
> operations.
> 
> ...


Thanks, Don. I haven't quite got to tackling the electrical yet, but this should be a great help to me when I do. I'm sure I'll post here to get more specific input from people more experienced than me.


----------



## dboone (Mar 22, 2021)

CTValleyRR said:


> Operationally, I'm not seeing how you plan to run things (and first of all, no there is nothing "basic" or "unadvanced" about modeling a continuous run). People who are more seriously into operations (and that's an interest within the hobby, not the "advanced form" of the hobby, as someone has obviously led you to believe), have a problem with runni g (for arguments sake) clockwise to reach an industry, and then continue clockwise with the loads, deliver them, and then continue clockwise to the same industry again to repeat the process. At some point, the train would have to head in the other direction. But that's up to you and how you operate.
> 
> Do you intend to swap cars at your industries, or simply pull in, say, "Ok, we're here" and back out again. If the latter, no problem. If the former, you need to address the problem of facing point sidings (IOW, those branching off in the lime so that the loco does not have to reverse move to enter it). In a trailing point siding, the loco backs the train in, drops the cars, assuming no Caboose, and that the cars to be dropped are at the end of the train. If not, you have to move back and forth a few times to Hubble cars, but not hard. On a facing point siding, the loco gets buried, unless it has a place to run around the train and shove the cars in from the rear. The only place you have to do that is over by your yard, so you'd constantly be making unrealistic backing moves halfway around your layout to drop cars. Likewise with the passenger service. You need to back in to be effective, otherwise, you have room for about one coach plus a loco. It really only works if you're traveling in a counter-clockwise direction.


My thought was that loads would be picked with the loco headed in the clockwise direction, it would make a loop around the top and then switch direction with the crossover on the left side of the layout and then proceed with any moves to drop off or pick up at industries. Obviously not super realistic. I suppose I could change the direction of my spurs to be on the left rather than right (while traveling in the counterclockwise direction). Alternatively I could put in some sidings to allow for runaround maneuvers. Or, I could change the direction of my switching yard. That sound right to you?


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

dboone said:


> My thought was that loads would be picked with the loco headed in the clockwise direction, it would make a loop around the top and then switch direction with the crossover on the left side of the layout and then proceed with any moves to drop off or pick up at industries. Obviously not super realistic. I suppose I could change the direction of my spurs to be on the left rather than right (while traveling in the counterclockwise direction). Alternatively I could put in some sidings to allow for runaround maneuvers. Or, I could change the direction of my switching yard. That sound right to you?


dboone;

I see how your scheme for reversing the direction of the locomo0tive would work physically. However, it would have to travel almost the entire length of your mainline to turn. That would not only be "not super realistic" but would, in fact, be super unrealistic.
I think adding the sidings for a runaround would increase not only the realism, but perhaps more importantly, the "fun factor." 
Operating as a real railroad does typically ends up being more fun than just running around all over the layout just to turn the locomotive, at least for most of us, but its your railroad. There are also real world examples where a train handles the sidings with west trailing points in one direction, when headed east, and the sidings with east trailing points on the way back west.

Good Luck & Have Fun with whatever you decide;

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## dboone (Mar 22, 2021)

traction fan said:


> dboone;
> 
> I see how your scheme for reversing the direction of the locomo0tive would work physically. However, it would have to travel almost the entire length of your mainline to turn. That would not only be "not super realistic" but would, in fact, be super unrealistic.
> I think adding the sidings for a runaround would increase not only the realism, but perhaps more importantly, the "fun factor."
> ...


Where in your opinion would be a good place to put some passing sidings. I was thinking about converting the passenger stub into a passing siding extending down in the bottom section of the layout and then another that would run somewhat parallel with the industry stubs on the bottom. Any thoughts?


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Passing sidings should be near your industries to avoid long backing moves around half of your layout. Probably using curved turnouts to come off of curved track sections would be your best bet (with the caveat the coupling / uncoupling is harder on curves). Having your "normal" direction of traffic being clockwise makes your passenger station a trailing point siding, and so not completely useless. I would still move that turnout up into the curve (using a curved turnout) and see if you can't tweak it into a through track (a reversing loop across the circle). That way, if you don't have any issues with your loco fouling the main, you could use almost the entire length of that track for a passenger platform at the edge of a town filling the rest of the loop (with a few tall buildings helping to disguise that there is a loop there).


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

dboone said:


> Where in your opinion would be a good place to put some passing sidings. I was thinking about converting the passenger stub into a passing siding extending down in the bottom section of the layout and then another that would run somewhat parallel with the industry stubs on the bottom. Any thoughts?


dboone;

As CTValley says, the passing sidings should be reasonably close to the industrial spurs. However, you may not want to make all industry spurs too easy for your train crews. The narrow (left) ends of both loops could fit passing sidings on either side of the loop. (one at the top and one at the bottom. That doesn't mean you have to install a passing siding in all four of those locations, unless you want to, its just where they would fit on the layout and be convenient for the spurs.

At the bottom of the "downtown" loop, you could turn one of those two spurs into a passing siding with an additional turnout. Besides run around moves for switching, passing sidings serve another important purpose. They let trains get past each other when they "meet" from opposite directions, and lets a faster train pass a slower one. To do either of these things, the siding needs to be long enough to hold the entire train, which means a long siding. Your spurs look quite short, which can be fine to serve a single small industry, but it won't work for a passing siding. You might consider one long siding on each loop, and/or one near the yard. This will let you operate very much like a real railroad with a single track mainline.

If you have taken the suggestion to get a copy of John Armstrong's "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" he goes into this subject in depth, with some diagrams of different types of passing sidings. Its an excellent book, with loads of info on how a model railroad can mimic the operation of a real one.

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## dboone (Mar 22, 2021)

traction fan said:


> dboone;
> 
> As CTValley says, the passing sidings should be reasonably close to the industrial spurs. However, you may not want to make all industry spurs too easy for your train crews. The narrow (left) ends of both loops could fit passing sidings on either side of the loop. (one at the top and one at the bottom. That doesn't mean you have to install a passing siding in all four of those locations, unless you want to, its just where they would fit on the layout and be convenient for the spurs.
> 
> ...


Thanks again, Traction. I'll tinker around and find something I like. I did pick up Armstrong's book and am working my through it. Seems like there are many different ways to do things and railroaders had to get creative, especially when limited by budget and space available. Which is the same challenges I face, LOL. Again, really appreciate all the feedback and discussion.


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

Hi again.
Are you not interested in an engine facility track with a shed or roundhouse w/turntable or wye ?..
Because, to change a lone engine's direction you don't want to send it way around one of those large main loops..
Also, you might want to have a crossing somewhere within say, the industrial area..Always nice to see a track cross another track at grade..And, If it crossed the main you could then have an interlocking tower there..Track could go right to very edge of bench as dummy, depicting a connection to the outer world/other RRs..Otherwise, how do cars of differing RRs wind up on your RR ? 🌄🛤


----------



## Madman (Aug 22, 2020)

The track plan looks good to me. Maybe some tweaking using suggestions that have been posted could be in order. The one question that I have is the sofa. Access to the sofa looks a bit tricky.


----------



## dboone (Mar 22, 2021)

The 


Madman said:


> The track plan looks good to me. Maybe some tweaking using suggestions that have been posted could be in order. The one question that I have is the sofa. Access to the sofa looks a bit tricky.


The sofa face away from the layout towards, so that shouldn't be a problem. I'll have to move to work on that section of the track, but for operation it shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## dboone (Mar 22, 2021)

telltale said:


> Hi again.
> Are you not interested in an engine facility track with a shed or roundhouse w/turntable or wye ?..
> Because, to change a lone engine's direction you don't want to send it way around one of those large main loops..
> Also, you might want to have a crossing somewhere within say, the industrial area..Always nice to see a track cross another track at grade..And, If it crossed the main you could then have an interlocking tower there..Track could go right to very edge of bench as dummy, depicting a connection to the outer world/other RRs..Otherwise, how do cars of differing RRs wind up on your RR ? 🌄🛤


I'm struggling with placement of an engine facility track. I played around with a turntable, but they take up so much room and with operation being a lower priority for me than scenery I've opted to forego that type of engine facility. A wye could work, but I'll need to play around with that. Since track plan is a pretty new thing for me solutions that might be obvious to more experienced modelers aren't readily apparent to me, lol. 

I do plan on adding a branch that alludes to interchange to the outer world, but I'm trying to get down the main track plan before I figure out where I want to put it. Part of my goal in placing it the ability to actually model that in the future so I'm still contemplating that.


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

Hi.
I deleted what I had here as I thought it was too much, as if I was designing the entire thing for you. It seemed unfair of me when I reread it..
You've likely read it anyway but I thought I'd change and simplify it..
I'd put a wye in the downtown area and use the upper industry spur lengthened out to the ledge representing the interchange connection to the outer world... 🌄🛤


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

deleted


----------



## Madman (Aug 22, 2020)

Ah Ha ! I mistook the perimeter line on the sketch for the room walls.


----------



## dboone (Mar 22, 2021)

telltale said:


> Hi.
> I deleted what I had here as I thought it was too much, as if I was designing the entire thing for you. It seemed unfair of me when I reread it..
> You've likely read it anyway but I thought I'd change and simplify it..
> I'd put a wye in the downtown area and use the upper industry spur lengthened out to the ledge representing the interchange connection to the outer world... 🌄🛤


LOL, I am glad you're excited about my layout. I'm excited too. I really do appreciate the suggestions. I'm going to dig through some more sample layouts and read a bit more of my track planning book and see what I can come up with. The suggestions here and elsewhere really have moved me towards a better and better layout and track plan. I feel like I'm pretty set on what my benchworks and there will be a few more details to work out on the track plan to get it just right.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

dboone said:


> I'm struggling with placement of an engine facility track. I played around with a turntable, but they take up so much room and with operation being a lower priority for me than scenery I've opted to forego that type of engine facility. A wye could work, but I'll need to play around with that. Since track plan is a pretty new thing for me solutions that might be obvious to more experienced modelers aren't readily apparent to me, lol.
> 
> I do plan on adding a branch that alludes to interchange to the outer world, but I'm trying to get down the main track plan before I figure out where I want to put it. Part of my goal in placing it the ability to actually model that in the future so I'm still contemplating that.


dboone;

Under the old "two birds with one stone" idea, the junction to a branch line is often via a wye. That way trains going from main line to branch line, or vise versa, from either direction, can roll through without backing up. Going one stage further, if the "branch" is re-designated as another railroad company, you now have an interchange. Usually a small interchange yard is included, next to the wye. Operationally, this little yard serves as a "universal industry" where any type of freight car can logically be set out, or picked up. Possibly even a "through sleeper" to be forwarded by the "other company's" passenger train. 

Just some things to think about. 

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

deleted


----------



## dboone (Mar 22, 2021)

Still tinkering, but here is where I am. As I played around with a wye in the downtown area, it didn't really fit well and with scenery and such being more of a priority than prototypical operation I opted against it. I rotated my switching yard and added a small engine facility. There isn't an ability to turn the engines there, but I'll probably play with is some more and see if I could fit in a turntable. I'm not really happy with it's placement operationally and I'm considering replacing the left hand turnout to the left of the facility with an X. I added a couple of runarounds in the lower portion to give more flexibility for movement there. I also extended that spur into an interchange and can modify my bookshelf there (it's a built in) for a staging yard and storage. Hard to tell if this is a step forward or a step back, LOL.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

dboone said:


> Still tinkering, but here is where I am. As I played around with a wye in the downtown area, it didn't really fit well and with scenery and such being more of a priority than prototypical operation I opted against it. I rotated my switching yard and added a small engine facility. There isn't an ability to turn the engines there, but I'll probably play with is some more and see if I could fit in a turntable. I'm not really happy with it's placement operationally and I'm considering replacing the left hand turnout to the left of the facility with an X. I added a couple of runarounds in the lower portion to give more flexibility for movement there. I also extended that spur into an interchange and can modify my bookshelf there (it's a built in) for a staging yard and storage. Hard to tell if this is a step forward or a step back, LOL.
> 
> View attachment 557863


dboone;

Looking a bit improved each time. Good work.  
Where was the branch line going to connect?
I see one potential wye location, though one leg of the wye would be hidden, which shouldn't be a big deal. Look at the upper left area of your plan. If you extended the track labeled "switching lead" and the track closest to the words "engine service," they could curve out to the right and into center area of the top loop. That might put the third wye track under the mountain. You would need a lift off mountain section or other access to clean the track and recover any derailed locos. I would put the third turnout in the narrow neck area of the top loop, directly below the word "couch" on your, well, couch.😄
Your yard has become something of a "snake pit" with multiple curved tracks, and some reverse curves. to try and back strings of cars into. That's not a good idea, and you may well have problems with it. I still think you could have a better, straighter yard, if you filled in part of that 90 degree corner in the lower left part of your central aisle. The yard tracks could then be straight, which is always better, and run across the filled-in corner.
I also think the logging, and quarry, operations should be on opposite sides of the top loop, each with its own spur. This would be true even if one, or both were located "off the layout," (aka fake) Your "rural area" might deserve a spur of its own, for a grain elevator.
I like the idea of the bookcase staging. Good thinking.

Keep thinking and improving;

Traction Fan 🙂


,


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

Looking good.. I'd make the lower passing siding allot longer..
The staging can be considered the interchange..But add a switch and double it..
Maybe bend the 'switching lead' a tad more and extend it along side the main there.. Maybe even connect it to the main. Why not ? Fouling the main here and there adds drama and would allow quarry track to go right across to yard..
I don't agree with TF. Your curved yard tracks are fine... 🏤🛤⛈🏚

Now build it and stop wondering..Have a MRR.. You can always change it later..


----------



## dboone (Mar 22, 2021)

All of your input, from everybody, has been fantastic and I'm getting excited. I'm at least on the right path now I think and ready to start on some benchwork. I've still got at least a month between now and when I'm going to start laying track, given all the other projects I've got going on and spending time editing videos. 

My next video goes live on Friday, so I need to take a break from tinkering with my track plan and get that one finished up.


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

*db*,
Have you decided on the type benchwork to use; flat board/surface, open-grid, L girder or, other ? Personally I'd go with open-grid... Can explain why, if you need....


----------



## dboone (Mar 22, 2021)

telltale said:


> *db*,
> Have you decided on the type benchwork to use; flat board/surface, open-grid, L girder or, other ? Personally I'd go with open-grid... Can explain why, if you need....


I was planning on doing flat with 2" foam on it, but I'm open to other things. Open-grid feels kind of intimidating...


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

Open grid is very easy to do..You have stringers (long ones) and cross-members between them at 16" centers..Usually you use 1x4s with yellow glue and screws..Very simp..
With OG you are able to reach distressed trains in tunnels from below, clean hidden track in, drop lakes/rivers below track level, easily run wiring to switches, lighting in structures, and most importantly, introduce 'risers' (part of OG) for making track grades or streets going up and over track, and many other advantages..You can also combine OG with 'cookie cutter' method...
The really pro layouts are usually either OG or 'L girder' (similar). An all flat surface makes all of dat allot tougher. 
I will admit that with the advent of extruded foam replacing plywood for a flat surface, I suppose it's probably easier now to deal with an all flat surface, if you must..


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

dboone said:


> I was planning on doing flat with 2" foam on it, but I'm open to other things. Open-grid feels kind of intimidating...


dboone;

There is nothing intimidating about building open grid benchwork. Its just a rectangular box made of four 1" x 3" planks, glued and screwed together at the corners. Inside the box are crosspieces of 1 x 3 called "stringers" or "joists." These are usually spaced about 16" apart. Open grid like this can support your 2" sheet of foam very well without any plywood under it. CTValley uses this system, and has actually crawled on top of the foam with no damage to either his layout, or himself.

Open grid does have one weakness, which it shares with the traditional flat train table. Either can warp easily. A type of construction that will not warp is the 'L'-girder, and I highly recommend that you use it for the frame, stringers, and legs, of your benchwork. Having any plywood top is strictly optional, and if you do chose to use one I suggest 1/4" Luan, but no plywood thicker than 3/8" max. Using two inch foam is an excellent idea.
A typical 'L'-girder is made of a 1 x 3 and a 1 x 2, screwed and glued to each other at right angles. (see photos) It is immensely strong, absolutely rigid, and still lightweight.

I would avoid going down the well worn (but silly) path trampled by scores of "Newbies" who have built their benchwork from 3/4" thick plywood on a frame of 2 x 4s with legs made of more 2 x 4s. Its been done a thousand times, and results in a strong,( but not warp resistant ) table that is extremely heavy, somewhat more expensive, and all out of proportion for the task to be performed, supporting a model railroad. You don't need something you could drive your car over, just to support model trains.

Another thing I strongly recommend in benchwork is sectional construction. Any medium-to-large layout, grossly overbuilt in the all-too-typical "wooden fortress" fashion just described, won't fit through the doors of a house without cutting it to pieces, which inevitably causes serious damage.
Even the venerable 4' x 8' layout is a major pain to carry up stairs, around corners, and through doorways. This is especially "fun" if it was built with the 3/4" plywood, (or even worse particle board) often favored by newbies, atop that "de rigor" frame of 2 x 4s.
Since this means the "little" 4 x 8 now weighs 50-70+ pounds! 
If you ever have to move, (don't laugh that off too easily. It happens 11 times in the average American's life) don't you want to take all the time, money, and labor, you have invested in your railroad with you?
Small sections (2' x 4' recommended) also let you work on one section at a time comfortably, while sitting at a table, or workbench. You can turn one upside down to do wiring and mount switch machines. This is immensely easier than the normal, (but dumb) method of crawling under the table and working over your head.

However, I wouldn't even start building benchwork until you have a finished track plan.
The benchwork should be sized, & shaped, to fit the track plan, not the other way around. Another couple of benchwork features you might want to consider are set-back legs, and rounded corners. The first, set-back legs, is a standard feature of classic 'L'-girder benchwork as detailed in Linn Wescott's book "Benchwork for Model Railroads."
The rounded corners can be a simple matter of curving the fascia board beyond a conventional square corner joint. Set-back legs, and rounded corners, make it easier on your body when you need to move around the outside of your layout, (sometimes quickly when something goes wrong.) The fewer things there are to hook a foot on, or impale yourself against, the better. It looks like space will be tight in your layout room.

regards:

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## dboone (Mar 22, 2021)

The intimidating part of the open grid work isn't so much building the grid as it is building all the risers and cleats and cutting the plywood to go on them. My jigsaw skills aren't great, but maybe the don't need to be. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by flat vs open grid.

I'm fairly set on the overall design of my track plan and will probably only make minor tweaks to what is above. I'm set enough that I figure I can start building the framing. I was planning on putting down 1/4 plywood or luan with the foam on top of that. From what I've read the foam is rigid enough to avoid bowing and the luan only really serves to aid in the placement of switch motors, etc. I was planning on doing sectional, although not as small as 2'x4' and being strategic about glue and screw vs. just screws to make the process of moving it easier. Our kids will be out of the house in next 5 to 10 years and we do plan to downsize then. 

I'm working on my benchwork plan in sketchup. I'll post pix in the next week or so.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

This is open grid construction. It is often used for multiple level layouts and variable terrain features.

Looks more like actual terrain when finished...unless you are modeling Kansas.


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

Above is an excellent shot of OG bench. Once you have the grid in place on legs, sawing/adding risers is a cinch !!
You can see them here. You kneel down under (get the smallest armless office chair/sit on it and push yourself backwards all over d' place (Or, do 360 spins when you feel like it !!). You merely drill-driver the risers onto the cross members (no glue here) to support the 5-ply / 0.5" sub roadbed ply or mulch board you've already jig sawed to shape curves and straights..Also, 1x4 is the ticket for your med.sized road, not 1x3...
1) So, you gotz a horizontal frame of your design's whole foot print. You just get on the floor and fasten it all as said...
2) Then you add 2x3 legs.( 2x4 are unnecessarily heavy). Get it to a height so you're not looking down on trains, more across at them as we see the 1:1 scale 97% time..
Makes model more realistic in my (and many's) belief...
3) If you plan no grades, still have Sub RB up on risers enough above frame (say 3-5") to have some cliffs, waterfall, valley below track level, etc.
*db*, you can do it..Once you start it gets more logical and easy to complete.. Buy several 16' 1x4s for stringers/some 8 footers for cross members..Use a miter box if a hand saw and juz measure twice/cut once..! It's actually fun and the feeling of accomplishment starts rising, too...
Toot toot ! Honk honk ! Ding ding ! I've been workin' on the railroad !.....


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

dboone said:


> The intimidating part of the open grid work isn't so much building the grid as it is building all the risers and cleats and cutting the plywood to go on them. My jigsaw skills aren't great, but maybe the don't need to be. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by flat vs open grid.
> 
> I'm fairly set on the overall design of my track plan and will probably only make minor tweaks to what is above. I'm set enough that I figure I can start building the framing. I was planning on putting down 1/4 plywood or luan with the foam on top of that. From what I've read the foam is rigid enough to avoid bowing and the luan only really serves to aid in the placement of switch motors, etc. I was planning on doing sectional, although not as small as 2'x4' and being strategic about glue and screw vs. just screws to make the process of moving it easier. Our kids will be out of the house in next 5 to 10 years and we do plan to downsize then.
> 
> I'm working on my benchwork plan in sketchup. I'll post pix in the next week or so.


dboone;

There is some confusion here about what I meant by "open grid." If you look at the photo in MichaelE's last response, it shows "classic" open grid, complete with all those risers and cleats you were worried about. That type of open grid is designed to be used with "Hard-shell" scenery using plaster soaked paper towels. The point of the risers, cleats, and cut plywood roadbed is to support the track , when there is no 4 x 8 sheet of plywood, or foam, to lay track on.

Since you said you were going to use a 2" foam base, no risers, or cleats, or specially cut plywood is needed. The only purpose of the open grid then is to support the Luan and foam, and have something to attach legs to. So the open grid, for each of your sections, would be only the simple box I described. Physically, both "types" of open grid are identical, its only what is attached to them that varies.

Hope that clears it up;

Traction Fan 🙂

Traction Fan


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

There is no 'confusion' as to what open grid is !..
What the open areas of it are filled in with has nothing to do with what the grid is all about..
You can fill it in with rubber band balls, burgers, screen and plaster, stacked foam (popular now), pillows, soda bottles, tires, or potato salad..The open grid has zilch to do with that...
And if *db* chooses a flat surface instead, is up to him..
What I am saying is, once grid is complete all else is way easier than an all flat table layout, to do work on...
I hereby give the floor back to the OPer..He deserves some breathing room now..


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

traction fan said:


> dboone;
> 
> There is nothing intimidating about building open grid benchwork. Its just a rectangular box made of four 1" x 3" planks, glued and screwed together at the corners. Inside the box are crosspieces of 1 x 3 called "stringers" or "joists." These are usually spaced about 16" apart. Open grid like this can support your 2" sheet of foam very well without any plywood under it. CTValley uses this system, and has actually crawled on top of the foam with no damage to either his layout, or himself.
> 
> ...


Just to clarify, I use T girders for my joists -- same as an L girder, except that you attach the 1x2 to the center of the 1x3 instead of the edge. I also reinforce opposite corners of the basic boxes with 3" plywood gussets of 1/2" plywood. But it is very true: I can and have climbed on top of this structure (Legs, BTW are also made of L girders) without damaging anything (there was no track or scenery in the areas I climbed on).

Otherwise, I'll second what Traction fan told you in his post. Most especially about finishing your design first. It's always a shame when someone builds benchwork first, then finds out that another 6" here or there makes a difference between "too cramped" and "just right".


----------



## dboone (Mar 22, 2021)

Sounds like traction is saying that open grid just means that the structure that is built with frames and joists, but telltale is saying that open grid necessarily means that risers and stringers. A little difference of opinion doesn't bother me. Still I've got some time to figure out which direction I want to go. If I go the riser and stringer route, I'll get my track plan just right before I start on that part. I think I've squeezed out as much space as I can afford in the area I have available to me and I'm pretty settled on my main. So, building the grid before I have the track plan completely settled isn't going to make much difference. I've got a copy of "How to Build Model Railroad Benchwork" (actually 2), so reading through that will probably help me figure out if I'll go grid or L girder. Thanks again for all the diversity of perspectives. Super helpful and informative.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Ahhhhhh Telltale strikes again. Every time a newbie gets confused or put down on this site, Telltale is usually at the bottom of it. The man is a fountain of misinformation who believes that everything meeting a certain description must be a certain way, and that way is as he defines it. As usual, he's dead wrong.

Do yourself a favor and do what many of the rest of us have done and put him on your "Ignore" list. That way you won't be bothered by his incessant attempts to be right, nor confused by his bad information.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

It works better than this...


----------



## prrfan (Dec 19, 2014)

telltale said:


> There is no 'confusion' as to what open grid is ! You can fill it in with rubber band balls, burgers, screen and plaster, stacked foam (popular now), pillows, soda bottles, tires, or potato salad..


No, that’s not confusing at all! 
You were being sarcastic! Right! And of course I was too. Do you realize that some people don’t understand sarcasm, for whatever reason? ( No reference to the OP). 

Please don’t do this. It undermines the work a lot of folks have done on here to help new modelers understand basic concepts and gain confidence to begin building layouts. 

I love sitting back reading these threads, listening and learning. Sometimes I can imagine it’s like having a discussion with everyone here in my living room. And Telltale, at times you have contributed to the discussion. However, when you go off on these tangents it’s like you get up from the living room, walk into the kitchen and start banging pots and pans together. 
It’s not helpful, in any way. 

Back to topic: I agree with TF, curved yard tracks not the best idea. Why don’t we talk about something like that instead?


----------



## dboone (Mar 22, 2021)

prrfan said:


> Back to topic: I agree with TF, curved yard tracks not the best idea. Why don’t we talk about something like that instead?


Yeah, I'm still playing with that. I think it looks kind of cool, but the way I have it set up is too severe and is likely to cause derailments, I think. So many options it can be a little overwhelming. I just need to let my brain rest on it a little bit and stop futzing with it for a couple of day.


----------



## Stejones82 (Dec 22, 2020)

dboone said:


> Yeah, I'm still playing with that. I think it looks kind of cool, but the way I have it set up is too severe and is likely to cause derailments, I think. So many options it can be a little overwhelming. I just need to let my brain rest on it a little bit and stop futzing with it for a couple of day.


Yep - that is me, too. I find that when I start waking up in the middle of the night with thoughts of the pending track plan - - - I need a break! 

I have been "track planning" since December! And I am only now thinking I might be close. Slow learner, donchaknow!


----------



## BigGRacing (Sep 25, 2020)

CTValleyRR, Mark VerMerlen and others from the two forums greatly helped me with my layout plan. I would highly encourage all of you too listen to a lot of their excellent suggestions.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

I think you might gain several more inches of yard tracks if you used a yard ladder instead of branching off your yard tracks from the inside straight track on the left. You can still run a yard track to your engine service facility with plenty of room to spare.

If you can work in a slip turnout where your switching lead turnout is located, you will also gain some length. Since this is all yard area you won't be having any high speed trains moving through to worry about on the slip. These are great space savers.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

dboone said:


> Sounds like traction is saying that open grid just means that the structure that is built with frames and joists, but telltale is saying that open grid necessarily means that risers and stringers. A little difference of opinion doesn't bother me. Still I've got some time to figure out which direction I want to go. If I go the riser and stringer route, I'll get my track plan just right before I start on that part. I think I've squeezed out as much space as I can afford in the area I have available to me and I'm pretty settled on my main. So, building the grid before I have the track plan completely settled isn't going to make much difference. I've got a copy of "How to Build Model Railroad Benchwork" (actually 2), so reading through that will probably help me figure out if I'll go grid or L girder. Thanks again for all the diversity of perspectives. Super helpful and informative.


dboone;

Sorry if you were confused by the different opinions as to what constitutes "open grid." If my opinion differs from Telltale's opinion, I consider that a compliment to my intelligence! 😄
Your perception of the two opinions is correct.
I second CTValley's suggestion to put Telltale on your ignore list. I have, and so have others. It saves a lot of aggravation among we old timers, and confusion among you newbies.

To me the term "open grid" at least in today's context, simply means a rectangular grid of
(typically 1 x 3) planks, including two long sides, two shorter ends, and the joists, and possibly some corner braces. That's all.
The grid today is used as direct support for a sheet of plywood, and/or foam. It does not directly support the track, rather the plywood, or foam, does.
For this reason, and the fact that "below-track-level" scenic features like rivers, can simply be carved out of the foam, there is no need for risers, or cleats. Indeed, they would just be in the way.

The other, much older, definition, (Telltale's) Includes the risers, cleats, and cut-to-shape plywood "sub-roadbed" pieces as shown in the photo included with MichaelE's response. That system of "open grid" goes back many years. You will probably see references to it in your "How to Build Model Railroad Benchwork" book, along with the two other types of benchwork used at the time that book was originally written (1960s?) The old flat toped "train table," and Linn Wescott's new (at that time) L-girder system.

Notice that Wescott only used two long L-girders. The joists were simple flat planks, and the legs were 2 x 2s.
I prefer, and recommend, making all the wooden parts of benchwork as L-girders. (Or you could use "T-girders" like CTValley) They can be as small as a pair of 2 x 2s if necessary. I think Wescott used
a 1 x 4 and a 1 x 3 to make his long L-girder beams. All the parts of benchwork needn't be that big.
A 1 x 3 & a 1 x 2 is plenty big enough.

Another feature of Linn Wescott's classic L-girder system was moveable joists. The joists of his benchwork were fastened to the main L-girder beams by screws driven through the horizontal flange of the L-girder beam from below. That way, if you decided to install a lake, or river, after the benchwork and plaster scenery were built, you could move, or even completely remove, any joist that was in the way, from below.

It's important to understand that these three systems of benchwork all predate the introduction of extruded foam scenery by several decades. Back then, the scenery options were plaster over metal window screen, plaster-soaked towels over wadded up newspaper (called "hard-shell) , or paper Mache. These classic open grid, and L-girder systems allowed for easy construction of below-track-level features like waterways, and road underpasses. You didn't have to saw through the big sheet of 3/4" plywood used in flat train tables. All three systems were designed around the use of plaster scenery. There was no extruded foam scenery option back then.

regards;

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

*db*,
You don't have to have your track plan decided in order to build the grid. The grid perimeter is all that's needed / the footprint of the whole thing..IE. You construct your grid bench, less the track..Now you saw/jig saw the sub-roadbed for however you decide track will be on top of grid. It doesn't matter which way stringers or cross members run..Risers will find a place to be attached to them..If need, you can always add another cross member anywhere to support a riser..

PS. I like your curved yard tracks in post 28...


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

Many of the best layouts use at least two, sometimes three ways to assemble them. And, that's from the floor up and all the way to jamming trees into the 'terrain'.

I have used L-girders with great success. They're easy to make, takes a few minutes each one, and maybe 8 wood screws and glue. They are rigid and strong over 10-12 feet, with some supporting structures like legs, of course. You can put 'joists' over those, attached to cleats, and then fix risers to the joists. In my case, I most often make rectangular frames of 1X4, and then put a few joists across them. Or, cut to fit, and screwed between the long rails, like joists in a house. You can screw risers directly to the joists, or use the joists to support large slabs of foam or plywood...or both as some do.

Open grid means that you don't have a sheet of plywood with legs...or a sheet of extruded foam with legs...or each one stacked, but still with legs. There are joists inside of an outer frame of some kind, or maybe call them cross-members....they're the same thing, they parallel the end pieces. However, I have been known to angle mine, especially at corners with L-shaped open frames. Just use sound construction techniques, make stuff strong and clean, and the rest goes smoothly.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

MichaelE said:


> This is open grid construction. It is often used for multiple level layouts and variable terrain features.
> 
> Looks more like actual terrain when finished...unless you are modeling Kansas.


This is what open grid can become:


----------



## dboone (Mar 22, 2021)

traction fan said:


> dboone;
> 
> Sorry if you were confused by the different opinions as to what constitutes "open grid." If my opinion differs from Telltale's opinion, I consider that a compliment to my intelligence! 😄
> Your perception of the two opinions is correct.
> ...


Does this look like what you are suggesting?


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

In your Sketchup rendering you still basically have a solid sheet of foam board on top of an open framework. It's not very much different than a sheet of plywood on the same open grid tabletop. Except in the case of foam, you can cut and shape this for valleys, gullies, rivers, creeks, and the like. You'll always be going down though, as you have no 'up' terrain to sculpt or shape.

For going up, you will have to either stack layers of foam and carve it, or use wire frame or wadded newspaper and paper mache or plaster cloth to cover it.

There are many ways to construct scenery. Many methods overlap one another and are common to other methods of scenery and sub-roadbed construction.


----------



## dboone (Mar 22, 2021)

MichaelE said:


> In your Sketchup rendering you still basically have a solid sheet of foam board on top of an open framework. It's not very much different than a sheet of plywood on the same open grid tabletop. Except in the case of foam, you can cut and shape this for valleys, gullies, rivers, creeks, and the like. You'll always be going down though, as you have no 'up' terrain to sculpt or shape.
> 
> For going up, you will have to either stack layers of foam and carve it, or use wire frame or wadded newspaper and paper mache or plaster cloth to cover it.
> 
> There are many ways to construct scenery. Many methods overlap one another and are common to other methods of scenery and sub-roadbed construction.


I do plan to have some elevation change for the track, but it's going to be pretty minimal given the space that I have. I figure I can actually make quite a bit of variety in the surrounding areas and give the illusion of even more elevation change going up and down with surrounding scenery. I'm not modeling the Rocky Mountains or the Alps. The landscape I've chosen isn't exactly as flat as Nebraska, but it's not very severe either. 2 inches of foam provides almost 15 scale feet of room to work with in the downward direction. As you've probably gathered, I'm not too keen on building risers, stringers and SRB. It's more benchwork than I really want to do and given the terrain I'm doing I don't think it will be necessary. Really only the rural portion of my layout would benefit from the risers and stringers approach and if it becomes necessary I'll modify my plans.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

dboone said:


> Does this look like what you are suggesting?
> View attachment 557948


dboone;

Yes; you have the basic idea right.
L-girder has one possible "disadvantage" or "advantage" depending on how you look at it. L-girder is thicker than open grid, or a flat table. That may, or may not, matter to you depending on whether you want moveable joists, or are more concerned about the extra layout thickness.
My old club used a modified form of L-girder with the joists cut, and fitted, between the L-girders, rather than sitting on top as Linn Wescott had them. This made their benchwork a bit thinner.
I use a "very modified version of L-girder" (really a four-sided box girder, or two L-girders mating)
I also make my 1/4" luan sub-roadbed into "inverted U-girders" by gluing a 3/4" x 1/4" pine strip along each bottom edge. There are many variations, but all use the same basic structural concept of two flat planks joined at right angles.

For the type of layout you are building, I would retain the advantage of moveable joists. I don't think thickness is a big concern for that type of layout. Moveable joists will mean that they will be attached to the main L-girder beams with screws only, and likely one screw per side. That's good, but there is something even better. If we were looking at the L-girder benchwork diagram in your latest post, what, if any, weak points might it have?
The only one I can see, and I admit this is a long shot, is the possibility of tilting the joists. If something, or somebody, pushed hard enough on one of the ends, one or more, of the joists could tilt to one side, since the small edge of the vertical plank in each joist is all that butts up against the main L-girder beam.

You could use a variation of CTValley's idea of T-girders at the bottom, and/or top, of each joist. Adding a 1 x 2 flange at the bottom would provide approximately triple the surface area at each joist-to-beam joint. This would prevent any possibility of tilting, and also provide fresh screw hole area if you do have to move a joist. If you also centered the existing top 1 x 2 on the vertical 1 x 3, you would create an I-beam, which is super strong and stable.
Granted, the whole "tilting" idea is unlikely to happen, it would take a lot of force, especially if you screw a 1/4" luan sheet to the tops of all the joists. Remember if you want the joists to be moveable, the screws would need to go upward through the joist, and up into/through the luan & foam. That way all the screw heads will be accessible from below the table.
Final answer, the way you have it drawn now is fine as is. Of course the legs will need diagonal bracing, but I assumed you left that off the drawing for simplicity of viewing.

regards;

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## dboone (Mar 22, 2021)

traction fan said:


> dboone;
> 
> Yes; you have the basic idea right.
> L-girder has one possible "disadvantage" or "advantage" depending on how you look at it. L-girder is thicker than open grid, or a flat table. That may, or may not, matter to you depending on whether you want moveable joists, or are more concerned about the extra layout thickness.
> ...


Cool. I do plan to do some storage underneath, so the thickness might make a difference. Any suggestions on maximum span between joists? I was thinking 24" given that I plan on using luan and foam. Thoughts?


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

dboone said:


> Cool. I do plan to do some storage underneath, so the thickness might make a difference. Any suggestions on maximum span between joists? I was thinking 24" given that I plan on using luan and foam. Thoughts?


dboone;

Storage underneath the table shouldn't be affected by the thickness of the table's top, but rather by the length of the legs, and the arrangement of the diagonal bracing. If you have a lot to store, you might install shelves under the layout. In this case, I use the word "install" very loosely. "position" shelves under the layout, or better yet, "roll" shelves under the layout would be a more accurate description.

My layout has storage shelves under it. I used mostly the home owner grade cheap metal storage shelves you can buy at any big box store. However, I also used some three-shelf rolling carts from www.harborfreight.com and also added caster-equipped four-wheel, flat, "piano carts" (also from harbor freight) under some of my metal shelf units. I can roll these out to get to my one unavoidable "duck under." access hole. If you built shelves under the layout that were attached to it, and filled them with books, and other stuff, the layout would become super-heavy. Also, you couldn't get under your layout to do wiring, or mount switch machines, without first emptying, and dismounting, the shelves.

I would space your joists closer. Sixteen to twenty inches apart.

regards;

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

*dboone*,
~ It's too bad types such as *CTValleyRR* are free to slither around in an otherwise harmless hobby environment looking for people to bully and lie about in order to stroke their superiority complex; especially when the people they harm never harmed them !! When he leaps out at me again from under his rock at least this time I won't be caught off guard by its venomous harmful bite.
~ Anyway, I was the first one to reply to you..Your high level of ability with detailing and painting miniatures told me you were able to comprehend how to make open grid (or L girder) benchwork, hoping to prevent you the headaches all-flat tables can bring.
What I told you was from personal experience having built open grid for myself and from seeing it in clubs I belonged to and visited...
~ Whichever method you finally choose, I do wish you the greatest success with it..
*telltale *


----------



## dboone (Mar 22, 2021)

telltale said:


> *dboone*,
> ~ It's too bad types such as *CTValleyRR* are free to slither around in an otherwise harmless hobby environment looking for people to bully and lie about in order to stroke their superiority complex; especially when the people they harm never harmed them !! When he leaps out at me again from under his rock at least this time I won't be caught off guard by its venomous harmful bite.
> ~ Anyway, I was the first one to reply to you..Your high level of ability with detailing and painting miniatures told me you were able to comprehend how to make open grid (or L girder) benchwork, hoping to prevent you the headaches all-flat tables can bring.
> What I told you was from personal experience having built open grid for myself and from seeing it in clubs I belonged to and visited...
> ...


Thanks, telltale. I appreciate your compliments. I like getting a diversity of opinions and controversy doesn't bother me too much, and I generally am the type to do what I think is right after gathering multiple opinions. If I fail to follow good advice, which happens sometimes, I generally can correct my mistakes and the problem solving process of doing so is enjoyable to me.

I've had a number of hobbies of the years , homebrewing for example, where there are lots of different ways to do things and it is matter of matching the techniques to your own preferences and environments. As you and CTValleyRR, and numerous others have pointed out, it's my railroad and I get to do it the way that makes me happy.


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

~Yeah ! And you don't beat people up along the way !!! I don't either unless I'm forced to defend myself; something I *never* *ever* encountered in model railroading before social media !!
~ Seems, someone doesn't like your advice and you can become a whipping post, a 'pinata' for them, the mean egotistical ones who wouldn't dare act that way, spewing the things they spew
at you, face to face in a real MRR club.
But, here, in the virtual reality state they can,.....so, of course,... they do !!
~ What really matters is: Did I, me, steer you wrong ?


----------



## dboone (Mar 22, 2021)

A little tweaking and I'm actually pretty happy with this one. I'm going to go without for the wye interchange for the time being and add one later if I have room to expand. 

In the rural area instead of a predominate mountain (or what passes for mountains in the Ozarks) in the center. I am going with a valley in the upper section and it will rise up to hint at a mountain in the right and lower section of that balloon. I think that will make for a more dynamic landscape. The river cut in about 2 feet from the upper left and will traverse left staying near the top of the rural section. I'll have to build a couple of bridges for this, so that should be fun. I'll probably do more of a logging road down to the spur than a logging camp. 

I'm still struggling a bit with the my industrial/downtown section. The passing siding, spur and branch to the staging feels a bit cramped, but maybe that's a good thing operationally. I'm considering another spur off the inside part of the passing siding down there, though. IDK.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

dboone said:


> A little tweaking and I'm actually pretty happy with this one. I'm going to go without for the wye interchange for the time being and add one later if I have room to expand.
> 
> In the rural area instead of a predominate mountain (or what passes for mountains in the Ozarks) in the center. I am going with a valley in the upper section and it will rise up to hint at a mountain in the right and lower section of that balloon. I think that will make for a more dynamic landscape. The river cut in about 2 feet from the upper left and will traverse left staying near the top of the rural section. I'll have to build a couple of bridges for this, so that should be fun. I'll probably do more of a logging road down to the spur than a logging camp.
> 
> ...


dboone;

I think it would allow more interesting operation if your passing sidings were longer, and there was one more siding and spur, at the top of your top loop for a logging operation. Also I would fill in the lower left corner of the aisle with a small triangular section and angle your yard across this corner, giving you longer yard tracks. These are all things I've suggested before. You may not want to do them, and it's your railroad to build as you choose.

Good Luck & Have Fun;

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## dboone (Mar 22, 2021)

I'm still mulling how to lengthen those passing sidings in the lower area. I'm having issues with getting turnouts to fit in the circular area. Any suggestions?

I might fit in a passing siding in the lower section of track in rural area, but my vision for the landscape in the top section of track precludes another spur or passing siding there.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

dboone said:


> I'm still mulling how to lengthen those passing sidings in the lower area. I'm having issues with getting turnouts to fit in the circular area. Any suggestions?
> 
> I might fit in a passing siding in the lower section of track in rural area, but my vision for the landscape in the top section of track precludes another spur or passing siding there.


dboone;

There are curved turnouts available from Peco. A true "curved turnout" has both routes curved, at different radii, and no straight route. Peco's regular turnouts actually have a slightly curved diverging route and a straight through route. This is somewhat the same arrangement as an Atlas Snap Switch turnout, but less drastic in the sharp curvature, and a much much better quality turnout. I would suggest you look carefully at Peco's true curved turnouts. Having both routes curve may help you fit one into a curve, fairly far down, since the diverging route is curving in the same direction. The John Armstrong "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" book, which I think you have, has several diagramed examples of how curved turnouts can save space by fitting into a curve.

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

Your yard ladder and engine service tracks look much better now. Good work.


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

Would you compromise your plan a great deal by running a second, inner, siding inside the curve in your industrial/town loop? You could get a handlaid turnout made for you as a custom order, or use an appropriate curved turnout.


----------



## Stejones82 (Dec 22, 2020)

dboone said:


> I'm still mulling how to lengthen those passing sidings in the lower area. I'm having issues with getting turnouts to fit in the circular area. Any suggestions?
> 
> I might fit in a passing siding in the lower section of track in rural area, but my vision for the landscape in the top section of track precludes another spur or passing siding there.


I found two LH and one RH Walthers(Shinohara) #6-1/2 curved turnouts HO C83 24-20 at a LHS which seems to specialize in old stock. Were pricey ($50 each) but I picked them up and plan to incorporate. The store will allow returns for store credit if I end up not needing them. Thankfully, I was able to get them over three pay periods so the impact was spread. It seems that the new Walthers TOs are starting to hit the shelves, but not sure if the curved ones are yet available. 

John Armstrong's book led me to the search for curved TOs. Also, he recommends that #5 TOs are most suitable for modeling (except for crossovers - here he says #6 are minimum!). He has a nice tech graph in his book that shows the calculated specs. So I have been incorporating PECO Insulfrog #5s as they seem to be readily available in Code 83.


----------



## dboone (Mar 22, 2021)

Here is the video I put together using a lot of the great advise I got here. I've even included a bit of a conversation Traction Fan and I had on Zoom a few weeks ago. Hope you guys like it.


----------

