# First model railroad layout



## pilot2fly

Hi guys,

I'm fairly new to model railroading. I purchased the Bachmann Challenger set with the E-Z Track. I also purchased a DCC Union Pacific GP38-2 and plan to eventually get a DCC controller for my track (like E-Z Command Control Center). 

I'm looking to build a model layout on a 4 ft x 8 ft piece of plywood. I came across this layout on the forums and I really like it. If anyone has any other good 4 ft x 8 ft layouts, please feel free to share them!










So I'm probably going to build my train set this weekend and test the two locomotives and the freight cars I purchased as well. I plan to slowly work towards completing an actual layout, so that won't happen this week. I'm going for a 1990's style look with mostly freight trains like UP, NS, CSX, BNSF, CN, etc. So I definitely want to have a rail yard to store the freight cars. The logging camp layout looks like it would work good. I wish I could find a 3D model of this layout though! 

I'm going to be using E-Z track on this layout and I'm wondering where to start. Should I paint my 4x8 plywood first? Or should I start laying track and figuring out a design? Any tips for starting out will be much appreciated.

Thanks guys!


----------



## DonR

Most of us lay the track and test run trains on it before
doing any serious scenic work. Since scenery tends
to be delicate, it could be damaged as you work on
your tracks. 

Of course, if you intend
rivers, ponds and the like you would want to create the
basic forms first.

Have you checked the two Layout stickies in the
Layout design forum? There are layouts of various
sizes included in both.

Don


----------



## Fire21

Welcome to the Forum, Pilot.

Even though you are using EZ track, I suggest you consider using a sheet of foam insulation board over your plywood (under the track). It allows you to easily gouge it out to make low areas like ditches and waterways. The layout you show has the river...you could dig out the foam to make a couple drainages into the river. It would add some realism to have a non-level surface. And you can use other foam pieces to build hills and mountains. Check out foam board at this post from the other day:
http://www.modeltrainforum.com/showthread.php?t=107137&highlight=foam+insulation+board

If you can swing by a construction site in your area, they often throw away scrap foam board pieces that you could use to make topography features.


----------



## pilot2fly

Hi guys. I'm going to be upgrading to the E-Z Command Center soon for DCC. I'm wonder at what point is a track layout too big for the E-Z Command Center? Is there any other good DCC controllers that are comparable in price but work for bigger layouts?

I'm not planning on doing anything bigger than 4x8, and I'm planning to use a layout like this one:


----------



## DonR

I have the Bachmann EZ DCC 2 amp command system.

The length of your tracks is not a factor when deciding
on DCC power. Your DCC buss and track drops will
distribute your power evenly. 

The number of locomotives that you
run at the same time is the major factor when 
determining power for the layout. 

I have 3 two loco consists. I have often run all three
at the same time with no overloading of the EZ.

If you are comfortable, as am I, with your EZ system,
you can continue expanding as you want without
worry of getting too big. If you do find the need for
extra power, for example, if you have sound locos which
draw much more power, you can always add the
Bachmann, 5 amp DCC booster.

The only real drawbacks for the EZ system is it's inability
to program CVs for fine tuning and a limit of 10 loco
addresses. 

The other possibly most popular DCC systems include
the NCE and Digitrax makes. Both a a bit more expensive
that the EZ, but do have the full capability of fine tuning
your DCC locos.

By the way, you are aware that the layout you picture and
show as a drawing includes a reverse loop. Any time
you can let your loco turn around and go the opposite
direction on the same track you have a 'reverse loop'.
You will need a reverse loop controller to power it and it will be necessary to isolated it with insulated joiners. This
controller is totally automatic. Bachmann as well as
others make these.

Don


----------



## CTValleyRR

Hello and welcome to the forums.

DCC isn't really limited by layout size, but by the number of locomotives you can operate. A common rulemof thipumb is that a non sound loco will draw about 0.5 amps, so compare thst agajnst the output of your chosen DCC system.

EZ Command isn't a bad system, but it has two major drawbacks: 1) It lacks many of the feaures of a full-fledged system, especially where decoder programming is concerned, and 2) It's a dead end. If and when you outgrow it, yiu have to start over with another system. If you want more than one throttle, you need something else. So, if you're just going to run a few locos on a 4x8, you may never outgrow an EZ Command. If you think you might want somethjng better jn the future, then get an entry level system from MRC, NCE, or Digitrax. You will find vigorous advocates for all three here. Personally, I think it boils down to individual preference.

The thing you need to worry about is connectivity. I have run layouts up to 8x12 L-shaped on an MRC Prodigy Express2 DCC system with only a single pair of feeders, but it's a better bet to connect several pairs of feeders to a master bus which is fed by the command station. On a 4x8, though, a single pair is almost always sufficient. Add more if you experience significant power loss in one section of the layout.


----------



## CTValleyRR

pilot2fly said:


> So I dI wish I could find a 3D model of this layout though!


I didn't make one. 3D doesn't help me visualize things any better, and it adds a lot of extra work and fussiness to the design.

As designed, the olive is elevation zero, brown is 3", orange is 6" and light orange (somewhat obscured by trees in the upper left) is 9". There are natural slopes and undulations built in. The river started at -1" elevation, went over a small waterfall just above the logging bridge, and ended at -2".

The elevation changes were achieved by using a 2" foam base (so the lowest part of the river was on bare plywood), and each successive elevation layer was built up, wedding cake style, from the foam base.


----------



## pilot2fly

I started my layout in Anyrail, but I'm having trouble getting the track to join up on the outer rail. I'm using Bachmann E-Z Track for my 4x8 layout, and it's so close to connecting. Would it potentially work, or is there another way to fix this?

Also, any suggestions to my track are always helpful. The layout isn't done yet, but this is a start.


----------



## CTValleyRR

The good (or the bad, depending on your outlook) about AnyRail, or any other CAD track planner, is that it keeps you honest. You can't fudge the connections and make things line up. It looks like you're only about 1/2" inch off. Un reality, there is probably enough play in the joints that you could make it fit, at the risk of jntroducing kinks which will cause derailments.

Not being that familiar with EZ track, i'm assuming the crossovers are one large piece, not two turnouts butted together. Double check all your pieces, and make sure everything is symmetrical, and all your curves are the same radius AND the same degrees of arc (some look longer than others). It should fit, if you preserve the symmetry.

I would also insert at least one more turnout on the bottom inside tracm, as you have indicated.


----------



## pilot2fly

So according to this layout, the 22" outside turns and 18" inside turns of EZ track should line up. Well, not in Anyrail. So I'm baffled yet again.

Here is the image of the layout for sale that is supposed to work:










And here is my layout in Anyrail with the exact same curve sizes. 22" outside track, 18" inside. Doesn't line up at all.










I'm getting pretty frustrated at this point. I can't seem to get the two tracks right at all.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Layouts made with rigid track pieces like EZ Track can be surprisingly difficult to make line up. Just because one layout works doesn't mean another with the same general configuration will. 

Also, just because someone made a drawing also doesn't mean things actually line up either, although it COULD be a tolerance problem in AnyRail.

I have been using AnyRail for many years. I will PM you with my e-mail address. If you send me the .any file, I'll see what i can do..


----------



## nicksim86

I'm pretty sure it's just the software. I've had trouble trying to use Anyrail with ez track and kato unitrack. There's book out there with some track plans called EZ model railroads. I also have a really old book that worked with the black steel EZ track, it's called "track plans for sectional track" by Linn Wescott.


----------



## MtRR75

Getting multiple, connected loop tracks to line up, using only sectional track (like E-Z track or Atlas sectional track), is nearly impossible. There are two solutions.

(1) Cut short sections of sectional track that will fill the gaps. This is easy to do with Atlas Sectional track. I don't know much about E-Z track. It works best to insert the short sections in straight-track areas, and keep your curves intact. Sometimes, in order to solve the problem, the short section needs to be placed away from the area where the actual problem is to fix the problem.

(2) Use flex track -- which requires a separate roadbed to be laid first, and some skill at making the correct curves and straight joints. But it is a learnable skill -- if you are patient.


----------



## pilot2fly

So with the help of CTValleyRR (thanks again!) I've finally figured out what the problem is. I sketched up a rough draft of how I want it. I'm going to have two rail yards, one larger and one smaller one. The larger will probably consist of maybe a coal plant and/or gravel plant. Not sure yet.


----------



## CTValleyRR

nicksim86 said:


> I'm pretty sure it's just the software. I've had trouble trying to use Anyrail with ez track and kato unitrack. There's book out there with some track plans called EZ model railroads. I also have a really old book that worked with the black steel EZ track, it's called "track plans for sectional track" by Linn Wescott.


So the lesson here is don't blame the tool. It worked perfectly for the "known good" layout above. As MtRR75 and I suggested, the difficulty is in using the limited geometry of the fixed shapes available, not some problem with the software. While I happen to think AnyRail is the best product out there in terms of capability vs ease of use, there still is a learning curve, and sectional or roadbed track isn't as intuitive as many people think (another argument in favor of flex track).

Also, many drawings that you find out there aren't blueprints, but guidelines for how things fit together, and are more concerned with smooth flowing shapes than the actual geometry of available pieces. Books of plans are usually buildable as is, BUT often haven't actually been built and tested and have serious operational shortcomings.


----------



## CTValleyRR

pilot2fly said:


> So with the help of CTValleyRR (thanks again!) I've finally figured out what the problem is. I sketched up a rough draft of how I want it. I'm going to have two rail yards, one larger and one smaller one. The larger will probably consist of maybe a coal plant and/or gravel plant. Not sure yet.


Hey, there you go! That's a nice plan. You've got some good switching possibilities (although you have to use the main lines for runarounds -- very common on 4x8 arrangements). You also have a big open area for some real scenery modeling -- a fairly realistic small town, perhaps with a water feature or central park / town green (I'm from New England - we like our town greens), will fit there very nicely. 

One thing you might want to look at. I see you used the turnouts with the partial 18" curve for your sidings / yard, which is fine if you want your tracks to spread like that. If you don't, use the #4 or #6 turnouts, which have a straight diverging leg, and a short curve to bring the diverging track more parallel to the straight leg (see the plan I sent you for how to do it).


----------



## pilot2fly

I see what you mean. Something like this maybe?


----------



## Mark VerMurlen

I think your plan is coming together nicely. Looking forward to seeing it built.

Mark


----------



## CTValleyRR

pilot2fly said:


> I see what you mean. Something like this maybe?


Yup. Not that you HAVE to do it that way, by any means, but you notice that it makes more efficient use of space in most cases.

Keep pressing ahead and you'll have an operating layout in no time!


----------



## CTValleyRR

Pilot2Fly.

The person who made the previous two posts appears to be an individual who has been banned from these forums several times already, but pathetically seems to just keep trying.

His style is unmistakable. He is one of those individuals who wants to believe that there is a firm set of immutable rules for DCC, only he is an expert in it, and only his method works. Because, generally speaking, what he says is technically correct, he believes that this validates his approach. But that doesn't make it the gospel either, and he won't admit that.

I would strongly fly recommend that you disregard what he says in favor of advice from forum members who are capable of comprehending multiple applications and applying broadly applicable principles to them.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Well, now the offending posts are gone, so my previous post is N/A.


----------

