# Layout Design Feedback Request



## slivesay

Hi all,
My son is 2.5 and has been train crazy for the last 8 or 9 months. So after taking him to the model railroad museum here in San Diego and remembering how much fun I had with them when i was a kid, I decided to build us both a train layout. I am a complete newb to this as my layout as a kid involved a 4 car train running around on an oval.

The amount of information available is daunting and trying to determine how to apply it has been quite a challenge.

I've done a lot of research and I have gotten a lot of invaluable information from this forum and other resources. I particularly enjoyed following the evolution of Xrunners' layout. That process helps make things click into place for me. 
I've spent quite a bit of time trying to develop a sensible and interesting layout for my available space and would appreciate any constructive feedback/advise/suggestions for my design.

Some basic info:
Scale: HO
Era: late 50's early 60's
Location: undecided at this time
Operations: Continuous runs to keep the boy happy and switching to keep me happy 
Size: 8.5x10 in the garage. I can extend the cutout to 2' to make the size 9x10 if needed
Control: DCC
Track: Atlas Code 83, Atlas #4, Peco #5, Walther's Curved Turnouts #6.5

This is essentially a loose mashup of two MR designs; Cripple Creek(right) and Callahan Central(left).
I'll be using 2" foam core board as a base.
I've put in structures to ensure that they will fit but they are not set in stone.
I'd like to put in some bridges, tunnel and water features also I'd like to add some elevations but am a bit afraid of getting into that.

Thanks in advance


----------



## 93firebird

That is a sweet looking plan!


----------



## sstlaure

I agree - plan looks terrific. I'd make that center cut-out larger if you can and for sure make it a lift out vs a duckunder. Duckunders suck.


----------



## tjcruiser

Wow ... that's some creative plan for a newb!

One suggestion comes to mind, in way of your lift-out section. I think you'll find it will be tricky to build the rail connections where the lift-out seam is so skewed/oblique to the run of the track. Difficultiy with rail alignment, what to do with cross-ties, etc. Perhaps you can bevel the layout table into / out of the lift out section, so the the "entrace" and "exit" are oriented more perpendicularly to the track runs?

Keep us posted!

TJ


----------



## beachbum

Question: Can you reach all the tracks for the inevitable derailments, etc in "bad places"?

Suggestion: I'd cut out about 30% of the trackage, or at least plan to add track in stages. I think you'll find the cost and maintenance to be more than you expect.

IME, the more time I have to spend cleaning / maintaining something, the less likely I am to keep using it. But I'm lazy and a lone-wolf, so...


----------



## NSHO

My two cents...I am by no means an expert, like a majority of the members, but I was in the same stage as you back in January using the same software and planning around the cripple creek layout.
http://www.modeltrainforum.com/showthread.php?t=10047
I have since tore down, replanned, redrew, restruggled, rebuilt, relayed
http://www.modeltrainforum.com/showthread.php?t=10952
AND.....tore down, replanned, redrew, restruggled, rebuilt, relayed.
This is my new plan. I've rebuilt the modules in the first room and created a donut duckunder (I know, I know). I am satisfied with this layout and running trains to work out any bugs and logistics. Minor tweaks will be made of course.









What I've learned along the way.
These forums are invaluable, whether just lurking or asking questions. Believe it or not, questions you have, eventually get asked or have been asked in the past.
The bigger the layout the more $$$$ it takes to build it. Those turnouts are expensive. You've got a lot in your layout, as do I.
The more industries you have the more $$$$ it takes to build them.
I thought the traditional slab of plywood was what I wanted. After creating a donut or walk in for some people, I prefer having the trains go around me, not me around the trains. That's the main reason I scrapped the first plan. I like the idea of www.layoutvision.com taking traditional and going outside the box.

My thoughts on your plan.
You've got a good space to use.
If you can't get to the other side of the slab, don't build it. You need access to lay track, scenery, buildings and derails. Person can't comfortably reach more than 24-30".
You have quite a few facing point spurs. This might be ok, but you'll find it a challenge spotting and picking up freight from these industries.
Some of your spurs may be too short to actually couple a car.
Like Beachbum said, you can still have a nice layout and operation with at least 30% less track.
Great start, do a couple of revisions and try some other shapes.
And most of all, HAVE FUN!

p.s. Posting my layout is not a means of hijacking your thread, only showing progression of my thoughts and design over the past 4 or 5 months.
p.s.s I always like to give credit where credit is due. My inspiration for the latest layout came from Steinjr (member on other forums, not sure if he's here). I tweaked a layout he created and made my own. Thanks Stein!


----------



## slivesay

Thanks for the replies all

The lift-out section does have me worried and I had not thought about the tracks not being perpendicular to the seam and I can see how that could make life difficult. I'll have to rethink that. Maybe I suck it up and make it a duck under.

All track is within 30" except the very top at the mid-point of the table but I can climb up the existing bench to reach that if necessary. That plan might be better in theory than in practice. 
I was planning to build this out in phases. Outside loop with the two towns and industry spurs first and then the inside loop and finally the yard last. 
This is prob the 8th revision of this particular version and each revision wound up with more track, I was wondering if it was too busy or too much.

I have gotten an enormous amount of info by going through past and present threads including yours NSHO. I checked out layoutvision.com, I'll have to think about modifying my benchwork. I'm thinking maybe a water-wing type to accommodate the door on the right.

Regarding the spurs... This layout would run clockwise? At least thats my assumption. That would leave the team track, freight house and gravel industry on the left as well as the creamery on the right needing some sort of runaround to position the car, correct?

Here is a simple drawing of the garage. The space does extend more to the left and bottom but this gives a better sense of the area. I can't expand the footprint too much more than this


----------



## beachbum

Use the existing bench on the right as stub-end staging or a large industry like a papermill or refinery. Mainline runs on the big rectangle. Then you can also ditch the swing / duck / lift section. Run a scenic divider down the middle of the 5X8 lengthwise.

Just tossing out random ideas...


----------



## NSHO

I'm sure you would've done this already. Is the remainder of the existing bench on the "north" wall usable? I'm assuming this is no longer a car garage based on your dimensions and future layout.


----------



## cabledawg

I think it looks good but I also have to agree that your aisle needs to be wider. Two feet is going to be more closed in than you think.

Which train museum did you go to? Growing up I went to the one at Balboa Park next to the Zoo. Dont remember much other than tons of trains in every scale running all over the place. Last time I went was about 25 years ago so I'm sure alot has changed since then.


----------



## xrunner

slivesay said:


> I've done a lot of research and I have gotten a lot of invaluable information from this forum and other resources. I particularly enjoyed following the evolution of Xrunners' layout. That process helps make things click into place for me.


Who me? 

Well I'm glad you got something out of it. I had a lot of help from the guys here and it really paid off. I have to say your layout looks super and looks like it will be an enjoyable one to operate. Very good job I must say.

I'm sure you will get constructive feedback because there is always something that you overlook. Even if it's the color of your lake, you can be sure the advice you get here will be invaluable!

(Hello Ed! )


----------



## Big Ed

Quote:
Originally Posted by *slivesay*  
_I've done a lot of research and I have gotten a lot of invaluable information from this forum and other resources. I particularly enjoyed following the evolution of Xrunners' layout. That process helps make things click into place for me. _



xrunner said:


> Who me?
> 
> Well I'm glad you got something out of it. I had a lot of help from the guys here and it really paid off. I have to say your layout looks super and looks like it will be an enjoyable one to operate. Very good job I must say.
> 
> I'm sure you will get constructive feedback because there is always something that you overlook. Even if it's the color of your lake, you can be sure the advice you get here will be invaluable!
> 
> (Hello Ed! )


slivesay your plans do look good.:thumbsup:

And everyone learns something, xrunner learned ( I think) that water can be all different colors, but the true color is Blue.

I learned from his build that all water tanks don't look like water tanks mainly seen on the East coast,


East coast water tank,









West coast water tank,








And I learned that we even have water tanks in the East that look like Western tanks. 

I never knew that.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn

I drive by a "west coast" water tank several times a week, it's a few miles from my house. I think the type of tank really depends on the topology of the surrounding area.


----------



## slivesay

Thanks all,
I've been working on tweaking the design. The rest of the existing bench isn't useable, needs to be reserved for 'honey-do's'.
Yep the one in Balboa park, still has lots of trains and they seem to be adding to the HO layout. Lots of fun though and inspiring


----------



## kursplat

beachbum said:


> Use the existing bench on the right as stub-end staging or a large industry like a papermill or refinery. Mainline runs on the big rectangle. Then you can also ditch the swing / duck / lift section...


i think beachbum has it right about the duckunder,that was the first thing that came to mind when i looked at you plan. if you want to keep all that yard for your first layout, just plan on doing it later. get the main line and a couple of sidings in so you can run trains


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment

slive...I like your plan as well! I am going to second some of the thoughts that others have on here. The reach could be hard on the left side of the layout. Reaching across a 4-ft. or 5-ft. span can be tough. I wouldn't necessarily discourage you from it, but just make sure you can reach if a problem should result on that side.

I agree that a duckunder is not the easiest to negotiate, although I do have two of them on my layout. There are things I don't really like about liftouts either, but they would be easier to get through them. I opted to have a duckunder just for the fact that I could run the track straight through with no separation. If you have a liftout, I would also recommend trying to have the liftout somewhat square with the layout. All the best to you!

Chad


----------



## cv_acr

slivesay said:


> Thanks for the replies all
> 
> The lift-out section does have me worried and I had not thought about the tracks not being perpendicular to the seam and I can see how that could make life difficult. I'll have to rethink that. Maybe I suck it up and make it a duck under.


If you work carefully it can work, but you can't afford to be sloppy. Tracks need to be well secured and lined up perfectly. It can be done, but you'll probably want a good solid wood frame around the liftout, and not just foam surfaces at this point which can be easily dented and deformed.

This is the industrial strength solution we employed at my club:










The entire liftout track is actually on a super-elevated (banked) curve. The roadbed is made by laminating thin strips into a continuous curve, and then cut after the fact to make it lift. (google "spline roadbed construction" for more info on the roadbed technique.)


----------



## cv_acr

big ed said:


> And everyone learns something, xrunner learned ( I think) that water can be all different colors, but the true color is Blue.


Water is colourless. Lakes are blue because the sky is blue. 

Different stuff suspended in the water (silt, algae, etc.) also adjusts the colour and visibility. Clean water is perfectly clear.


----------



## tjcruiser

CV,

I'm a big fan of a tapered "keyway" fit on a liftout. Smart. Self-centering, tight tolerance, but easy to remove, etc.

TJ


----------



## cv_acr

tjcruiser said:


> CV,
> 
> I'm a big fan of a tapered "keyway" fit on a liftout. Smart. Self-centering, tight tolerance, but easy to remove, etc.
> 
> TJ


The bevelled side blocks that receive the end of the lift-up are also screw-adjustable on that setup to make sure that it will always be perfectly aligned.


----------



## cv_acr

Our previous gate, which that lift-up arrangement replaced, was a big heavy swinging thing that:
a) had to be overbuilt to keep things from twisting
b) was difficult to get & keep perfectly aligned so you really had to watch your train which crossing it.

With the new lift-up you can run full speed across it without worry.


----------



## slivesay

I'll probably leave out the liftout for now and re-examine it later. I do like the thought of a longer continues run than what a loop will provide but not sure yet if the effort/hassle is worth it yet. I had anticipated using a tongue and groove type fitting but I like the height adjustment screw you use.
The left side of the layout is accessible as this is in the corner of the garage with the widest area towards the center of the garage. The longest reach will be at the top centered on the table addition. This is about 38in but can be reached by climbing on top of the existing bench to the left. Not something I'm anticipating having to do often but doable if i need to.


----------



## slivesay

*Layout Update*

Ok so here is the latest update to my layout, grid is 12". The space i have is about 25% of the garage but it was not readily apparent from the pic so I included a portion of the garage area so the layout location is easier to see.
I'll build this in phases starting with the inner loop, then the outer loop and finally the interchange/extension.

I tried to reduce the amount of track but didn't really succeed, so I'm looking for suggestions. 
These are not set in stone but here are my thoughts on industries, suggestions are welcome (era mid-late 50's, loop = small/mid-size town, extension = rural area)
Industry-1: Oil & fuel depot/dealer or freight house(is this redundant with a team track?)
Industry-2: food processor/cannery or cement manufacturer 
Industry-3: dairy/creamery or small mining 
Industry-4: rural mill or co-op

A few questions..
1. The interchange has 2 tracks, my thought was A/D for the interchange. Is this overkill?
2. This layout runs counter-clockwise, staging on the extension would be for departing off layout or would i be able to run arriving as well? If arriving is possible should i have it arrive via the same route or try to connect at the top right of the oval with a wye?
3. Is the three line crossover section by the interchange and yard overly complex?
4. Should I remove the inner loop and attach spurs to the outer loop? 1 train continuously running(unattended) is required to keep my son happy so I can run operations, this is why having a longer continuous run and the lift-out was and still is attractive.
5. Where exactly does the yard lead here start? If it starts at 'A' then its about an inch short, if it starts at 'B' than its too long.


----------



## joed2323

Is it just me or does your yard tracks seem small, can you add length to those?


----------



## sstlaure

What length trains do you want to run? Your sidings and yard tracks will limit your ability to operate this layout realistically (sounds like you do want to do this.) Your A/D track (between the inner and middle loops) looks to only have a length of about 2ft. Is this correct?

If you're modelling the 50's, then you're dealing with mostly smaller 40' or less boxcars, etc, so it's not necessarily a problem, but you're looking at 4 car trains running. Even your staging tracks are fairly short.

I use my staging both entering and leaving the layout. Just set them up for departure out of staging, run them around and then back in. If you double head the trains (2 engines) you can just run the engines around the train for the return trip rather than turning them around.

For something a little different - The Eagle Creek Northern fits in a similar sized footprint.

http://mrr.trains.com/How To/Track Plan Database/2011/12/Eaglecreek Northern Ry.aspx

I think you're trying to cram in too much track if you're still trying to run operations. If you want operations, plan those out first, then just make sure you have a continuous run for the kiddos. Multiple parallel loops running through the same scenes doesn't lend itself well to operations.

Just my opinion


----------



## NIMT

I have to agree too much track and way too many turnouts / switches in too small an area! While it looks cool on paper, on the layout it will be too cramped and complicated to run smoothly.
That many turn outs in that small a space will also be a logistical nightmare to maintain and keep clean and in good working order, witch will lead to may a frustration from you and any kiddo's!


----------



## Big Ed

cv_acr said:


> Water is colourless. Lakes are blue because the sky is blue.
> 
> Different stuff suspended in the water (silt, algae, etc.) also adjusts the colour and visibility. Clean water is perfectly clear.



Do some research, you are wrong...."sir".....you don't know "sheet" about the color of water. 

We been all through that in another thread, no need to go through it all over again.:smokin:


----------



## xrunner

big ed said:


> Do some research, you are wrong...."sir".....you don't know "sheet" about the color of water.
> 
> We been all through that in another thread, no need to go through it all over again.:smokin:


Oh dear ...


----------



## joed2323

I really think your layout has alot of potential after you clean it up alittle bit.
Add some length to.your yard tracks as well for staging tracks

If you tone your track down to say a single main line that adds alot more to your layout alone.

One good thing you did was post your layout plan on this forum. This forum is probably the best for gaining help from alot of very smart and knowledgeable railroad modelers


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment

slive...I feel you can still incorporate a duckunder or liftout if you like. I see two ways you could do it. You could have a duckunder that would connect the "southeast" corner of the left side (by "Team Track") with the slanted track "north" of Industry 4 on the right side. The duckunder would be at about a 45 deg. angle to the layout or so. 

The second possibility that you could maybe do would be some kind of liftout that connects a track coming off a turnout on the southernmost point of the left side and joins up with the southern end of one of the tracks on Industry 4. In that case, it would probably have to be a "triangle-shaped" liftout to give you a curve connecting the two sides. You would need a "leg" or support for the corner of the liftout not connecting the two sides. A triangle-shaped liftout would be heavier, and would end up right in front of the door too. 

I don't know if my ideas are any good, but it is possible to "connect" the two sides if you choose to. I look forward to your future progress!

Chad


----------



## slivesay

Thanks all,
I've removed the innermost loop and have extended the yard & staging tracks. I'm tweaking here and there and will post a pic of the layout when i feel better about it. 

I have not really thought about how how long I want my trains to be, I would imagine between 6-12 cars as long as it doesn't look like the engine is chasing the caboose. Or more if I can get away with it.

The temptation to add 'one more thing' is really strong and thanks to you guys to for telling me I'm going overboard

Chad
My thought on a duck under/liftout is similar to your first suggestion and more than likely how i would do this if I do have one.


----------



## slivesay

Ok so here are two updated versions one is with a liftout/duckunder and the other is without. I wanted to ensure that the addition was doable without major mods if I did add the liftout at a later point.

I've simplified the layout, removed the innermost loop, extended the yard and staging tracks, and reduced the turnouts from 39 to 26/27.

I'm wondering if i should put something in the open space at the top of the loop but not sure how i'll get there barring elevation which I don't think I can do or want to do. Perhaps an engine facility coming from the yard? Also not sure how to connect it.

Anyways thoughts?


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment

slive...what about coming straight north from one of the yard tracks to an engine facility? You could have back-to-back turnouts on the farthest right track of the yard that would shoot straight north to an engine facility. It could even be a turntable with a small roundhouse or something too. 

Chad


----------



## slivesay

I thought about that but wasn't sure about if that would work operationally. So the engine would travel up/down the ladder to get to the engine facility? Would it make sense to add a runaround on the ladder to allow for the traffic?


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment

Well, I am not sure what works best. I imagine one has to be able to reach easily any area where locomotives are kept. Maybe the area just north of where your aisle ends would be a good spot for any engine facility. As far as a runaround goes, do you even have room for something like that? I really like your layout plan. Perhaps other guys on here have better ideas than me. I think you have a good solid plan, and any improvements to it would only be minor things. I am at a loss right now to come up with anything really better than what you have. Looking good!

Chad


----------



## joed2323

wow big improvement from your last plan. i see possible reach issues on the far north sections of north west and north east. in the center of the big section. Are you going to have a pop up hatch for access or?? Are you planning on building from the wall out to the aisle?

I like the run around idea 

Did you think of or plan on maybe dividing the big section in half so you have 2 different sides for different scenes? Then you wouldnt have to fill that section up, instead have 2 scenes on both sides of scenic divider

Did you state what kind of industries you have planned for all those spurs? if so i missed it.

You could maybe even put the yard on the outside, but it works where its at i guess
Maybe you can run the main at the yard to the middle so your yard tracks are on the west side instead of being stuck in the middle of the loop which would allow for even longer yard tracks, just a suggestion


----------



## ckw

*about that lift out*

Welcome to the forum. Lots of knowledgable and helpful people here...

My only observation would be that the original lift-out had angled tracks at either end, which could make realignment more complicated that if they were straight at the seam (between sections), which I know isn't always possible. It looks like you eliminated this problem by going to a single track for the lift-out. BUT,...

...if you use a curved turnout to the left of the lift-out and adjust trackage to the right of the lift-out, you can probably make this a more manageable lift-out than what you've got on paper right now, and still have double track the full length of the lift-out. Those few feet of double track might get you some additional interest and/or operational flexibility.

Best, Ken

modeling Norfolk Southern in HO (1995-2005)


----------



## Nikola

Personally, and this is my personal opinion, it seems incorrect to only have one continuous-running loop on a layout that huge.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Ckw resurrected a 6-1/2 year old thread. The OP hasn't visited in almost as long. Probably not worth giving advice or feedback at this point.


----------



## Chops

NIMT said:


> I have to agree too much track and way too many turnouts / switches in too small an area! While it looks cool on paper, on the layout it will be too cramped and complicated to run smoothly.
> That many turn outs in that small a space will also be a logistical nightmare to maintain and keep clean and in good working order, witch will lead to may a frustration from you and any kiddo's!


Upon the wall of our train club is a sign proclaiming: "Never Start Vast Projects with Half Vast Ideas." What did we do? Exactly that. The original designers tried to jam as much track into a thousand square foot area as humanly possible. 

That being said, my chief concern with your most interesting, and elaborate track plan, is the large number of turnouts. They are very close to each other, and any given train traversing them will be subject to lateral force which invites derailment. 

The electrical challenges of many facing power routing frogs will also keep you tied up in knots, for many a good hour, I assure you. It can be done, but it can be the devil's own to parse it out. I speak from long experience, both on my own layouts and from helping friends with theirs. 

Lastly, consider well the ballast question. Turnouts generally hate ballast, and ballast hates turnouts. Grains will foul switch points and frogs, glue water will find its way into mechanisms.

It is NOT my intention to rain on your parade, I LIKE parades, but speaking strictly for myself, RELIABILITY is essential to my enjoyment of any given layout. 

I have a video posted in the "Model Train Video" section under the title of "PC Expresso." You might sneak a peek there. 

If you have the time and resources to build an elaborate track plan, I rather would favor the suggestion to go with a published track plan- but with any track plan, think about how you are going to ballast it, and beware of sharp lateral transitions caused by too many turnouts and S curves in general. 

Best of luck! Hope to see more progress reports. (Addendum: never mind that, just saw CTVRR's notation. This guy probably has a pile of unused stuff piled into a corner of the garage by now. Seen it all too many times).


----------



## Chops

Two thoughts, based on twenty four years with a big HO club layout. How are your knees? Good? Good, then you won’t have any trouble crawling under to get to your operator area. Bet your back is in fine shape for all that bending and twisting, and will be for decades to come. Bet you got really long arms, so reaching across that five foot breadth shouldn’t pose any issues. Particularly if you’re not into scenery. The rest of us can maybe reach up to two feet, maximum, with our tummies pressed to the baseboard. Am I being a little sarcastic? Sorry, but my frequent desire with that club layout was to hook it to a D10 and pull it out the door and start from scratch. The geniuses who designed and built the elephant now sit and watch it gather dust because they aren’t thirty anymore.


__ https://www.pinterest.com/pin/536421005585820823/


----------



## CTValleyRR

Thanks for that. After the now 8 year old thread was resurrected a year and a half ago, you have revived it again. It's dead. Let it rest in peace.


----------

