# New HO Layout



## Eaglepilot6 (Oct 26, 2015)

I am brand new to this hobby, and am looking to get my feet wet with a 4'x8' layout in HO scale, modeling a mountainous area with logging and lumber, or mining industries. I've decided on the folded dogbone track plan, with an optional reversing switch. One problem I;ve run into is with that switch, as it requires me to back into it in order to change direction from counter clockwise on the outer loop, which will be normal operating direction because of the sidings. 

I created this layout on SCARM and was would like someone with experience to take a look, and point out any flaws, errors, or troublesome spots with the plan. I can also email the SCARM file if needed. 

Thanks! 
-Scott


----------



## MtRR75 (Nov 27, 2013)

I am not an expert on layouts, but a few things caught my attention.

1. The tunnel in the lower right corner. You will need access to the inside of it in case of derailments or needed repairs. The easiest access would be by removable vertical panels on the table-edge side of the mountain.

2. I assume that the logging/mining area is at the right end. The short spur with a split in it is not much track for shuffling full and empty cars at the mine/logging site. You are somewhat limited by the table size, but you might try for longer spurs there -- maybe by moving the turnout to right next to the main line so that you have two longer spurs (one for incoming cars and one for outgoing cars).

3. I also assume that the two curved sidings at the left end are for dropping off loads. Again, you could get a little more length on the sidings by moving the turnout closer to the mainline. You should also look into rearranging the streets and buildings so that the drop-off industries (sawmill? or power plant if it is a coal mine?) are adjacent to the tracks.

4. I'm not sure that you need the reversing crossover. Both of your siding locations are dead-ends, so the train will have to back either in or out, depending on which direction you have your trains running. This should not be a problem, since your trains will not be long, given your siding limitations.


----------



## broox (Apr 13, 2012)

you'll need to run short engines/rolling stock for those tight curves. whats the radius?


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

I'm not an expert on layouts, either, but I do know something about them. First of all, there's no such thing as an error (unless you've physically fudged the connections, which the software should prevent). Likewise flaws.

At the end of the day, this layout has to please one person: you. Keep that in mind as you read the advice and suggestions of others.

There are some things I would advise against, though. Inclines on a small layout like this always end up being steep, and your design is no exception. I call anything over 2% dangerous, and over 3 ridiculous. The problem is that as your equipment changes from level to incline to level again, it will either want to dig its nose in (at the bottom) or derail (at the top), and couplers will want to come apart in both places. While careful track laying and the use of easements can mitigate this, it's still a recipe for frustration. My first layout when I entered the hobby looked like this (w/3% grades), and I quickly gave it up and redesigned it to eliminate the grades. Turnouts on grades are especially problematic, and it looks like most if not all of yours are.

The second observation is that you've pretty much just thrown a bunch of elements down without much thought as to how it ties together. If your primary goal is to run trains through scenery, this won't bother you, but it sounds like you've given some thought to some more realistic scenery, yet your sidings have no purpose other than as sidings, because there are no industries there to serve. You have roads, but they don't go anywhere. They don't even appear to serve the buildings they're next to (no parking or loading areas). You have some thoughts as to the actual movement of locos and rolling stock, but not really how they operate (IOW, how does a train arrive with a load of empties, drop them off, pick up the full loads, and depart?). Again, maybe this doesn't bother you; I have no way of knowing.

If you can give us some more ideas on your layout and where you want it to end up, we can give you some more specific suggestions for improvement.

That said, you refer to "getting your feet wet". If by this, you mean building this layout to simply learn about what you're doing and what you enjoy, and you intend to discard it later in favor of something better (whatever that term means to you), then I say "build away". As I've already noted, when I got back into the hobby 15ish years ago, I half-built one 4x8, threw it out, built a "complete" 4x8, then replaced that with a 6x10, and have now discarded that and am in the process of creating a 12x18 complete with a staging yard. If your patience and wallet can support that approach, I say it's the best way.


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

I can see some problems, especially with the inclines with turnouts. They are too short, creating higher grade. 

I would suggest the following:

1) Spur line on the left to be removed, allowing longer line for ascending incline toward the overpass bridge.

2) Remove the turnout on the bottom main line. 

3) On the right turnout on the inside line on the bottom to be turned around 180 degree, creating spur lines on opposite side. 

4) Left turnout at top to be changed to right turnout, joining to the main line. That way, you can have longer and lower grade for the incline since it is descending toward to the "mountain."

5) Spur line on the right to be single line, a bit longer line for drop off something, along a road up to the end of the line, or place something in between the line and the road.

In end, it is pretty tight packed layout, you can consider to add one foot on left and bottom, creating 5 x 9 layout, allowing longer spurs or something like that if the space permits.

Maybe you can add side layout for the spur lines?

Example:










Source: http://www.katousa.com/HO/Unitrack/customsets.html

Related source: Model Railroader - http://mrr.trains.com/how-to/get-started/2015/03/build-the-black-river-junction-part-1


----------



## Eaglepilot6 (Oct 26, 2015)

Thanks for the responses, it definitely give me some things to think about. The room I am using is 10'x10', and we plan on moving within a few years, so I'd like the layout to be mobile. My purpose for choosing the size and type of layout is that I am trying to learn and practice the basic techniques of model railroading. But at the end of the day, I will be running trains through a scenic environment. My worry is that a simple oval would become mundane rather quickly. I choose a longer, folding track so that trains are travelling in different directions over a longer distance. Of course this reduces table space for the sidings and industries. 

Am I looking at this size layout all wrong? Should I look at it as having the option of running trains through beautiful scenery OR purposeful trains serving industries but not able to do both due to the cramped size and space? The side spur could be an option and take trains along the wall under a window. 

The buildings and roads were a bit of afterthought just to demonstrate the areas where I would place buildings, but I see in the Black River Junction picture how they can tie together the different areas of the layout. 

Thanks again for the responses.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Be careful using the word "wrong" - it doesn't apply to very many things in this hobby; certainly not layout design.

You are right, though, there is a tradeoff. Realistic scenery, structures, and realistic trackwork all take up a lot of space. You kind of have to decide which you prefer to have, and design your layout accordingly. It sounds like at the moment, you are leaning towards the "set the throttle and watch it run" end of the spectrum rather than the realistic operations end. There is nothing wrong with that, especially if you're prepared to discover that you want to interact with the trains more. My own layout has several industries to serve by rail, as well as passenger ops which complicate the freight movement, but preserves the option to just run if desired (mostly when I have visitors).

As far as your space and potential move is concerned, have you considered a modular layout around the walls of your room? A series of 2x4 modules, bolted together, would allow you to disassemble and transport manageable sized pieces more or less intact. If you have good (or even competent) carpentry skills, building these is child's play. If not, several companies make pre-fab ones, although they are relatively expensive. Check out Woodland Scenics Mod-U-Rail system for an example of how this might work.

If you put 2x4 modules around the perimeter of the room, you would have 64 square feet of layout space vice the 32 you get with a 4x8, and actually free up more space in the room.


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

Hey, you are not the only one with similar idea. I was in the same situation. I have 4 x 6 table, which is very small. People on this forum are great and provided me ideas for what to do with my layout. One told me not to be limited to one rectangle table but be open to the idea of "U" table. I didn't think of that concept at all. I have 10 x 11 room. so I am going to with 4x8 along with 3x8 with side to connect both tables together. I am not there yet as I am still designing the layouts with SCARM to find ideal layout. 3x8 area would be my railyard. So I can have both scenic and railyard.

As far as for the designing the layout, I am researching the layouts available on the internet by using search engine. There are lot of layouts out there for HO scale. 

Since I have lot of Atlas tracks, I am checking couple of layouts, borrowing some ideas:

The Super Pretzel - http://www.atlasrr.com/Code100web/pages/10008.htm
The Central Midland - http://www.atlasrr.com/Code100web/pages/10029.htm

The sky is limit! You can play around with the tracks on the SCARM and see what make you excited.

Of course, I was told that Atlas turnouts are not great as other brand names. It is a matter of trial and error situation for me. On SCARM, I am seeing problem with Atlas tracks as well as I tried them on the table. It works fine on the table but not working on SCARM. Again, it is trial and error.

Since we have similar room measurements, we can swap the SCARM layout designs. I am trying to use up to 10x10, leaving a bit room for walk around.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

If you are thinking logging you might want to consider HOn3. It's tracks
are actually HO in rail spacing, but the ties are more widely spaced and
the turn of the century steam
locos and cars are smaller so the could run on steeper inclines and
tighter curves.

I don't have any locos or cars in these pics but you can see the track
and type of scenery used by a club here in NE Florida that has a huge
modular layout as you can see by the way it meanders around the
train show floor.

















If you are going to have a reverse the train capability I would 
strongly urge you to go DCC. A 'reverse loop' is automatically
controlled and simple to wire as DCC, but awkward to operate and 
has complex wiring for DC.

If you want the ability to go in and out of the reverse section
without need for backing you would need a double crossover or
an equivalent 4 turnouts.

To avoid the problems of the slope for an elevated section you might
consider only one level, but using crossings at the points where
the tracks meet. That would make for interesting operations, especially
if you have more than one train running. 

If you plan to move in the not too distant future you might want
to consider building your layout using the modular design. Instead
of a 4 X 8, build two 4 X 4s. Use 1"X3" lumber for framing,
the same to make L shaped legs for stability. All screwed together
with legs bolted on in the corners. Bolt the modules together.

Don


----------



## Eaglepilot6 (Oct 26, 2015)

Very good points. I am leaning towards 1920s era logging, so that could work out well. As mentioned about moving, instead of trying to incorporate a 4x8 into future layouts maybe 2-4x4s would be a little more versatile. Back to the SCARM and notepad! 

Thanks!


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

There was another trick the logging and some other railroads used
in hilly terrain, it's called a switch back. It would make a very
interesting scene and be fun to operate. Scroll down this a bit
and you'll see a side view of a nice switchback.

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs...=yhs-mozilla-001&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

The train goes up a slight incline and stops at the end of
a track.. A turnout is thrown and it
then backs up the next incline and stops. Another turnout provides
access to a high level track to a mill, logging site or some such. The Peruvian
railroad uses a switch back to take tourists to the famed Machu Picchu
ancient architectural site.

Don


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Eaglepilot6 said:


> Very good points. I am leaning towards 1920s era logging, so that could work out well. As mentioned about moving, instead of trying to incorporate a 4x8 into future layouts maybe 2-4x4s would be a little more versatile. Back to the SCARM and notepad!
> 
> Thanks!


The more you can divorce yourself from a "locked in" size, the more freedom you will have to create the layout you want. If I were going to cut that plywood, I would cut it in the opposite direction, creating 2-2x8 sections, or even 4-2x4 sections, which would really give you some modular flexibility.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

DonR said:


> The Peruvian railroad uses a switch back to take tourists to the famed Machu Picchu ancient architectural site.
> 
> Don


My trainfan son was just there this summer (winter, there). He pronounced the train ride "a little scary, but awesome!"


----------



## Eaglepilot6 (Oct 26, 2015)

I'll have to keep that in mind, and see if that works. I rode on the Santa Cruz Roaring Camp RR and their Redwood Forrest route has some some switchbacks to replace the helix which was damaged by a fire. It's a very scenic ride on an old steam locomotive if anyone is in the area.


----------



## MtRR75 (Nov 27, 2013)

DonR said:


> There was another trick the logging and some other railroads used
> in hilly terrain, it's called a switch back.


Switchbacks will give you a lot of elevation gain in a small area, but you will be limited to very short trains. The entire train has to fit on the spur beyond each turnout in order to throw the turnout. I would think that the minimum would be the loco and 2 log cars but 3 log cars would be nicer.


----------

