# Please critique my design



## NorCalTransplant (Dec 6, 2011)

Hello, I am about to start bench work on my layout and this is the design I have settled on so far. Not everything fits together perfect so I will be cutting a lot of track to size but I think I've packed in a lot of options in the space given. But I would still like some experienced people to take a look and see if there are any issues I am not aware of with my design. I really appreciate it. Thanks!

Layout Image on Flickr


----------



## T-Man (May 16, 2008)

I guess flickr is useless for forums. I can't link the picture. Have you tried?

The top two red curves look sharp. To ruin the space to the left move the left red 90 degree turn to the left of the straight blue with the switch. You may have to shorten the straights to make it work. You might need this space for something else that you do not show.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Try harder.  OK, I cheated and did a screen capture and uploaded it.


----------



## waltr (Aug 15, 2011)

What is the size of that layout?
What is the minimum radius of the tracks?
What Frog numbers are the turn outs?


----------



## joed2323 (Oct 17, 2010)

Im no expert but if thats ho scale or bigger like they mentioned above, the red curves look way sharp...


----------



## NorCalTransplant (Dec 6, 2011)

It's O gauge, the smallest radius curve is 031, how exactly is that too sharp?


----------



## NIMT (Jan 6, 2011)

The dark blue section looks like a trap not a yard.
The light blue is a nice long run but it just awkwardly hang over everything else.
The red sections look cool running threw so may tracks but thats a lot of work for a figure 8. and it kills any semblance of storage in the Dark blue yard!


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

It's not that the curves are too sharp, one issue is S-curves tend to be more likely to derail things, especially longer const's.


----------



## NorCalTransplant (Dec 6, 2011)

I see what you are saying about the yard, I guess I can get rid of the cross overs and put the yard in the middle. I just have crossovers so I thought I would use them . I wanted something more interesting than an oval in the middle. 

Not sure how you mean "just awkwardly hang over everything else", i think its more interesting instead of just another circle. I dont like symmetry so I was again shooting for interesting instead of another boring elevated loop.

I also do not have a lot of rolling stock and dont imagine buying much more, Im already over budget. I imagined keeping the long passenger train on the outside track and the short freight working in the middle, occasionally hitting the outside loop. But I do think i will re desgin the middle. Thanks guys.


----------



## NorCalTransplant (Dec 6, 2011)

My updated design, thoughts? Thanks


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

I'm assuming the blue is on a different level? It's hard to tell what levels there are. Does your track layout program have a 3D feature?


----------



## NorCalTransplant (Dec 6, 2011)

Yes it goes up, then it goes down.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Well, I wouldn't say I was "confused", just trying to get a better picture of what was elevated.  I think it's pretty decent, should be interesting to see in operation.


----------



## NorCalTransplant (Dec 6, 2011)

gunrunnerjohn said:


> Well, I wouldn't say I was "confused", just trying to get a better picture of what was elevated.  I think it's pretty decent, should be interesting to see in operation.


I edited that because I forgot where I was posting... over at OGR people were asking me the same thing.

Is it odd to have a "yard" that is oval like my red areas?


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

The 3D view gives a much better idea of exactly what you're planning, the flat view doesn't do it justice.


----------



## NorCalTransplant (Dec 6, 2011)

gunrunnerjohn said:


> The 3D view gives a much better idea of exactly what you're planning, the flat view doesn't do it justice.


Thanks for the input man, its appreciated.


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment (Jun 22, 2009)

Hey NorCal...that is an interesting layout plan. I would say that as long as you don't have any curves that are too tight, or inclines that are too steep, it should be all right! Make sure that you can reach everything in the middle area if you should have a derailment. The lower blue rail could go around the whole perimeter of the table and cut through a tunnel in that incline too. Otherwise, I think it looks very interesting! Good luck!

Chad


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment (Jun 22, 2009)

Oops...scratch what I said about the tunnel...you might not have enough clearance at that point...sorry. 

Chad


----------



## NorCalTransplant (Dec 6, 2011)

mr_x_ite_ment said:


> Hey NorCal...that is an interesting layout plan. I would say that as long as you don't have any curves that are too tight, or inclines that are too steep, it should be all right! Make sure that you can reach everything in the middle area if you should have a derailment. The lower blue rail could go around the whole perimeter of the table and cut through a tunnel in that incline too. Otherwise, I think it looks very interesting! Good luck!
> 
> Chad


Thanks man, we'll see when I start laying it down right?  I was thinking about making the back right corner (as you look at the picture) a mountain/tunnel at least. I wish I had more switches for a real "yard". Just can't justify spending anymore on track right now (I have to get two more switches for my turn-around I added) and I don't even have enough rolling stock to even fill a yard yet. I also only have two un-coupler tracks at the moment. This hobby is damn expensive, even used stuff. Just have some nice pullmans for my 671 and some old random freight cars for my 2333. Should be plenty to keep me happy for a while. Hopefully .


----------



## NIMT (Jan 6, 2011)

I think this is a lot better plan than the other one!:thumbsup::thumbsup:
I think the blue line going under instead of over would work better for me just because I dont like trapping the center in a bowl.


----------



## NorCalTransplant (Dec 6, 2011)

mr_x_ite_ment said:


> Oops...scratch what I said about the tunnel...you might not have enough clearance at that point...sorry.
> 
> Chad


Yeah I dont think I have enough clearance on the grades but that back corner is a good spot for a mountain.


----------



## NorCalTransplant (Dec 6, 2011)

NIMT said:


> I think this is a lot better plan than the other one!:thumbsup::thumbsup:
> I think the blue line going under instead of over would work better for me just because I dont like trapping the center in a bowl.


You mean under the table? The outside "bowl"  is not going to be very high, what is the minimum clearance, I forget off hand, 6-7" high? Ive got long arms and have no problem with putting a small step stool under the table if need be . Thanks for the input! :thumbsup:


----------



## NIMT (Jan 6, 2011)

Rule#1 in Model Rail Roading:
Do what YOU want to do and what makes you happy!


----------



## willhi895 (Feb 11, 2012)

Norcal, I like the redesign better but hate you had to give up your figure eight. I also liked the dark blue U shape towards the bottom of the first draft. I like the inward bending curves, the upper loop, and the crossover. I think having the switching more on the side will work out better. Then again, I don’t know anything (see my design post here; comments welcome).

Perhaps you could make a high mountain logging loop off the blue line in the empty corner down the road.

Boy, I wish I had 14 feet.


----------



## Chiefmcfuz (Dec 30, 2008)

I really like this layout. What is the track list like? How many switches?


----------



## Big Ed (Jun 16, 2009)

I like the 3-d picture.:thumbsup:

I guess your using tube track?
Or something else?

What is planned for the lower left corner?


----------



## manchesterjim (Dec 30, 2011)

*Reversing Loop?*

Looks like you might have a reversing loop there....(The top left yellow section). (Correct me if I'm wrong anyone...). Have you accounted for that?

Just wondering if you're going to be DC or DCC.

Thanks,
Jim


----------



## Big Ed (Jun 16, 2009)

manchesterjim said:


> Looks like you might have a reversing loop there....(The top left yellow section). (Correct me if I'm wrong anyone...). Have you accounted for that?
> 
> Just wondering if you're going to be DC or DCC.
> 
> ...



It is O gauge Man______, no problem with reversing loops in O. AC power. 

We sound like a broken record?


----------



## manchesterjim (Dec 30, 2011)

big ed said:


> It is O gauge Man______, no problem with reversing loops in O. AC power.
> 
> We sound like a broken record?




LOL....Yeah....but at least I learned my one new thing for the day!! :thumbsup:

Thanks Ed!


----------



## Big Ed (Jun 16, 2009)

manchesterjim said:


> LOL....Yeah....but at least I learned my one new thing for the day!! :thumbsup:
> 
> Thanks Ed!


Yes that is one advantage to running O.


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment (Jun 22, 2009)

Here is a point that I think is as true of a statement as I can make. It looks to me like the layout is maybe 14' X 14'? If this is true, I don't know how one would get in the middle to even construct it. You would have to be able to walk on top of it. Maybe it can be built on a flat floor, and put up on legs later. I am wondering if the lower left corner has to be cut out just so one can reach inside well enough? 

The next thing is that the inner-most loop appears to have about an 18-inch radius. This seems small to me for 0 gauge. I am not trying to be critical...just wanted to point out some things that could be a concern. I like the track plan overall.

Chad


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Good point about reaching the center of the table, I completely glossed over that.


----------



## Big Ed (Jun 16, 2009)

NorCalTransplant said:


> You mean under the table? The outside "bowl"  is not going to be very high, what is the minimum clearance, I forget off hand, 6-7" high? Ive got long arms and have no problem with putting a small step stool under the table if need be . Thanks for the input! :thumbsup:





gunrunnerjohn said:


> Good point about reaching the center of the table, I completely glossed over that.



He has a harness set up so he can hover over the table to get to the hard to reach spots.
I figure 7' long arms should reach the center OK.
Maybe he has one of those step stairs that extend you over the layout?

My 8'x8' where the round house is just comfortably reachable in the center.(with long arms)


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment (Jun 22, 2009)

I, too, have a long reach at times in places on my layout. I am not opposed to having hard-to-reach areas. As long as one can indeed reach it somehow, it should be fine. 

I am not well-versed with O scale whatsoever, but I am still concerned about the radius on the inner track. It seems like only short loco's and cars would be able to navigate it. This is just an observation.

Chad


----------



## billshoff (Nov 4, 2011)

NorCalTransplant, did you build this layout? I ask because I like it very much and would like to copy it if it worked for you. Do you have pictures?


----------

