# 4x8 Layout - Would Like Your Input on Several Ideas - DCC, Crossovers and Elevations!



## Analog (Jan 2, 2011)

Greetings,

Thanks for the wonderful forum! I hope to contribute as time goes on and I gain familiarity to help others as you all have so thoughtfully have done here. I am an electrical engineer, and my ten year old son and I would like to setup a roughly 4x8 foot permanent layout. I have the plywood and base done, ready for the layout. 

We have been looking at live layouts for the past few months, and have been tinkering on the PC to come up with our own, and I think we’re close. What we have come up with is shown below. I used the scanner to scan various track pieces and then scaled them appropriately to cut and paste as we have done in the layout.


Of course, I have a fist full of questions, and I hope some can chime in on where to go with these queries. Also, anything that jumps out at you as a no-no or possible pitfall that I am blind to would really be appreciated.










POWER QUESTIONS:

•	I have half a dozen old diesel engines from my childhood days in the 1970s, none are newer than 1980 and I want to use them in this layout – with DCC (I have never used DCC). I have not retrofitted any engine as such, and I was wondering if there was a defacto manufacturer to go with on such an endeavor.

•	Which DCC power / controller would be good? I shan’t think that we would need any more than a single unit. Is the Bachmann EZ command a good unit for a layout such as this?

•	The double crossover at the top – suggestions on how to wire. Would I need two auto reversing units if the trains are running in reverse directions? That is, if there is a train running clockwise on the outer loop and counter clockwise on the inner loop and I decided to cross them over?

•	I plan to put four remote machine switches on the double crossover – any thoughts on this or is it straightforward?

•	The 120 degree “X” or cross under the bridge – do I need to do anything special to avoid shorting the DCC?

•	How many power feed wiring points would you recommend around this layout?

•	All the switch tracks are remote operated – would there be issues with DCC?



TRACK AND ELEVATION QUESTIONS

•	I plan to elevate the track up to and down from the bridge using the SubTerrain Lightweight Layout System flexible 4% incline set – thoughts?

•	I want to use something like the "HO trackbed rolls" (that is, they come in a roll) under the track – what’s the best way to attach this to plywood? Is this a good choice under the track?

•	My son and I plan to put a mountain scene on the top right corner of the layout, with the outer loop going through a tunnel in the mountain, and the inner loop notched into the side of the mountain as it gains elevation toward the bridge. What material would be recommended in constructing this arrangement? I was thinking of polystyrene foam, but I’m wondering if it will be too messy.

•	I don’t know if the turntable needs to be cut into the plywood or if it just sits on top of it. We want to make this turntable motorized (it’s the Atlas 9” table). If it sits on top, we’ll have to elevate the track up to it???

•	Did I miss anything?

I would really appreciate your comments and I would be glad to clarify anything that seems a bit fuzzy. Thanks again!


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment (Jun 22, 2009)

Analog...I will try to help the best I can, but other guys will have better opinions than me. As far as I can tell, you shouldn't have to do anything special with wiring. No reversing module should be needed (I don't see a track that turns and comes back on itself). I would think that about 4 nicely-spaced power feeds would be good for this layout. I would think two trains would be about the max that you could safely run on this layout (even two will keep you on your toes). The Bachmann E-Z Command would certainly be sufficient for this layout...I own it myself, and it powers a much bigger layout.

I own the Atlas 9" turntable and it does sit on top of the layout. I used door shims to bring the track up to the turntable level, and they worked very well. I used masonite pieces about 1/4" thick under the single-section tracks branching off of the turntable. I better stop here, as I don't feel too qualified to comment on much else.

Chad


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment (Jun 22, 2009)

As a follow up...with DCC, trains operate independently of each other. They can go in opposite directions on the same track with no problems. I don't think that double crossover would present any problems from a shorting out standpoint. I would think if all the frogs are insulated, it should be fine. I will let other guys weigh in on that.


----------



## Analog (Jan 2, 2011)

mr_x_ite_ment,

I really appreciate your input. I think I better understand what you meant about DCC running in both directions despite the double crossover. Looking at the rail layout and the way I used the double crossover, I noticed that the inner rail and outer rail never loop back and reverse themselves, i.e. the inner rail stays the inner rail (as well as the outer) since the double oval is concentric, i.e. one is inside the other. Therefore it would seem to me that you are right that I may not need any type of auto-reverse regardless of the direction of the trains..

Perhaps someone has done this? Thanks again for your insight.


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment (Jun 22, 2009)

Analog, I am happy to share my thoughts. I would imagine this would be one of the more expensive 4 X 8's one can build. I am sure a double crossover with 8 turnouts can be spendy, but it should give you a lot of interesting things to do on it! Good luck with it! Keep us posted!

Chad


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

Analog,

Welcome to the forum. Creative image/scan track layout. I'm only a novice HO guy myself, but a few misc thoughts come to mind ...

I assume that's a 120-deg crossover under the bridge? With track underneath the bridge like that (including switch just left/north of bridge), you may find it tricky to locate adequate trestle or pillar supports for the bridge, without interfering with the track below. Look into this.

While it's always fun to have freight yard dead-end spurs, yours are very short in length, and may likely be limiting in terms of their funcionality. I'd suggest a few longer length dead-end spurs.

A 4% grade is on the steep side. Doable, but steep. It may limit how many cars any of your locos can pull.

I like mountains and tunnels ... always fun. That said, your intent to incorporate one into the top-right seems tight to me, in terms of the required elevation changes and track-to-track center-to-center clearances. Unless your "mountain" is intended to have rather vertical/sheer faces, I think you may find it'll be tricky to "bury" the outer loop track and have the inner loop ride/climb along an edge-face. Doable, perhaps ... but you don't have much "footprint" to do this with gently sloping sides. Rather, you're looking at pretty steep/sheer cliffs. OK, if that's what you want.

Your layout is pretty filled up with track and the one gravel company. Not much room left over for town (auto) roads, other buildings, etc. Is that your intent?

Hope this all doesn't sound critical ... not meant to ... hopefully a cent or two of helpful info here.

Good luck,

TJ


----------



## Analog (Jan 2, 2011)

TJ,

Thanks for the great comments. You're right about the mountains and tunnels, I think it will be a bit tight and we may have to modify that to accommodate the track to track clearance. 

The 120 degree cross is near to almost directly under the bridge. The bridge has two piers about 18" apart, so you're right - we'll have to consider that.

My son wanted a lot of spurs, but they are a bit short and will be difficult to put stationary cars on without interference with the switches. I'll see if I can throw some down temporarily to show him how that might affect the number of cars per spur - thanks for that.

Same with the limited number of buildings we'll be able to implement.

Not at all critical - I am very happy with any comments and thanks for the nice welcome.


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment (Jun 22, 2009)

Analog...in addition to TJ's great comments, I would also add that the inner oval might have a tight radius. From what I see on the plan, it might work out to about a 17.5" radius. If you have short loco's and railcars, I think it would work. If you can increase the radius a bit (say if you are using flextrack), then the bridge might end up right over the very point where the 120 crossing intersects. This would allow you to have supports closer to the crossing, like TJ mentioned.

I like to mention the radius, mostly because the longer RR equip. doesn't like the tight radii. I very much like the plan you have drafted though...you are fitting a lot in a small space! It should never be boring!

Chad


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment (Jun 22, 2009)

A slightly bigger inner radius would allow for the spurs to be a bit longer, although you might not gain any more than about 2 inches...but sometimes every bit counts.


----------



## Analog (Jan 2, 2011)

Chad,

I'll check the radius since its in a scaled cadd type program (VISIO). Thanks for that.


----------



## MattyVoodoo (Oct 26, 2010)

POWER QUESTIONS:

•	I have half a dozen old diesel engines from my childhood days in the 1970s, none are newer than 1980 and I want to use them in this layout – with DCC (I have never used DCC). I have not retrofitted any engine as such, and I was wondering if there was a defacto manufacturer to go with on such an endeavor.
- most older engines can be retrofitted just fine, and give you fairly reliable DCC control.

•	Which DCC power / controller would be good? I shan’t think that we would need any more than a single unit. Is the Bachmann EZ command a good unit for a layout such as this?
-Bachmann EZ Command would be perfect for a 4X8 layout like this, running 2 engines and small spur lines.

•	The double crossover at the top – suggestions on how to wire. Would I need two auto reversing units if the trains are running in reverse directions? That is, if there is a train running clockwise on the outer loop and counter clockwise on the inner loop and I decided to cross them over?
-Should run fine, might "gap" them in the middle , but power should flow fine...at first glance doesn't look like any reversing issues.

•	I plan to put four remote machine switches on the double crossover – any thoughts on this or is it straightforward?
- have them switch as pairs, to prevent shorts, like one switch throws both switches to transfer trains

•	The 120 degree “X” or cross under the bridge – do I need to do anything special to avoid shorting the DCC?
- Nope. Engines wheels might gap tracks and cause a short, might have to file near frogs or use a bit of nail polish to elongate dead spots on crossover, but no wiring needed.

•	How many power feed wiring points would you recommend around this layout?
- 4 should do it, one one each mainline, and gap the yards and put on on each after the crossover.

•	All the switch tracks are remote operated – would there be issues with DCC?
- No.


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

Analog,

Back to track radius comments ...

I have 18" radius sections on my layout. Works just fine for me, but I'm running relatively small (short) locos and cars. However, you need to think about what specific locos and cars you plan to run. Larger locos and cars (like a long articulated steamer, or a long passenger car) won't navigate smoothly and consistently on 18" radius track.

Conversely, we have another guy here on the forum (Choo Choo) who has been building custom super-short rolling stock. He'll be able to work with radii even tighter than 15" on his layout!

The choice of "rolling stock" and track radius go hand in hand, to a large extent.

Standard HO stock curves are 15", 18", 22" radii (to the best of my memory), as measured to the CENTER of the rails.

Cheers,

TJ


----------



## igmuska (Nov 21, 2009)

I would say that your layout is great for running short 5 car trains. When I first started out, I wanted as much switches I could get on the layout, not realizing certain operational limitations having too many switches pose.
I haven't seen anyone recommend Scott Perry's Heart of Georgia, a better beginner's layout. By ingeniously cutting a 4X8, he has maximized a beginner's need for a less disappointing train, making it difficult to choose the wrong kind of track for the wrong kind of locomotive. He has almost magically doubled the length of the runs you can get out of the sacred 4X8; instead of running 4 or 5 cars as you limit yourself to in your layout, you can run 10 or more cars on the Heart of Georgia. And other major plus of the HOG is that you ca easily make it modular and easier to store, should the need ever arise.
This is my two cents


----------



## cabledawg (Nov 30, 2010)

The only problem with the HOG layout is some folks dont have the physical space for a 8x9 ft layout. Ingenious use of a 4x8 sheet of plywood, but still requires floor space.

I got bored today and did up your layout in AnyRail then made a few changes trying to stick with the original idea.


----------



## cabledawg (Nov 30, 2010)

Dangit, forgot the other files. Lets try this again.

Here is the original layout in AnyRail. I tried to stay as close to your as possible










Here is the modified layout I came up with. You still have the turntable and a switchyard, but the switchyard is one big one instead of two little ones. I also kept your double loop idea but eliminated the need to raise the track to clear another. You can still have a riser on either or both of the bottom tracks, but you wont have to go as high. The curves are still 18" R so you wont be able to run super long cars, but the switchyard has long enough spurs to handle a few more cars each. I also found some extra space for a "town" or added industries if you choose.










And feel free to reject any or all of this. I just like messing around with AnyRail so I take other's ideas and tweak them or look for someone with an issue and help play with the layout to fine tune it.


----------



## igmuska (Nov 21, 2009)

cabledawg said:


> The only problem with the HOG layout is some folks dont have the physical space for a 8x9 ft layout. Ingenious use of a 4x8 sheet of plywood, but still requires floor space.
> 
> I got bored today and did up your layout in AnyRail then made a few changes trying to stick with the original idea.


Floor space is the deciding factor in this. But in any case, if one has space for the Sacred Sheet, then one most definitely can use the full HOG layout or even shorten it just as easy, but keeping 22" or 24" radius curves.
As illustrated below, having 18" access space around the sheet could easily be used for the layout, leaving in its place enough elbow room for several people.
I would never recommend to any beginner that they use 18" radius curves or snap switches; because in the end they'll find out their limitations and use 22" and above curves, and #6 turnouts or they'll get bored and lose interest after sinking almost $200 in a limited layout.


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

Dawg,

Personally, I like what you've drawn. At first glance, it's not nearly as "glitzy" and symmetrical as the original layout, but I think it's simplicity adds siginficantly to the functionality ... better freight yard, longer-run inner loop, more scenery building area, etc. One might also consider a short-length turnout on one of the loops.

I don't use AnyRail myself, but I can see that it's certainly a powerful tool to brainstorm ideas like this.

Cheers,

TJ


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment (Jun 22, 2009)

Dawg...I like your plan too, although my own layout is similar to the HOG that igmuska brought up.

What I like about Dawg's plan is that the yard is off the innermost curve where speeds would not be so great, therefore maybe allowing longer rail equipment to negotiate a tighter curve w/o derailing. I am glad my layout is built...there are so many good ideas to consider now that I don't know what I would choose!

Chad


----------



## tankist (Jun 11, 2009)

Analog said:


> POWER QUESTIONS:
> 
> 1	I have half a dozen old diesel engines from my childhood days in the 1970s, none are newer than 1980 and I want to use them in this layout – with DCC (I have never used DCC). I have not retrofitted any engine as such, and I was wondering if there was a defacto manufacturer to go with on such an endeavor.
> 
> ...


1. any decoder really. just make sure your engines from 70-80s are in top runnig shape BEFORE you start installing decoders.

2. just my opinion - EZ system is not good for this one nor for any other layout. 

3. http://www.wiringfordcc.com/switches.htm
about half way down there is section on wiring double X-overs. in general that site has lots of wiring and DCC topics discussed. i suggest putting couple hours into reading it.

4. straight forward. but you might want to consider route control , meaning throwing more then one point at once.


as for elevation and such sorry to disappoint you - as drawn your elevation not going to work, there is waaaay more grade there then 4 and even 5%. also don't forget you need an easement for your grade, which will make your ruling grade even higher. you simply cannot have enough elevation to clear the trucks underneath. 
i like the plan suggested to you. good starting point.


----------



## cabledawg (Nov 30, 2010)

igmuska said:


> Floor space is the deciding factor in this. But in any case, if one has space for the Sacred Sheet, then one most definitely can use the full HOG layout or even shorten it just as easy, but keeping 22" or 24" radius curves.
> As illustrated below, having 18" access space around the sheet could easily be used for the layout, leaving in its place enough elbow room for several people.
> I would never recommend to any beginner that they use 18" radius curves or snap switches; because in the end they'll find out their limitations and use 22" and above curves, and #6 turnouts or they'll get bored and lose interest after sinking almost $200 in a limited layout.


Makes sense when you count in the 18" walkways. And I personally like the traditional 4x8 layout but my kids like to be able to play on the table so having that empty space in middle is great for them to add streets and buildings. I will admit it is very limiting at times, but it works for them and that's what matters right now. 

The 18"R curves arent all bad unless you want to run larger passenger cars, intermodal stuff or long trains. But some of us have no desire to do any of those things so 18" stuff works just fine. Like everything else, it has its place :thumbsup:


----------



## igmuska (Nov 21, 2009)

cabledawg said:


> Makes sense when you count in the 18" walkways. And I personally like the traditional 4x8 layout but my kids like to be able to play on the table so having that empty space in middle is great for them to add streets and buildings. I will admit it is very limiting at times, but it works for them and that's what matters right now.
> 
> The 18"R curves arent all bad unless you want to run larger passenger cars, intermodal stuff or long trains. But some of us have no desire to do any of those things so 18" stuff works just fine. Like everything else, it has its place :thumbsup:


I wish my local hobby shop guy gave me some pointers instead of letting me use the sacred sheet...The white partition in the center is the sacred sheet, the track lies on the 18" wide benchwork surrounding it.
As I was bored, I designed this using WinRail


----------



## Analog (Jan 2, 2011)

thanks for all the comments! I am just getting caught up with them..

cabledawg - wow, I really like what you suggested! I did not know about anyrail...

tankist - thanks also, I was worried about the elevation grades. Thanks for the link as well.


----------



## cabledawg (Nov 30, 2010)

No prob, Analog! Like I said, I do it for fun so if you dont like it feel free to say so.

AnyRail is a good tool to use when brainstorming a new layout or modifying an existing one.


----------



## igmuska (Nov 21, 2009)

Hey Analog, the best part about this thread is that you've gotten some excellent advice. Somewhere in all this site's topics are the arguments over the sacred sheet.
But without knowing your exact floor space, we're just left with speculation. The best part though is that it is your train, you can be happy with it no matter how you run it as long as it makes you happy.
[warning]personal self-aggrandizement[/warning] In my case, I have both AnyRail and WinRail as well as the freebie XtraCAD. Right now my layout consist of an Atlas True Track oval using 24" radius cuves, stretched for 9 feet to fit our apartment's living room. My new layout's sole purpose is to run my 6 axle Athearn SD40-2's and to test out DCC when my Digitrax Super Chief arrives parcel post.


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

One sidenote comment regarding the "sacred sheet". For some reason, sheets of MDF are 49" x 97" ... an inch extra in each direction as compared to standard 4'x8' ply. If you're ever desparate for that extra inch ...

TJ


----------



## Analog (Jan 2, 2011)

igmuska said:


> Hey Analog, the best part about this thread is that you've gotten some excellent advice. Somewhere in all this site's topics are the arguments over the sacred sheet.


Agreed!:thumbsup:


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment (Jun 22, 2009)

An extra inch can make a HUGE difference for one's track radius!


----------

