# Please offer your suggestions on this proposed HO layout ...



## deedub35 (Jan 29, 2014)

Top middle area would be a town. Top right area would be residential. Left area would be yard with intermodal facility. Bottom right diagonal area would be a passenger train station.

Please critique and offer suggestions. Thanks.


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

Unusual shape, plenty of operational potential. Presumably you would operate it from the left. You would need some passenger facilities in your town.


----------



## deedub35 (Jan 29, 2014)

Cycleops said:


> Unusual shape, plenty of operational potential. Presumably you would operate it from the left. You would need some passenger facilities in your town.


Thanks for the feedback Cycleops.

The unusual shape is actually the shape of the room that is off of the main area of the basement wet bar and was designed to be a storage/future wine room.

My 4x8 layout is in the main part of the basement in the "kids play area" and it is getting damaged and trains are derailed by curious little hands. I need to get the adult trains out of there. I have no issues stripping down my existing layout and rebuilding. The knowledge and skills I gain from building this layout are invaluable.

I would have the operating equipment just outside the entrance way on a countertop - access would be a lift out/duck under.

I was thinking about making a road all away around the middle hole to connect the passenger station (bottom right) with the town (top middle).


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

I'm a little confused (normal, at my age, I'll admit). What scale is this? N? And are your units inches, centimeters, or something else? Are you planning to operate from the center? Where are the hard walls of the basement, and where is the "entrance"?

As far as operating potential, I'm not sure I agree with Cycleops. It sounds like you primarily want to do passengers ops, yet you have an intermodal yard, just two sidings outside your yard and only a single passenger station. Basically, this means you're picking up passengers, taking a lap or so, and dropping them off? Likewise with containers from the intermodal yard (or drop at one of the two sidings?).

You might think about using a divider to split the layout visually, adding a second passenger station, and using a fair bit of that empty space for more sidings rather than a road. Just my opinion, of course.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

I agree with CTvalley about the need for more industrial trackage.

You could add to the passing sidings top and bottom for that.
Also, consider team spurs, with more than one industry on each
track. I have five industrial spurs and all but one have more
than one rail freight using business. This makes for more
interesting switching operations.

I wouldn't work to hard at making a connecting roads. You can
sometimes get more interesting displays by simply letting
your streets and roads go 'over the side' of the layout, pretending
they are connected in that 'nether' land.

By all mean consider a lift or drop 'bridge' It quickly becomes
frustrating to be subjected to 'crawl' under to get to your
train controls. You should plan to have tracks on both sides
of the 'bridge' isolated so that when the bridge is 'out' 
power is cut to them. That will save a good loco from
disaster on the floor.

Don


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

What I see at first glance....
1-The positioning of your yard trackage dictates clockwise running meaning that some of your industrial tracks are practically useless unless you use a separate switcher to push car assemblies onto them.You have "runarounds" in your designs so if complex switching is your thing,then it's OK.You don't want your main engine trapped on industrial tracks because it had to go in engine first.

2-You don't have any provision to turn a train or even an engine around other than the 0-5-0 switcher wich I believe you'll find boring in no time....I would.

3-Sidings are where trains can meet(or pass) so I'd make them as long as space allows...this dictates your trains lengths.


----------



## deedub35 (Jan 29, 2014)

CTValleyRR said:


> I'm a little confused (normal, at my age, I'll admit). What scale is this? N? And are your units inches, centimeters, or something else? Are you planning to operate from the center? Where are the hard walls of the basement, and where is the "entrance"?
> 
> As far as operating potential, I'm not sure I agree with Cycleops. It sounds like you primarily want to do passengers ops, yet you have an intermodal yard, just two sidings outside your yard and only a single passenger station. Basically, this means you're picking up passengers, taking a lap or so, and dropping them off? Likewise with containers from the intermodal yard (or drop at one of the two sidings?).
> 
> You might think about using a divider to split the layout visually, adding a second passenger station, and using a fair bit of that empty space for more sidings rather than a road. Just my opinion, of course.


Thanks for the critique CT. This is a proposed HO layout. The numbers on the top and bottom are in inches. This would be an around-the-room layout so the hard walls of the room are the outer edges of the diagram. 110" along the top, then 17" down, then 108" along the diagonal (in the center is the 37" opening to the rest of the basement), then 34", and finally the left edge is 93".

I was originally thinking that the whole layout was ONE town hence the road around the middle cut out. The spurs off to the walls would be interchange tracks to distant towns. But I am open for suggestions hence this thread. I didn't think the room and layout would be large enough to have multiple towns but I will consider it.


----------



## deedub35 (Jan 29, 2014)

DonR said:


> I agree with CTvalley about the need for more industrial trackage.
> 
> You could add to the passing sidings top and bottom for that.
> Also, consider team spurs, with more than one industry on each
> ...


Hi DonR and thanks for contributing. I am contemplating your suggestion on adding more spurs to give the train somewhere to go/something to do.

I will definitely implement the lift out suggestion.


----------



## deedub35 (Jan 29, 2014)

Brakeman Jake said:


> What I see at first glance....
> 1-The positioning of your yard trackage dictates clockwise running meaning that some of your industrial tracks are practically useless unless you use a separate switcher to push car assemblies onto them.You have "runarounds" in your designs so if complex switching is your thing,then it's OK.You don't want your main engine trapped on industrial tracks because it had to go in engine first.
> 
> 2-You don't have any provision to turn a train or even an engine around other than the 0-5-0 switcher wich I believe you'll find boring in no time....I would.
> ...


Thanks for posting Brakeman.

1. Okay. Should I tweak the spur at the top of the sketch?

2. Good point. Maybe I should try to incorporate a wye in the top right corner so that I can turn a loco around?

3. Okay.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Yep, it is always more operating fun if you can turn a loco around,
especially on a DCC layout.

Jakes suggestion of a wye would work, as deedub thought in that
upper right hand area. Might need to extend the track going off
to the right so that you would have enough length on the tail
track for your longest loco and tender. It would create a
'reverse loop'. Sections of it would have to be isolated
and a reverse loop controller would be required...such as a
Digitrax AR1 which i've seen advertised on Amazon lately for
around 30.00. Very good value.

Don


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

The actual benchwork plan doesn't allow much in term of either a wye or a loop.In both cases,the curves would have to be pretty tight,may be too tight for large engines.A turntable,without a roundhouse,may be a more interesting option in this specific case.

If turning a loco around is most desirable,being able to turn a whole train around is an even more attractive feature but I can't see it possible on the actual plan.


----------



## deedub35 (Jan 29, 2014)

The layout is modern era so no steamers with tenders. When I have time I'll play around with scarm some more and see if we can squeeze in a wye or maybe incorporate a turnaround loop if I change/mod the bench work. Thanks for the input so far guys.


----------



## deedub35 (Jan 29, 2014)

So I had a little time to make a few tweaks. Incorporated a wye to be able to turn a diesel around, a new spur, and tweaked the yard a bit. Am I on the right "track"?

I have not implemented a divider to simulate two towns. I am thinking that the room is too small so this layout is one town. Please feel free to comment.

Thank you.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

You are getting there.

First suggestion, make your yard tracks
dead end. Eliminate the bottom 'ladder'.
You can then lengthen the tracks. You will need
lots of places to put your freight cars.
The tail of the most right yard track is not
long enough to fit a loco or anything anyway

Is the right top tail for the wye long enough
to accomodate your longest loco?

I would also add one more industry spur as
an extention off the yard ladder track. You
can't have too many spur tracks.

Don


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

I like the new design better. BTW, sorry for the dumb question -- after I posted, I saw that "HO" was in the title of your post.

I share Don's concern about the length of the Y trackage -- it looks like a 9" straight track, and some bigger locos might not fit. Also, the bottom end of the Y has a very convoluted S turn in the trackage, which may cause problems for some longer locos, especially steamers witn a lot of wheels or diesels with long trucks. This is a classic case of where flex track is very beneficial, because it frees you from the strict geometry of sectional pieces. I would take another whack at that area and see if you can't clean up the design, either eliminating curves or adding short straight segments between the curves.

Also, is the diagonal side open to the rest of the basement? If not, you have a murderous reach to that upper right corner.

You could also consider adding a few curved turnouts to allow you more room on your straights.

Finally, there is no requirement to simulate two or more towns. If you're not overly concerned about realism, it may not bother you, but if you aspire to realistic operation, then consider how far goods and people generally have to move by rail before a railroad will take the business. Cross town destinations are better served by trucks, txis, and busses.


----------



## deedub35 (Jan 29, 2014)

Thanks for the input Don. This is my latest iteration.

After reading about duck unders, lift outs, and fold downs I re-sketched to reflect the bench work and show the room opening. It will be a fold down.

I tweaked the yards as per Don's suggestion.

Biggest change is the turn-around-loop which penetrates the wall into the adjacent space which is the unfinished storage room underneath the stairs. I'm sure the suitcases won't mind a little shelf with some tracks and an occasional train running through.

What do you think? Again ... open for suggestions.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

I'm liking it more and more.

You have 4 turnouts on the
left end allowing trains to move
from Track A to track B or
the other way. You can also
do this with a commercially
available double crossover. It's
a very interesting piece of track
work that would replace those
4 turnouts.

There is a way to get to that track 'under
the stairs' isn't there?

Don


----------



## deedub35 (Jan 29, 2014)

CTValleyRR said:


> I like the new design better. BTW, sorry for the dumb question -- after I posted, I saw that "HO" was in the title of your post.
> 
> I share Don's concern about the length of the Y trackage -- it looks like a 9" straight track, and some bigger locos might not fit. Also, the bottom end of the Y has a very convoluted S turn in the trackage, which may cause problems for some longer locos, especially steamers witn a lot of wheels or diesels with long trucks. This is a classic case of where flex track is very beneficial, because it frees you from the strict geometry of sectional pieces. I would take another whack at that area and see if you can't clean up the design, either eliminating curves or adding short straight segments between the curves.
> 
> ...


The only opening in the room is the entrance. The tape measure button on scarm measures the distance from the middle cutout to the very corner to be 36". I have long lanky arms so I can reach albeit it would be my max.

Thanks for all the suggestions. I'll check out the curved turnouts (pricing, availability, etc) as I continue to tweak the plan.

I am still considering the scene divider too.


----------



## deedub35 (Jan 29, 2014)

DonR said:


> I'm liking it more and more.
> 
> You have 4 turnouts on the
> left end allowing trains to move
> ...


I'll check out the double crossover in terms of availability and pricing vs the 4 separate turnouts. Thanks for the tip. If I can acquire them at a reasonable price then there is no reason why I can't have one at the left and also the top and bottom right diagonal.

As for the track - no problems with access under the stairs. It's open and unfinished - bare studs - so just one 1/2" piece of drywall to cut. I'll do some portals on the train room side and a backdrop to simulate a tunnel through a mountain.


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

The loop is clearly an improvement.However,it has an important flaw as it is...an S curve.These should be avoided wherever possible.If space allows,try to have a piece of straight track (a loco's length) between both curves to reduce the counter sweep effect.S curves often are major derailment causes.

Double crossovers generally cost about the same as four turnouts of the same brand.Even if more expensive,the space gain is worthed it.


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

Brakeman Jake said:


> The loop is clearly an improvement.However,it has an important flaw as it is...an S curve.These should be avoided wherever possible.If space allows,try to have a piece of straight track (a loco's length) between both curves to reduce the counter sweep effect.S curves often are major derailment cause


Why are S curves a major derailment cause?


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

A double crossover could be used in the bottom right area,
but in my opinion would not be appropriate at the
top industrial section.

Don


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

An engineer could probably answer better than I can.I'd say it's a momentum thing as speed does have a significant effect in these situations.A straight section in between does kind of "idle" the train's momentum before pulling it in a totally opposite direction.

A few parameters compound here like curve sharpness,rolling stock lengths,track inclines,train string tendency and obviously train speed make S curves highly prone to derailments.They're not all troublesome but many are and can only be dealt with at very slow speed at best.The longer the train the worst it is.

I didn't invent this...it's been discussed ad nauseum on forums.....


----------



## deedub35 (Jan 29, 2014)

Awesome guys. When I have time i'll tweak the design to address the s-curve and implement some double crossovers. Stay tuned.


----------



## deedub35 (Jan 29, 2014)

Hopefully this diagram addresses the s-curve issue. SCARM didn't have a double crossover so I kept the left side as is for the diagram. Anything else I should consider? Or go with it? Thanks.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

I would add one more track to the yard on the left, It appears
you have plenty of room for that.

Don


----------



## deedub35 (Jan 29, 2014)

DonR said:


> I would add one more track to the yard on the left, It appears
> you have plenty of room for that.


Alright Don. I came up with 2 iterations with another track to the yard. The second diagram I moved the entrance to the yard to try to give the yard tracks a little more length. Yey or ney?


----------



## deedub35 (Jan 29, 2014)

I think I am starting to get a little carried away with tweaking but here is the latest with the labels back on and a little adjustment at the top yard to increase the length of the track. Better to play around on SCARM than on the actual layout.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

You'll probably be doing some tweaking when you actually get around
to laying the track. There's always something that goes awry with
the geometry of the track.

I do hope you plan to use flex track as that would help make things
work to your design.

You have a lot of action built into your layout now. It'll be good for
continuous running and for switching activities.

Don


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

It's hard to tell from the drawing, but you appear to still have a bit of an S curve in the upper right. A loco heading through the turnout in a counter clockwise direction comes off a curve heading right, goes through the turnout points, then faces a left hand curve out of the turnout. While the tangent (straight) leg may be long enough, the diverging leg could cause problems, especially if you're running long equipment.

Before you kill yourself redesigning things, set up that part of the trackage on a bare tabletop and test run your longest and most finicky equipment through it. Like you said with about SCARM, better to find out early than have a redesign after it's built.


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

The left turnout was replaced with a right one and that greatly improved the loop design.However,the drawing shows a kink coming off the diverging leg of the turnout but this can be fixed easily.

The "drop down" tracks can be shifted at a slight angle inwards,aiming at the turnout diverging outlet,then have the crossover turnouts moved closer to the opening's edge.This would allow a very mildly curved track section between the turnouts to complete a smooth transition.Tracks don't have to be parallel to the benchwork.

It would also give a slightly longer storage track between the opening and the loop.


----------



## deedub35 (Jan 29, 2014)

Thanks for the all the feedback Don, CT, and Brakeman. I'll make a couple of tweaks and post a revision up in a bit. Cheers.


----------



## deedub35 (Jan 29, 2014)




----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

I like that. You seem to have fixed all the issues.

My next suggestion would be to try it using flextrack rather than sectional.


----------



## deedub35 (Jan 29, 2014)

Thanks for all the input guys. I will be using as much flex track as I can for sure.


----------

