# Need ideas.



## Rock022 (Jan 2, 2017)

Hello all.

I am thinking of doing a small DC, HO layout, so I can practice. The area I have at the moment can only be about 42" x 50" (106.68cm x 127cm) 

I tried to maximize track, for that small layout. I used a free version of Railmodeller Express, and this is what I came up with. 

I plan to have a bridge and a tunnel. So the scene will have mountains. 

The top track to nowhere is just to display one train with its cars. No power required.

The loops go over and under, can not show on a 2d layout. 

What do you guys recommend I can do?


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

There's not much operating with only one spur. Why don't you do a mining layout ? Here's a couple from an old railway mag that gives lots of operational and scenic potential. Both are 4 x 4.


----------



## Nikola (Jun 11, 2012)

The mining layout is nice.

OP, on your original plan, I would probably think about two main loops. Outer one at table level and all the way around. Inner one on mountain in the back and on trestles in the front. Then some sort of streetcar line in the center with 5" or 6" curves.

But I see nothing wrong with you basic design. There are just so many options, even on a tiny layout.


----------



## mopac (Feb 24, 2011)

I recommend you rethink doing an over and under on this size layout. I call this a rookie mistake. I did it on my first layout. New people just don't realize how much space it takes to do a proper incline and a decline. You want to limit your incline to maybe a 1/4 " per
foot rise and same for the fall. To rise 5 " it takes 20 feet and 20 feet to fall. You don't have that. Problems with too quick rise and fall. Locomotive wheels will spin with more
than 1 or 2 cars, maybe less. Locos coming down the hill will gain too much speed unless
they are super premium engines. Its your railroad but when you build and see the problems you can't say you were not told.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

I agree with mopac on the over / under and the grades. 

I did the same thing back in my teens. Had to rip it all out and start again.


----------



## mopac (Feb 24, 2011)

I did it also and ended up hating my layout and not using it. Yes, its a cool idea and
almost all new people want to do it. I cringe when I see new people wanting to do it.
Mine was a 4X8 layout and it did not work well.


----------



## Rock022 (Jan 2, 2017)

Alright, over/under is scratched. I only have very old locos. Thanks for the heads up guys.

Cycleops, The first one seems to have over/under. The second is flat. I think I might go with the second.

Anything else?

P.S. If you already read this, I had to edit and change what I wrote. I realized that the first one had a tunnel under the tracks after I wrote the first time.


----------



## time warp (Apr 28, 2016)

I like the one in the second image that Cycleops suggested. There are some interesting possibilities there.


----------



## Rock022 (Jan 2, 2017)

How do I start? Do I need a large printout of the track.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Good choices*



Rock022 said:


> Hello all.
> 
> I am thinking of doing a small DC, HO layout, so I can practice. The area I have at the moment can only be about 42" x 50" (106.68cm x 127cm)
> 
> ...


Rock022;

I see that you have opted for the second track plan sent by Cycleops. Good choice. The plan you started with contains a double reverse curve in the turnouts at the bottom, center, of the drawing. That would be likely to cause trouble when backing cars through it. Cycleop's plans do not contain such curves. One of several advantages they include.
I don't know if you have the trains already, or are otherwise committed to HO-scale for your small layout. You could do more in N-scale or Z-scale with your very limited space. I don't know if that is something you have considered. In any case, or scale, good luck with your layout.

regards;

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Wing it a little.*



Rock022 said:


> How do I start? Do I need a large printout of the track.


Rock022;

While it might be helpful to have a full size copy of the plan; you don't really need it. You already know the space available. HO-scale small curves are 18" radius, so if you are using sectional track you can just connect them into the basically circular shape shown in the plan. Insert turnout and straight sections where they are shown. This should get you the basic layout shown in Cycleop's plan 2. 
If you are using flex track, then I suggest starting with the turnouts. Get them positioned per the plan and temporarily nail or pin them in place. Then you would need to use a "trammel" ( a stick with a nail, and a pencil, set in holes 18" apart) To draw the center lines for your curves. Try it out. You may surprise yourself with what you can do.

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Rock022 (Jan 2, 2017)

Thank you Traction. I am going HO scale. This small layout will be to get practice, as I have never done anything even close to this. I have watched a few videos, and I am eager to get my hands dirty. However, I plan to just practice a small layout. I plan to try the spray foam first, to make the terrain. And some quilt material over the foam afterwards to give it more texture. 

I have emptied close to half of my garage. I still have way to go, and have more space.


----------



## Bwells (Mar 30, 2014)

In Cycleops #2 I see four curved turnouts. As far as I know Peco quit making the small radius curves but you can find them on Ebay, or possibly use Shinohara. Anyway you can squeak out more room?


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

Rock022 said:


> How do I start? Do I need a large printout of the track.


I'd just start laying track but before you do you can download templates of the turnouts from Peco's site here: http://www.peco-uk.com/page.asp?id=pointplans
That should give you a good idea of how to proceed. You'll need to use their shortest turnout called Setrack although you could see if the Streamline range fit.
Setrack are only available as code100 but that shouldn't bother you. Peco track is great quality and the turnouts have an over centre spring that keeps the point blades locked in position.
Good luck and keep us posted on your progress.


----------



## time warp (Apr 28, 2016)

Another idea would be 15" radius curves. If you are using smaller equipment it would work fine. I use some 15" on my layout and nearly everything I own works fine on them. Just a thought.


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

Bwells said:


> In Cycleops #2 I see four curved turnouts. As far as I know Peco quit making the small radius curves but you can find them on Ebay, or possibly use Shinohara. Anyway you can squeak out more room?


Peco still list the small radius curved Setrack turnouts ST244 & ST245 on their site so I assume they are still in production, unless you're referring to another item.


----------



## time warp (Apr 28, 2016)

Cycleops said:


> There's not much operating with only one spur. Why don't you do a mining layout ? Here's a couple from an old railway mag that gives lots of operational and scenic potential. Both are 4 x 4.


 Not to take away from the OP, but I'm glad you posted these, Cycleops. I have been looking at idea #2 and am considering it for my Moose Jaws display layout.


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

Good for you TW. A few moose jaws certainly wouldn't look out of place on there. I've ways kept the plans to hand as I thought I might want to tackle one one day.


----------



## Rock022 (Jan 2, 2017)

Well, how bout that! 

This is the umpteen change, after getting inspired from the layout Cyclops posted.

Looking in to the cost, and what I intend to do. It will be more cost effective if I add one foot to the width and half a foot length. That way I can use most of the atlas 100 track I have. All I have to buy are 6 switches, which my local antique store has at low prices.

This option has one section which I will need to cut two curve tracks, to make a connection (it is the area with the 152 (-) numbers. I can gain experience there.

I also feel this to be a fun layout. But now; I have no clue as to what I want to build around it.

What do you guys suggest now?
Is this plan good, or you guys see problems?


----------



## time warp (Apr 28, 2016)

Looks good to me, only two suggestions;
I would have the spur track at top left go in a straight line instead of curving, and your two stub tracks at lower right should be extended to within an inch of the platform edge. Either cut straight track to fit or buy an Atlas filler section assortment.

This layout would handle 3 trains easily using insulated track sections if on DC.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Spray foam*



Rock022 said:


> Thank you Traction. I am going HO scale. This small layout will be to get practice, as I have never done anything even close to this. I have watched a few videos, and I am eager to get my hands dirty. However, I plan to just practice a small layout. I plan to try the spray foam first, to make the terrain. And some quilt material over the foam afterwards to give it more texture.
> 
> I have emptied close to half of my garage. I still have way to go, and have more space.


Rock022;

If the spray foam you are referring to is the expanding insulation type sold by Home centers, I would not recommend using it. I have, and I stopped because it doesn't work well. It is also somewhat dangerous. It is an extremely powerful instant adhesive. It is nearly impossible to remove from your skin, so wear an old long sleeved shirt, disposable gloves and safety goggles if you do use it. I also found it very difficult to control. It would go wherever it wanted, expand unevenly and leave the center area a super sticky liquid indefinitely, when you made more than an inch or two of depth. Regular sheet extruded foam is much safer, more reliable and easier to use.

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Rock022 (Jan 2, 2017)

Like this?


----------



## time warp (Apr 28, 2016)

There you go! The straight siding gives you the option of loading docks or similar, and the extensions on the stubs will give you just a bit more running room. Those sidings at upper LH and lower RH could potentially be lead tracks for future expansion as well.


----------



## Rock022 (Jan 2, 2017)

Hmmm. Loading dock on the top left. I like it. I need more ideas.

What size foam board should I get for HO?

1/2 inch or 1 inch? (1.27cm or 2.54cm)

Is this a good foam board?

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Owens-Corning-FOAMULAR-1-2-in-x-4-ft-x-8-ft-R-3-Squared-Edge-Insulating-Sheathing-36L/100320356


----------



## Rock022 (Jan 2, 2017)

I see what you guys mean by, you will change your plan 100 times.:newbie:

Playing with the RailModeller Express program, I learned a few other things. Here is another possible 4X5 layout. The blue track will be elevated. I can have two dc trains running at the same time.


----------



## mopac (Feb 24, 2011)

That pink foam board will work fine. The good foam is either pink or blue.


----------



## mopac (Feb 24, 2011)

Man, I just keep peeing on your parade. Just remember that with a tunnel you will
need a way to clean the track, or to get derailed cars out of the tunnel. I also suggest you use 2" foam. Especially to support your elevated track. It will take too many layers with 1/2" foam.


----------



## Rock022 (Jan 2, 2017)

Mopac, I appreciate all the info. I did not think about that. So I have to think how will I clean it.


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

That last one is just a tail chaser, beware you'll soon become bored with it.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

If you decide to revert to the previous plan, there is no need to cut track. Atlas sells 1/3 length 18" radius pieces.


----------



## Rock022 (Jan 2, 2017)

I really appreciate your guys help.

The tunnel is gone. Now I have two mountains with trestle bridges in between.

Here is the latest. What do you guys suggest now? And what do you guys see the story can be?


----------



## time warp (Apr 28, 2016)

That's better! The upper line could be small equipment like 0-6-0 steam or small diesel, with a quarry to serve a rock Crusher plant. Mainline trains on the lower, hauling loads out from a stone plant.


----------



## Overkast (Jan 16, 2015)

Rock022 said:


> And what do you guys see the story can be?


Perhaps the story could be "_Shark Tooth Trestles in Stick Figure Ville_"??:laugh:

j/k... couldn't resist!


----------



## Rock022 (Jan 2, 2017)

Overkast said:


> Perhaps the story could be "_Shark Tooth Trestles in Stick Figure Ville_"??:laugh:
> 
> j/k... couldn't resist!


lol. Good one.:lol_hitting:


----------



## Rock022 (Jan 2, 2017)

Here are some ideas, but I would like to hear what you guys have to say.

I still do not know what to do on the bottom layer.


----------



## Overkast (Jan 16, 2015)

Are there any types of train cars / rolling stock that typically interest you more than others? For example, do you like hoppers, box cars, tankers, etc.?


----------



## Rock022 (Jan 2, 2017)

I like Steam and Diesel. As for Rolling Stock, as long as it is not a large car, as of right now. Unless it is double stacked containers.


----------



## santafealltheway (Nov 27, 2012)

Rock022 said:


> Thank you Traction. I am going HO scale. This small layout will be to get practice, as I have never done anything even close to this. I have watched a few videos, and I am eager to get my hands dirty. However, I plan to just practice a small layout. I plan to try the spray foam first, to make the terrain. And some quilt material over the foam afterwards to give it more texture.
> 
> I have emptied close to half of my garage. I still have way to go, and have more space.


I would just suggest adding a couple of turnouts that go to nowhere land on one end, if you ever decide to expand, you just have to build a nother table and start plopping down track.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Rock022 said:


> I like Steam and Diesel. As for Rolling Stock, as long as it is not a large car, as of right now. Unless it is double stacked containers.


You'll never get double stacked containers on those narrow curves.

Pick an industry that appeals to you. Generic factories can get box cars, hoppers, and flats of equipment, maybe even tanks of chemicals.

Make that upper left siding into a team track with a freight distribution depot. Then just about any car type will work.


----------



## Nikola (Jun 11, 2012)

I like the new plan. I would think about adding a point to point traction line diagonally. It would start at one corner (where presumably there is a town) and cut diagonally to a rural 'station' carved out of the mountains at table level. The trolley would leave the station, disappear under the mountain, appear at the little end point. I would do that because I do love trolleys, so to each his own!


----------



## Rock022 (Jan 2, 2017)

Well. I purchased the atlas turnouts, and they do not connect as pretty as they do in the computer. 

In order for me to make parallel straight lines, I have to leave gaps in the connections between the turnouts. Now I have to figure out how to fix that, before I move forward.


----------



## Lemonhawk (Sep 24, 2013)

Might be the difference between a "snap track" turn out and their custom line switches. The "Snap track" turnouts form part of an 18 in radius, where as other turnouts are are actually straight after the frog.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Rock022 said:


> Well. I purchased the atlas turnouts, and they do not connect as pretty as they do in the computer.
> 
> In order for me to make parallel straight lines, I have to leave gaps in the connections between the turnouts. Now I have to figure out how to fix that, before I move forward.


I've never used the Rail Modeler Express software, but other ones I've used are pretty darned accurate when it comes to piece dimensions. Due to small variances in the manufacturing process, there might be some small irregularities, but nothing that should cause a huge hiccup. You also have to make sure all your OTHER track is well aligned.

And it's worth checking what Lemonhawk suggests: there are a lot of options on Atlas track. Make sure you purchased and installed EXACTLY what you used for planning (even the non-turnout parts). I had some problems on a layout long ago because pieces I assumed were one size were actually another. The only exception to this is the remote and manual versions of the Snap Switch turnouts (850 / 851 vs. 860 / 861). They are geometrically interchangeable.


----------



## Rock022 (Jan 2, 2017)

What Lemonhawk says makes sense. I am using Atlas 100 Snap track. The I used snap tack in the software. 

Well, I know there has to be a way. It is fun figuring this out. I will post pictures latter and show you guys what I mean. I am sure some of you have already gone trough this. I just need a way to fix it.


----------



## Rock022 (Jan 2, 2017)

Here is the problems I find...


----------



## Lemonhawk (Sep 24, 2013)

I can't tell for sure but to me I see some snap switches and some Custom Line, so they will have problems together. Should say on the bottom what they are.


----------



## time warp (Apr 28, 2016)

There are three things you have done wrong here. From top right, the two turnouts in the top track are fine. 
Second row, turnout is fine. Moving left in your picture you have a 1/3 18" section joining to the turnout at bottom left. That won't work because that section is included to make a full curve, not a reverse curve. That's the first problem.
The second problem is your center to center spacing is too close, crowding the switch machines of the two center turnouts.
The solution? You need a short straight filler section between the two turnouts toward the right side of your picture, and a short curved filler section to line up the geometry of the turnout at bottom left. That will give you room to square everything up and provide clearance for the switch machines. You may have some slight gaps here and there where your rails won't quite butt, don't worry about it, that's normal.
Those adjustments will allow the track you have to fit, which leads us to problem #3. Only the top right turnout is actually Snap track, the other three are other brands which don't match either. Different brands of any track don't always agree, and turnouts are a crap shoot anyway.
I know it seems like the perfect idea working from a program like scarm, but the best way to get an arrangement like this to work is to first build your switchwork arrays and then work your connecting track features in. I've been doing it that way for more than 4 decades and it works for me. Good luck!:thumbsup:


----------



## Rock022 (Jan 2, 2017)

Well, this is what you call a newbie. 

After I read your comment time warp. I looked at the turnout differences. I had thought they were all the same brand, just different models. I was wrong. 

I also noticed that two turnouts are curved (1 and 3), and two seem to start a straight (2 and 4). 

Here are the pictures before and after.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Remember what I said above -- if the pieces you are using are EXACTLY what you have in your plan, then the plan will work on the table if it does on the drawing.

As you found out, the middle sentence of my second paragraph ("I had some problems on a layout long ago because pieces I assumed were one size were actually another.") is proven true -- you DON'T actually have 4 Snap Switches, which is why things don't line up.

So, if you want to use that 1/3 18" radius piece, use it on one of the Snap Switches (the curved ones, 1 or 3) and it will work because the two tracks will end up parallel, or pretty close. Using that 1/3 18" section on a straight turnout results in tracks that converge, causing space issues.

As TW said, those big honking twin coil solenoid machines are too big for the space you've provided. A little work with a file will probably fix that, but now you see why many of us opt for under table machines which don't eat layout space.


----------



## Rock022 (Jan 2, 2017)

I do understand what you guys are telling me. There will be a time when I will purchase new flex track and turnouts. What I am trying to do at the moment is not my final layout. I have a 3 year old that always sneaks trough and finds his way to the trains. So I am trying to keep cost to a minimum for this "practice" table. He is quite energetic, and when he finds his way to the table as he always does. It will not be such a loss.

I was given a whole bunch of Atlas 100. But I only had two turnouts. One of them did not work. That is why I bought this turnouts at my local antique store. I only spent about $27 on six of turnouts.

I can tell you guys that it is quite fun to figure the whole thing out. 

A situation I have now, is that I may have to delete the outer


----------



## time warp (Apr 28, 2016)

You 're getting there! Don't worry about what you are using. I'm not criticizing at all, just helping you understand some differences.
I say put it together and run it!:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Rock022 (Jan 2, 2017)

Just to make sure.

I have not felt any pressure or criticism towards what I am doing. To the contrary. I really appreciate every single answer. 

I thought I could do a over/under from single track on a small layout. I was told that, is a beginners mistake, and the problems that it causes.

Then Cyclops posted some plans, which I really liked. But purchasing the track needed would cost me too much for what I intend to do, and I took inspiration from that layout. Mainly placing the turnouts at different locations to make it more fun.

When I had two loops, I was told it was a tail chase, and it would get boring really fast.

When I made a tunnel, I was told that I would have to consider the track maintenance, which indeed would have been a bit more difficult, and that lead me trestle bridges, which I really like. 

And not to forget the story of the "Shark Tooth Trestles in Stick Figure Ville" Which I found very funny.

I am indeed enjoying the process so far.


----------

