# Sticky  A Collection of Track Plans



## /6 matt

After seeing and being inspired by DonR's thread to collect finished layouts (Here: http://www.modeltrainforum.com/showthread.php?t=66578) I decided to make a thread for track plans to be posted to make it easier for beginners or veterans alike to find ideas. I will try to make sure all of my own plans are ones that are free from inherent flaws (clearances, reach etc.)

These are for unbuilt, untested plans. As with Don's thread I will ask that everyone please refrain from commenting here and instead send pm's if you have questions or comments. Also, after you upload pictures of your plans, please click the paperclip and choose insert all so that your pictures appear in thread like mine do. It will make viewing easier for everybody.

So without further ado, everybody post your track plans, tell us any additional info on it (min radius, dimensions etc.)


----------



## /6 matt

This is an HO layout I designed for a member based of the MRR Virginian project. It is a 6'x10' so there will be needs for trap door/access hatches. The minimum radius on the mainline and the spur is 28" and the max grade is 2.5%. This plan uses Peco code 83 Flex track with peco turnouts, #6 on mainlines and #4 on sidings. Curved turnouts are Shinohara #7.5


----------



## /6 matt

Up Next is an N scale layout built upon a 36"x80" hollow core door. This one used Peco code 55 Flex flex with a minimum radius of 13" and I used Peco small radius turnouts on sidings and spurs as well as the yard and Peco medium radius on the the main. Crossings are Atlas code 55, 90° and 22.5°. This layout incorporates a reversing section and therefore DCC is highly recommended.


----------



## /6 matt

Last one for today is a recently designed N scale layout to be built upon a 32"x80" hollow core door and is to be supported on the ends by two 36" tall book cases from Wal-Mart.com This one is once again built with Peco code 55 flex and uses all Peco medium radius turnouts on the mainline with small radius in the yard. There is one Peco WYE turnout in the yard as well. Max grade here is 2.1% and minimum radius is 14" on the main and 12" in one spur. This layout incorporates a reversing section therefore DCC is recommended


----------



## CTValleyRR

*Western Maryland*

This is a basic figure 8 in HO scale that I designed for a beginner who just wanted to "railfan". 18" Radius curves, some flextrack, #6.5 curved turnouts.

His desire was to create realistic mountain scenery, with a small train running around to showcase it. He did not have me add structures -- the top area would be filled with a small village, and some miscellaneous structures elsewhere, for flavor.

The layout is 5' wide, which means the center would be barely reachable for most of us. It also requires for very steep 3% grades, which was fine for the short trains the client wanted.


----------



## CTValleyRR

*N Scale Western USA*

Here is a layout plan based on a cut down version of the Model Railroader Inyo and White Mountain track plan, shortened by 2' in the vertical dimension (on the page). Because of this, the lower right area is severely cramped. Even though the client had the room available, he insisted on the shortened version, which really doesn't do justice to the original design.

The layout is 10' x 8', Grades are 2%, curves mostly 18" radius, with a few sharper ones, and an odd variety of Peco N-Line turnouts, as well as an Atlas 90 degree crossing which had to be cut down to fit (a result of the shortening of the layout). I would urge anyone interested in this design to consult the original (available in the MR Online layout database).


----------



## CTValleyRR

*HO Southwestern Desert*

Designed for a client to use approximately half of a large outbuilding (layout dimensions are 13'x15'), this layout was also for a client who was primarily interested in just watching trains run. He wanted large, modern equipment, so the layout uses 24" curves, #8 turnouts, and no elevation changes. Unusually, the client insisted on the use of two double crossovers, whereas the original design had two single crossovers in those locations. While it does make switching the mine in the lower left easier, it adds complexity and expense.

Note that there is no way to turn trains on the layout (other than the HOG). Direction of operation is counterclockwise. A Y or reversing loop could be added with a minor redesign of the lower right corner.


----------



## CTValleyRR

*NW USA Logging Layout*

This one was a collaborative effort between me and the client. The final plan is his, much of the way it came together is mine.

This 24 x 26 HO scale layout represents a logging scene in the Pacific Northwest (although it could be in any heavily forested area. The upper and lower levels are separated by 9" vertically; the uppermost red track is the sloped track, which joins the levels at a 3% grade (fine for the small steam locos that will work it). The upper area is heavily forested with logging camps and sawmills; the lower area will be more densely populated (towns and industry). The staging yard on the gray peninsula is detachable, and is on a lifting, wheeled platform to drop and roll under the layout when not in use.

Design parameters are min radius 18", min turnout #4.


----------



## CTValleyRR

*Growth of a Layout*

This person had a very simple 4x8 HO layout:








He wanted some help expanding it, so we added a little strip onto the lower right side, giving him a little more room to create the dramatic mountain scenery he wanted near his coal mine, and another foot on the left to expand his town / industrial area:








Trying to get him to think out of the box, I put together a rough draft of what he could accomplish in the same space by going around the walls instead of sticking to the sheet of plywood. This one has a 2.5% grade (note in the plan that I didn't bother to smooth it) and 28" radius curves and #6 turnouts in the 12x12 space. This design would require a lift out, gate, or duckunder in the upper right corner.


----------



## CTValleyRR

*Good Operational Layout*

Another collaborative effort, I really like how this one turned out, with a good mix of running and switching squeezed into an irregular 9x23 space. An HO design with a min curve radius of 22", #6 turnouts, and 2% inclines, this is an example of using inclines in BOTH directions (the tunnel tracks in the lower right slope DOWN while the uphill branch slopes up), thus providing the necessary clearance where they cross. The tunnel tracks then slope back up to base height to rejoin the layout on the left side.

My original had a town on the hills in the lower right, which my partner ultimately decided to delete in favor of natural scenery.


----------



## CTValleyRR

*Tommy Boy's Layout*

And I almost forgot... my son's layout designs. He's on his second (impressive, at the ripe old age of 12. His first, a 4 x 9 made of HO scale PowerLoc track with 18" curves and PowerLoc switches (basically a Snapswitch), with a piece of flextrack or two to fit things. I put the basic plan together and built the track before Christmas (he was 4-1/2 years old), so he could go right down and play with it:









When he decided he wanted to do more than watch trains go in a circle, we put this together, using Atlas Code HO TruTrack. The only real drawback to this one is that there is still no way to turn trains, but the 8x12 footprint fits in the part of the basement not consumed by my layout and storage. The control panel is on a hinge, and can be propped up at a 45 degree angle to view the switch map and turnout controls:


----------



## /6 matt

Let's keep it going folks, the more the merrier. :smilie_daumenpos:

Just a reminder though, this thread is for track plans. For pictures and plans of layouts that have been actually built go here: http://www.modeltrainforum.com/showthread.php?t=66578

Again, please refrain from commenting here and instead send pm's if you have questions or comments. Also, after you upload pictures of your plans, please click the paperclip and choose insert all so that your pictures appear in thread like mine do. Following these guidelines will make viewing easier for everybody and reduce clutter.


----------



## /6 matt

I recently brainstormed a nice little compact plan I affectionately call microland. This would be a good plan to run a small logging layout with short trains and is designed so that standard DC wiring wouldn't be too complex. This is a 3'x4' N scale layout using Peco code 55 flex with small radius switches on the sidings and mediums on the main. Minimum radius on the main and spur is 13" and 12" on the sidings. Max grade is 3.1%

Also note. One might notice the spur ends in a tunnel and it would be very difficult to back a train into the short siding before. An easy way to keep the operator from ramming a locomotive into the end of the tunnel would be to put a small section of track just before the end and use an insulated railjoiner on the positive rail. Wire this short section of track into the spur track and place a 12 volt bulb on the positive lead. This way when a locomotive pulls forward on to the isolated piece of track and begins to draw current, your light bulb will light up alerting you to stop the train.


----------



## /6 matt

This one is a variation on the last plan. Everything is the same except that it now uses small radius turnouts with 12" minimum radii on the mainline and 11.25" on sidings.


----------



## CTValleyRR

It is too late to edit Post #9 above, but the question came up about the green track in the person's original layout. That was the original owner trying to put another reversing loop into his layout, which would not have fit based on both the slope considerations (would have needed something like a 10% grade in the lower right), and the fact that there is no way to tie it back to the main line because there is already a turnout there, facing in the wrong direction.

If you wanted to build it, you could either run that extension down to staging under the table, or simply terminate it short of the tie in. For elevation, the mine spurs are above the green track.

The other issue with the original plan is that the inner loop was standard 18" curves, while the outer was a freehand 20.5" radius using flextrack to maintain 2.5" track centers. In practice, this probably would not provide enough clearance for two trains to pass, especially if one or both had longer equipment with significant overhang. This is the reason the modified plan bumps the end of the layout out in that direction.


----------



## brob2k1

CTValleyRR said:


> Another collaborative effort, I really like how this one turned out, with a good mix of running and switching squeezed into an irregular 9x23 space. An HO design with a min curve radius of 22", #6 turnouts, and 2% inclines, this is an example of using inclines in BOTH directions (the tunnel tracks in the lower right slope DOWN while the uphill branch slopes up), thus providing the necessary clearance where they cross. The tunnel tracks then slope back up to base height to rejoin the layout on the left side.
> 
> My original had a town on the hills in the lower right, which my partner ultimately decided to delete in favor of natural scenery.
> 
> View attachment 137602





CTValleyRR said:


> This one was a collaborative effort between me and the client. The final plan is his, much of the way it came together is mine.
> 
> This 24 x 26 HO scale layout represents a logging scene in the Pacific Northwest (although it could be in any heavily forested area. The upper and lower levels are separated by 9" vertically; the uppermost red track is the sloped track, which joins the levels at a 3% grade (fine for the small steam locos that will work it). The upper area is heavily forested with logging camps and sawmills; the lower area will be more densely populated (towns and industry). The staging yard on the gray peninsula is detachable, and is on a lifting, wheeled platform to drop and roll under the layout when not in use.
> 
> Design parameters are min radius 18", min turnout #4.
> 
> View attachment 137562



The above two are really interesting because they are somewhat close to the amount of space I actually have and i've been fighting with how to design my layout. What program did you use for the layout? Do you have a website for people who need some help w/ getting their layout completed properly and need help?


----------



## /6 matt

This is the layout I plan to build for myself in the coming months. It is HO scale on a 5'x9' ping pong table top. This layout uses Peco code 83 with Peco #6 turnouts and one Shinohara #7.5 curved turnout. Minimum radius is 21.5"

EDIT: The two industrial spurs on the right side use Peco #4 turnouts.


----------



## bristolman2012

*wow*

thank you both so much . i think im going to go with the tommy boy layout as its closer to my 4 x 10 layout with inclines and bridges . believe me ive searched far and wide for layouts and mostly what ive discovered im not really ready for the more ( what i consider to be more complicated ones ) . like i said in another post im going to crawl before i walk . i still have a lot to learn and have a train hobby notebook ( write little notes ie solder type and others in there so im ready when i start laying track ) , but thanks again to wonderful forum and knowledgeable members . love scarm and how you can look at things in 3d just wish I was smart enough to know how to use .
mike


----------



## Mixy

bristolman2012 said:


> love scarm and how you can look at things in 3d just wish I was smart enough to know how to use.
> mike


Hello Mike,

SCARM is not hard to learn, but needs some practice. The best way to start is to watch the SCARM video tutorials - a set of short movies, describing most important aspects of handling the 2D editor for easy start of the track planning. Hope you will like it 

Mixy


----------



## bristolman2012

Mixy said:


> Hello Mike,
> 
> SCARM is not hard to learn, but needs some practice. The best way to start is to watch the SCARM video tutorials - a set of short movies, describing most important aspects of handling the 2D editor for easy start of the track planning. Hope you will like it
> 
> Mixy


I plan on doing that . what bothers me the most about ho is that you can buy a ho engine but you may not be able to run it on your track because of radius restrictions . its kind of not fun . I have 3 ho engines that are 9 inches long . does that mean 18 in radius not big enough ?


----------



## CTValleyRR

bristolman2012 said:


> I plan on doing that . what bothers me the most about ho is that you can buy a ho engine but you may not be able to run it on your track because of radius restrictions . its kind of not fun . I have 3 ho engines that are 9 inches long . does that mean 18 in radius not big enough ?


I think you've missed the big picture. HO is a scale -- that is, a proportion to the size of the real thing. NRMA standards are there to ensure interoperability of equipment from different manufacturers, but it's unrealistic to suggest that everything in 1/87.1 scale (HO) HAS to work on a given layout. Especially in a hobby where there is total freedom to design a track plan to whatever specifications you like. This isn't a toy system where everything sold for the system works with it; it's a scale and a collection of standards to assist a hobbyist.

HO track is produced in standard curves down to 15". Using flex track, you can get down to about 9". Our scale equipment is produced with much more swing in the trucks and couplers, and longer distances between cars, to be able to handle these "abrupt" curves. On real railroads, "tight" turns are much broader -- they'd probably scale down to about 33" or so. A lot of hobby products are engineered to be able to use 18" curves because that's what train sets usually come with, but many these days are opting for greater realism and requiring larger radii. Also, grades work the same way. A 1% grade is huge for a real train; we hobbyists routinely use 2-3 times that. On our models, grade itself isn't a factor as much as the transition onto and off of them, where equipment can dig in its nose or become uncoupled or derailed.

The only way to be ABSOLUTELY certain whether your equipment will run is to lay some track and test it. Some locos that say 18" minimum don't do very well with it, and some that recommend broader curves can be coaxed through 18" ones. While a good thumb rule says your curves should be a minimum of 2.5 times the radius of your longest equipment; like all thumb rules, it's meant as a general guide and not a substitute for empirical evidence.

If I had to guess, I would say that if your locos have 2 axle trucks, they will work; 3 axle ones probably not. Since the truck doesn't bend, the cord across the curve can't exceed the distance between the contact patches of the front and back wheels, or they will bind against the rails and cause problems. That's the REAL limit, followed closely by whether there is enough distance between cars to enable them to round the curves without bumping.

If your locos (and trains) are close to making it, but can't quite, there are some tricks that you can use to improve their ability -- all at the price of realism (and only you can say how much of a problem that is).


----------



## HOTrainNut

Hey guys need some help with my track plan. My old layout was Kato Unitrack and had minimum 22" radius. Im needing some assistance with planning my layout this time as I plan on using flex track and doing minimum 24" radius with the only full 18" and 15" radius in switching areas and car storage. Can anyone give me some tips to be able to maintain 2.5" track centers and be able to use double crossovers and 4 mainlines on a u shaped layout.


----------



## CTValleyRR

HOTrainNut said:


> Hey guys need some help with my track plan. My old layout was Kato Unitrack and had minimum 22" radius. Im needing some assistance with planning my layout this time as I plan on using flex track and doing minimum 24" radius with the only full 18" and 15" radius in switching areas and car storage. Can anyone give me some tips to be able to maintain 2.5" track centers and be able to use double crossovers and 4 mainlines on a u shaped layout.


Well, we've certainly lost the OP's vision of maintaining a thread of track plans without feedback or discussion. And yes, I know I'm not helping the problem by responding. Perhaps one of the mods would move the extraneous stuff to another thread or two.

To your question, I have several observations.

First of all, are you planning on a point to point layout? Because if you try to turn 4 parallel tracks 180 degrees, maintaining 2-1/2" centers, it's going to be a bare minimum of 65" wide (and that's with track right at the edge of the layout) where those big curves are at the ends of your "U". Even with access on 3 sides, that's a tough reach. So you would need access panels, or better still close the loop and go around the room. 

Second, I would not use double crossovers. If nothing else, they will limit your space between tracks to the separation designed into the turnout. If space is no object (and it doesn't sound like it is, if you're planning something that big), a series of turnouts butted together works better, looks more prototypical, and is easier to wire. 

As far as maintaining spacing, build yourself a jig, or buy one. A piece of wood or styrene with two slots to fit over the inside rails on adjacent tracks will do it.


----------



## /6 matt

Thanks for the contribution folks, let's keep it rolling. I know more people have track plans. Post em up, even if they don't quite work. Your plan may be somebody else's inspiration.

I guess it's time to put my top of the page header.

Just a reminder though, this thread is for track plans. For pictures and plans of layouts that have been actually built go here: http://www.modeltrainforum.com/showthread.php?t=66578 

Again, PLEASE REFRAIN FROM COMMENTING IN THIS THREAD and instead send pm's if you have questions or comments. Also, after you upload pictures of your plans, please click the paperclip and choose insert all so that your pictures appear in thread like mine do. Following these guidelines will make viewing easier for everybody and reduce clutter.


----------



## /6 matt

While I'm in here I have another plan that I cooked up today, this is one that I actually hope to build someday so look forward to me developing it some more.

This plan is an odd size coming in at 30"x52" cause it is designed to fit in a very specific area. As usual this is all Peco code 55 flex and small radius turnouts. Minimum radius is 11.25" with 9.75" on the spurs. There is no grade.


----------



## CTValleyRR

*Cramped Quarters Ideas*

Here is a layout I worked on with a forum member. He had some very ambitious plans and ideas, but when all was said and done, he was trying to shoehorn a layout in around two sides of his living room, with a wall mounted TV and shelving protruding into the layout space.

The member also had the benchwork already built before design began. Although he was able to get some minor expansion, this further limited the number of potential designs. The amount of space available is deceptive -- the area on the right is only 4x6, and the long wall, while expansive, has too many obstructions to really be used.

The final plan is dead flat (with the TV in the center, grades in this area were out, and that made them impractical). The initial desire was for large Peco turnouts and 22" radius curves, but because of space limitations, we had to use Atlas turnouts with their 18" curve segment on the diverging leg and 18" minimum radius (while the 22" FIT on the right side, they take up too much of the available 6 foot dimension to make a loop -- 44" of 62", not counting track width and a safety margin at the layouts edge). The ability to turn trains with a wye ended up being a primary design consideration.

Note that I post all this stuff, not to criticize the member (who was actually a very good sport about the limitations his area imposed), but to try to help beginners get some sense of the amount of real estate required for even simple geometry, without using overly tight curves and steep grades.

Here is the "finished" track plan.









Here was my first idea, before I understood the true space limitations. It has quite a bit more to do, but with the chief drawback that there is no way to turn trains, especially on the right lobe -- trains have to be backed a lot. This might be overcome with some fiddling, or the use of Atlas Snap Switches with the curved diverging leg, but there really isn't room to add another turnout (unless you can expand the right side further in the up and down dimension, which wasn't an option for the member).


----------



## CTValleyRR

*Tommy Boy, Revisited*

In another project for a forum member, here is a re-imagining of the so-called "Tommy Boy" layout above. It actually reflects more of the original plan for that layout, before I got frustrated with the limitations imposed by the steep grades required. This layout actually provides a fair bit of switching interest in a layout only slightly bigger than a 4x8 (finished plan is 4x10).

Note that although there is a 14% grade shown, this is actually mitigated in practice by continuing that grade into the upper loop. It met the members requirements for over / under operations, room for more than one (short) train, and lots of bridges. It uses Code 83 flex track and Atlas turnouts, minimum radius 18".


----------



## /6 matt

First off, thanks to the admins for the sticky! :appl: Here's to hoping somebody finds something inspiring in these pages. Once again, if anybody has any plans to post, please do. Your collection may inspire the next beginner.

Now on to the newest creation. After seeing CTValley's last post I suddenly became inspired by that layout. So much so that I decided to do a loosely based N-scale Door adaption I even finished this one to completion since I am getting better at SCARM. What I came up with is a fairly expansive N-scale layout with a good balance between mountain scenery and operations.

This one is designed for a 32"x80" door and as usual uses PECO code 55 flex track. Minimum radius is 11.25" and the entire layout uses small radius switches. Max grade on the mainlines is 2.5% and 3% on the track leading up to the logging spur that cuts diagonally across the layout. This layout is designed for medium length trains in the transition era and uses narrow dirt roads in all but the town in the upper left corner. The layout is also modeling two very small towns connected by a railroad that mostly focuses upon lumber although a team track and an interchange has been included in the upper left hand corner to introduce a little variety. Also Z scale trees are used to the rear of the layout for forced perspective.

I'm currently working on an extended version using a 33"x96" table so stay tuned for that.


----------



## /6 matt

So I got sidetracked and came up with a new one. I have a fairly large area coming open to me so I designed a 7'x13' L shaped table layout in HO. This one uses Peco code 83 flex with #5 turnouts in the yard, #6 on spurs and #8 on mainline runs. The maximum grade is 2% and the minimum radius is 22" This layout was designed with a transition era lumber operation in mind.


----------



## Nuttin But Flyer

Thank you to all who have contributed to this posting. There are many track plans here that inspire. My only regret though, I'm an American Flyer modeler and only have the old Flyer sectional track. There are so little choices available to create some of these more realistic plans. We have two radius curves to use and only one type of turnout. Unless some big money is spent on new track from Gargraves or MTH S Gauge, we Flyer guys are stuck trying to build realism into our layouts.


----------



## CTValleyRR

*Lots of Switching in the Corner*

Here is a layout for beginners who love operations and switching, designed to fit into a corner, taking up not much more space than a 4x8 layout with a 2' aisle all around.

The layout is HO, 22" radius minimum, #6 standard turnouts, #6.5 curved turnouts. No grades or elevation changes. It is really designed for a couple of long modern locos to do switching operations with short trains. There is plenty of staging located behind 2 view blocks at each end, allowing lots of trains to arrive and depart. There is a mix of industries representing an industrial area in a midwestern town. Obviously, the exact industries could be changed to suit the builder. This particular version requires two buildings to be kitbashed, so that half of the building is on the layout, and the rest represented by a picture on the viewblock. 

Over the next couple of days, I intend to revisit this using 18" radius track and #4 turnouts, for use by smaller, 4 wheel locos -- RS-1 and 2, GP19, H16-44, SW1200/1500... Should be able to cram a few more spurs and more industries in.


----------



## Wolferz

/6 matt said:


> So I got sidetracked and came up with a new one. I have a fairly large area coming open to me so I designed a 7'x13' L shaped table layout in HO. This one uses Peco code 83 flex with #5 turnouts in the yard, #6 on spurs and #8 on mainline runs. The maximum grade is 2% and the minimum radius is 22" This layout was designed with a transition era lumber operation in mind.
> 
> View attachment 159962
> 
> 
> View attachment 159970
> 
> 
> View attachment 159978
> 
> 
> View attachment 159986


What program did you use for your designs? It looks very intuitive. I have Scarm, and it is decent but I don't think it has the 3D modelling. I'm slowly muddling through it and have designed this thus far:


----------



## CTValleyRR

I can't speak for Matt. I use Anyrail, which is very good and very intuitive (at least for me). SCARM does have a 3D view -- I've seen people post it -- but I have no idea how one does it.


----------



## Wolferz

CTValleyRR said:


> I can't speak for Matt. I use Anyrail, which is very good and very intuitive (at least for me). SCARM does have a 3D view -- I've seen people post it -- but I have no idea how one does it.


I found the 3D view, but it won't render as I am using it on Linux through wine and don't know what driver it would need to display. Scarm is also kinda difficult to use.


----------



## sliderule01

Nuttin But Flyer said:


> Thank you to all who have contributed to this posting. There are many track plans here that inspire. My only regret though, I'm an American Flyer modeler and only have the old Flyer sectional track. There are so little choices available to create some of these more realistic plans. We have two radius curves to use and only one type of turnout. Unless some big money is spent on new track from Gargraves or MTH S Gauge, we Flyer guys are stuck trying to build realism into our layouts.


I think you are limiting yourself.

Here is a portion of a layout I have played with using only AF track. It is a condensed model of St. Louis Union Station. I only have 6 passenger tracks, while the real STL Union Station had 44 lines though a series of interlaced wyes. The lack of a wye made it more difficult, but I think I captured the flavor of the station using only one piece of non-AF track, a single 30 degree crossover from American Models. This thing is huge. I just wish I could implement this. Maybe I will find a way to simplify it to make it work in the limited space I have available.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Here is another beginner level track plan, packing a lot of action into a 7x11 space. It uses Atlas code 83 sectional track, but any brand of track with the appropriate pieces would work (this probably rules out most roadbed track).

The primary limitation is that there is no way to turn trains, although this could be fixed simply by connecting two of the sidings through the center.

Note that this layout has a long reach to the center, and so requires either access on all 4 sides or something like a topside creeper to work in the middle.

Enjoy!


----------



## sliderule01

Here is one that I did using only AF track. It is a 5 x 9 table with 2 reverse loops. Grades are 3.5%. I like bridges so I get to do a very long one. I also show the AF accessories that I have. I like passenger operations so included a simple Union Station layout. I should probably show a train shed too.


----------



## sliderule01

Here is one that I probably going to build. Nothing but AF track was used in the design. It has a nice passenger station as well as switching operations. It has some neat signaling opportunities and the ability to run multiple trains, with the passing loops and grade. The grade is 3.5% - a bit on the high side, but the length of trains running shouldn't be much of an issue. Again, I show the AF accessories that I have. I would appreciate any comments. I like the elevated passenger station - it gives me a chance for some nice industrial settings.


----------



## WickedRail38

*Track Layouts*

These are pretty amazing but I must say I feel a little sheepish about designing a track layout. I am horrible sketch artist, I know I want a variety of landscapes (hills, mountains, rivers, waterfalls), 2-3 levels of track, bridges, and a few tunnels. 

There are plenty of pre-made layouts out there, which is great and would be easy to steal one of those and design my layout based off of it, but I have a thing about wanting a unique layout. 

I'm kind of a trial and error guy, I like the freedom of experimenting before I commit. Does anyone else just lay railroad down on the fly?


----------



## CTValleyRR

Well, first off, you wouldn't be stealing... published plans are meant to be used by others. The real purpose, though, isn't really to hand out track plans, but to try to show people what can and can't be done, as well as to provide inspiration. I would definitely encourage you to design your own, some folks, though, have no idea where to start or how to proceed. If that's not you, then by all means, be creative! Unique is always better, in my opinion. Show us what you come up with (start your own thread and talk about your thoughts).

The first thing you're going to need to figure out is how much space you have available. 2-3 levels and lots of scenery is going to be a space eating monster, even in one of the smaller scales. In particular, grades are as much a problem for our tiny pikes as they are for the full sized ones. True, we can get away with somewhat steeper grades than they can, but still anything more than 3% is asking for trouble, and even that is pushing it. Even at 3%, you need 33-1/3" of linear run to change 1" of elevation, and that much again to come back down on the far side (and this doesn't allow for the required easement -- gradual transitions onto and off of the grade). Grades severely limit train size, with curves on the grade limiting it still further. Of course, if your levels are unconnected, that's a lot easier to manage, but that limits you to a "railfanning" type of layout where you pretty much just watch the trains run rather than doing anything with them. While that's fine if that's what you want, it gets boring quickly for others.

As far as just winging it, I have to be honest. Most of the folks I know who tried that gave up in frustration when they couldn't get anything to work right. It's much more effective to work from a plan, even just a rough one, because then you know it will run and you know it will fit. Consider that computer assisted designs are free (perhaps after investing in some software), and scale drawings cost only pennies (again, perhaps after some initial investment in quality drafting equipment). Track is expensive, and using it to plan your layout, unless you already have a bunch of it lying around, will run up a huge bill, and perhaps result in a lot of wasted track for parts you don't end up using. The commercial layout design software that I use (AnyRail), costs about as much as two good quality turnouts.

But anyway, welcome to the hobby! We're looking forward to seeing what great ideas you come up with on your own layout!


----------



## WickedRail38

CTValleyRR said:


> Well, first off, you wouldn't be stealing... published plans are meant to be used by others. The real purpose, though, isn't really to hand out track plans, but to try to show people what can and can't be done, as well as to provide inspiration. I would definitely encourage you to design your own, some folks, though, have no idea where to start or how to proceed. If that's not you, then by all means, be creative! Unique is always better, in my opinion. Show us what you come up with (start your own thread and talk about your thoughts).
> 
> The first thing you're going to need to figure out is how much space you have available. 2-3 levels and lots of scenery is going to be a space eating monster, even in one of the smaller scales. In particular, grades are as much a problem for our tiny pikes as they are for the full sized ones. True, we can get away with somewhat steeper grades than they can, but still anything more than 3% is asking for trouble, and even that is pushing it. Even at 3%, you need 33-1/3" of linear run to change 1" of elevation, and that much again to come back down on the far side (and this doesn't allow for the required easement -- gradual transitions onto and off of the grade). Grades severely limit train size, with curves on the grade limiting it still further. Of course, if your levels are unconnected, that's a lot easier to manage, but that limits you to a "railfanning" type of layout where you pretty much just watch the trains run rather than doing anything with them. While that's fine if that's what you want, it gets boring quickly for others.
> 
> As far as just winging it, I have to be honest. Most of the folks I know who tried that gave up in frustration when they couldn't get anything to work right. It's much more effective to work from a plan, even just a rough one, because then you know it will run and you know it will fit. Consider that computer assisted designs are free (perhaps after investing in some software), and scale drawings cost only pennies (again, perhaps after some initial investment in quality drafting equipment). Track is expensive, and using it to plan your layout, unless you already have a bunch of it lying around, will run up a huge bill, and perhaps result in a lot of wasted track for parts you don't end up using. The commercial layout design software that I use (AnyRail), costs about as much as two good quality turnouts.
> 
> But anyway, welcome to the hobby! We're looking forward to seeing what great ideas you come up with on your own layout!


Thank you CTValley, you have given me some great information and food for thought. I am going to try my hand at SCARM that seems to be a popular one on these forums, i'll take a look at AnyRail too. I understand what you mean regarding track expense, it is always best to have a plan especially in the haunt industry where I have some experience. Materials arent cheap and build is a lot of work, so one really needs to have a roadmap. Its just always a daunting task for me because I dont draw well at all. Has anyone ever tried Google sketch up to design their layout? 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk


----------



## CTValleyRR

For my money, I would use a dedicated layout planning tool. Any CAD program, even PowerPoint or Paint, would work, but the really powerful ones like Sketchup have a lot of functionality you don't need, and require a lot of work to make every object 3D when 99% of what you need for a model railroad is flat (in a geometric plane, which might be inclined). Besides, the dedicated track planning tools have libraries of commercially available parts, automatically lock to common scales, and most importantly, have constraints that keep you from unintentionally drawing something that won't work (too-steep grades and too-tight curves). I mean yeah you CAN use anything you want to, but it's usually better to use the right tool for the job (you can strip wire with any old pair of pliers, but linesman's pliers or a dedicated wire stripper are easier, faster, and better). 

I would say SCARM is popular because it's free, not better. It's actually a hobby project of a member here. For me, though, I prefer a commercial product that has the backing and sustainability of an actual company behind it, and don't think AnyRail's $60 price tag is too high for that support. But that's just me. There are half a dozen or more products out there, both free and paid, and my advice is to find the one that seems most intuitive to you, and meets your needs.


----------



## WickedRail38

CTValleyRR said:


> For my money, I would use a dedicated layout planning tool. Any CAD program, even PowerPoint or Paint, would work, but the really powerful ones like Sketchup have a lot of functionality you don't need, and require a lot of work to make every object 3D when 99% of what you need for a model railroad is flat (in a geometric plane, which might be inclined). Besides, the dedicated track planning tools have libraries of commercially available parts, automatically lock to common scales, and most importantly, have constraints that keep you from unintentionally drawing something that won't work (too-steep grades and too-tight curves). I mean yeah you CAN use anything you want to, but it's usually better to use the right tool for the job (you can strip wire with any old pair of pliers, but linesman's pliers or a dedicated wire stripper are easier, faster, and better).
> 
> I would say SCARM is popular because it's free, not better. It's actually a hobby project of a member here. For me, though, I prefer a commercial product that has the backing and sustainability of an actual company behind it, and don't think AnyRail's $60 price tag is too high for that support. But that's just me. There are half a dozen or more products out there, both free and paid, and my advice is to find the one that seems most intuitive to you, and meets your needs.


I am playing around with a trial version of AnyRail as we speak, it does seem fairly intuitive and it's user interface is similar to MS Office so it is comfortable for me. I would agree, $60 isnt a bad price tag at all, its what i'd pay for a video game... I am excited to start my build. I feel I still have a lot to learn before I do though. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk


----------



## Ace

*Please make separate threads for discussion. Post more plans here!*

This is a compact HO layout easily built with Atlas sectional track on a 30" x 79" door. The size of the adjoining yard can be adjusted to fit available space. The layout can be placed in a room corner and it's small enough to fit in a bedroom without monopolizing the floorspace.

Multiple short trains can run alternately, out-and-back from the yard. Trains can lay over in the long reverse loop section before returning to the yard. The oval allows continuous running and the yard provides switching opportunities. You can use the yard to build a longer train sometimes.

Minimum radius is 15", OK for smaller diesel power and cars up to 50 feet long.


----------



## Guest

Nice plan, Ace A lot of operation in a small space. It would also work for On30 if running smaller locos.


----------



## Ace

Thank You for the comment, Joe.

Here is an "advanced beginner" HO 4x8 plan, easily constructed on a flat table with Atlas sectional tracks. No cutting of track is required. Yard and turnouts have been placed towards the front of the layout as much as possible, so the back of the layout can be against a wall to save space after initial construction.

Two trains can run on separate circuits for convenient display running. Junctions and a reasonably long siding provide different routing possibilities. The one reversing connection returns trains to the yard. 

Drawn with SCARM, my favorite track planning program. Some of my other plans are posted here: https://www.scarm.info/layouts/track_plans.php


----------



## Ace

Only 4' x 6', this layout provides an easy way to cruise a couple long trains around on a folded dog-bone circuit. There's a pretty good length of main track for a small layout. Trains can temporarily disappear in the lower level tunnel. The 15" minimum radius is generally suited for smaller diesel power and cars up to 50-foot length.

The wye connection allows for expansion; a yard should be first priority for an add-on. The layout can be in a room corner to save space if you provide an access hatch.

A long S-curve (properly engineered with a straight section) is a desirable feature for any layout because it provides an interesting scene to view a moving train.


----------



## Andy928

Well, I THOUGHT I knew what I was going to do for a layout. These are great!


----------



## Ace

*HO layout on a door*

This is a plan I've actually built recently on a 30" x 79" door. Eventually I'll have it set up so the one outer spur connects with my main HO layout. Operations are restricted mainly to 40-foot cars and smaller 4-axle diesel power because of the 10" minimum radius.







I'd like to suggest that folks could include ONE photo of actually-built track plans in this thread.







Since this photo was taken I've rearranged the buildings somewhat and added streets. The pic is slightly confused by O-gauge items in the background. This layout-on-a-door is not yet in its intended "permanent" location.


----------



## jackpresley

*Richfield and Fond-Du-Lac*

This design was once used in Kato N scale Unitrack ads. I tried creating it directly from their plan, which included exact part numbers and surprisingly it did not work. It wasn't even close.

So I used Anyrail to build it so that it would work. Unfortunately when I exported the image, the file name defaulted to the image name I had just exported, so I erased my work. Anyway, according to Kato, it was a popular plan, so here it is.

You'll have to excuse my crude sketching on top of the plan. Adding connectors between the parallel mainlines would make it a lot better in my opinion. I'd eliminate the double crossover and it would run fine in DC or DCC. 

Table size is 4 1/2' x 8' -- see the text in the image for details.


----------



## jackpresley

Deleted.


----------



## jackpresley

*Granite Gorge and Northern N Scale Kato Unitrack*

This is an adaptation of the late John Armstrong's H0 Layout #28, the Granite Gorge and Northern.

Although N scale on a 4x8 table is a lot more roomy than the H0 version on a 5x9 table, the layout could still use more space. This is the layout I plan to build but I will be stretching out over a 5x11 table. This will allow for even broader curves less complicated up/down grades.

Regardless, I have laid this track out on a 4x8 table flat. Using temporary blocks to elevate it, I believe the max grade is at or below 2.5%.

If you plan to build this, I would be sure and see Jerry's Granite Gorge and Northern layout thread in the My Layout section of the forum. His youtube videos are a real testament to the entertainment this layout provides. The two connectors (Red-Blue) and (Blue-Red) along with the double-90 crossing (45 in H0) provide a lot of entertainment when running multiple trains. He's also said that you can't make it too big. He is currently running on 8x16, nearly 4 times the original size.

This is a classic.


----------



## MichaelE

I had given thought to building that layout too with a modification to be able to run two trains unattended with no waiting or passing.

I decided to give it a try myself and I'm happy with what I came up with.


----------



## jackpresley

MichaelE said:


> I decided to give it a try myself and I'm happy with what I came up with.


I'd like to see it. I cleared out my schedule to build it last week and this week. I should be cutting foam right now. Instead I'm down with bronchiolitis and too drugged up to operate a saw, or do my taxes, or anything important. Other than watch videos and read unimportant stuff I don't need to remember, I decided to pick a few plans and upload them. I can see from my spelling in another post, I'm not sure I should be doing that either. Ha.


----------



## MichaelE

I mean that I decided to design a layout myself, not that I built the modified Granite Gorge.

On the Granite Gorge, IIRC, I made a slight change to the track routing in the center of the layout and changed it to a continuous dual main line rather than having the single crossing track.

I forget know what the original looked like exactly, but it's in one of the books I have along with The Great Eastern Trunk that I built a long time ago.


----------



## SantaFeJim

I designed this several years ago. I built all the benchwork, laid a good amount of track and actually ran a couple of trains. Then I lost interest. It has been completely torn down and I gave the track to a friend. 

Scale is HO. Each square is a foot. 

I am currently designing something smaller and getting bids on "total" construction.


----------



## sid

one of them i messed with.all kato track


----------



## Chops

*An invitation*

It is noted that replies be limited to postings of trackplans, I get that, I hope you will allow a sincere question...

I'd really like to do a 3.5 x 3.5 foot layout, self contained. Can you work in a passing siding? Can you work in an elevation to accommodate a wooden trestle? I am thinking small physically, but large in terms of visual impact. HO is what I work in. 

The size specification would fit in the back of my Hyundai hatchback to take to exhibitions. Of course, I'd be looking at very short trains, 3 passenger coaches or 3 freight cars and a bobber caboose. Theme is 1880's. 

This is not an idle question. If I can find a suitable project, that's something I'd like to do for the coming year. I got the wood, I got the track, I got the rolling stock.


----------



## CTValleyRR

If your equipment can handle 18" curves (the maximum that would fit in 3.5'), you MIGHT be able to do this using a #4 curved turnout to get the siding in (because at 3.5', all you're going to have is a circle with a very short straight at the center of each side, not long enough for a turnout.

Any incline, however, would be ridiculously steep. To get the necessary 3" clearance, at a 3% grade, you would need 100", or over 8', and that much again to go back down, which would exceed the circumference of your layout. 4% would just barely fit, but would challenge most locos and rolling stock.

Unless you're just talking about TERRAIN relief, with the track on one level (or a much smaller elevation change). Then you could use something like extruded foam boards to build up your base height, and carve out the gully for the trestle.

That said, how about building a series of 2'x4' modules that could be interconnected once you reach the show site?


----------



## Chops

Thanks for the tip CTVRR. Good ideas.

Here is a small layout with a lot of operating potential. If I whack off the yard and eliminate the escape route (and its turnout) in the upper left corner, do you thing this might work (author is Dan Mack)? I this one, the elevation would be flat. 









Here's another version I've been contemplating (author unknown):








It is a 4x4; I am wondering if a gentle elevation of about an inch along the outer main might work. I tried an elevation once with a turnout at the bottom of the hill, that caused frequent derailments. Counting from left to right, upper left being #1, an upper right being square #4, I thought of starting the upward grade in #1 and returning to "sea level" at #4, so that by the time the train reaches the turnout it is on the flat and level again. 

As a 4x4, it would have to fit the hatchback at a list, and leave the hatch open in the back to transport. 

I would be most interested in tweeks and comments. 

As to an NMRA standard module, I was am contemplating a point-to-point yard that would have the requisite three run through mains.


----------



## CTValleyRR

A couple of comments. First of all, you only need to build your modules to a standard if you're going to interface with modules built by someone else. If it's your own layout, you can use whatever layout you want, since you will control where the tracks join on all of your modules.

In the upper layout, you could build the yard as two modules (2x2 and 2x3), a short bridge with the feed track to the yard, and the rest as a 4x4 (you might have to shorten the side to side dimension slightly).

My advice would be to forget about grades in a space that small. In order to make the elevation change significant enough to be noticeable, you would have to incorporate a slope of i,possible steepness. Evan at 3%, which is steep enough to be problematic for HO models, in a foot of horizontal distance, you can change the elevation by 0.36", or under 3/8 of an inch. That's hardly worth the headaches a grade could cause.

I will say, though, that both of those plans have issues. The bottom one has a kinked curve in block 5 (by your numbering system), and looks like it's done using 15" curves, which are trouble for all but the shortest locos and rolling stock.

The top one appears to use Anyrail, so I'm familiar with the conventions. He has an overly sharp kink leaving the turnout at the bottom of the loop (see the short red line in the center of the track?), and 3 joints aren't actually connected (see the joints that have arrows instead of circles?), which means there may be more kinks than the software shows.

I also need to remember that you and I have different definitions when it comes to "operating potential". You use the term to refer to trains in motion. For me, it refers to trains behaving more or less like the real thing: going places and either picking up or dropping off cargos and empties.


----------



## Chops

Useful feedback, thank you.


----------



## Chops

"I also need to remember that you and I have different definitions when it comes to "operating potential". You use the term to refer to trains in motion. For me, it refers to trains behaving more or less like the real thing: going places and either picking up or dropping off cargos and empties."

Yes, a useful distinction, that. Perhaps it could be divided into "rolling operations," in where two or more trains are kept in constant forward motion, passing at sidings, stopping at crossings, and "fixed based operations" where cars are picked up, dropped off, classified, and made into trains. 

And then of course, there is good old fashioned caboose chasing. 

I've done both, and being able to combine the two facets of operations at once is an engaging challenge. Kadee couplers favor hands off fixed based operations, but as I am a simple modeler, I find that uncoupling horn hooks with a small screw driver good enough for me. 

I dropped two videos into the video section regarding switching operations with horn hook couplers, as well as a test of the original Tyco horn hook uncoupler.


----------



## NorfolkSouthernguy

*Really struggling on a track plan*

Hey everyone,

I wanted to reach out to other members to see if anyone on here designs layouts based on what I want on it? Does anyone design them free? Simply because they love that aspect of the hobby or does anyone design for a low cost flat fee? 

This is my first true layout and I can not for the life of me find or decide how this layout should go. That’s the only thing holding me up on progress. I have looked online, offline, track plan magazines etc. 

My train room bench work figures are. Right wall is 14’ 2” long 3’ 4” wide, the rear wall is 
8’ 10” long X 3’ 6” wide, left wall is 14’ 2 1/2 “ long, 2’ 10 1/2” wide. From this point the benchwork takes a right coming out in the middle of the floor and it’s 7’ 8” long then the benchwork makes another right turn onto a peninsula and it’s 4’ 2” long and 2’ 4” wide. 

I know it’s a big layout but I am just sure someone on here can help me with drawing this thing. I grew up in a small mining town so I want to do a couple three mining sites, I want a lake or 4 on it, a creek or 2 on it, I would like a tunnel or 5 on it, a downtown area, some industry, a bridge or 5 on it. Lots of Forrest here and there, I have about 100 switches, TONs of rolling stock and of course a yard or train facility for all my engines to set around here and there. A couple yards with at least one with turn table space
I want a 70,s, 80’s and 90’s era on the layout. 

So I don’t ask for much right? :laugh: I have 4 boxes coming of new 3’ foot long track code 100 with 25 of them per box. I’m sure I will need more no doubt. However I have a ton track already with all shapes, short or tall, big and small. I have everything I need to begin building scenery and mountains. 

If any of you offer this service please contact me. Thanks for reading and I hope this route pays off so I can begin the work on the layout.


----------



## Magic

You have room for a very nice layout and a pretty good idea of what you want.
I for one would suggest you get some track planning software. Anyrail or Scarm.
For the money they are worth it. You'll end up with a much better layout.

It doesn't take much to get your bench work laid out and than you can see what the limits are. 
You are looking at the 70s to the 90s era. That's big and long locos and rolling stock.
These need larger radius curves and I don't see an area large enough to make an 180°
turn. You'll need at least 24 inch radius curves and even bigger would be better.

To start with just use Atlas sectional track to get an idea of what is possible.
It's the easiest to work with an get ideas, once you do that you can start 
on a more real plan using flex track and your turnouts (switches)
This will give you a more realistic idea what is possible.

If you haven't seen it here is a link to some excellent information from traction fan.
https://www.modeltrainforum.com/showpost.php?p=2378592&postcount=4

Start a thread in HO or My Layout forums and you'll get plenty of help.

Magic


----------



## NorfolkSouthernguy

Magic said:


> You have room for a very nice layout and a pretty good idea of what you want.
> I for one would suggest you get some track planning software. Anyrail or Scarm.
> For the money they are worth it. You'll end up with a much better layout.
> 
> It doesn't take much to get your bench work laid out and than you can see what the limits are.
> You are looking at the 70s to the 90s era. That's big and long locos and rolling stock.
> These need larger radius curves and I don't see an area large enough to make an 180°
> turn. You'll need at least 24 inch radius curves and even bigger would be better.
> 
> To start with just use Atlas sectional track to get an idea of what is possible.
> It's the easiest to work with an get ideas, once you do that you can start
> on a more real plan using flex track and your turnouts (switches)
> This will give you a more realistic idea what is possible.
> 
> If you haven't seen it here is a link to some excellent information from traction fan.
> https://www.modeltrainforum.com/showpost.php?p=2378592&postcount=4
> 
> Start a thread in HO or My Layout forums and you'll get plenty of help.
> 
> Magic


Hey Magic,

I have tried Anyrail and I have gotten very rusty at using software such as this one. I have a hard time being able to set up a layout via this software. Also, I think my era is a bit jacked up. It’s hard to explain but maybe it’s better said as a somewhat modern era with that small town feel. I mainly run diesels short and a little longer but nothing extremely long such as the steams you mentioned. 

I have actually spotted a layout plan on the forum that sparks my interest. The dimensions are close in size as well as overall shape of of my bench work. I think I am going to use it to get things cooking. I will have to alter it here and there of course but it’s the closest find yet that interests me. 

Thanks for responding. I am going to have a look at the link you sent me.


----------



## CTValleyRR

NorfolkSouthernguy said:


> Hey everyone,
> 
> I wanted to reach out to other members to see if anyone on here designs layouts based on what I want on it? Does anyone design them free? Simply because they love that aspect of the hobby or does anyone design for a low cost flat fee?
> 
> This is my first true layout and I can not for the life of me find or decide how this layout should go. That’s the only thing holding me up on progress. I have looked online, offline, track plan magazines etc.
> 
> My train room bench work figures are. Right wall is 14’ 2” long 3’ 4” wide, the rear wall is
> 8’ 10” long X 3’ 6” wide, left wall is 14’ 2 1/2 “ long, 2’ 10 1/2” wide. From this point the benchwork takes a right coming out in the middle of the floor and it’s 7’ 8” long then the benchwork makes another right turn onto a peninsula and it’s 4’ 2” long and 2’ 4” wide.
> 
> I know it’s a big layout but I am just sure someone on here can help me with drawing this thing. I grew up in a small mining town so I want to do a couple three mining sites, I want a lake or 4 on it, a creek or 2 on it, I would like a tunnel or 5 on it, a downtown area, some industry, a bridge or 5 on it. Lots of Forrest here and there, I have about 100 switches, TONs of rolling stock and of course a yard or train facility for all my engines to set around here and there. A couple yards with at least one with turn table space
> I want a 70,s, 80’s and 90’s era on the layout.
> 
> So I don’t ask for much right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have 4 boxes coming of new 3’ foot long track code 100 with 25 of them per box. I’m sure I will need more no doubt. However I have a ton track already with all shapes, short or tall, big and small. I have everything I need to begin building scenery and mountains.
> 
> If any of you offer this service please contact me. Thanks for reading and I hope this route pays off so I can begin the work on the layout.


I sent you a PM.


----------



## riogrande

Here is my layout sketch for a layout planned for later this year. Each square is 6"x6". The scale is 2 feet to the inch.

As staging yard is planned for under the main yard and a helix at the bottom to take the main yard down to staging.

Minimum radius is 32". Sidings are 20' Visible track will be code 83 and staging code 100. Planning on Peco turnouts along with a few Walthers DCC friendly or Shinohara curved.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Here is another layout done for one of our members. It's filling a finished room over a garage (basic room outlines are in the pic).

The primary focus of the layout was two independent loops, with a single interconnect, to run trains. I used the top of the yard ladder to create a reversing loop, just in case the operator wanted to reverse the direction of a train. Using the crossovers at the bottom, it could be redirected to either loop.

There is an S curve (red track) and some very narrow passageways. These were judged to be acceptable compromises in the final plan -- they may not be for everyone, although the S curve could be eliminated by using flex track to put a much gentler curve through that area.

There is not a lot of space for scenery on this layout. This was by design -- the primary focus is rail-fanning.


----------



## sid

one i did dont know what to call it but here it is


----------



## cabledawg

This is a roughly 12x25 HO scale double deck with a helix. Not meant to model any prototype (like most of my designs) so industries and detailing is open to user definition. The yellowish square in the corner is the helix with 22" radius curves. The grade would be a little steep for long trains but it also doesnt eat up much floor space. It's assumed the yard is over the helix by a few inches even though I dont have the elevation measurements on the plan.


----------



## cabledawg

This is an exhibit or even a club sized layout I made based off a 1953 trackage map of the Spokane, Portland and Seattle Rwy I found online. Since I'm originally from Spokane I thought it would be fun to recreate this fallen flag. I couldnt incorporate everything into the layout, so I just tried to hit the main hubs and a few little stops along the way. It's a 25x50 double deck HO scale point to point with plenty of isle space for multiple ops crews.


----------



## graywolf06

*Vienna & Carthage*

Does anyone have the Vienna & Carthage track plan? Any search I do only comes up with an artist conception drawing and is difficult to make out the details. It's HO 9X15, Thanks, Paul


----------



## CTValleyRR

It's been almost a year since someone posted a new track plan here, so here is one I did for a member earlier in the fall.

It fits in a 6x10 footprint, with the long top edge against a wall. As built, the member decided to sacrifice a little room in the aisle and just build the left-hand leg squared off at 2' wide. It works either way. The area on the right was deliberately left open to give the member room to build a town and SW US desert scenery. The outer loop on the right side has a slight elevation in it, just enough to add some variety. The member's original idea was to put those tracks in a tunnel, but he decided to leave them exposed. Although it shows as "water", he planned to model the "Gila River" as a mostly dry bed.


----------



## jackpresley

O Scale Fastrack 4x8 + 4x8 L shape








O36 Turnouts and curves except for the upper left 90* turn is O48. That conveniently gives you the missing six inches. 

Really a long mainline with two reversing loops at the end. Grandkids love this one. We put a Christmas tree in the center of reversing loop (upper left) and villages in the other two open areas. After Christmas the big kids add a yard and sidings for switching puzzles.

The two shorties are 1 3/8" the rest are 5," 10," and 30" straights.


----------



## sid

ok nobody posting new layouts so here we go


----------



## jackpresley

sid said:


> ok nobody posting new layouts so here we go


Scale? Min radius?


----------



## CTValleyRR

jackpresley said:


> Scale? Min radius?


Agree. It's kind of nice if people post some information about what they have designed, not just throw a drawing out there.


----------



## sid

well blah
it was for n scale originally done Thats all i know


----------



## CTValleyRR

sid said:


> well blah
> it was for n scale originally done Thats all i know


OK, but the purpose of this thread was to provide a source of track plans that people could use for inspiration, not
to see how many posts we can get. A lot of connected lines without any information isn't very helpful.


----------

