# First Layout - Opinions/Suggestions?



## PaulyWally (Oct 16, 2015)

Attached is a set of plans for my first layout. I'd love to get some feedback on it.

Here are some design considerations I had in mind:


HO Scale
Minimum 22" radius on all turns
Start with a small circle for my child to play with (while I work around him)
First circle to be completed with "snap-together" track
Ability to add-on to the original circle with hand-laid track
Two isolated track segments (because I think I might start with analog and want the ability to run two trains independently)

This will be a present for my kid and I wanted a set that I could have up and running within an hour for him after he unwraps it. The original circle is planned with Atlas TrueTrack because it is the only "snap-together" system where the roadbed is 3/16" - same as cork/foam roadbed (Kato's and Bachmann's systems are both 5/16"). So I should be able to line up hand-laid track with the Atlas TrueTrack no problem. The TrueTrack can always get pulled up and hand-laid later.

The first picture ("HO Layout 4a") is the original circle done with Atlas TrueTrack. The 2nd picture ("HO Layout 4b") is the complete design I came up with. The perimeter dimensions are roughly 5' x 12', but it's not one big slab of wood. I roughly outlined the benchwork (in black) and plan on having some more inlets and access points that aren't shown here.

"HO Layout 4b" is color-coded. As an example, I could lay the track in the following order:


Yellow
Green
Purple

Everything is flat... there is no change in elevation anywhere. I know it's not the most exciting layout. But I think the layout will allow me to build mine and my son's skills in increments (and at our own pace), while still being able to run trains on it.

I'm open to any suggestions or opinions. And I'm certainly curious about any potential problem areas/pitfalls that are in this layout.

Thanks!


----------



## /6 matt (Jul 7, 2015)

The only thing I see wortg mention is you have a reversing section or two in there and if will require special wiring. Unfortunately I'm not really experienced enough to tell you how they would be wired, I'm sure somebody else who knows will chime in and help youbthere. That should be a really neat layout for you guys to play on. It has potential for your son to railfan and it has a yard for you to work. You may want to consider more siding though


----------



## /6 matt (Jul 7, 2015)

And I just noticed on each side of your walk-in there are "S" curves. If you plan to run long rolling stock, you need to fix that by putting a piece of straight track in between the 2 curves, ideally as long as your longest piece of rolling stock. Long cars and "S" curves equals derailments.


----------



## PaulyWally (Oct 16, 2015)

/6 matt said:


> The only thing I see wortg mention is you have a reversing section or two in there and if will require special wiring.


Hmmm... yeah. On that inner loop there is the 45-degree crossing that will effectively reverse the train. On analogue power, that'll reverse the polarity as soon as the Loco crosses over.



> fix that by putting a piece of straight track in between the 2 curves... Long cars and "S" curves equals derailments.


That's good to know. I didn't know that. Question on that... the S curves on my layout are rather long with large radius in the middle. See the attached photo. The red line is approximately 12" long. The blue line is approximately 44" long. So in the middle there is about 12" of just slight curving going on. Do you think that will still be problematic with longer cars?


----------



## MtRR75 (Nov 27, 2013)

PaulyWally said:


> Hmmm... yeah. On that inner loop there is the 45-degree crossing that will effectively reverse the train. On analogue power, that'll reverse the polarity as soon as the Loco crosses over.


Actually, the 45-degree crossover is not the cause of the reversing loop. A train can follow the yellow and green figure 8 without ever reversing polarity. What gives you reversing polarity are the two green connections just above the 45-degree crossover, and the upper purple connection at the bottom -- the one that connects to the two green turnouts.

As for wiring reversing loops, get a copy of Andy Sperando's Easy Model Railroad Wiring, SECOND EDITION. It will tell you everything that you want to know about DC wiring, and it is easy to follow, even if you have little wiring experience. I saw them on Amazon for about $5. It has very little coverage of DCC, so if you decide to go DCC, you will need one of the DCC wiring books.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Any time you have a reverse loop the wiring for DC gets complicated.
As you have it, there are 3 reverse problem sections, as mentioned.
In addition, it is usually necessary to flip a series of switches to
ensure correct polarity and without reversing the loco, making
operations awkward and annoying.


To simplify the wiring and operations,
I would suggest changing the two top green tracks from connecting
the two loops, to stub end spurs; make them longer so they can serve 'industries' and
give you more switching opportunities. That then leaves only
the one purple track in the lower section that would need
reverse loop wiring. If you go DCC you can get a reverse loop
controller that automatically determines phase (polarity) and
the operator is not required to do anything.

You'll still have the ability to turn a train around to go in the
opposite direction and also a passing siding useful in switching
when sometimes you back a car into a spur and sometimes
you must push it in forward.

Don


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

You are wise to avoid elevation changes on a first layout. I didn't, and I had no end of troubles until I ripped them out.

From an operational perspective, you only have one siding, a very small yard, and a passing section. This doesn't really give you a lot to actually do other than watch trains run in circles. Many people don't find this terribly interesting after the initial rush wears off (maybe you will, and there's nothing wrong with it if that's what you're looking for). You might consider adding a few more sidings and deleting one of the "crossover" tracks above the crossing.

Atlas TruTrack has the additional advantage of being standard Code 83 sectional track, which will connect to any sectional or flex track out there. So called "hand laying" (building the tracks yourself from ties, bulk rail, and spikes) can be trickier, and you may want to hold off on that. Unless, of course, you mean using sectional or flex track, which is what I would do.

What I did with my son was I wrapped an empty box under the Christmas tree. Meanwhile, I had built the benchwork and created the initial layout over the course of about 3 weeks in the basement (which at the time was off limits to kids in the month of December), so he was able to go downstairs and dive right in. I think that was much better received than if I had tried to build even a simple layout with him chomping at the bit (especially because I was able to test beforehand so I knew it would work). Just something to think about.


----------



## PaulyWally (Oct 16, 2015)

CTValleyRR said:


> From an operational perspective, you only have one siding, a very small yard, and a passing section. This doesn't really give you a lot to actually do other than watch trains run in circles.


The more I look at the layout, the more I agree with this. I think I was too focused on adding "variety" by using cross-overs.



> So called "hand laying" (building the tracks yourself from ties, bulk rail, and spikes) can be trickier, and you may want to hold off on that. Unless, of course, you mean using sectional or flex track, which is what I would do.


Flex track is exactly what I meant by "hand-laying". I should probably get a model railroader's dictionary.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

PaulyWally said:


> The more I look at the layout, the more I agree with this. I think I was too focused on adding "variety" by using cross-overs.
> 
> 
> 
> Flex track is exactly what I meant by "hand-laying". I should probably get a model railroader's dictionary.


No worries, man. You'll pick up the lingo as you go. I thought maybe you meant something like that.

How much you should add depends on how much realism you want. The ultimate in realism is actually a point to point layout with hidden staging tracks at both ends, so that trains appear from "far away", serve their industries or just pass through, as appropriate, and disappear to "far away" in another direction. Many of us, though, prefer the option to take a lap, if we want to. Depends on what you want to do. As I said before, there is no right or wrong answer. It's a matter of preference.


----------



## PaulyWally (Oct 16, 2015)

Attached is a new design. I think I fixed all the problems with the other one, and also incorporated some suggestions.

The left inner track would still start out as a small circle. But I didn't like all the wasted space inside the circle in the original design. So this design opens up the circle once it gets connected to the mainline.

Again, one of the big design concerns is to build this gradually while still being able to run trains on it. 

As always, suggestions and comments are welcome. Designing this has been a lot of fun, but I quickly learned that I know nothing about this stuff anymore.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Well, now you have eliminated the reversing loop, which means you can't turn locos with out the HOG (Hand of God) tool.

Also, you've got a few more sidings now, but you didn't really allow yourself room to put any kind of industrial structure next to the sidings. This may be fine; it depends on how much you want to be imaginary vice actually present on the layout.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

I like your new design. It does offer a lot of continuous running but
also good switching operations.

I would, however, make one suggestion. Use that wedge between
the two inner loops with one or two spur tracks for industries. Turn offs
could come from either loops, or even both. Just don't connect the two
loops if you don't want a reverse loop situation. 

Don


----------

