# HO Benchwork/Track Design



## JackTS (Sep 3, 2015)

Greetings. I re-entered the hobby a few years back anticipating my retirement and time to enjoy, but life got in the way for a bit. Always got a lot of help from those with more experience than I here on the forum so I reach out again now. 

Finally I AM RETIRED, YAHOO! So I have plenty of time to get back to the layout. Previously started with 4x8 continuous run with a few turnouts. Grandson got bored quickly. Redid the layout with an "L", 3 foot wide and 8 foot each arm for a switching operation. Had some electrical issues and progress slowed, eventually to a halt. The one grandson I thought would enjoy it was still not real thrilled so it sat in the garage not even half complete. 

Well now I am back at it. I enjoyed the continuous run layout and going back to that! I enjoy the modeling a tad more than operations I guess.

I am still up in the air as far as a track plan goes but I do know I need to stay in a 4X8 footprint,........ for now.
I can salvage most of the benchwork from the 3 foot L just by adding a little to it, and using some of what is being eliminated to do that!

The layout is in the garage and tucked into back corner with walls on back and right. 
I am 6 foot tall so reach to back not too bad (with other 4x8 I had to lay track and landscape and all before I pushed it back to the wall but I could reach a derail.) Now I am contemplating a little "dog bone" kind of benchwork to get better reach and wonder what the pros and cons might be?
HO Scale - Proposed board picture attached . Your thoughts are welcomed. Is it worth the little 3 foot cut out to improve "reachability", or do I lose valuable track space for radius ?
Thanks for your thoughts.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Really, the smallest radius you can practically use in HO is 18" (yes, you can MAKE tighter curves, but most equipment won't like it). So that really limits what you can do in a 4x8 space, because you need 36" to turn a full circle, or at least 40", allowing for the width of the track and a safety margin to the edge of the layout. So you could put a dead-end stub track, or tracks, down into that 2' section, but you couldn't turn a train in that space. As you've drawn it, you only have room for one 180-degree turn. You could probably fudge a little on the left side and make something fit (maybe have a little diagonal edge in there).

If 4x8 is REALLY all the space you have, don't give any of it up to a fancy shape. On the other hand, if you could eke out another foot or so, especially in the short direction, you'd have more room. You could even split it into two modules that could nest together when not in use and take up maybe 5x10.


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

If you are practically limited to the space and configuration you show, no matter what reason, consider down-scaling to N Scale.

Or, build a 'time-saver' switching layout or some other design that allows a lot of industrial switching. Trust us, if you are stuck in HO with 18" radii and that small space, you will feel defeated...AGAIN...in no time at all. You really should find a way to have at a minimum 22" radii, and 26 would be a great deal better for 'looks'. Having a toy-like overhang of the ends of locomotives outside of sharp curves just ruins the illusion. At least, it does for a great many of us.

Would it hurt you to forego anything but a temporary track layout just to run trains and wait until you have something more permanent and exciting? If you know you will have access to a considerably larger space, and you know what its dimensions are likely to be, start the first fun; draw up a track plan that will keep you from being bored and on which your curves will allow you to run larger locomotives and longer cars before too many months have passed.


----------



## JackTS (Sep 3, 2015)

Thanks CTValley & Mesenteria. What I am hearing is I really should increase board size.
If I go to a 5 X 8 board would not create a reach problem with it being bordered by 2 walls?


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

Yes, it would. You could cut an access hole in an area where there will be no track.

Mine is bordered by three walls and is larger than 5x8. I have three access points to be able to reach all areas of the layout. I did not want to do this, but sacrifices must be made in some cases to allow the track plan to work in the space you have.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

JackTS said:


> Thanks CTValley & Mesenteria. What I am hearing is I really should increase board size.
> If I go to a 5 X 8 board would not create a reach problem with it being bordered by 2 walls?


As MichaelE says, most of us would have a reach issue on a 5x8 which is inaccessible from 2 sides. Figure 30" is about the longest manageable reach from one side (your build and the height of your layout will influence this, but no one can reach 5', period).

Consider either casters, or splitting it into two or more detachable modules.

But far and away the best option is to find some more real estate.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

JackTS said:


> Greetings. I re-entered the hobby a few years back anticipating my retirement and time to enjoy, but life got in the way for a bit. Always got a lot of help from those with more experience than I here on the forum so I reach out again now.
> 
> Finally I AM RETIRED, YAHOO! So I have plenty of time to get back to the layout. Previously started with 4x8 continuous run with a few turnouts. Grandson got bored quickly. Redid the layout with an "L", 3 foot wide and 8 foot each arm for a switching operation. Had some electrical issues and progress slowed, eventually to a halt. The one grandson I thought would enjoy it was still not real thrilled so it sat in the garage not even half complete.
> 
> ...


JackTS;


As others have said, a 4'x 8' layout using HO-scale, is going to be seriously limited. Basically for a main line you can make an oval, two concentric ovals, or an oval around a figure eight. The 3' and 2' wide extensions won't hold a 180 degree turnback loop, so the tracks there would be sidings that dead end. Your drawing shows you will actually have less than 4' of depth in the area between the two extensions. Helpful for reaching, but even more limiting than a full 4 x 8 in track space. If you are stuck with 4' x 8' of total layout space. I have two things for you to consider.

1) Go to a smaller scale. N-scale (or Z-scale) can use tighter turnback curves and doesn't look so "just barely fits and looks crammed in" as HO on a 4 x 8.

2) Build a shelf layout. Sometimes, (wife permitting) you can fit longer but skinny shelves into more of the room than a big continuous slab, like a 4 x 8. If you can have deeper sections at the ends, big enough to hold the return loops, or if you can run narrow shelves all the way around the room, you can have continuous running.

I understand that both of these options are a bit drastic, but if you can do either, that may get you out of the space bind your in with HO-scale on a 4 x 8 table.

I did both. My N-scale railroad occupies two walls of my garage. The overall size is 10' x 10' , but since much of it is only 16" deep, there is still room for two bikes, two work benches, many power tools, and even my wife's car. (on rare occasion 😊) There is a diagram of my railroad in the "Layout Design" section of this forum. It's in a thread called, "Here are the layouts of some forum members." 
The files below give more information about shelf vs slab layouts, and many other model railroad subjects. Look through them if you wish.

Good Luck & Have Fun;

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

You can have a look at what I'm working on. It is post #7 in this thread: Here are LAYOUTS of Forum Members

My layout is designed to do some switching, but also to have the ability to have a train "just running" for when I want to be more of a spectator. In fact, when I am enjoying the layout with my kids, we set a passenger train in motion, slowly orbiting the layout. Freight trains have to do their work without interfering with the passenger train. If you have to hit the "all stop" button to avoid a collision , you owe everyone else a beverage. If you actually have a collision (even just a little ding caused by leaving the end of a car on the wrong side of the fouling point), you do dishes for the next two nights.

Notice, though, how much space is consumed by the loops required to turn the trains on a gentle 22" radius curve.


----------



## JackTS (Sep 3, 2015)

traction fan said:


> JackTS;
> 
> 
> As others have said, a 4'x 8' layout using HO-scale, is going to be seriously limited. Basically for a main line you can make an oval, two concentric ovals, or an oval around a figure eight. The 3' and 2' wide extensions won't hold a 180 degree turnback loop, so the tracks there would be sidings that dead end. Your drawing shows you will actually have less than 4' of depth in the area between the two extensions. Helpful for reaching, but even more limiting than a full 4 x 8 in track space. If you are stuck with 4' x 8' of total layout space. I have two things for you to consider.
> ...


Thanks for advise and attachments Traction Fan. I am considering switching to N scale. Have a lot of HO equipment and scenery that I guess I could sell. At 70 years old the smaller scale concerns my eyesight. I’ll kick it around. Today I did get the old benchwork broke down. Some of it will be used again. New legs for sure. I will be raising the height to 42 or 43 inches from 36 to make it a little easier on the back both from top and below! I also replaced the wire garage shelf with a 8 ft x 24 inch “box” made with 1x4’s that will serve as a light load shelf but also give me an opportunity to install some recessed or puck lighting for future layout.


----------



## JackTS (Sep 3, 2015)

CTValleyRR said:


> You can have a look at what I'm working on. It is post #7 in this thread: Here are LAYOUTS of Forum Members
> 
> My layout is designed to do some switching, but also to have the ability to have a train "just running" for when I want to be more of a spectator. In fact, when I am enjoying the layout with my kids, we set a passenger train in motion, slowly orbiting the layout. Freight trains have to do their work without interfering with the passenger train. If you have to hit the "all stop" button to avoid a collision , you owe everyone else a beverage. If you actually have a collision (even just a little ding caused by leaving the end of a car on the wrong side of the fouling point), you do dishes for the next two nights.
> 
> Notice, though, how much space is consumed by the loops required to turn the trains on a gentle 22" radius curve.


Thanks CTV. Your layout looks awesome. Love the idea of penalties for collision 🤣 I will be forced to stay in my 4x8 footprint for now, maybe forever but I am considering dropping to N scale. I’ll ponder it over a few cocktails and then sleep on it And see what I come up with. 
thanks for your advice.
jack


----------



## Steve Rothstein (Jan 1, 2021)

JackTS said:


> I will be forced to stay in my 4x8 footprint for now, maybe forever but I am considering dropping to N scale. I’ll ponder it over a few cocktails and then sleep on it


If it helps, I run N gauge on a 4x8 table. I am waiting for a couple pieces of track to have my expansion completely done right now, but I have a total of five loops in it. The inner most two are very small and are intended just for two trolleys (one in each direction) and will simulate going around a couple blocks of the town. The next inner loop is for the trains and uses 11 in curves. It has a siding on the inside of the loop for a passenger train station and a cross over track between it and the next oval to let trains change ovals. My next loop is slightly larger and is almost a bare loop, but has two turn-outs .to allow trains to go to the outermost loop. The outer loop breaks down on one side to a five rail yard and then comes back together to continue the loop. I think you can do a much better layout in N than in HO in the same amount of space.

This is my first serious layout, though I had played with HO and O sets in the past, more starter sets or as toys. The only real problem I notice as a difference between the scale is placing cars on the track. I used to put the HO on the track directly, and if something derailed I could usually fix it. My fine motor skills are just not good enough any more to do that with N gauge. I am not sure if it is my hands (which seems likely since my son can do it) or if it is the size. But the problem is solved for me because Kato gave me a tool with some of their tracks sets that lets me place the car on it and it rolls down onto the rails with no problems.

While I can see me doing HO or larger some day, I am pretty convinced I will stay with N until I have almost unlimited space.


----------



## JackTS (Sep 3, 2015)

Thanks for the input Steve. I read Traction Fan article on selecting scale and found his suggestion to try working with something in N scale before pulling the trigger very smart. I will try that. Good tip on the railing guide. It still hurts because of the money already invested in HO but in the 4x8 very limited.


----------



## JackTS (Sep 3, 2015)

Update: I have made some decisions for my new layout. I am going to stay with a 4 X 8 board but drop to N scale. 
I have also selected a track plan from Linn Westcott's 101 TP's, I am liking the possibilities of Plan#80, East Bay Belt Line, but I am leaning towards modeling in Norfolk & Portsmouth Belt Line area. 

I have attached, (or hope to), a photo of it here. Since I am doing it in N scale there should be lots of room. I will use the back one foot of the long side as scenery for the most part to avoid reach issues. I will be able to reach from West end about 3 feet. 

That eliminates the need for the center cut out as I see it and gives me room for residential and industry in that space. 
I do want to add a spur for a power plant in the northeast corner that I should not need to get to after its built.Need a spur going there also.

I have a couple of questions before I go further if anyone would like to chime in.
Any of my assumptions above wrong? 
Anyone have a suggestion for adding the spurs and future expansion track I would like to incorporate.

Now, most importantly, Westcott's book states turnouts are #4 or #6 unless marked differently. Since this plan is conventional curves I assume #6, however the plan does make note of #3 Wye's just East of the "University Tower" with arrows pointing to two switches. Just 2. What about the switches on the south side of the same tracks? Also wye's? For that matter, what about all the main lines switches? Wyes or #6? 

With these questions answered I can move forward. I intend to go with Peco track and switches although they do not seem to have a #3 wye but I am printing out the schematics for what they have in N scale wyes along with left and right turnouts to use in laying out track centerlines on paper to actual size before I order anything. 

If I need to explain myself further please feel free to press me. I welcome all the advise I can get.
Thanks much,
Jack


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Converting to N scale is definitely possible, but surprisingly, doesn't translate exactly to a 50% reduction in size. For one thing, HO is 1:87, while N is 1:160 (about 55% of the size). And, as you've noticed, availability of track components may be different.

My advice would be to spend the money ($60-ish) for good track planning software (I recommend AnyRail) and plan it out in N scale. This will flush out any potential bugs in the track work and parts availability, as well as to be able to digitally add your planned expansions and see how they work.

One other comment: you plan to put a spur serving a power plant, which you will "never touch again". Does this mean that you're going to use it just for show, or just drive a train in, switch directions, and drive it right back out again? Because if you're going to do something resembling real operations, where a loco delivers cars and departs, with either that loco or another coming back later to pick up empties, you will be CONSTANTLY reaching into that spot to uncoupled and maybe couple cars.


----------



## JackTS (Sep 3, 2015)

Thanks CTV.
Software issue is I only have Mac/IOS. Most of the products are not compatible. Tried a demo of Railmodler but so far it’s not doing it for me. 
Thanks for comment on the spur. Good point to consider. It will be used for occasional operations.
My big question is in the turnouts in that plan from the book. 
My novice eye tells me all but one or two of the turnouts are wyes in addition to the two identified as wyes. If I stay with this plan that question is important. Would Westcot only identify the two and assume you know all others are same?


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Yeah, offerings for iOS are slim pickings, but I still think it's money well spent. And the investment of time to learn to use it (if you have no CAD experience, the learning curve can be a little steep). Mistakes and problems in the digital world are much easier to correct than problems on a real layout.

If you look at the "Collection of Track Plans" thread, you will see a thread I posted about converting an HO scale plan to N. It didn't work out the way my partner thought it would, and he had a lot of trouble juggling things to get it to work right, even with an actual track plan (and yes, part of the problem was that some of the pieces I used were not available). He ended up cutting track pieces. 

I've never actually used one of Wolcott's track plans, though, so I can't give you much help there. Maybe if I had the whole description to read, I could offer a guess. The only thing I can say is that with his plans, you can be sure that they were actually built and tested to the published plan, which is not true of all plans out there.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

JackTS said:


> Thanks CTV.
> Software issue is I only have Mac/IOS. Most of the products are not compatible. Tried a demo of Railmodler but so far it’s not doing it for me.
> Thanks for comment on the spur. Good point to consider. It will be used for occasional operations.
> My big question is in the turnouts in that plan from the book.
> My novice eye tells me all but one or two of the turnouts are wyes in addition to the two identified as wyes. If I stay with this plan that question is important. Would Westcot only identify the two and assume you know all others are same?


JackTS;

I have the book "101 track plans" and I looked at plan #80 The "East Bay belt line".
The "two wye switches" (actually three it appears) called out on the lower right part of the plan, are not part of a wye. They are used, operationally, as ordinary turnouts would be. I think the reason for their use is simply to help things fit better.
Wye switches have both routes diverting from the centerline at equal angles. This means the two splitting end tracks of a wye switch will be further apart than those of a conventional turnout, where only one route diverts from the centerline, and the other route follows the centerline.
That combination of three wye switches spreads the parallel tracks out further than would result if conventional switches were used.

As for the rest of the switches on this plan, they look to me like conventional # 6 switches, not wye switches. The "# 6" is a guess on my part. One switch, located at the upper left, immediately above the arrow of the "burrowing junction" note, might be a # 4.
I didn't see a parts list specifying which track components, including switches, were used.
By the way, did you count the sheer number of switches on this plan? My eyeball count is 22.

Switches (we call them "turnouts") are expensive, about $20-$30 each. That means spending $440- $660 on turnouts alone, and that doesn't include switch machines to operate those turnouts. That would add another $300+ depending on your choice of switch machine. Total would be about $ 740- $990 for turnouts alone. Then you still need to buy a lot of track, and of course the trains themselves, plus lumber, hardware, wire, etc. etc.

Any track plan you like is OK for you, but there are a few more things I want to point out for your consideration, regarding this particular plan.

1) It has a duck under 
The hole in the center is only reachable by crawling under the table. This gets old real fast. So do people. You say you're 70 now. (I'm 72) Crawling, and bending yourself double to get under a layout should be something you might want to avoid. Can you get to all sides of your 4 x 8 ? If so, you could forget the center hole, and use it for scenery/structure space. You're going to bash your head and back getting in and out of that hole, and it ain't fun.

2) It's overly complicated 
 There is an awful lot of track in this plan. That means more expense, and many hours more work in laying and debugging all that track and all those turnouts. In fact there is so much track everywhere, that there is not much room for scenery, structures or anything else.

3) It's unrealistic 
  The multiple loops of track don't appear to take the trains anywhere but round and round in endless circles. We modelers need return loops if we want to have continuous running, but they can be, and in my opinion should be, disguised in a fashion that makes it look like the trains are actually traveling from point 'A' to point 'B', instead of chasing their own tails round & round.
 (See my layout in the "Layout Design" section of this forum. It's near the end of the "Here are the layouts of some forum members" thread.
 The loop on the left is split by the backs of two sections butted up against each other. The return track at the very back is concealed behind removable backdrops. The right hand loop will also have it's back half concealed. The end result is that a train only passes through any given scene once, and in one direction.) 

4) There is no such thing as "track I won't have to reach".
 I read earlier that a spur to the mine wouldn't need to be reached very often. Unless, as CTValley suggested, the track will only be used as a permanent static display track, on which trains will never run, you will definitely need to reach it. Track needs to be cleaned regularly, and trains derail, usually in the hard to reach spots. 

5) It's a big 4' x 8' solid slab 
While I don't recommend that you stick with a 4' x 8' layout, If you do decide to, I highly recommend that you construct it as four 2' x 4' sections bolted together to form the overall 4' X 8' shape. This will make it both easier to move, if/when you have to move, but also make it much easier to work on.
Again, crawling under a table is no fun at any age, and even less "fun" in your 70s. Working over your head, wiring the layout, and installing switch machines, is a major pain even for the young, let alone the not-so-young-anymore. Instead you can disconnect a single section, and turn it upside down on a workbench, or table, where you can do the same work comfortably, while sitting. This makes a huge difference in the "fun vs &%^$#@* hard work", ratio of the hobby.

While points 1 & 4 are pretty certain, and point 5 is just good sense, points 2 & 3 are much more subjective.
 They depend entirely on what you want from your railroad. 
If you are happy with simply watching trains go around & around, then points 2 & 3 simply don't apply in your case, and that's strictly up to you. It's also a common choice by many modelers.
However, if you have, or think you might develop, an interest in going on to the next level, and operating your model railroad like a real railroad operates, then I suggest you not use this plan or any other "4 x 8 crammed with loops of track" plan.

 Instead do some research on your favorite real railroad, and look for some small, but interesting, area of it that you would like to model. Design it, including whatever will fit in your available space, and then plan the benchwork to fit the railroad, not the other way around. 
 This is going to mean some sort of long & skinny scenes, since real railroads are very long and skinny. The scenes might be on two sides of a 4 x 8 with a backdrop or hills down the center, or they could form a long skinny shelf layout, with deeper bits at the ends for the loops.

Good Luck & Have Fun;

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## JackTS (Sep 3, 2015)

traction fan said:


> JackTS;
> 
> I have the book "101 track plans" and I looked at plan #80 The "East Bay belt line".
> The "two wye switches" (actually three it appears) called out on the lower right part of the plan, are not part of a wye. They are used, operationally, as ordinary turnouts would be. I think the reason for their use is simply to help things fit better.
> ...


Thanks TF. 
All good thoughts. 
I just invested in the Railmodeler Pro which will work on my Mac. Between the advise from you and CTValley I decided to go back to the drawing board although I believe I am still going with N scale. I may start with something similar to plan #80 but reduce the turnouts drastically. Didn't want that yard lower left anyway, just a track for future expansion. 
I will start a new thread when I come up with something more practical and affordable.
Thanks for the tips!
Jack


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

JackTS said:


> Thanks TF.
> All good thoughts.
> I just invested in the Railmodeler Pro which will work on my Mac. Between the advise from you and CTValley I decided to go back to the drawing board although I believe I am still going with N scale. I may start with something similar to plan #80 but reduce the turnouts drastically. Didn't want that yard lower left anyway, just a track for future expansion.
> I will start a new thread when I come up with something more practical and affordable.
> ...


JackTS;

Since you're "going back to the drawing board" ,or to the drawing program, You might want to get yourself the very best book on track planning ever written. It's called "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" by John Armstrong. The book is a full-blown treatise on the subject by a true master who had people pay him to design track plans for them. It's not a "beginner's book" in the normal sense, but it is one heck of a reference book on how to develop a track plan. You can order a copy on www.amazon.com Two simple, but downright clever Ideas I got from this book are the dual-sided backdrop scenic divider down the center of the 4 x 8 and a clever way to cut a 4 x 8 to fit in a corner of a room and be able to reach both sides without moving the layout, or taking up the whole room. Don't get discouraged by "going back to the drawing board." My layout shown in the Layout Design section is my seventh attempt, and I've been doing this a long, long time.

Good luck with your planning;

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## JackTS (Sep 3, 2015)

traction fan said:


> JackTS;
> 
> Since you're "going back to the drawing board" ,or to the drawing program, You might want to get yourself the very best book on track planning ever written. It's called "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" by John Armstrong. The book is a full-blown treatise on the subject by a true master who had people pay him to design track plans for them. It's not a "beginner's book" in the normal sense, but it is one heck of a reference book on how to develop a track plan. You can order a copy on www.amazon.com Two simple, but downright clever Ideas I got from this book are the dual-sided backdrop scenic divider down the center of the 4 x 8 and a clever way to cut a 4 x 8 to fit in a corner of a room and be able to reach both sides without moving the layout, or taking up the whole room. Don't get discouraged by "going back to the drawing board." My layout shown in the Layout Design section is my seventh attempt, and I've been doing this a long, long time.
> 
> ...


Thanks.


----------

