# New layout design



## Steve Rothstein (Jan 1, 2021)

Well, as was bound to happen, my son needs his garage back and we are moving the layout. The advantage to this move is we get to expand a little. Our current layout is an N gauge four concentric loops on a 4x8 sheet. We are moving it to his shed, which is 8x16 feet. We are considering two different designs so far. Either an island layout in the middle of the shed or a U shape around the walls.

If we use an island, it will probably be 5x12. That leaves a very tight 18 inches on each side and 4 feet at the end. I think the 18 inches is good enough to squeeze down the side if something happens while we are running trains, but we could mount it on casters to slide either way if necessary. This would give us three feet of room to use while working on the layout. One of the advantages of this is we can use the same basic design, but with it expanded to give us some more room for scenery. The length would also allow us to run longer trains (each loop would be close to 30 feet of track).

If we use a U shape, we are thinking 30 inches wide on one side, and 18 inches on the other. The end cross would be either 18 or 24 inches wide. The basic layout would be a double loop all the way around the tables (yes, 30 inches wide on both sides for the turnaround). The narrow side would be all landscaped with mountains and plains, but very little else. This gives us enough room for elevation changes and tunnels, which my son wants to try. It does mean our town, passenger station, and factories/switching yard would be kind of squeezed together on the wide side. This layout gives us a lot longer run for the trains (figure around 64 feet of track for each loop).

While we do a little bit of switching, the yard is used more for storing trains between runs of other trains. Both of us prefer watching the trains run over switching operations. I find we are running longer and longer trains now. While we started with beginner sets that had one locomotive and four to six cars, we now have two and three locomotive consists running with as many as 24 cars and growing.

Any comments on either design would be appreciated. I especially would like any pros or cons to either design that I did not mention yet. And no, the obvious suggestion of a bigger shed is not feasible at this time.


----------



## Big Ed (Jun 16, 2009)

Steve Rothstein said:


> Well, as was bound to happen, my son needs his garage back and we are moving the layout. The advantage to this move is we get to expand a little. Our current layout is an N gauge four concentric loops on a 4x8 sheet. We are moving it to his shed, which is 8x16 feet. We are considering two different designs so far. Either an island layout in the middle of the shed or a U shape around the walls.
> 
> If we use an island, it will probably be 5x12. That leaves a very tight 18 inches on each side and 4 feet at the end. I think the 18 inches is good enough to squeeze down the side if something happens while we are running trains, but we could mount it on casters to slide either way if necessary. This would give us three feet of room to use while working on the layout. One of the advantages of this is we can use the same basic design, but with it expanded to give us some more room for scenery. The length would also allow us to run longer trains (each loop would be close to 30 feet of track).
> 
> ...


Can you punch out a wall to push it out? 4', 6', 8' ?
I think a U shape would be better.
Shelfs first, on the walls?
Do you have good lighting and electric now?
Paint the walls first?


----------



## 5kidsdad (Nov 28, 2021)

Big Ed said:


> Can you punch out a wall to push it out? 4', 6', 8' ?
> I think a U shape would be better.
> Shelfs first, on the walls?
> Do you have good lighting and electric now?
> Paint the walls first?


I second the U shape. This way you can run point to point. Add in a lift out section and you can have continuous running to railfan your trains. I would avoid a permanent duck under as much as possible.


----------



## Steve Rothstein (Jan 1, 2021)

Sorry, I might have misled a little by calling it a shed. While it was sold as a shed, it was originally built as a playhouse for his daughters, who have since outgrown that. It has electric lights, sockets, and finished walls, including insulation. No heat, but in San Antonio that is not much of a problem. No air conditioning is much worse and it has a window where we will probably get a small window A/C put in. Can't expand it because it is between two trees and a tight fit. It even has a small notch cut in one edge of the roof for one tree trunk.

I may consider the lift out section. That way it doesn't have to be at the end of the u (maybe an H shape) and I had not thought of that. But we were going to put it in as a permanent shelf against the back wall (no duck under that way).


----------



## 5kidsdad (Nov 28, 2021)

Steve Rothstein said:


> Sorry, I might have misled a little by calling it a shed. While it was sold as a shed, it was originally built as a playhouse for his daughters, who have since outgrown that. It has electric lights, sockets, and finished walls, including insulation. No heat, but in San Antonio that is not much of a problem. No air conditioning is much worse and it has a window where we will probably get a small window A/C put in. Can't expand it because it is between two trees and a tight fit. It even has a small notch cut in one edge of the roof for one tree trunk.
> 
> I may consider the lift out section. That way it doesn't have to be at the end of the u (maybe an H shape) and I had not thought of that. But we were going to put it in as a permanent shelf against the back wall (no duck under that way).


I was originally intending that the lift out section was by the open end. That way it could be a true around the walls layout. My apologies for not being clearer on this.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

Steve Rothstein said:


> Well, as was bound to happen, my son needs his garage back and we are moving the layout. The advantage to this move is we get to expand a little. Our current layout is an N gauge four concentric loops on a 4x8 sheet. We are moving it to his shed, which is 8x16 feet. We are considering two different designs so far. Either an island layout in the middle of the shed or a U shape around the walls.
> 
> If we use an island, it will probably be 5x12. That leaves a very tight 18 inches on each side and 4 feet at the end. I think the 18 inches is good enough to squeeze down the side if something happens while we are running trains, but we could mount it on casters to slide either way if necessary. This would give us three feet of room to use while working on the layout. One of the advantages of this is we can use the same basic design, but with it expanded to give us some more room for scenery. The length would also allow us to run longer trains (each loop would be close to 30 feet of track).
> 
> ...


Steve;
Don't stick your self with an 18" "aisle" That's begging for a bad case of "model railroader's remorse." The caster idea is some improvement but not that much. Try to pry your mind away from thinking in terms of big rectangular solid slab layouts. I strongly favor the U-shape alternative. 

Can you fasten the layout to the shed walls?
Do you have any interest in going with a two-level design? It obviously doubles the layout area, but is much more complicated to build. You would need to construct a helix and that's quite a project.

Assuming you stick with a single level, do you want to disguise the round & round look by putting some sort of view block between the sides of the loops? I do this on my layout with lightweight, removeable, urban scenery at the "Seattle" end of the layout, and removeable backdrops elsewhere. These hide the "back track' side of my loops, so that trains only run through a given scene once when headed "East" and go into a hidden staging yard until its time for them to pass "West" through the same scene, but as another train.

My own layout is an N-scale double-deck affair, screwed to three walls of my garage. I guess it could be called a U-shape. It uses sectional/"modular" construction, something I highly recommend. My sections are 16" deep, except for the 36" deep end loop sections.

There is a plan of my layout in the "Layout Design" section of this forum. Its near the end of a thread titled "Here are the layouts of some forum members." You might want to have a look at it, and some of the other member's layouts in that thread, for ideas.

The first photo shows a track passing through "Argo crossing" then disappearing under a street bridge, and on into the hidden staging yard under the city of Seattle. The gray sections in the next two photos, are made of lightweight foam board. They, and the structures fastened to them, can be removed for access to the staging yard directly below them.

The loop at the other end is a more conventional, exposed, loop, but its divided into two separate scenes by a backdrop, and scenery. The last two photos show what's on each side of the loop shown in photo #4.

Good Luck & Have Fun;

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## Steve Rothstein (Jan 1, 2021)

5kidsdad said:


> I was originally intending that the lift out section was by the open end. That way it could be a true around the walls layout. My apologies for not being clearer on this.


I am glad you clarified that. I never even thought of the possible O shape with a second bridge at the door. A lift out there would work well. I will have to talk to my son about that.


----------



## Steve Rothstein (Jan 1, 2021)

traction fan said:


> Steve;
> Don't stick your self with an 18" "aisle" That's begging for a bad case of "model railroader's remorse." The caster idea is some improvement but not that much. Try to pry your mind away from thinking in terms of big rectangular solid slab layouts. I strongly favor the U-shape alternative.


I agree that the narrow aisles on both designs were the worst part. That was my biggest dislike for the island layout and had me wanting the island but thinking we should go with the U shape anyway.



> Can you fasten the layout to the shed walls?
> Do you have any interest in going with a two-level design? It obviously doubles the layout area, but is much more complicated to build. You would need to construct a helix and that's quite a project.
> 
> Assuming you stick with a single level, do you want to disguise the round & round look by putting some sort of view block between the sides of the loops? I do this on my layout with lightweight, removeable, urban scenery at the "Seattle" end of the layout, and removeable backdrops elsewhere. These hide the "back track' side of my loops, so that trains only run through a given scene once when headed "East" and go into a hidden staging yard until its time for them to pass "West" through the same scene, but as another train.


Yes, the shelves will be attached to the walls. My only reason for not doing it with the island was to get it movable for room on each side if needed.

I had not considered doing two levels before. Well, I had but did not want to try the helices at each end to make it work. I don't think I trust them at a max width of 30 inches available. I had mentioned using dividers before and my son was not impressed with that idea. I thought it would make our small 4x8 seem like a larger layout.

But thinking now of that concept, I have enough length that I could do a straight drop and rise on each side with the rest of the loop being on a lower hidden level (well, not truly hidden but out of sight against the wall). I can use mountains on one side to conceal the descent portion and factory or similar buildings on the other side. If we don't want to decorate the return, we could do as little as a three inch drop below the main level. 

Between this idea and @5kidsdad's suggestion, we have a few more options to talk about. I will also have to get him to look at some of the layouts on this board and see what else we come up with.


----------



## OilValleyRy (Oct 3, 2021)

Instead of U shape, I vote for C shape…. But I’m known for trying to look at things sideways for a fresh perspective. -cough-
A swing gate with track atop, which I recently suggested to someone else, would provide an option for a loop. It needn’t be used all the time necessarily. On the other hand, it could eliminate two 180 degree curves which is a lot of real estate.


----------



## Gramps (Feb 28, 2016)

If your preference is continuous running then the U shape is the way to go. I'm probably missing something but I'm not following your description of the U shape. If there are 30" turnarounds at each end that is only 15" radii at each turnaround and that brings you right up to the edge of the shelf. If you don't put the turnarounds opposite each other you could have a wider turnarounds on both sides with one leg of the layout a shorter length than the other and you have 16 feet of shed length to work with.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

Steve Rothstein said:


> I agree that the narrow aisles on both designs were the worst part. That was my biggest dislike for the island layout and had me wanting the island but thinking we should go with the U shape anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Steve;

More to mull over.  Yippy Skippy!

The attached file goes into detail about shelf layouts.
Early on, it shows a simple module that I built for a friend. This basic idea is adaptable to any size/shape room, and nearly any scale. Later, there are four sketches of various layouts that can be constructed from the same basic module shown earlier, to fit in a small room. One of them is an all the way around the room layout. Included in the text for that layout is a breakdown of the various schemes used to get track across the doorway into the room.
It lists the advantages, and disadvantages, of each method. I feel this would be pertinent information if your considering a lift out section. I personally don't care for lift outs that have track on them, (though I have plenty of, scenery-only, lift off sections on my own layout.)
A lift out track section is only one small evolutionary step beyond the truly awful duck-under. 
I much prefer hinged sections, since they make it easier to line up the ends of the track, and are usually self storing.

I'm a bit sorry that I even mentioned two level layouts. Since I think you're fairly new, the less complicated the layout the better for now. My double-deck layout is my seventh, and I have 50+ years experience. 

Another apology, this one in advance, if I have sent you this file before. I've written a lot of files, and sent them to many people over the years I've been on this forum. I don't keep a list of who I sent what files to. If its a rerun for you feel free to ignore it.

Good Luck & Have Fun with whatever you decide on.

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## Stejones82 (Dec 22, 2020)

I enjoy your posts, Steve, and look forward to hearing more about this layout. I suppose you are too invested in the Mighty Micro N scale to join us in the HO world, but still always appreciate your perspectives and input. A lighter voice within this forum. 

Good luck. I lived many years in Texas - - - A/C is a must, I would think. 

When I first moved to 'Sota, we had a detached shed/mini-garage (for the toys 'Sotans are so fond of). I told everyone I would put my shop out there and get back into wood-working. Minnesotans are too nice to say so, but their expressions speak volumes. And I learned just how crazy the idea when, come mid-October, temps were dipping down such that the radio-heads were talking about 10 above; 12 above; 8 above! "What's this 'above' stuff?" I mused with my daughter one morning on the way to school. I found out in Nov when the speak became BE-effin-LOW. 

No heat in the shed meant staytimes of less than 20 minutes for this thin-blooded southerner!! Even with the full union-suit thermals, I could not stay out there long. Even the attached garage with two portable propane heaters would not heat up enough for serious stay-times. 

Ah, the stories of adapting to new climates!

Again, good luck, Steve, and keep posting!

Steve J


----------



## Gramps (Feb 28, 2016)

Gramps said:


> If your preference is continuous running then the U shape is the way to go. I'm probably missing something but I'm not following your description of the U shape. If there are 30" turnarounds at each end that is only 15" radii at each turnaround and that brings you right up to the edge of the shelf. If you don't put the turnarounds opposite each other you could have a wider turnarounds on both sides with one leg of the layout a shorter length than the other and you have 16 feet of shed length to work with.


As I said, I'm probably missing something... and the something is that it turns out the layout is N scale.  My bad.


----------



## Steve Rothstein (Jan 1, 2021)

Gramps said:


> As I said, I'm probably missing something... and the something is that it turns out the layout is N scale.  My bad.


Sorry that part wasn't clearer. 15" is a good radius for me, but I appreciate the idea of offsetting the turnarounds. I can see how that could help with situations like this.


----------



## Steve Rothstein (Jan 1, 2021)

Stejones82 said:


> I enjoy your posts, Steve, and look forward to hearing more about this layout. I suppose you are too invested in the Mighty Micro N scale to join us in the HO world, but still always appreciate your perspectives and input. A lighter voice within this forum.
> 
> Good luck. I lived many years in Texas - - - A/C is a must, I would think.
> 
> ...


Yeah, one of the benefits of Texas is you can work in the shed all winter without a problem. Summer more than makes up for that convenience though.

On the other hand, we will be doing an HO layout shortly. It will start as just a simple DC loop though. When I was in Philly visiting family last June, we were given a box of stuff left over from my father's collection. He ran HO as long as I can remember. Well my son started with a couple of the kits for box cars that were pretty simple to assemble. But there was a kit from Model Engineering Works for a GE 44 ton Switcher from probably the late 60's. We have been working on that off and on for months. We had to take the trucks apart to clean out the gunk that had built up in them. When we got them back together we still could not get them to turn. Last weekend, with the help of our LHS, we finally found the problem and now have a working HO locomotive. Well sort of. The frame is good, motor is good, and we got it moving on the track at the LHS. Next couple weeks is going to be assembling the rest of the loco, like the body and lights. Since it is unpainted still, we have to decide on which railroad to paint it, or a fantasy scheme for the Rothstein Family RR. It is going to be an interesting train, with a couple of plastic kit box cars and some wood and metal kit passenger cars, all pulled by the switcher.

And no, I would not bet that we do not end up with more HO trains after that.


----------



## Gramps (Feb 28, 2016)

Steve Rothstein said:


> Sorry that part wasn't clearer. 15" is a good radius for me, but I appreciate the idea of offsetting the turnarounds. I can see how that could help with situations like this.


No apology needed. It's in your second sentence that it's N scale, I just missed it. Glad I could help with the offset turnarounds suggestion, sometimes a blind squirrel finds an acorn.


----------



## Steve Rothstein (Jan 1, 2021)

I am using SCARM to design the layout. This is what we are currently looking at doing. The blue line is the shape of the shelves we will build. The notches at the end are to allow for the full door opening, then let it widen to 30 inches for the turnarounds. From the door way, the left side is 18 inches deep, the back wall is 24 inches deep, and the right side is thirty inches deep. We included triangle supports on the corners where we might need to cut the corner with the curve.

The basic layout is a double loop main with a passenger station, a spur to two industries, and a fuel yard. The five rail yard is based on the UP fueling station in Kirby, Texas. The innermost loop with the tight turns is my trolley route through the city. The narrow left side is going to be all mountains and scenery. The city will start on the back end and run down the right side, with the heavy industry in the suburbs.

This is all very tentative still and we may move it around a little. We are still talking about taking the cross over out and having the outside of the loop hidden so that it looks more like a point to point while allowing trains to run the loop. We have also discussed having just one track of the outer loop hidden, probably dropping out of sight to a lower level as soon as it finishes the turnaround curve and coming back up at about the same point on the right side. I have thought of putting a second, smaller passenger station on the back end also.


----------



## J.Albert1949 (Feb 3, 2018)

I'd change the double crossovers to pairs of single crossovers.
Probably "less trouble" in the long run.


----------



## Steve Rothstein (Jan 1, 2021)

J.Albert1949 said:


> I'd change the double crossovers to pairs of single crossovers.
> Probably "less trouble" in the long run.


I have considered that, but I also have to admit that I have had very few problems using them in my current layout. The times I did have problems with them, it turned out to be the car or the way I had laid the track (bumps on the joints). Where I am using the two one way crossovers now, I do not get the tracks to fit as closely as the double crossover keeps them, which fits the use of the Kato double track pieces.

Nothing is sure on this though. My son and I will look at it further. I am not dedicated to keeping that spacing either, though it helps with the curves nesting properly.


----------



## Roy Merritt (10 mo ago)

Good start Steve. A sold design with a lot of potential. Going with the U shape is a good idea. I'm a switching junkie, but I like the idea of having the narrow side being mountains and prairie. It will look stunning, especially with N scale trains adding to the illusion of wide open spaces. I often wish I had a more open feeling between locations on my layout but my head would explode to give up all those wonderful turnouts and switch backs and run arounds and and turnouts... and misplaced boxcars!

It sounds like you and your son like building and creating. Not sure if you're interested in a 2nd level but you might want to consider how you would move up and down from the upper level while you're designing your layout. If you get the lower level done and want to do more building you'll have the option in place to expand up. And with more room you could sneak in some extra switching


----------



## Steve Rothstein (Jan 1, 2021)

Max Kaos said:


> Good start Steve. A sold design with a lot of potential. Going with the U shape is a good idea. I'm a switching junkie, but I like the idea of having the narrow side being mountains and prairie. It will look stunning, especially with N scale trains adding to the illusion of wide open spaces. I often wish I had a more open feeling between locations on my layout but my head would explode to give up all those wonderful turnouts and switch backs and run arounds and and turnouts... and misplaced boxcars!
> 
> It sounds like you and your son like building and creating. Not sure if you're interested in a 2nd level but you might want to consider how you would move up and down from the upper level while you're designing your layout. If you get the lower level done and want to do more building you'll have the option in place to expand up. And with more room you could sneak in some extra switching


Thanks, Max. As you can see, I was a bit conflicted about the idea of the U shape over a wider layout, but it does make sense. I prefer running trains to switching, but I am looking at that too.

As for the second level, my son and I are discussing that still. One of the suggestions made intrigues me, running the returns on a separate level to make it seem more point to point. I did the original layout without it, but it is still being considered. If I do that, I will probably drop the track on the wall side a few inches to run it under the table. It would not really be hidden, just an open shelf underneath, but it would stop it from looking like a loop.

I am also going to talk to him about a higher shelf to run HO trains. The layout I am currently working on for it is on a sheet of plywood - just a loop with a switching area in the center. I don't see doing away with that idea, but I have been considering a practice true shelf design, a complete loop around the shed at the top edge of the door (maybe 6 and 1/2 feet off the floor). I have seen several on YouTube where they run them in the house and through walls and it looks interesting. I can't do that in my apartment but I hope to buy a house soon. It will be an interesting discussion with my wife if I can do that in the house, but having it in the shed as an example might work to my benefit in that.


----------

