# How many times re-do?



## Rock022 (Jan 2, 2017)

Hello all...

I was wondering how many times some of you have removed all track and re-do a different layout in the same table...

I started with a simple oval with a few side tracks, but I am thinking of removing the track and trackbed, and re-do the lay out. I do not have much in made, so it will not be too hard.

However, the final product that I want, I will not be able to build it until maybe next year, so I am thinking of building a different simple layout, then when I have the space, re-do the whole thing and do what I really want.

I am thinking of changing my current layout to this...
http://www.atlasrr.com/Code100web/pages/10003.htm

But the final product that I want is this...
http://www.atlasrr.com/Code100web/pages/10028.htm

The only issue I have is SPACE. I need more space, and currently do not have much. I hope to end up with a full garage to my self, but for now I have a little area.


----------



## JerryH (Nov 18, 2012)

Your final choice is a very difficult layout to build correctly according to the plans for smooth running due to the constant elevation changes with relatively tight curves. You will be limited to short trains, engines, and rolling stock. Your track laying skills will be challenged. You may wish to look at my enlarged version of it. I am fixing to build it again even larger to accommodate the big iron.
http://www.modeltrainforum.com/showthread.php?t=14852


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Well, over the course of my hobby career, dating back to Christmas of my 11th year, I built 4 different layouts. 3 of those rebuilds were because I became dissatisfied with my then-current layout.

This last go-around, I ripped the old one apart, and due to a change in my financial situation (in the wrong direction), I'm stuck without a layout. Fortunately, my son lets me work on his with him!

So yeah, it's not uncommon. But I do my tinkering with a computer program (AnyRail). When I put a layout down, I put it down to stay (until I change my mind again, that is).


----------



## Rock022 (Jan 2, 2017)

Well My problem is very unique. I am sure none of you "need more space" for your layouts. :laugh:

That is my problem. Space!!!

As time goes on, I will either have more or less. I started with a 5x4 layout, just to try, and I was pushing the space limit then. But in one weekend I sold some big items I had and BOOM! more space came available immediately, but I do not want to go too far at the moment.

Here is the reason...

I have space to go with a 4x8 layout, but not enough for a 5x9, which seems to be the way I want to go. But... If I build the 4x8 then is more work that I will have to undo, to make the 5x9. So I thought, add one foot of space to what I currently have and build the "Up and Over" layout, because I do like bridges.

Or should I keep the simple flat layout I have for now, and wait to have more space?

As you guys already know, this is all subject to change.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

I'm not one who likes change. I did redo my present
layout when I realized the curves I had were not
going to work, and neither were the Atlas turnouts.

Peco replace the Atlas and I redesigned the whole
layout, a single track main that follows the walls of the
train room. With it's two yards and several 
industrial spurs I'm totally happy with it Great for
continuous running and fantastic for switching.

Decades ago I had a 4 X 8 N scale...the first layout,
double track main and two levels with a good yard
stayed the same the whole while I had it.

Don


----------



## mopac (Feb 24, 2011)

Most new guys want to do an "up and over". I did and it didn't take long to hate my layout. Like Jerry said, if you don't do it right, you will be very limited to what you can run. By right I mean things that take up a lot of real estate. Curves need to be 22 inch minimum radius and here is a real kicker, The rise and fall should be no more than 1/4 inch per foot. What that means is it takes 20 feet to go up and 20 feet to fall, that is to just go up 5 inches to go over. Can't do it on a 4 X 8 or a 5 X 9.
Stay flat on your first layout.


----------



## Rock022 (Jan 2, 2017)

Mopac, the Atlas "up and over" in 4x6 claims to use 40' of track. You said I will need 20'. Wouldn't that mean I have plenty room to do so? 

http://www.trainsetsonly.com/page/TSO/PROD/150-HO3


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Rock022 said:


> Mopac, the Atlas "up and over" in 4x6 claims to use 40' of track. You said I will need 20'. Wouldn't that mean I have plenty room to do so?
> 
> http://www.trainsetsonly.com/page/TSO/PROD/150-HO3


Depends on how you define "plenty of room". Sure, you can connect the track pieces. The question is, will your equipment run on it. The issue is the amount of space necessary to change elevation to allow over / under clearance and still have a reasonable grade that won't severely limit what you can operate.

My personal opinion on the space issue? If you wait until you know exactly what the future will hold, you will never do anything. Just build the best layout you can right now.

From your perspective, I know it sounds crazy to build something and the junk it, potentially wasting hours of labor. I have come to see this as a journey. If I had fun creating it, then it's all good and nothing is wasted. If I didn't have fun creating it, then I should probably rethink my choice of hobby.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Your choices*



Rock022 said:


> Well My problem is very unique. I am sure none of you "need more space" for your layouts. :laugh:
> 
> That is my problem. Space!!!
> 
> ...


Rock022;

First, to answer your question, I have redone my various layouts many times. A friend who also has a small, simple, flat, and working, layout; refers to me as "The king of do-over" :laugh: because of my tendency to rip out, and replace, things.
When we first started, most of us did what you are doing now. We played with different arrangements of sectional track, and then built one of the layouts from the Atlas plan book. 
You are dead right about the cost in both money, and time, that it takes to build a railroad. I would like to help you avoid some of the disappointment that comes with this "rip out and rebuild" routine. First you don't need to have your track go "up and over" in order to have bridges. Bridges can carry a railroad over a river, or road. They can also carry a road over the rail line. Up and over track plans require that most of the mainline be used on the grades. They also don't look much like a real railroad's track because real railroads seldom cross over themselves, and in the few places that they do, the arrangement is dictated by the terrain. They don't run round and round in loops, or climb a grade just to cross over themselves and go right back down where they started. None of that "unrealistic' stuff may matter to you. Whether you want realism is simply one of the many decisions you will need to make.
Second, space works both ways. If you can't expand the room. the other option is to shrink the trains, by using a smaller scale.
So there's another decision for you.
As for the layouts you have chosen, be warned, I'm going to suggest not building either of them. The key word in that last sentence is "suggest." Obviously you can build your railroad any way you choose. That said, here is my attempt to talk you out of building them. 
There are some hidden pitfalls in both your chosen track plans. One has been mentioned in a prior response to this thread. Complexity. Both layouts are nearly all track, leaving little room for scenery, structures, etc. The sheer amount of track, particularly the number of turnouts, drives up the cost, and build time. Also both plans use Atlas HO-scale "Snap Switch" type turnouts; which in my opinion, and that of many experienced modelers, are the worst ever made. These layouts also bear almost no resemblance to a track arrangement on a real railroad. The layouts also have reverse curves, steep grades and tight radius curves. Each of these things is a potential derailment causer. Having all of them combined in the same track plan simply increases the odds of trouble, and disappointment. 
Now that I've "rained all over your parade," here's the alternative I would suggest. No, its not a track plan, but a process. Think of it as a flow chart. If you have ever seen one of these charts, you know that they have a series of "decision blocks." At each block, you are asked a question, and depending on your answer, you are directed further along in one of two logic paths starting from that block. 
Here's an example. 

Rock022 Do you want to build a "train setup", or a "model railroad?" Neither answer is "right", or "wrong" they just lead to different, second, decision blocks. If you're not sure of what the difference between the two is, I refer you to an earlier post in this thread titled "If you're just starting, and confused, read this, it might help you." I posted that for people in your situation. If you have not read it, you might want to give it a look. This response is already mighty long. I won't try to rewrite all the info in that post. 

Good luck with whatever you choose;

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Rock022 (Jan 2, 2017)

I do appreciate all the input given. My dilemma is that what I want and what I can build are not compatible. (I would like the whole two car garage)

I like the way I can watch many trains in the Granite Gorge and Northern. They are not too long, but having a few trains compensates for that, and with the space I have, seems to be the best option. I want to run old locos and new diesels at the same time.

What I do not like about the GG&N is the lack of space for structures. But I do like having mountains, which can compensate.

Weighting the options, this is why GG&N calls my attention. That; and I have a lot of new atlas track, and even the roundtable with motor, although it is only a 9' roundtable.

I do not have everything for the GG&N, and perhaps I may build a different layout, but I also do not want less than 18" curve radius.

My family does not want me to go N Scale because they feel that it looses too much of the details.

To summarize GG&N

I do not like:
Can't run long trains
Can't have many structures

I can like:
Running multiple trains
Have mountains.

Limitations...
Not bigger than 5x9
Not less than 18" curves

I do not need to be realistic. 

Easy as pie right!

But...
If there is a better layout out there, I may want it.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

As I said in my earlier post, I think you're in danger of paralysis by analysis -- you don't want to do anything because you're afraid something better will come along.

But since you seem to be having trouble finding a track plan that suits, wny not design your own? Take the elements of GG&N that you find most appealing and incorporate those, and freelance the rest of it.


----------



## JerryH (Nov 18, 2012)

It sounds like you will have to define the "absolute" first. Overall size, scale, or plan. The others will have to be compromised. It sounds like size and scale are already pretty well underway. If you want to end up with the GG&N (I love it), consider reducing it to fit the space. Redesign it with 15" & 18" curves and #4 turnouts to fit a 4x8 with a scheme of a logging or mining theme in the mountains utilizing the very short locos and rolling stock with very few buildings but lots of trees, brush, and rocks. Even then, the benchwork and track work will have to be perfect to ensure smooth running. If you do some searching, you will find that the GG&N is one of the most difficult Atlas designs to actually get the trackage reliable enough so as to not have derailments a lot of the time.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Lots of train action Realism not needed*



Rock022 said:


> I do appreciate all the input given. My dilemma is that what I want and what I can build are not compatible. (I would like the whole two car garage)
> 
> I like the way I can watch many trains in the Granite Gorge and Northern. They are not too long, but having a few trains compensates for that, and with the space I have, seems to be the best option. I want to run old locos and new diesels at the same time.
> 
> ...


Rock022;

O.K. good. You have made your way through the first "decision block" by choosing the "train setup" option(albeit in the more-permanent form of an Atlas layout, the G.G.& N. You have indicated that you want lots of trains moving and aren't all that interested in realistic appearance. Both are valid choices, and I'll respect your preferences for the type of layout that's best for you.
Space, as you know, is a problem for most of us modelers. Can you get the 5' x 9' that you mentioned? Or are you truly restricted to 4' x 8' ? Another option to consider is taking your favorite Atlas plan, the G.G.& N. and "straightening" it out in order to fit at least most of the desired action into a pair of 2' x 8' shelves arranged in an L-shape. If you have access to two walls of a room, but don't want to fill the whole room with train layout, doing this may allow the railroad to go over some furniture and still let the room be used for non-train purposes too. If you are using SCARM, or some other digital track planning program, then it should let you "cut" the GG&N at one point, and then fold it out lengthwise. The widest feature, a yard for example, should be set in the corner of the room,since the shelf can widen out there rather naturally where the two 2x8s meet.
If you want to retain the continuous running (I'm assuming you do!) then there will need to be wider sections of table/shelf at each end to accommodate the turn-around loops. Of course I can't look at your room via computer, so I don't know if any of this is feasible for your situation. It does work well for me. My railroad is a shelf type, on two walls of my garage. The "main line sections are narrow (16") and the ends widen out to let the track curve back around. Mind you this is in N-scale. If you stick to HO-scale, then you're going to need twice the width at the ends. This is where a smaller scale really helps. Just think, If you built the GG&N, in it's original, rectangular form, but in N-scale; it would only need 2-1/2' x 4-1/2' not 5' x 9'. Or, wall space permitting, you could run long trains on an N-scale version of the "straightened out" version. The Atlas N-scale turnouts don't have the tight curve in them that tends to derail trains on their HO version. (Peco though, is much more reliable, and trouble free, in either scale.)
I must respectfully disagree with your family's notion that "N-scale looses too much of the details." Most N-scale models have excellent detail. They also run quite smoothly and you can do anything in N-scale that you can do in HO-scale. Possibly your family has based its opinion of N-scale on equipment from twenty years ago. That was somewhat lacking in detail and many of those old locos didn't run very well either. Current N-scale equipment is way, way, better. I have modeled in HO, and N. Both are perfectly good scales. One just takes about half as much room as the other; that's really the only practical difference today. To give you an idea of the detail that can be done in N-scale, I've included a few photos of structures that I've scratch-built in N-scale.

Keep on planning, making your own decisions, and relax and enjoy!

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Mr.Buchholz (Dec 30, 2011)

Rock022 said:


> Hello all...
> 
> I was wondering how many times some of you have removed all track and re-do a different layout in the same table....


Well....before I started this current layout, I had one before it on the same table. Spent half a year on it before I decided it was crap and I wasn't sure what I wanted. Boxed everything and tossed the plywood. Over two years later, I got new plywood, had a new idea, and started again, with a completely different track plan and whatnot. 

Also.....somewhere between my HO layouts, I pondered using the table for a N-scale layout, but decided against it at that time. I'm ultimately happy with what I did this time around. 6 years later and still going strong!

-J.


----------



## b12brother (Jul 4, 2010)

Re-doing a layout can be very positive, you can sharpen your skills or learn to use other materials or even what you really want to build. 

I found out, that I do not need a closed loop to watch the trains running for hours. My first 2 layouts had that "feature" but everytime a train was doing its round I found myself switching cars and totally ignoring the other train. So, why would I need a closed loop? Point to point would be enough, since I only like switching locos and cars around. Advantage is, that this can be a shelf layout which does not need alot of depth. It took me 4 layouts before the one I have, to get what I wanted. I even use now alot of materials found in the garden or forest. As for the track plan, I just look around on the net for layouts I like and try to copy a certain area or scene I would like to see on mine. In my case photos of logging or mining operation can be very helpful too. Then I squeeze all the secenery together to a layout.
Logging/mining doesn't take alot of space and there are nearly no do's and dont's.


As for the space and scale,I always give this as an example if somebody does not know what is needed/wanted: If you want to run a Big Boy with 50 feet of cars through the Rocky Mountains, you either have a lot of space or you change to another, smaller scale. If it has absolutely to be the said setup, buy a new house! Simple. Either a smaller scale or a bigger room/house.
I model in H0 because N is too small FOR ME not because of lack of detail or so (they make pretty nice stuff in N these days) but because scratchbuilding and kitbashing with tiny parts is nothing for me BUT very feasable. I have very high respect for the N-modellers. 
And 0-scale is too space-eating and the prices are Nothing for my wallet.

Surely most things were already said but the one or other point may be helpful.

Edit:
Here an example of my first layout (in 2008 I think). This is the only trackplan I ever made. It took me longer to make that plan than to plaster rocks. It was 4x10 but could be squeezed to 4x8:









Alain


----------

