# Buying used HO layout



## NW engr (Dec 24, 2015)

Just join the forum yesterday. Getting in to the hobby in later years and need some input. A guy has a HO layout for sale for 2500 about 20 miles from me that is 12x8 with another section that is 8x4. Has 25 engines many many rail cars. two cities that light up. turn table and much more. 12x8 come a part in 4 pcs. for easy moving. lots of boxes of stuff. He said he had over 8500. in it. Being new to the hobby what do I look for so I don't get burned? Any help would be appreciated . Thanks






Looks like I posted in wrong forum could someone put it in HO. Sorry ! Thanks. If not I will post again.


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

First off you're going to have to transport it. Can it be broken down? What will be the transport cost? Do you really like it? To be honest it looks like a bit of a dogs dinner. If you want my advise give it a miss. You'd be better off doing your own layout which you can build to your own tastes and a better standard.


----------



## shaygetz (Sep 23, 2007)

Never buy someone else's heartache...25 engines means nothing if 24 of them are Bachmann and TYCO...


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Two identical threads 20 minutes apart? May want to give folks a fighting chance to respond.

So, buying used... well, for me, a lot of the fun is in the doing, so that would rule it out for me.

That said, I agree with Shaygetz. While you may get a great bargain, it's much more likely that you're going end up with a big pile of junk. The most important question I would want answered is why is he getting rid of it? The only answer that I would accept here is if the original owner passed away. If the guy who built it is getting rid of it, I would suspect it's because it doesn't work very well, isn't very interesting to operate, or both. It also appears to be a donut configuration, so you need to know how he gets into the middle. If it's a duckunder, that's likely to get old, fast.

Track plan looks like pretty much a couple of big loops. Many of us want to do more with our trains than just watch them go around in a circle. Here is how I would grade that layout, keeping in mind that this reflects my own personal bias and preferences only, and may not be true for you:
Benchwork: A. Looks solid, well constructed, and nicely finished.
Track plan: D. Doesn't look like much potential to do anything other than watch trains go around.
Structures: B-. There are a lot of them, but the ones I recognize are all low quality plastic models, without any attempt to customize, weather, ir actually integrate them into the layout.
Scenery: C+. What I can see isn't particularly well done, the trees are cheap models glued on with the plastic bases showing, and there doesn't seem to be much effort to tie it together thematically. Large areas are unfinished.
Realism: C. A lot of things, like structures, just seem to be dropped in without much consideration for how it would really work, it's hard to tell if the vehicles are related to the areas they are in, and the turntable is overly crowded and doesn't have a pit.

I would also want to know:
1) What kind of track was used (manufacturer, code, and material). Turnouts likewise, as well as how they are controlled.
2) What brand are all the locomotives, and does he have original boxes and instructions for them?
3) How old is the equipment, including power supplies?
4) How well does it operate? That is, how long can you run a train of significant length without a derailment, uncoupling, or stalling? Don't take his word for it.

Again, this kind of stuff may not be as important to you as it is to me, but I would think long and hard before I dropped that kind of cash on something that may turn out to be a lemon.


----------



## Mr.Buchholz (Dec 30, 2011)

shaygetz said:


> Never buy someone else's heartache....


This I agree on. Would be better to start fresh and create according to your own tastes. Besides, that thing looks like it would a mess to to take apart, fit into a vehicles, then put back together the exact same way. Might not be worth it.



shaygetz said:


> 25 engines means nothing if 24 of them are Bachmann and TYCO....


Disagree. I've never had a problem with any of my Bachmann engines. Tyco I stay away from because of some past problems, but I love Bachmann and would recommend them to anyone.

-J.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Mr.Buchholz said:


> Disagree. I've never had a problem with any of my Bachmann engines. Tyco I stay away from because of some past problems, but I love Bachmann and would recommend them to anyone.
> 
> -J.


For Bachmann made in the last 5 years or so, you would be correct. They have really upped their game and compare favorably with any product in the low to mid range price segment. A lot of their older stuff is real junk, though. That's why I commented that you really need to find out the age of the stuff. Some early Proto 2K stuff had some real problems too.


----------



## shaygetz (Sep 23, 2007)

Mr.Buchholz said:


> Disagree. I've never had a problem with any of my Bachmann engines. Tyco I stay away from because of some past problems, but I love Bachmann and would recommend them to anyone.
> 
> -J.


I stand by my comment only because he appears to be new to the hobby and those locos appear to be typical Botchmann toy set junk. I have several Bachmanns myself, but you have to know what you're looking at...if you're fresh to the hobby, you're bait for the unscrupulous and/or unknowledgeable, something I'm dealing with currently with a newcomer who lives near me. They know the look on my face they'll get when they come trotting up to me with their newest lokey that they just plunked their dollars down on before they checked with me. 

"But it's so shiney...ooooOoooOOOOoooooo." ...sigh....


----------



## dsertdog56 (Oct 26, 2014)

Looks like you're buying a used classic car...

...that you have to disassemble to remove from storage, then try to reassemble. Trouble is that every thing on the car was welded so like the car, you'll have to cut it apart and redo it. If you're not experienced at that, well...

The worse part is that the layout was built with the idea that it would never be disassembled. You can tell by how critical scenery and structures overlap joints. Even my Dad an experienced modeler in a profession where relocation became rampant, didn't learn. 

Valuable lesson for the novice. Build your own layout and make it so you can take it apart and move it.


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

At one time Bachmann and LifeLike were the byword for cheap toy train sets of low quality, recently they have both upped their game with good quality product, so some of their products made in the last 25 years are as good as any plastic model RR engine you can buy. The Bachman spectrum series and the LifeLike Proto 2000 are good. Other product and older products from these companies are good mostly for static scenery.


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

dsertdog56 said:


> *The worse part is that the layout was built with the idea that it would never be disassembled. *You can tell by how critical scenery and structures overlap joints. Even my Dad an experienced modeler in a profession where relocation became rampant, didn't learn.



Did you even read the description of the layout? Or did you just look at the photo's and jump to unfounded conclusions?


----------



## greenwizard88 (Dec 5, 2014)

Old does not mean bad, and everything has a place.

I have a Bachmann F7 that's the epitome of a trainset quality engine. It's loud, runs at about 200smph, and the entire cab glows. But this Christmas it came out, and even though it's some 20 years old, ran great. I'll save my $300-$500 engines for not running around the Christmas tree.

So, what does this layout offer? Well, you could probably replicate the key parts of it for much less than $2500. Probably closer to $1000. But that extra money is for the convenience. You have a layout that's ready made, it looks like it would run well, and a whole roster of trains to run. If you did it all yourself, you're looking at a month of planning, a month or two of building, and then there's the matter of track laying. A few months later, you'll have a layout to run trains on, but what if you didn't lay the track well and the trains keep derailing. More troubleshooting.

Personally, I wouldn't do it. Personally, I would build my own layout because then you can make it how you want, you can buy the items you want, and you can learn a lot in the process. $2500 goes a long way if you're frugal.


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

Cycleops said:


> First off you're going to have to transport it. *Can it be broken down?* What will be the transport cost? Do you really like it? To be honest it looks like a bit of a dogs dinner. If you want my advise give it a miss. You'd be better off doing your own layout which you can build to your own tastes and a better standard.


Did you read the description? Doesn't anyone read a description these days?


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

greenwizard88 said:


> Old does not mean bad, and everything has a place.
> 
> I have a Bachmann F7 that's the epitome of a trainset quality engine. *It's loud, runs at about 200smph, and the entire cab glows.* But this Christmas it came out, and even though it's some 20 years old, ran great. I'll save my $300-$500 engines for not running around the Christmas tree.


These 3 qualities are among those usually associated with a poor quality engine that most railroaders would not run on their Layout. For under the tree, I prefer something larger and usually older.


----------



## NW engr (Dec 24, 2015)

]thanks for all the help


----------



## dsertdog56 (Oct 26, 2014)

thedoc said:


> Did you even read the description of the layout? Or did you just look at the photo's and jump to unfounded conclusions?


Careful sir...:smokin: Yes I looked at the pictures. 

While my experience tearing down a layout is about 4 decades old, moving large items through narrow halls and doorways isn't. The difference is these items (large sound equipment cabinets) are made to take hits. 

I don't think 3+ foot by 12 foot items will go through the average 3 foot or less doorway well, and worse if there's a tight corner and /or stairs to be surmounted.

Bridge pedestals that free stand? Easily broken. That big old mountain in the corner.. In addition to being awkwardly tall and unbalancing the section, how do you plan on rounding corners and doorways? One slip of a hand or one "hey just give it a push" and you've got a pile of cracked crap.

Both a bridge and mountain/tunnel assembly straddle construction joints. If they've been permanently attached and have taken set they'll likely break when removed. 

If all these items could be removed, my belief is the time spent could've been used to build a new layout, again one that was designed to be broken down.

If you manage to get the bench work out the door without damage and into a trailer or pickup truck bed, it's possible that the wrong pothole, swerve, or hard turn will undo the bold effort.

My statement based on what I've observed stands, and I'm not about to expound on it further. :dunno: I've got better things to do. Best of luck all.


----------



## wvgca (Jan 21, 2013)

one other thing to consider, a model train layout is a very limited interest item to most people , don't be afraid to make a lower offer, after all it's what it's worth to YOU ..


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

dsertdog56 said:


> Careful sir...:smokin: Yes I looked at the pictures.
> 
> While my experience tearing down a layout is about 4 decades old, moving large items through narrow halls and doorways isn't. The difference is these items (large sound equipment cabinets) are made to take hits.
> 
> ...



First you base your comments on an idea that contradicts the OP, then you raise objections based on other ideas that you don't know apply to this situation, that is all very irresponsible. Apparently all your experience moving layout sections, was not done very carefully.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

thedoc said:


> First you base your comments on an idea that contradicts the OP, then you raise objections based on other ideas that you don't know apply to this situation, that is all very irresponsible. Apparently all your experience moving layout sections, was not done very carefully.


Careful, Doc. You've done the same thing yourself. You're responding to two different members as if they were one.

We all are apt to overlook statements, particularly short ones embedded in a long post. And the fact that the original owner (supposedly) described it as breaking down into four parts for easy transport doesn't make it so, and these gentlemen are right to question it, especially in light of the OP's obvious inexperience in these matters.


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

CTValleyRR said:


> Careful, Doc. You've done the same thing yourself. You're responding to *two different members as if they were one*.


No, I responded to 2 different members who have done the same thing, but I agree it is correct to question how easy it will be to transport the sections, if in fact they come apart easily. I do not think it is completely correct to project your own fears and failings onto others.


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

CTValleyRR said:


> We all are apt to overlook statements, particularly short ones embedded in a long post.



I have encountered this kind of thing before and it doesn't get any easier to accept. This wasn't a particularly long post either and the OP was clear about the information he got from the seller.


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

I think we're all at risk of going off a tangent here. There's one thing that we can all agree on, this layout is best consigned to box 13, unless the OP is desperate to own it. He hasn't said! Maybe he'll let us know how it ends up.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Anything you say. I'm done with it.


----------



## NW engr (Dec 24, 2015)

Ok guys went and looked at the layout today and after seeing it I could tell it was a piece of crap. So after all the reading this pass weekend and all the you tubing I did. I have come to this decision which most of you guys said to start with. Going to start from scratch. Take my time figure out my layout and have fun building it all. Will be going HO ,DCC. Measured my room it's 10' 1" X 23' . Again Thanks for all the help. Will need more help down the road I know. LOL !


----------



## flyboy2610 (Jan 20, 2010)

10 x 23? That's a fair chunk of real estate there! I wish I had that much room. You can do a lot with that kind of space. First thing I always advise people to do: decide what you want your railroad to do. Do you want long passenger trains running through expansive scenery? Do you want lots of switching and industries? Mountain railroading/ logging?
Once you have an idea of what you want your railroad to do, then you can start working on a track plan.
10 x 23? I'm jealous.hwell:


----------



## NW engr (Dec 24, 2015)

Great point flyboy2610 . Going to take my time on that. Going to look at and watch You Tube of different layouts for a little bit to make sure how I want to go. Thanks !


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

NW engr said:


> Great point flyboy2610 . Going to take my time on that. Going to look at and watch You Tube of different layouts for a little bit to make sure how I want to go. Thanks !


You need to consider what the real RailRoads did and decide what fascinates you the most, placing cars into an industry, or moving whole trains over the road, or some combination of the two. If you are a train watcher, where do you do most of your watching?


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

flyboy2610 said:


> 10 x 23? I'm jealous.hwell:


I'm not going to tell you how much room I have to work with, you might get really angry. My kids are already taking advantage of the space.


----------

