# Layout feedback and Comments



## JoeG (Feb 3, 2013)

I have been building a shed for storage/man cave/train room. Its 16x10. The layout will be 40" off the ground with storage above and below it. I wanted a layout that I could do continuous running along with switching ops. Also, I was thinking that having a train continuously running would give a nice timing aspect to switching ops. The bench work along the walls are 2' deep and the peninsula is 4.75' at its widest part, and the aisles are 20" wide. The green curve at the top right is a tunnel also. I wanted to know from all of you do you think this track plan will work or do I need to change some aspects of it to make it more fluid? 

Thank you!


----------



## 1905dave (Sep 18, 2016)

The peninsula will make the aisles incredibly narrow.

I had a 12 ft wide room with 18" deep benches and the aisles were tight around the "blob".

Aisle space would be better if you brought the main straight across the top and made the blob into a yard peninsula. That would get you 9" to a foot more in each aisle.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Great looking track plan but I can tell you from
experience, too narrow an aisle and you'll have
difficulty moving in the space. I have one 
aisle that requires I sidle in. But I can't turn, I
have to sidle out, turn and sidle back facing the
other way. In addition to the awkward movements,
my shirt will brush against scenery and cause damage.

I see that great yard and I think Diode Matrix turnout
control. You push one button in your panel and all
points will be set for your route. It makes switching
so much easier and certain. You would have to
use twin coil motors to make it work.

Don


----------



## JoeG (Feb 3, 2013)

1905dave said:


> The peninsula will make the aisles incredibly narrow.
> 
> I had a 12 ft wide room with 18" deep benches and the aisles were tight around the "blob".
> 
> Aisle space would be better if you brought the main straight across the top and made the blob into a yard peninsula. That would get you 9" to a foot more in each aisle.


Thats funny you say that because that is how I had it on one of my other try runs for this layout. I had 2' oh each side. On this rendering the aisle are 20".


----------



## JoeG (Feb 3, 2013)

DonR said:


> Great looking track plan but I can tell you from
> experience, too narrow an aisle and you'll have
> difficulty moving in the space. I have one
> aisle that requires I sidle in. But I can't turn, I
> ...


You make some very good points about the aisles, the ones I have on this layout are 20" wide. Do you thing that is to small? 
I was worried about the both yards being in the middle, and possibly being to much track for the peninsula.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

20" is what interior designers use for the their "bare minimum" space. Think "distance between sofa and coffee table".

If you're the only operator, it may be fine, but even for REALLY GOOD friends, that's a little too close for comfort. And I'm a former submarine officer, so I know all about tight aisles.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

20" is pretty narrow. Might do what I should have
done...measure your 'beam'. See if it will fit in that
aisle. It's important that you have access in there and
you won't enjoy the sidling movements that I have.

Don


----------



## Nikola (Jun 11, 2012)

I agree wid all dese udder guyz.

Make the peninsula a wye for the main line that runs across the top. The peninsula should be a straight shot out - think the letter 'E' instead of the uvula it is now. You will have fewer yard tracks, but so what.

BTW: Is that mine where Jimmy Hoffa is buried?


----------



## JoeG (Feb 3, 2013)

CTValleyRR said:


> 20" is what interior designers use for the their "bare minimum" space. Think "distance between sofa and coffee table".
> 
> If you're the only operator, it may be fine, but even for REALLY GOOD friends, that's a little too close for comfort. And I'm a former submarine officer, so I know all about tight aisles.


HAHAHA well, thats god advice from an expert!!


----------



## JoeG (Feb 3, 2013)

Nikola said:


> BTW: Is that mine where Jimmy Hoffa is buried?


HAHAHA It could be, they are still looking at this point. But they have some good leads!!


----------



## JoeG (Feb 3, 2013)

*To all,*

What if I extent the aisles to 24"?


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

I like the Y idea at the entrance of a straight E shaped peninsula.First,the peninsula being thinner would help the aisle width issue,then the peninsula could be made longer allowing for fewer but longer storage tracks.

Then the entrance Y to the peninsula (with longer tracks) would also allow substantial lengths trains to be turned around easily.And more,the Y would bring the main line curves closer together allowing creating a second outer main line with all its operational benefits in the same space.

My two cents...for what they're worthed...


----------



## JoeG (Feb 3, 2013)

*Something like this?*

I had build this sketch up earlier. Is this what you guys are talking about.?
The aisles here are 24" wide.


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

It's an improvement as far as the aisles are concerned.However the peninsula track arrangement needs a major review.Most of the tracks are too short to be practical more specifically the ones leading to the engine house...they're in opposite direction with a very short lead for one loco,may be two.


----------



## JoeG (Feb 3, 2013)

Brakeman Jake said:


> It's an improvement as far as the aisles are concerned.However the peninsula track arrangement needs a major review.Most of the tracks are too short to be practical more specifically the ones leading to the engine house...they're in opposite direction with a very short lead for one loco,may be two.


Thank you, I could definitely make the peninsula a few feet longer.


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

And the engine house could be moved to the tip of the peninsula,thus avoiding reverse tracks for much more "flowing" yard operation.


----------



## Nikola (Jun 11, 2012)

JoeG said:


> I had build this sketch up earlier. Is this what you guys are talking about.?
> The aisles here are 24" wide.
> 
> View attachment 298345


Yah, that's it. Consider making the middle leg of the 'E' longer and it looks like you have 70% of the track needed to add a second perimeter loop.


----------



## Nikola (Jun 11, 2012)

Brakeman Jake said:


> And the engine house could be moved to the tip of the peninsula,thus avoiding reverse tracks for much more "flowing" yard operation.


What he said.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

So I would extend the peninsula, and make your yard tracks double ended rather than stub ended (so your yard would look like a parallelogram or trapezoid). This will give you much more satisfying flow through the yard. The only stub ended tracks would be the ones into the engine house (which you could leave at that end -- it's the flurry of short stub tracks that cause the problem).


----------



## JoeG (Feb 3, 2013)

CTValleyRR said:


> So I would extend the peninsula, and make your yard tracks double ended rather than stub ended (so your yard would look like a parallelogram or trapezoid). This will give you much more satisfying flow through the yard. The only stub ended tracks would be the ones into the engine house (which you could leave at that end -- it's the flurry of short stub tracks that cause the problem).


Thank you for your input that makes a lot of sense to make a double ended yard. 
So, I'm guessing you agree that the first layout in this thread is not the once I should go with?


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

JoeG said:


> Thank you for your input that makes a lot of sense to make a double ended yard.
> So, I'm guessing you agree that the first layout in this thread is not the once I should go with?


I like your second version better, with suitable modification of the yard tracks to make them more useful, yes.


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

A double ended yard is by far the best option for fluid operation but in this specific case,one end of the layout is obviously its access so creating the second entry/exit to a double ended yard may be a little complicated.

Staying on this interesting path,why not simply drop the peninsula all together and use one side of the layout for such a yard.In HO,it still would be a moderately sized one but highly interestingéA 16 ft. room has the potential for it,industries could be on the other size,sort of an industrial park.The sides could be enlarged somewhat and allow for a nice aisle width.


----------



## JoeG (Feb 3, 2013)

Brakeman Jake said:


> A double ended yard is by far the best option for fluid operation but in this specific case,one end of the layout is obviously its access so creating the second entry/exit to a double ended yard may be a little complicated.
> 
> Staying on this interesting path,why not simply drop the peninsula all together and use one side of the layout for such a yard.In HO,it still would be a moderately sized one but highly interestingéA 16 ft. room has the potential for it,industries could be on the other size,sort of an industrial park.The sides could be enlarged somewhat and allow for a nice aisle width.


That is a definite possibility, right now I am working on fixing the second layout with all the suggestions that have been posted thus far.


----------



## JoeG (Feb 3, 2013)

This is what I came up with so far. Most of my attention was placed on the peninsula. The sides were left untouched for now.


----------



## Nikola (Jun 11, 2012)

JoeG said:


> This is what I came up with so far. Most of my attention was placed on the peninsula. The sides were left untouched for now.
> 
> View attachment 298842


I like it.

If you can tie the two incoming peninsula legs together, you will also achieve a reversing wye.


----------



## JoeG (Feb 3, 2013)

Nikola said:


> I like it.
> 
> If you can tie the two incoming peninsula legs together, you will also achieve a reversing wye.


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

Unless you're willing to stop all traffic on the layout while building consists ( a NO-NO for railways),your design won't cut it.It is violating one of the major rules of yard design wich says "the switcher should never foul the main".It should have access to the entire yard without ever setting foot on the main.That's your choice,you build whatever you desire but will find it a PITA very shortly.


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

Sorry for being the fly in the soup....


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

Do a Google search on "Yard design primer",a great learning tool.


----------



## JoeG (Feb 3, 2013)

Brakeman Jake said:


> Sorry for being the fly in the soup....


Its all good!!


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Brakeman Jake said:


> Unless you're willing to stop all traffic on the layout while building consists ( a NO-NO for railways),your design won't cut it.It is violating one of the major rules of yard design wich says "the switcher should never foul the main".It should have access to the entire yard without ever setting foot on the main.That's your choice,you build whatever you desire but will find it a PITA very shortly.


Well, keep the golden rule in mind. You do what you want on your own layout.

That said, I think you could improve things somewhat. I think the simplest way would be to eliminate the passenger station on the peninsula, and have that track connect through the divider to the right-most track on the other side. Then you could at least get to both sides of the yard without fouling the main.


----------



## Nikola (Jun 11, 2012)

The only 'foul' thing about that layout is the lack of a little trolley line inside town.


----------



## Dreadnought (Apr 19, 2016)

Just my two cents from my experience in helping design layouts:
I find it's always great to have industries that interchange with each other on the layout rather than off it. Having a mine and a power plant is a classic example. Being able to bring cars from one real place on your layout to another real place on your layout is a lot more fun than bringing them from a real place to an imagined place in staging. 

For your layout, perhaps the Army Base or the industrial area on the right could have a little power station to bring the coal to? I don't know if you're doing steam-era, but if you are, then the coaling tower at your engine houses also can be an industry. I'm assuming since you don't have turntables that you're not doing steam, though. 

What kind of industry is the Camp Ground? If you mean a logging camp, then sending those logs to the lumber company is a very simple example of this.

Also, it seems a bit unusual to have a grand passenger station and then have two stations just tucked in the back of the corners of the layout. Of course, it's your layout, but one big problem I can immediately see is reaching the very far back corner in the upper left. Unless you like bending over while on top of a ladder over your town (which I would not recommend, unless you want to simulate having an Earthquake...) when a train derails there, then I would recommend switching the town to be in the background and the station in the foreground. This will probably mean that your upper yard lead will have to be a curved turnout, but it will be worth it to not flatten your buildings.

Overall, though, it's a nice design. It does seem a bit odd to me to have two engine houses, but perhaps you really enjoy those, so I won't say you should remove them. A problem I can see with the left engine house is that the very left track on it is part of the yard ladder, making it hard for engines to get in and out while the yard is being worked. Perhaps consider either making that engine house two stalls, or making the yard ladder shorter.

The best tip I can give when planning a layout is think about the absolute worst case scenario. Can you reach _every_ part of the track, and I mean really reach it? If not, do you have access panels? It's also a good idea to see if all your turnout locations make sense, and if all the tracks they connect to serve their purpose well.

You have a good design overall, though.


----------



## JoeG (Feb 3, 2013)

Dreadnought said:


> Just my two cents from my experience in helping design layouts:
> I find it's always great to have industries that interchange with each other on the layout rather than off it. Having a mine and a power plant is a classic example. Being able to bring cars from one real place on your layout to another real place on your layout is a lot more fun than bringing them from a real place to an imagined place in staging.


I was going to have some industries do just that. The Mine Company is a Frac Mining facility, I was going to bring sand into the mine and oil out. I also have an Oil industry that I was going to supply with the oil from the mine.




Dreadnought said:


> For your layout, perhaps the Army Base or the industrial area on the right could have a little power station to bring the coal to? I don't know if you're doing steam-era, but if you are, then the coaling tower at your engine houses also can be an industry. I'm assuming since you don't have turntables that you're not doing steam, though.


I am doing a modern era layout.



Dreadnought said:


> What kind of industry is the Camp Ground? If you mean a logging camp, then sending those logs to the lumber company is a very simple example of this.


This camp ground is one that family's will go to camp, instead of camping in a tent the will camp in a caboose. I have seen this in real life and I wanted to model it on my layout. Also, I like cabooses and since I am doing a modern layout I wanted to incorporate cabooses somehow. 



Dreadnought said:


> Also, it seems a bit unusual to have a grand passenger station and then have two stations just tucked in the back of the corners of the layout. Of course, it's your layout, but one big problem I can immediately see is reaching the very far back corner in the upper left. Unless you like bending over while on top of a ladder over your town (which I would not recommend, unless you want to simulate having an Earthquake...) when a train derails there, then I would recommend switching the town to be in the background and the station in the foreground. This will probably mean that your upper yard lead will have to be a curved turnout, but it will be worth it to not flatten your buildings.


I have since moved my town to a different location on the layout that is in the picture, the station is in a different location. 



Dreadnought said:


> Overall, though, it's a nice design. It does seem a bit odd to me to have two engine houses, but perhaps you really enjoy those, so I won't say you should remove them. A problem I can see with the left engine house is that the very left track on it is part of the yard ladder, making it hard for engines to get in and out while the yard is being worked. Perhaps consider either making that engine house two stalls, or making the yard ladder shorter.


To answer your statement about the engine houses. My layout starts in Arizona and ends in Alaska. So I wanted two engine houses since I will have two road names on my layout. I wanted to represent their yards as if they weren't 2 feet away from each other. and I to like having the engine houses since most people have many engines I will be able to store them somewhere. As for the lead going out to the yard that will be for my yard engine, so it can be serviced and it will the a direct run out to the yard. 



Dreadnought said:


> The best tip I can give when planning a layout is think about the absolute worst case scenario. Can you reach _every_ part of the track, and I mean really reach it? If not, do you have access panels? It's also a good idea to see if all your turnout locations make sense, and if all the tracks they connect to serve their purpose well.


The layout will be 2 feet deep so the deepest corner will be 34 inches. Also, the layout will be between 40 and 44 inches high. Im 5'10". 
Thank you for all your help and suggestions. 

You have a good design overall, though.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Joe, a layout that begins in Arizona and ends in Alaska is a lot of selective compression!

Are you ignoring the international border /customs aspect of that, or modeling it somehow?

So, if your railroad reaches that far, you can pretty much model any industry chain you want. Are you planning to break up the scenery somehow so that one end of the train isn't in Arizona while the other is in California?

On railroads of a more typical size, though Dreadnougt's suggestion depends a lot on how realistic you want your operations to be. Except where the railroad was purpose built to serve the industry (logging roads), railroads typically haul over longer distances than can be represented on a layout, which is why hauling to and from staging is sometimes preferred. Whether this is a problem or not depends on the individual user's preference for realistic operations. It isn't wrong to do it either way. 

The only thing I disagree with is that switching an industry and shipping to an off-layout location is somehow less fun. My layout has both, and I can honestly say that I don't have a preference either way.


----------



## JoeG (Feb 3, 2013)

CTValleyRR said:


> Joe, a layout that begins in Arizona and ends in Alaska is a lot of selective compression!
> 
> Are you ignoring the international border /customs aspect of that, or modeling it somehow?
> 
> ...


It is a very long way, I definitely don't have the room to model anything close to that. I was going to have the left side be Alaska and the right side be Arizona. I don't think Ill be having any trains that will be to much longer than 10 cars. 
I only have two industries that could transport to each other, for the most part I will be going off layout with my cars. 
I am not modeling customs, I never even thought about it. I don't even know how that works with a rail road. But. Im not opposed to modeling it. Sounds like another fun aspect to the railroad.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Customs might not be as much fun as you think. From an MR perspective, it involves a delay of some period of time while customs inspectors check paperwork and manifests.

If you're trying to be extremely realistic in your operations, create a border checkpoint and require all trains to stop there for some period of time. It does add an interesting wrinkle to operations. And for your purposes, they would have to stop TWICE, once entering Canada, and once leaving it again.

Or you could bypass Canada using car floats....


----------



## Nikola (Jun 11, 2012)

CTValleyRR said:


> Customs might not be as much fun as you think. From an MR perspective, it involves a delay of some period of time while customs inspectors check paperwork and manifests.
> 
> If you're trying to be extremely realistic in your operations, create a border checkpoint and require all trains to stop there for some period of time. It does add an interesting wrinkle to operations. And for your purposes, they would have to stop TWICE, once entering Canada, and once leaving it again.
> 
> Or you could bypass Canada using car floats....


Or, he could be modeling some alternative reality where the US has already annexed Mexico and Canada because enough already. :laugh:


----------



## JoeG (Feb 3, 2013)

CTValleyRR said:


> Customs might not be as much fun as you think. From an MR perspective, it involves a delay of some period of time while customs inspectors check paperwork and manifests.
> 
> If you're trying to be extremely realistic in your operations, create a border checkpoint and require all trains to stop there for some period of time. It does add an interesting wrinkle to operations. And for your purposes, they would have to stop TWICE, once entering Canada, and once leaving it again.
> 
> Or you could bypass Canada using car floats....


I am actually modeling a port with a ferry so I think Ill use that instead of going through customs.


----------



## JoeG (Feb 3, 2013)

Okay, I have been working on my layout design. I have refined my original layout. Also, I made a whole different layout. I would like to revive this discussion and see what everyone thinks of these layouts. Which one do you think is a better for operations, 1 or 2?

1







2


----------



## Nikola (Jun 11, 2012)

Two..


----------



## Mark VerMurlen (Aug 15, 2015)

I like both of these layouts, but if I had to pick just one of them, I'd choose #2. Layout #1 may have more opportunity for interesting scenery and a yard to build up trains in, but layout #2 has a more interesting track arrangement and it better suits having some full trains built and staged ready for action. Layout #2 still has a bunch of spurs for interesting operations, but it doesn't have the complex yards for train break up and re-formation. So I think your decision should be based on what type of operations you will like the most.

Mark


----------



## JoeG (Feb 3, 2013)

Mark VerMurlen said:


> I like both of these layouts, but if I had to pick just one of them, I'd choose #2. Layout #1 may have more opportunity for interesting scenery and a yard to build up trains in, but layout #2 has a more interesting track arrangement and it better suits having some full trains built and staged ready for action. Layout #2 still has a bunch of spurs for interesting operations, but it doesn't have the complex yards for train break up and re-formation. So I think your decision should be based on what type of operations you will like the most.
> 
> Mark


I know, the one thing I like about #1 is the yards. But i like the tracks on #2


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Because most of your yard tracks in #1 are single ended, you'll find yourself limited in what you can actually do there. The single runaround, which involves fouling the main, will become a bottleneck amd interfere with the smooth flow of traffic.

Go with #2, and add a few more tracks in the upper right corner if you want more yard.


----------



## SantaFeJim (Sep 8, 2015)

I gotta say number 2 is far and away a much more interesting layout. 

Various routing offers good variety for the operators and viewiers.

GO FOR IT.


----------

