# New Hobbyist Layout Help



## sputlegin (Jan 19, 2012)

Hi All,

New to the Hobby! 

Winter and summer motorsports have stolen my interest for the last 15 years. However, while daydreaming the idea of model railroading would surface in my imagination off and on. I have been interested in model railroading for years and finally decided to go for it. I was the typical 13 year old selling off all my HO gauge stuff to invest in my first Motocross bike. I never looked back until now...

What finally sparked my interest was discovering my father's 1962 MARX O gauge train set (which he had passed down to me when I was about 12 years old) tucked away in a box which had not been unpacked since I moved out! I was in horrible shape. Most of the track bent and rusted beyond repair.

He had received it for a Christmas gift when he was 5 years old. It was in very rough shape from having to set it up each time he played with it due to the limited space in his home. So for his 55th Christmas after countless hours of restoration he had the delight of opening it up one more time. 

So this leads me to my first post on ModelTrainForum...

I am in need of some expert advice to plan my first HO layout. We are planning on selling and building a new house within the next 3 years so for now I will keep this layout fairly small. I am sacrificing a corner of my man-cave for a sort of L shaped layout. 

Here is a photo of the space I have allotted:










The Orange represents the space I have reserved for the main layout. The blue is a 12" ledge that will carry a separate main line to a turn around in a closet at the other end of the room. The orange does not necessarily represent the benchwork simply the space I have alotted. I understand that reach is important so the actual edges of the layout may be rounded or sections cut out. 

My problem is I have no idea where to start. I have tried editing several plans and using cad software to no avail. I simply do not have the knowledge of railroading as our entire narrow gauge railroad was remove in 1987.

I would like to model a mountainous layout for both coal and logging. I plan to make the environment universal so I may switch between diesel and steam eras. I would like a long mainline at two elevations with at least one bridge crossover. Two switching yards is a must.

The ledge will be 3" above the layout requiring a max 2% climb to get to a separate mainline from the layout.

Here is some information on my setup:

Scale: HO DCC
Min mainline radius: 22"
Track: Code 100 Nickel & Steel
Continuity: Continuous running mainlines
Budget: Whatever

Would appreciate any guidance or advice you may have to help get this started.

Thanks in advance for your time and effort. Looking forward to model railroading!

Matt


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment (Jun 22, 2009)

Matt...you have quite the blank slate there! It should present a good opportunity to let the creative juices flow. If you have track following along the ledge, you will likely need to add a 45-degree section in the corner of the ledge to give you a nice radius. The curve would be too tight otherwise. With the ledge being 3" higher, you would probably need 150 inches to climb that 3" with a 2% grade. I am thinking that any "bridge" coming off the ledge onto the lower main part of the layout will probably have to come off it at an angle in order to get a more gradual turn radius coming off the ledge.

There are guys on here that are really good with designing layout plans. I am sure one of them will have some good ideas for you. I see you have already considered reach as an important detail. I guess you can always have an open area in the middle of it somewhere, one that you could duck under and pop up in the middle of it. If you had a turnout the leads to the upper ledge, that turnout could be more toward the front of the layout maybe...so it would allow for an easy reach (unless it is a remote turnout). I will be happy to share more thoughts as you go along! Good luck!

Chad


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment (Jun 22, 2009)

Oh, I just thought that you could probably have some of your benchwork be the exact same height as your ledge too. You could have some kind of bridge elsewhere on the layout then. You could build benchwork that is no more than two feet wide for reach's sake, and a bridge could simply connect two pieces of benchwork. There are lots of possibilities.

Chad


----------



## Wheels70 (Jan 17, 2012)

Hi Matt,

You've got quite a bit of space there to work with. My suggestion to you would be to limit the scope of your first layout, or build in stages. You can do a lot with that 12" ledge, and even more if you continue it down the right side of the room. As far as using the space is concerned, you already know about reach. The way to maximize the use of a space like yours is with an "around-the-walls" kind of layout, possibly with a peninsula.

Okay -- I put together a quick stab at _one_ possible layout with a mainline on it. This is just a crude example to give you one idea. There are plenty of other things you can do here.

Thomas


----------



## sputlegin (Jan 19, 2012)

Hi Everyone,

Thanks for the super quick replies!

I took another stab at it using Atlas' Track sim. Basically the benchwork will attach to the wall using the ledge as part of the layout. The ascent will take place on the benchwork to the upper portion of the ledge. 

The mainline on the ledge will be separate from the mainline on the layout. Here is what I have so far:











I am sure there are many mistakes so I'm open to criticism and looking for any advice you may have.

Let me know what


----------



## sputlegin (Jan 19, 2012)

Forgot to mention...

The ledge itself is only 6" as in the photo above. There is 12" board extending it out over. This is only adding 6" to the benchwork itself. Past the benchwork heading to the closet it will be 12" or greater.

Stupid mistake. Sorry for the confusion. It is fixed in the drawing above.

Matt


----------



## Wheels70 (Jan 17, 2012)

Maybe I'm missing something...it looks like each square is 12" in your drawing. If so, you won't be able to reach a lot of your layout.

Thomas


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Wheels, you beat me to it. You better have a sky-chair for that layout!


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

One of these?  

http://www.modeltrainforum.com/showpost.php?p=23722&postcount=38


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment (Jun 22, 2009)

Hey Matt...yea, you might be happier keeping your benchwork to about 2 feet wide. You can go around the walls and connect up to itself again for continuous running, even if you have to duck under to get in the middle of it all. It is possible there could be invitations for derailments in areas you can't reach with the way it is now. 

Chad


----------



## sputlegin (Jan 19, 2012)

Hey all,

I have come to discover that I was having difficulty due to the CAD software I was using. I was originally using Atlas' Right Track. This software is completely inaccurate and definitely not to scale. The track is far wider than it should be and the turnouts are incorrect. 

I decided to try Any Rail 4.0. Absolutely love it so I purchased the full version. It is easy to use, dead accurate and allows for elevation differences. 

I have drafted a nice layout plan with a continuous loop and room to run multiple trains. It seems every part of the layout is within reach.

I ditched left part of the ledge and the closet turnaround. There is more than enough space to enjoy the layout the way it is. I think this is the one.










Just a few notes:

I used Atlas 850 & 851 Turnouts by mistake. They will all be replaced with the Atlas custom turnouts.

There is a need for a reversing loop. Have to read up on these.

The broken line is hidden track under the layout. This will be accessed from underneath.

So what do you all think?

Thanks again,

Matt



Lots of access for reach


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment (Jun 22, 2009)

Matt....wow! That plan is quite a beast! That is going to be a challenge mathematically with all the curves and elevation changes! That would be a MEGA-COOL layout if you can pull it off! 

You might want to check with some other guys on the "triangle" area over to the right side of the layout. There might be a polarity issue there. I don't know if the yard should maybe just be accessed by one direction only? I love the plan otherwise! It will be fun and challenging to build and majorly fun to operate!

Chad


----------



## sputlegin (Jan 19, 2012)

Thanks Chad!

I wanted a nice long run and I think I've maxed out the layout. Should have enough open space for reach. The great thing about AnyRail, it will display the start and end of a certain percentage descent. I can estimate where I need to start and stop from each level using the locations in the program.

The "triangle" where the two main lines meet to enter the yard will require a reversing loop system. A short would be present if not isolated as there is a chance for reversing a locomotive. Bachmann makes a reversing loop system so I'm going to check it out. 

I have 120ft of flex track stacked up in my garage. Ordering the 18 more turnouts tomorrow. Can't wait to get started. 

Thanks for the help!

Matt



mr_x_ite_ment said:


> Matt....wow! That plan is quite a beast! That is going to be a challenge mathematically with all the curves and elevation changes! That would be a MEGA-COOL layout if you can pull it off!
> 
> You might want to check with some other guys on the "triangle" area over to the right side of the layout. There might be a polarity issue there. I don't know if the yard should maybe just be accessed by one direction only? I love the plan otherwise! It will be fun and challenging to build and majorly fun to operate!
> 
> Chad


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment (Jun 22, 2009)

Hey Matt! Wow, you are all set to dive in...that's great! That AnyRail software does indeed sound nice! I would probably have to use it too on a layout like that.

I hope the build goes well for you...it is an ambitious undertaking. I can't wait to follow your progress! Best of luck to you!

Chad


----------



## sputlegin (Jan 19, 2012)

Thanks Chad,

Desigining the benchwork in SketchUp now. I will post some progress photos as I make my way along. 

Thanks for the encouragement. I will keep you posted,

Matt



mr_x_ite_ment said:


> Hey Matt! Wow, you are all set to dive in...that's great! That AnyRail software does indeed sound nice! I would probably have to use it too on a layout like that.
> 
> I hope the build goes well for you...it is an ambitious undertaking. I can't wait to follow your progress! Best of luck to you!
> 
> Chad


----------



## mwpeber (Dec 5, 2011)

Great layout! You fit a ton of track into that space and will have a lot of fun operating it when you are done! I have just about the same amount space for a layout but am using O gauge and it's been a challenge trying to create a long mainline and fit a decent amount of track in the space.

Good luck with the benchwork.:thumbsup:


----------



## sputlegin (Jan 19, 2012)

Thanks!

I would imagine O gauge would be difficult to fit in the same space. I have some O gauge track here and it is quite large. Especially anything wider than 27" curves.

Have you tried using AnyRail? It is free to use up to 50 pieces of track. Post your measurements and if i get some spare time today I will pick around with it to see if I can scale up that layout to O or create something similar. Never know might find a loop hole .

Matt



mwpeber said:


> Great layout! You fit a ton of track into that space and will have a lot of fun operating it when you are done! I have just about the same amount space for a layout but am using O gauge and it's been a challenge trying to create a long mainline and fit a decent amount of track in the space.
> 
> Good luck with the benchwork.:thumbsup:


----------



## sputlegin (Jan 19, 2012)

Chad,

Would you happen to know the height clearance required for most HO locomotives? Working on my benchwork design there now and need to know the space required for the hidden track portion...


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment (Jun 22, 2009)

Matt...I believe it is 3 inches...I might have to double check that, but I think it is right.

Chad


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment (Jun 22, 2009)

Yea, Matt...it looks like 3 inches, but if you are ever planning to run a double-stack train, maybe one should shoot for around 3.25 or so. 

Chad


----------



## mwpeber (Dec 5, 2011)

sputlegin said:


> Thanks!
> 
> I would imagine O gauge would be difficult to fit in the same space. I have some O gauge track here and it is quite large. Especially anything wider than 27" curves.
> 
> ...


I've been using SCARM to develop my layout. I have my progress outlined in the following thread:
http://www.modeltrainforum.com/showthread.php?t=9670

Also, I believe Chad is correct in saying clearance requirements for HO are 3 inches. (I'm working with 6 inches for O).


----------



## sputlegin (Jan 19, 2012)

I figured it was 3". I will go for 3.25 anyway as it is not that much height difference. 

Thanks again!



mr_x_ite_ment said:


> Yea, Matt...it looks like 3 inches, but if you are ever planning to run a double-stack train, maybe one should shoot for around 3.25 or so.
> 
> Chad


----------



## sputlegin (Jan 19, 2012)

Checked out the thread. Nice benchwork! Hoping to start mine tonight.

I would have loved to build an O layout but I had so much HO gear from when I was a kid that I kept with that scale. In the future I plan to build a layout for my Father's O set. It would be a nice addition to his hobby room. 

I'll still see what I can put together in AnyRail for your O layout. Might be a fun little project when I'm bored.

Matt



mwpeber said:


> I've been using SCARM to develop my layout. I have my progress outlined in the following thread:
> http://www.modeltrainforum.com/showthread.php?t=9670
> 
> Also, I believe Chad is correct in saying clearance requirements for HO are 3 inches. (I'm working with 6 inches for O).


----------



## Wheels70 (Jan 17, 2012)

Wow, that is some complex trackwork! But you've got some nice long mainlines. You might consider adding a few industry spurs, to give your trains something to do other than go 'round and 'round on the mainline.

The NMRA minimmum for vertical clearance is 3" railhead to railhead. If you plan to run modern equipment, consider 3 1/2" as a minimum.

Last, regarding the "access pits", if you build your benchwork high it will minimize the annoyance of ducking under to get into those spots. 

Thomas


----------



## sputlegin (Jan 19, 2012)

Thanks!

What are (lol) and where would you suggest placing some industry spurs? After running the layout through trainplayer4 once past the main yard it does seem kind of boring. In your oppinion would I have the required space?

3 1/2" it is! 

The benchwork will be 48" high at the top elevation before bed/track. I don't mind having to duck under too much I think at this height it should be comfortable.

Almost finished designing the benchwork in SketchUp. I'll post a draft here for some critique. I'm not a noob at woodworking but looking through virgin eyes designing benchwork to support a model railroad.

Thanks for the advice. Friendliest forum I have ever been on!

Matt



Wheels70 said:


> Wow, that is some complex trackwork! But you've got some nice long mainlines. You might consider adding a few industry spurs, to give your trains something to do other than go 'round and 'round on the mainline.
> 
> The NMRA minimmum for vertical clearance is 3" railhead to railhead. If you plan to run modern equipment, consider 3 1/2" as a minimum.
> 
> ...


----------



## UPBigBoy (Jan 2, 2012)

Here's a thought, I removed part of the double line/fixed crossover and added a crossover switch a little closer to the yard. 









What do you think?


----------



## sputlegin (Jan 19, 2012)

I had planned to put a turnout where you are suggesting. After running it in trainplayer, if there is rolling stock blocking the turnout between the upper and lower part of the right yard there was no way to couple to the cars without entering the mainline.

As for deleting the other turnouts I figured if I'm going to require reversing loop hardware anyway, might as well go all out with the mainline hahaha.

I have made several small changes since that original drawing. I will post the final copy tomorrow along with the completed benchwork design.

Thanks for the ideas,

Matt



UPBigBoy said:


> Here's a thought, I removed part of the double line/fixed crossover and added a crossover switch a little closer to the yard.
> 
> 
> What do you think?


----------



## Wheels70 (Jan 17, 2012)

An industry spur is a siding with some kind of industry on it. Here is an example of a shelf plan with some industry spurs. 










You do have plenty of room for industries, but you'll have to sacrifice some of your mainline. 

Here's a thought for you. When I started my track plan, I had basically no notion of how to translate my ideas of what I wanted to have into a track plan. It seemed like many of the track plans I looked at would work for me, and I had no real way of determining which would be "better" for me other than just visual appeal. Fortunately, I eventually stumbled on a technique that has helped me a lot: to look at the space I have as a series of themes. Each section of the train table has a specific theme, both visually and operationally. One section is reserved for a yard; another for urban industry; another for countryside/rural.

Figuring out how each section of the layout would look and operate -- what its purpose was -- has really helped me with my track plan. Knowing that the bottom-right and right side is reserved for my yard tells me that in that area I'm going to have lots of track and very little in the way of scenery. I chose another area of the layout for lots of scenery, with just the mainline running through it. 

So my suggestion to you right now is to have a think about what you want to include on your road, both visually and operationally, and then figure out which parts of your layout will work for the elements you want to have. For example you may want to have a lot of mountain scenery, and decide to use the top section of the layout for that.

If you do this, each part of your layout will have a purpose and the track plan will support that purpose.

Thomas


----------



## sputlegin (Jan 19, 2012)

That is a great idea!

I have a few ideas for scenery etc that I will incorporate into the layout. As for an idustry spur I will try adding a 2x8 shelf above the right side of the layout. I will do some calculations to see if it does not exceed the slope to install a branchline which will travel to the shelf.

Thanks for the input!

Lovin' this place



Wheels70 said:


> An industry spur is a siding with some kind of industry on it. Here is an example of a shelf plan with some industry spurs.
> 
> 
> You do have plenty of room for industries, but you'll have to sacrifice some of your mainline.
> ...


----------



## sputlegin (Jan 19, 2012)

Alright...

Been busy the last two days. Made some minor changes to the layout. Changed all the Snap switch turnouts to custom line turnouts. Slightly modified where the mainline passes the yard entrance: 










Modeled the benchwork in SketchUp. It will be attached to the wall hence the reason for minimal legs. The Plywood track bed frame is for reference only and does not represent actual slope or curves. This is an example of the hidden trackwork right up the the top elevation. Top elevation is not shown.





























Started construction of the benchwork. It is built with 3/4 select plywood ripped in 4" strips. I picked up a 4x8 sheet of birch that I will fabricate the legs and stain/varnish strips to cover up the exposed areas.






































Finished for the night. I'm on days off today and tomorrow so I should be able to finish the main part of the benchwork by tomorrow evening. Wife's out of town too so nothing but freedom!

Matt


----------



## NSHO (Dec 28, 2011)

Hate you're going to cover up that pretty birch plywood  Nice benchwork, very meticulous. Are the 2x4's going to remain as your legs?


----------



## sputlegin (Jan 19, 2012)

Actually the plywood you are looking at in the photos is just standard select grade "good one side" plywood. I will use the Birch to face the exposed sides where the edges can be seen and also to fabricate the legs.

The 2x4 was simply to support nd level up the benchwork until it's all framed out. I will then fabricate legs with birch. I will stain it with a nice dark stain and varnish it. Should look great!

Matt


----------



## Massey (Apr 16, 2011)

Sputlegin, you do realize that you are going to need 2 reverse loop controllers or a PM42 to handle the wyes you have on the east side, right? I read through and noticed that it was mentioned on your first draft that you may need them and then no mention after that. You will not need any type of "reverse loop" since the wye will handle the turning of the trains for you. 

Your layout looks alot like one of the Altas layouts called the Oregon pass. Did you get your inspiration from that layout?

Benchwork looks good keep up the good work.

Massey


----------



## sputlegin (Jan 19, 2012)

Thanks for the info Massey!,

I am aware that reverse loop controllers are needed. I have yet to research further for available equipment for these situations. I will research them when I get the chance tonight. Do you have any suggestions on what brand or type would be best suited?

I found a photo of that layout while doing a search on Google. Never knew the name of it or where it came from. Thanks haha! It looked like a way to fit alot of track in my space but it was only one level and there was only room for one access point. That was the base, but my ideas came from several L shaped layouts and some of my own imagination.

Thanks again,

Matt


Massey said:


> Sputlegin, you do realize that you are going to need 2 reverse loop controllers or a PM42 to handle the wyes you have on the east side, right? I read through and noticed that it was mentioned on your first draft that you may need them and then no mention after that. You will not need any type of "reverse loop" since the wye will handle the turning of the trains for you.
> 
> Your layout looks alot like one of the Altas layouts called the Oregon pass. Did you get your inspiration from that layout?
> 
> ...


----------



## Massey (Apr 16, 2011)

The Oregon Pass layout has 4 levels actually and it is a very complex layout design. I know I tried to duplicate it with XtrkCAD which I am very good at using and failed miserably. Anyhoo...

The device of choice I would use on your layout is a PM42. You may want to consider using 2 of them, but you can do with one. THe PM42 has 4 channels that can be used with DC or DCC as power district controllers (short circuit protection) or as reverse loop controllers (phase shifting) or a combo of each with a total of 4 channels. I would have it set up like this:

CH1: Power District for Reverse loops.
CH2: Reverse Loop #1 (wye)
CH3: Reverse Loop #2 (wye)
CH4: Mainline.

IF you use 2 PM42s then like this:
PM42 #1
CH1: Power District for Reverse loops.
CH2: Reverse Loop #1 (wye)
CH3: Reverse Loop #2 (wye)
CH4: Mainline outer.

PM42 #2
CH1: Mainline Inner.
CH2: Yard (south West Corner)
CH3: All industry spurs
CH4: future expansion.

Massey


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment (Jun 22, 2009)

The good news is that you can always simplify if you have to, Matt. You can get down to one track, and have just one wye for turning around (less to maintain with only one reverse module). You could also eliminate one of the branches of the wye, and always back the train in from the mainline (I realize you would not have the ability to turn around this way). I am sure you can find a way to make two wye's work for you as well. I look forward to seeing it all develop! 

Chad


----------



## manchesterjim (Dec 30, 2011)

Massey said:


> The device of choice I would use on your layout is a PM42.
> Massey


I second that motion! I just set up my first PM42 on my yard modules (with round house). Its really easy to set up and works great. Turns out I'll need a second one before this module is finished. On mine its set up like this:

Ch1: Eastbound mainline
Ch2: Westbound mainline
Ch3: Arrival/departure and Yard
Ch4: Double Crossover between the 2 mainlines

The second unit will provide an auto-reverse channel for for the round table, and then I'll need districts for my passenger station module and such.


----------



## sputlegin (Jan 19, 2012)

Perfect thank you for your help!

I will do some reading tonight on these. They're fairly inexpensive as well at around $80.00 each.







Massey said:


> The Oregon Pass layout has 4 levels actually and it is a very complex layout design. I know I tried to duplicate it with XtrkCAD which I am very good at using and failed miserably. Anyhoo...
> 
> The device of choice I would use on your layout is a PM42. You may want to consider using 2 of them, but you can do with one. THe PM42 has 4 channels that can be used with DC or DCC as power district controllers (short circuit protection) or as reverse loop controllers (phase shifting) or a combo of each with a total of 4 channels. I would have it set up like this:
> 
> ...


----------



## sputlegin (Jan 19, 2012)

Yes that is right!

If it gets too complicated I can always change it.

On another note, I finished framing the benchwork last night. Will pot some photos later. Yesterday was my last day off and I'm back to work tonight so I might get a chance to calculate and measure the curves and elevation for the plywood.

Might be some slow progress in the next week or so. My next days off getting some backcountry sledding in, back in my home town. It's been a horrible winter here so far. nothing but rain and mild weather. Great motivation for modeling!

It's great here guys lots of help and advice! This is the first forum I have used that's made it to 4 pages without someone directly or indirectly calling a poster an idiot and at least two guys getting into a fight over a completely unrelated topic haha.

Will post some photos of the completed benchwork tonight!
Thanks again guys!



mr_x_ite_ment said:


> The good news is that you can always simplify if you have to, Matt. You can get down to one track, and have just one wye for turning around (less to maintain with only one reverse module). You could also eliminate one of the branches of the wye, and always back the train in from the mainline (I realize you would not have the ability to turn around this way). I am sure you can find a way to make two wye's work for you as well. I look forward to seeing it all develop!
> 
> Chad


----------



## sputlegin (Jan 19, 2012)

Hey all,

Haven't had much of a chance to post some photos of the benchwork progress so here they are. Still needs a few pieces but it's all I was able to complete for now. the 2x4s are not permanent and I will fabricate some nice birch legs when I get back from my sled trip.



















I have also made some major changes to the layout plan reducing the track where the mainline passes the yard and adding industry spurs as was suggested. I think I like this one alot better. There is more room for scenery and a little more to do. Here it is:










Any suggestions for changes to the spurs will be greatly appreciated. Just threw this together off the top of my head.


----------



## Wheels70 (Jan 17, 2012)

I like it a lot better...your trains have something to do now other than go round 'n round. A couple of suggestions off the top of my head (looking at this quickly before a meeting...). 

First, that section at the very top with a couple of spurs and passing siding. How about putting the spurs on the inside of the mainline and the passing siding along the very top? I think you'd get a slightly larger radius for your mainline, a longer passing siding, and you'll have a little more room to model around the industry spurs -- with them being tucked into the corners like they are now, I think you might have a tough time finding structures that fit there.

You also have a fair bit of space below the roundhouse. I think you could add a turnout on the track leading to the roundhouse and have space for a couple or three tracks in that spot below the roundhouse, which you can use for loco/cabeese/MOW storage and a RIP track.

I like it much better though. I think you have the "right amount" of spur tracks; you've left a good bit of space for scenery and mainline running and you don't want it to get too crowded.

Thomas


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment (Jun 22, 2009)

Yea, Matt...I like this plan better...it cleans up that area on the east (right-hand) edge a lot!

Chad


----------



## sputlegin (Jan 19, 2012)

Ok guys what do you think of this?










Made some great improvements. Took your advice Wheels70 and it really cleaned up the top section. 

My idea in the beginning was to model the Newfoundland Railway (My home province) which was ripped up back in '87. The railway was a narrow gauge single mainline that passed right by my grandparent's house. Here is a photo I found in my parent's house of three NF110 Diesels pulling a goods train right past her front yard:










So...

I have taken everyone's advice and made some changes to better model this. A single mainline which allowed for larger radius curves and more room for industries. I also realized I was using #4 Turnouts in the main yeard. Swapped them all out with #6 and it made the yard much smaller allowing for a 24" radius on the left portion. I think I'm getting pretty close there now.

I plan to modify the area around the turntable but I'm sick of staring at this screen! Any suggestions?

Oh well, rip on sled Saturday will do me good. 2700ft should clear my head! 

Thanks everyone again for your help. I will post some updates when I get back in town on Tuesday.

Matt


----------



## mr_x_ite_ment (Jun 22, 2009)

Looks like a nice plan to me, Matt...a mathematical challenge, but a nice plan!

Chad


----------



## Wheels70 (Jan 17, 2012)

Yeah, definitely a mathematical challenge and I suspect it'll be interesting to build with all the elevation changes. (I really hope you've made sure all your non-grade crossings have enough vertical clearance...!)

I couldn't pass up your suggestion to do something with the area around the turntable. So here's a suggestion for you. I roughed this in quickly but it gets the idea across I think.

Last, I like the changes to the top of the layout. I notice you've increased your mainline radius 2". Nice job.

Thomas


----------



## sputlegin (Jan 19, 2012)

Love the plan for around the turntable! I will plot this in when I get home. It is exactly what I was looking for. It actually closely resembles the yard from a photograph of a town in Newfoundland. Minus the turntable.

Awesome work. Thanks for the ideas!



Wheels70 said:


> Yeah, definitely a mathematical challenge and I suspect it'll be interesting to build with all the elevation changes. (I really hope you've made sure all your non-grade crossings have enough vertical clearance...!)
> 
> I couldn't pass up your suggestion to do something with the area around the turntable. So here's a suggestion for you. I roughed this in quickly but it gets the idea across I think.
> 
> ...


----------



## SantaFeJim (Sep 8, 2015)

Sputlegin - Your layout looks very much like the Atlas HO Central Midland.

Check out Atlas-HO Central Midland track plan.

http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/...rs/railandsail/Central Midland track plan.jpg






Here is an animated version you might enjoy.


----------



## SantaFeJim (Sep 8, 2015)

More videos of the Central Midland.

Additional updates follow automatically on Youtube.


----------



## SantaFeJim (Sep 8, 2015)

(duplicate post) deleted by SantaFeJim


----------

