# Feedback on layout requested



## abt (5 mo ago)

I've been planning a HO model (or rather: toy) railroad that's more family friendly than my N scale. For unrelated reasons, I'm restricted to a 9x5' table. Given that there is more than one person involved, the list of "must-haves" is long given the space. Fortunately, "realism" isn't a priority and we'll be fine with running short trains. Hence, the toy railroad rather than model railroad. I'm planning on using Code 100 track.

Must haves:

Two loops that can be used independently
Fun operations (again in a toy not realism sense)
Railroad in canyon
Logging scene of California Redwoods
Must not have extended visible tracks that are parallel to the table edge

I truly appreciate any thoughts!

Track plan









Layer 0









Layer 1









Layer 2









And some 3D snapshots


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

I REALLY like that plan! A couple first thoughts:

First, it seems pretty complex for a toy layout. Perhaps I misunderstood when you said something to the effect of not worrying about realism... It sure looks like you're wanting to make realistic looking scenery, so when you said "not realistic," did you mean things like steep grades, sharp curves, stuff like that? Or are you not planning to make the scenery look real? If I was building that, I wouldn't be happy unless it looked as real as possible. But that's just me. I like to build more than I like to run trains.

What I like the most about your plan, is that you have multiple elevations, and multiple bridges and tunnels, which really add a lot of interesting visuals that are also really fun to build.\

Second, I would assemble a test track using the tightest curve pieces in order to test your trains before building. The tighter the curve, the more likely a locomotive, or even longer rolling stock pieces, will have negotiating the curve. And 15" radius curves are really tight for HO scale.


----------



## abt (5 mo ago)

Thank you for your comments! I'll do the test track this weekend - that's a great idea. Our rolling stock isn't fancy, engines and cars are all relatively short, so fingers crossed. I should probably also test the incline given that I have 4% in several places and even a bit more for the logging part…
I’m glad you like the plan, that gives me confidence!


----------



## MidwestMikeGT (Jan 4, 2021)

I think what @JeffHurl meant to say, instead of "_The tighter the curve, the more likely a locomotive, or even longer rolling stock pieces, will have negotiating the curve_" is "_The tighter the curve, the more likely a locomotive, or even longer rolling stock pieces, will have *trouble* negotiating the curve._"


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

Thanks for clarifying for me, @MidwestMikeGT


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

Yes, the closer one gets to the actual engineered limits, the more likely one is to have vexing and persistent troubles. Who needs that in a hobby that's supposed to be fun?


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

abt said:


> Thank you for your comments! I'll do the test track this weekend - that's a great idea. Our rolling stock isn't fancy, engines and cars are all relatively short, so fingers crossed. I should probably also test the incline given that I have 4% in several places and even a bit more for the logging part…
> I’m glad you like the plan, that gives me confidence!


If you're going to test, you should probably put the curve at the top or bottom of an incline n order to test the worst case scenario. Both a curve and an incline will impart drag that the locomotive must overcome. So an incline is even harder if the locomotive must also make a curve. For example, I have an incline that starts as soon as a curve straightens out. While the loco is pulling cars up the incline, a lot of cars are still approaching the curve that leads to the incline... therefore, more drag than just gravity working against it.


----------



## abt (5 mo ago)

Good point. Thank you.


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

Good luck! And have fun!


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

You seem have two 'reverse loops' (it's difficult to clearly make out
your track plan in the pic). You would need to
use insulated joiners or gaps to isolate these sections.
Each would need a DCC reverse loop controller for
power. 

Don


----------



## BigGRacing (Sep 25, 2020)

Great looking plan in my opinion !


----------



## Raege (Jan 7, 2022)

Nice looking layout plan it sure looks to have something for everyone.


----------



## abt (5 mo ago)

mesenteria said:


> Yes, the closer one gets to the actual engineered limits, the more likely one is to have vexing and persistent troubles. Who needs that in a hobby that's supposed to be fun?


True but there’s also the space constraint…


----------



## abt (5 mo ago)

Raege said:


> Nice looking layout plan it sure looks to have something for everyone.


Thank you.


----------



## abt (5 mo ago)

DonR said:


> You seem have two 'reverse loops' (it's difficult to clearly make out
> your track plan in the pic). You would need to
> use insulated joiners or gaps to isolate these sections.
> Each would need a DCC reverse loop controller for
> ...


Thank you for pointing it out. I see the purchase of two Digitrax AR1s in my future…


----------



## MidwestMikeGT (Jan 4, 2021)

JeffHurl said:


> Thanks for clarifying for me, @MidwestMikeGT


Hope you are not offended by it. I assumed that was what you meant.


----------



## kilowatt62 (Aug 18, 2019)

Cool track plan. Very busy to keep two or three trains running. Will keep the young ones concentration levels at a premium.
If your running 40’ max rolling stock, 8 wheel diesel Locos and, 2-8-4 or less steam Locos, you’ll be fine with 18 radius and a few #4 turnouts.
4% grade though? Hmmm. Get that down to 3% or less where ever you can.
Most importantly (to me at least) I see at least five hard ‘S’ curves in the plan. That’s a big no no in my book for a few reasons. Primary one being derailment issues. You can have those in a gentler form by adding at least a car length or so worth of straight track between curves, or use flex track to a better effect.


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

abt said:


> True but there’s also the space constraint…


Which means exceptionally good trackwork and maybe another choice of rolling stock.


----------



## OilValleyRy (Oct 3, 2021)

I test ran a consist of two C30-7s on 18” radius. It worked. Not saying it worked fine or looked good, but it worked. A total of 0 cars were pulled. Overhang was unsightly. Speed kept low. But they did navigate the radius. C30-7s are close to or maybe a little longer than an SD40-2, and I had 2 consisted. One would probably be better if you wanted to pull cars.
So it can be done, but it’ll look bad. On the other hand, an SD24, RSD11 etc would look just fine as they are much shorter 6 axle units.
If your layout will be 9x5 then go with 24” radius. As a general rule, always go with the largest radius you can fit, not the smallest you can get things to navigate.
I had an HO layout with 22” radius and an SD40-2 never derailed on it.


----------



## 65steam (Dec 18, 2019)

I'm impressed with how well you've managed to fit all those things onto this layout plan. As others have suggested, do thorough testing before proceeding. You don't want to put hours into a layout that ends up being a disappointment due to lack of functionality.


----------



## abt (5 mo ago)

Raege said:


> Nice looking layout plan it sure looks to have something for everyone.


Thank you!


kilowatt62 said:


> Cool track plan. Very busy to keep two or three trains running. Will keep the young ones concentration levels at a premium.
> If your running 40’ max rolling stock, 8 wheel diesel Locos and, 2-8-4 or less steam Locos, you’ll be fine with 18 radius and a few #4 turnouts.
> 4% grade though? Hmmm. Get that down to 3% or less where ever you can.
> Most importantly (to me at least) I see at least five hard ‘S’ curves in the plan. That’s a big no no in my book for a few reasons. Primary one being derailment issues. You can have those in a gentler form by adding at least a car length or so worth of straight track between curves, or use flex track to a better effect.


Thank you for the feedback. I'm not yet sure what to do about the incline. I worked a bit on the track plan to get rid of the 'S' curve problem you point out. So far, I've only made changes to the lower level. It really looks better and if it means fewer derailments that'd be great. Thank you again for pointing that out.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

I understand space constraints but the tight curves and steep grades are just asking for trouble. You may have noticed by now that while layout design software will let you draw pretty much anything you can conceive of, it won't necessarily work well. Test this thoroughly. Telling yourself that you had no choice but to use steep grades and tight curves due to space constraints won't be much consolation if your trains won't run without stalling / derailing.

The other thing you need to watch out for is overhang. Those tight curves are going to create significant overhang both inside and outside of curves, even with fairly short equipment. Even if you can get it to run, you'll still have to be careful to allow enough clearance to scenery and between levels.


----------



## abt (5 mo ago)

CTValleyRR said:


> I understand space constraints but the tight curves and steep grades are just asking for trouble. You may have noticed by now that while layout design software will let you draw pretty much anything you can conceive of, it won't necessarily work well. Test this thoroughly. Telling yourself that you had no choice but to use steep grades and tight curves due to space constraints won't be much consolation if your trains won't run without stalling / derailing.
> 
> The other thing you need to watch out for is overhang. Those tight curves are going to create significant overhang both inside and outside of curves, even with fairly short equipment. Even if you can get it to run, you'll still have to be careful to allow enough clearance to scenery and between levels.


Thank you for your comments. I'm setting up some track this weekend to do some tests. I've also redesigned it to get the grade down to 3%, hopefully that will help.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

abt said:


> Thank you for your comments. I'm setting up some track this weekend to do some tests. I've also redesigned it to get the grade down to 3%, hopefully that will help.


That's a very smart move, and will make a lot of difference. Remember to ease the transition (use a short section of shallower grade) at each end of those grades. That will help minimize derailments, uncouplings, and coupler snags on the ties.


----------



## Bigfoot21075 (Aug 7, 2021)

Let me preface this by saying, "I DON'T KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT". BUT here it goes. If you look at the Grand Valley kit from Woodland Scenics (the LARGEST maker of scenic stuff and layout kits) they have 4% inclines and 18" curves in their Flagship HO Layout kit. IMHO (which again means nothing), if you stick to the small stuff and are just trying to have some fun - go for it. If you can make larger curves, do that, but if not I doubt it will burst into flames. Getting rid of the S is important and it does look better.....

Here is something that may help. Need advice as to what loco's run well on 15" radius - Model Railroader Magazine - Model Railroading, Model Trains, Reviews, Track Plans, and Forums

The bottom line is it seems like it will work.


----------



## OilValleyRy (Oct 3, 2021)

Well yeah, but just because somebody makes it…. A good example; somebody makes flexi-straw type drain traps for under a sink. Can buy them at Home Depot. They’re an automatic code violation & should be illegal. They fail 100% of the time. But they are sold to folks who don’t know any better. Do they work for a while? Yeah before they fail. Just like a motor climbing 4%. It can do it. But the fun won’t last.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Bigfoot21075 said:


> Let me preface this by saying, "I DON'T KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT". BUT here it goes. If you look at the Grand Valley kit from Woodland Scenics (the LARGEST maker of scenic stuff and layout kits) they have 4% inclines and 18" curves in their Flagship HO Layout kit. IMHO (which again means nothing), if you stick to the small stuff and are just trying to have some fun - go for it. If you can make larger curves, do that, but if not I doubt it will burst into flames. Getting rid of the S is important and it does look better.....
> 
> Here is something that may help. Need advice as to what loco's run well on 15" radius - Model Railroader Magazine - Model Railroading, Model Trains, Reviews, Track Plans, and Forums
> 
> The bottom line is it seems like it will work.


Woodland Scenics is a marketing machine. Sales volume is no guarantee that they make products that are high quality. They're the largest seller of layout kits because no one else does so, so they win by default. But answer me this: how many of those kits have been constructed and are still in use in their original configuration, and how many are gathering dust in a basement because they don't work very well. 

Woodland Scenics in business to make money. Everything they do is geared towards selling more of their own product. They make some really good products (incline starters), a ton of fair ones (scenery materials, DPM structure kits, etc), a bunch of stuff that is just a marked up version of something you can get cheaper elsewhere (Scenic Cement), and a lot of stuff that is only purchased by the uninformed and unwary (like many beginners).. know what you need and what will actually work before you purchase something with their logo on it.


----------



## kilowatt62 (Aug 18, 2019)

Well said on the Woodland Scenics topic CTValley.


----------



## Bigfoot21075 (Aug 7, 2021)

CTValleyRR said:


> Woodland Scenics is a marketing machine. Sales volume is no guarantee that they make products that are high quality. They're the largest seller of layout kits because no one else does so, so they win by default. But answer me this: how many of those kits have been constructed and are still in use in their original configuration, and how many are gathering dust in a basement because they don't work very well.
> 
> Woodland Scenics in business to make money. Everything they do is geared towards selling more of their own product. They make some really good products (incline starters), a ton of fair ones (scenery materials, DPM structure kits, etc), a bunch of stuff that is just a marked up version of something you can get cheaper elsewhere (Scenic Cement), and a lot of stuff that is only purchased by the uninformed and unwary (like many beginners).. know what you need and what will actually work before you purchase something with their logo on it.


annnd at the same time how many abandoned scratch built railroad attempts adorn the basements all over America? Search for "You Tube Woodland Scenics Grand Valley" and you will get plenty of working examples. I agree 100% they are a marketing machine, and I am glad! Their concept makes it so a beginner can create a good looking, reliable railroad using their stuff. No one can say it does not work or that the layout is doomed to failure because it is on a 4x8 with 18" curves and #4's everywhere. THAT is the entire point. 18" curves and #4 turn outs WILL in fact operate trains. I would hazard a guess that those two track pieces are the most popular non-flex pieces in model railroad history. FOR A REASON.

I never mentioned I wanted to purchase a layout kit, but the point that the track selections do in fact work is 100%. I for one and GREATFUL to any company that does so much to bring new people in and people back into this hobby. If that does not happen then manufactures will close and we will have little to choose from. Now if I was retired and had my own Taj Mahal like you guys apparently do, I could spend all day workin on the railroad... (THAT WAS A JOKE).

CTValley, I do APPRECAITE your points though. Woodland Scenics is there to make money, as is EVERY other corporation in the world.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

18" curves and 4% grades will work for SOME trains. If you're happy with those limitations, then no problem. Some people start out being OK with it, then suddenly aren't when their beautiful new PA1 won't run on their layout.

I don't deny that WS makes it easy to get a layout up and running with decent looking scenery. Point is that there are hundreds of other options, many of them better and / or cheaper. Of course, their techniques and how-to stuff is all about selling THEIR products, not about making the best layout possible. If you keep that in mind, WS products are a good option in many cases. Just don't make the mistake of thinking that their method is the only one that works.


----------



## BigGRacing (Sep 25, 2020)

Bigfoot21075 said:


> 18" curves and #4 turn outs


I have upgraded my layout start over the last year to larger curves and nickel silver, but my 18” brass track is still used as my oval every year around the Christmas tree with the 30 plus year old junk trains that some do not care for. 
I will upgrade as I go for sure, but sometimes for starters, the simple starter set is a great start.


----------



## sid (Mar 26, 2018)

real railroads have many s curves , just sayin ...............


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

sid said:


> real railroads have many s curves , just sayin ...............


No sayin' much.... it's an accurate statement, but I don't see that it adds any value. Curves used by prototype railroads are MUCH broader than our model ones.


----------



## TNTWOLTEMD (6 mo ago)

abt said:


> Thank you!
> 
> this is part of the layout I`m working to build but can it be redone in N scale? not a computer genius here so I can use all the help i can get. Thanks
> Thank you for the feedback. I'm not yet sure what to do about the incline. I worked a bit on the track plan to get rid of the 'S' curve problem you point out. So far, I've only made changes to the lower level. It really looks better and if it means fewer derailments that'd be great. Thank you again for pointing that out.
> View attachment 587153


----------



## TNTWOLTEMD (6 mo ago)

This is part of layout I`m planning. Can it be redone in N scale? Not a computer genius so I can`t deal with these layout programs. Thanks


----------

