# Planning my First HO Basement Layout - Need Some Help



## dm9249

I've decided to start planning for a new layout in my basement. This will be the first layout I've built on my own. I am working in HO scale, plan to go with DCC, and I want something that allows for continuous running and some simple operations. The space I have to work in is approximately 14' x 11' in the corner of my basement. I'm looking at doing a large rectangle with the center cut out and then one leg jutting out to accommodate a wye for turning my trains around. 

Here are some of the things I want to include:
1) Single main line loop with several industrial spurs
2) Small yard for storing locomotives and rolling stock (probably no more than three or four locos and maybe 5-10 cars)
3) A single stall engine house along with a fueling/sand station
4) A wye connected to the yard for turning trains around
5) A downtown/commercial district with one main street (I like building kits and want to build a nice little town)

I've been playing around with SCARM a lot lately and this is what I came up with so far. I'd appreciate any feedback on the design of the track plan as I've never really done this before. I don't think this would cause any issues with the DCC and wiring, but I could be wrong and that's why I'm here. The buildings I've placed are just generic for now, but I would like to keep this general layout if possible.

The main rectangle of the table is 170" long and 84" wide. The leg jutting out for the wye is 36" long and approx. 12" wide. I tried to limit the maximum reach to 30" which seems to be a good number for me. I went with mostly 22" radii in the corners and have all #4 Atlas turnouts other than the two curved ones, those are Shinohara #6.5 turnouts. Some of the straight sections still need to be converted to flex track, I was just using the sectional pieces to get started.


----------



## DonR

Looks like a very nice operational layout.

You have two passing sidings which make possible
two trains running in opposite directions at the same time.
That capability is one of the advantages of DCC control.

I would plan on more than one 'industry' for each of your
spur tracks. That would add to the switching operations.

Is that track parallel to the engine house for loco service
with fueling, sand tower, etc.?

As one who has a duck under layout, I definitely advise against
it. Do plan from the start to have a lift or drop 'bridge' that has
a built in 'switch' to cut power to the tracks leading to it on
both sides so there would be no surprise crash to the floor.

Don


----------



## CTValleyRR

I agree with Don -- you've got a very nice little layout there, with the possibility for some expansion off both the tail of the Y and the spur that goes off to the right.

I also agree with him about the duck under. I'm only in my early 50's, and I already find it difficult to duck under a layout of a typical height (48" or so). While the cutoff switch is a good idea, it's only really necessary if you will have multiple operators or intend to leave a train running while you go do something else.

The only other issue you might want to consider is the #4 turnouts. They are more or less equivalent to an 18" radius curve in their ability to handle longer equipment. Moving up to #6's, at least outside of the yard, would give you better operating capabilities and make your #6.5 turnouts (roughly a 20" inside radius) the limiting factor on your layout.


----------



## dm9249

DonR said:


> Looks like a very nice operational layout.
> 
> You have two passing sidings which make possible
> two trains running in opposite directions at the same time.
> That capability is one of the advantages of DCC control.
> 
> I would plan on more than one 'industry' for each of your
> spur tracks. That would add to the switching operations.
> 
> Is that track parallel to the engine house for loco service
> with fueling, sand tower, etc.?
> 
> As one who has a duck under layout, I definitely advise against
> it. Do plan from the start to have a lift or drop 'bridge' that has
> a built in 'switch' to cut power to the tracks leading to it on
> both sides so there would be no surprise crash to the floor.
> 
> Don


Thanks for the comments. I'll definitely be considering the lift out option, I was thinking the duck under would just be simpler to start with. 

I'll see what I can squeeze in for the industries on the spurs. At this point I was just taking some rough dimensions of random industrial type structures on the Walther's site as placeholders, so there is still plenty of opportunity to change things up there. I just hope I am leaving myself enough room for some decent sized industries and all the parking areas/access driveways those places will need. 

As far as the track parallel to the engine house, it would either be for fueling/sanding or maybe just a place to park one extra locomotive. Not 100% sure yet.


----------



## dm9249

CTValleyRR said:


> I agree with Don -- you've got a very nice little layout there, with the possibility for some expansion off both the tail of the Y and the spur that goes off to the right.
> 
> I also agree with him about the duck under. I'm only in my early 50's, and I already find it difficult to duck under a layout of a typical height (48" or so). While the cutoff switch is a good idea, it's only really necessary if you will have multiple operators or intend to leave a train running while you go do something else.
> 
> The only other issue you might want to consider is the #4 turnouts. They are more or less equivalent to an 18" radius curve in their ability to handle longer equipment. Moving up to #6's, at least outside of the yard, would give you better operating capabilities and make your #6.5 turnouts (roughly a 20" inside radius) the limiting factor on your layout.


Thanks for the tip on the #4 turnouts, I appreciate the feedback. I wasn't really thinking about the actual radius being approx. 18" when I just plopped them onto the layout in SCARM, so that's something I will look at updating before I get too far into this.

I'm not too worried about the limiting factor being 18" if for whatever reason I cannot get the #6 turnouts to work. I'm planning on only using 4 axle locomotives and nothing much longer than 50' boxcars.


----------



## Cycleops

Looks good. The only observation I would make is your fiddle yard, as I read it, is a bit of a stretch from your operating position, rather than having it in front of you.


----------



## sstlaure

I 3rd the - don't go with a duck-under advice.....Had one. It drove me absolutely nuts and I hated crawling under that sucker, and I was only in my 30's at the time.


----------



## dm9249

Cycleops said:


> Looks good. The only observation I would make is your fiddle yard, as I read it, is a bit of a stretch from your operating position, rather than having it in front of you.


Thanks for pointing that out. I wasn't really thinking about it that way. I think it is something I will just deal with at this point. I plan on testing everything out before securing the track permanently, so if I do find things need to be changed up, then I'll have to figure something out at that point.


----------



## dm9249

sstlaure said:


> I 3rd the - don't go with a duck-under advice.....Had one. It drove me absolutely nuts and I hated crawling under that sucker, and I was only in my 30's at the time.


I'm definitely leaning towards the lift out, but I've never done one before so I'll have to figure out exactly how to make that work. I'm only in my mid 20's now so having to duck under wouldn't be the end of the world for me, but definitely not ideal.


----------



## dm9249

I made some minor changes and updated everything to #6 turnouts. I also thought it might be cool to put a scenery divider between the yard area and the rest of the layout (see red dotted line). Is this a good place to try that? I think it would give the illusion that the rail served industries are not actually right next to the yard. 

Here is the new plan. Same overall size as before (170" long x 84" wide + 36" for the extra leg).


----------



## CTValleyRR

I do like the addition of the scenery divider to give the illusion that the trains actually go somewhere. I have a similar idea incorporated into my own layout plan. The issue you will run into now is one of access. If it really does block the view (and it will certainly block the reach), you may find yourself constantly running around the layout (through your lift-out / duck under) to deal with your fiddle yard. I addressed this problem by having one of my boys on the opposite side of the layout operating a small switcher (GE 44 Tonner) to move cuts of cars, and hostling locos to make them available for another run.

You have an advantage in your design in that you have a Y near your yard to allow turning locos and short cuts of cars. I don't have that luxury. They either have to hit one of the reversing sections on the main layout or use the HOG method (hand of God).


----------



## dm9249

CTValleyRR said:


> I do like the addition of the scenery divider to give the illusion that the trains actually go somewhere. I have a similar idea incorporated into my own layout plan. The issue you will run into now is one of access. If it really does block the view (and it will certainly block the reach), you may find yourself constantly running around the layout (through your lift-out / duck under) to deal with your fiddle yard. I addressed this problem by having one of my boys on the opposite side of the layout operating a small switcher (GE 44 Tonner) to move cuts of cars, and hostling locos to make them available for another run.
> 
> You have an advantage in your design in that you have a Y near your yard to allow turning locos and short cuts of cars. I don't have that luxury. They either have to hit one of the reversing sections on the main layout or use the HOG method (hand of God).


I did think about that and it does slightly worry me that I would be having to run back and forth between the center and the outside. Since I will probably spend more time just watching trains run by than switching in the yard, it might not be a big deal. Whenever I do want to run some operations, I can at least pickup/drop off at all of the industries without leaving my seat, then get the train back onto the main and walk out and around while it travels around and back to the yard.

What material did you use for your divider? I was thinking about getting a sheet of masonite/hardboard and having it ripped down to about 12" tall. That way I can put a little bend in it at the far ends of the layout if needed.


----------



## Cycleops

dm9249 said:


> What material did you use for your divider? I was thinking about getting a sheet of masonite/hardboard and having it ripped down to about 12" tall. That way I can put a little bend in it at the far ends of the layout if needed.


Thin ply would be just as good as it may be a bit more flexible.


----------



## dm9249

Cycleops said:


> Thin ply would be just as good as it may be a bit more flexible.


Thanks! I'll keep that in mind when I get around to making the divider. I don't care what I use as long as it works and looks good painted.


----------



## sstlaure

dm9249 said:


> I did think about that and it does slightly worry me that I would be having to run back and forth between the center and the outside. Since I will probably spend more time just watching trains run by than switching in the yard, it might not be a big deal. Whenever I do want to run some operations, I can at least pickup/drop off at all of the industries without leaving my seat, then get the train back onto the main and walk out and around while it travels around and back to the yard.
> 
> What material did you use for your divider? I was thinking about getting a sheet of masonite/hardboard and having it ripped down to about 12" tall. That way I can put a little bend in it at the far ends of the layout if needed.


You could always mount a mirror (or a camera) in a way to give you a view of your yard from the opposite side of the layout.


----------



## CTValleyRR

I used a product called Gatorfoam -- basically artists foam core with a very thin sheet of wood laminated to each side. Mine is 6" high (I can see over it) and dead straight. Gator foam isn't very flexible; if you want curves or bends, try masonite or 1/8" lauan plywood.

The camera is a good idea if you can afford it and work with it. I had a very embarrassing experience on a friends layout. His staging was hidden and he used cameras, but I couldn't judge things very well, and eventually slammed 2 trains together hard, derailing about 1/4 of the cars in the yard at the time.


----------



## dm9249

sstlaure said:


> You could always mount a mirror (or a camera) in a way to give you a view of your yard from the opposite side of the layout.


That's a great idea, thanks! If it gets to the point where I want to avoid waling around, I'll definitely be considering this.


----------



## dm9249

CTValleyRR said:


> I used a product called Gatorfoam -- basically artists foam core with a very thin sheet of wood laminated to each side. Mine is 6" high (I can see over it) and dead straight. Gator foam isn't very flexible; if you want curves or bends, try masonite or 1/8" lauan plywood.
> 
> The camera is a good idea if you can afford it and work with it. I had a very embarrassing experience on a friends layout. His staging was hidden and he used cameras, but I couldn't judge things very well, and eventually slammed 2 trains together hard, derailing about 1/4 of the cars in the yard at the time.


That sounds like something I would do .


----------



## dm9249

Ok, now that I have a rough track plan in place (at least for now) I've started thinking about how to design the benchwork. I want to go with 1x3's for the frame and use 2x2's for legs. Below is how I thought I could easily break the layout into sections that could be taken apart relatively easily if I ever need to move the layout. These are just the main rectangular areas, I would still need to come up with something for the radius at the corners. 

Any thoughts/recommendations on this design?


----------



## DonR

Yes, modular is the way to go. Screw the module parts together, no mails.
Bolt the modules to each other. Be sure to drill adequate holes to pass wires
through from module to module.

You might consider L legs made of 2 X 3 or 4 screwed together. They fit
into corners and the ability to bolt them to both frame pieces adds
stability. 

You'll find it easier to keep everything level if you mount leveling screws
on the bottom of each leg.

Don


----------



## sstlaure

I 2nd the leveling screws in the bottoms of the legs.

I used 1x4 for the outer frame, 1x3 for the stringers and 2x2 for the legs with 1x2 braces. Although I didn't put the legs at the edge of the benchwork but rather quite a bit inboard and then ran braces from the legs out to the edges of the benchwork (lots of pics in my build thread.) When the legs are right at the edge I guarantee you'll whack your knees in just the right spot to bring on tears at some point.


----------



## dm9249

DonR said:


> Yes, modular is the way to go. Screw the module parts together, no mails.
> Bolt the modules to each other. Be sure to drill adequate holes to pass wires
> through from module to module.
> 
> You might consider L legs made of 2 X 3 or 4 screwed together. They fit
> into corners and the ability to bolt them to both frame pieces adds
> stability.
> 
> You'll find it easier to keep everything level if you mount leveling screws
> on the bottom of each leg.
> 
> Don


Thanks for the input! I might go with the L legs since that does sound like it would provide more support. I was also planning on the leveling screws because I know my basement floor is not very level even just within the area I plan to build in.


----------



## dm9249

sstlaure said:


> I 2nd the leveling screws in the bottoms of the legs.
> 
> I used 1x4 for the outer frame, 1x3 for the stringers and 2x2 for the legs with 1x2 braces. Although I didn't put the legs at the edge of the benchwork but rather quite a bit inboard and then ran braces from the legs out to the edges of the benchwork (lots of pics in my build thread.) When the legs are right at the edge I guarantee you'll whack your knees in just the right spot to bring on tears at some point.


That's a good idea going with the 1x4 for the frame and 1x3 for the stringers, I might have to do that with mine. 

I was also thinking about the leg placement after I posted this and I will probably move them in as far as possible without compromising the structure. I definitely don't want to be whacking my knees on anything.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Good benchwork design there. Unlike some other folks who have no idea how to proceed, you seem to have a pretty good handle on the basics. The next test will be after you build it, does it satisfy your modeling and operating needs? Only one way to find that out, and that's to grab the bull by the horns and go.

Two quick comments. I take a 1x4 and rip it into two 1x2s, then use those and a 1x3 to make L girders. When I made mine, i couldn't see how to put leveling bolts in the bottom and used shims, which works but is annoying. The solution, of course, is to place a short piece of 2x2 at the bottom of each leg to hold the bolt.

The only other comment on the benchwork is that, depending on what you intend to use for a base, 16" stringers will give you more support. The last thing you want is for things to be flexing under your track.


----------



## sstlaure

You can buy nut inserts that simply get hammered into a hole which you drill in the bottom of the 2x2. (I believe they are called nutserts) You then just screw a bolt into the insert.


----------



## dm9249

CTValleyRR said:


> Good benchwork design there. Unlike some other folks who have no idea how to proceed, you seem to have a pretty good handle on the basics. The next test will be after you build it, does it satisfy your modeling and operating needs? Only one way to find that out, and that's to grab the bull by the horns and go.
> 
> Two quick comments. I take a 1x4 and rip it into two 1x2s, then use those and a 1x3 to make L girders. When I made mine, i couldn't see how to put leveling bolts in the bottom and used shims, which works but is annoying. The solution, of course, is to place a short piece of 2x2 at the bottom of each leg to hold the bolt.
> 
> The only other comment on the benchwork is that, depending on what you intend to use for a base, 16" stringers will give you more support. The last thing you want is for things to be flexing under your track.


Thanks. I've been reading as much as I can here and elsewhere online to know what to do. I'm also a design engineer by day, so the CAD type work is pretty easy for me. I just wanted something simple that can be taken apart easily. 

I do like the idea of the L girders with the short piece of 2x2.


----------



## dm9249

sstlaure said:


> You can buy nut inserts that simply get hammered into a hole which you drill in the bottom of the 2x2. (I believe they are called nutserts) You then just screw a bolt into the insert.


That's a good idea too. These are what I was thinking about using: http://www.homedepot.com/p/Shepherd-1-1-2-in-Threaded-Stem-Furniture-Glides-with-Felt-Base-4-per-Pack-9909/100193891


----------



## CTValleyRR

Those are the right idea. If you don't have a hardwood or tile floor, though, the felt won't do much for you; you'd want a hard plastic or stainless steel foot. I know they sell those at HD, because I've bought them there many times.


----------



## dm9249

CTValleyRR said:


> Those are the right idea. If you don't have a hardwood or tile floor, though, the felt won't do much for you; you'd want a hard plastic or stainless steel foot. I know they sell those at HD, because I've bought them there many times.


That's a good point, I'll be working on a concrete floor, so I'll have to find something other than the felt ones. Those were just the first thing that popped up in my search.


----------



## sstlaure

This is what I used, they simply hammer in and you use a bolt as the foot. Adjustment made with an open end wrench on the head of the bolt with the weight of the table holding it to the floor. 

http://www.lowes.com/ProductDisplay?productId=3012534

Once installed, just put your level on the benchwork and adjust the bolts to level everything out.


----------



## dm9249

Ok, I've been thinking about this a bit more now and I may have gotten myself into more than I am comfortable with to start. Part of that comes from taking a look at the startup costs of just the track. I think I want to do the track in at least two different stages at this point. This way I can help minimize the cost and have a less complicated time wiring and getting everything working. This is after all the first layout I'm building on my own. 

This is the new plan (at least for now):

Stage 1 = Primary main line loop
Rather than going for the whole thing all at once, I thought it might be better to start with a continuous loop just to get comfortable with DCC and see how I like the general shape of the layout. I re-arranged some of the track so I can plan ahead and leave sections exactly 11.5" long and just pull them out and replace them with #6 turnouts when the time is right. 

I also changed the curved turnout in the upper right back to a #6 since I didn't realize just how expensive those curved turnouts are. Plus, this makes it much easier to plan ahead and leave the correct spacing for swapping it out later. I think I can also skip building the leg of the benchwork for the wye, since that would be part of stage 2. The sections shown in red are what I would eventually replace. 











Stage 2 = Add turnouts so I can place sidings, yard, and wye
Assuming I like and want to keep the same general plan, the second stage would be replacing those 11.5" sections with #6 turnouts so I can expand the layout. I may even be able to do this in sections as well, but that I will decide later. The sections in red are the track I would be adding for this stage. 










What do you guys think of this plan? I feel like it is a much safer option seeing that this is my first layout and I don't want to get overwhelmed.


----------



## DonR

Still looking great.

I see that you are really working to have your road be continuous
through the layout. Maybe you would find it easier to 'pretend'
that the roads connect (somewhere off the layout) and just let them
go 'over the side'. That would give you more leeway for the
placement of your industries and other buildings. That is what
I have done with my roads.

An early unfinished scene:









The street across the front ends at table edge both directions,
for example.

Don


----------



## dm9249

DonR said:


> Still looking great.
> 
> I see that you are really working to have your road be continuous
> through the layout. Maybe you would find it easier to 'pretend'
> that the roads connect (somewhere off the layout) and just let them
> go 'over the side'. That would give you more leeway for the
> placement of your industries and other buildings. That is what
> I have done with my roads.
> 
> An early unfinished scene:
> 
> View attachment 64690
> 
> 
> The street across the front ends at table edge both directions,
> for example.
> 
> Don


That's a good idea, thanks! I might just do that with the road that I had planned to run along the industries on the left side of the layout. I could just have the driveways to each industry run out to the edge of the layout (towards the center). That would definitely give me some extra space.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Well, unfortunately, it sounds like you have just discovered the hard way that this is NOT a cheap hobby...at least until you have bought your track, structures, and rolling stock.

Two pieces of advice here (no, I can't make things cheaper): 1) Build the layout you want. Don't let the cost of something force you into a decision that you will regret later. It just takes a little patience and a budget. 2) Don't plan on ripouts. Build it right the first time. Just don't throw the turnouts until you have some track connected to them.

just my opinion, of course. You're free to take my advice or leave it.


----------



## flyboy2610

sstlaure said:


> This is what I used, they simply hammer in and you use a bolt as the foot. Adjustment made with an open end wrench on the head of the bolt with the weight of the table holding it to the floor.
> 
> http://www.lowes.com/ProductDisplay?productId=3012534
> 
> Once installed, just put your level on the benchwork and adjust the bolts to level everything out.


That's what I used as well. Much cheaper that furniture levelers.


----------



## dm9249

CTValleyRR said:


> Well, unfortunately, it sounds like you have just discovered the hard way that this is NOT a cheap hobby...at least until you have bought your track, structures, and rolling stock.
> 
> Two pieces of advice here (no, I can't make things cheaper): 1) Build the layout you want. Don't let the cost of something force you into a decision that you will regret later. It just takes a little patience and a budget. 2) Don't plan on ripouts. Build it right the first time. Just don't throw the turnouts until you have some track connected to them.
> 
> just my opinion, of course. You're free to take my advice or leave it.


I think I can end up somewhere in the middle on the issue of tearing out track to accommodate the turnouts. If I keep the six that I need to maintain the main line I can just add the necessary track to expand later on. That would only slightly increase the cost of my phase 1 and avoid ripping anything out to make changes.


----------



## traction fan

*Possible change of plan*

49;
Sorry, I'm to old to remember the rest of your screen name! It's a wonder I can remember my own, at times! 
Your layout looks great! Like others I'm going to caution(nag?) you about the duck under; but I have a different possible solution. Since you have space for that wye tail track, can you negotiate (with wife?) a little more space? I'm looking at the area to the right of the wye. Could you fit a loop of track in there? Possibly using the tail track as a starting point. Could you also do something similar at the other side of the duck under? This would turn a duck under layout into a walk in layout. With loops at either end,you would still have continuous
running and no duck under. This would save a lot of engineering and labor building a drop leaf, 
or lift out section. It would also save your, soon-to-be-aching back and head! Seriously it's
well worth some extra thought and effort now to prevent prolonged, repeated, misery later.
If you absolutely must have that track across the duck under, I would recommend the drop leaf over a lift out. A lift out needs to be set down somewhere. Sooner or later, it will get set down in the wrong place and fall to the floor or break whatever it's set on. The drop down hinged leaf is self storing and somewhat self aligning, if built well.

In any case, good luck to you;

Traction Fan


----------



## dm9249

traction fan said:


> 49;
> Sorry, I'm to old to remember the rest of your screen name! It's a wonder I can remember my own, at times!
> Your layout looks great! Like others I'm going to caution(nag?) you about the duck under; but I have a different possible solution. Since you have space for that wye tail track, can you negotiate (with wife?) a little more space? I'm looking at the area to the right of the wye. Could you fit a loop of track in there? Possibly using the tail track as a starting point. Could you also do something similar at the other side of the duck under? This would turn a duck under layout into a walk in layout. With loops at either end,you would still have continuous
> running and no duck under. This would save a lot of engineering and labor building a drop leaf,
> or lift out section. It would also save your, soon-to-be-aching back and head! Seriously it's
> well worth some extra thought and effort now to prevent prolonged, repeated, misery later.
> If you absolutely must have that track across the duck under, I would recommend the drop leaf over a lift out. A lift out needs to be set down somewhere. Sooner or later, it will get set down in the wrong place and fall to the floor or break whatever it's set on. The drop down hinged leaf is self storing and somewhat self aligning, if built well.
> 
> In any case, good luck to you;
> 
> Traction Fan


Thanks for the feedback! I'll have to take a look at my plan in SCARM again and see if I can work something out with the loop idea. I can take up as much space in the basement as I want, I just don't want to have this thing get too big and overwhelm myself.

With all the feedback I'm getting on the duck under, I think at a minimum I will be doing the lift out or preferably the drop down hinged idea.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Don't worry about size or complexity. You're not racing the clock. This is a lifetime hobby.

As long as you break it down into achievable tasks, you'll get there eventually.

Some common clichés to think about:
-- Rome wasn't built in a day
-- You can't eat an elephant in one bite
-- It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow (R. H. Goddard)


----------



## Cycleops

Even more common clichés to ponder:

All talk and no action.
All in due time.
An oldie but a goodie.
An arm and a leg.
Think outside the box.


----------



## wingnut163

lift outs are not hard to do. there are so many ways to do them and with very little engineering. 
as for the "Y", (my opinion) i would put in a turn table. i seem to remember you saying you were using 040's. one of my lay outs the turn table 1/4 of it hung of the table as it turned,by hand. being yours is across from your seat, you could rig a drive crank to rotate it under the table.


----------



## dm9249

wingnut163 said:


> lift outs are not hard to do. there are so many ways to do them and with very little engineering.
> as for the "Y", (my opinion) i would put in a turn table. i seem to remember you saying you were using 040's. one of my lay outs the turn table 1/4 of it hung of the table as it turned,by hand. being yours is across from your seat, you could rig a drive crank to rotate it under the table.


I thought about the turntable idea, but wasn't sure what to do about getting the trains power while they actually on it. I'm no wiring expert and the prices of the full DCC ready turntables are way out of my budget right now. 

If I could do a manual crank under the table or something, that would be cool.


----------



## DonR

I would imagine that most turntables use wipers against insulated
rings at the hub that would pass power to the turntable track. Or
it could be passed by the metal hub for one rail of the track, and
the outer support wheel could pickup power from it's track for the
other rail.

Don


----------



## wingnut163

DonR said:


> I would imagine that most turntables use wipers against insulated
> rings at the hub that would pass power to the turntable track. Or
> it could be passed by the metal hub for one rail of the track, and
> the outer support wheel could pickup power from it's track for the
> other rail.
> 
> Don


thats right don. i put two rings on the table and two on the floor. powered them. and being DCC the train runs as it is told.


----------



## dm9249

Thanks for the input on the turntable guys! I may look into doing that at some point down the road. 

In the mean time, I was looking at my yard layout and noticed I wouldn't have much room to store rolling stock. My solution to that is possibly blowing a hole through the wall on the left (it's framed with 2x4's and covered in wood paneling) so I can have a small staging portion in the adjoining room. That room is just my workroom/storage for my tools, so I can sacrifice a few feet along the one wall.

Any thoughts or suggestions on this idea? 










I'm also looking at trying to work in some loops on the right side to avoid the lift out, but can't really come up with anything that I like. I think I'm just going to go with the lift out idea for now.


----------



## CTValleyRR

I would look at either shortening the trestle or moving the turnout, or both. Maybe suck up the cost and go back to the curved turnout. The way you have designed it now, it's not very conducive to a liftout.


----------



## dm9249

That's true, thanks for pointing it out. I'll have to see what I can do there. I think I want at least a 24" wide area to lift out, so I'm not quite there yet.


----------



## dm9249

Ok, I've been driving myself crazy lately trying to work in a lift out section and I hit a dead end with that idea. The solution: blow up the design and start over. 

I've created a whole new layout concept that is based on a single rectangle for the benchwork. There will be a divider down the center so I can have a side for my yard and a side for the town and industrial areas. The overall size is 66" x 160" and leaves me plenty of space to walk around it. 

Any thoughts on this new design?


----------



## sstlaure

If you can go longer down the long length of the table you should. Sidings/turnouts, etc. take up more room than you think and you can never have enough run to spread things out.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Honestly? If the first layout is what you really want, the second will bore you to tears. Go back to the first.

You DID ask for our opinions.


----------



## dm9249

CTValleyRR said:


> Honestly? If the first layout is what you really want, the second will bore you to tears. Go back to the first.
> 
> You DID ask for our opinions.


I did and I appreciate the feedback. Part of the problem with the first layout it I'm just not feeling it anymore. At first it seemed like it was perfect for me, but the more I thought about it and started to plan how to build it, I didn't like it nearly as much.


----------



## Cycleops

Build the one that appeals most. You'll probably find that you'll modify it as you go along. At the end of the day it's your layout.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Perhaps you feel like the first was biting off more than you could chew? A common feeling with newcomers. And not entirely unwarranted.

Consider building the second layout as a "rough draft" or prototype, on which you can hone your skills and experiment with different techniques. Then, when you have outgrown it in several years (my considered opinion is that you will), go back and build the first.


----------



## DonR

Since you have the layout creating software, save what you have and try a totally different
design and see if it catches your imagination?

You seem to have a large area in which to build the layout.

Try one that is room size in a U shape that follows the
walls, possibly turned so the open end is toward the
door. A single track main follows the walls but with passing sidings,
industrial spurs, yards and all the other bells and whistles you like. It can
have a 'reverse loop' in one or both end loops. Make the two end curves
wide enough to provide 22" or better radius. This can be done by
letting the ends baloon wider than the rest of the layout.

The support column could be
wrapped to represent a tall building or even a mountain with a tunnel thru
it.

This design does away with the 'bridge' or 'duck under' question, gives you lots of
room in the middle yet with easy access of all parts of the layout. 

If household storage is a factor, as it is at my house, that can go under
the layout after wiring is completed.

Don


----------



## dm9249

CTValleyRR said:


> Perhaps you feel like the first was biting off more than you could chew? A common feeling with newcomers. And not entirely unwarranted.
> 
> Consider building the second layout as a "rough draft" or prototype, on which you can hone your skills and experiment with different techniques. Then, when you have outgrown it in several years (my considered opinion is that you will), go back and build the first.


This is exactly what I was thinking


----------



## dm9249

DonR said:


> Since you have the layout creating software, save what you have and try a totally different
> design and see if it catches your imagination?
> 
> You seem to have a large area in which to build the layout.
> 
> Try one that is room size in a U shape that follows the
> walls, possibly turned so the open end is toward the
> door. A single track main follows the walls but with passing sidings,
> industrial spurs, yards and all the other bells and whistles you like. It can
> have a 'reverse loop' in one or both end loops. Make the two end curves
> wide enough to provide 22" or better radius. This can be done by
> letting the ends baloon wider than the rest of the layout.
> 
> The support column could be
> wrapped to represent a tall building or even a mountain with a tunnel thru
> it.
> 
> This design does away with the 'bridge' or 'duck under' question, gives you lots of
> room in the middle yet with easy access of all parts of the layout.
> 
> If household storage is a factor, as it is at my house, that can go under
> the layout after wiring is completed.
> 
> Don


I do like that idea and I'll have to play around with it on the design side. It does worry me though that something like this might be overkill for my first layout. At the end of the day I just want something that can run a few trains and serve as a good practice layout for structure and scenery techniques. Who knows, maybe I design this type of setup and I end up liking it the most.


----------



## SBRacing

I redesigned my layout with AnyRail multiple times before I was happy. I actually am not going with the degined yard. I am making the yard as I go. I am adding spurs as I go just because I want happy with how few spurs I had.


----------



## DonR

Designing the layout is part of the enjoyment of the hobby. We've all been
through the do this, and then rip it up to do that routines. Many happy hours,
pulling up glued down track and road bed, then putting it back down
in a better way.

If you have the space and the $, go with what you think would be the best
for you. You really don't have to hold back just because your're inexperienced.

And don't even think about FINISHING the layout. After all this time, my West
yard is fully operational, but it has no ballasting, the lighted buildings are
not connected, the mesa in the corner is supposed to have a matching hill that
the track runs through...yet to be done.

Don


----------



## dm9249

I've made some changes to the plan again and am looking for some suggestions on industries I could work with in the space that I have left. I plan on doing a scrap yard at the far end opposite of the town scene, but need to fill two vacant spots in the middle. Ideally they would only hold one or two cars at a time. Any suggestions you have would be appreciated. There is just so much to choose from I don't know what to do next.


----------



## DonR

Getting good. You might want to add a passing siding along the top but would
it be long enough for a passenger train?

The industry spurs can be team tracks with more than one user per track.

Don


----------



## joed2323

A good friend of mine on this forum once told me get some trains running first... you will kill yourself trying to make the ideal "first layout"

I changed my original layout alot, and I think everyone can testify that this happens to everyone.

I love modern day railroad modeling. And their for it changes constantly 

I will suggest this though. You know your room limits. So start building the bench work and get some trains running around your room or you will beat your self up. You will soon realize what you like and do not!! Believe me even if you have your layout set in stone it will still change when you realize you can tweak this and "tweak that"

Best advice is, have fun, if not back off and takeep a break like I did for a 1 1/2 years. ... Sorry guys 
Get some trains running sir.
Good luck


----------



## Cycleops

dm9249 said:


> There is just so much to choose from I don't know what to do next.


This is a common dilemma when you spend so much time planning and thinking. IMHO you have a fine basis for a great railway there. It seems like you are a person who has trouble making decisions. I'm a bit like that myself. Get some track down and start running trains! You can make alterations as you go along and things will start to fall into place as you progress.


----------



## dm9249

Cycleops said:


> This is a common dilemma when you spend so much time planning and thinking. IMHO you have a fine basis for a great railway there. It seems like you are a person who has trouble making decisions. I'm a bit like that myself. Get some track down and start running trains! You can make alterations as you go along and things will start to fall into place as you progress.


That's the plan for now. I hope to have the bench work done next week so I can start laying track and go from there.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## CTValleyRR

dm9249 said:


> There is just so much to choose from I don't know what to do next.


In the business world, we call that paralysis by analysis. Fortunately for you, Franklin D. Roosevelt had some good advice for folks in that position:

"It is common sense to choose a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try _something_."

I would say pick a plan and start putting it together. Don't be afraid to make a mistake. There is nothing so permanent that you can't undo it and try again. Just go slowly enough that you don't put the cart before the horse: don't build benchwork and then try to fit a track plan on to it, don't purchase a structure until you're pretty sure it fits, and so forth.


----------



## dm9249

After a lot of back and forth on the ideas I've posted in this thread and the recent comments, I've finally gotten started. I bought all the lumber I need for the framework yesterday and got started assembling it earlier tonight. I'll start a new thread in the My Layout section for the actual build. 

Thanks again to everyone that provided their input on this design. I'm sure I'll have more questions once I get further into this.


----------



## CTValleyRR

That's great news! Looking forward to seeing how it comes out!


----------



## dm9249

Now that I have the table built and I've started running some trains, I decided to tweak the track plan a bit. I wanted to move the yard toward the edge of the table and do something with the space towards the center. 

This is what I mocked up for now. Any thoughts/criticism would be appreciated as I'm still relatively new at this.


----------



## DonR

Very nice layout design.

It offers continuous running and also very good switching
opportunities. You can even turn a loco around to go the
other way using the turntable. A very flexible track plan.

Don


----------



## Magic

I like your latest design, good operational set up and some switching as well.
Big improvement over your first efforts. 
Enjoy the build as you've put in a lot of planning. It looks like fun.

Magic


----------



## dm9249

Thanks for the comments guys! I definitely like this new version more than the original now.


----------



## bluenavigator

Been reading this thread. Really nice layout! So final measurement is 6' 6" by 13' 4", is that correct?


----------



## CTValleyRR

I agree. I think that's a nice little layout. And you know me, I'm a big fan of the scenic divider. Something you might want to think about is bending the ends "down" a bit and running them right to the edge of the layout (not over the turnouts). This will make it easier to camouflage the divider with trees, tunnel portals, a fake overpass, or even a structure.


----------



## dm9249

bluenavigator said:


> Been reading this thread. Really nice layout! So final measurement is 6' 6" by 13' 4", is that correct?


Thanks! The table is 6' 6" x 12' overall.


----------



## dm9249

I've tweaked the track plan again since I haven't actually started laying track. I think I'm going to run with this one now and start slowly buying and installing the track I need to make it come to life.


----------



## DonR

This layout offers some very good switching opportunities.

I also like the single track mainline, especially if you are
going DCC. With those passing sidings you can have
some great operations with one train going clockwise, the
other going clockwise. DC guys can't do that.

Don


----------



## thedoc

DonR said:


> This layout offers some very good switching opportunities.
> 
> I also like the single track mainline, especially if you are
> going DCC. With those passing sidings you can have
> some great operations with one train going clockwise, the
> other going clockwise. *DC guys can't do that.*
> 
> Don


Sure we can, it just takes a little knowledge of electricity, and I figured it out on a single track loop with several passing sidings. Had a freight train going one way and a passenger train going the other for a holiday display. Or are you saying that DCC tends to dumb you down, or are you just too dumb to figure DC out in the first place. 

I'm really getting tired of these arrogant DCC guys suggesting that DC control is just to complicated for normal people to figure out. Perhaps the people who are attracted to DCC are too dumb to figure out DC control.


----------



## thedoc

I once had a sailing idiot tell me that square rigged ships can't tack, yet history is full of accounts of square rigged ships tacking up wind. It just takes a lot of room and is very difficult at a harbor entrance. Several people have found out that when I talk about certain subjects, I usually know what I'm talking about, electricity is one of them.


----------



## gator do 65

thedoc said:


> I once had a sailing idiot tell me that square rigged ships can't tack, yet history is full of accounts of square rigged ships tacking up wind. It just takes a lot of room and is very difficult at a harbor entrance. Several people have found out that when I talk about certain subjects, I usually know what I'm talking about, electricity is one of them.


I to like to know the facts about a topic before speaking about it but your comment about dcc users being to dumb to use dc, is first off disrespectful and second just shows your own arrogance which makes your creditability that much less!


----------



## bluenavigator

DM - Walthers Car Shop - I think that I get it. It is a shop to repair the train cars, not automobiles, correct?


----------



## dm9249

bluenavigator said:


> DM - Walthers Car Shop - I think that I get it. It is a shop to repair the train cars, not automobiles, correct?


That's correct, it is for rail cars. Here is a link to it: http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/933-3040


----------



## Cycleops

Perhaps DonR should have said 'DC guys cant do that easily'. There's no need to be offensive. He probly won't respond because he's more of a gentleman than you.


----------



## DonR

Cycleops, it is true that I have never been considered for the office
of Secretary of State. Something about lack of tacks...er...uh...tact.

Don


----------



## thedoc

Cycleops said:


> Perhaps DonR should have said 'DC guys cant do that easily'. There's no need to be offensive. He probly won't respond because he's more of a gentleman than you.



Since when do "Gentlemen" tell lies. It appears that I have upset the "Old Boys Club", you tend to cover for each other, "you lie and I'll swear by it."


----------



## thedoc

Cycleops said:


> Perhaps DonR should have said 'DC guys cant do that easily'. *There's no need to be offensive.* He probly won't respond because he's more of a gentleman than you.


You're right, but sometimes I tend to Reply in kind. His comment that DC operators "can't do that" was offensive to me.


----------



## thedoc

gator do 65 said:


> I to like to know the facts about a topic before speaking about it but your comment about dcc users being to dumb to use dc, is first off disrespectful and second just shows your own arrogance which makes *your credibility that much less!*



Suits me fine, it's that much less to live up to.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Whoa, gentlemen! This has gotten way out of hand. You all know, or should, that there is nothing inherently better or worse about DCC or DC. They both have advantages and disadvantages, and either might be right for a givdn case.

I have seen members of BOTH camps play holier-than-thou, and I won't take sides here. Knock off the BS, take a vallium, and offer advice the the OP. If you must piss in each other's Wheaties, do it elsewhere.


----------



## thedoc

CTValleyRR said:


> Whoa, gentlemen! This has gotten way out of hand.


I've been in the hobby all my life, owned a hobby shop for 11 years, and have met all kinds of alleged hobbiest's so when I find one here I react accordingly. Defend his statement if you like, but to me it was just wrong.


----------



## Cycleops

And what's an 'Alleged Hobbyist'? Bet it was fun for your hobby shop's customers.


----------



## thedoc

Cycleops said:


> And what's an 'Alleged Hobbyist'? Bet it was fun for your hobby shop's customers.


I think most of the customers enjoyed their time there. A few model Railroaders cheated me or tried to, but they usually didn't come back. The worst were the RC fliers, someone would come into the shop and ask about clubs and flying fields, so I directed them to the local club. Then I found out that when the person went to the field the members of the club told them not to go back to the store but buy everything through the mail order suppliers. That's when I stopped telling customers about the club. 

The model RR club had a voluntary contribution which was refundable if the member left the club. One month they sent out their newsletter that included an agenda for the next meeting, in it was a motion to vote the contribution from refundable to non-refundable. I got on the phone and verified the information and then called the treasurer and told him to send me my money cause I was leaving the club. At the meeting the **** really hit the fan, some even suggested that they should try to force me to give the money back. 

If you haven't already guessed, I'm not too fond of clubs. In one case they seemed to be biting the hand that was trying to feed them. In the other case it was all about the club, and the members didn't seem to matter.


----------



## bluenavigator

Oh really? Wow! I do not go to hobby shops as much as I would like to, due to the limited supply available. However, it is nice to do shopping at local hobby shops, instead of chained stores, such as Hobby Lobby (*shivers*). Actually, it is good idea to know which hobby shops for what they do offer to sell. I know nice store that do sell used parts and supplies. If someone need something that I know of, I would pass the word. 

Only that I do not know anyone who like model railroad locally. 

Funny thing about one specific small chained hobby shops (as far as I know that there are only two of them locally, not sure about out of town locations) that I know of, one do sell Atlas tracks only. Other one sell Atlas and Peco tracks. Not sure why one does not sell Peco at all. Quite a mystery! I hadn't yet asked the staff for why not selling them at one location while they do at other location. 

About model RR clubs, I do not know any of them locally. Maybe there is one but I do not know this yet.


----------



## gator do 65

DonR said:


> Cycleops, it is true that I have never been considered for the office
> of Secretary of State. Something about lack of *TACKS*...er...uh...tact.
> 
> Don


Don, I saw what you did there! Good one!


----------



## dm9249

I had to make one more tweak to the track plan after realizing I have my main line running way too close to the edge at the bottom of the layout. I decided to remove one storage track from the yard and shift everything over about an inch. Its not much more room but enough to make me comfortable with the spacing now.


----------



## thysell

I really like your layout. Some of the experts have commented on other designs to watch out for S curves created with switches. Here is a slightly modified version of part of your layout with the switches changed just slightly to eliminate the S curves.


----------



## mdarling3612

Looking good man, you referenced a build thread earlier on, can you provide a link to it?


----------



## redman88

As I was reading about leveling legs I thought of a supper cheap way of doing it as those pound in nuts are not cheap. 

Take a bolt a nut and a washer. Drill a hole in the leg thread the nut onto the bolt and the slip on the washer put the rest of the bolt into the drilled hole. Now just use a wrench to turn the nut to level the leg.


----------



## CTValleyRR

redman88 said:


> As I was reading about leveling legs I thought of a supper cheap way of doing it as those pound in nuts are not cheap.
> 
> Take a bolt a nut and a washer. Drill a hole in the leg thread the nut onto the bolt and the slip on the washer put the rest of the bolt into the drilled hole. Now just use a wrench to turn the nut to level the leg.


At the risk of breathing too much life into an old thread, an even cheaper way is to buy a pack of shims and bang them under the offending legs with a mallet. Not elegant, but highly effective.


----------

