# Please critique my layout idea



## Mattsn (Nov 22, 2015)

Guys if you've read my first two posts then you I'm considering building my first "permanent" layout. In the picture is a ROUGH idea with measurements of the platform. There are two tracks around the perimeter, also labeled with ideas of type of terrain. I would like to add a 3rd smaller line crossing over one or both of the other two. 

Let me know if this is still possible or is it too much. I am still waiting on my" 102 realistic track ideas" book. I have also searched on Google and this forum. Lots of neat ideas in small chunks but not many pics showing an overhead view of a layout this shaped or this size


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

My thoughts...
First,unless you can work on the layout from all sides,you'll find that four feet deep is very uncomfortable to deal with.For most,comfortable access range doesn't exceed thirty inches for waiste high benchwork.Otherwise,build sturdy so that you can lean on to work on far end scenery.

Second,your industry tracks are totally unrealistic.Turnout angles are generally around ten to fifteen degrees and eat up a lot more landscape than what your 45 degree turnout drawings suggest.

Then,your 42 in. end will allow a curve radius of about 19 in. wich is sufficient but not large for HO.It would limit the size of locos and rolling stock you may want to run.


----------



## Mattsn (Nov 22, 2015)

Thanks. The turn outs aren't to scale. In fact none of it is. Well none of the track is. It's just thoughts. Trying to see if I'm thinking unrealistic or not.


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

First, DRAW IT TO SCALE, and use turnout templates to get the correct size, I've seen a lot of sketches that were completely undoable. I would suggest that instead of 2 yards, put one yard between the mainlines on the 10' side of the layout. Also expand the 42" extension to 48" and add diagonal sections in the inside corners so that the curve in the center can be farther from the back edge. Finally figure the 2 curves at the lower edge will be about 135 degrees each, connected with a 90 degree curve.


----------



## Mattsn (Nov 22, 2015)

Didn't know there was a such thing as a "turn out template" Thank you.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

I realize your drawing is not to scale, but I am concerned about
the very tight radius curves in the lower middle of the layout.
You might let the track make one wide sweeping curve deeper 
into the layout in that middle area. That way you can 
eliminate the tight radius curves.

If you are going to be DCC you can widen your curve radius by
switching to a single track main with passing sidings. You want
to try to have a minimum of 22" radius and wider is even better.

Don


----------



## Mattsn (Nov 22, 2015)

DonR said:


> I realize your drawing is not to scale, but I am concerned about
> the very tight radius curves in the lower middle of the layout.
> You might let the track make one wide sweeping curve deeper
> into the layout in that middle area. That way you can
> ...


 I understand what you're saying about the turns inside. That makes sense. I thought 18" was the minimum for HO. 

While I'm thinking about it. How do you guys deal with track problems should they arrive, under a tunnel? I'd like to build a tunnel or two and was wondering.


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

suggest you check out the LayoutVision website for some helpful advice and examples

8x10 is more square than rectangular. Your non-scale drawing is a bit misleading.

Not sure if you're serious about a double track mainline on such a small layout, or are planning a double loop with a crossover


----------



## Mattsn (Nov 22, 2015)

gregc said:


> suggest you check out the LayoutVision website for some helpful advice and examples
> 
> 8x10 is more square than rectangular. Your non-scale drawing is a bit misleading.
> 
> Not sure if you're serious about a double track mainline on such a small layout, or are planning a double loop with a crossover


I am serious but I don't really know what's right and wrong, that is why I'm here. I have a few books ordered but the mail man is slow. Why is two Main lines not plausible? I'm here to learn.


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

Mattsn said:


> While I'm thinking about it. How do you guys deal with track problems should they arrive, under a tunnel? I'd like to build a tunnel or two and was wondering.


Leave the tunnel open on one side, (away from the normal line of sight) for access.


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

You didn't state what size the room is, but I would recommend access all the way around, as wide as possible.


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

Mattsn said:


> Why is two Main lines not plausible?


a double track main allowing simultaneous trains in both directions certainly makes scheduling trains easier without having to worry about meets. and is certainly looks interesting to see trains passing one another.

Frank Ellison's Art of Model Railroading articles advocated single track with sidings to have meets where trains running in opposite directions would have to wait and meet one another to pass.


----------



## Mattsn (Nov 22, 2015)

thedoc said:


> You didn't state what size the room is, but I would recommend access all the way around, as wide as possible.


The room is 11x13


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

Mattsn said:


> The room is 11x13


If the door opens out, you're good to go, Pocket doors are also good, if it opens in, you might have a problem, depending where it is.


----------



## Mattsn (Nov 22, 2015)

thedoc said:


> If the door opens out, you're good to go, Pocket doors are also good, if it opens in, you might have a problem, depending where it is.


No the door opens in. My measurements account for that.


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

gregc said:


> Frank Ellison's Art of Model Railroading articles advocated single track with sidings to have meets where trains running in opposite directions would have to wait and meet one another to pass.



Frank Ellison's experience was in the theater where the object was to increase the drama of the scene. If model railroads are to represent the real railroads, drama is not the goal, safe efficient transport of goods is, to the point of being boring.


----------



## mopac (Feb 24, 2011)

Your drawing is a dog bone layout. I like them. If you are running DCC Have the 
2 main tracks acesssible to each other so you can do one yard instead of 2. You are 
smart not trying to cover every inch of layout with track. I would add a siding near
the middle and run it to your town to service warehouses or factories that are in the
town.


----------



## Mattsn (Nov 22, 2015)

mopac said:


> Your drawing is a dog bone layout. I like them. If you are running DCC Have the
> 2 main tracks acesssible to each other so you can do one yard instead of 2. You are
> smart not trying to cover every inch of layout with track. I would add a siding near
> the middle and run it to your town to service warehouses or factories that are in the
> town.


Thanks. I am planning on doing it as DCC. Can you explain what you mean by "add a siding" ? 

I would love to be able to figure out how to add another track to operate a third train, even if I need to build bridges over a track. 

I don't want to fill it with track. My goal is to fill it with scenery. Especially countryside, mountains and possible elevations for the third possible track. I would assume a third track would also utilize one of the other two. 

Again guys, I know I don't know what I'm doing here but I really appreciate and need the advice in order to move forward. My books should be here this week. I am not anxious to get this project done however I am anxious to get an idea worked out


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

thedoc said:


> Frank Ellison's experience was in the theater where the object was to increase the drama of the scene. If model railroads are to represent the real railroads, drama is not the goal, safe efficient transport of goods is, to the point of being boring.


yes, Ellison advocated the more interesting aspects of railroads.


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

gregc said:


> yes, Ellison advocated the more interesting aspects of railroads.


And the more unrealistic aspects, for example he advocated starting the slowest train out first, followed by the med. speed freight, and then the fast express passenger train, just the opposite of what the real railroads would have done if they had a choice.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Layout shape tips*

Mattson;

The general track layout looks similar to one I built when I was a "newbie." The most serious 
potential problems have already been addressed. One thing I would add is to get at least some
of your track further in from the edge of the table.(this makes disastrous train falls to the floor less likely) Another improvement would be to not run all the track parallel to the table edges. 
It will look more interesting, and provide better shapes for scenery, and structures if you skew the entire track shape a bit off in relation to the shape of the table. I would also recommend making the center portion off the table longer, and thinner. Perhaps two feet deep instead of four. This will more closely resemble the very long and very thin shape of a real railroad. Another thing that can help project the illusion of the trains actually going somewhere, rather than just round and round, is to visually divide the routes where the same train that just went "west", is now going "east."
As for doing anything "wrong" don't sweat it. If the trains run, and you're having fun, you just did it "right". Nobody ever got everything perfect on the first try. I certainly didn't.
As I said in a prior post. 102 track plans was not shown on the Kalmbach web site. two other versions were. They are 101 track plans, and 101 more track plans. Any of those three should help you get started.

Good Luck;

Traction Fan


----------



## Mattsn (Nov 22, 2015)

Traction fan. I don't plan on keeping the track that paraell to the edge, I will separate and put things in between them. 

The area in the middle I was going to keep large because I was thinking of creating a logging operation. Have a track run to the middle and back to the town where mill may be? I would create a forest coming off a mountain.. Again just an idea. 

Not sure why you can't find the book you suggested to me. I was able to buy it from kalmbach. Com. The attachment is my email receipt.


----------



## Mattsn (Nov 22, 2015)

Here is the attachment.


----------



## farrout (Dec 13, 2015)

I would recommend you download 'Atlas Track Planning'. It's free and gives you a pretty good idea of what you can put down in a defined space. There are others such as SCARM and XTrkCAD.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Mattsn

Looks like we've really descended on your plans.

The members have added some very good suggestions.

You mention that HO has an 18" radius minimum. Yes, but you can
only run the smaller locos on it dependably. If you expect to run steamers,
the big 6 wheel truck diesels or the long freight and passenger cars, you will
want to have 22" or even wider radius curves. The ends of the long equipment
project outward from the track on curves and if they don't pull themselves
off the track, they look odd.

To help you achieve that wider radius on your layout you could pull back
to a single track main with 3 or 4 passing sidings. Since you plan DCC that
will work for you even permitting, as one has suggested, one train going
clockwise, another counter clockwise. You could also install a reverse
loop (automatically controlled by DCC) so you can make your trains
go 'the other way around'. But do consider adding more 
industry spurs and/or yard tracks. You'll find that those will be where you
will be spending a lot of operations time.

Don


----------



## Mattsn (Nov 22, 2015)

DonR said:


> Mattsn
> 
> Looks like we've really descended on your plans.
> 
> ...



Yes I appreciate everyone "descending" on my plans. That is what I want. I learn from those who have done all this before 

I appreciate all the feed back, and am making changes


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

gregc said:


> a double track main allowing simultaneous trains in both directions certainly makes scheduling trains easier without having to worry about meets. and is certainly looks interesting to see trains passing one another.
> 
> Frank Ellison's Art of Model Railroading articles advocated single track with sidings to have meets where trains running in opposite directions would have to wait and meet one another to pass.


It will also depend on what era you are modeling. Years ago, when we moved in to our house, the Main line (Originally Reading, then Conrail, now Norfolk Southern) was double track with a passing siding between them. Now it's single track with no siding. It's about 1400' from our house and when the leaves are off the trees we can see the trains passing and we can always hear them sounding the horn for the grade crossings.


----------



## Mattsn (Nov 22, 2015)

thedoc said:


> It will also depend on what era you are modeling. Years ago, when we moved in to our house, the Main line (Originally Reading, then Conrail, now Norfolk Southern) was double track with a passing siding between them. Now it's single track with no siding. It's about 1400' from our house and when the leaves are off the trees we can see the trains passing and we can always hear them sounding the horn for the grade crossings.


I am not trying to re create any particular era or rail line. I'm simply trying to make something realistic and pleasing to the eye. Realistic terrain and enough track with trains to make things fun and interesting, yet not so much that I don't have room for terrain (mountains, tunnel or two, river or Lake, bridges) 

I admit I need to learn more about track layout.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Relax a bit*



Mattsn said:


> I am not trying to re create any particular era or rail line. I'm simply trying to make something realistic and pleasing to the eye. Realistic terrain and enough track with trains to make things fun and interesting, yet not so much that I don't have room for terrain (mountains, tunnel or two, river or Lake, bridges)
> 
> I admit I need to learn more about track layout.


 mattsn;

There are many different approaches to model railroading. Almost as many as there are model railroaders. You seem to be worrying quite a bit about getting things "right". Your first railroad should be looked on mainly as a learning experience; and valuable "hands on" training. You have a good space, a decent basic track plan, and obviously the desire to build something that will satisfy you. I'm glad to hear you are getting your track plan book, be it 101, or 102, either will do nicely. Once the book arrives, just kick back and read it. See which plans fit your space. Then select which of those you like best. From that point, you will be able to make a shopping list of what track is needed to build your selected plan. I strongly recommend flex track as it can be used for any curve, or straight, you need. Also, someday, if you decide to change part of the track arrangement, Flex track can be re-used in a new shape. Glue the track down with just a bit of white(Elmer's type) glue every few inches. If you add ballast( the rock that track sits on) that can be attached with the same glue. To take the track up, just get it wet, and use a putty knife to gently work it loose.
"Adding a siding" simply means installing a turnout(or two) with a short track attached, somewhere along the main line. Strictly speaking, a "siding"(also called a passing siding)
has a turnout at each end of a track long enough to hold a train. This allows two trains to get past each other without colliding. A track leading off the main line that has a turnout at only one end is called a "spur."(note these terms are often interchanged and most of us, including me, don't care which one you use.) Having sidings, and spurs, lets you spot cars at some of those industries, pick up returning cars, and let other trains pass you.
This lets you operate trains like a real railroad, and is one of the most interesting(and fun!)
aspects of this hobby.
That having fun bit is really important. Anything done in any hobby should lean toward having fun, or what's the point in doing it?

Relax, read, have fun. Don't worry, be happy.

Traction Fan


----------



## Mattsn (Nov 22, 2015)

I'm am not "worried" at all. I simply am thinking out loud and thought you guys would like to keep me straight. I belong to another forum for a subject that I am an expert in and we like to help others along. 

Again I appreciate the help. I have learned a ton from you all but I did not mean to be a bother if that is how I've come across.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Mattsn

It's not a bother to us when you ask questions, as per your own experience
on the other forum, it's questions from members that keep our
juices flowing. So, by all means, keep 'em flying.

Don


----------



## SBRacing (Mar 11, 2015)

There is no wrong or right way to model. Everyone has different ideas on what is better. 
My opinion:
I love the 2 mains, I have 2 mains on my layout. I would make the yard so u can rearrange cars and make a train ready to rool with out having to cross over or other to the main. I would also add a spur somewhere and a passing side.

Can't wait to see the final product.


----------

