# New layout design questions



## Fireman104 (Nov 14, 2017)

I am getting back into the hobby after many years away. I am starting from scratch and have a few questions.

1) Looking at a benchwork consisting of 1/4" plywood with 1 1/2" extruded foam on top, framed with 1 x 4 framework spaced 16" apart.
Mostly to keep the weight down if it would ever have to be moved (no plans to move)
Pros and cons for this type of construction?
2) I am going with HO scale and have no desire to go with a smaller scale, I am limited as far a work area goes, I have an area 12' long and 6' wide. I am going to attach a picture of my tack plan, does anyone see a huge problem with any part of the design as drawn?


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Welcome!

For your first question -- what you're planning to do will work fine, although if weight really is a consideration, there are some changes you could make. Eliminate the plywood and just go with 2" foam. Supported on 16" centers, this will hold a person's weight. There isn't any NEED for wood underneath; some people like the convenience of being able to screw something in at any location, but it isn't needed for structural purposes. Use your 1x4's for framing, but make your joists out of L girders: rip that 1x4 in half to make a 1x2, and glue and screw it together perpendicular to a 1x3 to make an L (or T, if you would prefer). These are very strong and very light. You can even use 18" centers for your joists without sacrificing strength.

For your layout, a lot depends on what you enjoy doing, and what you have sketched out will work. Some things may not work as well as you hope, though.

(Note that for directions below, I rotated the drawing 90 degrees counterclockwise, so the long side is across the top and "12' long" is across the top).

I have a couple of significant concerns: 
1) Reach. If you don't have access to all 4 sides of this layout, you will never be able to reach parts of it without using a creeper or building access hatches (not hard on the right side, but tricky on the left).
2) Looks like you have some good broad curves on the sides. The curves on the right lobe appear to be made with flex track. It looks like the two in the lower right center are significantly tighter than the 24/25", which may cause operational problems if you're running longer equipment.
3) The curves in the upper right appear to have some kinks in them -- in other words, they're not a smooth arc. This could also be an optical illusion, so maybe not an issue at all. But if you do have kinks, it will cause you headaches (stalls and derailments) when trying to run trains.

Some other things you may find frustrating: 
1) There is no way to turn a train. Everything always goes in the same direction.
2) Having a runaround track is an operational necessity, but since yours is about half a lap, you will do an awful lot of movement just for a simple runaround.
3) The area in the upper left works mechanically -- that is the track fits where you put it. Operationally, it is a potential nightmare. Having to back past the yard / storage tracks to get to most of the sidings on your layout will get old fast. More importantly, though, you can't switch those sidings without a lot of movement. For example, lets say that single track curved siding on the left is a lumber mill. You need to pick up three loaded flatcars of boards, and drop three empties for the mill. Loco and three empties backs all the way into the siding. Now what? Did you leave enough room on one of the other sidings, or in the yard, so that you can drop the empties while you pull the loads? Do you have to grab the loads and go all the way out to the main to drop them so that you can spot the empties? This could be fun switching puzzle, or it could be a real headache, depending on your tastes.

Another observation is that you appear to be using Atlas Snap Switches, which can be prone to trouble. They also incorporate a segment of an 18" curve as the diverging leg, which brings up the issue of curves that are too tight for the equipment you're trying to run. Better quality turnouts have a straight diverging leg, which is both more realistic and less prone to problems, but it would totally change the geometry of the layout.

Most importantly, though, is the Golden Rule: Your Layout, Your Rules. None of what I said above may matter a fig to you, and that's okay. If you're happy with the results, that's all that matters.


----------



## Fireman104 (Nov 14, 2017)

Thanks for the quick in depth reply CTValleyRR,

Good idea on the benchwork, I still might end up with a 7 ply 1/2" plywood for the benchwork top. I am really putting too much thought into that part, but I don't want to regret my decision either.
As far as reach, the wall is on the top 12' side and the right 6' side, the angle in the upper right corner is where I can pop up from underneath to access that area.

I should start out by saying that I am not using Atlas track, I think I will be using Peco flex track and turnouts. The only reason I have Atlas track on my drawing is because it's the free drawing program that I found first. I am still learning the difference between different turnouts etc.

Do you think I should have a second turnout and make a siding exclusive for the lumber mill? And, should I make the outside loop go all the way around? I think I have enough room to make the left lobe larger.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

If moving or changing the layout is a possibility you
may want to consider modular benchwork. Make the
frames of various sizes with your 1X4 lumber all screwed together with needed crossmembers, make L shaped legs bolted in the corners of each module. Bolt the modules to each other. 
Drill holes in the frames and crossmembers to afford
support for layout wiring.

Don


----------



## Nikola (Jun 11, 2012)

With that much space I would want to be able to run two trains simultaneously. Suggest completing dual tracks. Also, seems like too many sidings to me. Scrap some sidings and install more scenery/buildings/roads. That's all I got.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Fireman104 said:


> Thanks for the quick in depth reply CTValleyRR,
> 
> Good idea on the benchwork, I still might end up with a 7 ply 1/2" plywood for the benchwork top. I am really putting too much thought into that part, but I don't want to regret my decision either.
> As far as reach, the wall is on the top 12' side and the right 6' side, the angle in the upper right corner is where I can pop up from underneath to access that area.
> ...


I think the reach still might be a bit of a challenge, but that's your call. Just keep it in the back of your mind as you build.

So as far as the Atlas track / turnouts -- the issue is that the geometry of the Atlas Snap Switches that you used matches no other commercially available brand. In fact, I don't know of any two brands that have interchangeable geometry. So the problem is, when you go to build, it won't go together like your plan. If you're using flex track, it can be pretty easy to compensate, but sectional track may not work. The planning software you used is worth exactly what you paid for it. You can either invest in some quality software with a good library of track pieces, or wing it on the fly. Either will work, but you might find using the software less frustrating.

What kind of equipment are you planning to run? This will make a big difference in how wide your curves need to be. If it were up to me, I would make a double loop around the outside (and not necessarily parallel tracks, either). Have at least two crossovers, preferably 3, with one facing in the opposite direction. Separate your yard and industry sidings, and see if you can't fit in a reversing loop or Y track (these come with some wiring complications, but nothing too difficult).

Once you have a plan, try some sample operations. Some software allows you to run trains on a virtual layout, but you can just use your finger to trace the movements on a printout or the screen. Look at how much wasted movement you have to perform simple switching operations and decide whether it's something you can live with. Generally, though, separating your yard / parking / service tracks from your industrial sidings will give you better flow.


----------



## Fireman104 (Nov 14, 2017)

*Redesigned with Peco track*



CTValleyRR said:


> I think the reach still might be a bit of a challenge, but that's your call. Just keep it in the back of your mind as you build.
> 
> So as far as the Atlas track / turnouts -- the issue is that the geometry of the Atlas Snap Switches that you used matches no other commercially available brand. In fact, I don't know of any two brands that have interchangeable geometry. So the problem is, when you go to build, it won't go together like your plan. If you're using flex track, it can be pretty easy to compensate, but sectional track may not work. The planning software you used is worth exactly what you paid for it. You can either invest in some quality software with a good library of track pieces, or wing it on the fly. Either will work, but you might find using the software less frustrating.
> 
> ...


I am attaching an updated drawing using Peco track and turnouts, I have also added a Y track. I know I still have to add the crossovers to connect the two loops but I wanted to see if you think that I'm on the right track. The outside loop is 24 degree radius minimum and the inside loop is 21.5 or so.

Any ides at which location I should connect the outer loop to the inner loop?


----------



## Colorado1445 (Nov 11, 2017)

Fireman104 said:


> I am attaching an updated drawing using Peco track and turnouts, I have also added a Y track. I know I still have to add the crossovers to connect the two loops but I wanted to see if you think that I'm on the right track. The outside loop is 24 degree radius minimum and the inside loop is 21.5 or so.
> 
> Any ides at which location I should connect the outer loop to the inner loop?


It's a bit pricey but a crossover is what you will need. 
something like this http://www.modeltrainstuff.com/Walthers-HO-8812-Code-83-6-Double-Crossover-p/948-8812.htm


----------



## 1905dave (Sep 18, 2016)

Putting the yard at the back of a really long reach is going to be a bit of a hassle to switch cars.
I would make it sectional, and plan the break points in the layout. It might affect where you put switches. Make sure the pieces are small enough to be able to get through doors and around corners in your house.

The wye doesn't look like it will gain you much. Unless you just gotta have it, I would consider it optional.

I would put a pair of crossovers back in the plan. I would put both a left and right hand pair near where the engine house switch is, or put the left hand crossover just to the right of the engine house switch and a right hand crossover someplace else. If you have the room to replace the switchback to the grain elevator with a pair of switches in the main it will make your life easier.

Its really too bad that you can't move the layout out from the wall a couple feet so you can walk around it. This layout screams for a backdrop down the middle to create at least 2 scenes, one on each side.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Colorado1445 said:


> It's a bit pricey but a crossover is what you will need.
> something like this http://www.modeltrainstuff.com/Walthers-HO-8812-Code-83-6-Double-Crossover-p/948-8812.htm


That's actually a DOUBLE crossover. To make a regular crossover, you just use two turnouts with the diverging legs connected on opposite parallel tracks. Much less finicky (and cheaper) than these things.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

1905dave said:


> Putting the yard at the back of a really long reach is going to be a bit of a hassle to switch cars.
> I would make it sectional, and plan the break points in the layout. It might affect where you put switches. Make sure the pieces are small enough to be able to get through doors and around corners in your house.
> 
> The wye doesn't look like it will gain you much. Unless you just gotta have it, I would consider it optional.
> ...


So I mostly agree with Dave, here. I think you're going to have trouble with reach. Try mocking it up (use tape on the floor, and a chair / ladder / shelf, etc. to simulate the layout edge) and see if you can reach the back areas.

The wye is a way to turn trains, so I understand why you put it in. The problem is that the tail is too short -- you probably won't even be able to get a loco and one car onto it, which is the absolute bare minimum to be able to get a train through it (switching one car at a time onto the opposite leg). Ideally, you want the tail to be long enough for the entire train, or at least a big chunk of it. See if you can't turn things around and use as much of the area between the loops as possible for the tail track (the tail doesn't have to be straight).

To put the crossovers in, you need straight track (unless you're going to used curved turnouts, but that will create S curves which may prove dicey). So as you've drawn it, the only place is on the top straightaway. You might be able to straighten the upper right corner enough to fit one in there, though, perhaps at the expense of tightening up your curves. Using a double crossover mentioned above saves space, but comes with tradeoffs (expense and reliability / wiring).

Consider using some curved turnouts to allow industrial sidings on your curves. You also still haven't mentioned what kind of equipment you intend to run. This will be a very significant factor in determining how tight you can make your curves and still have good operation. All else being equal, broader is better, but confined spaces require tradeoffs.


----------



## Fireman104 (Nov 14, 2017)

CTValleyRR said:


> So I mostly agree with Dave, here. I think you're going to have trouble with reach. Try mocking it up (use tape on the floor, and a chair / ladder / shelf, etc. to simulate the layout edge) and see if you can reach the back areas.
> 
> The wye is a way to turn trains, so I understand why you put it in. The problem is that the tail is too short -- you probably won't even be able to get a loco and one car onto it, which is the absolute bare minimum to be able to get a train through it (switching one car at a time onto the opposite leg). Ideally, you want the tail to be long enough for the entire train, or at least a big chunk of it. See if you can't turn things around and use as much of the area between the loops as possible for the tail track (the tail doesn't have to be straight).
> 
> ...


The only locomotive that I have so far is an Intermountain SD40-2, I will only be having freight rolling stock such as hoppers, tankers, flat lumber, etc.
According to the info that came with this loco, it says minimum radius to run on is 22"


----------



## sachsr1 (Mar 3, 2016)

I used 1/4" chip board underneath because it was cheap, and not structurally necessary. I think you can get homosote up in your neck of the woods. I find that most of my derailments happen in or around the yard, so having it so far back might be come a pain. You can always use track nails to hold the track to the foam, and see how it works out. I had a good portion of my track held in place for months with just track nails into foam.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Fireman104 said:


> The only locomotive that I have so far is an Intermountain SD40-2, I will only be having freight rolling stock such as hoppers, tankers, flat lumber, etc.
> According to the info that came with this loco, it says minimum radius to run on is 22"


Yup. Generally a long six axle truck like that requires 22" minimum radius. That's why I was asking. While it MIGHT go tighter, it might not, so play it safe and keep your minimum at or above 22".


----------

