# Irontodd's Layout Plans



## irontodd (Aug 28, 2014)

FEEDBACK WELCOME!

I've been playing with SCARM a bit to try to lay out a decent HO plan in 4x8. Before anyone suggests switching to a round the room plan, I absolutely can't do that. I've got 3 doorways and an egress window to contend with. It's simply not going to happen around the room, at least not in this house. I'd love to have a layout that I can use as a peninsula in a future layout in our next house. (coming soon to a neighborhood near me).

Currently the layout is DC only, haven't gotten the go ahead from the Mrs. to upgrade to DCC just yet. 
All my locos and other rolling stock navigate 18r just fine, I'm not concerned about the "look" of my 85' passenger cars (Royal Gorge Set from Bachmann) on the 18r - it works, I'm happy. 
I'm using Bachmann EZTrack for these, likely a mix (for now) of NS and steel track.
Please note most of the buildings are not to scale especially on this first pic. I already have all the track necessary to build this first layout.









I'd still need to buy a few more pieces of track to make this one but it seems to have more to do, with the additional yard trackage.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

A couple of points. 1) Around the room is not impossible in your case, just tricky, but I won't press the issue. It's your layout. 2) I would get rid of the steel track. It is cheap garbage, and you will likely find yourself spending a lot of time cleaning it. 3) The appearance of the passenger cars going around those tight curves may not bother you, but they will likely hit other cars on adjacent tracks,especially in the upper left of the second layout.

For the layout itself, the second will keep you engaged, the first will be boring after a couple of weeks. The second has all the elements of a good layout -- lots of switching, passing tracks and a long mainline run. It also has a number of issues. First, there is a reversing loop which will require special wiring. Second, where does the track go in the tunnels? Do they connect? If so, that's another reversing loop to deal with. But it appears that SCARM doesn't try to keep you honest on elevation changes. Over /unders in HO scale requires 3" plus the height of the scenery. You will need to have some pretty steep grades, and the tunnel under the river in the lower center will cause a grade change of about 4%, which your passenger cars probably won't do.


----------



## irontodd (Aug 28, 2014)

CTValleyRR said:


> A couple of points. 1) Around the room is not impossible in your case, just tricky, but I won't press the issue. It's your layout.
> 2) I would get rid of the steel track. It is cheap garbage, and you will likely find yourself spending a lot of time cleaning it.
> 3) The appearance of the passenger cars going around those tight curves may not bother you, but they will likely hit other cars on adjacent tracks,especially in the upper left of the second layout.
> 
> For the layout itself, the second will keep you engaged, the first will be boring after a couple of weeks. The second has all the elements of a good layout -- lots of switching, passing tracks and a long mainline run. It also has a number of issues. First, there is a reversing loop which will require special wiring. Second, where does the track go in the tunnels? Do they connect? If so, that's another reversing loop to deal with. But it appears that SCARM doesn't try to keep you honest on elevation changes. Over /unders in HO scale requires 3" plus the height of the scenery. You will need to have some pretty steep grades, and the tunnel under the river in the lower center will cause a grade change of about 4%, which your passenger cars probably won't do.


Thanks for the feedback CTValley!
Didn't think about the Steel track cleaning factor. Good point.
from a collision perspective, I believe you're talking about a potential conflict between the innermost loop and the siding. I just measured and they're actually 3 inches on center. they look a lot closer on 3d view because of the elevation change and I didn't get it directly overhead. 

I cannot find what you're calling a reversing loop, at least by my limited knowledge of terminology. Yes, the track figure 8's back over itself, but I don't think i have any reconnections to the mainline from that "backwards" part, so I didn't think it mattered. If my thinking is incorrect, please set me straight!

Mainline rolls uphill across the back/top of the image
Then it loops clockwise around the yard, 
then counterclockwise around the grazing pasture and other homes
heads into the tunnel (under the river), 
curves clockwise under the scenery 
comes out of the tunnel, over the bridge, past the road
then can take the mainline around the outside or take a pause on the inner siding. 

I didn't consider the steepness of the grades, so good catch there. looks like i do have 4.6% right now. (elevation change of 3.5 inches). looks like it's back to the drawing board. I'll probably focus on how I might be able to rework the yard area first, to see if i can change where the grade starts. What grade % should I shoot for if I'm not looking for prototypical grade, just something that works?


----------



## Big Ed (Jun 16, 2009)

CTValleyRR said:


> It also has a number of issues. First, there is a reversing loop which will require special wiring. Second, where does the track go in the tunnels? Do they connect? If so, that's another reversing loop to deal with.


On the second plan.
Even if the track connects after it goes through the tunnels I don't see any reversing loop?
I don't see any reversing loops at all?
What am I missing?

I like the second one better.


----------



## mwpeber (Dec 5, 2011)

As far as max grade, I've heard 2-2.5% max recommended and know at least that O gauge trains can travel up that grade from my experience. Not sure if there is a different recommendation for HO though.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Hi, all. I looked at this last night on my tablet in portrait mode, so was not able to see the whole thing at once. After looking at it just now on my desktop, I agree that there is not a reversing loop. Sorry for the confusion.

I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. You have some good ideas there.... you just need to fix the grade issues. Maybe you can use a crossing rather than an over / under?

For the grades, keep them under 2%. Longer cars and locos will bottom out on anything steeper, as well as coming off the rails and / or uncoupling.


----------



## irontodd (Aug 28, 2014)

CTValleyRR said:


> Hi, all. I looked at this last night on my tablet in portrait mode, so was not able to see the whole thing at once. After looking at it just now on my desktop, I agree that there is not a reversing loop. Sorry for the confusion.
> 
> I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. You have some good ideas there.... you just need to fix the grade issues. Maybe you can use a crossing rather than an over / under?
> 
> For the grades, keep them under 2%. Longer cars and locos will bottom out on anything steeper, as well as coming off the rails and / or uncoupling.


whew, at least I wasn't crazy with the non-reversing loop 
crossing is an idea, hadn't thought of that, maybe I'll mess around with that later this evening. totally understand the bottoming out, hadn't considered that but makes a lot of sense


----------

