# 14 x 4.5 O Gauge L Shaped Layout



## HCF (Jan 19, 2021)

Hi everyone,

I made this O gauge layout plan in SCARM. It's a representation of what my end goal for my layout is not what I want to build immediately at the start.

I would love to get some thoughts and critique from everyone here. Let me know if you see any potential operation issues or anything like that. Would love to hear any other thoughts or questions as well.

Thanks 😃,

Holden


----------



## BigGRacing (Sep 25, 2020)

I love the layout plan! As a beginner though, aren’t the curves to tight for most trains, I have 4 foot width and would be hesitant to even use 22” radius ?
Gary


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Nice looking plan, but I have to agree with Gary, you are limited to probably semi-scale O-gauge for most any steam, I can't imagine those curves are more than O36 maximum with a four foot wide platform.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

I agree. I would check both your curves and grades for being too tight and too steep (even 3% is pushing it).

Does SCARM allow you to set parameters and alert you when you exceed them?


----------



## HCF (Jan 19, 2021)

Hey guys. 

Thanks for the input. 

The outer loop has O42 curves while the inner loops are O32. Are they too tight because they're too close together and the edges or is it the flex curves that look problematic?

Thanks,

Holden


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Both. Assuming that's more or less a 4x8, it seems like the curves on your inner-most loops would be something way too tight for O scales -- down on the order of 24" or so. And yes, clearances to the layout edge, between tracks, and to the scenery don't look adequate.


----------



## HCF (Jan 19, 2021)

CTValleyRR said:


> Both. Assuming that's more or less a 4x8, it seems like the curves on your inner-most loops would be something way too tight for O scales -- down on the order of 24" or so. And yes, clearances to the layout edge, between tracks, and to the scenery don't look adequate.


The plan is 4.5 x 14 ft and 4.5 x 3 on the L bit that sticks out. 

My current trains work on O-27 track and curves. Would they be ok?

How would you recommend I go about scaling back and ensuring there is enough clearance and room for my loops? 

Thanks, 

Holden


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

So I noted it in my first post: hopefully, SCARM has a way that you can set a minimum slope and curve radius, and have the software alert you in anything that doesn't work. 

If you go to the NRMA standards pages, you can find the clearance necessary for O scale equipment (RP-7). This is 2" from track centerline; 2-1/4" on curves.

As far as the layout edge, only you can say what your level of risk is there. Personally, I'd allow enough room for a train to fall on its side next to the tracks without falling off the table, or 2" from the edge of the ballast to the edge of the layout in HO scale; certainly 3-4 in O.


----------



## HCF (Jan 19, 2021)

Hey everyone,

Thanks so much for your help. I went back to the drawing board and completely started over. I decreased the length and increased the width. The design is now 7 ft by 12 ft. I feel this has given me more room and space and I've been checking clearances as I go. Of course, I submit it to you lovely people to see what I may have missed.

The plan uses gargraves wooden tie track and ross custom switches.

Because the layout will most likely be against the wall, I think I'm going to need an access hatch or maybe multiple access hatches to get to the back parts of the layout. I'm ~18 inches shoulder to shoulder so what do you recommend for dimensions? Furthermore, based on the plan, where do you think a good spot for hatches would be? I put a square on the plan where I think a good potential spot may be.

The grade at the back is 3.7%. I know this isn't prototypical but I don't mind that. What I do want to know is, can locomotives handle that? I don't mind if I have to split trains to get up the grade, in fact I think that would be fun. I don't really want to do helper locos because for the foreseeable future I'm gonna be running trains conventionally and I don't wanna risk wrecking two loco motors due to them being at different speeds/outputs.

I'm not looking to to get this exactly in scale. This is more 3 rail scale than it is O scale. What I do want though is for trains to be able to run smoothly, that's my goal.

Thanks so much for your help!


----------



## HCF (Jan 19, 2021)

Oh one more thing. 

I think if space allows it, it'd be neat to have a wye on the layout but I can't figure out a good spot. If you've got any ideas, lemme know.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

I'm still concerned that you have some serious issues with curves, grades, and clearances. Now admittedly, I'm working in HO, so O may behave a little bit differently, but I think the concepts are universal.

Grades: 3.7% is more than just unprototypical, it's likely to be problematic. Our equipment has a rigid length, so if part of your train is on a slope and part isn't, you run the risk that the wheels on one end will come off the rails. Similarly, if a car or locomotive has a lot of overhang at the ends, it can bottom out when transitioning on and off of a grade. And finally, your train can uncoupled if the grade causes too much mismatch between coupler heights. Build a short test track with a 3.7% grade on it and test it. Now, you can overcome these issues by creating an easement (an area of shallower grade at the beginning and end of each slope), but this either requires more room, or a steeper grade in the middle or both.

Curves: You really need to do some hard work on clearances: Numerous spots have vertical cliffs right at the edges of your track, or right against the frog of a turnout. You can draw that, but you can't build it. And remember that your trains overhang the outside of the rails a bit too, more so on sharp corners, so you need to be able to make sure nothing is going to bump scenery. Also, places where you apparently plan trestles don't allow any footprint for the trestle at ground level -- so again, I'm afraid you've drawn something that will be impossible to actually build. 

Area. 7 feet wide means that the center of that layout is going to be unreachable for most people. If you have access on all 4 sides, 5 feet is barely manageable; if you're built like a basketball player or are planning to build it low to the ground (in which case, your back will hate you forever), I'll give you a maximum of 6'. You would need some kind of pop-up in the middle, and you haven't allowed for that (and it would also require your layout to be built higher).

You're incredibly creative when it comes to creating interlacing loops, and it's visually very appealing. But you need to take a hard, critical look at how big things are, how wide they are, and think about how you're planning to actually construct it. Multi-level builds in the space you're contemplating are tricky at best, unless the levels are independent of each other. This is a common problem with CAD tools: they allow you to draw things that you can't actually construct. Maybe consider scaling back your plans a bit and build something simpler first, to get a better feel for how all the parts come together.


----------



## sjm9911 (Dec 20, 2012)

Ill agree that inside track looks like a big grade into a curve, locos when coming down grade pick up speed and tend to fall off on the curve. I learned that the hard way.


----------



## Madman (Aug 22, 2020)

If you can, try to have access to the back of your new layout plan. To me, it beats pop-up access panels.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Madman said:


> If you can, try to have access to the back of your new layout plan. To me, it beats pop-up access panels.


Well, I would agree with that, but it wouldn't matter on that plan. 7' is too far to reach, access to the rear or not. Remember that a fathom (a unit of nautical measure equal to 6 feet), was originally the distance an average man's outstretched arms would cover.

30", or 2-1/2 feet, is a good working estimate for what's possible on a layout. You have to be able to actually manipulate things, not just brush them with your fingertips, and you don't want to smash everything underneath your arm or body.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

CTValleyRR said:


> Grades: 3.7% is more than just unprototypical, it's likely to be problematic. Our equipment has a rigid length, so if part of your train is on a slope and part isn't, you run the risk that the wheels on one end will come off the rails. Similarly, if a car or locomotive has a lot of overhang at the ends, it can bottom out when transitioning on and off of a grade. And finally, your train can uncoupled if the grade causes too much mismatch between coupler heights. Build a short test track with a 3.7% grade on it and test it. Now, you can overcome these issues by creating an easement (an area of shallower grade at the beginning and end of each slope), but this either requires more room, or a steeper grade in the middle or both.


In truth, as long as you allow some easement of the grade at the entry and exit, that isn't a big deal with O-scale unless you're running pretty long consists. I've run on a large layout with 2.7% grades and pulled over 100 cars with two Legacy locomotives, including the long grade. Obviously, some locomotives will have more issues than others without the proper easement allowances, but strictly the 3.7% grade is probably not a major issue. Oh, and there's no argument that it's not exactly prototypical! That being said, there is a 4.24% mainline grade in the US for real 1:1 trains, the Saluda Grade, so it's not out of the realm of possibility. Of course, they abandoned that stretch of track some time ago, doubtless because of the steep grade. The steepest grade on my new layout build is 2.5%, and I allowed a couple of feet of easement at the entry and exit with a 1.25% grade to minimize entry and exit issues. I did run my Vision Line Big Boy up the grade and closely watched for any issues with the grade, but all went well. I have to try it with my JLC GG1, those are notorious for bottoming out on any track irregularity.


----------



## Madman (Aug 22, 2020)

CTValleyRR said:


> Well, I would agree with that, but it wouldn't matter on that plan. 7' is too far to reach, access to the rear or not. Remember that a fathom (a unit of nautical measure equal to 6 feet), was originally the distance an average man's outstretched arms would cover.
> 
> 30", or 2-1/2 feet, is a good working estimate for what's possible on a layout. You have to be able to actually manipulate things, not just brush them with your fingertips, and you don't want to smash everything underneath your arm or body.



So will you be able to walk around the entire layout ?


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Madman said:


> So will you be able to walk around the entire layout ?


Nope. Not me. I have no idea where that layout will be, or anything about other tha what's been posted here. The OP might be able to walk around it, though. My point is trying to show him what the real world will let him get away with, as compared to the virtual one where you can draw anything that the software is capable of.

But my comment said that it's too wide to reach the middle, regardless of whether he can walk around it or not.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

gunrunnerjohn said:


> In truth, as long as you allow some easement of the grade at the entry and exit, that isn't a big deal with O-scale unless you're running pretty long consists. I've run on a large layout with 2.7% grades and pulled over 100 cars with two Legacy locomotives, including the long grade. Obviously, some locomotives will have more issues than others without the proper easement allowances, but strictly the 3.7% grade is probably not a major issue. Oh, and there's no argument that it's not exactly prototypical! That being said, there is a 4.24% mainline grade in the US for real 1:1 trains, the Saluda Grade, so it's not out of the realm of possibility. Of course, they abandoned that stretch of track some time ago, doubtless because of the steep grade. The steepest grade on my new layout build is 2.5%, and I allowed a couple of feet of easement at the entry and exit with a 1.25% grade to minimize entry and exit issues. I did run my Vision Line Big Boy up the grade and closely watched for any issues with the grade, but all went well. I have to try it with my JLC GG1, those are notorious for bottoming out on any track irregularity.


Key takeaway: as long as there are easements in and out (and I said that). HO isn't too different. But the OP doesn't currently have any.


----------



## HCF (Jan 19, 2021)

Hey everybody,

I haven't posted in a bit but I've been busy. Last time I was here, I posted a Layout plan to get feedback. Since then I've adjusted the plan further. Here's the plan as it is now.



And here's the expansion plan.



The Layout will be 8 ft by 8 ft (with an access hatch up center stage). The lower level will be Gargraves track and Ross custom switches. The upper level will be traditional lionel tubular track. 

The setting will be 1948-1953. The railroads will be the AT&SF and the Southern Pacific. I may potentially add a Western Pacific train too. The left side of the layout will be a San Francisco inspired city (unnamed currently) with a terminal. The right will be inspired by Los Angeles and Phoenix. There will be a smaller train station, some industry, and a building or two to imply a larger city there. The center of the layout will have a mountain range and a canyon. The goal will be to block the line of sight from one side to the other.

*Progress Report #1*

To start off I began by screwing together four 2 by 4s together to make a square. I then screwed two 2 by 4s across in the center. 



I then screwed 4 by 4 posts into the corners and into points in the center. I also placed adjustable metal feet onto the bottom of the posts for leveling.



Then I nailed 3/4 inch plywood on top of the frame. Using leftover wood from a garden plot I helped my brother build, I made triangle braces for the legs. This helped reduce wiggle.

Yes I realize this means my table is incredibly strong, and probably overbuilt. My carpenty experience is in theater though so I felt most comfortable building it like a platform. Also, I wanted to be able to climb on top of the table if necessary. I think it will be useful for building the second level and for laying the track. Also I just like my table sturdy.



Finally, I cut the access hole in the plywood and I glued down two 1 inch layers of extruded polystyrene. The glue is currently curing as we speak! 



Once the glue cures, I am planning on putting a layer of plaster on top of the foam to reduce denting. 

I hope you enjoyed reading my update, and if you've read this far I'd love to hear your thoughts!


----------



## sjm9911 (Dec 20, 2012)

Looks heavy! Lol. All good. Better then flimsy. Good thing with the 2 levels of foam board os you can cut down into it to make grading on the layout. So if you want a stream, or gully cut it in.


----------



## HCF (Jan 19, 2021)

sjm9911 said:


> Looks heavy! Lol. All good. Better then flimsy. Good thing with the 2 levels of foam board os you can cut down into it to make grading on the layout. So if you want a stream, or gully cut it in.


That's the plan!


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

There's heavy, and there's sturdy. The two are not the same thing. An L girder is much lighter and just as sturdy. More importantly, proper bracing is what makes sturdy benchwork, not heavier lumber. Nothing wrong with making it earthquake proof, but it's not necessary, either.


----------

