# Do I really wanna do this?



## Smokinapankake (Sep 8, 2011)

So I've been a member here since 2011, but haven't posted much in the last 5-6 years. Back in 2016 I finally got my basement finished and a train room purpose built. Into that train room I built an around the walls type layout with a hinged section to allow easy access to the inside. The layout consists of three separate loops, two with 3 track, through type staging yards while the outer loop is a stub ended, 5 track staging yard. This allows me to run 3 trains separately, and to easily change to a different train. The stub ended yard requires backing the train in to "park" it while another takes to the rails.
I'll have to get some pics uploaded from my phone to help clear it up a bit.

Edit to add pictures:








This is the doorway looking into the room, West would be to the left of the picture. The wall with the window measures 13'-9"









This is just inside the doorway, looking right (or east). This deep canyon section would have to be rebuilt into Lobo Creek. That wall with the pictures and RR crossing sign is 8 feet. This is where the 6 foot wall is in the published plan.









This is inside the center of the donut, looking back towards the door. This shelf yard would be rebuilt into the interchange area on the plan. This wall measures 12 feet.

















These two views show the through type staging yards, this is the North end of the plan, and would be rebuilt into the Coldwell Junction area.

Most (95%) of my equipment is Athearn Blue Box, equipped with Accu-Mate couplers. I have a few Stewart Hobbies, Proto 2K and Bachmann locos thrown in just to keep me humble as well. I would plan to remain DC powered, as I don't want to spend the money on DCC as of yet, and I also don't think the layout needs it for multi-train operation.

The trouble with the loops is just that - they're just loops, and as many of us know by now, watching a train endlessly circle, one can lose interest rather quickly. For a year or two this was entertaining to me, and I do enjoy that ungodly Athearn growl, but I think it might be time for something a little more interesting.

I stumbled upon the Journal of Model Railroad design blog website and found this:


















This plan is designed to fit in a 6 x 12 foot space, but I have a bit bigger space available. My train room measures 13'-9" along the north wall (where Coldwell Junction is located above), 12' along the west wall, and 8' along the east wall. In my room, the Lobo Creek section would have access to both sides, and the interchange track on the west could be 12' with a few more tracks worth of width. Again, photos will help you understand. I'll see if I can get some uploaded....

There are some serious advantages to adopting and adapting this plan to fit my room: I already have benchwork in place. I already have the turnouts (Peco Code 100) on hand and plenty of flex track. I have not scenicked any of the existing layout because I could never decide how to make it look okay, so uprooting all the track would incur minimal loss, and therefore minimal expense to start over. I've got everything on hand I'd need to get the basic infrastructure in place. I'm by no means a master modeler, but I am capable of assembling kits to look like they're supposed to (mostly), and it looks like the structures suggested on the plan can be easily obtained through Walthers (no scratchbuilding for me, or at least minimal anyway).

The disadvantages are rather minimal. I'd have to build a new peninsula for the Lobe Creek section as my existing peninsula is too narrow, and contains a deep river gulch. Not a big deal, I have a sheet of plywood in the basement ready to use. I'd lose the continuous run ability, and I'd be without any trains to play with for a while. And I'd have to explain to my wife why I'm semi-dismantling.

The uncertainties are thus: Will I like a point to point style layout? How do I "operate" the thing? I like the idea of being a little more involved with the trains, i.e., switching, throwing turnouts, solving the car placement puzzle, etc., rather than just watching them chase their tails. I like the separation between the two towns, and with my larger space the separation can help hide how close the two towns really are.
Will I ever be able to "finish" it? I understand the concept that they're never really finished, and that this is a hobby meant to be an enjoyable pastime. I'm sure there are others I'm not thinking of now.

Most of this I'll have to answer for myself, but any and all thoughts and comments are welcome. If you've gotten this far, thanks for reading!


----------



## OilValleyRy (Oct 3, 2021)

Photos will answer the first part of my question, but here it is: Do the existing loops pretty much consume all your benchwork real estate?

Part two: If you have room available for spurs and structures etc, I think it would be easier and more efficient to adopt operating concepts or “the intention” from a plan or portions from different plans and integrate them into your existing benchwork where you feel that feature works well, adds interest and/or challenge rather than dismantling to replicate a plan “as published.”


----------



## Smokinapankake (Sep 8, 2011)

There is room available to add buildings etc... and I do agree with your part two concerns. As it is now, I have little experience in designing an effective track plan, and little interest in spending a lot of time learning how. This of course leads to the question "What do you want out of your railroad?" "Why do you want to build a model railroad anyway, etc.."
To which I'll answer this: I like model trains. I like miniatures. I like building stuff, and I like seeing progress. I don't want it to look like a 4 year old built it, but I don't expect the model railroad magazines will be beating down my door to do a feature on it. As far as operating concepts or specific plans, I'm not too concerned if its a pallet factory or a stockyard per se; I'd probably tailor the structures to make the most efficient use of the rolling stock I have on hand. Track layout itself is an infinitely diverse subject, and one that can cause what I call "analysis paralysis", wherein you get so tied up in the many different possibilities that you never actually make a decision and therefore never build anything. I'm certainly not trying to be snarky or argumentative; I just think it would be easier for me to start over, using a published plan, maybe modify it a bit to better suit what I have on hand or whatever.

I also don't want anything that is so large or complex that it just becomes a noose around my neck. I envision something I can do at my leisure, and that an "operating session", whatever that means, doesn't look too much like a real job. We're trying to relieve stress here, right? But I do want it to be somewhat realistic (ish), I want it to be pleasing to the eye, and I want to do something besides watch them chase their tail.

I doubt I'd build it exactly as published; I was thinking of moving the engine house over to the west, nearer the interchange track. I don't see the point of the station between the two towns; I'd probably eliminate that as well. This makes more sense to me, and also allows a bit of scenery to help divide the two town sites.

I'll add this as well: I have a few passenger cars and I like the idea of a small tourist type railroad, so I might put the station closer to the end of the line in Lobo Creek, and run an occasional passenger extra from one end of the line to the other, pulled by a more interesting locomotive, like one of my Baldwin AS-616's...
Appreciate the input!


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

You have found that loop running no longer holds much appeal for you. The next step is learning more about how railroads function and for what reasons. From there, replicating much/all of that will offer you all that real railroading has in the way of complexity. It does not follow, unfortunately, that it will be the key to your happiness in the hobby. It may only mean a new direction or orientation. Maybe the appeal will only grow when you share it with others, such as with joint operating sessions. Can you do that and still have space to move around?

So, yes, you must provide the answers, but from a point of understanding.


----------



## Smokinapankake (Sep 8, 2011)

The inside of the donut measures 4'-6" wide at its narrowest point. The aisleway on the outside, where the gulch is, is 36" wide. If I were to rebuild the gulch area into a 2' wide shelf (it is currently 18"), my inside would only narrow down to 4', still plenty of room to work around another person, if there were to be one. 

I get the idea of replicating real railroad operations as an end in itself, and maybe for many of those on these forums that is what it is all about. Maybe it will become what it is all about for me. I just know that what I've got going on in my train room right now isn't doing it for me anymore, like you stated. But I also know I like real and model trains and have since I was 4. This doesn't have to be an all-consuming endeavor for me, one that I will stick with until I die, rather, I merely want to build something with some operating interest, that won't be too consuming, and that I can enjoy on a hot summer day, but is more than a few loops of track and some sidings. Seems like a good plan to start from anyway....


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

If I was in your shoes, I'd try to do a double mainline, with one line being pretty much there just to run trains without having to keep switching turnouts.

I like to have a train running at a nice slow speed on a mainline that doesn't interfere with the "operations" part of switching, dropping off cars, picking up others, etc.

I grow tired of having to plan a route when the route is complex, and I HATE it when I have a derailment simply because I failed to throw the points correctly.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

I'm with Oilvalley...you have a fantastic basic layout...great
yards, and apparently 'acres' of real estate. You can add
spur tracks at a good number of places on your layout.
Each one would be 'home' to one or more small freight using business...
a food warehouse, an oil distributor, a sand and gravel
dealer, a small factory, a meat processing plant with
stock yards and icing platform...there are others...you want freight users
that ship to other users on your layout. those industries would
provide hours of challenging switching operations. You
have the space to establish 'towns' that have freight users who
ship to other users in the next town. And each town
would have a passenger station. You won't be bored.

Don


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

Part of the reason for your boredom with the current layout is the lack of scenery for your trains to travel through.

Looking at bare plywood _would _be boring after a short time for a roundy-round. Especially with no elevation changes.


----------



## AmFlyer (Mar 16, 2012)

I will toss out a wild idea. The existing layout is a great start. I would be bored in short order with a point to point layout, but that is me and not you. I would consider adding some elevation and letting the scenery create the multiple elevations. I am including a picture of a corner of my layout to clarify. There are three separate levels visible, no track is more than 28" from the edge of the layout. It does not need to be this complex but like MichaelE says, no scenery and no elevation changes can get boring. MichaelE has posted some fantastic videos of his layout.


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

Being I'm a great advocate of 'point to point' MRRs, I like that you might go that way...
I disagree that P to P becomes boring..To me it's the opposite, because it keeps you on your toes and requires more realistic operations. The 1:1 scale is P to P...Except for belt lines and trolleys, trains don't go in a loop..At one or both ends of the line is either a wye, a balloon track, or turntable to send trains back the other way..
Your's has neither..But that's OK..Some branch lines the trains go out in one direction and at the end run in reverse back, taking advantage of station stops and trailing point and facing point spurs, depending on which way it's running..In the end point to point gives me a feeling of actual RRing, whereas a continual is the one which can potentially cause boredom.
All MRRs serve the fascination we have with trains..How anyone chooses to do it is as valid as my way. It's only that I'd like to see more MRRers going point to point as it's closer to the real thing in operations, giving us more RRianic duties to perform. At the same time I respect that some don't wish to have duties much more than coupling up, starting and stopping..And that's OK, too.
*Smokinapankak*, do what you want to do. No one can think for you..Follow your intuition...
It's only a hobby..meant to be pleasurable in all its aspects...


----------



## Stumpy (Mar 19, 2013)

Smokinapankake said:


> The trouble with the loops is just that - they're just loops, and as many of us know by now, watching a train endlessly circle, one can lose interest rather quickly. For a year or two this was entertaining to me, and I do enjoy that ungodly Athearn growl, but I think it might be time for something a little more interesting.


Looking at your pics it appears that you should be able to modify what you already have to accommodate both. I see plenty of places to add spurs and sidings that would all for "operations". Even on the "narrow" deep canyon peninsula.


----------



## Smokinapankake (Sep 8, 2011)

I, too, wonder if P2P would get boring, but as telltale says, it is more realistic operation. Here in Utah we have a tourist railroad, the Heber Valley Railroad. For a long time I'd considered modeling that line. It runs from the city of Heber (pronounced Weeber), past Deer Creek reservoir, and down Provo Canyon, stopping about a third of the way up from Provo at Vivian Park. It was originally a branch of the D&RGW, departing up the canyon from Provo to access the sheep stockyards in Heber. This could be a tremendously interesting branch to model, and I may go that route yet, but I don't think I have the accumulated skillset to do that. The published plan could easily be massaged into an upcanyon branchline, connecting on one end to the main yard at Provo (the interchange in the published plan) and terminating in the little town of Heber, where some freight operations and the aforementioned sheep yards were (Lobo Creek on the published plan).

Currently, the Heber Valley is passenger service only, but it's not too big a stretch of imagination to picture a modern day shortline established after the D&RGW abandoned the branch in the 60's, and currently hanging on by a thread thanks to some creative financing and unconventional marketing....

Check out www.utahrails.net for more information if interested.

I'm trying to develop an idea for what kind of operations I want; P2P makes sense to me from an ops point of view, unfortunately, due to space constraints the distances between towns is ridiculously short. A couple of solutions to that I can see:

Smaller scale. I'm not really willing to go to N scale; I have some nice N equipment, and I enjoy it, but I don't think I want to "live with it" for a permanent layout.

Double deck, with a helix: One town on bottom, lots of mainline to get to the top. This gives the separation in miles, but do I really want to build, essentially, two layouts? And throw in the complexity of a helix? Probably not. I am quite handy and have built a successful helix in the past (in N scale), so construction does not intimidate me.

A fast clock: This may be the most viable solution but I've never really used one so I can't comment with any authority on it. This, too, smacks of taking this hobby way too seriously. But from what little I've read about it, maybe not. Maybe its a great, easy to implement facet that only enhances the experience. Do any of you folks use a fast clock?

I agree also with AMFlyer in that I think elevation can add visual interest. It would require pulling up track and rebuilding, so not too different from starting over with a clean slate. I'll have to chew on some ideas to introduce some above and below grade elevations....


----------



## Gramps (Feb 28, 2016)

In your first post you stated that you had a hinged section to allow access to the inside. I presume this was across the doorway. Couldn't you keep the hinged section and tie it in to the Lobo Creek plan which would allow you to do the point to point modeling but sometimes just let it do loops if you just want to kick back and watch?


----------



## Conductorkev (Nov 5, 2021)

Here's a suggestion I'll add that you coukd possibly implement. You have extra footage so a couple changes could make the track plan more enjoyable for you.

One thing I noticed is that you have a lot of rolling stock. You kinda need a yard which this layout does not have. Well a part of this track plan is sorta useless considering your not expanding either way at tge junction. So where it is going north and south add a yard maybe put a turntable at the backside yo turn around your engine and pick up whatever cars that your switches has ready for you in the yard. Keep the station at coldwell.. then at Lobo creek put in a wye and a reverse loop so you can have the trains go back thru the layout. It would still be point to point but you would not have to either turn the engine around by hand or go thru backwards both imho would be annoying.


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

Whatever path you take here's a little tip that will save you time, work, and $$...
If you wind up redoing yards/staging you can skip the cork under those tracks as real yards are down on the ground for certain reasons: Trains are never going much more than 3-10 mph..And, having these tracks lower down than the main ensures no cars will start rolling out to the main from 'the bowl' and foul the main..
I don't know if it's true today but RRs used to refer to a yard as 'the bowl' because the earth under them is bowl-like; unbraked cars falling toward the center...
I disagree that running in reverse is 'annoying'..It's done all the time (or was,anyway), and again it's exciting seeing a freight train backing through the system, the conductor in the caboose now being 'the eyes' of the procedure...
Finally, again, *if* you rebuild, a single track main 'looks' a greater distance than a double/triple main.
Yet a 2-4 track main does look more serious a road as in your 2nd pic down.


----------



## Smokinapankake (Sep 8, 2011)

*Gramps*, I had considered that, and its not entirely off the table as of yet....

*ConductorKev*, I do have quite a bit of rolling stock but don't expect to keep it all on the layout all the time. I think too much stock can make a layout look cluttered and small. Additionally, I prefer diesels to steam so turning it around at the end so it can go back the other way is not a concern. Rather, a runaround track is important so the loco can swap ends with the caboose. Or, as *Telltale* states, it wasn't unheard of for the train to just be pushed the other way with the conductor on the platform of the caboose and a radio in hand, directing the engineer. This could make for interesting, low speed running.


----------



## 65steam (Dec 18, 2019)

There is a lot of good advice in this thread. Overall, I think whether you choose a continuous running or point to point layout, what is essential is that you build in industries and spurs to give some purpose to your trains. Additionally, I think you should jump in and start experimenting with scenery. It's something you can learn by doing and that will add more interest to your layout. Otherwise, no matter what you do, you'll still have a train that is running through a place that can only look like plywood and not any sort of setting or location. Keep us updated!


----------



## sjm9911 (Dec 20, 2012)

Not an HO guy, but why not have both? A loop around the outside and switching in the middle? You have the room, no need for limits. Have a few switches to get the train from the outside loop to the inside. Your unhappy with just loops. Add to it. Or remake it. Half the fun for me is just building it.


----------



## OilValleyRy (Oct 3, 2021)

Smokinapankake said:


> The inside of the donut measures 4'-6" wide at its narrowest point. The aisleway on the outside, where the gulch is, is 36" wide. If I were to rebuild the gulch area into a 2' wide shelf (it is currently 18"), my inside would only narrow down to 4', still plenty of room to work around another person, if there were to be one.


You could just build a 6 inch extension (box or L girder design) that is secured by a few carriage bolts, bringing the 18” depth up to 24”.


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

*"This could make for interesting low speed running."* Yes, a big fat yes !!

I did just that on my last PtoP curlicue switchback, bridge route, elevating cars from an upper peninsula to a lower shelf/yard/interchange between 2 fictitious RRs..
It broke my heart when I was forced out of my apartment, a new owner using the Ellis act to do so...
I loved my odd concoction ran from my living room along a long 35' wall to the the kitchen and patio doors.. I do have pix and will someday download them from my Nikon when I learn how.


----------



## Smokinapankake (Sep 8, 2011)

Agreed about the need for industries to deliver to and pick up from, hence the desire to rebuild into something that is more satisfying than loop de loops. I've been contemplating making the change for about a year and a half or so now... But looking at track plans too much leads to stagnation; I like the published plan mostly because it easily adapts to my current benchwork and provides more than just endless looping. It looks like something manageable for me in the limited spare time I have available; not too complicated to wire or scenic, and provides interesting possibilities for operations. Another option I considered (and still am considering) is the Benedict & Wexford, published in Model Railroader Magazine several years ago. It, too, could be easily modified to fit into my space and remove some of its inherent problems (the steep grade required to cross over itself) while I'm at it.... A simple search will come up with a link to an image here. 

One advantage to this plan is that it provides both a continuous run option, and a branchline switching option. But there are some things I don't like about it that are a sticking point for me...


----------



## Conductorkev (Nov 5, 2021)

Smokinapankake said:


> Agreed about the need for industries to deliver to and pick up from, hence the desire to rebuild into something that is more satisfying than loop de loops. I've been contemplating making the change for about a year and a half or so now... But looking at track plans too much leads to stagnation; I like the published plan mostly because it easily adapts to my current benchwork and provides more than just endless looping. It looks like something manageable for me in the limited spare time I have available; not too complicated to wire or scenic, and provides interesting possibilities for operations. Another option I considered (and still am considering) is the Benedict & Wexford, published in Model Railroader Magazine several years ago. It, too, could be easily modified to fit into my space and remove some of its inherent problems (the steep grade required to cross over itself) while I'm at it.... A simple search will come up with a link to an image here.
> 
> One advantage to this plan is that it provides both a continuous run option, and a branchline switching option. But there are some things I don't like about it that are a sticking point for me...


Like how thry put its a Two plywood layout....... yes I will rip the one plywood a cpl of inches to lay down so thst I have to use another 2x3 or 2x4 to support the other plywood which will cause problems with my switch........


----------



## Magic (Jan 28, 2014)

I'll throw my 2¢ in here. I have a pretty large layout and can do continuous running or switching.
I do both. Sometimes I'll spend a full secession switching and sometimes running. 
It's easy to see why your unhappy with the current layout. Most of it discussed above.
But a P2P will also get boring soon, you can only run a train for a minute or less and than you have
to do some switching, can get pretty old in a hurry unless you really like that sort of thing and you
won't know till you build it.

If it were me I'd take off all the old track and deck the bench work with pink or blue insulated foam board.
If you can expand the one section to 24" so much the better.
You have plenty of room for a two track main line with crossovers to switch between mains.
Put one crossover on one side and the other on a different side so you have a passing track.
This alone will make your layout much more interesting to run.

Don't run the two mains parallel all the time, separate them where possible.
Try to put a little wiggle in where you can, doesn't have to be much just enough
to break up the straight lines. 

Put as few turnouts as possible on the outside main and elevate it a bit 1 or 2 inches.
Easy to do with Woodland Scenics inclines. A bridge over a dry gully or something like that
will help break up the flat look. That's why the foam board, makes carving land features easy.

Use the inside main for your yard and industries. Again you have lots of room for these things.
A couple of team tracks adds some interesting switching.
Don't lay track for the sake of laying track, each track should have a purpose.

It's easy to build a hill or a mountain with a tunnel using foam board, break up that flat look.
Just a little bit of terrain work goes a long way. A little foam board, plaster cloth and ground cover 
is easy and quick to do.

I would suggest a few days with a good track planning program would be a good investment.
See what will work best on your bench work. Trying to do everything in your head can get confusing.

To use the track program the easy way use sectional track till you get and idea of what you want.
It doesn't have to be perfect just good and close. You tidy up things for the final build.
That's what I did. You have looked at a lot of track plans, take what you like and work it 
in to your own plan.

If your time is short keep the scenery simple, your industries and a few other buildings
Maybe a road with some cars, trucks etc. Some trees and grass or dirt fields etc.
You have a lot of track and turnouts to start with and plenty of room.
To keep the wiring simple use manual ground throws for your turnouts where you can,
yards and spur industry tracks etc.

Your going to invest some time and labor in a rebuild some good planning will help
insure it's not wasted and you'll be happier in the long run.

Magic


----------



## SF Gal (11 mo ago)

I agree your railroad design has great potential...looks like you are responding to all the advise with an open mind and interest. I think you now have an idea to keep it interesting by engineering some designed spurs to send consists of car to various locations. I too got "burn't out" and abandoned my layout for over 10 years do to various reasons, one of those reasons was a lack of scenery to keep my interest. So today, I put running trains on the sidelines to focus on engineering scenery on my layout. Adding telephone pole, buildings for towns and industry, streets, vehicles, and home add "INTEREST TO THE EYE" and the imagination. Sparking your imagination is the key to keeping it interesting....and actually exciting!


----------



## Smokinapankake (Sep 8, 2011)

Another idea I kind of like is that of a tourist railroad, but with a kind of interesting twist - One passenger station represents two different locations. How? Train departs from one side of the station, goes out and around the layout, then arrives at the other side of the original station, at the "other end" of the line. Still P2P, but about doubles the run. I see it as a sort of living museum for interesting diesels (not a big fan of steam, believe it or not) like old Alco's GE, maybe throw in a Baldwin and a Fairbanks Morse Trainmaster for interest. Add in a ramshackle grouping of cast-off passenger coaches and specially modified freight cars to carry passengers, maybe run a "caboose only limited" every now and then and you could have lots of fun. Could build in passing sidings so two trains can pass each other, schedule meets, etc. Maybe throw in a few spurs here and there to run combined passenger/freight operations. 
Of course, being a tourist railroad, the scenery would have to be spectacular. I imagine rolling hills covered in blazing fall colors, passing by a big ole pumpkin patch full of bright orange melons, maybe a river with a few crossings on old wooden trestles... I'm just kinda typing out loud, here. 

I like the idea of a carveable subroadbed to introduce below track features. That's what I was going for with my canyon scene, and it works pretty well. But I think blue or pink foam will just amplify the noise of those old growly Athearn loco's. Maybe use acoustic ceiling tiles?


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

I love the flexibility of extruded foam board. I used Owens Corning from Home Depot. I used 2" 1.5" and 1/2" boards. These widths worked well for me because I could just leave a void in a 2" layer, cover the whole thing with another 1/2" layer, and you have a tunnel (I'm N scale, so a 2" tunnel is perfect). Here are some pics that show how I used foam. To carve, I mostly used a cheap utility knife with a long razor blade.

In this picture, you can see where I plan a tunnel. I printed my layout 1:1 so I could lay the pages down and trace my center line to help me lay the track when the time comes.









Here you can see how simple it is to attach cork roadbed. I just glued it with Elmer's and held it in place with T-pins. I took care to be sure I knew exactlky where I wanted key pieces like turnouts and crossings. Once they were in place, I just laid teh flex track along the traced centerline.










Another cool thing about foam is that you can shape it into just about anything. Here you can see I used a scrap piece to make a bridge pier.









adding the "roof" to a tunnel, which becomes the ground level for the elevated sections. Liquid Nails for Projects works great for layering the foam.









Adding more layers of foam for hills.










Covering teh foam with plaster cloth gives a good foundation for scenery.










A little paint and some plaster rocks..










Some grass, trees and shrubs










I really like foam. If you go with 2" foam, you could actually lay it on top of your existing benchwork and add a little bit of size at the same time. Foam boards are quite rigid, and a 2" piece of foam could probably overhang the edge by 4-6 inches without sacrificing stability.


----------



## Andreash (Dec 30, 2018)

I’d say no. The track plan could be modified for more switching opportunities, but I agree with some of the others that adding scenery would expand on the enjoyment of the layout. Your layout has so many positive attributes.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

Smokinapankake said:


> So I've been a member here since 2011, but haven't posted much in the last 5-6 years. Back in 2016 I finally got my basement finished and a train room purpose built. Into that train room I built an around the walls type layout with a hinged section to allow easy access to the inside. The layout consists of three separate loops, two with 3 track, through type staging yards while the outer loop is a stub ended, 5 track staging yard. This allows me to run 3 trains separately, and to easily change to a different train. The stub ended yard requires backing the train in to "park" it while another takes to the rails.
> I'll have to get some pics uploaded from my phone to help clear it up a bit.
> 
> Edit to add pictures:
> ...



The "Lobo Creek & Western" appears to be rather an odd duck. A point-to-point design with no means of turning locomotives at either of the two points.  
That means instead of running a train in loops, you will be running a train forward from one end to the other, and then backing the train all the way back. That doesn't sound like much fun to me.
With your extra space, could you re-arrange the top left corner trackage into a functional wye? That would take care of turning locomotives at that end. Perhaps you could fit a turntable into the section at the bottom center? Then you could operate in full-blown point-to-point mode.

I also agree with the recommendation to cross the doorway with a hinged section that will allow continuous running when you want it.

Scenery will certainly help. Particularly if some of the scenery at least partially hides the train. It could be a tunnel, or perhaps better, a simple cut, or some other form of viewblock.

My own layout is based, (very roughly) on prototype passenger operations in Seattle during the 1920s. It can be operated point-to-point, or loop-to-loop as I choose. However, half of the loop is concealed behind removeable backdrops and under urban scenery. In the photo labeled "Argo curve" the main line disappears under a bridge carrying 4th. Ave. and then goes into staging, or behind a backdrop. This means it doesn't look like the loop that it actually is.
Instead, any given train travels "East" through each scene only once, and then moves on. Later it can return "West" as another train. Staging yards at each end help trains vary their order of arrival. Not easy to explain verbally, but you can see a diagram of my layout in the "Layout Design" section of this forum. Its near the end of a thread called "Here are the layouts of some forum members.

Good Luck & Have Fun;

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## Conductorkev (Nov 5, 2021)

JeffHurl said:


> I love the flexibility of extruded foam board. I used Owens Corning from Home Depot. I used 2" 1.5" and 1/2" boards. These widths worked well for me because I could just leave a void in a 2" layer, cover the whole thing with another 1/2" layer, and you have a tunnel (I'm N scale, so a 2" tunnel is perfect). Here are some pics that show how I used foam. To carve, I mostly used a cheap utility knife with a long razor blade.
> 
> In this picture, you can see where I plan a tunnel. I printed my layout 1:1 so I could lay the pages down and trace my center line to help me lay the track when the time comes.
> View attachment 580714
> ...



For a section of my current layout I used just 3" foam. It is holding up great. For my understanding thr table switch machines I glue the tortoise underneath which worked good. Even had to take one out and make a change which didn't mess up the foam too much just a very small chunk came out.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

Smokinapankake said:


> So I've been a member here since 2011, but haven't posted much in the last 5-6 years. Back in 2016 I finally got my basement finished and a train room purpose built. Into that train room I built an around the walls type layout with a hinged section to allow easy access to the inside. The layout consists of three separate loops, two with 3 track, through type staging yards while the outer loop is a stub ended, 5 track staging yard. This allows me to run 3 trains separately, and to easily change to a different train. The stub ended yard requires backing the train in to "park" it while another takes to the rails.
> I'll have to get some pics uploaded from my phone to help clear it up a bit.
> 
> Edit to add pictures:
> ...


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

*Smokin*, why that particular plan (6th pic down, post #1) ? Why not take a pencil and paper and design your own PtoP line or use any number of existing plans ? PtoP is easier to design/devise than a continual. It's basically a squiggly line with spurs...
First draw the perimeter or footprint of the benchwork. Then try different track plans which fit in it.
It can all be flat. Or it can go up and over itself somewhere (which can be easier had if you employ 'open grid'/L girder benchwork)...


----------



## Smokinapankake (Sep 8, 2011)

No reason in particular, other than I thought it could translate rather easily into my existing space. I may just get out some graph paper yet and do some experimental exercises. 

P2P doesn’t require you to physically turn your locomotive around if using diesels. Simply run around the train and go the other way.


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

It doesn't even require diesels... They ran steam in reverse thru the system as well.. I wish I could find the article I think was in MRRer or Trains magazine years ago with pics showing this exact ops on a particular steam branch line..
IE, It's perfectly OK to backup steam to push cars along a branch line even without passing sidings as there may only be daily one train out and back, or the same loco several times a day out and back.
If you want 2 or more trains at the same time, then yes, you will need sidings.. But spurs can be used as sidings as well. IE they don't have to be double ended to let another train pass...


----------



## Gramps (Feb 28, 2016)

Smokinapankake said:


> No reason in particular, other than I thought it could translate rather easily into my existing space. I may just get out some graph paper yet and do some experimental exercises.
> 
> P2P doesn’t require you to physically turn your locomotive around if using diesels. Simply run around the train and go the other way.


That can only be done with a passing siding on both ends of the PTP.


----------



## Smokinapankake (Sep 8, 2011)

Correct. A very common track arrangement at the end terminal of a branch line


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

*G*, not true.. A train can duck into a single spur to allow a train to pass it, then re-emerge onto the main. This was the original siding in the 1800s into the 1900s.
The double ended siding came into prominence as trains grew bigger and faster allowing a quicker passing when crack passenger train schedules ruled the rails over freight train movement. But this would usually be on class 1 major carriers, not slower branch lines. Of course there'd be runarounds at the ends of the branch line in the form of yards and crossovers.
I'm not denying that there were double ended sidings on branches. I'm only citing a legit way to depict a PtoP MRR using less switches/track/roadbed and to conserve space; that spurs enroute can be sidings as well..A siding doesn't have to parallel the main all the time or be double ended.


----------



## Gramps (Feb 28, 2016)

telltale said:


> *G*, not true.. A train can duck into a single spur to allow a train to pass it, then re-emerge onto the main. This was the original siding in the 1800s into the 1900s.
> The double ended siding came into prominence as trains grew bigger and faster allowing a quicker passing when crack passenger train schedules ruled the rails over freight train movement. But this would usually be on class 1 major carriers, not slower branch lines. Of course there'd be runarounds at the ends of the branch line in the form of yards and crossovers.
> I'm not denying that there were double ended sidings on branches. I'm only citing a legit way to depict a PtoP MRR using less switches/track/roadbed and to conserve space; that spurs enroute can be sidings as well..A siding doesn't have to parallel the main all the time or be double ended.


My comment was regarding post #32 allowing a diesel to run around the train at the terminal and not sidings along the route.


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

OK, then. Thanks for the '*like*' in post #36..


----------



## Smokinapankake (Sep 8, 2011)

Thank you all for your thoughts and insight; I’ll be looking at my space and evaluating what I want and how to implement it efficiently. I’m liking the idea of a tourist railroad as mentioned earlier with the ramshackle equipment.


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

*Smokin,* do realize If you go tourist style you'll be running 98-100% passenger trains only, where you will have no reason to spot or collect (freight) cars on spurs or even have industries whatsoever since tourist trains just go straight from home, (usually) make little to no stops 'til they reach the other end, then go right back (usually with no opposing traffic)..
If this is what you really want to do that's *100% fine*..I'm just pointing out the major difference..
My personal vote is to be a freight RR with a twice daily short passenger train (RDC/engine towing one passenger car) mostly for the workers and families of the RR who live along the line; one or two stations for..This is what *I* did and it turned out to satisfy my liking of both types of trains on this switchback branch line I had...
*Spokin'* my peace I wish you all the best in your endeavors...


----------



## Smokinapankake (Sep 8, 2011)

Agreed. I think some switching would be more interesting, and the variety in cars is always appealing. I picture shorter trains, maybe 6-8 cars. There is a really interesting old grain mill in my fathers’ childhood town that would be fun to include a representation of: 






























These were taken a few years ago; this is in Fairview, Utah on the old D&RGW Marysvale branch that was abandoned after the Thistle mud slide in 1983.


----------



## Roy Merritt (10 mo ago)

I agree, point-to-point operations can provide a more prototypical experience with a wide variety of challenges and a whole bunch of fun. But I'm a switching puzzle nerd. So I'm looking for something completely different. I'm looking for point-to-point style operations because I think they're best for larger switching puzzles layouts.

One observation:

*You can do point-to-point operations on a loop-to-loop layout but you can't do continuous running on a point-to-point.*

BTW, That is a very cool looking elevator. It would make a great scene. Either as an abandoned structure on a modern era railroad or a living business in an older era.


----------



## OilValleyRy (Oct 3, 2021)

Roy Merritt said:


> *You can do point-to-point operations on a loop-to-loop layout but you can't do continuous running on a point-to-point.*


Well, you can do the latter, if you design it for continuous running as an option second to intended stub-end ops. I requires more than just a 12” by 96” shelf though.


----------



## Smokinapankake (Sep 8, 2011)

So the last run was made last night before dismantling in preparation for rebuilding:

















One loop has been removed; I think I’m going to pull all track up and start over. This time around I think I’ll try the point to point, switcher type layout, see how I like it. Could be fun!


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

I salute you for leaning toward going point to point..We're in the minority..I do wish more modelers would go P to P with no connective tissue which allows continual running whatsoever..
Again, save work/$$ by skipping cork under yards and sidings...(See post# 15 again)..Small ramps will be needed for the track up/down between main and yard. Small torn pieces of cardboard will suffice under ramps.. 
All the best in your endeavors.


----------



## Smokinapankake (Sep 8, 2011)

I have a double decked N scale P2P (small - 18" x 108" with a 25" x 25" blurb at one end) with a helix on one end (it is intended to emulate a tourist, passenger, type operation where the train goes from "the city" on the bottom level, up the helix which represents mileage between "city" and "mountains" to the other end of the line in the "mountains") up to a defunct mine that gives mine tours. This is a logical operation (played out mine + abandoned branch to said mine + surplus equipment = tourist line!) that only requires a runaround at either end, with a small yard for a combined engine service facility/carshop. Not a whole lot of operating potential, but it was an interesting exercise. I built it mostly to give the helix thing a whirl, and learn a bit about scenery techniques. I'll have to post up some pics. And that's why I'm leaning toward a switching type P2P; to get a bit more operation action in a format that makes sense to me.


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

Sounds great...Could you possibly work in a wye at one end..The procedures of using a wye really adds a lot of action to the layout..It can be tight radius-ed for an engine and maybe one car to traverse..You can do it manually with a single toggle switch ($4) for the polarity reverse, or you can install a HexFrog Juicer ($40) to do it for you...But here's the thing: Real wye switches(TOs) are always thrown manually..
So having to walk over to and throw the ground throws (plus 1 flip of the toggle mounted near wye) is more realistic than automating the procedure, in turn adding even more realism to your RRing..
Finally: Good luck with your first helix. I hear they are tough to get right..They certainly look it from the many I've seen..Unless you're really confidant you can pull off a helix, you could just do an up and over at about a 3% grade. locos lifting 6-8 cars won't slip on as they slowly climb the curve..


----------



## Smokinapankake (Sep 8, 2011)

The helix is built and has been in operation for at least 3 years now. Works well and wasn't as difficult as I feared it would be. It uses an 11" radius, with 2.25" separation between layers. I only pull 3 streamlined passenger cars so the grade is not an issue at all. My older Life Like GP-20's will pull about 8 40' cars without too much trouble; much more than that and they spin wheels. Not really interested in a wye, as interesting as they can be. Thanks for the suggestion, though!

Pics of the N scale stuff:


----------



## Smokinapankake (Sep 8, 2011)

Kinda having second thoughts about the whole P2P thing. Been looking at a thread over on the railwire N scale forum called N Scale Hi Rail that's got me thinking. I like what the guy has done as far as scenery goes and also the reasoning for doing what he's doing. I like the idea of not taking this silly hobby so seriously; I like the idea of several trains running at the same time relatively unattended, and I like the idea of a layout that is very much in the vein of the stuff I used to drool over as a kid (Spaghetti bowl, island type, DC control with lots of electrical control switches and whatnot), I like the idea of implausibly ridiculous tunnel openings stacked super close to each other. And I think that much of my old Athearn stuff fits in nicely with that ethos. I have already removed all track from my three loop roundy round because I just couldn't see how to doll it up in a satisfying way. So I may rearrange the tables (None of them are attached to the walls) to form more of an island type layout and maybe doodle around with some graph paper and a drafting compass just to see what I can come up with.


----------



## sjm9911 (Dec 20, 2012)

Lol, you do what you like. I said before to have 2 loops on the outside and some sidings for switching. You have the room. Now you can do both. I have a toy train layout , or will when im done. You can have anythibg you want. Just make it fun. I think you are overthinking it a bit. I'm in the process of my 2nd layout also. When done it will look good to me and thats all that matters. Will it be a prototypical realalistic railroad. Nope. But it will be fun to watch or use.


----------



## Smokinapankake (Sep 8, 2011)

Started laying roadbed today. Using 2mm craft foam sheets split into narrow strips, like cork is. Sticking them down with paintable latex caulking. Hopefully this will help absorb some of the noise those Athearn blue box locomotives make that I’m planning on using on this layout: 









I’d like to find some black or grey to stick the track down with as well. Somehow I doubt white would come out very good…


----------



## sjm9911 (Dec 20, 2012)

I bought black glue sticks for the glue gun. Not sure of the results as its not built yet. But im sure it will work if you dont melt the foam.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

Smokinapankake said:


> Started laying roadbed today. Using 2mm craft foam sheets split into narrow strips, like cork is. Sticking them down with paintable latex caulking. Hopefully this will help absorb some of the noise those Athearn blue box locomotives make that I’m planning on using on this layout:
> View attachment 583560
> 
> 
> I’d like to find some black or grey to stick the track down with as well. Somehow I doubt white would come out very good…


Latex caulk comes in colors other than white, including black, grey, and brown. Spread in a thin layer, it makes an excellent track adhesive.

Traction Fan


----------



## Smokinapankake (Sep 8, 2011)

Thank you Traction fan, I’ll be looking for some. In other news, been laying roadbed. First have to cut the sheets (I cut them 5/8” wide, so once they are laid together they measure 1-1/4” wide total). I’m using craft foam sheets, 2mm thick like you get at Michael’s, and sticking them down with latex caulk. Pretty easy and much cheaper than cork roadbed. No beveled edges, but at 2mm thick I think it hardly matters. I’m trying to represent a little used branch line that has let maintenance go a little bit… so not much ballast and a lot of weeds. Who knows how it will turn out but I’m having fun, so…


----------



## Smokinapankake (Sep 8, 2011)

Made a jig to cut the strips


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

Nicely done! 👍


----------



## Smokinapankake (Sep 8, 2011)

Thank you! I’m kind of stumbling my way through…. There’s a learning curve using latex caulk for sure!


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Smokinapankake said:


> Thank you! I’m kind of stumbling my way through…. There’s a learning curve using latex caulk for sure!


There's a learning curve to just about everything we do. I think part of the issue is that the craft foam is much denser than foam roadbed. 

Presumably, you're going to be ballasting over this roadbed, in which case the color of caulk doesn't make any difference. The beveled edge of the roadbed makes it easier to get a nice-looking ballast profile and saves you some ballast, but it's not necessary.


----------



## Smokinapankake (Sep 8, 2011)

Yes, ballast is in the plan. But because the foam is so thin, I thought a beveled edge would be irrelevant.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

Smokinapankake said:


> Thank you Traction fan, I’ll be looking for some. In other news, been laying roadbed. First have to cut the sheets (I cut them 5/8” wide, so once they are laid together they measure 1-1/4” wide total). I’m using craft foam sheets, 2mm thick like you get at Michael’s, and sticking them down with latex caulk. Pretty easy and much cheaper than cork roadbed. No beveled edges, but at 2mm thick I think it hardly matters. I’m trying to represent a little used branch line that has let maintenance go a little bit… so not much ballast and a lot of weeds. Who knows how it will turn out but I’m having fun, so…


I'm curious about the foam you're using. I haven't seen it, but you say its called "craft foam" and available at Michael's. I'll check it out.

Traction Fan


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

you could make a jig to split the foam with the beveled edges just like the commercial manufacturers do: actually two jigs one with a fence and blade at 90* that cuts the total width, a second with the blade at a 45^ angle the splits the square edged strip down the middle, Flip one side over and butt the outside square edges and you have the typical double bevel edged roadbed.


----------



## BobT (Mar 27, 2021)

scenicsRme said:


> you could make a jig to split the foam with the beveled edges just like the commercial manufacturers do: actually two jigs one with a fence and blade at 90* that cuts the total width, a second with the blade at a 45^ angle the splits the square edged strip down the middle, Flip one side over and butt the outside square edges and you have the typical double bevel edged roadbed.


I just bet you could use a mat cutter for that. May have to try it.


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

Yes a mat cutter will work, it's just a lot more expensive than a homemade jig.


----------



## BobT (Mar 27, 2021)

scenicsRme said:


> Yes a mat cutter will work, it's just a lot more expensive than a homemade jig.


Understood...I get that. Mine was over $100....
But, if one has one, or can borrow one. That may be the ticket. 
And since I do have one, I am using this idea...


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

Are you a framer or an artist?


----------



## BobT (Mar 27, 2021)

scenicsRme said:


> Are you a framer or an artist?


My other hobby is photography, which I sometimes print and frame, so I do have a mat cutter.
I am not ready to start laying track yet, but when I do, I am going to try this. Thanks


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

When you do, you'll find the craft foam cuts very easily with a new blade,(try a drop of water as a lubricant if it sticks to the cutter)and comes in a rainbow of colors, so you don't need to always use black roadbed in fact I use a grey since in the SE where I model, the ballast is light grey. If you are modeling the dessert SW where the ballast may be areddish brown or another color pick a shade of foam that is slightly darker than the ballast to give it depth.should it peek thru. I'm an artist but my college professors wanted us th cut out mats by hand. They would downgrade any piece you turned in with overcut or fuzzy corners. Mats had to be exhibition ready. I also have an inexpensive balsa stripper that also works for narrow straight cuts in the foam.


----------

