As of recently I have been working on a small 4x2 N scale layout, I had made the switch to the small scale due to size constraints but have moved since starting it at the beginning of the year. So I am thinking of going to HO, I enjoy N scale but I think HO would be more to my liking in trying to detail engines and they also seem to have more modern items available than N scale. Plus I have a good bit of rolling stock already as when I first started the hobby I planned on a HO layout but size made me make the switch. So I have been thinking of new ideas and came across this plan below. I was curious if anyone has tried it or if it seems like a good start. I want to try to run a gp40 so I can do a Guilford layout but could run a Alco and do a Claremont and Concord layout if needed. I would like to run modern cars if possible so I know that would most likely limited me to 1-2 cars at a time. Just would like some feedback or ideas if this would be a good idea. Thanks Just some food for thought, ideally my layout is going to be L-shaped with the orientation like above so I guess you could say its a backwards, upside down L (if that makes any sense). I can fit the top part up to 7' long and the side can be 7-8', with 7' being the preferred. It will 2-3' wide.
I went from a small HO layout in a two bedroom apartment to a hollow core door N scale layout in a house. The trains are smaller but you can travel further distances. My trouble though is finding the steam locomotives I want in N.
Do you have access to Model Railroader magazine back issues? If so, you might find it interesting to look at an "L" shaped layout which is a favorite for me. It is the "Bekin United RR", (HO), July of 1991. I liked it so much that I built it in N scale, using the same space, just expanded. Then incorporated it a short time later, into another larger layout.
Have seen the HO Alcove plan several times but haven't liked some of the track configurations. The grain elevator should be on its own spur, not a switchback, as they are usually very busy on the real RRs. Know alot of modelers like switchbacks because they "make more work". But the real RRs don't use them if they can be avoided. They too much time to switch which translates into more labor costs. But after awhile even modelers usually get tired of them. Made the bottom end Xover RH vs LH to make switches on both ends off the main. Also would swap the interchange & MR2 spurs. That way it would be alot easier to change cars there rather than having to reach over things. Or you could use "staging trays" there to avoid handling cars all together. These comments come from having RRs as clients & being a conductor. Also modeling the LAJ which has two switchbacks. But every industry on them has its own spur so no cars have to be moved.
Thank you for the changes to give me a different idea of the plan. Could may you or someone with HO knowledge shed some light on how many car links I could be looking at running at one time doing switching and moves on this smaller layout? I am trying to see if this plan would be worth it, any additional input would be welcomed.
A HO 40' boxcar is 6" over the couplers & a 54' covered hopper is about 8" over couplers. Take a string & mark it using the 1' grid on the plan. Put it on the spurs straight or curved to see the length of each spur. That should tell you how many cars will fit on each.
