I'm just beginning to work up a larger layout plan and need some advice. I don't have any experience with designing layouts and not much running them. I have a 13' x 10' room that doubles as an excercise room so my wife has graciously given me permission to utilize some of the space. I figured a fairly large "L" shape along two walls would be the best use of the available space. So, using XTrakcad, I put together this layout. I have two young boys who I'm sure will prefer to just watch long trains run a long circuit while I'd prefer some operational challenges but nothing too involved. Having said all that, please take a look and give me your honest opinion on what I have right and what needs work...I won't be offended if you tell me it's the worst idea you've ever seen! I can take criticism so long as it's constructive. I have plenty of time to tweak this and I could use the experience anyway even if I have to go "back to the drawing board". Also, I'd like to incorporate some elevation changes if possible in this smallish space. If nothing else, I'd like to create a large gully in order to incorporate a bridge. There will have to be a mountain in there somewhere as well.
It looks fine for the space alloted. You can have a lot of siding action in the foot of the L if you want to do with less scenery.
Hi Augy, The plan you've presented makes sense for running longer trains and railfanning, however IMHO there are a few aspects you may wish to reconsider. My first concern would be the sidings you placed against the wall on the left hand side - as these seem to be about 30" from the edge of the table you will likely become frustrated with reaching across the layout to switch these industries. The second thing I notice is that you have designed the plan with two reverse loops - are you prepared to wire these? Third, you complete the 'main oval loop' near the bottom left corner - what purpose does this serve? As trains will be running into the reverse loop I'm not sure there is a purpose for this bit of track. Overall, I'm intruiged by what you've presented - I see a good possibility to model a busy yard as well as some mainline railroading between two railroads as served by the interchange / crossover. I would tend to eliminate some of the smaller industries in favour of flushing out the yard a bit more so that you can make a cut of cars, run the train out of the yard, through the interchange and either travel directly back to the yard, or reverse the train and travel to 'the rest of the world'. Perhaps an idea would be to eliminate the rear industries altogether in favour of some hidden staging... Train leaves the yard, travels around the perimeter of the layout, through the interchange to hidden staging. Trains can originate from staging and travel back through the interchange and return to the yard. This would provide a good deal of operation and switching - but not at the industry level. Looking forward to your progress - best of luck!
I was planning on using remote switches but may reconsider in future revisions of the plan. It makes sense to keep moving parts within reach anyway I suppose. Now that you mention it, I don't think I am prepared to wire it. I will be using DCC but now looking at the layout, I see there will be difficulties in wiring. Maybe the reverse loop is a bad idea??? I don't even know where to begin wiring this. That wasn't in the first plan but after "running" some trains I added it. I don't recall why now but it does appear redundant. I can see that area being a good focal point for scenery anyway. Thanks for the ideas and critques. I'll play around with it some more and post another diagram once I have made some necessary alterations. I'm sure it take many revisions to get something worth building. Rome wasn't built in a day, right?
Don't abandon the reverse loops only because of difficulty in wiring. All it takes is insulating both tracks of the reverse sections from the mainline and, of course, wires. The ability to return a train from a destination in the reverse direction from which it left adds interest and outweighs the learning involved. Ben
About reverse loops Augy If you are using DCC then reverse loops are not that difficult to wire. Insulate the tracks and use an automatic reverser (tony's, digitrax etc.). You can search this site and find out how. That's how I did it!! Jeff
Augie- Two reverse loops are fine and will add variety to the running of trains. It ain't that hard to wire. Atlas actually has a Controller exactly for reverse loop purposes. Just follow the wiring instructions. If I can do it, so can you.
And you can use the Atlas Controller with DCC if you desire. Same wiring. And a hearty second to "If I can do it, so can you." Ben
I too would leave the reverse loop in, even if you have to get someone to help you hook it up! In fact I would try to put another one in at the opposite end of the layout. I would also minimize the number of turnouts that are against the wall as this is where a lot of maintenance and de-railments occur. You will be over four feet away from the ones near the corner of the room. Plus, it's nice to see that you have cleared any specific turnout while performing switching operations. You may want to consider a complete double track main line for younger operators - you have most of one there already. There are also several "S" shaped curves created by some of your turnout locations. These can cause longer cars to have trouble when traversing them. John Armstrong had several books on track planning that gave some very good guidelines. Also consider what industries you would be serving and how large the buildings would be. You may find that your sidings come too close to other track, for instance the two track siding between four and six feet against the wall along the vertical part of your image. For elevation changes, you may want to think about having the surrounding terrain vary, while keeping the track more level. This can give the illusion of elevation changes without the operational problems. Remember that scale freight and passenger cars are not equipped with brakes, so any spot that you will leave one un-coupled should be level.
I too am working on a layout in a small space (10' x 12'). My advice is use more of the room. Raise your layout up to 48" above ground and put desk, book shelves, train storage below. From layout to celing do a brilliant backdrop.
Ok, thanks for all the input. After digesting it and playing around with the layout I came up with this layout. I tried to keep the turnouts closer to the operator area and away from long reach areas; added a second reversing loop; considered industries and tried to place a few in areas which made some sense; and tried to remove the snaking sections to smooth it out a bit. The second picture is the same layout with some rudimentary painting to show a mountain area (I live in Iowa...but the layout HAS to have a mountain!), a river (got ot have bridges!), a town, and forested areas. Thanks again for all the input, please critique this revised layout and offer your input. I am starting to get the hang of the software and maybe even a little insight into layout design.
Go back to the original. I liked it best. BTW, the original had two reverse. Trace the routes and you will see them. The present plan may be easier to operate but it is just a glorified oval and, well, ordinary. I would easily be bored by it. The original was much more interesting with its free-flowing style and alternate routes. Maybe you could talk your wife into a little more room so you could have access to all sides of the layout. Just enough to handle the inevitable derailments. If not getting the turnouts into easy reach would be a must. Ben
Yes, I see what you are saying now that I look at it more objectively. Ok, back to the original and see what I can do. Thanks.
I like the plan. Looks like it could be fun to operate as well as scenic. My only issue is with the straight track everywhere. What brand track are you going to use? These aren't very good shots of my layout, but I made sure to not have straight tracks that run parallel to the layout edge on my layout. It's fun to watch trains snake their way through the long curves on my layout. (ignore the fact that the locos aren't actually on the track. I was doing maintenace on them at the time and had just reassembled them.)
I'm working on tweaking it a bit. Rather than keep posting pictures I'll try to get it dialed-in the best I can and then post. As for the track, I'll probably be using Atlas Code 80. I'm just using sectional track with the software since I haven't really got a good feel for applying flextrack. However, when I get around to actually laying the real thing, I'll use as much flex track as possible to minimize joints. I like designing the layout with the sectional pieces as it tends to keep the radius' within acceptable limits. Speaking of that, is 9-3/4 an acceptable radius or will I find I have problems with longer cars?
Even 11" is skimpy. I would say to go with the complete double track loop, but try to make it meander more. What specific kinds of operation are wanted, other than just running?
Ok, so I need to stay away from 9-3/4" and try to minimize 11"??? Is that possible in the space I've allocated? As for operation, it will be a fantasy layout (not modeling a real prototype) that allows for some operator action from outer industries hauling to/from a central point but also incorporates a long loop around for a continuous "through" train for my more-or-less "spectator" children. Does that help?
Yes, it's perfectly possible. You have allocated 30" for the depth of each leg. A circle of diameter 30" fits into it. Therefore, a radius (half the diameter) of 15" fits into it. Cut off an inch from each end of the diameter, so your trains aren't running on the edge of the layout, and you have 28", giving you a 14" radius maximum. You might opt for 12" on your inner track, letting your outer track run outside it. (Around 14" maximum). That way your mainline has a nice, easy run. Put Plexiglas or some kind of lip where the track approaches the edge, to protect your equipment in case of derailment. I'm concerned, though. I really like your trackplan: what great opportunities for operation! At only 30" deep, I'm not much concerned about the turnouts in the back. It's also nice and flowing. But there are a number of places where you have curves that do not transition smoothly into straightaways. For instance, placing a curve of several sections of 6" radius together, then attaching straight sections to both ends, is not a good idea. Equipment tends to run out of the curve and butt into the outside rail of the straight track, leading to derailments. Instead (in this example), use one piece of curved track, then use slightly less curved track, then straight. This is called a spiral easement. If you want to use a spiral but will end up having to use too tight a radius on your curves for your satisfaction, consider widening just the two ends of the layout. So instead of an L it looks more like a bent dogbone. If you do that, one of your rear turnouts will be easy to reach from the end. The other end would be a problem. I would move that rear turnout (the one at the bottom of your diagram) toward the end so you can reach it from there. You might even consider using a curved turnout so you can get it nice and close. That will require an adjustment in your railyard and passing track, of course. Maybe I shouldn't have said anything. :tb-ooh: It's your railroad, though! Maybe it's a small branchline and you don't intend to operate at high (relatively speaking) speeds.
