Hi there, first time posting here. I'm a newbie currently planning my first layout (N scale, Kato Unitrack and DCC), and so far have come up with this: Legend Black - lower level visible track Grey (gray) - lower level track in tunnel Dark blue - upper level (and transition) visible track Light blue - upper level (and transition) track in tunnel Red - hidden staging (at rear of lower level) Green - lower level terrain (roughly) All viewing is from the 'south' side (front); there is access from all four sides. The general plan is for the layout to rise towards the rear. Minimum radius is 15" (except for the outer staging track approaches at 13 3/4"), all curves have larger-radius easements and maximum grade is 2.1%. The layout size and shape is fixed at 4' x 10'. Switches are all DCC-operated. I wanted the layout to include both operations and 'roundy-rounding'. Operationally, I see the inner folded dogbone as being a branchline into hills, which connects to the lower mainline (outer loop) at the yard. At any given time one train can be doing loops around the outer mainline, another can be servicing the industries on the branch and a switcher can be doing yardwork. There's a double crossover on the double-track portion of the branch towards the rear-centre of the layout that provides a reversing loop. The double crossover at the front is a compulsory feature demanded by other members of the household :tb-rolleyes: I'm fairly happy with the plan as it stands, but I can't help but feel that there's something that I'm missing. Does anyone have any comments/suggestions/questions/feedback/criticism? Especially the criticism bit - fire away, that's how I'll learn!
Well, my first concern is with your layout size. You say you are fixed at 4x10. Is this modular or roll-away of some kind? You say there is access to all sides - how much around each side? A minimum of 2 ft I would presume? That means you have an 8x14 area in which to build a layout - your space would be much better utilized with an "L" or an around-the-walls type layout with the viewing/operations from the middle. Especially if this is a "permanent" layout. By the numbers (assuming a 2ft walk-around). You are utilizing 40 sq ft for your layout in a 112 sq ft area - leaving you 72 sq ft to walk around the layout. If you did an around-the-walls layout with a 2ft shelf and 4x10ft central operating area the numbers are flipped. You have the same 112 sq ft area, with 72 sq ft of layout space and 40 sq ft for operating. My second concern is the "spaghetti-bowl" nature of the layout. Lots of track, complex plan. It probably is overkill for the area you have. I certainly wouldn't plan that much track in that space, but that's my preference. I would seriously look at your "available space" - size of the layout PLUS all the required access clearance on all sides. You may not be as fixed to 4x10 as you think.
What kind of sauce would you like on your spaghetti? Read this: An N Scale Short Line in 3'x8' - TrainBoard.com
um...wow. You might want to cut down the number of tracks. Sometimes, less is more. Also, the size is another issue. remember, your arm is only so long.
Welcome to TrainBoard! Sounds and looks like you are about to embark on a nice family model railroading layout. The folks here on TrainBoard are more than willing to share their knowledge and help when you need it the most:thumbs_up::thumbs_up:. Given that one third of your track is hidden helps reduce the spaghetti bowl appearance. You have a nice yard design with an interesting track plan including staging. DCC will greatly expand your operating possibilities on this layout. Kato Unitrack will allow you to quickly set this up, test the operating reliability and make adjustments if necessary. I would consider eliminating the two single crossovers and double crossover in hidden staging. That will put all the "switching action” on the front of the layout and eliminate the possibility of derailments in hidden staging. I would also consider a minimum three inch easement between edge of layout and track on all but the hidden staging side of the layout. This will help prevent trains from hitting the floor. There is nothing wrong with a 4 by 10 foot layout; however the suggestion(s) on making this an around the room layout if that is possible may be worth considering. Above all have fun! Jerry
I am not an expert by any means, but here is what I suggest if you were to leave it as a 4x10 plan. So long as you can roll it out when working on it, I think you could be alright. Eliminate all of the dark blue sidings/spurs. The add clutter, and the elevation change between them and the black track is too much to make it look good. Nothing wrong with some simple running through the mountains. Straighten out the black track in the center. I think you could simplify it and make the sidings longer. It would also help to clean things up for placing buildings, I think. Maybe get rid of 1 or 2 yard tracks. Perhaps you could eliminate the A/D track and utilize one of the mainlines. You have plenty of staging hidden behind, that I don't think you need that much yard. (A lot of people would disagree, but it is just my opinion) Simplify the staging. Eliminate the double crossover at the back. Also check your grade changes. Without getting too in depth, I am worried about the elevations at the light blue track crossing the red on the left, and I am worried about the light blue track going into staging on the right. I definitely think it has potential, it just needs simplification. If you have a large room that you can pull it out to work on it, and push it back to view I think it is great. (I am thinking a large rec room or something, not a dedicated train room) Otherwise, I would consider, as others have suggested, and if it is a possibility, going to an around the room layout. Cheers!
Thanks for the replies - given me a few more things to think about! Size and shape This is fixed at 4'x10' (unfortunately). Specifically an already-existing table. Yes, a different shape (e.g. around-the-walls) would make better use of the space, but - this is a shared room and She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed makes the calls! :tb-biggrin: The deal is that if (when!), after a couple of years, I can demonstrate a completed (well, as completed as they ever get, anyway) layout using this table, I get a larger space for a bigger layout (in whatever shape I want). I am tall-ish guy with a reasonable reach, and I've checked that I can readily access all parts of the layout (as mentioned, I do have access to all four sides). Spaghetti Why, yes, I do like pasta, why do you ask? :tb-biggrin: There is a higher ratio of track to scenery ratio than I'd probably do with a larger space, which I think suits my needs better as a first-timer. Part of the purpose of this layout is to see what track layout arrangements suit my style better than others. Here I've got a yard, industry switching, an outer loop and a long continuous inner run. The tunnels and hidden staging help break this up and provide more space for scenery - the front (yard, main) is certainly very track-heavy, but behind that the trend is for less track and more scenery (increasingly so towards the rear of the layout). I have been reading the 3x8 (now 3x9 - see, I have been reading it!) short line thread, and I admit that there's certainly something to that 'minimalist' approach that I definitely like, and I do think that's going to be one great layout. On balance, though, I think that (for me, at this stage) I'm happier with what I currently have (I'm especially fond of the whole folded dogbone-extended run thing). That being said, there is such thing as overkill, and thanks to the (collective) input here, I'm certainly reconsidering the upper (blue) spurs. They've been in and out since the start of my planning, and I'm now leaning very heavily back towards 'out'. Grades This has probably been my biggest bugbear since I started planning, and have only just sorted them out with this revision. The blue track on the left has a consistent 2" minimum clearance over all of the tracks below (starting the 2.1% grade at the front of the right-hand side of the layout brings the tracks up 2" just after the 'split' for the dogbone end loop - it might not seem like it, but there's actually 8' of run there). The tricky part is the light blue track going into staging on the right - that's a switch on an uphill grade, and the track then has to level out and descend back to 'ground' level before it intersects any of the other staging track. According to my calculations, it's doable at a 2.1% grade (including allowances for vertical easements), but it will be a little tricky to construct correctly. If I can't manage it the fallback plan is to remove that link and just have that end of that staging track connect back to the outer loop.
I say go for it look at my layout its only a 4X7 with a lot of track. Believe me its a lot more fun running your trains with more track then a boring loop and some sidings. I had no knowledge of how to build a layout when I started mine so I did a lot of research and I wanted to build something fun. If you are like me and like to challenge yourself and know you can handle it I say go for it.
Quick thought on the "less is more" mentality. If you are seriously trying to "complete" this layout a simpler version will make that much easier.
Well, it all comes down to what makes you happy, doesn't it? The problem with being new at anything is that you don't really know yet what your preferences are going to be when you become more experienced. Sort of a "Catch 22" ain't it? For me, the minimalist approach is something I've evolved toward over time (a long time), by learning what I want and don't want in a layout. When I first started out in the hobby I wanted the Gorre & Daphetid in my garage. Now the idea of maintaining all that track makes me cringe. These days I prefer a simple, open plan that doesn't try to do that much more than a 1:1 scale railroad would do in a similar amount of real estate. Instead of looping the track round and round, I now use "off-stage" areas to represent those miles of mainline and connections to the wider world. This allows me to concentrate my modeling on just the really interesting spots along the line and trying to make them look & operate as realistically as possible. But these are my preferences. That's what is fun for me. You've got to do what's fun for you and only building a layout (or two, or three...) will help you find that.
Arizona Shortline i read your thread and am looking forward to watching it being built. This thread on how you designed it was great and was a great read from start to finish
And that's a pretty convincing argument right there! "Complete" is, I guess, a subjective term. I should've said "complete enough" because it will always be a judgment call. I could just chuck down some grass matting, set up a basic loop and call it "complete". Hey, just add some grain silos and call it a model of this piece of track. But there's also no point in starting a new, larger, more complex layout without any "real" layout building experience under my belt, so I do want to achieve as much as I can with this one - besides, I'll need something to run trains on while the bigger layout is still under construction! Not to mention that I still need a bit more experience with model railroading to figure out what works for me, and what doesn't. If the price of finding that out is a more complex build than turns out to be necessary, so be it - at least I'll know for sure. Anyway: you guys have convinced me - the blue spurs are out. If I really want them in, I can still add them after I've done a decent amount of construction.
My thoughts exactly... personally, right now I'm liking what I've come up with, but I'm sure in twenty year's time I'll look back on this first attempt and go "what was I thinking!?!". I'm aware that I don't have much experience, but until I get that experience, I won't know what I'm doing wrong :tb-biggrin: So I'm aiming to do a variety of things, trying out different stuff, stretch myself to see what I can achieve (and what I can't) and hopefully from that I can get a good understanding of what works for me, and what doesn't.
Don't listen to the haterz, spaghetti bowls are fun. Get outside the echo chamber of steam-diesel transition era midwestern/appalachian single-track railroading aficionados and check out what railroaders are building in Japan. Spaghetti as far as the eye can see. Over at JNS Forum we've had not one, but two different members modify the woodland scenics scenic ridge layout to add an extra loop around the basic folded dogbone. Looking at your plan, you've taken that same folded-dogbone-inside-a-loop form factor but stretched it out to add a ton of yard and switching space, then varied things up a bit by bringing the upper dogbone loop out over the outer track. Not bad at all.
Without reading past your original post I can see a number of items of concern. No scenery between the edge of the layout and track. This makes for more interest and safety for your fleet. Too busy. I think you would get much more out of this size layout by deviding the scenes. At this size you could even do three main ares of interest. The yard is well planned actually, but more than you need. It looks like you put quite a bit into this plan from time and thought, but that said I think you could come up with something more to your likeing that would satisfy for a longer period of time. Make a list as you may have already done, but try to think about where your interests may be after experiencing this layout. All that said the last bit of advice is to make a plan and once you start building it, stick to it so that you can gain the experience of all the aspects of layout building before moving ot anything else.
I'll offer some advice. I am currently working on layout #4 in a span of about 8 years, and hope to complete #4 this summer. What I have learned is that a completed layout provides a significant amount of satisfaction, versus a failed attempt at something that was too big a bite. My layouts have simple trackplans, however, I have found that track maintenance is much more difficult on complex designs, and sucks the fun out of operating if problems start to surface. Take your time and really analyze the level of effort it will take to build your current plan, and whether it will be feasible to complete in a reasonable amount of time (if that is your goal) Most importantly, I like building portable layouts and designs I know that I can complete, because this way I know that if the current layout doesn't quite turn out the way I intended, there will always be the next one. And, I continue to improve my skills the more I build, which is a great way to enjoy the hobby. Here's my first 3 layouts. My Orin Line was about 4x10. Not a flashy track plan, but it was still a lot of fun. N Scale Addiction: Layouts
Some more good posts and advice - thanks guys! Re having track close to the edges, the places where the track is close to the edge are in hidden areas. There's actually a slight lip around the edge of the benchtop which I have already found is ideal for inserting a short plywood 'fence' to keep things from falling. At the front of the layout there is about two inches between the track and the edge for some scenery; the front of the layout itself will also have a low (removable) perspex wall (for kid-resistance!). I'm currently doing mockups of the layout on a bare benchtop, and as far as track/wiring/turnout control it's working out for me so far. The next test is scenery - I'm going to try doing a couple of basic test diaoramas to see how I go. That'll help me decide if I'll go through with this as-is. If I think that it's going to be too much too soon, then I'll reconsider.
