Hi friends.I am in the process of redesigning my layout. I need to use the most of the track work I already done, and tranform it to the american scene.So, here is some info:Layout: 140 x 80 cmScale: N scaleTrack: Peco cod 55 (it is easier to get here in Portugal) Most of the track is down, but I need to do some changes.This is how the track is at the moment:This was my first idea:But with the help of M.C. Fujiwara and another fellow modeller I did this:What do you think?Thank you for your comments in advance.
Hello, and welcome to the forum. You say you're modeling an American scene. America is big and diverse, so what area are you interested in modeling? Also, what era? What are your goals for the layout: simple roundy-round, switching operations, or a little of both? And finally, would you be willing to relocate at least some of the existing track? The answers to these questions will help guide us in our recommendations.
Hi. Ok I'll try answer your questions the best I can (sorry for English): I want to model Conrail, since I was given a GP7 from this Railroad. I have some cars from Conrail, and also from Penn Central. I will had more to my roster, but with the economical crisis here in Portugal, things are not easy. If I am correct, tjis can be aroun 1980's, right? I want to put a train to go around when I want to show to friends at my place, but I also want enjy some ops. I am willing to relocate some of the track, but I don't want to take all I have at the moment apart, or else the wife will "kill" me. ehhehe. Thank you in advance.
That is a very nice plan. Just put a scenic devider accross the hole plan to separate the two stations optically from each other and you will have a nice thing to play with. The one side you have already a tunnel. On the other side I would suggest to hide the path-trough scenic devider by a big industrial complex, which will be rounded by the main line. all the best from germany
For the big question is about the possibility to pull the layout from the wall when operating it. If so the back-side can be fully functional. If not only the front can be used for switching. Scopewine is right about the scenic diverder, though a line of trees or buildings might be sufficient. All the best from Holland Smile Paul
I recommended eliminating the switchbacks and thought you should keep the back as staging with a low view block. By having more track visible over more of the baseboard, you make your layout appear smaller (your eye can see the train go almost all the way around). If you're going to keep the layout up against the wall, then I suggest returning the back two tracks to staging hidden behind a low viewblock (removable buildings, trees or a low hill). If you're going to pull this layout out to operate, then I suggest putting a scenic divider (as mentioned above) to separate the sides into exclusive scenes. For example: Notice that the scenic divider doesn't have to go all the way across the layout: it can stop and a scene can wrap around one (or both) sides. And remember that the Mt. Coffin & Columbia River Layout used mountains and trees, not a board, as the scenic divider. Personally, I am not a fan of layouts you have to pull out to operate: trains fall over, and the more steps it takes to actually run trains means fewer actual times you actually run trains. Keep things simple. Good luck.
The problem I see with the existing plan is the curve on the right side of the layout: it is very sharp. It is less than 20cm, which is considered much too sharp by many modelers, and it could cause you operational problems. You should ask your wife what is worse: taking up all the track, or not being able to run trains reliably? M.C. posted at about the same time as I did, and I see that he is making the same recommendation of starting over. And included one in your own plan anyway! (insert the smiling troll face here)
due to some typo's:The big question is, is it possible to pull the layout from the wall when operating it. If so the back-side can be fully functional. If not only the front can be used for switching. Scopewine is right about the scenic divider, though a line of trees or buildings might be sufficient when the layout is built high enough. On your first plan an incline with a bridge can be seen. Was it a first step of constructing a branch towards an uphill terminal? Is such a branch still on your mind? If so, my second plan can be built with or without a scenic divider. Due to access issues on the first plan a low hill is concealing the staging tracks. The spurs in the centre reminded me to the Carolina Central, hence I added the little river at the left as well. All the best from Holland Smile Paul
Touche' Ah, the limits of Unitrack on a 2'x4'. Nothing some custom handlaid magic can't fix. At least there's room for a loco & car without messing up the carspots at the industry at the end of the switchback lead. I will add to my original notes: You can keep the three tracks in the center, but use at least one or two for storage, the other one (or two) for a largish industry. You can't have enough places to fit cars on a small layout. Otherwise cars just end up in each others' way. I also would not have any grade / elevation: unless you really want to see trains passing over/under each other, it's more trouble than it's worth on a layout of this size, IMHO.
You have a number of options; I would still recommend starting over because of the extreme sharp curves you have now. Here is an alternate plan to consider; the sharpest curve is 30cm.
Hi all. Thank you so much for all your help. I can thank you enough. Once again, I am sorry for my bad English. Every sentence you wrote here is now recorded in my mind. I will try to keep things as simple as I can: use the K.I.S.S. method (lol). M.C Fujiwara gave me one example of a nice and simple layout, but can I place a question: I also don't like layouts with a board as a scenic divider, so is it possible have a little hill covered with trees, or small buildings? But the idea of having two kinds of scenery on the same layout is making me think a lot about it... I loved the first idea of Paulus. It is almost the same track plan I have but much more simple than mine. David K. Smith idea is awsome! Plenty of operations, and also has a staging yard. And it has something that M.C Fujiwara already told me: tracks are not aligned with the benchwork ends, so it has a smoother look. A question: how many cars can each track support on the yard and on the staging yard? I think I will take the advice in consideration and start all over again. The radius I used was fine for Japanese rolling stock, but I know that if I want to run a big wide cab six-axle diesel I can't... What should I do?... decisions, decisions. I'll try to have this layout built, with the possibility of extension (using the interchange, perhaps) All your help has been precious. Thank you.
Glad you like the plan. I've added the siding capacities in red, based on 50-foot cars. Some of the industrial sidings can hold more, but the extra cars can't be spotted beside the building.
What kind of industries can I place here? I am sorry for this question, but I don't know what to do, and I want to do it the most accurate I can. Remember that I collect Conrail models. Placing the layout in the 1980's, what other railroads can operate here (specially freight cars)?
I congratulate you on your desire to be accurate! Conrail was a large railroad, since it was formed by the US Government as a merger of seven bankrupt Northeastern US railroads (including the Penn Central, which itself was a doomed merger of the New York Central and the Pennsylvania Railroad). Here is a map of the Conrail system, so you can see the extensive area it covered. In order to choose things like the industries to serve, the look of the surrounding scenery, and the kinds of rolling stock to use, you will need to pick what geographic area you would like to model--you have your choice of anything from dead-flat plains to rugged mountains and everything in between. You don't need to make your choices right away; you can be researching the railroad while you build your layout. There are many websites that would be useful to your research. A good starting point is Wikipedia, which offers a concise history. Also, the Conrail Historical Society has a very large photo collection, in addition to detailed information. One other suggestion. Even though you will be able to make the curves broader, they will still be tight--so you will want to avoid long freight cars (60 foot is a maximum, 50 foot is preferred), and stick with 4-axle locomotives if possible. Larger equipment will run fine, but it will look awkward on the curves.
Dave, thanks for the tips. I follow the Conrail Historical Society on Facebook, since they post a lot of nice pictures. I try to gather all the info I can get for two reasons: 1)I want to have a nice collection of freight cars that suit the needs 2) for the industries I'll have on the layout. I chose the Conrail because I saw them on the Juniata layout from Dave Vollmer, and at Ed Kapuscinski Conrail 1285 website and loved the livery.
Hi gentlemen, somehow this thread is going the wrong way. IMHO the last plan by David has some issues. Tracks are very close to a backdrop and since the staging tracks are single ended they might cause problems when being switched. Behind low buildings might be true for the last 8" only. This would not present any problem at all if the layout will be pulled away from the wall during operation. The OP just did not respond to this issue, despite being asked about it several times. Due to your remark about your wife, I stayed close to your original two plans. So your surprise my drawings were close to yours amazed me. A plan that could be built in your place, if access is granted from three sides, is California Dreaming by Byron Henderson. Not by accident(?) it is close to the plan provided mr Fujiwara. Without a double-sided backdrop you could have a river or road to keep the two sides of the plan apart. If no access from the back is possible I would stay away from plans with spurs along the back, a simple staging siding could be the exception. Conceptual thinking before taking design decissions. BTW do you have any ideas about the minimum required radius? Smile Paul
Hi. Thanks for the reply. Your comments are very important to me. I realized I could be in trouble. My layout cannot be moved since it is placed on top of two cabinets built for storage. However I can have access from three sides. minimum radius should be one large enough to run six axle diesels. Thanks.
however the cabinets are on casters. Can't you really pull it out? Will depend on the floor. BTW those engines are huge for the kind of plan you have, a 12,5 min radius should be sufficient. Paul
Hi. Just one of the cabinets has wheels. It was not intended to serve a support for the benchwork. The same here... The less work I have to put the trains running, better will be to actually run them. I know that 6-axle WC units are huge but I really enjoy them, so I want to have one or two units on my collection. But I'll try to stick to 2-axle diesels, like the GP7 I have, GP20, GP38 and 40' and 50' cars and so on... Thank you so much for the all you folks are giving to me, because I really am Newbie when it comes to trackplanning, specially about trains from another country, although I am a modeller for about 10 years.. So, here is my guidelines for me to draw a track plan: - I can start over from scracth - I can go a bit longer, something 40 cm. I'll check this when I get home, but I think that this will be the maximum, so the layout can go up to 180 x 80 cm. - I want a roundy-round layout for demonstration purposes, but I also want to have fun with switching... - I don't want to pull the layout from the wall, but it will have access to three sides - I use PECO cod 55 Thank you again for the tips you all are giving to me.
Oh? And what way should it be going? I took the OP's remarks about his wife as being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and figured that he could be convinced starting over is the better approach, especially given the very sharp radii in his original plan. As for my recommend plan, I believe the staging area does not pose much trouble. The idea is to have buildings barely taller than the trains. Clearances are snug, but not impossible. Also, the entire plan can be shifted forward easily enough if extra clearance is required. It's certainly a better arrangement than having the staging tracks completely hidden, as in your second plan.
