Help on layout design

luis_lopes Apr 10, 2013

  1. dexterdog62

    dexterdog62 TrainBoard Member

    166
    1
    8
    Uh oh, duel of the clashing track planners lol!
     
  2. paulus

    paulus TrainBoard Member

    290
    0
    10
    yeah, it seems so.
    However I might have been not specific enough. My first plan was for access from the front only, the second when access from the back was possible. The OP did not answer questions about it at all, so a couple of times I made a remark about having spurs at the front only, when access too is possible from the front only. IMHO completely hidden staging is acceptable when access is easy.

    Both my plans were purposely pretty close to what the OP has drawn himself. David is a great layout planner, occasionally he has a different point of view. Even when our points of view are not always consistent, as long as we are giving the reasons behind it, it's up to the OP to take his stand.
    Paul
     
  3. luis_lopes

    luis_lopes TrainBoard Member

    50
    0
    10
    Hi all.

    Ok, my layout will grow 40 cm in lenght, because I can reorganize my train room. I wish I could gow a bit more, so that I could have 200cm, but this is not possible at all.

    So, having a layout with 180x80 cm, with access from all sides (I'll build legs with wheels if I have to), and that I want it to be roundy-round, but still with some switching, what can I have in a layout like this? However, I do not wish to have a board as a scenic divider.

    I am willing to start from scracht just to have the layout of my dreams. (here in Portugal, the layout of our dreams is really small compared to yours).

    Thank you so much for the help.
     
  4. paulus

    paulus TrainBoard Member

    290
    0
    10
    Hi Luis,
    a roudy round with switching for sure.
    You will probably want a small yard to facilitate easy switching of an industrial area.
    However trains and cars are coming from and heading to far away destinations, so some staging and an interchange track would be nice.
    The above would be my wishes, you have to choose yours.
    Deciding about an era and location has to be done also. Modern long freight cars (up to 6" in HO) are lightyears away from older 40 ft cars (about 3") of the 50's. The length of your cars will determine the minimum radius (about 2,5 to 3 times as large as the length of your longest car) and the size of your turnouts (4 or 5's for older layouts, #6 or #7's for modern layouts). In the 70"s the max carlength was about 70 feet, which is 5,5" in N.

    Looking at the location your options vary from mountain ranges to flatlands, from urban to rural, from dense forests to deserts. Some hidden staging, if easly reached from the edge, might be a wish, for others it's a no-no. Do you want grades and rather short trains in high mountains, or no grades at all?
    Trainlength is another issue. Do you want a twice around for a longer mainline? All these questions are up to you to answer.
    IMHO on a small layout like yours I would prefer a more rural laid-back kind of plan: like the Carolina Central; close to my first plan. David's latest plan, without the staging could be a nice option if two stations are what you would like. (staging might be added in a different way, along the short side)
    In stead of staging fiddling (taking cars from and onto the layout by hand) the interchange track could be an option. A cassette could be another alternative for staging.
    I've added a drawing to illustrate some of the points above; it is entirely up to you to find your way.
    [​IMG]

    BTW the double track curves at the right allows you to operate two engines at the same time. Another option.
    When the cassette is a no-no, you could curve the staging tracks along the left end of the layout, though it would make the remainder of the plan about 5" shorter.
    Byron Henderson's Californian Dreaming was the base for this design, which needs access from the back as well.
    Smile
    Paul
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 13, 2013
  5. David K. Smith

    David K. Smith TrainBoard Supporter

    1,211
    1
    22
    Luis, the idea of a "dream layout" will be different for everyone, so it may not be an easy thing to recommend something that is totally satisfying for you.

    All I can do is develop something that appeals to me, and one (of many) things that I find interesting is heavy industry. I could easily imagine having a layout of the size of yours completely dominated by factories. Here is something that comes to mind (you will recognize elements from previous plans):
    [​IMG]

    The hidden tracks across the back are staging tracks. They connect to the mainline along the front (effectively making a twice-around plan, which is more exciting than a single roundy-round loop). Numbers in circles indicate track elevation in inches. The grade is a little over 2%. The tracks leading to the staging yard disappear under bridges at each end (a railroad bridge on the left, and a road bridge on the right). Over the staging tracks are a number of large buildings, with sidings that enter them.

    I hope this spurs on some discussion and that more ideas emerge.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 13, 2013
  6. luis_lopes

    luis_lopes TrainBoard Member

    50
    0
    10
    Hi all.

    I think I'll try to mix both the track plans, eheh.

    Loved the yard from Dave's plan and the bottom part of paulus's plan.

    I saw a plan that is beeingused by another user in another forum: seaboard 2.0 by davefoxx. That is a very nice plan.

    thank you so much for all your help.
     
  7. paulus

    paulus TrainBoard Member

    290
    0
    10
    Hi Luis
    you seem to miss the point. When i am looking at both plans, i see a yard in both of them. Which one is looking more pretty is not the issue yet.
    On Davids pike you'll see large industries, it has a more urban feeling. The scenic divider might be a road (David) or a river (mine).
    David accepted grades to allow for e.g. staging while I used a cassette.
    These differences and issues like trainlength, carlength and radii have to considered first.

    BTW You might have given us a direct link to the seaboard layout on that other forum. I am always curious.
    Is this the one?
    Paul
     
  8. luis_lopes

    luis_lopes TrainBoard Member

    50
    0
    10
    Hi Paulus.
    The yard on Dave's plan ins't much different than yous. But the curve he draw is really nice, and make the layout more appealing. At least to me.

    Yeap, that is the layout I was talking about.
     

Share This Page