2 part layout question


ScottoT

ScottoT

Member
I'm forcing myself to think a little more outside the box, than the linear thinking I've been using when considering my layout design.

My very first thought about trying to re-create my prototype layout, was very linear.

On the prototype, A is followed by B, then C, then D, etc. Obviously, it is very difficult to replicated that in model rr layouts, but I was thinking I needed to.

Question 1 - Do most of you who have designed your layout followed that process?
Q1A - if you do not, how do you redesign the layout accordingly? using very general terms.

In terms of my layout planning, to run a main line, I was thinking I would need to run some sort of very modified "oval" along my outside of my benchwork, to simulate a long running main.

Question 2 - On this site, looking at pictures and layout designs, I have noticed lots of layouts that incorporate, along the wall narrow type layouts, that it seems to me come to an end, with helixes, to allow for another level staging, or yards, etc. There are many that have the track come to an "end point". Going one direction. While I understand this need, as not everyone can design and have a layout that completes the circle.

I'm wondering what you do when your train comes to that end, and you want to send it back the opposite direction. Pick it up and re-assemble going the opposite way?


Once again, thank you in advance for your suggestions, imput and advice, on how to handle my quandry.

Scott
 
Scott, my layout was built as a point to point layout, but I do have three hidden staging tracks that do allow for continuous running. I am more interested in switching and have a number of industries on the layout. There is a yard at each end of the route. An outbound train is made up in either yard and then sent out as an outbound train and sent into the hidden staging tracks later to become an inbound train. Inbounds are sent to either of the two yards where it i broken down, and a local freight will deliver goods to industries along the mainline as well as pick up ouitbounf freight and the process is repeated.

Check out the video tour video below.
 
montanan said:
Scott, my layout was built as a point to point layout, but I do have three hidden staging tracks that do allow for continuous running. I am more interested in switching and have a number of industries on the layout. There is a yard at each end of the route. An outbound train is made up in either yard and then sent out as an outbound train and sent into the hidden staging tracks later to become an inbound train. Inbounds are sent to either of the two yards where it i broken down, and a local freight will deliver goods to industries along the mainline as well as pick up ouitbounf freight and the process is repeated.

Check out the video tour video below.
Click to expand...

I will have to take a look at the video tonight when I get home from work. Thank you for sharing, Chet.
 
Scott,

The first thing you need to decide on is what type of layout you want, the focus or primary purpose of your layout. Basically a hands on layout where you are involved with the running of the layout, ie switching OR a layout where you can sit back and watch trains run but have the option of some interaction. My layout is designed for the latter option.

As such, I design my layouts starting with the Main Line, trying to keep that design as interesting as possible. In other words, not having a straight forward oval, circle or something that follows the edge of the bench work. I work out where it will go and how it will look in the space I have available and try to get as much track within that space as is reasonable for that space.

When working out my main line/s, I take into account where I want to place town/s, scenery and industries to ensure my main line plan allows for their placement as well as space for track - sidings, yards and spurs to and/or around those towns and industries.

Once I have done that, I will revisit the plan on a daily basis to see what can be improved on, added, removed or just modified. Need less to say, I submit my plan here for others to comment on and for suggestions and for a critical eye for any problems the plan may have. If you take a look at my current plan you will see it has changed (to some degree) many times over the course of its inception.

I don't know if you have any design software; however, if you don't I would recommend getting SCARM (a free design program for track planning). Using it will allow you to see what will work, how it will look without having to lay physical track. Some sort of Track Planning Software is almost a must have I think.

In short, there is no formula for designing your track plan - it will be as you want it to be and put together in a way that you find easiest to do. What I, and almost everyone else, would suggest is to "think outside of the box as you said" and try to get away from a basic oval shape for your main line.

As for your second question ... there a few options for turning trains on a "point to point" design:

1. Use the 0-5-0 method (picking the engine up and moving it to the end of the train,
2. Running an engine only with "auto reversers" at either end of the track work,
3. Putting in a siding at either end of the layout so you can move your engine from one end of the train to the other.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tony,

I I have Anytrain software, that I am using to help me design my track portion of the benchwork. I haven't started thinking about scenery yet...taht is a LONG ways off. I like the idea of sidings at the end.

Getting back to question #1.

So using an "oval" or continuous looping track for my layout is really not needed at all? Especially since I will be needing minimum 52" turns, courtesy of the prototype rolling stock that I will be using....
 
Hi,

What rolling stock do you have/are going to have that require 52" radius?

As to a plan that allows trains to run continuously - that is personal preference.

My plan is a simple folded dog-bone so I CAN run continuously but I have a small classification yard, a passenger yard, a engine service facility, ten industrial spurs and a staging yard with room for 10-25 (depending on length) complete trains which allows for plenty of operation potential.

Like many of us I had to make numerous compromises when designing the layout.

Frederick
 
fcwilt said:
Hi,

What rolling stock do you have/are going to have that require 52" radius?

As to a plan that allows trains to run continuously - that is personal preference.

My plan is a simple folded dog-bone so I CAN run continuously but I have a small classification yard, a passenger yard, a engine service facility, ten industrial spurs and a staging yard with room for 10-25 (depending on length) complete trains which allows for plenty of operation potential.

Like many of us I had to make numerous compromises when designing the layout.

Frederick
Click to expand...

My prototype RR is the GM Auto and truck facilities in my home town, so I will be running lots of 89' Autorack haulers and longer type boxcars.

Auto rack loading facility.jpgTorrey Yard JPEG.jpgTorrey Yard autoracks.JPG
 
ScottoT said:
Tony,

I I have Anytrain software, that I am using to help me design my track portion of the benchwork. I haven't started thinking about scenery yet...taht is a LONG ways off. I like the idea of sidings at the end.

Getting back to question #1.

So using an "oval" or continuous looping track for my layout is really not needed at all? Especially since I will be needing minimum 52" turns, courtesy of the prototype rolling stock that I will be using....
Click to expand...

52" minimum turns, I am assuming you mean 26" radius curves. I really can't think of any manufacturer who recommends a minimum of 26" radius for their cars to run. I think most manufacturers of larger cars will recommend 24" radius (48"). As fcwilt asked, what rolling stock are you using?

As for whether a continuous plan is needed or not the short answer is no layout needs a continuous track plan. It is totally up to you what type of layout you have. That can be determined by the space you have available and what you want to do with the layout.

The trick to this hobby is coming to terms with having to make compromises in order of attaining what you really want. What I would suggest is to do one of two things at this point:

1. Forget about the rolling stock/cars you have/want to use and decide if you want a continuous or point to point design and then design your track plan accordingly and get rolling stock that will run on that plan, OR

2. Forget about the type of track plan you want (continuous/point to point) and look at the rolling stock you have/want to use then design a track plan that will best suit that rolling stock.

Regardless of which option you might choose, depending on the amount of bench work you have, you are most likely going to have to give up something so as to have something else.

I'll try to elaborate on exactly what I mean. When I built my first "real layout" I wanted to run all modern equipment; however, the space I had available would not allow me to have the radii needed for modern equipment. I also wanted a layout that I could sit back and watch trains run. The later was more important to me so the modern equipment (SD70's etc) went south and I built the layout for continuous running, accepting that I could not run 6 axle loco's or modern rolling stock. In my case, continuous running was more important than what I was running at the time. It wasn't a perfect result BUT was one that provided me with my MAIN desire.

Since then, I have continually wished I could run larger loco's, rolling stock and trains. The end result is my removing my HO layout and putting in an N Scale layout that will fit my space, give me continuous running AND allow me to run all modern equipment. Basically I have forgone the size (scale wise) for what I really want. It is all about give and take and what is most important to you.

As said, if your bench space doesn't allow for 26" radius curves then you will have to decide on what is most important to you ... running the rolling stock you have/want OR being able to sit back and watch trains runs. Keep in mind also that even if a manufacturer recommends a certain radius for their engine/rolling stock, it doesn't mean it wont run on a smaller radius - it just might not look 100% realistic. So again, you might have to loose a little of the "realism" in order of having the track plan you might really want.

As for the scenery ... that should be the last thing that you do on the layout for obvious reasons. When I say "scenery" I am mainly talking about structures and where they might go on the layout once your track plan is in place, not actually doing any scenery.

Hope I haven't confused you too much Scott but if I were you, I'd be deciding on what type of plan you want and making everything fit that plan. You could of course go to N Scale and (most likely) have everything you might want.
 
Like Tony said, I also assume that you mean 26" radius (52" diameter) curves. If you are still talking about the 7' x 10' layout in your other thread, then an oval might be the best way to go. I do not run an oval and have no means for continuous running. I run from a staging yard at one end to a staging yard at the other end. The main line is about 150', and is lined with 4 passing sidings and numerous industry sidings and spurs. Mostly I do switching, but I have some trains set up at each end, unit grain trains, unit double-stacks, unit autoracks etc., that I run as through trains from one end to the other. I can run a train (usually a local switching run) out and wait on any passing siding while I run a through train from the other end and so on. In the staging yards I use the 0-5-0 or HOG (Hand of God) method of moving engines and cabooses from one end to the other, and also exchange cars as needed. That answers your second question. My staging is completely visible so it is easier than hidden staging. One does not need to have 150' to operate with this action plan, it can be done on a whole lot less main line. Eventually on my upper level I may incorporate continuous running as it would require only a "stoop-under" at 54" to go under, where it crosses the door. I can stoop better than I can duck-under. There is nothing wrong with continuous-running, it just doesn't interest me. Two of my brothers have continuous-running layouts with minor switching opportunities because switching is not their interest.
After all of this explanation, the first thing that you have to decide is which facet of the hobby interests you more. If I recall correctly, you have another thread in which you indicated that you will be starting with a table-top layout which limits but does not eliminate switching. Maybe start with that and the E-Z track while you think about and plan an "around the wall" layout.

Willie
 
An addition

With bench space for 7' X 10', and if you want continuous running, why even consider a point to point layout, even with 26" radius?

With that area to utilize, you are not restricted to a plain old oval track plan either - you have so many more options available to you for a much more interesting and challenging plan.

Now another question - is your bench space 7' X 10' because that is the size of the room? If it is, then as Willie said, an around the wall layout would be perfect with a great deal of options for a plan. If your room size is larger, then you have the option for a free standing walk around layout which would be even better.

I know this has been said before; however, I really would get rid of the EZ track (and any sectional track to be honest) and get flex track from the outset. That will give you so many more options for a track plan and will not restrict you to pre-set radii.

If memory serves me, you wanted to start with something smaller right? Can I ask, when you know how much room you have for a layout, why you are taking that approach? It almost sounds like you are thinking about 2 layouts in one. A plan for your small, am doing it now sort of thing, layout then another for the full size layout.
 
Scott,

With the bench space you have, you could do something like this:

TONYCANNON-PC-2016-aug-9-004_zps0hlbd41g.png


This is a very quick thing though so don't take it as anything BUT an impression of what can be done with the space you have available. Obviously, this can be more complex and with a "properly designed yard complex".
 
Scott,

What about something like this:

TONYCANNON-PC-2016-aug-10-001_zpsuuyyjjpq.png


It has 22" radius curves, the largest that can fit in the space available as a continuous run layout, with the bulk of the layout the yard that should handle the Autoracks. I'm just putting some ideas forward ... obviously you can disregard them entirely if you want.
 
Hey guys,

yes, please forgive me for using the wrong terminology, I was talking about having 26" radius curves.
 
Both of those layouts could work....wow. I can tell the difference between someone who has no clue about layout design and planning....(ME), and someone who has good ideas and plans.
 
Scott,

Thanks, but these are just ideas and little more. Also they were done using flex track so using ez track would be a different matter. I guess all I was trying to do was to show you that you can do much more with your space than just an oval as such. If you could reduce your radius size a tad say down to 18" or even 20", you could do a lot more with the space you have though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top