I ain't happy yet.


R

rzw0wr

Newbie Switchman
I have been setting here in my garage train room for the last 2 months looking at my HO layout and waiting for turnouts from Atlas.
My layout is from an Atlas book I bought.

When I first started this layout I was very pleased with it.
Now that I have been on this forum a few months and have read and seen other layouts I am not at all happy with mine.

As I look it over, read more from other posts and get a better idea of model railroading, I just ain't happy yet.:confused:

I am setting here now thinking I should dismantle the whole thing and do something different.
This layout does not give me much room for structures. Just mountains and hills.

The radii is all 22". Reading tells me that is about as small as you should go to look correct.
About 1/2 of the track is hidden under hills and/or mountains.

I think I can do better.

What would you do?
I don't have any track laid yet, no scenery, no structures, no nothing. just the bench work.

The layout is an 8' x 12' L shape.
I have about 2' on each side that I can expand.
I guess I could got to about 12 x 14 and still have room to work on one side and one end.

I just ain't happy yet.:)

Dale
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What, exactly, about your current design leaves you feeling wanting? Do you envision grander, more sweeping curves? Do you fear it'll only ever really be nothing more than a roundy-round, no matter what? Are you sure the entire bench shape is what you can use, or is the best use of the space you have? Are you seeing, or anticipating, reach problems (believe me, those kill layouts really fast!)?

If you'd like wider curves, I wouldn't disagree with them as a goal per se, but how would they affect what you can do in your space? I always support someone who wants wider curves, but the proviso is that they make sense in the Great Scheme. We could all use wide curves, or even wid-ER curves, but what will we have to change to make the Grand Scheme work when we slide over those last two joiners?

All of us must start someplace. There are no shortcuts in the hobby. Each of us must deal with all the first steps...all of them. From there, it's anybody's guess as to what YOU will want next. I learned that I had to have a closed loop. Later, that the loop must be twinned. Got them both on my latest layout build. I like hills, bridges, tunnels, a roundhouse, steam power, a yard that actually works half-arsed....and darned if I didn't include them somehow when I sat down at the dining room table that night five years ago to put it all on 1/4" square graph paper...14 X 18" sheets, too.

What I mean is...it just could be a bit early for you to start building. Sounds to me like you are still learning some things, and you need to reach a plateau where you can cobble together all your learned facts, convert them to givens, figure out your druthers, and then doodle for a week or two to generate a general concept...or two. From there, pick the one that comes out making you the most excited. Start with a scale diagramme that is accurate to the mm, and then use 3/4" masking tape to map it all out, either on your benchwork or on the floor above which it will be built. Mark out the bench confines/boundaries as well. Make sure your curves are correct and that they fit well. Be careful to get your turnout geometry correct using the tape. If you fake frog angles, you'll pay...dearly...later. Get the turnout(s) you expect to use and lay the tape according to their dimensions.

Then, start with the first cut, the first screw, the first roadbed or riser, and so on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's exactly what I was going to say Crandell!
:p
Dale... been there done that! We all learn as we go, kinda like that first girlfriend way back when...
 
Thanks guys.

I did figure that this layout would not be my last or stay as first constructed.
I did plan for it to grow.
Just not this early in the game.

I have never read here or any place where the layout that a person has is the same as they stated with or planned.

I need to step back a few paces (now that I do know a little more) and take stock in what I want.
I have never really done that. I just wanted a layout.

My mind is always one step ahead of my body.
I think of new stuff before I can get the old stuff done.

I will set down and list the things I want my layout to have and the things that would be nice.
See where I can go from there.

Thanks,
Dale
 
Dale, it helps to have a favorite prototype. Is there a road you like best?

I find rail-fanning builds up my excitement to get motivated with model trains. If I can't get out there, then train videos on you tube are a reasonable substitute.
 
If you haven't laid any track yet. Now is the best time to figure out what you like. Its easy to tear down benchwork. Not so easy (or fun) tearing down a full running layout.

If you can go bigger do it. You will always want more area for your railroad. Depending on what era and equipment you have. or plan to get. Its always a better to have large radius curves. I started building my layout 3.5yrs ago, and now I'm getting rid of all the tight radius curves that were 24". Way too tight for my steam excursion passenger trains.
My new minimum radius is now 32". And I can run any equipment I want.

Do you have the book Track Planning for Realistic Operation by John Armstrong? If not, GET IT!!! http://www.kalmbachstore.com/12148.html
 
rzw0wr said:
I have been setting here in my garage train room for the last 2 months looking at my HO layout and waiting for turnouts from Atlas.
My layout is from an Atlas book I bought.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with Atlas - 90% of my layout is Atlas track - but I wouldn't trust them to tell me how I should design my layout. They are a track manufacturer/distributor, so it seems only natural they would want to present ideas that will help them sell more track!:D

One book I would recommend to everybody is John Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operation. It explains in very east-to-understand language how the real railroads work, and the best ways to model them in our limited space. It also points out some common mistakes to avoid. I'm on my fourth layout now, I sure wish I had read it before I built my 3 previous layouts...

[EDIT] I see Michael already beat me to it! (LOL)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey Dale!

You are not alone. I have been planning my permanent O-gauge layout since last October. I have been building it since January. The only constant with my permanent O-gauge layout is that it has been constantly changing! Every time I get a new book I see some thing I want to incorporate. Right now I am back to 4 ovals of track on my O-gauge layout.

I get working on an idea and before I get done I have another idea! I go from one thing to another and then I got into HO and then DCC! I have 3 layouts, all are a work in progress. The only one that is even close to being complete is the one I set up on the floor for my grandsons and I to play with.

Maybe get a small oval of EZ Track just to run your trains around and test them out. I enjoy that.

In my case realism is a very low priority. FasTrack is what I use for my O-gauge. That makes it easy to change my track plan.

Lately I have been toying with the idea of going for more realism on my HO layout and actually having some art work and scenery! Who knows what I will do.

Some people have been in this hobby for decades. I have yet to find a model railroader that was "done" the ones that have finished a layout start again.

Just have fun with your trains. I found that for me planning can be as much fun as any part of the hobby.

I wish you well Dale.



Gary B if you read this post; yes, I am considering leaving the dark side and going with some art work and scenery on my HO layout. Its probably going to look like crap, but that is ok. It will give me a reason to do it again and again...

Now I have to find a Life-Like MacDonald's that does not cost a fortune or look like crap. I did not say it would be good art. If Andy Warhol can get away with calling a soup can art then I can have a MacDonald's. Ever since I saw Gary B's fantastic layout and his Howard Johnson's I have been thinking of getting a Mac Donald's, who knows what else I will end up with.
 
Your space for the empire will be determined by your ability to negotiate. If you can get your whole family involved in the hobby, your space for building will be greatly increased. In my situation, I only had me to negotiate with. I sold my previous house and bought the house I'm in now with the main intent of building a large model railroad empire. 2,000 square feet with the stairway and utilities in the center of the basement. Curves on the loops are no less than 45" radius. I'm definitely happy now.

http://www.modelrailroadforums.com/forum/showthread.php?24509-The-D-amp-J-Railroad-From-Scratch
 
Dale -- About thinking of new stuff before you can get the old stuff done, I definitely hear you.

And taking a deep breath and thinking through your "givens and druthers" is a good idea here.

Three years ago I'd thought I'd hit upon the perfect plan for me and the space I had. I started building benchwork for it and finished that in a couple of months. Then I got to working out some of the details of the plan on graph paper, and the more I worked on that, the more frustrated I became. I realized that the perfect plan wasn't so perfect any more. And I got totally stuck. The benchwork became another horizontal storage surface in the basement.

This past spring I went back at it, still working from the first plan, and got frustrated all over again. But I was "stuck" with this benchwork.

Then I figured out first one, and then a completely different, way to set up the benchwork and accommodate a totally different plan. Even after I did that it's taken a while to further refine the plan (that's mostly because I can't spend time on it every day), but I'm finally at the point where I'm satisfied with how it's going to work.

My point is that false starts aren't uncommon, and they're just part of the learning process, too. There's a lot of other good suggestions here, so I won't repeat all those. But stick around and you'll learn a lot from the folks here. And probably teach us something, too.
 
For me taking the time to learn the track planning program 3rd PlanIt (3PI) was a good decision. Many of the programs capabilities made the design and implementation of my layout easier and gave me the confidence that all would be well.

In no particular order:

- You can accurately draw the track plan knowing that the various elements (turnouts, curves, easements, etc) were correct and everything would fit together in the real world.
- You can easily view the plan in 3D from any point of view to verify that things are as you intended.
- You can actually operate the plan and satisfy yourself that operations will work as you desire.
- You can print out full sized "templates" of the layout, or sections thereof, which allowing the easy transfer of the drawing to the benchwork.
- You can include the benchwork framing in the plan and determine dimensions, angles, etc that aid in the cutting and assembly of the benchwork.

It took me a good long while to try out the various ideas I had to find a plan that would balance all the conflicting factors - but I finally came up with a plan that did what I wanted and was something that I could actually build.

If I hadn't been able to use 3PI to verify all of the various aspects of the design I don't know if I ever would have had the confidence to proceed.
 
The track plans from the Atlas books are designed to sell a lot of track -- this they do pretty well.

But they are decades-old in many cases and don't always offer good long-term operations, convenient access, etc. They typically don't incorporate more recent design ideas such as staging.

Because of this, there are often more interesting alternatives in the same space, which might be worth exploring.
 
One of my all time favorite track plans was a simple oval of track that went behind a view block and dropped to a second level sort of like two ovals stacked on top of each other or a folded figure eight. Um... clear as mud?
anyway there was a siding on the lower level where two trains could pass each other then run back up to the top and meet there.
Okay it was more than just a loop of track it had an industry and small town, but the track to scenery ratio was bang on!
 
After reading the replies here I went to Amazon and ordered Track Planning for Realistic Operation by John Armstrong.
While I was there I saw another book that may be helpful to me.
Basic Model Railroad Benchwork by Jeff Wilson.

Hopefully these books will extend my knowledge and give me some ideas of what I want to build.
Thanks for the reference.

Dale
 
I have the Wilson benchwork book -- I agree, it's got a lot of good tips and a variety of approaches. Good choice.
 
G'day Dale, from Australia....I'm doing exactly the same thing at the moment , about to start my first "proper layout"...I had my original one on an old table tennis table..I was never happy with it and have since dismantled it ready to start the new one.. I have a whole spare bedroom to use..I came up with an original plan that I thought might work for an intermodal BNSF operation but now I'm not certain. The only thing worse than making a mistake is making same mistake twice and finding I'm not happy with the second layout later on..So ...I understand your concern...I think we both need to decide and commit to whatever we go with but the forum is a great way to make those choices.. Cheers Rod..
 
I was waiting for Atlas #4 and #6.
I have since changed my mind and I am going to use Peco I think.
I do like the curved turnouts they have.
Dale
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top