Ideas for a New Layout


M

Mark22

New Member
Hello everyone! This is my first post here and I could use some input on my plans for a new layout. I have a 4x8 layout that I designed in high school, but it just isn't quite what I want. I've decided to tear it down and start over. I have a few things that I want in a new layout for sure: 1) A continous mainline loop 2) A small yard with a turntable 3) Must be able to disassemble and move it. The 3rd is probably the most important because I won't be living in my house forever and I don't want to loose my work when I move. My train room is in a 2nd story bedroom, so a 4x8 is just too much to move easily or safely.

Check out my current track plan. Its designed to be on 28" wide benchwork so it will fit through any door without tilting. The angled "point" on the right side is to avoid the window in my current room. Ignore the red track... I have a demo version of AnyRail and I'm at my 50 piece track limit!

A few more important details... I want to do a fictional model of Colorado where the BN ran thier mainline through the Rockies circa 1950 to 1970ish. I'm pretty fond of the western US-style landscapes and plan on having some mountains and rivers.
 
Mark22 said:
I could use some input on my plans for a new layout.
Click to expand...
Generally I like it. Why do you want a yard and turntable? In my opinion those are the two things that waste the most amount of space on model railroads. Are you opposed to grades and multiple levels. I think there is just enough space to have some hidden storage tracks under the others.

A few more important details... I want to do a fictional model of Colorado where the BN ran thier mainline through the Rockies circa 1950 to 1970ish. I'm pretty fond of the western US-style landscapes and plan on having some mountains and rivers.
Click to expand...
You realize of course that the BN didn't exist until 1970. I've heard of lots of people bringing a historic railroad forward into the present or at least the future from the real railroad. I have never heard of anyone taking a modern railroad and trying to move it backward into the past. I can see lots of issues and insurmountable contradictions trying to do that.

The CB&Q worked hard to get the D&RGW to put the Dotsero cut-off through to divert mountain traffic from Pueblo (via Tennessee Pass) to Denver (via the Moffat Tunnel) and hence move the traffic from the MP to the Q.

The C&S (CB&Q Colorado) also had control of the Colorado Midland to get through the Colorado Rockies. But the CM didn't survive the war administration management. It was determine to be not necessary for the war effort so it was shut down. It was never revived.

The other BN predecessors (NP and GN) ran through the Rockies in Montana & Idaho.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The plan looks great. Do you have a preference of modeling BN? Do you already have BN locomotives?

Because D&RGW would be a much better to model after in Colorado.

And you should move your era to around the 1970s to 1980s.
 
Do like a real railroad, just start with a main line and then add sidings/yards as needed. You could do a twice around and still shrink the benchwork to say 18" deep.
 
Thanks for the help! I am aware that the BN wasn't formed until 1970. I plan to use the DRG&W as a reference, but my railroad is entirely fictional, so I'm bending history a little. I figure as long as I don't bend history too much and it is still plausible, then my railroad will keep the realism that I want. :)

Back to construction and design, check out the photos that I posted. one is of the room where my layout will go and the other is a marked-up track plan with rivers, tunnels and bridges. Any suggestions or things I might want to add??

How about benchwork? I was thinking about individual tables with removeable legs, but then I was reading about shelf layouts and thinking that might work for the sections that are up against the wall.
 
run around track is needed. I would add bench work and not have a lift out bridge. Just duck under. Just build the layout high enough. nice design so far.
Steve
 
Unless that turntable is high on your list of 'druthers' I'd take it out use the space to bring the yard around and add a runaround.
 
I'm going to assume you're looking at HO here. Regarding the old high school layout you are tearing down, how old is it? Depending on how old your existing rolling stock is, it may not be worth the effort to convert everything to DCC so that you can keep using it on the new layout, assuming you are going DCC (as a newcomer you'd be mad not to in my opinion). With the dimensions you are looking at you may wish to consider a switch to N! You can fit roughly 4x as much layout into the same space compared to HO which is quite the benefit if a complete loop is a must-have.
 
TrinityJayOne said:
I'm going to assume you're looking at HO here. Regarding the old high school layout you are tearing down, how old is it? Depending on how old your existing rolling stock is, it may not be worth the effort to convert everything to DCC so that you can keep using it on the new layout, assuming you are going DCC (as a newcomer you'd be mad not to in my opinion). With the dimensions you are looking at you may wish to consider a switch to N! You can fit roughly 4x as much layout into the same space compared to HO which is quite the benefit if a complete loop is a must-have.
Click to expand...

My current layout is the one I first started with as a kid, so it's +15 years old. Its been rebuild once already and I've got it set up for DCC. I really want to rebuild it because the track plan was not very good and the entire layout is way to big to move. I've thought about N scale, but I've always been an HO modeler and all of my locos, rolling stock and structures are HO.

I'm going to work on adding a run-around track in the layout and I'll post it when I come up with something. What do you guys thing about using a shelf setup for the parts around the walls?? Would it work or be to bulky and heavy??
 
Check out the redesigned layout. I did it with SCARM CAD software. I also added a runaround track on the branchline. A mining operation will be at the end of the branchline. The town will be just above the yard on the left side. The mainline will rise at a 3.5% +/- grade above the rest of the layout. Let me know how it looks!
 
It looks good now. But that 3.5% grade is way too much. Don't go above 2%. Or you will have problems with locos struggling to get up that grade with anything more than a few cars.
 
Motley is right, i only have a 2% grade but my grade falls on a series of curves, kinda like a big s-curve, and with only one loco my athearn sd70 has no problems pulling 14-15 pulpwood cars,centerbeams, things of this nature.

But when i wip put my intermountain es44dc it wont pull anymore then 12-13 cars up the grade without stalling out half way up the grade. I need to add more weight to my es44dc and it will pull just like my sd70-m2

3.5% is way,way too much unless you only plan to pull a small train, and i mean smaller then 5-8 cars... if you double up on the locos it should pull more, but i would seriously try and stick to around 2%-2.5%
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The layout you've drawn is probably much better than the 4X8 you had. Its generally a nice plan.

But the SW corner is extremely difficult to reach, due to the depth of the sections. And...you have lots of tracked stuffed into that corner.

Track should be no more than 30 inches from the edge of the benchwork. That's about the length most people can reach comfortably.

Also, the two little spurs near the yard are really too short to be very useful.

Try to rethink the SW side of the plan.
 
Doughless said:
The layout you've drawn is probably much better than the 4X8 you had. Its generally a nice plan.

But the SW corner is extremely difficult to reach, due to the depth of the sections. And...you have lots of tracked stuffed into that corner.

Track should be no more than 30 inches from the edge of the benchwork. That's about the length most people can reach comfortably.

Also, the two little spurs near the yard are really too short to be very useful.

Try to rethink the SW side of the plan.
Click to expand...

Hello, ___ -

How about bringing your yard and engine service forward out of the corner, and running your mainline behind it? That would give you better access to all your turnouts and yard tracks, and give you a slightly longer mainline run to boot. You could angle the lift-up/bridge to connect over to the right-side track.

My rule is, 24 inches is a comfortable reach, 30 inches is the absolute maximum.

Good luck - Gerhard
 
Doughless said:
Try to rethink the SW side of the plan.
Click to expand...

That part of the layout is on the open side. You will be able to access both sides. Check back towards the first of the thread, I posted a drawing of the room. The north and east will be up against walls. The southeast corner is angled to avoid a window.
 
Didn't see that. Still don't, but that doesn't matter.

I envision a train leaving the yard, making several laps around the layout clockwise to build distance, then head into the mine branch and switch things out. Then head back out to the main, do some laps counterclockwise, then head to the yard. That's a nice operating plan.

To do that, you need a runaround track in the mine branch that will be long enough to hold your longest train, in order for the loco to runaround. Same thing goes for the yard, in order for the engine to escape the train it just parked head first into the yard and go for servicing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LayoutSCARMEdit2.jpg

So, I'm bringing back an old thread here. I started this design last spring, but never made it much farther than a design. My wife and I thought we might move to a different city, so I put the whole project on hold. Now we've decided to stay in our house of the long haul, so that leaves me to pick up my new layout project where I left off. I've made some changes from the original design and made my benchwork a little bigger. I'm still trying to keep the width at 28" so it will fit through a 30" door. Let me know what you all think!
 
Why do new layout plans ALWAYS have a switchback? Guess Model railroaders think it's neat because the extra movements make it more "interesting". But to the real RRs, those extra move are a waste of time AND money! You don't need the switchback at all if the 2 spurs cross each other just past their switches. Try it both ways before you "cast the tracks in concrete" w/ ballast & glue. As it is now any cars on the 1st spur have to be moved to spot cars on 2nd spur. And if you're like most people you'll get real tired of it real fast!
Also you'd be better off w/ a runaround next to the yard so the cars can be set up for spotting elsewhere. And also one where the two spurs are in the top middle - ditto for car setup at the two spurs on the right.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I like this plan a lot.

On benchwork, if you do see a possible move in your future, this one would lend itself to sectional benchwork, which I am a big fan of...

Hope to see more as you progress!

Erik
 
Mark22 said:
View attachment 39108

So, I'm bringing back an old thread here. I started this design last spring, but never made it much farther than a design. My wife and I thought we might move to a different city, so I put the whole project on hold. Now we've decided to stay in our house of the long haul, so that leaves me to pick up my new layout project where I left off. I've made some changes from the original design and made my benchwork a little bigger. I'm still trying to keep the width at 28" so it will fit through a 30" door. Let me know what you all think!
Click to expand...

I like your plan. Simple yet plenty of scenery to blend with. The only thing I would suggest is re examine the yard area. it is a bit far to reach. I would try to keep the maximum reach to about 30" or you will need some sort of access to the area in case of derailments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top