Ready to start on my 4'x6' ho layout


posse

posse

Active Member
Hello! My name is Kyle, I've been playing with model trains for a number of years, but 6 years ago I tore up the old grass mat and I'm finally getting serious about building a new layout. I plan on modeling an old, back country, saw mill somewhere in the rockies around the 1950's.

View attachment 17804

I know some of the turns are sharp and the grades are steep, but I'll be pulling small trains hopefully with a F7 A-B set and a Mantua 2-6-6-2 (they're on my wish list). I can explain more latter, but is getting late.

Note: each grid line represents 1 1/2"
 
hey there. wow, those are some grades there. i did not confirm your calculations but to me it seems that 4x6 is just to small to hold this. maybe not, but before you settle on layout try and mockup those grades (ie with foam risers) to see if they work at all.
 
Drawing to scale might reveal some issues

You'll probably also find that the tracks are too close together and not quite enough room has been allowed for turnouts when drawn to scale. I agree with the ealier poster that the grades will be steeper than you think, especially when you consider the added friction of the tight curves.

That's often the frustration of hand-drawn plans.

Here's a good example of what can be accomplished in an HO 4X6, courtesy of the NMRA Gateway Division.

http://www.gatewaynmra.org/layouts/gc10/gc10-aerial.jpg


They have a number of 4X6 layouts on their layout projects page.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tankist:

It does work! I took one of my branch lines and elevated it a good 1 1/2" with a 5% grade, and its all around an 18" radius curve. Let me tell ya, it's not easy making grade transitions with snap track. I was able to get my Athearn BB F-7 up the incline with 10 cars. It is by no means an easy walk in the park, but it is possible.

cuyama:

I did make sure all my track is at least 2" apart center to center. I will also be hand laying my track, so it won't be that big of a deal to do minor tweaks.

Anybody else have any suggestions or commits?
 
No more questions, comments, concerns, or criticisms?

I would appreciate it if you let me know if the plan is O.K. or just a plain red "X"

Thanks in advance.
 
well if you like it and it works its all that matters.
i can understand the need to have elevation change on the layout - i had to have some as well besides space constraints
 
It looks like way too many tracks, too many steep grades, and no room left for scenery. I really like the one from the NMRA posted by Byron. Plenty of track for both running and operations and you have the whole middle to use for your town. You'll find you can finish a spaghetti bowl of track in a couple of months and then become totally bored. With less track and more scenery, you'll never get done, because there's always one more detail to add.
 
Spaghetti can be a pain to maintain.

Experience has also taught many here that 5% grades and / or 18-inch curves can cause problems, but it's YOUR layout and if you're happy with your design, go for it. Nobody here is on your case, we're just sharing the knowledge we've acquired over the years. Up to you whether you heed any of that advice.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you haven't aready, get a copy of 101 Track Plans, by Linn Westcott. I think he covers every variation that can be done on a 4x8 board.
 
Well I cleaned up some of the extra track, made the radius bigger on most of the turns, and decreased some of the grades. I'll get another picture drawn up to show you what I did.

Thanks for the advice!
 
Well, here is the latest drawing. I know most of the turns are a little sharper than some of you like as well as the grades being a little steep, but I'm O.K. with it. Since I was redrawing the plan, I figured I better draw out the turnouts correctly with #4's and #4.5's. I think I'm done with making changes and sticking with this plan.
View attachment 17974
 
As long as you're OK with the grades and the limitations of the tight curves, the plan will work fine.
 
Posse,
You not going to like this but it's better you find out before you begin. Many of us have many years of experience building layouts and have been all through these types of things before so please don't take offense as we are only trying to prevent more frustration down the road when your trying to build your layout. We all want you or anyone else to have a positive experience from the beginning.

On your new revised plan I counted 26 grid lines from edge to edge, I multiplied that
x1.5 and came up with 39" overall for the layout width as drawn. At best that is only going to allow you a single 180* turn at an 18" radius or 36" from the outside of the far rail to the outside of the near inside rail which gives you the exact centerline deminsion and you have about 1" to add to that measurement yet. So a single l80* loup of HO track will take up 37" and that doesn't account for the added width of any road bed if your planning on using any? On a small backwood logging/mining line you can probably get away with out any as I will on certain areas of my layout. Oh I'm using 20" radiuses for my old time HO equipment so we are comming close to running into some of the same problems.

So if a single 180* loop is going to take up all that space and your plan is only 39" overall width if the grid lines are 1.5" how in the world are you planning on fitting in all the other tracks and switches. You'd have to use 15" or less radiuses and as you said your loco's probably won't handle it?? Of course you could go to small 0-4-0 equipment and short cars to handle very tight radiuses.

Also as far as the track spacing, I laid out two old lengths of track I had paralell and measured 2 inches from the outside of the far rail to the outside of the near inside rail and placed two of my Old Time 36' cars on them and while they didn't touch, they are an inch and 3/8 wide I'd almost guarantee your loco cabs definitely will as they are at least 1-1/2" wide. Test it out for yourself.

The other thing you'll want to consider is how realistic will your layout turn out if too much is trying to be placed in too small area, not too realistic at all especially for that time period.


Sorry to pour cold water on your hard work but you have to revise your thinking.

Again I'm not trying to be overly critical just helping you to see where your planning needs to be adjusted.
 
try to plan this out in CAD and see what you get. there are bunch of programs out there, i personally like anyrail. is free to try and very easy to learn.
 
David, I have to say sorry because I should have metioned that on the revised plan the grid lines represent 2" instead of 1.5"

Anton, when you use the online programs, can you use any size radius you want? Or is there fixed sizes you use?
 
AnyRail is a fine track-planning program, but I'll mention another: XTrackCAD. One big benefit of XTrackCAD is that it is FREE.

And I'll add my voice to those who recommend careful planning and listening to good advice before you plunge into building a layout. You will avoid many expensive and disappointing mistakes if you pay close attention to what the experienced members of this forum are telling you. I may not know very much myself, but I can tell you from my personal experience that you need to listen to what they have to say.

- Jeff
 
A couple of things.

posse said:
David, I have to say sorry because I should have metioned that on the revised plan the grid lines represent 2" instead of 1.5"
Click to expand...


Posse, I agree that the 2" grid height is a help but remember, and you may not be able to adjust the program any tighter, that with 26 grid lines at 2" ea
your layout width is 52 and not 48". But that certainly does allow you more space but in the reality of things some of your tracks are going to be verticle or almost verticle above the lower track or visa-a-versa depending if the outside is the high line decending to the inner or just the opposite.

The reason I bring this up is that having too many verticle walls takes away from the openness feeling if that's what your trying to acheive.


Even I have a similiar problem in two areas on a much bigger layout I'm working on where the upper line crosses over the lower line and there is a space where it seems the rock walls are verticle for a bit between the lower and the upper. A need for some pretty creative hillsides.

I also have another area where both the upper and lower track are planned to go around a hill with the radius being the same for both and again I'm faced with the possibility of unrealisticly steep hillsides between the two lines as I don't want to distract from the feeling of some slope and openness.

Well these things take some creative thinking to make them look believeable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top