Requesting feedback on layout design


With a move to a new home coming and space for a layout (finally! after a 5-year hiatus), I'm well into planning.

Attached is a diagram showing the space and the main trackage (mainline and staging). The layout is fundamentally a folded dogbone with the connecting tracks running parallel giving the appearance of a two-track mainline. The dogbone "loops" are my "destinations"... One a small city/town scene out in the open, the other a hidden staging yard representing another town/city "off scene".

HO Scale, Grid is 12" squares. Min radius 28", Min turnout #6

I'm showing two variants here: One is pure walk-in, one has duckunder/liftbridge requirement to reach the "rear" area.

Some notes on the thinking/issues behind it:

1) I'm very much into mainline operation, much less so into 'switching'... I enjoy running trains from place to place, stopping at depots and/or setting out cars. Yard operations/extensive switching... not so much. Related to that, I prefer to balance scenery against sheer track volume: I enjoy having fairly extensive runs of "just mainline" running through scenery rather than heavily urban scenes, multiple-pass-throughs in a scene, etc.

2) I lean toward passenger trains and run larger locos and 85' cars, so 28" minimum radius is a must.

3) Design-wise, the space must accommodate a fold-out couch for occasional guests, and the closet and bathroom cannot be blocked (including a duck-under).

4) There is a 4x4' closet built around the sump pump in the corner. Tracks can pass through it, but it cannot be removed.

5) Anywhere that notes "industry/customer" is intended to have a spur. But for sake of clarity, I didn't show them.

6) Red lines suggest the edges of the benchwork

7) What I don't like: narrow 24" aisle at lower-right side.

8) There won't be much of a "grade" on this layout, but rather I will mount most of the track well above the benchwork "base" and create visual interest with a "ragged front" fascia style and scenery both ascending up from and dropping down below the main track level.

dorset6.jpgdorset6a.jpg

Your time, questions, comments etc. are much appreciated!
 
I must say I really like this folded dogbone concept, it sounds like we are a lot alike when it comes to our model trains.

I am planning a new layout, too, and copied yours to use as a starting point. While researching the "yard" and considering using something of the "hump" concept with automatic uncoupler magnets under the track, I ran into this excellent article:

http://www.nmra.org/member/sites/default/files/datasheets/Trackwrk/d3h1.PDF

There are some great tips here, too, on getting the nomenclature right as well as operations and maintenance buildings. It is from the National Model Railroad Association.

I am sure you will get a bunch of good ideas here, and I will be watching if not contributing.

lasm
 
Definitely the first one. avoid the duckunder at all costs. I have an idea for you I will sketch it up shortly.
Steve
 
Wow that is gonna be a very nice sized layout. I like Steve's (choops) plan also. Yes avoid the duckunders, specially with that amount of space available.

You will have some real long mainline runs. Add a nice sized yard (4-5 tracks) to the right side there.

Add more industries, passenger station, etc. You've got plenty of room for all this.
 
Wow that is gonna be a very nice sized layout. I like Steve's (choops) plan also. Yes avoid the duckunders, specially with that amount of space available.

You will have some real long mainline runs. Add a nice sized yard (4-5 tracks) to the right side there.

Add more industries, passenger station, etc. You've got plenty of room for all this.

Thanks, Michael. I agree it's a good size. Enough, but not too much.

Oddly, while I value the space for mainline runs, etc. I'm actually trying NOT to overcomplicate it or make it any bigger... The roughly 14x25' space and a track plan that's not 'packed to the max' is about all I want - e.g. why I'm not trying to "push into" the other area on the plan, or the other half of the basement... My prior layout was 40' x 25' and had an extremely dense, complex track plan. All kinds of crazy hidden reverse loops, about 4 distinct levels of track, four-track Broad Way" mainline (Yes, I'm a S.P.F.), huge multi-track yards, engine complex with 270' roundhouse, multiple branchlines, etc. The plan was lovely. The reality... less so. Frankly, after 3 years work the progress I'd made suggested it would be complete in... about 50 years. Just bit off more than I could chew trying to do a "club size" layout as a lone wolf...

Though I'm not trying to swing the pendulum the other way and over-downsize either. Just keep the space reasonable and the plan on a K.I.S.S. mode.
 
I must say I really like this folded dogbone concept, it sounds like we are a lot alike when it comes to our model trains.

I am planning a new layout, too, and copied yours to use as a starting point. While researching the "yard" and considering using something of the "hump" concept with automatic uncoupler magnets under the track, I ran into this excellent article:

http://www.nmra.org/member/sites/default/files/datasheets/Trackwrk/d3h1.PDF

There are some great tips here, too, on getting the nomenclature right as well as operations and maintenance buildings. It is from the National Model Railroad Association.

I am sure you will get a bunch of good ideas here, and I will be watching if not contributing.

lasm

Thanks, LASM. This will be my third "real" layout (not counting childhood 4x8's, etc.) and the first two... I learned the hard way to build a layout that suits what YOU want and how YOU operate... In prior attempts I didn't distinguish well enough between good advice and people imposing their view of what's "right and wrong"...
 
My experience is to avoid duckunder and gates at all costs. Also make your aisles as wide as possible, if you plan to operate with others. 30" radius I think is reasonable.
 
Your plan is shaping up nicely. I also have a folded dogbone design layout, in a bit smaller room, but the usable layout area is pretty similar as I have full use of the room for my layout. Something I have not yet seen suggested is that you work in a reversing option. With a folded dogbone you have an advantage over oval type routes in that you can create reversing leg(s) simply by adding a third track in the compressed portion of the dogbone, eliminating the need for a diagonal cutting from one side of an oval to the other. You can actually have reversing in both directions (at speed no less) on a single reversing leg. This is exactly what I have. I don't have time to make a sketch right now, but if you were to add a third line on the right side of your current plan with turnouts (one to each outside track) on each end of the compressed area. The visual effect is that of a yard consisting of three rails (mine is to be a mine operation there) but in operation you can pass through it at speed if you so desire and you then have the option to turn a train from either direction to either direction on the loop.

Thanks, Stoker! I'd actually had just a plain old "crossover" between the compressed tracks that would have achieved reversing, but I was concerned about wiring a 'reverse loop' that would be very, very short - some of my larger locos would span the entire thing (I use the auto-reverser from Tony's Trains for reversing - not sure how it would react to that). I like the 'three track yard' idea - which addresses that issue as well!
 
Your plan is shaping up nicely. I also have a folded dogbone design layout, in a bit smaller room, but the usable layout area is pretty similar as I have full use of the room for my layout. Something I have not yet seen suggested is that you work in a reversing option. With a folded dogbone you have an advantage over oval type routes in that you can create reversing leg(s) simply by adding a third track in the compressed portion of the dogbone, eliminating the need for a diagonal cutting from one side of an oval to the other. You can actually have reversing in both directions (at speed no less) on a single reversing leg. This is exactly what I have. I don't have time to make a sketch right now, but if you were to add a third line on the right side of your current plan with turnouts (one to each outside track) on each end of the compressed area. The visual effect is that of a yard consisting of three rails (mine is to be a mine operation there) but in operation you can pass through it at speed if you so desire and you then have the option to turn a train from either direction to either direction on the loop.

So something like this (on the far right...)

dorset6h.jpg
 
OK, I made a few minutes to do a crude sketch showing how easy it is to have dual reversing with a folded dogbone. You can do it by adding four turnouts to your current plan, and it still looks like a yard on that side (even more so).

dorset6d_reverseoption_zpsb7b72ca8.png


I should have used red or something for the turnouts, but it is the thicker dark lines above and below your industry yard on the right. You can also do it with two crossover types switches, depending on what track spacing you are after.Trace around this modified plan wiuth your finger going clockwise and take the first corssover (on the top). You are now going Counter-Clockwise on the loop. If you continue going CCW you will come to the bottom crossover, and if you take it you are now going CW!. I would make the industry yard (the tracks anyways) as long as possible.

Yeah, that's how I originally had it, using "crossovers" to create the reversing. That's the version I wasn't sure exactly how to block/wire the 'reversing' section...

Though having mucked around with it, I kinda like my "inside passing track" version, not for clarify of wiring, but operationally... e.g. slow freight can pull in there and let a fast passenger pass, then continue on, even without the 'reversing' factor...
 
I like what you are planning ... My only fault with it is the long straight tracks.
Don't know how you could do it, but I like to see sweeping, curving tracks wandering thru the countryside .. Even if they are only separated by a few inches .. Just not side by side.
 
I like what you are planning ... My only fault with it is the long straight tracks.
Don't know how you could do it, but I like to see sweeping, curving tracks wandering thru the countryside .. Even if they are only separated by a few inches .. Just not side by side.

Yeah, I hear you. Frankly, that one's a subjective issue. In my case, the design isn't that way out of "necessity" but because I actually like long stretches of flat/straight track as more prototypical. Visually what I typically do is add interest vertically rather than horizontally... e.g. rather than curving/wandering tracks I use 'ragged front' facia and those flat/level tracks are passing over bridges, under rock cuts, etc.

But absolutely YMMV and I hear what you're saying...
 
Consider putting the station where they yard is and the yard where the station is. The station will be better to look at than a dirty yard when you enter the room. Will also make it easier to expand the layout into the open space in the future.
Steve
 
Consider putting the station where they yard is and the yard where the station is. The station will be better to look at than a dirty yard when you enter the room. Will also make it easier to expand the layout into the open space in the future.
Steve

What? You don't see the beauty in a grubby old yard? :)

Good point about expandability... but I'm pretty much not going to get that option without a death or a divorce - and my wife is young & healthy and I rather like her...

As with most things suggested here by those wiser than me... I'll noodle it around, play with it, and you'll probably see a "yard on the right" version show up in a day or three.
 
Here is a VERY rough sketch showing how you could make the mountain area with a bit of funkiness. If you diverge on the mine/mill spur and start rising , the loop tracks stay level and go behind the gradually rising ramp, and at some point one or both enter tunnel. In this sketch they might go under the mill buildings directly, or into a tunnel with the mill buildings on top. Then, the inside loop track can go around the outside of the mountain, and enter into cliff face near the apex of the return curve.

dorset6hMountain_zpsf72129a9.png

Interesting notion. The grade/terrain you describe is pretty close to what I intended (just didn't put terrain-lines or grade notations on this for clarity)... I like the idea of "spreading" the tracks out a bit as they come off the right-hand straightaway, but have to play with it to see if I can both maintain minimum radius AND avoid having a choke point in already-a-bit-narrow aisle space...
 



Back
Top