Should I rebuild?


KB02

KB02

Well-Known Member
"If I knew then what I know now..." has been said so many times by so many people. Lately it appears to have been my turn when talking about my layout. The more I work on it, the more I wish I had done things differently from the start, which makes me think about tearing out what I have and starting over.
- I really don't have much for operations.
- The original section of my layout is all 18" radius curves.
- I have so many little spots of troublesome track that I keep trying again and again to make better.
- Yada, yada, yada, etc.
YET, I kind of like, and am proud of parts that I do have.
- Really happy with my waterfall and river.
- I like the multi level tunnels.

I guess I'm looking for a way to keep the "good" and get rid of the "bad," but I'm just not seeing the right way to do it.

Basically, It's just a 4x8 platform where track enters the far corner at a height of 3" and exits in the near corner at 0".
Any ideas? I'm really not attached to much in the middle. And It's a fantasy layout, so nothing "Real" I have to model or adhere to.

49652930183_99d6c9ecb2_c.jpg
 
If I knew then what I know now then I’d be there instead of here but since I’m here knowing what it is I think I know now I guess I may as well make the best of it.
Yeah tough decision for sure, what you have looks great but the points you made are sound.
Best advice I can think of is save what you can and rework it into what you’re missing or add to this one and take out what distracts.
The fact that you’re thinking of it likely means you won’t be happy later on.
Been there done that, then did it again. If I only knew...
 
I think, except for the waterfall you're happy with, you're not happy with enough other aspects; especially when you're unhappy over your poor, unreliable track...
Face it. Track is thee most important aspect of this hobby to get right, for guaranteed pleasure from your RR..You can always update loco power that your not thrilled with and the same for cars...Track, once it's in you're pretty much struck with it this side of always chasing down problem spots. And it's not only electrical continuity. It can be track design issues, too.
My vote is to cut your losses, your frustrations, your coulda-woulda-shouldas and rebuild a new system with a well planned, logical, more 1:1 scale-like layout.. Think of this one as a learning experience and enjoy the pleasure of a new, better constructed design with bulletproof track...
But there's one aspect I'd need to learn about you: Are you into prototype ops (operations) or are you the kind who is happy watching them roll with, little other RR duties..? What is the experience you're wanting from running a train layout ? If you so choose to answer my questions, I/we can then give you, if you like, further important advice for going about the redoing of your RR...Also, it looks from here that your throttle/locos are earlier, analog, DC power.. If so, do you have any intention of going DCC ? Because once DCC is in, it can make running trains allot easier, realistic, and more fun than analog. But there is nothing wrong with remaining analog if you want....M
 
I have an area on my layout that I'm not totally happy with the results. But, its location and the detailing in front of this section means that I'll leave it alone and live with the shortcomings. At best, I'll do what I can to correct the problems and make this area run smoother. It's a small yard and visibility of the turnouts and track could be better and the small revisions are simply but time consulting to finish.

Starting over has its advantages and a modeler can correct and improve on design issues, scenery and wiring. But, it's usually the case that many modeler with make new and different errors in the redo and will not be happy with the second edition design of his railroad.

I though of starting over, but I hate to think of the expense I have in disposable materials and what I would have to spend to start fresh once again. New turnouts, bench work and wiring for a start.

KB02, I would make a list of what is occurring with the track problems and make those repairs or adjustments and determine what are the design issues are and then develop a program of track maintenance and even if you decide to start over the experience you gained by doing the track wok is very valuable.

What I can see from your photo is you are missing structures and industries on the layout to give the trains some purpose for their being there. Structures give a layout interest. Don't forgot layout lighting too.

I second want Mark said above about using DCC.

Greg

################
 
Yeah, the old toy power packs give a bit of a misleading appearance. I'm already running DCC and have actually started the conversion to Railpro (It'll be a slow process, but I'm liking the results so far). The "Inner Circles" can be switched back over the DC and are controlled by the brown cab, and the black one is just there to power the turn out switches.

I've always enjoyed just watching the trains run, but as my layout has grown (most of it is behind that wall), I've come to realize the limitations of a pure round and round loop. I'd like to add in some operations ability and get rid of all those 18r curves on the main line. If I could at least get up to 22r, then I wouldn't be as limited on the locos I can run, either. I want to keep the looping ability and not just run point to point, but I'd also like the trains to have some purpose if I feel like having a bit more fun with them, you know? The limited switching I can do now is something I've found that I am enjoying.
 
As others have said, its your railroad. I think it looks good for a first layout.

At this point, before I ripped the whole thing apart, I'd consider perhaps enlarging it a bit, and using the sections with the tight radius curves, a 'shortline,' or branch of a larger railroad. If you totally tear it apart, it could be a long time before you get something running again. these days I'd try and incorporate parts of previous layouts, where possible, to save time.

How much more room do you have? In a worst case, how about adding a loop which includes at leat 24" radius curves, so you can run larger equipment and cars.
 
Do you want to fix what you have, and maybe learn that you CAN do that, or would you rather start afresh, new plan, new ideas, new excitement, fewer missteps? I don't do much except fiddle with track geometry, usually disparities in rail height that cause derailments on curves.

Fiddling is part of the hobby. Things move a bit, alignment and rail heights don't quite match, and bad stuff begins to happen. I take an hour, experiment, ponder, and then soften the ballast and shim or cut or...whatever seems to fit the situation. I always win.

But, if the whole idea is dated, has mistakes you now realize have compromised your enjoyment, and you would like to start anew, then by all means do that. Just make sure to sit at the dining table with pad and paper after it's quiet one evening, and begin to compile that oh-so-important list of things you've learned, what not to repeat, and what your givens and druthers are. Think ahead....can you engineer some extra life into your layout by taking steps now to add some longevity? A prime example is the radius of curves; so many of us realize we can't have that nice new 6-22-6 steamer because your 22" curves won't work. Why, oh why, didn't I figure out how to get another two whole inches into my planned radius?

I harvested a whack of stuff, certainly all my commercial and hand-laid turnouts, a lot of flex track (took soaking in lengths of 4" diameter PVC tubing with an end cap to keep the fluid in, and took a lot of scrubbing and scraping), and all of my trees and structures. It can be done. I'm using the timber trestle from two layouts ago that I built from scratch.

Above all, you have to believe.
 
MHinLA said:
Selector, what is a 6-22-6 steamer ?!!
Click to expand...
Really, really big. ;)

I really like the short line idea and have been fiddling with SCARM to try and find a way to make that work. No luck so far. My problem is that everything I built off of this section was built off of what I had at the time. So the track enters one end of the 4x8' at 3" higher than the other. The better the idea gets, the more re-working of the existing layout needs to take place. Grrr...

I'll keep working.
 
Of course my 6-22-6 was intended to be one where we typically get a strong hankering to purchase a new offering, and so often they're just not going to fit on what we build. For me, it was a BLI J1 2-10-4, still one of my go-to favourites when I want to impart some variety or sentiment to the rails. Later, it was a Lionel HO Challenger. The last example for me was a Sunset Brass HO Canadian Pacific Selkirk, a 2-10-4 seen in my avatar at extreme left. The importer, Sunset, told the factory that it had to be able to negotiate 30" curves as an absolute minimum, but I know me best. I know I'm never going to lay excellent 30" true radius curves and not find a mistake. So, on my last two layouts, and solely due to this one engine, I built the minimum plus 10%, so 33" radius minimum, to account for my occasional mistakes. So far, so good, and I was very happy to take delivery of this wonderful HO scale steamer.

And if it killed me and BLI offered such a thing as a Whopper 6-22-6, I'd be all over it, even if I had to fiddle. :cool:
 
Unless you are bound and determined to tear it all down and start over, I would first concentrate on eliminating the problems with the track. Sure, it is nice to have larger radii than 18". But, within certain restrictions, it is possible to have a nice layout with the tighter curves. I have a folded dogbone layout in a 14' x 14' room. In order to allow some reasonably wide aisles, I had to stay with curves tighter than 22"R. In some instances I was able to go as wide a 20"R, using Shinohara sectional curve track (may not be available anymore), with 18"R and even 15"R inside the outer track. By limiting my locomotives and rolling stock to what works reliably, I can even get a Proto2000 E^A/B around the 18"R inner curve. The configuration of the three-axle trucks makes this easy. Some other three-axle diesels don't do well, and I have stuck pretty much to the 2-axle Geeps. My steam locomotives are mostly kitbashed, with center drivers blind and shimmed up off the rails .010". Even my Mantua-based 2-10-4's will handle 18"R curves, and for places where they just won't handle anything tighter, they are restricted, just as the real railroads did.
Good luck and stay well!.
 
Sorry. I still don't get what you're yappin' about, 6-22-6 ! Is this some made up absurd number of wheels to drive in a point about large steamers not negotiating your (what?) 20" curves ? What ? You make no sense.. The largest steam is a Big Boy; a 4-8-8-4. Why not use that as your criteria, if that's what you're getting at..Your context and syntax is goofy....But I climb off the deck plate here.....
 
trailrider said:
Even my Mantua-based 2-10-4's will handle 18"R curves...
Click to expand...
Wow! I thought I was doing good getting a 4-6-4 Hudson on my 18's!

MHinLA said:
Sorry. I still don't get what you're yappin' about, 6-22-6 ! Is this some made up absurd number of wheels to drive in a point about large steamers not negotiating your curves ?
Click to expand...
Right. That's the point in and of itself that he was trying to make. It's a "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" kind of statement. There's always something bigger/better than we may want. An elusive Unicorn, if you will. "Look what Joe has!" ("Joe" being the proverbial neighbor/friend/gal at the club/insert any other kind of relationship here), "I wish I had one of those..." He understands that, like Trailrider, I am mostly limited to Geeps and other 4 axle units and would like to be less restricted.
Without COMPLETELY tearing down everything that I have and starting from scratch, I know I'll never be able to run a Big Boy. But it would be nice to have a fleet of Dash-9's running my rails without the worry of derailment - just due to size - on every turn.

I think I have come up with a plan that not only fits within my space, opens the layout up to 22"r main line, incorporates operations AND a local branch line, BUT, will also make it easier to reach and work on deeper corner of my layout. I may have found the Holy Grail. More to come. Tring to sketch it up on SCARM...
 
Last edited:
My SCARM abilities are not the best, but here is my current layout:
49707276558_8ecaff456e_c.jpg

(Without scenery) :
49707276133_787d15de2a_w.jpg


So here's my plan:
Start by cutting the layout right down the center of the 7'6" length and pull the left hand side (as you look at it) away from the wall about 6". The mountain tunnels will also be moved forward about 3-6". This will allow a new track to be laid behind the existing one that will curve at a 22" radius and make it's way around the perimeter. This will be the new main line. A new bridge will be constructed and the river extended.

All the mish-mash in the middle will be axed and an aisle created. The bridges at the front will be either a lift out or duck under to allow easier access to back side.

The section along the right wall will be the industrial center and the track that goes from there down along the back will have a MUCH gentler slope down to the lower tunnel (currently at 4%+).

Should look something like this:
49707810891_e045352cf1_c.jpg

(without scenery) :
49708131577_1df45b3fee_w.jpg


Thoughts?
 
MHinLA said:
Sorry. I still don't get what you're yappin' about, 6-22-6 ! Is this some made up absurd number of wheels to drive in a point about large steamers not negotiating your (what?) 20" curves ? What ? You make no sense.. The largest steam is a Big Boy; a 4-8-8-4. Why not use that as your criteria, if that's what you're getting at..Your context and syntax is goofy....But I climb off the deck plate here.....
Click to expand...
Okay, so I 'yap' too much. I thought I had made myself clear that the 6-22-6 was a hyperbolic reference to a dream large steamer, one that nobody has seen, but if it were offered, some of us would want one. My goofy syntax aside...
 
I think I'm going for it. New thread coming soon. One question, though: For the bridges in the foreground, would you do lift out, lift up, or duck under?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top