The H&W spaghetti bowl


T

t_wheeler

New Member
It's fitting we're having spaghetti for dinner tonight....

Hi everyone, I am a longtime armchair modeler (going on 30 years now), with a little experience in laying real track and running real trains. About to turn all that reading and planning into something real. I'm getting older, and the kids are getting older, and -- well, I want to run trains and pass on my love for railroading to them!

So with that introduction, I present the H&W Spaghetti Bowl, a layout whose givens 'n druthers are largely driven by the space available (a 5 by 9.5 foot table) and what the kids want to see. (So yeah, we're not talking much realism or prototype operation here. However, I'll be darned if I give them everything they want!)

This is a real spaghetti bowl though. There are 4, count 'em again, 4 layers on this thing: staging, lower level reverse loop, mainline and mid-level reverse loop, and the mountain division. Total elevation change is 12 inches with a maximum grade of 2.8% (on one section), minimum radius is 18".

I'm attaching the track plan as a series of PDFs and an XtrkCad drawing. This is my first time using XTC, and this is a first draft. A few notes:

- The blue line is the (double-sided) backdrop. The narrow sections on the bottom and right will be mostly countryside and for the most part only the mainline track will be visible here. That's "my" part of the layout, where I get to do things at least somewhat realistically.

- The turnouts for the staging ladder and yard are horrible. You're welcome to have a go at fixing them -- I'm just getting started with XTC and am no good at laying out turnouts.

- We need a few more sidings for industries. That will come in the next revision, once the main track plan is settled.

For now, I have one question: can this thing be built and work reliably? Regardless of what the kids want, what we build has to be 99.9% reliable or it's going to end up frustrating all of us. Are there major operational problems with this plan? Other than max grade and min radius, and track separation minimums, I've kept in mind the need to be able to reach every piece of track if there is a derailment or problem. To that end, I'm planning to operate for several months before scenery construction starts in earnest; and any trackwork not visible once scenery is in place will be Hand-of-God accessible underneath the scenery through holes in the benchwork.

Speaking of which -- the benchwork is 5/8" plywood with 2x4 framing lumber as girders (20" spacing) and legs. We built it on the back patio over Christmas break (minus the legs) and hauled it upstairs.

Alright, tear into it folks....

Thanks and regards,
Thomas
 
I'll start things off by saying I like it. Unfortunately, that is not a ringing endorsement as evidenced by my design here. People tell me I shouldn't do mine too, given it loops so much, is multi-level, and it needs to be modular for moving. So, it will be interesting to see how many and what kind of comments you get.

It is kind of hard to see the track because they overlap so much. For some reason I'm not able to open zip files posted here, so it will take a bit to look at the turnouts, etc. I'm pretty much new at all this, but if I see something, I'll be back.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DoubleDAZ said:
I'll start things off by saying I like it. Unfortunately, that is not a ringing endorsement as evidenced by my design here. People tell me I shouldn't do mine too, given it loops so much, is multi-level, and it needs to be modular for moving. So, it will be interesting to see how many and what kind of comments you get.

It is kind of hard to see the track because they overlap so much. For some reason I'm not able to open zip files posted here, so it will take a bit to look at the turnouts, etc. I'm pretty much new at all this, but if I see something, I'll be back.
Click to expand...

Thanks DAZ. Here are a couple of images that will help you sort through the mess, if you can't get the zip downloaded. The first image is the mainline and lower-level reverse loop; the second is the mid-level reverse loop and mountain division. I've left off the staging; you can see in the mainline image where it leads and see most of it in the original image of the whole thing.

Motley said:
It's OK for spaghetti on your plate, but not your model railroad.
Click to expand...

Motley, I understand if your prototypical sensibilities are offended. If it were "my" layout I'd do things differently. But it's "our" layout. I read in this months Model Railroader of a guy who turned his kids off to the hobby because he was a perfectionist. I said above I'll be darned if I give my kids everything they want on this layout...but at the same time I'm not going to tell them it's the "right" way or the highway!

Cheers,
Thomas
 
Looks good to me Thomas,

It's great that you, and the kids, can do this together. Looks like you have a tremendous opportunity for packing a lot of operation into a limited space.

I may just borrow some of your design features into my layout, if I ever get started on it.:)

I'm also sure there are others, much more experienced, that may offer constructive suggestions instead of just negativity.

I'm into this for the fun aspect so won't be dissuaded by the "rivet counters" as I progress with my own layout.
 
swampsavage said:
I'm also sure there are others, much more experienced, that may offer constructive suggestions instead of just negativity.

I'm into this for the fun aspect so won't be dissuaded by the "rivet counters" as I progress with my own layout.
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, good luck with that. I'm in the same boat and have had to "whine" a few times to get folks to comment. For the most part though, the comments have been helpful, even the ones that suggested I chuck the whole thing and start over. :)

I am making some changes to mine based on the "rivet counters", as you call them, but my basic design is still intact. Just be careful not to ignore some good advice, even if it doesn't appear to be good at first. And always keep thinking and looking. I've made several changes just by thinking about what someone said, not what they suggested.

As far as this design goes, it's not going to be an easy construction. There are some similar designs in the 101 Track Plans book, this looks like a combination of a couple of those making it that much more complicated. For example, it will take some planning to make sure the supports for the upper levels won't interfere with operations below, specifically in the staging area. There are an awful lot of tracks above that area needing support and I'm not sure there is room for such supports in the yard below. Supports are usually 1x4s placed crossways so they support the width of the roadbed above. That for sure won't be possible given the spacing of the tracks in the yard below. I'm no expert though, so this may end up a non-issue.

The other thing that bothers me a little is the backdrop. It appears to be too close to tracks in some areas, but it's hard for me to envision it's exact location and design in the drawing. I assume it will wrap around things where it needs to and have cutouts elsewhere to let trains pass through.
 
DoubleDAZ said:
As far as this design goes, it's not going to be an easy construction. There are some similar designs in the 101 Track Plans book, this looks like a combination of a couple of those making it that much more complicated. For example, it will take some planning to make sure the supports for the upper levels won't interfere with operations below, specifically in the staging area. There are an awful lot of tracks above that area needing support and I'm not sure there is room for such supports in the yard below. Supports are usually 1x4s placed crossways so they support the width of the roadbed above. That for sure won't be possible given the spacing of the tracks in the yard below. I'm no expert though, so this may end up a non-issue.

The other thing that bothers me a little is the backdrop. It appears to be too close to tracks in some areas, but it's hard for me to envision it's exact location and design in the drawing. I assume it will wrap around things where it needs to and have cutouts elsewhere to let trains pass through.
Click to expand...

Good point about track support. The scenery above the staging will need some serious support too. I may have to shift the staging to fit in vertical supports -- or even eliminate a track of staging.

As for the backdrop, its location and the location of the trackwork that goes through it is not set in stone yet. Also, I am planning for the scenery there to be high enough to accommodate the tracks -- I want to avoid backdrop cutouts if possible. (They're just not prototypical...*cough*...not that anything on this layout is....)

Cheers,
Thomas
 
One thing that may have helped would have been to draw each of the 4 layers separately, using the built in layers on XtrackCad. I only have three layers on my layout, but when they are viewed one on top of the other, they are hard to distinguish from one another.

I would also have removed the height designations from the drawings. That too helps to read it.

In my mind, there is nothing wrong with having a "bowl of spaghetti" for a track plan. Especially with children around. They don't care about prototype operation and such. They just want to watch the trains run and not always the same route. This looks like and seems to be a fun layout. Right now this one is for the children. There's plenty of time for a "serious" layout later. In fact, if they have fun with this one, they may very well be the ones to tell you when its time for the serious one.

Just build this one for you and the kids.
 
t_wheeler said:
If it were "my" layout I'd do things differently. But it's "our" layout. I read in this months Model Railroader of a guy who turned his kids off to the hobby because he was a perfectionist. I said above I'll be darned if I give my kids everything they want on this layout...but at the same time I'm not going to tell them it's the "right" way or the highway!

Cheers,
Thomas
Click to expand...

Hey Thomas, :)

That's a practical attitude... because you understand that a model train layout is not an end in itself, but serves a purpose greater than itself...

...and that's to have fun doing things together with your kids.:)

Greg
 
If you want to model a busy big city type railroad, lie Chicago, New York or Pennsy, then this would be the right track plan for you! Think of perhaps tall skyscraper buildings, factory buildings (some with broken windows and shut down years ago...)... dirty, nasty, grimy... neon signs...

Wow, I'm having fun just thinking about it!

OR... do the Jetsons! Futuristic buildings with Raymond Loewy style trains!
 
Hi Thomas,

I warned you not to get your hopes up for too many comments, sadly it looks like I was right. :( I do like the Jetson's motif suggestion though. I was thinking Mad Max meets Old NYC. :)

Anyway, I'm still interested in your progress and any changes you've made since your OP. Since I can't open the zip files, I'm trying to find time to re-create the design in XTrakCAD manually, just haven't gotten around to it yet. For some reason, this design appeals to me and I want to keep it around in case I switch from N-Scale to HO or decide to do a 2nd layout. I'd also like to take a deeper look at it by playing with some trains in XTrakCAD. To save me some time, I don''t suppose you'd email me the xtc file if I PM'd you my email address, would you?
 
Thanks everyone for the comments, I really appreciate them.

CJ - In the zip file I have images of each layer -- I didn't want to "pollute" the original post with them all, but I guess people don't want to download a zip file...which is understandable.

OCN, that's an idea that I've known about for a long time, and I knew before I drew the first curve in XtrkCad I'd want one. And I agree that a city theme is a good theme -- but I want some countryside/hills too, and that's what the backdrop is for, to separate the two areas so it doesn't jar the senses when you look at it.

DoubleDAZ, sure I will be happy to send it to you...PM me. I've made some changes since the original posting (partly just learning XtrkCad, partly refining the plan).

Best,
Thomas
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top