Thoughts on bench design for new layout

[ianacole]

I'm contemplating revamping my layout. The current design is the first image below. The outer mainline is 24", inner line is 22", and 18" interior. I've been slowly working on pulling together a set of D&RGW California Zephyr cars. I have a PA-B-A set in Aspen Leaf (finally found one), and 5 BLI CZ cars so far. Even on 24" radius curves they operate less than ideally (I have one car that struggles on the #6 turnouts). I'd like to create a layout that allows me to run 32" or even 36" curves, and seeing some of the great feedback that StienJr and others have provided on these forums I thought I'd post my thoughts and solicit some feedback.

Current design:

10'x5' with 4'x4' extension in the NE
I have access all the way around
All #4 and #6 turnouts
As stated above, 18", 22" and 24" radius curves
The roundhouse I have is larger than what's shown there.

With shifting some space, I come up with the following givens and druthers:
G: ~11'x10' space
G: for the space above, west and north edge against a wall
G: access to south and east edges from outside layout
G: HO scale
G: Oddly, I don't desire a great deal of switching, I'd like a little, but I enjoy watching trains go around. Maybe some operations with sidings and waiting for passing trains...
D: CZ passenger train with curves large enough to look decent
D: Steam and Diesel
D: 130' Walthers DCC turntable
D: Walthers Modern Roundhouse
D: Passenger station (currently have DPM Gold Coal River Station)
D: New River Mine area - in SW corner, with 3 tracks, mainline can run through mountain/tunnel behind it
D: 2 mainlines would be nice, but if I need to collapse 1 line in places that may add some operational interest
D: have some other trackside businesses (Freight warehouse, grain warehouse, sand shed, water tower, car shop, Allied Rail Rebuilders, Midstate Marble)
D: Change of elevation would be okay, but not necessary

So, what I came up with as a start to redesigning the layout is below. The questions I have about it are:

- is the space in the center sufficient for comfortable movement (1' squares)?
- is the "island" on the southern edge adequate for the turntable and the representative roundhouse?
- would it be better to access the turntable from the south, come in by and through the car shop there (Co-3040)?
- would it be better to offset the sizes of the tables, like make the north and west edges 18" instead of 30", allowing me to extend the turntable area up by another 18", and maybe deeper.
- is 30" too deep on the N and W edges as it is?
- am I thinking too conservatively, is there a different base configuration I should consider, perhaps a triangle or D shape?
- or, do I continue with the plan that I have, track is down and I'm starting to wire in the switch machines, and wait until I can wear my wife down for more room?

I look forward to your thoughts and suggestions!

Thanks!

Ian

 

[ianacole]

And following up on the two questions regarding the depth of the north and west edges, I came up with this:

 

[steinjr]

Let's start by defining the available space clearly. Is this a correct sketch?

What does the rest of the room look like?

Do you desire to watch the running trains run from the outside (i.e. to the bottom and right) - using the part against the top and left wall for staging (with a long duckunder and a mole hole for accessing staging)?

Or do you want to have a surround layout - where you run trains from inside pit -using perhaps a swing gate or lift-up to get into the center operator pit?

Or something else?

Do you want staging - i.e somewhere for trains to hide until it is their turn to run - so trains appear to enter the modeled layout from some direction - say east - move through the modeled scene or scenes and then leave the layout heading west?

Smile,
Stein

 

[ianacole]

Stein,

Thanks for the reply. You nailed the available space. I have 3 doors along the east side, 2 to closets and one an alternate entrance to a wash room - none of which need a full swing to access. So, 10' is the maximum space there. I could push the south edge to 12', if that would allow greater flexibility with the givens and druthers.

The initial thought was a surround layout, but I'm not set on that. I'm open to any style. If it is a surround, I would prefer not to block the view along the southern and eastern edges with a backdrop.

Hadn't given any thought to staging, but I certainly wouldn't mind. Staging could drop to a lower level or be hidden somewhere, along the east hidden by a city or maintenance yard scene with access from the outside, perhaps.

 

[steinjr]

How big is the entire room - is it actually 13 x 13 feet, or is it bigger?

One thing that comes across as a bit odd is that you don't want much switching - and yet you seemingly want 5-6 industries - several of them fairly large (a mine and an elevator), an engine terminal with at least some of the trimmings (sand, water, big turntable, big roundhouse, steam and diesel engines), a city, running through some elevations, double track main or passing sidings for long trains, wide curves for passenger cars.

The immediate reaction I get is that you are trying to fit in way too much for your chosen scale and available space. But maybe I am just reading too much into your words about running, passing sidings, elevation changes etc.

The kind of layout I think you are kind of describing would have worked great in N scale in your available space:

But for H0 scale, I think you probably will have to make some tough choices on what to exclude and what to include, or maybe change focus. Think about it this way - a passenger train with one loco and 7 cars is almost 8 feet long in H0 scale.

Just throwing out some random ideas. Time for dinner over here in Europe.

Smile,
Stein

 

[OCN Guy]

Reach being another consideration! Remember, you have to keep the deepest areas down. the higher your benchwork, the less you'll be able to reach across!
Stein eliminated that problem in his re-work suggestion, which I like a great deal.
some other thoughts, consider replacing all sectional track with flex.
remember for every turnout, you have to allow room for a nearby switch (low or high). That's something that's making me kick myself right now with my layout! it just means adjusting, but I like to get something set in my head and do it that way.

plan your work, work your plan!

It sounds like you've got all the right ideas... but Like Stein said, you're going to have to probably weed one or two ideas out.

 

[Motley]

I here ya Ian, I wish I would have gone to bigger radius than 24".

I'm planning to rebuild/update the main layout room, and will have no less the 32" radius.

I'm interested to see what you come up with.

 

[ianacole]

Mmmmm ... dinner in Europe ... I miss European food. I miss the frit stand just down the street from my home in Belgium. But, on to the questions, and thanks for the feedback.

The actual room is about 12.5' wide by ~25' long. My wife's scrapbooking, my leather book collection, my computer work station, and my workbench occupy the bottom ~13' feet. When the kids are gone I can move her to an upstairs room and I can take over the rest, but that's at least 5 years away.

As to the redesign, I'm not too far into the top layout that tearing it down and restarting isn't too painful.

N-scale may be ideal, but I'm far too invested in HO equipment.

My minimum of druthers is:
1. 32-36" radius for the CZ train
2. Mine somewhere
3. Turntable and roundhouse somewhere

I have a lot of building because I love to build. They don't all necessarily need to fit on the layout. I'm fine with "staging by hand" - adding/changing cars by hand rather than storing them in a hidden area. A couple of spurs to accommodate additional industries and the mine, and a couple passing sidings (is passing sidings redundant?) will add enough operational interest to keep me entertained. At least until I have the room to expand in future years.

Ultimately, if the decision is that my current layout is the best compromise of my givens and druthers, that's okay. I just wanted to consult the experts before I got too invested in the current layout that I wouldn't want to tear it down.

 

[Motley]

I think Stein had a great idea. You can do it with HO. And using 32" radius.

Just add a swing gate or drop down bridge. For continuous running.

Something like this

 

[steinjr]

I think Stein had a great idea. You can do it with HO. And using 32" radius.

Just add a swing gate or drop down bridge. For continuous running.

Something like this

The challenge is the sheer size of passenger equipment and the desired curves radii in H0 scale. Here is a train of two engines, 7 cars with 32" radius curves:

There just won't be room for much in the way of passing sidings etc - a full loop is only about 4 trains lengths for a train this size.

Smile,
Stein

 

[North Coast Railroad]

if he had below grade staging, couldnt he pull off continuous operations and not have the passenger train seem like it was taking up the whole layout.

Like a below grade Ballon Track on your firs design Stein Jr? so, essentially a folded dog bone below grade for staging and giving the train the illusion of actually going somewhere...then reappearing some time later.

I am very intersted in this thread, as I have a 13'x13' room which will be dedicated to my layout.

 

[ianacole]

Stein, thanks ... that doesn't look too bad. I can visualize a couple of spurs and a siding coming off the north edge, maybe the station along there. I took your base design and added a few things, my "paint" skills are less than stellar. Does this look like a decent approach?

 

[Motley]

Could you go down to 30" radius? I think that would be plenty big for the CAZ trains?

 

[steinjr]

Does this look like a decent approach?

You certainly can fit industries around the circle (preferably mostly up against the two walls - top and right in the sketch), and the lower left hand corner in the plan is where you should place the engine house - where it won't be up against a wall.

The turnouts drawn for the mining thing won't work as drawn, of course - angle is way too sharp - 45 degrees instead of 9-10 degrees or so.

You can do a twice around - at the risk of getting scenery kinda squished together.

But passenger traffic will be pretty domineering if you do as much as 6-7 (or more) passenger cars for your train. Shorter trains of 2-3 passenger cars will fit much better - but will not look very convincing as a transcontinental train.

But give it a spin and see how you like it.

You could potentially also do something similar to the N scale plan - but that would mean going down to 30" radius curves and having some access holes in the middle of the turnback blobs - which would still look great for freight trains, but maybe a bit tight for the passenger train:

Or just do a plain table layout, using "Bellina-drops" (curved sheets of Masonite or something to block the outside view of the turn back curves, allowing you to use curves that are acceptable for staying on the track, but ugly visually), and a center sky board/backdrop to split the table into two visually separated "view box" scenes:

Btw - the area labelled "scene 3" could also be used for two staging shelves - one above the other - one for east end staging and one for west end staging, giving you the option of running trains in a loop (on the main table), or from staging, around the main table (one or more rounds) and to staging.

Smile,
Stein

 

[otiscnj]

Instead of modeling something like the Rio Grande Zypher, how about a shorter passenger train like the Yampa Valley Mail? I think reducing the radius down to 30" is a move in the right direction, maybe even going down to 28", which is still much better than 22-24". Like everything else, layout design is a series of trade offs for most people. Which is moe important, a layout with more scenic features(roundhouse, coal mine, etc), with tighter curves, or a layout with wider curves, at the expense of a/some scenic feature(s)? Only you know the answer to that.

Although it is fairly expensive, and would have to be converted for DC/DCC operation, have you considered switching out your BLI consist, for the Marklin version? The passenger cars are shorter, but well done. Also the motive power of the Marklin consist is WP, which you could either set aside(or sell), and use your Rio Grande power instead.

 

[otiscnj]

Ian,

Here's another idea. Just an alternative, with a few sample buildings thrown in, for the sake of arguement.

Emphasis was to get a longer mainline run. Add a passing siding in the area of the coal mine. Also crossing at grade, behind roundhouse. Access hole has a hillside attached. Also includes car shop/backshop facility. SERIOUSLY consider curved switches to conserve space-Peco large radius. Plan is with Atlas #4 and 6's.

Bottom line-just trying to maximize space utilized/provide alternative trackplan compared to what's been posted so far. Does require access hole, however.

Came up with this in about 1.5 hours.

 

[steinjr]

Although it is fairly expensive, and would have to be converted for DC/DCC operation, have you considered switching out your BLI consist, for the Marklin version? The passenger cars are shorter, but well done. Also the motive power of the Marklin consist is WP, which you could either set aside(or sell), and use your Rio Grande power instead.

Märklin is also engineered to take pretty sharp curves - passenger trains work on 37.5 centimeter (14.7") radius curves. Longer couplers, couplers mounted on trucks instead of body, less underbody details so the trucks can swivel wider.

I used Märklin here for a temporary setup for my youngest kid a few years ago - the turnback blobs are 75 cm (about 30" deep):

I also think that the other plan Otis proposed is a possibility. It is a bit a crawl to get into the access hole, but it is not a given that you will need to use the access hole much. Not so sure I would have included the industry in the upper left hand corner though - maybe better to have that area as just scenery - less need for access.

Smile,
Stein

 

[Motley]

Wow! I really like Otis's plan also. That's a nice long mainline run.

 

[ianacole]

Thanks Otis! I really like the plan you pulled together. You all have given me some good ideas to think about...time to dust off my XTrack learning and see if I can incorporate the ideas you've all given me into something reasonable. I'll post up what I come up with here.

In the meantime, please don't hesitate to add any additional thoughts, comments, or suggestions

 

[otiscnj]

I like the bottom plan of Stein's 3 plans, above. I had a very similar layout back in the 90's, with 26" radius curves. Only thing was the penninsula had an oval and figure 8 trackplan. 24" aisle is kind of tight, but 32" is nice.

My extends into the room almost the full 12 feet, down to the closets. You could gain a wider aisle by making the yard tracks closer to the river. Again, it was a quick design. Glad people were positive about it!