First layout - Request for comments, suggestions, and advice

Hello All,

Always the anal-retentive engineer, I've been designing and re-designing my first ever train layout for a few months. I'm sure I'm breaking all sorts of rules, so I wanted to ask you guys for thoughts and suggestions in an attempt to uncover problems before I start committing track to the layout.

My interests are primarily building and modeling so, at this point, operation seems a distant consideration. I haven't run a train since I was 10 and that was a simple double oval HO with very little embellishment.

The setting is mid- to late-transition period along the Texas & Pacific in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. My sense is that this is not a big train area, so I have taken a lot of liberty with respect to prototypical aspects.

Specs:

- Texas & Pacific F7 A+B
- NCE Power Pro Cab
- Peco Code 55 track
- Turntable / Roundhouse required
- Table top is 44" high
- Backdrop is 24" tall

Thanks in advance. Any suggestions are appreciated.



Mozarelli

 

Mozarelli,
Three things come to mind: Reach is going to be an issue to the back, some of the curves look to be very tight and lastly the yard appears very tight and may not fit as you have it laid out.
What software did you use for doing the layout?

 

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your response. I agree that reach to the back (where the "hidden siding" is) will be a bit of a stretch. However, I have a long wingspan and can reach without too much trouble. I expect that won't be the case after I get structures on the layout, so I may need to pull those tracks toward the front.

All the curves will be 12" radius minimum - maaaaybe 11" on the inner curve at the Stock Yard. As I understand from my reading, 9 3/4" is the absolute minimum. Is this not true in reality? Being prototypical is somewhat important, but the building and modeling is more so.

When you say the yard is tight, do you mean that the tracks are too close together? I've planned for at least 1.5" center-to-center. If that is too close, I can eliminate one of the tracks or spread them out a little. What C-t-C measurement would you suggest?

I used Visio to do the drawing.

Thanks again.

Mozarelli

 

Depending on what types of locos your are planning on running, you may have trouble with an 11" curve. 6-axles become a bit finicky at that radius, but I have seen 4 axle-s handle it well. I can't testify to steam as I don't own any.

The trouble I see with the yard is your turnouts are at almost a 90 degree angle. That and the line leading up to it has a very sharp radius.

What are your dimensions for the layout (length, width, etc). This may help us a bit. Looks like a great start though. Keep in mind, the track plan is always subject to changes, so you can always adjust once you start laying track.

 

The aisle width between the horizontal and vertical sections looks to be only about a foot and a half, maybe even narrower. That seems to me a little cramped. Usually a minimum of two feet is recommended.

 

I hate to be a wet blanket, but I see some serious problems with the plan. Where to begin? For starters, it appears to have been designed without track planning software, and it would be impossible to build as drawn; for example, the wye (awkwardly located at the back, out of reach) is far too tight. There is no reason to use the absolute minimum curve radii possible; your goal instead should be to make curves as large as you possibly can. Having the main yard oriented at the back of the layout creates multiple access/reach issues. Indeed, the layout dimensions create reach/assess issues almost everywhere; I cannot believe your "long wingspan" will make it past 36 inches, which is considered the absolute maximum layout depth in order to allow adequate reach; shallower is better (don't forget buildings and scenery will get in your way later on). Also, the angled space between the left and top sides is much too narrow to afford easy access. As for the plan itself, there are multiple operational problems present, even with the goal of simply running trains. There seems to be no rhyme or reason for the multiple loops and crossings, which will create headaches as you attempt to run the layout, not to mention that their arrangement and appearance is entirely unrealistic. The yard design has a number of fatal flaws, and there are no sidings for the industries you indicated on the plan. I could go on, but I honestly think it's best to start with a clean slate.

I'm not being critical or judgmental; my goal is for you to have a workable layout that you'll enjoy operating, as opposed to just an assembly of track that won't work.

Here's something I tossed together just for the sake of discussion. Note in particular the layout dimensions (gridlines are 12"), in order to maximize access. The yard and most of the functional parts of the layout are oriented more toward the front. Track is Peco Code 55; minimum curve radius is 15". Since your focus is not on ops, there's no staging yard, interchange or other features typically found on layouts designed for operation. It should be relatively easy to build, and straightforward to operate.

 

Let me discuss the functionality of some of the alignments.
The “red line” connection just above the blue yard ladder in the upper right of the plan seems to have no other function except as an alternate route or short cut, as an alternative to trains running around the red curve at bottom of the plan. It is not long enough to hold a train. (It might be used as a spot to hold a switch engine...) It would perhaps allow a train to be held on the bottom red curve while a train runs continuously around the rest of the red loop. It does not form part of a reverse loop or help particularly with runarounds. So I don’t think that connection gives you very much for what it costs you.
What it costs you is forcing the blue yard into a very restricted space. You can hardly switch cuts of cars in the blue yard without blocking through trains on BOTH the red cutoff route and the red long-way-around-the-bottom route. It is often a good idea to have a lead track into a yard OFF the main line as long as the longest cut of cars to be switched.
Eliminating the “red cutoff” would allow a yard lead, and might allow a longer entrance to the yard and a longer yard.
I think you drew the wye at the upper right much smaller than it would need to be, and the curve below the crossing to the right of Grapevine much tighter than it would need to be. In other words, they are going to take up much more room than you plan.
I would question the whole inclusion of a Grapevine scene. I don’t think you can do much with it there either operationally or scenically. (Do you live in Grapevine, have a special interest?) I think it takes away from what you could do operationally and scenically with Fort Worth.

If I were modeling T&P in Fort Worth in the transition era in your space, I would have a double-track loop running all the way around the layout, much as your two lines— but both tracks staying at the same level... as one double-track route of a single railroad.
I would have almost all the double-track at the back of the layout as hidden staging tracks, at least one hidden siding or each of the two lines, for a total of 4 or MORE hidden staging tracks. The visible main part of the layout would represent only trains running through Fort Worth. The Fort Worth skyline would help hide the staging. The long front would probably be the best place for a long yard.
SOMEWHERE on the layout, I would want a representation of the Tower 55 crossing, not necessarily with all tracks working, but looking scenically like that recognizable important crossing. This might be put at the right end of the layout. A common trick would be to use the curved tracks of the Santa Fe connection as an excuse for the sharp end curve of your mainline loop. It would take me a couple hours to draw it neatly, but here is the same principle on both ends of a smaller layout (an ATSF secondary line in Ottawa Kansas). It models the appearance of a junction, even though the train does not run on the “correct track” right at this point.



For the stockyards, you ought to have at least one track for delivering stock cars of cattle and pigs, and at least one track for refrigerator cars to pick up processed meat. Here is an illustration of how I worked that in on a layout representing the MoPac in San Antonio, with the San Antonio stockyards.



Whatever works for you, we wish you Happy Railroading!

 

Two years ago I came back to this hobby andrebuilt a layout I had made for my son. At the time 'ops' were not important. I had threelines that all run independent of each other. It was fun! But it was boring at the same time. I had a non functional yard. And to short sidings. So. I had to rebuild everything again. Fun!!!
So here is my suggestion to you sir. Start with a small setup. Perhaps a 4x5 or 3 x6. Layout track for expansion. Because you will expand. Learn what you want as you play around with that project. Add on to it as you please. You will be much happier. And have fewer head aches
Just a suggestion. Lol! Don't be like and learn later you goofed up badly!

 

The dimensions are posted with the layout. In fact, I somehow managed to post the dimension drawing twice. If you can't see it in the original post, let me
know and I'll try to figure out what's wrong.

 

Your estimate is uncanny! It's actually 17 inches which gives me and the CFO at least 4 inches of room.

Does it change your opinion to know that this is not actually an aisle, but really more of a place to step in and get access to track locations? The depth of that step-in is 23 inches - only 6 inches longer than it is wide.

As mentioned above, I have a long wingspan and can reach everywhere on the layout except about 12-18 inches of the "hidden siding". I plan to pull those sections of track toward the front and place structure/scenery in the back to alleviate that problem.

 

Mozarelli,
As you have noticed the members on this forum are quite helpful and from what I have seen over the last year quite experienced.
I come from a family of 7 kids and we all developed long reaches in order to be able to grab seconds before someone else grabbed the last of the food but let me tell you, on the layout 30"s is the longest reach you want to deal with.
For curves, you want them as big as possible. 15" is the bare minimum and you should shoot for 18" and above and then later (before building) you can learn about easments and super-elevation.

When I decided to get into MRR about a year ago, I took the following approach:
1. Joined forums to listen and learn
2. Search for trackplans and critiques of same
3. Studied my available space
4. Researched Track Planning software (decided on AnyRail but there were 5 or 6 that I played with first).
5. Started a spreadsheet to track the items I would need, where to get them and what the cost would be.
6. Started budgetting the funds (to keep the CFO happy)
7. Bought books on BenchWork, DCC and various other topics.
8. Shared various trackplans for feedback
9. Started buying wood, cars, locomotives, glue, track etc etc etc
10 Happily blew my budget!

 

Hi David,

Down here in Texas, wet blankets are always welcome - especially in the summer!

Since you know I'm a train virgin, I'm sure you are being gentle with me :blush:!

To respond to some of your constructive criticisms:

I used Visio to design the layout for three reasons: 1). I already own it; 2). I know how to use it; and 3). when I checked reviews for track planning software, nothing really stood out as being so much more valuable than Visio that I was inclined to buy it. If you have any suggestions, you can send me a private message - unless that breaks TB rules or something.

Not that I'm arguing for keeping the wye, but I can easily reach that location. In fact, I took some measurements and found that I can comfortably reach 31 inches into the layout with minimal stretching/leaning. If I push it a little, I can reach 38 inches - even with structures at the front. I have included an updated drawing with the only access problem area and two additional constraints - a door and a table.



If I had to reach into the orange semi-circle at the top, I'd have to use a step stool and perhaps brace myself somewhere on the layout or backdrop. I cannot decrease the depth of the table because, in the beginning, the CFO talked me into using some 3 ft. modules offered by a popular scenics company - a decision I now somewhat regret, but that's what I have so I have to go with it.

I'm not using the abs. min. radius anywhere on the layout. I think the min. radius is 11" while the abs. min. is 9.75" - perhaps there is no real disctinction? I dunno...I have almost no experience with this. However, I understand and agree with your point and will post an alternative later that might address some of that.

Although it may seem so on the drawing, the yard is not at the back of the layout (in fact, my yard is about as far back as yours). I have included some photos that might depict the situation better.



You're right - there is neither rhyme nor reason to the track layout - except an attempt to be somewhat geographically accurate by placing Dallas to the right (East), Fort Worth to the left (West), and Grapevine in between them while including as much track as seemed reasonable (ha!).

I intend to add sidings for a few industries to the next iteration of drawings. I'm just having trouble coming up with industries that might have been found around here in the 50's and 60's. Cotton, cattle and corn are about all I know.

Now, to turn the tables (ha!) and discuss the layout you have proposed.

Perceived Problems:

I cannot decrease the depth to less than 3 feet because the supports are (generally) 3 foot square kits. I'd have to tear down everything I've built and either scrap all the support kits I bought and start from scratch or attempt to convert them into 3 foot X 2 foot(ish) squares. (Arrrgh! I knew I should have listened to the engineer in me rather than the nurse in the CFO!). Here is an overhead view of the underlying support structures.



Your design puts Fort Worth on the East end of the layout (it should be on the West end) and the Grapevine Depot right next to the Stock Yards (GV is roughly equidistant from Dallas and FW). I'm sure that is not important to most, but I just can't (perhaps don't want to?) get my mind around FW being East of Dallas. If there are words of widsom about getting around that, I'm open. One thought I am having is this: Put anything Dallas-related on the backdrop and move GV to the right. This will open up the middle of the layout to accommodate a longer yard (Assuming I can curve the yard around the back-left corner?).


BTW, the entrance to the room is right next to the roundhouse at a 45-degree angle facing the far corner (upper-right). I'd like to keep the roundhouse where it is so the first thing people see when the come in to the room is a dramatic scene. Does that make any sense?

I'd like to be able to start the trains and let them run with occasional changes in route. It seems like my design allows for more variations on that theme. (Probably, that will get boring pretty quickly though, huh?, and probably I have a reversing loop somewhere in there which I don't really know how to deal with.)

Lessons Learned/Great Ideas:

Longer leads into the yard look and feel better. They probably work better as well. (Is it acceptable for the yard to curve around that upper-left corner?)

My tracks are probably too busy (but it was fun to design it!).

I really appreciate the effort you have put into helping me learn.

Thank you.

 

Yes, of course.

I highly recommend AnyRail. It has a very low learning curve, and you can try it free of charge before buying. http://www.anyrail.com/index_en.html

The problem with using Visio is that you will quickly paint yourself into a corner because you won't have any of the proper dimensions and geometry of track components such as switches, and Visio will not prevent you from drawing track components in impossible arrangements, not to mention there is no good way to manage curve radii. While track planning software won't automatically generate a good plan for you, it will at least prevent you from designing something unbuildable. What you've drawn cannot be built. Just compare your drawing to the plan I posted--look at how the switches are arranged, their dimensions and angles. All of the components in my plan adhere to Peco Code 55 track with great precision.

I strongly recommend dropping the wye, for multiple reasons: first, in order to incorporate a wye into the plan that's serviceable, it would be substantially larger than what you have drawn. A wye will suck up healthy amount of layout real estate just to maintain reasonable curve radii. Plus, as a beginner, you'll want to avoid reversing loops, as they can be tricky to wire, and a wye automatically creates a reverse loop. And finally, it does nothing to enhance the operation of the layout--indeed, just the opposite; it can create something of a mess.

Ah. Since that wasn't made clear at the outset, I envisioned an opportunity for a clean slate. Oh well.

You will learn over time that it's not always possible to get everything you want out of a plan; we are always making compromises in order to design something workable. Also, it's easy to fall into the trap of always facing North when thinking in terms of East and West directions. What happens if you face South instead? Try viewing your layout from a different perspective.

I see nothing about the plan that necessarily locks in the East/West orientation. So I suppose it's easier for me than for you to simply say East is West and West is East--especially when you have a closed-loop mainline. Again, I'll reiterate, compromises are a virtual necessity in model railroading.

I can see I needed to be more clear: note the orientation of the yard throat. All of the switching/coupling/uncoupling action that takes place at the entrance to the yard would, in your plan, be smack up against the backdrop. This may not seem like an issue "on paper," but it will become a major pain in the butt as soon as you start trying to use the yard, and especially when you have your first derailment. You may have a good long wingspan, but when your shirt sleeve snags some freight cars, you'll wish things were easier to reach. One goal in track planning is to keep as much of the layout's functional parts (as in switches, sidings, etc.) as close to the layout front as possible.

Generally, 15 inches (except perhaps for industrial switching districts) is considered a minimum desirable radius. This will vary according to personal preference (as well as available space, of course), but the overriding goal should always be to use the largest radii possible. And yes, there is a big distinction between 11 and 9.5 inch radii: very undesirable versus almost unusable.

If it were me, I'd not be so concerned about what people see when they come in the room as having a plan that's sensible and supports my operational needs. People will get a chance to see everything once they're in, and if you need some psychological justification for moving the roundhouse, then perhaps it's to save the best for last...

A plan that has no rhyme or reason is not going to look very convincing, and it'll be a small nightmare to operate. Yes, your plan has a reversing loop, as well as multiple crossings and other features that will make it difficult to operate, even when you're paying attention. KISS should be the rule: keep it simple, and for multiple reasons. For starters, it'll be a lot easier on you as a beginner to build a simple, straightforward plan. It'll be easier to operate as well. And if you think that a plain closed loop may be boring, check out some of the smaller layouts created by veteran modelers. Some of the very best layouts are very simple; the setting you create around the plan can do a good job of adding a lot of interest. Plus, over time, you'll likely want to break the roundy-round boredom with switching and other operations. If the plan is designed well from the start, you'll have the option of adding new features in the future, such as more sidings for industries.

Yes, the yard can be curved around the corner, but that won't make it more accessible or easier to operate (in fact it could make it harder). And yes, your track plan is not only too busy, but has no roots in reality. Not to be mean, but it has all of the earmarks of a classic Lionel setup, with tracks running every which way, all parallel to the edges of the layout, with impossibly tight curves and so forth.

The bottom line is you need to be happy with your layout, so don't feel as if I'm trying to force something on you. At the same time, when you ask for help, I'm inclined to do the very best I can to steer you in a direction that will not only make your life much easier, but result in a layout that will look as good as it runs. And because of that, any other plans I might offer will tend to look quite similar to what I've already posted, because unfortunately there is nothing from your original plan I'm inclined to keep. I will say it was good that you posted the image showing the base support modules; I'd be strongly inclined to cut back what you have to meet those boundaries. You may not think so now, but I believe in time you will be thankful you did.

 

Here's a plan that (IMO) offers a great deal of potential interest, with some dramatic scenes, and at the same time makes best use of the space.

 

Gee professor Dave! Where were you on my layout plan?? Don't worry Mozerelli. We are not picking on you. We are all trying to give you some awesome advise. When I first say the plan. I thought it was lionel myself. Take your time and consider all the advice you have been given. You will have more fun. And remember. You asked all up 'mad' men and women for advice!!!

 

Thanks for the guidance!

Mozarelli

 

What a great idea! I hadn't considered expanding as I go. Hmmm. Good, it is.

 

I even have the blown budget well in hand!

Thanks Paul.

 

David, how did you do that Quote-Reponse, Quote-Response, thing above?

I am starting on a new layout with elements of wisdom from the forum. I'll repost for more input.