This is my first design, so I welcome lots of comments and advice. I've collected engines and rolling stock for over 40 years, but never built a layout. Now with available time, finally, I'm ready to start. I will be using a rectangular 10'x4.5' platform. My equipment is N Scale. I plan to run my Challenger and Big Boy locos on two outside ovals. Can I get away with using 19" radius curves with those engines? I've been told that I should use Code 80 track because of my older equipment. A picture of my first attempt at a layout design is attached. Please comment. Thanks!
I'm not going to be a lot of help but I can say if you are using older loco's, code 80 is the way to go unless you want to reduce the flanges or replace the wheel sets on those that hit the ties. BTW, that is sure a lot of track there
Greetings MrWCF, welcome to TrainBoard! For first time layout builders I like to take things away from the drawing board for a week or two in order to compose a better understanding of what the goals and requirements of the layout are to be. Instead of laying out track for now, take a week or two and simply create 2 lists, one for Wants, the other for Needs. It might sound pointless at first, but I assure you a good 90% of people who heed this advice end up with a layout 1,000 times better than those who dont. So what are these lists? Quite simply, the Need list should include anything and everything you NEED your layout to incorporate. This could be absolute needs, such as the code 80 track, or preferential needs, like an extreme desire to include a roundhouse/turntable. It could be switching scenarios, specific scenic accents, era, region, buildings, equipment to operate, anything you can think of. The Want list is similar to the Need list, except that the items on the Want list are more fluid. It should include anything you'd enjoy on the layout, but would not be heart broken if there is no possible way to incorporate the item. Again, consider all aspects you can think off. Once you have two sizable lists complete, then you can look at your allotted layout space with a better perspective. Instead of designing elements in an unguided manor, the Wants/Needs lists will act as a set of guidelines for the design. You can simply start at the top of the Needs list and check the items off as they go into the design. You'll quickly see how things merge together to form a more unified and realistic result simply by trying to connect the items on these two lists. Anyways, I feel as if I'm taking on the tone of a preacher. Take a day or two, or 7 and consider every possible aspect of your layout. If you absolutely love it, put it on the Needs, if it would be cool, put it on the Wants. If you then come back and post those two lists, the many experienced track planners on TrainBoard will be more than happy to offer design help. Once again, welcome to TrainBoard!
Welcome aboard! I will pretty much echo what Mark said. Figure out what you want to do with a layout before sitting down to plan it. To answer your question about curves, yes 19" radius curves should be sufficient to handle the largest locomotives in N scale. I would also recommend code 80 track with older equipment. I am concerned about a 4.5' deep table, is the layout going to be against a wall or will it be a walk-around? The latter would allow you to reach all sides. One last consideration. As it is currently, your layout is what we call a "spaghetti bowl" - meaning there are tracks everywhere. That's not necessarily a problem, but more often than not less is more when it comes to designing a layout.
That central "yard" in the middle of the layout is not a good idea as the tracks are quite short and won't hold too many freight cars per track. You'll spend a lot of money on those switches yet only short lengths of track are attached to them. It looks like you are trying to cram the maximum on yoru layout. That's not a very good idea among other things where will you put the scenary?
Response to Helpful Suggestions Thank you for your very helpful suggestions. They have helped me to clarify what it is that I want to accomplish, and that, in turn, has led to a second layout design attempt on my part. I welcome further suggestions and ideas! The elements that I consider essential are: 1. A 10'x4.5' platform, with easy access on all sides. 2. Code 80 track to accommodate my older engines and rolling stock. 3. No grades on any tracks so as to not hinder engine pulling power. 4. Two different track systems that utilize 22" or more radius curves for use with my Big Boy and Challenger engines. 4. One track system that offers numerous interesting direction changes through use of turnouts. 5. One track system that uses mountains and trestles to pass over the other track systems. 6. Lots of sidings to showcase my extensive collection of rolling stock. 7. A roundhouse to showcase my extensive collection of engines.
This is certainly more refined than the first design, however I still see several faults that will hinder your enjoyment of the layout. I see 4 completely isolated circuits of track. While this will allow you separate running on those lines, whatever you place there will be dedicated to that track unless you manually lift the train to move to a different track. I recomend at the very least, a cross over to connect all 4 loops, so that any train can get to any track on the layout by navigating a series of switches. There is still the "spaghetti bowl" cram of tracks happening. In the yard, you have 7 tracks in as many inches of space. at the bare minimum, I would make sure each track has an inch and a quarter between centers. An inch and a half will be better. You mentioned mountains and trestles but with so much track there is little space left over to provide such scenic elements. What I would recommend is to dial things down drastically. 10x4.5 is not terribly small, but it's not quite big enough for what I think you have in mind. Consider my next layout plan based on a 7.5x3.3' space (embedded below). As much as I'd love to hold tons of trains at once, I'm limiting myself to being able to operate just two trains simultaneously, one per main in opposite directions. I did not included much storage tracks, but I could certainly add more. The result I'm left with will be a small layout with the illusion of grand spaces, which you can somewhat perceive from my previz shots in my design thread. That is achieved by keeping the track::scenery ratio small. I wont be able to showcase my entire collection at once, however the collection I am able to showcase per session will pop much greater against the scenery rather than be lost among the crowd of other equipment. I also invite you to brows though my track plan album on RailImages for reference to other designs people on TrainBoard have come up with. Specifically look at the track::scenery ratios. Specifically on your recent plan, I would suggest removing the inside circuit and the outside circuit. Then join the remaining circuits together with a crossover or two. Remove 2 of the 7 yard tracks and space the rest accordingly. Finally remove the double yard ladder in the center by joining the tracks straight through. With that dialed down, then I would say you could go in and move the existing track around to achieve the direction changes you said you'd like.
Watson's plan looks like a great layout. I would not want to add much, but... A thing or two to add operation without overclogging... You have a LOT of trains, right? How about an interchange with another railroad or line that runs OFF your visible/modeled railroad... just a track that runs off to the edge of the layout. This is where another railroad leaves cars or even short trains to be run onto YOUR railroad. You have a connection with the outside world. On Watson's plan, it could be cut into the outside mainline on the "town" side of the layout (top of the plan) and run into one of the corners. A street crossing simulated with a rerailer would make an easy place to set cars onto the track. This "blimp's eye view" of by 2 x 3 foot Navy Base layout shows an interchange track where a track at the top of the plan swings off around the right end of the layout to run off the bottom edge. That is where switching trains from the mainline railroad (not modeled) leave cars to go onto the modeled Navy Base trackage, and pick up cars to go back. Another that could be added would be to have ONE industry spur of some kind on the side AWAY FROM the "town scene". Think of some kind of railroad customer that would be located away from town and handle one or two cars at a time. Modelers commonly think of mines, but there is not room for much of a mine. Gravel loader? Gravel UN-loader (for a highway construction project...)? I am suggesting to add no more than two switches... but Watson's is a terriffffffic plan already.
To add to what others have said, if possible, bring the yard to the outside of the layout and let the run around tracks go behind it. Otherwise the reach over to attend to the yard you will constantly be looking for oncoming through traffic. Annoying and potential for knocking over the running trains.
Plan 2 is better than plan 1. As display layouts they are OK, as operating layouts they would be horrible layouts. My suggestion is to forget worrying about having a "yard" yard and make a bunch of long double ended sidings that you can store a train on for display or alternate running. If you have room left over add some single ended "yard" tracks for storage /display of cars. Connect the various loops with crossovers so you can shift a train from one loop to another. One consideration is that by completely covering the entire layout with track, you have maximized the 'display" function, but scenic possibilities are minimal.
