i WROTE YOU A LENGTH REPLY YESTERDAY.  I discovered just this second it didn't post.  Going to church.  Will write back later.  I've got a lot for you to consider.  Stand-by please.

Dear Kyler:

Remember you asked for an opinion.  :-)

I don't know where to start.  First, you are BLESSED with a wealth of space that a majority of people don't have.  You have the opportunity to create a truly great model of a railroad.

I understand you are not a rivet counter.  Neither am I.  However, I having about 45 years in this hobby have experienced enough to tell you that 95% of everyone gets tired relatively quick of watching trains circle.  "All that's missing is the Christmas tree" are the words most often used to describe looping layouts.  My first 20 some odd years and 6 to 7 layouts looped.  I finally came to understand why I was so bored.  I wasn't doing anything, the trains were chasing their tails and my layout was "railroad USA" not supposed to be representing anything particularly, but giving a non-nonsensical presentation.

First, you must decide if you are building a: toy train layout, a display layout or a model of a railroad.  If its a toy or display layout go ahead and circle away.  These types of layouts serve no purpose other than to show off trains running or using the toy accessories.  These are fun layouts but won't keep people's interest for very long.

It sounds to me like you are interested in building a model of a railroad; even though you wrote about allowing "two trains to run relatively unattended."  I would advise you against doing that because that is exactly what I did for more than twenty years and six different layouts.  I got bored quick.

I'm going to a guy's house next Saturday who has an awesome display layout filling his huge basement.  He told me he rarely goes down there anymore and wants to change it.  Even as big and impressive as it is, all it does is loop.  The first time I ever saw his layout I immediately thought two things:  First, how in the heck does he reach the center to clean?  That thing is 14 feet wide!  God almighty!  Second, you've got that much space and all these trains can do is run a circle?  Really?

Guess how many times people who have seen this layout return?

The most odd thing about your Post that really caught my attention is you have MULTIPLE ideas as to what you want your layout to be.  (I'm assuming your definition of "High-Rail" is a ""REALISTIC APPEARANCE" with 3-rail track.)  

When people request assistance or opinions with a new layout I ask them:  What is the layout's name (What railroad(s)) is this?  WHERE is it located?  Why was it created?  What does it to do to earn revenue?  Does it still survive?

Any good layout must have three essential elements for long term success:  Plausibility, Purpose and Participation.  In other words, it's gotta be believable--even it completely made up, there has to be a purpose for it--is it hauling, frieght, passengers or doing something like???  And VERY MOST IMPORTANTLY, what are its Operators' doing?  The answer should NOT be standing there watching it chase its tail.

What I've written will NOT be received well and I got the angry hateful comments routinely, no big deal to me, because more and more people every day are going wise to what I'm sharing with you.

In YOUR case, it's GREAT that you have all of those awesome wonderful ideas.  Really.  BUT, you need to narrow it down to one idea.  It is far too big of a stretch to model the pacific northwest with the N&W or Pennsy.  It's not logical.  The scenery is entirely different even in the same era.  You won't be able to make the layout plausible because that is just too big of an area.  I've seen that done more times than I can tell you and most of the big plans turn into nothing but another "Plywood Pacific" dust-catcher.  

If you want to do an east and west railroad, I would suggest building two separate railroads on opposite ends of your basement so that one will not detract from the other. 

I'm like you and most others with era, I don't stay true to one.  My layout is modeled after the real rail line that runs through Marias Pass.  My layout is 2 scale miles long of non-repeating linear main line--a single line with passing sidings exactly as it is in real life.  I run anything and everything that has every run in the actual pass.  My Crew and I do attempt to run "like" trains together.  In other words, we don't run steamers with Amtrak Superliners.

CHECK OUT MY LAYOUT PLEASE.  There are several videos on Youtube.  My link is below my signature line.

I would highly recommend to you, with all that space, get your trains actually going somewhere.  You can do it.  Specifically, plan your track arrangment like two table forks with the tines of the forks opposite of each other and the handles touching each other.

Also, arrange your track line to travel through each scene only one time, and a each "end" of your main line, have a reverse loop, wye track or turntable, so that a train can be reversed to return to it's point of origination.  You would probably prefer the reverse loops on each end because that would give you a way to allow a train to run itself--you could control the other to "meet" the free running train.  IT IS MUCH MORE FUN TO ACTUALLY CONTROL THE TRAINS!

Lastly, all of my prior layouts, until THE GLACIER LINE looped.  I was pretty much the sole person having anything to do with the railroad.  Now that I've constructed this basement point-to-point (I too have reversing loops at each "End"), I have six other regular Crew members and about 5 to 6 more current visitors who have expressed interest in operating with us every other Sunday evening.  It is must more fun and enjoyable to share this hobby with a group of people, but most people get bored with circling almost immediately.  

If you want to send me your basement measurements, I'll give you a sketch for a track arrangement.  HOWEVER, you must tell me: what this railroad is, where it is and what its doing.

The track arrangement in New York City looks different than the Dakota Plains, West Texas prairies and Nevada desert.  Do you want a yard, two yards, no yards, main line, branch line,.........is it just a coal hauler, is it a logging railroad, is it standard gauge, narrow gauge, electrified?????????  

The model railroad design process is much greater than just fitting tracks to a space.  I'm stunned that you weren't inundated with loops piled on top of loops for your AWESOME space.

My advice: if you want a high rail track, build a model of a railroad and NOT a roller coaster, spaghetti bowl of track.  That has already been done over and over and over.............if you had a smaller space that is understandable but you've got a gold mine.  

Thank you for all the input John

That is alot to think about for sure. I have watched your videos and they are really enjoyable.  I really appreciate the input and will definitely take your experiences in to consideration when continuing the planning process.

Curious...how much area do you have?

Thx. for reading my rambling.

It is about 45 feet by 8 1/2 feet along the left side and then and then about 25 feet by 16 1/2 feet across the top and a 11 feet by 5 feet extension from the bottom of the of the 25 x 16 1/2 part. I've scaled it back some because I decided not to take up the entire space with O gauge.

I'm trying to envision to measurements you relayed.  I'll look at you drawing to try and figure it out. 

You are on the right track with 72 as a minimum and no ducking! 

Please, for you, keep in mind to keep all points within 30 inches of reach at a maximum.

Secondly,  if I had to do it all over again, I would use a 96 diameter curve as my bottom minimum curve. I never planned for 21-inch Passenger cars on the line. Now we've got them. I did not have to move any track or change any track. However, I did have to relocate multiple trees and one snow shed. The worst part about 21 inch long cars and a 72 diameter curve is the unrealistic appearance because the curve is too sharp for the car. I mean the car makes it through the curve but it looks more like a toy or a roller coaster than it does a realistic train route.

Kyler,

I had a list of things I wanted to do on a layout, in a way like you have.  You are blessed with a lot more space than me, but I am not jealous in the least.  I am happy with my space.  John and others helped me trim down my list, or at least force me into more realistic expectations.  It wasn't hard.  I knew my list was long.  I like John, have had several layouts in HO and N.  This is my first O gauge layout.  If you want to take a look at how we worked out some of those things take a look at my topic. 

New O Gauge Layout in Under 144 Square Feet

In my case, John drew out my true interests that have been on the back burner while putting our girls through high school and college.  Take a look at other topics on layout design and be honest with yourself.  Better to do a lot of thinking now than being unhappy with a layout later.

I'm looking forward to watching your progress, as we are starting together!

Thanks Mark, I've been following your 144 square feet layout. Patience during planning leads to greater success during building and operating. 

CMSt&P posted:

Patience during planning leads to greater success during building and operating. 

Well said!!

I've been thinking more about my layout and decided to work on a small section first. I came up with an industrial switching idea that is 16 feet long and 5 feet wide with a narrow 5 feet extension. One of the reasons for my railroad is to get the raw materials to the industries and the finished goods to market. Since this part of the basement would be the end of the line so to speak, I figure that I will start here and work my way out. I am not going to be able to purchase all of the track and switches at once so I think if I start small and work my way out, I'll be able tweak the plan as I go. 

A few additional details, I think that this will be set in the 1950's or 1960's in terms of the structures and cars etc. and probably spring time. The industries I'm still working on but I thinking about a brewery on the right side and a warehouse and tool shop on the left. 

As long as you are comfortable with this end fulfilling your overall goals, then why not get started?  Even if I thought my plan was very nearly complete, I would build sections at a time to not get tired of doing a lot of the same thing.  I am amazed at folks who are able to order enough track and lumber for a whole large layout at the price of O gauge track.  If they can they probably can get a price break.  I'm like you, I have to buy smaller bits at a time.

Make sure you can reach the track and switches.  If this board is 5 feet from the wall you won't be able to reach it without climbing on top of your layout.  DON'T CLIMB.  

Keep every point on your layout within 30 inches.  Especially switches where everyone has the most issues.  :-)

This part of my basement is pretty much set. It is under the stairs and next to the built in storage shelves so it is basically locked in. I've changed the design to be only 4 1/2 feet wide and there will be no track past 36" and no switch past 32". I'm pretty tall and I'm making my layout relatively low. I should not have any issues reaching the future problems. When working on it, I'll be able to walk all the way around.  

The more I think about it, the more I realize that what I like most is working on scenery. Operating the trains is fun but I'm always looking for more track to ballast, more grass to plant, more roads to pave and more trees to grow so I think that this is going to be the way for me to keep happy for a long time to come.

I like building scenery a lot too.  One exception; I find ballasting to be tedious.  Looks good, but tedious!  :-)

I don't mind the ballasting, but I'm very careful around my turnout points and machines.  I wish I had Ross Turnouts everywhere.  I really like the wood ties and being able to ballast between the ties.  On my Gargraves, with all plastic bottom, it can't be done.  I look continuity in appearance and the better looking places on my layout are where I'm using black cinder (Black silica sand) around Gargraves turnouts.

In the future as switches need to be replaced, I'm using Ross only. 

I just ordered some Ross #6 switches yesterday. Would it be OK to use a mixture of Gargraves, Ross and Atlas track? I have some of each laying around. 

You guys have been so helpful, I hope to have some pictures of my initial progress soon and maybe some YouTube videos

Take a look at this this link.  The topic has been closed, but is still viewable.  Ross and GarGraves should match right up.

Mating Atlas to GarGraves track

There is a minimal bit of difference between Ross and Gargraves in height.  The shape of the Atlas rails are different.  BUT, you can "match" them up...I believe Atlas sells a conversion piece.  Maybe?  Ross and Gargraves go together fine.  I have an Atlas turntable with Gargraves track "connecting" (lined-up) to it.  doesn't actually touch.

CMSt&P posted:

Would it be OK to use a mixture of Gargraves, Ross and Atlas track? I have some of each laying around.

I recently visited a layout that had sections of almost every brand of O Scale track; FasTrack, RealTrax, ScaleTrax, GarGraves, Atlas, Lionel O and Ross switches. He did this simply so he could show his customers each brand in action, though it's now just his personal layout. Obviously, some stood out visually, but others went together quite nicely, especially after adding ballast. The layout is quite large, so the sections of each were quite large. I didn't look too closely, but he simply butted the tracks up to each other, like John mentioned, where he didn't feel like making/using adapters. Compared to the smaller scales, O Scale equipment is pretty forgiving where joints are concerned.

Thanks everybody. I was thinking about using Atlas for the main line or areas that I want to look the better maintained. Then I would use GarGraves for sidings and branch line areas and use MTH Scaletrax for the industrial spurs and the areas that I want to look old and rundown. 

I purchased 4 sheets of Homasote on Friday and was thinking about a couple of ways about going for laying track. My first thought was to lay sheets of Homasote over the plywood and then for mainlines, put a roadbed on top of that and just lay the track on the Homasote for sidings. Then, I thought, how about cutting out the Homasote and using that as the roadbed? For the main line, I'll cut out 1/4" plywood to go under the mainline then out the Homasote under that and for sidings, just cut out the Homasote. So for main lines, it would be track, Homasote, 1/4" plywood and finally the table top or raised benchwork base and for sidings, I would just leave out the 1/4" plywood. Would that make sense? I think I would be able to save some materials and money because the foam roadbed is expensive.

Thanks again for all the help.

Looking forward to your progress. John C's advice is valuable. 

I used what has been called the cookie cutter method, which is as you describe cutting out the plywood and homasote so it is just under the track and any other flat areas, such as buildings, etc.  Then you can have it go up grades on risers screwed to your benchwork.  It helps make smooth transitions from level to grade and back.

Oh, another thing; I used heavier plywood than 1/4".  Perhaps with homasote 1/2" or 5/8" plywood with cross supports at 16" apart is overkill.  Of course the closer you cross beams on your benchwork are, the thinner the top needs to be.  Has anyone out there used 1/4" plywood with homasote successfully??

Progress has been slow but steady. I have a much better idea of what I am trying to accomplish. I've designed the bench work to be portable. I've been working on the first 28ft by 2 ft portion while figuring out the track design for section two. I have a sketch of the next section and was wondering if anybody has any thoughts on the track plan so far. This is the far end of the layout space so I do not have much room width wise and want to stick with the O-96 minimum mainline curve. The long straight at the top will be rural running through farm fields. The curved area will be a fictional mid west town that I'm calling Moose Junction. Moose Junction will have a passenger station and a few small industries as well as a main street. The track on the bottom of the plan going off to the left will be a branch line and will double as a yard lead for switching in the large yard will will be the next section of the plan of to the right. 

Any ideas,

Kyler

The Moose Junction yard design is coming along. I've been researching yard designs for some time and I think I have a good start. I'm trying my best to accomplish my goals of making the benchwork portable while allowing for operations and display running. Am I missing anything or did a screw something up without noticing it? 

I've attached an image with color coding for each part of the yard.

Red is mainline track 1, Green is mainline track 2, Yellow is the yard lead, Orange is the arrival and departure tracks, Blue is the yard body, Turquoise is the caboose track, Gray is the rip track, Purple is a runaround

Any suggestions?

You've got a good yard system, but I've got some suggestions:

In my freight days, we had both a receiving yard and a departure yard, and they would flank the bowl of the yard (your blue tracks) rather than being on the same side of the bowl. 

You could move the rip track to that white section at the bottom of the yard lead, and then put in another track or two where the rip track is now. That could be your departure yard.

What you now call your arrival and departure tracks could be your receiving yard.

Or you could flip the purpose of these yards, depending on how easy it is to get a train in and out. But you definitely want your receiving yard on one side of the bowl, and your departure yard on the other. 

As the Rip track is part of the mechanical department's domain, it likely would be away from the operations section of the yard.

Hi Kyler, I have read your post with great interest, as I usually have difficulty in designing a yard, and in finding room for all of its parts. I too have recently picked up on all that John Coy has to offer. Train man has also added some very good sense and I will try to follow him a bit also. I was not familiar with the term "rip track", perhaps you or someone else could explain it's purpose. In any case this is a very interesting post, good luck with your layout, I will be following this post. Thank you for posting your progress. Rich