Layout Advice/Opinions

For help or ideas, start by attaching the AnyRail file, please.

Chuck

Hi Chuck,

Please find the Anyrail files attached below:

Couple of random thoughts.

I like how you've incorporated 2 reversing loops.  I may steal that for my layout which is also U-shaped. Thanks!

I like the L-shaped passing siding given size constraints, but it eliminates possibility of having 2 mainlines. Have you considered a 2nd mainline?

Personally, I've tried the bridge approach in the past and gave up for inconvenience. Makes for a lot of twists and turns, but I'm glad I did.

You have a lot of open space which I presume is for industrial or city.  If you go with just one mainline, might I suggest expanding the yard. You have enough space to have fun switching yard for building up and breaking apart trains which could be great fun for visitors....one running the trains on the main, one in the yard.

Last, reach? Will you be able to reach in the corners?

You have very little room to store trains on the layout, unless you want to treat some of that track as passing sidings. That might be good or bad (many layouts have too much track), but keep that in mind.

@raising4daughters posted:

Couple of random thoughts.
Thanks for the feedback, greatly appreciated!

I like how you've incorporated 2 reversing loops.  I may steal that for my layout which is also U-shaped. Thanks!
Thank you.  I felt like being able to run the trains in both directions through switches gives a lot more action and excitement to the layout.  I can't take credit for this layout as I am sure that I got the idea from someone else's I've seen but I am happy you like it enough to use for your own layout!

I like the L-shaped passing siding given size constraints, but it eliminates possibility of having 2 mainlines. Have you considered a 2nd mainline?
I had not really considered a 2nd mainline but I am not necessarily opposed.  I imagine that would be accomplished much easier with a different layout shape (which I am open to suggestions as well).  I do already have the switches utilized in the first layout so while I can certainly buy MORE track, I also like to use what I already have where possible.

Personally, I've tried the bridge approach in the past and gave up for inconvenience. Makes for a lot of twists and turns, but I'm glad I did.
Thanks, that makes me feel a bit less 'lazy' about not doing a bridge.

You have a lot of open space which I presume is for industrial or city.  If you go with just one mainline, might I suggest expanding the yard. You have enough space to have fun switching yard for building up and breaking apart trains which could be great fun for visitors....one running the trains on the main, one in the yard.
That is correct, I wanted to leave space for city and industry as I want to involve the family in the designing and implementation of some of those aspects.  I think expanding the yard further could be cool.  I have attached a shot of something but did you have any specific suggestions on how to expand the yard?

Last, reach? Will you be able to reach in the corners?
I have accounted for the ability to walk around the table in the dimensions so the corners will be no problem. This brings me back to a big question I had.  Should I be doing a square layout with this space vs a U-shape?

@BenLMaggi posted:

You have very little room to store trains on the layout, unless you want to treat some of that track as passing sidings. That might be good or bad (many layouts have too much track), but keep that in mind.
Ben, This is valuable feedback. Thank you.  I posted a reply above with a shot including a larger yard.  Do you think this would work?  I feel as if I should make the table a square, providing more area for yard, track, city and industry in the white space.

Building a relatively small layout always has tradeoffs. U shape layouts generally allow you to run wider radius curves if you 'bridge the gap', but then you lose a lot of space for scenery or more track (I went with the U so I could have 72" diameter mainline curves and run more scale size engines, plus I like the look of wider radius curves). A square layout would give you more space, but then you would need pop out sections to be able to reach things.

When I built  my layout, there were some things I wanted that helped influence what I actually designed:

1)At least one loop with 72" curves

2)Dual mainline (I love running where trains run opposite directions on the two lines

3)A small pier area where a docksider engine can "play"

4)An engine house that also has several storage tracks (I wanted a turntable, but didn't have the room)., allow for servicing, storage, etc.

5)Several sidings for industries.

6)Crossover between the mains

It sounds like your design was based around:

1)Interesting running, including being able to reverse the train

2)Having spurs for longish passenger trains being stored.

One big question I have, are you planning to run conventional or command control? It would be hard to run 2 trains in conventional mode, but this layout with command control you could have multiple trains going. You could be switcing the spurs while a train runs on the main, you also could have 2 passenger trains running where they "meet" where I suggested the passing siding, and one train goes in the hole while the other proceeds (as a thought).  You choice of control can influence the design of the layout IME.

As far as the second level goes, trying to connect them in a relatively small layout without huge grades is difficult (I have mused about a second level on my layout, that would be 'the city'....the only thing I could think of, barring some sort of long elevator like system, would be to run track "outside the layout", which would go around the layout several times while making grade; track would be supported on the supports for the upper level. 

I think a second level makes it more fun, but you may be better off where the second level is not connected to the lower one ie is independent.

@Juna posted:

@Juna, I like this third option the best, because of the increased yard size and the switching it would allow as @raising4daughters suggests. That said, the second layout is less busy and allows more locations to include a spur for industry, which would also add to the running activities. Would it be too busy if you included an industrial spur in the right lobe above? Would you have room to widen the right lobe by one straight?

I think that U-shaped and other layouts with reversed curves are more interesting than ovals. With the layout above, you can always add a bridge at a later date, if you were so inclined.

Here is one possibility that gives you an idea of what can be done if you are open to lift out hatches to access the inner part of the layout (shaded rectangles).  All curves are O72 except the wye and yard, which are O36.   While you can't turn a larger engine you at least could run one.  Regardless, you get some idea of the expanded possibilities if you use access hatches and a wye to turn a train instead of a reverse loop.

I also assumed Fastrack since that's what you have pictured.  There's definitely room for a second loop and elevated section if you use smaller diameter curves.   Regardless, I highly encourage you make a list of givens and druthers.   Givens are things you can't change - ie space, and druthers are those things you want.  Your givens will drive the druthers you can have on your layout.   It's all a tradeoff based on what you want.

Congrats on getting approval from the zoning board (your wife) on the basement space!

-Greg

@bigkid posted:

Building a relatively small layout always has tradeoffs. U shape layouts generally allow you to run wider radius curves if you 'bridge the gap', but then you lose a lot of space for scenery or more track (I went with the U so I could have 72" diameter mainline curves and run more scale size engines, plus I like the look of wider radius curves). A square layout would give you more space, but then you would need pop out sections to be able to reach things.

When I built  my layout, there were some things I wanted that helped influence what I actually designed:

1)At least one loop with 72" curves

2)Dual mainline (I love running where trains run opposite directions on the two lines
I think this looks really great and would love to consider a second mainline but I'm not sure how to modify the existing track to accommodate that.

3)A small pier area where a docksider engine can "play"

4)An engine house that also has several storage tracks (I wanted a turntable, but didn't have the room)., allow for servicing, storage, etc.

5)Several sidings for industries.

6)Crossover between the mains
If I had two mainlines, I would ideally like them to crossover.

It sounds like your design was based around:

1)Interesting running, including being able to reverse the train

2)Having spurs for longish passenger trains being stored.

One big question I have, are you planning to run conventional or command control? It would be hard to run 2 trains in conventional mode, but this layout with command control you could have multiple trains going. You could be switcing the spurs while a train runs on the main, you also could have 2 passenger trains running where they "meet" where I suggested the passing siding, and one train goes in the hole while the other proceeds (as a thought).  You choice of control can influence the design of the layout IME.
I have a z4000 for power so I would be able to run some of my father in laws old conventional trains when he brings them but all of mine are new gen and I plan on controlling everything through a base3 when my order eventually arrives.  Until then I have and will be using the bluetooth app.

As far as the second level goes, trying to connect them in a relatively small layout without huge grades is difficult (I have mused about a second level on my layout, that would be 'the city'....the only thing I could think of, barring some sort of long elevator like system, would be to run track "outside the layout", which would go around the layout several times while making grade; track would be supported on the supports for the upper level.
I am coming to the conclusion that a connected second level is more of a would be nice, maybe next layout item.

I think a second level makes it more fun, but you may be better off where the second level is not connected to the lower one ie is independent.
I believe you are right about this and if I was to run a second level, disconnected would be the way.

@Juna posted:

I think this looks really great and would love to consider a second mainline but I'm not sure how to modify the existing track to accommodate that.

I have locomotives running in two directions with one mainline.  I have a large folded dogbone on two levels, so I can have several trains running on the 140 foot mainline.  My goal was to be able to run really long trains, so far 70 cars is the biggest one, but I didn't get a video.  I did get my 54 car tank train video...

@Matt_GNo27 posted:

@Juna, I like this third option the best, because of the increased yard size and the switching it would allow as @raising4daughters suggests. That said, the second layout is less busy and allows more locations to include a spur for industry, which would also add to the running activities. Would it be too busy if you included an industrial spur in the right lobe above? Would you have room to widen the right lobe by one straight?
Matt, I definitely like the expanded yard in the third but agree the second is much less busy and would allow more "content" to be included.  I had the third file open and quickly added a spur to the right lobe.  Let me know what you think. I am maxing out the space in terms of width so I have no room to extend that way, however I could extend the layout another foot downward (increasing space to 128"x108") if you think this could improve the layout.  I simply opted for the 8 foot depth due to standard plywood sizes

I think that U-shaped and other layouts with reversed curves are more interesting than ovals. With the layout above, you can always add a bridge at a later date, if you were so inclined.
I agree that without some of the beautiful mountains and scenery that folks create here, ovals can become quite monotonous and for sure, there is always the possibility to add a bridge down the road.

@Greg Houser posted:

Here is one possibility that gives you an idea of what can be done if you are open to lift out hatches to access the inner part of the layout (shaded rectangles).  All curves are O72 except the wye and yard, which are O36.   While you can't turn a larger engine you at least could run one.  Regardless, you get some idea of the expanded possibilities if you use access hatches and a wye to turn a train instead of a reverse loop.

I also assumed Fastrack since that's what you have pictured.  There's definitely room for a second loop and elevated section if you use smaller diameter curves.   Regardless, I highly encourage you make a list of givens and druthers.   Givens are things you can't change - ie space, and druthers are those things you want.  Your givens will drive the druthers you can have on your layout.   It's all a tradeoff based on what you want.

Congrats on getting approval from the zoning board (your wife) on the basement space!

-Greg

Greg, Thank you for the suggestion.  I love the idea of using o72 to run larger trains but I would like to use as much track as possible that I already have.  The zoning board has approved the site location but is still heavily scrutinizing the budget .  That being said, if I do go with the square layout, I might use your design as inspiration. Life is full of givens and druthers, eh?

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

I have locomotives running in two directions with one mainline.  I have a large folded dogbone on two levels, so I can have several trains running on the 140 foot mainline.  My goal was to be able to run really long trains, so far 70 cars is the biggest one, but I didn't get a video.  I did get my 54 car tank train video...

Wow John, that is awesome!  I believe that one of my early iterations of the layout on the floor was a folded dogbone in an L-shape.  I will have to see if I can find the anyrail file and layout.  Just curious, but what is your layout size?  There is a larger side of the basement where I could move the layout and would result in roughly 14' x 20' of usable space but would require me to find a new home for my pool table .  I am not ready to do this now as it gets used a fair amount when we entertain guests but would be open to it down the road as long as my son keeps his interest in trains as he grows up.

EDIT: I found the old file and have attached a shot of it.  The folded dogbone would allow 2 trains to run simultaneously and also reverse direction.  Should I try to expand and modify this design vs the other? Maximum table footprint is fixed but the shape is not.

My main table you see is 24 x 12, I suspect in your space you could do a version of a folded dogbone.  What I liked about the plan is it offered a lot of variety in terrain, and with one long track, I could run several trains or one really long one.  I also have three other smaller loops that are independent from the mainline.

Red is the grade and second level, all the other track is on the main level.  Obviously, the freight yard and the three yard tracks that are in pink extend outside the 12x24 envelope.

@Juna posted:

There is a larger side of the basement where I could move the layout and would result in roughly 14' x 20' of usable space but would require me to find a new home for my pool table .  I am not ready to do this now as it gets used a fair amount when we entertain guests but would be open to it down the road as long as my son keeps his interest in trains as he grows up.

That sounds a lot like me.   Though I suspect you are a pool player.  I was not but when I bought my house there was a very nice pool table there and when I commented on it the agent said the owner was willing to let it go for a great price (which was true).  As such, I bought it as friends and family liked to play.   Of course, a point in time came where I had the means to build a larger layout and I didn't think twice about getting rid of the pool table which was easier to sell than I thought it would be.

-Greg

I had a really nice pool table in my last house, I bought it when we built the house.  Although I used to be a pretty avid pool player, as the years passed it got less and less use.  When we sold the house 30 years later, I sold the table with it.  I'll get more use out of the layout in this basement.

@Greg Houser posted:

That sounds a lot like me.   Though I suspect you are a pool player.  I was not but when I bought my house there was a very nice pool table there and when I commented on it the agent said the owner was willing to let it go for a great price (which was true).  As such, I bought it as friends and family liked to play.   Of course, a point in time came where I had the means to build a larger layout and I didn't think twice about getting rid of the pool table which was easier to sell than I thought it would be.

-Greg

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

I had a really nice pool table in my last house, I bought it when we built the house.  Although I used to be a pretty avid pool player, as the years passed it got less and less use.  When we sold the house 30 years later, I sold the table with it.  I'll get more use out of the layout in this basement.

Oh my, well it sounds like getting rid of the pool table is going to happen eventually unless we move to a larger house lol.  At this point in time the few nice pool halls we used to frequent have closed with just a few run-down and/or shady spots still open so perhaps in a few years.

I was playing around with the layout and have elected to make the table shape a donut of sorts.  I have included a shot and files of what the final layout would be and then what I will build in the interim with my track parts on hand.  I think I would need 4 more switches for that "completed" layout so I will want to delay that purchase a little while if possible.  I was only able to place 1 spur for industry, does anyone have suggestions on how I could accommodate a second spur for industry on the right side of the track? Perhaps a larger radius spur with one 'north' and one 'south' making the spur more perpendicular vs parallel to the track?

A buddy suggested that I construct a hollow mountain of sorts to cover the hole and act as a sort of lift out access. Seemed like a pretty cool idea to me... maybe include to tunnel as well? Has anyone done something like this before? Thoughts?