Building a new 104 sq ft Layout 3-Rail O-Scale Track

ThomasT posted:

Hello everyone,

When one side and end of your layout table is up against a wall, what is an maximum acceptable width?

Depends on how strong you built your "table", or how far you can reach. When we built our layout, I constructed the benchwork framing strong enough so that 4 or 5 big adults could be up on top of the 3/4" plywood top at any time, laying track and/or doing scenery. As a result, the one big section that was up against the back wall, was about 12 to 16 feet wide. It was no problem getting up and walking, between buildings, on that area.

Have a great day,

ThomasT

The widest portion of my round-the-wall layout is 3 feet.  Most is 2 feet.  I used some triangular insets in the inside corners to increase the width so I could use larger O72 and up) diameter curves.  The depth there can be 4 feet or more, but the track is no more than 2-3 feet from the edge.

Jan

Most recommend keeping width to 30" to minimize any chance of not being able to reach something without having to climb on it to fix a derailment, clean track, etc. Some folks can reach further, so they go wider and some depends on the height of the decking. Anything above waist high reduces your reach. Others don’t mind using step stools or climbing on top to fix things, add landscaping, etc., so there’s no hard rule. I tend to think of the 30” in terms of reaching track, not thing’s behind it.

Hot Water posted:

ThomasT posted:

Hello everyone,

When one side and end of your layout table is up against a wall, what is an maximum acceptable width?

Depends on how strong you built your "table", or how far you can reach. When we built our layout, I constructed the benchwork framing strong enough so that 4 or 5 big adults could be up on top of the 3/4" plywood top at any time, laying track and/or doing scenery. As a result, the one big section that was up against the back wall, was about 12 to 16 feet wide. It was no problem getting up and walking, between buildings, on that area.

Have a great day,

ThomasT

 

Hello Hotwater,

Wow! This will be my first layout and will be inside my house so I do not plan on making it strong enough to walk on. I have a work table in the shop that is just over 3-1/2-ft wide and that is about my max reach. I have one location that the table could be 24-ft long and I was thinking about making it into a "dog bone" shape. On one end it could be 5-1/2-foot wide by 4-1/2' long for a turnaround for 0-54 tracks. Then reduce the width to 3-1/2-ft for 14-1/2-ft long and the other end the same shape and size of the first end.

Thanks for you help and have a great day,

ThomasT

Jan posted:

The widest portion of my round-the-wall layout is 3 feet.  Most is 2 feet.  I used some triangular insets in the inside corners to increase the width so I could use larger O72 and up) diameter curves.  The depth there can be 4 feet or more, but the track is no more than 2-3 feet from the edge.

Jan

Hello Jan,

OK, this is close to what I have drawn out in AutoCAD as I have described. I can redraw it and reduce the center portion down to 3-ft.

Thank you, have a great day.

ThomasT

If the benchwork table top is strong enough everything Hot Water said is true. I never thought 18 years ago when I built my layout, it would be such a struggle to climb & bend over. I'm only 63 & arthritis sucks! After 2 knee surgeries, back surgery & a recent hip replacement my 48" high layout is becoming a bit difficult, but not impossible to navigate. 48" is great to work under seated, as well as for storage, but a little difficult to climb onto. Crawling on your knees isn't fun either. My point, reach is also partially determined by height.

My layout space is 13.5' x 36' & I hope in a year or so, my next layout will be lower & walk through, with a 2' to 3' maximum reach. I intend to continue using the around the wall type plan for 3 sides & NO duck unders.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Most recommend keeping width to 30" to minimize any chance of not being able to reach something without having to climb on it to fix a derailment, clean track, etc. Some folks can reach further, so they go wider and some depends on the height of the decking. Anything above waist high reduces your reach. Others don’t mind using step stools or climbing on top to fix things, add landscaping, etc., so there’s no hard rule. I tend to think of the 30” in terms of reaching track, not thing’s behind it.

Hello Dave,

I had planned on making the table about 32" high just so that I could reach out to the 3-1/2-ft area but now plan to only make the long stretch 3-ft wide. As soon as my Loco comes in I will make a mock up table and see if I can work the 3-ft. One end will be in a corner but the other end is open except for the wall.

Thanks for you help and have a great day,

ThomasT

ironman1 posted:

If the benchwork table top is strong enough everything Hot Water said is true. I never thought 18 years ago when I built my layout, it would be such a struggle to climb & bend over. I'm only 63 & arthritis sucks! After 2 knee surgeries, back surgery & a recent hip replacement my 48" high layout is becoming a bit difficult, but not impossible to navigate. 48" is great to work under seated, as well as for storage, but a little difficult to climb onto. Crawling on your knees isn't fun either. My point, reach is also partially determined by height.

My layout space is 13.5' x 36' & I hope in a year or so, my next layout will be lower & walk through, with a 2' to 3' maximum reach. I intend to continue using the around the wall type plan for 3 sides & NO duck unders.

Hello Ironman1,

Well I have a few years on you, I am 78 and like you having a bit of trouble getting up on things. I wish that I had as much room as you, but hope to make my layout work.

Thanks for your help and have a great day,

ThomasT

Hello everyone,

This is a pdf drawing of my planned Layout Table. I revised the drawing after the suggestions and help that I received. The two circles denote a 0-54 and a 0-36 scale 3-rail track which can be duplicated on both ends for turnarounds. I have no idea how the rest of the tracks will be installed but will work on some designs.

Thanks everybody for all the good help and advise.

Have a great day,

ThomasT

Tom, corners are why I don’t adhere to the 30” suggestion. The track doesn’t go into the corner and track is all I’d really worry about. Corner landscaping can be placed on removable platforms for easy replacement, cleaning and repair if it’s going to problematic.

Edit: I just saw the pdf and I wouldn’t hesitate to build it even though there might be times you encounter trouble in the corner.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Tom, corners are why I don’t adhere to the 30” suggestion. The track doesn’t go into the corner and track is all I’d really worry about. Corner landscaping can be placed on removable platforms for easy replacement, cleaning and repair if it’s going to problematic.

Hey again Dave,

This is just my rough draft and subject to change as needed. Looking at my drawing, the "end" on your left has access from 3-sides, but the other end is in the corner and I only have access to two sides. That outside 0-54 loop could be a problem to reach but I don't know how to work around that. I have some large sheets of cardboard so I might make a model of that corner and see if I could reach a Loco without a step stool. I actually could make a "swing out" stool on a pivot when I weld up the frame???

Really do appreciate all the suggestions, I know as a "Newbie" that I am allowed a few mistakes, but I don't want to use them all up at one time

Have a great day,

ThomasT

Hi Thomas,

By the way, that's a nice bass! Yeah, its not the age, its the mileage. High school & college sports took it's toll. I know most here would agree that I have a nice amount of space for a layout, but there's never enough room! I like my scale steam engines & will only run 072 minimum but an extra 2 feet in both directions would be nice, mostly for me moving around.

It's hard trying not to squeeze that extra radius in. One of the most important things I've learned is having everything within an accessible reach, especially those turnouts. Its amazing how the hardest places to reach for me are where I have the most problems. A dog bone or folded dog bone is a nice solution for a layout & can offer an isle to walk through.

The important thing is to make it enjoyable & simple helps to achieve that, especially when your older! I like eye level viewing which is why some of my layout is 5 feet high. My next layout will be eye level but while on a chair. I like to just watch them run with my Grandsons, although the older one loves to do switching & he's just 5.

It's all fun, take the time to plan & try not rush it! There is plenty of information out there to get some ideas.

Enjoy,

Joe

Hello Joe,

I am mighty proud of that bass, caught it on a 4-weight fly rod that I had hand made with a "Love Frog" fly, and that Bucketmouth weighted in at 8-lbs & 13-ozs. It took over a week to get that smile off my face

My original plan was to have all 0-72 track but my space just will not allow that, so I re-sized to 0-54 on the largest track. Just getting started both trains that I have on order will operate on 0-31 and the biggest train on my wish list will operate on 0-54, so I am good for a while.

I am redrawing my layout now with several changes and I will make a mock up and see what needs to be altered.

I am retired and work very hard to have FUN...everyday, all day.

Walking on top of my layout is not an option, so about 3 feet wide for my around the walls layout that is 48 to 50 inches high, is maximum for me.

However, there are 2 places where my layout is 4 feet wide. In those places I left just enough space between the wall and the layout so I can crawl under it, and stand up between the wall and layout (my chest touches the layout when I do this) so I can reach a derailed locomotive or train car.

I do a fair amount of crawling under the layout and reaching/stretching because of derailments, thanks to my 031 curves and Postwar cars. I now think of this as my Yoga and part of my fitness plan, in conjunction with long athletic walks in the State Park near my home that I do every other day. 

And, I say to myself when doing my model railroad Yoga, if it doesn't kill me, it's good for me.

LOL, Arnold

ThomasT posted:

Hello Joe,

I am mighty proud of that bass, caught it on a 4-weight fly rod that I had hand made with a "Love Frog" fly, and that Bucketmouth weighted in at 8-lbs & 13-ozs. It took over a week to get that smile off my face

My original plan was to have all 0-72 track but my space just will not allow that, so I re-sized to 0-54 on the largest track. Just getting started both trains that I have on order will operate on 0-31 and the biggest train on my wish list will operate on 0-54, so I am good for a while.

I am redrawing my layout now with several changes and I will make a mock up and see what needs to be altered.

I am retired and work very hard to have FUN...everyday, all day.

One of my retirement plans is fishing. You made me laugh with the week long smile comment! I don't blame you for being proud & happy!

You sound like you're being realistic & most engines are good on 0-54 so I'm sure you'll be fine.

Joe

Arnold D. Cribari posted:

Walking on top of my layout is not an option, so about 3 feet wide for my around the walls layout that is 48 to 50 inches high, is maximum for me.

However, there are 2 places where my layout is 4 feet wide. In those places I left just enough space between the wall and the layout so I can crawl under it, and stand up between the wall and layout (my chest touches the layout when I do this) so I can reach a derailed locomotive or train car.

I do a fair amount of crawling under the layout and reaching/stretching because of derailments, thanks to my 031 curves and Postwar cars. I now think of this as my Yoga and part of my fitness plan, in conjunction with long athletic walks in the State Park near my home that I do every other day. 

And, I say to myself when doing my model railroad Yoga, if it doesn't kill me, it's good for me.

LOL, Arnold

Hello Arnold,

Well you are a better man than I am, crawling under a low table would almost kill me I just made a cardboard mock up with all square corners and set it at 32" high and that inside corner I could not reach but just over half-way. I going to create another pdf drawing with several options and will get it posted here shortly.

Thank you for your help.

Hey again everyone,

I am attaching another pdf drawing with couple more changes and another option. I rounded the corners on all outside corners and that helps a little, but the blind corner is still not accessible standing flat-footed

I am showing Plan #2 on this drawing which would be in a different location and have easy access on the entire layout. However it is smaller in square foot surface area. I would appreciate all opinions on this second option vs Plan #1.

Not sure what happened but I will try again to post the pdf drawing

I still vote for #2, but have you thought about removing 18”-24” out of the center and moving the right side away from the corner. That should be enough for you to get in the corner to deal with derailments, etc.

DoubleDAZ posted:

I still vote for #2, but have you thought about removing 18”-24” out of the center and moving the right side away from the corner. That should be enough for you to get in the corner to deal with derailments, etc.

Hello Dave,

No, I had not though about that. I will do another re-draw and see how that will look. With the rounded corners I might get by with 16" or so, and that would sure make the layout better. I know that that I will not need to get in that corner very often, so if I have to squeeze in that would be OK. Thanks

DoubleDAZ posted:

I still vote for #2, but have you thought about removing 18”-24” out of the center and moving the right side away from the corner. That should be enough for you to get in the corner to deal with derailments, etc.

Hey again Dave,

Presto! I cut 16" out of the center and then rounded both corners on the "wall" end and that allows me to easily reach to the center of the 0-54 track circle. This new design has 90-sq. ft. of surface area so I only lost 9 sq. ft.

Really do appreciate this suggestions and your time.

What track will you be using?

DoubleDAZ posted:

What track will you be using?

Hey Dave,

I will using MTH REALTRAX. If I use the revised version of Plan #1 for the layout I would like to get 3 separate sets of tracks if possible. I do not have any experience laying out a design so I have been following a lot of designs here on the Forum. Boy this Train Hobby sure does get complicated.. he he

DoubleDAZ posted:

What track will you be using?

Hello again Dave,

Now that I have easy access to the entire table, I was able to change the inside corner rdii from the original square to an 18-inch. This greater radius allows the 0-54 / outside track to run a bit closer to the edge of the table and allow three separate tracks. My layout is not very exciting but in time it can be tweaked to include more tracks than just the loops. Thanks again for your help.

For a running layout, it looks good Thomas. You’ve got to start somewhere with what you have and go from there.

Hello everyone,

I am attaching another Revised version of Layout Plan #1. I removed the 3^rd set of rails ( 0-36 ) to make more room for some additional tracks for the 0-54 outer run and the 0-45 inter run. The two sets of tracks will be independent of each other so that I can have two Locos running at the same time. This change also gives the Layout a bit more open space for buildings and scenery. I am open to any all suggestions to improve this Layout.

Hi Tom,

First problem is MTH RealTrax has O-42 curves, not O-45.

Second problem is CAD drawings don't always match real tracks.

Third problem is because RealTrax has limited fitter pieces making it difficult to make the loops concentric without cutting tracks to fit.

Here's a SCARM rendering of what it would look like with RealTrax O-54 outside and O-42 inside curves. Note I added crossovers so trains can run on both lines. Also note the green tracks should really be O-54 to make the loops concentric, but you'd have to cut RealTrax straights to make things fit. As it is, there are 3 places where the tracks don't join in the software, but I believe they'll join when built.

I've attached a photo so folks can see what we're talking about without opening the PDF and a SCARM file for others who might want to play with the design. I didn't take time to refine the design, just enough to show you what it would look like with actual tracks. Hopefully I didn't make any mistakes, it's only 7:00 here.

ThomasT posted:

Hello everyone,

When one side and end of your layout table is up against a wall, what is an maximum acceptable width?

Have a great day,

ThomasT

Take the heaviest engine you own and place it at arms length at the height of your planned layout and try to pick it up straight.  The distance you can do that w/o strain and effort minus the width of the engine is that max width for you.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Hi Tom,

First problem is MTH RealTrax has O-42 curves, not O-45.

Second problem is CAD drawings don't always match real tracks.

Third problem is because RealTrax has limited fitter pieces making it difficult to make the loops concentric without cutting tracks to fit.

Here's a SCARM rendering of what it would look like with RealTrax O-54 outside and O-42 inside curves. Note I added crossovers so trains can run on both lines. Also note the green tracks should really be O-54 to make the loops concentric, but you'd have to cut RealTrax straights to make things fit. As it is, there are 3 places where the tracks don't join in the software, but I believe they'll join when built.

I've attached a photo so folks can see what we're talking about without opening the PDF and a SCARM file for others who might want to play with the design. I didn't take time to refine the design, just enough to show you what it would look like with actual tracks. Hopefully I didn't make any mistakes, it's only 7:00 here.

 

Hello Dave,

Wow and thank you. I was wondering how the layout would actually look with "tracks", and to me that is pretty neat.

OK on my mistake 0-45 v 0-42. Actually the 0-42 works better in the design.

Yes on the mis-match with AutoCAD drawing the tracks, I do covert the lines with "track" in my drawings but it is just a rendition of railroad tracks and not to dimension as in you work.

On the 3rd issue I will take your word for that because I have never worked with RealTrax, but hopefully it can be adjusted to fit on the final real layout.

Thanks for adding the crossovers, see them on most layout but did not know how to insert them in CAD. Man that is a lot of tracks in 90 sq. ft. of table and several good long runs. I like the long runs, thanks again. Your drawing most likely spaced the tracks apart in the correct distance and it appears that a lot of the "building space" is lost. With that said, should I move the top right turnout more to the left to allow more interior open space??

Thank you again so much for all this help.

OH one more thing, does your drawing program produce a list of the individual track pieces??

mwb posted:

ThomasT posted:

Hello everyone,

When one side and end of your layout table is up against a wall, what is an maximum acceptable width?

Have a great day,

ThomasT

Take the heaviest engine you own and place it at arms length at the height of your planned layout and try to pick it up straight.  The distance you can do that w/o strain and effort minus the width of the engine is that max width for you.

Hello MWB,

I do not have any O-scale Engines in at this time but do have two on order. However I do have a G-scale and I did use it yesterday as a test on my cardboard mock up. It was very hard to reach and lift it in that "blind" corner. Dave suggested to remove a section from the middle and open up the blind end and that has solved the problem. I now have easy access on the entire layout. Thank you for this help.

Tom, I’ll take some time today to go through the design to check clearances and see what can be done about the crowding with the spurs. You can move the switch, but let me see how something else will work. I just tried to recreate your drawing as best I could. And, yes, the software can get you a parts list.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Hi Tom,

First problem is MTH RealTrax has O-42 curves, not O-45.

Second problem is CAD drawings don't always match real tracks.

Third problem is because RealTrax has limited fitter pieces making it difficult to make the loops concentric without cutting tracks to fit.

Here's a SCARM rendering of what it would look like with RealTrax O-54 outside and O-42 inside curves. Note I added crossovers so trains can run on both lines. Also note the green tracks should really be O-54 to make the loops concentric, but you'd have to cut RealTrax straights to make things fit. As it is, there are 3 places where the tracks don't join in the software, but I believe they'll join when built.

I've attached a photo so folks can see what we're talking about without opening the PDF and a SCARM file for others who might want to play with the design. I didn't take time to refine the design, just enough to show you what it would look like with actual tracks. Hopefully I didn't make any mistakes, it's only 7:00 here.

 

Second reply to you Dave,

OK on the Green Tracks, I see what you mean and understand the reasoning. You stated there were 3 areas and I see the two Green, where is the third possible problem area.

I realize that this is a small layout but I am very pleased with the way it looks now. Your suggestions has made the necessary changes to get the layout to this point and I thank you.

Now all I have to do is build it

Tom, I circled the 3 joints in this photo. I also added a closeup so you can see how close they are to joining, so there should be enough play in the tracks to join.

My Real Trax railroad is built upon 37" wide x 72" long x 40" high benches that are clamped together. I use bump-outs cantilevered off of the benches to accommodate the 042 curves and the sidings. Curves and switches are 042. Its flaw is that it is a duck-under to access the the middle of the railroad. I have since connected the Green siding tracks in the upper right corner. The branch line in the upper left is for a future extension that will add more single-end yard tracks for passenger trains.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Tom, I circled the 3 joints in this photo. I also added a closeup so you can see how close they are to joining, so there should be enough play in the tracks to join.

Hey Dave,

OK that does not look like it should be a big problem and it should go together. As long as the whole assembly is there should be enough "slack" to make up that gap. I am comfortable enough now with the board layout that I will start to work on designing the frame supports that the layout board will sit on. Thanks again Dave I really do appreciate all your help, this part of the project has been a lot of fun.

Bobby Ogage posted:

My Real Trax railroad is built upon 37" wide x 72" long x 40" high benches that are clamped together. I use bump-outs cantilevered off of the benches to accommodate the 042 curves and the sidings. Curves and switches are 042. Its flaw is that it is a duck-under to access the the middle of the railroad. I have since connected the Green siding tracks in the upper right corner. The branch line in the upper left is for a future extension that will add more single-end yard tracks for passenger trains.

Hello Bobby,

Man you have a lot going on with that layout. If and when I outgrow my layout, I would like to have a second level that starts on the first level and a grade that "some" of the engines would be able to climb. Thanks for sharing.

Tom, the 1st photo is a rendering with some changes to the spurs and location of the crossovers. The 2nd photo is another rendering with reversing loops added. The 3rd photo shows a little better way to add the reversing loops. Unjoined tracks are clear, just in different locations. The loops and storage tracks are virtual duplicates of each other in each design.

DoubleDAZ posted:

Tom, the 1st photo is a rendering with some changes to the spurs and location of the crossovers. The 2nd photo is another rendering with reversing loops added. The 3rd photo shows a little better way to add the reversing loops. Unjoined tracks are clear, just in different locations. The loops and storage tracks are virtual duplicates of each other in each design.

OK Dave now we have a real problem....I like them all  

Oh boy now I have to decide which one, I sure did not mean for you to go to so much trouble and I thank you for all this work. Between 2 and 3, other than un-joined tracks, they are the same except for the "open" areas. Kind-of-like the staggered open in 2, but also like the "central" main area of open in 3.

This is really cool, had no idea going into this originally that the layout would be this large as far as track space. I will study them over.

I have just completed the upper section of all the angle for the support table. Now I need to work on the vertical columns and then the lower sections. All this lower sections will take a while.

Sure do thank you for these drawings.

Tom, it's a hobby for me and we're watching some Christmas movies on a rainy that don't require a lot of concentration to follow, so it's no trouble.

The difference between #2 and #3 is the crossovers in #3 are on the curves. This eliminates the "S" curves that were there and makes for a much smoother transition through the reversing loops. "S" curves force trains to transition to another direction while part of the train is still going in the opposite direction. This puts stress on the cars and can pull lighter cars off the rails. Given space limitations not much can be done about the "S" curves going into the storage yards, but trains are usually going much slower, so the stress is reduced.

I'd suggest that you break up the symmetry a bit by turning one of the loops into a delivery locale by reconfiguring the yard into service spurs for 2 businesses. Don't pay any attention to the buildings I added, just some I had in the library to illustrate my point.