Yeah, it would be very

Yeah, it would be very difficult to convert upwards, from N scale to HO scale...

... soooooo, if there's a lot you like in N...

Why not switch scales?

what did you find in N scale?

Hi Robert, Can you provide some links to the N scale plans you saw that you liked?

" in a 9' by 16' area."    

That's not enough room to fit in a seaport, loco servicing facilities, twin track passenger line, and mountains and tunnels. The twin track passenger line suggests an around the walls configuration so as to maximize the curve radius. A yard ,a passenger depot, and an engine service area could fit ,and it could be located at a seaport but I can't see anyway to have both seaport and mountains in a passenger/loco terminal scene? I'd choose which parts are most important and try to model a couple of the features leaving the rest for off scene destinations. Maybe something like the NewHaven shoreline passenger line with an industrial seaport area? or the Long Island RR  line east of NY city ,say the junction to Oyster bay or thereabouts? If mountains are most important a coastal town with a line running into the hills could be possible but it wouldn't have space for  twin wide radius tracks or a large service facility.  There's a reason these smaller layouts with lots of features are built in N scale instead of HO scale :> ) .....DaveB

"Were Moving On UP"

Very familiar story!  Many people, including me, started out with a 4x8 table, unrealistic "roller coaster" type track plan, made a huge amount of mistakes, and thought there must be more to the world of model railroading! 

"My salvation?"  Learning about how "real world" railroads operate including prototypical track placement.  Than, I looked at my available space and how I could transfer these concepts into a working model railroad. 

So, what I would start doing is familiarizing yourself with prototypical railroad concepts and operations if your not already familiar.  At the same time start researching railroads of the time and geographic location you are interested in to get the creative juices flowing.  

I'm young enough where I can still "bend, stretch, and stoop" but old enough where I know I don't like it and in many cases can feel it the next morning!  So, for my latest model railroad I decided to go with a narrow run along the walls, (30 inches wide), with a four foot wide peninsula that is easily accessible from two sides.

So, every location on the layout is easily accessible. The layout height is about at mid-chest level which I find less cumbersome when working under the layout.  Some folks like the height at "eye level" but the choice comes down to your comfort. 

One lesson I learned the hard way is to include time and expectations in your planning to avoid frustration.  For example, if you only have a few hours out of the week to work on the layout and want to have it completed in a few months, a "mega-layout" is probably not a good idea. 

Few more thoughts based on your wants above:

1. Research railroads, time period, and geographic area that may contain what you are looking for

2. Consider single track with passing sidings if you don't have room for twin curves. Familiarize yourself with NMRA guides for recommend curve radius based on car length. "More is better, certainly don't go under the recommended specs."

3. Research steam and transition era yards to include maintenance area layouts.

***Go DCC!

Keep us posted.

Joe

Givens and Druthers

That is a John Armstrong term considered by a lot to be the dean of track planning. whether he is or not depends on a lot of things and if you like his work or not, but his idea of laying out in a list of what you want is really helpful. So you have a start now help us out and your self by expanding on it and filling in the details.

Point ot point or continuous run

what is your biggest loco and your smallest.

how long are your passenger cars,85ft or shorter, 85ft's you might want to consider 30" radius curves

water front...heavy industry--warehousing with multiable car spots served by car ferrys and or lots of different industries with sharp curves and close clearances with wharves for cars to boat transfers

or you can have the boat builders/repair, canneries,

Your engine maintenance area could easily eat up a lot of sq footage in a hurry

I will echo the comment above about looking into N scale if you really want all that and mountains too and speaking of mountains when you write that what are you seeing in your imagination?

Jack

Take another look at TOMA

You may find TOMA (The "One Module" Approach) to be a good fit for your situation. Check out:

magazine/mrh-2015-10-oct/publishers-musings

The idea is to more build-a-bit-as-you-go and if you change your mind along the way, it's easy to swap out parts of the layout. You can also more easily manage scope in bite-sized chunks. Plus all along the way (once you get the trackwork and wiring done on the first module section), you have an operational layout, too.

@ Robert

I understand where you are coming from.  You really need to get your hands on this book to read the first half.

http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/24768

It will help you avoid those same mistakes and others.  Maybe somebody will loan you a copy.

Den

Read first, then think, then dabble, then dive in

The link to descriptions of Iain Rice's book should help you get plugged in.

Also, John Armstrong's book, TRACK PLANNING FOR REALISTIC OPERATION, available from Kalmbach, decades ago reached the status of scripture in the hobby.

I suggest that you pick either book, or both, and devour the contents before trying to work out what you can fit into your space and be happy with. Then try Joe's suggestion of a module, followed by others, until you feel good about committing to a full-blown plan.

drJolS

Take the prescription from

Take the prescription from the Doc, by both and keep them close at hand! You don't have to call in the morning though.

Will try to get back to you

Will try to get back to you on this Bill. But I think I am seeing a little light at the end of the tunnel. Hey, did you know you can't put your model railroad world inside 150 square feet?  I think that is part of my dilemma. So if you run steam equipment you need a water tower, coal tower, sand tower, etc. I am falling into that group of modelers who want it all in one room. So I am leaving this group and moving on. Somehow I knew I could never achieve what I vision in my mine, but just had to try. Never been a fan of N scale. It's fine, but not for me. Nothing wrong with it at all. I just choose HO scale. I have one of the books by John Armstrong, and I am looking for the other one suggested. I have read some of John's book, and I wish I had read this book before I laid down the first piece of track. But hey, I knew what I was doing. How hard is it to just lay cork down and track? Ha, was I wrong. So armed with new information and maybe a new track plan, I am moving forward.

So I am going to opt out for a walk in style, duck under or around the wall shelf layout. I am thinking that is the way for me to go, and let go some of the things I think should be in my layout. I do think I am going to have to choose between passenger or freight type railroading. I don't have a lot invested in passenger cars, just a box of old 85 ft Pullman Heavy Weights I picked up for a steal at a show. Maybe that is why he was selling them, don't know. But they do go around most of my curves, just problems on some turnouts.

Thanks, Robert

" I do think I am going to

    You should be able to run them on an around the room layout, a passenger line around the walls would be neat and the passenger trains don't have to run everywhere so your freight tracks could use sharper curves.  If you made a double track around the walls oval it could be scenic'd as a busy mainline and then add industries for the freight trains to serve. The location could be a seaside port if desired with all the things that go on there modeled in some form.The other side of the loop could be scenic'd as the edge of the city hinting at the mountains off scene......DaveB

Several years ago on of the

Several years ago on of the former MR guys who did so many kit bashes designed a small railroad that had tight curves steep grades and did not have a yard per say or the engine terminal. I have his name on the tip of my tongue but can't recall it right now. His railroad was a loop with switching and ran through a city. It was called the BTR for breaking the rules railroad. You could likely get most of what you want in that area going around the walls and adding a peninsula. Keep your shelves narrow say 18 inches around the walls and the peninsula at 12 and you still have 30 inch aisles. Go for simple track work and 30 inch radius around the walls. You might be surprised at what you can fit into that space.

Two thoughts

Rob in TX: was Art Curren trying to fall off your tongue?

Robert Hughes: it's great that you have one of John Armstrong's books. But I was quite specific in my recommendation; how hard do you have to look for rev 3 of Track Planning for Realistic Operation? It's right there in the Model Railroader / Kalmbach books website if you can't find it locally. I have, and have read several times, most of Armstrong's track planning books, and while the others can be helpful, the one I recommend makes available lots of very useful information without the need of unbridled thinking. The basics are in that one book, which makes it easier to understand what he says in the later books. Including shipping, it's well worth the cost of one freight car.

Cheers,

DrJolS

Staging

One word. Staging. 

A small layout benefits from places for trains to come and go beyond the walls of your modeled world. Check out the around the wall staging that MR did a few years ago. Basically a double track, or more, behind a scenic block or backdrop will provide a lot of linear staging and, in a room your size, could allow some long through freights or passenger trains to hide and appear. 

Use some cross-overs so that there is a way to leave trains hidden as another is brought out on stage. Even industries or engine facilities could be represented in part visibly but allow a greater volume out of sight. 

Small railroads needn't be dull and allow the modeled portion to be fully developed quickly and completely. Keep the right of way narrow and get trains running!

I'll go back to my attic now. 

Neil

When I was in your shoes or Not a Problem but an Opportunity

I wanted a railroad that would cross the White Mountains through Pinkham Notch, connecting Portsmouth, NH with the GT in Berlin, NH, in 1954, all in a 13x16 plus staging space.

Wasn't gonna work.

I cut out the main line in favor of an interchange to a branch, though there were several iterations in here.

I dropped the main route and destination in favor of a much shorter coastal route, prototypical but "what if" based.

I cut out engine facilities.  The road switcher could refuel at the interchange and run up the virtual main for anything else.

I cut out the yard.  Crews can make up trains at the interchange.

i cut out the continuous run connection.  

I still have way too many industries.  I still have way too many turnouts.  Though every single structure and location has some relation to prototype reality, I am trying to fit them into spaces that are too small, laughably small by prototype standards.   Some of my benchwork is still 24" wide or 18" wide when it could be 16" wide or 12" wide.  It's like my belly hanging over my belt:  both would be better off slimmer.

In rethinking this, I am trying, in the motto of the LDSig, to "make only new mistakes."

This is fun.

i have some advice but I'll save it for another post because you have gotten a lot to consider already.

Rob, Art Curren is the guy.

I looked it up in the MR archives and the article is in the September 1980 issue.  A really nice plan to keep busy on in 5' X 9'.  The late Mr. Curren was one of my modeling "heroes" authoring many structure articles,  really a giant of kit-bashing ideas and techniques.

Starting smaller with a layout like this is likely preferable than going large and possibly unattainable.

Rob in TX: was Art Curren

Most definitely, thank you. I have been a fan of his work for a long time, he is most noted for structures. Another of his gems is the backdrop made entirely of structures down the center of a peninsula. In this instance two different industries would each occupy 2 of the 4 sides of a structure. This trick seemed to pack twice as much bang for the buck in the same space.