Others with more layout

Others with more layout design expertise will say more, I'm sure, but for starters you should consider wider aisles.  You say min 30" aisles.  Is that average width or choke point width?  If it's a choke point width, I'm cool with that, but you should consider a target width of 36-40" typical.  Again, I'm no expert, but I recommend also looking into the mushroom configuration given your room arrangement.  Joe Fugate is a big proponent of that style, and has well written articles about it in Model Railroader and on his personal website http://siskiyou-railfan.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.26 and, I suspect, in this forum.  It will take some time to get the concept at first, but it's really a cool way to go.  I have fit a three deck layout with a center peninsula in roughly the same space you have there, so anything's possible.  Disclaimer:  Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's practical (or sane!).

FWIW

Mike Lozensky

Mushroom works best in spaces wider than 12 feet

The mushroom came into my mind as well since you have a nice space much wider than 12 feet.

What's the distance from the floor to the ceiling in this space? 8 foot ceiling everywhere? Or are there any ceiling obstructions.

One thing the modern track designer needs to do is think in 3 dimensions, not just two.

Ceilings

Ceilings are 93" everywhere except under center support beam where height is 84". Image in post updated to show.

-a

Recommendations commensurate with interest/experience

Since the Original Poster is new to building large layouts and indicates that his preference is for a single deck layout, mushroom-style benchwork doesn't seem like the first recommendation I would make. It's one great way to make the most of some spaces, but the complexities of supporting the various decks and building a raised floor might not be ideal for his situation.

Given the relatively generous space he has available and the reasonable list of desired locations, a lot can be accomplished with a single deck layout plus staging. In fact, a single-deck layout in this space would be more than many have the time and resources to bring to completion.

Alan, you mention John Armstrong. The very best way to start, in my humble opinion, would be to spend some time in study of his book Track Planning for Realistic Operation. In particular, I'd suggest the chapters on choosing a benchwork "footprint" for the room, track planning schematics, and fitting the mainline to the space. These are chapters 7, 8, and 9 in my first edition copy, but may be numbered differently in the current third edition.

Best of luck.

John Armstrong

Byron, I have nearly worn out the pages of Track Planning for Realistic Operation. You are so right in recommending it. It is an awesome book. I have sticky tabs stuck on many pages for fast reference when I am doodling track ideas.

The reference in my original post about being book smart is accurate. I am reading and re-reading everything I can get my hands on. I expect Kalmbach Publishing to send me a Christmas card this year for being such a good repeat customer!

Don't let the complexity of construction stifle the ideas. I have an engineering degree, 40+ years of hands-on construction experience with everything from framing houses to building concept cars for GM. If you have a great idea then I'll figure out how to get it built and built correctly.

My goal with the post was to see design ideas that offer excellent operational characteristics yet still reasonably comply with the stated druthers.

Thank you,

The complexity necessary for the concept and no more

My feeling is that if a three-bedroom bungalow provides all you need to be happy, why start with plans for the Taj Mahal? But my preference is usually for layouts that are buildable, reliable, and reduce the MTTF (Mean Time to Fun). I know folks on forums have other views.

In my opinion, you can accomplish all you want in the single-deck design you originally indicated that you prefer. But if you feel differently, by all means investigate the complexities of multi-deck.

If you feel that you've garnered all you can from reading, I would suggest that you begin with Armstrong's by-the-squares sketching techniques and try variations on benchwork around the room with a long spiral peninsula to maximize use of the space while minimizing total curvature. Two "blobs" could be sufficient and would preserve walk-in access.

In my opinion, this process of sketching some "near scale" designs yourself will give you a better grasp of the trade-offs and possibilities in your space than you might glean from an "academic" review of others' ideas.

But if other folks have time to sketch things for you, I hope you'll find that useful, too.

Engineering

After making the last post my thoughts wandered to it is not right for me to expect you to take me at my word regarding construction capabilities. So I offer a proof and also something really cool to look at under any circumstances.

For the past three years I have been a member of the team that built the VSR for Wayne Cherry, retired VP of Design GM. Check out the engineering and execution of design in this bad boy. Wayne pencil sketched his vision, we welded aluminum and cast fiber to make it real. My primary contribution was with the interior controls and finish work on the chassis. And to celebrate the VSR done and on its way to its first show we made a little movie.

If need be you may see the first ever TIG welded all high strength alloy benchwork on a model railroad! Just kidding of course.

The VSR
The VSR Build Movie

Enjoy!

Track Plan Reality

The complexity of it all. In studying the available Basement floor space, the opportunity presented is fantastic, and, the desired portions of what you want to model (versus what you can achieve) in the next ten years should cause some caution on the part of the builder. Personal circumstance and such, have changed many plans mid-stream. I am supportive here, nothing more. The overall space suggests a walk-in type of plan for the 400 square feet that the LK&O will occupy. If only one of the three vignettes were to be selected, the Kitzmiller, Maryland, scene offers a focusable, dramatic "broad stroke" where the viewer walks into a central space that is a panarama, a scenic space, gently sweeping, from left-to-right along the river. The radius could be 120 inches and each "end" of the sweeping trackage could cleverly disappear into return loops of 60 inch radius and visible staging behind an above eye-level backdrop parallel with the rear walls. I am suggesting a free-standing, double-track dogbone, each loop with staging yard. Continuous runs, and a place to switch cars "up front". The rewards of just trying to construct such a thing, and, make it work will be terrific! Remember, whatever you actually achieve will be a wonderful thing. The lighting is what it is all about. The lighting. Good luck to you.

Focal Point

Rob,

I have given much thought to what you suggest. I have to admit it would be dramatic. The panorama of Kitzmiller would be breathtaking when stretched across my available space.

I see you have read the LK&O blog. The AC&Y Brittain Yard and close by industries scene I describe there is what I want to use as the primary focal point of my railroad. Granted it may not be as picturesque as Kitzmiller but it was my younger age railroad stomping grounds. It is where my interest in trains originated and as such has special meaning to me. Modeling 1960-1970 is deliberate since that was the time when I hung out at the AC&Y yard. Can you get another stroke of genius and suggest how I make the AC&Y scene as breathtaking as the Kitzmiller scene you describe?

Prior to your reply I had not given consideration to using Kitzmiller as the mainline. The prototype subdivision ends at the mines several miles SW of Kitzmiller. The double track you see on the Google image is actually a siding. Now that you have sparked the idea I must get back to doodling. Maybe I can have my cake and eat it too!

Thanks for the inspiration,

-a

"...Wots a Brittain?..." (Monty Python) Holy Grail

Alan,

A striking feature of the Brittain AC&Y yard setting is the 'elongation'. The meandering creek is a scenic drainage element that is long and thin, like the rail road itself. The "backdrop" edge, is the highway. Are there sound walls? Are they graphittied? Could the ( balsa sound walls) be at, or above eye-level, could they 'screen' upper level return loop storage tracks? When you were first acquainted with the Brittain, did you view it from the overpass at the throat, or, did you approach from near the locomotive and grain silos, on the "city" side? I like to think linear, sweeping and simple. Model what prototype engineering practices you observe. Return to your yard sketches and think the way a professional engineer would. Least material, most performance. Try this exercise: design a double-ended yard to resemble Brittain; with only twelve switches. (Thats 12 points, 12 motors, 12 controls,etc.) you get the picture... A mini lifetime to make just that.

If you intend to operate like Bill Darnaby, or, Tony Custer, with every symbol freight and waybill, on a time card schedule, then my advise is to follow that, and use 112 switches, or whatever. However, I know simple. The same plan idea for Kitzmiller. Substitute Brittain. Here is another idea (not so dramatic). Design the yard you want as if it were CM&SF "dominos". Actually build a single "domino". If its good, build more, incorporating it into a "bigger picture" (like the original G&D). At any rate, If nothing comes together right away, don't fret. Build some more LK&O hoppers and weather them. Remember "Model Railroading is Fun!"

Alan, I posted my e-mail address on your blog. I do not have a web site, but, If you send me an off-line e-mail, I will scan a hand sketch of my impression of the LK&O and send to you as an idea.

Rob 

Staffing

How many people will you have available to build and operate this bad boy, and how much time will you have to devote to its construction?

Better to design a plan that can be built in stages than to fill the basement with benchwork and never get to the point of seeing a train run.

Party of One

The layout will be constructed, operated, and enjoyed by me! Desire formal operations capability but will very rarely conduct multi-person sessions if ever.

I have ample time for construction Good Lord willing. This is my selected activity as I near retirement and from there onward.

No worries of loss of interest. Not my way. Trains will roll before scenery as I want my trackwork bullet proof before proceeding.

Thanks for asking

-a

LK&O Taking Shape

Since the original post I have been working on my track plan. I very much appreciate the advice given especially the offline communications from Rob Rutler and Flashwave. Your input has been very helpful.

May I ask for critique of what I have developed? Complete Givens and Druthers as well as lots of additional information about why things are why they are is at LKOrailroad.com. The drawing is to scale with the black track lines being end-of-tie to end-of-tie width.

This not your usual XtrkCAD or 3rd PlanIt drawing but rather hacked out in Illustrator. It is meant only to be a guide. My plan is to do a full mock-up with cardboard box benchwork where I will layout actual track and turnouts to set the final plan. Before I break out the box cutter I would like to ask for your review.

Thank you in advance.

Alan

Layout, and engineering

First the layout plan looks cool, mine is a copy of the old lionel store displays from the 50's and they go round and round, Yours looks like it makes good use of the space available and has some operational potential as well. I thought I was done with HO as I collect and play with O gauge and S gauge trains loads of fun. But I have been brought back to HO in the form of a new club in the area that is doing a modular type layout. Anyway you should break up the bench work into seperate modules once a design has been proven makes the task a lot simpeler and a breeze to take down should you move or gain more space. One day I may have an S SCALE layout but the lionel display and the club ho layout is going to keep me busy enough.

This online mag and a few other forums along with the printed mags has a lot to digest as far as layout building. Joe and crew are great to learn from as well as the subscribers to this great magizine.

I myself am an engineering type(worked on all kinds of electronics mostly industrial controls but also referbushed old cable tv equipment and most recently worked on copiers and then went back to school to earn a B.S. in technical management) Fun stuff designing stuff. Cool car looks like the prowler sorta. 

Sadly...

Hi LKO,

I agree that the plan looks pretty cool.  The aisles look pretty reasonable and you've managed to put in a good amount of operation.

However I think you'll encounter significant problems in actually trying to build it. I see several places where it appears you've made use of #2 turnouts or even #1 turnouts. I also wonder what your minimum radius is - possibly 18" or less - and the track to track spacing is hard to determine, though in most places it seems excessively generous rather than too tight.

I think you'll particularly have trouble building the yard in the central peninsula with real world turnouts and radii. I could be wrong but I just don't think it will fit if you use #5 or higher turnouts.

Here are some more places where you may have trouble:

a) Just to the left of the area with the high bridge and the low bridge you have the track passing over the 'high bridge' crossing a river then ducking into what looks like a tunnel. You may have difficulty with the scenery in this area vertically - theat is river bottom, then a vertical cliff high enough to hide the track coming off the 'high' bridge. If it does work, be sure to make the scenery in that area removable for access to the hidden track for maintenance and to rescue derailed or malfunctioning trains.

b) The center peninsula has a couple of largish industrial areas. I suspect the turnouts going to the industries are probably optimistic.  If the turnouts are workably sharp is there enough room on the run-around / siding track to hold the number of cars likely to be switched?

c) the mine in the lower left corner seems to be a bit far from an aisle for a comfortable reach.  Is this really accesible for rerailring, coupling and uncoupling? Also, when switching this facility the engine and front half of the train may well be inside the tunnel along the left wall. Not a killer, but no particularly desirable.  Should that track be daylighted? Also, there is no run around near the mine. Which trains would work the mine, where would they come from?  Where would they go to? Is the run around built into the mine complex long enough for the trains your planning> ?

d) again in the lower left corner, you have a 2 turn helix below the mine complex - I think you're going to have vertical clearance issues between the mine tracks and the helix below. Have you figured what the track elevations would be at both points? 

e)  in the central yard's right end there is a VERY sharp bend. Complete with what appear to be #1 frog turnouts.  It appears this is present to allow a balloon loop for turning entire trains. But if you leave ouit that bend (consequently losing the balloon loop) the yard area become much more feasible

f) I think you've find the connection between the high and low tracks in the upper industrial area to be excessively steep. If the upper tracks are 4" higher than the lower tracks and there's about 3' of track in that cutoff, then you're looking at about at 10% grade there and that doesn't include the space required for vertical easements at the top and bottom.  Or perhaps I'm misreading the track plan and no connection is intended there?  In any event, I think you'll find you've drawn impossibly sharp turnouts in that area.

Sorry to be rather negative.  Is it possible for you to get Xtrk Cad?  While CAD doesn't help design a good layout, I find it keeps me from getting too optimistic about curve radii and turnout angles.  Or get a large sketch pad and some old model railroad drafting templates and draw it out.

Best regards,

Charlie

LKandO

Please don't take offense but I Hate the track plan! Every foot of it! With a helix 10 feet from another helix? I tried to redraw your track plan and it will not work in "HO" unless your only using 4 wheel engines or shay's and Hysler Engines and the entire railroad is built as mine complex.

Personally I have found after close to 50 years in the hobby that if your going to draw a room to exact scale you really need to draw the track plan to exact scale. this plan may work in "N" scale but in no way will it work in "HO" unless you really like re-railing trains every time they make a turn.

You have a really good size area and I suggest you redraw the whole layout from scratch. avoid any turn under 24" and get rid of both of the two layer helix's.

You need to think of this project as Building a Railroad and not as assembling a toy train set up. Unless that's what your trying to build.

Again please don't take offense but start by building along one wall and get a feel for what kind of space you really have. Before you cut any wood, Draw your plan exact to scale. Drawing out of scale does nothing for you but give you heart ache.

Another thing go to the following site at the "Fast Tracks" web site and print some of their Free #6 turnout templates and cut them out. Once cut out lay out one of your yards on the floor of your space to get a feel for what the actual amount of space is needed with the proper radius of the approach and the proper flow of a yard.

http://www.handlaidtrack.com/Fast-Tracks-Printable-Track-Templates-s/11.htm

these templates are made exact to scale for the purpose of laying out yards and using as True to scale patterns for making hand laid turnouts.

I hope this helps you to make a really satisfying Railroad that will work in your space.

Dan

I, am the Flashwave of whom he speaks...

And also new to MRH. So pardon me while I drool like a fanboy amongst several layouts that I have admired greatly.

Anyway, Dan: The curves were done in scale. I already asked that. The switches are the big issue, one I had not thought of, I'm glad somebody did before he was building the layout itself. That "Toy Train" comment does roll off a little harsh though, but I know you don't mean it in that light. I'm also biased in that I;ve seen that comment used by people who DID mean bodily harm with it, You are welcome to your tastes, what I'm seeing in my head, having been a member of a club railroad that ducks over and under itself much like his does, it'll work visually. WHich is one of the things in his G&D list. Yes, for true operations, a staging yard would be needed for both the CN & CSX interchanges, but we aren;t going that far. What he has is a class one bringing in trains for a Class 2 or 3 to break apart, fish out the cars they need, put the Class 1 back together, and ship him out, vice-versa, and then assemble trains to take ot the industries in Leepeer, the Goodyear and Firestone complexes, etc.

As far as the ehlixes go, where else should one be? Why not relegate one corner of the area for them, and then use the entire rest of the room to run trains. It's not that much different from having helixes stacked on each other, and I've seen MRR layouts with the helixes offset.

Bear Creek: I assume that the steep grade interchabge you are refferrign to is the area behind Brittain and under Leeper? I believe there's a layering issue there. In 3D, there isn't an interchange. Leeper goes to a staging yard or around towards the Firestone plant, and the Brittain yard line goes under that to a second level of the staging. I agree 100% though, in 2D Lepeer is loking quite crowded. Let me see if I have one of his height charts on Trainboard or the blog, and if not, I'll rehash it for him here.

The "Balloon track" is actually a doubled-up mailine. Coming under Lepeer, it's the AC&Y main that goes into the helix under the Goodyear Complex and out. The other half coming out of the yard itself is an interchange with the Akron Belt line. (lower staging) And while it does work as a baloon track, the intention as I understand it, was not to use it as such; the tracks just met there. Also, if the scond switxh was spaced right a pinch and a hair more, it will definately work out. I run through a similar setup pn my local club layout.

Regarding helix cleaernce, LK&O and I had been debating the one under the Goodyear today, and what we detwermined was that he's got a minimum cleaence for excess height cars, but there's no over the top room there. We have not done the helix at Metteki Mine yet though by the numbers, but I questioned that grade early on in his drafts as well, which is what lead to the low bridge in the corner.  

Scale

I didn't expect to have the opportunity to reply today but my flight has been delayed so what better to do than a little illustrating and hop on MRH.

Firstly, thanks to each that replied. Especially the harsh critics. I learn the most from those that disagree with me the most. I have time to address only one key point right now. Boarding all rows will be calling soon. I'll get to the other points on the return flight!

A matter of scale. The radii on the drawing are to scale. The legend defines them by color. I have overlaid them onto the plan to demonstrate. If I am missing something regarding scale please point it out.

Gotta go. Seat 23C is waiting.

The bad spot on the RR

The right hand end of the Center Yard is not functional. Those trunouts are less then #2's which you will have to hand lay and no engine manufactured will make those turns as well as there are curved # 2 and that just won't work in "HO" unless this is and "N" gauge layout those turnouts are Wrong.

Dan

Curves

There are a scary number of 18" radius curves on that layout if it's HO.  Unless you want to severely restrict the equipment roster there will be trouble, especially in a yard where curves that tight around the ladders are bad karma.  As has been noted previously, the yard on the center peninsula simply cannot be built to function as drawn, and the staging ladder and mine tracks aren't far behind. 

If the room is available for doing so, I'd suggest trackplanning in full-scale.  Lay out the benchwork with masking tape and start fitting turnouts and track to see how the pieces interact.  I do this with every location on my layout to verify how the trackplan will work and recommend it for anyone.  I see a lot of things in the above plan that have potential, but the next step may be a reality check with actual track components.

Good luck.

If you need to economise on turnouts for track planning

in full scale, print out Fast Tracks turnout blueprints, or buy a right and left hand #4 switch and photo copy as many as needed for track planning purposes.  I don't remember what era your running, or what power you said you were going to use.  I think the biggest diesel you can use with an 18 inch radius or a #4-5 switch will be an Sd40-2, perhaps an Sd45.  Steam will be even trickier, because some 2-8-2 types will have enough side movement in the driver axles to allow such small radius curves, but some won't.  If you look at issue #1 of MRH at the article with pictures illustrating the difficulty of using various radius curves with differing lengths of rolling stock, you will see that virtually nothing will couple or uncouple reliably on an 18 inch radius curve.  Even 40 foot car and presumably old timer 36 footers will need a larger radius to uncouple or couple reliably on a curve.

Resources

The comments about full size layout are right on.  I have gotten large cardboard boxes from a local bicycle shop (for free:  I just asked!).  That gave me a large expanse of flat cardboard to lay on the garage floor, take a felt pen to, and try track layouts, curve radii, and tape photocopies of switch templates to,  to check fits and clearances.

I also laid a piece of cardboard on my kitchen table, drew quarter circle arcs in a variety of radii on it.  Then I got out my longest freight cars, a couple of my longest passenger cars, and my articulated steamer with the big overhang, and positioned them on the arcs to see what would work, and how much overhang each had at the ends and also overhang on inside at the center.

Here is where I get the Central Valley Model Works switch templates (similar to Fastracks)

http://www.cvmw.com/acrobat/index.htm

Here is the mode for the MRH article on acceptable curve radii, that Russ mentioned.

http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/mrh2009-01/curve_insights

RE: curves and positions

The 18s all sit in yards and industrial areas. Though LK&O is interested in CN&CSX, and SD70s WILL take a Number 4 and will take an 18 (albeit slowly) if they have to enter the yard. the majority of his locos will be based on the AC&Y and run in the future by either an eccentric old man or an eccentric old man's regional netowrk similar to the Genesee or Railamerica, and still using the AC&Y loco stock. They will be able to handle the turns, and the CN CSX will be able to run the mains comfortably.

I know LKO is working on the cardboard test. So far, Brittain yard is working perfectly, but I do not know if he's done with it yet. We'll see in a week when he gets home from work.

Yard

"I know LKO is working on the cardboard test. So far, Brittain yard is working perfectly, but I do not know if he's done with it yet."

If the yard is 'working perfectly," I doubt it's configured as shown on the plan.  The curves and turnouts simply don't scale out into something that would work at all, let alone perfectly.  Maybe a trackplan that's closer to the current real-world design could be posted so we can get a better idea of how it's working out.

I do hope you guys are continuing to take the criticisms as constructive.  I hate to see a layout owner stuck with something that isn't satisfying.