Hi everyone, you can guess where this is going!

I am currently in discussions with the bureau of local land management (also known on the forums as the FD!), and I may be able to grab a dream layout space in the coming year or two.

Speaking to that space: one dimension is fixed by the existing walls/room, and a very exciting 18' 1" (550cm)

However, the second dimension is the subject of a new partition wall that will divide the attic. The organic proposed dimension is 10' 10" (330cm).

- For a few structural reasons this cannot go any smaller (which is great!). Nor would I want it to, of course.
- It can become a little larger (which is also great!), but only if I can justify it: it would have to unlock a major breakthrough in layout planning. We are talking a max of maybe one foot/30cm without too much stress. Extending 1-2 feet/30-60cm is very difficult, but I don't want to rule that out.

I am curious what all of your thoughts are? Of course bigger is better, but there are sacrifices up to that additional 1 foot, and major cost implications if going between 1-2 feet (related to construction)

I think it all comes down to layout curves. There is no track plan, but a "U" shaped design is likely the direction I'm headed in. C track, wide radius is the plan.

Thoughts? I know this seems like an odd question, but somewhere is a person who has lived through this and can give a valuable insight. to give an example: If this were a DC layout in US prototype, the magic number is 11.5 feet. (a pair of 24" radius curves with trim, and 3 feet to walk in between...)

Edited by user 09 March 2023 06:48:32(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

John-my layout is 22' x 12.5'. It is a walk in U shape with R3 (single track) helix's on each side. My room was 12.5' wide, but you could get away with 10' 10" as that would give you a 2'10" opening between each side of the layout (4' each). I would try to get an extra foot, if possible, but you could make it work. PM me if you want more details or maybe even a quick Zoom or WhatsApp video tour.

mark

Thanks guys! All excellent points. Keep the ideas and inputs coming!

Miguel- exactly what I was thinking.

Mark- I'd love to see your progress! I'll get in touch offline

rbw993- indeed I might need to do that to accomodate the entry doorway anyhow

Thanks all! Keep the suggestions coming!

Adjusting for a few "dreams" (or "worst case scenarios") All three of you have contributed to my most realistic case: Miguel and Mark's math adjusted for the fact I'm not a big guy, but want an r3/4 mainline needing a little more diameter. This meets RBw's staggered approach and there is a solution in there somewhere!

Very interesting topic! Looking at my own layout room, I decided to optimise layout size. The need of free space for visitors or assisting workers ranked 3rd, as I’m alone in the room 99.9 % of the time. 2nd though, came my need of ”work and control” space. I decided to have a small desk for computer control with two flat screens, the desk could also be used for small soldering tasks etc. This desk is actually located under a part of the layout. Larger tasks like sawing and milling boards, I have mainly done outside in the garden. The winter season have sometimes caused temperature and/or snow constraints here in Sweden, which I guess the California sun doesn’t…

The layout itself is restricted to 6 x 2 meters, and resulted in a very narrow U shape; approx. 70 cm layout + 60 cm space + 70 cm layout, at the ”waist”. Building the layout, I was very happy I spend some time securing layout access during the planning phase. There are some areas with reversing loops and helixes, where the 70 cm ”rule” is N/A, this has been solved with two ”manholes”.

If I could have expanded the 2 meter dimension, I would probably have expanded the free space between the U legs a little. I’m very satisfied with the dogbone track topology. Trains seems to run point-to-point, I never get the feeling of trains running round-and-round (as they actually do). Having even more space, I would therefore have expanded the layout towards a G-shape, rather than a W-shape. (However, a W-shape could be very useful if you are interested in having a roundhouse and loco yard, placing it in the wider, reachable, mid leg.)

Can a private layout be too large? Well, it’s a hobby, it should take some time to build, without deadlines. For me, it has been important to build section by section, making it possible to have some nice running of trains from time to type. A plywood landscape is also a landscape!

Great thread! Some very helpful information has already been posted.

I will have a new house with a new train room this summer and I have not yet started layout planning. I will take a look at the house plans and see what my available space might be. The room is not huge and it will have some other uses beyond trains, so I am concerned about having enough train "room" as it were.

This thread is going to be a big help as I start my planning.

One thing that you might also want to consider is, what if you ever want to move house? Will the layout have to be demolished or will you build it in such a way that the parts can fit through the door and be reconstructed at another location?

Carim

You mean this bible?

Found my copy as I was cleaning out preparing for the upcoming move. This copy is 50 years old (at least)!

Never without my Armstrong reference book! I am the proud owner of a 1998 edition.

It has been my experience that anything you do has to have a plan before building, whether it be a house or a model railroad. I know not everyone has the ability to draw to scale, but that is what is needed. In my case, I have been using Autocad software that enables me to produce a scale drawing of the layout. before the first piece of framework is ever cut. Doing it without a scale plan, is almost impossible to do. It can be done, but not without a lot of mid course changes. The plan will not turn out the way you imagine without a detailed plan. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with some basic drawing tools and create what you want to scale on paper before trying to build. If this is to be a fixed layout, one that will always occupy your available space or a layout that needs to be broken down into convenient sizes for moving will require software (scale drawing). That will always be the first step in any building project.

A German saying to be heeded (replace house by MRR layout):

"You’re building your first house for your enemy, your second one for your friend and your third one for yourself."

Hi friends! I thought I would give you all a status update!

After much back and forth, the room measurements are fixed at 12' x 18' 1", or 366cm x 551cm. I am quite pleased with this outcome!

Next steps will involve some thinking. As tempted as I am to cram a massive layout in, the balance of the room (layout vs workspace vs storage etc) is really the next decision to be taken.

One school of thought is to go through with a massive "U", and leave room somewhere in the middle or one end for workbench etc.

Another is to go small along one wall: a layout 366cm x 250 or less cm , leaving the other half of the room to workbench/storage, and dare I say this a smaller, separate narrow gauge layout for my HOm scale equipment. This is a great option, but requires some smart optimization to give train runs/lengths long enough for me, as well as to retain R2+ curves

A third is to "go long" against one wall, and do 550cm x 180cm or less, still in a U design, or a huge rectangle with access. The other side of the room takes the storage, bench etc. Or, dare I say this, future expansion remains possible...

So far the last option is winning in favor of long runs, longer station platforms, and retaining enough width for large curves etc.

But much thinking is to happen still... Stay tuned!

Edited by user 05 May 2023 19:07:09(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

What I have done is using a track planning program with 3D capabillity. Not just for the track planning but for the room and what has to go into it. I have used WinTrack and Scarm. There is a cost and take some time but for me it has been worth it.
I started by drawing the floor, walls, doors, windows, pipes etc. and saved the empty room. Then copied it for the first version of the layout. I made object to go into the room. In your case workbench, chair(s), boards for the first version with the tracks.
I have tried all day to get a WinTrack snapshot of my, now dismantled, H0 layout uploaded to the forum. For some reason it never works. But a snapshot of my Bookshelf Z layout worked.

I have also used WinTrack for my outdoor OneGauge.

To feed your thoughts, I’d recommend this site:

https://www.layoutvision...waste-the-space-on-a-4x8

It certainly challenges our mind in layout planning….

What I didn’t say in my previous post may not be obvious to everyone. With the 3D you can take virtual walks into the room and see what it would look like before anything is built. Especially good if you have to share the space with others.

Personally would love to see an HOm fully intergrated with an HO layout. Wiring and track can still be isolated. unless you want to use the "other 3 rail" with narrow and standard gauge on one right of way.

That said.... ease of use and long runs makes for best playability in my view.
I have decided in my current design iteration to do away with round house/turn table and have a long working shed with through track for greater movement and a clockwork of trains on a long station constantly coming and going. Some will be automated in rotation, others manually controlled.

Again all up to you but my governing principal is playability with movement.
If the yard is just for trains to sit and be displayed then ok, but keep in mind why you want to make each facet of the plan and what you want to see still or move.

Just some thoughts...
Cheers,
Mark

ps Old M-track Marklin turntable and Vollmer 3 bay round house for sale. ...

Hi everyone, I thought I would give an update here. Current status is that the room itself is going to take forever, construction permits have been a complete nightmare to obtain. This is a project on its own, and quite frustrating, but it forces time for proper layout planning. Here is where I'm at:

- The 12 foot dimension still keeps me awake at night. As usual I'm trying to cram too many things in, and my "dream" scenario would be MUCH more comfortable at 12' 6". More on that later. But then again if it was 12' 6", I'd be saying "I need 13!"

-I realized I have to finish the plan for the room interior, aisleways and similar first, and then work the precise trackplan to fit this "rough cut".


Back to layouts and track plans:

- The main layout will for sure be a Swiss "climb the mountain" affair, along the 18'/550cm rear wall. The treatment remains to be designed, but this is the plan. Dogbone shaped for now, very likely to grow into a "J" or a "U" on one side (PeFu's wonderful Andreasburg-bahn got me thinking!) Execution is no problem in the available space.

- How the HOm narrow gauge incorporates into all of this is the next challenge. It could meander somewhere along the main layout, it could form a small layout of its own which becomes aesthetically incorporated into the mix, or I can merely stick a loop with a siding somewhere and keep things very simple. I like option 2 and think have the space, plus it gives me a second layout to build once the first one has progressed ;)

- The DC parade lap around the wall is also easy in the available space. 12-18" of shelf layout down the 18' wall opposite the main layout, with a drop bridge for the entry door. It will disappear behind the main layout's mountains (via tunnel portals) to loop the room. Based on the New York Central's Hudson River line, which gives an excuse to do more than 2 tracks of parade mainline if I like- the prototype was 4! One loop to be Marklin K track in order to run analogue AC, programming/testing loop of AC, or DC.

As much as it pains me, I suspect one of the 3 items above will need to go, or at least scale back considerably, to make this all work... That will likely need to be the HOm

Some room sketches to follow as I play with benchwork fitment...

That's what I did. Original 4x8 foot dc 2 rail oval, then bridged over with ac 3 rail descending to grade and both go trhough a doble track tunnel under mountain. 3 rail run goes into a station, and ovals at grade. 3 rail ascends back up behind the station and onto the bridge over to the new 4x8 side which has an intermodal yard, second town, and steel mill.

Yes these annoying decisions... That's why I admitted that my attention span is too short for the layout-of-a-lifetime approach. Instead I am living with an eternal testbed without nailing down any track. C track is ideal for such an elevated Teppichbahning lifestyle.

Your information and planning are so timely for me - thanks for posting!

I am only slightly ahead of you at this point, after moving late last year - well year before last as of Wednesday.

I do have the room now and I have pretty much defined what part of it will be for my layout, but that is it so far. I bought WinTrack and a monitor for my laptop last week, so I am ready and eager to get into the design phase.

What I have (only vaguely) planned is similar to what you described and I look forward to seeing some of your design if you are willing to share. Other than not having a design I am now ready to get going, so I will be devoting more effort to it than I have in the past. Never having done an entire layout design before it is hard for me to predict how long it will take, but I would love to be in the construction phase some time this year.

Good luck with your effort and keep us informed!

Not to throw a wrench into the planning, but there is an opportunity to merge standard gauge and narrow gauge. Tillig make a set of Ho / HOe tracks with some very creative merges of the two gauges. If I start again, I will endeavour to incorporate this for a branch station. Samples below.

Tillig track samples

Oooeeerrrrr please don't use Peco centre stud strip, that stuff is just plain pug ugly. Please use the Weichen Walter pukos, they will look much neater.