Large Scale Central

New On30 Layout - Need Input

Other Scales O / On30
#1

well, i’m thinking of doing an On30 layout in my garage. this is the layout i’ve come up with. roughly 12’x12’

i designed it using Atlas RTS O scale track since i figured i wanted mainly 18" radius turns and larger. yes i know theres a couple gaps, but i can work those out later. i want to do a mining area and a logging area. was probably going to go with the Bachman shay and a Climax that have the Tsunami sound already installed from Bachmann. let me also say that this will be my first major layout, so i don’t know if i’m getting in over my head, or should start smaller. here, i took out the outer loop as well as the dogbone. it would be able to be added on to make the one above fairly easily. just don’t know if i should start with a smaller one and expand on it, or just go big.

any suggestions are welcome. i plan to use DCC as well. is there anything substantially better than Bachmann’s?

#2

If you can use all the space in the 12 x 12 space, you can have a bit more fun, I’d utilize the space in the corner, either a switchyard, terminal, or more track so both aren’t parallel all the time.

Yes, there are systems subtantially better. Look at Lenz, Digitrax, NCE.

Regards, Greg

#3

Well first let me ask…what sort of a backround in railroading do you have? What sort of ‘look’ are you going for? Do you want a functional railroad or just a place to railfan as your models go round and round? (Nothing wrong with that BTW, just makes for a different mindset when designing) Do you plan on operating Bigger Stuff eventually? (the On30 2-8-0 Qualifies as BIGGER). I found that the original Gorre and Daphetid design was pretty awsome for a first time railroad in any scale. Provides for constant running with a twice around mainline…has dramatic bridges, tunnels, and a chance to experiment with scenery…then it can be easily integrated into a larger layout later!

#4
Bart Salmons said:
Well first let me ask....what sort of a backround in railroading do you have? What sort of 'look' are you going for? Do you want a functional railroad or just a place to railfan as your models go round and round? (Nothing wrong with that BTW, just makes for a different mindset when designing) Do you plan on operating Bigger Stuff eventually? (the On30 2-8-0 Qualifies as BIGGER). I found that the original Gorre and Daphetid design was pretty awsome for a first time railroad in any scale. Provides for constant running with a twice around mainline.....has dramatic bridges, tunnels, and a chance to experiment with scenery....then it can be easily integrated into a larger layout later!
well, i've had N, HO, O-27, O, and G trains. none of which have ever been put into a permanent layout with scenery and everything. i mostly enjoy watching the trains run in continuous loops with my kids. a little opperating would be nice which is why i put the sidings at the top and bottom. i figured one would be a mining area and the other the logging area. i doubt i'd go much bigger than a Shay, Climax, or a Porter. my "bigger" stuff will be outside on 20ft diameter curves. :) as this is my first layout, and i'm sure not my last, i want to be sure i don't limit myself too much, but at the same time, based on what this layout will run, i don't think i need 36" radius turns or anything. i wanted to have 2 mainlines, but maybe i'll go with the twice around one mainline.
#5

Forgive me for saying this, but you did ask for opinions.

I think that this layout has a very ‘regimented’ and stultified appearance, with its regular curves and packed-in format, as though you are trying to put every possible scenario into a small space. This might be fine for z or n, but it is not the way that a narrow-gauge railway appears, at least, to me.

What it needs, to my mind, is a more ‘free’ appearance, more in keeping with the ethos of a narrow gauge operation - just look at the real Chama yard, for instance.

But then, it’s YOUR layout and plan - please feel free to do it the way that you want…

Best wishes -

tac

#6
Terry A de C Foley said:
Forgive me for saying this, but you did ask for opinions.

I think that this layout has a very ‘regimented’ and stultified appearance, with its regular curves and packed-in format, as though you are trying to put every possible scenario into a small space. This might be fine for z or n, but it is not the way that a narrow-gauge railway appears, at least, to me.

What it needs, to my mind, is a more ‘free’ appearance, more in keeping with the ethos of a narrow gauge operation - just look at the real Chama yard, for instance.

But then, it’s YOUR layout and plan - please feel free to do it the way that you want…

Best wishes -

tac
www.ovgrs.org


forgive me if my last post sounded closed minded. i pretty much have in my mind what i want for motive power and rolling stock. that said, i’m still open to suggestions for the layout. please bear in mind that my “regular curves” were based upon readily available track libraries when i laid it out. i tried doing some flex track with the software, but it was more work than it’s worth. if i need to go that route for visualisations, then i’ll probably hand draw it and scan it in. maybe if someone else is better with these software packages than i am and is willing to help, that would be great. i would like some more natural flowing mainlines. i doubt i’d actually have the displayed number of rigid tracks for the turn going into straight sectional track. how many real life tracks do this versus going back and forth depending on the lay of the land. my layout above is simply a proposal. again, i am very open to suggestion for the layout. to reiterate, if i could have an ideal layout for this, it would have 2 mainlines for continuous running with some operating and switching. the main focus would be the mainlines though, not the yards.

#7

J.R.

I’ve designed “a few” layouts … so here are my questions:

Why two mains which run parallel to each other?

What about using the vertical?

Which part is the logging op and which is the mining?

What about easy access?

What is the actual room size? Are the walls at the back of the L-shape clear i.e. no windows or other obstructions or items you need to get at?

Comment on the Atlas track planning software: you get what you pay for which last time I looked was $0. :slight_smile:

#8
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
J.R.

I’ve designed “a few” layouts … so here are my questions:

  1. Why two mains which run parallel to each other?

  2. What about using the vertical?

  3. Which part is the logging op and which is the mining?

  4. What about easy access?

  5. What is the actual room size? Are the walls at the back of the L-shape clear i.e. no windows or other obstructions or items you need to get at?

  6. Comment on the Atlas track planning software: you get what you pay for which last time I looked was $0. :slight_smile:


thanks for your post. i’ve numbered your questions above for easier replying.

  • they don’t have to be exactly parallel, but i’ve always liked the look of 2 trains passing eachother or running side by side a ways.

  • i don’t know what “the vertical” is.

  • doesn’t matter. can go either way, whichever is best.

  • as far as what? i may design the overall layout a foot or so smaller to allow the layout to be spaced away from the wall by a foot or so.

  • actual room is a 22’x22’ two car garage. this would be in the upper left corner of the garage, so actually, the layout should be rotated 90deg CCW. there’s a window on the left wall, but it never gets opened.

  • i did buy RR-Track and use it for my G scale layouts. i have been close to buying additional O and HO libraries for it, but after using both software packages, i find RTS easier to use. it may not be as feature-rich as RR-Track, but I can do layouts quicker with RTS.

    • #9

    since the general consensus is that 18" turns is too tight, even for On30, now i’m thinking of just sticking with HO cars and doing a logging theme. any feedback on that? will that be easier to tackle than what i originally set out to do?

    #10

    J.R. Eaton said:
    since the general consensus is that 18" turns is too tight, even for On30, now i’m thinking of just sticking with HO cars and doing a logging theme. any feedback on that? will that be easier to tackle than what i originally set out to do?

    JR Are you in a hurry? Deadline to get things running? :stuck_out_tongue: :smiley: OK if I got the info correct this is the foot print of the available space

    (http://www.easternmountainmodels.com/TrackPlans/JR_On30_Space.jpg)

    #11

    Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
    JR Are you in a hurry? Deadline to get things running? :stuck_out_tongue: :smiley: OK if I got the info correct this is the foot print of the available space

    (http://www.easternmountainmodels.com/TrackPlans/JR_On30_Space.jpg)

    no, no hurry. just didn’t want to keep pursuing On30 if it wasn’t going to be practical. your drawing’s position and orientation is correct. going with other input, i think i’m going to have a 8’ wide x 13’ long layout at the most. that would leave at least a 2ft wide path to get around the left and top of the layout for access. i’ve also thought about a twice around single mainline with an over under to have some bridges and stuff.

    #12

    I’m a firm believer in looking at “what will plausibly fit”. If you like building then On30 sounds like a very fine choice.

    BTW the “vertical” I was referring to means “Using a lot of the available height over that foot print”, lots of room there especially if the theme is mining and logging. :wink: :slight_smile:

    #13

    18" is NOT too tight by any means…the Bmann 2-6-0 is good down to 12". The 2-8-0 works best on 18" but can be nursed around 16" (Still waiting on mine to arrive so I can report further from first hand experience)

    I personally have 14" 16" and 18" curves. The Shay has no problems on it at all. (First hand experience, with real time ops)…I’ll give ya some more thoughts when the Holiday stuff finally calms down…