As the client for this design, I’ll say for the record that Peter did a fantastic job fitting just about all the givens and druthers into the space provided, which was no easy feat as you could see. I seriously can’t recommend Peter enough if you want a professionally designed layout for operations. Thanks again, and I greatly appreciate your work.
MRO, I must thank you for buying this layout from Peter. Everything he conceives is a Master Work of Artisanship. I also like that you paid the freight. My layout benchwork is also atop Reclaimed, or Thrift Shop, Kitchen Cabinets. So some of Peter's layout ideas for you I can now absconded with for the major rebuild of my layout. FOB. Free On Boxcar. My layout, which had to be put into storage for the room demo and rebuild, currently totals 30 stock lower 36" cubed boxes, 8 kitchen sink 36"x36"x70" boxes, & 3 36"radius end cap boxes. Currently that totals 156ft. of trackage (or four 39ft. of Main, Siding, & Ops track). I have no staging. Which I'm "borrowing" from you. Don't expect it to be returned. Also MRO and Peter I am going to alter your West (Left side) Helix. Level 1 will rise to level 2 on a 36"R double main. The East (Right Side) Helix will travel from the 2nd to the 3rd levels. Also on a two track 36" radius main. And my NEW Level 3 will have a similar con-fig as yours. Except at the West End I have a low hanging HVAC baffle. So I'm going to pull my track more forward. Nearer the facia. And have it loop around, over the 2nd level, to either a reversing loop or some sort of imaginary curved top level staging. I have yet to decide. When I'm finished the current train room (30'x38') will more than double the footprint (to 30'x 75', with an additional ceiling shelf double main traversing into the Bar Room soffit. ending in a Double Dogbone Helix, to turn about, to return to the Train Room again.) So thank you both for coming to my aide just when I needed you most. ~Jim
Your layout designs have become a 'must watch' for me as you make the design logic seem so simple but the outcomes are so complete in everyway. Its great that you are helping people develop a layout that they will not get tired of, while providing us with inspiration to develop the hobby further during these uneasy times. Keep up the great work. Bob
Wow Peter, I love it. I am dumbstruck how you can keep coming up with all these different industries and how to fit them into a track plan of any given dimensions. There is no fault to be found in the logic of operations between the different decks, which keeps the layout interesting from every angle. Lastly, it is really inspiring that you are willing to share these designs and grab the audience by the hand to take them through the ideas of the customer and yourself. Have a great Tuesday! Kind regards Richard
As I’ve said before, you’re truly a master at what you do, it’s mind boggling that you can always make things workout. I truly enjoy watching you in action, THANK YOU
Great job Peter, a great layout design in what was a terribly constrained area to work with. Hard to believe you were able to create such a functional layout and include the customer’s wants. He should purchase a new folding ping pong table that can be used when the family wants but can be folded up when not in use so he has more room to build and run this layout.
I don't think that will happen. I think the limited space around it will be more of a problem while playing PP than when running the RR. Most of the time it will probably get used as a workbench while building the layout.
I always enjoy your designs. As a modeler I would be interested in a video with a list of dos and don'ts. You reference some of those throughout your videos. Things like minimum radii for 4 axle, and 6 axle locomotives, vs. the multitude of steam locomotives. Minimum clearance height and rules of thumb for grades and helixes. I understand that you may not want to share all your knowledge. I do enjoy watching your designs as well as the finished products. Thanks for sharing them.
I will gladly share all my knowledge with my viewers. Putting together such a list would be easier said than done however, mainly because there are so many variables and the answers have a much to do with the builder's desired on appearance as they do with absolute mechanics. Another complexity is that even within the same tight group of cars, there may be some variation. For example, as a general rule of thumb, full-length passenger cars in HO-scale should have curves of at least 30" radius, although personally I don't like their appearance on 30" curves, especially when the curve is viewed from the outside. Some brands of passenger cars will run quite happily on 27" curves. Other brands depend on the specific model. The Walthers heavyweight cars run quite well on 30" curves, except for the dining car. This has an access ladder on one side only that fowls one of the trucks on 30" curves, meaning that it will be okay in one direction but not in the other. Fortunately, it is a simple matter to shave the back of the ladder (a brand new blade is required for this).
@@mpeterll I definitely would be interested. It wouldn't have to be all encompassing, just some good general practices. It was worth a shot to ask. It appears that you stay busy enough with paying customers and your time is valuable. I completely understand.
Wow, another awesome layout design Peter. Every Tuesday I search for your newest video, you are a master of all things Model Railroading !!! Barry Broyles
Awesome, I love the narrow gauge interchange yard. I have been struggling with making my standard gauge line a little more relevant on my current track plan. This helps.
Once again you come up with a layout dripping with interest, and yet not feeling cluttered or as though you are forcing detail on it. I think that is where your experience pays off over us 'first-timers' as we might try to cram in far too much. In reality there is more than enough going on here to maintain anyone's interest. Who knows, the demand for table tennis may slack off when it is realised how much fun railroading can provide?
It took me a minute to realized that the ore transfer on the upper level was two tracks over top of each other, from different ends - the narrow gauge over top of the standard gauge. I'm not sure I've ever really noticed one of those in layout videos. So, for operation, there could be one free-running train traversing the helixes and the first and second decks? Then one or two operator controlled trains on the narrow gauge area, and another couple of freight trains running on the various levels. And then one or two switchers running as well. Lots of fun to be had! The two of you didn't want a couple of dual-gauge turnouts up there? They are so beautiful to look at! :-) :-)
Sorry for the shameless self promotion, but if you want to know how I intend to operate the layout I’ll be making videos covering it in my channel in the future.
We talked about some dual-gauge turnouts but decided against it. At one point we had a mixed-gauge crossing and I sketched out one version with a dual-gauge bridge, but neither of those ideas worked well in the situation.
The staging yards feeding the mainlines through a diamond is Byron Henderson's X-Factor staging yard design. It has been published in the Layout Design Special Interest Group's Journal.
I might not have given the actual heights because they were not ideal in this situation. I don't remember the actual numbers. The lower deck was built on top of cabinets, so would be about 3-4" above kitchen countertop height. The inter-deck spacing was I think 16", allowing for about 12" of space between them (hence the set-backs) and the top deck would have required step-stools for operation. The middle deck also had to fit under some wall cabinets. Were it not for the obstructions, I typically arrange triple-deck layouts at about 24, 44 and 64".
I added the elevations for the customer's version of the plan. They are largely irrelevant for the general release version since no-one else is likely to have the same set of constraints as the customer it was designed for. I also don't want to have to answer a barrage of comments that basically tell me it's too high.
@@mpeterll I am working on a 3 deck design for myself and am curious about deck spacing. Of course the top level will be "too high" and the lower level "too low". I am thinking 31", 45" and 59" and am planning on using steel tube construction to keep deck thickness as thin as possible.
@@ericjonboone This is something you can best answer for yourself. I'd suggest mocking up the arrangement with some adjustable shelving. Place some shelves at the same heights and widths as you plan on building your decks. Attach some strips of cardboard to the front, the same depth as the benchwork you plan to build. Then set out some structures, track and cars to get a feel for what the layout will look like. The minimum benchwork thickness is usually a function of what must be included within it rather than the structural considerations. Not only will you need to hide switch machines, wiring, and lighting within the benchwork, but space for controls on the fascia. Don't forget that the scenery needs some level variation as well, and railroads are generally built a few feet above the surrounding landscape for drainage. In most cases, 4" is about the minimum practical benchwork thickness, leaving you only 10" to view and reach in between levels. I'm generally hesitant to go that close on a deck used purely for hidden staging. To some extent, the minimum spacing is a function of the maximum reach-in distance.
@@mpeterll My upper level will be mostly urban yards and switching. For most of it, my deck will only be 1 1/2 inches thick. (1" square steel tube frame with 1/2" thick board on top.) Using LED strips for lighting and servos instead of Tortoise for my switch control will let me keep the vast majority of the upper deck thin. Only in a couple spots (river crossings) will I need extra below track depth for scenery. The middle level will need extra thickness for below track level scenery. This I think will use 1 inch thick steel frame with nominally 2" foam on top. For the lower level, I have no thickness constraints. Thus maybe I should tweak my nominal deck levels to allow for more space between the lower and middle decks because of the middle deck thickness. Upper: 59" track / 57.5" underside --> 12.5" clearance for scenery Middle: 45" track / 42" underside --> 12" clearance for scenery Lower: 30" track I will make a mockup as you suggested.
Hi Peter im going to build a 9 x 6 meter shed for a layout. Do you think putting the door in the middle of the 9 meter side with windows both side would limit options for a track plan compared to putting the door in a far corner of the 9 meter side?
If you have any choice of door location, always avoid putting it in the middle of a long wall. In any railroad design, long straight walls are your biggest asset and the last thing you want to do is cut one of them in half. A corner location is usually best, although often, moving the door a foot or two away from the corner might be better than being right in the corner as it allows the space behind the door to still be useful. In the case of an outbuilding as in your situation, that space behind the door may end up being the ideal spot for you and your visitors to hang coats etc. Windows are another thing to consider. For a purpose-built railroad room, the windows should be kept out of the way of the railroad. I think for a shed the size you have, I'd be inclined to put a lot of windows in the same end that has the door. Windows in the remainder of the building can still be used for extra natural light during early construction, but you will most likely want to cover them with the backdrop as the layout progresses.
@@mpeterll Hi thanks for the detailed answer. I thought the corner approach would be better but the wife likes the more semetric look of having it in the middle with a window to each side. I will use your expert view as extra ammunition on my side :). Yes the plan is for it to be a glass sliding door and then two other windows on that same 9 meter side. Their will also be a roller door vehicle access on the 6 meter side which can help with light during the build but I plan to board it up from the inside for improved insulation. Its only really there for resale value incase future owners want cars not trains in there
@@chrisj6321 You didn't say where you are located, but if it's in a snowy part of the country then definitely put the man-door in the corner next to the 16' vehicular door - i.e. nearer the driveway so less snow to shovel.
Doesn't really seem like there's enough space for a ping pong table there. And family reaching over to access cabinets doesn't seem like it's going to end well at some point either. Quite the plan to get all that in there though!
The customer and I discussed both of these problems during the design process. Doth the PP table and the wall cabinets had to stay, and the only way to avoid the conflict was to not have a railroad at all. Usually we just have to accept whatever space we're given and make the most of it.
why do people want a staging yard, or holding yard, all the time? I do have the room for one on my layout but I just remove and add rail cars as I wish to change the trains. get rid of staging makes for more WORKING yards, and industries.
Staging yards are essential for realistic operation. They represent the rest of the rail network and give your trains an origin and/or destination. If you enjoy running your trains the way you do, then I'm not going to tell you that you are wrong. After all, the goal of a hobby is to have fun. Sooner or later, most people want to be able to operate more realistically, and to do that, you need a staging yard.
![[UA] NAVI vs MOUZ | BO5 | IEM Rio 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CMBYk0cbGoA/mqdefault.jpg)
As the client for this design, I’ll say for the record that Peter did a fantastic job fitting just about all the givens and druthers into the space provided, which was no easy feat as you could see.
I seriously can’t recommend Peter enough if you want a professionally designed layout for operations. Thanks again, and I greatly appreciate your work.
MRO,
I must thank you for buying this layout from Peter. Everything he conceives is a Master Work of Artisanship. I also like that you paid the freight. My layout benchwork is also atop Reclaimed, or Thrift Shop, Kitchen Cabinets. So some of Peter's layout ideas for you I can now absconded with for the major rebuild of my layout. FOB. Free On Boxcar.
My layout, which had to be put into storage for the room demo and rebuild, currently totals 30 stock lower 36" cubed boxes, 8 kitchen sink 36"x36"x70" boxes, & 3 36"radius end cap boxes. Currently that totals 156ft. of trackage (or four 39ft. of Main, Siding, & Ops track).
I have no staging. Which I'm "borrowing" from you. Don't expect it to be returned.
Also MRO and Peter I am going to alter your West (Left side) Helix. Level 1 will rise to level 2 on a 36"R double main. The East (Right Side) Helix will travel from the 2nd to the 3rd levels. Also on a two track 36" radius main. And my NEW Level 3 will have a similar con-fig as yours. Except at the West End I have a low hanging HVAC baffle. So I'm going to pull my track more forward. Nearer the facia. And have it loop around, over the 2nd level, to either a reversing loop or some sort of imaginary curved top level staging. I have yet to decide.
When I'm finished the current train room (30'x38') will more than double the footprint (to 30'x 75', with an additional ceiling shelf double main traversing into the Bar Room soffit. ending in a Double Dogbone Helix, to turn about, to return to the Train Room again.)
So thank you both for coming to my aide just when I needed you most.
~Jim
Mate you must dream this , years of experience in layout planning, always enjoying these sessions 😊😊😊
Frequently I do.
Your layout designs have become a 'must watch' for me as you make the design logic seem so simple but the outcomes are so complete in everyway. Its great that you are helping people develop a layout that they will not get tired of, while providing us with inspiration to develop the hobby further during these uneasy times.
Keep up the great work.
Bob
Wow Peter, I love it. I am dumbstruck how you can keep coming up with all these different industries and how to fit them into a track plan of any given dimensions. There is no fault to be found in the logic of operations between the different decks, which keeps the layout interesting from every angle. Lastly, it is really inspiring that you are willing to share these designs and grab the audience by the hand to take them through the ideas of the customer and yourself. Have a great Tuesday!
Kind regards
Richard
Thank-you. I love sharing my knowledge with others.
As I’ve said before, you’re truly a master at what you do, it’s mind boggling that you can always make things workout. I truly enjoy watching you in action, THANK YOU
Within reason, any type of layout can be built in any space - it's just a question of how much compromise will be necessary.
Great job Peter, a great layout design in what was a terribly constrained area to work with. Hard to believe you were able to create such a functional layout and include the customer’s wants. He should purchase a new folding ping pong table that can be used when the family wants but can be folded up when not in use so he has more room to build and run this layout.
I don't think that will happen. I think the limited space around it will be more of a problem while playing PP than when running the RR. Most of the time it will probably get used as a workbench while building the layout.
I always enjoy your designs.
As a modeler I would be interested in a video with a list of dos and don'ts. You reference some of those throughout your videos. Things like minimum radii for 4 axle, and 6 axle locomotives, vs. the multitude of steam locomotives. Minimum clearance height and rules of thumb for grades and helixes. I understand that you may not want to share all your knowledge. I do enjoy watching your designs as well as the finished products. Thanks for sharing them.
I will gladly share all my knowledge with my viewers. Putting together such a list would be easier said than done however, mainly because there are so many variables and the answers have a much to do with the builder's desired on appearance as they do with absolute mechanics.
Another complexity is that even within the same tight group of cars, there may be some variation. For example, as a general rule of thumb, full-length passenger cars in HO-scale should have curves of at least 30" radius, although personally I don't like their appearance on 30" curves, especially when the curve is viewed from the outside. Some brands of passenger cars will run quite happily on 27" curves. Other brands depend on the specific model. The Walthers heavyweight cars run quite well on 30" curves, except for the dining car. This has an access ladder on one side only that fowls one of the trucks on 30" curves, meaning that it will be okay in one direction but not in the other. Fortunately, it is a simple matter to shave the back of the ladder (a brand new blade is required for this).
@@mpeterll I definitely would be interested. It wouldn't have to be all encompassing, just some good general practices. It was worth a shot to ask. It appears that you stay busy enough with paying customers and your time is valuable. I completely understand.
I marvel at these plans. Don't think I can build one myself. Great work Peter.
Wow, another awesome layout design Peter. Every Tuesday I search for your newest video, you are a master of all things Model Railroading !!!
Barry Broyles
Thank-you.
Just a few things to consider😂...Nicely done, Peter!
A very nice design, Peter. Especially considering the space requirements.
Another great design as usual Peter, this is really nice for such a small space 👍👍👍👍😀
Excellent in detail ! Thank you for sharing this Peter.
Another great design Peter.
If you saw my place you'd say, "Now this is a huge compromise" LOL
Well done given the constraints you were given.
I’d love to see how this layout design transpires. It looks intricate and fabulous!!
A very exciting layout in a space used by all the family. Well done.
Awesome, I love the narrow gauge interchange yard. I have been struggling with making my standard gauge line a little more relevant on my current track plan. This helps.
Once again you come up with a layout dripping with interest, and yet not feeling cluttered or as though you are forcing detail on it. I think that is where your experience pays off over us 'first-timers' as we might try to cram in far too much. In reality there is more than enough going on here to maintain anyone's interest.
Who knows, the demand for table tennis may slack off when it is realised how much fun railroading can provide?
More than likely, the PP table will simply serve as a workbench during construction.
Interesting concept(s)!!!
thank you for detail video
It took me a minute to realized that the ore transfer on the upper level was two tracks over top of each other, from different ends - the narrow gauge over top of the standard gauge. I'm not sure I've ever really noticed one of those in layout videos.
So, for operation, there could be one free-running train traversing the helixes and the first and second decks? Then one or two operator controlled trains on the narrow gauge area, and another couple of freight trains running on the various levels. And then one or two switchers running as well. Lots of fun to be had!
The two of you didn't want a couple of dual-gauge turnouts up there? They are so beautiful to look at! :-) :-)
Sorry for the shameless self promotion, but if you want to know how I intend to operate the layout I’ll be making videos covering it in my channel in the future.
@@modelrailroadoperations2023 Ok, thanks. I'll try to look out for that. Following Peter's stuff is easy - just go look every Tuesday!
We talked about some dual-gauge turnouts but decided against it. At one point we had a mixed-gauge crossing and I sketched out one version with a dual-gauge bridge, but neither of those ideas worked well in the situation.
The family will certainly shove the table tennis table a foot or so north.
Probably, but it will need to get moved back again to run trains. That aisle along the side of it is already plenty narrow enough.
The staging yards feeding the mainlines through a diamond is Byron Henderson's X-Factor staging yard design. It has been published in the Layout Design Special Interest Group's Journal.
I knew I'd seen something like that before, but I wasn't sure where or when.
You should do a book on different track plans.
Maybe I will one day. or maybe my play-list will serve as an on-line book, free for all.
Hi mate,
Brilliant design.
I might have missed it, but what are the hieghts of each deck?
Thanks
Mario
I might not have given the actual heights because they were not ideal in this situation. I don't remember the actual numbers. The lower deck was built on top of cabinets, so would be about 3-4" above kitchen countertop height. The inter-deck spacing was I think 16", allowing for about 12" of space between them (hence the set-backs) and the top deck would have required step-stools for operation. The middle deck also had to fit under some wall cabinets. Were it not for the obstructions, I typically arrange triple-deck layouts at about 24, 44 and 64".
Elevations would be a good add. What is the spacing between the decks?
I added the elevations for the customer's version of the plan. They are largely irrelevant for the general release version since no-one else is likely to have the same set of constraints as the customer it was designed for. I also don't want to have to answer a barrage of comments that basically tell me it's too high.
@@mpeterll I am working on a 3 deck design for myself and am curious about deck spacing. Of course the top level will be "too high" and the lower level "too low". I am thinking 31", 45" and 59" and am planning on using steel tube construction to keep deck thickness as thin as possible.
@@ericjonboone This is something you can best answer for yourself. I'd suggest mocking up the arrangement with some adjustable shelving. Place some shelves at the same heights and widths as you plan on building your decks. Attach some strips of cardboard to the front, the same depth as the benchwork you plan to build. Then set out some structures, track and cars to get a feel for what the layout will look like.
The minimum benchwork thickness is usually a function of what must be included within it rather than the structural considerations. Not only will you need to hide switch machines, wiring, and lighting within the benchwork, but space for controls on the fascia. Don't forget that the scenery needs some level variation as well, and railroads are generally built a few feet above the surrounding landscape for drainage. In most cases, 4" is about the minimum practical benchwork thickness, leaving you only 10" to view and reach in between levels. I'm generally hesitant to go that close on a deck used purely for hidden staging. To some extent, the minimum spacing is a function of the maximum reach-in distance.
@@mpeterll My upper level will be mostly urban yards and switching. For most of it, my deck will only be 1 1/2 inches thick. (1" square steel tube frame with 1/2" thick board on top.) Using LED strips for lighting and servos instead of Tortoise for my switch control will let me keep the vast majority of the upper deck thin. Only in a couple spots (river crossings) will I need extra below track depth for scenery.
The middle level will need extra thickness for below track level scenery. This I think will use 1 inch thick steel frame with nominally 2" foam on top.
For the lower level, I have no thickness constraints.
Thus maybe I should tweak my nominal deck levels to allow for more space between the lower and middle decks because of the middle deck thickness.
Upper: 59" track / 57.5" underside
--> 12.5" clearance for scenery
Middle: 45" track / 42" underside
--> 12" clearance for scenery
Lower: 30" track
I will make a mockup as you suggested.
Hi Peter im going to build a 9 x 6 meter shed for a layout. Do you think putting the door in the middle of the 9 meter side with windows both side would limit options for a track plan compared to putting the door in a far corner of the 9 meter side?
If you have any choice of door location, always avoid putting it in the middle of a long wall. In any railroad design, long straight walls are your biggest asset and the last thing you want to do is cut one of them in half. A corner location is usually best, although often, moving the door a foot or two away from the corner might be better than being right in the corner as it allows the space behind the door to still be useful. In the case of an outbuilding as in your situation, that space behind the door may end up being the ideal spot for you and your visitors to hang coats etc.
Windows are another thing to consider. For a purpose-built railroad room, the windows should be kept out of the way of the railroad. I think for a shed the size you have, I'd be inclined to put a lot of windows in the same end that has the door. Windows in the remainder of the building can still be used for extra natural light during early construction, but you will most likely want to cover them with the backdrop as the layout progresses.
@@mpeterll Hi thanks for the detailed answer. I thought the corner approach would be better but the wife likes the more semetric look of having it in the middle with a window to each side. I will use your expert view as extra ammunition on my side :).
Yes the plan is for it to be a glass sliding door and then two other windows on that same 9 meter side. Their will also be a roller door vehicle access on the 6 meter side which can help with light during the build but I plan to board it up from the inside for improved insulation. Its only really there for resale value incase future owners want cars not trains in there
@@chrisj6321 You didn't say where you are located, but if it's in a snowy part of the country then definitely put the man-door in the corner next to the 16' vehicular door - i.e. nearer the driveway so less snow to shovel.
@@mpeterll Australia so no snow but Victoria so it does get cold. hoping to be able to use the long runs to get trains down to staging without a helix
Doesn't really seem like there's enough space for a ping pong table there. And family reaching over to access cabinets doesn't seem like it's going to end well at some point either. Quite the plan to get all that in there though!
The customer and I discussed both of these problems during the design process. Doth the PP table and the wall cabinets had to stay, and the only way to avoid the conflict was to not have a railroad at all. Usually we just have to accept whatever space we're given and make the most of it.
A sci-fi industry - “Spacely Space Spockets”??
Actually it’s going to be the SCP Foundation, I won’t try to explain it here, once you look into it you’ll understand Peter’s confusion on it.
@@modelrailroadoperations2023 -
😂😂😂😂
👍👍👍👍
@@modelrailroadoperations2023 😂😂😂😂😂 Another form of Fallout - to a degree!!
why do people want a staging yard, or holding yard, all the time? I do have the room for one on my layout but I just remove and add rail cars as I wish to change the trains. get rid of staging makes for more WORKING yards, and industries.
Staging yards are essential for realistic operation. They represent the rest of the rail network and give your trains an origin and/or destination.
If you enjoy running your trains the way you do, then I'm not going to tell you that you are wrong. After all, the goal of a hobby is to have fun. Sooner or later, most people want to be able to operate more realistically, and to do that, you need a staging yard.
@@mpeterll makes sense, thanks
I think Peter's response about staging yards makes sense but my layout brings in an exception. I model an entire isolated railway.