Page updated:September 02, 2012

Christmas Layout Design

Many people think that electric train layouts are designed but one time. Here we show the evolution of our 2003 Christmas Layout in order to give a bit of insight into the layout design process. A 3D view of the final layout design is shown at left
We had a space of 9.5 x 6 ft to work in for this years layout. In order to aid placing track supports and objects like Xmas trees, we include a layer in our layout that shows all of the obstacles, such as timber frame supports and room intrusions that must be designed around.

Layout 1

Layout 2

Layout 3

Layout 3A

Layout 3B

3D view of final layout design

Our first attempt at a layout is shown at left. Timber frame posts are in brown at upper left and right, double French doors in gray at top center. The light yellow objects are wooden supports we have fabricated over the years to serve as props and provide much of the support for the upper level track and buildings. 
A trial lower level O-gauge track loop is shown, and already exceeds the 6 ft depth of the layout space. Further, the octagonal Xmas tree support puts the tree in the center, which leaves little space for either track or buildings on either side. This design had no future so we chucked it....

The second layout design starts off by moving the tree off-center to the left as much as possible ( our rule of thumb is that you need a 3 ft clearance on all sides for an 8-1/2 ft tree). We modified the lower level track loop in the first design so that it fits in the space, and clears the changed arrangement of support structures. We then included an upper level track loop that passes under the tree (this usually makes for interesting views) and crosses over the lower level in two places. Unfortunately we had to move the support structure at the top center very far to the left so that the lower level track could adequately clear the right side support unit without having to pass underneath it. This would result in many of the scenes in Christmastown ending up behind the tree and out of sight. We also did not like the crossover at the lower right which is at such and acute angle it would have required a custom built overpass. So we chucked this design...

For our third layout design we decided to try using a modified figure 8 for the lower loop. This eliminated the problem of clearing the support structures at the rear of the layout. We were then able to slide to center back support to the right to make one continuous town area; the gap at the rear of the Xmas tree could easily be spanned with a girder bridge. Having a figure 8 in one loop also means that the two trains will travel in the same direction on one side of the layout and opposing directions on the other, which is visually interesting. We then modified the upper level loop to provide more crossing interaction with the lower level loop (we now have four crossings rather than two). 
The main problem with this design is that the lower level track loop passes in front of the Xmas tree support rather than running beneath it. So we decided to take a closer look at this basic design...

We decided that the above design was basically sound. but we wanted the lower level trains to pass through the station area under the Xmas tree. For our fourth layout design, we rotated the octagonal support 45° and moved it out about 3 inches. This necessitated lengthening the upper level loop where it passed over the octagonal support so that it would still be in front of the tree. Slight adjustments in the location of track supports forced us to move some of the tinplate buildings and eliminated comfortable room for the 116 station. The 124 station on the upper level was eliminated in favor of more ceramic buildings. This is the layout we actually constructed...

We considered one what-if scenario: we added 22.5° of curve to both sides of the “S” in the upper loop. This would allow a small expansion of the far right upper level loop, making room for a 116 station on the ground level. We decided that this gain was offset by worse crossover points from a standpoint of track supports and added another 45° of curves for an upper level train to snake around (this loop is already sufficiently curvy to condemn it to diesels and short-wheelbase steamers, no need to make this situation even worse). We could have considered some other minor variations, such as widening the first part of the “S” curve rather than the second half but construction was scheduled to begin the next day so we called it a wrap and went with Layout 3A.