Trains.com

Which layout design do you like better?

5657 views
29 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, July 23, 2007 5:38 PM
That's a great idea!  A nice little ad hoc bridge would be great!  I was thinking that the barn would belong to a house on the south east corner but with a little wooden bridge would be a great detail feature.  Perfect!
  • Member since
    April 2006
  • 8,048 posts
Posted by fifedog on Monday, July 23, 2007 5:20 PM

You could bore a little underpass (big enuff to fit a tractor & wagon) thru your cliff to connect your barn & farm.  There are a lot of examples of that in MD & PA.  Some of them rather rickety but full of charm.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, July 23, 2007 5:14 PM
I updated the layout photo, just refresh the screen.  I added a farm and a tobacco barn I will also be adding some wooden fences.
  • Member since
    January 2005
  • 1,991 posts
Posted by Frank53 on Monday, July 23, 2007 2:57 PM

the upper right hand corner would make an outstanding baseball field.

Place everything from the pitchers mound to home plate on the layout in the corner and use a photo backdrop on the wall to signify the outfield, fans in bleachers, etc. You can end up with something really nice out of a previously wasted space.

You can all your dugouts, on deck circle, umpire, tail gating, chain link fence, bleachers, even parking on each side of the first and third basepaths.

  • Member since
    January 2006
  • 621 posts
Posted by dsmith on Monday, July 23, 2007 2:34 PM

I really like your revised layout plan.  It offers lots of switching options and can reverse in both directions.  If you are familiar with Lionel antiderailing switches, you could even link certain pairs of switches together and automate a particular pattern.  On my layout, I use this feature on 2 pairs of switches that will repeat a pattern or if the linked feature is turned off, you can operate the switches as normal.  Lots of action in a small space, much better than an oval or two.  I love it!

  David from Dearborn  

  • Member since
    April 2006
  • 8,048 posts
Posted by fifedog on Monday, July 23, 2007 2:10 PM
I agree with Big Jim, looks great.   That depot and water tower fit that spot like a glove.  Can I suggest a couple of those small WEAVER switch towers to guard your crossings?  Also, your firehouse looks a little lonely there.  You could place it near the lower left edge opposite the gas station, facing the viewer, pack it with small details, thus creating a scenic view block for the trains.  That leaves that nice space adjacent to your pond for an industry (say a logging camp?).
  • Member since
    December 2004
  • From: St. Louis, MO
  • 4,913 posts
Posted by Brutus on Monday, July 23, 2007 1:16 PM

(OOPS - my mistake, 3 it was...!)

Looks great!  I like it a lot better this way. 

RIP Chewy - best dog I ever had.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, July 23, 2007 1:03 PM

Here's a bit of a mock up with some structures and ideas on scenery.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, July 23, 2007 11:59 AM

 fifedog wrote:
Well, Kentucky is pretty hilly, so you may want to build your town on top of the upper left (or NW) portion of your pike.  Most railroad depots/stations tend to be at the lower elevation of a town anyway.  You can taper a hillside down.  It'll give you a couple tunnel bores to help "increase" your run visually.

Yeah, I've been considering elevation on my layout, but I haven't figured out just how to incorporate it yet.  The main town (NW corner) in reality is right next to a creek and is in the low part of town, and the tracks used to run straight through the town and along the creek, so I won't be raising the town.  However I am thinking about buidling up some of the interior regions to create hills and I'll cut through those hills or replicate one of the still existing tunnels that the train used to run through.

  • Member since
    April 2006
  • 8,048 posts
Posted by fifedog on Monday, July 23, 2007 11:35 AM
Well, Kentucky is pretty hilly, so you may want to build your town on top of the upper left (or NW) portion of your pike.  Most railroad depots/stations tend to be at the lower elevation of a town anyway.  You can taper a hillside down.  It'll give you a couple tunnel bores to help "increase" your run visually.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, July 23, 2007 11:12 AM

 fifedog wrote:
ATSJer - I can see you really favor 2 crossing tracks.  The new diagram is more free-flowing than the first 2. 

Yeah, I'm trying to work as much action into the track without it being too cluttered, and with my 4x8 layout this becomes quite a balancing act, and the crossings help with that a lot.

 fifedog wrote:
Now, you have to ask yourself,"What kind of structures do I want on my layout, and how many?"  You still have a lot of track down, and this could limit you on that avenue.

Can you fill us in on what you would like to incorporate?

Ok, the plan is a rural setting, the left and top walls (on diagram) will have Ameritowne building fronts to simulate the main street through our town, I'm also going to follow Frank53's lead and build something similar to this in the NW corner.

Throughout the remainder of the layout it will be mostly farm land with a few other smaller structures similar to some of these. (none of the following measures over 10.25 inches in length, and most are around 4 to 6 inches some are 9 inches long.)  I will also be adding a water tower too, but no coaling operation since there was never anything like that in our town.

  • Member since
    April 2006
  • 8,048 posts
Posted by fifedog on Monday, July 23, 2007 11:00 AM

ATSJer - I can see you really favor 2 crossing tracks.  The new diagram is more free-flowing than the first 2.  Now, you have to ask yourself,"What kind of structures do I want on my layout, and how many?"  You still have a lot of track down, and this could limit you on that avenue.

Can you fill us in on what you would like to incorporate?

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, July 23, 2007 8:32 AM

Thanks everyone, and thanks for the tips. 

Ok I made some changes to the first one, I took out one reserving loop and added a long siding that works as an inner loop.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, July 22, 2007 11:20 PM
The first one!
  • Member since
    January 2007
  • From: Southern MD
  • 315 posts
Posted by USNRol on Sunday, July 22, 2007 9:53 PM

 Jim Fortner wrote:
I can see 4 reverse loops on the first layout.  So, I think I'd axe 1 or 2 of then (one small and one large, or the two large ones) and put in sidings - you could still reverse in 2 directions.

I see 2 cw-ccw loops and one ccw-cw that can be entered two ways (just as any rev loop can) I'd only get rid of one of the cw-ccw loops cause I really don't like having to back through loops to change direction!

Roland

  • Member since
    December 2004
  • From: St. Louis, MO
  • 4,913 posts
Posted by Brutus on Sunday, July 22, 2007 9:40 PM

I can see 4 reverse loops on the first layout.  So, I think I'd axe 1 or 2 of then (one small and one large, or the two large ones) and put in sidings - you could still reverse in 2 directions.

RIP Chewy - best dog I ever had.

  • Member since
    January 2007
  • From: Southern MD
  • 315 posts
Posted by USNRol on Sunday, July 22, 2007 9:33 PM

 fifedog wrote:
I like the top design better.  But I would eliminate the lower left 90 degree crossing, as well it's two conjunctive switches at left and bottom.  That leaves a clean looking run with the ability to change direction.  Perhaps a siding or two in the now open areas at the bottom and left...

Sign - Ditto [#ditto] second reversing loop is redundant...trade it in for some sidings/industry.  Nice 4x8 layout.

Roland

  • Member since
    January 2007
  • From: New Jersey
  • 440 posts
Posted by PostwarMan07 on Sunday, July 22, 2007 9:29 PM
I like the first one better.  I always see track plans with 1 reverse loop and wonder why not 2 so you can reverse again.  This one has 4 and looks like a lot of fun to run.  You are limited to smaller trains, but who cares when you have all this action.  I would try to throw in a siding later on for an operating accessory.
John W
  • Member since
    December 2004
  • From: St. Louis, MO
  • 4,913 posts
Posted by Brutus on Sunday, July 22, 2007 9:27 PM
First one - I'd do what Fifedog said, but add a spur on that side to an industry or something...

RIP Chewy - best dog I ever had.

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Columbus, Ohio
  • 426 posts
Posted by nitroboy on Sunday, July 22, 2007 8:22 PM
first one!!!!
Dave Check out my web page www.dmmrailroad.com TCA # 03-55763 & OTTS Member Donate to the Mid-Ohio Marine Foundation at www.momf.org Factory Trained Lionel Service Technician
  • Member since
    April 2007
  • From: MICH
  • 8,153 posts
Posted by sir james I on Sunday, July 22, 2007 8:09 PM
The first, if you just want to watch a train run. It would make a good show layout.

"IT's GOOD TO BE THE KING",by Mel Brooks 

  Charter Member- Tardis Train Crew (TTC)   - Detroit3railers-  Detroit Historical society Glancy Modular trains- Charter member BTTS

  • Member since
    April 2006
  • 8,048 posts
Posted by fifedog on Sunday, July 22, 2007 7:51 PM
To me, honestly, they're both kinda busy looking.  You will be limited to running really short trains.  That being said, I like the top design better.  But I would eliminate the lower left 90 degree crossing, as well it's two conjunctive switches at left and bottom.  That leaves a clean looking run with the ability to change direction.  Perhaps a siding or two in the now open areas at the bottom and left...
  • Member since
    March 2006
  • From: Ann Arbor, Michigan
  • 2,306 posts
Posted by kpolak on Sunday, July 22, 2007 7:39 PM

First one!

Kurt

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Boca Raton, FL
  • 406 posts
Posted by willpick on Sunday, July 22, 2007 4:48 PM
Of the two, i'd pick the 2nd one, as it has more room for trackside operating acessories. For operating a train, No.1 is better.  Too bad you can't do both---

A Day Without Trains is a Day Wasted

  • Member since
    January 2006
  • From: Florida
  • 2,238 posts
Posted by traindaddy1 on Sunday, July 22, 2007 4:36 PM

I like the first one.  (The second one does, however, look as though a platform station might be able to be shared by trains on either track)

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, July 22, 2007 4:30 PM

 1688torpedo wrote:
 Hello ATSJer!    The first layout looks more versatile & fun. How many trains do you plan to run on your layout? Take Care.

I only plan on running one train at a time, I'm also only planning to use standard transformer control.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: Willoughby, Ohio
  • 5,231 posts
Posted by spankybird on Sunday, July 22, 2007 4:22 PM
The First one, hands down!Wink [;)]

I am a person with a very active inner child. This is why my wife loves me so. Willoughby, Ohio - the home of the CP & E RR. OTTS Founder www.spankybird.shutterfly.com 

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • From: 15 mi east of Cleveland
  • 2,072 posts
Posted by 1688torpedo on Sunday, July 22, 2007 4:12 PM
 Hello ATSJer!    The first layout looks more versatile & fun. How many trains do you plan to run on your layout? Take Care.
Keith Woodworth........Seat Belts save lives,Please drive safely.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Which layout design do you like better?
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, July 22, 2007 3:58 PM

Which one do you like better?  Feel free to offer suggestions.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER

Get the Classic Toy Trains newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month