Layout design for guest room (HO)

[pghanson]

Greetings!

This is my first post here, though I've been lurking about for a while. I haven't had a layout since I was a teen (20+ years ago), but have recently become interested in the hobby again. I've been doing a lot of reading and have a pretty good handle on what I'd like in a layout - '30's, branch/shortline, small steam, way freight switching...

I don't have much room, but I've think I've got a good plan for the space I do have available. It packs a lot in, but is intended primarily as a testbed for trying different things both scenery- and operations-wise.



The plan uses staging cassettes a'la Iain Rice, and it's designed to come apart and store on the wall when the room is being used for guests (twice a year, maybe). This link illustrates how that works:

http://www.maj.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1241194

A larger view (showing just the layout, not the room) is available here:

http://www.maj.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1242897

I'm interested to know what y'all think!

Thanks - Paul

[ereimer]

nice plan ! you should enter it next time MR has a 'small layout' design contest . your plan is a perfect example of why one should build around the walls rather than put a 4x8 layout in the middle of the same room . also impressive is the way you've figured out how to get it out of the way when you have visitors , although i'd like to see if that actually works with track and scenery installed . certainly it's good in theory !

 

welcome to the forum , and be sure to post photos as you make progress

 

 

[UP2CSX]

Very cool plan indeed although it will be interesting to see how it all works out in your real world guest room. The only thing I'd change is dump the harbor and make it a city/industrial area. More switching opportunities and I just like building downtown scenes better than harbors. Nice job on the CAD drawing - what software did you use?

[steinjr]

 I like both the storage concept, the quality of your planning and the actual layout.

 I particularily like the way you make it visually look like a point to point - by not having the continuous run track A-B go into one tunnel and come out of another one just on the other side of the divider between the mining hills scene and the dockyard scene - that way you won't see one half of the train in one scene, one half in the next scene during continuous runs.

 I also like the height you put it at - at stoop-under height instead of crawl-under height. Also will make the scenes look a lot better - it is obviously intended to be run while standing.

 I like the X factor staging, and the use of a staging cassette. You can move a train in left staging directly onto the staging cassette, potensially turn it and put it back. But the number of staging tracks - in effect one in each direction - means that you will have to stop operations from time to time to switch (or turn) cassettes. Probably not a problem - certainly not a problem if you are operating alone - you could probably get several hours of operations done with what you have on the layout plus what you have on the two staging tracks.

 Good mix of industries. I like the way you don't overcrowd the scenes - leaving some room for open scenery along the upper/left side of the layout.

 The idea of standing the bed up on edge (and hopefully securing it to the wall, so it won't fall down and crush your railroad or its operator/s ), and having the layout not go all the way out to the walls (ie over the bed) - allowing access to staging and wiring etc from the outside of the layout - is a very good idea!

 This just looks good. One question : benchwork when deployed - one sectioned fastened to its wall shelf, I presume. Drawing shows one section (closest to the bed) with portable supports under it. What about supports for the other two sections ?

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[IRONROOSTER]

Given your space and other requirements for the room, I think this is a very good layout.  It should provide a lot of fun.  Working in the X staging is a real plus.

Enjoy

Paul 

[tomikawaTT]

  Welcome, lurker.  Nice to have you aboard.

VERY nice layout, especially for a first effort!  I, too, use cassette staging - makes for a lot of flexibility in traffic.

Things I like:

• A simple circle that can be operated as a point-to-point
• The complex (yet simple) trackwork accessible from both sides.  Really gives the flavor of a congested older industrial/commercial area.
• The angled mirrors - great layout expanders.
• Room enough for people.

Things to think about:

• Engine servicing facilities, specifically locomotive fuel and sand.  The logical place to put them is where your junkyard is located - and they'll generate just as much (or more) traffic.
• The harbor.  Your quay MIGHT be long enough to berth a small coastal fishing boat, but there's no adjacent facility to handle the fish.  Even doubled (by the mirror) it's way too short for any serious ship.  (People who don't come into contact with them on a regular basis seldom appreciate the sheer physical size of watercraft - not to mention the shoreside facilities needed to handle their cargoes.  Even a WWII Liberty Ship could swallow the entire capacity of 100 contemporary freight cars, burp, then look for more.  Today, even a modest-size container ship can fill (or empty) 500 five-well articulated container cars - double-stacked.)  OTOH, a whirly crane could make it into a transload facility for 45-55 foot powerboats...
• Duckunder access to the main control pit.  Not a problem for a young gymnast, but a major PITA to somebody who, with age and arthritis, has become as flexible as the Washington Monument.  (I resemble that, hence my bias.)

All in all, a layout with lots of promise.  Enjoy!

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

[SpaceMouse]

The layout is well planned out. I like it. Personally, I would have opted for more layout in the space, that is to say a little more depth along the sides. But then again you may like the space figuring you might want three operators in the pit instead of two.

The part that doesn't make sense to me is the space between the wall with the window and layout. It's not enough to walk behind or use in any way. The only time it makes sense is when the layout is dismantled and a guest is in the room, then it is visually balanced. I don't think that matters that much as the layout on the wall will be odd enough anyway.

Might as well use the 6 " and add more depth to that side.

The harbor doesn't bother me--I see it as a visual element rather than a working element. Put a small dock and a sailboat and call it a private berth for the rail road president. Then you can park a business car and run an electrical outlet.   

You are allowed to put things in just to look cool.

[pghanson]

Thanks all for the kind words and thoughtful criticism. This being my first post, I was afraid there would be a fatal flaw in my plan - I'm relieved that y'all don't think that's the case.

I'll try to address some of your questions/concerns:

Jim (UP2CSX) - I originally thought I'd have more industies where the harbor is, but had a hard time getting any more spurs around that corner of the layout, so it became a harbor - something I think would be fun to model anyway, so it's all good to me. But as Chuck notes, my harbor is very small. Maybe I'll take his suggestion and put in sand and coal for the engines where the scrapyard is. In that case, I'd probably get rid of the harbor and put the scrapyard down there.

The software I used for the drawings is an OLD version of Macromedia Freehand - very similar to Adobe Illustrator. I used to work as a graphic designer, so it's what I had and knew how to use. It's easier to cheat using a general-purpose drawing program, but I was very careful not to do that.

Stein (steinjr) - You are correct about the benchwork. One large section is attached to the wall, and another large section stands on removable legs. I'm thinking that the smaller sections would simply be supported by the larger sections at either end. They're not very big (42" x 14" each) and I'm leaning toward very lightweight construction. With no supports under those sections, nothing would obstruct the duckunder.

Chuck (tomikawaTT) - Your suggestions about the engine facilities and harbor are well taken. My thinking has been that most trains would originate in staging, work their way down the branch, turn at the end and return whence they came - in which case I don't need more elaborate engine facilities. But I do want to experiement with other operating scenarios, and in some of those I might want something more in the way of engine facilities. I'll have to think on that one...

I'm not a big fan of the duckunder, but for continuous running on a layout of this size I think I have to live with it. I do plan to mount the layout high (I've shown 60" on my drawings, and I'm 6'2") so that should alleviate it somewhat (actually, height is something I want to experiement with on this layout). I have a 4 year old son, and spend a lot of time crawling around on the floor with him, so a shoulder-height duckunder doesn't seem too bad to me right now. I may feel differently in ten years :-)

Chip (SpaceMouse) - Since I'll need to rearrange the sections when I want to have guests, I tried to keep the pieces as small and manageable as possible. And I don't want the stored sections to intrude too much on the guest room. And as designed, all of the pieces can be cut from a single sheet (4 x 8) of material. So that's why it's not bigger :-)

About the weird space in front of the window - I didn't show it on any of the drawings, but there are vertical blinds on the window that will need a few inches to clear the layout. And I thought that it would be easier to move the sections around if one could get a hand on both ends. So, the wierd space :-)

Again, thanks all for your comments.

- Paul

[steinjr]

Very cool plan indeed although it will be interesting to see how it all works out in your real world guest room. The only thing I'd change is dump the harbor and make it a city/industrial area. More switching opportunities and I just like building downtown scenes better than harbors.

 Mmm - I see your point, but would offer the opposite advice - keep the harbor, even if there is no room for ships at the part of the pier we can see from above.

 The original poster has a mirror placed there, so it will visually appear like a much longer pier. Also - the idea that the rails "end" by the shore in this direction helps prevent the viewer from looking for "more" further to the right (seen from inside the pit).

 Basically, the way it is set up now - you have a RR line that runs from the hills down towards the shore. Interchange traffic can come from og go to places further "upland" - out from the tunnel in the lower left hand corner, and it can go to or come from places which connect to the same seashore city.

 The underlying hills-to-shore theme looks instantly believable with the train lengths he can run with his staging - which is fairly short trains.

 No matter what is decided, I am looking forward to seeing this RR getting built. I hope there will be photos posted from the construction period.

 Btw - does the layout have a name yet ?

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[Anonymous]

Ya know... this old grump finally smiled with joy to see such a well done plan. No seriously...

Me? I would boot the guest to the sofa or hand them 30 dollars for a motel room and take over the entire room and improve on that plan.

Whadda ye say?

That harbor is just too small, sorry. Even a WW2 Liberty Ship will take up 5 x 2 actual feet next to a HO scale dock.

[C&O Fan]

Good Plan !

Kinda reminds me of my own but instead of seperating the bed space I put my layout over top of a hideabed. That way i could go all the way around 4 walls and have a larger layout

The bed still opens up but access to the closet is blocked which is ok cause i don't want my guests staying too long !

If you go to my album site you see the ugly orange couch

The real reason i built it this way was because that couch weighs a ton and i didn't want to move it !

[flyngsqurl]

Exceptional!  Inspired me to try and incorporate X-factor in my own plan.  I think the Harbor is fine right where it is.  Definently incorporate engine service facilities, they are like another industry.

[Kurt_Laughlin]

One thing that may be more flexible for your layout than a "harbor" would be a rail-to-river transfer.  It could be a sand and gravel plant (L) or scrapyard (R):

http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=40.697956~-80.274259&style=h&lvl=18&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=4958122&rtp=null~null&encType=1

or aggregates and coal:

http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=40.683038~-80.261081&style=h&lvl=16&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=4958122&rtp=null~null&encType=1

 

HTH,

KL

[pghanson]

Hi again, and thanks again for the comments.

Considering what everyone has written, I still lean toward leaving it as is. Stein makes a good argument for keeping the harbor. And sure it's undersize, but so is everything else on the layout :-) But I think a harbor will be a fun modeling challenge.

Adding sand and coal is a great idea, but I just think that a scrapyard - and gons filled with scrap loads - would look cooler. I hope to model a nice big engine facility some day, but it'll have to wait for the next layout.

Stein - No name yet. Any suggestions? I'm curious if there are any prototypes that would be a good match...

SafetyValve - Take over the whole room? I wish, but the management won't allow it. That's not to say I don't have a few ideas of what I'd do with the space if it were available :-)

Terry (C&O Fan) - Nice layout! and good use of the space. I like the mirrors. LOL about the couch!

flyngsqurl - X-staging wasn't part of my plan until quite late in the process, but I'm glad I fit it in. It does add a lot of flexibility.

Kurt - Sounds interesting, but the links don't work for me :-(

Thanks again everyone!

- Paul

[steinjr]

No name yet. Any suggestions? I'm curious if there are any prototypes that would be a good match...

 Hi Paul --

 The combination of coal, waterways, manufacturing, grain processing, cattle feeding and short trains with steam engines kind of gives (at least to me) a feel of the Midwest/Great Lakes region sometimes between 1900 and 1950. 

 Depends on what you want to emphasize - the granger aspect or the coal hauling aspect.

  If you want to emphasize grain hauling/feed mill/stock pen, then maybe place it west of Chicago.

 If you want to emphasize the coal-mines-to-water aspect, then perhaps place it in northern Ohio. Maybe something like the Bessemer and Lake Erie (BLE) ?

 But by all means - this could be located pretty much anywhere except the drier parts of the far west with a good enough storyline - east coast, southern uplands, pacific northwest.

 What is the feel you are looking for ? What region/type of RR/time period ?

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[tomikawaTT]

Hi again, and thanks again for the comments.

Considering what everyone has written, I still lean toward leaving it as is. Stein makes a good argument for keeping the harbor. And sure it's undersize, but so is everything else on the layout :-) But I think a harbor will be a fun modeling challenge.

Adding sand and coal is a great idea, but I just think that a scrapyard - and gons filled with scrap loads - would look cooler. I hope to model a nice big engine facility some day, but it'll have to wait for the next layout.

Snip...

Thanks again everyone!

- Paul

Okay, the harbor stays.  So does the junkyard.  BUT - that enginehouse (even though it's a dummy) and the turntable imply that a local switcher (or the impoverished short line's only locomotive) is based here.

So, move the junkyard down to the quay, equip that whirly crane with a big electromagnet and make the area a transload facility for scrap from inland sources to barges for transportation to a riverside steel mill, "somewhere around the bend."  The junkyard can receive carloads of steel scrap for transloading, and originate a few carloads of non-ferrous/nonmetallic scrap from local sources for interchange off-line (aka staging.)

The loco that supposedly lives in that engine house still needs fuel and sand.  How to provide them is left as an exercise for the student.

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

[bearman]

That's a nifty plan.  I'm with SafetyValve.  Buy a tent and have the guests sleep in the back yard.

[bearman]

With respect to a name, you have New England branchline identified in the track plan.  There aren't any coal mines in New England that I am aware of, but, its your railroad and I am a firm believer in everyone doing their own thing in this regards.  Back to the name, it could almost be located in central Connecticut or central Massachusetts where there would have been rolling farmlands and small towns.  The harbor, to me, implies either a big river, the Connecticut perhaps? or the coast.  In my case, there is a town (actually, in the past two years it has become a city) south of Phoenix called Maricopa and the Salt River flows through Phoenix, so, the Maricopa & Salt River is in its infancy. Just an idea.

[pghanson]

Hello again -

Thanks again everyone for the great feedback!

Stein - I've been thinking that the layout would be set in New England in the mid-to-late '30's. No real reason for that - just that the photos I've seen of that region and period are very appealing. For traffic, I don't want to emphasize any particular thing - I want to run mixed trains (so that I can show off my yet-to-be collection of nicely detailed freight cars).

Although the Midwest is someting I should consider. I grew up in Michigan and could maybe do a little research when I travel back there to visit family.

Chuck - Yes, I know that it's the enginehouse that's causing confusion. To be honest, I put that in there strictly for looks, and for the fact that it would hide a few inches of the backdrop. I had thought that maybe I'd model it in an abandoned state (since it's not usable anyway). But...

I really like the idea of a scrap transload facility for the "harbor". (I think this was what Kurt was trying to tell me earlier, but I didn't get it then.) I'd kill two birds with one stone, it would probably generate more traffic than a plain ol' junkyard, and a barge would believably fit in my tiny space.

Which brings me back to fitting loco coal & sand in where the scrapyard is now. It seems I'd need to create a little space between the turntable lead and the delivery track for the coal & sand bins. Any recommendations for how to do that without stealing too much from the grocery wholesaler?

bearman - Yes, I know a coal mine isn't really New England. But I've got a map of the US that shows where coal was mined, and it looks like Antracite was found throughout the Rhode Island/Eastern Conn/SE Mass (minus the cape) area. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to find a pocket a little north of there, would it?

I had thought about a quarry for that space. That would definitely be New England, but I also thought it would be fun to have at least one commodity that shipped between online industries (coal from the mine to the coal dealer in this case). Notwithstanding that that was pretty uncommon in the real world, of course.

I had envisioned that the harbor would be at the coast, but a river might be a better idea. It would maybe work better with Chuck's scrap transloading idea, and maybe I could say the habor is just a bit downstream from where the rails cross the same river on the truss bridge. Aah, it's all starting to come together!

Thanks again, everyone.

- Paul

[marknewton]

Which brings me back to fitting loco coal & sand in where the scrapyard is now. It seems I'd need to create a little space between the turntable lead and the delivery track for the coal & sand bins. Any recommendations for how to do that without stealing too much from the grocery wholesaler?

Easy - don't have either, because you don't need them. Assuming that you're portraying the end of a branch, the only facilities you'd need would be the turntable, the water tank and column, and perhaps a short ashpit. If the branch is serviced by a train working as a "turn", it would be entirely prototypical for the loco to carry enough coal to get out and back without refuelling. At a pinch the fireman might have to shovel forward for the return trip, but that still obviates the need for a coal bunker.

Steam locos would normally go days on end without having the sandbox refilled, so that's out as well. You've already provided water and a t/t, the only other servicing that realistically would be required would be to oil around and clean the fire, hence the ashpit. And if the railroad doesn't care if the crew drops the contents of the ashpan in the gauge, and the pan has flushers, then you don't even need the pit. That, or model oil-fired locos...

If I were you I'd ditch the engine house, but otherwise keep the arrangement as drawn. What you've posted looks like a very workable design for your space, I reckon.

Incidentally, your copy of FreeHand can't be that old - mine dates from the days when it was sold by Aldus! As old as it is, I still use it to draw rollingstock and other modelling related items.

All the best,

Mark.

[bearman]

Paul -

I just learned something.  I was born and brought up and went to college in Massachusetts and never knew there were coal pockets in the area.  No, I don't think that it would be a stretch at all as you describe it.

As for the harbor, you might want to consider the Merrimack River valley.  Between about central NH, Concord, downstream to Haverhill, MA there were any number of cities with economies based on manufacturing, clothing, textiles, etc.  And I do remember a coal dealer in my hometown, my grandfather worked for the dealer although eventually the coal gave way to fuel oil.

I think you are onto something with the theme that you are trying to put together. 

 

[orsonroy]

The layout plan is fine, but the layout FOOTPRINT isn't.

Move the layout to hug ALL of the walls, increase the height of the layout to 50"-60" depending on your height, reduce the layout width across the entryway and closet, and make ONLY the entryway/closet section of the layout removeable. This does several things:

• Increases the overall size of the layout.
• Increases the overall mainline run.
• Gives you more overall free space in the center of the room.
• Gives you more overall free space UNDER the layout.
• Gives you more space for a hideaway bed and furniture (and maybe a work bench).
• Requires less of the layout to be moveable. Moving layout sections is nothing but headaches, so the less you have to do, the better.

Since the guest room will only be used for that purpose a few tines a year, you might as well design the layout to take advantage of all of the space. The cassettes/fiddle yard can be put into the closet, or into the center of the room on a second detachable section. Narrowing the layout along the entryway gives you simpler, more manageable areas to move when necessary, and a narrower area to duck under (the increased height will help too).

I'm in a similar boat. With a growing family (two kids and counting) my 25x32 basement area has to serve as a layotu room, storage, family room and laundry. To make the most of the situation I went from a design that used a 11x25 chunk, walled off from the rest of the basement , to a 11x28 reversed-P shaped layout that shares the bulk of the space with everything else. I'm keping my shelves (it's a double deck layout) to 24" or less wide, the height to 48" and 62", and engineering the drop downs (instead of duckunders) to be as generous as possible. There's plenty of room down there for both the kids and the layout, so I don't see why you can't build a larger layout that will accomodate both a larger layout and a fully-functioning bedroom in the same room.

 

[Kurt_Laughlin]

New links for riverside industries:

Sand & gravel, stainless steel scrap:

http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=40.697672~-80.273491&style=h&lvl=19&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=4958122&rtp=null~null&encType=1

Coal:

http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=40.684173~-80.261484&style=h&lvl=17&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=4958122&rtp=null~null&encType=1

A smaller coal transfer facility:

http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=40.555616~-80.210121&style=h&lvl=18&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=4958122&rtp=null~null&encType=1

HTH,

KL

 

 

[pghanson]

Hello again!

Good stuff everyone. This is the kind of feedback I was hoping to get when I posted the plan here.

Mark - Good info about engine servicing - thanks. You are correct - I am modeling an end-of-the-line terminal and probably don't need much more than the TT and water - which is why that's all I included on the original plan. The enginehouse is superfluous and I have thought about modeling it as abandoned.

But I hope to use this layout to experiment with different operating schemes. It could be a short line with trains originating in the city. Or I could decide that the city is big enough to have it's own switcher. So, in those cases, coal & sand would make sense. I could go either way, and am still debating which way to go.

I've been a Freehand user since the Aldus days. You're probably lucky - later versions got a little bloated. I always preferrred Freehand to Illustrator, and wish it hadn't been killed.

bearman - Thanks for suggesting the Merrimack valley. That sounds just about right for what I have in mind. Not that I know much about that region, but now I have and idea of where to start my researching.

Ray (orsonroy) - I had wished that I could make the layout larger, but my wife insists that I not take over the whole room. As you point out, small layouts have their disadvantages, but to be honest, since developing this plan I have warmed considerably to the advantages of building small. A smaller layout is easy to move if I have to, or want to take it to a show, or if I decide to sell it. It'll be cheaper. It'll be up & running faster. And it'll be easier to build to a really highly detailed level. I can live with that :-)

Kurt - Your links still aren't working for me. I just get dumped to the live.com home page. But I used your information and found some images on my own - good stuff that has my wheels turning.

Thanks - Paul

[steinjr]

Hello again!

Kurt - Your links still aren't working for me. I just get dumped to the live.com home page. But I used your information and found some images on my own - good stuff that has my wheels turning.

Thanks - Paul

 Here is Kurt's links in tiny-url versions:

http://tinyurl.com/39aw79

http://tinyurl.com/2j4yko

http://tinyurl.com/2rvrey

Looks like you are getting closer to building. Looking forward to seeing construction pictures from your layout eventually!  

Smile,
Stein

 

[orsonroy]

Ray (orsonroy) - I had wished that I could make the layout larger, but my wife insists that I not take over the whole room. As you point out, small layouts have their disadvantages, but to be honest, since developing this plan I have warmed considerably to the advantages of building small. A smaller layout is easy to move if I have to, or want to take it to a show, or if I decide to sell it. It'll be cheaper. It'll be up & running faster. And it'll be easier to build to a really highly detailed level. I can live with that :-)

Hi Paul,

Having the layout hug the walls really isn't making the layout "larger"; it's just making it a little longer.

When I was planning a layout for my shared-use basement, I originally went with a longer version of what you have planned, which was a 11x25 donut-shaped layout that would have taken up roughly 2/5 of the basement. Bot once I mocked up the general footprint of the layout (by adding masking tape to the floor and wandering around visualizing things) I quickly realized that I was actually taking up quite a bit of basement real estate, and partitioning the entire space into relatively unattractive smaller rooms. Since I wanted the space to be friendly for the entire family and wanted them to actually hang out down there (so I wouldn't be accused of being a basement troll!) I had to come up with a plan that would release more floorspace for general use.

So I decided to play around with designs that would wrap around the entire basement wall. I quickly liked the idea better, for a variety of reasons. First off, it increased the length of my mainline run (and what modeler doesn't want that?). But more importantly, by raising the minimum height to 48" I freed up ALL of the floorspace under the layout for general use. Shelves, bookcases, couches, TVs, boxes of toys, etc, can now live under the layout, and the kids will actually be able to play under it. Moreover, I shrank the bulk of my shelves to 12" wide, further freeing up floorspace. Going from 18" to 12" shelves also means that I have less layout to scenic, which will allow the project to progress faster (especially since a lot of those shelves will be nothing but mainline and corn).

So I'd still recommend playing around with a fully around the walls layout. At least mock up both plans (like I did) and chew on them for a while. Let your better half look at both plans too, and let her comment on which she'd feel more comfortable with.

[pghanson]

Hi again -

I think I may have figured out what I'm going to do. Taking another page from Iain Rice, I'll build the scrapyard, harbor, and enginehouse parts of the layout as "puzzle pieces" (irregularly shaped dioramas that can be swapped for another of the same shape). That way I can have a piece that has the scrapyard on it, take it out and swap it for a coal/sand track and see which I like better (or vary them for different operating schemes). Likewise with the harbor/transfer facility and the enginehouse/abandoned enginehouse/no enginehouse pieces.

Stein - the links still don't work for me, even with the tiny url's. Thanks for trying! I suspect the problem may be that I'm using a non-Microsoft browser (Safari on a Mac).

Ray - I get what you're saying. Actually, some of my first layout ideas were very much what you describe. But my wife insists that the bed stay, and with it in there, there just wasn't enough space around the edges of the room for even a very narrow shelf AND room for access. And you're preaching to the chior about layout height. I intend to build at around 60" - one of the reasons that I like a high layout is that it leaves room for other stuff underneath.

Thanks! - Paul

[marknewton]

Mark - Good info about engine servicing - thanks. You are correct - I am modeling an end-of-the-line terminal and probably don't need much more than the TT and water - which is why that's all I included on the original plan. The enginehouse is superfluous and I have thought about modeling it as abandoned.

That would certainly look interesting, although it might be a bit limiting operationally. But if you're experimenting, why not try it? If you don't like, no great loss.

But I hope to use this layout to experiment with different operating schemes. It could be a short line with trains originating in the city. Or I could decide that the city is big enough to have it's own switcher. So, in those cases, coal & sand would make sense. ..

Yes, in both cases. But neither scheme need require much more than the bare minimum of infrastructure. You can coal quite even large locos using just a gondola and a bloke with a strong back and a shovel - trust me, I've done this many times



- and the sand facilities need not be much more than a weatherproof bin and some suitable cannisters. So you can still model a loco terminal without sacrificing other industries. I have a lot of material on loco depots and their infrastructure if you need some ideas.

I've been a Freehand user since the Aldus days. You're probably lucky - later versions got a little bloated. I always preferrred Freehand to Illustrator, and wish it hadn't been killed.

You're a Mac user, then? I thought your artwork looked to good to have been produced on a PC!
I've never used FreeHand for anything like that, but seeing your work has inspired me to give it a go the next time I revise the design of the Chitetsu...

All the best,

Mark.