Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Builders Block!

10429 views
51 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May, 2012
  • 60 posts
Builders Block!
Posted by damigg on Sunday, May 06, 2012 5:53 PM

Hi all First time here, first time post.

Well after all these years I am finally and empty nester with an extra room. So you must have by now guessed what I am going to do that room.

So I found a plan that I likes and went ahead with the bench work and got it done. It's 104x8 with a 2x32 L shape on the left side. It turned out great it's straight, square and level and ready for drawing the layout on it.

But?... now that I see it up and see how much space I have I don't know what to do N-Scale or HO. As far as how far I want to take it, it really don't matter. I am 61 years young and a jack of all trades so the more the challenge the better. I went back to looking at plans here at MR and on line I found everything from easy to elaborate, to kits like Woodland Scenics River Pass.

Really don't want a kit, I would really like to get as real of a look as possible. so any help I can get from what kind of plan that would be a good fun layout to what type of track like N-Scales code 55 or code 100  or code 83 for HO and so on.

Sorry for all the silly questions and ramblings but I figured you would be the ones to ask. In the mean time I will keep looking at plans and get more books.

I just wish my first issue of MR Magazine would hurry and get here I need some inspiration.

 

Thanks All

Duane

  • Member since
    August, 2011
  • From: New Zealand
  • 1,674 posts
Posted by "JaBear" on Monday, May 07, 2012 6:14 AM

Gidday Duane,  Welcometo the forums.

Don't know if you realise but our Hosts have the Model Railroader 75 year Collection on DVD in their shop.  I'm glad I bought the set , though can be almost too much information at times.

No doubt you'll get lots of advice, some of it conflicting, some of it confusing or contradictory, but just remember that 99.999999% of it is from well meaning  folk.

As for silly questions, they are generally the ones that should have been asked before the incident.

The bottom line is "Its your railroad and Have Fun !!!".

Cheers, the Bear.

"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."

  • Member since
    June, 2003
  • From: Northeast OH
  • 12,000 posts
Posted by tstage on Monday, May 07, 2012 6:47 AM

damigg

It's 104x8 with a 2x32 L shape on the left side.

Duane,

Could you clarify the numbers above?  Are these in inches - e.g. 104"(L) x 8"(W)?  Just a suggestion: Maybe give the overall dimension of your L in feet and the width on each side in inches.

Tom

My web site: http://www.newyorkcentralmodeling.com

Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.

  • Member since
    September, 2007
  • From: Charlotte, NC
  • 5,605 posts
Posted by Phoebe Vet on Monday, May 07, 2012 7:21 AM

Welcome aboard.   Welcome

With a large area it is easy to get overwhelmed.  I suggest that you first complete a small area and get some trains running.  Then you can take breaks from construction or even the contemplation of design possibilities and see some trains running.

There are two basic groups of model railroaders.  There are people who just like to watch the trains run, and there are people who like to get together with others and operate their railroad.  If you are planning to be a member of the second group, you will need several industries with siding where you can pick up and deliver cars, and a yard where you can break and make up trains.  If you are planning to be a member of the first group you will need staging tracks to store trains that are not actually running.

This site has a library of track plans from which you can draw inspiration.

Dave

Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow

  • Member since
    March, 2002
  • From: Milwaukee WI (Fox Point)
  • 7,360 posts
Posted by dknelson on Monday, May 07, 2012 8:16 AM

I think most of us adapt our styles and preferences to our scales, rather than start by saying "here is the sort of person I am, these are my strengths and preferences, and here is my completed benchwork ready to go: now, what scale is best for me?"  Maybe that is the logical way we should approacy this, but not many of us do.   Indeed how many of us are in the scale we are in mostly because that was the scale of some trainset we got as a gift?

So not many of us go about this in the order that you have chosen.  But I think one question would be -- what kind of railfanning do you like best?  The answer to that might dictate scale.

Both N and HO are well served in the way of track, rolling stock and structures, and both offer plenty of opportunities for almost any variety of model railroader, although i have to admit that operating sessions on N scale layouts where you are expected to read off car numbers is a real chore given my eyesight.  But there are pretty sophisticated and realistic operating methods that do not rely so heavily on car numbers.  And some guys don't use any operating system at all.

I also have to concede that rerailing N scale rolling stock remains a challenge for me as well.  But if ease of rerailing was the main concern heck I'd go back to Lionel (and given what is available in three rail O these days I would probably have a heck of a good time with it, assuming I had the funds). 

And yes I am well aware that the prime directive should be to not derail the durn things to begin with. 

When I sit at the workbench assembling a kit or scratchbuilding a structure I am glad I am in HO and not in N.  I am in awe of what modelers such as Jerry Gunderson or Keith Kohlmann can do in N scale in the way of super detailed rolling stock and structures.  I mean, just look at this N scale modeling (which I have seen in person):

http://modutrak.cgwrr.com/MiNi/Berryville.htm

http://www.fcnrwy.mysite.com/index.html

The size and bulk of HO fits my current abilities (or lack of same -- and they aren't getting any better as I age).  Yet, as I try to visualize a large industrial area on the layout, with its own rail service, I wish I had chosen N because I hate making compromises.

Being a midwesterner most railfanning is of fairly contained views of a train coming down the track and to capture that on a model railroad, HO works well because the eye readily takes in on the model the same basic scene that it takes in trackside.  If I was modeling more wide open spaces -- such as the west, or the flatter granger areas, or the Rockies or eastern mountains, where railfan photographers tend to back off the scene and capture more of the context, I really think I'd find the scenic advantages of N to be pretty powerful. 

I think Mike Danneman's layout is the best advertisement ever for N scale.  The interesting thing is that he has used his space wisely and resisted the temptation to cram it full of expensive trains and track -- the actual amount of track and turnouts and rolling stock (the stuff that really costs money in other words) is about the same as a much smaller but traditional layout.

Dave Nelson

  • Member since
    January, 2007
  • From: Eastern Shore Virginia
  • 3,151 posts
Posted by gandydancer19 on Monday, May 07, 2012 1:16 PM

 

Since you found a plan and built the bench work, why not use the RR scale that the plan was designed around? (Or did you change it?)

At your age (I am 68 and near-sighted), unless you are near-sighted, I wouldn't model in N scale.

Elmer.

The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.

(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.

  • Member since
    May, 2012
  • 60 posts
Posted by damigg on Monday, May 07, 2012 3:08 PM

You are right I am old and my eyes are going fuzzy. I also to like the N Scale plan I was going to do but HO is the right size for my eyes. I also appreciate all the great responses that I have so far.

Here are all the measurements that I have for my finished bench work.

 

                        

I thought about using the l for a yard or station. I also just picked up 101 track plans on the way home from work and see If I can get some ideas from that.

 

Thanks again

Duane

  • Member since
    July, 2006
  • From: Central Vermont
  • 3,361 posts
Posted by cowman on Monday, May 07, 2012 4:46 PM

Welcome to the forums.

I was an empty nester, but wasn't fast enough.  One returned to the home roost and is showing  no signs of flight.

As for making your scenery, I was very pleased with the results of my first attempts.  Yes, there can be improvements, but it was quite easy to do a credible job with little experience.  I would suggest you get a good book on scenery from our host at SHOP above or at your local hobby shop.  There are also several videos available.

It was mentioned that a large layout can be overwhelming.  My suggestion is start with a section that can be expanded on or at a yard/town/special scene, that you really want to do.  For the rest of the layout, just lay a single track around, so you can run trains.  There are many aspects of scenery, so you don't get hung up waiting for one part to "dry" before you can start the next.  You will often see mentioned, only work on a square foot or two at a time.  Having the ability to run trains occasionally adds to the variety of things to do.  Seeing them running through the improved scenery helped me want to keep going, whereas before they could run, sometimes things seemed to get stagnant.

As your skills improve, you will want to go back and improve the areas where you started.  Even the most experienced modelers often change parts or their whole layout, as their wants and likes change over time.

Have fun,

Richard

  • Member since
    January, 2010
  • 904 posts
Posted by peahrens on Monday, May 07, 2012 8:00 PM

Welcome.  I've found this forum immensely helpful, in combination with MR and some key books available.  It took me 3 years to decide to crash ahead as a retiree (and obtain approval for the space).  I found refining plans with a tool like (free) XTrackCAD helpful...it got me familiar with the track makers (assuming you will not hand lay) and was handy to try things out on the PC.  Suggest the forum search option is really helpful to check out many typical topics, in combo with using the "Save as Favorite" option under "More" in a thread.  Don't hesitate to ask anything...the folks here are extremely helpful.

Enjoy the journey.

Paul

Modeling HO with a transition era UP bent

  • Member since
    May, 2007
  • From: East Haddam, CT
  • 3,192 posts
Posted by CTValleyRR on Monday, May 07, 2012 8:37 PM

Hello, Duane, and welcome!

Kudos to you for building your own benchwork and getting it right (although speaking as someone who builds furniture as a second hobby, doesn't have to be be plumb and square, just sturdy and level).  A lot of people these days won't even try.  However, I'm having a little trouble visualizing what you've built.  Perhaps your first project could be to draft up a quick sketch and post it here for us to look at.

If I understand correctly, you had a plan in mind.  Wasn't that designed for a given scale?  Did you change your mind once you saw how much (or how little) real-estate you have available?  While the possibilities of endless terrain in N scale are appealing, they quickly fade -- for me at least -- when I realize how much trouble I have seeing and handling things in HO scale.  I'd never manage in N.

I agree that someone in your position would not be happy with a kit.  If you really want realism, go find a prototype photo and reconstruct that, either by kitbashing (modifying a commercially available structure kit), or scratchbuilding (using wood, styrene or metal parts -- again, commercially available -- to build from a set of plans).  Personally, though, I would recommend getting some set-piece areas or structures -- real areas or buildings that you want on your layout -- and making the rest be believable, without necessarily being a model of a real place.  Here again, a lot of what is commercially available is very good in representing given eras and locales.

Before you go out and buy a lot of stuff, however, I'd nail down where and when your railroad is set (year and location), and what railroad it will be (real or fictitious).  If you need some help developing a layout design, give us some ideas to work with and a lot of us will be glad to help.  Just remember the golden rule:  your layout only has to please one person -- you, but by the same token, only you can create a design that will accomplish that.  Yeah, we can help, but you're in the drivers seat.

Connecticut Valley Railroad A Branch of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford

"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -- Henry Ford

  • Member since
    November, 2006
  • From: huizen, 15 miles from Amsterdam
  • 1,484 posts
Posted by Paulus Jas on Tuesday, May 08, 2012 9:58 AM

Hi Duane,

as you can see your drawing didn't show up properly.

You will have to use a host like PHOTOBUCKET. If your pic is uploaded , you can copy a direct link on here. (you could use the key resembling a chain)

Or if you prefer to have the drawing visible on here, copy / paste the IMAGE Code into this posting.

Maybe you could share which plan you found. BTW it also is important to know how your layout is placed in the "room". A drawing of it, with all obstacles like doors, windows and others is needed.

Since i can not make anything from the dimensions you provided, a thought about the scale is impossible to give. It seems you have chosen for HO anyway.

Paul

 

  • Member since
    December, 2005
  • From: Hampshire, England
  • 289 posts
Posted by germanium on Tuesday, May 08, 2012 5:54 PM

Duane,

Since MR are offering "open house" on their trackplan database this week, then why not search that ?  It may at least give you some ideas of what to do with your space. And you've still got to plan it out in detail - getting a plan of sorts is only the start.

Dennis

  • Member since
    May, 2012
  • 60 posts
Posted by damigg on Tuesday, May 08, 2012 7:46 PM

I picked up a copy of 101 Track plans, the one with the yellow cover. And I think I found the one I am going to try.

It's track 17 "Buckley & Onarca" on page 13. It has a lot of what I want to do. Trestle work tunnels and a place to make the turn to the extension for a cool yard the will fit the era.

If any of you know of this layout or anyone who has built it for so reference ideas that would be great.

Let me know if this might be a good first go.

I will also try to figure out how I can get some progress pictures posted too. I may need a little help there too.

Well off to the next step.

Thanks to all for the great comments.

Duane

  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: Northern CA Bay Area
  • 2,589 posts
Posted by cuyama on Tuesday, May 08, 2012 10:22 PM

damigg

I picked up a copy of 101 Track plans, the one with the yellow cover. And I think I found the one I am going to try.

It's track 17 "Buckley & Onarca" on page 13. It has a lot of what I want to do. Trestle work tunnels and a place to make the turn to the extension for a cool yard the will fit the era.

If any of you know of this layout or anyone who has built it for so reference ideas that would be great.

 

This thread has become more than a little confusing. 101 Track Plans was published over 50 years ago*. The Buckley and Onarca isn't in 101 Track Plans, as it was published a decade or so later.

Plan 17 in 101 Track Plans (on page 12) is the famous, but very challenging, Gorre and Daphetid. This requires very tight radii and handlaid-to-fit turnouts to fit in the space shown in HO. Perhaps not the best project for a newcomer to the hobby.

The Buckley and Onarca was republished in a different book, Track Planning Ideas from Model Railroader. It's probably somewhat more achievable as drawn, but will still be challenging with off-the-shelf components.

Since it's still not yet clear at all what your space actually is, what benchwork you already have built, whether you have access all around the benchwork or not, etc., it's impossible to comment meaningfully.

Good luck.

* By the way, there has been lots of layout design thought and experimentation in the 56 years since 101 Track Plans was published, but the track plans in it are unchanged from 1956. There are almost always better alternatives to the plans in 101 Track Plans.

 

Tags: HO 4X8
  • Member since
    November, 2006
  • From: huizen, 15 miles from Amsterdam
  • 1,484 posts
Posted by Paulus Jas on Wednesday, May 09, 2012 1:48 AM

hi,

this might help

http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/p/181001/1981556.aspx#1981556

It seems complicated, though after doing it one time it is very straight forward to add a picture on here. Basically you upload a pic in photobucket and copy/paste the image code into your posting.

The publication 101 TP's has an orange cover; the 101 MORE TRACK PLANS has a yellow (/greenish) colour. (MORE is the important difference)

Anyway plan 17  in the latter publication is the Buckley & Onarca, a typical old fashioned 8x4, with very steep grades. This is an understatement however, if you pay attention to the needed extra space for a gradual transition from the flat area. And not suited at all to a flat table top, tracks are going up and down constantly; a nice plan for a cookie-cutter style layout with risers.

If you have a larger space probably doable,  i am still curious about the dimensions you called huge in your first posting.

Cuyama's real name (the previous poster) is Byron Henderson. You could have a look at his website for some alternative 8x4's and even for some alternatives to 8x4's 

Paul

  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: Northern CA Bay Area
  • 2,589 posts
Posted by cuyama on Wednesday, May 09, 2012 10:40 AM

Paulus Jas

The publication 101 TP's has an orange cover; the 101 MORE TRACK PLANS has a yellow (/greenish) colour. (MORE is the important difference)

Anyway plan 17  in the latter publication is the Buckley & Onarca, a typical old fashioned 8x4, 

Thanks, Paul. I don't have a copy of 101 _More_ Track Plans, so I couldn't make sense of the OP's post..

  • Member since
    November, 2002
  • From: Colorado
  • 3,882 posts
Posted by fwright on Wednesday, May 09, 2012 10:55 AM

Paulus Jas

Anyway plan 17  in the latter publication is the Buckley & Onarca, a typical old fashioned 8x4, with very steep grades. This is an understatement however, if you pay attention to the needed extra space for a gradual transition from the flat area. And not suited at all to a flat table top, tracks are going up and down constantly; a nice plan for a cookie-cutter style layout with risers.

I have personally studied the Buckley & Onarca and have concluded that it is not a buildable plan - at least not in a 4x8 space.  Although the plan is laid out properly with Snap Track and Snap Switches, it fails to properly address vertical clearances.  Look at the switchback tail track on the right that passes under the main - there simply isn't sufficient vertical clearance.  I'm also very suspicious about clearance over the hidden track, and this just from memory.  I also believe that the vertical curves required are not practical even in 1/2" plywood cookie cutter construction.

Operationally, having grades everywhere means that switching operations become impractical - there is no where to leave the train while setting out a car without the train rolling away.  And if the spur or siding isn't level you must provide a way for the set out car to stay there.

These are common failings of 4x8 layout plans with multiple elevations - even though it looks great on paper, vertical and horizontal clearances, and space for grades just aren't what is really needed during construction and operation.  Notice the Atlas 4x8 plans tend to have less track than other plans, but at least the Atlas plans have been built, and corrections to the plans made.  I have come to suspect any crowded 4x8 that has not been actually built by the planner.

my thoughts, your choices

Fred W

  • Member since
    November, 2002
  • From: Colorado
  • 3,882 posts
Posted by fwright on Wednesday, May 09, 2012 10:55 AM

Paulus Jas

Anyway plan 17  in the latter publication is the Buckley & Onarca, a typical old fashioned 8x4, with very steep grades. This is an understatement however, if you pay attention to the needed extra space for a gradual transition from the flat area. And not suited at all to a flat table top, tracks are going up and down constantly; a nice plan for a cookie-cutter style layout with risers.

I have personally studied the Buckley & Onarca and have concluded that it is not a buildable plan - at least not in a 4x8 space.  Although the plan is laid out properly with Snap Track and Snap Switches, it fails to properly address vertical clearances.  Look at the switchback tail track on the right that passes under the main - there simply isn't sufficient vertical clearance.  I'm also very suspicious about clearance over the hidden track, and this just from memory.  I also believe that the vertical curves required are not practical even in 1/2" plywood cookie cutter construction.

Operationally, having grades everywhere means that switching operations become impractical - there is no where to leave the train while setting out a car without the train rolling away.  And if the spur or siding isn't level you must provide a way for the set out car to stay there.

These are common failings of 4x8 layout plans with multiple elevations - even though it looks great on paper, vertical and horizontal clearances, and space for grades just aren't what is really needed during construction and operation.  Notice the Atlas 4x8 plans tend to have less track than other plans, but at least the Atlas plans have been built, and corrections to the plans made.  I have come to suspect any crowded 4x8 that has not been actually built by the planner.

my thoughts, your choices

Fred W

  • Member since
    May, 2012
  • 60 posts
Posted by damigg on Wednesday, May 09, 2012 11:07 AM

What about a go and give the virginan a try? That would be a really good one too. Just got to try and find the track list to it..

  • Member since
    July, 2006
  • From: west coast
  • 2,244 posts
Posted by rrebell on Wednesday, May 09, 2012 11:49 AM

If I was your age, I would go On30. easy on the eyes and you don't have alot invested over time to another scale. Your pics did not turn out so please re-post space, I am asking currently for help as I have spent years planing but was afforded the opportunity to grab more space and like you, no plan for new space!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Member since
    November, 2006
  • From: huizen, 15 miles from Amsterdam
  • 1,484 posts
Posted by Paulus Jas on Wednesday, May 09, 2012 1:25 PM

hi gentlemen,

to give you some ideas about the plan and the grades involved:

The Virginian is a great choice, especially with the extensions. However why go for a 8x4?

And your already built bench? Definitely with different dimensions.

Paul

  • Member since
    November, 2006
  • From: huizen, 15 miles from Amsterdam
  • 1,484 posts
Posted by Paulus Jas on Wednesday, May 09, 2012 1:28 PM

hi gentlemen,

to give you some ideas about the plan and the grades involved:

The Virginian is a great choice, especially with the extensions. However why go for a 8x4?

And your already built bench? Definitely with different dimensions.

Paul

  • Member since
    May, 2012
  • 60 posts
Posted by damigg on Wednesday, May 09, 2012 2:59 PM

If I can ask is there a place to get a list of what track pieces were used?

This is all helping make my decision because I am sure not commuted to just 4x8 but I it is set up in a 10'x10' room.

Thanks for posting the picture it is clearing up a lot of what I couldn't make out before.

 

Thanks

 

 

Paulus Jas

hi gentlemen,

to give you some ideas about the plan and the grades involved:

http://i989.photobucket.com/albums/af19/Paulus_Jas/T8X4BO.jpg

The Virginian is a great choice, especially with the extensions. However why go for a 8x4?

And your already built bench? Definitely with different dimensions.

Paul

  • Member since
    November, 2006
  • From: huizen, 15 miles from Amsterdam
  • 1,484 posts
Posted by Paulus Jas on Thursday, May 10, 2012 4:38 AM

hi Duane,

i have been thinking about your first posting; if you have been mixing up feet and inches i might understand the room and bench work you are dealing with.

You could commend on the drawing, i assumed your spare room was not that different from mine.

As you can see the Metro Belt Line could be fitted in, when going back to a 18" radius and simplifying the plan a bit.  Also the Virginian with an extension could be done. Since this layout is built with flex-track, you will not find a shopping list for snap-track. (i might be wrong on this)

Smile

Paul

 

  • Member since
    April, 2003
  • From: Clinton, MO, US
  • 3,400 posts
Posted by Medina1128 on Saturday, May 19, 2012 8:45 AM

First, I'd like to welcome you to the forums. They are a great source of a wealth of information. I had plenty of space for HO or N. The deciding factor for me was that it's hard enough to get the wheels back on the track in HO; with N scale I'd need magnifiers!

  • Member since
    May, 2012
  • 60 posts
Posted by damigg on Saturday, May 19, 2012 11:38 AM

I think with the space that I have I am going to base my plans on the Virginian with an extension for more yard and other cool stuff. But if you all can think of a cool layout that would fit my space please feel free to give it a go. As I am not committed to any track laying yet. But Getting close.

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l109/Duane151/Bench-Top.jpg

 

Thanks Tons For All The great Comments and Help.

Duane

  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: Northern CA Bay Area
  • 2,589 posts
Posted by cuyama on Saturday, May 19, 2012 12:33 PM

damigg
So I found a plan that I likes and went ahead with the bench work and got it done. It's 104x8 with a 2x32 L shape on the left side. 

damigg
This is all helping make my decision because I am sure not commuted to just 4x8 but I it is set up in a 10'x10' room.

damigg
http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l109/Duane151/Bench-Top.jpg

I have trouble matching the measurements you gave in the first post with the graphic.

But if this is what you have built in a 10'X10' room, much of it will be unreachable as you try to build a layout unless you cut access hole "pop-ups" in multiple places. Most folks find that they cannot reach more than 30" over a built-and-scenicked layout, sometimes less.

Note that MR's Virginian (typical of HO 4X8s), requires aisles on at least three sides.

In your space, one could build the equivalent of the Virginian, but designed for better access, such as this 8X10 HO layout:

In this case, the access areas are really needed only for construction and occasional maintenance. And in the larger 10X10 space, you could probably eliminate at least one with a narrow access aisle.

Best of luck.

Byron

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • From: Enfield, CT
  • 924 posts
Posted by Doc in CT on Saturday, May 19, 2012 6:22 PM

Nice design Byron.  I believe Armstrong's narrowest access aisle was about 12 to 16 inches for maintenance and construction.  That should easily work into a 10ft space.

Co-owner of the proposed CT River Valley RR (HO scale) http://home.comcast.net/~docinct/CTRiverValleyRR/

  • Member since
    May, 2012
  • 60 posts
Posted by damigg on Sunday, May 20, 2012 12:53 AM

cuyama

 

 damigg:
So I found a plan that I likes and went ahead with the bench work and got it done. It's 104x8 with a 2x32 L shape on the left side. 

 

 

 damigg:
This is all helping make my decision because I am sure not commuted to just 4x8 but I it is set up in a 10'x10' room.

 

 

 damigg:
http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l109/Duane151/Bench-Top.jpg

 

 

 

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l109/Duane151/Bench-Top.jpg

I have trouble matching the measurements you gave in the first post with the graphic.

But if this is what you have built in a 10'X10' room, much of it will be unreachable as you try to build a layout unless you cut access hole "pop-ups" in multiple places. Most folks find that they cannot reach more than 30" over a built-and-scenicked layout, sometimes less.

Note that MR's Virginian (typical of HO 4X8s), requires aisles on at least three sides.

In your space, one could build the equivalent of the Virginian, but designed for better access, such as this 8X10 HO layout:

http://www.layoutvision.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/HO_8X10_Track_Plan.gif

In this case, the access areas are really needed only for construction and occasional maintenance. And in the larger 10X10 space, you could probably eliminate at least one with a narrow access aisle.

Best of luck.

Byron

OMG! I am so going to try this layout my room is 12x11 with the door in just the right spot.! Thank You Byron! This layout has so many things going it will be great fun. But I have already ordered some of the track that was going towards the Virginian, but It looks like a lot of it will work with this one too. Now I guess the next trick is bench work? At least I have a more certain direction. I will try and keep everyone posted on my progress. And thanks to all of the great people hear in the forums all the help so far.

 

OH Wait! Should I do open grid or Styrofoam?

Thanks Again

Duane

  • Member since
    November, 2006
  • From: huizen, 15 miles from Amsterdam
  • 1,484 posts
Posted by Paulus Jas on Sunday, May 20, 2012 4:21 AM

Hi Damigg,

It is nice you like the Virginian designed by Byron Henderson that much.

Just a few remarks;  you were unable to tell us the dimensions of your layout for quite some time. Even now the size of your room suddenly is 12x11 in stead of the 10x10 you mentioned a couple of times. You did not have the courage or courtesy to respond to those remarks.

If you look back at my postings I suggested some alternatives for an 8x4. Surprise surprise the plan suggested by Byron Henderson (Cuyama) was among them; apparently you didn't notice it then. You could have a second glance at his donut style Virginian. (the 3-rd layout on that page of Byron Henderson's web site)  For the prize of a lift-out you will have no blobs with their access problems. You could have a look at some alternatives by me as well; though one is an addaption with Atlas c83 track of Byron's figure-8 design.

In your first posting you stated the bench work is already built and looking huge and flat. It seems you have to do it all over.

IMHO when lots of grades are involved i prefer open grid (or L-girders), with cookie - cutter style sub-roadbed. Styrofoam is better suited for flat area's.  

Have fun with the build

Paul

 

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Popular on ModelRailroader.com
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
Find us on Facebook

Loading...