sinebar wrote: is it a good plan for operating.
As noted, there is no space for industries in the original. Most folks like to have some industrial switching and industrial buildings for scenery, especially in a layout this large.
The book 101 Track Plans is over 50 years old now, so there has been a lot of thought given to layout design in the interim. This particular plan has significant access problems and could probably only be built as drawn with the use of some custom trackwork, not off-the-shelf track switches (turnouts).
This plan was typical of design goals in the '50s: lots of track, lots of loops back and forth, a good-sized turntable and roundhouse. Since many layouts did not progress very far past the tracklaying phase, crawling on the layout to reach far areas for maintenance or to rerail trains was not seen as too big of a problem. The table is 7'X10' (in HO). At the least, you would need a couple of feet for aisles all around, so the true space this layout would occupy is more like 11'X14'. In that much space, one can do better. Even in N scale, one could probably do better in the equivalent space.
In a way, it's a shame that author/editor Linn Westcott's drawing skills were so terrific -- he made these tightly-packed layouts look much better in the book than they ever could in plaster and plywood, IMHO.
ByronModel RR Blog
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Where in does the significant access problems lay with this layout? Nothing is outside 3 ft and most is within 2 ft (all switches and crossings + turntable, where common derail problems might lay), always felt that that is the maximum you can reach over a layout, this case calculating for HO ofc, in 0-scale i can understand the reach problems. The access area in the middle should ofc be built and not covered up.
And I bet you get plenty of switching just from backing in and out of "Baltimore" there is even a note on the map about using part of the inner mainline for yard switching. I understand it's not the standard "spotting cars at various industrys" type switcher but it could get advanced enough.
On the other hand #57 is a double tracked loop with loops added on for turning things around. So should make a fairly good "starter" or "first" layout to complete. Wiring this one will be intresting but on the other hand what layout doesn't have wiring complications. (One tracked loops? Pt-to-Pt without switches/turnouts?)
"101 trackplans" offers plenty of switching layouts 6,7,8,11,12,51 and 55 however as the thread maker wanted input on this particular one I'd say go for it its a good "display" type layout with some switching action built in. However the 14" turntable might be a bit small for Big Boys the layout can probably handle most Mikados and such. Diezelisation is also ofc an option!
about needing 11x14 ft of space i guess you can figure out it needs that much since its in the 12x16 ft space layouts of the book?
I do agree that most his layouts are track-heavy but this is the typical thing for the 50:s.
20 degree crossings it says in the book and that probably makes the switches #6:s which is 91/2 degrees? Probably going to need to use flex-track but switches/turnouts and crossings shouldn't be a problem anyway.
Greetings Hans from Sweden
cuyama wrote: As noted, there is no space for industries in the original. Most folks like to have some industrial switching and industrial buildings for scenery, especially in a layout this large.The book 101 Track Plans is over 50 years old now, so there has been a lot of thought given to layout design in the interim. This particular plan has significant access problems and could probably only be built as drawn with the use of some custom trackwork, not off-the-shelf track switches (turnouts).This plan was typical of design goals in the '50s: lots of track, lots of loops back and forth, a good-sized turntable and roundhouse. Since many layouts did not progress very far past the tracklaying phase, crawling on the layout to reach far areas for maintenance or to rerail trains was not seen as too big of a problem. The table is 7'X10' (in HO). At the least, you would need a couple of feet for aisles all around, so the true space this layout would occupy is more like 11'X14'. In that much space, one can do better. Even in N scale, one could probably do better in the equivalent space.In a way, it's a shame that author/editor Linn Westcott's drawing skills were so terrific -- he made these tightly-packed layouts look much better in the book than they ever could in plaster and plywood, IMHO.ByronModel RR Blog
You make a good point. If I use it I will make it flat with some modifications that will allow industry. Also make it a little bigger. But is there a good 8' x 10' or 11' "flat" layout somewhere with good opporating potential?
Frisken wrote: Where in does the significant access problems lay with this layout?
Where in does the significant access problems lay with this layout?
Personally, I can't easily reach across three feet of finished layout. 30 inches is about my max. And I'd rather not crawl under and pop-up a few thousand times in the construction, operation, and maintenance of the layout.
My major point, and I'll stay with it, is that there are better options for 11X14 feet overall (with minimal 2-foot aisles) in HO than this 50+ year old design.
Frisken wrote: Where in does the significant access problems lay with this layout? Nothing is outside 3 ft and most is within 2 ft (all switches and crossings + turntable, where common derail problems might lay), always felt that that is the maximum you can reach over a layout, this case calculating for HO ofc, in 0-scale i can understand the reach problems. The access area in the middle should ofc be built and not covered up. And I bet you get plenty of switching just from backing in and out of "Baltimore" there is even a note on the map about using part of the inner mainline for yard switching. I understand it's not the standard "spotting cars at various industrys" type switcher but it could get advanced enough. On the other hand #57 is a double tracked loop with loops added on for turning things around. So should make a fairly good "starter" or "first" layout to complete. Wiring this one will be intresting but on the other hand what layout doesn't have wiring complications. (One tracked loops? Pt-to-Pt without switches/turnouts?) "101 trackplans" offers plenty of switching layouts 6,7,8,11,12,51 and 55 however as the thread maker wanted input on this particular one I'd say go for it its a good "display" type layout with some switching action built in. However the 14" turntable might be a bit small for Big Boys the layout can probably handle most Mikados and such. Diezelisation is also ofc an option!about needing 11x14 ft of space i guess you can figure out it needs that much since its in the 12x16 ft space layouts of the book? I do agree that most his layouts are track-heavy but this is the typical thing for the 50:s.20 degree crossings it says in the book and that probably makes the switches #6:s which is 91/2 degrees? Probably going to need to use flex-track but switches/turnouts and crossings shouldn't be a problem anyway. Greetings Hans from Sweden
Well I really like the yard and roundhouse layout in this one. That's what caught my eye when I saw it. The rest can be changed to suit and I enough room to make it a 8' x 11'.
sinebar wrote: Well I really like the yard and roundhouse layout in this one. That's what caught my eye when I saw it. The rest can be changed to suit and I enough room to make it a 8' x 11'.
Personally, I think a better approach to layout design is to consider the overall space (room entrance location and door swing, obstructions, etc.), then from that decide what will fit. This is an alternative to looking for the largest table that will plop into a given space.
Often, a dogbone or other walk-in style will fit into the overall space, then you can add in engine facilities, yards and such to fit the overall footprint. If you look closely at the yard in #57, a number of the tracks are only a couple of feet long when you consider the clearance points. Those are pretty short to be very useable. The connection to the engine terminal is also a bit convoluted -- a more modern approach would be to set up one or more arrival-departure tracks that are double-ended and make the connection to the turntable from those. The plan is designed so that you have to loop and back in every train. I guess some might see that as fun.
Another more-modern concept is the use of staging tracks to represent locations beyond the visible layout. Staging tracks are absent from nearly all of the designs in 101 Track Plans.
You are probably going to spend at least a few years on building a layout this size. To me, it makes sense to optimize it for the overall space you have in terms of operation, access, "maintainability", etc. -- rather than just plunking down a rectangular table design from an old book. That approach will take more time and study, but seems to me to give the best chance of long-term satisfaction and enjoyment.
sinebar wrote:Well I really like the yard and roundhouse layout in this one. That's what caught my eye when I saw it.
Before you commit to this yard make some paper train cars. Sit down and do some normal yard work. Bring in a train off the main, break off the road locomotive and take it to the facilities, break off the caboose and store it, then classify the train. If you are satisfied with this scenario, then bring the train in from the opposite direction. Then reverse and make up a train from both directions.
Personally I think you will be pulling your hair out and planning on how to change the yard to make it more workable. For example the large version of this layout #58. Much more workable yard. Pay attention to changes noted by the circled 5, 7, and 9. No, I still don't like it but it is better.
Texas Zepher wrote: sinebar wrote:Well I really like the yard and roundhouse layout in this one. That's what caught my eye when I saw it.Really? Looking at it closely I don't really understand it. I don't see any clear arrival or departure tracks. If the bottom area is used for arrival the bottom three tracks are blocked from being used. I can't identify anything that would be a caboose or RIP track. The two tracks that look like yard leads aren't. They are just tracks sort of there not connected to the working of the yard at all - maintenance of way storage?? To work cars between the upper and lower sections of the yard will require the switcher to go out on the main - way out onto the main. The main yard ladder is also the only access to the locmotive service/storage area, which happens to also be a switchback. There isn't even a locomotive excape crossover anywhere. Before you commit to this yard make some paper train cars. Sit down and do some normal yard work. Bring in a train off the main, break off the road locomotive and take it to the facilities, break off the caboose and store it, then classify the train. If you are satisfied with this scenario, then bring the train in from the opposite direction. Then reverse and make up a train from both directions.Personally I think you will be pulling your hair out and planning on how to change the yard to make it more workable. For example the large version of this layout #58. Much more workable yard. Pay attention to changes noted by the circled 5, 7, and 9. No, I still don't like it but it is better.
Well I can always change the yard. So what would be needed to make the yard work?
cuyama wrote: As noted, there is no space in a way, it's a shame that author/editor Linn Westcott's drawing skills were so terrific -- he made these tightly-packed layouts look much better in the book than they ever could in plaster and plywood, IMHO.
As noted, there is no space in a way, it's a shame that author/editor Linn Westcott's drawing skills were so terrific -- he made these tightly-packed layouts look much better in the book than they ever could in plaster and plywood, IMHO.
Folks:
The yard does look like it needs some help. I took a quick glance this morning, when I was on my way out the door. I'll need to look again and think some more.
I like that book. I don't know if I like all of the plans, and some are very weird. I have to wonder how Bill Wight saw the Lime Ridge, Hercules, and Portland being operated, for instance, but he died young, in the Speedrail accident, so not even Westcott could have asked him that before publishing. Still, there is more variety in that book than might be gathered from the remarks seen online about it. Many of the plans do tend to be compact, so they may look weird, but I still think we can learn things there.
I don't like to reject plans hastily. When I see a plan posted online, or published, and it doesn't make much sense to me at first, I still try to give it a chance, and see what I might be missing. I think this is especially vital in this case, because this plan, according to LHW, was very popular. When I read that, I like to try and understand just what made it popular, and what relevance that can have for us today.
It's a table, but a big table. Thinking about this, I had an interesting thought. A round-the-wall layout surrounds its room. Even if it's small, it's everywhere you look. Generally, it looks like a permanent fixture, like the kitchen counters, not furniture.
A table is an object *in* the room. Even if it's big, and takes up much more space than wall shelves would you still get the impression that it's furniture, and can be moved. Maybe this psychological difference is part of the attraction. It's easier to "sell" a piece of furniture to The Building Management than a permanent room alteration. Just a thought.
Anyway, back on the layout in question, what are its strong points, and why did people like it?
It would be a great layout if somebody liked collecting locomotives and cars, and wanted to watch them run. The roundhouse is right up front and center, as is the yard, and there are well-defined dense-track areas (roundhouse and yard) and scenic areas to run trains in. That's what some people like. Most of us are collectors in some way, even if we're not as ready to admit it as the Lionel crowd. :)
This plan isn't totally devoid of staging, either. You can look at staging in different ways. It's there to simulate distant destinations, but it's also there to supply a realistic traffic density to a layout that can't do that by itself. This yard could do that, and since the only local switching would be company supplies, most of the yard could be dedicated to that.
To simulate train no. 24, you'd get out the loco, pick up the stored train in the yard, make its scheduled run on the main, and then come back into the yard, where the switcher would take away the train, and the loco could run back to the terminal. We're probably dealing with steam engines, which need to go dump the ashes, clean the firebox, etc., so we don't need to worry about having the engine free to pick up another train right away, and in fact the person for whom this layout is designed would probably have lots more locos ready and waiting. Because of this, the lack of engine-escape doesn't seem to be a huge problem.
This scheme would also help the operator make the capacity seem larger. Once returned to "staging", the train wouldn't be dead. Its identity could change. The EB no. 24 would come in, and its engine would go to service. Another engine would pick up the WB no. 24 from a different track, and EB 24's cars would switch identity, becoming a different train. This could be done with the very same cars, especially if they're of a type that tends to look the same going both ways - for instance, long trains of hoppers or refrigerator cars, which would be loads one way, empties the other. Even mixed trains could be handled this way. Lighter power could be assigned to the empty trains. Mixed trains would lose just a little - mixed freights tend to look like mixed freights, but the astute observers would note that roadnames would vary depending on which way the train was headed. This could be handled with some shuffling, and it may or may not be a dealbreaker. All of us are constantly reusing the same cars anyway.
I notice another interesting feature of this layout, and it's one we hardly think about any more. There is a huge emphasis on the engineer's job these days. There is a lot of talk about CTC. We forget about the operator whose job covered just one interlocking. There are still some out there, in this day of central dispatching, and back when this book was written, he was a very prominent figure indeed.
A towerman is like an air traffic controller. Trains to him are just notes on a sheet. His job is to keep traffic flowing. When a train approaches, he can hold it, set up a route, get it through. Keep the trains moving. What the next operator does, or the previous one did, isn't of huge importance.
A lot of these old model railroads are designed to keep towermen busy. Consider each of the named junctions as a game board for one player. Two are pretty complex. The importance attached to these is clear by the names and by the towers drawn next to them. To the model towerman, it doesn't matter whether the trains approaching are unique or the same ones that keep coming back, as long as he knows where to route each one. Variety is provided as train routings change, or meet times vary.
This is one very fun thing about this hobby. We are not simulating just one job, but every job, on the railroad, and can play very different tabletop games with our miniatures, depending upon whose job we prefer to concentrate on.
Midnight Railroader wrote: cuyama wrote: As noted, there is no space in a way, it's a shame that author/editor Linn Westcott's drawing skills were so terrific -- he made these tightly-packed layouts look much better in the book than they ever could in plaster and plywood, IMHO.I suspect it would take handlaying turnouts and other complex trackwork if one wishes to make these plans a reality in the space they're allotted.
I mentioned in another thread that I've found that these plans are not build-able with today's track in the space available, and that he should try to work out the plan with track planning software before he builds. I've found between 15% and 50% more space needed to make track plans from 101 Plans work. I mentioned this to the poster a couple weeks ago in another post, but since he posted this after, I think he is ignoring and hoping for the best.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
sinebar wrote: Texas Zepher wrote: sinebar wrote:Well I really like the yard and roundhouse layout in this one. That's what caught my eye when I saw it.Really? Looking at it closely I don't really understand it. I don't see any clear arrival or departure tracks. If the bottom area is used for arrival the bottom three tracks are blocked from being used. I can't identify anything that would be a caboose or RIP track. The two tracks that look like yard leads aren't. They are just tracks sort of there not connected to the working of the yard at all - maintenance of way storage?? To work cars between the upper and lower sections of the yard will require the switcher to go out on the main - way out onto the main. The main yard ladder is also the only access to the locmotive service/storage area, which happens to also be a switchback. There isn't even a locomotive excape crossover anywhere. Before you commit to this yard make some paper train cars. Sit down and do some normal yard work. Bring in a train off the main, break off the road locomotive and take it to the facilities, break off the caboose and store it, then classify the train. If you are satisfied with this scenario, then bring the train in from the opposite direction. Then reverse and make up a train from both directions.Personally I think you will be pulling your hair out and planning on how to change the yard to make it more workable. For example the large version of this layout #58. Much more workable yard. Pay attention to changes noted by the circled 5, 7, and 9. No, I still don't like it but it is better.Well I can always change the yard. So what would be needed to make the yard work?
SpaceMouse wrote: Midnight Railroader wrote: cuyama wrote: As noted, there is no space in a way, it's a shame that author/editor Linn Westcott's drawing skills were so terrific -- he made these tightly-packed layouts look much better in the book than they ever could in plaster and plywood, IMHO.I suspect it would take handlaying turnouts and other complex trackwork if one wishes to make these plans a reality in the space they're allotted. I mentioned in another thread that I've found that these plans are not build-able with today's track in the space available, and that he should try to work out the plan with track planning software before he builds. I've found between 15% and 50% more space needed to make track plans from 101 Plans work. I mentioned this to the poster a couple weeks ago in another post, but since he posted this after, I think he is ignoring and hoping for the best.
The software idea is a good one but I don't have any such software nor do I want to purchase any because I would most likely not use much.
Texas Zepher wrote: sinebar wrote: Texas Zepher wrote: sinebar wrote:Well I really like the yard and roundhouse layout in this one. That's what caught my eye when I saw it.Really? Looking at it closely I don't really understand it. I don't see any clear arrival or departure tracks. If the bottom area is used for arrival the bottom three tracks are blocked from being used. I can't identify anything that would be a caboose or RIP track. The two tracks that look like yard leads aren't. They are just tracks sort of there not connected to the working of the yard at all - maintenance of way storage?? To work cars between the upper and lower sections of the yard will require the switcher to go out on the main - way out onto the main. The main yard ladder is also the only access to the locmotive service/storage area, which happens to also be a switchback. There isn't even a locomotive excape crossover anywhere. Before you commit to this yard make some paper train cars. Sit down and do some normal yard work. Bring in a train off the main, break off the road locomotive and take it to the facilities, break off the caboose and store it, then classify the train. If you are satisfied with this scenario, then bring the train in from the opposite direction. Then reverse and make up a train from both directions.Personally I think you will be pulling your hair out and planning on how to change the yard to make it more workable. For example the large version of this layout #58. Much more workable yard. Pay attention to changes noted by the circled 5, 7, and 9. No, I still don't like it but it is better.Well I can always change the yard. So what would be needed to make the yard work? I believe that is contained in what I just posted. Change each question to a "it needs a". For example - it needs an arrival/departure track. it needs an access to the locomotive facilities other than the primary yard ladder. It needs access to the locomotive faciitlies that isn't a switch back. It needs a yard lead. etc.
Well can someone recommend some good track plans for a 8 x 11 space? Maybe a book with some good plans in them. I have purchased 2 books so far, "101 track plans' and "40 top notch track plans" everyone seems to think the plans in these books are no good. I am a complete novice at this so I don't really no a bad plan from good one. I don't want to build a layout just find out the hard way that it doesn't work well or is not suited for realistic operations.
If you haven't read it start with my Beginner's Guide.
The problem is that everyone has a different vision that everyone else, so no track plan done by anyone else will meet your expectations--unless you work with a pro and that pro forces you to do your homework so he can do his job.
So you need to start by coming up with your givens and druthers. Givens are the factors that you cannot change--the room you have for your layout, the location of the water heater, what your wife says, etc. Druthers are anything you can change--the shape of the layout, the era, industries, type of operations, etc.
In other words, Givens are non-negotiable. Druthers, no matter how strong you want them, are negotiable.
You have to flesh out your vision and make choices.
Once you start make choices these choices, and the more specific the better, then we will be able to help you come up with a workable plan. All the newbies here went through the same process, including me three years ago.
SpaceMouse wrote: If you haven't read it start with my Beginner's Guide.The problem is that everyone has a different vision that everyone else, so no track plan done by anyone else will meet your expectations--unless you work with a pro and that pro forces you to do your homework so he can do his job. So you need to start by coming up with your givens and druthers. Givens are the factors that you cannot change--the room you have for your layout, the location of the water heater, what your wife says, etc. Druthers are anything you can change--the shape of the layout, the era, industries, type of operations, etc. In other words, Givens are non-negotiable. Druthers, no matter how strong you want them, are negotiable. You have to flesh out your vision and make choices. Once you start make choices these choices, and the more specific the better, then we will be able to help you come up with a workable plan. All the newbies here went through the same process, including me three years ago.
Givens:
layout size: 8' x 11'
era: steam
Druthers:
Industry: coal
operation: hauling coal from a mine
In truth though I'm not really sure about what I want for a railroad. That's why I wanted to look at some proven layouts of different types and see which one I like. The only thing I'm really stuck on is the era and the layout size.
sinebar wrote:In truth though I'm not really sure about what I want for a railroad.
In truth though I'm not really sure about what I want for a railroad.
Perhaps building a smaller layout will help you to zero in on what aspects you like. You can enjoy building it while you plan for the next one. You can also get a feel for what level of complexity you feel comfortable with.I was getting ready to build a 9x15 N-scale layout then decided to build a 32" x 60" layout first. So far, its been a great experience.
The book "Realistic Model Railroad Operation" might be a good thing to check out if you are interested in building for operations. I learned a lot from it I have applied to both the little layout I am building as well as the larger layout I am designing. I would also try checking out some more modern track plan books for ideas, such as Ian Rice's books perhaps although I think those may be out of print. I think it was one of his that had a whole series of layouts designed to fit in an 8x10 spare bedroom.. perhaps someone can correct me if I am wrong I dont have my library here at work!
Chris
sinebar wrote: Givens: layout size: 8' x 11' era: steam
In truth, neither of these are givens. You have a room size that will hold at least a 8" x 11 foot layout but layout size can be changed.
Steam is a druther because if something better came along, you could decide to change it. Steam as an era gives us about a 120 year span to work with. Could you pick a year?
Druthers:Industry: coaloperation: hauling coal from a mineIn truth though I'm not really sure about what I want for a railroad. That's why I wanted to look at some proven layouts of different types and see which one I like. The only thing I'm really stuck on is the era and the layout size.
The trick is to close your eyes and imagine a layout. What do you see? Mountains, desert, fall trees, a city, a port, plains, bridges, rivers? You see steam, but it is small steam, huge steam, medium steam?
Only you have your imagination. Take your time and make a lot of notes. Write down what you want and what you don't want. Don't blow it off and take short cuts. You know what is at stake.
You might do like suggested and build a small layout. There are some great 4 x 8's in the contest next door.
I think Mr. Mouse just hit the nail smack dab on the head. When we start we know we want a layout, but we have no idea what it looks like. So we do the obvious thing and look at what's already been done. But all of those layouts are manifestation of someone else's dream. The idea of closing your eyes, and just looking at what you see is perfect. It is in there, but we don't know how to express it. It probably has parts of lots of different things that we have seen, but it is still individually ours. After that the only trick is to get it on paper, but by then as the saying goes, you'll know it when you see it, because you already have!
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
SpaceMouse wrote: sinebar wrote: Givens: layout size: 8' x 11' era: steam In truth, neither of these are givens. You have a room size that will hold at least a 8" x 11 foot layout but layout size can be changed. Steam is a druther because if something better came along, you could decide to change it. Steam as an era gives us about a 120 year span to work with. Could you pick a year? Druthers:Industry: coaloperation: hauling coal from a mineIn truth though I'm not really sure about what I want for a railroad. That's why I wanted to look at some proven layouts of different types and see which one I like. The only thing I'm really stuck on is the era and the layout size. The trick is to close your eyes and imagine a layout. What do you see? Mountains, desert, fall trees, a city, a port, plains, bridges, rivers? You see steam, but it is small steam, huge steam, medium steam? Only you have your imagination. Take your time and make a lot of notes. Write down what you want and what you don't want. Don't blow it off and take short cuts. You know what is at stake. You might do like suggested and build a small layout. There are some great 4 x 8's in the contest next door.
Well I really don't want mountains. I'm more a flat desert kind of guy mostly because it's simple. As far as era probably the big boy era since that's what I have and will be my main loco. I also have a PRR M1a which I'm really fond of.
Sort of a Wyolvania route.
Both locos would serve coal. Both need large turn radiuses. So 50's. Getting closer.
Edit: The two engines are mutually exclusive as far as I can tell. You may have to choose between them.
SpaceMouse wrote: You might do like suggested and build a small layout. There are some great 4 x 8's in the contest next door.
His locos won't work well on most or all of those.
alco_fan wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: You might do like suggested and build a small layout. There are some great 4 x 8's in the contest next door. His locos won't work well on most or all of those.
Point taken.
SpaceMouse wrote: Sort of a Wyolvania route. Both locos would serve coal. Both need large turn radiuses. So 50's. Getting closer. Edit: The two engines are mutually exclusive as far as I can tell. You may have to choose between them.
He could pull it off in Wyolvania, though. Have to dream up a pretty good story of how that happens, hmm, maybe the PRR is on loan due to a downturn in the east, and the growth in the West. Or the UP is testing it out?
SpaceMouse wrote:Sort of a Wyolvania route.
1950's is a way cool time to model. Tons of equipment made for that time period and the domination of the 40' box car.
Okay, I looked at the layout plan again. What a weird yard! I'd really like to see the writeup that went with that plan when it was first published, because there are some very strange things about it.
The best I can figure is that the "split" in the yard is to allow two very long tracks for trains to come in on. The yard engine would wait on the other, and take the train away, moving it into the yard, letting the engine go to storage. This would involve using part of the nearby main, as marked on the plan - but fortunately the two upper junctions are able to route any traffic around the switch crew while they are doing this. It's still an unconventional yard, and I still can't figure out what the two dead-end tracks by the main are for.
I also missed one major junction - Lawson, at the bottom of the plan. To really run this railroad, you'd need three towermen, and a yard crew.
This layout design is very old - if it was part of the LotM series, it would be from the mid-1940s. Frank Ellison, who liked to emphasize the engineer's role over the towerman's, and who was a strong proponent of the peddler freight, published his "Art of Model Railroading" series in 1944. I'm guessing that this layout hasn't yet seen that influence, which is why we don't see any real local business. I still don't think this makes it a bad layout design, depending on what the builder wants, but it does make it look unusual from a 2007 viewpoint. Heck, it probably looked odd from a 1956 viewpoint, when 101 TP was first published.
Autobus Prime wrote: Folks:Okay, I looked at the layout plan again. What a weird yard! I'd really like to see the writeup that went with that plan when it was first published, because there are some very strange things about it.The best I can figure is that the "split" in the yard is to allow two very long tracks for trains to come in on. The yard engine would wait on the other, and take the train away, moving it into the yard, letting the engine go to storage. This would involve using part of the nearby main, as marked on the plan - but fortunately the two upper junctions are able to route any traffic around the switch crew while they are doing this. It's still an unconventional yard, and I still can't figure out what the two dead-end tracks by the main are for.I also missed one major junction - Lawson, at the bottom of the plan. To really run this railroad, you'd need three towermen, and a yard crew. This layout design is very old - if it was part of the LotM series, it would be from the mid-1940s. Frank Ellison, who liked to emphasize the engineer's role over the towerman's, and who was a strong proponent of the peddler freight, published his "Art of Model Railroading" series in 1944. I'm guessing that this layout hasn't yet seen that influence, which is why we don't see any real local business. I still don't think this makes it a bad layout design, depending on what the builder wants, but it does make it look unusual from a 2007 viewpoint. Heck, it probably looked odd from a 1956 viewpoint, when 101 TP was first published.
So can you recommend any good HO 8 x 11 or so plans for a UP Big Boy and or PRR M1a?