Okay awhile back I posted a question on a proposed track plan that received some comments that made me think. Specifically, Stein asked me several questions that I said I would have to take time to think about before I answered them. Well, after much thinking it's come to my conclusion that I can't even answer the first question......
Why do I want to build a model railroad?
I don't know why I want to....... I like trains. However, I don't think that is an answer so I'm going to just leave it at that for now and discuss a layout some more and get your feedback.
What would I like to model?
Well, I want to start out with something relatively small with the added ability to add on to it as I have the time and resources. I have narrowed this down quite a bit over the last few weeks and by reading the forums and doing some online research I have decided on these two sub phases.
a) Identify a theme, era, and location
My theme will be a free-lanced branch/short line with a major waterfront design. The era I was looking at is the mid to late 1940's to the possibly mid 50's; and the location I'm am thinking about is the Connecticut coast line.
So how did I come up with that.... well there are two reasons and they answer the second part of question two.
b) Find scenes that inspire me.
I like harbor scenes with fishing boats, I love light houses and waterfront railroad scenes are just plain cool. I also have decided on an engine that I would like to base my initial effort around and that is a 3 truck Shay 70 to 80 ton variant. Another LDE that I want to include is the Gas Works facility, I have even started construction of the Walthers Gas Plant kit.
Based on my research the last Shay came off the Lima Ohio engine works line in 1945 and worked for about 5 years. Coal gas plants were in operation from the early 1900's all the way up until the 60's, funny thing they are making a resurgence with one operational in IL., so it would not be out of place putting both together. I might even be able to make a plausible stretch and include an early diesel with the expansion.
Connecticut??? that's where my wife is from.
Okay to wrap it up I found the following track plan that I feel is a great starting point from which to begin with. It was in the PDF I bought and downloaded from MRR called Track Plans for a 4 x 8 Sheet of Plywood. The designer's name is Iain Rice and the plan is called the Loleta and Mad River Railroad. I like the overall design of the layout, but I know how much most people hate the 4 x 8, so I was hoping to get some help from the guru's out there to help me get a plan based on this.
Thanks, Tom
kf4matThe designer's name is Iain Rice and the plan is called the Loleta and Mad River Railroad
That's a nice plan. And Iain's watercolor plans are always a sight to see.
May I make a suggestion ? Try to also download and read the information station PDF "Getting started in Proto:87 modeling" - which is not at all mainly about changing wheels on railroad cars, but is following Ian Rice's 7-8 part waterfront railroad project Roque Bluffs - it has a lot of great tips on modelling a waterfront railroad - including very lightweight sectional benchwork which allows you to build a railroad that won't take up much space in your home section by section.
Grin,Stein
steinjrThat's a nice plan. And Iain's watercolor plans are always a sight to see. May I make a suggestion ? Try to also download and read the information station PDF "Getting started in Proto:87 modeling" - which is not at all mainly about changing wheels on railroad cars, but is following Ian Rice's 7-8 part waterfront railroad project Roque Bluffs - it has a lot of great tips on modelling a waterfront railroad - including very lightweight sectional benchwork which allows you to build a railroad that won't take up much space in your home section by section. Grin,Stein
Another possibility with Ians 4x8 is to unwrap it and turn it into a 2 x 16. In the end that will be much easier to add on to later and you can run the 16 feet around how ever many walls it takes. The issue with a 4 x 8 is it really needs to sit in a room so as you can get to at least 3 sides, and depending on your room size it can make for pretty narrow isles later on when you do add on to it.
Jack
The layout was first published in Model Railroad Planning 2002. That design was one of five in that issue constrained to 4X8 based on the editor's request (including my own N scale plan). Iain's designs always look fabulous because of his skill as an artist, but I think it can be a bit misleading. Some of those tighter curves scale out to 15" or less and while it's possible to make that combinaiton of tight curves and stiff grades work, it's not necessarily going to be that much fun to do so. A slightly larger layout overall would ease both problems.
It would probably be a much better layout if built in 5X8, 5X9, or 5X10 -- and not much more work, considering that you need to modify the sheet of plywood or foam anyway to allow for the large harbor area.
ByronModel RR Blog Layout Design Gallery
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
kf4mat What would I like to model? a) Identify a theme, era, and location My theme will be a free-lanced branch/short line with a major waterfront design. The era I was looking at is the mid to late 1940's to the possibly mid 50's; and the location I'm am thinking about is the Connecticut coast line. So how did I come up with that.... well there are two reasons and they answer the second part of question two. b) Find scenes that inspire me. I like harbor scenes with fishing boats, I love light houses and waterfront railroad scenes are just plain cool. I also have decided on an engine that I would like to base my initial effort around and that is a 3 truck Shay 70 to 80 ton variant. Another LDE that I want to include is the Gas Works facility, I have even started construction of the Walthers Gas Plant kit. Based on my research the last Shay came off the Lima Ohio engine works line in 1945 and worked for about 5 years. Coal gas plants were in operation from the early 1900's all the way up until the 60's, funny thing they are making a resurgence with one operational in IL., so it would not be out of place putting both together. I might even be able to make a plausible stretch and include an early diesel with the expansion. Connecticut??? that's where my wife is from. Okay to wrap it up I found the following track plan that I feel is a great starting point from which to begin with. It was in the PDF I bought and downloaded from MRR called Track Plans for a 4 x 8 Sheet of Plywood. The designer's name is Iain Rice and the plan is called the Loleta and Mad River Railroad. I like the overall design of the layout, but I know how much most people hate the 4 x 8, so I was hoping to get some help from the guru's out there to help me get a plan based on this. Thanks, Tom
Tom
I'm a big fan of Iain Rice's designs - I have 3 of his books that were published by Kalmbach, and I have most of the MRP and MR issues that contain his work. I very much appreciate and agree with his holistic approach to layout planning - that layout planning is far more than just track planning.
That said, Rice's designs are generally not in the ready to build category. Instead, they should be viewed as concepts and sources of ideas.
Rice draws his plans by hand. Some are more accurately scaled than others; a few use commercial turnouts, most do not. This means that to build his design in the same given space will require handlaid track or extensive modification of commercial turnouts.
Rice is not bothered by the idea of coupling/uncoupling model knuckle couplers on sharp curves. I have never been able to easily couple/uncouple even 36ft cars on 18" radius curves in HO - it takes quite a bit of finagling with skewers or magnets, and often an 0-5-0 lift assist. Perhaps it's just me, but I doubt it. So IMHO, runaround tracks or spurs located entirely on 18" or even 22" radius curves aren't very functional.
Rice's designs that use blobs or "sort-of" 4x8s don't provide good enough access, IMHO. The Loleta & Mad River (L&MR), like many Rice designs, has the 4ft width cut back to a little more than 3 ft in places to enhance access with the layout back long side against a wall. I can't reach even just 3ft over the scenery to rerail a car at the back of the layout. And if the layout is mounted on casters or slides to pull out from the wall, the Rice-recommended backdrop will interfere with back of the layout access. On the L&MR, there is no practical way to reach the "hidden" staging at the back of the layout.
On the L&MR specifically, the grade to the bridge will make switching the coaling dock nearly impossible unless a way to prevent cars not involved in the switching movement from rolling down the grade is implemented. And the transition from the grade to a level coaling dock will have to be engineered carefully to prevent couplers over- and under-riding with disaterous consequences. Finally, the grade and bridge will obstruct the view of the fishing village and waterfront, which to me is the highlight of the layout.
To operate the L&MR, you need a train-length cassette or a fiddle yard extension off the lower right hand corner to turn and stage trains and cars.
The suggestion to unfold the L&MR is a pretty good one, although it would take quite a few feet of shelf to fit the 3 major scenes of fishing village, commercial port, and coaling dock. And there may be better arrangements of track for each scene once you start unfolding.
If you want a waterfront scene in a 4xX layout, there are other designs that may serve you better. In the same issue of MRP of the L&MR, Rice has a design that is centered on Portsmouth, VA waterfront. I have adapted the MR Dec '57 - Jan '58 project layout design - Tidewater Central - by adding a crossing spur at the waterfront facing right. If expanded to 4x8 or 5x8, there is room for a small runaround at the harbor scene. The harbor addition to the Jerome and Southwestern (MR project layout, 1980s) is a great example of both expanding a 4x8 with a shelf extension and a buildable harbor scene. To me, a 4x8 (or so) with an extension where a branch terminates can be a pretty decent small layout. Put the branch junction on the 4x8, and you have the combination of point-to-point and continuous operations, depending on your mood.
I have also adapted and added to Yungkurth's Gum Stump & Snowshoe to have the lower terminal become a rail-served dog hole port (Northern California logging style). The only way in and out of the tiny port is the switchbacks, which gave me an excuse for my small Shays.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
cuyamaThe layout was first published in Model Railroad Planning 2002. That design was one of five in that issue constrained to 4X8 based on the editor's request (including my own N scale plan). Iain's designs always look fabulous because of his skill as an artist, but I think it can be a bit misleading. Some of those tighter curves scale out to 15" or less and while it's possible to make that combinaiton of tight curves and stiff grades work, it's not necessarily going to be that much fun to do so. A slightly larger layout overall would ease both problems. It would probably be a much better layout if built in 5X8, 5X9, or 5X10 -- and not much more work, considering that you need to modify the sheet of plywood or foam anyway to allow for the large harbor area. ByronModel RR Blog Layout Design Gallery
fwrightTom I'm a big fan of Iain Rice's designs - I have 3 of his books that were published by Kalmbach, and I have most of the MRP and MR issues that contain his work. I very much appreciate and agree with his holistic approach to layout planning - that layout planning is far more than just track planning. That said, Rice's designs are generally not in the ready to build category. Instead, they should be viewed as concepts and sources of ideas. Rice draws his plans by hand. Some are more accurately scaled than others; a few use commercial turnouts, most do not. This means that to build his design in the same given space will require handlaid track or extensive modification of commercial turnouts. Rice is not bothered by the idea of coupling/uncoupling model knuckle couplers on sharp curves. I have never been able to easily couple/uncouple even 36ft cars on 18" radius curves in HO - it takes quite a bit of finagling with skewers or magnets, and often an 0-5-0 lift assist. Perhaps it's just me, but I doubt it. So IMHO, runaround tracks or spurs located entirely on 18" or even 22" radius curves aren't very functional. Rice's designs that use blobs or "sort-of" 4x8s don't provide good enough access, IMHO. The Loleta & Mad River (L&MR), like many Rice designs, has the 4ft width cut back to a little more than 3 ft in places to enhance access with the layout back long side against a wall. I can't reach even just 3ft over the scenery to rerail a car at the back of the layout. And if the layout is mounted on casters or slides to pull out from the wall, the Rice-recommended backdrop will interfere with back of the layout access. On the L&MR, there is no practical way to reach the "hidden" staging at the back of the layout. On the L&MR specifically, the grade to the bridge will make switching the coaling dock nearly impossible unless a way to prevent cars not involved in the switching movement from rolling down the grade is implemented. And the transition from the grade to a level coaling dock will have to be engineered carefully to prevent couplers over- and under-riding with disaterous consequences. Finally, the grade and bridge will obstruct the view of the fishing village and waterfront, which to me is the highlight of the layout. To operate the L&MR, you need a train-length cassette or a fiddle yard extension off the lower right hand corner to turn and stage trains and cars. The suggestion to unfold the L&MR is a pretty good one, although it would take quite a few feet of shelf to fit the 3 major scenes of fishing village, commercial port, and coaling dock. And there may be better arrangements of track for each scene once you start unfolding. If you want a waterfront scene in a 4xX layout, there are other designs that may serve you better. In the same issue of MRP of the L&MR, Rice has a design that is centered on Portsmouth, VA waterfront. I have adapted the MR Dec '57 - Jan '58 project layout design - Tidewater Central - by adding a crossing spur at the waterfront facing right. If expanded to 4x8 or 5x8, there is room for a small runaround at the harbor scene. The harbor addition to the Jerome and Southwestern (MR project layout, 1980s) is a great example of both expanding a 4x8 with a shelf extension and a buildable harbor scene. To me, a 4x8 (or so) with an extension where a branch terminates can be a pretty decent small layout. Put the branch junction on the 4x8, and you have the combination of point-to-point and continuous operations, depending on your mood. I have also adapted and added to Yungkurth's Gum Stump & Snowshoe to have the lower terminal become a rail-served dog hole port (Northern California logging style). The only way in and out of the tiny port is the switchbacks, which gave me an excuse for my small Shays. my thoughts, your choices Fred W
Hi Fred,
I can see what you are saying after reading the 8 part series of Mr. Rice's Roque Bluff layout. While this one is a known to me built layout he does talk of hand laying the track and since I have never even laid a piece of pre-fab track it is probable a little ahead of my skills.
I was also trying to figure out how one got to the staging yard at the back of the layout; seemed like quite the stretch. I also looked at the Portsmouth Va layout but was not overly attracted to the track plan. It seemed somewhat lacking IMO.
I'm not married to any "size" at the moment.... I was thinking as you were about having a shelf run along the wall and in the middle have a penisula jutting out. That way you would have access on all three sides of the bigger section and only a two foot shelf to reach into along the rest. The problem is my track planning skills are non-existant.
Can't add anything constructive to what has already been said, but thought that I might enclose a couple of photos that show my own harbor, mountain mine scene, and cascading river, that may be of some help. The fairly large harbor beyond the Waterfront Willy's harbor entrance scene is made of "random relief design door plastic, (with bottom painted greenish blue), and will house the Ore boat (shown in the latest Walther's Flyer). The ore boat will be unloaded by two Hulett Unloaders, which unload both iron ore and coke for the Blast Furnace and Rolling Mill near-by. The second scene shows the three track loader from the mountain coal mine, (which is, also, on the harbor). The third scene shows one of my cascading mountain rivers. Click on photos to enlarge them. Click on "View Album", (at left), to view my entire layout. Bob Hahn
kf4mat Hi Fred, ...I also looked at the Portsmouth Va layout but was not overly attracted to the track plan. It seemed somewhat lacking IMO. I'm not married to any "size" at the moment.... I was thinking as you were about having a shelf run along the wall and in the middle have a penisula jutting out. That way you would have access on all three sides of the bigger section and only a two foot shelf to reach into along the rest. The problem is my track planning skills are non-existant. Tom
...I also looked at the Portsmouth Va layout but was not overly attracted to the track plan. It seemed somewhat lacking IMO.
"....and since I have never even laid a piece of pre-fab track it is probable a little ahead of my skills." I didn't find your 1st thread yet, so I'm digging for clues in this one. I gather from the quote and other statements that this is a 1st layout.
There are really several approaches used by most in designing layouts.
For your first layout, there are really several philosophies. Again, what suits you best may not suit me best.
I have cited mostly negatives and not positives to stop this from becoming a book. But the negatives are why most of us build a series of layouts over a life in the hobby. In reality, building a series of layouts ain't such a bad thing, either! There are a good many who get more enjoyment out of building a layout than they do operating one.
Hope this helps a little
Yes first layout......
Thanks for taking the time to reply, basically I guess what your saying is go back to the drawing board and see what you can come up with. Which is fair enough, I guess if I was better with Xtrk CAD I would be having an easier time. The biggest hurdle I'm facing is not knowing what works and what does not work.
I guess I'm back to researching again, hopefully I'll be able to come up with a workable plan in time to start construction by the summer.
Thanks agian for the suggestions and info.
Like I said, I don't know your givens and druthers beyond what is in this thread. So even if I had the creativity of some of the others, I can't offer anything concrete in the way of a design. I outlined some options to try to get a feel for the scope of what you are willing to commit to - but no real reaction from you yet.
Without any real insight, I would lean towards the proverbial 4x8 from a published track plan that has been built for a first layout. But read Chip's 5 page essay on beginning layout design at http://www.chipengelmann.com/trains/Beginner/BeginnersGuide01.html. It's a good read, and presents a good argument for not starting with a 4x8. To me, the advantage of the 4x8 is that the investment is not too great when you realize what you really want. And that what you really want is beyond what a 4x8 plus an extension can deliver. And that you have all the resources - time, money, and space - to do more than a 4x8 plus extension. I've never really had the latter, so have tended to remain with a series of small layouts.
I find the XtrkCad a little frustrating for "doodling". If 15"-22" radius is going to be used, pencil and paper sketches followed by Atlas RTS software "will it fit checks" is my preferred path to design. Then the flexibility of XtrkCad to use multiple brands of track can be used to improve the initial design.
Some basics - a turnback curve takes twice the radius plus 4" across, and the radius plus 2" in length. An Atlas #4 turnout needs 9" of straight, and makes a 12.5 degree angle for the curved path. The Atlas track planning books have some pretty useful dimensioned templates of some common curve and turnout configurations. Or use John Armstrong's "squares" (described pretty thoroughly in Track Planning for Realistic Operation - another excellent investment in reading) as a guide for what will fit and what won't.
But before you start, I strongly recommend you take stock of your resources. All up, most layouts are in the $50 to $100 per square foot range, spread over 3-5 years or more. Unless you have a fair amount of material and/or tools already in hand, or trade time for money (handlaid or used track, used rolling stock, etc), it is hard to spend less than $50 per month the 1st year. Do you have the time, money, and most of all, understanding of yourself to take on an around-the-walls layout on the 1st try?
For me, I need some instant gratification of running trains while I plan and build bigger and better. I also need a continuous loop to test and break in the locomotives I build from kits or rebuild/remotor. My bigger and better layout will probably not have continous run capability for both the HO and HOn3 lines. Hence, my portable 4ft x not-quite-6ft HO/HOn3 test track and layout is designed to meet these needs, and to store vertically under the main layout later on.
I use my personal examples of designing to suit my givens and druthers as an encouragement for you to attempt some designs to meet your givens and druthers. And if I ever get my act together enough to include drawings and pictures in posts, I'll post a few of the designs with their criteria.
fwrightI find the XtrkCad a little frustrating for "doodling".
All of this "paper doll" work was done before I bought a CAD package. I think it helped me up the learning curve too, as I was able to focus on just re-creating the graph paper model and not get lost in software's feature weeds
Before the doodle stage, though, I did have some basic G&Ds figured out. The D's were not nailed down at that time, but I'm glad I had some basics for guidance.