Keep coming back to simple

[Anonymous]

Dave,

I know where you're coming from on this one. I'm currently in the re-planning stage of my layout. The first layout was based on the Union Pacific mainline in the '50s. It would have been a thing of beauty, but it was too big, too costly, and too time consuming. I was getting no where in a hurry, and I too wanted to come home and just run my trains. So last month I tore it down, salvaged as much as I could and started re-planning a new layout, smaller and smarter. This time I'm going with a modern shortline. Something small with minimal equipment and lots of character.
As far as your layout goes. I like the Anthracite plan also, but don't double the main. Once you do that you'll have trains running un-opposed and that's when it will get boring. Instead, set up one or more trains to operate continuously on their own. Then you operate the 'local' against them. You will find out it will be a good time trying to figure out how to do your work and clear up before the next train arrives. Leave both mines as your plan shows. Instead of having the mine on the layout though, make the mine 'off the layout' and just have the coal conveyed to the loader. Make somekind of tonnage restriction (number of cars) on the line to the mines and move the cars down to the opposite end to a marshalling yard where they are assembled into one big train. Then just run that train off the layout. Have this be a 2 track hidden yard so you can run empties onto the layout and loads off. Several of the major coal haulers did this in the old days. And it would keep you moving accross your layout, instead of around in a circle.
As far as 'fun' goes. Remember the slogan "Model Railroading is Fun"? I've met to many 'fun killers' in my time. Those people that are classified as 'rivet counters' and would never operate PFE reefer #X on January 10, 1960 because it was scrapped on December 15, 1959. Those people take the fun out of it for me. It's ok if that's what they think is fun, but I heard one guy down grade a really nice layout for stuff like that. For me fun in model railroading is having built something that looks like it could really exist. With minimal track and trains and an abundance of the 'real world' . I enjoy making scenes for visitors to look at, even if they have nothing to do with the railroad I'm building. That's what you have to decide, what 'fun' is to you and then build what makes you happy and forget what other's think. Once you decide that, you'll have the BEST layout. Good luck and please submit photos of your layout in the future.

[GDamen]

QUOTE: Originally posted by davsachz

The Cons: Will I get bored with the basic simple design.

Try to implement a switching puzzle in your design. Should keep you a bit busy. Have a look at http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/index.html

Gino

[Anonymous]

I'm hoping that i can find some answers here to a question that has plagued my video project here for weeks now. I hav been working on the 89' bi-level and tri-level auto carriers or auto haulers. I was able to purchase a variety of railroad names in HO scale. All except the Amtrak version of this carrier. Those, i've had to create myself from scratch. The steel siding i had to create from plastic and Microscale Industries was able to give me a decal sheet that will give me all of the air vents and rivets found on the sides of the cars. With that settled i thought i had it made. But i've discovered that it was only a pipe dream because the last of my needed items is allusive and seems impossible to acquire. The Kalmbach Library with the help of Brent Lambert who has been assisting me with this for some time now as really been a big help in locating possibilities of who may be able to give me this information.

What i am looking for is this. What are the underbody parts of the auto carriers. Either the 89' automobile industry standard models that Walthers sells from their catalogue. And, what are the underbody parts that are found on the Amtrak version of this 89' auto carrier. I would have sent a picture along with this message but i don't see any area or option for adding attachments.

Please assist me me with any information that you may have or know about and i will be more than appreciative for your efforts. Thanking you in advance, i remain, Sincerely,

--Daiq

Daiquiri St John
[e-mail]
323 737-3659 Home/Office
323 737-4747 Fax (Upon request)
213 703-0331 Cell


I

[Anonymous]

Dave,
With the width restriction and double track, I'd be inclined to use a couple of crossovers spaced far enough apart to act as a passing siding. That way you don't need extra space for the passing sidings and can use it for yard or indstrial space or just pretty scenery.

[TexasEd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by davsachz

In order to satisfiy my desire for two constant runs, I'm going to double track the main. 15" Radius on the outside and 13.75" on the inside. (snip)... should I also have a passing siding somewhere ? When I get a better drawing of my idea, I'll post it. Thanks for all of your replies. Dave

Dave,

In order to keep from getting bored I might recommend making a single track bridge or tunnel on your layout with double tracks on either side. This is faily prototypical in many locations and gives you a reason to have to pay attention to yout trains. Have one stopped while the other crosses the bridge. My layout has double track all the way around and I find I like pretending to have a passing siding more than just running in loops.

[CBQ_Guy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005

Well Paul, construction stalled for the summer. About half of the benchwork is up, and the helix in the upper right corner of the plan is 90% complete. That is just the plan for the main level. The plan for the upper level is fairly well drawn, but some of the details aren't filled in. There is also a hidden storage yard. The space is 38' x 46'.

Here is a shot showing the different levels of the layout. Note the raised aisle, the top level is 5' above the raised floor.
<snip>

Very nice!

Thanks for posting this.

[Anonymous]

Update: I've been reading replies, and playing with trackplans, both on paper and on the benchwork. In order to satisfiy my desire for two constant runs, I'm going to double track the main. 15" Radius on the outside and 13.75" on the inside. Kato Unitrack. It will be based heavily on the anthracite creek. It will also include a Yard, and two industrial spurs, and a return track. I origionaly wanted (2) mine sites, but I think I may go with one mine/breaker and the other industry that is a heavy coal user. I'm not sure what. Maybe a power plant. If I do go with a double main and use the Kato Double crossover switch to get between the two, should I also have a passing siding somewhere ? When I get a better drawing of my idea, I'll post it. Thanks for all of your replies. Dave

[Big_Boy_4005]

Well Paul, construction stalled for the summer. About half of the benchwork is up, and the helix in the upper right corner of the plan is 90% complete. That is just the plan for the main level. The plan for the upper level is fairly well drawn, but some of the details aren't filled in. There is also a hidden storage yard. The space is 38' x 46'.

Here is a shot showing the different levels of the layout. Note the raised aisle, the top level is 5' above the raised floor.



This is a schematic of the hidden yard. Each track can hold up to 5 trains.



The helix is 10' in diameter.



The room is a mess.[swg]

[CBQ_Guy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005

By the way Dave, I do 3 rail O, but I gave up the tinplate title, and do scale. My layout is under construction, and is very large. I have designed it with no visible loops.

Very nice!

Two questions...

Any pics?

What size area does this layout take up?

[Big_Boy_4005]

No problem Dave, O isn't for everyone. Sometimes I wonder why I went with it in the first place.

Please give strong consideration to the idea of adding that second reverse loop, going in the opposite direction. One thing I've found is, it very frustrating to go through a reverse loop and then not be able to go back the other way without backing up. It should be easy to incorporate now, it will be much more difficult later. Have fun.[8D]

[Anonymous]

Thanks Big Boy and others. No disrespect for "O" if I had the room and the bucks I would go with "O". I have a train shop across the treet from me that specializes in "O". I salivate there weekly. When I get a house I can scale up. What I meant on the tinplate was most of the layouts I see in Classic Toy Train or the "O" guage magazine. Most are loose fun layouts.

Tonight I tore everything up and didn't stop till I laid out the basic loop of the Anthracite Creek. I did it a little bit different, but stayed with the basic design. I reversed the high and low points. With the origional design much of my view of the layout was blocked by the 2.5" high risers. I'll sit on that for a few days before I make anything more permanent. Right nows it's all foam, Woodland Scenic Risers and grades held together with T-pins. I'll post pictures when I make more progress. Thanks for the feedback, Dave

[Big_Boy_4005]

I still like the Anthracite Creek best. It has a nice long loop, but it is more interesting so you won't get bored. I see that you are at a crossroad in the hobby. I view this as the difference between playing with or just running trains, and model railroading.

One thing that I think you should add to the plan, is a second reverse loop at the other end. This will allow to turn a train in either direction, adding to the operating possibilities. When I say operating, I don't mean anything fancy, just running trains. Even if you don't use the sidings right away, there may come a day when you are glad you put them in. Give it time.

By the way Dave, I do 3 rail O, but I gave up the tinplate title, and do scale. My layout is under construction, and is very large. I have designed it with no visible loops.

Here is the plan for the first level. It doesn't look like the typical tinplate layout, does it?

[cwclark]

go for the first pic dude!..it will be an awesome layout if you pull it off!....ah...needs a yard though....Chuck[:D]

[simon1966]

Hi Dave,

I am curious as to what you consider "boring", because your answer to this should help guide your design.

If we consider simple loops to allow continuous train running on one end of the spectrum, and complex switching puzzle layouts at the other end of the spectrum, what you are interested in will fall somewhere in between. Think about how you want to run your layout when it is complete.

[Anonymous]

One of the great things about the internet is the great exchange of ideas. One of the frustrations of not having a hard fast design on what you want is reading the 100's of ideas and not knowing whats right for you. My point is this. I'm trying to build a shelf layout. The shelf and basic benchwork is built. 10' x 10' L 24" wide with dogbones for turnarounds on each end. I've posted questions for feedback on layout ideas and almost unanimously they feedback is to go with the Anthracite Creek Design

http://www.saycheesephoto.com/model_trains/anthraciteCreek.jpg



I keep coming back to basically two large ovals, one within the other, probably on different levles with a crossover between the two, some industrial sidings a passing siding, and a yard. I like the two ovals because it gives me the most mainline length withing the confines of a shelf layout, and two allow for two continous runs.

http://www.saycheesephoto.com/model_trains/basicloop.jpg


The pros: are I want to come home from work, have my working on the Railroad be relaxing not frustrating. Trying to figure out the BEST layout is driving me nuts. I don't expect to be using a fastclock, manifest cards etc. I want to runs trains, not a railroad.

The Cons: Will I get bored with the basic simple design.

I see some nice simple layouts while surfing the boards, but then I see some that look like they will get real boring real fast.

I guess I think there is something to be said for our tinplate friends, it doesn't have to be realistic, just fun.

I'm open to any an all feedback. Thanks, Dave