Just a topic for thoughtful discussion. While we all have our dreams of the perfect layout, think for a moment, what would you really build if physical space weren't the limitation? We all have other demands on us for time, as well as the availabiltiy, or lack thereof, of friends who can help build, maintain, and operate a layout. What would you really do if you had the chance?
I've thought about this for myself and while I might go up in scale, I probably wouldn't make a huge leap in complexity. It's nice to dream about (in my case) TT&TO ops with multiple trains moving past and through one another and way frieghts switching multiple towns, but reality is, it would really be myself, perhaps another doing sequence ops and running in a more lazy branch line manner.
The dream is nice to dream, but probably not what I'd build.
jim
I would rebuild what I have, a large layout by most standards, but not one big enough to fill a two car garage. As a lone operator, I just don't see a need for anything larger. I can run 14' long trains, so I don't find a need for anything bigger or longer.
What would be different? I have done the helix, and am glad I did it. I wouldn't have another though, because of how much room they take up and how long the trains are unenjoyable...hidden.
In a way, I have the dream layout, even though it is only about half done and likely to be torn down within a few months at most.
What's next? If things work out well, it will be a layout much the same size but in a high crawl space. If we move to something smaller, I'll have to build dioramas or something. My wife says I could have a bedroom, but I have done that size with my second layout. I may have to settle for that again, though. It will be another central operating pit, if that is the case, to maximize running room. It will be another folded figure 8, but with less height gain than last time. No more 3.4% grades!!
Jim:
If i suddenly acquired four times the space I hope I would have the self control to have no more towns or industries. If each industry was farther from the next, but still close, the building could be better proportioned.
Putting the towns farther apart would increase realism, running time and a little bit of plausiblity for rail ships. Also much more space for greatly improving my scenry skills.
Right now a three to six man crew runs 12 trains in 2 hrs. What I see in my dream is the same amount of people and trains, just a few minutes longer to run the greater distances. Wider spaces for operators would also be nice.
Of course if I was 15 years younger, or won a lottery my dreams might change.
Dave
If my 19ft 4inch square garage were to blossom into 36 x 36, I'd widen the aisleways, put a 24 inch (minimum) wide access all the way around, get hidden passenger staging into a more accessible location and model my narrow gauge logger 'around back' rather than on a front side upper level. I would also move all the electricals to that access aisle and keep the center aisleways exclusively for operation.
Given a 12 foot ceiling as well, I'd go to the idea pioneered by Paul Mallory and The Model Railroad Club - raise the operating aisle floors four feet and provide walkaround access under all the benchwork. Lots of space for worktops, test facilities and electricals in the 'basement.' Easy access to hidden tracks via stepstool.
I wouldn't add a single turnout or make any significant changes to the present track plan. It probably isn't perfect - but I'm happy with it.
Crandell, I haven't built my helix yet. When I do I'm going to take my inspiration from the Tzu-Li-Shan climb on Taiwan's Alishan Forest Railway. The train spends more time in daylight than invisible.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with deviations)
tomikawaTTGiven a 12 foot ceiling as well, I'd go to the idea pioneered by Paul Mallory and The Model Railroad Club - raise the operating aisle floors four feet and provide walkaround access under all the benchwork. Lots of space for worktops, test facilities and electricals in the 'basement.' Easy access to hidden tracks via stepstool.
Given My age.....I would go with Chuck's, suggestion.....but access for a motorized wheel chair with all the necessary tools and equipment built on it.....can't stand in one place too long or climb without a problem.
Take Care!
Frank
I would love to go big. For me, it would just be the distance. I woudl not want to add blocks of buildings and industries all over the place, as tempting as it would be. I would love long runs and wide sweeping curves. Keeping switches and structures down, would solve a lot of maintence issues. But would truly increase one major part of my enjoyment of this hobby, just watching go by.
Best Regards, Big John
Kiva Valley Railway- Freelanced road in central Arizona. Visit the link to see my MR forum thread on The Building of the Whitton Branch on the Kiva Valley Railway
With much more space, I could more easily build a much less complex layout: single deck vs double deck, open staging yards vs hidden, no helixes, no lift-out scenery, wider isles. Getting alot of railroad in a 'small' space requires challenging design and construction solutions which take time to conceive and implement.
Grinnell
I'd build a bigger model railroad with longer runs and run longer trains.
Where is my staples button?!!!
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I would have to agree that wide curves and extensive runs for long passenger/freight trains would be a priority. Nothing complex with the exception of a diesel engine servicing facility and yard.
All the best.
Reinhard
Joe F
For me it's not so much the space, it's the wallet to pay for it. I'm happy enough with my small layout for now but someday. . .
Derek
If I had more room I'd probably buy a pool table. Ha! Just kidding.
Although I thoroughly enjoy switching on my layout I would enjoy continuous running. When non-model railroaders visit, I think that's what they expect to see. I'd like to do more railfanning.
I would also like to add block signaling. And a roundhouse. And passenger ops.
I think maybe I took the question as more space also means more cash.
T e d
All of the above!
Seriously, the idea of increasing the distance between featured locations is very attractive, as is the possibility of straightening out the dog bone/reverse loops/whatever their supposed to be called curves at each end of the layout. Also, having the space to disguise the reverse loop as it curves around the outside of the engine service facility would be fantastic, or eliminate it altogether - even better!! I hate reverse loops around engine facilities, but I'm stuck with one! It will be partially hidden and unless I win the lottery that will have to do.
Then, of course, there is the opportunity to increase radii - a lot! So far I have managed to keep everything above 25". Big deal! I'm going to have to put horse blinders on so I can't see the curve as the passenger train enters the station.
Next would be some major valleys and mountains like those in the Canadian Rockies, with bridges and tunnels and rivers to suit.
I better quit now.
Darn it, back to reality!
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Great comments guys, thanks. I find it interesting that most everyone would opt for spreading things out, wider radius, etc, but not for piling in more complexity. Tony K, if you're listening out there, maybe this is something to discuss in a future MRP on layout design theory. Oh lord, workday aerospace engineer brain is taking over from weekend choo-choo engineer brain. Must...blow...whistle.
With an unlimited layout size....hmmm, I would have to go get a bunch more junk to lay on the layout table
I wouldn't need a whole bunch more room. However, last fall I finaly got to ride the Durango & Silverton Narrow Gauge R.R. and fell completely in love with Colorado's Narrow Gauge Railroads. I would build a layout of the Rio Grande Southern in Sn3 between Durango and Ridgeway and include as much of the line as I could; but, a must have would be the Ophir Loop.
NP 2626 "Northern Pacific, really terrific"
Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association: http://www.nprha.org/
jmbjmb Just a topic for thoughtful discussion. While we all have our dreams of the perfect layout, think for a moment, what would you really build if physical space weren't the limitation?
Just a topic for thoughtful discussion. While we all have our dreams of the perfect layout, think for a moment, what would you really build if physical space weren't the limitation?
If I owned enough property, and if I had the money, I would build an outbuilding behind the house, an outbuilding large enough to permit me to construct all six downtown Chicago passenger stations. But I wouldn't stop there. I would have an outbuilding large enough to build out the track work far enough to include the coach yards for all of the user railroads. Yeah baby!
Rich
Alton Junction
Are we also talking about unlimited funds to go with this space? If so, then I would want to eventually model a compressed form of the US in HO. Most likely, it would just be the high lights. Even then, it would take years, but I think I could reasonably do it. In addition, I would probably have some 1:1 locomotives and passenger cars as well as a caboose.
If we are talking about funds in reality, then I would be satisfied with a large basement. The minimum radius would be at least 30". I would model the eastern seaboard in the modern era. The layout would center on my protolanced Kyle RR with connections to NS and CSX. I would want long stretches of track to just run trains, and then have towns and cities that would have a lot of switching.
Miniatur Wunderland
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe VetMiniatur Wunderland
Seen some of those on YouTube in Deutschland.
tedtedderson If I had more room I'd probably buy a pool table. Ha! Just kidding. T e d
Wrong forum!
I agree with others, the assumption is if you had a large space, you wouldn't have it for lack of money.
As far as the answers go, pretty predictable eh?
Cost factors and space considerations aside.
I would give up HO and go fully into 2 rail scale O and build...and build.
Mark H
Modeling in HO...Reading and Conrail together in an alternate history.
Hello All,
I'd incorporate my existing 4x8 HO pike into a larger coal mainline with all the associated industries.
Since I model the Rocky Mountains it would include the yards of Denver, Pueblo and Salt Lake city with all the mountain passes along the route.
Thanks for asking.
"Uhh...I didn’t know it was 'impossible' I just made it work...sorry"
If I had a large amount of room it would be a size of a airline hanger filled with 9 cities. Complete with their own unique styles of train stations, rail yards, scenery and trackside industries. I had breweries, paper factory, farms, shipyard, oil refinery, coal mine, a few bridges and tunnels.
I have the plans but the exact size down scale. I thought of it during junior high 1999/2000.
Since then I scale down, it probably would have like 20 or more operators.
Amtrak America, 1971-Present.
Currently My layout models about 15 actualy miles of track in real life (Denver to Golden, Colorado; the beer line). In HO scale that would be about 910 feet of track. I have approximately half of that currently (about 500 feet of track). Unfortunately quite a bit of it is in the helix.
My current layout is three levels (two viewable and the third is staging) with three interlaced helixes (yes it is bit complicated but works well).
My space is 12'x19' currently. I would love to have a space about double that size. I would really love to model the Tennessee Pass Line from Minturn to Pueblo, Colorado through the Royal Gorge. I want to be able to model the Hanging bridge. Although I may not be able to model the full canyon it would be a fun piece of scenery to build.
About 8 years ago I took a 5 day trip and railfanned this line (even though it is deactivated but not abandoned). I took pictures of every little detail I could so that one day I would have a reference to build my dream layout.
My plan is still to have multiple levels but to design the layout like the mushroom style layouts. They are a little more difficult to design but really open up the operating possibilities and extend the runs. Ideally I would like to protolance each town along the line so that its track layout is similar to the real thing.
I grew up visiting Leadville Colorado all the time and really want to model it (and Malta) accurately.
The real line is about 190 miles. that would be 11500 feet of track. I think if I had half of that I would be in good shape. There are definitely a few place that could be cropped but there are some places that are a must have (for example, Tennessee Pass Tunnel, Malta, Salida, the Royal Gorge and several bridges along the way.)
Colorado Front Range Railroad: http://www.coloradofrontrangerr.com/
Then again, there are plenty of people who seem to be able to get far more done in a day than I can. But, I also look upon this as a hobby, something I’m involved in to have fun doing. So, those projects that I find less fun than others tend to take longer to get done!
Tough question, because the constraints are space, time, and money.
If space were not a consideration, I would move toward something along the lines of what I had in our last house. My space was 40 x 14, and I model N scale. It allowed 27” curves and plenty of space between scenes/towns. I would probably wish for something along the lines of 40 x 24 (roughly a 4 car garage) or so to add another wing for more mainline using the same philosophy, more staging, and a better branch line. I’m not sure I would add anything more to the locomotive or rolling stock roster, but would add a second decent sized city (and yard operations).
If I neither space nor time was a constraint, that project would get finished faster and I would tinker a lot with computer control and scratch build a lot more bridges and the like.
If space, time, nor money were constraints, I would consider either converting to HO (my eyes aren’t getting any younger) and doing something similar with 42” minimum radius and sizing up proportionally, or adding a little length and width and more faithfully recreating the area between Colorado Springs and Northern New Mexico through Raton Pass. I’d stay in the late 50s either way.
If I stayed in N, I’d probably add another passenger train to the Bunter Ridge Roster, and add a few more D&RGW and Santa Fe trains using the trackage rights.
- Mark
If I had all the space, then I would run out of time. One thing has been constant throughout this 10-year journey of model railroading: It takes me a month to do 1 square foot of layout. Now, that includes time spent builiding rolling stock and installing decoders, but still, it's a month per square foot and more square feet means more rolling stock and decoders.
The plan would have more open space - farms and fields. But, there would be the occasional road with operating crossing gates, and those long runs would need signals to make them interesting.
A model railroad is never done, and the more space you've got, the more true that becomes.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
If I had more space I would build a large comfortable "crew lounge". Barcaloungers, beer on tap, big screen TV, etc etc.
Modeling an HO gauge freelance version of the Union Pacific Oregon Short Line and the Utah Railway around 1957 in a world where Pirates from the Great Salt Lake founded Ogden, UT.
- Photo album of layout construction -
Onewolf wrote the following post an hour ago:
Onewolf, you mean you didn't plan for that in the new building? Forget it, now I'm not interested in coming for a visit when you get some trains running.
I'd switch to #1 scale. Continue to model the Maryland & Pennsylvania, but add a PRR mainline at both ends and the B&O at the Baltimore end.
Space required is probably around 60x100. This will require a pretty big budget since lots of RTR will be the order of the day.
Enjoy
Paul