I'd switch to 7 1/2" gauge. Sit on a comfortable flatcar behind a battery powered locomotive (with sound) and enjoy the scenery as I pass through it. Occasionally I'd stop to stretch my legs and switch some industries, but mostly kick back and enjoy the clickity-clack. :)
http://delray1967.shutterfly.com/pictures/5
SEMI Free-Mo@groups.io
Have fun with your trains
The issue is not space, the limiting issue is dollars. I have all of the space I could want (well, you know what I mean), but the dollars are the limiting factor.
But then, and fortunately, I am pretty satisfied with what I did build. So LION is happy. And it is good to keep your LION happy.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
My dream train room would go along with my dream house: a total of 4 40' hi-cube shipping containers. Two (LH side) would be the house. The other two (RH side) would be my monster railroad room. That particular plan would give me the opportunity to build my dream expansion for my layout. It would give me a "home" for my tourist railroad and those tracks also would have a small transfer-type railroad. (The track plan and the transfer railroad is influenced by the CMR [Central Montana Railroad] here in Montana, which for those of you who don't know, operates on ex-GN and CMStP&P rails. [Moccasin to Geraladine])
not sure it's the amount of space but it's shape. A 15' x 15' bedroom is 225 sq ft and difficult because of all the corners.
A 6' x 37.5' is also 225 sq ft, but would allow a 2+' x 35' run and sufficient aisle space. It would avoid curves, allow several sidings and industries, a small yard, ... Of course it's pt-to-pt.
What makes an outstanding layout? Just think of unwinding various layout plans you see in books.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
Hi all
Well at 21'6" square avalable for a layout I am still wrestling with the monster space planning.
I don't need more layout space so if I had more room I would add a dividing barrier.
Then some comfy chairs, coffee table and very long book case with sliding mini book cases atatched and long 8' high storage cupboard for trains unbuilt kits etc.
if more layout space was avalable rather than resort to valium I would just increase distance between stations.
I am having enough problems planning a new double track mainline and branches layout to fit the space that is now avalable for me to use.
Even at that size things still have to carefully planned to avoid over crowding
I have got as far as "Yippie I can have 8 coach passanger trains".
Oh! for less space to play with.
regards John
Kinda hard for me to answer since my recently started 4x8 seems like an incredibly large amount of space to devote to a train layout. But, assuming I enjoy the layout as much as I think I will, I can imagine a few things. Around the wall/shelf layouts use space well but I don't like them as much. You are limited by how far you can reach and, with an island, you can reach from both sides. I prefer 4' wide. Otherwise, it would be like my current plan - lots of mountains, bridges, rivers, and different natural habitat/ecosystems - wetlands, forest, rolling hills, craggy peaks. Come to think about it, I would probably have several smaller size layouts. One in the Canadian Rockies, one in Pennsylvania, and another in Florida. Heck, maybe a red-rock southwest one too. Plenty of room for ops and switching, and plenty of long runs to just watch trains pass through some beautiful scenery.
I have learned a lot from being in a modular club (HOn3, NSNG in the Denver area).
I used to think that my ultimate HO/HOn3 layout would fit in a 24ft x 24ft space. After my modular experiences, I'm not sure I would still want to try building a layout of that size as a one man thing. Or even with a few friends.
One of the dichotomies the modular club has experienced is the difference in operations preferences. Back in the '50s, John Armstrong wrote an MR article that divided operations preferences into 3 categories - spectator, engineer, and dispatcher. Admittedly, we don't have too many dispatcher types in HOn3, but we do have those who like to watch a train run through scenery (Armstrong's spectator), and those who like to do switching (Armstrong's engineer).
Since we usually have more modules available than room to setup at most venues where we have a layout (typical 30ft x 50ft space), the planner has to decide whether to put space between towns using single track scenery modules or lots of switching opportunities by reducing the number of scenery modules.
And that's when the differences arise. "I can't do any switching because too many guys are just running trains through scenery." "I want to enjoy watching my locomotive and cars running through the great scenery club members build." "Can't run enough trains simultaneously because it's too far between passing sidings, and some of the sidings are too short." "We don't have enough scenery, the towns are too close together."
There is also the construction. To some, building a single track scenic module is boring, and they don't really want to complete or store such a module at home. To others, scenery is their thing. One member developed a method to build very narrow - 8 to 12 inch wide single track scenic modules - to reduce the need to scenic so much area. Add short flaired sections to match up to the normal 24" width, and the result looks very good.
Observing all this has significantly changed not what I want from a home layout, but rather changed how I would go about achieving the result. My ideal home layout would be mostly modules, with a few home-only sections that did/do not meet the modular specs to help the resulting layout fit in the available space.
As many have discussed, the result would actually be less complex than my original plan, but spread out over more area. I would keep the scenery requriements increase to a minimum by usually using very narrow shelves or sections for the single track runs. I believe Joe Fugate uses a very similar philosophy on his layout. And personally preferring switching and building track to building scenery, I would keep the distance between towns to about 2X my longest train.
Towns would be 3 each for standard and narrow gauge, with one being a combined transfer terminal between the 2 gauges - a total of 5 small towns.
just my thoughts and experiences
Fred W
....modeling foggy coastal Oregon, where it's always 1900....
Who of us does not dream of building a large layout?
Since my childhood days, I have been dreaming of that, but it always remained and always will be a dream only. Even if I had the space (and the funds) to build one of these empires, I would not do it. I don´t want to engage into a project I am certainly not finishing. These days, I even consider a 4 by 8 "large". I like small layouts with unusual, creative designs and concepts, nicely detailed. Actually, more "working" dioramas than layouts.
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
Onewolf wrote the following post an hour ago:
If I had more space I would build a large comfortable "crew lounge". Barcaloungers, beer on tap, big screen TV, etc etc.
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.
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 -
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.
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
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!
NP 2626 "Northern Pacific, really terrific"
Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association: http://www.nprha.org/
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/
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.
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"
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.
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
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?
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Miniatur Wunderland
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
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.
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
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.
With an unlimited layout size....hmmm, I would have to go get a bunch more junk to lay on the layout table
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.
jim
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!
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.