TrainzLuvr Track fiddler. I must persevere and stick with H0.
Track fiddler. I must persevere and stick with H0.
No worries trainzLuvr. If I had a room that size at my disposal for trains I'd pick HO too.
If I do say so myself I would have to say the design I came up with was pretty cool from the standpoint of your original guidelines. I would also have to say I'm not surprised nobody else has become interested in the design. It would take a room the size you have available to do it. At that point it's not very practical.
It's good to see you better utilizing your space you have to work with from the advice of the other forum members and apparently the approval of your better half. NICE !
I'll look forward to seeing your updates in the future
Track fiddlerWhoops I just seen on your reply you're going ho I don't think an 18 inch radius is good for ho. Bummer Best of luck with your project though.
Best of luck with your project though.
Uh oh, so now you'll just leave me hanging because I chose H0 instead of N? :)
I'm just kidding, though I have been thinking about that blueprint past couple of days, I must persevere and stick with H0.
YouTube Channel
Website
Whoops I just seen on your reply you're going ho I don't think an 18 inch radius is good for ho. Bummer
Now you have your three-quarter inch OSB base. You buy 3/4 inch drywall screws. They sell Stait mending brackets you attach both half circles on each end of your 38 3/16 x 8 OSB base.
Both Menards and Home Depot sell 20 packs of small angle brackets. You will need about six packages of those. These little angle brackets will attach onto the OSB base where each stud goes the stud base will rest on the floor and attach to the angle bracket.
Edit. Now you have attached 18) 7 foot perimeter studs a little vulnerable standing in the breeze. Carefull nothing is solid yet but it will be soon.
We're all good here. Let's continue here.
@Track fiddler
That blueprint is beautiful, my SO and I are both mesmerized by it. We love the simplicity and the organic flow it has and how it incorporates, and hides, the two helices. Layout like that would make one heck of an installation piece in a gallery space, especially if the decks were built with a shadowbox look.
The only catch, and that is really my fault, it's design is for N Scale. If I wasn't flip-flopping around the scales so much, it would've been clear from my posts what direction I'm taking (it's H0). :(
In the other thread I got up (http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/260185.aspx?page=4#2980557) has the most recent plan I have in mind. It's a more traditional look and hopefully simpler benchwork to build. I grow weary of spinning my wheels anymore, and just want to start building before I lose interest. I have been in this planning stage for quite some time now, frustrating many people on multiple forums along the way.
I'd love an opportunity to tap into your vast experience - should we continue through email, or keep it public here so others might benefit from it?
No Fasteners anywhere free-standing benchwork kind of like a table. That's a beautiful hardwood floor in that room. For starters I would put down a couple of layers of red rosin paper after the floor was nice and clean. Then you center a 38 3/16 by 8 foot three quarter inch piece of OSB in the center of the room. Then you take a three-quarter inch piece of OSB and cut a 38 3/16 radius circle and cut it in half and put each half on either side of the 38 3/16 by 8 foot OSB.
Now you have your base no Fasteners. We're going to build up from here.
Where are you TrainzLuvr
TrainzLuvr. I could tell by the quality of your carpentry work looking at the pictures in the beginning of your thread that you know what you're doing with your hands and your tools. Like I said your concept was really cool. It's just that you had a little bit of Jenga going on there.
I could see by the description of freestanding bench work that you want something unique different from everybody else's tabletop railroads. No Fasteners in the walls floor or ceiling creates a challenge.
I have been a custom remodeler designing kitchens and bathrooms for 33 years. The last 10-12 years I can't stand doing everything straight. I like curves and angles that's why I stay busy.
I took the liberty to design you layout benchwork that would be perfect for your 22 by 12 foot room. I kind of envy you If I had a free room like that I would start building this layout tomorrow. I'm not going to continue on and go into all aspects of it and heavy details I think it's pretty self-explanatory for starters. I'll just let the blueprint do the talking. My door is always open
Edit correction. I forgot to mention the 38 and 3/16 size for the helix is because 3.2 ft x 3.14 pi equals an exact 10 ft circumference. A quarter inch rise per 1 foot is nice to work with for a 2% grade. An 18 inch radius for N scale is pretty nice too.
I really love the conversation here as it's making me think about the possibiltiies.
Although we should really be talking about this stuff in my other thread at http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/260185.aspx because there I have all the details, including updated Givens and Druthers, and more. :)
I'll post there with more background and addressing what was said above here.
Doughless And that 20 car train in a smaller scene looked like a longer train I'll wager
And that 20 car train in a smaller scene looked like a longer train I'll wager
I think the the thread deserves to talk about layout theme, which tends to be the first step before even thinking about train length. I don't think that has been explored yet.
Weeeeelll, if you read back through the topic, the OP has sort of complained about being pressured into well, not quite a theme, but something kind of akin to a theme, such as a particular RR in at a time. Ok. Maybe that isn't necessary but he seems to want to keep things kind of open ended; maybe I'm wrong. Boy, are we a long way from the "free standing benchwork" title!
With the footprint presented, OP could model a modern dieslized railroad over sharp curves and elevated terrain. He might want 4 GP40s lashed together pulling 30 cars. If so, I would devote the entire layout to modeling one scene, like a mountain pass. It would represent not even a mile in total length. If he wanted a different theme, where his consist travels from town to town to town, I don't think he has enough space. If he wanted to represent more mileage, I would suggest modeling an older era where the cars and trains are shorter. Again, a 1950s coal hauler with a 2-8-0 pulling 10 coal hoppers and caboose could represent more mileage traveled.
If he wanted to represent more mileage, I would suggest modeling an older era where the cars and trains are shorter. Again, a 1950s coal hauler with a 2-8-0 pulling 10 coal hoppers and caboose could represent more mileage traveled.
See, now your trying to box him into a corner! Just kidding.
What does OP want? What theme? When that is answered, then train length is determined. Then the trackplan is developed as well as scenery requirements and the benchwork footprint comes with it. I don't think those factors have to be addressed necessarily in a particular sequence, but they do need to be harmonious.
When that is answered, then train length is determined. Then the trackplan is developed as well as scenery requirements and the benchwork footprint comes with it. I don't think those factors have to be addressed necessarily in a particular sequence, but they do need to be harmonious.
I think this is why some of us were beginning to wonder if the OP should start out with something less ambitious because all those factors you mentioned above, may gel over time as the OP tries things and finds what it is he finds works best for him. Or he could build a John Armstrong style list of "givens and druthers" and that might help with that "theme" thing.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
riogrande5761 Thats fine for you of course but it may not be fine for the OP. It's evident people can use a space in more than one way and no one way is necessarily correct. You have 18x12 and limited trains to 7 cars, I had a smaller space and ran 20+ car trains and with 32-inch curves it looked pretty realistic. Sure, the run wasn't long and it was designed basically as a "rail fan" layout with yard and industrial switching in mind. What is pleasing to one person is obviously going to be different than what is pleasing to someone else. It's good for the OP to see that and decide what works for him.
Thats fine for you of course but it may not be fine for the OP. It's evident people can use a space in more than one way and no one way is necessarily correct. You have 18x12 and limited trains to 7 cars, I had a smaller space and ran 20+ car trains and with 32-inch curves it looked pretty realistic. Sure, the run wasn't long and it was designed basically as a "rail fan" layout with yard and industrial switching in mind. What is pleasing to one person is obviously going to be different than what is pleasing to someone else. It's good for the OP to see that and decide what works for him.
And that 20 car train in a smaller scene looked like a longer train I'll wager, different than if that same train was fortunate enough to traverse a 50 foot wall.
With the footprint presented, OP could model a modern dieslized railroad over sharp curves and elevated terrain. He might want 4 GP40s lashed together pulling 30 cars. If so, I would devote the entire layout to modeling one scene, like a mountain pass. It would represent not even a mile in total length. If he wanted a different theme, where his consist travels from town to town to town, I don't think he has enough space.
If he's modeling multiple trains, he will need to devote more footprint to staging.
Pelle Soeberg has roughly the same square footage. His layouts have about half the trackage devoted to staging, with the visible portion modeling one scene on one 20 foot wall, and another large scene on another 20 foot wall. He models modern era. Longer trains means the scenes use more linear footage to look right, IMO. Shorter cars and shorter trains need less linear footage.
Are we modeling few scenes or many scenes?
If OP wants neither, the space is great for modeling a branchline, like the famous SanJacinto District concept, modified to his space.
What does OP want? What theme?
- Douglas
DoughlessIt depends upon how big the layout is. I'd say a 15 car train traveling along a 50 foot wall would look like a short train. A 15 car train traveling along a 20 foot wall or around a 24 inch radius peninsula turnback loop would look long.
I'm just talking in general terms without regard to layout size, what looks reasonable to me in the examples I gave above. I assumed thats what you were doing as well.
The OPs space is not that big.
"Big" is relative. The OP listed his space as 22.5x12, which is bigger than my 18x10, and I managed to fit in passing capacities for 20 car plus freight trains in by being creative.
Myself, I wouldn't model a prototype where I would need a 20 car train to pull it off realistically in anything less than a 40 x 20 space, and that would have to have about half of the tracks on the layout devoted to staging. I assume others might agree, which is why large basement sized layouts are so popular with mainline modelers. I only have an 18 x 12 space so my maximum train length is going to be about 7 cars, which keeps the overall look of the layout realistic and more pleasing for me to operate since the fidelity is closer to pure.
riogrande5761 Train length in HO is in the eye of the beholder. IMO, 10 cars still looks short and I wouldn't call a 15 car train something that looked reasonably long. Thats me anyway, and I'd there are others who agree - point being, each person has to decide what looks reasonable to themselves and design accordingly.
Train length in HO is in the eye of the beholder. IMO, 10 cars still looks short and I wouldn't call a 15 car train something that looked reasonably long. Thats me anyway, and I'd there are others who agree - point being, each person has to decide what looks reasonable to themselves and design accordingly.
It depends upon how big the layout is. I'd say a 15 car train traveling along a 50 foot wall would look like a short train. A 15 car train traveling along a 20 foot wall or around a 24 inch radius peninsula turnback loop would look long.
The OPs space is not that big. Certainly its a nice space but I wouldn't try to cram a Virginian & Ohio into it. He's already decided on a peninsula, so I hope he has considered the overall theme of the layout and how longish cars and long trains would look like traveling mainline speeds around a 24 inch radius turnback loop.
He may have seen something similar in the flesh, but if he is relying solely upon photographs in magazines and others' consensus comments, he may be disappointed in the overall appearance of the layout after the money and time is spent.
Overall theme of the layout must be the first part of layout design, and that often time is dictated by space available. Small spaced probably would exclude long trains, IMO, so modern unit train modeling is probably not a good idea, where as a 50s coal hauler or a logging layout would be a perfect fit. Something in between modern unit-train and short logger branchline could work well.
OP should visit many layouts if possible, since the photos often scene in publications and internet don't do the overall layout justice. See what type of train he would feel comfortable watching traverse several tight turnback loops.
I shoot for more like 20-25 cars in HO for longish mainline trains so I design siding or storage capacity accordingly. I also include some storage for a couple of longer trains as well.
Even my 10x18' layout had staging ranging from around 15 feet to as long as 22 feet. The longest staging tracks could accomodate a 30 car coal train for example. For a larger layout, I will plan for a bit more length for staging tracks.
I'm not modeling modern unit coal trains but I am modeling unit coal trains in "pre-modern" times; 1970's to be specific. The D&RGW was mostly hauling unit coal trains in the 1970's FYI and they included trains made up from "the great steel fleet" of Bethlehem quads (Walthers and ExactRail) and Thrall hi-side coal gones. In fact Rio Grande was hauling a unit train jointly with the UP to the Kaiser plant in California using a unit train of Thrall hi-side gondolas starting in the late 1960's. How is that for "modern"?
Anyhow, most of my Thrall coal gondola train sets are 25 cars long, and that should fit into an approximately 18' siding with diesels. Of course the real D&RGW unit coal trains were in the 80 to 100+ car range, but 20 to 25 cars should look decent in HO, and I'd probably run an odd longer train as long as most will fit into a siding to allow trains to pass on a single track RR.
TrainzLuvr That was one of the things I was going to do along the way. There's just so many parameters to account for, I haven't had a chance to actually dive into figuring out train lengths, sidings etc. ...... and also notice how much space long trains take up. they were 8' long with 10, 50' box cars, iirc. Right now I need to go back to the drawing board and work out a way to add sidings and industries so there's some operational meaning in that plan.
That was one of the things I was going to do along the way. There's just so many parameters to account for, I haven't had a chance to actually dive into figuring out train lengths, sidings etc.
...... and also notice how much space long trains take up. they were 8' long with 10, 50' box cars, iirc.
Right now I need to go back to the drawing board and work out a way to add sidings and industries so there's some operational meaning in that plan.
IMO, keep in mind that HO scale trains convey more length than their real life counterparts. Yes, a 10 car train in HO scale can look like a medium length train in HO, but it would be a really short looking train in real life.
If you want to represent a reasonably long train, try only 15 cars. That length tends to fill up your field of vision, so the eye tends to see it as a long train.
Myself, I model a short line where the maximum train length is 7 cars. Even at that, a 7 car train of 50' cars in HO scale looks a lot longer than the short train I want to represent. Not to mention the train dwarfs the switcher that pulls it.
On my next layout, I'm probably going to have to limit train length to 5 cars to get the train to look like the short trains I want to model. Which is a nice problem to have actually, since space is always at a premium with our layouts.
Thank goodness I'm not modeling modern unit coal trains. But, those 100 plus car trains could actually be represented by a 30 car train in HO scale to effectively convey that monster, IMO.
@fwright
What I did though was use the TrainPlayer to test some trains on the layout plan I posted in the other thread, and it was pretty to see it run and also notice how much space long trains take up. they were 8' long with 10, 50' box cars, iirc.
Right now I need to go back to the drawing board and work out a way to add sidings and industries so there's some operational meaning in that plan. Also move the staging into a lower level, somewhere...
It's ~22.5x12, please see this thread http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/260185.aspx
@rrinker, riogrande5761
My Track Planning book is the latest edition:
I do have the Creative Model Railroad Design book, too.
I also chuckle at the names on the layout plans, it's pretty entertaining. :)
That's the one I have, that's the second edition. It's been well worn from thuming through it again and again. And I have a newer edition, which sticks a chapter in on modern railroading and unit trains. I did read the original edition once, when I belonged to the club it was in the club library, but by that time they were into several printings of the second edition already so that's what I ended up with when I bought my own.
I lso have Creative Layout Design that I bought at a trains how and it wan't until I got it home that I realized one whole layout is missing from it - the one bult in a mobile home. But the last one is my favorite, chock full of Armstrong pun names and takes on real place names - like Llawn Mawr (Bryn Mawr) and the town of Bee Haven which hold an annual beauty pageant... an interesting plan designed for O scale but I always though doing it in HO in the same space would mke for a really nice layout, smaller scale same space would keep the track from being all scrunched together and give more distance between the towns.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
rrinker Read, and re-read, and re-read as many times as necessary to get the concepts in Track Planning for Realistic Operation. John COULD HAVE explained many of his concepts with complex math based on his mechanical engineering eduction but that's what's great about his books - and his other writings. He doesn't resort to that. He distills it down to usable rules of thumb. As Byron says - the two iterative examples in the book are probably the best lesson. This is why I prefer my older edition of the book - I have a 2nd edition as well as 3rd, if I find one I would probably buy a 1st edition as well. ANd they cut some of the intermediate diagrams in those examples in the newer edition so they could shoehorn in the section on modern railroading. But those examples, especially the second one, take you all the way through getting accurate room measurements and determinign the best shape that can fit in the available space while meeting other requirements (the givens and druthers). --Randy
Read, and re-read, and re-read as many times as necessary to get the concepts in Track Planning for Realistic Operation. John COULD HAVE explained many of his concepts with complex math based on his mechanical engineering eduction but that's what's great about his books - and his other writings. He doesn't resort to that. He distills it down to usable rules of thumb.
As Byron says - the two iterative examples in the book are probably the best lesson. This is why I prefer my older edition of the book - I have a 2nd edition as well as 3rd, if I find one I would probably buy a 1st edition as well. ANd they cut some of the intermediate diagrams in those examples in the newer edition so they could shoehorn in the section on modern railroading. But those examples, especially the second one, take you all the way through getting accurate room measurements and determinign the best shape that can fit in the available space while meeting other requirements (the givens and druthers).
I couldn't agree with this more. I'm not sure which addition my Track Planning book is but it has a photo of some guys with a circle of track on the nose of a real EMD diesel. I bought my copy in the 1980's. I'm pretty sure there have been one or two revisions since then.
Be aware that following this thinking will give you a much better operating layout, but will severely limit the number of towns or passing sidings. It will likely be more realistic with a lot of open space between towns.
Yep, always trade-offs. Since the D&RGW was primarily a single track RR, I always design siding to handle a train of sufficient length - around 18 or 20 feet sidings, which has it's trade-offs.
Another good source - if you have the All Access Pass - back in the 50's when Armstrong formulated many of his ideas, he wrote track plan articles for MR. In many of those articles, the highlight of the plan is one of his concepts liek reverted loops and they go on in more detail than may be in the book.
Excuse me if already specified but what is the size of the room.
I will throw this out. Another way to approach design is picking a standard train length. Pick the length, 20" (on my narrow gauge switchbacks, small Shay plus 3 cars), 5ft, 6ft, 10ft, whatever. This should fit a locomotive and x number of standard length cars in your era.
For my 1900 era layout in HO, a 36ft car is 5.5" over the couplers, and a 32ft car is 5". A 10 car train is 55" plus 9" for the locomotive and 4.5" for the caboose, totally 68.5". If I use 6ft passing sidings as my "standard", I can run 10 car trains, perhaps 12 if I use shorter cars.
Almost all your passing sidings should be at least this train length or slightly longer (1.2 x train length). If you go way longer, you are wasting space. If you go shorter, you are creating switching puzzles (which is OK if that's what you want). Be aware that doing a runaround switching operation on a 12ft passing siding will seem very slow at scale speeds.
Space between passing sidings needs to be at least 1.5 x train length, and up to 3x train length is great. If the space between passing sidings is less than 2x train length, no train can be between passing sidings if there is switching going on at the sidings.
Yards - if you are not doing 0-5-0 train make-up and breakdown - have to have arrival/departure track at least a full train length long, with one tail long enough for the engine, and the yard lead (sometimes called drill track) at least half a train length long (full train length is better). Yard tracks again need to be at least half a train length long, and full train length is better.
This is just another way of looking at things. I've learned this in trying to arrange Free-mo modules into an enjoyable, operations-capable layout.
Fred W
...modeling foggy coastal Oregon in HO and HOn3, where it's always 1900...
Byron,
I consider you an authority on the subject and someone I can learn from. I wouldn't be continuously engaging you in conversations here, and elsewhere, if I was being annoyed by you. :)
As far as concept of Staging, I feel Frank Ellison should get the credit for it, and honestly I don't think everyone has read his The Art of Model Railroading. I believe those articles paint the "big picture" of what model railroading truly is, or should be, in my humble opinion. But then again, to each their own, I really don't want to get across in a wrong way.
John Armstrong was sometimes hard for me to read. While I did not write all the questions I had at the time, I felt I didn't grok the concepts fully on the first read, so I'm re-reading his book on Track Planning again.
Afterwards I feel confident I should be able to start my own layout design business...I'm just kidding!!!
People, I perceived, who needed me to tell them the prototype RR before they could help...well there was a number. I am not holding it against them, by no means, everyone has their frame of mind/reference, and what they feel comfortable with. I also understand why they need a prototype (it's easier to deal with something that was/is real than something that's abstract).
I will heed Byron's advice and try to narrow things down more. Over the past couple of weeks I did notice that my direction is crystallizing, probably because I'm acquiring more knowledge.
And once again, not to sound like a broken record, I truly appreciate everyone's posts and patience.
TrainzLuvrI did read John Armstrong's seminal book few months back and I only have more questions than answers.
If you post specific questions here, I am sure that many will have answers. But note that the major portions of Track Planning for Realistic Operation (TPRO) were written in 1963. So while it's absolutely a great overall guide, there are modern resources that add to it (including Armstrong’s own later books).
I suggest working through the step-by-step examples on pages 117 to 120 and 129 to 137 (3rd Edition TPRO page numbers). Although it's not your exact space, you'll see that it's an iterative process that begins with decisions about scale, era and theme -- and then works to fit a layout to the space available. And often one goes back and forth from theme to drawing, adjusting trade-offs until one finds the right balance.
Although it is not edited for continuity and there are some gaps, the Layout Design SIG’s on-line Layout Design Primer explores a number of additional ideas.
My article in Layout Design Journal #40 describes my workflow in layout design, which begins with an unbounded Conceptual phase, proceeds to a Structural phase that defines a layout footprint and schematic, and only then moves to a Detail phase. This is the basis for the 4-hour Layout Design Bootcamp I often present with the LDSIG at NMRA Conventions (though not this year). A brief outline is here. The early Conceptual phase is where the big decisions get made about theme, era, etc. Moving to detailed design without those touchstones is difficult for me.
A condensed version of the Layout Design Bootcamp material was recently published as a chapter in the Operation SIG's new book A Compendium of Model Railroad Operations. It’s a great book, but expensive, and probably not worth the purchase just for my lone chapter on design -- but I think it is a worthy addition to the library of anyone interested in Operations.
TrainzLuvrAlthough, I see that John never talked about Staging
They were also called "Layover" tracks back in the day. The concept is addressed a few times in TPRO. John wrote about staging in much more detail in later books as the concept became more accepted.
TrainzLuvrI really did not want to pick a prototype railroad, but it seems unless I do, I can't get much help anywhere. :)
I honestly don't know why you keep saying that.
There are many successful freelance layouts -- and folks would be happy to help. But there is a difference between layout designs for a grain-oriented Midwestern sort of layout, a mountain logging line, a mainline passenger route, etc. And, of course, a difference in designs for a given space depending on scale (sorry). A one-train-per-day shortline layout is different than one representing a few towns along a busy route. Either is possible in your space, but knowing which you would like to see would be a helpful step in focusing your efforts (IMHO).
Nobody is insisting that you pick a prototype railroad – at least not on the two forums where I have seen you ask for help. But they are asking you to narrow things down a bit by making a few choices.
By the way, one of things I do with new clients for layout design who don’t yet have a firm concept in mind is to ask them to look over this questionnaire. No one is expected to answer every question (and they don't!), but it is intended to help them organize their thoughts and identify the things that they would like to see most. (Armstrong used a similar questionnaire for his clients). That input helps me help them to make choices and trade-offs as we work on the design. It has worked well for many.
What layouts do you like from the books and magazines that you’ve seen? Even if they don’t fit your space exactly, identifying them would be at least a step toward narrowing down from the universe of every possible concept and theme -- and that would help others help you, I think. And if you just want as big a "generic" layout as you can fit with a little of this and a little of that, that could be the basis for a design. But you’ve got to rule some things out to rule some things in.
And with that, I am sure that I have annoyed you enough and will bow out. Best of luck.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Like what questions from John Armstrongs books? I have no idea who gets credit for staging and dont really care. I picked that up from ready many many MR layout articles over the years. As for deciding on RR and era being necessary to get help? Where is it written? Arent people trying to help here with out you commiting to a rr and era? Im not following your line of thought there. You can please yourself regarding what trains you choose like most people here.
@rrinker
Now I see what you meant about train lenghts being more more appropriate for your space size. I wish I had your space - I'd manage dealing with the furnace, water heater and the stairs. :)
@jmbjmb
To be honest, I never heard of "How to Operate Your Model Railroad". Shame on me. I will have to get that for sure.
I did find the "Industries Along The Tracks" in the LHS, but of course Vol.1 is out of print.
I really do not understand book publishers...if a book is out of print and they never intend to print it again, make it available as an eBook, or release into public domain. Holding onto books that are decades old is pretty pathetic, but then again most all basing their business models on dinosaur principles, so it is not surprising.
@riogrande5761
I did read John Armstrong's seminal book few months back and I only have more questions than answers. I'm reading it again in hope of better understanding. :)
Although, I see that John never talked about Staging, and most (all?) of his plans do not contain it. I guess that concept came from Frank Ellison and was not adopted right away. They were contemporaries as far as I could tell. Maybe the lack of internet is to blame.
I really did not want to pick a prototype railroad, but it seems unless I do, I can't get much help anywhere. :)
Settling on a railroad to model and a time frame is definitely something which is a personal choice but if you can do that, it can yield satisfying results, assuming you would like a themed model RR. Many are happy running anything and everything and thats fine too, it just depends on what you want out of the hobby.
I highly recommend John Armstrongs "Track Planning for Realistic Operation". My copy was published in the 1980's but it's been revised once or twice since then and is still very valuable for layout design and some very practical things like minimums standards and curve easements etc. John was an mechancial engineer by trade and also a professional layout designer so IMO, his book is required reading for aspireing layout designers and builders.
For the books, MR has published over the years (they may not all still be in print, so you might have to try the library) several series of books on Industries along the Track. Each volume covered several different industries in detail. They also have published specific topics such as coal railroading, piggyback (I think is a current title), freight house operations, and several others.
For operations, there is "How to Operate Your Model Railroad" by Bruce Chubb (one of the best) and "Realistic Model Railroad Operation" by Tony Koester.
Kalmbach has also published several books on building benchwork.
The hardest part is many of these are now out of print, though Google may find them or try the local library. Chubbs book on operation has been practically the go to source for 20 years.
jim
New space is roughly 26x31 but there's a stairway in the middle of it plus the furnace and water heater are int he one corner. It's more like a backwards J laying witht he long side down. It's 31 on the long side but more like 20 on the short side before the staits. I AM going under the stairs for the staging though. Have to jog around the furnace and water heater in the lower right so it's also noot really quite 31 down the long side. More like 26 or 27 if I leave room around the furnace. That corner will have to be removable to replace either one, but the good thing is both are nearly new. Talk about an engineering challenge - double deck removable section. At least it can be semi-permanent, like attached to the fixed parts with carriage bolts, since the only time it will have to be removed is if the water heater or furnace need replacement.
@jmbjmb,
Thanks, I will look up the Olson book - my club has a pretty decent selection of Model Railroader items going back several decades. And to be honest I never paid attention to the MR videos. Generally, I just hit YouTube for most of the videos, but I will check those two out as they seem to be going through details.
Speaking of details, I don't mind them. The paralysis by analysis happens to me much much later than to most of the people as I (over)analyze things a lot (as you could read from some of my posts LOL).
By the way, what are those books you said exist that talk about industries, train lenghts, etc (the questions I was seeking answers to)?
@rrinker,
With regards to train sizes, I must have missed it then, but what is your space/layout size now, the plan that's on the website is 10x17?
I do envy you that you have a prototype to work off and access to an extensive library to support the project. And it shows you've done your homework... :)