Also remember....the layout was designed as a traveling display layout.
Nick
Take a Ride on the Reading with the: Reading Company Technical & Historical Society http://www.readingrailroad.org/
Two ideas...
[1] Here is a Pennsy-dedicated layout from the December 2002, Model Railroader, by Mike Shanahan, "Horseshoe Curve in the 1950s," on pages 116-121, and his Brunswick & Tuscan which is essentially a 2-track mainline that becomes a 4-track mainline only for the Horseshoe Curve section.
The simplicity in the track planning ideas alone is worth it plus there is the exquisite layout scenery that captures the same "layout spirit" that you see in Dave Frary's work.See Layout Visits Article => http://www.trains.com/mrr/default.aspx?c=a&id=169 See MR Issue Highlights => http://www.trains.com/mrr/default.aspx?c=i&id=2&iid=49
The Brunswick & Tuscan trackplan is only found in the December 2002 Model Railroader. I secured it on eBay with a bid+ship at no more than the original purchase price. The rest of this issue is also "a keeper!"
Just a thought: If you eliminate the Brunswick & Tuscan's 4-track mainline section - you will find ideas that will give you that little extra sought-after Pennsy inspiration for a 2-track mainline with more intricacy, and yet simplicity.
[2] The original Dave Frary, Pennsy series, is on eBay from time to time where I picked up for under $10.00, and; you might find the entire Model Railroader 1993 (eBay search) for under $15.00 (including shipping) and get a ton of other ideas from all the year's mags.
You can link to each 1993 Model Railroader from the Pennsy Middle Division... http://index.mrmag.com/tm.exe?opt=I&MAG=BOOK&MO=9&YR=1996&output=5
Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956
While I'm a long way from building a layout (don't even own the house to put it in yet), I like to think about various possibilities about a future permenant pike.
I've seen plenty of plans, from intensely complicated switching layouts, designs that go around the room several times, multi-levels that take full advantage of limited space, but there's one basic design that always sticks in my head: Dave Frary's execution of the Pennsy middle division as built for MR back in 1993.
I don't havve the original track plan from the magazine anymore, but a very rough (not in scale) diagram looks like this, and is 16' X 12' in size:
There are several things I like about this layout. The setting with a double track mainline reminds me of the old Reading Bethlehem branch I grew up next to. Secondly, it allows for (maybe even encourages) continuous running. I understand the theory and some advantages of point to point operation, but I've decided it's just not for me. Often I just want to watch the trains run. Finally, it fits in a reasonable space of the sort I expect to have available in the future.
No layout is perfect though, and my biggest dislike about this plan is that it seems very light on operating possibilities. Basically, there's the main town (top right) with a small spur yard in it. A tiny hamlet with a single siding, and a branch line leading to a coal mine in the bottom left. That might actually be enough to keep a single person (ie me) busy enough when I do feel like operating, but there's still some problems.
The yard has 5 spurs and... that's it. No A/D track, no real lead, no service tracks. Obviously there's a space limit here, but I wonder if it couldn't be redesigned a bit to work better.
The coal mine branch is nice, and fitting for the region, but there's no runaround anywhere on it, which means operating is limited to pushing a string of empties up it and leaving them, or running an empty loco up it to pull loaded cars back down. Space is again the culprit I suspect.
I'm hoping the layout design gurus here might be able to make suggestions on how this plan could be modified for a little more operating potential, while still retaining the basic elements (size, continuous running, double track ML) of the design. Or am I just asking for too much?
-Thanks