small layout design

[Anonymous]

HELP. I am designing a nice sized 0n30 layout with a mining/logging setting. esp mining. i would love to see some ideas for a very small additional/portable portion of it that would be confined to about 3'x4' at the largest. its only going to run porters and a converted 060 on it. cars are also shortened to handle a very tight radius. i kind of like that about narrow guage. so, what are you thoughts??a single bridge would be the link to this small portion of the layout. id love to see your ideas.
im at [e-mail]

[Jetrock]

Check out www.carendt.com for some terrific small layout ideas, or the "small layout design" Yahoo-group.

Here are some images from the Carl Arendt www.carendt.com website to whet your appetite!

[Anonymous]

hey. thanks a billion. that is an amazing amout of info. i havent got through all the links yet. let me know when others come up cuz i live for that kind of inspiration.
thanks!

[Anonymous]

Well, heres the next question. I know I can save a good amout of room by using "stub switches". Ive also been in the hobby long enough to (probably) have the skills to scratch-build them. The problem is that I seem to run into a lot of dead ends when it comes to all the important info...like WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE! .how they work ,etc. give me a hand?

[IRONROOSTER]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevin sikorsky

Well, heres the next question. I know I can save a good amout of room by using "stub switches". Ive also been in the hobby long enough to (probably) have the skills to scratch-build them. The problem is that I seem to run into a lot of dead ends when it comes to all the important info...like WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE! .how they work ,etc. give me a hand?

This site http://www.railwayeng.com/turnouts.htm has a picture of a three way stub. The approach rails move. The problem is ensuring they line up properly, since there are no rails to press against like there is with a conventional turnout with points.
Enjoy
Paul

[Anonymous]

well, that is very helpful. but it doesnt really show how space is saved. unless you just really shorten the rail all the way back to.......just about the frog. which would set up a greater travel distance for the approach rail. or am i way off?

[Jetrock]

Well, for starters, stub switches don't really save a lot of track. You're better off using relatively tight-radius conventional switches (Peco SETRACK is great) and, if you need them even shorter, cutting them down a bit. They're far smaller than, say, Atlas #4 switches.

[Anonymous]

youve been so helpful. thanks again. looking at books like, 101 track plans, all i see is, "save space with stub switches". i suppose that it was more of a proto thing on small logging narrow guage roads. i have been cutting them down, using wyes too....hey, thanks for your thoughts