MILW-RODR....Athough I still argue a bit with the wife on space. I still don't think she realizes the lowest my layout would be set is 48" and she can use the space under the layout to store stuff, put a work desk, put filing cabnets or Rubbermaid bins etc. etc. etc. Her scrap booking stuff doesn't take up that much room.
....Athough I still argue a bit with the wife on space. I still don't think she realizes the lowest my layout would be set is 48" and she can use the space under the layout to store stuff, put a work desk, put filing cabnets or Rubbermaid bins etc. etc. etc. Her scrap booking stuff doesn't take up that much room.
I hope this is coming across worse than what the situation really is.
I have been doing some trials with shelf layout heights and depths to make y layout room dual purpose. My first step was installing shelves into a closet that was a painted and sheet-rocked space to use as a computer work station. The keyboard, monitor, and so forth are located on 24" x 48" shelf that was cut down slightly to fit. This shelf was mounted at 29.75", which I find comfortable for me while seated.
The shelf above the work station is at 56" high and is 12" deep, and is comfortable to work with there. I'm not sure yet whether a deeper shelf above the work station would be too much "cave effect". I know I can only go an inch lower. I have to set up another 24" deep shelf at the 55" point to test for the cave effect.
This pretty much sets my base elevation for the layout at 55" - and puts the highest track point up around 60". I'm 69" tall, so that's pretty high. I will probably need a step stool when working on anything but the shallowest and lowest portions of the layout. Layout thickness is going to have to be minimized to make this work well.
Aisles have to be planned for the chairs at work stations/desks, too. While you may be able to stand in a 24" wide aisle reasonably, you will need more aisle for a chair at a work station. And even more to get seated in or get up from the chair.
The other part comes from being married to a woman who tolerates but is not fond of my model railroading hobby. If you are going to expect to share the space, you need to make it comfortable for her to use, too. Plan and build in the work desk, filing cabinets, and other parts she is expected to use before going gang busters on the layout. Put in lighting under your layout shelf, and build everything to a reasonable finish (shelves, cabinets, desks) right from the beginning. Above all, clean up your mess at the end of each layout construction session. In other words, show her that you respect her use of the room, too.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
Just a thought on size.
Basketball players tend toward the large end of the human spectrum. Gymnasts are, almost without exception, small.
Translating that to layout terms, do you want elbow room (long trains, long runs, aisleways wide enough to turn around in?) Or would you rather try to see how many levels and turnouts you can cram into a space the size of a suitcase?
The jam-crammed suitcase is the usual Japanese practice, followed by the very simple (one loop, one siding and a spur) layout in a suitcase. Very few Japanese houses have spaces large enough for an American style layout.
Where some modelers come to grief is when, having a basketball court of space, they design and try to build a layout of gymnastic complexity. Absent a dedicated maintenance crew (as in, on duty during normal business hours, and busy all the time) such a railroad can easily become a nightmare. That doesn't mean that a large, moderately complex layout can't be a delight. It does mean that the initial construction, especially the trackwork and electricals, has to be rock solid. Any 'quick and dirty' work will come back to haunt the builder when operations become the norm.
Moral? Take the time to do it right, and you won't have to do it over - or work around it every time you try to run a train.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - fair size, but solid)
I think I'm the opposite of the problem. Pretty much stuck to apartment life so I HAVE to have a small layout, and I would rather build a bigger one. At the same point though I would be strechting the space out between scenes and not every modeled scene would be railroad orientated. I would have no problems adding a small town scene where the tracks just pass through or even the tracks passing just outside of town.
I'm also more orientated towards smaller railroads. I'm also a little more enthusiastic about small short lines or regionals, something that most of or the entire railroad could be modeled in a 1400 sq ft basement space.
But as for now I'm stuck with more or less point-to-point layouts in an average sized apartment bedroom which is from what I've heard around 100 sq ft or so. Athough I still argue a bit with the wife on space. I still don't think she realizes the lowest my layout would be set is 48" and she can use the space under the layout to store stuff, put a work desk, put filing cabnets or Rubbermaid bins etc. etc. etc. Her scrap booking stuff doesn't take up that much room.
Paul,
I do have plans for the Forest Hill station that still stands today, as well as some history on it and the village in general.
I currently live right in the Village within walking distance of the station.
Sounds like a great project, best of luck.
Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRALwm3798 Paul, here's the deal. You're modeling the M&P in S scale, right? In a 1400 sq. ft. basement, you can easily do a few signature scenes. Perhaps the Falls Road roundhouse as a beginning point, followed by Towson Station and the York Rd. overpass, then Bel Air, and Delta. That's four key scenes, each one could occupy a space not greater than a good ole' 4x8. Just situate them an adequate distance apart, then use narrow shelves along the walls to connect them. Just like the real M&P, sources of business will be few and far between, with lots of miles of bucolic (and easy to build!) scenery in between. Lee He can even do the whole village of Forest Hill and I will supply plans for my house and the train station. Sheldon
wm3798 Paul, here's the deal. You're modeling the M&P in S scale, right? In a 1400 sq. ft. basement, you can easily do a few signature scenes. Perhaps the Falls Road roundhouse as a beginning point, followed by Towson Station and the York Rd. overpass, then Bel Air, and Delta. That's four key scenes, each one could occupy a space not greater than a good ole' 4x8. Just situate them an adequate distance apart, then use narrow shelves along the walls to connect them. Just like the real M&P, sources of business will be few and far between, with lots of miles of bucolic (and easy to build!) scenery in between. Lee
Paul, here's the deal. You're modeling the M&P in S scale, right? In a 1400 sq. ft. basement, you can easily do a few signature scenes. Perhaps the Falls Road roundhouse as a beginning point, followed by Towson Station and the York Rd. overpass, then Bel Air, and Delta. That's four key scenes, each one could occupy a space not greater than a good ole' 4x8. Just situate them an adequate distance apart, then use narrow shelves along the walls to connect them. Just like the real M&P, sources of business will be few and far between, with lots of miles of bucolic (and easy to build!) scenery in between.
Lee
He can even do the whole village of Forest Hill and I will supply plans for my house and the train station.
Yes, the Ma&Pa in S.
What I am currently planning to include is the Baltimore terminal along Falls Road. The basement is 51' long there and I can come close to a full model. I am also planning to include the York yard/turntable, station and the interchanges with PRR and WM. Then Red Lion, the branch to Dallastown, and Delta. That leaves me with a place for one more town/station in Maryland. At the moment I am leaning towards Bel Air, but am also considering a lesser station to emphasize the lack of business in Maryland in the early 50's.
Part of what I want to do is simulate the end to end operation of the Ma&Pa, both freight and passenger hence both terminals. I also want to include the major revenue areas so Red Lion and Delta. The Dallastown branch allows for the interesting operation of passenger trains having to head in and back out northbound and the reverse southbound.
The basement is not one big rectangle - the stairs, bathroom, and center support wall divide the basement into two usable areas. One of these is 12' 3" x 31' and the other is 14' 7" x 51', but includes the furnace / hot water heater / electric box utility area - studding / sheet rocking the walls will cost me a few inches. So my nominal 1400 sq ft basement winds up with about 1050 sq ft of actual usable space. I estimate that I'll have about 240' of bench work varying from 12" to 30" deep and it divides into 6 separate scenic areas varying from 25' to 50' long.
One of the design goals is less than 100 turnouts. My minimum radius will have to be 33" but the Ma&Pa was noted for sharp turns. The 56' passenger cars (about 11" over the couplers in S) should handle this without problem and the freight cars will be shorter.
One my concerns is that my largest layout to date was 14' x 23' - and that one only had 2/3 of the track laid, wired, and operational before we bought our current home for retirement. So this headline on the May MR cover really caught my attention and thus this thread. Am I biting off too much? I don't think so. But I plan to start at one terminal and build toward the other. That way I can stop and put in a return loop if it gets to be too much.
Thanks for everyone's experiences and thoughts.
Enjoy
Paul
markpierce If I had four times of space available (presently 130 square feet), my track schematic wouldn't change and number of turnouts wouldn't increase dramatically. I'd use the extra space to s-t-r-e-t-c-h the route, add a couple of towns/industrial areas, and reduce scenic compromises. Fortunately, my favorite scenery is high desert and alpine mountain, so the number of trees wouldn't become infinite. Mark
If I had four times of space available (presently 130 square feet), my track schematic wouldn't change and number of turnouts wouldn't increase dramatically. I'd use the extra space to s-t-r-e-t-c-h the route, add a couple of towns/industrial areas, and reduce scenic compromises. Fortunately, my favorite scenery is high desert and alpine mountain, so the number of trees wouldn't become infinite.
Mark
I think this is a wise approach to space. Many track plans are sort of compressed to pack a lot into the space available, so decompressing a plan gives a more realistic look: broader turns, #8, 10, or 12 turnouts, more gradual grades, etc.
For me, the issue is maintenance. I love to build it all, but keeping it clean and in working order is a chore. I like to keep it managable. I've looked at photos of amazing big layouts and I marvel at how it is all kept in such good shape. Just cleaning the track and wheels is more than I can do effectively on my layout.
Phil, I'm not a rocket scientist; they are my students.
I have written about my Santa Fe in Oklahoma in several posts, but it truly was for me a good design and size. 33ft by 28ft can be daunting, and doing three decks even more so. but, I chose to model a part of the Santa Fe (and some BN) that allowed me to have segments as far as operation, so that if I wanted to, and I often do, I could operate on a smaller subset of the layout and have a great time. Layout is 25 plus years old. No loop running, all point to point, the points being either major yards or staginging. I did not do a great amount of design because I was modeling a specific part of the Santa Fe and just starting with the Oklahoma City yards (and staging) led to the development and design of the rest of the railroad.
I would say that each of us have our own ideas and wants and dislikes, and what might "offend" one person is great to another.
Bob
Isn't this the same drum beat that MR has been banging for 10 years (or more) now, that small railroads are just as good as big ones? It seems like their campaign to promote newbies to the hobby by convincing them that you can have just as much fun on a small layout.
Well I've been in this hobby for long enough to know better. And I don't like people going around making my layout feel bad about itself for being bigger than the others.
Check out the Deming Sub by clicking on the pics:
CNJ,Oddly enough, I do agree with most of your post.
However, if the author was trying to use hyperbole to describe his frustrations in trying to build a larger layout, then he wrote it poorly because it's not coming across that way at all. Logically, someone who can build a 200 sq. ft. of layout benchwork in one day and handlay his 78' of mainline track should be equally competant in building a larger layout and getting trains to run more than a few feet (unless he vastly improved his skills in the 6 years from his old layout to his new one).
Not running trains without finishing all the scenery is asking for trouble, IMHO, especially if you're into Operations. No one has to, of course, but it's pretty common sense to test the track and test the Operation before doing much scenery. I'm sure I don't have to tell you, but adding wires, moving track, or adding/removing switches & industries is a lot easier when you don't have to deal with scenery.
The desire for bigger aisles, bigger curves, and bigger switches I think is common throughout the hobby. Obviously, we're all limited by space, time and money so we do what we can. But if someone had offered Jeff K. a layout space that allowed him to build the exact same layout with 36" aisles and 40" curves at no extra cost or effort (not realistically possible, but this is theoretical here), why wouldn't he take it? I mean, are there people that like to be cramped up in narrow aisles and run on 22" radius curves & No. 5 switches? Broader curves always look better, don't they?
Still, I agree with you on smaller can mean higher quality. Not always, but certainly more often than not. Bigger layouts tend to offer quantity over quality...but quantity is a quality all it's own as the saying goes, and can certainly prove "better" than a small layout for certain situations (like club settings and prototype-based layouts, etc.). Still, size is no indicator of quality all by itself...which is what this article seems to imply with it's title and text.
Paul A. Cutler III
Paul wrote:Does a smaller layout mean better? Depends. Higher quality in less time? Sure. Better? Debatable.
--------------------------
Paul,Very thought provoking thoughts there.
First place me in the camp that thinks smaller is better due to the layout can be finished and operated by one person and mini detailed scenes can be added at the modeler's discretion..
Just because a layout is small is no reason to use switches less then #6.The key ingredient is less track is better-even on a small layout with advance layout planning one can have the track to past through a scene once if one thinks outside the box of spaghetti track work that has be taught over the years in MR and layout books.
One more thing..I've notice a upswing in switching layouts.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
grizlump9i do such lousy work, the less i do the better it looks.grizlump
i do such lousy work, the less i do the better it looks.
grizlump
Paul3 CNJ,I believe I've said that I didn't read the article. I just went and read it 30 minutes ago... The cover headline reads, "Less space, better layout: For years Jeff Kraker labored on a huge layout but could run a train only a few feet. A new house with far less space gave him needed focus. Learn how on page 34." Okay, headlines are not written by the author, we all know that. But the following is in Jeff Kraker's own words on Page 35:"When my wife and I purchased our first house in 1993, I started building an HO layout that filled most of the home's 20 x 40-foot basement. Though many of us dream of a large layout space, it turned out to be a disadvantage to me. For years I couldn't run a train more than a few feet at a time because of the work needed to get the layout running was overwhelming." (emphasis mine) It took him years, and he still couldn't run a train more than a few feet? This same guy later pre-cut all his woodwork and built his 200 sq. ft. layout benchwork in one day, and he's handlaid almost all his own track and switches for this layout. He sounds gifted and skilled, yet his trains wouldn't run more than few feet on a much larger layout even after years of effort? How hard is it to cut plywood and lay roadbed and track on it? Sure, it's not a one-day job, but it's not like building the Great Wall of China, either. Does a smaller layout mean better? Depends. Higher quality in less time? Sure. Better? Debatable. For example, and looking at the published plan in 3/8" = 1' scale:1). His Roda aisle is 16" wide at the narrowest and 21" at the widest.2). His Derby aisle is 23" wide at the narrowest and 33" at the widest.Wouldn't a bigger overall layout with bigger aisles have been better, especially with walk around DCC and, according to the article, 3 operators? 3). 27' of his non-staging mainline is underground out of 78' total linear feet.1/3rd of his mainline is underground. Wouldn't a bigger layout with less hidden track be better? You wouldn't have to worry about hidden derailments and stalled trains in helixes and tunnels. Better yet, you can see the trains more. 4). His min. radius is 22" and smallest switch are #5's. Wouldn't larger curves be better? And larger switches? My point is not to slam Jeff K. or his layout (and I hope I haven't). But when he makes declaritive statements about his layout being better just because it's smaller and that he wasn't able to run trains more than few feet just because he was building a bigger layout, I just feel the need to put in my 2 cents and give a countering opinion. Paul A. Cutler III
CNJ,I believe I've said that I didn't read the article. I just went and read it 30 minutes ago...
The cover headline reads, "Less space, better layout: For years Jeff Kraker labored on a huge layout but could run a train only a few feet. A new house with far less space gave him needed focus. Learn how on page 34."
Okay, headlines are not written by the author, we all know that. But the following is in Jeff Kraker's own words on Page 35:"When my wife and I purchased our first house in 1993, I started building an HO layout that filled most of the home's 20 x 40-foot basement. Though many of us dream of a large layout space, it turned out to be a disadvantage to me. For years I couldn't run a train more than a few feet at a time because of the work needed to get the layout running was overwhelming." (emphasis mine)
It took him years, and he still couldn't run a train more than a few feet? This same guy later pre-cut all his woodwork and built his 200 sq. ft. layout benchwork in one day, and he's handlaid almost all his own track and switches for this layout. He sounds gifted and skilled, yet his trains wouldn't run more than few feet on a much larger layout even after years of effort? How hard is it to cut plywood and lay roadbed and track on it? Sure, it's not a one-day job, but it's not like building the Great Wall of China, either.
Does a smaller layout mean better? Depends. Higher quality in less time? Sure. Better? Debatable.
For example, and looking at the published plan in 3/8" = 1' scale:1). His Roda aisle is 16" wide at the narrowest and 21" at the widest.2). His Derby aisle is 23" wide at the narrowest and 33" at the widest.Wouldn't a bigger overall layout with bigger aisles have been better, especially with walk around DCC and, according to the article, 3 operators?
3). 27' of his non-staging mainline is underground out of 78' total linear feet.1/3rd of his mainline is underground. Wouldn't a bigger layout with less hidden track be better? You wouldn't have to worry about hidden derailments and stalled trains in helixes and tunnels. Better yet, you can see the trains more.
4). His min. radius is 22" and smallest switch are #5's.
Wouldn't larger curves be better? And larger switches?
My point is not to slam Jeff K. or his layout (and I hope I haven't). But when he makes declaritive statements about his layout being better just because it's smaller and that he wasn't able to run trains more than few feet just because he was building a bigger layout, I just feel the need to put in my 2 cents and give a countering opinion.
Paul, as a writer of magazine articles myself, I would tend to agree that Mr. Kraker's implication that, after years of work on his former large layout he was unable to run trains more than a few feet before encountering an obstacle, as being a bit of literary license. However, I would also note that building very large layouts is often a very sluggish process if it is being approached alone. Likewise, many hobbyists, myself included, wish to finalize an area's scenicking before clearing the way to run a train through it, as raw benchwork running does little to excite us. If Mr. Kraker felt the same way, I can see how his attempts at constructing a basement-filling empire could have been very halting, with long intervals of having a virtually inoperative pike.
Certainly everyone is entitled to their opinions on layouts and, thankfully, rather than identical cookie-cutter copies we all approach building our layouts in a multitude of different sizes and fashions intended to suit our own particular purposes. What one may like about a given design can well seem unacceptable to other hobbyists. You know I'm not enthusiastic over the approach you've taken in building your layout and since mine in many ways resembles Mr. Kraker's, I know that my modest-sized layout with its short straight-aways and relatively sharp curves definitely wouldn't excite you. Nevertheless, in each case these layouts in every way meet our individual wants and needs. So, in the case of Mr. Kraker's layout, I very much doubt he would look upon your suggested revisions as honestly beneficial, or "better".
As to the overall question of big vs. small in the sense of which is better, I can only say that over many years of layout visits I've seen a heck of a lot more better looking and better running "small" layouts than large ones. This is specifically due to the fact that more attention to quality work and detailing was applied to a smaller area and accomplished in a decidedly shorter interval. In a hobby where most modelers are more layout builders than completed layout operators, extremely long construction periods tend to cause an eventual loss of interest and enthusiasm as the construction phase goes from years to decades. As I pointed out upstream, many large layouts I've seen never progressed beyond the track-on-benchwork stage before stagnating, or being torn down. My hat is definitely off to anyone who can build a quality, fully scenicked, large layout like those so often portrayed in MR. But personally...and like so many other hobbyists...I identify with and encourage the publication of, articles addressing much more modest-sized pikes.
CNJ831
Bob DeWoody,Just because it looks good doesn't mean it will run well, and just because someone is a great model builder doesn't make them a great model railroader. The Franklin & South Manchester for years was a great looking layout that ran like junk (from 1st hand accounts from my fellow club members who visted the F&SM over the years). Recently, George Sellios has developed a taste for Operations and has worked hard at getting the trains to run (see: Tony K.'s recent columns in MR), but for years running trains came in a distant 2nd place to building models on the F&SM.
Sheldon,I don't vary much from your layout design philosphy except that I prefer to model a prototype rather than a freelance. By that, I mean that if I'm modeling Boston to Providence and including both, then I want 2 engine terminals, mutliple yards, etc. IOW, if the NH had a 3rd engine facility along the way, I'd try to represent that. Same goes for another yard or what have you.
Unfortunately for me, even running 20-car freight trains means that I'm in two stations at the same time since the NH's BOS-PVD mainline had frequent stops (average: every 3.66 miles for 12 stations). But for me, modeling each station along the way is more important than seeing long trains running free between stations. Sure, I could cut some of the stations out, but it wouldn't be as historic as I'd like it to be. Still, I have 30" min. curves and all #6 switches or greater, plus 36" aisles with only two narrow spots of 20" or so. I rarely have derailments except in the yards due to my imperfect equipment.
I think the key to the question is how you use the space. A variety of scenes and operating scenarios tends to enhance any layout, whereas repetitive scenes and scenarios can become boring. Someone said in another thread that a person doesn't really gain much pleasure from watching a 40 car train than from watching a 15 car train since the eyes' field of vision is limited to the shorter length. So, just having a bigger layout to have more train length, or run, doesn't automatically provide more enjoyment.
My modern shortline runs 8 car trains, max, and the 35ft shelf I have between the two towns was too much open running. 5-8 car trains running a scale 15 mph doesn't need to run 35 ft to give me the sense of going somwhere. I actually found myself bumping the throttle up to move the train on to the next town. I could have reduced the run in between, made the layout smaller, and not really have lost any operating enjoyment. To solve the problem, I gave each another industry to switch, therby making the towns bigger and decreasing the distance between them, and added an industry midpoint on the mainline to occasionally switch and provide some variety. The footprint of the layout stayed the same, but the variety increased.
I read the article in MR and enjoyed it. I especially like the trackplan design; however, with 4% grades and 22 inch radius curves, and even the midpoint wye, that plan seems suited to a narrow gauge logging railroad as it is. I wonder if he is completely tearing down the entire layout or using some of the benchwork and scenery. I would think thinning out some sidings and spurs, obviously changing some structures, and re-laying narrow gauge track would accomplish a lot of his goals.
- Douglas
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
IRONROOSTERSo I am curious, has anyone had this experience of too much space for the layout and then built a smaller one?
I had about 860 sq ft available but used 430sq ft of it. I did view the entire space as too much, but the actual decision was driven by some figuring.
I made a list of the desired features, minimum radius, how many towns, what industries, special features etc.; and with some putzing with Atlas' RTS Freeware, I concluded that I could get most of everything in the smaller space without over-doing the complexity part.
Its how much you need, not fill-up what you have.
Jim
Since the question of the square foot dimensions of the "average" layout has been brushed upon a couple of times in this thread and another current one, as well as what might be considered "large" or "small" relative to such a figure, I looked up what Model Railroader magazine's last published readers' survey indicated. Their reported figure was 215 square feet, or just under 15'x15'. Interestingly, that figure is only modestly larger than similar values reported over the previous 30 years.
IRONROOSTER In the May MR there is an interesting article with this title by Jeff Kraker about his 200 sq ft layout. In the beginning he comments that his previous layout was 4 times the size but he never got a train to run more than a few feet. The implication being that a smaller layout is better. As one who has never had enough space (certainly not 800 sq ft), I can't really relate to this. We recently purchased our retirement home and I have a nominal 1400 sq ft basement for my future layout. So I am curious, has anyone had this experience of too much space for the layout and then built a smaller one? Was smaller better? How so? I invite you to share your experience with us. As usual everyone else chime with their thoughts as well. Enjoy Paul
In the May MR there is an interesting article with this title by Jeff Kraker about his 200 sq ft layout. In the beginning he comments that his previous layout was 4 times the size but he never got a train to run more than a few feet. The implication being that a smaller layout is better.
As one who has never had enough space (certainly not 800 sq ft), I can't really relate to this. We recently purchased our retirement home and I have a nominal 1400 sq ft basement for my future layout. So I am curious, has anyone had this experience of too much space for the layout and then built a smaller one? Was smaller better? How so? I invite you to share your experience with us. As usual everyone else chime with their thoughts as well.
The main thing that I could not comprehend when I read that article was the statement that, several years into construction, he never got a train to run more than a few feet. Come on man, build some kind of temporary track work off to one side and run some trains. Give me a break. It took me over 4 years to finish my current layout, but i had trains running after just a few days.
Alton Junction
cmrproducts With a 1000 cars and 60 engines - 3300 feet of track and 400 turnouts and DCC - I think that the expensive parts are already paid for ! I can now work on the scratch building when the mood strikes. And to top it all off - I just added another 16 x 16 room to the basement - I NEEDED more room! I think that most modelers that never get a layout running until it is done miss the whole purpose of building a layout - the JOURNEY. It isn't the DESTINATION - but the fun of building the layout !
With a 1000 cars and 60 engines - 3300 feet of track and 400 turnouts and DCC - I think that the expensive parts are already paid for !
I can now work on the scratch building when the mood strikes.
And to top it all off - I just added another 16 x 16 room to the basement - I NEEDED more room!
I think that most modelers that never get a layout running until it is done miss the whole purpose of building a layout - the JOURNEY.
It isn't the DESTINATION - but the fun of building the layout !
Bob, watch out the layout size police on this forum are watching you. They will tell you how you can't possibly need 1875 sq ft, 1000 freight cars and 60 locomotives. And god forbid - 3300 feet of track and 400 turnouts!
I have already been told how my 8 scale mile double track mainline is WAY above most people and that my 800 sq ft layout room, 700 freight cars and 100 locos is "conspicious consumption". Not to mention the 6 car garage below the train room!
And I don't have DCC.
I told them I was small time, maybe now they will believe me.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL andrechapelon There is a certain amount of irony to all this. Jeff Kraker announced over on Railroad Line Forums that he will run one more op session and then begin tearing out his current layout to start afresh with a new layout based on the narrow gauge layout based on the Manns Creek Railroad. Andre That really is funny. Personally I will never understand those who build railroads just to tear them down or who's interests are constantly divided by mulitple scales, eras, etc,etc. I don't have that much time or money. Sheldon
andrechapelon There is a certain amount of irony to all this. Jeff Kraker announced over on Railroad Line Forums that he will run one more op session and then begin tearing out his current layout to start afresh with a new layout based on the narrow gauge layout based on the Manns Creek Railroad. Andre
There is a certain amount of irony to all this. Jeff Kraker announced over on Railroad Line Forums that he will run one more op session and then begin tearing out his current layout to start afresh with a new layout based on the narrow gauge layout based on the Manns Creek Railroad.
Andre
That really is funny. Personally I will never understand those who build railroads just to tear them down or who's interests are constantly divided by mulitple scales, eras, etc,etc. I don't have that much time or money.
Sheldon,I never could understand that either..You may recall the majority of my layouts been 12" x 10' ISL except for a very few small loop layouts...IF I could ever build my "dream" ISL I would never tear it out...I suspect my "dream" ISL will never materialize.
BRAKIEYes,its called the MR curse..Once your layout get publish it either torn out due to a move or a modeler changes directions or scales!
I don't know this guy, and again, the layout looks nice, but this kind of behavor, coupled with the front cover comment "gave him needed focus" sounds like so many people today in our ADD/ADHD driven culture.
My first layout after getting back into the hobby in 1979 was in an 8 x 11 room. Never got the much past the trackwork stage. The trains ran but that was about it.
In 1984 I joined a club and over then next 15 years have helped build about 20 layouts in various scales both at the Club and members homes.
So in 1999 I started again on building a new home layout (this was after a move into a bigger house) and with the 15 years of experience in building layout in various scales I figured I could handle a little larger layout than a 8 x 11.
The new house had a 25 x 75 basement and I designed a layout that would fill it. With the help of my two sons we got the mainline completed in less that 2 years. The mainline was 1000 ft long.
I was now on my own as my sons married and moved away. It is not 10 years after and I have a total of 3300 feet of track in!
The structures are slowly coming along as I have to scratch build most of them as I am doing a prototypical layout of Conrail in the western Pa area aroound Dubois and East Brady.
Scenery is about 10% done but I am having a blast operating the layout twice monthly with a crew of about 10 or so. It is DCC controlled and OPs is what I want to do!
Am I worried about finishing the layout? - NO !
I am having fun running OPs and that was the purpose of the layout - Scenery and structurers will come along as I get to them - I am retired now and I wanted to get the expensive parts out of the way when I was still working.
And if I die before I get it done - it isn't my problem anymore!
BOB H - Clarion, PA
andrechapelon There is a certain amount of irony to all this. Jeff Kraker announced over on Railroad Line Forums that he will run one more op session and then begin tearing out his current layout to start afresh with a new layout based on the narrow gauge Manns Creek Railroad. Andre
There is a certain amount of irony to all this. Jeff Kraker announced over on Railroad Line Forums that he will run one more op session and then begin tearing out his current layout to start afresh with a new layout based on the narrow gauge Manns Creek Railroad.
Yes,its called the MR curse..Once your layout get publish it either torn out due to a move or a modeler changes directions or scales!
twhite I haven't had that green Beetle in over a year, now! Tom
I haven't had that green Beetle in over a year, now!
Tom
Darn, I was hoping I could make an offer on it. I had one years ago. What fun.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
BATMAN twhite (I'm one of those weird Californians who does most of their MR'ing during the summer when I can open the garage door). Tom Tom I Google earthed your house and used street level as I was hoping to see your layout. I thought just maybe he will have had his garage door open when the Google car went by. No such luck though. All I saw was a green beetle. That is if the satellite took me to the right Tom Whites house. Brent
twhite (I'm one of those weird Californians who does most of their MR'ing during the summer when I can open the garage door). Tom
Tom I Google earthed your house and used street level as I was hoping to see your layout. I thought just maybe he will have had his garage door open when the Google car went by. No such luck though. All I saw was a green beetle. That is if the satellite took me to the right Tom Whites house.
Brent:
Wow, GoogleEarth needs to come by a little more often, I haven't had that green Beetle in over a year, now! If there wasn't a charcoal-colored Audi A4 in the driveway, then I was at work.
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
I'm also nearing 60 yrs. of age and feel like I might not get anywhere near completion on a much larger layout and have time to enjoy operating. I did have to compromise with the narrowness of the room's limitations and accept an oval point to point with continuous running possibilities, rather than a more attractive (to me) folded dogbone, etc. I wanted 30" radius curves to allow big articulateds as a strong druther. I've had to do some serious rethinking/recutting to get some grades down but that's working out well.
If I was 30-40 yrs. younger and not just starting my lst REAL layout I'd be disappointed with my small to medium layout, but I think super detailing later, while operating with friends (one big classification/loco serving yard and one industrial area) will provide plenty of fun, lots of work to do in a smallish area and most of all a "reasonable" overall cost and ease of maintenance.
I will have to get my big layout "jones" satisfied by running and operating on other's layouts in our division group and as a guest at Ops sessions elsewhere.
Having those opportunities has been a blessing in keeping my greed for more real estate on my own layout at bay. I'm thinking that the quote from the article may have related to someone who likes to fully complete and scenic a small scene before moving on to the next one. But don't know the guy and they really didn't say what was meant by "a few feet at a time". For a mostly lone wolf builder with the occasional help from generous friends, my 136 square feet will keep me plenty busy for a long time to come. Though another 2'-3' width to the room would have allowed that dog bone or something other than an oval which WOULD have made things much easier. Grateful for what I have (at last).
Raised on the Erie Lackawanna Mainline- Supt. of the Black River Transfer & Terminal R.R.