Ideas for the next Model Railroader Project Layout

[delray1967]

Since the Beer Line series, which I thought was a great idea (multiple arrangements of the same layout), I've thought a series on how to build Free-Mo modules.  It could include several modules, using different construction techniques and follow through as the modules get used at a Free-Mo setup to report how things went.  Any equipment (meaning the latest offering from any manufacturer, regardless of era) can be run and for the most part, can represent any location (except for desert/mountains...but any scenery fits into a Free-Mo setup by grouping similar modules together).  There are Free-Mo standards for several scales, so it's possible no one would be left out if several modules were built.

These modules could easily travel the country so readers can see first hand the project layout...something that rarely happens.  I mean, how many of us has seen a project layout in person?  I'm sure many have, but probably many more haven't.

The series could also expand on operations or signalling (signalling is relatively new on Free-Mo modules, but some do exist).  Module construction techniques easily carryover to home layouts since many people have realized having a layout in sections means there is little chance of tearing a whole layout down when having to sell or move from their homes.  If anyone decides to (or is forced to) retire from Model Railroading, these modules can be sold or given to a club and may survive for many years, regardless of the location (Free-Mo is a nationwide standard).

Another idea for a project layout series (but not one I'd personally be interested in), is european modeling.  I hear several stories about how modelers living across the pond model the U.S., how about us trying to model their country (model railroading is a world-wide hobby!).  Are european railroads operated differently than U.S. railroads?  I assume so, but have no idea.

[Kyle]

It would be cool to have some interchange points that could also be connect to a existing layou, or could be used for future expansion. 

Lots of switching would be one of the top requirements, but the layout should stay away from a lot of curves as that would make it difficult to customise to your space.  As I posted earlier, it would be great to design it so it can be easily lengthened or compressed slightly.  

I would also like to see 22" minimum curves at least.  Especially if six axle locomotives are used and some of the longer modern rolling stock.

One industry I think would be great to model is an intermodal yard.  It is very compact as you can only model the tracks with a container crane, and imply that the containers are stores where the aisle is.

[jmbjmb]

One of the unique things about KR&D was the track through the ferry that loops back around and appears to be the main coming in from somewhere else.  That track was actually intended as a in/out connection such that the boat switcher could load/unload the ferry and a transfer run down the back could bring cars in from "somewhere" else.  It wasn't intended as a reverse loop for the locomotive to go through the ferry.

This was the first layout I saw devoted to concepts like interchange and switching which gave me a whole new perspective on what a layout could be.

jim

[NittanyLion]

I don't particularly care about the region, era, or what have you.

What I want is another monster on the scale and scope of the Cripple Creek Central that seemed to go on for years.

[BRAKIE]

Kyle

 

jmbjmb

 

 

BRAKIE

I agree..With the growning popularity of switching layouts it would be a timely article for many.

The (if you will permit) updated KR&DC should focus on modern ISL designs with solid LDEs.

Just for fun..I would favor SW1500s or MP15DCs as motive power.

 

 

 

 

Absoutely agree with your thoughts.  I've always loved the KR&D concept so it would be interesting to see it updated to a more current design aestetic (sp?).  The ferry and a large export elevator could by themselves drive a lot of switching.

 

 

 

 

I tried to look up the track plan in the MRR database, but I couldn't find it.  Could you possibly post a track plan or at least describe it?

 

No worries..Here;s a link for the plan: 

http://forum.atlasrr.com/forum/data/etowsley/2005822223845_krddmastrjpeg.jpg

The design was ahead of its time since switching layouts wasn't all that popular back in '72.IIRC it was the first advanced designed switching layout.

This layout is what started a life long love for switching layouts.

 

[Kyle]

jmbjmb

 

 

BRAKIE

I agree..With the growning popularity of switching layouts it would be a timely article for many.

The (if you will permit) updated KR&DC should focus on modern ISL designs with solid LDEs.

Just for fun..I would favor SW1500s or MP15DCs as motive power.

 

 

 

 

Absoutely agree with your thoughts.  I've always loved the KR&D concept so it would be interesting to see it updated to a more current design aestetic (sp?).  The ferry and a large export elevator could by themselves drive a lot of switching.

 

I tried to look up the track plan in the MRR database, but I couldn't find it.  Could you possibly post a track plan or at least describe it?

[jmbjmb]

BRAKIE

I agree..With the growning popularity of switching layouts it would be a timely article for many.

The (if you will permit) updated KR&DC should focus on modern ISL designs with solid LDEs.

Just for fun..I would favor SW1500s or MP15DCs as motive power.

 

 

Absoutely agree with your thoughts.  I've always loved the KR&D concept so it would be interesting to see it updated to a more current design aestetic (sp?).  The ferry and a large export elevator could by themselves drive a lot of switching.

[Kyle]

I think it would be cool for MRR to Protolance a layout.  Pick a railroad, pick a location, and then follow some of the prototypes in the area and the prototype railroad.

I have thought of a protolanced branch line.  It would be based on the Kyle Railroad, but based in North Carolina or Virginia.  The Kyle Railroad has a really nice blue color scheme.  In recent years, it looks like the quality of the locomotives have gone down.  There are a lot of old BN and SP paint schemes.  I would change history to say it was bought by a business man who kept the equipment looking good.  Almost all of the locomotives were painted in the Kyle Blue, and they kept the GP40s.  For a small layout, I would model a few GP40s, the SW1000, maybe two SD40-2s, and an exSP SD45T-2 (In Kyle colors).

Modeling the Kyle Railroad would make some really good articles MRR could do.  For example, they could detail the GP40s using photos of an exKyle GP40.  In the Information Desk for one of the issues, they could talk about using the features on websites like rrpicturearchieves to trace the owners of a locomotive, and see pictures of it through out its life.

I would like to see this concept used for the MRR Project Layout.

[Steven Otte]

mlehman

I've got an idea for the next project layout. "Moving In: The Model Railroader Reality Show." People enter their names and one lucky winner gets a different member of the MR staff every week for 16 weeks to help them finish their layout for the big reveal.

There will be Cody in his wifebeater t-shirt and Bugs Bunny slippers at breakfast. It turns out Neil snores...a lot...so you have to ask him to sleep out in the camper or your wife will renounce the contract. Steve O. went to graduate school with Julian Assange for a semester...lots of hijinks ensue when they spend an afternoon Skype-ing to catch up.

This could be fun...

 

I must take great exception to your unsubstantiated characterizations of the MR staff.

I'M the one who snores.

[mlehman]

BRAKIE

You and I are no doubt in the minority that rotates cars and maybe locomotives between operation sessions.

Like Bob, I rotate cars that go to staging. I have 10 4' long drawers right under the main staging area. I'll even guess there's 100s of cars in them.

There are three groups of cars in staging (omitting ones that really are in long term storage.) First, the bulk are there for the choosing to go on and off. Then there are ones you see going through on trains, but aren't swicthed out on the poertion I model. Then there are the ones that go to the "Return to..." location on the car card that is on the layout. You'll see them quite frequently, despite being a relatively small part of the whole.

[BRAKIE]

Brunton

I'd like to see something other than the small layouts that have been done recently. How about something in the size range of the Kinnickinnick (sp?) Railway and Dock Company of many years ago, or the Clinchfiled?

I agree..With the growning popularity of switching layouts it would be a timely article for many.

The (if you will permit) updated KR&DC should focus on modern ISL designs with solid LDEs.

Just for fun..I would favor SW1500s or MP15DCs as motive power.

[Pruitt]

I'd like to see something other than the small layouts that have been done recently. How about something in the size range of the Kinnickinnick (sp?) Railway and Dock Company of many years ago, or the Clinchfiled?

[stokesda]

Kyle

 

Sure you can change the scenery and industries on a track plan you like, but MRR has a lot of articles on the scenery, industries, and rolling stock.  While all the articles can help you, the ones with your era/location are the best.

I started this thread to see what everyone's thought was on what should the next MRR project layout be based on. I would prefer to stay away from "well you can change ....."

 

Fair enough, but the focus of your original post seemed to be on the modeled "era" and not so much on the track plan, concept, or benchwork design. I thought your point was "I'd love to build this layout, but I wish it was geared toward the modern era." My point was if you like the layout, it's easy to adapt the era.

Yes, it would be more helpful to have the scenery/industries/rolling stock part of this project be specific to your preferred era, but they can't cover every possible era for every project railroad in that level of detail. There have been plenty of one-off modern-era scenery/industry/rolling stock articles in MR recently to get some good ideas to fill in the blanks.

Others have brought up good points here about layout design concepts, e.g. point-to-point vs. round-and-round, staging vs. no staging, etc. All good info, but I didn't think that was the focus of the original post. Maybe I misunderstood.

As far as what I hope they do for the next project, it doesn't much matter to me. I also prefer modern era, but I usually pay more attention to the overall layout design concept and construction. I like the variety they've covered in recent years, and although I enjoyed the quarry mine thing they did a while back, I thought it was kind of a cop-out for a "project layout" since it was simply an addition to the MR&T

[BRAKIE]

Bob Schuknecht

You seem to be making the assumption that modelers will only rotate cars in interchanges and not rotate cars in staging. On my layout I rotate both. Every car sent to an interchange or to staging gets rotated off the layout.

Bob,I have operated on several home layouts over the years and based my comment on those observations I can safely say the majority uses the same cars and locomotives even though they may have dozens of locomotives and three or four hundred or even more freight cars.

You and I are no doubt in the minority that rotates cars and maybe locomotives between operation sessions.

[jmbjmb]

Regarding the discussion why they do 4x8, more or less.  As we discuss all the time a 4x8 isn't that small when put in a room.  It's 32 square feet of surface.  Whereas a shelf layout, in a 12x12 room, assuming no more than 2 feet shelf, is less than 80 depending on the door opening.  And that's assuming using 2 feet all the way around.  Instead, as Tony has often mentioned, the width can vary in and out.  Spreading out the layout doesn't require any more complexity in trackwork but more open space, and besides, why do the articles have to finish within a quarter?  Why not spread them over a full year and do a bit more, from beginner design, flex and handlaid track, RTR, kit, kitbashed, and scratchbuilt for both cars and structures, and finally signaling, and some form (TTTO, CTC, whatever) of ops.  They could pull a whole book out of such a series and engage every skill level of reader.

In a conversational manner much like the old Up Clear Creek on the Narrow Gauge series in I think NGSLG.

jim

[Bob Schuknecht]

BRAKIE

Here's my method..I remove outbound cars from the interchange track and replace with the next rotation of cars(might do a topic on that some day).My current 1x10' ISL has 12 different rotations not including the "days" where there is only outbound cars.

A example would be that dented gon may not show up again for several operating sessions if its not removed from the rotation box and place in storage since it draws attention to its self by being dented..

Even with several trains in staging one can say "Gee,there's that dented gon or that pink WSOR boxcar again" as the train rolls across the layout..

You seem to be making the assumption that modelers will only rotate cars in interchanges and not rotate cars in staging. On my layout I rotate both. Every car sent to an interchange or to staging gets rotated off the layout.

 

I even rotate unit coal trains so the same train doesn't continually return to the power plant.

[BRAKIE]

Steven S

Without staging you're just running the same cars around in circles. Staging at least allows you to have two or three different trains hidden away to mix things up. Steve S

Steve,Staging(with one "g" lol) and interchange track is good but,not a fix all since both depends on the modeler's ambitions or the lack there of..

Here's my method..I remove outbound cars from the interchange track and replace with the next rotation of cars(might do a topic on that some day).My current 1x10' ISL has 12 different rotations not including the "days" where there is only outbound cars.

A example would be that dented gon may not show up again for several operating sessions if its not removed from the rotation box and place in storage since it draws attention to its self by being dented..

Even with several trains in staging one can say "Gee,there's that dented gon or that pink WSOR boxcar again" as the train rolls across the layout..

Of course unit trains,auto rack trains,stack and piggyback trains blend in without being overly noticed.

 

[dknelson]

Staging has little or nothing to do with whether the same cars are on the the layout and in the same trains over and over; that is a function (or can be) of the car forwarding system.  Even simple card forwarding methods can provide for a car to go off the layout and as practiced by a friend of mine, a car going off the layout was matched by one being put back on (using cards, back to front, in a file card box so that the car now coming onto the layout had perhaps not been used in some time), with its own forwarding routines, which nicely prevented the feeling that you had run that very same train before.   [Edited post: the swapping out of cars can of course be done in staging.]  

It is a long time since MR had a really large layout as their project layout.  Perhaps the old Sierra Pintada of the 1960s?   One nice feature of smaller layouts, in addition to the idea that the entire layout can be completed during the months they set aside for it) is that they can bring it to Trainfest because they are of a portable size.  This year they brought the Olympia Logging layout to Trainfest so that we could actually check out the sector plate and how it worked, and David Popp gave us a detailed view of the other features including the lighting and the construction of the "box" and legs. 

Dave Nelson

[Steven S]

BRAKIE

Stagging is good for large layouts.

And small ones.

 

Here's a rub with stagging..One usually uses the same cars each operation session causing that age old saying-gee whiz there's that dented B&O gon again sine stagging a train is easy..

You run into the same problem without staging (one 'g'.)  Without staging you're just running the same cars around in circles.  Staging at least allows you to have two or three different trains hidden away to mix things up.

Steve S

 

[Doughless]

The MR project layouts are usually a small table top layout.  That's fine.  I think they have time and space constraints that limit the ability to build an around the room layout.

In MRP 1995, there is a trackplan of a potential layout representing Wingate IN.  One half of the layout is the town, and the other half staging.  It has a curved center backdrop and building flats too; something that could be educational for when a modeler builds a large layout.

I think something that shows operating potential of a layout would be beneficial rather than a scenery based roundy round.  The article could show how an operating schematic and plan could be wrapped into a 4x8 (approximately)...which is typically the size MR uses for its project layouts.

[Jimmy_Braum]

A version of the "SWP" ( south western Pennsylvania) in ho/N scale. Modern class 2 or 3 shortline, goes through towns, servers an industrial park, mountain scenery, interchanges with NS and W&LE,etc. 

[russ_q4b]

1950s downtown somewhere USA with trolleys running in the middle of the major streets.  It either be a shelf layout, the

classic 4x8 or the hybrid L shape or rectangle layout that David Popp likes to do.  Lunde Studios, CMR, Walthers, Scale

Structures and DPM offer alot of good downtown buildings.  Maybe someone could do a seperate kit-bashing project to have a

unique building.  There are plenty of super detail products to make this project look like a bustling downtown somewhere

USA.

[Kyle]

BRAKIE

 

 

rrinker

 But if you fill up the entire door with your branch line, where does all the traffic come from? That's what the staging is for. And the way they set up this layout, not only do they have staging for beyond the layout on the main line, they also have a junction, with staging for that.

 Unlike some of their other layouts, this one is designed to be included completely within the dimensions of the door, instead of using a fold down shelf for staging.

                  --Randy

 

 

 

 

 

Stagging is good for large layouts.

The cars on my old CD&B arrived and departed by interchanged which IMHO is far better then  stagging for the type of layout I was talking about.

Here's a rub with stagging..One usually uses the same cars each operation session causing that age old saying-gee whiz there's that dented B&O gon again sine stagging a train is easy..

With interchange  one may do the same as above or far better is the outbound interchange cars is removed from the layout and replaced with inbound cars.

A lot of railroading can be designed into that same 3'x7' area without the needless stagging.

Of course one would need to know about branch line or short line operation and think outside of the layout planning box.

Did you know that same 3'x7' would yield a decent point to point urban industrial branch layout?

 

Different people have different needs and preferences.  I would like to see a layout built in a few modules, that each individual can slightly modify to us taste. 

I think a U shaped layout would be cool. It can be broken up into three "modules".  Each module could be used by itself.  If you want a shelf layout along a wall, use one of the modules.  Have a lomger wall, use a second module, or all three for a really long wall.  Want a L shaped layout, use two or three modules.  You can pick and choose by rearranging the modules, and changing the track work on the ends of te modules so they fit together in your arrangement.  Breaking the layout into more modules will allow for more flexibility. You could stretch the modules (or slightly shorten) to fit your space.  If you have extra space, you may choose to add more staging.  If you are tight on space, then you may choose to get rid of the staging.

The Rice Harbor was able to be reconfigured, but it only has two shapes and probably would require some planning to lengthen it.

[rrinker]

 Yeah, but they just did a point to point switching layout (depending on config) - the Beer Line.

 Unless you jam it up against the wall, someone can play in the staging yard and swap cars around, take some off, put new ones on.

             --Randy

 

[Kyle]

stokesda

If you like the track plan and the basic concept, I'm sure it could easily be adapted for any era. Just change the scenery and some of the industries, and voila... Really the only thing that would need to change is the scenery portion of the layout. The trackwork, electrical, benchwork, etc would still be the same. Maybe MR could address this in future project layouts by publishing suggested "alternative era/location" diagrams with different industries and scenery to fit a particular theme. IIRC, I've seen a similar thing done with some of Ian Rice's designs in some of the Kalmbach books.

 

Sure you can change the scenery and industries on a track plan you like, but MRR has a lot of articles on the scenery, industries, and rolling stock.  While all the articles can help you, the ones with your era/location are the best.

I started this thread to see what everyone's thought was on what should the next MRR project layout be based on. I would prefer to stay away from "well you can change ....."

[BRAKIE]

rrinker

 But if you fill up the entire door with your branch line, where does all the traffic come from? That's what the staging is for. And the way they set up this layout, not only do they have staging for beyond the layout on the main line, they also have a junction, with staging for that.

 Unlike some of their other layouts, this one is designed to be included completely within the dimensions of the door, instead of using a fold down shelf for staging.

                  --Randy

 

 

Stagging is good for large layouts.

The cars on my old CD&B arrived and departed by interchanged which IMHO is far better then  stagging for the type of layout I was talking about.

Here's a rub with stagging..One usually uses the same cars each operation session causing that age old saying-gee whiz there's that dented B&O gon again sine stagging a train is easy..

With interchange  one may do the same as above or far better is the outbound interchange cars is removed from the layout and replaced with inbound cars.

A lot of railroading can be designed into that same 3'x7' area without the needless stagging.

Of course one would need to know about branch line or short line operation and think outside of the layout planning box.

Did you know that same 3'x7' would yield a decent point to point urban industrial branch layout?

[mactier_hogger]

rrinker

 But if you fill up the entire door with your branch line, where does all the traffic come from? That's what the staging is for. And the way they set up this layout, not only do they have staging for beyond the layout on the main line, they also have a junction, with staging for that.

 Unlike some of their other layouts, this one is designed to be included completely within the dimensions of the door, instead of using a fold down shelf for staging.

                  --Randy

 

 

[rrinker]

 But if you fill up the entire door with your branch line, where does all the traffic come from? That's what the staging is for. And the way they set up this layout, not only do they have staging for beyond the layout on the main line, they also have a junction, with staging for that.

 Unlike some of their other layouts, this one is designed to be included completely within the dimensions of the door, instead of using a fold down shelf for staging.

                  --Randy

 

[Burlington Northern #24]

BRAKIE

Gray,One can incorporate a decent layout with industries,small yard and still have room for scenery on a 3x7' layout.I wouldn't waste any space for stagging since I would build it as a branch line or short line centered around that type of operation..

I wish I had photos of my 36" x72" hollow core door layout I had in the 80s.

 

I think I could see that, I think they put staging on the layout though so they could make it seem as if trains are coming and going.