Layouts and layout building

markpierce:

fwright:

I have had to do the same on my layout planning.  My druthers included a fishing village, a lumber doghole port ,... a timber loading scene, a rail-served sawmill, ....

Fred, you may need one of these.

Where did you see this?  Is it yours?  "Is it for sale?" he asks while drooling.

Seriously, the roof is really amazing.  I had planned a spar tree with an early wood-fired donkey to yard and load the logs.

Fred W

Fred, it is on Vancouver Island, British Columbia.

http://www.alberniheritage.com/mclean-mill/welcome-mclean-steam-sawmill

Why not try something like the Montreal Harbour Ry.

http://www.trains.com/mrr/default.aspx?c=a&id=2436

 Double track mainline with plenty of space to fit some of your ideas. Featured in June 2008 MR.

Now wait was this real or modeled??? I don't remember seeing the Montreal Harbour in that issue. I will have to go back and look.

MILW-RODR:

Now wait was this real or modeled???

Natural lighting is the trick.

CPRail modeler:

Why not try something like the Montreal Harbour Ry.

http://www.trains.com/mrr/default.aspx?c=a&id=2436

 Double track mainline with plenty of space to fit some of your ideas. Featured in June 2008 MR.

This layout also presents a number of concerns. Again, a very unrealistic over-use of switchback industry spurs. The number and length of the industry tracks is much too small relative to the yard and the overall layout, IMHO. That's especially true when you consider how short the spurs are effectively when you allow for clearances from adjacent tracks. Not counting the interchange, there might only be space to spot 10 or 12 cars total -- not much industry for a layout of this size depicting an urban area.

For example, one industry track that will probably only hold a single car (if that) requires a switchback move, a three-way turnout, and a crossing! Unrealistic, and tedious to operate. The fact that a plan is published is no warranty of suitability, sadly. And that's certainly true in this case, IMHO. Not to mention that it's at least as far from his expressed interests as is the 59th street plan.

The Original Poster needs to prioritize his desires and requirements (everything he wants probaly won't fit). Without that, it's very difficult for anyone to help. I provide this questionnaire to my clients to help them organize their thoughts about what they want from a layout. It doesn't make the decisions for them, but some have found that it helped them make trade-offs.

In terms of a coal hauling branch type layout in a spare-bedroom-sized space, Allen McClelland's Muddlety Creek layout in HO for a roughly 12X12 space is one of the best I've seen. It was published in Model Railroad Planning 1996. Staging track clearances are a little tight, but it's a very interesting use of the space.

Byron
Model RR Blog 

By the way, the shortfalls of the Montreal Harbour layout were discussed here a while back:
http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/128274.aspx

Yeah, I know the plan has its shortcomings, but it could be heavily modified to better suit the OP's desires. Perhaps removing/sizing down the yard to fit the supplying/consuming industry and a small town, while the area closest to the lift gate with the industries and staging yard will have the other main industry and another small town if desired. The space between the two areas could be scenery with a type of view block, while the staging can be relocated under the layout or in a seperate room. Frankly I forgot to mention changing the plan before.

Byron, 

I noticed your comment on this plan below from a previous post. I would like to take a look at the plan but I just got back into the Hobby a couple years ago and do not have the October 1990 issue. I tried to search the data MR track plans but they only go back to 1998. Any idea where else I could find the plan?

Russell Schoof's 10'X11' Free Haven Terminal design from the October 1990 Model Railroader and the Kalmbach book 48 Top Notch Track Plans (1993).

C & O Steam:

Byron, 

I noticed your comment on this plan below from a previous post. I would like to take a look at the plan but I just got back into the Hobby a couple years ago and do not have the October 1990 issue. I tried to search the data MR track plans but they only go back to 1998. Any idea where else I could find the plan?

I'm not Byron, but here is a general answer:

http://kalmbachcatalog.stores.yahoo.net/model-railroading-model-railroader-magazine-back-issues.html

 Of course, it could very well be that you could find old issues in your local library, at a swap meet or some such thing for less money than the handful of dollars it costs to buy a back issue from Kalmbach, but buying a back issue (or a photo copy of a specific article) from the publisher is generally a pretty safe bet :-)

 Smile,
 Stein

C & O Steam:

I noticed your comment on this plan below from a previous post. I would like to take a look at the plan but I just got back into the Hobby a couple years ago and do not have the October 1990 issue. I tried to search the data MR track plans but they only go back to 1998. Any idea where else I could find the plan?

Russell Schoof's 10'X11' Free Haven Terminal design from the October 1990 Model Railroader and the Kalmbach book 48 Top Notch Track Plans (1993).

I wrote about this layout in my blog and received written permission from Kalmbach to show the track plan in the blog, so you can see a low-resolution copy there. Otherwise, you can buy the 48 Top Notch Track Plans book with the layout reprinted as I mentioned, or get the book on inter-library loan. And as Stein noted, Kalmbach sells back issues or copies of articles from back issues.

As I noted in this thread, the reproduction in the book is in a different scale than is printed on the track plan, but easy to figure out.

But this rail-marine port concept for a layout could hardly be farther from your stated interests for a coal-hauling layout [e.g., Thurmond, WV; Hinton yard; coal tipples; etc.], so I'll admit to being puzzled.

I guess I miss read the post. I wasn't aware that it was a Rail Marine Port. And yes you are right it's not what I am interested in.

Ok, maybe this one will work...Cunningham's Gap published in MR Dec 2003 issue. Also in 102 Realistic Track Plans #58.

Would there be a way to add a power plant and possible have a double main line or maybe a twice around. What about an incline so I can add an additional engine for the grade.

Twice around would make the layout extremely cluttered with track.  Double tracking would be bad enough and makes operations less interesting, but could be added with the addition of some more turnouts.  Grades would have to be extremely short and you'd end up with some kind of roller coaster ride.  Doesn't mean you couldn't have a couple of very minimal grades for scenic effect, but not enough to require a second locomotive to pull the train.  If you like the look of a couple locomotives, you can do it anyway.  It wouldn't look silly with the relatively short trains if you model the diesel era.

There is room for a power plant (on the left or bottom sides) but would you be satisfied with it being only 20 feet away by rail?  Sort of weakens the purpose of staging tracks representing the rest of the North American rail system.  IMHO, the concept of modeling paired industries is generally a bad idea unless one is modeling the horse-and-buggy days or has a very large layout.  Paired industries are best left to industrial railroads moving material from source to mill before it goes to the final consumer.

The layout as planned looks like it could be built with little difficulty.  Just don't build it all table-top.  The left side has scenic opportunities and the creek needs to be below the railroad and highway bridges.

Mark

One minor issue that really bugs me with the Cunningham's Gap plan is the placement of the depot two tracks away from the main track.  The small-town depot should be immediately adjacent to the main track.  Now, if it was a combination freight and passenger depot, one could justify a buried-with-just-the-rail-tops-showing house track (not a passing siding) between depot and main track.

Mark