Layouts and layout building

Thanks again everybody,

Everyone's ideas are a big help.  I am some what opposd to taking someone elses ideas, but I really like the trackplan Chris posted.  It is about the size and focus I was looking for but I was wondering if I could expand its opoerations a little?  The only thing I do not like about it is the Track that disappers behind the backdrop.  Other then effect what would it be used for? 

I am enjoying the journey and discussion,

Sean

your original layout has room inside for a turntable

Seanthehack:

Everyone's ideas are a big help.  I am some what opposd to taking someone elses ideas, but I really like the trackplan Chris posted.  It is about the size and focus I was looking for but I was wondering if I could expand its opoerations a little?  The only thing I do not like about it is the Track that disappers behind the backdrop.  Other then effect what would it be used for? 

 It is probably mainly a scenic element for effect. Just like the crossing you drew on your plan.

 Main difference is that what Chris drew looks realistic, while the one you drew did not look very realistic or typical of an interchange situation in an agricultural community in the Mid-west.

 Btw - if modeling a passenger depot and a crossing is an important part of your design goals, you could on Chris's drawing stick a depot (shared between two RR lines) into the triangular space in the lower right hand corner and run e.g. a small Budd Rail Diesel Car out from the hidden space on the "other railroad", across the crossing with your railroad, to stop at the depot on "their line", while trains on "your line" stop at the same depot on your loop.

 I am not trying to be rude, but I think you are at a stage where you should not be opposed to taking ideas from other people, since you are not yet that experienced in layout design.

 But at the same time, you should be aware that some of the advice you will receive will come from people who don't know much about protolance layout design (like e.g. the idea from one poster to stick in two "yards" and a turntable on your layout), so you still need to develop an idea about what you want and what is somewhat realistic for your desired prototype and your available space.

 What resources do you have access to? Are you e.g. a subscriber to Model Railroader magazine, so we could refer you to their track plan database? Have you read any books or articles on track plan design ? Have you seen any layouts you like ?

Your original post mentioned:

Seanthehack:

 I model in n scale and my goal for this layout is portability. 

 I am looking to have increased operating capabilities. 

 I have chosen a maximum of 2x6 feet for over all layout size because it will need to fit in a small apartment. 

The railroad is going to be a protolanced section of the Chicago and Northwestern railroad.  

 The industries I plan on serving are a grain elevator (on the left), machine shop (on the right), depot (center) and a team track. 

 The track that goes to the upper right is supposed to be an interchange track. 

 The box along the upper portion of the oval is going to be a backdrop to provide an illusion of distance traveled.

Let's take some of your wishes and go through them:

 1) "My goal for this layout is portability". What do you mean by that?

 Just that you expect to move to a new home within a couple of years and want a layout that can be taken out of your current home and transported (by movers or friends with access to a truck) to a new home without it having to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch ?

 Or that you want to take your layout to the homes of friends every weekend, so it need to fit into the trunk of your small car ?

 Or that your layout is not going to be left set up, but will need to be put away when not in use, and then be moved (by you alone ? by two people?) from e.g under the bed or on top of a cupboard or a shelf in the bedroom to your kitchen table when you are going to run trains ?

 Or something else ?

 You list portability as your most important design goal  - you need to be clear on what you mean by portability.

2) "provide illusion of distance traveled".

 You do not stand much chance of providing a realistic illusion of distance traveled on a layout this size.

 You can run your trains at slow speed, to they don't zip by every few seconds - that helps.

 You can do multiple loops between stopping in the town, in effect treating the same town scene as several different towns along the line (Town A on round 1, town B on round 2, town C on round 3 and so on and so forth).

 But the inclusion of a backdrop that the train disappears behind doesn't necessarily create a convincing illusion that the train has traveled far when the same train reappears at the other end of the backdrop a few seconds after it ducked behind the backdrop. 

You can of course drive your train behind a backdrop and stop for ten minutes before continuing on around the circle, so it takes longer for the same train to come back and pass through the town one more time in the same direction as it passed through the last time.

 Doing multiple rounds around the loop may be the only way possible to let your train run for a while, but it will not necessarily create a convincing illusion of distance traveled.

  But an illusion you can create on a layout of pretty much any size (by having hidden staging) is the illusion of a train arriving in your town from some location off to the east and departing towards some location off to the west, or arriving from somewhere, turning around in town and heading back towards where it came from.

 The key to creating and maintaining that illusion would be to not let the same train which departed "towards the west" (or whatever direction would be appropriate for your layout) pretty immediately reappearing as  "arriving from the east".

 Which again means that the key to creating a convincing illusion of traffic through a small town is that adding more staging may be more important than adding more town space.

 On the other hand, if your main goal is to model switching in a town, rather than modeling traffic through the town, you might want less staging (maybe only one single staging track which one train can arrive from and depart towards), and instead maximizing switching space in town.

 Or no staging at all - you can start your operating session with a train in your town ("having just arrived") and end it, after some switching or whatever, with the train, now with some new cars, still in your town ("about to depart").

 It all depends on what illusion you are trying to create.

3) "protolanced section of the Chicago and Northwestern railroad" and "increased operating capabilities".

 In broad terms, operations is the art of moving your trains in a manner that looks somewhat like how real railroads moved.

 It can cover a lot of things. But for a small scene like what you are talking about (a small Mid-Western agricultural community), what you should shoot for is probably something like what Tony Koester did for his "Wingate, Indiana" layout in the google books link I gave you further back in this thread.

 I.e modeling various trains arriving from the east and from the west in a small town, sometimes meeting in town (where one train takes a siding and the other passes through), passengers being dropped off and picked up at the depot, and with freight cars being dropped off and picked up both by trains going east and by trains going west.

 Did you read that book page to get some ideas? If not, I suggest you take the time to read those couple of pages, which is a pretty good introduction to operations in a small Mid-western town.

 Deciding on layout size and shape first, and then trying to squeeze in a generic track plan afterwards, and only then trying to add some names to that generic track plan to try to turn it into Maine, Iowa, Colorado or Southern California is a fairly common mistake for new layout plan designers, and one I (and others) often pick on.

 Start by drawing not just your layout, but the whole room you intend to keep and run your layout in, drawing in doors and windows and cupboards etc.

It makes a big difference for layout shape and track plan how you intend to locate your layout in a room, and what other uses of the room your layout has to coexist with.

 As layout designer Byron Henderson (and a lot of other layout designers) say: "See the space, not the table" : http://mrsvc.blogspot.com/2007/10/track-plan-analysis-part-1.html

 You are going to spend a fairish bit of time and money on a layout.

 Don't make a snap decision that your baseboard shape must to be a 2x6 rectangle because you are afraid of a little simple woodworking (or foam working or whatever), and without considering clearly how you intend to run your railroad (e.g. with access to the back or not with access to the back).

Just to illustrate how thinking outside the rectangle baseboard sometimes can fit quite a bit of railroading into other type of spaces, here is a handful of plans designed to fit into various spaces:

 3 possible designs for a 12x10 foot bedroom with two doors that cannot be permanently blocked, but can be blocked while running trains: 

 H0 scale shelf with three cassettes (two above each other on far left):
 

 N scale dogbone around room corner:

Here is another example - a H0 scale around the walls design in 11.5 x 6.5 feet room:

 H0 scale dogbone in a 8 x 10 foot hallway area:

Here are two different "up one wall, down another" designs, both adapted from track plans published in Model Railroader magazine:

"MR South Troy adaptation":

"Waupaca":

 Some small 2x8 foot H0 scale shelf switching layouts:

"Federal street overpass":

"Fergus Falls, MN":

"Climax, NC":

What I am trying to illustrate is that you can do a lot of pretty different designs within a given footprint, and you can fit a railroad into a room in quite a few different ways.

 By deciding on 2x6 feet (or rather, judged from your figure - on 30" x 6 feet) and a loop design, you are locking yourself into a fairly tight corner. By not considering the room the layout will fit into, you are potentially losing good ideas.

 I would at a minimum recommend that you draw up your room, explain where in the room you intend to put your layout, and explain what you mean by portability.

 Who knows - we might be able to offer you some more or less sensible advice that will allow you to come up with a design that meets your design goals :-)

 Grin,
 Stein

hi

just something to think about; lot of newbie's are building a small layout, so they are thinking: I'll  have to build a small station in a small town. Seems logic, how wrong can they be.  Not only Stein has a lot of trackplans in his database; he also has wonderful pictures of his hometown depot. Should be in every book about modelrailroads; this is what rural railroading is about. Due to very low real estate prizes (when RR's were build) all buildings are far more scattered. We all love the wide open spaces of the mid west. But space is what you don't have.

So some of us started looking for situations where real railroads also were restricted in terms of space. They didn't liked it at all; it meant smaller radii (speed restrictions), special tarckwork (speed restrictions and high costs) and grades (even lower speeds, even higher costs for bridges, tunnels, fills ....). We are talking about urban or "mountain" railroading.  The Rhatische Bahn in Swiss, with on it's Bernina Bahn their scale 12" radius, #6 switches, a 7% grade and 3 to 5 foot long trains in N is more easy to scale down (selective compression we call it) then the CN&W in rural area's. You'll need to compress a 10' radius (yes foot not inches), #12 switches and 10 foot long trains (in N-scale also), so it fits in your space.

We all rip up our layouts for three reasons mainly. 1) What we fancy to day is'nt the same as we fancy tomorrow. 2) We all made newbie mistakes, but you'll have to find out your self first .  and 3) The possibility's we have to day are different of those tomorrow. Only on point 2)  we can help; did you read spacemouse's and Byron Hendersons websides? 

You have to take your decissions, you must be happy with your layout, you should have the fun!!

Have fun, good luck

Paul

Hmmm..

First, Stein I do not care if you are rude or not, this is fun for me because I am learning alot.  You seem to be suggesting that I am taking the wrong approach to track planning.  What in your opinion is the correct approach?  What I mean by portability is to have a layout that can be moved by one or two people, that would not take up a sinificant portion of a room.  If it needs to come apart in one or two largeish pieces that would be ok.  I have a small pickup truck in which to move the layout.    Yes, I am planning for a move in the year or two to destinaitions and accomidations unknown.

I have been relying on the 102 Realistic Track plans from Model Railroader, in particular the the very small layout sections and I have a copy of John Armstrongs Track Planning For Realistic Operation.  I am not an MR subscriper so I do not have access to the database.  As you pointed out I am very new to trackplanning and I am trying to avoid pitfalls from the past, just putting down some track and calling it a layout.  I am looking for a layout that will keep me interested after the trains start running.  One other thing that I contiunally forget to note is that cost is a factor. 

Some of the layouts that I like from 102 Realistic track plans are numbers 12, 13, on pages 14 and 15. Or plan 22 on page 22.  I also like the Wingate, Indiana Layout which my be my best option but I want to learn how to plan model railroads not just copy someon elses.  I like the idea of traffic throught the town more so than a lot of switching.  I do not care about turntables and fancy dodads, I am looking for a layout that will keep me interested and advance my skills as a model railroader.

Sean

Seanthehack:

The only thing I do not like about it is the Track that disappers behind the backdrop.

It does seem odd to waste precious layout space on inactive track, but it can be essential for setting a scene.  Here's one such view from a picture I took at a recent visit to John DePauw's excellent EJ&E layout:

The short double-track section dead-ends at the fascia and the backdrop.  Having it there not only follows the prototype, but it gives a reason for a model of an interlocking tower, signals, and other items associated with a crossing and interchange.  The only track that gets worked here (apart from the "J" mains) is the curving one with the EJ&E flat car. The dead-end crossing tracks definitely anchor the interchange scene.

steinjr:

It all depends on what illusion you are trying to create.

It's probably also important to consider for whom the illusion is being created.  For example - my 5 and 6 year olds don't care that the same train travels from east to west, goes behind a backdrop, then reappears a little later from the east for no apparent reason.  Neither will I when I'm relaxing by myself in my train shed after a hard day at the office.  But when I invite some of my hardcore modeler friends over, that train will terminate behind the backdrop, not to be seen again for the rest of that session. Since I wanted to consider each audience (kids, a worn out daddy, and more serious modelers) I made sure that both types of running could be accomplished with the same trackage.  That kind of flexibilty is important to me, but to others it would be a serious deficit.  As Stein points out, it all comes down to what you want.

In addition Stein's really good and important points, I would suggest using Bing or Google maps to scout out the former C&NW for some interesting towns and tracks.  Since some trackage has probably been abandoned, visits to any C&NW historical websites & books could be used to research those areas. You don't have to model the towns and tracks you find 100%, but you can borrow C&NW signature bits and peices from here and there to make up your fictional town.

I think you are heading in the right direction, just remember that this is an activity that takes thought, research, and time.

Seanthehack:

 You seem to be suggesting that I am taking the wrong approach to track planning.  What in your opinion is the correct approach? 

 I got a little carried away there. I did not mean to say that your approach was wrong, and that another approach is the only correct approach - I just wanted to show you a couple of options you might not have considered yet. 

 There is a lot of different approaches to track planning, and most of them work reasonably well for someone, under some circumstances, for some types of layouts.

 Even the "just putting down some track" thing you mentioned works - and it certainly has very low risk of the designer getting stuck in "analysis paralysis" - where a person plans and plans and plans and never gets to the point of actually starting to build his or her layout.

 Having said that, what approach do I usually prefer when I am trying to come up with a track plan?

 Hmmm - I like to start with getting an rough idea about _why_ the owner wants this layout. What is his vision ? What is the purpose of the layout - watching trains run? Switching? Routing? Letting grandkids race each other? Mainly being a place to display engines by a roundhouse?  How do he plan to run his trains ?

 I next like to get a description and a sketch of the room where the layout will be located, along with a description of other uses of the room that the layout has to coexist with. Most of us do not get to build rooms that fit our layouts - we will have to fit our layouts into an existing room, in such a way that we also handle the ergometric factors - human height, arm reach, field of view and so on and so forth.

 I then look for the information that determines the look and feel of the layout : location, era, layout theme, any favorite scenes that should be included and so on and so forth.

 Shake and stir, make a first design, test whether you can operate it as desired, look for flaws, make changes, repeat until you have something you think is okay.

 Then ask for a critique, consider comments, redo things, test, get a new critique, repeat.

 Being willing to make drastic changes - taking out things you have put in and try something pretty different.Going back to an earlier version of the plan and branching out in a different direction.

 There is a lot of modify/repeat. Or "incremental steps" and "iterative design" as some people call it.

 One thing I try to do is to consider a layout as group of scenes, and try to plan each scene in such a way that the scenes don't create visual interference with each other - so there is a scenic break between the scenes.

 Layout Designer Byron Henderson has a web site that contains quite a few interesting (IMO) thoughts on layout design and track planning.

 Here is e.g. a list of questions he asks prospective clients, to help them organize their thoughts and describing what they want from their layout: http://www.layoutvision.com/id13.html

 He also describes what he considers to be the four cornerstones (protoype inspiration, staging, major industries and interchange) that most layouts benefit from having: http://www.layoutvision.com/id8.html

 Byron also has a presentation from a clinic on designing for operations, at http://home.earthlink.net/~bhender730/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/ops_dsgn.pdf. Three core concepts from his description of the design process: personality, interaction, balance.

 There is quite a few design approaches that work.

What I mean by portability is to have a layout that can be moved by one or two people, that would not take up a sinificant portion of a room.  If it needs to come apart in one or two largeish pieces that would be ok.  I have a small pickup truck in which to move the layout.    Yes, I am planning for a move in the year or two to destinaitions and accomidations unknown.

 So are you saying that your layout needs to be stowable between sessions, so you plan to get it from storage location and e.g. put it on your kitchen table to run trains ?

 Only you know what your room looks like and what your needs are - you should try to describe those needs for us.

 And try to draw a simple sketch of your room, with distances marked clearly.

I have been relying on the 102 Realistic Track plans from Model Railroader, in particular the the very small layout sections and I have a copy of John Armstrongs Track Planning For Realistic Operation.  I am not an MR subscriper so I do not have access to the database.  As you pointed out I am very new to trackplanning and I am trying to avoid pitfalls from the past, just putting down some track and calling it a layout.  I am looking for a layout that will keep me interested after the trains start running.  One other thing that I contiunally forget to note is that cost is a factor. 

Some of the layouts that I like from 102 Realistic track plans are numbers 12, 13, on pages 14 and 15. Or plan 22 on page 22. 

  Right. Had a look at them.

 No 12 is "Montandon Branch" from GMR 2002

  No 13 is "Great Northern Railway" from MR Oct 2007

  No 22 is  "Delawere and Hudson" from MRP 2006.

 Why do you like these the best ? What about them appeals the most to you ?

I also like the Wingate, Indiana Layout which my be my best option but I want to learn how to plan model railroads not just copy someon elses.  I like the idea of traffic throught the town more so than a lot of switching.  I do not care about turntables and fancy dodads,

 Those things are important to know. 

 Smile,
 Stein

Of the layouts that I mentioned, the thing I like most is their compact size and they do not look like a bowl of spaghetti.  But what I do not like is there lack of stageing or "storage."  I have collected quite a bit of equipment that in turn is collecting a lot of dust because only small portions of it can be used on a small layout at a given time.  This is why I have been going back and reconsidering the Wingate, Indiana layout, I think I was to quick to dismiss it.  The layout has the same focus, number of industries and is about the right "size."  Additionally, it has plenty of room to store more of my equipment.

As far as the illusion, for me I want to create the idea of a real railroad one that has a purpose other then running in circles and being cute.  For others I want to capture a reality in miniature.  This sound the same but I believe that the casual observer will not be interested in the "work" the railroad does they will only be interested in the quaintness of the town and trains.

I have also been reconsidering my approch to model railroading.  I am now thinking that it may be best to build a layout designed for operations, operate it and discover which "operations" I like and dislike.  This may be the biggest help in planning any future layouts.

 Sean

Dear Sean, 

Seanthehack:

have collected quite a bit of equipment that in turn is collecting a lot of dust because only small portions of it can be used on a small layout at a given time. 

We all have, I never heard someone who told he has not enough equipment. Question is: must every thing be on your layout? When you have all the space, ok; but you'll have to trade it off against another modelled scene. Nice choice; did you consider cassette-staging also? Or just a convenient spot to do it by hand.

Seanthehack:

Additionally, it has plenty of room to store more of my equipment.

Let's be rude, when plenty can be stored on the Wingate you don't have much.

Seanthehack:

I want to create the idea of a real railroad one that has a purpose other then running in circles and being cute.  For others I want to capture a reality in miniature. 

Seanthehack:

I believe that the casual observer will not be interested in the "work" the railroad does they will only be interested in the quaintness of the town and trains.

I agrea for a full 100% with the goals above; but I translate it also into: so i want to do a bit of laprunning and must have an oval; great choice. Stein asked you something else: be far more specific You seem to be one of these guy's who is shying away when "hard" questions are asked. No offence meant, but if you give us information so reluctantly, really helping is difficult. 

Draw your room, show us (not tell us) if operation from two sides is possible. How do you store your layout, when not building or operating? Did you consider an extra shelf for staging or even a third scene? This where you should start, even before thinking about the RR on top.

Seanthehack:

discover which "operations" I like and dislike. 

Sounds great, but is it? On a small pike like yours the number of things you can do is limited. You can do a little bit a wayfreight switching, a bit more if you have two sides. A crossing or an interchange lets you do some classification for the prize of one addional track. (Ask if you don't understand, so much RR-slang is used!). With just one other train hidden you can stage a meeting. Mainline running, dispatching or railroading in the dark are out; you'll need bigger (very big) pikes to do that kind of stuff.

Seanthehack:

which "operations" I like and dislike. This may be the biggest help in planning any future layouts.

True, and may be you'll find out there is more then operating. Some of my friends never came that far. One is building all of his equipment from brass, one engine every two years.(And uses the track on someone else's layout, for a test run only)  Another is the electonic wizzkid in town; still programming to let a switcher do a whole job by pushing the GO key only. And a third is so engrossed in building scenery, he never ran a train over his oval; only his grandchildern do.

Just start building and find out. I' ve told it many times, I learned it the hard way also; I believe it is the only way. Can you find out what you like from a book only? Start small, just what you are doing.  When you are asking for advice...  respond to the questions, take it seriously and think a while about it. And start the build.

Have fun in the meantime

Paul 

Dear Sean, 

Seanthehack:

have collected quite a bit of equipment that in turn is collecting a lot of dust because only small portions of it can be used on a small layout at a given time. 

We all have, I never heard someone who told he has not enough equipment. Question is: must every thing be on your layout? When you have all the space, ok; but you'll have to trade it off against another modelled scene. Nice choice; did you consider cassette-staging also? Or just a convenient spot to do it by hand.

Seanthehack:

Additionally, it has plenty of room to store more of my equipment.

Let's be rude, when plenty can be stored on the Wingate you don't have much.

Seanthehack:

I want to create the idea of a real railroad one that has a purpose other then running in circles and being cute.  For others I want to capture a reality in miniature. 

Seanthehack:

I believe that the casual observer will not be interested in the "work" the railroad does they will only be interested in the quaintness of the town and trains.

I agrea for a full 100% with the goals above; but I translate it also into: so i want to do a bit of laprunning and must have an oval; great choice. Stein asked you something else: be far more specific You seem to be one of these guy's who is shying away when "hard" questions are asked. No offence meant, but if you give us information so reluctantly, really helping is difficult. 

Draw your room, show us (not tell us) if operation from two sides is possible. How do you store your layout, when not building or operating? Did you consider an extra shelf for staging or even a third scene? This where you should start, even before thinking about the RR on top.

Seanthehack:

discover which "operations" I like and dislike. 

Sounds great, but is it? On a small pike like yours the number of things you can do is limited. You can do a little bit a wayfreight switching, a bit more if you have two sides. A crossing or an interchange lets you do some classification for the prize of one addional track. (Ask if you don't understand, so much RR-slang is used!). With just one other train hidden you can stage a meeting. Mainline running, dispatching or railroading in the dark are out; you'll need bigger (very big) pikes to do that kind of stuff.

Seanthehack:

which "operations" I like and dislike. This may be the biggest help in planning any future layouts.

True, and may be you'll find out there is more then operating. Some of my friends never came that far. One is building all of his equipment from brass, one engine every two years.(And uses the track on someone else's layout, for a test run only)  Another is the electonic wizzkid in town; still programming to let a switcher do a whole job by pushing the GO key only. And a third is so engrossed in building scenery, he never ran a train over his oval; only his grandchildern do.

Just start building and find out. I' ve told it many times, I learned it the hard way also; I believe it is the only way. Can you find out what you like from a book only? Start small, just what you are doing.  When you are asking for advice...  respond to the questions, take it seriously and think a while about it. And start the build.

Have fun in the meantime

Paul 

Paul,

Thanks for clearing a few things up for me.  The drawing out of the room idea is great, however, I do not have a specific room to draw out.  As I had mentioned earlier I am envisioning a move in the next year or two, thus I want a layout that can can fit is a variety of locations, this is probably what I sould have said in the first place instead of blanketing the situation by saying a "portable" layout.  As far as storing the layout, I hope it will remain assmebled most of the time, however I plan on building the one or two layout sections in a manner such that it could be put under a bed or in a closet.

Warning, I am going to zing ya Paul.  There are few "hard" questions in model railroading, this is what I do for fun and relaxation.  With that said I am trying to further my enjoyment of the hobby by including aspects of the railroading that I had not considered before. If I seem a bit shy coming forward with informations it is because I am not sure what informations is necessary. 

Now, I am envisioning opeating the layout from one side.  For example if the bench work is a rectangle one of the long sides of the rectangle will go against the wall and I will opearate from the other side.  Cassette storeage is a great option, or adding additional strorage at some later time would be something to consider.

Sean

Seanthehack:

The drawing out of the room idea is great, however, I do not have a specific room to draw out.  As I had mentioned earlier I am envisioning a move in the next year or two, thus I want a layout that can can fit is a variety of locations

  Okay. Have you had a look at Carl Arendt's web page of micro layouts at http://www.carendt.com? It has quite a collection of very small footprint layout - all the way down to layouts that would fit into a shoe box when disassembled.

 Grin,
 Stein

Seanthehack:

The drawing out of the room idea is great, however, I do not have a specific room to draw out.

So if you were going to head out to the 'Depot tomorrow, buy some wood, and start throwing together the benchwork, what room in your existing residence would you be putting it in?  Use the wall measurements in that room as your baseline for your available space.  Once you know that space, you might find you can go with a bigger/different shape than your aforementioned 2x6 rectangle and still make the thing portable/stowable.

I think this is a resonable starting point, unless you anticipate moving into a smaller residence.

Seanthehack:

It is about the size and focus I was looking for but I was wondering if I could expand its opoerations a little?  The only thing I do not like about it is the Track that disappers behind the backdrop.  Other then effect what would it be used for?

Sean, I was putting this up as an example of avoiding having track parallel to a tangent table edge. As a track plan, it was not designed for long term operation enjoyment. Its a layout I am building to teach myself techniques. I included a scenic area to practice doing scenery including a water feature. It is inspired by an image of the B&M crossing the John's River in Whitefield NH. The other side was designed to allow a little operations and to get some feel for laying track.

It represents the location of Whitefield, NH, where the Boston and Maine crosses the Maine Central. It has been heavily modified to include an industry track and quite a lot was omitted. That track that crosses over the main and disappears in the backdrop represents the Maine Central mountain division.

The MEC track will be hidden by scenery and structures such that end of it will not be visible. The track that parallels it is the interchange. It connects to the MEC off layout. So, its just a scenic feature. Its not powered although a locomotive could be placed on it so it appears a train is waiting to cross the diamond. By suggesting the other line, the interchange becomes much more believable.

If I was building this for a "long term" layout I would have made the back of the layout represent staging and the front of the layout be a town with somewhat more going on. Something more like the track plan Tony Koester presents in the second chapter of his Realistic Model Railroad Operation book.

Regards,

Chris

Chris, Stein and Dave,

Your advice and patience means a lot to me so continued thanks.  Stein, it has been a while since I have looked at that website, it was a great reminder of possibilities.  Dave, the current space I have is in a small basement, my availible space there is about 6x6 feet, this would allow for a minimal abount of room for walking around the layout.  If I were going to Home Depot to purchase lumber, right now I would buy enough lumber to build a number 1x2 or 2x2 foot "dominos."  For the time being I have abandoned track plans and am trying to think more about spaces.

I am reconsidering a fixed track plan, I am now thinking that building a layout that can be reconfigured in a couple of different arangements would be best.  Stein has already mentioned this and again I was probably to quick to dismiss the idea.  I am rereading the MR beer line articles to see if I can get some ideas.  Thus, instead of the track plan dictating the space, I am trying to think open spaces and letting that dictate the track plan.

If I am going off the deep end let me know,

Sean