Content removed due to a completely frak'ed up and incompetent Kalmbach customer service.
I agree. For a first layout you are smart to keep it small. This plan should work well for you, allowing switching, a small yard for classifying, and two passing tracks for 2 train operation.
Enjoy
Paul
It seems as if you have a lot of "special trackwork" on the bottom half of the plan for a small layout-- a 3-way turnout, a double-slip switch, curved turnouts and spurs that cross each other. If the track to the right of the slip switch is used as a team track, it is not very usable as a switching lead.
You have a small yard. I would think you need it for classification, not "storage" or "interchange" as marked.
Just thinking out loud...
The viewblock might be more effective if it were lower and/or instead a gently rolling hill with tree height that can add to the viewblock effect. There could be some buildings built on the hillside, or building flats used as viewblocks for a greater industrial or city appearance.
If the layout were at an eye-level height, the scenery realism would also be enhanced. It is an old modeler's technique that eliminates that looking down on every layout's tendency to have its' trackage look as a "bowl of spaghetti." You can also use the layout's underside for storage if it is high enough.
As to a layout on a door - one of may favorites is Dave Vollmer's Pennsy Middle Division. There are lots of good ideas here regardless of scale, time period, or locale, to be modeled.
http://kc.pennsyrr.com/layouts/dvollmer/index.html
The Märklin three-way turnout is a really nice addition to a modeler's bag of tricks.
Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956
Hi Svien
Looks fine to me are you able to skew the track plan a little so it is not running parallel to the edges.
it seems to look more real when the track doesnt follow the edges of the table to much.
Draw a blank plan (just the outline) of the area for the big one then put this small plan on to it making sure the proposed for extension tracks are in the right place.
Then start work on this one as if its the real deal not just a learner make sure your track work is spot on and do the best you can at every thing.
Once this one is completed to your satisfaction then go back to the blank plan with this layout superimposed on it then add the next piece to the blank plan keeping it manageable and making sure it adds something to the layout, then add the table work and go through the process again.
In the end your max available space will have been filled without going to 0 operations and all ways improving
But it is very smart to start small more wannabe layout builders have failed for taking to big a bite at the apple and choking on it than started with a sensible bite at the apple.
regards John
I agree with starting with too big a layout can be an invitation to total inertia -- everything had to be done -- and learned -- at the same time and consequently nothing is done, or learned.
Small scenes or projects can work the same way without even rising to the level of a small layout.
Looking at this plan, the complex trackage aside, another alternative to the "sky and hills" type viewblock is to take a page from the late, great Art Curren and have a solid length of buildings be the viewblock, at slightly skewed angles -- he built them so that the opposite side was an entirely different building, and then had local switching at those buildings -- that makes good use of the middle part of the oval. You could even introduce the old trick of a car being shoved in a building on one side becoming a car to be picked up on the other. E.g. a flat car with tractors being delivered to an implement dealer's shed, shove it through "the wall" and on the other side it is now a tractor factory shipping out a load.
Dave Nelson
I like this layout a lot. There is a lot of interesting things going on.
This weekend I saw something interesting. On a modular unit, a gentleman had clamped an extension on to his layout. You could do that with a could short storage yards on both your interchanges. They could even fold down to be out of the way. Then when you want to do some serious ops. Like when your friends come over, you attach the staging and each run a side of the layout.
Your layout will benefit from DCC. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it if you are buying something new anyway.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Hi Svein
Whats the availability of good second hand Marklin track like, I don't think I would want to let go of that class of good quality trains if I could avoid it stud contact or not.
Yes I was saying incorporate it into the next larger layout
When a well known US modeller John Allen,got as far as he was going to with his railway if you knew where to look the original 6'x4' layout where it all began was still part of it
sadly Both John and his railway are gone
Svein:
Many of the old timers here will recall John Allen's Gorre and Daphetid Railroad. His first layout was 3'7" x 6'8" and grew over many years to a basement sized empire that was, or is still the benchmark we all strive to match. If you'd like to read more about John and his incredible talents go to: http://www.gdlines.com/Galleries.html
Good luck with your project.
Jon
I have a Loads-in/empties-out on my 4x8.
I have a pictoral about operating this feature at:
http://www.pacificcoastairlinerr.com/4x8/operation/lilo/
I find the center divider works best if it is full length making the layout two seperate scenes, one side rural and the other a more urban environment. Tracks running parallel to the edge won't make a layout look bigger or smaller.
Thank you if you visit
Harold
Building a few small temporary layouts before committing yourself to a big one is a very good idea. The small ones can be test beds for things you want to try out, then taken down after getting some practice. Or kept and built into the big permanent one.
My own layout is 2x6 ft ( 2/3 x 2 m) and HO scale. Someday I will build more benchwork and extend the track off the ends of the table. Maybe after I retire I will fill the rest of my garage with railroad.
I don't want to interfere in any process of discovery, svein, so I won't comment on your several decisions. However, I do like your ideas and creativity. I like your design, even if I don't see the need for some of the arrangements.
I am a fan of intricate trackwork, as is the fellow from Fast Tracks, Tim Warris. You may have seen his hand-made complex in his post the last 24 hours or more. So, I do sincerely appreciate your interesting trackplan. I also appreciate that you have been careful not to make a track-busy plan because that so many of them seem to forget the value of green space, copses of woods, streams and a beach, a tennis court, or even a parking lot for realism.
I will be interested to see how you develop this plan.
I actually BUILT the layout you designed! I was QUITE suprised to see that plan as a layout.
Here's a link to MY version.. http://www.the-gauge.com/showthread.php?t=22147&highlight=arguello
I loved the operations, as you can see, I added a spur for my engine shed, and tucked the yard behind the mountain, but other than that it's pretty identical!
Enjoy!
You're welcome! I'd still have it today if I didn't use @#%@ EZ Track...those switches are worhtless!
I'm glad I could provide some inspriation! I like the switching layout you designed too...which would be a better use of space..but you can't just sit back and run some trains! you HAVE to want to swtich, all the time. Be careful, I REALLY liked your (kinda sorta mine too) initial plan, because you can switch AND run stuff. I was able to operate a 2 station passenger schedule, in addition to alot of fun switching. My only addition to my plan, or yours as well, would be a run-around track on the side of the layout with the cross-over spurs, that would have been QUITE a time-saver. Enjoy!