sinebar wrote:So can you recommend any good HO 8 x 11 or so plans for a UP Big Boy and or PRR M1a?
I think you are still missing something here. The best you can get from a layout design book is bits and pieces that you like. There is really no such thing as a canned design that will fit your vision because you are unique. Even a half-ask plan that you come up with will be better than trying to use someone else's given's and druthers--especially when included in those givens and druthers is the desire to sell magazines and garner advertising dollars.
So look at the designs and figure out that you like: the yard from this; how they handle the coal mine from that. Pick a year and a location and scenery and put them into the space you have and come up with a plan. This is something you have to do yourself. There is no short-cut--unless you are willing to pay a professional. Then you sitll have the work of making all the decisions, while the pro shows you how the track can work.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Sinebar,
Do you have John Armstrong's 'Track Planning for Realistic Operations?' And have you read SpaceMouse's intro for beginners?
Use those resources, and spend a little time doodling. One thing I think you'll very liekly discover is that coming up with a plan is really fun! Surprisingly so! Sure, at times it is frustration, but still fun. For a yard, do a search on 'Ten Commandments of Yard Design'. Some people disagree with some of them, but if you use them as a baseline, you'll have a yard you can use. Search for Wayne Roderick's Teton Short Line, and look at his yard plan.
Then look through 101 plans (though lots of them are lacking, it is still a good resource), and any of the John Armstrong plan books you can get ahold of (I'm not sure which ones are on print). Also, Iain Rice's 'Midsized and Manageable' plans. Get them used it you have to. Look for ideas you like. Also, if you subscribe to MR, you can now access a pretty large database of plans that they have published on line, searchable by scale and size.
At times along the way, do the close your eyes exercise, each time, you'll see things more clearly.
The last point I've got is that once you've done this, and created a design, you'll have areal sense of accomplishment. And that will be because you have really accomplished something!
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
sinebar wrote: So can you recommend any good HO 8 x 11 or so plans for a UP Big Boy and or PRR M1a?
So can you recommend any good HO 8 x 11 or so plans for a UP Big Boy and or PRR M1a?
sb:
I can try. Do you mean 8 x 11 table size or 8 x 11 room size? If you mean table size, how big is your room?
Autobus Prime wrote: Okay, I looked at the layout plan again. What a weird yard!
The best I can figure is that the "split" in the yard is to allow two very long tracks for trains to come in on. The yard engine would wait on the other, and take the train away, moving it into the yard, letting the engine go to storage.
Autobus Prime wrote: sinebar wrote: So can you recommend any good HO 8 x 11 or so plans for a UP Big Boy and or PRR M1a? sb:I can try. Do you mean 8 x 11 table size or 8 x 11 room size? If you mean table size, how big is your room?
8 x 11 empty room size with a large opening into the living room for future expansion.
SpaceMouse wrote: sinebar wrote:So can you recommend any good HO 8 x 11 or so plans for a UP Big Boy and or PRR M1a? I think you are still missing something here. The best you can get from a layout design book is bits and pieces that you like. There is really no such thing as a canned design that will fit your vision because you are unique. Even a half-ask plan that you come up with will be better than trying to use someone else's given's and druthers--especially when included in those givens and druthers is the desire to sell magazines and garner advertising dollars.So look at the designs and figure out that you like: the yard from this; how they handle the coal mine from that. Pick a year and a location and scenery and put them into the space you have and come up with a plan. This is something you have to do yourself. There is no short-cut--unless you are willing to pay a professional. Then you sitll have the work of making all the decisions, while the pro shows you how the track can work.
Heck I might just use my 8 x 11 space as the yard and extend a single main line all the way into and the end of the living room with industry along the way. Thats kind of the way railroads work anyway insn't it. They go back and forth dropping off cargo as apposed to round and round.
sinebar wrote:Heck I might just use my 8 x 11 space as the yard and extend a single main line all the way into and the end of the living room with industry along the way. Thats kind of the way railroads work anyway insn't it. They go back and forth dropping off cargo as apposed to round and round.
A layout for a big-boy would have lots of territory to cover so the loco could get and keep a long train moving.
That goes back to one of the first question's I asked. What are you calling "operation". Then why do you want a large yard? Which is more important to you the large yard or the large locomotives? They are at opposite ends of the layout design spectrum. It seems your "design" is jumping back and forth from one extreme to the other between the two. It doesn't seem you want to do any in depth thinking about any of the things the people are telling you but just flying from one spur of the moment thought to the next.
sinebar wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: sinebar wrote:So can you recommend any good HO 8 x 11 or so plans for a UP Big Boy and or PRR M1a? I think you are still missing something here. The best you can get from a layout design book is bits and pieces that you like. There is really no such thing as a canned design that will fit your vision because you are unique. Even a half-ask plan that you come up with will be better than trying to use someone else's given's and druthers--especially when included in those givens and druthers is the desire to sell magazines and garner advertising dollars.So look at the designs and figure out that you like: the yard from this; how they handle the coal mine from that. Pick a year and a location and scenery and put them into the space you have and come up with a plan. This is something you have to do yourself. There is no short-cut--unless you are willing to pay a professional. Then you sitll have the work of making all the decisions, while the pro shows you how the track can work. Heck I might just use my 8 x 11 space as the yard and extend a single main line all the way into and the end of the living room with industry along the way. Thats kind of the way railroads work anyway insn't it. They go back and forth dropping off cargo as apposed to round and round.
Look if you want to build someone else's plan it's your money and time. The thing is that everyone grows in the hobby and it just makes sense to build something that will grow with you in the direction you want to grow. The alternative is to spend your time and money on something you will outgrow before you get past the plywood central stage.
You can figure things out now or after you spend the money. Your choice. I'm done.
Sinebar, if you feel as if you are being rode hard, I hope you can still see that these earnest fellas are trying to be good stewards of the hobby for your sake, and not just the hobby's. We always throw a bucket of cold water on newcomers whose questions suggest that they are insufficiently learned to begin cutting wood just yet. It is a service to you. It is meant to save you some trouble and not inconsiderable expense in what can very easily become an expensive hobby. For most of us, it is and expensive hobby no matter how carefully we tread.
You have a decent sized area, but the first principle of enjoyment for a layout is.....use. How easy will it be to actually run, the chief contributor to its longevity as a pleasure for you? The respondants so far have encouraged you to figure out what will contribute most to the longevity of your new layout. How easily you can reach things, get to what you need to manage, and then have it run reliably for quite some time is key to having pride and enjoyment in the finished product. So, this characteristic comes from considerable up-front analysis of what will be the best style of platform, or benchwork, and what fun and varied train running can be shoe-horned into the resultant surface such that it isn't just a mass of trackage and turnouts and wires. Most of us also have some curves, maybe a grade or two, room for trees and a water course, maybe a shallow bridge, some hills, a tunnel, room for buildings and sidewalks and streets, and so on. We can't necessarily get it all in, so what must stay and what can we let go? That requires a matrix or at least a scratch pad.
My point, and Space Mouse's, is that you will not be using your creation in a few weeks or months when it becomes clear to you that it is boring or unrealistic. And it will take up all that space until you can no longer stand it and you will destroy all that time and effort in a couple of hours.
Draw up a list of absolutes...what we call givens. Givens is what you know you have to deal with. Room shape and dimensions are important because these two characteristics spell out how you will get around your layout to fix things that go wrong...and they will go wrong. But, they also determine how long a radius your curves can be if you want a loop back in the other direction. In turn, the shortest radius determines which style of engine you can run. You very fine M1a is likely to look a bit odd, if it runs at all, on curves less than about 22", but the instructions will tell you exactly. So, what configuration of 22" minimum curves should you use to get coal hauling from a mine to a delivery dock or harbour. How will the train get back to the coal mine? Will it reverse? Will the engine be turned on a turntable and be able to run beside the string of coal hoppers on a runaround track to get to the other end? What # turnouts (switches) can the Mountain negotiate?
And so on. I hope you understand that our hope, and desire, is to encourage you to accept that asking us for answers is going to be a poor substitute for your researching the answers for yourself, and then generating new questions and answers until you feel you can go ahead with the layout.
Space Mouse's guide, in the link under his signatures, is a service he has thoughtfully provided as an aid to people who are truly interested in learning what it takes to make a reasonable representation of a real operating railroad. Also, the late John. H. Armstrong wrote a truly remarkable book back in the very early 60's called Track Planning for Realistic Operation. Kalmbach sells them if you can find no other, but that book is worth its weight in gold.
I hope I have explained myself well. Good luck to you.
(I really hope this doesn't double-post)
SpaceMouse wrote: sinebar wrote:So can you recommend any good HO 8 x 11 or so plans for a UP Big Boy and or PRR M1a? I think you are still missing something here. The best you can get from a layout design book is bits and pieces that you like. There is really no such thing as a canned design that will fit your vision because you are unique. ...Look if you want to build someone else's plan it's your money and time. The thing is that everyone grows in the hobby and it just makes sense to build something that will grow with you in the direction you want to grow. The alternative is to spend your time and money on something you will outgrow before you get past the plywood central stage.
I think you are still missing something here. The best you can get from a layout design book is bits and pieces that you like. There is really no such thing as a canned design that will fit your vision because you are unique. ...
SM:
I do agree with you on the money and time, and I definitely understand why you'd feel strongly about this, after having spent a lot of both on a layout that didn't pan out. Still, I do think that sometimes we have to start somewhere, and some people (like me) just don't get anywhere if we overplan.
On the other hand, Sinebar, a Big Boy needs fairly generous curves in model terms, and it's a mountain engine, and both of those tend to push up the investment needed to build a layout that will look good with that engine. I don't say you should give them up. If you really like 4-8-8-4's, then by all means have them, but make sure you really have your desires figured out before going for the big one.
What I would suggest is this: you are going to need switchers and local engines, anyway. Buy something small. A 2-8-0 of your favorite railroad is probably the most useful thing you could own. Then build a simple, easy-to-make railroad in your 8 x 11 room, such as layout 13 or 36 from 101 TP. I know it doesn't seem like it to you (it didn't seem like it to me for a long time) but a small railroad can be very fun to run. Get it into running shape as quickly as possible (but with care) and then have fun operating. Build this railroad with an eye to reusing as much as possible on your dream road. Use cork roadbed and code 83 flextrack, and commercial track components. Don't ballast track or modify track components on this one; it makes reuse harder. Build structures from inexpensive plastic kits.
This way, you will be at the low, low end of the square-foot cost, and you'll be able to recover most of the expensive components when and if you do finally go for The Big One. You will learn a lot, you will understand what you really want better, and best of all, you'll be having fun with trains, not dreaming about it.
Autobus Prime wrote: I do agree with you on the money and time, and I definitely understand why you'd feel strongly about this, after having spent a lot of both on a layout that didn't pan out. Still, I do think that sometimes we have to start somewhere, and some people (like me) just don't get anywhere if we overplan.
The two points I'd like to address AP.
1) I got a lot of coaching from people here and from it, a great design. This is the reason I feel it important to give back. The reason my layout did not "pan out" was because I, against my better judgment, decide to go with EZ track instead of flex. The problems with EZ escalated until I couldn't take it anymore.
2) There is a great deal of difference between paralysis-by-analysis over-planning and total abdication.
I think that the satifaction of creating your own design is worth a pretty fair amount of time and yes, even aggravation. Besides, it's pretty cheap, giving you time to save more money for the construction phase. And you'll never understand a layout better than if you design it yourself. And you'll understand that much better what you want and why you want it.
101 Track Plans presents scores of examples of how not to design a layout. Most designs are for "just letting trains roll." Only about 14% of them are decent designs in "my book." The art of layout design has increased greatly since that book was originally published. There are a few good plans: I consider the best to be numbers 8, 10, 12, 26, 28, 38, 44, 47, 55 (a favorite), 68 (another favorite), 76, 78, 83, and 101.
Mark
P.S. In the early 1960s my older brother started, but didn't finish, the "bigger brother" of plan 57: plan 58. It never got to the operational stage. The space was an unfinished, dirt floored basement with a single light bulb! Several years later I built John Armstrong's Foothill and Excelsior Railroad, a 5x10-foot donut design, in my parent's shop with a cement floor. This had an oval mainline and a point-to-point branch, a design with many advantages.
Some insight into the two spurs at the lower part of the station, crammed in between mainline and the loops outer track. I'm guessing but seems to me its the departure track for "rightbound" trains to the left and it also serves as arrival track for said loop track. Right one could be arrival track for out double track loop train and also escape for the switcher if such is used to place a train on the departure track on the left (or escape track for a loco waiting for its train to be assembled.)
The electrical wiring gives some indications to my theory of it beeing som sort of departure and or arrival tracks however nothing of the "escapes" theory is supported within the wiring. Turnouts where not "smart frogged" at this time.
Greetings Hans from Sweden
SpaceMouse wrote: Autobus Prime wrote: I do agree with you on the money and time, and I definitely understand why you'd feel strongly about this, after having spent a lot of both on a layout that didn't pan out. Still, I do think that sometimes we have to start somewhere, and some people (like me) just don't get anywhere if we overplan. The two points I'd like to address AP.1) I got a lot of coaching from people here and from it, a great design. This is the reason I feel it important to give back. The reason my layout did not "pan out" was because I, against my better judgment, decide to go with EZ track instead of flex. The problems with EZ escalated until I couldn't take it anymore.2) There is a great deal of difference between paralysis-by-analysis over-planning and total abdication.
1 - So you had to eat the cost of all the EZ-track. Ouch. Can't say I blame you for feeling strongly about that subject, not at all. EZ-track is not cheap.
2 - Good point.
Mark: Sometimes "letting them roll", but I think even more of the layouts are geared toward that semi-lost art of towerman operation. As Westcott mentions in the text, the mainline configuration doesn't matter, as long as there are one or several areas where one or more routes come together, where an operator can be kept busy. People must have really liked interlockings back then.
No. 76, one of the plans Mark listed above, might be a good start for the OP. I don't think it would take the Big Boys, but M1s would work. Big Boys are overrated, anyway. The Challenger was more common, and better-looking too. The OP may or may not be able to leave the shelf extension in place. He does have more width, so he could possibly arrange to move the yard and engine terminal to the side of the existing plan. It does look like a good, fun plan.
No. 56 also could have possibilities for the OP if he must have large locos. It at least illustrates how much room 30-32" curves take up. The plan would have to be shortened a foot, and some means arranged for access (means = duckunder at the door end). This might involve moving the yard, engine terminal, or some industrial spurs to the outside, and widening the table a little, for which there is room.
Neither of these would fit if built exactly as shown, but there's nothing wrong with changing an existing plan. This could be a good middle ground between a completely original plan and duplication of a published one.
F: Smart-frogged? You mean power-routing? The all-rail switches available back then would have been that type. It's hard to avoid when you make a frog that way. Snap track would have insulated frogs, of course.
selector wrote: Sinebar, if you feel as if you are being rode hard, I hope you can still see that these earnest fellas are trying to be good stewards of the hobby for your sake, and not just the hobby's. We always throw a bucket of cold water on newcomers whose questions suggest that they are insufficiently learned to begin cutting wood just yet. It is a service to you. It is meant to save you some trouble and not inconsiderable expense in what can very easily become an expensive hobby. For most of us, it is and expensive hobby no matter how carefully we tread.You have a decent sized area, but the first principle of enjoyment for a layout is.....use. How easy will it be to actually run, the chief contributor to its longevity as a pleasure for you? The respondants so far have encouraged you to figure out what will contribute most to the longevity of your new layout. How easily you can reach things, get to what you need to manage, and then have it run reliably for quite some time is key to having pride and enjoyment in the finished product. So, this characteristic comes from considerable up-front analysis of what will be the best style of platform, or benchwork, and what fun and varied train running can be shoe-horned into the resultant surface such that it isn't just a mass of trackage and turnouts and wires. Most of us also have some curves, maybe a grade or two, room for trees and a water course, maybe a shallow bridge, some hills, a tunnel, room for buildings and sidewalks and streets, and so on. We can't necessarily get it all in, so what must stay and what can we let go? That requires a matrix or at least a scratch pad.My point, and Space Mouse's, is that you will not be using your creation in a few weeks or months when it becomes clear to you that it is boring or unrealistic. And it will take up all that space until you can no longer stand it and you will destroy all that time and effort in a couple of hours.Draw up a list of absolutes...what we call givens. Givens is what you know you have to deal with. Room shape and dimensions are important because these two characteristics spell out how you will get around your layout to fix things that go wrong...and they will go wrong. But, they also determine how long a radius your curves can be if you want a loop back in the other direction. In turn, the shortest radius determines which style of engine you can run. You very fine M1a is likely to look a bit odd, if it runs at all, on curves less than about 22", but the instructions will tell you exactly. So, what configuration of 22" minimum curves should you use to get coal hauling from a mine to a delivery dock or harbour. How will the train get back to the coal mine? Will it reverse? Will the engine be turned on a turntable and be able to run beside the string of coal hoppers on a runaround track to get to the other end? What # turnouts (switches) can the Mountain negotiate?And so on. I hope you understand that our hope, and desire, is to encourage you to accept that asking us for answers is going to be a poor substitute for your researching the answers for yourself, and then generating new questions and answers until you feel you can go ahead with the layout.Space Mouse's guide, in the link under his signatures, is a service he has thoughtfully provided as an aid to people who are truly interested in learning what it takes to make a reasonable representation of a real operating railroad. Also, the late John. H. Armstrong wrote a truly remarkable book back in the very early 60's called Track Planning for Realistic Operation. Kalmbach sells them if you can find no other, but that book is worth its weight in gold.I hope I have explained myself well. Good luck to you.
I found "Track Planning For Realistic Opration" at this link:
http://books.google.com/books?id=TyU6x08dqGkC&dq=track+planning+for+realistic+operation&pg=PP1&ots=qVI2OXJh3M&sig=JwxznHvymPD_rvDEnSONG5k0JPE&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3DTrack%2BPlanning%2Bfor%2BRealistic%2BOperation%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPP1,M1
It appears to be the whole book.
sinebar wrote:I found "Track Planning For Realistic Opration" at this link: http://books.google.com/books?id=TyU6x08dqGkC&dq=track+planning+for+realistic+operation&pg=PP1&ots=qVI2OXJh3M&sig=JwxznHvymPD_rvDEnSONG5k0JPE&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3DTrack%2BPlanning%2Bfor%2BRealistic%2BOperation%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPP1,M1It appears to be the whole book.
Appearances can be deceiving. It is a preview taking chunks from here and there in the book.
It skips a lot of pages. It is a preview to make you want to buy the book. Which you should do.
Autobus Prime wrote:1 - So you had to eat the cost of all the EZ-track. Ouch. Can't say I blame you for feeling strongly about that subject, not at all. EZ-track is not cheap.
Actually, what I should have done was eat the cost of the EZ track. I had ordered 17 of their turnouts and decided, since I had them, to use them. The problem was two-fold. First the track was so high that all the freight cars lined up about eight scale feet above the loading docks. To compensate I spent about two months tearing out landscape and adding 3/16" foam then re-landscaping. IN the process the track was buried in a 1/4 inch of plaster. Soon after, the turnout in the yard throat failed and I had to rip out 4 turnouts to reattach the spring accessible from underneath. Then two more failed. I found myself building structures and scenes on a railroad that worked about 5% of the time.
Once I tore up the EZ track to take it out, I might as well have started over so I did.
SpaceMouse wrote: sinebar wrote:I found "Track Planning For Realistic Opration" at this link: http://books.google.com/books?id=TyU6x08dqGkC&dq=track+planning+for+realistic+operation&pg=PP1&ots=qVI2OXJh3M&sig=JwxznHvymPD_rvDEnSONG5k0JPE&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3DTrack%2BPlanning%2Bfor%2BRealistic%2BOperation%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPP1,M1It appears to be the whole book.Appearances can be deceiving. It is a preview taking chunks from here and there in the book.
You're right I was reading through it and suddenly it goes from page 8 to about page 70.