As Requested, a 10 x 12 decompression session

[Texas Zepher]

For an HO scale layout in 12x12 this one is very interesting.  Other than space wasted with a double ended staging that I already mentioned I don't know how it could be much better in the space allocated.    Personally I think this small of a point-to-point layout can become tedious if one just wants to get a train put together and roll it down the track a while.  It has very little distance roll to it here.   Our club layout has a 193' main from yard-to-yard and that almost isn't enough sometimes.

[stilson4283]

The 2 x 4 module is semi-intriguing to me because I've fantasized about joining a module club.

The 2 x 8 shelf is the most practical in terms of what people ask about.  

 

I am into Free-mo standard which you can see here 

http://www.free-mo.org/

It has a lot more flexability than the normal module standard that needs to connect into a closed loop.

 Think outside of the loop!

 

Chris

Lancaster, CA 

[C&O Fan]

Progressive Rail

I like this one a lot also; it's the only one that addresses other functions in room. Like Port Erie it's a switching puzzle but unlike Port Erie this one addresses its industrial spurs as real places, not abstract concepts. Real buildings make the difference. The one serious thing I see missing is a runaround passing siding, without such, I don't see any way to move cars from one side to the other without trapping the engine or the car.

 Actually, not having a runaround was quite deliberate. An earlier version of my design had a runaround:

 

 But then I learned more about my prototype. If you reread the description of the layout on Chip's page, you will see that the prototype did their switching in an interesting way : they used two switcher engines - one handling cars from the east end of the cut of cars, one handling cars from the west end of the cut of cars.

 Using two engines to switch an area without a runaround might not be typical, but in this case it is prototypical

 Btw - here is a link to a description of handling incoming cars from interchange on an earlier version of the layout plan: http://home.online.no/~steinjr/trains/modelling/progressive/interchange/

 And this is what the layout plan I am actually building based on this idea looks like (room is 11 1/2 by 6 1/2 foot):  

 And finally - a link to a web page describing the evolution of the track plan: 

http://home.online.no/~steinjr/trains/modelling/progressive/index.html

 Grin,
 Stein

I really like both of these

Soon they will be coming to take me away to an assisted living quarters

if the county keeps increasing my property taxes

I'm saving these for my room at the rest home !!!!

[selector]

I think our European colleagues are pointing the way....it lies to a fair extent in Free-mo.

My vote for the next one...let's figure out Free-mo.

-Crandell

[chadw]

I like the 2x8 shelf idea...especially since my layout is 2x8.  I could just enter my plan for it.

Seriosly though I think a shelf layout or microlayout contest would be fun.  The layouts would be small enough to not take forever to plan, and small enough to making voting easier.  It would also be a good demonstration of layout planning skill as it's much easier to plan a layout in a large space than in a restricted are like a microlayout.

Here's another idea, how about a shoebox layout contest?

[vsmith]

posted by "C&O Fan"

Altoona & Johnstown

This is the N layout I voted for, I really like the idea of really long trains around a historical place. I guess it would be like doing the Tehachapi loop for us westerners. The layout still includes some yards and industry for operations although N rarely lends itself well to operations IMHO. It's the scope of this layout that wins.

Twin Peaks

OK this one has some serious reach issues. I had a hard time determining what levels the tracks were on. I really feel there are some serious reach and access issues going on here, namely having track elements against the wall with large bulky scenery elements in the way. The small yard at the bottom has switches blocked by the large bridge and Mt Helix. The yard on the right side has similar issues. If a train derails on the track in the lower right corner how do you access it? That entire lower right corner might need to be rethought, just a might bit big. I look at that lower right corner at Mt Helix and can't help picturing Richard Dreyfuss's monster Devils Tower model from Close Encounters.  Maybe that's not a bad thing but the whole issue of access really needs to be rethought here.

If you look closley both of these layouts have the same reach issues !

It's amazing how much they look alike in size and shape

Infact most of the larger layouts had reach issues

But reach issues aren't a big deal for me

http://www.reacher.com/

There are other more important things like isle space

and overall operations that flow smoothly and make sense !

If you look at them, on the A&J all the switches are clearly within an easy reach, there is only uninterupted ribbon track along the farther reach zones, on the TP there are several switches that are right up against the wall, often with a mountain or a bridge in front of them. thats why I pointed it out. If the switch is going to be difficult to reach, how about uncoupling?

[vsmith]

Progressive Rail

I like this one a lot also; it's the only one that addresses other functions in room. Like Port Erie it's a switching puzzle but unlike Port Erie this one addresses its industrial spurs as real places, not abstract concepts. Real buildings make the difference. The one serious thing I see missing is a runaround passing siding, without such, I don't see any way to move cars from one side to the other without trapping the engine or the car.

 Actually, not having a runaround was quite deliberate. An earlier version of my design had a runaround:

 

 But then I learned more about my prototype. If you reread the description of the layout on Chip's page, you will see that the prototype did their switching in an interesting way : they used two switcher engines - one handling cars from the east end of the cut of cars, one handling cars from the west end of the cut of cars.

 Using two engines to switch an area without a runaround might not be typical, but in this case it is prototypical

 Btw - here is a link to a description of handling incoming cars from interchange on an earlier version of the layout plan: http://home.online.no/~steinjr/trains/modelling/progressive/interchange/

 And this is what the layout plan I am actually building based on this idea looks like (room is 11 1/2 by 6 1/2 foot):  

 And finally - a link to a web page describing the evolution of the track plan: 

http://home.online.no/~steinjr/trains/modelling/progressive/index.html

 Grin,
 Stein

I guess I missed that part about the double engines, OK dual motors it is then

The larger version looks really interesting. Good luck with it.

[vsmith]

Critique, ...finally, took a while to compose this...

Port Erie Belt Line

Interesting, but while it's a very intricate switching plan I was a little disappointed that yet again no attempt at scenery or structures was made nor was in my opinion a real world attempt to model the industrial sidings the car would be delivered to, in the end to me though its really a very elaborate inglenook switching puzzle, more an abstract intellectual game than real world modeling. It's still very interesting as such.

So...what's next?

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/12x10/10x12ContestEntry13.html

It was intended that the structure would be modeled as "flats" along the back of the layout. The industries involved were list on each "structure".

The docks for the RR Car Barges would be slight lower then the rest of the level with a wall of piles along the side.

Otherwise, the scenery would simply normal ballest and may some blacktop or brick roads along the team tracks.

The main ideal was to show a space saving method for moving cars between levels in a multi-level layout.

Have fun

OK 

[vsmith]

Next design ideas?

2 x 4 module with dual track as per standard.

2 x 8 shelf layout

40 x 40

any other?

I have a problem with the 40 x 40 simply because it will take a long time to do well and it is unlikely that many people have that kind of space--but I am not closed to the idea.

The 2 x 4 module is semi-intriguing to me because I've fantasized about joining a module club.

The 2 x 8 shelf is the most practical in terms of what people ask about.  

I vote 2 x 8 shelf, heck I'll even do it in HO, well... HOn30

It will give me time to track down my 40 x 40 sketches

Chip all ya gotta do is extend the deadline for the 40 x 40 idea, give people a little more time to develope it.

[exPalaceDog]

For the next contest, why NOT specify a maximum size in square feet instead of specifying the room dimensions.

For example, 576 square feet could be 24' by 24' (two stall garage), 18' by 36', 12' by 48', (mobile home) or even 8' by 72'. That might attract more designs of interest to more people.

Have fun

 

[stilson4283]

TZ

 During your comments you mentioned something about the staging on my Buffalo and Susquehanna.  Can you explain what you ment?

 Thanks

 Chris

Lancaster, CA 

[concretelackey]

Next design ideas?

2 x 4 module with dual track as per standard.

2 x 8 shelf layout

40 x 40

any other?

I have a problem with the 40 x 40 simply because it will take a long time to do well and it is unlikely that many people have that kind of space--but I am not closed to the idea.

The 2 x 4 module is semi-intriguing to me because I've fantasized about joining a module club.

The 2 x 8 shelf is the most practical in terms of what people ask about.  

I vote 2 x 8 shelf, heck I'll even do it in HO, well... HOn30

It will give me time to track down my 40 x 40 sketches

Chip all ya gotta do is extend the deadline for the 40 x 40 idea, give people a little more time to develope it.

Could run two conests at once. Launch both on the same week, allow 3 weeks for the smaller layout contest and 5 or 6 for the monster. This would stagger completion dates AND if someone got real ambitious they could incorporate the smaller one into the monster.

[tomikawaTT]

I like the 2x8 shelf idea...especially since my layout is 2x8.  I could just enter my plan for it.

My 'End of the Railroad' module resembles that!  Of course, it's only 15 inches wide, so that gives me 11 inches to play with - and the prototype was a coal mine complex with extensive above-ground mine car tracks...

How much HOn30 industrial working could I slip into a space 11 x 96?

Would that count as one layout, or two?

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

[exPalaceDog]

Erie and Philadelphia and Progressive.

These were both nice designs but I felt they simply did not make use of the space. Both would have been more appropriate for a shelf layout contest.  

Erie and Philadelphia - Chip are you sure you didn't confuse the Erie and Philadelphia with the Port Erie Belt?

In any case, the Old Dog would suggest that in many cases the room used for the layout will need to be used for other functions. Many modelers will need to leave space for a work bench. Some may need to leave room for a bed so the room can function as a spare room. A layout that does NOT use every square inch of space may be desirible in some cases.

Have fun

 

[SpaceMouse]

Sorry Dog,

Still, the layout contest did not have that constraint. It was a personal call, not an official judgement.

[DigitalGriffin]

Critique, ...finally, took a while to compose this...

Christmas Special

Where is the door? Door location was not optional if I remember. If the door is in the place its supposed to be, that's a door removed off its hinges and a diagonal duck-under.

This one on first site, I thought was an urban traction design, and as such I thought Oh this is nice, then I saw it was a traditional line? Oh well, if modeled as a heavily Urban line constrained and surrounded by buildings this could be very interesting, I wasn't sure if that was the designers intent. It looks from reading the industries that its not urban but semi-rural, which makes me ask why is there so much straight track? Never seen that in rural areas, urban yes, but not in the countryside. I think an opportunity was missed here.

If this is intended to have a Christmas tree set into the open circle, just how high is this layout? To have an effective duck under the layout should be no lower than 50-60", remember duck under, not crawl under. I don't see how there's any vertical room left for a tree, unless it's a Charlie Brown tree.

I'll fess up.  This one is mine.  I kind of made a big assumption when designing this layout that immediately handicapped me.

Assumption: That the people who would build these plans would be newbies.  Thereby, I wanted to build something that wasn't overly complex, have good reach, and allow continuous running.  (The later being a newb favorite)

The general idea of the plan was a small - rural mountain town like Logan WV that is heavy into the coal business.  Small locals would also transport people to work.  Located nearby would be the engine service facilities like at Peach Creek in WV. 

The layout itself is 10x11 not 10x12, so I believe the 30" door with 6" inside offset would still fit as you have a spare foot off to the right side.  (Although it's REALLLLL close.  You might have to shave off ~2-3" of the layout corner)  And it makes for a heck of a duck under.

As for the Christmas tree part, I should have explained that better.  If you remove the yard at the bottom, the christmas tree part of the layout could be divided into 3 pieces that can be carried by 2 people.  You remove the LEGS and the center section, So the layout sits on the ground.  You then just drop the tree in the middle and let it run circles around the coal loop.

Looking back at it, I would have changed a few things.  I would have dropped the warehouse spur, and fixed the switchback for the engine house as someone suggested.  I also would have passed the main line through the town at an angle to reduce the constant "edge of layout running" most people didn't like.  I might have reversed the layout in the room and used a drop leaf as the entrance to the yard.   

If I didn't try to make it dual layout, I would have taken an approach similar to Big Fork and Diehl (a figure 8 of benchwork)  The middle section would have been mountain passes designed to seperate mining, service, and town services.

But for the 2 1/2 hours work I put into it, I didn't do too bad.  (Didn't do great either, especially by my own standards) 

Thanks for the suggestions.   I'll take them into consideration for the next contest.

BTW: I must give Kudos to some of the terrific layouts I saw this round.

~D

 

 

[wheeler]

As a newbie here I only wanted to cast a vote or two. I like info- hate drama, and just wanted to comment on the track plans.

The rules were simple- size, door, and the way it swung.

Mistakes on the size were made- sorry, DQ, no door, DQ  "BUT" as a contest with no real prize, and more for "Ideating" I think chip wanted to have a full plate of plans to choose from.

I understand and respect that. the voting for 1st,2nd,3rd is kinda hard (IMO) to do, but maybe that is just me

I do like this forum, and the constructive criticism here in the decompression has been good. "I" will try to participate in the next contest, I like the sq ft constraint as suggested, and for a simpleton like me, single layer.....

[DigitalGriffin]

Chip,

We could do the next following contest:

Basement layout: typically ~32x32.

Garage layout: 16x24 (you could use all the garage, only one car stall, or go around the wall shelf)

Dream layout- as big as you can imagine

Freeform maximum square foot layout - (As suggested)

Shelf/bedroom layout - 10x12 room, but room for furniture, bed, and such

Most creative small layout (doorway size or smaller)

Location based layout - ie: Your interpretation of a RR in Proto-Town XYZ

Industry specific layout - ie: Mining, manufacturing (ie: Furniture, cars) , industry (ie: Steel), Farming/Grain, passenger, intermodal, pierfront ops, switching based/yard dominate

Portable layout based on FreeMo - (As suggested)

Just a few ideas. 

~D

 

[Texas Zepher]

During your comments you mentioned something about the staging on my Buffalo and Susquehanna.  Can you explain what you ment?

Umm I don't think so: "Buffalo & Susquehanna - Since it is going for 4 axle diesels why not use tighter radius curves and get some space for straight industrial tracks and give it some breathing space.  Two foot isles are fine unless people are trying to work industrial areas #2 and #3 at the same time."

However looking at the staging now specifically, the curved ladder never makes a track as long as one would think so it is pretty small.   Since there is already an elevation difference could you make the staging much larger by curving around and under the top part of the layout (under industrial area #3).  At least one direction could be made to have much more capacity.

[stilson4283]

That was something I considered but it was too close to deadline when I thought of that one.  Also I was trying to keep the staging Bi-directional which would have been hard.

 

Chris

Lancaster, CA 

[steinjr]

Location based layout - ie: Your interpretation of a RR in Proto-Town XYZ

Industry specific layout - ie: Mining, manufacturing (ie: Furniture, cars) , industry (ie: Steel), Farming/Grain, passenger, intermodal, pierfront ops, switching based/yard dominate

 Or just do an LDE (Layout Design Element) contest that is location/industry based - "how would you model this prototypical location/industry in less than (e.g) 8x2 feet in H0 scale (or equivalently - in less than 4x1 foot in N scale) ?" or some such thing.

 Grin,
 Stein

 

[chadw]

I like the LDE idea.  Fast to plan and easy to judge as there isn't much to look at.  I think they would also be better for discussing afterwards since you can more thouroughly analyze how a small area operates than a whole layout.  They also may be more helpful for people looking for trackplans as few people would have the exact shape room or want exactly the same layout.  Looking through LDE's would let them pick their favorites and combine them into a layout that fits their space.

Chad

[DigitalGriffin]

I like the LDE idea.  Fast to plan and easy to judge as there isn't much to look at.  I think they would also be better for discussing afterwards since you can more thouroughly analyze how a small area operates than a whole layout.  They also may be more helpful for people looking for trackplans as few people would have the exact shape room or want exactly the same layout.  Looking through LDE's would let them pick their favorites and combine them into a layout that fits their space.

Chad

I don't think an LDE should be size limited.  But someone who can come up with a more compact track design for the same industry, without sacrificing scenery, deserves a higher score.

[SpaceMouse]

Are you guys talking about a specific LDE, like a coal mine or a interchange yard or are you talking about a non-specific LED of our choosing?

[steinjr]

Are you guys talking about a specific LDE, like a coal mine or a interchange yard or are you talking about a non-specific LED of our choosing?

 Mmm - if you want to be able to compare and contrast different solutions to the same design challenge, I would pick a _specific_ subject for each LDE thread : each thread starts with a specific location and/or type industry, probably an era, maybe some upper bound on size.

 And focus is not on voting, but on providing constructive feedback on strengths and weaknesses of the various suggestions.

 Seems to me that would be the most useful format for such an animal.

 YMMV

 Grin,
 Stein

 

[chadw]

I had been thinking picking any LDE but it probably is a better idea to have a link to a map and have everyone base their LDE off of that.

[fwright]

I would think the LDE should be open to get a reasonable variety in the submissions.

But it boils down to the type of contest - picking the best from a group of similar designs that were more or less constrained to be that way?  Or, using minimum constraints to gain a wide variety of ideas?

My personal preference is for the latter (which is what this last contest was), and I believe you will get more submissions that way.

just my thoughts

Fred W 

[Texas Zepher]

Are you guys talking about a specific LDE, like a coal mine or a interchange yard or are you talking about a non-specific LED of our choosing?

A pre-chosen specific one.  Otherwise you end up in the apples-oranges scenario again.

[tomikawaTT]

Are you guys talking about a specific LDE, like a coal mine or a interchange yard or are you talking about a non-specific LED of our choosing?

A pre-chosen specific one.  Otherwise you end up in the apples-oranges scenario again.

Not to throw an egg into the fan, but unless your pre-chosen LDE is one that appeals to a wide spectrum of modelers, the entry list will be rather sparse!  As for me, if your map isn't labeled in Kanji, count me out.

OTOH, if I'm given a choice, I'd probably end up choosing something from the near side of the Pacific.  (I thought of the Six Companies too late for this past contest.)

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

[steinjr]

I would think the LDE should be open to get a reasonable variety in the submissions.

But it boils down to the type of contest - picking the best from a group of similar designs that were more or less constrained to be that way?  Or, using minimum constraints to gain a wide variety of ideas?

My personal preference is for the latter (which is what this last contest was), and I believe you will get more submissions that way.

 In my opinion, Fred hit the nail squarely on the head. It depends a lot on what you want to accomplish.  I would also like to see a lot of different designs - I like both apples and oranges. 

 But I also agree with TZ - it is less meaningful to try to pick the "best" of two designs when the designers are not at all trying to accomplish the same thing.

 So how about letting the parameters be fairly free, but downplay the voting/winning part ?

 Just try to generate a lot of different ideas that can be discussed and commented upon.

 Grin,
 Stein