Keeping the design for the Tidewater Sub within the bounds of the 32 sq. ft. was difficult, and as was discussed, there are several compromises that resulted. The main one being a fairly steep climb out of staging, and a cluttered track plan in the middle.
The main thing I would have changed would be to add about 2 feet of run to each leg of the "L" to tidy up the grades. I was less concerned about the cluttered look, since I was using an Urban theme. If anyone remembers the area around Hillen terminal and Guilford Ave next to the state pen in downtown Baltimore in the mid-70's, you'll know what I mean. For all intents and purposes, this is a switching layout, with the accommodation for continuous running and a bit of staging to allow trains to enter and leave the switching area.
I was generally satisfied with the port side, as it provides for a variety of traffic, although a slightly larger area would have allowed me to also include a coal pier, which was one of the primary functions of Port Covington during the WM's lifetime. I sacrificed that for the grain elevator, simply because it would be easier to model the grain elevator, and it was such a prominent land mark at the facility.
Operationally, I would have two trains in staging, leaving one track clear for thru running. Inbound trains would enter the layout from the left side, coming in from "the west" and heading toward the yard at Port. Hillen and the loft district would be switched by two locals out of Port, and outbound trains would go back the way they came in, then reset to come back during the next session. The bit of track between the loft district and the right side of staging would be utilized only for running laps.
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
Link to contest entry: http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry08.html
Comments gathered during the voting:
steinjr wrote:Lancaster Terminal Railroad is a great switching layout that takes hardly any space at all in a room - this layout could very easily be shared with other uses of the room - like a guest bedroom or a family room. I like the way the runaround has been placed in the curve, the low industries along the front, and the way the industry sidings has been made fairly long.
Lancaster Terminal Railroad is a great switching layout that takes hardly any space at all in a room - this layout could very easily be shared with other uses of the room - like a guest bedroom or a family room. I like the way the runaround has been placed in the curve, the low industries along the front, and the way the industry sidings has been made fairly long.
SpaceMouse wrote:The two Lyns, Brooklyn and Yoklyn and Lancaster are my style of switching layout, but in the long run, I'd miss continuous running.
The two Lyns, Brooklyn and Yoklyn and Lancaster are my style of switching layout, but in the long run, I'd miss continuous running.
Texas Zepher wrote: I hate the engine house on a switchback from the main yard. While the layout has some intersting industries most of it is consumed by the two yards on each end.
I hate the engine house on a switchback from the main yard. While the layout has some intersting industries most of it is consumed by the two yards on each end.
Other comments or suggestions for this layout ?
Smile,Stein
Link to contest entry:
http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry09.html
Comments gathered during voting:
steinjr wrote:Yorklyn uses varying bench width to very good effect. It also shows an interesting use of an outside corner. By focusing on just a couple of large industries instead of trying to fit in a lot of small industries, it stays very true to the prototype.
Yorklyn uses varying bench width to very good effect. It also shows an interesting use of an outside corner. By focusing on just a couple of large industries instead of trying to fit in a lot of small industries, it stays very true to the prototype.
IRONROOSTER wrote:good use of varying benchwork widths - nice switching layout
good use of varying benchwork widths - nice switching layout
Texas Zepher wrote:If this layout was built, one had better really like staging, but take this and encorporate it into a larger layout and you would have something. Where would this fit as a free standing thing?
If this layout was built, one had better really like staging, but take this and encorporate it into a larger layout and you would have something. Where would this fit as a free standing thing?
Any other comments or suggestions for this layout ?
Smile, Stein
Link to contest entry: http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry04.html
Comments gathered during the voting period:
steinjr wrote:Extra credits for the switchbacks down to the logging camp. I am a little confused by the term "high staging" for the logging camp - I assume that the logging camp must be at the bottom part of the drawing. I would have assumbed that the logging camp would be downhill from the mainline, not uphill from the mainline ? Edit: got it explained to me by the designer. I was viewing the layout inside out. For some reason I though it was supposed to be operated from inside the pit - it is supposed to be operated from the outside - the pit is just used for dealing with staging. So the hillside to the logging camp goes upwards from the south end of the layout towards the staging pit, placing the single track staging for the logging camp about 8" above the staging for the mainline - hence the expression "high staging".
Extra credits for the switchbacks down to the logging camp. I am a little confused by the term "high staging" for the logging camp - I assume that the logging camp must be at the bottom part of the drawing. I would have assumbed that the logging camp would be downhill from the mainline, not uphill from the mainline ?
Edit: got it explained to me by the designer. I was viewing the layout inside out. For some reason I though it was supposed to be operated from inside the pit - it is supposed to be operated from the outside - the pit is just used for dealing with staging. So the hillside to the logging camp goes upwards from the south end of the layout towards the staging pit, placing the single track staging for the logging camp about 8" above the staging for the mainline - hence the expression "high staging".
SpaceMouse wrote:The strength of the Petaluma layout is also operations and operational variety. There's a lot to do. It is also the stongest in terms of big scenery & scenery/scope of operations ratio that is N-scales main advantage. The three things I don't like about Petaluma is 1) The lack of a yard--but to add it would have sacrificed something needed to make completeness of the lumber operation. 2) The duck-under, although you only need it to rerail cars that have come off the track and made it into staging, is always going to be a pain in the keester. and 3) The loop design makes you loose the sense of the railroad in the larger scheme of things. In the end, I pick Petaluma over WM, but mostly because I know the vision behind it. N scale was used because of the space need to convey the scope of the logging operation.
The strength of the Petaluma layout is also operations and operational variety. There's a lot to do. It is also the stongest in terms of big scenery & scenery/scope of operations ratio that is N-scales main advantage.
The three things I don't like about Petaluma is 1) The lack of a yard--but to add it would have sacrificed something needed to make completeness of the lumber operation. 2) The duck-under, although you only need it to rerail cars that have come off the track and made it into staging, is always going to be a pain in the keester. and 3) The loop design makes you loose the sense of the railroad in the larger scheme of things.
In the end, I pick Petaluma over WM, but mostly because I know the vision behind it. N scale was used because of the space need to convey the scope of the logging operation.
Texas Zepher wrote:I like the main theme and is done well. The supporting stuff doesn't seem as well thought out. The interchange could have been done better. The entire NWP could have been done better like departing from the saw mill to the left as a separate track that swings to the outside and then under the lumber track into the staging.
I like the main theme and is done well. The supporting stuff doesn't seem as well thought out. The interchange could have been done better. The entire NWP could have been done better like departing from the saw mill to the left as a separate track that swings to the outside and then under the lumber track into the staging.
Link to contest entry: http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry02.html
steinjr wrote:Nice plan, even though I suspect that grades might be a little on the steep side a few places.Like in the right hand back corner - where there is one branch from a turnout that goes up to a couple of B&O interchange tracks (which presumably are mostly flat), while the other branch goes down and under the interchange tracks. Room is 9 feet across, so the elevation change to get under seems to happen in about 2-3 feet. Say 3 feet - 36". A three percent grade allows only about 1" drop in 3 feet. Even with maybe half an inch of elevation change up to the B&O interchange track, that is only 1 1/2" clearance. Is that enough for N scale ? Edit: yes, it is. You only need about 1 5/8" clearance to have one track pass over another one in N scale. And that is doable in the 36" or so from crossover to the left of the B&O interchange until the track enters the tunnel under B&O interchange and the roundtable.
Nice plan, even though I suspect that grades might be a little on the steep side a few places.
Like in the right hand back corner - where there is one branch from a turnout that goes up to a couple of B&O interchange tracks (which presumably are mostly flat), while the other branch goes down and under the interchange tracks.
Room is 9 feet across, so the elevation change to get under seems to happen in about 2-3 feet. Say 3 feet - 36". A three percent grade allows only about 1" drop in 3 feet. Even with maybe half an inch of elevation change up to the B&O interchange track, that is only 1 1/2" clearance. Is that enough for N scale ?
Edit: yes, it is. You only need about 1 5/8" clearance to have one track pass over another one in N scale. And that is doable in the 36" or so from crossover to the left of the B&O interchange until the track enters the tunnel under B&O interchange and the roundtable.
SpaceMouse wrote:I get the feeling that the WM is a part of a larger railroad and that traffic flows from off layout to on layout, though I can't see it a quick glance, but I'm willing to trust that it is there. The track is tight in places so making the scenery make sense might be tough in some spots, but again, I'm willing to trust that a scenery plan is in place. The problem I have with it is that same problem I've had on the last two designs I made for my own space at home. It looks really good on top, but staging is inconvenient. If staging is inconvenient, then the operations are tougher and what's really the strength of this layout.
I get the feeling that the WM is a part of a larger railroad and that traffic flows from off layout to on layout, though I can't see it a quick glance, but I'm willing to trust that it is there. The track is tight in places so making the scenery make sense might be tough in some spots, but again, I'm willing to trust that a scenery plan is in place.
The problem I have with it is that same problem I've had on the last two designs I made for my own space at home. It looks really good on top, but staging is inconvenient. If staging is inconvenient, then the operations are tougher and what's really the strength of this layout.
IRONROOSTER wrote:Shows the advantage of N scale in fitting in a class 1 mainline in a small space.
Shows the advantage of N scale in fitting in a class 1 mainline in a small space.
Other comments and suggestions on the Western Maryland layout ?
Link to contest entry: http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry07.html
steinjr wrote:I really like the the way the designer has cut the corners and used curved turnouts extensively to buy himself better curve radii. Good placement of industries - this designer has gotten a lot of H0 scale layout out of a single sheet of ply.
I really like the the way the designer has cut the corners and used curved turnouts extensively to buy himself better curve radii. Good placement of industries - this designer has gotten a lot of H0 scale layout out of a single sheet of ply.
fwright wrote:Again, a reasonable point-to-point run (staging to yard) with the bonus of continuous run capability. I see it as a fairly generic plan that could be easily adapted to a variety of themes. Even slightly more space to add a track or two in staging would improve this layout immensely. Drawbacks: with only 1 passing track, operation of 2 trains somewhat continuously in opposite directions can't happen. And that single passing track is quite short - on the order of 4ft, limiting train length to 4-5 cars.
Again, a reasonable point-to-point run (staging to yard) with the bonus of continuous run capability. I see it as a fairly generic plan that could be easily adapted to a variety of themes. Even slightly more space to add a track or two in staging would improve this layout immensely.
Drawbacks: with only 1 passing track, operation of 2 trains somewhat continuously in opposite directions can't happen. And that single passing track is quite short - on the order of 4ft, limiting train length to 4-5 cars.
Texas Zepher wrote:Interesting almost twice around configuration. Yard on right just parallel tracks to the edge. Don't know what could have been done to correct it though. Switchback to get to engine house.
Interesting almost twice around configuration. Yard on right just parallel tracks to the edge. Don't know what could have been done to correct it though. Switchback to get to engine house.
Any other comments or suggestions for how to improve this layout even more ?
http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Photos/Plywood/PlywoodContestEntry10.html
Link to bigger picture of layout plan:
http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/vsmith/4X8_STUDY_PLAN_full_size.jpg
IRONROOSTER wrote: love that name. Good scenic possibilities with the way the mainline partially doubles back on itself. Nice little shortline
love that name. Good scenic possibilities with the way the mainline partially doubles back on itself. Nice little shortline
SpaceMouse wrote:I though Angry Beaver was excellent in that it is very similar to a Paul Templar's Badger Creek which inspired me to think about logging railroads in the first place. The cool thing about this layout is the modeling which, I admit would be very enjoyable. But it lacks the continous run and "part of the larger world" realistic operations.
I though Angry Beaver was excellent in that it is very similar to a Paul Templar's Badger Creek which inspired me to think about logging railroads in the first place. The cool thing about this layout is the modeling which, I admit would be very enjoyable. But it lacks the continous run and "part of the larger world" realistic operations.
fwright wrote:A reasonably long run for a point-to-point in 32 sq ft. The details are thought through - appropriate motive power, tail track lengths, structures and scenery. It fits in a reasonable size spare bedroom without overwhelming the space. The only drawbacks are no continuous run, and operations is limited to one train making the run to the camps while the other works the terminal and mill. There probably isn't space for more than 2 people comfortably around the layout in that size of room. Finally, the plan could easily be built with almost no adjustments in HO or HOn3 - and would work just as well, perhaps better.
A reasonably long run for a point-to-point in 32 sq ft. The details are thought through - appropriate motive power, tail track lengths, structures and scenery. It fits in a reasonable size spare bedroom without overwhelming the space.
The only drawbacks are no continuous run, and operations is limited to one train making the run to the camps while the other works the terminal and mill. There probably isn't space for more than 2 people comfortably around the layout in that size of room.
Finally, the plan could easily be built with almost no adjustments in HO or HOn3 - and would work just as well, perhaps better.
Texas Zepher wrote: While it looks really cool on paper, I don't think one built in real life would look nearly as good, and might not work at all.
While it looks really cool on paper, I don't think one built in real life would look nearly as good, and might not work at all.
vsmith wrote: If I wasn't restricted to the 32sq ft rule, I would have extended the town section all the way down and if the room was avalable added the creosote factory and interchange, I also would make the layout a little deeper so the scenery would step up in a more gentle fashion and maybe extended the rest of the layout a bit wider to stretch things out but overall I was very pleased with this one, if I had the room I would love to try it myself, I've been looking for an excuse to try On30.
If I wasn't restricted to the 32sq ft rule, I would have extended the town section all the way down and if the room was avalable added the creosote factory and interchange, I also would make the layout a little deeper so the scenery would step up in a more gentle fashion and maybe extended the rest of the layout a bit wider to stretch things out but overall I was very pleased with this one, if I had the room I would love to try it myself, I've been looking for an excuse to try On30.
Any other comments on this layout plan ?
Congrats. They were all good.
There are three things I'd like to talk about in this post.
1) Let's go through each of the designs and give suggestions on what we could have done to make it better.
2) Let's look at the way voting has gone in the past--look at which designs have won, and see if we can't predict, which way the votes will go.
3) Let's figure out a new common scenario to work with. I like the standard 10' x 20' garage for a change of size and elbow room.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.