Hi everyone,
I am desigining a new layout and would like as much input as possible. I model in n scale and my goal for this layout is portability. However, 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.
What I do not like about my design is that all of the track is clustered on one side, I could not figure out a way to move more of the track into the center of the oval. But, it might work out ok. Any and all comments are welcome. Also, I was hopeing for a lot of input on how I can operate the layout so that I do not get bored with it after it has been constructed. I drew the layout in XtrkCad, if it makes a difference.
Sean
If the history of this site is any prelude, you will get plenty of suggestions from folks that are far more experienced than I on track planning. My initial observations would be:
Stations almost always face a through track, and in your initial plan, a train would have to "see-saw" to position a car at the station. Given the size limitations, it would be better to have the station with a curved platform on the passing siding to the left.
That center portion, with six turnouts abutting each other, looks real "busy". It results in some "S" curves for cars being shoved to the interchange track, and that is an invitation for derailments.
How about: With the station now on the inside of the curve of the siding to the left, eliminate that second passing siding in the front. The interchange track would connect into the first passing track (taking the outside track as the main). Put the team track off of the main into the left front corner to better utilize that corner space. Curve the track leading to the grain elevator more, so that the grain elevator would then be positioned behind the station (using more of that interior space). That could create an interesting scene typical of some midwestern and great plains towns, with the trains sliding past the station while the grain elevator looms in the background.
Bill
Put a double ended siding (or two) on the side behind the backdrop, Move the backdrop forward to make room. With that you can stage one eastbound, one westbound train in the back. Allows you to work the station going both ways and to make meets at the station. The interchange track doesn't need to tie into the loop although it could tie into one of the tracks in the back.
I would put a left hand switch in the interchange track and r un the track across your "main" with a diamond to represent the other railroad.
I have used something very similar to this for a temporary layout while I have been planning my permanent ones.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Bill and Dave,
Thank you for your prop responses your ideas were a great help. I have begun to modify my track plan to include the passing track behind the back drop (Dave) and to reconfigure depot location and team track (Bill). Hopefully, I can have a new track plan posted tomorrow for review.
You need to address that two foot measurement which is going to restrict you to a 10" radius which in its turn is going to restrict you to small locomotives -- switchers mainly. That may be all well and good if switchers are your forte. If, however, you are considering road power then a better idea would be for you to build a layout on a 30" X 80" interior -- hollow core -- door. That's going to give you about a 12" radius which is quite a bit less restrictive than the 10" radius. This 12" radius is less than my 18" minimum radius standard but 12" is the province of B-B truck diesels; C-C truck diesels will work but most are just a litt-t-t-t-t-le bit long for them.
Keep this in mind: model railroading is a game of illusion -- we are, after all, trying to paint a picture of going great distances in considerably less than great space. Manufacturers boast that "this locomotive will operate on 9" radius curves" and they will but they look like h-e-double hockey sticks doing it!
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
First thank you to those who have given suggestions on how to improve my layout. The updates have included moving the station to the inside curve on the bottom left and moving the team track to outside the main. Additionally, I have reconfigured the grain elevator location, moved the machine shop closer to the center of the layout and moved the interchange track (this is a key improvement because it may give me the opportunity to expand at a later date. Again, all comments are welcome.
Kudos to Bill and Dave for your input. R.T. I here what you are saying about the hollow core door and your suggenstions are greatly appreciated. I like the challenge of the small layout and I am willing to make some concesions about equipment not looking right. But you comment on the illusion is dead on, that is why I have inclueded a backdrop to break up the roundy-round of the oval. I am looking forward to more input. I redrew the track plan quickly so it is not perfect but here it is.
4x8 H0 scale design (based on a design by Linda Sand in Model Railroad Planning 2002) for a layout which supports some beginning ops (and which can, when/if you tire of roundy-roundy, be cut in two along the center backdrop , to be rearranged as an 2x16 foot I shaped layout or a 2x8 + 2x8 L-shaped layout). Would be about the size you are looking for in N scale:
A potential operating session on this layout: http://home.online.no/~steinjr/trains/modelling/loopy/ops/session.html
(Yes, it is overcrowded, and uses sharp radii - 20" in H0, corresponding to 11" in N - but it illustrates some ways to fit in industries and use the center part of such a layout)
Btw - shpuld go without saying, but let me say it anyways - whether it is sensible to go for a center backdrop down the middle of a layout depends on how the 30" x 6 foot N scale layout will be set up in the room. It would obviously not be very sensible if it is on a shelf along the wall, since half the layout then would be inaccessible behind the backdrop :-)
There are plenty of other possible ways of setting up a layout, but that takes a knowledge of what the room looks like, design goals etc.
An interesting little layout tucked away into a small corner in an apartment is e.g. Byron Henderson's H0 scale "Alcos in the Alcove" layout from Model Railroad Hobbyist 2009-03:
(Drawing above is my attempt to quickly recreate the plan - not as smooth as Byron's original plan, which is much more carefully tuned with respect to track lengths, curves etc) .
Two 5 x 2 foot tables arranged in a 7x5 foot L shape. In H0 scale. He found reasonable room for a RR crossing (a diamond) with a depot by the crossing, an interchange track, two elevators, and a third two-track railserved industry, plus the necessary supporting tracks to realistically simulate a local freight train arriving in this small town, local switching and a train departing again.
For comparison's sake - two 5x2 tables in H0 scale corresponds to roughly two 3 foot by 14" tables in N scale. In that space you can have something that looks realistic and operates realistic, instead of a tiny oval like what you have designed and what I showed as well.
It all depends on what you want to accomplish and what you need. If you need the option of going around and around, it takes away other options - you then either need access to both 6-foot sides of your layout or you have to live with a removable backdrop, setting the layout up temporarily on a table when operating or some such device.
Grin,Stein
steinjr For comparison's sake - two 5x2 tables in H0 scale corresponds to roughly two 3 foot by 14" tables in N scale. In that space you can have something that looks realistic and operates realistic, instead of a tiny oval like what you have designed and what I showed as well.
One thing Sean mentioned for a given in his first post is portability. I'm not familiar with N scale size ranges, but would an L be as easy to move as a single rectangle?
On the track plan, the interchange track going into a crossing looks a little odd. What's the story behind it, is it a branch line terminating or a foreign road passing through? I know that there's a prototype for everything, but you may want to give some thought to how the foreign road or branch is going to work that interchange, even if you aren't modeling it - this may give more realism. Will they pull their cuts across the diamond to some off-board tracks where they do runarounds etc, then move back across the diamond to deliver a cut to your road?
One typical interchange look is the two mains crossing at a diamond, with with wye tracks coming off each road to sidings for the interchange cars. Here's an example where the Great Lakes Central interchanges with CSX near Howell, MI. You could get that look by removing the crossing, and curving the interchange track up to the right where it could disappear behind the backdrop. The diamond with the other road would be implied, and you might get more car spots.
Good luck!
odavesteinjr For comparison's sake - two 5x2 tables in H0 scale corresponds to roughly two 3 foot by 14" tables in N scale. In that space you can have something that looks realistic and operates realistic, instead of a tiny oval like what you have designed and what I showed as well. One thing Sean mentioned for a given in his first post is portability. I'm not familiar with N scale size ranges, but would an L be as easy to move as a single rectangle?
Depends on what he means by portability, I guess.
It might be easier to move and transport two 3-foot long sections than one 6 foot long section, if you e.g. are taking it up and down stairs or putting it in the back seat or trunk of a normal car to transport it from one place to another.
It may be slightly more work to unhook or unbolt two three foot long sections from each other and move them separately than it would have been to move one 6x2 foot section if you have two guys to just lift it straight up off a shelf and put it down on a nearby table.
But in either case, shape should follow function. The OP needs to first decide what he wants on the layout and then decide what shape works the best for what he wants.
odaveOn the track plan, the interchange track going into a crossing looks a little odd. What's the story behind it, it is a branch line terminating or a foreign road passing through? I know that there's a prototype for everything, but you tmay want to give some thought to how the foreign road or branch is going to work that interchange, even if you aren't modeling it - this may give more realism. Will they pull their cuts across the diamond to some off-board tracks where they do runarounds etc, then move back across the diamond to deliver a cut to your road? A typical interchange look is the two mains crossing at a diamond, with with wye tracks coming off each road to sidings for the interchange cars. Here's an example where the Great Lakes Central interchanges with CSX near Howell, MI. You could get that look by removing the crossing, and curving the interchange track up to the right where it could disappear behind the backdrop. The diamond with the other road would be implied, and you would get more car spots. Good luck!
On the track plan, the interchange track going into a crossing looks a little odd. What's the story behind it, it is a branch line terminating or a foreign road passing through? I know that there's a prototype for everything, but you tmay want to give some thought to how the foreign road or branch is going to work that interchange, even if you aren't modeling it - this may give more realism. Will they pull their cuts across the diamond to some off-board tracks where they do runarounds etc, then move back across the diamond to deliver a cut to your road?
A typical interchange look is the two mains crossing at a diamond, with with wye tracks coming off each road to sidings for the interchange cars. Here's an example where the Great Lakes Central interchanges with CSX near Howell, MI. You could get that look by removing the crossing, and curving the interchange track up to the right where it could disappear behind the backdrop. The diamond with the other road would be implied, and you would get more car spots.
Good advice.
Smile, Stein
Stein and ODave,
First, thank you much for your inputs. Dave, I thought that the interchange would work by the home road leaving cuts between the turn out and diamond, then, with a little imagination, they would leave by another road and return by another road to be picked up. I am not sure how prototypical this is as I an new to operations.
Stein, honestly I had not thought of spiltting a railroad in half, its a great idea that I did not think of. Although, it would take more effort in bench work deisgn and construction. I probably should have been more specific in my original post, I want to center the railroad around a small town in the midwest that has a few small industries, i.e. grain elevator, factory, depot and team track. I included the interchange off of the layout for, what I thought would be operational interest and a place for possible expansion. I am kind of set on some sort of oval or continuous run, not so much for me but for visitors (they always want to see the trains run even if they are not interested in railroading at all). I have to get to work but I will take a look at the Alcos in an alcove layout tonight.
One last thing, when I think of portability I have Dave Vollmer's layout in mind. I am not sure how he transposts it, but it is something that he references quite a bit and I believe his layout is all one piece.
I there are any other questions I can answer let me know.
One thing you can do to make the plan look less like an oval on a train table is to tilt it so the tangents are not parallel to the front edge of the the benchwork.
In example:
Chris
SeanthehackI want to center the railroad around a small town in the midwest that has a few small industries, i.e. grain elevator, factory, depot and team track.
Not unusual - small Mid-western town is the "typical" project layout from e.g. Model Railroader Magazine.
An decent example of the look and feel of small Midwestern town on a loop layout is Tony Koester's "Wingate, Indiana", which you can see here: http://books.google.no/books?id=orbWT5ZnLOcC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=Koester+Wingate+Indiana&source=bl&ots=Xgu9NZCcQB&sig=ey1ndTX1YNZkYILhoDkZHXoNtmc&hl=no&ei=bn6ASpqqA9GH_Abw0t3nBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Tony's layout is set up for allowing quite a few trains to pass through and or/serve that little town, which has a fertilizer dealer, a coal dealer, a depot, a team track and an elevator.
If you go to the next page on google books, you will see what the layout looks like if you cut that 4x8 sheet of plywood into one 2x8 piece for the town and two 1x 8 pieces for staging on the sides, to make it possible to run even more trains through that little town.
Operations on that layout is described in Tony's book on Realistic Operations.
Seanthehack| I am kind of set on some sort of oval or continuous run, not so much for me but for visitors (they always want to see the trains run even if they are not interested in railroading at all).
I am kind of set on some sort of oval or continuous run, not so much for me but for visitors (they always want to see the trains run even if they are not interested in railroading at all).
Fair enough. Continuous run can be done in quite a few different ways - oval in front of you (most obvious shape), dogbone (ie narrow in the center of layout, turn around loops at the ends of the layout), donut (operator in a center operating pit, railroad running around him or her), pendulum running (e.g. having a Budd Diesel Rail Car that runs to one end of the layout, waits for 20 seconds, and then automatically reverses directions and returns to the other end of the layout), and probably quite a few other different mechanisms.
Dave Vollmer moves across the country in his profession - he is an Air Force officer. Essentially, I believe he encloses his layout in a large box by adding a bottom, sides and a top to it.
The movers then carry that big box onto a moving truck and delivers to his new home. Can be done with any layout that is rigid enough to not be shaken into little pieces when packed down into one box or several boxes and then transported by car.
Either way, have fun exploring your options !
Grin, Stein
Some comments on the plans and idea's so far. I am a bit rude sometimes, not meant to turn you down.
I should never have something in my mind if i didn't know how to do it. Ask Dave Vollmer first and start thinking later.
I do like the more smoothly appearence from Chris's trackplan; the trade off is a smaller radius. I never understood the love for radii that seem to boss the plan. Stein wanted, tmho, to show you in the first place, that a layout can have two sides and as small as it is lots of operation. The crossing Chris likes so much can be off the layout. For operation you only need the interchange spur. If you like building the crossing and getting your feet wet with "advanced trackbuilding", it may be the kind of challenge you was waiting for. Sorry, i didn't look careful at his plan; thought B&M crossed the MEC at a curved section, so you had to scratchbuild the crossing. You can always do some thing like that later on.
Be careful with small factory's or ..............., it always surprises me how big they were, also in small towns in rural area's. Calling elevators the prairie skyscrapers was no exaggeration.
Have fun and good luck
Paul
Seanthehack...I thought that the interchange would work by the home road leaving cuts between the turn out and diamond, then, with a little imagination, they would leave by another road and return by another road to be picked up. I am not sure how prototypical this is as I an new to operations.
I think the switching moves having to go across the diamond wouldn't be a normal thing, but I'm sure someone will find a prototype out there somewhere that does it that way. The layout posted by ChrisNH above treats a crossing and interchange well in a small-space oval, and as Paul pointed out, you really just need the spur curving off and not necessarily the main and the diamond.
But if that doesn't appeal to you, maybe the interchange track may work and look better if it's outside of your loop. Maybe just call your existing team track the interchange and vice-versa. If you do that, it looks like you'd have room on the left-hand side to run the foreign main top-to-bottom, model the diamond, and run a curved interchange track up to meet it.
The left-hand industry in the middle is a switchback, which can be problematic. You need to make sure you have enough clear tail track to pull cuts from that industry, or you need to clear one other industry before being able to work the first one. This can be challenging or tedious, take your pick
It sounds like you have a good, solid start on vision and a list of givens and druthers. Did you mention your desired era? You may want to flesh them out and write them down on a sheet of paper to keep referring to as you continue your journey.
Hey Sean,
I'll contribute my thoughts, most of which will be repeated from others already.
I like the plan and the way you used the backdrop to keep your scene from looking too roundy. You will be modeling one large scene rather than two smaller ones, since the backdrop is towards the rear of the layout. I would try to still pull it a little more towards the front to minimize the curves as best you can, keeping depth to still make the scene as large as possible. Maybe curve the backdrop, keeping the center of it farther back. What looks acceptable is personal choice.
The interchange crossing looks like something taken out of one of the MR plans, like the Turtle Creek Central. The crossing may look cool, but I think an interchange track on a loop design works best when it is outside the circle.
Chris' plan looks more realistic since most tracks are not perfectly straight.
Larger industries look more realistic than smaller ones. Having one larger scene, like you're doing, might help you make each industry larger.
Good start and good luck.
Doug
- Douglas
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,
your original layout has room inside for a turntable
SeanthehackEveryone'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.
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 :-)
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
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.
SeanthehackThe 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.
steinjrIt 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
SeanthehackAdditionally, 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.
SeanthehackI 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.
SeanthehackI 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.
Seanthehackdiscover 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.
Seanthehackwhich "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,
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.
SeanthehackThe 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.
SeanthehackThe 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.
SeanthehackIt 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 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, 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,