You could mock up some large industries and more small industries by making them from card board. Then try them out before commiting to one or the other.
Thanks all for the helpful suggestions. I might combine some small buildings to make larger footprints. Putting buildings along the same spur opens up more locations.
Yes, I am planning on doing an interchange b/c that offers even more operating opportunities.
Some want to have many industries, but I like the idea of conveying distance with space between places. To each their own.
cuyama Doughless My simple answer is, when you expand the layout, I would make the industires larger and not increase the number of industries. +1
Doughless My simple answer is, when you expand the layout, I would make the industires larger and not increase the number of industries.
+1
+2
Locomotives are big. Buildings are bigger. Much bigger.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
I don't hear OP yearning to add industries. That says something. Unusual, perhaps.
The responses have been quite clear, too. I would also add "very useful".
So I'll stop adding.
Ed
DoughlessMy simple answer is, when you expand the layout, I would make the industires larger and not increase the number of industries.
Larger industries with multiple car spots (or even multiple tracks to each) are more reflective of real-life railroading and are often more realistic than a larger number of smaller industries.
“Spots” include individual doors on a building, dumps or spouts for commodity loading, etc.
Team tracks may take a wide variety of cars and require no structure beyond (perhaps) a loading dock.
An interchange track with another "imagined" railroad can increase operating options in minimal space.
A "clean-out" track is another “no structure” car spotting location and creates extra movements.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
IMO, a layout looks more realistic if the rail served buildings are large, rather than small. Most kits produced are smaller than what it would take to justify real rail service, so what you can do to make the industries larger would LOOK better, IMO.
Of course, if the industries are larger, that reduces the space between them. If your layout is trying to depict a lot of distance to travel between industires, the LOOk of the layout might not be consistent with how you want to OPERATE it. Meaning, a layout that depicts several miles of track serving small building might have to be changed to depict only a few miles serving larger buildings.
I suspect the operations of your layout would be the same regardless, so for appearence purposes, I would always lean towards having larger industries, not more industries, and have the layout of your size depict more of a industrial park or small town/suburban area.
You could also load up the layout with a lot of large buildings and model a small section of downtown Milwaukee, for example.
My simple answer is, when you expand the layout, I would make the industires larger and not increase the number of industries.
- Douglas
don't know what you mean by VA, but a truss plant, somthing like a AG warehouse, box plant or a cement plant.
Since I'm going to soon build a larger layout, would it look too odd having only five small industires on a 14x12' HO design? If I should add more, what one(s) in a Virginia layout in the 1980s?
I currenlty have coal, junk hauling, intermodal (in the yard), grain, oil, and food processing spread out on the 13x7 HO layout. There was PLENTY of room between them since they occupy small footprints (e.g., a small machine shop and gantry crane for junk operations, etc..)
Yes, it's my layout, but can't decide about what makes the most sense.
Thanks!