steinjr wrote: exPalaceDog wrote:Concerns<snip> includes many builds between the through track and the front edge of the layout, that could make access difficult when re-railing cars, and doing swithching<snip>The Fergus Falls, Otter Tail County, Minnesota with the Farmers' GTA elevator also might have problems. Yes, if you arms are so short that you cannot reach 16-18" in from either side of the GTA elevator reach a car that is directly in front of the elevator to couple or uncouple. Look at the prototype photos. Fuel dealer is a low structure, and so is concrete Co.
exPalaceDog wrote:Concerns<snip> includes many builds between the through track and the front edge of the layout, that could make access difficult when re-railing cars, and doing swithching<snip>The Fergus Falls, Otter Tail County, Minnesota with the Farmers' GTA elevator also might have problems.
Concerns
<snip> includes many builds between the through track and the front edge of the layout, that could make access difficult when re-railing cars, and doing swithching<snip>
The Fergus Falls, Otter Tail County, Minnesota with the Farmers' GTA elevator also might have problems.
Yes, if you arms are so short that you cannot reach 16-18" in from either side of the GTA elevator reach a car that is directly in front of the elevator to couple or uncouple.
Look at the prototype photos. Fuel dealer is a low structure, and so is concrete Co.
First, an observation, when people pay "good" money for model trains, they like to be able to see them run. That limits the desirible of fore ground scenery somewhat.
But second, the problem is NOT being able to reach the track. The problem is what are you going to bump while doing so. Human elbows have a way of going in exactly the wrong place when you are trying to rerail some rolling stork or adjust a turnout. Hence, hard foreground scenery like buildings should be avoided or at least made removable.
Have fun
1. Landenburg
2. Random
3. Fergus Falls
exPalaceDog wrote: steinjr wrote: Yes, if you arms are so short that you cannot reach 16-18" in from either side of the GTA elevator reach a car that is directly in front of the elevator to couple or uncouple. Look at the prototype photos. Fuel dealer is a low structure, and so is concrete Co. First, an observation, when people pay "good" money for model trains, they like to be able to see them run. That limits the desirible of fore ground scenery somewhat.But second, the problem is NOT being able to reach the track. The problem is what are you going to bump while doing so. Human elbows have a way of going in exactly the wrong place when you are trying to rerail some rolling stork or adjust a turnout. Hence, hard foreground scenery like buildings should be avoided or at least made removable.
steinjr wrote: Yes, if you arms are so short that you cannot reach 16-18" in from either side of the GTA elevator reach a car that is directly in front of the elevator to couple or uncouple. Look at the prototype photos. Fuel dealer is a low structure, and so is concrete Co.
Well, I guess we will refer to that rule (no foreground buildings) as The Old Dog's dogma, then
Seriously - of course buildings in general should be removable, so you can work on them (or scenery or tracks or whatever you need) whenever you need to. Including, if you were going to build the Fergus module, the elevator in the foreground.
But proclaiming it as more or less The Only Right Way to not have any substantial foreground buildings is a rule that perhaps is slightly too puritanical for my admittedly fairly catholic taste.
In my opinion foreground buildings or not really depends on what effect you are trying to create and how you go about it. You can even go all out and create an "urban canyon" effect, if you like to. If you don't make the layout too high, so you can look down on the trains over the top of buildings.
Just look at this thread showing rather impressive building mockups from a layout called "Portland Terminal":
http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/1318308/ShowPost.aspx
But in the case of the Fergus module, I probably would not have gone quite that far.
If I was going to build this module, my general idea would have been to keep most of the foreground low, having the elevator shown being the only thing that really would limit the view of trains or train cars passing behind it. Using perhaps something like the Walthers Cornerstone Valley Growers Assiciation Steel Elevator, which is 4 3/8" wide x 6 1/2" deep and 11" high.
Then use laying down tank and a guard shack style building for the fuel dealer, and a smallish (maybe 6" wide and 1 story tall building) at the far right end of the concrete structures manufacturer.
That lets a train disappear behind foreground structures for something like roughly a total of 1/8th of the length of the 8 foot module, or about 1/5th or so length of the south siding.
Not too excessive hiding of trains in my opinion. Your mileage may vary.
Here is that prototype photo showing what the place looked like in real life again:
If you wanted to, you could always either just make the shelf a little bit narrower by moving in the front of the layout (or keep the current depth and just make the background buildings deeper), in effect leaving those foreground industries as imaginary industries "in the aisle".
Or you can put in an embankment along the south siding, digging deeper into the foam on the left end of the fuel dealer to about the middle of the concrete plant area. Would create a slope in the terrain and road in the foreground - say from level -2" at the leftmost end of fuel dealer to level 0 four feet further right - ie a road with an incline of 2/48 = 4%.
Or some such thing. Easy enough for you to do, if it is important to you. Without affecting the track plan at all.
Anyways, as SpaceMouse indicated - if you want your vote registered, please vote in the format asked for - ie list the three layouts (not designers) you like the best. You must decide for yourself what criteria you want to emphasize in selecting layouts.
And as you wrote: "have fun"
Smile, Stein
steinjr wrote: Well, I guess we will refer to that rule (no foreground buildings) as The Old Dog's dogma, then But proclaiming it as more or less The Only Right Way to not have any substantial foreground buildings is a rule that perhaps is slightly too puritanical for my admittedly fairly catholic taste. In my opinion foreground buildings or not really depends on what effect you are trying to create and how you go about it. You can even go all out and create an "urban canyon" effect, if you like to. If you don't make the layout too high, so you can look down on the trains over the top of buildings.
The Old Dog is NOT saying don't do it. But the Old Hound is saying to think about the implications and potential problems, then take steps to migate them.
steinjr wrote: That lets a train disappear behind foreground structures for something like roughly a total of 1/8th of the length of the 8 foot module, or about 1/5th or so length of the south siding. Not too excessive hiding of trains in my opinion. Your mileage may vary.
The Old Mutt also thinks that may be an interesting effect, but it would suggest doing at the ends of the module to "frame" the scene. Also note that the having the view block in the middle of a SWITCHING module may make it hard to see the positions of turnouts and so on. Having the view block in a module intended to allow the trains to roll through some interesting scenery might be great.
steinjr wrote: If you wanted to, you could always either just make the shelf a little bit narrower by moving in the front of the layout (or keep the current depth and just make the background buildings deeper), in effect leaving those foreground industries as imaginary industries "in the aisle".
Good suggestion! But remember that cars parked on the front sidings or spurs will also function as view blocks the same as buildings would.
The Old Dog would point out that track planning for the prototype and model railroads have different requirements in some areas. Clearly, builds and sidings or spurs on both sides if the main through track are no problem for read railroads, but can be for model railroads.
First of all, I should say that within the parameters of the contest there were some really excellent plan. The general theme of this contest seems to be toward LDE's but that was not specified in the rules. If the contest was the best interpretation of a prototype, then this contest might have some very different results.
So anyway, I ended up making my choice based upon how I like to run.
I will say that I disqualified several layouts because the could not be switched because of turnouts too close to the edge to be worked. With my fist pick, I hemmed and hawed a bit, but I decided that the rules say it must be able to be worked within the 2 x 8, not that all turnouts had to be used.
1. Fergus Falls--I like the dedicated switcher, and on a basement sized layout operational layout, this seems like fun place to be stationed.
2. Port Barber Terminal--Again I like the dedicated switcher, and I think that there is more to do on this layout than any of the others. If this layout were on a club layout or operational layout and it used a fast clock, then a person could spend an entire op cycle running the dedicated switcher. I also like the setting, although it stretched the rules a bit, giving only a cursory nod to the agriculture. Fergus Falls beats this design simply because it followed a prototype where Port Barber is fictitious.
3. Komatsu Line--The complexity of operations interests me and frankly, this layout would have scored higher except that I could never really figure out a couple things. The mainline seems to terminate in "road 1" and the exchange track seems to come off the loop. All in all, I got lost in the description of the ops--but what was in the description was intriguing, just not enough to take on faith that it was the best.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
SpaceMouse wrote: 2. Port Barber Terminal--Again I like the dedicated switcher, and I think that there is more to do on this layout than any of the others. If this layout were on a club layout or operational layout and it used a fast clock, then a person could spend an entire op cycle running the dedicated switcher. I also like the setting, although it stretched the rules a bit, giving only a cursory nod to the agriculture. Fergus Falls beats this design simply because it followed a prototype where Port Barber is fictitious.
1) Would a "small" agriculture town justify a dedicated switcher?
2) Would a "small" agriculture town have two double slip switches? That is some pretty expensive track work for a rural locations.
3) Could an operator send a "entire op cycle" without "wacking" one the foreground building?
4) Could one really call this an agriculture layout? It seems to be more of a aquaculture layout.
SpaceMouse wrote:3. Komatsu Line--The complexity of operations interests me and frankly, this layout would have scored higher except that I could never really figure out a couple things. The mainline seems to terminate in "road 1" and the exchange track seems to come off the loop. All in all, I got lost in the description of the ops--but what was in the description was intriguing, just not enough to take on faith that it was the best.
1) Is a tractor factory appropriate for a "small" rural town?
2) This appears to be more of a stub passenger terminal for an interurban line then a rural station.
exPalaceDog wrote: steinjr wrote: That lets a train disappear behind foreground structures for something like roughly a total of 1/8th of the length of the 8 foot module, or about 1/5th or so length of the south siding. Not too excessive hiding of trains in my opinion. Your mileage may vary. The Old Mutt also thinks that may be an interesting effect, but it would suggest doing at the ends of the module to "frame" the scene. Also note that the having the view block in the middle of a SWITCHING module may make it hard to see the positions of turnouts and so on.
The Old Mutt also thinks that may be an interesting effect, but it would suggest doing at the ends of the module to "frame" the scene. Also note that the having the view block in the middle of a SWITCHING module may make it hard to see the positions of turnouts and so on.
It might, or might not.
Incidentally, I quite agree with you about the general desirability of placing front buildings on the sides on a small shelf switching layout to avoid blocking view and access to the center.
But I guess we will just have to agree on disagreeing about whether a four-five inch wide foreground building on an 8 foot long layout would make it too hard to see turnouts.
Grin, Stein
I don't feel like I have to justify my opinions, because they are just that, opinions. But I will.
exPalaceDog wrote: 1) Would a "small" agriculture town justify a dedicated switcher?
Probably not, but we can make some allowances for selective compression.
Why would he constantly be putting his hands on the layout. It might just have a really cool magnetic system.
Which is why is only got second. The truck crops, maple syrup and honey constitute agriculture, but the seafood industry clearly predominates. Other layout have more than agriculture, in this one agriculture takes a back seat.
It is in the prototype.
2) This appears to be more of a stub passenger terminal for an interurban line then a rural station.Have fun
Without better labeling, I can't be sure one way or the other.
SpaceMouse wrote: I don't feel like I have to justify my opinions, because they are just that, opinions. But I will.
Chip, you don't need to justify your opinions! But the Old Dog is free to attempt to modify them.
The Old Mutt must admit that it was surprised by your second place choice.
1. Fergus Falls, entry 3. I realy liked this one and plan to use it with minor mods.
2.Town of Unknown, entry 9. Nicely done, it would make a great end of line for a short line or logging rr.
3. Port Barber Treminal, entry 6. I love double slip's and turn tables. Looks very workable also.
They were all good and hard to judge. Every one did an excelent job and gave me a ton of ideas.
Thank you all
selector wrote:I just want it known that for once a few others seem to share a good part of my placement decisions. Most unusual...I must be "adapting". I...am...being...assimilated...
...assimilated....by the dark side...
Mark
Ok here goes:
1. Thawville - Seems to be the only one the emphasized the small "town". Simple like I would expect a small town to be.
2. Landenburg - Would have liked something more agricultural than a mushroom farm, but also simple.
3. Fergus - I vote this knowing from my own 2x12 switching layout that the track is really too dense. I have got to respect the research that went into it and it is a fairly "small" town but to me it is approaching a "medium" town. Regardless, of these things, it is obviously the most interesting "switching" of the bunch. If it hadn't worked with a GP unit for the loco I would not have voted for it. A 44 toner is out of character as the GN only had 2 and the NP 1.
#1- Arkansas Valley- The plan has good ops without trying to cram too much into the space.
#2- Thawville- Not too much on the layout and the track arrangement with industries on a double ended sising could be interesting to switch.
#3- Landenberg- I know, it's my plan but I like the track arrangement with an interchange across the end. The town of Random is basically the same plan mirrored with an extra spur but I would have preferredd having specific industries instead of generic ones.
I thought that though several of the plans looked like good trackplans, they used too much track making the plan seem to large for a small town.
Since Mark Newton is temporarily unavailable, I'll stick my oar in the cauldron.
exPalaceDog wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: 3. Komatsu Line--The complexity of operations interests me and frankly, this layout would have scored higher except that I could never really figure out a couple things. The mainline seems to terminate in "road 1" and the exchange track seems to come off the loop. All in all, I got lost in the description of the ops--but what was in the description was intriguing, just not enough to take on faith that it was the best. 1) Is a tractor factory appropriate for a "small" rural town?2) This appears to be more of a stub passenger terminal for an interurban line then a rural station.
SpaceMouse wrote: 3. Komatsu Line--The complexity of operations interests me and frankly, this layout would have scored higher except that I could never really figure out a couple things. The mainline seems to terminate in "road 1" and the exchange track seems to come off the loop. All in all, I got lost in the description of the ops--but what was in the description was intriguing, just not enough to take on faith that it was the best.
This is a stub terminal for a rural interurban line that also handles freight, located in an agricultural town that also has a tractor factory (note the reference to covered hoppers for rice. In my slightly earlier era, the rice would have been shipped, sacked, in 15 or 17 ton capacity 4-wheel box cars.) The "Dock road" loads and unloads freight, for on-line destinations as well as the JNR.
One source of confusion is the idea that a Japanese tractor factory would be something the size of an American industrial facility. Many Japanese factories are about the size of my Toyota dealership's repair garage. I doubt that this one would be huge. (It probably turned out products similar in size to large self-propelled roto-tillers.)
"1 road," a passenger platform track with three car capacity, is the end of the Komatsu-sen main line. "2 road" is an alternate passenger platform track. (Typically, these would be high platforms at car-floor level.) It can also be used, with the interchange track, to do the rather small amount of classification required without blocking the entire station.
As Mark noted in his description, he modeled the actual track arrangement of the prototype he was following. I don't doubt that it was something of a pain for the people who had to switch it. OTOH, there would be no need to run around anything except an inbound freight - all local switching would be done with the loco on the right-hand end of the freight cars.
Stand-alone, switching the local tracks would be interesting, while the passenger operations would have to be truncated. If cassettes could be used at the interchange track and the mainline connection (right end,) the entire operation could be very accurately simulated.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
1. Town of Unknown
2. Komatsu Line
Voting has now ended. Like for the last two contests, I have been keeping a running tally of votes as they come in, and SpaceMouse has asked me to post the results.
The top three vote getters were:
Runners-up with more than 15 points each were:
As I have counted them, there has been 42 valid votes. Votes from the following people have been counted:
One vote was accepted under doubt (New Haven I-5) as it only listed his favorite, not his top three. Removing the vote from New Haven I-5 would not have changed the order of the layouts.
Only voter whose vote has not been counted is exPalaceDog, who, despite repeated requests to indicate which three layouts he thought best, chose not to submit his vote in a format where it was clear which three (or fewer) layouts he thought best.
Thank you to all participants and voters, and thank you to SpaceMouse for arranging this contest. I for one has learned quite a bit from this contest and from the discussion of the various submissions.
SpaceMouse wrote:Thanks Stein
The Old Dog would argue the the Old Space Rodent should also get some thanks for putting the contest together.
Sawyer Berry
Clemson University c/o 2018
Building a protolanced industrial park layout