Hello-
I will soon be ready to start doing my layout's backdrop and am looking for pros and cons-- (I will also be digging through the old posts so you don't need to repeat anything that's already been well-discussed.)
Masonite / Drywall
I feel like I'm reasonably well-informed regarding masonite (or similar) and drywall methods of doing a backdrop.
Aluminum / Nylon "Flashing"
I've read a little about using styrene sheets and aluminum and nylon "flashing" but what I *don't* know about those is where to buy in quantity and typical costs. Any pointers on that info?
Other "Roll" or "Sheet" Product
Is there anything else out there? Pool liners? Shelf liners? Something else?? What is cost? Effectiveness? Ability to stand by itself (reasonably)? Thickness? Stiffness? Paintability? Etc.
Plastics In-General
I am also looking for information about "plastics" in general:
-- How do you typically specify its thickness (I'm assuming "Mils" or millimeters "mm") ?
-- How do you normally specify its "stiffness" ? And what do various amounts of "stiffness" compare to in terms of commonly encountered items? (I.e., hefty bag, etc-- trying to get a sense of how well it will stand / hang / drape / etc)
-- What types of plastics are better for painting?
-- What types of plastics come in sheets, and which types in rolls?
-- What, typically, is the cheapest / most useful plastic(s) for model railroad backdrop use?
-- What about weight?
Thanks for your answers!
John
I can't take credit for this idea, it comes from Joe Fugate.
Joe uses rolled vinyl flooring, (linoleum) for backdrops. He uses the smooth back side as the finished side.
It takes paint well, it's strong, yet flexible and cuts nicely. Joints can easily be feathered out with drywall compound.
Joe looks for end of the roll remnants on sale or if you are lucky and know an installer you can get all kinds of usable scraps for free!
Joe describes how he does it on his scenery DVD's available from Model-Trains-Video.com If you just want to see the backdrop segment you can download it for less than $3
What can I say? Drywall (sheetrock) goes up with nails or drywall screws. You tape and mud the joints and it looks seamless. It won't cove (bend) around corners. It crumbles if you try to bend it.
Masonite will bend and has a nice smooth surface. The dark color will bleed thru all but the most opaque primers. It want's a coat of light gray primer followed by a coat of sky blue. Goes up with nails or screws. Every lumberyard carries it.
Styrene. Nice paintable surface. Comes in sheets. I can get it from an glass store (auto glass, plate glass, storm doors and windows). Far as I know, styrene is styrene, stiffness is controlled by the thickness of the sheet. Thickness is sized in mils, thousands of an inch. Will bend nicely for coved corners. Never heard of flashing. Was it me, I'd put the stuff up with adhesive, probably latex caulking compound. Styrene is the only readily available plastic that will bend around corners. Plexiglas and acrylic are too stiff to bend. I wouldn't mess with anything that came on rolls for fear it would wrinkle and never lie flat.
David Starr www.newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com
I used styrene for my backdrop and I am very happy with it. First I screwed thin wooden strips (paint stirring sticks) to the wall and then I glued the styrene to the wood with silicone glue. I bent it around some corners that have about a 4 inch radius. To help it bend while I was attaching it, I warmed it with a hair dryer. When it cooled it kept its shape nicely. Before painting I washed it to remove any oil on it.
I obtained it from a company that sold plastic to sign makers.
jwhittenI've read a little about using styrene sheets and aluminum and nylon "flashing" but what I *don't* know about those is where to buy in quantity and typical costs. Any pointers on that info?
I suggest that you get yourself a copy of the January 2010 issue of Railroad Model Craftsman. There is a very interesting article on the use of aluminum flashing for backdrops. Apparently you can get this stuff up to 2 feet wide and up to 100 feet long. The article describes how to hang the flashing, plus some other interesting tidbits.
Regards
I use 1/8" Masonite for back drops attached off the wall with 1x2 firing strips to give it sort of a 3D effect when needed. I have painted the entire room walls that is my sky blue color and coved the inside corners using 1/8" Masonite and hid the seams with dry wall compound. One section has a small crack in the compound totally my fault but not even noticeable behind a structure.
I'm working on the backdrop for one section of our layout right now using styrene plastic. A length of it divides the scene, so we went with .125 thickness so it would be thick enough to stay upright on its own at a height of 16". Was able to bend to gentle curves into it by rolling those portions across the wooden arm of the futon sofa. An inner corner of the scene divide has a fairly sharp corner, so went with .040 thickness for that so it would bend easily and smoothly, and just glued the .040 sheet onto the .125 along both sides extending out from that inner corner.
My backdrop is 77' long. I used 1/8" Masonite cut into 2' by 8' strips. It is attached to 2"x2" firing and bends to a 24" radius curve at the corners of the room. Drywall mud/sanding makes it seamless, and cheap latex paint was used for the basic color. I airbrushed the clouds using a template I picked up at the LHS. I have had one small crack in the seams, and you have to look very close to see it(this has been up since 1988).
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
1/8" Masonite is cheap and it works well. Pursuing other materials often can cost a lot, in time and money, when considering the cost of driving around checking things out. Thinking outside the box is something I do often, but doing so often ( but not always ) has me returning to the old tried and true methods. Masonite went up quickly and is self supporting. Joints were filled with drywall compound and are completely invisible. I have tried all sorts of plastics and metals on many weird projects through the years. Some hold paint well and others are a pain and require an awful lot of preparation to paint. Also I think much more time and money would be spent building supports to hold up the other materials instead of just getting er done with masonite.I have photos on the forum if you haven't already had a look. Good luck.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
JSperanI can't take credit for this idea, it comes from Joe Fugate.Joe uses rolled vinyl flooring, (linoleum) for backdrops. He uses the smooth back side as the finished side. It takes paint well, it's strong, yet flexible and cuts nicely. Joints can easily be feathered out with drywall compound. Joe looks for end of the roll remnants on sale or if you are lucky and know an installer you can get all kinds of usable scraps for free!Joe describes how he does it on his scenery DVD's available from Model-Trains-Video.com If you just want to see the backdrop segment you can download it for less than $3
Yes, I've heard of using vinyl flooring but had forgotten about it-- thanks for the reminder. That's a good suggestion.
dstarr What can I say? Drywall (sheetrock) goes up with nails or drywall screws. You tape and mud the joints and it looks seamless. It won't cove (bend) around corners. It crumbles if you try to bend it. Masonite will bend and has a nice smooth surface. The dark color will bleed thru all but the most opaque primers. It want's a coat of light gray primer followed by a coat of sky blue. Goes up with nails or screws. Every lumberyard carries it. Styrene. Nice paintable surface. Comes in sheets. I can get it from an glass store (auto glass, plate glass, storm doors and windows). Far as I know, styrene is styrene, stiffness is controlled by the thickness of the sheet. Thickness is sized in mils, thousands of an inch. Will bend nicely for coved corners. Never heard of flashing. Was it me, I'd put the stuff up with adhesive, probably latex caulking compound. Styrene is the only readily available plastic that will bend around corners. Plexiglas and acrylic are too stiff to bend. I wouldn't mess with anything that came on rolls for fear it would wrinkle and never lie flat.
Flashing is used in the housing construction industry for waterproofing (controlled run-off) chimneys, skylights, etc. Usually in conjunction with tar or some similar substance.
Thanks for the plastic sheet info-- one thing you didn't mention-- do you know how much plastic sheets of styrene cost (ballpark estimate is fine)? And are we talking big sheets, e.g. 4'x8' or what?
Omaha53I used styrene for my backdrop and I am very happy with it. First I screwed thin wooden strips (paint stirring sticks) to the wall and then I glued the styrene to the wood with silicone glue. I bent it around some corners that have about a 4 inch radius. To help it bend while I was attaching it, I warmed it with a hair dryer. When it cooled it kept its shape nicely. Before painting I washed it to remove any oil on it. I obtained it from a company that sold plastic to sign makers.
Washed it how? Soap and water?
What kind of paint did you use? Oil? Acrylics?
Any idea how thick (Mils or whatever) the sheet was?
Where did you get it? What size was it?
Approx cost?
Thanks for the reply!
maxmanjwhittenI've read a little about using styrene sheets and aluminum and nylon "flashing" but what I *don't* know about those is where to buy in quantity and typical costs. Any pointers on that info? I suggest that you get yourself a copy of the January 2010 issue of Railroad Model Craftsman. There is a very interesting article on the use of aluminum flashing for backdrops. Apparently you can get this stuff up to 2 feet wide and up to 100 feet long. The article describes how to hang the flashing, plus some other interesting tidbits. Regards
Wow! Good timing, seeing as I literally have just got it in hand. Bought it this afternoon. Must be an omen (cue spooky music ) I have read about people using flashing, both kinds aluminum and vinyl, for backdrops.
Thanks for the tip, now I know what I'll be reading tonight! :)
Allegheny2-6-6-6 I use 1/8" Masonite for back drops attached off the wall with 1x2 firing strips to give it sort of a 3D effect when needed. I have painted the entire room walls that is my sky blue color and coved the inside corners using 1/8" Masonite and hid the seams with dry wall compound. One section has a small crack in the compound totally my fault but not even noticeable behind a structure.
When I was at this point a year ago I did masonite. It went okay but it sucked trying to hang it by myself. And as you pointed out there's additional work to work the seams and whatnot. Though nearly any scheme will have that issue. I never got to the point of painting it though. Probably should have before I took it down. (I got my layout to the point of laying track and then decided I'd rather have a double-decked layout instead).
BATMAN 1/8" Masonite is cheap and it works well. Pursuing other materials often can cost a lot, in time and money, when considering the cost of driving around checking things out. Thinking outside the box is something I do often, but doing so often ( but not always ) has me returning to the old tried and true methods. Masonite went up quickly and is self supporting. Joints were filled with drywall compound and are completely invisible. I have tried all sorts of plastics and metals on many weird projects through the years. Some hold paint well and others are a pain and require an awful lot of preparation to paint. Also I think much more time and money would be spent building supports to hold up the other materials instead of just getting er done with masonite.I have photos on the forum if you haven't already had a look. Good luck. Brent
I promised my wife I wouldn't cover the windows with anything opaque. I figure in the end it won't matter, she isn't going to use any of the window space and the beefed-up basement lighting will more than compensate for the lack of sunlight. But I have to at least go through the process of finding out I figure.
BATMANI have photos on the forum if you haven't already had a look. Good luck. Brent
I have photos on the forum if you haven't already had a look. Good luck.
Maybe I've already seen them, perhaps last year? But if you have a handy link I'll be happy to look again. (Or else I'll spot them when I do a more comprehensive site search).
john
I have two 3' x 150' rolls of aluminum flashing. It ain't cheap. As a backdrop you would have to glue it to masonite or something similar using contact cement. It would dent and crease easily and in the end not look good. Painting flashing??? Don't get me started. I don't know about vinyl flashing. I am curious to hear about that.
Here I cut out 31/2" to go over the 1"x 4" bench. It is attached with 10/32 machine screws and tee nuts.
Here you can see the joints. The secret to doing it well. Close your eyes and feel the dried mud with your fingers. If you can feel an imperfection with your fingers you will see it when painted. Sand until you feel no rough spots at all. Use primer as soon as the mud is perfectly smooth. Primer gives the patch its strength and will prevent cracks.
A nice smooth curve.
I am using styrene. I buy a 4x8 sheet for about $20, cut it in to three 16" high lengths. Mounted on 1x2s bolted to walls of bedroom used for layout.
I have done Masonite(r) with rounded corners and its great but I couldn't fit it this time. So corners are square. Also, I could not permanently cover the windows. But I have sky pieces that hook on nails and remove.
Here is a window covering in place. I covered it with computer printout of digtital pix of PVC plumbing pipe I will use for export grain elevator. Building comes right to edge of background section so at least the break in background does not show there, though it does on the sky...
Uncompleted mockup of exporr grain elevator in front of corner.
Freestanding bay background on rollaway removable causeway section. Held up by sticks screwed to back of causeway layout section and glued to styrene BG with Loctite(r) building adhesive. There is a 45 degree bend in the background at the left end behind the 2-story house (a standin for old time seaside enjoy-the-seabreeze hotel with wraparound porches and balconies...)
Don't know the price of styrene from a glass shop or a plastics distributor. I think it can be had in 4*8 sheets and perhaps smaller. You might be able to get the shop to cut 4*8 sheets down to 2*8.
I bought something like 12 square feet of plexiglas to make doors for a train display cabinet some years ago. It was unpleasantly expensive, maybe $30.
If the layout is free-standing, I'd go with either styrene or Masonite. Styrene is usually measured in thousandths of an inch - I buy .060" styrene in 4'x8' sheets for around $25.00, but use it mostly for building structures. This thickness can be rolled-up and taped for transporting it, so you don't need a truck to get it home, but you'd probably need something thicker for it to be self-supporting. You'll probably still need to construct a supporting framework. Use a straightedge and utility knife to score it, then snap it apart along the score line.
Masonite (you don't need the "tempered" version - it's surface is harder than the regular type, but it's no more flexible) will probably require a framework, too, especially if you use the 1/8" thickness. The 1/4" stuff may be self-supporting but it is rather heavy.
If your layout is an around-the-walls type, drywall in combination with 1/8" Masonite is a good choice, although to do a proper job of it, it should be considered as part of the room preparation.
I drywalled my layout room by installing the sheets vertically in order to make full use of the tapered edges for finishing, using 1/2" board for the majority of the room, but substituting 3/8" at all corners, both inside and outside. The 3/8" board should extend for at least one full stud spacing on either side of the corner. Tape and finish all joints as you normally would, except those between the two different thicknesses of board.
While the room was "boarded" as-described, the coved corners extend only from the top of the layout benchwork to the bottom of the suspended ceiling. To form the corners, place a tape measure in a rough arc from the edge of the 1/2" board on one side of the corner to the edge of that on the other side - the arc described should be roughly similar to what you wish the finished cove to be. Working from the back (rough side), cut a sheet of 1/8" Masonite to the required height and the length thus obtained. Lightly sand any fuzz from the cut edges, then place the back face of one vertical edge of the piece against the 3/8" drywall, butting its edge against the adjacent 1/2" piece, then press, top and bottom, on the Masonite. It will bend with the pressure, forming an ever tighter curve, until the free end "pops" into place on the adjacent wall. While this curved piece will hold itself in position, I drill and countersink for drywall screws along both sides, spaced fairly closely, in order to prevent movement or bulging due to humidity changes within the room. Mud and tape the joint as you would any other. Outside corners are handled in a similar manner, although I've found that a wider area of 3/8" drywall is preferable. This lets you begin the cove as a regular concave one, then allowing it transition into a convex curve, then back into a concave one as it reaches around the corner and meets the edge of the other 1/2" sheet.
My layout is intended to be partially double-decked, but the gap for the benchwork allows a view of how the corner was put together:
And an idea of how well the corner of the room "disappears" once it's been coved:
Here's an outside corner (as you can see on the layout facia, also 1/8" Masonite, it can be formed down to perhaps an 8" radius if necessary):
And another outside corner, showing (sorta) the transition from concave to convex curve:
Wayne
leighantI am using styrene. I buy a 4x8 sheet for about $20, cut it in to three 16" high lengths.
How heavy are the styrene sheets? Can you manage them by yourself easily?
You've got a nice layout going there. Keep up the good work!
Also I liked your suggestion about removable window covers. I'll have to keep that in-mind.
doctorwayneAnd an idea of how well the corner of the room "disappears" once it's been coved: Here's an outside corner (as you can see on the layout facia, also 1/8" Masonite, it can be formed down to perhaps an 8" radius if necessary):And another outside corner, showing (sorta) the transition from concave to convex curve: Wayne
Doc Wayne-- you know I love looking at your layout. Thanks for all the pictures!!!
I understand all the information you gave me about the drywall and coving the masonite, etc. Thanks for the details about the styrene sheets, that's what I was looking to know.
BTW, do you know if there's any type of "stiffness" unit that's used to specify a particular degree of stiffness in a plastic sheet? I was thinking about it the other day and realized you can specify the thickness in mils or millimeters or whatever, but that doesn't really speak to how stiff the plastic will be-- i.e. whether it can stand up under its own weight-- stiffness or its opposite, suppleness, is a different property, although it might be related to thickness. I guess I need to find a crash-course introductory course into the properties and specifications of plastics...
Regarding the photos I've selected, the first one is just awesome. Excellent job sir. I aspire to your level of ability. And the difference between the corner-coving and without is amazing. Like a big hole opened up in the sky... which I suppose it did.
The second photo I wanted to ask you a specific question about your layout in this picture-- from the front (other side) of your coal chute to the back side (facing the camera) of your engine facility-- about how long is that? Looking at it I'd estimate about 4 feet or thereabouts, is that about right?
The third photo is really interesting. I've seen that scene from the other direction. I understand you're undulating the track to increase its length while you gain altitude. What approx grade is that? Is it constant? The last curve on that grade, in the distance, is that a helix or couple of loops or something? If so, how does that "fit in" to the rest of your layout? Can you get between all your decks with it? Does it connect to staging below your bottom deck (do you have staging below your bottom deck?) What is the approx size (diameter or circumference either one) of that helix-looking thing? Do you plan to disguise it somehow? If so, what are your thoughts about that?
The reason I'm being so nosey is I have almost the exact situation and am in the throes of trying to decide whether to climb visibly, invisibly behind the scenes using a helix, or a combination of both. You seem to have a very similar problem you're working to solve. In my case I have two decks plus will build a third deck for hidden staging below the bottom deck. I have about 9'x9' total (in the area available for looping) that I can use for either visible and/or invisible stuff. Visible, which I would like to be 24 inches deep, is "prime real estate" that I'd rather not give up if at all possible. But in that case, hidden can only be slightly larger than about 48 inch diameter, though more ovoid than circular. However, I do also have about 12-14 additional linear feet along the long portion of the peninsula (in addition to the 9'x9') that I can use to climb too if I want, along the outside of my peninsula, which can only be about 10 inches in depth, but between the elements of the loop and the linear footage, I'm nearly positive there's a good trade-off in there some place.
If I do the whole climb with the hidden helix, I introduce a pretty steep grade but gain two whole decks (outside upper and lower each 10 inches; inside lower 24 inches, upper about 20 inches) on the peninsula, which would be free to scenic anyway I want. I lose the "visual" appeal of the climb however, and take some of the fun out of needing to add helpers and such-- lose some of the visual flavor of the mtn railroading aspect. Alternately I could do the whole thing in a big loop, maybe two (one hidden) starting on the visible portion and continuing around and modeling a visible climb, somewhat like yours. But I lose the bottom 10 inch deck (not a huge loss) and the visible area is semi-devoted to making the climb, meaning whatever I put there will have to support that concept operationally and aesthetically.
How much elevation do you have to gain between the bottom and top decks? For me its around 16-18 inches. There's some fudge room available depending on where/how I do the climb. I've been looking for examples of your type of climb in the various trackplans in the MR database but not finding a lot that's really the same setup.
jwhittenBTW, do you know if there's any type of "stiffness" unit that's used to specify a particular degree of stiffness in a plastic sheet? I was thinking about it the other day and realized you can specify the thickness in mils or millimeters or whatever, but that doesn't really speak to how stiff the plastic will be-- i.e. whether it can stand up under its own weight-- stiffness or its opposite, suppleness, is a different property, although it might be related to thickness. I guess I need to find a crash-course introductory course into the properties and specifications of plastics...
All sheet styrene has the same stiffness, and it's just in direct proportion to its thickness. For any freestanding sections, the higher you go, the more thickness you'll need. To bend around tighter corners, you'll want less thickness. There's no spec sheets on these properties, but it's pretty simple to figure out as you go along.
<>I got my basic starting info from the Step By Step column in the March 2006 issue of MR. That column recommended .080 mil as a minimum thickness that would stand up pretty well on it's one without flopping much at a height of 16" (the magic number where you get 3 strips out of your 4' x 8' sheet), and glue it double thick at freestanding sections to avoid any flop, but used just a single layer for going round corners. And in the corner, it won't flop at the top because it's supported by the curvature itself.
<>I went with .125 as my primary size. I'm not attaching it directly to a wall, and wanted it to be as free standing as possible with minimal supports. .125 does not bend easily (like rolling it up to put in your car, but fortunately the full sheet fit flat in the back of my minivan). I was able to work a couple of smooth bends into the cut piece easily enough as I mentioned before by rolling it over a wooden armrest. It is very not-floppy at 16" high, it just needs an occaisional support to hold it perpendicular. You could easily go higher with .125. It's unlikely you'd find a need to go thicker than this.
<>In my one scene divide with a sharp inside corner, I was planning on using .060 to take the bend, but they wound up giving me .040 by mistake and I didn't notice it while I was there picking it up. But fortunately the .040 works just fine for this corner. I wouldn't go less than .040 though, then the sheet starts getting flimsy and subject to denting and creasing. The .040 holds up just fine on its own in the corner, and is glued to the .125 on either side of the corner.
<>Actually, I'm glad overall that I did get the .040, cause this is a thickness I prefer for structures, and I have a lot of left over. I'll be using practically the whole sheet of the .125; if I was only going to use half that amount though, I would have just gotten .060 and doubled it up everywhere -- just cause I personally would find the leftover .060 handier than leftover .125.
<>The cost of the sheets is in pretty close proportion to the thickness. I don't have the detailed receipt for what I paid, but it was just a little over $50 for both sheets, split roughly 2/3 : 1/3 for the .125 and .060 [I was billed for, but it wasn't worth going back to haggle that one out].
<>The weight is no issue, 1 person can handle these sheets easily.<>
Thank you for the kind words, John.
I think that Cat has pretty-well covered the plastics question, so I'll move on to the photos.
In the photo of the shop complex, it's about 5' from the opposite side of the coaling tower to the extreme end of the shop building's annex, with about another foot under the crane to the edge of the layout.
The third photo, which you cited, shows the top of the grade to the second level. The extra curves near the top were put there mainly to maintain aisle width between this section of the layout, which is on a peninsula, and the area to the left of the post near the urban part of the layout.
The other reason was to make the area around the bridge scene more visually appealing, as the curves are about 48" radii. The grade averages around 2.8%, although there's a section near the bottom which inadvertently came out at around 3.0% - not planned, but it quickly sorts out which trains will make it up the entire grade and which won't.
In truth, all of my locos have "tonnage ratings" for the various grades throughout the layout, established with tests using a control group of rolling stock. Since most of the locos run well with any of the others (I use DC control), it's easy to know when a loco has reached its rating and when an additional one needs to be added to the consist. In addition, most trains are fairly short, with 12 cars and two locos being pretty-well the limit for passing siding lengths. Many trains are shorter, and, since I usually operate alone and run trains sequentially (one-at-a-time, with each finishing its run or at least finishing it to a point where it interchanges with another train, which can then, in-turn, be operated), an operating "day" can last many operating sessions. Trains are often doubleheaded (almost the entire layout, except for the towns, is on grades) and I'll add a pusher (or pushers) when required. I do plan on running trains longer than 12 cars - many are 15 or 16, but I've run ones of over 70 cars, including up that long, dead-end grade (and back down).
The grade is about 45' in length, rising from about 44" above the floor to 59" above the floor at the top, or roughly 20" above the lower level at this point. Total height gain on this line is 15", as the line on the lower level descends from about the same point where this one begins to climb. The lower level does drop even further along the line, ending up at a height of 36", while the upper level will remain at a constant 59" height.
Here's a rough sketch of the room, with the grade to the upper level starting at South Cayuga, making its way around the peninsula, and ending where the grey area begins near Elfrida. The grey area represents the part of the layout that will be double-decked, with all areas of the higher level being as wide as the layout below, with fluorescent light fixtures installed underneath. I'm toying with the idea of making the layout above Port Maitland even wider than the lower lever, as I need an engine terminal there.
The line splits at a South Cayuga, as seen below right, with the track to the upper level beginning its climb, while the other line descends, ending up on the lower level at Elfrida:
Just beyond the area in the photo above, there's already plenty of separation between the two tracks. This makes the grades appear even steeper than they are, a situation I hope to disguise with lots of trees.
Just beyond the last photo, above, the upper track crosses the lower and continues the climb, now on the peninsula. The lower track, still dropping at about 2.5%, enters a tunnel, emerging in Elfrida as seen in the third picture which you cited.
I chose to make the entire grade visible, as I thought that a helix would waste too much running time with the trains out of sight. With a minimum radius of 34" on that long climb, a comparable helix would've consumed an area about 6'x6', and with no place to put it that wouldn't disrupt the flow of the track to the lower level, the only solution was to leave it exposed.
My layout room, at about 560sq.ft. (and an odd shape to boot) is about 2/3 the size originally intended and I was loath to give-up the operating scheme which I had originally envisioned. It would have been a single level layout, but with about the same vertical difference between the beginning and the end, about 23". However, grades would have been much more reasonable, under 2% at worst, with more space between towns.
I threw out the original plan (actually just a free-hand sketch on a piece of paper), set a couple of "standards" - minimum radius 30" (in only one place, as it turned out) and minimum #6 turnouts (I ended-up with a couple of #5s, one on the wye at Dunnville, and a couple more at the engine shop in Lowbanks, but none on the main line), then started building. I cut a couple of sheets of 3/4" plywood into curves, starting at 32" radius and working up to 48" for the first sheet and the second mostly at 34" and a few more at 32". I then layed them in place atop the benchwork wherever a curve was needed, and worked my way around the room, making adjustments and adding straight sections where required. I cut more curves as I needed them, using the earlier ones to decide which radius worked best. By splitting the line at South Cayuga, I ended-up with a point-to-point-to-point "Y"-shaped railroad, with the two arms of the "Y" stacked one atop the other. The peninsula used space that would've been otherwise wasted, and was useful for gaining altitude. It's also one of the few areas of open countryside on what was supposed to be a secondary rural line.
To get back to the upper level/lower level issue, there will be at least 20" between the top of the lower level and the top of the upper level, but, of course, the thickness of the upper benchwork (about 2") and the fluorescent light fixtures (another 3" or so) will leave about 14" of clear viewing space between the top of the lower level facia and the bottom of the upper level facia. The lower level is intended to be operated from rolling office chairs, and the single-level of the layout can be operated either thus-seated or standing. The upper level operators, of course, must stand.
I was going to wrap-up by apologising for side-tracking this thread, but since it was yours to begin with, I'm open to answer any more questions which you might have.
CatjwhittenBTW, do you know if there's any type of "stiffness" unit that's used to specify a particular degree of stiffness in a plastic sheet? All sheet styrene has the same stiffness, and it's just in direct proportion to its thickness. For any freestanding sections, the higher you go, the more thickness you'll need. To bend around tighter corners, you'll want less thickness. There's no spec sheets on these properties, but it's pretty simple to figure out as you go along.
jwhittenBTW, do you know if there's any type of "stiffness" unit that's used to specify a particular degree of stiffness in a plastic sheet?
I reckon that's all I really need to know about it I suppose. Though I'm sure there must be some more formal method of designation at some point in order for the plastics mfgr to know what they need to concoct for the customer. Thanks for that info.
Cat <>I got my basic starting info from the Step By Step column in the March 2006 issue of MR. That column recommended .080 mil as a minimum thickness that would stand up pretty well on it's one without flopping much at a height of 16" (the magic number where you get 3 strips out of your 4' x 8' sheet), and glue it double thick at freestanding sections to avoid any flop, but used just a single layer for going round corners. And in the corner, it won't flop at the top because it's supported by the curvature itself.
More good info. I probably have that issue too, I'll go see if I can dig it up. Thanks for the pointer.
Cat <>I went with .125 as my primary size. I'm not attaching it directly to a wall, and wanted it to be as free standing as possible with minimal supports. [...] I was planning on using .060 to take the bend, but they wound up giving me .040 by mistake [...] The .040 holds up just fine on its own in the corner, and is glued to the .125 on either side of the corner. [...] Actually, I'm glad overall that I did get the .040, cause this is a thickness I prefer for structures, and I have a lot of left over.
<>I went with .125 as my primary size. I'm not attaching it directly to a wall, and wanted it to be as free standing as possible with minimal supports. [...] I was planning on using .060 to take the bend, but they wound up giving me .040 by mistake [...] The .040 holds up just fine on its own in the corner, and is glued to the .125 on either side of the corner. [...] Actually, I'm glad overall that I did get the .040, cause this is a thickness I prefer for structures, and I have a lot of left over.
In my situation there is no part of the layout where the backdrop will be required to be free-standing, so that's not a consideration for me. In all likelihood from what you've told me, I could probably easily get away with just using .060 or even .040 sheets just fine. My backdrop height is 18 inches though, assuming I do the complete (raw) distance between the decks. However, that distance is likely to be mitigated a bit by the terrain and roadbed which could eat up perhaps at least two inches of constant or near-constant height (or more in places) meaning that 16 inches might work just fine. Or even 18 inches twice and can find a handy location for the 12 inch remnant. -- Or else, like you, toss it in my scrap pile for other types of use.
Thanks for the info!
doctorwayneIn the photo of the shop complex, it's about 5' from the opposite side of the coaling tower to the extreme end of the shop building's annex, with about another foot under the crane to the edge of the layout.
Ah yes, from this perspective its much easier to judge the depth. Plus you can assume the boxcars are roughly 6 inches each and use them as a quick measure. So it looks like from your description and the boxcars that its approx 5-1/2 to 6 feet. That's a decent amount of stuff you have packed in there.
I am curious from an operational standpoint, aside from the coaling tower and maybe the turntable, do you use the rest operationally or does it wind up being more of a "railroady" tableau? And if you do use it operationally, does it feel "forced" or natural? i.e., does it feel like an "extra" thing you do to help maintain an illusion, or does it really feel like it has a sense of purpose? -- And by that I'm not even remotely attempting to make any criticism, just wondering how it feels to you in actual operation? Are there any other things you do, for instance, to "inspect" locos or cars as they pass the facility that adds to the operational aspects?
I think I recall you mentioning somewhere else that those are "scale" cars or something similar that you just have essentially parked there. Is that right? Do you ever include them operationally or are they just decorative for the most part?
doctorwayne
That's a very nice scene. It looks great! And very believable.
doctorwayneThe third photo, which you cited, shows the top of the grade to the second level. The extra curves near the top were put there mainly to maintain aisle width between this section of the layout, which is on a peninsula, and the area to the left of the post near the urban part of the layout.
Yes, I get it now. Its much more readily apparent in this view. Plus, if I had been a little more astute, I could have discerned the same answer from your schematic which I saw the last time you showed me pictures :-) That's really tall masonite though. You must have something else happening on the other side? Otherwise that'd be a great spot to either open up another deck or else put some staging.
doctorwayne The other reason was to make the area around the bridge scene more visually appealing, as the curves are about 48" radii. The grade averages around 2.8%, although there's a section near the bottom which inadvertently came out at around 3.0% - not planned, but it quickly sorts out which trains will make it up the entire grade and which won't.
Yes, I read somewhere else about someone else that did something similar. I think he had a helix with a 2.0-ish% grade and so he put a 2.5% grade just in front of it to test trains prior entering the helix. A good idea I thought. I wouldn't have thought of that on my own. You get all sorts of good tips like that from hanging around the forums!
doctorwayne In truth, all of my locos have "tonnage ratings" for the various grades throughout the layout, established with tests using a control group of rolling stock.
In truth, all of my locos have "tonnage ratings" for the various grades throughout the layout, established with tests using a control group of rolling stock.
That's another really good idea that would behove me to replicate since I'm going to have, for practical purposes, two separate helixes on my layout plus some decent grades here and there for flavor. Not quite as much as originally planned however. Negotiations with the "RR Commission" have resulted in some of the intended grade lines being reserved for quilting operations... I haven't yet determined whether or not she'll be needing a spur for the delivery of supplies...
doctorwayneSince most of the locos run well with any of the others (I use DC control), it's easy to know when a loco has reached its rating and when an additional one needs to be added to the consist. In addition, most trains are fairly short, with 12 cars and two locos being pretty-well the limit for passing siding lengths. Many trains are shorter, and, since I usually operate alone and run trains sequentially (one-at-a-time, with each finishing its run or at least finishing it to a point where it interchanges with another train, which can then, in-turn, be operated), an operating "day" can last many operating sessions. Trains are often doubleheaded (almost the entire layout, except for the towns, is on grades) and I'll add a pusher (or pushers) when required. I do plan on running trains longer than 12 cars - many are 15 or 16, but I've run ones of over 70 cars, including up that long, dead-end grade (and back down).
Since most of the locos run well with any of the others (I use DC control), it's easy to know when a loco has reached its rating and when an additional one needs to be added to the consist. In addition, most trains are fairly short, with 12 cars and two locos being pretty-well the limit for passing siding lengths. Many trains are shorter, and, since I usually operate alone and run trains sequentially (one-at-a-time, with each finishing its run or at least finishing it to a point where it interchanges with another train, which can then, in-turn, be operated), an operating "day" can last many operating sessions. Trains are often doubleheaded (almost the entire layout, except for the towns, is on grades) and I'll add a pusher (or pushers) when required. I do plan on running trains longer than 12 cars - many are 15 or 16, but I've run ones of over 70 cars, including up that long, dead-end grade (and back down).
I think that sounds pretty close to what I have in mind on my layout. I plan to run some 30-40 car coal drags. However, they will be there essentially just to add "bulk" to the schedule and operationally will just run through the main portion of the layout non-stop except to add helpers here and there. Likewise I plan to do something similar with several scheduled freights and a passenger train which will operate essentially non-stop. The other passenger train will be a "local" which will stop at a couple of places, and will also haul mail and switch in/out mail cars (either RPO's or boxcars, one or the other). And it would also haul the RR's business car(s) if/when needed. The through freights will stop occasionally, aside from helpers, to pick up or drop off blocks of cars not going to the complete destination (shorts) to make up into local trains. And then industries throughout the region will either need stuff or produce stuff to make up the remainder of the operations.
I figure that type of schedule will be flexible enough I can easily operate alone, or else if running with friends, they can take any of the regularly scheduled trains.
I also have a couple of interchanges with "other railroads" that will introduce a bit of variety as well. Primarily I'd been planning on an exchange with the Western Maryland, but when I saw how the peninsula was shaping up, I realized I have an opportunity to re-jigger things a little and pick up another nice connection to the south that would operationally introduce traffic from the Norfolk & Western (primarily) and the C&O. Whether a visible or implied exchange, its still a nice addition for sourcing/sinking traffic.
The other main connection I'll have is the Montour RR, which operated in a belt around the east to south-east of Pittsburgh. Had the South Penn RR really existed, there's little doubt (in my mind) that there would have been a connection-- unless of course the South Penn RR would have handled that traffic directly and there never would have been a Montour. Either way, I still plan to model the essence of that route, which serviced a number of coal mines, coke plants, and other mineral interests in the region. In my setup, all of the traffic from that region is going to be funnelled back to a large marshalling yard located (geographically) around "New Baltimore" where it will be re-blocked and sent out, probably mostly to "Pittsburgh" (not modeled, just implied) or occasionally to "Harrisburg" (also not modeled, just implied).
The main area of my layout will cover some portions of the route between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, which could include any of: Carlisle, Newville, Burnt Cabins, Everett, Bedford, Somerset, New Baltimore, Laurel, Irwin, and the area around Pittsburgh for the Montour. I doubt I'm going to model each of those towns as a complete entity, but I will model at least a few. And perhaps reference some others operationally in-passing. Maybe a siding or something that represents traffic to/from one of those areas. I'm not going for complete representational accuracy, just a reasonably-believable depiction of railroading in that general geographic area with some nod toward the actual real-world locations and ordering.
One nice thing about my concept of the South Penn RR, is that very plausibly the railroad would (or could) have had significant impact on the communities and towns it passed through. So it would not be unrealistic or unreasonable to assume that any of them had grown up differently or bigger so I don't have to be absolutely faithful to the real-world industries that are lightly spotted through that region. Instead I can easily posit that several of the towns grew into larger hubs and have more fully-developed industries and commercial interests-- which is what I plan to do. I don't want to lose the concept of the mid-sized bridge route, but I do want a richer mix between town and country (rural).
doctorwayne The grade is about 45' in length, rising from about 44" above the floor to 59" above the floor at the top, or roughly 20" above the lower level at this point. Total height gain on this line is 15", as the line on the lower level descends from about the same point where this one begins to climb. The lower level does drop even further along the line, ending up at a height of 36", while the upper level will remain at a constant 59" height.
On my layout the lower deck (raw) height is 38 inches above the floor. The upper deck is 58 inches. That changes on the peninsula to 39-1/2 inches and 59-1/2 inches, respectively. Mainly due to an oversight in measurement, I forgot to add in the height of the bottom sill plate... But no matter, it works out well enough. I'm not going to bother trying to fix it. Maybe I might if it was a sin of omission, but in this case the deed is done did, the uprights already cut. Measure twice, cut once-- good idea. But it works out really well in any case since I was planning to gain height on the peninsula anyway, I just beat myself to the punch. And there will be of course a little additional height increase over the raw deck height to account for terrain variations and roadbed. So I'm thinking in my head average 40-42 inches on the lower deck, and 60-65 on the upper. The height over the door (interior entrance into the train room) will be probably 72 inches, which will likely be the max height of the layout, with the possible exception of any staging added over the top deck. I'm not planning any at this point but I might change my mind later. There will be enough room for it in any case.
doctorwayne Here's a rough sketch of the room, with the grade to the upper level starting at South Cayuga, making its way around the peninsula, and ending where the grey area begins near Elfrida. The grey area represents the part of the layout that will be double-decked, with all areas of the higher level being as wide as the layout below, with fluorescent light fixtures installed underneath. I'm toying with the idea of making the layout above Port Maitland even wider than the lower lever, as I need an engine terminal there.
What is the raw area of your layout room? (If you said it someplace I've overlooked it). Mine is roughly 35'x35' but it doesn't work out quite that way since its more of a bow-tie shape where the upper portion is more like 20', and I don't get the complete center to work with-- just the one peninsula. I haven't computed it lately, but the last time I checked I think it was in the neighborhood of 400-450 linear feet of visible run, between the two decks. The whole "bottom" and "right side" areas of the bow-tie however are only single-decked, and at the approx height of the upper deck. However, I haven't hardly begun that aspect. I do have one deck already built along the "bottom" wall, but it will probably get ripped-out. I plan on doing all of the remainder of the layout using commercial cantilevered shelf-supports with my wooden-arm modification (see one of my other posts). It's a little more expensive up-front but I think it might be cheaper in the long run, and certainly will be easy to do.
I have an image of it somewhere, I'll see if I can dredge it up and show it to you. I actually have a bunch of photos that I've been wanting to get uploaded so I could post a layout-progress update. I just keep running out of time in my days to get it done. As soon as I finish up the peninsula, the only remaining benchwork will be the "bottom" and "right side" portions I just discussed. And I am going to consider them a separate and parallel project until they meet somewhere in the middle. In other words, I'm not going to wait for it to get done before starting to terraform and lay track on the rest of the layout which is nearing completion of the raw construction (benchwork and mains wiring) phase.
doctorwayne The line splits at a South Cayuga, as seen below right, with the track to the upper level beginning its climb, while the other line descends, ending up on the lower level at Elfrida:
This is really a nice rail-fanning spot. I love the way your bridges and road interleave like that. One of my "inspirational" scenes is a little similar to that, not quite, from Allan McClelland's V&O layout.
How did you learn how to do all that terraforming? How long have you been at it? How many "oop-es" did you go through to get that?
doctorwayne I chose to make the entire grade visible, as I thought that a helix would waste too much running time with the trains out of sight. With a minimum radius of 34" on that long climb, a comparable helix would've consumed an area about 6'x6', and with no place to put it that wouldn't disrupt the flow of the track to the lower level, the only solution was to leave it exposed.
Yeah, see, that's kinda where I am in my thinking as well. And its irking me. On the one hand I'd really like to model the visible climb. On the other its right smack in the middle (and in the way) of a whole different scene I want to present. Somehow I've got to figure out how to integrate the two ideas, or else hide some or all of the climb which I really don't want to do.
There is technically one other possibility, which I haven't 100% ruled-out nor have I gone past the point where it could be the reality-- I could turn my 24/10 inch concept around (perhaps adjust the ratio slightly) and put the 10 inch portion on the inside of the peninsula and the 24 inch part on the outside. That thought has some really definite appeal, plus it brings the essence of the railroad around the "corner" of the peninsula and into the rest of the main area. I could perhaps model a large yard and railroad maintenance facility, somewhat like yours. Probably not double-ended, unless maybe to under-deck staging. And then I could do the climbing on the inside of the peninsula.
Or maybe a slight alternate concept, sort-of like the mushroom concept, and alternate 24/10 and 10/24 between top and bottom decks which would permit each side to have a "deep" scene and a "shallow" scene. That concept actually does have some more appeal to me. And I haven't completely ruled that out as a possibility. It complicates the "wall" I have to build to support everything, but not terribly. I'm going to tie it into the ceiling for stability however its built in any case.
However it works out, I'm pretty sure I have enough room to make it work, just not sure yet what the compromises are going to be. And I'm wide open for suggestions if anybody has any. Or pointers to pictures or plans of other layouts where people have wrestled with similar issues.
doctorwayneMy layout room, at about 560sq.ft. (and an odd shape to boot) is about 2/3 the size originally intended and I was loath to give-up the operating scheme which I had originally envisioned. It would have been a single level layout, but with about the same vertical difference between the beginning and the end, about 23". However, grades would have been much more reasonable, under 2% at worst, with more space between towns.
I had my layout, benchwork mostly, nearly complete (not counting the "bottom" and "right side" areas discussed above), to the point I was laying down "test track" to start to work out a track plan. And after a couple of months of running trains around it, it just never really felt "right". And I couldn't put my finger on what was wrong for the longest time until it dawned on me one day that I still wanted more run and that the overall layout "shape" wasn't quite right-- I didn't want loopty-loops, but I did want to be "surrounded" by it-- to be "immersed" in it. And while in my head I saw a nice easy compromise between "around-the-walls" shelf layout versus "family space", in my heart it just wasn't right.
So after a lot of thinking, mulling over, CAD sessions, etc., I decided to tear it all (mostly all) down and start over with the notion of double-decking the "upper" and "left-side" areas. And very soon realized that the "surround" needed to be a peninsula-- which the fact that it added significantly more "run" to everthing didn't hurt either. Originally the peninsula was just going to be single-decked, but in the process of designing it I decided "what the heck", why not make it double-decked. Plus it made it easier to design the outer side, where it sneaks around to gain elevation and join the "bottom" portion of the layout. But it does come out into the room a lot more than I'd hoped or planned, or negotiated with my wife-- who is a little miffed I'm taking up so much space in the basement. My kids on the other hand, love it. They enjoy coming down and helping Daddy build "the layout". My wife says my oldest (2-1/2 yo) has started giving her "regular updates" on the doings in the basement so I sense she's easing up a little (but only a little).
doctorwayne I threw out the original plan (actually just a free-hand sketch on a piece of paper), set a couple of "standards" - minimum radius 30" (in only one place, as it turned out) and minimum #6 turnouts (I ended-up with a couple of #5s, one on the wye at Dunnville, and a couple more at the engine shop in Lowbanks, but none on the main line), then started building. I cut a couple of sheets of 3/4" plywood into curves, starting at 32" radius and working up to 48" for the first sheet and the second mostly at 34" and a few more at 32". I then layed them in place atop the benchwork wherever a curve was needed, and worked my way around the room, making adjustments and adding straight sections where required. I cut more curves as I needed them, using the earlier ones to decide which radius worked best. By splitting the line at South Cayuga, I ended-up with a point-to-point-to-point "Y"-shaped railroad, with the two arms of the "Y" stacked one atop the other. The peninsula used space that would've been otherwise wasted, and was useful for gaining altitude. It's also one of the few areas of open countryside on what was supposed to be a secondary rural line.
I have some standards too-- though I've thrown them out temporarily and am willing to consider and reconsider anything at the moment. But ultimately in the end, I know I have enough space to meet my standards-- I've done a zillion CAD drawings of the room and potential routes. I have a couple of tight spots, but otherwise am overflowing with potential. I just need to "choose wisely" what will fill that space. Try as I might I have not been able to come up with a track plan I really like (that "speaks to me") on the computer (i.e., in CAD) but I do have a very well developed sense of where the mainline needs to go. I also have a few "inspirational images" to guide me, and a few "signature scenes" (LDE's) already envisioned that just need placing. Now if I could only figure out what to do with the other 96% I'd be in good shape...
doctorwayne To get back to the upper level/lower level issue, there will be at least 20" between the top of the lower level and the top of the upper level, but, of course, the thickness of the upper benchwork (about 2") and the fluorescent light fixtures (another 3" or so) will leave about 14" of clear viewing space between the top of the lower level facia and the bottom of the upper level facia. The lower level is intended to be operated from rolling office chairs, and the single-level of the layout can be operated either thus-seated or standing. The upper level operators, of course, must stand.I was going to wrap-up by apologising for side-tracking this thread, but since it was yours to begin with, I'm open to answer any more questions which you might have. Wayne
Same here. I've got 20 raw inches, but in my case the upper benchwork height is 2-3/4 inches (whatever a 1x3 works out to be) plus whatever additional will be added by terraforming / roadbed. In my space, a portion of it is carpeted. I've been thinking about building some sort of fake-flooring over top of it for better access via the rolling chair. It sounds like we've both selected essentially the same heights for the lower and upper decks with about the same expectations for how to (physically) operate it. I'm modeling the late transition-era. I've stated 1959, but I know I'll move that back and forth a bit (though not so much in one session) to permit me some latitude now and then to run some earlier or later stuff. I want to keep generally true to the year as much as I can. But I'm not going to be a stick-in-the-mud about it.
Nothing to apologize for, except maybe not writing MORE! And afterall, it *is* my thread!
Seriously, I welcome and enjoy the conversation and discussion of the finer points of your layout. Feel free to add much more.
If it's not freestanding and you'll provide supports on the back, either .040 or .060 plastic would work fine. My inclination would be to use the .060 as it's less likely to suffer dents and creases while handling the big sheets. But if you'd like to cove the one on the bottom deck a little bit at the top to snug under the upper level, then .040 would be ideal for a tight radius curve all along the top edge.
jwhittenAh yes, from this perspective its much easier to judge the depth. Plus you can assume the boxcars are roughly 6 inches each and use them as a quick measure. So it looks like from your description and the boxcars that its approx 5-1/2 to 6 feet. That's a decent amount of stuff you have packed in there.I am curious from an operational standpoint, aside from the coaling tower and maybe the turntable, do you use the rest operationally or does it wind up being more of a "railroady" tableau? And if you do use it operationally, does it feel "forced" or natural? i.e., does it feel like an "extra" thing you do to help maintain an illusion, or does it really feel like it has a sense of purpose? -- And by that I'm not even remotely attempting to make any criticism, just wondering how it feels to you in actual operation? Are there any other things you do, for instance, to "inspect" locos or cars as they pass the facility that adds to the operational aspects? I think I recall you mentioning somewhere else that those are "scale" cars or something similar that you just have essentially parked there. Is that right? Do you ever include them operationally or are they just decorative for the most part?
For the most part, the shop scene is operational, although the track where all the handcars are parked is not otherwise very useful: the curve from the turnout is rather sharp, and the track inside the shop isn't very long, as there's an access stairway at the far end, leading to the rear office annex and also to what used to be an overhead crane inside the shop. The other tracks are all useable, although usually for parking locos. The track at the right edge of the layout (skirting the turntable) has been used, at various times, as a caboose track, wreck train storage, and loco storage. I've even parked a Yellowstone there - it negotiated all of the sharp turnouts and tight curves without a problem, although, to be honest, it was only the frame and running gear, which I was repairing for someone else.
The main purpose, other than an attempt at depicting a small terminal shop complex, is, of course, the turntable, as the layout is operated as a point-to-point (-to-point). I do switch the coaling tower, for both coal and sand, as well as the oil house (next to the crane runway, on its own siding) and the car shop (behind the camera) is used to spot various cars as well as a sometimes-storage place for the line's doodlebug, the "Bee".
The scale test cars are used as an operational feature and must be moved by only one coupler - in other words, behind the caboose. On a through train, this would pose little problem. However, almost all trains are required to switch the various towns through which they pass, and this can generate a lot of extra moves to ensure that the rules are followed. There's a story HERE which tells of such a train, although none of the photos will be visible unless you're a Member of that Forum.
I agree that the area is fairly congested, but the doubletracked main, with three crossovers is very useful for train make-up, both headed for staging across the aisle, or back, eastbound, to the rest of the layout. Turning at Dunnville, site of the lower level's main staging yard (off-scene) uses a wye (visible) for locos, cabooses, and passenger cars, and also does similar duties for any eastbound trains from the lower level which have to change directions at South Cayuga, in order to continue northward. (The layout is set-up as two railroads, with the line from Dunnville being north-south, and ending on the upper level at a staging yard which will be located over the lower-level staging, with a larger engine facility located above Port Maitland, complete with roundhouse and turntable. The other road, and east-west line, runs between a single staging track across the aisle from Port Maitland, at the west end, to South Cayuga in the east, with most trains stopping there to pick-up southbound interchange cars or drop-off northbound cars. Those trains will continue on to Dunnville and south staging, which represents both a switching district (two tracks beneath staging) or interchange (staging) where cars are physically removed from the layout. Some trains off this subdivision, though, primarily coal trains, are destined for a power plant on the north end of the layout. At South Cayuga, the train's locos (always at least two) run light to be turned on the wye at Dunnville, then return to continue north with the same train. At other times, the locos will simply run light to be turned, then go directly to south staging to pick-up a train that will take them back to their own terminal, and a pair of locos from the north-south line will continue north with the coal.
jwhitten ...That's really tall masonite though. You must have something else happening on the other side? Otherwise that'd be a great spot to either open up another deck or else put some staging
...That's really tall masonite though. You must have something else happening on the other side? Otherwise that'd be a great spot to either open up another deck or else put some staging
That area behind the tall facia is currently used for storage, mostly layout-related stuff, as the plaster-on-screen landforms are not yet in place. It's not readily accessible due to the risers for the roadbed and will be even less-so once the scenery is in place. I have no need here for additional trackage, although I briefly considered an interchange with the NYC, which also ran through the area which I'm modelling.
jwhitten How did you learn how to do all that terraforming? How long have you been at it? How many "oop-es" did you go through to get that?
Well, the scene above is actual a sort of "oops": the landforms came out looking more like the Rockies than the Niagara Escarpment, which they're supposed to represent. I'm hoping that covering this area with trees will soften the contours and give it more of a southern Ontario appearance. For the most part, though, not much in the way of mishaps - I seem to be either lucky or have set my standards too low, but I'm generally pleased with the way things have turned out so far.
jwhitten However it works out, I'm pretty sure I have enough room to make it work, just not sure yet what the compromises are going to be. And I'm wide open for suggestions if anybody has any. Or pointers to pictures or plans of other layouts where people have wrestled with similar issues.
It certainly sounds as if you have enough room. I actual dislike layout planning, or at least going into it in any depth. I set my goals and parameters - branchline operation in the late-'30s with good switching opportunities and good scenic possibilities in the space available. I had to make the curves tighter than I would have preferred, but only to accomplish operational goals and almost none as small as my minimum. None are less, at least on the mainline. The most important aspect of the layout, in my opinion, is staging - without it, the layout would become boring to operate, and I would, if necessary, sacrifice some of the visible portions of the railroad before giving up the interchange possibilities afforded by staging.
If not for all the extra work involved with backdating the layout to the late '30s (building or re-painting a lot of rolling stock) plus working on several very involved loco rebuilds for myself and doing painting, repairs, and re-building for friends, the second level would have been in place and operational two years ago. I'm still probably at least a year away from resuming work on the layout.
jwhitten ... I welcome and enjoy the conversation and discussion of the finer points of your layout. Feel free to add much more.
... I welcome and enjoy the conversation and discussion of the finer points of your layout. Feel free to add much more.
I enjoy the conversation, too, but as you can see, layout planning, at least in a formal sense, is not my strong suit.
doctorwayne as well as a sometimes-storage place for the line's doodlebug, the "Bee".
as well as a sometimes-storage place for the line's doodlebug, the "Bee".
Now that's a really good idea that gives it some life! Good plan.
doctorwayneThe scale test cars are used as an operational feature and must be moved by only one coupler - in other words, behind the caboose. On a through train, this would pose little problem. However, almost all trains are required to switch the various towns through which they pass, and this can generate a lot of extra moves to ensure that the rules are followed. There's a story HERE which tells of such a train, although none of the photos will be visible unless you're a Member of that Forum.
I *was* able to see the photos... !!! Excellent work, both pictures and story. I loved every moment. It was very easy to fall into the scene and be a first-hand spectator from your photos and telling.
What is the water, btw? Also, I don't think the water looked as good from the eye-level view. The aerial shot though was beautiful. The "doctored" image with the water and grass extended as also interesting, and definitely filled-out the view considerably.
Your modeling ability is superb!
doctorwayneI agree that the area is fairly congested, but the doubletracked main, with three crossovers is very useful for train make-up, both headed for staging across the aisle, or back, eastbound, to the rest of the layout.
I agree that the area is fairly congested, but the doubletracked main, with three crossovers is very useful for train make-up, both headed for staging across the aisle, or back, eastbound, to the rest of the layout.
When I said you had a lot crammed in there, I didn't mean to say it was congested. It looks very good.
doctorwayne The most important aspect of the layout, in my opinion, is staging - without it, the layout would become boring to operate, and I would, if necessary, sacrifice some of the visible portions of the railroad before giving up the interchange possibilities afforded by staging.
The most important aspect of the layout, in my opinion, is staging - without it, the layout would become boring to operate, and I would, if necessary, sacrifice some of the visible portions of the railroad before giving up the interchange possibilities afforded by staging.
That's a very interesting statement and pov-- I understand what you're saying. I have "planned" a decent amount of staging into my layout as well. I put that in quotes because I know I want and need it but haven't exactly worked out everywhere it will go and how I will achieve it. I know I have the room for most of what I have in-mind. I think I can do the rest but will probably have to compromise here and there.
One of the things I *don't* want is "tracks everywhere" syndrome. While I *do* want a good layout with lots of operating and scenic rail-fanning spots, I am wary of doing too much and upsetting the balance between aesthetics and operations.
doctorwayne If not for all the extra work involved with backdating the layout to the late '30s (building or re-painting a lot of rolling stock) plus working on several very involved loco rebuilds for myself and doing painting, repairs, and re-building for friends, the second level would have been in place and operational two years ago. I'm still probably at least a year away from resuming work on the layout.
That's really a shame. But you at least can run trains in the meantime and that's at least something. For me I've been two years in the building so far and have only been able to run trains a little, a couple of months at the beginning of last year. Though I'm coming up on the point where I can start laying track again. I guess I probably could technically on the upper layer already since its not going to change much any more. But its coming in really handy temporarily holding up big batches of pink foam, stringers, joists, and whatnot out of the way while I work on the lower deck and peninsula. When the peninsula gets done it will be time to start thinking about running trains. And there's still the "bottom" portion and "right half" to do too-- but fortunately that will go pretty quickly I think.
doctorwayne jwhitten ... I welcome and enjoy the conversation and discussion of the finer points of your layout. Feel free to add much more. I enjoy the conversation, too, but as you can see, layout planning, at least in a formal sense, is not my strong suit. Wayne
Heh, its definitely not mine either. I'm holding my own on the benchwork and construction phases, but I'm gonna be treading water really soon when it comes to laying track and terraforming. Hopefully I can do better with building structures and weathering, although I'm pretty sure I don't have an artistic bone in my whole body. I don't mind cheating though if I have to and attempting to roper more artistically-inclined family members into helping me with some of those aspects...
A question about your turntable-- why did you choose green ground foam (grass) for inside the pit? Have you seen that somewhere before? Most of the ones I've seen have been rocky, full of weeds and whatnot and, you know, just dirty. Granted I'm nowhere near an expert on Turntable-pitothology or anything, just curious though about your inspiration.