Ok, I admit it, I am a layout copier.
I copy other peoples ideas, mixing and matching as needed, because I just don't understand how to come up with my own ideas.
I have read " Realistic Railroad Operations ", and I have gone through " 101 Model Rail Road Layouts ", but, I just don't know how to turn a bunch of lines into a layout - call it lack of artistic tallent or the inability to visualize, track running through mountians, over rivers, past lakes and/or buildings.
How do you do it?
Seems to me that there are actually a bunch of questions you're asking here.
How do you come up with a track plan?
How do you transfer a plan to the tabletop?
How do you visualize and then implement scenery?
And probably more.
The way you've been doing track plans in the past, taking bits and pieces and stringing them together, is called the "Layout Design Element" approach. Didn't know it had a name, did ya? Yeah, you just take pieces you like and string them together and you have a layout.....nothin' wrong with that! There are other methods too, but if this is what you're comfortable with, go for it!
Now, to get it from a piece of paper to a 3D unit is tougher. Try breaking the drawing into grid squares and then visualizing each square in 3D. Now put all of the pieces together in your mind. If the drawing lends itself to it, you can blow it up full size and lay it out on your benchwork. Now, carbon paper is your friend! Use it! Transfer the drawing to the tabletop and you're in business!
Scenery can be done in a similar way. break it down to squares and see it in 3D. Now slowly work with whatever method you choose (foam, plaster soaked towels, cardboard webbing) until it matches what your mind sees.
Hopefully this helps, but then maybe I misunderstood the question?
This isn't the answer you are looking for, but I get asked this question a lot...
and I use this as an example:
to me, a model railroad is an art form...and telling someone how to design or come up with ideas for a train layout is much the same as telling an artist how to paint a painting.
Or I would like to write songs...but the music just doesn't come to me... if I went up to a songwriter and said "tell me how to write a song" ...I don't think he'd have an answer for me. It kinda just comes naturally.
You are on the right track reading and studying the layout design books.
And don't feel bad about copying or using published railroad plans.
Like a lot of other things, the more you do it the better you get at it.
It will be interesting to see if others have a real answer for you, but I've never been able to come up with a good answer for how do you visualize the look of your layout, other than look at the real life scenes, study those and try to recreate your favorite parts.
That is a really good question. And since I'm starting out myself I am curious as to how people reply. Here's what I've done so far:
First, I took your approch and looked at layouts and books and all kinds of designs. This gave me the basis for what I wanted from my layout. Things like, a turntable, a siding for passenger service station, coal mines, a double track mainline etc. I then wrote them all down and started just writing idea's....call it brainstorming.
Then I got the XTrkCad program and learned how to use that. It is very simple to learn and once you know what your workable space is going to be you can then form that idea in XTrkCad and start laying track, at least the basic stuff.
This is where I had to stop. I'm building a new house and I'm not sure what I'm going to have to work with as far as space goes. Am I going to do a 4x8 traditional? Or possibly a shelf layout that goes around the room walls. I had a 60"x44" layout before that I was going to add to a 4'x8' to make a small "L" shape layout to start, but then like I said I just don't know what I'm going to end up with. But I do know what I want out of a lay out.
To summarize: Make a list of what you want on your layout.....Era, Road name, track, yards, towns, buildings, elevation, what kind of trains or industries, continuous loop, double mainiline, switching, point to point.....etc. Next figure out what room you have to build on, then try to work with a track CAD program to help your idea's become physical.
I hope this helps, and never never stop reading. There's a ton.
I figure out how space I have. How long and how wide? How many tracks? What kind or terrian? In my case the answers were 7'8" long, 6'5" wide and to make it more interesting I threw in an extension measuring 3' 2 3/4" wide and 4' 5" long, just for the fun of it. I needed something that would fit in the limited space I had and give me a good run and throw in a little switching.
This is the original plan I came up with.
Halfway into it, I decided I wanted two tracks, so I tinkered with the plan some and came up with this.
But I still didn't quite like it and tinkered some more and settled on this.
Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running BearSpace Mouse for president!15 year veteran fire fighterCollector of Apple //e'sRunning Bear EnterprisesHistory Channel Club life member.beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam
For me, designing track plans comes from seeing natural landscapes, interesting buildings, various prototypes around where I live, things that look interesting; Basically anything that you might say "Hey, now that's neat".
The current track plan I'm working on has roots in the Montpelier-Barre line that I used to ride along when the locomotives were going to Bombardier, or to the quarry. A few elements of this line such as the 6% grade (or more depending on where measured...), the switchback, the granite quarry, stonecutter industries, will all find a new place on my layout, even if the track plan isn't 100% prototypical. The line really isn't that interesteing in person with only 1 run around and 2 or 3 sidings for various industry, so I'm "molding" it for operational enjoyment.
I've been in the design phase for the last 3-4 years, identifying numerous shapes and sizes, different mediums for how it could be done, experimenting with grades between small modules and figuring out how I want to control it, and perhaps even automate some of the operations like a through freight coming out of staging, going through the towns, and exitting to staging again while my local crews do their switching and set cars off to be picked up.
I've never read any of the track planning books, or taken a good look at the track planning software. I wanted to try one out a few weeks ago, and frankly I didn't care for it. Pencil and paper with a rule and compass does more then enough for me, and I don't have to worry about using cookie cutter templates that are in a computer program.
Planning my model railroad is something I want to enjoy, and I don't want to feel like I have to follow certain "rules" that the "masters" of the hobby set out. Yes, alot of useful and accurate information does come from the books, magazine articles, and other places, but sometimes it seems like we get caught up in being 100% prototypical all the time. Don't get me wrong, prototypical model railroading is a big part of this hobby, but sometimes a yard only needs to store a few trains on that basic 4x8 layout with a single mainline. We don't always need to make things complicated and by the way of the book.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that you need to enjoy your track planning. Let whatever inspiration you see anywhere accompnay you through the journey from starting out with the first rough sketch, to the time you place the first spike in your track to setting on what you think will be the last building.
Just remember that it's a hobby and you need to do things the way you want them, not how a book or article suggests you plan things.
This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
Looking at layout plans, I imagine how I would operate a railroad on it. I mentally run trains as I would want to run them. Are all the sidings switchable? Does it do what I want it to do? Why would I want one like that? I can do better than that.
If you just want to run trains do a loop. Simple isn't it. If you want to try to operate it as a real railroad might, add a passing track, some industrial spurs and play with that awhile. If you want to freelance, start with a center piece, a station if you operate passenger trains, a small yard if you operate only freight. A passenger train could be parked on a passing siding and operated when needed. Local freights could be made up in the yard for distribution to industries. If you want to model a prototype, then model it. Pick a location that interests you and go from there. Try to follow the prototype as much as possible as to track plan, buildings, etc.
My tried and true layout planning method is simple. Start with a schematic drawing. First plan the center piece area and work out from there. To make it easy just draw a straight line all the way across the page. That is the mainline. If double track draw two lines. Add the sidings where you want them in relationship with the others. To save space, keep everything close together. The spaces between towns, sidings, etc. are stretchable when you apply the schematic to the available space. Include staging if you want it.
When you have the track layout that you want to end up with start with applying it to the space available. Put the center piece where you want and then go from there. Think of the schematic as a rubber hose that can be placed wherever you want, straight, around curves and even stretched out if need be. If you are planning on operating from point to point you are done. If you you want staging append it to the end. Otherwise bring both ends together and you have a loop.
There was an old Andy article from the Sept 1995 (I think..) that had the Drago Turn described on a two lap oval while describing a little bit of operation. I was having difficulty choosing other plans until I started to work on this one.
My problem is space. More space. More... always more. Wanting more space.
Enough.
I know my space and am literally taking a train through this space and designing a small yard, a town or two and maybe something else. Nothing special. When I hit the 4 walls Im finished.
There is a stack of trackplans on the shelf, on the hard drive and all over the trashcan from graphpaper and pencils. In the end I started to flop track down and thinking .. ok the coal trestle is here, the grade to it is there. Where is the switch going to be? and working from there.
Scenery? I dont even want to know what will happen. All I know is I love the eastern Foothills and mountains with all the rock and trees, no particular place. Im more worried about that huge dallop of glue ruining the appearances than anything else. Remember I started in the hobby in the days of the Life Like Grass Mat that had that hideous shiney green plastic a long time ago. Ugh. Anything but that....
I think you have to make a lot of personal decisions first - this will help a lot with what you can accomplish ....
Do you like mostly small trains with lots of industries to switch / maybe a bridge route with minimal online industries / maybe lean more towards passenger service / is a working yard important to you .... these and other personal priorities should be answered before you even think about putting pencil to paper. Not much point designing a great twisty, curvy line through the mountains only to discover your big six axle power and auto-racks won't negotiate half of it.
Get your interests prioritized FIRST.
Once you have your interests more focused, fine tune THAT interest even further. If you decide passenger service is a big priority, what kind of service are you going to have - small town stations with short passenger trains or big city stations and long trains.
Space is also a BIG consideration. The bigger your dreams are, the more space you're going to need to fulfill them. Don't expect to model a big city passenger terminal and also have any kind of running on a 4X8 !!! - be realistic.
As has been mentioned before, building a railroad is art in 3-D - most artists ( with exception of course ) paint not by instruction, but rather inspiration. See a real scene or model scene that inspires you, reference it and incorporate the idea. A string of these inspirations will soon be all linked together in one uniform idea.
Mark.
¡ uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝɹnʇɐuƃıs ʎɯ 'dlǝɥ
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
The key question is:
What do you visualize in your mind's eye when you think, 'Railroad I would like to model?'"
A few examples, fairly specific:
I won't mention what MY picture is - the key point is, pick a main idea and stick with it. If it's a real place, grab a camera and notebook (or a reference book) and learn about what tracks are (were) there and where they go (went.) Then, look at published plans, doodle ideas on the back of envelopes, fire up (fill in layout design software of choice) and attack with great gusto. Sometimes we make layout designing more complicated than it needs to be. Keep it simple - that holds the frustration level down.
Finally, build something, bearing in mind that what you build is NOT set in cement. Try new ideas. If something doesn't work out, take it apart and try something else. Get wheels rolling early, even if it's just a work train (switcher and a gondola full of track nails and rail joiners) running on your first two lengths of flex (or half-dozen pieces of sectional track.)
This above all else. Have fun.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Consider the future too: do you need to move this layout, or even just re-incorporate elements of it in a newer layout down the years? Modular design (for regularly taking apart/transporting/reassembling a show layout, perhaps for mall train shows etc). Or just ease of dissambly/reassmbly for a move.I'm trending toward 'thinner' sections for ease of access, with larger industries (such as 2 chemical plants - mostly Walthers kits) modelled as false fronts/partial buildings with the (vast bulk) remainder implied via backdrops & view block (saves space/time/and most importantly money) - MR did an article on this (they have run articles on everything over the years, probably including modeling of quasers, glactic cores, and black holes[the ultimate in selective compresssion]), where they had a few cars long spur, a fence w/rail gate over that spur, some hills acting as view block, and a sign (either for a Fireworks or Munitions firm).So, my favorite hints...Go modular if possible.Consider maintainence & possible disassembly/re-assembly (especially benchwork wise).Consider view blocks, backdrops, partial buildings (depending on sightlines).Selective compression, because even a mile long branch (rather small) is 33 ft (10m) in N scale & 60.7ft (18.7m) in HO (I believe in F scale the branch model would be longer than a mile )Oh, and remember layout brainstorming...is FUN!
Unfortunately for the sake of an easy answer, there isn't one. As you can see, everyone approaches this from a learned way. Each of us has to find a system that works, refine it when it seems right to do, and then move on.
I negotiate the space first, and then assign the maximum mainline running at scale speed that I can generate with at least some changes in elevation to give the overall appearance of the layout some gee-whiz factor. So, I doodle. I'll take an entire evening while my wife watches her seemingly endless cloning of CSI, and draw different boundaried shapes for a layout. Then, when I have a few of those, say three workable spaces that offer decent access, I'll go downstairs, scan them, and make five or six copies of each.
As the evening wears on, I draw and erase, adding this, leaving that, and come up with at least two very interesting or appealing possibilities. These all have to have the five-eight absolutes, what we call givens. For me, they would be fast mains, tunnels, at least one timber trestle, a yard, decent passing sidings, an engine servicing facility, and a reversing loop for turning entire trains. Chip would ask me what about a double-slip switch. Yeah, there'd have to be one of them in the yard. That sort of thing.
Once I managed to get them on a plan, I would start to tinker to find which plans offered changes in elevation that I could fit in the space without making the whole thing look heavily contrived or toylike...Disney-like. Actually calculating, using arithmetic, what grades would be required for a given height and the distance I can use to rise to that height, I modify what I must in the curvature and crossing points where one track crosses over another.
I find that simply doodling helps to achieve the order that satisfies. Sometimes the impetus comes from someone else's work, sometimes I want to start and finish it all myself. Few of us will be original...it has mostly all been conceived and done before. It is no less satisfying to generate one's own list of givens and to then come up with a workable plan, even if something much like it exists in several versions around the globe. The secret is knowing what has to be included. Laying it out in a sensible order is where the difficulty lies. Overcoming those challenges is a lot of the fun...one should not become impatient about it.
Doodle away! Just remember that where rails cross, they must be one of two places...flush with each other at grade, or at least 3" above the railtops of the tracks being crossed.
You are not doing anything wrong. First though, figure out your space and your scale. After that I used your method knowing that I wanted some staging, a continuous loop, and the ability to run at least three locomotives a thte same time. I ended up using the Berkshire Division as the basis of my layout.
Bear "It's all about having fun."
Greg H. wrote:Ok, I admit it, I am a layout copier.
I just don't understand how to come up with my own ideas.That is because there aren't any "new" ideas. There is nothing new under the sun.
I just don't understand how to come up with my own ideas.
How do you do it?The others have already dealt with how to begin a specific design so I'll assume this is a question on theory.... It takes lots and lots of practice. For me it came from being a small child working with sectional track. I worked with and assembled track plan after track plan. After a while I began to understand how things would work together fit and work well. Then I began to get the spacial distances down so I could visualize how much space an HO 15", 18" and 22" curve would consume and now much distance things like crossovers & ladders would take. Then I started getting MR magazines and would see their track plans and replicate the cool features with my sectional track. Then I got into the N-scale with 9 3/4" and 11" curves and the O-27 and O-31 curves. I've probably laid out and run 100s of different track plans. The running is important because that is where one really learns what works and doesn't work. After over 40 years now I can pretty much pencil in a design that is fairly accurate. I am using all that accumulated experience and knowledge of all the authors who drew plans before me. Yet I can probably truthfully say nothing in my 1000s of track plans I've drawn up are my "own idea".
I guess I should list a few things.
I am modeling in N scale - and I have to admit, if Z scale wasn't so expensive and so limited I would be probably using it ( if they every come out with a Z scale Big Boy I'll probably switch ).
Unless I can find a hopper car in N scale, that will realy dump, siding & spur track operations don't hold too much intrest, unless it's a hump operation. Otherwise I do like scenery, and watching a train move through it.
I'm one of those people that can see the beauty in most terrain ( althow artic still has me scratching my head a bit ) from the coastal mountians of the Pacific NW, the the pine swamps of the southeast US. That may be part of the problem in trying to figure out what terrain to model. I will admit that my dream layout, will eventualy combine the Tehachapi Loop with the canyon streach of RR along side I-70 east of Glenwood Springs, plus a few other places - but that will require skills and space I do not have now, I'm looking at just developing skills at this point.
Space is at a premium, but I have 8x4 - 8x5 spot right on top of the dinning room table - so cut outs are not an option - but I do have the entire area around the room to move around it so having to reach all the way across is not an issue.
Yes, moving in the future is a must, so weight and height is an issue, but as long as I can turn it on it's side to carry it ( with one or two others ) out the front door, just anything goes. So as far as the main construction materials are concerned, I have that part figured out - steel studs ( lined with felt on the bottom to keep it from scratching the dinning room table ), with a 1/4 plywood on top, topped with foam for the base. That will give me a about 30" to work with and still have some clearance to get through the door.
I'm fairly flexable as to the era - 1930 to modern, but, sooner or later I am going to put a Big Boy or Challanger on the layout so generious curves are a good thing.
I found a slightly elaborate loop, with some staging area, that I think will look fairly decent and has potentual, for mountian terrain ( in fact it's plan 21 in "101 Model Railroad Layouts" ) the kicker is that I just don't know how to decied what piece of track, should go up over or down under what other piece of track - where to put a bridge, and which one should go in a tunnel. I do not need a city, but, a little backwoods town might be nice.
Did this stuff make sence?
Greg,
At first I thought you had it nailed when you said that you have read "Realistic [Model] Railroad Operations", but now I think you are talking about Tony K.'s book. Tony's book is good but the book that you really need to start with is "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" by John Armstrong. One you have gone through that book (for the third time or so) then you will know what you can and can't (or should not) do.
Once you have these "Givens" (requirements such as available space or minimum curve radius) then only you can develop a list of "Druthers." Druthers are what you want personally, the location (mountain or city), the era, the type of operation. After you have your first list of Givens and Druthers, the rest of the plan will start to fall into place.
Like others have said, you will revise both your list and your plan a number of times before it feels "right." We are all impatient to get things running but taking your time at this stage will keep you from tearing everything out and starting over a number of times in the future.
Good Luck,-John
Greg H. wrote: ( in fact it's plan 21 in "101 Model Railroad Layouts" )
( in fact it's plan 21 in "101 Model Railroad Layouts" )
If you mean Kalmbach's book 101 Track Plans for Model Railroaders, it may not be Plan 21 since that one is a simple loop of track with two single-ended spurs. From what you are describign you like, I'm wondering if you mean plan #43 on page 21.
If you have found a published plan that you like, it would seem that the illustration of the plan would suggest where the bridges and such are to be placed. Although I do have a gripe with 101 Track Plans in that the illustrations suggest more in structures and scenic features than will actually fit, nearly all of those plans has a pretty clear suggestion as to scenery and the like.
That Plan #43 reflects both the good and bad in the above paragraph. Linn Westcott's superior drafting skills suggest an intricately-detailed scenery plan for the layout. Unfortunately, the scenic contours would be very compressed and even for this fairly vertical landscape, pretty unrealistic, IMHO.
So as they used to say in the old direct-mail pieces: "Frankly, I'm puzzled". If you have a plan you like, does it not suggest the placement of scenic elements, bridges, etc.?
ByronModel RR Blog(where, coincidentally, I've started a series of posts about analyzing a track plan)
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
rustyrails wrote: Greg,At first I thought you had it nailed when you said that you have read "Realistic [Model] Railroad Operations", but now I think you are talking about Tony K.'s book.
At first I thought you had it nailed when you said that you have read "Realistic [Model] Railroad Operations", but now I think you are talking about Tony K.'s book.
No, it was Armstrongs book.
Been through it 4-5 times, and each time I think that I understand what it says, althow I tend to just skim the parts about switching and yard layouts as I don't have much intrest in that type of layout ( with the exception of hump yards, and I know that I'm not doing one of those - this time anyway ).
cuyama wrote: Greg H. wrote: ( in fact it's plan 21 in "101 Model Railroad Layouts" ) If you mean Kalmbach's book 101 Track Plans for Model Railroaders, it may not be Plan 21 since that one is a simple loop of track with two single-ended spurs. From what you are describign you like, I'm wondering if you mean plan #43 on page 21.
Hmmm.....
No, I double checked, and it's plan 21 on page 27 on the copy from the library.
It's a continious run type, .77 scale miles, using 28 ft of track ( in N scale ).
The first sentance starts " With this layout, a train leaving the station moving through turnouts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, has a choice of going through 8, 4, and 5 ...."
I you have found a published plan that you like, it would seem that the illustration of the plan would suggest where the bridges and such are to be placed. Although I do have a gripe with 101 Track Plans in that the illustrations suggest more in structures and scenic features than will actually fit, nearly all of those plans has a pretty clear suggestion as to scenery and the like.That Plan #43 reflects both the good and bad in the above paragraph. Linn Westcott's superior drafting skills suggest an intricately-detailed scenery plan for the layout. Unfortunately, the scenic contours would be very compressed and even for this fairly vertical landscape, pretty unrealistic, IMHO.So as they used to say in the old direct-mail pieces: "Frankly, I'm puzzled". If you have a plan you like, does it not suggest the placement of scenic elements, bridges, etc.?ByronModel RR Blog(where, coincidentally, I've started a series of posts about analyzing a track plan)
I you have found a published plan that you like, it would seem that the illustration of the plan would suggest where the bridges and such are to be placed. Although I do have a gripe with 101 Track Plans in that the illustrations suggest more in structures and scenic features than will actually fit, nearly all of those plans has a pretty clear suggestion as to scenery and the like.
Yes and No.
It's nothing more than a single line, and while there are some breaks in it, I'm not sure if the breaks are intentional showing where the track goes under another piecs of track, or if it's a side effect of a flaw in the printing process. If it is intentional, some of them don't make much sense.
It actualy looks like several simple loop plans ( an oval, a figure 8, a triangle, and part of another figure 8 ) that have been layed on top of each other, and conected by turn outs. I figured on breaking it up a bit, and laying double track in a few places so that it actualy becomes a single elaborate loop.
We must be are talking about two different books.
Edit: Google helped by directing me to an out-of-print book by Paul Garrison (TAB, 1986) with the title you describe. I've never seen that one or heard of the author, so I'm really no help on that specific plan. From your description of the layout, it sounds like 10 pounds of sugar in a five-pound sack. That may be why it's hard to figure out where to start.
ByronModel RR Blog
alco's forever!!!!! Majoring in HO scale Minorig in O scale:)
rs2mike wrote:Yeah good question. I have no idea how to take line on a paper to an actual track plan? How do you guys do it. Especially how do you do elevation changes.
Some of the Kalmbach books are step-by-step guides to building a layout, from transferring the plan to plywood to setting elevations to laying track. Those are a good place to start. Even if you don't intend to build that exact plan, the steps are the same.
If you have a hobby shop nearby, thumb through a couple of those and I think you'll find that one of them will be a great help in answering many questions.
cuyama wrote: We must be are talking about two different books. Edit: Google helped by directing me to an out-of-print book by Paul Garrison (TAB, 1986) with the title you describe. I've never seen that one or heard of the author, so I'm really no help on that specific plan. From your description of the layout, it sounds lile 10 pounds of sugar in a five-pound sack. That may be why it's hard to figure out where to start.ByronModel RR Blog
Edit: Google helped by directing me to an out-of-print book by Paul Garrison (TAB, 1986) with the title you describe. I've never seen that one or heard of the author, so I'm really no help on that specific plan. From your description of the layout, it sounds lile 10 pounds of sugar in a five-pound sack. That may be why it's hard to figure out where to start.
Yup, that's the one - never occured to me that there might be 2 book with the same name.
Maybe this will help you see what I looking at:
The entire layout suggest the possability of a train winding back and forth around some mountians.
rs2mike wrote:Yeah good question. I have no idea how to take line on a paper to an actual track plan? How do you guys do it. Especially how do you do elevation changes. I am so confused
You take a peice of solid wire... size does not matter. Put one end on the track at a bridge. Then bend the wire back to the start of that grade. Usually there is 4 inches involved in climbing one track over another.
Mark the wire where the grade starts.
Take the wire to the measurements bar below or near the plan usually in HO scale one square = 1 real life foot (12 inches) The distance from your mark to the end of the wire is the distance of the grade in actual feet.
Greg H. wrote: cuyama wrote: We must be are talking about two different books. Edit: Google helped by directing me to an out-of-print book by Paul Garrison (TAB, 1986) with the title you describe. I've never seen that one or heard of the author, so I'm really no help on that specific plan. From your description of the layout, it sounds lile 10 pounds of sugar in a five-pound sack. That may be why it's hard to figure out where to start.ByronModel RR BlogYup, that's the one - never occured to me that there might be 2 book with the same name.Maybe this will help you see what I looking at: The entire layout suggest the possability of a train winding back and forth around some mountians.
This is a type of early continuous running plan designed to provide a variety of routes for running a single train without any attempt at realism. Many (all?) of the crossings will have to be at grade because of the short distances or you'll have some very steep grades. With the reversing loops worked into this plan wiring it will be a challenge. Some (all?) of the turnouts appear to have a continuous curve through the leg which will limit your choices if you can even find any that match the plan, otherwise they will have to be customed built. A common problem with early plans of this type is they aren't buildable with commercial track. Frankly, I doubt that anyone has actually built this plan.
I strongly suggest you get a copy of John Armstrong's book "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" and any other John Armstrong books that you can find. Use them to help plan something that can actually be built (or use one of his plans).
Good luck
Paul
I imagine the original publisher or author chose the name to ride the coattails of Kalmbach's better-known book.
Paul's right, this is not really a practical buildable track plan, it's more like a schematic. Some of the grades will be quite problematic.
Moreover, it's from a copyrighted work (even though it is out of print), so you should probably remove the image from your post.
With that said, the breaks in the track are denoting where one track passes beneath another.
The problem in this case may not be any failing in your imagination, rather the limitations of the original plan.
Greg H. wrote:I will admit that my dream layout, will eventualy combine the Tehachapi Loop with the canyon streach of RR along side I-70 east of Glenwood Springs, plus a few other places
I'm fairly flexable as to the era - 1930 to modern, but, sooner or later I am going to put a Big Boy or Challanger on the layout so generious curves are a good thing. If that is really true why be so flexible. Lock yourself into the Supersteam / Transition era right now. Then you won't waste money on stuff that will eventually be anacronstic to your ultimate layout. Of course, I don't understand how this equipment choice matches with your scenery choice. D&RGW Challengers went through Glenwood Canyon, but a Big Boy never got close to either of those two scenery choices. If you really want to model Big Boys plan on modeling the UP or a UP protolance and start researching Sherman Hill. I think you will find it just as interesting as the Tehapachi Loop.
If the Tehapachi Loop is most important think and you want big steam consider the SP cab forward articulateds 4-6-6-2s & 4-8-8-2s. Very interesting and impressive locomotives.