2008 2 x 8 Design Contest--Results are in: Bottom p4

[SpaceMouse]

I just wanted to state that when I designed my 3 plans (Industry, Unknown and Random) that my interpretation of the rules was that this was designed to be part of a larger layout.  With that in mind I took the continuation tracks (rest of the railroad) as room that could be used for switching.  The part of the rules that state, “any runaround needed for operation should be represented on the layout”, I took as you needed the run around tracks to be completed before the end of the 2 x 8 and could not just say that siding ends off 2 x 8.  

Of course that is before Space Mouse added to the voting post:

“Please read the rules before voting. Remember that this 2 x 8 layout is to be part of a larger layout, but must be able to be worked entirely within the 2 x 8 borders.”

So I guess I lost this round.

Please don’t take my comments as flaming Space Mouse because I am grateful he puts together these contests and I will just need to be a little more careful next time so I can get bragging rights.  I just wanted to explain a little better the thought behind my the three designs.

I cannot wait to see what the next contest will be.

I will enter my votes later this week.

Chris
Lancaster, CA

I'm sorry for the confusion.

There was a movement to make the contest very specific using a single LDE and make a layout out based upon it. Enough people expanded on it until it became very vague.

Personally, I thought your LDE's were very well done and on a big layout would be fun, especially with a way freight run. However, no matter how many times you times you tell people, they are going to look at the 2 x 8 as a stand alone. 

To win one of these silly things, you have to consider the audience who is voting. There is everything from the novices who wants bells and whistles to the old hand who wants won't put up with useless clutter. So part of the contest is fitting in between the seams. This might be a topic for the debriefing. Quite simply, good layouts often get over-looked.   

[munster]

#1 Louisville, New Albany & Corydon RR

#2 Port Barber Terminal

#3 Komatsu Line

[BRAKIE]

Chip,I like these 3.

1.New Albany & Corydon RR

2.Fergus Falls

3.Port Barber ..I would eliminate the turntable and engine house so I could add 2-3 more industries.Motive power would be either a GE70 Tonner or 44 Tonner. 

I would replace the ice house,lobster and fish with better industries.I would also eliminate the coal dock because its on a switchback that uses a industry's dock trackage.

[SpaceMouse]

3.Port Barber ..I would eliminate the turntable and engine house so I could add 2-3 more industries.Motive power would be either a GE70 Tonner or 44 Tonner. 

I would replace the ice house,lobster and fish with better industries.I would also eliminate the coal dock because its on a switchback that uses a industry's dock trackage.

 

Brakie,

Let me get this straight. You want to get rid of all the industries except the freight house and the marine fuel depot and replace them with something more interesting than fish. Hmmm.

It seems it would no longer be a fishing village. Um, you sure you don't want the terrain a little more interesting as well. Maybe, say the Costa Rica jungles, or the inside of Krakatau.

I can see where you're going with this. New Mexico guano mines. It would make the plan better.

 

[BRAKIE]

Chip.Where I am heading to is a prototypical design based on rail served industries.You should know that by now.

Instead of time sensitive shipments like fresh fish and lobster I am thinking of supplies like steel plates for ship repair,netting,lubricates,marine lumber,cardboard boxes and tin stock(for the canning company) and a boat part distributor.

See where I am coming from? More then likely refrigerator trucks would haul the fresh fish and lobsters to market since trucks are faster for time sensitive shipments while canned fish and canned lobster could be ship by rail..

[New Haven I-5]

 Favoite=Butler, Indiana.

[stilson4283]

1 - Louisville , New Albany & Corydon RR

2 - Port Barber

3 - Landenberg Pennsylvania

 

Great job to all that enter.  

 

Chris

Lancaster, CA 

[MarkUW]

Nice plans! Some ideas here that might find there way into my evolving layout plan.

My votes:
1. Fergus Falls
2. Port Barber
3. Landenburg

Mak

[tomikawaTT]

You asked for it!

1. Komatsu.  Not because I'm biased toward things Japanese, but because it has the most, and most interesting, operating potential.  Since I know that a 4-wheel gon and a 4-wheel box motor have a combined length of about 200mm, I didn't have a problem with the short right lead to the tractor factory.  Getting cars from the JNR interchange to the factory (and vice versa) could get interesting when the yard is choked with parked densha.
2. Landenburg, PA.
3. Hockessin, DE.

Honorable mention to Fergus Falls.

I didn't enter my similar-size module because it's non-agricultural.  The locals are harvesting trees that fell millions of years ago.

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

[exPalaceDog]

It's that time.  Vote for your favorite 2 x 8 desgn. It might be tough. There are some pretty good designs here.

The Old Dawg must agree! 

Please read the rules before voting. Remember that this 2 x 8 layout is to be part of a larger layout, but must be able to be worked entirely within the 2 x 8 borders.

The underlined portion is somewhat of a new requirement. Some designs might need some re-working to meet this requirement. The Old Hound is going to get this requirement limit weight. Short fold down extensions could be used.

The Old Mutt is going to repeat the link to Chip's web to allow poster to see the layouts without having to go back to page one of this thread. 

2008 2 x 8 Design Contest Voting Page 

First Place 5 points

Shared between the Town of Random and Town of Unknown (2.5 points each)

Second Place 3 point

Shared between Greenbank, Delaware ; Landenburg, Pennsylvania ; and Hockessin, Delaware (1 point each)

Third Place 1 Points

Thawville

Concerns

1) The Port Barber Terminal includes many builds between the through track and the front edge of the layout, that could make access difficult when re-railing cars, and doing swithching. The Industry, NY might have similiar problems with the Excursion Set of cars parked along the front edge of the layout. The Fergus Falls, Otter Tail County, Minnesota  with the Farmers' GTA elevator also might have problems. The Old Dog would suggest that the elevator be made to be easily set aside when necessary. The Arkansas Valley seems to have a similiar problem. Perhaps it is trying to put too many industries in the space. 

2) The Port Barber Terminal includes two double slip switches. Such switches are usually creature of the urban high rent district, not rural towns.

3) The Port Barber Terminal is probably off topic. It is more aquacultural then agricultural. Ihe same might be said of the Komatsu Line . A tractor factory would usually be a city creature. The same might be said of the Louisville , New Albany & Corydon RR , a furniture factory would be more of a forest industry.

Have fun 

 

[steinjr]

Please read the rules before voting. Remember that this 2 x 8 layout is to be part of a larger layout, but must be able to be worked entirely within the 2 x 8 borders.

The underlined portion is somewhat of a new requirement.

Actually, no. The original requirements were:

 

Grade and curve radius must be appropriate to your equipment

Although it should stand on it's own merit, your plan should be considered part of a larger layout. However, yard leads, yard tracks, interchange tracks, ends of wyes, etc. cannot extend off the 2 x 8 area.

The mainline, either double or single can connect to either side of the layout. Likewise, an interchange track can extend off any side of the layout, but any "interchange operations" must take place within the 2 x 8 boundaries. Likewise, any runaround needed for operation should be represented on the layout

 It should be reasonably clear from context that tracks needed to operate the module could not extend beyond the module.

Some designs might need some re-working to meet this requirement. The Old Hound is going to get this requirement limit weight. Short fold down extensions could be used.

 The old dog can decide which three layouts he wants to vote for in any which way he likes. (Edit: removed irrelevant joke)

First Place 5 points

Shared between the Town of Random and Town of Unknown (2.5 points each)

Second Place 3 point

Shared between Greenbank, Delaware ; Landenburg, Pennsylvania ; and Hockessin, Delaware (1 point each)

Third Place 1 Points

Thawville

 However, the rules on how to vote is expressed rather clearly. Pick your three favorite layouts, list them in order 1, 2 and 3. That rule should be rather hard to misunderstand in any way, shape or form.

 

 

Concerns

<snip> includes many builds between the through track and the front edge of the layout, that could make access difficult when re-railing cars, and doing swithching<snip>

The Fergus Falls, Otter Tail County, Minnesota  with the Farmers' GTA elevator also might have problems.

 Yes, if you arms are so short that you cannot reach 16-18" in from either side of the GTA elevator reach a car that is directly in front of the elevator to couple or uncouple. 

 Look at the prototype photos. Fuel dealer is a low structure, and so is concrete Co.

  If there is anywhere that is going to have reach issues, it is the other elevator - the Coop elevator at the back. To couple or uncouple here, you need to reach in about 24" at the right (east) end of that elevator. On the west end of that elevator it would be hard to reach to couple or uncouple.

  So what needs to be removable in a pinch is not the GTA elevator - it is the two buildings belonging to Ottertail Machines in the middle of the layout.

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[Texas Zepher]

must be able to be worked entirely within the 2 x 8 borders.

Some designs might need some re-working to meet this requirement.

Yes, that was the most limiting rule.  I had to redo the turnout on one end which greatly restricted not only the scenery but still limited the operatiblity.  A run around can be only the locomotive or only a car not both.

Concerns  1) The Arkansas Valley seems to have a similiar problem. Perhaps it is trying to put too many industries in the space. 

Agreed, but mitigated.  That is why many of them along the front track are the "lower profile" like the lumber yard, stock yard, coal dock, and pickle plant.  There is only one "tall" industry along the front track.  That is alwo why two of them are "abandon", because there would not be sufficient room on the siding for all the cars (due to rule above).  And one also assumes that with the loading rates not all the industries (except the elevators on the rear track) will have cars spotted at them most of the time.  In load and out.  The real Santa Fe would load sugar beats into cars right on the through track of the Arkansas Valley Branch.

[SpaceMouse]

Well Dog, you sure stirred up some controversy.

The reach over problem is not that great on a narrow layout, and could easily be compensated for with the height of the layout.

But voing for just about every plan is a bit over the top. Since you have your top-top picks, maybe you could narrow it down to 3 and rank them, please?  

[Anonymous]

1.Arkansas Valley

2.Fergus Falls

3.Unknown

[stebbycentral]

1) Fergus Falls -  If only because the guy did his homework.  If there is any crticism, there is that one switch that's in a very tight place.  If it were me I'd just eliminate it entirely, since there already is one run-around track, why do you need two?

2) Thawville - So, yes it is basically an excuse to build a bunch a highly detailed scale structures representing small town America, with railroad operations serving mainly as a backdrop.  I can live with that.

3) Industry - I kind of like the idea of modeling a railroad museum as a change of pace from the usual industrial subjects.  As for the criticism that it does not represent a small agricultural town, tell that to the people of Boone, IA or Union, IL.

[steinjr]

Fergus Falls -  If there is any crticism, there is that one switch that's in a very tight place.  If it were me I'd just eliminate it entirely, since there already is one run-around track, why do you need two?

 I don't. Did you read the notes on layout ? Let me quote them from SpaceMouse's page:

 

Types of traffic and max capacity for stuff that could be delivered to the various spurs and sidings (top to bottom) :

Coop spur: one tank car to the vegetable oil plant (tanks in upper left hand corner), one flatcar or boxcar of machinery and parts to the agricultural machine store, two or three empty boxcars or covered hoppers to the Coop elevator.

Manufacturing spur: one boxcar or flatcar

North storage spur: one flatcar for end unloading to the agricultural machine store, up to four off spot cars/temporary storage cars

North siding: not normally used for spotting cars - used for runaround moves and access to the five north end spurs. Can be used to run around 5 cars on the main, or as a place to duck into with an engine and 4 cars to let a train past on the main.

Freight house spur: two flatcars or boxcars, for unloading LCL (Less than Car Load) freight into the freight house (right end of depot) or as a team track - to transload to a truck on the dirt track above the freight house spur. Three off spot cars can be left on this spur east of Pacific Street.

Northern Pacific's mainline east-west. Can be connected with rest of layout (or staging) at both ends w/o too excessive curves.

South siding: two boxcars or covered hoppers for the GTA elevator, one tank car or an open hopper with coal for the fuel dealer, one or two gondolas or flatcars for the concrete company. Can also be used as a passing siding to let trains (e.g passenger trains) past on the mainline - will fit one small engine and 7 40' boxcars.

Other highlights: this 2x8 section could be switched on its own - there is room for three 40' cars and a short switcher type engine left of the leftmost turnout, and room for a short engine and two 40' cars to move cars between the Coop elevator spur and the north siding.

 I have modelled it both using a GE 70-tonner and using an EMD GP-7, plus 40' boxcars. Here are some snapshots using a GP-7 as the engine:

1) Moving a cut of two cars into south siding:

2) Running just the engine around cars left on north siding 

3)  Moving a cut of two cars between north sidng and coop spur or manufacturing spur:

Smile,
Stein

 

 

[exPalaceDog]

Well Dog, you sure stirred up some controversy.

That never hurts! The more one "stirs the pot", the more people think!

But voing for just about every plan is a bit over the top. Since you have your top-top picks, maybe you could narrow it down to 3 and rank them, please?  

If you notice, the plans that are rated at each level appear to be from the same poster. What is one to do when some one enters several "good" plans? The Old Flea Bag thinks that giving each entry partial credit is appropriate.

Have fun

[larak]

1) Fergus Falls

2) Port Barber

3) Komatsu Line 

[Steve_F]

1. Arkansas Valley

2. Fergus Falls

3. Thawville

[SpaceMouse]

Dog,

I guess it true what they say about dogs and tricks.

[SpaceMouse]

Shameless bump

[SpaceMouse]

Another Shameless bump for the weekend crowd.

[Texas Zepher]

I suppose that sooner or later I'm going to have to post my analysis and vote.  How long do we have?

[KingConrail76]

1. Thawville - IMO fits the "original" criteria AND the latest "rules" the best. Simple, yet effective.
2. Landenburg - Again, Simple, yet effective. Lends itself well to "the larger layout" in-that it is accompanied by HONERABLE MENTION modules Hockessin, and Greenbank.
3. Town of Random - Nice Simple plan with interesting track arrangment. (Might have made #2 on my list if it were more detailed of a drawing, and the author would have defined the ACTUAL industries, rather than provide a space to place a variety of options).

[bogp40]

#1  Fegus Falls

#2  Port Barber

#3  Komatsu Line

[sleeper33]

NO.1 = Port Baber Terminal

NO. 2 = Komatsu line

NO. 3 = Louisville,New Albany & Corydon RR.

[gandydancer19]

1. Port Barber Terminal

I have always liked seaside towns. It gives a reason for the edge of the layout. This plan is centered around the seafood industry and it has all of the elements working together to keep the product fresh until it gets to market. It also includes other shippers and receivers. The two double-slips allow maximum versatility in switching. The engine facilities are justified because of the perishables that are shipped. The outbound train has to be ready to go with no delays when the mainline train arrives. I live near a town that was heavy into the seafood industry until tourism took over.

2. Fergus Falls, Otter Tail County, Minnesota

This layout would have been first, but I thought one turnout was too close to the edge of the table to be used for switching as a stand-alone layout, although you might be able to get a GE 44 ton or smaller loco on the tail of the turnout. Lots of large industries for switching to be done "between and behind" them. It also had quite a bit of open space between tracks for loads of character to be added. I also liked that the mainline wasn't parallel with the table edge.

3. Louisville , New Albany & Corydon RR

Although this plan didn't have a large amount of industries, the town proper was laid out typical of small RR towns with the depot at the front center of town. I also liked the mainline route change from back to front. Some small towns like this only had one or two large industries that the RR serviced. The only thing that I didn't like was the location of the engine terminal. It should have been off to the lower left-hand track, then the siding shortened up so it didn't cross the street. I also live 20 miles from a small old RR town very close to this type of design.

Later edit:

Reading others comments about hard to reach in some of the layouts to re-rail cars..... The only thing I have to say about that is "if you have to re-rail cars during switching operations, you ain't built it right in the first place".

Elmer.

[Packers#1]

1. Fergus Falls, Otter Tail County, Minnesota

2. Butler, Indiana

3. Port Barber Terminal

So hard to pick between these three.

[ChrisNH]

1. Fergus Falls

- even it it was not prototype it would still be fun to switch. The mainline has no diverging routes which would make it easy to drop in anywhere. The photos with the entry were a nice touch for "presentation". 

2.  Landenberg

- it has a mushroom farm! Would make a great side of a 4x8 with the other end of the branch on the other side of the table.. and for the life of me I can't recall having ever seen a mushroom farm on a layout before. Does it take loads of manure?

3.  Butler

- Nice prototype, easy to drop into a double track mainline. I think scenically the "kink" in the mainline would look pretty cool. I do wonder how it would fit together with "real" track or if done via cad.

All the entries were great! And there was a Mushroom Farm! Now I have to have one too.. 

Chris

[Anonymous]

1 Louisville , New Albany & Corydon RR

reasonable density, good operating.  I would like to see that track through the stream!  Perhaps off the mainine into the greenery?

2 Fergus Falls

Except the right-hand switch is not useful.  The team tracks could be shortened.   

3 Random