steinjr wrote: vsmith wrote: 2. Fergus Falls. Very well done from a prototypical standpoint, my only reservation is how wound it operate as a standalone layout? It seems to need some track extensions off the allowed grid in order to move cars around. Maybe not one of the contest rules but its a consideration to me. Still its a nice job. It would not be possible to switch the south siding (lowermost one) from the east from within the 2x8 footprint. But I wouldn't need to - I could just switch the south siding from the west, using the north siding for a runaround when needed. But it takes a small engine - what I have used here is a GE 70-tonner and 40' cars to stay within the rules. Which is on the small side for the prototype. Could always shift the entire layout a little to the left, allowing room only for engine and one car left of leftmost turnout and just engine right of rightmost siding, to allow room for a bigger engine. Grin, Stein
vsmith wrote: 2. Fergus Falls. Very well done from a prototypical standpoint, my only reservation is how wound it operate as a standalone layout? It seems to need some track extensions off the allowed grid in order to move cars around. Maybe not one of the contest rules but its a consideration to me. Still its a nice job.
2. Fergus Falls. Very well done from a prototypical standpoint, my only reservation is how wound it operate as a standalone layout? It seems to need some track extensions off the allowed grid in order to move cars around. Maybe not one of the contest rules but its a consideration to me. Still its a nice job.
It would not be possible to switch the south siding (lowermost one) from the east from within the 2x8 footprint. But I wouldn't need to - I could just switch the south siding from the west, using the north siding for a runaround when needed.
But it takes a small engine - what I have used here is a GE 70-tonner and 40' cars to stay within the rules. Which is on the small side for the prototype.
Could always shift the entire layout a little to the left, allowing room only for engine and one car left of leftmost turnout and just engine right of rightmost siding, to allow room for a bigger engine.
Grin, Stein
I think shifting the layout to the left as you suggest, maybe only as little as 8 or 9 inches might be enough to solve the access issue to the concrete works. The left side look to have the room to spare, maybe sqeeze a couple inches in-between, then it should fine as a stand alone, but thats only if it became a desirable function of the layout, if theirs other section that are intended to attach to each end, then its a mute point
Have fun with your trains
I guess I can vote , here are my favorites , I am a little biased about #1 , but I have to vote for my self .
#1 Louisville , New Albany & Corydon RR
# 2 Town of Random
# 3 Port Barber Terminal
Louisville , New Albany & Corydon: Based on a prototype in Corydon, Harrison County, Indiana - just south of I-64, West of Louisville.
Have tried to look at the prototype with http://maps.live.com/ - link direct to pics: http://tinyurl.com/3c6fvk, don't see anything I recognize from the layout - but that means little - towns change in the 56 years from 1952 to 2008. Anyways - hard to say how well prototype has been represented in layout. Looks fully functional for switching
Some additinal information , This the old part of Corydon , there is actually a 4 track yard and a couple smaller businesses that were served by rail , but due to the lack of space I cut those out and left the busiest customers . Today a couple of miles north of town there is a newer yard and engine facility plus several customers in an industrial park . The LNAC has recently hit upon hard times with the closing of an automotive frame plant and a auto parts factory , and the very recent closing of the furniture plant that is on the plan .
1. Port Barber Terminal
2. Fergus Falls
3. Hockessin Del.
Really-all entries were great!
1. Town of Unknown
2. Thawville
3. Ferus Falls
For my tastes:
1- Port Barber (love the double slips and the turntable)
2- Town of Unkown (no double slips, but the TT is there, and the rest is nice switching)
3- Fergus Falls (nice balance & utility, no double slips or TT)
Nice work, all who contributed...I appreciate the time and effort each of you took to draw up a plan.
-Crandell
My votes would be:
1 - Fergus Falls (I'd modify it if I were building it, maybe shorten the passing track slightly for better switching, but I like the arrangement well enough that it doesn't bother me too much)
2 - Town of Unknown (again, if building it for me, I'd move the turntable closer and switch the roundhouse to the left side, but that's just my tastes)
3 - (I'm tied between) Hockessing, PA and Landenburg, PA. They are both similar in setup (just rotated and slightly different curves, to my eyes) Hockessing might have a slight edge as drawn, since I like more industries to switch.
Jim in Cape Girardeau
1. Fergus Falls, Otter Tail ...
2. Landenburg, Pa
3. Town of Random
These seemed to have a good combination of scenic possibilities and stand alone operation.
Enjoy
Paul
1. Landenburg, PA
2. Komatsu
3. Hockessin, PA
I really like the Fergus Falls layout but there was no room to actually work the runaround so I disqualified it!
David
1. Fergus Falls
2.Louisville,New Albany & Corydon
3.Hockessin
Terry
Terry in NW Wisconsin
Queenbogey715 is my Youtube channel
Tough call but:
1. Port Butler. This one is the best in terms of also being capable of being a standalone operating layout while still capable to be part of a larger setup.
3. Tie: Random & Unknown, these are nifty pair of bookends, you cant vote for the tail and ignore the head, so I consider this a package deal. Now you just have to fill in all the "in-between" of this layout.
I liked alot of the others also, maybe I should have entered mine anyways, oh well.
1. Thawville....
3. Komatsu Line
Modeling the fictional B&M Dowe, NH branch in the early 50's.
2. Random
3. Greenbank
#1: Landenburg, Pennsylvania #2: Komatsu Line #3: Fergus Falls
Comments:
#1 Landenburg - I like the mainline here better than the mainline in Hockessin, which is also an interesting design. Having the mainline not take the deviating path through a turnout tips is why I pick Landenburg over Hockessin.
I also like the end of the mainline (at left) serves two functions - interchange and part of runaround at station. It is also a good call to _not_ model the junction with the PRR (diagonal track), but just implying a junction outside the edge of the layout. Branching off the sput to Industry D (the mushroom farm) from the end of the siding is a well known trick to save space, but it is well executed.
I also like that the spur to the Woolen mill crosses the creek on a bridge, and that there are two buildings between the viewer and the track - the barn and the Woolen mill.
#2 Komatsu Line - as always, the layout based on a Japanese prototype is thought provoking and no doubt will create very interesting operations. Planning the layout around interurban electric motor units is a very interesting twist.
Only place that potensial would be hard to work "be worked entirely within the 2 x 8 borders" is the Tractor factory siding at upper right hand end, with the interurban pushing a boxcar here.
But the rest of the layout should create a lot of very interesting operations. I particularily enjoyed the description of prototype opearations.
#3 Fergus Falls - it might be cheesy to vote for one of my own layouts, but I actually think this one came out reasonably well. Basic idea is very similar to the one in Arkansas Valley - multiple straight parallell tracks through town.
Reason why I vote for Fergus rather than Arkansas is that I think Fergus would allows for more operations.
Then again - others may feel that Arkansas Valley is less crowded - it comes down to a matter of taste here.
Some comments on other layouts:
Butler, Indiana: unfortunatelt fell afoul of the "too-optimistic-pencil-drawn-plan" syndrome. Cannot be operated entirely within the 2x8 borders - would need to be thinned out a bit to fit the 2x8 footprint.
But could make an interesting plan if the double mainlines are straighted out and slanted from lower left to upper right, maybe crossing the sides approximately at 6" from back and front edge respectively.
Maybe also would benefit from a couple of tricks from the Landenburg layout - like having a siding for the elevator come off a straight turnout at the end of the passing siding, and having the interchange not connected to to the diagonal other railroad.
I would have moved the two turnouts closest to the edge further in, to allow room for an engine left of the runaround, and room for an engine plus one car to the right of the turnout for the interchange.
Edit: added more comments later:
Have tried to look at the prototype with http://maps.live.com/ - link direct to pics: http://tinyurl.com/3c6fvk, don't see anything I recognize from the layout - but that means little - towns change in the 56 years from 1952 to 2008. Anyways - hard to say how well prototype has been represented in layout. Looks fully functional for switching.
Industry, NY: apparently not possible to switch any of the tracks from the mainline within the 2x8 footprint - no space set aside for a lead to service the sidings from the main. And it is not really based on an agricultural town. So it falls afoul of several contest criteria.
But the idea of modelling a small train museum somewhere on a layout is interesting - this would make a very nice module for displaying interesting (possibly even non-running) rolling stock.
Port Barber: with those two double slips and the round table it should be possible to switch this layout extensively as a separate module - there are multiple possible run-around paths through the layout, and it also leaves several pieces of track where it is possible to stash cars temporarily while switching.
But to me, the layout is more switching puzzle with a nautical flavor than a representaton of an actual agricultural town. Looked for the prototype, but was unable to locate Port Barber, Maine.
Thawville: based on a pretty small town (pop about 200) prototype in Illinois. Main focus of this design was not on operations - functionally the town is two sidings back to back, and not very interesting to switch as a standalone model.
Main focus of design was to model the structures in the town in a way that would be fairly recognizable to someone who knows this town.
There was a fairly long thread discussing how we arrived at this particular track plan/design - can be read here, if you are interested: http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/1354739/ShowPost.aspx
Random: fully functional switching layout. I like the way the spurs curve off from the two double ended station tracks. 21" curve radius should work find for a town of this type.
I in particular like that the designer has left plenty of lead space for switching the industry spurs, and that the designer has made sure those parts of the industry tracks where you will be coupling and uncoupling cars are straight track.
Module has the two most important industries for varied traffic - interchange and team track. Good idea to show how you could fit in a town on a dead end peninsula (or start a branch line from this town).
Unknown: probably work as the end of a branch line. But doesn't work as a self contained module - no room to move an engine and a car (or more) between the upper tracks and the lower tracks. No possibility for a runaround for the upper part.
Like the yard placed on a diagonal - good use of space.
Arkansas Valley RR: There is a potensial problem that the double ended siding in front of industries 7 and 8 is so critical to the operation of the module that placing a single car at industries 7 or 8 pretty much locks up the rest of the layout. Having that second runaround (which does not double as a industry track) is part of what made me vote for Fergus instead of this one.
But this town looks convincingly like a small agricultural town somewhere in the US midwest flavor is very well preserved!
Greenbank Delaware: an excellent demonstration of the principle "less is more". You don't see much of town, but it would be easy to convince yourself that there is a small agricultural town right behind the smalltown depot.
Mainline radius of 30" should be good for passenger trains passing through at a good clip.
The snuff mill is an unusual and interesting factory. I like the way the siding goes the right way for a small module - branching towards the side edge, so there is plenty space for the train that is dropping off or picking up a car from the snuff mill.
This module should work well both for freight and passenger traffic (using short switchers, one or two car passenger trains or doodlebugs), despite looking deceptively simple.
Hockessin: this gi
TwinZephyr wrote: I like Fergus Falls.How many of these layouts could actually be operated stand-alone? Most of them have turnouts located so close to the ends there isn't room for a locomotive, let alone a locomotive and car, to navigate from one track to the other.
I like Fergus Falls.
How many of these layouts could actually be operated stand-alone? Most of them have turnouts located so close to the ends there isn't room for a locomotive, let alone a locomotive and car, to navigate from one track to the other.
That should be a consideration in your voting. They should operate on their own.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
1: port barber
2: komatsu
3: thawville
1-Komatsu Line
2-Fergus Falls
3-Port Barber Terminal
OK so there I go...
1) Fergus Falls;
2)Thawville;
3)Port Barber.
2. Arkansas valley
3. Komatsu
1. Fergus Falls, Otter Tail County Minnesota
2. Port Barber
3. Town Of Unknown
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
It's that time. Vote for your favorite 2 x 8 desgn. It might be tough. There are some pretty good designs here.
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.
2008 2 x 8 Design Contest Voting Page
Welcome Judges to the 2008 2x8 Design Contest. Please choose your top 3 favorites and rank them from 1 to 3. List them by layout name. Click on the thumbnail for a larger picture and description. Based upon your rankings, they will receive points as follows: (You don't need to do this. We will do this at the end of the contest.) First Place 5 points Second Place 3 point Third Place 1 Points After 1 week the scores will be added and the winner announced with appropriate fanfare. Voting ends midnight March 10, 2008 PST. Contest Rules: Size: 24" x 96" somewhere in or about a small agricultural town no era limitations or location limits (in other words, it can be any time or place a railroad existed) HO scale is specified, but N-scale can used if it is scaled down to 13" x 52" 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 assumed that there is adequate traffic and staging to justify the operations of the 2 x 8 space. Failure to follow the rules results in disqualification and loss of appropriate bragging rights