MisterBeasleyI started by downloading a copy of Atlas RTS and learning to use it a bit. Then I drew a 4x8, for a start, and quickly expanded it to a 4x12. I knew I had part of the family room to work with, but I didn't know how much, so I didn't want to press my luck. I also didn't want to start a project that would be discouragingly large.
I definitely know and can relate to that feeling...
MisterBeasleyI put down some track, a continuous loop, mostly around the perimeter, with a crossover, yard and roundhouse. I realized that 4 feet was just too narrow, and I didn't want to be confined to the perimeter just to make 18-inch curves. So, I went out to 5x12, which became the size of the layout I eventually built. I also provided for expansion with a number of sidings around the edge which could be turned into connecting tracks to new layout sections. Now that I'm building a new section, though, I realize that none of those would really have worked very well, so they have remained spurs while the new connecting tracks were carved out of the existing mains.
I put down some track, a continuous loop, mostly around the perimeter, with a crossover, yard and roundhouse. I realized that 4 feet was just too narrow, and I didn't want to be confined to the perimeter just to make 18-inch curves. So, I went out to 5x12, which became the size of the layout I eventually built.
I also provided for expansion with a number of sidings around the edge which could be turned into connecting tracks to new layout sections. Now that I'm building a new section, though, I realize that none of those would really have worked very well, so they have remained spurs while the new connecting tracks were carved out of the existing mains.
I, myself, didn't start out to build a 'temporary' layout-- but owing to a number of factors, that's what I've done. And over the weekend I just built a pretty nice, and large, extension to it-- well, am building, got part of it finished. The rest will go pretty quick though, just need to finish up adding legs and tying it in to the existing "temporary" layout. But it is "temporary"-- and that's not just something I'm telling myself-- regardless of how long it has to last. For awhile (a couple of years really) I was negotiating territory with my wife-- but we've finally gotten all that settled (I hope) and now its just a matter of getting the stuff to finish putting the basement back together-- the tile mostly, the wallboard and studs are cheap enough. Its going to be longer than I figured to save up for the tile, and in the meantime I have all this wood and "pink foam" I can use.... (you can see where I'm going with this... )
But, overall I think I've been pretty happy about having a "temporary" layout-- sure its a little embarrassing when people see it because its all PINK-- and to tell the truth its a little spartan as well-- but what I really like about it is the fact that I can try stuff out for very little cost other than the time it takes to do it. Its been helping me a lot to put down track and try different configurations to get an internalized sense of "how to do it"-- for switching, etc-- and even though I would consider myself definitely still a novice when it comes to the track-planning business, I already know I've grown quite a bit in my understanding of what works and what doesn't, and why trains do some of the things they do. You can read about it in books all day long-- but until you have tracks laid and are attempting to apply the "business of railroading", its difficult to really get in there and "grok" it. Its getting easier for me to look at other people's track plans and understand what they're doing and why. I find myself sometimes imagining trains running on their plans to see how it works.
I'd be happy to hear more about your expansion plans now that the witching hour is over!
John
ndbprr Well I am on about on my eight layout after over forty years in the hobby
Well I am on about on my eight layout after over forty years in the hobby
Congrats! There oughta be some sort of ribbon you get for every decade or something...
ndbprr1. Use the biggest radius you can fit in the area. My HO mainline will have nothing smaller than 48" radius and larger where possible.
Yeah, its that "where possible" bit that gets most of us-- I decided I'm not going to have any more than a 2-1/2 degree curve on my layout.
(Where possible )
I know what you're saying though-- its a tradeoff whatever you do. If you're lucky enough to have lots and lots of space you have the luxury of being able to set "gold standards" for yourself and maybe meet them. There's a lot of people out there though who would count themselves lucky if they could only dictate 24-inch radius curves and stick to it. As for myself, I have the room to make the pronouncement, but I have a strong desire for more mainline and (so far) the only way I've been able to see how it can be done is to specify smaller curves-- I'm thinking in the 30-36 inch radius range-- so my turnbacks will be skinny enough to fit a couple side-by-side. I'm also double-decking most of the layout so that will add to it of course. And while I would love to have 48-inch (or even bigger) curves all over my layout, I just can't fit it all in. So I'm going to use the age-old artifice of the "tunnel", or some other misdirection, wherever I have to cheat and use smaller radius curves (28-30 inches) on the turnbacks.
ndbprr2. The prototype trackage is done for a reason. Study it, copy it and find drawings of the trackage you want to model and use it as close to what is on the paper as possible.
That one I agree with wholeheartedly. The only drawback I'd say is that its not always easy to find a plan for the prototype, nor a good explanation of why its there and how it works. If you just faithfully reproduce what you see without understanding the "why" of it-- you're not really learning anything. You're just copying what someone else did without understanding the logic behind it. But that could certainly be a way of gaining insight though, just do it, run some trains around on it and see what happens.
Taking the opposing side of the argument though-- suppose the original railroad didn't have very good engineering or track-planning skills. Suppose they went out of business for a reason-- and it wasn't supply & demand. Suppose their chief engineer only copied what some other engineer did on some other railroad-- and it didn't really work for them in their situation....? While certainly if you're following a particular prototype you might not have a lot of choice-- they did it and so should you-- even though that's why they're a "Rails-to-Trails" bicycle park in the present day...
I hear people say that a lot-- "The prototype trackage is done for a reason. Study it..." without giving people the skills or resources they need to understand it-- or to even be certain they're analyzing the right portion of it. One of my [least] favorite examples of this is in a well-known book by a well-known MRR author-- who says something to effect of "Study the prototype trackage" yada yada, and then a sentence or two before or after-- in the general vicinity-- he also says something like "the prototype may have used a runaround 10 miles away to make a section of track to work..." (not an exact quote) and when I read that-- and I have a number of times-- all I can think of is "Well, if that's the case, how in HECK could I know that!?!?!" So, in direct contradiction with the author's stated intent-- the answer is NOT clear and its NOT (necessarily) staring me right in the face when I look at some bit of prototype track or other.
There's another possibility that might be at work also-- things change. What was done "then" for one reason might be done a different way "now" for another reason-- or it might not even be being done at all now for some yet different reason. Or to complicate matters, it might have been done one way in the distant past, modified to work a different way in the recent past, and then modified again to work some other way now. And unless you have the vantage point of being able to see all three modifications in context, you can't necessarily understand it just by looking at it.
And though the adage of "Study the prototype trackage..." might be worthwhile (and probably IS worthwhile, I'm not really suggesting NOT to do it)-- its important to note that someone who is experienced in looking at track and studying rail operations is going to be able to look at it and see / understand it in far greater detail than a novice who looks at it and can't really make heads or tails out of it unless its crystal clear and there are no hidden, lost or unknown aspects.
However, all that said, I don't think you're wrong either You have to start somewhere.
DoughlessIn my case, a few realities dictated how the plan would evolve: the freelanced midwestern shortline theme was set, because that's what interests me. Being a multi-use room, with household storage, mechanicals, and treadmill to share the room, two-foot deep shelf benchwork around 3.5 of the 4 walls had to be the footprint.
I think that, or something like it, is the situation for many modelers. Personally, speaking for myself, I like the look of the shelf layout-- with one addition-- I like "bump-outs" (or "Lobes" as Tony Koester would term them). I think they do a lot to "disguise" the "shelf nature" of the layout while contributing quite a bit to the layout. They don't have to be deep. Even an extra few inches can be enough to add some variety or "obstruction" to obscure the view, so you can't just look up and down the line to take the whole thing in at a glance. Another thing about "Lobes" is that you can use them to place industries at interesting angles and / or to provide additional operational space or access, which can improve the enjoyment of the layout.
DoughlessSeeing things in the flesh reveals some issues about a plan that even detailed drawings or programming software might not reveal.
I wholeheartedly concur with that opinion. Even though I know I have a really good representation of my basement space set up in the computer, and I know that the computer can lay out a curve to millimeter precision-- I often find there are things I *can* do that the computer says I cannot. And not just inconsequential things either, I'm talking about entire benchwork placements and such. Being able to *see* it and work within the space often makes a big difference in how you think of and perceive the space. While I know the computer is completely correct in its depictions, its hard to substitute the "being there and seeing it" human aspect. And to be fair, I know that in all liklihood the reason it isn't always up to expectations in the computer is due to human (meaning "me") input error. Sloppy input, can't blame the output. So I use the CAD program-- quite a bit actually-- but I also spend plenty of time with my tape measure and drawing pad actually *IN* my layout space looking, thinking, considering.
DoughlessThis method won't work for everyone. A theme with lots of vertical scenery elements tends to require open grid construction with risers, and experimenting with track arrangements isn't possible after that type of benchwork has been built, so a mountainous themed layout might have to be more carefully planned up front.
Yes, that's possible. On the other hand, even in that situation its possible to lay down track in a temporary manner to be sure that's what you want. That's what I've been learning with my temporary layout-- nothing has to be cast in stone until you're ready for it to be. I myself prefer to limit the consumption of my "consumables" (track, scenicking supplies, etc) because of the expense. Even wood is somewhat expensive, though nowhere near the cost of the other stuff. So I am not minding "trying stuff out" in the temporary space first before I commit to anything. In the meantime I'm continuing to lay in supplies-- I have a pretty good idea of what I'll need so I'm actually sort of in the best of both worlds at the moment. I have the opportunity to "play and learn" while being able to sit back and take advantage of opportunities and "good deals" when they present themselves.
And even though I hate using Atlas Code 100 track, and especially turnouts, on the other hand, its reasonably cheap (cough) and my ultimate plan is to use it in the staging and hidden areas. So I was planning on having it on-hand anyway, so there's no harm in utilizing it for the temporary layout until I'm ready to go to the next step. And it gives us somewhere to run our trains in the meantime.
Thanks for your comments!
tatansI took a sheet of blank paper, a black thin marker, and started drawing a line as track, turns, angles, overhead loops(dotted lines) until it seemed right, then added trestles, switches, sidings, next, stuck in where a town or village should be.
Urban planning & development at its finest...
tatansThats all there was to it, now this is a logging operation with lots of leeway, stubby little engines so don't worry about that turning radius foolishness, need a siding? bingo ! there it is, the same as a trestle or a lumber storage area.
He's a lumberjack and he's okayWorks all night and he sleeps all dayThen on the weekends he goes shopping....
He's a lumberjack and he's okay
Works all night and he sleeps all day
Then on the weekends he goes shopping....
SeanthehackMadison just happens to be were I live BTW
Based on the comments I've seen, here and elsewhere, that seems to be either the number one or number two reason given for "Why I picked what I did to model." (The other answer, btw, is "Because its what I saw growing up.").
SeanthehackI realized what a waste of space that small "yard" is
On a small plan I think you may be right. Having an off-stage fiddle yard is probably a better idea.
fwright I went a different route that will probably make CNJ, Stein, and the other real model railroaders cringe.I took some published small layout plans I really liked and tried to plan out how these might fit my proposed operating scheme. Some changes were made to link these together, and to better match my vision. The best of these ideas are in the planning hopper for "the" layout.
I went a different route that will probably make CNJ, Stein, and the other real model railroaders cringe.
I took some published small layout plans I really liked and tried to plan out how these might fit my proposed operating scheme. Some changes were made to link these together, and to better match my vision. The best of these ideas are in the planning hopper for "the" layout.
Cringe?? Why on earth should they cringe? I should think they would applaud you for doing your homework, figuring out what you want and what you have space for, and then figuring out a reasonable, practical way of getting it accomplished. I think you should be commended for your efforts!
fwrightjust my way of enjoying the hobby
That's what counts!
IRONROOSTERWhile most of the layout will feature 3ft aisles or better and be fairly relaxed, I have identified one place where the aisles and benchwork are going to be tight. That will be where the detailed planning starts.
I'll bet that once you really start thinking about it an elegant and clever solution will present itself. One of the things that I did in my own space was to relax my notions regarding scene "depth". You can squeeze a track into about a 4-inch shelf (less if you like living on the edge... umm, literally! ) and maybe 6-8 inches if you want a little bit of scenicking to go along with it. When you think of it that way it gets a lot easier to figure out how to squeeze in something that can work. That means you can take a 24-inch or maybe a 30-36 inch depth, split it in half with a backdrop or scenic divider, and get two very interesting and usable spaces out of it (front and back). Another thing is that there is no rule that says your bench has to be evenly divided right down the middle with no variation at all down the line. If you put a gently undulating curve in the backdrop, you would have naturally-occuring spaces that would lend themselves to a little more scenicking ("depth") as well as some visual appeal-- trains on shallow curves-- and break up ("separate") the modeled scenes a bit more.
I look forward to seeing your progress photos (feel free to post a URL if you already have some!)
steinjrfwright I went a different route that will probably make CNJ, Stein, and the other real model railroaders cringe. I took some published small layout plans I really liked and tried to plan out how these might fit my proposed operating scheme. Some changes were made to link these together, and to better match my vision. The best of these ideas are in the planning hopper for "the" layout. <scratches head in puzzlement> Why would that make anyone cringe? You looked at various sources (in this case model railroad layouts) for inspiration, gave thought to how you want to be able to run your trains, you have a vision of what you want to accomplish, and you adapt things to fit your space and vision. To me, that sounds like an entirely rational way to go about it. Smile,Stein
fwright I went a different route that will probably make CNJ, Stein, and the other real model railroaders cringe. I took some published small layout plans I really liked and tried to plan out how these might fit my proposed operating scheme. Some changes were made to link these together, and to better match my vision. The best of these ideas are in the planning hopper for "the" layout.
<scratches head in puzzlement> Why would that make anyone cringe? You looked at various sources (in this case model railroad layouts) for inspiration, gave thought to how you want to be able to run your trains, you have a vision of what you want to accomplish, and you adapt things to fit your space and vision. To me, that sounds like an entirely rational way to go about it.
Smile,Stein
Hey, that's what I said!
Oh, but I guess you said it first
mononguy63 Givens: DC, single deck, one operator, tucked into a corner of the basement so it would be accessible on two sides, able to run two trains hands-off Druthers: Able to run as single line, not less than 24" radius curves, operational potential to run as simulated point-to-point, one line crossing the other over a bridge, ample scenery and locations for buildings.
Givens: DC, single deck, one operator, tucked into a corner of the basement so it would be accessible on two sides, able to run two trains hands-off
Druthers: Able to run as single line, not less than 24" radius curves, operational potential to run as simulated point-to-point, one line crossing the other over a bridge, ample scenery and locations for buildings.
All your Givens are Druthers!
"Givens" are absolutes and immutables-- things you can't change (or at least not practically or without great expense) that you just have work around. "Druthers" are what you want.
mononguy63Here's the track plan that resulted
You have an interesting track plan. That's very cool!
mononguy63the sidings at the spurs are too short for real serious operations, though I don't really "operate" the railroad.
For some people the joy is in the building. Other people just like watching the trains. Nothing wrong with either view, or something else if you'd prefer.
Thanks for letting us see your track plan and hear your ideas. I'm hoping you'll tell us more as you make progress!
mobilman44My current "under construction" HO layout is a replacement for one built in 1993 and lasted until 2008. Its in the same 11x15 room, two level, with a large duck under right where the door opens.
I'm surprised you were able to get him to stand still that long....
(Sometimes I just quack me up! )
mobilman44Ok, I confess, my Lionel roots are showing....... No matter how "artfully" I disquise my double mains, they are still convaluted circles running around the perimeter of the room. I wanted to be able to just let trains "run", while I switched cars, etc, inside the mains.
Actually you just hit upon why I often have problems with a double main. My uncle keeps pushing me (gently) toward a double main. And I know he has a pretty good perspective on it, but in my mind it doesn't seem right. I know I have a decent-sized layout space and everything, but it really cuts into shelf depth and "fattens" everything up visually. And if that's not done exactly right and well-controlled, it can get "toy train-like" really quick, IMO. Not that other people haven't done it well-- they have and I've seen (in pictures) some very good examples of well-done double and multi-track lines. Particularly Pennsy lines. People just sort-of expect them to be double or even quad-tracked. And oddly enough, it doesn't seem as bad to me to see a three or four track Pennsy mainline. Just double-tracked for some reason-- maybe I just need to get out more, who knows??
fwrightWith the lower end and switchbacks explained, expansion off either end on the upper levels becomes plausible as access to the other features of a lumber line (mill and log landings). Time will tell how this will work out. I believe the LDE approach you take results in greater realism and purity, but my heart tugs at me to build these models of models.
Fred,
As the new owner of a shay and wondering how I'm going to fit it into my layout and operating scheme, I find that I have newfound interest in logging and mountain-region coal / minerals operations. I hope you will keep us up to date, from time-to-time, how your layout is coming along.
That's the problem
I didn't
Now I have tracked myself into a corner
51% share holder in the ME&O ( Wife owns the other 49% )
ME&O
Sir MadogI have only very limited resources available for my layout, in terms of money and space.
Have you considered perhaps a smaller scale that might let you model a larger area in the same space?
ATLANTIC CENTRALI have a simple system I have used for years, long before "fancy" names like LDE's. It works like this:
Those sound like practical suggestions and a good starting plan for building pretty much any type of layout.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I should also add that I have never tried to "copy" a scene from real life to the point that it would be recognizable and/or I have never tried to model a prototype railroad in a strict way. Wether I called it the B&O or the ATLANTIC CENTRAL, all my layouts are/have been freelanced scenicly. I have no interest in duplicating specific scenes from real life. I do take "inspiration" from real scenes, but then let them take on a personality of their own on the layout.
This, I think, is a most interesting statement-- even though I think it, in truth, is largely the ubiquitous methodology employed by most modelers-- if they even have a well-reasoned theme at all. I think it is interesting because there are some who get so caught up in "modeling the prototype" and go to great lengths to accurately detail and depict a particular locomotive or piece of rolling stock, and yet give not one thought to the accuracy of their locale, beyond the generalities. And beyond that, I think many people-- prototypers included-- who are "scared" (for lack of a better term, please forgive me) of attempting to model a "recognizable place" for fear people might not recognize it-- or worse, that someone *will* recognize it and be able to spot substantive differences. But-- for me-- I say "To heck with them", model it anyway. Do your best. Tell your detractors to take a long walk off a short pier while everyone else just enjoys your handiwork. So what if its not exactly the same? Chances are neither is their memory of the place.
BRAKIEJohn,When planing my ISLs I like to follow prototype practices..I also avoid a switchback that requires a car to be moved from a customer's dock. This one is loosely based on a real industrial area that was located at the end of a industrial branch on the NYC in Columbus,Ohio.Today this area is long gone. As you can see its void of any switchbacks but,requires run around moves. The key to operating this ISL is to make each move slow allowing time for the brakeman to unlock and open the derail.
This one is loosely based on a real industrial area that was located at the end of a industrial branch on the NYC in Columbus,Ohio.Today this area is long gone.
As you can see its void of any switchbacks but,requires run around moves.
The key to operating this ISL is to make each move slow allowing time for the brakeman to unlock and open the derail.
Larry--
You are what this hobby needs a lot more of-- a person with knowledge and experience who can explain this type of stuff and make it accessible to other modelers. Sure Armstrong wrote a book about it-- and its a very good one BTW, "Track Planning for Realistic Operation", but it would be nice to have additional viewpoints and perspectives on the subject. Or for more in-depth or expanded coverage about this detail or that. I really enjoy reading about "operational tidbits"-- stuff that maybe doesn't warrant a whole chapter but is "nice to know" or just interesting that might come in handy someday in some situation.
Thanks for your input!
hardcoalcaseI started with my list of priorities which were gained from previous projects, the more important ones were: point-to-point operation with continous running ability, five towns, the middle one with the yard and engine terminal, the terminal towns connecting to double ended perpetual staging tracks, loads-in-empties-out, 3 ft-ish asiles and no duck-unders.
Why a yard in the middle? It is often suggested that having a yard directly after coming out of staging-- or else just before going into staging-- is a good idea. Why did you select the center?
For myself, I am coming to the decision that having a yard wherever I need it is the best method. Also I find that people often use the term "Yard" generically and without distinction-- or else to generally reference some sort of "classification" facility-- whereas I'm starting to understand that there are many different types of yards and each one is best suited for a particular aspect of railroading or another. For example, some "yards" are designed for interchange-- setting out cars for one railroad and picking up others in return. That "yard" may actually be nothing more than a siding or two. A different "yard" could exist for the purpose of marshalling coal-filled hopper cars from different branches, until sufficient numbers have been accumulated to warrant a trip down the line. Still yet another yard may be utilized by an industry to receive and store blocks of cars from various shippers until they can be processed and unloaded. Each one of these is a "yard" but each one has a different purpose, look and operational characteristics.
hardcoalcaseThe train room is grade level so an round-the-walls dogbone E shape was the obvious starting place, and I tinkered with many different configurations before settling on the final design... then added several after-thoughts while I was finishing the room out.
Do you have any pictures of your layout? If so, they would be be fun to see!
Beach BillWith retirement and a move to a house without a basement, a shelf layout in the extra bedroom was going to have to be the place for the layout. Needing to be able to still place a bed in the room made a shelf layout a necessity. I knew that I did not want a duck-under (again, keeping the room usable as a guest bedroom when needed), so a shelf around three walls - or two walls and then into what had been the closet - had to be the space.
You know, I am constantly amazed by the kindness and generosity of Model Railroaders with respect to the "average Joe". The MRR builds a layout in his spare bedroom and gives space and consideration to the non-railroader if / when they come to call for an overnight visit. Yet how many "average Joe's" give Model Railroaders the same consideration and have set aside a small switching layout or some such in their spare rooms to meet their needs? Not many I'd wager. It just goes to show you the caliber of people we're dealing with in this hobby!
Beach Bill I'm generally pleased that I was able to get a lot of logging and mining operation into a managable shelf layout.
Sounds like you've got a nice layout going! Show us some pictures!!!
jwhittenmononguy63Givens: DC, single deck, one operator, tucked into a corner of the basement so it would be accessible on two sides, able to run two trains hands-off All your Givens are Druthers! "Givens" are absolutes and immutables-- things you can't change (or at least not practically or without great expense) that you just have work around. "Druthers" are what you want.
mononguy63Givens: DC, single deck, one operator, tucked into a corner of the basement so it would be accessible on two sides, able to run two trains hands-off
I disagree to a large extent. I'm not the least interested in DCC, so DC's a given. Tucked in a basement corner is the only location where I could build, so that's a given. I'm a lone wolf, and there's nobody in my circle of family & friend who's interested in model railroading, so single operator is a given. I'll concede that the other points are probably Druthers, though.
"I am lapidary but not eristic when I use big words." - William F. Buckley
I haven't been sleeping. I'm afraid I'll dream I'm in a coma and then wake up unconscious. -Stephen Wright
Texas ZepherFirst, I started putting in the scenery and it just didn't work. Track track track track everywhere and no room for anything else. Even where I had separated the mains there was not enough to do much of anything.
Yes, that is a common situation it seems. That is one of my own pet peeves, if it can be characterized as such-- but at the same time I can understand the desire to have lots of track to run and switch trains on. And if space is at a premium, as is all too oft the case, then one or the other has to give way.
Texas ZepherApplying everything I had learned.My want list was something like this:1. Layout needs to seem larger than it is so all trains cannot be seen at the same time. 2. Can disguise the appearance of a train going around in a loop on a board. 2a. No track running parallel to the edge of the board. 2b. Use grades, tunnels, and curves to disguise what it really is.3. Still have to run the passenger trains on a schedule.4. I had a really cool mine I had built, detailed, and weathered. It needed to be the centerpiece of the layout.5. So the operational concept was the mine was a big operation that had its own railroad which interchanged with the class 1.
Applying everything I had learned.
My want list was something like this:1. Layout needs to seem larger than it is so all trains cannot be seen at the same time. 2. Can disguise the appearance of a train going around in a loop on a board. 2a. No track running parallel to the edge of the board. 2b. Use grades, tunnels, and curves to disguise what it really is.3. Still have to run the passenger trains on a schedule.4. I had a really cool mine I had built, detailed, and weathered. It needed to be the centerpiece of the layout.5. So the operational concept was the mine was a big operation that had its own railroad which interchanged with the class 1.
Yes, those seem like reasonable goals. Particularly the ones listed under #2-- people often under-estimate just how nicely shifting tracks away from the edges and introducing curves, even shallow ones, into the mix can make a significant visual improvement. And the judicious (or even downright scandalous) use of tunnels and bridges can go a long way to breaking up the layout and making it seem larger.
I'd like to see your coal mine-- do you have any pictures??
shayfan84325I built an N-scale version of the Epithet Creek Railroad
Ah, a man of letters.... four though they may be...
shayfan84325Having hand-laid the track, I have those plans permanently fused in my mind. One thing that I really liked about the plan is that the upper terrace of track had a built in limit preventing more than a single loco or car to get there. It made for interesting switching at first, then it became tedious.
They say that "familiarity breeds contempt".... perhaps that spur marks the beginning of Epithet Creek?
shayfan84325[Track Plan]
What kind of equipment do you run on your layout (as though with a name like "ShayFan" I should have to ask... ) Is it mining or logging or both or something else?
Do you have pictures?
I read an article back in the early '60s in MR with a tag line that said something to the effect of "My railroad just sort of grew." So when I finally had a chance to build I put up benchwork to define the area and then started "growing."
First up was a small three track yard. OK, that will go here. Now I need a drill track for the yard. From there we need to get over to where the mainline comes in to town. And on the way, let's put in a siding here for some industries. OK, this works. To add a couple more industries and to add to the general confusion, let's put a couple industries on the drill track, oh, and another one on the track leading to the mainline. It may not be a very realistic plan but it does add a lot of switching moves to a small layout.
OK, let's get this train out of town. I ran a loop of track around the wall and behind the backdrop (where there's a passing siding to allow for staging) to the other town. Similar philosophies were used to develop the track plan for the second town.
Each town has some street running and multiple industries. With few exceptions, spotting a cars almost always requires moving another car and then returning it after the move is complete. One track of the yard is designated as interchange. Cars spotted there are rotated back in after one round. Trains are limited to six 40' cars (the length of the sidings), a small to medium size engine (EMD A40's double headed up to a GP9) and a caboose.
Some of the track is along the edge of the layout but most is buried in the scenery behind other buildings, requiring the operator to actually get into the scene to perform the various switching moves.
I did provide a cutoff to allow continuous running for the occasional visitor but that is seldom used. I also provided a turntable hidden behind the hills (but visible from one spot and one spot only) that allows me to turn engines if needed.
My operational scheme is quite simple. I have an index car with a paper clip attached for each car on the layout. On the card is listed the possible destinations for that card, using the paper clip to mark its current location. For an operating session, I grab a handful of cards and move each to the next location listed on that card. The paper clip gets moved to show the new location and the card is put back in the pile, ready for the next time. Each industry has a maximum number of cars allowed. If a move puts the industry over its limit, the card is found for that car which entails and added move to put that car at its next location. That's not as hard as it sounds since I only have room for about 20-25 cars on the layout. Not very exciting but it keeps me busy.
Tom
Life is simple - eat, drink, play with trains!
Go Big Red!
PA&ERR "If you think you are doing something stupid, you're probably right!"
A quick aside for the formalities-- which do you prefer: CSX or Mr. Slug???
[track plans]
That's a really nice railroad you've got there-- er, had there. And I like the improvements you're making too-- looks like its going to end up being a really good layout to operate on. I think you've done a great job of designing a layout around a single industry. Good mix of stuff too.
tbdannyI did some research, and found that the town of Las Vegas, in New Mexico (the other Las Vegas) had an AT&SF yard with a roundhouse. I fired up RTS, and drew up a 9.5 x 4' table, marking out a 7.5x3 area in the middle to house the yard, with a 1' margin for staging. It currently looks something like this:
Interesting track plan-- how does your staging section work? Is that a sector plate or a transverse yard or what?
Texas Zepher2. Can disguise the appearance of a train going around in a loop on a board. 2a. No track running parallel to the edge of the board. 2b. Use grades, tunnels, and curves to disguise what it really is.
Those are good goals and surprisingly easy to achieve. I had much the same desire on my own layout. Note the three tunnel portals in this photo:
One of the tunnels hides track running parallel to the layout edge. The other two disguise the track going up grade and looping back on itself. You can only see both portals from limited viewing angles, and even then a reasonable-length train will disappear completely into one portal before emerging from the other. Plus, putting all that track under a hill creates more opportunity for scenery to draw one's attention.
Texas ZepherLayout needs to seem larger than it is so all trains cannot be seen at the same time.
I've found that can be something of a double-edged sword. Sometimes I like to just let trains go and watch them from my work desk while tinkering with my latest project, but I only get glimpses as they pass by from one viewblock to the next!
SailormatlacI started with a 4'x4', then a 5'x4'... I rebuilt it twice. Never got satisfied. Then, I decided to opt for a shelf layout with minimal trackage. Less is more said an architect.I read a lot about that and found out how you could keep somebody busy with a few well-planned track.
I started with a 4'x4', then a 5'x4'... I rebuilt it twice. Never got satisfied. Then, I decided to opt for a shelf layout with minimal trackage. Less is more said an architect.I read a lot about that and found out how you could keep somebody busy with a few well-planned track.
I agree with you that its better to have a mixture between areas with lots of track (stuff to do-- switching and whatnot) and areas where the train is just 'traveling through'. It also makes for a nice visual break and gives the observer a chance to take a break and see something different as well as emphasizes the cities and such when they come around. If everything is all city or all country or all track, it makes it harder to actually "see" anything.
wm3798 In my train room, the planning always starts with the room. Afterall, it's the room, and the space available that drives most of the design decisions. In my case, the main limitation of the room is that it's in the attic, so I've got 45 degree sloped ceilings to contend with. That forced my table height to be lower than I'd like, and seriously limited my ability to do add an upper deck for ops and a lower deck for staging.
In my train room, the planning always starts with the room. Afterall, it's the room, and the space available that drives most of the design decisions. In my case, the main limitation of the room is that it's in the attic, so I've got 45 degree sloped ceilings to contend with. That forced my table height to be lower than I'd like, and seriously limited my ability to do add an upper deck for ops and a lower deck for staging.
You sound like you're in need of some Whitten Wisdom previously dispensed......
I really don't understand everyone's lack of imagination and inspiration. Sure, even the best of us will get down in the dumps once in awhile-- but you can't let lack of a basement or an undersized bedroom keep you away from your love of the hobby. So what if your wife needs the spare bedroom for a sewing room? So what if your dreams and aspirations are bigger than your basement-- you can't let a little thing like THAT get you down, no sir-- not when there's the ROOF to consider...You gotta admit, most people don't ever consider the largest single section of square-footage they own. There are generally very few encumberances, perhaps a chimney or a standpipe or two (don't stick your nose in one, btw-- don't ask me how I know...) Its flat, its big, its wide-open and just begging for some tracks! True, in some cases it may be slanted, but you know, sometimes you just have to play the hand you've been dealt. Stop looking a gift-horse in the mouth and all that. Afterall you did just discover 800-1200 sq feet you've never thought of before. You want it to be *level* too??? Besides, you can level it up, just add taller risers on one side is all you need to do.Another nice thing about modeling on the roof is that visitors don't track mud through your house to get to the layout room. They can just stand out in the yard and see everything. Or maybe if you have a really tall layout, in your neighbor's yard-- and you gotta admit, that'd be better, right?And when your wife complains that you're not getting "outdoors" enough-- well, that'd shut her right up, wouldn't it? You'd have your nice big layout AND be outdoors at the same time. In fact, the only real problem that might come up is if you like late-night railroading in your underwear... that could be a little delicate.So the next time some rich SOB tries to make you feel humble with tales of his grand escapades out in his garden railroad-- you can just laugh out loud-- throw it right back and ask him how he likes his puny little backyard garden railroad-- while you're out enjoying yourself in your great, expansive ROOF layout! Just remember, when things get tough, and the outlook looks bleak, you gotta practice some out-of-the-box thinking... in this case, get out of that basement or that dinky little bedroom... take your dreams and grand ambitions with you-- the future, my boy, lies up, not down-- go *up* young man, go up!
I really don't understand everyone's lack of imagination and inspiration. Sure, even the best of us will get down in the dumps once in awhile-- but you can't let lack of a basement or an undersized bedroom keep you away from your love of the hobby. So what if your wife needs the spare bedroom for a sewing room? So what if your dreams and aspirations are bigger than your basement-- you can't let a little thing like THAT get you down, no sir-- not when there's the ROOF to consider...
You gotta admit, most people don't ever consider the largest single section of square-footage they own. There are generally very few encumberances, perhaps a chimney or a standpipe or two (don't stick your nose in one, btw-- don't ask me how I know...) Its flat, its big, its wide-open and just begging for some tracks! True, in some cases it may be slanted, but you know, sometimes you just have to play the hand you've been dealt. Stop looking a gift-horse in the mouth and all that. Afterall you did just discover 800-1200 sq feet you've never thought of before. You want it to be *level* too??? Besides, you can level it up, just add taller risers on one side is all you need to do.
Another nice thing about modeling on the roof is that visitors don't track mud through your house to get to the layout room. They can just stand out in the yard and see everything. Or maybe if you have a really tall layout, in your neighbor's yard-- and you gotta admit, that'd be better, right?
And when your wife complains that you're not getting "outdoors" enough-- well, that'd shut her right up, wouldn't it? You'd have your nice big layout AND be outdoors at the same time. In fact, the only real problem that might come up is if you like late-night railroading in your underwear... that could be a little delicate.
So the next time some rich SOB tries to make you feel humble with tales of his grand escapades out in his garden railroad-- you can just laugh out loud-- throw it right back and ask him how he likes his puny little backyard garden railroad-- while you're out enjoying yourself in your great, expansive ROOF layout!
Just remember, when things get tough, and the outlook looks bleak, you gotta practice some out-of-the-box thinking... in this case, get out of that basement or that dinky little bedroom... take your dreams and grand ambitions with you-- the future, my boy, lies up, not down-- go *up* young man, go up!
wm3798The trickiest part in all of it is thinking three dimensionally. Making sure you have the clearances you need without requiring ridiculous grades or situations that compromise the integrity of the scenery.
In seriousness, one of the things that helped me immensely-- something that I didn't plan for but just happened to have all the materials around serendipitously-- is a lot of 1-inch tall by 8-feet masonite strips that I cut for eventual use as spline roadbed, and a lot of pre-cut 1x2-inch lumber sections for use as joists, and a ton of clamps.
Whenever I get to the point in my thinking that some visualization is required, I mock it up with the wood-- whatever is required to get a "space platform" to work with, and then use miniature clips-- I have a ton of little $0.99 cent metal clips and also the smaller $0.33 cent clips from Home Depot, and another ton of regular wooden clothes pins-- and I use them along with the lumber to hoist into place the masonite strips which represents the right-of-way.
Since its ultimately intended for use as roadbed anyway, you know whatever it can do you can really do. And it doesn't take much time to mock it up and check it out. And since its all clipped or clamped together, its easy to move around, adjust, rearrange-- whatever to see how this would look or that-- and you yourself know this since I've sent you pictures before of my mock-ups.
You can also use cardboard strips to put view blocks where you want them-- just use the clothes pins to pin them together and an occasional large clip to attach them to the wooden structure. Add a ruler and you have everything you need.
If you want, you could even lay some track and hazard an old car you don't care much about--I suspect anybody building a layout has one of those-- or will soon...
leighant But then an inlaw lost his apartment and moved into the "spare" bedroom.
But then an inlaw lost his apartment and moved into the "spare" bedroom.
That's when you're supposed to say: "Son, how good are you at swinging a hammer... ???"
leighant
I said it last time and I'll say it again-- I *love* the way you disguised the corner. That is *very* good work !!!!
Nice granary! I can't wait to see that when you get it ready.
Texas ZepherSailormatlac It took me something like 20 years to finally understand that we are always modelling the "extraordinary" instead of the ordinary.And if you never learn another thing in MRing you will still have more understanding than a vast majority of the modelers. This manifests itself often in the freelance world where someone says, "I'll make up some exception for every thing that tickles my fancy." The layout ends up looking bizarre and toy like. Too many extreme exceptions an not enough rule. Or a prototypical modeler who collects all the one off paint schemes or unique locomotives and they don't have enough of the typical locomotives in the common schemes to make it look right.
Sailormatlac It took me something like 20 years to finally understand that we are always modelling the "extraordinary" instead of the ordinary.
This manifests itself often in the freelance world where someone says, "I'll make up some exception for every thing that tickles my fancy." The layout ends up looking bizarre and toy like. Too many extreme exceptions an not enough rule. Or a prototypical modeler who collects all the one off paint schemes or unique locomotives and they don't have enough of the typical locomotives in the common schemes to make it look right.
Agreed, except there's also the point that it can go to far in the "real life" direction and end up looking boring.
Something an old GF said once in another context really stopped and made me think, and its applicable here too-- she said "People go to the movies to escape real life"-- and I think people build model railroads to escape real life too. Maybe to go back in time, or to a place they have fond memories of, or to a "simpler world", or maybe somewhere that reminds them of someone they miss.
I think, just like with the movies-- too much "real life" on a model railroad is too much like "real life"-- and that's what people are trying to get away from for awhile.
UncBob That's the problem I didn't Now I have tracked myself into a corner
Maybe you could sell your house and start another one???