“The Master Modeler makes his screw-ups look like they were supposed to be that way.”
I like that!
Seriously, I’m thinking about going to Plan B, and that is to scrap the whole idea of the mountain, the tunnel, the incline. It is difficult to put 3 tracks in a 24 inch wide space (narrow part of the dogbone) and have one of them on such a long incline and make it look right. I know it wouldn’t be as diffucult for someone with years of experience (heck, they probably know better in the first place!), but I don’t have that luxury. Maybe I shouldn’t think on such a grandio
I went through a similar evolution of thought. I realized that if I was going to have a logging layout, then a significant portion of the layout had to be devoded to the loggin operation. I also realized how much space a grade consumes. That being said, I cannot picture ever making a flat layout. (So don’t throw away your risers.) And don’t throw out a the idea of having a grandiose layout.
I’m going to do what Jetrock does to me everytime I start on a new plan. You can post your answers here.
What are your givens and drutheres?
JARRELL and EVERYONE ELSE,
How’s this for a suggestion ? Take off the top 2 layers. No tunnel, but a deep cut
through a good sized hill covered with mature trees ( lots and lots of trees ) ready to harvest. Slope the sides of the " outer " hill ( on the outside of the loop of track ) and also on the " inside " part of the hill ( in the middle of the loop of track ) with a fairly steep angle so you still have a small
flater spot on both outside and inside portions of the overall hill that the railroad made the cut through. You could than still run a track up to the top of the outside hill close to the backdrop and the inside spur track from that could cross over the cut below on some type of a bridge to get to the top of the " inside " hill. This would add a lot of visual interest IMHO and still give you more than one level of operation. I would also suggest that you add on to the left side of the " outer " hill ( as you stand in front like in the picture of you contemplating what to do ) and slope this added part down toward the outside of the layout which would take away from the " drop off the end of the earth look " that we all have to find a way to deal with on our own layouts. Also guys, doesn’t it always seem easier to solve someone else’s problems instead of our own ? I sometimes
think that an " island " layout has some real scenery advantages over an around the walls layout.
Jarrell, I hope this gives you some food for thought and I would like to see your response to my suggestions. Thanks.
Ray ------ Great Northern fan.
You know, It occurs to me that if you are indeed thinking of some revisions that maybe in concert with lowering the hillside a little you could introduce some curves to the incline. That would serve several purposes really.
-
It would eliminate the staight edged drop that draws you eye from one side of the layout to the other. this will make your layout look like several smaller scenes instead of one large one. That will give you the impression of an overall larger railroad.
-
It also would give you the opportunity for a better scenic treatment in that the back leg of the dogbone would be out of site in a tunnel for a short time and it won’t look quite so much like a dogbone. You could make a pullout chunk of scenery right out of the middle of the hillside to access the hole in an emergency. Careful scenery would be called for of course, but it could be done. Set up the hole so that it tapers a little as you go in, something like the hole in the top of a pumpkin (bet you never thought that a pumpkin could teach you something about model railroading, did you?).
-
If you bring the center of the grade out towards the front of the table (not all the way mind you) you could maybe slip that sawmill into the bulge.
-
You would ease that cliff effect that is causing you problems right now.
You would basically reuse everything that you have already done, you would only be adding the bulge material and moving the tracks a little.
Just a thought.
rayhippard,
It’s infinately easier to solve someone else’s problems. That one of the things I like best about this forum!
Jarrell,
I just looked at your pic’s again and realized that the bulge may not work without doing some revisions on the bottom trackwork also. It may not be worth it.
Or maybe it could be done a little to the right of the picture, I don’t know.
Guys, for now I’ve taken the mountain and the incline completely off the layout. I’m back down to flat earth again. I think the mountain itself could have eventually worked ok with the proper ‘tapering’ AND lowering about 2 inches or so but the incline was giving me fits. PCarrell I had thought of meandering the incline a litte (hadn’t thought of putting the mill there though) but the double mainline down on the flat was a problem. It still might have worked IF the meandering ridge had come down between the tracks maybe. Well, there a runaround track there so maybe not.
I’m going to read Rays suggestions a few times and see if I can’t work something like that in.
Or maybe I’ll just stay on the flat with the tracks and build UP the scenery around it. That is probably the smart thing for a beginner to do and stop trying to build mountains and inclines as though I were a 30 year veteran… 
I appreciate everyones advice and suggestions and I’ll still be asking a ton of questions. I haven’t failed yet, I’m just going to Plan B. Plan A was too advanced for me at this time and I don’t have a Plan C.
Jarrell
On the down side, by removing the tunnel you have created another sheer vertical surface you have to scenic. Plus remember that a tree is a couple inches thick, a “mature” tree is bigger than that. So if you wan to cover the slope with trees leave at least 4-6 inches for the trees and theat will buy you two rows of trees.
Personally, I would keep the tunnel, maybe put a 1" foam layer on top (or even foam core artists board or stuff Woodland scenics sells, its not that big an area). I think daylighting the tunnel will create more problems than it will solve.
Dave H.
Looking at the top view makes a dif .Take one layer off ,strighten that last curve peice out and slope the edges down a little,things will work out fine I’ll bet,after all its your railroadBoy I wish I had the space you got there![^]
JIM
Looking at the top view makes a dif .Take one layer off ,strighten that last curve peice out and slope the edges down a little,things will work out fine I’ll bet,after all its your railroadBoy I wish I had the space you got there![^]
JIM
Jarrell?
I hope you’re not PO’d.
Heck no! Crandell, I’m nearly 62 years old, I stopped getting po’d at things like this about 25 years ago… [:D]
Hey, I just appreciate the help all you guys have given me! I really can’t thank ya’ll enough.
I think the thing that really did me in on this mountain thing was that long incline and it was on such a narrow ‘ridge’, for lack of a better word, that I, with my limited skills, would’ve never gotten it to look right. A good modeler with experience probably wouldn’t have had a problem with it. But, the more I thought about it the more I thought that I was spending far to much time trying to make it work when I should be working on the basics, like track laying, soldering etc.
I’m going to stay on flat land for a while and try to learn this hobby. Since I’m sitting on 2 inches of foam I can go down to make gullys, ditches, creeks and I can go up to make hills and low ‘mountains’ all the while keeping the track more or less level.
What I really have in the back of my mind is that on the lower end of the dogbone
that maybe one day I’ll build a 4x8 foot table and bolt it there making one long 4x12 area. I’d still have access to 3 sides of it. That’s where any mountain building would be.
But, I have two major hobbies … model railroading and photography. I have every piece of studio lighting you can name and do pretty good with it. Things like this…
and this…
another one…
and this…
So one of the reasons I haven’t alotted more space to MR is to keep some space open for that.
I
Thanks for the better pics, Jarrell; now I know what you’re trying to design. Thankfully, your basic plan is almost identical to my father’s N scale layout on one end, which I designed and built. Here’s how I would tackle each situation, as illustrated by your photos:
From left to right:
- reduce the height of the logging area by one layer of foam.
- Move the switch closer to the left edge of the layout, near the tree. You could add a second switch for added operations, since logging camps were notoriously cramped & cluttered.
- add TWO layers of foam between the logging camp and the edge of the mountain. Contouring steeply might seem a bit contrived, but it’s usually OK on a layout, where forced perspective and selective compression are important. The 4" of height and whatever trees you add to the area will act as a view break, making that part of the layout feel like an isolated branch.
- add lots of scrap foam by both tunnel portals, above the lumber company, and in the area of the red screwdriver. This will help alleviate the “pimple” look.
- move the passing siding closer to the layout edge, on the near main, between the Xuron and tape measure.
- cut in the switch to the lumber company to the near mainline, about where the upper handle of the Xuron is. Switches don’t have to be on passing sidings.
- with the added space in the back of the layout, realign the back mainline away from the incline and nearer the front main. This will give you more space ajacent to the incline so you can…
- add more scrap foam between the incline and the front of the layout, extending above the rail head about 2"-4". Carve this ridge with a good RGS photo book handy as a reference. You don’t want the ridge to be smooth though. Break it up by having it higher than the trains in some areas, level with them in others, and plunging bel
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by orsonroy
Thanks for the better pics, Jarrell; now I know what you’re trying to design. Thankfully, your basic plan is almost identical to my father’s N scale layout on one end, which I designed and built. Here’s how I would tackle each situation, as illustrated by your photos:
From left to right:
- reduce the height of the logging area by one layer of foam.
- Move the switch closer to the left edge of the layout, near the tree. You could add a second switch for added operations, since logging camps were notoriously cramped & cluttered.
- add TWO layers of foam between the logging camp and the edge of the mountain. Contouring steeply might seem a bit contrived, but it’s usually OK on a layout, where forced perspective and selective compression are important. The 4" of height and whatever trees you add to the area will act as a view break, making that part of the layout feel like an isolated branch.
- add lots of scrap foam by both tunnel portals, above the lumber company, and in the area of the red screwdriver. This will help alleviate the “pimple” look.
- move the passing siding closer to the layout edge, on the near main, between the Xuron and tape measure.
- cut in the switch to the lumber company to the near mainline, about where the upper handle of the Xuron is. Switches don’t have to be on passing sidings.
- with the added space in the back of the layout, realign the back mainline away from the incline and nearer the front main. This will give you more space ajacent to the incline so you can…
- add more scrap foam between the incline and the front of the layout, extending above the rail head about 2"-4". Carve this ridge with a good RGS photo book handy as a reference. You don’t want the ridge to be smooth though. Break it up by having it higher than the tr
I will defer to Ray, and say that I agree pretty much with all of his suggestions. Once again, Jarrell, you don’t need, or want, to be throwing l’il Muffin out with the bath water at this point. You are like a surgeon, and even surgeons hack and slash when the going gets tough.
I’m glad you’re okay.
And, my huge compliments on your photography!!! [tup] You may be a neophyte here, but you are a master with the camera.
orsonroy makes some great suggestions , combine that with adding some slight curves to the logging branch track . adding some hills that go above and below the track level will allow you you to build a trestle or two , the shay will look great pulling log cars across a trestle !
Jarrell,
orsonroy’s ideas are similar to what I was talking about but I think he has a better handle on it. Moving the passing siding would indeed make all the difference in the world. That would even let the tracks up to the camp meander a little so you can again break up the straight hill image. His ideas about the rock outcroppings are right on the money too.
I wouldn’t scrap the incline yet. Just play with it a little and see what happens. [8D]
By the way, awesome photo’s!
Now that I read pcarrell’s thoughts, I would like to reintroduce my earlier idea of switchbacks. You could keep, and still use, all of those risers, the train still stays in view all the way up to that camp on the left (if it stays there, or whatever you can place up there), and you get cool switching, really prototypical. The shaping and subsequent scenicking would be not terribly challenging, in my view, although a nice trestle or two would be a nice project, and would look really kewl.
If you do this, you would need the space that the others are hoping you move that passing lane out of. You’ll need it for the slope on which the switchbacks will lie.
Ok heres the changes Ray so kindly suggested…
Before the change…
and the changes with one layer taken off and the track moved over and the turnout moved.
the old incline with the sheer drop…
and the same incline after mainline moved etc.
the new arrangement showing temporary supports under it to find where the incline will end and darn it, it’s right in the curve. No problem.
also by moving the mainline I’ll have enough room for the sawmill and a small yard…
So, what do ya’ll think?
I now have 8 inches between the rail on the incline and the mainline and that should be enough room to scenic it better.
A trestle would be nice, but do you think I have enough room to ‘meander’ the incline a little?
Jarrell
It could “meander” onto a rock outcroping and that would serve to divide the long hill with some visual interest and help to break up the scenes on the lower level which will help it to look bigger.
Just a thought, but I think you are on the right path.
P.S. - I just love building a layout this way! It’s so much easier then mine. [:D]