When I made the track plans for my layout I thought the outside track would be covered in a tunnel, and the rock would extend to the edge of the inside track. Plans have changed since building the layout, and now there is a sort of ‘hole’ in- between the two tracks. What type of building should I put here? Also, since the base of the layout is wood, what should I put under the ‘New Haven’ bridge? I only have one bridge, so I cant simply put two next to each other on the mainline.
If you have any ideas, please reply with them. Thanks!
If you could post a drawing of your track plan it would be helpful. (I don’t know how to do it, so don’t feel bad if you don’t.)
If both of the tracks the hole is between are mainline tracks and close, not much but a station would go there. I might be tempted to just have a large hunk of ledge.
As for the bridge, if you are all on one level, do you have a siding to an important industry that you could create a rise in the track to get over a swampy section?
There is a sticky on how to post photos. Google and Facebook photos don’t work. The paper clip icon doesn’t work. Unless you have a link that ends with a picture format “.jpg” or what’s called a Bulletin Board link, which has those square looking brackets surrounding the word img.
You need a photo hosting site, I recommend Imgur.com but there are others that work. Imgur and Flickr are free. Photobucket is too, but they like to show us numerous pop up ads.
Lacking a pic, we are guessing at what this hole looks like. Lots of ideas come to mind, a freight house, any sort of generic warehouse, a RIP track.
It would help to know something about your layout. What era do you model? What location do you model? Is this “layout hole” between two straights or two curves?
I posted a picture in the correct format in a different reply. My main problem with the ‘hole’ is how the inside track in curved, so I cant really put any normal freight station, and I feel a building would look awkward. Also, what would a prototype railroad have in something like this? I would like it so look somewhat realistic. Thanks!
I do not model in any specific era or time period. The buildings and scenery I buy tend to look like they could be from any era because I have a WIDE variety of equipment. The hole is between a straight and a straight that curves inward. There is a picture in another reply.
Rather than a building how about a small wetlands? Lots of neat detailing opportunities and they are surprisingly common trackside in many parts of the country.
Yes, sometimes less is more. You don’t need to fill every square inch. I have a swamp that’s a couple of square feet and woods and grasslands, too. A pond can be another nice feature.
Is the bridge only a railroad bridge? Could you use it as a highway bridge instead, so you don’t have to worry about steep grades for trains? Sometimes, we end up with something we really can’t use. It happens to all of us. Save it “for later.”
This bench is about 6’ x 12’. It is supposed to be Alberta rangeland. At the far end, there will be cattle pens for RR loading and where the siding is at the near end a Co-op building and house for the owner will be placed. I have about 300 high-quality cattle that I picked up at a train show for $15.00 and I will place some of them in the field eventually. The access hole will become a water pond for the cattle and will still be removable for access when done. Other than that it won’t change much from what you see.
Lots of empty space as I like vastness and try to show it on the layout. I have a 60’ stretch between turnouts in one spot. Mountains, streams, and forest will be the showcase along there.
To each, their own though, I prefer the backcountry over urban streets any day of the week, so that is what I try to capture.
Amen. No need to squeeze every possible structure on a layout. My second one is 2x the size of the first and I’m only needing three more structures. Having more scenery is also quite realistic.
Rather than a building how about a small wetlands? Lots of neat detailing opportunities and they are surprisingly common trackside in many parts of the country.
Dave Nelson
I couldn’t agree more with this response. We are building a train layout and feel we ought to be cramming as much track into our small, hard-won, space. The opposite is true. If you look at an aerial photo of your town, you’ll notice that the tracks take up essentially no space at all, and are somewhat rare to encounter unless driving across them, or paralleling them on the road outta town.
A copse of woods, a playground, a baseball diamond, a junk yard for car wrecks, a tear-down going on, a protest march,…anything but crammed tracks.
All of the above ideas would work very good. I noticed that you used sectional track, if you move the turnout clock wise you could have a parallel track to the track with the bridge and eliminate the curved dead space.
Depending on the location, a forest, wetlands, desert, farmfields? Also, consider some relief, a small hill, a berm whatever to keep the scene from being completely flat. The pic below shows what I mean.
My layout is set in the 1950’s Pinal county Arizona. Lots of desert and saguaros.
