The more I look the more I realize I don’t know enough to design a decent layout. Right now I’m reading Mid-sized and Manageable Track Plans by Iain Rice. I was totally floored by his “Steeltown USA.” It is a total spaghetti bowl in a 12’ x 12’ room, but every track makes total sense. You can switch to your heart’s content and still have a fair amount of continuous running. You can manage it by yourself or have 4 guys in a op session. My perfect layout.
Except its all wrong!
This is 1940’s steel and I’m planning 1890’s lumber. It’s flat Gary Indiana and I’m thinking redwood coast range. It is 12 x 12 and although I have much more to work with, there are no 12 x 12 spots available.
And I don’t know enough to recognize the key elements to apply them to my space/industry/time period.
The more I focus on designing my layout, the further it seems to push away.
Well there is one option. Combine all the time periods like I did. My “scenerio” is My company (A.T.lines) has taken over half of the rail operation in the U.S. and Scott’s famous S.S.R.R. has taken the other half. I will be modeling an interchange with this R.R. The A.T.lines mission is to bring back equipment from all time periods because steam is the best and diesel is a close second. I like this freelance style because I can buy anything and it cannot be wrong!
Mouse - The idea of designing/creating “the perfect layout” your first time out is an absolute impossibility and the worst possible way to go. The more you attempt to do so, the more likely it becomes you will never build any layout at all!
The real key for first-timers (and for many hobbyists in general) in attaining success is to find some existing, not overly complex, design that at least crudely represents the sort design you idealize and go ahead an built it. I’ve met far too many guys who are still designing their “perfect” first layout 20 years after I first met them and they have nothing to show for their years of hobby interest beyond draws filled with unopened boxes of locomotives, rolling stock, and structure kits. Grandiose dreams often lead nowwhere.
Thanks, but won’t happen. My plan is to keep working on my 4 x 8 (working on things that will be moved to the larger layout like structures). Clear the basement and get it ready and start construction in September. This winter will be for laying track. I have until then to get the plan ready. I’m going on vacation in July and taking my wife’s laptop. I WILL have the first draft done by the time I get back as well as a completed craftsman silver mine.
BTW: I’m thinking I want something that might be designed by Malcom Koester.
Space, don’t overcomplicate the issue. Think about what’s important to you (switching, point to point, continuous run, etc), draw your benchwork on a computer program and then fill in the blanks with track. After the benchwork is up and track is going down, you’ll probably have some ideas become apparent and alter the plan some, that’s half the fun. Think about trains running in circles and how you’ll eliminate that illusion with scenery, buildings or backdrops. Oh yeah, don’t forget staging if that’s important to you.
You might also consider some of the Atlas track plans. They can be heavily modified if needed and the tighter curves would be ok for your time period.
hi chip , i’m a fan of Iain Rice too , but just becaue a layout design is perfect doesn’t mean it’s going to be perfect for you !
from that same book i’d have thought the virginia city , southern short line , or the UP designs would be easily adaptable for your era/location . it might take some bending of the plan to fit your space , but that’s likely in any published trackplan .
actually if i had the space i’d build the virginia city , it’s a nice clean layout with continuous running , decent hidden staging , and no spaghetti bowl .
It’s not a matter of knowing my druthers but rather compromising my druthers.
For instance, I like the idea of multi-level for it’s operational capacity, yet I like the idea of a single level because it is asthetically more pleasing and will be completed.
I want to combine the reaility of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad in the 1890’s with my son’s 2-8-0 Bachman (which he refuses to let me change from the Dixie line) pulling Hogwart’s Freight and passenger cars.
I like the idea of loop to loop because I can combine switching with continuous running. I need the action of a operational but I also like to turn the trains on and watch them go. Sometimes I let the trains run while I am building a model. Don’t even watch them, just listen to them run.
IF I do loop to loop on a single level. I get my yard, a city, a port, and one industry/town. If I go multi-level I get 3 additional town/industries.
What I liked about the Rice’s Steeltown layout, is that it did it all in less space. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work for what I’m doing–at least as I have figured. The frustration is that, I am not good enough/ don’t know enough to take the concepts Rice used and apply them to what I am doing.
Chip, I would respectfully suggest that far from knowing “diddley” you now know too much! You have absorbed more about MRR in the last 6 months than many do in years. This abundance of new knowledge is making it very hard to come up with the compromises that your space will require. Do you have any little bottles on the shelf in the store that can dumb you down a bit? [}:)][:D][}:)]
Mouse,I am going to come at you with another approach seeing and fully understanding nothing is impossible even for a newbie.
FIRST research what you want to model not only by reading books on logging railroads but the industry itself…The computer really helps in this type of research.
SECOND,Throw away those dang layout books and design your layout base on what you have learn by studying(see above) and YOUR givens and druthers.REMEMBER: A layout design by somebody (who may or may not know diddly squat about layout planing ) else usually won’t fit YOUR needs.Again throw away those dang layout books.
THIRD,Learn to answer your own questions…You see you will be less confused by doing that seeing on forums you get several different answers…Nothing is like gaining knowledge though lessons learn by experience.
There are only two types of industry tracks. EVERY single industry is one of those two types. There is a track that has a switch on one end and track that has a switch on the other end. Don’t sweat the industries on the plan, you can change them any way you want.
Any layout can be stretched to fill a larger space. It is much tougher to compress a layout into a smaller space.
Also remember that you can rotate the layout around the room (move the east side to the north wall, south side to the East wall, etc) and can flip the layout on either axis (north side on the south wall, etc, or west side on the east wall, etc).
One way to design a layout is to sketch the schematic of the layout. A schematic is a drawing of the railroad if you took the mainline and stretched it out in a straight line. Then take that schematic and drape it around the room until you get it to fit. Normally the way I design a layout is to start by sketching the flows. Which trains go where, where do they turn, where do they terminate, where are they used multiple times, where are they used once. For example on my layout I model the northern half of a branch line. All the trains operating over the entire branch originate at the northern end, run to the southern end and return. So I put a loop in the staging on the southern end of the layout so that the trains could turn to come back . The northern end staging is all stub end staging since the train originate, and terminate on the north end.
If I was to make a suggestion for your layout I would take half of your 4x8 layout and make it a terminal. Yard, engine facilities, etc. On the other side I would build a 3 or 4 yard staging yard. Maybe a short branch to a mining/logging area over the staging yard. Why? Because when you plan your larger layout you convert the 4x8 into the layout as the “mainline road” interchange. The loop main and staging yard is the “mainline road”. Your shortline owns the branch and the railroad that connects
I have enjoyed Iain’s Planning. No track is wasted. However I found it easier to understand the overall concept and think about what I can do with MY space. Perhaps those 18 inch radius is a tad tight? I play what if scenarios such as inserting a 24" instead.
I do alot of thinking, and has been for years. Eventually I will build one section and move on towards the next until the overall is finished.
A model RR simulates- not duplicates- a real RR. It REPRESENT’S rather than Replicate’s. (Example a tunnel against a blank wall leading to nowhere). Your RR need’s to pickup at point A and deliver to point B with track in between to wor, otherwise you’re just running trains. Track can loop, go straight, or configure to your room, but a ‘Spaghetti bowl’ kills realism. ‘Setting’ is imprtant. “Less is more”. Look at Joe Fugate’s fine RR.
LOGGING RR’s wind into forest’s and deliver to a pond, river or to a mainline interchange. SIMULATE don’t copy.
GENERAL RULES I recommend for everybody:
Keep general width under 3 ft where everything reachable.
Use 1 or more WALL’S.
Retrurn loops - take up room, limit rolling stock,. & need access holes.
No# 4’s for yard’s No# 6’s for main. (Most equipment is geared for this).
One can never have too much yard’s.
Are there exception’s? Sure - but make them exception’s
Buy what you can afford, and will fit your plan. Most ‘bargain’s’ are thing’s people want to get rid of.