I finally did it. I got to the point that I realized that my goals and aspirations for my layout weren’t gellin like like shoe inserts.
I have to admit, I want it to look cool. What does cool mean to me? Cool is a Shay or Heisler snaking across chasms through tall forests. Cool is a brightly 4-4-0 crossing a 24" long by 12 inch deep tressel bridge higher than my plane of vision. (and I already have the bridge.) But these things take serious layout space.
And I want operations. I want to build a staging yard and classification yard. I want industries to service and towns to deliver passnegers to. And these things take space.
My whole family thinks I should join the Hogwarts 4.5’ x 8’ layout with layout I’m just about to start. By the way the new layout will be a closed loop in a space starting clock-wise in a U, 11.5 x 11.5 x 6.5 and angling back to the origin. This connection takes space and pretty much has to join the yard area. Besides the top section of the Hogwarts layout is 40" and I was planning the forest layout at 48"
Here are some of the problems.
A logging operation will take half of my layout and only provide one industry–although in itself the gear drive has to haul logs, finished lumber, people, and supplies to and from the hilltop and to and from the mainline spur. But most of the operation will happen elsewhere and so mostly the Heisler will run in a loop and look cool.
The bridge either means a serious climb, or a ravine. The climb will make some cool visuals, but the swtchbacks needed will end up in front the bridge I want to showcase. If I had a ravine, it would have to cut across the lumber operation.
The yard I want to build will not fit unless I use a duck-under.
If I use both a helix to a lower staging area and switch back to run the ridges with my trains, there will be nothing but track where the loging operation should be.
Don’t worry, I trashed mine (well, not really, just stared a new file name, I still have ALL my old plans, including the one did for my previous house) and started over as well. Best to discover these things BEFORE you get the thing half built.
I favor point to point operation with staging, but there are provisions for continuous running for those times I just want to sit back and watch a train run, or entertain people, or just for background while I work on a kit or something. I feel it is a mistake to build a layout that does NOT have some sort of continuous run connection. I guess I don’t understand those sort of people who are only running stuff two days a month - one day to set up the operating session, and the session itself.
Don’t feel bad, I’ve probably got 20 or more half finished track plans on my computer and am still trying to refine and redefine what I really want to do. My most final plan I’ve posted at my Webshots site, but I am already in the process of redesigning this one.
Unlike you, I have a very limited space. 8x6 is all I have to work with, unless I move my office to my living room. (Not an option!) And, since I really love big steam power like Big Boys, Challengers, Cab Forwards, and big diesels like Alco PA/PBs, EMD E’s and Turbines, I need the widest possible curves. Hard to get a lot of operating room in 8x6 with that kind of equipment.
Another problem is I like to have multiple trains running at the same time, so more than one mainline track is necessary. I run DCC and even on my small 4x8 I often run 4 or 5 consists at the same time.
But, if you are like me, you will find a way to showcase your equipment and scenery. It just takes a lot of time and planning, and planning, and…
Duh! I live in Sugar Camp, about 5 miles north of Rhinelander. Sure I know of Lake Nokomis near Tomahawk. Had a serious brain cramp!!! Yes, highway 51 is slowly becoming Interstate 39.
That’s a beautiful area. We’ll have to get together for a cup if you come up this way. Tomahawk is less than an hour from me.
11.5x11.5x6.5 is more space than most modelers have. If you’re ingenious enough, you can come up with a pretty decent layout in that size. But scrap the CAD for planning; it’s too inflexible.
Basically, you’ve got a space that’s similar to a mushed donut. Duckunders might be a pain, but they sometimes give you the best use of layout space. Engineer it so it’s really a drop-down/lift out/etc, and the problem won’t be so bad (my 12x25 three level is a big corkscrew. You get in by dropping down two 2’ long x 8" wide gates). Design a layout with three “levels”: an underbench staging yard, a main level for mainline highballing, and a mountain division for logging, coal and ore ladings. The mountain division will be accessable via switchbacks up a mountain, the main level will be for highballing and for “family entertainment” (I suggest a two track main), and trains can climb a steep grade up from staging with the addition of helpers that only run from the staging to the main deck and back.
You’ll be able to satisfy all your urges on one decent layout: your kids will be able to play, you’ll be able to run your geared engines in grand mountanous scenery, and you’ll be able to have a decent and proto-based operating layout (though it’ll be mostly limited to a marshalling yard to haul out what the geared engines bring down from the mountains). And go with the gorge; there’s nothing wrong with multiple railroad bridges crossing the same ravine at different heights.
I finally did it. I got to the point that I realized that my goals and aspirations for my layout weren’t gellin like like shoe inserts.
I have to admit, I want it to look cool. What does cool mean to me? Cool is a Shay or Heisler snaking across chasms through tall forests. Cool is a brightly 4-4-0 crossing a 24" long by 12 inch deep tressel bridge higher than my plane of vision. (and I already have the bridge.) But these things take serious layout space.
And I want operations. I want to build a staging yard and classification yard. I want industries to service and towns to deliver passnegers to. And these things take space.
My whole family thinks I should join the Hogwarts 4.5’ x 8’ layout with layout I’m just about to start. By the way the new layout will be a closed loop in a space starting clock-wise in a U, 11.5 x 11.5 x 6.5 and angling back to the origin. This connection takes space and pretty much has to join the yard area. Besides the top section of the Hogwarts layout is 40" and I was planning the forest layout at 48"
Here are some of the problems.
A logging operation will take half of my layout and only provide one industry–although in itself the gear drive has to haul logs, finished lumber, people, and supplies to and from the hilltop and to and from the mainline spur. But most of the operation will happen elsewhere and so mostly the Heisler will run in a loop and look cool.
The bridge either means a serious climb, or a ravine. The climb will make some cool visuals, but the swtchbacks needed will end up in front the bridge I want to showcase. If I had a ravine, it would have to cut across the lumber operation.
The yard I want to build will not fit unless I use a duck-under.
If I use both a helix to a lower staging area and switch back to run the ridges with my trains, there will be nothing but track where the loging operation s
Can you build around the walls on two levels? Build the stuff the kids want down low, and the things you want at your eye level. The layout does not have to be very wide, but you would have plenty of linear running and could get your scenes in, above the furniture and other room things. Notice the next time you go into a room the closest you ever get to a wall. Usually it is at least 24" away. You could build a 12" - 15" wide shelf layout around most of the room and it would never interfere with anything else in the room! Get away from a big table layout in the middle of the room to a narrow linear layout along the walls. You might be surprised how much you CAN get into that room!
I have at least 15 different track plans saved on my computor and at least 6 or 7 different varations on some of them. Keep redesigning when you get a feature you really like try to work it in to the next track plan. What track planning program are you using. My lowest track is 44 off the ground and the highest (logging) is 52 . I can run 2 trains continues or use the cross over and double the length for 1. But it is set up for small switching-- logging (just the cutting every thing else is shipped else where) ,small mine, brewery (for the miners and loggers does import and export ), stock yard, freight depot, team track, a mystery buiness (requires box cars), intechange track, and a special passenger service for the “Womens club” (miners and loggers again). I have two 2-6-0 mongals a 2-8-0, a 3 truck Shay ,and a 0-4-0 camel back. Thomas and Duck even visit with the troublesom trucks and Annie& Clarible every now and then. My layout runs on one side of the mastebed then behind the headbord then down the other wall for about 15 feet. I have got to try and get pictures posted .My kids also like to drive trains not operate. I will admit that Duck and Thomas do stop and talk when they pass each other .
The squashed doughnut is what we are talking about the rectangel is the Hogwarts layout where it is now. Conceivibly, I could move it attatch about where the small squared off end is. IT would seriously re-route traffic, but I’m pretty much the only one who uses the garage.
The rectangle in the larger 48" side used to be a pass-through. IN thi incarnation it is a duck-under.
Why does a logging operation have to take up so much space? Heck, I’ve designed lumber operations that fit into two square feet!
You are under no obligation to model the whole industry. You can just model the logging mill, and just show the logging line itself from the mill to “around a bend” where it stops dead–at least until you have the time and energy to model more of it.
My track plan is an ongoing evolution of track plans jotted onto notepads, napkins, flyers, etcetera, in hundreds of iterations over the course of three years. I also build a piece at a time, so I can re-think one section of a layout while building another!
The software out there is nice–but in some ways pencil and paper are better for fleshing out ideas.
The shelf layout idea is a good one. That is what I am building and if you look at my post about the track plan you can see I fit a good amount of switching in there. You could use the space I used for big modern yards as your logging industry. Switchbacks will take up LOTS of room. Even if you use only say, a 15" radius you have to have a very deep layout to have switchbacks facing the front that reach to any height. My maximum grade is 4% but those logging trains could handle steeper then that. Maybe 6%? (I’m not sure really). Anyway I think you have the potential for a great layout. Good luck[:D]
Sorry, I thought the shape was described. It’s clear in my mind if you would just read it. Can’t make the grids in this program.
The left side is a staircase the table edge is 11.6 feet. The top edge is a wall 11.6 feet. The right edge is a wall 6.5 feet becasue of a door to the garage. The table width is 30" along the staircase and two walls and the outside table width is 48". The 4.5’ x 8’ rectange is against the far wall and at it’s nearest point, is 30 inches from the table. The scale is HO.
Ray,
I agree with the first 2 statements, but I really think you are wrong with “scrap the CAD for planning; it’s too inflexible”. In my opinion, the smaller the layout, the more CAD is needed. This is because most of us want more than we have room for and the tendency is to ‘fudge’ on dimensions, radii, etc. CAD (if used properly) keeps one from designing kinks and inadequate clearances into the layout (notice I said ‘designing’ - if you are ham-handed like me, you can build in a kink even if you haven’t designed one in - HA!)
GOOD things come to those who wait! That should make things easier . Of corse you realize that no matter how much space you get it is always just a foot shorter than what you need for that perfect plan.
