Just a topic for thoughtful discussion. While we all have our dreams of the perfect layout, think for a moment, what would you really build if physical space weren’t the limitation? We all have other demands on us for time, as well as the availabiltiy, or lack thereof, of friends who can help build, maintain, and operate a layout. What would you really do if you had the chance?
I’ve thought about this for myself and while I might go up in scale, I probably wouldn’t make a huge leap in complexity. It’s nice to dream about (in my case) TT&TO ops with multiple trains moving past and through one another and way frieghts switching multiple towns, but reality is, it would really be myself, perhaps another doing sequence ops and running in a more lazy branch line manner.
The dream is nice to dream, but probably not what I’d build.
I would rebuild what I have, a large layout by most standards, but not one big enough to fill a two car garage. As a lone operator, I just don’t see a need for anything larger. I can run 14’ long trains, so I don’t find a need for anything bigger or longer.
What would be different? I have done the helix, and am glad I did it. I wouldn’t have another though, because of how much room they take up and how long the trains are unenjoyable…hidden.
In a way, I have the dream layout, even though it is only about half done and likely to be torn down within a few months at most.
What’s next? If things work out well, it will be a layout much the same size but in a high crawl space. If we move to something smaller, I’ll have to build dioramas or something. My wife says I could have a bedroom, but I have done that size with my second layout. I may have to settle for that again, though. It will be another central operating pit, if that is the case, to maximize running room. It will be another folded figure 8, but with less height gain than last time. No more 3.4% grades!!
If i suddenly acquired four times the space I hope I would have the self control to have no more towns or industries. If each industry was farther from the next, but still close, the building could be better proportioned.
Putting the towns farther apart would increase realism, running time and a little bit of plausiblity for rail ships. Also much more space for greatly improving my scenry skills.
Right now a three to six man crew runs 12 trains in 2 hrs. What I see in my dream is the same amount of people and trains, just a few minutes longer to run the greater distances. Wider spaces for operators would also be nice.
Of course if I was 15 years younger, or won a lottery my dreams might change.
If my 19ft 4inch square garage were to blossom into 36 x 36, I’d widen the aisleways, put a 24 inch (minimum) wide access all the way around, get hidden passenger staging into a more accessible location and model my narrow gauge logger ‘around back’ rather than on a front side upper level. I would also move all the electricals to that access aisle and keep the center aisleways exclusively for operation.
Given a 12 foot ceiling as well, I’d go to the idea pioneered by Paul Mallory and The Model Railroad Club - raise the operating aisle floors four feet and provide walkaround access under all the benchwork. Lots of space for worktops, test facilities and electricals in the ‘basement.’ Easy access to hidden tracks via stepstool.
I wouldn’t add a single turnout or make any significant changes to the present track plan. It probably isn’t perfect - but I’m happy with it.
Crandell, I haven’t built my helix yet. When I do I’m going to take my inspiration from the Tzu-Li-Shan climb on Taiwan’s Alishan Forest Railway. The train spends more time in daylight than invisible.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with deviations)
Given My age…I would go with Chuck’s, suggestion…but access for a motorized wheel chair with all the necessary tools and equipment built on it…can’t stand in one place too long or climb without a problem. [swg]
I would love to go big. For me, it would just be the distance. I woudl not want to add blocks of buildings and industries all over the place, as tempting as it would be. I would love long runs and wide sweeping curves. Keeping switches and structures down, would solve a lot of maintence issues. But would truly increase one major part of my enjoyment of this hobby, just watching go by.
With much more space, I could more easily build a much less complex layout: single deck vs double deck, open staging yards vs hidden, no helixes, no lift-out scenery, wider isles. Getting alot of railroad in a ‘small’ space requires challenging design and construction solutions which take time to conceive and implement.
I would have to agree that wide curves and extensive runs for long passenger/freight trains would be a priority. Nothing complex with the exception of a diesel engine servicing facility and yard.
If I had more room I’d probably buy a pool table. Ha! Just kidding.
Although I thoroughly enjoy switching on my layout I would enjoy continuous running. When non-model railroaders visit, I think that’s what they expect to see. I’d like to do more railfanning.
I would also like to add block signaling. And a roundhouse. And passenger ops.
I think maybe I took the question as more space also means more cash.
Seriously, the idea of increasing the distance between featured locations is very attractive, as is the possibility of straightening out the dog bone/reverse loops/whatever their supposed to be called curves at each end of the layout. Also, having the space to disguise the reverse loop as it curves around the outside of the engine service facility would be fantastic, or eliminate it altogether - even better!! I hate reverse loops around engine facilities, but I’m stuck with one! It will be partially hidden and unless I win the lottery that will have to do.
Then, of course, there is the opportunity to increase radii - a lot! So far I have managed to keep everything above 25". Big deal! I’m going to have to put horse blinders on so I can’t see the curve as the passenger train enters the station.
Next would be some major valleys and mountains like those in the Canadian Rockies, with bridges and tunnels and rivers to suit.
Great comments guys, thanks. I find it interesting that most everyone would opt for spreading things out, wider radius, etc, but not for piling in more complexity. Tony K, if you’re listening out there, maybe this is something to discuss in a future MRP on layout design theory. Oh lord, workday aerospace engineer brain is taking over from weekend choo-choo engineer brain. Must…blow…whistle.
I wouldn’t need a whole bunch more room. However, last fall I finaly got to ride the Durango & Silverton Narrow Gauge R.R. and fell completely in love with Colorado’s Narrow Gauge Railroads. I would build a layout of the Rio Grande Southern in Sn3 between Durango and Ridgeway and include as much of the line as I could; but, a must have would be the Ophir Loop.
Great question, great topic, and one that I spent too much time thinking about. Space.
If I owned enough property, and if I had the money, I would build an outbuilding behind the house, an outbuilding large enough to permit me to construct all six downtown Chicago passenger stations. But I wouldn’t stop there. I would have an outbuilding large enough to build out the track work far enough to include the coach yards for all of the user railroads. Yeah baby!
Are we also talking about unlimited funds to go with this space? If so, then I would want to eventually model a compressed form of the US in HO. Most likely, it would just be the high lights. Even then, it would take years, but I think I could reasonably do it. In addition, I would probably have some 1:1 locomotives and passenger cars as well as a caboose.
If we are talking about funds in reality, then I would be satisfied with a large basement. The minimum radius would be at least 30". I would model the eastern seaboard in the modern era. The layout would center on my protolanced Kyle RR with connections to NS and CSX. I would want long stretches of track to just run trains, and then have towns and cities that would have a lot of switching.