I have been a modle railroader for 40+ yrs. I am in the planing stages of combining three layouts from the Atlas King Size Layout Book. I’m combining the “Berkshire Valley Route”, “Plywood Summit Lines” and the "Oregon Pass Line layouts. If I have the room to do so I may even add “The Central Midland” layout from another layout book I have. My question is should I make each layout like they are in the books and just tie them together with track running between each layout? or make all three or four just pne big layout? I am thinking of making them just one layout. Wouldc love to hear some input. Thanks Brian BRGW
I applaud your enthusiasm and creativity.
Hey, if you got the space to build all three, go fo it!
Each one could be built and a spur or siding connect it to the others. That is what I would do if I had hte space and wanted to do what you are proposing.
ONE BIG layout is a BAD idea I think…the biggest one The Oregon pass is already an 8x 12 layout…you will need center access points to work on the center of it or in case of derailment there, as I am SURE your arms can’t reach 4 feet away from you. Most arm reach is 20", maybe 24".
I also think One big layout will be too crowded with track, and will look overbusy.
I envy you the space to build all three!
[8-|]
I would take the features you like from each plan you like and build one railroad. I wouldn’t build them separate and then join them all.
I don´t know whether building three “self-containing” layouts and connecting them is a good idea. What you get will be just that - three different layouts connected. OK, you can start small and grow if you feel like doing so, but I think it is more advisable to plan for 1 layout in the given space, based on your givens & druthers (which you may have to develop yet).
One idea I have thought about is a large unified layout with several parts that be operated as separate roundy-round loops for easy show running, or to let grandkids run something. One line would run the entire length of the layout, but other lines would run as loops-- although they could represent switching lines, connecting railroads, interchanges etc in terms of the operation of the “big” railroad.
Here is an imagined scheme that illustrates PART of the idea. This is the lower level of a layout for a large room. The layout runs from Karankawa, the port at the left, across Bacardi Bay, through Tidelands, and finally to the big city of Santa Vaca (that is everything from Belt Jct and Plaza through the passenger station and 65th St yard to Brownie Jct, then aqround a corner to Norton which serves mainly as open but inconspicuous staging for the main line. But a branch line connects via a helix to an upper level which represents a forest-products area.
However, the city scene through Santa Vaca is all double-tracked from Belt to Brownie Jct. The “sneak” connection through Belt forms a reverse loop at that end of the layout. The track through Brownie Jct, scenicked to look like a connection to the Brownsville & Mexico RR., forms a reverse loop at the other end. The second track of the double-track mainline can be used to form a continuous oval that could allow trains to run roundy-round.
Similarly, a loop could be made at Karankawa that could look like and be run as port terminal tracks-- but also form a loop that could be run unattended. Same think on nthe forest-products upper level branch. But the layout can also be run as point-to-point.
Is this an actual existing space, or just a “someday” sort of idea?
If you have that much space, energy, and cash, there would be many better choices in the same overall space that would provide better access, broader radii, and could incorporate design ideas (such as staging) that have become more popular in the decades since those layouts were designed.
Best of luck.
I like the idea of combining several layouts to form one big railroad.
One BIG advantage with this is that you could not only tie them together, but also build them as module layouts, so you could take them to train shows, which would be my number one reason for doing this.
As far as the layout looking cluttered, I think all you have to do, as Alan McClellend said, is look at the prototype. The S&NY (Susquehanna and New York, NOT the New York, Susquehanna and Western) had a connection with the Pennsylvania Railroad at Marsh Hill Junction, which, if you can find a track diagram for it, looks like a tangle of track, so it wouldn’t be unprototypical, it would just be unusual.
There is a fairly big difference between making a modular prototype based layout and trying to connect three or more figure 8-style layouts like pearls on a string.
Are you familiar with the published track plans the OP wants to connect? According to the original post, he wants to connect these track plans from an Atlas track plan book:
-
“Berkshire Valley Route” - also known as H0-35. Typical Atlas track plan - made more to sell lots of track than to simulate a railroad. Minimum 4x12 foot table (if you are happy with sharp radius curves and small locos and rolling stock) - i.e. needs a floors space of minimum 8 x 14 feet, figure 8 mainline, only three industry tracks, yard, turntable. No attempt to create a feeling of once-thru scenes, no attempt to create the impression of a railroad - a classic toy train layout - looks like this: http://www.trainsetsonly.com/page/TSO/PROD/150-HO35
-
“Plywood Summit Lines” - also known as H0-33. Another figure 8 layout on a rectangular table with . 4x8 - if we put it at the end of the previous table, we have a table 4x20 feet, with a need for 8 x 22 feet of floor
Why copy three layouts that were designed for small spaces? If you have the room, make an around the room layout, with peninsulas,. I was one of the fortunate ones that designed the garage loft with an inside stairway. I had the final design in mind, but constructed the 24’x24’ layout in four stages. By all means, go for DCC, radio controlled, if you can afford it. Mine is s four Power District, tethered layout. Click on the photo to enlarge it. Then, Click on “Previous” or “Next” to see other views of my layout. Bob Hahn 
Consider how 2-3 railroads could interchange with each other.
Part of layout planning may include railroad(s) coming “from the world beyond the layout” – Then visible for a while for hands-on layout operations – Then going back “to the world beyond the layout.” Staging can also enter into the layout planning with visible staging and/or hidden staging.
Example #1: Plan a primary railroad, and have interchanges (= junctions) with the other(s).
Example #2: A 90-degree crossover track for 2 railroads at a junction, with a common freight station for both railroads, not to mention a junction tower.
Example #3: One railroad merging into the primary railroad’s main line from a layout corner.
Example #4: Railroad-1 bridge/overpasses railroad-2 with a graded-curve for railroad-1 to merge into railroad-2. Picture how 2 highways would have a limited-access on-ramp (without a clover-leaf).
With interchanges and junctions, you still have plenty of, and quite visible, rolling stock for 2-3 railroads to be seen in layout operations.
Why do either?
Study the three plans, pick your favorite elements, and build your own freelance railroad.
If you build all three smaller layouts and connect them together, or just incorporate all three smaller layouts into one large layout, you will spend all of your time trying to replicate the three layouts, and precious little time displaying your own creativity.
Rich
Hi!
One of the most rewarding parts of building a layout - to me - is the design process. My latest layout took from drawings I had saved for well over 30 years, plus plans published in various mags - mostly Kalmbach of course.
I could never see the joy in coping someone else’s plan “as is”…
The layout (Railroad) is my own Railroad called “Brian’s Rio Grande Western” hint BRGW. It is set in the Colorado Rockies, just haven’t decided where yet. My road Has giving the “Denver & Rio Grande Western” track rights so they can come on as well. my biggest loco will be the “Challenger” since that is the biggest loco on the “D&RGW”. Otherwise if I model in modern times then the SD-70 will be the biggest with several SD-40T-2’S.
I decided on these layouts since I have already built these and are in storage with no track on them. I built the “Plywood Summit” back in 1980, the “Oregon Pass” back in 1982 and the “Berkshire” back in 1989. I am thinking of adding “The Central Midland” since I could combine the yards of the two too make one yard.
Thanks for all the comments and feedback, Brian- BRGWRR
Brian,
Rethink your plan.
Those locomotives you are listing are very big for any of those Atlas trackplans you mentioned. They would look much better on a layout with broader curves and longer straight-aways.
Like others are suggesting, take elements that you like from the each of the layouts and use them in a bigger layout that fills your space.
Frankly, just a double track mainline, with a train going in each direction, around the perimeter of your space with you standing in a center operating pit; would probably be a better way to run those nice long locos than combining the three smaller plans like you are suggesting. JMO.