After moving into my new townhouse, I’ve decided to abandon my crazy idea of an around the walls layout. I could probably get approval from the wife, but it seems a little too invasive. I have decided to return to my original size of layout. Not too big, not too small. The only way I could go any bigger is to convince my wife to move the TV and her book shelves to in front of the wall of windows. I’m not sure she’ll bite. Also, I now have the right dimensions of the room to work with. My last try at planning was from memory of seeing the room once.
Here is the new direction I’m heading. I’m trying to keep the sections small and light weight for future moves. As a disclaimer, I am more interested in having key scenery items than an operating layout. However, the input I received form you fine folks didn’t take away from my core ideas last time. This an HO layout based on Mankato Minnesota in the early 1950’s.
Maybe on the far right section, instead of having the two sidings converge in the middle, keep it as one long passing siding or two track main, and have a cross-over there. Theres my [2c] .
I was following the design progress on what you were planning for that space. However, you do what you got to do. At least it will be bigger than a 4x8 plywood table.
For small and lightweight sections, here is what I am doing, and maybe it will be adaptable for what you want to do.
My basic modules are 18 to 24 inches wide by 7 feet long or shorter. I build a basic frame perimeter of 1x3’s (furring strips) with three cross braces. Then glue and tack on 1/4 inch Luan. (The sheet Luan gives some rigidity to the module and holds the frame square, plus it allows for fastening things on the bottom.) Over that I glue on a sheet of one inch builders foam. This winds up being 3-3/4 thick. I add a paneling facia that is 4 inches wide on the sides and ends that will show. These modules are light enough that I can handle them by myself. The 7 foot length was chosen so I could stand them up in a normal room with 8 foot ceilings.
I also have built a couple of the same module sections without the builders foam, as long as I am not going to do any “below grade” scenery effects. For these I use 1x4’s so the over-all depth / thickness is close to the same as the other modules. I cross brace these a little more, maybe one or two more braces, plus I put some 2 inch holes in the cross braces to get rid of some weight.
I thought about doing that. I would need to have a crossover somewhere in there to access the depot. There also wasn’t much of double mainlines around here. I may need to look at that area again. I wasn’t going to put anything out there, then I figured I had better have somewhere to go with my trains. Unfortunately, the trains may need to go around the loop a couple of times before they ‘reach’ their destination. The last car will be leaving Minn Lake while the loco is pulling into Mankato. Just typing that makes me want to negotiate for more room!
Elmer,
Thanks for the info on your bench work. I am planning to build in a similar fashion. I think I’ll use 1x4’s with 2 inch foam. I’ll also have to brace the bottom as well. The trestle area bench work will drop down twelve inches or so to avoid having any elevations.
My wife decided that she wants the TV to go between the computer desks. The book shelves are going down into the living room. I now officially have rights all the way to the wall of windows! This is so much better. I can have a train stretch it’s legs without trying an around the room layout. Something tells me that I should start from scratch on the planning side of things. There is no reason to have Mankato so cramped and convoluted. Sorry to think out loud to you folks. I think my mild case of ADD is getting to me. I’m starting to feel like Chip with all of these different versions.
I don’t want to make Mankato too big, or else the rest of the rural running will be silly. Maybe just a nice, small, double ended yard with engine service. I am going to rebuild the plan with bigger curves and bigger turnouts as well. That way I don’t have to scour the earth for short passenger cars. Maybe I should use some of the entries from Chip’s 2x8 contest for Minnesota Lake.
Are you still planning on operating the same way? Railfanning. Or are you gonna go more towards the operational aspect… Moving cars etc… With that extra room you could have some nice long scenery scenes.
I’m leaning towards more scenery, with an option for moving trains with a purpose. It seems like a waste to build something this big(at least to me) without planning for the future. I’m really excited about the trains actually having some room to move. I’m not into long trains. Any passenger train would probably only have five or six cars. Freight would be a little longer. My first layout was the ‘sacred sheet’ , so I don’t want to chase my tail again. I suppose I should plan to add some staging if I have the room. Maybe a removable bluff with hidden staging underneath? One question, will 85 foot passenger cars go through a Peco number 5? Anyone?
I don’t know if you guys are sick of me yet, but I’m getting closer to what I want. I finally have the room size that I want. This is an expanded version. The bottom section is accessible from both sides. All other areas have a wall behind them. I tried to add some sort of staging behind a lift of bluff section on the right hand side. I’m not sure if that’s worth doing or not. Is it a bad idea to have staging go right into your yard? I think I may need to add another track in the hidden section so I can pull one train in and one out. If I do that, I think I’ll put the turnouts before they are hidden. I think I could add more online industries in the Mankato area. I figured that I could add those later in the design process. I know I’ve been a scatter brain with this process. It’s been a interesting negotiating process for the ROW. The wife decided that this configuration is something that she can live with.
What do you guys think? I’m off to work right now, please feel free to add any opinions or ideas. As you can tell, I don’t really know what I’m doing! Thanks again.
I think staging is always worth doing. I would try to get at least two tracks in, three if you can, although the more turnouts you add, the shorter the staging tracks become. If you build your bluff lift-off section out of foam, it would be lighter and sturdier. Might want to build it in three sections. And if you can lift it off when needed, the turnouts can be hidden from normal viewing. Add a couple of dowels for keys so you get it put back in the same place every time.
Along with short passenger trains, think about using 60 foot passenger cars. One or two more cars for the same length of train makes it seem longer. Short four axle diesels and mostly forty foot cars will do the same thing for the freights.
As for staging going right into the yard, it would be better if it didn’t, but then the yard would be better off being single ended in that case. You could (may be able to) put a crossover that goes out to the main so the trains come from staging, go out to the main, around the layout and then into the yard. However, you gotta do what you gotta do to make it work for you and what you are modeling.
What do you think of this? The area in staging may be separated by a lift off bluff, or a back drop. The staging tracks are about five and a half feet long each. Well, they are a little longer than that, but that is the section that is hidden and clears the turnouts. Any thoughts or objections from anyone?
Just wondering, why would it be better for staging not go right into he yard? Is that something to be aware of in general, or just in secondhandmodeler’s specific layout plan? I thought that staging represents the world beyond the boundaries of the layout, and if the world boundary starts just before the yard, well, that’s where it should be.
I guess it depends on the schematic of the line you’re modeling. In my case, I have:
The “on board” run from west staging to the A/D turnout of the yard is only about 12". Locals that have work for the yard can pull in, and throughs just go past the yard on the main. This seems OK for me, given the space I have to work with (10’x18’).
I can’t remember the specifics of secondhandmodeler’s setting, but I’d say try to find where the logical east-west or north-south world boundaries would be, and see if there is a place to plug your staging in there.
If you are going to represent staging, my way of thinking on it is to bring it in from a junction if possible. (I tend to think of staging as foreign road territory.) I think that real trains coming from a foreign road would come into an interchange area or yard, and would (or may) have trackage rights to the interchange yard of the home road from the junction. There really is no hard and fast rule not to bring it into a yard directly (model wise) except that the train would just run from staging to the yard and back, and wouldn’t see the rest of the layout. It’s more personal preference than anything. By not going into the yard directly, the train gets more run time on the layout, and to me, run time is just as important as switching.
When I saw it I thought it was just a separate scene, and that still might not be a bad idea. Just make a scene where trains would normally be sitting idle.
I would make the 4th yard track a single end. Making it double ended really reduces its capacity. 2. I don’t like the curved station approach from the left. I presume that is a passenger station. If so it puts the long cars on the tightest radius curves and the industrial lead on the broadest. Saying that I do not have a “soultion” of how to fix the problem without adding yet another crossing. Even then as drawn it looks like the crossing on the right is two curved tracks crossing each other. Ouch. 3. Use a wye turnout for that last one on the industry in the upper left. The one going into the outside curve. It will flow better. 4. I think the small knotch on the lower left could hold another industry. I don’t know what might be at that location with your prototype but does seem to be calling me to put something there.
Have you thought about flipping city scene to put the main next to the depot, the siding next to the wall and the yard next to the aisle. Then have the industrial spurs break off the siding. That makes it much simpler to hav the staging connections to the main.
Thank you for the input everyone. I’m going to need to chew on some of this for a while. I like the idea of staging, I just can’t decide if I want to hide it and where. I’m trying to build a reasonable representation of downtown Mankato MN in the early fifties. Initially, I wasn’t going to add a yard at all. Then I was convinced that it needed to have a yard. In the prototype, the area behind the buildings are industries and the Milwaukee Road Depot. The yard is actually running along the river. The depot I’m modeling is actually the C&NW seen in the upper left of the photo, just before the bridge across the Minnesota River.
Here is an aerial photo of the area.
Here are the current tracks going north from the Depot. Hubbard Milling is on the right. That is where I got the curves from. Well, that and the wall in the way!
This is the Depot in present day Mankato. It’s one of the only buildings still standing. I have to figure out the track work from old photos and Sanborn maps.
This is a copy of an old postcard of the trestle from almost a hundred years ago.
Would I be better off modeling the industries, or the yard? Maybe I can do both. I just don’t want Mankato to span all of the way around the table. The rural running is very important. Hopefully this will give a little more incite into my madness.
Btw - are you already familiar with the online visual records database of the Minnesota Historical Society? It it a treasure trove for people interested in older pictures from Minnesota. Can be found at URL http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/.
The picture of the Red Jacket trestle is from about 1911, it seems. They have about 350 or so digitized images (and 650 images total) from Mankato. A handful of links that might be interesting for you:
Aerial picture of a larger area around the depot, 1950
