The British have a reputation for building small, but excellent layouts. Lack of space is compensated by traversers, sector plates and cassette staging.
Given the fact, that the space I have available is VERY much limited, surpassed only by my limitations of MRR funds, it was a natural for me to investigate into “British railway modelling practices”.
My givens are:
No more than a 2´ by 6` benchwork - with detachable fiddle yards left and right of the layout
No more than 5 turnouts - that´s all my budget can bear
No R-T-R buildings - all needs to be scratch build
Total budget is $ 150 excluding locos and rolling stock
Layout needs to be transportable
My druthers are:
Layouts needs to have a “dramatic” urban flavor
Setting is somewhere in Scotland
Period is BR´s “Blue” period, i.e. 1970´s and 1980`s.
Level of detail qualifies the layout as a “show layout”
This is, what I have come up with:
The plan was completely drawn with RTS (WinRail). Can you spot the train?
Now, this layout is certainly a little exotic, but it may act as food for thought for people, who have little space, but still want to enjoy some MRRing.
Hi Ulrich I like your thinking. The same thought occurred to us a few years ago, and although things have grown a little, you might like what we have achieved and the ‘flavor’ of period etc? The pix site is here. http://airthrey-park.fotopic.net/ The videos are on Youtube here http://www.youtube.com/user/airthreypark and the club’s site is here with other small (and much larger) projects on view http://stirlingmrc.co.uk/ Really like the ideas and also thought you might like to see (if you haven’t found it already) Waverley West layout which is an idea very similiar to your own. I cannot find a web link yet, but was featured in Model Rsail(UK) magazine recently and is owned by a guy in Workington Cumbria UK. Good luck! You have impeccable taste in location and period!! Si
So, looking at the plan, the locomotive’s “west” end coupler gets used for four tracks, and the “east” end’s coupler gets used for just one. Unless the locomotive comes onto the layout with its cars on both ends, it would have to the leave the layout and go to the cassette or traverser fiddle yard areas to manage this, wouldn’t it?
But if the lower right hand corner’s track was connected up to the east lead, you could have a run around track on the layout itself without having to leave the modeled section of the layout itself.
All cars coming onto or leaving the layout from staging come from the right. All cars get spotted on the left. It will always require a runaround move which is accomplished through the off scene use of the traverser. Depending on how many cars are on the layout, it could get quite challenging. Emulating the prototype is really only feasible when space is available. The smaller the layout, the harder moves need to be to keep operations going on longer and interest high. I would avoid a puzzle aspect but a challenge can be a good thing. If it were a simple switching layout with no runarounds, an entire operating session could be done in a few minutes which would get old pretty quick. I don’t see anything wrong with this setup. I would personally like to be able to spot cars at industries in both directions but that’s not a requirement.
Since I’m assuming the cassette is removable for space reasons, I’d leave this feature alone. However if the traverser is a permanent structure on the layout and not removable, I’d personally rather just replace it with more scenery and an on scene runaround track. I have a very small 7" deep X 48" HO scale switching layout that I built that uses a 2 track traverser that is necessary for runaround moves but it is designed to be hidden inside a warehouse on scene as I didn’t want to lose that scenic element. Especially in a layout that is only 4 feet long. Unfortunately the scenery was never completed and is only ballasted trackwork so I need to get back to that.
Using multiple engines to remove the need to do a runaround is really no different than just removing the runaround itself and using all trailing point sidings which may potentially kill longterm interest. For very small layouts, a bit of a challenge is a good thing.
British layout designs often use a traverser to eliminate the need of turnouts and thus economize on space. A traverser is something like a drawer with tracks on - call it a transfer table.
A layout of this size has limitations in terms of operation. I´d like to call it an operational diorama. For me, the thrill is in building it, detail it, and run a few “trains”.
Had to make some changes to the plan, as my wife wanted me to move some furniture in our train/guest and laundry room - lost about a foot in lenghth [:(]
The character of the layout, though, remains unchanged. I may be able to add a cassette for staging on the right side of the layout.
Ulrich, I like the layout, the plan and the limited space. But I like most the constrains helping to focus on the craftsmanship instead of bid spending. Looking forward for a great small layout!
Being out of a job at the age of 54, you face a lot of constraints - not only in model railroading [:D]
Seriously, I find building a small layout on a shoestring budget more challenging, but also rewarding than building that basement empire. There is absolutely no “room” to cover up a mistake on a small layout. You need to pay a lot more attention to detail, as you can overlook the entire layout with just one glance. Building a micro-layout can take as long as building a big one, for that reason.
Construction will start soon. I am right now “sourcing” the materials in need for the benchwork, i.e. hunting for freebies. Right now, I have a scrap hollow core door which needs to be cut down to layout size. We have a sign maker in our neighborhood, whom I will be asking for Foamex board (extruded PVC board) to replace plywood. Foamex is as strong as plywood, but weighs a lot less.
Are you on the small layout design yahoo group? Lots of good info there as it is basically the chat room for www.carendt.com which is a great site btw. I’ve always had aspirations for a large layout but after going back to layout tours year after year and seeing the same monster layouts never progressing past the benchwork and trackwork stages, it made me realize that I’d rather have a small highly scenic and detailed layout than a large unfinished one. I also don’t currently have much space which made my scale choice seem strange. Having always been an n scale person, I have changed over to O scale and have only a small apartment bedroom to use. I find that I enjoy building and rarely even run my trains. I go operate at friend’s layouts for that. I am currently building a small layout that is sectional that can be a standalone switching layout or be expanded into a larger layout as space becomes available. I am working on the first section now. This way I’ll always have a nice looking railroad rather than a large room full of construction materials. You can spend a surprising amount of time detailing a small area.
Fred - o, I am not in the Yahoo group, but Carl Arendt´s site I visit frequently. Building a small or even a micro-layout is as rewarding as building a big one. Size does not matter, but detail. I initially also planned on doing O scale, but the cost of locos and rolling stock are prohibitive.
I was not yet happy with the track plan, so I introduced some changes, allowing for more operation. I guess now, that this is as good as you can get it, given the theme and the size!
