I am in the process of putting together my new layout. It will be 10 feet long by 4 feet wide. I want to model the coal ops of BNSF (meant to put that in my name—now someone else has BNSFrailfan) in Nevada or Montana. —But, won’t that kinda limit me to realistically only running coal units. Or can I just have the one side of the layout be the moutains ect. and then run into flat lands. I think 10 feet of space is kinda tight for that. I also want to run other trains; grains, locals, chems and whatever. I also want a diesel facility and a yard in the center. ( I really do think 10 feet is too small for a point to point) With two mainlines running around the outer edge of the layout I have seriously considered cutting out the deck girder bridge. (or cutting the second mainline). The coal mill will (hopefully) be on a 2’ by 3-4’ extension off to the side, not in the middle or on the mainline.
Am I just to obsessed? How do you think it would look, should I just not worry about it.
Dan
PS i posted this same thing in another part of the forum, but noone is in there.
one thing you can do to divide your scenes is put in a double sided backdrop…that way one scene is on on side of the table top while the other scene is on the other side…also, you can get in more industrial sidings using this method because it’s giving you two sides to work with for more buildings…hi gary!..chuck
Well there’s plenty of folks here Dan with opinions, including me.
First I’d like to know why you decided to build a layout 10 feet by 4 feet?
Where will this layout be (which room)?
Since it is a point to point, can you have a shelf layout or around the walls with maybe a peninsula?
OK scale is HO. you will see the space and why I have chosen to do it this way. My wife has consideration in this too, so I can’t really change the way the space is used. Any suggestions.
Being four foot wide and not being able acess most of the side against the wall will be a problem. A good design is one that you are able to reach everything from at least one side.
I was thinking something like this.
It might cost you a few “Honey Do” projects to obtain more area.
Real trouble with reach in that configuration. Realistically, 2 and a half feet is all you can stretch. 4 feet would put the back of your layout beyond accessibility. You could put a duck-under opening in the center, but you need that to be at least 2 feet or so wide, so it will severely limit your layout space.
Instead, how about a J-shape, with the top of the J in the lower right corner of your picture, straight down the wall and curving around the base at the heater. Then it goes along that wall and curves up to run out to the middle of the room, along the long edge of the center desk, if possible. Doing a rough calculation, that would be equivalent to about 20 feet of linear run. At 2 and a half feet wide, you would still have room for scenery and you could let the tracks meander a bit to increase the run length.
A duck under (your second drawing) is easier to work on than the layout in the first drawing, if you don’t mind ducking under part of the layout.
You could do something similar with the first drawing by making “pop outs”. Sections of the layout that lift up or drop down to allow acess to places you can’t reach from the front. But don’t get too excited about pop outs, they’re a pain to deal with. The problem is what to do with the section once you removed it. Wear it like a hat?
Actually what you have in the first drawing is a continuous oval with spurs, not a true point to point.
Study selective compression Dan. You have to rely on using the background and backdrop to give the illusion the layout is larger than it is.
You don’t have a whole lot main line to work with, so the change of scenes will have to be abrupt. However you can blend connecting scenes together by using view blocking techniques, such as a hill cut, a bridge, trees, short tunnles or something to obstruct the train from view, if only a few inches wide.
Look through a cameras field of view to get an idea what I mean. Imagine each scene is as wide as the field of view. Enter stage left, exit stage right. See what I’m getting at? A model railroad is a “stage” for the actors who are the trains.
My vision is, at one end, the mountains are on the backdrop with a coal mine or flood loader placed in front. Heading out from the coal field, just past the turnout for the mine track, the train ducks behind a deep cut for about six inches. On the other side of the cut could be a town or whatever. The train leaves town passing under a bridge, but it’s hidden, if only three inches, by the abutment.
yes, a contiuous run is what i want, not a point to point, not enough room for that in this space. in any case thanks for your help i think the duck under will be ok. and the way to change scenes that you recommend sounds good as well. i had almost removed the bridge from the plan, now it looks like there will be 2 or 3.
I’m not an expert but you might be able to run container unit trains. BNSF has a large container yard in Montana in the Great Falls area. Trains with covered hoppers with grain could also be a possibility.
If you want to get some more layout in, build it higher. This would allow you to extend the layout over the desks (or part of them). My current layout is 58" high, 54" of clearance underneath. I have a 3x5 ft diningroom table underneath it that I use as a workbench. Works great.
Enjoy
Paul
I have a 5x12 foot layout. I like the idea of continuous running, because it gives the illusion of ‘mainline traffic’ that I have to work around with switching. The mainline trains can handle anything. I’ve got plans and equipment for “live coal ops” with a loader building, clamshell hoppers and a “drop zone” track with a bin below to receive the coal. Most of this will be point-to-point, but I have to dodge those through freights and passenger trains all the way. It provides more fast-paced action than straight switching and more visual interest than a simple runaround. It’s also a showcase for the power of DCC.
