In 1977 MR published a book called “Popular model Railroads You Can Build”. Well, there is one RR, the Manchester and Paradise that I really like. It’s 6’x10’ and has 9(!!) industrial spurs, 2 reverse loops, and a small yard.
I’m thinking of scrapping the plans for my layout, which would be 4’x17’ w/ a 5x4 on one side and a 2x8 coming off the 5x4. It was to be CGWs Oelwein yard, and the yard would take up most of the space and throw the whole thing out of proportion.
I’m thinking of building the 6x10 Ma&Pa w/ my original 4x4 layout attacted to one end. The main and a passing siding would run thru the 4x4, and that would be all. I would avoid a lot of the cookie cutter of the MP and have it be flatter, as I model the flat midwest. I would have to modify a reverse loop a bit ti make it fit (or just eliminate it), and expand the yard to 5 tracks and make it slightly longer. I would also have a larger engine service facility. I could run a 15-20 car train and get my fix of “big time” RR’ing. Motive power would be-
one 4-6-2 for passenger service, but will pull freight when needed
a pair of 2-8-0s for locals
a 2-6-0 for switching the yard and for some of the local freights
one F3 A/B for interchange trains
one S1 switcher
now, my prototype would be a fictional branch line of CGW, with mostly steam power, era would be 1960-1966. I might try to include a small staging yard under the layout. This gives me a reason for my “interchange trains”. I can gather up 15+ cars, haul them to staging for interchange with another RR. The train would then bring back a string of 15 or 20 cars.
Advantages-
with my tight budget, this would cost less than the original plan and be just as much fun to operate
it won’t take nearly as much work to fit it in the basement
Maybe it’s just spur of the moment, but as of now this is what I’ll be doing. It could change, I’ll see what I think in a few days.
dingoix,
Sounds like a plan to me. Spaghetti bowls are fun. My BRVRR is a spaghetti bowl if I ever saw one. Here’s my track plan:
One thought, even the renowned John Armstrong recommended a double track main line for small layouts.
Many more photos of the layout, rolling stock, structures and much more on my webesite at [url=“http://intergate.com/~acoates149”] or use the link in my signature.
Good luck with whatever you decide to do.
If your question is, should you abandon your current layout plans and start the new one you like so much, I say go for it. I spent 18 months working on a layout that I liked less and less as time went on and I began dreaming and drawing a new layout. Finally, last September, I bit the bullet and tore out the old layout and started over with the new layout. Now, I have nearly finished landscaping it and couldn’t be happier.
I too have had to scrap my old plans and am still in the process of the “redo” mainly because of our move. While the new “train room” is bigger, the current plan is still in the works. Working out the “bugs” in the plan before building the benchwork should prevent head aches down the road.
It’s easier to change a plan than it is to change a layout. Draw up the new plan and see if you still like it as much as you do now. Maybe there are changes you can make to improve to suit your tastes.
Ok I drew up a plan today. It’s 6x10. The main goes off this table and will run on the 4x4 table, swing around and come back, making a loop for continous running. It’s not a spaghetti bowl yet.
the numbers indicate the industries-
1- Glacier Gravel- Walthers
2- Columbia feed Mill- walthers
3- grain elevator- walthers
4- (top left, can’t quite read it in the pic) stockyard- life-like (it’s one I already own)
5- Golden Valley freight house- Walthers
I’m open to any suggestions for adding more industries and more operation.
heres the plan for the book- You can see I expanded the yard and engine service facility and eliminated a reverse loop.
well guys, my Stewart F3 just came in the mail so it’s obvious I’m gonna go run it. I’m so excited.
Also, I bought an IHC 2-6-0 last night for a really good price.
I guess it all depends on what you want. Spaghetti bowls may be great but probably not realistic. One thing I try to keep in mind while planning my layout over and over is what the railroad would do. Just like us, they were concerned about expenses and space. My rule of thumb is that there must be a legitimate reason for every turnout and every track. I have found this simple rule works great and has helped me very much in planning. Good luck!!
The last plan I posted is- (on paper) 13’ wide 8’ tall and the wing in the bottom middle is 2’ tall. The 4x4 layout would be to the left of the yard with only a mainline running thru it.
i think you’re right , try removing about half of the yard tracks , many of them are too short to be much use anyway . this will also have the effect of reducing the number of turnouts and therefore the cost of the layout , also will reduce the crowded look of that part of the layout , and maybe make room for another industry or two
good news- I’m going back to the original plan because now I can get it to fit in the basement[swg] BTW, I have removed 2 yard tracks and the ready tracks next to the shops.
They can be if one takes the concept of selective compression to a large degree. Take all the trackwork and routes over a large given area. Shrink the area but keep the routes. “Realistic” spaghetti bowl?
If by a spaghetti bowl you mean having a train double back through the same scene more than once, certainly that is unrealistic. Rarely does a mainline do this in real life. The Tehacapi and Georgetown loops are two famous exceptions. However, if through scenic treatment, one of the sections of track is either hidden or at least visually separated from the other, even a spaghetti bowl can be made to appear prototypical. That is why I believe on a small layout, scenic dividers, such as two sided backdrops or mountain ranges are essential to creating a feel of realism.
