Okay awhile back I posted a question on a proposed track plan that received some comments that made me think. Specifically, Stein asked me several questions that I said I would have to take time to think about before I answered them. Well, after much thinking it’s come to my conclusion that I can’t even answer the first question…
Why do I want to build a model railroad?
I don’t know why I want to… I like trains. However, I don’t think that is an answer so I’m going to just leave it at that for now and discuss a layout some more and get your feedback.
That’s a nice plan. And Iain’s watercolor plans are always a sight to see.
May I make a suggestion ? Try to also download and read the information station PDF "Getting started in Proto:87 modeling" - which is not at all mainly about changing wheels on railroad cars, but is following Ian Rice’s 7-8 part waterfront railroad project Roque Bluffs - it has a lot of great tips on modelling a waterfront railroad - including very lightweight sectional benchwork which allows you to build a railroad that won’t take up much space in your home section by section.
Another possibility with Ians 4x8 is to unwrap it and turn it into a 2 x 16. In the end that will be much easier to add on to later and you can run the 16 feet around how ever many walls it takes. The issue with a 4 x 8 is it really needs to sit in a room so as you can get to at least 3 sides, and depending on your room size it can make for pretty narrow isles later on when you do add on to it.
The layout was first published in Model Railroad Planning 2002. That design was one of five in that issue constrained to 4X8 based on the editor’s request (including my own N scale plan). Iain’s designs always look fabulous because of his skill as an artist, but I think it can be a bit misleading. Some of those tighter curves scale out to 15" or less and while it’s possible to make that combinaiton of tight curves and stiff grades work, it’s not necessarily going to be that much fun to do so. A slightly larger layout overall would ease both problems.
It would probably be a much better layout if built in 5X8, 5X9, or 5X10 – and not much more work, considering that you need to modify the sheet of plywood or foam anyway to allow for the large harbor area.
My theme will be a free-lanced branch/short line with a major waterfront design. The era I was looking at is the mid to late 1940’s to the possibly mid 50’s; and the location I’m am thinking about is the Connecticut coast line.
So how did I come up with that… well there are two reasons and they answer the second part of question two.
True… One of the things I a having a hard time coming to grips with is not being adept enough to be able to put a plan into the PC and “see” if it is practicable or not.
I’m a big fan of Iain Rice’s designs - I have 3 of his books that were published by Kalmbach, and I have most of the MRP and MR issues that contain his work. I very much appreciate and agree with his holistic approach to layout planning - that layout planning is far more than just track planning.
That said, Rice’s designs are generally not in the ready to build category. Instead, they should be viewed as concepts and sources of ideas.
Rice draws his plans by hand. Some are more accurately scaled than others; a few use commercial turnouts, most do not. This means that to build his design in the same given space will require handlaid track or extensive modification of commercial turnouts.
Rice is not bothered by the idea of coupling/uncoupling model knuckle couplers on sharp curves. I have never been able to easily couple/uncouple even 36ft cars on 18" radius curves in HO - it takes quite a bit of finagling with skewers or magnets, and often an 0-5-0 lift assist. Perhaps it’s just me, but I doubt it. So IMHO, runaround tracks or spurs located entirely on 18" or even 22" radius curves aren’t very functional.
Rice’s designs that use blobs or “sort-of” 4x8s don’t provide good enough access, IMHO. The Loleta & Mad River (L&MR), like many Rice designs, has the 4ft width cut back to a little more than 3 ft in places to enhance access with the layout back long side against a wall. I can’t reach even just 3ft over the scenery to rerail a car at the back of the layout. And if the layout is mounted on casters or slides to pull out from the wall, the Rice-recommended backdrop will interfere with back of the layout access. On the L&MR, there is no practical way to reach the “hidden” staging at the back of the layout.
On the L&MR specifically, the grade to the bridge will make switching the coaling dock nearly impossible unless a way
Can’t add anything constructive to what has already been said, but thought that I might enclose a couple of photos that show my own harbor, mountain mine scene, and cascading river, that may be of some help. The fairly large harbor beyond the Waterfront Willy’s harbor entrance scene is made of "random relief design door plastic, (with bottom painted greenish blue), and will house the Ore boat (shown in the latest Walther’s Flyer). The ore boat will be unloaded by two Hulett Unloaders, which unload both iron ore and coke for the Blast Furnace and Rolling Mill near-by. The second scene shows the three track loader from the mountain coal mine, (which is, also, on the harbor). The third scene shows one of my cascading mountain rivers. Click on photos to enlarge them. Click on “View Album”, (at left), to view my entire layout. Bob Hahn
“…and since I have never even laid a piece of pre-fab track it is probable a little ahead of my skills.” I didn’t find your 1st thread yet, so I’m digging for clues in this one. I gather from the quote and other statements that this is a 1st layout.
There are really several approaches used by most in designing layouts.
Prototype LDEs. This approach is favored by Stein and some of the other better designers. A prototype track arrangement is analyzed and used as a guide for a model of the same or similar scene. Some are fairly true to prototype with just compression. Others treat the prototype like artistic inspiration, and simply attempt to capture the “flavor and feel”. Iain Rice tends to go down the latter road. I have/do not used this method of design.
Integrating portions of published plans. This is what I usually do. I see portions of plans I really like and build them into the design I am working on. Usually there are changes, but I try to analyze the design portion I am importing to make sure I capture the key operational and design features or fix detected operational and design problems. One of the downfalls of this approach are that the design portion I am importing is somebody else’s model - I am modeling a model, not the prototype. It may or may not have any reasonable similarity to any prototype.
Thanks for taking the time to reply, basically I guess what your saying is go back to the drawing board and see what you can come up with. Which is fair enough, I guess if I was better with Xtrk CAD I would be having an easier time. The biggest hurdle I’m facing is not knowing what works and what does not work.
I guess I’m back to researching again, hopefully I’ll be able to come up with a workable plan in time to start construction by the summer.
Like I said, I don’t know your givens and druthers beyond what is in this thread. So even if I had the creativity of some of the others, I can’t offer anything concrete in the way of a design. I outlined some options to try to get a feel for the scope of what you are willing to commit to - but no real reaction from you yet.
Without any real insight, I would lean towards the proverbial 4x8 from a published track plan that has been built for a first layout. But read Chip’s 5 page essay on beginning layout design at http://www.chipengelmann.com/trains/Beginner/BeginnersGuide01.html. It’s a good read, and presents a good argument for not starting with a 4x8. To me, the advantage of the 4x8 is that the investment is not too great when you realize what you really want. And that what you really want is beyond what a 4x8 plus an extension can deliver. And that you have all the resources - time, money, and space - to do more than a 4x8 plus extension. I’ve never really had the latter, so have tended to remain with a series of small layouts.
I find the XtrkCad a little frustrating for “doodling”. If 15"-22" radius is going to be used, pencil and paper sketches followed by Atlas RTS software “will it fit checks” is my preferred path to design. Then the flexibility of XtrkCad to use multiple brands of track can be used to improve the initial design.
Some basics - a turnback curve takes twice the radius plus 4" across, and the radius plus 2" in length. An Atlas #4 turnout needs 9" of straight, and makes a 12.5 degree angle for the curved path. The Atlas track planning books have some pretty useful dimensioned templates of some common curve and turnout configurations. Or use John Armstrong’s “squares” (described pretty thoroughly in Track Planning for Realistic Operation - another excellent investment in reading) as a guide for what will fit and what won’t.
I agree. Before I learned about Armstrong squares, I bought a pad of graph paper and fit my available space to one sheet, then calculated the scale for the graph grid. Since continuous running was one of my druthers, turnback loops were necessary. So I used a compass to draw circles of various radii on another sheet, then cut the circles out. This allowed me to move the circles around the represention of my available space on the first sheet. This helped me see what worked and what didn’t and establish an overall shape for the layout. From there I pencilled in the lines with a straight edge and approximated turnouts of varying numbers. You could cut out little templates of turnouts and move them around too.
All of this “paper doll” work was done before I bought a CAD package. I think it helped me up the learning curve too, as I was able to focus on just re-creating the graph paper model and not get lost in software’s feature weeds
Before the doodle stage, though, I did have some basic G&Ds figured out. The D’s were not nailed down at that time, but I’m glad I had some basics for guidance.
