oh heck, there was one link I just thought of, but its nowhere to be found in my bookmarks... I do know part of the URL contained something like "naisp.net". It had oodles of layouts, and some for hollow core doors. Don't know why I didn't remember this earlier! I don't even recall the last time I looked at it, but it must have been a while ago. Ring a bell for anyone? [edit]: nevermind.. i just googled around a bit, and found the link, but its dead now.
What??!!?? That's terrible. I've recommended "Mike's Small Trackplans Page" to a whole bunch of people. That was a great website. Tell me it's just a temporary glitch, please!
I just googled also. it is gone. Here's not the link anymore: http://www.naisp.net/users/mfischer/m_train2.htm
Todd, I'm a hollow-core door guy, and it is a nice way to have a real layout that can be moved around, set aside, very versatile. Take a peek at my plan, you can see it in TGBoys first link above. I can run roundy-round, or I have three distinct industries with lots of switching action. A siding and an interchange track complete things. Definately go for the 36" width; maybe a bit more cumbersome but I wish I had the extra 6" width all this time! I'm at about 3 years on my door, and am now moving onto bigger benchwork. But I'm really glad I went the door route for my first layout. My door normally sits on the dining room table, and sits atop a Thermorest camping pad as an "earthquake" dampner. Doors are an excellent way to learn techniques before tackling the larger more ambitious plan. Good luck!
I've built a couple of door layouts. Nice to have something portable or you can slide under a bed. My only problem is that I could never find screw on legs long enough to get the layout up high where I could work on it. I'm planning a 3.5 x 6 foot layout now. I'm not sure if I'm going to use a door or build a frame the old fashion way.
WP, I'm thinking cutting holes in your floor won't help much. This makes me wonder how many have tried other methods for supporting their door panel at waist or higher level.
Geeky, I looked everywhere for a set of folding legs like what was used on an N scale project layout on a door in MR. No luck. Those would have been perfect. [ May 17, 2005, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: WPZephyrFan ]
BTW, Ed, is your layout based on the Scenic and Relaxed? I've always liked that layout and almost built it. And, Campp, that's a nice lil layout you've got as well...simple but nice scenery!
Me too! That was my original plan, use the folding legs, maybe with some conduit tube extensions to raise the level a bit. But I couldn't find them either. So for now it's sitting on a small dinette table, really too low. Good eye! Yes it most certainly is. I need to shoot an updated shot and post it in the "Show us your hollow core door" thread. Regards
Ed, did you use RTS for that plan? I'm looking at that for the potential to make it expandable. If the double sidings at the bottom right actually went straight to the edge, rather than turn up, it would be a great place to merge onto another door....and if there were 2 on the bottom left (where that siding runs), it could go in both directions. 3 doors with folded dogbones would give a great 'length of run'. Doing the math now on my 16x12 room.... 16' = 192".... 2 x 80" doors, plus a 32" door cross ways at the bottom leaves me clearance for my doorway, and a 24" door across the top...hmm.... N scale is looking good! What sort of price would you put on all that track Ed (just for the layout you pictured)???
Yes, I did it on RTS, and I'm proud of myself because I'm not all that computer literate. In real life I used a lot of flextrack so it's not 100% like the plan. Yup, your expansion ideas would work fine. I'm envious of your space. The only possible expansion I can see in the near future is a possibility of a removeable staging yard which would connect at the right side. The two spurs that go to the edge of the layout on the right (upper and middle) are the 'interchange' tracks to the staging yard. Of couse N scale looks good!!!!!!!! Woof, there's a question. Okay let's see if we can s.w.a.g. it a bit. 18 manual switches @ $8 ea = $144 20 (+/-) lengths flex track @ $2.75 = $55 1 box cork , let's say about $15 Let's say around $215 total plus tax. Your prices will most certainly vary. One thing, I bought Atlas standard manual switches. Later I decided to remove the large manual throw mechanism and go with caboose industries ground throws (about $3 ea). If I were to do it again I would have bought the Atlas Custom Line switches which don't have a switch machine. These are a couple of bucks less than the manual switches so Custom Line switches plus Caboose Industries ground throws would be only slightly more than the original standard manual switches. btw, I posted a couple of pics of the layout on the "show me your wood door" thread. Regards
Hello all,in the very near future,I'll be getting a 16x24 shed ,to house my new lay-out.The trouble is I don't have auto-cad or anything for that matter to design it .I've tried atlas soft-ware and frankly it sucks. My lay-out will consist of a blast furnace,BOF, rolling mill,ore bridge and pit,coke oven and last but not least a slag recovery.Then through in hump yard,bascule bridge,and a bunch of other stuff.Any help?
I've tried atlas soft-ware and frankly it sucks. ............Any help? Maybe, it worked okay for me. Would it be too low tech for me to suggest you get a pencil, ruler, compass and paper? That technique worked fine for years, and I suspect it still does. Or spring for one of those full blown design programs like CadRail or 3D-Planit. Regards
Hmmm there are all these model railroad planning aides I'm curious why people don't just get the pro gear and use a real CAD of they are really serious about it. I played around with Atlas and it was kind of fun but a hassle. I'd rather scribble on paper.
a 'real' cad program takes an eternity to learn, and who can be bothered sitting around messing with it. Heck, I've downloaded atlas rr, xtrkcad and a few others, done the tutorials and then messed around for an eternity (ok....15 minutes) before I got out my pencil..... I've got 25 years working with computers, so I know what a good program should do for you, and NONE of these fall into the 'good' category as far as user interface is concerned... They lack 'intuitive use' features. Dont get me wrong... for the price they are sensational.... I just cant be bothered learning em and I'm sure that applies to a lot of people.
Sure, a "real" CAD program takes a long time to learn, but CAD programs tailored for designing layouts are not full fledged CAD programs. I realize not everyone is able to learn to use them, but if you can, it's a pretty useful thing. Personally, I've found XtrkCad pretty easy to use (the atlas software on the other hand was a little more of a bear). You can draw plans on paper all you want, but unless you <u>really</u> account for the size of turnouts, easement curves, etc., your plan doesn't truly reflect what you can fit into a given space. Drawing preliminary sketches on paper or freehand on a computer are good ways to figure out what you can do with your space, that's what I do. But to really know if things will fit, I feel like learning a CAD program is easier than test-fitting the track itself, especially if you'd like to have a plan before you buy track and build benchwork.
Greg, While I'll concede you are correct for the most part I feel that it is not always necessary to know both precisely and accurately where what will fit. Software has a way of generating a mind set that prevents some from “thinking outside of the box”. If I had relied on XtrkCad I would not have come up with the truly beautiful smooth curve on the Grey and Grandure. I would have been boxed in by the constraints. That said, Ed did do up one version of my plan in XtrkCad or the Atlas program which did help me get a more realistic feel. In the end I did all of the final plan by snapping and unsnapping Unitrak. So, yes, you are correct but we all have our own style.
Greg: You can draw plans on paper all you want, but unless you really account for the size of turnouts, easement curves, etc., your plan doesn't truly reflect what you can fit into a given space. While I agree that sloppy drafting will result in an unrealistic plan, people did this for years before the advent of CAD programs. Yep, you do need to account for size of components, track width, curvature, turnout angle, etc. That’s part of the drafting exercise. It’s really not that difficult to do. Grey: Ed did do up one version of my plan in XtrkCad or the Atlas program which did help me get a more realistic feel. It was that much maligned Atlas RTS program. Regards
