Hello everybody Track Plan 6.1 has been posted on the web. Pop on over and take a look. As always, I am curious as to what you all think. http://www.geocities.com/pebcak2000 UP Guy, Thanks for the awesome tip to move the paper mill and adjust the sidings. I am pleased with the result!!!! A description of the changes is on the web page. The space depicted on the track plan is the maximum space alloted for the layout. I want both operations and scenic value to the layout. I feel that I have both with some limitations. A double track mainline was a must for myself. There are times that I just want to run the trains and veg out. Other times, I want to get lost in my head and "play pretend" with my railroad (I am still a kid at heart). The layout has been a big adjustment compared to what I was planning a year ago. I am working with just over six feet now. Back then I was looking at 20 feet....big change. Again, I really appreciate everyone's feedback on this....you all have and continue to be a huge help. Thanks again. [ 20 April 2001: Message edited by: mtaylor ]
Matt, Nice work! I must revisit the clearance issue with the 3' reach.. I know everyone has said it, tho.. I planned a 18"-24" max reach for my plan. Serious switching opportunity with all those sidings. May I suggest hand throws? I saw you like wiring, but that is a ton of turnouts. Also, what is your benchwork gonna be made from? Plywood, foam, etc? Is it going to be moved a lot? Is lightweight a must? If you have addressed these que3stions, I appologize, as I only browsed the topic, and may have missed somethings. * I usually do * I used good old MS paintbrush to make my layout plan. I am trying Atlas RTS for a different around the walls layout, and it seems easy. I rely on flex a lot tho, and am getting the hang of adjusting it. I will pretty much take the last layout plan on paintbrush ** http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=999&gid=220158&uid=125564 ** and expand its dimensions. Take a look, as someone suggested, and you may find something in it you can use in yours. I don't mind if you borrow some ideas; information and ideas for anyone's layout is free! Email me if you have any questions, and Colonel gave me some good advice, and he has experience to boot. Good luck!
Hemi, I have visited your thread on here and your website several times. Actually it was your track plan that got me off my butt and started planning myself. I really like your layout. I wish I had the room to do more of an around the walls. The benchwork I am planning will be a plywood base with foam ontop of that. It will have at least 12 legs with an additonal sheet of plywood on the bottom. The entire layout will be on lockable wheels. This is because the layout has to share space with my laundry area and shelving. I need to be able to move it out the way with ease. Because of this, I am planning on using strong lumber with side braces. The actual plywood top will consist for four sections bound together. This will allow the layout to be taken apart, moved and rebuilt in the future. Granted some scenery will need to be redone. I would have prefered to use a module approach, just not enough space for it. I have not worked out all of the specific details yet....all I have right now is rough scketches. Once I have more details, I will post them on here and my web page. A little over a year ago I purchased Abracadata's "3D Railroad Concept & Design", frankly, I found it to be a pain in the butt to use. It had some really nice features in some areas but others was just a pain. Now I am using Right Track from Atlas. I like it. It is simple and best of all, it is free. I am looking forward to what you come up with next Hemi. Thanks for the kind comments. Take Care All
Matt - I gotta agree with you on 3D Layout C&D I found it very hard to work with. I havn't tryied the free-ware Atas stuff but will. Edit - I was and have deleted half this post as I was mistaken. Anyway - version 6 of your plan is looking alot more workable. [ 26 April 2001: Message edited by: yankinoz ]
I usually feel like the Grinch that stole Christmas when I critique a track plan and give suggestions. I understand how many plans can evolve and how long it takes to get the skill necessary to come up with a "good" plan. So I am going to make some suggestions, counter to what you are doing. If you don't like them, well atleast you thought about them. First, forget any kind of snap track, Kato unitrack, etc. Way to expensive, unnecessary and ultimately might be counter productive to upgrades latter on in life when your skills of a modeler are superior to what they are now. You can save many hundreds of dollars with this suggestion alone. Reversing loops are not the big boogy man they used to be if you go DCC and you should (must) as it is where the future is. Can you imagine life without a computer and no internet? No...neither can I and it is the same with DCC - which is just a computer added to your layout. So you can get automatic reversing loop thing ma boobies....lol. Thirdly, as everyone has mentioned, your track work is busy...perhaps to busy. There is the famous true story of them man who spent many thousands of dollars building his dream layout, only to discover after the tracks were all layed in with spline roadbed, that he had no room for structures. Fourthly, a rectangle is boring, minimally curve the pointy ends. But I have another suggestion here. A layout that I have admired and think is one of the best smaller N scale layouts to hit MR in a long time is: Appalachian Central MR January 2000 Pages 74 - 81. A series was done on this and was very well done. I don't think it would take much work for you to modify this track plan to what you want. It has scnenery, is a switching layout par excellence, has staging and isn't a rectangle. It is 5 71/2 wide by 7.0 feet long. I am just going to quote from the first couple of paragraphs to wet your appetite and hopefully your curiousity. "The roots of this project can be traced back to the time I spent flipping through some back issues of MR looking for information on lumber mills while building the Northwest Timer Co. (December 97 and Jan 98 issues) (Note: this was a great HO layout that I also admired). During the course of my search I found the January 1950 issue, which featured a track plan for the Timberline & Tidewater by Linn Westcott. As I studied the plan I couldn't help but wonder what kind of layout Linn - or any of his fellow modelers at the mid-point of the 20th century - could have created if they'd had modern tools and material. The seed for this project had been planted: Start with a good design for a small, operations-oriented layout and then show readers how to build it utilizing as many of today's products and techniques as possible....... While Linn's original track plan was fundamentally sound - a testimony to his design abilities - it lacked many elements we take for granted today. There was no provision for "off the layout" destinations (staging), no way to separate individual scenes (thereby making the layout seem larger), little provision for local switching, no provision for continuous running, and little space for scenery and structures." This layout was designed by Lionel Strang. Remember, two excellent layout designers had imput into this layout, over a fifty year period, and that is one reason I feel it has become such a solidly designed layout. I could never have designed this layout. Kudo's to Westcott and Strang! If you don't have this issue of MR and can't get a copy, email me with a fax number and I will forward it to you. I truely think you should atleast examine it for further ideas. Kindest regards, Rick Nicholson
Matt, Rick has some very valid points and the article he mentioned is definately worth a read. We are all guilty ( I am definately) of putting more track than we should into a layout. As for reversing loops I have just installed one on my layout. As I run conventional cab control I needed to find a simple way of wiring my reversing loop. I designed a circuit (simple) only to find an old model wiring book which had the same circuit lol it uses a bridge rectifier to maintain the reversing section at the same polarity. Once the train is on this section I reverse the controller polarity and the train continues. I'll let you know how successful it is once I install it in the next few weeks. I would definately go with flexible track rather than sectional as it allows more freedom in design. Don't be discouraged by these comments my layout plan changed many times before I actually started it and even now with the layout extension underway I have changed it even as I'm laying track. Good luck and keep us posted
Rick, I just connected who you are from the ldsig group. (I lurk there.) I aggree with most of what you say. and I personally held back from being 'the grinch.' The plan you refer to I believe is L shaped (if memory serves) and would easily fit in the space Mark has available. Mark it is worth looking at. I will defend snap track however. For small first layouts I think it is a good choice as it is less intimidating than flex. Once you get some more skills then you will see that flex is actually easier to lay. (This is from my personal experience) Each and every joint in a snap track layout has to be PERFECT - otherwise that one joint that isn't will be the single most annoying of all and the only way to fix it will be to tear it up an replace it with flex (personal experience talking.) Mark, I don't know if this is your first layout. If you are concerned about using flex, make a smaller (less expensive) layout - go for the classic 4x8 footer (or in N the 'door benchwork' is even easier) and use snap track if you are not comfortable with flex. But lay one curve (maybe on an industrial siding) that is flex. In the end I think you will like it. Bringing this back to my personal experience, I am planning a small module/diorama that will feature handlayed turnouts. The smaller less expensive layout will be finished sooner, allow you to experiment with different techniques and in the end will let you run trains rather than save up for the dream layout. If you are not the member of a local club I strongly suggest joining. I have only recently meet other local modelers and what I have learned from them in a few months vastly outweighs the 'book learnin' from my armchair days. Even better they provide motivation (as does trainboard) to get things done. If you can run trains on other layouts I think you will quickly understand what Rick is saying about 'operation oriented' design.
Rob, You are most welcome to run your trains on my layout all you have to do is shrink them a little lol
OK now my head is starting to hurt Yes I am planning on using DCC. I purchased the Digitrax Radio Chief last year (when I was planning a layout in much larger space). I know Digitrax has a method to wire up reverse loops. It has been a while since I read on it. Right now I am concentrating on the track plan and benchwork. I will say, planning the layout for around the walls was a heck of allot easier. There was just so much more space. I want a dense city scene with a heavy industrial area and a nice yard to hold my trains in. I love grain trains and elevators. I am also big on coal and paper mills. so these three industries were a must. I am confused about the track being "busy". The city side has a large yard with dense industry. There is room for the warehouses and factorys with in street sidings in areas. The river side is somewhat congested in areas. But based on the operations I have in mind, I am "stuck". The main reason I am looking at snap track is because I lack the skills in this area. This will be my third layout but the first N scale one and the first layout of any kind since about 1987 or 1988. The space I am building this in is rather confined. The entire layout benchwork is movable via locking industrial swivel wheels. The benchwork itself is more like a mobile deck. . I do have that issue of MR. And I looked over it and over it and over it. I like the layout but it did not have much industry, small staging and no double track mainline. I am trying to comine intense switching operations with lots of mainline action. I want my cake and to eat it too . On which side do you guys see the biggest problems...or is the whole thing a mess I am tempted just to say a heck.....let's just see what happens and start building the thing. I know once I start putting track down some changes will occur. Especially on the city side. I lack the experience and until I can actually see how it will work.....I am somewhat guessing. I do not know of any N-scale clubs in the Twin Cities. If they are here....they are hiding. I will think about all the suggestions made. And see where it takes me. Too much track? I dont get it Thanks again all
I joined the layout design sig at the suggestion of others here at trainboard in response to a post I made. I guess layout design is an area that I really enjoy, especially for myself and others who have to make do with a space smaller than they would wish for. A friend of mine has been a member of layout sig for some time, so I borrowed all the sig journals and all the sig news booklets and read them about ten times each. I belong to and am active in the Atlas forum, here and in the layout design group. This is my favourite home. I like the presentation of the forum, and the easy with which one can follow a thread. The people by and large are a happy lot, and not to serious. The Atlas forum seems to be fraught with battles from time to time, and the layout design sig group seems to be really serious..from time to time. Of course it is easy to be intimidated when posting along side Andy Sperandeo, Tony Koester, Linda Sand and others. But when I used the word P and O and R and N and A and G and R and APHY (there I think that will make it through the censores) I was amazed at the response that I received: 99% of it was positive. One guy emailed me and suggested what I had written didn't deserve to be on the net (it was obvious he hadn't read what I had posted). I received emails off the forum supporting and complimenting me. You can imagine my surprise. One medical doctor was very complimentary to me. I am toying with an idea for this forum. I would like to set up an area called the "Newbie Corner." In it would only be threads concerning issues that arise time and time again. For example, one thread could be "Grades." People would post to this thread with their ideas and experience....BUT....there would be no chit chat back and forth. The purpose would be educational. After the thread seemed complete, it would be locked. There would be one topic a month. Of course initially this would be small as in the first month there would be only one thread, month two, two threads,,,etc. But eventually it would build. Various topics could be covered such as "helixes"..."DCC"...until the list built up. The purpose is to create a location we can send a new person without having to answer the same question for the ten thousandth time. For example: "Hi, I'm a newbie and I want to build a two deck layout and I only have room for a 6% grade...what do you guys think?" It would be easier to send this person to the newbie corner and suggest he read the "grade" thread then if he has any further questions to post them in the appropriate location. Any thoughts?
Rick, You are suggesting a newbies forum rather than a Layout design SIG? How would this differ from "The Inspection Pit" as this is where general questions are usually asked. I though maybe a Layout SIG forum which covered grades, layout design may have been a better option, why not start up a new topic or repost your last posting in "The Pit" for general discussion. your idea certainly has merit
I know what you mean about ldsig being a bit intimidating. I think that's why I have never posted there. It's also so big, usually by the time I have read a question and think I may have an answer, Linda has already replied I'm with you in that I find the planning part the most interesting aspect of this hobby. I thought your P word post was fine - putting the word in the subject might have gone a little too far for the model railroad world IMHO. My 2 cents on a newbie corner is negative. I actually like the fact that TrainBoard lets some of the same discussions and questions come up again and again - I think that when someone new asks a question and he gets a 'that's already been answered, read the FAQ' type reply it can be discouraging. Better to give a brief answer (7% grades are too steep) and then provide a link something that discusses grades at length. OK, 2 more cents - I was actually thinking that a layout design forum here was a good idea and I was thinking of suggesting it - I guess I just did. Anyway - hemi - "too busy" is hard to define, there's a lot going on in your plan... You can us You mention that you want staging (good) yet the plan has one yard in the middle that I don't think would work well for staging. Better to set it off to the side so it is easy to 'fiddle' cars on and off. My biggest worry in your plan is the very very long reach to the center. The best way around this is to make it an L shape - maybe even a U. Because you have to slide it in and out of a storage area and it will be on wheels this is great to have staging behind the back drop and the rural main with coal mine on one leg of the L and the city scene on the other leg. You could have part of the L big enough for a third scene on the 'other side' of the back drop. Does this make sense?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ldsig I posted a suggestion for a trainboard layout design forum in 'the pit' - If you want one here, please reply to my message. I gotta go to work...
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by yankinoz: I know what you mean about ldsig being a bit intimidating. I think that's why I have never posted there. It's also so big, usually by the time I have read a question and think I may have an answer, Linda has already replied I'm with you in that I find the planning part the most interesting aspect of this hobby. I thought your P word post was fine - putting the word in the subject might have gone a little too far for the model railroad world IMHO. My 2 cents on a newbie corner is negative. I actually like the fact that TrainBoard lets some of the same discussions and questions come up again and again - I think that when someone new asks a question and he gets a 'that's already been answered, read the FAQ' type reply it can be discouraging. Better to give a brief answer (7% grades are too steep) and then provide a link something that discusses grades at length. OK, 2 more cents - I was actually thinking that a layout design forum here was a good idea and I was thinking of suggesting it - I guess I just did. Anyway - hemi - "too busy" is hard to define, there's a lot going on in your plan... You can us You mention that you want staging (good) yet the plan has one yard in the middle that I don't think would work well for staging. Better to set it off to the side so it is easy to 'fiddle' cars on and off. My biggest worry in your plan is the very very long reach to the center. The best way around this is to make it an L shape - maybe even a U. Because you have to slide it in and out of a storage area and it will be on wheels this is great to have staging behind the back drop and the rural main with coal mine on one leg of the L and the city scene on the other leg. You could have part of the L big enough for a third scene on the 'other side' of the back drop. Does this make sense?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Rob - I have more than one plan on my webpage. Are you referring to all of them or just the first few nasty ones I think I have an idea what you are talking about. If the "middle leg - the bottom of the U" was large enough for another scene, how would I seperate the three scenes? Also wouldn't part of the mainline have to go behind the backdrop to allow turnbacks? If you could, a sketch of what you are thinking of may be a great help. you have got the gears in my head shifting I like the overall concept of what you describe. I am not sure if my space permits though. I will have to play with this. as always, thanks for everyone's input. Oh, a quick comment about the "newbie" forum. I dont like it. Part of the hobby should be in the sharing of knowledge with others. Also, what I find entertaing about trainboard is the "chit chat". It brings this bullention board to a personal level. I feel that reffering someone to a "canned" forum is very impersonal and rather cold. It implies that some are too good to answer the questions of others. What makes Trainboard special is the openess and the people who share their experience and lack there of. The only stupid question is the one that is not asked!! I do like the idea of a layout planning forum though. I think that would be great for new and old in the hobby. just my 52 cents worth.....ok I think I will stop now Take care all
What I had in mind wasn't that far from the layout that Rick mentioned (at least how I remember it.) I'll did out that issue and let you know.
Matt, I can't do a better job that the Appalachian Central - like Rick said, two of the masters put that together. Lookin at it now it is exacly what I had in mind and was trying to descibe. The L has three sceanes, one is 'off stage' but does not have to be. Do you have Jan 2000 MR? If not let me or Rick know off line. Much of the plan is double track (well almost half the main is a passing siding in one of the two sceniced portions) but it would not be that hard to modify it to be double track. It takes up 7 feet by 5 feet 7 1/2 inches - almost exactly the space you have. It has a mine. The rear section that is unsceniced and could be used for a grain elevator. The "Searles" area could be industrial. I don't think you could find a better starting point. It even has a branch line, grades and a really cool bridge!
I am calling Newbie Corner a forum but it wouldn't be a traditional area, like here, where I can say...Hi Rob, how's it going down under..and he can reply. Instead I see a topic covered then locked, only the comments germaine to the topic are kept; all others are edited out... So I will try and do a sample: TOPIC: Helix Fist Post: a summary of literatute and issues on helix - written by me or some one else. Post two: Don't forget helix can also be other shapes than circle. Post three: Leaving as much of helix open as possible reduces time train is hidden, suggestions on how to do that. Post four: Rick to Rob - "how are things down under. Post five: Rob to Rick - "Just great." Post six: Other alternatives to a traditional helix, eg around the room, open helix in mountains. Post seven: Suggestions for different way to build helix, using rods instead of wood. Post eight: Using helix as staging area.. Post 9, 10, 11, 12 further good suggestions, recommendations, and concerns. After this is done, posts 4 and 5 are edited out. The topic is locked. The forum then becomes a read only forum. Maybe latter some one posts somewhere...maybe in inspection pit or elsewhere about building helix down to floor from his first level, to use as staging. It is decided this is a good idea, his idea is pasted from the inspection pit over to the newbie corner and added to the posts...thus becoming post #13. The thread is again locked and remains a read only forum. Next month is grades... the process starts all over again... posts made...some maybe edited out...then locked and becomes a read only. What we are doing is basically creating a forum primer much like the layout design sig group has done. But our primer is member built and maintained. The layout design primer is excellent but they stopped doing it: I am going to attempt a link and hope it works...lots to type and if I make an error it won't work. www.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/BFSpages/LDSIGprimer/TOC.html As you can see I am having a hard time to get this URL to work. [ 27 April 2001: Message edited by: rsn48 ] [ 27 April 2001: Message edited by: rsn48 ] [ 27 April 2001: Message edited by: rsn48 ]
Matt Here are some links to club activity in the Twin Cities area. You don't have to join a club, but by visiting them you can see what they've done and get some ideas for your own layout Great River Valley System (N) http://www.grvs.com/ == Twin Cities Div NMRA (all scales) http://www.twincitiesdivision.com/homepage.htm === Hope this gives you some other ideas. But above all, it is your layout, so don't feel intimidated by anyone else's ideas. You only have to please yourself. eNjoy DB
