Okay, new thread, sos. I can come up with the space to build this http://www.layoutdesignservice.com/lds/samples/betterbeginnerlayout.htm Mostly interested in it from a benchwork standpoint. I live in an apartment and this is about as big as I could go. The one thing I would change is the width (would go to 2'). I've got enough room for this in a set it up to play take it down to not piss of the better half scenario. The part that really appeals to me about this type of setup is that I can easily work on 1 section at a time and be "out of the way." Continuous running is something I desire. Not so much for the kick back and let 'em go in circles factor as the simulated distance operations factor. An around the walls type layout is not possible unless I go with a U. Can't turn a train around in either HO or N if I do that (because of space restrictions) I guess my question is how many N scalers would move to HO with the space for something like this. From the HO guys, do you think this layout would be worthwhile considering that my main interest lies in modern equipment (I'm 26) and operation. Would also have room for one 6'-8' extension for an industrial/switching area or staging yard. I've been strugling the HO vs. N debate for some time now. I can live with the detail level of N. No rivet counting for me. I also love the "heft" of HO and the selection of HO products (structures, trucks, earthmoving equipment, and other vehicles). Any suggestions are welcome!!
It's an interesting layout. If you did it in N, it would stretch it out and leave room for additional industries and give you lots of distance. In HO, it looks pretty cool and having a removable island for a yard would be cool in either scale. Maybe instead if taking it down all the way, could it be left in a "u" around the walls and be run as a switching layout when you can't have it go all around the room? Just a few random thoughts.
Interesting concept. It would be very easy to set up and tear down! Storage wouldn't be much of a problem either. In N scale, I would build a single main with a heavy emphasis on industrial switching. You can get a sizeable amount of track down in a one foot wide area. I would stick to one foot wide if I were in a small apartment sized area.
I've had pick up and put away type layouts in the past and they got to be a hassle after a while. I'd get the urge to run a train. Have to clear space for the layout. Open rolling stock boxes. place structures on layout, etc. I simply left it put away because of the hassle. The ho scale layout in the link is cool. If you inspect it more closely you will find that the lengths of spurs would limit you quite a bit. In a steam era that layout would be perfect. A couple of smaller wheel base locos and a doodle bug and you'd be set. Modern equipment just wouldn't work on that small of a layout, assuming you want big road engines and such. If you can afford a two foot depth on your layout, then you can probably afford a 30" depth. Why not try your hand at an N scale door panel layout. It would allow you to have a very operable layout with continuos run and possibly double mainline in a very small area. Less than 3x7. You could purchase lots of modern diesels and run them too. If HO still appeals, I say go for a smaller perhaps L shaped switching layout. Do yourself a favor and avoid the stored layout concept. Oddball thought, one thing I think is interesting is that I have yet to hear of a space challenged model railroader who has rented a storage unit to build his layout in. Hows that for nutty?
oddly enough every time I drive by one of those u-store-it places that thought pops into my head! Thanks for the suggestions. I do in fact have a hollow core door that I started on. I've got 1.5" foam glued down and now I'm having second thoughts as to whether or not thats the route I want to go. Mostly because I'm not 100% on choice of scale. Every time I take a trip to the LHS the HO bug bites again. Just seeing all that beautiful stuff in HO and then looking at the N stuff the next aisle over I just can't help but think that N is so...inadequate....so........tiny. It's almost like feeling sorry for the little kid that can't reach the counter to get a cookie...poor little bugga
Forgot to mention that when adding the width it would be on the inside. Instead of building the little corner braces it would just be square inside and out. Outside dimensions would stay the same.
Welcome to Trainboard! As you can see, you'll get lots of opinions to consider. I model in N and admit to a strong bias toward the longer runs (scale mile-wise) and increased number of operating possibilities in N within the same amount of space. Adding the extra shelf width on the outside versus the inside of the original dimensions, will yield dramatically different total square footage...Which way will you be expanding to the 2 foot width? Edit: OOPS! I took too long composing this, and you anticipated and answered the question before I got it posted...Sorry! When first starting in N, I was restricted to a put up/take down layout. As Geeky commented, sometimes it was too much of a hassle to clear a level surface to set up my Time-Saver variation...but I found that overcoming the occasional inertia usually led to a great time, so--for me--I didn't drift away from playing trains. Perhaps one influential factor was the ease of setting it up...I only had 4 or 5 buildings and had a convenient box that held the power pack, cars, locos, and buildings between use. With a bigger layout, more and larger modules, the increased number of cars/locos, and the larger number of industries, perhaps set up and take down may indeed become a more involved process. Storage space would probably take up a full closet, too. I like Ron's suggestion of leaving up a U-shaped layout that was closed into a donut when you wanted to have a longer run or continuous running. A number of years ago, I had a chance to run trains on a beautifully sceniced and detailed switching shelf layout supported on wall brackets along a long wall in an office/den above a desk and cabinets (and, IIRC, under some higher book shelfs). The modeler had some odd shaped undecorated boards with track on them that he kept stored in a closet or in the basement, and he'd clear floor space to set up a D-shaped loop when family and friends came over to visit and run trains. He seems to have had the best of both worlds...a detailed layout, operations, and a relatively short set-up time.
INasmuch as I'm an HO scaler, todo this layout justice (were you to do the HOG plan) I'd say go to N. I'm currently living not far from the HOG main in Cordele, and for realism sake you'd have to add the NS and CSX diamonds in COrdele. Not only that, Atlas makes some nice N scale GP40s that would look nice- paint two in the HOG colors of blue & yellow, get one in CN colors, and paint another in orange. In the 9x9 size you'd have more room to work in N scale. Plus, the idea of building this in sections would work, however you could convince the better half to build part of ot on a foot-wide shelf arouns the room if possible.
Yeah, I think N is the way to go. I've already got a Kato sd-40 and about 14 pieces of rolling stock. I have had some Atlas c55 set up in a temporary loop with a couple of #5's in it and pretty much been doing an N scale torture test. Have to admit, I'm pretty impressed with what I've seen. My dad was even impressed with the way the engine ran (he's an HO guy all the way). Just need a little more time to adjust to the perspective. There are some things I REALLY like about it so far. Kinda hard to explain but looking down one of the straight sections there was a dip in the track and I couldn't believe how realistic it looked rolling through there. Just like standing next to the tracks! Thanks for the advice fellas!
