Hello all: I am still in the planning stages for my new layout which will have a Western theme (probably Great Northern). It is basically an L shaped layout which is 4 feet wide on one side and then narrows down to around 32 on the opposite end. It will be 8 feet in length and it includes two sets of bridges that will cross a river which flows from the left side of the layout on a curve to the bridges that are on an angle toward the bottom. I think it offers lots of scenery options including a possible tunnel through a mountain area along the top left part of the layout. I would appreciate any comments on the layout itself and any ideas for possible scenery options. This is really my first layout and I am open to any suggestions. Also, I am leaning toward DCC.
I find it difficult to visualize a verbal description of layout designs, especially when there are dimensions involved. 4' wide tapering to 2'8" x 8'....my brain hurts......Is that the dimensions of the thumbnail? Anyway I like the track plan you've attached. Scenery tends to lend itself to the particular track plan you are working with, i.e. if there is a spur then usually there is some type of industry to justify a spur even if it's only a loading dock thus your scenery evolves. A tunnel is a great way to create a visual block on a layout giving the illusion of a larger space. Keep on creating and have fun and don't worry about the others guys visual acuity or lack thereof. Hmmmm power of suggestion?....I need a beer
The curves leading into a crossover in the opposite direction are potential trouble-spots. The same is true for some routes with your placement of the double-crossover. Best of luck.
Funny, this plan looks rather familiar... http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine...-quot-x-80-quot-N-Scale-Unitrack-Layout/page4
At some point don't all Unitrack layouts converge given the restrictions of sectional track?? I mean, if you have a rectangular table there are only so many ways to lay down the track.
As a designer of track plans (and more than a few for Unitrack), I'd say this is true only if the rectangle is so small as to reduce the options to a simple oval. In this case, there are more than just a couple of vague similarities between the plans. I'm not upset or complaining, mind; just observing. Now, if I was to take on this particular plan, I'd work to remove as many of the unnecessary S-turns as possible (highlighted below): I'd also smooth things out and get things to flow a bit better, like this--
Thank you for all of the replies. Yes, my plan was based upon the one posted on this forum. I apologize if I have used a plan that I should not have used. There was no intent on my part to get anyone upset. I simply liked the plan that was posted and adapted it to my layout constraints. This is my first attempt at planning a railroad and I guess I should have been more aware of possible concerns from others who have posted ideas in the past.
No worries from my end; I don't claim ownership over any design I create, and indeed this one was based on a suggestion from another member. When multiple modelers are looking at the same problem, a combined effort often results in plans better than what one person can manage. Carry on!
I also immediately noticed the similarity. But I think it's totally cool that you use the plan as long as you give credit to David. It's funny, I was waiting for the plan to be re-used (or at least re-interpreted) because I thought it was such a great design. It may not be the best plan for advanced model railroaders, but for it's perfect for beginners guys like me; who desire something more than a traditional oval first layout. The power of Internet forums is incredible. I browsed David's websites for hours, admiring his work in the small scales. Some weeks later, he chimed in on my newbie thread, and [without asking] started Anyrail'ing designs for me. To have the layout designed by David is an honor. I can issue similar gratitude for many other guys in the model railroading community. These dudes offer up knowledge from decades of work, to newbies like myself, and expect nothing in return! I think that is just so cool. I also wish there were a way to return the favor. I simply try to offer advice to fellow green horns, who were in my position 10 months ago. - - - Not to throw a wrench in your design flow, but my #1 suggestion is to try to adapt the plan to use #6 Kato turnouts. I did the modification to fix the #4s. But they still aren't perfect. I understand that it's tough to fit the #6s in the small space, but see what you can come up with. However, if you decide to move forward with the layout using #4s, I can help you with the mods to prevent derailments. DKS- sorry for talking about you like you weren't in the room
Well since imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, here is my version. Done with Kato #6 turnouts. I'm focusing on the yard and less on other "civilization". Hills in the back, not sure about the lower left corner. I started construction this past weekend. It is 96x40 but sits on a 36x80 HCD as the base. I've worn out my computer with different plans. THis is the one I'm am building. SO thanks to all those who are OK with us newbies borrowing and modifying their plans!!
That's an interesting spin on the design. Here are a few fellow newb suggestions: 1) you really won't have much room for marinara (scenery or buildings) with that much track. The whole back area (dark orange) is small -hardly enough for a backdrop of hills. I feel like I'm short on space even with my layout which was slimmed from David's original plan. 2) As I learned, do not line the front tracks up parallel to the front edge of the layout. It makes the layout seem more train set-like. 3) Add an interchange track; this shows that trains come and go from a somewhere beyond the small layout. 4) there is s-turn at the bottom of the runaround. David eliminated this from the original design (see illustration below). This would require eliminating your double crossover. IMO, it look better to do single crossovers [perhaps on either side of the bridge] anyways. Remember, those are just friendly suggestions from a guy with little experience. Do whatever makes you happy Here's an older shot of my layout, but you can see the overall track plan. If I could do it again, I'd plan an industry for each spur ahead of time -even have the kit or scratch built structure in mind before proceeding with building the layout.
I made this plan for fun that you are free to play with. It does still need refinement. The layout is around 80 x 40", uses super-elevated curves, and a mix of #4 and #6 turnouts. Looking at it again, I'd probably say slant the middle spurs in the opposite direction. This would allow utilization of the runaround, because the spur could come out of the flat section of track.
