Well, I seek a version of that "plan" that I can understand. Something along the lines of the plans in Atlas's Nine N Scale Railroads book, which are very clear and specific as to ALL of the required components, an inventory of them, and their placement. Don't understand your question. Not opposed to anything. I described a characteristic of the plan and I thought I indicated that it puzzled me.
This is not the sort of plan that will show up in track planning books like the Atlas one you referenced. That sort of book is designed specifically for beginners, whereas the plan you posted is for experienced builders who will know how to inventory the track themselves and be able to build it with no further guidance. I think you may (hopefully) be getting a taste of just how much you're attempting to bite off with this project. Hopefully? But the characteristic you described, at least the way you described it, doesn't make any sense, unfortunately.
I figured that out, but I don't know how to contact him. The point of my question, as it were, is that I'm confused by that characteristic of the plan (long stretches of backing into sidings) and I wonder how kosher that is for a layout.
I can't say for sure, but even if you did, I doubt he'll reply with a list of all of the switches and documentation on how to assemble everything. I may be wrong, I often am, but that's my gut talking. It's "kosher" enough; the question is, as I look at the plan, what are you going to do with this layout? This is the kind of layout that takes a group of operators to run--and given the lack of aisle space, that's a real challenge in and of itself. It's not set up with simple continuous running; indeed, it's not set up with any simple way for an individual to run it at all. If it's mostly for show, then that's a huge boatload of switches and track to waste as props. It comes down to determining what your goals are for this layout. You clamor for the oohs and ahhs of dramatic scenery, but what is your operational goal? Choosing a "dream" layout like this from a book because it looks cool is rather like picking a catalog bride.
Well cosmic, for some strange reason that layout seams to fit your personality, from what I can tell. Somewhere between mad scientist and eccentric.. As for sidings, yes, we all back into them. Or pull in. Depending on the level of madness. From what i can tell this layout gives you all the things you desire. But i would recommend helix's where possible. As for the plan its all there. The little boxes with numbers is the height from the floor. That should help you figure out levels and inclines and declines. As for the track dimensions? That is sorta there, but you will need compass and ruler. You can print it out and make whatever changes you want as your plan grows. Sent from my Commando
I remember seeing that plan in MR... I still feel the same about it now as I did then... a WHOLE lot of spaghetti there! I would really recommend you look somewhere else for a trackplan. While the man who built it pulled it off pretty well for what it was, the layout doesn't actually offer a whole lot. Short sidings, super short yard tracks, tight curves, and tons of industries don't actually mix well. Basically, you have a crowded layout full of short trains with nowhere to go. As far as a "track plan", that is the track plan. Normally, that plan would not go any further. The plan you posted can't really be laid out in Atlas sectional track like you would find in their book. Keep in mind, while a track plan may look great on paper, it can look cluttered, too busy, and very unrealistic when actually put into practice. The biggest thing you can do is look at pictures of layouts and then look at their track plans (Model Railroader is great for this, as they even give you where each photo is taken), and actually see what kind of scenes are made with what kind of track, etc. You'd be surprised how much drama, action, or operation can be modeled with just a few tracks.
Thanks very much for commenting constructively. Your few remarks are helpful. Additionally, your assessment of my personality is pretty darn accurate, and also appreciated. Please help me further. I understand the term helix in its general sense, but I don't understand it in this context. You recommend them; what are they?
Operationally, this layout is a disaster. Some of the industries can't even be reached; tell me how to get anything into the refinery--you can only back one car at a time out onto a gravel dump trestle. That's just one operational paradox; there are too many more to count. Then, there are a number of totally hidden, virtually inaccessible switches, which is a huge no-no, and any plan that requires multiple letter-coded keys to keep track of how the myriad of tunnels and hidden loops are interconnected is an accident waiting to happen. IMO, not only is this layout a caricature that's not even remotely representative of anything one might find in real life, but it would be a nightmare to build and virtually impossible to run. You really need to weigh the investment of time, money and effort against the payback. Honestly, you can do a lot better than this plan. My advice: keep looking.
Like I said, mad scientist... lol! You do have a point about operations Dave. And reach is important for derail issues. And many others. I think this is a good start though cosmic. I am going to guess that you want to see trains going around? Or do you want operations? DC or DCC? A helix is a spiral that brings trains from one level to the next. There is a thread in the 'layout design and discussion' forum on how to build them. It will make your layout easier to use. By using helix's you will also make things more interesting. You can have three levels of good operations. It would make what you want to do easier. And your mad side will be made a bit more sane.. Sent from my Commando
I should have mentioned, David. Would you care to recommend the track plan you'd want to see me use in a 10x10 four walled room? Just keeping in mind what I like in so far as I've described it, and not concerning yourself with the complexity I may be incapable of. Matter of fact, I'm open to anyone's suggestion about that.
Yes, I want to see trains going around. Yes, I want operations, too. And as you may have guessed, DCC, and MT couplers all around. I want it ALL!. YAHHAAAHAAAHAAA!:teeth:
I don't know. You don't hear much about them. Who's selling them? How's their vaunted compatibility with MT working out? What's the cost comparison? I just don't know enough about them.
Ok. Here is another link for you to look at. http://www.trainplayer.com/Site3/FeaturePages/user_layouts_gallery.html I was just searching N-scale layouts on Google and ran across this. Just full of ideas for you here. Sent from my Commando
Somehow from the first post I was picturing a lone track winding thru great scenery. I wonder if anybody has done it the way suggested - build a foam scenery tableau, maybe a mountain ridge and valley, and then try to figure out a way to get a railroad over it. You could carve the road bed right in. Would be tough to get it smooth enough for quality track work though.
"Complexity" is not necessarily capability-dependent, although it can be. Even for the most advanced modelers, I would never recommend complexity of the sort illustrated in the layout you posted, for the reasons I have already cited. I have designed highly complex layouts for modelers, but the complexity was always driven by the need for certain operational characteristics the modeler desired; in other words, the modeler's operational goals drove the level of complexity. Often these layouts were to be operated by several people, and so they were also quite large--in the range of 30 x 40 feet or more--and often multi-deck layouts. Example. In a 10 x 10 space for a single operator, I would consider something along the lines of Erik's D&RGW. The plan is quite simple, yes; perhaps, at first blush, too simple for your tastes. But look at that scenery: some of the most natural-looking terrain I've seen in a layout of any size, and loaded with drama without looking forced or overtly "model railroad-y". The overall view below gives a sense of just how captivating a "simple" layout can be. Again, I am not recommending simplicity because of the builder, but because it suits the space and heightens realism tremendously. The phrase less is more summarizes the effect perfectly. Now, if you want more track just for the sake of having more track, then I would not recommend a setting of high drama scenery, because now you either choke the drama out with track, or wind up hiding a lot of the track and creating a messy bowl of spaghetti, or both, as in the plan you posted. I can recommend more, but it's getting late (or early)...
