More and more, it seems as though the OP would like a version of Northlandz stuffed into a space the size of a spare bedroom.
David, I get your point. And that layout is beautiful, and great photos BTW. My only reservation would be that space is always at a premium, and in that place I would not waste it with the furniture. It looks to me like there would be room for more. I HASTEN to say, not more layout per square foot, but more square feet for the layout.
Once again, I must reiterate: less can be more. What is the point, exactly, of filling every single available square inch of space with a layout? Bear in mind, you need room to work, as well as space for visitors to admire it (unless you never intend to invite anyone else into the layout room). Trust me, my last "big" layout occupied almost exactly the same amount of space you have, and it was equivalent in size and shape to the D&RGW. At times I felt quite cramped, especially when I had friends visiting--three people in that room made things pretty cozy. Funny... exactly the same thought had crossed my mind. Original Poster (i.e., you).
I don't think I argued for "filling every available square inch..." nor to sacrifice "room to work". I said merely that I would have no need for the furniture.
True, you did say, "I would not waste [space] with the furniture." But if you'd spent any significant amount of time visiting layouts, you'd be appreciative of a couple of chairs, at the very least. Layout spaces that feature even a modicum of creature comforts are far more inviting and relaxing than those relegated to SRO. IMO, of course, and YMMV.
Again, it comes down to your personal goals. If you are building the layout for you and you alone, with no consideration for the possibility of sharing its operation with others, or at the very least presenting it for others to admire, then there's no point in trying to discuss the design of a layout in the context of anyone other than yourself.
Interesting thread. Here's my 2¢: If I had a 10' x 10' room I might build something like this: Yes, this is HOn3, but imagine the possibilities if built in N scale. Here are your deep canyons, high bridges and majestic mountains. Plus you have the added benefit of broad 18" radius curves and sidings of a more realistic length; the 4% grades become a much more manageable 3% or less. Sure, I'd rearrange things a bit, particularly where the engine terminal is concerned, but some of the best layout design advice for N scale I've ever heard is to simply take an HO plan (where much has necessarily been selectively compressed) and build it in N scale.
That would not be the case. But anyway, I trust that by now you realize that I'm too new at this to know with any great definition just what I want. It's sort of like a kid in a candy store, an embarrassment of choices. That's why your criticisms and suggestions are of value to me. Oddly enough, my "involvement" with model railroading surely predates yours by many years. My uncle was Louis Shur of Madison Hardware, so I always had a surfeit of Lionel O72 tinplate running around the living room carpet in the '40s. Of course I realize that has little relationship to what's going on now.
To quote Indiana Jones, it's not the years, it's the mileage. As to being a kid in a candy store, I submit it's not very productive trying to pick "the right one" when you're not familiar with either candy or what to do with it. This is why I've been harping on gaining some experience--even a little--before committing to building something about which you have virtually no understanding. This is not meant to be insulting, simply objective. To use another analogy, how can you expect to choose the right car when you barely know what one is, let alone ever driven one?
Right, but when offered the advice to gain some experience before hitting the big time (from more than one responder), you staunchly refuse. It's very difficult--and frustrating--to try and offer guidance to someone who has made up their mind on their course of action, even though they have zero understanding of what it is they're attempting. I've said it before and I'll say it once more: I've seen this scenario play out time and again, and I've not seen a happy outcome.
Cosmic, I would suggest that you take 3 to 6 mths and build an HCD type of layout, don't plan on finishing it, just use it as a crash learning experience. It will give you a good feel for building a larger layout. At that point you will truly understand why most model railroaders are strongly suggesting this.
My parents would take me there back in the middle of the last century. Wall-to-wall and floor-to-ceiling trains. Never knew that all the inventory in the store was just the tip of the iceberg. Back on topic - you mentioned the Atlas Nine N Scale Railroads/Layouts book. Do any of the plans therein appeal to you? Perhaps the best way to ascertain how well your model ship building skills transfer to model railroad layout building is to select and construct one of those plans. Once you've completed it, you'll have gained invaluable experience you can then put to use on a larger, more complex creation. You can sell the layout or donate it to charity if you don't want to keep it.
OK, David, this is also (in part) in response to all of the other posts in this thread that are critical of my intentions. You ask me to understand what you believe I don't, which is a presumption. I have made every attempt to express respect for your superior knowledge of this subject, and to express gratitude for your advice. What I hear in return is that I have "zero" understanding. Now, it was never my intent to offer some horn-tooting-self-aggrandizing CV for your impression, but it does seems necessary for me to describe to you a bit of where I come from because, as you, I want to be understood. Your assessment of my understanding is way over the top, and certainly not appropriate to your knowledge of me. I have in fact been continuously involved in scale modeling for many years, more I suppose than at least most of the posters to this board. Of course there are differences, but also many similarities, in hand/eye and tool using skills, decoration, electronics, and conceptualization. My career background was in engineering. I have exhibited my work internationally. I am the author of tutorials on the subject (which, if there's interest I can provide). If the eyes and hands were not deteriorated I would still be deeply involved in it. I am not as you assume, TOTALLY unprepared to make the attempt that you see as doomed to failure. Having said that, I need to remind you of my prior comments on this issue. I repeat, this is not of serious (read life threatening) concern to me. I described myself before as a dilettante, and an executor (as opposed to designer or user). The fun for me is in the building, and I'm no where near obsessed with fear of mistakes, and even failure. I gather that you and the others posting here take this much more seriously than I do, and I have no complaint about that. Indeed, I respect it. Without you folks I expect this hobby would be nowhere near where it is. I'm just in a different place, and I wonder if you can accept that. I told you I'm grateful for your counsel, and I continue to solicit it, if it's still available. I am not concerned with consequences. It's a hobby; it's supposed to be fun. I've told you here. hopefully for the last time, what is fun for me. I'd like that to be OK with you.
No, nothing in that book really grabbed me and shook me. Up to now what I like most is the layout in the 10x10 that David suggested. It appears to have all of the elements attractive to me in a modest space.
I am glad you are coming to some sort of idea what you want. I totally get the go getter attitude. Win at all costs, never mind the consequences! And you are 100% correct. It is a hobby. And is supposed to be fun and interesting! Sent from my Commando
