Good Afternoon. After a 40 year hiatus (college/grad school/wife & kids) I'm returning to model railroading. Boy has N-scale changed ! (1970's - > today) Rather than jump into a full-fledged layout, I've decide that building Ntrak modules seems like a way to ease back into the hobby. I been reading. Alot. Basing each modular as a LDE and using the modules in a domino fashion to build a home layout has a logical appeal. I was born and raised in Omaha NE, home to the Union Pacific. My house was a block from Missouri Pacific's belt line, and a couple miles away from a massive Cargil grain elevator (CNW trackage). My father owned some Missouri River property (now home to Gallup Operational HQ) that was across the street (Abbott Drive) from UP's Omaha Shops (now gone). Additional my father worked next to the South Omaha stockyards. LDE's all over the place ! I've read/consulted/studied John Armstrong's book, as well as all the Iain Rice books. Additionally, I used Google Earth to see how "things" are being done today. I just discovered the Layout Design Journal. I'm now looking at blank piece a paper with a classic case of "paralysis by analysis"? Are there any resources I'm missing about creating the essentials of a scene in a limited space Thank-you John Wiesman (aka, Mr Sleep)
Yes. N scale has grown enormously. N-Trak was a big part of the development. What you are proposing using N-Trak has been done many times, successfully. So have no fears. What size module(s)? The famous POFF? (Plain old four footer.) From my personal experience, I wouldn't go any longer than six feet. 24" deep"? 30" deep? What space do you have available? What elements might interfere? Doors? Windows? Closets? Furnishings?
Getting back to my question. Anything out "there" that speaks to Practice and not Theory when designing track plans ?
Whoops ! Most of my answer got cut off. POFFs all the way (for now) I have the walls of my "playroom" at home: 20 X 20. NorthWest N-Trak has construction plans for POFFs; I built one (so far) .
I recommend Byron Henderson and all the wisdom he shares on his website. Are you choosing NTrak because there's already a NTrak group in your area that you'd love to join? Otherwise, there are other standards. I've been doing Free-moN in the San Francisco Bay Area for the past couple years (see link in signature), and Mark Watson has a Free-moNebraska group out of Lincoln. Free-moN focuses more on realistic scenes and operations. There are now many Free-moN groups--L.A., S.F., Portland, Minneapolis, Lincoln, New Jersey, etc.--and it's easy to start a club: build a module, and they will come! I wrote an article for Model Railroad Hobbyist that discusses the practical issues of building a module. (It's really more about how NOT to build a module!) There's also the Modutrak group (in Illinois, I think), and they do darn-tootin' fine work. There's also BendTrak. Plenty of practical advice on those sites! Hope you have fun!
John: Regarding resources: In addition to John Armstrong's books (Creative Layout Design, Kalmbach Books; Track Planning for Realistic Operation, Kalmbach Books), I think every track planner's library should contain a copy of Tony Koester's introduction to layout design elements (Realistic Model Railroad Building Blocks, Model Railroader Books/Kalmbach Books, 2005). If you haven't already, spend some time looking through Byron's Blog Archive, which contains posts with numerous layout design insights, and also check out his summary of his Layout Design Bootcamp here. Regarding the blank page: As Byron points out in his Bootcamp summary, good layout design starts with a clear vision of what we want our layout to be. One way to clarify our layout vision, is to write down answers to the questions mentioned on MC's Layout Vision Development page on his Yardgoat Layout Design website. Have you developed a list of Givens and 'Druthers for your layout? (See Posts #4 and #7 in this Trainboard thread for comments about needs/wants and givens/'druthers.)
I'm not quite sure what you're hung up on. It seems like you have some inspiration for layout design elements with the places you mentioned. If I could make any suggestion it is to go trackside and go to different places. You will soon get a fell for what you want to represent. Any of us that have watched trains in any fashion have things that we want to represent both in terms of location and how railroads operate. That interest and observation of how the prototype works cannot be accomplished solely from an aerial photo. In terms of what to put on the layout, I like Lance Mindheim's suggestion of modeling the ordinary. If you look from the perspective of the tracks looking out you see a lot of generic metal buildings, gravel lots, parked machinery and trailers and the back of buildings, many of which are not served by rail. This does not mean that you shouldn't model that building or scene you love but your railroad should not be dominated by those things. I would also take your LDEs and adapt them to the bigger picture. Where do trains come from? What are they doing on the layout? Where do they go once they leave? What story are you trying to portray? Since you model N, you have a real advantage of not letting the model overwhelm the space. Use negative, scenery only spaces, add a little more distance between things and model industries that look big enough to be actually served by rail. Buildings that are two feet long, even in N scale start to look really nice and appear that they should be served by rail. If you're just stuck on where the lines should be on the paper post a picture of the available space you have and let things go from there.
My Method I draw a floor plan I put the curves in the corners I attache the straights between the curves I add passing tracks I add yards I add spurs I add scenery For N-track you would need to adjust accordingly.
It seems like you've already decided what design principles to use. N-track is fairly limited in what you can do. From what I have seen of Ntrack, it's all roundy roundy stuff with three mainlines. Seen one, seen em all. One-track, now that's kind of edgy.
One resource not to overlook would be a historical society that caters to your proto-type. I model the C&O and am "tweaking" the plan for my layout. This will be my third (and last) time at it. One resource I have tapped are C&O Historical Society valuation maps of the C&O between the mid 40's and 50's which is the period I model. I have all of the main-line, sidings, and branch lines for a good chunk of West Virginia on a CD I purchased and just load it onto the PC when I want to view the thing. The C&OHS is constantly updating as they can scan the maps into a pdf file and then load a certain geographical area onto a full CD for members to purchase. I'm able to open the files and zoom in certain sidings and see where I can "slip" something similar onto my layout. I'm trying to get 2 or 3 sidings condensed down to fit in HO. You mention Union Pacific and MoPac. Their historical societies may be a good place to start. If not w/ valuation maps (not all societies make them available), then other resources they may have. You also may find a separate internet forum of modelers specific to your prototype and pose the same question there. Here's a sample of what I'm talking about: http://www.chessieshop.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=31&products_id=2845 Good luck!
As mentioned by ppuin, I highly recommend Track Planning for Realistic Operations by John Armstrong. http://pages.ebay.com/link/?nav=item.view&id=121659446694&alt=web We used it extensively in designing the RGW.
I also recommend Track Planning for Realistic Operations by John Armstrong. I am on my third copy, having worn two to tatters.
I recently picked up Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operations and was wondering, are previous editions as difficult to read? The typeset is very small and the colors for the sidebars are horrible. Great information inside, but the current formatting makes it a real chore to read.
The Layout Design SIG has lots of useful information: http://macrodyn.com/ldsig/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page - Jeff
Hi John, we grew up watching some of the same trains here in Omaha. I would like to plan a model of South Omaha in some form or another. I am thinking modeling the tone or flavor of the area without holding strict to the prototypes. I will be getting my basement back as my daughter is getting married this year and is moving out. She moved back home to save money and brought an apartment full of furniture with her. I haven't gotten as far as you with the planning stage, but I am thinking of building in sections so removal would be easy if need be - I had a flooded basement a couple years back caused by a faulty shut off valve with my sprinkler system. I will most likely build in N Scale as more can be done with less space. Google Earth shows the trackage in Omaha today and past. There are some free design programs out there but I haven't tried any yet so I can't recommend any. Welcome to the forum!
Free track planning software. XTrackCAD S.C.A.R.M. These programs won't design a layout for you, but once you know what you want, they will allow you to make a very accurate drawing of your track plan. You can even run trains around the layout to simulate operation. - Jeff
Realistic Model Railroad Building Blocks and Realistic Model Railroad Design by Tony Koester are both good reads. I've used several of these principles when building my modules. I start with the prototype track arrangement, try to build it in XTrakCad, figure out what shape module would hold it best and modify as needed to fit the space. Here is my current project: Rush City. I did go back and modify the track plan to be more like the prototype afterwords (there is track and building there now that aren't in the satellite photo too), but I was able to fit the whole scene (to scale) in 12 feet (FreemoN rocks).
By the way: SCARM has only a few functions for designing a layout, espacially for complex designs it is not usable. XTrackCad on the other hand is very fine for designing a layout and has many tools. But you hwill have to spend a little time for learning!
