Starting again...Long post

[ScottyG]

Hi folks,

This is my first post here and I just want to explain what I'm attempting to do. I'm re-entering the hobby again after a long 15 or so year hiatus. I had an HO layout before on 4x8 and it served me fairly well for some time. between work and raising two daughters, however, I was not left with much time for the hobby and ultimately my layout fell into disrepair and was subsequently put into storage. Over that time, moisture and age had taken its toll and had to be retired permanently. Now that I have more time, I would like to have another go at it but am re-thinking the scale I want to model. I love the size and selection of HO but I would like the larger possibilities that N-scale would offer within the same size constraints that I had before. I have an area roughly 10x6 (long side against a wall) to work with and love the idea of a layout that can operate more than one train and have a lot of design, switching and scenery options. I do remember that I did get kind of bored with the figure 8 with a couple of spurs and small yard with the HO layout as there wasn't a whole lot of operating variation there. I think the only thing I know for sure at this point is that I do want to go N-scale but I don't think I like the idea of just using a 4x8 benchwork design. I'm just kind of fishing for ideas right now. I did buy a book (48 top notch track plans) but didn't really find anything there. I thought I would ask the experienced people here for some ideas to get me thinking about a layout plan that won't become boring quick, or what kind of questions I should be asking myself. So, any ideas would be great!!! Thanks!

 

[Beachbum]

IMO, the 4X8 has its place, especially if you can access the long sides and run a scenic divider down the middle lengthwise so you have two scenes - one of each side of the divider / view block - or a scene and "hidden" staging. I myself am not a fan of roundy-rounds or spaghetti bowls but to each his own.

I suggest you take a look at the HOG (Heart of Georgia) on Yahoo groups (lost the URL) or the Wildcat Central from "MR" and adapt one to N-scale. If you don't like the idea of a duckunder or lift bridge, take a look at some shelf plans or a folded U shape, depending on how wide an aisle you want.

You can search these forums - there's been a few discussions that relate to this.

 

[IronBeltKen]

Welcome to the forum Scotty!

There is a way to get a much better layout than anything you'll find in that book of "canned" track plans - that's the good news. The bad news is that it takes longer to get it. One of our members, Chip E. (a.k.a. Space Mouse) wrote up an excellent Beginners Guide to Layout Design, it gets you thinking about what you consider the best layout to fit your space - not someone else's idea. It's very well written with a lot of humor thrown in, I keep re-reading it myself because I find it entertaining.

One book I strongly recommend is John Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operation - 3rd Edition. It serves as a "road map" to help you design and build your layout once you've decided what you want.

 

[UP2CSX]

Welcome back, Scotty. I'd recommend you consider the 10x6 as an area rather than a layout. You can get a lot more track and scenery by running the layout around the walls with maybe and island in the middle, kind of like an "M" shape. Big layouts, especially with a long end against the wall, cause huge reach problems and actually limit your track plan and scenic possibilities.

As to HO vs N, that will have to be a personal choice. Although there still is a bit more selection HO, that gap is closing fast. The only area N still lags behind is sound equipped engines because of their size limitations. You will want to do this layout in DCC, trust me, and sound equipped engines are addictive. HO is a much better choice for that. Otherwise, think about your eyes and how well your hands still work. If they are in good shape, either scale will provide you with a lot of layout.

 

[Rico]

Speaking of Space Mouse haven't seen him around lately.?
Welcome Scotty! Lots of info here, just get your shovel out and start digging!

 

[ScottyG]

Thanks for the comments! In the pursuit of ideas, I picked up the Atlas Nine N scale railroads and I was intrigued by layout N-16 Atlantic Longhaul Lines by the way they creatively avoided the reach dilemma using a 4x8 layout by cutting a trapezoidal section out of the middle creating a sit-in. They even re-use the removed section and used it as a second elevated deck. I would probably make some modifications here and there but really like the basic premise. does anyone have any experience or familliarity with this layout?

Heres's a pic of the layout:

http://www.trainsetsonly.com/Merchant2/images/fullsized/FS150/lg150-N16.jpg

I'm new to the DCC world (which I plan on using) and I notice that this layout has a reversing loop. What is the best way to deal with that?

 

[IronBeltKen]

... does anyone have any experience or familliarity with this layout?

Heres's a pic of the layout:

http://www.trainsetsonly.com/Merchant2/images/fullsized/FS150/lg150-N16.jpg

...

One thing that strikes me right off the bat about that layout, is that there is a huge amount of track mashed into a small area. I prefer scenes that resemble real life, i.e., one right-of-way with a few spurs - not several main lines looping and curving thru the same visual field. An around-the-walls layout lets you do longer main lines, whereas a small 'island' style layout doesn't have enough room.

One more thing: The publisher of that book [Atlas] is also one of the largest - if not the largest - manufacturer of track in the U.S. mrr market. Their track plans serve their interest [i.e. to sell as much track as possible] more than they serve your interests.

If it seems like I'm raining on your parade, I apologize for that. I just don't want to see you spend lots of money on track for a layout that you may grow bored with in a short time.

 

[bnsf971]

I have an N scale layout that is 10'x30", and is a single track mainline around once, with a passing siding/runaround track in the front, along with several spurs and sidings on the front. If I had to do it over, i would add another 3" to 6" to the width, and put a passing track on the backside of the layout. By doing this, I could have 2 train operation. As it is, I can switch the industries on the front while another train circles the layout. The layout sits against a wall, and everything can be reached from the front.

 

[Cjcrescent]

Scotty;

Welcome back to the hobby! So far I agree with everything that you have been told. I also have a piece of advice for you.

Take what you have said you want...

Hi folks,

I have an area roughly 10x6 (long side against a wall) to work with and love the idea of a layout that can operate more than one train and have a lot of design, switching and scenery options.

...and write them down on a piece of paper. Then assign a value of importance to each element. This value could be on a scale of 1-10, or as a percentage, doesn't matter.

To this I would add a couple more items; area (region) of the country you want to base the layout on and also the era you want to model. I would also add the train emphasis, (freight, passenger, scaling the importance of each), and as a part of this, operation type emphasis. Example, this could run in a range from heavy industrial switching only, to a hard emphasis on passenger trains, their movements and switching at terminals and schedules, or anything in between.

As you look at what you've written, it will help come up with the overall concept of your road, and from this, the layout design will come much, much easier. Try it and see if it doesn't work for you.

 

[ScottyG]

One thing that strikes me right off the bat about that layout, is that there is a huge amount of track mashed into a small area. I prefer scenes that resemble real life, i.e., one right-of-way with a few spurs - not several main lines looping and curving thru the same visual field. An around-the-walls layout lets you do longer main lines, whereas a small 'island' style layout doesn't have enough room.

One more thing: The publisher of that book [Atlas] is also one of the largest - if not the largest - manufacturer of track in the U.S. mrr market. Their track plans serve their interest [i.e. to sell as much track as possible] more than they serve your interests.

If it seems like I'm raining on your parade, I apologize for that. I just don't want to see you spend lots of money on track for a layout that you may grow bored with in a short time.

These are really good points. I think that I may have the notion that more track = less chance of boredom (operationally), but A "bowl of spaghetti" with no visual interest will also become equally boring (visually) I suppose. If it is to rain on my parade, I would much rather have it rain now, instead of later when I am already committed.. I just don't feel that I have the experience or vision enough to design a layout that has a good balance of operation and visual appeal, and so I turn to the layout books for ideas thinking that I'm looking at tried and true ideal layouts.

 

[UP2CSX]

As Ken said, that trackplan was designed by Atlas to sell track. It's actually awful, with more passing sidings than anyone would need, a tiny, useless yard, and reverse loops and crossovers placed for no apparent reason. Do what CJ suggested and come up with what's important to you in a layout. Layout books provide ideas but they rarely provide a track plan that does what you really want. You can design your own trackplan a lot better than a book once you really understand what's important to you and what your railroad is supposed to do.

 

[Selector]

I apologize for not acknowledging it if it has already been mentioned earlier (I just glanced quickly through the previous posts ), but track is expensive, both to you and to the big boys. They only lay what makes them money, and you should have a darned solid grip on what ought to be the purpose of any lengths placed in your track plan. I would highly recommend finding and reading the late John Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operation available from Kalmbach Publishing, perhaps a local library, or a hobby shop. Don't pass up a really good self-analysis at Chip's site either.

Less is more when it comes to track plans. Yes, more than a loop, and okay, more than a loop with a siding or passing track...but think carefully of storage and industrial switching, the life-blood of the railroad. In a space such as yours, probably three smallish industries are all that will fit, and you would want some room for two or three 4' ytrack lengths for storage or switching (as in a yard?).

 

[Kerrydel]

I haven't seen this book yet, so I can't say it's exactly what you're looking for, but it might be a good place to start. It should be more 'up to date' as far as track planning goes.

http://www.kalmbachstore.com/12419.html

But don't be shy about posting here. As you've seen, there are plenty of people waiting to help. I think if you post some of your interests, somebody can draw you up a plan.

Kerry

 

[DaWolf85]

I would highly recommend finding and reading the late John Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operation available from Kalmbach Publishing, perhaps a local library, or a hobby shop.

AGREED.
This book helped me a ridiculous amount in designing a realistic track plan, as well as one that shouldn't have as many operating problems (as it hasn't been built yet, I really can't say)

 

[fiend540]

I am going to be the fifth person to recommend John Armstrong's book but it is simply a must read imo. I have never operated a layout before and never built or designed one. After reading this book it really helped me to realize what I wanted out of a layout and what I would need to do to make it happen and be fun. A real eye opener and makes you understand how to make an enjoyable layout.

 

[Beachbum]

Another design approach to consider is to use layout design elements (LDEs). Basically, you design one or several pieces and then link them together. For example one LDE might be an interchange with another RR, one might be an industry, and so on. Each LDE can be a selectively compressed version of the prototype.

This probably works better for more linear plans where you'd have Yard A linked to Industry B, etc, with a mainline, but I think you could adapt it to a 4X8 or whatever.

Just keep in mind these questions:

How long will this design take to build?
How much will this design cost to build?
How much maintenance will be required?
Do I have the time, money, and patience necessary?

Better to have a running layout with just a loop, a siding, and a passing track than a complex layout with doubleslip switches that's full of electrical and mechanical problems IMO.

 

[ScottyG]

Well I guess my next order of business is to read John Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operation book. I'm looking forward to reading this. Maybe this will help me get a better idea of what I'm trying to acomplish here or how to acomplish it. Honestly, I think that my interest in this hobby stems more from the scenery / structure building and detailing more than the actual operation of the railroad (hope I'm not offending any of the purists out there). Is that weird? Not that the operation of the railroad is unimportant to me because it is, it's just not the most important thing. Eventually, the layout will be complete (if that's possible) and then the operation aspects will become most important. I view the trip getting to that point as why I am drawn to this hobby. The only real vision I have for my railroad is something freelance, very detailed, turn of the century, old farmhouses, some kind of industries (not sure what) set somewhere in the west with a large waterfall as a backdrop and the tracks moving along the lazy river. Other than that, who knows.

 

[DaWolf85]

Well I guess my next order of business is to read John Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operation book. I'm looking forward to reading this. Maybe this will help me get a better idea of what I'm trying to acomplish here or how to acomplish it. Honestly, I think that my interest in this hobby stems more from the scenery / structure building and detailing more than the actual operation of the railroad (hope I'm not offending any of the purists out there). Is that weird? Not that the operation of the railroad is unimportant to me because it is, it's just not the most important thing. Eventually, the layout will be complete (if that's possible) and then the operation aspects will become most important. I view the trip getting to that point as why I am drawn to this hobby. The only real vision I have for my railroad is something freelance, very detailed, turn of the century, old farmhouses, some kind of industries (not sure what) set somewhere in the west with a large waterfall as a backdrop and the tracks moving along the lazy river. Other than that, who knows.

Even though I'm focused on operation, I see your point, as a railroad with track tacked onto plywood and paper structures as stand-ins is not very interesting in photos.
One of the most awesome (IMHO) layouts currently is built by a modeler named George Sellios who shares your views. He is a big fan of structure modeling.

 

[ScottyG]

One of the most awesome (IMHO) layouts currently is built by a modeler named George Sellios who shares your views. He is a big fan of structure modeling.

Now that's what I'm talking about!! I googled the name and checked out the photos of his Franklin & South Manchester Railroad. If I am ever able to achieve detail work 1/10th that good, I will be extremely happy. Thanks for that DaWolf.

EDIT: I just looked at more pictures....Let me make that 1/100th that good!!

 

[DaWolf85]

The F&SM is amazing. Fine Scale Miniatures, his model company, also makes some cool stuff. And I doubt that the fact that the letters on each are the same is a coincidence

For the uninitiated, here are some photos:

Photos appear to be those of George Sellios. If they are your own or you have permission to display them please PM me and let me know and I will approve showing them again.
Copyright infringement is a very serious matter on these forums.
Willis