Back With Another Design Try

[North Coast Railroad]

I think your plan looks pretty cool. I am no expert or anything. I like how you can turn trains around, I like how long your trains can loop and through a lot of real estate. You could really have alot of scenery fun as well. The only thing that comes to my mind is how you can reach the middle of the layout. That be ing said, it looks really cool.

 

[DoubleDAZ]

I think your plan looks pretty cool. I am no expert or anything. I like how you can turn trains around, I like how long your trains can loop and through a lot of real estate. You could really have alot of scenery fun as well. The only thing that comes to my mind is how you can reach the middle of the layout. That being said, it looks really cool.

Thanks, I appreciate the comments. As for reach, the longest reach is less than 2.5', something I have no problem with on my 10x3 test layout. The layout will be built in sections with those coming apart for work on scenery, wiring, etc. The yard is 6x2 and each major section is 10x3. Major landscape elements will also be removable, like the mountain range, mountain top, horse ranch, plant, center, etc. This will allow them to be worked on individually.

I also decided early on that if a choice came down to leaving open space for adding scenic elements (buildings, rivers, mountains, etc.) or track, I'd opt for track. Since this is now a walkaround layout, I can put a whole New York cityscape on a diorama, I don't have to use up real estate to built it. I want to run trains, not build models. Some say that is short-sighted, and maybe it is, but if it is, it will be my loss. Model RRing is not my only hobby (photography and travel take priority) and I'll probably be lucky to get the flat part of the track done by this time next year.

 

[Doughless]

A good example was that convoluted track I had off the main in the upper section. I completely changed that, but have no idea if that is what the poster had in mind. Am I supposed to just assume?

To the extent that my post was the inspiration for your comment....

In your original plan, I suggested that you have the spurs come off from the siding. A pretty clear comment. What I see now is that you have a second and third main line coming off from the siding, and a spur coming off of the third main line. Not even close to what was suggested. That's fine, I just figured you considered my comment and went in a different direction from what I was thinking. I didn't realize you had trouble understanding what I wrote. I saw no need for me to follow up. However, if you ask a direct question, I will answer, ASAP.


To the extent that work, family, snow storms, dead furnaces, and working on my own layout keeps me from reviewing the forums a lot.


As far as your plan now: As I wrote before, for a display layout where you want to run trains, what matters is how it looks to you. You could have two simple loops of track, a yard with some industry spurs, and a siding or two with some industry spurs, and it would be cool, depending on how they were all scenicked.

Separating the modular sections in way that keeps all of the track aligned, as well as keeping the seams of the mountain scenery hidden, requires carpentry and scenery sculpting skills that are beyond me. I assume you have strong skills in those areas or you would not try to tackle such a project. Since I don't, I have no advice to offer there.

Just wanted to let you know that I am still following and will have comments when I think they will be helpful, when ever I get around to it.

Good luck and keep us posted.

 

[DoubleDAZ]

To the extent that my post was the inspiration for your comment....

In your original plan, I suggested that you have the spurs come off from the siding. A pretty clear comment. What I see now is that you have a second and third main line coming off from the siding, and a spur coming off of the third main line. Not even close to what was suggested. That's fine, I just figured you considered my comment and went in a different direction from what I was thinking. I didn't realize you had trouble understanding what I wrote. I saw no need for me to follow up. However, if you ask a direct question, I will answer, ASAP.

I tried puttng 2 spurs off the siding, one for the Old West town and another for the cattle loading area. However, I then saw the possibilty for the other mains, another way to move around the layout, and the possibility of running more trains in multiple directions. I also wanted to keep the center clear for a river and some open space for some livestock-themed scenery. I'm thinking of a waterall coming off the mountain area and a stream meandering through the center to the ranch and off the layout on the left with a bridge added midway through that curve. I intend to have a diorama to hide the yard, the yard is not a part of the layout per se. I couldn't resist, but I should have mentioned that rationale when I did it so you'd know you were the inspiration for those changes.

To the extent that work, family, snow storms, dead furnaces, and working on my own layout keeps me from reviewing the forums a lot.

I appreciate that and didn't intend to throw any flames, I was just trying to give Stein some examples of my thinking process. I see now that I simply need to assume the changes were okay with whomever suggested them and quit looking for positive feedback. That's new to me, but I can adapt.

As far as your plan now: As I wrote before, for a display layout where you want to run trains, what matters is how it looks to you. You could have two simple loops of track, a yard with some industry spurs, and a siding or two with some industry spurs, and it would be cool, depending on how they were all scenicked.

That much I got, I guess I was looking for some to say the whole thing stinks and here's why. I tend to complicate layouts and deviate a lot from the norm, so I guess it threw me when no one really said those things. Rather than assume folks were okay with it if it was what I wanted to do, I mistook that for a lack of interest or desire to help. I guess that's my bad.

Separating the modular sections in way that keeps all of the track aligned, as well as keeping the seams of the mountain scenery hidden, requires carpentry and scenery sculpting skills that are beyond me. I assume you have strong skills in those areas or you would not try to tackle such a project. Since I don't, I have no advice to offer there.

This will give Stein a heart-attack, but I have no such skills either. However, I am willing to devote the time to learn and do it over as many times as it takes to get it right, that's how people learn. I do know modular layouts work, so I see no reason I can't make this one work. I have said though that I'm not worried about scenery seams showing, etc. This layout is for me and me only.

In fact, I suspect the scenery will be limited to the foam and some toy livestock/Old West buildings for quite a long time. I have no set date to finish anything, but I would like to get the track laid, play with it awhile to see what worked and what didn't, and make adjustments before moving on. I do have access to someone who has an even larger sectional layout that he assembles every October and disassembles again in February, so I know the ideas work.

Just wanted to let you know that I am still following and will have comments when I think they will be helpful, when ever I get around to it.

Good luck and keep us posted.

I appreciate that and intend to keep you posted.

 

[DoubleDAZ]

For any of you still following, I decided to look at simplifying things a bit, at least as far as construction and mobility go. Somehow Stein (in PM) got me to thinking that maybe I was stretching things a little too far. I'm still at odds with him and others who think it's too complex, or "uninteresting", to enjoy over the long haul, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

Anyway, I've tried to glean suggestions out of the comments I've gotten. None of the changes here were specifically suggested, but the comments did make me think things over a bit.

As you can see, I redesigned the entire right half of the center mountain. I moved that whole area to the left a foot or so and made the lower curve larger than the upper curve. While this shortens each side of the run, it opens up the entire right side track for easier access. Before, I had hidden mains that I didn't really like, access problems to the incline curve, and mobility obstacles. Now, I "think" I have more options with less complexity.

For example, I can leave the mains exposed or cover them with a cityscape and/or leave the green incline exposed or cover it with a removable tunnel. I could combine the 2 into a single insert. Add that to the inserts I plan for scenery and I can give the layout different looks, perhaps at different times of the year. I could have 4 versions of a forest insert; bare trees with snow, budding trees, full trees, and fall colors. I know I'll have seams to deal with, but the layout is only for me and I'm not a stickler for perfection. I may find it too much trouble, but the options will be there and nothing will be lost if I don't go that far.

I also decided to put a town at the top of the mountain, Silverton, for talking purposes. I haven't decided on details yet, but maybe a scaled-down mining operation.

And, I added another dividing line to separate the layout into 4 sections, each 5x3, plus the yard, instead of the 2 large sections. I moved a few things to make sure there are straight tracks across all separation points.

I know it won't be as easy as adding/removing a table insert, but I'm willing to give it a go. I can get things running fairly quickly as I build by simply connecting the 2 left loops temporarily. I can then play with disassembly using just the outside main. If I use turnouts for the loop connection, I can continue building in stages and test as I go. Will it take some work? Sure, but I think using foam and flextrack will make dealing with the connecting tracks easier than it was in the past. I guess I'll find out one of these days.

 

[DoubleDAZ]

I'm still looking for some comments on the yard. Is there a better way given the space and mostly storage aspect? Should I add more crossovers? Between each branch? Toward the end of each branch going right to left like the ones already there?

I guess the spurs are okay since no one has said different.

I'm also still concerned about my cattle theme. Cattle drives are usually once a year, so maybe I should switch to mining or something. My problem is I suspect something like that will require more real estate for additional industries, etc.

I did decide on Silverton for the mountaintop and maybe could turn the existing spurs/industries into things more consistent with mining. Guess I'll have to do some research on that, unless someone wants to make some quick suggestions for the locations I already have.

I'm may put together a little description of how I envision operations, but that will be a separate post.

 

[fast_ian]

I'm still looking for some comments on the yard. Is there a better way given the space and mostly storage aspect? Should I add more crossovers? Between each branch? Toward the end of each branch going right to left like the ones already there?

Beyond my pay grade! [OK, skill level.....]

I guess the spurs are okay since no one has said different.

FWIW - I kind of want the cattle loading dock going the other way - "Into" the horse ranch. Dunno why.

I'm also still concerned about my cattle theme. Cattle drives are usually once a year, so maybe I should switch to mining or something. My problem is I suspect something like that will require more real estate for additional industries, etc.

I did decide on Silverton for the mountaintop and maybe could turn the existing spurs/industries into things more consistent with mining. Guess I'll have to do some research on that, unless someone wants to make some quick suggestions for the locations I already have.

I'm may put together a little description of how I envision operations, but that will be a separate post.

The horse ranch becomes a river basin - Lots of (small) stuff exists alongside rivers that needs to go places (and vice versa of course).... Just a thought that doesn't require the "massive" industries associated with mining maybe?

Only other comment is your spurs really are spurs - I'm a complete noob on this stuff, but don't you want (at least) a runaround? Hopefully those more knowledgeable than us will comment.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[DoubleDAZ]

As you can see, I have 3 mainlines, "A", "B", "C", that share the incline run and the lower left loop. Here are some anticipated operations:

Train One
- Passenger service (diesel) using "A" as if it were simply passing through countryside to/from points not shown
- Returns cars to yard
- Uses TT to reverse direction for next run

Train Two
- Freight service (diesel) using "B" to Silverton
- Picks up freight in Silverton
- Stops on passing siding on way back
- Services cattle loading area
- Continues on "B"
- Stops at crossover before loop
- Services Plant and Center from passing loop
- Uses crossover back to yard
- Uses TT to reverse direction for next run

Train Thrre
- Sightseeing/passenger service (steam) using "C" from Depot to Silverton with stop at Old West town
- Drops off tourists
- Waits a couple of hours
- Returns to Durango using "B"
- Continues through loop
- Backs into stoarage area for next run

NOTES:
- The Silverton area might get a passing siding to use for wait. The real Silverton has a dead end with a small runaround and "Y" to turn the steam loco during wait.

- Another crossover in the opposite direction might be added near the existing crossover below the Center. What I'd really like to use there is a double-crossover, but XTrackCAD won't let trains pass each other through the double.

- Servicing Plant and Center seems awkward, but doable. (Loco drops cars on "B", takes empties to Plant via "A" runaround, drops empties/picks up full, moves to Center, drops full/picks up empties, and returns empties to train via runaround.)

- Since "A" is really the "main" main, I don't mind using "B" and "C" to hold cars and service the Plant and Center, though I wish I could "see" a better way, sigh......

 

[DoubleDAZ]

Beyond my pay grade! [OK, skill level.....]

Beyond mine too, that's why I'm asking. I'm okay with what I have, I can stage trains there and that's all I really need. I can turn locos manually too, so the TT will probably remain a drawing until I feel the need for the real thing.

FWIW - I kind of want the cattle loading dock going the other way - "Into" the horse ranch. Dunno why.

Funny, I do too, but when I had it that way, someone said a horse/cattle ranch doesn't justify a spur, even if it's cental destination for large herds going to market. I may still reverse that spur. For one thing, it would allow me more space to populate the Old West town with buildings, ala trombstone, and do more scenery with cattle pens, etc. I may even do away with the ronch in favor of just having wild horse running around. BTW, my vision of a ranch is akin to those found on the way to Monument Valley, small Indian/Mexican ranchos.

The horse ranch becomes a river basin - Lots of (small) stuff exists alongside rivers that needs to go places (and vice versa of course).... Just a thought that doesn't require the "massive" industries associated with mining maybe?

True. If you are talking about just locating some buildings along the way, that's fine, but if you are talking about more spurs or sidings, I'm not too keen on that. I agree cattle/mining may not be the thing, but there isn't much to choose from when mountains are involved. I suppose I could see what lumber would entail; picking up logs mear Silverton, taking them to a sawmill in the valley and then taking the lumber to the other section, maybe to Home Depot and Lowe's Distribution Centers or something like that.

Only other comment is your spurs really are spurs - I'm a complete noob on this stuff, but don't you want (at least) a runaround?

Many businesses are serviced only by spurs and most layouts have them. You pull full cars out and drop off empties, then move on down the line. Of course, that assumes the consist is properly configured. If it's a busy route, you put a passing siding nearby so servicing doesn't hold up other traffic, but you generally use whatever gets the job done at the lowest cost. I'm sure there are better explanations out there, but I think that's the basic idea. Also, there is no way to add a runaround or siding for every business, especially those in towns.

Hopefully those more knowledgeable than us will comment.

Hopefully, but I doubt even those who have commented before will comment further. You and a couple of others seem to be gluttons for punishment. Once people decide they don't like a design (or attitude, I guess), they generally bypass the thread, so I've kind of given up. But, that's okay, I'm almost to the point where I can begin testing whatever sections my current stock of E-Z Track will let me put together.

 

[DoubleDAZ]

Stein posted this in another thread. I'm cross-posting it here so my response will make sense.

101 Track Plans is where I got most of my inspiration, but some people suggest it does not use modern design theory. Granted, the designs are from 1956, but I think the only things that have changed much since then are some materials and DCC. DCC negates a bunch of wiring and maybe the need for some dual-mains to run multiple trains, but I don't see where basic design has changed at all.

What has changed is that more people want to model railroads so their scenes look "more realistic", rather than looping back and forth through a scene to create a longer mainline.

The looping back and forth approach (and passing several times through the same scene on different levels was very popular in the 1950s and 1960s, where increasing mainline run length was the main design goal.

Then came the push towards "sincere scenes" - where the trains move once through each scene, and move in the same direction through the scene, instead of doubling back towards the rear of the scene.

It was part of a general desire to make layouts look more like a real railroad, and run more like a real railroad.

It was realized that passing through the same scene multiple times tended to make the scene look more less realistic. Especially if the train changes directions while passing through the scene - first going left, then right, then left again.

It is pretty rare (at least outside a few places in the Swiss alps and such places) to have trains double back to climb up a mountain.

It is also very rare anywhere to have multiple alternative parallel paths between two places on the layout (unless the alternative paths belongs to different railroads).

It was realized that to make run far longer, it would be possible to introduce operational challenges for the train along it's way instead of just trying to make the track longer.

Say you have a single track mainline through a small western town and you want to make the run longer, while still maintaining prototype realism.

Operations do not have to include switching, if you hate switching. You can do a simple thing like adding a water tank, and stopping the train to take on water before heading out of town.

Add a passing siding, and have your train go into the siding and wait for another train coming in the opposite direction.

Can be fully automated on DC, if you so desire, using magnetic switches and relays in some form - an entirely hands off approach, where the train starts and stops on it's way through scenes.

Or using a little interaction, cut the engine off, run it around it's train, turning it on a turntable or turning wye, and then coupling to the other end of the train before heading back in the opposite direction.

Anyways - these days the pendulum is way over towards realism, prototype operations and sincere scenes.

Doesn't mean that you cannot do an old style design.

It just means that the old style no longer is so popular, and you will find fewer people who will have suggestions on how to carry off such a design in a good way.

In theory, the main way of making a spaghetti bowl look good is through the use of scenery. But scenery is apparently low on your list of priorities.

I don't know about you, but for me, while it is possible to operate on not yet scenicked layouts (focusing on what you do with the trains, and ignoring the missing landscapes), it doesn't make an awful lot of sense to watch a "scenic run" (where the scenery would be the main goal) through more or less nude bench work.

Is sitting or standing next to the layout watching the train take 2 minutes to amble through a bare scene at constant speed, and then having to walk over to the opposite side and stand there for 2 minutes watching the train amble through that bare scene on that side (or wait for two minutes for the train to come back to the first scene) a lot more fun than sitting in a comfy chair, watching a train come into a modeled scene "from down the line" (ie staging, do something in the scene - e.g. automatically stop to take on water on the way into town, then go into the siding by the depot to drop off passengers and wait for another train, and then, when the other train has arrived on track 2, to depart out of town, continuing on it's journey "up the line"?

There are lots of ways of doing display layouts. I guess I just don't see the point of focusing almost exclusively on increasing the quantity of run, when it does not significantly improve the quality of the run.

For you, in which way is increasing the quantity of track length equivalent to increasing the quality of the run?

Anyways, for a fairly decent introduction to various aspects of layout planning, have a look at the LDSIG (Layout Design Special Interest Group) layout planning primer:

http://macrodyn.com/ldsig/wiki/index.php?title=Categoryrimer

It has a chapter on Spaghetti bowl designs as well - advantages and disadvantages.

A couple of other good sources for track planning advice - Byron Henderson's over of the track planning process from the track planning bootcamp at the NMRA meet in Milwaukee last summer (pdf file): http://www.layoutvision.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/ld_bc.pdf

Here is a discussion of what Byron looks for when he analyzes a track plan: http://mrsvc.blogspot.com/2008/02/track-plan-analysis-indexed.html

The articles accessed though that last link will also give you a quick overview of things that by many are considered "best practices" these days.

None of this says that you cannot do a 1950s style layout, if that is what you want to do.

It is your layout, you get to decide. And you should decide - instead of letting people talk you into doing weird things like having two spurs for every industry (apparently some people have never seen the use of the just pulled cars as a handle to shove the inbound cars into the track), or adding random yo-yo factories to a scenic railroad set in the southwest.

A successful layout design is by definition one that fulfills the goals of the layout owner.

But it still, in my opinion, is smart to make an informed choice. To figure out why length of run is such an important design consideration to you, and maybe consider alternatives to achieve your primary goal (which I assume is not really length of run, but to be able to kick back and watch some cool trains run through a beautiful landscape).

LOL - might very well be that these thoughts still are not very coherent - I am not always at my best after 5 hours of sleep.

Edit: for instance, I didn't notice that I followed up on Dave's design in Ian's thread. Sorry.

Grin,
Stein

 

[DoubleDAZ]

Stein,

First, I absolutely appreciate your response and continuing our discussion even though I'm sure you have better things to do.

Next, let's assume all that is true. Should it dictate what someone does with "their" layout? More to the point, should it limit comments when someone asks for help? And should some comments be limited to "scrap it and do it this way or do it yourself"? I thought this was supposed to be a community that helps each other make "their" layouts the best "they" can be given constraints and the goals of the modeler.

There are still "some" of us who like to use our "imagination" to envision long runs. Just because a route on a small layout loops around doesn't mean the operator isn't imagining a straight run through a valley or something. Unwrap my design, put it along a wall, and that is exactly what you have, a run through the Rockies. Admittedly, I've added some "industry" to pacify detractors and "supposedly" add interest. Fortunately, the idea is growing on me.

It would be great if I had the space for an around-the-wall layout, and maybe some day I will when my bedrooms are vacated. Until then, I work with what I've got and I'm not going to limit my goals to conform to "modern" design theory or what others are doing. I'm sorry if that means some won't help, so be it.

What I really hear you saying though is no one should adapt a long run to a walk-around table layout because it means looping around and there isn't enough room to separate scenes. If they don't have space for an around-the-wall type layout with islands, etc., they should just forget it and model something smaller, even if it's not what they want. If they don't, then the participants here will be reluctant to help make the layout the best it can be.

Now, I will admit my triple-main is unorthodox, but I am returning the section on Main "B" to it's original design. I'll still be able to run the trains I mentioned and there will be plenty of space for staging when I don't attach the yard section. That will leave me with one main for freight and another for passengers. Thanks for the push.

And who said I'm not planning things, like water stops, along the way or am not planning to stop trains on sidings to let others pass? What do you think the sidings are for? I will have to stop on the main or upper siding to let a train coming from Flagstaff pass through or head to the Old West town. I've already said I'm going to add a siding to the top loop so trains can wait or pass each other there too.

I know I mentioned unattended running, but once I incorporated the top in with the rest, I gave up that goal. I can probably still do an unattended run with 1 train using Main "C" by adding 2 reversing modules, so I will. But, I will enjoy running at least 3 or more trains more. I just want the unattended feature for the Christmas holidays when I run a holiday-oriented train with the layout lit and decorated.

The TT idea is a good suggestion, by I like the loop better because I don't "have" to disconnet and turn. I'll keep it in mind though for a future change.

I never thought the lack of response was due to "old style" design, but it makes some sense. Still, when I ask for help on yard design, for example, you'd think someone would offer an idea, regardless of overall design, no?

I get why you'd think scenery is low on my list based on my comments. I admit I'm not a model builder or landscaper, but that just means I'll have to take more time to do those things. Like everyone else though, I want to get something to run on as quickly as possible, so I will concentrate my energy/dollars doing that. I can't finish the whole thing at the same time and I don't want to delay running by working on scenery before I'm ready. For one thing, I need to make sure the basic disassembly works before I add scenic elements. Then I can add buildings, etc., to the main level. Once that's done, I can add the mountain structure, test the disassembly again, and then work on the rest of the scenery. I just don't know how to do all this without doing it in stages.

For me, doing something on a "nude" layout is preferable to automating a run on a well-landscaped layout. Watching trains run at the local club is nice, but I'd much rather run trains on unfinished parts of the layout. When I get to the point where I'm comfortable with the "run", I'll add scenery. It's just that I have no set schedule or priority for doing so. At this point, I only have rough ideas for scenery anyway. I'm not the type who designs every aspect before I begin construction. Nice scenery is important, but good track is paramount. The way I look at it, scenery can easily adapt, track can't, and I won't change track to accommodate specific scenery once I have the general theme set. I'm not designing anything "real", so I can make the scenery fit the track. If that means I have to build a lumber mill with nothing but a building containing a table saw, so be it.

I'm not sure I can explain why track length is so important to me. All I can say is I get more enjoyment out of a folded dog-bone with less scenery than I do running around an oval just because it has all kinds of cool scenery around it. When I look at designs in books, like 101 Track Plans, I look for designs with more track, and the more complex the better I like it. I think you mistake my lack of priority for scenery as disinterest. That's not the case at all.

If you believe the finsal decision are mine, why do you keep pushing me to do yet more research, conform to other's ideas, and basically just start over?

I agree I shouldn't have let anyone push me into 2 spurs, etc., so I'm redesigning at least one of them. But, isn't the whole reason to ask for comments to see how different ideas work? And, when I made those changes, why didn't you make this comment then if that's what you really think? I know you are trying to help, but you really confuse me sometimes.

Why can't "just because" be enough of a reason for my desire for long runs? One LHS has an N-scale layout in a see-through box. It is a folded over Figure 8 with some beautiful scenery. You push a button and it takes about 30 seconds to complete the run. Cool? Sure. Pretty? Sure. Fun? Sure, for those 30 seconds, maybe even twice. More than that? Not so much.

I know that's an extreme example, but AFAIK everyone wants as long a run as they feel comfortable with. Clubs always want a bigger building, etc. Granted, that is not "just" for longer runs. At any rate, for you, that might mean only my main level modified for more industrial operations. For me, I want to add the run to the mountain and keep the upper sections pretty open.

To be fair though, I do want the bottom sections to be a city (space to the right of the loop and above Main "C" is subject to change). I just don't know how to do it and "that" is one of the comments I was expecting but didn't get. I guess I was hoping for some quick ideas from the "experts" because I've seen you and others take the time to design some sections over in Ian's thread using XTrakCAD (or something). But, before this is all finished, I'll find something on my own.

FWIW, I did google some Arizona towns, like Bellemont, looking for ideas. Bellemont looks like a large interchange along I-40 with a steel facility, Harley Davidson distributor, National Weather Service facility, and ANG depot. That prompts some questions. As you know, I like scenic runs, so I think some of my difficulty is trying to make each "industry" fit an overall theme, like lumber or mining. But, now that I think about it, why does every service point have to tie in with all the other service points? Also, why can't I have a layout where the freight trains go from Phoenix to Flagstaff and then continue on over the Rockies (to LA)? Why can't the "return" train be a imagined as a different train coming back over the Rockies heading to Phoenix? Even though Flagstaff is a loop, does that mean I can't "imagine" it as an interchange? If I skip the mountain range insert and put Flagstaff more in the middle of the top section, couldn't I cover most/all of the loop to let a train go out and a new one come in, perhaps stopping in the tunnel for a bit to make it "feel" a little more real?

And, finally, I don't know if any of this helps to explain (again?) what it is I want to do with my layout, but it's all I've got to offer. No matter how many books or links you and others tell me to read (and I do check them out, at least the links), I still want the basic design I have. I will admit though that I do have a better understanding of what I want as a result of everyone's (especially yours) prodding and making me "think" about all this stuff. If nothing else, I have a theme for scenery and actual locations to scout for ideas. Best of all, the locations still have elements that meet the era I'm looking at.

 

[steinjr]

Stein,

More to the point, should it limit comments when someone asks for help? And should some comments be limited to "scrap it and do it this way or do it yourself"?

I thought this was supposed to be a community that helps each other make "their" layouts the best "they" can be given constraints and the goals of the modeler.

Nope. It is a community where people who are interested in the same hobby spend whatever amount of their time they feel like on discussing whatever subjects that happens to interest them at any given time.

If you want someone who is contractually bound to offer you suggestions whenever you want them, conforming to your ideas for suitable themes, try to hire a professional layout designer - you can find names and addresses e.g. in Model Railroader Magazine.

Good luck with your layout.

Smile,
Stein, out

 

[DoubleDAZ]

Nope. It is a community where people who.........e.g. in Model Railroader Magazine.

I don't believe that for a New York minute and I'm surprised by your attitude. I'll grant you some folks jump in, get what they can out of the "experts", and just as quickly jump back out. However, I believe the majority here want to do what they can to help others. Unfortunately, sometimes they just don't have any suggestions to offer.

In my case, I suspect it's because the design is too complicated, too "old style", or I still haven't articulated what I'm trying to do and why. Plus, our "discussions" have probably turned more than one away. However, that's all okay. I've gotten a lot from those who've commented so far, even you in a round about way. But, I am offended that you think I'm asking anyone to design a whole layout for me, especially given that 90% has stayed pretty much the same (or changed directly with my own ideas) from the first iteration of the design.

You know there is such a thread here, you said pretty much the same thing over there, but there are still some folks basically doing just that; offering a starting point, suggesting changes, etc. All he did was give the dimensions of his space and his desires, and the ball is now rolling. I don't know how far it will go, but that tells me people here aren't as selfish as you make them out to be.

Last comment along this line. If you feel that way, why are you even talking to me? You've been a bigger help than you realize, so I apologize for heeding some of your advice.

 

[DoubleDAZ]

I feel I'm wasting my time and yours, so I'm going to stop for awhile. This thread has gotten so far OT with my trying to "explain" to folks who's minds are closed to what I envision. So, Motley, I'm done explaining to those folks and I've never been looking for their "approval", just their help. I also think I'm spinning my wheels trying to decide on "industries" until I get into the construction phase and "see" what space looks like after the benchwork is done and some track is laid.

That said, I've made a few more or less final changes. I'm going to attach the latest photo to show some of my ideas for "industries", but nothing is cast in stone. I have decided not to have a central theme, like mining, lumber, coal, whatever. My layout is going to have freight and passenger trains coming and going, they will drop off and pick up a variety of goods, mostly somewhere off the layout. It will be set here in Arizona and "model" a couple of locations around the state. The run will be an imaginary route between Phoenix and Flagstaff with towns, stops and scenery that don't exist, at least between the 2 cities. For example, I'll take a ranch from the Monument Valley area, Old Tucson, and s few locations from around Phoenix, such as Schuff Steel, Motorola, and the ANG over by the zoo. That way I can have horses and cattle, tanks and helicopters, and I'll have locations to scout.

Anyway, here it is. I'm still looking for comments, but I won't update the photo anymore unless the changes are substantial. Even then, I may just add the latest photo to this or the first post for those who want to see. Thanks to everyone who has commented, all comments have helped.

 

[DoubleDAZ]

Well, I did take a bit of a break, really. During the break, I converted the layout to Atlas Standard Track and then made a few changes. Some have suggested it's time to move on and start construction, but I'm still not ready for that quite yet. If you don't care to see the design changes I'm making along the way, please ignore the latest posts. Believe me, I composed several more posts to help me think, but only added a couple here. Anyway, as a result of the conversion, I came up with a couple of questions about crossovers. I posted those in another thread and I need answers before I can go much further with the track design. I'm no longer expecting comments, but I'll always welcome them.

What I'm doing now is looking for track that comes too close to others and then I'll start looking at things with scenery in mind. Both those things might require some changes, especially to the yard, but I don't expect anything major. I'm also gathering some structure footprint data to add scenic elements that should be more to scale than the crude stuff I have now.

I've also decided to change the size of my sections. The one for the yard will be 2x6 and it will be built in stages, tracks 2-5 going first with the rest being added as needed and money becomes available. The other 2 sections will be 6x5 separating the layout down the middle vertically. This will mean only straight tracks cross the 2 joints making it easier to separate when needed. I haven't quite decided how I'll separate the tracks (13 of them), but CJ has given me some great ideas.

Also, you'll see I changed quite a bit of the Phoenix section. Moving the one main to the top will let it pass through downtown and let the bottom sidings act more like the tracks along Grand Ave. I added some of my favorite locations just for something to think about modeling; Schuff Steel where I used to deliver mail, a lumber yard to represent another hobby, the ANG over by Papago Park, and downtown, hopefully with a mural backdrop of South Mountain. I added a river and 4-5 bridges to the desert section as well as the other things I've talked about and provided some more of my vision for Flagstaff. With any luck, that will let me model some Route 66 stuff too; gas station, diner, and the old depot.

I'm still looking at this design as 2 distinct layouts that just happen to be joined back to back. Loosely speaking, the one on top is looking at Flagstaff from along I-17 going north while the one on the bottom is looking at downtown Phoenix from I-17 going south. Tombstone obviously isn't located along the route, but it fits my idea of the Old West town and all locations are easily accessed for photos/inspiration.