How do you do both in a limited space and still have an aspect of realistic. I enjoy have a yard and moving, building trains, but want trains to run around? I have built and rebuilt my layout several times, I am using kato uni-track in N scale, I have a 26"x8ft area to work with, I am about to add a spur and build a separate shelf system, just to have a yard. I am at a loss. Which way to go, realism or spaghetti bowl, to have everything you want to do.
I had a small roundy round and that was all I would do with it. I scrapped it and am building a new point to point. Yeah, it won't just go, but I can build better looking scenes and have a better sense of purpose for my equipment.
This is the one thing that separates a good model railroad from a great model railroad. Many model railroaders want the option for a continuous-run, but still want to be able to do point-to-point or other operations when needed. Many modelers try to hide or disguise the continuous-run option. Here's some examples of ways to disguise or hide continuous-runs: -The use of tunnels or view blocks and staging. By having a tunnel or view block in the form of a building or group of trees and a staging yard or hidden track that runs around the layout, you can keep the realistic function of the railroad while having that continuous run option there. -A straight line on a curve. Many modelers may be modeling a stretch of line that's relatively straight, but you can't just bore through basement walls. Curves with larger radii and easements will keep a realistic and prototypical look, but allow you to connect the two ends of your layout in order to make one loop. Often, a view block or tunnel is used between the two to help conceal the transition. -A 'figure eight'. I've seen several layouts where, in order to simulate the crossing of two railroads, the designer designs the layout in a figure eight. Although there's only one line on the model railroad, it appears to be two. Prototypically, two large railroads intersecting would be a perfect place for a yard, town, etc. Making it quite an ideal place to model for someone looking for prototypical operation. This usually requires a good amount of space to do well, though. I'm currently building a modular layout in a very similar footprint to yours. will be made up of four 4'x10" modules, with about 10" between each row of modules (two per side). One side has a large passing siding which doubles as the lead to a small yard with possible industries behind (haven't decided on that, yet). The other side has a small switching district with about 5 customers (about 8-9 cars of traffic) and a line-crossing to disguise the entrance to staging in between the modules. There's about a 2ft extension on each end to account for the return loops to make one large oval, bringing the total square footage to about 3'x10'. They're only on 1/4 plywood and fiber board, and are meant to be set on fold up tables when in use. I'm able to run prototypical operations such as: Switching of the yard, switching of the district, and trains from the staging yard to the yard, and vise-versa. I still have the ability to have 'roundy-round' operations, though. I hope I helped you find your quest for the middle-man between switching and running. I'd be happy to send you the plan for my current layout if you want to take a peak. It may fit your area well, though you may have to chop the modules by 1' in length. Alex
The CITY YARD concept I'm going to suggest what I call the "City Yard" concept. Before UP absorbed MKT and Missouri Pacific, MKT had its main Eureka Yard for Houston, Texas about 5 miles west of downtown. Smaller than most prototype yards but big to model for a home layout. Downtown it had a much smaller yard called City Yard, near its passenger depot, its LCL freight depot and interchanges with several other railroads. Also some warehouses. Cars for downtown delivery or interchange were switched out of mainline through trains at Eureka and then sent via transfer run to City Yard. At City Yard, they were switched to be delivered to downtown points. The passenger train ran alongside City Yard to stop at the passenger station, and freight trains for Galveston 50 miles south ran past City Yard. I thought for a limited size layout to represent PART of a big city downtown, modeling something like City Yard would be ideal. I could have a small amount of yard switching on transfer runs, also have relatively long mainline trains that just run through. City Yard might be as little as a passing siding plus two or three stub-end spurs, maybe only six cars or so long each. Of course, this would need staging, and it would be nice to be able to stage more than 1 or 2 trains. One compromise would be a passing siding on the hidden "back" side of the layout-- 2 parallel tracks accessible with a track switch on each end. In addition, two stub-end tracks could be added, one coming off each end and paralleling the passing siding, but overlapping side by side. The staging could hold a maximum of four trains, BUT only two could come out of staging, run through the visible scene and continue to end where it started. The stub end sidings could be used for an operation nsuch as a transfer run that comes from staging, makes drops and pickups on the visible part of the layout, and then runs in the reverse direction to head-in into the stub-end staging. I am not suggesting you try to model the MKT City Yard in Houston specifically. Just using it as an example of a concept. On a minimum size layout, it is often hard to try tlo replicate a specific prototype scene. As an example of another city yard, see the San Antonio layout I showed on today's New Members/ Howdy from Texas thread.
hi, are you at a loss? A young kid in a candy bar unable to choose. Yeah, having everything you want, without the cash to buy or the stomach to digest it. Sweet memories are coming back, i once bought 5 icecreams. After eating two the others were melted, beside being filled to the rim. Enjoy the building, in your space you could really do a nice layout: and maybe find your joy in detailing and hand-laid-track. Paul
There's ways to make a roundy-round look much better. The MR Salt Lake Route layout from two years ago was an excellent example with the use of a center backdrop divider. The main thing is to keep the entire train from being visible at once at all times. Putting sections of track in ditches, tunnels, behind hills, trees or buildings helps immensely.
I had an end to end when I first designed the current layout, nearing completion. The available space is 8ft x 2ft with a 3ft 6in x 2ft tagged on at right angles at one end. The ENDS were both at the same end, with the fiddle yard behind the station area. I've changed it slightly, by adding another 4ft x 2ft board behind the station, and this gives me a return loop for out and back running. Scene 1 is on the 8ft x 2ft, and scene 2 is on the 3ft 6in x 2ft. My AMTRAK train (60 inches long) is all visible in Scene 1 but only part of it is visible in Scene 2 as it travels through a rural area. A typical freight is shorter, but that isn't all seen in Scene 2 either. Hope this helps. Regards, Pete Davies
Just remember that sometimes you can't follow *every* good practice. Yes, some consider it blasphemy to have a twicearound, but do that, and with a viewblock and a little bit of the trackage hidden, and you will have room for a small yard and a pretty decent mainline run. Especially in N-scale with the space you have available.
Response to roundy-round question. Hello, Been there, done that. This is what helped me on my 3 1/2 x 6 HO layout: Years ago Tony Koester of Model Railroader made up a list of "Givens and Druthers". Basically you make a list of what you desire on your railroad. Then you use a scale (usually 1-10) to determine your absolute WANTS vs. NEEDS. Then use that scale to determine the most important things you want on your railroad. You should be able to look up his article on the MR website. Also, as others have said, make use of scene dividers to break up the monotony of having a train just go "round-and-round'. Additionally, few, small, well detailed scenes can be very effective on a small layout. Hope this helps you.
Even with a relatively large space; you have to get creative. My HO layout sits around the walls, in a 32' X 16' basement room. The track-plan appears to be a big loop, but with a whole corner of that loop cutting through a stairwell; what you see from inside the room, looks like a big, switching layout. Operationally, it's a point-to-point, between the two industrial areas (green-shaded areas).. and if you follow the blue arrows, you can see it takes almost two full laps to get from A-to-B.. aprox 2.3 scale miles.. Actual, continuous running (for class-1 mainline) uses the small black section of track, to arrive/depart the interchang/yard (blue shaded area). While my fictional branch-line services the industrial areas, and two siding/spurs (gray areas) on its 2-lap, point-to-point trackage. The theme is.. the yard/interchange is part of a C&O branch, and my 'Henderson Junction Rail Company', is the link for all the industries, sidings, and spurs, to the C&O, outside world -- shared track-rights from the yard/interchange, clockwise to just before the 'black' connection. Between the size of the industrial areas, the siding/spurs, and the near one mile of non-mainline track; three crews can be kept busy indefinately.. JMRI operations software keeps cars continuously coming/going..
We are working on a folded dog-bone with the loops at each end disguised. One end passes through a scene-divide. The other loops through a tunnel, but the tunnel entrances look like they're diverging away from each other, not obviously looping around. Primary operations are point to point. With any hidden trackage, you can also squeeze in tighter radius curves there.
Yes.. and a couple years ago, I had some early construction photos posted here.. prob lost due to low activity.. I'm into ballasting now, and starting trees/buildings, etc... I'll get some shots up tonight ..
Man, time flies.. I found that post (nearly four years old) with a Flickr link to early construction photos.. http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine...(an-intro-too)&p=593537&highlight=#post593537 Lots has changed.. I'll post some photos asap..
What can be done in only 26" wide? I once designed a little layout for 26 inches by 4 feet. Designed for Atlas sectional track. Accesible from both sides. This has 3 tracks together around the end which gives a "hint" of a yard. Designed for one train at a time-- but two trains can be kept on layout at once using cut-off track sections with DC. (at insulated break points marked with red line) I had a layout a foot shorter and 10 inches wider than yours for some 20 years. 3 feet by 7. No yard. 3-track staging (1 track dead end, used for on-and-back local peddler.) The layout would support a number of operations-- but not all in one session. Not enough staging.
OK.. I've hijacked this thread enough... The most current, very rough, poorly lit, photos are in my album.. scenery still in testing phases.. but train running is totally functional.. Album: http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/album.php?albumid=557
#1 Rule: It's your model railroad. You run it. Eot - Not knowing anything about you or the space you have available makes it hard to give advice. Over all in any given layout I like to have: * Continuous running whether real or not * A yard - proportionate to the space * Some operations - but don't crowd the layout
Hi Eot, you are not cummunicating much of your idea's. A good start would be a drawing of the room where your layout will be build and operated. If I understand your previous postings well you have at least "room" for a table and some shelves attached to it. The footprint of your layout is one of the most important design issues. Looking into alternatives for the rectangle are often worthwhile. Beside the footprint and the scale the minimum radius is a very important choice. Modern longer equipment needs larger radii and longer turnouts. Passenger trains with 85 feet long coaches can't be properly run over radii under 15" in N-scale. Modern autoracks are even longer and may have to be pushed often, requiring even more space. IMHO the good old 1:3 ratio between car-length and minimum radius should be kept. (give and take an inch, .... or two?) Running to your local hobby shop could be very unwise in this phase of planning, unless for buying a book. Track Planning for Realistic Operation by John Armstrong would be a great choice. Words like yard, loop or operation should be avoided, they can mean many different things. If Steve wants a proportional yard he will have something in his mind, describing what you are using that yard for would be a lot better. When Steve tells you he want some operation, it might sound nice, but he is telling you only he wants to run a train. Yeah, weird on a model railroad. "but don't crowd the layout" is another good one. You could even add a roundhouse in the centre to the plan above, making this one even more crowded. Just as good as: don't keep it empty. Bottom line (sorry Steve) is to be more specific. Paul
