Gorre and Daphetid Layout

[rogertra]

jward.

I knew Allen was into operation but I was not a fan of his rather fantasy modelling style.  Dinosaurs, pun names, fantasy bridges, Disney style scenery but what he did build was always an excellent model.  I'll not argue over his modelling skills, they were excellent.

BTW, being into operation doesn't make one a rivet counter.  I know a few "rivet counters" who do incredible detail work on their models but run them around on a  tail chaser.   

Cheers

Roger T.

[Piyer]

As to the original poster's question, while it could be problematic in HO-scale, you could do it rather grandly in N-scale in the same 4x8 space... unless you are already married to HO-scale. Just remember that unless built in a common footprint (2x4, 4x8, 5x9, etc.) most model railroads like the G&D were / are built to fit their builders' specific space and interests, and so it's better for you to build a layout to your own specific space and interest than to exactly copy someone else's.

As for the other remarks about John Allen and the G&D...

Yes, I believe that the final version of the G&D earned its place among the "best" or at least the most historically well-known model railroads in the US - after all, we're still talking about it 40+ years after John's death and its destruction in a fire. John was a talented artist, modeler, and photographer, and what he did with his layouts and wrote about in magazines helped to influence the direction of a generation of model railroaders.

Do I love the G&D? No. As someone else noted, it was a bit too fantasy-ish for me as well. The historical layout that I love is Frank Ellison's Delta Lines. It's outdated by today's standards for design, but that didn't prevent him from pioneering realistic operations on his bowl-of-spaghetti layout. Of current layouts, I honestly cannot think of one that is print as often as the DL, V&O, and G&D were in decades past. I do enjoy reading about the Utah Belt, though I think Eric needs to write more about it.

~AJK

[rogertra]

Do I love the G&D? No. As someone else noted, it was a bit too fantasy-ish for me as well. The historical layout that I love is Frank Ellison's Delta Lines. It's outdated by today's standards for design, but that didn't prevent him from pioneering realistic operations on his bowl-of-spaghetti layout. Of current layouts, I honestly cannot think of one that is print as often as the DL, V&O, and G&D were in decades past. I do enjoy reading about the Utah Belt, though I think Eric needs to write more about it.

~AJK

Couldn't have put it better.  I was strongly influenced by the V&O and yes, more about the Utah Belt.

Cheers

Roger T.

[jward]

back to the original layout:

rather than being a layout with no operating potential, it would provide a great representation of a shortline. note that the turntable area only appeared on john's original plan, and was left out of the as built version in favour of an industrial spur. the two tracks at the top of the branch line would make a great spot for a small mine, and the stub end track along the bottom could be the interchange track with the railroad of your choice. you would only need one locomotive and maybe a dozen cars to run this layout like the real thing.

and here it's time to point out another fallacy from the "4x8 layout is bad" crowd. contrary to what these people would have you believe, this layout will work in a room as small as small as 6x10. why? because all switches and hands on activity are within arms reach of just two sides of the layout, meaning that it can be placed in the corner of a room. as a matter of fact, one possible configuration would be in a small guest bedroom, with a bunk bed. the layout itself could be set in place of the upper bunk. and if you have more room, you could extend the branch line along the walls to a couple more industries, perhaps even a timesaver type switching district.

remember, this plan is the seedling which spawned a empire......

[James in FL]

On, no!  Shocked   Don't tell me that the "4'x8' layout is bad" guys are here, too.  Cry

Yes, unfortunately they are here too.

Build whatever suits your needs and tastes.  No need for knotted knickers.

Not sure why some here want to impose there concept of what is right or wrong on layout building.
Guess it will always be the same, and has been since the beginning.


Build what you like and run it. Screw everybody else if they don't approve.
It's your hobby to enjoy as you wish.

[jbrock27]

Agree, that is, at 100%

[J3a-614]

What a discussion here!  It seems appropriate to bring up the late Carl Arndt's Micro Layout site, which is still being maintained by friends.

http://www.carendt.com/

As I recall, the original G&D had very tight curves, perhaps some even smaller than 15 inch radius that's the minimum you can get in sectional track.  Those hand built switches would give him a space advantage as well.

There are two things that I would consider most useful in concept from the original G&D.  One is the idea that a small railroad like this can be a jewel in detail, simply because there isn't too much area to cover.  That was something Allen did on this line, and it was apparently a great dress rehearsal for what he would do later.

The other thing I would take from the original G&D would be the concept of a branch line with a continuous main line connection, the latter doubling as a staging location at the rear.  Of course even main line trains would be short for something this small, and that in turn suggests something Allen also seemed to go with, that this railroad was one dominated by older equipment, certainly one built in an era of smaller equipment.  In fact, it could even be narrow gauge throughout. 

Such things can be mere details when we are in the idea stage!

[jward]

some of the most creative layouts I've ever seen are on that site.

[AJPiskel]

Wow,

I really started something here...
Was definitely not my intent

I have limited space and that is what the original post was about.

But I am intrigued by the responses.  I have truly enjoyed them all.

Got a lot of ideas for doing a few things.

But L:ike I said in an earlier post, real estate must be negotiated with the Mrs.

So I am going to revive some of my older equipment and actually put up a small oval on the rug  (I know I'll go to train hell for that)
and see what is still running and get things up to snuff.
Them probably build a few building kits to get the feel of it all again.

While on the subject  some of but not most of my equipment has kadee couplers.  Any suggestions on that?

Andy

[on30gn15]

So I am going to revive some of my older equipment and actually put up a small oval on the rug  (I know I'll go to train hell for that)

Put some kind of plastic sheet under the track to help keep carpet fuzz from getting sucked around axles and in to gearboxes.
Even just a couple green lawn and leaf trash bags spread flat is enough.
Well, you'll certainly go around in circles, after that ... 

[AJPiskel]

Love the idea  LOL

[jbrock27]

AJ, definitely consider getting Kadee couplers.  #148s are easiest to use bc they have "whiskers", #5s are also good.  Each takes a different coupler (draft gear) box.  Also you should have a Kadee Coupler Height gauge, you will also need small drill bits, a pin vise, screws, Kadee Washers, maybe some small metal washers...

[jward]

until you can convert all your cars to knuckle couplers (kadee is only one brand of many, all compatable) you may want o find a couple of cars with body mounted horn hook couplers, such as those made by athearn of roundhouse, and just replace the coupler on one end. these conversion cars will allow you to mix coupler types in the same train. then you can convert yhe rest of your fleet as time and money allow.

[Len]

Related to what Jeff says about making a few 'transition' cars, IHC "Magic-Mate" couplers look clunky, but will couple with both knuckle and horn-hook couplers. Using them on both ends of a car eliminates the need to keep track of which end of the 'transition' car is which.

They can be seen here: http://www.ihc-hobby.com/product/19001

I wouldn't recommend them for general use, but they are handy for dealing with mixed coupler situations.

Len

[jbrock27]

Sure, EZ Mate Mark IIs are out there and I have used them, but when I make a recommendation...

that copper centering spring is the main reason i switched to kadee 148s. they have metal whiskers on the sides that eliminate that spring plate. much easier to install and get working properly.

as for the plastic knuckle couplers, i use them until they become unreliable, then replace them with kadee 148s.

As for sticking knuckle couplers in Talgo Trucks, I would not spend/waste the $$.  If I am going to convert, then I am going all the way; couplers, boxes, no more plastic pin or plastic friction pin mounted trucks, no more huge flange wheel-sets.  As for transition/conversion cars, sure a nice idea, but not really a long term solution.  I don't do them any more, I get rid of Horn Hook couplers and move on.