Layout survey

[brad]

My layout is 4 feet above the floor and single deck, although I do have a 2nd "deck" that is quite small 9 X 3.5 feet where my logging town and mill will reside.

The majority of my scenes are 2 feet deep as I used 2 inch insulation board for a foundation supported by "L" brackets off the walls  (no legs) I don't have staging but do have a small yard and access to staging area (hole saw )

The layout is a continuos loop single track with passing sidings, as I like just watching trains roll by.

I guess I'm a freelancer, but most of my equiptment is lettered for CN and I try to stay within the 1930-50 range. I have a few Canadian buildings but most are kitbashes or scratchbuilt.

As for size, about a 350 sqr. ft.  "L" shape with the bottom corner cut off at an angle, had to go around furnace and chimney.

brad

[Jim Banner]

The Lorraine Valley & James River Railway - my H0 layout.
Single deck, except over hidden yards.
Deck rises from 36" to 60"
Depth mostly 2' but varies from 6" to 4'.
The LV&JRR uses 3 helices and an around the wall for elevation changes.
Staging is in two hidden yards and a barge operation.
Mainline is single track with four passing sidings 9' or longer.
The LV&JRR is a free lanced bridging line between the CNR and the CPR, set somewhere in the Rocky Mountains of Western Canada.
The layout is set in 1961 but there are some anachronisms.
The layout is point to point for operation, continuous for show.
Floor space is just over 400 square feet spread through two rooms.
The present control system is DCC, 8 amp booster plus power manager.  Before that, the layout used automatic (computer assisted) block control.  The present layout was started in 1984 but has parts going back to 1957.  The layout started off with all electric remote control turnouts operated from a central panel but now has mostly mechanical remote control turnouts with the controls distributed around the layout.

Below is a panorama of the larger of the two layout rooms.  For an enlarged view, click on the link below the photo.



http://members.shaw.ca/the.trainman/Pan-shot/Pan-shot.html

[Atlantic Central]

OK, some more thoughts on layout planning.

Many years ago, in the days of layouts that resembled bowels of spaghetti, people like John Armstrong and Paul Mallery brought order to the universe with the books and articles they wrote. The ideas and methods they put forth laid the groundwork for the current crop of operation oriented layout concepts commonly in use. To them we are eternally grateful.

However, as we progress in to this next generation of layout design, some of the tenants they put forth have become less important.

Example:

When most layouts had scenic depths of 4 or 5 feet, or even more, it was considered important to avoid placing track work parallel to the bench work edge. But after viewing hundreds of “shelf” layouts with scenic depths in the 1’ to 3’ range, I have abandoned any concern for this “rule”.

Related to that is the idea of free form bench work as apposed to bench work with simple straight edges. In the hay day of L girder layout construction, one of the advantages touted was this ability to curve the layout edge. Again, this is a nice feature on layouts with large scenic depths, but becomes completely unimportant in the now popular 1’ to 3’ shelf concepts.

Both these ideas where touted as making the layout more natural looking and less toy like.

In my own layout planning I have completely abandoned any concern for these two “rules”. I now make bench work simple rectangles and triangles and often put track parallel to the layout edge on purpose to maximize space usage. No one seems to notice or comment that it looks toy like or unnatural.

Portability,

For many years it was assumed that the best layouts had to be permanent structures with little hope of ever moving them. The modular guys have proven that wrong with the great modeling they do. And while we need not restrict our selves to their rigid requirements, we can build layouts to allow for easy modular disassembly and reassembly with just a small amount of planning and a little more construction finesse. In fact, these new walk around, shallow scene layouts lend themselves to this very well. Personally I have taken a vow to never build another layout that will have to be demolished to get out of the building.

I was very hard headed in learning this one. I have built 5 layouts and only “completed” two. No more layout construction effort or money will be “sacrificed”.

Staging, I was ahead of the curve on this one. My first layout, built by my father in 1966, had hidden staging behind the mountain at the rear. Each of the two spaghetti bowl loops that made their way around the two 5x9 platforms, had a hidden passing siding to allow one train to enter the tunnel and a different one to reappear. And it was even semi automatic in operation. The track gaps where arranged so that a train traveling at any reasonable speed would stop before fouling the other route when the turnout was set against it. So you just set the turnout at one end for the empty track, the train pulled in and stopped, you flipped a toggle and set the turnout back and the other train was on its way.

So as to not make these posts any longer then they are already, I will stop here and welcome your comments. I will post some more ideas on this topic when my fingers have rested a bit.

Again, thanks to all for sharing your layout concepts and thoughts.

Sheldon             

[lanny]

Sheldon wrote in part: "Personally I have taken a vow to never build another layout that will have to be demolished to get out of the building."

I sure agree with that now that it's too late for me to build my layout that way    One of my sons, an excellent carpenter who builds what I consider to be lovely furniture as his 'pastime', built beautiful, sturdy storage cabinets for my dear wife to store 'grand kids' toys, etc in. I built half of my current layout on top of these cabinets. The cabinets are permanent, so I guess that means that we won't be moving to another house unless the whole layout is torn down.

Sheldon's comments about 'portability' are well worth considering for anyone who is planning to build a layout.

lanny nicolet

[Seasaltchap]

This thread has elements of previous threads about, "8 x 4" etc.

Railways in practice seldom if ever go around in circles; they go from A to B. Taking a slice out of life to model has this problem when "playing trains."

All my layouts have been from end-to-end, even the Club layout, over 40 feet, was an end to end model of an end-to-end line long since gone, BUT the layout was subsequently adopted by the local museum as of local historical interest. The BBC did a ½hr program on it.

Consequently all my efforts have been modular in design, for easy transport and storage. A practice adopted for transport and storage was to double-deck similar size boards, face to face, with masonite sides. This was been found to save on damage.

Locating pins are not relied upon. In place of large washers when bolting tables together, it is better to laminate predrilled 1/8" x 1½" steel strips cut to at least 2/3 of the join, and to be able to bolt these together to make the joint rigid when the alignment is o'k.

[Atlantic Central]

Stewart,

I agree, but railroads, even small ones, in this country anyway, usually go more than just a few miles. So to simulate any reasonable level of traffic, and keep a balance of "over the line" running and "terminal operations", continuous loops, that are partly hidden with staging areas are the logical answer.

Point to point modeling is only effective for the smallest prototypes. A survey of the interests of the modelers on this board or of modelers across this country would quickly reveal that many, if not a clear majority are interested in the operations of larger prototype systems.

Even to model the tiny Ma & Pa that ran past my home, in a pure point to point, mile for mile form would take more than the 880 square feet I have. even if you used two or more levels. And operating it would be very boring to many since they only ran 2-3 trains in a 24 hr period over their 30 some miles of track.

On this note, the next thing I was planning to write about is the concept of only modeling any given element of the railroad one time. Only one freight yard (in the middle of the run rather than two, one at each end), only one engine terminal, one large passenger terminal, one small passenger terminal, etc, etc, etc,. That way you have more space for different elements and all destinations and originations of the trains are "off stage".

Modeling the activity of one division point on a major US railroad is a modeling acomplishment to be proud of, trying to model two is well beyond the time and resources of many if not most.

Stewart,
Nothing here is ment to disparage other approaches, but is simply intended to put forth information about how others have effectively modeled a small piece of a very large rail system. If that does not interest you, fine.

Thank you for the thoughts on your module construction. Personally, my goal is not to be able to move the railroad for temperary display, but rather to simply be able to move it to a new home if necessary.

As for any previous thread, I most likely did not read them, and no similarity is intended.

Sheldon

[slowturtle]

I have designed a number of layouts for fellow modelers and am working on another right now.

I am interested in knowing the following about anyones layout.

Who has multi decks?
How high is each deck?
How deep are your scenes?
Do you use a helix or work your way up/down the room?
Do you use staging?
Is your staging hidden or visable?
Is your mainline single or double track?
Do you model a prototype or freelance?
Do you model a specific era?
Is your layout continuous or point to point?
How big (square feet) is you layout room/space?

Feel free to answer as many or as few of these questions as interest you.

Thanks

Sheldon

That sounds like the heliton central before we built it.

[Atlantic Central]

A few other thoughts:

Rail fan vs. Engineer - Some only want to be the engineer, so their layouts are designed from that perspective only. I like both, some days I want to be the Engineer, other days I just want to stand by and watch trains. So my approach to layout planning does everything posible to include both schemes of operation, preferably at the same time.

Timetable, train orders, fast clocks - I like all these as well. They require interested crews and a layout plan with all the necessary options or things get slow, boring, bogged down.

Action - I like it, 4,5 or even more trains going at once, East, West, switching, passenger, freight just like any busy spot on any North American Class I system. A station agent schedule from Harrisburg, PA on the PRR in the 1930's shows that a train of one sort or another went through there about every 5 min., 24 hours a day. I like the idea of simulating that.

Well, thats enough for now, more later.

Sheldon

[lanny]

Sheldon,

As I have read through this thread, I am curious if you are in the 'planning stages' for your own layout ... or developing concepts to use when helping othes design layouts?

I probably have missed your comments, etc. so accept my apologies if so, but I was under the impression that you have a finished, operating layout? If so, though I may have missed it in another thread, could you share the size, etc. of your layout?

thanks,

lanny nicolet

[Atlantic Central]

Lanny,

My current layout was about 50% complete when my wife and I made a decission that we will be moving in 2-3 years. That layout is/was permanetly constructed in a 22x40 room above my 6 car garage ( I don't have six cars, but the garage could hold that many if it had to).

Rather than invest any more time/money/effort into that layout, I have redesigned it into modules that will allow 90% of it to be moved when we move.

Both layouts are similar, but the modular one is simipler in a few ways and actually represents some improvements based on things learned from the previous one. The modular one will also allow construction in phases so I may reach a point of having a smaller but operational layout before I move.

The old layout was very complex to allow the greatest number of features and the longest possible mainline in the available space. Its complexity did not allow for the modular construction. Most of the complexity has been eliminated for several reasons in addition to the need for move-ability.

Both layout concepts are the same - double track mainline, one major city with freight yard, passenger terminal, engine terminal, industries; a long mainline run with other industries and scenic features. They include a water front scene w/tracks in the streets, a coal mine, and lots of long scenic stretches that allow good rail fan viewing of prototypical, or nearly prototypical length trains.

So, while I am at this, here are few more planning thoughts:

If we take a close look at the rail served industies in any major North American city, we find that few are along the main line or served from sidings comming directly off the main line. In fact, major railroads avoid industrial sidings on te main line and often install passing sidings specificly to then branch off to industrail spurs when industries are along the main line.

Most large cities have secondary trackage or belt lines, sometimes owned by an independent line or jointly owned by several railroads to serve industrial areas. These belt lines channel traffic to major yards where it is then made up into over the road trains.

My layout is planned this way. Very few industries are directly on the main line but rather are in seperate indutrial areas. Operationally this has the same advantage as on the prototype. The switching of industries does not interfere with the movement of mainline trains. It creates more jobs for more operators at the same time and is more like real railroads of the size I am trying to model.

Next time I'll talk about train lengths.

Sheldon

[lanny]

Thanks Sheldon.

I am enjoying reading your layout planning ideas and even your current 'non permanent' layout sounds great.

Looking forward to reading more of your layout ideas and thoughts.

lanny nicolet

[Virginian]

I am in the design stage for a new layout right now, myself.  Pretty much settled on a total footprint of approximately 22' x 11', one level, hollow square, double track main, a peninsula, scene depth 15" to 24", some hidden staging, reversing loop, probably a small yard.  This will be the second biggest one ever as things stand now.
The plan is DC, but I may yet parallel wire for NCE PowerCab DCC for sound effects (playable whistle).  I will run a lot of two trains continuous loop, but switch off trains, directions, and loops.  I may play in a yard a little, but I found I designed for it before and then didn't do it.
Still working on trying to have one 'diorama' of a section of the New River with N&W on one bank and VGN on the other.
Although I follow the prototypes to a large extent, I do not try to model any specific segment of the actual mainlines, rather I try for the flavor of the rural Tidewater area, and the rural mountains, other than my desire for the one river scene noted above.

[jsmvmd]

Dear Sheldon and "Virg,"

Very impressive, to me, your knowledge. Thanks a million for your posts over the years.

I have been in the planning stages for a few years and am finally taking the plunge.  I have been promised an 11' x 22' HO layout based on the Erie Lackawanna from a friend who has gotten out of the hobby. Just have to hack it apart and reassemble it. I hope to do something similar to what "Virg" is doing, i.e. putting a peninsula in there somewhere. It will be rewired for DCC.  I have yet to decide which mfr to use for the DCC.

Will keep you informed, if you would like. Looks like the end summer is when the transfer will occur. I can send pix via e-mail if you would like.

Best, Jack

[Atlantic Central]

Jack,

As I have said before, I do not use DCC. But based on those I know who do, and on myown research a few years ago, I would recommend Digitrax or Easy DCC. They both seem to be the most versatal, expandable and feature packed systems out there.

But again, if you are  not sold on DCC for specific reasons like sound, understand that there are lots of options and lots of ways to "apply" DC other than the popular cab control.

Sheldon

[jsmvmd]

Dear Sheldon,

I did remember that you do not use DCC. Thanks for the info. Several others on this site have mentioned Easy DCC, too. Looks like a leading candidate.

Best Wishes,

Jack