Model Train Forum banner

61 - 80 of 81 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
here's one in ho,
more info in this link .. http://www.scarm.info/layouts/track_plans.php?ltp=48
more images, video's, and down loadable track plan
size is about 14 ft by 16 ft

View attachment 135946

layout is 18" radius minimum, up to 9" of elevation, built for 1890's rolling stock, geared steam.
I am truly considering using this layout for my own setup. My benchwork does offer a bit more space but this is the closest layout I have seen that peaks my interest.

You probably do not have a rough materials list for this layout do you? I really like it and with some tweaks here and there I think this would definitely foot the bill. I did follow the links, watched the video etc. I wasn’t sure if you had more information on it to aide me along constructing it. Something I could print off perhaps that has more detail information of the track.

I just thought I would ask but this may very well be the one that I can launch from.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
Original post stated newbie layout suggestions. Many layout postings here no matter how nice and sophisticated cost thousands of dollars. I doubt a newbie would attempt these layouts.
Here is a simple 4' x 8' layout that cost me $750 including the platform table and paint. Careful shopping for used items made it possible for the lower cost with about 50% used. Perhaps at a later date the layout could go from a green flat board to real landscaping using sculptured foam board with fake grass.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,444 Posts
to norfolksouthernguy ...
I used scarm to develop the layout, if you download it, [the free version],and also the layout [scarm file] you can then get a parts list, and elevations of the track..I don't have scarm loaded right now ..

sorry I missed the posting ..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,384 Posts
Thanks John.

What I like most about the multi-levels is that it doesn't look like it's all one set of tracks because of the tunnels and where they are located.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,005 Posts
Current HO scale layout I'm building. I'll post pics of the actual layout once I get them.

I used to have a plethora of layout designs I did for MTF members years ago. Many are probably still here, buried in the archives somewhere. Search my user name and that should net you many HO scale layouts from small to large to unrealistic. Unfortunately, I lost most of the original files to ransomware five years ago and havent been able to recover those files..........
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
625 Posts
I wish more people would get into 'point to point' layouts..1:1 scale RRs don't go in a circular pattern (roundy round). They go from one point (could be interchange here w/another RR, division, branch) to the other and are basically squiggly lines with reversing ability at each end via turntable, wye, or balloon track (usually found in huge passenger terminals/yards)..
To me, anyway, P to P forces one to have to operate like the real thing. This in turn leaving a feeling of having accomplished more realistic RR ops..This is no value judgement toward other types of MRRs. It's just that I'd think there would be more folks running this way. You can still have a doubled over/under looped track scheme to give it mileage. I'd truly would love to see club layouts this style..
My last layout (an HO, 35' x 10' L ) was in my apartment. So I made it a switchback..Many frown on this as to them it causes too much interruption running-wise and is unrealistic.. Well if you're into early RRing thru 1960-ish there were many switchbacks..And I believe there is still one in ops today(forget where right now. Maybe NS in south). Mine wound up with both ends 2.5' away from one another; one 2' higher on a peninsula with engine terminal and a wye..I only had to turn around to maneuver each terminus..
Luckily I hadn't yet done anything but about 1/20th scenery and no ballasting yet, because I was forced by new landlord to move out after 20 years there ! He bought the property and turned it into a 1 family dwelling !! Track & cork was completed. Dang it !
Man was I sad..Tearing her down was a real heartbreaker (This was about 7 years back/no layout since).
I am planning a small shelf-er where I am now which will be much much smaller.
.....Anyway, like in baseball, there's no crying in trains !..... M, Los Angeles
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
496 Posts
I wish more people would get into 'point to point' layouts..1:1 scale RRs don't go in a circular pattern (roundy round). They go from one point (could be interchange here w/another RR, division, branch) to the other and are basically squiggly lines with reversing ability at each end via turntable, wye, or balloon track (usually found in huge passenger terminals/yards)..
To me, anyway, P to P forces one to have to operate like the real thing. This in turn leaving a feeling of having accomplished more realistic RR ops..This is no value judgement toward other types of MRRs. It's just that I'd think there would be more folks running this way. You can still have a doubled over/under looped track scheme to give it mileage. I'd truly would love to see club layouts this style..
My last layout (an HO, 35' x 10' L ) was in my apartment. So I made it a switchback..Many frown on this as to them it causes too much interruption running-wise and is unrealistic.. Well if you're into early RRing thru 1960-ish there were many switchbacks..And I believe there is still one in ops today(forget where right now. Maybe NS in south). Mine wound up with both ends 2.5' away from one another; one 2' higher on a peninsula with engine terminal and a wye..I only had to turn around to maneuver each terminus..
Luckily I hadn't yet done anything but about 1/20th scenery and no ballasting yet. Because I was forced by new landlord to move out (after 20 years there he bought the duplex and turned it into a 1 family dwelling, dang !!) with all track & cork now completed..
Man was I sad..Tearing her down was a real heartbreaker (about 7 years back/no layout since). I am planning a small shelf-er where I am now which will be much much smaller.
.....Anyway, like in baseball, there's no crying in trains !..... M, Los Angeles
Might I suggest for your next layout to build it as modules. That way if you have to move again you can easily take it with you instead of having to rebuild. Unless of course you like the idea of rebuilding on occasion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,768 Posts
I wish more people would get into 'point to point' layouts..1:1 scale RRs don't go in a circular pattern (roundy round). They go from one point (could be interchange here w/another RR, division, branch) to the other and are basically squiggly lines with reversing ability at each end via turntable, wye, or balloon track (usually found in huge passenger terminals/yards)..
To me, anyway, P to P forces one to have to operate like the real thing. This in turn leaving a feeling of having accomplished more realistic RR ops..This is no value judgement toward other types of MRRs. It's just that I'd think there would be more folks running this way. You can still have a doubled over/under looped track scheme to give it mileage. I'd truly would love to see club layouts this style..
The problem with this view is that it DOES imply a value judgement, specifically that there is something inherently superior about "realistic ops". There are two problems with realistic ops. One is that it's a lot of work -- both in terms of planning and setup on the part of the layout builder / operating session host, and also on the part of the individual operators. Yes, some people love this challenge, but others don't, and there is no reason why we should exclude them from the hobby because they're looking for relaxation rather than mental gymnastics. The second problem is that a layout optimized for operations usually doesn't "run" well, so if people prefer to "railfan" -- that is, watch trains run rather than doing it themselves -- they need a layout that is optimized for that. This is especially true for layouts with a lot of visitors who aren't operating the layout.

I recently designed a layout for a gentleman who had me add sidings, a port area, industrial spurs... it looked like a lot to do. But he didn't install actual turnouts -- just pieces of additional rail to make it LOOK like turnouts. Because all he wanted to do on his layout was watch the trains run. There were 3 completely independent loops... the rest of it was just for show.

Look at how I operate my layout. It really is just a couple of big loops, although most trains begin and end in Cedar Hill Yard (which serves as staging rather than a true classification yard). BUT rather than run a couple of dozen short passenger trains, which would be prototypical, we just put ONE passenger train into a continuous orbit. With a little imagination, this train SIMULATES frequent passenger trains without the need to run each of them individually. Freight operators (generally me and my sons) drive the freight runs (which are determined by a simplistic draw from decks of cards, much like a board game), making sure we keep out of the way of the passenger trains and keeping turnouts properly lined for the main. He who has to run at unrealistic speeds, or, worse, hit the "Emergency Stop" button to avoid a collision or derailment buys beverages for the rest. This gives us the FLAVOR of realistic operations, with just a fraction of the work. And of course, when my mother and brother visit, they just want to see trains running around.

I think the commercial press does the hobby a disservice by implying that our models HAVE to be run like the real thing. There is plenty of room in this hobby for people of all tastes and preferences, and we should all be able to participate as we would like to, not how someone else thinks we should. The gentlemen for whom I designed the layout described above had thrown out his precious layout because his friends pushed him into a complex operating scheme, which he hated.

For most of us, the choice between point to point and glorified circles is a matter of personal preference, not lack of knowledge or understanding. Our mission, as more experienced modelers, should be to help beginners understand the different concepts, not to force or pressure them to do things a certain way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
625 Posts
Excuse me CTV, I did not pressure anyone but obviously you, inferring I pressured people. You turned my intention around to fit your idea of it, in turn actually you pressuring me to not express my honest ideas..There are thousands of modelers out there who run realistically and I merely point out the the nth degree of how that could be achieved with a point to point scheme.
Many do or might like the extra work it takes to turn trains around to go back, getting an even greater sense of running the real one. On top of this I state "this is not a value judgement toward any other types of MRRs"..
My entire post is merely a wish of me, mine, of how I'd like to see more of this kind of MRR ..I 'pressured' (as you put it ) no one,
and no one likes having words put in their mouth, what you just did to me. I felt your flaming at me, your chastising me, and do not appreciate it.
If you don't like me or my viewpoints, it's easy. Just don't read my posts.

Mark Harris, Los Angeles.
modeler since c 1956
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
625 Posts
Chaostrain Ironically I a long time ago was a member of the N scale Belmont Shore MRRC that's known to have invented modular, calling it Ntrak ! The huge main layout is not, but they had their early displays of them..
I myself actually never much cared for modular..Even if I did it this time, my luck it would be it wouldn't compliment the next dwelling's space.. I do though like FREMO. I am HO. Maybe I'd join one if it were in L.A.
Thanks for the thought, just the same. M
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,612 Posts
Discussion Starter #78
I very much appreciate the attention of everyone to
this Thread. However, it is intended to display the
layouts of Forum members. Those seeking ideas
for their layouts should have access to all layout posts
without having to plod thru various text posts.
We have numerous Forums that would welcome
opinions and questions. Please keep this thread
for posting actual layout pictures or drawings.

Don
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,768 Posts
Excuse me CTV, I did not pressure anyone but obviously you, inferring I pressured people. You turned my intention around to fit your idea of it, in turn actually you pressuring me to not express my honest ideas..There are thousands of modelers out there who run realistically and I merely point out the the nth degree of how that could be achieved with a point to point scheme.
Many do or might like the extra work it takes to turn trains around to go back, getting an even greater sense of running the real one. On top of this I state "this is not a value judgement toward any other types of MRRs"..
My entire post is merely a wish of me, mine, of how I'd like to see more of this kind of MRR ..I 'pressured' (as you put it ) no one,
and no one likes having words put in their mouth, what you just did to me. I felt your flaming at me, your chastising me, and do not appreciate it.
If you don't like me or my viewpoints, it's easy. Just don't read my posts.

Mark Harris, Los Angeles.
modeler since c 1956
Good grief. Lighten up, Francis... or Mark.

You read waaaaay to much into my response and what I was trying to say.
 
61 - 80 of 81 Posts
Top