Coal River Branch trackplan

[Philip H]

the problem i am faced with is the small time nature of the L&HR.  a through train crew would run once in each direction - a westbound would drop the train in Bethlehem and then pickup an eastbound - the crew and power made a round trip as one job, typically.

how do i model this type of operation within the confines of my limited space without requiring switching in the hidden yard.  i could buy 2 of each unit and stage the opposing run.  any other ideas?

Steve,

Maybe you need to relax your "givens and druthers" a bit.  It seems that your attempts to be as faithful as possible is only causing you much grief and taking so much fun out of it that you're unable to get anything built.  Perhaps you should recognize that this may not be the dream layout and just go on and build something to operate your L&HR equipment, especially if a move from this house is going to occur at some point in the next few years.  You could always build an LDE as a portion of the layout, which could be reused in a future "dream" layout.  No one, I repeat, no one, is going to chastise you for freelancing an L&HR layout.  In fact, you may catch a lot less flack on The Railwire if you just get on with the consturction.

Case in point,  I really like the plan that you've posted on this thread.  I wish I would have seen it a few years ago, because I might have built it (or a similar incarnation) then.  Now that I no longer have room for a layout, I'm building a 2' x 3' layout.  Not one person has cursed me for building a layout that is completely unprototypical.  In fact, I've gotten a few compliments and have been told not to apologize for what it is.  Something is better than nothing.  Don't let the drive for a proto look and operations make this anything less than a hobby for you.  Have fun.

Dave Foxx

I thought Steve was having fun - just that his "level" of fun is more prototypically driven than many, and he is still trying to resolve a space in which to model.  Afterall, once the benchwork fest was completed, he did post regular progresss.

[DKS]

I think you may be working on this too hard, Steve. You've set yourself a goal that may not be achievable under the circumstances. In which case you have two choices: relax your constraints, or change the prototype (perhaps choosing one that's better suited for the space). You will otherwise remain in perpetual planning mode, and while all your friends are having fun ops sessions, you're still on the pot. You need to... well, you know... and then get off the pot.

[davefoxx]

I thought Steve was having fun - just that his "level" of fun is more prototypically driven than many, and he is still trying to resolve a space in which to model.  Afterall, once the benchwork fest was completed, he did post regular progresss.

Hi Philip,

I intentionally was not trying to denigrate Steve (despite my occasional poking at him, e.g., the "Waffler" picture).  I realize that he is striving for prototypical operations, and kudos to him for such constraints, especially if he achieves it.  Personally, I don't care whether someone models freelance, prototype, or some combination thereof.  I don't even care about what scale someone models in.  I just merely wanted to point out to Steve, as David K. Smith pointed out perhaps more eloquently in a later post, that maybe he is missing out by not being able to commence construction, because of his givens and druthers.

In fact, I have myself been bogged down by plans that never came to fruition.  From 1998 to 2002 in my last home, I swore that I would finish off the basement before building a layout.  Neither ever happened and I missed out.  Even a door layout, which I have since learned can be very satisfying, would have allowed me to be active in the hobby during this period.  I hate to see Steve stuck in this mire and am hopeful that he can find his inner peace and start construction.

DFF

[asciibaron]

i am having fun, but i'd rather be building the layout and getting trains running.

i have painted myself into a corner, so to speak.  in making the switch from PRR's Panhandle to the Lehigh and Hudson River, i simply traded Peter for Paul with regard to operational constraints.  

seeing this problem, i am retooling the focus of my layout.  there will be no staging yard as first planned.  the minimal run and number of trains simply doesn't do justice to the prototype in my given space.  i fell real hard for the L&HR for two reasons - it maintained a small time railroad feel while being a major player in the regional movement of freight; it is small yet had an interesting mix of traffic , run through coal from the Reading, PRR trailers, CSD and Alphabet action.  in a larger space where i could extend the run with meets and activity, it can be done right.

the focus of the layout will become the branch to Ogdensburg and the point it leaves the main at Franklin.  also featured will be the yard at Warwick.  the main will be a loop with some hidden staging - much like Erik's Rio Grande layout, but in a U format.  operationally, it's going to focus on the local that ran out of Warwick, down the branch, and then to Hudson yard in Phillipsburg.  

i have some things to address, but i'm hoping to have Warwick in place and running before 1 Jan. with the rest of the layout running by March.  there was only one customer along the branch, but i think i can bend reality and add some that were L&HR main line customers.  the goal is to capture the spirit and run trains.  Mr Foxx, Esq. is correct - by trying to maintain the prototype i am unable to move forward.

the layout i was building is completely usable for the new iteration.  i was naive and optimistic to think i could have the accessible staging and the duck unders.  my wife has told me otherwise.

[Dave V]

I've tried for a while to understand Steve's "paralysis by analysis."  I've been through 4 layouts in my adult life and am looking at an almost "do-over" of my current one.  I'm all about building now and fixing later.  Steve doesn't want to invest the time, money, and effort into something that won't be 100% right the first time.

The reason for this is that we have different objectives in this hobby.  I derive my joy from building (especially scenery and structures).  Steve obviously gleans the most joy from operations.  Hence his understandable desire not to start construction until all the operational difficulties have been worked out.

Steve, I humbly submit that real railroads often had operating challenges that required re-alignments and restructuring due to changing traffic patterns, technology, economics, and natural disasters.  Get yourself to 80% and then build...  You can fix the other 20% later.

[wm3798]

I'm reading about the construction of the Transcon, and the philosophy was "Build it Fast, we can go back and make it right!"

If you look at the aerials and study the numerous realignments that have taken place over the decades, it becomes clear that what you're dealing with is indeed a prototype practice!

Lee

[asciibaron]

I've tried for a while to understand Steve's "paralysis by analysis."  I've been through 4 layouts in my adult life and am looking at an almost "do-over" of my current one.  I'm all about building now and fixing later.  Steve doesn't want to invest the time, money, and effort into something that won't be 100% right the first time.

i think you have missed what is hanging me up.  it's not that i want it "right" the first time, i want it "reasonable" the first time.  i want something that i can say is as close to the prototype as i can get within my space confines.  that is the reason i'm switching focus from mostly mainline operations to mostly local/branch operations.  if i had simply built a layout 4 years ago, i would have taken it apart 20 times by now.  i've done it before and it's never progress.

having built many layouts over the years i'm now at the point that a "simple" layout won't satisfy me.  i won't be content to watch the train endless run the layout.  for me, the layout is a 3 dimensional logic puzzle.  i need to exercise my brain, to keep me thinking, and to keep the railroad fresh so that in 5 years, i won't be bored having since solved all possible switching combinations.  i did that with my HO switching layout.  it got to the point that i didn't want to run trains because it not longer presented a challenge.

in my other interests, i can see that i'm doing them at an "advanced" level.  from ham radio to coin collecting, my interest is very focused.  i'm probably a good burn out case in the making   my point being, a layout to me is more than just a setting to run some trains.

i guess it is a bit of a mania.

[asciibaron]

I'm reading about the construction of the Transcon, and the philosophy was "Build it Fast, we can go back and make it right!"

read up on the construction of the B&O.   ;D

[Dave V]

Steve,

Honestly then I have no idea how you could build a layout in the space you have that will scratch every itch and also be fresh 5 years from now.  No way you'll have enough different switching scenarios that 5 years from now you'd still be challenged.

[Blazeman]

This from one who has only a 2x3 to show for 40 yrs:

Take a little time with the design. As part of the preparation, lay out the footprint of the industries you want to include.by footprint, I'm talking the structure, serving/supporting track, area for truck shipping and access road. You will be shocked at how much more room you'll be devoting to an industry. Rather work it out up front than shoehorn it in and be unsatisfied.

With those accomodations in your design (and compromises as to maybe not being able to use all of the industries you thought initially), then set out and do the building. Understand, it will never be perfect, but you may be more satisfied/less dissatisfied than had you not taken the time to footprint the reason the railroad is there (move freight for a profit).

As for five years from now, it won't be "fresh," rest assured. But with sufficient space in the plan, you will be able to change out industries so a different mix of cars can be run, or a different set of years be portrayed. But you can always expand the layout with a new industry or interchange plan when that boredom arrives.

[sizemore]

The smaller a layout gets, the less of an ability there is to model a true railroad, operation and it's idiosyncrasies effectively. You're probably best assessing some industries representative of traffic along the LHR molded with a heavy hand of modellers license, while planning for that "big layout" in the new home. Model industries that can be transplanted in the future. To be completely honest a layout that small is really just a large roundy/round with some industries to switch, until you have a basement on the scale of...well say 15*15 or larger. I don't think you're going to be happy.... Call it a pilot. You've said it yourself you've built multiple, so what makes this layout the reasonable one? Work on structures and items that can transition to the next layout. Like my BYR for instance, the buildings, motive power, freight cars and some scenery items will transplant one day to a larger layout while the roundy/round will get donated to some lucky soul on this board (most likely).

The S.

[asciibaron]

You've said it yourself you've built multiple, so what makes this layout the reasonable one?

my goal is to have something more reasonable than previous layouts.  for the most part,, those were designed around scenes and not operations.  i'm interested in operations - i have built switching layouts for that purpose.  the problem with a switching layout, you can only operate it so many times and not have the train really go anywhere before it becomes unfun.

basically i'm looking to have something that feels larger than it is while being able to capture the spirit of the prototype.  i honestly think i have a good handle on that now.  i have built 3 layouts since coming to TRW - only 1 of them has been really talked about, many have been planned.  i enjoy planning and looking at an existing plan and seeing how i can modify it to fit my goal in the hobby.  i think it might be taken too literal here - it's fun to design, right Bernie?

watch for some updates after this month - i'm wicked busy, but i'm going to do some ground work on Wednesday.  Lee, when you able to come up and help with some cuttin?  i have beer.

[sizemore]

You've said it yourself you've built multiple, so what makes this layout the reasonable one?

my goal is to have something more reasonable than previous layouts.  for the most part,, those were designed around scenes and not operations.  i'm interested in operations - i have built switching layouts for that purpose.  the problem with a switching layout, you can only operate it so many times and not have the train really go anywhere before it becomes unfun.

basically i'm looking to have something that feels larger than it is while being able to capture the spirit of the prototype.  i honestly think i have a good handle on that now.  i have built 3 layouts since coming to TRW - only 1 of them has been really talked about, many have been planned.  i enjoy planning and looking at an existing plan and seeing how i can modify it to fit my goal in the hobby.  i think it might be taken too literal here - it's fun to design, right Bernie?

watch for some updates after this month - i'm wicked busy, but i'm going to do some ground work on Wednesday.  Lee, when you able to come up and help with some cuttin?  i have beer.

Steve,
I dont think I conveyed my thought properly. Ultimately what I'm saying is just build something just to build something, so that you can work on other aspects like you mentioned...MT Freight Cars...etc. While still having a layout to build. Then you can still plan, plan and plan again for something larger that really captures what you're going for ya know? I'm sure that if anyone here had the space they'd wanted we'd see a whole different layout. Or in Lee's case a 1:1 N scale version of the WM from Hagerstown west (don't worry Lee I'll do the East end!).

The S.