rethinking the layout

[Dave V]

I stand by my assertion that in order to be truly happy, you can't pick a prototype.  It picks you.  I suspect it already has, but you just haven't come to grips with it yet.  Did you not just take a "research" trip to Orbisonia recently?

[asciibaron]

I stand by my assertion that in order to be truly happy, you can't pick a prototype.  It picks you.  I suspect it already has, but you just haven't come to grips with it yet.  Did you not just take a "research" trip to Orbisonia recently?

i have operated an EBT layout - how many times can you operate a conveyor belt?  my research was not for modeling but for preservation of the physical plant.  

my old standby prototype is the PRR.  i have no idea why, maybe it's easier to get along with people if you model the Standard Railroad of the World.

[Dave V]

The conveyer belt argument is a good one against the EBT; there was virtually no variation in the timetable.

On the PRR though...  Have we had the Bel-Del discussion?  That was a pretty busy line until the 60s.  I know you've given thought to the Bald Eagle Branch as well.  Online traffic there was primarily of the coal branches, but you also had lime coming off the Montandon and Bellefonte Central.  I think we had a good chat about Lock Haven as well.  Just some thoughts.

Or you could model the Hanlon Division and take the best snippets of your favorite PRR lines.

[sizemore]

There has been one underlying tone in every episode of "The Waffling Continues" -not enough space. There is always a desire do too much with too little space, consistently. Not enough staging. Not enough mainline run. Unable to do this or do that from some aspect. It won't provide this or provide that from some other aspect.

I think the best suggestion is to not follow any prototype, just build a railroad with the minor operations you want, to keep it interesting. Otherwise you will not be happy trying to cram a subdivision or branch in the space you currently have for a layout.

The few LHR plans you had from extrapolated from published designs were great and you should have stuck with them and forget a fidelity to prototype.

The S.

[MichaelWinicki]

it was a good plan on paper.  once i started to build it, it became obvious the yard was too big, the main line run that wasn't blocked or would be blocked by scenery was very short, and the run up the branch wouldn't stand apart from the main given the grade separation.  once you put a 12-15 car train on the railroad, the train came out of staging and right into the yard.  i think that layout could work with a smaller yard - maybe 3 tracks that could hold 16 cars total. the yard as designed could hold nearly twice that amount - it just consumed the space.

But unless you have a huge space for a layout, that's how it works for most of us, i.e. the trains come off of staging and will come to a yard very quickly.  A couple trains pass by the yard without stopping.  A couple are broken down at the yard.

Same thing with the branch.  It's going to have to be close to the main, and you'll have to separate the two of them using scenery tricks, unless you have the space for a small second level that resides above the hidden staging area.  You could reach it via a short "no-lex".

[asciibaron]

S -
it's not that i don't have enough space, i clearly have more than the door crowd.  the issue is me not being creative enough to figure out how to use the space to fit in what i want. i know there is an answer out there for me, and i will have to find it.  i think back to the time i have spent not having a layout and wonder if i would have had fun building up a door layout to have while i waffle away.

with that in mind, i cleared some space in the basement (right in front of the fireplace) and intend to build a door layout.  you know, for the kids.

[sirenwerks]

I stand by my assertion that in order to be truly happy, you can't pick a prototype.  It picks you.  I suspect it already has, but you just haven't come to grips with it yet.  Did you not just take a "research" trip to Orbisonia recently?

I have to agree with Dave. That's how I became a Western Pacific devotee, and with the WP came the Great Northern as a second. Until then I was all about a contemporary heavy industrial freelanced road, it had to be something I have experience with, something I know. I never thought I would choose to model a road that I had no personal attachment to growing up. Then I start reading about the WP and its quirks (all 4 axle roster), scenery, and underdog status won me over.

[2-8-8-0]

I stand by my assertion that in order to be truly happy, you can't pick a prototype.  It picks you.  I suspect it already has, but you just haven't come to grips with it yet.  Did you not just take a "research" trip to Orbisonia recently?

I sure wish ONE would pick me already ;D

But, agreed, a certain road (or roads) will just appeal to you, for no reason; it just sort of follows you home.

[DKS]

Lots of really good advice here, but I think the most insightful observation came from our resident meteorological expert.

For myself, while almost anything with a pair of steel rails is of interest to me, particularly if it's found east of the Mississippi and north of Virginia Beach, it's the CNJ and Reading that are nearest and dearest to my heart. If I'm lucky enough to have a basement and a budget, one day I'd like to do them justice. Until then, I collect books and photos, and pine away for the good old days when the sister roads were in their prime.

Steve, I hope you can figure this out soon. I'm running out of hard drive space with all of the reject drafts... (winkies)

[sizemore]

S -
it's not that i don't have enough space, i clearly have more than the door crowd.  the issue is me not being creative enough to figure out how to use the space to fit in what i want. i know there is an answer out there for me, and i will have to find it.  i think back to the time i have spent not having a layout and wonder if i would have had fun building up a door layout to have while i waffle away.

with that in mind, i cleared some space in the basement (right in front of the fireplace) and intend to build a door layout.  you know, for the kids.

Doesn't matter that you have more room than the "Door Crowd", it still does not warrant that you can fit in everything you want in that space (and the route of the problem). What you've stated is comparative to a woman that puts on ten pounds and says "I can still fit into my jeans"...ok muffin-top cram it all in there. It's not creativity as there were multiple iterations that incorporated the facets you wanted, just not enough of them (due to space) which is where you were not willing to compromise.

it was a good plan on paper.  once i started to build it, it became obvious the yard was too big, the main line run that wasn't blocked or would be blocked by scenery was very short, and the run up the branch wouldn't stand apart from the main given the grade separation.  once you put a 12-15 car train on the railroad, the train came out of staging and right into the yard.  i think that layout could work with a smaller yard - maybe 3 tracks that could hold 16 cars total. the yard as designed could hold nearly twice that amount - it just consumed the space.

the L&HR satisfied those needs but at a price.  since the L&HR would run two trains with one job, that made it difficult to replicate with hidden staging.  i have no way around it other than to ignore it.  and thus the problem with a short bridge route - it's hard to ignore such an interesting aspect of the prototype.

I think you just need to bite a bullet and accept some compromises. Create a track plan that has some items you like to keep it interesting without a fidelity to prototype. While the door layout is great I think it may end up route of the DoDo, as it will not keep as much interest and be subject to "bigger plans" of a larger layout.

The S.

[Blazeman]

I feel your pain. Developed a plan on paper that seemed interesting. Built benchwork to accomodate that (what I think is a generous amount of square footage in a U shape) then flex track, Tpins and turnouts were employed to flesh out the design.

Friend advised not to be a slave to the sketch. Good advice. Plan has evolved and much is different from original thoughts. Compromises made, envisioned scenes no longer possible (like movie scenes on the cutting room floor). It's a process. Much like life itself. As a result, I'm seeing a plan come together I actually feel I will enjoy much more.

Final piece of advice: Don't make it too big. Build something you can complete in a reasonable amount of time (couple years) and can get running in six months or so. Have a friend with an enormous HO layout that really taxes him on maintenance time and effort. And he's retired.

[davefoxx]

it was a good plan on paper.  once i started to build it, it became obvious the yard was too big, the main line run that wasn't blocked or would be blocked by scenery was very short, and the run up the branch wouldn't stand apart from the main given the grade separation.  once you put a 12-15 car train on the railroad, the train came out of staging and right into the yard.  i think that layout could work with a smaller yard - maybe 3 tracks that could hold 16 cars total. the yard as designed could hold nearly twice that amount - it just consumed the space.

Steve,

Can you consider modifying the existing plan, e.g., shrink that yard, thereby extending the feel of the mainline?  That still IS a great plan for the space.  As for the branch, you also may be thinking of the entire layout as one plot of land; instead, think of the track plan and focus on the "mileage" that the trains have to run to get there, rather than the end point of the branch being only inches from a section of the mainline.  Maybe you should consider that this is not the dream layout and just build something that allows you to enjoy running your L&HR equipment and rolling stock now.

Didn't you mention in one of your posts that you may move in the future?  If so, why not build a temporary layout or Phase 1 of the L&HR, knowing that the dream layout may come later?  Odds are, whatever you build will need modification (perhaps substantially) to fit into the next house.  You can alway recycle the rolling stock, buildings and details, controllers, etc.  Heck, Lee has shown me how you can even recycle benchwork and track fairly efficiently!  Apparently, a shot from the hose on the picnic table in the backyard will take all of the ballast off of the track effortlessly!   Remember, many of us enjoy building them almost as much as we do operating them.  That's why a lot get built only to be taken down and rebuilt.

I would probably preach against the door layout for you.  It will take up a lot of floor space, considering the necessary aisles.  Use those walls that you have to build a shelf-style layout.  If you're willing to spend the money on a door layout, use it to build something a little nicer around the walls.

Steve, nobody expects you to build only a faithful representation now, and not one person here will chastise you for building anything less.  Have you seen my ridiculous 2'x3' layout?  I've received nothing but compliments.  We all would like to see you build something that you enjoy and that we can enjoy vicariously through you by the sharing of pictures and/or ops sessions.  Don't leave yourself without a layout only because you're afraid it will not be satisfying.  Build it, make mistakes, and learn from those mistakes.  THAT will make your next layout (which also may not be the dream layout) that much better.

Dave Foxx

[AlkemScaleModels]

Time for a layout decision matrix.

[GaryHinshaw]

Time for a layout decision matrix.

[Sorry Steve, couldn't resist.  BTW, what happened to the dancing bear?]

[DKS]

Time for a layout decision matrix.