Jersey City Industrial Railroad Micro-Layout

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I think you're missing a track for storing passenger cars, unless that's the center track in the yard.

[DKS]

I think you're missing a track for storing passenger cars, unless that's the center track in the yard.

Yes, that center track is for general rolling stock storage, probably just enough room for a short coach and combine.

[davefoxx]

I realize this layout is small, so this may be asking too much for the square footage.  But, can you consider a runaround at the end of the branch?  You would only need enough to get the locomotive around how many cars would spotted at one time.  Besides, this may be one of those occasions where the grade requires the locomotive on the downhill side of the car(s) for safety.

Otherwise, your layout may become a counter-clockwise-only layout.  Out-and-back would be better.

DFF

[DKS]

I realize this layout is small, so this may be asking too much for the square footage.  But, can you consider a runaround at the end of the branch?  You would only need enough to get the locomotive around how many cars would spotted at one time.  Besides, this may be one of those occasions where the grade requires the locomotive on the downhill side of the car(s) for safety.

Otherwise, your layout may become a counter-clockwise-only layout.  Out-and-back would be better.

DFF

Thank you for the suggestion--I will certainly take it under consideration. It would be quite a squeeze, to be sure! But I agree out and back is better than roundy only (although I can live with that, to be sure).

[davefoxx]

You know me.  I'm not allergic to roundy-round either.  But, it could turn into a one-way affair.

DFF

[DKS]

Thoughts?

[Scottl]

I really like it, but I would suggest you consider squeezing in a few inches along the edges to put some more scenery between the track and edge. 

[GaryHinshaw]

Who knows, I may be way off base, and it could be a complete flop. But I'll still enjoy building a flop!

The odds of you building a flop are exactly zero, David!

I went back and looked over your James River Sub (RIP) and I'm still amazed how open and natural that tiny pike looked.  But I only just now realized how much hidden track that plan had.  I'm still struggling with the spaghetti bowl look here, but it may just be the way the plan is rendered.  In reality, the diminutive narrow gauge trains may look 'just right', especially with a ton of trees.  I will follow with great interest!

-gfh

[packers#1]

I really like it, but I would suggest you consider squeezing in a few inches along the edges to put some more scenery between the track and edge.

+1
I wuld say it's a tad bit busy as well, but considering the grades and typical scenery found in the mountain area you're modeling, it's more than easy enough to make that convincing.
I also like the swap of the engine servicing and small yard; I would angle the yard a bit more into the middle though, to prevent the tracks from being so close to each other. Just a thought to consider, you have way more experience than me and probably already have a way to make that look convincing

[MichaelWinicki]

I like it Dave.

The only thing I would consider is the use of a switchback in order to reach the branch town.

Narrow gauge lines were thick as thieves around here and so was the use of switchbacks to gain elevation, but I can understand the lack of space not allowing one to be used.

[DKS]

I'm still struggling with the spaghetti bowl look here, but it may just be the way the plan is rendered.

I'm a little uneasy how the layout borders on a pasta dish as well, especially with the passing siding added to the branchline. I'm hopeful that when the layout is crammed with trees, this will be diminished to some degree.

The only thing I would consider is the use of a switchback in order to reach the branch town.

Narrow gauge lines were thick as thieves around here and so was the use of switchbacks to gain elevation, but I can understand the lack of space not allowing one to be used.

You don't know how hard I tried to work one of these into the plan. Unfortunately they're space hogs, and I'd have to add nearly a foot to the layout depth in order to accommodate one long enough to hold even a short train. However, when you look at the plan from an ops standpoint, and pretend the outer loop does not connect, the layout can be run as if it was one big switchback.

[ednadolski]

I really like it, but I would suggest you consider squeezing in a few inches along the edges to put some more scenery between the track and edge.

Alternately, expand the 24x48 by a few inches (tho I'm not sure what your constraints might be here).

Ed

[DKS]

I really like it, but I would suggest you consider squeezing in a few inches along the edges to put some more scenery between the track and edge.

Alternately, expand the 24x48 by a few inches (tho I'm not sure what your constraints might be here).

No go either way. Can't squeeze the plan as curves are already tighter than I'd prefer, and I can't make the layout any bigger owing to space constraints. I've made some tunnels longer to create more negative space, and looking for other similar tricks.

[DKS]

The plan is now more or less locked in, although this does not mean things won't change by any stretch of the imagination. I printed the plan at 100% and placed it on the Gatorfoam base to see how things felt full size.

[Scottl]

I really like that layout.  I like how the stream will flow through and divide the space and make it seem like it is a much larger space.