Jersey City Industrial Railroad Micro-Layout

[GaryHinshaw]

One of each - to show the ravages of time.

[VonRyan]

One of each - to show the ravages of time.

Now there's a concept. IIRC, DKS only has a limited space to work with so it might not be completely feasible, but the idea in itself is quite unique and I doubt anyone has ever done it before. (or have they...)


-Cody F.

[chicken45]

I am excited for this!

[Philip H]

I like the dual-era concept.

As for swapping out the weedy, overgrown track, I think you could find a way to do that.  For example, mount the entire plot for the industry (including track, structure, and perhaps even the parking lot) on a piece of foamcore or Masonite that could "pop-out."  The track could be powered by feeders which have a quick-disconnect plug.  Build a cassette for each of the different eras.

DFF

P.S. I give a thumbs-up to your new layout design and look forward to your progress.  I'm certain that I'll learn something about urban modeling along the way.

Or just invent a realistic looking removable weed strip.  After the Cat crawler, it should be a piece of cake.

[chicken45]

Or just invent a realistic looking removable weed strip.  After the Cat crawler, it should be a piece of cake.

Use static or magnets.

[DKS]

Use static or magnets.

Locomotives would not be happy rolling through loose magnetized static grass...

[Ed Kapuscinski]

One of each - to show the ravages of time.

This, actually, would be incredibly bad a$$.

Incredibly.

[peteski]

How about a 2-layer (2 level) layout.  This way you can have the 40s and 80s in the same footprint?  And no need to switch buildings.  Plus, twice as much fun building it. 

[packers#1]

How about a 2-layer (2 level) layout.  This way you can have the 40s and 80s in the same footprint?  And no need to switch buildings.  Plus, twice as much fun building it. 

This was actually my first reaction; why not just stack layouts? Seems doable, and there really isn't a need to ever run between the two "decks"

[DKS]

This was actually my first reaction; why not just stack layouts? Seems doable, and there really isn't a need to ever run between the two "decks"

Stacking layouts is a no-go. For one, there will be tall-ish buildings, which means stacking them starts to consume considerable vertical space--much more than I have room to accommodate. For another, I'm not really keen on building the very same layout twice. Even though there would be differences between them, the bulk would be the same. And being very "dense" layouts, that's a lot of stuff to do over.

That said, I'm appreciative of all the feedback on the plan.

[DKS]

While I was tweaking the plan just a little (no changes to the track, just playing around with buildings), an idea came to me: instead of two layouts done in different eras, I'd make the layout look different according to which way it's facing. So, when viewing it from one side, it's the 40s, and from the other it's the 70s.

Thoughts?

[Philip H]

Genius!

Sort of a theatre in the round, for roundy-round operations.  All you'd have to do is put good quality locking caster on the legs, and turning it should be a breeze.

This one, if you do it, probably deserves publication.

[DKS]

All you'd have to do is put good quality locking caster on the legs, and turning it should be a breeze.

Legs? It's only 24 x 48 inches. It's a tabletop layout. So a lazy susan would do the job.

[davefoxx]

While I was tweaking the plan just a little (no changes to the track, just playing around with buildings), an idea came to me: instead of two layouts done in different eras, I'd make the layout look different according to which way it's facing. So, when viewing it from one side, it's the 40s, and from the other it's the 70s.

Thoughts?

Well, it will make the trains an anachronism from certain viewpoints.

[chicken45]

You have me seriously considering handlaying my turnouts.