The Carolina Sandhills Lines in HO Scale

[MichaelWinicki]

Nice looking plan!

-Several industries
-Enough run-around tracks so one doesn't have to take the locomotive around the layout for switching
-A yard
-A couple "off the layout" tracks

And the "Y" is killer... Makes the entire layout.

A lot of operating potential... Could keep a couple operators busy, along with someone to act as dispatcher and remove/add cars to "off the layout" tracks.

[davefoxx]

Thanks, Michael!  Yes, the improvements over the Seaboard Central 2.0 include:

1) That wye;
2) All yard tracks will be extended by a folding staging yard (not just two tracks as on the 2.0), increasing capacity;
3) Two passing sidings for meets (the 2.0 has passing tracks for switching in Aberdeen, but they're not effective for meets without reverse moves);
4) More industries to serve, making the 3.0 a little more self-contained for ops; and
5) No more switchback to the interchange in Aberdeen and the wye can be used to send that interchanging road back from where it came (that said, I don't know what the new town name will be, since it's too revised to be Aberdeen anymore).  There will be no more Aberdeen & Rockfish R.R. Co., because I don't want to have to purchase any motive power decorated for that road, especially since it serves only one industry with no room for expansion.  The branch will be the SBD.

Because it's now HO scale, it will be a little tighter than the 2.0, but I believe that the 3.0 will satisfy any shortcomings of the previous layout with the advantages of HO scale.  The minimum radius is 22", except for the branchline which is 18".  This is not tremendously sharper than the curves on the 2.0, which were a 12-3/8" minimum mainline radius with a stretch of 11" radius in the passing siding and a 10" radius on the branchline.

A layout this size is doable for me, as I'm not overwhelmed by time and budget.  If you think about it, this layout really doesn't take up much more floor space than the 2.0 when its folding staging yard is deployed and the reverse loop on the rolling cart is attached to the layout.  The 3.0 is also using the floor space more efficiently.

DFF

[MichaelWinicki]

Thanks, Michael!  Yes, the improvements over the Seaboard Central 2.0 include:

1) That wye;
2) All yard tracks will be extended by a folding staging yard (not just two tracks as on the 2.0), increasing capacity;
3) Two passing sidings for meets (the 2.0 has passing tracks for switching in Aberdeen, but they're not effective for meets without reverse moves);
4) More industries to serve, making the 3.0 a little more self-contained for ops; and
5) No more switchback to the interchange in Aberdeen and the wye can be used to send that interchanging road back from where it came (that said, I don't know what the new town name will be, since it's too revised to be Aberdeen anymore).  There will be no more Aberdeen & Rockfish R.R. Co., because I don't want to have to purchase any motive power decorated for that road, especially since it serves only one industry with no room for expansion.  The branch will be the SBD.

Because it's now HO scale, it will be a little tighter than the 2.0, but I believe that the 3.0 will satisfy any shortcomings of the previous layout with the advantages of HO scale.  The minimum radius is 22", except for the branchline which is 18".  This is not tremendously sharper than the curves on the 2.0, which were a 12-3/8" minimum mainline radius with a stretch of 11" radius in the passing siding and a 10" radius on the branchline.

A layout this size is doable for me, as I'm not overwhelmed by time and budget.  If you think about it, this layout really doesn't take up much more floor space than the 2.0 when its folding staging yard is deployed and the reverse loop on the rolling cart is attached to the layout.  The 3.0 is also using the floor space more efficiently.

DFF

From an operating perspective much improved over version 2.0

One of the nicer small layout track plans I've seen in a while.  Many of the small plans are "crippled" operationally... Not this one!

[basementcalling]

Dave, this thread is an interesting example of a modeler's journey. Some people settle on an era/prototype and can build multiple layouts around that time period, location, or theme of layout. Others are constantly changing from one prototype to another. They build multiple layouts that are worlds apart in scale, theme, location, era, etc...

Then there are those of us who always bog down with a plywood plains style partially finished effort.      It'll be interesting to see how you adapt the concepts that worked on the 2.0 to a layout in a larger scale but with a similar scope.

[crrcoal]

Dave there will be a scenic divider?

[MichaelWinicki]

Dave, this thread is an interesting example of a modeler's journey. Some people settle on an era/prototype and can build multiple layouts around that time period, location, or theme of layout. Others are constantly changing from one prototype to another. They build multiple layouts that are worlds apart in scale, theme, location, era, etc...

Then there are those of us who always bog down with a plywood plains style partially finished effort.      It'll be interesting to see how you adapt the concepts that worked on the 2.0 to a layout in a larger scale but with a similar scope.

Building a medium to large layout is a grind.

And there's always that one task or two that each of us greatly dislike be it ballasting or doing the fascia or wiring or whatever that causes one to rather do just about anything other than spend time in the layout room. 

On a smaller layout you can punch out these undesirable tasks much more quickly than when you're dealing with many feet of layout. 

I kind of like Dave's approach... And Dave Vollmer's, where you do a smaller layout somewhat to completion in a more reasonable amount of time than with a large layout and then move on to a new project. 

[Dave V]

I kind of like Dave's approach... And Dave Vollmer's, where you do a smaller layout somewhat to completion in a more reasonable amount of time than with a large layout and then move on to a new project.

Such an approach is not without its own problems.  There's a cost...the most obvious being the competition for finite financial resources.  Multiple layouts eat space; not only the space associated with the layout, but they need to be separated by "human space" as well.  If you're going to work on one layout you can't keep bumping into the other (which was my perpetual problem with the roughly 20" that separated the Colorado Midland from the PRR Juniata Division at my previous house).  And then there's time.  Dividing your (once again finite) time between layouts overall slows the progress toward completion unless you build them in serial (which is how I did it).  Even so, the time spent on a project on one layout does nothing to advance the other(s).

On the other side of this, though, is that if you have the room, the money, and the time, multiple small layouts will help tremendously with that feeling we've all had at some point, "If I had to do it all over again I might have modeled..."  And again, each layout has a better chance of being a finished "thing" before your interests shift as they very likely will.

Just my $0.02 having lived through multiple hobby "crises" of late.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I'm not a fan of all of the stuff crammed into it.

I think the various pieces will need more "room to breathe" to look realistic.

[Dave V]

I'm not a fan of all of the stuff crammed into it.

I think the various pieces will need more "room to breathe" to look realistic.

Ed's the new Sir Lee...

[MichaelWinicki]

I'm not a fan of all of the stuff crammed into it.

I think the various pieces will need more "room to breathe" to look realistic.

That's (obviously) the challenge of a small(er) layout if you're interested in maximizing operating potential.

Something has to give somewhere.

Yeah in the macro-view it's crowded.  But in photography it should look... Like your standard well-done model railroad. 

Certainly each person has to draw their own line on where they want interesting operations to end and a more realistic overall view of the area modeled to begin.

[Blazeman]

As you say goodbye to the A&R, the prototype hits a milestone:

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/short_lines_regionals/news/Aberdeen-Rockfish-to-turn-125-in-June--51509?

[Missaberoad]

I'm not a fan of all of the stuff crammed into it.

I think the various pieces will need more "room to breathe" to look realistic.

Is it really that much more crowded then SC version 2.0?

[davefoxx]

I'm not a fan of all of the stuff crammed into it.

I think the various pieces will need more "room to breathe" to look realistic.

I think @Ed Kapuscinski knows me well enough by now to know I'm going to not turn the Seaboard Central 3.0 into a spaghetti bowl.  I do respect his opinion and am aware of his concern.  He and I agree on several aspects of layout design and display, like tree heights and negative space.  In fact, in the v2.0 thread, he wrote this very early on:

That over/under is really model railroady. I feel like it'll be tough to do any not look caricaturish.

I like to think I proved him wrong, though, and somewhere buried in the 197-page thread for the v2.0 is his admission that the trestle scene turned out okay.

DFF

[Dave V]

@Ed Kapuscinski has been able to use his modest space for a mostly linear model railroad that does very well in depicting the NCRR.  However, not all of us can get the operation we need with a purely linear design.  So then the question becomes whether aesthetics must trump operations or vice versa.  I'm struggling with my Rio Grande Southern plan to juggle the proper sequence of scenes, the right orientation of scenes (i.e., the north end of the yard is pointing toward the northern terminus of the railroad IRL), the right orientation of the grades, and allowing for roundy-round with minimum hard-to-access trackage.  That's a tall order in its own right...and then to attempt to avoid any over-under ends up making it virtually impossible (especially when staging in an adjacent room is considered).

All that said I think I'm gonna do for me what I need to do to make the layout run the way I want it to.  I take Ed's admonishments less as a set of inviolate laws but more guidance that the non-prototypical bits be so well disguised by ordinary and expected elements that they are not immediately noticeable.  For me, for example, this would mean any tunnels would be completely hidden by, say, groves of aspen trees.  The RGS never had tunnels but there are plenty of pictures of the RGS ROW disappearing into a virtual "tunnel" of aspen.  This would be mundane and expected...unlike an obvious over/under bridge scene which would be interesting but instantly recognized as a foobie by any knowledgeable fan of the prototype.

Dave, do what you need to in order to get the operations you desire...understanding that scenery can cover many (but not all) sins.

[davefoxx]

@Ed Kapuscinski has been able to use his modest space for a mostly linear model railroad that does very well in depicting the NCRR.  However, not all of us can get the operation we need with a purely linear design.  So then the question becomes whether aesthetics must trump operations or vice versa.  I'm struggling with my Rio Grande Southern plan to juggle the proper sequence of scenes, the right orientation of scenes (i.e., the north end of the yard is pointing toward the northern terminus of the railroad IRL), the right orientation of the grades, and allowing for roundy-round with minimum hard-to-access trackage.  That's a tall order in its own right...and then to attempt to avoid any over-under ends up making it virtually impossible (especially when staging in an adjacent room is considered).

All that said I think I'm gonna do for me what I need to do to make the layout run the way I want it to.  I take Ed's admonishments less as a set of inviolate laws but more guidance that the non-prototypical bits be so well disguised by ordinary and expected elements that they are not immediately noticeable.  For me, for example, this would mean any tunnels would be completely hidden by, say, groves of aspen trees.  The RGS never had tunnels but there are plenty of pictures of the RGS ROW disappearing into a virtual "tunnel" of aspen.  This would be mundane and expected...unlike an obvious over/under bridge scene which would be interesting but instantly recognized as a foobie by any knowledgeable fan of the prototype.

Dave, do what you need to in order to get the operations you desire...understanding that scenery can cover many (but not all) sins.

If it was prototype-only or no layout, nobody would ever get to build a layout.  We all have to stray from the prototype at some point.  It's just a matter of how much you must stray and how much you can live with.  I really enjoyed how the operations came out on v2.0, while acknowledging that there was room for improvement.  The new track plan addresses those deficiencies.  I'm excited about the new plan and the inclusion of what worked on the v2.0.  I'm focused more on making a track plan that is fun to operate, rather than trying to model a specific town.  That is likely why I'll pick another town name and not model Aberdeen, North Carolina.  The revisions of the track plan no longer mirror that in the prototype Aberdeen.

DFF