Kitchen Table & Northern (more information here)

[wcfn100]

I will reiterate.  Portablility, expandabiliy and the ability to reconfigure do not require modules.

Portability only requires being broken down into managable sections.  And go no further than Dave V. to see how to expand a layout.  And worst care, adaptor type sections can be used if you want to reconfigure in some why where the track doesn't already match in a good enough way.

If you want to get your roundy-roundy on? Great.  Plop that Unitrak on the table and turn the knob.  Play with some different track plans until you find one (or more) that you really like.  Post it here, David can put in the software and probably figure out six ways to get the rest figured out.

I just hate to see a track plan be overly effected in such a bad way by something that can be addressed later.


Jason

[DKS]

In a layout this small, going modular can, and does, hurt.  Are you telling me, given the space, and setup requirements, this is the best track plan? I have to say I'm surprised you wouldn't be pushing for a more interesting track plan that can still meet all the requirements.

As a rule, I start with something reasonably close to the original proposal. I am not telling you it's the "best" by any means, and you are at liberty to take it in any direction you wish; I'm not pushing for anything more since I haven't gotten the sense that it was desired. The original post included several caveats such as using materials on hand, etc. So, you can blue sky all you like; I'll wait until there's a response to my incremental proposal before going all out.

I will reiterate.  Portablility, expandabiliy and the ability to reconfigure do not require modules.

Portability only requires being broken down into managable sections.  And go no further than Dave V. to see how to expand a layout.  And worst care, adaptor type sections can be used if you want to reconfigure in some why where the track doesn't already match in a good enough way.

If you want to get your roundy-roundy on? Great.  Plop that Unitrak on the table and turn the knob.  Play with some different track plans until you find one (or more) that you really like.  Post it here, David can put in the software and probably figure out six ways to get the rest figured out.

I just hate to see a track plan be overly effected in such a bad way by something that can be addressed later.

If anything, I think you're the one over-thinking all of this. I just do some quick scribbles and doodles to help folks out; I'm not writing a thesis on modular design.

[wcfn100]

If anything, I think you're the one over-thinking all of this. I just do some quick scribbles and doodles to help folks out; I'm not writing a thesis on modular design.

You advocated the use of standard modules and I think puts a unnecessary crippling effect on a layout of this size.  Just my opinion.

And I'm not overthinking anything because I've been down this road before.  Your not the only one who's drawn thousands of track plans for a hundred different themes but you've effectively marked your territory at RW so I'll just go figure out what to make for dinner and leave you to it. 


Jason

[DKS]

You advocated the use of standard modules and I think puts a unnecessary crippling effect on a layout of this size.  Just my opinion.

And I'm not overthinking anything because I've been down this road before.  Your not the only one who's drawn thousands of track plans for a hundred different themes but you've effectively marked your territory at RW so I'll just go figure out what to make for dinner and leave you to it. 

My "territory" only exists due principally to the vacuum that often exists when help is requested. I'm delighted to step aside and allow you to resolve any crippling effects I may have unintentionally introduced on this project. Have at it!

P.S. What's for dinner?

[delamaize]

You advocated the use of standard modules and I think puts a unnecessary crippling effect on a layout of this size.  Just my opinion.

And I'm not overthinking anything because I've been down this road before.  Your not the only one who's drawn thousands of track plans for a hundred different themes but you've effectively marked your territory at RW so I'll just go figure out what to make for dinner and leave you to it. 


Jason

I beg to differ in my case, By standardizing my idea into set modules, it has actually free'd me up some space, I orginally was doing this in 8 parts, that basicly would only be able to be set up one way, now I got sevral options, with the newest design, I could set it up as a point to point, a long oval, or the square like it is currently. the biggest thing here, is the ability to easily break it down and put it away, while having some scenery, not just unitrack ploped on the kitchen table, I have been doing this, and I am sick of it. It has been about 2 years since I have had ANY kind of real layout. This modular option will give me the freedom to set up and take down easily at will. Also, somethign I just thought of, once I get the basic trackwork, and base laid down, I can put 3 modules away and only have one out to do scenery. Get close to finishing one, bring out the next one, do them both together for a while, then put the finished one away. The less trains out and about the happier my wife is, She HATES my trains. One of the reasons I am doing this now, She is deployed, I don't work (don't speak enough german to work on the economy, and the on post employment options don't pay enough to cover fuel and daycare costs.) and I pretty much stay at home, and do some online college. Between the constant worrying about if my wife is going to come home, My daughter either not coperating with me, or asking for mommy to come home, and the stress of health issues, I need something to distract me from reality. The basic I have laid out is after weeks of playing with diffrent designs on the table with the unitrack I already had. I went though sevral other, more complicated designs, but this one seems to keep calling me back, the only thing I have really had to tweak was the leignth of the sidings. I do want to add some kind of industry on the one module that is currently empty. I just have not decided what. I like what you did with coming into the center of the doughnut, and my mind has been a buzz with ideas since you posted that, but only time will tell what I will end up doing.

Another sugestion I got for that area was a simlpe stub siding with another siding coming off that, and making some kind of basic, Non-descriptive industry, where boxcars, tank cars, flats, or gondolas could be spotted bringing in raw materials, and the same cars sending out some kind of finished product. It is really late (or early?) here, so I will sketch something up tomorrow.

[Bendtracker1]

....I do want to add some kind of industry on the one module that is currently empty. I just have not decided what. I like what you did with coming into the center of the doughnut, and my mind has been a buzz with ideas since you posted that, but only time will tell what I will end up doing.

Another sugestion I got for that area was a simlpe stub siding with another siding coming off that, and making some kind of basic, Non-descriptive industry, where boxcars, tank cars, flats, or gondolas could be spotted bringing in raw materials, and the same cars sending out some kind of finished product. It is really late (or early?) here, so I will sketch something up tomorrow.

Mike,
FWIW, If you were to use the idea of filling the inside of the doughnut, but have it diverge to the outside as well, then you could do as, IIRC David Barrows did with his "Domino Theory" on the Cat Mountain and Santa Fe. You could build several different "Modules" with different industries so as to provide various types of rail traffic. ie: One time, A refinery for tank cars, a grain elevator with Hoppers the next time, or a scrap yard for gons...so on and so on, and swap them out as you feel like.  Of course space to store unused modules might be at a premium, but it would a allow a variety car types, traffic and scenery opportunities. Something to keep in mind for the future expansion if it were to arrive at some point!  Just more brainstorming.......

Allen...

[delamaize]

Mike,
FWIW, If you were to use the idea of filling the inside of the doughnut, but have it diverge to the outside as well, then you could do as, IIRC David Barrows did with his "Domino Theory" on the Cat Mountain and Santa Fe. You could build several different "Modules" with different industries so as to provide various types of rail traffic. ie: One time, A refinery for tank cars, a grain elevator with Hoppers the next time, or a scrap yard for gons...so on and so on, and swap them out as you feel like.  Of course space to store unused modules might be at a premium, but it would a allow a variety car types, traffic and scenery opportunities. Something to keep in mind for the future expansion if it were to arrive at some point!  Just more brainstorming.......

Allen...

thats kinda the idea I had, except multiple modules with diffrent industrys, not just the center portion.

Here is a few renditions of what we have been thinking.

First, the whole thing, adjusted to what I have exactly on my table right now, using parts I have in stock.


First idea for industry, simple is best.


Jason's Idea.


and now THIS is overthinking, one of my friends send me this.  :


All of these were done with "Anyrail 4" and are actually using the Kato Unitrack profiles. the Demo of the program only allows for 50 pieces at a time, so some had to be done in photoshop. I had to resize everything to metric, for simplicity, Since Kato tracks are metric. the grid is aprox 12.5 cm (typo on the images, it shold be inches not cm), so 37.2 cm (24.8 cm short side) x 86.8 cm. Equals out to 14.65" x 34.17" roughly.

[delamaize]

Alrighty guys, so my trip back to the states about a week ago gave me the chance to pick up the last of the track I needed, A pack of larger radi corners, and one right hand switch. Although I made a mistake. I thought my current corners were the 20-100's so I figured I needed the 20-110's to get the right radi on my passing siding. WRONG! I had must have 20-120 corners, and bought a pack of 20-110's. so I had to improvise a little. two of the corners are now a diffrent radi than the others, and the ouside passing siding is made of the old track instead of the new tracks. for now it works, and all my rolling stock seem to navigate it fine, I am not running anything over 65' so it looks ok also. Although, I do have one piece of rolling stock that is 85', my concor auto rack. I decided that I wanted to put together a train from my childhood, so I am building a mixed freight Circa 1991, I have a SD40 in SP from Kato (speed letter, 7322) and a old Kato/Atlas GP35 in BN for the motive power. I am planning on making a Circa 1991 Coast starlight with F40PH's on the point, but that is for another time.

Anyways, for now I am running the layout with the tight radi, I think it equals out to 10" where the others are like 11" or 12". As for the siding, I have been milling over a few diffrent ideas, such as saw mill, cold storage, basic warehouse, team track, Nameless manufacturing plant. But then it Hit me, the area I am modeling was Known for Sandstone untill Concrere really took foot, so why not that? The plan now is going to be a really basic loading point for sandstone blocks. I have pictures that show that they did haul out Sandstone blocks by Flatcar, gondola, and bulkhead flat car. I know this is a really specific industry, but I don't think I have ever seen it before, and I have refrence pictures on how they did it in the early 1900's I think I can find a way to adapt it to the 1950's. and with the backdrop being fairly close to the scene, I can do a flat releif carved away hill, leaving me more room for the scene. this, and the module with the Bridge and ravine will be built to TTrack standards, so, In theroy, they could be used.