Conrail up in Coal Country

[davefoxx]

Without touching the third rail of the benefits of around the wall design, you could also consider using narrower doors...

I think the problem, if any, is length, not girth.  (TWSS!)

DFF

[Dave V]

Again I find myself bewildered by the incessant need to badger someone to change his plan after he's committed to it...   

Just let him build the thing and enjoy it.  It's not like Ed's never built a layout before.

[davefoxx]

I'm sorry, but don't we post to our threads looking for constructive criticism?  I agree with you to a certain point that once something's built, it usually is pointless to tell them to tear it all down and build over again.  But, comments during construction can be helpful.  I know I have revised construction due to points being raised in my thread.  The curved trestle on the Seaboard Central 2.0 is a perfect example.  I skewed that bridge at the recommendations of 's.  Much better end result.  So, constructive criticism is the number one reason that I post to my layout's thread.  I thought TRW was about better modeling through peer pressure.  Otherwise, this just becomes a forum of attaboys.  No thanks.  Maybe I just don't understand where the line is crossed.

DFF

[Chris333]

Ed is using wood, so that alone is a step up 

[Dave V]

I'm sorry, but don't we post to our threads looking for constructive criticism?  I agree with you to a certain point that once something's built, it usually is pointless to tell them to tear it all down and build over again.  But, comments during construction can be helpful.  I know I have revised construction due to points being raised in my thread.  The curved trestle on the Seaboard Central 2.0 is a perfect example.  I skewed that bridge at the recommendations of 's.  Much better end result.  So, constructive criticism is the number one reason that I post to my layout's thread.  I thought TRW was about better modeling through peer pressure.  Otherwise, this just becomes a forum of attaboys.  No thanks.  Maybe I just don't understand where the line is crossed.

DFF

I think Ed entertained all the feedback he cared to and then committed.  I don't understand the need to drag him backward to start over again.

Constructive criticism becomes destructive criticism--IMHO--when it becomes compulsive, which is what this has become.  It went from helping him do it better to essentially insisting he change stuff for the sake of changing stuff.  He knows his space and his comfort with it.  He's considered plenty of feedback (including mine) up to this point and has determined which feedback he wants to take.  I feel like now we're pulling things out of the air just to stymie him.  Suggesting narrowing the doors or buying narrower ones, for example, is counterproductive in a number of ways, to say nothing of compromising his ability to run six-axle RDG units on realistic curves when he gets to that stage.

As for your bridge, were you not explicitly seeking inputs?  That's how I interpreted it.

Sometimes a guy just wants to share what he's done because he's excited and proud. It becomes awfully demotivating if every time he does so it's met with reasons he should start all over again.

But forget it.  Again, I'm clearly a square peg in a round hole these days.  Ed's a big boy who can stand up for himself.  I just hate to see a guy have the rug pulled put from under him at every turn when he's in that giddy new construction phase.  We don't know his new space the way he does and we don't share that same mental vision he has.

I remember in my construction thread on the RGS.  There was a photograph of the future space.  I suddenly got warnings about the window wells and window well covers from people who'd never lived--let alone built a house--in Colorado, could not see the drainage system, did not know the local construction code, or really anything about the grading of the lot.  I went with a top builder with a long record of excellence in this area.  But train guys thought they knew better.  For the record I've had more than a foot of snow in those wells and not a single drop has intruded into the house.  that's the kind of "criticism for the sake of criticism" of which I'm not a fan.

I apologize in advance if I hurt anyone's feelings....but I also don't want to lie about how I feel either.

[Dave V]

Again, I'm seeing that I'm the problem, that I no longer fit...so forget I said anything and enjoy the thread.  Move along, nothing to see here.

I will be resigning from moderator duties immediately.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I do actually appreciate the input, especially @Chris333's continued trolling. I'm not concerned about that, though, because I don't believe he's actually a human.

My biggest concern is that, over time, this thread will be too filled with deconstructive criticism which will drown out actual useful discussion.

So Lee, f*&^ off with the comment about narrower doors. But @davefoxx your point IS taken.

Anyway, based on my OWN experience with it now that it's all standing in the space (hence the reason I like to let things breathe sometimes) is that while the aisles are fine, lopping off the areas shown in pink on the drawing will actually make the space itself more comfortable feeling.

The aisles along the walls feel fine, especially when I can move the whole thing "down" a bit with the end of the long peninsula chopped off. I think I'll be firing up the Sawzall tonight (I know, again, there are BETTER ways to do it, but as AvE says, ya piss with the cock you're given).

Close followers will ALSO note some other changes to the plan for operational improvement.
1. The Good Spring branch is gone. It would've just been TOO tight to fit in there and make look good. I'd rather have more nothing.
2. I've added some stuff down in the lower left. The one spur inside the loop would be to a truck dump or other hopper loading arrangement. The one outside would be a "mine supply" company. Basically an unloading spot for hoppers of ANFO.
3. I added a dedicated lead for the end of Cressona (I still haven't figured out directions yet, lol). This will keep the yard crew out of a crew working St Nick's hair and will help emphasize the supposed distance between them. The connecting track there will be sceniced to look like many of the "we don't go up there that much" tracks. I'm also thinking I might find a way to work Keith Bednar's station into that scene too (http://conrailphotos.thecrhs.org/Images/CR-9628-Brings-a-Flanger-Through-East-Mahanoy-Jct).

Here's the latest plan:


And lastly....

Just Fuckin Run Trains Man.

If this layout lasts me 3 years, I'll be happy with it.

[chicken45]

Have you considered a narrower door?













jk congrats on taking the plunge

[DeltaBravo]

Have you considered a narrower door?   you bugger













jk congrats on taking the plunge

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Oh, I know there was a question before about foam.

My plan is to first draw out the track plan 1:1 onto the surfaces present here. Then start building up the contours using 1" and .5" foam. Why those instead of 2"?

Because I've learned from past experience that carving 2" foam can be a pain when you want to get gentle contours. It's a LOT easier to do it in thinner stock.

[CRL]

Oh, I know there was a question before about foam.

My plan is to first draw out the track plan 1:1 onto the surfaces present here. Then start building up the contours using 1" and .5" foam. Why those instead of 2"?

Because I've learned from past experience that carving 2" foam can be a pain when you want to get gentle contours. It's a LOT easier to do it in thinner stock.

I know most modelers posting on RW seem to use the more structural blue or pink foam. I’ve used blue foam in the past, but it is a royal pain in the butt to carve. Years ago, I converted to using white beadboard styrofoam unless I have a specific structural reason for using blue foam. The white beadboard is readily available in 2’ X 4’ sheets in a variety of thicknesses (I like using 1-1/2”) and is also cheaper. It’s much easier to carve (keep the shop vac close) using hot wire or cold knives. Final shaping is best done with a small wire brush, being sure to break the bead surfaces so the beads don’t show through. This leaves a “fuzzy” surface that gives a good tooth for paint, paper mache’, plaster, sculptamold, etc. It provides plenty of support for track and doesn’t seem to shrink as much as blue foam. I put a minimum 1-1/2” base layer down, which is about 20 n-scale feet, and lay track or cork roadbed directly on top.

If you want to carve or emboss the foam directly to look like rock, by all means use blue foam, but if you’re going to cover the foam with some other material, the white beadboard works great.

Have fun with your project. If you think unsolicited advice is out of control building a layout, you should try building a boat and watch it get really nuts.

[Point353]

Oh, I know there was a question before about foam.
My plan is to first draw out the track plan 1:1 onto the surfaces present here. Then start building up the contours using 1" and .5" foam. Why those instead of 2"?
Because I've learned from past experience that carving 2" foam can be a pain when you want to get gentle contours. It's a LOT easier to do it in thinner stock.

Have you tried using a Stanley surform shaver tool?
https://www.stanleytools.com/products/hand-tools/demolition-tools/files-surform/714-in-surform-shaver/21-115

[Dave V]

Cool now that I'm no longer a mod, I can tell you MF-ers what I really think about you!

Just kidding.

Listen, I'm juts one voice of many.  And maybe it's having spent so many years as a commander and instructor that I've grown more toward the nurturing side than the critical.  When I was first "called up" to the Railwire I found the blunt and unapologetic criticism at first jarring, but eventually refreshing.

I give Ed plenty of crap offline about this project too.  But in the end I'm just super-stoked that the King of Mid Atlantic Winter Scenery--and a good friend--is building another layout.  And you just know regardless of how sturdy the benchwork is or how wide the aisles are, it's gonna look amazing.  I just don't want to see anything hold him back, least of all second-guessing all the work he just did.

I'm relieved to no longe have to speak through the perspective of a moderator and not as my own person.  That's a harder thing to do than many realize.

Carry on.

[Chris333]

Hey I'm just kidding    Just happy to see progress.

I'd be running Conrail steam locos anyways. 

FWIW I just ran downstairs to measure how far inset my L-girders were... turns out they are 2x4's as are the legs 
I have concrete screws going into the basement floor to hold it all in place. But my 2x4 girders are inset about 7" from the edge.

And about around the walls. I remember those photos along the backdrop of the old layout, you gonna put a backdrop down the center of this one?

[OldEastRR]

I join with the others to say take care in aisle widths. One thing that many guys don't take into consideration that over time an aisle will never get wider, but there's a good chance THEY will. Your idea of configuring the tables and trying out the aisle widths is a great idea. For us guys who build a layout on an open frame we don't get the luxury of rearranging the whole design if we find an access problem during construction.
Set up the doors and then try moving through the aisleways forward, sideways, backwards, and also stretching over the layout to reach the back. My layout sits in the corner of my big living room so two sides have infinite clearance, and the back aisle is 36". But at one end the layout is only 18" from the wall. That end is rounded a full half circle (track's an end loop) tho, so the pinch point is very short. Still when I walk normally through that space to get to the cabs one shoulder brushes the wall and the other the fascia.
So if it comes to cramming in a bit more layout into the space versus leaving an aisle wider, I advice the latter.
BTW, I have an island layout (tho one end is butted against a wall) but I liked the around the wall concept. Just having a narrow slice of RR scene meant smaller areas to scenic, being close to the trains, and not having to try to scenically blend a whole flat space crammed with track and supposedly different locales into one improbable single vista. So I built "around the wall" construction onto an island. One side of the layout (well at least half) has a small town scene with switching and backdrop, the other side of the layout is a dense industrial district with lots of switching, a complex track junction and a different backdrop, while in between there's an operator's pit, double track main and a light industrial area behind the first backdrop. Between the first two scenes is a rural junkyard. To try to blend a small town into a dense industrial area into a rural scene into a light industrial area would have been ridiculously impossible.
The other half of the layout is "island layout scenery" but all the separate scenes end at the same river that crosses through all of them, and beyond the river a heavily forested area that fits with all scenes.