Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
ModelsRailroadsRockets
Radio Controlled
Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater Models
ModelGeeks.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Model Forum / General / Railroads / May 2004



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Would have, should have...

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Mark Mathu - 08 May 2004 23:17 GMT
If you had the chance to start your current layout all over again, what would
you do differently?

This isn't so much a question about your choice of scale, prototype or era;
rather it's more about the mechanics of building the layout.

What would you have done differently?
 - Backdrop or scenic dividers?
 - More thought to layout lighting?
 - Broader curves and less aisle width?
 - Sharper curves and more aisle width?
 - Steeper grades? Gentler grades?
 - Staging tracks?
 - Simpler track work?  More complex track work?
 - Turnout size?
 - Table top construction?  L-girder construction?
 - Access holes?

Signature

Mark
The Green Bay Route: http://www.greenbayroute.com/
"I started out with nothing and I still have most of it."

Brian Paul Ehni - 09 May 2004 00:28 GMT
On 5/8/04 5:17 PM, in article B%cnc.41958$u_4.21256@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com,

> If you had the chance to start your current layout all over again, what would
> you do differently?
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> - Table top construction?  L-girder construction?
> - Access holes?

As it happens, I'm right in this process. I was going to do a loop to loop
with staging at each end, but after running on the Utah, Colorado & Western
last year, I have had to rethink my plan.

I will now be building a double deck with dual helixes and a hidden staging
yard on the top deck.

All else will remain pretty much as I originally planned: 36" minimum
mainline radius, code 83, DCC, L-girder, single track.
Signature

Brian Ehni

Mark Mathu - 09 May 2004 22:48 GMT
> As it happens, I'm right in this process. I was going to do a loop to loop
> with staging at each end, but after running on the Utah, Colorado & Western
> last year, I have had to rethink my plan.

Yes, I'm thinking of reworking part of my layout.  I thought it might be good
to hear from other modelers what they would have done different, to see what
sort of things I should consider as I work out a new plan.

> I will now be building a double deck with dual helixes and a hidden staging
> yard on the top deck.

Is that two separate helixes, or a single helix that incorporates two
different tracks?

Signature

Mark
The Green Bay Route: http://www.greenbayroute.com/
"I started out with nothing and I still have most of it."

Alan Gilchrist - 09 May 2004 22:08 GMT
> If you had the chance to start your current layout all over again, what would
> you do differently?

 I'm not starting over, but it's close...

> This isn't so much a question about your choice of scale, prototype or era;
> rather it's more about the mechanics of building the layout.
>
> What would you have done differently?
>   - Backdrop or scenic dividers?

 Masonite backdrop painted with oil colors, based on the old Bob Ross
painting series, you can order the TV series from their website.

>   - More thought to layout lighting?

 Either 3000K or 5000K fluorescent, double tube.

>   - Broader curves and less aisle width?
>   - Sharper curves and more aisle width?
>   - Steeper grades? Gentler grades?

 Basically 27" radius mainline at 2% or less.

>   - Staging tracks?

 6 track staging yard under main shelf.

>   - Table top construction?  L-girder construction?

 I'm trying a new method of benchwork that was recently described in
MR, HD shelf uprights and brackets are being used to support the
benchwork, NO LEGS !!, 48" upright has enough room on it for layout
shelf, staging yard shelf and two storage shelf.

>   - Access holes?

 Around the room with workbench in the middle, the workbench also
serves as a view block.
Matt Furze - 09 May 2004 23:13 GMT
I too am in the process of tearing down the old to build new.
> >   - Backdrop or scenic dividers?
>
>   Masonite backdrop painted with oil colors, based on the old Bob Ross
> painting series, you can order the TV series from their website.

That I'll do the way I did the first time - acrylics on sheetrock after the
base sky coat.  Bob Ross' techniques work every bit as well with acrylics.
Too, unless you use 2-3 coats of sealer, the Masonite has oils in it which
will seep through.  I have coved corners made of Masonite, and had a devil
of a time sealing them before painting the sky color on them.

30" minimum mainline R as before, but wider aisles.  Max 2.1% grade in the
helix, otherwise minimal grades.
The only hidden track other than the helix (which I may leave open on one
side...) would be in short tunnels.  NO hidden staging (been there, done
that, no thank you!)

Around the walls shelf, double deck.

Matt
> > If you had the chance to start your current layout all over again, what would
> > you do differently?
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>   Around the room with workbench in the middle, the workbench also
> serves as a view block.
Mark Mathu - 13 May 2004 04:18 GMT
> Too, unless you use 2-3 coats of sealer, the Masonite has oils in it which
> will seep through.  I have coved corners made of Masonite, and had a devil
> of a time sealing them before painting the sky color on them.

Coved in two dimensions, or just rounded in the corners?  Wjhat did you use
to seal it, and what made sealing it so difficult?

Signature

Mark

Matt Furze - 14 May 2004 01:57 GMT
Rounded corners, with sheetrock mud smoothed in place between the edge of
the masonite and the sheetrock.  Been 14 years or so since I did it, so I
don't recall the exact product I used to seal the masonite, but it was
designed to do just that.  Biggest problem was the number of coats it took
to really do the job.  Like others, I was anxious to keep moving, and ended
up having to come back and apply that third coat later.  As I recall, the
instructions on the can said 1-2 coats, and 2 coats simply wasn't enough.

Matt

> > Too, unless you use 2-3 coats of sealer, the Masonite has oils in it which
> > will seep through.  I have coved corners made of Masonite, and had a devil
> > of a time sealing them before painting the sky color on them.
>
> Coved in two dimensions, or just rounded in the corners?  Wjhat did you use
> to seal it, and what made sealing it so difficult?
Mark Mathu - 13 May 2004 04:16 GMT
>>   - More thought to layout lighting?
>
>   Either 3000K or 5000K fluorescent, double tube.

What do you use for lighting on your layout now?
Paul Newhouse - 09 May 2004 23:25 GMT
> If you had the chance to start your current layout all over again, what would
> you do differently?
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>   - Table top construction?  L-girder construction?
>   - Access holes?


Buy the smaller house with the large out building
Start sooner.

Paul
Signature

Working the Rockie Road of the G&PX

Jim Bernier - 10 May 2004 01:52 GMT
 OK, I would do the following:

o - Finish the room first(did not have the money at the time)

o - Use at least 30" radius curves(HO).

o - Have more that 4 train length staging tracks.

 The rest of the layout design is still very good, and operates fine with 4 axle
GP's and 10 car trains of 40' freight cars(Milw branchline).

 After 17 years, I am thinking of  tearing down the railroad and building a new
one in the same space(same theme):

o - Room will be completely finished off.  Lighting valances will be done
    this time.  Some kink of carpeting(concrete get 'old' on the feet
    after operating for 2-3 hours.).
o - Benchwork used L girders attached to 2X2 framed gussets bolted
    to the walls(no legs - real nice).  I will add a new section(penisula)
    that sticks out 14' to provide extra mainline on two faces.  This will
    be built on a shelf/drawer base for storage.

o - Fascia - Same 1/8' masonite, but since I am now 100% DCC, the 3
    large 'panels' will be replaced by 'counter-sunk' waybill boxes, and
    cup holders.

o - Track - Code 83 with minimum 30" radius curves, and at least 8-10
    through staging tracks.

o - Staging tracks will use 'Tortoise' switch motors(twin coil are a just a
    maintenace issue).

Jim Bernier

> If you had the chance to start your current layout all over again, what would
> you do differently?
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> The Green Bay Route: http://www.greenbayroute.com/
> "I started out with nothing and I still have most of it."
Kent Ashton - 11 May 2004 23:20 GMT
>If you had the chance to start your current layout all over again, what would
>you do differently?

1) prep the walls. I am using a spare bedroom in the basement.
Unfi\ortunately, the former owner finished the walls with a stipple
texture. I really should have taken the time to scrape that off the
walls and smooth out my "sky"

2) upgrade the wiring. There are only 2 outlets in the room, and they
are (of course) in exactly the wrong place.

Both are the result of being too eager to get some trains running.

Kent
Signature


Kent Ashton                | http://members.shaw.ca/kjashton    -personal
kjashton@shaw.caNADA        
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada | http://members.shaw.ca/TheRenegades -model rail

Mark Mathu - 13 May 2004 04:21 GMT
> Both are the result of being too eager to get some trains running.

I think most of us have been in that situation.

Signature

Mark

Bleu Raeder - 14 May 2004 17:25 GMT
>From: Kent Ashton kjashton@shaw.caNADA

>>If you had the chance to start your current layout all over again, what
>would
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>texture. I really should have taken the time to scrape that off the
>walls and smooth out my "sky"

What and miss the chance to model a snowfall or hail storm ? :-)

The OTHER   Mike
Dan Merkel - 12 May 2004 16:55 GMT
Thanks for posing such an interesting question.  Building a layout must be a
lot like buikding a house... you need to do two of them to correct the
mistakes you made in the first one!

Let's make one assumption and that is that one would work in the same area,
room, basement, garage, whatever.  If you had more space available, then
these points become meaningless.  I think the whole thing boils down to
curve radius.  That seems to drive everything else.  I think I would go with
sharper curves.  While I realize that some of you would not do this, sharper
curves gives one several advantages.  You can get more track in a given
space.  Or, you can have wider aisles.  Raising the track height minimizes
the "sharpness" of the curves.

Given thess, I'd have a two or even three-track main.  This would allow me
to run several trains simultaneously in different directions without
watching them.  I'd increase switching opportunities but not have a huge
yard.  That part of the hobby doesn't interest me.

I'd use some scenic dividers to minimize the effect of trains going down
opposite sides of peninsulas.

I'm currently using trac lighting in the layout room.  It is ideal as one
can adjust the angle & direction of the fixtures to get the desired results
that they want.

I'd have even more staging tracks... perhaps in two different areas.

And I'd eliminate that one location (every layout has one) where you simply
can't get to no matter what you do.  I have a switch in a corner that is
just beyond reach from a one foot wide access area.  I have to stand on a
platform, sideways, and lean sideways to work on it.  Of course, that one is
the king of derailments!
: (

I'll eventually use DCC but I'm not far enough along yet to do that.

dlm

> If you had the chance to start your current layout all over again, what would
> you do differently?
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>   - Table top construction?  L-girder construction?
>   - Access holes?
Corelane - 12 May 2004 21:52 GMT
>>Building a layout must be a lot like buikding a house... you need to do two
of them to correct the mistakes you made in the first one!

Like the Sheryl Crow song, my last layout was "my favorite mistake".  Until the
next one, that is.  :)

...Bill
Mark Mathu - 13 May 2004 04:14 GMT
> Let's make one assumption and that is that one would work in the same area,
> room, basement, garage, whatever.

Yes, I should have been more clear -- use that assumption.

> I think I would go with sharper curves.  While I realize that some of
> you would not do this, sharper curves gives one several advantages.
> You can get more track in a given space.  Or, you can have wider
> aisles.

Dan, what radius curves, aisle widths, and type of equipment do you have?
That is exactly one of the things I am thinking about as I rework part of my
layout.  Right now I have 24 3/8" min. radius (22" on sidings on the inside
of curves) and about 2' wide aisles, thanks to the space I have available and
my desire to work a center peninsula into the plan.  But I am thinking about
going to 22" radius to gain a few inches in the aisles.  I use 4-axle diesels
and 50' maximum freight cars (although a single six-axle 60' business car is
not out of the question in the future).

> I'm currently using trac lighting in the layout room.  It is ideal as one
> can adjust the angle & direction of the fixtures to get the desired results
> that they want.

What sort of ceiling height do you have?  Have you noticed a problem with
heat build-up?  Do you use lighting valances?

> And I'd eliminate that one location (every layout has one) where you simply
> can't get to no matter what you do.  I have a switch in a corner that is
> just beyond reach from a one foot wide access area.  I have to stand on a
> platform, sideways, and lean sideways to work on it.  Of course, that one
> is the king of derailments!

Yes, that can't be emphasized enough.

Signature

Mark

Dan Merkel - 14 May 2004 20:24 GMT
> > Let's make one assumption and that is that one would work in the same area,
> > room, basement, garage, whatever.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> and 50' maximum freight cars (although a single six-axle 60' business car is
> not out of the question in the future).

Mine is designed with 30" curves & no. 6 switches.  I fell victim to that,
"It will look more realistic" line.  But like I said, if one is viewing the
layout more from the side than from above, it does tend to make that less
noticeable.

I'm running transition era equipment... with some Athearn passenger cars
being my biggest equipment.

> > I'm currently using trac lighting in the layout room.  It is ideal as one
> > can adjust the angle & direction of the fixtures to get the desired results
> > that they want.
>
> What sort of ceiling height do you have?  Have you noticed a problem with
> heat build-up?  Do you use lighting valances?

The ceiling is just under eight feet.  No real heat build-up, but the area
is well air conditioned.  No, I don't use valances partially because I
didn't want a lot of repairing to do if I ever decided that the room would
make a better family room or something else.  The layout is free-standing
and there are no backdrops or anything painte on the walls.

Take a look at...

http://www.bright.net/~dmerkel/layout.htm

dlm
Lynn Caron - 15 May 2004 06:30 GMT
>  I think the whole thing boils down to
> curve radius.  That seems to drive everything else.  I think I would go with
> sharper curves.  While I realize that some of you would not do this, sharper
> curves gives one several advantages.  You can get more track in a given
> space.  Or, you can have wider aisles.  Raising the track height minimizes
> the "sharpness" of the curves.

Is the thing driving the change in curve sharpness *primarily* to
achieve a more realistic look or is performance a bigger issue?
Or in other words you feel that you could have achieved more track in
the space or wider aisles and still looked realistic with no
depreciation in performance.
Corelane - 17 May 2004 02:32 GMT
>>http://www.bright.net/~dmerkel/layout.htm

Nice work Dan.
...Bill
Dan Merkel - 18 May 2004 13:53 GMT
> Is the thing driving the change in curve sharpness *primarily* to
> achieve a more realistic look or is performance a bigger issue?
> Or in other words you feel that you could have achieved more track in
> the space or wider aisles and still looked realistic with no
> depreciation in performance.

I said in another thread that this whole hobby is a matter of trade-offs.  I
think John Armstrong used the phrase, "Givens & Druthers."  For the sake of
ths discussion, "givens" refers to fixed things that aren't easily
changed... walls, doorways, etc.  "Druthers" are our ideal circumstances;
curve radius, aisle widths and turnout sizes, for example.  From there, one
simply decides how much they can bend based on the physical circumstances.

Having said that... I had a switching layout that actually used 15" radius
track.  I ran small locos and nothing any longer than 40' on it.  The few
problems that I had were simply equipment related instead of trackwork.  So,
I think that one could cut back to 26" or even 24" and still not have an
adverse affect on performance provided that your equipment is up to snuff.
Again with the raised trackwork, the sharpness of the curves would be
minimized from the viewing angle.

So, to answer the question, yes, I feel that I could have gotten more track
in the given space AND wider aisles without affecting the overall layout
performance.  Both wider aisles and more track would have been desireable in
hindsight.

dlm
Terry Flynn - 28 May 2004 04:43 GMT
> > Is the thing driving the change in curve sharpness *primarily* to
> > achieve a more realistic look or is performance a bigger issue?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> I said in another thread that this whole hobby is a matter of trade-offs.

I agree, but curve sharpness does directly relate to both a realistic look
and performance.  I have been using 900mm minimum radius on the last 2
layouts I have built, and would not consider a sharper radius for the
prototype I model. I think the NMRA RP 11 on the subject is about right. If
I
was going to change anything, it would be to chosen a better location for my
layout, a dry air-conditioned fully lined room. Also if starting again I
would make the baseboards modular, so major bits it could be moved if
necessary.

> think John Armstrong used the phrase, "Givens & Druthers."  For the sake of
> ths discussion, "givens" refers to fixed things that aren't easily
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> dlm

Terry Flynn

For HO scale track standards go to
http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html
also includes details of HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort
estimates
Mark Mathu - 28 May 2004 06:45 GMT
> If I was going to change anything, it would be to chosen a better location
> for my layout, a dry air-conditioned fully lined room. Also if starting
> again I would make the baseboards modular, so major bits it could be
> moved if necessary.

Thanks, Terry.
Portability seems like a recurring theme.
Greg - 14 May 2004 13:49 GMT
I think I might have done N scale rather than HO, but don't feel that
strongly about it.

Greg

> If you had the chance to start your current layout all over again, what would
> you do differently?
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>   - Table top construction?  L-girder construction?
>   - Access holes?
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.