Need a little advice from the pros...

[Seanem44]

I have track, I have stock, I have space.  I'm building a nice 9 arch viaduct.

 

Now I just need to buy points and settle on a plan.

 

The layout will be approx 14 ft by 2.5-3ft.

 

So here is the dilemma.  Do I go with the Long Marton-esque layout I have had sitting around, or do I go with something more simple like Ormside.  Little Salkeld would be kind of in the middle of complexity.

 

Here is why I am having the dilemma.  I don't plan on showing this layout.  Its for my pleasure only.  I don't plan on motorizing the turnouts, and will likely manually operate them.  This is a tail chaser to watch trains go by.  Minimal switching. 

 

Something like Long Marton adds operational interest and allows me to plant my lovely S&C goods shed.  But it also adds wiring and track laying complexity with single and double slips.

 

Ormside is somewhat boring, with just an up and down layby with a small loading dock (that I might not even be able to fit) but it also allows me to easily lay track and I might not get as discouraged.

 

I only planned on one siding per line in the fiddle yard, so with juggling, there could be a max of 6 trains on the layout.  Fine by me.

 

Is this a waste of such a large space for an N Guage layout?

 

Should I just buy a hollow core door and feature the Viaduct on one side, some Ais Gill type sidings on the other and use the 14 foot space along the wall for all the OO stock I have sitting around?

 

I have all these grand ideas, but indecision is paralyzing my ability to build anything and I stay in a perpetual state of planning.

 

It's frustrating.  Just this feeling of not wanting to screw up or build something I am not happy with.

Edited March 15, 2018 by Seanem44

[Physicsman]

Hi Sean.

 

No doubt there'll be some feedback to your question in due course. I'll have a think, myself, later.

 

However, this section was set up for existing LAYOUTS only. I don't want it cluttered with questions and discussion. You can do that WITHIN your own, existing, thread OR in the adjacent "Settle and Carlisle" route section - there are many such requests for information/advice in there.

 

I will ask one of the moderators to move this thread into the S&C Route section (Special Interests - S&C Route).

 

Best of luck with progress.

 

Jeff

[Seanem44]

Hi Sean.

 

No doubt there'll be some feedback to your question in due course. I'll have a think, myself, later.

 

However, this section was set up for existing LAYOUTS only. I don't want it cluttered with questions and discussion. You can do that WITHIN your own, existing, thread OR in the adjacent "Settle and Carlisle" route section - there are many such requests for information/advice in there.

 

I will ask one of the moderators to move this thread into the S&C Route section (Special Interests - S&C Route).

 

Best of luck with progress.

 

Jeff

Thanks, and sorry.  Trying to figure out the right place for a post can be a challenge for me apparently.

[Physicsman]

Just trying to keep layouts and the rest separate.

 

I hope you get the advice you need.

 

J.

[Physicsman]

OK, here's my opinion on your dilemma.

 

What you do depends on what you want from your layout. When the scenic section and buildings for Kirkby Luneside (based on Kirkby Stephen) are finished, I'll be converting my fiddle yard into Cumwhinton. The reason? I want an excuse to do more scratch building and scenics. The Cumwhinton set-up does have the standard S&C single slip, but I'm not too bothered with track complexity.

 

So if you are more bothered with creating a nice looking, scenic layout and not too bothered about operation, then go for the simpler option.

 

If you are having a goods shed, it's likely you'll have a single slip anyway, though the goods loop can be done with standard turnouts. If you want operational interest, don't shy away from slips. They are a fiddle, but no real problem.

 

So it's a question of what you want. Personally, I'd go for the more complex arrangement. It gives you more options and you don't want to regret things later.

 

I laid KL2 in 00, but ripped it up a year later and converted it to EM. I should have done that from the start, and listened to my gut feeling, rather than regretting it later.

 

Sean, the good thing is that you are doing a lot of thinking about things - one of the best parts of modelling!!

 

Jeff

[Seanem44]

OK, here's my opinion on your dilemma.

 

What you do depends on what you want from your layout. When the scenic section and buildings for Kirkby Luneside (based on Kirkby Stephen) are finished, I'll be converting my fiddle yard into Cumwhinton. The reason? I want an excuse to do more scratch building and scenics. The Cumwhinton set-up does have the standard S&C single slip, but I'm not too bothered with track complexity.

 

So if you are more bothered with creating a nice looking, scenic layout and not too bothered about operation, then go for the simpler option.

 

If you are having a goods shed, it's likely you'll have a single slip anyway, though the goods loop can be done with standard turnouts. If you want operational interest, don't shy away from slips. They are a fiddle, but no real problem.

 

So it's a question of what you want. Personally, I'd go for the more complex arrangement. It gives you more options and you don't want to regret things later.

 

I laid KL2 in 00, but ripped it up a year later and converted it to EM. I should have done that from the start, and listened to my gut feeling, rather than regretting it later.

 

Sean, the good thing is that you are doing a lot of thinking about things - one of the best parts of modelling!!

 

Jeff

Thanks for your help!  I am leaning towards the Long Morton layout.  It will add visual interest and I'll just need to take extra care with the slips.  This project will take time anyways, so whats a little more?