If you don't already have it.....

[shortliner]

.....can I recommend the latest Kalmbach ( Model Railroader) special " How to build more layout in less space". In particular there is an article by Lance Mindheim which suggests that a railroad has the potential for far more industrries than are actually modelled, there are articles on building Helixes (Helices?), and Multi-deck layouts Train Elevators, access gates and modelling a town, and scenery for shelf layouts. All in all, one of the better issues - and yes- I guess it ought really to be in the Media section, but since it will be of rather limited(dark-side-only) interest, I thought that it might be better in here. If Andy or the Mods think it would be better there, please move it.

[sunshine coast]

Yes Jack ,

I picked up a copy last week while on holiday,some very clever ideas and some simple ones that make you go "DOH!" why did I not think of that .....

 

also links in well with your other link of today ... re alternative layout design ..LAYOUT

 

Regards Trevor ...

[alcoRS1]

It is a good article, I sent a email to Kalmbach, because at the end of Lances article it has an online link, that does not exist, I am not too impressed with Kalmbach, they seem to be more money than people focus.

 

I how ever do recommend this issue, it is really worth it, it part of "How to Build a Realistic Layout" this one is no. 8.

 

 

[halfwit]

Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention, I would probably have missed it otherwise despite it appearing in my local Smiffs.

Plenty of food for thought in there. The Lance Mindheim article was particulary interesting. I just wish that I had the space problems that our American cousins face!

Recommended.

[Barry Ten]

It's a very enjoyable read. The trend, as far as I can work out, is for North American modellers to have to work with less space than they used to be able to take for granted (houses not being built with big cellars, and so on) so they are getting more interested in smaller layouts and space-efficient designs.

[alcoRS1]

It's a very enjoyable read. The trend, as far as I can work out, is for North American modellers to have to work with less space than they used to be able to take for granted (houses not being built with big cellars, and so on) so they are getting more interested in smaller layouts and space-efficient designs.

 

it is not so much the space, the hobby is moving closer to prototypical and roundy roundy are just not that interesting.

 

I live in a small house US standard at 1700 sq ft, not including my double car garage at 20ft x 20ft, my home nearly is twice the size as my parents 5 bedroom in Macclesfield. I have reduced the size of my layout from 14ft x 10ft to 14ft x 7ft, shelf layouts are becoming more and more popular, this is just my view on what I see happening here.

[Jon Grant 4472]

Got mine - canny read.

 

Not sure if the majority of Americans are ready for anything other than an 8x4 roundy roundy, cram as much trackwork in as possible and run straight-from-the box

 

Small shelf layouts and detailled individual layouts from the likes of Paul Dolkas, Lance Mindheim, Wolfgang Dudler and Tom Johnson currntly seem to be the exception rather than the norm.

 

More scope for us, mayhaps

 

Jon

[shortliner]

I think the Lance Mindheim article gives some insights into operations that whist obvious when pointed out, are not the sort of things that people on this side of the pond would ever think of. There are two people who are having some thoughts at the moment, partly as a result of that article!

[alcoRS1]

Got mine - canny read.

 

Not sure if the majority of Americans are ready for anything other than an 8x4 roundy roundy, cram as much trackwork in as possible and run straight-from-the box

 

Small shelf layouts and detailled individual layouts from the likes of Paul Dolkas, Lance Mindheim, Wolfgang Dudler and Tom Johnson currntly seem to be the exception rather than the norm.

 

More scope for us, mayhaps

 

Jon

 

maybe my vision has been clouded by you guys, it was Tony, with that signal box he did for Widness, and Jons QSI S1 that lead me to join this forum, then Shortliner has been educating me. The first layout I really went wow, was Mike Confalones, NE layout. Then I came across Lance Mindheim but I found this German guy on Big-Blue Kurt with his NW 58th St., Miami layout, very inspiring stuff.

[Jon Grant 4472]

The NYC S1 came out at Manchester, much to the chagrin of 'Banjo' John Wright - I see a photo of Federal St was in Ian Rice's article.

 

Jack, count me in as another following Lance's lead. 6 of the 7 sidings on Sweethome Alabama can be used as team tracks

 

Jon

[RhBBob]

it is not so much the space, the hobby is moving closer to prototypical and roundy roundy are just not that interesting.

 

I live in a small house US standard at 1700 sq ft, not including my double car garage at 20ft x 20ft, my home nearly is twice the size as my parents 5 bedroom in Macclesfield. I have reduced the size of my layout from 14ft x 10ft to 14ft x 7ft, shelf layouts are becoming more and more popular, this is just my view on what I see happening here.

 

I do tend to agree with this; for years we were told this myth that the public want to 'see things moving' but with an 18ft by 8 ft roundy-roundy and only 12 ft of viewing frontage, most visitors seem to spend all their time looking at the fiddle yard and the semi-circle at each end. Given the time taken for the single track mainline to produce a train from the fiddle yard, perhaps my next effort, a 15 ft by 2 ft enclosed space will better satisfy this need for 'constant' viewing potential. A powered loading facility, for instance, whether coal or ore, can produce as much interest as the sight of the same train returning to the front to pass by, or be stopped, for closer viewing.

 

Doesn't a limitation on space available produce a better layout ?

 

Bob

Coat at the ready.......

[sunshine coast]

"Doesn't a limitation on space available produce a better layout ?

 

Bob

Coat at the ready....... "

 

This statement is something I have realized in the last few months to be quite true,so do not get you coat yet Bob ...

...several years ago I moved into a flat with a very good loft space which gave a uninterrupted layout space of 33' x 10'....... B) , excellent you would think ...at last space for my HO empire ....but strangely enough I have struggled to use that space ..nothing seemed to gel right ...I have tracks around the loft,bits of partly constructed areas and a properly laid out freight yard 20 odd feet long which works well,but still cannot get enthusiasm to do much with it all..

in September I decided to do a small experimental "O" narrow gauge board at work to try out some scenic ideas and hand laid track,ready for a larger project,the thread of which is on ngrm .com ....in a few weeks I went from this ..

48" x 12"

 

 

 

to this

 

 

 

and just to show the US connection ..... ON30

 

 

 

 

because I was constrained by the size of board I was also focused and the build was not only fast but very enjoyable and I think produced a good result ...

 

I also much admire and enjoy Jon Grants' layouts,their composition and again his focus .....they also remind me of a the HO modules I used to build and operate many years ago ...

 

so what is all this ramble about .....well I have decided to pull up a lot of the existing layout/trackwork just keeping the yard area ..and using that to feed to a series of individual scenes/modules linked together but with different themes ...a bit like the Canadian 3 level layout but on one level, if you follow my drift ...that way I hope to focus and achieve, on one concept and area at a time within the physical limits of the "modules".

 

so hopefully I shall get my HO mojo back and start posting some construction threads !!

 

Regards Trevor ..

[trisonic]

 

 

because I was constrained by the size of board I was also focused and the build was not only fast but very enjoyable and I think produced a good result ...

 

I also much admire and enjoy Jon Grants' layouts,their composition and again his focus .....they also remind me of a the HO modules I used to build and operate many years ago ...

 

so what is all this ramble about .....well I have decided to pull up a lot of the existing layout/trackwork just keeping the yard area ..and using that to feed to a series of individual scenes/modules linked together but with different themes ...a bit like the Canadian 3 level layout but on one level, if you follow my drift ...that way I hope to focus and achieve, on one concept and area at a time within the physical limits of the "modules".

 

 

Regards Trevor ..

 

Almost exactly my thoughts too - I have space but don't want to fill it just for the sake of it. I've been thinking of a US servicing yard with the main line going through a series of small modules i.e. Country run/Urban/Yard/ etc., Each module separately framed.

That way I can take my time and model the bits I want to in any order. Hey, this could be the future!

 

Best, Pete.

 

 

 

[298]

I do tend to agree with this; for years we were told this myth that the public want to 'see things moving' but with an 18ft by 8 ft roundy-roundy and only 12 ft of viewing frontage, most visitors seem to spend all their time looking at the fiddle yard and the semi-circle at each end. Given the time taken for the single track mainline to produce a train from the fiddle yard, perhaps my next effort, a 15 ft by 2 ft enclosed space will better satisfy this need for 'constant' viewing potential. A powered loading facility, for instance, whether coal or ore, can produce as much interest as the sight of the same train returning to the front to pass by, or be stopped, for closer viewing.

 

Doesn't a limitation on space available produce a better layout ?

 

Bob

Coat at the ready.......

 

I sometimes think if the public can't be entertained by a loco sat with a cab door open, and the crew nearby playing cards or having lunch, then they might just have some kind of attention defecit disorder, and ought to take up Nitro R/C car racing instead. I think too much of the hobby, and how we expect layouts to be operated is based on first trainset principles when something was constantly rattling round a circle of track, so anything since has to adopt the same basics to be entertaining. Sometimes i'd rather stop operating for 5 minutes to engage in the questions asked by an interested observer, rather than entertain a dozen others who have to see something move or they'll be demanding their money back.

 

My next layout will be as boring as hell to operate, I wanted to build something more prototypical and the area chosen was a wye at the end of the line, with a fruit warehouse on one of the legs and a couple of abandoned spurs. Not quite having the space meant ditching the wye and just having a simple run-round loop, and although I did consider adding an extra weed strewn spur for abandoning a vehicle in, decided against it. The prototype would have only seen one train per day, which is fine for a quick operating session at home, but after a few hours at a show it'll be mind-numingly boring, so it won't be leaving the house much unless exhibition managers can accept the "one train per day" operations...

[shortliner]

I agree in some ways with Andy - the public "expects" to be entertained, and many kids "expect" to see locos drag-racing! However the Layout doesn't HAVE to be circular to keep something moving. Displaying 149th Strret Station at Inverness, showed me that it is possible to keep a loco and cars moving on what is effectively an end to end, and chat to people while operating, despite its small size. If you add in the Locolift cassettes. there is almost 12 linear feet of run, without including the sidings. It was perfectly possible to have switching going on moving cars from the cassettes onto thelayout and pushing them into sidings, pulling other ones out and back to the cassette at something approaching scale speeds, whilst talking to visitors and explaining what I was doing. I did get asked why I didn't have a runround, but explained that since all the sidings are trailing point, (just as in the prototype) no runround moves are required. It does sound boring in the extreme, but it ran for 7 hours on the Saturday, and 6 on the Sunday, and I didn't have time to be bored, and kept a loco and cars moving the whole time on and end to end layout. I also found that many, including kids, were fascinated to see what went on in the cassettes. It may be worth having the fiddle yards on display rather than hidden away.

[shortliner]

maybe my vision has been clouded by you guys, it was Tony, with that signal box he did for Widness, and Jons QSI S1 that lead me to join this forum, then Shortliner has been educating me. The first layout I really went wow, was Mike Confalones, NE layout. Then I came across Lance Mindheim but I found this German guy on Big-Blue Kurt with his NW 58th St., Miami layout, very inspiring stuff.

 

Kurt is now working on Plymouth Street, a railroad inspired by a similar area to 149th Street, the Jay Street Connecting RR in New York http://www.the-gauge...php?f=46&t=3320

[trisonic]

Kurt is now working on Plymouth Street, a railroad inspired by a similar area to 149th Street, the Jay Street Connecting RR in New York http://www.the-gauge...php?f=46&t=3320

 

 

 

Thanks for that link, Jack. how did I miss Kurt before (maybe I didn't; I've had other things on my mind, lately)?

 

Best, Pete.

 

 

[CraigZ]

My space is effectively 28 x 11 feet. A friend suggested an "E" shaped layout with a long middle tongue but my thinking is that's too much. I am not hell bent on track density. I'm planning based on a U shape with return loops at either end for what I call the moving scenery aspect - just to run trains. But the actual layout purpose will be to be operated by 3-4 friends on a sequential schedule with actual purpose to the operations. I love switching and wayfreight operations and that will be the emphasis. But right now, planning

[modelmaker87]

My layout is a large 'M'. The left vertical leg of the M turning into a G, as it were. Where the middle leg joins the other pair the wye is situated and the right leg is the yard. Length top to bottom, the verticals are 15 feet, the width, that would be the top of the M from left to right leg, is 12 feet. There will be a topic covering this in the WFRM club room in 2011.

 

I believe that there is another reason why more and more layout builders in the US are turning toward smaller layouts other than the restrictions of modern house designs with space limitations. So many modelers have been dreaming for years about what they will build when they retire and the boomers are now retiring in droves. Although enjoying their new found 'freedom' not tied to the rat race and all, they also realise that time isn't on their side either anymore, so to get a layout anywhere near to completion a small layout is where its at. Add to this realisation the current models that are now on offer. Gorgeous detail and fidelity to prototype of engines and cars. Now why would you want to place these in a half hearted mess of a layout because its so big you simply don't have time enough to detail it to what is considered current standards and modelling techniques of today.

 

I have espoused this concept of small yet prototypically accurate for almost ever. That you don't have to have a huge pike, and many modelers over here, in particular the guys I hang with who are mostly prototype modelers anyway, are slowly coming round to this concept of prototype layouts and changing their plans accordingly. I've only got to show a few pages of any MRJ and the swooning starts. In addition to all of the reasons posted here, cost plays a huge part in ones life these days and the lack of cash to fund large layouts is also another factor.

 

My 2 cents worth.

 

Cheers, Tony

[shortliner]

Kurts Miami layout is here -

http://www.the-gauge...t=CNW1961#p1506

 

Another Miami Layout http://www.the-gauge...1&hilit=CNW1961 suggestions for another Miami layout

 

I'm sure you guys know of this site, by Peter White, but in case you don't, take a look at http://www.shenware....outs/index.html Really for those who have a room to play with

[signalmaintainer]

Almost exactly my thoughts too - I have space but don't want to fill it just for the sake of it. I've been thinking of a US servicing yard with the main line going through a series of small modules i.e. Country run/Urban/Yard/ etc., Each module separately framed.

That way I can take my time and model the bits I want to in any order. Hey, this could be the future!

 

Best, Pete.

 

 

For decades the vast majority of modelers in the States have been caught up in the false premise that "bigger is better." This philosophy has reached critical mass in the layouts built by the guys (mainly in their retirement years, or close to) enamored with timetable-and-train order operations. I enjoy their layouts, especially operating on them. But modeling T&TO operation with any hope of replicating the prototype is dependent upon lengthy runs between stations and sidings. That means large layouts, a large investment in time and treasure, and the necessity for a large number of people available to make an operating session "fun" and fulfilling.

 

Shelf layouts such as those espoused by Lance Mindheim's and others' (Blair Kooistra's sadly defunct Walla Walla Valley comes readily to mind) have flipped the "bigger is better" paradigm on its ear. "Better is better" with smaller, operation-dense layouts has been regaining popularity for perhaps the past 15-20 years. Ironically enough, it was an idea put forth to Americans by the late John Allen some 50 year ago.

 

However, instead of the popular island-style, roundy-roundy small layout of the 1950s to which John Allen referred, narrow shelf-style, around-the-bedroom-walls layouts are an increasingly popular medium for attaining "better is better."

 

You Brits have "better is better" down to a science, I feel. Combwich, Torrington, Penhydd, Roath, Portchullin Tatty (and many, many other layout seen here) prove my point.

 

So, yes, you might envious of our space; we should be more envious of your collective craftsmanship.

[sunshine coast]

This is turning into a good thought provoking thread .... B)

 

I also think a factor that may be influencing us is the "achievability" of finishing an 8' or 12' x 2'scene and it has physical boundaries so we are not thinking, or more likely procrastinating how it will blend/join into the next area ......

 

and as John says above,more detail (as in fidelity to prototype..not always actual bits and pieces) is really required in the scenes to match the quality and accuracy of modern locos and rolling stock ...

 

so those of us with some space may be better off doing several "achievable" bits and joining them up than trying to do the whole together....

 

Oh well,if nothing else I think this has made my mind up ....so out with the axe and sort out this loft

 

 

Regards Trevor ... :D

[shortliner]

You won't get it sorted playing guitar music, Trev!

Coat on and departing rapidly, stage left!

[sunshine coast]

Just had another thought as I close up the shop .....each of the areas/scenes/modules ...could with a bit of forethought,also be used as stand alone layouts maybe

 

Regards Trevor ...

[sunshine coast]

You won't get it sorted playing guitar music, Trev!

Coat on and departing rapidly, stage left!

 

 

????????? too late in the day for my tired brain Jack ... :D

 

Regards Trevor ..