开云体育

Hey all, I see there are no list archives so does that make me the first poster? Here is my question...Would a segment of a larger layout qualify as a small layout in terms of getting info/feedback on track planning for that area? For example, I am currently planning the large basement layout; if I want feedback and advice on say, design of one town or industrial area, whatever, would that be OK for the list. Good luck with the new list. I just may be considering a really small layout someday, in N or HO, for a room of only 6 foot, 8 inches by 8 foot, 1inch with door in one narrow end. Would probably be double deck, maybe triple (staging?). Due to ongoing medical problems worst case scenario could keep me out of basement or upstairs. The above could end up being my only alternative to a layout - let's hope not! Would like to know it around eventually anyway just for grins. Paul Kossart - Peru, Illinois, USA NMRA, BRHS, La Salle & Bureau County Model Railroad Club Modeling the CB&Q & Illiniwek River Branch in HO - Circa early fall, 1969. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Serving Agriculture and Industry in the Illiniwek River Valley since 1904" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hello everyone, I'd like to start off by thanking Jonathan for starting up this list. I also beleive that there is a definite need to discuss layouts designed for less than commodious spaces. Selective compression takes on a whole new meaning when you're trying to portray your "empire" in less than 12 square feet! As it stands right now, I'm restricted to about 8'x18" inclusive of staging on a shelf in the "train closet". Challenging to say the least. Compare that to Paul's "really" small layout room. One man's trash...:>) I recall reading an article in the Gazette about a micro layout contest, but I don't remember what the definition was. Anybody? Lately, I've been very pleased with the focus in MR and MRP on smaller layout designs and operation. Being a member of the BMRNA, I am heavily influenced by British practice which caters nicely to small space layouts. You see alot of double slips and 3 way points onstage and cassettes, sector plates and traversers in the fiddle yards to save on space. I'm looking forward to discussing anything and everything to do with small layouts! Cheers, Jeff Hatcher Richmond, British Columbia

Thanks Jon, I took a look at your TH&B site. Very nice! I think that your 10'x12'room should give you ample space for the compact switching arrangements of the prototype. What do you envision as a typical "day" on the layout? Having worked in such a restricted space for so long, I can't imagine what I would do if I had more space than that. Panic, I suppose, or build a series of small layouts at the same time to satisfy my various international interests. In my past experience, large spaces lead to grandiose plans that end up as plywood pacifics just before being scrapped. BTW, I found that article in the Sept/Oct'99 Gazette on micro layouts. Although my space wouldn't qualify as a micro, it is still very restricting and requires special attention to maximize enjoyment. You mentioned you would like to see some small layout ideas in a mini article format. Well, here goes: One of the ideas I've been toying with involves a two-in-one style of shelf layout first introduced by Dave Carson in the 1987 Scale Model Trains. Most recently, it has re-appeared in a Model Railways article by Julian Andrews, who has recently made his mark in MR. It's not for everybody, but if you can't decide on any one prototype, and would like an interesting exhibition layout, it might be fun. Here's the concept: You take the shelf and divide it in half. On one half you place the backdrop at the back. On the other half, you place it at the front. You design a simple connecting track plan for the shelf but the 2 halves/sides are isolated. Detail to suit. It could look like this: ..................................... * ############### * ######################### # # ############################################################## # ########### * * .............................*** "" is the backdrop "#####" is the track "....." is the shelf When you're operating on one side, the other is shielded and can be used as a fiddle yard for staging trains. Plus, as the two scenes are completely separate, so too may be the locales. For instance, I could be modeling part of an urban yard in Hamilton on one side, and a branch line or MPD in Mexico on the other side. Or, to kick it up a notch, I could model one side in HO and another in On30" just to try my hand at the scale. If that's too much of a stretch, model 2 distinct locations on your favourite road. Ian Rice discussed the use of connected "separate" scenes. Consider this the condensed version! The benefits: 1) Pretty quick and easy to construct. Small enough to try handlaying track if you've thought you'd like to take a crack. 2) Chance to try new and interesting scenic techiques without straying from your "main" layout. 3) Chance to research and model a different road/scale/location without significant time/cost outlay. 4) Some operational ability. Well, enough to elevate it from diorama status at least! 5) It's a real eyecatcher! Especially if handlaying, structures or superdetailing is your forte. The detriments: 1) It could look pretty cheesy. 2) Limited operations, but hey, how much more could you do in that amount of space anyway? 3) See #1 :^) In the articles, the shelf is only 3-4' long and it swivels on a "lazy susan" type item. If I was going to do it, I think I would construct two 4' modules and connect them with one flowing backdrop and the 2 separate scenes facing in the same direction. To hide the "fiddle yard" I would construct some type of black sliding door at the front to move back and forth. I don't think I'd want to swivel 8' of layout at a show! Plus I could still operate it from a shelf against the wall at home. There you have it, maximum diversity and challenge in minimal space! Now, where did I put those Mexican Pentrex videos???? Jeff Hatcher Richmond, BC

Just wanted to wish you all compliments of the season! I just logged onto an interesting N scale group called n_tutorial@... which is run by a fellow from South Africa. The idea of the list is to discuss all issues surrounding layout design and creation. The webmaster, Mr. Roper, has a website that describes the building of a beginners layout in N scale starting from a simple oval and becoming progressively more complex until the end product results in: -a classification yard -passing sidings -an interchange off site -a small "timesaver" style arrangement for switching, and -a team track All in 3X5' which I think would qualify as a small layout design. The arrangement makes use of a central divider and there is a slight variation being completed on a hollow core door which includes all the above and a removable barge to boot! It's not the be all/end all of design but it's not a bad introduction for any scale. Best of all, some of the list are working on the layout in various stages and are posting photos to log their progress. I'd be intersted to hear your thoughts on that layout design. FYI, I also see that Tony K is putting out feelers for beginnerlayout designs on a 4x8 that offer better operating potential than those usually found in the proprietary books. Selected plans may find their way into MRP 2002. Jeff Hatcher Richmond, B.C.

Hello All -- When I started small-layout-design, I wanted to build a list that would focus on just that -- the design of small model railroad layouts. Unfortunately, I've not found the time to get the list going with some content. I had planned to build a website to support this list that would inspire some in-depth contributions from other list members -- I was thinking of a listing of magazine articles dealing with small layout, module and diorama design and construction, along with some track plans that I've come up with or modified from previously published plans. I was hoping that this sort of thing would inspire list members to document their work and also post articles and photos to the site. But, sadly, I've not had the time do to this. Also, there have been developments on other lists that have lessened what I saw as the immediate need for this list: LDSIG opened itself to non-SIG members, and MRyDesign has started to develop in a promising way. If you're not already a member of MRyDesign, please check it out at -- http://www.egroups.com/group/MRyDesign MRyDesign is working on adjusting its focus and I think the dicussions about the list's vision and scope look promising. So, take a look if you haven't already. I'm going to keep small-layout-design around as I kinda like the name! Also, as my time permits and should the other layout design lists wander off into topics that no longer interest me, I'll work to get the list going. If you have material that you'd like to submit and have posted on the SLD website, let me know -- maybe we can jump-start the list. In the meantime -- stay tuned, as they say. Thanks -- Jon Piasecki jonp@... Moderator, small-layout-design

You wrote: It certainly isn't, but it's a fitting term nonetheless! My guess is that you wouldn't be giving up anything. If you started with the small PIKE and liked what resulted, you are in the enviable position of being able to expand. You'd likely get up and running trains much faster, and would be able to gauge how much trains is "enough" for one person to maintain and keep clean before getting in over your head. OTOH, you may discover that you've made a little gem of a layout, and enjoy telling others (like us) about the different techniques you used. I don't think Mr. K. would mind. He's penned a few good small layout ideas himself (see MRP 1995: Wingate, Ind.). Well said! I realize that in addition to stepping off my soapbox, I should have put my sledgehammer down as well 8^) . I don't want to bash those layouts, or those that have made them. It takes a tremendous effort to stay that dedicated to a project, and the folks that can are to be admired. Although design principles aren't exclusive to larger layouts, it seems this is the last bastion for such discussions on the smaller layouts. Jeff

Sounds interesting! Just a couple of quick questions: 1) Are you talking HO or N scale for your society layout? 2) Are there specific scenes that the Society would want modelled, or do we pick anything from the TH&B website? 3) How accurate does the tack arrangement have to be in comparison to the survey maps? 4) What are your rough dimensions for size and weight (specifically what are you going to move it in?) 5) What would be an acceptable train length for the display/layout? Thanks, Jeff Hatcher

Hello Jeff -- I guess I was a little unclear about the society layout thing and asking people about double-sided layout designs. What I meant to say was that if anyone had ANY 2-sided layout designs that where interesting, they should let us know -- I was not asking for TH&B-inspired designs in particular. Also, there's just not enough information on the site yet to design a plan based on prototype track arrangements. So, the request is this: if anyone has any interesting two-sided layout designs, based on any prototype or freelanced, let the list know and we'll share them. I'd be particularly interested if anyone can design such a layout that would offer a lot of opertations in such a small space. Perhaps someone knows of an operations-intensive prototype that would work well on a very small layout. If you're interested, here's some comments on the "specs" you asked about -- I think these would apply to any two-sided layout that I would want to be portable enough to be able to take to shows and displays: > 1) Are you talking HO or N scale for your society layout? I was thinking of N scale as it would allow for a better proportioned scene in the small space I figure the layout will occupy. > 2) Are there specific scenes that the Society would want > modelled, or do we pick anything from the TH&B website? Well, as I wrote above, there's not enough info on the site yet to provide people with design information, so I can't ask anyone to come up with something. If I were to build a layout for the society myself, I know that there are two scenes in particular that I would want to model -- Brantford Station and the pre-Art Deco Hamilton Station, and those primarily for the architecture involved. If the society were to decide by committee which scenes to model, I think they would want (demand!) the Art Deco Hunter Street Station (modern Hamilton Station) and the Chatham Street roundhouse and service facilities. You can see the modern station and the roundhouse on the TH&B In Photographs section of the site. > 3) How accurate does the tack arrangement have to be ... ? I think it should be fairly accurate. Track lengths will of course be compressed, but the general arrangement should be pretty accurate. I would take that approach with any layout, no matter what it was based on. The scene-to-scene arrangement does not need to be "sincere", as these are really two dioramas sitting back-to-back -- so I would not worry if, say, I got east and west mixed up between the scenes. Having tried to design layouts for different spaces and at different times, I have found that it is much more rewarding to try to duplicate a prototype arrangement -- freelanced yards and switching puzzles just don't look right to me! So, I think I would try to follow the prototype's actual alignment as much as possible, even if I changed other elements in the scene, such as structures and scenery. Also -- in looking at scenes on the TH&B, I have found several that I just can't believe. They look so implausible that I would not try to model them, as no-one would believe the arrangement really existed! For an example of this, go to the TH&B site and click on Modelling the TH&B. Check out Figure 1 in the Modelling Brantford article and look at the mess of track around and leading to Waterous Ltd. No-one would believe that on a model -- especially that passing siding with "tail" just to the right of Waterous. > 4) What are your rough dimensions for size and weight (specifically what are > you going to move it in?) I'd be moving my layout in a 2-door Dodge Shadow or a 4-door Chevy Cavalier (with the back seat folded down in both). I think two 2-by- 4 foot "modules" would fit, as long as the height of the modules was kept to a minimum. Structures and other details would be removed from the layouts for transportation and carried in a separate box. As for weight -- an average person should be able to remove the layout from the vehicle. Wheels on the layout or a separate dolly would save you from having to carry the layout. My guess is that "domino" construction would be used. > 5) What would be an acceptable train length for the display/layout? I think that depends -- for show use, these will be detailed display modules rather than an operating layout. For personal operating sessions, design for whatever you feel would be reasonable considering the scene you're modelling. Keep in mind that these two- sided layouts will mostly be switching layouts, and not representations of main line runs -- although, if someone has a design that could pull that off, let us know! Thanks -- Jon jonp@... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Visit the Toronto Hamilton & Buffalo Railway > Hisorical Society Website at -- > > http://www.thbrailway.com > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hi everyone, Here's a little gem of a layout that I saw on the LDSIG. I'm referring to the two photos on Don Wetmore's Oak Hill switching module. I've just sent an email to Dave H. (who posted the gallery) to get the dimensions. I reckon it's about 2'x5'in HO. With the small detachable interchange on the right, and the 2 crossings,it could easily occupy a few hours of my time! Nice assortment of industries as well. Here's the link: http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=1256996&a=10565512 Cheers! Jeff Hatcher (Big interest in Small layouts)

Hello -- Paul K. wrote -- >> You know, this got me thinking. I have toyed with the >> idea of making a smaller, island type layout in >> the basement ... This comment made me think of a post from Jeff Hatcher (Message Number 4 in the archives) about small layouts and his idea for a two- scene layout divided by a view block. I liked the idea and drew up a quick track plan to further illustrate Jeff's idea. You can see it at http://www.bolditalicpublications.com/sld/two_sided_layout.htm This sort of layout could be just the thing Paul's looking for: small, compact, moveable-around-the-basement. Two scenes could let you explore two different modelling styles -- say, urban on one side and rural on the other. Such a layout could be made more operationally interesting by adding drop-leaf staging tracks at either end: the staging tracks would be raised and locked into position for operating sessions, then folded down when you wanted to move the layout away for storage. In a smaller scale like N, you might even get a reversing loop in a 2-foot wide drop-leaf so you could have continuous running. The tight radius needed probably would not look too good, but keep in mind that what's on the drop leaf need only be functional and not scenicked. The double-scene layout would make an excellent island layout -- it would be ideal for operating and viewing from both sides. I think it would make for an impressive display or exhibition layout. Actually... I belong to a railway historical society that could really use a small, portable layout that features scenes from the railroad. This approach might be very useful for them -- in a small layout, you could get a couple of interesting scenes that would be small enough to be able to be completed to a high level of detail fairly quickly. Would anyone out there be interested in sketching a workable track plan for such a layout? If anyone comes up with something, let us know and I'll post it on the SLD website. Thanks -- Jon Piasecki jonp@... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Visit the Toronto Hamilton & Buffalo Railway Hisorical Society Website at -- http://www.thbrailway.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On some small layouts you see a focus on one side (usually the deep side) with the unscenicked staging relegated to the narrow area behind the backdrop. I recall Andy Sperandeo designing such a layout for an N scale layout that was 3.5x10' a few years back. What caught my eye in the design was the use of only one large industry (I think it was Notexpo, or something like that) with a ton of wide open scenery all around. It looked like it really captured the area and would have made an excellent layout for operation and photography. I don't remember the exact location, but I think the artist's rendering had some KCS units going through it. OTOH, there was a MR project more recently (relatively speaking), that had a deep front town scene for switching with a scenicked staging area behind a hill. I think it was the Red Wing Division of the Soo. It seems to me that this increases the enjoyment across the board, so to speak, by offering more photographic and operating possibilities, although Andy's would have been fun to photograph and operate as well! I believe it was designed to have the back against the wall to save on space I remember one layout in MR had an operating fall scene on one side and a scenic winter scene on the other. Now that's an effective use of a backdrop/divider! Jeff

Hi Folks, I haven't seen much on this list lately so I thought I'd get some conversation going. I just picked up the Ian Rice book "Small, Smart & Practical Track Plans" and had a read through. Lots of good ideas though the U.S. exchange is a killer! I'd be interested in seeing what the rest of you think about it. One thing that I found quite nifty was the Verticalia Belt line which had switching layouts on 3 different levels connected by a removable staging yard. So, you could assemble your train on the top level classification yard, run it onto the portable staging and connect it to the middle level yard and carry out your tasks, then onto the staging yard and down to the lower level to do your set out and pick ups, returning to the top via staging with an entirely different consist for the yard. Coincidentally,I had just finished reading about David Barrow's final thoughts on the South Plains District switching layout (MR Oct '97). In that article he had devised a movable staging yard with the added benefit of not having to have the layout sections connected, or even in the same room. It seems to me it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to merge the 2 ideas together: instead of moving the staging yard around on the horizontal, you could put both sections on one wall with brackets and simply move the staging yard vertically. The result: all the fun in a fraction of the space! As I've stated before, I model in a closet, literally, so this is somewhat of a revelation for me in terms of the possibilities. Thoughts, anyone? Jeff

Hello All -- Paul, you're going to hate Model Railroad Planning 2001! :o) When I saw the teaser on the cover that reads "The Helix Killer", my first thought was "Could that be an elevator or something?" But I dismissed the thought, thinking that "Nah, no-one would actually do it." Well -- there it is on page 78. An article by Dick Roberts on building a whole-train elevator. And point one in the "Learning points" box is "Just because everyone else isn't doing it doesn't mean you shouldn't give it a try". I agree that these sorts of things are rather exotic (at least in North America) and you're not likely to find them on many layouts here. However, for modellers with very limited space, they may solve some problems and provide some opportunities. For example: you want some staging on a shelf layout but don't want to sacrifice an entire shelf to a staging yard, or make a shelf excessively deep for a yard. An option might be to put space for a single track behind some building flats and use a two, three or four- track elevator in that space. I would not be overly concerned about it being "gimmicky", but I _would_ be concerned about: * the engineering costs (time, complexity, reliability, maintentance) * the impact on train operations (will it be a hassle to operate during a session and will it detract from the miniature world illusion?) Used for staging, I think an elevator has the potential to add a lot to a layout. Not sure that I would try it myself, but I think it could be done. While you don't see elevators, sector plates and traverser tables often in North America, you do see sector plates and traversers frequently on British layouts - and almost always on serious layouts featuring high-quality models. Thanks -- Jon Piasecki jonp@... --- In small-layout-design@y..., Paul/Celine Kossart <kozys@t...> wrote: > Jon and list, > > These items pop up now and then in the model press when they seem to be > short on anything of substance or want to introduce something "new" to the > hobby. As one friend of mine put it, "There really hasn't been much of > anything new in the hobby for the past forty years - most of the ideas are > stolen or reworks of something from the past." > > IMO, they are gimmicks and really aren't employed in the real world on a > serious layout. When I see things like track elevators (vertical switch - > been there, read that a L-O-N-G time ago) swivel plates, train turntables, > and other gimmicks, I just move on to more serious and realistic articles. > > Not trying to be difficult, but really people, has anyone ever seen one of > these contraptions in use on a real layout. And if so, I bet it is only > one or two of you on probably just one layout each, if that. Hardly a > ground swell. > > Well I have to go now and get back to work on the anti gravity interchange > track which is picked up by a radio controlled model of the Goodyear blimp > using advanced photon modulation technology and carried away to Oz - or is > that never-never land? Who cares. I'm sure some model railroad mag will > pay me to print it.

My layout is a 7' x 4' cockpit-style layout based on one of the plans in Iain Rice's book "Small, Smart, and Practical Layouts". It will eventually grow on either end. Even though I live in a house, I have no basement (not seimically sound in my neighborhood) and have to share the 10' x 10' extra room as the home office. Another design consideration was that we are planning on moving in a couple of years, so I thought I would start small, keep it transportable, and learn as I went. The benchwork is complete. I used 1" x 4" for the frame, 1/4" plywood for the decking, 2" x 2" for legs (braced with leftover 1" x 4"). Blue foam was secured to the plywood with Liquid Nails. I haven't installed any roadbed yet because I'm playing with the track plan using actual track. I used 3rd Plan-It for the initial design, but there's nothing like a little actual operation to work out kinks in the design. I've laid the track right on the blue foam and used track nails to tack it in place so I can operate. This has caused me to re-design my plan from what I've published on my web site. I need to update the track plan and also upload some new photos. Be forewarned that some of the photos may take a couple of minutes to download if you are on a slow dial-up connection. My wife loves to build Campbell-style kits (which she could do during the apartment years), and we have a few already to go when the scenery gets a little further along. BTW, I have placed the kits on the blue foam as a part of testing operations. Made a difference in the track plan. I discovered that I had too much track and my buildings were in less than ideal places. For example, she had constructed Campbell's "Brett's Brewery" and it looked great. The original draft of the plan would have put this kit back in the corner where one couldn't admire all the detail and work she put into it, so I moved it to a more prominent location on the layout, the trade-off being that the track is on the far side of the building. So until I get a walk around throttle, I have to literally look through the brewery's lower floor to spot the car (which is easy if you also leave the box car's door open: align the daylight). Little things like this have convinced me that "operationing your plan" early will make for a better layout. Feel free to check out what's currently on the web site now and check back every so often because I do update it at least once a week. The URL is: http://www.geocities.com/jrcurtis95035/index.html Joseph R. Curtis Superintendent & Shay Driver Mendocino Coast Lumber & Railroad Company

Hello All -- How would the members of this list feel about the list finally "going public"? small-layout-design (SLD) is presently "not listed in directory" at Yahoo Groups. I wanted to keep it this way initially to see how things pan out at LDSIG and LayoutConstruction. LDSIG has gotten to be quite a noisy place without a lot being said about layout design lately. LayoutConstruction is growing nicely and it seems to be evolving into a pretty good general discussion group. So – I'm thinking that the time may be here for SLD to do an IPO and finally go public – that is, get listed in the Yahoo Groups directory and undertake some self-promotion to build membership and get more discussion happening. As the moderator of the group, there's just one thing that I would really like to encourage: ** I'd like for us to stay on topic. ** On topic for this group is small layout design, construction and operation. On topic for us can range from how you found and researched a layout design element to how you actually built and operate your layout. Even if you have a larger layout, you can stay on topic here by discussing your approaches to planning and the lessons you learned in the process. OFF topic for this group would be posts about where to find homasote, which type of homasote to use, how to carry homasote home in the car, whether it's worth it or not to rent the pickup truck from Home Depot for $19 per hour to carry homasote home, "hey, my local lumber guy carries my homasote home for me for free so give him a call if you live in South Carolina"… you get the idea! General modelling and construction posts are off topic here unless they illustrate a particular aspect of small layout construction and design. If we're straying off topic and things are getting overly noisy or too general, I may try to nudge the list back towards its focus. If things get really out of hand, I may change the settings on the group and make it completely moderated where messages are reviewed before being posted on the list. I'm not trying to be a control freak or anything like that, but I just want to see this list stick to its goals. So – let me know what you think about going public. If there's another way that we could increase the list membership and stimulate discussion, let me know and we'll see what we can do. Thanks – Jon Piasecki Moderator Small Layout Design

Yes I've noticed it and it saddens me. The model RR mags were always a place where you could see these huge layouts and have something to aspire to some day. How many people or kids coming up dream about someday having a small room or closet to build their "Empire" in? I realize that the trend is towards smaller living spaces and many houses don't have basements; the mags are just responding to this reality. But I think that's sad. Personally, I prefer seeing layouts that are bigger than life, but maybe someday...who knows, that dream layout could become a reality for me. Kind of like equating a trip to the local, traveling carnival to a Disney theme park vacation. Having only space for a small layout may be better than nothing, but to me it's would always be just a compromise as I lament what could have been. FWIW, Paul Kossart - Peru, Illinois, USA BRHS, La Salle & Bureau County Model Railroad Club Modeling the Fictional CB&Q Illiniwek River Branch in HO in the 1960's... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Serving Agriculture and Industry in the Illiniwek River Valley since 1904." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hello All -- Just a note to let you know about some small layout articles in the April Model Railroader: The cover story features a very nicely done "large" small layout -- an 8'×8' based on a published trackplan. There's also an article on fitting 4×8 and 5×9 layouts with along-the- walls shelf extesnions into typical small bedrooms. I don't subscribe to MR and only pick up issues when they have something interesting that stands out, so I was unaware that MR was running a "small layout contest". I have not been paying a lot of attention to the hobby press in the last year or two, but within the issues of MR and MRP that I have picked up in the last three months, there does seem to be a lot of press on smaller layouts lately. Anyone else notice this too? Thanks -- Jon Piasecki jonp@... Visit the Toronto Hamilton & Buffalo Historical Society Website at http://www.thbrailway.com

In my family room I have converted a large closet into a work area with a 6'x2.5' bench and several shelves and a filing cabinet to hold my extensive MR collection. I have a small test track and have been toying with the idea of replacing the test track with an operating micro layout. I am new to this term and I am looking for ideas and resources. The space would probably be 1x6 feet. I am interested in trying out handlaid turnout and control techniques. Greg Williams cpr_fan@... www.trainweb.org/cprmodeling

Hello -- Interesting comments from Paul, but I have to disagree that a growing focus on smaller layouts is a "sad" development. I think the focus on smaller layouts will really benefit the hobby. When a young kid or teen looks through the hobby press these days, they are seeing layouts and plans that are very do-able. They'll look at an 8-by-8 plan for a bedroom and say "Hey! I can do that right here in my room! The shevles will go over the head of the bed and the desk, and the industrial district will be along the long wall, and a drop-leaf reverse loop will be in front of the closet, and..." ...and it grows from there. I believe small plans will encourage people new to the hobby to actually get building and experimenting. The basement- filling "lifetime" layouts will evolve later from their small layout experiences. I can see Paul's point if he means that he is saddened by the fact that small layouts appear to be displacing the larger "lifetime" layouts and "empires". But I don't think that's the case -- the larger layouts will continue to exist, with small layouts serving as stepping stones to larger efforts. In fact, Paul, I believe another trend that's getting a lot of press these days will ensure the future of the larger lifetime layout: the emphasis on operations, particularly Time Table & Train Order (TT&TO) operations, virtually guarantees there will still be large layouts in the hobby's future. Thanks -- Jon Piasecki --- In small-layout-design@y..., Paul/Celine Kossart <kozys@t...> wrote: > Yes I've noticed it and it saddens me. The model RR mags > were always a place where you could see these huge layouts > and have something to aspire to some day. How many people > or kids coming up dream about someday having a small room > or closet to build their "Empire" in? <edit>

Hello – I'm also working on a layout based on a prototype yard. Here are some things I've learned and am still learning as I work on the design: Duplicate the function of the yard, rather than every track. Learn how the railway used the yard and how trains and cars worked their way through the yard. At first, I wanted to duplicate every track in my prototype's yard but found I simply don't have the room. By studying the track plan, I started to identify what basic functions the yard served – passing siding, storage of cars for local industries, a team track, a crane track, a scale track, local industry sidings – and worked to include those FUNCTIONS in my design, rather than each specific track. For an example of how to adapt a the function of a prototype's track arrangement in a model, check out the article in the recent Model Railroader about 5-by-9 layouts with shelves in bedrooms. Look at the sidebar item on how to simulate a prototype's wye-interchange with linear track on a layout. This is the sort of technique you need to consider when adapting a complex prototype plan to a very small space – model the FUNCTION rather than the actual alignment. Get as much information as you can about the "context" of the yard. Go to the library and see if you can find local maps – old fire insurance maps are particularly useful – and see if you can determine what was around the yard. For example, what sorts of industries were around the yard? Did public streets cut through the yard? (A street cuts through the yard I'm modelling, and it adds an unique operational consideration.) What did the trains have to travel through to get in to and out of the yard? This sort of research can help you plan operations, scenery, structures, track arrangements and so on. Visit the site if you can. Even if the track iteself is gone, visiting the area can help to give you a sense of the space occupied by the prototype and how things were aligned and arranged in the real world. Understanding how the real yard was built and what functions it served can really help you decide what to represent in your model. As for actually designing it: you can try working with some track planning software, but you may find it useful to be able to sketch things ACCURATELY by hand first. I've found manual doodling to be faster than drawing on a computer for the first rough drafts. After the first sketches, I turn to the computer for more accurate layout and fiddling (I use Corel Draw for my layout work). When drawing by hand (or on a computer), it is very important to draw turnouts and curves ACCURATELY. When sketching by hand, I think we all tend to be overly optimistic about the size of turnouts and curves – we draw them a lot smaller than they really are. This is particularly frustrating when you have a very small layout space available – you're sure to disappoint yourself with grand plans that, when you start to buy track and turnouts and lay them out, just won't fit. Take some time to make your own track templates, or buy a template from your hobby shop. John Armstrong describes how to make simple cardboard curve and turnout templates in _Trackplanning for Realistic Operation_. Make accurate templates and use them – you will be surprised just how large turnouts actually are! As for Nelson Yard – your ASCII art suggests that the general arrangement already is U-shaped, so I think it would not be too difficult to wrap the yard around the "long" dimension of your room. When I first designed my yard layout, a friend reviewed the plan and noted that a yard on a small layout is not going to offer a lot in the way of operation, so he suggested I focus on the industries around and just off of the yard. I think I would suggest the same thing for Nelson – you might want to represent the yard tracks with just a main route and two yard tracks and focus on representing the freight house, fuel dealers and warehouses. All depends, of course, on the sort of operation you're looking for. Would you be able to scan a copy of your track diagram for Nelson Yard so we can post it in the list's Files area? If you'd like to see the layout I'm working on, check out the "Modelling Brantford: Brantford Yard in a Bedroom" article at the Toronto Hamilton & Buffalo Railway Historical Society website at – http://www.thbrailway.com/modelling/ I think I've captured the overall look and function of the yard (at least as much as I can in the space available), but I'm not certain how I'm going to support the "on stage" area shown in the plan. I need to reconsider how to stage trains and deal with them at either end of the layout. Hope all this is helpful. Thanks – Jon Piasecki jonp@... From: b-freemantle@... Date: Tue Mar 13, 2001 11:46pm Subject: Re: : April MR <edit> I am trying to figure out how to get CPR's Nelson yard, or at least a representation, into a room 8'10" x 9'4". <edit> LAKE various warehouses mostly on south (town) side ___________ East _- _- | diesel shop about here> _ - | ladder starts about here> _ - | West _ - -_ _ - -_ _ - <the longest straight part -________ - &#92; ^ladder &#92;______ coach yard, two track freight house, team track, &#92;_____ coal dealer, 3 fuel oil dealers & 1 propane (LP gas) dealer <edit>