+- (https://bigbluetrains.com)
+-- Forum: Mainline (https://bigbluetrains.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+--- Forum: HO Modeling (https://bigbluetrains.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=21)
+--- Thread: GEC's Layout Progress (/showthread.php?tid=108)
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - Green_Elite_Cab - 04-23-2011
MrBill Wrote:Just watching your video comparison of drive units. You should be a paid consultant for those guys considering the amount of work you do with their products. As background, my interest in this subject revolves around the Reading Company. We hooked up thru the Reading Modeler. You may recall the roof color battle amongst those guys when IHP anounced the old Reading MU's were coming out. While I currently work with older, easier to model freight ops, Your models take me back to Philly in the 70's riding into and around the Reading terminal. I Really enjoy your enthusiasm on the subject. I do more track planning than anything else these days. Can't help much with power trucks, but if you have time to post a fairly tight room plan with dimensions and available space, I'd like to take a stab at some layout drawings for you.
Mike from IHP actually sent me the IHP drive, so hes already satisfied me! I wish i were though, i love researching this stuff and i've got so many books, that if i don't have the answer now, i will in a short period of time.
I remember the Reading Modeler, though lately it looks like spammers got a hold of it.
Did i not yet mention my plans to build a Reading Commuter module?
Because i can see that electrifying my layout might now be VERY far in the future once again, i wanted to try something else to get more real experience. I've been looking for a good prototype spot, but its been tricky, so I'm still digging through my books. I want to stick somewhere on the line to West Trenton though. A module will be quick and its not likely to change, so i can get away with it. I've got a good diagrams in several books and railroad manuals, (though i don't have the detailed info like i have for the Pennsy catenary).
I better hurry up though, i want to have it done in time for the October "Northeast Rail Prototype Meet". I was there last year with my electrics, and i want to come out with something different. There was already a resident Pennsy electric modeler there, and since Philadelphia models are readily available, why not go Reading?
Definitely plan to get the IHP Reading Green Cars when they come out. the book "The Reading in the Conrail Era: Book 2" has a small roster and photos of some of the unrebuilt green cars still operating up into the early 80s (which fits right in for me). I would have preferred some Blueliners, but I'll be patient.
Because we're talking Reading- former Reading units for the win.
![[Image: p4230059.jpg]](http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/2382/p4230059.jpg)
Quote: I do more track planning than anything else these days. Can't help much with power trucks, but if you have time to post a fairly tight room plan with dimensions and available space, I'd like to take a stab at some layout drawings for you.
Part of the problem is that i don't even have a good idea of what that is. I do know that i have space for a 9x8 "island". I cannot attach to the walls. I've got a few overhead shots of my layout for now, while i go measure stuff. basically, i want to keep the "industrial" side fairly intact (though changing switches and curves on the ends is OK). However, instead of completing the oval as it is, i'd build an addition to the lower left in the photo, and the mainline would continue along that side of the layout, and the yard would extend to there as well. I'm not sure what to do after that, other than connect it all around again eventually.
I would take apart the "lower" half of the layout (maybe leaving the passenger station as a suburban terminal like Chestnut Hill or something), and the yard would still be where it is, but stretch farther out.
![[Image: p4230042.jpg]](http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/2778/p4230042.jpg)
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - Green_Elite_Cab - 04-23-2011
Recent progress
Began work on my PATCO cars, drilled out the handrails, but now i have to do the lights. The problem here, is that unlike other IHP models, the lights are "outies", not innies, and so getting it dead center will be a pain. I'll probably drill with something small first, and then slowly work it down with a round needle file, and leave a little rim before i got all the way.
Still haven't figured out the destination sign solution. I'd like to make them be detachable, though i want to avoid using sticky stuff (magnetic would be better)
![[Image: p4220022.jpg]](http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/8110/p4220022.jpg)
Also started to work on my Silverliner III. I cleared out the windows (roughly, might need to go in again later with a file to make sure its all smooth), and removed the ladder off the one end (only the pantograph ends had ladders). I was going to drill grab iron holes, and then continue on to the Arrow IIIs (so that all the body shells were ready for Alclad II base coat), but i didn't get that far before other things came up.
Basic parts of the kit. There are more, but this is the meat of it.
![[Image: p4220023.jpg]](http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/4686/p4220023.jpg)
While initially i sliced off the ladders to get most of them off, i found that a technique i used to remove gaskets on real Diesels actually seemed to remove the "lumps" of where the ladders used to be no problem. I simply held the blade flat against the face of the model and pulled it over. This didn't gouge or dig, but if anything was raised up, it chiseled away.
![[Image: p4220026.jpg]](http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/283/p4220026.jpg)
Before-
![[Image: p4220024.jpg]](http://img815.imageshack.us/img815/2509/p4220024.jpg)
Nice and clean shaven!
![[Image: p4220025s.jpg]](http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/6495/p4220025s.jpg)
Here it is with the windows all out now, sitting on top of all my Arrow IIIs in their boxes. Should be just about ready for paint soon. I gotta get a hold of some "Gothic Condensed" # decals for these cars, that seems to be the right font for the Silverliner III (which has different number styles from the other SEPTA units)
![[Image: p4220031j.jpg]](http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/3853/p4220031j.jpg)
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - MrBill - 04-24-2011
Wow, I just remembered a plan from a really old, probably 1950's, model train mag of, of all things,(pretty sure) a Reading commuter,island/donut, style layout. It may well still be in my stuff somewhere. I think it probably had a lot of elevation changes though. I'll do some digging. It'll be a good baseline, as I'm not very familiar with urban passenger ops.
The module idea is a good one, and 8'x9' is a decent chunk of space to work with. My current layout(s) are transportable modules , although I haven't devised any connection systems yet for expanding them.
Increasing your curve radii as much as possible is a good initial goal as well. Make life as easy as possible for those huge cars and their drives, as well as look a lot better.
Thanks for posting the overhead pic. I love seeing others' take on the classic 4x8. Really neat! The wheels are turnin here.
That pic with the conrail loco is so ironic. On the last rail trip I can remember from Philly back to Reading, the RDC's broke down and there was this big delay. I didn't realize until we got to Reading that they had added a geep like that one to get us home. May have even been an impromtu push/pull arrangement. Very cool.
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - Green_Elite_Cab - 04-27-2011
MrBill Wrote:Wow, I just remembered a plan from a really old, probably 1950's, model train mag of, of all things,(pretty sure) a Reading commuter,island/donut, style layout. It may well still be in my stuff somewhere. I think it probably had a lot of elevation changes though. I'll do some digging. It'll be a good baseline, as I'm not very familiar with urban passenger ops.
The module idea is a good one, and 8'x9' is a decent chunk of space to work with. My current layout(s) are transportable modules , although I haven't devised any connection systems yet for expanding them.
Increasing your curve radii as much as possible is a good initial goal as well. Make life as easy as possible for those huge cars and their drives, as well as look a lot better.
Thanks for posting the overhead pic. I love seeing others' take on the classic 4x8. Really neat! The wheels are turnin here.
That pic with the conrail loco is so ironic. On the last rail trip I can remember from Philly back to Reading, the RDC's broke down and there was this big delay. I didn't realize until we got to Reading that they had added a geep like that one to get us home. May have even been an impromtu push/pull arrangement. Very cool.
That sounds like a cool layout, though i hope its better than the usual commuter stuff MR has.
I remember they gave me a free PDF on "commuter layouts", and they were not for me. They were the "Vicksburg & Eastern" and the "Union Metropolitan Transportation Authority". I won't say they were bad, they accomplished the "operations" they were designed to be- running interlockings and routing trains on a tight schedule. In this respect, they are very interesting track plans. However, They try to squeeze in two terminals and one terminal and a maintenance facility respectively. Both have many "up and overs" and stations on differing lines that are just north of each other.
I believe these track plans sacrifice a realistically flowing track plan for the operations. Again, this is fine if thats what you want, but i'd almost feel better leaving out a terminal altogether, or if you do have one, make it small. Not all commuter lines need to be big. Chestnut Hill on the Reading being a good example. its only two tracks these days. I think when it comes to commuter trains, you just can't really have enough space to actually run them a real distance on a model layout, and so its almost better just to have one or two GOOD scale size stops, and maybe an interlocking somewhere between destinations and perhaps diverging freight tracks. "implying" a larger system seems to me to be the best route, since you can still get operations in with the commuter trains, without snuffing everything else out and without the commuter lines dominating the small amount of layout space left.
As much as i like the commuter trains, one will notice there is more Conrail blue on my layout then there are Silver commuter cars on that over head shot. Ultimately, i plan to run 4 car Arrow III MU trains, or three car locomotive hauled push pulls, but that would be the most of it. Until i get a huge space for an NEC layout, the passenger stuff will have to take a back seat.
I have a more defined sketch of my ideas, but its just a concept. I gotta get it into the computer first.
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - MrBill - 05-08-2011
Finally found that box of old train mags and started flipping through them. Gonna take a while, there's a bunch. Tons of plans. Just need to find the one i'm thinking of. Your mention of implied ops is a good idea for running your passenger units. Can't escape that darned compression in this hobby. Initial thought is that a classic folded figure 8 with some sort of staging would be a good start within 8x9 feet. Yeah, it'll be a roundy, but I think you could squeeze in 2 or 3 decent scenes to be viewed seperately from inside or outside the "donut". Plus you have enough room for those 24 to 26" radius curves.
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - Green_Elite_Cab - 05-08-2011
While i do hope to expand my layout soon, i have come up with a temporary solution to the yard problem.
Basically, i will split "track #1" into two tracks, by adding a #4 switch passed the original snap switch, and then replacing Track #2's switch with a #4 switch. This will condense the tracks together without the cars being TOO close, and will give me a few extra "feet" of car capacity.
The new plan will add 23 inches to my yard. When considering that the average 50' boxcar is just under 7 inches (6.8"), that is a fairly good gain, almost three boxcars worth. True, some of this length is taken up because the locomotive needs to "straighten out" on curves in order for the couplers to align, but a small switcher like the SW9/1200 (more on that later) will definitely minimize the impact. I think my yard will still be congested, but it will allow more room to "sort" and set out cars. At the very least, i might have enough space for two trains worth.
The average train on my layout is two 50' boxcars, two 50' Airslide hoppers, two 40' tankers (5.5"s each), a little over 38" minus the locomotive/caboose. This can also be shortened by using either on Long hopper, or i could use two smaller 40' hoppers instead of 50' hoppers. "Beer can" tankers are also common for corn syrup deliveries, and they're even shorter, at 30'.
I'm sure it won't work out that smoothly once implemented, but it might give me some more capability, and maybe it will look cool in the process. At the very least, it gives me something to do this summer!
![[Image: newyardconfiguration.jpg]](http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/6483/newyardconfiguration.jpg)
In other news, i added a new locomotive to my roster, an "SW1200". Right now though, the SW1200 is seeming like a bad choice, particularly this road number of SW1200 (9344), which did not receive the full Conrail paint on my model until later in life. The model also lacks some important SW1200 details. That said, there is an SW1200 known to work in New Jersey in the late 70s, 9340, one digit off. Unfortunately, I'd have to remove the whole road number to replace it.
On the other hand, if i'm going to go that far, i could just renumber the unit as an SW9. The SW9 is externally identical to the SW1200, and so it would be possible to match up the tiny details with the older SW9, and just pick a unit where the conrail logos are all in about the same place, and where the unit operated in New Jersey.
The new model-
![[Image: p5030013.jpg]](http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/959/p5030013.jpg)
SW1200 #9340 in New Brunswick, NJ. This implies it had to have run over the NEC to get here, so that only adds its appeal to me. I would still need to Install the extended range fuel tanks. I think Custom finishings makes the parts i need.
![[Image: cr9340cf.jpg]](http://crcyc.railfan.net/locos/emd/sw1200/cr9340cf.jpg)
A possible SW9 to model, this one in Elizabethport, NJ during December 1978. #8991 is the most consistent with the P2K SW9/1200 model i have. The model comes with those spark arrestors, and so it wouldn't be very difficult to accurately model it. The handrails don't match, but that can be fixed (indeed, the handrails on the p2k model only match a few units of either SW1200 or SW9s)
![[Image: pictures%5C15220%5C1024.jpg]](http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/pictures%5C15220%5C1024.jpg)
MrBill Wrote:Finally found that box of old train mags and started flipping through them. Gonna take a while, there's a bunch. Tons of plans. Just need to find the one i'm thinking of. Your mention of implied ops is a good idea for running your passenger units. Can't escape that darned compression in this hobby. Initial thought is that a classic folded figure 8 with some sort of staging would be a good start within 8x9 feet. Yeah, it'll be a roundy, but I think you could squeeze in 2 or 3 decent scenes to be viewed seperately from inside or outside the "donut". Plus you have enough room for those 24 to 26" radius curves.
Cool! Let me know if you find something electric (so that i know which back issues to search for). I know in the early 90s there was a few MR articles on commuter trains, and it was a two parter, but that was it.
You COULD escape compression, if we somehow managed to find the space! Back in the real world though, it does suck. I'd like to visualize your idea, but my brain is not playing nice.
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - Green_Elite_Cab - 05-10-2011
well, i've been tinkering with that SCARM program, and now, for the first time, i have a more accurate track plan. the only thing wrong with this plan is the crossovers, but they are different because i had to custom cut them (and obviously there are no parts for that!).
Sometimes though, i think i should have left the crossovers as they are in the diagram below, since the modified ones are more problematic. Its a good time to switch to numbered crossovers, i think! #4s appear to fit in place of the snap switches, so i'll have to see.
![[Image: mycurrentlayouttrackpla.jpg]](http://img815.imageshack.us/img815/5606/mycurrentlayouttrackpla.jpg)
A 3D view, because its cool. if only i could put buildings into this!
![[Image: 3dlayoutview.jpg]](http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/5892/3dlayoutview.jpg)
Here is my Long term layout expansion plan. its not perfect, and i would have liked to get more out of it, but this is what i've got. It includes a double track mainline, two terminals (with 4-car MU/3-car Push-pull train capacity), and a more spacious yard with arrival and departure tracks so that trains that mainline electric freights (with GG1s, E33s, E40s, or E44s) can arrive, drop off the train, and diesel switchers can take over from there.
Unfortunately, i don't think i'll be able to add additional industries like i thought i would be able to, and so the large yard may be unnecessary in the end. In fact, the arrival and departure tracks seem doomed, as the curvature at the bottom left is below 18" radius, and so that will not be any good for my purposes. I'm already redesigning this, but you can see what i have in mind. The trackage on the bottom left also looks problematic, and i think all those snaky crossovers might harm train reliability, so i might redesign the whole area. I'm considering abandoning any sort of commuter train stations except for whatever i can fit next to the tracks. They take up to much space and need to much track to interconnect so that they can be properly routed when they reverse direction. Just as i measured out the trains for the interim plan above, i'll have to accurately measure the length of freight trains will all the industries that need to be switched so that no space is wasted or under-utilized.
the Thick black line is a view block of some kind. I had planned to fit an industry or two (like my American Hardware Supply and Protech Plastics from my old layout), but its seeming increasingly unlikely that will fit. "rerailer" sections represent commuter station tracks. a 4 car 85' MU train can barely fit.
![[Image: unledtm.jpg]](http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/1656/unledtm.jpg)
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - Green_Elite_Cab - 05-10-2011
Track plan update- i fixed the yard tracks so that they are between 22 and 24"s, except for a few tight spots that are close to 18"s on the flex track areas, but they definitely are broader. Above, the track was cutting close to 17 and 16", unacceptable!
I also made an MS paint sketch on how I envision this all. Its REALLY bad, but in the back ground is the old layout with the buildings and bridges as they are currently. If you were to overlay the new plan with the old, they would mesh perfectly with existing scenery.
What do you guys think? any good suggestions?
![[Image: newlayout2fixedyardtrac.jpg]](http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/3434/newlayout2fixedyardtrac.jpg)
Basically, the view block can be either one large industry, or a high road or something. The other "face" can be different buildings for the commuter station directly behind it. Overlapping buildings will prevent viewers from seeing into the other scene from the outside. As you can see, the large view block, and highway bridges also "frame" the scene (yes, i know they are horribly rendered with MS paint!). I think the catenary has the advantage of implying length while simultaneously obscuring distant things, keeping the viewer's attention focused on the scene in front of them.
The double track mainline snakes its way through, entering from the right and traveling left. the rear three tracks are, from back to front, the departure track, the arrival track, and the yard lead. the front set of three tracks from the "back" is the westbound mainline, then the eastbound mainline, and then lead to eastbound passenger terminal. West bound passenger trains temporarily travel over the eastbound freight mainline to reach the "inner" station track.
![[Image: newlayout2snapshotsceni.jpg]](http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/6975/newlayout2snapshotsceni.jpg)
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - MrBill - 05-10-2011
Your progression with the second plan is coming along nicely. The curve flow in the lower right corner around the terminal looks great. Keep going with that thought. I know it's a tall order, but If it were possible add another level on which to run another lap of mainline you'd get a really, really nice run for those mu's. I was just going through a book on North Broad Street station. In the 30's it had a coach yard very similar to your central one here.
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - Amtrak X995 - 05-11-2011
Hi
i personally would cut-back also the "old" part of the layout.
Then, try to think in th third dimension, the hight.
We have our corridor elevated, the switching szene is on the lower level.
In you case, perhaps think at the layout to D. Herrison, he crosses the track with an double oval, see http://web.mac.com/msibnsf/iWeb/Acela%20Express,%20The%20Need%20For%20Speed/A%20History%20of%20Show%20Displays.html.
Or let only two tracks as an oval elevated ( as corridor), the make ramps for the comuter trafic and switching to the lower level, there can be a passenger station.
The you can use ( when you make an "damaged" oval) this as scenic devider.
In the lower level also can be the staging tracks as you planned.
I think, so its more interresting, to have two levels. For example you may also use the NH catenary layout, also an oval, elevated, with an switching area.
Or you turn it arround, the corridos is lower and the switching and stage yard is elevated, for example see http://carendt_backup.gully.org/scrapbook/page38a/index.html (scroll down for city classics layout), her you can see, how they use the scenic deviders.
my 2 cents
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - Green_Elite_Cab - 05-13-2011
MrBill Wrote:Your progression with the second plan is coming along nicely. The curve flow in the lower right corner around the terminal looks great. Keep going with that thought. I know it's a tall order, but If it were possible add another level on which to run another lap of mainline you'd get a really, really nice run for those mu's. I was just going through a book on North Broad Street station. In the 30's it had a coach yard very similar to your central one here.
Its progressed so far that the plan above is already obsolete! While it is true that the yard would work pretty well, and that the tracks did seem pleasing, its just to much being crammed into a space. Spaghetti bowls don't look good, and given that i want to electrify, having "excess" track is probably not good, especially complex trackage that would require special wiring.
Indeed, while trying to come up with a more compact way to make my yard, i figured an even better way to increase the yard space on my layout. I've managed to actually TRIPLE the track space available to me, while taking up LESS space. And i though a ~25" upgrade was good. Its a good thing i've been playing around with this! There is just over 146" of storage. this is just counting 4 of the 5 yard tracks, the 5th, shortest track being the lead for the engine track, as it is on my current layout. A three-way switch does wonders in reducing the use of space. I recognize that they weren't super popular, but using separate switches uses even more space while not giving me much in the way of gains.
Remember earlier that a full train on my layout is roughly 38", just over 4 feet. It would have enough space to store THREE runs worth of local freight to the magic pan bakery. This means, i can have space to drop off a whole train of cars from magic pan, and still have space to pull out the next train ready for magic pan, and then STILL have enough space for a third train. Depending on how i work the layout, i could theoretically my my addition all industry or additional commuter tracks.
I'd still have no good "arrival/departure" tracks, but then again, my mainline freights (which are mostly implied) can just directly deposit cars in the yard, and then a small yard switcher can move the outbound train to the mainline/interchange. True, it would fowl the main for a little, but then again, I'm modeling a lightly used industrial track on this 4x8. This is a much easier solution than radically altering my layout, and lets me enjoy running my trains sooner rather than later. It also lets me devote more space to other things on any addition i might make. Rebuilding the yard also has the advantage of letting me "destroy" the track. Yards from the early 1970s looked like toxic super fund sites to start out with, and so rather than nice clean ballast, i'm gonna go for some dark grimy looking mud! that will make it look right!
The green area below represents the area formerly taken up by the old yard. the new one takes advantage of the angles of the layout, and may even increase its appearance of depth by removing the parallel yard tracks. Keep in mind that this is nearly three times the yard track length, while taking up less space, allowing room for more scenery or details, making it less cluttered. it will require rebuilding of the highway bridge, but after 5 years, i think it needs work anyway. I'll probably scratch build new supports, and "strengthen" the metal beams underneath.
![[Image: tripleyard.jpg]](http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/3919/tripleyard.jpg)
Amtrak X995 Wrote:Hi
i personally would cut-back also the "old" part of the layout.
Then, try to think in th third dimension, the hight.
We have our corridor elevated, the switching szene is on the lower level.
In you case, perhaps think at the layout to D. Herrison, he crosses the track with an double oval, see http://web.mac.com/msibnsf/iWeb/Acela%20Express,%20The%20Need%20For%20Speed/A%20History%20of%20Show%20Displays.html.
Or let only two tracks as an oval elevated ( as corridor), the make ramps for the comuter trafic and switching to the lower level, there can be a passenger station.
The you can use ( when you make an "damaged" oval) this as scenic devider.
In the lower level also can be the staging tracks as you planned.
I think, so its more interresting, to have two levels. For example you may also use the NH catenary layout, also an oval, elevated, with an switching area.
Or you turn it arround, the corridos is lower and the switching and stage yard is elevated, for example see http://carendt_backup.gully.org/scrapbook/page38a/index.html (scroll down for city classics layout), her you can see, how they use the scenic deviders.
my 2 cents
I've thought about doing multiple levels, but i don't have the space to do it and have it make sense, not unless i totally scrapped everything. Grades would be extreme in order to get proper clearances. I want to avoid dismantling my layout simply because it would be a LONG time before i could rebuild it, and i might not even be in this home by the time that happens. Adding to the benchwork is just fine, but taking away won't work for the time being.
I've seen that NEC layout, i remember that guy telling me it wasn't worth and not to try catenary. hes crazy, lol. he'll build that whole layout, and then tell me i can't do it! Only thing stopping me is all this planning.
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - Russ Bellinis - 05-14-2011
I would encourage you to have patience. Aren't you still living at home with your parents while going to school full time? Once you have finished your formal education, started on a career path, and ready to find your own home, then you can look for a home with a train room large enough to fit what you want to have. I think your basic problem right now is that you have a 4x8 space and you can't fit a 20x20 lay out into it no matter how much you try.
I have a close friend here in So Cal that I think you could take a lesson from. He is probably about 5-7 years from retiring. He lives in a small typical tract home here in So Cal and works as an electrical engineer in the aerospace industry. He has bought a 5 acre property in Newport, Oregon to retire to. It has a house and a barn on the property. Right now, he rents out the house to a family, and he has a small apartment in the barn that he and his wife stay in when the go up there for 2 weeks every summer. They have been moving stuff up every summer and storing the stuff in the barn to minimize the amount of stuff they need to move when retirement day comes. When he moves up there, he will have a huge layout space in the barn to build his dream layout. Right now, he has a 4x8 in his covered patio. He is building models to use on the ultimate layout, and has enough locomotives that he could not possibly fit them all on all of the track on the 4x8. His plan is to model Philadelphia where he grew up, and he models Conrail & CSX with models in paint for Pennsy, Reading, C&O, B&O, CSX, Conrail Blue, and probably a few others that I have forgotten. I think his eventual plan is to include some Septa under catenary as well.
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - Green_Elite_Cab - 05-14-2011
Russ Bellinis Wrote:I would encourage you to have patience. Aren't you still living at home with your parents while going to school full time? Once you have finished your formal education, started on a career path, and ready to find your own home, then you can look for a home with a train room large enough to fit what you want to have. I think your basic problem right now is that you have a 4x8 space and you can't fit a 20x20 lay out into it no matter how much you try.
You're right (though school is over for the summer, thank god!). I still need to expand this yard. Its not a question of my wanting more, but i'm not even sure that yard is big enough for the trains in the pictures of the layout from the book i got it from! I don't mind still running my passenger trains in a single loop, but it would be nice to be able to operate my freight train a little more realistically. these two tracks are not enough. I've been working on a video to show my layout as it is now, and if i played it all, you'd see how frustrating it gets. It was like the Penn Central on a bad day.
the rest of that over complicated junk can go, or at least wait until another day. I think only when i finally get my own space, will i actually build a new layout from scratch.
Quote:I have a close friend here in So Cal that I think you could take a lesson from. He is probably about 5-7 years from retiring. He lives in a small typical tract home here in So Cal and works as an electrical engineer in the aerospace industry. He has bought a 5 acre property in Newport, Oregon to retire to. It has a house and a barn on the property. Right now, he rents out the house to a family, and he has a small apartment in the barn that he and his wife stay in when the go up there for 2 weeks every summer. They have been moving stuff up every summer and storing the stuff in the barn to minimize the amount of stuff they need to move when retirement day comes. When he moves up there, he will have a huge layout space in the barn to build his dream layout. Right now, he has a 4x8 in his covered patio. He is building models to use on the ultimate layout, and has enough locomotives that he could not possibly fit them all on all of the track on the 4x8. His plan is to model Philadelphia where he grew up, and he models Conrail & CSX with models in paint for Pennsy, Reading, C&O, B&O, CSX, Conrail Blue, and probably a few others that I have forgotten. I think his eventual plan is to include some Septa under catenary as well.
Sounds like an awesome set up in the works. I bet i could give him some lessons myself! I'd love to see his stuff if he is going to model SEPTA. I to have been collecting, its just that i figured i had space and maybe a little time. I already have several structure kits so i feel ready to build, but you're right, if i do it now, i'll loose the game in the long term
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - MrBill - 05-15-2011
The new yard design for the 4x8 looks great. Your track plan program works neat too. Do you have one of those triple turnouts already?
Re: GEC's Layout Progress - Green_Elite_Cab - 07-21-2011
MrBill Wrote:The new yard design for the 4x8 looks great. Your track plan program works neat too. Do you have one of those triple turnouts already?
well, just last week, i got around to my hobby shop and asked about them. They are $60 a pop! I'm still gonna do it, but I'm gonna hold off just a tad longer (having recently purchased a BLI GG1, my modeling budget is still recovering from that).
I plan to use a Peco Medium three way turnout, and i also have plans to replace some of my other switches with Peco ones (in particular, the crossovers in most of my recent photos need to go). I'm also going to try and invest in some Caboose Industries ground throws other turnouts, so that i can finally get rid of all those atlas switch machines. a 5 pack of them is $15, so I shouldn't have any problem re-equipping them on the layout.
I think i've definitely allowed my layout to decline a great deal, and i know i haven't done any major work on the layout itself for over a year (and much of the work done was replacing old track, nothing exciting). One day, I'll have to sit down, make up and plant some more trees, add more people, get street lights, traffic lights.
I'm still hesitant to ballast anything, because I'm pretty sure I'm going to start ripping up more and more track. I know ballast has been a major detail missing from much of my trackage.
Do have some neat projects, like a Head End Power Generator car (built from a 1940s UP 44 seat coach). Amtrak acquired these cars to place behind steam-heat locomotives so that they could power cars like the Amfleet. I've also tinkered with a couple more commuter car kits, but no major progress. Because of the track situation, the catenary project probably won't continue, at least not on the layout. I'm still tinkering with build a small diorama or module.
The big modeling i did recently was the repainting of E33 #4610, and the "re-patching" of GG1 #4840.
![[Image: p7060639.jpg]](http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/3696/p7060639.jpg)
![[Image: p7020579.jpg]](http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/692/p7020579.jpg)