At 03:01 AM 3/10/01,  jonp@... wrote:

>...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?

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 4ื8 and 5ื9 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

Hi Jon,
It's going to be a lot of work for you, and only you know whether
you're up for the task or not. I remember layout construction
increased it's membership by around 200 in less than a week.
There were militating circumstances to be sure, but that's still
a lot of traffic!
I agree that in order to stimulate discussion we should encourage
more folks to get involved in the group. Having said that, I'm pretty
sure that you will still have to put up with a number of "off topic"
threads such as:
1) The homasote/foamboard controversy
2) Aged lumber vs. ripped plywood along with a treatise on the
various types and grades of said plywood,and
3) The ubiquitous DCC threads that tend to last as long as a good flu.

These topics seem to be part and parcel of the construction side of
things which is the second item in your mandate. Although they do
nothing for me personally, I don't know how you can avoid them when a
lister announces or questions the merits of materials in the
construction of their own small layout.
To encourage further list membership, one could advertise at train
shows, preferably with a module or small layout present to emphasize
the concept. Better yet, get one of the groups' layouts published in
a popular mag and plug the site!
You could also consider a website or SIG membership to promote the
concepts internationally.
I realize this is alot of extra work, but hey, you asked :>)
I think you've put a tremendous amount of work/thought into the group
so far, and I'm interested in seeing it develop.
Realistically, the quickest way to expand a group is to go public.
Release the hounds Jon, and good luck!

Jeff Hatcher
"Please fasten your seatbelts and observe the no flaming signs"












--- In small-layout-design@y..., jonp@b... wrote:
> 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

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

Thanks Jeff! I've been busy laying track, so I need to get so more digital
photos taken of my progress. I've also started work on the "bridge" that
will connect the two penninsulas to provide the continuous running. The
liftout section will be modeled as a trestle. I'll post a photo of how I
built the framing for the lift out section, including the hand-holds so that
the trestle remains secure while being moved.

If anyone is interested in seeing progress as of a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.geocities.com/jrcurtis95035/index.html


> Joseph R. Curtis
> Superintendent & Shay Driver
> Mendocino Coast Lumber & Railroad Company




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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.

Hi Joseph,
Just thought I'd take a look for any new updates.
The photos are great. Looks like the layout is really coming
along nicely.
Kudos to your wife on the kits!
Jeff

The new up--- In small-layout-design@y..., Joseph Curtis
<jcurtis@m...> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In small-layout-design@y..., Paul/Celine Kossart <kozys@t...>
wrote:


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.

Hey there, Paul.
Despite the fact that there's only 10 of us, I wouldn't make that bet.
This is SMALL layout design, where the nature of our
compromises are more prone to be "gimmicky" than in
other designs.
When you think about it, all layouts use gimmicks to satisfy
their creators' need to have operations in limited space. We are
just so used to them that we don't think of them as "gimmicks"
anymore. Rather, they are "solutions" to our lack of space issues.
Examples would include:
1) Hidden staging.
2) Helixes/ multideck layouts
3) Selective compression
In our situations, the space is SO limited, that more drastic steps
may need to be taken. The result: compromises that others perceive to
be gimmicks.
These gimmicks don't exist in an intellectual vacuum. They really
are used. I may have an advantage here as I am a member of the BRMNA
(British Railway Modellers of North America)where most folks are used
to making do with a lot less space. These ideas aren't "new", in fact
I suspect most of them pre-date HO when a lot of Brits were trying to
fit their O scale layouts into considerably smaller abodes. You'd be
hard pressed to look through one of their monthlies without coming
across one or more of these "gimmicks". Just take a look at Paul
Dolkos' 1996 MRP article to see what I'm talking about.
However, if you're looking for examples close to home, you need go
no further than MR:
1) Barrow's South Plains layout revisited (staging on the fly)
2) Dolkos' Tight Yankee/Compact Dixie (sector plate)
3) Ben King's TC&NW (complete train turntable at Grizzly Flats)
4) Paul Scoles (moveable staging via carry ferry)
5) Nick Palette's portable BN switching layout(sector plate)

Also, there is a fellow up here in Vancouver, B.C., who had his layout
on the Trains '96 tour. I think his last name is Green. I know he was
mentioned in some capacity on ldsig not too long ago in connection
with the thread on teenagers and model railroading. If memory serves,
he has a multideck point to point where each terminus is a well
constructed traverser. It's not a small layout either by any stretch!
Summary: These "gimmicks" are used extensively over the pond and in
increasing numbers here as space becomes more of a premium. They are
referred to as solutions because they work. The use of gimmicks will
increase as operational interest increases with a
corresponding decrease in available space. I suspect that is why this
group is called Small Layout Design vs. Nice Diorama Design. Finally,
I'm pretty sure that the above authors would consider their efforts to
be serious and realistic in both their intent and execution. YVMV.
Now, let's see what we can do about that train turning problem....
Jeff

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.


At 05:55 AM 2/23/01,  jonp@... wrote:

>The point I want to make is that these special solutions -- traverser
>tracks, flying interchanges, train turntables -- can be made to work
>and can prove to be practical, but you might want to consider how
>integral a part of train operations the special solution will become.


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 --

Sorry, Jeff, for the delay in getting back about this -- work's been
kinda busy!

Thanks for posting the info on the Rice book.  If anyone is searching
for this book on-line, it might help to have the ISBN number.

The ISBN number for "Small, Smart & Practical Track Plans" is --

0890244162

I'd be interested to know how many North American modellers have
adopted the British techniques of fiddle yards or traverser tracks or
even Rice's more radical interchange track "elevator".  I think these
solutions can be useful but they may require some compromises in what
you expect from your layout.

For example, I was sketching some layout designs for a (roughly) 10-
by-12 space and was discussing the possibility of using a "train
turntable" with a friend.  In the layout I was sketching, I needed a
way to turn trains after they travelled through the main scene on the
layout, but I did not have room for a loop of any sort.

In addition to the engineering challenges I'd be up against, my
friend made a very good observation: having to operate the special
table or shelfwork during the operating session could really detract
from one's overall enjoyment of the layout.

My friend was concerned that the VERY OBVIOUS "model railroad"
thoughts imposed by having to deal with a full-size mechanical and
electronic interlocking system, movable benchwork and the concern
over accidentally sending models on a one-way trip to the floor would
really get in the way of operating trains and enjoying the layout.  I
think he made a very good point and it was not really something that
I had thought of until then.

The point I want to make is that these special solutions -- traverser
tracks, flying interchanges, train turntables -- can be made to work
and can prove to be practical, but you might want to consider how
integral a part of train operations the special solution will become.

If it is something that MUST be employed to get a train through the
scenes on your layout -- that is, if you have to operate the special
solution right in the middle of a switching job or a local turn --
you might want to evaluate how that's going to affect the layout's
operations and your expectations from the layout.

If it's the only way you're going to be able to operate trains in a
very small space, then it might be worth it.  If it's something
that's going to get in the way of normal operations, you might want
to reconsider it, as I did on that particular plan.

All that said, though, I'd be really interested to hear from anyone
who has built such a contraption and how they use it on their
layout.  I'd be interested to hear about how it affects operations
and how it has been integrated into operations.

Thanks!

Jon Piasecki


--- In small-layout-design@y..., thehatchers@t... wrote:
> 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

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

> It would seem like a good idea if not just to break up the geometry.

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

>
>
> Some more thoughts on this subject:
>
> I was thinking the other day regarding the backdrop up the center.  It's
> distance from the front edge of the layout could vary.  This would allow a
> deep scene on one side versus a shallow one on the other - a city area on
> one side v. a mainline run between towns, etc. on the other, for example.
>
> >Another idea I used years ago when playing around with designs for a never
> >built N-scale layout - on one side have your city area.  Run the mainline
> >near the end beneath a large, Union-type station or higher section of the
> >city.  Underneath this, and out of site, would be your turnback curve
> >which also goes through the backdrop unseen  and exits into a rural, or
> >whatever scene on the other side.  I think the layout size was something
> >like four by twelve or sixteen feet.
>
> Paul Kossart - Peru, Illinois, USA .
> NMRA, BRHS, La Salle & Bureau County Model Railroad Club
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>   Modeling the CB&Q & Illiniwek River Branch in HO  ~  Circa late 1960's.
> "Serving Agriculture and Industry in the Illiniwek River Valley since 1904."
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________

Some more thoughts on this subject:

I was thinking the other day regarding the backdrop up the center.  It's
distance from the front edge of the layout could vary.  This would allow a
deep scene on one side versus a shallow one on the other - a city area on
one side v. a mainline run between towns, etc. on the other, for example.

>Another idea I used years ago when playing around with designs for a never
>built N-scale layout - on one side have your city area.  Run the mainline
>near the end beneath a large, Union-type station or higher section of the
>city.  Underneath this, and out of site, would be your turnback curve
>which also goes through the backdrop unseen  and exits into a rural, or
>whatever scene on the other side.  I think the layout size was something
>like four by twelve or sixteen feet.


Paul Kossart - Peru, Illinois, USA .
NMRA, BRHS, La Salle & Bureau County Model Railroad Club
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   Modeling the CB&Q & Illiniwek River Branch in HO  ~  Circa late 1960's.
"Serving Agriculture and Industry in the Illiniwek River Valley since 1904."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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 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 Jon,

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



>  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.
>
> 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
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________

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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

> Hi Paul,

You wrote:

>
> You know, this got me thinking.  I have toyed with the idea of making a
> smaller, island type layout in the basement instead of trying to fill every
> space with the so called, every square inch filling dream
> layout.  Apparently I too have been conditioned to think that more is more
> as the first thing that comes to mind is now what do I have to give up,
> what will I be losing if I pursue the smaller pike (now there's a word you
> don't see everyday).

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.

> One focus of this list should be to promote the idea
> that the smaller layout can be a _complete_ layout in itself and not just a
> compromise or only viable as a beginner's layout (sorry Mr. K.).

I don't think Mr. K. would mind. He's penned a few good small layout ideas
himself
(see MRP 1995: Wingate, Ind.).

> OTOH, I
> would hate to see this list become a forum for bashing large, basement
> filling layouts.  A small layout can and should be a viable , complete
> alternative to that.  There is a real place for both configurations and all
> should keep that in mind.

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

>"Jeffrey Hatcher" <thehatchers@...> wrote:
>
> >As an apartment dweller myself I agree completely with Jack's
> >comment,for the most part, that small layouts are our only option.
What Jeff says is true of course.  But what came to my mind is the small
layout as maybe the only option for people with various forms of
disabilities or mobility limitations as well.

> >The point is this: Small layouts are excellent,and by no means should
> >be seen as a default to "real layouts", which often seems to be the
> >prevalent view on the various lists.

       <snip>

> >Enter the small layout, where less really is more and a longer length
> >of run does not equate to superior modelling.

You know, this got me thinking.  I have toyed with the idea of making a
smaller, island type layout in the basement instead of trying to fill every
space with the so called, every square inch filling dream
layout.  Apparently I too have been conditioned to think that more is more
as the first thing that comes to mind is now what do I have to give up,
what will I be losing if I pursue the smaller pike (now there's a word you
don't see everyday).  One focus of this list should be to promote the idea
that the smaller layout can be a _complete_ layout in itself and not just a
compromise or only viable as a beginner's layout (sorry Mr. K.).  OTOH, I
would hate to see this list become a forum for bashing large, basement
filling layouts.  A small layout can and should be a viable , complete
alternative to that.  There is a real place for both configurations and all
should keep that in mind.



Paul Kossart - Peru, Illinois, USA .
NMRA, BRHS, La Salle & Bureau County Model Railroad Club
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   Modeling the CB&Q & Illiniwek River Branch in HO  ~  Circa late 1960's.
"Serving Agriculture and Industry in the Illiniwek River Valley since 1904."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>Jon Piasecki <jonp@...> wrote:
>
> >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.
       <snip>

> >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.
Keep the list going, Jon.  I think it definitely has a distinctive, stand
alone niche.


Paul Kossart - Peru, Illinois, USA .
NMRA, BRHS, La Salle & Bureau County Model Railroad Club
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   Modeling the CB&Q & Illiniwek River Branch in HO  ~  Circa late 1960's.
"Serving Agriculture and Industry in the Illiniwek River Valley since 1904."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi everyone,
I really like the concept of this list.
As an apartment dweller myself I agree completely with Jack's
comment,for the most part, that small layouts are our only option.
Of course, one could always participate in a larger club layout
if the time and inclination were there, but that isn't the point.
The point is this: Small layouts are excellent,and by no means should
be seen as a default to "real layouts", which often seems to be the
prevalent view on the various lists. Unfortunately, most folks aren't
interested in chatting about the construction and operation of a
"small layout". They want to talk about the dream layout that they'll
build some day with Class 1 operations to suit a gizillion operators.
And if, by some stroke of fate, these pundits actually get off their
duff and build something,IMO, their chances of realizing their dream
before money, time or frustration does them in is remote.
Enter the small layout, where less really is more and a longer length
of run does not equate to superior modelling. Anyone can build a
small
layout with minimal time,cost or skills. If you like it;great, if
not,
learn and move on. It's small enough to scrap without agonizing over
it. You get better each time and you get to model what strikes your
current fancy. No second mortgages to convert scales/eras!
Jon states that:
"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."
This is true. It certainly seems more focussed than LDSIG. However,
I couldn't help but notice that the reply on a recent request for
suggestions on a "small" 6x10 layout (I should be so lucky) started
with ideas on how to enlarge the available size first! Old habits die
hard I guess. I may be mistaken, but I haven't seen any layouts
discussed on MRyDesign that were under 30 square feet.
Ok, I'm stepping off the soapbox :>).
Jon, let's keep the list going. I'm more than ready to talk about any
thing related to small layouts. Here are some topics I'd like to talk
about:
-Clever space savings designs. Does anyone use sector
plates/traversers/cassettes. How about 3 way turnouts?
- What sort of prototypes lend themselves to small layout operations.
Has anyone applied these operations to a free lance theme?
-Has anyone designed their layout for exhibitions? How did it go?
What design and materials were used? What would you do differently?
-What makes a "great" small layout?
-Tony K put out a challenge for a layout designed as a beginner's
first layout that offers/promotes realistic operation. Size is 4x8.
Does anyone have any thoughts on a design?
There's lots to talk about....let's start.
Jeff




















> -
> -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@b...
> -Moderator, small-layout-design
> -
> -
> -
> -
> -____________________________________
> -
> -Small Layout Design Discussion Group
> -
> -http://small-layout-design@egroups.com
> -
> -http://www.bolditalicpublications.com/sld
> -
> -
> -

I like the name too, and I think it has a place. I haven't had time
yet to upload anything yet, but I've have designed and built several
small layouts, and for us apartment dwellers, small layouts is our
only  option. I will work on some things to post and/or upload.
Jack Seay

jonp@... said at า[small-layout-design] Status
of small-layout-designำ.
[Jan/05/2001Fri 09:33]

-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
-
-
-
-
-____________________________________
-
-Small Layout Design Discussion Group
-
-http://small-layout-design@egroups.com
-
-http://www.bolditalicpublications.com/sld
-
-
-

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

Just wanted to wish you all compliments of the season!
I just logged onto an interesting N scale group called
n_tutorial@egroups.com 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 --

Thanks to Jeff for posting the idea on two-sided layouts.

Jeff included some ASCII art in his e-mail that gave me some ideas.  I've
sketched a design for a 2-by-8-foot layout based on Jeff's ideas and have
posted it at --

http://www.bolditalicpublications.com/sld/two_sided_layout.htm

I could see these layouts being fantastic exercises in building very
detailed structures and equipment.  This apporach seems to me to have a lot
of potential!

Thanks --

Jon Piasecki
jonp@...


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Hatcher" <thehatchers@...>
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 1:35 AM
Subject: [small-layout-design] Micro layouts

<edit>

> 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.

<edit>

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

Hello All --

Thanks to everyone who has joined the list and those who have sent me
e-mails privately to ask about the list.  I have not yet made Small-
Layout-Design (SLD) "public" -- it is still "hidden" from the egroups
search engine -- as I would like to see how the MRyDesign list works
out.

You can check out MRyDesign at http://www.egroups.com/group/MRyDesign

There have been some posting to MRyDesign expression concern over
fragmentation of the layout design mailing lists, and I am hesitant
to make SLD public as that may be seen by some as further
fragmentation.  If you've not already joined MRyDesign, please check
it out and consider signing on there, too.

If I find that MRyDesign is not meeting my needs for layout design
discussion, I'll make SLD public and will try to keep it focused on
small layout design.  And of course, if I find that SLD takes shape
by itself and we get a lot of participation on the list, I'll open it
up.

So what am I looking for in a layout design discussion group?  I'd
like to see more discussion on the challenges of designing and
building a small layout.  I think it is much more difficult to design
and build a convincing and enjoyable small layout than it is to build
a large one.

I'd like to hear how people are approaching their layouts - what
decisions they are making and how they are making those decisions.  I
hope people here will post their experiences to the group.  Don't
feel you have to wait for someone to ask a specific question -- if
you have an experience, thought or revelation to discuss, please post
it!  I'm hoping, actually, that we'll see longer posts on this list --
  something like small articles -- as people describe what they are up
to.

As for list rules, let's keep them simple: keep it civil, keep it
clean and suitable for all ages, and no politics.

Please, let's refrain from discussing list politics and other such
non-hobby related items in the discussion group.  If you have a
problem with SLD, please contact me and we'll see what can be done
about it.

So who am I, anyway?

I've been into model railroading off-and-on for something like 20
years.  Unfortunately, I don't really have anything to show for it!
I've built small layouts in HO (4-by-8, unfinished, abandoned in my
parents' crawlspace), HOn30 (2-by-4, unfinished, scrapped) and N (16"-
by-8, unfinished, scrapped).  The "unfinished, scrapped" part of
things has always bothered me!

My wife and I recently moved into a home and we have a basement, but
I won't be able to use the entire basement.  Realistically, I have a
10-by-10 space available in the basement, or a 10-by-12 space
available in a bedroom that will have to also serve as an office.

I am a member of the Toronto, Hamilton & Buffalo Railway Historical
Society and I presently serve as the society's webmaster.  You can
see the site at

http://www.thbrailway.com/

A small TH&B-inspired layout I designed for a bedroom can be seen at

http://www.thbrailway.com/modelling

This page also features a layout design article from Kevin Leddy,
another member of the TH&BRHS.

Check out the articles and post comments on the list.  I hope to add
more material to both articles to give you a better of idea of the
layouts' context -- I'll be adding more prototype photos and track
diagrams as they become available.

From earlier posts --

Paul Kossart asked "Would a segment of a larger layout qualify as a
small layout in terms of getting info/feedback on track planning for
that area?" -- I think it would.  Your segment of a larger layout
could be adapted as a design element in a smaller layout -- or it
could be adapted as a small layout in itself.  General discussion of
design elements -- scenes, operations, etc. -- will always be welcome
here, as such things can be applied to any layout.

Jeff Hatcher asked "I recall reading an article in the Gazette about
a micro layout contest, but I don't remember what the definition
was."  I believe the Gazette was referring to a contest held in
Europe by a French modeling organization.  I'll look through my
Gazettes to see if I can find more information on this.  I believe
that the layouts are actually more like working dioramas -- they tend
to feature a single scene.  I'll see what I can find on these and
will post something to the list.

Thanks --

Jon Piasecki
jonp@...

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

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"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~