Comments on: Relaxation, Reflection, and maybe a new layout.

By: Shaun

Shaun — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:24:47 +0000

I agree.

I’ve been working on a quick “compromise” plan for the office, where the wife has okay’d using the room as both the layout room and guest room. It’ll result in a much smaller layout, but’ll be inside and I’ll be able to re-use a lot of the wall mounted benchwork.

I’ll post some info soon.

By: Philip H

Philip H — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:59:36 +0000

All fair points. It jsut seems to me that, even if you redo the track, salvaging the benchwork and using it to start from will save a ton of time, and thus lead to quicker train running.

By: Phil

Phil — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:20:53 +0000

Shaun, I completely understand where you’re coming from. I’ve gone through the same thing in my planning on what do I really want to get out of a layout.

By: Shaun

Shaun — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:43:38 +0000

Well, the primary reason for removing the layout is for converting the room back to a use-able, standard looking bedroom/computer desk space.

The new layout actually would incorporate a little bit of all the areas on the deck. I’ve been doodling a little and I’d still have town, the refinery, and the bridge. Might even get the paper mill in their. I’d be able to run trains up to 12-14′(!) on the garage layout as well (currently 6.5′ is my limit). I’ve even got a 7 track staging yard in there.

While having the two decks makes for a nice long run, construction I feel will be a lot easier with a simple single layout. So that’s why I no longer want the helix.

By: Philip H

Philip H — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:32:51 +0000

Shaun,
Why tear down the current layout completely? It seems to methat you already have a layout with tremendous railfanning potential – why not look at each deck as a Layout Desin Element, and see how you might pull them togteher in your new space. Approaching it this way, you get to the railfanning faster, as you ar ejust rearranging what you have to better suit your goals. Plus, you could keep the helix, which would allow for two u shaped decks and lots of long runs.

By: Rangachari Anand

Rangachari Anand — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:05:50 +0000

I am with you when it comes to switching and realistic operations. Although Model Railroader and other magazines tend to emphasize that part of the hobby, it does not really work for me. There are other ways to create a layout that will keep you entertained.

I wote up my thoughts on this recently on my blog: http://coralfringe.blogspot.com/2009/04/capturing-complexity.html

By: Shaun

Shaun — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:43:49 +0000

Whoops. Actually that’s about 16′x7′ of available space. Fixed the post.

But yeah, when I think about the time, money, and work that would be lost be tearing down the existing layout, it doesn’t really bother me.

It’s like you said, it’s coming down so something better can replace it. It’s like a breath of fresh air and kind of exciting knowing I can design a layout to incorporate a couple elements I wanted to do before but couldn’t.

By: CSXDixieLine

CSXDixieLine — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 03:45:57 +0000

I can tell you from experience that 8 x 18 is plenty of space for a big layout (see my current track plan!). I always look at it this way–if I am ripping up one layout, it is because something better will be next. And it doesn’t have to be bigger to be better, either. I’m about to rip up the first track I ever laid on a “real” layout to accommodate a new track plan and surprisingly it doesn’t bother me at all. Just don’t let it bother you–this is a hobby after all! Jamie