Conceptualising a layout

Re: Conceptualising a layout

Postby CSD » Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:15 am

TTQuebec wrote:A further bit about the bridges: these would be removable, little mini-pseudo-modules of their own. So, the layout would also be transportable in whole or in part, and collapsible for space saving, etc.


Ok I follow your concept. Once your timetable is streamlined this should be really cool to operate. You even have the luxury of taking it to a show.
Mark
//S
User avatar
CSD
 
Posts: 2270
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: St. Albert, Alberta, Canada

Re: Conceptualising a layout

Postby ctxmf74 » Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:24 pm

TTQuebec wrote: the modules would be connected to each other via bridges: unscenicked (or just ballasted/grassed), narrow strips just wide enough to hold the appropriate number of tracks (like on the PM/C&O from Corunna all the way to Sarnia Yard, three tracks on the proto - my rough initial sketching shows two). These bridges would be about a quarter again as long as the longest train I expect to run.


I think most operations oriented modelers use a similiar system of selected module locations( the popular term seems to be "layout design elements") with generic connecting track between them but most end up with minimal scenery on the "bridge" tracks just so they have something to look at while the train runs out it's time between stations.
Depending on the size and shape of your room there could be countless ways to connect the detailed working parts with the bridge tracks, it would take lots of planning to minimize the footprint and maximize the run. One way I've always thought would be cool would be to make the layout like a wheel with all the LDE modules radiating from the central connecting hub like spokes so all the bridge trackage could share the same space, either with stacked loops or maybe even using common loops with switches off to each LDE? ........dave
ctxmf74
 
Posts: 702
Images: 32
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:25 am

Re: Conceptualising a layout

Postby ctxmf74 » Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:43 pm

TTQuebec wrote: I do, however, want to run code 55 rail (maybe 70ish on the C&O line, but definitely no heavier than 55 on the CASO). If I spend all that time laying track to P:87 spec, when am I going to build all those tank cars??? :mrgreen:


I'd definitely use code 55 rail. Soldered to pc board ties to eliminate spiking goes pretty fast.
The main difference between track for P87 wheels and HP wheels would be the frogs and the points clearance plus the necessity to be more careful with tolerances for things like cross levelness and track geometry for the smaller flanges. If you start out building to P87 specs and decide it's too sensitive you could always file out the frogs to suit HP wheels , or you could start with HP specs and fill the frogs with solder and re- file them to P87 specs if you decide that the HP wheels are too coarse for the layout?
The big picture is will you find enough stuff to detail a layout to the point where P87 wheels and flanges are needed to maintain a consistent level of accuracy and detail? I'm not sure TT scale has all the stuff needed to build a layout at the highest level so that's why I'm satisfied with the HP wheels for now. .......dave
ctxmf74
 
Posts: 702
Images: 32
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:25 am

Re: Conceptualising a layout

Postby Marquette » Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:58 pm

Dave,

I would, if not outright disagree, have some reservations about thinking that a TT layout can't be built to the highest level of detail. The Gold Coast freight cars are of a solid quality, and can definitely be detailed up very nicely - even if just getting the brake rigging done. Resin kits also lend themselves well to kitbashing and superdetailing. Structures - well, for me, most if not all will be scratchbuilt.

I would rather tend to think that any level of detail and accuracy can be done in any scale - sheet styrene and brass isn't hard to get, just takes a bit of work. The only big question is, how much work a given modeller will want to put in. :)
http://espeett.blogspot.com - The SP in 1:120 - my attempt at a blog
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
User avatar
Marquette
 
Posts: 2061
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:16 pm

Re: Conceptualising a layout

Postby CSD » Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:30 pm

TTQuebec wrote:
I got a bunch of initial theoretical sketching done last night while studying C&O track diagrams of the Sarnia sub, and as I was doing it, a thought hit me about the feasibility of laying all that track to P:87 spec. I'm starting to question whether it's a good idea to commit to it or not. I do, however, want to run code 55 rail (maybe 70ish on the C&O line, but definitely no heavier than 55 on the CASO). If I spend all that time laying track to P:87 spec, when am I going to build all those tank cars??? :mrgreen:


First off, the little code 55 in TT I've seen really looks great. Unfortunately, the NEM flanges catch on the ties on low profile track and it might be a disappointment to some of your guest operators if they couldn't run the stock they bring. It may also limit you in terms of running a few foreign collectables through.
Mark
//S
User avatar
CSD
 
Posts: 2270
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: St. Albert, Alberta, Canada

Re: Conceptualising a layout

Postby ctxmf74 » Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:29 am

TTQuebec wrote:I have some reservations about thinking that a TT layout can't be built to the highest level of detail. The Gold Coast freight cars are of a solid quality, and can definitely be detailed up very nicely - even if just getting the brake rigging done. Resin kits also lend themselves well to kitbashing and superdetailing. Structures - well, for me, most if not all will be scratchbuilt.


The problem isn't the quality of the gold coast cars it's the lack of a lot of the stuff needed to create a realistic scene. Not many cars or trucks or other common scenic details available. No real selection of state of the art rolling stock other than the gold coast, etc. I can think of a few limited scenes that could be created to high quality with the stuff available but not a lot of common USA railroad operations. I'm optimistic than the situation will slowly change and I'm planning to take advantage of the great size of TT as it happens....dave
ctxmf74
 
Posts: 702
Images: 32
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:25 am

Re: Conceptualising a layout

Postby ctxmf74 » Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:35 am

CSD wrote: the little code 55 in TT I've seen really looks great. Unfortunately, the NEM flanges catch on the ties on low profile track and it might be a disappointment to some of your guest operators if they couldn't run the stock they bring.


Haha, Make them check their rolling stock a the door?
We can build a layout to suit ourselves or we can build it to suit some visitors?
I guess it depends on the goal?
ctxmf74
 
Posts: 702
Images: 32
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:25 am

Re: Conceptualising a layout

Postby Marquette » Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:13 am

Yeah - with road vehicles it's difficult. But, for me at least with my late 40s, early 50s focus, I *do* have some options: there are some nice models of Soviet-built military trucks that are direct copies of WW2-era GMCs and Studebakers. Automobile-wise, less so, though Herpa's Volga is really nice, and it does have a general 1950s US feel to it. That's an area that really needs addressing. For modern modellers, though, there's at least one Japanese company that makes quite nice automobiles in 1:120.

Rolling stock is a question that can be addressed... GC is a great start. Now all we need is a couple of guys who can make resin kits to the sort of accuracy that Westerfield and Sunshine do, for example. In the meantime, there's scratchbuilding. Modelling Canada as I am, there are a few car types I'm going to need in considerable number. My plan is to make masters, and then make resin castings for a relatively quick (as compared to individually scratchbuilding) build of a number of 36' Fowler cars. For the time being I'm working only on the CP design (unevenly-angled bracing, 5' doors), but eventually I want to get to the CN version (evenly-angled bracing, 6' doors) as well. A more immediate plan (a smaller-scale thing than a full car), I want to do some different ends and roofs to fit the Gold Coast 1937 AAR car, to be able to swap them for the supplied parts to match prototypes as needed.

Power... yeah, that's a serious lack. It seems like it's starting to be addressed, what with the GP38-2 and the SD45, though. (Though for me and my time frame, those may as well be German!) :P

Structures, I'm not so sure our lack is a big deal: even in HO, if you're modelling a prototype as accurately as possible, structures are probably going to be mostly scratchbuilt or at least heavily kitbashed.

I think, though, that I'm looking at it more from a sort of viewpoint that says: "if styrene is available, if brass is available, if raw materials are available, it's doable!" :)
http://espeett.blogspot.com - The SP in 1:120 - my attempt at a blog
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
User avatar
Marquette
 
Posts: 2061
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:16 pm

Re: Conceptualising a layout

Postby AstroGoat760 » Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:08 pm

TTQuebec wrote:Yeah - with road vehicles it's difficult. But, for me at least with my late 40s, early 50s focus, I *do* have some options: there are some nice models of Soviet-built military trucks that are direct copies of WW2-era GMCs and Studebakers. Automobile-wise, less so, though Herpa's Volga is really nice, and it does have a general 1950s US feel to it. That's an area that really needs addressing. For modern modellers, though, there's at least one Japanese company that makes quite nice automobiles in 1:120.


There are some 1940's and 1950's cars and a truck available from Mini Things.

To cover more modern aspects, Nicholle and I are in the opening stages of beginning modeling of some more recent North American vehicles.
We have measurements down for our 1993 Aerostar, 1985 F-150, and of my yard tractor, and we are working on making those into plans to base a clay model of each of to make the needed molds.

Like the Mini Things models, the vehicles may end up being a solid casting, although there will be more pieces involved with the truck kit, than the Mini Things truck, with the bed being a separate part from the cab to allow for different variants, to include Flat-bed, short bed, tool box bed, and dual rear wheel.

I am open to suggestions on prototypes, just be aware that there are some vehicles that I will not touch, such as the Pontiac Aztek, out of sheer want to vomit whenever I see one.
Course Set, Speed - Maximum Warp, PUNCH IT!
User avatar
AstroGoat760
 
Posts: 3473
Images: 0
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Lidgerwood, North Dakota, USA

Re: Conceptualising a layout

Postby Marquette » Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:09 pm

Sailor, some ideas:

Brill IC41 intercity bus:
Image

1947 GMC Stepside pickup:
Image

1946 Pontiac:
Image

1941 International K-8:
Image

1949 Reo Speedwagon:
Image

BTW, OT but for truck ideas you might want to check out http://www.hankstruckpictures.com ... amazing collection of photos of trucks from all eras!
http://espeett.blogspot.com - The SP in 1:120 - my attempt at a blog
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
User avatar
Marquette
 
Posts: 2061
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:16 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Layouts / Track Plans

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 0 guests

cron