# Is this too compplex?



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

Hi everyone. I'm a newbie when it comes to layouts, but have been playing with Anyrail for a few months now and have landed on this idea which puts down a lot of track in a relatively small area.

Here is my attempt at an N scale layout that will be rural mountains and a river going into a reservoir. I'm not planning to have any buildings at this time.

It took me a while to learn how to use Anyrail software, but here it is. Please critique. Is this too complex for the size of the layout?

The dark blue section is at 4 inches in height. The Orange is 2 inches, and the light blue is ground level. Green sections are inclines/declines.

Hopefully, this is enough for you experts to see the design clearly. It is one long section

Thanks in advance for any advice. 



























Please share any critiques you have!


----------



## cv_acr (Oct 28, 2011)

It's difficult for me to critique a layout that's schematically just a simple loop folded multiple times into the same scene since it's just entirely not my style, but one thing to note is the two loops at top left are very close to each other and probably fouling. I don't know if you plan to run more than one train following each other on the loop they could hit each other there. (It's hard to tell from the drawing scale; it might be OK, but looks pretty close. You might need to shift that lower loop down a bit.)


----------



## J.Albert1949 (Feb 3, 2018)

Yes.
It's way to "complicated" and looks a jumble of curves for curves' sake.

Simpler will be better.


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

Thanks cv_acr!

I only intend to run one train at a time, but I see what you mean. I think that part might be a little tight like you mentioned. I might take that lower loop out, and then extend the loop to its east. That loop to the east (center of the layout is where I intend to put a reservoir.


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

J.Albert1949 said:


> Yes.
> It's way to "complicated" and looks a jumble of curves for curves' sake.
> 
> Simpler will be better.


Yeah, I'm trying to do a lot with a little space. I'm realy not into yards, and I'm trying to avoid complexities like turnouts and spurs. I want some bridges and tunnels, and I was fixating on getting height in a small space, so sort of like a helix, but making it cone shaped to climb ascend or descend.

I'm trying to get a layout that only requires one train and one transformer, but has a lot of features that will be fun to build (bridges & tunnels).


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

If you will be keeping the mountain, I would hide most of that track under it and use tunnel portals for entry and exit. It makes for a much more varied and visually interesting landscape and railroad.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

_ I_ totally agree that creating mountains, bridges, tunnels, buildings and
interesting little scenes is a major part of our hobby. But so is running
trains. The layout you suggest would be ideal for continuous running...
you can sit back and watch as a long freight navigates your sea of
track. And the next day, you can do it again. And again. And again.
Continuous running is very important in a layout design, but if there is
nothing else you can do with your trains will you not soon tire of it all.

I would strongly urge you to think about how you will run your trains and
perhaps see the wisdom of including a yard to store the cars and spurs to
serve businesses that use rail freight, Yes, you would need turnouts to
do that. Those features would make possible the creative 'art' of
switching. With DCC you could have a train continuous running but
at the same time you could be shunting cars about the yards and
spurs. These operations can be a challenge to your skills and add
hours of fun to your hobby.

Don


----------



## Dennis461 (Jan 5, 2018)

Even the title is
*compplex*


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

JeffHurl said:


> Hi everyone. I'm a newbie when it comes to layouts, but have been playing with Anyrail for a few months now and have landed on this idea which puts down a lot of track in a relatively small area.
> 
> Here is my attempt at an N scale layout that will be rural mountains and a river going into a reservoir. I'm not planning to have any buildings at this time.
> 
> ...


JeffHurl;

Yes. Your plan is way to complex, or no, its not, depending on what you want to end up with. If you want what I call "a train setup", with lots of trains rushing around & around pointlessly, or one train going around a very long and over curved track then your track plan is still complex, (excessively so in my opinion) but it fits what you want.

If, on the other hand, you want to end up with a "model railroad," that means a model of part of a real railroad, or at least something that reasonably portrays something that a real, full-sized, railroad might build. On that front, your present track plan looks nothing like a real railroad. Real trains move freight, or passengers, from point 'A' to point 'B'. they do not run around in circles, just to burn fuel, or to amuse themselves.

Now don't get me wrong. There is nothing inherently "right" or "wrong" about either of these approaches. It's simply your choice of what you want.
If you have ever seen a Lionel 3-rail layout, then you have seen a "train setup." Lots of loops of track, and plenty of action. Trains running around, and working accessories all over the place. It's not the least bit realistic, but it sure is loads of fun!

To see how different the track plan of a "model railroad" can be, go to the "layout design" section of this forum and open the thread called, "Here are the layouts of some forum members. At the end of that thread you will find the track plan of my layout. It's long, and skinny, and has relatively little track, and loops only where needed.
Also, a lot of the track on my railroad is hidden. Though it all shows on the plan, a lot of my track is concealed behind removable backdrops and scenery. No loops are completely visible. The reason for this is that a train runs through the same scene only once, and appears to be going from "Seattle" through "Black River" and on to "Cedar Falls." These are real places in Washington state, and the railroad I'm modeling, The Milwaukee Road, actually connected them.

Now, you needn't follow either the Lionel setup, or my track plan. You can use Anyrail to design your own personal track plan at any level of realism that you want, from none, to a lot. That's strictly up to you.

The files below are some I wrote for newbies planning their first layout. Look through them if you like. They may help you to decide what you want to build.

Good Luck & Have Fun;

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

I nearly labored over a whole l o n g critique on what's wrong with thi ~~~ But then I thought:
Y' live and learn !


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

I think it is imaginative, interesting, and a good first effort. I mean that very sincerely. But.....................it will get old rather quickly. And, it will get old for the very limitation you explained you want to avoid...no or few turnouts and spurs. Believe it or not, that is the only reason railroads exist!!! They can't win a dime or a handout from anyone unless they have spurs to industries, and then only if a turnout affords the railroad access to the industry, and the industry access to shipping. Said more concisely, no money, no funny.

And, I'll be dead honest...my first internal comment was, 'This looks like a slot car layout.'

You're getting a firehose's volume of criticism. Please be patient, be open, and be careful not to fall in love too early with the wrong 'girl'. There are positives: you know how to design a layout using CAD, and you already have a sense that you'd like to have it with elevations. I like that, and so will you....pretty sure.

If I could convince you to minimize the numbers of tangents connected by 90 deg curves, that would be a great first re-orientation for you away from Ye Olde Slott Carre and get your head around terrain and why railroads are all curves...with a few connecting tangents. That 'cuz nature has all those contours meant purely for when Mankind eventually got around to railroads. It keeps costs and wear 'n tear down.


----------



## Severn (May 13, 2016)

I have a similar swirly thing I created without planning which I crazily prefer at this point... But I would say it seems complicated for a first effort to me.

I think I'd try to simplify it to a kind of inner and outer line which not may or may be connected first that could be expanded.. there's room for that... But do that first, just kinda put it out and maybe rough in some scenery aspects and run it a little. And go from there...


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Instead of showing part numbers on the plan, have AnyRail display elevations and grades (on the SHOW menu). That will help to visualize the layout heights in 2D mode, and also alert you if any of your grades are too steep.

So, I don't think I'm going to say anything you haven't already heard. What you have done is to make a very large, very complicated loop. Which is easy to do in AnyRail. But this is an example of what Byron Henderson (a professional layout designer) calls "CAD too soon". By which he means you have started drawing track without understanding what you want your layout to do. So you have crammed in as much track as possible, without any consideration of how the track will fit with the other elements of your layout. 

So what are you looking for? Do you want to watch a train run through gorgeous mountain scenery? Then sit down and think about the kind of scenes you want to see on that layout. A train running along a river with mountains in the background? Where is that going to be? Want to see your train crossing the lake on a causeway? Where is that scene? Or a waterfall tumbling down behind over / under bridges? Again, where is that? What will the viewing angle be for each of these? Realistic scenery will actually take up a fair bit of room, so you need to keep that in mind as you plan your track. If you want a layout that will let you sit back with the beverage of your choice and watch a train go around, you can simplify what you have done somewhat and it will suit fine. And if that's all you want to do with it, well and good. Also, a layout like this will look much better if the track winds through the scenery like a real railroad, rather than being a series of 90 degree turns and tangents.

The problem is, for most of us, just watching a train gets old pretty fast, and you run the risk that your layout will become nothing more than an expensive dust collector. Even adding a few switches and creating a few alternate routes would add interest to what you have drawn. But consider: as others have said, real railroads haul stuff from place to place, and the real fun comes when they have to stop en route and make deliveries or pickups. How will you drop three loaded cars when the siding you need is occupied by the three empties you dropped of last time? Add a few sidings and industries, and now you have almost unlimited possibilities, with thousands of possible scenarios. I know you said no buildings, but it's a lot of fun to build these, so I would urge you to try one. You might get hooked. Industries do not need to be in matched pairs (coal mine and power plant, for example). Having a location that represents "the rest of thre world" allows you to pick up and deliver any cargo. 

Anyway, only you can make that final decision about how your layout will operate. But make that decision. Decide what yiu want to do, then sit down and come up with your Revision A plan.


----------



## Stumpy (Mar 19, 2013)

Looks like you have a good handle on AnyRail.



JeffHurl said:


> layout that will be rural mountains and a river going into a reservoir. I'm not planning to have any buildings at this time


As others have said, if you just want to watch a train run, then that'll do 'er.

"At this time". If you lay down all that track and later you want to add some industries that a railroad would serve, a town, or whatever might give your layout a more realistic appearance... you've not left any room for that. Then you might be taking up track to accommodate. So my suggestion would be to lay down one of the long outside loops, and run the train. If it turns out all you want to do is run the train and the other aspects of the hobby don't interest you, _then_ you go full-on spaghetti track.

I started with, "I want a coal mine, a town, a farm, a bit of industry, a loco maintenance facility, etc." and built a railroad around that. It seems you're approaching a layout 180° from that. Nothing wrong with either approach.


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

Thank you all for your advice and encouragement. I appreciate all feedback, and thank you all for taking your time to help me out here! Maybe I'll start with 2 lines at different elevations and try to keep the grades at or below 3%.

Honestly, I think I will get a lot of enjoyment out of just building it. Maybe I'll start with a batch of trees while I ponder the layout.


----------



## ecmdrw5 (Jan 16, 2021)

Most people say to stay below 2% grade because it starts limiting the amount of cars you can pull, plus runaway cars come down faster if they come uncoupled. There are lots of videos of people testing steeper grade but they either run less cars or more locos. Totally up to you. I played with anyrail for months before coming up with an HO plan that’s 5’ x16’ and totally flat. Mostly because I started adding up the cost of my 40’x 25’ multi level layout and realized I’d never finish it. Lol. The most important thing is to make it fun for you so you enjoy it and it doesn’t just collect dust.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

JeffHurl said:


> Thank you all for your advice and encouragement. I appreciate all feedback, and thank you all for taking your time to help me out here! Maybe I'll start with 2 lines at different elevations and try to keep the grades at or below 3%.
> 
> Honestly, I think I will get a lot of enjoyment out of just building it. Maybe I'll start with a batch of trees while I ponder the layout.


Well, yes, model railroading is as much about the journey as the destination. With the exception of wiring and ballasting track, I enjoy pretty much all aspects of building. You just don't want to build a layout thinking you're going to Disneyland and end up in South LA instead.


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

I just finished designing my new N scale layout. I spent 6 months of covid downtime on revisions and "what if" variations (a major advantage of planning software). I'd like to offer my observations and emphasis to other's comments. First the slot car look: definitely there primarily due to following the edges of the board and all symmetrical curves. The scenery and observer interest can be enhanced dramatically if you run some of the track on the diagonal, and replace straights with "S" curves. Also unless you are going to use sectional track (I'd highly discourage that over flex track) you will not have easements (gradual increase in curve radius between curves and straights to blend) which emphasize the "toy train" look of the whole layout. Easements are needed and appear everywhere in real life, roads, tracks, etc . Only thrill rides like the wild mouse, or the whip don't use transitions or easements to produce that sudden "thrilling" snap when changing directions. If train tracks didn't have easements, the passengers, their food and drinks would suddenly be thrown across the car when the train snapped into a curve. You also need to plan in vertical easements, shallower grade sections at the beginning and end of a elevation change to keep the front of the train from contacting the track, or a longer loco or car from lifting off the track or uncoupling. Try to keep your grades at 2.5% or less or resign to having trains of 3 or 4 cars long. All of this to say I'm quite sure some of you grades are much too short to be successful, especially that loop in the middle. N scale will require a minimum of 2.5 " of clearance between crossovers for pre 1980 era locos and cars, 3" if you plan on using modern high cubes and double stacks. the software doesn't include any allowance for sub-roadbed, roadbed, or track height or any overhead cross bracing when calculating clearances.
Let's do the math: a 2.5% grade requires 100" of track plus 12" more at each end for vertical easements, in N scale, to gain 2.5" of height. that's 10.3 FEET of track to cross over and another 10. 3 feet to get back down to base level. That's almost 21 feet of track!!! That triple overpass is unworkable unless the lowest track is several inches below the base level. Besides a feature like that should be out front where it can be seen and maintained, not hidden in the back.
That brings up the next problem. The maximum practical reach of an adult over scenery and track is 30". Unless you are planning on an island layout in the middle of a room or putting it on casters so it can be pulled out into the room so you can access the layout from all sides, there is no way you will be able to reach the rearmost tracks to retrieve a stalled or derailed train, clean the tracks, or work on the scenery.
Finally, for now, I feel the need to talk about parallel tracks and curves, You can get away with parallel tracks 1.5" on centers on straights, but as soon as they go int a curve that space need to widen to allow for the loco and car overhanging the track on the inside and outside of the curve. The longer the rolling stock and the tighter the curve the more that spacing needs to increase, fortunately my software: the free and excellent *Xtrack Cad* calculates that spacing for me, saving me days of calculations or a multitude of SWAGs and keeps it all neat and precise. I can also run virtual trains by one another on my plan to verify they will clear as they pass anywhere on the layout.
I'm including a snapshot of my 8' x 18' n scale layout so you can see how I used these principles in my rather complex layout plan. Note this is just the upper level, There is a lower level 3/4 the size with a large staging and storage yard and a reverse loop under _Ondaville_, a 5 turn 38" diameter helix under _Franklin Shops_ and a 2 turn same diameter helix under the _Lobolly Mines_ (goes from the staging yard to a hidden intermediate level track that runs across the entire rear of the layout before emerging out of a tunnel at mid-layout on the left). The hidden tracks are all serviced from open areas under the layout. Layout file is large so full size may take a minute or two to upload, be patient.


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

What happened to my layout? it was there in the post thru the preview and first few minutes after posting now it's gone Let me try













putting it in this post:


----------



## cv_acr (Oct 28, 2011)

JeffHurl said:


> Honestly, I think I will get a lot of enjoyment out of just building it. Maybe I'll start with a batch of trees while I ponder the layout.


That's the spirit!

In the worst case, by building it, you'll at least get an idea of what you might want to add to it (or on your next version if you rebuild it!) if you find the design isn't working out for you. But... everyone has different styles, and maybe you'll enjoy it the way it is... but EITHER WAY even building anything at all should get the fires going.


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

*senicsRme 
I hereby agree* with *all* you've advised, and *love* your track plan *immensely* !!
Mainly it's because I'm a 'point-to-point-only', guy, and, at least *visually,* it looks to be a point to point RR, the way the 1:1 scale mostly is..[sans belt lines, certain subway lines, trolley, and huge balloon tracks around certain terminals]...
One thought:
Right at bottom of middle peninsula, east> end of Franklin above the double X-over I'd like to see that become, somehow, a wye, to carry out that juicy aspect of RRing in full view: turning engines [+1-2 cars] on it, more so if steam. ...
2 legs of wye raised above that 4 track main line curve below them..., 3rd leg behind pink bldg..
In closing: I'd like to see more MRRs designed like this...Too many seem to adhere to an earlier, more archaic way of doing it; more toyish if you will...(which is perfectly OK, hobby wise. Love of all things trains is in the eye of the beholder)...
It's just that today there is a much much stronger pull toward realism; what with DCC, sound, high quality motors/drive trains /level of detail of locos/rolling stock/latest benchwork materials/scenery products, techniques, et al...
I think more can be had in the RR Ops Dept. if the MRR is designed and built to demand such realistic activity...(but only if the builder is striving for that)..
*~ I wish you the best* in your unfolding of this design into becoming 3 dimensions (or is it 4 ?)...
I'm assuming this is a fictional place...Have you a name of RR yet ?
*telltale*


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

If I posted the lower level you'd see it covers both point to point and continuous running. Depending on the exact route set, a complete circuit could take as long as 20 minutes at scale speed! It is a fictional shortline subsidiary of the ACL set in NC in the late 50's. I like naming after friends and family, so it is the Ondaville Franklin and Carolina RR. During that period of time on my layout, NC was a connecting and hand off hub serving the Atlantic Coast Line, The Seaboard Air Line, and The Southern, with occasional appearances of a Clinchfield or even a Florida East Coast or Illinois Central handing off passenger cars headed between New York, Miami/Key West and Chicago. Franklin is a growing City combining characteristics of Charlotte and Greensboro, whereas Ondaville is a blue collar semi rural city/town reminiscent of Durham when tobacco was still king. I took poetic license with Lobolly Pines a takeoff on Spruce pines when feldspar was heavily mined by Bon Ami and I pushed ahead a few years as feldspar was becoming less important while a mine practically next door was discovered to hold the purest silica of anywhere in the world, and IRL today virtually every electronic device in the world is built using that same unique silica still sourced from Spruce Pines mines. My Lobolly Pines will have both an older feldspar mine and a newer but early in it's development, before the Federal government declared it a strategic material, at which time the mine was taken over and is now being heavily guarded by Homeland Security, silica mine operating side by side. I have collected most everything I need and am beginning construction.
I had toyed with making that area a Wye, but I really don't like how much real estate a wye or a turntable sucks up, so I settled on using two inconspicuous/disguised reverse loops, one on the top level and one on the bottom level each facing in the opposite direction to reverse trains. without needing to stop. I also like the idea of a train disappearing into a tunnel and it being difficult to determine exactly where it will appear next as well as not appearing to be running a loop.


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

Thanks for all the feedback!

This will be an "island" layout in our basement (which is huge). I am starting to realize that I may just need to have 2 different tracks at different elevations. I have been trying to get the most length in a relatively small footprint, and I guess that's not a very good plan. The other issue I have is time... I'm in Ohio, with about 12 acres of land, about 7 of which needs mowed once a week. So there goes half of my weekend during the warmer months. And my wife sells flowers out of her truck as a small business, and she needs my help the other day of the weekend. So, basically, I have until about the end of October to finalize the plans before I can devote entire weekends to building.

In regards to parallel tracks and curves... I designed the loop in the bottom using Kato's double track pieces, the went back and swapped each piece of double track for individual curves. I as thinking that the double track curves would already have sufficient spacing.

Originally, I was thinking about a completely rural layout, with no buildings, just mountains and rivers. This was just to keep cost down. But now I've already bought some buildings, so my next layout will have a village and some industry, so I'm really back to square one with design.

I really appreciate all your advice! Please don't worry about offending me. As someone once said, "Whoever writes last, writes best."


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

Kato track is good if you plan on ripping up or changing the layout as you go, but not much for keeping costs down, compare the cost of 3' of Kato track to a 3' section of Peco flex track (~4.00) and foam roadbed (~1.00) and you can build in easements, curve it to any curve or path you want, only needs 1 set of feeders per 1 or 2 lengths, a whole lot less connections to get dirty, or cause problems. My layout has > 420 actual feet of track, (that's > 13 N scale miles!) and 69 turnouts, I would have had to take out a mortgage to pay for all that in Kato track. Kato is giving up passing train clearances in parallel track curves to maintain their standard sectional track radii so you can lift a section and replace it with a turnout, replace a double track with 2 singles etc.. All the feeder drops needed for consistent operation with even Kato sectional track, especially with DCC control, will have the underside of your layout looking like a plate of spaghetti and will cost a lot in connectors and feeder terminal blocks not to mention the time involved. Hope you like soldering and working over your head. You should start right out with DCC, I recommend a NCE power cab system, well under 200.00 gives you everything you need in a very easy to hook up and use made in USA system actually easier to wire than a classic DC power pack. It is #2 in popularity, very stable and trouble free compared to #1, with a large user base and manufacturer support. It can be expanded to handle a huge club sized layout without anything becoming obsolete. The ease of use and dependability is right up there with Kato track and you'll love being able to control individual locomotives on the same track, even in different directions, as well as how much extra realism and interest sound adds. Almost any n scale DC only locomotive can be converted to DCC, even many with sound, with today's micro sized decoders.
disclaimer: I have no financial connection to anything I recommend, It is what I use after much research and comparison, and I know it works. Prices I add are typical selling price on line and may be different at a brick and mortar store. There is also a wealth of perfectly good used out there for a substantial savings.


----------



## 65446 (Sep 22, 2018)

*sRm*,
I too own and recommend NCE PowerCab...With 69 switches do you think you could hand lay the whole thing ? I'd think the cost would then go way down...
I really like your background stories of all the industries you've come up with and their relation to the RR !..To me, that's the way it should be approached;..real ops/real reasons to run a RR....
Then, only diff is it's in miniature....🏭🏭🛤🌄🏤🏘


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

I'm modeling with kato unitrack, but may actually use less expensive flex track. I don't seem to be able to bend flex track very well using Anyrail.


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

JeffHurl said:


> I'm modeling with kato unitrack, but may actually use less expensive flex track. I don't seem to be able to bend flex track very well using Anyrail.


 I have not used anyrail, but it's easy to do in Xtrack cad. Just place two turnouts or whatever will create a section's end connections. There is a function called create a cornu track, basically a flex track connection. select it, click on one leg of a turnout, then click on the other end point track or turnout. The program will connect the two points with an optimum curve (also based on the easement amount you specified in your preference: none, tight, medium, large. and the minimum radius preference. The curve can be selected and adjusted in as many ways as you could with real flex track, including locking portions by placing a "pin" in the track where you don't want it to move. You could also adjust the location and/or orientation of either end and the track will self adjust. you could have 3 flex sections attached to a turnout, then select, move or rotate the turnout and all 3 tracks will reconfigure, just like they would in real life. I used this property a lot when designing my layout to watch what happened to the connecting tracks when I tweaked the turnout position until I was satisfied. Really useful when laying out yards.


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

Jeff, if looking for track plan ideas/inspiration Thy this website: Mike's Small Trackplans Page. this guy designed some good n scale layouts in various sized small spaces (even one on a 6" wide board!) using Atlas sectional track (he was using a then free track planning software distributed by Atlas some years back). The layouts are all good ones that also can be modified, connected together, added to or portions deleted. He gives a list of sections, elevation changes, and reasons for the design. You might also consider a design you like for a slightly smaller space and laying it out on the diagonal on your larger board. a small change to the diagonal can make a big difference in interesting watching, and the tapered sections and corners can provide additional scenery location options.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

JeffHurl said:


> I'm modeling with kato unitrack, but may actually use less expensive flex track. I don't seem to be able to bend flex track very well using Anyrail.


Flex Track really isn't that hard to do in AnyRail. You can make any shape you can imagine simply by grabbing the "handles" (the little plus signs connected to each end by a line) and dragging them around. You can also simply connect two other pieces with it, and the software will create a shape to fit. Or you can make smooth curves by right clicking on the piece, selecting "Curve Flex" and filling in the desired degrees of arc and curve radius.

One trick: because of the smoothing tool mentioned above, sometimes the software will reshape the adjacent piece of flex track to get a better alignment. Most of the time, that's a good thing, but if you don't want the software to do that, right click on the adjacent piece(s) and select "Freeze Flex". Now the only piece that will move is the one you're playing with..

Like all other skills, it takes some practice, so don't be afraid to get in there and play around. You can always discard your changes.


----------



## JeffHurl (Apr 22, 2021)

Thanks for all the encouragement!

And now for a gratuitous picture of my wife's flower truck!


----------



## scenicsRme (Aug 19, 2020)

telltale said:


> *sRm*,
> I too own and recommend NCE PowerCab...With 69 switches do you think you could hand lay the whole thing ? I'd think the cost would then go way down...
> I really like your background stories of all the industries you've come up with and their relation to the RR !..To me, that's the way it should be approached;..real ops/real reasons to run a RR....
> Then, only diff is it's in miniature....🏭🏭🛤🌄🏤🏘


TT: Thank you for appreciating my effort. I tend to work backwards from many in I tend to create mini scenes all over my layout by thinking to myself: what is happening here or where would this building be best located, what would be the railroad's role, and what would the surrounding terrain be like. Such things as why is there a tunnel entrance here? Railroads don't tend to tunnel unless there is no good way around, they would much rather cut and fill than tunnel. I brainstormed with my girlfriend, since she was born and raised in the foothills of Western NC whereas I moved here from the land of ice and snow in 79, she remembers the era and could tell me what types of businesses might be in a town the size I'm representing during that time. Once I started blocking out those areas, I finally started thinking about where the track should go and what is their destination and consist. There was still some steam around that hadn't been replaced with diesel so coal, water, sand and a steam maintenance shop and a foundry would be needed along with a larger more modern shop for the new diesels. Same with the power plant on the bank of manmade Dar Lake at the back of the layout. it would need hoppers of coal delivered every day, a place to stack empties, a runaround track for the power company owned small switcher to do it's job. This how the layout grew.


JeffHurl said:


> Thanks for all the encouragement!
> 
> And now for a gratuitous picture of my wife's flower truck!
> View attachment 558628


Nice truck, glad to see the OH salt mice haven't been chewing on it. I went all the way to NM to get my rust free 56 Ford panel truck. Oh, and those are some good looking flowers as well.


----------

