Nice little layout, your opinion ?

B

Biased turkey

Active Member
Apr 10, 2006
912
0
36
76
Montreal, Canada Eh
That layout is from the Gateway NMRA ( St. Louis )
http://www.gatewaynmra.org/project09.htm
Its size is about 4' by 6 ' and could be easily adapted for N scale.

Cons : no water, no mountain
Pros: it looks like a nice little layout to operate and could be expanded lengthwise for example on a hollow core door.
If you were space limited, would you build that layout and enjoy running it ?

tia for any opinion.

gc09-aerial.jpg
 
Gateway NMRA has lots of great compact layouts. I like this one, and it could be made more operationally interesting by imposing some prototypical rules, like no blocking the street or rail crossings for more than a set amount of time. Plus with an industry on the switchback, it could get complicated...! ;)

Andrew
 
Gateway NMRA was one of the first sites I found when I started to get interested in mrring. I love their project layouts and I agree with Andrew on all points. I can't imagine a much better track plan in that space. As far as the lack of water...you could always put a pond in somewhere or a small dry ravine for scenic interest. The layout looks like a winner.....to me
 
I like the layout - with very few reservations. But the only thing that I'd wish for is a slightly longer layout so that you could run passenger consist. Even a two or three car passenger "special" would add some interest and switching opportunities. Don't get me wrong...I like the layout very much...I'd just add a few more straight sections because I like running both freight and passenger. Of course my idea defeats whole concept of a nice and compact layout.
 
i was STRONGLY considering doing THAT trackplan a month ago;), its small, but big enough to put up where i now live. i REALLY thought it was a FANTASTIC plan for a small layout:thumb:. for someone with very little space, i think its a GREAT PLAN!!!:thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :D -Deano
 
As an N-scale door layout, it would be effectively much longer.

I like most of the Gateway Central layouts, including this one. However, it has a problem some of the others have. It doesn't look large. At least as they built it, it's flat without hills, valleys or water, which shows its small size. Also, the line from one side that crosses the other side at grade. I like it, track-plan-wise. However, it visually draws the sides of the layout together, and that coupled with the flat ground makes the layout look even smaller than it is.
 
cidchase said:
I think it fits a lot of features in a limited space, which gives it a lot of appeal!

(but) I see two turnouts with grade crossings going right over 'em. Is that allowed
in the Proto Police rules??? I'm thinkin' it's a little problematic.:D
Click to expand...

I don't see any problem with the turnouts in the street - as long as the installation is good, you should be fine. As far as prototypical, streetcar turnouts are in the pavement (although they are slightly different, having only one moving rail, and it only moves a few inches). I would not worry. :D

Andrew
 
Thanks a lot for the interesting opinions and suggestions.
I don't want necessary to make an exact copy of it in Nsacale, but that layout would be a good starting point . I found the switching part of it very interesting.
I agree, if it is slightly longer there would be some space for more interesting scenery.
But first I have to finish my 1st tiny layout ( 25" by 36" ) and for sure my 2nd layout will be based on that Gateway NMRA one.
It looks like most railroad modelers already think about the next layout before the present one is not even finished, or is it just me.
 
I like it. If you could add a small fiddle yard, or even a train cassette off one of the spurs leading off the layout, you'd increase the operational possibilities even further.

Triplex said:
A It doesn't look large. At least as they built it, it's flat without hills, valleys or water, which shows its small size. Also, the line from one side that crosses the other side at grade. I like it, track-plan-wise. However, it visually draws the sides of the layout together, and that coupled with the flat ground makes the layout look even smaller than it is.
Click to expand...

That's why you'd use tall buildings, and build the layout at eye-level, rather than bird's-eye-view. You'd need to put it in the middle of a room, or at least with one of the short sides against the wall.
 
If you wanted to divide the sides more effectively, you could use the "double-sided" buildings approach described by Art Curren. While it might require a slightly different track plan, it could basically double the switching opportunities while making the layout seem bigger as well.

Andrew
 
How could I deduce the length ( the radius and angle for the curves ) of each track section ? ( I suppose there is no parts list for that layout ) or should I try to reproduce the trackplan usinx Xtrkcad ?

MasonJar, what is the "double-sided" buildings technique, any picture or link ?
 
If you are changing it to a door-based Nscale layout, I would not bother trying to convert it exactly. I would just use XTrkCAD to help you draw something with similar elements.

Art Curren wrote a number of articles for MR about "urban landscapes". He argued (correctly, in my opinion) that in an urban setting, buildings of all shapes and sizes formed the landscape, and could even be used on small layouts or penninsulas as a view block. To this end he came up with a number of industries that were back to back to create a viewblock, but also provide switching opportunities.

The basic idea is that the "front" and "left" side of the building is from one kit, and the "back" and "right" side is from another. The buildings are angled such that you only see one side from whichever side of the layout you are standing on.

Much more interactive and better looking than a backdrop that divides the layout. In the case of the layout above, it would require some track changes, and the road down the middle would be occupied by these back to back industries.

His article is "A double sided divider" in January 1999 MR.

Andrew
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom