need a small logging plan please

Discussion in 'Track Planning' started by bigsteel, Sep 4, 2007.

  1. Jim Krause

    Jim Krause Active Member

    The sawmill should be adjacent to the log pond in order to pull the logs out of the water and into the mill. Of course there were a lot of small mills that didn't have ponds. You could also just have the water be a slough or bay on a large lake and have the logs rafted together for towing to an imaginary mill off of the layout.
  2. bigsteel

    bigsteel Call me Mr.Tinkertrain

    i was thinking this hen i pu it there since i didnt want to crowd the scene too much on the looging side.and the logs going to an "imaginary" mill is kinda the idea i had in mind.other than that,does it lok OK? thanks.-josh
  3. bigsteel

    bigsteel Call me Mr.Tinkertrain

    i got into a little more detail with the plan,here it is:
  4. nachoman

    nachoman Guest

    I am really liking where this is heading...The only thing I can say about the lower plan is to axe the bridge in front of the tunnel on the upper left, and just make the tunnel a little longer.

    BTW, I just realized the Red Green Show just ended their run last year! Bummer!

  5. bigsteel

    bigsteel Call me Mr.Tinkertrain

    thanks for the comments nachoman.i think ill get id of the bridge too,itll just cover up the tunnel anyways.

    and yes,i realized too the red green show was that sucks,i loved all the creations that man had with duct tape and garbage.but, oh well good things must come to an end sometime.but always remember, if women dont find ya handsome theyll atleast find ya handy! :mrgreen: --josh
  6. bigsteel

    bigsteel Call me Mr.Tinkertrain

    hey all,i got more into the plan and wanted to know what you think so not sure if i should keep the skid row with a donkey engine puling logs or have a spar tree and a donkey lifting them onto cars.what do yall think? but i gotta go now.TIA--josh
  7. boatman909

    boatman909 Member


    I have taken up the hobby again after a 30 year hiatus. I used to have small (5' * 3') HO layout based on a German theme - having lived in Germany in my youth) but am now into the US scene - steam ,logging, 50's. So much has changed since I was last involved with the hobby, and there is just so much out there it's almost overwhelming. Still I'm having fun.

    I too have been building a version of the Lilliput Logger - following the original design fairly closely.I am using Peco turnouts and a mixture of Atlas set track and ME flex track. The basic layout is built on a 1" * 2" framework, covered with masonite, on top of L-girders on legs then 31/2" pink foam as a base. I then tried out various methods of scenery construction (carved polystyrene blocks, cardboard web with plaster cloth and hot-wire carved stacked foam). I am using Dave Frary's approach to landscape the scenery, using WS products.

    I started it about 3 months ago, and I have now completed about 80% of the scenery, and am now about to start building the Logging Camp buildings. I'm going to use the JV Models Boyd Logging Camp as the basis for this. I also want to put a spar tree on the upper level and replace my kit built sawmill (Vollmer) - doesn't seem to fit, too modern.

    I just got a Bachmann 3-truck Shay, and I am struggling with fitting DCC to it. I also have a Roundhouse RTR 2-truck Shay that needs a decoder. I am installing an MRC Prodigy Advance system to control everything - my first foray into DCC.

    I want to create little interesting scenes around the layout - still need some inspiration here.

    Anyway, I have posted some pics in my members gallery of the current state of things;
    My Lilliput Logger - Hobby Photo Gallery -

    Here is a panoramic pic of one side of the layout..


    Steaming into the future
  8. bigsteel

    bigsteel Call me Mr.Tinkertrain

    thanks for commenting boatman! and the more i look at your layout the more i cant wait to build this one! yours looks great.mine will be set in the 20's but no serious time frame will be followed.i tried to keep the plan close to the original overall,but in reality its quite different.but i wanted that VERY backwoods feel in the logging nothing but shanties for houses,and sparse ammenities.seeing your mine makes me want to add a few tracks to mine also.but anyway,looks great and cant wait to see it finished!--josh
  9. boatman909

    boatman909 Member

    Hi Josh,

    Did you get any further with the logging layout plans?

    Steaming into the future
  10. bigsteel

    bigsteel Call me Mr.Tinkertrain

    actually i did boatman,but im using only my work computer now to post cause my home computer is on the fritz.ill try and post the updated plan today,but its a long shot...thanks for responding anyways :mrgreen:--josh
  11. inqzitr

    inqzitr Member

    I like what you've done!

    I really like how you adapted this plan; when you asked about a 4x8 plan, this is what first came to mind.

    I do have a couple reservations/comments though:

    First, having your sawmill so close to the landing just doesn't seem real to me, despite the scenic divider. This layout squeezes lots of trackage into a small area, and you loose the effect by having it so close.

    Second, though the thought of the loggin pond is a good one, it seems a bit 'out of place', if you know what I mean. I mean, the flume seems to cut right through your landing. Why would you need to have the RR take the logs down the mountainside, if you can get them down a cheaper way?

    Here's a couple suggestions:
    - relocate the sawmill to the lower level, as in the original plan. Or alternatively, like someone already mentioned, you could forgo a sawmill, and just have a log dump, into a river for example. You could make a logdump somewhere on the other side, or use that area where the logpond is.

    I REALLY like the switchback, and you could keep this without a problem, just use it as another loading site, or even the primary one, with the main camp being at the original landing site.

    All this being said, I really like what you've done.

    What parameters set did you use to design this with in xtrkcad?

    Good luck!
  12. Russ Bellinis

    Russ Bellinis Active Member

    I would eliminate the tunnels, I'm not sure a logging railroad would spend the money either for the engineering or construction of a tunnel. If the grade gets too steep, don't worry. The prototype loggers ran heislers and shays because the geared locomotives could climb "walls." Another possibility is to copy a part of the Yosemite Railroad on a lower level with a simple oval and siding. The Yosemite would run into hidden staging through tunnels at each end of your layout, most of your operations would be the logging camp on the top of your mountain. Like the Sugar Pine Lumber Company, and the Yosemite railroad, you could model. I'm having a "senior moment" and can't remember what to call the item I writing about. Basically it was 2 parrallel tracks going up a steep grade. the empty cars being pulled up would counter the weight of the loaded cars coming down. They used a "donkey boiler" powering a capstan device at the top to move the loads down and the empties up. I had the name for it in my head when I started typing, but when I got ready to use it, it was gone!
  13. Triplex

    Triplex Active Member

    An incline. The Yosemite Valley's incline was actually at a place called Incline.
  14. Jim Krause

    Jim Krause Active Member

    Russ: Are you thinking of an incline?? Been there, had those "senior" moments myself.
  15. ocalicreek

    ocalicreek Member

    I agree that eliminating the tunnels would be in the spirit of logging lines. But they really are integral to the Rice plan. I've studied it for some time as I too once contemplated building it.
  16. ocalicreek

    ocalicreek Member

    What bothered me about the plan...and I mention this because maybe it's bothering you too?...was the lack of scene-cerity. A flume or drag line could have brought the logs downhill on the 'logging camp' side of the line, eliminating the need for the track uphill. Just seemed like alot of track crammed into a space that looks good from above on the plan, but maybe not-so-much from a horizontal view. That's what I arrived at after a long time staring at the plan. Not sure if this'll help you...
  17. Jim Krause

    Jim Krause Active Member

    Just a thought concerning an incline. It would be a great addition to a logging layout but would be better on a large layout than a 4 X 8. It would require a lot of vertical space to make it look convincing. Might make a great diorama with an operating terminal at the top of the incline. Guess it wouldn't qualify as a diorama it was operational, would it?
  18. bigsteel

    bigsteel Call me Mr.Tinkertrain

    i could rid of some of the trackage,i fealt it was a tad overwhelming also.

    the log pond was just really an idea,i was waiting for feedback before id really change could also be removed.and i planned to remove the flume anyway.

    the mill was in the only place it could fit.the lower level was too cramped next to the rising wont fit on the lower level and still be as big as i want it.

    i tried to keep this as close to rices plan as i could.i didnt want to start an entire project from scratch again.thanks .--josh
  19. bigsteel

    bigsteel Call me Mr.Tinkertrain

    i know that most logging railroads couldnt aford tunnels but i couldnt find a way to eleimnate them and still keep it scenically "working" together.i really dont think id want to add an incline either.its not really "my thing" you know what i mean?.thanks.--josh
  20. inqzitr

    inqzitr Member

    I'd agree with the comments re: tunnels & logging lines. But given the limitations imposed, a little fudging in order to reach a compromise is needed. I guess it really depends on how 'prototypic' bigsteel wants to be.

    This poses an interesting problem, in that many may feel that to make logging look prototypic, you usually need to have a lot of 'dead space' on your layout. You know, lots of scenery, trains out in the open, etc., and not a lot of tunnels- which sucks for the model railroader. Yea, it may be prototypic to a degree, but this is also a hobby where we have to operate under a lot of constraints that lead to compromises we may/may not like. Having the ability to dive a train into a mountain is helpful, esp. if you are trying to divide scenes, use holding/layover tracks, staging, unprototypic curves or whatever.

    So, if you're o.k. having tunnels, esp. on this layout where you can have difficulty trying to divide scenes 'reasonably', then that may be a compromise that you live with.

    You could also use scenery to 'hide' tunnel entrances; I plan on using lots of trees, mountins, etc. to hide entrances on my layout modules. A great example of this might be on that switchback, where trees hide the line of sight.

    You could use a bunch of switchbacks to gain elevation quickly though, as was mentioned, but you'd have to change the plan too much, and that may not be acceptable.

    Also, you could say that you mining operation is what pays for the tunnels. To get me to buy that, you'd have to put the mining operation on the other side, where the landing is though. Or, you could put an old mine over there, stating that it had been relocated/the deposits are used up or even have a small stamp mill near the logging town. Just some thoughts.

    I also agree with the 'scene-cerity' comment. I also have a problem with looking at a scene over a scene- just doesn't do it for me, unless there's enough vertical/scenic separation. From the original lilliput logger, there isn't a lot of separation vertically, which is what always bothered me about the mining operation (it sits just over the engine house in the original plan... I just didn't like it...)

    My way around this is to actually divide it up into modules (which is what I plan on doing), so each scene is separate, arranged in a linear format. The layout could be rearranged into a sort of 'walk in' U shape, with a lift out behind the operator, but the plan would take some major reworking. However, you could use the same square footage (plus the cockpit), where you'd sit. However, the advantage of the other plan is that it uses a lot of scenic blocks, etc., and will make the smaller area seem a lot larger than it is.

    Just a rambling free association re: this plan.

Share This Page