Western Maryland Thomas sub critique

Discussion in 'Track Planning' started by csxengineer, Jun 7, 2008.

  1. csxengineer

    csxengineer Member

  2. ScratchyAngel

    ScratchyAngel Member

    The link works without sign-in. Wish I had 12x12 available for me.
  3. Russ Bellinis

    Russ Bellinis Active Member

    Idon't see any drawbacks to it. It looks like it would be fun to operate on. If you don't want to model Western Maryland, just change the scenery to the area on the railroad you want to model.
  4. riverotter

    riverotter Midwest Alliance Rail Sys

    I am an obsessive layout planner, and one of the things I really enjoy is taking a plan like this and expanding or reducing it to fit it into different-sized spaces. Hey, we selectively compress the real world for our model railroads, why can't we do the same with layout plans? :twisted:

    For example, I found this simple little N scale plan in "48 Top Notch Plans" that fits on a hollow core door.


    I have no problem with continuous run layouts, but to break this plan up a little, I would put a staging/passing track at both ends, and cover them (and the main line) up with mountains, etc. Thus, one train could go into one of the tunnels, and another train come out the other end which would create the illusion that the first train went "somewhere" off the layout and the 2nd train appeared from "somewhere else" off the layout. You could run three trains this way, each of them serving different industries on the "exposed" parts of the layout. I know this is a very simple modification, but the difference it would make in terms of the "realism" of even this small layout would be significant. If you provided access to the tunnels, you could even "fiddle" the trains in the tunnels, making them look different when they eventually re-emerged later.

    The current plan under discussion in this thread could easily be reduced to 9' x 12' or smaller without sacrificing much in terms of the concepts embodied in the original plan.
  5. seanm

    seanm Member


    I think that is a great track plan. I can't seem to find any problems with it. Only concern might be getting to the lower right hand corner of the layout for a stray train... but it sort of depend on his high the is off the ground.

    Looks good!! Go for it!!!!!
  6. brakie

    brakie Active Member

    For a protypical designed layout it gets the job done in a mighty big way.:thumb:

    As for me I would need more industries for better operation.
  7. MadHatter

    MadHatter Charging at full tilt.

    The MR layout looks like it would hold my interest for a while!!!
  8. Squidbait

    Squidbait Recovering ALCO-holic

    I'm with Brakie, I'd llke to see more opportunities for switching. But if your interest is in running through trains, and makeing/breaking them at a division point, it looks like a good plan.
  9. Packers#1

    Packers#1 Ultimate Packers Fan

    Well, it doesn't even go anywhere for me, but no, you can't see the track plan if you're not a subscriber. I see no drawbacks for it, though.
  10. ScratchyAngel

    ScratchyAngel Member

    That's odd, are you sure you have Adobe Reader installed? I'm not a subscriber, but when I click on it it pops open in a new tab for me.
  11. Triplex

    Triplex Active Member

    I can see it, too. (checks) Yep, works.

    Not sure what I think of it. It uses backdrops to break the layout into scenes. This is supposed to create the impression of distance, but I don't like that it creates more places where tracks have to punch through backdrops, leading either to ugly openings or the necessity to hide them. If I were building it, I'd just leave those scene dividers out. YMMV.
  12. csxengineer

    csxengineer Member

    I agree..

    The scenery dividers are overkill.

    p.s. what does YMMV mean?
  13. ScratchyAngel

    ScratchyAngel Member

    Your Mileage May Vary, like from EPA estimates. In other words my/our experience may not be yours.

Share This Page