David Smith, he of the world's smallest layout, has decided to plot a new course.
He's dabbling in the idea of narrow gauge, and has contemplated an EBT theme.
His narrow gauge world would be in Z scale. That would make a distance between the rails of 4.15mm.
I do believe that would be the smallest scale EBT themed layout in existence. I wish him the best of luck.
UPDATE: The subject of the only Z scale narrow gauge model (that I know of) will be the Pine Creek Railroad in New Jersey, not the EBT. Less ambitious, but more practical. Take a look!
Thursday, December 10, 2009
National Narrow Gauge Convention
It's in Hickory NC in 2011. Maybe I'll be able to get to this one, and hopefully by then I'll have something to show there.
If nothing else, maybe I'll be able to run some of my trains and pick the brains of the Nn3 Alliance members.
If nothing else, maybe I'll be able to run some of my trains and pick the brains of the Nn3 Alliance members.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Layout Planning
David K. Smith, builder of the famous "Worlds Smallest Layout", had an article on his N scale blog (he has one on Z and one on T scales as well) about the familiar 4x8 layout.
Many layout designers are attempting to break away from the traditional 4x8 sheet, for good reason. A 4x8 takes up much more room than it's size would suggest, and in the long run it would be better to spread that 4x8 into smaller chunks around the perimeter of a room rather than smack dab in the middle because it gives you much more usable space in the room. Only one aisle is needed for around-the-room layouts, while aisle space is needed all the way around a 4x8, so right away a 4x8 adds another 2 1/2 to 3 feet along each side (5 to 6 feet to both dimensions), meaning a 4x8 will actually require at least a 9x13 foot room to operate.
David notes that, despite the drawbacks, the 4x8 track plans remain very popular going by the number of hits he gets on his track plans link. He speculates, and I believe he is correct, that the primary reason for the popularity of a 4x8 is quite simply the fact that is what size a standard sheet of plywood comes in.
However, there is a different reason that I can see why a 4x8 remains popular. This is based solely upon my own observation as I try to come up with a new plan for the Path Valley. I want my minimum standard gauge curves to be 15" or better because I have a Bachmann Spectrum Consolidation and a Model Power Pacific that I want to run on it; my current layout has the toy train 9 3/4" curves and these locomotives just won't run on them.
To have the minimum 15" curves on an around-the-room type layout I have to put balloons at each end measuring at least 3x3. These balloons are too large to reach across to get to the back corners, so access holes have to be cut in them. Worse, the balloon that would be needed in the middle of my particular plan would have to be made big enough to pass a line along the front, so it would have to be even bigger than the ends. This creates even more problems for reaching the narrow gauge line in the case of derailments or mishaps, the upper level of which would be atop the standard gauge return loop (which would itself be hidden by scenery).
It's much easier to put large radius curves at each end of a 4x8, although it decreases the overall area you have for actual layout elements along the sides. If you lay N scale track in an HO scale footprint you get a nice 19" curve that looks great and any locomotive can handle. You will only get 4-5 feet in the middle of each side to put the rest of your railroad if you don't want to resort to a "spaghetti bowl" look, but at least the curves are nice and big, and you don't have to worry about special wiring for end loops and the like.
Each setup has it's own pros and cons, but the advantages of the tried-and-true 4x8 (ease of build, simplicity in track plans) will assure that it will remain a favorite, particularly among beginning modelers. And truthfully, what's wrong with that?
Many layout designers are attempting to break away from the traditional 4x8 sheet, for good reason. A 4x8 takes up much more room than it's size would suggest, and in the long run it would be better to spread that 4x8 into smaller chunks around the perimeter of a room rather than smack dab in the middle because it gives you much more usable space in the room. Only one aisle is needed for around-the-room layouts, while aisle space is needed all the way around a 4x8, so right away a 4x8 adds another 2 1/2 to 3 feet along each side (5 to 6 feet to both dimensions), meaning a 4x8 will actually require at least a 9x13 foot room to operate.
David notes that, despite the drawbacks, the 4x8 track plans remain very popular going by the number of hits he gets on his track plans link. He speculates, and I believe he is correct, that the primary reason for the popularity of a 4x8 is quite simply the fact that is what size a standard sheet of plywood comes in.
However, there is a different reason that I can see why a 4x8 remains popular. This is based solely upon my own observation as I try to come up with a new plan for the Path Valley. I want my minimum standard gauge curves to be 15" or better because I have a Bachmann Spectrum Consolidation and a Model Power Pacific that I want to run on it; my current layout has the toy train 9 3/4" curves and these locomotives just won't run on them.
To have the minimum 15" curves on an around-the-room type layout I have to put balloons at each end measuring at least 3x3. These balloons are too large to reach across to get to the back corners, so access holes have to be cut in them. Worse, the balloon that would be needed in the middle of my particular plan would have to be made big enough to pass a line along the front, so it would have to be even bigger than the ends. This creates even more problems for reaching the narrow gauge line in the case of derailments or mishaps, the upper level of which would be atop the standard gauge return loop (which would itself be hidden by scenery).
It's much easier to put large radius curves at each end of a 4x8, although it decreases the overall area you have for actual layout elements along the sides. If you lay N scale track in an HO scale footprint you get a nice 19" curve that looks great and any locomotive can handle. You will only get 4-5 feet in the middle of each side to put the rest of your railroad if you don't want to resort to a "spaghetti bowl" look, but at least the curves are nice and big, and you don't have to worry about special wiring for end loops and the like.
Each setup has it's own pros and cons, but the advantages of the tried-and-true 4x8 (ease of build, simplicity in track plans) will assure that it will remain a favorite, particularly among beginning modelers. And truthfully, what's wrong with that?
Friday, September 11, 2009
Link
Kevin Strong is another EBT fan, as well as being the editor of the Friends of the East Broad Top's "Timber Transfer" magazine. Kevin models the fictitious Tuscarora Railroad, based on the real-life East Broad Top and Tuscarora Valley Railroads.
Kevin is also doing real model railroading since, unlike myself, he has the real estate aspect nailed down.
Since the actual Path Valley Railroad had proposed connections to the East Broad Top in or around Blair's Mills, Kevin is right around the corner (providing I can ever get the track plan for the PVRR finalized).
Kevin is also doing real model railroading since, unlike myself, he has the real estate aspect nailed down.
Since the actual Path Valley Railroad had proposed connections to the East Broad Top in or around Blair's Mills, Kevin is right around the corner (providing I can ever get the track plan for the PVRR finalized).
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Track Plans, Part 2
Due to a compromise worked out with the management, I have decided to go with an L shaped layout. Track plan forthcoming, the PRR will not be represented because there just isn't enough room.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Input!
I sent an email off to the Historical Society of Perry County and got a reply from Carl Tressler, their President. Hopefully he will be able to supply some data, especially maps, that will be of help in my planning stages.
As a side note, Tressler's Farm is where the original disputed crossing of the PCRR and N&SVRR took place by way of a diamond, and after the court action where the trestle was built. I don't know if there is a connection, but I did ask.
UPDATE: There is a connection, the owner of Tressler's Farm was a several-greats uncle. Still waiting to see if there will be any information that I can use, any little bit will be helpful.
As a side note, Tressler's Farm is where the original disputed crossing of the PCRR and N&SVRR took place by way of a diamond, and after the court action where the trestle was built. I don't know if there is a connection, but I did ask.
UPDATE: There is a connection, the owner of Tressler's Farm was a several-greats uncle. Still waiting to see if there will be any information that I can use, any little bit will be helpful.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Track Plan?
The figure 8 in yellow is the narrow gauge portion of the line, the blue around the outer edge is the standard gauge part. The double tracks in green represent the dual gauge trackage in New Bloomfield, the ore processing plant at the top is in New Bloomfield Junction.
This is a very rudimentary track plan on a 4x8 table, there is another that I am contemplating which will be an around-the-wall type built on modules. I am trying not to build a "spaghetti bowl" type setup, but there is a lot of railroad to represent for a short-line.
The around-the-room plan has the benefit of not being as cramped, so things can be laid out more or less linearly. Also, the number of tunnels can be reduced or eliminated all together as the prototype only had one attempted tunnel (which will end up being a cut in my plan).
The drawback is that it will take up more room, but it should be easily portable on the modules as long as the joints are well planned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
