# Folded dogbone deep dish pizza pile up-ish?



## bicyclexc (Mar 31, 2010)

This layout has been rolling around in my brain the last few days. Has anyone ever built one like this? Thoughts as a mining railroad?


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Even with really short, as in not tall, equipment - like old mine cars.. With the 4 ft. Dia. shown here, - a 12 foot run length - and a 8" space between tracks you'll be climbing at 5.5 percent.... 

So go see what you can get to run on that first... 

And Have FUN with it! 

and Share your results here!! 

Dirk - DMS Ry.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Could be a fun little layout!
but not very practical..but perhaps that's the point?
(not all railroad's have to be practical)

As Dirk said, don't expect to be able to run much on it..
one small locomotive, one small car, one small caboose..that will be about it..

Is 4x8 feet the maximum size you have to work with?

Scot


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Ya, think of a 'roller-coaster'.... 

Up and Down, with short vertical curves over the top and at the bottom...


----------



## ThinkerT (Jan 2, 2008)

I did a test layout something like this, only level, using 30 degree crossovers (mine had an extra circle). 

Took up 9 x 9. 

Check out the 'pizza pile-up' thread.


----------



## bicyclexc (Mar 31, 2010)

I got tons of inspiration from the pizza-pile-up thread, ThinkerT. That's where the 'deep dish' comes from. Very neat stuff. 

I only have 4'x8', maybe not even that, but it wouldn't be a massive operation just a few coal cars. A grade of 5.5% is prototypical for a mine, but might be tough in G scale. We'll see hopefully, I want to build it now. 

I'm spending a lot of time thinking about how to build it without it weighing a ton. Lots of foam, lightweight plaster, thin plywood and furring strips I guess. I'm thinking airplane construction techniques....


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

5.5% on sharp curves is doable - with a strong little loco (i did that with LGB-Stainz locos, weighted till they had 5 pound) 
are you planning on using trackpower? if yes, keep in mind, that the combined "8" with the oval produces a short, if not segmented acordingly.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

I just would say "build the dam thing" ;-) 

At least set it up on the ground using temporary supports. Thats really the only way to test the idea and figure out your clearances and whether your stock will work on those grades. Thats what I did with my old layout before I built it. 
One other thing you'll need to work out is where to begin your grades and providing a vertical transition segment of track. Thats a single section of track bent vertically to allow the train to transition onto the grade easily, an easy way to do this is instead of a single R1 curve use four 1/4 turn sections and use thin filler pieces below to give it the slight curvature for the transition. You will need this at top and bottom . I would suggest beginning the transition at the point of crossover , that would put your turnouts on the grade and would require that first straight at the top and bottom to also be transition segments. But your going to need to maximize your lenth of grade as you'll need about 8"vertical clearances.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Spent a quick moment this past weekend adding a few notes to your drawing to illustrate what I was talking about











If you use a thickness of 1/2 plywood maximum on the upper level (I would use 3/8 if you can find any) and do not use any support stringers across any track on the lower level you should get about 7" clear from the top of rail to the under side of the ply between the lower and upper level, its not much but I wouldn't recommend going any steeper on the grades. Its doable but thanks to the quirks of R1 curves, your going to end up with a layout slightly larger than a sheet of plywood, maybe 4'-6"x8'-6". I've often wondered how much more popular LS might have been if you could have gotten at least a small loop onto a standard 4x8 plywood, maybe not much, but you never know.


----------



## bicyclexc (Mar 31, 2010)

Brilliant work. I would have never thought of a transition section or not using stringers to get more clearance. Great stuff. I too have a Stainz loco I am sorta gearing this toward perhaps. Otherwise I'm going to try my hand at a mining engine. I do want to use track power. I'm thinking 3 zones, the loops can be permanently wired to the box and the center will switch polarity according to direction or perhaps orientation of one of the turnouts- haven't worked that out. 

Thanks for the drawing, feel free to work with it more if you like. I'm going to continue to picture it in my head till maybe this weekend


----------



## bicyclexc (Mar 31, 2010)

I don't have the Stainz around can somebody shoot me a height to work with?


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

a stainz is six and a half inch over the railhead. 
but a caboose might be higher!


----------



## bicyclexc (Mar 31, 2010)

I have gathered the necessary things to begin work on the folded dog bone railroad layout.
I have procured a 36"x 80" door that used to be an N scale layout.
I have my narrow gauge trains.
Track is on its way. Plans have been modified. 
I'm going to have a lot of fun with this.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Have you considered how to make your transition grades? 

When I built my first indoor layout that had an over/under set up, I sawed cuts (PITA) into the underside of a track section then slightly bent the track to get the up or down grade transition. Later I realized I could use 1/4 track sections and just rely on the natural amount of vertical bend you can get in a standard LGB joiner.


----------



## BigRedOne (Dec 13, 2012)

That's economically prohibitive, though. LGB seems to charge the same price for anything between 40 and 300 mm! 

If bicyclexc is using a plywood subroadbed, perhaps screwing the track down - either at the ends or center depending on if convex or concave - would force them to bow sufficiently? 

It's a bit of work, but with a band saw it would be possible to cut a curve in a piece of wood, and perhaps then clamp the track between the two halves to bend the track? 

I wonder if using the rack rail and rack-driven locomotives would work to take the grade limitation out of the equation? (Admittedly, more cost and may not be the desired appearance.) 

Are you using 31" diameter curves to fit the 36" door?


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By BigRedOne on 26 Mar 2013 04:43 PM 

If bicyclexc is using a plywood subroadbed, perhaps screwing the track down - either at the ends or center depending on if convex or concave - would force them to bow sufficiently? 




No,they wouldnt, brass 332 rails are STIFF, even cutting half thru they were hard to bend, thats why I highly recommend the four 1/4 sections to replace one full section of track, price or not, if access to a band saw is possible that might make it easier, but I used a hacksaw and will never do that again.


----------



## BigRedOne (Dec 13, 2012)

I'm beginning to see how you ended up with the slogan "OBEY!"


----------



## bicyclexc (Mar 31, 2010)

Good input. I have a 5' section of brass rail (2 sections actually, for 5' total of track), visible in the picture, that I have to cut anyway for my needs. The whole layout will only need 8' of straights and since I have to cut the 5' section anyway I will consider cutting lots of short pieces for the transitions. I do however like your idea of sawing knotches to help bend the pieces though, be it difficult or not it is elegant. 

Correct 31" curves. I've never experimented with anything this small before. I need to take great care when positioning the track, sidings and buildings so everything fits. I also will need to pay very close attention to the grade to make sure that everything is as smooth as possible, I don't expect it to be easy. 

Tom


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

When you do the lower hidden section on the right. You could have the upper part like a viaduct with arches below so you can see and get access to the train on the lower level. Even if it was for only a short way on each corner. You would ideally make the viaduct a bit wider than need be so it looked as if the columns had some thickness so it was more plausible engineering than just a thin sheet facade. Could be just two straight arches at each corner to get your hand in for derailments, so don't cut your corners just yet. You might need a little extra meat there. A practical and visual modelling aspect without having to make any bigger. It would also have a very European mountain look well suited to the Stainz.

Is the door hollow? When you cut the corners all integrity and strength will be lost but you can glue and clamp a 2~4 inch piece of timber between the sheets to keep all strong. 

Andrew


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

I did something similar on a hollow door for a HO layout. I used blocks of polystyrene foam I carved up to support my top section. I just glued it on top with builders adhesive. I didn't want to add too much weight using timber and there was not much to attach timber as I was essentially working on top of a thin ply sheet. The blocks gave a good surface area to glue and made all stronger. I did all my mountains with polystyrene painted or sometimes draped with PVA soaked thin cotton bed sheet cloth dabbed down with brush. (No plaster to crack). This kept all to a minimum weight which all adds up. 

Andrew


----------



## BigRedOne (Dec 13, 2012)

I was thinking something similar. Leaving the "tunnel" portion exposed would allow modeling the inside of a mine; I think it would be an interesting and unusual detail.


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

If you did have the viaduct arches so you could see parts of the lower track you could have loose cloth hanging down just on the other side of the track in that part to hide the larger cavity but still be able to reach in all of it. 

Andrew


----------



## bicyclexc (Mar 31, 2010)

I'm already on to you fellas! I was planning on making it a tunnel and leaving the outside 'wall' missing. This would leave the train visible almost all the time. I was planning on adding some wooden beams for support inside the tunnel. Almost like a cut-away. 

Lopping off the corners will harm the integrity slightly but I'm going to compensate with trim around the outside. I won't do any cutting before extensive clearance testing is complete. The rest of the track is in the mail, save the last 1/2 31" circle I'll need, but that can wait. I also need to do lots of grade testing. I'm glad somebody suggested the stainz would look good going up steep hills.....cause it's going to have to! 

I was doing some calculating today, and between track, ballest, benchwork, scenery, buildings..... This little layout is going to be heavvvyyyy. 

Keep the ideas bouncing around. 

Tom


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

When you add all the glue, paint, tacks and wires it will be twice as heavy.









I've been calculating also... 
You could lower the Stainz by removing the roof vent, whistle and replacing/cutting the stack. It would then be on track 6.6", even more with other mods. A HLW Mack on track is about 1/4" less (no horn). 
You could get away with 1/4" plywood for the base. Nothing will be unsupported any distance anyway. This would make the entire height difference as low as say 7.7" with 1/2" clearance. 
A 1200mm (4ft'ish) diameter circle being the run of the slope is 148.42". This would give 5.2% grade and with using a Mack and a little less clearance?? close to 5% may be possible. 
A 33" diameter circle is a run of 103.67". This would give a 7.42% grade with a Stainz that has been made less in height. The extra length of your door may give you an extra 15" or so for the grade so you may be closer to 6.5%. The transition tracks are near over the top of each other so a little clearance will be lost there. 

Andrew


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

I've been thinking about the grade transition tracks. because each one is a curve they would not achieve the full height aspect of the grade so they can't fully be a part of the calculated length of the grade. All to do with tangents and other stuff I don't know how to work out for now. I think by only allowing for half each ones length in the run of the grade would be close enough though. 
So my grade calculations above would be greater.









To expand on the design concept. 

Only 2 more feet and you could have all this!

















Andrew


----------



## bicyclexc (Mar 31, 2010)

Believe me I wish I could, it would make lots of problems go away. 

But I also wouldn't like that because its no longer insanely impossibly small. 

Your yard ideas are thrifty.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By BigRedOne on 26 Mar 2013 05:20 PM 
I'm beginning to see how you ended up with the slogan "OBEY!"

just don't want you all to suffer the same mistakes I made


----------



## bicyclexc (Mar 31, 2010)

I love Dr Who. 

Being from Maryland I always think they're saying "OLD BAY, OLD BAYYY!"


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

Posted By Garratt on 29 Mar 2013 03:23 AM
I've been fiddling around with the minimal layout idea as it was where my thoughts were several years back. Some food for thought.








As far as a folded dog bone on a door 33 inches wide goes I will digress for the moment and consider what can be done with the minimum curve sectional track.
Some errors with the geometry of sectional track may be present here as I don't have layout software and have not tested any layouts with actual track. 
Once the minimal folded dog bone is proven could be done as vsmith has suggested with transition tracks which curve vertically into the grade the following possible considerations present themselves:
The transition tracks are depicted in red (down) and blue (up). 











The layout below gives longer and more yard area but the switches with orange arrows are transitioning the grade at the track joins. The yard area would end up a little higher than the top loop. Careful as runaways can occur on the back spur.










Depending on how much each switch join can change the grade the layout below has the least run between red and blue transition tracks therefore possibly the steepest grade.
Switches transitioning at the joiners have orange arrows pointing down the grade which will help before getting to the transition track (may not be need to be vertically curved). 









Lots of potential for runaways on the layout below but more yard area for parked trains.
The back spur on the above section would end up slightly lower than the front two. 









By extending the layout below by two feet a far gentler grade is possible with a longer run between transition tracks while keeping all switches on the top, level.
Could also transition the grade at the joiners on the first three switches next to the red transition track to make main grade even less. 
With a three way switch at the head of the lower yard a passing loop could be achieved. 










The layout below is again gradually going down grade at the switches prior to the transition track which may not be needed as the grade may already have been achieved at the joiners. The top yard area is longer. 










If the above layout was feasible a passing loop could be added as in the layout below although it is mostly hidden.









Andrew


----------



## bicyclexc (Mar 31, 2010)

Some progress from this weekend. Got some track painted and installed. Working on slopes/transitions.... Looks like a royal mess right now but it'll come along.


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

That's looking alright. What minimum crossover height are you using track base to track base? 

Andrew


----------



## bicyclexc (Mar 31, 2010)

The second track deck will be 9" above the lower deck. At the crossover it will be slightly less than 9" but not less than 8". The construction of this thing is slowly developing in my mind.


----------



## ThinkerT (Jan 2, 2008)

That is a real steep grade - probably too steep for a loco towing more than one or two cars. (Vic and I both did a lot of experimentation with steep grades). 

Also, better double and triple check your clearances where the track curves by the walls.


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

I reckon you can do better on your minimum height. On a door only 36 inches wide everything is so critical to reduce the grade to a minimum. 
Have you considered changing the stack on the stainz and getting rid of the whistle and roof vent? You can 'win' a whole inch that way!







They are non destructive modifications. 

Andrew


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

Posted By Garratt on 01 Apr 2013 06:34 AM
Here is a plan set out to 90cm x 200cm (a bit less than 36" x 80"). It should help in positioning the switches between the flexi track.
If you keep your locos not too tall, under about 6.5" on track and allow another 1/2" clearance (7" base to base). The parts where the tracks are over the top of each other could be minimized with gal steel. The grade length should be about 109" so it works out to be about 6.4%. grade.
I have only included half of each transition track in the total grade length because they are a curve which should be close enough consideration. 
Remember the overhang on the corners of the engine and cars going around sharp bends! 

Andrew 










The lower spur switch is now well under the lowering transition track above it. The top yard will end up a tad higher than the top loop because it makes it's grade transition by the switch joins. 
The top sidings are only good for a couple of HLW mini cars.


















Now I'm starting to push the limits with the plans below.


















The top transition track is replaced with a switch








Now the grade gets steeper or we lower the top level. Where is that MDC Big Hustler? That will fit!


















Mining Empire. On the back of a door!


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Andrew thats getting very very very interesting, and more than a little tempting for me...


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

Vic, 

I haven't allowed for clearance on the curves so the lower tracks close to the edge could not have a hiding wall next to it. 
The switches are close to the correct position considering the min 400mm (ish) radius I used but they were done in flexi track in the software by eye as accurate as I could. I had not discovered the 'min radius warning' feature of the software at the time. I had a better look at my MDC Big Hustler and it is taller than I thought. Taller than a Mack! 
It was all an exercise in how far it 'may' be pushed but as you well know, a design like this really has to have all the specifics known first as there is no room for being generous with head and elbow room. It may only work by being skimpy everywhere!









Actually number 3 design should not be that much more difficult that the second one come to think of it. 
Number 4 design is the one that pushes things because that all important upper 'transition' track you suggested earlier now has a switch there but from my fiddling around I think you can achieve the approximate transition to grade abruptly in two track joins (?). This part needs proving. I can see a trestle with V dumps on the top left spur!










It's nice to use more gentler curves if can be where they aren't totally necessary. Helps to get rid of the 'made with min section' look and ads interest to the aesthetics.
I have some other designs I have done on a more practical area and they look surprisingly 'broad'. 
I don't want to totally hi jack this guys thread because he doesn't have the luxury to go beyond his 'door'. I am not convinced that a non modified (lowered) stainz can cut the cake though! He is going to be up in the 8~9% grade region!









Andrew


----------



## ThinkerT (Jan 2, 2008)

It might work out better grade wise if he could gain enough width to run the climbing track around the outside of the bottom loop, and maybe go for an 'L' shaped table with the top loop sticking out on it a bit. 

Otherwise...switches on curves...usually not a good idea. 

I do admire the creativity though.


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

Posted By ThinkerT on 04 Apr 2013 06:59 PM 
It might work out better grade wise if he could gain enough width to run the climbing track around the outside of the bottom loop, and maybe go for an 'L' shaped table with the top loop sticking out on it a bit. 

Otherwise...switches on curves...usually not a good idea. 

I do admire the creativity though.


You still have the crossover in the middle though, where the maximum height is required.
Can't be fussy with switches on curves here. They would tend to be short 0-4-0s plodding around at a slower pace. 
No hi-balling around 400mm radius or in the yards!









Andrew


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

Tom, 

I don't want to hi jack your thread and stray from your door size too much but I developed the the folded loop on a bigger scale plan a bit more. It won't help you but someone might find it useful. It is 10' x 4'5" which would fit in the end of an average size room. I wanted to give it a broad curve feel to it while still leaving just enough of a run to keep the grade to the least possible. About 4.5~5% with about 7" (175mm) height difference (track base to base). Most switches are 2' radius (LGB R1) but to give a smooth broad curve look around the station there are also 3' radius switches (Train Li R3) and even a 7.6' radius switch (LGB R5). 
There is a run around track for the engine to get to the other end of the train. passenger island platform, storage siding. turntable, engine shed, small industry spur, upper level yard and a big bridge! The 12" turntable would have to be fabricated. You could get some operational value out of this layout. An LGB stainz would have to be shortened in height







but the Hartland Mack will fit easy.







The upper supporting baseboard over the tracks would have to be wafer thin!









I call it *'Busy Town'*


















Andrew


----------



## bicyclexc (Mar 31, 2010)

That's a very interesting and involved design. When do you start building it?


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

Tom, I have to find a door big enough first








I am thinking of building a smaller indoor layout perhaps so I just want to play around with designs first.

I was thinking about your minimal size situation and think I have an idea which will improve your grade situation quite a bit.
Need to do some calculations and draw up an illustration to convey the idea.








You could gain an inch or so in height before the main grade if both upper and lower tracks gently rise together as depicted in light blue.
The cost of doing this means the section of track from under the crossover to the lower switch (in red) will be gain the same height in steepness, therefore it will only be for going down on the lower return loop.
You may need to electrically slow down this section of track to avoid a roller coaster effect otherwise the train will shoot down into the hole like a scared rabbit. The upper route can be taken either way but the more gentler one in light blue would be preferred.

This is probably the best approach to keep the main grade to a minimum if you want a folded return loop layout on such an extremely small size. The same principal could be applied on larger layouts, having designated routes going up grades and steeper ones for going down and rationally balancing it out to put the least strain on the locomotive. Gravity is on our side half of the time. Everyone has their own unique situation in tight spaces to keep 'up' grades to a minimum.










Andrew


----------



## bicyclexc (Mar 31, 2010)

Progress Update


----------



## Laminak (Apr 10, 2013)

Great idea ! But it's still a lot of work to do...


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

It's only work if you are not having fun.... 

Garrat, gonna have a diving board for the transition to the red death plunge? 

Looking good. 

John


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

Totalwrecker,

A pool of water at the bottom for a big splash maybe!









It is all pretty radical stuff in such a small space but the principle is used on prototype railways.
Thing is, do you have a higher throttle to get up a steeper grade then speed down hill? or have the throttle eased back to get up a gentler grade then a steeper hill going down.
They both have peril but the gears will last longer on the easier climb. 

Good to see progress Tom. 

Andrew


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Yeah but.... 
To have a radical change in elevation on a curve will be as graceful as that springy board ... all landings will be judged 

Tom I like your progress. 

John


----------



## bicyclexc (Mar 31, 2010)

On my layout, my horseshoe curve is at an easier grade than my straights. Both are still crazy high though. I have not tested the climb, although I have almost finished designing the wiring, so soon I will begin to hook things up. I painted my tracks and sanded/cleaned the contact on the top, and I will probably run jumpers to each rail section (small layout=not very many) thanks to those little screws that hold the ties together I won't need to solder them. I found some old lionel streetlights that look very close to 1:18 (1:18 is the "scale" of my layout more or less) so the station, streetlights and control box will get big LEDS and the tunnel will get little LEDS. More to come.


Only a few more rails to cut and fit in place! Name possibilities, Summit or Summitville for the station.










Closeup of the tunnel, the upper and lower tracks are the just about the only ones truly 'flat' on the whole layout.









Thanks for looking!

Up and Down Railroad?
Summitville and Western?
Summitville Mining Rlwy?


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Beautiful! You did good! 
I really like your tunnel liner. 
Very ceative use of space. 

John


----------



## cocobear1313 (Apr 27, 2012)

Very nice! Can't do that with steam. 

Dave


----------



## Laminak (Apr 10, 2013)

This is amazing!
You have done a great job.
It gives me a ton of new ideas...


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Though I think you might need to double head to get that consist up that grade...


----------



## BigRedOne (Dec 13, 2012)

Posted By vsmith on 16 Apr 2013 12:34 PM 









Though I think you might need to double head to get that consist up that grade... 

I think the bridge may still be out ...


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

I can see you also added handles to the sides, I would add them to the ends as well. makes a big difference when you have to move it. I use the same utility handles as those.


----------



## Laminak (Apr 10, 2013)

What's up now ? 
I'm a huge fan of your layout.


----------



## bicyclexc (Mar 31, 2010)

Sorry it's been a while. School is really a bear. Thanks for the support and keep the suggestions/criticisms coming. Trying to get it running by 5/18 for graduation!

Some progress:








All painted track is now installed and wired and in the process of being ballasted. I have tested the Stainz and coaches up too the gap with success. I am still DE-bugging the lower points before they get glued. The last big challenge is to build the "Land" and tracks that cover the tunnel. After the tracks are done I can worry about the hill/landscaping.









There are 10 LED's in the tunnel. There is one in the control box, though the effect isn't what I was looking for yet, and there will be large LED's in each streetlight (Lionel) and 2 in the station.









The tunnel is made out of 1/2" basswood and tongue depressors. I had a urge to construct something like this for years..... glad that's over. Also, that's my railpower 1300 transformer, yes its for N and HO scale but it has just enough juice for the stainz and LED's.









My favorite picture, S curves are nice because...well I'm a male and males like curves, and also they make things look real. This section runs DOWNHILL ONLY because the grade is more than 8%. The transitions worked out well here though because its hard to notice.


----------



## cocobear1313 (Apr 27, 2012)

Really cool!!


----------



## dms1 (May 27, 2010)

Very nice layout you have there.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

EXCELLENT MICRO-LAYOUT ! Welcome to the Dark Side!!!!!


----------



## tj-lee (Jan 2, 2008)

Looks great! 

Best, 
TJ


----------



## Kasimir (May 12, 2013)

Posted By vsmith on 08 May 2013 08:56 AM 








EXCELLENT MICRO-LAYOUT ! Welcome to the Dark Side!!!!! 

*This is absolutely true !*


----------



## Garratt (Sep 15, 2012)

The layout looks great with all the timber work.
I like the shot below. The lights look good too.
It makes me want to wander up there and see what's around the corner but ready to run back if a train comes!

Andrew


----------



## bicyclexc (Mar 31, 2010)

THEY SAID IT COULDN'T BE DONE



The layout is now running, although, only 2/3 of the track work is permanent. The top third is merely bolted together without paint but Hazzah I got it running before graduation. The Stainz even pulls 3 cars up the what? 10% grade almost? (9" gain)

This will probably be as far is this project goes till fall though . Graduation is on Saturday and I have to move out of my apartment next Monday. The Micro will need to be moved, good thing its so small! Along with most of my other things it will be going into storage for the summer.

Back to the outdoor layout!



Whops not that one...

Tom


----------



## cocobear1313 (Apr 27, 2012)

Congrats, that is very cool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

I especially like how you have scenic'd your outdoor layout. Is that an Aster or Accucraft loco?


----------



## Kasimir (May 12, 2013)

Great and cool !

THE DARK SIDE....


----------



## Kasimir (May 12, 2013)

Posted By Laminak on 15 Apr 2013 04:54 AM 
This is amazing!
You have done a great job.
It gives me a ton of new ideas...









Me too !
And I'm working hard on it !


----------

