# track plan help



## fooldancing (May 10, 2008)

Hello again everyone, 

I have been away from the forum for a very long time (too Long), and I am ready to get back into my outdoor layout. Here is a picture of what I have so far. I put some heavy fabric down so I wouldn't have to mow or weed in between my track and layout. It's not much, but it is much bigger than the layout I have out front that is being over taken by weeds as I write this...LOL What I was hoping for is some help with a track plan. For the life of me I can't seem top come up with something other than a "L". I don't have any switches yet for siding or or anything. I don't mean to sound like I want you to do my work for me. On the contrary, I am hope to combine our collective ideas into one great little railroad. I have about 300' of track and my curves are 8' diameter. I probably have close to 3 full circles of 8's. 

Thank you and I hope you can help me out., 
Matt Myers (central PA) 

*Click for Photo* 
Image exceeds 640 pixel max. width. Converted to link. Mod. 
Here are the dimentions. 

The upper "L" is 13'10"wide the side of the "L" is 30'long the long staright is 58'long and the right edge is 20.5' deep.


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Matt, 

I'd be happy to ofer my two cent's worth, but a little more information would be useful. 

How large is the available space? 

Do you want a point to point, or continous loop railroad? 

Do you like operating or watching trains? Yard switching? Locals? Passenger trains? 

What sort of grades do you want? Your site looks relatively flat - if not, how much elevation change is there across it? 

Do you want lots of scenery, lots of track, or a little of both? 

Do you plan on buying more track, or do you want to keep it to what you already have on hand? 

Any information along these lines would be a help in creating something you'll be happy with. Otherwise, it's truly a shot in the dark.


----------



## fooldancing (May 10, 2008)

Kenneth, 
I would like to have a continuous loop with a mix of both track and scenery. My budget right now won't allow me to purchase more track, but I would like to have so sidings and a yard in the future. 
I like just watching the trains with my kids, how ever I do have digital sound and like to play with that..LOL 
I have both a passenger train and a freight train. 

I hope I answered all of your questions if not I would be more that happy to try again, 
Thank you, 
Matt Myers


----------



## fooldancing (May 10, 2008)

OH, 
My site is pretty flat with only a slight grade. I don't know what the grade is, but I shouldn't have a problem running. 
When I get home this evening I will draw a better map of the dimentions.


----------



## jimtyp (Jan 2, 2008)

Matt, 

Some things to consider for your layout. 

- Plan big but start small - allows you to start running trains sooner as you don't have to wait on the time and money for all the stuff in your big plan. 
- Double track - allows for trains to be running side by side or approaching from different directions while relatively close - looks cool in my opinion. 
- Build a storage unit or run the trains into a shed or garage, this allows for less handling of the rolling stock and more time for running trains. 
- Allow for a trestle 
- Allow for a bridge over some water 
- Allow for one train to cross over another 
- Keep grades low as trains can run slow up and very fast down 
- Tunnel 
- Rail yard 
- Engine house with turntable 
- Sidings for passing trains and picking up goods from different industries 
- If you have a favorite railroad sometimes folks will simulate it, like the main towns and stops, etc.


----------



## Pete Chimney (Jan 12, 2008)

A few issues come to mind in looking at your fabric patch. 

1. Is the fabric UV-proof? In other words sunlight won't break down the fabric. 
2. Is the fabric cotton or other natural product? Laying a cotton product on the ground will cause it to mould and rot. 
3. Is the farbic well fastneed to the ground? If the fabric is at all loose the act of walking on the fabric may cause it to pull and this can distort your track out of alignment. 

Finally, how spongy is this base of fabric sitting on the ground (on grass)? In other words will your track flex laterally or up and down as a train moves along the track due to a soft base. This is a concern for derailments.


----------



## fooldancing (May 10, 2008)

Pete, 

I'm not sure what the material is made of it is from a paper manufacturing plant. I have been told by people who have used it for other things outdoors, that it will last for at least a decade. I covered the grass, I probably should have excavated it in hind sight. 
I have it secured pretty well to the ground, and I am planing on "staking" the track with a medium to heavy gauge stainless steel baler wire so it shouldn't move. 

You guys are asking great questions and I hope I am answering them ok.


----------



## fooldancing (May 10, 2008)

The fabric under the swing set and slide deal won't have any track on it. I just got tired of mowing under and around them.


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Matt, 

How's this for a start? It's a pretty basic figure eight, but it has plenty of room for scenery and future expansion, if you want to add a yard, more sidings, etc. I made the assumption that you're using LGB R3 curves, or comparable, and that everything else is straight. Personally, I think the resulting plan is a tad bit rigid, but it could be of course be smoothed out if you can bend your own track. 

I assumed 12" vertical seperation between tracks, which results in a 1.9% grade. The two sidings are 12' long. Below is a parts list - flex track is measured in inches, so that's just under 147'. 

Count | Description 
------+------------------------------------ 
47 | LGB 16000 Curved R3 22.5° 
1 | LGB 16050 Electric Switch R3 Right 
3 | LGB 16150 Electric Switch R3 Left 
0 | 1760.664 G Flex Track 
------+------------------------------------


----------



## fooldancing (May 10, 2008)

DK, 

Very nice, Thank you. Yes, my curves are R3, mostly Aristo with a mix of LGB. 

I really appriciate the help, 
Matt Myers


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

You're welcome, Matt. When I can't work on a layout or a model itself, layout design is another aspect of the hoby I enjoy. 

A couple comments about the plan I posted. I drew the lower (straighter) line coming up and over the other, but I think it may look better the other way around, if the water goes in as drawn. Otherwise there's too much vertical separation between the water and the track. 

If you have anything you'd like to see changes about the plan, I'd be happy to try to adjust it. I can send a more detailed plan if you can use it, also.


----------



## VillageRail (Apr 25, 2008)

The track planning programs can be downloaded, and useful as well as fun. You can layout a grid and choose from actual track pieces you have on hand. I have done this to come up with some creative options on layouts. After getting some ideas on paper, I like to take the track out and lay it down roughly where it might be. This can be very helpful in visualizing the location with respect to the different points of view you will be watching the train from. Or simply how it might look from the deck, picture window, etc. After looking at it for a day or two, I start moving it around to try out different options. I have been doing this now for a couple weeks with a new loop I'm putting in. So far I have narrowed it down to perhaps a half dozen options.  However, I have to work around trees, bushes, ponds, and existing track as well as a slope. You have the perfect location, so the only restriction would be how much track you plan to use. 

Paul


----------



## jimtyp (Jan 2, 2008)

Ken, very nice plan. Can you throw in a rail yard and engine house with turntable, just for grins. I may use this for my next layout


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

There are a couple things I like about it: 

1. Some senic sections where the track wanders through the garden. 

2. A nice long straight where the train stretches out. 

3. A siding where you can set up a train while you're running another. 

I've always wanted 2 passing sidings spaced about evenly so you could run 2 trains in opposite directions


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Posted By jimtyp on 05/15/2008 8:59 AM 
Ken, very nice plan. Can you throw in a rail yard and engine house with turntable, just for grins. I may use this for my next layout 

Jim, 

You mean like this? I added 3 classification tracks, an arrival & departure track, a runaround track, and a cab track. The a/d track and the switching lead are 145", the same as the sidings. That's a 30" turntable, which works out to 50' in 1:20.3 or 72.5' in 1:29. 

*Click for Photo* 
Image exceeds 640 pixel max. width. Converted to link. Mod. 

This brings the parts count to: 

Count | Description 
------+------------------------------------ 
49 | LGB 16000 Curved R3 22.5° 
5 | LGB 16050 Electric Switch R3 Right 
8 | LGB 16150 Electric Switch R3 Left 
1 | Turntable, diameter 30.000 
0 | 2685.875 G Flex Track 
------+------------------------------------ 

Any other suggestions/requests? 

You know that if you use my track plan, I expect royalties, in the form of visitation rights! /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/hehe.gif 

Seriously, though, anyone is more than welcome to the plan. If anyone gets rich publishing it, I'd sure appreciate a little consideration, but otherwise use it as you wish


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

A couple comments about the plan I just posted, in case anyone is interested: 

The yard as drawn can handle trains in both directions. Trains travelling left would have to back in, while trains travelling right would have to be run around in the siding and then shoved in. The opposite would obviously be the case for trains departing. 

I used R3 curves and turnouts for convenience. There is no reason whatsoever why any other curve and turnout wouldn't work, as long as your equipment can handle it. 

I drew the line closest to the yard as the higher one, going up and over the other. In retrospect, it would probably look better if the elevations were reversed, considering the location of the water.


----------



## jimtyp (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks Ken! Yes, I like. It may be a couple of years before I move and rebuild but I'm keeping this plan! And yes, if for some reason it ever gets some praise I'll call it the "Rickman" plan


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Glad you like it, Jim.  

I hope the small yard will be enough to keep things interesting, while still allowing plenty of "sit and watch the trains go by" entertainment. 

You know, I've never been a big fan of loops of track. My expereince is in HO, and point-to-point with lots of operation is where it's at. But I'm beginning to like this plan myself - maybe I'll build it too!


----------



## fooldancing (May 10, 2008)

Ken, 
The additions look great, and of coarse if you are ever in Central PA (Penn State country) you are more than welcome to come and visit. I am going to go with your plan, thanks again. There is an open invite to anyone here if they are ever in my neck of the woods. 
Matt Myers


----------



## fooldancing (May 10, 2008)

Well, I have my track laid out. I didn't have enough curves for Ken's exact layout, so I made do with what I have. I hope you like it. I can't run trains yet, put the track plan is done. I have to make the bridge, the metal one is temporary for right now. I am going to get field stones from my father-in-law's farm. The far left side is where I am going to put in a tunnel. 

*Photo One* 

*Photo Two* 

*Photo Three* 
Images exceed 640 pixel max. width. Converted to links. Mod.


----------



## jimtyp (Jan 2, 2008)

That was quick! Looking grand thus far!


----------



## fooldancing (May 10, 2008)

Thank you. I am hoping to run trains by the end of next month no later then July 4th, we will see. I need it to stop raining so I can go get my field stone. I am hoping the layout is busy enough so we don't get bored with it. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/whistling.gif It is bigger than it look without track laid down. I have stainless bailer wire to use as "stakes" to hold the track down and also to keep it from moving.


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Looking great, Matt! You work fast, or maybe I'm just slow... 

I'll be excited to see how the layout looks at it progresses. Wish I were a little closer - I'd come over for a weekend and help play


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Honestly I would reverse the portions where the bridge is. IOWs the bridge section becoming the lower section and the lower section the bridge portion. That way the portion on the left of the crossing would be at grade in the forground for aways, then as it nears the curves on the left side it can begin to gradually climb up thru that rear section wheres it rasied above the forground until it reaches the crossover, then it couls drop down back to grade on the right hand portion of the layout. This gives you the oppurtunity to uses hill and tunnels on the left side as the train makes its way thru the "mountains", and then a long sweeping turn down to grade on the right thru sloped countryside or farmland or such. It also allows the train to come and go from the field of vision and interact with the landscape more. Anyway just a thought.


----------



## fooldancing (May 10, 2008)

Thank's Ken. I used ALL of my curves on this one. In fact I tore down my front flower bed layout so I could rob the curves to finish the "long horseshoe". Belive it or not I did it in about an hour after I came home from work this morning. I am really motivated about this one and I can't wait to run!!! 

Thank you to everyone for your help and input, 
Matt


----------



## fooldancing (May 10, 2008)

vsmith, 
I will go out and try it. If you would like I could take a few pics and post them.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Might be worth a try, just to see if you like the way it looks.


----------



## fooldancing (May 10, 2008)

Vsmith, 

That won't work. The run isn't long enoughand I don't have enough curves to make it longer.


----------



## fooldancing (May 10, 2008)

How tall should I make my "over"? Here is a pic of the original run over the bridge. I add some tile to give me an idea of how it might look without a lot of sagging track. I am not going to be running huge trains, but some length would be nice. I am just not sure about the grade, and I never caught on to the formula. I have a little more of the run to play with grade wise. 

*Photo One* 
Image exceeds 640 pixel max. width converted to link. Mod.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

I didnt say make it longer, keep the same plan and just change where you add the fill to raise it. at least that was what I had in mind, I cant see your topograghy in the pics, it looks flat to me so I dont know how my suggestions effect your topography. 

PS your over should be at least 9" clear from the top of rail to the underside of bridge, 10 is better.


----------



## fooldancing (May 10, 2008)

ok thanks, When I said about making it longer, the run was to short for the rise of the bridge. It is mostly flat. 
the under is much shorter here on the left than it looks in the picture. 

*Photo One* 
Image exceeds 640 pixel max. width converted to link. Mod.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

This is a very crude rendering of what I had in mind 

*Photo One* 
Image exceeds 640 pixel max. width converted to link. Mod. 

you just need a bit more fill dirt to raise the grades on approach, it looks like you have plenty of room to do that with the existing track layout as it is. 

Your grades to the bridge should be ideally about 2% thats why I show the grades beginning much farther away than they currently are shown on the test setup.


----------



## fooldancing (May 10, 2008)

Thank you for the drawing, it made it a bit more clearer. It's hard to visualize without my stones in and the fill dirt in.


----------



## fooldancing (May 10, 2008)

Vsmith, 
upon further review I like what you are saying. I just need to get more field stone. Instead of dirt I was going to use anti skid and pack in down really well until I have the desired level of fill. I will add the tunnels and mountains as we go. Looks good though. Of coarse I will take pics as I go and when I am running. 
Thanks again, 
Matt


----------



## tbug (Feb 16, 2008)

Yah, I like the second idea of the bridge rising from the left, back part of the track (if that makes sense). I think w/ trains running it would be more visually appealing. Either way it looks good!


----------



## fooldancing (May 10, 2008)

OK, here are some pics from this morning. The grade isn't done because the bridge is 12" not 10". Taking off the 2" I feel will help me to achieve the desired grade, at least I hope. Grades are not my strong point, but this will be fun. I am sorry for the big pics, I will have to play around and find out how to re size them for the forum. 

*Photo One* 

*Photo Two* 
Image exceeds 640 pixel max. width converted to link. Mod.


----------



## fooldancing (May 10, 2008)

This will be better for watching trains from anywhere on or around the layout. I will even have room in the foreground for a passing siding and even a small yard so I won't have to switch trains in the future. Could anyone tell me how gradual my inclines (beginning inches up to the 10 or 10.5 inches I would like to have at the top) should be? I know I should know this already, but I have never been good at figuring that stuff out. 
Thanks for the positive feed back so far everyone, 
Matt Myers


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2008)

how gradual my inclines should be?

just stay under half an inch per foot of track. (even better would be a third of an inch)


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Matt, 

Grades are emasured in percentage, such as 2%. That means that for every 100 units (feet, inches, crossties, gnat's a$$es, or whatever else you want to measure in) of horizontal run, the track rises 2 units. On a main line today, 1% is considered steep, end even Saluda is "only" 4%. Cass I believe goes to 11% or 13% in places. Most small scale modelers try to limit themselves to 2% for a large layout, or 4% for a small, tight plan. 1/2" per foot works out to 4.2%, 1/3" is 2.7%, which should give you some idea what sort of grades you can achieve. 

If you want to run long trains, you'll need to keep the grades as low as possible. If you prefer short trains and old-time equipment, you can easily get away with steeper grades. Given the size of your area and the location & height of the bridge, I'd say you probably have about a 2% grade right now, possibly a little less. That should be fine unless you plan on running modern 100 car trains. If it comes to it, you can always run trains in one direction only - up the easy grade, and down the steep one.


----------



## Guest (May 22, 2008)

before breaking up the rests of my last layout i took measure again, for planning the new layout. 
the two old stainzes i have, made a 7.4% grade with R3 S-curves and and R1 halfcircle at the top - with two or three four-weeled wagons. the playmobils did manage that grade only without wagons. the 4-4-0 bachmann did not make it.


----------



## tbug (Feb 16, 2008)

Yah, that looks alot better. I would stretch the grade out longer and into the curves. That would make for less grade/ longer trains (if desired). I think it would also add some dimension/ height/ visial appeal to the entire layout. Maybe try keeping the track elevated some all the way into the U-curve to see how you like it. Maybe even keep that area slightly elevated and come down to grade on the left side. Might be kind of neat to have one track elevated above the other at that point (near the U-curve) rather than coming down to grade level and being more-or-less parallel. Just thoughts. The only one you have to please is yourself!


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

I agree. You could start the rise as soon as it gets under the overpass. That would reduce your grade a lot.


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Heck, I had just sort of assumed that's how it would have to be built. Besides, there's no good reason not to build it that way. As Torby said, it will make the grade as smooth as possible.


----------



## armorsmith (Jun 1, 2008)

Matt, 

I am new to this forum and was skimming through the posts. Seeing what you have on the ground in these latest pics, it appears that what you are using is called a 'felt' or 'fabric' in the dryer section of the paper machine. It is typically a synthetic material, and will withstand heat and abrasion well. As for UV protection, it is intended for indoor use so I doubt it will be UV treated. One feature of the material is that it is intended to allow moisture to go through and will not hold water. 

A very creative use for an old felt. 

Bob Cope


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Matt, those last pics look much better. I also agree starting your grades as early as you can, makes life much easier on your engines, 

Is it an optical illusion or is the track rising in grade from left to right at the rear of this picture? 

*Photo One* 
Image exceeds 640 pixel max. width converted to link. Mod. 

If so, you may be able to use that existing grade to gain most of the height needed to get to the bridge crossing, you may be able to keep the grade level from the far right rear all the way to the bridge. Same at the front of the picture, the track humps right in front of the camera, and that may be all the grade you need to then go level all the over to the bridge at the near side. 

Any chance of asking around if anyone you know ***might be in the construction biz and have access to borrowing a GPS surveying device*** to shoot some elevations on the track locations? 

It would simplify the whole issue of track grades if you can get your hands on one. 

***edit, for clarity***


----------



## CCSII (Jan 3, 2008)

Get a laser level, the GPS unit could tell you where your trestle is in relation to your front door.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

..unless you can get a GPS unit that includes elevation, used one of these to do the grades on a parking lot, accurate to an 1/10th of an inch  

The laser level might be a little easier to obtain though /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/satisfied.gif


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By fooldancing on 05/21/2008 6:59 AM 
OK, here are some pics from this morning. The grade isn't done because the bridge is 12" not 10". Taking off the 2" I feel will help me to achieve the desired grade, at least I hope. Grades are not my strong point, but this will be fun. I am sorry for the big pics, I will have to play around and find out how to re size them for the forum. 


To my eye, the grade still looks pretty substantial. Why not reduce the grade on the crossover by partially sinking the grade of the pass-under in a cut? You have nice straight runs in and out of the lower portion and a little grade separation with a nice "faced" cut would make this more interesting.


----------



## CCSII (Jan 3, 2008)

vsmith - not doubting your 1/10" GPS machine ... 

but for general purposes and to keep some trusting MLS member from rushing out to buy a GPS system with which to level his track: 

"autonomous civilian GPS horizontal position fixes are typically accurate to about 15 meters (50 ft)." from Wikipedia on GPS (I knew you were joking)


----------



## jimtyp (Jan 2, 2008)

I'd agree that the grade looks steep. And there is a curve on either end of the grade so no matter which way the train runs it will be going a pretty good speed when it hits the curve.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By CCSII on 06/02/2008 4:27 PM 
vsmith - not doubting your 1/10" GPS machine ... 
but for general purposes and to keep some trusting MLS member from rushing out to buy a GPS system with which to level his track: 
"autonomous civilian GPS horizontal position fixes are typically accurate to about 15 meters (50 ft)." from Wikipedia on GPS (I knew you were joking)


I said "borrow" not buy, and yes it was a GPS unit we used for surveying the grades on the parking lot, its not a storebought Garvin or any typical kind of GPS navigation unit, but one ment specificaly for surveying, so thats why I suggested asking around and seeing if anyone might have access to one. I would also suggest professional tool rental companies, the ones that rent the real serious equipement to contractors, they would likely have such units for rental, and they may even be rentable from Home Depots tool rental service, its worth checking out because it was so dumb simple to use. 

We just chalk lined out a grid, this device is an antenna about 1/2 the size of a shoebox and sites on the end of a support post, you simply place it on top of your grid point, make sure its straight up, push the button on a seperate handheld unit, it beeps, wait a minute then beeps twice giving you not only your latitude & longitude, but an elevation above mean sea level accurate to a tenth of an inch. We did the whole section we were surveying in less than an hour, the traditional way (pole and tripod) would have taken all afternoon. Its worth looking for. 

Here, check out this site, you'll see I wasnt joking " border=0> 
http://www.trimble.com/gpssurveying.shtml


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

1: trust wikipedia like you trust your loudmouthed neighbor when he says he has a cure for cancer. 

2: "SOME" GPS units work in conjunction with a stationary receiver/transmitter that reads the GPS signals and retransmits the information with correction, knowing its exact location, and the portable GPS receiver then interpolates its calculated position against the known position of the receiver/transmitter to estimate its location more precisely. Those GPS receivers are much more expensive and require the user to know where the stationary receiver/transmitter is and what frequency it is on. And more than likely requires a subscription to the service (also expensive). 

My DeLorme "Street Atlas" GPS receiver is very nice and since the SA ("Selective Authority") was turned off by Presidential decree several years ago it is much improved in stability. I just hooked it to my laptop PC and walked out on the 9x12 concrete front porch of my story and a half stick built home with cedar siding and full city supplied utilities (i.e.: it is quite stable on the property I own and ain't likely to be "mobile"). 

According to the GPS receiver my porch varied in elevation from 809 to 823 feet over the course of about 5 minutes and reached a velocity of 2 miles per hour in various directions during that time. I, myself, am not particularly seasick from all that motion, but it may give you some idea what a small inexpensive GPS receiver will tell you. 

The one used for surveying often comes with the "stationary" unit that the user must setup for the location to be surveyed.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Semper Vaporo on 06/02/2008 5:14 PM

The one used for surveying often comes with the "stationary" unit that the user must setup for the location to be surveyed.



Yes, and they are very very expensive, hence the "rent or borrow" suggestion...if they were cheap, I would already have one sitting in my tool bin


----------



## CCSII (Jan 3, 2008)

And by joking I meant going out looking for one with that accuracy for 100' of track or so, not joking about the accuracy.


----------



## fooldancing (May 10, 2008)

armorsmith, 

Yes the fabric is dryer felt from a paper machine. It drains wonderfully. 

As for the layout. I decided to scrap the grade and go with a fun, but easier to maintain, track plan. It looks very similar, but with out the over/under. I can still do a lot with this layout, and plan to build at least two tunnels, and still have the "mountain" area in the same place. 

Please excuse the mess. 

*Photo One* 
Image exceeds 640 pixel max. width converted to link. Mod.


----------



## fooldancing (May 10, 2008)

The long staright stretch will have a passing siding on the inside, with a small yard on the outside.


----------



## Dave F (Jan 2, 2008)

That's very nice, I like the new plan..


----------



## CCSII (Jan 3, 2008)

What is important is that it looks as though you are having fun! I like your new plan.


----------



## fooldancing (May 10, 2008)

Thanks Dave I was afarid at first that it might be a bit boring. Once I started to see how/where things could it was growing on me.


----------



## tbug (Feb 16, 2008)

Even better! The KIS method - Keep It Simple. Adds more fun too!


----------



## Dave F (Jan 2, 2008)

AS I see it, the new plan gives you a nice long run with enough twists to a) keep it interesting and b) avoid the dreaded Oval of doom. The sightlines are pleasing with enough bends to be quite photogenic. You have ample open space on the plan to add sidings,. spurs, and yards to add operational interest as the railroad develops. 

I think you've got a keeper there.


----------



## fooldancing (May 10, 2008)

Thank you for the boost of confidence!!! All I need now is a name for the railroad..


----------



## Dave F (Jan 2, 2008)

Based on that photo you could call it the 
a)Barnpoolshrub shortline. 
b)The Big Grassy 
c)Tall Grass and Hillside 
or 
d)Tarp-n-felt Terminal


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

Hmm. I'll have to think about that a while.


----------



## blackburn49 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Dave F on 06/03/2008 8:13 PM

Posted By fooldancing on 06/02/2008 5:49 PM 












That's an excellent layout for setting up a couple of model towns or a town and an industrial complex.


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

Looks like it's on slightly sloped ground? I can't tell directions from the photos, but perhaps "North Slope & Bankrupt?"


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Er...the crossover plan was far more interesting IMO but its your RR so whatever works for you /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/doze.gif 

Prairie & Western ?


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Please reduce your photos to no wider than 640 pixels before posting them.


----------

