Model Railroadz
- Thread starter kimo505
- Start date
Hi Ray --
"Yes, digholes are definitely best - and easiest."
I'm not sure if I'd agree with this. Best - possibly. Easiest - probably not.
Have you tried my last two model layouts? "Lilliput Logger" and "Klozett"
Both used the dropped floor. I found it considerably easier and quicker, and allowed a 45 degree edge in Klozett - something that can't be done with digholes.
Philo
"Yes, digholes are definitely best - and easiest."
I'm not sure if I'd agree with this. Best - possibly. Easiest - probably not.
Have you tried my last two model layouts? "Lilliput Logger" and "Klozett"
Both used the dropped floor. I found it considerably easier and quicker, and allowed a 45 degree edge in Klozett - something that can't be done with digholes.
Philo
MeowRailroad
CKRail
I use a compromise system where I use digholes around the layout edges for precision, then drop the floor down farther away.
ray_whiley
Active member
Hi Philo -
Perhaps I've dug myself int0 a hole! I'll have a go at using your suggestion sometime - I hadn't though of combining the two. Presumably dropping the board surface would mean having the "room" floor (I use the planking by itareus) higher than the lowered board surface. Or maybe texturing the surface to represent a floor.
A further thought - using digholes means of course that they can be on a separate layer and made invisible, which is how I use them whereas a dropped floor would be there the whole time.
But I'm always willing to try out new ideas.
Ray
Perhaps I've dug myself int0 a hole! I'll have a go at using your suggestion sometime - I hadn't though of combining the two. Presumably dropping the board surface would mean having the "room" floor (I use the planking by itareus) higher than the lowered board surface. Or maybe texturing the surface to represent a floor.
A further thought - using digholes means of course that they can be on a separate layer and made invisible, which is how I use them whereas a dropped floor would be there the whole time.
But I'm always willing to try out new ideas.
Ray
I prefer the dighole method alone, just because it's easier to be precise. Since perfectionism is often something that decides how i route-build, it's just my personal preference.
![20160827_163216_zps15vz27pn.jpg](http://[URL="http://s1274.photobucket.com/user/tom_steadman1/media/20160827_163216_zps15vz27pn.jpg.html"][IMG]http://i1274.photobucket.com/albums/y422/tom_steadman1/20160827_163216_zps15vz27pn.jpg)
MeowRailroad
CKRail
Downloaded Eso's layout called "The Basement," and I started running engines marked for MT RAIL, the MT standing for Montana. That layout sort of looks like Montana so I think it works fine.
A coal train with 3/4's of the current engine roster after reversing on the loop near the industrial section. The other engine is MTRL 609, an ex-UP GP38-2. These are SD45's.
Another good fictional line for his layout called "The Old Line" would be the PennDel Railway, reporting mark PDRY. PennDel means Pennsylvania-Delaware.
A coal train with 3/4's of the current engine roster after reversing on the loop near the industrial section. The other engine is MTRL 609, an ex-UP GP38-2. These are SD45's.
Another good fictional line for his layout called "The Old Line" would be the PennDel Railway, reporting mark PDRY. PennDel means Pennsylvania-Delaware.
ray_whiley
Active member
One question - are other virtual model railway/railroad creators as strict as I am in insisting that if it were a real layout any derailed stock must be within reach (which I set at the equivalent of two feet six inches, being firmly "welded" to imperial measurements)?
This of course limits the width of a baseboard which can be reached from only one side. For one which can be reached from two, of course a wider board is possible.
I have other rules which depend on the era in which the layout is considered as being modelled, in addition to the area being depicted by the actual model - but they wouldn't be of interest to anyone else.
Ray
This of course limits the width of a baseboard which can be reached from only one side. For one which can be reached from two, of course a wider board is possible.
I have other rules which depend on the era in which the layout is considered as being modelled, in addition to the area being depicted by the actual model - but they wouldn't be of interest to anyone else.
Ray
It's really a question of do you want realism? Like you I think if one is creating a model railway then it should be a realistic creation of a model not just any old layout surrounded by walls. But then I am an ex railway modeller (no room in bungalow and arthritis).
I too was a railway modeler having both HO and N scale, duck under's, pop ups removable sections are all in common use.
The point is if you need more room to have the feel of what you are trying to achieve then use it, we have the benefit of not having to reach over scenery to re-rail a wagon or switch a point.
Have the freedom to build what you want and have Fun, isn't that why we are here?
nzld
The point is if you need more room to have the feel of what you are trying to achieve then use it, we have the benefit of not having to reach over scenery to re-rail a wagon or switch a point.
Have the freedom to build what you want and have Fun, isn't that why we are here?
nzld
working on the RIP track area in Cold Water,
Gordon
G'day Gordon, lovely shots. What crane/ground area are you using for that loading area?
Jamie
That'd be the "JR Overhead Crane" asset, available on their site.
Haven't been playing much in the last couple years after a switch to Mac but I finally dusted off my PC and fired up Trainz. Starting out with a small, single board layout based on James McNab's Grimes Industrial. It's mostly complete aside from the final ground cover and other minute details. The Chicago Bridge and Iron section is mostly finished so I grabbed a couple shots while doing a test run.
ray_whiley
Active member
I agree - and I have said so more than once in the past. This is why my rules are my rules for me - and I would not suggest them for anyone else. I was interested, however, in what others thought.
Ray
MeowRailroad
CKRail
I love that model railroad and I did something based off of it awhile ago. I couldn't get the scale right and everything looked off. I might revisit it now. If I got to visit a model railroad in real life, I'd visit one of the 3 IAIS modellers on the Model Railroad Hobbyist forum.
Its not an exact copy but it's close enough for my liking. The overall shape of the layout is the same, I just made it a little bigger to work better in Trainz and added rail service to a couple industries that he'd modeled but didn't serve with the railroad. I didn't want to put all of that work in for three rail served industries. The guys on the MRH forum are a great inspiration for projects in Trainz and the shelf lines in particular really interest me. I've worn out the pages of the GMR article on Tom Johnson's layout and I'm pretty sure INRAIL is burned into my screen somewhere from his MRH forum thread lol. I went with the Grimes line to start so I wouldn't take on something massive right off the bat and lose interest after a couple days. Not sure what my next project will be but I really want to do something with the DT&I.
I love the layout in a room image. I'd have never thought of that. Nice work in the image too - looks great!
