Actually, I rarely use a plan when scratchbuilding a building. The main inspiration I use when scratchbuilding a building is to look at real or model buildings, and pick the features I like and combine them in a building I want to build. My perception of whether I can construct a particular feature also comes into play, and sometimes this means I don't build a wall or other feature the same as the real building I originally got the idea from.

An example of this is the South Forest Flour Mill. I was originally going to give it weatherboard walls, then I tried brick paper to cover plain walls, but I realized when I started to cover the walls these two ways that it wasn't going to have the desired effect - I basically built the features of the wall in the wrong order, so adding a weatherboard or brick finish to the walls was not working as I wanted it to. So I settled for a rendered effect instead, using painted 280 grit Wet and Dry Paper glued in place.

The Illinois Mineral Company stone bunker is an example of a compressed building, based on a photo I received from an acquaintance that is in the general region I model. This particular building is really the only one that is fairly close to the real thing - all the other buildings I have scratchbuilt tend to have a much higher 'imagination' content!

This website is designed within a Content Management System called Drupal. All the content is entered by editing or creating new content through the Administration system of Drupal. The look or style of the site is a customization of a freely available Drupal theme and was changed using FTP (File Transfer Protocol), and the content is managed live through Drupal itself.

Yes. You can build a diode matrix similar to the one shown on the C&SFT | Electrics page. I was able to drop my track voltage from 26 down to around 17 volts using a diode matrix. They work very well.

See my C&SFT RR | Electrics page for a diagram and description of how to build a diode matrix.

The most common scales are:

Z scale (1:220)
N scale (1:160)
HO/OO scale (1:87 / 1:76)
O scale (1:48)

G scale, which is about 1:20.3 in ratio to the prototype, is larger than O scale, and is gaining acceptance, especially in Garden Railroading.

For a switching layout the minimum size can be as small as 4 x 1 feet. This can include a small 1 track staging track, and some sidings and maybe a passenger depot.

For a continuous loop railroad with at least 1 turnout, and standard minimum curves of 18 inch radius, the size of the layout needs to be at least 3 feet 6 inches x 4 feet. But this size layout does not give much scope for operation. To have a model railroad that is based on a continuous loop, and is interesting to operate, the minimum size would be closer to 6x4 feet. If you don't have much space, you might want to consider the potential for a shwitching layout, as the narrower width of these types of layouts means they could fit along the wall of almost any room, whether that room is being used for other purposes or not.

I connected the different modules by drilling holes in the wood frame at the connecting ends of each baseboard and then inserted bolts and nuts to connect them together. Baseboards are a maximum of 6 feet long.

If you are planning to exhibit your layout or want a layout baseboard that is stronger than wood, you might want to consider a steel frame, and still use bolts to fasten the baseboards to each other. I know a few model mailroaders who have done this for their exhibition layouts, and it works very well.

I have found that in the construction of my C&SFT RR layout, and previous layouts, that the linear design seems to offer the best use of space and offers the highest operational potential. To compare the 8x6 feet (48 square feet) P&RR RR layout I built a few years ago with a 48 square feet portion of the C&SFT layout, which are both point to point, I found the following:

* The linear (around the wall) type design of the C&SFT offers more operational potential per square foot than the island type layout. There are about 50% more industries on a 48 square portion of the C&SFT compared with the 8x6 feet P&RR RR. This amounts to more operational potential.
* The linear design, maybe surprisingly, seems to offer better scenery options. My wife has commented that the C&SFT looked very uncluttered and natural, the railway actually runs through the scenery, rather than around it.
* Linear design tends to be less obtrusive in the space where the layout is housed. For example, if an 8x6 feet Island layout is in a room, it means the layout, plus access around it, actually equals a solid space of about 10x8 feet, Whereas having a Linear (around the wall) type layout means that the access is not needed on all sides, as the layout width is normally not more than 2 feet wide, and the back of the layout is easily accessible from the front of the layout.
* One possible down side to a Linear layout is that they tend to be much longer than a Island layout. Using the P&RR layout mentioned previously, and the portion of the C&SFT layout equalling 48 square feet, as examples, the 48 square feet portion of the C&SFT is 24 feet long, and 2 feet wide, where as the P&RR RR layout was only 8 feet long. In a Linear layout, operation is greatly enhanced by having a wireless control system, whereas an 8x6 foot layout would probably only need a control panel in 1 place, and a couple of tethered connections.

With Digital equipment, it is always a good idea to use one that is NMRA / European Model rail Standards compliant. This will make it much easier to run trains with any compatible Digital controller. The beauty of using a Digital system to control your trains is that you don't have to worry about complicated wiring - only 2 wires to the track in many cases. Here are some links to other sites which you may find helpful:

http://dmoz.org/Recreation/Models/Railroad/DCC/
http://www.railsusa.com/links/Model_Railroad_Electronics/
http://www.dccinfo.com/

Ideally the maximum grade should be less than 3%. In other words, for every 100 inches of horizontal track, the track can be raised or lowered 3 inches. Keep in mind that prototype railroads try to keep the steepness of their grades as low as possible, even to the extent of lengthening their mainlines considerably in order to avoid a steep grade - the less of a grade the train has to travel, the more a locomotive can haul up the grade.

I used mostly the Internet. Being outside the USA, I do not have the amount of books available to US based modellers on model railroading. I found Wikipedia was a good research tool, and I also joined some Yahoo Groups, which allowed me to tap into knowledge of modellers in the US. I also subscribe to Model Railroader magazine, and purchase other US based train magazines to increase my knowledge of US modelling and prototype trains.

I chose the Roco system because it is expandable, upgradable, and less expensive than a lot of other systems. I felt I didn't require a wireless system because of the configuration of my layout, and the Roco system was available, and at a good price.

DC means Direct Current
DCC means Digital Command Control

The answer to this question of which system is best depends on what you want from your control system. If you only have 1 or 2 locos, and only one of them is going to running at a time, and the shunting moves are not complicated, then probably DC would be best for you. The big advantage with DC is that most manufacturers (as at Dec 2005) do not have DCC decoders installed in the factory, so they are designed for use on a DC controlled layout.

DCC is a digital control system, which greatly enhances the realism of operating a Model Railroad. With DCC you dont have to worry so much about complicated wiring, and isolating sections of track! And DCC decoders generally allow extra functions such as turning headlights on and off. Switching moves are generally more realistic with DCC as well, as you can have two locos on the same track, and move just one at a time, whether you have isolating sections or not. With DCC the emphasis is generally more on the operating, whereas DC generally requires more complicated wiring and the switching on and off of different electrical sections. DCC is temperimental regarding short circuits, whereas DC generally isn't. DCC is also more expensive than standad DC.

Another issue regarding DCC is that some DC locos may not be able to be controlled well on a DCC layout, and some DC locos will receive motor dmamage if used on DCC systems.

Having used both systems myself, I feel that any layout (even a small one) can be enhanced by converting a layout to DCC. I used a Bachmann EZCommand DCC system for a whilw, and have found it to be very good and cost effective (about AU$120.00 for the controller). I am currently using a Roco LocoMaus II DCC system, which is expandable and allows programming of decoder Configuration Variables.

The track plans in the Photos / Track Plans section of this site are designed using the Atlas Right Track software. Most of the plans use the Atlas Snap Track library that is part of the Atlas Right Track software. Although designed for Atlas track, most of the plans can be built using track from other manufacturers with some modification.

Scale refers the the size of the model in relation to the size of the real thing. For example, a model that is to the scale 1:87 is 1/87th the size of the real thing.

Gauge, on the other hand, refers solely to the distance between the rails.

The minimum curve radius for any HO scale layout must take into consideration the type of rollingstock that will be running on it. For up to 50 scale foot carriages, and 4 axle deisels, and up to 0-8-0 steam locos, a minimum radius of 18 inches is best. For larger steam locos, 6 or more axle deisels, and 80 scale foot passenger cars, you would probably find that you need a larger minimum radius. I have adhered to the 18 inch minimum radius standard for my layouts, but some people use even a 12 or 15 inch minimum radius. The sharper the radius of the curve the less rollingtsock will run on!