"Any thoughts and suggestions ?"

Create your own classic instead of copying old classics. Maybe a rocket /airplane manufacturing plant layout integrated into your workbench. Haul the model rockets to the assembly plant, wind tunnel, test stands, etc. Make the layout complement  the aircraft in the room instead of compete with them for limited space....DaveBranum

The Gumstump and Snowshoe

Back in my college days I built a version of this, but just a little longer (8 feet if I remember right), and used an old Ken Kidder plantation engine for the motive power.  It didn't take long to build and was fun to operate - even got my feet wet on scratch building with this RR.  The one thing it sorely needs is a run around track, and I would expect that you'll need to make it longer than 8 feet to do that (L-shaped should work).  This design seems to have a following in recent years, as an example see  http://www.carendt.com/scrapbook/page38a/ . 

Add car cards for operations and this little gem will keep the railroading interest high.  BTW, I moved from this design to a slightly larger L shaped RR like this that got written up in RMC (Jan 2003) and that existed for 20 years. Ya' can't go wrong with the idea.

Charles

Consider a shelf layout

Consider a shelf layout that's built at about chest level (standing) so you can use the space underneath. Sectional would also be a good way to go. The Gumpstump was only about 6' x 1'. If you stretched that to 8 or 10 feet in length (straight or L-shaped) you'd have the space for a runaround and a reduced grade on the switchback. If you do a search on Google images, you'll find a few people have already done something like this.

Unless the 4x8 is against a wall (or 2), it'll eat up your real estate very quickly.

Christian

the GS&SN stretched into an L

would be my bote.  Lots of good switching possibilities, and probably longer runs between industries.

Track planning is not my forte

That would be nice except for the fact that track plans have never been one of my strong points.  Modifying something like the G&S is one thing but creating a plan from scratch is another. I should point out to that this layout is meant to be early steam era. I'm not a prototypical fanatic by any stretch of the word but I do keep my era fairly specific and "planes and rockets" don't fit.

The 4X8 plan does fit into a corner when being operated.  There is no need for access to all sides.  Putting it on wheels allows access to hidden trackage and such.  I have always loved the plan but the biggest drawback to it is that it's almost all grades.

I'm leaning towards the G&S design right now I think.  I appreciate the comments, if anyone else would like to chime in with thoughts and ideas then please do.

Michael

Check out my Shelf Layout

I am in a similar situation where I don't have a lot of space for a layout. I've found 4X8 layouts to be too unweildy and a bit discouraging because of that. My solution was a 2x10 shelf layout that packs a good amount of operation into a limited space. Perhaps this will make for a good jumping off point for your own design.

"track plans have never been one of my strong points"

Then how would you recognize a "classic"  If you know what you want you can design it better than some old guy did 50 years ago.....DaveB

"My solution was a 2x10 shelf layout "

  Nice looking layout design Matt.    Here's the way it could be made into a rocket modeler's layout....DaveB http ://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/flyout/railroad.html

By all accounts.....

...The original G&D  and  the G&S  are recognized as "classics"  by most all of the model railroading community.   I don't have to be particularly good at planning to see that anymore  than someone has to be good at creating scenery to realize good scenery work when they see it. For the life of me,  I don't understand what the bias seems to be towards older plans and ideas these days. In fact,  most of the  so called "new ideas" in play today  are just recycled versions of things that were done years ago with slight updates in materials.

I did not start this blog thread to argue old vs. new though. I started it looking for "constructive suggestions and comments."  Thanks for  all of those that I've gotten so far.

Michael

VV

See if you can find some references for Bill Livingston's later "Venango Valley," which started as a shelf, became an L, and eventually wound all of the way around the room.  Last I heard of it, in the '70s, it had been converted to On2 1/2.

A shelf you can work standing up sounds ideal for the situation you describe. 'Fat spots' and the shelf can give you room for some structures, and the whole project could be roughed-in fairly easily.

the bias seems to be towards older plans and ideas these days?

   No, the goal is to show that we can do better these days than they did back  then. You know more about what kind of layout you want now than the old guys building layouts 50 years know. They built what they wanted to build, they didn't look back and build what their grandfathers era built and they didn't build with the thought that they were building your ideal layout.  It's progression and you gotta do your own part, that's why we are in this hobby.  :> ) ..DaveB

There is nothing wrong..

...learning from track plans generated 50 years ago.  I would caution anyone, whether it's a trackplan drawn 50 years ago, or 50 minutes ago, to try to copy someone else's trackplan.  Why?  Although there are exceptions to this, most often, those who have tried to do this with some of the more famous model railroads, have not been totally satisfied with the results.  There are of course exceptions to this.

However, if one were to take concepts from an existing model railroad, whether it is the G&D, the Allegheny Midland, the Ma & Pa, or the V&O, and developing a track plan based on those concepts, thereby including Givens and Druthers that a modeler wants, that would be what I would suggest.  

For example, I am going to include in the P&A Layout a coal branchline that is the AM's that will interchange with the P&A.  That part of the layout will be based on the benchmarks set for the AM by the original owner, but it is modeling a section of the AM that was never modeled, so I can include things I want, such as a huge 8 track mine complex.

In the end do what you want to do.    If the original G&D layout fulfills your given and druthers, then you are quite fortunate.  But before you begin construction on your newest layout, you should make sure what are your goals for this layout, and that the design you settle on fulfills those goals. 

Ken L.

KInd of the point of this blog post

That's kind of the point of this blog post. To bounce ideas around.  However to totally dismiss old plans  just because they are old is foolhardy.  New just for the sake of new doesn't accomplish anything. There are tried and true concepts  in all hobbies that never go out of style  and can't necessarily be done " better".  I've identified two classic plans  that I've always enjoyed  because they have features I like.  I've also pointed out some of the drawbacks I see in each one.  Not everyone is adept at track planning just like not everyone is adept at scenery or benchwork or wiring.   I see absolutely nothing wrong with using someone else's plan either as is or as a starting point for something.  The G&D plan I would use as is for right now. The G&S would need some additional  trackwork added. To be sure neither would be an exact copy as I tend to make things my own when I start scenery.  

Michael

So you find prototype based layouts visually boring.

Don't know why you feel some sort of need to mention that with every post, but it is what it is.

However, if the G&D original plan (despite it's numerous flaws) is to you, inspirational and If it gets your creative juices going sounds like you have your answer before you asked the question. 

Port Ogden & Northern RR

If you want to do a shelf layout, I would suggest the Port Ogden & Northern from 101 Track Plans.  It is 1 x 16.  You could wrap it around 2 walls (or stretch it out to 3 or 4).  It's a switchback, but includes a bigger yard and more interesting switching.  Gum Shoe is a classic, but it's for a very small layout.  A one foot wide shelf layout at 50+" would allow full use of the space underneath for work bench(s) and whatever else you want to do.  You could also widen it to 16" inches without changing the track plan to get a better scenic effect.

Good luck

Paul

The one flaw that's probably a dealbreaker

The probable dealbreaker is the almost continuous grades. That's why I asked the question. After many layouts over the years, I'm tired of the engineering challenges involved with grades.  The G &S gives me the same multi level trackage I desire with only one grade, albeit a steep one, but I can take some of the severity out by extending the length.

Flaws in anything in in the eye of the beholder.  I find a lot of  modern day plans and layouts flawed in that they are too narrow and rely too much on photo backdrops for scenery.  The minimum shelf width for a layout for me would be on the order of 18 inches.  That's probably what a G&S based plan would be for me if I decide to build it.  That's based on my likes and dislikes and Lord forbid, my opinions.   I cannot understand why in the world it  is now considered so inflammatory to express an opinion or a dislike of something on a forum.  In fact, I thought that's part of what they were here for. Again I would remind everyone of the category of all my blog post  "Personal Editorial and Commentary"  It's been said many times before but I'll say it once more..... If we all liked the same things then the world would be an incredibly boring place.

Michael

Thank you

For a good idea and for getting the thread back on track...

The Port Ogden and Northern is probably just a bit too complex for what I want though.  It's a good thought but I'm  probably looking for something a bit "in between"  the P O & N and the G&S as far as complexity of trackage.   Still, good food for thought though and I appreciate it.

Michael

Inspirational plans...

I never really paid attention to the G&D.

The plans that inspired me were the Kitty Hawk Central and the Jerome and South Western. I loved them. Still do.

Making an impact with your opinion

There's expressing your opinion and then there's losing your impact because you say it so much.

In writing, there's a rule for impact - say it sparingly. If you repeat something over and over ad nauseum, your words lose their impact and people just stop listening.

If you really want your opinion to be heard, let up on some topics for a while. Then when you do eventually say something about it again, there's a greater chance it will be heard instead of just ignored.

Think about the posts of others who post on here. Are there certain ones who seem to drone on over and over about a certain topic incessantly? And how often, when you see posts from those people, do you stop and read the posts?

If you don't want your posts to be largely passed over, it's best to lay some topics to rest for a while and talk about something new. 

Just some advice for those who care to hear it.

And again ...to each their own

That's great Bill.  I've always loved the original G&D because I think it has a lot of scenic and visual impact in a small space.  The fact that you have never really paid attention to it doesn't bother me in the least. To each their own.  I don't recall the Kitty Hawk Central  and I've heard of the Jerome and Southwestern but don't remember the specifics of the plan.  I think I'll make an effort to check them out now based on your comment.  They may not have the same impact on myself as they do on you but I appreciate you pointing me their way.

Whatever...sigh...... I've made no secret of my disdain for  some prototype modelers and their layouts but I don't believe I've ever articulated exactly why until I made that statement  but if you think I mention it every post then I'm not going to expend further effort to change your mind.  Think what you like.  That's kind of the whole point isn't it? I have the freedom to think what I do and you have the freedom to think what you do?  Anyway......

Michael

"can take some of the severity out by extending the length"

  Well there you go, that's what I'm talkin about. Make the design your own and not some relic of the past designed for some other guy's space.  I'm not familiar with that design but hopefully extending it won't make it too prototypically  oriented ? I guess if the extra length makes it too lineal looking you could add more width to fatten it back up?   :> ) ....DaveB

Not Joe.

I'm Bill, not Joe.

Robert Smalls layout

A number of years ago Robert Smalls built a layout based on thee Gum stump and snow shoe. It was about 3 or 2.5 x 11 if I remember correctly and was covered in the hobby print press very extensively RMC and MR. The track plan was rather interesting and compact but did not allow for continuous running. Although if one desired such and was going to use small locos one could modify it to accomplish that goal. A search on the internet should yield some results.

Rob in Texas

Oh dang.... my apologies....

I'm sorry Bill.  I don't know how I did that!  I guess it happens when post are flying back and forth on a forum. I fixed it though.

Thanks for pointing me toward the Jerome and Southwestern. That's one I had forgotten about.  It would interest me except for the fact you need access to all sides to operate it so with my space limitations , it's not really an option.  Nice plan though, I can see why you like it.

Michael