Small layout: realism vs. complexity
The Waspinator
while.
I'm planning on building an HO layout in the next few months. This
will be the first of my adult life. I had trains as a kid, but "grew
out" of them. I've since learned better. :)
As much as I would love to have a large layout, I can only find room
in my house for one that's about a 4'x10' rectangle.
I've been playing around with Atlas's free layout software. I've
found that a layout of this size is pretty limiting in HO scale. I've
been designing with the philosophy of making the layout as
"interesting" as possible. That is, trying to squeeze as much track
into that area as I can, scenery be damned.
Now, I'm really not much of a modeler. I don't have a keen eye for
minute detail, or a steady hand for creating it. My enjoyment of
model trains always came from operating them, not building the layout
itself.
My question is this. Which do you find more rewarding for a small
layout: a fairly complex design that's unlikely to exist in the real
world but allows for a pretty good range of operation and multiple
trains running independently, or a fairly simple design that could
more reasonably exist, and has lots of traciside landscape/cityscape?
Also, can anyone point me to a site (or book) that has good small
layout ideas?
Thanks.
ADY
Nick Gurney
Waspinator) wrote:
Well I can't comment much about small space American railroad's
because I live in the UK but you are welcome to check out my 'OO'
scale railway which is small space 8' X 2' at the following address:
http://www.dyserth-road.co.uk
Nick
Paul Charland
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/small-layout-design/
Lots of soles with not a whole lot of room for a layout but a lot of
good ideas about what to do with it.
If you do subscribe, you can have a look in the files area for a number
of small layout drawings.
Paul :-)
Bob May
layouts are done by artist types. Those type people tend not to be accurate
workers compared to somebody that is precision oriented. You will probably
do a good job whatever you do as long as you look at the end result and
insure that it doesn't look like a 5 year old kid just glued it together.
--
Bob May
Imagine the terrorist's fun when they realize that their 72 "nubile virgins"
are all lesbians and cranky from it being that time of the month!
Ron Herfurth
"The Waspinator" <ady...@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:1ce4d00.01120...@posting.google.com...
My humble answer is: Yes. Shoot for something in between; you may find a
real simple design boring but too complex a design will be diffucult to
maintain; if you try to squeeze in an extra track by making a radius too
small or a grade too steep, or creating a kink at a switch you won't have
much fun running trains. Also keep in mind that as you get this layout
running you'll get a better idea of what you like and dislike and will
incorporate that into the next layout after you tear up this one, just like
most other modelres do from time to time.
>
> Also, can anyone point me to a site (or book) that has good small
> layout ideas?
there's an old book called 101 track plans or something like that; you might
find an old copy on ebay or at a train show.
>
> Thanks.
>
> ADY
Dick Ganderton
Practical Track Plans" by Iain Rice. It's published by Kalmbach and
obtainable at any good model railway shop or direct from Kalmbach. Look
in Model Railroader as they often have it in their book advert pages.
In it you will find a variety of small layouts of widely differing
types.
Trainchasr
find an old copy on ebay or at a train show. >>
Linn Westcott's "101 Track Plans for Model Railroaders" is back in print, so
you can get a brand-spanking-new copy.
Or you could ask Santa...
Dieter Zakas
Greg
>
> My question is this. Which do you find more rewarding for a small
> layout: a fairly complex design that's unlikely to exist in the real
> world but allows for a pretty good range of operation and multiple
> trains running independently, or a fairly simple design that could
> more reasonably exist, and has lots of traciside landscape/cityscape?
i designed a 4x8' layout that had lots of track and scenery. It was a
double loop
with 4 sidings and a turntable. i could run two trains around and do
swithching at
the same time. There was a small town and a mountain, with a coal mine,
and a
river. i could only run 4axle units, 6 axle units can't make the curves
and only small
steam engines like the Mike'.
The layout was complex, but it had its own realism. i thourghly enjoyed
the layout. i also use atlas RTS 5.0 for designing. If u would like some
pics for ideas u can email
me.
Railery.
Barry Silverthorn
If you are up to the challenge of handlaying your own track
(which isn't difficult if you get good instruction), you can
do a lot in a small space. Curved turnouts are great space savers.
Here is my last layout, a nice little 4' X 6' with 10
industries, a runaround siding and a two-track staging yard.
http://www.brant.net/gvmr/layout.htm
--
Barry Silverthorn
gv...@brant.net
The F-unit Roundhouse
http://f-unit.railfan.net
"It's easier to get forgiveness than permission"
Wolf Kirchmeir
...snip...
=>As much as I would love to have a large layout, I can only find room
=>in my house for one that's about a 4'x10' rectangle.
...snip...
Do you have space all around this rectangle? Is it going to be in a room?
Etc.
Reason I ask: an island type layout is a space hog because you need access
from all sides. If the 4x10 is shoved up against a wall, you'll have problems
accessing the back - four feet is a long reach. So if there is space all
around the proposed layout, you'll get more if you can build a shelf-type
layout.
So, first recommendation: think of an around the wall (around the space)
shelf-type (doughnut type) layout if possible.
Second recommendation:
Start with a simple loop of track with a couple of passing sidings and a few
industry sidings. Reason: it's doable in a reasonable amount of time, and if
you decide to start over (which is very likely), you won't have so much to
tear up... :-)
OTOH, if you like the basic arrangement, it's easy to add to a basic loop. By
the time you've got to that point, you will have learned all you need to know
to do just that.
Third recommendation: find a couple of friendly modellers in your area, and
pick their brains. Don't be shy about asking for their help, too :-)
HTH.
Wolf Kirchmeir
If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on the train?
(Garrison Keillor)
Bill
Here is my last layout, a nice little 4' X 6' with 10 industries, a
runaround siding and a two-track staging yard.
http://www.brant.net/gvmr/layout.htm
Barry, that's a great model railroad! I never would have believed one
could do so much with 4'x6' in HO! I like the F-Unit Roundhouse site,
too!
Bill
Bill's Railroad Empire
http://www.billsrailroad.net
Trainman
interests / talents.
In my case, I really enjoy building scenery (I'm probably guilty of tending
towards the George Sellios / Mike Tylic theory of scenery), so I have just
enough track to be able to run a train.
Other people may really enjoy switching and moving a lot of cars around, so
their layout will be MUCH different than mine.
In a small space, NOTHING is going to be really "realistic" ( that 4 x 10 is
only about three square city blocks), so you have to find the "happy medium"
that works for YOU. In model railroading, there's no such thing as "one
size fits all".
Don
--
don.de...@prodigy.net
http://www.geocities.com/don_dellmann
moderator: WisMode...@yahoogroups.com
and: MRP...@yahoogroups.com
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/MRPics
The Waspinator <ady...@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:1ce4d00.01120...@posting.google.com...
The Waspinator
> If you are up to the challenge of handlaying your own track
> (which isn't difficult if you get good instruction), you can
> do a lot in a small space. Curved turnouts are great space savers.
Who makes curved turnouts, and where can you buy them online? I was
pretty sure such a thing existed, but I haven't had any luck in
finding them.
> Here is my last layout, a nice little 4' X 6' with 10
> industries, a runaround siding and a two-track staging yard.
>
> http://www.brant.net/gvmr/layout.htm
That's a nice little layout. I can tell that the curved switches do
make a big difference.
I'm afraid I'm expecting too much out of this layout. I really want
four things:
1. The ability to run at least two trains at once (two separate loops
with two circuits).
2. A yard of some sort.
3. Some sidings for industry.
4. At least one 22"-radius circle for running longer engines and
cars. Because I love long engines and cars.
My best effort so far has a 22"-radius oval around the outer edge of
the layout. Within that, on the left half or so, is a small (4 fairly
short branches, I think, I don't have it in front of me), somewhat
deformed yard. That is, the branches aren't straight and parallel;
they're curved to be as long as possible. In the right half of this
outer oval are three more nested ovals, the inner of which is
15"-radius, the other two being 18" radius. There's also a siding
which splits in two on the left side near the yard, coming from the
opposite side of the outer oval.
Now, this layout has everything I want, but none of it seems terribly
satisfying. The yard is small. The nested ovals are probably too
close together to runs trains simultaneously on connecting ovals.
And, looking at it, the whole thing still seems so much less complex
than even this small 4'x6' layout.
ADY
Railery
> pretty sure such a thing existed, but I haven't had any luck in
> finding them.
>
>
Peco makes a curved turnout. u can get them from just about anybody.
Greg.
Carolyn Marenger
layout is quite decent. As far as operations vs. looks, I prefer
operations myself.
I love the figuring out the logistics of picking up car abc on this
siding, dropping b off on another, pick up d somewhere else, drop a and
d off at the next stop, and bring c to the last stop. Sure anyone can
do it, but the fun is in the challenge of doing it in as few "moves" as
possible. Throw in a second train, say going around the main line. Can
I do the same without interfering with the second train?
It is for you to have fun with. Whatever your pleasure, not mine that
counts on your layout. Whichever way you go, enjoy the rails!
Carolyn
Barry Silverthorn
>
> Barry Silverthorn <gv...@brant.net> wrote in message news:<3C111CBF...@brant.net>...
> Who makes curved turnouts, and where can you buy them online? I was
> pretty sure such a thing existed, but I haven't had any luck in
> finding them.
The curved turnouts available from Walthers (Shinohara) are
really too large to be of use on a really small layout. I
did make use of them on a 5' X 8" layout once. That one is
in the November 1996 issue of RMC.
I tend to agree with Wolf, that an around the room
arrangement is usually preferable, even if it means having a duckunder.
I think this hobby involves a lot of compromise. It seems
like I spend a lot of my energy in planning and creating
illusions to make up for it.
Barry Silverthorn
> Barry, that's a great model railroad! I never would have believed one
> could do so much with 4'x6' in HO! I like the F-Unit Roundhouse site,
> too!
>
> Bill
> Bill's Railroad Empire
> http://www.billsrailroad.net
Thanks Bill. Maybe I'll try 4' X 4' next time.
--
Barry Silverthorn
gv...@brant.net
The F-unit Roundhouse
http://f-unit.railfan.net
"It's easier to get forgiveness than permission"
ChromeDome
>
> As much as I would love to have a large layout, I can only find room
> in my house for one that's about a 4'x10' rectangle.
>
> I've been playing around with Atlas's free layout software. I've
> found that a layout of this size is pretty limiting in HO scale. I've
> been designing with the philosophy of making the layout as
> "interesting" as possible. That is, trying to squeeze as much track
> into that area as I can, scenery be damned.
>
on one side (say 30" x 10') and use the other side (18" x 10') for
staging?
Gene
--
'Go tell the spartans, Thou that passeth by,
That faithful to their precepts, Here we lie'
Simonides - epitath at Thermopylae
EBTBOB
Having missed the orginal message and talk of curved switches....I am not
sure what code rail is being discussed here. If it is code 100, Peco makes a
good tight radius curve that would be perfect for use on a 4x6 or 4x8 platform.
I believe it is a 18/22 in radius curve.
Bob
Kennedy
> Now, I'm really not much of a modeler. I don't have a keen eye for
> minute detail, or a steady hand for creating it. My enjoyment of
> model trains always came from operating them, not building the layout
> itself.
>
> My question is this. Which do you find more rewarding for a small
> layout: a fairly complex design that's unlikely to exist in the real
> world but allows for a pretty good range of operation and multiple
> trains running independently, or a fairly simple design that could
> more reasonably exist, and has lots of traciside landscape/cityscape?
>
> Also, can anyone point me to a site (or book) that has good small
> layout ideas?
Since you like operating (like me), I think you're headed more toward the
complex side, since you'll probably get bored if there isn't a lot of
things to do. You probably want a plan that has a number of sidings
branching off to switch various industries. If you have a long loop, then
you COULD run a train on the mainline unattended while switching an
industry (if you go with DCC; easier that way). Depends on what you like.
There's a couple of new trackplan books by Kalmbach; one is Basic Track
Plans. This is a reprint of past 4x8 HO layouts they've built for the NMR
shows. Plus, it has some larger N-scale plans. The key is looking them
over and making modifications here and there. There's nothing to prevent
you from taking an existing smaller plan and expanding it to fit your
space. In fact, that may be desireable, as you can add other things to
increase operational interest.
Me, I took one of the MR 4x8 plans, found another 4x8 plan of a totally
different type, and combined them together using two (big) modules. It's
"L" shaped, and one end has a yard using a 8' shelving unit. Neither plan
envisioned this sort of combination, but using your imagination, you can do
lots of things!
Kennedy
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service
Kennedy
> I'm afraid I'm expecting too much out of this layout. I really want
> four things:
> 1. The ability to run at least two trains at once (two separate loops
> with two circuits).
> 2. A yard of some sort.
> 3. Some sidings for industry.
> 4. At least one 22"-radius circle for running longer engines and
> cars. Because I love long engines and cars.
This is part of the famous "Givens and Druthers", that John Armstrong
recommends people draw up to guide them in developing their layout. So,
you're off to a good start there.
> My best effort so far has a 22"-radius oval around the outer edge of
> the layout. Within that, on the left half or so, is a small (4 fairly
> short branches, I think, I don't have it in front of me), somewhat
> deformed yard. That is, the branches aren't straight and parallel;
> they're curved to be as long as possible. In the right half of this
> outer oval are three more nested ovals, the inner of which is
> 15"-radius, the other two being 18" radius. There's also a siding
> which splits in two on the left side near the yard, coming from the
> opposite side of the outer oval.
>
> Now, this layout has everything I want, but none of it seems terribly
> satisfying. The yard is small. The nested ovals are probably too
> close together to runs trains simultaneously on connecting ovals.
> And, looking at it, the whole thing still seems so much less complex
> than even this small 4'x6' layout.
In the Basic Track Plans book, there is a 4x8 plan that has one big oval on
the outside "track" (heh!) for big power and mainline running. At one
point, there is a switch that lets you get onto the inner track which is an
interchange track for branch operations. The interesting thing about this
part is that there is a second level 4" higher than the main level. On
this level, there are industries to be switched.
The slope on the 4x8 is steep, 4%+, but if you have a 10-foot length, that
would be lessened. You'd still be limited to small switchers or first
generation diesel power to switch this, but that would allow you to do what
you're interested in. Plus, you could have the outside main on one
circuit, and the inner on a second/third circuit; one for the upper level,
one for the lower.
The Waspinator
> Do you have space all around this rectangle? Is it going to be in a room?
> Etc.
It's going to be in an area of my living room. I'll call it an
alcove, for lack of a better word. It's actually a place where the
living room juts out the front of the house. A remnant of when the
house's garage was enclosed sometime several years before I bought the
house.
> So, first recommendation: think of an around the wall (around the space)
> shelf-type (doughnut type) layout if possible.
Well, it's really not. My living room is already pretty well set with
furniture placement and little things like the front door. I could
make a huge layout if not for that pesky front door! :)
You're right about 4' being a long reach, though. Thanks for bringing
that up, because it did make me stop and think that I'll have to plan
a little bit more. The layout's really only going to be accessible on
one long side. I figure I'll keep a stepladder nearby for reaching
over to pick up derailed cars or what-not, and I'll put furniture
sliders on the legs so I can pull it out from the wall when I really
need to get to the far side to work on it. And I'll probably devise
some way to slide or fold the controls down when not in use (I'm
thinking keyboard tray).
> Third recommendation: find a couple of friendly modellers in your area, and
> pick their brains. Don't be shy about asking for their help, too :-)
I would certainly love to do that. Unfortunately, there's no model
railroad club around here, or even a decent hobby shop, as far as I
know.
ADY
Wolf Kirchmeir
...SNIP...
=>You're right about 4' being a long reach, though. Thanks for bringing
=>that up, because it did make me stop and think that I'll have to plan
=>a little bit more. The layout's really only going to be accessible on
=>one long side. I figure I'll keep a stepladder nearby for reaching
=>over to pick up derailed cars or what-not, and I'll put furniture
=>sliders on the legs so I can pull it out from the wall when I really
=>need to get to the far side to work on it. And I'll probably devise
=>some way to slide or fold the controls down when not in use (I'm
=>thinking keyboard tray).
...snip...
Good ideas, there. I especially like the keyborad tray for a control panel. I
built a 6'x7' layout once in a similar situation. I put the whole thing on
castors, so I could move it out for work and operations. The layout never did
get finished, but it gave me much pleasure while I was woprking on it. Small
layouts a good because they're doable. Your 4x10 is about the limit for a
"reasonable" size. And you don't have to build the whole spaghetti bowl at
once. The oval with a couple of sidings first, then the grade to the second
level, then the yard across the middle, with the odd spur added in whenever
you feel like it, and so on.
I also like Kennedy's comments, since he picked up on your operating
preferwnces. If you can squeeze another 6" or so in width (maybe as a bulge
on the room side, for part of the length?), you can add a couple of tracks
outside the oval for yards or "open staging".
Anyhow, looks like you've thought through pretty all the obvious problems!
Good luck, and much enjoyment!
The Waspinator
"Kennedy (no longer not on The Haggis!)" <howl...@YOUKNOWHAT.tir.com> wrote
in message news:20011210081137.620$D...@newsreader.com...
> This is part of the famous "Givens and Druthers", that John Armstrong
> recommends people draw up to guide them in developing their layout. So,
> you're off to a good start there.
Well, it's nice to know that I'm not just completely out in left field. :)
> interchange track for branch operations. The interesting thing about this
> part is that there is a second level 4" higher than the main level. On
> this level, there are industries to be switched.
Okay, I'm lost. This whole second-level idea is completely foreign to me.
I can't really picture how you would add a second level on top, and still
have good visibility on both the top and the bottom. Especially not with
only 4" of clearance... Do you, by chance, know of any good websites or
other resources that will help clarify this type of design?
At any rate, I'll be keeping the second level firmly in the later-addition
category for now. I need to find my train legs first. Not to mention my
benchwork legs. :)
DCC is also something I'd like to look into later. Once I get comfortable
with the basics again.
ADY
The Waspinator
"Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwol...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:jbysxveflzcngvpbp...@news1.sympatico.ca...
> I also like Kennedy's comments, since he picked up on your operating
> preferwnces. If you can squeeze another 6" or so in width (maybe as a
bulge
> on the room side, for part of the length?), you can add a couple of tracks
> outside the oval for yards or "open staging".
After measuring and re-measuring and re-re-re-measuring, I've decided that
the absolute biggest I can make this table is 4'x10'6", with an extra 8" of
depth on the leftmost four feet. The left edge is 4'8", the right edge is
4', the 8" end four feet from the left edge...does that make sense? It's an
L-shape with a stubby toe.
Anyway, that extra 6" in length and partial 8" in width help quite a bit.
Currently, I've got that space designed as a passable yard. It's not real
pretty, but it should be reasonably functional.
I'm still playing around, but I've pretty much completely scrapped my
earlier design. My current design is somewhat less busy, but I really like
it better. More industrial sidings, and a turntable in the middle. I think
it'll give ample opportunities for interesting operations, while allowing at
least one train to be running around an oval while doing so.
> Anyhow, looks like you've thought through pretty all the obvious problems!
> Good luck, and much enjoyment!
Thanks. I'm sure I'll be back with more questions. :)
Y'know, I never thought about it, but this design stage is really a lot of
fun in itself...
ADY
Kennedy
> > interchange track for branch operations. The interesting thing about
> > this part is that there is a second level 4" higher than the main
> > level. On this level, there are industries to be switched.
>
> Okay, I'm lost. This whole second-level idea is completely foreign to
> me. I can't really picture how you would add a second level on top, and
> still have good visibility on both the top and the bottom. Especially
> not with only 4" of clearance... Do you, by chance, know of any good
> websites or other resources that will help clarify this type of design?
The way that plan was set up was to have 2" foam cut into pieces and glued
together to form the supports for a second level. This basically makes the
back part of the first level as a "tunnel"; but that layout presumes
all-around access (you can see the trains running on that side because the
back is open; since the track is right at the edge, the overhead doesn't
block the view). Since your other post mentioned you'd only have access on
one side, I wouldn't recommend a second level at this point, because the
First Rule of Model Railroading is that you will get many derailments in
those areas that are unreachable! :D
I don't know of any other resource on this, since it was the first time I
ever saw something like that, but there are layouts which have grades to go
up a level. These basically represent terrain features, and the simple way
has been the cookie-cutter method. That's where you cut out parts of the
plywood base, and shim them up with scrap wood to represent a sloping grade
(up or down).
> At any rate, I'll be keeping the second level firmly in the
> later-addition category for now. I need to find my train legs first.
> Not to mention my benchwork legs. :)
The other thing about your question on seeing the "tunnel" area, that
layout probably is a bit higher than normal, but "mid-chest" high while
standing is probably OK for viewing.
Kennedy
> After measuring and re-measuring and re-re-re-measuring, I've decided
> that the absolute biggest I can make this table is 4'x10'6", with an
> extra 8" of depth on the leftmost four feet. The left edge is 4'8", the
> right edge is 4', the 8" end four feet from the left edge...does that
> make sense? It's an L-shape with a stubby toe.
>
> Anyway, that extra 6" in length and partial 8" in width help quite a bit.
> Currently, I've got that space designed as a passable yard. It's not
> real pretty, but it should be reasonably functional.
Your other possibility is to lop off about a foot off of the 10' length to
dedicate it to a yard. Curve the inbound/outbound track with 22" curve and
hook it up to the mainline in the far corner of the mainline (or, anywhere
on the backstretch, if there is one). This way, you have an
arrival/departure track separate from the yard, you can do a yard job, move
the train out to the departure, pick up the arrivals, and move them into
the yard to do whatever. Though, the yard will only be 3' deep, and that
might be a bit scrunched if you envision lots of yard switching (as in,
you're not going to get many 86' cars there, and 50' cars may be limited).
But, you can do the hand fiddling, or, even better, wrangle a drop leaf or
a removeable section to extend the yard to whatever you want. This means
the extention can be removed when not in use!
> I'm still playing around, but I've pretty much completely scrapped my
> earlier design. My current design is somewhat less busy, but I really
> like it better. More industrial sidings, and a turntable in the middle.
> I think it'll give ample opportunities for interesting operations, while
> allowing at least one train to be running around an oval while doing so.
> Y'know, I never thought about it, but this design stage is really a lot
> of fun in itself...
There's a guy on the LDSIG yahoo group that has been doing tons of planning
and design, but he's gotten bogged down with it all. He's wondering if it
isn't better to start BUILDING something, so he and his boy can get to
operating!
Radford Walker
>
> "The Waspinator" <ady...@cox-internet.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm still playing around, but I've pretty much completely scrapped my
> > earlier design. My current design is somewhat less busy, but I really
> > like it better. More industrial sidings, and a turntable in the middle.
> > I think it'll give ample opportunities for interesting operations, while
> > allowing at least one train to be running around an oval while doing so.
>
> > Y'know, I never thought about it, but this design stage is really a lot
> > of fun in itself...
>
> There's a guy on the LDSIG yahoo group that has been doing tons of planning
> and design, but he's gotten bogged down with it all. He's wondering if it
> isn't better to start BUILDING something, so he and his boy can get to
> operating!
I spent all one summer designing my son's layout. For a
flat top I am still pretty happy with the design I came up
with. I don't think I we would have been happy with any of
the "earlier" tries. Of course having operated it now, we
would have changed the yard a bit making the arrival track
use the yard ladder as the escape track to save space.
The Waspinator
> Your other possibility is to lop off about a foot off of the 10' length to
> dedicate it to a yard. Curve the inbound/outbound track with 22" curve and
> hook it up to the mainline in the far corner of the mainline (or, anywhere
> on the backstretch, if there is one). This way, you have an
> arrival/departure track separate from the yard, you can do a yard job, move
> the train out to the departure, pick up the arrivals, and move them into
> the yard to do whatever. Though, the yard will only be 3' deep, and that
I think you basically described what I did, except I used 18" radius
from the back mainline instead of 22", to give the branches a little
more room. Plus it's at the 4'8" end of the table, which helps some.
The branches aren't parallel (so they won't have to get shorter and
shorter), but I can sacrifice that much asthetic preference for the
sake of operational usefullness.
> might be a bit scrunched if you envision lots of yard switching (as in,
> you're not going to get many 86' cars there, and 50' cars may be limited).
> But, you can do the hand fiddling, or, even better, wrangle a drop leaf or
> a removeable section to extend the yard to whatever you want. This means
> the extention can be removed when not in use!
Dropleaf or removable section is something I may look at later.
> There's a guy on the LDSIG yahoo group that has been doing tons of planning
> and design, but he's gotten bogged down with it all. He's wondering if it
> isn't better to start BUILDING something, so he and his boy can get to
> operating!
I probably would have said "good enough" and started building weeks
ago, if it weren't for this little Christmas thing coming up. Gotta
save money for gifts, y'know. And the only kid in my house that needs
to be satisfied is myself. :)
ADY