So if you remember I posted a few times about a month or two ago for a design my father and I are making in a shared garage.
Well fast forward and we designed a layout we seemed to like and set off on some benchwork. Now that I'm standing in the middle of the benchwork and looking at the design nearly everyday, I think I hate it. I think it stems from watching a lot of youtube and seeing other peoples layouts and the great scenary around the trackage. When I imagine similar things on our benchwork and how its drawn up, it feels like one industry flows into the next and there is very little mainline running/back drop. Am I just imagining things or am I right? Any ideas of how to create that main line feel?
Well fast forward and we designed a layout we seemed to like and set off on some benchwork. Now that I'm standing in the middle of the benchwork and looking at the design nearly everyday, I think I hate it.
I think it stems from watching a lot of youtube and seeing other peoples layouts and the great scenary around the trackage. When I imagine similar things on our benchwork and how its drawn up, it feels like one industry flows into the next and there is very little mainline running/back drop.
Am I just imagining things or am I right? Any ideas of how to create that main line feel?
Hi Contrails,
My first impression is that there is a whole lot of track in most of your industrial areas. Those industries would have to be huge in order to justify the amount of track and the number of spurs and large yards. If the large yards were intended to serve large industries then perhaps choose smaller versions of the same industries, or different industries which only require a single track or maybe two tracks to service them. Keep in mind that most industries don't store dozens of cars on site. Loads in and empties out, or vise versa, but few cars sit for days at their locations. Less track = more open space.
To gain longer runs with more open scenery, how about eliminating the yard on the west side and just have a couple of tracks running through scenery? Likewise with the yard on the northeast corner of the peninsula. Consider eliminating the yard entirely or reduce it to a single track. There is lots of space in that area for scenery.
Cheers!!
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
I think you'll just have to chose things to thin out, and what you chose really depends on what stuff you are into. For example to timesaver could be removed, which would clear up that area and get rid of the two tracks trough one scene that's going on there, but you may really want a timesaver... similarly the passenger terminal could be removed to make that wall a nice, long, straight mainline run, but then where would your passenger stuff go? Or thin out the canning junkyard gravel area...
Regards, Isaac
I model my railroad and you model yours! I model my way and you model yours!
I see two options here.
One, leave it alone and learn to love it. It looks fine as is.
Two, add a second mainline for double mainline running. It looks like you have the room to do it.
Rich
Alton Junction
The mix of industries and passenger yard and intermodal - I take it you have not settled on an era?
I would shrink the yard, it doesn't need that many tracks, it's too big for the layout. Possibly shrink some industries liek that paper mill, still have tracks but make a good part of it a backdrop structure, not fill the entire area. Unless you take the additional step of converting it all to a sleepy backwoods branch who's sole reason to exist is to serve the paper mill, and maybe a few smaller industries along the way. Earlier era, shorter cars and locos, short trains on a branch line - that will make the main seem longer than it is.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Some folks feel locked-in once a plan is committed to paper or electrons and especially if construction has started. But it’s almost never too late to make changes if you feel like it’s not working.
Not everyone wants to think about an overall concept, theme, era, locale, etc. before building (though I think it’s very important). But I think many of the layouts that you are seeing on YouTube and elsewhere have done that, which makes them seem more “of a piece.” Do you have an idea for era, location, and reason-for-being for your layout? This can be a good touchstone to determine what should be there and how it should look. As others have noted, major passenger facilities (outside a big city) and intermodal are somewhat anachronistic.
And what is the purpose for your layout? Mostly industrial switching, through trains running through scenery, a bit of both? How many people will operate and how many trains do you want to run at once or in a “session”?
Many successful layouts use staging to create the feeling of traffic moving from “someplace else” to the visible layout and then leaving for “someplace else.” These unscenicked locations (behind a backdrop, for example) mean that you don’t need as much visible trackage, which opens room for scenery.
In terms of detailed design (which I know that you didn’t ask), some of your industries (grain, cement, et al) load or unload cars by rolling them over or under hoppers, spouts, etc. in real life. Allowing that “room to roll” makes them seem more realistic, in my eyes, even if you only move them through the facility between “sessions.” I’m no fan of the Timesaver in general, but the way the grain facility is placed would make it harder to operate in real life, for example. I should note that some people aren’t bothered by this kind of thing at all, so your choice.
If I were you and felt unhappy with the way the layout was developing, I’d take a big step back and think about concept, purpose, era, locale, etc. Once those decisions are made, one can address the design.
Good luck with your layout.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
rrinker The mix of industries and passenger yard and intermodal - I take it you have not settled on an era? I would shrink the yard, it doesn't need that many tracks, it's too big for the layout. Possibly shrink some industries liek that paper mill, still have tracks but make a good part of it a backdrop structure, not fill the entire area. Unless you take the additional step of converting it all to a sleepy backwoods branch who's sole reason to exist is to serve the paper mill, and maybe a few smaller industries along the way. Earlier era, shorter cars and locos, short trains on a branch line - that will make the main seem longer than it is. --Randy
Kind of loosely. We're spanning the mid 70's ish to mid 90's. I know thats a huge time frame but with it being a comprimise of things my father and I both are interested in, thats what we came up with. I was consiering shrinking the mill that was my baby though...
cuyama Some folks feel locked-in once a plan is committed to paper or electrons and especially if construction has started. But it’s almost never too late to make changes if you feel like it’s not working. Not everyone wants to think about an overall concept, theme, era, locale, etc. before building (though I think it’s very important). But I think many of the layouts that you are seeing on YouTube and elsewhere have done that, which makes them seem more “of a piece.” Do you have an idea for era, location, and reason-for-being for your layout? This can be a good touchstone to determine what should be there and how it should look. As others have noted, major passenger facilities (outside a big city) and intermodal are somewhat anachronistic.
We're mid 70's to 90's ish based in the Northwest. No specific road but leaning more towards GN/BN/BNSF. We loosely had the concept of a mountain to port railroad, ie logging camp to lumber mill, lumber mill to paper mill, paper mill to port with a few things thrown in. They grew and morphed into what you see here. We lost the 'mountain' aspect of it, but kept the associated indutries.
cuyama And what is the purpose for your layout? Mostly industrial switching, through trains running through scenery, a bit of both? How many people will operate and how many trains do you want to run at once or in a “session”?
95% + will just be pops and I, however I'm sure my two year old will want to hang out as he gets older. Father is interested mainly in yard operations (which is why its a monster), while I like a bit of both.
cuyama In terms of detailed design (which I know that you didn’t ask), some of your industries (grain, cement, et al) load or unload cars by rolling them over or under hoppers, spouts, etc. in real life. Allowing that “room to roll” makes them seem more realistic, in my eyes, even if you only move them through the facility between “sessions.” I’m no fan of the Timesaver in general, but the way the grain facility is placed would make it harder to operate in real life, for example. I should note that some people aren’t bothered by this kind of thing at all, so your choice. If I were you and felt unhappy with the way the layout was developing, I’d take a big step back and think about concept, purpose, era, locale, etc. Once those decisions are made, one can address the design. Good luck with your layout. Byron
richhotrain I see two options here. One, leave it alone and learn to love it. It looks fine as is. Two, add a second mainline for double mainline running. It looks like you have the room to do it. Rich
We looked at adding the second main, but keeping 2 1/2" centers really made it cramped.
You have a lot of track, but it appears there are some areas available for some good scenery. I'm not sure what region of the country you're modeling, and that will have a big impact on what scenery you build. But anyway, let's take a look at some specific areas of your design, starting in the upper left...
The log mill area is kind of off by itself here, with the mainline running around it in the front. You might be able to make the area look more isolated using some low bluffs or perhaps some forest scenery on either side of it.
You might be able to "separate" the gravel mill area from the paper mill using a river to make a natural break, perhaps with some tree lines or low hills on either side of the river.
The farming side of the peninsula looks really ripe for some good farm scenery, and you've left enough blank space to come up with some really good rural farming elements here, and maybe a nice little "The Last Picture Show" type of farming town.
Your main yard and passenger terminal become their own scenic elements, and can provide a lot of "big time" type railroad drama. Make sure to include many yard office, bad weather shelters and other such buildings.
Obviously you've designed the layout for running trains. I can see many hours of switching fun in what you've got. At the same time you have left plenty of blank space for good scenery. Take a look at some past photo spreads of other's layouts in back issues of the modeling magazines. Pay special attention to the area some of those scenes take. I think you'll be surprised at how little space a lot of those scenes use.
Or go change the design and reduce the amount of track. I think you could manage to downsize your paper mill and a few other industrial areas without severely impacting operations in the future.
Good luck with whatever you decide to do, and make sure to share it with all of us here!
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
Contrails . I think it stems from watching a lot of youtube and seeing other peoples layouts and the great scenary around the trackage. When I imagine similar things on our benchwork and how its drawn up, it feels like one industry flows into the next and there is very little mainline running/back drop. Am I just imagining things or am I right? Any ideas of how to create that main line feel?
.
I'll address your specific concern about not having enough mainline feel, or IOW, not enough space between activity spots. A few thoughts, but by no means solutions:
Conceptually, I see your layout as being three big scenes. The yard scene, and then two separate scenes on the peninsula that are separated by a back drop.
I would concentrate on developing those three areas, and leave everything in between as open country side.
To achive this goal, you're probably going to have to shed two industries. IMO, I'd lose the junkyard and gravel pit and others along the NE corner, and relocate a lumber mill there. (its the 70s to 90s and "logging" really wasn't a rail served industry then). Try locating the Pax station along the east side along the Y, instead of confusing the industrial look of the paper mill.
Also, I think you could do better by giving up some space on the south side of the peninsula to make the paper mill scene fit better
The concept of a timesaver in a farm scene strikes me as going a step too far with the layout trying to be too many things, not to mention being a bit disjointed from the rest of the layout.
The Pax area storage could be moved to the SE corner, where the orange and green/light blue areas are, along the wall. You can bend the yard throat to make it fit. The intermodal and any industry that is near the yard could be swung around to the south side of the peninsula. The yard heads into the suburban industries, including a large grain elevator. Maybe a local could make the run from the yard and switch the burbs while the main operator is running along the larger area of the layout from the yard to the paper mill, etc.
Really, I don't think your very far off at all.
- Douglas
Doughless I'll address your specific concern about not having enough mainline feel, or IOW, not enough space between activity spots. A few thoughts, but by no means solutions: Conceptually, I see your layout as being three big scenes. The yard scene, and then two separate scenes on the peninsula that are separated by a back drop. I would concentrate on developing those three areas, and leave everything in between as open country side. To achive this goal, you're probably going to have to shed two industries. IMO, I'd lose the junkyard and gravel pit and others along the NE corner, and relocate a lumber mill there. (its the 70s to 90s and "logging" really wasn't a rail served industry then). Try locating the Pax station along the east side along the Y, instead of confusing the industrial look of the paper mill. Also, I think you could do better by giving up some space on the south side of the peninsula to make the paper mill scene fit better The concept of a timesaver in a farm scene strikes me as going a step too far with the layout trying to be too many things, not to mention being a bit disjointed from the rest of the layout. The Pax area storage could be moved to the SE corner, where the orange and green/light blue areas are, along the wall. You can bend the yard throat to make it fit. The intermodal and any industry that is near the yard could be swung around to the south side of the peninsula. The yard heads into the suburban industries, including a large grain elevator. Maybe a local could make the run from the yard and switch the burbs while the main operator is running along the larger area of the layout from the yard to the paper mill, etc. Really, I don't think your very far off at all.
Thanks a lot!
I'm gonna play with that tonight in Anyrail using your suggestions and see what I come up with. I really appreciate it.
Just an update; after a couple days we working what felt like every inch of the layout, here's what we came up with. When you look at it, it doesn't seem like a lot changed, but in reality almost no part of the origional plan went untouched. We incopertaed a lot of ideas that were given, and also brought back the interchange that was in the origional plan we based the layout on. Adding the double wye also gave a second opposite reverse loop. I'm not super happy with how the paper mill laid out, but I'll probably have to live with it. Adding in some sceanary helped give perspective as well.
One small observation - the track on the north west corner of the peninsula appears to be right on the edge of the benchwork through most of the outer curve and also as it goes east from the curve. This is also an area where the aisle is fairly narrow. I would suggest reducing the radii on the curve so that the track can be moved back from the fascia, or installing a plexiglass guard panel so any trains going through the curve won't get knocked by an operator passing through that part of the aisle at the same time.
hon30critter Hi Contrails, I would suggest reducing the radii on the curve so that the track can be moved back from the fascia, or installing a plexiglass guard panel so any trains going through the curve won't get knocked by an operator passing through that part of the aisle at the same time.
I would suggest reducing the radii on the curve so that the track can be moved back from the fascia, or installing a plexiglass guard panel so any trains going through the curve won't get knocked by an operator passing through that part of the aisle at the same time.
Its a lot better than the first plan, IMO. Not sure it accomplishes the issue you were concerned about, more wide open spaces, but scenery can be pretty rural/open since the buildings seem more spaced out.
I can't tell if you have an operating plan, or why there is a need for two Ys at the based of the peninsula.
Good luck with the layout.
Doughless Its a lot better than the first plan, IMO. Not sure it accomplishes the issue you were concerned about, more wide open spaces, but scenery can be pretty rural/open since the buildings seem more spaced out. I can't tell if you have an operating plan, or why there is a need for two Ys at the based of the peninsula. Good luck with the layout.
Am I the only one who sees a duck-under? You might consider "opening up" the layout with something more reasonable. Just a thought since you might regret having it later.
Another idea is re-working the double-ended yard. It looks too messy and illogical. I'm confused by what's being shown.
One thought that has not been mentioned: The more time you have invested in an area, the harder it is to make the decision to take out.
A late friend was a member of a very large O scale club. They had a rule that if a new spur/industry was approved, minumum scenry was done until a dozen operating sessions. Including using a cardboard box as a mock up of the industry.
The last I heard the club was 80 years old and going strong.
kasskaboose Am I the only one who sees a duck-under?
Am I the only one who sees a duck-under?
richhotrain kasskaboose Am I the only one who sees a duck-under? Seems so, unless that pink shaded area on the right is a liftout or hinged swing bridge for inner access. Rich
Seems so, unless that pink shaded area on the right is a liftout or hinged swing bridge for inner access.
I hope Rich's correct. Otherwise, best to consider either adding a liftout or revising the layout. Duck-unders aren't fun. This from someone who hated it even without joint issues!
kasskaboose I hope Rich's correct. Otherwise, best to consider either adding a liftout or revising the layout. Duck-unders aren't fun. This from someone who hated it even without joint issues!
Regarding the OP's layout plan, I don't know if that pink shaded area is a duckunder or not. I am just speculating that it might be.