The Old Dog's manifesto on layout design
Old Dog,
Thanks for the list. Do you know that you can replace those bullets with accending numbers? That way you don't have to number them yourself. It will do it automatically.
Just highlight your entire list then click on the "Ordered list" icon next to the bullet item or "Unodered list" icon above the text box. It will change it from bullets to numbers. Just a suggestion...
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Dog,
With your permission I'll put that on my website and send you the link so you can point people to it. That should be save for posterior.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
SpaceMouse wrote: Dog,With your permission I'll put that on my website and send you the link so you can point people to it. That should be save for posterior.
No Problem! The Old Dog just wanted to run some of those ideas up the flag pole to see what fire they will draw. They have been bouncing in my head and I wanted to share them.
Have fun
Dog, it seems to be a sensible listing...thanks for posting it. Lots of thoughtful advice there.
I assume you are inviting observations, so you may wish to correct your use of "prototype" on two occasions...you have "phototype".
I hope I can access your Manifesto when the time comes to gear up once more.
You might ask yourself, how do these guys maintain and keep clean some of these mega layouts that we see in the magazines? Answer: some of them don't! Some of those beautiful layouts hardly run.
After all the givens and druthers have been sorted out from Dog's list, to me the over riding and controlling points are: can I build this thing in my lifetime, or at least before arthritis takes over? And if I can build it, WILL I build it? Those are two different questions! Can I wire it? Can I keep it going and keep it clean? Can I see it all clearly when it's dark out? And are there places to stand up and sit down for me and my friends?
Note that none of those things relate to gauge, scale, prototype or era, DCC or DC or Marklin.
Dave Nelson
Since one size does NOT fit all, here is a direct comparison between the Old Dog's ideas and those of another individual with well over six decades of active model railroading (over four of which have been devoted to a single grand scheme.)
exPalaceDog wrote: 01) First, and perhaps most important, model railroading is a hobby. Building and operating a layout should be an exercise in relaxation, not stress management. Trying to execute a complex schedule with a large number of trains on a limited amount of track maybe a little TOO realistic.
If the stress level might get high, design pause points into the (140+ train per 'day') timetable. Also, make sure the track (especially staging and offstage thoroughfares) will be adequate to support the schedule. In a worst-case situation, take a break!
02) In addition, the layout must be small enough for the owner to maintain and operate alone, but maybe provide "interesting" operation for any additional operators who happen to be available. Note that "too large" is as much a measure of complexity as brute size. A smaller layout with a good deal of complex track work can be worse then a larger layout. Also, try to avoid trying to do too much in a limited space.
The KISS principle lives. A large, somewhat complex layout can do a better job of supporting a fixed schedule than a smaller spaghetti bowl.
03) Even the best layout design will fail if it is built in an undesirable space. Also note that making any needed improvements will probably be a good deal easier if it is done before the bench work is started.
This should be printed in big type on the first page of every layout design book!
04) A layout design is basically trying to fit a one dimension object into a two plus dimension space.
Not if the layout is multi-level, it's not! Of course, the place where this gets critical is under the eaves in an attic...
05) A railroad is like the old debate joke, "Our opponents case is like a male bovine, a point here, a point there, and a good deal of b*ll in between." This factor helps mitigate the above factor. In other words, a railroad can be viewed as a dashed line; points of interest usually are separated by a good deal of boring track.
One person's boring is another person's interesting. So which would you prefer: A single track clinging by its fingernails to a vertical cliff, or a major division point featuring engine changes? Now, what if the two are connected end-to-end with nothing between but a short deck girder bridge?
06) A layout design should provide a series of "stages" (foot lockers) (fish bowls) separated by "green rooms", hidden sections, this will allow the views are framed to limit observation to the desired elements and prevent observation of the undesired elements. This will also make the back drop easier to paint since it will limit the angle it can be viewed from. This also will allow better control of the layout lighting which can allow numerous "interesting" effects like varying the time of day. The layout should appear as if one was in a building and viewing the layout (railroad) through a window.
I prefer to be outdoors, where I can take in the grandeur of an entire valley with a single turn of my head. This does NOT prevent me from putting appropriate lighting behind valences over the entire scene. I just prefer not to have any posts (window mullions) between me and the scene.
07) A layout should be built in sections or modules that are small enough to be easily removed from and/or inserted into the layout and taken to the work bench by one person. It is a good deal easier to work on the wiring for a module while it is sitting on its side on the bench. This can also keep messier operations like doing plaster scenery out of the layout room and in the shop.
some of my complex trackage is removable for electromechanical repair, but I prefer to tackle scenery in place. My layout sections are small enough to pass through the layout room door for loading into a moving van. They aren't modules. The door is a roll-up garage door 16 feet wide.
08) A layout design should hide the unrealistic aspects of a layout such as overly sharp curves and steep grades from view yet allow them to be accessed easily when required. Since almost all model railroad curves are "overly sharp", this means they will probably need to be hidden in most cases.
The unrealistic aspects to be hidden are staging and thoroughfares, not the curves. My prototype was following a river through a canyon; the surveyor used a snake for a straightedge.
09) A layout design should insure that any track that will see any use can be easily accessed. This probably means that the depth of any "stage" needs to limited to about two feet.
The trackwork should be kept close to the front, but space beyond the arbitrary 2-foot limit can still be used to add depth to scenery. It also helps to keep shadows off the backdrop. My max is 32 inches, 42 inches off the floor.
10) A layout design should allow for adequate aisle space for the operators as well as the trains. Operators (engineers) will need space to follow their trains and space to stand while switching or waiting for meets. Operators occupying fixed positions such as tower operators, station agents, and yard master will also need spa Reply SpaceMouse Member sinceDecember 2004 From: Rimrock, Arizona 11,251 posts Posted by SpaceMouse on Friday, July 6, 2007 12:37 AM http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/Beginner/LayoutManifesto.html Chip Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos. Reply exPalaceDog Member sinceFebruary 2005 627 posts Posted by exPalaceDog on Friday, July 6, 2007 7:05 AM Thanks Have fun Reply exPalaceDog Member sinceFebruary 2005 627 posts Posted by exPalaceDog on Friday, July 6, 2007 8:20 AM tomikawaTT wrote: Since one size does NOT fit all, here is a direct comparison between the Old Dog's ideas and those of another individual with well over six decades of active model railroading (over four of which have been devoted to a single grand scheme.) exPalaceDog wrote: 06) A layout design should provide a series of "stages" (foot lockers) (fish bowls) separated by "green rooms", hidden sections, this will allow the views are framed to limit observation to the desired elements and prevent observation of the undesired elements. This will also make the back drop easier to paint since it will limit the angle it can be viewed from. This also will allow better control of the layout lighting which can allow numerous "interesting" effects like varying the time of day. The layout should appear as if one was in a building and viewing the layout (railroad) through a window. tomikawaTT wrote:I prefer to be outdoors, where I can take in the grandeur of an entire valley with a single turn of my head. This does NOT prevent me from putting appropriate lighting behind valences over the entire scene. I just prefer not to have any posts (window mullions) between me and the scene.The Old Dog would argue that any pike can be improved by controling the angles it can be viewed from. Consider the dreaded 4' x 8'. By mounting it near eye level and using say curtains to hide the curves at each end, one could greatly improve the appearance of such a pike. Also note that a stage could be as long as your space will allow. exPalaceDog wrote: 08) A layout design should hide the unrealistic aspects of a layout such as overly sharp curves and steep grades from view yet allow them to be accessed easily when required. Since almost all model railroad curves are "overly sharp", this means they will probably need to be hidden in most cases. tomikawaTT wrote:The unrealistic aspects to be hidden are staging and thoroughfares, not the curves. My prototype was following a river through a canyon; the surveyor used a snake for a straightedge.Look at this linkhttp://www.urbaneagle.com/data/deg-curve.txtA ten degree curve which would be a sharp turn on the phototype is about six and a half feet in radius. The Old Dog has no problem with curves that are somewhat close to phototype size. They can be great points of scenic interest. But most people do not have the space for such curves. Hence, the Old Dog would argue that it is best to hide them. tomikawaTT wrote:So, it seems we have slightly different takes on these designs - which simply proves my first statement. One size does NOT fit all.Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964) Reply SpaceMouse Member sinceDecember 2004 From: Rimrock, Arizona 11,251 posts Posted by SpaceMouse on Friday, July 6, 2007 8:51 AM It's weird that you two have picked #6 as the one to bandy around. As I found the most to say in this area.I whole heartedly agree that if your goal is to present a layout to the public (or operators), then controlling how they view the layout is extremely important. IF you are limited in space, however, this can be a challenge. For if you have a scene that takes 5 feet to develop and you only have a 6 foot wall to work with, expecting your train to completely disappear between scenes is asking a lot unless you run traction or RDC's exclusively. Likewise have a scene that is divided by a backdrop where the train runs through the backdrop from one scene to the other is a tad on the cheesy side. My favorite approach is to divide the scenes using a natural barrier such as a mountain, building , tall stand of trees, bridge, etc. where the scenes flow, but when the train emerges from one to the other, you know the scenes change. Again, tight space limits this ability. Better to reduce the number of scenes and do them well, but space looms as a layout designer's biggest bane. Chip Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos. Reply SpaceMouse Member sinceDecember 2004 From: Rimrock, Arizona 11,251 posts Posted by SpaceMouse on Friday, July 6, 2007 9:31 AM I just reread the list and the one thing that strikes me as unrealistic is building the layout in sections. If the reason was to build it because you know you are moving in two years or that you plan to take the layout on the road, that is one thing, but to limit your design based on the need to work on wiring is over the top.I understand that there are people who have for one reason or another are restricted in their ability to crawl under a layout, but to them, I suggest planning their layout with that in mind. Wire the section of the layout with the signals, interior lighting, street lights, etc, before you place the section in place. You can even pull the wires through the top of the layout and hide them with a bush or shed until you are ready to connect them. The potential for damage is high every time you pull a section. Unless you plan for them. When you do, you limit what you can do, because invariably, you will alter your trackwork, city scape, etc. to be able to pull the module to work on it. Chip Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos. Reply exPalaceDog Member sinceFebruary 2005 627 posts Posted by exPalaceDog on Friday, July 6, 2007 11:29 AM SpaceMouse wrote: It's weird that you two have picked #6 as the one to bandy around. As I found the most to say in this area.I whole heartedly agree that if your goal is to present a layout to the public (or operators), then controlling how they view the layout is extremely important. IF you are limited in space, however, this can be a challenge. For if you have a scene that takes 5 feet to develop and you only have a 6 foot wall to work with, expecting your train to completely disappear between scenes is asking a lot unless you run traction or RDC's exclusively. 06) A layout design should provide a series of "stages" (foot lockers) (fish bowls) separated by "green rooms", hidden sections, this will allow the views are framed to limit observation to the desired elements and prevent observation of the undesired elements. This will also make the back drop easier to paint since it will limit the angle it can be viewed from. This also will allow better control of the layout lighting which can allow numerous "interesting" effects like varying the time of day. The layout should appear as if one was in a building and viewing the layout (railroad) through a window.19) A layout design should provide "stages" that are long enough to view the entire train. If a train is to be six feet long, the sidings for meets and/or passes will probably require at least nine feet when the turnouts are added. That means that the "stages" will need to be ten or twelve feet long. 20) A layout design should provide enough spacing between "stages" so that the end of a train leaves one "stage" before the engine reaches the next station.The Old Dog should have added some addition material in regard to the above points.The idea of the "green room/s" is not only to provide seperation between scenes but to allow staging between them. Say we have three stations, A, B, and C and two trains, 1 and 2. The sequence of operations might be some thing like this. Train 2 leaves A. Train 1 leaves C. Train 2 arrives at B, takes siding. Train 1 arrives at B, meets train 2. Train 2 then leaves B. Train 1 arrives at A. Train 2 arrives at C. The "green rooms" provide holding/staging areas so that the actors/trains can appear as appropriate while keeping the space requirements down.Have fun Reply SpaceMouse Member sinceDecember 2004 From: Rimrock, Arizona 11,251 posts Posted by SpaceMouse on Friday, July 6, 2007 11:34 AM exPalaceDog wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: It's weird that you two have picked #6 as the one to bandy around. As I found the most to say in this area.I whole heartedly agree that if your goal is to present a layout to the public (or operators), then controlling how they view the layout is extremely important. IF you are limited in space, however, this can be a challenge. For if you have a scene that takes 5 feet to develop and you only have a 6 foot wall to work with, expecting your train to completely disappear between scenes is asking a lot unless you run traction or RDC's exclusively. 06) A layout design should provide a series of "stages" (foot lockers) (fish bowls) separated by "green rooms", hidden sections, this will allow the views are framed to limit observation to the desired elements and prevent observation of the undesired elements. This will also make the back drop easier to paint since it will limit the angle it can be viewed from. This also will allow better control of the layout lighting which can allow numerous "interesting" effects like varying the time of day. The layout should appear as if one was in a building and viewing the layout (railroad) through a window.19) A layout design should provide "stages" that are long enough to view the entire train. If a train is to be six feet long, the sidings for meets and/or passes will probably require at least nine feet when the turnouts are added. That means that the "stages" will need to be ten or twelve feet long. 20) A layout design should provide enough spacing between "stages" so that the end of a train leaves one "stage" before the engine reaches the next station.The Old Dog should have added some addition material in regard to the above points.The idea of the "green room/s" is not only to provide seperation between scenes but to allow staging between them. Say we have three stations, A, B, and C and two trains, 1 and 2. The sequence of operations might be some thing like this. Train 2 leaves A. Train 1 leaves C. Train 2 arrives at B, takes siding. Train 1 arrives at B, meets train 2. Train 2 then leaves B. Train 1 arrives at A. Train 2 arrives at C. The "green rooms" provide holding/staging areas so that the actors/trains can appear as appropriate while keeping the space requirements down.Have fun IF space is not an issue, then great. But...and it's a big but...if you are taking your train under ground then a whole new series of issues arise, very thing from track maintenance to rerailing that car whose wheel you didn't see come off when you bumped the facia. I don't like a lot of track under ground, and I did it grudgingly on my layout because I like duck-unders less. Chip Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos. Reply exPalaceDog Member sinceFebruary 2005 627 posts Posted by exPalaceDog on Friday, July 6, 2007 12:04 PM SpaceMouse wrote: I just reread the list and the one thing that strikes me as unrealistic is building the layout in sections. If the reason was to build it because you know you are moving in two years or that you plan to take the layout on the road, that is one thing, but to limit your design based on the need to work on wiring is over the top.I understand that there are people who have for one reason or another are restricted in their ability to crawl under a layout, but to them, I suggest planning their layout with that in mind. Wire the section of the layout with the signals, interior lighting, street lights, etc, before you place the section in place. You can even pull the wires through the top of the layout and hide them with a bush or shed until you are ready to connect them. The potential for damage is high every time you pull a section. Unless you plan for them. When you do, you limit what you can do, because invariably, you will alter your trackwork, city scape, etc. to be able to pull the module to work on it. This does seem to be a problem for the N-Trak folks.The Old Dog is thinking in terms of modules (stages) that are at most 24" wide. Length would be say 48", 72", and maybe 96" in extreme case. Corner modulars (green rooms) would need to be about 48" by 48" Pike size, 20' by 4', room size maybe 24' by 12' for I shaped pike with six stages, three per side. For U shaped pike with 18 stages, 26' by 26' would be needed.Scenery would be mostly urbane, most flats. Buildings would be made seperately and be removable for maintenance and to allow era to be altered.Have fun Reply exPalaceDog Member sinceFebruary 2005 627 posts Posted by exPalaceDog on Friday, July 6, 2007 12:10 PM SpaceMouse wrote: exPalaceDog wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: It's weird that you two have picked #6 as the one to bandy around. As I found the most to say in this area.I whole heartedly agree that if your goal is to present a layout to the public (or operators), then controlling how they view the layout is extremely important. IF you are limited in space, however, this can be a challenge. For if you have a scene that takes 5 feet to develop and you only have a 6 foot wall to work with, expecting your train to completely disappear between scenes is asking a lot unless you run traction or RDC's exclusively. 06) A layout design should provide a series of "stages" (foot lockers) (fish bowls) separated by "green rooms", hidden sections, this will allow the views are framed to limit observation to the desired elements and prevent observation of the undesired elements. This will also make the back drop easier to paint since it will limit the angle it can be viewed from. This also will allow better control of the layout lighting which can allow numerous "interesting" effects like varying the time of day. The layout should appear as if one was in a building and viewing the layout (railroad) through a window.19) A layout design should provide "stages" that are long enough to view the entire train. If a train is to be six feet long, the sidings for meets and/or passes will probably require at least nine feet when the turnouts are added. That means that the "stages" will need to be ten or twelve feet long. 20) A layout design should provide enough spacing between "stages" so that the end of a train leaves one "stage" before the engine reaches the next station.The Old Dog should have added some addition material in regard to the above points.The idea of the "green room/s" is not only to provide seperation between scenes but to allow staging between them. Say we have three stations, A, B, and C and two trains, 1 and 2. The sequence of operations might be some thing like this. Train 2 leaves A. Train 1 leaves C. Train 2 arrives at B, takes siding. Train 1 arrives at B, meets train 2. Train 2 then leaves B. Train 1 arrives at A. Train 2 arrives at C. The "green rooms" provide holding/staging areas so that the actors/trains can appear as appropriate while keeping the space requirements down.Have fun IF space is not an issue, then great. But...and it's a big but...if you are taking your train under ground then a whole new series of issues arise, very thing from track maintenance to rerailing that car whose wheel you didn't see come off when you bumped the facia. I don't like a lot of track under ground, and I did it grudgingly on my layout because I like duck-unders less. Hidden track would be in "green room" columns with outside "good" access on at least two or three sides, in some cases "poor" reach in access from a inside corner, plus inside access in a 22" radius helix/spiral.Have fun Reply SpaceMouse Member sinceDecember 2004 From: Rimrock, Arizona 11,251 posts Posted by SpaceMouse on Friday, July 6, 2007 12:17 PM N-trak folks have a line about 1/8 to 1/4 " between every section. If we are talking about a "manifesto" we cannot be getting too far in a single direction in terms of layout style. I like big scenery. Pulling a section of hillside with 6 24" high fir trees to get at a signal for wiring would not be worth the effort to make it sectional. I also think, that layouts built for multiple eras are compromises for the eras that are being changed out. Again, multiple era layouts are a design choice and should not be part of a "manifesto."But I like the manifesto you wrote as it stands, and while I argue points, I like the overall. However, I feel that each point should be arguable in terms of all layouts rather than a specific style. Chip Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos. Reply Cederstrand Member sinceApril 2007 From: Western transplant to the Deep South 4,256 posts Posted by Cederstrand on Friday, July 6, 2007 1:15 PM Excellent list and overview of layout design. Much food for thought. Any remaining hint of switching from N scale to HO was just squelched entirely and for good....unless I will a Lottery and can build another barn, one just for trains. Rob Reply marknewton Member sinceDecember 2002 From: Sydney, Australia 1,939 posts Posted by marknewton on Saturday, July 7, 2007 9:39 PM Likewise have a scene that is divided by a backdrop where the train runs through the backdrop from one scene to the other is a tad on the cheesy side.Maybe. I think it all depends on how well the transition is handled. There are a couple of very effective layouts on the exhibition circuit both here and in the UK where each scene is separate from the next, in it's own "shadow-box" or "stage". The passage of the train through the backdrop is screened by scenic features as you describe below. In this context, I reckon this is a better way to present separate scenes, as you tend to focus on the train itself, rather than the edges of the "stage". As you said, it's all about controlling the viewpoint of the spectators.My favorite approach is to divide the scenes using a natural barrier such as a mountain, building , tall stand of trees, bridge, etc. where the scenes flow, but when the train emerges from one to the other, you know the scenes change. I've often seen such transitions on layouts, but in my opinion they're usually not very convincing. But that may be more a reflection of the layout builder's scenery skills!Cheers,Mark. Reply marknewton Member sinceDecember 2002 From: Sydney, Australia 1,939 posts Posted by marknewton on Saturday, July 7, 2007 9:41 PM A ten degree curve which would be a sharp turn on the phototype is about six and a half feet in radius.You make a valid point, but I reckon it very much depends on what prototype you model. Every day at work I run 8-car MU trains around a curve which is 296' radius - that's about 40" in HO scale, I think. And that's on a mainline. The curve has a station, greasepots, and a 25k permanent speedboard, all on a 1 in 33 grade. It's one of those places that sorts the men from the boys, so to speak. When I was learning the road I overshot the platform a couple of times before I got the measure of that stop!The line I model has street trackage with curves down to 90' radius, and they run loco-hauled freight trains around them!All the best,Mark. Reply exPalaceDog Member sinceFebruary 2005 627 posts Posted by exPalaceDog on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:32 PM This is mainly a test post to see if the link worksIf it does, the link should point to a sheet of module designs the Old Dog has been playing with. Have fun Reply SpaceMouse Member sinceDecember 2004 From: Rimrock, Arizona 11,251 posts Posted by SpaceMouse on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 1:52 PM Dog, Can you make it bigger? It's hard to see. Chip Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos. Reply exPalaceDog Member sinceFebruary 2005 627 posts Posted by exPalaceDog on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:46 PM SpaceMouse wrote: Dog, Can you make it bigger? It's hard to see. Link above changed, it looks better now!Have fun Reply tomikawaTT Member sinceFebruary 2005 From: Southwest US 12,914 posts Posted by tomikawaTT on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 3:12 PM Interesting set of concepts. Some look like things I have seen, others like interesting (and useful) compromises. I especially like the "reverted wye," with the tail track in the corner and everything within reach of a normal-size individual.If I was starting with a blank slate, I'd copy your thinking and swipe your designs. However, reality intervenes; my basic concept is set in stone and my benchwork is pretty much set in steel - the steel studs I use for 'C works like L' girder construction.Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964) Reply marknewton Member sinceDecember 2002 From: Sydney, Australia 1,939 posts Posted by marknewton on Saturday, July 28, 2007 11:13 PM With the best will in the world, some of the modules you've drawn are no more no than pretty 2-dimensional patterns. There are track arrangements here that would serve no useful purpose for running or shunting trains. Reply exPalaceDog Member sinceFebruary 2005 627 posts Posted by exPalaceDog on Sunday, July 29, 2007 8:39 AM marknewton wrote:With the best will in the world, some of the modules you've drawn are no more no than pretty 2-dimensional patterns. There are track arrangements here that would serve no useful purpose for running or shunting trains.Probably true!The ideal was to try numerious designs then start tossing out the turkeys.Thanks for your replay.Have fun Reply Subscriber & Member Login Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more! Login Register Users Online There are no community member online Search the Community ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT Model Railroader Newsletter See all Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox! Sign up
Thanks
tomikawaTT wrote: Since one size does NOT fit all, here is a direct comparison between the Old Dog's ideas and those of another individual with well over six decades of active model railroading (over four of which have been devoted to a single grand scheme.)
exPalaceDog wrote: 06) A layout design should provide a series of "stages" (foot lockers) (fish bowls) separated by "green rooms", hidden sections, this will allow the views are framed to limit observation to the desired elements and prevent observation of the undesired elements. This will also make the back drop easier to paint since it will limit the angle it can be viewed from. This also will allow better control of the layout lighting which can allow numerous "interesting" effects like varying the time of day. The layout should appear as if one was in a building and viewing the layout (railroad) through a window.
tomikawaTT wrote:I prefer to be outdoors, where I can take in the grandeur of an entire valley with a single turn of my head. This does NOT prevent me from putting appropriate lighting behind valences over the entire scene. I just prefer not to have any posts (window mullions) between me and the scene.
The Old Dog would argue that any pike can be improved by controling the angles it can be viewed from. Consider the dreaded 4' x 8'. By mounting it near eye level and using say curtains to hide the curves at each end, one could greatly improve the appearance of such a pike. Also note that a stage could be as long as your space will allow.
exPalaceDog wrote: 08) A layout design should hide the unrealistic aspects of a layout such as overly sharp curves and steep grades from view yet allow them to be accessed easily when required. Since almost all model railroad curves are "overly sharp", this means they will probably need to be hidden in most cases.
tomikawaTT wrote:The unrealistic aspects to be hidden are staging and thoroughfares, not the curves. My prototype was following a river through a canyon; the surveyor used a snake for a straightedge.
Look at this link
http://www.urbaneagle.com/data/deg-curve.txt
A ten degree curve which would be a sharp turn on the phototype is about six and a half feet in radius. The Old Dog has no problem with curves that are somewhat close to phototype size. They can be great points of scenic interest. But most people do not have the space for such curves. Hence, the Old Dog would argue that it is best to hide them.
tomikawaTT wrote:So, it seems we have slightly different takes on these designs - which simply proves my first statement. One size does NOT fit all.Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
So, it seems we have slightly different takes on these designs - which simply proves my first statement. One size does NOT fit all.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
It's weird that you two have picked #6 as the one to bandy around. As I found the most to say in this area.
I whole heartedly agree that if your goal is to present a layout to the public (or operators), then controlling how they view the layout is extremely important. IF you are limited in space, however, this can be a challenge. For if you have a scene that takes 5 feet to develop and you only have a 6 foot wall to work with, expecting your train to completely disappear between scenes is asking a lot unless you run traction or RDC's exclusively.
Likewise have a scene that is divided by a backdrop where the train runs through the backdrop from one scene to the other is a tad on the cheesy side.
My favorite approach is to divide the scenes using a natural barrier such as a mountain, building , tall stand of trees, bridge, etc. where the scenes flow, but when the train emerges from one to the other, you know the scenes change.
Again, tight space limits this ability.
Better to reduce the number of scenes and do them well, but space looms as a layout designer's biggest bane.
I just reread the list and the one thing that strikes me as unrealistic is building the layout in sections. If the reason was to build it because you know you are moving in two years or that you plan to take the layout on the road, that is one thing, but to limit your design based on the need to work on wiring is over the top.
I understand that there are people who have for one reason or another are restricted in their ability to crawl under a layout, but to them, I suggest planning their layout with that in mind. Wire the section of the layout with the signals, interior lighting, street lights, etc, before you place the section in place. You can even pull the wires through the top of the layout and hide them with a bush or shed until you are ready to connect them.
The potential for damage is high every time you pull a section. Unless you plan for them. When you do, you limit what you can do, because invariably, you will alter your trackwork, city scape, etc. to be able to pull the module to work on it.
SpaceMouse wrote: It's weird that you two have picked #6 as the one to bandy around. As I found the most to say in this area.I whole heartedly agree that if your goal is to present a layout to the public (or operators), then controlling how they view the layout is extremely important. IF you are limited in space, however, this can be a challenge. For if you have a scene that takes 5 feet to develop and you only have a 6 foot wall to work with, expecting your train to completely disappear between scenes is asking a lot unless you run traction or RDC's exclusively.
The Old Dog should have added some addition material in regard to the above points.
The idea of the "green room/s" is not only to provide seperation between scenes but to allow staging between them.
Say we have three stations, A, B, and C and two trains, 1 and 2. The sequence of operations might be some thing like this. Train 2 leaves A. Train 1 leaves C. Train 2 arrives at B, takes siding. Train 1 arrives at B, meets train 2. Train 2 then leaves B. Train 1 arrives at A. Train 2 arrives at C. The "green rooms" provide holding/staging areas so that the actors/trains can appear as appropriate while keeping the space requirements down.
exPalaceDog wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: It's weird that you two have picked #6 as the one to bandy around. As I found the most to say in this area.I whole heartedly agree that if your goal is to present a layout to the public (or operators), then controlling how they view the layout is extremely important. IF you are limited in space, however, this can be a challenge. For if you have a scene that takes 5 feet to develop and you only have a 6 foot wall to work with, expecting your train to completely disappear between scenes is asking a lot unless you run traction or RDC's exclusively. 06) A layout design should provide a series of "stages" (foot lockers) (fish bowls) separated by "green rooms", hidden sections, this will allow the views are framed to limit observation to the desired elements and prevent observation of the undesired elements. This will also make the back drop easier to paint since it will limit the angle it can be viewed from. This also will allow better control of the layout lighting which can allow numerous "interesting" effects like varying the time of day. The layout should appear as if one was in a building and viewing the layout (railroad) through a window.19) A layout design should provide "stages" that are long enough to view the entire train. If a train is to be six feet long, the sidings for meets and/or passes will probably require at least nine feet when the turnouts are added. That means that the "stages" will need to be ten or twelve feet long. 20) A layout design should provide enough spacing between "stages" so that the end of a train leaves one "stage" before the engine reaches the next station.The Old Dog should have added some addition material in regard to the above points.The idea of the "green room/s" is not only to provide seperation between scenes but to allow staging between them. Say we have three stations, A, B, and C and two trains, 1 and 2. The sequence of operations might be some thing like this. Train 2 leaves A. Train 1 leaves C. Train 2 arrives at B, takes siding. Train 1 arrives at B, meets train 2. Train 2 then leaves B. Train 1 arrives at A. Train 2 arrives at C. The "green rooms" provide holding/staging areas so that the actors/trains can appear as appropriate while keeping the space requirements down.Have fun
IF space is not an issue, then great. But...and it's a big but...if you are taking your train under ground then a whole new series of issues arise, very thing from track maintenance to rerailing that car whose wheel you didn't see come off when you bumped the facia. I don't like a lot of track under ground, and I did it grudgingly on my layout because I like duck-unders less.
SpaceMouse wrote: I just reread the list and the one thing that strikes me as unrealistic is building the layout in sections. If the reason was to build it because you know you are moving in two years or that you plan to take the layout on the road, that is one thing, but to limit your design based on the need to work on wiring is over the top.I understand that there are people who have for one reason or another are restricted in their ability to crawl under a layout, but to them, I suggest planning their layout with that in mind. Wire the section of the layout with the signals, interior lighting, street lights, etc, before you place the section in place. You can even pull the wires through the top of the layout and hide them with a bush or shed until you are ready to connect them. The potential for damage is high every time you pull a section. Unless you plan for them. When you do, you limit what you can do, because invariably, you will alter your trackwork, city scape, etc. to be able to pull the module to work on it.
This does seem to be a problem for the N-Trak folks.
The Old Dog is thinking in terms of modules (stages) that are at most 24" wide. Length would be say 48", 72", and maybe 96" in extreme case. Corner modulars (green rooms) would need to be about 48" by 48" Pike size, 20' by 4', room size maybe 24' by 12' for I shaped pike with six stages, three per side. For U shaped pike with 18 stages, 26' by 26' would be needed.
Scenery would be mostly urbane, most flats. Buildings would be made seperately and be removable for maintenance and to allow era to be altered.
SpaceMouse wrote: exPalaceDog wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: It's weird that you two have picked #6 as the one to bandy around. As I found the most to say in this area.I whole heartedly agree that if your goal is to present a layout to the public (or operators), then controlling how they view the layout is extremely important. IF you are limited in space, however, this can be a challenge. For if you have a scene that takes 5 feet to develop and you only have a 6 foot wall to work with, expecting your train to completely disappear between scenes is asking a lot unless you run traction or RDC's exclusively. 06) A layout design should provide a series of "stages" (foot lockers) (fish bowls) separated by "green rooms", hidden sections, this will allow the views are framed to limit observation to the desired elements and prevent observation of the undesired elements. This will also make the back drop easier to paint since it will limit the angle it can be viewed from. This also will allow better control of the layout lighting which can allow numerous "interesting" effects like varying the time of day. The layout should appear as if one was in a building and viewing the layout (railroad) through a window.19) A layout design should provide "stages" that are long enough to view the entire train. If a train is to be six feet long, the sidings for meets and/or passes will probably require at least nine feet when the turnouts are added. That means that the "stages" will need to be ten or twelve feet long. 20) A layout design should provide enough spacing between "stages" so that the end of a train leaves one "stage" before the engine reaches the next station.The Old Dog should have added some addition material in regard to the above points.The idea of the "green room/s" is not only to provide seperation between scenes but to allow staging between them. Say we have three stations, A, B, and C and two trains, 1 and 2. The sequence of operations might be some thing like this. Train 2 leaves A. Train 1 leaves C. Train 2 arrives at B, takes siding. Train 1 arrives at B, meets train 2. Train 2 then leaves B. Train 1 arrives at A. Train 2 arrives at C. The "green rooms" provide holding/staging areas so that the actors/trains can appear as appropriate while keeping the space requirements down.Have fun IF space is not an issue, then great. But...and it's a big but...if you are taking your train under ground then a whole new series of issues arise, very thing from track maintenance to rerailing that car whose wheel you didn't see come off when you bumped the facia. I don't like a lot of track under ground, and I did it grudgingly on my layout because I like duck-unders less.
Hidden track would be in "green room" columns with outside "good" access on at least two or three sides, in some cases "poor" reach in access from a inside corner, plus inside access in a 22" radius helix/spiral.
N-trak folks have a line about 1/8 to 1/4 " between every section.
If we are talking about a "manifesto" we cannot be getting too far in a single direction in terms of layout style. I like big scenery. Pulling a section of hillside with 6 24" high fir trees to get at a signal for wiring would not be worth the effort to make it sectional. I also think, that layouts built for multiple eras are compromises for the eras that are being changed out. Again, multiple era layouts are a design choice and should not be part of a "manifesto."
But I like the manifesto you wrote as it stands, and while I argue points, I like the overall. However, I feel that each point should be arguable in terms of all layouts rather than a specific style.
A ten degree curve which would be a sharp turn on the phototype is about six and a half feet in radius.
This is mainly a test post to see if the link works
If it does, the link should point to a sheet of module designs the Old Dog has been playing with.
Dog, Can you make it bigger? It's hard to see.
SpaceMouse wrote: Dog, Can you make it bigger? It's hard to see.
Link above changed, it looks better now!
Interesting set of concepts. Some look like things I have seen, others like interesting (and useful) compromises. I especially like the "reverted wye," with the tail track in the corner and everything within reach of a normal-size individual.
If I was starting with a blank slate, I'd copy your thinking and swipe your designs. However, reality intervenes; my basic concept is set in stone and my benchwork is pretty much set in steel - the steel studs I use for 'C works like L' girder construction.
marknewton wrote:With the best will in the world, some of the modules you've drawn are no more no than pretty 2-dimensional patterns. There are track arrangements here that would serve no useful purpose for running or shunting trains.
Probably true!
The ideal was to try numerious designs then start tossing out the turkeys.
Thanks for your replay.