I love the track plan critiques. Yes, they do get a bit messy since not all the givens and druthers are always clear, but hey, the forum is a bunch of electrons having a party. No dead trees and no traveling to a meeting room in a city far from home to discuss engineering a project that hasn't gotten budget approval yet. We sit at home and read and post at our liesure.
When I upgrade my computer to something that can run the layout software, I'll be sure to be clear about my limitations and preferences.
That is what this forum is for: Layouts and Layout Building. Part of the building phase is all the dreamwork that becomes the plan for the actual construction. It is a part of the hobby I find enjoyable, where someone else wants to shake the box and "poof" instant layout. We all have different bits that turn our cranks! Think of the 1st times you entered the forum and saw what some people were up to, and thought: "I never thought of that" when seeing an answer to a thread. Now when you go on and look at the basic problems that hang some folks up, remember when... We evolve with experience, and hopefully some of it rubs off thru contacts here, even if all you do is read without comment.
'Nuff said. George
"The birdies, they all try and hide, but they still go for peanuts when coated with cyanide!"
The most profitable comedy album ever sold.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
tomikawaTT wrote:If every person who asked for layout advice had listed their, "Givens and druthers" (John Armstrong's term,) and every person who answered respected those requirements, things would be a lot better for everybody.
If every person who asked for layout advice had listed their, "Givens and druthers" (John Armstrong's term,) and every person who answered respected those requirements, things would be a lot better for everybody.
Byron Henderson (Cuyama on this forum), who runs a layout design service as a side business, has a excellent list of questions prompting someone who wants a layout to think about and provide those critical answers - look at this web page: http://home.earthlink.net/~mrsvc/id13.html
Grin, Stein
Keep in mind, too, that often the person asking for help is new to the hobby. For that reason alone they don't take into consideration a lot of the things that we have learned from years of experience. The message in all this is to exercise patience.
John Timm
loathar wrote:Gee guys. Wonder who we're talking about here??
I'm not talking about anyone in particular because everyone is probably guilty of it at some point or another. Sometimes it is hard to give advice without personal bias. I think the point of the thread is to make people aware that they are doing it.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of us who project our own preferences on every question, and then hand down opinions as if they were stone tablets from Zion. Add that to the new modeler's inclination to have their reach far exceed their grasp ("I have 4x8, build in HO and want a hump yard and an engine terminal for my stable of articulated steam...")
Then there are the helpful (?) suggestions to change scale! The suggestors have no idea how big a roster the inquiring mind has, or how much financial and emotional treasure are wrapped up in it. Think about how you would react to a suggestion that you sell your grandmother's heirloom china on E-bay. That's the way I react when I see, "You really need to change to (fill in scale.)"
Now you know why I always look at the, "Help me with my layout," threads, but seldom add to them. And that, when I do, it's usually to push John Armstrong's published work.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
fredswain wrote: I've noticed that too. When someone asks about a 4 X 8 layout and specifically states that's what they want and they already have, there is invariably someone (or more) that comes in and says a 4 X 8 is inefficient and that they could take the same total table sq footage and instead space it out around the room.
I've noticed that too. When someone asks about a 4 X 8 layout and specifically states that's what they want and they already have, there is invariably someone (or more) that comes in and says a 4 X 8 is inefficient and that they could take the same total table sq footage and instead space it out around the room.
fredswain wrote: I think too many people are caught up on being too prototypical. It's a good thing to design for but model railroading is a world of compromise and what works in the real world doesn't always work as well when scaled down.
On the other hand there are a whole bunch of people who want a whole lot in a tiny space ("I want a full yard with a roundhouse and be able to run long trains with big boys and challengers on a 4x8 layout") where the answer will require the owner to make compromises or alter his original plan. At that point about the only thing you can do is tell them what a real railroad would do and let THEM pick how much compromise they want.
Many people don't know what operation they want, many people don't even know what "operation" is. If you build "prototypical" operation into a layout from the begining, you can always run for fun later, but if you don't build in operation you can't always operate more prototypically later. If you put in the switch you have the option of whether or not to use it. If you don't put in the switch, then you won't ever be able to use it.
I've noticed that too. When someone asks about a 4 X 8 layout and specifically states that's what they want and they already have, there is invariably someone (or more) that comes in and says a 4 X 8 is inefficient and that they could take the same total table sq footage and instead space it out around the room. That's all fine and dandy but perhaps like me you only have a corner of the room to work with as furniture actually also occupies your layout room! Imagine that!
Then you'll see others that say they want a logging type of railroad or perhaps a switching or dockside layout and people will criticize their siding lengths and turn radiuses saying you can't run large steamers or long trains very well. Again totally ignoring what the design intent was. When someone asks what scale they should pick, then things get really bad but more up front info on design goals should help this.
Unless you have tons of space (and even if you do), model railroading is full of compromises. We can't always get everything we want and sometimes we need to just not have certain things for the time being. My layout is a small n-scale 18" x 96" shelf switching layout. I've got industries, a 4 track yard, a 3 stall roundhouse and turntable. I wanted something that would keep me busy. The longest train I can run at any one time is 4 cars long but since there is no loop of track anywhere, I can't just let trains run anyways. It was designed to have one person switch the small yard and interchange with another crew who worked the industries. I like turntables so I integrated one in. During operations I use small steam engines and since I have industries facing both direction and my small steamers don't have front couplers, it makes the use of the turntable a fun aspect. I love long trains. I love large articulated steam engine and large modern diesels. I don't have the room for them though so that made me design a layout that gave me everything else I wanted in the space I had.
I think too many people are caught up on being too prototypical. It's a good thing to design for but model railroading is a world of compromise and what works in the real world doesn't always work as well when scaled down. As long as people who are asking for help can give a detailed description of what they hope to get out of the layout, it shouldn't be hard for people to work within those constraints. Many can't though. Good topic. Hopefully everyone will think more about this in the future when answering questions. There's nothing wrong with criticism or giving suggestions. Just keep it within the requirements given rather than your own perfect layout.
People here ask for comments on their layout plans. They usually provide insufficient information, however, for people to provide optimal comment. Commentators need to know the limitations imposed as well as the planner's objectives. It would also be very useful if the planner could explain the intended operational scheme. The usual result is that the commentators push their preferences rather than spend effort helping the person meet their goals.
Mark