Which came first? The scenery or the track?

[twhite]

For me, the present Yuba River Sub was planned kind of simultaneous.  I knew what I wanted for the setting--the Sierra Nevada from an elevation of about 3,000 to 6,000 feet, and I also had an idea of what I wanted to incorporate into the scenery--hydraulic mining scars, steep canyons, jagged buttes--from the country that I was familiar with--the Yuba River watershed.  With that established, then my concern was how the railroad would fit into this projected scenery realistically.  From then on it was a series of juggling and compromise.  So I suppose you could say that although I built the trackwork first, the whole concept was concieved as one project. 

Although I don't know how well I've succeeded, I've sure had fun doing it. 

Tom  

[R. T. POTEET]

Here's a question for you guys...

When I'm designing a trackplan I find myself thinking first of where to put the track. Then I spend time thinking of what the scenery (ok, countryside!) around the tracks would need to be like in order for a railroad to have constructed their tracks in that configuration.

Let's face it - real railroads don't run trains because the like them, they run trains to make a profit. And adding unnecessary curves, switches, bridges, retaining walls, and especially tunnels don't help at all with that profitability.

So I find myself trying to imagineer  scenery that would give a reason for those curves, or set up a water course (river or creek) in such a way that it made sense for a bridge to be constructed where it is (as opposed to a shorter bridge - or no bridge - elsewhere). Sometimes this leads to moving the tracks, which sometimes leads to moving scenery, etc. etc.

Sometimes this is gets really tough!

So... How do you guys deal with this issue (or do you not bother) when you're planning a layout? Do any of you think of hills and rivers *before* you start with the track?

Call me curious...

Charlie Comstock

 For me the integration of track and scenery is a simultaneos operation. Like Fred W. I initialize a track plan and begin considering scenery elements to coordinate with the machinations of my track; at the same time, however, I visualize certain (desired) scenery elements and this will forge an effect on how my track plan eventually evolves.

My plans for my future layout involves a 54" wide penninsula which carries two double track lines on differing levels. I originally sketched these out with 24"-22.5"-18.5"-17" radius curves and both lines cutting through a ridge; the 18.5"-17" curve would be about 2" above the level of the wider radius curves.  The more I looked at this the more monotonous this became and I have since decided to alter my ideas and raise the upper level to 3" above the lower level, expand the radii to 18.5"-20". The upper level will now cut through the shoulder of this ridge while the lower level will tunnel through it! This is an example of scenery forcing track planning while at the same time track planning is forcing scenery.

[jackn2mpu]

Instead of doing an indoors layout, go large scale and go outdoors, building just like the prototype does, making do with Mother Nature as much as possible and modifying as needed to reach a logical conclusion.

[BCSJ]

Pelle Soeborg deals with this in his book that highlights his layout. he asked a very simple question. Do you want trains with scenery around them or do you want scenery with trains running through them? Answering that alone will dictate how you approach the issue. If you want to cram as much action as you can into the space provided, you'll probably end up having a train with scenery around it. If you want to design for realism and from the perspective that you are a small railfan who likes to watch trains run, then you'll probably end up with scenery that has trains running through it. It's all about compromise.

Ahh. That's one of the big-time questions. Another is do you want a model or a railroad or a railroad model?

Alas, I fear few us us have the space to design 40 miles of scenery and then let our little surveyors run around in it looking for the optimal route for the railroad we want to build. So I settle for time-slicing - first I think about benchwork/track configurations - then I think about how the landforms for that would look - then I revise the benchwork/track - then think more about scenery - etc (and the order can be reversed). But if it isn't a nearly simultaneous process (benchwork/track/scenery) it's unlikely that realistic feeling (not even getting to the 'looking' part) scenery can be retrofitted onto a track plan done with no though to scenery.

In his book on model railroad scenery (from the 60's) Bill Maclanahan (did I get that spelling correct) comments on a fellow that designed a large layout, got all the benchwork built, track installed, and trains running. Only then did he solicit ideas for scenery. Oops. He'd placed tracks next to the aisle about 10" taller than a flat yard area immediately adjacent to those yard tracks. The only thing the scenery gurus could think of for him was 10" tall (in HO iirc) retaining wall between the track areas in a place where there was no reason for having one set of tracks so much higher than the others. Oops.

So think landforms while you're thinking track (and vice versa). The results are often a lot more pleasing.

Cheers,

Charlie Comstock 

[fredswain]

Pelle Soeborg deals with this in his book that highlights his layout. he asked a very simple question. Do you want trains with scenery around them or do you want scenery with trains running through them? Answering that alone will dictate how you approach the issue. If you want to cram as much action as you can into the space provided, you'll probably end up having a train with scenery around it. If you want to design for realism and from the perspective that you are a small railfan who likes to watch trains run, then you'll probably end up with scenery that has trains running through it. It's all about compromise.

[BCSJ]

Ah, Charlie, That's why the Superintendant of Nearly Everything has to wear a lot of different hats! It really helps to have a dedicated project notebook and do at least rudimentary sketches of your LDE's (Layout Design Elements). Fun, huh? jc5729 John Colley, Port Townsend, WA

Indeed, lots of fun! So much fun I have to split it up. I let the Bear Creek and South Jackson Superintendent of Nearly Everything deal with trackwork, while them blokes what is over at Hillmovers Construction Co. handle the Geological Feature Planning and Emplantation using their patented TerraForming[tm] process. Heck sometims they even talk to each other (although the GM of Hillmovers sometimes complains that the freakin' dolts at the railroad just go ahead with their track laying without so much as a 'by your leave' to Hillmovers leaving the Terra Forming crews to figure how in tarnation they're going to be able to make *this* area along the railroad look anywhere near realistic.

For more information on the relations between the railroad and Hillmovers you might check out the scrap book of clippings from the South Jackson Gazette (that also documents life along the railroad).

Cheers,

Charlie Comstock 

[skir4d]

I have to go with t-cubed on this one. When doing a prototype, (or even free lanced in specific terrain) you probably want to catch the signature terrain first, at least as vignettes or LDE's, and then the terrain that links those sections of signature terrain. This will allow you to smoothly transition from one to another. For example, the present design I am working on has the rails starting at Palisade, NV. This area has high cliffs and the Humbolt River, so having this as a "flat" location would not look right, I needed to plan for the river and cliffs as I designed the track.

Various areas of the layout space will lend themselves to flat areas and others will lend themselves to hills and mountains. If you are looking at floor to layout level scenery (such as the Gorre and Daphetid) it pays to have an idea where that will go before you run rails through it. With N-scale and a large layout (say 200 sq feet) you're going to have quite a bit of open space to plan for. As scale increases, open spacce becomes less in the same amount of space. Also, the same applies if space is limited, the amount of terrain diminishes as the space for track decreases.

To me, its an iterative process. Important terrain features, overall track plan, detail some track, adjust the terrrain, adjust the track, etc. I am on the sixth revision on my present track plan, most of the revisions dealing with the terrain around Tonopah and trying to fit in a small representation of a open pit mine that uses rail for haulage. For this, I need a good idea of what the original terrain looked like before the mine, and what the terrain looks like for the switchbacks to reach all of the benches in the pit. If I waited to do it after I had the track plan done I doubt that I could achieve the appearance I am looking for. And I most certainly wouldn't try it in any size larger than N, it would be to hard to capture the proper feeling of the pit.

Jack W

[DeadheadGreg]

Yeah, this is sort of like what I used to do with my old band when we were gigging a lot and still writing and recording CDs.  Each song started with an overall general idea of what "type" of song it would be, musically (slow, fast, slow to fast, linear, traditional verse-chorus...).  This would be akin to thinking about what type of layout you want: Northeastern shortline, Appalachian coal hauler, midwest granger, etc etc. 

Next would come a refinement of the musical structure, with deciding what types of "scenes" there would be.  This is where you would start to write down what specific LDE's you want in your layout, ie: a yard, coal mine, roundhouse/engine facility, interchange, small town with industries, big mountain gorge, etc.  This is also the time when I would generally start writing the 'story' of the song, as in what the song is supposed to be about, lyrically, and what type of themes or ideas I wanted to express with it. 

Then once the musical arrangement was more or less laid out, the lyrics (trackplan) could start to be worked up.  This would usually entail a couple changes in the musical structure, as any layout plan would undoubtedly experience.  But the idea is to fit the lyrics (trackplan) into the musical structure (landscape features).

 

Of couse, every now and then I would throw this all out the window and start writing a song around lyrics that I'd written, but usually even in that instance, there was a general beat or riff in my head that I was writing the lyrics to.  These songs generally had their lyrics written during class...  lol.

 

Anyway, I'd say that in working up a trackplan, its probably about a 60/40 mix of scenic construction vs trackplan arrangement. 

[johncolley]

Ah, Charlie, That's why the Superintendant of Nearly Everything has to wear a lot of different hats! It really helps to have a dedicated project notebook and do at least rudimentary sketches of your LDE's (Layout Design Elements). Fun, huh? jc5729 John Colley, Port Townsend, WA

[fwright]

I think it largely depends on how much space you have. If it's a large space, you have the luxury of envisioning the scene, and then working the tracks around it. But for most of us, the track design is the limiting factor and terrain is necessarily secondary.

I'd venture a guess that 99% of all modelers think of them both together. I always envision a rough scene and a rough track plan together initially. But I've had to throw out many a track plan because the scenery wouldn't work, and vice versa.

I'd agree with Harry.  Even on my 2ft x 8ft shelf, I've readjusted the depth of the shelf and the layout of the track to make the dock scene fit "right".  I had a basic track schematic in mind, but the scenery determines the final location.  If the scenery won't work right on the plan, then I go back and adjust the track schematic until the integrated combination fits.

I design a layout, and plan a layout - no just the track.  The track is a major part, but not the whole, of the integrated layout.  A layout plan considers track, scenery, operations, and more - because all must come together for a successful layout (IMHO).  Planning a layout is usually a process with multiple iterations as conflicts between each of the parts is resolved.

Fred W

[BigG]

   I'd say it is a combined effort in: 1st, trackplan and then, scenery. A railroad needs a raison-d'etre to make money, and whatever it hauls to wherever will dictate the basics of scenery. So if you're interested in a grain and cattle-hauler, you'll likely be dealing in at least some flatland trackage.

  That said, on my freelanced 'road I'd like to work in a bit of local scenery with the idea of hilly (not really mountainous) territory. We in Muskoka don't have the glorious Rockies to work with so really deep gullies and towering mtns will not exist here. But, there're a lot of rock-cuts. So, as the trackplan got drawn, the ideas for scenery sort of came along with it, and got sketched in at the 1st opportunity.

  As construction starts, any changes will necessarily be both business and scenically linked.

[HarryHotspur]

I think it largely depends on how much space you have. If it's a large space, you have the luxury of envisioning the scene, and then working the tracks around it. But for most of us, the track design is the limiting factor and terrain is necessarily secondary.

I'd venture a guess that 99% of all modelers think of them both together. I always envision a rough scene and a rough track plan together initially. But I've had to throw out many a track plan because the scenery wouldn't work, and vice versa.

[tomikawaTT]

Due to the love-hate relationship I have with my prototype (lots to love, a few things to hate) the scenery came first - and then had to be compromised due to the finite limits of my layout space.  I have a couple of long, fairly steep grades, not because of a need to get up and over something, but because my prototype had those grades.  I DON'T have a couple of my prototype's bridges, because they simply wouldn't fit.

If the question is, "Do I add a spur here, or do I keep the river where it is?" the answer is, "The river was there first.  Put the spur farther up the siding."

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

[selector]

...

So... How do you guys deal with this issue (or do you not bother) when you're planning a layout? Do any of you think of hills and rivers *before* you start with the track?

Call me curious...

Charlie Comstock

I am in early days in the hobby, but for my current layout I tried hard to fashion a workable track plan and thought at the same time how it would look when all 'done up'.   My vision was rudimentary, and I let it go at that because I was also going to experiment with both spline roadbed and aluminum window screen covered with goop.  For me, workable grades and curves, with the requisite access for trouble, were the important things because I like to run trains and watch, not so much operations.

So, for me, it is back and forth, thinking, then acting, and taking those steps until the whole becomes a reality.  The scenery seems to take care of itself.

-Crandell

[gandydancer19]

Here's a question for you guys...

When I'm designing a trackplan I find myself thinking first of where to put the track. Then I spend time thinking of what the scenery (ok, countryside!) around the tracks would need to be like in order for a railroad to have constructed their tracks in that configuration.

Let's face it - real railroads don't run trains because the like them, they run trains to make a profit. And adding unnecessary curves, switches, bridges, retaining walls, and especially tunnels don't help at all with that profitability.

So I find myself trying to imagineer  scenery that would give a reason for those curves, or set up a water course (river or creek) in such a way that it made sense for a bridge to be constructed where it is (as opposed to a shorter bridge - or no bridge - elsewhere). Sometimes this leads to moving the tracks, which sometimes leads to moving scenery, etc. etc.

Sometimes this is gets really tough!

So... How do you guys deal with this issue (or do you not bother) when you're planning a layout? Do any of you think of hills and rivers *before* you start with the track?

Call me curious...

Charlie Comstock

I am right there with you on this.

A basic track plan is first. Bench work comes next. Towns and cities are usually on flat ground. Most terrain form is dictated by the track and the grades with elevation changes. Next I look for opportunities in the outlying areas where I can "imaginer" some scenery changes, bridges, rivers, cuts, etc. I try to do this before I lay track in those areas.

[dehusman]

I design the track first since it is the most space constrained (with foreknowledge of how the landforms affect track placement).  Then I consider the scenery and arrange it to support the trackage.

While the landforms guided the railroads, the railroads did an awful lot of dirtwork and built a lot of bridges to conform the land to the needs of the railroad.  There's a reason the railroads were one of the largest consumers of blasting powder and dynamite during th elate 1800's and early 1900's.

Dave H.

[pcarrell]

Welcome to the world of fine layout planning!

Yup, if it's done right, thats the way to do it.

[BCSJ]

Here's a question for you guys...

When I'm designing a trackplan I find myself thinking first of where to put the track. Then I spend time thinking of what the scenery (ok, countryside!) around the tracks would need to be like in order for a railroad to have constructed their tracks in that configuration.

Let's face it - real railroads don't run trains because the like them, they run trains to make a profit. And adding unnecessary curves, switches, bridges, retaining walls, and especially tunnels don't help at all with that profitability.

So I find myself trying to imagineer  scenery that would give a reason for those curves, or set up a water course (river or creek) in such a way that it made sense for a bridge to be constructed where it is (as opposed to a shorter bridge - or no bridge - elsewhere). Sometimes this leads to moving the tracks, which sometimes leads to moving scenery, etc. etc.

Sometimes this is gets really tough!

So... How do you guys deal with this issue (or do you not bother) when you're planning a layout? Do any of you think of hills and rivers *before* you start with the track?

Call me curious...

Charlie Comstock