1. Describe your room - not just the part of it you can use for your layout, but all of it - location of doors and windows, stuff you need access to and so on. Preferably make a to scale drawing, upload to a photo hosting site and post picture here.
2. Think about what you want to accomplish - do you want to sit back and watch trains run past, do you want industrial switching, do you want to run several times at the same time, location, era, freight or passenger emphasis and so on and so forth.
3. The book on basic track plan design is John Armstrong's "Track Planning for realistic operations".
Good luck, Stein
Unfortunately, realistic operation does NOT grab people's attention, at least not the average non-model-railroader. In watching people's reaction to my layout, I find they like scenery, particularly details. I have a more "urban" layout than most, and I've put interiors in many of my structures. People notice automobiles, probably because they are more familiar with them than the trains.
Another attention-getter is a turntable and roundhouse. It's also a big space user, though, so be wary of how much of your available layout one would use. Bridges and tunnels are also visually interesting, as are water features.
I've got subways on my layout. This meant building one layout on top of another, not in the more standard two-deck method, but literally right on top, so that the floor of the structures on the street level is the same piece of masonite as the ceiling of the subway tunnels. The stations, which are along the edge of the layout and can be seen from the sides, quickly draw the viewer's attention.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
The time era that I'm shooting for is the steam to diesel transition era. I want to be able to run at least two trains at once. Also I want to have some passenger service, but with my main focus on freight.
Just to clarify, operations will NEVER grab people's attention, so don't try to do so with your track plan. Scenery and details grab people's attention, and have only a passing association with operation. Railroads run point to point, so for realism that is what yours should do. You could, as mentioned, have urban theme with lots of passenger movement, crowded track plan and lots of vertical scenery in the form of buildings, flyovers and bridges. OR you could have a logging switchback in the high mountains, with of course, craggy mountains and such. Either layout will work great, but be sure to track plan in accordance with the overall theme of the layout so as not to have a switchback in the city or something like that.
Bottom line is basically don't' try to impress with the operational track plan, nobody cares. The track plan is for YOUR enjoyment, not for visitors. Scenery is for the bang effect.
The Dixie D Short Line "Lux Lucet In Tenebris Nihil Igitur Mors Est Ad Nos 2001"
I agree. People will remark on the tunnels, trains disappearing and reappearing, the little people, the boat out on your lake, bridges, fences. When they come back after a few months, they'll say, "This is new...you didn't have that last time!" pointing to my roundhouse and turntable that have been there all along. Therefore, what appeals to them are all the little neat thingies, and to a surprisingly lesser extent, the moving and sound-equipped locos. I get compliments on my backdrop and scenery, on the structures, but almost no observations on the weathered ballast and track, on how the trains move about on the track plan.
It seems the details about how a railroad operates, as opposed to one's layout, is lost on most observers...they couldn't care less about switching an industry. I also find they don't really care for explanations about the different engines, which is what largely drives the whole experience for me. Their eyes glaze over.
-Crandell
You are looking at two different aspects of layout design:
Non model railroaders will notice good modeling, things that are 'different,' animation and things that look either familiar or outrageous. OTOH, true operators can happily do their thing on the Foam Flats and Plywood Pacific as long as the track plan supports the kind of operation being attempted. The mundanes will ooh and ah if the buildings in your downtown industrial area have fire escapes and lighted signs. Operators won't care if the buildings are sections of cereal box with Post-it signage, as long as the spur is long enough to accept the cars to be spotted there.
My own modeling (track plan and rolling stock) is designed to support the operations of a specific prototype at a specific place and time. The mundanes will have to be happy with the 5-tiered pagoda (with the sumo ring in the courtyard,) the working semaphore signals on the short line and the colorful signage that the vast majority of them won't be able to read.
The main consideration - are you modeling to satisfy yourself, or to impress viewers? The two aren't mutually exclusive, but they do set construction priorities in different orders.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September. 1964)
tangerine-jack wrote:Umm, look here. We can't ALL agree on this topic! When did that start!
It was an accident.....It won't happen again, promise!
I have to agree this time though.
MisterBeasley wrote: Unfortunately, realistic operation does NOT grab people's attention, at least not the average non-model-railroader.
Unfortunately, realistic operation does NOT grab people's attention, at least not the average non-model-railroader.
Ah, I only noticed that he wanted advice on a plan that "utilizes the space well and operates realistically" . I didn't really focus on the "grab people's attention" part.
On the visually impressing for non-modellers part, I agree with the rest of you guys. It's mainly the scenery. Make it busy (or large), have plenty of tunnels or underpasses or bridges, have animated effects, little funny scenes here and there and so on.
There was a corner figure 8 city layout in Great Model Railroads 2004 - made by a retired Army major whose name escapes me for the moment - Kurtz ?
That layout visually looked good. Had a couple of industry tracks, but mainly seemed to be intended to showcase about 40 excellently modelled city buildings while having trans passing through the scene, with quite a bit of the city scene on a raised platform above the track in the corner of the room.
But maybe we still should check with the original poster what he meant when he wrote "operates realistically" ? It is not a given that he meant e.g slowly picking up and dropping off freight cars to industries.
We probably also should ask whether he plans to model in H0 or N scale.
And there are plenty of ways of making things both visually appealing for people watching and interesting to operate for the owner.
How about the concept solution from the layout "Montreal and Northern" in the January 2007 Model Railroader ?
Link to track plan database (MR subscribers only): http://www.trains.com/mrr/objects/pdf/montreal___northern_ry_0107(1).pdf
Based on same underlying concept as MisterBeasley - having two different types of layouts on top of each other. MisterBeasley has his subways running under the ground while his regular trains run on the surface.
The "Montreal and Northern" had an industrial switching layout at level 36", and a plain figure 8 loop without any turnouts or anything running at level 39" - disappearing behind buildings and then crossing over the switching layout below on bridges.
Something for everyone - kids and non-modellers could marvel at the busy scene and the trains suddenly appearing and passing over the scenes, people who liked switching could work the industry tracks below.
Grin, Stein
Well now that we have decided what does and doesn't grab a viewers attention, the main thing that I'm looking for here is a good use of space. I don't just want an oval with 10 zillion sidings. I just want something that is going to be exciting and fun to operate and watch. I'm not by any means looking to have operating sessions or have schedules.... just want pure fun in ho scale.
rickb326 wrote:Well now that we have decided what does and doesn't grab a viewers attention, the main thing that I'm looking for here is a good use of space. I don't just want an oval with 10 zillion sidings. I just want something that is going to be exciting and fun to operate and watch. I'm not by any means looking to have operating sessions or have schedules.... just want pure fun in ho scale.
Maybe some of those layouts could provide some more inspiration for you to figure out what you like and what you dislike about urban scenes.
Stein
Operating is for YOU, whether it is car-card, TT&TO, or just shuffling cars around.
Visitors want all the stuff described above, plus animation. They will call it "cute."
Rick, here is a small bench that was built by a local club in St Louis.
If you do some searching you should be able to come up with there plains. You should be able to run two lines with a little work.
If 8 X 7 is all the room I had to spare I would look at N Scale. Prices is about the same and you can do a lot more in the spaces. HO scale will eat up a 8 X 7 fast. Is the 8 X 7 going to be free standing? If not you will end up hating it. 30 inch is about the max arm reach to work on the bench with some comfort.
One thing you have not told us about is the room you will have the bench in! That can really have a bearing on what you will want to build. Around the room shelf layout might be a better choose.
Cuda Ken
I hate Rust
How is your 8x7 space configured? Do you basically have a room, or part of a room that's 8 feet by 7 feet? In general, for the same amount of square footage, you will get a better railroad by building an around-the-walls configuration than you will by creating a rectangular table layout. You will also avoid the "reach" issues that arise whenever any part of your layout is more than 30 inches from an edge that you can get to.
My layout, for "family" reasons, is a 5x12 foot table. It's on wheels, so I can pull it out from the wall when I need to get to the back half. Overall, I'm pretty happy with it, but it doesn't do much for me operationally. (I have discovered that I'm a "Builder" and a "Scenery Guy," and I'm more interested in the process of making a layout than in operations.) But, my future plans (when part of that "family" goes off to college) should make the layout more interesting operationally - a longer main line, and a second passing siding so that I can run two trains in opposite directions, as long as I time my meets. I also realize that staging should be a major consideration in layout design, not just one of those "nice to have" things.