One thing that has often bothered me about most model railroads is that they are dead flat. Let's face it, it's very rare to find completely flat landscape unless you are running parallel to the seashore or across the Bonneville Salt Flats. Most of us model neither.
Even relatively flat railroad tracks undulate, with small rises and dips that are easily seen. I can't recall seeing this on any model railroad. Grades too are modelled as completely uniform, while in the prototype there are changes in grade.
The majority of sidings are lower than the mainline, especially when the main is on a fill.
Finally, most tracks are either on a cut or fill, even if they are small.
Has anyone you know of tried to model these things, and if so, did it make a difference is how prototypical the model looked?
Are modeled tracks really dead flat? Even the master, Pelle Soeberg's trackwork shows undulations, rises and dips when viewed from low angles along the length of the track. I think the perception that our modeled trackwork is dead flat comes from the fact that scale sized undulations are difficult to see from the most common viewing angles (mainly from above and looking across the tracks).
You would likely be looking for operating trouble if you attempted to model easily visible undulations since our rigid truck models cannot reliably follow such imperfections. Every axle on the prototype is sprung, usually with enough suspension travel to follow all but really bad track. We can't say the same for our models.
Yes, visible undulations might look good, but they are sure to cause frequent derailments, unwanted uncouplings and other problems.
Hornblower
Whether by design or by accident, my rails have much the same geometry as the real thing. As for looks, I guess I would have to defer to the opinions of others. I think they come close, minus maybe some lineside details.
It is in the smaller and first layouts that one is likely to see much more uniform track being laid, although with more mistakes such as kinks or lack of eased vertical curves into and out of grades. I think that the majority of us do more than to pay lip service to the prototype by the time we get into our second or third design and build. Most of us do try to improve our product, both in terms of realism and fidelity to the prototype, but also in layout for operational purposes.
mjchernThe majority of sidings are lower than the mainline, especially when the main is on a fill. Finally, most tracks are either on a cut or fill, even if they are small. Has anyone you know of tried to model these things, and if so, did it make a difference is how prototypical the model looked?
A large portion of my track is in a cut or on a fill.
The scene at left here is one long succession of alternating cuts and fills.
Some of the fills are tall like this.
Others are low like this. The fill here is only about 1/2" tall.
Sometimes there's a cut and fill in the same location.
I also vary the elevations of siding and spur tracks.
All of these things enhance realism, so are well worth the effort. My variation in track levels causes no operational trouble. Visitors tend to notice too, so there's visual impact that viewers can appreciate.
Rob Spangler
Well, from what I've seen, real railroads work pretty hard at keeping track flat. For the areas that we model a lot - stations, yards, etc they really are pretty flat. Where there is a grade change, it's usually pretty gradual - sometimes hard to spot. Telephoto lens make the track seem to undulate more than being there on the spot. Terrain on the other hand, goes up and down, even in town.
I start out keeping most of my track flat, but for various reasons I get little dips and bumps. I just smooth them out and go on. A few places I'll have a little grade for effect, but not too many. Scenery is is different and seldom even on my layout.
Paul
Rob, I think you pretty much addresses the OPs complaints and nailled it to the wall! Put a fork in it! /topic
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I cross the UP main line a few miles from my home. You can see miles in both directions, flat and arrow straight. I've visited many layouts and other than junior's Plywood Central, most were not "dead flat".
wp8thsubA large portion of my track is in a cut or on a fill.
Wow - I love this very realistic scenery. Great work, Rob!
Andreas
Thank you all for your comments. Rob, your trackword is phenominal! Perhaps I was bit to harsh in my first comments, but I was just trying to get a discussion going. I live in southern New Jersey which is relatively flat. I have railfanned Pavania yard in Camden many times, and I can tell you that there are tracks at slightly different levels, former hump yard nothwithstanding.
Agreed with my far more esteemed friends that creating slight elevations in track is problematic. Who needs more reasons for derailments?
Rob: It's from your layout that I get so energized and wonder when will my layout ever looks that realistic? Don't ever show such great work again or I'll leave MR (just joking!)