Flat Earth Envy

[Anonymous]

I'm just thinking out loud and looking to open a dialog, so no one take this as swipe at your modeling. When you look through the magazines and layouts on the web do you ever feel like your own layout would be so much farther ahead if it was all on one level ? Many of the problems I have run into stem from me wanting a multilevel layout with grades, cuts, tunnels etc. But then I see some layouts which look rich in operating possibilites and are completely on one level with the exception maybe of roadbed, Umm...maybe they ae really onto something. In fact I'll probably be putting together a one level layout on a door panel or similar to get my running trains fix, while I build my more involved layout. Anyone else think like this ? Dave

[Jacktal]

I may be wrong here but I'd say that many of these gigantic pikes you see in magazines weren't engineered this way right from the beginning.I'd bet that quite a few have started by modest 4'X8' and have evolved to what they are now.

Planning a huge layout right from the start may in some instance lead to the ultimate goal,but my feeling is that it stands a very good chance to look so overwhelming after a while that even a talented and labouring modeler may get discouraged by the forecast of all the labour to be expected.

Personally,I wouldn't take this route.I'd rather build smaller,reach a certain level of completion,run some trains and then...why not expand?But it's only my thought...for all it's worthed.

[rolleiman]

I guess that would depend on how important being 'far along' is to you.. A lot of basement empire layouts, mine included, are pretty much plywood praries (or plywood mountains).. I wouldn't be in too much of a hurry to get things 'completed' but get them actually running. Work out all of the kinks, fix derail spots, build quickie mockups of scenic features, etc.. Run trains as soon as there is enough track to put them on and power up. Fix problems as they occur.. That includes operational problems..

Don't forget that with some of these magazine and web layouts, even the flat earth ones, they are many years in the making.. John Allens Gorre and Daphided (though definately not flat earth) was over 20 years and the track work was never actually completed.. Even George Sellios F&SM is close to a 20 year build time and it pretty much is flat earth.. Or at least as far as the trackwork is concerned. But Both of these people have/had the luxury of dedicating a lot of full time work to the layouts..

I think the worse thing you can do is plan too big.. That is, you should know what you want to end up with when you begin but build it in sections.. I'd almost guarantee you that your plan will change several times during the build process. I have to agree with Jacktal, start smaller and work your way through to the larger picture.. Otherwise, your interest may burn out. I know mine has several times.. The once planned second level is long gone.

Remember, this is Supposed to be fun!!

Jeff
[:D]

[tstage]

Dave,

I'm glad that you brought up this topic. Let me start out by saying that I surely appreciate the talents and ingenuity of model railroaders who come up with very elaborate layouts - i.e. layouts that are multi-tiered, multi-leveled - full of intresting operations and scenery like tunnels, mountains, etc. However, as beautiful and as ecsquisite as some of these layouts are, I've found myself shying away from mimicking them and settling on a layout that is more gradual and flat in appearance.

I brought up a similar topic over a year ago on this forum about realism. I understand that between this hobby of ours and the limitations of the areas we have to construct our empires in, we modelers are inevitabley forced into making compromises, usually through what's known as "compression". This usually shows up in grades and curve radii. It's just the reality of the constraints that we have to work with and around.

With that said, I've asked myself, "How can I minimize the amount of 'compression' I have on my layout, and stlll make the layout interesting visually and operationally?" Quite a tall challenge. My solution (for now) is to come up with a layout that is minimal in grade and somewhat on level surface That DOESN'T mean that the layout has to be boring or that it can not include mountain scenery and vistas. For now, I am content to leave it "relatively" flat in appearance so that my operations make sense.

Anyhow, I don't mean to pontificate, nor am I putting anyone else or their layout down that does to the contrary of what I have written above. I'll reitereate - It's a challenge! The reality of it all is this: The larger your layout; the more luxury and freedom you have to minimize the compression and maximize the realism. The opposite is also true: The smaller your layout; the less freedom you have and the greater compromises you have to make to achieve a layout that is both believable and interesting.

"Okay, will someone PLEASE send the philosopher to bed, huh?" Dave, good topic, good discussion. Keep it up! [^]

Tom

[MisterBeasley]

My 5x12 layout has a subway line, and then surface trains on a level a few inches higher. The turntable and roundhouse are on an area which is halfway between. There are grades between all the levels.

I wouldn't say this has slowed my progress much. I planned out the grades and height differences very early. One thing I did notice, though, is that some things have to be done "out of sequence" because they will be covered up and difficult to work on later. In particular, the subway tunnels and the open gorge area have to be fully scenicked, wired, signalled and ballasted before the tracks above them can be put down. This requires some advance thought, but it won't take all that much more time.

I'd have to say, though, that progress sometimes stalls while I'm working out a particularly tricky part of the layout. I'll lay something out temporarily, using stick-pins to hold down the roadbed and track, and play with it a while to decide if it's right. Since grades tend to fall into the "tricky" category, they might take a bit longer than the same stretch of flat track.

[IRONROOSTER]

I think that one level for the track is a good way to go, especially if you want to get a layout in operation with a minimum of fuss. Tabletop construction allows for adjustment as you lay the roadbed/track. In fact you can lay the track on the table top and do your planning full size. You're not limited to flat scenery. You can have a section or two with lower benchwork or use foam that can be cut away for below track scenery. You can stack foam on the table top for hills.

The idea that you have to have open grid with risers and tracks on grade came about when the best track plans were those that crammed in a lot of track for a long mainline runs. Grades were needed to get the mainline up and over itself. John Allens Gorre and Daphetid was a 400 ft mainline in an irregular basement area of about 24 x 34. He needed grades.

When we adopt a walkaround design with backdrops and 1-3' depth, shelves or tabletop construction works very well. For a given area you have less mainline but you have a better sense of modeling a part of the transportation system through the use of staging.

You can still have a long mainline by using helixes for double deck or mushroom layouts. But as noted above, this is a lot more complicated and time consuming to construct.

In the end remember to have fun - this is a hobby after all. Many model railroaders have found that a smaller more manageable layout is better.

Enjoy
Paul

[nbrodar]

My three previous layout (each about 20x20)featured grades, and open grid construction. None of them got much beyond track and some plaster hills. The current layout (10x15) is smaller and flat. Using foam board, I've made twice the progress in half the time, of the previous one. While I miss the sweeping curves and up and over of the previous layout, I throughly enjoy seeing my trains run through nearly completed scenery.

Nick

[Anonymous]

Thanks for a very interesting dicussion.

I have built two small N scale layouts in the last year. The one for me to play with and develop my skills is a cookie cutter based design inspired by the early Gorre & Daphetid as seen in '101 Track Plans'. I added a few things here and there, but on the whole the construction method alone was a huge mistake. The time and effort involved for very little reward was satggering. So never again! I would have achieved what I wanted to on a flat earh layout far more quickly and far more cheaply to boot.

Layout #2 was for my daughter (5 years old ). Their were several requirements. "daddy it has to have a tunnel, a castle on a mountain, a dinosaur, a roundhouse and a turntable". So take some styrene foam and away you go. A few weeks later I discovered Woodland Scenics Sub-Terrain, wow, what a difference. That and plaster cloth resulted in a workable layout in just a few days of actual effort. My wife and daughter have done the scenery and it does exactly what we wanted.

The first layout was not fun, the second one was. So despite both having multiple levels, and tunnels I have decided it isn't the plan that makes it fun, it is how you execute it that determines the outcome. I made a simple mistake. I read the wrong books first and I didn't talk to the guys in my local train store. The books I read discussed the benefits of various lumber based labour intensive solutions that may be great if you have the whole basement for your layout and 20 years to build it in. But will a 5 year old wait 20 years? Darn it they won't hardly wait 20 minutes!

My plans for a big layout have gone out the window. I have decided that a smaller layout, built with the right materials and techniques, will give me as much interest, as much operation and far more scenic opportunities. I find that the flat-earth layouts I see in the magazines are usually pretty large and tend to concentrate on aspects of protypical operation. That's not my interest, so, for now at least, it seems that smaller layouts with vertical expansion offers the opportunities that interest my operators - ie mt wife and daughter - and give me the oprrotunity to sit back and smile as I watch them laughing and having lots of fun.

John

[cmrproducts]

When I started building my latest layout a lot of my friends thought that I might be crazy. I had decided to fill up a 25 x 75 basement with a prototypically accurate HO layout doing the CR Lowgrade line from Dubois to East Brady, PA.

As soon as I was able I had some trains running, which kept me from actually going crazy and allowed me to test out my track work. It actually gave me the motivation to keep on adding more of the benchwork and track.

Now 5 years later I have a 1000ft mainline and have put down 2700 feet of track, well over 150 turnouts installed and 800 plus cars operating on this Radio DCC layout.

Yes I only have maybe 10% of the scenery roughed in and none actually completed and the building count is only about 1% of the number needed, as most will have to be scratch built.

I am planning on this layout to be my retirement project and with 3 years left to go I should be well along. The layout has about 5 levels and can keep up to 10 operators busy for hours.

Now to some this would be an overwhelming layout, but I have been a member of a Club and we have built 15 or so layouts, in several different scales, throughout the last 20 years. I have also helped design and build a number of individual’s home layouts, so this layout is just another club style layout but is located in my home basement.

The one thing I learned is to get a train running as soon as possible so you can take a break from the boring work (benchwork, scenery, laying track, wiring, etc.). Not all of us like all aspects of building a layout so getting to run a train on your layout helps provide inspiration to keep on building.

Been there too many times!

BOB H – Clarion, PA

[oleirish]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jdtoronto

Thanks for a very interesting dicussion.

I have built two small N scale layouts in the last year. The one for me to play with and develop my skills is a cookie cutter based design inspired by the early Gorre & Daphetid as seen in '101 Track Plans'. I added a few things here and there, but on the whole the construction method alone was a huge mistake. The time and effort involved for very little reward was satggering. So never again! I would have achieved what I wanted to on a flat earh layout far more quickly and far more cheaply to boot.

Layout #2 was for my daughter (5 years old ). Their were several requirements. "daddy it has to have a tunnel, a castle on a mountain, a dinosaur, a roundhouse and a turntable". So take some styrene foam and away you go. A few weeks later I discovered Woodland Scenics Sub-Terrain, wow, what a difference. That and plaster cloth resulted in a workable layout in just a few days of actual effort. My wife and daughter have done the scenery and it does exactly what we wanted.

The first layout was not fun, the second one was. So despite both having multiple levels, and tunnels I have decided it isn't the plan that makes it fun, it is how you execute it that determines the outcome. I made a simple mistake. I read the wrong books first and I didn't talk to the guys in my local train store. The books I read discussed the benefits of various lumber based labour intensive solutions that may be great if you have the whole basement for your layout and 20 years to build it in. But will a 5 year old wait 20 years? Darn it they won't hardly wait 20 minutes!

My plans for a big layout have gone out the window. I have decided that a smaller layout, built with the right materials and techniques, will give me as much interest, as much operation and far more scenic opportunities. I find that the flat-earth layouts I see in the magazines are usually pretty large and tend to concentrate on aspects of protypical operation. That's not my interest, so, for now at least, it seems that smaller layouts with vertical expansion offers the opportunities that interest my operators - ie mt wife and daughter - and give me the oprrotunity to sit back and smile as I watch them laughing and having lots of fun.

John

JOHN
this is what railroading is all about,I;ve had all kinds of layouts over the past(50YRS)but I'am now working on an flat one,the scenery is a challange on flat tops,I'll have a tunnel or to(that I can reach into)for booboos,but will be fun.
JIM

[rrinker]

The problem is, not that I can run trains, I'm not too motivated to continue building! It might help if I was the only one workign on the layout, because then I could put all my stuff away and clear the table for the next bit of construction. Can't fault my father-in-law too much though, for over 20 years he built models with no place to run them, except a 3' piece of test track. No wonder he's always running trains around the layout.

--Randy

[ARTHILL]

A lot depends on how much you like scenery. That is what I like to do, so I have little track(compared to others) and just enough opperation to run a few trains. But I have enough scenery opportunities to keep me going for years. When I look at my old pics of G&D I see the mountains and the bridges and the clever scenes with the interesting people. That is different from most of the forum regulars, but I never did a flat layout and would be bored if I did. I like the threads about making nice looking stuff and my favorite is the photo fun threads. To each his own and I appreciate all of you.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the replies. Mine has grades & cuts & bridges courtesy of Unitrack & Woodland Scenic Risers and grades. Before I had to move it was pink foam paradise but the grades all worked no derailments. I'm trying to model Anthracite Coal country where I grew up. Even there, the killer grades were like 2.5%. I tried to keep mine to 3%. What I was thinking of in my origional post are layouts I see that are basically cork & rail , 0% grade and minimalist scenery, but that look like there are plenty of operational challenges. Sort of like the Cat Mt that was in GMR 2003 or 4. Some one hit it right when they said with a flat layout you can do your planning in real space real time, especially with Unitrack. Then when you like it, secure it down.

I do like the idea of no grades, but having the scenery around it dip and rise to give the feeling of Mt Railroading. I guess if I was starting over from scratch I would take the advice of having my first try 0 grade, then move on from there. But I've already taken a big step towards grades, so onward and upward for me, Once I get the space to put it. And I'm not talking huge here. Shelf layout in an L 10' x 10' Dave

[palallin]

Certainly, prototype roads envy flat earth layouts: they'd surely prefer to avoid cuts, hills, tunnels, bridges . . . So just think of your layout as having a lucky, well-engineered prototype!

[Seamonster]

Well, I'm glad to see I'm not alone. Mine, too, is a "plywood prairie." Heck, I live on the prairies, so it's what I see all the time and what I know best. I love looking at pictures of those beautiful layouts with mountains and canyons and trestles and bridges, but when it comes to trying to build such things my mind goes blank. Oh well, a sheet of plywood is easy to put down, but I plan to use foam slabs when I expand my layout, so maybe I'll try a few small landforms, but it's still going to be a "flat earth" for me.

[nbrodar]

My layout has no grade, but I've given the impression of a grade, with the rising and falling of the scenery. No the trains don't pass over each other, they still cross valleys, and creeks and tunnel through mountains.

Nick

[orsonroy]

It's all just a matter of how fast you can work once you get some time alloted. I had a three level layout until I had to move last month. I started construction of my 8x25 monster in the fall of 2002, and by March of this year had the benchwork, backdrops, mainline, most sidings, and about 20% of the scenery done. I think on average, I had about two hour's a week invested in the layout. You just have to work on the layout with a definite plan. When I wandered into my layout room, I knew what I was going to work on, and had the materials lined up. And while major construction was going on, I'd also be working on some scenery additions, while waiting for things to dry, etc. Sure, I'd head down there to run trains occasionally, but even then, I'd be worrking on scenery or laying a spur while I was running trains.

It took me about 10 hours to break up and add to the dumpster, including time to salvage track...

[Anonymous]

I have 3 small layouts: 5x8 "O", 4x6 Christmas "O", and 2x4 "N"...all flat. I like watching trains go-round, and it has'nt gotten "old" for me yet. They are all "dense population areas" since I like building structures and like to include as many 1950's cars as possible. The 5x8 has a large annimated circus/ammusement park area.
With very small layouts, you pretty much have to make a choice...scenic country or urban, "operational" with lots of track/switches or 1 or 2 ovals with more room for structures. Of course, I could convert the 5x8 to "N", but each gauge has its plusses and minuses, so I'll stay put.

[jacon12]

I must say I'm a little surprised at the number of respondents that are doing 'flat' layouts. As many of you know, I've only been in the hobby for less than a year or so and this is as far as I've gotten...

I'm resisting the urges to do grades, prefering to keep it on the level and try to make the track 'look like' it's on grades by cutting away or mounding up the foam. I'm not good at trackplans on paper so, as you can see, the track planning is happening in a one to one ratio. Besides, I'm 62 and I'd like to see this this at least 1/2 finished before I'm too old to run it! [:D]
Jarrell

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tstage
The reality of it all is this: The larger your layout; the more luxury and freedom you have to minimize the compression and maximize the realism.

But there is a limit to how much maximized realism one wants. A layout large enough to model even a small town 100% to scale would be very boring to operate. Imagine running at realistic speeds and it taking 30-45 minutes to pull into a siding, run around the train, and spot one car at an industry. On a normal 1-10 fast clock on a compressed length siding the same move would take about two minutes. Any longer and the novelty of it vanishes, the mind wanders, and it becomes boring and work. Sort of like taking Microsoft Train Simulator out on the Nebraska plains and running down 200 miles of straight level track at 50 mph .... yawn.

[Anonymous]

Who's got room for grades? I've got a 4'6" x 1' switching layout. The only grade comes from the shelf not being quite level.

I could see myself building new switching layouts as I get bored with the last, and eventually stringing them all together with stretches of mainline, when I finally have that kind of space. I doubt I'd bother with any kind of grade, though. The only reason I could see for it, is if I decided to place one town behind and above another.

[dgwinup]

QUOTE: Originally posted by palallin

Certainly, prototype roads envy flat earth layouts: they'd surely prefer to avoid cuts, hills, tunnels, bridges . . . So just think of your layout as having a lucky, well-engineered prototype!

Actually, the railroads preferred the cuts, hills, tunnels, bridges, etc. What they REALLY hated was GRADES! Railroads did everything they could to avoid grades. Many railroads eventually built another line with shallower grades and abondoned their original track. It was cheaper to run longer distances with fewer engines and crew!

So why should we modelers be any different? Did you really want to have to triple-head a 10 car train because you used a 4% grade? How prototypical is that?

On small layouts with tracks crossing over one another, we sometimes don't have the luxury of eliminating grades. That's one of our compromises. Where we have the ability to do so, our grades should be limited.

In the real world, the railroads built as flat as they could. It was the SCENERY that rose and fell, not the rail lines!

My current little layout has a few steep grades. It limits the length of trains, but then again, the size of the layout limits the length of trains! My next layout will have limited grades. Yes, it will take up more space, cost more to construct and take longer to build. It will also be more like the real railroads. The scenery will change above and below the tracks, but the tracks will remain constant. I'll be able to run longer trains with less power on the head end.

Quote:
Posted: 20 Oct 2005, 14:18:46
My layout has no grade, but I've given the impression of a grade, with the rising and falling of the scenery. No the trains don't pass over each other, they still cross valleys, and creeks and tunnel through mountains.
Nick

Nick emphasizes my point. No grade, but the scenery changes.

If I thought I could do it, I'd build the layout without trains, just scenery. Then I'd have to engineer a rail line the same way the railroads did in the first place. Sort of "prototypical engineering"!

Darrell, a little crazy, but quiet...for now

[oleirish]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jacon12

I must say I'm a little surprised at the number of respondents that are doing 'flat' layouts. As many of you know, I've only been in the hobby for less than a year or so and this is as far as I've gotten...

I'm resisting the urges to do grades, prefering to keep it on the level and try to make the track 'look like' it's on grades by cutting away or mounding up the foam. I'm not good at trackplans on paper so, as you can see, the track planning is happening in a one to one ratio. Besides, I'm 62 and I'd like to see this this at least 1/2 finished before I'm too old to run it! [:D]
Jarrell

Jarrell
That looks great,I see you hav'nt let any grass grow under your feet!!Here is a shot looking down main street on my flat layout


JIM

[Anonymous]

I am a fond admirer of John Allen and the G&D, however one thing that always "bothered" me was four main lines one over the other on the side of the mountain. John followed the "nolix" design method because I don't believe the helix had been conceived at that time. John built his "empire" in his space. Granted it took twenty years to get to the point it did at the time of his death;however, he started with a small 4 X6 size layout and then incorporated it into a larger plan.
What each of us does in our layout building is affected by the same things the prototype was faced with a space determined in our case by the dimensions of the room, basement, or what ever to accomplish a "mision". The elements of that are determined by what we have conceived for our empire. That could be an oval to "run" trains on chasing the caboose, or a multilevel monster we need a crew to help build and operate. Whether that is "flatlander" country or a mountain bridgeline like the G&D depends on what we start with and where we either want to get to, or can get to. You can plan and start building a basement filling plywood or foam monster that will have a golden spike cerimony in the next millenium. The "rail road"pat of the layout will come one section of track, turnout, structure and scenery at a time. The journey is limited by the fun of getting there and the obsticales we will each encounter along the way and the talents we bring or develop to make the layout live. There may be a great many long tunnels to hide the recrossing of the space rather than four stacked lines on the side of the mountain on my empire. But that is just me. After all is said and done this is a hobby for the majority of us, and hobbies are supposed to be the fun part of the journey, flatland, mountain or multi tiered.
Will

[jacon12]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oleirish

QUOTE: Originally posted by jacon12

I must say I'm a little surprised at the number of respondents that are doing 'flat' layouts. As many of you know, I've only been in the hobby for less than a year or so and this is as far as I've gotten...

I'm resisting the urges to do grades, prefering to keep it on the level and try to make the track 'look like' it's on grades by cutting away or mounding up the foam. I'm not good at trackplans on paper so, as you can see, the track planning is happening in a one to one ratio. Besides, I'm 62 and I'd like to see this this at least 1/2 finished before I'm too old to run it! [:D]
Jarrell

Jarrell
That looks great,I see you hav'nt let any grass grow under your feet!!Here is a shot looking down main street on my flat layout


JIM

Jim, I wish I was that far along. What all type business or industries do you have so far?
Jarrell

[oleirish]

Jarrell
Lets see? there is an hard ware store,a barber shop,a cafe,antique shop,an lawiers office,I have an post office allso.I have more stuff but not placed them just yet!Good thing you can't see the other end[:D][:D][8)][;)][:-,]This is taking me a while to get finished,but that is good[^][:D]The big building on the left is an factory that builds and repares Locomotives.the trees help brake everything up a little.You are doing fine on yours just keep it up!!more pictures later.
[8D][:)]
JIM

[tcf511]

My layout is a flat earth look. It is a 14 x 16 around the room with a peninsula. I wanted to get something started and to be able to run some trains. BLI locomotives lose something when you only have them on a 3 foot section of track. My carpentry skills and collection of power tools are both nil. I used Sievers benchwork and 1/2 inch plywood. I was running trains on it within the month from when I started. I do have one 16 inch exception where I dropped the top out for a river gorge and bridges. If I had to spend the time trying to cut out the track pattern, use risers, etc. I would never get done. I like to think I know my limitations so my layout is short on carpentry and long on scenery but a lot of fun.

[orsonroy]

Somewhere online, I found the ultimate flat earth layout, and it's BIG. To get trains running and have some fun with this hobby, this modeler created a 15x20 (or so) around the walls layout that's only 12" wide. The trackplan is basically a big mainline circle, a couple of passing sidings, one dummy interchange, and maybe six spur sidings. No grades, hills, cuts or tunnels, and the layout actually looks pretty good.

[Anonymous]

jacon12 , great work! man that inspires me.

i love hills mountains and tunnels . why because there are none here in florida. i want them but know that ill be on the flat . hopefully not forever as i really want to do a steep grade logging scene.

but for now and just getting back after so long gone from the hobby . i just gotta run a train

the uncertainty of my ability to deal with my N scale with my sight issues concerns me much. and surely it will dictate what i try to build. even if it ends up with me just having a big loop with a few manual turnouts john will be a happy feller.

i know by following the wisdom that always in here and also being able to ask any and all things that might confront me . one day ill have me a RR again.

and to stay on topic (not my nature i find) flat is prototype in this land of sand i reside in

much thanks as always , John

[Anonymous]

One way to add some "tunnel/ mountain" relief to your flat layout is to buy 2 to 4 of those inexpensive styroform tunnels, flush-cut some of the ends, and use a water-based glue to join them. Fill any joints if needed, and cover with water-based paint. Works for me, and I can pick it up for track cleaning. Just make sure you use materials that won't attack the foam. Save the cut-off pieces for testing.