If you had to restart the hobby from ground zero knowing what you know now what would you do?
Would you:
A: Choose another era? All steam? All early diesel? Both? The 60s? 70s? 80s? 90s? Today?
B. Downsize your "dream" layout and use the "kiss" method?
C. Prototype or freelance?
D. Go with how you currently model?
----------------------------------------------
For me:
A. I would model the 60s or if freelanced 1958/59..
B. I would stick with industrial switching layouts..
C. This is a tough question for me to answer. While I like and did model the C&O, I always had a secrete desire to model either the U.P or M.P-I like M.Ps Jenks Blue scheme.
D. No way! I would cut out the multi road names and return to my roots-one road name prototype or freelance.
As far as freelance I would stay with Summerset Ry with a twist.. I would use two Atlas RS-1s for motive power since the era would be 58/59.. What can I say? I like those West India Fruit & Steamship boxcars with the railroad car ferry on the side.
I would without a doubt keep Kiss in mind and probably stay with simple DC operation since I still enjoy using my Control Master 2 or Control Master 20.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Larry, I wouldn’t change thing. I like my road, looking back. I know my mistakes, but what I like hasn’t changed. I’d do it al over again.
Nice topic Larry! My choices:
A. All though steam has been captering my interest, I would stay with the "90's through today", as I like the big diesels.
B. I did that from the start. I wanted a layout I could finish, to a scenery point, and add and focus on details, after, which continues now on my current layout.
C. I'd stay with freelanced, and also stay with the "proto" freelance, as far as the details go, with the rolling stock and engines.
D. See A. B. & C. above.
Mike.
My You Tube
D. Wouldn't change a thing
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
I wouldn't change a thing.
After a 35 year pause getting back into the Hobby, I was very careful to do everything right this time. I payed close attention to set parameters I learned from members on the Forum here.
Minimum radius.
Maximum grade.
Height and side-to-side clearances.
Minimum turnouts on Main lines.
A straight section equivalent to the longest Rolling Stock on S curves.
I know there's more and I've been moving along rather slow making sure I pay attention to detail getting everything right.
I have too much money invested in what I'm doing.
To be honest, I have had second thoughts. I kind of wish I would have done a Narrow Gauge logging 1879 layout with Shays and other old steam. That might have fit better for my love of a wilderness setting.
TF
I am in an interesting situation, because basically I am in the process of starting over.
.
A: Choose another era? The next STRATTON AND GILLETTE will be the same era (August 3rd, 1954) as the previous one.
B: Downsize your "dream" layout and use the "kiss" method? The next layout will be the second largest SGRR, and have the most turnouts of any of them.
C. Prototype or freelance? Ummm... You all know the answer to this one. If I could sound like Leonidis in "300" I would say "THIS IS STRATTON AND GILLETTE!"
D. Go with how you currently model? All I have done since the last SGRR layout is refine my techniques, including a lot of what I have learned on these forums.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
I started my first layout last year, N Scale, after retiring. I can't give an answer for the choices, but I would definitely change some things.
1. Keep the same era -- mostly modern, but I also have a City of Los Angeles running in 2019.
2. Make the wiring simpler. I learned a lot about wiring and lighting after I had already started, so I kind of have a mishmash of wiring.
3. Convince my wife to let me have more room for a larger layout.
4. Most importantly, plan the layout knowing what I now know about tight turns, long turnouts, and under table switch machines.
York1 John
I would change the benchwork. I recently moved and my big sections of benchwork and an inflexible track plan mean I have a lot of reconstruction to do.
I would improve my operator access and take advantage of what I have learned over the years, mostly from mistakes.
Era and road are fine as I have them. I have a double era layout, so I can run either diesel or steam without making excuses. I might even run some catenary to run electric, too.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Well I just moved and will be starting a new layout soon.
I have modeled the same freelance road, and the same three prototype roads thru interchanges, and the same era, for more than 30 years - no changing now.
And the new layout will have the exact same operational plan and concept as the old layout.
BUT, the new layout has the luxury of about 30% more space. I don't think of it as being "bigger" because I do not plan to add any new features. The new layout will be "more spacious". Curves a little bigger, yards a little longer, mainline a little longer, more room for scenery, a few more industries, and reshaped to fit the space.
Less is not more, more is more. More space, not more complexity.
The complexity of a double ended 8 track classification yard is the same, be it 20' long or 12' long - 20' long is better.........
Sheldon
A: Choose another era? No I still like the late 1960s era. To me that was the "real" transition era from the time of 40' boxcars, riveted tank cars, two bay hoppers and the last ice bunker reefers to the larger capacity and more specialized freight cars that started the path the railroads are still on today.
B. Downsize your "dream" layout and use the "kiss" method? No. Same size but if I was starting over I'd strongly consider moving from HO to N -- indeed perhaps exactly the same footprint but in N so the amoung of compression would be greatly reduced. After all these years in HO I am surprised by how much even a modest amount of compression and compromise annoys me, especially streets and buildings. .
C. Prototype or freelance? Even more strictly prototype since I could make fewer compromises by changing to N.
D. Go with how you currently model? Oh no I'd be much more talented Actually and this might seem to contradict things I've written above, if I started over but changed scales I think I'd need a greater sense of urgency so I could have a hope of seeing it finished. Right now I have no such hope. More RTR, less spending time enjoying myself with kits while needed track work and wiring goes ignored.
Dave Nelson
Larry, For me a timely topic in a way as was recently asked a similar question by a family member. Shortened version of my answer: If the clock were turned back and with a fresh canvas I'd be inclined to model a specific place and railroad. Not that I don't enjoy my freelanced layout with fictional shortline, but more of a "model what ya' know" endeavor, where I lived, worked and played; a sliver of the Santa Fe in Richmond, Calif., era; early 80s before the carfloat apron burned and slip was abandoned.
Thanks and regards, Peter
Same era and location with a better track plan
George In Midcoast Maine, 'bout halfway up the Rockland branch
Nothin, I really think I got it right. I could have made the layout twice the size but thought it might be too large for a one-man show, so I made it 15' x 24' and decided I could expand if I needed to. I can't see that happening.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
In my over 55 years of model railroading, I have built quite a few layouts. each being quite different from the previous one in terms of prototype, era, track plan and even scale. If I were to build another layout, I´d definitively go for option A by selecting another era and prototype. If I had the space and the funds and my dexeterity back, I would built that D&RGW themed narrow gauge layout, set in the 1930s, I have been dreaming about for 45 years now.
I don´t think this will happen, though.
Happy times!
Ulrich (aka The Tin Man)
"You´re never too old for a happy childhood!"
Having change scales, eras, etc more than once I am pretty happy with where I am.
A. Early 1950's
B. Layout (under constructiion) is 13 1/2 x 36 foot with staging in another room. This is a smaller than my orginal idea of 17 x 60, but I once I started actually planning I was able to fit what I wanted in a smaller size. Using DCC with wireless throttles, all wirng is 2 wire bus with drops to tracks. Turnout control is all hand thrown since the layout is walk around.
C. Prototype following the Maryland & Pennsylvania.
D. So yes I am continuing on with the current plan.
A critical part of this for me is that I have accumulated the necessary locomotives and rolling stock over the years in S scale.
If I had to start from what is currently available, I would have to make changes since most of what I have is no longer available at the moment. And at 72 I no longer have the years necessary to accumulate it all again if indeed I could. So if were starting from what is currently available I would probably switch to O scale and free lance a shortline using the Maryland & Pennsylvania as a guide.
Paul
Supposing I had none of my current RR related stuff, at this point, I'd opt out. Yup. I just couldn't push through all the work it's taken to get the layout operational, (benchwork, track laying, control, structure building so far) and acquiring all the equipment again. It's not the cost so much, but the work, covering that same ground again.
I have other model building interests in a larger scale, and would just go with that.
That said, if I could go back 20 years and hand my more bright eyed energetic self a set of guidelines...
Build from the beginning the layout (track plan) I have now, instead of years of evolving it. (Involving considerable reconstructing and even re-reconstructing)
Stay in my current era, mid to late 60s. STOP BUYING STEAM ENGINES!!!!
Stay in current state of mixing prototype with freelance.
I could strongly consider changing locale, from Oregon coast, where I grew up, to Oregon high desert, where I wisely moved to 30 years ago. Easier scenery! Dan
Tinplate ToddlerIf I had the space and the funds and my dexeterity back, I would built that D&RGW themed narrow gauge layout, set in the 1930s, I have been dreaming about for 45 years now. I don´t think this will happen, though.
Ulrich,
When you buy that place in Denmark that will require the addition of a bedroom, why not make the bedroom large enough for a layout too? Okay, I know that would be expensive, but you can always dream!
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
BRAKIEIf you had to restart the hobby from ground zero knowing what you know now what would you do?
Hi Larry,
'My' layout is the one at the club which I designed.
A. Doesn't apply. We allow anybody to run what they want. Eventually we will make some of the scenery interchangeable so we can mimic different eras.
B. I wouldn't downsize. If anything I would make the layout bigger which in fact we have already done by adding a huge lumber industry and a staging track to the original design. However, I would change three things:
1. Instead of starting the design with the mainline I would start with the industrial spurs and sidings. That would allow me to make the spurs and sidings much longer. I tried to get as much mainline as I could into the 20' x 25' available space because I personally like watching trains run, but that resulted in short sidings and spurs. Big mistake, but don't tell anyone at the club that I said that!
2. Eliminate the main yard. After the layout was built we realized that we could put a decent sized staging yard along the wall where the entrance to the clubhouse is. I would use that as the main yard and use the space currently occupied by the main yard for a couple of major industries with long switching tracks. Actually, I can see that happening down the road.
3. I cheated on the reach in distances in a couple of areas despite all the advice saying not to. I chose to follow the multiple examples of people building trackage out of easy reach thinking that if we install the track properly we wouldn't have any problems. I should have followed the first advice. The track is well laid, but that doesn't take into account cranky locomotives.
C. Same as 'A'.
D. Yes, definitely. Our somewhat traditional layout construction methods have worked out really well (3/4" plywood, Homasote, cork). The only 'new' concept that we are working with is Woodland Scenic's Shaper Sheets which have yet to be installed.
I have the 70s. It wasn't easy as I started with a 4x7 and kept expanding and changing.
No.
Proto freelance. I used known places and things but modified them.
Not sure what you mean, but I expect that I would as it has changed over the years.
I started very simply with a small layout and over the years kept expanding it by adding one area after another. And then changing parts of the layout. No, I don't think I would change anything... well. maybe...
Oh, I started this layout in 1983 and kept explanding.
Roger Hensley= ECI Railroad - http://madisonrails.railfan.net/eci/eci_new.html == Railroads of Madison County - http://madisonrails.railfan.net/ =
I just finished track-laying my current layout. It's operational and I am very pleased with the design at this point. Three gauges on one layout - a dream come true for me. I guess the only thing I am wondering about is portability. Although we have no intentions to move, it will be a pain to take the thing apart. The next one will definitely be portable.
Simon
tstageD. Wouldn't change a thing
selectorLarry, I wouldn’t change thing.
Track fiddlerI wouldn't change a thing.
Add me to the wouldn't change a thing camp.
Primarily I stay within a range of mid-1950s - early 1960s era but on occasion I like to run some early Amtrak and Penn Central (even a little ConRail!) stuff and sometimes I'll stick some temporary PRR-style catenary supports in place when I feel like running some GG1s, Metroliners, P5a or New Haven stuff.
I like it ALL!
Sometimes just changing a few details such as vehicles and billboards in a scene can vary the era by a decade or so either way. Mainly I do this for taking photos of specific scenes I like to set up so having various eras of equipment that I can stage on the layout brings me a lot of satisfaction.
Good Luck, Ed
I don't think I'd change my layout plan, scale, era, etc. but I would be much more disciplined in my shopping.
I've been making very slow progress on my actual layout, but I started buying a few years ago and if starting again I'd definitely be more intentional in my purchasing and sticking closer to my 80's-00's era. There's a large quantity of of cheaper 60's and earlier prototype stuff that I've bought and sold off already.
I'm a bargain hunter and yet I had to re-learn the adage that if you just wait around what you want will show up at a bargain price eventually. My standards for detail and prototypicity aren't very high, but there are so many times that I bought two $4-5 cars when I should have just bought one $8-10 car.
I've kept some of the old stuff for fun, especially Chicago area short lines and some passenger equipement. Also, I've been able to modernize a fair amount of rolling stock by weathering it and chopping the roof walks to get it at least into the early 80's. Still, if starting again I'd be much more disciplined and intentional in my buying.
Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad for Chicago Trainspotting and Budget Model Railroading.
gmpullman tstage D. Wouldn't change a thing selector Larry, I wouldn’t change thing. Track fiddler I wouldn't change a thing. Add me to the wouldn't change a thing camp.
tstage D. Wouldn't change a thing
selector Larry, I wouldn’t change thing.
Track fiddler I wouldn't change a thing.
Add me to that list as well. Not because every thing about my layout is perfect; far from it. But because I don't model a specific prototype. I happily include things from many different prototypes and many different locales and eras. I am so lax with the rules that basically there are no rules. And when there are no rules, it makes it kinda hard to cheat.
But one thing I might rethink is the idea of using curved turnouts. I have six Pecos, and both the large- and small radiusses (radii) are plenty generous (in theory), but they are also plenty finicky. I guess a positive benefit is that they force me to double- and triple check both track gauge and wheel gauge. Even as I type this, I have half a dozen cars on the 'penalty box' siding awaiting refitting with in-gauge steel wheelsets. Something I was planning to do anyway, but anyhow . . .
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
BRAKIEIf you had to restart the hobby from ground zero knowing what you know now what would you do? Would you: A: Choose another era? All steam? All early diesel? Both? The 60s? 70s? 80s? 90s? Today? B. Downsize your "dream" layout and use the "kiss" method? C. Prototype or freelance? D. Go with how you currently model?
Larry, this was an interesting, thought-provoking thread. Thanks for making me think about my layout.
Marlon
See pictures of the Clinton-Golden Valley RR
- Continuous running on double mainline
- Less switching
- Larger hidden staging.
FWIW
I like modeling structures and scenery then running trains through as oppossed to fiddle yards etc. I prefer staged hidden unit trains like oil cars, containers, auto racks and passenger that run through my scenes.
Trying to model a container port, auto plant, big city station etc. takes up too much of my layout.
A: If I had A LOT more space and A LOT more $$$ I would model the late 90's/early2000's. I still like the late 70's though.
B. Don't have my dream layout yet.
C. Prototype, without doubt.
D. Sort of, but better.
Harrison
Homeschooler living In upstate NY a.k.a Northern NY.
Modeling the D&H in 1978.
Route of the famous "Montreal Limited"
My YouTube
Interesting question. As I have mentioned before, when I started my layout I bit off more than I could chew. I really didn't know what I was doing. And there was no internet with great forums like this.
But... If I started again it would be the same era, late 1950's. But no steam.
It would be freelance but would include some prototype railroads. I model central Pa so I can run the South Penn railroad and by switching engines and some rolling sock, become the Pennsylvania RR.
Things I would change. Wider walkways. Make sure I can reach everything on the layout from the walkways. I have one section of my layout that will probably never have scenery on it. I can't reach that area without cutting out some of the layout. I'm an idiot.
Use all code 100 rail. It might be my imagination, but it seems I have less trouble with derailments using code 100 switches. And, for me, it is easier to work with. There would be more hand-laid track.
I have 520sq ft of space to work with. This time I would better utilize the space. I have plenty of track and steep grades, but no real yard or staging area. I would also start with a smaller layout with provisions to expand.
Yes, there would be a lot of changes, but some stuff would stay the same.
BRAKIE If you had to restart the hobby from ground zero knowing what you know now what would you do? Would you: A: Choose another era? All steam? All early diesel? Both? The 60s? 70s? 80s? 90s? Today? B. Downsize your "dream" layout and use the "kiss" method? C. Prototype or freelance? D. Go with how you currently model? ----------------------------------------------
A. My era is the 1950s, partly 'cause that is when I grew up, and largely 'cause I like steam and I like diesel and both of them ran together in 1950s. By 1960 most steamers were scrap and EMD Geeps ruled everywhere. And the 40 foot freight cars common in the 1950's don't take up as much space (and track) as the bigger later cars do.
B. My current layout is a thin around the walls design, no peninsulas, that leaves enough space in the downstairs 11x14 guest room to fit in some house guests from time to time. It's big enough for me. It has a single track main line, with two long passing sidings. I am the only operator so I have no need of DCC.
C. Years ago I liked the idea of free lance. For the last few years I am happy with a Boston and Maine prototype. I live in B&M country so there are prototypes to be rail fanned and photoed. I can buy B&M rolling stock all painted and lettered, freelance I have to paint and decal all my home road rolling stock. And there are all those great Paul Dolkos articles on his B&M. Inspirational.
D. I am on my fifth layout, including different three club layouts over the years, that I have built. I am too old the start over again, this layout is going to have to do me. But, if I was to start over I would do things pretty much the same. Perhaps work on doing better scenery, more well painted people, more small details like mailboxes and parking meters. I am in HO, and my eyes are getting too weak to think about going smaller. I like making models, and going smaller than HO is not much fun. HO is big enough, I don't need to go bigger. The base is two inch foamboard with shop made white pine roadbed atop it. Flextrack. #14 AWG power bus. Tortoise switch machines.
David Starr www.newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com
Well, I'm in the process of building a new layout. What I am doing differently is the following:
Staying with a freelanced shortline theme, but update the era to mainly post-2010. I will also run older equipment in a year about 1994; GE uboats, Alco C420s, High Hood GPs, some different hoppers, more boxcars. Operating plans for each era will be about the same.
Benchwork will be more precise. Simply better planned compared to last time, which was sort of planned as I went. Better grade lumber too.
Build and paint the backdrop first, not last. Butting the tabletop up to the backdrop rather than placing the backdrop on top of the table top makes more sense.
U shaped layout will have two broad curves, one 36 inch and the other about 46 inch radius curves. Use #8 turnouts where possible, mainly on the two primary runarounds. Previous layout had some 24 inch radius curves.
Size is about the same. Last layout was around three walls of 30x 13. This one is 24 inch deep shelves around three walls, 13 x 30 x 18. About as big as I ever want to go and still keep it lone wolf manageable, IMO.
- Douglas