Layout design... when to call it quits? (long message)

[Anonymous]

I got a copy of Atlas's Right Track software, and while I'm building and obtaining materials for my benchwork, I've been designing a rather complex layout. It's around the walls (20'x17' dogbone with a 4x8 peninsula) I've got all the benchwork finished, minus the plywood and foam tops, but the track planning is getting to me.

However, not in the usual way. I'm not frustrated with the inability to come up with things, it's actually quite the opposite. My first design was a simple continuous single track mainline loop (back side would be hidden) and had several industry sidings in different 'towns', and was loosely based on my local CSX mainline. Then I picked up a copy of the January MRR, saw the Turtle Creek Central, and thought that would be a great track plan for the 4x8 peninsula, and just incorporate it as a smaller 'layout within a layout' that can be operated independently of the rest of the room. I really liked that idea, so with a few modifications to add interchange spurs back to the rest of the layout, that part of my design was pretty much complete. Then I used two different 2 foot wide switching layout ideas from MRR's "48 Top Notch Track Plans" book (specifically page 15, and page 19) and then after extensive modifications, incorporated those into the sides of the layout.

So the plan was fairly good in my opinion... until I started thinking about staging, and adding alot of mainline traffic trains while i'm working switching manuevers. I figured one simple way to get multiple mainline trains was to double track. So I did. More modifications. Then I realized I'd never get the trains to pass each other on 22 and 24 inch minimum curves. So I expanded to 30 and 32 inch curves. Staging was still a problem, and I toyed with the idea of an under the layout staging area, but quickly tossed that idea since I'm using low (38 inch) layout height, so I can sit in my office chair to run the layout by computer, and roll around the room to still be right in the action. So I shortened one of the dogbone loops, and added a 6 track staging yard at the edge of the layout, which I was going to hide with a backdrop. Then I changed my mind again, and decided to incorporate the yard into the layout as 'one end' of a primarily off the layout double ended yard. Then I added switchbacks so I could have three more yard tracks, and added two engine servicing tracks, and on the other side of the main, added a 6 track car servicing facility (Walther's Backshop and Carshop are going to go there). So then I nixed the switchback idea, since it'd be really hard to get MU'd diesels through the switchbacks if I had more than two engines, and redesigned the yard as a 10 track yard, with only one switchback that reversed into the engine service tracks.

So once I 'thought' I was happy with that, I remembered I hadn't incorporated any reverse loops or wye's for turning trains or locos. So the design changed again. I added bi directional spurs onto the TCC peninsula so I could at least turn my locos (even though the curves of the TCC peninsula are 18" minimum and I won't be able to run big diesels very far onto this stretch of layout except to turn them on the wye). and added a reverse loop section where the mainline is closest to it's return side.

Using the Right Track "List of Required Materials" feature.... I'm up to 44 #4 switches, 36 #6 switches, and 26 bumpers (thus, at least 26 dead end industry spurs or yard tracks), and that's not to include all the flex track I'll be using to connect everything.

I'm getting happier and happier with the design, because complex is my middle name, and if I make something too simple, I'll get bored with it too easily. Problem is, I'm addicted to making changes! lol When should I call it quits and just stick with one design and stop modifying it?

I'm including a link to the .ral file from Right Track of this track plan for those of you who have Right Track and would like to see what I've come up with. It's on my briefcase page of Yahoo.

Thanks for listening to my babbling. :-)

http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/40ff0c1f_17710/bc/My+Documents/TCC6-1-05UpdateWye.ral?bfBpGoCBIRDECGyf

[Leon Silverman]

I think you lost site of an operational layout. You say you want to be able to operate the entire layout from your computor. By your own count, you have 80 turnouts. With that many turnouts, and who knows how many feet of track, you will be spending all of your time on maintenance, not operating the layout.
One other suggestion, with a basic layout hieght of 38", maybe your staging should be above the layout rather than below.

[orsonroy]

The nice thing about layouts is that you can rebuild them, or at least modify the trackplan as you go. I actually prefer figuring out the "footprint" of the layout, laying ONLY the mainline (to get trains up & running) and figuring out the rest of the plan later.

Sometimes things that look good on paper don't look good in reality. Sometimes they don't work at all! And sometimes, your preferances change, meaning a major redesign partway through.

Sounds like you've got new layout excess syndrome. I'd just get the mainlines finished (double track mains aren't so bad) and take a step or three back to just enjoy and think. What do you want to DO with your layout? Lots of mainline running? Lots of switching? An even balance of both? Do you really NEED staging, or are you just following the herd? (I personally LIKE staging on almost any layout, but that doesn't mean it's really necessary). Are you more into passenger trains, freight cars, or engines? (which will determine how you use your "yard" space).

Layouts are a very personal thing, but they can become crowded, confusing, and a track nightnare very quickly. For every nicely designed and smooth flowing layout design I've ever seen in person, I've seen 2-3 really horriffic layouts. Unless you really LIKE short sidings and a gazillion switches everywhere, don't fall into that trap. On my current layout, besides my staging yards and one online classification yard, there isn't a single town site with more than 10 switches in it, and most are 3 to 5. I've got lots of track, but it's not complex, it's fun to play on, and anyone can enjoy it's "sincerity" (to paraphrase Shultz).

[ukguy]

Your space is pretty much the same as my new one and you seem to be thinking very much along the same lines I was. With the mainline run, layout within a layout on the peninsular(mine will be logging), independant running while switching and the around the walls dogbone(mine was to compensate for a funky door combination in the corner). I too am in the same boat of adding a little here and there, ie staging, yard..... I have now decided to change the dogbone to a straight around the room, with a hinged section where the doors are for access, instead of the return of the dogbone being hidden(and thus the trains) I much prefer this Idea, also I will nolonger need a complete double main although some will remain, it will then veer off to another destination through a tunnel, leaving a single main the rest of the loop. The diverging track will either dogbone back on its self or reapear somewhere further down the mainline, probably elevated to give a distinction. Who knows how this will develop but I can relate totally to your situation. I am concentrating on the mainline for now and just 'sketching in' the yards/staging/sidings, I know roughly where they are going and once I have definately decided on a mainline or 3 they will be added.
I know this didnt help much/at all but hopefully now you'll know you're not the only one !!

Have fun & be safe
Karl

[Anonymous]

Well, I don't want my layout entirely computerized, just the CTC signals, and perhaps block occupancy detection, and transponding, to know where exactly each loco is at a given time (digitrax dcc when I get to that point). As far as the switching goes, I've tried to keep the actual flow of traffic fairly simple, just included alot of related industries (coal mine serves power plant, quarry serves marble distributor, concrete processing, and asphalt plant, concrete processing serves concrete distributor, grain elevator serves feed mill, feed mill serves dairy, dairy serves town, etc) and so the actual switching will be fairly straightforward. Yes, I'll have tons of switches, but the only ones that will be motorized (at least at first) will be the ones I can't easily reach, and eventually all of them will be dcc controlled. I'm very interested in lots of different rolling stock, lots of switching, and keeping myself from getting bored. If that means lots of maintenance, and little operation, so be it, so long as I have enough stuff to do to keep me interested and busy.

Eventually, I'd like everything to be as automated as possible, and from a wiring standpoint, I'm planning for that from phase one. As far as the mainline first idea, that's actually what I had in mind, as far as actual track laying. Right now I'm just going nuts trying to plan for everything on the track planning software, and I know once I actually get to laying track, things may be alot different. Using the Turtle Creek Central plan and extension will help me alot though, because that's a plan that's actually been built, and I know I can at least get trains running on it first. So that's step 1. I was primarily just wondering if I'm the only one that goes nuts trying to do EVERYTHING possible on a layout from the getgo. lol

[Anonymous]

I think you need to call it quits WHEN you feel comfortable with the design, but NOT before. You may have to go into therapy a couple of times before this happens though....

I ran into the same thing with my layout, but I hadn't even started building the benchwork, as I didn't even have the room finished yet! I spent the better part of three years tinkering with the design. It started as an easy U-shaped layout and slowly morphed into a massive spaghetti bowl. I eventually hit the point where I decided to throw all of the designs out and start with a fresh sheet of paper incorporating all that I had learned over 2 years of tinkering and designing. You have to learn both layout design fundamentals as well as learn what YOU want in the layout. Just because someone else created a layout design doesn't mean that's wheat you want, but you CAN borrow a bunch of the design philosophies and basic to incorporate it into your layout.

The design I'm building is MUCH simpler, an around-the-room instead of a "U", and incorporates more operational possibilities. I have 27 turnouts on the design, a long main-line continuos running with two long sidings, and a medium length "local" track that connects to the yard, with turnouts between the main line and local tracks. I can continuously run two trains while building up a third tran, while having two more trains parked on sidings. I''ve borrowed many different layout designs, but my design is original enough that nobody can tell where the borrowed design elements are located.

I'd say keep on designing, and even temporarily lay down some track to see how it'll all fit together! Some people just like the design part so much they never really get around to building their layout!

Mark in Utah

[cacole]

Be aware that Atlas Right Track software is not accurate in its scale dimensions. I used their software to design a 20x40 foot HO scale club layout. When we began to actually lay track, we discovered that nothing fit as designed because of the lack of accuracy of the software's scale grid, so a lot of adjustment was necessary as we went along.

[Adelie]

I'm the wrong one to ask![:D]

I started construction when the basic shape of the layout was established. With the benchwork going well, I built the staging area (under the layout) as soon as that part of the plan was solid. Staging areas are functional, not imaginative, so that part was easy.

I have the mainline designed (folded dogbone along the wall), and have the main yard designed. I started laying subroadbed based on the plan, figuring if I decided to change something, tearing out 1/2" plywood with pencil marks was easy, and certainly less expensive than if it had roadbed and track on it. Construction has about caught up to the solid part of the design. In fact, I am building a section of subroadbed (at a town with a spur and passenger layover track) that was redesigned hours before construction began.

Most of my spurs are not designed, but will be placed in at the designed turnout and then put in by eye.

So when do you call the design phase complete, you ask? Probably just before the golden spike gets driven. Redesign may then begin.

[MisterBeasley]

How long have you been in the design phase, and have you actually started building benchwork yet?

I spent a lot of time with Atlas Right Track in the beginning, too. I totally tossed a couple of designs before things were going the right way. After a while, though, I realized that I was just procrastinating, and it was time to take the back seats out of the minivan and head out to Home Depot. Once I glued the first piece of foam on to the frame, I had no more desire to go back to the drawing board.

On the other hand, I was very happy that I had spent a lot of time in design. While I've made a few changes, and nothing fits exactly the same way, the plan still matches the track pretty well. With about a third of my track laid, and the rest sitting around loosely on the foam, I'm still very happy with what I had on paper.

[WilmJunc]

jshrade:

I know that this doesn't answer your question, but I'm curious how many hours per week that you expect to work on your layout. It sounds like an extemely large undertaking for one person. It almost sounds the size of a small club layout. I'm just wondering if you would want to construct it in phases so that it doesn't get overwhelming.

[Vampire]

I'm in this club as well. I began designing mine in 2002. WIth limited space for a layout I came up with a 3-level L-shaped design: Level 1 for staging, Level 2 for the main level and Level 3 for the branch line up to the coal mines/logging area. I've tweaked my design many times over the past few years, trying to simplify construction, correct flaws caused by naivety and add/remove things as my desires have changed. I've also designed the layout as modules that can be taken apart with minimal damage when the inevitable moving day comes. This modular approach made construction planning more challenging and I've gone back over it many times, trying to think of ways to simplify the design even more and thus speed the construction process.

I did take my first big step recently by building a mock-up of the upper level helix and approach (Levels 2-3) on the floor of my workshop and running trains on it, testing whether the grade was too steep even for the short trains I'd planned for. The grade is about 5.5% and trains, pulled by 3-truck Shays and Heislers, only average about 4-5 feet in length (about 7 36' hoppers plus caboose & locomotive). Good news is, it works! I'll need to add a little weight into the loco's but it's definitely do-able. I'm also amazed at how much enjoyment I get from watching these little trains climb around that short spiral of track on plywood. Even my non-rail girlfriend thinks it's neat!

Probably the next thing to do is to mock-up some of the trackage in the city scene to make sure it all fits as planned. Any issues I encounter there will help me make final adjustments to the overall track plan. Soon, very soon, actual layout construction may begin... provided I don't get bogged down with a home remodelling project!

[vsmith]

My layout is small 8 x 20, in large scale which means space it at a premium, I have redesigned it now 4 times with major builds, several smaller tweeks, all in the name of providing the most optimal layout.

Suffice to say, I dont know if you'll ever stop designing unless you really decide exactly ehat to want to accomplish, and then work towards the most optimal solution. It has taken me 3 years, and only now after an awful lot of trail and error am I happy with the general layout. It still might change depending on the circumstances.

It sounds like you started too big, I would seriously look at starting with a simpler general arraingment, your CORE track so to speak, get that up on running, than add all the extras like switches, sidings etc. Otherwise I fear that a layout this size and complexity, trying to do it all at once will end up frustating you right out of the hobby.

[jfugate]

Jsh:

In reading your post, I have to ask: how many other railroads have you operated on? Have any of these railroads done prototype-based operating sessions? Have you built any modules or small switching layouts?

It amazes me how many people set out to design their dream layout with little or no hands-on experience. Paralysis by analysis often results with the person making endless changes to their track plans, and never quite sure what they really want.

By gettng even 6 to 12 months of hands on experience building something and operating on it and other layouts, you will learn a ton and will have a much better idea what you like and don't like.

If you truly like computers as much as you say you do and you love to desiging more than building, then perhaps you need to change your focus. Maybe something like the Trainz computer program is more suitable for you. It runs on a computer, and you can design fully scenicked layout designs and run trains to your heart's content with Trainz.

Deluxe virtual railroading! Virtual railroading may be more to your liking than designing and building something, only to tear it out in a year or two because you want to try a completely different design.

[knewsom]

QUOTE: Originally posted by orsonroy

I actually prefer figuring out the "footprint" of the layout, laying ONLY the mainline (to get trains up & running) and figuring out the rest of the plan later.

Sometimes things that look good on paper don't look good in reality. Sometimes they don't work at all!

I agree with OSONROY on this one. I have spent an awful lot of time designing and redesigning my layout, and I finally got frustrated because I was not spending any time building enough of the layout so that I could run trains. I finally decided to just focus on my mainline, and once that is completed (hopefully this weekend) I will look at the space I have left and determine what spurs and sidings I want to add. I have decided on the industries that I want, I just need to make sure they will fit in certain areas of my layout. I have an 18 1/2' x 14' area for the layout and there were so many possibilities that I just could not decide on one.

[Anonymous]

I have been designing layouts with graph paper and a pencil for many years. I still aint got it set.

However...

A few wants and dislikes have set in for me.

It is best to stick what you enjoy most. For example some folks dont want to be threading thru a million switches just to get onto the main only to find one switch not thrown properly.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by knewsom

QUOTE: Originally posted by orsonroy

I actually prefer figuring out the "footprint" of the layout, laying ONLY the mainline (to get trains up & running) and figuring out the rest of the plan later.

Sometimes things that look good on paper don't look good in reality. Sometimes they don't work at all!

I agree with OSONROY on this one. I have spent an awful lot of time designing and redesigning my layout, and I finally got frustrated because I was not spending any time building enough of the layout so that I could run trains. I finally decided to just focus on my mainline, and once that is completed (hopefully this weekend) I will look at the space I have left and determine what spurs and sidings I want to add. I have decided on the industries that I want, I just need to make sure they will fit in certain areas of my layout. I have an 18 1/2' x 14' area for the layout and there were so many possibilities that I just could not decide on one.

Thats what I said too, get the mainlines down then tackle the secondary stuff [;)]

[mcouvillion]

jshrade,

It sounds like you have some interesting ideas for a layout, but with the complexity and extent you propose, have you stopped to get an idea of what you have designed is going to COST to implement? The track alone is going to be a bundle, but the electronics to automate the turnouts (switch motors, connections, electronics are approximately $100 per turnout, 80 x $100 = $8000, just to automate turnouts!), structures, ballast, wire, etc. You'll never get to run the layout, you'll be building forever! One of the earlier posts suggested getting the mainline in and then adding the rest later. Sounds like a great idea. I'm sure you will change your mind as your railroad develops and you get to actually see what you have visualized in your mind. The realities of your pocket book may make you give up after a great start if you attempt too much right off the bat. I suggest running a single main around the whole layout and focusing on one manageable area initially. Get it detailed and operating like you want, then review the time and costs involved. Then, do another manageable area. (If you look closely at the layouts featured in Model Railroader, very often there are significant unfinished areas on the track plan, and you only see the super-detailed finished areas.) I think you'll find your own level of completeness this way.

Best wishes on building your dream railroad.

Mark C.

[cuyama]

This may not address jshrade's specific problem, but many folks whose designs I've seen are suffering from CTSD. That is, "CAD Too Soon Disease".

Oh, it begins innocently enough ... just trying out a few general concepts in RightTrack or XtrkCAD. Software's free, you know? What harm could it do?

But then you're hooked. Pretty soon you're sneaking in a spur here and a siding there when you think nobody's looking ... hitting the staging track design pretty hard at lunch hour. And at night, while the wife and kids are snug in their beds, skulking back into the den for "just one more" pass at the yard configuration.

Meanwhile, your vision begins to suffer. Layout vision, that is. The vision of the overall concept ... what your railroad is in business to do, the kind of customers it serves, the types of trains it runs, the sorts of interchanges it offers, the real or imagined geography it serves. Yes, your long-range vision goes first -- and then you awake one morning to find yourself buried in a sea of myopic trackwork complexity.

Sound like anyone you know?

Seriously, I think it's easy to move too quickly sometimes through the vision and conceptual stages and straight into yard ladders and such with CAD. A number of people I know have really benefited from a step back to reconsider the overall picture. Most often, this has resulted in a very significant change in track plan because in the porcess of all the CAD work, things had drifted away from the original vision. I know that "withdrawal" from that perfect CAD rendering is not easy when you've put dozens of hours into it ... but the long term benefits of a more workable and achievable concept and scope is worth it.

So often I see beautiful CAD renderings of poor designs. I'm not against CAD, of course. I spend a lot of time using MRR CAD (3rd PlanIt in my case). But that's only after the client and I have really nailed down the overall concepts and "reason for being" for the layout.

Sometimes added complexity brings more operating enjoyment and sometimes it brings frustration and unreliability. A strong overall vision and concept can really help here by focusing the complexity in support of rational train and traffic flow planning. The track plan follows from the operational plans. Even if the layout is designed more for model railfanning than for formal ops, the consistency of the overall vision and concept simplifies the decision-making process.

This is also an area where plugging in track configurations from published layout plans can help or hurt. If not chosen carefully, these segments may not work together as planned. Each was designed to serve a particular concept and vision. Together, they may not support the desired operations and atmosphere. And each may not "leverage" the rest of the layout well since they were designed independently. For example, the 18" radius of the Turtle Creek Central may not really fit with your overall concept as well as something else in that same space might. There's nothing magical about published track plans -- they may or not work well with the rest of what you are planning.

A count of eighty turnouts so far suggests significant complexity. I've designed layouts in similar and larger spaces using fewer turnouts that the layout owners find very satisfying. I don't use RTS, so I can't see what you are talking about, but I'll submit that it's only worth it if this complexity supports a defined concept and logical operations flow (IMHO).

Again, this may not apply to jshrade, but I see CTSD a lot of the time. Don't wait until your model railroad friends call for an intervention session. "CAD Too Soon Disease" is a creeping curse.

But to answer jshrade's question of "when should you stop" ... I think the answer is related to the concept and vision. Is the layout concept itself logically sound and reasonably plausible to you? Does the CAD rendering match your overall vision -- or has there been "drift"? Do the parts work smoothly together in support of your ops plan? Have you addressed reliability ssues with sufficient access and elimination of unworkably tight radii and s-curves? I may be the only one who thinks so, but a step back to consider the overall concept is the very best way to know if you're done.

Regards,

Byron
http://www.modelrail.us

[MisterBeasley]

A-yuh. There is NOTHING like actually laying down the track. That's when a plan becomes a layout. In my own experience, as described earlier, the cure for CTSD was to simply push my chair back so my arms were no longer long enough to reach the keyboard. (Yeah, OK, I've got a wireless mouse, but you get the idea.)

Actually, I admire a grand master plan, just like I'm jealous of the space you've got available to build it in. IMHO, the next step is to pick a section to start building. No matter how many layouts you've built before, you will learn something new from this starting point.

Or maybe you're just one of those modellers who absolutely HATES benchwork...