Layouts and layout building

SpaceMouse wrote:

I just reread the list and the one thing that strikes me as unrealistic is building the layout in sections. If the reason was to build it because you know you are moving in two years or that you plan to take the layout on the road, that is one thing, but to limit your design based on the need to work on wiring is over the top. I understand that there are people who have for one reason or another are restricted in their ability to crawl under a layout, but to them, I suggest planning their layout with that in mind. Wire the section of the layout with the signals, interior lighting, street lights, etc, before you place the section in place. You can even pull the wires through the top of the layout and hide them with a bush or shed until you are ready to connect them. The potential for damage is high every time you pull a section. Unless you plan for them. When you do, you limit what you can do, because invariably, you will alter your trackwork, city scape, etc. to be able to pull the module to work on it.

This does seem to be a problem for the N-Trak folks.

The Old Dog is thinking in terms of modules (stages) that are at most 24" wide. Length would be say 48", 72", and maybe 96" in extreme case. Corner modulars (green rooms) would need to be about 48" by 48"  Pike size, 20' by 4', room size maybe 24' by 12' for I shaped pike with six stages, three per side. For U shaped pike with 18 stages, 26' by 26' would be needed.

Scenery would be mostly urbane, most flats. Buildings would be made seperately and be removable for maintenance and to allow era to be altered.

Have fun

 

SpaceMouse wrote:

exPalaceDog wrote:  SpaceMouse wrote: It's weird that you two have picked #6 as the one to bandy around. As I found the most to say in this area. I whole heartedly agree that if your goal is to present a layout to the public (or operators), then controlling how they view the layout is extremely important. IF you are limited in space, however, this can be a challenge. For if you have a scene that takes 5 feet to develop and you only have a 6 foot wall to work with, expecting your train to completely disappear between scenes is asking a lot unless you run traction or RDC's exclusively. 06) A layout design should provide a series of "stages" (foot lockers) (fish bowls) separated by "green rooms", hidden sections, this will allow the views are framed to limit observation to the desired elements and prevent observation of the undesired elements. This will also make the back drop easier to paint since it will limit the angle it can be viewed from. This also will allow better control of the layout lighting which can allow numerous "interesting" effects like varying the time of day. The layout should appear as if one was in a building and viewing the layout (railroad) through a window. 19) A layout design should provide "stages" that are long enough to view the entire train. If a train is to be six feet long, the sidings for meets and/or passes will probably require at least nine feet when the turnouts are added. That means that the "stages" will need to be ten or twelve feet long. 20) A layout design should provide enough spacing between "stages" so that the end of a train leaves one "stage" before the engine reaches the next station. The Old Dog should have added some addition material in regard to the above points. The idea of the "green room/s" is not only to provide seperation between scenes but to allow staging between them. Say we have three stations, A, B, and C and two trains, 1 and 2. The sequence of operations might be some thing like this. Train 2 leaves A. Train 1 leaves C. Train 2 arrives at B, takes siding. Train 1 arrives at B, meets train 2. Train 2 then leaves B. Train 1 arrives at A. Train 2 arrives at C. The "green rooms" provide holding/staging areas so that the actors/trains can appear as appropriate while keeping the space requirements down. Have fun      IF space is not an issue, then great. But...and it's a big but...if you are taking your train under ground then a whole new series of issues arise, very thing from track maintenance to rerailing that car whose wheel you didn't see come off when you bumped the facia. I don't like a lot of track under ground, and I did it grudgingly on my layout because I like duck-unders less.

Hidden track would be in "green room" columns with outside "good" access on at least two or three sides, in some cases "poor" reach in access from a inside corner, plus inside access in a 22" radius helix/spiral.

Have fun

 

N-trak folks have a line about 1/8 to 1/4 " between every section.

If we are talking about a "manifesto" we cannot be getting too far in a single direction in terms of layout style. I like big scenery. Pulling a section of hillside with 6 24" high fir trees to get at a signal for wiring would not be worth the effort to make it sectional. I also think, that layouts built for multiple eras are compromises for the eras that are being changed out. Again, multiple era layouts are a design choice and should not be part of a "manifesto."

But I like the manifesto you wrote as it stands, and while I argue points, I like the overall. However, I feel that each point should be arguable in terms of all layouts rather than a specific style.  

Excellent list and overview of layout design. Much food for thought. Any remaining hint of switching from N scale to HO was just squelched entirely and for good....unless I will a Lottery and can build another barn, one just for trains.  Rob

Likewise have a scene that is divided by a backdrop where the train runs through the backdrop from one scene to the other is a tad on the cheesy side.

Maybe. I think it all depends on how well the transition is handled. There are a couple of very effective layouts on the exhibition circuit both here and in the UK where each scene is separate from the next, in it's own "shadow-box" or "stage". The passage of the train through the backdrop is screened by scenic features as you describe below. In this context, I reckon this is a better way to present separate scenes, as you tend to focus on the train itself, rather than the edges of the "stage". As you said, it's all about controlling the viewpoint of the spectators.

My favorite approach is to divide the scenes using a natural barrier such as a mountain, building , tall stand of trees, bridge, etc. where the scenes flow, but when the train emerges from one to the other, you know the scenes change.

I've often seen such transitions on layouts, but in my opinion they're usually not very convincing. But that may be more a reflection of the layout builder's scenery skills!

Cheers,

Mark.

A ten degree curve which would be a sharp turn on the phototype is about six and a half feet in radius.

You make a valid point, but I reckon it very much depends on what prototype you model. Every day at work I run 8-car MU trains around a curve which is 296' radius - that's about 40" in HO scale, I think. And that's on a mainline. The curve has a station, greasepots, and a 25k permanent speedboard, all on a 1 in 33 grade. It's one of those places that sorts the men from the boys, so to speak. When I was learning the road I overshot the platform a couple of times before I got the measure of that stop!

The line I model has street trackage with curves down to 90' radius, and they run loco-hauled freight trains around them!

All the best,

Mark.

This is mainly a test post to see if the link works

If it does, the link should point to a sheet of module designs the Old Dog has been playing with.

 

 

 

Have fun

 

Dog, Can you make it bigger? It's hard to see.

SpaceMouse wrote:

Dog, Can you make it bigger? It's hard to see.

Link above changed, it looks better now!

Have fun

 

Interesting set of concepts.  Some look like things I have seen, others like interesting (and useful) compromises.  I especially like the "reverted wye," with the tail track in the corner and everything within reach of a normal-size individual.

If I was starting with a blank slate, I'd copy your thinking and swipe your designs.  However, reality intervenes; my basic concept is set in stone and my benchwork is pretty much set in steel - the steel studs I use for 'C works like L' girder construction.

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

With the best will in the world, some of the modules you've drawn are no more no than pretty 2-dimensional patterns. There are track arrangements here that would serve no useful purpose for running or shunting trains.

marknewton wrote:

With the best will in the world, some of the modules you've drawn are no more no than pretty 2-dimensional patterns. There are track arrangements here that would serve no useful purpose for running or shunting trains.

Probably true!

The ideal was to try numerious designs then start tossing out the turkeys.

Thanks for your replay.

Have fun