Trains.com

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Compromise and Layout Design

4050 views
0 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,206 posts
Compromise and Layout Design
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, August 9, 2003 11:51 PM
This is a piece I wrote about a year and a half in another forum. Occasionally I will recycle them in another forum. Since August is a quieter month, time to recycle this piece.

Probably one of the hardest tasks a new modeller has to perform as a layout is designed and built, is to determine what stays and what goes, and what is shorter, smaller, less conspicuous, or whatever, as one makes decisions about their project. In other words, compromise is often the pie of the day. Decisions have to be made about grades, minimum radius, whether to have a yard or not or two or three, whether to double track or not, whether to a reversing loops or not, etc.

Here is a list of design compromises I have had to make so far. Initially I wanted 18 inch curves (N scale) for the layout, but the room I was building in had different ideas, so I had to reduce the radius to 16. I wanted a point to point plan, but my son wanted continuous running, so we opted for continuous running. I wanted to use foam in the construction, but I got a deal on MDF that I couldn't say no to, so I used it instead. I wanted a 59 inch top deck and a 39 inch bottom deck on our double decker, but because of a window, I opted for 57 and 37 inches - I would have preferred a higher bottom level.

I wanted to model a prototypical area around the Vancouver Ports, but I would have had to have unprototypical mainline running through an area that has no mainline; I decided to give this area up (I am still grieving).

But there are some positive spin offs with compromise. Occasionally I have found myself biting off more than I can chew, except at the time I didn't know it. For example, when I tried to model the Vancouver Ports area, my building of the layout came to a screeching a halt as I tried to get a realistic backdrop (it would have been expensive) and an unrealistic track plan. I didn't do anything to the layout for half a year. After I decided to free lance the area, building almost immediately started up again. Instead of an expensive backdrop produced locally, I bought some Faller backdrops and a much more realistic price.

Often compromise feels like you are not getting something you want, but other times I have found it has freed me up to proceed. So I am hoping some of you will list compromises you have had to make and the results of such decisions on your over all happiness level. What compromises have you made?

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,206 posts
Compromise and Layout Design
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, August 9, 2003 11:51 PM
This is a piece I wrote about a year and a half in another forum. Occasionally I will recycle them in another forum. Since August is a quieter month, time to recycle this piece.

Probably one of the hardest tasks a new modeller has to perform as a layout is designed and built, is to determine what stays and what goes, and what is shorter, smaller, less conspicuous, or whatever, as one makes decisions about their project. In other words, compromise is often the pie of the day. Decisions have to be made about grades, minimum radius, whether to have a yard or not or two or three, whether to double track or not, whether to a reversing loops or not, etc.

Here is a list of design compromises I have had to make so far. Initially I wanted 18 inch curves (N scale) for the layout, but the room I was building in had different ideas, so I had to reduce the radius to 16. I wanted a point to point plan, but my son wanted continuous running, so we opted for continuous running. I wanted to use foam in the construction, but I got a deal on MDF that I couldn't say no to, so I used it instead. I wanted a 59 inch top deck and a 39 inch bottom deck on our double decker, but because of a window, I opted for 57 and 37 inches - I would have preferred a higher bottom level.

I wanted to model a prototypical area around the Vancouver Ports, but I would have had to have unprototypical mainline running through an area that has no mainline; I decided to give this area up (I am still grieving).

But there are some positive spin offs with compromise. Occasionally I have found myself biting off more than I can chew, except at the time I didn't know it. For example, when I tried to model the Vancouver Ports area, my building of the layout came to a screeching a halt as I tried to get a realistic backdrop (it would have been expensive) and an unrealistic track plan. I didn't do anything to the layout for half a year. After I decided to free lance the area, building almost immediately started up again. Instead of an expensive backdrop produced locally, I bought some Faller backdrops and a much more realistic price.

Often compromise feels like you are not getting something you want, but other times I have found it has freed me up to proceed. So I am hoping some of you will list compromises you have had to make and the results of such decisions on your over all happiness level. What compromises have you made?

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Users Online

There are no community member online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!