I got to thinking. Using my crude understandiing of psychology (left brain, analytical; right brain, artistic), I'm wondering what dominates your motives when designing your layout, and after building and operating it, have they changed? Did you care about being prototypically accurate when it comes to era, rolling stock details, and operations, or did you care more if the darn thing just looks cool. A little of both for most of us I suppose.
For example, for you familiar readers of MR, the layouts by David Barrow for instance (Cat Mountain, Lubbock Industrial?), seemed to focus on efficient design and operational accuracy, with almost minimalistic scenery, whereas layouts by Malcolm Furlow (a regular in the magazine a while ago) seemed to focus on looking cool, with almost no regards as to whether or not the layout represented something prototypical.
So I'm asking, after you designed and built your layout, did you give enough consideration to either operations or scenery, or left out too much of one or the other, that you now wish you would have given more consideration? How so? And I'm not saying one is better than the other, just curious.
- Douglas
My present layout is a work in progress, but it isn't my first (by well over 60 years!)
My planning started with two interlocked parameters - I wanted the layout to at least resemble the Upper Kiso Valley, and I wanted to be able to operate the JNR's published September 1964 schedule for the line through same. To that end, I deliberately planned a puzzle palace of hidden staging and thoroughfare tracks, so the appropriate train can come 'on stage' through the appropriate tunnel portal at the timetable-appointed moment. Then I went minimalist on the visible track, so the scenery will have space enough to do the talking. Since most of that scenery stands on edge, I don't foresee a lot of need for a backdrop as such.
The one place where I've put in roadbed for 'to be visible' track looks as if it will work: so far, so good.
The operational side is working - in a kind of Reader's Digest format. As for scenery and overall effect, come back in a few years (decades?) and I might be ready to answer.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - eventually)
Chuck, speaking of this sentence...
To that end, I deliberately planned a puzzle palace of hidden staging and thoroughfare tracks, so the appropriate train can come 'on stage' through the appropriate tunnel portal at the timetable-appointed moment.
The way you describe it, it sounds like there may be more access or maintenance issues associated with the hidden trackage than some of us would want to take on. Has this been an issue for you, more or less than what you thought when you planned it?
I should say, "I deliberately planned a puzzle palace..." that would be easy to access, with critical parts built as removable modules that can be unbolted, dropped out and taken to the workbench for repair, maintenance and modification.
Also, I have been operating over all of the track built so far, on a just-about-daily basis. By the time access starts to get more difficult I'll have it thoroughly de-bugged.
Lastly, I'm somewhat obsesso about trackwork. I build all of my specialwork from raw rail, to far higher standards than any commercial producer could afford to maintain. Some of my hand-builts have been in service since 1980. Switch machines have failed, but not the switches themselves.
I'll be the first to agree that the biggest and most persistent problems will appear at the point where access is poorest. I've deliberately planned for the few such places to be simple tangent track.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
I'm extremely left-brained. I went to MIT. I am a rocket scientist by profession. So, I was rather surprised myself when I took tremendous pleasure in rock castings. It seems that my right brain was just itching to make itself felt, and my layout has become more an expression of artistic efforts than analytical achievement.
Sure, I had to go with DCC, and understand the underlying electronics. It was important to go into the programmable sound decoders and modify not just the sound files, but the actual code that plays them. As Thoreau would have said, I had to dig down to the very marrow of the beast to truly understand it.
Still, I think the last 4 years of modelling have caused me to discover a part of my own nature that I never knew could be so demanding. I now know not only that things take longer than planned, but I also know why. As a scene progresses, it doesn't just "get built." Instead, it "develops" and grows in complexity of detail.
What a long, strange trip it's been...
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Interesting question. Apparently I was born with no right brain whatsoever. I can handle math, physics, etc. okay, but I do not have the least bit of artistic talent. Yet for some reason, it's always the Allen and Furlow types of MRRs that intrigue me the most, and that's what I hope to emulate, albeit to a much lesser degree. Whether I can do so remains to be seen.
The closest thing I have to a psychologist is my optometrist, who thinks he's a psychologist. He says my whole problem stems from the fact that I am left eye dominant, but right handed. He thinks such people are dangerous and screw up the world. I think he's serious.
- Harry
Yes the human brain works in strange and wonderful ways, which is one reason why divorce lawyers live in huge houses and drive expensive cars -- and yet, often get divorced!!
I can certainly see that some modeler's brains just work in ways different than mine. For example in some scratchbuilding there comes a time when I suddenly see that I have done something in a very ill advised sequence, but I know people who seemingly follow the entire sequence of creating the parts, construction, and painting in their brains beforehand and foresee the problems that come as a surprise to me. I think I am thinking ahead but am not, or at least not enough.
I also know guys who can look at a track plan or arrangement and at a glance pronounce exactly how it is to be wired (DC block control) -- whereas I actually have to lay the rail and work it through more on a trial and error basis, even with Andy Sperandeo's excellent book on wiring in front of me. I gather this guy can see the little +'s and -'s floating in air.
On the other hand I think I have a pretty good notion of relative scale sizes of things, whereas I knew a brilliant guy, in fact a math professor, who went to a swap meet and bought a bunch of pre built structures only to get them home to the layout and discover some of them were in N scale (he modeled in HO). He finally learned he needed to buy one of those flexible scale rulers and take it to swap meets and measure the doors to avoid buying the wrong scale stuff.
As to your precise question, my main goal is to truly capture a recognizable, accurate, and always plausible rendition of several precise prototype scenes. I want people who know the area to immediately know what they are looking at, right down to street name and number (assuming in some cases that they have very clearly recollections of 1967!). I am willing to sacrifice ease of operation to obtain that goal -- BUT I also want the darn thing to run and I want friends to have a good time running it. Sometimes, I have to say, something's gotta give.
My experience has been -- and other guys have commented on this -- that there is nothing more misleading than your average published track plan, or one you draw yourself, that has a simple line representing the track. It is amazing how many more lines you can squeeze in a space versus how much track you can squeeze into that same space! And all the nice open spaces you thought you were leaving for scenery and structures end up being your track if you aren't careful.
The main need is to find a level of acceptance so that you are not constantly ripping out your work and starting over. Allen McClelland's "good enough" mantra is key (and "good enough" for him was awful darn good).
Dave Nelson
Both. I don't see it as an either/or proposition. My layout designs factor in both operations and aesthetics. Not only that, but I use my landscape to create natural view blocks so that each scene (or operating station) is isolated visually from the rest of the layout.
You gave a couple of examples, but check out either Joe Fugate's or Charlie Comstock's layouts to see excellent examples or realistic operations combined with a high level or artistic craftsmanship.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
MisterBeasleyI'm extremely left-brained. I went to MIT. I am a rocket scientist by profession.
I'm extremely left-brained. I went to MIT. I am a rocket scientist by profession.
That's fascinating. What aspect of rocketry do you work with? My brother in law worked in designing missile guidance systems for years.
For me it is almost all aesthetics that I work toward. I think this stems primarily from my experiences in N scale in the '70s. The locomotives were so unreliable that operations were never very good, all that was left were aesthetics. As I approach my current HO layout, on a gut level, my expectations for operation are about the same as then (although my layout actually runs fine - my most recent derailment was in 2005), so I still really focus on looks: My layout is really a sequence of scenes and it is terraced to increase visibility of the trains and buildings at the back of the layout.
Not that operation isn't important. I do get a kick out of watching it run - I like it best when my girlfriend or nephew are at the controls, and I'm really the brakeman. They seem to enjoy it so much, and that means more to me than anything else about it. If it didn't operate reliably the fun would be lost.
Phil, I'm not a rocket scientist; they are my students.
shayfan84325For me it is almost all aesthetics that I work toward. I think this stems primarily from my experiences in N scale in the '70s. The locomotives were so unreliable that operations were never very good, all that was left were aesthetics. As I approach my current HO layout, on a gut level, my expectations for operation are about the same as then (although my layout actually runs fine - my most recent derailment was in 2005), so I still really focus on looks: My layout is really a sequence of scenes and it is terraced to increase visibility of the trains and buildings at the back of the layout. Not that operation isn't important. I do get a kick out of watching it run - I like it best when my girlfriend or nephew are at the controls, and I'm really the brakeman. They seem to enjoy it so much, and that means more to me than anything else about it. If it didn't operate reliably the fun would be lost.
Could you post some photos of your layout? It sounds interesting.
Interesting posts. My thought originate from the assumption that space limitations causes trade offs and its tough to get a perfect 50/50 balance between operations and aesthetics (spelled correctly now btw) on our smaller model railroads. I think its easier to be more satisfied if one of the two is significantly more important to you.
Tony Koester's NKP layout is fantastic. All of the research and effort making it prototypical must have been a blast. Running 25 -30 car length trains must be too. But I wonder, seeing the layout, if some efforts put into satisfying the operations takes away from the overall look of the layout (believe me, living in central indiana myself, he could have chosen a more aesthetically pleasing location. Obviously, other considerations dominated.)
When I see these larger basement layouts, filled with long peninsula's with towns on almost every side of them, separated by horseshoe shaped curves connecting them, I wonder if the 25 car length trains results in the locomotive(s) entering one town as the caboose is leaving the other. Did using all of that real estate eliminate the same basic issue a lot of us face on our smaller layouts? Does that look prototypically accurate?
Its not a criticism, because I'm sure experienced modeler's like Koester account for those things, and make their tradeoffs accordingly. But do less experienced modeler's? It just seems when we make a tradeoff, we need to know what aspect of the hobby is most satifying to us and design the layout accordingly. Its sounds like all of the responders have done that quite well.
Doughless,
I would disagree. Even in small layouts you can have good operations and aesthetics. You just have to think it through. The problem is when you think only in terms of trackwork. You start flopping down trackwork and it can be hard to scenic. On the other hand, trackwork with a clear purpose that allows for landscape, buildings and roads/parking etc. can look good and function extremely well.
Take my old 5 x 8. It had two towns that were visually separate, 4 staging tracks, and a yard.
Or better yet, Charlie Comstock's 4 x 8 layout.
HarryHotspurshayfan84325 For me it is almost all aesthetics that I work toward. I think this stems primarily from my experiences in N scale in the '70s. The locomotives were so unreliable that operations were never very good, all that was left were aesthetics. As I approach my current HO layout, on a gut level, my expectations for operation are about the same as then (although my layout actually runs fine - my most recent derailment was in 2005), so I still really focus on looks: My layout is really a sequence of scenes and it is terraced to increase visibility of the trains and buildings at the back of the layout. Not that operation isn't important. I do get a kick out of watching it run - I like it best when my girlfriend or nephew are at the controls, and I'm really the brakeman. They seem to enjoy it so much, and that means more to me than anything else about it. If it didn't operate reliably the fun would be lost. Could you post some photos of your layout? It sounds interesting.
shayfan84325 For me it is almost all aesthetics that I work toward. I think this stems primarily from my experiences in N scale in the '70s. The locomotives were so unreliable that operations were never very good, all that was left were aesthetics. As I approach my current HO layout, on a gut level, my expectations for operation are about the same as then (although my layout actually runs fine - my most recent derailment was in 2005), so I still really focus on looks: My layout is really a sequence of scenes and it is terraced to increase visibility of the trains and buildings at the back of the layout. Not that operation isn't important. I do get a kick out of watching it run - I like it best when my girlfriend or nephew are at the controls, and I'm really the brakeman. They seem to enjoy it so much, and that means more to me than anything else about it. If it didn't operate reliably the fun would be lost.
Thanks. Here's the track plan:
Here's the helix that connects the upper and lower terrace levels:
The most complete portion of the layout:
This part is still under construction:
Operations are fun, but I think apperance is my where I get my greatest pleasure.
SpaceMouse Doughless, I would disagree. Even in small layouts you can have good operations and aesthetics. You just have to think it through. The problem is when you think only in terms of trackwork. You start flopping down trackwork and it can be hard to scenic. On the other hand, trackwork with a clear purpose that allows for landscape, buildings and roads/parking etc. can look good and function extremely well. Take my old 5 x 8. It had two towns that were visually separate, 4 staging tracks, and a yard. Chip, in responding to your post I would disagree. Even in small layouts you can have good operations and aesthetics. You just have to think it through. The problem is when you think only in terms of trackwork. You start flopping down trackwork and it can be hard to scenic. On the other hand, trackwork with a clear purpose that allows for landscape, buildings and roads/parking etc. can look good and function extremely well. Take my old 5 x 8. It had two towns that were visually separate, 4 staging tracks, and a yard.
Chip, in responding to your post
Chip:
I'm not sure exactly what you're disagreeing with, I didn't mean to imply that either priority was exclusive of the other, I just thought most folks had to compromise in some fashion, not meaning they had to eliminate one. I was just curious as to which one they favored when they compromised. Staging is a good example. The space used for it, I'm assuming to run multiple trains according to a set timetable schedule, might be used by others for more spectacular scenery, such as a large canyon with a tall trestle.
I think you're correct, both can be achieved in a layout, as your layout shows. As some people plan things to look cool, and then get bored with running trains to nowhere, others might plan for operations, then have something that looks disappointing to them, which would pretty much be a big bummer for any operating session. I guess its best to know what you really want and why you're in the hobby to begin with.
btw: Nice trees Chip! How did you make them?
Spacemouse I like your thinking! Your examples show an excellent blend of scenery and ops. I wish my layouts offered as much.
Being involved in the art world, I was determined that my first layout [British outline] would be scenic first and operational second. I loved doing the scenery, but when it came time to operate, the layout bored me very quickly.
As a result my second layout [US outline] has lots more track and is quite satisfying to operate, but the scenic potential is limited, and I find that I want more scope there Seems that scenery and operations are equally important to me, and in the limited space I have, wise planning is essential.
I wish I could alter things, but the US layout is dictated to by the British tracks because they link.
Mike
Modelling the UK in 00, and New England - MEC, B&M, D&H and Guilford - in H0
SpaceMouseBoth. I don't see it as an either/or proposition. My layout designs factor in both operations and aesthetics. Not only that, but I use my landscape to create natural view blocks so that each scene (or operating station) is isolated visually from the rest of the layout. You gave a couple of examples, but check out either Joe Fugate's or Charlie Comstock's layouts to see excellent examples or realistic operations combined with a high level or artistic craftsmanship.
After giving your post some thought, I believe you are correct.
Shayfan, that is very nice modelling. Thanks for the photos.
Doughlessafter you designed and built your layout, did you give enough consideration to either operations or scenery, or left out too much of one or the other, that you now wish you would have given more consideration?
Several things I would have done different if I had started over totally from scratch (which I am not, at least not at this time ).
I started out being very track focused and not so much scenery/appearance focused - call it 80/20 track vs appearance, but I have moved closer to maybe a 60-40 balance between function and appearance.
Or put another way, I care more about scene appearance than I did before, but where I have to choose between function and appearance the choice is still easy - I am still trying to build a functional model of a small piece of railroad, not a display diorama with railroad tracks running through it.
A layout depth of 24" actually seems to work pretty well for creating the illusion of depth. If building a new layout, I would have increased the depth of the zone closest to the wall from 2" to 4-6", so I could model background buildings more 3D than 2D. But having tall (4+ floors) buildings works well to draw attention away from background flats.
I would have thought about the fascia and the valance right from the start, instead of first concentrating on the tracks, and only then get to the fascia and valance as an afterthought.
I am reasonably satisfied (both for look and for access) with the layout height I chose (track at 51" from the floor). I would not go any lower the next time - maybe even a little bit higher (53-55" off the floor).
I would have built the baseboard as hollow lightweight sections (hollow platforms of 1/4" plywood, braced with strips of thin plywood on edge), to make it easier to take out a section of the layout and flip it over to work on the underside with good access.
With regard to the scenery vs track, I think I probably would have worked much harder on actually believing and applying "less is more". Fewer scenes in the room - maybe cutting from three modeled scenes to two, allowing more space for staging to feed the scenes.
Fewer tracks in the scenes modeled, allowing more space for other things - both more background depth for buildings, and more open foreground scenery (roads, parking lots, vacant lots, smaller buildings you look over to look into the scene).
I also think I next time would have liked to include more height differences in the scenery - my current layout is essentially flat - for a new urban layout I would have considered having elevated tracks crossing over roads on bridges on in at least part of the urban scene, serving loading docks on the second floor of track side buildings.
Grin,Stein
I have been pondering over this question for quite some time now. Deep in my heart I am dreaming of that wonderful and unique layout with breathtaking scenery and ssufficient track to set up quite a lot of realistic operation. I know that, if I want to have that, I need to join a club or association. Space and funding is very much limited so I need to compromise. MRR Beer Line is a good example for a working compromise and so is Lance Mindheim´s CSX Miami East Rail layout.
So for me, it´s operation plus aesthetics, you don´t have to sacrifice one for the other!
Sir Madog I have been pondering over this question for quite some time now. Deep in my heart I am dreaming of that wonderful and unique layout with breathtaking scenery and ssufficient track to set up quite a lot of realistic operation. I know that, if I want to have that, I need to join a club or association. Space and funding is very much limited so I need to compromise. MRR Beer Line is a good example for a working compromise and so is Lance Mindheim´s CSX Miami East Rail layout. So for me, it´s operation plus aesthetics, you don´t have to sacrifice one for the other!
I'm sorry guys, I must not be getting through.
Never said you couldn't have both. Both layouts mentioned make my point exactly. CSX Miami East is very good looking because Mindheim focused on modeling a portion of Miami that he could selectively compress to the space he had (or wanted to use) realisticly. With the exact same space, some one else may have planned to model a more operationally diverse section of CSX, and selectively compress a main line running from Virginia to Georgia, which couldn't help but look less realistic than Mindheim's layout. It would however, increase the number of cars, locos, and add the number of trains arriving and departing and would have been more satisfying to the person who prefers operations more. I'm sure an operating session on that layout would last longer than one on Mindheim's.
Not wanting to drag this out, but my point is, that even if you're 51/49 or 49/51 you fit into the premice of my original question. If you prefer aesthetics and design a layout otherwise, you may spend a lot of time building complicated benchwork, wiring, throttle control, unsceniced staging, etc that, in the end, leads you away from what you really want.
Raised on the Erie Lackawanna Mainline- Supt. of the Black River Transfer & Terminal R.R.
Those are some interesting comments about how you compromised on scenery.
steinjr, I'm having the same "issue" as you. I don't like the 2D or even 2 and 1/2 D backdrop building look either. I have a very narrow room and wanted to accent operations while still having scenic interest.
I have a scratchbuilt building flat that is 2D. It doesn't look right, and I thought adding the third dimension of even a 1/2 inch would help. It sounds like it might still not achieve the effect I want. I think it depends upon the type of background the building sets against as well.
Capt. Grimek I'm playing with elevating my urban area over two or 3 city yard tracks so that I can have more "real" buildings in front of the back drops buildings. I'm looking or an easy removal method or hinging a city block, etc. so that we can still rerail cars in the yard. Have you considered this approach?
I'm playing with elevating my urban area over two or 3 city yard tracks so that I can have more "real" buildings in front of the back drops buildings. I'm looking or an easy removal method or hinging a city block, etc. so that we can still rerail cars in the yard. Have you considered this approach?
No, I haven't really considered this for my own sake - but sounds like it would work fine, if you don't need to see much of the stuff that's on your partially underlying city yard tracks while you are switching.
My layout was drawn to emphasize operations, knowing that my compromise and challenge was going to be fitting in narrow yet convincing buildings in some areas. A a large and important part of my social life now revolves around operations with valued friends so track had to come ahead of scenic areas in some areas to allow enough aisle width for 4-5 folks. The point made about getting to enjoy the things you had to "compromise out" of your layout on other people's or club layouts serves me well. I don't think you ever get over completely what you "really want(ed) but...there's a way to balance it all out. I'm currently looking through many MR and RMC back issues for ideas. Any pics anyone can share would be great. (Elevated city blocks over some tracks).
My layout was drawn to emphasize operations, knowing that my compromise and challenge was going to be fitting in narrow yet convincing buildings in some areas. A a large and important part of my social life now revolves around operations with valued friends so track had to come ahead of scenic areas in some areas to allow enough aisle width for 4-5 folks.
The point made about getting to enjoy the things you had to "compromise out" of your layout on other people's or club layouts serves me well. I don't think you ever get over completely what you "really want(ed) but...there's a way to balance it all out.
I'm currently looking through many MR and RMC back issues for ideas. Any pics anyone can share would be great. (Elevated city blocks over some tracks).
There are some nice examples in John Pryke's excellent book "Building City Scenery for Your Model Railroad"
Smile, Stein
DoughlessI have a scratchbuilt building flat that is 2D. It doesn't look right, and I thought adding the third dimension of even a 1/2 inch would help. It sounds like it might still not achieve the effect I want. I think it depends upon the type of background the building sets against as well.
Sounds right. I actually can live with the look I am getting - but I'd like to use a little more depth for background scenery next time around, if I can.
If I can't, then I'll live with it - trade-offs have to be made.
Some pics of my background city buildings (still very much under construction), showing various depths and building styles - from total flat along wall to building jutting out over the track, to having a full size building between aisle and tracks and another full size building between track and wall/background flat:
There are people here who makes city scenery which looks far better than this - check e.g. pictures from Jon Grant or Dr Wayne.
This thread started me pondering track plan changes to create more space for structures both in the foreground and background for the area in the pictures above.
What if I slanted things down across the upper left and upper right corners, and slanted the yard tracks at the same angle ? I might get closer to the look I want, without sacrificing too much functionality:
Anyways - thanks for getting me started on thinking about trade-off between appearance and function for this scene again!
Grin, Stein
Stein,
I like the second (new) plan a lot better, than the old version. It looks more "curvy", more elegant and not so much lined up. Although you do not gain much space, the overall appearance, IMHO, improves a lot.
Sir Madog Stein, I like the second (new) plan a lot better, than the old version. It looks more "curvy", more elegant and not so much lined up. Although you do not gain much space, the overall appearance, IMHO, improves a lot.
I echo Madog's comments.
The photos show you have a really nice layout, especially considering the space used. I think the half buildings look great actually.
I know there was a thread that tracked the evolution of your trackplan a while ago, so you may have worked this out already. But I was wondering if there was a way to use the unsceniced liftout as a way to incorporate your staging, with the trailing part of the trains parked in a modified warehouse in the extreme southeast corner. It might be way of reworking the track a bit at the 7 and 9 oclock locations to incorporate some of your elevation desires. I'm not sure how staging on a liftout would work, considering the possible need to leave the room quickly and having to heft that big of a section, and the partial, not the entire, trains. It just seems that finding a way to condense all of the unsceniced elements into one location could open up even more switching or scenic elements that you now want.
Did it turn out like I had planned?? Too early to tell on my current layout. My previous layout emphasized scenery over operation. I thought it turned out very well. I had a five food deep canyon ala John Allen that was the center piece of the layout. I tore the layout down for a variety of reasons, but primarily because it offered few operational possibilities.
The canyon:
Here is the scene after revamping and installation of the mainline. Note the siding is gone.
Here is the scene after valence installation:
Here is a shot of the hwy with the rough scenery Note siding is back
More finished scenery:
Same area to the right with the swing gate installed:
Same shot with scenery:
So far so good…..
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site