Stein,
Thanks for the kind words.
Your analysis of the yard operation is pretty accurate in terms of numbers of cars and train length. The yard is more of a transfer yard than classification as there really isn't much capacity. The operations scheme calls for cars to shuttle in and out between stagings (250 car capacity in various locations) and points out on the layout.
For example, a through freight might pick up a cut of stock cars and leave empties to go up the pass. Same thing with reefer traffic, timber etc. East bound arrivals are temporally stored for their journey up the hill while west bound cars received are blocked for their journey out to staging. Trains arriving from the pass are broken down and re-built for their return. There is also an interchange with another railroad at the yard, so traffic is sorted out for that line as well.
So far the yard design works well in this scenario in operations mode. One item that I haven't been able to add - storage for junk cars that look cool but won't operate for various reasons. The space is so tight in the yard that the layout now has two modes: one for layout tours where everything is cued up to look good, all the cool run down stuff out on display with trains using the around the room cut off to circle endlessly. The other is OPs mode where all the junk is in storage and the yard is set up to move traffic as per the operational design. It would have been nice to find more room to permanently store stuff but that would have ruined the look...
One consideration that I had not counted on is the space necessary for operators. The number of operators is limited by the aisle width and overall space available in the room. There are more operations possibilities on the layout than can be handled by the number of operators that will fit in the room comfortably. This was something that I had not anticipated. I left plenty of space for people but if I could get a little more space (not gonna happen now), I might leave it open rather than try to cram more trains in it. At it's current size, the layout can comfortably support four operators in a 22' x13' foot area.
I am in the process of developing a time table and tweaking the schedule to fit a fast clock. The next project is to finish the turntable so I can start adding scenery to the area.
Lee - Nice job and the layout and great presentation here in the thread and on the website. I like your ideas about small layout design and the contrarian approach of adding more rather than less to the space. I also like your idea about photography expanding the vistas on a layout. We also agree about just running trains, while my layout is point to point, I have cutoffs on both levels so I can kick back and just watch trains run. I enjoyed looking at your operations guide PDF as well.
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
Thanks for the compliments, Stein.
After much ribbing from my operating crew, I've changed the name of Wye Knot to Williamsport Junction, to keep with the WM theme. (Wye Knot is a local colloquialism... I live on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, where the Wye Oak stood for centuries as the official state tree... there's a development nearby called Wye Knot farms)
I've also been working on refining the unbuilt parts of the plan based on lessons learned from operating the temporary alignment. I'm planning significant changes to the staging, and the possible elimination of the Cumberland scene, replacing it with the more functional B&O interchange at Cherry Run, WV.
But yes, the layout, even in its current form, is very satisfying to operate on, and very fun to watch. While I enjoy operating on more "sincere" linear layouts, where it's easier to pay attention to your train and anticipate the movements of others, I still have this hang up about letting a model railroad be a model railroad! In my book there's nothing wrong with having a couple of trains looping around and crossing over each other. That makes it more fun to watch. As long as you can untangle the knot with a logical schematic plan for operations, I'm perfectly content with some "Lionelisms" on my layout.
To aid operations, and to help my crew navigate my little spaghetti bowl, I worked with my friend and yardmaster, Ed Kapuscinski, to develop this "Employee's Time Table" to describe operations on the layout. It's kind of a plump file, so give it a moment to load.
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
wm3798There's tons more pictures at my website. Feel free to stop in and set a spell!
Hi Lee --
I have been watching the two videos on your web site several times. I have to add an extra compliment - you are not only a great modeler - you are also a excellent video photographer and editor.
Knowing a bit more about how the layout scenes looked from a normal viewing angle made it even more enjoyable to watch the video and marvel at how well you presented the scenes. Looking at the videos, it is amazing how you have found so many great track level camera angles where you don't even notice the close vicinity of the two subs on your layout.
I also have to admire the way you have been naming places - names seems have a credible flavor, even though some of them have an element of tongue-in-cheek. Big bend tunnel and Wye Knot junction, eh ? ;-)
Clearly a layout that focuses massively on aestethics, and yet has very good support for operations with the staging below, looping around the entire room from staging, past the Penn Central Interchange at North Junction (across the aisle from where staging comes out), Hagerstown Engine Terminal the corner, Ridgely Yard and Potomac Crossing along the far wall, before Cumberland/workbench corner to Wye Knot junction.
I have also been looking at your final track plan, where you can run East Staging - North Junction - Hagerstown - Cumberland - Maryland Junction, and then either go Thomas sub through Luke, and loop behind Luke and up and above at Summit, then past Shaw, through Chaffee, through the tunnel to Thomas along the upper wall and then end up in Elkins, or go from Maryland Junction on the Connelsville sub behind Luke, and do a scenic run crossing the river four times and passing through a tunnel before ducking into West Staging.
It is an amazing layout plan and an amazing layout - both what you have now and your final plans.
I in particular am impressed with the way you in your temporary setup has managed to let the Thomas Sub and the Connelsville sub run side by side in the Chaffee area, but with the Thomas sub up on the high fill along the layout outer edge, and how you have made use of the the Ohiopyle/Wye Knot Junction area as a temporary solution in the area where you plan to end up with the Bayard/Marion/Cumberland Brewery and entrance to West staging for the Connelsville sub.
And of course - your temporary solution looks better by far than the "final" look on most people's layout.
Bravo!
Grin, Stein
Guy --
I hope you won't mind me starting by saying that your post on Willoughby Yard on your layout was one of the best discussions on a layout design issue I have seen in this forum in a long time, and the pictures illustrating track configurations made the discussion even better. This was a presentation that could have been published as an article in the Layout Design Journal
In particular, I really like the way you discussed the trade-off between desired looks and function - and in particular how you combined ways of both increasing track lengths by judicious use of turnouts (using the curved turnouts at the ends of the A/D tracks, and using a compound ladder starting with a wye to minimize track ladder length) where possible, while at the same time quite deliberately choosing to give up some track capacity (both in number of yard tracks and in track length for the leftmost A/D track) in favor of getting the appearance you were going for by not using the three way turnouts in the compound ladder and the double slip in the crossover from the rightmost to the leftmost A/D track, since this did not fit into your desired scene appearance.
You also gained quite a bit of extra operational value by re-designating the leftmost of the four yard tracks an active track - being both the freight shed track (at the innermost end) and a switchback track that allows you to switch the four tracks branching off this track in the opposite direction, from right to left: MOW track, oil track and two more tracks I am not sure if you described the function of ?
The use of switchbacks are often frowned upon, and especially when there is an industry on the switchback tail, but the way you have done it here, there seems to be ample room for using part of the fourth track (nearest the yard ladder) as a switchback for an engine and two-three cars, even if there is five or six cars (ie about three feet) of cars spotted for the freight shed.
From an appearance point of view, you certainly nailed this scene.
How did it work out from an operational point of view for your layout ?
Having a yard with six body tracks using a compound ladder of a wye and two three way turnouts would have given you a maximum yard track capacity of about 8 40-foot cars per track, or a total max capacity of about 48 cars. Yard tracks probably should onaverage stay less than 75% full to maintain some fluidity in classification, so say an effective yard capacity to classify about 36 cars or so. Say that the yard could have held about the equivalent of two 18-car trains worth cars before having to originate a train to make more work room. With six body tracks, you could fairly easy have sorted cars into six destination at a time, with up to 6-8 cars in each group.
As your yard is configured now, you have the capacity to classify a maximum of about 24 cars, or using the 75% rule of the thumb - to effectively classify about 18 cars before you have to originate a train to get cars out of the yard to free up more work space. With three active classification tracks (and the ability to stick 3-4 cars on the end of the fourth track while sorting cars), you can fairly easily sort cars into three or four groups of at a time, instead of six groups at a time.
I really like the interesting touch of adding the wye at the far left hand corner end and the way your A/D tracks have been constructed to make it it possible both to handle shorter trains when switching the left hand A/D track or the part of the right A/D track this side of the crossover from left leg of the wye - a rough estimate is that you have room for arriving or departing trains of about an engine and 7-8 cars when using the A/D tracks in this configuration ? You could always double up an arriving or departing train of about 15-16 cars or so, putting half in each A/D track.
You also seem to have a capacity of about 15 car trains or so if you use the right A/D track (and/or the passing track) for an arriving or departing train, using the mainline around the curve to the right at the far end as lead while moving cars between the body tracks and this A/D track using the right part of the background wye.
The extra tracks branching off from the passing tracks on the right (to the engine house/turntable and to the caboose track) is icing on the cake.
Provided you don't routinely run trains with a lot more than 16-24 cars or so, and don't routinely need to classify more than 15-18 cars or so in your yard before originating trains, it seems like you have designed a yard that both look great and will work well.
Smile, Stein
Guy and Lee; great work on the layouts. Very inspirational. I also like the statement about scenicing a cluttered scene with more clutter. Like saying, in a general way, your operating plan and space limitations forced you to squish track together a bit more than you wanted, so you went ahead and sceniced it with more of an industrial or commercial feel than your operating plan would indicate in order to make it look a bit better.
I also like the way you guys pulled back and took some panoramic photos so we can all get a sense of how the detailed scenes fit into the big picture.
- Douglas
Stein asked me to show some photos and discuss a little bit about how I adapted my track plan in my yard to provide for good operation and to look good as well. As I mentioned earlier in my pother posts, it is difficult sometimes to adapt a plan on paper to the real 1:1 layout. The biggest problem I have is that the track plan as drawn can look too busy when laid out on the homasote. The resulting effect is the dreaded “parking lot” of track.A few notes about the Willoughby Yard. The yard is located on the peninsula of the railroad and is in many ways the focal point of the layout. Space allotted to the yard is roughly 11’ X 2 1/2’. While I am not a big fan of yards from a scenic point of view, I needed an area to make and break trains. It is one of the few sections on the layout that is not double decked. The peninsula is divided by a large backdrop. Many trains run point to point from this yard, so I needed engine facilities and some storage tracks. In general, the design target is a small short line yard. I wanted to keep things pretty spare in terms of structures and have a more rural, run down look (weedy sidings etc.) I spent considerable time studying various treatises on yard design including the Armstrong book and this web article (http://www.gatewaynmra.org/frt-yard2.htm), as well as operating at several layouts with well laid out yards. I had a good idea of what I wanted operationally but getting it all to fit and work well proved to be a bit of a challenge. I wanted to keep my switch minimum at no.6 and the radius min 30”. I am aware that one can get by with less in these areas, but I wanted a yard that would operate flawlessly and I felt that the larger sizes would keep the rustic look I was after.I needed to include the following items in my design: a drill track, a wye for turning heavy metal, a turntable for the small stuff, Tracks to build and break trains (AD tracks), a passing track, a siding for the oil dock, engine ready track, caboose track and storage tracks.The layout design required that the whole yard be set at an angle to fit the large 180 turn back curves at the wall end of the peninsula (see photo). This meant that the space would between the back drop and the mainline would shrink as one moved farther down the aisle towards the wall. Most trains arrive and depart from the left side of the yard (see photo). One of the big issues in this design is the amount of space that switches take up. A ladder of no. 6s takes roughly 1 foot per switch. To break out four sidings from the AD track using a traditional ladder takes five feet (roughly half the space allotted). If one includes the space to break out 2 AD tracks from the main, nearly the whole length is taken up with switches. In light of the switch issue, I decided to use curved switches to pull the AD tracks off the main in the 180 curve leading into the yard. I also decided to have stub ended storage tracks. The next issue was that of getting a workable ladder to the storage tracks. Several options were explored. Lets go to the photos:
Here is the redesigned throat and ladder. Notice the triples are gone and a compound ladder has been employed off a wye to get us to four tracks as quickly as possible while still looking somewhat rustic. Notice that the last storage track has been re-designated as an active track as crews will have to pull cars from that track to access the oil dock. This pares the actual storage tracks down to three tracks. Cutting the number of tracks allows for more scenery and less of the parking lot look. Notice that the drill track can be either leg of the wye. The storage track length is such that the drill can hold all of the cars in the AD ladder with out leaving yard limits on the far side of the 180 curve along the wall. Also notice that the drill has access to the two AD tracks to the right via the crossover. The far right track can serve as the passing track while crews use the left leg of the wye to work the AD/storage tracks uninterrupted.
In this shot we see an attempt to integrate some narrow gauge into the scene by making one side of the oil dock narrow gauge and dual gauging the far right track. This is a nod to my local train buddies, all of whom are narrow gaugers in some form or another. The transition track was scratch built. The dual gauge track is primarily cosmetic and has no operation possibilities as there is only one other section on the layout of dual gauge and the points are separated by 180 feet of standard gauge.
This long shot shows the addition of the freight shed along the edge of the yard. There will be a slope away from the yard to the backdrop and the installation of trees to hide the gap. I feel that his track arrangement leaves me with a workable yard that will be attractive from a scenic point of view.
Dang Lee, I thought your layout was the size of an indoor soccer stadium. (They play in hockey statiums in the off season.)
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Oops! I hit the send button twice!
Thanks, Stein.
Here's the construction page from my website. That should give you a pretty good overview, and also shows more or less what the final track plan holds in store. Much of what you'll see here is temporary trackage, so I can keep trains running while I work on other projects around the house.
Continuing in the same direction, after the train crosses the bridge, it enters my stylized version of Ohiopyle, Pennsylvania.
The boxcars you see in the upper right are on the bridge. The track curls around in a double track loop with a few switching opportunities. The building on the right is generically referred to as "Allied Manufacturing Company" which gets and ships a variety of products.
Same scene from the reverse angle. The hoppers are on the Thomas Sub loop, which I'll describe later.
Continuing around the bend, we come to a little time saver puzzle.
There are three industries served in this area. At far left is the Ohiopyle Farmers' Co-op, which ships and receives grain seasonally, as well as various products destined for area farms, such as packaged fertilizers in box cars, farm implements on flat cars, and feed grain in covered hoppers. The 84 Lumber is located on a switchback spur, and primarily receives dimensional lumber, plywood, and other building products. On rare occasions it might ship out a whole house package of lumber and materials, but that's mostly handled by trucks now.
Here's an overview of the switching area., rather jammed up after local worked the sidings last time.
Beyond the 84 is the G.A. Smith Baking Company. This is a small building representing a larger industrial baking company, such as would supply Tastykakes or other such goodies to the region. They receive bulk flour shipments in airslide hoppers, as well as bulk shipments of sugar, corn syrup and other supplies. The scenery's still a little rough around the bakery, so we'll keep moving... nothing to see here!
The track then bends to the left, and enters a short tunnel.
I lied. There's the bakery, clevery hidden by a cut of cars and the local switcher! The track to the right is the Thomas Sub again. Here's where the two subs, which on the prototype terminate hundreds of miles from each other, come back together on my layout to form the twice around track plan.
The train led by SD40 7445 and the Reading SD45 would have just exited the tunnel, and is entering Maryland Junction, where the line splits. The Connellsville Sub goes off to the left behind the tower, and the photographer is standing on the Thomas Sub, peeling off to the right.
Pulling back the camera a bit, we see MY Tower guarding the junction.
From here, the Thomas Sub runs through the paper mill, then swings around behind it through a lift out tunnel.
It then heads up grade behind the paper mill warehouse, to Summit, marked by the concrete overpass.
At Summit, the train crosses a twin span through truss bridge to reach Shaw, a remote train order station located along the Potomac River in West Virginia.
At Shaw, there's a spur that serves a truck dump around the base of the ridge on the left...
At Shaw, you enter the siding that represents the end of the Thomas Sub, again, tying in as it enters the tunnel.
There's tons more pictures at my website. Feel free to stop in and set a spell!
The link is below my sig.
wm3798For instance, the far left part of the image is probably the busiest part of the layout. There's a junction that divides into two main line routes, which both fold back on themselves to traverse the rest of the layout. This creates 4 main line runs passing through the scene. I knew this was going to be cluttered, so disguised it with even more clutter! I put a major industry smack dab in the middle of the pretzel, along with its attendent sidings, switches and structures.
Your layout is proof positive that this trick (hiding clutter with more clutter) really worked here, Lee!
Of course - it helps that you are a great scenery and structure builder, but I am now even more impressed by your great looking layout scenes now that you have shown and told a bit more about how it is done.
How about a little tour of your yard town on the right end of your layout as well ? What tricks did you come up with there to combine aesthetics and function ?
I'd say that my layout has achieved a level of satisfaction both in terms of aesthetics and operations. I'm very much a right brain guy, so the aesthetic pretty much drives the bus, but I also enjoy the "play value" of operations, so simply building a pleasant scene through which to run a train was not going to be enough.
My space is fairly small, but the advent of digital photography has made that less of a problem, because through the lens of the camera, you can enjoy your layout's individual scenes more fully than if you're just standing there looking at them. Case in point...
The bulk of my layout occupies an L shaped space, roughly 12' long by 6'
From this angle, it looks like a fairly typical layout, a jumble of scenery and track, structures and trains. The trains enter from the right via a wye junction that leads to a small yard. A lead from there goes around the room on a narrow shelf, then into the tunnel portal there on the fascia and into staging. I've provided for continuous running, but I've also made provision for a pretty elaborate operations scheme including locals, run throughs, industrial turns, and even the occasional passenger excursion. Needless to say, there's a lot of track there to allow all that to happen. In order to accommodate my desire for operations, but not offend my aesthetic sensibility, I had to employ a lot of tricks.
For instance, the far left part of the image is probably the busiest part of the layout. There's a junction that divides into two main line routes, which both fold back on themselves to traverse the rest of the layout. This creates 4 main line runs passing through the scene. I knew this was going to be cluttered, so disguised it with even more clutter! I put a major industry smack dab in the middle of the pretzel, along with its attendent sidings, switches and structures.
This creates a lot of visual distractions and keeps the eye from recognizing that the mains fold back on themselves. It also creates a wonderful nexus of operations that keeps a switching crew busy for an entire 4 hour operating session!
The scene is also a conglomeration of many smaller scenes, which can keep the camera busy as well...
All of this exists in an area of roughly 36" x 36". That's a lot of action in a small space! The camera also can trick you into believing that there's miles and miles of track and scenery along the way...
The previous three images were all shot on the same 48" of track.
So, while my available space may force some compromises as far as run length, train length and "sincerity"... using the scenery to disguise those compromises becomes part of the fun of designing and building a small layout.
I think it also helps that I work in N scale, which allows a lot more flexibility in a smaller space than HO does, thereby reducing the number and volume of compromises.
steinjr In that spirit - I would very much like see some pictures (and read some discussion) of how you combined aesthetic and operational considerations for your yard, since yards can be very hard to both get functional and aesthetically pleasing, plus they can get to be rather large creatures which can overwhelm a smaller layout. Smile, Stein
In that spirit - I would very much like see some pictures (and read some discussion) of how you combined aesthetic and operational considerations for your yard, since yards can be very hard to both get functional and aesthetically pleasing, plus they can get to be rather large creatures which can overwhelm a smaller layout.
OK give me a couple of days to find the pics and write it up
trainnut1250 Stein – I was worried about loading the thread up with too many photos. That was what I meant by bogging it down. Your description about the siding and scene design is pretty accurate in terms of my thought processes over several months. The scene wanted the highway and the rail line to appear to be running through the scene in a continuous line with the branch joining at the siding. Still a bit problematic but I solved it to my satisfaction. There are many other “gotchas” in this scene that may not be apparent in the pics. The line to the far left is rising up out of staging and must be concealed until it has reached the same plane as the rest of the scene, the whole track moving away from you in the first picture rises at a 1.5% grade that had to be disguised and the ends of the freeway and mainline had to be disguised so that they appeared to be running through the scene. It all took time to figure out.
It may have taken quite a bit of time, but it sure turned out both functional and good looking.
I think that in discussions like this, a picture (or better yet - a series of pictures showing how something was changed) is worth more than thousands of words.
Stein – I was worried about loading the thread up with too many photos. That was what I meant by bogging it down. Your description about the siding and scene design is pretty accurate in terms of my thought processes over several months. The scene wanted the highway and the rail line to appear to be running through the scene in a continuous line with the branch joining at the siding. Still a bit problematic but I solved it to my satisfaction. There are many other “gotchas” in this scene that may not be apparent in the pics. The line to the far left is rising up out of staging and must be concealed until it has reached the same plane as the rest of the scene, the whole track moving away from you in the first picture rises at a 1.5% grade that had to be disguised and the ends of the freeway and mainline had to be disguised so that they appeared to be running through the scene. It all took time to figure out.The “parking lot of track” syndrome appeared in this scene a little bit with the siding, but it was more problematic in other scenes on the railroad, most notably the yard. The stencil I used to draw track shows them as pencil line, in the space tracks look bigger and tend to have the “mall parking lot” look as you put it.Chip – Yes the bridge is an issue. It is a bashing of the two bridges in the canyon shot in the other post and is surprisingly sturdy.. It is 60” off the floor, so I figured that it wouldn’t be a problem. It comes out for heavy work and moving stuff in and out of the room. During layout tours it is fixed and I have tons of signs posted to duck… So far this has worked well during tours but family and myself have run into it several times.. I have had to repair it once when I crunched it while taking pics of the scene below it and wasn’t paying attention.An unforeseen difficulty has arisen out of the installation of the swing gate in that visitors try to close the gate while backing out of the room and they end up hitting the bridge because their attention is on the gate in front of them. I am working on a solution. Ideas include hinging the upper bridge and hanging telltales from it. As a current workaround I pay close attention during layout tours and coach visitors to walk straight out and I will close the gate. This method has been effective to date.Ulrich – Yes it is Marklin. I ran Marklin for forty years. Great quality and very reliable. Very little North American prototype so I switched over to US two rail DC. I ran US style freight cars with Marklin locos by modifying the switches and using coupler conversion cars….You might appreciate this pic:
I like the picture of the two bridges spanning the gorge. Do I detect a German Railway class 44 on the top bridge and a class 24 heading a class 38 on the lower one? Is it Marklin?
Guy,
Aren't you worried someone is going to bang their head on that delicate bridge on the upper level across the door?.
trainnut1250Here are a few photos demonstrating the design process of a scene on my layout depicting the central valley in California. It show also how I am integrating the scenery into the design. I hope these don’t bog the thread down too much.
Absolutely not! Well written and excellently illustrated - how would that bog the thread down ?
trainnut1250 The bench work is done and most of the track is in. One issue that came back over and over is that of the track plan as drawn on paper not looking so good in full size on the homasote. Certain areas of the layout had to be precisely planned and executed to work out (helix, hidden staging), these went off fine because they were hidden and had no scenic element to them. When I got to visible areas, most stuff needed tweaking to look right. I found the biggest issue was the “parking lot of track” look that kept coming up. I took out lots of track to keep things as spare as possible.
The bench work is done and most of the track is in. One issue that came back over and over is that of the track plan as drawn on paper not looking so good in full size on the homasote. Certain areas of the layout had to be precisely planned and executed to work out (helix, hidden staging), these went off fine because they were hidden and had no scenic element to them. When I got to visible areas, most stuff needed tweaking to look right. I found the biggest issue was the “parking lot of track” look that kept coming up. I took out lots of track to keep things as spare as possible.
I really like the way you trimmed down that siding from running along the track and siding, to dropping down and away from the siding at an angle to the industry down there at the end - looks very realistic.
Also - moving the point where the industry siding branches off from the passing siding down a bit allows you to let a local do a little switching of the local industry from the passing siding without fouling the main.
Looks great, works great.
So - what lies in the concept "parking lot of tracks" - lots of tracks close together filling up the space - like rows of cars in a shopping mall parking lot ?
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…..
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 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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
Raised on the Erie Lackawanna Mainline- Supt. of the Black River Transfer & Terminal R.R.
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 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.
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
Shayfan, that is very nice modelling. Thanks for the photos.
- Harry