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.
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.
After giving your post some thought, I believe you are correct.
- Harry
Phil, I'm not a rocket scientist; they are my students.
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
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.
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
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?
- Douglas
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.
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.
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.
Or better yet, Charlie Comstock's 4 x 8 layout.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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)
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?
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)
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.