cuyama My personal opinion is that benchwork methods should follow the needs of the track plan.
My personal opinion is that benchwork methods should follow the needs of the track plan.
This exactly ^ is how I approach layout design, the track plan is designed to fit the space and then the benchwork follows the needs of the track plan. I've designed my last to 3 layouts that way.
I follow this basic order:
- create a scale drawing of the space on a scale grid, including all walls, doors, obstacles like supports or utililtys etc.
- draw in a track plan to fit that space with special consideration to curves or track turn-backs, isle ways, choke points, yards, passing sidings, staging etc.
- draw in benchwork to fit the track design.
- build benchwork in modular stages.
- build sub-roadbed and lay track
- add in electrical bus and drops to track
- layer in scenery
Thinking about them in the abstract may not be very productive -- again, just my view.
Agree'd.
Building a layout in sections in case of a future move is often a good idea, but I would suggest doing that only for a portion of the layout. Other portions, such as "run through" areas and/or narrow shelves on an upper deck, may be purpose-built with lower cost (and benchwork thickness). These temporary segments aren't planned to move, so can be planned simply and built expeditiously.
The above is logical advise. My current layout which is being dis-mantled this month, was built in modular section, which I plan to preserve and incorporate into a future layout where possible. Any sections that won't fit the new design can be taken apart by removing the dry-wall screws and the lumber can be cut if necessary and re-used.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
This is not meant to offend anyone - please forgive me if it might sound that way.
You guys talk about designing and building layouts as if it's a matter of getting up in the morning, drawing a track plan over breakfast, then heading downstairs to cut and glue some wood, lay track, and run trains in the evening with the crew.
It feels pretty intimidating to me and I wish I had your confidence, knowledge and experience to just whip up a track plan like that. Right now, I'm struggling to figure out what industries should there be, how and what kind of trains should run, how long should the trains be, where should they come and go, where the cities/towns and scenic elements need to be placed, etc.
I could be wrong, but I've scoured the web, and none of these actual things are written anywhere. To me, Armstrong wrote in general terms, and the modern gurus are of little help.
Does this kind of mastery come after decades of model railroading and cannot be really put into words of a book or a web page; is it some kind of a thought that cannot be passed along due to its nature; or something else I'm not aware of?
I'm asking because I want to understand and learn the principles. I'm looking for the logic behind it, the train of thought (no pun intended) as they say.
Almost everywhere I asked people would say the same thing, as if it's a mantra: what is your prototype, what time period/era, what scale/gauge, ops or scenic layout, followed by go read Armstrong.
A few people out there I spoke to expect me to actually give them a date I'm modelling (ie. 19 September, 1959, 3:24pm) before they can dispense some advice.
I truly do not undestand that at all. Is it impossible to think out of the box in abstract terms without specifics?
I love trains, I grew up watching trains, even had relatives work on the railroad. But, I do not have a "prototype" in mind, nor am I emotionally connected to some place and time in the past (or present) that I wish to recreate.
Is the only way to achieve zen in model railroading through selecting a specific prototype and recreating it rail for rail?
/rant
YouTube Channel
Website
TrainzLuvr You guys talk about designing and building layouts as if it's a matter of getting up in the morning, drawing a track plan over breakfast, then heading downstairs to cut and glue some wood, lay track, and run trains in the evening with the crew. ... Almost everywhere I asked people would say the same thing, as if it's a mantra: what is your prototype, what time period/era, what scale/gauge, ops or scenic layout, followed by go read Armstrong.
...
For a lifelong modeler it may very well be that simple. It's called experience. With experience comes proficiency. For the rest of us it means countless hours researching, reading, sketching, testing, and trying to determine the pros and cons of each and every decision. It is a complex engineering problem that must be solved bit by bit.
I returned to the hobby after a 40 year absence. What I knew about trains then is obsolete and all but worthless now. I was again a noob for all practical purposes. I wondered about many of the same things you are asking about now.
With seven years under my belt and a large layout well on its way to being operational I can tell you the problem is solvable if you persevere. I can also tell you the prototype, time, scale, ops/scenic questions do need to be asked and answered. The answers set the parameters affecting your decision making as you work towards solving the engineering challenge of building a satisfying, reliable, functional model railroad. The advice you are being given and the questions you are being asked are good. They need answers or you run the risk of investing a lot of time and effort only to be disappointed in your results.
It would take a book, a very thick book, to explain in detail everything experience will eventually teach you. Reading Armstrong can be thought of as one of the more informative and valuable chapters in that thick book. I did and it has served me well.
Alan
Freelancing the LK&O Railroad
TrainzLuvr You guys talk about designing and building layouts as if it's a matter of getting up in the morning, drawing a track plan over breakfast, then heading downstairs to cut and glue some wood, lay track, and run trains in the evening with the crew.
Your kidding me right? For many of us, model trains has been a life long passion. I was once a noob in my 20's and didnt have a clue, nor even a place to build a layout. I moved around a lot and had a lot of time to dream and wear out my copy of John Armstrongs book Track Planning For Realistic Operation, which I highly recommend. What I'm trying to communicate is it took years before I had the knowledge and skills I have now. So as they say, Rome wasn't built in a day.
Also, the information here is good advise. Its up to you to if you take it to heart or go your own way.
It feels pretty intimidating to me and I wish I had your confidence, knowledge and experience to just whip up a track plan like that.
Confidence comes from doing, from trial and error, which is true for all kinds of things, not just a train hobby. You have to start out with baby steps putting one foot in front of another and work your way from small to large.
Right now, I'm struggling to figure out what industries should there be, how and what kind of trains should run, how long should the trains be, where should they come and go, where the cities/towns and scenic elements need to be placed, etc. I could be wrong, but I've scoured the web, and none of these actual things are written anywhere. To me, Armstrong wrote in general terms, and the modern gurus are of little help.
Sounds like you are trying to bite off too much and getting overwhelmed. There is a reason old heads recommend building a smaller layout first before tackling a big layout. Reading your comments it seems youve now found out first hand why maybe?
Does this kind of mastery come after decades of model railroading and cannot be really put into words of a book or a web page; is it some kind of a thought that cannot be passed along due to its nature; or something else I'm not aware of? I'm asking because I want to understand and learn the principles. I'm looking for the logic behind it, the train of thought (no pun intended) as they say.
Yes, for many its a life long passion and not a "just add water and instant dream layout". For many it does take time to build the experience to build a layout and really know what you want to focus on. Heck, my wifes son grew up poor in England and wasnt exposed to much of anything so has no clue what he is interested in or what to do with his life and at 23 we are trying to catch him up. In fact we are having ro decide for him.
Model trains can be like that. You may have to look at many layout designs and many trains etc. before you figure out what it is you specifically like or have a passion about. Then you may settle on something you can focus on and sink your teeth into. I had a fairly broad range of a 30 year time frame for two favorite railroads and only in the last few years narrowed that down to approx 5 years, which is MUCH more managable, believe me.
Almost everywhere I asked people would say the same thing, as if it's a mantra: what is your prototype, what time period/era, what scale/gauge, ops or scenic layout, followed by go read Armstrong. A few people out there I spoke to expect me to actually give them a date I'm modelling (ie. 19 September, 1959, 3:24pm) before they can dispense some advice. I truly do not undestand that at all. Is it impossible to think out of the box in abstract terms without specifics? I love trains, I grew up watching trains, even had relatives work on the railroad. But, I do not have a "prototype" in mind, nor am I emotionally connected to some place and time in the past (or present) that I wish to recreate. Is the only way to achieve zen in model railroading through selecting a specific prototype and recreating it rail for rail? /rant
Well, dont let people intimidate you or try to pin you down. Youll find a lot of hobbyists can be pretty pushy, or have their own agenda. Looks like you already found that out by the sounds of it. Forget the pushy people and try to have fun and dont forget, its the journey you should enjoy, don't try to focus too much on the destination. Also dont be afraid to postpone an overly ambitious layout and may try something more modest. Better that than give up entirely out of frustration.
Not sure where you got the impression that even pros like Byron design a plan and start building in the same day. It's never that fast, except maybe a trivial table top layout.
I've been working on my plan for over 3 years, since I first moved into this house. Though in truth I've done little over the last year and a half. But there was a month oor more of back and forth here and some offline discussion just to come up with a basic shape to maximize the railroad in my space without having duckunders. I spent another several months trying different options for the mainline and staging - cool thing about using CAD, I use a different layer for each element, like staging, main, yards, branch, etc. ANd I don;t start a new file for ever new idea - I start a new layer. So if I like the staging concept but start t not like where th emain is going, I start a new mainline layer and hide the old one. THen I can easily flip back and forth between versions without opening and closing files. I have 4 versions of the main and 3 different staging ideas in my current file, but I THINK I've settled on one of each. And that's JUST the main, no industry sidings. And I have the yard pretty much figured out. ANd this is still all just the lower deck, haven't even started the main line for the upper deck yet, after all this time. Only now do I feel a little pressure, because soon the demo on the basement will start and then it will be rebuilt into a train room and ready to go, at which point I'll want to get building. So I do need to get back to the plan and get cracking. I also don;t drive myself crazy - if I hit a design block I'll save the file and go review the relevant info in Armstrong or another book, and sleep on it, or, now that's it's summer, go float around in the pool and meditate on the problem. Eventually a solution will come to me and I add it to the drawing and move on.
I don;t build fast, either. I'm like a Yugo to Michael Rose's F1. My previous layout was about 5 years inthe making, from starting the plan to construction, and while I had allt he track down, the only 'scenery' I had was all the pink foam was painted with an earth brown color, about half the rails were painted, and maybe 1/4 of it has ballast. That's it. In 5 years.This next layout will be significantly larger (the old one was only 10x13), so I will have to definitely work faster if I expect to have it anywhere near 'complete' in my lifetime.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
TrainzLuvris it some kind of a thought that cannot be passed along due to its nature; or something else I'm not aware of?
A lot of it is just deciding.
TrainzLuvrIs the only way to achieve zen in model railroading through selecting a specific prototype and recreating it rail for rail?
Of course not, and no one has suggested that to you. Successful freelanced layouts abound.
But if you can't make at least some decisions for yourself on era, locale, theme, etc., then there are too many degrees-of-freedom for anyone to decide and move forward. And it’s true, saying “yes” to some things means saying “no” (or at least, “not now”) to others. Model railroading is full of trade-offs.
Months ago I and others suggested building a smaller practice layout in only a portion of your space to get some experience and a practical feeling for the various trade-offs. Pick a quality published plan and have at it. In the end, you’ll have some fun, learn a lot, and be better-informed to make the decisions for the long-term layout.
Paraphrasing Voltaire and others, "The perfect is the enemy of the good."
And I might add: rumination is the enemy of actually building a layout.
Good luck.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
cuyama Paraphrasing Voltaire and others, "The perfect is the enemy of the good." And I might add: rumination is the enemy of actually building a layout. Good luck.
Ain't it the truth!
I've changed my mind MANY times before settling on something. In my adult life, I had originally started planning for a freelanced sort of thing with the idea that I would build moore than one layout over the years but all on the same theme. Later on I switched to a specific prototype.
And even within those constraints, I've changed my mind several times. Much of that was a stubbornness to want to built something I had been thinking about for years, while working to aquire a house to do it in. Now that I do, I don't have quite the space to do what I dreamed about, and it took some soul searching and time to come to the conclusion to do a more or less freelance track plan but with the details and design in keeping with my chosen prototype. These internal compromises are probably the hardest ones to make.
I can;t agree more on the idea of building a practice layout. Lately the term has come up "chainsaw layout" although I think that may be a tad excessive for tearing it down, especially an indoor layout . Yes, I am now designing a basement size layout. But looking back, this will be the 9th or 10th layout I have built on my own, not to mention 2 clubs I've belonged to and helped plus helping my Dad when I was even younger. Certainly not my first. Think of the first one as a test bed for the ideas you have, to see what works and what doesn't. Much can be salvaged so what you put into it isn't all wasted money, nor is it wasted time because the lessons learned can be priceless.
I'm on hold right now awaiting the basement refinishing. I PROBABLY could do this myself but it would take forever, whereas the professionals can have it done in a couple of weeks. But I expect that on the first day off I have after they are done, I will be taking my truck for the first load of lumber. My problem is not really one of excessive rumination, more like once I get enough track down to run trains, I start running trains and building less.
cuyama,
What are you saying, that I have a problem with committment? Makes one wonder how I ended up with my spouse. :)
Joking aside, everyone has written very encouraging and inspirational thoughts, thank you!
It also resonates with me some of what rrinker wrote above. We lived in a 2 bdrm. apartment for over a decade and I never had room for a real layout (I'm not the shelf layout kinda person). Last two or so years being there I spent a lot of thought dreaming about having a house and a basement layout.
Then we ended up with a house, and it took another two years before we could come to a point to be able to start a layout. Yet, it turns out the space is not that big after all (to me at least). My SO says that everyone I talked have said I could build a H0 layout in there, but I say to her everyone is different.
So now I'm faced with those internal compromises that rrinker mentioned. I think I need additional 2-3 ft in depth to be able to fit my vision for that space (around the walls with a peninsula and 3 ft aisles). Have not found a way to warp space yet (I'll let you know when I do, so we can all have basement empires in our closets)
Thus the N scale keeps creeping back as a solution to fill the space, which is what got cuyama to start his post above with:
most likely in reference to my flip-flopping of scales. :)
But I digress...
You have all spent many years building model railroads, and determined what went right and what went wrong. Looking at the big picture, it does not make sense to me to repeat those same wrongs just to find out what the rights are. Not trying to be snotty here but practical.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that we all learn in a different manner. Perhaps building a chaisaw layout worked for some, but I know it would not work for me. It won't scratch that itch and I would be spending (limited) resources on it.
Besides, I could hire Byron, or another layout designer, to make a plan for me, but then I would not learn much. The reasoning and logic behind creating and placing yards, industries, towns and scenery where they are, or setting an operational scheme for the trains. That is part of the big picture to me.
When you are in an apartment for almost 6 years, you BECOME a shelf layout guy. It actually worked out well - and really wasn't the first time I had tried it, either. Way back, the palce I lived had a room big enough to be a bedroom, off the main bedroom. They called it a walk-in closet, but there were no provisions for hanging clothes. I had a table with my computer in there, and then I got the itch to have a layout, not just the club layout which was an hour away. I used two of the shelf plans from 101 Track Plans and connected them with a section I designed. Only ever built the one plus the one I designed before things happened and I didn't live there any more. One piece I donated to the club, with the one condition that when scenery got put on it, I wanted to be there and learn. Of course, I go back one week and the whole thing is done - someone got the itch to do scenery and just did it. Fast forward to my previous place, I was there almost 6 years, and so I came up with that layout. I couldn;t model the branch I wanted, iot was too big, but I picked a different branch (that partially still exists) and using Bing Maps in the bird's eye view I was able to trace the rails. Most of that plan is made up of actual track layouts, just with lengths shrunk (and the yard has a few fewer tracks), as individual scenes, connected by whatever was needed (mostly the curves in the corners). Long trains took a hike, too. If you are set on 30-50 car freights, reconsider. In my bedroom layout, 5 cars was about tops. ANd it was still fun. With my larger space, I'm still looking at 12 car trains or so. And these are shorter cars - 40 foot and shorter cars with a random 50 foot box car thrown in for variety. And smaller locos - GP7's and RS-3's are not nearly as big as AC4400W's and the like. Offset somewhat by having an actual caboose on all trains.
See, if I had built a shelf layout we would've never left that apartment. In retrospect, we got out just in time and bought this house we are living in now. The trains inadvertently gave me a kick in the butt to move out, although there were other factors, too.
In the layout plan I posted in the other thread, staging yard allows for ~100" long trains - it fits a Dash-9 with about 8 x 89' autoracks, if I was going modern; or a 4-8-4 road steamy+tender and 10 x 50' box (or 15 x 40' box) cars with a caboose, for a transition era. I think either are more than representative of a decent train. Personally, more of the same cars (unit trains) does not really entice me.
About the layout in your previous place, you said you used Bing Maps to trace track and build the branch track plan. How did you choose that specific portion of the railroad, what was the criteria?
Don't get too wrapped up in all the analysis. Sometimes I think we get so focused on just the right prototype and just the right operations that we get bogged down in detail, can't see the forest for the trees kind of thing.
A reality for many of us is we don't have space for the basement empire. Which is why 4x8s and self switching layouts come in. Most/none of them really answer the question of which prototype and which year and so forth because they can't fit all that in. But they can be fun.
Just to take an example that is one of my favorites (actually built it at one time a few years ago). The Jefferson, Memphis, & Northern from the Oct 79 MR if you can get it is a great first model railroad. It's doesn't neccessarily have all the goodies, or full length trains (at only 5x9) but has enough going on to be a great learning layout. Big enough to get a feel for operations, scenary, structures, controls, etc, but not so big to be overwhelming.
Which is something I think we sometimes do a bit is overwhelm the newcomer with all the "stuff" that is really the result of years.
Another great one (esp if you can find the book) by John Olson is the Jerome and Southwesten. He takes you through step by step building a simple railroad.
The questions you ask about industries, train lengths, etc can take entire books to answer (there are books on them), but honestly you don't need to get that deep for a first layout. You can get paralysis by analysis trying to get everything just right. Just as an example, you could stick in an oil or propane dealer, a lumber yard, a factory, and a team track (which would be called a transload today, but still the same thing) and pretty much be good to go no matter where or what era you're in.
Another good source is the Virginian series here on MR or if you want the entire logic of from picking a prototype to building, operation, and train car choices, the Winston Salem Southbound and Beer Line videos cover the entire process and many of the questions you're asking.
jim
TrainzLuvr See, if I had built a shelf layout we would've never left that apartment. In retrospect, we got out just in time and bought this house we are living in now. The trains inadvertently gave me a kick in the butt to move out, although there were other factors, too. In the layout plan I posted in the other thread, staging yard allows for ~100" long trains - it fits a Dash-9 with about 8 x 89' autoracks, if I was going modern; or a 4-8-4 road steamy+tender and 10 x 50' box (or 15 x 40' box) cars with a caboose, for a transition era. I think either are more than representative of a decent train. Personally, more of the same cars (unit trains) does not really entice me. About the layout in your previous place, you said you used Bing Maps to trace track and build the branch track plan. How did you choose that specific portion of the railroad, what was the criteria?
Didn't keep me in place - after building the shelf layout, I wanted more - a bigger layout. Wasn't going to happen in the apartment.
My first thought is your train lengths are tooo long for the space you have, since that's about the length I am shooting for and I have a much larger space. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but the requirements for the longer cars and locos also eats up a lot of space in wider radius requirements.
Choice of line, well, that was probably an advantage of having/modeling a favorite prototype. I've done a LOT of research. I have a shelf full of boooks - a very comprehensice 2 volume history of the Reading, books on stations along the line, one book dedicated specifically to one station, books on locomotives, both steam and diesel, freight car color guide, photo books from various areas the Reading served, actual publications the railroad put out back in the day as PR material, employee magazines, timetables, rulebooks (though both of those are newer than my era). I belong to the Reading Company technical and Historical Society, which is a wonderful source of information. We have actual locomotives and rolling stock as well as plenty of paper and smaller items, much on display at our museum. And I've worked and lived in an around Reading for about 20 years now, for a while just 2 blocks from where the main shops and yard used to be. So when I realized a 10x13 bedroom layout would not be able to depict a larger branch (despite that it is the main east-west line used by NS these days in this area, it's always been referred to as a branch because like many railroads, the Reading grew by aquiring other railroads and as the East penn railroad was not the main line of the Reading, it was therefore a branch - even though as coal traffic dwindled on the main line, crossline traffic on the branch increased). So I had to pick something smaller to fit in my space. It was easy to pick the C&F branch since a) it diverged off the East penn, b) it was short and pretty simple, and c) I used to live near it and still drive by it on a regular basis. Even so, I only was modeling a short part of it, between the junction with the East Penn and the first yard. A large water filled quarry is all that is left today, but there used to be a cement plant not far from the yard, servved by a long siding that might well be a branch itself, and that's what I was doing on that plan. My track arrangement within the cement plant was more to fit the space than the actual track arrangement (and never would have fit on a penninsula, it could have filled the whole room. So more selective compression), but indeed the track to it branched out of the yard. I never did build the penninsula though. So through the use of Bing maps (the bird's eye view makes it easy to follow rail lines, they are usually taken at a lower altitude than the straight down views you find on Google), historical maps (there are collections of aerial photos from the 30's to the 70's for PA available online - there are similar for other states - as many as 3 different sets for the same area, 30's, 50's and 70's so you can see how things changed), and my reference books, I was able to come up with a plan. Notice the plan is very simple, I resisted the temptation to throw in all sorts of extra sidings for more places to switch.
@jmbjmb,
Thanks, I will look up the Olson book - my club has a pretty decent selection of Model Railroader items going back several decades. And to be honest I never paid attention to the MR videos. Generally, I just hit YouTube for most of the videos, but I will check those two out as they seem to be going through details.
Speaking of details, I don't mind them. The paralysis by analysis happens to me much much later than to most of the people as I (over)analyze things a lot (as you could read from some of my posts LOL).
By the way, what are those books you said exist that talk about industries, train lenghts, etc (the questions I was seeking answers to)?
@rrinker,
With regards to train sizes, I must have missed it then, but what is your space/layout size now, the plan that's on the website is 10x17?
I do envy you that you have a prototype to work off and access to an extensive library to support the project. And it shows you've done your homework... :)
New space is roughly 26x31 but there's a stairway in the middle of it plus the furnace and water heater are int he one corner. It's more like a backwards J laying witht he long side down. It's 31 on the long side but more like 20 on the short side before the staits. I AM going under the stairs for the staging though. Have to jog around the furnace and water heater in the lower right so it's also noot really quite 31 down the long side. More like 26 or 27 if I leave room around the furnace. That corner will have to be removable to replace either one, but the good thing is both are nearly new. Talk about an engineering challenge - double deck removable section. At least it can be semi-permanent, like attached to the fixed parts with carriage bolts, since the only time it will have to be removed is if the water heater or furnace need replacement.
For the books, MR has published over the years (they may not all still be in print, so you might have to try the library) several series of books on Industries along the Track. Each volume covered several different industries in detail. They also have published specific topics such as coal railroading, piggyback (I think is a current title), freight house operations, and several others.
For operations, there is "How to Operate Your Model Railroad" by Bruce Chubb (one of the best) and "Realistic Model Railroad Operation" by Tony Koester.
Kalmbach has also published several books on building benchwork.
The hardest part is many of these are now out of print, though Google may find them or try the local library. Chubbs book on operation has been practically the go to source for 20 years.
Settling on a railroad to model and a time frame is definitely something which is a personal choice but if you can do that, it can yield satisfying results, assuming you would like a themed model RR. Many are happy running anything and everything and thats fine too, it just depends on what you want out of the hobby.
I highly recommend John Armstrongs "Track Planning for Realistic Operation". My copy was published in the 1980's but it's been revised once or twice since then and is still very valuable for layout design and some very practical things like minimums standards and curve easements etc. John was an mechancial engineer by trade and also a professional layout designer so IMO, his book is required reading for aspireing layout designers and builders.
@rrinker
Now I see what you meant about train lenghts being more more appropriate for your space size. I wish I had your space - I'd manage dealing with the furnace, water heater and the stairs. :)
@jmbjmb
To be honest, I never heard of "How to Operate Your Model Railroad". Shame on me. I will have to get that for sure.
I did find the "Industries Along The Tracks" in the LHS, but of course Vol.1 is out of print.
I really do not understand book publishers...if a book is out of print and they never intend to print it again, make it available as an eBook, or release into public domain. Holding onto books that are decades old is pretty pathetic, but then again most all basing their business models on dinosaur principles, so it is not surprising.
@riogrande5761
I did read John Armstrong's seminal book few months back and I only have more questions than answers. I'm reading it again in hope of better understanding. :)
Although, I see that John never talked about Staging, and most (all?) of his plans do not contain it. I guess that concept came from Frank Ellison and was not adopted right away. They were contemporaries as far as I could tell. Maybe the lack of internet is to blame.
I really did not want to pick a prototype railroad, but it seems unless I do, I can't get much help anywhere. :)
Like what questions from John Armstrongs books? I have no idea who gets credit for staging and dont really care. I picked that up from ready many many MR layout articles over the years. As for deciding on RR and era being necessary to get help? Where is it written? Arent people trying to help here with out you commiting to a rr and era? Im not following your line of thought there. You can please yourself regarding what trains you choose like most people here.
TrainzLuvrI did read John Armstrong's seminal book few months back and I only have more questions than answers.
If you post specific questions here, I am sure that many will have answers. But note that the major portions of Track Planning for Realistic Operation (TPRO) were written in 1963. So while it's absolutely a great overall guide, there are modern resources that add to it (including Armstrong’s own later books).
I suggest working through the step-by-step examples on pages 117 to 120 and 129 to 137 (3rd Edition TPRO page numbers). Although it's not your exact space, you'll see that it's an iterative process that begins with decisions about scale, era and theme -- and then works to fit a layout to the space available. And often one goes back and forth from theme to drawing, adjusting trade-offs until one finds the right balance.
Although it is not edited for continuity and there are some gaps, the Layout Design SIG’s on-line Layout Design Primer explores a number of additional ideas.
My article in Layout Design Journal #40 describes my workflow in layout design, which begins with an unbounded Conceptual phase, proceeds to a Structural phase that defines a layout footprint and schematic, and only then moves to a Detail phase. This is the basis for the 4-hour Layout Design Bootcamp I often present with the LDSIG at NMRA Conventions (though not this year). A brief outline is here. The early Conceptual phase is where the big decisions get made about theme, era, etc. Moving to detailed design without those touchstones is difficult for me.
A condensed version of the Layout Design Bootcamp material was recently published as a chapter in the Operation SIG's new book A Compendium of Model Railroad Operations. It’s a great book, but expensive, and probably not worth the purchase just for my lone chapter on design -- but I think it is a worthy addition to the library of anyone interested in Operations.
TrainzLuvrAlthough, I see that John never talked about Staging
They were also called "Layover" tracks back in the day. The concept is addressed a few times in TPRO. John wrote about staging in much more detail in later books as the concept became more accepted.
TrainzLuvrI really did not want to pick a prototype railroad, but it seems unless I do, I can't get much help anywhere. :)
I honestly don't know why you keep saying that.
There are many successful freelance layouts -- and folks would be happy to help. But there is a difference between layout designs for a grain-oriented Midwestern sort of layout, a mountain logging line, a mainline passenger route, etc. And, of course, a difference in designs for a given space depending on scale (sorry). A one-train-per-day shortline layout is different than one representing a few towns along a busy route. Either is possible in your space, but knowing which you would like to see would be a helpful step in focusing your efforts (IMHO).
Nobody is insisting that you pick a prototype railroad – at least not on the two forums where I have seen you ask for help. But they are asking you to narrow things down a bit by making a few choices.
By the way, one of things I do with new clients for layout design who don’t yet have a firm concept in mind is to ask them to look over this questionnaire. No one is expected to answer every question (and they don't!), but it is intended to help them organize their thoughts and identify the things that they would like to see most. (Armstrong used a similar questionnaire for his clients). That input helps me help them to make choices and trade-offs as we work on the design. It has worked well for many.
What layouts do you like from the books and magazines that you’ve seen? Even if they don’t fit your space exactly, identifying them would be at least a step toward narrowing down from the universe of every possible concept and theme -- and that would help others help you, I think. And if you just want as big a "generic" layout as you can fit with a little of this and a little of that, that could be the basis for a design. But you’ve got to rule some things out to rule some things in.
And with that, I am sure that I have annoyed you enough and will bow out. Best of luck.
Byron
Byron,
I consider you an authority on the subject and someone I can learn from. I wouldn't be continuously engaging you in conversations here, and elsewhere, if I was being annoyed by you. :)
As far as concept of Staging, I feel Frank Ellison should get the credit for it, and honestly I don't think everyone has read his The Art of Model Railroading. I believe those articles paint the "big picture" of what model railroading truly is, or should be, in my humble opinion. But then again, to each their own, I really don't want to get across in a wrong way.
John Armstrong was sometimes hard for me to read. While I did not write all the questions I had at the time, I felt I didn't grok the concepts fully on the first read, so I'm re-reading his book on Track Planning again.
Afterwards I feel confident I should be able to start my own layout design business...I'm just kidding!!!
People, I perceived, who needed me to tell them the prototype RR before they could help...well there was a number. I am not holding it against them, by no means, everyone has their frame of mind/reference, and what they feel comfortable with. I also understand why they need a prototype (it's easier to deal with something that was/is real than something that's abstract).
I will heed Byron's advice and try to narrow things down more. Over the past couple of weeks I did notice that my direction is crystallizing, probably because I'm acquiring more knowledge.
And once again, not to sound like a broken record, I truly appreciate everyone's posts and patience.
I will throw this out. Another way to approach design is picking a standard train length. Pick the length, 20" (on my narrow gauge switchbacks, small Shay plus 3 cars), 5ft, 6ft, 10ft, whatever. This should fit a locomotive and x number of standard length cars in your era.
For my 1900 era layout in HO, a 36ft car is 5.5" over the couplers, and a 32ft car is 5". A 10 car train is 55" plus 9" for the locomotive and 4.5" for the caboose, totally 68.5". If I use 6ft passing sidings as my "standard", I can run 10 car trains, perhaps 12 if I use shorter cars.
Almost all your passing sidings should be at least this train length or slightly longer (1.2 x train length). If you go way longer, you are wasting space. If you go shorter, you are creating switching puzzles (which is OK if that's what you want). Be aware that doing a runaround switching operation on a 12ft passing siding will seem very slow at scale speeds.
Space between passing sidings needs to be at least 1.5 x train length, and up to 3x train length is great. If the space between passing sidings is less than 2x train length, no train can be between passing sidings if there is switching going on at the sidings.
Yards - if you are not doing 0-5-0 train make-up and breakdown - have to have arrival/departure track at least a full train length long, with one tail long enough for the engine, and the yard lead (sometimes called drill track) at least half a train length long (full train length is better). Yard tracks again need to be at least half a train length long, and full train length is better.
Be aware that following this thinking will give you a much better operating layout, but will severely limit the number of towns or passing sidings. It will likely be more realistic with a lot of open space between towns.
This is just another way of looking at things. I've learned this in trying to arrange Free-mo modules into an enjoyable, operations-capable layout.
Fred W
...modeling foggy coastal Oregon in HO and HOn3, where it's always 1900...
Excuse me if already specified but what is the size of the room.
Read, and re-read, and re-read as many times as necessary to get the concepts in Track Planning for Realistic Operation. John COULD HAVE explained many of his concepts with complex math based on his mechanical engineering eduction but that's what's great about his books - and his other writings. He doesn't resort to that. He distills it down to usable rules of thumb.
As Byron says - the two iterative examples in the book are probably the best lesson. This is why I prefer my older edition of the book - I have a 2nd edition as well as 3rd, if I find one I would probably buy a 1st edition as well. ANd they cut some of the intermediate diagrams in those examples in the newer edition so they could shoehorn in the section on modern railroading. But those examples, especially the second one, take you all the way through getting accurate room measurements and determinign the best shape that can fit in the available space while meeting other requirements (the givens and druthers).
Another good source - if you have the All Access Pass - back in the 50's when Armstrong formulated many of his ideas, he wrote track plan articles for MR. In many of those articles, the highlight of the plan is one of his concepts liek reverted loops and they go on in more detail than may be in the book.
rrinker Read, and re-read, and re-read as many times as necessary to get the concepts in Track Planning for Realistic Operation. John COULD HAVE explained many of his concepts with complex math based on his mechanical engineering eduction but that's what's great about his books - and his other writings. He doesn't resort to that. He distills it down to usable rules of thumb. As Byron says - the two iterative examples in the book are probably the best lesson. This is why I prefer my older edition of the book - I have a 2nd edition as well as 3rd, if I find one I would probably buy a 1st edition as well. ANd they cut some of the intermediate diagrams in those examples in the newer edition so they could shoehorn in the section on modern railroading. But those examples, especially the second one, take you all the way through getting accurate room measurements and determinign the best shape that can fit in the available space while meeting other requirements (the givens and druthers). --Randy
I couldn't agree with this more. I'm not sure which addition my Track Planning book is but it has a photo of some guys with a circle of track on the nose of a real EMD diesel. I bought my copy in the 1980's. I'm pretty sure there have been one or two revisions since then.
Yep, always trade-offs. Since the D&RGW was primarily a single track RR, I always design siding to handle a train of sufficient length - around 18 or 20 feet sidings, which has it's trade-offs.
That's the one I have, that's the second edition. It's been well worn from thuming through it again and again. And I have a newer edition, which sticks a chapter in on modern railroading and unit trains. I did read the original edition once, when I belonged to the club it was in the club library, but by that time they were into several printings of the second edition already so that's what I ended up with when I bought my own.
I lso have Creative Layout Design that I bought at a trains how and it wan't until I got it home that I realized one whole layout is missing from it - the one bult in a mobile home. But the last one is my favorite, chock full of Armstrong pun names and takes on real place names - like Llawn Mawr (Bryn Mawr) and the town of Bee Haven which hold an annual beauty pageant... an interesting plan designed for O scale but I always though doing it in HO in the same space would mke for a really nice layout, smaller scale same space would keep the track from being all scrunched together and give more distance between the towns.
@fwright
That was one of the things I was going to do along the way. There's just so many parameters to account for, I haven't had a chance to actually dive into figuring out train lengths, sidings etc.
What I did though was use the TrainPlayer to test some trains on the layout plan I posted in the other thread, and it was pretty to see it run and also notice how much space long trains take up. they were 8' long with 10, 50' box cars, iirc.
Right now I need to go back to the drawing board and work out a way to add sidings and industries so there's some operational meaning in that plan. Also move the staging into a lower level, somewhere...
@Track fiddler
It's ~22.5x12, please see this thread http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/260185.aspx
@rrinker, riogrande5761
My Track Planning book is the latest edition:
I do have the Creative Model Railroad Design book, too.
I also chuckle at the names on the layout plans, it's pretty entertaining. :)
TrainzLuvr That was one of the things I was going to do along the way. There's just so many parameters to account for, I haven't had a chance to actually dive into figuring out train lengths, sidings etc. ...... and also notice how much space long trains take up. they were 8' long with 10, 50' box cars, iirc. Right now I need to go back to the drawing board and work out a way to add sidings and industries so there's some operational meaning in that plan.
...... and also notice how much space long trains take up. they were 8' long with 10, 50' box cars, iirc.
Right now I need to go back to the drawing board and work out a way to add sidings and industries so there's some operational meaning in that plan.
IMO, keep in mind that HO scale trains convey more length than their real life counterparts. Yes, a 10 car train in HO scale can look like a medium length train in HO, but it would be a really short looking train in real life.
If you want to represent a reasonably long train, try only 15 cars. That length tends to fill up your field of vision, so the eye tends to see it as a long train.
Myself, I model a short line where the maximum train length is 7 cars. Even at that, a 7 car train of 50' cars in HO scale looks a lot longer than the short train I want to represent. Not to mention the train dwarfs the switcher that pulls it.
On my next layout, I'm probably going to have to limit train length to 5 cars to get the train to look like the short trains I want to model. Which is a nice problem to have actually, since space is always at a premium with our layouts.
Thank goodness I'm not modeling modern unit coal trains. But, those 100 plus car trains could actually be represented by a 30 car train in HO scale to effectively convey that monster, IMO.
- Douglas
Train length in HO is in the eye of the beholder. IMO, 10 cars still looks short and I wouldn't call a 15 car train something that looked reasonably long. Thats me anyway, and I'd there are others who agree - point being, each person has to decide what looks reasonable to themselves and design accordingly.
I shoot for more like 20-25 cars in HO for longish mainline trains so I design siding or storage capacity accordingly. I also include some storage for a couple of longer trains as well.
Even my 10x18' layout had staging ranging from around 15 feet to as long as 22 feet. The longest staging tracks could accomodate a 30 car coal train for example. For a larger layout, I will plan for a bit more length for staging tracks.
I'm not modeling modern unit coal trains but I am modeling unit coal trains in "pre-modern" times; 1970's to be specific. The D&RGW was mostly hauling unit coal trains in the 1970's FYI and they included trains made up from "the great steel fleet" of Bethlehem quads (Walthers and ExactRail) and Thrall hi-side coal gones. In fact Rio Grande was hauling a unit train jointly with the UP to the Kaiser plant in California using a unit train of Thrall hi-side gondolas starting in the late 1960's. How is that for "modern"?
Anyhow, most of my Thrall coal gondola train sets are 25 cars long, and that should fit into an approximately 18' siding with diesels. Of course the real D&RGW unit coal trains were in the 80 to 100+ car range, but 20 to 25 cars should look decent in HO, and I'd probably run an odd longer train as long as most will fit into a siding to allow trains to pass on a single track RR.
riogrande5761 Train length in HO is in the eye of the beholder. IMO, 10 cars still looks short and I wouldn't call a 15 car train something that looked reasonably long. Thats me anyway, and I'd there are others who agree - point being, each person has to decide what looks reasonable to themselves and design accordingly.
It depends upon how big the layout is. I'd say a 15 car train traveling along a 50 foot wall would look like a short train. A 15 car train traveling along a 20 foot wall or around a 24 inch radius peninsula turnback loop would look long.
The OPs space is not that big. Certainly its a nice space but I wouldn't try to cram a Virginian & Ohio into it. He's already decided on a peninsula, so I hope he has considered the overall theme of the layout and how longish cars and long trains would look like traveling mainline speeds around a 24 inch radius turnback loop.
He may have seen something similar in the flesh, but if he is relying solely upon photographs in magazines and others' consensus comments, he may be disappointed in the overall appearance of the layout after the money and time is spent.
Overall theme of the layout must be the first part of layout design, and that often time is dictated by space available. Small spaced probably would exclude long trains, IMO, so modern unit train modeling is probably not a good idea, where as a 50s coal hauler or a logging layout would be a perfect fit. Something in between modern unit-train and short logger branchline could work well.
Myself, I wouldn't model a prototype where I would need a 20 car train to pull it off realistically in anything less than a 40 x 20 space, and that would have to have about half of the tracks on the layout devoted to staging. I assume others might agree, which is why large basement sized layouts are so popular with mainline modelers. I only have an 18 x 12 space so my maximum train length is going to be about 7 cars, which keeps the overall look of the layout realistic and more pleasing for me to operate since the fidelity is closer to pure.
OP should visit many layouts if possible, since the photos often scene in publications and internet don't do the overall layout justice. See what type of train he would feel comfortable watching traverse several tight turnback loops.
DoughlessIt depends upon how big the layout is. I'd say a 15 car train traveling along a 50 foot wall would look like a short train. A 15 car train traveling along a 20 foot wall or around a 24 inch radius peninsula turnback loop would look long.
I'm just talking in general terms without regard to layout size, what looks reasonable to me in the examples I gave above. I assumed thats what you were doing as well.
The OPs space is not that big.
"Big" is relative. The OP listed his space as 22.5x12, which is bigger than my 18x10, and I managed to fit in passing capacities for 20 car plus freight trains in by being creative.
Thats fine for you of course but it may not be fine for the OP. It's evident people can use a space in more than one way and no one way is necessarily correct. You have 18x12 and limited trains to 7 cars, I had a smaller space and ran 20+ car trains and with 32-inch curves it looked pretty realistic. Sure, the run wasn't long and it was designed basically as a "rail fan" layout with yard and industrial switching in mind. What is pleasing to one person is obviously going to be different than what is pleasing to someone else. It's good for the OP to see that and decide what works for him.