Placement of buildings and industries!

[Anonymous]

Something I am learning as I go. May be helpful to others building layouts.

My new layout is 40"high. When operating it, I usually sit on a bar stool. On a section that is some what complete, I have some tall buildings in the foreground and other somewhat tall industries in one of the yards where there is quite a bit of switches and uncoupling. I have to stand and in most cases look over buildings or around buildings to see what is going on, especially uncoupling. Makes it a little hard to line up cars to be uncoupled etc.

So I am now rethinking the placement of some tall buildings and industries to the back of the yards, away from the front of the layout so that I can see the trains better when working the yard and have lower building etc towards the front of the layout.

Anyone else come accross this problem, or situation?

Any thoughts on this?

Thanks, DON

[Javern]

it's good to place taller building to the back of the layout, not only for ease of viewing switching operations but this also creates a illusion of depth and skyline.

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DONNNNN
So I am now rethinking the placement of some tall buildings and industries to the back of the yards, away from the front of the layout so that I can see the trains better when working the yard and have lower building etc towards the front of the layout.

Anyone else come accross this problem, or situation?

I think everyone has. One must also consider the reach factor. That is where must the operator reach to change a turnout or uncouple cars. Nothing is more frustrating to have to reach over and down between things. On our club layout, everytime we redesign trackwork we move the mains to the rear and bring the sidings up front where they can be reached easier.

[Anonymous]

The more I work on my layout the better I can understand the appeal of narrow shelfs. Reaching in and over can be damaging to the layout and is stressful whatever you are doing. I hope you don't have to much you have to redo much to remedy the access problem.

[egmurphy]

Definitely bears thinking about during the planning stage. The problem isn't just limited to tall buildings or long reaches.

I have a small engine service area in the very foreground, just in front of a couple of my yard switches. It's a small layout and there wasn't much choice in where it went. I have a water tank and an elevated fuel oil tank as part of the facility. They're not very high, but still something I have to be careful with when throwing the ground throws I use with my switches.

Regards

Ed

[orsonroy]

I actually like the look of tall buildings in the foreground of a layout. Too often, modelers slavishly follow the rule of "add tall stuff to the back of the layout to add depth", and what we really end up doing is removing reality to a scene, or even to the whole layout.

I generally look to the real world when modeling any scene. The real world isn't tidy, and there are tall and short buildings scattered all over the place. Especially in urban switching areas, you end up with an urban canyon effect, where the tracks are surrounded by tall buildings everywhere.

I've build two different urban canyon scenes on two previous layouts, and will be building at least one longish scene on my new layout. Yes, access to certain areas will be compromised, but I'll gain more in visual impact than I'll lose in operations. Smart trackplanning and arrangements are the key, as well as following the chaotic nature of reality. Don't add a switch where you can't gain easy access; that should be basic. If you're using manual throws (I do) then make sure you can get to it easily. If you're using switch motors, make sure you can at least see the points area of the switch, to visually conform that it's thrown properly. If you think you've got an area which will require failry frequent access, don't add tall buildings or scenic elements (line poles, etc) at that specific point; there are lots of patches of blank ground around tall buildings (parking lots, alleys, etc). If you're building a complex multilevel layout, consider adding the canyon area to the lower level, where access is better. If you've got line or telephone poles on your layout (and we all have topo few than we really should), don't string wires where access might logically be needed.

With a little forethought and a good grounding in what you really want to accomplish with a scene, you can have trains rolling between ten story warehouses without any problems in operations. And you'll gain a scene that's visually interesting, and which doesn't slavishly follow the pack.

[fwright]

The thread brings up the whole issue of layout height to me. There is a lot of appeal to putting the layout an inch below eye level - it gives you the same view as the prototype at track side. But just like in the prototype world, rolling stock on the first track in front of you will block your view of almost anything behind it, including the other tracks.

I realized this during design of my 3 track narrow gauge "yard" and the standard gauge interchange spur on my 18in wide shelf layout. If I put the standard gauge in front, with a loading platform between it and the 1st narrow gauge track, I would never see the narrow gauge if the yard was anything approaching eye level. Manual coupling, uncoupling, and turnout throwing become impractical very quickly. Even knowing what cars are on the 3rd and 4th tracks back is extremely difficult.

3 things I did to help get around the problem (besides lowering the layout - going for eye level while sitting on a stool seems much more practical):

1) move things off parallel to the shelf edge as much as possible; the greater the angle, up to about 30 degrees, the better. This gives me a diagonal view from most vantage points, and generally allows me to see more.

2) as all of you have mentioned, careful siting of view blocks and structures. I moved the standard gauge to be between the 1st and 2nd narrow gauge tracks, as well as rotating the whole yard about 10 degrees (had to widen the shelf 2 inches for that). Planned the loading platform to be mostly open air and partially roofed, with just a small closed in freight area.

3) Accept remote control of turnouts and uncoupling ramps. I can still use manual or electric turnout controls, the controls just have to be at the fascia. Must use automatic couplers (Kadee/MT). If uncoupling magnets are going to be installed under the track, I have to hinge them to flip up into position. I was thinking I could take advantage of the transfer platform to hide in-track uncoupling magnets, but decided not being able to see below the car body was going to be too difficult to manage. So uncoupling magnets, like turnouts, have to be located in view "lanes".

Some other planning thoughts come to mind (not very helpful after the fact!):

Modeling western narrow gauge at the turn of the century lends itself to smaller structures, and more opportunities for view lanes.

The "hand of God" approach to operating - reaching in and throwing turnouts, coupling and uncoupling - does not lend itself well to highly detailed scenes except in the very largest scales. Having to install more than a couple of mechanisms underneath the layout argues aginst using sheet foam for subroadbed. An open grid system with risers would be easier to wire and install and maintain the various mechanisms.

Linear track arrangements have more opportunity for view lanes.

Mounting shelf layouts on a vertical track system allows various layout heights to be tried, which leads into...

Finally, nothing substitutes for a 3D mockup to see how things might work. Use cardboard boxes for structures, pieces of flex track, plastic trees with bases, etc.

Trying not to always learn from my own mistakes
Fred Wright