"Getting them built"

[CNJ831]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Brunton
Lots of "shoulds" here - should build within their time constraints, should build within their financial means, should build what can be completed in a reasonable time, etc. Who died and made all these "you should" addicts model railroading gods, anyway? As far as I'm concerned, there's only one "should:" Everyone should quit telling everyone else how to approach their leisure time activities. Pointing out pros and cons of large layouts vs. small. diesels vs. steamers, N scale vs. O scale, Digitrax vs. NCE, or whatever the topic, is perfectly fine. Telling everyone why the "should" do something a certain way, is not.

Mark - What it's called is "darn good, saged, advice" and it is incorporated in just about every beginners' book on the hobby I've ever come across. Likewise, it used to appear regularly in the pages of MR, et al.(but less so as the magazine's aim became more to push new products than to do actual model railroading). No one is demanding that things be done a particular way or layouts built to a severely restricted given size. But the fact remains that virtually all that readers of MR or other magazines see these days are huge, totally unobtainable layouts as examples of the hobby's objective. Far too many hobbyists come away from such exposure with the idea that huge is the "only" way to go...and it most certainly is not. A well designed small layout can be just as good and interesting longterm as any large one.

I'm starting to get up in years, as are my contemporaries. More and more I see among them huge basement-filling benchworks that haven't been worked on in years because the scope of the layout was simply far beyond their abilities and available time/money ever to approach completion in the first place. Are many of them happy running trains on bare benchwork? Not in your life! But they are essentially locked in to impossible dreams. The end results is they tend to work, or care, less and less about the layout and its overall condition deteriorates, while a general lack of track/electrical maintenance makes them a bear to operate in any manner.

The fact of the matter is that, with regard to the typical modeler, interest in the hobby tends to wane if obvious results aren't apparent. Yes, there are some longtime hobbyist among us that can accomplish building feats that are beyond belief but they are in the extreme minority. I think most here will agree that it is far better to build a layout of a size realistically commensurate with your space, time, and finances...and in doing so learning all the techniques that are truly necessary to succeed in this hobby along the way...than it is to never get beyond some vast, stark, benchwork stage.

CNJ831

[Anonymous]

Brunton, you are 100% correct. To each his own. If a modeler wants a particular look and size he/she should be encouraged not restrained or restricted or else model RR would've forever been confined to a benchwork.
Why should one say “man I ‘dunno' if that'll work” when a fellow enthusiast says this is my first project and I'm going for a layout that centers in my garage and extends throughout my entire house. The guy with the seemingly impossible project and constricted budject might be a future innovator in infancy and if he falls victim to certain advice will end up saying model railroading isn't what I expected it be, or model RR isn't as flexible as I thought.
Do you think that some of the layouts that never get finished is as a result of bad advice or rules tainted by what the next modeler believes.

[SpaceMouse]

CNJ831, I think nailed it. IT is not a case of shoulds, but looking at things realistically. When you design a layout, are biting off more than you can chew. The average person moves every 7 years. What then?

No one is saying don't build the complete BNSF railroad if you have the resourses. But on the other hand, be honest about your finacial, physical and temporal limitations.

(I got that from Iain Rice)[:D]

[IRONROOSTER]

Reading this thread reminds of what John Armstrong wrote in his book "Track Planning for Realistic Operation". While acknowledging that a big railroad beats a small one operationally he recommended two ways to avoid the creation of a Frankenstein monster . One was to keep the number of turnouts and complex trackwork to a minimum. The other was to plan the layout to be built in stages such that each stage was operational - if you got to where you were having fun but no more work got down on the layout so what, it's a hobby after all.

One other thing I have come to learn that is important, is ease of construction. If the layout isn't easy to work on, you'll do less. My current layout is not easy to work on. The surface is 58" off the ground which is good for viewing and the duckunder into the layout room, but means that I have to drag a two step ladder around to work on it. Also, some of my aisles are only 2 feet wide ( a couple of places are even narrower) which combined with the need for the ladder makes it a bit of pain to work on. Not impossible just not easy. The result is that I rarely pop down to work on the layout for short periods of time.

If I ever do start building the basement filling layout (and I have plans to do this), I plan to make the aisles 3+ feet wide, build in stages, and build at a lower height without duckunders.

Enjoy
Paul

[Pruitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831


Mark - What it's called is "darn good, saged, advice" and it is incorporated in just about every beginners' book on the hobby I've ever come across.

Yes, it is, CNJ831 - when advice is requested. But when someone simply says "This is what you should do..." to the crowd in general, or when no one asked for their advice, they are simply butting in, occasionally with a good dose of conceit or arrogance (or both) thrown into the mix.

QUOTE: No one is demanding that things be done a particular way or layouts built to a severely restricted given size.

It certainly comes across that way at times - that's the difference between "you should..." and "you could..." The "you shoulds" remind me of the "duty to the hobby" garbage that MR was bursting with fifteen or so years ago.

QUOTE: But the fact remains that virtually all that readers of MR or other magazines see these days are huge, totally unobtainable layouts as examples of the hobby's objective. Far too many hobbyists come away from such exposure with the idea that huge is the "only" way to go...and it most certainly is not. A well designed small layout can be just as good and interesting longterm as any large one.

Ah, now here we're in total agreement! The problem is that everyone wants to see the magnificent, which usually includes a big dose of size (big dose of size, get it? Har! [:o)]) Unfortunately, size seems to be one of the most important factors model press editors look at, so the smaller sized layouts are at a disadvantage. They have to be much better even to compete for magazine space with the larger layouts.

One of my favorite layout stories of all time is the one about Paul Dolkos' small layout (I think it was 5X10 feet HO), for which I can't remember the name right now - the Dukane something-or-other. It ran years ago in MR, and was very impressive and motivating.

For the rest of your comments, CNJ831, I don't disagree. Every one, newbie or veteran, would be well-served to read your comments. But there is a world of difference between saying "You should..." and "Consider these things...."

Maybe we just have a different view of how the stuff should (AARGH!) be presented.

[joeh19012]

There are a lot of good opinions here and a lot of sage advice. My thinking on a couple of these is:

(1) Master modelers like Dave Frary have said that it is much better to work in a finished space, and I agree, despite what spouses and/or parents may say. If you are a spouse, it's a good idea when you get into a project like finishing a basement to explain that one of YOUR reasons for finishing it is to get a model railroad out of it. Once you get to that point, it is relatively easy to concede other space for other purposes. One half of my finished basement is for trains and a home workshop (part of which is needed for trains). The other half is a TV room and gym. My wife hardly ever comes down. And for a kid negotiating with your parents, tell them that having a railroad will teach you how to use tools and be able to help around the house with fix-it chores. Plus, having the railroad as a hobby will keep you from complaining "there's nothing to do." Also, grandparents can be a real good source of "resources" for kits, cars, and accessories.

(2) If you are constrained in some way from building a layout, you can still do something. Even without the finished basement, I painted figures, assembled railroad car kits, and put together a couple of buildings. It's always a better idea to work on some small project or aspect if you are limited in time, money, or space than to wait for your layout to be in place before doing anything at all.

[selector]

I agree that one should consider the opinions of one's spouse when deciding what to do. They would most likely wi***o encourage you by visiting, maybe even helping at times, but they don't really like dank, dark, hard to get-at places where they rub noses with furry things and multiple-eyed creepies. A finished basement adds much to a layout because it sets the mind of the hobbiest to having pride and comfort, and makes the spouse more amenable to sharing the experience. This is always a bonus when dollars are to be allocated. [;)]

I agree that the use of the word 'should' invites guilt or feelings of inadeqaucy. These are not constructive in a hobby as intricate and complex as ours. The best advice is rendered with a series of options, each with the common pro's and con's. The should SHOULD always be the purview...and the responsibility... of the individual seeking the guidance.

[orsonroy]

What's the definition of a "large" layout? Is a 30x50 linear layout with 20 switches really "larger" than a 11x14 spaghettibowl with 52?

Personally, I prefer the term "complex". And I don't like complex layouts. If you get dizzy trying to trace the mainline on a MR trackplan, that's too complex for me.

I like keeping things simple when it comes to layout design. Most of my plans drawn up over the past 5-10 years or so feature long mainlines, one foot wide shelves, and very few switches (2-7 per town max, only a few more at yards). I keep construction as simple as possible (one reason I like foam and shelf brackets) and use space-age polymers to get my flextrack and premade switches laid in as quickly as possible (keeping in mind proper tracklaying precautions, of course!). Roll all these techniques and preferances together and I end up with large, but not complex or overwhelming, layouts.

Over the past three years, I've been able to construct a 12x25 three level layout, by myself, over about only eight dedicated work weekends. 90% of my mainline is in, 50% of my secondary trackwork is in, and about 20% of my scenery is in. Not bad for less than 150 man-hours worth of work.

[steveblackledge]

My Friends are both building small layouts due to time and space comitments, it does not have to be big to be fun, how about a 30" by 30" "N" gauge layout without any points to worry about, this has been built by my friens Robin, and this is it below, it has a working container crane, working traverser / turntable, working roller shutter doors on buildings, in fact there's allsorts of stuff that works, small can be just as much fun as big

[Jetrock]

Ah yes!! It's always refreshing to hear from Europeans, whose perspectives on layout size are very different from those of Americans.
SMA***HE 4x8
PLYWOOD IS A PRISON
LET YOUR LAYOUT TAKE THE SIZE AND SHAPE IT WANTS

[ErnieC]

The most helpful and insightful commentary on this topic is in the first three chapters of Iain Rice's "Midsized and Managable" layout book published by MR. Midsized layouts are still a 'big secret' in the hobby; they were completely missed in the last issue of the Track Planning annual where everything was either a private club or a shelf design. It is more practical if the layout can be operated and maintained by the owner whenever the planed for crew can't make it . Maintaining the monster is not as much fun as running it!
Ernie C

[robengland]

I gotta buy that Iain Rice book.

My strategy is to constrain myself by a small room to control my dreams of empire, while being friends with several people with largish railroads, who always welcome help and crew. My own targets are attainable, while I get an occasional dose of mega-railorading.

[Anonymous]

I think a smallish layout is fine as long as it's expandable or easy to destroy and rebuild, if it's no longer challenging to the engineer, it's boring

[robengland]

Look at Ben King's layout. Very small but he did exquisite work.

I think a key question is which end of the spectrum you are on: building vs operating. You could build and rework and superdetail a small layout forever but I think it would get operationally boring. That's why rather than a simple shelf I'm building a bit of a spaghetti bowl of hidden tracks around the walls to make a smallish layout more operationally complex. There are construction risks and challenges but the payoff will be in more operational interest once it is done