Your idea

[Derrick Moore]

What is your idea of a train layout?

[reklein]

Take a look at the posts by Bob Grech, Or Fugate. or Art Hill

[jfugate]

You mean like this, for instance ... ?

Click image to view larger version 

[ft-fan]

You mean like this, for instance ... ?

Click image to view larger version 

 

Now that's a layout! Thanks for sharing that pic, Joe.

FT 

[tstage]

As Joe has so exquisitely shown in the photo of his layout, it's the realism that makes it for me.

Tom

[soumodeler]

If you hadn't of told me it was off a layout, I would have thought it was a prototype shot for a while. THAT is a layout for me.

 

[NeO6874]

At the moment - a table, plywood, track, and electricity.  Anything that'll get the trains rolling! 

 

After I get over the "I just wanna see them run"  phase -something along the lines of Joe's picture - but it has to FUNCTION as well as look pretty.

[jfugate]

For me, it's what I call "quality of run". The better the layout's quality of run, the more fun and satisfying the layout is to run trains on.

Newcomers tend to think bigger is better, so they tend to focus on QUANTITY of run, not QUALITY. But once you get some experience in the hobby, you will realize a small layout with a high quality of run is far more satisfying than a large layout with a mediocre quality of run.

It is also important to note that quality of run is mostly visual. If you don’t believe that, try running your layout with a blindfold on and just *listening* to the trains run! Running trains blindfolded is maybe just a little more fun than it used to be now that we have sound-equipped locos, but you get the idea.

GETTING A GOOD QUALITY OF RUN
Here are the elements you need to consider in order to get a good quality of run. These are listed more or less in order of priority -- which means you should spend more time on the things at the top of the list than the things at the bottom of the list.

• Trains are interesting to run
• Derailments are rare
• Trains run at realistically slow speeds
• Detailed right-of-way
• Locos look real
• Rolling stock looks real
• Scenery looks good

Let's take each of these one by one and look at each one in more depth.


Trains are interesting to run: If the trains perform a realistic purpose and have real character to them, they can enhance the quality of run greatly. For example, if you run a train called “the Logger”, and it’s full of log bunks loaded to the gills with logs going to the lumber mill, you immediately can identify with the train’s purpose. If it looks the part, the quality of run goes up dramatically.

Notice *quantity* doesn't do anything here. More generic trains that don't have an interesting and realistic purpose just do not increase the fun of operating the layout. But a few high quality trains that have a well-defined realistic purpose and great character will be far more fun than any number of generic trains.


Derailments are rare: This one is obvious, but the larger the layout and the more turnouts it has, the more derailment prone it will be. Plan to spend time keeping things well tuned if you want few derailments.

On this point, quantity can kill your fun big time. Lots of turnouts and equipment means lots more stuff that needs carefully debugged and tuned. This work is just plain tedious grunt level effort and the larger the layout the less likely it will get done. Which would you enjoy more -- a 4 hour op session on a small layout that had not a single derailment in the entire 4 hours, or a 20 minute run on a large layout that had a derailment every minute or two?


Trains run at realistically slow speeds: This one is huge and nearly a freebie. It pays to train your operators to run at realistically slow speeds – which is pretty easy to achieve with your equipment these days if you use DCC. Watching two slowly moving model freight trains meet is sheer delight!

But to get slow moving locos that run well means you need to take the time to tune settings on your decoders. Getting this sort of performance from a straight DC layout will be tougher because you will need to use high quality power packs, and you will need to spend time tuning your locos mechanically to run as smooth as possible. With DCC, this sort of smooth low speed performance is easier to achieve and one example of where DCC layout performance will outshine a straight DC layout.

Also, the greater quantity (larger layout) you have, the more loco decoders you will have to buy and tune. Which would you find to be more enjoyable? Running on a small layout with two locos that crawl along smooth as silk at slow speeds, or run on a large layout where many of the locos run like jackrabbits?


Detailed right-of-way: Detail and weather the track and things close to the track since that’s where you spend most of your time looking when running trains. Bridges and structures close to the track also fit this category.

Of course, the more quantity (the larger your layout), the more right-of-way you will have to detail, so this becomes more work. On a larger layout the temptation will be to cut too many corners in order to get the layout done. But if you cut too many corners on detailing your right-of-way, you will compromise your quality of run!

Locos and rolling stock looks real: The things you notice right away, like realistic weathering, count most here. If you have to study the equipment to notice the details, it doesn’t count much on equipment that’s running because you can’t see it easily.

But the more *quantity* (larger layout) you have, the more locos and equipment you will need to have in order to fill it appropriately. Which would you rather run trains on -- a small layout where everything is realistically weathered, or a larger layout where most equipment looks like it is straight off the shelf -- shiny and stark, with little weathering and some of the details are still just unpainted black plastic?


Even a layout without much scenery can be a blast to operate if the quality of run is high

Scenery looks good: This one comes last because when running trains you don’t spend much time just looking all around – your attention is focused on the trains. Many people have reported having a great time operating on layouts with little scenery – and if they have the other items in this list already in place, that is very true – quality of run will still be very high, even without the scenery.

There are a lot of not-so-obvious elements to this last point on scenery. For example, an nicely scenicked N scale layout can outshine an HO layout here because it is much easier for scenery to realistically dwarf the trains, which enhances the quality of run.

On the other hand, if you go overboard on trying to get more *quantity of run* (larger layout), you might decide you ought to triple deck your Milwaukee Road West layout on which you are modeling the Cascades, helpers under catenary, and all that.

Reasonable deck heights for a triple decker layout will be something like 30" - 48" - 66", which will give you 18" between decks -- which sounds reasonable. Now remember decks are not zero thickness, so let's allow 4" for deck thickness (tough, but doable), which leaves us 14" between decks.

Keep in mind that with spectacular mountain scenery, you not only need towering canyon walls, you need bridges over deep canyons to give you the dramatic scenery you are after. So scenery needs to both tower *over* the track and drop deep *below* the track. So you have 14" to work with ... if we split the difference, this means you can have canyon walls towering 7" over the trains, and deep canyons dropping 7" below the trains. In case you haven't noticed, a 50 foot boxcar in HO is longer than 7 inches!

So by trying to cram a triple decker into your space, your scenic quality of run is going to *suck* big time. Forget dramatic towering slopes or deep canyons. It just won't be possible on an HO triple decker to model dramatic scenery. You have sacrificed quality of run on the altar of quantity of run.

CONCLUSION
Because things like good looking scenery are at the bottom of the list, that means you can have great fun operating a layout even if it isn't scenicked. The hobby press will s

[nbrodar]

I agree that quality of run is more important then quantity of run.  Bulletproof trackwork, and control systems are a must.

However, my operations are slightly different, as I prefer collecting rolling stock, and building scenery to faithful replication of prototype operations. The fact I'm a yardmaster/trainmaster for a major Class 1 terminal, has a lot to do with this.  I would much rather just watch my trains roll, and designed my layout accordingly...a simple oval, with a wye junction connecting the main to the staging yard.  I also included some simple industry spurs, in case I get the urge to shift a car or two.

I'm not a stickler for absolute prototype fidelity.  For example, I have a fleet of Reading C424s with the Bee Line Service logo, when in reality only Reading's six axle power had that logo.  Although I take some liberties with the paint, my locomotives and cabooses are limited to the types the Reading, Delaware & Hudson, and Pennsy actually used.

While my scenery efforts don't hold a candle to Joe's or those of Bob Grech.  I am happy with my results. 

I have a smoothly operating, and nicely scenicked layout.  Yes, I stretch prototypical bounds some, but there are no glaring inconsistencies - like steam engines pulling double stacks.  Overall, the layout "looks" right.  And that's good enough for me.

Nick

[nbrodar]

I would like to add, don't forget the room itself.  The room should be well lit and inviting.  You'll be more inclined to work on the layout (and so will your guests) if you feel comfortable in the space. 

Also don't overlook the importance of a even a simple backdrop, a well done fascia and skirting.

Before:

After:

You don't need a lot of talent or to spend a lot of money.  My backdrop is light blue craft paper.  The skirting is landscape weed block fabric.  The whole project cost less then $30, but the results were priceless.

Nick