For my first attempt I used two hollow core folding doors, about 14" X 7' each in an L shape resting on wooden shelf type brackets I made. It's light, portable and easy to maintain.
It was a good first dive into tracklaying and simple wiring, so I don't regret the attempt, but the scenery can only go up: nothing below track level, so it's not really very flexible. Adding a water feature would be limited to an above sea level pond, stream, or such.
I did glue down some foam hills, but haven't gone any farther with scenery, since I've decided to build a proper room for a double deck layout in the back 10' of my garage.
If you're happy with what you have, then there's no problem.
Flat layouts would reasonably represent many industrial districts - such as the Ironbound area of Newark, or Kearney NJ, or Linden - or the West side of Manhattan, back in the day. Yeah, there's usually some height difference over the area (this could be represented by building up some areas with thin foam board, and maybe some berms or drainage ditches but it's really not all that noticable in a layout representing a smallish industrial district, and if the buildings are big enough (and surrounded by, say large parking lots or roads crowded w/ vehicles), nobodies gonna notice (particularly if you add scraggly patches of vegation and small trees growing out of alleys & boundary lots, which are very common in such areas)
EDIT: Here's a live local aerial view of the Ironbound district of Newark (the northern industrial section) - Live Local Link - look around, although there are actually some elevation differences (excluding the ramps from the Rte 1/9, the rail crossing of Raymond Blvd, or the shore line of the Passiac), these are so slight compared to the area covered as to be neglectable in, say HO scale.
Now, if you're representing a large area of farmland or ranches...well, even the flatest farm on the prairie has some noticable elevation differences over it's span.
One thing, height elevation and differences does add visual interest, which is why it's usually recommended
First of all, it's your layout and if you are pleased with it, that's all that matters. If it bothers you, bear in mind that there are many areas of the country where the terrain is relatively flat--no mountains or high bluffs, deep rivers or other major land forms. And as has been pointed out, cities have lots of flat areas.
What you may want to consider is building a layout from pink or blue insulating foam with a rigid wood frame or atop plywood for support. With simple tools or a hot knife you can carve realistic ditches alongside the roadbed and highways and add ponds or other water features easily.
John Timm
No. But as you spend more time looking at things (and since you asked the question you will because you are now aware of it) you will notice that even in "flat" areas there are significant places where things are above and below the tracks. Most people just consider hills. If you look at real railroad tracks you will notice they are "up" more than they are "down" at least with respect to the area next to them because the big danger to track is poor drainage Soggy ground will damage track faster than anything, so railroad tend to build their tracks "up". For a starter a flat layout is OK, but your next layout you will want to allow space to go "down" with streams, ditches, etc.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
If anyone fusses with you, tell them you're modeling West Texas. The terrain resembles a tabletop, and the average slope (for rain runoff) is about one foot per mile.
Just Google Midland or Odessa and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - in terrain that isn't flat)
Lots of places are flat, in addition to the industrial areas mentioned. Such as about 60 miles south of my city, down in the Bootheel of Missouri. Or (my apologies to those living in that fair state) - Kansas (okay some hills in the western or maybe northern parts...). Or as Chuck said, much of the western part of Texas...
Jim in Cape Girardeau (which does have some hills)
Butlerhawk:
I remember a very fine layout in MR some years back in which the modeler chose to model Southern Pacific steam and 1st-generation diesel action in California's San Joaquin Valley--and you can't get much flatter than THAT! It was a very well-realized layout focusing on agricutural transportation from the packing houses to the long trains of refrigerator cars being made up into a train and then on to very busy mainline action. I remember being really impressed with the modeler's skills.
So in answer, no. There's NOTHING wrong with a 'flat' layout.
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
Butterhawk:
I finally got a chance over the weekend to read through the September issue of Model Railroader. David Popp has written a good how-to article "4 Weeks to a Bigger Layout." It's a layout that is essentially flat but nonetheless has some "anatomy" to it and his industires sit on several levels. He used pink and blue foam insulation board over an L girder frame. It looks quite realistic.
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
I model a portion of the NYC. They are known as having "The water level route". They ran from New York city to Chicago(as well as other places.) The elevation of Grand Central Terminal in NY City is about 20 feet MSL I would guess, and the Chicago elevation is less than 600 feet MSL. That is a difference of less than 600 feet in about 1600 miles. Of course you can't figure grades by taking 1600 miles and 600 feet, and there were many up and downs that were quite steep, figurativly speeking. However compared to the Pennsy, not so steep. It was mostly water level between NY city and Chicago.
My HO layout which represents a portion of the NYC in Ohio is made out of the 2" thick blue foam, and the main line is about 80' long and level. My scenery does go up and down, but the mainline does not. There is a tunnel, and the NYC did have tunnels along the river. So there are examples of "flat" railroads in most places. Besides it is your empire, if you want it flat then make it flat.
Paul
Dayton and Mad River RR
For the short distances we actually can model flatness is not unusual.
For below the track scenic effects you can build one section lower than the rest. If you use a couple of inches of foam on your table top you can scoop out scenic effects.
But in the end I agree with the others, if you like it, it's right.
Enjoy
Butlerhawk wrote:Is there anything wrong with a flat layout? If so, what? My layout if flat with a few hills on the edges and I think it looks OK - am I missing something?
There's nothing wrong with flat, Butlerhawk. Flat is beautiful. I live on the prairies where the woodpeckers have to pack lunches; where you can watch your dog run away all day long. That's what I'm used to seeing, so that's what I model. Besides, it's easier. Admitedly, as was pointed out, even the flat prairies aren't completely flat. But mine are. I've got to confess though that I drool all over my shoes at some of the incredible mountain scenery that I've seen in MR and I love driving through the Canadian Shield in NW Ontario and the mountains in British Columbia, but my layout will stay flat.
..... Bob
Beam me up, Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here. (Captain Kirk)
I reject your reality and substitute my own. (Adam Savage)
Resistance is not futile--it is voltage divided by current.
Not a thing wrong with flat - my layout's flat as a pancake. There are a lot of areas in the country that make a billiard table look hilly - central Kansas (around McPherson), north central Illinois and Indiana, portions of the Mojave desert, the Bonneville salt flats, parts of the San Joaquin Valley in California, most of Chicago, and more that I've never been to. A flat layout also gets you away from the problems of vertical curves at the beginning and ending of grades (another potential problem), makes scenery simpler,etc., etc..
What's "wrong" is you not doing what you want to do with your own hobby.
---
Gary M. Collins gmcrailgNOSPAM@gmail.com
===================================
"Common Sense, Ain't!" -- G. M. Collins
http://fhn.site90.net
I see that you are concerned with a flat layout. If it bothers you, then why not build your benchwork so that it's not flat. you can do this by building sub road bed instead of on a sheet of plywood. If you cut the plywood in 2 1/4" strips and radii or build splined roadbed and attach it to cleats and risers then when it's time to build the scenery there will be no more flat areas. Please check out my website in "Trains1." I have pictures with explanations on building layouts on subroadbed that aren't totally flat.
check it out at: www.webshots.com/user/bayouman1
To answer your question, no there isn't anything wrong with a flat layout but as you advance in the hobby you will want to build a layout that's more prototypical in nature with all the dips and rises that take place in real world terrain.....chuck
Nothing wrong with a flat layout. You feel it "looks ok" which is the only real thing that matters. However you probably wouldnt be posting if you didnt have reservations.. You didnt provide much info about your layout, so I don't know how relevent my comments will be but..
You may wish to find some creative ways to break up the view of the train a little. You can do this with structures as well as with some hills. Even a flat layout likes to broken up into a few scenes. My current test layout has no grades (at least.. none on purpose!) but the terrain around it rises and falls. I also use a view block to divide the small layout into two distinct scenes. Now, I am modeling NH, so its a lot easier to justify some hills then if I was, say, modeling Kansas..
Scenically, I would at least try to introduce some mild undulation in the terrain, even if its only by building up a small amount of plaster. You want to break up that flat unnatural plywood look. I think in a lot of ways its more challenging to pull off a convincing prairie railroad then a convincing mountain one..
Chris
If you are attempting to create a truly realistic impression to your layout, then the answer is "yes".
Although many hobbyists will attempt to justify "flatland" layouts, or those with just a few abruptly protruding hills, such is typically a cover for either not wanting to expend the necessary effort to do the job correctly/accurately, or a reflection of a lack of knowledge of how the real world looks - or worse, resulting from that awful excuse "it's my railroad and I think it looks OK". Modeling just about any location, other than perhaps rather limited portions of the Great Plains, requires at least undulating terrain. Unless your layout represents the Nullarbor Plain, "plywood flat" pikes are simply not realistic and quite honestly harken back to a kids' Lionel-style layout.
A good example of misunderstanding what's "real looking" and what isn't, is the earlier citing that Dave Popp's newest MR series regarding the Watercury (CT) Industrial District, which was said to have flat yet believable terrain. Actually, his layout extension is not flat but has slightly differing levels. On the other hand, the actual area surrounding Waterbury station (depicted nearby on Dave's layout) and any nearby industrial areas, are anything but flat, as you'll see if you ever visit Waterbury. In fact, the terrain is intensely rugged, with the station situated on the narrow floor of a river valley carrying the Nagatuck aand backed by steep hills on either side (very typical of northeastern U.S. railroading). Dave's "flat" Waterbury is thus not a reflection of any reality at all but simply a fiction created for the convenience of operating. In 95% of the cases with model railroads, broad, totally flat areas (except for yards) don't depict what really should be there to give the appearance of reality.
However...laying track largely to, or even totally to, a flat plane can be quite acceptable, as long as the modeler makes the surrounding terrain rise above and fall below tracklevel. Most real railroads have very slight ruling grades, which are usually all but unnoticeable to the eye. So, creating a layout with zero grade trackage while modeling the surroundings to represent what is actually in that area, can be a way to get highly believable scenery without grade changes. This can even be done on a simple 4x8 layout through carefully "cookie-cutting" the board.
CNJ831
CNJ.
Try driving I-20 from Abilene to Pecos, or I-40 across eastern Colorado and western Nebraska, and then come back and pontificate about how "the real world" looks.
Chuck (modeling mountainous Central Japan in September, 1964)
tomikawaTT wrote: CNJ.Try driving I-20 from Abilene to Pecos, or I-40 across eastern Colorado and western Nebraska, and then come back and pontificate about how "the real world" looks.Chuck (modeling mountainous Central Japan in September, 1964)
Yes, there are flat areas in certain spots but such terrain is highly atypical of the vast majority of the U.S. and especially the areas most often modeled by hobbyists. Even so, note that around 3/4 of the layouts you see allegedly set in what should be the hilly, if not mountainous, regions of the country, look like a depiction of railroading on the Nullarbor Plain in Australia, or maybe the bizarre "sugarloaf" hill terrain of Pueto Rico! That's Lionel-style model railroading.
Taking the time to understand and learn how to correctly represent landscape in a realistic manner is what sets appart those who are the true hobbyists from the rest. How readily would you accept as realistic a dead flat representation of the terrain through which the JNR travels, except maybe on the Tokyo Plain?
Nothing wrong with a flat layout-that's how I perfer mine.
Some where in the annuals of model railroading it must be written-Thou shall have mountains on small layouts with unrealistic steep grades.Of course I fully disagree with that old school philosophy seeing one can model scenery below track grade which gives the illusion of a fill which fools the eye in seeing the layout isn't flat as it looks even tho' the track is at zero grade.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
train18393 wrote: I model a portion of the NYC. They are known as having "The water level route". They ran from New York city to Chicago(as well as other places.) The elevation of Grand Central Terminal in NY City is about 20 feet MSL I would guess, and the Chicago elevation is less than 600 feet MSL. That is a difference of less than 600 feet in about 1600 miles. Of course you can't figure grades by taking 1600 miles and 600 feet, and there were many up and downs that were quite steep, figurativly speeking. However compared to the Pennsy, not so steep. It was mostly water level between NY city and Chicago. My HO layout which represents a portion of the NYC in Ohio is made out of the 2" thick blue foam, and the main line is about 80' long and level. My scenery does go up and down, but the mainline does not. There is a tunnel, and the NYC did have tunnels along the river. So there are examples of "flat" railroads in most places. Besides it is your empire, if you want it flat then make it flat. PaulDayton and Mad River RR
Given that most of Grand Central Station in NYC is below ground, some of it is below sea level as well. Its been that way for a long time because at one time, the trains ran at street level and produced lots of smoke and polution. The noise level was also probably bad as well. That all change when the station was rebuilt and the tunnel electrified.
I would suspect that the tracks from Grand Central to Chicago aren't one one continuous grade either, but then I don't model that area of the country. Instead I model the Northeast Corridor in NY and NJ. I can visit those areas easily enough but going all the way to Chicago is out of the question.
Irv
corsair7 wrote: I would suspect that the tracks from Grand Central to Chicago aren't one one continuous grade either, but then I don't model that area of the country. Instead I model the Northeast Corridor in NY and NJ. I can visit those areas easily enough but going all the way to Chicago is out of the question.Irv
Perhaps worthy of note to all, as it applies to the orginal question, is the situation with the portion of the NYC's "Water Level Route" between New York City and Albany - a like situation occurring on a great many other real railroads.
While the NYC tracks themselves appear set on a very level plane, its right-of-way is extremely narrow, with the immediately surrounding terrain spectacularly rugged and steep in many locations, to say nothing of the fact that the lines on either side of the Hudson itself repeatedly cross trestles and bridges spanning countless inlets. In places, the surrounding hills and cliffs rise abruptly 500 feet and tower over the trains, while the terrain along Breakneck Mountain, with its associated tunnels (modeled in a very realistic manner in N-scale in MR some years ago) is startling. There simply ain't no "flat" on your layout if you realistically model the NYC in the Hudson Valley!
CNJ831,Here in Crawford county you can see for miles across the open fields that's how flat it is here.You can go to Crestline and see the headlight of a CSX train has it leaves Shelby-8 miles away.That's how flat the track is.At Galion you can stand at the old NYC station and see trains coming from the North 3 miles away.The list is endless-even at Attica Jct you can see for miles in either direction..
The hills start in Richland county-the next county to the East.
CNJ831 wrote:Taking the time to understand and learn how to correctly represent landscape in a realistic manner is what sets appart those who are the true hobbyists from the rest.
All heed this man! And know once and for all whether you qualify as a "true hobbyist" or are just one of "the rest."
Guess that puts me in "One of the rest" category. But I'm having a lot of fun.
Walleye wrote: CNJ831 wrote:Taking the time to understand and learn how to correctly represent landscape in a realistic manner is what sets appart those who are the true hobbyists from the rest. All heed this man! And know once and for all whether you qualify as a "true hobbyist" or are just one of "the rest."
twhite wrote: Guess that puts me in "One of the rest" category. But I'm having a lot of fun. Tom
Isn't that the point of having a hobby? We do it because it's fun. So what if the layout is flat? Many years ago most of the people who lived at the time thought the world was flat too.
Flat is easy to do. But if you're more interested in running trains, that may be the best way to go. And if we try for too much realism, we shooting at a moving target because you can never reach 100% realism without creating 1/160 or 1/87 or 1/48 scale animated people. I don't know about you but my last name was never Disney.