"Realistic" modeling

[Anonymous]

I've crammed way too much trackage onto my 4x8, but I think it still represents a busy interchange area and it does provide lots of operations in a small space. There are many times when I have 5 or more consists running at the same time.

Hopefully, my next layout will be less a "spaghetti bowl" yet still retain the operational variety of the current one. I am planning more tunnels to provide view blocks and soften the round and round effect.

I love running as many locos as my power supply will allow, and its hard to do realistically in the small space I have available. (Next layout will be 5x8.)

[skiloff]

I'm glad this got bumped. This discussion has got me thinking in a completely different manor for my new N scale layout. Thanks to all who have posted.

[TrainFreak409]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tstage

Okay, given all that: Where do you draw the line? How do you decide what is too much and what is not enough?

Whatever looks good to me. When I build a model layout, it will appeal to my interests, and if I think it looks good crammed with stuff, CRAM IT WITH STUFF I SHALL![:D] BUT...I don't particularly care for a crowded scene, unless it is supposed to be like that, like maybe a railyard in some cases.

Realism? What is this "realism" in which you speak? [:p]

[lesterperry]

I didn't try to squeeze anything. I looked at what others did. Descided i wanted it to look real. I also wanted to have a continuous loop so I could just watch them run. I wanted an operating railroad with switching and a sizable yard. I ended up with double main line. one short line. one fairly large yard and 2 hidden yards. I can run trains or I can operate a railroad.

Here you can see my yard

If you look to the bottom of the pic you will see a track to a buiseness and just in front of Locomotives going to right another spur to a business

Look to the right of locomotives and you will see a spur that goes to 2 businesses

[tstage]

Wow! This sure is a blast from the past! Did someone just stir up the coals, or dust this topic off because it came up on it's 1-year anniversary? Since I have only started one other topic in the last few weeks, I was somewhat surprised to find something else near the top written by me. Oh, well - still a good, thought-provoking thread.

Tom

[Anonymous]

What are you modelling?
trains? ...you don't need track...you can put them on a shelf on the wall
track? ... who models track? you could put that on a shelf...
railroads?... now that could be different...
what do you want?
endless switching?
trains going by?
an escape from the life partner?
to impress visitors?
the pleasure of planning?
the pleasure of building?
the pleasure of sitting back and doing whatever you really want with it...

Now that is the real question.... the one we should ask first.... so many people put so much into the thing and end up disatisfied... so we need (I needed) to ask "What do i want to have at the end"?

Part of the whole hobby is hunting down the information and bits
part is the whole social side
part is the construction... benchwork, wiring, planning...oops, got the order wrong...

Those of us old enough started with tinplate and clockwork in a circle on the lawn.

You aint never going to model Techapi in 0 scale...

Ever tried to put together a photo fit or video fit?

After 40 years (at least) of toy trains I have realised that the crucial question is "What do I want from my HOBBY"?

My dog does what I tell him...so should my hobby. It's there for me. If I want scale length... then I have to accept the restrictions that imposes. if I want to run a service and switch cars in and out of industries... I adjust accordingly...

if I visit with another modeller I don't impose what I want for my layout.

If I go to an Indian restaurant I don't ask for egg fried rice.

I was a signalman, I have published information on UK signalling and operating practice...so people write and ask me "Where do I put the signals"? I write back and ask "What service do you want to run, what are your line speeds..."? and other boring stuff. Most say "I don't want to bother with that, just tell me where to put them"...answer, "Where you think they look pretty". A few get into a dscussion. the best go further and work things out for themselves from the discussion... the issue is...do you want an image or do you want to comprehend what you are trying to represent.

One is not better than the other.

BUT... if you want to portray a diorama type ""historical"" image...like a battle scene,
out -of-scale parts and signalling for Central Station on a logging line (If they don't do it there they do do it here) isn't going to fill the bill.

Then again... if you want to do you own thing... design trains for the Goblin King if you want...then why not?

We're supposed to enjoy it!

Something I enjoyed... in a RR modeler's mag... description of a club meet forum in which an "expert" advocated total realism... use metal for metal, wood for wood... as he got on to describing scenery modelling and started shovelling mud his fellow club members started edging to the back. then he got to making rock cuts...authentically... with dynamite...

[SpaceMouse]

I just read through all the posts up to this point and I figure I'm in the less category. In my mind I divided up the the layout into sections and in each section the track, with the exceptions of industrial sidings, passes once through a section of layout.

There are two exceptions to this. In one section, I could not avoid having the grade between the two levels pass through the layout. In the other section a logging spur branched off and circled around above the mainline.

However, as a point of interest. The California Western laid over 40 milers of track to achieve 22 miles of separation between Willits and Fort Bragg. There were several horseshoe curves and many places where passengers in one train could see another train above them. However, I did not model this feature.

[Anonymous]

Model railroading requires compromises and trade-offs. Even if I had half a basement or half a garage available, if I were in 'O' scale I would need a spaghetti bowl to do anything other than an industrial switching layout. A small point to point layout may be prototypical but if you have young kids they demand mountains, tunnels, bridges, rivers and continuous running.

I had a space of about 10 by 10 feet available for a layout. My son wanted tunnels, bridges, rivers and continuous run.. I wanted industrial switching, Jersey Central, and 1950's. I based my layout on the Turtle Creek Central with some modifications. The basic 4 by 8 has the continuous run options. It also has switching. The coal mine extension I came up with is completely different from what was published in Model Railroader. It is kind of like a time saver and includes a three way switch. Maybe it isn't completely prototypical, but both my son and I can do what we want with the layout. If I had my way, I'd do a point to point shelf around a room.

[Grubby]

I think you can "justify" just about anything if you really want to. For me, my trains run from somewhere to somewhere with some places in between. In order for them to do this, they can't run back over each other. I am also fanatical about being able to follow the train, so not cutting through peninsulas or running crossover loops are important to me and can't be negoiated away for any reason. The illusion of distance can only ever be an illusion but at least I can try..

[pcarrell]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tstage

Wow! [8)] I'm impressed! The "3, 4, or 5 tiers of trains on a mountain side" would definitely both fit and seem appropriate in this kind of depiction. Not surprsing (and very believable) if you were modeling a Europe RR line.

Outside of Europe though, it would still be the exception rather than the rule. Can you think of anywhere in the US one might find a similar set of lines?

Tom

How about this?

http://www.catskillarchive.com/rrextra/mrmarvel.Html

Look at the seventh picture down the page. Thats the Eureka branch of the Rio Grand Western in Utah. I counted 4 tiers! [8D]

[West Coast S]

I've used actual photos and other resources to aid me, I have 40X80 of useable space available, no visible yards, no passing sidings, two four track stagging yards, one for Lodi the other for Kentucky House . Three small communties are planned, one with a through siding for setouts and three spurs, the scond two grain spurs and the third a gravel and quarry spur-lumber spur and house track as per what actually existed during my chosen time frame.


I could include a prototypical lumber connecting road to add variety. Scenery will dominate this layout, the Sierra foothills is the setting with the time frame frozen in the mid 20s, the line was an actual SP branch and great efforts are being made to replicate it as closely as possible .

Dave

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DPD1

I tend to agree... less is definitely better. That said, there are certain spots where real life imitates models. Especially in Pennsylvania. Check out this shot taken by Dave Kerr. http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=60945
And there is an area in Duquesne that is even more jam-packed.

That area is leading into a steel mill (U.S. Steel Corp. - Edgar Thompson Works near Pittsburgh, to be exact) - and places like that are forced to be spaghetti bowls by their very nature because of limited real estate [sound familiar?]. That is one of the reasons I love steel mill railroad modeling.[:p]

However, there is one 12ft stretch of my layout where only a single-track main line will be visible - once I get the view block in place.

[Anonymous]

Not everyone has an airplane hanger to build a true-to-life trackage-to-landscape ratio.

Looking at most railroad photos in books, the scenery DOMINATES the tracks running through it. As a modeler, we have to compress operation into smaller spaces, to keep boredom from setting in while running trains.

I love scenery, and probably the main reason I haven't ever had a layout of my own (as I approach 50) is never having sufficient space to recreate what I see in real photos. Even in my beloved N Scale.

[AntonioFP45]

Very good discussion.

I remember reading years ago an editorial from Tony Koester in an MRR issue.

His advice on track planning: Remember; on a prototype railroad every piece of track has a purpose. They don't lay tracks for the sake of laying it as it is incredibly expensive.

I've sort of taken this to heart and now appreicate realistic looking track plans.

[tstage]

Mark,

Couldn't have said it better myself! [:D]

Tom

[Mark300]

[robengland]

Rule 1: gotta be enough track there to keep me amused. Operating is my thing. For me less is less :)

[Anonymous]

When I got my LIonel "O" in '49, I realized that railroad modelilng would require "the suspension of disbelief." N scale was a step forward, but with a huge basement to myself, I'm still in conpromise.

My principal peaves are giving up space to streets and parking and the necessity of running my Erie mainline next to the gothic arches of Pailsey Cathedral. When visitors view some of my buildings I'm sure thay ask themselves "How do they get there by car?"

[Anonymous]

When I got my LIonel "O" in '49, I realized that railroad modelilng would require "the suspension of disbelief." N scale was a step forward, but with a huge basement to myself, I'm still in conpromise.

My principal peaves are giving up space to streets and parking and the necessity of running my Erie mainline next to the gothic arches of Pailsey Cathedral. When visitors view some of my buildings I'm sure thay ask themselves "How do they get there by car?"

[tstage]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark300

Too realistic or not; 'Beauty is (still) in the eye of the beholder.'

Mark

Mark

I appreciate your input. I would like to reiterate my previous point when I started this post. I NEVER said that 'a-prototypical' layouts (in my eye) are NOT beautiful.

Some of layouts and designs that I've seen via the Internet are absolutely amazing! I can truly appreciate both the craftsmanship and the great attention to detail and time that the creator put into his layout. But as far as being or looking "realistic" or prototypical, it's still the exception rather than the rule. Striking a balance between "realism" and operational "interest" is a very fine and delicate line, in my opinion. (I'm still trying to figure it out.)

I would agree with (and hold to the philisophy to) a number of the respondants that have come to the conclusion that "less is truly more". Sometimes, there is "beauty in simplicity". [:D]

Tom

[CBQ_Guy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tstage

Be honest. When you're modeling a RR, you're probably tempted to squeeze in every bit of track and operation that you can in your alloted space. (It's NEVER big enough, right?)

Have most of you been able to strike a proper balance between "realism" (how a railroad would look in real life) and making the space or operation "interesting" and enjoyable to operate?

Tom

Never big enough is so true.

Proper balance...I'll let you know if I get there! What I have noticed in the past couple years is that layouts I've seen DO have too much squeezed in to look real. What I'm (trying) to say is that they look "typical" of a model railroad, but not "actual" as one would see on the prototype, IMO.

For many years I never even really noticed this, as you see a layout with track and spurs seemingly everywhere to increase the "play value" of the layout, and that's just how you build a layout. I never even gave it a thought until fairly recently, but lately the saying "less is more" has been nagging at me as I plan my layout to the point where I am seriously considering having fewer, but longer spurs. And fewer but larger structures.

Finding that right balance will be the tricky part...

[Mark300]

What a wonderful and diverse set of posts.

I try to understand first what the modeler's theme, priorities, values, level of skill or knowledge, resources and patience are as I view a layout. There seems to be as many different layouts as there are people! If I get a little annoyed, envious or 'green-eyed,' well then that's my problem and not the model's. Model railroading can present a great opportunity for people to share knowledge and stories.

Some folks are limited to space, get bored easily after achieving their goals, while others are simply trying to have some fun. I just try to meet 'em where they're at and not get too critical.

In terms of the real world, there are some pretty congested places out there that do/did look like 'speghetti bowl' layouts I've seen; Hagerstown MD in the 40's, Philadelphia PA in the 30's (and today), the area under the Westinghouse bridge near Pittsburgh PA, Harpers' Ferry WVa, Cumberland MD in the 40s & 50s, Altoona PA until the 70's and so forth. And I'm only scratching the surface as I'm sure there are dozens of other places throughout the good-ole US of A.

How 'literal' you can be when you're limited to a 4x8 space with stock track, stock #4 or #6 switches is the real challenge and 'Art' in this world of building a model railroad. And that's just the layout; how about the engines, consist makeup, structures, geology and so forth.

I try to go for some of the attributes of the road I'm modeling and use those characteristics to make the layout look and operate in a more realistic fashion; i.e. sidings that are functional to shipping and receiving, making the scene different by running trains in a reverse direction, making up and 'breaking-up' trains, setting out or picking up cars, coal drags, fast freights, local and express passenger trains, etc. Sending a train around a bend or into a tunnel and showing up elsewhere on a layout all adds variety, drama as well as whimsey and credence to a layout's theme and story.

Too realistic or not; 'Beauty is (still) in the eye of the beholder.'

On the other hand, 'Fun is Fun!' [:)]

Mark

[darth9x9]

The spagetti bowl is definitely a turn off. I operate on a layout once in a while that every train passes through each scene twice - kind of like a huge figure 8 folder over on itself. Even this gets old quick. My eventual layout will incorporate one train through each scene. This will help give the illusion that the train is going somewhere.

[DonaldAgne]

I was able to maintain a fairly realistic ratio between track and scenery on my 5' x 12' N-scale layout by building only one town on one end of the layout and a mountain resort on the other end. The 85' of mainline originates in hidden staging with a return loop (a large city out of sight) and runs mostly around the edges of the table with inside loops to the resort and town. My thirst for operations is quenched by locating consists of passenger cars on a siding, turning steam locomotives in the small engine facility and moving other locomotives into position for servicing.

If you want, take a look at my web page. Especially in my case, a picture is worth a thousand words[:)]

http://ddwngauge.homestead.com/index.html

[twhite]

It's always a conundrum when you get started on a layout. I've got a 24x24' garage layout here in California (the Oldsmobile has been banished to the driveway) and you'd think that I'd have room for it all, long mainline and plenty of yard space. Noooo, because I got carried away about sending the main-line over the Sierra Nevada, and not deciding to use helixes to gain elevation. So now I've got one corner that has tracks stacked like crazy (it looks like Spokane WA, in the days when all four big Northwestern transcontinentals merged in one little narrow valley outside of town), and I'm in the midst of trying to figure out what little scenery tricks I can do to at least make them look semi-realistic. As for that enormous yard--oh, well--
this is HO scale, by the way, if I'd converted to N, I'd be home free. But that doesn't mean I'm going to rip it all out and start over, I'm just going to get creative about camoflauge (is that spelled right?). As to tracks winding down various levels, we've got a couple of instances here on the West Coast--Cuesta Grade out of San Luis Obispo on the old SP Coast Line, and Siskiyou Summit in Oregon on the old SP line there. Mountain hugging isn't just done in Switzerland or Colorado.

[fiatfan]

For me, the fun is the buildings. I think the old brick buildings are beautiful. The relatively inexpensive DPM et al kits help me create a fairly realistic setting. Using the taller buildings helps make the trains look more realistic.

I will have an opportunity to run some trains. I am putting in two smaller towns which will require traveling 3/4 of the way around the room to reach. Add a cutoff and I can make myself dizzy watching them go around in circles if I want to but my fun is slow speed switching operations.

Tom

[railman]

I'm in general agreement with the posts here. I try to separate into cities and rural, however "urban sprawl" on my layout is pretty bad in places. It's hard to resist putting in that double track.

[fischey]

As a modular railroader this discussion offers interesting questions. We have a lot of running space and do shows. The problem? Well, not enough switching and pure operations to suit my taste. Can't wait to build a through passenger terminal and some sidings on existing modules where countryside now exists. For a consolation prize, I do the setup in the staging yards with a good switcher and have lots of hostler fun. When I get bored, I run a passenger train or through freight on the main and let them rip. Balance is almost there, when we finish a few future projects.

Jim F

[der5997]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Jetrock

Sometimes, though, those switching-puzzle layouts are sometimes fairly good representation of dense-track areas where switching between a lot of small industries takes place. I have seen Timesaver-type layouts with industries for most if not all spurs, even if one is a lowly team track or an interchange...

I'm planning to have the two left hand tracks of this timesaver inside a locomotive or car maintenance building. "Time waster" BRAIKIE says, "only if you use it a lot" say I. [:D]


Incidentally, the "ghost tracks" marked in brown between the rear double track (upper level main) and the lower level main are some of the trackage I did not lay that I mentioned on my first post on this topic. The brown track marks in the foreground are the original position for the timesaver spur that now will be with its twin in the maintenance building.