"Realistic" modeling

[n2mopac]

I subscribe to the less is more idea, although I admit that the towns along my 80' main are closer to gether that I would like and I have less countryside that I wish I had. I have avoided the temptation of making the same train pass through a scene twice or to have a decked layout for this reason.
Ron

[Anonymous]

To the left, Septa, to the right, Amtrak/New Jersey Transit, single track bridge in middle, CSX/NS/Conrail Shared Assets:

http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?t=1&s=11&x=1210&y=11057&z=18&w=1

[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...

Check this out--a Timesaver would get lost in the maze of track that used to cover the western end of R Street, or Front Street, in Sacramento...and that's only the southwestern corner of downtown! The yards visible here were not division points or classification yards, but rather places to shuffle cars between the myriad of small industries located within a few blocks...the tracks shown also represent three different railroads.

http://www.bayarearailfan.org/gallery/sn/SN_Waterfront_Map_Sacramento

[ndbprr]

Well I am going to try the ultimate for a change. I just bought a house with a 30' x 60' basement. After closing I am planning to model the PRR main from just south of North Philadelphia station to Shore tower a distance of close to 1.8 miles. I have track drawings from Amtrak and plan to use #14 and 16 turnouts and duplicate the real trackage to the best of my ability. I also plan to make the buildings full size. Its not going to be a 90 day project but it is going to be six tracks wide for most of the layout just like the PRR in that area. I'm already making up crossovers on a bench to save time when I can get to work. Do you have any idea how long one of those is at #14? try 3' but are they ever cool looking.

[orsonroy]

I've operated on several large home layouts, and have always liked mainline runs with nothing but the main and scenery. Two layouts I've operated on have several sections of track that extend for 1-3 scale miles (in HO, 60 feet per mile) with no switches.

I've always wanted to build a large home layout, and am currently doing so. In terms of large layouts, it's sort of small, "only" being a 12x25 three level layout. I decided on a three level layout design because I wanted as much distance between towns as possible. Each level has two towns on it with passing sidings for 15 car trains. My towns are "only" 25-40 feet apart, but I'm trying to replicate the feel of moving from one major urban area, to it's suburbs, into the country, through small towns, and into a second urban area.

And yes, I'm basing my entire layout on a single prototype area. However, that doesn't mean that I'm slavishly following the trackwork. I regularly mirror image trackwork due to benchwork constraints, have mushed two towns five miles apart into one single town, and have moved a canning factory 30 miles west, just so one of my towns wouldn't be a boring "passing siding and an elevator" (I've already got two of those!) The theme, basic trackwork, scenery and operating sceme are wholly based on the prototype however.

To me, a complex layout has nothing to do with it's overall size, nor with how many miles of track it has on it. A 20 scale mile long layout with nothing but a two track main and ten switches is a whole lot simpler than a 10X14 spaghetti bowl with 103 switches. Guess which one I prefer?

[IRONROOSTER]

Given the space, I would set up one scenic area with no switching for railfanning and then pack in a lot in the rest of the layout. I have found that after a while, just watching the trains run around on the tracks gets to be the same ole thing.
Enjoy
Paul

[sparkingbolt]

I made myself stick pretty closely to my original Idea, one side of the layout room would be pretty busy, Ship docks, tank farm, engine facility, fishing industry, and more served by the RR.

The other side features only a mine and a sawmill. Between the 2 sides will be "natural" scenery, trees plants etc. I hope the concept of contrast is effective when it's done. The room is 10 x 12, layout is around the walls.

[BRAKIE]

You betcha! I would rather have less track on a layout then a layout crammed with track..[}:)] Even on my favorite type of layout -industrial switching-I keep track realistic and believeable...I do not use the switching puzzle type where it more unrealistic looking nor do I use the time saver which I call a time waster.[}:)][:0] My switching layouts must look like the prototype in design.
Now the few times I had the space for a layout then I always base mine on a branch line or a urban industrial branch..You see that eliminates the possibility of over tracking a layout..

[MAbruce]

I agree that most tracks run through remote areas with little to no population. What most people tend to model are populated areas (to varying degrees) perhaps because it allows for diverse modeling. Most layouts I’ve seen use most of their layout space to create towns and cities while compressing the distance between them. Space (lack thereof) seems to be the common limiting factor. Modeling aspirations also play a key role. Some people like operations, others like super detailing, while some go for continuous running (and so on - or a mix of all).

One of the reasons I like N-scale is because of the scenery to track ratio potential. I think that part of capturing the realism of railroads is modeling the long stretches of track that runs through remote unpopulated areas. My current layout is set in a fading rural valley with a handful of old worn structures. It’s not crammed with sidings and spurs – well at least some active and some abandoned spurs. My future “dream” layout will feature long stretches of track running through scenic remote areas. I like seeing long trains run through these areas while enjoying modeling natural scenery. I’m seriously considering hiding my all staging areas so I don’t have to take up layout space modeling a large yard (is that a sacrilege???).

[Jetrock]

Being able to use dense track and tight curves is one of the appeals of city modeling, for me--and trolley modeling lets me use even tighter curves and denser track. Personally I try to use plans that only run a train once through each scene, as well as point-to-point plans.

A lot depends on one's area of emphasis. Someone who likes to sit and watch trains run and doesn't care for switching might be more interested in a layout based on several long, unadorned swaths of single track with scenery in the background, while a die-hard operator will doubtless concentrate more on track and less on big open vistas.

One thing to keep in mind is that, having limited space, model railroaders tend to choose the most interesting parts of a real railroad to model--yards, engine service terminals, industries, passenger stations, interchanges and other areas "where the action is"--while excluding the "uninteresting" stretches of straight track that don't offer a lot of interesting modeling opportunities but still eat up a lot of model railroad real estate. Unless your pike is in a *really* long hallway, it can be very difficult to model that horizon-to-horizon strip of lonely mainline in one's living space.

One of the pluses of the growing popularity of bookshelf/around-the-room layouts and multi-level layouts is the increased amount of "edge" these types of plans provide. Unlike the 4x8 sheet of plywood, a shelf layout generally only has one length of mainline running through it--maybe two if it's a "dog-bone" loop.

In terms of realism, I try to use prototype right-of-way plans to get an idea of how the prototype was laid out. Typically, due to space limitations, I have to use *less* track and switches than the prototype did, because I don't have the room!

[johncolley]

Wow, who'da thunk it? Prototype helixes! Some even enclosed in rock! What will they think of next?

[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.

Dave
Los Angeles, CA
-DPDP Model Accessories-
http://eje.railfan.net/dpdp/

[andrechapelon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tstage

Wow! 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. Can you think of anywhere in the US one might find a similar set of lines?

Tom

Amazingly enough, there is, although not to the same degree as in Switzerland. The UP (former D&RGW line) eastbound from Provo to Soldier summit will make 3 passes in front of you. It can be seen from US 6. Can't find a modern photo, but here's one from an old postcard. http://ghostdepot.com/rg/images/utah/soliders%20summit%20ascent%203%20train%20osspc.jpg. The passenger train on the lowest level would have just come out from under the overpass where US 6 now crosses the line.

Andre

[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

[andrechapelon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by andrechapelon

QUOTE: Originally posted by jwmurrayjr

Since I'm trying to model the Rocky Mountains I try not to get any more "exaggerated" than the real thing:


The DRGW near Westcliffe, Colorado.

[:0]

Ever ride over the Gotthard Pass in Switzerland? Descending the south ramp from the Gotthard tunnel, you can actually see 3 or 4 places where you will be shortly. I tried to find a picture of it on the 'net, but to no avail. It's kinda weird seing a train below you seemingly going in the same direction and having it pass by a few minutes later going the other direction. Try this web page and start scrolling down (about 3/4 of the way). The text is in German. You'll also see the church at Wassen on this page (about halfway down)

On the north slope (southbound direction), the train will pass below Wassen and you can see the church above. Then you go through a spiral tunnel and when you come out, you're heading the other way. If you move to the left side of the car, you can see the church again. Then you go through another spiral tunnel and exit going the original direction, this time passing not far from the church.

Andre

Forgot the web page: http://mypage.bluewin.ch/bruno.laemmli/Strecken/gotthardbahn.htm

Andre

[andrechapelon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jwmurrayjr

Since I'm trying to model the Rocky Mountains I try not to get any more "exaggerated" than the real thing:


The DRGW near Westcliffe, Colorado.

[:0]

Ever ride over the Gotthard Pass in Switzerland? Descending the south ramp from the Gotthard tunnel, you can actually see 3 or 4 places where you will be shortly. I tried to find a picture of it on the 'net, but to no avail. It's kinda weird seing a train below you seemingly going in the same direction and having it pass by a few minutes later going the other direction. Try this web page and start scrolling down (about 3/4 of the way). The text is in German. You'll also see the church at Wassen on this page (about halfway down)

On the north slope (southbound direction), the train will pass below Wassen and you can see the church above. Then you go through a spiral tunnel and when you come out, you're heading the other way. If you move to the left side of the car, you can see the church again. Then you go through another spiral tunnel and exit going the original direction, this time passing not far from the church.

Andre

[ericsp]

I draw the line between a stretch and just plain ridiculous.

[der5997]

Your point is one of the reasons I went from HO to N. Also, I've torn out some track and not laid all I had planned for the same reason. Even so, The Maritime Trunk goes from 0 to 8 1/2 inches elevation by means of a shelf around a room. It just aint natural. It does this moreover in about 64 real feet of mainline run. That's roughly 2 scale miles in N. Unreal as all getout. We just have to live with it and have fun.[:O][(-D]

[jwmurrayjr]

Since I'm trying to model the Rocky Mountains I try not to get any more "exaggerated" than the real thing:


The DRGW near Westcliffe, Colorado.

[:0]

[Anonymous]

When I was designing my current layout, I was counseled by David Barrow at the 2000 NMRA convention of the concept that less is more. I am very happy that I listened to him. I have a mainline continuous run (approximately 165 feet wherein the train never passes through the same scene twice. I have had more fun with this layout that some of my previous "spaghetti bowls" which has a lot mnore track per square foot.

[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?

The reason for asking is that a number of layouts that I've seen - EVEN some VERY beautiful and elaborate ones - are sometimes so crammed with "stuff" that they no longer seem very real to me. (How often do you really see 3, 4, or 5 tiers of trains on a mountain side going in that many directions?)

I know, I know. The modeler is attempting to "create" his or her own world and that the confines of space dictate what you can and can not do. You are creating an "effect" rather than "true accuracy". "Realism" realistically has to be displayed more as a "compressed cross-section" of what you would find on a given railroad line.

Okay, given all that: Where do you draw the line? How do you decide what is too much and what is not enough? (Obviously, those of us with smaller layouts would be more likely to fall into this predictament.)

Does anyone else feel the same way? I'm interested in your input.

Tom