I read the article on Pelle's new layout in the current issue of Model Railroader magazine.
.
What struck me most was the size of the layout. It is 11 by 22 feet. That is EXACTLY the amount of railroading space I will have when my house remodel is complete. So, for exactly the same space, I could not have designed a more different pike.
We both will model a single town on a Class A railroad. However, for the space used, Pelle seems to have very little railroad. My design has two turntables, a roundhouse, passenger station, at least 20 industries with places to spot 30+ frieght cars, a 30" long three track car float, a John Allen time-waster switching arrangement, and a four track yard.
Certainly, mine won't be a clean and photogenic as his, but along with the amazing visual impact the layout has, it just looks boring to me. I can see my light 4-8-2's pulling long strings of freight cars through his layout and look great. On my plan they will be limited to eight cars.
I don't know. No article in Model Railroader has left me feeling this uneasy.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
"Uneasy"? About what?
Are you worried your layout will look too crowded? But if you "open it up", you won't have enough track for fulfilling operation?
That's my guess, anyway.
Yup. It's a problem. And not a new one. You're just going to have to think on it until you get an answer that works for you.
Some people are gonna cram in a lot of track. Some people are going to have hardly any. But, hopefully, they ALL have what makes THEM happy.
Ed
Two things have me concerned.
1) I am soon (within the next 2 years) going to begin construction on my final lifetime layout. This is it. No more after this one. I know what I want, but this time there are no do-overs. I am very nervous about this. I feel like a gymnast that is just about to compete in what they know will be their only Olympics. Everything I have done in this hobby for 40+ years has led to this layout. I get it right, or I will be terminally upset.
2) Pelle's layout is the only layout that I have seen that I truly loved and hated at the same time. The fact it is the same size as my layout room has me double-concerned.
The article mentions Pelle is more into building the layout than running it. So I think he builds a simple layout and does a good job at capturing the modern prototype, the large sweeping looks, in a small space.
So maybe you consider Pelle's example that its not all that large of a layout, you can always build another one if you find you dont like yours. Seems to be what he does. For me, its the models populating the layout that take me forever but I can always move them over to the next layout if I ever do.
The other thing maybe to consider is maybe meeting the simple design concept halfway, as in, maybe you only need to model one turntable, or have a few less tracks than what your currently planning.
Dial back a couple of years and look at Pelle's previous "Daneville" layout described in his "Mountain to Desert" book. It occupies more or less the same space and has three major areas -- high desert scenic running, a large cement plant, and the town of Daneville with some rail-served industry. Double ended staging tracks hid under the layout.
The current Midwestern project struck me as a nice railfanning layout but a little thin on operational possibilities. He's very upfront about not having much interest in local switching.
Building in a lot of track and lots of switches does not necessarily make a model railroad fun to run. It really helps to look around at people like Pelle and Lance Mindheim and others to get any idea of what you want your railroad to do even before you start drawing lines on paper.
My club's 30' by 60' layout -- a linear design of a 400' semi-rural mainline with a long branch -- has drawn snorts from the fans of heavy duty circle running but it can keep a crew of 20 busy for eight hours running our usual line-up. It doesn't look like a busy railroad until the trains start running. It's not so much the track plan but what happens on it that makes an interesting railroad.
Pelle's layout was designed for photography, IMO. He admits that operating the layout, any layout, is not his priority. Building layouts are hs priority.
You described your layout in terms of operations. Yours and his layouts are not really that comparable, other than size. Another modeler could model a 1950's logging railroad and have a completely different layout than either of yours or Pelles, albeit in the same space.
Pelles devotes a lot of space for staging. Longer trains means longer and more spacious staging tracks. His town is very much spread out. The grain elevator huge. You and most other modelers would likely choose more selective compression than Pelle, and would be able to fit more into their layout.
- Douglas
I took one look at Pelle's latest layout and smiled, I am building the exact same concept, somewhat larger........
I have a 24 x 40 room, double track mainline twice around with the second "circle" staging behind/under the scenery. I do have a peninsula longways in the middle.
And I do have significantly more in the way of yard, industrial, and passenger terminal trackage, but I do have four times the space.
I too am building in modules to allow an easy move..........
My staging will store about 25 trains - 30 to 50 car freights, 12 car passenger trains.
Without the abilty to pull long trains, I would not even bother to model a mainline, I would simple build and ISL (industrial switching layout).
The mainline will have signals and CTC control.
Actually there is effectively an ISL in my trackplan, seperate from the mainline.
And I am seriously considering a seperate ISL on a lower level below the main layout, totaly seperate from it.
One simply needs to know what is most important to you.......for me "rail fan" modeling is first, followed by CTC mainline operation, both passenger and freight.
Switching may be "third" but it is not a lost idea.
Important point for me, no feature is modeled more than once, freight yard, piggyback terminal, passenger terminal, engine terminal, wye junction, industrial area, interchange....mostly confined to the "urban" area of the layout.
And the balance of scenery is about 1/3 "urban or suburban", 2/3 "rural".
And my layout is double track like Pelle - more action for the buck, and it only takes up two extra inches......
Large but simple......my moto for a while now.
Sheldon
Pelle's layout is beautifully done (his work always is) and it certainly allows for the operation of several different trains at once, but, like Kevin, I feel it lacks a few things that I want in my railroad. For example, I want a small yard, a service facility with a roundhouse and turntable and other shops, a couple of passenger stations and a few spurs to dispatch cars to. Those are the sorts of things that say "railroad" to me as much as running long trains, which my plan will also allow me to do. Pelle's plan doesn't quite strike my fancy.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
I think he nailed it, as far as the place and period. I've lived in places in like that, while growing up with a step dad, who's occupation was a "tenant farmer". If that's what you want to model, fine. I like a mixture of switching, and mainline running, which I tried to achive with my small yard, transload area, and manufacturing.
And when I don't want to do switching, to me, it's great just watching a train, freight or passenger, just go around, while I work on a project at the bench.
Mike.
My You Tube
ATLANTIC CENTRALOne simply needs to know what is most important to you
That of course is the crux of the matter.
I am unexpectedly moving in about 4 months. I don't know if the next layout will be the final one or not. The current one was supposed to be. But I do know that what I want is a shortline based on the Maryland & Pennsylvania in S scale. There will be a fair amount of route switching and yard switching. I will include a provision for railfan running if I can work it in (and I think I can).
My basement will be large enough that I can have a small continous run layout just for the fun of running whatever doesn't fit the above concept and/or scale.
Pelle's layout is well done, has the ability to run some long trains and would bore me completely within 6 months.
Paul
I have built so many "final" layouts I have lost count by now!
When I saw pictures of Pelle´s layout, I thought "Wow, he has done it again!" - another wonderful layout, beautifully photographed, so it´s hard to tell it´s "only" a model. The track plan is, IMHO, disappointing in terms of operation. I liked his previous layout a lot more.
Scott Lamoureux's Canadian National is beautifully done scenic showcase. Just single track main line. No spurs, no sidings, no buildings, spectacular bridge.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
Granted, but it also has a lot more drama to the scenery, while the scenery on Pelle´s layout lacks any of it - just like the prototype.
Comparing these two layouts doesn´t do justice to either one of them!
I wasn't comparing them. Just pointing out that there was another layout in the issue devoted to scenery with little or no operation beyond running trains through a scene.
Just like my own layout - just a simple oval of track, one switch, no staging, but lots of scenery. Enough to rock my boat, others may find it boring.
7j43kSome people are gonna cram in a lot of track. Some people are going to have hardly any. But, hopefully, they ALL have what makes THEM happy. Ed
Ed,That's the formula for the perfect layout.
Not to be to brutal I can care less for any layout that doesn't suit my needs including Pelle's new,old or future layout nor will anybodies layout make me feel uneasy. I'm sure there are those that wouldn't give a plug nickel for a ISL even as they dream about that some day layout.
No matter..We all choose what fills our needs.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
SeeYou190Certainly, mine won't be a clean and photogenic as his, but along with the amazing visual impact the layout has, it just looks boring to me.
anyone notice what Pelle does professionally - http://soeeborg.dk
sort of like John Allen
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
gregcsort of like John Allen
Perhaps but,old John got his models in ads,magazines Walthers and other catalogs on such a routine bases it got to the point of Huh? So,what's new?
Has that feat ever been matched? I dunno.
Personally, I admire Pelle's work, and when a photo of his appears on the cover I recognize it immediately. And I get a little excited, too. He makes good use of the available space without too much compression or overcrowding. And not cluttered with a lot of Dickensian squalor, either. But his layouts have a relatively short lifespan. I'm very happy he photographs them and keeps (and shares) the archive.
If it were possible to take each of his three or four previous layouts and cobble them together, treating each one as an individual Layout Design Element, the result would be a complex layout of world-class proportions.
And for those who lament the lack of yards and heavy industries and switching opportunities and whatnot . . . don't worry. He's done the mountains, he's done the desert, he's done the midwest. It's just a matter of time before he does Bailey Yard or downtown Chicago or something. Patience.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
ROBERT PETRICK And for those who lament the lack of yards and heavy industries and switching opportunities and whatnot . . . don't worry. He's done the mountains, he's done the desert, he's done the midwest. It's just a matter of time before he does Bailey Yard or downtown Chicago or something. Patience.
Ha! That was good. Yeah, probably!
ROBERT PETRICKAnd for those who lament the lack of yards and heavy industries and switching opportunities and whatnot . . . don't worry. He's done the mountains, he's done the desert, he's done the midwest.
And none of that will help him design industrial area since they take on a life form of their own to include trash roll offs filled with proper trash,broken pallet stacks and open air storage for old 55 gallon drums.
The "business" side of a industry doesn't include a manicured lawn look with perfect ballast..
There are so many different ways to model railroad. It's a great hobby.
DSchmitt There are so many different ways to model railroad. It's a great hobby.
Indeed it is.. I know I have enjoyed my 60 years in the hobby even though I've always favored the rugged looks of a industrial area and switching..
I like both the down and gritty, and the sweeping vistas of country.
mbinsewi I think he nailed it, as far as the place and period. I've lived in places in like that, while growing up with a step dad, who's occupation was a "tenant farmer". If that's what you want to model, fine. I like a mixture of switching, and mainline running, which I tried to achive with my small yard, transload area, and manufacturing. And when I don't want to do switching, to me, it's great just watching a train, freight or passenger, just go around, while I work on a project at the bench. Mike.
Yes he nailed it. I grew up in central Nebraska and the names he uses for businesses suggest he visited the Grand Island/Gibbon area as his resource. Big double tracked-UP mainline and lots of long trains in the area (not to mention a lot of Danish heritage). The scenery might look generic to many, but it looked just like the surrounding area I grew up in. Its not exactly the same as other parts of the midwest.
Congrats to Pelle for that.
BRAKIE The "business" side of a industry doesn't include a manicured lawn look with perfect ballast..
But it can, though, if you pick the right time and place. There's plenty of industrial parks out there that have well groomed ballast and track running through immaculately kept landscaping. Not everything is a blasted crater in a brownfield.
This: https://goo.gl/maps/TRTuw8jSfpP2 is a spur in my neighborhood that went out of service in 2012 or 2013. It hasn't changed at all since then, though. It goes through two parks and bypasses people's yards. If I ever built an Alexandria VA ~2010 layout, I'd have to do manicured lawns and everything.
Take a closer look..That well maintain area is not in a industrial park and the ballast isn't the type most modelers like to use since its thin and not well maintain like ballast on a busy main line.. There is also a hiking or bike path next to the track.
The business side of any industry is pretty rugged looking.The pretty side always faces the public's view but,when modeling a industrial area that's the side we don't model.
One of the important things we need to learn the industry's siding beyond the derail or gate belongs to the industry not the serving railroad.
It's amazing how the view that "it's my railroad, I'll do what I want" fails to translate into "it's your railroad, you can do what you want".
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
carl425 It's amazing how the view that "it's my railroad, I'll do what I want" fails to translate into "it's your railroad, you can do what you want".
And therefore people woo and ahhh over Pelle's layout when they can do the same or better by dumping that worn out saying "Its my railroad" which really means I can half step instead of putting my best foot foward..
Here's what we should remember: Every great layout starts by the modeler taking extra steps toward believability and realism. A concept that isn't hard to master and takes so little time to do..
Doughless Pelle's layout was designed for photography, IMO. He admits that operating the layout, any layout, is not his priority ...
Pelle's layout was designed for photography, IMO. He admits that operating the layout, any layout, is not his priority ...
This is abundantly clear by virtue of the frequency with which he presents new layouts in MR. He likes to paint, so-to-speak, but has no particular use for the painting except to place it in the window and hope somebody will drop in and offer to purchase it. I am actually very much in favour of his approach to the hobby if he finds that his free time is fulfilling and keeps him busy and contented. It's not like his finished product is less than first class...the man knows what he's doing.
To the topic, every one of us learns, often over three or four layouts, what he likes to do with it once it is operational. For my style of ops, I need the around-the-walls configuration so that I can stand in the central operating 'pit' and turn as the trains run through my scenery, backdrop providing its own contribution to the reality behind the trains. It's not highly conducive to cramming a lot of tracks into the works without making it look busy and contrived, so I live with a yard, and one or two switchbacks offering access to at least two industries each. That suffices for me. Our OP needs to figure out what he needs from his track plan, and from there he must use his space to generate the best track plan he can craft for his needs. It's not like we haven't had a couple of well-established minimalists in the hobby whose work was greatly admired before Pelle's (and I would not call him a minimalist at all in the same context).