When our club layout was rebuilt about 9-10 years ago, there was a big nasty fight about filling every inch of the 30x60 space with spurs, sidings, sawmills yadda yadda. A design vote went 60-40 for leaving some open country between stations, particularly in two dead-end alcoves.
Turns out that a 500-foot main and a 40-train lineup (over two four-hour sessions) eats up more operators than we usually get, for more time than most of them want to stand up.
Drawing lines on paper, and even throwing down track, is a lot easier than planning out what a railroad will actually do.
I have the bigest layout now than ever but still i don't know how to handle it.
Russell
For me, train length is very important. I model HO scale, and whenever I string more than 10 cars behind a single loco (modern era 50 and 60 footers) it looks like it starts to overwhelm the loco. I know a real loco can handle them, but it just doesn't look right to my eye.
About 15 to 20 cars needs 2 locos, more than 20 needs 3 to look right, and so on.
Also, the idea of the train entering a town while its end is leaving another is a common design concept that I don't like. The idea of having multiple small town stations seems repetitive on its own, made worse by the notion that the train's caboose is still in the previous town. One large town and yard, one small town and some industries, spaced far enough apart for a 10 car train, is appealing to me.
And since I will probably never devote more than 300 square feet of my abode for a layout, short trains with a town at each end of the layout is about the only layout I'm interested in building. I love all kinds, all sizes, but only one kind do I want to own. With that in mind, larger buildings and broad curves are a requirement even in my relative modest space.
Overall, I'm willing to give up the amount of distance modeled in order to have less compression.
- Douglas
Thoughts on the topic:
I love larger layouts but only have space for a medium sized layout. This size limitation has turned out to be a blessing as I continue to build the layout. I will never finish the current layout, but it will reach a state of completeness that wouldn’t be achievable for me if the layout were larger.
I am building a double deck layout (triple deck if you include staging). The scenery on the top deck is pretty much complete. I host operations sessions on it a few times a year. The current layout full fills my goals that I set forth many years ago in the design stages. I made compromises in the design to have a double deck layout but no more so than in the previous single deck layouts that I have built. The compromises are just different.
If I were to start over again now, I wouldn’t go double deck. The main reason is that I found the complexity of construction for a double deck to be more than twice as complicated as building two single deck layouts. Things must be completed in sequence and there are lots of tedious parts as you do the same thing 100 times before moving to the next step.
As a do-over, I would go with a large single deck layout that keeps things as simple as possible in terms of track work and hidden elements. I would also continue my practice of trying to buy quality built up items as much as possible and spend the model building time on the unique items that I want for the layout.
For me the biggest issue is staying inspired to work on the layout. I find my inspiration from a variety of sources including the hobby press and looking at the giant basement filling layouts featured there. I also have a good local group of excellent modelers that keep me on track. If the project were too big, I might feel overwhelmed more often than I do now, thus stalling out on the layout progress......
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
Sheldon ... Thank you for this thread. Also, I thank those who contributed..
Logically, larger layouts take much more time to build than smaller layouts. Accordingly, one should decide ahead of time how to build it. In my case, I decided to build one section at a time, and do everything including scenery before moving to the next section. After over 15 years, I am still building another section, but I am nearly done filling the train room with my layout.
My layout design is primarily point-to-point. Actually, it is a sequence of point-to-points going from town to town as I follow about 130' of wall. The basic track plan is a double track main line with a loop at each end. There are some branch lines with single track. There are numerous industrial sidings along the mainline and on branch lines. I have Union Station in the big city and passenger stations in other towns.
I have two ways of running trains on the layout. .... One is an Operating Session in which I strive to simulate movements of freight and passengers with appropriate equipment. ..... Second is a running session where I can run any trains I want continuously along the double track with a loop at each end. I can run 3 or 4 trains simultaneously as they follow each other around the layout.
GARRY
HEARTLAND DIVISION, CB&Q RR
EVERYWHERE LOST; WE HUSTLE OUR CABOOSE FOR YOU
dehusman A lot of this depends on how you percieve "immensity". I worked on a real railroad, so to me they are all toys in the basement to a certain extent. One of the flaws I see in a lot of "more is better" layouts is the concept that with a 15x20 space I can run 15 car trains and with a 30x 40 space I can run 30 car trains. If I have a track plan that is designed for 12 ft trains and has sidings 15 ft apart, and I expand the layout where I expand it to sidings 30 ft apart and so go to 25 ft trains that sounds cool. But I still end up with sidings that are less than 2 train lengths apart. I have seen guys design a layout with long trains and broad curves but end up with a main line to train ratio that's about the same as a typical 4x8 layout. I would propose that if you have the room to double the linear length of the layout, keep the trains the same size. A 15 ft train traveling 45 ft between sidings will be more realistic, feel more prototypical, allow for more prototypical operation (whether it be TT&TO or CTC). While a real train seems immense, it is in the real world which is even more immense than the train.
A lot of this depends on how you percieve "immensity". I worked on a real railroad, so to me they are all toys in the basement to a certain extent.
One of the flaws I see in a lot of "more is better" layouts is the concept that with a 15x20 space I can run 15 car trains and with a 30x 40 space I can run 30 car trains. If I have a track plan that is designed for 12 ft trains and has sidings 15 ft apart, and I expand the layout where I expand it to sidings 30 ft apart and so go to 25 ft trains that sounds cool. But I still end up with sidings that are less than 2 train lengths apart. I have seen guys design a layout with long trains and broad curves but end up with a main line to train ratio that's about the same as a typical 4x8 layout.
I would propose that if you have the room to double the linear length of the layout, keep the trains the same size.
A 15 ft train traveling 45 ft between sidings will be more realistic, feel more prototypical, allow for more prototypical operation (whether it be TT&TO or CTC).
While a real train seems immense, it is in the real world which is even more immense than the train.
I agree completely. I made that same point, from a different perspective, when discussing single vs double track mainlines a few post back with Larry.
Rather than keep trains short, double track allows longer trains to look more believable in the model setting. And the larger space makes that effect even better.
And double track was rather common here in the east, in the era I model.
I have no interest in building a single track model railroad where trains only move two or three times their length between sidings, no matter the train length.
And again, it has to do with the three "perspectives" listed above, are you on the train, or viewing the train?
Sheldon
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Doughless Hmmm, I don't see an us vs them conflict. What I see is a comparison of a preference with another preference for illustrative purposes. I thought the point of the thread was the preference of capturing the immensity of the prototype, regardless of the space a person has to do it. I see it as having large radii and large buildings, properly spaced with room for vehicles; noncomplex track plan (which saves space as oppossed to complex) etc. I'm probably leaving out other aspects. Sort of the opposite of what was common in decades past, especially with smaller layouts and the tiny Revell, AHM, IHC buildings. Some may not have a preference for immensity, or pursue it differently.
Hmmm, I don't see an us vs them conflict. What I see is a comparison of a preference with another preference for illustrative purposes.
I thought the point of the thread was the preference of capturing the immensity of the prototype, regardless of the space a person has to do it.
I see it as having large radii and large buildings, properly spaced with room for vehicles; noncomplex track plan (which saves space as oppossed to complex) etc. I'm probably leaving out other aspects. Sort of the opposite of what was common in decades past, especially with smaller layouts and the tiny Revell, AHM, IHC buildings.
Some may not have a preference for immensity, or pursue it differently.
Thank you for understanding my point.
BRAKIE richhotrain Even a point-to-point with hidden staging cannot avoid repeating scenes except for the fact that there is no continuous running and that becomes a nuisance for most of us who just want to "run trains". Rich,On a point to point you go through a scene once going from point A to Point B and again when you're going from point B to point A on your return trip and that's the beauty of a point to pointer. When I was a member of the Bucyrus HO club we was open during the county fair and after a hour or so of loop running I was bored to tears and after the third day I was beyond bored. Why? Here comes my train,there it goes,here comes my train again and there it goes again,here it comes again,there it goes again and on and on and on.
richhotrain Even a point-to-point with hidden staging cannot avoid repeating scenes except for the fact that there is no continuous running and that becomes a nuisance for most of us who just want to "run trains".
Rich,On a point to point you go through a scene once going from point A to Point B and again when you're going from point B to point A on your return trip and that's the beauty of a point to pointer.
When I was a member of the Bucyrus HO club we was open during the county fair and after a hour or so of loop running I was bored to tears and after the third day I was beyond bored.
Why?
Here comes my train,there it goes,here comes my train again and there it goes again,here it comes again,there it goes again and on and on and on.
And again, just because the track makes a loop, that does not mean you have to operate it that way..............
But display running does have its place, whether or not you enjoy it.
In addition to being more prototypical of larger cities, that is why my indusries are on belt lines off the main line. Trains can be on the mainline, with or without operators, while operators switch the yard and industries.
In my view, there are three perspectives in viewing model trains.
#1 - being the crew, engineer, conductor, brakeman
#2 - being the fixed management staff, yard master, dispatcher, division superendant, etc
#3 - being a civilian observer, railfan
Only #1 experiances the sense of "going somewhere", the rest "watch the train come and go"
Personally I take great enjoyment from all three perspectives. This is directly linked to my love of extensive staging that allows a wide variety of trains to come and go from the scene. One train leaves, another appears........
Personally, I think too much attention has been placed on perspective #1 by the current trends in the hobby. I don't always/only want to be the engineer........
More later,
mobilman44Anyway, the thing is, doesn't our imagination come into play? After all, it is a minature world we have created, and whether its a 4x8 or a 40x80, one's imagination plays a big role in determining how much fun we are having.
Well said!
In my 55 years in the hobby, I have builr a number of layouts in about any scale there is. None of them filling even a tiny room, but all of them fun. My current and most likely, my last layout is the smallest I have built, my mini-modular layout not counting. It´s a 2´3" by 5´3" table top train set, built with vintage tracks and accessories of a minimum of 40 to 50 years of age. It´s a set up against all the rules, with tight curves, sharp switches and all other ingtredients that qualifies it as a genuine toy train, but not a model railroad.
I am enjoying this layout more, than I have enjoyed all of my previous builts! No longer do I have to try to be as realistic as possible while never reaching that goal, nor do I have to pretend to operate my trains - I can simply play with them.
Free at last!
Happy times!
Ulrich (aka The Tin Man)
"You´re never too old for a happy childhood!"
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Like many of my fellow MRs, I always wanted the biggest layout I could possibly have.......which of course was never big enough. Even my current 11x15 room filling two level layout leaves me wanting. Yet, I know that many out there would love to have that kind of space.
Anyway, the thing is, doesn't our imagination come into play? After all, it is a minature world we have created, and whether its a 4x8 or a 40x80, one's imagination plays a big role in determining how much fun we are having.
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
Paul3 I personally don't mind a train going through the same scene twice as long as there is a good reason for it. But if it goes twice through a scene..... Nope, that's silly and I won't do it.
I personally don't mind a train going through the same scene twice as long as there is a good reason for it.
But if it goes twice through a scene..... Nope, that's silly and I won't do it.
Of course, the biggest offender is the simple oval layout. But even a large dogbone shaped layout will result in trains passing through the same scene multiple times. Even a point-to-point with hidden staging cannot avoid repeating scenes except for the fact that there is no continuous running and that becomes a nuisance for most of us who just want to "run trains".
What I find to be ideal is a large layout with continuous running around a loop, preferably a double mainline, with passenger operations, yards, spurs, and sidings in between for variety.
Rich
Alton Junction
Sheldon,"Us vs. Them": You know, it's kinda funny. I've mentioned many times on this forum that I used to have a 25'x50' layout and that I'm a member of a large club that is currently building a 6300+ sq. ft. layout (not too many club layouts bigger than that). I've never had a "sharp" comment directed at me about it, never had a "us vs. them" moment, etc. In fact, the only comments I can recall were "Gosh, wish I lived closer to your club." So maybe it's not the size of the layout that causes the conflict...?
I personally don't mind a train going through the same scene twice as long as there is a good reason for it. For example, if the train goes through a scene the 2nd time 6"-10" higher, it's okay. The illusion is that it had to travel some distance to get up there (which it does, really). But if it goes twice through a scene going on both routes of a diamond? Nope, that's silly and I won't do it.
Also, I like double decks when done properly. I've seen bad ones. They are too close together (or too far apart), have the upper level overhang the lower one, or have no lighting on the lower level, etc. But a well done double decker can be a thing of beauty.
ATLANTIC CENTRALThe world, and the rail network, are bigger than our layouts, staging provides that extra imagination of connections beyond what is modeled.
Sheldon,That's very true even my ISLs is cramped as far as realistic head room between industries.
BRAKIE ATLANTIC CENTRAL Larry brought up the topic of a single track mainline. Despite the fact that most rail lines in the US are/were single track, there are very important reasons to build a layout of this type with a double track mainline. Sheldon,To my bias mind a point to point layout gives you the feeling of running a real train going from point A to point B. Like the prototype you yard your train and go home or to the RRYMCA until your next run. A double track main line looks and operates just fine but,the zing isn't there.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Larry brought up the topic of a single track mainline. Despite the fact that most rail lines in the US are/were single track, there are very important reasons to build a layout of this type with a double track mainline.
Sheldon,To my bias mind a point to point layout gives you the feeling of running a real train going from point A to point B.
Like the prototype you yard your train and go home or to the RRYMCA until your next run.
A double track main line looks and operates just fine but,the zing isn't there.
Larry, I have explained before, I operate point to point.
Train leaves staging yard, it "appears" on scene.
It travels half of the somewhat long mainline, about 3-4 scale miles.
It arrives at the yard, where any number of prototype actions may occure. Maybe it terminates there. Maybe it just gets a power change. Maybe it sets out a block of cars and picks up a different outbound block.
If it is then leaving, it proceeds out of the yard and travels over the remainig 3-4 miles of mainline.
It goes off stage and terminates in the staging yard.
Double track or single track, that is point to point operation.
The world, and the rail network, are bigger than our layouts, staging provides that extra imagination of connections beyond what is modeled.
My freight yard is 20' long, even I don't have room for one at each end....
More later on staging and my "wye" junction.
ATLANTIC CENTRALLarry brought up the topic of a single track mainline. Despite the fact that most rail lines in the US are/were single track, there are very important reasons to build a layout of this type with a double track mainline.
I built a large layout, found it started to own me. Moved and now have a much smaller space and will build a smaller layout but even more detailed than before.
7j43k ATLANTIC CENTRAL Ed, Your choice of a more modern era would have me pushing to 48" curves as well. But in 1953, 75' was pretty much the limit on freight cars. Sheldon I believe that's so. My impression is that the first freight car significantly longer than that was the 85' Southern hogshead boxes built in 1961. Pennsy's Queen Mary flat was quite a bit longer, but the "body length" was still only about 73'. Ed
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Ed, Your choice of a more modern era would have me pushing to 48" curves as well. But in 1953, 75' was pretty much the limit on freight cars. Sheldon
Ed, Your choice of a more modern era would have me pushing to 48" curves as well.
But in 1953, 75' was pretty much the limit on freight cars.
I believe that's so. My impression is that the first freight car significantly longer than that was the 85' Southern hogshead boxes built in 1961.
Pennsy's Queen Mary flat was quite a bit longer, but the "body length" was still only about 73'.
Ed
Ed, despite 60 years of 80' passenger cars, the railroads were very leary of those first 75' piggyback flats in '53/'54.
But obviously once they worked, it was game on for longer cars.
Happily, we are blissfully trapped in the fall of 1954 here on the ATLANTIC CENTRAL, with those flat cars and two new SD9's being the newest stuff on the line.
Who says people model the trains of their youth - I was not even born until 1957.....
Larry brought up the topic of a single track mainline. Despite the fact that most rail lines in the US are/were single track, there are very important reasons to build a layout of this type with a double track mainline.
First, selective compression is less obvious, similar to some points Dave Nelson made.
Real single track mainlines go for miles between sidings. Even if I hit the projected 8 or more scale miles of mainline, that just makes the sidings and the single track between them too short.
Like Dave said - too much selective compression, too obvious, kills realism.
Long trains - my goal is 35 cars as a typical train, with 50 or even 100 car trains possible.
So while I'm here, next topic - point to point vs continuous. No contest - continuous with thru staging. Operated as point to point for operating sessions.
No "yard work" at the end of the line provides a better balance of switching to mainline running. There will be one visible, sceniced yard, mid way in the scenic/visible portion of the mainline. Some trains leave staging, and end at the yard, others are run thrus or just power changes.
Complete trains return to staging for the next session.
Which brings me to another of my modeling rules, a very important one.
Model each major feature only once - there will be only one:
Freight yard
Large passenger terminal
Engine terminal/turntable/roundhouse
Wye
Swing bridge
Flyover junction
Piggyback yard
The two exceptions will be industrial areas, and commuter/rural passenger stations.
Lets talk about industries. Virtually none of my industries will be switched from the mainline. 95% or more will be in "industrial areas", like having an ISL or two tucked into a big display layout. They will be accessed by belt lines directly from the freight yard.
Just like most major east coast cities, the switching of industries will not interfere with mainline trains.
There will be between two and three of these industrial areas. They will be close to to the layout edge and will have manual/ground throw turnouts, as will the main freight yard.
7j43k I pretty much agree with what Dave and Sheldon just wrote. It's nice to hear that there are others who have problems with multi-level plans. One exception is that I have 48" minimum mainline radius. Right now, I've got some Long Runners on a curve, and the "bridging" trailers STILL don't look right--too clunky. David Rose had a nice trackplan here on the forum, where exposed curves looked maybe half as sharp as concealed. Maybe even softer. I think it was Armstrong who opined that some very broad curves out in the open looked very nice. Ed
I pretty much agree with what Dave and Sheldon just wrote. It's nice to hear that there are others who have problems with multi-level plans.
One exception is that I have 48" minimum mainline radius. Right now, I've got some Long Runners on a curve, and the "bridging" trailers STILL don't look right--too clunky.
David Rose had a nice trackplan here on the forum, where exposed curves looked maybe half as sharp as concealed. Maybe even softer. I think it was Armstrong who opined that some very broad curves out in the open looked very nice.
As for passenger cars, I have some 80' cars, but most of my passenger fleet is "freelanced and selectively compressed", a choice I made decades ago, and a choice that I am not going to change.
I have no interest in replacing nearly 200 passenger cars...........
So most of my passengers cars are similar in length to my "fresh from the factory" 75' piggyback flats.
36" to 42" radius makes them all look rather graceful.
I will have some curves well above my "range", the old layout had several curves in the 60" radius range.
I don't think I've ever seen a thread where one person, much less two criticized double decker layouts. I feel strangely vindicated, for "not getting it"
Like Brakie, I have felt the cold breath of the grim reaper on my back. I don't watch much news anymore, but a 46 yo Secret Service died from a stroke last week. Every day is a blessing. I have also seen my mother in law trapped in her own home, because she wasn't healthy enough to walk down stairs, in a split level home. My own mom became fall prone, so her 2 story house no longer worked.
Currently I am spoiled by having a small lot surrounded by conservation area on two sides. It gives me lots of mosquitos, wetlands, and the neighbor behind me plays some really obnoxious rap music with words that I can't use, but not often.
Small lot that it is, I still have a ton of branches and some end of life Virginia pine trees falling in my yard, constantly. But I don't want to live on a lot, where I can open a window and spit inside my neighbors house if his window is open. Those small lots are very popular these days.
Back to the layout. I enjoy building the landscape, the buildings and laying the track. The super detailing, the people, the pallets, barrels, dogs and fire hydrants, all look good, but are not what I look forward to doing. Probably the layout will end lacking in these details.
Realism: my favorite memories are going from Baltimore to NYC on the PRR in the 50's and visiting family friends, somewhere on the upper west side of NYC. When we visited, the put me behind a telescope, overlooking a railroad yard (anyone know which one?) while the grown ups visited.
So my inclination is urban railroading and switching. I am working with only 2 modules right now, anticipating a move, to a more suitable home. I am still undecided whether to have point to point, or continous run. I expect it wil be a continous run.
Will it look like the NYC yard...no, will it look like, what I guess was a 4 track mainline on the PRR...no. It will be good enough as I didn't get the rivet counter gene.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I've seen many a modest sized layout that displayed exceptional model work. Size is not the measure of the quality of a model railroad, nor should it be. I have been the subject of more than a sharp comment or two, partly because I have been blessed with a large space in which to build model trains and I advocate for large curves, longer trains, etc. My goal with a large space is not to make the layout more complex, or model more places, or squeeze in more features. So while my layout may be "large", it is by no means complex for its size. Curves - curves can eat up a lot of space, but 36" to 40" radius curves look WAY more realistic than 28" to 32" radius curves. But my layout concept will not change, it will still be about capturing the immensity of the prototype with broad curves, long trains, lots of hidden staging, scenery with "depth", etc - not just seeing how much "more" I can squeeze in. So I would suggest that there is a big difference between "large" and "complex". Maybe a large layout can be complex, but so can a small one. But a large layout need not by definition be exponentially more complex, grossly more expenive, or more difficult to accomplish. Who knows, I may just decide to document it on here as others have. Your thoughts on layout size and design are welcome. Sheldon
I've seen many a modest sized layout that displayed exceptional model work. Size is not the measure of the quality of a model railroad, nor should it be.
I have been the subject of more than a sharp comment or two, partly because I have been blessed with a large space in which to build model trains and I advocate for large curves, longer trains, etc.
My goal with a large space is not to make the layout more complex, or model more places, or squeeze in more features.
So while my layout may be "large", it is by no means complex for its size.
Curves - curves can eat up a lot of space, but 36" to 40" radius curves look WAY more realistic than 28" to 32" radius curves.
But my layout concept will not change, it will still be about capturing the immensity of the prototype with broad curves, long trains, lots of hidden staging, scenery with "depth", etc - not just seeing how much "more" I can squeeze in.
So I would suggest that there is a big difference between "large" and "complex". Maybe a large layout can be complex, but so can a small one.
But a large layout need not by definition be exponentially more complex, grossly more expenive, or more difficult to accomplish.
Who knows, I may just decide to document it on here as others have.
Your thoughts on layout size and design are welcome.
I've cut down your quote to address some of the things I wanted to.
First of all, congratulations with your downsizing/simplification decision. Hard work, good decisions, a bit of good luck and contributions from others, can build a nice foundation for retirement. Best wishes to you and your wife in the future, especially with health going forward.
And please document your progress with your layout. Your posts are always interesting, and I would expect any layout build progress update would be an enjoyable read.
I have been in the hobby for about 40 years (not including a 10 year hiatus in my 20s), and I have decidied I am done with "cramming" things into a layout. Broad curves and large rail served buildings will be the norm. Broad curves generally means less total mainline linear footage. Larger buildings tend to mean fewer of them. Less mainline, fewer buildings, but more realism.
In this sense, Less IS more.
My new layout will be a U shaped switching layout with a bit of mainline run from the interchange yard to the switching district. Simple concept and plan. The space will be a 25 by 14 foot leg for the mainline and district, with another 8 by 15 leg for the interchange yard/ town scene.
A somewhat large space for a switching layout. I could do more in that space. But realism takes preference over an alternative dogbone shaped continuous run plan. The return loops would be too tight, at probably 30 inch radius.
Since its a switching layout, 10 car trains are the maximum. More like 6 to 8 cars being normal. Frankly, I think long trains tend to dominate the locomotives, so I personally prefer these "shorter" trains as it helps the locomotive be the star.
8 car trains on a big 50 to 60 inch radius curve on the two cormers of the U will look nice. I could fit 24 inch radius curves, get more mainline run, but I would lose much more realism for that extra run. Where the curve isn't visible, in under layout staging, I'll use about 28 inch radius to get longer straight yard tracks.
Yes, LESS track, LESS buildings, means MORE realism, IMO. Maybe its easy for me to say, since I have enough space to do what I want, but my experience says that even with a small space, the same principals of realism must apply.
Small space means to me that a layout should have even less mainline run and even fewer buildings. If faced with a 4 x 8 space, I'd probably just model a paper mill. One industry but a few variety of cars. My preference of course.
With more track and more buildings, I could probably double my operating time. But I should get a good hour of running trains on the new layout. That's enough for me, as building and detailing is a big part of the hobby too.
Layout of LION is BIG ... 14 scale miles of track
appears complicated ... runs 10 traains all at one time
But reality shows us two loops (express trains north and express trains south) and pne point to point (all local trains)
REALITY IS the entire layout is operated with only five GRS levers ... two for the crossover at 242nd Street and 3 for the home signals (one in and two out)
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
Here is some of the detailed criteria for the new layout:
No double decks, I agree with Dave Nelson. I tried it and did not like it.
No running thru the scene twice.
No hidden track that is hard to access, no staging "under" the layout, with small clearances to work on track or reach rolling stock.
In fact, my staging yards will be behind back drops, mostly wide open to the top, and many will have "operator only" access aisles.
Gracious curves where ever possible, 36" radius will be the MINIMIUM for the mainline, most will be in the 42" range.
Deep scenes to allow plenty of modeling of what is around the tracks - without crowding things. Typically scenes will be 30"-36" deep, some deeper.
Wide viewer/operator aisles, 48" is the minium goal.
dknelson I am hopeful when it is all done and operating that a sense of spaciousness will be conveyed but if I had to do it all over again, maybe I'd go with N scale on exactly the same footprint. Dave Nelson
I am hopeful when it is all done and operating that a sense of spaciousness will be conveyed but if I had to do it all over again, maybe I'd go with N scale on exactly the same footprint.
Dave Nelson
Yes. Exactly. I've been saying this for years. Well . . . except for the do over part.
When I look at at track plan in MRR (HO scale, of course) I can easily imagine it in N scale. Exact same layout, exact same footprint. But more space. Just loosen the belt a little.
And, I also agree with Dave's comment about aisle width and clutter.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
My own feeling is that size of space for a layout, and even size of layout, is only one factor, and not a controlling factor, in creating the impressions of realism that we all seek. I have been to huge layouts that were so crammed with track that the first impression one gets is not unlike that of the old Lionel display layouts - it somehow can seem, well, tiny! Related to that, sometimes selective compression -- not so much of this or that structure but rather of entire scenes: impossibly short city blocks, utility poles far too close together, narrow roads and sidewalks, too many vehicles and too many pedestrians, that sort of thing -- gets taken too far and that also creates an impression of lack of realism.
This may sound odd, but psychologically, I find that cramped aisles themselves make a layout seem cramped and thus unrealistic to me. Related to that, track plans that place distant parts of the layout in close physical proximity -- end of peninsula "blobs" near each other for example -- also detract from realism when you can see too much distant real estate all in one glimpse.
And at the risk of annoying many modelers including some famous "taste makers" in the hobby who worship double deck layouts due to the length of run they provide, to me I see no virtue in studiously avoiding insincere track plans that have the track going through the same scene twice or thrice, yet have double decks with track supposedly miles and miles away, but just a few inches apart, up above or down below. One is condemned and the other praised by these taste makers. My eyes and thus my brain are NOT fooled by this.
Not all might agree with me but I think a layout that takes selective compression with a light touch, and which at least attempts to capture some sense of the vastness of space around the railroad, can look and feel "large" almost regardless of size. Perhaps not an oval but an L shaped switching layout that follows these precepts can seem very large indeed if done right.
Having said that, a genuinely huge layout, Monroe Stewart's Hooch Junction, uses N scale to its best advantage and he has been pretty lavish with the space available.
I have the space for a nice sized layout and the mainline run between staging yards is nearly 90 feet, so about 1 1/2 scale miles. I am modeling my old home town from end to end, so I am modeling about 4 miles in that 90 feet. Some scenes are actually selectively expanded because I do not want certain scenes to be on curves; others are compressed to fit within the tangents available. Through trains will actually go from end to end rather quickly (this was on the C&NW's Route of the 400s so passenger train speeds were high, and freights moved fast to keep out of their way).