1615 Layout Planning: First draft with Track

[Philip H]

The bottom line, however, is that, once a visitor makes it past the "wow" (whatever that may constitute) upon their entrance to the layout space, presumably the next stage is really the meat and potatoes, the raison d'être of the layout: operation. So I do think that it's perhaps more valuable to focus on that aspect, and worry about presentation down the line.

David,
I think Lee is actually trying to show how you can do both.  One of the very clear things from his entrance scene - aside from the level of detail and craftsmanship - is that this IS a WORKING railroad.

There at least three industrial activities going on here, and with the through freight ambling by, its clear that these industries need the railroad to survive.  They weren't and after thought, and they aren't just there for scenic effect.  Se Lee has WOW and raison d'être.  Based on Ed's various postings so far, I think it's emminently reasonable for him to try to achieve both (and I am with Lee that neither will work well if there's a huge horken helix).

[DKS]

The bottom line, however, is that, once a visitor makes it past the "wow" (whatever that may constitute) upon their entrance to the layout space, presumably the next stage is really the meat and potatoes, the raison d'être of the layout: operation. So I do think that it's perhaps more valuable to focus on that aspect, and worry about presentation down the line.

David,
I think Lee is actually trying to show how you can do both.  One of the very clear things from his entrance scene - aside from the level of detail and craftsmanship - is that this IS a WORKING railroad.

There at least three industrial activities going on here, and with the through freight ambling by, its clear that these industries need the railroad to survive.  They weren't and after thought, and they aren't just there for scenic effect.  Se Lee has WOW and raison d'être.  Based on Ed's various postings so far, I think it's emminently reasonable for him to try to achieve both (and I am with Lee that neither will work well if there's a huge horken helix).

I'm not arguing that one can't have both; I'm simply cautioning about using "wow" motives to guide the development of the layout at the possible expense of its operation. I also think that one can successfully work around "huge horkin helixes." Ed does not have an especially small space--indeed, it's a nice size. The sketches I made have 4-foot-diameter loops--I think that demonstrates a layout can be built around one or even two of them with plenty of room left over for wow-stuff.

I just think the horse needs to remain in front of the cart. Develop a basic plan that meets the owner's needs, and fits the space workably. Then delve into the things that will make it visually exciting.

[wm3798]

And that's actually where Howard's layout uses quantity to mask quality... at least in terms of ops.  His layout is truly a feast for the eyes, something we can all learn from, but operationally, it's not a "railroad" per se.  It's a big train set that loops around through wonderful scenes.  Which okay, because that's what he wants it to be.

So, yes, consider the wow, but it does have to function as the working railroad you want to portray.  This is one of the reasons that if it were my basement, Baltimore and the big city scene would be right at the foot of the steps.  The available space is too narrow to really do much operationally, but it would be outstanding for that first punch in the eye.  Then you leave Baltimore, go up the valley, build out a switching district along the partition wall, run the main through to the back to a hidden helix, back into the room on an upper deck, then Cockeysville, and the rest of the upper deck is beautiful scenery to York County.

Just sayin'  North doesn't always have to be at the top of the map.

Lee

[seusscaboose]

dave,
i was thinking that the operational aspect (as functional and "good") were a "given" based on Ed's experience and the feedback from design discussions here that i have always found helpful.  i am more of a "roundy round" guy, however i agree with Lee, as he pointed out, we can have both a good operating layout that has a bit of wow factor on initial impression, regardless of room size.

If the wow factor is valued (to each his own) and integrated to some level (as you say, "not the driving factor") in layout design (in the early conversations) then it may enhance the operational and aestetics of the experience.

As i said, i am only speaking from my personal experience (opinion), which is limited.  Just chiming in is all.

knowing the space Ed has to deal with, i think he could do a lot.  the "punch in the eye" as Lee call's it.

In fact, it has me thinking about my own basement and how should I "give a punch in the eye" to a visitor.

As always, i find the posts inspiring.

EP

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I feel bad for not weighing in earlier yesterday. Every time I went to post someone else would add something else really good, and I didn't want to stop the flow.

I am really amazed by the thought you guys have put into this, and I really appreciate it.

I've heard lots of reasons for alternate plans, but I haven't seen a list of why the one I've drawn won't work.

Yes, it's rather simple, but that's the idea. I don't want it to be insane and a 10 year project. Not on this go-around anyway.

[wm3798]

I've heard lots of reasons for alternate plans, but I haven't seen a list of why the one I've drawn won't work.

It lacks imagination.  You need to really think about how the scenery will flow and how you will fool the eye into thinking there's more railroad than you actually have room for.  So far, it amounts to a track chart based on about a quarter mile.

On that level it works.  But as a setting for a believable railroad that moves a variety of traffic from point A to point B, it's missing a lot of flavors.  Accept that your 100 car trains will actually be 25 car trains, and you can start painting a more complete picture.

Lee

[John]

go around the room .. nolix fashion

[DKS]

I think Lee is right. It's difficult to come up with a bullet-point list of issues, when really it's a gut-feeling thing. If it does the job for you, then fine. But I have the sense that it somehow comes up a little short, whereas Lee's initial sketch was way OTT, IMO. I think somewhere in between is what might do the trick.

It's hard for me to get into the nuts and bolts of it since ops is my weak suit, but perhaps it might help to build a (new) list of desired features. You may have done this already, but I don't get the sense it was consolidated into one definitive list. Then perhaps something will start to coalesce out of the list. You've got a great space (I am highly envious), and I think it can be put to greater advantage.

[wm3798]

To follow up on David's comment, here's the list of what I look for in my designs.
1.  A place for trains to come from. (staging)
2.  A place where trains are sorted and assembled (a yard, or maybe just an interchange where pickups/setouts are made)
3.  A switching area to give the line some play value, and the modeled railroad a purpose.
4.  A continuous operating loop because sometimes I just get lazy, or need to break in a locomotive, or I want to have a train rolling in the back ground while I'm fooling around in the yard or on a local.
5.  A junction with a branch line (see interchange and switching area above)
6.  An engine terminal (maybe just a one stall house to keep a switcher in... maybe a 20 stall roundhouse.  I hate having to put away my toys.)
7.  A place for the trains to go (more staging).

That covers the track and ops portion of the program.
I also demand from myself coherent scenery, detailed scenes, realistic landscapes (no 60' high vertical retaining walls, etc.) and well thought-out view blocks to isolate specific scenes.  This helps provide the illusion of longer trains, bigger mountains, more distance between destinations etc, and also helps to mask staging entrances, continuous loop cutoffs, and other model railroad necessities.

I would apply these same principles to a Western Maryland layout based in Baltimore, York, or Cumberland.  Or a Conrail layout based in Lewistown, Winchester, or Seaford, DE.

The other thing that's tricky for us proto ops types is to design for our space first, and our desired ops second.  You have to come to terms with the compromises required by the space you have available, or you'll drive yourself crazy.

On mine, there are numerous compromises, starting with pushing Maryland Jct. west to the middle of Luke, and making traffic from the east and the west use the same staging yard.  The simple truth is that you have to bend a lot of light to make a layout that looks, runs, and "feels" the way you want it to.  David's right, my sketch is way over the top, but I usually start with too much so I can peel it back to what actually works.  Yours is just the opposite, so spartan that you almost want to give up because you see right away that you can't have mile long sidings and full scale yards and industries.

But don't be discouraged!  You have a space!  You have some defined parameters.  It took me a good 3-4 years of design exercises when I finally got a room to get to the point where I could confidently start building.

Start with your main line run, make sure it fits in your room, then get out the track charts and ZTS drawings and see what will fit where. 

Lee

[seusscaboose]

I don't want it to be insane and a 10 year project. Not on this go-around anyway.

lesson learned... build modularly and you can incorporate it into your next space (unless you want to change scales  build a different theme, which is possible, we all change our minds (like Bernie did)).  

i think the project WILL be insane and it CAN be a long term evolution... build it up "nice and good", and re-use it modularly when you need to move.  imagine the NEXT space you might get and all the recycled use you can get out of this effort.

even though you say it is "small and simple" it is larger than a door layout and not something you could "give" to a fellow member, but you could surely re-use certain showpiece elements again and again over time.

You don't strike me as the type of person to rip it out and start over (i myself am that way), so you could probably get away with building it up in a simple (and sceniced) fashion and then when you move you can take care and move it with you.

just my 2 cents.

EP

p.s. i call dibs if you rip it out!

[conrail98]

Ed,

I think what we all saw was a very simple line with not much in the way of "ops". Essentially it had a small yard, one branch, not a lot of industries/switching potentional (at least defined on the plan), a very compressed line, and what really does look like a convoluted "wye" in the top right of the plan. You are wanting to get something up quickly but how long do you plan on being in the townhouse? If it is less than say 10 years, how much scenic elements do you think you could realistically get to in that time frame? Finally, how "modular" do you want the layout to be for if/when you move to a larger residence and try to claim the whole basement?

Phil

[wm3798]

Finally, how "modular" do you want the layout to be for if/when you move to a larger residence and try to claim the whole basement?

Phil

Phil makes an excellent point, as does Eric.  That was one of the reasons I laid out my sketch as a series of door panels.  While not truly modular, in addition to a speedy and sturdy start, it would give you the opportunity to salvage parts of the work that can be incorporated into a future plan.

Lee

[asciibaron]

i think defining the flow of the layout and how the main will fit the space is important right now.  have a list of wants and try to see how they work with the placement of the main.  adjust the flow of the main as needed, but be ready to cross off things you list.  the Rochelle Sub UP line comes to mind when i see your space Ed.  i think you could do well to see how he did things: http://home.comcast.net/~dpkruse/index_files/image846.jpg - sure he has more room, but the approach to staging and the flow of the main might help you see a layout in your space.

[sirenwerks]

I think 2 helix is overkill. Do you plan on queuing up trains in the corkscrew? If not, why not sake space on the Timonium end with an elevator?

[MichaelWinicki]

It lacks imagination.  You need to really think about how the scenery will flow and how you will fool the eye into thinking there's more railroad than you actually have room for.  So far, it amounts to a track chart based on about a quarter mile.

Lee

You took the words out of my mouth Lee...

That's exactly what it looks like– A track chart.

Ed, you have a flair for dirty, grubby, warehousy/urban scenery but it doesn't look like any of that is incorporated into the plan.

As far as Lee's 7 points go, I totally agree:

1.  A place for trains to come from. (staging)
2.  A place where trains are sorted and assembled (a yard, or maybe just an interchange where pickups/setouts are made)
3.  A switching area to give the line some play value, and the modeled railroad a purpose.
4.  A continuous operating loop because sometimes I just get lazy, or need to break in a locomotive, or I want to have a train rolling in the back ground while I'm fooling around in the yard or on a local.
5.  A junction with a branch line (see interchange and switching area above)
6.  An engine terminal (maybe just a one stall house to keep a switcher in... maybe a 20 stall roundhouse.  I hate having to put away my toys.)
7.  A place for the trains to go (more staging).

I have each and every one of those in my layout.

I incorporated all of them (and it really wasn't that hard) in order to create a layout that was versatile.  If I got sick of seeing through-freights race back & forth between staging areas, I have ample switching to keep locals busy– including interchange traffic.

I see a lot of the "race-track" layouts that feature through-freights and not much else... They strike me as kinda boring.