Odd Question - Didn't Someone Propose to model topography first?

[Rossford Yard]

I'm guessing it was in MR years ago, but seem to remember someone believing it would be more realistic to build all the topography first, then retrofit the track, with cuts and fills as necessary, sort of like the real railroads.  A discussion came up in another one of my fields of interest (golf course design) as to how practical that might be.

Does anyone remember that article?  Maybe a John Allen idea never really implemented?  Or, was it one of their April Fools jokes....which btw, I didn't notice in this year's April issue and don't recall any discussion of it here.  What did I miss, or did they give up the ghost on April Fools?

[squirrelhunter]

There was a guy here maybe 10 years ago, I think fluid dynamics was his handle, that build a layout of the SP somewhere in California like that. It looked very nice as I recall.

[wm3798]

It's impractical to not consider the terrain you hope to model as you lay out your track plan, especially if there is a signature scene you want to portray.  That applies to any layout, too, not just the big ones.  My HCD was designed around a bend in the river, with one track high crossing bridges and the other following the bank.  But once those points were fixed, the rest of the track plan was laid out and then the scenery elements worked in around it.
With the advent of 2" foam panels as a practical scenery base and track bed, it's certainly possible to carve out your right of way to a fixed level, but the realities of model railroading wiring and switch mechanisms, and of course, simple routine maintenance, make the idea a lot less feasible.

Lee

[Rossford Yard]

Squirrel Hunter, thanks for the good memory!  As I recall what I recall, proponents of this method thought it was more philosophically "pure" to route tracks this way.  That said, I agree with WM3798, it would be a whole lot more expensive, time consuming, etc. And, only pure for a layout that isn't based on a prototype. 

It was just interesting to me that the same idea came up in different design fields.  Sort of like some young, idealist landscape architects trying to push the envelope, and using Elm Trees, while most old timers remember why they aren't being used any more, and don't bother.

[wm3798]

The builders I work with frequently want me to start by designing a floor plan first, nipping and tucking, adding 2 feet here or there, working out all of the subtleties of hallways and closets, figuring whatever I come up with they can put a roof on.  This usually ends up with a complex and expensive roof system that doesn't always look good.  I equate this with the "Scenery First" ethos.
 
Maybe it's because I'm a model railroader, but I prefer to box out the shell first... setting the stage for the "givens and druthers" of the floor plan.  To my mind it's much easier to see the primary structure of a building first (the benchwork?) and know that it's structurally sound and functional (the track plan?) then I go in and put in the partitions and cabinets, doors and closets (the scenery?)

My projects always, well, almost always, work out to have a pretty straightforward structural plan, a good looking roof line, and space efficient floor plans as a result.  I hate additions that make a house look like it has a goiter.

This one was fun.  It's an all new house, but as it will be replacing an existing house in the Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas, I had to conform to the existing footprint.


(Guess what I'm supposed to be working on instead of posting here? )

[CRL]

I think the idea is to make your layout look like it was carved from pre-existing terrain.

[MDW]

Lee has got it right.
A well thought out design process considers both “the big picture” and the small details at the same time.  We modelers too often talk about a “track plan” (2D plan) instead of a “layout design” (3D experience) - and miss some cool opportunities along the way.

I  think the great model railroads that inspire us get that balance right and focus both the right of way and the surrounding context.

Michel

[jpec]

Model Railroader proposed it many years ago, I think it was a Linn Westcott musing but if my fading memory isn't failing me I think they actually did it on an early N scale project layout called the Enfield and Ohio.

Jeff

[mu26aeh]

The builders I work with frequently want me to start by designing a floor plan first, nipping and tucking, adding 2 feet here or there, working out all of the subtleties of hallways and closets, figuring whatever I come up with they can put a roof on.  This usually ends up with a complex and expensive roof system that doesn't always look good.  I equate this with the "Scenery First" ethos.
 
Maybe it's because I'm a model railroader, but I prefer to box out the shell first... setting the stage for the "givens and druthers" of the floor plan.  To my mind it's much easier to see the primary structure of a building first (the benchwork?) and know that it's structurally sound and functional (the track plan?) then I go in and put in the partitions and cabinets, doors and closets (the scenery?)

My projects always, well, almost always, work out to have a pretty straightforward structural plan, a good looking roof line, and space efficient floor plans as a result.  I hate additions that make a house look like it has a goiter.

This one was fun.  It's an all new house, but as it will be replacing an existing house in the Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas, I had to conform to the existing footprint.


(Guess what I'm supposed to be working on instead of posting here? )

I think you have a bug in your software.  That doesn't look like my house  

[Rossford Yard]

Lee,

What software are you using there?  I use Vectorworks and love it, including a few bugs it never seems to work out.

Interesting take on doing the roof first.  There is always a balance form follows function.  I can tell you, that if I ever build another house, all those fancy roof lines common in DFW will not be a part of my house.  Every valley eventually leaks!  I don't care how massive the roof  starts to look

And, back to model railroading, yeah, the "functions" of accessibility, reach, benchwork that holds up (and maybe even 2 levels) etc. probably trumps so "purist" idea of trying to make the track work through existing scenery like the prototype did.  That is an artistic concept, not a function that design needs to address.  Besides, if there is one thing we can't even come close to replicating it is the scale of the 1:1 outdoors.  Seems foolish to make that the first priority when you will fail right out of the box.

Cheers, and thanks for the answers.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I'm a big proponent of accurate scenery and I think this is going too far.

That said though, you absolutely MUST be planning for scenery at EVERY phase of layout construction. And not just things like "I know I want a bridge here" but things like "this track is going to be slightly above grade and the track next to it isn't". You've gotta think about how you're going to visually solve that problem and do it convincingly. This is key to getting stuff looking right.

[wm3798]

It's definitely more of a challenge on a more compact layout, because it usually lacks the space to achieve that proportion of scenery:trains that the real world does so well. 
I think one of the best examples of a realistic proportion is the M&O in @John 's basement.  He's got a handful of complex vignettes, where yards, urban scenes, switching areas and whatnot are concentrated in a few corners of the room, tied together with long, spacious runs in between.



Then scenery flows really well from one vignette to the other.  And he definitely didn't build the terrain first!

@Rossford Yard I use the professional version of Chief Architect.  It's what I do for a living, so it made sense to put that rather expensive tool in the toolbox.  I love it.  My approach is definitely not typical, but it comes from many years of experience.

I often boast that my formal architectural training consists of 8th grade drafting class, building a shed for my dad, and scratch building N scale structures for 40+ years.  My daughter calls me "The Roof Whisperer"...

Lee

[Ed Kapuscinski]

It's definitely more of a challenge on a more compact layout, because it usually lacks the space to achieve that proportion of scenery:trains that the real world does so well. 
I think one of the best examples of a realistic proportion is the M&O in @John 's basement.  He's got a handful of complex vignettes, where yards, urban scenes, switching areas and whatnot are concentrated in a few corners of the room, tied together with long, spacious runs in between.

100% on both fronts. I think John did a fantastic job of capturing that aspect of the way that mainline railroads actually exist. They're points and lines.

Small layouts are the most challenging. It's one of the things that has been so difficult in planning my coal country layout and why I keep needing to take some time away from it. For example, how do you capture the massive nature of burned culm piles that are a couple hundred feet tall on a door. It's also the reason I'm a big proponent of minimalism when it comes to trying to create realistic scenes. The real world is BIG. And nowhere does this appear moreso than when it comes to trees. Just ask @Dave V how the JD changed for him when he added some super trees.

[High Hood]

Just ask @Dave V how the JD changed for him when he added some super trees.

Hey @Dave V how did the JD change for you when you added some super trees? 

[mu26aeh]

Hey @Dave V how did the JD change for you when you added some super trees? 

He just did a couple every night, and it paid off in spades.  You know, to dig holes to plant those trees