Bad layout design

Model Railroader Layouts and layout building
21

Bad layouts come from one thing: an acute case of Rushintoititis. Most people want to run trains as soon as possible, and that’s a noble goal, but taking a deep breath and curbing the enthusiasm a little goes a long way toward success. The MR motto is “Dream Plan Build”, not “Build, Plan, Submit Layout design to MR forums and endure loads of well-meant criticism, Dream of finding a different hobby.” There is a reason for that.

Before you do anything else on your layout, you need to nail down a few basics, such as the type of operations you want (continuous running or point to point), amount of switching, size and type of locos and rolling stock (largly determined by the time period you select), number and type of industries, any special scenes, locales, or vignettes you would like to include. All of this must be fairly firm before you can decide if a layout design works for you.

These decisions flow naturally into a more concrete plan, where you may have to make tradeoffs (if you want to run big steam, you can’t use small radius curves, maybe that huge meat packing plant just doesn’t fit, etc.). A rough sketch (by the squares), followed by a more detailed plan is the order of the day. And if you post it here, by all means tell everybody what your preferences are ahead of time, and be prepared to ignore comments that don’t fit your vision (for every design posted, at least one response will tell the OP that he doesn’t really want that kind of layout, he’s just too inexperienced to realize it).

Then, and only then (and maybe long after) should you start cutting benchwork.

The trouble is, true beginners often don’t know what they prefer in terms of operations. To this end, some time with a club actually operating (or at least watching) is very helpful. You can also invest in Trainplayer or similar software which actually lets you run virtual trains,

22

One thing I would add is be willing to build, experiment, tear down, and try again. It’s possible to get caught up in too much paralysis by analysis trying to fit your desires into all the rules or vice versa. But for many people, they both don’t know what they want/what the choics are until they’ve tried something. Probably, in my mind, the biggest problem caused by too many track plan books and layout articles is they set the bar too high for many new model railroaders. After seeing the great articles, they set goals that are too far beyond their reality, be it time, money, or experience leading to frustration.

So build that first layout small. For example, the much maligned 4x8 can demonstrate many of the principals – staging on one side, switching leads, etc. Those lessons’ learned can lead to the larger layout, more insight into operation, and a better understanding of the modeler’s goals so he or she can then view track plans in a better light.

23

That’s an interesting point. I am mostly in agreement with you.

But one interesting thing you can use a hidden track disappearing e.g. behind buildings for in a pure switching layout is to represent a bigger industry, or an interchange track or a yard “over that way” that you can’t model in a visible way in your available space.

Where you might want to sort cars first on the main part of your switching layout, and then “push cars down the spur towards the plant” or some such thing.

An example of the concept of using a single track to generate quite a bit of switching to put cars into the right order before they are shoved down the track is Tony Koester’s Westvaco Paper plant - described in some early issue of MRP.

A reasonably decent example of using hidden tracks on a small switching layout is Peter M White’s 10 foot by 18 inch T.I.R.R (Tenderfoot Industrial Railroad): http://www.shenware.com/layouts/tenderfoot.html

And Andrew Martin’s10 foot by 20 inch “Harmony Industrial Park”: http://www.huntervalleylines.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=30&fullsize=1

Mind you - I am not saying that all switching layouts must have staging or hidden tracks - fiddling and prestaging trains also works fine. But in some circumstances a hidden track or

24

Yes, that’s really the most important thing, isn’t it?

What I was suggesting is from my own experience. Since this is my first “grown-up” layout, I built Phase 1 with no staging, limited industry and a yard which is too small. I didn’t know any better, frankly. I didn’t know at the time how I was limiting myself. On the other hand, I did end up with a layout which is a lot of fun in terms of scenery and details, and it allows me to have two trains running in “unattended” mode while I switch with a third engine, providing a lot of activity in a small (5x12 foot HO) space.

I want something more, though. My comment about industries was paraphrased from “A Thousand Clowns,” where Jason Robards says, “You can never have too many eagles.” But, that was a real shortcoming of my design, and limits its utility as both a switching and operating layout. Again, I didn’t see the problem until it was too late.

Phase 2 is underway. It will have staging and more industries. I’m still short of yard space, but the staging will allow me to have fewer cars in existing yards, so that should help.

I suppose I could say that what I’ve learned from this phased layout construction is - there’s no substitute for experience. Not only have learned how to do things over the past 5 years, I’ve also learned what I want to do.

25

Interesting juxtaposition of opinions in successive posts.

Unfortuantely I agree with both of positions. Rushing into something without doing some homework is a bad thing. But not trying things or realizing that there is a learning curve is just as bad.

The worst case scenario is the new modeler who sits down and decides he is going to build his permanent, only layout he will ever have right off the bat. There are a few that could do that. The vast majority will be doomed to fail. Even worse are those that start with that and then realize the plan will fall short and will not change or rebuild because it was their “dream layout”.

Plan and build it like it was your last layout, but always realize its really just your next to last

26

Hi ,

Cuyama, beside the cornerstones this is the kind of short list newbies should read.

Just as with the cornerstones the first one (protypecally based/inspired) is the hardest to understand.

Among the others I would like to see some numbers; e.g. too tight radii: at least a 2.5 ratio.

IMHO to many “would be” advisers forget newbies are probably unable to “understand” why these standards are specifically needed for their first layouts.

From folks who have…; they often have the best intentions, but they are not the pro’s.

From is pro’s it is a shame! Though I do understand the reasons why no remarks are made; questions could be asked. I never understood why in GMR no questions were asked how Lance Mindheim worked his trailing and facing spurs without a run-around.

For some reason I liked Thomas Oxnard remarks ( MR dec 2009) about his have foot wide aisle. Now he’s got some new railway friends and he wants to take the step from a single operator to group sessions it will become a different story.

I still think that putting your plan on this forum and let it be teared apart by the “pro’s” is the only way to get response. And maybe you can learn a point or two.

BTW I was a bit disappointed by the response on my trackplan. I didn’t met all the requirements of Cuyama’s (brief and short) list.

Paul

<

27

If we conclude, that a well designed layout resembles prototype operation as much as possible within the constraints, which all of us face in terms of space and budget, then developing a layout is certainly a form of art, requiring a good deal of knowledge on how a real railroad is operated. With the little exposure people nowadays have to railroad operation, this knowledge is hard to acquire. Reading the numerous books availabe on this issue is a first step, but quite often does not help us in translating it into the little world we envision to have. This is, where the experts among us have to jump in, helping us to understand. I am glad to see, that there people in here, who, with a lot of patience, answer the sometimes seemingly stupid questions, turning an ignorant into the adept. Just to name of few, Cuyama (Byron), Paul and Stein are the ones, who, IMHO, excel in this discipline.

I, for myself, always develop a picture of my “layout in being” quite rapidly, but this concerns looks, not operation. The reason for this is, that the prototype operation I can observe at my doorstep differs so much from US railroading practice. I have to rely on the advice from the experts - needless to say, that I am happy to be able to collect their expertise here in this forum.

I am not really a newbie to model railroading, but my layout which is still in the planning stage, will be my first US based layout. For me, it is a big help that I have been reading model railroading mags for 40 years now, enabling me to understand US railroading terminology and to communicate with the guys in here.

My advice for the newbies is:

  • Collect all the information you can get, by reading books and through the web
  • Develop an idea of what you want to have and why - as precise as possible
  • Try to put your ideas into a first sketch of a trackplan - don´t just copy someone else´s design
  • Put it up for positive critique here, listen to the advice you get and incorporate it in your desi
28

Before a person can design a good layout, that person must have a good idea of what the layout owner really wants. That is especially important if the designer and the eventual owner are two different people.

OTOH, anyone can design a bad layout. All that’s necessary is to ignore the eventual owner’s REAL givens and druthers, substituting:

  • A published track plan designed by a stranger to satisfy THAT person’s wants - no two modelers are exactly alike.

  • Plan # whatever from (name of manufacturer)s book of plans for brand x track products. Great for promoting brand x, but not so hot in reproducing one modeler’s vision of the Podunk and Northern.

  • Deliberately starting with one of the above and trying to graft on something else from some other plan to ‘improve’ it.

  • Turning over basic design parameters to a committee, and then letting that committee produce a design incorporating all of THEIR (frequently contradictory) givens and druthers. A camel is a horse designed by a committee.

The owner can do the same thing to himself by:

  • Diving into the planning process with no clear vision of what he really wants.

  • Trying to stuff too much spaghetti into a fixed-size bowl.

  • Trying to incorporate the entire world on a kitchen table layout in any scale larger than TTT (1:450.)

  • Insisting on some feature that is a space hog and an operational PITA. (Operating hump yard, anyone?)

  • Completely ignoring his own physical limits and designing something that would be impossible to build and impossible to operate.

  • Same a