Compromise and Layout Design

This is a piece I wrote about a year and a half in another forum. Occasionally I will recycle them in another forum. Since August is a quieter month, time to recycle this piece.

Probably one of the hardest tasks a new modeller has to perform as a layout is designed and built, is to determine what stays and what goes, and what is shorter, smaller, less conspicuous, or whatever, as one makes decisions about their project. In other words, compromise is often the pie of the day. Decisions have to be made about grades, minimum radius, whether to have a yard or not or two or three, whether to double track or not, whether to a reversing loops or not, etc.

Here is a list of design compromises I have had to make so far. Initially I wanted 18 inch curves (N scale) for the layout, but the room I was building in had different ideas, so I had to reduce the radius to 16. I wanted a point to point plan, but my son wanted continuous running, so we opted for continuous running. I wanted to use foam in the construction, but I got a deal on MDF that I couldn’t say no to, so I used it instead. I wanted a 59 inch top deck and a 39 inch bottom deck on our double decker, but because of a window, I opted for 57 and 37 inches - I would have preferred a higher bottom level.

I wanted to model a prototypical area around the Vancouver Ports, but I would have had to have unprototypical mainline running through an area that has no mainline; I decided to give this area up (I am still grieving).

But there are some positive spin offs with compromise. Occasionally I have found myself biting off more than I can chew, except at the time I didn’t know it. For example, when I tried to model the Vancouver Ports area, my building of the layout came to a screeching a halt as I tried to get a realistic backdrop (it would have been expensive) and an unrealistic track plan. I didn’t do anything to the layout for half a year. After I decided to free lance the area, building almost immediately started up aga

This is a piece I wrote about a year and a half in another forum. Occasionally I will recycle them in another forum. Since August is a quieter month, time to recycle this piece.

Probably one of the hardest tasks a new modeller has to perform as a layout is designed and built, is to determine what stays and what goes, and what is shorter, smaller, less conspicuous, or whatever, as one makes decisions about their project. In other words, compromise is often the pie of the day. Decisions have to be made about grades, minimum radius, whether to have a yard or not or two or three, whether to double track or not, whether to a reversing loops or not, etc.

Here is a list of design compromises I have had to make so far. Initially I wanted 18 inch curves (N scale) for the layout, but the room I was building in had different ideas, so I had to reduce the radius to 16. I wanted a point to point plan, but my son wanted continuous running, so we opted for continuous running. I wanted to use foam in the construction, but I got a deal on MDF that I couldn’t say no to, so I used it instead. I wanted a 59 inch top deck and a 39 inch bottom deck on our double decker, but because of a window, I opted for 57 and 37 inches - I would have preferred a higher bottom level.

I wanted to model a prototypical area around the Vancouver Ports, but I would have had to have unprototypical mainline running through an area that has no mainline; I decided to give this area up (I am still grieving).

But there are some positive spin offs with compromise. Occasionally I have found myself biting off more than I can chew, except at the time I didn’t know it. For example, when I tried to model the Vancouver Ports area, my building of the layout came to a screeching a halt as I tried to get a realistic backdrop (it would have been expensive) and an unrealistic track plan. I didn’t do anything to the layout for half a year. After I decided to free lance the area, building almost immediately started up aga