Does every layout have to have a functioning purpose?

Model Railroader Layouts and layout building
1

As I have poured over many layouts here in the forums I had begun to notice a sort of division between two types of people who tend to gravitate towards two types of layouts.

On one hand I’ve seen those who build them for the joy and beauty of the layout as a whole, these types of layouts center more on the detail of the whole picture such as modeling the layout geared towards the visual details kind of like a painting where the train is the focal point and the layout is the color palette that supports the main focal point, it is complete in its picture and very enjoyable, it tends to have to eye of the artist built in, free flowing and full of detail, color and fun.

Now on the other side of the coin I’ve noticed that the other type of layout is more geared towards the mechanics of rail roading, these are the layouts that have what I call a purpose, they are the working limber mill, coal mining and freight yard type, they have the train doing something, like a working man on his job, the purpose is structured and the job of the train being used has having a beginning, middle and an end task.

These “working” layouts have a more rigid structure about them, they are just as beautifully detailed but there is an added element of being more mechanical in their existence, there is the action of physical labor built into them.

I’ve also noticed that a persons layout seems to reveal certain things about the personality of the builder, take for example the artist types, the layouts are very strong in the area of fun, more free flowing in design, and tend to be more open and have more creative license to them.

The working layout is highly detailed in the building blocks that tie all the working tasks together, the builders of these layouts tend to be more mechanically inclined, more analytical and heavy in the constructive arts.

I find that both types are great layouts, they are equally detailed but with an eye towards different end goals, both are enjoyable to se

2

Where did you find them?

Magnus

3

Paraphrasing your comments into running layouts and operating layouts.

Both can be brought to the same level of artistic detail.

I always advise people to design an “operating” layout because by includings some continuous running connections or return loops you can easily turn an operating layout into a running layout. If you don’t build the operating infrastructure into the layout, you can’t turn a running layout into an operating layout.

If you have a switch to an industry you have the choice of working the industry or just running by it. If you don’t put a switch into the industry, then you can only run by it.

Dave H.

4

You seem to have a problem defining “functioning purpose.” The main problem is that if you ask a dozen model railroaders to define that term in view of their layout, you’ll likely get a dozen different answers. The only definition that comes close to most model railroad layouts is that it’s to entertain the modeller. Remember, this is a hobby (well, to most of us anyway) and entertainment, escape, and simply a pleasurable way to pass time is the purpose of any hobby. Even the individual modeller will have this definition change over time. Early on it may be “watching trains run,” later “watching trains run on schedule,” or “watching trains run with a purpose.” The list can easily go on.

You’ll also find that some focus on a particular facet of model railroading, and that statement can start a whole 'nuther discussion.

5

Hi!

Some layouts are built just to showcase trains and/or to recreate visions of our youth - as we remember it (not necessarily as it was). To me, a very positive aspect of the hobby is that we can build the layout as we want, and not as a structured kit. And of course it can range from an exact replica of a given place and time, to a fantasyland limited only by our imagination.

There are few (if any) hobbies that get better than that!

Mobilman44

6

I can see your point; in a way the layout I’m in the early stages of building now is kind of an example maybe of what you’re talking about. It’s a two-deck layout, with the two decks not connected to each other. The upper one (the one I’m working on now) is a point-to-point (or staging-to-point I guess) single track mainline iron ore line. The main purpose of the upper level will be operating a large ore dock yard, moving cars to and from the ore dock, making up empty ore trains and sending them to staging, then breaking down loaded trains that arrive from staging. It will basically be a 12"-16" wide shelf layout, but will widen out near the ore dock yard to allow for an engine servicing area and roundhouse/turntable.

The lower level will be more geared towards my interest in mainline passenger trains and long freights (reefer expresses, stock trains, piggyback trains etc.) and will be a fairly long dogbone double-track continuous run layout. One end will have a staging yard and a fairly urban area with some industries, but much of the rest will just be the mainline running thru nice scenery. There will be enough wayfreight traffic to run a decent length local freight, but there will be a lot of “just running” with long freights and passenger trains too.

Oh and I’m thinking of building a separate 4x8 layout now, that later will be incorporated as a logging branch, using my older/smaller equipment (Spectrum Climax, 36’ and 40’ freight cars etc.)

7

My layout has a purpose - It amuses me.

8

[bow]

Finally someone came up with the right answer! ALL layouts have a functioning purpose. It is up to the individual to identify the function or purpose of his or her layout and then to blatantly ignore those that would critisize said layout because it does not meet their definition of what a layout should be. I model because I enjoy doing it. The function of my layout is entertainment and relaxation. I would say that the function of the prototype modeling rivet counters layout is ultimately the same or similar but perhaps for different reasons.

9

[bow][bow]

Not all layouts have to have a functional purpose.

10

Actually, the real question isn’t about the layout. It’s about the builder. There is a spectrum of layout users, ranging from the person who simply wants to see trains rolling through some believable scenery - the pure railfan - to the person who demands that his museum-quality rolling stock has to run on the exact schedule of the (fillintheblank) railroad, past model buildings that are historically accurate and model trees placed exactly where the full-size equivalents show up in old photographs. (If you recognize Spacemouse’s N-scale efforts and Jack Burgess’s work, you got it in one.)

Each individual has to find the most comfortable place on that spectrum, and design and build accordingly. No one else can make that decision, although the ideas of others can help.

Where do I fall on that spectrum? That’s for me to know and you to wonder - although my signature might give you a clue.

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - TTTO, 24/30)

11

I also agree with that it is not necessarily the purpose of the layout but the purpose the builder has within that brings him to build the layout. I also think that there have been good points on trying to look ahead on how your purpose may evolve over time. Starting out with this hobby I wanted trains to run across a freelanced layout. I have enjoyed this process and with that it has given me many avenues to learn different aspects of the hobby. Now that I look back, it feels more like a test layout as I wished i would have incorporated a little more of an operational layout as the design process bloomed. All in all my layout gives me what I wish for … enjoyment, memories, learning and pride. So I feel mine and myself have found that purpose.

12

I agree fully; the purpose of a layout is to provide enjoyment to its builder as its builer defines enjoyment.

The trouble is, everything changes over time, and that includes what we find appealing and fun. Once we master something, we usually want to move on. This is the problem with layouts that are very simple and not fully developed or thought-out after a while (not in every instance, no…but perhaps so often that it bears mentioning). Once the simple layout is mastered, where does its master go from there? Usually it is on to another layout with more complexity. So, this is an interative process, but all of them have to have a first step. It is often best to make the first step easy enough that its creator actually completes it. Too much involvement up front stymies some folks and their projects never get off the paper pad or the computer screen.

I think that, as a general rule, layouts that provide some nice vistas and running where the user can just enjoy that much are going to be successful…as long as they also provide temporary relief with some variety of function. There should be some notional “work” that the trains have to do, whether switching in a small yard, backing cars into an industrial track, getting some items, or themselves, to a repair facility…and so on.

A yard provides a huge amount of interest in 30 minutes just making up a train. You get called for dinner and a movie, so next evening your 30 minutes is taking the train you made up the previous evening around for a spin while you sip your after dinner tea.

A game of baseball where the pitcher threw nothing but fastballs would be a bit dull after a while. Gotta change 'em up once in a while.

I hope that makes sense.

-Crandell

13

Hmmm…wjstix’s idea of two layered (unconnected) layouts is something that hadn’t occurred to me. I have very limited space but want to stay with HO. I won’t likely have room for a helix, etc. so an operations based layout and a separate passenger/railfan layer
might be a solution to get “everything” into a small room without spaghetti-ing up one layout layer.

Is this commonly done? Two layers but non connected via grades or helixes? (Essentially two completely separate layouts?)
I’ve been toying with the idea of a steam loco yard/builder’s yard/test facility and it could be quite large if I dedicated a separate layer to a rail fan/runaround concept. I could fit large articulated locos in the loco yard layout but maybe not have large enough radi in a railfan/runaround where I’d use smaller locos…

So many decisions in planning and deciding what one wants and can fit in! Argh!

14

Hi guys

Be it train set, operating railway or a propper model railway WETI.

Its prime function is to entertain its owner, if it fails to do that then its not much use.

There are so many divisions and sub divisions of what type a model railway is, that its better to just look at the all important prime function which is to entertain the owner.

regards John Busby

15

Red Horse,

You are wayyyyyyy overthinking this. Just build a layout. Run trains and see where it takes you. You’ll learn along the way what you like and what you don’t like. There is no “purpose” other than to entertain you. This is a hobby.

-G-

16

Red Horse,

To answer your question–every model railroad does have to have a purpose if it is any good. There are a lot of railroads without purpose–unless that purpose is just to throw things together and not have to think about it.

The purpose of your model railroad is to fulfill your vision of what it is you want to build and enjoy. If you are just starting out, part of that vision might be to design a railroad that will grow with you. You might find that during your growth there might be some aspect of model railroading that you like, but you haven’t considered before.

If you are building to your vision, you have more chance that the new aspect has already been accounted for or is easily incorporated.

The purpose is to keep it true.

17

Jess, you really need to find a copy of this book,

http://www.amazon.com/Playing-Trains-Passion-Beyond-Scale/dp/0812971264/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208361875&sr=8-1

Sam Posey ponders the same issue, are you a ‘scenery guy’ or an ‘operations guy’ good reading too.

A layouts sole function is to allow model trains to be run, period.

How you chose to run them is where it get sticky, and all the definitions get applied.

18

As others have stated, the purpose of the layout is to entertain–it is what people find entertaining that varies. Some folks want a moving diorama, others want a complex game and are more interested in the game than the “playing pieces,” and most of us fall somewhere in between.

One of the great flexibilities of model railroading is that you can have both or neither. For the person just starting out, you can have an unrealistic model railroad with little thought to operation very quickly–just plop that loop of snap-track on the tabletop and start operations on the Plywood Pacific! The problem is that the game gets old quickly. On the other extreme, there’s no reason why a highly detailed and aesthetically beautiful layout can’t have a realistic and complex operating scheme. The problem there is that few of us have the time, money and skill to execute such a layout. So most of us find a compromise that matches our time, money and skill constraints.

Your layout idea is certainly a practical one: military facilities are very dependent on rail connections to carry a lot of the big, heavy things that are needed at such facilities. Obvious ideas include modeling a wartime period, World War II being an obvious choice but every war since the Civil War made heavy use of domestic railroads. If you’re thinking zombies are a good idea, a George Romero “Night of the Living Dead” feel could be provided with a sixties/Vietnam War era layout.

I think the OP was talking about this product, a “Bag O’ Zombies” for the “Zombies!!!” wargame. It’s not a bad idea at all, if you’re into having zombies trundling about your layout, but you could easily do so with a pack of cheap minis: paint them in grayish colors with the odd bloodstain, chop a couple up for leftovers, and it’s Z-Day!

But if you want zombie minis:

http://www.rpgshop.com/produ

19

Agree with Art and Blue Hills and Jeffery. I also find running my layout relaxes me and working on it tends to clear the mind.
Just running trains IS a functional purpose!

Tilden

20

It’s not exactly common, but it has been done successfully. I’ve designed a couple of layouts for folks with unconnected decks and I have written about designs like this a few times in the Layout Design SIG’s Layout Design Journal and most recently in Kalmbach’s Model Railroad Planning 2008.

The design for the HOn3 Oahu Railway in MRP 2008 included three unconnected decks. One or more could be built and each deck could be a functional layout on its own, linked conceptually by staging and operations but with no physical connection. In the Oahu Railway design, one deck was heavily operations-oriented with a significant yard and large industries. Another deck was primarily scenic and intended for “model railfanning” with a continuous-running connection. And a third deck was a combination of the two desires. Each of these decks could be built with a different era in mind.

My own slowly-building layout has a multiple locations on different shelves and decks that will not be physically connected, but will be linked by the operations concept. In my case, all the different shelves and decks relate to the same geographic area and time frame … but of course, each separate deck could be a different locale, era, and real-life or freelance railroad, if desired. I’ve even done multi-deck designs with different scales/gauges on the different decks.

To answer the question posed in the title of this thread, I do think every layout should have a purpose (one could call it a theme), but modeling operations is only one of multiple po