In the September issue of RMC, Don Spiro has an article (the first of a a series) in which he talks about the “truths” of layout planning and how he applied them to his basement layout - but then was disatisfied with it and after he moved he built a smaller layout in a room in his house. At first the article seemed pretty “fluffy” but the more I read it, the more interested I became. The bottom line is that he was dissatisfied with his old layout even though he did everything “right” and how pleased he is with his new layout. It’s a very thought provoking article that got me thinking about how I approach the hobby.
Was wondering if anyone else read the article and what their thought are.
I started on the basement empire, then decided I was never going to finish and “retreated” to a layout in the study. I’m very happy with the move so far. The project will be smaller and more manageable, I can be with the family upstairs, it’s warm and dry, I duck in and do things for 10 minutes when I can, there’s a nice “crew lounge” next door etc etc
In terms of following conventional wisdom, I’m kinda moving the other way: towards “truths”. I tried building in foam and steel, this time I’m using timber L-girder design with ply subroadbed. I had a crawl-under which was “only for maintenance” - never again. I thought of having a duckunder this time but I’m going for a lift-up bridge instead. I’ll have hidden staging tracks, which i don’t like but you do what you gotta do to make it fit.
I havn’t read the article but I can relate. My around the wall HO layout was originally going to be 8 feet by 11 feet, but then it shrunk as I went along, due to somewhat poorly built benchwork. Now it’s a mere 6 X 11 feet, with a 1X5 bulge on the front module.
I read it, very good, makes you wonder if the layout in your mind and on paper are better left there and start small and then go bigger as you progress or just enjoy what you have.
It will be interesting to see what he defines as “truths” however.
I had a discussion once on layout design and construction with John Armstrong back in the 1980’s at a convention and I’ve always remembered what he said then. “Designing a layout is like formulating a theory. Building it is testing the theory, but maintanence proves the theory. If the reality of maintanence is too much then the theory of design was wrong.”
A very interesting article showing that this hobby can be flexible and still be fun. I think everyones goals and interests change as time goes by. Look at all the “Big Dogs” who are starting new layouts with totaley different themes and goals. As you progress you learn what you like and want you don’t like. As the song say’s "You can’t please everyone, so just please yourself. I just wish Don Spiro the best and thank’s for sharing his throughts with us.
I am still finishing the garage that will become my trainroom. In the meantime I look at all the published layouts to see which will fit my criteria (room size, minimum radius, etc.) . One thing I always look for in the layout description is the number of operators required and whether the owner actually built the layout himself or had a cadre of friends helping him. This provides a clue as to how easily it would be for me to construct the layout myself.
For instance, My having a propane heater in the room (the garage is completely detached from the house) required that I use the 5/8" Firecheck drywall. These sheets weigh 84 lbs. Even after cutting these sheets down to 4’x4’, I still required the assistance of my son-in-law to mount them on the ceiling since there were two many obstacles in the way to allow efficient use of the sheetrock jack. I had to wait six months to put up the ceiling, but in the intervening 2 months have been able to 90% of the walls myself.
The point I am trying to make is that when you look at an awe inspiring layout that you want to duplicate as your own, do a reality check on its’ complexity to make sure it is within your own ability to build and maintain if you are going solo. Pay attention when the author says a friend or aquaintance did the electronics, benchwork, backdrops, etc.
Otherwise, you will get bogged down in an endless project that will never see a train operating on even part of the layout.
Leon, I’m with you on your comments of “re-doing” a garage/basement as a layout room. I too have a separate garage that I was thinking of turning into a train room, but after sitting down with pencil and paper, I realized that it would cost me more than $1100 just to ‘civilize’ this 12 x 12 unfinished garage (no heat, minimal electric, one big uninsulated overhead garage door, uninsulated walls/ceiling rafters, etc.)
So, to keep running trains I am staying with the local club and assisting with the scenery updates and wiring. I’m learning DCC and will perhaps get into steam loco lubrication soon…I have to decide that I can take apart and re-assemble my nice shiney brand new 4-6-4 Hudson without negative effects…just another thing to do besides trying to insulate a room or paint ceilings, walls, etc., etc. Running trains is more fun than chores that belong on the ‘honey do’ list.
John:
Your right on about the cost of civilizing my 13.5 by 22 train room, but if you can do that, then the construction of the layout and wiring should be no problem. I purchased the house with every intention of turning that garage into a train room. Its location completly behind the house and thru a cyclone gate that is capable of removing a side view automobile mirror made it impractical for car use. The garage already had a couple of flourescent lamps and three outlets, but it was fed by a 220 line going into a dedicated circuit breaker box. This made it easy to add curcuits for the additional lights and outlets. I had a layout in the basement of my old house, but it was subject to Catzillas (multiple) and interfered with my wife’s access to the laundry room.
Railroad Model Craftsman. It’s a great mag and I feel a perfect foil to MRR. Although many will argue the pros and cons of the two, I find both focus on different areas and I get the most reading pleasure out of having both.
RMC is a great mag, and this is the best article I’ve seen there in years. I’m actually anxious for the next installment.
Plus, reading that article helped reinforce what I’d been thinking lately anyway, empire-wise. Spiro nailed it for me. I’ve been doing some home remodeling over the past six or eight months, and after removing the whole HO scale plywood monster, I built a small N scale layout that has been more rewarding than I can imagine.
When the room is done, it will still contain a new railroad, but I’ve decided that it will be in N, and manageable [:D]
Cool! Suzuki hit a homerun with that one for sure. I used to ride an Intruder 800, excellent bike! I’m sure that was a project in itself modding that fairing!!
I used to try all kinds of published layouts and nothing seemed very satisfying. When I got back in to the hobby a couple years ago, I tried something different. I had a few buildings left over from the previous layouts. I just set them on the table and started laying track to them.
Buy more buildings, lay more track. I’ve just finished wiring the switch machines for the mainline coming in to the second town. I have some more kits to put together and will start laying sidings to get to those buildings. Soon, I will start putting in scenery and having regular operating sessions. Then it’s on to adding details.
No published plans, no fancy theories, just run the rails to where they need to be. Then move the freight to where it needs to go. [2c]
Don’s article nailed a design concept I’ve been pushing for years … high, narrow benchwork.
High narrow benchwork on the Siskiyou Line (click to enlarge)
As Don relates, even just watching the trains run when they are closer to eye level is more fun, and you can pull off scenery tricks with this kind of benchwork design that is hard to do when the layout’s much lower.
And finally, also as Don discovered, with narrow benchwork, you can get a lot more layout in a given space, and it’s more fun to work on because you can easily reach everything (may need a small step stool to reach the back sometimes because of the height, but that’s simple to manage).
Yes, another high, narrow benchwork advocate! Welcome to the fold, Don!
