while i’ve read a few John Armstrong books, I don’t think i’ve ever seen a list of model railroad layout features and what makes them interesting. Here are some:
long mainlines to run long trains
point-to-point layout because they are more realistic
yards to disassemble and assmeble trains
staging
interchange tracks for more destinations requiring little space
lots of industries for operations on the mainline or spur
layout designed for operation, although i’m not sure i know what features make a layout good for operation
long spurs so there is operation away from the mainline
Of course a small or medium size model railroad may not be large enough to have all these features. The Raritan River Railroad, is a short line that looks interesting to me because of it’s many long spurs.
Ii hope others can comment on features they like or dislike and why. It may be more interesting to hear about layout features that are undesirable but often used by inexperienced modelers.
There’s a good reason for the lack of a list of interesting layout features. It’s the reason that John Armstrong urged all and sundry to make lists of their own givens and druthers. Every modeler has a different one. My druthers haven’t changed in almost half a century, while other folks change their lists as often as they change socks. Likewise, the move from the old farmhouse to a condo in a retirement community will do a number on the givens (which include size and shape of layout space.
So, let’s look at Greg’s list:
How long is long. This month’s MR features a moderately huge N scale layout which is, basically, a long loop masquerading as double track with a yard at one end and staging at the other. Start a train from staging, take a potty break, get a cup, call your sister on your cell phone and by the time you’re ready to hang up the train may be ready to enter the yard. The owner obviously loves it. It would bore me to tears.
More realistic than what? Railroads that connect end-to-end with other railroads? Tokyo’s Yamate-sen (the schematic is a circle)? The CNJ Bronx Terminal? One fact about point-to-point railroads is you can’t simply orbit a train. And any train more complex than a rail bus or DMU set has to be turned at each end - EVERY time. That describes the Tomikawa Tani Tetsudo, and it suits me fine. It would drive other people right up the wall.
Chuck has it right, what is interest to one person is boring to another. John Armstrong was providing design suggestions on components that provided realistic operation of a model train layout. If some or all match your “druthers”, e.g., a layout with multiple branch lines serving lots of industries, then you should build in those features.
As others have noted, it really is different for each individual.
For my under construction basement layout I want:
Long mainline to have more towns and to feel like the train actually has left one town before entering the next. My “long” train will be 15 cars.
Point to point is what I’m doing, but there will be provision for continuous running so I can just watch 'em.
Yards - I’ll have 2 of them, but small as befits a shortline.
Staging - not needed I’m modeling both end points.
Interchange tracks - yep two sets at each end.
Lots of industries - plan to have a fair number, the shortline didn’t have through freights.
Operation - the way I want it: only when I want to, laid back, and open ended.
Long spurs - i.e. branches, yes I’ll have a couple of those to match the Ma&Pa.
A few other things I want are a couple of streams, a trestle bridge, scenery. Also walk around controls.
But that’s me.
I remember one layout that was a loop of track and one train. But it was 20 feet long and loaded with buildings. The owner just loved building buildings and had extended his layout a couple of times to accommodate more.
Like accounting, the general and practical accepted principle rule of MRRing is: “There is NO One rule that is absolute”.
Meaning there is no “rule” at all to how to proceed in MRRing.
It is all choice and preference.
I like roundy-rounders and can watch a train go around and around for about an hour on my small pike, where the train is always in my full view all the time {except for moments in about a 16" tunnel-even then, the head or tail is always visible} .
I have a small spur yard to assemble and disassemble trains {with the help of the “hand of God” method}.
I have 2 loops so I can highball" two trains at once.
The loops are interconnected with switches so I can swap trains around the loops.
I have a 2 spur “engine servicing facility” for the fun of that.
In a very small layout I have packed a lot of “interest”!
But those interests are what intrests me, not what someone else may pick.
It’s like cars…there are how many different kinds? And of a particular model…how different versions? {coupe, sedan, hatchback}. There is bound to be one to fit every “user”, and people will differ on the style/use/benefit of any particular model they choose.
There is no “right car” or “right MRR”. There are variations to keep a variety of users happy with their own choice.
Take a pen’s point (ball-point retracted) and follow how the trackplan’s mainline just keeps flowing/working. Then note how passing tracks/sidings, and small industry spurs, are melded into those operations. …and in 1944 model railroading!
i was hoping to generate a more comprehensive list with pros and cons that modelers might choose from. I think some features are more talked about, perhaps easier to model than others.
what features do you think are interesting, that you wish you had room/time for to model?
You have come up with a list of things that could be quite interesting but some of the might be restrictive.
I would counter with versatility. In many of Armstrongs plans he worked in continuous run options that could be used when point to point operation was not desired. It allowed one the opportunity to run something for display purposes such as entertaining guests or visitors, or to satisfy the urge to just watch some trains and relax.
For some people switching multiple industries is their main enjoyment and a layout with lots of places to pick up and set out rolling stock is important.
Yards also contain lots of switching in a compact space and could be of several types to handle various functions.
There are objections to your list (including mine) because implicit in your language is the assumption that these are desirable features to include in a layout. Also implied is that a layout should strive to include as much of the list as possible. And if one studies the list - or especially adds to the list - some of the features will not be very compatible with the others.
The real ringer in your list is “layout designed for operations”. Sorry - every item on your list is an operational feature. None of them are scenic features or features necessarily related to a prototype. None of them have much to do with layout construction or finished appearance.
I have several of the two decades plus old Atlas Track Planning books written by John Armstrong. There so well written I still review them occasionally. Even the most simple getting started layouts he describes how you can run trains on them. Some of the layouts are very advanced to me and some of these quite complicated layouts are detailed described how to build.
Continuous run is something of a necessity if you have a mix of local and trough freights; gives you time to work some of the local traffic without getting in the way of mainline traffic (see Appendix B Fig B-2 in Armstrong’s TP4RO). Besides visitors expect to see something running around, don’t they?
Frank Ellison (the Art of Model Railroading) makes an even stronger case for staging views of traffic than does Armstrong. (Read Part 3). Part of that staging is distraction (e.g. could be yard, staging or interchange traffic), so that the viewer doesn’t lose interest in a long train running around the layout.
Interesting since virtually all of your list is totally unprototypical for the very small railroad I am building
at the moment[:D]
It is totally imposable to come up with a definitive list of what makes the ideal layout quite simply.
Because the hobby covers many types and nationalities of railway not to mention the special interest area’s
You even get people interested in making models that are never intended to turn a wheel and sitting in some terrific scenes.
Then there are the two most ethereal things a model railroad should have that are the hardest to create.
Realism and Atmosphere which can neither be quantified or measured you have it or you don’t.
Both of which John Allen’s G&D had in spades to see a picture was to know it was unmistakably the G&D.
And his was a long main line to run short trains and not everything was prototypical in the way it would be meant today.
What I see as important is that all the elements form a cohesive whole that work together well, hopefully miracles happen and I get both atmosphere and realism this is regardless of scale, type or style of railroad.
I have to say, I think my railroad has most all of these fetures… I have twin mains for continuous runnning, a “branch” line that is independent of the mains large amounts of various industries, a medium sized yard, a interchange, and car and locomotive shops. All on two 4x8s.
If the items on the list are the ingredients for an interesting layout, any layout that does not include them would automatically be “boring”.
That can´t be correct. Layouts come in all shapes and sizes, as well in all types of settings and themes. Just take a look a the late Carl Arendt´s famous web page on micro layouts. None of the layouts featured there I would declassify as boring or not interesting. I have seen fairly simple tin-plate layouts from the 1950´s, nicely done, that were very interesting.
