Larger, Simpler Layouts vs. Smaller, Complex Layouts

Model Railroader General Discussion (Model Railroader)
1

I just finished reading Pelle Soeborg’s new book. I have to say, his layout has given me some serious food for thought regarding simple track plans.

Each scene of his layout looks incredibly realistic, yet the trackplan is very simple.

My wife and I are moving into our new house soon (new to us, that is - but much older than we are!). I have a (very) old garage that I could do as I wish with - a two car (did I mention very old?) garage.

I’ve been trying to figure out what style of layout to build. I will most likely build in “modules”. The past couple years that I’ve been getting back into the hobby, I’ve been thinking of a smaller, more highly detailed layout, with complex trackwork, etc.

But I’m beginning to think for the same amount of time committment, financial investment, etc., I could build a larger layout that’s more simple.

The garage is old, uninsulated, etc. (i.e., a dusty, dirty mess), so I’m thinking of making the modules as shadow-boxes with built-in lighting and curtains that pull down over the front to cover everything. Any staging, etc., could be covered with acrylic.

(No need to suggest insulating the garage - we’ll likely tear it down to rebuild it in 5 or so years - in the 40’s, garages apparently were not made to the same standards as houses).

So, food for thought - simple, larger layouts vs. smaller, more complex layouts…

I almost feel like it would be easier to start on the larger layout, as it wouldn’t be crammed with track, making it easier to construct each module.

(don’t throw stones, but I have a feeling I’m more of a railfan type than an operator type - when people start talking about switch lists, train orders, etc., even though I start to read with enthusiasm, my mind wanders instantly - and if I don’t have any interest in that stuff, I will likely do fine without).

I’ll post track plan ideas as I work on them…

2

Part of it depends on what you like to model. In my case I’m modeling a portion of one of the New Haven mainlines in 1948. This was a passenger-heavy railroad with 18 passenger trains in each direction every day. These trains get long, so you need a lot of space between towns or you end up with trains that haven’t left the last station by the time it arrives at the next.

So I like a bit of open mainline (since the passenger trains need more room since they run at faster speeds). My preference is a minimum of about 2 to 3 train-lengths between towns. The towns can have any amount of switching, but the end result is a larger, less complex layout.

I’m also trying to model the prototype fairly faithfully. Since the bulk of the layout (or all of it in the case of the current one I’m building) is towns along the way to major cities, the trackwork tends to be simpler and smaller in scale. If you want some complexity, then you can model a major city yard at one end or the other (or in the middle, in which case it can serve as two cities, one in either direction).

You can still do some interesting operations. I actually think it will be more interesting. I’ll be switching the small towns, but have to work around the frequent interruptions of the passenger trains, which will sometimes stop in town, and sometimes be through trains. There will also be through freights. Once I get DCC operating I can easily start a through train and let it run through while I continu switching off the mainline as it goes by. So I think I’ll really get the benefit of a great railfan experience in addition to being able to model the prototypical operations and timetables.

Randy

3

What’s your fundamental limitation? Some of us have only a small room to work with, while others have large basements or 2-car garages. Our younger modellers have empty pockets, while some of us senior Boomers are empty-nesters and can afford a bit more. If you’ve got a family, chances are your time is in short supply, or maybe you’ve got to balance working overtime to pay for a new loco vs. staying home and running the ones you’ve already got.

And then, you have to ask yourself what you want to do with your layout. If you are fundamentally an Ops guy, and you’re happy with the Plywood Central, then you probably want your trackplan to reflect your Ops interest. On the other hand, you may have discovered, like I have, that the craftsmanship of scenery is really where your hands spend most of their time, so too much track just gets in the way. And then, we’ve got the Mister Wizard types who like to push the electrons around, and need a challenging layout to equip with signals and detectors.

It’s a big and varied hobby. There’s no single right answer for everyone. The good news is, there is a right answer for you.

4

My views on the subject are a little skewed, as I’m a field supervisor for a Class I railroad. I deal with train orders, switch lists, and the like for a living.

I prefer simpler railfan type layouts. My layout is an oval with a visiable staging yard off one end. One side is urban with a little bit of switching, the other is rural. I’ve made no attempt to model acutal places. The layout a characture of Pennsylvania’s anthracite region, where I can statify my desire to building scenery, and just watch my large (and still growing) collection of rolling stock roll by.

You can see my trackplan at:
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d195/nbrodar/TrackPlan.jpg

Food for thought…the same track plan may be complex in a small area, but simple in a larger one.

Nick

5

first you need to throw up some drywall , it can be the thinnest available , and you don’t have to do the neatest job of it . but you’ll never beat the dust and dirt problems in a garage without putting up walls and a ceiling of some kind .

i haven’t seen Pelle’s book yet but i think he’s still using the track plan from the articles in MR last year , which was a twice around loop with a staging yard . perfect for someone who like to watch trains run , but with room to add a few switching areas in case the operations bug ever bites you . i’ll be using something similar if i ever get around to putting up walls and a ceiling in the basement

6

How 'bout just smaller, simpler layouts?

Tom

7

Three things that got my attention immediately:

  1. You are a (self-confessed) railfan, not a wannabe engineer or a frustrated dispatcher (guilty as charged!) This should drive you toward a simpler, more open track plan.
  2. You realize that your layout’s “home” only has a few years’ life expectancy, and that modules are the way to make sure that the layout survives the building. Modular construction also tends to favor simple, open planning. (Try to figure out how you would put a classification yard throat onto modules. Rotsa Ruck!)
  3. As a railfan, I’m sure you would rather run (and watch) trains than put in hours of maintenance for every hour of operation. Complication equates to higher maintenance.

Some of our Japanese brethren have built incredibly detailed postage-stamp layouts, always with relatively simple track plans. I rather suspect that having a double garage to build in would not cause them to make the trackwork more complex.

On a personal note, I am just getting started on a double garage size layout to replace the single-stall layout that had reached about 30% completion. The additional space has actually allowed me to simplify some of my trackwork, especially in hidden staging. The visible track plan is virtually unchanged - just more spread out and a LOT more accessible. That should make it much easier to build, and more satisfying to operate.

Good luck with your planning and building!

Chuck

8

Tear down the old garage and build a space as big as you can, then have a layout that is an equal balance of both railfanning and ops. My layout being my first N scale layout will be mostly Railfan, but becuase its single track I’ll still have some ops, I’m also gonna have a Branchline. the HO club that I’m in(I used to be an HO scaler and still kind of am) Is all running in circles, We do have signals becuase we have a large interlocking plant(every line has to cross atleast 5 diamonds) and the North/South main has some single track in the helix and the Ann Arbor line is single track, but its gets pretty boring becuase there isn’t anything to switch. You might eventually get sick of watching your train go In circles, I like to be able to have a train go around while i’m working on the layout. It helps me find kinks and stuff, and I like to watch it go around. Its your layout, so its Your choice!

9

I have always been a fan of very simple mainline track as opposed to the bowl of spaghetti layouts. It creates a far more realistic effect if you are into operations. The latter may look more interesting but having a train pass through the same scene two or more times on different sections of track destroys the feeling that the train is going somewhere.

10

I’m a fan of simpler layouts, no matter how large or small they are. Real railroads rarely build complex trackwork, and only when they must. The most realistic layouts (whether proto-based or freelance) are the ones that most resemble reality, and the VAST majority of track in this country is a single track running through nothingness.

I tend to be in agreement with NS2591: don’t bother working on a layout until your optimal space is already up. Use the time instead to think about what you really want to model, to build kits, and to try something new, like scratchbuilding. If you MUST get trains running soon, only build something small, like a 4x8, and use it as a test bed for experimenting with scenery, wiring, etc.

11

CRAP! now i have to taer down my layout

12

CARRfan, I would think about how long it will be when you truly will be able to rebuild the garage. If there is a life changing event then you may never do it and never build your layout. Consider refinishing what is already there, but I do realize that some garages are simple lean-to’s and without more info I must assume it is a basic slab floor about 20X20.

I like the small 4x8 test bed idea but if you already have had layouts in the past refinish the garage, inside and out. The best advice was to build shadow boxes with its own ceiling. This will help keep the dust off it for the most part.

Keep it simple and you will have less to maintain and more time to run trains and detail. I would have some staging for sure. Always have some interesting sidings, but simple, this will keeps your interest when you WILL progress past the trainwatching phase. We all go through it.

If you have a basic bracket system the layout sits on then you will have removeable sections and storage under the layout. When I put curtains in you wont see the storage yet will have access to the underside.

13

I appreciate the input so far, especially the warnings about having a layout in a mess of a garage.

I’m currently leaning towards more of a test-bed layout (thoughts subject to change at any moment without notice).

I definitely want to get something up and running before too long. I’m currently leaning towards a 5 x 16ft layout with a backdrop down the middle - staging on one side, scenicked area on the other, totally covered in a box to protect it from the bad garage environment (I’m not going to rebuild the garage at this time just for my little train hobby! It’s a garage built in the 40’s, complete with non-parallel walls and places where you could see some daylight through it)

I would also have the “u-turns” at the end be unscenicked, and behind a curved backdrop. The idea is to have a straight section that is viewed, on which I could run all modern equipment - then it will “u-turn” around to the staging area. The curves will only have to have a large enough radius for modern length equipment to physically run, not look good.

The other alternative would be to have a larger “oval” with an operating pit, but then I’m starting to grow a monster again.

“island” layouts get knocked a lot these days, but there are some huge advantages in terms of practical use of the space.

I noticed, for example, that Robert Smaus’ Southern California layout is a dogbone, not a true “shelf-style” layout. I bet the guy just didn’t want to deal with duckunders.

With 5 x 16ft layout, I could have the staging side only 1 foot away from the wall - just enough to squeeze back there, then the whole thing would only take up a 6ft wide strip of the garage.

Just for fun, I hope to post some images of what I’ve been thinking about within a few days.

14

Assuming the garage is structurallly sound I would not wait to build a layout. Since you indicate it will be 5+ years before you can replace the garage, I would clean it up, paint it and start building. People who wait until the layout space is optimal somewhere in the future are people who never have a layout.

Enjoy
Paul

15

My railroad is going to be very simple.

The enclosed porch offers me an oppertunity to make a 2’x20’ yard with maybe a oval if I can find the room “To swing”

If not, it will be modular sections that I can simply fold up and stack away when bad weather arrives.

My other option is a small space which really demands a very simple plan like a figure 8 or a two lapper.

From a maintaince point of view simplicy brings on contentment free from hassles of complicated trackwork.

In a another life long ago as a child we had a layout in a garage and would run trains in freezing winter with a touch of sleet or snow on the ground outside. Trains ran until humans froze despite a monstor space heater. Temperature changes did strange things to the track back then.

Childhood made it easier to endure the cold. As an adult, I dont think I would last 5 minutes today. And this was a big strong trucker who used to stay out a half hour fueling in a Dakota Mankilling winter cold.

16

I like the idea of a larger/simpler layout, this is the path I plan to follow when my family and I move in the next few months and I finally have space to move beyond my current 4x8. I do like to do a bit of operating but also like to have the ability to just watch the trains or let them run while I work. One way that I perform ops on my layout is to have a train run continuously around the loop, either a passenger or freight, while I run the the local switching jobs and making sure I avoid the through traffic provided by the always running train. This has worked out great on my current small layout when I am the only one running things.

17

I’m not familiar with the book, but I’d like to check it out. Can someone give me a reference or link?

18

CARRfan,I am a advocate for simple design layouts of any size…Large or small one has a lot of decisions to make and the questions MUST BE REALISTIC and not base on books,another modelers layout or whims of the “gotta haves”.

**If I build a super size layout do I have time to finish enough to run trains? Do I have the skills needed to build and maintain such a layout?**Do I need a large layout for solo operation?

If not

Can I find enough interested modelers to help operate it?

The same questions can apply to medium size layouts as well.

A small layout on the other hand is easy to build,easy to maintain,easy to operate solo.

These are the some of the questions that needs answered and answered HONESTLY before drawing your first plan.

19

http://kalmbachcatalog.stores.yahoo.net/12416.html

Brian Pickering

20

So, define simple.

I don’t think size has a lot to do with it, if all you are talking about is length of the mainline run.

If I understand what you are getting at, you are saying bigger, but easy to maintain, right?

I’ve been in the hobby nearly 40 years now, and I’ve found the maintenance sink on a layout (besides what you put on the track) is the turnouts. So to get what you are wanting, then the real defining factor is number of turnouts. You can have, say, and layout that’s 4x8 (32 square feet) with 25 turnouts and you can have a layout that’s 500 square feet with 25 turnouts and you will find they both take a similar amount of effort to maintain in good operational condition.

You will also find both layouts, operationally, are similar in challenge. Your sidings, spurs, and yard tracks can be longer in the larger turnout, so you can run longer trains, but the complexity of your operation will be similar. If that’s what you want, then fine.

But the two rubber-meets-the-road questions I always like to ask those who are considering a new layout is this:

How much have you operated on other layouts?

And the second question: how much have you worked on a club layout, helped another modeler build his layout, or have you built one or more modules of your own?

If you don’t have a lot of operational experience on other layouts and if you haven’t got much experience actually “building” on other layouts (or if you haven’t built any modules yourself), then I maintain you are shooting in the dark. You really haven’t got the foggiest notion of what you would really enjoy, if you don’t have a lot of experience.

My recommendation to those who want to invest some serious time and money into building a layout is you first build a couple modules to see just what kind of effort and expense is needed and to test out your skills. Keep track of how long it takes you to build the module, then factor up for that dream layout you want to build.

Also, get some seriou