Layout Design Theory, a Rookie's Perspective. (Regurgitated)

Model Railroader General Discussion (Model Railroader)
1

I brought this topic back to the surface because of all the new layout designs being posted.

I know that when it comes to layout design my IQ is somewhere between a rock and a tree stump, but I figure that I have seen a few layouts posted and I thought some might be interested in what a rookie has to say about layout design theory. If not you can stop reading… I’m not going to give you another chance.

Okay if you are still reading either you’re interested in what I have to say or your going to read through and squash me like a grape. Fine, there is a lot of experience gained in being squashed.

First of all let me say that to me there are four types of layout designs:

  1. Layouts I can help with
  2. Layouts I can’t help with
  3. Layouts that don’t care to be helped
  4. Layouts for people that say, “Here’s my room. What’s a good layout?”

I am completely ruling out layouts from books because short being hit by lighting twice in the same day, your odds are not that great of getting a great layout. And I don’t care if it is designed by John Armstrong Koester Chubb. Only you can design your perfect layout. John’s layout is perfect for him, but unless you know what he knows, you aren’t getting everything out of it.

Let’s clean some house by eliminating #3. This is the guy that draws a few circles on a page puts a spur for an industry that “I haven’t decided what it is” mostly because everyone knows a layout needs a spur of two for industry. There might even be three tracks together somewhere for a yard. His idea of operating is to turn on the power and run trains. The purpose of this layout is to run trains. He may know what road name he likes. He may even know what period he likes, but it doesn’t matter, he’ll probably never get beyond the plywood empire. Suggestions are met with “Dang it. I don’t care. I just want to run my trains.” As far as I’m concerned, that’s fine. But I

2

I think you put 3’s in the last two paragraphs where you wanted 1s… but I’m not sure.

3

Thanks…Changed.

4

Pretty intense. It has valid points, but what one has to remember is that we are all in it for our own fun

5

That’s a good theory there SpaceMouse. I especially like how you have ruled out the books. I have done pretty much the same, since they never deliver everything I want in a layout. I’ll use them for inspiration and ideas, but not the whole layout.

6

Chip and I started out about the same time last year and my first design was one that was critiqued this year. It think that design was a #2, so bad it was irredeemable although people did say I had done the yard and service area adequately. I should have since I worked in transportation maintenance for almost 30 years. Since then I have read the bible of design, several times.

Layouts I can help with are few and far between. Other than suggesting N scale for the space advantage and advising against areas that are unreachable there is still not a lot I know.

Layouts that I can’t help with are very educational. I really enjoy reading the points others make, good and bad.

[quote]
QUOTE:
Let’s clean some house by eliminating #3. This is the guy that draws a few circles on a page puts a spur for an industry that “I haven’t decided what it is” mostly because everyone knows a layout needs a spur of two for industry. There might even be three tracks together somewhere for a yard. His idea of operating is to turn on the power and run trains. The purpose of this layout is to run trains. He may know what road name he likes. He may

7

yeah ok , but what’s the perfect layout for my room ?

[:D]

8

I agree that a layout straight from a book is proabably not the one you want. But, that does not mean you shouldn’t look at the books. Particularly Armstrong’s, and possibly Iain Rice’s. (I have the mid-sized one. It was interesting, but didn’t go in the direction I wanted.) The classic 101 Track Plans is interesting, but as you look at them they seem more and more dated, in general. Which isn’t to say that there might not be a good idea that you can borrow to get to where you want to be.

I think that Track Planning for Realistic Operation is the first must read. It shows better than anything else I’ve seen how (and why) to break out of the rectangle “box”, and how to get an understanding of what you want. It can’t design for you, but it gives you a place to start.

Armstrong’s layout compilations are useful from the standpoint that in many cases he throws an unorthodox twist in in order to accomadate the wishes of the owner. Some of these might be directly applicable to your case, but the real point is to realize that you don’t have to do averything the same way it has been done before. If you have a particular issue creativity is allowed!

Anyway, that’s my feeling on how you work at becoming a #1, and possibly a #2. Of course SpaceMouse is thinking and learning at superhero speeds, so you have to go fast to catch up!

9

That is an interesting approach to how we seem to deal with layout builders, and I agree that you basically have them described.

My approach is to treat them all with the respect that any newcomer is due, to offer what I think might help them to at least realize that they don’t even know which questions to ask, let alone what the answers might be. I believe that providing examples of important factors, such as the need for staging, or the criticality of curve radii, will most likely suprise the neophyte who joins looking for the easy “magic”. If I alert them that way, I have served my purpose. If they are too stubborn, or too obtuse, to benefit from what little wisdom I can offer, is it really my problem? And I think, if I have read your post correctly, you are of much the same mind, Chip.

10

Jeff,

I didn’t say that books have no place. I love Armstrong, Koester and Rice’s books. I’m even going on to say that I like a Koester N scale Interchange track shelf layout so much that I am probably going to build it. But I wouldn’t be surprized that sometime between saying so and oing it I’ll change to fit more of what I want from it. Likewise if I had a 12 x 12 room sitting around with a door in the lower right, I might build Iain Rice’s Gary Indiana, Steeltwon USA, but I would n’t call it that because Gary Indiana has got to be one of my least favorite places on the planet.

On my layout I steel from everyone. Armstrong showed me how to set up my lumber yard and Allen showed me how to make it look bigger. A satelite view of my yard showed me how I could place my station. I don’t think anything I’ve don’t is an original idea, but still like to think it’s creative.

11

Chip-
If I said that it was a goof! I was trying to put the books in their right perspective. They are best used as a place to get ideas, not layouts. The Steeltown layout was impressive, but I have to agree on Gary, and I only drove past! I don’t have the book in fromt of me, but it seems that most of the layouts ended up with duckunders, which I have decided will not happen. Also, there was lots of HO compared to N (where I am headed), although I have aften figured that an HO design done in the same space in N might be a good idea.

I must admit, the design I am working on is almost totally “reused”. The yard is a smashing of Wayne Roderick’s Mulfunction Junction and the “ideal” yard in Andy Sperandeo’s book on yards. Most of the other ideas are in John Armstong’s books one place or another. Then there is the part I am currently redoing to get the feeling of the real thing near me. I though I had it, then I drove out to where the separated mains cross each other, with a wash and a road in the same place, and went back to the drawing board. I need to take a camera and post some pics.

12

Of course it is original. All the good plots were used in Gennises but every year there are thousands of new books published. You just need to put your own personal twist to it.

13

More to the pint, what’s the perfect room for your layout?

Continuous running has its own design methodology–some folks really just like the scenic aspects and watching trains run through scenery. Many never get past the plywood-empire stage, but some do, and they enjoy watching their trains run through scenic vistas. That’s fine–my dad, who got me into model railroading in the first place, is a continuous-run guy–he is building his fourth layout, of which all four have been rectangular multiple-loop layouts, only one of which had a single-ended spur anywhere on the layout. Normally once he gets to the plaster stage I step in and do the scenery and structures.

It may seem odd that such a vehemently point-to-point, operation & industry focused model railroader like myself could be the son of a “watch 'em run” guy–it’s one of those cases where youthful rebellion results in opposition to whatever the parent likes, I guess. He likes to build benchwork and big graceful loops, my benchwork is flat as a pancake and is all straight lines and industrial spurs. Such is the generaiton rail-gap, I guess.

I sometimes cannot resist the urge to give advice/criticism but often it comes down to one fellow’s tastes vs. another, which makes it very hard to judge whether or not the critique I give will elicit appreciation or scorn.

And Chip, you don’t get to call yourself a rookie anymore. Maybe a tyro.

14

I guess in most cases the perfect room for your layout is the one you have!

15

Crandell,

I appreciate your approach, as I have been the benefactoree (is that a word?) of your help, even as recently as today.

Asking for input on a layout design can be humbling - sometimes even a “swallow your pride and listen” kind of experience. You can get so intent down one particular path that it takes someone with an objective and/or fresh outlook to pull you back and ask you the tough but essential questions like, “Why are you going in that direction?” “What do you want to accomplish by going in that direction?”

Yea, it’s important to have and keep it all fun. But, it’s also as - if not more - important to learn as you enjoy things. Fun without learning is merely amusement. Fun with learning makes you a more rounded person. (Did you know that the word “amuse” means “no thinking”: a = no; muse = to think) Anyhow, I digress.

Chip, I appreciate your input and your willingness to ask me the “tough questions”. I’m assuming that my posting had something to do with yours.

Tom

16

I did not know that, Tom. So, you have reciprocated, and I thank you.

(“a-musement”. Whooda thunk!?)

17

There are so many good replies. I’ll tackle the most important first.

Jetrock,

I still have 2 1/2 months of Rookie Status. After that I can assume Tyro status.

And I hope I didn’t give the impression that I thought roundy-round rail fan layouts have no value. There are times when I like to set a train in motion and let it run just to watch. I do think that a model railroad that has little thought often tends to be a circle or a spagetti bowl of circles. I also think that in order for a railroad to get past the plywood empire stage you must have a sense of vision.

Selector,

Resepct is a key. I try my darndest to treat everyone as I would like to be treated. If you don’t treat someone with respect and respect their ideas, you’ll never know what they are really trying to accomplish. People tend to see in their layout plans what they expect to see. The same with writing. That’s why it is very hard to edit your own work. You read what you meant, and not what is on the paper. IF you treat the person with respect, they are more likely to consider your ideas.

Tom,

This post was only partially becasue of your layout. Lately I worked with several people on another site. They have a lot of #4, people who have a room and say, “do me.” And there are designers ther that will whip up a design and that design is set in stone because one of the great ones did it. They and others at the site would argue until the were blue that the layout was perfect. Until the great one comes back, looks at it, and does an “opps sorry.” This post was about that more than anything.

I said to you what I did because of a couple things. First of I’ve known you for just about longer than anyone here and thought your should hear it. Second, anyone who built a tower like yours wants a layout of high standards. And lastly, you said that you weren’t sure you were going to build it so I knew you had not acheived conviction.

18

The bottom line is you should build what you want.

Many would argue that George Sellios’ layout is silly - trains going through the same scene more than once, etc.

In fact, when looking at an issue of MR from the late 80’s, compared to one from a year or so ago, you could see that he changed his intended track plan to have less of the doubling back into the same scene effect. It seems pretty obvious.

Many would argue he’s the best detailer out there, but that his layout doesn’t make the same “sense” that David Barrow’s current minimalist layout makes.

But then a lot of people would say, “Come on David, tacking down atlas track to bare plywood does not a model railroad make!!!”

I used to feel almost intimidated by the Tony Koesters, etc. with their infinite layout design wisdom, theories, etc. But in the end, we’re all playing with toys. It’s a lot of fun, and it’s a very creative thing. But to think one way is better than another is like arguing whether chocolate is better than strawberry.

As for me, I have definite layout preferences: I like narrow shelf layouts, where the track doesn’t double over itself. But could I make scenery like George Sellios? Heck no!!!

I also like a provision for continuous running.

As a kid, my dad was also a roundy-roundy guy. He wanted to let-em-rip all night long - go watch tv, come back and find the thing still running. That gave him great satisfaction. I don’t think we switched a single siding my entire childhood. But we had fun!

I guess I’m saying, “don’t worry about what others think about layout design - do what you want, and you’ll have the most fun”

19

CARRfan,

I heartily agree. There are those reading this post that think I’m blowing butt smoke in the wind. There are others that read it and think it is so simplistic that it is not worth responding to. But there is a group in between that realizes that

a) That they are growing as modelers
b) That it is too expensive and time intensive to make too many experimental layouts
c) That want to make the best layout they know how
d) That want a layout they can grow into
e) That don’t know how to get from here to there

20

I’m always reluctant to comment on proposed layout designs. Usually we don’t get the givens and druthers. Sometimes, for good reason -there aren’t any other than “I want to build a model railroad.” We don’t get into the originator’s head to know what they are thinking that does not come through on the plan. We don’t know their experiences -what track, industries and road they grew up watching. We don’t know the layout’s purpose-not the purpose of the railroad, but what the designer/builder/operator wants to get personally from it. I only know one set of givens, druthers, constraints, viewpoints, and minds-eye viewpoints - mine. I’m not one to inflict my view of the world on others, unless they frequent my 1/160 world, and that is their choice.

Some plans are obviously pretty good or not from a technical perspective-Curve radius appropriate for the space and equipment, mainline grades that can be overcome by the motive power, S-curves, the benefits of easing curves (and grades), size of turnouts, scale vs. layout size, facing/trailing spurs, good and bad space utilization, etc.

As others have said, not everyone cares or needs to care about formal operations. Not everyone cares if a train passes through the same scene more than once. Some people want more whimsical “worlds” than others. Some prefer some trains and a lot of scenery. Others don’t care much about scenery. I can respect any and all of those decisions, since I’m not the one running it, building it or financing it. If they regret a decision, it is a learning experience. Some even learn to conceal their gaffes, or turn them into something that looks like it ought to be there.

We can help with the technical stuff and the craft of building. We can offer ideas, even creative ones. But the part of this hobby that comes from down deep within each of us, that which drives us, is as individual as each of us. In the end, the satisfaction one gets from their empire is just as much a function of a number of i