Pelle's new layout in May Model Railroader

Model Railroader General Discussion (Model Railroader)
1

I read the article on Pelle’s new layout in the current issue of Model Railroader magazine.

.

What struck me most was the size of the layout. It is 11 by 22 feet. That is EXACTLY the amount of railroading space I will have when my house remodel is complete. So, for exactly the same space, I could not have designed a more different pike.

.

We both will model a single town on a Class A railroad. However, for the space used, Pelle seems to have very little railroad. My design has two turntables, a roundhouse, passenger station, at least 20 industries with places to spot 30+ frieght cars, a 30" long three track car float, a John Allen time-waster switching arrangement, and a four track yard.

.

Certainly, mine won’t be a clean and photogenic as his, but along with the amazing visual impact the layout has, it just looks boring to me. I can see my light 4-8-2’s pulling long strings of freight cars through his layout and look great. On my plan they will be limited to eight cars.

.

I don’t know. No article in Model Railroader has left me feeling this uneasy.

.

-Kevin

.

2

“Uneasy”? About what?

Are you worried your layout will look too crowded? But if you “open it up”, you won’t have enough track for fulfilling operation?

That’s my guess, anyway.

Yup. It’s a problem. And not a new one. You’re just going to have to think on it until you get an answer that works for you.

Some people are gonna cram in a lot of track. Some people are going to have hardly any. But, hopefully, they ALL have what makes THEM happy.

Ed

3

Two things have me concerned.

.

  1. I am soon (within the next 2 years) going to begin construction on my final lifetime layout. This is it. No more after this one. I know what I want, but this time there are no do-overs. I am very nervous about this. I feel like a gymnast that is just about to compete in what they know will be their only Olympics. Everything I have done in this hobby for 40+ years has led to this layout. I get it right, or I will be terminally upset.

.

  1. Pelle’s layout is the only layout that I have seen that I truly loved and hated at the same time. The fact it is the same size as my layout room has me double-concerned.

.

-Kevin

.

4

The article mentions Pelle is more into building the layout than running it. So I think he builds a simple layout and does a good job at capturing the modern prototype, the large sweeping looks, in a small space.

So maybe you consider Pelle’s example that its not all that large of a layout, you can always build another one if you find you dont like yours. Seems to be what he does. For me, its the models populating the layout that take me forever but I can always move them over to the next layout if I ever do.

The other thing maybe to consider is maybe meeting the simple design concept halfway, as in, maybe you only need to model one turntable, or have a few less tracks than what your currently planning.

5

Dial back a couple of years and look at Pelle’s previous “Daneville” layout described in his “Mountain to Desert” book. It occupies more or less the same space and has three major areas – high desert scenic running, a large cement plant, and the town of Daneville with some rail-served industry. Double ended staging tracks hid under the layout.

The current Midwestern project struck me as a nice railfanning layout but a little thin on operational possibilities. He’s very upfront about not having much interest in local switching.

Building in a lot of track and lots of switches does not necessarily make a model railroad fun to run. It really helps to look around at people like Pelle and Lance Mindheim and others to get any idea of what you want your railroad to do even before you start drawing lines on paper.

My club’s 30’ by 60’ layout – a linear design of a 400’ semi-rural mainline with a long branch – has drawn snorts from the fans of heavy duty circle running but it can keep a crew of 20 busy for eight hours running our usual line-up. It doesn’t look like a busy railroad until the trains start running. It’s not so much the track plan but what happens on it that makes an interesting railroad.

6

Pelle’s layout was designed for photography, IMO. He admits that operating the layout, any layout, is not his priority. Building layouts are hs priority.

You described your layout in terms of operations. Yours and his layouts are not really that comparable, other than size. Another modeler could model a 1950’s logging railroad and have a completely different layout than either of yours or Pelles, albeit in the same space.

Pelles devotes a lot of space for staging. Longer trains means longer and more spacious staging tracks. His town is very much spread out. The grain elevator huge. You and most other modelers would likely choose more selective compression than Pelle, and would be able to fit more into their layout.

7

I took one look at Pelle’s latest layout and smiled, I am building the exact same concept, somewhat larger…

I have a 24 x 40 room, double track mainline twice around with the second “circle” staging behind/under the scenery. I do have a peninsula longways in the middle.

And I do have significantly more in the way of yard, industrial, and passenger terminal trackage, but I do have four times the space.

I too am building in modules to allow an easy move…

My staging will store about 25 trains - 30 to 50 car freights, 12 car passenger trains.

Without the abilty to pull long trains, I would not even bother to model a mainline, I would simple build and ISL (industrial switching layout).

The mainline will have signals and CTC control.

Actually there is effectively an ISL in my trackplan, seperate from the mainline.

And I am seriously considering a seperate ISL on a lower level below the main layout, totaly seperate from it.

One simply needs to know what is most important to you…for me “rail fan” modeling is first, followed by CTC mainline operation, both passenger and freight.

Switching may be “third” but it is not a lost idea.

Important point for me, no feature is modeled more than once, freight yard, piggyback terminal, passenger terminal, engine terminal, wye junction, industrial area, interchange…mostly confined to the “urban” area of the layout.

And the balance of scenery is about 1/3 “urban or suburban”, 2/3 “rural”.

And my layout is double track like Pelle - more action for the buck, and it only takes up two extra inches…

Large but simple…my moto for a while now.

Sheldon

8

Pelle’s layout is beautifully done (his work always is) and it certainly allows for the operation of several different trains at once, but, like Kevin, I feel it lacks a few things that I want in my railroad. For example, I want a small yard, a service facility with a roundhouse and turntable and other shops, a couple of passenger stations and a few spurs to dispatch cars to. Those are the sorts of things that say “railroad” to me as much as running long trains, which my plan will also allow me to do. Pelle’s plan doesn’t quite strike my fancy.

Dave

9

I think he nailed it, as far as the place and period. I’ve lived in places in like that, while growing up with a step dad, who’s occupation was a “tenant farmer”. If that’s what you want to model, fine. I like a mixture of switching, and mainline running, which I tried to achive with my small yard, transload area, and manufacturing.

And when I don’t want to do switching, to me, it’s great just watching a train, freight or passenger, just go around, while I work on a project at the bench.

Mike.

10

That of course is the crux of the matter.

I am unexpectedly moving in about 4 months. I don’t know if the next layout will be the final one or not. The current one was supposed to be. But I do know that what I want is a shortline based on the Maryland & Pennsylvania in S scale. There will be a fair amount of route switching and yard switching. I will include a provision for railfan running if I can work it in (and I think I can).

My basement will be large enough that I can have a small continous run layout just for the fun of running whatever doesn’t fit the above concept and/or scale.

Pelle’s layout is well done, has the ability to run some long trains and would bore me completely within 6 months.

Paul

11

I have built so many “final” layouts I have lost count by now!

When I saw pictures of Pelle´s layout, I thought “Wow, he has done it again!” - another wonderful layout, beautifully photographed, so it´s hard to tell it´s “only” a model. The track plan is, IMHO, disappointing in terms of operation. I liked his previous layout a lot more.

12

Scott Lamoureux’s Canadian National is beautifully done scenic showcase. Just single track main line. No spurs, no sidings, no buildings, spectacular bridge.

13

Granted, but it also has a lot more drama to the scenery, while the scenery on Pelle´s layout lacks any of it - just like the prototype.

Comparing these two layouts doesn´t do justice to either one of them!

14

I wasn’t comparing them. Just pointing out that there was another layout in the issue devoted to scenery with little or no operation beyond running trains through a scene.

15

Just like my own layout - just a simple oval of track, one switch, no staging, but lots of scenery. Enough to rock my boat, others may find it boring.

16

Ed,That’s the formula for the perfect layout.

Not to be to brutal I can care less for any layout that doesn’t suit my needs including Pelle’s new,old or future layout nor will anybodies layout make me feel uneasy. I’m sure there are those that wouldn’t give a plug nickel for a ISL even as they dream about that some day layout.

No matter…We all choose what fills our needs.

17

anyone notice what Pelle does professionally - http://soeeborg.dk

sort of like John Allen

18

Perhaps but,old John got his models in ads,magazines Walthers and other catalogs on such a routine bases it got to the point of Huh? So,what’s new?

Has that feat ever been matched? I dunno.

19

Personally, I admire Pelle’s work, and when a photo of his appears on the cover I recognize it immediately. And I get a little excited, too. He makes good use of the available space without too much compression or overcrowding. And not cluttered with a lot of Dickensian squalor, either. But his layouts have a relatively short lifespan. I’m very happy he photographs them and keeps (and shares) the archive.

If it were possible to take each of his three or four previous layouts and cobble them together, treating each one as an individual Layout Design Element, the result would be a complex layout of world-class proportions.

And for those who lament the lack of yards and heavy industries and switching opportunities and whatnot . . . don’t worry. He’s done the mountains, he’s done the desert, he’s done the midwest. It’s just a matter of time before he does Bailey Yard or downtown Chicago or something. Patience.

Robert

20

Ha! That was good. Yeah, probably!