Track Planning: Are we missing something? (or is it just me?)

Model Railroader General Discussion (Model Railroader)
1

This is not aimed at anyone in particular, but is a general observation.

I think I have noticed a trend lately from people asking for help on designing a track plan for a new or first layout. This has nothing to do with the amount of room (or lack of it) that a modeler has for their layout. They want yards, engine facilities, industries, towns, etc. that are typical on many layouts. However, they don’t seem to know how to go about it. I think one of the very basic pieces is missing and has not been pushed very hard in the model railroad community. Now, the operation guys and people that already have layouts may know the answer on a subconscious level. Are you ready?

People getting into the hobby or starting a layout for the first time are looking at running trains, but may not really realize that the railroads are a major transportation system. Trains have been around for a long time and have become commonplace. Because of that, their basic purpose has been in the background, so to speak.

The railroads basic purpose is to deliver goods from one town to another. (From industries in one town to industries in another town, and across vast distances.)

So what does this have to do with track planning? I think that basic track planning should start by trying to run a train from one town to another. Then, in each town, a couple of industries (shippers and receivers) or more, depending on the size of the towns and your layout space. OK, so what if you don’t have the space for two towns? You try and work your track plan around one town as best you can. If you have to ship from one industry to another in the same town, so be it. But now that is where our imagination comes in to play. We can pretend that shipments are going between two different towns by making up a train in our town, running a couple of laps, then bring it into the town again (pretending it is a different town) and set out some cars.

But the point is, simulate the railroad as a major transportation system as

2

I have long felt that the model railroading community has lost sight of the fact that it is supposed to be a model railroad- not a diorama with a train in it. With that said, operation is an indispensable part of planning. Without having a purpose (whether or not it’s prototype or free lance is irrelevant) you might as well not bother building bench work, scenery etc. as none of it has reason for being there in the first place.

I suggest laying out some track on the living room floor (or use string and paper trains). Put an industry on one side, a customer on the other. Ship the product from industry to customer. There, now you get the idea. Everything else supports that. A yard for building and storing trains, sidings, crossings etc will come naturally once you have industry and a place to ship its product. Fold that design you came up with on the floor into a dog bone, oval, point to point or whatever fits your space and that my friend is your track plan.

Don’t over think the situation either. There can be an infinite number of track plans; none meet the “best” category that many posters are asking for. What is the “best” prototype, what is the “best” industry etc etc etc, yada yada yada. There is no “best”, only what works and is functional, much like a real railroad. Industries and customers can be off the benchwork, but the train that hauls the products will still have a reason for being there.

Think of what you want to achieve with the model. Era, type of freight, passenger, locals, mainline, short line, class I, urban, country, whatever you want to model, then the details of track plan will come from that. Just be sure to have a “point A” and a “point B”.

3

Don’t know that that’s necessary. What the important part is is that there be some sort of concept of traffic movement. That the trains are coming from someplace and going to someplace. That cars come from someplace and go to someplace. Moving cars from one town to the other is unrealistic in most cases unless you are modeling the 1800’s.

The other track planning “mistake” is the cafeteria style design concept. A layout “has” to have a roundhouse, turntable, coal mine, grain elevator, etc, etc. Have to have one of each thing. Most people would be better off if they lost the engine facilities. In my experience they end up being no more than a display stand for engines that don’t run well enough to use in operation.

Dave H.

4

I have to agree that a lot of layouts seem way, WAY too complex for the space that the owners have for them. This is compounded by trying to run large equipment on teensy curves. My plan IS basically a “diorama with a train in it” but the diorama is the Allegheny Mountains. There will be ONE yard and terminal that serves double duty as Keyser and Grafton, that way i dont need to shift loaded cars back “west” and empties back “east” for every operating session. Aside from M&K junction and small passenger stations or interlocking towers along the way, it will be a pretty basic “around the walls” loop of track…leave Grafton, up Newburg, down Cheat River, across the bridge, MK junction (M&K branch continues along the first level here) up Cranberry (to the second level) through the Glades, down 17 mile (Long trip back down to the first level) to Keyser. The M&K branch will probably offer the only real switching and such on the layout…sounds boring to some i suppose, but its JUST what i want! Getting the trains up and down the grades IS the reason for operation…just like it was for the real B&O. If my trains dont need 2 helpers shovin’ the grades must not be steep enough!

I suppose eastbound drags, westbound “coal car” trains, QD freights in both directions, along with mine runs, express and passenger trains…well, maybe it wont bore most folks after all. But my No 1 Priority is that the mountains look like the MOUNTAINS! If they dont, it isnt what i want.

Tim

5

There is some truth to the original premise. But, this problem is manifest in various ways in just about any hobby…name one. Astononomy is a hobby I know well. Folks want a $99 Costco special at Christmas and feel its a great introduction to the stars. A long refractor on a rickety tripod with an altazimuth mount…boy, that sure sounds like fun to me! (insert sarcasm smiley here) And that telescope is meant to bring people head-first into the hobby?

Well guess what…it sure is! That initial modest expenditure gets them into learning mode, including learning that they had better learn a lot more before the next purchase. [:-,] Why should it be any different here? If we overhwelm newcomers with details about the diameters of the drivers on a WP Northern versus those on the NYC, or that a given engine never did appear with a certain style of tender, or that …oy! Okay, we’ll just limit it to ladder tracks, facing point switches, AD tracks, classification yards, and make them discard the silly notions that brought them in the door in the first place.

No, I don’t think that’s the way to go. Maybe we can work on them as they read when we talk about stuff, answer their questions, and encourage them to keep adjusting their apprehension of all that railroading is. There is lots for them to find and challenge as they encounter it. There are few hidden mysteries on the various forums and at train shows that a patient modeller wouldn’t care to explain when asked. But a newby can only take in so much. I wouldn’t want to blast them off with the fire hose of rectitude.

-Crandell

6

But that’s exactly why I’m putting mine in. I want a “display” area right up front for my engines.

How many newbies have never heard terms like OPs, proto, code, DCC, blocks, etc…
I fear we overwhelm some newcomers with too much info when they ask a simple question about a track plan. Wonder how many we’ve scared off when a 4x8 question turns into a 6 page roundy round vs. point to point philosophical debate??
I think we forget some people aren’t fanatics about this hobby like most of us are.[2c]

7

This is the heart of the matter. One does not “need” a check list of items to have a model railroad, nor does a newbie need a heated debate in a 4x8 space. One needs a purpose for the railroad to exist. Whether the shippers and recievers are on or off the layout matters not, it is the train that must carry the goods across the plywood. Once the purpose is thought out and settled upon, then the railroad can grow from a 4x8 figure 8 into a 40x80 empire and not loose it’s character. Isn’t that how John Allen did it?

8

HMMMMMMMMM ! ! Now you’ve got me thinking, I guess I’ve never given enough thought to the “purpose” of a model railway, it makes sense to have a train going “somewhere” instead of ripping up the tracks with no destination in mind. And I guess a lot of layouts are crammed with everything that comes in a kit(looking a lot like plasticville) A bit of planning, not necessarily tons of stuff but a nice orderly system of function, I noticed one comment on seeing on every layout a roundhouse, these were relatively rare in the scope of the size of railroads, indeed a good question and great answers.

9

I think what is missing was brought up on the ‘What should I buy first…’ thread.

A lot of the folks who come on with, “This is my first post. I want to have a big engine terminal and an operating hump yard on my HO 4-by-8. Tell me how to do it,” have seen ONE magazine or ONE display layout and want to learn to swim by tackling the English Channel.

What we, as experienced modelers, need to do is point out that everyone needs to make up a list of givens and druthers. Then there is the delicate task of convincing somebody that they can’t build the White House in a space that is barely suitable for a dog house.

It would be nice if everyone who wants to jump into the deep end of the pool would first READ! John Armstrong’s books, Spacemouse’s beginner’s guide, Westcott’s HO Railroad That Grows… All contain valuable information that every modeler should know. Most newbies don’t even know they exist.

Having just re-read it, I didn’t realize just how much Frank Ellison’s The Art of Model Railroading had influenced my thinking. The modeling is stone age, but the ideas are as fresh as tomorrow’s sunrise. I fervently wish that I could give every new or would-be model railroader a copy.

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

10

The 2008 version of me could not agree with you more, although the 1993 version of me would have disagreed with you 100%. In fact, I think you will probably get some feedback on this topic from both sides of the fence. 15 years ago when I started planning a layout, I just wanted to watch trains go around. Mind you, I wanted them to look darn good and look just like the real thing to the casual observer, but I had no interest in operations. Oh I read all of the books and talked to lots of people involved in real serious operating sessions, but just could not get why anyone would be remotely interested in crazy things such as “yard leads” or “siding capacity.” In fact, I was really turned off by the crowd who thought I was not a real model railroader just because I didn’t know and embrace such concepts.

Fast forward to today. My layout is designed with three decks to maximize mainline run and accomodate double-ended staging yards at both ends. It is based on a specific section of a prototype railroad and appropriate representative trains will be run. In a remote room of the house, CTC will be run from a computerized dispatching system to drive a prototypical signal system. Passing sidings will accomodate the longest prototypical trains and will be spaced at least two blocks apart to allow for the most flexible operations. There will be a visible marshalling yard with an engine facility, the helix will be placed in the same location where the steepest grade is on the prototype, and on and on and on.

1993 Jamie would not recognize 2008 Jamie, and might not even like him/me!

And the cool thing is that neither version of me would be right or wrong and we would (will?) probably be very happy with either resulting layout. I suppose the point I am shooting for is that this hobby can be so many things to so many pe

11

Your actually right, There is alot of forcing a purpose on the newbs. Many’s a time when I have to smack myself cause I’m trying to make a purpose for my railroad.

The purpose is: Have a good place to show trains.

I’ve often wondered: Had I not joined the club, had I not stepped into the forums, would I be trying to strangle myslef trying to make what I want work Proto? Probably not. Is it fun? Yes. And would I miss ops? No.

Why do people want a Roundhouse? It’s a noticable figurehead of a railroad. Sure, it could be a misnomer, since no one photgraphed the old guts of a working railroad. But what road didn’t have a hulking piece of engineering and architectural masterpiece that a Roundhouse is?

If you asked the people who come in, they know what the railroad does, at least more so than credit that may be given. But scaling down trips a switch that a 4x8 can’t do the same kind of ops, or that it’s to be cramed in in order to do so. And most often, this switch is sub contious.

Yes, I have an engine facility. It’s small,. designed to be able to handle large locos on run through, but only the scenic routed AC12s and 4-6-6-4s. (GW Mountains if I feel a kitty moment coming on) There is a ROundhouse, and I expect it will house the off eras locos, IE the stuff that doesn’t match the era the stage is set for. Also, I have a little more room than a 4by8.

By the way, I nuked the coal mine, as the switches were racking it up. I wanted one because Dad and I like long unit trains, and he wants to model the long strings of coal that switch the powerplant and tie up a 1/4 mile stretch of rr crossings. Removing Ipalco Mines bought us a bit of space. I ll give that.

I also couldn’t get a farm to fit. grain trains were another intrest, we see them pound through here. But Rock and Corn don’t mix anyway.

As to reading ahead. Done some of that. And maybe it;s my rebelliouys streak native&n

12

Well a layout can be fairly simple but still have the possibility of ‘operation’, even a simple loop with a couple of spur tracks can represent real railroading to some extent.

As far as two cities being necessary…Early model railroads often had one yard and engine servicing area. Trains left from there, ran around the layout, and returned there to be broken down and the engines put in the roundhouse. Hard to do much more in O scale with all the room it took up. As smaller scales came along, people started using two cities at each end, perhaps with one or two in between, and spent hours making up trains, running them from point A to point B, and breaking the trains down etc. Many great layouts (Whit Towers, John Allen and others) operated basically this way.

Eventually newer modellers realized that it took up a lot of room to do everything twice…better to have one yard and servicing area, and have the next city 'down the track represented by off-layout staging. I think that is more realistic both in terms of being like real railroads, and in being achievable. Let me give you an example:

The rail line I grew up with (operated by in turn the MN&S, Soo Line, CP, and Progressive Rail) was a dead end branch line with a run-around track at the end about six blocks north of my house. Trains were one or two diesels with 4-6 cars; gondolas of I-beams for LeJeune steel, covered hoppers of rock and concrete mixings for Model Stone Co, and a few boxcars or flats with lumber loads for the lumber yard. Trains ran by the house, did their switching, and took the empties they picked up back south to be sent on their way to their owners, and/or for another load going somewhere. They didn’t move cars from the lumberyard to the stone co. or the steel co. to the lumber yard.

That operation could be duplicated on a 4x8 layout, especially if you added an area for staging - even just one track along a wall would do.

13

When people first enter this great hobby, they have little comprehension of its complexities. If they are “hooked”, they will build a series of layouts as they learn new concepts and as their interests evolve. Realize they will need to repeat our own “mistakes” even if when we pass on our wisdom. We can’t turn a sixteen-year-old into a wise sixty-year-old. Give them room to make their own mistakes and find new solutions.

Mark

14

I agree.

I think the best thing we can do is encourage an undecided newcomer to pick a published layout plan and start building. My first layout was on a 4x8. Twice around with grade crossing, two passing sidings, 3 track yard, and small turntable with roundhouse. It was the only layout I built from a plan and I followed it exactly - except I never did get the turntable in. But I had a lot of fun with that first layout and learned a lot from it. Reading and analysis is beneficial and can be fun, but there’s nothing like just doing something to bring it all together.

I got started in this hobby because I wanted to run trains - not a transportation system, not the PRR or Sante Fe, not build museum quality models. I suspect a lot of folks get interested because of that. The rest of it can come later. While I am currently building a point to point layout based on the Ma&Pa, I still like to run trains. Sometimes, when no one’s looking, I sneak out my Lionel NYC Flyer and run the train in circles ringing the bell and blowing the whistle.

Enjoy

Paul

15

I know that I am guilty of which you speak. The reason I have asked for help is to avoid any glaring errors in my track design. The layout I’m building is really a couple of dioramas connected by track. However, I know that my wants may evolve over time and I don’t want a completely worthless layout. Rather than buy Mr. Armstrong’s book, it was easier to ask for advice. In the end, I decided to build however I felt would look and work best for me. If it’s not good for operations, so be it, I’m only thirty years old. If I stay with the hobby, in the future I can always build my third, forth, fifth layouts![:)]

16

Does that mean just wanting to run trains for fun no longer qualifies as a purpose?
People operate RC cars and planes without feeling the need to makes stops along the way to pickup passengers and goods. Slot cars don’t obey speed limits and traffic lights or operate in a point to point fashion. These are all things their 1:1 scale counterparts do.[%-)]

It just seems a little strange. We’ll tell a kid that running trains in a circle at prototypical speed will get boring fast, but when that kid tries to have fun by running them fast, drag racing them or crashing them into a scale Godzilla, we shake our heads and think him not worthy of our hobby.

The first model train ran in circles in a store front window carrying items the store was trying to sell on it&#

17

I think a few good points have been made here, and they have made the point that i tried to make in my first post, but failed to do. A new modeler’s reasons for building a layout are as varied as our reasons for building ours. It does not make those reasons any less valid. I think where a lot of people mess up, is construct a layout that does not live up to the expectations they had for it (i.e., is NOT FUN) and a large amount of the time, this is due to the fact that too much was squeezed into too small a space. I dont care if someone wants to run Thomas and friends, or old Lionels, or superdetailed mega-accurate models, all can fall into the same pitfalls of poorly designed layouts, of poorly placed industries, sidings, etc. And none of them will be much fun, and hopefully they try again, instead of saying the heck with it and leaving the hobby. Model manufacturers are very much to blame as well, by marketing huge structures and mammoth engines, with emphasis on the fact that they “negotiate 18 inch curves” or “have only a 9” x 10" footprint". I gotta give kudos to Atlas, for continuing to offer smaller locos and rolling stock, in our current world of Dash 9s, AC gigantos, and 2-8-8-8-2s.

By the way, i screwed up my first layout in every manner mentioned above. Poorly placed structures, so-so trackwork, sidings and industries placed in less than optimal places, and compounded it with huge BRASS engines (you know, ones that ARENT designed to run on anything less than like 30’ curves?). But at least now i know what not to do this time, eh?

Tim

18

Tim, good post there, if I may judge it and say so. Maybe we can all think back to the great wisdom in the sentiment that the journey is what makes the vacation. It is the experience one gains as one travels: mistakes, some repeated, many avoided, and all the outright pleasures and successes. If one had only to snap one’s finger prior to signing the three copies for their plastic costs, and, presto, one museum-quality, fully functional and prototypically accurate railroad…wow, it’d be an eye-opener. But we know that we would have missed a huge part of the hobby…all the realizations, the determinations to alter and repair, the changes in orientation and attitude, skills-bulding, confidence, new understanding and knowledge of facts… I don’t know that I would want to miss all that.

I’m actually at the point where I wouldn’t mind embarking on a new journey. This layout has almost served its purpose, which was to be a learning opportunity in addition to a source of pleasure. I still like it and am content, but there will come a time soon when I will want more…from me.

-Crandell

19

And that "journey" must start with a firm foot step in the right direction.

A “train set” layout can get boring after the first few days of limited train running.The newbie must be taught there is much more to the hobby then that.A layout must have meaning far more then running senseless loops.A layout need not be overly complicated nor does it need to full a basement.

Let’s take a gander at this N Scale 2x5 footer shall we?.This layout was design for me by Squidbait over on the zealot forum after I started a topic on a 2x4 footer.Thanks again Squidbait…[tup]

http://forum.zealot.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=69159&d=1211679143

As we can see this layout has everything needed for a miniature transportation system that can keep the modeler busy for several hours.This layout includes a engine service area,a small yard,a interchange track and industries to switch.A fully functional transportation system that is straight forward and simple to build…

In fact this will be my N Scale layout…I plan to start construction after the club’s County fair open house.

For those that might be interested:

http://forum.zealot.com/t159241/

20

Got the pic? we have to log into Zealot to see them. Can see the forum and original 2x4, but not anything Squidbait puts up.