[|(]I have been running the as built layout “Plywood Central” for about 4 months. I could not be happier with all that can be done with teh track plan as far as operations. Multi trains, point to point or loop, reverse loop that can turn an 80 car train, twin 130 ft Turntables. Reliable Tortoise and DCC operations. CCTV with aworking CTC. The operations and mechanics are very solid.
The problem is BAD SCENERY options. There is SO much track that there is little room for realistic scenery. The question is would you rip out perfect working track and DCC to make room for scenery
OR
Fudge it the best you can and enjoy running the trains!!!
I have over 70 buildings and tons of WS items bought based on the computer design. I guess I could use as much of it that fits and fudge the balance.
I know a dumb question BUT I am [banghead] and [|(]
I would fudge it. It sounds like you already have a nice operation so try some low relief structures, maybe a bit oversize. You could exagerate the scenery a bit by having steaper slopes and such.
This is a common dilema, I have done this many times also. Don’t feel bad about it, make the best of it. If you want more cityscape the the low relief stractures should work well, but there will be more challenges in anything else. If you have mountain scenery maybe you could stagger tunnels to visually seperate sections/siddings.
That you are asking at all indicates to me this is a real concern for you. Might I suggest you continue to enjoy what you have, but have confidence in your ability to selectively remove some reduncancies or seldom-used track over time…one here, another there…until you begin to free space that you can begin to develop into nice scenery. Make a note of sections where no one seems to be very often, and cull them. Be mindful, though, that placing intervening scenery and structures will interpose obstacles to viewing the more often used tracks.
If you got the track near perfect once, you can cut out and patch using the same skills. Additionally, you have come to the realization that your vision needs completion, and what you have in front of you is not meeting your expectations. Considering what you have invested, in all ways, you should at least have full satisfaction over the things you know you can fix.
I too have a lot of track, 4 tracks side by side in one area. Two things I’ll be using in my scenery are forced perspective and selective compression. Used properly, these techniques can put a lot into a small area without making it look crowded.
The world was not built in one day. You probably need to refocus on some progress that can be made to change you viewing habits. For instance, If you can run trains and have some staging tracks, you can focus on a place on your layout and start with a station and a town so you can view you trains like you were watching a prototype at a particular spot. This is how we watched and still watch real trains.
Depending on your layout, this could be a station, some smaller industries and a coaling tower and water tank with sidings if you run steam. This focus point will be like a miniature viewing area to start with and work out from there adding details both directions so when you sit down and operate, you view a scene.
George, it seems to me that you are re-evaluating what you want in a layout.
When you built your layout, putting in all that track was a conscious decision on your part to make a layout with lots of operational appeal. Now that you have your operations, you are wondering where the scenery fits in. I don’t have a good answer for you. I’m just wondering if you would be happier ripping up part of your layout to accomodate more scenery. It would be a major undertaking, just as the original construction was. And it may not be something you’d want to consider.
You’ve received some good suggestions already. Removing some seldom-used trackage in favor of scenery and using backdrop buildings could enhance what you have.
It’s a tough decision. I wish you the best, whatever you decide.
I’ll send you a bill for the psychological consultation. LOL
Like the others have said, since you have so much time and work invested in the project up until now, you might as well let it ride and do the best you can with it - at least that’s what I would do. There’s been many a model railroader that’s run into your problem and made the best of it.
A scenic divider might serve you well. If you have a variety of structures that really don’t go together, put up a divider and give yourself the option of modelling two completely different scenes.
My layout has 7 liftoffs on it, all for access to hidden subway tracks below. In my long-range plans, after the layout as it’s now going is “finished,” I am looking at “back-dating” the whole thing from the late 60’s to sometime in the 30’s. My idea is to build duplicate liftoffs for some of these, and have alternate scenes based on how Sherman has set the Way-Back machine. In one area which is still a pink prarie, I’ll probably build the scenery on a lift-off even though there’s no track there, just so I can do this same kind of swap.
If your problem is too many structure kits for the available space, this would give you a chance to build and use them all.
Thank you for the input. This is a picture of the area I was THINKING of starting on with scenery. What would you do?
Upper track is mine, train is on the branch line the flat to the left is a town, the main is the no-lix wich rises from 50" to 66".
This is the lead to the mine from the marshling yard. The tought was a timber bridge over the tracks leading to the mine. Again that is the No-lix to the right. The Tortoise is one end of the marshling yard. The branch line is UNDER the tortoise.
My wife thinks that the size of the project is getting to me and all I need is fresh eyes on the problem. She suggested writing a “story” about each area and see if I can make that come to life with the items we have purchased. She is a big supporter of this and is understanding why I need a break from the cars.
The CITY scene repsonse was what I had in mind for this area. Maybe I need to start at this point?
Red pins are track gaps. The power panel will be a high rise that will allow access to the panel.
I am going to use patching plaster to bring the grade up to the track in areas that are supposed to be flat. I should have use open grid in this area BUT there is a workbench under this area for club members to fiddle with things.
THank you for the input on this. I guess I am have a senior moment trying to get a grasp on this. ANybody around Aiken S.C. want to come over and put in their [2c] in person?
Looks like you’re going to have a lot of vertical scenery because of the vertical seperation of the tracks. The key is to leave enough horizontal space to allow for that vertical scenery; otherwise it’ll need lots of retaining walls which aren’t always prototypical.
Less is often more… When you think about it, even in the heyday of railroads, how much space really was occupied by track? Not that much. I think fewer tracks with disntict purpose in a scenic context is more effective overall than lots of tracks, some of which have no logical reason to be there.
Just my 2 cents. So far, though, that looks like it’s going to be a great layout!
At the train show last weekend, I saw some rubber strips that represented rock relief. They were almost flat–maybe a half inch high at the most. They’ll bend to fit your curves such that you can hot glue to the top and staple to the bottom.
Cut away some of the upper plywood and create bridges. That will decrease the slope of the landscape in those areas so the whole thing doesn’t look like cliff-side running.
If you are not an artist this might be tough. But if you were to paint a mini-backdrop between the two layers, you could create the illusion of space using darks and highlights.
Obviously where one track overhangs another, it has to be in a tunnel. But think of putting a lower track in a tunnel to decrease the slope of the one above.
For the cities:
Get out you Walther’s and look for structures you think might work. Get the dimensions and make cardboard mock-ups. Allow for streets, etc. Let false fronts and backdrops take up the slack. Make sure the buildings have adequate space. If they need parking allow for it. If they need a truck dock, make sure the trucks can get in. Better not to use a model that doesn’t work.
The best two options for vertical scenery are retaining walls or rock faced cliffs. If you overdo either, it will look unrealistic. Whereever possible put in some slopes, even if you cheat a little and make them a little steeper than what you would find in nature. As for the kits you have, I would fit as many of them in as you can. With the rest, you might need to perform a little surgery to make them fit odd shapes or use them as backdrop structures that are only a few inches deep. This is fairly easy to do and can yield excellent results. You can take a large, boxy structure, and by laying the long walls end to end, you will end up with an impressive looking background structure. Modulars are also good for this type of stucture.
One thing I can tell you for certain, George; buy shares in the company that makes painter’s tape because you will be using a hockey-sock full of it to cover all them rails. You have miles and miles of rails with scenery needing to be added around, above, and below. You will ruin your track if you don’t cover it while you are working in an area.
I agree that you have inadvertently placed in front of you a huge challenge to make all the stacked curves and straights look natural without resorting to many long rock cuts and faces. The idea of removing spans of the roadbed and replacing them with bridges and trestles is excellent as it will force you to provide varied terrain.
Chip who made those rock forms? I am making some cardboard bases but I should make it 3D.
I like the idea of splitting kits. The only ones that are realy importane to me are the Cambell kits (60 of them). The balance is cornerstone and such plastic.
I think I will SPLIT the REA and use it at both ends of the railroad. I realy need to to a photo esay of the total track plan as built. (7.35 scale miles of main). I like the feedback I am getting and will probably use all of it with all the areas to do. We have a operating session next Thursday. I am going to give them some red push pins to put where they actualy run and what turnouts they use.
The town of Palmerton took a hit yeaterday for trackwork.
They are not rock forms, they are the actual landscape. You still have to paint and glue foliage. I don’t remember the name, but I believe they were used in the Feb 2007 MR. You should be able to get a product name from there.
Haven’t bothered with the posts… Don’t need to… simple answer… go to yellow pages, call in the man with the Cat with the BIG dozer blade and the man with the cheap dumpsters.
Problem solved!
THEN… you can ask yourself… Is your hobby BUILDING model RR or having a model RR and doing things with it.
the difference is bigger than the difference between men and women (I am NOT kidding).
If you fit the one you will (almost certainly - 99.999999999999999999999999999% at least -) NOT fit the other.
Solve (or convince yourself) on this and you are 50% of the way to your own answer.
In a way Dave is right. Now I’m not saying that you need to rip everything out and start over, but this is the time to look at areas that will not work well eno
Personally if it were me I would start by pulling any track thats in the rear close to the walls inward or reroute this would open up options for mountains and perhaps running an incline through them. Then as it has been suggested begin by eliminating tracks that you find aren’t being used much or that may open up options for a scene.
I’m on my third layout and my last one it was just like that poof I decided I didn’t have the hidden staging yard and the scenery I was looking for and I tore it all down and started over. The layout I have now will probably give me ideas for an addition at least but I feel that I’m heading toward something I’ll appreciate a lot more. These things happen so go with your instinks [:)]
The rubber rocks that I think Chip is talking about are from Cripplebush Valley Models. I have an order in for some of their stuff, so I can’t yet tell you much more than was in the Feb. 2007 MR or on their website, which is http://www.cripplebush.net/
Be aware that a couple of items listed on the website are no longer available, but the owner has added some other new ones that will be useful for you, including vertical cliffs, that don’t yet appear there. Drop him an email and he can send you pics of what’s not on the website yet.
With all that concentrated track, you may want to consider a primarily urban theme, with some of the more vertical trackage accessing a mining district. You’re going to have some pretty exaggerated terrain, but think “Malcom Furlow” and I think you’ll do OK. The Leadville or Cripple Creek districts in Colorado might be useful prototypes to consider under the circumstances.
you can see the GHOST of the old track.